| ??? 08/17/05 19:26 Read: times |
#99585 - Ok Responding to: ???'s previous message |
Erik Malund said:
While I agree that the fault lies with 'A' I still think one can fault 'B' for stating "this works" instead of "this may fail". I certainly agree that someone that puts code or hardware out there and knows there are functional limitations should make that known simply as common courtesy. But I still don't think that person is to blame if someone else grabs it and uses the code without understanding it. Anyone that does that (grabs code and uses it without fully understanding it) is at absolulte fault, in my opinion. Especially if that person paid a grand total of zero dollars for the code. Regards, Craig Steiner |
| Topic | Author | Date |
| The problem here is that some unsuspecti | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| promoting? | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| if you do not care if it fails, why even | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Of course | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| You got run over in the parking lot, it | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Ok | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| presumption of innocence | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| negative argument | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| Millions | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| the old joke | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| do you want to do everything for your ow | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| I will reject everything that does not a | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| standards and rejections | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| but that is enough to ruin you | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| why discussing bit bang | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
according to... | 01/01/70 00:00 | |
| insane and unreliable | 01/01/70 00:00 |