Re:Stuxnet was embarrassing, not amazing (2011)
by chris_wot on Sunday November 03, 2019 @08:49AM
(#21433859)
Except in this case, where it was a one-shot, very specific objective. Once this thing was released, it could not have been easily updated.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:Stuxnet was embarrassing, not amazing (2011)
by huffmsa on Sunday November 03, 2019 @08:58AM
(#21433898)
It's a classic misunderstanding between "academically viable" and "operationally viable".
The military doesn't need to get an A+. It needs to win. Anything else is a bonus.
Which is why the A-10 is a better plane than the F-35. One shows up and BRRRTs the opposition into a fine red mist, when you need it to. the other makes it pilot motion sick as soon as they put the helmet on.
Re:Stuxnet was embarrassing, not amazing (2011)
by GhostVII on Sunday November 03, 2019 @12:11PM
(#21435110)
The A-10 and F-35 are completely different planes for completely different purposes. The F-35 attempts to be able to perform most of the things the A-10 does, but you can't just say one is better than the other overall. The A-10 is probably better at shooting ground targets at close range. The F-35 is better at bombing them from 5 miles away.
Re:Stuxnet was embarrassing, not amazing (2011)
by huffmsa on Sunday November 03, 2019 @06:04PM
(#21437379)
That's the problem though. The F-35 tries to be good at too many things. It has the latest sensors and stealth and armaments.
But it's taking forever and a day to get the damn thing out the door because it's too academically excellent.
Re:Stuxnet was embarrassing, not amazing (2011)
by irishcoffee on Sunday November 03, 2019 @10:41AM
(#21434486)
The wired article linked in the top comment talks at some length about how the software was able to be updated in the wild.