The article does a terrible job of explaining the overall concern and background of the situation. This decline didn't start in the 90's, but in the mid-80's. That is why it can't be fully attributed to the dot-com boom and bust. The reason people are concerned about this decline isn't just because it has been happening for 20 years, but because similar fields don't show similar declines. Science and engineering overall shows an increase. I believe engineering alone does too. Why is there such a disparity between computer science and similar fields?
I'm guessing that part of the reason the press has latched on to this is the 1999 study titled, "A Study on the Status of Women Faculty in Science at MIT". The study basically concluded that there was a great deal of institutionalized discrimination against women in the faculty. The study was very controversial, and was rebutted in academia and the popular media. The study and related debates are really interesting, and bring up many of the topics discussed here - including the much-debated idea that women simply choose different careers than men (accounting for the gender disparity).
MIT study: http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
Rebuttal accusing MIT of using "Gender Junk Science": http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/
Some interesting discussion of the points in both the study and rebuttal: http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/IWF.html
The study is now quite famous and is covered in many women's studies classes, I think.
To address a few of your points (from my own perspective, of course):
Hmm, you seem to have all these worries about people doubting your abilities and yet you chose to go ahead with it anyway. Please explain why you did so if you think this is such a barrier to entry for women.
Simply put, I am really stubborn. When someone tells me I shouldn't be able to do something, I tend to want to prove them wrong. And to be honest, I don't constantly worry about this stuff - if I did, I would go completely bonkers. I've learned to tolerate it as best I can, because if I didn't it would affect my work tremendously.
Or maybe you will concede that there are a variety of factors, one of which may be the stigma (and I'm not convinced that anybody passionate about their interests will be turned off by any amount of stigma -- hello, men have to deal with being considered "nerds" for pursuing their interests in computers). Another more significant factor, in my opinion, is that men and women are simply wired differently. They are differently abled, with men, on average, having greater mental facilities for math and science due to thousands of years of genetic evolution imparted by the roles that men and women have naturally assumed.
First off, let me say up front that I don't think the reasons I gave are the only factors in the decline of women in these fields. I mentioned them because most of the posts thus far had not given similar first-person accounts, and I think it is important for someone who has had the experience to speak up a little. Second, I guess I don't think my points are the same kind of stigma as the "nerd" stigma. Within the geek community at least, being a nerd or geek is a badge of honor. I proudly proclaim myself a geek all over the place. Where can I proudly proclaim that I am being perceived as less fit for computer science because I am female?
I absolutely agree that men and women are wired differently. I don't think that means that women are not fit for computing. And I think that such an argument ignores that the alarm over the declining numbers of women in computing is not over the percentages themselves, but their change over time. In 1984, 37% of computer science degrees were awarded to women. By 1998 this had dropped to about 27%, even as growth occurred in other fields like engineering. You can find more about these statistics at the Anita Borg institute at http://www.anitaborg.org/faq.html.
By the way, I don't see how your theory about wiring could be correct considering that the percentage of degrees awarded to women in many engineering fields has risen. If women are kept from computer science by wiring, why wouldn't they be kept from engineering fields, which in many cases have at least as much math and science involved?
I understand that some people are truly befuddled about this. But try to see this from my vantage point.
I am one of very few women in every department I work in. I have an engineering degree as well as a master's degree in computer science. And when I see discussions like this, I feel completely and utterly belittled.
How is it so difficult to see that brilliant women can be turned off by these fields when the following are everyday occurances:
Hearing conversations about how women are just naturally not as good as men at science/engineering/other complex field
Being told that women only get into graduate school because of affirmative action
Being told that women only get good jobs because of affirmative action
Walking into yet another lecture hall where you are the only female
Having most of the men you meet assume that you only got where you are because of your looks, your youth, or affirmative action
I don't know about you, but if I knew that going into a particular field would result in the above happening on a daily basis, and that my intelligence would constantly be under-estimated by my peers, I would probably want to pick a different field. I would want to learn and work somewhere where I would not be perceived as a token exception to the rule.
If you think women have never avoided computer science because of such advances, you might want to consider the anecdotes from Microsoft's history:
http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/microsof.ht ml
Granted, this was written in 1996, but I bet this stuff still happens, especially in smaller shops.
There is also more detailed information in the SuSE press release, including the following:
"SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 on IBM eServer xSeries has earned an Evaluation Assurance Level 2+ certification, commonly referred to as EAL2+. IBM and SuSE also announced today that the companies have filed for a higher level of security certification for SuSE Linux, the Controlled Access Protection Profile with EAL3+ across the IBM eServer product line, which is expected later this year."
