Last roman

пак извъртаме темата към политика, м?

аз пак да попитам - тези преводачески спекулации, дето ги развивате тук за кой език се отнасят?

хората просто с умиление си спомнят за младостта. А младостта винаги е хубава. Отделен момент е, че с времето човек забравя лошите преживявания и помни само хубавите моменти. Оттам и тъгата по 'доброто старо време'.

преместиха малко локацията - най-добрите приятели на човека /според анализите/ са били опитомени в Югоизточна Азия: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151217-dogs-domestication-asia-china-genetics-animals-science/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20151217news-dogs&utm_campaign=Content&sf17311700=1

браво, никец, надушил си го. Ти си на ход.

да извадим темата от нафталина с Io Saturnalia!

mnooogo по-велики сме;)))

не

що е то:

като й познавам нрава - едва ли

айде по-полека. Ако имате да си изяснявате нещо - давайте смело на лични съобщения.

шикалка може да се развие и на лист. Ето Ви една сладка осичка шикалкотворка:

причините са комплексни, но явно външните фактори са най-вероятните причинители за нарсатването на това заболяване в западния свят.

Армията на Башар Асад и сирийските опълченци преминаха в настъпление към последния укрепен район на терористите от ИДИЛ в провинция Латакия. В момента се водят ожесточени боеве в предградието на град Салма, съобщава Звезда. Ислямистите губят своите позиции, а сирийските бойци, подкрепени от руската бойна авиацияуспяха да завземат стратегически важна височина. Успехът на операцията бе предопределен и от точните удари на руските военно-космически сили по складовете на терористите с оръжие и боеприпаси.Ако преди началото на масираната атака в тази местност имаше над 10 000 радикални ислямисти, то сега по последни данни са останали неколкостотин. Бягайки от обстрела, джихадистите се изтеглят към Турция, до границата с която са 12 км. На армията на Асад й остава да завземе още три височини в региона. Така ще успее да затвори в обръч терористите, барикадирали се в Салма.

на този етап - за красота, поради нулевата активност на въпросния раздел.

ако си фен на използване на средновековни материали и техники при строежа - сбъркал си адреса. В Плиска нищо подобно не се прави. Най-вероятно завършеният й вид и 'функционалното й предназначение' няма да е много по-различно от т. нар. Патриаршия на Царевец. Едното е грозен комунистически кич, другото ще е грозен посткомунистически кич. Виж, за адекватен градеж по средновековни технологии мога да ти препоръчам този проект, където всичко това е застъпено /но той се строи от десетилетия, защото качествените неща стават бавно/: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gu%C3%A9delon_Castle

така и така сме в ЕС и универсалния език е инглиш, Така че нека се упражнява народът.

нов орнитопод с 'платно' на гърба, открит в Испания: Новият динозавър - Morelladon beltrani, живял на Иберийския полуостров преди 125 млн. г., е бил висок около 2.5 метра и дълъг около 6 метра. Характерна негова черта били изпъкналите прешлени на гръбначния стълб, покрити с кожа, като вероятно този израстък е служел за регулиране на телесната температура. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0144167

в Китай откриха рядък вид гигантски саламандър /дълж. 1,4 м., тегло 53 кг/: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151216-chinese-giant-salamanders-animals-science-china/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20151216news-salamander&utm_campaign=Content&sf17120063=1

щом за теб бутафорните надграждания са положителни, не виждам смисъл да продължаваме дискусията.

