[nycbug-talk] interesting read

[Marc Spitzer]

On 5/22/05, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> 
> On May 22, 2005, at 10:14 AM, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> 
> > On 5/22/05, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> On May 22, 2005, at 8:16 AM, Marc Spitzer wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> On 5/21/05, Bob Ippolito <bob at redivi.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>
> >>>> On May 21, 2005, at 11:28 AM, alex at pilosoft.com wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>> On Sat, 21 May 2005, Bob Ippolito wrote:
> > He did not use audit incorrectly, audit has nothing to do with the
> > right to have unrestricted rights to distribute code.  And that
> > redistribution right, in some cases compulsion,  is what is the core
> > defining characteristic of open source.  audit is just a secondary
> > effect nothing more of open source.
> >
> > And as far as I know the use of orthogonal in regular speech means
> > unrelated to.  Orthogonal in math can and does depend on the type of
> > math you are studding.  But I do not think that Alex meant to say
> > "normal to the tangent plane of the surface" where the surface in
> > question is of N dimensions and the tangent "plane" is of N-1
> > dimensions and the normal is N-2 dimensions, think sphere-> plane->
> > ray as that would make absolutely no seance out of a few specific
> > areas of math, sold euclidean geometry and calc come to mind.
> 
> If A implies the possibility of B, in what universe are they unrelated?

so A does not imply B, go read up on how logic works.  Start with
Aristotle and work forward.

> 
> >>> 1: enough about how the heart works to comment on design decisions,
> >>> optimizing for speed where needed and space everywhere else.
> >>>
> >>> 2: know the hardware and software *very* well and these are, I would
> >>> think, all fairly to very custom embedded systems, for example X is
> >>> stupid in C but great in forth.
> >>>
> >>
> >> I said *possible*, not easy, cheap, or generally accessible.  Nowhere
> >> in this thread did I ever say that open source is inherently a better
> >> solution, but it does inherently have a way to measure its worth
> >> because the source is available.  Finding a person qualified to
> >> perform that measurement is another story.
> >>
> >
> > No it is not, with out *that person* the rest is a complete wash.
> 
> And unless air is breathable, we'll all die!  OH NO!

grow up

> 
> >> Again, I never said that a closed source solution can't have this
> >> either, only that open source implies that this is available.
> >>
> >>
> >>> And you would need to accept the fact you might just get sued out of
> >>> existence for your opinion.  Think about it someone dies and a
> >>> lawyer
> >>> smells money so he decided to sue all involved because it costs him
> >>> nothing to add you to the suit.  Now you need a good lawyer for a
> >>> long
> >>> time and they want cash generally.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Open source solutions probably fare better here (for the auditor),
> >> because the license implies redistribution rights for the code.
> >>
> >
> > go talk to a lawyer about this, here is the scenario
> >
> > 1: you make a comment on how to improve bubas open source pacemaker
> > development kit, or even provide a patch
> >
> > 2: after that some people die with bubas kit in there chest
> >
> > 3: lawyer sues for damages, claims bubas kit was defective
> >
> > 4: add you to the list because he can for free.  You were involved
> > after all.
> >
> > Now you need a lawyer, good ones are $400+/hr and bad ones cost more.
> > And they like cash up front, retainer.
> 
> You can sue or be sued at any time for any reason.  So what?

no I can not.  For example say I am sued because I live in the same
city as bubas lead developer, do not know him at all, it would get
thrown out of court.  And I could sue the people who sued me and win. 
Further more I could demand that the lawyers involved be disciplined
before the bar, etc.

And you speak as someone who has nothing, the "so what" will change as
you have stuff to loose.

> 
> >>> ike,
> >>>
> >>> even if it is in python you are not qualified to have an opinion
> >>> about
> >>> the code that runs your granddads heart.
> >>>
> >>
> >> Well there is a species of "obvious" bugs that you can find without
> >> knowing the hardware and software very well.  If you perform a naive
> >> audit of the code and find one or more examples of these, I'd get
> >> that solution the hell away from anyone I care about.
> >>
> >
> > This is a remarkably ignorant thing to say.  Do you have any idea how
> > much testing the FDA *REQUIRES* for battery operated devices implanted
> > to run the heart???  Also think about what the companies that develop
> > these devices are required to do by there lawyers and insurance
> > companies as far as testing goes to minimize liability.  They *KNOW*
> > they will be sued and act accordingly, that is a big part of why
> > medicine is so expensive.
> 
> Yes, of course!  Expensive software MUST be bug free.  Space shuttles
> don't crash, nuclear reactors don't fail, ...

The world is not perfect quit whining about it.  The facts of the
mater are that these devices undergo a, by normal standards,
ridiculous amount of testing.  What we are talking about is marginal
cost, how much does it cost to get some small increment of improvement
or even to attempt it.  The cost to the company selling the device
would be huge, the lawyers would require each comment/bug report be
taken seriously, if it merits it or not, because of liability.  Also
keep in mind that if you drive up the cost of the product too much
companies leave the marketplace and go out of business or build
something else.

> 
> I didn't say it was a likely scenario, I said it exists, and if you
> did your research you'd find that such things have happened in the past.

galaxies have died in the past does that mean that I should not go to
work on Monday??

Please stop behaving like an idiot in public, it embarrasses you and
wasts out time.

marc

> 
> -bob
> 
>