He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
First of all, it's important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." What's more, while the president doesn't have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of "parole"), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best. From 8 USC section 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).
The odd thing is that Microsoft have being doing this since Win32
Post Win32 you had MFC which I spent a lot of time learning, only to eventually go back to Win32.
Then there was.Net, WinForms, Windows Presentation Framework/Avalon, Metro, Windows RT. Anyone who adopted one found it deprecated in a year or two. As Joel On Software put it
Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.
So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got.NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn.NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to.NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.
No developer with a day job has time to keep up with all the new development tools coming out of Redmond, if only because there are too many dang employees at Microsoft making development tools!
It has been speculated that perhaps the charger connector can't handle any more power and they wanted people who bought the original Surface to be able to use their chargers.
Apple have changed their charger port a fair few times - MagSafe 1, MagSafe 2 and now USB C and it's pretty clear that Surface is Microsoft's latest attempt at copying Apple's misfeatures in order to compete with them. Completely missing the point that people put up with Apple's misfeatures because want to run OS-X and Apple is the sole hardware vendor. It's not like anyone actually likes them.
I think they just decided to save a few bucks by not redesigning the connector so they could charge the battery in worst case power usage.
Hermann Göring had built up a power base that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters from the invasion of Poland in 1939. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Fritz Todt in 1942 saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient[99] leadership of Albert Speer. Due to state control, business had little entrepreneurial freedom[74] in a regime that has been described as "command-capitalism".[100] In place of ordinary profit incentives guiding the economy, financial investment was regulated as per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified; Nazi agencies replaced the profit motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[101] Generally, National Socialists had a history of hostility towards the business community, the profit motive, and "unearned income". The Viennese-born economist Peter Drucker examined this anti-capitalist disposition in his 1939 book The End of Economic Man, explaining that "profits are so completely subordinated in [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy to requirements of a militarily conceived national interest and of full employment that the maintenance of the profit principle is purely theoretical."[102] One German executive complained that when a businessman makes a "sale at a higher price" he could be "denounced as a 'profiteer' or 'saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence."[103] Rationing was introduced in 1939. Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war. They were ideologically opposed to women participating in the work force. The top personal income tax rate in 1941 was 13.7% in Germany, as opposed to 23.7% in Great Britain.[104] Less inclined to increase taxes on individual German citizens, the National Socialists plundered the wealth of Jewish citizens and the like, with much of the military effort being funded through plundering.
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!
Gregor Strasser, 1926
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.
Adolf Hitler, Spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930
We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Joseph Goebbels, 1933
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!
Joseph Goebbels, 1933
The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.
The common name ÊOumuamua was chosen by the Pan-STARRS team. The name is Hawaiian in origin ("Êou" means "reach out for", and "mua", with the second "mua" placing emphasis, means "first, in advance of"), and reflects the nature of the object as a "scout" or "messenger" from the past.[4] The first character is a Hawaiian Êokina, not an apostrophe.
I'd rather Google just dumbly indexed news sites and didn't try to do editorial control. The problem with labelling sites propaganda and de-indexing them is where would it end. You can actually make a case for de-indexing most news sites
teleSUR - communist state funded propaganda paid for by Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia
RT, Sputnik - Russian state channels, paid for by Kremlin. Knowingly pushes lies if they suit it
BBC, Guardian - Knowingly push lies if they suit London SJWs. Very biased on BREXIT.
CNN, NYT, Huffington Post - Knowingly push lies if they suit the US Democratic party. Very biased on Trump.
Fox - Knowingly pushes lies if it supports US Republican Party
Breitbart - Used to be an US Republican mouthpiece, was later described by Ben Shapiro as 'Trump's Pravda', now pushes Bannon's odd agenda of 'Trumpism without Trump'. Currently in a quixotic quest to save Roy Moore who Bannon backed but Trump failed to endorse from allegations of paedophilia which most people have concluded are probably not completely baseless. Increasingly hated by establishment Republicans for backing a flawed, unelectable outsider candidate against their man, Luther Strange who was also endorsed by Trump. Hate by all Democrats, who would probably shut it and Fox down if they could.
I.e. pretty much any news site you can find some story they've covered in a very biased way and ended up making fools of themselves. And the Tech Journalism sites are even worse than the normal news ones - everyone knows the people who write for them are bloggers who care even less about journalism than the people who write for 'proper' news sites.
No he didn't. He said the group averages were different for men and women but there was still a significant overlap. He makes it clear he's not saying 'all men are X and all women are not X'.