може да разкаже произхода и взаимоотношенията между човешките популации: What the mites on your face say about where you came from Right now, deep in your hair follicles and sweat glands, tiny mites are feeding on dead skin cells, mating, and laying eggs. The microscopic arthropods, known as Demodex folliculorum, live on virtually all mammals—especially their faces—and cause no harm under most circumstances. Now, a new study shows that people of different ancestry carry different subgroups of the bugs, and that the mites’ distribution throughout the global population may even reflect how our species has migrated and evolved over the course of history. “When you think of all the parasites that humans play host to, and that each has something to say about our history, you realize that there is so much more to learn about who we are and where we came from,” says University of Florida in Gainesville evolutionary biologist David Reed, who was not involved in the study. In order to get a handle on the diversity within the mite population, scientists collected samples from 70 human hosts. The participants were from diverse backgrounds, with European, Asian, African, and Latin American ancestries, and the team analyzed DNA from the mites’ mitochondria (the energy-generating parts of cells) and looked for differences in the sequence. Overall they found four distinct groups, or “clades,” of mite mitochondrial DNA. The results suggest that your ancestry seems to determine which mite clades live on your body, the team reports online today in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. People of African descent, for example, had a mixture of all the different types, whereas people of European descent tended only to have mites from one group. Palopoli et al., PNAS (2015) A breakdown of how the four mite clades (A, B, C, D) were distributed around the world. The researchers estimate that the last common ancestor of the four mite clades lived more than 3 million years ago, meaning all four groups predate modern humans and our two species have evolved in tandem. A wealth of fossil and human genetic evidence suggests that modern humans first evolved in Africa and the distribution of mite species supports that hypothesis. Though it was the least sampled geographic area, people of African descent had the most diverse mites, possessing all four clades. From there, the authors theorize that people (carrying their mites) spread out to the other geographic regions and that, along the way, certain groups of the mites didn’t make it. “As they diverged into Asia and Europe, some individual lineages were lost,” explains the study’s first author Michael Palopoli, an evolutionary biologist at Bowdoin College in Brunswick, Maine. Thus, all European mites are mitochondrial type D. Human genes show a pattern similar, in some respects, to Africans possessing the most diverse genomes. Exactly when these die-offs occurred is impossible to know from the experiment, but he suggests that future studies could give us a clearer idea of the timeline. The researchers also found that each individual’s mite population was stable over time periods as long as 3 years—even in people who had moved to new regions of the world with different dominant clades. Furthermore, the mite profiles appear to be passed across generations—a second generation person of African descent living in Europe will most likely retain the mites of her ancestors, rather than acquire a European profile. The stability of the mite populations, especially between generations, suggests to the authors that differences between the hosts’ skin may explain why people from different regions have different subsets of the bugs. Human populations differ in skin hydration, hair follicle density, and lipid production. These differences have likely arisen over evolutionary time, and the authors theorize that the changes may have given certain mite clades a competitive advantage in certain skin types. Ancient Europeans, for example, may have acquired mutations in their skin that heavily favored the D clade over A, B, or C. The team suggests that the D. folliculorum mites offer a new way to study the history and relationships of human populations. Other research—especially on lice—has attempted to glean similar insights about human history, but the mites appear to have greater genetic diversity: Even people with the same ancestry had subtle differences in their mite profiles, and the most similar profiles came from individuals within the same family. These traits could provide researchers with a map of human history that is both more precise and more consistent than lice or other species. This is the first experiment using the mites to study human history and behaviors. Some of the sample sizes are small and more work remains, but the results are promising so far, Reed says. “The authors have found a very promising new way to investigate human evolution.” http://news.sciencemag.org/evolution/2015/12/what-mites-your-face-say-about-where-you-came

затова трябва да се заделят пари основно за консервация на археологическите обекти, но мафията е предпочела да 'усвоява' пари от ЕС вдигайки дисниленди, докато за редица значими за световното наследство руини биват разграбвани от иманяри. Така е по-лесно.

При положение, че не се знае как е изглеждал въпросния храм, всяка негова 'реконструкция' си е чиста проба фантасмагория. Прочети по-горното мнение.

ей ви примерно още една партенка: http://www.topactualno.com/15123/yunesko-prizna-balgarina-bogdan-za-jivo-sakroviste-video/

