M
Michael A. Terrell
Karl said:If I had two *identically qualified* candidates (how on earth would I
determine that?) and one of them called a DE-9 a DB-9 (and I noticed his
earth-shattering gaffe), I might have to give the nod to the competing
candidate.
I agree, *someone's* job involves knowing the right part number, but
*usually* not everyone's. Even the lead design engineer might tell the
draftsman "put a right-angle PCB mount male DB9 with screw locks right
there". The draftsman would discover the mistake when he tried to find the
part in his OrCad or AutoCad library.
You don't think they would test the product before placing it in service?
Acceptance testing should find the problem long before it leaves the plant,
and certainly before any rocket mistakenly crashes into a suburb. I think
you're having trouble distinguishing between two hugely different scenarios:
I have no trouble telling them apart. I made it from a hobbyist at 8
years old, to doing design work on electronics for the aerospace
industry, fully self taught. I was awarded the MOS of broadcast Engineer
at 20 years old by the US Army as a "Civilian Acquired Skill", and
bypassing a three year military electronics school. I would not have
passed that test by using common names. It kept me from going to Vietnam
with a M16, and probably coming home in a body bag.
1. Engineer specifying the wrong part in a life-critical system and then
everyone failing to catch it in myriad reviews and QA.
2. Hobbyist walking into Radio Shack and casually using the common name for
a part.
If they are so common, why doesn't Radio Shack's drones know them?
They have more reason not to know the right names that the "Common"
names. Its like "Common sense" If it really was common, it wouldn't
have a name.
I have no problem with that.
--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.
Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida