So yesterday the Guardian thought it wise to promote the publication of a list of people working in the banking industry who, as far as I can tell, have committed no crimes:
I know MaxPB (who normally knows his onions when it comes to tech, especially Sony for obviously reasons) poo poo'ed this, but looks like it is true...
Yeah, I saw the WSJ article over the weekend and had to do a double take. I would be very, very surprised to see a half-step console release. The whole idea behind a console being a closed system means you really shouldn't have them and the industry is littered with half-step failures. I still think it will be a PS4 with the same basic hardware, a bigger hard drive, a 4K Blu-ray drive and HDMI 2.0 port with the VR add on box integrated into the main unit which would add about 0.5TF in terms of CPU processing power. If it was a full refresh with a new GPU and new CPU to run 4K games they will have a lot of unhappy people (including me!) who bought the PS4 at release despite it having no games (it still doesn't have many) only for them to make it obsolete.
The other theory is that they are going to have a "double PS4" with a new APU with exactly double the current power of the normal PS4 and sell it for $499/£429 alongside the vanilla PS4 at $299/£249. Games would be made for the base unit and then the "double PS4" would be programmed to use the extra power for higher resolutions or higher framerates. I wouldn't be bothered by that as long as the current unit is the benchmark and the new one is just there for people who want to run at higher resolutions but with no actual advantage in terms of development for a higher spec.
VR is very demanding, especially if you want a good game sitting underneath it. Could it be they realise that their VR experience on the existing PS4 might not be that good due to lack of grunt, and therefore they need to do more than a minor upgrade to cope? At the same time, the increased GPU grunt will allow 4k.
The alternative is to wait for any notional PS5, and miss the current VR hype train.
Off topic, I'm going to disagree with Jack's ARSE, and am going to back Leave to win a landslide.
You know Mike's piece yesterday about how the different social classes are splitting in the EURef, well guess who has tweeted about that piece, and well, we all know his past predictive power.
I agree - it might be a tad closer to 60-40, but 56-44 would be a comfortable win.
DC won't be going anytime soon.
That is not a comfortable win, the slightest variation oterma from this Cameron agreed will be used as a stuck to beat ConRemainers and the EU and agitatebfor a second ref.
@David Herdson - you think Leave will probably win?
May I ask why?
It's tight but at the moment, Project Fear is so over-the-top that I think it'll be discounted. The polls are tight and Leave is probably more motivated. I wouldn't place any high confidence level on it though.
Mr. Jessop, the reason people may be annoyed is that the whole point of consoles is their convenience. You buy one, that's it for 7 years or so. Just plug in and play. PCs have better capabilities but are fiddlier, that's the trade-off.
At the moment, I'm not too fussed. If the PS4.5 starts getting games the PS4 can't play, then I'll be annoyed.
That's understandable. It's just that *if* VR is the true motivating factor behind this then I can see why they're doing it from a business perspective.
Personally, I'm not sure that VR is going to be the big thing that people are making it out to be. I was there for the first coming of VR in the early 1990s, and it died a death. It's got much more traction now, but I wonder how mass market it will really be in the medium term.
I'm waiting for the second gen headsets. By then there might be a winner, better and cheaper hardware, and I might have a PC capable of running it.
Despite his recent ratings dip (which I suspect will be transient) Cameron stands head & shoulders above the alternatives - so logically the Tories should stick with him until things calm down. But we are talking about the Tory party....
When was the last time the Tories dumped an effective leader?
1990?
She wasn't effective though by that point. The Tories were about around 15% behind in the polls when she was dumped and the party deeply divided by Europe, the Poll Tax and her leadership style. None of those were going away and all could be solved (and were solved, briefly at least), by replacing her.
Within a month of her being ousted, that 15% deficit was turned into a lead. That alone proves that she wasn't an effective leader by late 1990.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
I went to a function last night where Tim Farron was the main man. I liked him. He was a vegetarian and a transparently decent human being as was his audience. He saved his bile for IDS and those in the UK who lack compassion particularly to immigrants.
Then this morning I switched on PB and there was this parallel universe where those mean spirited people from Farron's imagination were alive and posting.
Why does it matter if Farron eats meat (or fish) or not. That he’s a transparently decent human being is far more important. IIRC the last political leader who could be so described was David Steel.
It gets so confusing, though. I could swear that a while back Farron was being criticised for his Christianity which apparently did not make him a decent human being. And now, pace Roger, sympathy for immigrants is the key, regardless of whether they're law breakers and regardless of the impact on those already in a country. No room for sympathy for them - sneering at those who might have some concerns seems a given. On that basis the Archbishop of Canterbury must be a very bad man.
As I say, confusing.
I've just checked and Nick Farron did abstain on gay marriage but I don't think that's a character point against him considering he takes his Catholicism seriously
So it's okay to not support gay marriage so long as you belong to a major religion like Catholicism?
You have to accept for some people some things are just too important. He did the best he could which was abstain. I wouldn't judge him harshly for that
No, the best he could have done was to reconsider his reactionary religious beliefs.
I voted for the Lib Dems as recently as last year but I would be very reluctant to do so while Farron is their leader. Of course, if it came down to, say, Grayling vs Corbyn then what can one do?
The new Morning Consult is noteworthy for two reasons. Trump hits a new all time high, but also Kasich has dropped back down to where he was before. Despite being a three man race I have yet to see much evidence he can get into the 30s, given he struggles to get in the 20s. Of course he is running for VP but it is futile if he can't pick up more support. Some are desperate for him to drop out however they forget his 66 Ohio delegates would then go to Trump. http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/pollster/polls/morning-consult-24158
Interesting, thanks. Yes, the Kasich boomlet seems to be losing steam - I note that he loses to Clinton in this poll. He's said flatly that he would not be VP for either Trump or Cruz. The poll also doesn't support the idea that Sanders is going to overhaul Clinton on the final straight.
The referendum question is meaningless. Whatever the result, the Tories and their spin machine can interpret is any way they want.
No - even a retreat to EEA membership is a big improvement from the current situation. Only the government would have you think different.
Not at all. As things stand, a vote for LEAVE can mean anything between EEA membership (as you say) and complete isolation. Who knows which of these Cameron would go for?
