›.3 methods to mitigate negative aspects for MAC, DAC and RBAC The negative aspects of MAC can be mitigated by using it alongside other paradigms. The negative aspects of DAC can be mitigated by employing the use of reactive access control while the negative aspects of RBAC can be mitigated by allowing the users to choose on the roles they want. Suggest methods to mitigate the negative aspects for MAC, DAC, and RBAC. Evaluate the use of MAC, DAC, and RBAC methods in the organization and recommend the best method for the organization. Provide a rationale for your response.

Promote appreciation of cultural differences. Set aside a special day where you ask a few employees or co-workers to share aspects of his or her culture or a client’s culture with everyone.What separates the good, or the great, project managers (PM) from the just so-so?

Second, a MAC model has a negative influence on performance since the system has to check many more accesses and access rules. To make MAC-enabled systems workable, operating systems offer a default policy which already covers many services.

The answer: How they handle problems when they arise and they prevent them from derailing deadlines and the budget. Her are seven of the biggest (or most common) problems that PMs face, and what good ones can do to anticipate, avoid or mitigate them. 1: Team members not knowing or understanding what their responsibilities are, not owning their part of the project.How a good PM handles the accountability problem: Good project managers let team members know, up front, who is responsible for what – and clearly lay out expectations. “Proactively setting up the decision-making structure, including where all the key stakeholders fit in, is critical,” says Tom Treanor, director of Content Marketing & Social Media at, a provider of project management software. “One way IT PMs do this is by using a RACI chart where each stakeholder is clearly labeled as one of the following: R = responsible for performing the work of the project, A = accountable for the project results, C = consulted about aspects of the project, or I = informed about the project.” Problem No. 2: Having key personnel pulled off the project, either temporarily or permanently.

How a good PM handles resource-related issues: “Exceptional IT managers are masters at balancing supply (resources) and demand (break/fix issues alongside the project),” says Liz Pearce, CEO, a project management solution. One way they do this, she says, is by using a “project management system that provides resource visibility and forecasting tools, so PMs can quickly make decisions, re-allocate resources and ultimately reduce schedule thrash.” Another way good project managers deal with team members being pulled in multiple directions? By convincing management that removing a vital team member could delay the project (or worse).“I know I won't win the fight to keep my best developer or pick your key team member without facts,” says Steve Caseley, a project manager and a trainer for, an IT certification training company. “So I rework my schedule accordingly and then present the boss with the impact assessment, explaining my project will now be two weeks late and over budget by $45,000 due to the loss of subject matter expertise and learning curve of his replacement.” The result: “This fact-based impact assessment will often be enough to reverse the decision.” Problem No. 3: Meeting deadlines.How a good PM deals with (often shifting) deadlines: To avoid missing deadlines, “I assign my team members specific deadlines for their parts of the project – and the dates I give are always much earlier than I actually need whatever,” says Ashley Schwartau, creative director, Production.

“That way if something needs to be fixed, there is plenty of time for changes and another review.” In addition, it helps if you can break the project into manageable chunks, or milestones, with each chunk or milestone “spaced enough to give you time to make changes before final delivery.” Problem No. 4: Scope creep.How a good PM deals with scope creep: “Changes affecting requirements almost always stop projects in their tracks,” notes Jun Bucao, PMP, senior project/program manager. “A good PM will need to document the change, validate, assess its impacts, find a solution and have the change request approved before executing the solution,” he says.“A great PM, however, will do proactive risk and quality management throughout; and not just react to changes,” Bucao argues. “During planning, the PM ensures that all critical stakeholders, e.g., sponsor, SMEs, end-users or other persons of influence, are identified and stayed engaged to minimize surprises and keep future variances at minimum to none.”.Contents. Introduction There has been a long-standing interest in the issue of the social or external costs of transportation (see for instance: Keeler et al. 1975, Fuller et al. 1983, Mackenzie et al.

