Why? It's a standard industry model. Antitrust laws are not intended to hamper the use of business models used by others in the industry, it's to prevent someone from applying pressures _only they_ can use to push their monopoly further or into other markets. Anyone can (and has) opened an app market, so _everyone_ can.
They have a monopoly on the Operating System market.
No, they don't, unless you use the new age hippie definition of "monopoly".
Back in my day, a monopoly was supply side defined. For example, I could only buy my oil from Standard Oil, or my steel from US Steel. Shit, if we had Free Oil and Free Steel I think we'd have probably stopped labeling them "monopolies" and maybe called them "guys who sell stuff I can get for free".
You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right? Or you can buy e.g. Apple computers, or computers with all variety of free operating systems.
I know, I know... but..but...but... That's why I have hereby labeled this new kind of demand-created monopoly a "sissy's monopoly".
Your argument has absolutely no more validity. Men are paid more, ergo..it's sexism! I'm backing my reasoning on data I've observed personally, and on which any honest person in IT will corroborate. You're basing yours, apparently, on some sort of "90's sensitive guy" sensibility.
My argument is consistent with observed fact. It's a hypothesis, one that could theoretically be born out by doing a poll and asking to what degree people were interested and involved with technology from an early age.
Yours is based on the premise that men and women must be equal at everything, ergo any disparity must be because of "sexism".
Simple. They are more highly compensated in the field. Also, personal experience. For every one highly competent female I know in the field, I know at least 10 highly competent males.
You're ignoring what's right in front of you in favor of an agenda that men and women "must" be equally capable in technology, ergo any piece of data that doesn't support that idea in fact means that it is sexism.
Law, medicine, and accounting are not similar fields. If you're in IT, you know this. Very rarely do you find a guy who dressed up as a lawyer and did mock trials every weekend as a kid. Or got out the ledgers and added up numbers. Or did anything but play "doctor" by dressing up and checking out his neighbor's naughty bits.
Many of today's generation of nerds were tinkering with technology on a real level soon after they were walking. They invested time in practical applications that are now helping them be better, stronger, faster nerds.
Unfortunately, women (typically) don't have this advantage. They're Johnny..Joanna Come Lately's to the field. This doesn't lend itself to standing out among your peers.
In other words, let's normalize for _real_ experience. The only problem is you can't as it's impossible to measure.
You're not grasping something fundamental here. I'm not disputing the statistics. I'm disputing your interpretation (sexism!). Men make more money because by and large they are better nerds, and hence better in jobs where nerds to well, and hence paid more.
You seem to ignore your eyes and instead have some fairy tale view of reality that we are all basically the same. Sorry, most real computer nerds tend to be men, and they have been since they were little kids.
You're seeing the result of the socialization women received 20+ years ago. Men now have a leg up technically, and they are paid more because of this, not because of evil sexism.
Maybe things will change in a few generations, but I doubt it. Have you seen Bratz toys or the TV shows they still show little girls?
Because if we have two employees who have worked at SuperCo Computing for 5 years
John, who was raised to love technology by his father, played electronic chess when he was 7, took apart and reassembled radios, and was typing in programs from magazines on his Apple II when he was 9, and knew from when he was 7 he wanted to go into technology or science
and
Elizabeth, who was raised playing with dolls, had a social life, and decided at the last moment "computers might be a good career, and I'm marginally good at math"
we all know that even if John runs circles around Elizabeth in productivity and skills that since they've both worked there 5 years Elizabeth should make as much money as John, right?
If you want to blame someone for the fact that men are generally better than women in IT, blame parents and society for socializing them that way, don't try to alter reality and pretend that women are just as good as men (in general) in IT and should be paid the same in all cases based on experience only.
OK, if they don't like it then leave the field. Everybody wins. They go on to more rewarding careers, and geeks can just sit around and snarl and put each other down without fear of crybabyism. What's the problem?
Sorry, if you were really good at your job you would have risen to the top. And by good at your job, I mean passionate about technology. Doing it on your own time, doing it at work, etc... That's what people don't get. You take your biggest nerds, and typically they're pretty one dimensional. They are nerdy, geeky dweebs but they're very good at technology because they live it. Most women don't live it, it's a job. If it's just a job you're not going to be as good at it as someone who is borderline obsessive about it.
On the other hand, probably you live a more rich life than those uber-nerds who didn't listen to your low level babbling about barely understood technologies, so take solace in that.
It doesn't address competency. I don't know if you've noticed this inconvenient fact, but traditionally over the last 30+ years (well, forever) men have been socialized to be interested in science and technology. Why do you think it was men who have driven computing since its inception? There are always a few women people like to trumpet, but pointing to one or two counter-examples doesn't erase the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of technology has been driven by men.
So why would you expect that by and large women would be as effective in IT as men, on average? It's a supposition with no rational backing, neither data nor reason can prop it up. In fact, looking at past data one would expect men to be more of a driving force in technology than women.
