[LINK] MS strikes again
Jan Whitaker
jwhit at melbpc.org.au
Thu Jul 2 10:06:26 AEST 2009
At 09:40 AM 2/07/2009, Brenda Aynsley wrote:
>Sure we can say if MS got the architecture and implementation of their
>software right it couldn't happen, but we know that's not ultimately true.
Of course. I think in this situation there was some gap in either
systemic thinking about using a system that can automatically update
during a mission critical event [surgery] or someone messed with the
set-up through a different act [reset a clock? update that reset
defaults? who knows?] and didn't realise the downstream effects. I'm
not sure the idea of needing updates is necessarily a problem, IF
it's considered in the overall context.
I thought it was ironic that the system ended up infected after all
because of trying to overcome the first problem by going to a 'null'
state [no updates], instead of rescheduling the updates to a less
[not absolute by the way] impacting time, say the middle of the night.
If we're going to rely on technology for medicine, we need to allow
for the worst case situations and this was a doozy!
Jan
[PS: I think I'll post these at BLE as a risk example]
Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
jwhit at janwhitaker.com
blog: http://janwhitaker.com/jansblog/
business: http://www.janwhitaker.com
Our truest response to the irrationality of the world is to paint or
sing or write, for only in such response do we find truth.
~Madeline L'Engle, writer
_ __________________ _
More information about the Link
mailing list