Quote:
|
Originally Posted by KenWittlief
Im trying really hard to find a way to agree with this (seriously).
|
The easiest way is to recognize that you're fixated on a specific belief about what is meant by the word "design", and that changing that belief to handle a broader concept will make all your concerns evaporate.
If you stop insisting that the verb "design" must mean "devise a solution to address a requirement", and start accepting that "find a solution to address a requirement" is a valid meaning, we'll all be on the same page with respect to
<R16>.
Quote:
|
If I goto Comp USA and buy a laptop computer, in no sense of the word (in my vocabulary) did I 'design' that computer. [I know we are allowed to use COTS subsystems, Im trying to clarifiy the word 'design' here]
|
But if you then go on to use that computer as a component to solve a specific problem, you can claim to have designed a solution to that problem.
Quote:
|
If I copy a schematic from a website and wire the parts together, what would people think if I told them "I designed this" ? They would think I was taking credit for someone else's work.
|
You did not create the schematic. However, if the finished circuit is being used as a functional part of a larger work of your own devising, you can legitimately say you designed the function to use that circuit.
This is not wordsmithing in order to get around a restriction. This is recognizing that the so-called restriction
does not exist, and thereby understanding what the word must mean in context in order to keep the rule from
saying the thing that is not.