TFA ironically begins with the quote '"I don’t think we will ever have enough [computing power] to satisfy us,” says researcher.'

The summary is vague, and the article not much better, and neither say anything about whether the 'new model' is matching observations any better than the old.

It would be nice if they could at least clarify if the sole pair of comparison images are even the same forecast, because the new model shows not only more detail but a completely different prediction.

Come on kids, this isn't a network news sound bite. This is the Internet, and you're a tech news site. Would it kill you to go past the press release?

Maybe I'm just bitter about this because I live in mountains where a coin is a more accurate forecasting tool than the weather service.

Now they can be wrong in hi-def!

community organizer is the role in which Obama belongs

It is also a play on the Democrat's own sneer against the previous President: Somewhere in Texas a village is missing its idiot (bumper stickers still available).

I think, mine has more class to it, though. As do most things Republican...

[wiley.com]

I can not open the actual document without paying for it — only the summary is available.

"(1) young black males are sentenced more harshly than any other group, (2) race is most influential in the sentencing of younger rather than older males, (3) the influence of offender's age on sentencing is greater among males than females, and (4) the main effects of race, gender, and age are more modest compared to the very large differences in sentencing outcomes across certain age-race-gender combinations."

It may very well be, the harsher-sentenced folks really do commit "harsher" crimes — or under more judge-infuriating circumstances (such as with particular brutality or against a particularly sympathetic victim, under influence of drugs, or by being repeat offenders). Also, being poorer on average, they might be unable to secure as good a lawyer.

The giant elephant in the room, which various race-baiters refuse to acknowledge, is that Asians should be just as much (if not more) a target of the "Whitey" racism as Blacks. And yet, there aren't even any allegations of them being targeted by neither cops nor judges. They also study so well, some universities even choose to impose harsher requirements on them to get a more "balanced" student body (a truly racist practice too)...

So, no — until I see actual statistics showing certain races punished harsher for the same crimes, I'm not going to accept that assertion on face-value. My comment demanding proof was downmodded and OP's is currently at "5 Insightful" — which means, lots of people saw the exchange, but not one was able to offer the evidence I asked for... Not one person.

No, I won't.

Well, if you are unable to substantiate your assertions, then don't be surprised, if your arguments are summarily discarded — with prejudice and even an occasional glee.

People "see it" or they "don't see it."

I would have thought, Hans Christian Andersen took care of this particular line of reasoning 200 years ago or so...

I did not include the link in an attempt to provide statistics.

Right, you didn't. Out of politeness, I assumed, that you tried to, but failed...

so much evidence that had been published in so many years

Once again, if "so much evidence" really existed, you would've had no problem offering links to some of it. Yet, you did not. The most obvious reason is — no such evidence actually exists. Thanks for playing.

If that shocks you, you should read archives of her (now deleted) Tweets on Twitter. Implying black men are nothing but "hood men" (while saying in the same/related Tweet that she wanted to say "something worse") and black girls are "hood rats" is only the start of it. She also gloats about ruining the careers of aspiring devs and female journalists.

We won't even get into her wish to have someone make a Nazi Dating Sim.

She's all around one of the most shitty people I've ever come across online.

P.S. - If you see anyone decrying the decision of Intel - take it with a grain of salt. They aren't a corporation full of stupid idiots too dumb to do research into the entire situation before making decisions to remove advertising or parrot stupid nonsense due to being too lazy to actually look into matters.

Oh, there was at least one petitioner who received a response from Intel directly. They stated that they were concerned with the tone and politicization of the editorial content on Gamasutra and that they would no longer advertise there.

Which makes perfect sense, since Intel is a corporation with a brand to protect, and they would be remiss in protecting that brand, if you have game industry sites basically telling your clientele that they are "dead", "shitbags", and "should be removed from the earth" and then don't remove your advertising support.

Also, the President of Intel is a woman, so in before "MAHOGANY!"

Keeping software requirements low is a good thing, and there isn't really any justification for making a basic desktop OS require good hardware if all people want to do is the same stuff they were doing ten years ago. If they wanted to weed out underpowered PCs, they should mandate an improved version of the Windows Experience Index be advertised alongside PCs with simple numbers for office and gaming performance, and maybe energy efficiency.

