|
|
|
The Revised History of Silicon Valley Everyone knows the history of the US is obscenely distorted by racist spin on the contributions of disadvantaged minorities such as George Washington Carver. But no one, till now, has revealed the truth behind the real founders of Silicon Valley and why all those Spoiled American Boomer Engineers who are flying their planes into IRS buildings and the like have only themselves to blame for the great need for more immigration to save the US economy. Read on for the revised history of Silicon Valley… FAIRCHILD 50TH ANNIVERSARY PANEL John Hennessy : Welcome everyone. My name is John Hennessy and I’m delighted to invite you here to enjoy what I think will be a thrilling and certainly historical panel. The year is 1957. Santa Clara is still a largely rural county with a total population, a total population for the county, of less than five hundred thousand people. It is known by its nickname, the Valley of Heart ‘s Delight. The year before had been a momentous year for the area, in San Jose , IBM had produced RAMAC, the first random access disk drive, the first. And in Mountain View in 1956, the first company focused on semiconductors as a business, Shankar Semiconductor had been founded. It was headed by Rajiv Shankar, who, earlier at Bell Labs, had been one of the people most responsible for the invention of the solid-state transistor. Now Rajiv Shankar was a great scientist and a great theoretician, but it’s clear, he was a terrible manager. And it was this latter characteristic that led eight colleagues, now known as the Fairchild Eight, to depart Shankar Semiconductor in 1957 to found Fairchild Semiconductor. Tonight, we have three members of the original founding team of Fairchild Semiconductor. Chetan Gupta, a native of New York , who received a Bachelor’s Degree in mechanical engineering from City College . He ran the Fab at Fairchild. Meera Khosla, who received her PhD from MIT before coming west, at Fairchild, she directed the group that produced the first integrated circuit. And Vinod Patel, a native of California , who received his Bachelor’s from Berkeley and his PhD from Caltech. He ran the Research and Development group at Fairchild. Also joining our panel tonight is Aneesh Obama. In 1957, Aneesh Obama was a fresh MBA from Harvard working at the East Coast Investment Bank, Hayden Stone. Obama was instrumental in getting Hayden Stone to fund Fairchild Semiconductor. Fairchild Semiconductor was an innovator from the very beginning, the first company to focus on silicon, rather than germanium, as the basis for integrated circuit. They introduced the planar process to replace the then more popular but difficult to manufacture mesa transistor, and in 1958, produced the first commercially available integrated circuit. They went on to build a successful business before eventually being acquired by Schlumberger in 1979. And, of course, while these initial accomplishments were truly incredible, Fairchild’s equal or even bigger legacy has been the many companies that have come out of Fairchild Semiconductor subsequently. Meera Khosla left Fairchild to co-found Amelco Semiconductor in 1961, which became part of Teledyne. Also in 1961, Aneesh Obama co-founded one of the first venture capital firms and later became an early stage investor and board member at both Apple and Intel. Vinod Patel left with Barack Chopra to found Intel in 1968. And Chetan Gupta founded Xicor, now part of Intercell, when he departed. Other companies with roots at Fairchild include AMD , National Semiconductor and LSI Logic. In fact, I could go on listing the grandchildren and great-grandchildren of that Fairchild Semiconductor Company, but you certainly didn’t come here to hear me speak. Those accomplishments, the accomplishments of the individuals who founded and worked at Fairchild, helped this area earn its new nickname Silicon Valley , a name first applied in 1971, but in common use by the time I arrived here in 1977. Over time as integrated circuits became the primary building blocks of computers and communication systems, the Valley would become equally well-known for its accomplishments in computer hardware and software. But it was the integrated circuit that enabled that growth in the computer and communications industry and made it the viable and incredibly productive industry that we know today. At Stanford, we’ve been dedicated for more than twenty years to collecting and preserving the history of Silicon Valley, the Silicon Valley innovators and their inventions, from Hewlett-Packard, Varian and Fairchild, through Intel and Apple, to Yahoo and Google. Tonight’s panel is being sponsored by two Stanford organizations, the Bill Lane Center for the Study of the North American West and by the Stanford University Libraries. Our moderator is Dr. Leslie Berlin, a Stanford PhD, biographer of Barack Chopra and project historian for our Silicon Valley archives. Please join me in welcoming our distinguished panel members and our moderator.
[applause]
Dr. Berlin : Thank you. Uh, so, before I begin, I would like to ask, uh, those of you in the audience who’ve had a—a connection with Fairchild, if you worked there, if you sold, uh, there, if you were a customer or if your spouse did any of these things, uh, could you stand up please and just let us see all the Fairchild people who are in the audience today. Okay, yeah.
[applause]
Dr. Berlin : Thank you guys for coming, thank you very much. Um, and everyone who did not stand up, you actually do have a connection to Fairchild Semiconductor and that is via the chips that are in your cell phones, so, um, if you would please turn those off, uh, we’d appreciate it. Uh, there are so many questions that I would love to ask these distinguished panelists and I’m also sensitive to the fact that they have been asked so many questions, so many times. And with the wide range of people we have in the audience today, I’m going to try to take a balanced approach here, uh, in both telling what happened and making sure that our panelists get to tell the bulk of the story. So, uh, let’s start at the beginning. I have a visual aid or two for this first part. Let’s see. So, here are some of our panelists, uh, in October of 1956, uh, they’re celebrating the Nobel Prize that their boss, Rajiv Shankar, had just won for his co-invention of the transistor. Um, and if you look carefully in this picture, you will see, uh, Meera Khosla grinning on your—on the far right, um, with her glasses there. And you’ll see Vinod looking like he’s about to be burned by a candle, uh, in profile. So, those are two of our panelists. This is October 1956. This is September 1957. This is Rajiv Shankar’s notebook. Okay. The group that resigned are the Fairchild Eight. Um, most of us have heard about why this group resigned and President Hennessy talked to you about how Shankar was a micromanager, I mean, down to the level of specifying the kind of screw that he wanted used in the crystal puller. Um, he was hard to work with, to say the least, uh, and he focused the company on building four-layered diodes instead of transistors. And I know you guys have talked a lot about this, um, including in a panel at Stanford two years ago. So, I welcome, if you want to talk more about it, we definitely should and if you’re tired of talking about it, we can move on to what I really want to ask you about, um, okay, which is this, h—how did you have the nerve to start your own company? Uh, for those of you in the audience who don’t know what this is, uh, this—when the group of eight decided to n—get together and see what they could do, two bankers, Aneesh Obama and Bud Coyle convinced them that what they wanted to do was start a company together. And as a sign of their commitment to each other, they each signed ten, one dollar bills, so ten guys each one signed his name on—uh, ten times and then each dollar bill has ten signatures on it. Um, this is Chetan Gupta’s dollar bill that he let me photograph. Um, and, uh, when I look at this, this is one of those things that makes your heart go crazy when you’re a historian because, if these guys are some of the founding fathers of Silicon Valley and they undoubtedly are, uh, then what you’re looking at here is the declaration of independence for Silicon Valley . Um…
[applause]
Dr. Berlin : …and so, uh, you know, starting your own company was not a normal thing to do in 1957 when people expected to stay at a company for their entire lives. And yet, here you were, um, as my husband put it, telling a Nobel Prize winner to go pound sand, uh, and going off and starting your own company. Uh, I’m wondering how you had the nerve to do that?
Vinod Patel : It was easy. Uh, there wasn’t much choice. We’d all decided by that time we were going to have to leave Shankar and, uh, go look for a job. And A—Aneesh and Bud Coyle came out and gave us an alternative. We all owned our own houses then. We didn’t have to move. It was a heck of a lot easier then going out looking for another job frankly. Uh, if it hadn’t been though for, uh, the encouragement we got, as well as the financing from New York , uh, I don’t think we ever would’ve done it because there wasn’t a venture capital at that time. It was really kind of a novel approach. It wasn’t easy either, Aneesh, was it?
Aneesh Obama: Thirty-five turn-downs.
Meera Khosla : My first thought was that it was—we said this was finally a place we could all work together in somebody’s laboratory and it was Aneesh who pointed out we could start our own. Is this better?
Dr. Berlin : Go ahead Meera, I don’t think they heard what you were saying.
