Nope. From your description you don't have any experience with the US health care system. You opted to leave the US rather than make use of it.
My family member was in a US hospital. The costs were exorbitant and the standard of care was, at best, no better than the UK. Even with the flight cost, the UK hospital was the better option. But hey, don't take my word for it.
I hope the flight wasn't for cancer, heart disease, or a stroke, because then your country's insurance cheaped out on what would have almost certainly been the superior US treatment.
There's a reason the rich often come to the US when the shit hits the fan.
From the first sentence of the executive summary: "The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions".
I don't think any amount of regulation will help with this, because it comes down to greed.
Untrue. In most countries the government is in charge of health care and they have a VERY easy way to regulate price gouging such as this. In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".
If there was a score above 5 on/. then your comment should get it. America has the most expensive medical system on the planet. I've had first-hand experience of a family member falling ill on a US holiday and the insurance company chartered a plane to fly them home because it cost less than paying US hospital bills. And the sad part is that the medical outcomes are no better in the US than they are in Europe where we have national public health systems ("socialized medicine" as you neatly put it).
As you say, public health systems negotiate at national level which gives them much more leverage with the big pharma companies. But there is also a general ethos in Europe that healthcare is not a luxury, and that patients should always come before profit.
The two main parties campaigned against changing from FPTP because the status quo suits them. Even their insistence on calling it "AV" was intended to imply that in FPTP we already had the "gold standard"; so why change? Proportional representation, a system where you get parliaments that actually reflect the broad spectrum of public opinion, is anathema to the two big traditional parties; especially the Conservatives.
The Conservatives have been able to pursue policies that benefit their core (minority) support while visiting austerity on the majority. A more diverse parliament, where they didn't have absolute power and would have to broker a consensus, would rein in their more neo-liberal tendencies. So that's hardly a plus for FPTP.
It's also clear that a lot of people voted "Leave" in the referendum as a protest vote assuming that, as with general elections, their votes wouldn't make any difference in the great scheme of things. Ironically, a vote where there are only two choices is the one instance where all votes really do count under FPTP.
In the UK's recent referendum, I voted Remain, but held my nose while I did so. I was surprised but not devastated by the result. In the short to medium term, we will undoubtedly suffer economic pain and a fall in living standards. But in the longer term, we do get to step off a conveyor belt towards post-democratic Government.
Eh, we have a "post-democratic" government already. The current Conservative government has an absolute majority in parliament despite the fact that roughly two-thirds of the UK electorate did not vote for them. When Conservative ministers talk about their "mandate", they are really referring to the one-third that actually voted for them, not the disenfranchised two-thirds.
And it's not an isolated case; it's the almost inevitable outcome of continuing to use "first past the post" elections in a country with several political parties.
With Qwant I'm ok for 95% of my searches. With DuckDuckGo I got relevant results at a maximum of 5% of the time... and I really tried. It was my default search engine for a full year - now replaced with Qwant.
You should absolutely try it.
Thanks! I'll certainly give it a go. Initial impressions are that the results for the same query are quite different in both, though with a core of common hits.
I switched to https://qwant.com/ a few months ago. Works fine for ~95% of all searches I do. The other 5% I manually route via Google's more advanced filtering.
I hadn't heard of qwant before. I must give it a spin. How does it compares with DuckDuckGo?
No. Not "The proponents of free markets"
Big businesses that use government to protect their positions are not proponents of a free market. They may say it, but what they do is anti free market.
Many people who want a job, or run small businesses want to see more of a truer version of a free market. Do not paint the partners of big government regulations with the same brush as real people that encourage free market capitalism.
Perhaps I should have said [irony]free markets[/irony] instead. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free market. Every market has its rules (written or unwritten); it just depends which set you are playing with. And since the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK) the rules have been stacked in favor of the 1%. What neo-liberals tout as "free market capitalism" is just means to make the 1% ever richer and entrench their power.
Ironically, the only way to tackle this is to elect governments with the will and the power to curb the power of big corporates and the wealthy 1%; i.e. change the rule book. The markets won't magically level the playing field. There's no profit in that for the dominant players.
ISPs have monopolies in areas simply because local governments have given them the monopolies.
Your problem is still government.
And there you have one of the classic ironies of "free markets". The proponents of "free markets" publicly preach "small government", but in reality they need the collusion of "big government" to establish and maintain dominant positions in their industries. Some interesting background reading; Monopoly power and the decline of small business: big business vs democracy, growth & equality.
