As I recall the story, yes. They also invented using it poorly.
The idea was pretty decent: name variables with what kind of data they held. Not in the "string vs. integer" sense, but where user-entered data would be markedly different from safe and sanity-checked data heading for a database. At a glance, a reviewer could tell that "safeString = unsafeString" is a security hole, and should be fixed.
Then another team (within Microsoft) got hold of the idea, thought it was great, and mandated its use on all variables, even where it didn't really make sense. That's where we get the tradition of silly things like strFoo and intBar.
You have the right to express any opinion you want, but you do not have a right to make others' lives worse with your speech. In essence, it's that simple.
Sure, you can write "FUCK" in 10-foot-tall letters on the side of your house, if you can explain the opinion being expressed.
Go ahead and rant about the federal government being too powerful, but expect that others will argue it's not powerful enough.
Proclaim loudly your support for extremist suicide bombers, but don't harass their victims.
This doesn't seem too difficult to me. Of course, you're welcome to express any differing opinion.
In terms of Microsoft's future, I certainly see them as competitors. Microsoft's innovation (and especially growth) has been practically stagnant over the past decade. Apple, on the other hand, is poised to take over the desktop market leveraging their huge mobile device market share. If Windows 8 (or whatever follows) doesn't hold consumers' loyalty to Microsoft, I expect to see a quick change in the market numbers as current Windows machines become obsolete.
On the other hand, Microsoft's lock-in in the business world is nearly complete. It's a royal pain in the ass to migrate entirely off a Windows system, so Microsoft has a steady market there. That's also right where Linux is making and can continue to make substantial growth, as startups and small businesses look for easy ways to just get a working business system running, so they can get on with their real work. Microsoft can solidify their market share by cleaning up their licensing mess (costs, limitations, and options, primarily) and Linux's outlook can improve with the help of tools like Webmin to make administration easier for GUI-loving and non-Unix folks.
That's how I see it, at least. I expect interesting times ahead.
It's measured in "changes", too... so I'm cynically assuming that Microsoft had to convert every variable to Hungarian notation, duplicate a few hundred functions, and add a glass-styled animated panel to the boot display.
There are many assumptions. The scientists are assuming that random samples are indicative of a population, all the contaminated water has mixed evenly, and that the animals sampled didn't just migrate south for the winter. They assume that their instruments function properly, that they're reading them correctly, and that all the cables are properly connected. They assume that there are no magical cleansing fairies underwater removing radiation from the fish before testing. They assume that the world will still exist and be populated tomorrow, so that people will care about the results.
Just to clarify a point here, because it's a pet peeve of mine...
Jury nullification is for when the law itself is unethical, not just when one application is unethical. If you have an ethical reason to break a law, that's mitigating circumstances, which can itself lead to a "not guilty" verdict, without bringing the issue of the law's legality into question (which almost always just makes a trial more complicated).
There are really rather few cases where nullification is a reasonable option, but the hivemind here seems to be obsessed with it as a panacea for unpopular laws.
Unfortunately, I will be unable to provide the assistance you desire, as I have some serious concerns regarding the engineering work that has already been done on the project, and I doubt the current estimates provide an accurate foundation for future work.
Firstly, there is the estimate of "a hour or less" to read a Slashdot post. While I have spent an hour reading a comment before, it was the proofreading of my own essay-length point-by-point rebuttal. The referenced post is obviously not nearly long enough or detailed enough to require an hour to read, so I see this as an intentional over-estimate, seeking to receive a larger donation of time than is actually needed.
Second, you seem to have greatly underestimated the size of a hydraulic pump in comparison to a horizontal plane. You ask for "an hand in finding an hydraulic pump that is in an horizontal plane". A plane, being two-dimensional, has exactly zero thickness, which is not sufficient to hold even an atom of a hydraulic pump.
Finally, you appear to for the power requirements of a helicopter. Helicopters can of course be designed to have any amount of available power, but that is not my concern here. Rather, I question the efficiency of your design, as the engine will need extra power to compensate for the added weight of the extraneous "n"s that appear to be attached to your "a"s.