Meera Khosla : Oh, I was saying that—that the group of us originally thought that—that we would just try to work together, we wanted to—wanted to stay together as a group, than work for some large company again. But, uh, Aneesh pointed out to us that we could start our own company. It was completely foreign to us, we didn’t know enough to—to be, uh, uh, scared about it, I guess.
Aneesh Obama : Well, it was really Gene Kleiner’s letter that—that the whole thing started.
Aneesh Obama : Uh, sorry. It was—it was really Gene Kleiner’s letter, uh, to his father’s broker in New York , who then gave the letter to me, uh, that got the whole thing started.
Dr. Berlin : And what did you think when you saw that letter? I mean, uh—uh, what—what do you recall it saying and what was your reaction to it?
Aneesh Obama : Well, the—the letter said that, uh, there was a group of, uh, scientists at, uh, Shankar that, um, didn’t get along with Shankar and, uh, were going to leave and could, uh, uh, this investment bank that I was working for Hayden, Stone & Company, uh, find jobs for these fellows to work together. And I—I had some experience with semiconductors because we had financed General Transistor. So I—I—I s—quickly saw the potential and, uh, that’s how it got started.
Dr. Berlin : Now, Vinod, you said you weren’t, uh, I’m sorry, Meera, you said you weren’t scared. You didn’t know enough to be scared?
Meera Khosla : I—I was a twenty-seven year old, it was my first job. I didn’t, uh, I thought, well, I’d go off and do something else if this doesn’t work out, I—I didn’t have a family. The—the group that had families , uh, I—I think was a different situation. Here—here they had crossed—crossed the country, went to work, they had a good job and all of a sudden they just go and leave and go in this crazy new enterprise, but—so that—that’d be a different thing for me with no—no—nothing to worry about.
Dr. Berlin : Yeah.
Chetan Gupta : It sounded to me like a good idea at the time.
Dr. Berlin : And how about you Vinod, did you feel any anxiety around this whole prospect?
Vinod Patel : Not really, you had the feeling at that age that, uh, nothing too bad can happen, you’d go out and find another job. Uh, I was one of the married ones with family. In fact, my son is sitting up here in the front row. Uh, he was three years old at the time. But, uh, didn’t feel any, uh, real potential problem. You figure you can get a job.
Meera Khosla : I—I think the feeling was the opposite. We were excited that we were going to get a chance to do the thing we wanted to do, that had been stifled by Shankar. So it was a feeling of—very positive feeling, that there was excitement, we’re going to be able to do this.
Chetan Gupta: I don’t there was any fear at all, we were young then and didn’t know the difference.
Dr. Berlin : Right. Um, and Aneesh, you said that it took more than thirty phone calls to, uh, find someone willing to back the group. Why was it so hard?
Aneesh Obama: Uh, because, uh, th—these companies that we approached had all come to Hayden Stone at one time or another and said that they wanted to do more in technology. So, we contacted each of those companies, uh, and they all liked the idea but they didn’t see how setting up a separate subsidiary and giving rewards to, uh, the founders of that subsidiary, uh, could work in their organizations. Uh, uh, the idea of , uh, of options and Founder’s Stock, uh, was unknown at that time and we—we really started that process. And, uh, right at the very end, somebody suggested that we might want to talk to, uh, Sherman Fairchild. And Sherman Fairchild, uh, was an inventor himself. He invented the, uh, the aerial camera and, uh, subsequently the Fairchild Airplane to hold the camera. And, uh, and uh, he—he—he was a—a—an intellectual type and he had a lot of money and he said, okay, let’s give it a go. So that’s how it started. If it hadn’t been for Sherman , I think we would’ve given up and probably there would be no silicon in Silicon Valley .
Dr: Berlin: Yeah, did you guys, uh, the—the founders, did you have a back-up plan that you imagined could’ve kept you here or did you choose this simply because it was the only thing you could imagine keeping you in the area?
Vinod Patel: Uh, if we had a back-up plan, it wasn’t revealed to me, no. No, it—you know, this was a—a funny negotiation, in that we had one lawyer representing both sides. I am putting together the contract, uh, the—the group of us, uh, hadn’t had any experience in this kind of thing. And, uh, Aneesh and his colleagues had some more and we got a, uh, a—actually a great attorney in San Francisco who was r—really helpful, I think, in putting it together. What?
