On Sun, Aug 22, 2010 at 10:34 PM, Wouter van Ooijen wrote: >> A lot of other people have commented further on this, but what it >> comes down to is this: Yes, one of the end users will be nuclear power >> stations. This product is nowhere near the "nuclear" part of the >> facility, but all the same red tape applies. We can produce a >> microprocessor version, there is a path to getting the software >> accepted, the process is so onerous that it makes the project an >> economical non-starter. > > ROFL! So up to today no red-taper has the idea to extend the rules for > software to extend programmable logic? > > -- > > Wouter van Ooijen > I don't understand all of the details, I suspect that buried somewhere in the bowels of the bureaucraptic system is some brain dead paper pusher that has a form with a check box labeled "does this product contain a microproccessor" with instructions to verify some other mountain of paper if it's checked. As long as I don't have to check the box, I'm golden. -Denny --=20 http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive View/change your membership options at http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist .