5 ms·

In which case, don't answer the question at all. If a person is completely new and this is obvious from the question, then you might be helping by saying "don'

In which case, don't answer the question at all. If a person is completely new and this is obvious from the question, then you might be helping by saying "don't do that", otherwise, you're just adding noise.

ricardobeat 14y ago
> If a person is completely new and this is obvious from the question That seems to be the case. It's obvious that wanting to run a modern browser on Windows 3.1 is completely naive, hence the responses.
sukuriant 14y ago
No, I'm sorry. When you believe that someone is going to harm themselves or others with their decisions, and no one else has mentioned the dangerous of their intentions, it is the kind thing to do to warn them. This is especially the case here. This person wanted to do something clearly dangerous and with a critical system (see critical systems testing) that could potentially encourage it to fail and cause lives to be lost. They needed to be warned. Not answering when there is great danger is just as cruel as answering with the help to make it happen because yes, someone will help.
- yew 14y ago
  It's completely reasonable to warn them. It's not reasonable to post yet another warning in a thread consisting entirely of warnings and no answers. It's possible that they don't know what they are doing. It's also possible that you don't know what they are doing. In this case, for example, it looks like the time clock software actually interfaces with the saw controller. If you feel this level of risk aversion is unacceptable - well, I hope you have a better argument than what's been posted so far.
  - sukuriant 14y ago
    I don't, which is why I didn't add anything. Actually, the accepted, official answer was more than perfect. People rambling the same things isn't helpful, you're right; however, had no one said anything as useful as the accepted answer, then it would have been helpful to warn them. We were speaking on different wavelengths, I hope that clears it up
dbecker 14y ago
On behalf of people who might be operating the $150,000 bandsaw, I appreciate the responses that addressed the bigger picture safety issue.

ricardobeat 14y ago

> If a person is completely new and this is obvious from the question That seems to be the case. It's obvious that wanting to run a modern browser on Windows 3.1 is completely naive, hence the responses.

sukuriant 14y ago

No, I'm sorry. When you believe that someone is going to harm themselves or others with their decisions, and no one else has mentioned the dangerous of their intentions, it is the kind thing to do to warn them. This is especially the case here. This person wanted to do something clearly dangerous and with a critical system (see critical systems testing) that could potentially encourage it to fail and cause lives to be lost. They needed to be warned. Not answering when there is great danger is just as cruel as answering with the help to make it happen because yes, someone will help.

yew 14y ago
It's completely reasonable to warn them. It's not reasonable to post yet another warning in a thread consisting entirely of warnings and no answers. It's possible that they don't know what they are doing. It's also possible that you don't know what they are doing. In this case, for example, it looks like the time clock software actually interfaces with the saw controller. If you feel this level of risk aversion is unacceptable - well, I hope you have a better argument than what's been posted so far.
- sukuriant 14y ago
  I don't, which is why I didn't add anything. Actually, the accepted, official answer was more than perfect. People rambling the same things isn't helpful, you're right; however, had no one said anything as useful as the accepted answer, then it would have been helpful to warn them. We were speaking on different wavelengths, I hope that clears it up

dbecker 14y ago

On behalf of people who might be operating the $150,000 bandsaw, I appreciate the responses that addressed the bigger picture safety issue.