G4Media.ro

☰

SUA sancționează șapte entităţi chineze specializate în supercalculatoare, considerate o ameninţare la…

Sursa foto: Gina Raimondo / Twitter

SUA sancționează șapte entităţi chineze specializate în supercalculatoare, considerate o ameninţare la adresa securităţii naţionale americane

Analize • 8 Aprilie 2021 • • 8 comentarii

Departamentul american al Comerţului a introdus numele a şapte entităţi chineze specializate în supercalculatoare pe lista cu firme sancţionate, considerate de Washington drept o ameninţare la adresa securităţi inaţionale americane, relatează AFP, citată de News.ro.

Aceste sancţiuni ”au scopul să împiedice China să profite de tehnologii americane pentru a-şi susţine efortul destabilizator de modernizare militară”, anunţă, citată într-un comunicat, secretarul american al Comerţului Gina Raimondo.


Aceste întreprinderi chineze sancţionate nu vor mai fi în măsură să facă afaceri cu întreprinderi americane.

Sursa foto: Gina Raimondo / Twitter

Urmărește mai jos producțiile video ale G4Media:

Disclaimer:
- G4Media nu a cerut și nu a primit niciodată fonduri guvernamentale direct sau sub forma unor campanii de informare. Acesta este un ajutor de stat mascat care distorsionează piața de media și este inacceptabil. De asemenea, G4Media nu acceptă bani de la partidele politice în afara campaniilor electorale. Publicitatea electorală marcată ca atare este normală în perioada alegerilor.

- G4Media nu a primit și nu acceptă reclame de la industrii precum jocuri de noroc, pariuri, alcool și tutun. Este strict opțiunea G4Media. Nu promovăm vicii care pot distruge sănătatea, viața sau cariera unor oameni.

Tags: , , ,
Susține-ne activitatea G4Media logo
Donație Paypal recurentă

Donează lunar pentru susținerea proiectului G4Media

Donează prin Transfer Bancar

CONT LEI: RO89RZBR0000060019874867

Deschis la Raiffeisen Bank
Donează prin Patreon

Donează

Citește și...

Trump face încă o numire în noua sa echipă de la Casa Albă. Stephen Miller, un adept al liniei dure în materie de imigraţie, va fi şef-adjunct al politicii în noua administraţie

Alegeri SUA 🇺🇸, Analize • 11 Noiembrie 2024 • • 548 vizualizări •
0 comentarii

„Nu sunteți bineveniți aici”, ar fi transmis Qatarul grupării teroriste Hamas (Jerusalem Post)

Analize • 8 Noiembrie 2024 • • 14.484 vizualizări •
0 comentarii

Ce înseamnă victoria lui Trump pentru România

Analize • 6 Noiembrie 2024 • • 38.307 vizualizări •
7 comentarii

8 comentarii

  1. Kieran Bhattacharya is a student at the University of Virginia (UVA) School of Medicine. On October 25, 2018, he attended a panel discussion on the subject of microaggressions. Dissatisfied with the definition of a microaggression offered by the presenter—Beverly Cowell Adams, an assistant dean—Bhattacharya raised his hand.

    Within a few weeks, as a result of the fallout from Bhattacharya’s question about microagressions, the administration had branded him a threat to the university and banned him from campus. He is now suing UVA for violating his First Amendment rights, and a judge recently ruled that his suit should proceed.

    Here was what the student said.

    “Thank you for your presentation,” said Bhattacharya, according to an audio recording of the event. “I had a few questions, just to clarify your definition of microaggressions. Is it a requirement, to be a victim of microaggression, that you are a member of a marginalized group?”

    Adams replied that it wasn’t a requirement.

    Bhattacharya suggested that this was contradictory, since a slide in her presentation had defined microaggressions as negative interactions with members of marginalized groups. Adams and Bhattacharya then clashed for a few minutes about how to define the term. It was a polite disagreement. Adams generally maintained that microaggression theory was a broad and important topic and that the slights caused real harm. Bhattacharya expressed a scientific skepticism that a microaggression could be distinguished from an unintentionally rude statement. His doubts were wellfounded given that microaggression theory is not a particularly rigorous concept.

    But Nora Kern, an assistant professor who helped to organize the event, thought Bhattacharya’s questions were a bit too pointed. Immediately following the panel, she filed a “professionalism concern card”—a kind of record of a student’s violations of university policy.

    “This student asked a series of questions that were quite antagonistic toward the panel,” wrote Kern. “He pressed on and stated one faculty member was being contradictory. His level of frustration/anger seemed to escalate until another faculty member defused the situation by calling on another student for questions. I am shocked that a med student would show so little respect toward faculty members. It worries me how he will do on wards.”

    According to Bhattacharya’s lawsuit, the concern card generated interest from an assistant dean in the medical school, who emailed him and offered to meet. The assistant dean assured him that “I simply want to help you understand and be able to cope with unintended consequences of conversations.”

