Zoraptor

In my opinion its because most of our spineless lapdog politicians were useful sock puppets for the USAs interests in Europe, a foothold in the door so to speak and an ally amongst what may be a future enemy. Plus supporting Brexit would antagonise the remainder of the EU- or at least their most powerful politicians- with very little to gain; and negotiating deals like TTIP without Britain is far harder too. Which is pretty much what WoD said really, but Britain has always been seen as a bit of a bulwark against some members' more protectionist instincts, especially France.

18-24 year old turn out was ~36% for the vote. Bit of a rum old do, blaming more senior people for actually turning up to vote when your group couldn't even be bothered to. That's quite all right, my man, it's only your first mistake. Any more though and your tea and biscuit, real ale or tweed jacket privileges may have to be reconsidered.

Fair enough. RUUUUULE BRITANNIA, RUUUULE THE WAAAVES; BRITONS NEVER WILLLL BE SLAAAAVES! amirite fellas? 'Fraid not. You've left out a second 'Brittania' after the comma and a couple of 'never's after the first one. And I'm fairly sure it's 'shall' rather than 'will' too.

I thought the number of characters in Dead Space was simply too many to care much about any of them- they ended up as ciphers or stereotypes with little character development. I'd prefer fewer NPCs; and though I'm pretty sure there won't be a sequel IIRC Brian Mitsoda said much the same thing about there being just too many NPCs to flesh out. I don't really know about AoD. It's like someone seeing corruption in the church and deciding that the solution is Scourging. Yeah, rpglites tend towards being vanilla cheese fests designed mostly to not offend or challenge morons but the solution is not hard core just for the sake of it, the hard core has to actually be good in and of itself. Having said that, while everyone pretty much is an arse in the game it's a setting where altruism doesn't make much sense since everything is in decline and the setting is fundamentally depressing and brutal; and the extreme specialisation is definitely a choice to aid replayability so justifiable in context/ theory though I'd certainly agree it's far too extreme in implementation. So in the end it's... dunno, really. 90% of the way to potential excellence, 10% of the way to pointless frustration. [disclaimer: I haven't finished it, so ideas are subject to change]

Heh, Cameron gone and Bliarites having another tilt at Corbyn, must be a day ending in y again for the latter. God forbid that Labour had a leader who actually talked sensibly to people instead of stridently 'yelling' his views at people like just about everyone else, and the Bliarites' sole connection to the disaffected Labour voters in the north who voted to leave is that they occasionally drive the A1(M)/ M1 in their Hybrids (double heh, most are probably so hypocritical they drive a ponce mobile like an X5) to swill chardonnay after their round of golf or visiting the holiday home in Scotland. Surely another leader lecturing people to vote one way because if they didn't there would be Exodusian plagues visited upon the land would have convinced people how to vote... There will be another financial crisis. They never really fixed the issues from the last one so you now have near identical situations with housing bubbles across multiple countries, too big to fail and the like. You even still have derivatives, you just don't have sub prime to trigger everything this time. The exit makes the British (well, London/ SE) housing bubble very likely to burst and once one goes the dominoes will fall. Not really the exit's fault though, it could be near literally anything to cause it, that is the nature of speculative bubbles. It will probably even be worse this time since interest rates have nowhere lower to go for stimulus and most places have barely recovered at this point. Most of the developed world is looking at a Japan in the 1990s situation of negative growth and deflation. And they don't want to reform and won't reform due to short term benefits from the status quo and not wanting to lose elections. I really don't know if the EU can reform at this point. The core power group has been so intransigent about always increasing integration that I'm not sure even this will cause actual introspection instead of just labelling England as chauvinistic jingoists who didn't know a good thing when they had it; and they have a pathological fear that any reasonable response would cause contagion in other countries. A reasonable response, earlier, would have seen Remain winning the referendum.

I'm getting a good chuckle out of all the "old people shouldn't be allowed to vote"/ "only thickos and racists who love Hitler andor Putin voted to leave" rhetoric on the internet. If remain hadn't run such a stupendously negative campaign they'd probably have won, their campaign gave no reason at all to vote to stay beyond negative ones and telling leave voters that they're ignorant racist morons was never going to be a winning strategy, just one that made the people saying it feel superior and might have kept leave voters home instead of changing their minds. For once the usual tactics of getting talked down to by bankers, (b)e(a)urocrats, politicians and businessmen/ lobbyist/ 'think groups' did not work, and thank [chosen deity] for that. It's probably going to hurt Britain a lot short term, but someone had to take one for the team so far as the EU was concerned. Will be interesting to see if the message is finally received or if they just keep sticking their head deeper in the hole in Brussels. And to see how much the EU decides to stick the knife in the back on the way out/ whether the brit politicians try some sort of run around of the result. Sinn Fein and SNP talk about leaving the UK/ joining Ireland on every day ending with a 'y'. It is their corest of core policies.