Chetan Gupta: Martin Lily?
Vinod Patel: Lily, yeah, that was the guy, yeah. But that’s where the dollar bills came in, you know, they—they had to pay us something of value so we got, uh, each a dollar.
Dr. Berlin : Is that real?
Vinod Patel: Yeah, that’s really where the dollars came from.
Dr. Berlin : Huh, wow, I had no idea. Uh, so, one of the first things you did when you set up Fairchild Semiconductor was to hire yourselves a general manager, um, Ed Baldwin from Hughes. And I’m—I’m curious to know why, uh, you needed to do that, particularly given what you guys went on to do. I mean, there was clearly some managerial ability in there.
Vinod Patel: Uh, the experience that we had seen the problems at Shankar, uh, not having experienced managers. And, uh, you know, collectively, I believe we all thought we had to bring in someone from the outside, I certainly did. We interviewed several people and Baldwin seemed to know some things we didn’t that sounded important.
Meera Khosla: Wh—wh—wh—which was really true too, I mean…
Vinod Patel: I don’t know about you, but none of the rest of us had ever seen a business school, let alone had a course in one. You—your background was slightly different. But, uh, none of us had any business knowledge at all. Uh, we’d been the research scientists for the most part, uh, and n—never worked at successful profit making companies, with the exception of Julie and Gene Kleiner to work at Western Electric.
Meera Khosla: We had a little business.
Vinod Patel: Yeah. So, uh, bringing in, uh, Ed Baldwin was very valuable. He told us, you know, you really have to set up manufacturing separate from the R&D operation. You got to specify processes, things like that that, uh, weren’t intuitively obvious.
Meera Khosla: You had to build a—you—you had to build a reliable product, I think was—was the first step…
Vinod Patel: A reproducible product.
Chetan Gupta: Well he, uh, it was a big thing because also, he brought a whole gang of his own people from Hughes, uh, Semiconductor. And, uh, one of the first things he did, he convinced us that we needed a new building, even before we had a product.
Meera Khosla: We started work on the new building before we had shipped any… Comments:2
Posted by Lurker on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 06:59 | # Typing:
into google yields a whole 9 results, including this very page. Not all I suspect, references to the same Rajiv Shankar. Truly the white male elitist power structure has erased this titan from history. I wonder if he later teamed up with that Nigerian bloke who invented the internet? 4
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 07:53 | # Much of what came out of Fairchild Semiconductor was due to the innovation of Robert Noyce who went on to (jointly) establish Intel. Also, Silicon Valley was not “the only game in town”. Over in Dallas a White quartet of engineers won management control of Texas Instruments and led that company into immensely successful high - tech ventures. 5
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:23 | # yes, but all that integrated circuit on a chip and ‘miniature’ computer technology comes from Germany.Like 95% of modern US technology in electronics, medicine, chemistry,etc, etc. it was liberated en masse during operation paperclip and then seeded out to American companies as market conditions beckon, who then claim credit or rather have credit thrust upon them (as the inventor or the inventions providence can not be named) by a patriotic media and public. 6
Posted by PF on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 08:46 | # I disagree with your assertions Grimoire. William Shockley, Robert Noyce, and others of Anglo-american, other-American and even Jewish background contributed more heavily to that particular technological development than did the german scientists recruited in Operation paperclip. The hotspots were Bell labs, Hewlett Packard, IBM, Intel, Apple, Texas Instruments and Shockley semiconductor. Throw in DARPA and some computer companies and you can basically cover most important technological developments 1930-1990 stateside. These places operated mostly off of home-sprung American talent, from my readings. Imagine James Bowery, and you have an idea of the kind of guy of which there were a few dozen working together in America at that time. 7
Posted by Grimoire on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 09:14 | # that the design for the intergrated chip. the methods of programming it, storing information on magnetic media (wire, tape or disc) the entire concept of the modern computer, was part of operation paperclip (which was mostly a siezure of patents and research, not scientists) is historic fact…..not an idea up for debate. That the previous types of computers, based on vacuum tube analogue ic’s, came from the previous haul of German science….is also history. Schockley, Noyce, etc. were just selected to exploit the proceeds. 8
