Share on Facebook
Share on Google+
Share on Twitter
Share on LinkedIn
Wrong point of failure
I read this piece on slashdot:http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/03/19/1928244/Company-Sued-...
Where a guy sues (and wins) because the tablesaw manufacturer didn't include a patented feature, which would be making the saw more expensive and in some ways less practical to use and prone to break, costing in repairs.
Here's a choice comment:
http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=1588948&cid=3154...
"Table saws, at the best of times, are what guys who work with power tools like to refer to as "fucking dangerous". There are ways to certainly manufacture safer saws, but no matter whether you're using some cheap $200 bargain basement table saw or a top end unit is that you never stand in front of our behind the saw blade and just as importantly if you're ripping small pieces of wood, you don't feed them in with your hands. This is a good way to keep your hands intact."
Yup. The thing is that different table saws have different features, and some might find a safety mechanism off-putting.
My company is kind of a hybrid between being a producer and a retailer. We produce (create) things for the customer, as well as resell some things.
We've learned some things along the way, and one thing is (data) security. When offering something to a customer, we need to tell the customer what the security implications of each (hosting package) choice is. Although we need to get even better at informing the customer about it.
Some things are cheaper, but also less secure. Some things are more bare-bones, unsecured and powerful but also more expensive. And yet other things are secure, powerful and comprehensively packaged.
You'd think at least power tools manufacturers (and the likes) would agree on some, if not standard rating, standard categorization of security features.
Then you'd have a brochure, or something the retailer could compile and print and give to the customer and/or discuss. Which would enable the customer to make informed decisions.
Or, some 3rd party website could evaluate products in that particular market and give ratings and such and derive revenue from ads or referrals.
Yes yes, the potential for 'raw deals' in 3rd party websites could be something, but then there's the law, putting persons' life and health in jeopardy and the red face factor.
I'd lean towards secure products every time I think. Unless I really knew what I was doing.
And it would bring the right focus on things, namely life and health. It'd be a positively twisted competition.
[Permalink] [By morphex] [Politics (and judicial matters) (Atom feed)] [19 Mar 23:57 Europe/Oslo]