Slashdot Mirror

As far as I know they didn't. They didn't correct for creepy fellow male students mobbing them nor for creepy professors hitting on them or for creepy co workers mobbing them and hitting on them once they graduate either.

Of course, they do face significant challenges
http://gos.sbc.edu/b/baum.html

A scary finding of the questionnaire was that women reported their high school guidance counselors were very non-supportive of their decision to study engineering. Non-supportive is a nice word, because I got long letters that talked about how they were actually discouraged by people in their high schools. There seem to be many high schools in our country which discourage women from taking advanced math and physics courses, and, in fact, there seem to be very few women who were physics teachers in high school.

Two-thirds of the women who are married say they make more money then their husbands, and in many of those families, that really is a source of tension for women engineers as well as for other women.

They were expected to take care of household duties any way.

And having a child is a challenge - especially since men don't get maternity leave.

--

However, creepy bad behavior and biased doesn't stop all female engineers.

1. Emily Roebling (1803-1903)

Emily Roebling stepped in as the first woman field engineer and technical leader of the Brooklyn Bridge when her husband, Washington Roebling, became paralyzed and could no longer work without the help of his wife. Emily became responsible for much of the chief engineerâ(TM)s duties, including day-to-day supervision and project management. The Brooklyn Bridge was completed in 1883 and holds a plaque honoring Emily and her husband.

Emily_Warren_Roebling

2. Beulah Louise Henry (1187-1973)

Beulah Henry was known as âoethe lady Edisonâ in the 1920s and 1930s for the many inventions she patented, including a bobbin-free lockstitch sewing machine, a doll with flexible arms, a vacuum ice cream freezer, a doll with a radio inside and a typewriter that made multiple copies without carbon paper. Henry made a large fortune during her career by capitalizing on her inventions through manufacturing companies to produce her creations.

Beulahlouisehenry
3. Hedy Lamarr (1913-2000)

Hedy Lamarr might be recalled as a sexy movie star of the 1930s and 1940s, however, few know that she invented a remote-controlled communications system for the U.S military during World War II. Lamarrâ(TM)s frequency hopping theory now serves as a basis for modern communication technology, such as Bluetooth and Wi-Fi network connections.

hedy_lamarr
4. Stephanie Louise Kwolek (born 1923)

While working for DuPont, Stephanie Louise Kwolek discovered liquid crystalline polymers, which resulted in the product Kevlar. Containing fibers that are stronger than steel, Kevlar is used to make bulletproof vests, radial tires, airplane fuselages and fiber optic cables. For her accomplishments as a research scientist she received the National Medal of Technology in 1996 and was named to the National Womenâ(TM)s Hall of Fame in 2003. The American Chemical Society awarded her the Perkin Medal in 1997.

Kwolek famous female engineer
5. Martha J. Coston (1826-1904)

Another famous female engineer in history, Martha Coston is credited with developing a signaling flare system thatâ(TM)s used by the U.S. military and known as Coston flares. Coston needed a way to support herself and her children after the death of her husband and discovered a design he had left behind in a notebook. She worked for nearly 10 years revising the designs to include pyrotechnic components to create a long-lasting and multicolored system of flares.

martha coston
6. Lillian Gilbreth (1878-1972)

Lillian Gilbreth contributed to industrial engineering by studying workplace patterns and ergonomics. She became the first female member of the American Soci

The sun isn't getting hotter. Water vapor isn't light enough to escape Earth's gravity well in any appreciable quantity. Plate tectonics are driven by convection currents in the Earth's mantel, not the oceans, and if anything the (extremely unlikely) ceasing of tectonic activity would decrease CO2 emissions.
=Smidge=

Look you're welcome to your opinion about the value of modern works but you're way off on this skill business, both qualitatively and chronologically - art hasn't been solely about skill since the middle ages. Da Vinci, incidentally, was one of the artists behind the push for painting and sculpting to be recognized as a liberal art. I'll link to a little non-exhaustive summary:

http://www.arthistory.sbc.edu/artartists/renaissance.html

A lot of people criticize "modern art" as though it were a unified body and I think that this low opinion mostly just comes from the fact that the newest works have not yet been through the full vetting process. In a museum, modern works are always going to be, on average, of less merit than older works simply because the older works that you see in a museum are those which have stood the test of time and been judged worth displaying. Over time, works which are current right now will be culled and those of real value (they do exist!) will remain.

Trees live longer than "a couple of decades". I'm sure you know this, as do others, that many trees live hundreds of years, and some live thousands.