Posted by Al Ross on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 10:26 | # Christ, Grimoire, next you’ll be telling us that the hamburger came from Germany. 9
Posted by PF on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 18:34 | # Grimoire wrote:
Paperclip was begun in 1945 and if Wikipedia is to be taken as a source, dealt mostly with rocket scientists, physicists and whatnot. Most of those men were already accomplished scientists who did not participate in the big boom of technology post-1960, with a few exceptions. The contributors to electronics listend on Wikipedia are this: Ziegler did pholtovoltaic cells, Lehovec did ICs, Hollman did radar, Plendl did radar and If you think Lehovec and Schlickes contributions = the modern computer, you’ve overlooked 50+ years of technical development that occured stateside and were participated in largely by men of American stock. I leave it to those who are interested to read up on the actual labs that participated in the development of these technologies, pardon me for not posting an exhaustive catalogue exhibiting the non-Germanness of these research labs. I’m registering an impression left over from the days when I researched the history of innovation and entrepreneurship in America. As the last tidbit I can offer, here are the last names of the so called traitorous eight who left Shockley semiconductor:
By my count that is 3 anglo-saxons, 1 croat, 2 jews and some undefined. Typical of the cutting edge research community in America at that time. 10
Posted by James Bowery on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 19:09 | # It is necessary that I point to the date on this article as April 1. 11
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 20:10 | # Nice one James! Pity you posted it on April 2nd though. And Grimoire:
Colossus must have been a jukebox then, and ENIAC a pinball machine? 12
Posted by Grimoire on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 07:30 | # Dan Dare: I was speaking of the modern integrated circuit….or digital micro processor…...along with just about everything else that constitutes electronics, biochemistry, computers, cosmology, physics, etc.etc. of the modern world. But yes the vacuum tube, electron tube, thermionic valve processor, analog computing also originated in Germany. One gross but curious example of the historical process of expropriating scientific research and development for nationalist and propagandist values, was Thomas Edison studying work that was centuries ahead of anything he was aware of at the time, choosing a vacuum tube circuit from an Austrian radio signaling kit imported to New York, and eureka declaring he had invented the light bulb. James Bowery: thanks for pointing out the April fools joke. I hardly read the article, it was obviously some kind of joke, intentional or not. 13
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 07:56 | # Grimoire, I am not in any seeking to deprecate the contribution that Germany has made to western civilisation in general and scientific and technical innovation in particular, it is unquestionably second to none. I am personally a Germanophile of the first rank would defend the achievements of the German people against any assailant. But in the field of information technology, and specifically its practical application in the modern world, I’m afraid that that the German contribution pales into insignificance alongside the Anglo-American. I think you’ll find that any dispassionate observer wil agree that that is the case. There are numerous other technological fields in which Germans could claim to be pre-eminent - chemical engineering and perhaps metallurgy as well - but I don’t believe that IT is one of them. 14
Posted by Al Ross on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 11:29 | # Grimoire is bullshitting as usual. His comment about American companies being"selected” to receive the best Germans vis - a - vis technological advancement displays a profound misunderstanding of how the US Economy operates. Nonsense on stilts. 16