There are major distros that are systemd free, and not only because systemd was removed from them, but because they never had it (Slackware)... or at least only have it as a non-required option (Gentoo).
And you have just named both of the "major" systemd free distros. After that you are into niche distros which, while they may each be a decent OS, don't have the support network behind them that the major distros do.
The fun will really start when important application software starts to depend on systemd being there. Being on a systemd free distro is not much consolation if won't work without systemd.
I'm currently on Linux Mint 17 (no systemd), which is LTS until 2019. Hopefully by then, the whole systemd picture (how evil, or not, it really is) will be a lot clearer.
You are certainly right about that. The nice thing about C is that the really incompetent will not get their code to run at all and weed themselves out that way. In contrast, a bad Java coder (for example) will usually get things to work, but very badly so.
Actually bad C programs do run alright. It's just that after a while they fail in mysterious (and often non-obvious) ways because the developers weren't anywhere near as good at memory management and pointer arithmetic (for example) as they thought they were. Every language with a large developer base has good and bad coders; C is no different.
Task manager hides certain processes so if it doesn't show up there it doesn't mean it's not running.
In a Windows internals session at Microsoft Tech-Ed a few years ago David Solomon said that Task Manager should be really be renamed "Some of My Open Windows"!
Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.
What a great idea.... weaken everyone for a few rare cases.
It seems to me that encryption is increasingly being used as a smokescreen for law enforcement incompetence. There are reports that one of the killers of the French priest earlier this week was not only on a watch list but was actually wearing an electronic ankle tag.
That is eerily like the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in London in 2013. The official government report into the killing found that:
"...the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
Perhaps if the law enforcement agencies focused on making better use of the information they already have, rather than trying to erode everyone's privacy, they might be more successful.
"For me personally, I'm planning to stay," Mayer said in a note on Yahoo's Tumblr page. "I love Yahoo, and I believe in all of you. It's important to me to see Yahoo into its next chapter."
Of David Davis (a Brexiteer) taking a case to the European Court of Justice about violation of his privacy rights, as defined by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; a document his new boss Theresa May (who opposed Brexit) has publicly said she would like to tear up.
Personally I actually disagree that this is good news. Here is a case where the rule of law was utilized, a warrant was issued by a court on the public record for data. Microsoft is a US entity and should have to follow lawful orders from a US court. When courts can't subpoena that leaves law enforcement with little recourse other than warrant free uncountable hacking that violates our Fourth Amendment or letting having to let criminals walk free no matter how much legitimate probable cause to suspect their may be.
This sets up a situation where all you have to do is setup a foreign subsidiary and stash some severs overseas and the government can't touch you? Yes I realize its a little more nuanced than that, but I still think its a serious problem. This is likely to cause more the behavior we really should oppose as citizens not less.
Did you read TFA? This case was about _customers_ data not Microsoft's; _European customers_ data over which the US government and court system has _no_ jurisdiction. As other have pointed out, there are clearly defined methods for acquiring such data as part of a serious international crime investigation. In this case, the US tried to get the data via the back door and, quite rightly, failed.
What's more, European businesses who use cloud services have been watching this case very closely. If Microsoft had lost the case it would have killed the business of every US-based cloud service provider in Europe. European companies have a legal requirement to protect their customers data in line with EU laws; so using US-based cloud providers would effectively have become illegal in Europe had Microsoft lost.
Slackware has a USB version of the "floppy" in the distro that you dd to a stick to boot from, which is just used for the install. The live version I use is not from Slackware (Slackware (Pat) itself does not produce live systems) per se, but the entire setup is drawn from official Slackware, Slackbuild, and KDE mirrors (for plasma 5, there is an unmodified Slackware iso made to run live also). I haven't tried an install from it. I'm happy running it live as is. I just back up the home directory to save my personal changes.
This affects less people and it is way less dramatic than what the summary implies. Java EE it's just a bunch of "enterprise" frameworks which run on top of the Java virtual machine. Many people using the Java platform don't even bother with Java EE and use other set of frameworks instead (like Spring or Hibernate), and even for those using some of the Java EE technologies, they are most likely using some third party (IBM Websphere) or open source (lJBoss, Tomcat) implementations, since the "official" Java EE implementation by Sun (and later Oracle) never gained much traction.
This is absolutely right. Sun were so slow evolving the Java EE spec, the user community took the lead and developed less high maintenance approaches like Spring. This won't affect most Java developers, even those developing "enterprise" applications.
