5 ms·

'Fixing the security gap would have caused delays' '... it would have added to the Predator's price' If you're paying $20 million each you'd think another mil

'Fixing the security gap would have caused delays' '... it would have added to the Predator's price' If you're paying $20 million each you'd think another million to ensure your targets don't see you coming would be a no-brainer?

jpwagner 17y ago
While I obviously think they need to close the security gaps, I just want to make a comment on your comment: it's that kind of thinking that keeps our taxes increasing and our economy in shambles. I'm with @tsally on the solution to this kind of problem...
- pyre 17y ago
  @tsally is advocating having 'real' hackers hack on the thing to find vulnerabilities. In this case though, the vulnerability was known but it would have cost more money to actually fix it. Having people attack the thing for vulnerabilities still wouldn't change the fact that you would need to pay however much money to do the fixing.
  - jpwagner 17y ago
    pff, you didn't address what I said... "it's only another $1MM"
    - pyre 17y ago
      I was addressing the last thing that you said.
      - jpwagner 17y ago
        quit these goading, troll tactics please there is no contradiction: yes "real" hackers, yes spend money, no don't say "just another million" sheesh
        pyre 17y ago
        Where did I say 'just another million?' From where I stand, you seem to be opposed to spending more money on something to make it work, and I'm arguing that by agreeing with having hackers hack on the device doesn't fix it on it's own. It still costs money. Whether it's "just another million" or "just another $100,000" is irrelevant. The thing won't fix itself for free and at $20 million a pop it's a waste of money if the thing is broken. Note: I'm not goading, trolling or whatever it is you think I'm doing. This thread is a conversation, and I'm responding to what you said.
        jpwagner 17y ago
        ...and I'm responding to what you said No, you're not, you're actually ignoring my words. Please stop. Note: You have made one lifetime submission and it was flagged and marked 'dead.' I will not call you a troll, but please stop.

jpwagner 17y ago

While I obviously think they need to close the security gaps, I just want to make a comment on your comment: it's that kind of thinking that keeps our taxes increasing and our economy in shambles. I'm with @tsally on the solution to this kind of problem...

pyre 17y ago
@tsally is advocating having 'real' hackers hack on the thing to find vulnerabilities. In this case though, the vulnerability was known but it would have cost more money to actually fix it. Having people attack the thing for vulnerabilities still wouldn't change the fact that you would need to pay however much money to do the fixing.
- jpwagner 17y ago
  pff, you didn't address what I said... "it's only another $1MM"
  - pyre 17y ago
    I was addressing the last thing that you said.
    - jpwagner 17y ago
      quit these goading, troll tactics please there is no contradiction: yes "real" hackers, yes spend money, no don't say "just another million" sheesh
      - pyre 17y ago
        Where did I say 'just another million?' From where I stand, you seem to be opposed to spending more money on something to make it work, and I'm arguing that by agreeing with having hackers hack on the device doesn't fix it on it's own. It still costs money. Whether it's "just another million" or "just another $100,000" is irrelevant. The thing won't fix itself for free and at $20 million a pop it's a waste of money if the thing is broken. Note: I'm not goading, trolling or whatever it is you think I'm doing. This thread is a conversation, and I'm responding to what you said.
        jpwagner 17y ago
        ...and I'm responding to what you said No, you're not, you're actually ignoring my words. Please stop. Note: You have made one lifetime submission and it was flagged and marked 'dead.' I will not call you a troll, but please stop.