There are exceptions, of course, and women whose technical abilities are prodigious. They're just far more rare than men with similar abilities. Women tend to be interested in other things, and have other areas where they're more adept.
Time spent on the job is not a meaningful comparison. As an example, let's compare Michael Jordan his first year playing pro basketball and some old timer middle of the road professional players who had been playing for a decade.
The thing you're neglecting is talent and a natural predilection for technology.
Comparable experience is meaningless. I know people (men and women) who have been working at the same job for as many years as people far, far more competent than they are.
Pay rate comparisons are just something people do who have an agenda, because it's almost possible to normalize them.
What exactly have they transformed? The HTC touch and LG Prada phones were out at the same time or before the iPhone. The only thing they lacked was the polish. Apple is good at design and at making people think they did something revolutionary when they really just took something that already exists and made it look nice.
They are a marketing and design company, not an innovative technical company. Jesus Christ, Jobs is on video sounding all excited about this wonderful antenna technology Apple "invented" for the iPhone 4. Seriously?
Or the display yellowing issues. Or the fact that you are contributing to hipster douche-ism by buying Apple products. That latter one is a societal ill that will have serious repercussions, and we're all paying the price of your choices.
Atoms aren't even on the same planet when it comes to power efficiency as ARM.
Nonsense. This is no longer true. Don't get me wrong - ARM still has a sizable lead, but to claim they're "not even on the same planet" is simply untrue. You would see at least same neighborhood batter life out of a well made Moorestown Atom based netbook with the same capabilities running the same OS.
I certainly suppose so, fortunately I don't give a fuck. SlashDot used to have kind of a libertarian bent, not it's like hanging out at StarBucks listening to some smug hipster doofus tell you how you shouldn't be so materialistic while he types away on his iPhone and gets ready to return to his BMW.
Here's another unfortunate fact: We will all die, possibly before and possibly after having watched the ones we love most die.
Slashdot Mirror
Yeah, and that never happens with Windows, amirite? Oh...wait.
Idiocy. Microsoft has no pricing power, some of the alternatives are free.
Why? It's a standard industry model. Antitrust laws are not intended to hamper the use of business models used by others in the industry, it's to prevent someone from applying pressures _only they_ can use to push their monopoly further or into other markets. Anyone can (and has) opened an app market, so _everyone_ can.
Queue "but Apple doesn't have a monopoly". I have an endearing term I use for these people: Johnny Trust Busters.
They have a monopoly on the Operating System market.
No, they don't, unless you use the new age hippie definition of "monopoly".
Back in my day, a monopoly was supply side defined. For example, I could only buy my oil from Standard Oil, or my steel from US Steel. Shit, if we had Free Oil and Free Steel I think we'd have probably stopped labeling them "monopolies" and maybe called them "guys who sell stuff I can get for free".
You do know you can get a _free_ operating system to run on your computer right? Or you can buy e.g. Apple computers, or computers with all variety of free operating systems.
I know, I know... but..but...but... That's why I have hereby labeled this new kind of demand-created monopoly a "sissy's monopoly".
Your argument has absolutely no more validity. Men are paid more, ergo..it's sexism! I'm backing my reasoning on data I've observed personally, and on which any honest person in IT will corroborate. You're basing yours, apparently, on some sort of "90's sensitive guy" sensibility.
My argument is consistent with observed fact. It's a hypothesis, one that could theoretically be born out by doing a poll and asking to what degree people were interested and involved with technology from an early age.
Yours is based on the premise that men and women must be equal at everything, ergo any disparity must be because of "sexism".
Simple. They are more highly compensated in the field. Also, personal experience. For every one highly competent female I know in the field, I know at least 10 highly competent males.
You're ignoring what's right in front of you in favor of an agenda that men and women "must" be equally capable in technology, ergo any piece of data that doesn't support that idea in fact means that it is sexism.
Law, medicine, and accounting are not similar fields. If you're in IT, you know this. Very rarely do you find a guy who dressed up as a lawyer and did mock trials every weekend as a kid. Or got out the ledgers and added up numbers. Or did anything but play "doctor" by dressing up and checking out his neighbor's naughty bits.
Many of today's generation of nerds were tinkering with technology on a real level soon after they were walking. They invested time in practical applications that are now helping them be better, stronger, faster nerds.
Unfortunately, women (typically) don't have this advantage. They're Johnny..Joanna Come Lately's to the field. This doesn't lend itself to standing out among your peers.
In other words, let's normalize for _real_ experience. The only problem is you can't as it's impossible to measure.
You're not grasping something fundamental here. I'm not disputing the statistics. I'm disputing your interpretation (sexism!). Men make more money because by and large they are better nerds, and hence better in jobs where nerds to well, and hence paid more.
Grammar correction fail. Ensure and insure are interchangeable in common use, though some prefer to be more precise.
And I see nothing confusing about the second one.
