Slashdot Mirror

The "civilized west" does this as well: this link (which I do not want you to click on, and I am only including it for reference) is from a copycat greek news site, with a 'catchy' domain name, where they inform you that if you 'like' their facebook profile you are "eligible to win the top Samsung smartphone priced at approximately [sic.] 670 euros". Their pages are full of sneakware/trackware as well.

The exact same thing happened in Greece 10 years ago. A prominent journalist hired a hacker to break into the account of the mother of the then Minister of Foreign Affairs G. Papandreou (now the Prime Minister of Greece). Naturally, a suit followed but the judge ruled the opposite; the judge ruled that since the emails proved that his mother was not only engaged in political life, but she was also instructing her son's decisions, there was a reasonable public interest for those emails and consequently the reporter did good to publish them, exercising her rights of informing the public.

An archived article is here (in Greek; couldn't find it in English): http://news.in.gr/greece/article/?aid=510755/

Oh take off your US-manufactured tinfoil hat. From TFA:

The authority has repeatedly ruled against Greece's conservative government and banned the use of street cameras for fighting crime. The cameras were set up as part of elaborate security preparations for the 2004 Olympics in Athens.

The DPA even resigned (link in greek) over the goverment's use, despite said ban, of those cameras during demonstrations back in 2007. General overview of privacy in Greece from 2006

And the government plans to ignore or bypass this slight inconvenience and "legally" re-enable the cameras, some of which are operational according to the confession of the deputy minister that he was watching in real time the visit of the head opposition's party to a protest in the port of Pireas. (sorry links only in Greek).

Actually our only hope out of this big-brotherisque joke is the notorious police incapacity to deal with anything slightly more advanced than issuing parking tickets.

Watch Reuters video. It is a Greek site, but the video is English.

Pick up a history book, take your own advice you modern day janissary.

"Food and drink
Impressed by the considerable differences between Mongol eating and drinking habits and those of contemporary Europeans, travellers from Europe wrote a great deal on the subject. The Mongols' nomadic existence necessitated a diet consisting mainly of meat, while milk was the chief drink. They ate the flesh of any animals they could catch during the hunt: dogs, wolves, fox, rats, mice, marmots and rabbits. For them them there were no religious inhibations to eating flesh. Only animals hit by lightning could not be used for food. Horse flesh was a favorite food of the Mongols, while cows and sheep usually provided meals for festive ocasions.

"Only in emergencies was flesh eaten raw, after it had been put under the sadle of a horse which was ridden until it became tender. This, however was exceptional treatment. Usually meat was boiled or roasted. At meals everybody ate from a common pot. Meat left-overs were kept in leather bags. No attention was paid to hygiene. Everything points to the conclusion that the Mongols had what we would regard as filthy eating habits, largely as a result of the law that water should not be fouled. It is known that the Mongols in dire need ate human flesh. Ancient Chinese texts confirm that there was some question of athropophagy among the Mongols.

"Although they drank fresh milk, qumys the fermented milk of mares, was the favorite drink of the Mongols." ...

page 9-10 "Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World by Leo de Hartog" 1999(Barnes and Nobles Books)

Now you may wonder why I pasted that in about the Mongols. First, it is in my personal library and second, the only real difference between the Mongols and the Turkic tribes of the time was that the Mongols had a different Khan than some Turkic tribes, also they spoke Mongolian not a Turkic language, but still of the Ural-Altaic family. That is, the Turkic tribes were very similar to the Mongols in identity except for tribal allegiance but the Mongols under Genghis Khan conquered many Turkic tribes changing this allegiance to a Mongol Khan, splitting them up from their former tribe to add them to the Mongolian tribal confederation(that is making them part of the larger Mongol nation).

"There is a well known story that the sheikh Salah al-Din one day hired some Turkish workmen to build the wall of his garden. "Effendi Salah al-Din, said the Master [Rumi], you must hire Greek workmen for this construction. It is for the work of demolition that Turkish workmen must be hired. For the construction of the world is special to the Greeks, and the demolition of this same is resererved to the Turks. When God created the universe, he first made the carefree infidels. He gave them a long life and considerable force in such a fashion... that in the manner of paid workmen they constructed the earthly world. They erected numerous cities and mountain fortresses... so that after centuries these constructions serve as models to the men of recent times. But divine pre-destination has disposed of affairs in such a way that little by little the constructions become ruins. He created the people of the Turks in order to demolish, without respect or pity, all the constructions which they see. They have done this and they are still doing it. They shall continue to do it day in and day out until the day of the Resurrection.""

Eflaki, II, 208-9

According to Speros Vryonis in "Studies on Byzantium, Seljuks, and Ottomans" the Seljuks Islamized Asia Minor by rendering it difficult for the Christianity under muslim rule to operate, Churches were Islamized by adding minarets, Church land became the property of the muslim ummah and the Islamic waqf(how little the Muslims world changes in modern Turkey the Orthodox Patriarch's property was recently added to the muslim waqf land and recently Arafat died

Apart from that, say they truelly made their decision freely in any sense even you could conceive of; then marriages between brothers, for instance, should be allowed. Staying within the reasoning, no other conclusion can be logically made. Agreed?

Yes, but the religious and social taboos against incest are so strong, that I expect that there would be a backlash that very strictly defined marriage -- based on religious dogma rather than logic. I fear that the same argument you have just provided would be used to try to force legislation against gay marriage (i.e., 'if we allow gay marriage, then, logically, we have to allow incestuous marriage, so therefore we *can't* allow gay marriage').

Frankly, I don't have any kind of big hang-up about any marriage of two consenting adults acting on their own free will. In general, I don't believe that it's the government's place to legislate against actions which have no victims. Now, if something is so revolting that the mere sight of it causes most people disgust, then it should be illegal in public places -- like this.

This.