Category: Culture

Categories
Diversity Technology

So What?

Recovered from the Wayback Machine. Part of the O’Reilly Women in Tech series.

A few weeks back, the book Beautiful Code: Leading Programmers Explain How They Think hit the streets. What a terrific concept: get several prominent programmers to write about their own unique perspective on programming and donate the money to a good cause (Amnesty International). It was, and still is, a good idea and book. What problem could I possibly have with it?

A quick look at the Table of Contents gives you a hint: of the 38 programmers who contributed to the book, only one was a woman. Just one woman. Even by today’s standards with few women staying in the field—and even fewer entering—the ratio of men to women in this book, frankly, sucks.

A discussion arose about the lack of women authors in this book, which included the fact that some of the women who were invited to contribute declined. There were the usual statements, the usual questions asked: “Give us lists of relevant women,” “Who should we have invited?” Yada, yada, yada, business as usual.

However, there were several comments that I found disquieting because they reflected other discussions we’ve had in the last year about the issue of the declining numbers of women in technology. The wording used has differed, but the views basically reduced down to, “So what?”

There is only one woman who contributed to the book. So what?

There are no women presenting at the conference. So what?

No women are listed among these top designers/developers/experts. So what?

Before this last year—regardless of the situation and the participants, regardless of the reasons people give for the growing lack of diversity in the tech field, regardless of solutions offered—one thing all participants in these discussions seemed to agree on was that this lack of women was not a good thing. Lately, though, I’m seeing a disinterest in the whole issue; an increasingly vocal opinion that it just really doesn’t matter.

I never lack for opinion, but this one has me stumped. Here we are in 2007, in an era where the numbers of women in “non-traditional” professions have been increasing, sometimes even past the 50 percent mark. No longer do women have to stay at home or choose only “soft” professions. We now have more choices, and the only limits we seemingly face are those we bring with us. Women serve in the military and die in action, lead major corporations, argue cases in the Supreme Court, and are anything from rocket scientists to neurosurgeons.

Yet in the IT fields, our numbers are dwindling. Significantly. We all have ideas why this is occurring, but nothing concrete that we can point at and say, “There, that’s why!” It’s a true puzzle. What’s more puzzling, though, is how many in the technology field just don’t care. They don’t see that a field that is becoming increasingly only male is a problem.

Is it a problem? Probably not, if only men use the gadgets, only men use the software, only men are impacted by the applications, and so on. Yet, we know that women typically use software as much or more than men. Women use the Internet, as much or more than men. Women buy and use the gadgets. What’s happening is that all the population is using an increasing number of applications that are architected, designed, developed, quality tested, and documented by only half the population. Less than half, because the tech industry lacks diversity when it comes to race, too.

Maybe I’m just being a woman and all, but I look at this and I think to myself: are we really creating the best software? Are we really designing the best gadgets, the most useful web sites, the superior applications? How can we be, if more than half the population has no input in any aspect of the development and design process?

So, so what.

I’ve long felt that the IT field is one of the few where the participants are focused on the tools, rather than the tasks. I believe that integrating IT into the engineering field as a complete and separate discipline was a huge mistake—not the least of which is that engineering is the only other discipline where the numbers of women are dropping (big hint, there).

Our field would be better if it were integrated with the librarian sciences, psychology, business, English, art—associated with tasks and topics, rather than grouped around the tools and processes. This makes even more sense when you realize that many people who enter the field do so with no degrees or with degrees in completely unrelated disciplines. It’s not unusual to hear from both sexes that they drifted into development or design because of a growing interest that was unrelated to their initial course of study. Imagine how much stronger the IT field would be if we bring in all these diverse viewpoints right from the start.

My recommendation? Break up the computer science programs, split the participants into specialized fields within other disciplines, and stop spending all our time on talking about Ruby and how cool it is. See? There’s a solution, and all it requires is basically ripping apart the entire field and rearranging the chunks.

