ΓΙΑ ΝΑ ΜΗΝ ΨΑΧΝΕΤΕ ΠΟΙΟΙ ΕΙΝΑΙ ΠΙΣΩ ΑΠΟ ΤΗΝ MERCEDES BENZ.
ΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΟΣ ΟΥΡΑΝΟΞΥΣΤΗΣ..ΠΟΛΥ TRENDY
ΣΥΛΛΕΚΤΙΚΟ ΚΟΜΠΟΛΟΪ ΕΝΟΣ ΙΟΥΔΑΙΟΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΟΪΝΔΟΥΙΣΤΗ
ΑΞΩΝΙΚΗ ΤΟΜΟΓΡΑΦΙΑ ΒΟΥΔΙΣΤΗ
ΝΑ ΚΑΙ ΕΝΑ ΙΣΛΑΜΟΪΟΥΔΑΪΚΟΧΡΙΣΤΙΑΝΙΚΟ ΨΑΡΕΜΑ!
(ΜΠΑΣ ΚΑΙ ΠΙΑΣΟΥΜΕ ΚΑΝΑ ΨΑΡΙ)
Ο ΠΑΝΘΡΗΣΚΟΣ ΣΦΙΧΤΗΣ!!
ΕΑΝ ΟΙ ΕΒΡΑΙΟΙ ΣΚΛΑΒΟΙ ΕΙΧΑΝ ΧΤΙΣΕΙ ΤΙΣ ΠΥΡΑΜΙΔΕΣ!
ΜΙΑ ΛΑΜΠΟΡΓΚΙΝΙ ΣΤΟ ΦΛΥΤΖΑΝΙ ΣΑΣ
ΑΥΤΑ ΣΥΜΒΑΙΝΟΥΝ ΣΤΗΝ ΣΟΣΙΑΛΙΣΤΙΚΗ ΚΙΝΑ.
Freemasonry in Greece: Secret History Revealed
Από τις 12 έως 15 Oκτωβρίου θα πραγματοποιηθεί το 11ο Διεθνές Φεστιβάλ Κόμικς της Βαβέλ.
Προσγειώθηκε το Σογιούζ«Διακοπές» τέλος, για την Ιρανή τουρίστρια του Διαστήματος
Με ασφάλεια προσγειώθηκε στη στέπα του Καζακστάν η ρωσική διαστημική κάψουλα Σογιούζ, στην οποία επέβαινε η ιρανικής καταγωγής τουρίστρια του Διαστήματος, Ανουσέχ Ανσαρί.
«Η προσγείωση ολοκληρώθηκε» δήλωσε ο εκπρόσωπος του κέντρου ελέγχου, στη Μόσχα, αμέσως μόλις η μικρή κάψουλα Σογιούζ ΤΜΑ-8 προσγειώθηκε στο βόρειο Καζακστάν.
Εκτός από την ιρανικής καταγωγής επιχειρηματία, στο Σογιούζ επέβαιναν ο Ρώσος κοσμοναύτης Πάβελ Βινογκράντοφ και ο Αμερικανός αστροναύτης Τζεφ Γουίλιαμς -μέλη του Διεθνούς Διαστημικού Σταθμού.
Η προσγείωση του Σογιούζ έγινε σε μία στέπα περίπου 80 χιλιόμετρα βορείως της πόλης Αρκάλικ, στο βόρειο Καζακστάν. Αμέσως ομάδα Ρώσων ειδικών που έχουν την ευθύνη για το πρόγραμμα ανάρρωσης των μελών του διαστημικού σταθμού περικύκλωσε την κάψουλα και βοήθησε τα τρία άτομα να αποβιβαστούν και στη συνέχεια να μεταφερθούν για ιατρικές εξετάσεις.
Η Ανουσέχ Ανσαρί, 40 χρόνων, η οποία έφυγε από το Ιράν το 1984, είναι η πρώτη γυναίκα-τουρίστρια του Διαστήματος. Την υποδέχτηκαν με ένα μπουκέτο κόκκινα τριαντάφυλλα, τα οποία δέχτηκε με ένα χαμόγελο.
