And lo on Wed, 23 Jul 2008 09:44:10 +0100, scott <sco### [at] scottcom> did  
spake, saying:

>> Perhaps more like our military designing weapons and vehicles for use  
>> in Europe (read Russia) and then sending them over to Iraq; they work  
>> fine with the cold and the mud, but didn't like the heat and the sand.  
>> It's not a design fault they simply weren't tested for conditions that  
>> they would normally never have encountered.
>
> That's why we have specifications for everything.  Included in the spec  
> will be operating and storage conditions, including temperature and  
> humidity, there will also be dust and water ingression specifications,  
> which will specify under exactly what conditions the device can be  
> operated.  If it's operating outside the spec, the maker does not  
> guarantee it will work.  If it's within the specified conditions and it  
> fails, you ask for your money back.

Which was my point. You can't blame the manufacturers just the people who  
decided to use whatever it is outside its specifications. In the case of  
the weaponry the deployers should have asked if it would work in those  
conditions and in the case of the Shuttle 'have all our launch parts been  
tested at this abnormally low temperature?'.

-- 
Phil Cook

--
I once tried to be apathetic, but I just couldn't be bothered
http://flipc.blogspot.com

Post a reply to this message