We should be worried because the statistical chance of error is never 0%.
No matter what the odds are, EVENTUALLY it will tip out of our favor.
-Chuck
On Sat, 6 Mar 1999, Gordon Spence wrote:
> There has been speculation on the list recently about the chances of
> finding previous errors and the implications for various things.
>
> I have recently retested M2018167 and found a factor that was previously
> missed. So what?, that surely is the whole point of double checking. This
> number will now be tested a third time to dtermine which of these two
> results is correct.
>
> As long as we do the rigorous double and triple checking then why should we
> be worried?
>
> regards
>
> G
> Gordon Spence, Nokia IP Telephony
> Applications Engineer Grove House, Waltham Way,
> [EMAIL PROTECTED] White Waltham, Maidenhead,
> http://www.nokiaiptel.com/ Berkshire, SL6 3TN, UK.
>
> ________________________________________________________________
> Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
>
--
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
: WWW: http://www.silverlink.net/poke : Boycott Microsot :
: E-Mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] : http://www.vcnet.com/bms :
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
________________________________________________________________
Unsubscribe & list info -- http://www.scruz.net/~luke/signup.htm
