Specific issues include a lack of maternity policies in small companies, low pay which barely covers day care, "jokes" from male coworkers, and always feeling like the "odd duck."
The first two are contractual terms they freely agreed to, the third is illegal, and the fourth is inside the person's head, not the environment.
I don't doubt that there are cases of actual sexism, and they should be investigated and addressed, and maybe this anecdotal evidence by one Forbes.com writer with no clue about research methodology is something to start with. But it's not clear that the women interviewed were any more objective about their career or their former employer than any other disgruntled ex-employee.
Did they also interview men who left the technology field?
I've interviewed at companies and been disgusted at what I saw of their culture. But that's not a feature of technology, except to the extent that current demand for technology allows dysfunctional businesses to survive longer than they should.
Sadly what I take away from this is mainly the effectiveness of having a 15 second ad before a YouTube video, as long as you're interested in what's coming chances are good you'll remember the unrelated ad in front of it too.
Even more sadly, that might have been the real purpose.
I hope that the interesting versus boring questions were customized for each participant, otherwise the results would be completely useless. Curiosity is a property of the person, not the question.
Very obviously curiosity and motivation are parts of learning, but I think it was interesting the way they set up the experiment to try to establish curiosity as an independent variable and that they were able to make quantitative measurements.
I'm not convinced that *what* they were measuring was really curiosity in any meaningful sense, as opposed to what some other submitters have suggested - attention, focus, anticipation, etc. - but I give them credit for trying.
"Rosneft and Exxon won’t be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold"
Who exactly is supposed to be worried this is a bad thing? For the next 10 or 20 years the oil will be more valuable to Russia in the ground as long as they have evidence that it's there.
The most unrealistic thing in space operas is the notion that the human crew could do anything in terms of gunnery or navigation better than a computer.
Even worse is having the computer count down when to take a shot, and then have a human insert a random second or two while they manually operate the control.
You can't blame them for having their fun when the number "42" came up. And you don't have to have liked the movie to acknowledge the photo shoot as a testament to Douglas Adam's creative genius.
Though I'd like to see a journalist interview them to see how many of them actually know where their towel is.
Maybe for a change the police should try "to obtain a warrant from an independent judge". They might discover it's not a difficult as they think it is.
Apparently he considers a warrant from a judge as going "beyond the law" -- "within the law" presumably meaning police walking all over constitutional rights.
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
If you think the American cultural *industry* is less than a whole order of magnitude larger than the Canadian ones (English and French separately), then I don't think much of your understanding of arithmetic.
Slashdot Mirror
Why they left matters. Consider:
Specific issues include a lack of maternity policies in small companies, low pay which barely covers day care, "jokes" from male coworkers, and always feeling like the "odd duck."
The first two are contractual terms they freely agreed to, the third is illegal, and the fourth is inside the person's head, not the environment.
I don't doubt that there are cases of actual sexism, and they should be investigated and addressed, and maybe this anecdotal evidence by one Forbes.com writer with no clue about research methodology is something to start with. But it's not clear that the women interviewed were any more objective about their career or their former employer than any other disgruntled ex-employee.
In civilized countries they already do.
Did they also interview men who left the technology field?
I've interviewed at companies and been disgusted at what I saw of their culture. But that's not a feature of technology, except to the extent that current demand for technology allows dysfunctional businesses to survive longer than they should.
Sadly what I take away from this is mainly the effectiveness of having a 15 second ad before a YouTube video, as long as you're interested in what's coming chances are good you'll remember the unrelated ad in front of it too.
Even more sadly, that might have been the real purpose.
I hope that the interesting versus boring questions were customized for each participant, otherwise the results would be completely useless. Curiosity is a property of the person, not the question.
Very obviously curiosity and motivation are parts of learning, but I think it was interesting the way they set up the experiment to try to establish curiosity as an independent variable and that they were able to make quantitative measurements.
I'm not convinced that *what* they were measuring was really curiosity in any meaningful sense, as opposed to what some other submitters have suggested - attention, focus, anticipation, etc. - but I give them credit for trying.
Um, no, it means almost exactly - very close to exact. "Almost" is not a good engineering term but in context it's perfectly acceptable.
...we'll be able to extract the brain boosting compounds and do away with beer altogether!
...don't seem to have hurt Microsoft or Oracle.
"Rosneft and Exxon won’t be able to do more drilling, putting the exploration and development of the area on hold"
Who exactly is supposed to be worried this is a bad thing? For the next 10 or 20 years the oil will be more valuable to Russia in the ground as long as they have evidence that it's there.
The most unrealistic thing in space operas is the notion that the human crew could do anything in terms of gunnery or navigation better than a computer.
Even worse is having the computer count down when to take a shot, and then have a human insert a random second or two while they manually operate the control.
You can't blame them for having their fun when the number "42" came up. And you don't have to have liked the movie to acknowledge the photo shoot as a testament to Douglas Adam's creative genius.
Though I'd like to see a journalist interview them to see how many of them actually know where their towel is.
Perhaps you are confused about which side the NSA is on. They are not interested in reducing anyone's fear, not even their own.
the terrorists don't need to kill.
The terrorists just need to say a few things on their cell phones, and let the NSA and paranoia do the rest.
Bin Laden's goal was to turn the US into what it's become. He succeeded.
cheap contract workers are better than investing in employees!
You can't get any more factual than that.
And the best entertainment writers can't come up with material half as funny and/or tragic.
Maybe for a change the police should try "to obtain a warrant from an independent judge". They might discover it's not a difficult as they think it is.
Apparently he considers a warrant from a judge as going "beyond the law" -- "within the law" presumably meaning police walking all over constitutional rights.
Um, if the planet has clouds, doesn't that mean you've already discovered water in the atmosphere?
(Assuming the cloud is water droplets and not methane or whatever.)
There was rocket technology to reach the moon in the 1960s, but cinematographic technology to fake the moon landing was not available until the 1970s.
I was really interested in reading about this blizzard that cancelled an entire planet...
Why is the word 'global' so hard for people to understand?
Hint: 'coastal' means something different from 'global'.
Right, because nothing in the real world is ever more complex than a quadratic function.
If you think the real world can be modelled that easily, you, like most economists, clearly have not spent any time in it.
Aren't 'alpha' and 'release' contradictions in terms?
(Yes, I know 'alpha' actually is a kind of release, but it's not a release to the public at large.)
If you think Canadian culture is so fragile that it cannot survive without the protection of the CRTC, they you really don't think much of Canadians.
If you think the American cultural *industry* is less than a whole order of magnitude larger than the Canadian ones (English and French separately), then I don't think much of your understanding of arithmetic.