Now with Plasma 5! You can plug the stick into any machine, and it runs perfectly right out of the box, two monitors, weird audio, doesn't matter, everything works.
Once you go Slack, you never look back!
That sounds good and I'll definitely give it a spin. One question; can you install Slackware from the live media? On the Slackware site, under Install Help, step 3 says "You need to have a diskette with a root filesystem and the setup program in order to install Slackware Linux". Really? I haven't owned a machine with a diskette drive in years. Have I missed some way of installing it from a bootable CD/DVD/USB device?
As an American who frequently visits Europe, all you need is to enter the EU via a country which has a visa waiver treaty. They check your passport, and grant you an instant 90 day visa. Once you're in an EU country, you're free to cross the borders into other EU countries - there are no more border checks. About the only things an EU passport gets you is the right to stand in the EU line at immigration (which is sometimes faster than the visitor line), and the ability to stay more than 90 days without renewing or applying for a longer-term visa.
After the UK leaves, it'll have to negotiate these waiver treaties, which might take a few years. But afterwards it'll be the same as before for 80% of travelers, except now there will be a border checkpoint at the Chunnel. The other 20% will be traveling on business, so it remains to be seen what'll happen there. I would imagine both sides will be anxious to renegotiate free trade or almost-free trade treaties ASAP to minimize the economic impact in both the UK and EU.
You don't understand how the EU works. As an EU citizen I can decide tomorrow to go and live _and_ work in any of the EU countries; no passport, no visa, no residency permit, no work permit, etc required. I can just get up and go any time I like. You can't do that, and now neither will UK citizens as a result of voting to leave.
As for the trade deal, the Leave lobby have assumed that the EU would beg Britain to come back. But it's already clear that won't happen as the other member states have made it clear a long drawn out divorce is not an option; "you've made your choice, so go now". And, contrary to the Leave campaigns claims, Britain needs the EU more than the EU needs Britain. The only deal likely to be offered is the sort that Norway and Switzerland have. To get free trade they have had to accept free movement of people and make annual contributions to the EU budget; the two very things the Leave campaign were most opposed to.
"What is the EU?" and "What happens if we leave the EU?" The former was the second top UK question on the EU after the results were officially announced.
Seriously, shouldn't they have been asking this before they voted?
Yes, people who voted Leave have been on British television saying how shocked and worried they are that Britain is actually leaving the EU. "I just assumed we would stay in and my vote wouldn't matter!", they said. You couldn't make it up.
There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.
I think you're only partly correct. There is definitely an age divide issue, but it is being seen more as the Baby Boomers final "fsck you" to the Millenials. The Baby Boomers are mostly retired, or close to retirement, had good "jobs for life" with good pension plans during the economic boom years, own their own homes (bought when property was cheap) and often investment properties too. So they are pretty well insulated from any negative fallout from Brexit
I'd say David Cameron is now regretting blocking a move to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum.
IQ scores are more or less meaningless in this context. A nation does not have an "IQ".
In this context, at best it is a measure of how well the country's culture conditions people to taking standardized tests.
Agreed. Even before I read TFA, this smelled off
It looks to me to be just a new pseudo-scientific spin on the "nice people don't pirate" meme. Remember those "you wouldn't steal a car, would you" messages on DVDs?
Slashdot Mirror
What challenges? Was typing:
<video controls><source src=""></video>
really that hard?
Unfortunately that's too simple for many sites. They want to wrap "added value" around the video.
Nope. From your description you don't have any experience with the US health care system. You opted to leave the US rather than make use of it.
My family member was in a US hospital. The costs were exorbitant and the standard of care was, at best, no better than the UK. Even with the flight cost, the UK hospital was the better option. But hey, don't take my word for it.
I hope the flight wasn't for cancer, heart disease, or a stroke, because then your country's insurance cheaped out on what would have almost certainly been the superior US treatment.
There's a reason the rich often come to the US when the shit hits the fan.
You need to read up a bit on healthcare in the rest of the world - How the U.S. Health Care System Compares Internationally
From the first sentence of the executive summary: "The United States health care system is the most expensive in the world, but this report and prior editions consistently show the U.S. underperforms relative to other countries on most dimensions of performance. Among the 11 nations studied in this report—Australia, Canada, France, Germany, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Norway, Sweden, Switzerland, the United Kingdom, and the United States—the U.S. ranks last, as it did in the 2010, 2007, 2006, and 2004 editions".