You seem to ignore your eyes and instead have some fairy tale view of reality that we are all basically the same. Sorry, most real computer nerds tend to be men, and they have been since they were little kids.
You're seeing the result of the socialization women received 20+ years ago. Men now have a leg up technically, and they are paid more because of this, not because of evil sexism.
Maybe things will change in a few generations, but I doubt it. Have you seen Bratz toys or the TV shows they still show little girls?
OK, let's assume you're right.
Your assumption: Women are being discriminated against, because we know they are as good as men in general.
My assumption: Men are better in IT and/or are better at negotiating salaries.
Your assumption flies in the fact of a multitude of evidence. Mine simply looks at the facts.
Because if we have two employees who have worked at SuperCo Computing for 5 years
John, who was raised to love technology by his father, played electronic chess when he was 7, took apart and reassembled radios, and was typing in programs from magazines on his Apple II when he was 9, and knew from when he was 7 he wanted to go into technology or science
and
Elizabeth, who was raised playing with dolls, had a social life, and decided at the last moment "computers might be a good career, and I'm marginally good at math"
we all know that even if John runs circles around Elizabeth in productivity and skills that since they've both worked there 5 years Elizabeth should make as much money as John, right?
If you want to blame someone for the fact that men are generally better than women in IT, blame parents and society for socializing them that way, don't try to alter reality and pretend that women are just as good as men (in general) in IT and should be paid the same in all cases based on experience only.
OK, if they don't like it then leave the field. Everybody wins. They go on to more rewarding careers, and geeks can just sit around and snarl and put each other down without fear of crybabyism. What's the problem?
Sorry, if you were really good at your job you would have risen to the top. And by good at your job, I mean passionate about technology. Doing it on your own time, doing it at work, etc... That's what people don't get. You take your biggest nerds, and typically they're pretty one dimensional. They are nerdy, geeky dweebs but they're very good at technology because they live it. Most women don't live it, it's a job. If it's just a job you're not going to be as good at it as someone who is borderline obsessive about it.
On the other hand, probably you live a more rich life than those uber-nerds who didn't listen to your low level babbling about barely understood technologies, so take solace in that.
It doesn't address competency. I don't know if you've noticed this inconvenient fact, but traditionally over the last 30+ years (well, forever) men have been socialized to be interested in science and technology. Why do you think it was men who have driven computing since its inception? There are always a few women people like to trumpet, but pointing to one or two counter-examples doesn't erase the fact that the vast, vast, vast majority of technology has been driven by men.
So why would you expect that by and large women would be as effective in IT as men, on average? It's a supposition with no rational backing, neither data nor reason can prop it up. In fact, looking at past data one would expect men to be more of a driving force in technology than women.
There are exceptions, of course, and women whose technical abilities are prodigious. They're just far more rare than men with similar abilities. Women tend to be interested in other things, and have other areas where they're more adept.
Time spent on the job is not a meaningful comparison. As an example, let's compare Michael Jordan his first year playing pro basketball and some old timer middle of the road professional players who had been playing for a decade.
The thing you're neglecting is talent and a natural predilection for technology.
Comparable experience is meaningless. I know people (men and women) who have been working at the same job for as many years as people far, far more competent than they are.
Pay rate comparisons are just something people do who have an agenda, because it's almost possible to normalize them.
What exactly have they transformed? The HTC touch and LG Prada phones were out at the same time or before the iPhone. The only thing they lacked was the polish. Apple is good at design and at making people think they did something revolutionary when they really just took something that already exists and made it look nice.
They are a marketing and design company, not an innovative technical company. Jesus Christ, Jobs is on video sounding all excited about this wonderful antenna technology Apple "invented" for the iPhone 4. Seriously?
Or the display yellowing issues. Or the fact that you are contributing to hipster douche-ism by buying Apple products. That latter one is a societal ill that will have serious repercussions, and we're all paying the price of your choices.
Atoms aren't even on the same planet when it comes to power efficiency as ARM.
Nonsense. This is no longer true. Don't get me wrong - ARM still has a sizable lead, but to claim they're "not even on the same planet" is simply untrue. You would see at least same neighborhood batter life out of a well made Moorestown Atom based netbook with the same capabilities running the same OS.
There's already backlash against ICP backlash? Jesus Christ, somebody needs to start a backlash monitoring service.
When backlash against the backlash against ICP backlash starts, please let me know I think that's probably when I'll jump in.
Bah. More important than Jack in the Box, stupid people are here to amuse me. Leave them be, I say.
I certainly suppose so, fortunately I don't give a fuck. SlashDot used to have kind of a libertarian bent, not it's like hanging out at StarBucks listening to some smug hipster doofus tell you how you shouldn't be so materialistic while he types away on his iPhone and gets ready to return to his BMW.
Here's another unfortunate fact: We will all die, possibly before and possibly after having watched the ones we love most die.
Oh noes, don't mode me flamebait!
Not flamebait, and here's a 2 to draw it.