I was under the impression that fuel to get to the moon isn't a major issue, if you can launch a few years before you need to be there. There's (almost) no friction to stop you...
I worked at a Big Data company. About 90% of my job was improving privacy while maintaining the integrity of medical data. The patient's zip code was reduced to 3 digits. Any references to states were removed and forgotten (because there are some zip codes that cross state lines). Any names were removed, as were any user-entered comments (doctor's notes, etc.) that might possibly contain personal information. Any personal information that is necessary for the system but might be identifiable is salted and hashed twice before it ever leaves the source (hospital, insurance provider, etc).
That in itself isn't good enough for privacy, so we then used some proprietary methods (that was kinda outside my job, so I don't know much about them) to intentionally screw up the data we provided to our users. A user could find out, for example, that between one and fifty people in the vicinity of Denver had a particular medical condition on a particular date, and received a particular drug. Narrow down results more than that, and my company's system simply wouldn't fulfill the request.
This isn't really the exception to how many Big Data companies treat their data. Believe it or not, Big Data providers take privacy seriously, and are willing to sacrifice perfect accuracy to run an ethical operation. Anyone interested in Big Data is running on statistics anyway, so statistically-insignificant methods are easy to preserve privacy.
TL;DR: You utterly missed the point of the example, and don't understand how the USPS functions. Your sources are even more egregious examples of cherry-picking.
Let's review the facts of a specifically-appropriate example. The USPS has turned a profit consistently with the exception of a huge Congress-mandated payout. Yes, there are customer complaints and lost packages. Yes, occasionally increasing efficiency means slowing down mail service to accommodate smoother routing. To look at any single quality as an indicator of success or failure, like the apparent deficit, list of complaints, or the delivery speed between two counties is as just as naive as claiming that all government is perfect all the time.
With that in mind, let's review a few specific points you make:
But you blame it on the same government that you want to run insurance?
Yes. It's also the same government that put a man on the moon, funds research, executes falsely-convicted prisoners, invades other countries, and does many other things, all under separate branches, each with distinct motivations, responsibilities, and management. There is no hypocrisy in seeing that the United States government can do two entirely separate things with two entirely separate branches and have two entirely separate outcomes. The USPS made a profit efficiently, and Congress added expenses.
And don't even get started saying that Healthcare is failing in the private sector.
Healthcare is failing in the private sector. The biggest issue is the cost of care. Doctors and nurses have to be paid, and supplies need to be refilled. Under the current entirely-private system, a hospital has no idea if an incoming patient will end up costing them millions of dollars that won't ever be repaid. To mitigate the risk of that gamble, rates for all services are raised to ensure that the hospital will break even on its expenses, and maybe even turn a profit.
Then, of course, there's the trouble of dealing with insurance companies. The mandated move to standard transports has done little to ease the pain of working with hundreds of providers, each of which has their particular system for handling claims. The proposed system allows (or at least did in one draft... I don't think the provision survived politics) hospitals to deal with a single endpoint, that will pass claims on to any providers involved.
Why is it that UPS and FedEx are doing so well? Is it because the USPS cannot deliver packages?
No, it's because UPS and FedEx provide a premium service for a premium price. As I recall from my days in manufacturing (which is several years ago), FedEx's handling is better, because they've made that a priority. UPS was faster for many places in the country, because they'd optimized their distribution for speed. They fill market needs that aren't in the USPS's priorities, just as private insurance providers could do under the proposed system. You could still get additional insurance to cover your car-racing accident injuries.
They delay. So let's push our healthcare under that same "efficient" system. Let's just say, "Hold on sir, we'll get you that heart... when we are damn well ready."
They also process almost every letter through an automatic sorter. I don't suggest processing human hearts through a sorting machine, and I don't suggest delays, either. The delay led to more cost-effective service, with little decline in quality. I'd expect an insurance provider (any insurance provider) to do the same: Provide a level of service that's adequate while minimizing costs. For example, don't cover elective surgeries that make my rates go up.