1992, INRETS 1993, Miller and Moffet 1993, IWW/INFRAS 1995, IBI 1995 ). The passions surrounding social costs and transportation, in particular those related to the environment, have evoked far more shadow than light.At the center of this debate is the question of whether various modes of transportation are implicitly subsidized because they generate externalities, and to what extent this biases investment and usage decisions. On the one hand, exaggerations of environmental damages as well as environmental standards formulated without consideration of costs and benefits are used to stop new infrastructure.

On the other hand, the real social costs are typically ignored in financing projects or charging for their use. Associated with the interest in social and external cost has been a continual definition and re-definition of externalities in transportation systems. Verhoef (1994) states “An external effect exists when an actor’s (the receptor’s) utility (or profit) function contains a real variable whose actual value depends on the behavior of another actor (the supplier) who does not take these effects of his behavior into account in this decision making process.” This definition eliminates pecuniary externalities (for instance, an increase in consumer surplus), and does not include criminal activities or altruism as producers of external benefits or costs. Rothengatter (1994) presents a similar definition: “an externality is a relevant cost or benefit that individuals fail to consider when making rational decisions.” Verhoef (1994) divides external cost into social, ecological, and intra-sectoral categories, which are caused by vehicles (in-motion or non-in-motion) and infrastructure.To the externalities we consider (noise, congestion, crashes, pollution), he adds the use of space (e.g. Parking) and the use of matter and energy (e.g. The production and disposal of vehicles and facilities).

Button (1994) classes externalities spatially, considering them to be local (noise, lead, pollution), transboundary (acid rain, oil spills), and global (greenhouse gases, ozone depletion). Hangaroo online free game. Gwilliam and Geerlings (1994) combines Verhoef’s and Button’s schemes, looking at a Global, Local, Quality of Life (Social), and Resource Utilization (air, land, water, space, materials) classification.Rothengatter (1994) views externalities as occurring at three levels: individual, partial market, total market, and argues that only the total market level is relevant for checking the need of public interventions. This excludes pecuniary effects (consumer and producer surplus), activities concerning risk management, activities concerning transaction costs. Externalities are thus public goods and effects that cannot be internalized by private arrangements. Rietveld (1994) identifies temporary effects and non-temporary effects occurring at the demand side and supply side.

Maggi (1994) divides the world by mode (road and rail) and medium (air, water, land) and considers noise, crashes, and community and ecosystem severance. Though not mentioned among the effects above, to all of this might be added the heat output of transportation.This leads to the “urban heat island” effect - with its own inestimable damage rate and difficulty of prevention.

Coase (1992) argues that the problem is that of actions of firms (and individuals) which have harmful effects on others.His theorem is restated from Stigler (1966) as “. Under perfect competition, private and social costs will be equal.” This analysis extends and controverts the argument of Pigou (1920), who argued that the creator of the externality should pay a tax or be liable.

Coase suggests the problem is lack of property rights, and notes that the externality is caused by both parties, the polluter and the receiver of pollution. In this reciprocal relationship, there would be no noise pollution externality if no-one was around to hear.This theory echoes the Zen question “If a tree falls in the woods and no-one is around to hear, does it make a sound?”. Moreover, the allocation of property rights to either the polluter or pollutee results in a socially optimal level of production, because in theory the individuals or firms could merge and the external cost would become internal. However, this analysis assumes zero transaction costs. If the transaction costs exceed the gains from a rearrangement of activities to maximize production value, then the switch in behavior won’t be made. There are several means for internalizing these external costs. Pigou identifies the imposition of taxes and transfers, Coase suggests assigning property rights, while our government most frequently uses regulation.

To some extent all have been tried in various places and times.In dealing with air pollution, transferable pollution rights have been created for some pollutants. Fuel taxes are used in some countries to deter the amount of travel, with an added rationale being compensation for the air pollution created by cars. The US government establishes pollution and noise standards for vehicles, and requires noise walls be installed along highways in some areas.Therefore, a consensus definition might be, “Externalities are costs or benefits generated by a system (in this case transportation, including infrastructure and vehicle/carrier operations,) and borne in part or in whole by parties outside the system.” Definitions An is that situation in which the actions of one agent imposes a benefit or cost on another economic agent who is not party to a transaction. Externalities are the difference between what parties to a transaction pay and what society pays.

