Test systemu

[vama_veche]

Test systemu portalu.

[owca_czarna]

vama_veche napisała:

> Test systemu portalu.

czy to test systemu nerwowego portalu, czy innego systemu?

czarna_owca

S.Y.S.7.3.M.7.3.S.7

[drf]

www.optics2001.com/
What is a rainbow?
Author Donald Ahrens in his text Meteorology Today describes a rainbow as "one
of the most spectacular light shows observed on earth". Indeed the traditional
rainbow is sunlight spread out into its spectrum of colors and diverted to the
eye of the observer by water droplets. The "bow" part of the word describes the
fact that the rainbow is a group of nearly circular arcs of color all having a
common center.
Where is the sun when you see a rainbow?
This is a good question to start thinking about the physical process that gives
rise to a rainbow. Most people have never noticed that the sun is always behind
you when you face a rainbow, and that the center of the circular arc of the
rainbow is in the direction opposite to that of the sun. The rain, of course, is
in the direction of the rainbow.
What makes the bow?
A question like this calls for a proper physical answer. We will discuss the
formation of a rainbow by raindrops. It is a problem in optics that was first
clearly discussed by Rene Descartes in 1637. An interesting historical account
of this is to be found in Carl Boyer's book, The Rainbow From Myth to
Mathematics. Descartes simplified the study of the rainbow by reducing it to a
study of one water droplet and how it interacts with light falling upon it.

He writes:"Considering that this bow appears not only in the sky, but also in
the air near us, whenever there are drops of water illuminated by the sun, as we
can see in certain fountains, I readily decided that it arose only from the way
in which the rays of light act on these drops and pass from them to our eyes.
Further, knowing that the drops are round, as has been formerly proved, and
seeing that whether they are larger or smaller, the appearance of the bow is not
changed in any way, I had the idea of making a very large one, so that I could
examine it better.

Descarte describes how he held up a large sphere in the sunlight and looked at
the sunlight reflected in it. He wrote "I found that if the sunlight came, for
example, from the part of the sky which is marked AFZ

and my eye was at the point E, when I put the globe in position BCD, its part D
appeared all red, and much more brilliant than the rest of it; and that whether
I approached it or receded from it, or put it on my right or my left, or even
turned it round about my head, provided that the line DE always made an angle of
about forty-two degrees with the line EM, which we are to think of as drawn from
the center of the sun to the eye, the part D appeared always similarly red; but
that as soon as I made this angle DEM even a little larger, the red color
disappeared; and if I made the angle a little smaller, the color did not
disappear all at once, but divided itself first as if into two parts, less
brilliant, and in which I could see yellow, blue, and other colors ... When I
examined more particularly, in the globe BCD, what it was which made the part D
appear red, I found that it was the rays of the sun which, coming from A to B,
bend on entering the water at the point B, and to pass to C, where they are
reflected to D, and bending there again as they pass out of the water, proceed
to the point ".

This quotation illustrates how the shape of the rainbow is explained. To
simplify the analysis, consider the path of a ray of monochromatic light through
a single spherical raindrop. Imagine how light is refracted as it enters the
raindrop, then how it is reflected by the internal, curved, mirror-like surface
of the raindrop, and finally how it is refracted as it emerges from the drop. If
we then apply the results for a single raindrop to a whole collection of
raindrops in the sky, we can visualize the shape of the bow.

The traditional diagram to illustrate this is shown here as adapted from
Humphreys, Physics of the Air. It represents the path of one light ray incident
on a water droplet from the direction SA. As the light beam enters the surface
of the drop at A, it is bent (refracted) a little and strikes the inside wall of
the drop at B, where it is reflected back to C. As it emerges from the drop it
is refracted (bent) again into the direction CE. The angle D represents a
measure of the deviation of the emergent ray from its original direction.
Descartes calculated this deviation for a ray of red light to be about 180 - 42
or 138 degrees.