Whatever solutions we arrive at to increase the number of women in technology, none are going to work if there isn’t general consensus that the lack of diversity is a problem. That we all, at a minimum, agree that the computer field, as it is now, is broken. That we need to find solutions. More importantly that we all have to buy into the solutions, because whatever we come up with is going to impact on all of us, including those who say, “So what?”

Categories
Diversity Technology

Caltech: Glimmer and Glomming

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

Susan Kitchens points out that the number of women in the freshmen class at Caltech has increased from 28.5 last year to 37 percent this year. That’s a significant rise, even though it doesn’t match other tech colleges (42 to 47 percent), or colleges in general (with 57 percent women).

Interesting how Caltech increased the enrollment of women:

Caltech officials said the school did not lower its admission standards, but did more actively and shrewdly recruit women this year.

For example, Caltech made its female applicants more aware that they could be physics majors but also study music and literature, said Rick Bischoff, director of undergraduate admissions.

“That’s not to say men are not interested in those issues,” but those seem to resonate more with women, Bischoff said.

In other words, Caltech made a specific decision to increase women’s participation, pursued such actively and was successful. In some circles hereabouts, the feelings seem to be that actively recruiting women as participants is equivalent to ‘lowering’ the overall quality of the participants.

Susan, and the article, both mention the concept of ‘glomming’, where groups of young men at Caltech will follow a young woman around, lie in wait for her, and sit staring at her.

Personally, everyone participating in this should be expelled from school. Such juvenile behavior belongs in Kindergarten, not college. Perhaps if these boys would be encouraged to take literature and music, they might act like well-rounded and healthy men.

The only issue I have with all of this is that I hope that bringing more women into Caltech isn’t seen as a way of making the educational experience better for the men–you know, more dates for the poor geeks. We do not exist to keep you guys from feeling lonely.

We don’t exist for you guys at all.

Categories
Political Religion

Joy. Oh joy oh joy oh joy

Recovered from the Wayback Machine.

It’s not bad enough that St. Louis in August is characterized by hot, muggy days, with lousy air quality.

It’s not bad enough that we’ve just had our first human case of West Nile Virus in the county, and that the dangerous tick alert is still ongoing.

It’s not terrible enough that the dog days of summer in St. Louis make you want to embrace the cat and kill the pooch.

No, no, it becomes worse.

The National Federation of Republican Assemblies is being hosted here, this upcoming weekend. The event’s tag line?

“Show me your Values”

I can just hear the opening statement now: This here meetin’ of the white trailer park trash of the south is now come together. Anyone around you not waving a cute, little American flag is a godless, commie, liberal, no good spy. Shoot ‘em.”

But wait…it gets even more worse…worser…whatever.

What are the ‘beliefs’ behind this organization?

That all political power and influence should flow from the grass roots upward.

That all human rights are granted by God, not government and that government exists primarily to protect the God-given rights of its citizens.

That the Constitution was written by wise men under the inspiration of God and that the original intent of the Founders is as valid and binding today as it was in their day.

That the Constitution was written to govern a moral and religious people and it is being destroyed by those who are neither.

That the unborn child has a fundamental individual right to life which cannot be infringed. That sacred right extends to all persons regardless of age or infirmity and also would not allow for euthanasia, assisted suicide, or public funding for any of these practices.

That the traditional family is the foundation and cornerstone of our society and we will oppose any attempt to undermine or redefine the family unit.

That the founders never intended to separate God from government but did intend to prevent government from establishing a single state religion or inhibiting the citizen’s right to the free exercise of religion in any setting, public or private.

That free market capitalism is the only economic system that creates the opportunities and incentives that will allow maximum productivity and prosperity for its citizens. It is the necessary partner of political freedom.

In the necessity of national sovereignty, we also consider it crucial to return to appropriate state sovereignty under the 10th amendment.

Yes, let’s forget separation of church and state. Tedious thing being tolerant, idna it?