I don't think any amount of regulation will help with this, because it comes down to greed.
Untrue. In most countries the government is in charge of health care and they have a VERY easy way to regulate price gouging such as this. In any single payer system the national health service basically sets the price they are willing to pay and that's what it costs. End of story. We only run into this problem because we have a portion of our population who breaks out in hives anytime they hear the words "socialized medicine".
If there was a score above 5 on /. then your comment should get it. America has the most expensive medical system on the planet. I've had first-hand experience of a family member falling ill on a US holiday and the insurance company chartered a plane to fly them home because it cost less than paying US hospital bills. And the sad part is that the medical outcomes are no better in the US than they are in Europe where we have national public health systems ("socialized medicine" as you neatly put it).
As you say, public health systems negotiate at national level which gives them much more leverage with the big pharma companies. But there is also a general ethos in Europe that healthcare is not a luxury, and that patients should always come before profit.
Except... not really. :-)
The two main parties campaigned against changing from FPTP because the status quo suits them. Even their insistence on calling it "AV" was intended to imply that in FPTP we already had the "gold standard"; so why change? Proportional representation, a system where you get parliaments that actually reflect the broad spectrum of public opinion, is anathema to the two big traditional parties; especially the Conservatives.
The Conservatives have been able to pursue policies that benefit their core (minority) support while visiting austerity on the majority. A more diverse parliament, where they didn't have absolute power and would have to broker a consensus, would rein in their more neo-liberal tendencies. So that's hardly a plus for FPTP.
It's also clear that a lot of people voted "Leave" in the referendum as a protest vote assuming that, as with general elections, their votes wouldn't make any difference in the great scheme of things. Ironically, a vote where there are only two choices is the one instance where all votes really do count under FPTP.
In the UK's recent referendum, I voted Remain, but held my nose while I did so. I was surprised but not devastated by the result. In the short to medium term, we will undoubtedly suffer economic pain and a fall in living standards. But in the longer term, we do get to step off a conveyor belt towards post-democratic Government.
Eh, we have a "post-democratic" government already. The current Conservative government has an absolute majority in parliament despite the fact that roughly two-thirds of the UK electorate did not vote for them. When Conservative ministers talk about their "mandate", they are really referring to the one-third that actually voted for them, not the disenfranchised two-thirds.
And it's not an isolated case; it's the almost inevitable outcome of continuing to use "first past the post" elections in a country with several political parties.
With Qwant I'm ok for 95% of my searches. With DuckDuckGo I got relevant results at a maximum of 5% of the time ... and I really tried. It was my default search engine for a full year - now replaced with Qwant.
You should absolutely try it.
Thanks! I'll certainly give it a go. Initial impressions are that the results for the same query are quite different in both, though with a core of common hits.
I switched to https://qwant.com/ a few months ago. Works fine for ~95% of all searches I do. The other 5% I manually route via Google's more advanced filtering.
I hadn't heard of qwant before. I must give it a spin. How does it compares with DuckDuckGo?
No. Not "The proponents of free markets" Big businesses that use government to protect their positions are not proponents of a free market. They may say it, but what they do is anti free market. Many people who want a job, or run small businesses want to see more of a truer version of a free market. Do not paint the partners of big government regulations with the same brush as real people that encourage free market capitalism.
Perhaps I should have said [irony]free markets[/irony] instead. The reality is that there is no such thing as a free market. Every market has its rules (written or unwritten); it just depends which set you are playing with. And since the rise of neo-liberalism in the 1980s (under Reagan in the US and Thatcher in the UK) the rules have been stacked in favor of the 1%. What neo-liberals tout as "free market capitalism" is just means to make the 1% ever richer and entrench their power.
Ironically, the only way to tackle this is to elect governments with the will and the power to curb the power of big corporates and the wealthy 1%; i.e. change the rule book. The markets won't magically level the playing field. There's no profit in that for the dominant players.
ISPs have monopolies in areas simply because local governments have given them the monopolies. Your problem is still government.
And there you have one of the classic ironies of "free markets". The proponents of "free markets" publicly preach "small government", but in reality they need the collusion of "big government" to establish and maintain dominant positions in their industries. Some interesting background reading; Monopoly power and the decline of small business: big business vs democracy, growth & equality.
There are major distros that are systemd free, and not only because systemd was removed from them, but because they never had it (Slackware)... or at least only have it as a non-required option (Gentoo).
