Andrew,
I took it that your issues were inferred by the quote. After taking the
time to develop and qualify the test, few would then not run it or ignore the
fact it failed the test and still call the function a feature. Maybe I am too
isolated from a marketing/sales department these days? I am starting to once
again think they must surely think similarly as we do!
Sincerely,
Brad Velander
Senior PCB Designer
Northern Airborne Technology
#14 - 1925 Kirschner Road,
Kelowna, BC, V1Y 4N7.
tel (250) 763-2232 ext. 225
fax (250) 762-3374
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, November 03, 2006 9:01 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: Re: [PEDA] Many similar Sheet Symbols
I'm not sure I agree re the quote. That sounds like it has an awfully
big conceptual loophole, and I wouldn't be surprised if it was actually
originated by some ISO officer.
A plan to test is, by itself, only a plan to test, not sufficient proof
that the test has either been performed or that it has passed said test
if it was conducted...
The quote ought to read " It can be useful to adopt the attitude that a
feature doesn't really exist until it has been thoroughly tested and
proven to in fact be a feature"
aj
____________________________________________________________
You are subscribed to the PEDA discussion forum
To Post messages:
mailto:[email protected]
Unsubscribe and Other Options:
http://techservinc.com/mailman/listinfo/peda_techservinc.com
Browse or Search Old Archives (2001-2004):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
Browse or Search Current Archives (2004-Current):
http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]
