>There was a program on TV a few weeks ago that talked about differences
>between male and female brain functions... (yeah, interesting eh? ;)... but
>one thing it did appear to show (from medical and experimental data) was
>that the majority of women find it considerably harder to visualise 3D
>images/objects/space than men.

Odd, in light of the fact that I was taught that women were better at
spatial relations than men. Of course, they seem to routinely change
their findings on this topic...

But POV-Ray is the intersection of two geek (not a perjorative) fields:
computing in general, and specifically math. Women are underrepresented
in computing and math (and engineering and hard sciences in general)
mostly for social reasons, IMO; there's still the perception that somehow
these fields are ones women are not suited for, and a lot of times women
spend so much time being not taken seriously even when they /are/ good in
these fields that they just stop participating in them.  This is based
primarily on personal and purely anecdotal experience, of course, but
overall the general consensus among my female geek friends (and even some
of the male ones) is that people see a resume' with a female name and
computing experience and think 'overglorified secretary'... in the face
of that, it's easy to get discouraged. In other words, we have a hard
time being taken seriously. Pretty much everyone I know locally doing
computing for a living agrees that this is a widespread problem of
perception. If you're female /and/ you're self-taught, getting a job is
extremely difficult. If you can /get/ to the interview stage... well,
that works better. Hell, even in web design, which is not precisely a
highly technical field, men seem to get taken more seriously than women.

Er... pardon my soap box. I'll just put that back away now.

Anyhow, I'm female, and I'm into POV-Ray. Admittedly, I'm not all that
good at it yet, but that's a matter of practice... I like it not just
because it's cool to be able to do 3D stuff but also because the computer
draws better than I do. :)

Post a reply to this message

tin### [at] tezcatcom wrote:
> 
> >There was a program on TV a few weeks ago that talked about differences
> >between male and female brain functions... (yeah, interesting eh? ;)... but
> >one thing it did appear to show (from medical and experimental data) was
> >that the majority of women find it considerably harder to visualise 3D
> >images/objects/space than men.
> 
> Odd, in light of the fact that I was taught that women were better at
> spatial relations than men. Of course, they seem to routinely change
> their findings on this topic...

I have heard the same as you concerning spatial relations.

> 
> But POV-Ray is the intersection of two geek (not a perjorative) fields:
> computing in general, and specifically math. Women are underrepresented
> in computing and math (and engineering and hard sciences in general)
> mostly for social reasons, IMO; there's still the perception that somehow
> these fields are ones women are not suited for, and a lot of times women
> spend so much time being not taken seriously even when they /are/ good in
> these fields that they just stop participating in them.  This is based
> primarily on personal and purely anecdotal experience, of course, but
> overall the general consensus among my female geek friends (and even some
> of the male ones) is that people see a resume' with a female name and
> computing experience and think 'overglorified secretary'... in the face
> of that, it's easy to get discouraged. In other words, we have a hard
> time being taken seriously. Pretty much everyone I know locally doing
> computing for a living agrees that this is a widespread problem of
> perception. If you're female /and/ you're self-taught, getting a job is
> extremely difficult. If you can /get/ to the interview stage... well,
> that works better. Hell, even in web design, which is not precisely a
> highly technical field, men seem to get taken more seriously than women.
> 
> Er... pardon my soap box. I'll just put that back away now.

A topic for another day :)

> 
> Anyhow, I'm female, and I'm into POV-Ray. Admittedly, I'm not all that
> good at it yet, but that's a matter of practice... I like it not just
> because it's cool to be able to do 3D stuff but also because the computer
> draws better than I do. :)

  That was my attraction to the program. I can't draw decent stick
men with a pencil but with Pov-Ray my artistic skills, be they what
they are, have found an avenue of expression. Something I never would
have thought possible a few short years ago. Such is the reason that
I would have thought more women too would enjoy the art. Maybe they
do but are just under represented in the newgroups.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Well, there have been some regular female IRTC participants, I'm
currently thinking of Sonya Roberts, Mary-Ann Mandel and Ethel McKay.
There are some others, but their names doesn't come to mind right now...

Fabien.

Post a reply to this message

Fabien Mosen wrote:
> 
> Well, there have been some regular female IRTC participants, I'm
> currently thinking of Sonya Roberts, Mary-Ann Mandel and Ethel McKay.
> There are some others, but their names doesn't come to mind right now...
> 
> Fabien.