And you have just named both of the "major" systemd free distros. After that you are into niche distros which, while they may each be a decent OS, don't have the support network behind them that the major distros do.
The fun will really start when important application software starts to depend on systemd being there. Being on a systemd free distro is not much consolation if won't work without systemd.
I'm currently on Linux Mint 17 (no systemd), which is LTS until 2019. Hopefully by then, the whole systemd picture (how evil, or not, it really is) will be a lot clearer.
You are certainly right about that. The nice thing about C is that the really incompetent will not get their code to run at all and weed themselves out that way. In contrast, a bad Java coder (for example) will usually get things to work, but very badly so.
Actually bad C programs do run alright. It's just that after a while they fail in mysterious (and often non-obvious) ways because the developers weren't anywhere near as good at memory management and pointer arithmetic (for example) as they thought they were. Every language with a large developer base has good and bad coders; C is no different.
Task manager hides certain processes so if it doesn't show up there it doesn't mean it's not running.
In a Windows internals session at Microsoft Tech-Ed a few years ago David Solomon said that Task Manager should be really be renamed "Some of My Open Windows"!
Many law enforcement leaders are acting as if no crimes can be solved unless all cell phones are made more vulnerable.
What a great idea.... weaken everyone for a few rare cases.
It seems to me that encryption is increasingly being used as a smokescreen for law enforcement incompetence. There are reports that one of the killers of the French priest earlier this week was not only on a watch list but was actually wearing an electronic ankle tag.
That is eerily like the murder of British soldier Lee Rigby in London in 2013. The official government report into the killing found that:
"...the two killers had been investigated seven times by different agencies and that MI5 cancelled surveillance of one of the murderers, Michael Adebolajo, just a month before the attack."
Perhaps if the law enforcement agencies focused on making better use of the information they already have, rather than trying to erode everyone's privacy, they might be more successful.
"For me personally, I'm planning to stay," Mayer said in a note on Yahoo's Tumblr page. "I love Yahoo, and I believe in all of you. It's important to me to see Yahoo into its next chapter."
Presumably she means Chapter 11.
Of David Davis (a Brexiteer) taking a case to the European Court of Justice about violation of his privacy rights, as defined by the European Charter of Fundamental Rights; a document his new boss Theresa May (who opposed Brexit) has publicly said she would like to tear up.
Personally I actually disagree that this is good news. Here is a case where the rule of law was utilized, a warrant was issued by a court on the public record for data. Microsoft is a US entity and should have to follow lawful orders from a US court. When courts can't subpoena that leaves law enforcement with little recourse other than warrant free uncountable hacking that violates our Fourth Amendment or letting having to let criminals walk free no matter how much legitimate probable cause to suspect their may be.
This sets up a situation where all you have to do is setup a foreign subsidiary and stash some severs overseas and the government can't touch you? Yes I realize its a little more nuanced than that, but I still think its a serious problem. This is likely to cause more the behavior we really should oppose as citizens not less.
Did you read TFA? This case was about _customers_ data not Microsoft's; _European customers_ data over which the US government and court system has _no_ jurisdiction. As other have pointed out, there are clearly defined methods for acquiring such data as part of a serious international crime investigation. In this case, the US tried to get the data via the back door and, quite rightly, failed.
What's more, European businesses who use cloud services have been watching this case very closely. If Microsoft had lost the case it would have killed the business of every US-based cloud service provider in Europe. European companies have a legal requirement to protect their customers data in line with EU laws; so using US-based cloud providers would effectively have become illegal in Europe had Microsoft lost.
Slackware has a USB version of the "floppy" in the distro that you dd to a stick to boot from, which is just used for the install. The live version I use is not from Slackware (Slackware (Pat) itself does not produce live systems) per se, but the entire setup is drawn from official Slackware, Slackbuild, and KDE mirrors (for plasma 5, there is an unmodified Slackware iso made to run live also). I haven't tried an install from it. I'm happy running it live as is. I just back up the home directory to save my personal changes.
Thanks! I'll check it out.
This affects less people and it is way less dramatic than what the summary implies. Java EE it's just a bunch of "enterprise" frameworks which run on top of the Java virtual machine. Many people using the Java platform don't even bother with Java EE and use other set of frameworks instead (like Spring or Hibernate), and even for those using some of the Java EE technologies, they are most likely using some third party (IBM Websphere) or open source (lJBoss, Tomcat) implementations, since the "official" Java EE implementation by Sun (and later Oracle) never gained much traction.