Let’s forget the fact that the ‘traditional’ family in the country typically consists of a single or divorced parent, trying to raise kids with, or without help, from the spouse no longer living at home.

Let’s forget that capitalism and the ‘free market system’ has brought us Enron, big tobacco and drug companies, and health insurance that costs too much and covers too little.

Let’s also forget that most serial murders in this country are typically committed by Christians, so are most lynchings and beatings, and that no war has ever been caused by an atheist. In fact, I can’t think of one single negative act ever committed in the name of atheism in this country. So as the whole ‘moral’ thing goes, the religious suck at it.

But it’s in the principles that you see the real purpose behind such a group: it’s all about taxes and support for capitalism, and a Darwinian survival of the economic fittest that would bring down the house. Oh, and claiming our ‘god given right’ to beat the crap out of other countries. Well, other countries that have something we want, that is.

Such noble spirits. Such statements of openness and generosity. Why I feel like I’ve just walked into a cramped, dusty, and dark closet when I read sentiments such as these.

Makes me wonder about the Presidential candidates, though. They’ll allow themselves to be associated with racist, ignorant, self-serving po’dunks, like the people in NFRA, but they won’t answer questions from YouTube. I mean, no matter how many potential “Romney girls” or men in white hoods get thrown at the GOPers, it has to be better than lunch with Phyllis Schafly.

Yes, that’s the topping on this little overbaked cake: Phyllis Schafly is keynote speaker. Why, I feel like donning my apron and running right on down, if My Man will let me. After all, I just love Phyllis, I really do; almost as much as Tom DeLay who is also attending.

Oh, rapture! And did you dig the cute little RINO hunter thing? I love it, I really do. The more groups like this shoot down moderate Republicans, the more Democrats win office. Hallelujah and pass the ammo!

You’d think that people in the Lou would have enough problems, what with the heat, the humidity, bugs, and smog — but Phyllis Schafly, Tom DeLay, tossed together with generous servings of self-interest, greed, bigotry, and the smallest minds found anywhere outside of the Shuars in Ecuador and Peru–well, it’s more than a people should be expected to bear.

The only redeeming thing about all of this? You all lost the Republican Party the Congressional vote in 2006, cupcakes. And you’re going to help the Party lose the Presidential race in 2008, too.

Categories
Connecting Copyright

Virgin bites Creative Commons on the butt

Wayback Machine entry for post including comments.

Rogers Cadenhead finds an ad featuring Molly Holzschlag. About my post, he wrote:

Shelley Powers puts the blame for this squarely on Creative Commons for not educating users of its licenses. If you release photos for commercial reuse, but you don’t secure model releases from people they depict, you’re subjecting yourself — and those who use your work — to a thorough proctological workup by an intellectual property attorney.

Actually, I never said any of this. I said that this demonstrates that people are confused about the commercial license, because why on earth would a person add this CC license when they don’t have model releases? Or really want the photos used in ads?

Virgin Mobile’s part in this is less interesting, to me, than the issue of people putting a for-commercial CC license on a work that can’t possibly be used without a lot of additional work for commercial purposes. I didn’t once say that Virgin’s use of the photos wasn’t without its own problems.

Additionally, I’ve looked at many of the photos used in this campaign. Why on earth would the people use the commercial license with these items? None that I’ve seen are anything more than casual snapshots.

I’ve written–oh, a time or two–on my concerns regarding the Creative Commons licenses. I’ve stated that they’re confusing, that people are socially pressured and overly encouraged to use such without understanding the impact, and that we don’t really understand how these licenses work with existing laws.

Doug Pardee sent me an email giving me a heads up on an uproar at Flickr about photos Virgin Mobile is using for an ongoing campaign. Seems that Virgin Mobile used Flickr’s CC licensed photo search engine to find photos that allowed commercial use. The company then used such commercially, including a photo of an underage girl without her or her parents’ signed consent.

