| ??? 04/21/06 14:41 Read: times |
#114680 - That explains it! Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
I've already explained, it's for completeness. If the LCD doesn't do one of the things it's supposed to do, it's BROKEN.
If you can get by using broken parts, FINE. Most people can't. Male cow manure, I know of no one but you that would even dream of testing whether an unused feature worked. So, if you bought a car, planning to drive it to lunch every day, and little else, you wouldn't care that the headlamps didn't work, since you were planning only to use it during the day? What's needed is to ascertain whether the devices are functional or broken. If any mfg-specified function fails, they're broken. That's what receiving inspection is supposed to verify. If a device can't perform as specified, it's not "slightly less than perfect," it's broken. It's a binary condition. It either works completely as specified or it's junk. Remember the orignial Pentium FDIV affair? Those CPU's worked fine if you didn't want to use floating point arithmetic, right? People found that they worked in such things as Netware servers where they did all right. Nevertheless, Intel replaced them at great expense, because they were RUBBISH. All I asked was whether there'd been a test suite written.
For the reason stated above, of course not. Haven't you noticed that, once you entered the discussion, nobody was interested in "getting in the middle?" probably because they agreed. Erik Somehow, I doubt that. I'm glad I don't have to buy the products that you design. If I want products that are built using junk parts, I'll go to Radio Shack. You work in the U.S. car industry, IIRC, right? That's fitting, I suppose, but I guess I'm safe. I'd never buy one of their products anyway, because of their low quality standards, which you certainly reflect in your demonstrated attitude. RE |
