Sexism in CS Jobs

Just found this : Sexism in CS Jobs

In the words of my friend Bradley: Imagine going to work everyday with a bunch of 40 year old virgin über nerds.

Are More Girl Gamers the Answer?

I first began playing video games on the original Nintendo. My partially deaf Uncle Joe, who lived out of a room in my Grandma's house jam-packed with taped videos and Joe Cooool figurines, had a console and sometimes allowed us to play. He had Super Mario Bros, Duck Hunt, some car racing game, Galaga, and a few others. My cousin Stephanie and I preferred Super Mario Bros over the others, but we never had enough time to beat the game because he never let us stay in his room for very long. So in order to suffice our gaming cravings, when Uncle Joe would lock his door and leave the house to run some errands, Stephanie and I would RUN to the kitchen for a butterknife and jimmy his door open to proceed in our princess-saving tactics.

Soon after, my Dad bought me a Super Nintendo and I played Zelda, Mario Kart, and one of my favorites: Mortal Kombat. When I was in middle school transitioning into high school, I bought myself an orange Nintendo64 and shortly after a PlayStation 2. I don't consider myself a gamer, but I was definitely exposed to some computer games. There is this notion in the articles that the more exposed you are to gaming, the more likely you are to become interested and involved in computer science.

However, I don't think I have ever been curious enough to tear apart my computers or gaming consoles and figure out how to program things. Honestly, to my knowledge I don't think I've ever truly been interested in figuring out how electronic things work. What I'm suggesting is that there are some people innately interested in the composition or engineering of things and there are those who simply like to use technology. This, however, does not help explain why women aren't enrolling in computer science programs-- I will get there.

In reference to the NYTimes article that said there need to be more games for girls, I don't know if I fully agree that the ones out there aren't for girls. When I was younger my cousin had one Barbie game where you had to drive and rollerskate through obstacles, but it wasn't the greatest. Most of the time we favored games like Mortal Kombat, Max Payne, Goldeneye, games that might be considered games targeted to boys. But those were the ones we enjoyed and we played them all the time without thinking twice.

I'm not saying that violence, gore, male heros etc. are completely irrelevant to the fact that girls don't play as much video games, which in turn affects computer science enrollment (supposedly.) I just think there are bigger factors at play. I see it as any other social phenomenon where history plays a large part as well as learned gender roles. When there are no female role models in a field, women tend to not feel as comfortable to pursue them. And for so long engineering, computer science, math and science have been dominated by males. The way our parents and community shape our likes and dislikes according to gender roles also has a large part in what career we choose. It's a complicated issue and one thing can't be named the culprit, but I think actively seeking a female contribution to computer science and attempting to interest girls in technology composition etc. through our school systems will help close the gender divide.

My Relationship with Limewire

I currently use Limewire to break the law. I've deleted the application several times from my computer because I know that regular ol' people everywhere are getting sued for downloading Britney Spears albums and such. But each time I delete it, my desire for new music and the emptiness of my checking account drives me to download the application again and continue in my criminal ways.

I think the piracy ads they put out a while back are pretty scary. That and the news of 11-year-old teenyboppers getting subpoenaed for downloading the latest Hannah Montana movie.

But I guess I'm not scared enough because I keep on downloading. I'm not sure how this dilemma can be solved. By punishing the music-giants we also keep the up and coming artists starving. Maybe there should be ads that focus on the up-and-coming artist and appeal to our moral sides a bit more. Maybe we can boost the drive to donate, or is that me just being optimistic?

I thought this was interesting, and I'm sure all my eco-friendly classmates will too.

Leaving Computers on Overnight=$2.8 billion a year

Emotionally Plastic

Maybe there's not a way to argue it through philosophical or mathematical avenues, but that doesn't really matter to me. Machines do not think on the same terms as humans do and are not comparable "beings" (if you can call them that.) Humans are the creators of the machine, so therefore, machines can try to be "better," more innovative, smarter, but behind every program there is a maker, a human maker. It's as simple as that. I mean, computers can mock human thought because their abilities derive from human thought, but they lack emotion, which is a large impetus for why humans do or think the way they do. It's not only emotion they lack, but an array of human traits. I don't think the argument should be: Who is "better:" man or machine? We are inherently different things, with different skills, but it should be common knowledge that we, us human beings, control what the machine does. Therefore, there should be no human insecurity that the human race will lose against some computer-driven world takeover. Ridiculous.

Here is a news article showing how voice technology just can't seem to get it right: Read Me a Story, Mr. Roboto

Product Price Dilemma

I have a problem: I have dry hair. Every time I would go to a hair stylist for a new cut, I would plead with the hair dresser to give me a solution to my problem. "Tell me of a new elixir that replaces my brittle ends with nourished tresses! Please I'll do anything!"

By now, I know hair biology and the reasons for dry hair. I've tried the solutions that web pages offer: hot oil treatments, weekly protein treatments, leave-in-conditioners, good products vs. bad products, alcohol is a no-no etc. But none of these solutions seem to give me my silky desire.

And each time, the hair dresser, delighted by my plight for answers, tells me I must use salon-based products. "Stay away from nasty drugstore products!" they warn. Well, I've done that and spent a good bit of money. And it hasn't worked.