Visa free applied though. Having an EU passport was pretty useful, looks like I don't have one now. The area I could have voted in had leave +20% anyway. Interesting times are certainly ahead. I really didn't think when it came right down to it that enough people would be brave enough to vote leave. Will have some interesting ramifications for other countries too, it would make somewhere like Greece leaving a lot more likely; I'd suspect that they would have had this vote been a year or so earlier. Hard to be sympathetic with the EU though, too smug, too insular, too self satisfied, too imbalanced, too pretentious, too unwieldy and yes half of those mean much the same thing. Trying to force everyone into their vision of the project when those you're forcing are democracies was always a stupid approach. Bye bye Cameron, bye bye Osborne.

BBC results page for those wanting to follow the, uh, excitement in real time. Way too soon for any actual predictions yet, remain has a slight lead at present.

Countries have free trade agreements and even free movement without a supra national federalised government, we have both with Australia. The EU isn't as bad as it's made out to be the extreme rejectionsists but it has always been about bundling federalisation into unrelated matters- you don't need the Euro, or a central european bank or even executive functions beyond the ability to implement decisions related to trade/ economics; and, of course, the EU has been utterly hopeless at enforcing any economic rules even with that executive function. If they'd been in any way competent at that then I'd probably agree with you, but they simply haven't and they have asterisked entire countries up as a consequence. So, mostly the EU isn't as bad because it tends to get blamed for everything that goes wrong and works very well as an excuse for making or not making decisions that individual countries did/ didn't want to make anyway rather than having intrinsic positives. Reverse is true as well, EU fans love blaming any problems in the EU on insufficient integration. It hasn't even prevented wars, most of its members being in NATO and not spending much on defence has been far more important than the EU.

Personally, I'd be voting out if I were voting- but I fully expect stay to win. That their campaign has been so unremittingly negative says as much as needs saying about how rubbish the status quo is, but status quo is certainly the safe choice.

Epidemiology (basically medical population statistics) requires examination of gun data to do properly and gun injuries is also a health issue. CDC is responsible for both epidemiology and more general "health threats" (direct quote) than just 'disease', and despite its name. Theoretically at least good statistical analysis leads to unbiased information and hence informed decision making; theoretically. In most other countries that sort of public research would be done by the Ministry of Health or similar, which is more appropriately/ less narrowly named.

Massive counteroffensive with like 2 tanks and with both sides' forces numbering maybe a thousand. Not that the government wasn't embarrassing in their attempt to get Raqqa and that it wasn't a stupid idea on a fundamental level, but a few Russian helicopters would make a real mess of the ISIS counter attacks much as they did in Palmyra and by all reports not a single one has turned up.

No, they're not required to- official sales numbers are usually released as PR, if they are at all. They do have to publicly disclose certain information as public companies but it's usually aggregate info, specific details are considered commercially sensitive. You can actually download most of the big games companies' annual or quarterly reports to read and only a fraction of their games even get mentioned specifically let alone have any sales numbers.

There were a fair few articles when it was removed a few weeks ago, eg PC Gamer. The Steamspy notice should definitely say removed at the request of the publisher though. It's probably related to Paradox going public and not wanting their new shareholders to get unvetted independent information more than any 'inaccuracy' though. Steamspy is generally fairly accurate as their methodology is robust, there's no reason for Paradox games to be special snowflakes whose numbers are persistently wrong.

