What a strange concept. The whole point of bail is to ensure that the person doesn't flee, but if you can pay just 10% it seems to be subverting that.

It would be unusual to release a games console with no release day games for it. Sure, you can have iPhone/iPad games on there, but the resolution will require scaling to fit a TV. They might still do it, but if a console were in the works I'd expect developers to know about it already.

Not by any commonly accepted definition of the word "open". The OSS Foundation, the Open Source Hardware movement, the Open Design movement, OpenCores, and even the FSF, consider "no-commercial-use" restrictions to be disqualifying. What OpenPandora is doing, is trying to get the marketing buzz of calling themselves "open" while restricting use of their IP by anyone than would have a reason for using it.

How do you know this? Did you interview them?

Some people did interview women dropping out of CS courses, as well as those deciding not to start them or to go into another field after graduating: http://studyofwork.com/files/2...

You can see a significant proportion left because of sexism. There are many specific reasons that come under that banner. I somehow doubt many of the guys dropping out cited sexism as the reason, but feel free to correct me if you have evidence to the contrary.

Studies show that women graduate with a CS degree but then go into another field more often than men. They cite attitudes and conditions as the reason in many cases. Therefore the best person is not always getting the job, because sometimes the best person is put off even applying.

Google is trying to attract more women so they can get these top quality candidates, and create an environment where they want to work for Google instead of going off into another field.

Strange, to me it sounds like they are saying they want to discriminate less against under-represented groups and that currently white males enjoy a privileged position. The fact that women are put off computer science subjects at school and university level means that men don't have to compete with them.

What you are saying is that Google has realized that having more women and diversity is good for them, but computer science courses are not delivering the people they need. The logical thing is for Google to try and get more women onto those classes, which is what they are doing.

Make sense now?

You are assuming that a hiring process based purely on technical merits will find the most technically able candidate. Hiring is as much of an art as a science. There is probably quite a bit of bias towards candidates in the hiring panel's "comfort zone" (looks like them, talks like them, acts like them). Even if you eliminate that there is still a fair element of randomness involved, due to flaws in the testing methodology and the fact that you can't control who applies for the job in the first place. Google isn't the only one trying to hire the best candidates.

Places like Google let people move around within the organization anyway. They understand that people are not machines, sometimes they can be better used elsewhere, and relying on every single one performing in the top 1% is a recipe for disaster.

Don't you get the bail money back if you turn up for the trial?

Why shouldn't his old convictions, now paid for, be forgotten? If he is convicted again he will have to pay again, and those crimes will remain public until the law says they are spent. If the law things that repeat offenders should be punished more harshly and that all previous convictions should be considered as well that's for the law to decide, not Google.

Does he have to declare past convictions to his employer, for example? If not, why should Google circumvent the law and allow an employer to discover this information through a search? What if someone else has the same name and is confused by an employer with him, where a criminal record check with the police would be able to separate the two individuals.

Of course, he might be found innocent. He is innocent until proven guilty under Finnish law, I assume.

What makes you think it needs to be removed? If a newspaper published an article about your conviction for petty theft 30 years ago it still exists in an archive somewhere, probably with multiple copies. It's inaccessible and unfindable to most people though.

Since when was there a right to freely exchange information? Even individuals are required by law not to relate certain information to others, and businesses have much stricter controls on what information they can give to others.

It's only libel if it isn't factually true, so a report about an arrest or prosecution for something wouldn't count. To be libellous it would have to say the person was convicted when they were not.

Generally speaking the police don't speak up too much before a conviction because in the UK at least it can harm the prosecution, and people do argue that things the police have said make it impossibly to get a fair trial.

Not in Europe. Credit agencies are strictly controlled (the original case was a guy who was bankrupt years ago). Criminal records are not public information. Employers can ask the police to confirm what you tell them about any criminal record, but if the conviction is spent you don't have to tell them about it and that's that.

More over commercial entities are not allowed to store data about an individual unless they have some genuine reason to, and only for a limited period of time. The individual has the right to request corrections, or to see what the information is.

That is a reasonable concern, and locking down their IP with restrictions, as they have, is a good way to achieve it. But it is silly to call that "open".

That sort of thing tends to get your site forced way down the search results pretty quickly, because it is a typical SEO trick to make a site look like it as more content that it really does.