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
It's a bit like group differences in IQ. Just because group A has a higher IQ than group B it does not mean that all members of group B are dumber than all members of group A and that you should only hire members of group A and/or not hire members of group B even though progressives will always say anyone who mentions group differences in IQ is saying so because that would make them racist/sexist. What it does mean is that if you find you end up with more members of group A compared to group B that is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems like he's anticipated progressives calling him a sexist and that's why he included the section I quoted above. Not that it helped him. Progressives refused to link to his memo because it was sexist, and thus didn't need to admit he'd said it. This is obviously extremely intellectually dishonest.
Incidentally he points out that men and women don't have different IQs, though the variance of IQs is different - men are more spread out and women cluster more around the mean IQ. As he puts it, that means 'more male CEOs and geniuses, but also more homeless males and school dropouts'. I.e. if you're doing something to select for extreme low or extreme high IQs you tend to get more men.
And if you search for "conservative" you find four occurrences, all in this paragraph
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
He says Google should foster viewpoint diversity and that conservatives should feel like they can speak out without fear of negative career consequences. Ironically by firing him, Google proved this is not the case currently. He also suggests conservatives are good at 'drudgery and maintenance', which seems a bike Uriah Heep-ish.
Nowhere does he suggest 'affirmative action'. And right at the top in the tl;dr he says
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
I.e. he's definitely not suggesting Google should use affirmative action for conservatives or anyone else.
While SanDisk didn't release any details of the internals, it's pretty safe to assume that the 512GB Extreme PRO consists of 32 x 128Gbit (16GB) dies. The photo above is from SanDisk's 2014 Investor Day presentation where the company claimed that it has the technology for a 32-die SDXC card and with the Extreme PRO the technology has made it into the retail. Since SanDisk/Toshiba doesn't have a 256Gbit NAND die (nobody has one in mass production yet), the only way to achieve 512GB is through a 32-die stack. SanDisk hasn't specified whether the NAND is MLC or TLC, but given that it is a high-end product I'm guessing it is MLC based.
To boost capacity, SanDisk said in a statement that it had "developed an innovative proprietary technique that allows for 16 memory die to be vertically stacked," and each memory die is "shaved to be thinner than a strand of hair." The new card will be available exclusively through Amazon.com and BestBuy.com initially, and as a Class 10 SD card it offers minimum read and write speeds of 10 megabytes per second. This should be sufficient for recording 1080p video, according to the SD Association's speed ratings.
A funny thing is happening to the most basic building blocks of nearly all our devices. Microchips, which are usually thin and flat, are being stacked like pancakes.
Chip designers-now playing with depth, not just length and width-are discovering a variety of unexpected dividends in performance, power consumption and capabilities.
Without this technology, the Apple Watch wouldn't be possible. Nor would the most advanced solid-state memory from Samsung, artificial-intelligence systems from Nvidia and Google, or Sony's crazy-fast next-gen camera.
Think of this 3-D stacking as urban planning. Without it, you have sprawl-microchips spread across circuit boards, getting farther and farther apart as more components are needed. But once you start stacking chips, you get a silicon cityscape, with everything in closer proximity.
The advantage is simple physics: When electrons have to travel long distances through copper wires, it takes more power, produces heat and reduces bandwidth. Stacked chips are more efficient, run cooler and communicate across much shorter interconnections at lightning speed, says Greg Yeric, director of future silicon technology for ARM Research, part of microchip design firm ARM.
While the principles that underlie 3-D microchips are straightforward, making them is anything but. First proposed in the 1960s, the technology has sporadically appeared in high-end applications, such as military hardware, Mr. Yeric says.
But stacked-chip offerings from most major chipmakers-AMD, Intel, Apple, Samsung and Nvidia-plus smaller, specialized companies like Xilinx, have been around only five years or so, says Sinjin Dixon-Warren, an analyst at microchip research firm TechInsights. What changed? Engineers started running out of other ways to squeeze more performance out of microchips.
Stacked chips are frequently part of a "package" of other scrunched-together chips. In addition to saving space, this lets makers create many different chips-with different manufacturing processes-and then more or less literally glue them all together. The "3-D system in package" approach contrasts with the "system on a chip" approach frequently used in mobile phones, where all the different components of the phone are etched on a single piece of silicon.
One of the most advanced 3-D chip packages has powered the Apple Watch since its introduction, Mr. Dixon-Warren says. Thirty different chips are hermetically sealed inside a plastic envelope. To save space, memory is stacked on top of the logic circuit, he says. The watch couldn't be so compact without chip stacking.
But where Apple's chips are stacked only two stories high, Samsung has produced a veritable silicon high-rise. Samsung's V-NAND flash memory, used for storing data in phones, cameras and laptops, has 64 chips placed one atop the other. Samsung just announced that a future version will have 96 layers.
