On Thu, Feb 08, 2007 at 02:12:22AM +0200, Dotan Cohen wrote: > That's a great arguement. Let me sum it up, to be certain that I > understood correctly: > <<SNIP>> <ADVOCATUS DIABOLI> Eh, it's more along the lines of "they've designed equipment without proper safeguards or governors; if operated by unauthorized personnel, they could be open to liability for not having built such safety devices in the first place." </ADVOCATUS DIABOLI> Mind you, I would think someone that writes code that puts the devices into non-compliant states would be at fault, not the manufacturer, but what do I know? I are an engineering-type, not a lawer-type. -- Dave Ihnat President, DMINET Consulting, Inc. dihnat@xxxxxxxxxx
