You seem to have it ALMOST right. Let me try saying the same thing, my way.
Those women and minorities who got their jobs BECAUSE they helped to meet a quota don't belong in those jobs.
However - I don't think that there is any profession which is unsuitable for women or minorities. And, sometimes, the woman, or the minority really is the best qualified.
If you're not careful with how you state the obvious, then you risk sounding like yet another asshole bigot. I cannot, will not ban women from an occupation because they are women. But, I can and will go along with any ban of women and/or minorities who FAIL TO MEET QUALIFICATIONS. Nor can I consider lowering standards just to make the unqualified happy.
Real life is not a special Olympics event. If/when I need an EMT, a doctor, a cop, an architect, I want the BEST, not some wannabe who was given the job to make liberals feel good about themselves.
So, you hire a cute witch who is licensed, and gets routine medical exams. Got it covered!
Note that we handle prostitution in the United States in the most backward, irrational manner possible. There are no licensed prostitutes, and few if any get routine medical exams.
It's not so much an ASSumption, as it is an observation. Corporations tend to hire the most qualified people. Corporations, as opposed to small businesses, simply cannot afford to show prejudice for one demographic over another. Who are corporations hiring? Let us get this straight now - they are hiring the MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE, who also happen to mostly be WHITE AND ASIAN MALES.
By necessity, making your labor poll more inclusive means lowering standards.
BTW - it has already been pointed out that the Asian males are significantly over represented in Sillycone Valley, whereas white males are closer to "normal". That's probably a result of "No Retard Left Behind" and the Core curriculum. Our schools are being dumbed down, so fewer white males are able to excel.
Mmmm - I see. And, I suppose that your IQ is well over 130?
Very very few blacks or mestizos with IQ's over 130 - you know, I might agree with you. But, what is the percentage of white people with IQ's over 130? Do you REALLY think there is a difference? Really and honestly, you think that non-white people suffer a 20 point (or more) IQ handicap?
OK - what about women then? If IQ is race dependent, then what about women? Are there a lot of white women with IQ's over 130? Or is it also sex dependent?
Maybe you'd like to go into more detail with this bit? "women and minorities employed where they should not be" Maybe start by telling us which jobs women and minorities SHOULD NOT be employed in?
Simple. Just establish that you are bigoted against white and asian males, and that you won't hire any more. Lower your work standards to accommodate whichever demographics you prefer to work with, then sit back and watch your stock values plummet.
Yeah, me too! Errrr - oh - wait a second. Which NSA is this? THAT NSA? HUH WUT?!?!?! How many experts have evaluated this thing to be sure it's not a trojan?
It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". All citizens have the RIGHT to travel in and through all of the US states, the District, territories and possessions. If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.
It's just wikipedia - but any intelligent person can read the content, then search out arguments, both pro and con. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.
Except - EVERYONE LOVES RACIST AND SEXIST TALK! Go almost anywhere on the web, and make a blatantly sexist or racist comment. Everyone comments. Left, right, male, female, young, old, black, white and in-between - EVERYONE CHIMES IN!
Maybe I exaggerate a little. There are some dignified souls who can just shake their heads, and go on about their own business. Not many, but some.
I think you've failed to understand the whole social engineering thing. Google, among other corporations, are bending over backward to attract women into their workforce. They are going so far as to go into the schools, trying to influence girl's choices. They are trying to change the world. That IS NOT "let them do whatever they want to do" at all. That is in effect, an attempt to replace parental and other inputs, to change the results to something closer to what Google wants.
Google wants women - but women don't necessarily want Google. (How many of us males could say the same thing?) So, Google has decided to approach the women before they are women. Get them at an impressionable young age, and start grooming them to reject what society is teaching them.
I'll support any young woman, 100% and more, who decides that she wants to join the military, go into politics, learn engineering, learn to fly - WHATEVER she wants to do. My sister is a retired state cop. Do you suppose that I ever once tried to discourage her? Hell no!
Girls should be permitted - no, wrong word - ENCOURAGED to do any damned thing they want to do. But - WHAT THEY WANT, not what a bunch of Bozo's in a board room want them to do.
Those girls, and women, who WANT to have a house full of children, and to stay at home to raise those children, should be ENCOURAGED to do so - no less than the girl who wants to fly to the moon.
