Walsingham

Four hours sleep again. I feel like the guy in Fight Club.

I'm a rogue program imagination, I'm the malevolent thought you can't stop thinking, the kind of thought that can't be forgotten nor controlled. I think I feel more sorry for you than for me, then.

LOL Now I'm wondering why I invented you inventing those things.

Ex of mine sent me this video. http://www.upworthy.com/what-is-depression-let-this-animation-with-a-dog-shed-light-on-it?g=2 It's a bit plastic fantastic, but overall quite moving. EDIT: NOT THAT KIND OF PLASTIC

To clarify, I was hoping someone might have some existing stats and NPC profiles.

Decent night's sleep for once. Feel weird and light-headed.

Understandable perspective. And of course the ANZACs bled white at Gallipoli. It would be horrendous if one had to admit that the undeniable courage they showed at Gallipoli was a pointless sideshow. That a breakout in the Turkish heartland was so unlikely as to be near fantasy. And that the most they could achieve would be a funneling of more Russian bodies into a military effort that was utterly disjointed. A second front strategy was tried, with vastly greater technological (land craft, mulberry harbours, paratroop landings) and staff know-how (bigger military colleges, revolution in military thinking post-war) in WW2. But in the end it pinned down Allied forces as much as German ones.

OK. Sorry to jump to the wrong conclusion. However, I'd suggest you really ought to pay attention to demographics and pop size. Don't leap into discussing more complex issues without getting the foundations straight. To use an analogy, if we were arguing about whether a celebrity, Steve, was going to take up ballet, we can talk about surface behaviours all day. But if we first constrain the discussion by pointing out that Steve weighs 250kgs, is five foot two, and eats mainly twinkies then we have some useful background. Geography doesn't change. Demographics only change slowly. Policy can be altered by a change of office. But policy always has to be sensible in the context of geography and demographics.

That's me being sleepy and not double checking my facts. Disappointed you feel detail beneath your refined analysis. You can't just claim two nations are the same. You need a system for adjudicating that. Which I've put forward. ~~~ My overall point is that the two countries have very different strategic situations, which they are trying to manage using very different economic and military assets. This has lead them to very different policy decisions. I had been going to contrast Saudi Arabia's foreign exertions with those of Iran. Ultimately, Iran's woeful per capita GDP and self-perpetuating antagonistic international stance will only make its power centres increasingly paranoid and aggressive.

I don't think I posted from RUSI last time. But never mind. If I may summarise the arguments as I understand them, it comes down to three key points: 1) The war couldn't be resolved in the air or at sea, and had to be fought out on land, on the 'Western' front. 2) The Western front, combined with the logistics and weaponry of the day meant that a mobile war almost immediately settled into a continuous compressed front line. 3) The compressed and continuous front line meant that: 3.1) There was no option other than a frontal assault, because there were no flanks 3.2) Sitting still couldn't prevent you taking casualties, because the line was constantly subjected to artillery, gas, and sniper fire. The 'best' option being to try and end the war as quickly as possible. We could talk about the political dimension, and what they tried to do by innovating with technology, but I reckon those are the core three reasons the war was ****, and not the generals.

Tried some gurnard fillets fried in chilli and garlic. Ate them on sliced white bread. Hugely tasty. Gurnard are supposed to be ugly. But I think they look quite nice. They are also sustainable.

British political candidate blames gays for flooding. LINK.

Politics Iran is officially a theocracy, following the revolution lead by Ayatollah Khomeini in 1979. The post-revolutionary period had show trials and purges and all sorts of fun stuff like that. Iran has both elected and unelected institutions. The elected setup should be quite familiar to members. The people elect a parliament and a president. Iran gives the vote to anyone over 18 of either sex. Although an unkind assessor might ask who it is subsequently taken away from by imprisonment or fraud. Iran frequently claims to be the most democratic country in the middle east. However, this elected executive and legislature is accountable to the SUPREME LEADER. The SUPREME LEADER ...sorry I don't know why I keep writing like that... I'll try again. The SUPREME LEADER appoints the head of the armed forces, the judiciary, the head of the media networks, and the constitutional 'umpires' of the Guardian Council. Note that poster child for insane drivel, Mahmoud Ahmedinejad is the President, not the SUPREME LEADER. Yet he gets away with a lot of stramash, choosing his own special advisors, contradicting state media and so on. This could well be (it is) because of his cultivating links to and the power of the IRGC. The IRGC are the boys who exist to defend the Islamic Revolution's security, rather than national security. So attempts to portray them as a military force are disingenuous at best. However, they do possess significant military forces. Commandos, gunboats, sharp sticks etc. estimates of personnel are difficult to make accurately because the IRGC has its own funding streams. These include multi-billion dollar construction contracts, property ownership, and _allegedly_ drug smuggling. Perhaps more importantly the IRGC run internal militias, called the basij, who were the chaps on motorbikes who beat the crap out of protesters in 2009. They also operate clandestine and covert commandos and terrorist groups internally and externally. Such as Hizballah. Combined with their economic power, the IRGC have a lot of unofficial clout. Saudi Arabia, bless them, are much easier to describe. The Kingdom is an absolute Monarchy, and has been for some time - precisely how long depends on how you define Saudi Arabia, as a politically unified entity, or a dynasty, or a post-Ottoman hiccup. One definite edge the House of Saud has over other absolute monarchies is in manpower. There are a LOT of princes. I mean a LOT a lot. Enough to man all the ministerial posts and governorships. There is no defined order of succession in the House of Saud. Meaning that while outwardly the royal family are unified, it is inevitable that there is considerable bloodletting and shenanigans going on under the service. In this respect the Saudi political scene can be likened to a Yorkshireman's trousers. Saudi does have a religious body of constitutional umpires called the ulema. They are supposed to exercise discipline over the heated religious types in the country. Although not a democracy, the Saudi people did try to flex their democratic urges. This didn't get very far. It is notable that several of the political parties formed tried to use Islamic credentials as much as anything else. Although dodging behind a holy front is quite common as a tactic for trying to stand up to autocratic rule. Overall, although official differences are marked, there are similarities between both states. Both countries have very poor human rights records. Although I personally assess the nature of the Iranian regime as more pervasively repressive. ~~~~~~ And here I finally feel sleepy. Anyone else want to continue?

