There is another (I believe better) article about this in The Register: “Donald Trump dumps on Facebook's Mark Zuckerberg”. Some quotes from Trump, extracted from the article, are below.

We graduate two times more Americans with STEM degrees each year than find STEM jobs, yet as much as two-thirds of entry-level hiring for IT jobs is accomplished through the H-1B program. More than half of H-1B visas are issued for the program's lowest allowable wage level, and more than eighty percent for its bottom two. Raising the prevailing wage paid to H-1Bs will force companies to give these coveted entry-level jobs to the existing domestic pool of unemployed native and immigrant workers in the U.S., instead of flying in cheaper workers from overseas. This will improve the number of black, Hispanic and female workers in Silicon Valley who have been passed over in favor of the H-1B program.

Mark Zuckerberg’s personal Senator, Marco Rubio, has a bill to triple H-1Bs that would decimate women and minorities.

For mathematics and physics, I read Not Even Wrong, by Peter Woit.

For theoretical computer science, I read Gödel's Lost Letter and P=NP, by Richard J. Lipton and Kenneth W. Regan.

For analyzing the harm that modern feminism is causing, I read Dalrock.

If the NSA spent their time making the cyber defenses of this country stronger instead of making it weaker with compromised encryption, rampant back doors, etc., there's a good chance this data breach would not have happened.

That is an extremely important point. The NSA is charged with protection of U.S. government communications and information systems against penetration and network warfare. Thus, the SF86 breach is a clear failure of the NSA. Had the NSA kept its focus on what it is supposed to be doing, the breach might well never have happened. Instead, though, the NSA has shifted its focus to activities that are illegal, unconstitutional, and seriously harmful.

This is further strong evidence that the top people at the NSA should be wholesale removed.

Several months ago, I spent many hours researching the same question, and eventually settled on the Nokia 515. I got the phone, and am very happy with it.

Moore's law is sort of a mangled version of Koomey's law. Koomey's law states that the number of computations per joule of energy dissipated has been doubling every 1.6 years. It appears to have been operative since the late 1940s: longer than Moore's law. Moreover, Koomey's law has the appeal of being defined in terms of basic physics, rather than technological artefacts. Hence, I prefer Koomey's law, even though Moore's law is far more famous.

There is another interesting aspect to Koomey's law: it hints at an answer to the question "for how long can this continue?" The hinted answer is "until 2050", because by 2050 computations will require so little energy that they will face a fundamental thermodynamic constraint—Landauer's principle. The only way to avoid that constraint is with reversible computing.

The Council on Foreign Relations recently had its Annual Lecture on Science and Technology: the topic was "Artificial Intelligence and the Rise of Robots". The panelists were Rodney Brooks (MIT), Abhinav Gupta (CMU), and Andrew McAfee (MIT). The video is available. Robophobia was one of the main themes.

For some great background on how corrupt Pao and her husband are, see "Some Thoughts on Ellen Pao’s Marriage", by Richard Bradley. Basically, Pao's husband has a history of dubious lawsuits, and Pao seems to have gone along in his family suing business.

Here is a quote from Hillary, video recorded in 2000, when she was a Senator.

As much as I’ve been investigated and all of that, you know, why would I—I don’t even want—why would I ever want to do e-mail? .... Can you imagine?

Source: http://www.buzzfeed.com/andrewkaczynski/watch-an-old-home-movie-from-2000-where-hillary-clinton-said#.re86K3GRo

When she became Secretary of State, she had to use e-mail. Hence, she got her own private server (at home where it was under protection of the 4th Amendment).

Good points! Why are journalists not asking these obvious questions...?

Clinton printed over 50,000 pages of e-mails, which were then shipped to the State Department. It would have been less work for her to send those e-mails electronically. What was her purpose in doing that extra work?

Printed texts take more time to search, and they do not contain all the internal meta-data. Perhaps too she just wanted to show her middle finger to the people who asked for her e-mails.

This is honorable behavior?

If ... anyone feels personally abused, threatened, or otherwise uncomfortable due to this process, that is not acceptable.

It does not matter how every person feels. There are some people who get offended about almost anything. The above quote seems to be part of the extreme political correctness that is infecting society—I never imagined that Linux development would go that way. Additionally, if people feel “uncomfortable”, that might well be well warranted and help them to develop.

The quote would be better replaced by something that omits mention of feelings (which are internal and cannot be independently assessed). I suggest appealing to the “reasonable person”, as is commonly done in law. Here is an example: “Personal abuse and threats are unacceptable, as is any behavior that reasonable people would deem to be highly or persistently offensive”.

In the early 20th century, measured IQ gaps between protestant and Catholics in Northern Ireland was as large as that between whites and blacks in America today. Yet that gap has now completely disappeared.

What are good references for this?

There is a good article "Five reasons to blame Apple in nude celebrity photo leak", in The Hamilton Spectator. Here are the key points (read the article for elaborations).

1. The vulnerability is Security 101 stuff (even a good password, like “D0nM@tt1ngly!”, was still vulnerable).
2. The vulnerability was publicly known since May.
3. Apple defaults users into the cloud (and Apple makes it very hard to not store in the cloud).
4. Apple does not encourage two-factor authentication (it discourages this).
5. Two-factor authentication wouldn't have worked anyway (it is not actually enforced on iCloud).