The thing that puzzles me is why Google is not charging for link removal. In the EU, if you want a copy of your personal data, you have to pay a reasonable fee for it. Likewise, if you want data removed, I don't see why you shouldn't pay a reasonable fee either. That in turn would at least pay for better scrutiny of these results.

Yeah, but you're *still* statistically more likely to have a serious accident.

I take it you don't believe in atom decay either?

While in general I agree with you - you are talking about a group of people here who do their life's work at the junction of the earth and the air. It is true they may be misguided or misinformed. But their opinions were not arrived at through talk radio.

I see it using the .co.uk, but not the .com.

Productivity is a measure of output per unit of labour - neither of those directly mean that increased productivity imply the worker not being compensated appropriately. Certainly one approach is to demand extra unpaid labour, but that clearly has limits. Other methods are to be more efficient or introduce machinery.

Oops. Forgot Slashdot and the 21st century don't mix so well.

GÄisÇ dà mÄiguà rén, cÃng xÄnqÃn gÅngzuà de rén tÅu de gÅngzuÃ

No. You missed the bit where in your self-righteousness moralistic hectoring you missed that not bailing out the banks would have meant financial Armageddon. Not bailing out Lehman nearly did for the entire system. If we'd saved it, we might well have avoided four years of stagnation. You literally have no fucking clue what you're talking about. Gosh, it would be nice if people took responsibility for what they did. You're a fucking genius. Unfortunately, you're dead wrong, and people like you are a bloody menace.

You miss out the part where you describe what would have happened in 2007 had the banks not been bailed out.

No, because you don't have a sliver of evidence (I'm good at hiding bodies). On the other hand, there is a welter of statistical evidence that hiring practices are unfair.

Well clearly they aren't, as Google hire a lot less women. But I'm struggling to see legitimate difference in hiring criteria that would result in such a disparity.

So why is there such a disparity between Google & Yahoo's female proportions?

So much text and you couldn't answer this one question?

There's an even simpler test. Assuming that Google & Yahoo are broadly fishing in the same pool, they should have similar female/minority proportions. They don't.