13th, Friday, full moon... it's started!

Heh, and you already know how to make a thread out of them, I think this will be sooo interesting to many people, but so far no one really makes spider threads, despite their seemingly super-strength, ultralight ...

The volume of raw materials should be what! How many spiders need to be unwound!

By the way, we have two local "nephilim" here-argyope lobata and karakurt.
Well, they have such strong webs!!! Very strong. Lobata generally looks like a nephila, and its net can be up to 70 cm in diameter, especially if it is stretched between two boodyaks! and if you hook the karakurt nest with your foot, you can feel the stopping action of the web. Its threads seem to be directly just in the form of a single thread used in optical products as orientation lines.
Still very strong threads at the crosspiece of cadratus. Argyope bruninchus has a weak web.

For those who are interested

Probably they should ask it (at what price they buy it).

Snake elastic skin, spider saliva stockings...

I read in a book that geological instruments use spider webs, because they can't be made any thinner or stronger. But the book was Soviet-era, since then, maybe something synthetic was invented.

Last summer we had Argiope bruennichi chains literally at every turn. When I was hunting with my father, it was there... along the road between the fields of the network are 1-2 meters apart!!! Not only that, they weave nets under the balconies on the first floor!
And I will milk them with a special "milking machine"

This post was edited by Entomon - 02/23/2012 09: 21

I read in a book that geological instruments use spider webs, because they can't be made any thinner or stronger. But the book was Soviet-era, since then, maybe something synthetic was invented.

And also in military optics - sights, sights, etc. In any case, during the Second World War, as now I do not know.

I read in a book that geological instruments use spider webs, because they can't be made any thinner or stronger. But the book was Soviet-era, since then, maybe something synthetic was invented.

Perhaps in the story of G. A. Fedoseyev "Pashka from the Bear's Lair"? Just not geological, but geodesic (specifically, we were talking about theodolite, and high-precision, in simple cases, it seems that you can just cut lines on the glass).

I didn't know where to post it (there is no humor topic here).
I think here after all
That's who you need to learn how to organize a camp.
Madame gives master classes (please note the name of the video).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h6qWs6Et674

it does the right thing.
it was written correctly in the chat in d.vastok to rustle brought.

it was written correctly in the chat in d.vastok to rustle brought.

First, yes, one, for survival, to find out what a wild forest is, and not a park where a Propiared defender walks with balls, damn it.

Well, promoted or not - it doesn't matter, what's the difference who protects?!
Under our windows, the forest in the swamp was cut down for parking, people called the police, wrote applications, collected signatures....the forest was cut down, but they did not have a construction permit and they were not given it because of the protests. The forest is growing back, in five years there are already trees of 4 meters each. And then it seemed in vain....

Well, promoted or not - it doesn't matter, what's the difference who protects?!
Under our windows, the forest in the swamp was cut down for parking, people called the police, wrote applications, collected signatures....the forest was cut down, but they did not have a construction permit and they were not given it because of the protests. The forest is growing back, in five years there are already trees of 4 meters each. And then it seemed in vain....

And actually why I posted it. We still have a grove now, too, defend (local residents rose up) in this way: http://www.vesti.ru/only_video.html?vid=408434 (you need to squander the ad).
It is located just on the border of Zheleznodorozhny and Balashikha district.
And this lady (and the activists of the Yabloko patiya with her) deigned to come when everything was more or less settled down.

This post was edited by vasiliy-feoktistov - 10.04.2012 21: 44

Stanislav, do you know when the next performance of Atalanta is planned? And then Ulf is silent about something.

Anatoly, it is better to publish new taxa in native publications in Russian! I think we should try to get our entomology out of deep trouble. By publishing new taxa in Russian in Russian journals, we thereby increase their international rating! And this, as is now very often interpreted, directly affects the prestige of Russian entomology.

Anatoly, it is better to publish new taxa in native publications in Russian! I think we should try to get our entomology out of deep trouble. By publishing new taxa in Russian in Russian journals, we thereby increase their international rating! And this, as is now very often interpreted, directly affects the prestige of Russian entomology.

By publishing new taxa in Russian, we will not drive our entomology even deeper... We've all been through this before under the Soviet regime, that's enough.

Anatoly, it is better to publish new taxa in native publications in Russian! I think we should try to get our entomology out of deep trouble. By publishing new taxa in Russian in Russian journals, we thereby increase their international rating! And this, as is now very often interpreted, directly affects the prestige of Russian entomology.

There is no Russian entomology, entomology is a science and as such it is global and speaks English for a given period of time.

This post was edited by kotbegemot - 02.05.2012 21: 24

Alternatively, you can publish in Russian publications, but duplicate them in English.

There is no Russian entomology, entomology is a science and as such it is global and speaks English for a given period of time.

judging by some remarks in the exchange and sale - Russian entomology does not want to accept English)

judging by some remarks in the exchange and sale - Russian entomology does not want to accept English )

don't give a shit about exchange, sale and russian entomology)

By publishing new taxa in Russian, we will not drive our entomology even deeper... We've all been through this before under the Soviet regime, that's enough.