A, increases the price of a resource and therefore involves only transfers. A technical externality exhibits a real resource effect. A technical externality can be an external benefit (positive) or an external disbenefit (negative). Examples (external disbenefits) are air pollution, water pollution, noise, congestion.(external benefits) include examples such as bees from apiary pollinating fruit trees and orchards supplying bees with nectar for honey. Cause The source of externalities is the poorly defined property rights for an asset which is scarce. For example, no one owns the environment and yet everyone does.Since no one has property rights to it, no one will use it efficiently and price it.

Without prices people treat it as a free good and do not cost it in their decision making. Overfishing can be explained in the same way. We want that amount of the externality which is only worth what it costs.Efficiency requires that we set the price of any asset 0 so the externality is internalized. If the price is set equal to the marginal social damages, we will get a socially efficient amount of the good or bad. Economic agents will voluntarily abate if the price is non-zero. The states that in the absence of transaction costs, all allocations of property are equally efficient, because interested parties will bargain privately to correct any externality.

As a corollary, the theorem also implies that in the presence of transaction costs, government may minimize inefficiency by allocating property initially to the party assigning it the greatest utility. Pareto Optimality A change that can make at least one individual better off, without making any other individual worse off is called a Pareto improvement: an allocation of resources is when no further Pareto improvements can be made. Thought Question.Social Costs: Causes and Effects. Source: Central to the definition and valuation of exernalities is the definition of the system in question. The intercity transportation system is open, dynamic, and constantly changing.Some of the more permanent elements include airports, intercity highways, and railroad tracks within the state. The system also includes the vehicles using those tracks (roads, rails, or airways) at any given time.

Other components are less clear cut - are the roads which access the airports, freeways, or train stations part of the system?The energy to propel vehicles is part of the system, but is the extraction of resources from the ground (e.g. Oil wells) part of the system? DeLuchi (1991) analyzes them as part of his life-cycle analysis, but should we?

Where in the energy production cycle does it enter the transportation system? Any open system influences the world in many ways.Some influences are direct, some are indirect. The transportation system is no exception. Three examples may illustrate the point. Cars on roads create noise—this we consider a direct effect. Roads reduce the travel time between two places, which increases the amount of land development along the corridor—this is a less direct effect, not as immediate or obvious as the first.

Other factors may intervene to cause or prevent this consequence. The new land development along the corridor results in increased demand for public schools and libraries—this is clearly an indirect effect of transportation.As can be seen almost immediately, there is no end to the number or extent of indirect effects. While recognizing that the economy is dynamic and interlinked in an enormous number of ways, we also recognize that it is almost impossible to quantify anything other than proximate, first order, direct effects of the transportation system. If the degree to which “cause” (transportation) and “effect” (negative externality) are correlated is sufficiently high, then we consider the effect direct; the lower the probability of effect following from cause, the less direct is the effect. The question of degree of correlation is fundamentally empirical.On the other hand, this raises some problems.

Automobiles burn fuel that causes pollution directly. Electric powered high speed rail uses energy from fuel burned in a remote power plant. If the electricity is fully priced, including social costs, then there is no problem in excluding the power plant.But, if the social costs of burning fuel in a power plant are not properly priced, then to ignore these costs would be biased. This is the problem of the first best and second best. The idea of the first best solution suggests that we optimize the system under question as if all other sectors were optimal.

The second best solution recognizes that other systems are also suboptimal.Clearly, other systems are suboptimal to some extent or another. However, if we make our system suboptimal in response, we lessen the pressure to change the other systems. In so doing we effectively condemn all other solutions to being second best.Button (1994) develops a model relating ultimate economic causes to negative externalities and their consequences as summarized in the following graphic. Users and suppliers do not take full account of environmental impacts, leading to excessive use of transport. Button argues that policy tools are best aimed at economic causes, but in reality measures are aimed at any of four stages.