  I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. I agree there
are female pov artists out there, Jenni Williams a regular poster
in the images group for one Eric's wife for another, but they seem
to be the exception rather than the rule. When I posed the question
it was carefully stated "the majority" rather than the "only users".
I didn't want to be exclusionary in my observations and obviously
Sonya has made some excellent contributions in not only the art but
also in passing along her knowledge of the program to others.

-- 
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken wrote in message <36886953.C40E7E29@pacbell.net>...
>tin### [at] tezcatcom wrote:
>>
>> >There was a program on TV a few weeks ago that talked about differences
>> >between male and female brain functions... (yeah, interesting eh? ;)...
but
>> >one thing it did appear to show (from medical and experimental data) was
>> >that the majority of women find it considerably harder to visualise 3D
>> >images/objects/space than men.
>>
>> Odd, in light of the fact that I was taught that women were better at
>> spatial relations than men. Of course, they seem to routinely change
>> their findings on this topic...
>
>I have heard the same as you concerning spatial relations.


Hey, sorry... I was just reporting what I'd heard on a science program last
month. I don't really have any way to verify it personally though, so I
suppose it can't be taken as my own view.  Just seemed a reasonable reason,
that's all..


Matt

Post a reply to this message

I prefer some of the images produced by the (women, girls, gals,
females....) over what
some of the (men, boys, guys, males...) produce.  It seems that a majority
(not all) of what
the males produce are space ship related.  If there are any (women, girls,
gals, females....)
reading this, please continue to post your images - they are certainly
enjoyed by me, if not
others.

Mike


Ken wrote in message <36887AD3.472B2570@pacbell.net>...
>Fabien Mosen wrote:
>>
>> Well, there have been some regular female IRTC participants, I'm
>> currently thinking of Sonya Roberts, Mary-Ann Mandel and Ethel McKay.
>> There are some others, but their names doesn't come to mind right now...
>>
>> Fabien.
>
>  I've been waiting for someone to bring this up. I agree there
>are female pov artists out there, Jenni Williams a regular poster
>in the images group for one Eric's wife for another, but they seem
>to be the exception rather than the rule. When I posed the question
>it was carefully stated "the majority" rather than the "only users".
>I didn't want to be exclusionary in my observations and obviously
>Sonya has made some excellent contributions in not only the art but
>also in passing along her knowledge of the program to others.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Treading carefully, here I go ...

I disagree with the Social Engineering analysis presented by Tina.  My
experience, in Engineering and IT Consulting, is that this area of endeavor
is well represented by many women.  I hire them and have for 20 some years
(in companies large (e.g. Ford) and small (too many examples to count ...)).
As a matter of fact, my wife has a BSCE, BSEE, MSEE and is very active in
these areas.  The IT projects I currently manage are staffed at least by 50%
females or more.

So ...

I think some other comments made in this thread need to be re-examined in
the light of current reality and not colored by past prejudice or opinions
or other politically motivated criteria that are inappropriate for
discussion here.

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Hi all

As an old man who has been around the arts for a long time I personaly feel
that women have established themselves very much as artists and creators.

I feel that women artists bring a percetion and sensitivity to the
expression of human experience that few men if any can match.

I can't speak for the science but the more we encourage the ladies to use
pov the higher the standard of the images will be.

Mick

Post a reply to this message

Ken heeft geschreven in bericht <36886953.C40E7E29@pacbell.net>...
>  That was my attraction to the program. I can't draw decent stick
>men with a pencil but with Pov-Ray my artistic skills, be they what
>they are, have found an avenue of expression. Something I never would
>have thought possible a few short years ago. Such is the reason that
>I would have thought more women too would enjoy the art. Maybe they
>do but are just under represented in the newgroups.
>
>--
>Ken Tyler
>
>tyl### [at] pacbellnet

I have learned to draw be look how the computer did it :-)
Well...  I can draw a bit, I even could it long before I've ever seen a
renderprogram, but using shading and such things, I've learned that by
rendering on the computer (mostly with POVRay).
So, rendering has thought me how to draw.