No problem! If you make high-quality descriptions, then we won't catch up! And if you describe hundreds of subspecies of one species, then we will definitely catch up!!

There is no Russian entomology, entomology is a science and as such it is global and speaks English for a given period of time.

I don't agree at all! Science is global, but the language of description must be native! Because only in your native language will you be able to convey all the precise details of the new taxon. Believe me, I have described more than a hundred new taxa! Mostly in English. Does anyone from Russia know about my taxa? This is about the global nature of science!

Alternatively, you can publish in Russian publications, but duplicate them in English.

There are no problems with this! Now it is available to everyone! Even any Papuan can easily translate the description into bahaso-Indonesia from Russian on google!

I don't give a shit about trading, selling, and russian entomology )

This is someone like! Cats generally take shit wherever it's convenient!

This is someone like! Cats generally take shit wherever it's convenient!

I give you a standing ovation!
Vlad, I think, too

There is no Russian entomology, entomology is a science and as such it is global and speaks English for a given period of time.

By the way, you can tell the Germans and the French (Belgians) about" English " entomology! They will understand you very much!

Colleagues, Russian entomology has been and still is the world's leading field in many fields. And English and American entomology are just in deep f. even against the background of entomologies of many small countries (for example, Poland - by the way, a great entomological power, Belgium, Holland, etc.). Another thing is that English - LANGUAGE entomology really dominates in the world - but 50-70 years ago, along with it, German - and French-speaking ones were co-dominant. This simply reflects the dominance of individual powers in the world, in this case - in fact, deeply fascist ones. This is an abnormal situation that should be stopped. First of all, by publishing in their native languages, but duplicating important details (for example, diagnoses and even descriptions of taxa) in the most fashionable ones in this historical period.
There is also such a factor as a deliberate unwillingness to take into account Russian entomological works in the West. This is precisely because, as the late V. I. Kuznetsova said, they are all fascists by nature, despite all the rhetoric. Normal Western specialists (who, unfortunately, are a minority) also read works in pure Russian and quote them.
And our flaw - an excessive "worship" of any shit coming from the West - we do not know how to quickly distinguish normal science from profanity.

THE RUSSIAN LANGUAGE IS GREAT AND POWERFUL - SO IT WAS, IS AND WILL BE FOREVER AND EVER!!!

Pictures:

_______________.jpg — (28.11к)

Ouch! It seems that Prince Kurbsky's dialogue with Ivan the Terrible has begun again!

... oh, it seems again from the European window pulled...

... oh, it seems again from the European window pulled...

And we're like this in response :

Pictures:

1.jpeg — (77.28к)

So them, rootless cosmopolitans! (pronounce in a nasal voice).

YOU DON'T NEED A CHEERFUL SECURITY OFFICER TO KNOW...

Pictures:

________________________.jpg — (73.07 k)

This is an antinomy, a metaphysical separation of opposites that are in dialectical unity (in this case, in the unity of the whole and the part). Alas, I have also heard a lot of children's discoveries about the global nature of science in my field from very titled subjects. Of course, entomology as such is global, science as such is global. In fact, literature as such is global, art as such is global, sausage as such is global, automobile as such is global, etc. etc., etc. This is all first class. If you go to the second one, you will have to understand that everything that is global "as such" (in this case, it is more accurate to say – as a whole), in its historically specific components, can also be classified according to the country of origin. Science as such is global, but Russian science as such is Russian, Soviet science as such is Soviet, German science as such is German, etc., etc. If there are no parts, there is no whole. If there is no specific territorial creativity – then there is no global result. Those who have to write or read thematically cross-cutting works on the history of science know perfectly well that you can, for example, write a history of just philosophy or chemistry, or you can write a history of French philosophy or a history of Russian chemistry. There are far more French scientists in the world than global scientists. I haven't seen the latest qualification of personalities in scientific encyclopedias. Many consolidated works have been written on the history of Russian or, say, German literature, but there are much fewer works on the history of global literature, and this is natural, since it consists of national literatures. Languageas such, it is also global, but still specifically Russian, it is the Russian language. Globality does not imply the absence of the parts that make up this global whole (or the absence of concrete forms in which the universal manifests itself). Nor does it follow from the universality of the propositions formulated by a particular area of public consciousness. A lot of things are global "as such", including in their objective content, but this "as such" consists of such parts as Russian literature, Japanese fine arts, German philosophy and Uzbek cuisine. Therefore, T. kotbegemot vainly proposes to do with Russian entomology what T. Melittia did not propose to do with global entomology... Is it really difficult to understand what the beloved global entomology would smell like if we did the same for entomological science in each of the specific countries?..

This post was edited by A. J. Elez - 05/04/2012 01: 51

Err... Andrey Jovovich-try it, and I'll smell it. :Р

Vladislav Valeryevich, in my opinion, this is both too emotional and not at the right place. Here "you, Mozart, are not worthy of yourself". The defecation initiative for a geographically defined entomological workshop was yours, and I unequivocally opposed your proposal; I value not only the global whole, but, of course, those parts without which it does not exist.