On the other hand, it's long past time to put 32 bit out to pasture, at least on the desktop. Remember, this OS will probably still be supported in the mid-2020s. I'm not going to want to maintain a 32 bit legacy codebase when PCs are coming with 256GB of ram standard.

Eggman seems like a nice fellow so far. I don't think we can take the walrus's word on this, even if he is part of the maker movement.

And what did he call himself? A "Freedom Fighter"? That's basically another word for terrorist.

No. It is about race, in a significant number of cases. Just look at the statistics of people open carrying (or people getting shot at).

Your attempt to include links to such statistics failed. Please, try again. Be sure, your links point to differences between ratios of law-breakers vs. prosecutions by race. Any pointers comparing ratios populations vs. prosecutions are meaningless and will be discarded.

In the specific case of John Crawford (RIP), the poor guy that got shot down while carrying a toy gun to the cash register

A single case does not make for statistics.

but there is a clear distinction in attitude and partial/subjective enforcement of the law that still crosses racial lines

If it were "clear", you would've had no problems substantiating it with links to evidence...

You know that FBI Director Comer, the guy that started this BS a couple of days ago is a Republican, right?? The only thing I blame Obama for is appointing Republicans, as cover, to defense, security and law enforcement posts.

Except, the person quoted by TFA is Eric Holder, who is as Democrat as it can possibly get...

Off-topic much?

In what way is a semi automatic rifle with no serial number consistent with a well regulated militia?

In a way pornography is consistent with the right to petition the government for redress of grievances.

Heck, much better than that: any militia — well-regulated or otherwise — can use such a rifle whether or not it has serial number.

The Constitution allowed slavery

Nope, there until the Thirteenth Amendment.

and no vote for women

Nope, the Constitution was silent on the matter until the Nineteenth Amendment.

We have to make the laws that are reasonable to our time.

Sure. The point was, for any such laws to be valid, the Second Amendment has to be abolished (or altered) first. Hardly unheard of — the Eighteenth Amendment, which prohibited the sale of alcohol, was repealed by the Twenty-first, for example.

Make arguments, please, that are really arguments, rather than hiding behind a document

I am making a legal argument, and I'm referencing (not "hiding behind" — whatever that means) a legal document — the Constitution.

Does it make sense now for individuals to buy and sell full-auto weapons? "Assault rifles"? Flamethrowers? Surface-to-air missles? What are the real distinctions?

As long as the Second Amendment is in effect, there are no distinctions. If you feel there should be, you need to discard (or reword) the Amendment — until then, any and all weapons are, indeed, legal under the Constitution.

deeply-confused gun-nuts who thinks that banning guns designed for mass murder means banning defensive guns.

I don't see, where in the Second Amendment there is any distinction made. An 18-century cannon fired at the right target would be no less devastating ("mass-murderous"), than an M-16 today. Yet, the Constitution makes no exceptions — any arms can kept and any can be born.

If you wish to see any such limitations added, you should be arguing for abolishing the Amendment — not violating it, as is common practice now.

But, if limiting the weapons "designed for mass murder" were indeed the goal, why are the brass knuckles and "bladed weapons" illegal anywhere? I mentioned this mystery in the post you replied to, but you chose to bring up "mass murder" anyway — which means, you are not merely mistaken here, but are a liar (or, indeed, simply a troll).

Do you somehow find yourself aggrieved by not being able to carry a sword with you?

The point was to demonstrate, that people harping on "assault weapons" and seek to limit the size of a magazine, are fools or liars. As are those, who try to limit the Second Amendment protection to the sort of weaponry available when the Amendment was written.

I should think there's very little call for walking around with a sword.

I should think, it is none of your business. Whether there is such "call" or not, as long as the Second Amendment is in effect, no local ordinances can (legally) ban any arms — certainly not those, which were in wide use, when the Amendment was written

That said, the brass knuckles, which I listed in the same sentence, remain quite convenient to carry — and will not harm your toddler, should he find them (another oft-repeated argument against firearms) — yet, you chose to ignore them completely...

I thus doubt your honesty and sincerity here and am unlikely to respond again.