Conference vaxcat::ef97

    
    Is it only me or does anybody else think that no matter what you do and
    however simply you try to explain things and no matter how many minute
    steps you break things down into women and computers just do not mix?
    
    Chris

    No. I think your statement, although obviously meant tongue-in-cheek
    and missing a smiley, is a gross generalisation, and re-inforces my
    opinion of you as a male chauvinist pig.
    
    Hugs,
    Goldy.

    
    	mr::WINPENNY,
    	don't let that `hugs' fool you. 

    re .26
    
    Lady Lovelace was the first computer programmer, working with Babbage.
    Admiral Grace Hopper was one of the founding fathers of modern
    computing. There are many fine women working with computers.
    
    From the tone of our note, I think perhaps you are over simplifying
    things to the point where the women dismiss your explanations as
    drivel.
    
    I find most women are most comfortable with explanations like "Then a
    miracle occurs" or "Don't worry, no one understands this stuff, it just
    works".
    
    Helpfully
    
    Andrew

    
    Why do domestic wahing machines have 55 million different program
    settings but the ones in launderettes only have hot, medium, cold and
    start buttons?
    
    Chris

    Because the ones in Laundrettes are used by women who don't
    understand computers and they would have to put down their cigarette,
    chip sandwich and squawking brat to use the other buttons.
    
    Helpfully
    
    Andrew

    Oh how I love EF!
    
    Cheers, Laurie.

    re .26 - You should be shot! 
    
    In all my years in the business i have never come across a woman who
    has not been able to understand computers (whether or not that person
    had a career in computers. But I have come across plenty of men with
    attitudes like yours - unfortunately! Fortunately, I am mostly now able to
    keep well away from people with such an attitude and have learned not
    to rise to the bait (except now) when i have to unavoidably do business
     with them.
    
    I expect you have a similar attitude regarding women and cars - Oh
    dear, there's no hope for you!

    Re. 26
    
    Hmmm.  So utterly pathetic it's not even worthy of a response.
    
    CHARLOTTE

    >I find most women are most comfortable with explanations like "Then a
    >miracle occurs" or "Don't worry, no one understands this stuff, it
    >just works".
    
    Ah, thank goodness we have all learned to avoid patronising put downs
    eh :-)
    
    I recall reading a book by an enginner called Goldstein   involved in
    the first big electronic computer project in the states in 1944. The
    machine code programmers were all women, as it was looked on a clerical
    work!! 
    
    IQ testers have 'discovered' that there are fewer very highly
    intelligent women than very highly intelligent men, and they seriously
    defend this theory to explain why there are fewer female chess grand
    masters,  Nobel laureates, university professors etc. They got these
    results by fiddling with their experiments. When they first did IQ
    tests, girls did better than boys, but that was the wrong answer, so
    they introduced an maturity factor, by comparing control groups of boys
    and girls at different ages. Unfortunately the experiment still got the 
    wrong answer, but they noticed there are some questions which boys do
    better than girls and vice versa. So they did the decent thing by
    reducing the pro-girl questions and that did the trick.  It is called
    scientific objectivity or bourgeois ideology depending on your point of
    view.
    
    This theory was trotted out on page one of one of the Sunday heavies,
    (The Observer I think) after Judit Polgar became the world's
    youngest chess grandmaster. She was, of course, an exception to the
    rule :-)   Related bull theories are that blacks are less intelligent
    than whites, Irish less intelligent than English, and most beggars in
    London are Scottish. 
    
    ..Kevin..

    
    Re: .33
    
 >  I expect you have a similar attitude regarding women and cars - Oh
 >  dear, there's no hope for you!
    
    Funnily enough, yes.
    
    Chris

    Related bull theories are that blacks are less intelligent
    than whites, Irish less intelligent than English, and most beggars in
    London are Scottish. 
    
Re your contention that "it's bull that X group is less intelligent than Y
group"

How do you _know_ this?

When we talk about race, we normally talk about physical characteristics that
make people visibly different from one another.  Do you have any evidence to
show that there is not a corresponding difference in 'intelligence' (however
that may be measured)?

I'd be surprised if you have evidence to show one way or the other about this.
Anyone who does such research appears to be under very sever political
pressure to come up with the 'correct' result, whatever that happens to be.

regards,
//alan

   >>  Do you have any evidence to show that there is not a corresponding
    difference in 'intelligence' (however that may be measured)?
    
    Well, I would argue that 'intelligence' is not something that can be
    defined and measured in a linear objective way. One might as well say
    that a painting by Leonardo has a score of 142, but Andy Wahrhol has
    95. And I argued in my note that the results are fiddled to achieve the
    required results. It would be possible to get results that any
    particular group are more intelligent than others, depending on how you
    define 'intelligence'.
    
    Research is this field is riddled with fraud. The main proponent of
    these theories in the uk is Prof Eysenk. His mentor was Sir Cyril Burt,
    who invented fictitious results to prove his theories. Eysenk has
    defended Burt. 
    
    What I am saying is that the methodology of this 'science' is flawed,
    although it is taken as proof that there are fewer intelligent women
    than men.  
    
    >>How do you _know_ this?
    
    There is a sizable literature on this controversy. My note is based on
    an interpretation of what Eysenk writes in his own defence.
    
    ..Kevin..
                          

    
    
     How on earth can Admiral Grace Hopper be a father of anything ??
    
     Maybe she is one of the mothers of all computing but thats another 
     story
    
     scoobydoo

    
    	that's pedantic, even for you, scoobs.

    Well, I would argue that 'intelligence' is not something that can be
    defined and measured in a linear objective way. One might as well say
    that a painting by Leonardo has a score of 142, but Andy Wahrhol has
    95. And I argued in my note that the results are fiddled to achieve the
    required results. It would be possible to get results that any
    particular group are more intelligent than others, depending on how you
    define 'intelligence'.
    
Hmm...I guess that Ipartly agree with you in as much as 'intelligence' is too
broad a term.  How to balance literacy, numeracy, abstract reasoning and other
facets of intelligence would be difficult indeed.

I suspect that you're right about fiddling the results.  Also, any 
'definitive' test would probably be fiddled so as not to show racial, sexual
or any other imbalances, which of itself would indeed be a fiddle.  So how to
measure intelligence is difficult!

Thanks for a thought-provoking reply,

regards,
//alan

    
    I know the answer to this one but I don't want to overload the other
    conference.
    
    Why when I take out a disk and put it in a machine with a different
    motherboard does windows 95 insist on telling me I've got new hardware
    and then installs the same set of PCI drivers alongside the original
    set and then tells me I've got conflicts. But deleting them all doesn;t
    work because it doesn't clean up the registry properly and upon next
    boot goes through the same procedure but this time the PCI drivers are
    sitting alongside the two others that shouldn't be there. The only
    effective solution is to manually delete everything that looks as if it
    shouldn't be in the registry and re-install.
    
    As to the answer why? Because it's a poxy operating system that's why.
    
    Chris

The answer is very simple...





You have a virus installed...






Called Windows 95

    For once, Simon is correct. W95 is a pile of shite.
    
    Cheers, Laurie.