Girls. Why are we even talking about girls? This should be the case for ALL CHILDREN! Every single one. (Groucho Marx: How many kids do you have? Three, one of each.) Boys, girls, or whatever - if they have a dream, help them to achieve it.
Don't TELL THEM what their fucking dreams should be!
4 million drivers making more right turns AND FEWER LEFT TURNS.
While you accuse me of not thinking, I HAVE THOUGHT of this, for much of my life. Way back, when I used a printed Rand McNally to navigate, I would go an extra exit on the interstate or the loop, to come at my destination with more right turns. It works. Left turns are more dangerous by definition - you are attempting to cross the path of oncoming traffic.
Introducing a bias against left turns in mapping software will cost no one anything at all. But, it's damned near guaranteed to SAVE LIVES!!
Oh, wait - I didn't lose you with the printed Rand McNally, did I? Yes, they actually printed maps on paper, long ago. A person actually had to read the map, and make his own decisions regarding his route.
The fact that a large percentage of New Yorkers live to adulthood is evidence that parents in New York DO teach their children how to cross a street safely.
How about this? Since routing a trip is all done by algorithms on computers anyhow, it costs nothing more for the computer to be biased against left hand turns. The electrons all cost the same, right?
Now, what happens out here in the real world? I get my directions, and I realize that instead of ten left turns, there are only three. The computer has routed me an extra mile here or there, and I'm making a lot of right turns. Hmmm - does this cost me anything? Well, no - in fact, hell no! Instead of sitting idle at traffic lights, I can make a "right on red" at most of my turns. That is, I keep moving, instead of idling. I suspect that I might actually save a few drops of gas on each trip, simply because I don't have to sit with the engine running.
And, oh yeah - as the driver, I don't have to worry so much about some crazy pedestrian walking out in front of me when I'm making that left turn. NOR do I have to worry about timing my turn in between oncoming vehicles. Right turns are somewhat dangerous, but left turns are ten times more dangerous.
Sounds to me like everyone wins with this. Who loses?
Let me state this as bluntly as possible. I support women, not Google. Google has no business interfering in social issues, whether those issues are the legalization of pot, gay rights, or women's issues. Liberal minded Google has no more right to do so, than any of the more conservative minded oil companies. It pisses me off that rich people can throw a few millions around, and thereby change the way all of us common folk have to live, and do business.
Google's rights to support women, or any other group, ends at their employment and human resource desks.
Yes, I did address that issue in a sideways manned in one of the side discussions here. "What does Google have to gain . .." regarding more women in the work force.
One thing about the status quo - it doesn't stay quo for long. Do you have ANY idea how much society has changed in the past few decades? Even in the past fifteen years, with our current "war on terra"?
Supposing that I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and agreed that women are held down against their will - WTF gives a corporation the right to start a social engineering campaign like this? Social change should be a grass roots thing, not something imposed by a corporation. If social change isn't grass roots, then it should at least be led by members of the oppressed population.
Ask yourself - "What does Google stand to gain from pushing women into STEM?"
I've got an answer for you. More women in a field means lower wages for EVERYONE! You just watch - if Google gets it's way, you won't see women promoted to six digit salary positions. Instead, you'll see wages cut!
Before you argue with that, why don't you look at some of Washington's best known women's advocates. What are THOSE bastards paying their staff members? They uniformly pay their female staff less than their male staff.
Bottom line - the women are just being USED BY Google to achieve the shared goal* of reducing wages in this country.
Shared by most of corporate America, as evidenced by requests for increased H1B quotas, the refusal to stop or reverse the illegal alien invasion, the exporting of jobs, and more.
"It takes a village to raise an idiot" If you've frequently heard comments to that effect, then you've been in the presence of an SJW. They tend to view children as the responsibility and/or the property of the state. Child services around the nation seem to attract these kind of people. Whether a child services case worker happens to be a SJW or not, you seldom notice them - but when a SJW disagrees with a responsible parent or guardian, they have no qualms shouldering that responsible parent aside.
"Pursuing a career in a field that has high demand and better than average pay is neither risky nor outrageous."
Oh, yeah. Now - where is this demand that you speak of? How do you spell "H1B" and "illegal alien"? The education department is busy dumbing down the population, and here you are proposing that STEM workers are in high demand.
