Life-saving applications is specialized computer programs that are designed to provide individuals with all the necessary information, tools, and ideas they need to stay healthy and cope with emergency situations. These include issues such as checking vital bodily indicators such as blood pressure, where to access first and in times of emergency, and information concerning the nearest health care facilities among others.
Typical examples of life-saving applications include Airstrip OB, CPR & Choking, Close Call, Pocket First Aid & CPR Guide, iBP Blood Pressure, Emergency Radio, and Pet First Aid, to mention but a few!
Like every other computer software, they too must be tested before official launch. The proceeding discourse endeavors to highlight and explain in details the importance of software testing in life-saving applications:
To Ascertain the Suitability of the Software to the Tasks Intended
Life-saving applications are designed to carry out different purposes. Some are designed to check bodily vitals; others are designed to relay crucial health-related information to users, and so on. Testing ensures that the software carries out its stipulated functions as expected.
To Ascertain the Compatibility of the Software to other Systems
These applications are installed on cell phones, smartphones, tablets, laptops, and desktops. They require an operating systems, inputs, interfaces, hard disk space, memory, and other co-operant hardware and software to be able to discharge their mandates. Testing ensures that such applications are compatible with these other systems to guarantee their efficacy.
To Check the Quality of the Software
The quality of the software refers to how efficiently it carries out its stipulated objectives. It is measured by a number of parameters such as load that is the number of potential users that the software can accommodate at any given time; stress which measures the responsiveness of the software to high loads; endurance which gauges the software’s capacity to withstand high loads over longer duration; and scalability which is the ability of the software to adjust to higher loads. Testing the software enables developers to ascertain how effective it is most likely going to be insofar as the discharge of its mandate is concerned.
To Prevent Errors and Mishaps
Testing of the application software before launch prevents errors and mishaps from arising out of the use of the software. This helps in safeguarding the well-being of the users and also protects the reputation of the firm that issues out the application.
It is worth noting that the aforementioned importance of software testing in life-saving applications is by no means exhaustive since there are innumerable others which, owing to space constraints, could not be fully enumerated.
The criminal law is designed with a view to shielding the individual rights of the voter and the health and well being of society as a cohesive unit.
One of the most arguable areas of the criminal law is definitely its contribution to penalising criminal attempts.
Criminal law often concerns itself with punishing people who have committed injustices against the individual or against society, and this is usually particularly effective in making sure a feeling of lawful community and deterring the bulk of law breakers in their actions.
One of the most important questions most legal systems face is when, if at all, to intervene in completely legal behavior in help to stop a crime from happening? Consider the example of a gunman looking to kill a good friend.
Is he arrested at that point for tried murder? He goes to a hill near his friend’s house with the gun. Here? He’s taking target and starts to squash the trigger? What about now?
It is very hard to translate the most beneficial point to interpose in doubtless criminal behavior. On one hand there’s encroaching on civil freedoms, while on the other there’s a manifest threat to life and life, as well as property.
Drawing the line has been especially hard in the recent past, and has been the cause of regime draftsmen several headaches in interpreting what the law should be. Consider next the eventuality of the burglar pinching from an empty pocket.
Psychologically and physically he has committed enough acts to be found guilty of the crime, but simply as there was no wallet to be robbed, should he walk free?
Seeing as there had been no wallet, he could never be found guilty as charged of burglary, but should he be responsible in attempt? The answer in most jurisdictions is yes, but again this presents further issues.
Say as an example, you have got a wannabe drug dealer who buys a number of paracetamol. He sells these in the mistaken belief they’re illegal – he could never be found guilty as charged of supplying controlled drugs, but could he be convicted on the grounds of his attempts?
Most jurisdictions again say yes, with the reason that dangerous folk should be stopped in their tracks. Though a fair point, this type of debate doesn’t sit well in a modern context, particularly where civil freedoms and human rights play such a huge role in law internationally.
In addition, the theory of desertion is a little bit of a varied bag, with some nations swinging one way and others another.
What’s certain is that the criminal law may feel required to arbitrate in certain circumstances to stop harm to their voter, which would certainly be a major consideration in mitigation for wrongful arrest.
The postulate of the law of attempts is highly fascinating, and of specific note is the express treatment across the sector of both desertion and illegality. Maybe in an era of larger harmonisation, we intend to see more world authority on the applying of these elements.
Discovering new software flaws, including those that that leave users susceptible to security exploits, has been a constant concern since corporations started depending on technology to function effectively.
Some years have seen some quite so many bugs, and some of these have been massive. Most of these bugs only cause small inconveniences that individual users can work around, but there are those where these small inconveniences
can cause significant injury or damage.
Software is created by people, and hence intrinsically contains bugs that makes the machines run by such software to be susceptible to error. There are documented instances where software bugs cause considerable harm, and injuries.
Arithmetic Overflow in Therac-25
An arithmetic overflow in a machine designed to administer radiation therapy, Therac-25, caused an error that would at times expose patients to radiation poisoning. This occurred from 1985 to 1985, and caused four fatalities.
The Black Out of 2003
Approximately 55 million people in the North-East of United States and parts of Canada we left without power when
a power plant went offline. This caused a huge demand on the rest of the network and a blackout occurred. A software bug had stopped an alarm to be raised, which would have avoided the blackout.
A Chinook helicopter crashed in Scotland in 1994, killing 29 passengers. Although the accident was initially blamed on the pilot, a systems error was later detected and cited as the cause of the crash.
AT&T Long-Distance Service
The software bug that controlled long distance relay switches at AT&T malfunctioned in January of 1990, and caused the company $60 million in charges.
High Radiation at the National Cancer Institute
In the latter months of 2000, a series of accidents occurred at the institute located in Panama City where a software bug miscalculated the dosage requirement for patients undergoing radiation therapy. There were a minimum of 8 fatalities.
Pentium Chip’s Math Error(1993)
As a result of a programming error, the chip could not make accurate math calculations. This caused a huge backlash
from Intel’s huge client base.
Apple Directions to Nowhere
As rivalry between Apple and Google heated up in 2012, Apple ditched Google Maps and opted for its own self-developed software. However, it lacked the expertise to information to match that of Google Maps. Many locations were missing, and others mislabeled.
Sony’s Malicious Copy Protection
In order to prevent piracy, Sony introduced a new system in its audio format CDs in 2005. However, this software
would at times stealthily plant viruses and trojans in the computers of users.
Windows Fight with Pirates (2007)
An almost similar incident came up in 2007 when the bug would not allow users to install the company’s OS because
of its own anti-piracy software. This was regardless of the fact that the copies being installed were genuine.
These are just a few notable cases where software bugs have had a considerable impact on the running of a corporation.