...snip... > The product that fail miserably, throughout the year(s?) should be > declared "unfit for purpose" .......like an expired food which is > harmful for health.
Basically it is an interesting thought. I see a challenge though. Is 3 failures per year miserable? Or should we raise the limit to 10? Or lower it to 1? You get the point. The criteria to determine if a product fails miserably is not a fact, but a decision. Comparing it with expired food: I throw away food before the expiration date because I can see the fungus on it and decide it is not safe to eat it. On the other hand I consume food way after the expiration date because it is perfectly fine food. This error margin is caused by the statistics behind the expiration date: be on the safe side and prefer the chance to throw away good food than the chance to accept bad food. > If its a "technological problem" overall, maybe they should move to > application white-listing or something better....... Sure, awareness and thinking is better. But some people don't think and than "technological measures" is about all the protection they really have. > thanks, > -bipin Cor _______________________________________________ Full-Disclosure - We believe in it. Charter: http://lists.grok.org.uk/full-disclosure-charter.html Hosted and sponsored by Secunia - http://secunia.com/