And, all the while, I'm still bitching that all the SJW's are busy with their social engineering agenda. One more time, JUST LET THE GIRLS DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO DO!
It takes an arrogant son of a bitch to tell a girl that she CANNOT go into engineering. It takes an equally arrogant son of a bitch to tell her that she MUST go into engineering. Why can't she decide for herself?
You point to some pink toys, as evidence that boys and girls are being treated differently. Now, look at those pink toys, and tell me more about them. WHY do pink toys increase a girl's interest? Come on, dig deep.
Mindless repeating of stereotypes. You are obviously superior, in that you mindlessly repeat liberal talking points.
I say again, if the girls WANT to work in STEM, get the hell out of their way. If they DO NOT WANT to work in STEM, STFU and let them do what they want to do.
Stop PUSHING the girls into occupations that they may or may not want. Just STFU and sit down, and let the girls be whatever they want to be.
The arrogant cocksucker who occupies the White House told women that he doesn't WANT them to be housewives. WTF does anyone care what he WANTS? Rhetorical question - I know exactly who wants the wives out of the homes, and I know why. Dragging Mommy out of the house opens the door for baby sitters, social workers, school administrators, and more to get involved in the child's life. So, Mommy is down the road, slaving away to earn some money (part of which the government takes away from her) to PAY for all of the baby sitting, etc ad nauseum.
Did I mention social engineering in my post above? Yes, I did. Social Justice warriors don't like the nuclear family, they don't even like an extended family. So, they are working to destroy the family. Social engineering. Look around you. It's blatantly obvious.
What is obvious to a discerning person, is that Google is engaged in a social engineering campaign, not terribly dissimilar to the campaign waged by Kellogs in the late 1800's and early 1900's. http://mentalfloss.com/article...
You say, ". . . assumption that their differences are significant to influence . .." And, I say that you are being judgemental and subjective. When 80% of a group of people tell you that they are not interested in something, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT! It's alright for you, and Google, to try to understand WHY that group of people are uninterested in $activity. It is NOT acceptable for you and Google (or Kelogg's) to try to force changes in those people.
Unproven assumption? How about empirical data?
Historically, males have been the risk takers, and females have by choice taken fewer risks. Guys do outrageous shit, and girls seldom do anything terribly outrageous. That's the way it is.
I say, "Fuck off, Google!"
All of that said - if there are any of you who overtly or covertly DISCOURAGE girls/women from working in STEM careers, you can fuck off right along with Google and company. Freedom. Freedom is all about doing whatever the hell you WANT TO DO!
Mass collection. Think "landfill". You've lost something, and you think it MIGHT HAVE ended up in the trash can. Problem is, the garbage truck picked up the trash yesterday. You can go to the landfill, and search for it. In fact, you might even get the garbage truck driver to show you where he dumped the truck, narrowing your search considerably. Even then, good luck with that. So much for "mass collection".
"While it's nothing more than an annoyance on my home machinery"
People who live in Outback, Nowhere find that bandwidth usage to be much more than a mere annoyance. The extra baggage of advertising can make a site unusable. And, it's such a terrible shame - fifteen years ago, 56k modems were sufficient. Today, a 2 meg DSL connection is insufficient to carry all the advertising that popular sites push at you. Given a home with two adults and three minors, 2 meg is quickly choked to death when everyone is online at the same time.
I've been killing ad servers at the router for years now.
Slashdot Mirror
You seem to have it ALMOST right. Let me try saying the same thing, my way.
Those women and minorities who got their jobs BECAUSE they helped to meet a quota don't belong in those jobs.
However - I don't think that there is any profession which is unsuitable for women or minorities. And, sometimes, the woman, or the minority really is the best qualified.
If you're not careful with how you state the obvious, then you risk sounding like yet another asshole bigot. I cannot, will not ban women from an occupation because they are women. But, I can and will go along with any ban of women and/or minorities who FAIL TO MEET QUALIFICATIONS. Nor can I consider lowering standards just to make the unqualified happy.
Real life is not a special Olympics event. If/when I need an EMT, a doctor, a cop, an architect, I want the BEST, not some wannabe who was given the job to make liberals feel good about themselves.
So, you hire a cute witch who is licensed, and gets routine medical exams. Got it covered!
