Other

Jack St. Clair Kilby

Kilby received his bachelor of science degree from the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign, where he was an honorary member of Acacia Fraternity. In 1947, he received a degree in Electrical Engineering. He obtained his master of science in Electrical Engineering from the University of Wisconsin-Extension in Milwaukee (which later became the University of Wisconsin–Milwaukee) in 1950, while simultaneously working at Centralab in Milwaukee.

In mid-1958, Kilby, as a newly employed engineer at Texas Instruments (TI), did not yet have the right to a summer vacation. He spent the summer working on the problem in circuit design that was commonly called the “tyranny of numbers” and finally came to the conclusion that manufacturing the circuit components en masse in a single piece of semiconductor material could provide a solution. On September 12 he presented his findings to management, which included Mark Shepherd. He showed them a piece of germanium with an oscilloscope attached, pressed a switch, and the oscilloscope showed a continuous sine wave, proving that his integrated circuit worked and thus that he had solved the problem. U.S. Patent 3,138,743 for “Miniaturized Electronic Circuits”, the first integrated circuit, was filed on February 6, 1959.[4] Along with Robert Noyce (who independently made a similar circuit a few months later), Kilby is generally credited as co-inventor of the integrated circuit.
Jack Kilby went on to pioneer military, industrial, and commercial applications of microchip technology. He headed teams that built both the first military system and the first computer incorporating integrated circuits. He later co-invented both the hand-held calculator and the thermal printer that was used in portable data terminals.
In 1970, he took a leave of absence from TI to work as an independent inventor. He explored, among other subjects, the use of silicon technology for generating electrical power from sunlight. From 1978 to 1984 he held the position of Distinguished Professor of Electrical Engineering at Texas A&M University.

He is also the inventor of the handheld calculator and the thermal printer, for which he has patents. He also has patents for seven other inventions.
In 1983, Kilby retired from Texas Instruments.

The Yalta Conference, sometimes called the Crimea Conference and codenamed the Argonaut Conference, held from February 4 to 11, 1945, was the World War II meeting of the heads of government of the United States, the United Kingdom and the Soviet Union, represented by President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Prime Minister Winston Churchill and Premier Joseph Stalin, respectively, for the purpose of discussing Europe’s post-war reorganization. The conference convened in the Livadia Palace near Yalta in Crimea.

The meeting was intended mainly to discuss the re-establishment of the nations of war-torn Europe. Within a few years, with the Cold War dividing the continent, Yalta became a subject of intense controversy. To some extent, it has remained controversial.

Yalta was the second of three wartime conferences among the Big Three. It had been preceded by the Tehran Conference in 1943, and was followed by the Potsdam Conference in July 1945, which was attended by Stalin, Churchill (who was replaced halfway through by the newly elected British Prime Minister Clement Attlee) and Harry S. Truman, Roosevelt’s successor.