What’s interesting is the debate on this, as people who aren’t lawyers ask each other what does ‘commercial use’ mean, and when can a person publish a photo of an individual and so on. There is still a massive misunderstanding about the terms used in these licenses, and little done on the part of the CC promoters to do anything other then grunt, “CC, Good!”

Even now, with this discussion raging over at Flickr, another Flickr Forum item discusses the Wellcome Trust decision to release its image collection under CC, and then references those on Flickr who don’t do the same, saying, “Compare the Wellcome Trust’s attitude to that of some of the photographers here on Flickr who consider EVEN educational use of their photographs to be GRAND THEFT PHOTO.”

I would assume that the Wellcome Trust had lawyers who helped in the decision to release photos, and did so with a very clear understanding of the license, the implication, and what the CC licenses mean in regards to existing copyright laws. Obviously, the same cannot be said for many Flickr users, and social pressuring is only going to make matters worse.

In many countries, including the US and Australia, commercial use of photos requires signed consent of identifiable people, and signed consent of a guardian if the person is under legal age. To me, commercial use does not mean that your photos will be featured in a magazine. It means that your photos will be featured in an ad, and used to sell something. However, the only example of commercial use the CC organization provides is one where a person takes a photo and someone else prints it and sells the print. These are two completely different acts. Does this mean I’m wrong? If I am, then how does one classify the use of a photo in a commercial? As editorial use?

To me, editorial/educational (non-commercial) use means that your photos can be used in magazines or to accompany newspaper articles, or in classes or other forms of instruction. Such use also means that your photos can be used to promote organizations and attitudes you may despise, or even hate, but that’s besides the point.

This is what I understand about the CC, but I’m only a layman, and only have a layman’s view of all of this. Don’t look to the lawyers for advice, though; they’re so hemmed in by the rigid and restrictive rules of their profession, I’m surprised they can even identify themselves as lawyers, much less give a public opinion on anything.

Definitely don’t look for clarification or even discussion on these issues at the CC site. This is the ultimate ‘feel good’ organization, where the world is full of happy happy people creating happy happy works sharing with other happy happy people who would never abuse such generosity.

More at:

dsphotographic

Categories
Connecting

Wello

Wayback Machine entry with comments.

I haven’t had a chance to see Sicko yet. It’s showing on only three screens in the entire area, and I’m waiting for it to hit a theater near us.

I’ve been reading, with interest, the views of the movie. I have no doubt, as some people have stated, that Michael Moore ‘staged’ events and used emotion to make his point. He makes no apologies; at a minimum, his use of such has started an overdue and desperately needed debate on health care in this country.

I’m disappointed in our candidates for President. Of all of them, only Kucinich has the courage to defy corporate inspired ‘fear’ of socialized medicine to call for what’s really needed. Edwards push to have health insurance carriers devote more of a percentage of profits to health care is nothing more than a sop to the issue. Other options, such as those similar to Romney’s poorly designed and ill thought out health care initiative in Massachusetts, are only designed to add more money to the coffers of the private health insurance companies, as well as prevent the burden of caring the uninsured from falling to the hospitals and doctors, rather than extend health care to all.

Moore’s choice of highlighting the troubles for those already covered by health insurance was ingenious. If he had focused on the ‘bums’, those of us who don’t have health insurance, he would have played into the conservative agenda in that people can get insurance if they only work for it. What Moore has done is show that it doesn’t matter if people have insurance or not, the people in our country are not getting the care they need.

Of course, once the movie released, we heard all the opinion pieces about how systems in Canada, the UK, and elsewhere, where health care is provided for all, have severe failings and how the people of these countries would really much rather have our system. Isn’t that what David Gratzer said, in the Wall Street Journal?

Under the weight of demographic shifts and strained by the limits of command-and-control economics, government-run health systems have turned out to be less than utopian. The stories are the same: dirty hospitals, poor standards and difficulty accessing modern drugs and tests.

