To be fair
A quick survey of the media shows that the likes of Lane-Fox, Burchill et al are comfortably outnumbered by their male equivalents.
Baroness Lane-Fox of Soho has talked of her discomfort that the internet is made by humans who have a penis. The former Martha Lane Fox, CBE, told the Radio Academy's Radio Festival in Salford that she felt uneasy "that something that is now fundamental, like the water, for everybody’s daily life has been entirely produced by …
Unless I'm mistaken, your quick survey isn't very good given that it's actually saying women in media - either the production of or the subject of - are outnumbered by men.
I don't think you could actually work that out quickly. Seems to me there's loads of womens magazines, presumably about women, and loads of mens magazines with women in them. So it could get pretty tricky doing that as a quick survey.
You could however just say men are far too dominant in the world, which is definitely fair.
But that doesn't detract from the fact that Lane-Fox has, rather curiously, reached some pretty dizzy social heights off the back of being briefly involved in selling discounted holidays.
Not all of them are. The point is that the IQ spread of the aristocracy is about that of the general public, but an aristocrat of average IQ gets a leg up that would need a couple of SD's plus for the non-aristocrat. It's Peter Principle in action; aristocrats rise to their level of incompetence very quickly, whereas some of the rest of us never manage to get there. And the genuinely very competent aristocrats don't need to get in the public eye for self validation, so you don't hear about them.
I'm going to mention just one example; the member of the House of Lords who happened to be passing by in Wiltshire when the Battle of the Beanfield was on. His integrity, reporting and testimony had a big effect on law enforcement. But few people know his name.
As for inbreeding, the aristocracy has long had a technique for dealing with this. They tend to import attractive and intelligent young women from the rising middle classes. The Windsors are currently demonstrating how well this works as a tactic.
What Arnaut the less said.
And: Bertrand Arthur William Russell, 3rd Earl Russell for his influence on logic, mathematics, set theory, linguistics, artificial intelligence, cognitive science, computer science (type theory) and philosophy.
Also: Archibald Clark Kerr, 1st Baron Inverchapel for this classic letter:
"My Dear Reggie,
In these dark days man tends to look for little shafts of light that spill from Heaven. My days are probably darker than yours, and I need, my God I do, all the light I can get. But I am a decent fellow, and I do not want to be mean and selfish about what little brightness is shed upon me from time to time. So I propose to share with you a tiny flash that has illuminated my sombre life and tell you that God has given me a new Turkish colleague whose card tells me that he is called Mustapha Kunt.
We all feel like that, Reggie, now and then, especially when Spring is upon us, but few of us would care to put it on our cards. It takes a Turk to do that.
Sir Archibald Clerk Kerr, H.M. Ambassador"
Wittgenstein, as everybody knows, was a drunken swine. But he wasn't as sloshed as Schlegel.
Russell - his original work with Whitehead was brilliant, and if it was rapidly superseded it was partly because they built such detailed foundations and partly because at the time foundations of maths/mathematical logic was a focus of research. He just then went on to demonstrate Famous Scientist/Mathematician syndrome - a tendency to pontificate on things he didn't know that much about at the behest of the Press.
On the subject of the letter, above, I'm reminded (OT) of the story Humphrey Littelton used to tell about his father. One day at the breakfast table reading The Times his father started to laugh, but when asked why refused to explain. Eventually his son prevailed upon him and his father wrote him a note, enjoining him not to show it to his mother or sister. When Littelton opened the note it read "The new Prime Minister of Singapore is Mr. Bum Suk Lee."
The point is that the IQ spread of the aristocracy is about that of the general public...
Indeed. This has been advanced as an argument in favour of a House of Lords populated by people who are there solely by birthright - not by appointment or, heaven forbid, by election.
The reasoning being that if you select purely by accident of birth, you'll get a general cross-section of IQ range and abilities. Whereas if you include those who have succeeded in being appointed or elected, you will skew the curve towards ambitious, pushy, self-centred types - like the House of Commons.
Not saying I agree with this - just pointing out that there is some logic in it.
There is indeed some logic.