All three leaders were attempting to establish an agenda for governing post-war Europe. They wanted to keep peace between post-world war countries. On the Eastern Front, the front line at the end of December 1943 remained in the Soviet Union but, by August 1944, Soviet forces were inside Poland and parts of Romania as part of their drive west. By the time of the Conference, Red Army Marshal Georgy Zhukov’s forces were 65 km (40 mi) from Berlin. Stalin’s position at the conference was one which he felt was so strong that he could dictate terms. According to U.S. delegation member and future Secretary of State James F. Byrnes, “It was not a question of what we would let the Russians do, but what we could get the Russians to do.” Moreover, Roosevelt hoped for a commitment from Stalin to participate in the United Nations.
Stalin, insisting that his doctors opposed any long trips, rejected Roosevelt’s suggestion to meet at the Mediterranean. He offered instead to meet at the Black Sea resort of Yalta, in the Crimea. Stalin’s fear of flying also played a contributing factor in this decision. Each leader had an agenda for the Yalta Conference: Roosevelt wanted Soviet support in the U.S. Pacific War against Japan, specifically invading Japan, as well as Soviet participation in the UN; Churchill pressed for free elections and democratic governments in Eastern and Central Europe (specifically Poland); and Stalin demanded a Soviet sphere of political influence in Eastern and Central Europe, an essential aspect of the USSR’s national security strategy.
Poland was the first item on the Soviet agenda. Stalin stated that “For the Soviet government, the question of Poland was one of honor” and security because Poland had served as a historical corridor for forces attempting to invade Russia. In addition, Stalin stated regarding history that “because the Russians had greatly sinned against Poland”, “the Soviet government was trying to atone for those sins.”Stalin concluded that “Poland must be strong” and that “the Soviet Union is interested in the creation of a mighty, free and independent Poland.” Accordingly, Stalin stipulated that Polish government-in-exile demands were not negotiable: the Soviet Union would keep the territory of eastern Poland they had already annexed in 1939, and Poland was to be compensated for that by extending its western borders at the expense of Germany. Comporting with his prior statement, Stalin promised free elections in Poland despite the Soviet sponsored provisional government recently installed by him in Polish territories occupied by the Red Army.
Roosevelt wanted the USSR to enter the Pacific War with the Allies. One Soviet precondition for a declaration of war against Japan was an American official recognition of Mongolian independence from China (Mongolian People’s Republic had already been the Soviet satellite state in World War One and World War Two), and a recognition of Soviet interests in the Manchurian railways and Port Arthur (but not asking the Chinese to lease), as well as deprivation of Japanese soil (such as Sakhalin and Kuril Islands) to return to Russian custody since the Treaty of Portsmouth; these were agreed without Chinese representation, consultation or consent, with the American desire to end war early by reducing American casualties. Stalin agreed that the Soviet Union would enter the Pacific War three months after the defeat of Germany. Stalin pledged to Roosevelt to keep the nationality of the Korean Peninsula intact as Soviet Union entered the war against Japan.
Furthermore, the Soviets had agreed to join the United Nations, given the secret understanding of a voting formula with a veto power for permanent members of the Security Council, thus ensuring that each country could block unwanted decisions.
At the time, the Red Army had occupied Poland completely and held much of Eastern Europe with a military power three times greater than Allied forces in the West. The Declaration of Liberated Europe did little to dispel the sphere of influence agreements that had been incorporated into armistice agreements.
All three leaders ratified previous agreements about the post-war occupation zones for Germany: three zones of occupation, one for each of the three principal Allies: The Soviet Union, the United Kingdom, and the United States. They also agreed to give France a zone of occupation, carved out of the U.S. and UK zones.
Also, the Big Three agreed that all original governments would be restored to the invaded countries (with the exception of France, whose government was regarded as collaborationist; Romania and Bulgaria, where the Soviets had already liquidated most of the governments;[clarification needed] and Poland whose government-in-exile was also excluded by Stalin) and that all civilians would be repatriated.

The key points of the meeting:

• Agreement to the priority of the unconditional surrender of Nazi Germany. After the war, Germany and Berlin would be split into four occupied zones.
• Stalin agreed that France would have a fourth occupation zone in Germany, but it would have to be formed out of the American and British zones.
• Germany would undergo demilitarization and denazification.German reparations were partly to be in the form of forced labour. (see also Forced labor of Germans after World War II and Forced labour of Germans in the Soviet Union). The forced labour was to be used to repair damage that Germany inflicted on its victims.
• Creation of a reparation council which would be located in the Soviet Union.
• The status of Poland was discussed. It was agreed to reorganize the communist Provisional Government of the Republic of Poland that had been installed by the Soviet Union “on a broader democratic basis.”
• The Polish eastern border would follow the Curzon Line, and Poland would receive territorial compensation in the west from Germany.
• Stalin pledged to permit free elections in Poland, but forestalled ever honoring his promise.
• Citizens of the Soviet Union and of Yugoslavia were to be handed over to their respective countries, regardless of their consent.
• Roosevelt obtained a commitment by Stalin to participate in the UN.
• Stalin requested that all of the 16 Soviet Socialist Republics would be granted UN membership. This was taken into consideration, but 14 republics were denied; Roosevelt agreed to membership for Ukraine and Byelorussia while reserving the right, which was never exercised, to seek two more votes for the United States.
• Stalin agreed to enter the fight against the Empire of Japan “in two or three months after Germany has surrendered and the war in Europe is terminated,” and that as a result, the Soviets would take possession of Southern Sakhalin and the Kuril Islands, the port of Darien would be internationalized, and the Soviet lease of Port Arthur would be restored, among other concessions.
• Nazi war criminals were to be hunted down and brought to justice
• A “Committee on Dismemberment of Germany” was to be set up. Its purpose was to decide whether Germany was to be divided into six nations.