The carbon stored in the tree trunks lasts a long time, but it's only a small fraction of the total carbon in a forest. The carbon stored in fallen and decaying roots, leaves and branches is much larger, but is converted back into CO2 in a few years. The "few decades" is an average.

But don't take my word for it: let's hear it from someone who actually grew a forest in an artificially high CO2 atmosphere:

"Our results indicate that forest soils such as these will not significantly mitigate anthropogenic C inputs to the atmosphere. The organic matter pools receiving large annual C inputs have short mean residence times, while those with slow turnover rates receive small annual inputs."

Here's another:

"Wood increment increased significantly during the first year of exposure, but subsequently most of the extra C was allocated to production of leaves and fine roots. These pools turn over more rapidly than wood, thereby reducing the potential of the forest stand to sequester additional C in response to atmospheric CO2 enrichment."

See here for my comments on locking tree carbon into housing.

I'm all in favor of CO2 mitigation and have no qualms about reengineering trees: my problem is that the numbers just don't add up.

A simple comparison of the size of the biological carbon reservoir on land (2000 gigatons C) and the rate at which it exchanges carbon with the atmosphere (120 gigatons/year) suggests that growing trees is a terrible way to store carbon in the long term: extra stored carbon will return to the atmosphere in a couple of decades.

This is confirmed by a variety of real-world experiments in forest artificially enriched with CO2 and in naturally growing forests.

You may call a dead tree "sequestered carbon", but there's a whole ecosystem full of organisms that call it "lunch". If you want to get rid of carbon, you need to either store it in a place where organisms can't get to it (for example, in the deep seafloor) or in a form that's not tasty (for example, as CO2 or carbonate rock.).

My first thought on this was that this would be Valerie Solanas' dream come true.

The late Valerie Solanas would have been thrilled to hear this news.

Actually, a lot of people use PDF files as bitmap containers. Specifically, that is ALL they are using PDF for.

Look at any 'Old Technical Document Repository' webite, i.e. The Boat-Anchor Manual Archive. Tons and tons of old equipment manual pages scanned as bitmaps, with many 'contained' in big fat ugly PDF files. It isn't the best 'container' people could use, but it's become a defacto standard for a lot of people.

I tackled a similar project in 2002 to connect me to my office 1.2 miles across the fields/woods/highway. I ended up at 130 feet and now run it at 54 mbit 802.11g after swapping out the gear recently. I've had a collection of captioned photos of the building process online for a few years covering everything from digging the original footers to erecting the tower. I tossed in a few updated shots this morning:

http://sparhawk.sbc.edu/tower

They are in chronological order with the newest stuff on the last page.

Thought it might interest some folks with similar goals in mind. No, it wasn't cheap to do. In excess of $3,000 all told... but worth every penny, especially since it connects me to a DS3 on the other end. :) I hired professionals to erect it, but my uncle and I did the ground work including the pouring of 12,000 pounds of concrete for the six foot anchor rods. I'm tempted to put a PTZ camera on the top of it someday for fun.

In a shed between the house and tower I've got the UPS equipment and a hub that transitions to fiber before entering the attic (the fiber helps decouple the outside gear from the inside gear electrically since the tower - despite being grounded - can act as a huge lighting rod).

Neither DSL nor cable modems are available to me where I live. Besides, as the network admin for the campus where I work, I control my own access to a degree I'd never get commercially. Also means I'm never really "away" from the office (which cuts both ways). :)

So what is correct spelling when the makers of dictionaries and spelling books often just pick spellings that fit their fancy or take spellings from sample literature. Noah Webster made the best selling dictionary of his time by including spellings he thought were best. Languages are living things. Correct spelling, correct grammar only exists when a teacher, employer, or publishing editor can impose such things on you. Because there are more than one grammar book, that is authority on grammar and more than one dictionary. In Shakespeare's time there was

Over 1/4 million hits on Google for supposed spelled with ss(suppossed). Good enough authority for me!

Why Shakespeare did not know grammar ... "How could the Bard of Avon, someone we are taught to revere as semi-divine, have not known how to compare adjectives? For us, there really is no excuse for writing "more strong," "more strange," and "more sweet" in some plays and "more fitter," "more corrupter," and "most poorest" in others. And while we can forgive Shakespeare for not attending Oxford or Cambridge, can we ever forgive him for not knowing the distinction between "who" and "whom": "Who wouldst thou serve?"; "To who, my lord?" (King Lear l.iv.24, V.iii. 249); "Who does he accuse?" (Antony and Cleopatra Ill.vi.23). If left to our own devices, of course, we still tend to begin questions with "who," whether it is correct or not. But, damn it, we expect more of Shakespeare. For anyone seeking perfection from our most famous writer, this disappointment may be "the most unkindest cut of all"!