So Ms Vance is also completely wrong. It is not up to the LEAVE campaign to say what LEAVE would mean. It is up to Mr Cameron.
Likewise if we go for REMAIN. Will this mean a continuation of carping nagging from the sidelines, as at present, or will Cameron take us into full integration?
I think he ought to come clean with the electors now, before we start to vote.
We have a thing called democracy to help us answer that. The government will work within what the representative parliament, and what the electorate allow.
That doesn`t mean very much, does it, Mr Herdson? "The government will work within what the representative parliament, and what the electorate allow." !!!!
The electorate will already have voted in the referendum - but it will be up to Mr Cameron to interpret what the result means. ie it agrees with whatever he wants to do, but we have no way of knowing that, in advance, unless he spells it out.
And don`t start talking about "democracy", please. You Tories could not even get the support of 25% of the electorate at the last election, despite twisting the rules to grossly overspend in individual constituencies.
Nothing like a bitter Lib Dem whinging about the electorate. The Tories won more votes than any party in any election this century. That's a more than good enough mandate.
As for the referendum, Out means leave the EU; In means stay. It's that simple. Thereafter, if it's Stay, then Cameron will presumably favour the status quo including his renegotiation. He's not going to say what leave means for obvious reasons - it's for those advocating that position to put forward what they think would be best. But parliament exists to act as a check on the executive and I'm quite sure that they'd do that vigorously over a new European policy.
I went to a function last night where Tim Farron was the main man. I liked him. He was a vegetarian and a transparently decent human being as was his audience. He saved his bile for IDS and those in the UK who lack compassion particularly to immigrants.
Then this morning I switched on PB and there was this parallel universe where those mean spirited people from Farron's imagination were alive and posting.
Why does it matter if Farron eats meat (or fish) or not. That he’s a transparently decent human being is far more important. IIRC the last political leader who could be so described was David Steel.
It gets so confusing, though. I could swear that a while back Farron was being criticised for his Christianity which apparently did not make him a decent human being. And now, pace Roger, sympathy for immigrants is the key, regardless of whether they're law breakers and regardless of the impact on those already in a country. No room for sympathy for them - sneering at those who might have some concerns seems a given. On that basis the Archbishop of Canterbury must be a very bad man.
As I say, confusing.
I've just checked and Nick Farron did abstain on gay marriage but I don't think that's a character point against him considering he takes his Catholicism seriously
So it's okay to not support gay marriage so long as you belong to a major religion like Catholicism?
You have to accept for some people some things are just too important. He did the best he could which was abstain. I wouldn't judge him harshly for that
No, the best he could have done was to reconsider his reactionary religious beliefs.
I voted for the Lib Dems as recently as last year but I would be very reluctant to do so while Farron is their leader. Of course, if it came down to, say, Grayling vs Corbyn then what can one do?
Mr. Wanderer, I only skimmed it, but not one reference to curbing the tyrannical and vindictive King John that I saw.
Mr. Jessop, I think it has some potential. There are a few issues (not least moving about on foot rather than in a vehicle). Given the cost, it's not something I'll be looking at buying in the near future. Maybe with the PS5.
"He's not a terrorist, he's an idiot," an Egyptian foreign ministry official has said, after it was reported that the hijacker of Flight MS181 appears to have seized the plane as part of a bizarre dispute with his ex-wife.
iirc What the Papers Say used to be an ITV television programme. I cannot see why it should be expensive but looking how it has been shunted around from ITV to BBC TV to radio makes me wonder if there is not more to it.
When the BBC tell you they don't have money for anything, that government squeeze means can't afford programmes like "What the Papers Say" on R4....what the f##k are they doing getting into micro computers (AGAIN). Yes I know partners have put money, but this is diverting resources, time, energy etc, where there is already loads of very low cost commercial solutions.
Nick Sutton, the BBC guy, said it was more expensive than you think, because they employed 4+ actors and a host of other staff, plus the naming rights. You would think perhaps maybe they could make it work with slightly less staff, but apparently not. Spending money on the new BBC 3 logo was more important.
On topic I think Remain will win comfortably and Cameron will stay on. He is by far the best thing the Tories have and they would be mad to ditch him prematurely. None of his possible successors come close - at the moment anyway - and those Tories who think that playing games withe leadership is some sort of cost- free exercise need to grow up. They have a small majority and a Corbyn led Labour government would be one hell of a FUBAR.
I had to check twice that you'd written that. I agree with it all. Worst case is 'leave' closely followed by Cameron being replaced closely followed by Corbyn taking over. All those would create a crisis as daunting as any we've suffered since the worst days of John Major's government (92-95)
The Tories are being far too complacent and,indeed, hubristic about Corbyn. Mere words cannot express my contempt for the man or the rotten state of today's Labour Party.
But the Tories are not so far ahead or so endowed with talent that they can afford to make the sort of mistakes they have been making or to indulge in internecine warfare over a leader who has been more successful than they at first imagined and who has given us the referendum that a lot have demanded. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the negotiations and I share many of the criticisms of the EU which the more intelligent of the Leavers have made. But if Leave lose they have only themselves to blame: the case for Leave is - has to be - more than the "push" factor and the "pull" factor has been incoherent. Taking out their own failings on Cameron is adolescent and risks letting in Labour by default.
And I think the current Labour Party under its current leadership and with the sort of members it has is far more of a threat than anything the EU can do.
There are now a number of conflicting outputs about this job, the names of the hijacker(s) and so on.
Given what happened the last time the Egyptians had primary responsibility for information release on a civil airliner incident the media might be better holding fire on conclusions until things are more certain.
So yesterday the Guardian thought it wise to promote the publication of a list of people working in the banking industry who, as far as I can tell, have committed no crimes:
How dare they name and shame criminals....what we should be doing is promoting a "hit list" of bankers instead, complete with photo, address of work, etc...
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
I went to a function last night where Tim Farron was the main man. I liked him. He was a vegetarian and a transparently decent human being as was his audience. He saved his bile for IDS and those in the UK who lack compassion particularly to immigrants.
Then this morning I switched on PB and there was this parallel universe where those mean spirited people from Farron's imagination were alive and posting.