Помнят ли растенията? Засега това е установено със сигурност за мимозата: Can a Plant Remember? This One Seems to—Here’s the Evidence There’s this plant I’ve heard about that had a really bad afternoon a few years ago. It was in its pot bothering nobody and then, suddenly, it fell. Not once, but 56 times. (I’ll explain in a minute.) But it’s a plant. Things happen to plants, and as far as I know, they go on as before. They don’t have brains. They have no way to “remember” anything. They’re not animals. So I figure even 56 consecutive falls left no lasting impression. I figured wrong. I just read an eye-popping paper by Monica Gagliano, associate professor of biology at the University of Western Australia. She’s got a plant that not only “remembered” what happened to it but stored that memory for almost a month. She saw this happen! Here’s the plant: Shameplant, Touch me not, or Sensitive Plant. PHOTOGRAPH BY DEAGOSTINI, GETTY Gardeners call Mimosa pudica “the sensitive plant,” because if you touch it even lightly or drop it or disturb it, within seconds it folds its teeny leaves into what looks like a frightened or defensive curl. It’s fun to watch it get all shy (two and a half million people have seen this pokey, pokey video. You don’t have to watch it all, but it’ll get you in the mood.) OK, so it’s highly sensitive. Knowing this, here’s what Gagliano did: She got a bunch of Mimosa pudicas, put them in pots, then loaded each one onto a special plant-dropping device using a sliding steel rail that worked like this: Drawing by Robert Krulwich Each potted plant was dropped roughly six inches, not once, but 60 times in a row at five-second intervals. The plants would glide into a soft, cushiony foam that prevented bouncing. The drop was sufficiently speedy to alarm the plant and cause its teeny leaves to fold into a defensive curl. To “Eeek!” or Not to “Eeek!” Six inches, however, is too short a distance to do harm, so what Gagliano wondered was: If she dropped 56 plants 60 times each, would these plants eventually realize nothing terrible was going to happen? Would any of them stop curling? Or, to put it another way: Could a plant use memory to change its behavior? To find out, she kept going with her experiment. And, as she writes in her paper, fairly quickly “observed that some individuals did not close their leaves fully when dropped.” In other words, plants seemed to figure out that falling this way wasn’t going to hurt, so more and more of them stopped protecting themselves—until, as she later told a room full of scientists, “By the end, they were completely open … They couldn’t care less anymore.” Drawing by Robert Krulwich Is this evidence of remembering, or is it something else? Maybe, skeptics suggested, all we’re seeing is a bunch of exhausted plants. Curling is work. It takes energy. After 60 drops, these plants may simply be pooped out—that’s why they don’t trigger their defenses. But Gagliano, anticipating this question, took some of those “tired” plants, put them in a shaker, shook them, and instantly they curled up again. “Oh, this is something new,” she imagined them saying, something that hasn’t happened before. That sense of a “before,” she said, is the best explanation for the plants’ change in behavior. They didn’t curl up again because “before” they’d learned there was no need. And they remembered. A week later—after the shakings—she resumed her drops, and still the plants failed to get alarmed. Their leaves stayed open. She did it again, week after week, and after 28 days, these plants still “remembered” what they’d learned. That’s a long time to store a memory. Bees, she noted, forget what they’ve discovered in a couple of days. But Without a Brain, How Do They Do It? “Plants may lack brains,” Gagliano says in her paper, “but they do possess a sophisticated … signaling network.” Could there be some chemical or hormonal “unifying mechanism” that supports memory in plants? It wouldn’t be like an animal brain. It would be radically different, a distributed intelligence, organized in some way we don’t yet understand. But Gagliano thinks Mimosa pudica is challenging us to find out. Michael Pollan, writing in the New Yorker, hung out with Gagliano last year, went with her to a science meeting, and vividly describes how she was roundly dismissed by many biologists, who bridle at the idea that any plant could be “intelligent.” Plants, they insist, are mainly genetic robots—they can’t learn from experience or change behavior. To say they can “generates strong feelings,” Pollan writes, “perhaps because it smudges the sharp line separating the animal kingdom from the plant kingdom.” Drawing by Robert Krulwich Plants have always been the bronze medalists, one step down from the animals, two steps down from us, the golden ones. By giving plants animal-like talents, Gagliano is mucking up the hierarchies, challenging the order of things. We like to think because we have such big brains, we’re exceptional. Our trillions of neurons are keys to memory, feelings, consciousness. Brainless creatures by definition can’t do what we do—so of course, plants can’t “remember.” But Gagliano says maybe they can. “What we have shown here,” she says at the end of her paper “leads to one clear, albeit quite different, conclusion: the process of remembering may not require the conventional neural networks and pathways of animals; brains and neurons are just one possible, undeniably sophisticated, solution, but they may not be a necessary requirement for learning.” And who knows? Maybe she just found the plant that will one day prove her right. http://phenomena.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/15/can-a-plant-remember-this-one-seems-to-heres-the-evidence/?utm_source=Facebook&utm_medium=Social&utm_content=link_fb20151216ph-krulwichplant&utm_campaign=Content&sf17059908=1