Because there was an effective low key civil war in North Ireland. There wasn't one in England, Scotland or Wales. Nonetheless Great British government financed one of the parties of North Ireland's conflict, party that was at least as dirty as IRA if not more - an obvious act of hostility.
Yet IRA had enough fire discipline to pursue their goals, instead of letting the same kind of dirty civil war to spill across the sea and focus on their objective of making it financially unfeasible for Great Britain to continue support their enemy instead of making Great Britain itself target of civil war with the same kind of casualty rates and methods as were used in Northern Ireland.
I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with extreme difference between two "fronts" on which IRA fought, and the stark difference between methods employed on them. It was a clear strategic choice that required extreme amount of fire discipline from its members to implement - something that even many trained armies and militias could not, and to this day still cannot do.
There is one major issue with allowing voter to check what his personal vote was outside poll station. Coercion.
Specifically it means that whoever is coercing voters can check who/what they voted for. The current system is designed not to allow this for a reason.
On the other hand if verification you suggest doesn't show what voter voted for, what assurances does voter actually have that his vote didn't get changed to whatever people who are falsifying the ballot want it to be?
That's why paper is such a great medium. It awards anonymity, and at the same time as long as you have poll stations monitored by poll workers you can be sure that votes that are counted and recounted if needed are indeed the same votes that voters cast.
"You will vote for candidate I like, or you're fired". "... or you're going to be beaten up" "... or my men will come and rape your wife while you watch it" "... [insert method of coercion that you prefer here]"
These kinds of exploits hit people who don't update their computers, don't use firewalls and generally have no clue about security. Most government and corporate networks have corporate IT section that is very well prepared to fight such basic threats.
Corporations and governments are hit by very different kinds of attacks (i.e. lulzsec, cyber war attacks, etc), which are specially tailored for each target.
You know what's really sad? When you talk about how much of government in USA and much of West functioned in 60s and 70s, you get called "young" by modern young adults like you with no grasp on history whatsoever.
Strongly opinionated, certain of one's own correctness and completely clueless. To quote Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is a 15-minute talk with an average voter".
How the heck did you pick up any of your drivel from my post? I merely talked about their extreme fire discipline when it came to not killing civilians of the other island in the country that actively supported their enemies in their civil war. Shooting kneecaps, or whatever it is was actively practiced by both parties to low key civil war in Northern Ireland. That's how low key civil wars are fought - through torture and violence.
I'm talking about the eastern side of Irish sea, where IRA specifically made a point in their doctrine to minimize civilian casualties at all costs while maximizing property damage. I'm not defending the atrocities of civil war, because it's pointless - there are no good guys in one. Just people who believe in their cause so much they're willing to torture wives and chidren of their enemy with power drills. I'm talking about discipline it takes not to let this kind of warfare to spill across the Irish sea, and just keep wiping out property en masse in attempt to convince GB government that funding their enemy in civil war is not a profitable idea.
Once again: there is NOTHING romantic about such wars. But there is something to admire about the fire discipline of people who are fighting a brutal fight for what they believe in with their families getting tortured and killed off, and who try to keep the civil war localized, and only firebomb property on the biggest benefactor of their enemies, instead of just setting a couple of Al-Qaeda style shrapnel-filled bombs in places with lots of people and no prior warning.
Pick up a history book about the conflict, preferably one that isn't written by one of the parties in the war and read it. You'll find a lot of interesting tidbits that get lost in the mainstream media screaming about 700 million damage and hundreds of wounded, like parts where IRA made a point to always inform authorities about their bombs to ensure that civilians would be evacuated before bomb went off, or how they specifically designed their bombs to cause fires, rather then fill them with shrapnel for maximum casualties.