The ray drawn here is significant because it represents the ray that has the
smallest angle of deviation of all the rays incident upon the raindrop. It is
called the Descarte or rainbow ray and much of the sunlight as it is refracted
and reflected through the raindrop is focused along this ray. Thus the reflected
light is diffuse and weaker except near the direction of this rainbow ray. It is
this concentration of rays near the minimum deviation that gives rise to the arc
of rainbow.

The sun is so far away that we can, to a good approximation, assume that
sunlight can be represented by a set of parallel rays all falling on the water
globule and being refracted, reflected internally, and refracted again on
emergence from the droplet in a manner like the figure. Descartes writes

I took my pen and made an accurate calculation of the paths of the rays which
fall on the different points of a globe of water to determine at which angles,
after two refractions and one or two reflections they will come to the eye, and
I then found that after one reflection and two refractions there are many more
rays which can be seen at an angle of from forty-one to forty-two degrees than
at any smaller angle; and that there are none which can be seen at a larger
angle" (the angle he is referring to is 180 - D).

A typical raindrop is spherical and therefore its effect on sunlight is
symmetrical about an axis through the center of the drop and the source of light
(in this case the sun). Because of this symmetry, the two-dimensional
illustration of the figure serves us well and the complete picture can be
visualized by rotating the two dimensional illustration about the axis of
symmetry. The symmetry of the focusing effect of each drop is such that whenever
we view a raindrop along the line of sight defined by the rainbow ray, we will
see a bright spot of reflected/refracted sunlight. Referring to the figure, we
see that the rainbow ray for red light makes an angle of 42 degrees between the
direction of the incident sunlight and the line of sight. Therefore, as long as
the raindrop is viewed along a line of sight that makes this angle with the
direction of incident light, we will see a brightening. The rainbow is thus a
circle of angular radius 42 degrees, centered on the antisolar point, as shown
schematically here.

We don't see a full circle because the earth gets in the way. The lower the sun
is to the horizon, the more of the circle we see -right at sunset, we would see
a full semicircle of the rainbow with the top of the arch 42 degrees above the
horizon. The higher the sun is in the sky, the smaller is the arch of the
rainbow above the horizon.

my.unidata.ucar.edu/content/staff/blynds/rnbw.html

[d.nutka1]

vama_veche napisała:

> Test systemu portalu.

i co?
jak wypadł?
czyżby luka uzupełnil luki?

[patience]

TEST SYSTEMOWY
Nikogo nie trzeba przekonywać, że wola znalezienia porozumienia z partnerem jest
u brydżystów wielka.
Dlaczego w takim razie tak trudno to porozumienie osiągnąć? Pomijając wszelkie
inne czynniki oczywistym
jest brak pewnej metodologii osiągnięcia porozumienia. Przekonujemy się o tym
często przy próbie ustalania systemu z przygodnym partnerem.
Nieumiejętność dostrzegania rzeczy ważnych, w zamian mnóstwo nieistotnych
detali, preferowanie konwencji
i gadżetów rzadko przychodzących oraz przeskakiwanie z tematu na temat - to
typowe w takich sytuacjach.
Zademonstrujemy tu metodę doskonalenia gry w parze za pomocą testów systemowych.
Tematyka dotycząca licytacji jest tak obszerna, że aby się w tym nie pogubić,
podzielimy ja na części.

Każdy z graczy pary powinien indywidualnie odpowiedzieć na piśmie jak rozumie
daną sekwencję.
Określenie znaczenia danej odzywki powinno być w miarę precyzyjne (siła "od-do",
zakres forsingu,
charakter ręki "układowa-zrównoważona", odzywka naturalna czy sztuczna itp.)
Następna faza to sporządzenie protokołu rozbieżności. Pomija się problemy, w
których poglądy partnerów
są zgodne i przystępuje do negocjacji w przypadkach rozbieżności poglądów.
Dyskusja ma się zakończyć przyjęciem wspólnego punktu widzenia.

Uprzedzam, że nie jest to "kaszka z mleczkiem". Jeśli para za pierwszym
podejściem będzie miała zgodność
w granicach 50%, to będzie to wynik bardzo dobry.

Jest tu pięć rodzajów testów:
A) co znaczy dana odzywka (np.1BA) w różnych sekwencjach?
B) co znaczą różne sekwencje występujące po konkretnym otwarciu (np.1§) ?
C) co ma partner na daną licytację?
D) co zalicytujesz z daną kartą? - testy prawie interaktywne)
E) oceń swą kartę

www.bridgeok.republika.pl/TestSystemowy.html


Pierwszy test dla polskiego systemu recyklingu opakowań -
Wypowiedź Janusza Płocicy, prezesa Rekopol Organizacja Odzysku S.A.

Opakowania szklane to tylko i wyłącznie opakowania jednostkowe. Nie da się ich
zebrać w inny sposób, jak tylko poprzez zbiórkę pojedynczych sztuk butelek czy
słoików. Aby wyraźnie przyspieszyć rozwój systemów zbiórki selektywnej opakowań
szklanych, niezbędny jest wzrost strumienia środków finansowych przeznaczanych
na ten cel. ... Zbiórka selektywna opakowań szklanych nie jest ekstrawagancją,
lecz wyzwaniem strategicznym, przed którym stoją przedsiębiorcy i działające w
ich imieniu organizacje odzysku.

serwisy.gazeta.pl/kraj/1,34317,2574900.html
www.geoland.pl/dodatki/energia_xxxviii/rekopol.html

[jaceq]

www.mediweb.pl/womens/wyswietl_vad.php?id=649
_____________________________
"Bóg. Ojczyzna. Honorarium."

Test systemu ponowny - patrz poniżej n/t

[piq]

TestOdwrotnySystemu

[drf]

www.marxists.org/polski/trocki/1940/08/17kominterngpu.htm
Comrades, I have not sufficient material at my disposal to enable me to speak as
emphatically as some of those who have spoken here. Nevertheless, on the basis
of the material that I did, after all, manage to obtain, and on the basis of the
debate that has taken place here, I have formed a definite opinion, which I
would like to share with you.

Undoubtedly, the Polish Communist Party is in an abnormal state. That there is a
crisis in the Polish Party is a fact. It was admitted by Walecki; you have all
admitted it, and it was clearly revealed here, for it was noted that there is
discord in the Central Committee of the Polish Party between practical workers
who are members of the C.C. and the leaders of the C.C. Moreover, the Central
Committee of the Polish Party itself, at its plenums of December last year and
March this year, admitted in its resolutions that a number of its actions had
been of an opportunist character and it condemned them without mincing words.
That seems to be proof enough. I repeat, all this goes to show that there is
undoubtedly a crisis in the Communist Party of Poland.

What is the cause of this crisis?

The cause lies in certain opportunist transgressions committed in their
practical work by the official leaders of the Communist Party of Poland.

Permit me to quote a few examples confirming this statement.

The "Russian" question. Some Polish comrades say that this is a question of
external policy and, as such, is of no great importance for the Polish Party.
That is wrong. The "Russian" question is of decisive importance for the entire
revolutionary movement, in the West as well as in the East. Why? Because Soviet
power in Russia is the base, the bulwark, the haven of the revolutionary
movement all over the world. If in this base, i.e., in Russia, the Party and the
government begin to waver, it must cause very grave harm to the entire
revolutionary movement throughout the world.

During the discussion in our R.C.P.(B.) wavering began in the Party. By its
struggle against the Party, the opposition, which is essentially opportunist,
tended to shake, to weaken the Party, and hence, to weaken the Soviet power
itself; for our Party is the ruling party and the chief guiding factor in the
state. It is natural that wavering within the R.C.P.(B.) could eventually lead
to the wavering, the weakening of the Soviet power itself; and the wavering of
the Soviet power would mean harm to the revolutionary movement all over the
world. Precisely for this reason, disagreements within the R.C.P.(B.), and the
fate of the R.C.P.(B.) in general, cannot but directly affect the fate of the
revolutionary movement in other countries. That is why the "Russian" question,
although an external question for Poland, is one of prime importance for all the
Communist Parties, including the Polish Communist Party.