In general, in my opinion, there is no need for excessive skewering between comrades, especially on a question that is clear to everyone (although from different sides); it is just that, as we have already said more than once, excessive rigor of wording, sometimes turning into a profanity, interferes with mutual understanding and, accordingly, provokes the interlocutors. Even the most rigid position can be expressed in correct terms, without testing someone else's sense of smell. Strong expressions are most often needed for those who have a hard time with arguments and information, but I can't understand why you need them.

So it's better to re-read your last post with a fresh head and appreciate it (as you know, it doesn't compromise me), and wish me a successful training camp (I'm leaving today for the holidays in the Voronezh Region).

This is an antinomy, a metaphysical separation of opposites that are in dialectical unity (in this case, in the unity of the whole and the part). Alas, I have also heard a lot of children's discoveries about the global nature of science in my field from very titled subjects. Of course, entomology as such is global, science as such is global. In fact, literature as such is global, art as such is global, sausage as such is global, automobile as such is global, etc. etc., etc. This is all first class. If you go to the second one, you will have to understand that everything that is global "as such" (in this case, it is more accurate to say – as a whole), in its historically specific components, can also be classified according to the country of origin. Science as such is global, but Russian science as such is Russian, Soviet science as such is Soviet, German science as such is German, etc., etc. If there are no parts, there is no whole. If there is no specific territorial creativity – then there is no global result. Those who have to write or read thematically cross-cutting works on the history of science know perfectly well that you can, for example, write a history of just philosophy or chemistry, or you can write a history of French philosophy or a history of Russian chemistry. There are far more French scientists in the world than global scientists. I haven't seen the latest qualification of personalities in scientific encyclopedias. Many consolidated works have been written on the history of Russian or, say, German literature, but there are much fewer works on the history of global literature, and this is natural, since it consists of national literatures. Languageas such, it is also global, but still specifically Russian, it is the Russian language. Globality does not imply the absence of the parts that make up this global whole (or the absence of concrete forms in which the universal manifests itself). Nor does it follow from the universality of the propositions formulated by a particular area of public consciousness. A lot of things are global "as such", including in their objective content, but this "as such" consists of such parts as Russian literature, Japanese fine arts, German philosophy and Uzbek cuisine. Therefore, T. kotbegemot vainly proposes to do with Russian entomology what T. Melittia did not propose to do with global entomology... Is it really difficult to understand what the beloved global entomology would smell like if we did the same for entomological science in each of the specific countries?..

Of course, I develop flood, but I don't agree with the analogies. By the way, what is particularly "Russian" in Russian entomology and should (can) science carry a national flavor? Let's, as they say, define the terms. To simplify things, here is a Russian (Russian) author publishing an article in English in a Russian journal; a joint publication of a Frenchman and a Vietnamese in English ... and so on - how to classify it? And if, for example, a Russian wanted to become a writer and began to write in Russian - he enriches Russian literature, began to write in Ukrainian-Ukrainian. Here I still understand the national aspect. And what is the criterion of" Russianness "or" Ukrainianness " of entomology? Citizenship, language of writing articles, ethnicity of authors - who else will suggest what? If I am a Ukrainian citizen, but ethnically Russian, I will write in Russian - will this be Russian entomology? If I leave for permanent residence in Rostov, will it already be Russian entomology? I apologize if I hurt someone's national or religious feelings.

There is only a Science that is based on the same principles (nothing on faith - everything must be proved, repeatability, etc.) in the whole modern world. Appearing adjectives (Russian, bourgeois, Orthodox, Michurinskaya, etc., etc.), as a litmus test, indicate that we are dealing with pseudoscience.

National security and defense can happen. Surnames like Shelyuzhko, Korb, or Alferaki might seem to suggest that when applied to the history of science, we are not talking about the national in the sense of the fifth column, but about the national in modern Western usage, about belonging to a certain country (even if with historically mobile borders and a state structure). Or was one of my comrades born yesterday and has never heard of the history of national science (I have already given examples)? Therefore, the one for whom "Russian" refers exclusively to the fifth column (although this was historically used much more widely), let him talk about Russian entomology. If he wants, he can even talk about"Russian"... Or even better, go to the library and look through the cards for what was published on the history of science, and the new gate will seem quite old and well-established.

The statement that the specification of the country of origin for a certain set of scientific works (as well as any "adjectives"!!!) it may indicate that we are dealing with pseudoscience, but it is not based on a good knowledge of the theory and methodology of science. On this issue, I could write you so much here that even a flood topic would burst at the seams, but here is a topic about new literature...

Of course, this topic needs to be moved somewhere where we can indulge in flame with all the comforts.

It seems to me that various aspects are mixed up: in the historical aspect, national/territorial approaches are quite appropriate (the history of studying the fire beetle at Ust-Uhryupinsky University is a normal topic for working on the history of science), in most others they are not (studying the fire beetle in the light of the Juche teachings is clearly pseudoscience).