Πριν φύγει από τον Διεθνή Διαστημικό Σταθμό χαρακτήρισε «θαυμάσια» την εμπειρία που απεκόμισε και εξέφρασε την επιθυμία να μπορέσει να ξανακάνει τέτοιες... διακοπές.
news.in.gr, με πληροφορίες από ΑΠΕ/Reuters/Γαλλικό
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
Copyright © Demetrios the Traveler
(Brexians lair)
An international conference at King's College London looks into the Greek experience of nation-building in the 19th century
A visionary, Rigas Ferraios - aka Velestinlis - was behind the 1797 publication in Vienna of a constitution for a future 'Hellenic Republic'. He paid for his ideals with his life shortly afterwards
EVERY Greek and every friend of the country knows the magic date of 1821, when the banner of revolution was raised against the empire of the Ottoman Turks, and the story of 'Modern Greece' is usually said to begin. What is less well known, but almost more important, is that just eleven years later, in 1832, the newly independent state of Hellas was recognised by international treaty, with the full rights of a sovereign nation. Greece was only the second of the new nation-states of modern Europe to be recognised in this way (pipped by just two years by... Belgium).
Historians of Modern Greece have not always paid sufficient attention to this fact, which places the Greek achievement of an independent nation-state, so early in the nineteenth century, in the forefront of the emergence of the modern political and intellectual movement known today as nationalism. Historians of the movement, whose origins are generally supposed to lie in the ferment of ideas that reached its peak before and after the French Revolution of 1789, may learn much from studying the Greek experience during those years. Nationalism is still a very potent force in world politics today - just think of the breakup of the former Yugoslavia, only a few years ago, or the present conflict in the Middle East. Those who try to understand the powerful appeal that the idea of the nation can have over the intellects and emotions of its members ought to interest themselves in charting, much more rigorously than has yet been done, the ferment of ideas that accompanied the birth and early years of the modern Greek state.
The year 1797 saw the publication, in Vienna, of a constitution for a future 'Hellenic Republic' by Rigas of Velestino (sometimes also known as Ferraios). No such state existed at the time, of course, and Rigas paid for his visionary ideals with his life shortly afterwards. But a century later, in 1896, the capital of independent Greece, Athens, was chosen by an international committee as the first venue of the newly revived Olympic Games, an event that established the greatest international sporting fixture of modern times. The achievement of nationhood had not only transformed Greece; it had also very radically changed ways of thinking, both among Greeks themselves and those who interacted with them.
How did this come about? How were the new ideas expressed and disseminated? What were the roles of philhellenes, critics and other observers outside the country? The answers to these and other related questions were sought at an international conference held on September 7-9, at King's College London, under the auspices of the college's Centre for Hellenic Studies, in collaboration with the Institute for Neohellenic Research, part of the National Hellenic Research Foundation in Athens.
Print of Rigas' so-called Charta (map)
The theme of the conference was "The Making of Modern Greece: Nationalism, Romanticism, and the Uses of the Past (1797-1896)". It attracted over 30 speakers, from institutions in Austria, France, Italy, and Russia, as well as from Greece, the UK and the US. The focus throughout was not so much on the well-known milestones on the way to the creation of the Greek nation-state, but rather on the thought-processes that underpinned nationalism and made that achievement possible. Speakers were encouraged whenever possible to bring a comparative dimension to their work so that Greek ideas, attitudes and achievements would be considered not in isolation but in relation to comparable trends elsewhere in Europe and the region.
Under the title "Comparative Nationalism", the concluding panel included Suzanne Marchand (Louisiana State University), a specialist on romanticism and philhellenism in 19th-century Germany, and Samim Akgonul, who researches in social history at the University of Strasbourg in France, and has written on the vexed issue of relations between Greece and his native Turkey during the 20th century. Also speaking in this session was Robert Holland, of the Institute of Commonwealth Studies, London, who has just published (with Diana Markides) ground-breaking work on successive British 'colonial' confrontations with Hellenism: in the Ionian Islands, in Crete and in Cyprus. Then, from the point of view of a classicist with a strong comparative interest in the way history has been written in modern and ancient times, Henrik Mouritsen, of the Department of Classics at King's, rounded off this session by suggesting that modern Greece has been much more successful than modern Italy in mobilising a vision of the country's classical past so as to capture the imagination and the loyalty of its citizens.