You do realize that after your emotional outburst, the numbers you quote actually support my case? Manchester bombing was a brilliant example, 700 GBP damage, ZERO fatalities. It was standard IRA modus operandi - incendiary bomb designed to do as much property damage as possible, warning call an hour in advance to allow for evacuation of civilians. If they actually wanted to "go Al-Qaeda", they could have killed hundreds that day by simply not warning about the bomb. They didn't because it was strictly against their doctrine - killing civilians on eastern side of Irish sea was simply against their interests and they knew it.
"Amount of people murdered" comes mainly from the western side of Irish sea - which you know just as well as I do, or you will if you pick up any book about the conflict and read it. Their strategy was simply completely different on the two sides of the sea, with civil war in Ireland, and most of the "civilian" fatalities being standard collateral that happens in civil wars - families of fighters of the other side. Ulster's militias were about as bad themselves, killing about as much or slightly more people then IRA. It was a nasty, dirty low key civil war.
Which side of the Irish sea? On the Irish side, the conflict was essentially a low key civil war between protestants and catholics. There were no good guys there - just protestant militias with their torture squads, catholic militias with their torture squads, and british army stuck in between those two getting shot at. That's where most of human casualties of the conflict were - three fighting sides and families of militias who often got tortured. Protestant militias were especially famous for having torture squads that had a power drill fetish when torturing wives of catholic militants. And it's actually worse then it sounds...
On the British side, they always kept casualties to minimum. Their main goal has always been maximum damage with minimal loss of human lives on that side.
You're right that there's nothing romantic about them. But they were people with a goal, who didn't start indiscriminately killing people on English side en masse, in spite of these people financing and providing public support for militias that were torturing their families. It was a brutal and ghastly business, but they stuck to their guns and didn't go the way of Al-Qaeda, that is bombing people rather then property on the other side of the Irish sea. That's what I'm referring to as great fire discipline.
Funnily that was one strike that IRA always denied to have been theirs, and if you study the strikes that they did take credit for, this one was very clearly different. Instead of their classic "minimal casualties, maximum damage" doctrine, that one was exact opposite - material damage was fairly low, but casualties very high.
It was in fact often noted that the other side of the North Ireland conflict, Ulster's militias was far more likely to have been behind it to gain more support from Great Britain in its campaign against IRA. If that was the case, they succeeded in spectacular fashion.
I think most of their real political goal have been met actually. That is end of GB's support for unionist paramilitaries, and especially their power-drill fetishist torture squads.
Their modus operandi on England side was very clear: as much damage to corporate and government interests of GB as possible with minimal casualties. Hence, incendiary bombs that cause large scale fires, and warning well before they go off so that there is time to evacuate everyone. And in the end, when they managed to paralyze London City, the corps told their lobbyists that enough is enough, and IRA should be really talked with so that they could go on making profit without those kind of disruptions.
In fact it's a widely known issue in Germany that police are somewhat terrible (in comparison to Nordics). Not to even talk about Italy and other South-European countries where corruption is a significant problem. I'm not even sure how Spain is nowadays, since quite a few of their police have probably served under dictature where civil rights were significantly less then what is considered a norm today.
How do you vote against corporations "with cash" if you don't mind me asking? Many if not most of them don't accept any cash from general populace - their business is with smaller corporations or governments, such as major oil companies, construction companies, chemical companies, energy companies, defense companies and so on.
Not nearly all corporation rely on general populace for funding. In fact, many rely on government itself, while remaining almost totally independent of it (i.e. military-industrial complex).
Can't comment on the rest, but "five finnish narcotics police to face misconduct charges" was a massively overblown case that went to full trial, received very broad coverage because police officers are expected to be as clean as possible, and in the end, they acquitted of all charges. There was even broad speculation that case was motivated by several new narcotics gangs infiltrating Finland and setting those five up to hamstring police's ability to act (they were in key positions of the investigative unit).
The fact that you only managed to collect this many news over many years from total of five countries reinforces my point: in general, police are trustworthy. Especially considering how much press likes to blow anything police-related out of proportion.
