well there are other laws (eg violations of certain statutes that some accuse clinton of breeching) but there is no per se morality test in terms of ideas. The latter is a fundamental pillar of separation of powers.
Thats not true. The reddit thread explicitly states what he wants to do is legally and ethically problematic. And it spells out why. "That is why the functionality doesn exist in exhcange" was the sort of end result of the larger logic here.
Yes the thread says that, but they are wrong. No lawyer in the world thinks that Microsoft Exchange is some sort of legal chain of custody or inviolable vault of perfect information.
The reason Exchange does not have the functionality to redact email address is that people who need to redact information usually prefer to do it by hand, so it would be a waste of Microsoft's time to build a utility to do it.
But to think that an Exchange DB can't be altered... I mean, if you have root on a machine you can do anything you want to the information on it. And yes, the legal world knows that.
Notwithstanding your good points about it not being fool-proof, it is an important point that your email software doesn't essentially promote or enable corruption of the meta data in the way you describe.
As a business person, nobody would [buy/use] exchange if it was not reasonably secure from an audit trail perspective. The intergrity of the communications is required for many business's who have record retention policy and what not.
Think about an analogy for a bank's accounting system that allowed audit trails to be compromised. Its a huge problem for the purchasing people and the managerial layer that has to sign off on sarbox etc.
Exchange by itself is absolutely not secure from an audit trail perspective[1]. I've specifically had this come up where an employee edited an e-mail to try and CYA.
Even if you are using journalling, an administrator can open the journal mailbox and edit messages. If you want/need a reasonably secure audit trail, you need a 3rd party product in addition to Exchange.
The combo of Active Directory + Exchange gives system administrators a lot of power to use permissions to limit who can alter or destroy critical data. But obviously someone has to be the master admin, and that person's power can't be limited by software.
Technological audit trails are trustworthy only to the extent that the admins running them are trusted.
Couple of points -- (1) Colin powell's leaked e-mails apparently called the meetings a circus and a sideshow but also placed blame at the feet of HRC for outcome of that episode. that last bit isn't always quoted in the media.
(2) The leak to the NYT about the server that broke this story appeared has been originated by the Obama administration. They were seeking to clip her wings as whispers about her policy differences with the Obama administration were circulating on Iran. Once HRC became such a sure thing she was inevitable as POTUS it would rended BSO an early lame duck, and on policy in the middle east where the two differ, would create issues for obama establishing a legacy. Obama now has the ability to pardon her (or in the actual turn of events, the Justice granted 'stonetear' limited immunity and killed a looming FBI indictment).
So both of these narratives play into a deeper and more complex game existing in DC than any sound bite or talking point proffered from a PR agency will attest.
Do you have a source for #2? It defies belief, why would Obama clip the wings of his likely democratic successor, knowing that a Republican presidential would endanger Obamacare and several other major achievements of his administration?
public policy variables are outside the market efficiency hypotheisis because. markets are therfore not efficient wrt to public policy in general. they only are efficient with repsect to a specificially dilineated (analytically tractavle) public policy context at a single points of time.
Market effeciency concepts have to do with incorporating information into a (well defined) market. Breaking the logic sequence of "well defined market", which can be done with trivial levels of "real world complexity", is problematic for EMH. This means you cant use EMH as a sort of backward logic to defend the status quo.
As to the concept of a market externality, I'm not sure I understand the question. If you just mean "uncaptured incentives", well surely there are myriads. But the bigger point is that this is not a simple solution. You cannot re-solve the maths as per a case of omitted variable bias.
The reason that this is so may be intuively grasped with an example. Let us posit that rent-seeking is a behavioral consequence of 'opportunistic' principals. And that rent seeking public policy architects are inevitable, because our politician is opportunistic (qua politician--behavioral assumption).
OK, but now I've just made mess for EMH, and this is why EMH has an 'H' in its name. Because general economic theory requires that we assume away several things we just introduced. And if you understand EMH you understand why having opportunistic, strongly authorized, unrestrained public policy makers is a problem. Namely, (1) they hold private information (outside emh); and (2) they are free to play zero-sum dynamic games with market participants; and (3) they can charge economic rents by implementing a 'protection racket' scheme whereby donor/lobbyists avoid (large) zero-sum losses by taking (smaller) zero-sum losses that benefit the policy holder (so called diversions).
Isn't this a straw man? These products are used in hostpitals everyday. Nobody doubts they are 'safe'in any meaningful sense. Otherwise they would need to be banned outright.
OCD people, and their kids, are a huge problem in society and should be dealt with, but this is not 'science based' public policy at all.
Its like asking someone to prove a negatve, which is absurd in many contexts. "why did something not happen" does not have a finite, knowable answer in the vast majority of contexts.
Not a straw man at all. Effectiveness should be simple to show and for safety they're not asking for perfect proof of safety just that it doesn't cause long term effects which is done a lot with animal studies. Hundreds of products go through FDA safety testing it's not some impossible test.
Also these aren't the same soaps used in hospitals. Hospital soaps are much harsher and use different chemicals.
"they're not asking for perfect proof of safety just that it doesn't cause long term effects which is done a lot with animal studies"
Lets hope its just one of those shitty translations of 'real science' being lost in translation when subjected to a journalist-friendly press release.
Theres 40 years of data using humans. Nobody doubts that dial sope or other similar soaps is safe in any meaningful sense. The science in this argument is being lost.
If these were legitimate tests they would have been done years ago and there would not be the various exemptions in this policy declaration.
I will insert the caveat here that I'm not a fan of everyday use of anti-bacterials. I also don't doubt that using anti-bacterials and prbably more importantly anti-biotics and various endocrine influencing chemicals and plastics with loose regard for the environment has negative impacts on society.
I think kids should eat dirt, assuming it's clean dirt, etc. They are made to handle the stuff that nature thows at them.
Does Nietzsche record the spreading of liberal views from academia to the greater mainstream and confirm liberal views were born in academia first and foremost?
nah, you're mis reading this. the issue is continuity. most people will never become successful because of hyper-competetion and the need for continuity (ie, being in the game). You don't see that many michael jordan career sabbaticals among the great athletes either. And obviously being a great athlete takes loads of work, but not each effort is the same contribution obviously either. But great athletes have a very short window to prove themselves as junior/early pro players, and 95%and fewer in the talen pool will never take a "sabbatical" from the NFL (or whatever league/sport) and get their job back with no questions asked...its cut throat enough as it is for a bench/roster seat.
Then, there are people who are so successful in terms of their brand and personal networks etc that they can dabble in and out of various projects at will. But that is not your typical junior partner or junior parent or early-career stage founder. At least not realistically.
This is actually news, and sort of important.
But the article above has 300 points.//?