Here we are considering the middle stage, physical causes and symptoms, and are ignoring feedback effects. Another view has the “externalities” as inputs to the production of transportation, along with typical inputs as construction of transportation and the operation and maintenance of the system. There are multiple outputs, simplified to person trips and freight trips, although of course each person trip is in some respects a different commodity.This view comports with Becker’s (1965) view that households use time in the production of commodities - of which travel might be one. Thought Question: Value of Life Suppose there is a road improvement which will save 1 life per year, reducing the number of fatalities from 2 to 1 per year (out of 1000 people using the road). Assume all travelers are identical.What value of life should be used in the analysis? Normally, we would do the equivalent of trying to compute for each traveler what is the willingness to pay for a 50% reduction in the chance of death by driving (from 2 in 1000 to 1 in 1000), and multiply that by the 1000 people whose chance of dying is reduced. An alternative approach is to figure out the willingness to pay for the driver whose life is saved.

Suggest Methods To Mitigate The Negative Aspects For Mac Dac And RbacSo how much would you pay to avoid dying (with certainty) (i.e. What is your Willingness to Pay)? The answer to the first question is usually taken to be all of your resources (you would pay you everything so I won't kill you). Alternatively how much can I pay you to allow you to let me kill you (Willingness to Accept)? The answer to this second question is: I would have to pay you an infinite amount of money in order for you to let me kill you.Both of those sums of money (everything or infinity) likely exceed the willingness to pay to reduce the likelihood of dying with some probability, multiplied by the number of people experiencing it. In economic terms, we are comparing the area under the demand curve (the consumer's surplus) for life (which has a value asymptotically approaching infinity as the amount of life approaches 0 (death approaches certainty) for a single individual, with the marginal change in the likelihood of survival multiplied by all individuals (i.e. The quadrilateral between the y-axis of price and the same demand curve, between Pb and Pa) which describes the change in price for a change in survival).On the one hand, using the marginal change for everyone rather than total change for the one person whose life is saved, we will give a lower value to safety improvements.

On the other hand, the value of life to the individual himself is much higher than the value of life of that individual to society at large. Keeler, T.E., K. Small and Associates (1975), The Full Costs of Urban Transport, Part III: Automobile Costs and Final Intermodal Cost Comparisons, Monograph No.

212, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, University of California, Berkeley. Fuller, John W.Et al (1983) Measurements of Highway User Interference Costs and Air Pollution Costs and Noise Damage Costs: Final Report 34 University of Iowa Institute of Urban and Regional Research.

Mackenzie, James, Roger C. Dower, Donald D.T. Chen (1992) The Going Rate: What it Really Costs to Drive World Resources Institute Washington, DC.INRETS (1993) Impact des Transport Terrestres sur L’Environment: Methodes d’evaluation et couts sociaux. Synthese Inrets No. Miller, Peter and John Moffet (1993) The Price of Mobility: Uncovering the Hidden Costs of Transportation, National Resources Defense Council.IWW/INFRAS (1995) The External Effects of Transport for International Union of Railways, Zurich and Karlsruhe. IBI Group (1995) Full Cost Transportation Pricing Study: Final Report to Transportation and Climate Change Collaborative. Verhoef, Erik External Effects and Social Costs of Road Transport Transportation Research A Vol.273-387, 1994.

Rothengatter, Werner Do External Benefits Compensate for External Costs of Transport Transportation Research A Vol.321-328, 1994. Button, Kenneth Alternative Approaches Toward Containing Transport Externalities: An International Comparison Transportation Research A Vol. 289-305, 1994.Gwilliam, Kenneth M. And Harry Geerlings New Technologies and Their Potential to Reduce the Environmental Impact of Transportation Transportation Research A Vol. 307-319, 1994. Rietveld, Piet Spatial Economic Impacts of Transport Infrastructure Supply Transportation Research A Vol.329-341, 1994. The Problem of Social Cost, and Notes on the Problem of Social Cost reprinted in The Firm, The Market and the Law University of Chicago Press (1992).