The part that you do not understand is that generally being a mammal that has soft, lubricated holes makes you a "valid target for being raped". The only thing you can do is reduce your chances of such.
Hell, I don't think I've been broad enough, I think I recall a case where someone raped a large fish and got caught.
The all-encompassing issue here is that you're trying to pull perpetrator into this. Police officer in question was talking about victim herself and crime prevention in general. Perpetrator's punishment is irrelevant to the issue - he will be punished no matter if she wore sluttiest outfit of all times or burkha. That said, victim would've had a much higher chance of not being singled out as a potential target is she chose to behave in a way that was less "slutty" as police officer put it. Just like a person crossing the street would've been at less of a risk of getting run over by a car is he chose to check both directions before crossing.
To sum the issue up: you always have a right not to be raped. You will sometimes get raped by someone who will ignore your right not to be raped anyway. You have a way of affecting the chance of this happening through your behavioral patterns, such as way you dress, places you visit and time you visit them at, and so on.
"Angry Irish" had one of the best fire discipline of all times. They succeeded in bombing stuff that inflicted massive financial pain on Great Britain with minimal cost of lives, which was their entire goal - make the small patch of Ireland cost so much that it isn't worth it at the costs of minimal amount of civilian lives not to actually piss people off to go to a full out war (I'm not talking about special forces torture squads with various power drill fetishes).
Blowing up a nuclear power plant isn't going to be as easy as a district in London, is likely to cost lives, and get a whole lot of negative attention to their cause.
This is in direct conflict with several key points of IRA terrorism modus operandi.
Slashdot Mirror
Because there was an effective low key civil war in North Ireland. There wasn't one in England, Scotland or Wales. Nonetheless Great British government financed one of the parties of North Ireland's conflict, party that was at least as dirty as IRA if not more - an obvious act of hostility.
Yet IRA had enough fire discipline to pursue their goals, instead of letting the same kind of dirty civil war to spill across the sea and focus on their objective of making it financially unfeasible for Great Britain to continue support their enemy instead of making Great Britain itself target of civil war with the same kind of casualty rates and methods as were used in Northern Ireland.
I strongly suggest familiarizing yourself with extreme difference between two "fronts" on which IRA fought, and the stark difference between methods employed on them. It was a clear strategic choice that required extreme amount of fire discipline from its members to implement - something that even many trained armies and militias could not, and to this day still cannot do.
There are always exceptions to the rule that reinforce the rule.
There is one major issue with allowing voter to check what his personal vote was outside poll station. Coercion.
Specifically it means that whoever is coercing voters can check who/what they voted for. The current system is designed not to allow this for a reason.
On the other hand if verification you suggest doesn't show what voter voted for, what assurances does voter actually have that his vote didn't get changed to whatever people who are falsifying the ballot want it to be?
That's why paper is such a great medium. It awards anonymity, and at the same time as long as you have poll stations monitored by poll workers you can be sure that votes that are counted and recounted if needed are indeed the same votes that voters cast.
"You will vote for candidate I like, or you're fired".
"... or you're going to be beaten up"
"... or my men will come and rape your wife while you watch it"
"... [insert method of coercion that you prefer here]"
Just out of interest, how do you vote without ID? Specifically what stops you from voting multiple times?
To be fair, this is mainly the problem of nvidia and ati/amd not doing a proper job with linux drivers, rather then linux.
Then again, that doesn't really matter for end-user. He's the one that SOL.
I don't think that's up to us, but to Ukraine's applicable court to judge evidence.
These kinds of exploits hit people who don't update their computers, don't use firewalls and generally have no clue about security. Most government and corporate networks have corporate IT section that is very well prepared to fight such basic threats.
Corporations and governments are hit by very different kinds of attacks (i.e. lulzsec, cyber war attacks, etc), which are specially tailored for each target.
You know what's really sad? When you talk about how much of government in USA and much of West functioned in 60s and 70s, you get called "young" by modern young adults like you with no grasp on history whatsoever.