Bit weird how many Scandinavian entities there are in there- there are a fair few Norwegian ones as well as Swedish. The Gulf ones were pretty much as expected, having Norway's government in the same tier as Saudi, not so much. (Neither are quite as odd as Michael Schumacher contributing, let alone so much. Unless there's a different Michael Schumacher who is head of JP Morgan Chase or something)

Surely the pigs would vote out, since that way it would be Dave that is well and truly asterisked this time? (Suppose I could work in an allusion to 'Animal Farm' to counter 'Lord of the Flies', but lazy)

More DNC/ Hillary hax docs released. Pretty much zero doubt that it's genuine at this point, ain't nobody going to fake that number of documents, plus no one seems to be claiming that it's fake just that the hacker is 'Russian'.

eyyyy That seem bit failed study. Because data pointed towards Clinton winning over Sanders. Even I was able to predict Clinton most likely taking nomination based on poll and vote data in early March. http://forums.obsidian.net/topic/85040-us-elections-2016/page-10?do=findComment&comment=1786341 But of course there is always possible that poll data from all polling sources was fraudulent. And that there was country wide conspiracy in Democratic primaries, with thousands of participants. Exit polls are generally reliable, at least in 'safely' democratic countries where you don't have the po-po's eavesdropping for wrongthink. Phone polls aren't necessarily- you can stuff up the weightings, oversample groups that end up not voting much (eg young people; which is what happened in the UK where the polls were miles off) not use or misuse cell phones so exclude many young people or sample people who won't vote, about every 20th poll is statistically rogue by definition etc etc. Exit polls though, unless someone turns up to basically troll you know that they don't merely say that they voted, you know that they have voted. There are still inaccuracies and potential biases, they could still lie because they're embarrassed about voting Hillary (though that would say something in itself) or refuse to answer questions etc but then they can lie or refuse to answer on the phone, too, so phone polling has the same biases, plus more. If you have a phone poll and an exit poll, and if both are properly conducted then the exit poll is fundamentally the more accurate of the two.

I think Dorne epitomises the TV show's problems. The equivalent part of the books was not well received and elements of it (Darkstar, he's of the night, r00fles) were pretty cringeworthy. Show has managed to make it look like the height of tight, believable plotting and characterisation. At least we got the 'fire and blood' speech and promise of better to come from Doran as pay off in the books, in the show the plot line was taken out behind the wood shed and dispatched summarily, excluding perhaps the single most ridiculed part of the show in the Sand Snakes. That may have been a good thing given how poorly executed (heh) the plot was but it looks clumsy at best given how much time was wasted in Dorne last season. I still think we'll get Manderly eventually for the same reasons I did previous- the Freys have to be dealt with and going full Mrs Lovett on them has shock attraction. Maybe Jon will send Davos to visit them and we'll get the 'full' Davos/ Manderly plotline, just delayed and with little logic since the Boltons aren't a factor any more. But it's the sort of thing that should be a slow burn and not randomly appear an episode or two before it becomes relevant- introduce Manderly, have Davos meet him, have some Freys visit. Doesn't take much preparation. And really, the battle would have made so much more sense if it had been Manderly, a (more or less) local guy who Ramsay was expecting to turn up with his army as an ally, instead of Petyr 'mass teleportation' Baelish who can apparently avoid Bolton scouts and supply his army etc despite not being local in any way. It would also have the added value of being how Ramsay won Winterfell in the first place, by stabbing someone who expected him as an ally (General Sideburns) in the back. You could even retain feeding him to the dogs if you wanted to.

Yep. I think India was the example I heard being suggested as a post brexit trade target that would be hard to impossible under the EU. It's also kind of telling who is supporting the stay side- basically all the status quo corporates who have been lobbying extensively for deals like TTIP in Brussels. The small business side is far more divided. Then again, I'd pretty much definitely be voting leave if I were still in the UK.

Well, that clears up the ISIS link, in that there isn't one and the fealty is entirely self declared. A true Caliphate follower would surely pledge to 'Caliph Ibrahim', not some 'Abu Bakr Al-Baghdadi' bloke... Pretty moronic redacting the transcript in the first place though. It's not like anyone with two brain cells couldn't guess instantly what the redactions were, and that they'd get unredacted real quick.

I don't really like the Cannae comparisons. Sure, it's a shorthand reference but Cannae was genius because of the numerical imbalance, remove that and it's 'just' an encirclement/ double envelopment. Which is far, far more common since a larger army 'naturally' outflanks a smaller one by simple dint of being larger. Mainly though, a comparison to Jon or Ramsay would be insulting to L. Aemilius Paulus or G. Terentius Varro, let alone Hannibal. Both bastards were abject morons, at least Varro had a plan based on the little that worked at Trebia and Trasimene and was fighting one of the greatest of all time. Of all time!