I think this statement is somewhat unfair. I know from experience that one can have a good income and still not be able to afford a lawsuit, especially with a company that is setting out to make an example of you. I can't even afford to put siding on my house - if confronted with a lawsuit like this I would likely pay up, even though it is against my own beliefs. Otherwise I would find myself in a situation where I might need to sell my house, car, declare bankruptcy, etc...and I am not even supporting children at this point.
And let's not forget that he did decide to join the class-action suit, and may still ultimately lose much more than that initial $3500. That's pretty brave for someone who, as stated in the article, has a family to think about.
Yah, men generally find this funny until the camera zooms in on their girlfriend, wife, sister, daughter, or mother. Then they start to understand why stories like this creep us gals out.
The thing I find most interesting about the way the patent is worded:
A content translation module implemented as a computer-executable module (e.g., DLL, exe) utilizes the information contained in the user profile to translate messages from the source language to the destination language. The translated message is then transmitted to the destination device. Because the message is translated prior to delivery, the destination device receives the message according to the destination language.
In other words, the message is translated prior to transmission, not upon reaching the recipient. Does any prior art cover this?
Any admin who isn't completely shirking his duties has exactly no use for this book. Who, then, will find it valuable? That's right: hackers. Script kiddies have an easy enough time of it as it is. The computer book industry needs to take some responsibility and stop publishing this sort of hacker how-to.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Some of the most knowledgable security gurus I know are "hackers" who started by administering systems. And many administrators I know can apply patches with the best of 'em, but are unable to recognize potential attack signatures in their logs. Simply knowing how to apply a patch does not give one the insight required to recognize attacks that aren't widely publicized. Do you want an admin who only knows he/she is being attacked because Microsoft says so? Or would you rather have one who knows what to look for because he/she has studied hacking techniques and has ethically hacked, and therefore can cut off suspicious behavior before a patch is even issued? I know which one I'd pick.
If you look at this yahoo article from yesterday, it sounds like the major obstacle to the coming shuttle flights is that the "big bolts" that attach solid rocket boosters to the space shuttles' fuel tanks are not being caught properly after the fuel tanks are jettisoned, due to a possible flaw in the "bolt catchers" that are supposed to gather the bolt fragments. These fragments can then smash into delicate parts of the shuttle.
Not to nitpick, but they don't use User Mode Linux. They use UMLinux, which differs from the former in that in UMLinux the VM is contained in a single host process, whereas in User Mode Linux each guest app has its own process. The confusion comes in because UMLinux is considered a type of User Mode Linux, hence the name.
Confusing enough?
The virtual machine that ReVirt and its predecessor are built on is called UMLinux. I used it for a school project that analyzed a virtual kernel that had been minimized to achieve improved performance. The current incarnation of UMLinux, now called FAUmachine, is available from the FAUmachine project site.
Actually, there is a procedure for notifying Microsoft, at least regarding security, via a form on their website.
While the form seems more software-oriented, I imagine one could complain about Passport there as well. I once used it to report what I perceived as a security flaw in XP's built-in firewall, and they were very prompt in their response (they didn't share my perception).
Slashdot Mirror
For some real numbers, check out the following:
MIT study: http://web.mit.edu/fnl/women/women.html
Rebuttal accusing MIT of using "Gender Junk Science": http://www.uaf.edu/northern/mitstudy/
Some interesting discussion of the points in both the study and rebuttal: http://research.umbc.edu/~korenman/wmst/IWF.html
The study is now quite famous and is covered in many women's studies classes, I think.
To address a few of your points (from my own perspective, of course):
Hmm, you seem to have all these worries about people doubting your abilities and yet you chose to go ahead with it anyway. Please explain why you did so if you think this is such a barrier to entry for women.
Simply put, I am really stubborn. When someone tells me I shouldn't be able to do something, I tend to want to prove them wrong. And to be honest, I don't constantly worry about this stuff - if I did, I would go completely bonkers. I've learned to tolerate it as best I can, because if I didn't it would affect my work tremendously.
Or maybe you will concede that there are a variety of factors, one of which may be the stigma (and I'm not convinced that anybody passionate about their interests will be turned off by any amount of stigma -- hello, men have to deal with being considered "nerds" for pursuing their interests in computers). Another more significant factor, in my opinion, is that men and women are simply wired differently. They are differently abled, with men, on average, having greater mental facilities for math and science due to thousands of years of genetic evolution imparted by the roles that men and women have naturally assumed.
First off, let me say up front that I don't think the reasons I gave are the only factors in the decline of women in these fields. I mentioned them because most of the posts thus far had not given similar first-person accounts, and I think it is important for someone who has had the experience to speak up a little. Second, I guess I don't think my points are the same kind of stigma as the "nerd" stigma. Within the geek community at least, being a nerd or geek is a badge of honor. I proudly proclaim myself a geek all over the place. Where can I proudly proclaim that I am being perceived as less fit for computer science because I am female?