ZK

Post a reply to this message

That's what I heard as well.  I thought it was that women use visual senses
more than gravitational senses to determine spatial orientation and that it
is therefore harder for them to visualise 3D objects etc... I think that's
what it was anyway, maybe I should do a little research on it.  In any case,
there are more female 3D artists out there than most people give credit for.
One that comes to mid straight away is Eni Oken (www.oken3d.com).  I think
for the most part females have more artisitic ability than males.

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone
Matthew Bennett wrote in message <3688e58f.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Ken wrote in message <36886953.C40E7E29@pacbell.net>...
>>tin### [at] tezcatcom wrote:
>>>
>>> >There was a program on TV a few weeks ago that talked about differences
>>> >between male and female brain functions... (yeah, interesting eh? ;)...
>but
>>> >one thing it did appear to show (from medical and experimental data)
was
>>> >that the majority of women find it considerably harder to visualise 3D
>>> >images/objects/space than men.
>>>
>>> Odd, in light of the fact that I was taught that women were better at
>>> spatial relations than men. Of course, they seem to routinely change
>>> their findings on this topic...
>>
>>I have heard the same as you concerning spatial relations.
>
>
>Hey, sorry... I was just reporting what I'd heard on a science program last
>month. I don't really have any way to verify it personally though, so I
>suppose it can't be taken as my own view.  Just seemed a reasonable reason,
>that's all..
>
>
>Matt
>
>

Post a reply to this message

Jim Kress wrote:
> 
> Treading carefully, here I go ...
> 
> I disagree with the Social Engineering analysis presented by Tina.  My
> experience, in Engineering and IT Consulting, is that this area of endeavor
> is well represented by many women.  I hire them and have for 20 some years
> (in companies large (e.g. Ford) and small (too many examples to count ...)).
> As a matter of fact, my wife has a BSCE, BSEE, MSEE and is very active in
> these areas.  The IT projects I currently manage are staffed at least by 50%
> females or more.
> 
> So ...
> 
> I think some other comments made in this thread need to be re-examined in
> the light of current reality and not colored by past prejudice or opinions
> or other politically motivated criteria that are inappropriate for
> discussion here.
> 
> Jim

This topic does require a careful tread... :)

I agree that this newsgroup isn't the place for prejudice or political
opinions but I haven't seen anything inappropriate in this thread yet, which
was started by someone wondering why there seemed to be so few women using POV-Ray.
As for the current reality, contributors to this newsgroup seem to be nearly
all male, which suggests that Pov users are mostly male. I doubt that the
current reality lends convincing evidence of an even (or mostly female) gender
balance in the 'hard' sciences, or in most technical fields, even noting your
experience. Obviously this doesn't mean that there are no counter-examples.
There are female Pov artists, computer programmers, physicists, etc. But
currently there tend to be fewer women in these areas as there are men.

As for the mental differences (now that I've committed myself on this topic) I
suspect that they are minimal (although not nonexistent) and that society is
at fault more than genetics (everything's always society's fault!) for this
gender imbalance.

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Very well said Mark, I agree totally.

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Sorry to disagree, but the statements by Tina are consistent with the
current day feminists who refuse to acknowledge that earlier, historical
concerns about women in the technical workforce have been addressed and are
no longer significant.  After all, if they allowed that the problem was
resolved (or well on its way to being resolved), they'd have to find
something else to complain about or another, new 'societal travesty' to
stimulate funding for their advocacy groups (and by extension, their
employment).

Also, with respect to experience, I have worked in a variety of companies
(Ford, TRW, IBM, and a host of smaller companies) in a variety of positions
(from simple scientist and engineer to VP of Engineering, Director of
Technology Development, to simple Information Technology Consultant) in
locations spanning the globe from Japan to the US to Europe.  In these
capacities, I have worked with dozens of other companies to help develop and
enhance their technology and technical abilities to design, develop, and
manufacture world class computer based systems (and components).  I think
that breadth and depth of experience provides some unique and encompassing
insight into these concerns.  Insight that can't be swept away with a single
discarding sentence.

So, to reiterate, human females are now, will increasingly be, well
represented in technical fields.  There are no gender based limitations that
would restrict their ability to be successful.  The only limitations are
self inflicted, as they are in men, due to other interests or other
preferred activities that consume the bulk of their time (there are, of
course, only 24 hr in a day ...).  The fact that some people don't want to
be technical does not mean they can not be technical.  We do live in a
(decreasingly) free society where people's choices shouldn't (rationally) be
used to define societal deficiencies.