Why does it matter if Farron eats meat (or fish) or not. That he’s a transparently decent human being is far more important. IIRC the last political leader who could be so described was David Steel.
It gets so confusing, though. I could swear that a while back Farron was being criticised for his Christianity which apparently did not make him a decent human being. And now, pace Roger, sympathy for immigrants is the key, regardless of whether they're law breakers and regardless of the impact on those already in a country. No room for sympathy for them - sneering at those who might have some concerns seems a given. On that basis the Archbishop of Canterbury must be a very bad man.
As I say, confusing.
I've just checked and Tim Farron did abstain on gay marriage but I don't think that's a character point against him considering he takes his Catholicism seriously
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
He must have known this question would come...surely...you would have thought they would have war gamed a good response (regardless of if he has or hasn't). When you get asked something like this you need a solid response.
Unless you are Boris, then you go Harrrrazzzzzzzzzzzz, Cripessss, look silly face, insert Latin phrase,
On topic I think Remain will win comfortably and Cameron will stay on. He is by far the best thing the Tories have and they would be mad to ditch him prematurely. None of his possible successors come close - at the moment anyway - and those Tories who think that playing games withe leadership is some sort of cost- free exercise need to grow up. They have a small majority and a Corbyn led Labour government would be one hell of a FUBAR.
I had to check twice that you'd written that. I agree with it all. Worst case is 'leave' closely followed by Cameron being replaced closely followed by Corbyn taking over. All those would create a crisis as daunting as any we've suffered since the worst days of John Major's government (92-95)
The Tories are being far too complacent and,indeed, hubristic about Corbyn. Mere words cannot express my contempt for the man or the rotten state of today's Labour Party.
But the Tories are not so far ahead or so endowed with talent that they can afford to make the sort of mistakes they have been making or to indulge in internecine warfare over a leader who has been more successful than they at first imagined and who has given us the referendum that a lot have demanded. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the negotiations and I share many of the criticisms of the EU which the more intelligent of the Leavers have made. But if Leave lose they have only themselves to blame: the case for Leave is - has to be - more than the "push" factor and the "pull" factor has been incoherent. Taking out their own failings on Cameron is adolescent and risks letting in Labour by default.
And I think the current Labour Party under its current leadership and with the sort of members it has is far more of a threat than anything the EU can do.
Totally agree, especially with the last line.
Corbyn's changing the Labour Party. To make things worse for the Tories, even if Corbyn goes, his successor might well be a more saleable person with Corbynite policies.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
He must have known this question would come...surely...you would have thought they would have war gamed a good response (regardless of if he has or hasn't). When you get asked something like this you need a solid response.
Unless you are Boris, then you go Harrrrazzzzzzzzzzzz, Cripessss, look silly face, insert Latin phrase,
I'd say the plan is to deny oxygen to the story in every way possible. Silence being one of the best options.
Ukip councillor 'wrote 'anyone but a Muslim' on photo of London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan'
One commenter called the Labour politician "Islamist scum" while another asked: “Mr Khan looks very smart, but why is he dressed in Western clothes when the 95% of Muslim [sic] wear rags and dress in Eastern Clothes"
When the BBC tell you they don't have money for anything, that government squeeze means can't afford programmes like "What the Papers Say" on R4....what the f##k are they doing getting into micro computers (AGAIN). Yes I know partners have put money, but this is diverting resources, time, energy etc, where there is already loads of very low cost commercial solutions.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
No sign of this issue being covered by US media so far. Twitter of course is wild with it. AIUI The Mail online has a large US following for what might be termed 'celebrity' news. If they can stand up the story that none of the US media will touch then it would be a huge boost for the DM in that market - as well as a huge slap for the supine US media, who have now collectively decided to do whatever it takes to stop the Donald.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
Yeah, I saw the WSJ article over the weekend and had to do a double take. I would be very, very surprised to see a half-step console release. The whole idea behind a console being a closed system means you really shouldn't have them and the industry is littered with half-step failures. I still think it will be a PS4 with the same basic hardware, a bigger hard drive, a 4K Blu-ray drive and HDMI 2.0 port with the VR add on box integrated into the main unit which would add about 0.5TF in terms of CPU processing power. If it was a full refresh with a new GPU and new CPU to run 4K games they will have a lot of unhappy people (including me!) who bought the PS4 at release despite it having no games (it still doesn't have many) only for them to make it obsolete.
The other theory is that they are going to have a "double PS4" with a new APU with exactly double the current power of the normal PS4 and sell it for $499/£429 alongside the vanilla PS4 at $299/£249. Games would be made for the base unit and then the "double PS4" would be programmed to use the extra power for higher resolutions or higher framerates. I wouldn't be bothered by that as long as the current unit is the benchmark and the new one is just there for people who want to run at higher resolutions but with no actual advantage in terms of development for a higher spec.
VR is very demanding, especially if you want a good game sitting underneath it. Could it be they realise that their VR experience on the existing PS4 might not be that good due to lack of grunt, and therefore they need to do more than a minor upgrade to cope? At the same time, the increased GPU grunt will allow 4k.
The alternative is to wait for any notional PS5, and miss the current VR hype train.
Well I think that's where the "double PS4" idea comes in. They could, theoretically, make the new PS4 able to churn out double the framerate of existing games without changing the baseline power level for development. Those who want the premier VR/4k experience could get the new PS4, those who just want to play in 1080p can stick withtue current one. The actual PS4 architecture is very forwards thinking, I remember working on one of the launch games for it and the designers basically had to guess where they thought computing was headed and the bet the house on asynchronous compute, lo and behold D3D12 includes asynch as a base feature. In that sense the PS4 has the architecture to go toe to toe with the best PC set ups, it just doesn't have the grunt, the double PS4 idea makes sense in that light too.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
He must have known this question would come...surely...you would have thought they would have war gamed a good response (regardless of if he has or hasn't). When you get asked something like this you need a solid response.
Unless you are Boris, then you go Harrrrazzzzzzzzzzzz, Cripessss, look silly face, insert Latin phrase,
On topic I think Remain will win comfortably and Cameron will stay on. He is by far the best thing the Tories have and they would be mad to ditch him prematurely. None of his possible successors come close - at the moment anyway - and those Tories who think that playing games withe leadership is some sort of cost- free exercise need to grow up. They have a small majority and a Corbyn led Labour government would be one hell of a FUBAR.