Nvidia's Volta microprocessors are built for artificial intelligence, with up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory stacked onto the GPU. Shown, Nvidia chips exhibited at the Computex show in Taipei in May.
Memory is a natural application for chip-stacking technology, since it solves a problem that has long plagued chip designers: Adding more cores to anything from an iPad to a supercomputer didn't translate to hoped-for speed gains because of the communications lag between logic circuits and the memory they need to do their jobs. Sticking memory right on top of chips allows for many more short connections between the two.
That's how Nvidia's built-for-AI Volta microprocessors work, says Brian Kelleher, the company's senior vice president of hardware engineering. By stacking up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory directly on top of the GPU, these chips are breaking records in processing efficiency.
"We are power-limited," says Mr. Kelleher, referring to the amount of
That's people talking pseudonymously on slashdot. If they wrote what they wrote here in an email to their boss or even on a website under their own names they'd be shitcanned from places like Google if the media talked about it.
As it was with Damore. According to the Guardian there was a lot of debate inside Google about his memo. Only when someone leaked it and the media started talking about it did they fire him.
In fact after he was fired people said that inside Google a majority of people agreed with him.
That's the most depressing thing about the whole SJW thing. Most people know that the ideas are wrong and that critics of those ideas are right. They also know that coming out and criticising them on the record is a bad move - they'll hounded by the media until their employer fires them. If they're a 'public intellectual' type they'll be assaulted by AntiFa who will also riot if they try to give a speech to try to bully institutions into no platforming them. If they upload videos, those videos will be de-monetized or deleted. If they post to Facebook, they'll get bans of increasingly length.
It's like the situation a friend of mine who grew up in Hungary described before the fall of Communism. Everyone just assumed that everything the Establishment - i.e. the government and its tame media - said was false to the point where 'if they said the sky was blue you'd assume it was pink until you checked'. Everyone also knew they'd face career ruin if they said this.
Which I think is the reason people downmod you. They see you as actively defending a pack of lies even in a pseudonymous forum instead of simply not challenging them in public for the good of your career like they do.
The Intel 80376, introduced January 16, 1989, was a variant of the Intel 80386SX intended for embedded systems. It differed from the 80386 in not supporting real mode (the processor booted directly into protected mode) and having no support for paging in the MMU. The 376 was available at 16 or 20 MHz.
Of course so long as the PC standard includes the Bios, such a chip can't be PC compatible. Actually the 376 is a perhaps a bad example because it didn't have an MMU. However suppose you had a legacy free x64 chip which booted up in long mode and didn't support real mode. Such a device would be able to run EFI. And since v86 mode isn't supported in long mode - the reason 64 bit Windows can't run Dos or Win16 applications whereas 32 bit Windows can - it would be possible to disable v86 mode too.
I'm not sure how you'd handle running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS - presumably a legacy free chip would either implement bits of the normal protected mode architecture - the GDT for example so it could distinguish 32 bit code segments from 64 bit ones - or it might have some sort of mode bit in a register to decide.
Or you could rip out 32 bit mode support too, and just handle it via JITting the code to 64 bit.
That's not actually what he said though. He said that 'the fact that software development is not 50% male, 50% female might be due to men and women on average having different preferences and not discrimination, and discriminating against men and in favour of women is not the best way to fix things'.
There are lots of areas which are female dominated. I'd oppose a system which rejected qualified women from getting into those and instead let in less qualified men.
And in general if group X is overrepresented and group Y is underrepresented in some profession I'd oppose quotas that discriminate against X and in favour of Y. That doesn't matter whether I'm a member of group X or group Y or neither. I think it's wrong in principle, regardless of whether it helps or hurts me personally.
"Nope, James Damore's Autism Is Not the Cause of His Misogyny"
He didn't say that, as they admit
"Now, let me start off this article by emphasizing something: it's the author of this Guardian article, not James Damore himself, who makes the harmful suggestion that Damore's infamous Google memo and subsequent doubling-down are somehow caused by his autism. This is yet another example of the harmful ways that our culture writes about autistic people - and how damaging that narrative can be."
So why pick that headline?
Secondly there's nothing misogynistic in his memo. He's not suggesting Google should not hire women coders for example. If you read the tl;dr you see this
* Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
* This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
* The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology. Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
* Differences in distributions of traits between men and women (and not "socially constructed oppression") may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
* Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
and he ends like this
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently. In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves. Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that. I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, p
Slashdot Mirror
He was talking about excluding non citizens from visiting the US. Non citizens have no right to enter the US, and the POTUS has a right to exclude them.
http://www.nationalreview.com/...