What would happen if God took a day off? What would you do if you knew that just for one day you couldn’t have access to the Creator of all that is known and unknown?  Can you imagine what nonsense and horror that might occur if the “gates of hell” got advance notice of the time and length of God’s one-day vacation from the responsibilities He carries? Can any of us fathom what it might be like to sit alone in the middle of the night, tears flowing down our face, and there is no God of the universe to share our innermost thoughts with? Can any of us contemplate the emptiness that would be evident with each new baby born on that day when there is no God to say “thank you” to? I really wonder what all of us “believers” and “skeptics” would do if God took one little day off.
I suspect that one of the biggest challenges of being the one, true, living, and eternal God is that you can’t, like in a basketball game, look down the bench, and signal for the guy at the end of the bench to go to the scorer’s table and check into the game. God’s it. There is no other. There is no substitute. There’s not even one old grizzled veteran that can be called to come out of retirement to substitute for the Divine. It’s either God or nobody.
So, if God knows there is no other entity to take the Creator’s place, two things come to my mind immediately. First, if we were to think in human terms, there is a tremendous amount of pressure and responsibility when it comes to taking care of God’s creation. Second, I truly wonder what the reaction would be when it became clear that for just one day there would be no hope of any connection or communication to this creating and sustaining God?
It certainly isn’t unusual for a person who feels overworked and underappreciated to take a day off from the grind of his or her working life. There must be a million people who every once in a while have decided to give into the perceived need to rest, recuperate, and relax from the pressures of life. Taking an unscheduled day off every once in a while is actually a good thing; we cannot go on indefinitely without an outlet for the frustrations of the working world.
I wonder what it would be like if God just simply decided, “I’ve had enough with these foolish creatures! I’m calling in sick on Thursday.”

Resolutions are difficult but here is one that can be transforming. Can we work together for this one?

We have a problem in America. Our view of God has slipped away from the God of the Scriptures. Christians are picking and choosing the parts of God they like. That’s not who GOD IS. We must regain an accurate view of God.

In 2016, let’s focus on teaching as many people as we can WHO GOD IS really.

“Why do pastors always talk about money at church?” .

They Preach It

On top of that, pastors preach sermons about money from time to time, and some of those sermons also seem meant to motivate people to give more to the church.

Many people believe that pastors talk so much about money, and they ask their people to give so often, that it makes them feel uncomfortable about how they manage their own finances, and a little guilty about how much, or little, they give to the church.

So why do pastors and churches talk about money? Is it meant to make people feel uncomfortable or guilty? Do we do it too much?

Think on this

If you think pastors talk too much about money at church, you should see what they do at the grocery store. Every single time I go there and put something in my cart, they ask me for money. And when I go to the doctor, he asks me for money too. When I go to the gas station, they ask me for money. When I go to the movies or out to dinner, they ask me for money. Come to think of it, wherever I go, people are asking me for my money in exchange for some service that they provide for me.

My point is this: No business, organization, or ministry survives without money. Businesses charge their customers for the products and services they receive. Churches do not. Instead, churches invite people to give to meet their financial needs so they can accomplish the work God called them to do, and serve people who cannot repay.

The ultimate goal for pastors in asking people to give is not to make budget, save for a new building, fund programs, or employ staff. They are simply showing people how their tithes make a real – and eternal – difference in the lives of real people through the daily ministry of the church inside the four walls, across the street, across town, and across the world.

Jesus Talked Money

• Jesus talked about money more than He talked about heaven and hell combined
• Jesus talked about money more than anything else except the Kingdom of God.
• 11 of 39 parables talk about money
• One out of every seven verses in the Gospel of Luke talk about money
• About 25 percent of Jesus’ teaching in the Gospels relates to money, stewardship, and the resources God has given us

Money Talk is Everywhere

Think about it. Do you know a person who doesn’t talk about money in some way every day? There’s hardly a family in your church or community that doesn’t have a daily dialogue about money. People talk about it, argue about it, and try to make their plans around it.

What’s wrong with the church doing it? 

Today is not a blog but a poem I found to share.

