Why isn't there equal interest? Is there something innate about STEM that women aren't interested in? Or is it individuals trying to fit a self imposed stereotype? e.g. "I can't do STEM, because I'm a girl." If so, why does that stereotype exist?
That seems an issue of preparation, of introduction to the field. That's the sort of barrier I would remove. Recall "shop" classes in high school? Similar thing, everyone takes a required "intro to programming" type shop class. For those that happen to be somewhat interested they can take the elective more advanced version of that shop class. Not unlike the successful model of decades past.
I know my education in the 90's had exactly that. 8 weeks of shop, 8 weeks of programing, 8 weeks of home economics, 8 weeks of art, 8 weeks of health. Everyone had to take those classes.
Honestly though, I think it still has to do with gender roles in our society has a whole. I remember enjoying shop, programing, home ec., and art class. I was surprised to find sewing just as satisfying as wood working. I think it has to do with making something with my hands. However, I still lean towards the shop and programming activities to this day, and it's probably due to the stigma society puts on home economics as "women's work".
That seems an issue of preparation, of introduction to the field. That's the sort of barrier I would remove. Recall "shop" classes in high school? Similar thing, everyone takes a required "intro to programming" type shop class. For those that happen to be somewhat interested they can take the elective more advanced version of that shop class. Not unlike the successful model of decades past.
I know my education in the 90's had exactly that. 8 weeks of shop, 8 weeks of programing, 8 weeks of home economics, 8 weeks of art, 8 weeks of health. Everyone had to take those classes.
Letting women choose as individuals would run contrary to modern feminism where women must exist only as representatives of the group.
It also runs contrary to modern statistics. The data suggests that women as a statistical group have different career experiences than men. The question is why?
Do women have different capabilities? Why?
Do women have different preferences? Why?
Are women given fewer opportunities?
We have seen these stories over and over, but we haven't seen answers to these questions.
For the same reason they tend to stay away from STEM fields. STEM fields reward individual success, not team success. Women are social, individual success has less importance to them than working in a supportive team that is doing well.
Care to provide supportive data? I know most of my STEM career has been spent working in teams, but maybe that's an outlier.
Remove any barriers but let them choose. Maybe some fields are not inherently interesting, we have evolved to have different capabilities and perspectives. If this results in preferences so be it. Let people do what they prefer.
Perhaps they believe they won't succeed in some fields so they don't try. In that case, their barrier is their own prejudice.
Hereâ(TM)s an idea I'd like to float, something that I've never heard considered before: Perhaps there simply isn't a legion of women who want to work in the cybersecurity world?
I've heard it many times, and it's likely true. However, that question just raises another, why don't women want to work in the cybersecurity field?
I am going to go out on a limb and say it's a cultural thing, but that's still discrimination. I will even be as bold to say that some females discriminate against themselves. They may be very capable of succeeding in the tech industry, but have come to the conclusion that they aren't because they don't fit the stereotype of a tech worker.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those that discriminate, and liars. Discrimination is innate to the human condition. Our brains are lazy and take shortcuts in decision making. The sooner we all acknowledge this fact, the better.
Once we acknowledge everyone discriminates, we can stop blaming "other people", and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Everyone is guilty, even the victims. Lets all agree to try harder. The way I see it, it's the only way the situation will improve.
The method you describe is a popular Japanese management practice called Gemba. I've done it before, and it can be extremely valuable if you can convince the customer to cooperate.
Just remember, customers don't always know what they want.
in a ridiculous corner case scenario involving a parallel string of identical low-quality LED lights with an absolutely dismal power factor, connected to a dimmer to make the power factor even more extreme
Household electrical products like dimmers and light bulbs have no power factor ratings on the package in the US. A consumer, or electrician has no way to tell the difference between items with good and bad power factors.
Don't expect consumers to make informed decisions when the information isn't available.
They're practicing remembering things for 30 minutes every day for 40 days. It isn't some sort of "weird trick" like the headline might make you think.
That's an interesting hypothesis. However, we don't have data one way or the other. Another study would have to be done evaluating the "Memory Place" technique, versus simple practice.
How much of this is because TiVo charges $750 for the DVR, comprising $200 for the hardware and $550 for the required program guide subscription? That could buy several years of Netflix.
And the DVR doesn't come with content. You are either limited to what is over the air, or you have to get cable.
However, you get what you pay for. A DVR and cable allows you to watch far more content than Netflix. I think many people have determined that the larger volume of content isn't worth the extremely higher cost.
I have Prime and Netflix. Honestly, the content isn't great on either one. However, Netflix does win between the two.
In terms of streaming, the "OnDemand" service offered by Comcast seems to have the largest selection. However, that is not a viable option for cord cutters.
I agree. When I wrote my original post I was rage typing. The root cause is poor infrastructure in general. Highways and zoning are just one aspect.
One of the most promising developments I've seen are networks of distributed urban environments linked by rail. These types of developments are becoming popular in the DC metro area.
