It's true that men and women think and operate differently. The most striking difference though is not that men are more "logical" and women are not. It's that men are generally single-minded, focused thinkers, and women are generally better multitaskers. But both of these types of thinking have a place in Computer Science, just as they do in other fields. Just think about that a minute.
If you're implying that women don't have the proper thought patterns for Computer Science, or chess, or whatever, you're not just alienating women who might have been thinking of joining the field. You're further alienating women already working in the field. So now they're less likely to encourage other women to come and work with you and that attitude. In fact, they are probably going to actively discourage it, and that speaks volumes more to potential incoming talent than any corporate- or professional-society-funded "women's initiative".
When women talk about being lonely or disconnected from the team at work, I don't think the issue is that they have a problem being the only woman in a group. The problem is the attitude the group has towards the only woman, and that's what needs to be fixed.
... there's something everyone can do for him, even out-of-staters: campaign contributions.
Politicians follow the money much more so than they do the votes. After all, directly and indirectly, money buys votes.
If everyone who wanted a politician to stand up to the RIAA found somebody who would do it and paid him for his trouble, we'd be in a much better position to fight the DMCA. Just look at how much credibility the Howard Dean campaign gained when everybody found out that not only did he have a big grassroots following, but one that was willing to pay his way.
Every politician knows that the DMCA, the Patriot Act and other laws that infringe on privacy are extremely unpopular with some groups of people. But sad as it may be, they will continue to sit on their hands unless they can get some financial incentive to go against the grain of the corporate-financed peers.
There's been a lot of bashing of telemarketers here (ie: Now they can get *real* jobs) that I think is a little misguided.
Although I believe that telemarketing companies are just a little short of evil, and I certainly don't greet their employees who call me with enthusiasm, I am related to several poor and uneducated people who simply find telemarketing as the easiest and most flexible opportunity they have to make money.
One cousin of mine with no more than a high school education was delighted to be able to quit his job at the air conditioner factory (one of those places with a sign posting X number of days since the last "incident") so that he could sit in a cool room in a comfortable chair and even be able to arrange his schedule so that he could go home in the afternoons to make lunch for my ailing grandfather.
Another cousin of mine who dropped out of high school because of pregnancy was happy to find a job that allowed her to schedule hours around the availability of her daycare provider.
They're not happy about disturbing people's dinner any more than we are. They think the speeches they have to recite are just as stupid and irritating as we do. But that aside, I would rather there was a little more sympathy for the 2 million people who might suddenly have to find something "better" to do with themselves.
Did I sign up for the Do Not Call List? Hell, yes. But that doesn't mean I want to have my revenge on those who are going to be most hurt by this law. The people who deserve to be hurt, the executives who allowed the situation to get so out of hand, are going to pad their pockets with profit either way.
Slashdot Mirror
It's true that men and women think and operate differently. The most striking difference though is not that men are more "logical" and women are not. It's that men are generally single-minded, focused thinkers, and women are generally better multitaskers. But both of these types of thinking have a place in Computer Science, just as they do in other fields. Just think about that a minute.
If you're implying that women don't have the proper thought patterns for Computer Science, or chess, or whatever, you're not just alienating women who might have been thinking of joining the field. You're further alienating women already working in the field. So now they're less likely to encourage other women to come and work with you and that attitude. In fact, they are probably going to actively discourage it, and that speaks volumes more to potential incoming talent than any corporate- or professional-society-funded "women's initiative".
When women talk about being lonely or disconnected from the team at work, I don't think the issue is that they have a problem being the only woman in a group. The problem is the attitude the group has towards the only woman, and that's what needs to be fixed.
... there's something everyone can do for him, even out-of-staters: campaign contributions.
Politicians follow the money much more so than they do the votes. After all, directly and indirectly, money buys votes.
If everyone who wanted a politician to stand up to the RIAA found somebody who would do it and paid him for his trouble, we'd be in a much better position to fight the DMCA. Just look at how much credibility the Howard Dean campaign gained when everybody found out that not only did he have a big grassroots following, but one that was willing to pay his way.
Every politician knows that the DMCA, the Patriot Act and other laws that infringe on privacy are extremely unpopular with some groups of people. But sad as it may be, they will continue to sit on their hands unless they can get some financial incentive to go against the grain of the corporate-financed peers.
There's been a lot of bashing of telemarketers here (ie: Now they can get *real* jobs) that I think is a little misguided.
Although I believe that telemarketing companies are just a little short of evil, and I certainly don't greet their employees who call me with enthusiasm, I am related to several poor and uneducated people who simply find telemarketing as the easiest and most flexible opportunity they have to make money.
One cousin of mine with no more than a high school education was delighted to be able to quit his job at the air conditioner factory (one of those places with a sign posting X number of days since the last "incident") so that he could sit in a cool room in a comfortable chair and even be able to arrange his schedule so that he could go home in the afternoons to make lunch for my ailing grandfather.
Another cousin of mine who dropped out of high school because of pregnancy was happy to find a job that allowed her to schedule hours around the availability of her daycare provider.
They're not happy about disturbing people's dinner any more than we are. They think the speeches they have to recite are just as stupid and irritating as we do. But that aside, I would rather there was a little more sympathy for the 2 million people who might suddenly have to find something "better" to do with themselves.
Did I sign up for the Do Not Call List? Hell, yes. But that doesn't mean I want to have my revenge on those who are going to be most hurt by this law. The people who deserve to be hurt, the executives who allowed the situation to get so out of hand, are going to pad their pockets with profit either way.