"...labor costs (53% of its expenses for UPS, 32% for FedEx compared with 80% with the USPS)"
I do, and I also mail letters with the US Postal Service, which is a nice example of how efficient a government organization can be without partisan politics interfering. While the price of gas has gone up about 300% in the past 20 years, the price of mailing a letter (the USPS's primary source of funding) has gone up a whopping 55%.
When government organizations are insulated from the whims of politics, they can be very efficient. A national healthcare plan, managed by HHS, would likely still suffer from the backstabbing of its next political opponent, but a good leader can reduce the impact of such backstabbing on the public. That's why there are so many "Secretary shall determine" clauses, to give the administrator the ability to work around the idiocy brought on by politics.
If an insurance company drops covering somebody, it's because they were a net loss, so without them the company sees more profit. They dared to use the insurance group for its intended purpose: combining the resources of a group to care for an individual who needs it - and that means they took money from the pool where the company draws its profits.
If the government cuts funding, the solution is to be more efficient - scale back the non-essential treatments covered, lay off administrators, and beg for help from hospitals. Everybody still gets the care they need.
That is the correct assumption, yes... I meant something along the lines of "lives improved and lowered death rates, and approval ratings, and local economic growth, and several other metrics generally unrelated to the Secretary's personal finances" but that didn't fit the structure as well.
The FBI's apparent flaunting of the law may indeed be a problem, but I won't be quick to judge. This story is full of so much sensationalism that I doubt the entire thing. Not so much doubt the factual content - I'm sure that in the truckloads of training material the FBI has, some is inaccurate and offensive - but I doubt there was any malice. Quotes are given without context, and assertions are made without support. There's just not enough evidence of willful wrongdoing to make me particularly outraged.
In my opinion, a good outcome for this situation is that the FBI goes through and reviews all of their training procedures for offensive and inaccurate content. Statements that aren't perfectly clear should be revised. State that bending the law requires a judge's approval, even if the paperwork isn't perfectly in order. Clarify appropriate greetings by culture. Don't just make blanket statements.
Similarly, other organizations should do the same review. Let this be a lesson to us all, rather than an embarrassment for one organization.
I totally agree about the "Secretary shall determine" bit, though... I'd much rather my insurance coverage is determined by an MBA who measures success in dollars rather than a government official whose success is measured in lives, yep.
Not so much with the shaking spear, but I did get in trouble when I tried to shake hands in Ghana. As both I and the person I met were carrying luggage in our right hands, I extended my left. The left hand is often used in lieu of toilet paper, so that's an insult. The man understood my mistake, and explained it to me, but I was much more aware of my left hand for the next few months.
All of which are incredibly hard to promote to people who are used to paying for things. Sure, nerds like us understand the technical qualities of free solutions, and accept them, but we aren't the majority. Managers want somebody to call 24/7 for tech support, and someone to blame when things break. Downloading an operating system from some random mirror in another country then purchasing support from a completely separate entity just doesn't make sense to traditional business folks.
Remember the push against Wikipedia when it first came out? It took several years and many studies of accuracy to find that it's just as good as any other encyclopedia, and teachers still often won't accept it.
Try telling a potential employer at an interview that though your degree is in liberal arts, you learned engineering from Khan Academy. I doubt you'll get too far with it.
Google employs over 32,000 people. Some of those old-school, sovereign nation-states (namely the Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, San Marino, and Palau) have fewer.
Considering the effects of a global economy, Google's business also affects the world more than many other countries who don't participate much in international trade.
Down syndrome is known to be completely a genetic disorder, though. Autism's full cause is not known. It's suspected to have a strong genetic component, but the correlation isn't strong enough to claim it's the only cause, and certainly not enough to justify genetic screening. Real Asperger's syndrome (as opposed to the far more common "I'm a little different so it must be a medical thing" syndrome) is also connected to certain genetic characteristics, but the connection is even weaker.