Jim


Mark Radosevich wrote in message <3689BE9D.A77B1799@randolph.spa.edu>...
>Jim Kress wrote:
>>
>> Treading carefully, here I go ...
>>
>> I disagree with the Social Engineering analysis presented by Tina.  My
>> experience, in Engineering and IT Consulting, is that this area of
endeavor
>> is well represented by many women.  I hire them and have for 20 some
years
>> (in companies large (e.g. Ford) and small (too many examples to count
...)).
>> As a matter of fact, my wife has a BSCE, BSEE, MSEE and is very active in
>> these areas.  The IT projects I currently manage are staffed at least by
50%
>> females or more.
>>
>> So ...
>>
>> I think some other comments made in this thread need to be re-examined in
>> the light of current reality and not colored by past prejudice or
opinions
>> or other politically motivated criteria that are inappropriate for
>> discussion here.
>>
>> Jim
>
>This topic does require a careful tread... :)
>
>I agree that this newsgroup isn't the place for prejudice or political
>opinions but I haven't seen anything inappropriate in this thread yet,
which
>was started by someone wondering why there seemed to be so few women using
POV-Ray.
>As for the current reality, contributors to this newsgroup seem to be
nearly
>all male, which suggests that Pov users are mostly male. I doubt that the
>current reality lends convincing evidence of an even (or mostly female)
gender
>balance in the 'hard' sciences, or in most technical fields, even noting
your
>experience. Obviously this doesn't mean that there are no counter-examples.
>There are female Pov artists, computer programmers, physicists, etc. But
>currently there tend to be fewer women in these areas as there are men.
>
>As for the mental differences (now that I've committed myself on this
topic) I
>suspect that they are minimal (although not nonexistent) and that society
is
>at fault more than genetics (everything's always society's fault!) for this
>gender imbalance.
>
>-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Jim Kress wrote in message <368a74a8.0@news.povray.org>...
<snip>
>be technical does not mean they can not be technical.  We do live in a
>(decreasingly) free society where people's choices shouldn't (rationally)
be
>used to define societal deficiencies.


I assume you mean "(increasingly)" here? :)
I also agree with the majority of your comments...

Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
POVRay.


Matt

Post a reply to this message

I agree.  We'll end (or at least I'll end my comments) the thread here.  I
just object to people making statements that are demonstrably incorrect.

Jim

BTW, I meant decreasing.  Just think of the enormous number of new Federal
regulations (thousands per year) that get spewn forth, all of which regulate
our lives tighter and tighter into the grip of the Federal bureaucracy.
It's depressing.  A friend of my wife's (from England) once pointed this out
when he was told we're the most free country on earth ...

Jim


Matthew Bennett wrote in message <368a8106.0@news.povray.org>...
>
>Jim Kress wrote in message <368a74a8.0@news.povray.org>...
><snip>
>>be technical does not mean they can not be technical.  We do live in a
>>(decreasingly) free society where people's choices shouldn't (rationally)
>be
>>used to define societal deficiencies.
>
>
>I assume you mean "(increasingly)" here? :)
>I also agree with the majority of your comments...
>
>Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
>POVRay.
>
>
>Matt
>
>

Post a reply to this message

At the risk of being a bit of a hypocrite ;)

Jim Kress wrote in message <368a9701.0@news.povray.org>...
>I agree.  We'll end (or at least I'll end my comments) the thread here.  I
>just object to people making statements that are demonstrably incorrect.
>
>Jim
>
>BTW, I meant decreasing.  Just think of the enormous number of new Federal
>regulations (thousands per year) that get spewn forth, all of which
regulate
>our lives tighter and tighter into the grip of the Federal bureaucracy.
>It's depressing.  A friend of my wife's (from England) once pointed this
out
>when he was told we're the most free country on earth ...


Oh.. well, like your friend's wife, I'm also in/from England :)
Any new regulations I've heard of over here have never really struck me as
infringing my freedom.. just improving the way things are done - normally in
business.  The one exception I can think of is when the govt. banned beef on
the bone.. though this was only temporary, and I suppose they had a health
excuse (though not one I particularly agreed with though ;).  Anyway.. I
don't really know how our laws/regulations compare with yours, but I
certainly haven't seen anything to be depressed about myself :)


There. Sorry about that ;)

Just my 2 pence worth..