Note that we handle prostitution in the United States in the most backward, irrational manner possible. There are no licensed prostitutes, and few if any get routine medical exams.
It's not so much an ASSumption, as it is an observation. Corporations tend to hire the most qualified people. Corporations, as opposed to small businesses, simply cannot afford to show prejudice for one demographic over another. Who are corporations hiring? Let us get this straight now - they are hiring the MOST QUALIFIED PEOPLE, who also happen to mostly be WHITE AND ASIAN MALES.
By necessity, making your labor poll more inclusive means lowering standards.
BTW - it has already been pointed out that the Asian males are significantly over represented in Sillycone Valley, whereas white males are closer to "normal". That's probably a result of "No Retard Left Behind" and the Core curriculum. Our schools are being dumbed down, so fewer white males are able to excel.
Mmmm - I see. And, I suppose that your IQ is well over 130?
Very very few blacks or mestizos with IQ's over 130 - you know, I might agree with you. But, what is the percentage of white people with IQ's over 130? Do you REALLY think there is a difference? Really and honestly, you think that non-white people suffer a 20 point (or more) IQ handicap?
OK - what about women then? If IQ is race dependent, then what about women? Are there a lot of white women with IQ's over 130? Or is it also sex dependent?
I think the term you have in mind is "prostitute". They've been fixing hard drives for thousands of years now.
Whoosh.
And, watch out for the club!
Maybe you'd like to go into more detail with this bit? "women and minorities employed where they should not be" Maybe start by telling us which jobs women and minorities SHOULD NOT be employed in?
Simple. Just establish that you are bigoted against white and asian males, and that you won't hire any more. Lower your work standards to accommodate whichever demographics you prefer to work with, then sit back and watch your stock values plummet.
Yeah, me too! Errrr - oh - wait a second. Which NSA is this? THAT NSA? HUH WUT?!?!?! How many experts have evaluated this thing to be sure it's not a trojan?
I'll pass, for now at least.
It's called the "Privileges and Immunities Clause". All citizens have the RIGHT to travel in and through all of the US states, the District, territories and possessions. If you are a citizen of the United States, no one has the authority to bar you from entry into any one of the United States, etc.
It's just wikipedia - but any intelligent person can read the content, then search out arguments, both pro and con.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
Gubbermint says the same thing on this page: http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/...
"Citizens are also allowed to re-enter the U.S. repeatedly without being required to re-establish proof of admissibility."
If a US citizen IS denied entry into the United States, he has this to fall back on:
http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/us...
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or
intimidate any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth,
Possession, or District in the free exercise or enjoyment of any
right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of
the United States, or because of his having so exercised the same;
or
If two or more persons go in disguise on the highway, or on the
premises of another, with intent to prevent or hinder his free
exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege so secured -
They shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than
ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in
violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an
attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse or an attempt to commit
aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, they shall be fined
under this title or imprisoned for any term of years or for life,
or both, or may be sentenced to death.
Long story short, the gubbermint recognizes that fucking with a citizens rights is serious business, potentially punishable by death.
Works for me. How many criminals are you associated with, through family relationships, work, sports/hobbies, education, church, etc?
Please step through the red door, Comrade, where my freinds and I can get acquainted with you.
Except - EVERYONE LOVES RACIST AND SEXIST TALK! Go almost anywhere on the web, and make a blatantly sexist or racist comment. Everyone comments. Left, right, male, female, young, old, black, white and in-between - EVERYONE CHIMES IN!
Maybe I exaggerate a little. There are some dignified souls who can just shake their heads, and go on about their own business. Not many, but some.
It was definitely worth my time. Thanks for the link!
I think you've failed to understand the whole social engineering thing. Google, among other corporations, are bending over backward to attract women into their workforce. They are going so far as to go into the schools, trying to influence girl's choices. They are trying to change the world. That IS NOT "let them do whatever they want to do" at all. That is in effect, an attempt to replace parental and other inputs, to change the results to something closer to what Google wants.
Google wants women - but women don't necessarily want Google. (How many of us males could say the same thing?) So, Google has decided to approach the women before they are women. Get them at an impressionable young age, and start grooming them to reject what society is teaching them.