I absolutely agree that men and women are wired differently. I don't think that means that women are not fit for computing. And I think that such an argument ignores that the alarm over the declining numbers of women in computing is not over the percentages themselves, but their change over time. In 1984, 37% of computer science degrees were awarded to women. By 1998 this had dropped to about 27%, even as growth occurred in other fields like engineering. You can find more about these statistics at the Anita Borg institute at http://www.anitaborg.org/faq.html.
By the way, I don't see how your theory about wiring could be correct considering that the percentage of degrees awarded to women in many engineering fields has risen. If women are kept from computer science by wiring, why wouldn't they be kept from engineering fields, which in many cases have at least as much math and science involved?
I understand that some people are truly befuddled about this. But try to see this from my vantage point.
I am one of very few women in every department I work in. I have an engineering degree as well as a master's degree in computer science. And when I see discussions like this, I feel completely and utterly belittled.
How is it so difficult to see that brilliant women can be turned off by these fields when the following are everyday occurances:
I don't know about you, but if I knew that going into a particular field would result in the above happening on a daily basis, and that my intelligence would constantly be under-estimated by my peers, I would probably want to pick a different field. I would want to learn and work somewhere where I would not be perceived as a token exception to the rule.
Just my .02.
If you think women have never avoided computer science because of such advances, you might want to consider the anecdotes from Microsoft's history: http://www.fastcompany.com/magazine/03/microsof.ht ml
Granted, this was written in 1996, but I bet this stuff still happens, especially in smaller shops.
"SuSE Linux Enterprise Server 8 on IBM eServer xSeries has earned an Evaluation Assurance Level 2+ certification, commonly referred to as EAL2+. IBM and SuSE also announced today that the companies have filed for a higher level of security certification for SuSE Linux, the Controlled Access Protection Profile with EAL3+ across the IBM eServer product line, which is expected later this year."
...can be found at SecurityFocus.
To clarify, the tags will cost $25 each to *produce*. I don't think the purchase price has been announced.
And let's not forget that he did decide to join the class-action suit, and may still ultimately lose much more than that initial $3500. That's pretty brave for someone who, as stated in the article, has a family to think about.
Yah, men generally find this funny until the camera zooms in on their girlfriend, wife, sister, daughter, or mother. Then they start to understand why stories like this creep us gals out.
A content translation module implemented as a computer-executable module (e.g., DLL, exe) utilizes the information contained in the user profile to translate messages from the source language to the destination language. The translated message is then transmitted to the destination device. Because the message is translated prior to delivery, the destination device receives the message according to the destination language.
In other words, the message is translated prior to transmission, not upon reaching the recipient. Does any prior art cover this?
You can register by phone as well, without giving out an email address. Info on how to register by phone is here.
I strongly disagree with this sentiment. Some of the most knowledgable security gurus I know are "hackers" who started by administering systems. And many administrators I know can apply patches with the best of 'em, but are unable to recognize potential attack signatures in their logs. Simply knowing how to apply a patch does not give one the insight required to recognize attacks that aren't widely publicized. Do you want an admin who only knows he/she is being attacked because Microsoft says so? Or would you rather have one who knows what to look for because he/she has studied hacking techniques and has ethically hacked, and therefore can cut off suspicious behavior before a patch is even issued? I know which one I'd pick.
If you look at this yahoo article from yesterday, it sounds like the major obstacle to the coming shuttle flights is that the "big bolts" that attach solid rocket boosters to the space shuttles' fuel tanks are not being caught properly after the fuel tanks are jettisoned, due to a possible flaw in the "bolt catchers" that are supposed to gather the bolt fragments. These fragments can then smash into delicate parts of the shuttle.
Not to nitpick, but they don't use User Mode Linux. They use UMLinux, which differs from the former in that in UMLinux the VM is contained in a single host process, whereas in User Mode Linux each guest app has its own process. The confusion comes in because UMLinux is considered a type of User Mode Linux, hence the name. Confusing enough?
The virtual machine that ReVirt and its predecessor are built on is called UMLinux. I used it for a school project that analyzed a virtual kernel that had been minimized to achieve improved performance. The current incarnation of UMLinux, now called FAUmachine, is available from the FAUmachine project site.
Actually, there is a procedure for notifying Microsoft, at least regarding security, via a form on their website.
While the form seems more software-oriented, I imagine one could complain about Passport there as well. I once used it to report what I perceived as a security flaw in XP's built-in firewall, and they were very prompt in their response (they didn't share my perception).