The best option is to develop better technology to detect asteroids farther away (a series of monitoring satellites covering all quadrants overlapping). Once detected other methods than brute force could be applied. I've seen ideas like using solar wind/particles to move it by making one side of the object a black body (to absorb energy - and thus apply a force), to applying force directly by 'docking' with it and using rockets to nudge it off course.
The real problem isn't how to move the asteroid, the real problem is early detection. The earlier we detect it, the less energy has to be applied to it.
Solution: Whitelist.
Don't allow email to come in without registering with you first.
Problem solved.
Yes, because:
mutation
of course, no one said it had to be a large business.
This is exactly why many things should not be left to business. Those things need to be handled by society - and for many things that means leveraging tax dollars to do what is right for the minority negatively impacted by policies - such as those driven by the Goldman-Sachs statement - from the majority. The research and development funded through these programs will actually help us all through the development of new technologies, and advancement of fundamental science applications beyond the original target, that would be in the public domain (if you need a reason beyond ethical considerations to do what is right). That, of course is a long term viewpoint which, while most beneficial, is not on the radar of current business economic theory which puts quarterly profit increases as the only measure of success.
A corporation is really a social contract between the owners of the corporation and society that allows that organization to gain benefits above and beyond that of a person (lower tax rates, special legal considerations/access...etc), not only to benefit the owners, but also to benefit society as a whole. With the means of low cost production distributed now in the hands of people given technological advancements in the last few decades (e.g. 3D printing, VR/AR, the Internet etc), and corporations automating both mental and physical tasks via information technology (cloud computing, AI etc) and robotics (the next evolution in harnessing technology to increase human power that started with domestication of animals, through mechanical impacts of the industrial age), the argument that jobs are the primary benefit of corporations to society is growing thin. Beyond profits for the shareholders/owners, what benefits to society do corporations provide?
I think that is the question we should all be asking ourselves as we make decisions about what products to purchase, and what investments to make (e.g. most working people have 401K accounts - and thus are shareholders/owners themselves in some small way). If a company invests in a long term view then they should be rewarded. If they don't, then they are not fulfilling their social contract. This would be encouraged if regulations were put in place to make investment in long term research count as much as profits in the stock markets' analysis of corporate performance. Furthermore, given the nature of some long term research costs, tax incentives should be made available to corporations that invest, and penalize those who don't.
Finally, there are many things that are just too big, and too important for corporations to handle. These items will need to have government funding. There's no way around it if you want to protect and provide needed advancements and resultant benefits to society.
Original article title was:
...which has the key piece of information after the comma, lacking in the posting title. Did Slashdot editor do this on purpose, to generate sensationalist rhetoric in the comments section?
should read:
Reading the article, Apple isn't paying anything until the final appellate court's adjudication, which very likely will invalidate the patents in question.
IANAL
In my first draft I was going to point that out by saying 'under normal conditions a person...' I didn't think that had to be spelled out. I agree there are some people who can not control their thoughts and actions on a continuous basis. I disagree with your premise that it is most people (maybe?). While everyone may have transient moments, society as a whole is mostly under control or it wouldn't function.
Dilbert cartoons plaster my cubical - all of which reflect something I've had to actually deal with.
There are two components missing from this concept: quality and consumers. As we move into a world where quality matters, offshore vendors will not cut the mustard. Time and time again from my own experience, and that of others we have seen vendors fail to deliver quality systems that meet security standards. If all companies slim down to the size you define - then there would be no employees - and therefore no consumers to generate the economic demand for the services they sell.
That's why any company trying to go to this extreme will fail.
It's not as simple as that. Read this post (below in the thread)
Corporations who's stocks are publicly traded on the stock exchange are evaluated by the market for one thing - and one thing only: profitability. The constant refrain of CEO and bean counters is they have a fiduciary responsibility to their shareholders to increase profits and grow dividends. Whatever responsibility they have to customers is secondary and largely defined by law and regulation - with a thin veneer of social responsibility thrown in when customers hackles are raised on a subject. As corporate lawyers are quick to point out, a corporation is not guided by ethical or moral considerations, but by whether an action is legal or not at the end of the day.
As long as the risks and costs of breaches are less than the costs of ensuring a secure infrastructure, publicly traded companies will continue to choose the cheap way out to maximize profits. Corporate law and regulatory changes could change this equation to make it more costly not to address security, but in the current climate, unlikely to happen.
As consumers, we can also impact this by abandoning companies that do not have our interests at heart (which is basically all publicly traded companies with rare exception). This has the effect of raising the cost of not addressing security through loss of revenue, and therefore loss of profit. Consumers also need to realize that we really don't get anything for free. There are hidden costs that we will pay sooner or later, and we need to decide if it would be better to pay upfront for guarantees, or pay later in terms of injury or death in the worst cases (and by injury and death I'm not only talking about physical, but also other areas of our lives including our economic, social, and civic lives).
Finally, people who design and build systems (and this is not just the programmers and architects - this includes anyone impacting the choices regarding the design - including bean counters, project managers, marketing/sales people etc) need to recognize what mechanical engineers and architects learned in the last century: our creations can injure and kill people if care is not taken, and standards established for the deployment of these systems in the real world. Companies need to be held liable if they do not take care and build safe systems. Technologists need to band together, and share that message at every opportunity on every project. If the company isn't going to take responsibility, then who is going to be left holding the bag when things go really bad?
Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek
