In message
<[email protected]>, dated
Thu, 23 Oct 2014, Gary McInturff <[email protected]> writes:
So venting more than disagreeing Rich. I get and agree with the goals
but I just don?t like picking numbers or definitions out of the air and
I really don?t having to sway an opinion before I can demonstrate
conformity.
FEMCAs give objectivity, but user misuse is like what happened to MH370;
not wholly unpredictable but of widely varying values of probability.
For MH370 maybe 1/10^9? For putting in the wrong fuse, maybe 1/10.
As I said, fools are so creative that incidents with very low
probability nevertheless do occur.
--
OOO - Own Opinions Only. With best wishes. See www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
Quid faciamus nisi sit?
John Woodgate, J M Woodgate and Associates, Rayleigh, Essex UK
-
----------------------------------------------------------------
This message is from the IEEE Product Safety Engineering Society emc-pstc discussion
list. To post a message to the list, send your e-mail to <[email protected]>
All emc-pstc postings are archived and searchable on the web at:
http://www.ieee-pses.org/emc-pstc.html
Attachments are not permitted but the IEEE PSES Online Communities site at
http://product-compliance.oc.ieee.org/ can be used for graphics (in well-used
formats), large files, etc.
Website: http://www.ieee-pses.org/
Instructions: http://www.ieee-pses.org/list.html (including how to unsubscribe)
List rules: http://www.ieee-pses.org/listrules.html
For help, send mail to the list administrators:
Scott Douglas <[email protected]>
Mike Cantwell <[email protected]>
For policy questions, send mail to:
Jim Bacher: <[email protected]>
David Heald: <[email protected]>