    Bhattacharya responded that contrary to anyone’s assertions, he had not lost his temper or become frustrated with the panel:

    Your observed discomfort of me from wherever you sat was not at all how I felt. I was quite happy that the panel gave me so much time to engage with them about the semantics regarding the comparison of microaggressions and barbs. I have no problems with anyone on the panel; I simply wanted to give them some basic challenges regarding the topic. And I understand that there is a wide range of acceptable interpretations on this. I would be happy to meet with you at your convenience to discuss this further.

    Then a dean of student affairs asked to meet as well.

    Meanwhile, the Academic Standards and Achievement Committee met to to discuss the concern card. This committee voted to send Bhattacharya a written reminder to “show mutual respect” to faculty members and “express yourself appropriately.” The committee also suggested that he get counseling.

    On November 26, this suggestion became a mandate: The student was informed that he must be evaluated by psychological services before returning to classes. Bhattacharya repeatedly asked university officials to clarify what exactly he was accused of, under whose authority his counseling had been mandated, and why his enrollment status was suddenly in doubt, according to the lawsuit. These queries only appear to have made UVA officials more determined to punish him: Bhattacharya’s mounting frustration with these baseless accusations of unspecified wrongdoings was essentially treated as evidence that he was guilty. At his hearing, he was accused of being “extremely defensive” and ordered to change his “aggressive, threatening behavior.”

    He was ultimately suspended for “aggressive and inappropriate interactions in multiple situations.” On December 30, UVA police ordered him to leave campus.

    • Tot esti suparat ca zeul tau, Trump, a pierdut alegerile?

      Uiti ca Trump a scapat firma chinezeasca ZTE de sanctiuni, in schimbul unor investitii in firma lui Trump in Indonezia, caz clar de spaga. Pe asta il aperi?

    • Cand spui ce zice un Geoana sau Ciuca, de frica baietilor care l-au saltat pe „agresorul” Morgensternoaiei, te recunosc ca barbat adevarat.

    • Numai tu stii despre ce vorbesti, esti grav bolnav mintal.

  2. PREA TARZIU ! I-AU LASAT ZECI DE ANI SA-i FURE CREZAND CA NU-I POT AJUNGE DIN URMA.

    COMUNISTII SUNT CEI MAI MARI HOTI SI CEI MAI MARI CRIMINALI DIN ISTORIE!

    • Într- adevăr, dar nu e prea târziu.

  3. De ce sanctziuni ?

    Depoarece : https://www.g4media.ro/beijingul-depaseste-new-yorkul-si-devine-capitala-mondiala-a-miliardarilor.html
    Ca doar slugile nu au ca cauta la masa bogatzilor.
    Cum sa ii lashi pe cei a caror singur rol desemnat e sa OEM ca sclavii pe plantatzie sa intre cu nesimtzire pe filiera bogatziei ?

    De ce sunt sanctzionate firmele de calculatoare chinezesti deshi ele de mult shi dintotdeauna nu pot cumpara tehnologie militara americana ?

    De ce ? Simplu !

    Ca sa nu poata sa faca bani.
    Ca sa nu poate sa faca bani vanzanad produsele lor americanilor ca doar nu va inchipuiatzi ca era, este sau va fi vreodata cu putintza sa cumpere componente de pe lista de componente militare de catre ORICE firma din China . Hahahaha !!!!!!

    Deci nu probleme de national security sunt la mijloc ci pur shi simplu dorintza de a face rau.
    De ce sa-i lasam pe chinezi sa faca bani pe piatza noastra cand putem sa le tragem un spitz in bot ?

    Hmmmm interesanta intrebare.
    https://money.cnn.com/2010/07/02/news/companies/gm_china/index.htm
    „Through the first six months of the year GM and its Chinese joint venture partners have sold 1.21 million vehicles in China, the company announced Friday. Its U.S. sales, announced Thursday, came in at 1.08 million.”

    Hmmmm interesante posibilitatzi se deschid aici, intersante posibilitatzi de sanctziuni pentru entitatzile americane shi pupinii acestora ca sa nu uitam pentru prima data in retorsiune la sanctziunile europeni chinezii au pus pe lista de santziuni angajatzii unui think tank european deci iaca se poate, latraii de meserie latrai pot sa fie tratatzi ca atare iar cine ii sustzine …. hmmm se poata astepta la consecintze car se poate de neplacute.

    Deci de ce au fost sanctzionate firmele respective care ar fi putut sa vanda infrastructura de cloud concurent celor vandute de CISCO ori Google ori Amazon ori , ori , ori continuatzi voi pe linia punctata cu totzi ceilaltzi sustzinatori ai campaniei electorale a lui Biden ?

    Vorba ceea, o mana spala pe alta shi amandoua fatza.
    Noi am pus umarul sa te facem presedinte tu ne ucizi competitzia ca sa ni se rotunjeasca noua profiturile.
    Iar prostii apluda.

  4. Trump ăsta distruge sistemul comertului mondial e un nationalist protectionist pt ca taxeaza China fara sa apeleze la OMC si institutiile internationale si…oh wait.