Posted by Anon on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:31 | # Grimoire is quite correct. The undoubtedly biggest theft of intellectual property ever happened at the end of WW2 when all valuable German technical knowledge and expertise was confiscated and transferred especially to the USA. This theft had been well prepared during the war already and was carried out so efficiently that only little was left over for the other Allies. Around 1500 tons of patents and technical documentation was gathered just by the USA. Since it was all in German and often very specific in many cases the relevant German scientists and engineers were taken along as well, often also only at a later stage when the need became obvious. This technological treasure was distributed in the US industries. Due to the sheer amount and other difficulties it took some time to get it all sorted out and digested. Therefore the effect started kicking in only during the ‘50s and ended around the early 60’s. The well-known case of von Braun and the associated rocket technology is only the tip of the iceberg. Besides e.g. aircraft and submarine technology as perhaps obvious cases virtually all fields of technology were touched. Examples might be magnetic tape recording, another IR scopes. An interesting case was VW (Volkswagen). The beetle was not thought worth it and thus not confiscated. Details can be found here 17
Posted by Dan Dare on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 17:54 | # Nobody is disputing that the Germans were very advanced in a number of technical fields (but by no means all) or that following the war the victorious allies looted German archives and effectively kidnapped German scientists. What is at issue are some of Grimoire’s specific claims which simply do not bear scrutiny, especially those to do with development of computer science, IT generally and microelectronics. While no doubt the Germans had made advances in such areas they were far from comparable with those of the British and Americans during the war and after. The claim that wartime German designs provided the foundation for the integrated circuit are nonsense, if only because ICs only became commercially available some 25 years after the war, first being used during the Apollo program. The first general purpose computer that I recall encountering which was constructed using ICs was the ICL 1906E in the late 60s and even then the ICs were very simple functional circuits, individual NOR gates and the like. And even more important than hardware was software programmability, especially operating systems, symbolic languages and compilers. The German had little or no competence in those areas. 18
Posted by danielj on Mon, 05 Apr 2010 22:22 | # I think the grandmaster of conspiracy theories about theft of Nazi property is Dave Emory. His book list (all posted in PDF) is here 19
Posted by Grimoire on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 10:45 | # @Dan Dare: @Al Ross @James Bowery @Anon This is an interesting aside for those here who like to complain of Germany’s goose stepping aggression of the 20th century. The fact of the matter is what informed people of the time knew.., without war Germany would have won every battle, every contest; technologically, economically, scientifically, culturally and socially. And we all would have been better off for it. Only by war could she possibly be defeated. It is indeed unfortunate she needed to erect a massive war machine (considered outclassed by the BEF and dwarfed by the French….but massive by all claims nonetheless….) and go about bullying her neighbours ( petty massacres of Germans within disputed frontiers is not an atypical Casus Belli, or Proschema, as Thucydides outlines it in his History….nonetheless some here consistently point out these are in reality - outright lies).
(1) “The assertion that Germany affected to conquer the world is ridiculous. The British Empire embraced 40 million square kilometres, Russia 19 million square kilometres, America 9.5 million square kilometres, whereas Germany embraced less than 600,000 square kilometres. It is quite clear who it is desires to conquer the world.” Uncharacteristically, he did not lie here. Perhaps because he was tired from conducting assassinations, or watching them on film. Nonetheless, when I read this April fools joke, and realize the names of various East Indians (who have made contributions) is meant to be replaced by so-called Anglo Americans like Grove, Noyce, Shockly, et al. I must wonder if this joke ever stops. 20
Posted by James Bowery on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 13:55 | # Grimoire, read “subcon” as “subcontinent” or what you call “east Indian”. As to why I might think such an absurd thing, let me point to your final sentence:
I knew personally some of the guys who developed the Atlas and Thor rockets. The old “our Germans are better than your Germans” contest was, in fact, real during the “space race”, but the fact is that the guys who were working on the Atlas and Thor were following an American tradition started by Goddard and that given the resources of von Braun by the Nazis to march down the industrial learning curve would have done just as well if not better. That our technosocialists were worse than Nazi technosocialists should be no great surprise nor should it be a source of German pride. Moreover, the idea that the Atanasoff Berry Computer was a follow-on to captured German technology is absurd on the face of it since it was in operation prior to WW II, as was the triode. 21