"When the alumna asked me the reason for these "errors," I somewhat archly replied that Shakespeare didn't observe the rules of grammar because he didn't have them. The look she gave me taught me much about our attitudes towards grammar: it was a mixture of skepticism (after all, she knew I liked to tease her!) and pure horror. In one way, I was teasing her because what we usually call the rules of grammar, those codified do's and don't's that are drilled into us during the serenity of adolescence, are very different from what a linguist or an anthropologist would call grammar, which is really nothing more than usage. Her look also reminded me that we tend to accept these learned rules of grammar as having a divine origin, as if they were a kind of appendix to the Ten Commandments that Moses also brought down from Mount Sinai. Of course, they aren't.

"In fact, generations of students have long suspected a more diabolical source for these rules. After all, who would demand that you know when to add "-er" and "-est" to adjectives or use "more" and "most" with them? Who would insist that you know the difference between "who" and "whom"? By now some of you are saying to yourselves, "It must have been a faculty member! Probably in the English Department!" Your paranoia is perfectly understandable, and in this case, it is absolutely correct.

"But who were these teachers? And why were they doing this to us? The answers to these questions bring us to a time 150 years after the death of Shakespeare, the middle of the eighteenth century. It was a time very different from the Elizabethan Age when the old cosmology, the old political values of a central monarchy, and the very structure of English society had changed utterly. The idea of change itself was only beginning to be seen as a good thing. Whereas we see change as a sign of health, as a basic element in nature itself, many in the eighteenth century saw it as a sign of decay, a falling away from the perfection of Nature, and a reminder of our own fallibility as human beings. That is why those conservative schoolmasters and grammarians of Britain were obsessed with the changes they saw occurring in English. Most of them recognized that language was in a state of continual change, but for them this was a bad thing. The Elizabethan Age may have gloried in coining new words, but the eighteenth century wanted to define and limit their meani

They're just trying to smear him by associating him with Jane Fonda.

Too bad the republicans needed to fake the photo. The democrats can always use this real photo:

This is not new. It has been generally surmised that quipus (khipus, qipus) served as a carrier of complex informations. See e.g. this page for pictures and info.

According to the article, the quoted scientist merely says that the permutations possible in a quipu weaving might indicate a septary (not, by any means, a binary) code. He also says he's looking for a Rosetta stone equivalent.

Well, do go on looking, old fellow. But I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for a whip-toting archaeologist-hero to stumble out of a collapsing jungle temple with a quipu-to-English dictionary under his arm. Remember, the Incas were one of the more institutionally stupid (and thus, extinct) civilizations in history - after independently inventing the wheel, they used it for children's toys exclusively.

And he expects to unearth the original quipu RFC? It's probably in quipu, too. And eaten by a llama.

Imagine somebody recording your phonecall and posting it on the web to make the fool out of you... suddenly 12yro's phone pranks and blackmail got a brand new sense -_-;

Also...
Imagine a cluster of perverts posting directly on bbs the pics they snatch from showers, toilets...

"Hey, mom! It's you on Internet!"
"Oh my god! That's my company changing room!"

If I was Intel PR I would call this "Project Pandora"... a good nickname for the project, along of the lines of "Palladium" for Microsoft DRM.
(And in the myth of Iliad, the Palladium didn't prevent Ajax to do really really nasty things to Cassandra when she tried to take cover at the feet of the statue of Pallas Athena).

Actually extraction of hydrogen from water can be performed without mining, drilling, or pumping. It's just a matter of time before other methods are efficient enough.

Every heard of the catalyst rubippy?

The site does not describe computing before the 1900's. But there were ancient computing devices that do deserve recognition. Many ancient computing devices never had moving parts, so they could not be easily identified as machines. This shows how advanced they were for their time. Stonehenge is a great example.

Some links

Two timelines here and here which date well back into B.C.

There is even an ancient Greek clocklike machine over two thousand years old that can be found here.

For those who want links to every type of computing, even modern.

I was gonna mention that but you beat me to it. I remember being fascinated as a kid reading the National Geographic article where they showed the whole project in detail. Each block was carefully sliced out of the mountain and numbered for reassembly.

Here's a good link with lots of pictures of Abu Simbel.

They're born and raised to think martyrdom after destroying civilian targets is the way to Mecca.

Mecca is a city in Saudi Arabia, you dunce.

These attacks are serious business, and will require a serious response once the guilty parties have been identified. Condemning a religion (about which you clearly know very little) does not help here.