Appointed by random selection from the electoral roll might be even better. A bit like jury service, but better-paid and safer.
Personally I'd insist that the randomly selected people then passed a fairly simple general knowledge test. (that's knowledge, not trivia). We'd then have a more representative house of (mostly) non-politicians, with intelligence and abilities slightly above the average.
We might even lose MLF.
"The other 50% is due to the melting polar icecaps caused by global warming, which is the fault of men."
According to my wife EVERYTHING is the fault of men. Well, me, actually! My default state is "Wrong". So it doesn't matter what I say or do, I'm wrong. Which is actually very liberating - I can do and say what I please! It's going to be wrong anyway so hey-ho!
"According to my wife EVERYTHING is the fault of men. Well, me, actually! My default state is "Wrong". So it doesn't matter what I say or do, I'm wrong. Which is actually very liberating - I can do and say what I please! It's going to be wrong anyway so hey-ho!"
Be careful, friend. Many have tried this path and found that while there is no state better than wrong, there are many many states that are considerably worse than wrong. Examples of such states are 'Very Wrong', 'Don't touch me!', 'Oh-My-God-How-Could-You-Say-That-I'm-Never-Talking-To-You-Again' and 'Whacked around the face with a frying pan and buried in the garden'.
Consider yourself warned.
This is EXACTLY why you need a sarcasm icon and tag.
Due to the utterly unbelievable PC nature of the world today and the festering vestiges of your monarchial system, its is nearly impossible to tell whether this article is about someone real or imagined.
The real horror is that it could be about someone who actually exists and has that opinion.
IF it is about someone who exists, then it is time to toss the whole institution and all it's members into a black hole before some twat says another word. Boston Harbor needs dredging, there's not enough room.
With Sarah Palin and Michelle Bachmann as representatives of your fine country, you might just possibly want to rethink "festering vestiges of your monarchical system." Ms. Lane-Fox is unlikely to find herself on the ballot for a job equivalent to that of US Vice President. Palin actually did.
Since I was commenting on the article it's an unfair comparison. however...at least those two don't have any "hereditary line to the throne" like your Lane - Fox (and the accompanying inbreeding).
At this time I'd actually prefer Palin over Biden. It couldn't be worse and it might be better than his ineffectual bumbling. I know Palin would get more attention. She could hardly be considered manhating and PC. I'm not a fan of Bachmann but she's not covering my area. There could have been a better showing from Republicans but in my experience that was a throw away election for them.
Any person who works hard can accomplish great things in the States, they don't need an aristocratic title to do so. Certainly money helps. But they don't have to be "born to rule" like you seem to prefer over there, the royals do what ever they want and you just go happily along with them, even when they are out of touch with reality.
Some of us here prefer not to be led by the nose for all our decisions, you would apparently rather be led than have to make a hard decision. We threw off the monarchy a long time ago. Turns out they didn't know better than the common man.
"Some of us here prefer not to be led by the nose for all our decisions, you would apparently rather be led than have to make a hard decision"
You have a very odd idea about our Monarchy Mr/Mrs/Ms AC (but I'm guessing Mr.)
They don't make our decisions, we rely on the toffy-nosed upper middle-classes that went to the old-boys school to so that for us.
Never said it was just the monarchy but those who came with it fit the bill as well. Old Boys School tie types included. Anyone who talks with clenched teeth and patronizing manner as in "I'm special, you commoner".
As I said you are not captain of your own ship. As a country you let too many others make your decisions FOR YOU.
Brittain is losing it's very identity to the EU. It's own people are willing to give theirs to blue blood tossers that have no business telling anyone what to do.
>>"Brittain is losing it's very identity to the EU. It's own people are willing to give theirs to blue blood tossers that have no business telling anyone what to do."
That's an odd mix of attitudes. Joining the EU has been one of our best protections against rule by the British upper classes. Pulling out is basically playing into the hands of Eton Establishment, etc. UKIP are funded by upper middle-class and upper class.
"Never said it was just the monarchy but those who came with it fit the bill as well. Old Boys School tie types included. Anyone who talks with clenched teeth and patronizing manner as in "I'm special, you commoner"."