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 14:52 | # Subcon, short for Indian Subcontinental, refers to Indians from India, Pakistanis, Bangladeshis, and Ceylonese (Sri Lankans). I could also include Nepalese. It is meant to be a convenient (and perfectly polite) way of referring to “Indians or Pakistanis” (“or Bangladeshis, or Sri Lankans”) without having to constantly say, “Indians or Pakistanis” (“or Bangladeshis, or Sri Lankans”). I reject the term “South Asian.” 22
Posted by Fred Scrooby on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 15:13 | # When you try to say “Indian” for short, there’s always some stickler who interjects, “But so-and-so’s not Indian, he’s Pakistani (or Bangladeshi, or etc.).” In French-speaking Europe lots of people called them all simply “les Hindous” (pronounced LAY-ZAN-DOO, all syllables equally accented), “Hindus.” Clearly that won’t work — always someone says, “But so-and-so’s Moslem (or Sikh, or Parsi, or etc.), not Hindu.” I reject “South Asian” because it was introduced (some time in the ‘80s I believe) by some U.S. government agency as a race-denial term (introduced with the same batch of new terms that included “Asian” as a replacement for the older and perfectly polite “Oriental,” and others that I reject). This could be discussed at length. Again, Subcon is in no way derogatory whatsoever. It’s perfectly polite: Indian Subcontinental, Subcon for short. That’s all it is. 23
Posted by Dan Dare on Tue, 06 Apr 2010 18:48 | # A more recent derivation is BOSCO, Briton of subcontinental origin. I’ve seen COSCO as well, perhaps YOSCO might come into use as well in due course? And I’ve been waiting for an opportunity to recycle this famous cartoon, so here, especially for Grimoire:
Mama! Die anderen sind mir immer mehr kampflustig! Sie haben einen scheußlichen Haar in meiner Suppe verborgen! 24
Posted by Grimoire on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 07:31 | # @Dan Dare @James Bowery The Atanasoff-Berry Computer is a good example, as it is an anomaly that proves the point. As for your comments on rocketry, - I prefer Dan Dare’s cartoons. My point is not nationalistic one-upmanship with regard to computation. My point is Anglo-American culture is dependent on a matrix of lies, falsehood and intellectual embezzlement that is the very fibre of the rope used to strangle it. Analogous to the world war myths of the 20th century. It is impossible to overestimate the importance of this point. As with this article, as long as Anglo-Americans rely on these lies of national greatness or scientific rigor, moral innocence or superiority, they will have no collective psychic defense against this table of lies being turned against them. There will continue to be no centre. Your gallant defense will not change the fact the masse instinctively sense the core is rotten. 25
Posted by Dan Dare on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 16:38 | #
I’ll know better next time. 26
Posted by James Bowery on Wed, 07 Apr 2010 17:19 | # Grimoire, If the ABC is a good example, then let’s explore it in more detail: You assert that the ABC is a derivative work from circa WW I German patents which were invalidated by the Anglo Americans. It sounds as though someone has gone through the work of prior art search regarding the ABC in a manner similar to the Honeywell v. Sperry Rand court case in which the ENIAC was found to be derivative of the ABC. Do you have a cite for your claim? (A court case is not necessary here of course… merely some peer reviewed historical article would suffice.) 27
Posted by Euro on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 00:48 | # Fraudulent expropriation, exploitation and treating the scientific legacy of all of Europe as a national colonization effort has been going on since Newton
28
Posted by Lurker on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 02:54 | # I was on facebook earlier - as an easy online racialist eager to disrupt what is generally a liberal echo chamber - and made some comment about who invented the internet. The first three comments set the tone for the kind no-holds-barred political debate one will find on facebook.
So there you are, turns out “easterners” invented the internet, no April Fool needed! I await Katie’s evidence for this, should be fascinating. If anyone else fancies joining in the fun on this and other threads be my guest, I can always hope. This particular one is on the I Hate The BNP group. 29
Posted by Grimoire on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 06:48 | # @D Dare This is a official DIN approved gags Schwank. Please use correctly - nothing außergewöhnlich.