First of all, it's important to underline that Congress can exclude or admit any foreigner it wants, for any reason or no reason. Non-Americans have no constitutional right to travel to the United States and no constitutional due-process rights to challenge exclusion; as the Supreme Court has written multiple times, "Whatever the procedure authorized by Congress is, it is due process as far as an alien denied entry is concerned." What's more, while the president doesn't have the authority that Obama has claimed, to let in anyone he wants for any reason (under the guise of "parole"), he does have the statutory authority to keep anyone out, for any reason he thinks best. From 8 USC section 1182:
Whenever the President finds that the entry of any aliens or of any class of aliens into the United States would be detrimental to the interests of the United States, he may by proclamation, and for such period as he shall deem necessary, suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens as immigrants or nonimmigrants, or impose on the entry of aliens any restrictions he may deem to be appropriate (emphasis added).
They could put one of those normal PC laptop barrel connectors in as well and supply a 105W charger for that.
You can buy them in volume for like $10 each.
Excellent video
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
The odd thing is that Microsoft have being doing this since Win32
Post Win32 you had MFC which I spent a lot of time learning, only to eventually go back to Win32.
Then there was .Net, WinForms, Windows Presentation Framework/Avalon, Metro, Windows RT. Anyone who adopted one found it deprecated in a year or two. As Joel On Software put it
https://www.joelonsoftware.com...
Now Microsoft has so many developers cranking away that it's not enough to reinvent the entire Windows API: they have to reinvent it twice. At last year's PDC they preannounced the next major version of their operating system, codenamed Longhorn, which will contain, among other things, a completely new user interface API, codenamed Avalon, rebuilt from the ground up to take advantage of modern computers' fast display adapters and realtime 3D rendering. And if you're developing a Windows GUI app today using Microsoft's "official" latest-and-greatest Windows programming environment, WinForms, you're going to have to start over again in two years to support Longhorn and Avalon. Which explains why WinForms is completely stillborn. Hope you haven't invested too much in it. Jon Udell found a slide from Microsoft labelled "How Do I Pick Between Windows Forms and Avalon?" and asks, "Why do I have to pick between Windows Forms and Avalon?" A good question, and one to which he finds no great answer.
So you've got the Windows API, you've got VB, and now you've got .NET, in several language flavors, and don't get too attached to any of that, because we're making Avalon, you see, which will only run on the newest Microsoft operating system, which nobody will have for a loooong time. And personally I still haven't had time to learn .NET very deeply, and we haven't ported Fog Creek's two applications from classic ASP and Visual Basic 6.0 to .NET because there's no return on investment for us. None. It's just Fire and Motion as far as I'm concerned: Microsoft would love for me to stop adding new features to our bug tracking software and content management software and instead waste a few months porting it to another programming environment, something which will not benefit a single customer and therefore will not gain us one additional sale, and therefore which is a complete waste of several months, which is great for Microsoft, because they have content management software and bug tracking software, too, so they'd like nothing better than for me to waste time spinning cycles catching up with the flavor du jour, and then waste another year or two doing an Avalon version, too, while they add features to their own competitive software. Riiiight.
No developer with a day job has time to keep up with all the new development tools coming out of Redmond, if only because there are too many dang employees at Microsoft making development tools!
It has been speculated that perhaps the charger connector can't handle any more power and they wanted people who bought the original Surface to be able to use their chargers.
Thing is that makes no sense - it's not like the Surface devices sold all that well and neither did the Surface Book and if you're making something like a Surface device or a Macbook you shouldn't worry about back compatibility - the device only has to work with the charger it comes with.
Apple have changed their charger port a fair few times - MagSafe 1, MagSafe 2 and now USB C and it's pretty clear that Surface is Microsoft's latest attempt at copying Apple's misfeatures in order to compete with them. Completely missing the point that people put up with Apple's misfeatures because want to run OS-X and Apple is the sole hardware vendor. It's not like anyone actually likes them.
I think they just decided to save a few bucks by not redesigning the connector so they could charge the battery in worst case power usage.