Is this the point where you start your 'quirky cockney' dance, after delighting us with that little speech no doubt voiced in a Dick Van Dyke style English accent?
Palin would be a catastrophe in hip boots. Go to Alaska and you encounter the mystery that no one seems willing to admit having voted for her. However you might be right about Palin vs Biden. Palin's handicaps are blatantly obvious while Biden is likely to be far more plausible.
No, it's easy to tell. Try googling.
Of course, you aren't making that claim because you're actually too thick to use a search engine; you're making it because you have a pre-existing agenda that you wish to twist the facts to support.
Now sod off back to #GamerGate, where you and your horrible friends can all sympathise with each other about how horrible things like social justice are.
Oh, and I think she's an arsehole too, but it's not because I think she's being PC, because she isn't: she is ignorantly dismissing all the contributions women have made to computing and the internet. The fact that you cannot even see that just demonstrates the depth of your politically-driven blind spot: you see PCness where none exists because you wish to blame all the ills of the world on your one favourite little bugbear.
Unless they're going to issue everyone of voting age with a basic internet connection and a device with which to vote, then there will still be a need to have polling stations, or public internet access if it's online only, for those who don't have a suitable method of voting with them.
And, I can't help feeling, some people would be perfectly happy with that - a situation where many people can vote at their convenience, but the most disadvantaged have to queue up at a polling station or a library to cast their vote.
"Unless they're going to issue everyone of voting age with a basic internet connection "
A more pressing concern is that not voting is a valid choice. I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates. If Martha is too stupid to see how important the right to not vote is, then she's evidently fully qualified to be a member of the house of lords. Presumably serial stupidist Lord Vaz will be joining her soon, as he's demonstrated the necessary hypocrisy and dim-ness.
The interesting aspect of this is that under the previous hereditary system the Lords were great - a chamber of sleeping old codgers who allowed us to sell the idea of being governed by a class system to tourists, but who never interfered with the bungling stupidity of the lower chamber, other than a few irrelevant speeches about the need to hunt foxes, badgers and peasants. Following the "reforms" by that village idiot Blair, we can now see that we don't need two chambers, and it's becoming increasingly difficult to justify the House of Patronage.
I say shut the doors and gas 'em.
By and large I agree with you're sentiment, but I think in the real world if you don't vote, then you fall into the category of those who just can't be arsed. Much better to trawl along to the polling station and stuff your unmarked ballot paper into the box. (I once wrote "I don't want to vote for any of these people" on my ballot paper) The fact that you turned out to vote gets counted and none of the pillocks you didn't want to vote for gets the benefit. Oh wait, there's someone at the doo
"A more pressing concern is that not voting is a valid choice. I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates."
I don't see that as a valid reason for objecting to compulsory voting (although there are other valid reasons) since a ballot can be spoiled, thus venting your spleen or alternatively, part of a change to compulsory voting would be add a "None of the above" choice on the ballot which is counted, totalled and announced as part of the results.
""A more pressing concern is that not voting is a valid choice. I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates."
I don't see that as a valid reason for objecting to compulsory voting (although there are other valid reasons) since a ballot can be spoiled, thus venting your spleen or alternatively, part of a change to compulsory voting would be add a "None of the above" choice on the ballot which is counted, totalled and announced as part of the results."
And if we have compulsory voting with voting machines or voting over the Internet, then is there scope for spoiling one's "ballot paper"?
Well John Brown, idealism about voting doesn't go very far. I never hear about spoiled voting papers, nobody cares about them, I think the powers categorise them as juvenile tantrum activity and disregard them completely. More is made of voter apathy and low turnouts are seen as a reflection on our politicians and a message for them to up their sorry games.
Having read the total shyte that people opine about politics on social media, guardian comments, daily mail comments etc, I have despaired that the best of a bad lot democracy system is not keeping up with the modern world and needs a bit of a looking at.
News for Faecebookers:
1. Torys are not going to privatise the NHS and steal all the money from ordinary working people to give to posh twats to spend on pheasant shoots in the Scottish Highlands.