Of course, other experts debate his statements, and we go back and forth, not sure what is the truth.

Times have changed, though, and we’re no longer dependent on having to listen to what one expert says to another. If I don’t think weblogging is a good replacement for traditional journalism, it does provide a way, in circumstances such as these, for us to talk to each other. To hear what each other says on personal issues such as health care, and how we, personally, feel the health care system in our respective countries cares for ourselves, our families and friends.

Hello, I’m Shelley. I live in St. Louis, Missouri, in the US. I currently do not have health insurance. My income is erratic and I can’t always count on having the $400.00 dollar a month to pay the premium.

Has not having health insurance changed my lifestyle? Oh, very much so. Because of two bad falls during hikes in the last four years, where I hurt both my back and my ankle, I’m wary now of hiking in more challenging terrain. If I were to fall now and break a bone or tear ligaments, I couldn’t afford to have such treated.

It’s hot to walk in the city, but I haven’t hiked much in the country this summer. I’ve been bitten by ticks every summer and I’ve had bad reactions every year; reactions that have gotten worse. I can’t afford to take the chance to get bit by ticks again this year and have the allergic reaction become worse. Additionally, my state has put out a warning for a significant increase in disease bearing ticks this year. If I can’t afford an allergic reaction, I certainly can’t afford Rocky Mountain Spotted Fever.

As for the rest of my life, well, I try to eat well, get plenty of sleep, and walk when the temperatures hit below the 70s at night. I’m looking forward to the fall when I can walk in the country again.

Others of my family and friends do have insurance.

I have a close female relative who had surgery for colon cancer a year ago last November. She went through chemo, but still has a 72% chance of cancer re-occurring. That doesn’t mean she’ll die, just that she needs to be more aware and have more regular tests and be ready to aggressively attack the cancer if, when, it re-occurs.

One such test is a colonoscopy. Her ontologist wanted her to have another one, but when she talked to the insurance company, they stated that the only time they authorize a colonoscopy less than two years after the previous is if the person is a ‘high risk’ for colon cancer. My relative’s doctor hit the roof. If previous colon cancer and a 72% chance of re-occurrence is not considered ‘high risk’, what is?

I have another friend who has just gone through a rather extensive, over 50 physical. His plan is focused more on covering high hospital expenses than day to day care or preventative care such as physicals. He’s had the blood work, the high blood pressure check, and the cholesterol check, which was high. He had a stress test and a colonoscopy. So far, he’s had to pay 1200.00 and counting out of his own pocket for these ‘routine’ physical tests.

I had a friend in Boston whose father had significant problems with dementia. The nursing home where he was placed was a decent place, but costly. Her father couldn’t get help to pay for the place because he had too much money. What did he have? He had a house. She had to sell the house and exhaust his income just so that he was ‘poor’ enough to get the care he needed.

When I have had insurance, I’ve had doctors who are only allowed 15 minutes with each patient; I’ve had surgery on an out-patient basis, because I’d have to pay thousands if I stayed overnight; and I had one doctor who wanted to prescribe Xanax as a sort of all purpose cure all. Since she was my ‘assigned’ physician, I couldn’t see anyone else without going through a lot of hassle, so I didn’t go back. I guess I didn’t die, so whatever it was I had wasn’t terminal.

I’ve also had excellent doctors who have treated me with humor, patience, and with a genuine desire to see me healthy. Too bad I can’t get through the door to see most of them without having insurance.

Would I switch what I have for what people have in Canada, Germany, France, Australia, or the UK? Absolutely.

So, who are you, where do you live, and if you’re not in the States, would you rather be sick here? Or in your own country?

The Michael Moore Wolf Blitzer smackdown at RawStory.

There’s a reason I asked what I did in this post. Because of what I’m reading in the mainstream media contradicts what I’ve heard from webloggers who live in other countries.