I had to check twice that you'd written that. I agree with it all. Worst case is 'leave' closely followed by Cameron being replaced closely followed by Corbyn taking over. All those would create a crisis as daunting as any we've suffered since the worst days of John Major's government (92-95)
The Tories are being far too complacent and,indeed, hubristic about Corbyn. Mere words cannot express my contempt for the man or the rotten state of today's Labour Party.
But the Tories are not so far ahead or so endowed with talent that they can afford to make the sort of mistakes they have been making or to indulge in internecine warfare over a leader who has been more successful than they at first imagined and who has given us the referendum that a lot have demanded. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the negotiations and I share many of the criticisms of the EU which the more intelligent of the Leavers have made. But if Leave lose they have only themselves to blame: the case for Leave is - has to be - more than the "push" factor and the "pull" factor has been incoherent. Taking out their own failings on Cameron is adolescent and risks letting in Labour by default.
And I think the current Labour Party under its current leadership and with the sort of members it has is far more of a threat than anything the EU can do.
Totally agree, especially with the last line.
Corbyn's changing the Labour Party. To make things worse for the Tories, even if Corbyn goes, his successor might well be a more saleable person with Corbynite policies.
It's the height of stupidity to rule them out.
Indeed. The Tories risk making the same mistake as Cooper, Burnham et al. If you don't want Corbynite arguments to win, you have to make the case against them - over and over again, with verve and eloquence and force and in a way that resonates. It's not as if there's a shortage of such arguments.
It does seem bizarre to me that so many people who go into politics are so afraid of making and, indeed, bloody useless at political arguments.
Yeah, I saw the WSJ article over the weekend and had to do a double take. I would be very, very surprised to see a half-step console release. The whole idea behind a console being a closed system means you really shouldn't have them and the industry is littered with half-step failures. I still think it will be a PS4 with the same basic hardware, a bigger hard drive, a 4K Blu-ray drive and HDMI 2.0 port with the VR add on box integrated into the main unit which would add about 0.5TF in terms of CPU processing power. If it was a full refresh with a new GPU and new CPU to run 4K games they will have a lot of unhappy people (including me!) who bought the PS4 at release despite it having no games (it still doesn't have many) only for them to make it obsolete.
The other theory is that they are going to have a "double PS4" with a new APU with exactly double the current power of the normal PS4 and sell it for $499/£429 alongside the vanilla PS4 at $299/£249. Games would be made for the base unit and then the "double PS4" would be programmed to use the extra power for higher resolutions or higher framerates. I wouldn't be bothered by that as long as the current unit is the benchmark and the new one is just there for people who want to run at higher resolutions but with no actual advantage in terms of development for a higher spec.
VR is very demanding, especially if you want a good game sitting underneath it. Could it be they realise that their VR experience on the existing PS4 might not be that good due to lack of grunt, and therefore they need to do more than a minor upgrade to cope? At the same time, the increased GPU grunt will allow 4k.
The alternative is to wait for any notional PS5, and miss the current VR hype train.
Well I think that's where the "double PS4" idea comes in. They could, theoretically, make the new PS4 able to churn out double the framerate of existing games without changing the baseline power level for development. Those who want the premier VR/4k experience could get the new PS4, those who just want to play in 1080p can stick withtue current one. The actual PS4 architecture is very forwards thinking, I remember working on one of the launch games for it and the designers basically had to guess where they thought computing was headed and the bet the house on asynchronous compute, lo and behold D3D12 includes asynch as a base feature. In that sense the PS4 has the architecture to go toe to toe with the best PC set ups, it just doesn't have the grunt, the double PS4 idea makes sense in that light too.
Thanks. I'm not up on the current gen of consoles.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
No sign of this issue being covered by US media so far. Twitter of course is wild with it.
Are they not waiting for Trump to stick his eight-penneth in?
Trump's being quieter than normal on this one. I think that's because his house is somewhat made of glass himself, and also one of his aides is allegedly involved (That particular affair seems the least likely to me, but who knows.)
My own hunch is that this is somewhat like the Clarkson story with Jemima Khan, not actually true in fact - though there was an affair going on with his ex wife !
It's been great to watch Amanda Carpenter squirm on this one, especially looking back at her interview with Alan Colmes over the John Edwards affair.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
No sign of this issue being covered by US media so far. Twitter of course is wild with it.
AIUI The Mail online has a large US following for what might be termed 'celebrity' news. If they can stand up the story that none of the US media will touch then it would be a huge boost for the DM in that market - as well as a huge slap for the supine US media, who have now collectively decided to do whatever it takes to stop the Donald.
Trump's being quieter than normal on this one. I think that's because his house is somewhat made of glass himself, and also one of his aides is allegedly involved (That particular affair seems the least likely to me, but who knows.)
My own hunch is that this is somewhat like the Clarkson story with Jemima Khan, not actually true with regards to all 5 women - perhaps a couple though.
It's been great to watch Amanda Carpenter squirm on this one, especially looking back at her interview with Sean Combes over the John Edwards affair.
Well various more respected media people on twitter came out and well we knew of two of those names. Interesting angle to the story is that Breitbart said they were shown a video of Cruz leaving hotels with a woman who isn't his wife, but it showed nothing more than that and so they didn't run anything. Now I presume the obvious question that should be able to be cleared up was who was the women and what were they doing. It could well very extremely innocent, but you would have thought they would at least ask.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
No sign of this issue being covered by US media so far. Twitter of course is wild with it.
Are they not waiting for Trump to stick his eight-penneth in?
Trump's being quieter than normal on this one. I think that's because his house is somewhat made of glass himself, and also one of his aides is allegedly involved (That particular affair seems the least likely to me, but who knows.)
My own hunch is that this is somewhat like the Clarkson story with Jemima Khan, not actually true in fact - though there was an affair going on with his ex wife !
It's been great to watch Amanda Carpenter squirm on this one, especially looking back at her interview with Alan Colmes over the John Edwards affair.