2. Labour are not going to penalise people who study hard, work hard and achieve by taxing them more so they can give the money as handouts to lazy-arse bastards to spend on piss lager and fags.
Or are they?
Rather blindly and sanctimoniously carry on with the dogma, and getting supercilious about people that don't vote, there are some that should be looking at the reasons for increasing voter apathy.
After all, those people that died in wars to support democracy, also died for our freedom to choose.
>A more pressing concern is that not voting is a valid choice. I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates.
Yeah, but then a consequence of compulsory voting might be that there would then be a candidate you could vote for.
> >A more pressing concern is that not voting is a valid choice. I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates.
> Yeah, but then a consequence of compulsory voting might be that there would then be a candidate you could vote for.
Does such a miraculous materialisation of an acceptable candidate happen in places where compulsory voting is already practiced?
How does this make any difference to a system where a small party clique gets to decide on a party's candidate and if it's a safe seat then that handful of people has effectively dictated who will be the MP for that constituency? Or even worse, the local party clique doesn't even get a look-in when (Labour) head office imposes a candidate on the constituency.
I didn't have any acceptable choices for MP at the last general election, so I didn't cast a vote for any of the candidates.
This is the unfortunate side effect of our voting system, and a position in which more and more people find themselves. It's also, perhaps partly to do with the way the media now reports on politics (largely very poorly, and in soundbites), and the increasing use of opinion polls.
All these factors have combined, so that we have now reached a situation where, unless you live in a marginal that a party things it may be able to win, you probably won't be treated to any significant campaigning visits, because as far as the incumbent party in that area is concerned, a pig with a rosette would still be elected.
Instead, Worcester Woman, Mondeo Man, and the lucky lucky residents of certain swing constituencies are treated to a parade of vacuous politicos, leaving a trail of soundbites behind them like incontinent labradors chasing a stick labelled "power"
And so, people become disengaged because the politicians believe that they don't matter, and their vote can be taken as read. Those whose opinions change, but find themselves living the in same place, eventually realise that there's either no one standing in their constituency who agrees with them (too red/blue for the greens to waste their small funds, for instance), or that even if there is, it's unlikely to make any difference, because of the voting system. People become even more disengaged, and the whole cycle gets worse and worse.
It's not helped by the view that "they're all the same" as the main parties strive to offer only tiny differences in their post Thatcher consensus, all the while talking up those tiny differences. One ray of hope is the turnout in Scotland, which showed that if people do believe it will make a difference, they will get out and do something.
Meanwhile, when I was in Sicily last summer, a huge crowd turned out in the town square in Modica, for a live debate between two Mayoral candidates. A couple of days later, a smaller but still impressive number stopped work and turned out to hear a speech by Matteo Renzi (then just Mayor of Florence, rather than PM) supporting one of the candidates, in the middle of the working day.
They may ultimately make some odd choices at the ballot box, but based on the experience I saw, the Italians are certainly rather more engaged than many people here; likely the centralised nature of the British state also has an impact on that.
... not voting is a valid choice ...
You're right ... and yet you're wrong.
It is certainly important that one should have some way of expressing a preference for "none of the above", but there is a danger that if one is allowed to express that by simply not voting one's choice will be mistaken for apathy.
Everyone elegible to vote should be required to present themselves (physically or virtually) to make their mark -- this is a civic duty -- but the ballot paper should allow the opportunity for deliberate abstension.
" many people can vote at their convenience, but the most disadvantaged have to queue up at a polling station or a library "
Why would the many want to vote in their toilet? And do the disadvantaged have the choice of voting at a public convenience?
Icon cos beer makes me look for a convenience.
Forcing people to vote seems to me to be a particularly stupid idea. These days it's pretty difficult to find a party trustworthy enough to warrant one's vote. I imagine if the non-voters were forced to it, we would find a mass of protest votes being handed to whoever manages to capture the public's attention and who isn't from one of the main parties.
And as for the internet - well there is plenty to make you uneasy about it, but which gender had the major hand in it is the least of it.
