Reliability

I would like to say that developers should be completely and totally responsible for making their software work correctly, all the time. This is not feasible in any way shape or form, regrettably.

I do believe that developers should make their programs as bug free as possible, to the point of fixing all bugs they are aware of. In the case of the linear accelerators, there was absolutely no excuse for the malfunctions in the equipment. I believe the blame should be placed squarely on the shoulders of those who made the machine. That case seemed more like the company was trying the hide the flaws in the machine though, seeing as how they were sued for a malfunction, and then proceeded to tell another hospital that a bug of that nature was impossible.

In th case of an operating system (lets say, Microsoft's Windows, just for laughs), a certain amount of bugs are to be expected, just because of the huge complexity of the software. There is no way to removed all of the problems in the software. The company should be willing to support the software they have made, though. And, they should put as much effort into fixing the bugs before release as possible.

But, as a final thought, what we, as consumers, accept as "finished software" is up to us. If we are willing to purchase Windows, no matter its flaws, then Microsoft isn't going to worry as much about the bugs in its code at the time of release. All they are concerned about is selling software, and if we buy it with bugs, all the better for them. If we required better software out of the box, Microsoft would be required in turn, to provide better software out of the box.

Paper Topic

My paper topic is going to be on DRM. More specifically if DRM does/does not unconstitutionally hinder the doctrine of Fair Use. I will be arguing for the does side, but will show support for the does not side, as well as try and give ways in which DRM could be instituted in a way that does not interfere with Fair Use. Resources I will be using include websites such as the U.S Copyright Office site, and the RIAA's website.

Security

Ahh, Hacking. Such an interesting and entertaining pastime. Well, for some people. I'm not much of a hacker. Anyway, I found it somewhat amusing that the book romanticized hacking. But, it also provided good information on the history of hacking, and some of the greatest hacks. Its also interesting that hacking didn't begin as a malicious thing. It wasn't even dealing with computers, but model railroads. I don't know if that is ironic, but it is rather odd.

Now, I'm not even sure why the book asks the question of the ethics of hacking. I would say that it is a fairly cut and dry issue. In the case of Morris, it was immoral. He could have just pointed out the bugs in the code. In the case of a pen-testing company, its moral. There are specific situations in which the morality of an action could be debated, but overall, I don' think that is much of a debate.