'Senator Cruz,' DailyMail.com asked him, 'can you please swat down more definitively this National Enquirer piece by telling us on the record that you've never been unfaithful to your wife?' ...
But instead of making a blanket declaration that he has been faithful during the entirety of his 14-year marriage – a move that would effectively end the vicious news cycle – Cruz stood silently as campaign surrogate Carly Fiorina leapt in to intercept the question and change the subject.
No sign of this issue being covered by US media so far. Twitter of course is wild with it.
Are they not waiting for Trump to stick his eight-penneth in?
Trump's being quieter than normal on this one. I think that's because his house is somewhat made of glass himself, and also one of his aides is allegedly involved (That particular affair seems the least likely to me, but who knows.)
My own hunch is that this is somewhat like the Clarkson story with Jemima Khan, not actually true in fact - though there was an affair going on with his ex wife !
It's been great to watch Amanda Carpenter squirm on this one, especially looking back at her interview with Alan Colmes over the John Edwards affair.
If the rumours of the Capenter affair with Cruz are not true, then she is going the wrong way about denying them. Given the obvious difficulty of proving a negative, it's not a wild assumption to make that she thinks someone might have something that confirms the story.
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Doing something because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should isn't a great idea.
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll see what I can do.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
On topic I think Remain will win comfortably and Cameron will stay on. He is by far the best thing the Tories have and they would be mad to ditch him prematurely. None of his possible successors come close - at the moment anyway - and those Tories who think that playing games withe leadership is some sort of cost- free exercise need to grow up. They have a small majority and a Corbyn led Labour government would be one hell of a FUBAR.
I had to check twice that you'd written that. I agree with it all. Worst case is 'leave' closely followed by Cameron being replaced closely followed by Corbyn taking over. All those would create a crisis as daunting as any we've suffered since the worst days of John Major's government (92-95)
The Tories are being far too complacent and,indeed, hubristic about Corbyn. Mere words cannot express my contempt for the man or the rotten state of today's Labour Party.
[snip]
And I think the current Labour Party under its current leadership and with the sort of members it has is far more of a threat than anything the EU can do.
Totally agree, especially with the last line.
Corbyn's changing the Labour Party. To make things worse for the Tories, even if Corbyn goes, his successor might well be a more saleable person with Corbynite policies.
It's the height of stupidity to rule them out.
Indeed. The Tories risk making the same mistake as Cooper, Burnham et al. If you don't want Corbynite arguments to win, you have to make the case against them - over and over again, with verve and eloquence and force and in a way that resonates. It's not as if there's a shortage of such arguments.
It does seem bizarre to me that so many people who go into politics are so afraid of making and, indeed, bloody useless at political arguments.
I agree with all the above. The Tories should not be complacent, given that:
1) It would take a swing of 0.5% for them to lost their majority 2) They have no plausible coalition partners (they might get confidence and supply from Ulster) 3) Corbyn has huge negatives but it needs the right leader to exploit them. 4) Corbyn could be replaced by someone with similar views but a more dynamic image
It's frustrating because the country is, imo, doing OK at present. We have weathered the crash pretty well and though we have some serious problems (who doesn't?) they seem to be manageable. We shouldn't take the risk of what would be, as you say, one hell of a FUBAR.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Doing something because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should isn't a great idea.
For sure. But why on earth should we think that amongst the batsh1t crazy stuff they think usually, they will somehow have had a unique and lucid insight into the EU question?
It features a bloke in his 30s badly made up to look 60yrs flat cap tank top sort. Like an ancient Granville from Open All Hours And one of the features of New Day is that it's printed on better quality paper.
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll see what I can do.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
I agree with all the above. The Tories should not be complacent, given that:
1) It would take a swing of 0.5% for them to lost their majority 2) They have no plausible coalition partners (they might get confidence and supply from Ulster) 3) Corbyn has huge negatives but it needs the right leader to exploit them. 4) Corbyn could be replaced by someone with similar views but a more dynamic image
It's frustrating because the country is, imo, doing OK at present. We have weathered the crash pretty well and though we have some serious problems (who doesn't?) they seem to be manageable. We shouldn't take the risk of what would be, as you say, one hell of a FUBAR.
If the country wasn't doing okay then so many immigrants wouldn't want to come here. So the 'cure' for immigration is simple: a massive countrywide depression in which industries are decimated, four-fifths of people are employed by the state and the young end up as urchins in the street.
So the answer is simple: if you care about immigration, vote Labour!
The poll also doesn't support the idea that Sanders is going to overhaul Clinton on the final straight.
I wonder how the race would be now if it started in the west and worked eastward.
Cruz and Sanders could well be ahead !
I wonder what the race would look like had Sanders won Iowa and Nevada, as he might easily have done.
Do you think the element of "trying to vote for the winner" is a larger element in US politics than say UK ?
I should think it is in primaries because they don't cross the partisan divide. Whoever you vote for is from the party you identify with so how attractive the candidates are personally has a bigger impact and seeming to be a winner is attractive.
We don't have elections like that here. In the UK "voting for the winner" will run up against party affiliation. Ie, I'd only expect the fairly small pool of floating voters to do it.
Obviously, this implies that it would be fairly uncommon in general elections in the US.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Doing something because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should isn't a great idea.
For sure. But why on earth should we think that amongst the batsh1t crazy stuff they think usually, they will somehow have had a unique and lucid insight into the EU question?
Don't listen to them at all would seem to be the best conclusion.
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Doing something because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should isn't a great idea.
For sure. But why on earth should we think that amongst the batsh1t crazy stuff they think usually, they will somehow have had a unique and lucid insight into the EU question?
Random chance?
The fact that Michael Gove has reached the same answer through more structured thinking is reassuring.
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll see what I can do.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
The poll also doesn't support the idea that Sanders is going to overhaul Clinton on the final straight.
I wonder how the race would be now if it started in the west and worked eastward.
Cruz and Sanders could well be ahead !
I wonder what the race would look like had Sanders won Iowa and Nevada, as he might easily have done.
Do you think the element of "trying to vote for the winner" is a larger element in US politics than say UK ?
Not especially but establishing a campaign as having a credible chance of success does affect funding and that matters greatly in the US.