The biggest problem with Australia's voting system is not just that it's mandatory, it also uses what are called "preferences". Now, remember you HAVE to vote, and if you don't want to vote for Labor or Liberal, you could vote for a minority party like the Greens, the Sex Party, the Pirate Party, Hemp Party, One Nation and so on. But all of those parties are forced to stipulate "preferences" to other parties.
What this means is that if the candidate (and their party) you voted for doesn't get voted in, that party's votes are forwarded to the "preferred" party of their choice. So, say you vote for the Greens, and they preference Labor, but they don't get in. Then your vote for the Greens gets counted as a vote for Labor, whether you wanted Labor in power or not. You can't choose for your vote not to count at all if your desired party doesn't get in. Ultimately, because Labor and Liberal between then have an absolute oligarchy in this country, everyone is forced, through this system of preferences, to vote for one or the other, regardless of what you actually want.
Even an informal vote (e.g. a blank ballot paper, or one with a penis drawn all over it, or simply turning up and signing your name off and not putting a ballot in at all) is counted as a vote for the incumbent party, so you can't escape voting that way either.
The upshot is, if you live in Australia, you either vote Liberal or Labor, regardless of how much you hate either - or both.
Australia proudly has an abomination of a voting system. If you vote it is very difficult not to have your vote counted towards the established duopoly. However, according to the AEC site: Informal votes are not counted towards any candidate but are set aside.
The PARTY decides the second preference, not the voter? It's difficult to think of a less democratic preferential voting system. If I want to vote 1:Green, 2:Purple, 3:Yellow, I damn well ought to be able to, and not have 2:Purple crossed out and replaced with 2:Red.
Preferential voting is awesome and way more democratic than one-man-one-vote.
"Then your vote for the Greens gets counted as a vote for Labor, whether you wanted Labor in power or not"
I have no idea how you came to this conclusion. The ballot paper has a space for each candidate and your vote for all of them in the order of YOUR preference. If there are multiple candidates in the election that you absolutely despise then there is a chance your vote will help get one of them elected, but never the one you placed last. And compared to how "splitting the vote" affects the outcome of winner-takes-all voting you actually get a choice as to which less-preferred candidate you end up putting in power.
Australia's system is very good, all it needs to strengthen it is a "none of them" option which, if it comes in over 50%, would require a new election to be held with all new candidates.
"The biggest problem with Australia's voting system is not just that it's mandatory, it also uses what are called "preferences". Now, remember you HAVE to vote, and if you don't want to vote for Labor or Liberal, you could vote for a minority party like the Greens, the Sex Party, the Pirate Party, Hemp Party, One Nation and so on. But all of those parties are forced to stipulate "preferences" to other parties
Even an informal vote (e.g. a blank ballot paper, or one with a penis drawn all over it, or simply turning up and signing your name off and not putting a ballot in at all) is counted as a vote for the incumbent party, so you can't escape voting that way either."
Are you sure that's right? Although I'm not Australian, I (and Wikipedia) believe that Australia uses two forms of preferential voting system, a form of AV and a form of STV, and in both cases it is the voter who lists preferences.
Candidate Bloggs stands as prospective MP for the Don't Vote It Only Encourages Them Party.
Candidate Bloggs gets all the votes of those who don't want to vote.
Bloggs becomes MP.
The point is that the introduction of compulsory voting would change the selection of candidates you could vote for - so saying the current crop of prospective MPs are all useless is not a water-tight argument against compulsory voting. There may well be valid arguments against, but that isn't one of them.
I have no strong opinion about compulsory voting. I have a long tradition of turning up to spoil my ballot in person anyway.
A few years ago, I would have thought it was actually quite a good idea. But then came Tony Abbot, and he sort of put that into perspective. Now it just seems another way of picking at random from the worst possible options.
My own discomfort is from her continually being put forward as a shining example of a successful female internet entrepreneur when the truth is that no special talent was required in an age of overpriced web-enabled cheese apart from some posh friends and already some money before smiling sweetly at some gullible old duffers with bigger heaps of money and more importantly greed.
This might be in part what the article was saying without saying.
We need a better example. And preferably not from The Apprentice.
Downvote avalanche please!