I'll support any young woman, 100% and more, who decides that she wants to join the military, go into politics, learn engineering, learn to fly - WHATEVER she wants to do. My sister is a retired state cop. Do you suppose that I ever once tried to discourage her? Hell no!
Girls should be permitted - no, wrong word - ENCOURAGED to do any damned thing they want to do. But - WHAT THEY WANT, not what a bunch of Bozo's in a board room want them to do.
Those girls, and women, who WANT to have a house full of children, and to stay at home to raise those children, should be ENCOURAGED to do so - no less than the girl who wants to fly to the moon.
Girls. Why are we even talking about girls? This should be the case for ALL CHILDREN! Every single one. (Groucho Marx: How many kids do you have? Three, one of each.) Boys, girls, or whatever - if they have a dream, help them to achieve it.
Don't TELL THEM what their fucking dreams should be!
In favor of this article? No, I'm not. How do I make it clear to you that Google is engaged in unethical social engineering?
4 million drivers making more right turns AND FEWER LEFT TURNS.
While you accuse me of not thinking, I HAVE THOUGHT of this, for much of my life. Way back, when I used a printed Rand McNally to navigate, I would go an extra exit on the interstate or the loop, to come at my destination with more right turns. It works. Left turns are more dangerous by definition - you are attempting to cross the path of oncoming traffic.
Introducing a bias against left turns in mapping software will cost no one anything at all. But, it's damned near guaranteed to SAVE LIVES!!
Oh, wait - I didn't lose you with the printed Rand McNally, did I? Yes, they actually printed maps on paper, long ago. A person actually had to read the map, and make his own decisions regarding his route.
The fact that a large percentage of New Yorkers live to adulthood is evidence that parents in New York DO teach their children how to cross a street safely.
How about this? Since routing a trip is all done by algorithms on computers anyhow, it costs nothing more for the computer to be biased against left hand turns. The electrons all cost the same, right?
Now, what happens out here in the real world? I get my directions, and I realize that instead of ten left turns, there are only three. The computer has routed me an extra mile here or there, and I'm making a lot of right turns. Hmmm - does this cost me anything? Well, no - in fact, hell no! Instead of sitting idle at traffic lights, I can make a "right on red" at most of my turns. That is, I keep moving, instead of idling. I suspect that I might actually save a few drops of gas on each trip, simply because I don't have to sit with the engine running.
And, oh yeah - as the driver, I don't have to worry so much about some crazy pedestrian walking out in front of me when I'm making that left turn. NOR do I have to worry about timing my turn in between oncoming vehicles. Right turns are somewhat dangerous, but left turns are ten times more dangerous.
Sounds to me like everyone wins with this. Who loses?
Uhhh, no, that's your biased translation.
Let me state this as bluntly as possible. I support women, not Google. Google has no business interfering in social issues, whether those issues are the legalization of pot, gay rights, or women's issues. Liberal minded Google has no more right to do so, than any of the more conservative minded oil companies. It pisses me off that rich people can throw a few millions around, and thereby change the way all of us common folk have to live, and do business.
Google's rights to support women, or any other group, ends at their employment and human resource desks.
Yes, I did address that issue in a sideways manned in one of the side discussions here. "What does Google have to gain . . ." regarding more women in the work force.
One thing about the status quo - it doesn't stay quo for long. Do you have ANY idea how much society has changed in the past few decades? Even in the past fifteen years, with our current "war on terra"?
Supposing that I gave you the benefit of the doubt, and agreed that women are held down against their will - WTF gives a corporation the right to start a social engineering campaign like this? Social change should be a grass roots thing, not something imposed by a corporation. If social change isn't grass roots, then it should at least be led by members of the oppressed population.
Ask yourself - "What does Google stand to gain from pushing women into STEM?"
I've got an answer for you. More women in a field means lower wages for EVERYONE! You just watch - if Google gets it's way, you won't see women promoted to six digit salary positions. Instead, you'll see wages cut!
Before you argue with that, why don't you look at some of Washington's best known women's advocates. What are THOSE bastards paying their staff members? They uniformly pay their female staff less than their male staff.
Bottom line - the women are just being USED BY Google to achieve the shared goal* of reducing wages in this country.
Shared by most of corporate America, as evidenced by requests for increased H1B quotas, the refusal to stop or reverse the illegal alien invasion, the exporting of jobs, and more.