The Nazis definitely weren't capitalists - they had a planned economy
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Hermann Göring had built up a power base that effectively controlled all German economic and production matters from the invasion of Poland in 1939. In 1942 the growing burdens of the war and the death of Fritz Todt in 1942 saw the economy move to a full war economy under the efficient[99] leadership of Albert Speer. Due to state control, business had little entrepreneurial freedom[74] in a regime that has been described as "command-capitalism".[100] In place of ordinary profit incentives guiding the economy, financial investment was regulated as per the needs of the state. The profit incentive for businessmen remained, but was greatly modified; Nazi agencies replaced the profit motive that automatically allocated investment, and the course of the economy.[101] Generally, National Socialists had a history of hostility towards the business community, the profit motive, and "unearned income". The Viennese-born economist Peter Drucker examined this anti-capitalist disposition in his 1939 book The End of Economic Man, explaining that "profits are so completely subordinated in [Nazi] Germany and [Fascist] Italy to requirements of a militarily conceived national interest and of full employment that the maintenance of the profit principle is purely theoretical."[102] One German executive complained that when a businessman makes a "sale at a higher price" he could be "denounced as a 'profiteer' or 'saboteur,' followed by a prison sentence."[103] Rationing was introduced in 1939. Britain immediately put their economy on a war footing, Germany resisted equivalent measures until later in the war. They were ideologically opposed to women participating in the work force. The top personal income tax rate in 1941 was 13.7% in Germany, as opposed to 23.7% in Great Britain.[104] Less inclined to increase taxes on individual German citizens, the National Socialists plundered the wealth of Jewish citizens and the like, with much of the military effort being funded through plundering.
What does the 'S' in NSDAP stand for?
We are Socialists, enemies, mortal enemies of the present capitalist economic system with its exploitation of the economically weak, with its injustice in wages, with its immoral evaluation of individuals according to wealth and money instead of responsibility and achievement, and we are determined under all circumstances to abolish this system! And with my inclination to practical action it seems obvious to me that we have to put a better, more just, more moral system in its place, one which, as it were, has arms and legs and better arms and legs than the present one!
Gregor Strasser, 1926
I am a Socialist, and a very different kind of Socialist from your rich friend, Count Reventlow. . . . What you understand by Socialism is nothing more than Marxism.
Adolf Hitler, Spoken to Otto Strasser, Berlin, May 21, 1930
We are socialists because we see in socialism, that is the union of all citizens, the only chance to maintain our racial inheritance and to regain our political freedom and renew our German state.
Joseph Goebbels, 1933
Socialism is the doctrine of liberation for the working class. It promotes the rise of the fourth class and its incorporation in the political organism of our Fatherland, and is inextricably bound to breaking the present slavery and the regaining of German freedom. Socialism therefore is not merely a matter of the oppressed class, but a matter for everyone, for freeing the German people from slavery is the goal of contemporary policy. Socialism gains its true form only through a total combat brotherhood with the forward-striving energies of a newly awakened nationalism. Without nationalism it is nothing, a phantom, a mere theory, a castle in the sky, a book. With it it is everything, the future, freedom, the Fatherland!
Joseph Goebbels, 1933
The sin of liberal thinking was to overlook socialism's nation-building strengths, thereby allowing its energies to go in anti-national directions. The sin of Marxism was to degrade socialism into a question of wages and the stomach, putting it in conflict with the state and its national existence. An understanding of both these facts leads us to a new sense of socialism, which sees its nature as nationalistic, state-building, liberating and constructive.
Joseph Goebbels, 1933
OOH WALLAH WALLAH
FTFY
https://www.youtube.com/watch?...
If God could write the bible in English and use only 7 bit ASCII characters, they should be enough for anyone.
You can't even write it on Slasdot
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The common name ÊOumuamua was chosen by the Pan-STARRS team. The name is Hawaiian in origin ("Êou" means "reach out for", and "mua", with the second "mua" placing emphasis, means "first, in advance of"), and reflects the nature of the object as a "scout" or "messenger" from the past.[4] The first character is a Hawaiian Êokina, not an apostrophe.
Seems quiche-eatery to me
The plot of Star Trek IV : The Voyage Home can be summed up as
[cetacean needed].
He's saying Google shouldn't fire them for speaking out. Not that it should have quotas and discriminate against non conservatives when hiring.
The editors are much too lazy to implement something like this in their 20 year old Perl abomination.
The text you've quoted doesn't call for 'affirmative action for conservatives'.
I'd rather Google just dumbly indexed news sites and didn't try to do editorial control. The problem with labelling sites propaganda and de-indexing them is where would it end. You can actually make a case for de-indexing most news sites
teleSUR - communist state funded propaganda paid for by Venezuela, Cuba, Ecuador, Nicaragua, Uruguay, and Bolivia
RT, Sputnik - Russian state channels, paid for by Kremlin. Knowingly pushes lies if they suit it
BBC, Guardian - Knowingly push lies if they suit London SJWs. Very biased on BREXIT.
CNN, NYT, Huffington Post - Knowingly push lies if they suit the US Democratic party. Very biased on Trump.