"I would argue immediately that voting should be mandatory and it should be online. Of course, we can cover for all the fraud and I don’t think it makes the procedure any less robust, in fact quite the opposite.”
She should perhaps have a look at the work of Rebecca Mercuri (who I gather by the name is not male).
It's our own fault. We expect the BBC to maintain all these correspondents, despite the patent fact that at any given moment, most of them have nothing useful to do. So they have to go out and find something they can pass off as news.
"I'll cover big news and I'll cover little news, and if there's no news I'll go out and bite a dog." - the journalist ethos in a nutshell.
Come to think of it, what do you think this story is doing on El Reg?
> "that something that is now fundamental, like the water"
Hmmm, it may be that fundamental to her - the oxygen of publicity and all that, but I think most
sane realistic individuals would disagree.
Though it would be an interesting exercise to consider what an internet that had been developed by women would be like. Would it be any different at all? I doubt it.
"that something that is now fundamental, like the water, for everybody’s daily life has been entirely produced by men."
I hope she feels the same anything that was invented over about a hundred years ago, because these were almost certainly invented by men. Women have only really been inventing stuff in a way that means it's likely to see the light of day for the last hundred, maybe even fifty, years, and so she presumably turns her nose up at the following male inventions (in no particular order):
the periodic table;
the sewerage system (she might literally turn her nose up at this);
the anti-slavery movement;
She is such a blithering idiot.
I can't think of much that is more antithetical to a free society than it being against the law to not vote.
This seems to be the stock answer by these cretins to practically anything: more laws, more restriction on liberty.
How about "more education", a "less corrupt government", greater accountability, fewer laws, greater liberty?
I agree. A low voter turnout is a clear signal, very difficult to fudge, that there is a fundamental problem with the whole political system. Compulsory voting is a particularly invidious way of enabling the political classes of all persuasions to avoid facing up to and dealing with this very serious issue. Spoiled ballot papers do not have the same power to force them to do so as no-one voting does.
I believe the first Euro Parliament election produced a turnout of about 9% in Liverpool or somewhere. The message contained therein was, naturally, ignored, in a way that would have been very difficult in a Parliamentary Democracy.
Compulsory voting, with its huge vulnerability to a farcical result that bears no relation to anybody's wishes, is even worse for democracy than the people not being allowed to vote at all. At least with the latter the political situation can be seen quite clearly.
She's obviously unaware of such luminaries as Ada Lovelace and Grace Hopper - who while not directly responsible for the interwebs, certainly advanced its timing. Probably it's some phallocentric plot to keep her from knowing, since she's such an expert on the subject.
I'm not even going to comment on her thoughts on voting security. I have to buy my own keyboards and bile spilt all over them does them no good.
swallowing hard and putting her comments in the most sensible light possible it would appear she is using "the Internet" as shorthand for "The Contents of the WWW". Huge amounts of this content and design is created by women, and quiet possibly they are responsible for a slight majority of the content on the social media sites.
What a totally crazy thing to say ... she's a parody of herself.
that we are only picking on Martha Fox because she's talking rubbish and not because she's a woman.
[The creation of the internet/www by a bunch of men is because they were the ones who had the position and opportunity to do it. A limitation of the scope of equal access at the time. And had there been more women in the US defence industry and CERN then, the contributions if not the outcome might have been different.]
Fortunately we have the shining example of M Fox. who dragged herself up to a position of wealth and influence despite the limitations of an education at a
bog-comprehensiveindependent girls school and modern universityOxford. And then succeeded in working her way to the top in business (I won't say industry) in spite of glass ceiling etc.
fortunatesuccessful in the dotcom boom, she then segued into being on the boards of various companies before being plucked from obscurity to be a government figurehead appointee on digital inclusion.
(I know, it's hardly private eye levels of wit and cynicism)
"And had there been more women in the US defence industry and CERN then"
Berkeley, Stanford, UCLA and Utah grad students were hardly "the US defence(sic) industry". And trust me, there were a lot of the female set at all four Unis participating in the early phases of what we now call "The Internet". Later phases, too.
CERN was a late-comer to the party. Saint TBL arrived much later.