This is absolutely right. Sun were so slow evolving the Java EE spec, the user community took the lead and developed less high maintenance approaches like Spring. This won't affect most Java developers, even those developing "enterprise" applications.
Now with Plasma 5! You can plug the stick into any machine, and it runs perfectly right out of the box, two monitors, weird audio, doesn't matter, everything works.
Once you go Slack, you never look back!
That sounds good and I'll definitely give it a spin. One question; can you install Slackware from the live media? On the Slackware site, under Install Help, step 3 says "You need to have a diskette with a root filesystem and the setup program in order to install Slackware Linux". Really? I haven't owned a machine with a diskette drive in years. Have I missed some way of installing it from a bootable CD/DVD/USB device?
As an American who frequently visits Europe, all you need is to enter the EU via a country which has a visa waiver treaty. They check your passport, and grant you an instant 90 day visa. Once you're in an EU country, you're free to cross the borders into other EU countries - there are no more border checks. About the only things an EU passport gets you is the right to stand in the EU line at immigration (which is sometimes faster than the visitor line), and the ability to stay more than 90 days without renewing or applying for a longer-term visa. After the UK leaves, it'll have to negotiate these waiver treaties, which might take a few years. But afterwards it'll be the same as before for 80% of travelers, except now there will be a border checkpoint at the Chunnel. The other 20% will be traveling on business, so it remains to be seen what'll happen there. I would imagine both sides will be anxious to renegotiate free trade or almost-free trade treaties ASAP to minimize the economic impact in both the UK and EU.
You don't understand how the EU works. As an EU citizen I can decide tomorrow to go and live _and_ work in any of the EU countries; no passport, no visa, no residency permit, no work permit, etc required. I can just get up and go any time I like. You can't do that, and now neither will UK citizens as a result of voting to leave.
As for the trade deal, the Leave lobby have assumed that the EU would beg Britain to come back. But it's already clear that won't happen as the other member states have made it clear a long drawn out divorce is not an option; "you've made your choice, so go now". And, contrary to the Leave campaigns claims, Britain needs the EU more than the EU needs Britain. The only deal likely to be offered is the sort that Norway and Switzerland have. To get free trade they have had to accept free movement of people and make annual contributions to the EU budget; the two very things the Leave campaign were most opposed to.
From TFA:
"What is the EU?" and "What happens if we leave the EU?" The former was the second top UK question on the EU after the results were officially announced.
Seriously, shouldn't they have been asking this before they voted?
If you think that's bad, read this and weep; "Leave voter regrets voting Leave when he realises it means we're now Leaving"
Yes, people who voted Leave have been on British television saying how shocked and worried they are that Britain is actually leaving the EU. "I just assumed we would stay in and my vote wouldn't matter!", they said. You couldn't make it up.
There is more thorough analysis available, which basicly states, that the groups Remain and Leave have very distinct properties.
Remainers are younger than 45, live in large towns and have an university degree or are students at an university.
Leavers are older than 45, live in rural and small town regions, mainly in the East and North of England and in Central Wales, and have no university degree.
In general, Remainers are profiting or hope to profite from Globalization and free movement, because they are young, well educated and live close to the economic centers. Leavers are much older, less well educated and live in regions which are hard hit by globalization and are in a long economic downturn. They were children or young adults, when UK joined the EU, and they feel they never got anything back during their lifetime, while all the profits from the economic cooperation went somewhere else.
I think you're only partly correct. There is definitely an age divide issue, but it is being seen more as the Baby Boomers final "fsck you" to the Millenials. The Baby Boomers are mostly retired, or close to retirement, had good "jobs for life" with good pension plans during the economic boom years, own their own homes (bought when property was cheap) and often investment properties too. So they are pretty well insulated from any negative fallout from Brexit
I'd say David Cameron is now regretting blocking a move to allow 16 and 17 year olds to vote in the referendum.
The iProduct. As Homer would say, "it's funny because it's true".
IQ scores are more or less meaningless in this context. A nation does not have an "IQ".
In this context, at best it is a measure of how well the country's culture conditions people to taking standardized tests.
Agreed. Even before I read TFA, this smelled off
It looks to me to be just a new pseudo-scientific spin on the "nice people don't pirate" meme. Remember those "you wouldn't steal a car, would you" messages on DVDs?