CRT renderings of the games was not how the designers wanted them to look, just as musical artists and engineers don't want to sound like a vinyl record. They wanted them to look like modern 4k, photorealistic games but were held back by the technology.
A truly talented artist tells his or her story despite the limitations of the medium. Without an understanding of those limitations, an observer does not fully appreciate the talent of the artist.
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon could have sounded completely different if it were recorded with modern synthesizers. However, they didn't have them, and therefore had to improvise. This ingenuity makes the work even greater.
Monet had failing vision, Beethoven failing hearing, and these game designers had low processing power and CRT monitors. We don't appreciate what an artist wants to crate. We appreciate what they did create.
The only thing not being made anymore are the CRT tubes themselves, which only consist of the screen and electron gun. The deflection coils are electromagnets mounted outside the tube. So as long as the electron gun works, the actual tube part is working. The rest of the electronics driving it are just electronics that can be fixed.
Yup! If you turn on a monitor and all you see is a dot in the center of the screen, both steering fields are broken. If you see a horizontal line, the vertical steering field has broken. If all you see is a vertical line, the horizontal steering field is broken. In most cases it's actually the electronics that drive the fields that have failed. All of which should have parts that are easy to find.
One of my college physics lab assignments was to use electric and magnetic fields to steer the beam of a cathode ray tube. It was surprisingly fun!
A lot of supposedly dead CRTs could be fixed, if people knew how or if it made economic sense. Sounds like the point at which spending a few hundred bucks to repair a screen is almost here.
As long as the tube still holds a vacuum it should be relatively simple to repair. In my experience, it's usually the electronics that steer the beam that go out. A transistor that's used to control the field strength overheats. A buddy of mine fixed one for just a few bucks.
Copying the competition is one approach, a common one, and ultimately it limits you to being a bit-player...
I never said it was a good approach. But it's perceived as being low risk. Unprofitable companies are even more risk adverse than profitable ones. The only companies willing to take significant risks are startups.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there isn't equal interest.
Why isn't there equal interest? Is there something innate about STEM that women aren't interested in? Or is it individuals trying to fit a self imposed stereotype? e.g. "I can't do STEM, because I'm a girl." If so, why does that stereotype exist?
That seems an issue of preparation, of introduction to the field. That's the sort of barrier I would remove. Recall "shop" classes in high school? Similar thing, everyone takes a required "intro to programming" type shop class. For those that happen to be somewhat interested they can take the elective more advanced version of that shop class. Not unlike the successful model of decades past.
I know my education in the 90's had exactly that. 8 weeks of shop, 8 weeks of programing, 8 weeks of home economics, 8 weeks of art, 8 weeks of health. Everyone had to take those classes.
Honestly though, I think it still has to do with gender roles in our society has a whole. I remember enjoying shop, programing, home ec., and art class. I was surprised to find sewing just as satisfying as wood working. I think it has to do with making something with my hands. However, I still lean towards the shop and programming activities to this day, and it's probably due to the stigma society puts on home economics as "women's work".
That seems an issue of preparation, of introduction to the field. That's the sort of barrier I would remove. Recall "shop" classes in high school? Similar thing, everyone takes a required "intro to programming" type shop class. For those that happen to be somewhat interested they can take the elective more advanced version of that shop class. Not unlike the successful model of decades past.
I know my education in the 90's had exactly that. 8 weeks of shop, 8 weeks of programing, 8 weeks of home economics, 8 weeks of art, 8 weeks of health. Everyone had to take those classes.
Letting women choose as individuals would run contrary to modern feminism where women must exist only as representatives of the group.
It also runs contrary to modern statistics. The data suggests that women as a statistical group have different career experiences than men. The question is why?
Do women have different capabilities? Why?
Do women have different preferences? Why?
Are women given fewer opportunities?
We have seen these stories over and over, but we haven't seen answers to these questions.
Women have equality of opportunity in this country. But that's not enough for some. They want equality of outcome.
If women have equality of opportunity, then with a large enough sample size, why don't you expect an equal outcome?
Women are obtaining 61% of the Masters degrees in the US, the majority of which are NOT STEM RELATED!
Why is that the case?
For the same reason they tend to stay away from STEM fields. STEM fields reward individual success, not team success. Women are social, individual success has less importance to them than working in a supportive team that is doing well.
Care to provide supportive data? I know most of my STEM career has been spent working in teams, but maybe that's an outlier.
Remove any barriers but let them choose. Maybe some fields are not inherently interesting, we have evolved to have different capabilities and perspectives. If this results in preferences so be it. Let people do what they prefer.
Perhaps they believe they won't succeed in some fields so they don't try. In that case, their barrier is their own prejudice.
Hereâ(TM)s an idea I'd like to float, something that I've never heard considered before: Perhaps there simply isn't a legion of women who want to work in the cybersecurity world?
I've heard it many times, and it's likely true. However, that question just raises another, why don't women want to work in the cybersecurity field?