Other panels tackled such subjects as 'Religion and Nationalism', the juxtaposition of western European perspectives on emerging Greece with emergent Greek perspectives on their neighbours in the Balkans and Europe, and the nature and wider impact of the perennially controversial 'Language Question' in Greece. Archaeology, and attitudes to the progressive uncovering of a sometimes unfamiliar past, formed the backbone of two sessions. In others, speakers addressed questions of political and social developments (with particular reference to the Ionian Islands under British rule from 1815 to 1864), the role of literature in shaping the national imagination, and parallel developments in the daily press, in opera and music, in visual arts and in public architecture.
The first of two 'keynote' speeches was given by Paschalis Kitromilides, director of the Institute for Neohellenic Research and professor of Political Science at the University of Athens, who called for the study of Greek intellectual history to be 'canonised', through wider recognition by scholars in other countries dealing with comparative and theoretical issues. The second, by Anthony D Smith, applied the insights of the one of the most influential and original political scientists of the day to the specific case of Greece. A notable aspect of the conference was the interaction between distinguished experts in their respective fields (including, among others, Mark Mazower, Charles Stewart, Michael Llewellyn Smith, who was recently British ambassador to Greece, Peter Mackridge, Alexis Politis and Dimitris Tziovas) and younger scholars, now completing their doctorates or in junior academic positions, who will take the subject forward into the next generation.
So, what does the Greek experience of nation-building in the 19th century have to teach academics and policymakers in the globalised world of the 21st century? I cannot claim that our discussions in London produced any short, sharp, 'sound-bite' answers to the questions raised by the conference. But I do believe that, thanks to the many scholars who took part and to an excellent organising team on the ground, something worthwhile was achieved in defining the questions that future research will have to answer. In these fields of enquiry, just as in the 'hard' sciences, working out how to formulate your question properly can already take you a long way towards finding the answer.
* The writer is Koraes Professor of Modern Greek and Byzantine History, Language and Literature at King's College London. He contributed this review to the Athens News
ATHENS NEWS , 22/09/2006, page: A40 Article code: C13201A401
This would not be a good time for another Ford failure; it can't bury much more bad news. Last week the blue oval's share value fell 15 per cent in one day when news leaked that 14,000 of its white-collar staff would be joining 30,000 of its blue-collar workers on the dole queue.
Solid: Ford's new Focus CC
Bill Ford no longer runs the firm, having been replaced by axe men from Boeing and Goldman Sachs. Aston is for sale, Jaguar might be and so might Land Rover. Ford's projected losses this year will be nearly £4.8 billion, yet it has been forced to buy the Rover name from BMW to protect itself from cheap, Chinese-made Rovers. While rival General Motors is almost too big to go bankrupt, Ford isn't. The House of Henry is up a creek without a paddle.
And so to the parched, poplar-studded hills around Siena, where this week Ford launched the Focus CC, the retractable hardtop version of the ever-popular family hatchback. Siena is a fitting place to launch a competitor into the ferociously competitive coupé-cabriolet market. The inhabitants of the city's contrade, its wards, know all about stiff competition: each year, 10 horses race round the Piazza del Campo in the famous Palio. The loser is not the contrada to finish last, but the one that comes second. Being number one is all that counts.
Fortunately for Ford, it seems to have backed a winner here.
As chief programme engineer, Steve Thomas pointed out, the company had the best foundation in the market from which to develop the CC - "the greatest family hatchback there has ever been," as Andrew English described the Focus . The Astra and VW Golf, which have both gone topless this year, simply don't match its driving dynamics. But therein lay a conundrum for Ford: how to take the lid off its magic box without the sides wobbling and the ride and handling falling apart.
Ford found the answer in the affable Mr Thomas, a Cambridge-educated engineer who, thank goodness, talks in plain English. Working five days a week in Turin, where Pininfarina assembles the bodyshells, Thomas cracked the problem. The CC loses a staggering 90 per cent of its torsional rigidity with the roof down, and yet there is only the merest hint of wobble as it's driven. How? Steel, largely. There's an extra cross-member across the bulkhead, super-strength steel reinforcements in the A-pillars, across the top of the windscreen, in the doors and in a torsion box behind the rear seats (which houses the roll-over hoops). Yet it doesn't feel like a heavy beast.
Storage space required: the Focus has a large rump, due to the need for a large area to store its roof
The springs have been stiffened substantially and the rear dampers, taken from the high-performance Focus ST, have been tuned to compensate. As a result, the car responds cleanly and crisply to steering inputs. At the same time, the ride is comfortable yet firm, relaying bumps and ridges in the road through the steering wheel and seats, but protecting you from the full impact of potholes.