Had Sanders won Iowa (which was knife-edge close), and Nevada (which could have happened with momentum from Iowa combined with more effective caucus arrangements - many Sanders activists didn't get in or had to leave early), Hillary would have lost the first three states and media commentators would be talking about her campaign being in disarray and wheeling out 2008 parallels. SC would have become a must-win just to stay in the race, though she would have won; Super Tuesday would just have been about reestablishing credibility. She would have been constantly playing catch-up and might easily have lost the other tight races she ended up winning.
Obviously, the dynamics of that kind of race would have been different and perhaps Sanders would have goofed under a more searching spotlight but on the other hand he might now have been heading for the nomination or at least a serious clash with the superdelegates at the convention.
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll see what I can do.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
We will need historical ARSE for comparison. As I remember whilst his GE2015 was broadly right in its thrust it was scandalously low on SNP seats.
Obviously, the dynamics of that kind of race would have been different and perhaps Sanders would have goofed under a more searching spotlight but on the other hand he might now have been heading for the nomination or at least a serious clash with the superdelegates at the convention.
Yes. I think it's not so simple as just that he would be winning and Hillary losing. With greater scrutiny he could actually be in a worse position than he is now. Or not.
@MichaelPDeacon: Nicky Morgan is giving a speech about why we must vote to stay in the EU. Among her reasons: young people enjoy "inter-railing"
And indeed they did before the UK joined the EU - and many of the original 21 InterRail countries weren't in the EU......and some of them still aren't........
Listen TSE, I asked this last time during the election- and considering JackW's track record, can one of the editors please post his ARSE in the main section on the site.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll see what I can do.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
We will need historical ARSE for comparison. As I remember whilst his GE2015 was broadly right in its thrust it was scandalously low on SNP seats.
I fear that any thrusting of Jack's arse is likely to end in scandal.
Today’s poll reveals that the battle has got closer in the past month, with the Remain campaign lead cut in half. Some 49 per cent now intend to vote Remain, down from 54 per cent in February, while the Leave share has gone up from 36 to 41 per cent. The results are not exactly comparable because of changes in methodology.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
Today’s poll reveals that the battle has got closer in the past month, with the Remain campaign lead cut in half. Some 49 per cent now intend to vote Remain, down from 54 per cent in February, while the Leave share has gone up from 36 to 41 per cent. The results are not exactly comparable because of changes in methodology.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
Is going to push a lot of loyal Tories back into the Remain camp.
In the privacy of the ballot box Michael Gove might back remain to ensure Dave is still PM post referendum.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
I imagine there is probably always nearly half the country who want the PM to resign. Based on comments I have heard from people who work with him, I agree with you that he will resign in Remain lose.
Today’s poll reveals that the battle has got closer in the past month, with the Remain campaign lead cut in half. Some 49 per cent now intend to vote Remain, down from 54 per cent in February, while the Leave share has gone up from 36 to 41 per cent. The results are not exactly comparable because of changes in methodology.
Telephone and online polls are now converging on a small lead for Remain.
I spoke to a pollster that does both online and phone polls said if he had to put his bollocks on the line he'd back the phone polls to be the most accurate in the EURef. (Or the least inaccurate were his exact words)
That certainly looks like a significant shift. The last two IPSOS-Mori polls were:
12-16 Feb 54% Remain 36% Leave 23-25 Jan 55% Remain 36% Leave
Does anyone know what the 'change in methodology' in this latest poll was?
We're going to get the same herd instinct we saw in May 2015. Fact is, the pollsters are poor at finding the swing voters who decide elections. Why? My view is that these people often have better things to do with their lives.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
Is going to push a lot of loyal Tories back into the Remain camp.
In the privacy of the ballot box Michael Gove might back remain to ensure Dave is still PM post referendum.
Why? He's going anyway. That'd be completely short sighted.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Surely those figures are more or less what you'd expect when party loyalties are factored in? There are many people who'd say Cameron should resign if it was revealed he'd been to the toilet this morning and forgotten to flush.
In other words: how easy is it to split this sort of question from ordinary VI or leader (un)popularity?
(I might be very wrong in this, but it'd be good to see other data).
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
Is going to push a lot of loyal Tories back into the Remain camp.
In the privacy of the ballot box Michael Gove might back remain to ensure Dave is still PM post referendum.
Why? He's going anyway. That'd be completely short sighted.
So he can go at a time of his choosing rather than doing a Labour and electing Peter Bone as leader
WIND - Whimsical Independent News Division JNN - Jacobite News Network ARSE4EU - Anonymous Random Selection of Electors For European Union
So if ARSE is over-estimating REMAIN (like it did NO with SINDY) this could be very, very close?
He's over-estimating Leave. 40% max.
Why do you think Jack is over-estimating leave ?
Are you for leave or remain ?
I doubt leave will be under 40%.
Pre-May 2015 I thought that the Cons would do much better than expected because on the way to the polling booth a cold shiver of reality would course through peoples' veins and they would realise that to safeguard the economy they really would have no alternative but to vote Conservative as the party of fiscal rectitude.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Doing something because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should isn't a great idea.
Not doing something just because Nigel Farage and George Galloway say we should is one of the stupidest things you could possibly (not) do.
Almost half the public rejects David Cameron’s claim that he can stay on as Prime Minister if he loses the European Union referendum, an exclusive poll reveals today.
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
Is that actually a blow to him? I think he must intend to resign anyway if he loses. (I know, we've had this discussion 100 times.)
Is going to push a lot of loyal Tories back into the Remain camp.
In the privacy of the ballot box Michael Gove might back remain to ensure Dave is still PM post referendum.
Why? He's going anyway. That'd be completely short sighted.
So he can go at a time of his choosing rather than doing a Labour and electing Peter Bone as leader
Peter Bone will not be next leader of the Tory party.
It is important to note some changes to the way we now ask the question. Since the referendum question last month the date of the vote has been announced so as a result we have slightly modified the question to include a preamble reflecting this. We also now include a follow-up question asking which way the respondent would be most inclined to vote for those who are either undecided or refused, in line with how we ask our General Election question.
