On Mon, 27 Feb 2012, Tony Duell wrote:
They're
worried about the idiot that builds a one-off programmer for use
in production, and doesn't test it thoroughly, and then destroys
hundreds or thousands of chips.
How does this differ from the ifiot who designes a PSU which puts a 25V
spike on the 5V rail at power up/power down (and yse I have seen a
regualtor circuit which does that -- in a commercial bench PSU!) and then
tries to cleim all your ICs were defective? Or the idiot who takes zero
anti-static precautions and then claims yuor ICs are failing i nthe field
a couple of months later?
Several years ago when the original Pentium was brand-new, a company
ordered a tray of them. The engineers found they were all dead. Another
tray was ordered and those too were dead. The problem was tracked down to
some bean-counter in accounting who was opening the packages to write down
serial numbers at his desk without any anti-static precautions whatsoever.
One of the engineers who discovered this idiocy is on this list. Maybe
he'll say something.
--
David Griffith
dgriffi at
cs.csubak.edu
A: Because it fouls the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?