The report, titled "Killed by Code: Software Transparency in Implantable Medical Devices," is here. ® This article was updated to make clear that software defects are likely the cause of one-quarter of the recalls. It was also updated to add comment from Medtronic. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/07...acemaker_code/
Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately.
This account is not active.
Originally Posted by KiwiNZ Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately. OK,but can you then add "proprietary" or "non-open" before "software" ... ?
Originally Posted by KiwiNZ Thread title changed to reflect the article more accurately. The subject of the thread is an article in The Register. The title of the article that is the subject of this thread is clearly "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk". As this is a thread about an editorial article titled "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk", I'm not sure I see where the justification is for arbitrarily renaming it to something else based on your personal interpretation of the article. I could see, however, the thread title being reasonably renamed to "Editorial: Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk". Just my happy little opinion.
Last edited by earthpigg; July 28th, 2010 at 10:56 AM.
Semper Fi My Non-Ubuntu Blog. All posts by me are Public Domain.
lol, i knew the subject of this thread sounded familiar: http://ubuntuforums.org/showpost.php...3&postcount=11 Medical tools ought to be developed scientifically, not as whiz-bang video games. Peer reviewed publications and repeatable experiments. If you are confident your pacemaker is decent, then you should be willing to submit all of it's components to public & scientific scrutiny. Lives are on the line, no time for lawyer crap.
Last edited by earthpigg; July 28th, 2010 at 11:02 AM.
I like this one : Sun Microsystems’ COO Bill Vass summed up the most common case for FOSS in a blog post published in April 2009: “By making the code open source, nothing can be hidden in the code,” Vass wrote. “If the Trojan Horse was made of glass, would the Trojans have rolled it into their city? NO.”28
Originally Posted by earthpigg The subject of the thread is an article in The Register. The title of the article that is the subject of this thread is clearly "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk". As this is a thread about an editorial article titled "Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk", I'm not sure I see where the justification is for arbitrarily renaming it to something else based on your personal interpretation of the article. I could see, however, the thread title being reasonably renamed to "Editorial: Proprietary software puts pacemaker users at risk". Just my happy little opinion. I agree. Why not use the actual name of the article if you are going to rename something? The software being proprietary is obviously an important theme here....otherwise you start to think that the OPEN SOURCE software is the problem and they are warning people about their own mistakes.
I think I'd definitely want something that, you know, keeps my heart beating to to be peer-reviewed.
Originally Posted by Pimientito NEVER EVER give a gypsy player an unprotected guitar to play. It will end in tears!
Originally Posted by Nick_Jinn Why not use the actual name of the article if you are going to rename something? That WAS the title of the thread ...
Originally Posted by newbie2 That WAS the title of the thread ... Thats what i am saying. If a mod is going to change the name, why not change it to the actual title...this was an odd decision.
Ubuntu Forums Code of Conduct