Fox - Knowingly pushes lies if it supports US Republican Party
Breitbart - Used to be an US Republican mouthpiece, was later described by Ben Shapiro as 'Trump's Pravda', now pushes Bannon's odd agenda of 'Trumpism without Trump'. Currently in a quixotic quest to save Roy Moore who Bannon backed but Trump failed to endorse from allegations of paedophilia which most people have concluded are probably not completely baseless. Increasingly hated by establishment Republicans for backing a flawed, unelectable outsider candidate against their man, Luther Strange who was also endorsed by Trump. Hate by all Democrats, who would probably shut it and Fox down if they could.
I.e. pretty much any news site you can find some story they've covered in a very biased way and ended up making fools of themselves. And the Tech Journalism sites are even worse than the normal news ones - everyone knows the people who write for them are bloggers who care even less about journalism than the people who write for 'proper' news sites.
I'm more libertarian than anything else. And I think Instacart is exploiting these people. I hope they get sued, the assholes.
No he didn't. He said the group averages were different for men and women but there was still a significant overlap. He makes it clear he's not saying 'all men are X and all women are not X'.
https://firedfortruth.com/
Note, I'm not saying that all men differ from all women in the following ways or that these differences are "just." I'm simply stating that the distribution of preferences and abilities of men and women differ in part due to biological causes and that these differences may explain why we don't see equal representation of women in tech and leadership. Many of these differences are small and there's significant overlap between men and women, so you can't say anything about an individual given these population level distributions.
It's a bit like group differences in IQ. Just because group A has a higher IQ than group B it does not mean that all members of group B are dumber than all members of group A and that you should only hire members of group A and/or not hire members of group B even though progressives will always say anyone who mentions group differences in IQ is saying so because that would make them racist/sexist. What it does mean is that if you find you end up with more members of group A compared to group B that is not necessarily evidence of discrimination. It seems like he's anticipated progressives calling him a sexist and that's why he included the section I quoted above. Not that it helped him. Progressives refused to link to his memo because it was sexist, and thus didn't need to admit he'd said it. This is obviously extremely intellectually dishonest.
Incidentally he points out that men and women don't have different IQs, though the variance of IQs is different - men are more spread out and women cluster more around the mean IQ. As he puts it, that means 'more male CEOs and geniuses, but also more homeless males and school dropouts'. I.e. if you're doing something to select for extreme low or extreme high IQs you tend to get more men.
And if you search for "conservative" you find four occurrences, all in this paragraph
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
He says Google should foster viewpoint diversity and that conservatives should feel like they can speak out without fear of negative career consequences. Ironically by firing him, Google proved this is not the case currently. He also suggests conservatives are good at 'drudgery and maintenance', which seems a bike Uriah Heep-ish.
Nowhere does he suggest 'affirmative action'. And right at the top in the tl;dr he says
Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
I.e. he's definitely not suggesting Google should use affirmative action for conservatives or anyone else.
Mobile SOCs have been stacked package on package for ages.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Apple A8 is a package on package (PoP) 64-bit system-on-a-chip (SoC) designed by Apple and manufactured by TSMC.
Package on Package, as the name suggests, is stacking packaged chips. There's a good diagram here
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Something like a MicroSDXC chip is bare dies stacked together. Good photo of the die stack.
https://www.anandtech.com/show...
While SanDisk didn't release any details of the internals, it's pretty safe to assume that the 512GB Extreme PRO consists of 32 x 128Gbit (16GB) dies. The photo above is from SanDisk's 2014 Investor Day presentation where the company claimed that it has the technology for a 32-die SDXC card and with the Extreme PRO the technology has made it into the retail. Since SanDisk/Toshiba doesn't have a 256Gbit NAND die (nobody has one in mass production yet), the only way to achieve 512GB is through a 32-die stack. SanDisk hasn't specified whether the NAND is MLC or TLC, but given that it is a high-end product I'm guessing it is MLC based.
NAND flash chips do it too
https://www.pcper.com/reviews/...
This prototype Toshiba flash part has 16 (!) layers of 32 Gbit 34nm flash, adding up to a whopping 64GB in a single package.
Even the humble MicroSDXC card uses 16 stacked dies. And have done since 2014
https://arstechnica.com/gadget...
To boost capacity, SanDisk said in a statement that it had "developed an innovative proprietary technique that allows for 16 memory die to be vertically stacked," and each memory die is "shaved to be thinner than a strand of hair." The new card will be available exclusively through Amazon.com and BestBuy.com initially, and as a Class 10 SD card it offers minimum read and write speeds of 10 megabytes per second. This should be sufficient for recording 1080p video, according to the SD Association's speed ratings.
https://archive.fo/Af3EZ
By Christopher Mims
Nov. 19, 2017 9:00 a.m. ET
A funny thing is happening to the most basic building blocks of nearly all our devices. Microchips, which are usually thin and flat, are being stacked like pancakes.
