I shouldn't really reply but isnt that getting close to a thin client.... and to be honest can you guarentee that your net connection is 100% reliable? so basing a OS around the net is just asking for trouble isnt it?
To us brits AJAX is known for been a cleaning product, to Microsoft it sounds like the next best thing but AJAX (not the cleaner) is already widely used for various things including the MSDN, so why HAS it taken M$ so long to jump on the already rolling bannedwagon?
I agree... to a certain extent. I think this instance shouldnt be blamed on the developer but on on the testing team... Im sure that a piece of software like this had to have been tested... so why was it not found?
A developer is really only as good as the testing team telling him its wrong!
"Multidata's software allows a radiation therapist to draw on a computer screen the placement of metal shields called "blocks" designed to protect healthy tissue from the radiation. But the software will only allow technicians to use four shielding blocks, and the Panamanian doctors wish to use five.
The doctors discover that they can trick the software by drawing all five blocks as a single large block with a hole in the middle. What the doctors don't realize is that the Multidata software gives different answers in this configuration depending on how the hole is drawn: draw it in one direction and the correct dose is calculated, draw in another direction and the software recommends twice the necessary exposure.
At least eight patients die, while another 20 receive overdoses likely to cause significant health problems. The physicians, who were legally required to double-check the computer's calculations by hand, are indicted for murder. "... to me that sounds like a user not using the software correctly..
I wouldnt say they are the 10 worst bugs ever... more like the 10 most widely known media announced bugs. Okay I have no examples of any others but I'm sure there must be worse bugs out there...
I gotta say that this section of the first inquirer article had me in stitches
"First is the new retention mechanism. If you remember, the old way was to put a chip in the ZIF (zero insertion force) socket and close the little lever on the side. This clamped the chip in and held it down relatively tightly. If you tried hard enough, you could pull it out, there was no locking mechanism to keep it in place. You then put a large part of a battleship hull, known in the industry as a heatsink, on top, and clamped it down with a clip that locked it in place. On top of this was a fan that could lift the remaining parts of that battleship off the ground. It was big and heavy, had clearance problems, and was a bitch to put on. It could fall off in the shipping process. The thermal interface material could cement the CPU to the heatsink, and pull it out of the socket if the heatsink fell off. Since the heatsink was the only locking mechanism, there was nothing other than friction to keep the CPU in the socket. Not a good thing from a physical perspective, and having a hunk of copper weighing the better part of a pound rattling around lose inside the case was even worse."
Slashdot Mirror
ahhh.. Im not a huge follower of football, so apologies :) anyway.. if we keep this thread going we'll be modded off topic im sure :)
This comment only requires one phrase... "Well F*@king said!!"
I shouldn't really reply but isnt that getting close to a thin client.... and to be honest can you guarentee that your net connection is 100% reliable? so basing a OS around the net is just asking for trouble isnt it?
To us brits AJAX is known for been a cleaning product, to Microsoft it sounds like the next best thing but AJAX (not the cleaner) is already widely used for various things including the MSDN, so why HAS it taken M$ so long to jump on the already rolling bannedwagon?
To be honest that picture of Wik looks like Abe from Oddworld... http://www.megghy.com/immagini/Psx/FICHE%20O/COVER S/Odyssee%20d'abe.jpg
Here is the Dilbert Strip... Enjoyj pg
http://www.geocities.com/raptorred42/Dilbert0001.
I agree... to a certain extent. I think this instance shouldnt be blamed on the developer but on on the testing team... Im sure that a piece of software like this had to have been tested... so why was it not found?
A developer is really only as good as the testing team telling him its wrong!
The last one on the list is this
... to me that sounds like a user not using the software correctly..
"Multidata's software allows a radiation therapist to draw on a computer screen the placement of metal shields called "blocks" designed to protect healthy tissue from the radiation. But the software will only allow technicians to use four shielding blocks, and the Panamanian doctors wish to use five.
The doctors discover that they can trick the software by drawing all five blocks as a single large block with a hole in the middle. What the doctors don't realize is that the Multidata software gives different answers in this configuration depending on how the hole is drawn: draw it in one direction and the correct dose is calculated, draw in another direction and the software recommends twice the necessary exposure.
At least eight patients die, while another 20 receive overdoses likely to cause significant health problems. The physicians, who were legally required to double-check the computer's calculations by hand, are indicted for murder. "
I wouldnt say they are the 10 worst bugs ever... more like the 10 most widely known media announced bugs. Okay I have no examples of any others but I'm sure there must be worse bugs out there...
anyone think of any others?
I gotta say that this section of the first inquirer article had me in stitches
"First is the new retention mechanism. If you remember, the old way was to put a chip in the ZIF (zero insertion force) socket and close the little lever on the side. This clamped the chip in and held it down relatively tightly. If you tried hard enough, you could pull it out, there was no locking mechanism to keep it in place. You then put a large part of a battleship hull, known in the industry as a heatsink, on top, and clamped it down with a clip that locked it in place. On top of this was a fan that could lift the remaining parts of that battleship off the ground. It was big and heavy, had clearance problems, and was a bitch to put on. It could fall off in the shipping process. The thermal interface material could cement the CPU to the heatsink, and pull it out of the socket if the heatsink fell off. Since the heatsink was the only locking mechanism, there was nothing other than friction to keep the CPU in the socket. Not a good thing from a physical perspective, and having a hunk of copper weighing the better part of a pound rattling around lose inside the case was even worse."