That works fine in an "'infinite' expansion'" situation like the industrial revolution, not so much in the current situation. In this situation they'd be illegal jobs they got in a lot of cases; underpaid, no job security, prone to exploitation and depressing the local labour market even more- worse, those conditions would bleed through to the legitimate workforce as well since you could always replace that pesky entitled citizen with some immigrant who has literally no option but take what is offered or... starve, be expelled, turn to crime or whatever the end game is for a no social program system. We already have a situation here where a lot of workers are imported for generally quite unskilled jobs (fruit picking, agriculture, sheesh even waiters plus perhaps the worst example, fishing where outright slavery sometimes happens) which the internal unemployed could easily do. Why? Because the imported workers will accept really bad- or dodgy as- conditions and there's a lot of nudge nudge wink wink exploitation like employers renting accommodation to their imported workers at multi 100% mark ups, where an actual citizen could easily complain about it as being 'extortion' but all the imported worker would get is their salary withheld to defray the cost of the flight home or not employed in the first place. Thing is, immigration is actually great. If you have a shortage of skilled workers you can fix it quicker than X years of training can, and the inflow of new ideas and concepts is crucial to a healthy as opposed to ossified society. But it is a balance. It's not great when we import all of Fiji's nurses while all ours go to Switzerland, the UAE and Qatar because our pay is so low but higher than Fiji's, not great for us since we subsidise the education of our nurses and not great for Fiji as, well, where do they get their nurses from once we've nicked theirs? But there's absolutely no forward planning except of the most inane kind to make sure that we have enough carpenters or whatever we're short of this week. But cutting off social programs is not the answer to problems with immigration because it will exacerbate some of the underlying problems such as outright crime and illegal work and not really solve anything, it will just shift the costs elsewhere. Solving it requires a proper approach that limits numbers to those which are maximally beneficial for the country, with room for legitimate humanitarian cases; that is not exploitable and which does not make new immigrants prey to the unscrupulous who would use and discard them in an unending chain. And it all has to be enforceable, and enforced. Blunt force approaches appeal because they are simple and make an emotive point, that's their strength but in practical regards it's also their weakness. No subtlety nor nuance, just blanket application. Of course it's easy for me to say that, I'll never be called on to put my vision into action and New Zealand is about as remote as you can get for illegal at least immigrants, short of Iceland.

Yeah, one can't help but get the feeling that if there were three options available in the referendum with the 3rd being basically 'European trade bloc only, thanks' that 3rd option would win with a landslide; and certainly not just in Britain either.

How does that solve anything? It probably doesn't solve anything or at very best 'solves' some bits while making other bits worse. But doing something makes people feel better, and that's what's really important. It's one of the great ironies that the 'right' accuses the 'left' of doing and saying impractical things to make themselves feel better and then does exactly the same thing themselves- and, of course, the 'left' does the same. That suggestion also has the advantage of being self fulfilling. If there's extra crime or whatever from immigrants who cannot send their children to school or get healthcare or whatever then that 'proves' immigrants are criminal and the policy is justified. It's also utterly useless at best and almost certainly actively counterproductive in doing anything against someone like Mateen, or most of the French attackers etc, who are citizens already- unless the policy were made retroactive or something but I doubt you'd get many supporting active disenfranchisement, at least. For terrorism there isn't much at all from 1st gen refugees/ immigrants as they are by and large both worried about being sent back and grateful for being somewhere safe where they can live decently, it's the 2nd generation of citizens from whom almost all terrorists have come. The real problem is that the world is run by politicians, and politicians focus on being elected so have awful forward thinking for anything not related to their (re-)election. There isn't much in the way of practical alternative to that and it may be pie-in-the-sky idealism speaking but I wish that there was a bit more honest discussion rather than soundbites, catchphrases, massaged statistics and focus group mediated press releases so that the undoubtable good bits of immigration can be balanced against the bad bits while recognising there isn't a magic wand to tell who is 'good' or 'bad' any more than there is for existing citizens. And yes, that includes things like Merkel (though she's certainly not alone) admitting that Germany needs immigrants to maintain pensions and the like a few years longer for an ageing population that votes for her party or our government admitting they need immigration because otherwise our economy is shrinking rather than growing, house prices would drop and they'd lose the election next year. And specifically for Radical Islam it doesn't help that politicians simply will not deal with Saudi elephant in the room and ignore their export of a deliberately retrograde sect which is deeply intolerant of everything not itself, because Saudis have lots of money and aren't shy about spending it.