Autism's causes are complex and not fully known. Unfortunately, it's spent some time as the "disorder du jour", so it's commonly assumed that with so much publicity, it must be well understood. Sadly, that's simply not the case.
something as no-brainer as the menu down at the mess hall for the 'Lower 4's' and who's tending bar at the O-Club. Especially if it's the bartender schedule at the O-Club.
Of all the examples to pick, these make perfect examples of good things to keep secret (at least for a short while)
The meal being served at a particular time can be strategically important, if your goal is to disable a certain group of "Lower 4's" at a later particular time. The timed poisons from spy movies aren't entirely fiction, and could be used to affect a crucial mission, just by contaminating a particular food shipment. Rather like using a shotgun to drill a pilot hole, but it's a risk the military doesn't want to (or really need to) take.
Knowledge of who's tending bar is a more blatantly risky item. Threaten a bartender's family, and you could extort all kinds of information about officers' meetings, discussions, and thoughts.
They'll be detected by the ISP and disconnected due to "questionable activities", who will then be glad to upgrade you to a commercial-grade service for only $500/month, where the long-running connections and service-providing intent are allowed.
Slashdot Mirror
As I recall the story, yes. They also invented using it poorly.
The idea was pretty decent: name variables with what kind of data they held. Not in the "string vs. integer" sense, but where user-entered data would be markedly different from safe and sanity-checked data heading for a database. At a glance, a reviewer could tell that "safeString = unsafeString" is a security hole, and should be fixed.
Then another team (within Microsoft) got hold of the idea, thought it was great, and mandated its use on all variables, even where it didn't really make sense. That's where we get the tradition of silly things like strFoo and intBar.
You have the right to express any opinion you want, but you do not have a right to make others' lives worse with your speech. In essence, it's that simple.
Sure, you can write "FUCK" in 10-foot-tall letters on the side of your house, if you can explain the opinion being expressed.
Go ahead and rant about the federal government being too powerful, but expect that others will argue it's not powerful enough.
Proclaim loudly your support for extremist suicide bombers, but don't harass their victims.
This doesn't seem too difficult to me. Of course, you're welcome to express any differing opinion.
In terms of Microsoft's future, I certainly see them as competitors. Microsoft's innovation (and especially growth) has been practically stagnant over the past decade. Apple, on the other hand, is poised to take over the desktop market leveraging their huge mobile device market share. If Windows 8 (or whatever follows) doesn't hold consumers' loyalty to Microsoft, I expect to see a quick change in the market numbers as current Windows machines become obsolete.
On the other hand, Microsoft's lock-in in the business world is nearly complete. It's a royal pain in the ass to migrate entirely off a Windows system, so Microsoft has a steady market there. That's also right where Linux is making and can continue to make substantial growth, as startups and small businesses look for easy ways to just get a working business system running, so they can get on with their real work. Microsoft can solidify their market share by cleaning up their licensing mess (costs, limitations, and options, primarily) and Linux's outlook can improve with the help of tools like Webmin to make administration easier for GUI-loving and non-Unix folks.
That's how I see it, at least. I expect interesting times ahead.
It's measured in "changes", too... so I'm cynically assuming that Microsoft had to convert every variable to Hungarian notation, duplicate a few hundred functions, and add a glass-styled animated panel to the boot display.
Eating coconuts or breadfruit from Bikini Island occasionally would be no cause for concern. Eating many over a long period of time without having taken remedial measures, however, might result in radiation doses higher than internationally agreed safety levels.
It was recommended that Bikini Island should not be permanently resettled under the present radiological conditions. This recommendation was based on the assumption that persons resettling on the island would consume a diet of entirely locally produced food. The radiological data support that if a diet of this type were permitted, it could lead to an annual effective dose of about 15 mSv. This level was judged to require intervention of some type for radiation protection purposes.
Sounds like it's fine for a little while. If you'll pay for the trip and convince my boss to let me go, I'll gladly feast in your honor.
There are many assumptions. The scientists are assuming that random samples are indicative of a population, all the contaminated water has mixed evenly, and that the animals sampled didn't just migrate south for the winter. They assume that their instruments function properly, that they're reading them correctly, and that all the cables are properly connected. They assume that there are no magical cleansing fairies underwater removing radiation from the fish before testing. They assume that the world will still exist and be populated tomorrow, so that people will care about the results.
Many assumptions, and all reasonable. :)
Damnit... That should have been "...appear to be guessing for the..."
I'm not usually a grammar Nazi, but when I is I fail.
Just to clarify a point here, because it's a pet peeve of mine...
Jury nullification is for when the law itself is unethical, not just when one application is unethical. If you have an ethical reason to break a law, that's mitigating circumstances, which can itself lead to a "not guilty" verdict, without bringing the issue of the law's legality into question (which almost always just makes a trial more complicated).
There are really rather few cases where nullification is a reasonable option, but the hivemind here seems to be obsessed with it as a panacea for unpopular laws.
Dear Fellow Hacker,
Unfortunately, I will be unable to provide the assistance you desire, as I have some serious concerns regarding the engineering work that has already been done on the project, and I doubt the current estimates provide an accurate foundation for future work.
Firstly, there is the estimate of "a hour or less" to read a Slashdot post. While I have spent an hour reading a comment before, it was the proofreading of my own essay-length point-by-point rebuttal. The referenced post is obviously not nearly long enough or detailed enough to require an hour to read, so I see this as an intentional over-estimate, seeking to receive a larger donation of time than is actually needed.
Second, you seem to have greatly underestimated the size of a hydraulic pump in comparison to a horizontal plane. You ask for "an hand in finding an hydraulic pump that is in an horizontal plane". A plane, being two-dimensional, has exactly zero thickness, which is not sufficient to hold even an atom of a hydraulic pump.
Finally, you appear to for the power requirements of a helicopter. Helicopters can of course be designed to have any amount of available power, but that is not my concern here. Rather, I question the efficiency of your design, as the engine will need extra power to compensate for the added weight of the extraneous "n"s that appear to be attached to your "a"s.
Yours sincerely,
Grammar Nazi
No software project is ever "finished".
Notch was smart enough to recognize that, and has moved out of the main role developing Minecraft for quite a while now.
I was under the impression that fuel to get to the moon isn't a major issue, if you can launch a few years before you need to be there. There's (almost) no friction to stop you...
That's an absolutely unfounded concern.
I worked at a Big Data company. About 90% of my job was improving privacy while maintaining the integrity of medical data. The patient's zip code was reduced to 3 digits. Any references to states were removed and forgotten (because there are some zip codes that cross state lines). Any names were removed, as were any user-entered comments (doctor's notes, etc.) that might possibly contain personal information. Any personal information that is necessary for the system but might be identifiable is salted and hashed twice before it ever leaves the source (hospital, insurance provider, etc).
That in itself isn't good enough for privacy, so we then used some proprietary methods (that was kinda outside my job, so I don't know much about them) to intentionally screw up the data we provided to our users. A user could find out, for example, that between one and fifty people in the vicinity of Denver had a particular medical condition on a particular date, and received a particular drug. Narrow down results more than that, and my company's system simply wouldn't fulfill the request.
This isn't really the exception to how many Big Data companies treat their data. Believe it or not, Big Data providers take privacy seriously, and are willing to sacrifice perfect accuracy to run an ethical operation. Anyone interested in Big Data is running on statistics anyway, so statistically-insignificant methods are easy to preserve privacy.
TL;DR: You utterly missed the point of the example, and don't understand how the USPS functions. Your sources are even more egregious examples of cherry-picking.
Let's review the facts of a specifically-appropriate example. The USPS has turned a profit consistently with the exception of a huge Congress-mandated payout. Yes, there are customer complaints and lost packages. Yes, occasionally increasing efficiency means slowing down mail service to accommodate smoother routing. To look at any single quality as an indicator of success or failure, like the apparent deficit, list of complaints, or the delivery speed between two counties is as just as naive as claiming that all government is perfect all the time.
