Faulty hardware found on shuttle

Dave Michelson wrote:

Derek Lyons wrote:
Dave Michelson wrote:

Perhaps you should preface your remark, "In my uninformed opinion, people
hold it to an unrealistic standard...."

If my opinion was uninformed, you'd have a point. But I'll give you a
free clue: "uninformed" != "disagrees with yours".

If the standard is "unrealistic", it couldn't be met by people developing
other desktop operating systems (Linux, Solaris, BSD, etc.) under similar
constraints.

I never said it was an unrealistic standard to design to. I *said* it
was an unrealistic standard to hold Windows to. There is a
difference.

Since they do so handily, one can only conclude that the standard *is*
realistic. QED.

(To myself: Hmmm. I wonder how Derek is going to twist this one around!)

Haven't twisted anything yet. It's twits like yourself who are doing
the twisting to avoid actually adressing the issue.

D.
--
Touch-twice life. Eat. Drink. Laugh.

Derek Lyons wrote:

I never said it was an unrealistic standard to design to. I *said* it was
an unrealistic standard to hold Windows to. There is a difference.

What you wrote:

unrealistic - impossible, impractical, unreal

What you later claim you meant:

unnecessary - needless, superfluous, inessential

If there's a difference, there it is. We can only interpret what you actually
write, not what you're thinking. May I suggest that in the future you consult
one of the many fine dictionaries available either online or off?

As far as that goes: If you're satisfied with lousy and overpriced operating
system and application software, I'm happy for you. However, please don't
insist that the rest of us have to suffer along just because you feel that
it's "adequate".

Haven't twisted anything yet. It's twits like yourself who are doing the
twisting to avoid actually adressing the issue.

Next you'll be claiming that we're all a bunch of human O-rings or something.

--
Dave Micxhelson