Chip designers-now playing with depth, not just length and width-are discovering a variety of unexpected dividends in performance, power consumption and capabilities.
Without this technology, the Apple Watch wouldn't be possible. Nor would the most advanced solid-state memory from Samsung, artificial-intelligence systems from Nvidia and Google, or Sony's crazy-fast next-gen camera.
Think of this 3-D stacking as urban planning. Without it, you have sprawl-microchips spread across circuit boards, getting farther and farther apart as more components are needed. But once you start stacking chips, you get a silicon cityscape, with everything in closer proximity.
The advantage is simple physics: When electrons have to travel long distances through copper wires, it takes more power, produces heat and reduces bandwidth. Stacked chips are more efficient, run cooler and communicate across much shorter interconnections at lightning speed, says Greg Yeric, director of future silicon technology for ARM Research, part of microchip design firm ARM.
While the principles that underlie 3-D microchips are straightforward, making them is anything but. First proposed in the 1960s, the technology has sporadically appeared in high-end applications, such as military hardware, Mr. Yeric says.
But stacked-chip offerings from most major chipmakers-AMD, Intel, Apple, Samsung and Nvidia-plus smaller, specialized companies like Xilinx, have been around only five years or so, says Sinjin Dixon-Warren, an analyst at microchip research firm TechInsights. What changed? Engineers started running out of other ways to squeeze more performance out of microchips.
Stacked chips are frequently part of a "package" of other scrunched-together chips. In addition to saving space, this lets makers create many different chips-with different manufacturing processes-and then more or less literally glue them all together. The "3-D system in package" approach contrasts with the "system on a chip" approach frequently used in mobile phones, where all the different components of the phone are etched on a single piece of silicon.
One of the most advanced 3-D chip packages has powered the Apple Watch since its introduction, Mr. Dixon-Warren says. Thirty different chips are hermetically sealed inside a plastic envelope. To save space, memory is stacked on top of the logic circuit, he says. The watch couldn't be so compact without chip stacking.
But where Apple's chips are stacked only two stories high, Samsung has produced a veritable silicon high-rise. Samsung's V-NAND flash memory, used for storing data in phones, cameras and laptops, has 64 chips placed one atop the other. Samsung just announced that a future version will have 96 layers.
Nvidia's Volta microprocessors are built for artificial intelligence, with up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory stacked onto the GPU. Shown, Nvidia chips exhibited at the Computex show in Taipei in May.
Memory is a natural application for chip-stacking technology, since it solves a problem that has long plagued chip designers: Adding more cores to anything from an iPad to a supercomputer didn't translate to hoped-for speed gains because of the communications lag between logic circuits and the memory they need to do their jobs. Sticking memory right on top of chips allows for many more short connections between the two.
That's how Nvidia's built-for-AI Volta microprocessors work, says Brian Kelleher, the company's senior vice president of hardware engineering. By stacking up to eight layers of high-bandwidth memory directly on top of the GPU, these chips are breaking records in processing efficiency.
"We are power-limited," says Mr. Kelleher, referring to the amount of
That's people talking pseudonymously on slashdot. If they wrote what they wrote here in an email to their boss or even on a website under their own names they'd be shitcanned from places like Google if the media talked about it.
As it was with Damore. According to the Guardian there was a lot of debate inside Google about his memo. Only when someone leaked it and the media started talking about it did they fire him.
In fact after he was fired people said that inside Google a majority of people agreed with him.
That's the most depressing thing about the whole SJW thing. Most people know that the ideas are wrong and that critics of those ideas are right. They also know that coming out and criticising them on the record is a bad move - they'll hounded by the media until their employer fires them. If they're a 'public intellectual' type they'll be assaulted by AntiFa who will also riot if they try to give a speech to try to bully institutions into no platforming them. If they upload videos, those videos will be de-monetized or deleted. If they post to Facebook, they'll get bans of increasingly length.
It's like the situation a friend of mine who grew up in Hungary described before the fall of Communism. Everyone just assumed that everything the Establishment - i.e. the government and its tame media - said was false to the point where 'if they said the sky was blue you'd assume it was pink until you checked'. Everyone also knew they'd face career ruin if they said this.
Which I think is the reason people downmod you. They see you as actively defending a pack of lies even in a pseudonymous forum instead of simply not challenging them in public for the good of your career like they do.
My understanding is that with EFI, the processor never enters real mode, and initializes directly in protected mode.
All current x86/x64 chips start in real mode. So EFI has to make a switch to protected mode with long mode enabled.