If we were to apply the same turnout filter that would have given us the most accurate results in the 2015 general election (combining stated likelihood to vote with how regularly people vote in previous elections), then the lead is much narrower, at 2 points (remain is on 48%, leave 46%). However it is important to note that turnout at the referendum may be different from turnout at a general election. Estimating turnout is one of the crucial challenges in polling at any election, and for this referendum we have no recent comparable precedents to help us.
The campaign may unfold unpredictably. So we will continue testing different methods of estimating turnout during the campaign, and may show figures based on a different range of turnout scenarios in the future.
Ipsos Mori to TSE "If we were to apply the same turnout filter that would have given us the most accurate results in the 2015 general election (combining stated likelihood to vote with how regularly people vote in previous elections), then the lead is much narrower, at 2 points (remain is on 48%, leave 46%). However it is important to note that turnout at the referendum may be different from turnout at a general election"
But, there is a more common view that LEAVE voters are more motivated to vote. Therefore this 2 point deficit could really be a lead for LEAVE, using the turnout likely at this referendum.
Comments
http://tinyurl.com/z23hwv6
Today the Guardian criticizes Vote Leave for highlighting 50 criminals from the EU:
http://tinyurl.com/jg3mh2u
The alternative is to wait for any notional PS5, and miss the current VR hype train.
Shovel Knight.
You know Mike's piece yesterday about how the different social classes are splitting in the EURef, well guess who has tweeted about that piece, and well, we all know his past predictive power.
https://twitter.com/sionsimon/status/714718161715732480
Personally, I'm not sure that VR is going to be the big thing that people are making it out to be. I was there for the first coming of VR in the early 1990s, and it died a death. It's got much more traction now, but I wonder how mass market it will really be in the medium term.
I'm waiting for the second gen headsets. By then there might be a winner, better and cheaper hardware, and I might have a PC capable of running it.
Within a month of her being ousted, that 15% deficit was turned into a lead. That alone proves that she wasn't an effective leader by late 1990.
Another problem I have with Farron is that he just doesn't know anything. Take this piece about Magna Carta for example http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2015/jun/15/magna-carta-800-years-human-rights-act. Perhaps he'd had a bet about how many inaccurate and anachronistic statements he could squeeze into one paragraph?
I voted for the Lib Dems as recently as last year but I would be very reluctant to do so while Farron is their leader. Of course, if it came down to, say, Grayling vs Corbyn then what can one do?
I will hapilly take £50 of Leave > 40% at evens if you are offering an are confident.
As for the referendum, Out means leave the EU; In means stay. It's that simple. Thereafter, if it's Stay, then Cameron will presumably favour the status quo including his renegotiation. He's not going to say what leave means for obvious reasons - it's for those advocating that position to put forward what they think would be best. But parliament exists to act as a check on the executive and I'm quite sure that they'd do that vigorously over a new European policy.
Mr. Jessop, I think it has some potential. There are a few issues (not least moving about on foot rather than in a vehicle). Given the cost, it's not something I'll be looking at buying in the near future. Maybe with the PS5.
Now back to off topic
Cruz and Sanders could well be ahead !
"He's not a terrorist, he's an idiot," an Egyptian foreign ministry official has said, after it was reported that the hijacker of Flight MS181 appears to have seized the plane as part of a bizarre dispute with his ex-wife.
But the Tories are not so far ahead or so endowed with talent that they can afford to make the sort of mistakes they have been making or to indulge in internecine warfare over a leader who has been more successful than they at first imagined and who has given us the referendum that a lot have demanded. I don't think he has covered himself in glory over the negotiations and I share many of the criticisms of the EU which the more intelligent of the Leavers have made. But if Leave lose they have only themselves to blame: the case for Leave is - has to be - more than the "push" factor and the "pull" factor has been incoherent. Taking out their own failings on Cameron is adolescent and risks letting in Labour by default.
And I think the current Labour Party under its current leadership and with the sort of members it has is far more of a threat than anything the EU can do.
There are now a number of conflicting outputs about this job, the names of the hijacker(s) and so on.
Given what happened the last time the Egyptians had primary responsibility for information release on a civil airliner incident the media might be better holding fire on conclusions until things are more certain.
In much the same way I believe that on the way to the polling booth in June there will be a cold shiver, but this time of fear of the unknown. I don't think enough people will have researched the actual consequences enough to be comfortable in voting to leave, while they will see their braveheart moment as slightly foolish and immature, rightly or wrongly.
Of course there will be a core voting to leave for those braveheart reasons, but not enough. Many of us have grown up as part of the EU so it is part of our lives and to jettison that because Nigel Farage or David Davis or George Galloway say we should is not something I foresee happening.
Unless you are Boris, then you go Harrrrazzzzzzzzzzzz, Cripessss, look silly face, insert Latin phrase,
Corbyn's changing the Labour Party. To make things worse for the Tories, even if Corbyn goes, his successor might well be a more saleable person with Corbynite policies.
It's the height of stupidity to rule them out.
Unless you are Boris, then you go Harrrrazzzzzzzzzzzz, Cripessss, look silly face, insert Latin phrase,
I'd say the plan is to deny oxygen to the story in every way possible. Silence being one of the best options.
Ukip councillor 'wrote 'anyone but a Muslim' on photo of London mayoral candidate Sadiq Khan'
One commenter called the Labour politician "Islamist scum" while another asked: “Mr Khan looks very smart, but why is he dressed in Western clothes when the 95% of Muslim [sic] wear rags and dress in Eastern Clothes"
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/ukip-councillor-wrote-anyone-but-a-muslim-on-photo-of-london-mayoral-candidate-sadiq-khan-a6956921.html
AIUI The Mail online has a large US following for what might be termed 'celebrity' news. If they can stand up the story that none of the US media will touch then it would be a huge boost for the DM in that market - as well as a huge slap for the supine US media, who have now collectively decided to do whatever it takes to stop the Donald.
Are they not waiting for Trump to stick his eight-penneth in?
But you've criticised Cameron, a committed Anglican, in the past for his (historical) views on gay rights. How does that work?
Simple. Cameron is a Tory, Farron isn't. That makes it OK in Rogerworld.