With that in mind, let's review a few specific points you make:
But you blame it on the same government that you want to run insurance?
Yes. It's also the same government that put a man on the moon, funds research, executes falsely-convicted prisoners, invades other countries, and does many other things, all under separate branches, each with distinct motivations, responsibilities, and management. There is no hypocrisy in seeing that the United States government can do two entirely separate things with two entirely separate branches and have two entirely separate outcomes. The USPS made a profit efficiently, and Congress added expenses.
And don't even get started saying that Healthcare is failing in the private sector.
Healthcare is failing in the private sector. The biggest issue is the cost of care. Doctors and nurses have to be paid, and supplies need to be refilled. Under the current entirely-private system, a hospital has no idea if an incoming patient will end up costing them millions of dollars that won't ever be repaid. To mitigate the risk of that gamble, rates for all services are raised to ensure that the hospital will break even on its expenses, and maybe even turn a profit.
Then, of course, there's the trouble of dealing with insurance companies. The mandated move to standard transports has done little to ease the pain of working with hundreds of providers, each of which has their particular system for handling claims. The proposed system allows (or at least did in one draft... I don't think the provision survived politics) hospitals to deal with a single endpoint, that will pass claims on to any providers involved.
Why is it that UPS and FedEx are doing so well? Is it because the USPS cannot deliver packages?
No, it's because UPS and FedEx provide a premium service for a premium price. As I recall from my days in manufacturing (which is several years ago), FedEx's handling is better, because they've made that a priority. UPS was faster for many places in the country, because they'd optimized their distribution for speed. They fill market needs that aren't in the USPS's priorities, just as private insurance providers could do under the proposed system. You could still get additional insurance to cover your car-racing accident injuries.
They delay. So let's push our healthcare under that same "efficient" system. Let's just say, "Hold on sir, we'll get you that heart... when we are damn well ready."
They also process almost every letter through an automatic sorter. I don't suggest processing human hearts through a sorting machine, and I don't suggest delays, either. The delay led to more cost-effective service, with little decline in quality. I'd expect an insurance provider (any insurance provider) to do the same: Provide a level of service that's adequate while minimizing costs. For example, don't cover elective surgeries that make my rates go up.
"...labor costs (53% of its expenses for UPS, 32% for FedEx compared with 80% with the USPS)"
That
I do, and I also mail letters with the US Postal Service, which is a nice example of how efficient a government organization can be without partisan politics interfering. While the price of gas has gone up about 300% in the past 20 years, the price of mailing a letter (the USPS's primary source of funding) has gone up a whopping 55%.
The USPS now faces a budget crisis because Congress dropped 75 years of employee benefit funding on the organization, due in a span of only 10 years. This was, of course, the result of Congress's politicking.
When government organizations are insulated from the whims of politics, they can be very efficient. A national healthcare plan, managed by HHS, would likely still suffer from the backstabbing of its next political opponent, but a good leader can reduce the impact of such backstabbing on the public. That's why there are so many "Secretary shall determine" clauses, to give the administrator the ability to work around the idiocy brought on by politics.
If an insurance company drops covering somebody, it's because they were a net loss, so without them the company sees more profit. They dared to use the insurance group for its intended purpose: combining the resources of a group to care for an individual who needs it - and that means they took money from the pool where the company draws its profits.
If the government cuts funding, the solution is to be more efficient - scale back the non-essential treatments covered, lay off administrators, and beg for help from hospitals. Everybody still gets the care they need.
Mozambique
That's in Mexico, right?
That is the correct assumption, yes... I meant something along the lines of "lives improved and lowered death rates, and approval ratings, and local economic growth, and several other metrics generally unrelated to the Secretary's personal finances" but that didn't fit the structure as well.
The FBI's apparent flaunting of the law may indeed be a problem, but I won't be quick to judge. This story is full of so much sensationalism that I doubt the entire thing. Not so much doubt the factual content - I'm sure that in the truckloads of training material the FBI has, some is inaccurate and offensive - but I doubt there was any malice. Quotes are given without context, and assertions are made without support. There's just not enough evidence of willful wrongdoing to make me particularly outraged.