Christians have often heard the accusation “practice what you preach.” There are several reasons why Christians do not practice what they preach or at least appear to others to not be practicing what they preach.

We as Christians are not perfect. Christians are expected to “practice what you preach,” but we preach a message that is, ultimately, impossible to live up to. While sinlessness is to be our goal, it is not achievable in this lifetime. However, the fact that we fail to live up to God’s perfect standard does not change the fact that it is to be our goal and message. Also, many times true Christians behave in an un-Christian manner out of immaturity in the faith or a lack of understanding of exactly what the Christian life entails. New believers are often excited about their newfound faith and eager to share it with others. When, because of immaturity, their lives do not measure up to their testimony, charges of not practicing what you preach are leveled at them. As we grow and mature in the faith, our lives should more and more reflect the truths that we profess to believe.

Fortunately, people are not saved by whether or not others practice what they preach. Salvation is the gift of God through faith, and none of those whom God has given to Christ will be snatched out of His hand (John 10:28-29). No amount of false professions by unbelievers or disappointing actions by immature Christians can change that.

What’s more frustrating than speaking without being heard? We’ve all been there: confiding in a friend as they paw at their phone; pitching an idea to a co-worker as he/she interrupts with their own; telling your mom about your day as her eyes glaze over – apparently focusing on something else much, much more interesting than you.

These situations, in the moment, can be annoying and downright hurtful. But the fact that they happen often can’t be too surprising. “There’s a misconception that when we hear, we listen,” says Pamela Cooper, vice president of the International Listening Association, “but listening is really hard work, and it takes a great deal of concentration.” No wonder our friends and family and co-workers can be lousy at it. But what about you – are you a good listener?

“Most people are very aware that other people don’t listen, but they’re not nearly as aware that they themselves don’t listen,” says Paul Donoghue, psychologist and co-author of “Are You Really Listening? Keys to Successful Communication” with Mary Siegel. So, “don’t presume you’re a good listener,” he says.

Be brutally honest with yourself and think about your own listening (or not-listening) behavior. You may be that colleague or sibling or friend who never really listens and not even know it! See if you have any of these poor listening habits below, or better yet, thicken your skin and ask a friend.

Distracting yourself. Sending one little text message as your co-worker is talking sends an enormous message to her: You’re not listening. And that hurts. Yes, perhaps you’re hearing the other person, or you think you’re getting the gist – you’re a multitasker after all! – but are you really concentrating on what was said? Probably not. Focusing on a text message, or your Instagram feed, or that dog over there or the shopping list you need to make is telling the speaker that those things are more important than what they are –

Interrupting. This bad habit is three things: Self explanatory, rude and a sign that you’re not listening.

Topping the speaker’s story. Imagine you’re excitedly telling a friend about a Washington, D.C., vacation you’re planning, when they decide to cut in: “I lived there for three years and have toured the National Mall a couple dozen times, and really prefer the Vietnam Memorial, though all the tourists typically opt for the Lincoln Memorial, which … ” There’s certainly nothing wrong with engaging in a conversation, but cutting into the speaker’s story to talk about yourself is a sign you weren’t digesting his or her message. With this “me too” habit, you’re pretty much saying, “You bring me the ball, and I’ll take it from you and start dribbling it,” he says.

Problem finding. Someone with this habit thinks, “I’m listening, but only enough to find a problem and fix it for you,” Donoghue says. Sometimes this person is so skilled in the habit that he or she will find problems that aren’t even there. “Oh, the trip to Washington is this month? Why would you go there in that summer humidity? And don’t even think about cooling down in the air-conditioned museums, they’re too crowded.”

Becoming defensive. If you’re the topic of discussion, you might hear criticism that may or may not be there. And so we get defensive. “And when we’re defending, we’re not listening,” Donoghue says.

Think about the last meeting, conversation or class you had. Did you display any of these habits above? Whether or not you did, know that everyone can improve his or her listening skills. And that’s exactly what listening is: a monumentally important skill used in marriage, friendship, parenthood, management and just about every kind of relationship. Without listening skills, we’re poor communicators, which is unfortunate, because it identifies communication as the “heartbeat of life.” Think about the last miscommunication you had, or the last time something didn’t go your way, and now think: How much of that had to do with not fully listening?