Matt

Post a reply to this message

To respond to several people at once (while selecting minute passages from
longer posts):

Matthew Bennett wrote:
....
> Let's try ending this thread soon though, this isn't exactly relevant to
> POVRay.

Jim Kress wrote:
>Sorry to disagree....

Lance Birch wrote:
>Very well said Mark, I agree totally.
...

tin### [at] tezcatcom wrote:
....
>I now promise to not post another note on this topic, no matter how many
>more times my name is mentioned and people who know nothing about me want
>to draw erroneous conclusions about my character and motivations.

thank you, Lance :) , I accept your apology, Jim-- I would reply at more
length but I wouldn't be saying much that I haven't said already, and
(Matthew, I agree) this isn't quite the place. Tina, I'm sorry that you feel
that you are under attack. (I hope none of you mind my using first names; it
seems clumsy to do otherwise.)
(Perhaps we could discuss how to appropriately render a scene featuring IT
personell... um, no, never mind.) I'll simply say that I understand that you
(Jim Kress) believe that "earlier, historical concerns about women in the
technical workforce have been addressed and are no longer significant." I
agree that progress has been made, by leaps and bounds, but I strongly doubt
that these concerns are no longer significant.
I also doubt that anyone meant to offend, etc. This issue is, perhaps, beyond,
or below or above or... at any rate, removed from both the original question
and this newsgroup. (Which (of course) is not to suggest that I let that
prevent me from posting.) Anyway, I said I was going to limit my reply here,
so I'll leave it at that.

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Rereading my post, I realized that due to my poorly structured post, someone
could misinterpret the nature of the replies. The quote from Jim Kress's post
was not responding to Matthew Bennett's... I quoted people that way to clarify
what I was replying to, but not to summarize their posts entirely. I apologize
for any potential misunderstanding.

-Mark R.

Post a reply to this message

Hey Mark, you can use my first name as much as you want :-)  After all, I
checked the survey I'm running and it seems I'm tied with another person for
the youngest here :-)

So far I've received only 10 submitions though, so it may not be that
acurate...

Once again, for anyone reading who hasn't already done so, I'd appreciate it
if you went to
http://www.fortunecity.com/skyscraper/parallax/359/pov_quick_survey.html
and filled out the survey on age and sex of the people using POV-Ray.

Thanks!

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Who's the oldest?  Is it still Ken?

Jim

Post a reply to this message

Jim Kress wrote:

> Who's the oldest?  Is it still Ken?
>
> Jim


I believe that destinction goes to David Wilkinson at a ripe young
age of 65. I think Chris Cason might be a it older that I but he was
a bit aloof with his reply.
--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>I believe that destinction goes to David Wilkinson at a ripe young
>age of 65. I think Chris Cason might be a it older that I but he was
>a bit aloof with his reply.

I don't recall being aloof ...

Post a reply to this message

povray.org admin team wrote:

> Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:
>
> >I believe that destinction goes to David Wilkinson at a ripe young
> >age of 65. I think Chris Cason might be a it older that I but he was
> >a bit aloof with his reply.
>
> I don't recall being aloof ...

Hinted but did not divulge ?

--
Ken Tyler

tyl### [at] pacbellnet

Post a reply to this message

Ken <tyl### [at] pacbellnet> wrote:

>> I don't recall being aloof ...
>
>Hinted but did not divulge ?

Yes, but a hint isn't being aloof. I tend to keep to myself, so I chose not to
give my exact age.

Post a reply to this message

The highest I've received so far is 53.  But maybe David hasn't voted yet
(well hey, it's not like it's compulsory :-)

Acutally, an interesting thing to point out about this news group is that
you're all much nicer than the people that reside in alt.3d.studio... they
just have big fights over software piracy and whose got the fastest system!
Maybe POV-Ray users are more sensible than 3DS and 3DSMAX users...

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

Lance Birch <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
: Acutally, an interesting thing to point out about this news group is that
: you're all much nicer than the people that reside in alt.3d.studio... they
: just have big fights over software piracy and whose got the fastest system!
: Maybe POV-Ray users are more sensible than 3DS and 3DSMAX users...