Look here chaps be the first to admit that honestly not even read the article, saw the title and got into first sentence which mentioned penis and well I just wanted to clarify that I was the one that created the Internet and I am a hermaphrodite so if it helps both a man and woman created the Internet. Let the penis and vagina camps calmly take back to their seats.
Back to the actual reason is this lady taken the recent activities related to gender imbalance and tried to make a popular comment?. (personal hunch) and the answers related to any form of equality lies really in the ethics used to firstly define work. Perhaps then maybe we can start to unravel how the rules behind creating such a thing has and still is defining how industries take shape (with slight variation regionally in a global scale)
For example the English wording since it maybe different in another language Chairman - there are lots of examples like this. Why bank cashiers/receptionists tend to be attractive ladies ?
Is there an element of sexual exploitation to sell a business front, afterall having a crackhead injecting heroin on your reception is not going to make business flourish.
So if the question is still why does the interent attract men the answer is really simple, a typical girl has a short period in her life to have kids.
A lady joins a system admin team, surrounded by a lot of deprived men, Vultures/Savages I hear her cry as she reaches for her chair.. (ovehearing the sysadmin in the corner with the long beard howling like a wolf). She soon learns there is no need to look all good and finds trying take all this on is taking up a lot of her own time so in short she is getting less time to look as good, after about 6 months she looks all dweeby and like the other sysadmin dudes with the pony tails.. Finally she is there one of the guys... but wait wasn't she supposed to be thinking about her ovulation.
I actually think the same thing is happening to a lot of guys in IT and it is rather sad that there appears to be not only an imbalance but also an imbalance of work/life where people have to keep on proving/learning new things due to all the competitive edge of it all.
Every time I hear/read someone promoting electronic voting systems, I have to set my jaw, close my eyes and take a slow, deep breath.
Electronic voting is a solution to a non-existent problem - that of voters casting more than one vote, voting in a different electorate, voting for a friend, etc...
Oh, it happens alright, but nothing has ever shown that it is cause for even the most casual concern.
It is easy to show that electronic voting has caused more questionable results than it has prevented.
I'm a woman and I was there in the beginning, and frankly, I've never LEFT. I am 66 years old and worked for DARPA back in the 60s. The internet is NOT 'built by MEN' but 'built by PEOPLE' INCLUDING WOMEN. I know more about electronics / software / computers than anyone I know. Right now I'm listening to a tv series on netflix which is playing on my four year old Motorola Xoom, while pandora plays on one of my smartphones, while I'm working on my book on one of my 'puters and while I work on an android app on one of my other 'puters.
The stupidity lies in thinking that the internet/i.t. / even STEM is more important to the world of humankind than continuing to build/maintain/improve society and that is what WOMEN do BEST. WE ARE SMARTER THAN MEN. It is MEN who think that electronics is 'most important', but it isn't. Just because I spent my life working in the computer industry does not mean I think it is more important than raising a God-fearing family and maintaining society, in as healthy a way possible. It isn't. But articles like this are just plain stupid. UGH.
I'm fully aware the downvotes are about to flood in, but, in amongst the tripe and gibberish, doesn't she actually have a point re voting?
Postal voting? Please. Actually turning up, queueing amid the great unwashed, then, snort, using a pen? How quaint.
If I actually believed any of these pompous arseholes and wanted to vote for them, my lazy gene would immediately kick in and insist I sit on the sofa with my feet up and watch the election coverage on TV instead.
If voting is made simple and convenient more people will do it, and it can happen more frequently. If anyone cares.
compulsory voting may give those lazy people a kick, to vote for something they want, but it may take a few years after they realise the current party keeps staying in office, that they realize they need to take *action* to remove him!!
I see so many moaning about govt, I tell them well you didn't vote, so you have no power!!!
doesn't she actually have a point re voting?