I am going to go out on a limb and say it's a cultural thing, but that's still discrimination. I will even be as bold to say that some females discriminate against themselves. They may be very capable of succeeding in the tech industry, but have come to the conclusion that they aren't because they don't fit the stereotype of a tech worker.
There are two kinds of people in this world, those that discriminate, and liars. Discrimination is innate to the human condition. Our brains are lazy and take shortcuts in decision making. The sooner we all acknowledge this fact, the better.
Once we acknowledge everyone discriminates, we can stop blaming "other people", and DO SOMETHING ABOUT IT! Everyone is guilty, even the victims. Lets all agree to try harder. The way I see it, it's the only way the situation will improve.
The method you describe is a popular Japanese management practice called Gemba. I've done it before, and it can be extremely valuable if you can convince the customer to cooperate.
Just remember, customers don't always know what they want.
in a ridiculous corner case scenario involving a parallel string of identical low-quality LED lights with an absolutely dismal power factor, connected to a dimmer to make the power factor even more extreme
Household electrical products like dimmers and light bulbs have no power factor ratings on the package in the US. A consumer, or electrician has no way to tell the difference between items with good and bad power factors.
Don't expect consumers to make informed decisions when the information isn't available.
They're practicing remembering things for 30 minutes every day for 40 days. It isn't some sort of "weird trick" like the headline might make you think.
That's an interesting hypothesis. However, we don't have data one way or the other. Another study would have to be done evaluating the "Memory Place" technique, versus simple practice.
Why is this news. Manufacturers have defects all of the time. It's a small number of phones. Who cares!
It's not like they randomly bust into flames or anything.
How much of this is because TiVo charges $750 for the DVR, comprising $200 for the hardware and $550 for the required program guide subscription? That could buy several years of Netflix.
And the DVR doesn't come with content. You are either limited to what is over the air, or you have to get cable.
However, you get what you pay for. A DVR and cable allows you to watch far more content than Netflix. I think many people have determined that the larger volume of content isn't worth the extremely higher cost.
I have Prime and Netflix. Honestly, the content isn't great on either one. However, Netflix does win between the two.
In terms of streaming, the "OnDemand" service offered by Comcast seems to have the largest selection. However, that is not a viable option for cord cutters.
No, that isn't the root cause.
The root cause is zoning.
I agree. When I wrote my original post I was rage typing. The root cause is poor infrastructure in general. Highways and zoning are just one aspect.
One of the most promising developments I've seen are networks of distributed urban environments linked by rail. These types of developments are becoming popular in the DC metro area.
Inadequate mass transportation infrastructure.
Inadequate infrastructure in general. Too much distance between good jobs and good housing. Mass transit, better roads. So many things.
I admit, in my first post I was rage typing.
This is a bandaid on the much deeper problem. Inadequate highway infrastructure. Fix the root cause, not the symptom.
CRT renderings of the games was not how the designers wanted them to look, just as musical artists and engineers don't want to sound like a vinyl record. They wanted them to look like modern 4k, photorealistic games but were held back by the technology.
A truly talented artist tells his or her story despite the limitations of the medium. Without an understanding of those limitations, an observer does not fully appreciate the talent of the artist.
Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon could have sounded completely different if it were recorded with modern synthesizers. However, they didn't have them, and therefore had to improvise. This ingenuity makes the work even greater.
Monet had failing vision, Beethoven failing hearing, and these game designers had low processing power and CRT monitors. We don't appreciate what an artist wants to crate. We appreciate what they did create.
The only thing not being made anymore are the CRT tubes themselves, which only consist of the screen and electron gun. The deflection coils are electromagnets mounted outside the tube. So as long as the electron gun works, the actual tube part is working. The rest of the electronics driving it are just electronics that can be fixed.
Yup! If you turn on a monitor and all you see is a dot in the center of the screen, both steering fields are broken. If you see a horizontal line, the vertical steering field has broken. If all you see is a vertical line, the horizontal steering field is broken. In most cases it's actually the electronics that drive the fields that have failed. All of which should have parts that are easy to find.
One of my college physics lab assignments was to use electric and magnetic fields to steer the beam of a cathode ray tube. It was surprisingly fun!
A lot of supposedly dead CRTs could be fixed, if people knew how or if it made economic sense. Sounds like the point at which spending a few hundred bucks to repair a screen is almost here.
As long as the tube still holds a vacuum it should be relatively simple to repair. In my experience, it's usually the electronics that steer the beam that go out. A transistor that's used to control the field strength overheats. A buddy of mine fixed one for just a few bucks.
Until Jane Waybetter from Bulldaze School of Engineering comes out with an improved solid-state battery, winning the Valiant medal.
Everyone knows Waybetter is the enemy of Goodenough.
Copying the competition is one approach, a common one, and ultimately it limits you to being a bit-player...
I never said it was a good approach. But it's perceived as being low risk. Unprofitable companies are even more risk adverse than profitable ones. The only companies willing to take significant risks are startups.