Quote:
Originally Posted by Daniel_LaFleur
Stupid ruling? Hasty ruling? Not the correct or rational ruling?
... seems to me that we have been given a requirements specification list from our customer (rules from FIRST) that we need to comply with. Whether you agree with these requirements or not, you accepted them as a part of your terms so that you could compete and now that you've shipped your product and it doesn't comply you call the requirements stupid?
Doesn't make much sense to me. Seems your time would be better spend figuring out how to comply with the requirements and not bashing them.
JM(NS)HO
|
Rules and laws are just contracts between people, and when we find them to be misguided, we continue to follow them but heavily lobby for their repeal (hopefully with the pen and not the sword). Right now, I can't see any logical reason why a bolt head that sticks out a quarter inch past the FRAME PERIMETER (but remains inside NORMAL CONFIGURATION) is illegal except for "because the GDC said so". I never accept "because we said so" as a valid reason, because it reeks of arrogance on the part of the person or entity making the rule and only seeks to downplay the intelligence of those to which the rule is given.
We're smart people. If the GDC gave us a logical reason why bolt heads couldn't extend past the barrier, then most rational people here, myself included, would accept it and move on. Until then, I think this is a pretty dumb rule.
If this was the real world, and a client specified that no bolts could stick out, I'd personally ask why. For all I know it could just be that the boss of said client's company thinks flat head bolts look nicer than socket head bolts, but would compromise with button head bolts in order to save the costs of countersinking lots of bolts. When engineers know why specs are the way they are, they can better design systems to meet the genuine intent of the client, as opposed to the what the client thinks they want/need.