Stigler, George 1966 The Theory of Price, 3rd ed.(New York: Macmillan and Col. 1966), 113.Pigou, A.C. The Economics of Welfare, 4th ed. (London, Macmillan and Co.

Button, Kenneth Alternative Approaches Toward Containing Transport Externalities: An International Comparison Transportation Research A Vol.289-305, 1994. DeLuchi, M.A. (1991) Emissions of Greenhouse Gases from the Use of Transportation Fuels and Electricity: Volume 1 Main Text.

Department of Energy: Argonne National Laboratory, Center for Transportation Research, Energy Systems Division. Becker, Gary, A Theory of the Allocation of Time - The economic journal, 1965 pp. 493-517.Australian Bureau of Transport and Communications (1992) Social Cost of Road Accidents in Australia, Economics Report 79, Australian Government Publishing Service, Canberra, Australia.

Miller, Ted (1992) The Costs of Highway Crashes, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA-RD-91-055). Jones-Lee, Michael The Value of Transport Safety.Oxford Review of Economic Policy, Vol. 2, Summer 1990 pp.39-60. Gillen, David (1990) The Management of Airport Noise, DWG Research Associates for Transport Development Centre, Transport Canada, July 1990.Levinson, David, David Gillen, and Adib Kanafani (1998). Transport Reviews 18:3 215-240.).Duvall, Tyler (2008) Treatment of the Economic Value of a Statistical Life in Departmental Analyses.

« Negative externalities ». Post navigation.

Even the legendary investing and speculating pros have failures and losses. The key is that all these people learned from what they did and modified their approaches going forward. Here are ten aspects of losses, either helping you minimize them or suggesting what to do if you have them.

Use stop-loss orders

“Have your profits run, but limit your losses.“ This age-old advice may be a cliché, but it’s the quintessential grand strategy.

In today’s marketplace, limiting your losses is easy to do thanks to technology. Considering how crazy and volatile the world is, the stop-loss order should be a ready weapon in your investing and speculating arsenal. The trick is knowing when to place a stop-loss order, how long it should be in effect, and how far to place the stop loss-order from the stock’s (or exchange-traded fund’s) market price.

You put a stop-loss order on a holding in your portfolio (such as a stock or ETF) to limit the downside risk of the holding without limiting the upside potential.

Employ trailing stops

The trailing stop is a stop-loss order that essentially trails the stock price like a giant tail as the stock price zigzags upward. The moment the stock reverses and falls, the trailing stop-loss order stays put at the most recent level it reached. When and if the stock does hit that stop-loss price level, the trailing stop turns into a market order and the stock will be sold. At that point, you’ve avoided further losses.

Go against the grain

When everybody and their uncle are ebullient about the stock market and the bulls-to-bears ratio is similar to the ratio of Red Sox fans to Yankees fans at Fenway Park, then it’s time to be a contrarian — a cautious one.

Starting to step away from a party that is overdue to end is a good way to avoid losses. Sure, you might miss a little more upside, but no one gets hurt taking a profit by selling or by using other loss-limiting strategies.

Have a hedging strategy

Having a hedging strategy after the crash is like closing the barn door after the horses escaped. The best time to consider a hedging strategy is before a major market reversal. A hedging strategy is basically knowing (and doing) what is necessary to preserve gains or simply to limit the downside.

A hedging strategy differs depending on the duration of the expected fall. For corrections, you consider hedging by buying put options, for example. For bear markets, you look to sell and be in cash.

Hold cash reserves

Opportunities happen constantly — risks show up to derail or delay the best plans — but the prepared investor always has cash on the sidelines. Some extra cash is like a secret weapon; it’s also a saving grace when your positions are down, and you need money for some unforeseen expense.