Cypriot state broadcaster has reported #Egyptair flight #MS181 hijacker is asking for the release of prisoners in Egypt
This story is all over the place
Indeed. The Tories risk making the same mistake as Cooper, Burnham et al. If you don't want Corbynite arguments to win, you have to make the case against them - over and over again, with verve and eloquence and force and in a way that resonates. It's not as if there's a shortage of such arguments.
It does seem bizarre to me that so many people who go into politics are so afraid of making and, indeed, bloody useless at political arguments.
Trump's being quieter than normal on this one. I think that's because his house is somewhat made of glass himself, and also one of his aides is allegedly involved (That particular affair seems the least likely to me, but who knows.)
My own hunch is that this is somewhat like the Clarkson story with Jemima Khan, not actually true in fact - though there was an affair going on with his ex wife !
It's been great to watch Amanda Carpenter squirm on this one, especially looking back at her interview with Alan Colmes over the John Edwards affair.
This is a betting site- and for reasons that are quite unfathomable- JackW's ARSE has proved to be by far the most reliable predictor of political events by far on this site, and some of us haven't the inclination to go digging through the pages of some often narcissistic, grating postings to find it.
I am OK with the opinionated rightwingers to be honest- that is the bulk of our fellow contributors here, it is the me, me, me, me brigade that turn me off. I won't mention names.
I'll ask Jack to pen a piece explaining why he thinks that will be the result.
1) It would take a swing of 0.5% for them to lost their majority
2) They have no plausible coalition partners (they might get confidence and supply from Ulster)
3) Corbyn has huge negatives but it needs the right leader to exploit them.
4) Corbyn could be replaced by someone with similar views but a more dynamic image
It's frustrating because the country is, imo, doing OK at present. We have weathered the crash pretty well and though we have some serious problems (who doesn't?) they seem to be manageable. We shouldn't take the risk of what would be, as you say, one hell of a FUBAR.
It features a bloke in his 30s badly made up to look 60yrs flat cap tank top sort. Like an ancient Granville from Open All Hours And one of the features of New Day is that it's printed on better quality paper.
Just awful.
Nicky Morgan has just referred to "the Twitters" and "the Facebooks"
Sarah Le Blanc
@MichaelPDeacon I think she's an AI who wasn't quite programmed right.
Young people, she adds, "are the generation of eBay"
So the answer is simple: if you care about immigration, vote Labour!
We don't have elections like that here. In the UK "voting for the winner" will run up against party affiliation. Ie, I'd only expect the fairly small pool of floating voters to do it.
Obviously, this implies that it would be fairly uncommon in general elections in the US.
UPDATE The #hijacker of #MS181 is Seif Eldin Mustafa, situation is still ongoing - Egypt Civil Aviation Minister https://t.co/tqFPgUKUbI
The fact that Michael Gove has reached the same answer through more structured thinking is reassuring.
The Facebooks?
Had Sanders won Iowa (which was knife-edge close), and Nevada (which could have happened with momentum from Iowa combined with more effective caucus arrangements - many Sanders activists didn't get in or had to leave early), Hillary would have lost the first three states and media commentators would be talking about her campaign being in disarray and wheeling out 2008 parallels. SC would have become a must-win just to stay in the race, though she would have won; Super Tuesday would just have been about reestablishing credibility. She would have been constantly playing catch-up and might easily have lost the other tight races she ended up winning.
Obviously, the dynamics of that kind of race would have been different and perhaps Sanders would have goofed under a more searching spotlight but on the other hand he might now have been heading for the nomination or at least a serious clash with the superdelegates at the convention.
Guido
Here is the deleted dossier, foreword written by @SadiqKhan, quoting CAGE & Hizb ut-Tahrir: https://t.co/Njwzc3FPWw https://t.co/JN3GVDlBkZ
Today’s poll reveals that the battle has got closer in the past month, with the Remain campaign lead cut in half. Some 49 per cent now intend to vote Remain, down from 54 per cent in February, while the Leave share has gone up from 36 to 41 per cent. The results are not exactly comparable because of changes in methodology.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/politics/half-of-public-say-cameron-must-quit-if-he-loses-eu-poll-a3213261.html
In a new blow to the Prime Minister, Ipsos MORI found 48 per cent think he should resign if he fails in his campaign to keep Britain in the EU. Only 44 per cent thought Mr Cameron could continue as PM.
@DPJHodges: Apologies. Remain 8 points ahead in latest poll. Had to dig even deeper to work it out. https://t.co/S0vKjMR7jN
In the privacy of the ballot box Michael Gove might back remain to ensure Dave is still PM post referendum.
I imagine there is probably always nearly half the country who want the PM to resign. Based on comments I have heard from people who work with him, I agree with you that he will resign in Remain lose.
12-16 Feb 54% Remain 36% Leave
23-25 Jan 55% Remain 36% Leave
Does anyone know what the 'change in methodology' in this latest poll was?
Help, everyone else is predicting it's going to be a tight result. Let's see what we can do...
Journalist at airport says hijacker has internet access and is monitoring news @bevvo14 https://t.co/Zpf81vdzB0
In other words: how easy is it to split this sort of question from ordinary VI or leader (un)popularity?
(I might be very wrong in this, but it'd be good to see other data).
What odds will you offer me?
It is important to note some changes to the way we now ask the question. Since the referendum question last month the date of the vote has been announced so as a result we have slightly modified the question to include a preamble reflecting this. We also now include a follow-up question asking which way the respondent would be most inclined to vote for those who are either undecided or refused, in line with how we ask our General Election question.
If we were to apply the same turnout filter that would have given us the most accurate results in the 2015 general election (combining stated likelihood to vote with how regularly people vote in previous elections), then the lead is much narrower, at 2 points (remain is on 48%, leave 46%). However it is important to note that turnout at the referendum may be different from turnout at a general election. Estimating turnout is one of the crucial challenges in polling at any election, and for this referendum we have no recent comparable precedents to help us.
The campaign may unfold unpredictably. So we will continue testing different methods of estimating turnout during the campaign, and may show figures based on a different range of turnout scenarios in the future.
President Nicos Anastasiades told reporters earlier. Asked if a woman was involved he said “There is always a woman involved.”
But, there is a more common view that LEAVE voters are more motivated to vote. Therefore this 2 point deficit could really be a lead for LEAVE, using the turnout likely at this referendum.