In Greece, judges are required to suspend all non-felony sentences, unless the convicted has a criminal record. Even if you have a criminal record, the sentence can be still suspended, and even if it is not then, for non-felony sentences, you can buy the prison time for 10 euros per day.

If you get a suspended sentence it does not show on your public criminal record, only to the one available to judges.

So there is no chance that this guy will go to prison, and the conviction is very likely to be reversed when the appeal is heard.

If you have a company and some money to burn (for coding the bitcoin business logic which will net you no profit), hurry and declare that you will be accepting bitcoins... The publicity stunt will get you on every news website and this will raise your non-bitcoin business, the only one that matters that is.

This is nothing more than a publicity stunt. There's no non-cumbersome way to set prices in bitcoin, as its price flunctuates wildly.

I read the news on paper for the same reason I read books on paper: It's more convenient reading on paper than reading on the screen.

The Greek government passed a similarly broadly-worded law in 2002 , also in its attempt to ban the games of chance (slot machines) that had infested cafes, pool halls and internet cafes. The wording of the law banned all video games, whether of chance or of skill, and whether they were played at home or at a business.

The article I'm linking is exaggerating; nobody was arrested or charged for playing video games at home (although the law allowed the authorities to do so). What the law really did was to eradicate all arcades, even those that had no slot machines. Want to play Pac-Man, Metal Slug and/or Street Fighter? Sorry, no go. Arcades started re-appearing more than five years later, even though the law is still in effect as far as I know.

Technology + lawmakers = stupidity. And we're not talking about cutting edge technology here, we're talking arcade video games that have been around since the 70s.

So in order to opt out of this you'll have to sign a document that says "Hello, my name is John Jones and I would like to have my access to porn re-instated, please. Thanks." I can certainly see people having difficulty doing this and/or explaining it to their significant other.

Because attractiveness means a whole lot more to a woman than it does to a man. Women really can't stand other women being more attractive to them. Really.

Are you series? What exactly tube you mean?

PRISM?

Just use another Scrabble-like implementation. It's not exactly the most complex game in the world to implement. Yahoo has had Literati for about a decade, and it works fine.

So what do you think a researcher does after his model fails to perform in the testing set? He builds a new model. From that point on, it's just like using the same set for training and testing.

"there's an 80 percent chance that climate change was responsible"

What the hell does that even mean? It's just a way to get the attention of laymen, anyone who understands a shred of statistics will laugh at this meaningless suggestion.

Distributing wealth according to "merit", which you probably define as intelligence, talent, education, luck and hard-working-ness, is only marginally preferrable to distributing according to nepotism and personal connections; there's little someone can do to influence either set of criteria.

An equal distribution of wealth is far fairer; at the very least, no one should be abandoned in poverty while his fellow citizens spend extravagantly, even if this requires a state-defined limit to the wealth any one individual can amass.

Probably the worst slashdot article I've ever read.