However Intel has sold chips which boot up in protected mode in the past. E.g.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
The Intel 80376, introduced January 16, 1989, was a variant of the Intel 80386SX intended for embedded systems. It differed from the 80386 in not supporting real mode (the processor booted directly into protected mode) and having no support for paging in the MMU. The 376 was available at 16 or 20 MHz.
Of course so long as the PC standard includes the Bios, such a chip can't be PC compatible. Actually the 376 is a perhaps a bad example because it didn't have an MMU. However suppose you had a legacy free x64 chip which booted up in long mode and didn't support real mode. Such a device would be able to run EFI. And since v86 mode isn't supported in long mode - the reason 64 bit Windows can't run Dos or Win16 applications whereas 32 bit Windows can - it would be possible to disable v86 mode too.
I'm not sure how you'd handle running 32 bit applications on a 64 bit OS - presumably a legacy free chip would either implement bits of the normal protected mode architecture - the GDT for example so it could distinguish 32 bit code segments from 64 bit ones - or it might have some sort of mode bit in a register to decide.
Or you could rip out 32 bit mode support too, and just handle it via JITting the code to 64 bit.
That's not actually what he said though. He said that 'the fact that software development is not 50% male, 50% female might be due to men and women on average having different preferences and not discrimination, and discriminating against men and in favour of women is not the best way to fix things'.
There are lots of areas which are female dominated. I'd oppose a system which rejected qualified women from getting into those and instead let in less qualified men.
And in general if group X is overrepresented and group Y is underrepresented in some profession I'd oppose quotas that discriminate against X and in favour of Y. That doesn't matter whether I'm a member of group X or group Y or neither. I think it's wrong in principle, regardless of whether it helps or hurts me personally.
Well look at the title
"Nope, James Damore's Autism Is Not the Cause of His Misogyny"
He didn't say that, as they admit
"Now, let me start off this article by emphasizing something: it's the author of this Guardian article, not James Damore himself, who makes the harmful suggestion that Damore's infamous Google memo and subsequent doubling-down are somehow caused by his autism. This is yet another example of the harmful ways that our culture writes about autistic people - and how damaging that narrative can be."
So why pick that headline?
Secondly there's nothing misogynistic in his memo. He's not suggesting Google should not hire women coders for example. If you read the tl;dr you see this
https://firedfortruth.com/
TL;DR
* Google's political bias has equated the freedom from offense with psychological safety, but shaming into silence is the antithesis of psychological safety.
* This silencing has created an ideological echo chamber where some ideas are too sacred to be honestly discussed.
* The lack of discussion fosters the most extreme and authoritarian elements of this ideology.
Extreme: all disparities in representation are due to oppression
Authoritarian: we should discriminate to correct for this oppression
* Differences in distributions of traits between men and women (and not "socially constructed oppression") may in part explain why we don't have 50% representation of women in tech and leadership.
* Discrimination to reach equal representation is unfair, divisive, and bad for business.
and he ends like this
Suggestions
I hope it's clear that I'm not saying that diversity is bad, that Google or society is 100% fair, that we shouldn't try to correct for existing biases, or that minorities have the same experience of those in the majority. My larger point is that we have an intolerance for ideas and evidence that don't fit a certain ideology. I'm also not saying that we should restrict people to certain gender roles; I'm advocating for quite the opposite: treat people as individuals, not as just another member of their group (tribalism).
My concrete suggestions are to:
De-moralize diversity.
As soon as we start to moralize an issue, we stop thinking about it in terms of costs and benefits, dismiss anyone that disagrees as immoral, and harshly punish those we see as villains to protect the "victims."
Stop alienating conservatives.
Viewpoint diversity is arguably the most important type of diversity and political orientation is one of the most fundamental and significant ways in which people view things differently.
In highly progressive environments, conservatives are a minority that feel like they need to stay in the closet to avoid open hostility. We should empower those with different ideologies to be able to express themselves.
Alienating conservatives is both non-inclusive and generally bad business because conservatives tend to be higher in conscientiousness, which is required for much of the drudgery and maintenance work characteristic of a mature company.
Confront Google's biases.
I've mostly concentrated on how our biases cloud our thinking about diversity and inclusion, but our moral biases are farther reaching than that.
I would start by breaking down Googlegeist scores by political orientation to give a fuller picture into how our biases are affecting our culture.
Stop restricting programs and classes to certain genders or races.
These discriminatory practices are both unfair and divisive. Instead focus on some of the non-discriminatory practices I outlined.
Have an open and honest discussion about the costs and benefits of our diversity programs.
Discriminating just to increase the representation of women in tech is as misguided and biased as mandating increases for women's representation in the homeless, work-related and violent deaths, p