Strongly opinionated, certain of one's own correctness and completely clueless. To quote Churchill, "the best argument against democracy is a 15-minute talk with an average voter".
"Got wind about the dust".
Good one. Hope dust didn't get scattered :).
How the heck did you pick up any of your drivel from my post? I merely talked about their extreme fire discipline when it came to not killing civilians of the other island in the country that actively supported their enemies in their civil war. Shooting kneecaps, or whatever it is was actively practiced by both parties to low key civil war in Northern Ireland. That's how low key civil wars are fought - through torture and violence.
I'm talking about the eastern side of Irish sea, where IRA specifically made a point in their doctrine to minimize civilian casualties at all costs while maximizing property damage. I'm not defending the atrocities of civil war, because it's pointless - there are no good guys in one. Just people who believe in their cause so much they're willing to torture wives and chidren of their enemy with power drills. I'm talking about discipline it takes not to let this kind of warfare to spill across the Irish sea, and just keep wiping out property en masse in attempt to convince GB government that funding their enemy in civil war is not a profitable idea.
Once again: there is NOTHING romantic about such wars. But there is something to admire about the fire discipline of people who are fighting a brutal fight for what they believe in with their families getting tortured and killed off, and who try to keep the civil war localized, and only firebomb property on the biggest benefactor of their enemies, instead of just setting a couple of Al-Qaeda style shrapnel-filled bombs in places with lots of people and no prior warning.
Pick up a history book about the conflict, preferably one that isn't written by one of the parties in the war and read it. You'll find a lot of interesting tidbits that get lost in the mainstream media screaming about 700 million damage and hundreds of wounded, like parts where IRA made a point to always inform authorities about their bombs to ensure that civilians would be evacuated before bomb went off, or how they specifically designed their bombs to cause fires, rather then fill them with shrapnel for maximum casualties.
We have a name for that political system, it starts with "f". Too much historical ballast for people to believe they're living in it though.
You do realize that after your emotional outburst, the numbers you quote actually support my case? Manchester bombing was a brilliant example, 700 GBP damage, ZERO fatalities. It was standard IRA modus operandi - incendiary bomb designed to do as much property damage as possible, warning call an hour in advance to allow for evacuation of civilians. If they actually wanted to "go Al-Qaeda", they could have killed hundreds that day by simply not warning about the bomb. They didn't because it was strictly against their doctrine - killing civilians on eastern side of Irish sea was simply against their interests and they knew it.
"Amount of people murdered" comes mainly from the western side of Irish sea - which you know just as well as I do, or you will if you pick up any book about the conflict and read it. Their strategy was simply completely different on the two sides of the sea, with civil war in Ireland, and most of the "civilian" fatalities being standard collateral that happens in civil wars - families of fighters of the other side. Ulster's militias were about as bad themselves, killing about as much or slightly more people then IRA. It was a nasty, dirty low key civil war.
On an interesting note, many of US schools are in fact private...
Which side of the Irish sea? On the Irish side, the conflict was essentially a low key civil war between protestants and catholics. There were no good guys there - just protestant militias with their torture squads, catholic militias with their torture squads, and british army stuck in between those two getting shot at. That's where most of human casualties of the conflict were - three fighting sides and families of militias who often got tortured. Protestant militias were especially famous for having torture squads that had a power drill fetish when torturing wives of catholic militants. And it's actually worse then it sounds...
On the British side, they always kept casualties to minimum. Their main goal has always been maximum damage with minimal loss of human lives on that side.
You're right that there's nothing romantic about them. But they were people with a goal, who didn't start indiscriminately killing people on English side en masse, in spite of these people financing and providing public support for militias that were torturing their families. It was a brutal and ghastly business, but they stuck to their guns and didn't go the way of Al-Qaeda, that is bombing people rather then property on the other side of the Irish sea. That's what I'm referring to as great fire discipline.
