The reason is because, as the TFA implies, the data suggests that on average, there is no gender specific bias. CS is the anomaly. The question remains, why is this.
If all of the obvious social reasons apply to CS, why not the other hard sciences? Counterexamples like garbage collector, and teacher do not apply here, because we are talking about the set of fields that are hard science, i.e. math, engineering, computer science.
Amongst those areas of interest, CS is dominated but the others are not. Thus CS must be in L1([a,b]) by the D.C.T., and thus women don't live in [a,b], well at least almost everywhere.
I remember the old days of windows 3.1 and 3.11 for workgroups.
Back then MS used to "encourage" people to put copies people had from work on their home machines that were running DOS and xtree, etc. It was so easy to get a free copy of windows from a friend on a disk that had absolutely no protection from "bootlegging". Actually, most people didn't even think of it like it is thought of today. So what happened? Everyone started using it. MS won the OS war over the likes of OS/2 etc. Now your grandma uses an MS OS on her cell phone. (alright not quite, but you get my drift here).
If you make something that people like you'll be successful. Most people don't want to risk their money to find out if something is worth their time. In the case of a good book, you don't need to try before you buy. You're going to listen to a friend.
In the case of music, most people, once out of college when working will want to pay for music. iTunes does this almost good. I know a lot of people who hit up bit torrent just because iTunes and the likes use DRM, and they've been burned on a purchase at some level or another. Some albums you don't want to spend the time and money to go to a best buy to see if you like it, and once you dl it, you don't bother to go out and buy it. I think that if they set up their business model to cater to the lazy, they'll be going in the right direction. For example, get rid of DRM on iTunes. Allow a try before buy - trial of full use, etc. It would be like when your friend let you borrow a CD back in '89 and you loved it, had to give it back, so you had to buy it.
I work for a large global company as an R&D engineer and have a material science background. The problem with Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and PEM fuel cells is that they are so efficient that there are no solid wastes. There is little to no CO2 output in the case of the SOFC either due to highly efficient reations in a properly made cell. The by products are H20 and pure heat, at about 800C to 1000C.
Fuel cells have not taken off yet only because of the cost to manufacture. We are addressing this now. We will make them cheaper, and this will make them economical. I'd expect to see the first systems in Europe in about 2-3 years. Within 10 years the technology should be widespread.
SOFC's can burn methane (natural gas) no problem. they are even more efficient burning pure hydrogen. However, coming up with the source fuels is not an easy thing to do.
So, the problem with fuel cells is:
Nickel Oxide, YSZ, and LSM/LSCO variants are expensive materials to make fuel cells that need to replaced every couple of years.
If they do become cheaper and "economically viable" - where do you get the increased demand for methane/NG/biogases, etc.
Slashdot Mirror
The reason is because, as the TFA implies, the data suggests that on average, there is no gender specific bias. CS is the anomaly. The question remains, why is this. If all of the obvious social reasons apply to CS, why not the other hard sciences? Counterexamples like garbage collector, and teacher do not apply here, because we are talking about the set of fields that are hard science, i.e. math, engineering, computer science. Amongst those areas of interest, CS is dominated but the others are not. Thus CS must be in L1([a,b]) by the D.C.T., and thus women don't live in [a,b], well at least almost everywhere.
I remember the old days of windows 3.1 and 3.11 for workgroups. Back then MS used to "encourage" people to put copies people had from work on their home machines that were running DOS and xtree, etc. It was so easy to get a free copy of windows from a friend on a disk that had absolutely no protection from "bootlegging". Actually, most people didn't even think of it like it is thought of today. So what happened? Everyone started using it. MS won the OS war over the likes of OS/2 etc. Now your grandma uses an MS OS on her cell phone. (alright not quite, but you get my drift here). If you make something that people like you'll be successful. Most people don't want to risk their money to find out if something is worth their time. In the case of a good book, you don't need to try before you buy. You're going to listen to a friend. In the case of music, most people, once out of college when working will want to pay for music. iTunes does this almost good. I know a lot of people who hit up bit torrent just because iTunes and the likes use DRM, and they've been burned on a purchase at some level or another. Some albums you don't want to spend the time and money to go to a best buy to see if you like it, and once you dl it, you don't bother to go out and buy it. I think that if they set up their business model to cater to the lazy, they'll be going in the right direction. For example, get rid of DRM on iTunes. Allow a try before buy - trial of full use, etc. It would be like when your friend let you borrow a CD back in '89 and you loved it, had to give it back, so you had to buy it.
I work for a large global company as an R&D engineer and have a material science background. The problem with Solid Oxide Fuel Cells and PEM fuel cells is that they are so efficient that there are no solid wastes. There is little to no CO2 output in the case of the SOFC either due to highly efficient reations in a properly made cell. The by products are H20 and pure heat, at about 800C to 1000C. Fuel cells have not taken off yet only because of the cost to manufacture. We are addressing this now. We will make them cheaper, and this will make them economical. I'd expect to see the first systems in Europe in about 2-3 years. Within 10 years the technology should be widespread. SOFC's can burn methane (natural gas) no problem. they are even more efficient burning pure hydrogen. However, coming up with the source fuels is not an easy thing to do. So, the problem with fuel cells is: Nickel Oxide, YSZ, and LSM/LSCO variants are expensive materials to make fuel cells that need to replaced every couple of years. If they do become cheaper and "economically viable" - where do you get the increased demand for methane/NG/biogases, etc.