  Well, I think it's not possible to fight about software piracy when
we are talking about povray... :)

-- 
main(i){char*_="BdsyFBThhHFBThhHFRz]NFTITQF|DJIFHQhhF";while(i=
*_++)for(;i>1;printf("%s",i-70?i&1?"[]":" ":(i=0,"\n")),i/=2);} /*- Warp. -*/

Post a reply to this message

I guess so :-)

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

On 31 Dec 1998 18:23:39 -0500, Nieminen Mika <war### [at] cctutfi> wrote:

>Lance Birch <zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:
>: Acutally, an interesting thing to point out about this news group is that
>: you're all much nicer than the people that reside in alt.3d.studio... they
>: just have big fights over software piracy and whose got the fastest system!
>: Maybe POV-Ray users are more sensible than 3DS and 3DSMAX users...
>
>  Well, I think it's not possible to fight about software piracy when
>we are talking about povray... :)

Sure it is.  Just ask the group for a serial number for Moray if you
want to see a fight.

Post a reply to this message

On Thu, 31 Dec 1998 21:08:04 +1000, "Lance Birch"
<zon### [at] satcomnetau> wrote:

>Hey Mark, you can use my first name as much as you want :-)  After all, I
>checked the survey I'm running and it seems I'm tied with another person for
>the youngest here :-)
>
>So far I've received only 10 submitions though, so it may not be that
>acurate...

Your survey form is a bit messed up: the titles for the entry fields
are in black, on a black background.  Might discourage people from
filling it out. :)

Post a reply to this message

Well, I'd have to say that for the IT field, Tina's observations were pretty
much in line with the field norm, not just historical remnants. Just a year ago
I went over several good salary surveys of the IT field, and then reviewed
things again this last spring (due to the collapse of the Asian economy and it's
local consequences, but I digress). Most seemed to agree, and what I had found
most interesting is that in a breakdown by education and sex, it turns out that
education level had very little bearing on a male's salary, with male Ph.D.
holders actually making less than those with a MS, but for females it was very
significant. There was a direct correlation between a female's education level
and her salary. Also, only with a Ph.D. did a female's salary (on the average)
catch up with and pass the males.

Also, just the other week 6 women filed suit because of gender bias that had
been continuing for the last 20 years. In light of the state of the salaries,
this can shed a little light on women being underrepresented as POV-Ray users,
since I believe that the pool of potential POV-Ray users is mainly drawn from
the pool of current computers users.

Phew. Bit of a lot to type. Anyway, I was thinking that it was pertinent to the
topic.

Jim Kress wrote:

> Sorry to disagree, but the statements by Tina are consistent with the
> current day feminists who refuse to acknowledge that earlier, historical
> concerns about women in the technical workforce have been addressed and are
> no longer significant.  After all, if they allowed that the problem was
> resolved (or well on its way to being resolved), they'd have to find
> something else to complain about or another, new 'societal travesty' to
> stimulate funding for their advocacy groups (and by extension, their
> employment).
>
> Also, with respect to experience, I have worked in a variety of companies
> (Ford, TRW, IBM, and a host of smaller companies) in a variety of positions
> (from simple scientist and engineer to VP of Engineering, Director of
> Technology Development, to simple Information Technology Consultant) in
> locations spanning the globe from Japan to the US to Europe.  In these
> capacities, I have worked with dozens of other companies to help develop and
> enhance their technology and technical abilities to design, develop, and
> manufacture world class computer based systems (and components).  I think
> that breadth and depth of experience provides some unique and encompassing
> insight into these concerns.  Insight that can't be swept away with a single
> discarding sentence.
>

Post a reply to this message

he he he

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message

I've been working to fix that (it has to do with linked style sheets).  I
went away for two days...  When I tried to upload the new version before I
left, FortuneCity didn't let me log on, so I was very disappointed!!!  I'll
have it fixed as soon as possible!!!

Oh, and it seems I'm not the youngest anymore.  I just saw that there are
two 15 year-olds here!  It's cool to see that there are a lot of teenage
people getting into POV-Ray!!!

--
Lance.


---
For the latest MAX plug-ins, images and much more, go to:
The Zone - http://come.to/the.zone

Post a reply to this message