LE>> Look, a return to base is a return to base is a return to base.
LE>> Shipping costs, labor costs, downtime. SAME economic cost. The
LE>> difference between a physically destroyed component and an erased
LE>> EEPROM is nothing but a semantic argument to Joe(oan) Q. Average.
RC> So, your position is "hardware damage" occurs when the customer
RC> _thinks_ the hardware is damaged?
RC> Naw.  Hardware damage occurs when the hardware _is_ damaged -
RC> regardless of what the customer thinks.
I presume you saw the start of this thread? This started out as a borderline 
semantic argument and it's now waaaaaaaaaay into pure philosophical gray 
areas.
So I will give my definition of hardware damage : compromising the 
functionality of a device or component of a device in such a way that it 
cannot be restored to normal functionality by operating the user-accessible 
controls on the device.
In this thread I was specifically discussing erasure of an EEPROM which does 
not contain a bootblock (viz. the device used in most Rockwell-based modems 
that are flash-upgradable) and which is surface-mounted (viz. the devices 
used in all PCMCIA and most pocket modems, and many desktop/internal units 
also). The device is not user-serviceable. If the EEPROM is erased, you can't 
upload new contents, because the device won't accept incoming data - no 
firmware! You can't even open it and remove a socketed chip and replace it 
with a programmed chip. The device must be returned to base and have 
component(s) replaced.
.. We are the Holy Army and our battle cry is "Death to Microsoft!"
-- Lewin A.R.W. Edwards [Team OS/2]  Tel 0412809805 * http://www.zws.com/
--- MsgedSQ/2 3.35
---------------