The sneaky little scissor-weilding stylists are trying to pull a fast one on me, but the fraudulent suggestion that price makes the biggest difference does not work on me! I've done my personal research! From my experience, there is no difference between the salon and the generic products. Maybe we can account my skepticism for the ineffectiveness of more expensive salon products, but I think not. I wanted the more expensive products to work but instead they have the same effects as the cheaper ones.

I think the suggestion that price dictates quality abounds everywhere and in some cases it might be true, but for the most part it is a false formula. Each time I went into the hair salon, I knew the ploys of the stylists-- trying to get you to purchase expensive products that they receive a commission for selling. I also knew the price dictates quality facade and the placebo effect philosophy that tricks many into believing that their problems will be fixed (in this hair context case-I'm not discrediting it in other situations). But because I have background knowledge of these tactics, I can make an informed decision about what hair products I choose to buy.

What I'm saying is: We could save a lot of money, if we didn't take to heart the price dictates quality sham.

Human v. Machine Article

I don't know if anyone else felt this way, but this article was a bit heavy. What I think it was saying was that we are not using technology the right way. Technology should conform to the people, not people to technology, and we should change the way systems work in order to promote user-friendliness. Computers master certain tasks and humans master others, and we should combine these "skills" to form a "true symbiosis of people and machines." Therefore, making the whole relationship between humans and machines more effective, and in turn, advancing society in infinitesimal ways. SO, my question is: instead of blaming myself for not mastering Adobe Photoshop in the five or so years I've been using it, should I really blame the program for not being as human-centric as it should be?

I think I got this all wrong, but hey I tried.

We Are Being Watched...

Ad Industry Bans Targeting People with Cancer

I've been pretty irked in the past when ads confronting me on my Facebook or Myspace page are related to something on my profile or things I've searched for in the past-- ads for Buffy DVDs or even personal things like medicine and loans. Even more bothersome is when ads show up that seem to be targeting me as someone I'm not: things like 'Meet Christian Singles!,' 'Big and Beautiful Singles' or ads insinuating a love for binge drinking. It's kind of funny, but it also can be offensive. It makes me wonder what I'm searching for that makes me seem like an overweight alcoholic Christian.

In my opinion, ad targeting is invasive, a little scary and sometimes ineffective. This article explains some of the rules that guide the ad industry in regards to who they can target.

Peace: No More Love-Hate PLEASE!

Here we go with another story about the Love-Hate relationship with technology. Norman concludes in the end that new technologies have made us more comfortable. I believe that in turn, we should give them our affection, be a little more positive and relish in their benefits.

They've made life more manageable and tolerable. We no longer have to use our precious energy to turn a can opener-- we have electric can openers. We no longer have to brave the heat of the summer-- we have the beautiful commodity that is A.C. We no longer have to watch fuzzy beetles on PBS-- we have the nature channel in High Definition. On a big enough TV, those beetles look like they could fly off the screen and into my cereal.

I do not regularly hate technology. It has done great things for me. However, my philosophy regarding the tech-world is unique-- maybe. I own a Macbook, an Ipod, Bose Speakers, an Apple mini DVI to Video cable, a Sony camera, a Samsung 19 inch tube TV, a DVD player and a crappy AT&T Nokia $60 phone. Oh, and an HP printer that blackens my heart everytime I use it (an example of my frustration.) Excluding the AC unit in my apartment and kitchen appliances, that is all the technology I own.

I live on a need-based technology diet, and maybe this accounts for my lack of frustration with it. All of my appliances work together because I make sure I buy things that are compatible with Macs or whatever appliance I want them to work with. I'm not trying to keep up with those trying to show off their newest piece of equipment, I'm simply trying to make my life easier, and if technology will help me manage my time more efficiently etc. I will make an investment.

I will NOT let the expanse of available gadgets, the potential inventions that might improve my life, overwhelm me; Life itself overwhelms me enough.

Hyperspace vs. Hemingway

I am a lit chick i.e. a female who loves reading. As a little kiddo, I thoroughly enjoyed the nights spent with my Mom, reading little golden book stories about Farmer Joe and his rabbits. Soonafter, I progressed into an avid reader of the Goosebumps series by R.L. Stine. And after those got repetitive, I upgraded to Christopher Pike's more "post-pubescent" plots (there were some sex scenes and bad language.) Those books and many others that included topics about aliens, ghosts, and vampires, helped me to become the reader I am today. However, growing up, the only experience I had with online reading was in the yahoo chatrooms that my cousin and I would visit in order to talk to crazy people from Denmark.

I understand that I am an exception. Most of my friends had little to no interest in reading. Getting children to have an interest in reading books has been a problem for a long time, before the access to the internet was as available as it is today. In my case I think my love for books and reading was probably due to the positive attention I got from my mother and teachers for being so interested in literature.

There is no question in my mind that online reading affects literacy in a positive way. I agree with the notion that internet reading could be an avenue toward book reading because they are similar in some ways, but the issues around why kids are not reading books is more complex and should not simply be blamed on the distraction of the internet.

The internet and books are inherently different things and should be treated as so. Books, novels, literature, offer you a window into a drawn-out context of history or situation and allow for more detail, explanation, which in turn offers a chance to reflect on themes and build on imagination. And the internet is a whole different animal. Different medias are plastered together: video, audio, text, to form a story that will communicate information more quickly. But it's a different story altogether, a different way of learning. With the internet, you can receive tons of information in a matter of minutes because of media-combination and the nature of the internet. This doesn't mean that it's better, just different.

In the end, books and internet reading are both beneficial; they just produce different benefits.