Sell and switch

When your stock is down, can you do a fancy two-step that can save you on taxes and set you up for a profitable rebound? Keep track of your unrealized gains and losses and see whether there are opportunities for tax benefits, given what is happening in your portfolio. Maybe you have an opportunity to sell a losing position in your portfolio to book a capital loss. Realized capital losses are generally tax-deductible (check with your tax advisor to be sure).

You can play the rebound in a variety of ways, but make sure that the tax loss makes sense in your situation and that you did your due diligence regarding the potential rebound of the stock or the sector it’s in. Discuss your personal tax situation with your tax advisor.

Diversify with alternatives

Keep in mind that as an investor, even if you have limited capital, you live in a time where there are many strategies and investment alternatives. When you have a stock in mind that you’ll be investing in, you should list or research the alternatives that could accompany or augment your investment choice and help you limit or even reverse a potential loss.

Using leveraged ETFs is a good example of this approach. A leveraged ETF is a speculative vehicle that seeks to emulate double or even triple the move of the underlying asset.

Leveraged ETFs are a form of speculating. They may magnify gains when you’re right, but they can magnify losses if you’re wrong.

Consider the zero-cost collar

You have a stock that has done well, but you’re worried. The stock may have some upside, but the downside risk seems to be growing. You don’t want to sell the stock because the gain is sizable (and taxable!), but the short term worries you. Can you protect your stock from a potential correction without needing to sell the stock?

Consider doing the zero-cost collar, a combination of writing a covered call and buying a put on the same stock (or ETF).

When you write a covered call, you receive income (from the premium you receive when you “write” or sell it); you can then use this income to buy the put. This combination is called a collar because it effectively boxes in, or collars, the stock price. Here’s how events may play out:

• If the stock goes down: The put that you bought comes into play. The put will increase in value the more the stock falls.

• If the stock goes up: You make a small profit on the stock when it’s sold at the strike price of the call option you wrote. But that’s it, because the covered call limits your upside; you can’t realize any gains above the strike price.

• If the stock moves in a flat or sideways manner: Both the call you wrote and the put you bought would expire. No worries, though. Your stock is okay, and because both positions were acquired as a zero-cost collar, no harm is done when they expire. The collar didn’t cost you, so there’s no real loss.

Try selling puts

Say you have a stock with a loss. You review the wreckage and see that the stock price may be down (negative!), but everything else about the underlying stock and its company are positive.

Suppose you have a stock that went from $50 per share and is wallowing in pain at, say, $25. Do you sell and take the loss, even though the company is really hunky-dory? Measure twice on this — is the stock price down only because investors left the sector entirely due to factors that are temporary and not fundamental to real value in the sector?

Say that the company is fine but you could use the loss for tax purposes (capital losses in your portfolio are generally deductible). So consider selling the stock and then writing a put option on the same stock. Why? When you sell the losing stock, you pick up the loss on your taxes. Also, because the stock is down sharply, the puts on it are probably “fat” (meaning they picked up lots of value due to the stock’s price drop).

Given that, write a put option on that stock; it will give you good income and you can lock in a good price because the put will require you to buy the stock at the lower price (the strike price in the put option). The bottom line is that you took a bad event (the stock’s fall) and turned it into something more positive.

Prepare your exit strategy

Stocks are meant to be a means to an end. You get stocks either for income or gains, maybe both. If you have a great stock and you’ve been getting great (and growing) dividends, year after year, then an exit strategy is either not a consideration or not a major concern. You develop an exit strategy for that type of holding in case you really need the money for a concern outside the realm of investing, such as funding college for your grandchild or buying that retirement home with all cash, no mortgage.

When will you exit your position with stock X? And why? What type of scenarios would make you sell that particular stock? Give exit strategy some thought before the need to sell materializes. Many investors think about an exit strategy even before they make the initial purchase.