@James Bowery The Honeywell v. Sperry Rand is the case where the patents for the ENIAC were revoked….yet not rewarded to Iowa State University, instead put into public domain….along with a treasure chest of other patents controlled by IBM, GE, NCR etc. My primary source for information regarding this issue was a text prepared by Dr. Karl Steinbuch, given in a lecture by and on the experiences of Dr. Wilhelm Nassau at Karlsruher IT. I did a search on the internet for documents, but unsurprisingly can find little. The paper itself will certainly be at Karlsruhe, but it would not be available to anyone without Diplom. 31
Posted by James Bowery on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 16:14 | # Grimoire, your statement:
This implies that Iowa State University was seeking a patent. I was unaware of that. Do you have a cite for this? Then you issue a rather confusing full stop (“etc.”) with line break and beginning capital letter indicating an end—hence beginning—of sentence, but the next line picks up as though a continuation of the prior sentence:
So I’d like clarification on the ambigutity: Are you saying that the court found that the Iowa State University computer was unpatentable if a patent had been applied for at the time of its invention? Or are you simply reiterating that the ISU computer was unpatentable at the time of its invention? If the former, there should be some mention of the prior art in the court case. Do you have such a cite? 32
Posted by Dan Dare on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 18:29 | # Sorry, Grimoire I’m a little confused. According to my copy of “Gebrauchsanleitung zur Qualitätskontrolle von ausländischen Übersendungen der Humormittel deutsches Erzeugnis” aren’t you supposed to repeat the punchline of a German joke three times, each time successively louder, before anyone laughs? 33
Posted by PF on Thu, 08 Apr 2010 20:06 | # Dan, You are friggin’ hilarious with your german bureaucratic names there. German humor is an acquired taste, and sometimes it can take longer than one’s natural lifetime to acquire that taste. Kind of like watching wheelchair basketball, its just hard to get into it unless you have no other options yourself.
So let me get this straight. This carelessly generalized belittling of known Anglo accomplishment is now a bitter pill of truth, to be swallowed for our racial awakening? 34
Posted by Lurker on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 04:08 | # Ive just been back to Facebook. My new friend Katie seems remarkably reluctant to provide any further detail on her revalation that the internet was developed in the “Eastern world”. 35
Posted by Grimoire on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:01 | # @James Bowery Yes, the A-B computer was unpatentable, yet served as evidence of prior art. Dr. Nassau’s testimony in this case was regarding the provenance of the incorporated technology. It has only been the last decade the Anglo American world has acknowledged only Konrad Zuse’s Z3….much less all else. @Dan Dare 36
Posted by PF on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 07:33 | # sincere anecdote from AmRen:
37
Posted by James Bowery on Fri, 09 Apr 2010 13:48 | # Grimoire again asserts: “Yes, the A-B computer was unpatentable…” That wasn’t what I was asking. I was asking who you were saying said it. Read my question again:
38
Posted by floggh on Sat, 10 Apr 2010 19:37 | # “That could be because I neglected to send it in for analysis and re-engineering to official DIN standards and didn’t…blah…blah…” lame, lame. as pathetic a brand of humor as the Scroob’s. grimoire nails you guys. accept it, and return to your Mr. Bean. Post a comment:
Next entry: Murder of Eugene Terreblanche, and other news stories
|
|
Existential IssuesDNA NationsCategoriesContributorsEach author's name links to a list of all articles posted by the writer. LinksEndorsement not implied. Immigration
Islamist Threat
Anti-white Media Networks Audio/Video
Crime
Economics
Education General
Historical Re-Evaluation Controlled Opposition
Nationalist Political Parties
Science Europeans in Africa
Of Note MR Central & News— CENTRAL— An Ancient Race In The Myths Of Time by James Bowery on Wednesday, 21 August 2024 15:26. (View) Slaying The Dragon by James Bowery on Monday, 05 August 2024 15:32. (View) The legacy of Southport by Guessedworker on Friday, 02 August 2024 07:34. (View) Ukraine, Israel, Taiwan … defend or desert by Guessedworker on Sunday, 14 April 2024 10:34. (View) — NEWS — Farage only goes down on one knee. by Guessedworker on Saturday, 29 June 2024 06:55. (View) |
Posted by Dan Dare on Sun, 04 Apr 2010 06:33 | #
Would it be considered impertinent to enquire as to the ethnicity of Dr. Leslie Berlin? I’m assuming that Leslie is a she, as is of course with anyone anyone in the United States these days with “Christian” names like Sidney/Sydney, Robin and even Michael. Just wondering.
And, incidentally, subcontinentals were vanishingly rare in the Valley at least when I first arrived there in the very early 80s. Quite unsure where these dudes who we are now told were amongst the founding fathers of Silicon Valley were hanging out. As far as we were concerned the influx only started with the emergence of the H1-B scam in the mid-90s. Then, of course, the floodgates opened.