Seems like an effective method of dispatching terrorists. But how do we coax them INTO the vacuum?

I think it's still indicative of the problem GP mentions. The more code you are trying to pull in, the larger the footprint during the build process. You don't see a 'Hello world' program requiring a 3GB+ build footprint do you? No, because it's not doing enough to warrant that. Likewise, Firefox apparently *is* trying to do a lot. More than it used to at any rate.

I actually remember an ad that would air AGES ago about not driving while distracted. That's right, just opposed to allowing yourself to be distracted. It was a radio ad and in it, it described a young woman who ended up rear ending someone because they were too busy fiddling with the radio knob. Another one where someone dropped their cassette in the floorboard and reached down to fish it up again.

I see no practical difference between having a conversation with someone sitting next to me in the passenger seat vs having an earpiece in and having a conversation over my phone or even through one of those cab-audible bluetooth arrangements. And there may be some who oppose having any conversation in the car whatsoever but then that brings up parent's point about bored drivers. Bored drivers are dangerous drivers too. The fact is, driving is dangerous. Quit nannying me and let's just teach the concept of personal responsibility.

But what damn fool race would be idiotic enough to actually attempt to construct an entity from a DNA sequence received via radio signals from space?

Actually we're liable to find out there are some cowardly aliens hanging out on the moon.

TLDR - No. None of the factors discussed in the article or this thread are taken to be in absolute control of the outcome. But the sum total of the factors indicates a probability favoring actions that in alignment with historical activity.

Welcome to the slippery slope. None of the arguments here are stipulating that it is absolutely 100% impossible that someone from a culture or background which does not express or emphasize skill A will ever be capable of skill A. Rather it is presumed that, as with almost any of life's outcomes, there is a degree of probability involved. This probability can either be increased or decreased based on a number of factors well outside of the subject's control including, but not limited to, culture or background of parents, environmental factors, genetics, etc. The question in the original post and article was whether the statistical difference between representation of blacks and latinos in Silicon Valley's leadership positions and representation in the populace as a whole can be attributed to social exclusivity or if other factors are involved. In this thread, the point is raised that PCs and their access is easily available, presumably to make the point that cultural factors can be eliminated or significantly minimized. The counterpoint to this is that cultural factors extend beyond mere accessibility and to the emphasis or lack thereof, thus indicating that this factor cannot be significantly minimized. You mention the parent can buy the PC. I point out that, again, probability indicates a predilection against this purchase based on potential historical factors among the culture. In short, I am not indicating that breaking the cycle is impossible. I am simply indicating that the probability is that the cycle continues as it always has.

But if the culture the parent was raised in did not emphasize computing (and/or the culture the parent is currently part of) then they will not provide this for their kids.

Yes but if you already have a Windows Server using Active Directory, why buy into a platform that you can coerce to work with your AD install as opposed to a platform that was built to work with your AD install? And I say this as a Mac junkie and also an IT guy who would LOVE to migrate his clients to Mac. But as you say, it's not simple. Not to mention that many small businesses have "that one app" that you really need and that only runs on Windows. Always seems to be the case. There's just no business sense in it for the most part.

Sounds like your CU could have used some inch thick bulletproof glass dividing the thieves from the teller and back offices.

I expected books on Perl.

I get that you may despise people who are sticklers about the rules, but consider what a typical IT staffer is going to be faced with. The typical "random device" user is going to say "Hey, Mr. IT guy, I want to hook my up to email. Any problems?"

Let's say I say, "Not really. Point it here and you're good." Let's even suppose further that I say "By the way, we don't support your . If it goes haywire, it's like this conversation never happened."

I'm still going to hear about it when something happens. It is still going to eat bandwidth in my day as I am rolling out a patch which also happens to sever the connection to s because they are incompatible with this patch. I am still going to have to reply to his email, even to say 'Nope.' Even to hit delete.

That's just personal inconvenience. On top of that and frankly of far more concern are the possible problems that may crop up because that device is connected to company resources. If it happens that some bizarre interaction between and a company server causes downtime or data loss, it's not the end user that's likely to get grilled, it's going to be the IT guy who let him connect his unapproved to the company network in the first place.

I suppose it's silly of me to comment on this, but really, what is wrong with posting this? Okay, so 4.7 is available. Why does that invalidate someone else's effort to fork the 3.x branch? I think you're getting hung up on version-itis, the idea that a larger version number is inherently better, or in a less confrontational manner of putting it, that the changes in a higher version number inherently represent progress. Major version number changes are not necessarily better. Instead, think of it is significantly different. Yes, the point is to improve the system, but sometimes people disagree with the direction a project is taken on a subsequent major revision. Frankly, when people bitch about it, they are often told "if you dislike it so much, stick with the old version, it still works." Well, this guy took it to heart and is continuing development. As it happens, I think that's pretty freaking awesome.

Damn, why don't I have mod points right now?

It's not for general use, rather it's primarily a development tool. As has been shown time and time again, the earlier you catch bugs, the lower the cost required to fix them. Now, with faster than light browsing, you can see the bugs on your website before you've even coded it. As a result, you simply don't code the bug in the first place and save a lot of time rewriting poor CSS and markup.

Why do we always assume "they" advance more quickly than we do or started earlier or are any more civilized. Sad as it may seem, we may be the most civilized/advanced species in the universe.