Weight distribution is another major handling factor, and the Focus CC has a near-perfect 53:47 balance, with no hint of a heavy nose dragging the car straight on in turns. Lift the throttle and squeeze the brakes in mid-corner and the rear tyres start to slip sideways, but that's a dangerous thing to do anyway and traction control steps in almost imperceptibly to calm things down.
The car's balance is, in part, due to the two-piece folding roof, which, 66lb lighter than a three-piece design, only increases the weight over the rear axles by 37lb, so the suspension set-up works equally well with the roof up or down. Also, with only two working parts, there are fewer hydraulic cylinders and motors to go wrong.
But, oh, the aesthetic nightmare of the vast boot that is required to house a two-piece roof. The Focus CC's rump is reminiscent of the flight deck of HMS Invincible; stand on the roof with two illuminated ping-pong bats and you might get Harriers coming in to land. It does mean that bulky luggage is easily swallowed with the roof raised, and even roof-down there is a respectable 248 litres (a class first) but it's ugly. Combined with a reduced rear view due to the raised boot line and thick C-pillars, the car should have rear parking sensors as standard, not an option. A new Focus-embossed chrome strip across the boot is smart but scratches easily, while the new tail-light clusters, if not beautiful, at least confer a new identity.
Try one on for size: the car handles smoothly but interior space is limited
Moving through the inside, the limited space in front of the rear seats really makes this a two-plus-two, although shoulder-width space is class-leading. The facia is the same as that in a normal Focus; matt black plastic with plastic brushed-alumium-effect splashes and the same switchgear. There's a button for the roof - press when stationary - which lowers or raises in 29 seconds while a digital display by the speedo counts down the process. There are three trim levels - CC-1 to CC-3 - and a startling orange-tan leather option, which is meant to evoke smart Italian businessmen's shoes, but just makes you feel queasy.
Outside, at the front, the car looks more like a Focus ST, with a large, secondary grille under the number plate and aggressively protruding fog lamps. Ford wants you to think of this and the ST as the flagship cars of the range. And what of an ST version of the CC?
Ford says a biofuel model is more likely first. Meanwhile there is the choice of a 1.6 or 2.0-litre petrol or 2.0-litre turbodiesel engines, the first two mated to five-speed manual boxes and the last to a six-speed manual (automatics will be here before Christmas). The predicted bestseller out of a projected 5,500 UK sales is the 2.0 petrol unit, although Roelant de Waard, chairman of Ford of Britain, said on the flight home that after hearing us all raving about the diesel unit, he would reconsider the production figures. It's certainly the pick of the bunch - smooth, relaxed with lots of punchy torque at low revs, which suits the relaxed nature of this type of car, while the 2.0 petrol unit could do with a sixth gear to stop it thrashing about at 75mph, and it feels a little underpowered (so you can probably discount the 1.6, although it was not available to try).
The Focus CC conforms to the Erin Baker Shoe Theory, tried and tested on boyfriends past, and as the CC market is dominated by female buyers, it seems an apposite test: you have the stiletto - sexy, enticing and exciting, but ultimately expensive and disappointing; the trainer - still good-looking, but built really for sport, practicality and comfort; and the slipper - designed solely for comfort and very boring. The Focus CC is without doubt a trainer, which is no bad thing.
99bhp at 5,500rpm, 111lb ft of torque at 4,000rpm. 1,999cc petrol with DOHC and four valves per cyl;
143bhp at 6,000rpm, 136lb ft at 4,500rpm. 1,997cc diesel with DOHC and four valves per cyl;
134bhp at 4,000rpm, 236lb ft at 2,000rpm.
Performance: 1.6-litre: top speed 113mph, 0-62mph in 13.6sec, EU Urban fuel consumption 30.1mpg, CO2 emissions 169g/km.
2.0-litre petrol: 129mph/10.3sec/26.7mpg/179g/km. 2.0-litre diesel: 127mph/10.3sec/36.7mpg/156g/km.
We like: Handling, ride, sense of value for money.
We don't like: Dull interior and exterior styling, lacklustre petrol engines.
Alternatives:
MAY THE FORCE BE WITH YOU
Copyright © Demetrios the Traveler
(Brexians lair)