In my opinion, a good outcome for this situation is that the FBI goes through and reviews all of their training procedures for offensive and inaccurate content. Statements that aren't perfectly clear should be revised. State that bending the law requires a judge's approval, even if the paperwork isn't perfectly in order. Clarify appropriate greetings by culture. Don't just make blanket statements.
Similarly, other organizations should do the same review. Let this be a lesson to us all, rather than an embarrassment for one organization.
Oh, is that the "revise broad plans to resolve budget problems as needed" panel?
I totally agree about the "Secretary shall determine" bit, though... I'd much rather my insurance coverage is determined by an MBA who measures success in dollars rather than a government official whose success is measured in lives, yep.
Not so much with the shaking spear, but I did get in trouble when I tried to shake hands in Ghana. As both I and the person I met were carrying luggage in our right hands, I extended my left. The left hand is often used in lieu of toilet paper, so that's an insult. The man understood my mistake, and explained it to me, but I was much more aware of my left hand for the next few months.
All of which are incredibly hard to promote to people who are used to paying for things. Sure, nerds like us understand the technical qualities of free solutions, and accept them, but we aren't the majority. Managers want somebody to call 24/7 for tech support, and someone to blame when things break. Downloading an operating system from some random mirror in another country then purchasing support from a completely separate entity just doesn't make sense to traditional business folks.
Remember the push against Wikipedia when it first came out? It took several years and many studies of accuracy to find that it's just as good as any other encyclopedia, and teachers still often won't accept it.
Try telling a potential employer at an interview that though your degree is in liberal arts, you learned engineering from Khan Academy. I doubt you'll get too far with it.
Google employs over 32,000 people. Some of those old-school, sovereign nation-states (namely the Vatican City, Tuvalu, Nauru, San Marino, and Palau) have fewer.
Considering the effects of a global economy, Google's business also affects the world more than many other countries who don't participate much in international trade.
Down syndrome is known to be completely a genetic disorder, though. Autism's full cause is not known. It's suspected to have a strong genetic component, but the correlation isn't strong enough to claim it's the only cause, and certainly not enough to justify genetic screening. Real Asperger's syndrome (as opposed to the far more common "I'm a little different so it must be a medical thing" syndrome) is also connected to certain genetic characteristics, but the connection is even weaker.
Autism's causes are complex and not fully known. Unfortunately, it's spent some time as the "disorder du jour", so it's commonly assumed that with so much publicity, it must be well understood. Sadly, that's simply not the case.
So let me get this straight... First you doubt a condition's existence, then make assumptions about its cause?
It's quite possible to eliminate HIV (if in fact it really does exist) via distribution of clean needles to drug users.
It's quite possible to eliminate osteoporosis (if in fact it really does exist) via enforcing a maximum age.
It's quite possible to eliminate gravity (if in fact it really does exist) via forgetting to fall.
I hope you're as sarcastic as I am.
something as no-brainer as the menu down at the mess hall for the 'Lower 4's' and who's tending bar at the O-Club. Especially if it's the bartender schedule at the O-Club.
Of all the examples to pick, these make perfect examples of good things to keep secret (at least for a short while)
The meal being served at a particular time can be strategically important, if your goal is to disable a certain group of "Lower 4's" at a later particular time. The timed poisons from spy movies aren't entirely fiction, and could be used to affect a crucial mission, just by contaminating a particular food shipment. Rather like using a shotgun to drill a pilot hole, but it's a risk the military doesn't want to (or really need to) take.
Knowledge of who's tending bar is a more blatantly risky item. Threaten a bartender's family, and you could extort all kinds of information about officers' meetings, discussions, and thoughts.
They'll be detected by the ISP and disconnected due to "questionable activities", who will then be glad to upgrade you to a commercial-grade service for only $500/month, where the long-running connections and service-providing intent are allowed.