Context Geography Both countries are situated in a region commonly termed the Middle East. Although their relative position are quite different within this region. Iran sits on the Eastern edge, while Saudi Arabia sits to the South. Iran is a large (18th largest), mountainous country, dominated the Zagros mountains which run North-South. Most arable land is along the coasts, with a particular concentration around the Persian Gulf. It is bordered in the North by the Caucasus, to the West by Turkey and Iraq, and to the East by Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Saudi Arabia is also large (13th largest), but chiefly desert country. Its position is dominated by the Red Sea to the West, and Persian gulf to the East. It is so completely empty of internal geographic features that a relief map (as above) is hard to distinguish from a poorly folded omelette. Its effective neighbours are Yemen to the South, the richer states of Oman and the UAE to the Southeast, while the states of Iraq and Jordan are to the North. Demographics Iran's population is estimated at around 77 million. The largest group present are defined as Shia, but an ethnographic and linguistic map of the country looks like a fruit salad there are so many different colours scattered around. The CIA publicly estimate only 61% of the population are 'Persians'. After the Iran-Iraq war of 1980-1988 Iran has had a pronounced 'young' population. 2/3rds of Iranians are under 30. Saudi Arabia doesn't get a fun ethnographic map, because officially it's almost homogenous Sunni Muslim. It has an estimated population of nearly 27 million. However, unofficial estimates are that a further 5.5 million non-national workers (about 20% of the total popn.) It is also important to note that this total has grown from around 6 million in 1970. This means that although both countries have sparsely populated regions, Iran is over twice as populous. Economics Iran has an estimated per capita GDP of $7,000. Total GDP is estimated at 548 billion. The economy is dominated by oil and gas products, but also has significant agricultural and textile industries. Many of these industries are officially state controlled. Many more are effectively aligned with the state by being controlled by religious councils, or by the Iranian Revolutionary Guards Council (the BBC estimates as much as a 3rd). Saudi Arabia has an estimated per capita GDP of $25,000, although wealth distribution is very uneven. Total GDP is estimated at $727 billion. It has a joyously simple economy. It squirts out oil, and very little else. 90% of export earnings come from the petroleum sector. And 55% of GDP. By comparison the United Kingdom generates 55% of its GDP in the form of celebrity autbiographies. This dependency on oil, and high revenue, is not all good news, as there are indications of rising youth unemployment. Efforts at improving education standards have just resulted in rising graduate unemployment and pessimism. The quantity of oil that Saudi Arabia produces is also defined on a command basis, due to the profound impact it has on the World economy. Both countries are important suppliers of hydrocarbons to China, Japan, and India. Both countries are publicly pursuing increased trade links to China.

"Saudi is just like Iran" I promised I'd get to this eventually, and thanks to my spine being too painful to sleep here it is. Overview A comparison of the two countries should consist of three elements: 1. Context comparison - geography, demographics, economics, political structures, military structures, summary comparison 2. Policy - Key issues, responses, summary comparison 3. Uncertainties - Challenges, open questions

Chinese authorities combat smog by deploying gigantic fake sunset. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/01/17/beijing_solution_to_smothering_smog_televised_sunsets/

Not really. Fine line between focus and simplicity.

I implicate a country known as Tibet.

Not from a design perspective. How do you design a system with an infinite access options? Sure your statement will make a philosophy major happy. But a little clue should be the employment prospects of philosophy majors. Practicalities, mother****er. ;p

Typical. How come it works for him?

Not sure if he's talking about me... :0

If I were picking a stand, I wouldn't pick a stand on either Russian lager, or those women.

That decision took us in Seattle a little by surprise as well. I'd always thought that teams were required to provide a portion of the tickets for fans of the other team. But the previous week the tickets for the Saints sold out in virtually no time flat, so maybe this was a response. Anyway, win or lose it should be fun... and we'll always have Harbaugh's theatrics to liven things up. It should be a great hard-nosed battle. I'm setting the over/under on the amount of times "chippy" is used by the broadcast crew during the game at 12 1/2. We got ****y Pete on one side (I love me some ****y Pete) and the always animated Jimbo on the other side. If nothing else it promises to be entertaining. I just hope it's not a blowout. Also, this is an excuse for me to post one of my favorite gifs, The ****y Pete Strut: Edit: Gosh darn expletive filter censoring out c o c k y I have decided I shall use this next time I visit my bank.

Righto. I must preface this by saying that I think Gove is an idiot. But that doesn't mean he's always wrong. I refer the honourable members to the Royal United Services Institute. If you've never heard of them, you would be very wrong to write them off as a rubber stamping bureau for the Forces. They are very open about criticising established wisdom. LINK Very interesting video on the politics of commemoration of war dead, lecture given at the US Army war college: