So there is no material difference between receiving a piece of information and receiving ALL information
I don't see any such difference. Do you? If so, can you describe it — well enough to make it possible to outlaw one without outlawing the other?
What else should the government save? How about:
Anything else?
And the article also points out that one of those early Unix desktops "is still alive, well
...
My XFCE4-desktop is awesome, thank you very much. Last uptime was 386 days — and it only went down, because the video card's fan stopped working...
Firefox, Thunderbird, and Libreoffice have to be recompiled on occasion, but that's nothing compared to the forced biweekly reboots my corporate desktop is undergoing — running the OS, that is alleged to have "won"...
The government isn't paying a witness. It's buying information to find a crime.
Nonsense. Paid informants would often alert police to crimes, that cops didn't know about either.
linked to life experience
I'm not that old
Read the article that your link points too.
My link points to the story of one (in)famous paid informant. Christians — and all of the Founders were such — universally disapproved of the man, but the practice of paying such people for their aid to law-enforcement was not banned by them.
Exactly, as he said it was unimaginable that a private entity could harvest this information. Yes at great cost for one person, completely unimaginable to do it for the entire population, even the paper to write it down would have bankrupted them.
It was just as unimaginable for a government — any government — to amass it too.
Yet, the concept of using paid informants was known for millennia — and none of the Founders thought about forbidding their use.
Frankly, I don't see, how these nefarious "data-brokers" are different — in principle — from paid informants, whom law-enforcement has used, for better or worse, for millennia.
At the time of the constitution it was unimaginable that a private entity could harvest this information.
The concept of "private detective" existed for centuries.
If Sherlock Holmes (fictional) and Pinkerton (very real) could sniff out information, why couldn't the government then obtain it from them? Perry Mason wouldn't get anywhere without his trusty private detective agency — with office on the same floor as his own. Hired by the clients — who'd inevitably be falsely accused of murder — they had to share information with police on pain of losing their licenses. Such was already the state of affairs in the 1930-ies!
If today's technology existed back then and we followed the spirit of why the constitution was written I can guarantee that this would be illegal
Sounds like an attempt — an unconstitutional attempt — to ascribe to the Constitution, what is not there...
Finally, how is "buying information from data-brokers" different — in principle — from obtaining it from paid informants?
Unconstitutional activity is still unconstitutional even if the government pays a third party to do it.
Could you cite the part of the Constitution being violated here?
You cannot. The whole problem is that there is nothing illegal — much less unconstitutional — about it all.
It makes sense logically too — if a private dick can know it, why can't the government buy it from him?
Interesting phrase you used - "live and death"
I am reading light crime novels based on court investigation described in Chinese literature. In one of the stories the judge needs to investigate the "Examination building" in Canton - a building with a number of small cells where the candidate is locked in the morning with food, paper, ink and the exam questions. In the evening the results are collected.
The interesting thing was that the citizens were afraid to visit the building, because so many people kill themselves every year in desperation when they think they failed. So their ghosts are still roaming at night...
Passing the exam means secured career in the government administration. Failing the exam meant enormous public humiliation plus another year of study during which you bankrupt and burn yourself trying to get it right next time. So many, who failed the first time, preferred death.
That seems to me to be an effect of the system rather than some aspect of Chinese character. When the incentive structure is so harsh to those who failed. Take the exam or die. The crime story was from 7th century. Seems like a very old way of doing things; but then China loves the past and tradition.
"The WHO, which tightened its air quality guidelines in 2021, warns that no level of air pollution can be considered safe but has set upper limits for certain pollutants."
OK, I stopped reading here. Just like "There is no safe amount of animal protein". Or "No safe amount of ionizing radiation". Total nonsense....
The chemical compound pollution that comes from the exhaust of a modern day car is 98% less than what it came out in the 90-ies. Particulate's main source in a vehicle is the tires. The amount is exponential with weight. Also, in any modern urban environment transport is just about the smallest contributor to particle pollution.
All the above statements are the conclusions of a multi-year EU wide scientific project in which I played a small role.
YET:
1. The powers that be want to see 90% reduction in car ownership (Whaaaaat?)
2. Electric vehicles, which are WAY heavier are perfectly OK - no problem with particle generation there!
3. Synthetic fuels that are carbon neutral are an evil scam by greedy German auto corporations!!!!! - never mind that if the fuel is carbon neutral then you have zero extra investment in infrastructure, lighter cars (much less particles) and fully developed and matured scraping systems at the exhaust (see the 98% reduction).
Funny fact: One of the Chinese representatives in the project said that if China moves from Euro1 to Euro2 legislation, as they intend to do, for the exhaust gasses (We are introducing Euro7 here - the reduction of emissions between the issues is not linear but progressive) that would offset anything that the West can ever do for pollution. So, instead of wasting billions upon billions with constantly worsening ROI (diminishing returns) perhaps we can invest where we get the biggest bang for the buck....
You don't know much of biology, do you? God loves beetles, have you not heard that biology joke? It is because there are more species of beetles than just about anything else. Darwin commented on it; Terry Pratchett used it in one of his science popular books....
How does Canon does the lithography? I could not find that info.
The 10 times cheaper than ASML approach was the selling motto of electron beam lithography. At the end, e-beam lithography could not achieve the throughput necessary for a chip foundry. The technology was purchased by ASML and is now used as an online inspection tool.
If it is not e-beam, then it is EUV light. How does one created an EUV scanner at 1/10th of the price (while keeping industrially viable throughput) is beyond my extremely limited understanding. Anyone know? And that from a Japanese company! The Japanese a famous for perfection and attention to details but cheap they are not!
Everything but the simple solution that works - no carbs.
Gotta think about the insulin profits!
People will buy anything that's one to a customer.