If turnout at an election is, say, 50% it indicates that 50% of the potential electorate don't care enough about who wins to actually vote. That's a lot of people who consider their vote to be effectively worthless. There's a clear opportunity there for someone to make it worth something, i.e. "I'll give you £10 to vote for my friend". In some marginal constituencies even 500 votes could make a difference, and at £5k it would be easily affordable to many potential candidates
The downside today is that with a secret ballot, paying for votes is risky. Someone could take your tenner & vote for whoever they want, you have no guarantee that you've got what you paid for,
Online voting completely changes that. You can stand over the person and watch them click the "right" button on your phone, you get a guarantee that you've bought their vote.It's every bit as open to fraud as postal voting.
As regards a "point" - well, no. No, she doesn't. The evidence available, which is very limited thanks to the use of proprietary software and hardware _suggests_ that electronic voting is far easier to spoof than the normal voting booth, graveyard rousing approach. It is highly probable that backers of good 'ol dubbya highjacked the 2004 election in the US - at least, based on exit polls it is. The exit polls had Kerry win handily, yet strangely in many of those very same precincts where the electronic systems were used the machines told an entirely different story. So, did the voters lie to the pollsters, or did someone hack the machines? But that's now all litter under the Bush so to speak.
Online voting is one of the worst uses of computer technology imaginable.
Where are computers useful? 1) when you need to move data really quickly 2) when you need to store and retrieve data in large volumes, and quickly 3) when you need to do calculations.
None of these apply to voting. You get all the cost of computer systems (bedding-in problems, implementation, configuration) and none of the benefits. Bits of paper work. It might mean the count takes 6 hours instead of 1, but other than a few politics nerds, who cares? It's not like it has any bearing on the price of fish.
4) where people find it difficult to get out of their home to a voting office (or postbox) through disability?
Trying to pretend that online voting wouldn't be far easier and subsequently encourage more people to do it is just moronic. There is no doubt that it would be beneficial, doing it in a secure way is the only part that is quite tricky.
"I would argue immediately that voting should be mandatory and it should be online"
Says someone who has been appointed to a position of power and influence in an organisation of unelected individuals.
Not that I have any particular problem with the idea of an assembly made up of the wise (actual levels of wisdom may fall as well as rise) to act in a consultation or advisory role to an elected body, but when you are a member of one you should be careful choosing your words re voting.
In a similar riches-to-riches story, TalkTalk chief Dido Harding was recently appointed Baroness Harding of Winscombe. That's Dido Harding, daughter of Lord Harding, 2nd Baron Harding of Petherton, and college chum of one Dave Cameron. MLF's old buddy Brent Hoberman is also a non-exec at TalkTalk.
She's dischuffed at the number of XYs that collaborated on building da internet which in turn helped for her to add too her fortune with LastMinute.com
I'm dischuffed at the prevalence of over privileged and private school educated half-wits who dribble through the corridors of power.
Shall we call it a draw?
isnt she right in theory? - i mean if it was secure , hyportheticlly , in la la land , then everyone could vote on all sorts of things . a referendum every week.
That one dismissive nosensical sentence dismissing any security problem - thats where she's a bit batshit. oh , and the whole 'net made by men thing , because if she boycotted all things made by men she'd be left with :
Compilers ( yes the IT ones)
I don't care if she's posh, I am more concerned that she is claiming some sort of IT guru status off the back of being the PR part of LateRooms.com when someone else did all the actual technical design etc. It is par for the course though, absence of relevant knowledge is no barr to picking up some "key" government role. Shocked of course to learn that each TCP/IP packet carries a penis field making it unreadable by female operated PCs.
My daughter just made her GCSE choices - she chose IT - but the school isn't going to let her do it - becuase not enough girls (four to be precise) chose to do the course.
She goes to an all-girls school run by a female head, a posse of female deputies, and a female heavy staff. All the usual excuses of why girls aren't doing IT (too many boys in the class etc) simply don't wash.
She was offered French, Spanish or Childcare instead - you couldn't be more patronising if you tried.
Without a doubt, over 90% of the girls in that school will have a smartphone, but clearly not enough of them are interested in shaping the smartphone experience to be more female friendly. Probably becuase most of the staff don't really understand IT, so aren't advocating it.
And so, yet another generation of women will grow up feeling technology is not a female thing, some will become teachers and in turn steer the next generation of girls away from IT.
but it's all men's fault, of course.
Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019