"It takes a village to raise an idiot" If you've frequently heard comments to that effect, then you've been in the presence of an SJW. They tend to view children as the responsibility and/or the property of the state. Child services around the nation seem to attract these kind of people. Whether a child services case worker happens to be a SJW or not, you seldom notice them - but when a SJW disagrees with a responsible parent or guardian, they have no qualms shouldering that responsible parent aside.
This bitch, for instance, who knew better than Mother OR her three children - http://jezebel.com/judge-who-j...
"Pursuing a career in a field that has high demand and better than average pay is neither risky nor outrageous."
Oh, yeah. Now - where is this demand that you speak of? How do you spell "H1B" and "illegal alien"? The education department is busy dumbing down the population, and here you are proposing that STEM workers are in high demand.
And, all the while, I'm still bitching that all the SJW's are busy with their social engineering agenda. One more time, JUST LET THE GIRLS DO WHATEVER THE HELL THEY WANT TO DO!
It takes an arrogant son of a bitch to tell a girl that she CANNOT go into engineering. It takes an equally arrogant son of a bitch to tell her that she MUST go into engineering. Why can't she decide for herself?
You point to some pink toys, as evidence that boys and girls are being treated differently. Now, look at those pink toys, and tell me more about them. WHY do pink toys increase a girl's interest? Come on, dig deep.
Mindless repeating of stereotypes. You are obviously superior, in that you mindlessly repeat liberal talking points.
I say again, if the girls WANT to work in STEM, get the hell out of their way. If they DO NOT WANT to work in STEM, STFU and let them do what they want to do.
Stop PUSHING the girls into occupations that they may or may not want. Just STFU and sit down, and let the girls be whatever they want to be.
The arrogant cocksucker who occupies the White House told women that he doesn't WANT them to be housewives. WTF does anyone care what he WANTS? Rhetorical question - I know exactly who wants the wives out of the homes, and I know why. Dragging Mommy out of the house opens the door for baby sitters, social workers, school administrators, and more to get involved in the child's life. So, Mommy is down the road, slaving away to earn some money (part of which the government takes away from her) to PAY for all of the baby sitting, etc ad nauseum.
Did I mention social engineering in my post above? Yes, I did. Social Justice warriors don't like the nuclear family, they don't even like an extended family. So, they are working to destroy the family. Social engineering. Look around you. It's blatantly obvious.
What is obvious to a discerning person, is that Google is engaged in a social engineering campaign, not terribly dissimilar to the campaign waged by Kellogs in the late 1800's and early 1900's. http://mentalfloss.com/article...
You say, ". . . assumption that their differences are significant to influence . . ." And, I say that you are being judgemental and subjective. When 80% of a group of people tell you that they are not interested in something, THAT IS SIGNIFICANT! It's alright for you, and Google, to try to understand WHY that group of people are uninterested in $activity. It is NOT acceptable for you and Google (or Kelogg's) to try to force changes in those people.
Unproven assumption? How about empirical data?
Historically, males have been the risk takers, and females have by choice taken fewer risks. Guys do outrageous shit, and girls seldom do anything terribly outrageous. That's the way it is.
I say, "Fuck off, Google!"
All of that said - if there are any of you who overtly or covertly DISCOURAGE girls/women from working in STEM careers, you can fuck off right along with Google and company. Freedom. Freedom is all about doing whatever the hell you WANT TO DO!
Mass collection. Think "landfill". You've lost something, and you think it MIGHT HAVE ended up in the trash can. Problem is, the garbage truck picked up the trash yesterday. You can go to the landfill, and search for it. In fact, you might even get the garbage truck driver to show you where he dumped the truck, narrowing your search considerably. Even then, good luck with that. So much for "mass collection".
"While it's nothing more than an annoyance on my home machinery"
People who live in Outback, Nowhere find that bandwidth usage to be much more than a mere annoyance. The extra baggage of advertising can make a site unusable. And, it's such a terrible shame - fifteen years ago, 56k modems were sufficient. Today, a 2 meg DSL connection is insufficient to carry all the advertising that popular sites push at you. Given a home with two adults and three minors, 2 meg is quickly choked to death when everyone is online at the same time.
I've been killing ad servers at the router for years now.