Funnily that was one strike that IRA always denied to have been theirs, and if you study the strikes that they did take credit for, this one was very clearly different. Instead of their classic "minimal casualties, maximum damage" doctrine, that one was exact opposite - material damage was fairly low, but casualties very high.
It was in fact often noted that the other side of the North Ireland conflict, Ulster's militias was far more likely to have been behind it to gain more support from Great Britain in its campaign against IRA. If that was the case, they succeeded in spectacular fashion.
Do note the side of the big watery mass that their strikes that caused deaths took place, and who were the victims in there.
Then note the vast discrepancy between those strikes and strikes that happened on English side.
I think most of their real political goal have been met actually. That is end of GB's support for unionist paramilitaries, and especially their power-drill fetishist torture squads.
Their modus operandi on England side was very clear: as much damage to corporate and government interests of GB as possible with minimal casualties. Hence, incendiary bombs that cause large scale fires, and warning well before they go off so that there is time to evacuate everyone. And in the end, when they managed to paralyze London City, the corps told their lobbyists that enough is enough, and IRA should be really talked with so that they could go on making profit without those kind of disruptions.
I'm not?
In fact it's a widely known issue in Germany that police are somewhat terrible (in comparison to Nordics). Not to even talk about Italy and other South-European countries where corruption is a significant problem. I'm not even sure how Spain is nowadays, since quite a few of their police have probably served under dictature where civil rights were significantly less then what is considered a norm today.
Must have been some interesting primary school to fully purge all ability of critical thinking.
How do you vote against corporations "with cash" if you don't mind me asking? Many if not most of them don't accept any cash from general populace - their business is with smaller corporations or governments, such as major oil companies, construction companies, chemical companies, energy companies, defense companies and so on.
Not nearly all corporation rely on general populace for funding. In fact, many rely on government itself, while remaining almost totally independent of it (i.e. military-industrial complex).
Can't comment on the rest, but "five finnish narcotics police to face misconduct charges" was a massively overblown case that went to full trial, received very broad coverage because police officers are expected to be as clean as possible, and in the end, they acquitted of all charges. There was even broad speculation that case was motivated by several new narcotics gangs infiltrating Finland and setting those five up to hamstring police's ability to act (they were in key positions of the investigative unit).
The fact that you only managed to collect this many news over many years from total of five countries reinforces my point: in general, police are trustworthy. Especially considering how much press likes to blow anything police-related out of proportion.
The part that you do not understand is that generally being a mammal that has soft, lubricated holes makes you a "valid target for being raped". The only thing you can do is reduce your chances of such.
Hell, I don't think I've been broad enough, I think I recall a case where someone raped a large fish and got caught.
The all-encompassing issue here is that you're trying to pull perpetrator into this. Police officer in question was talking about victim herself and crime prevention in general. Perpetrator's punishment is irrelevant to the issue - he will be punished no matter if she wore sluttiest outfit of all times or burkha. That said, victim would've had a much higher chance of not being singled out as a potential target is she chose to behave in a way that was less "slutty" as police officer put it. Just like a person crossing the street would've been at less of a risk of getting run over by a car is he chose to check both directions before crossing.
To sum the issue up: you always have a right not to be raped. You will sometimes get raped by someone who will ignore your right not to be raped anyway. You have a way of affecting the chance of this happening through your behavioral patterns, such as way you dress, places you visit and time you visit them at, and so on.
"Angry Irish" had one of the best fire discipline of all times. They succeeded in bombing stuff that inflicted massive financial pain on Great Britain with minimal cost of lives, which was their entire goal - make the small patch of Ireland cost so much that it isn't worth it at the costs of minimal amount of civilian lives not to actually piss people off to go to a full out war (I'm not talking about special forces torture squads with various power drill fetishes).
Blowing up a nuclear power plant isn't going to be as easy as a district in London, is likely to cost lives, and get a whole lot of negative attention to their cause.
This is in direct conflict with several key points of IRA terrorism modus operandi.