Well, what was the attitude of the leaders of the Polish Party towards the
"Russian" question? Whom did they support: the opportunist opposition or the
revolutionary majority in the R.C.P.(B.)? It is clear to me that in the first
period of the struggle within the R.C.P.(B.), the struggle against the
opportunist opposition, the leaders of the Polish Party unambiguously supported
that opposition. I shall not delve into the minds of Warski or Walecki; what
Warski was thinking when he wrote the well-known resolution of the Central
Committee of the Communist Party of Poland in support of the opposition in the
R.C.P.(B.) is of no importance for me. It is not people's intentions, but the
objective results of that resolution that are of primary importance for me. And
the objective results of that resolution are that it brings grist to the
opposition's mill. That resolution supported the opportunist wing of the
R.C.P.(B.). That is the whole point. At the time when the Central Committee of
the Polish Party adopted that resolution and sent it to the Central Committee of
the R.C.P.(B.) it represented the Polish branch of the opportunist opposition
within the R.C.P.(B.). If we regard the opposition within the R.C.P.(B.) as a
sort of business firm having branches in different countries, we can say that at
that time the Communist Party of Poland was the Polish branch of that firm. That
is the essence of the opportunist transgressions on the "Russian" question
committed by the leaders of the Polish Party. It is sad, but, unfortunately, it
is a fact.

The German question. Next to the "Russian" question, this one is of the greatest
importance, firstly, because Germany is more pregnant with revolution than any
other country in Europe; and secondly, because a revolutionary victory in
Germany would be victory in the whole of Europe. If a revolutionary upheaval
commences anywhere in Europe it will be in Germany. Only Germany can take the
initiative in this matter, and the victory of the revolution in Germany will
ensure the victory of the international revolution.

You know that last year a struggle flared up within the Communist Party of
Germany between its revolutionary majority and opportunist minority. You know
how greatly a victory of the Left or of the Right wing of the German Communist
Party would affect the whole course of the international revolution. Well, whom
did the leaders of the Central Committee of the Polish Communist Party support
in that struggle? They supported the Brandler group against the revolutionary
majority of the German Communist Party. That is now admitted by all, both
friends and foes. The same thing happened as on the "Russian" question. If we
assume that there is in Germany a sort of business firm in the shape of the
opportunist opposition in the Communist Party, then the Polish leaders were the
Polish branch of that firm. This, too, is sad, but you cannot go against facts;
facts must be admitted.

The method of fighting the opportunist opposition. Kostrzewa said that they,
i.e., the leaders of the Polish Central Committee, in essence support the
Russian Central Committee and, perhaps, the present German Central Committee,
but disagree with those bodies on the methods of fighting the Opposition. They,
you see, demand mild methods of fighting the opposition. They are in favour of
war against the opposition, but they want a war that will involve no casualties.
Walecki even went so far as to shout out: But we are in favour of the "three"! I
must say that nobody demands that Walecki should say ditto to the Russian
Central Committee in everything. Besides, I don't know who these "three" are
about whom Walecki is so enthusiastic. He has forgotten that nobody is obliged
to say ditto to the Russian Central Committee in everything (Walecki, from his
seat: "I am not obliged to, but I can.") Of course, you can, but one ought to
realise that such conduct places both Walecki and the Russian Central Committee
in an awkward position. It is not at all a matter of saying ditto. The point is
that in Russia, under the conditions of the NEP, a new bourgeoisie has arisen
which, being unable to come into the political arena openly, is trying to breach
the communist front from within and is looking for champions among the leaders
of the R.C.P.(B.). Well, this circumstance is giving rise to oppositionist
sentiments within the R.C.P.(B.) and is creating the ground for an opportunist
deviation. Hence, the point is that our fraternal parties must define their
attitude towards this circumstance and take a definite stand. The point lies in
that, I repeat, and not in saying ditto to the Russian Central Committee.

As for Kostrzewa's mild method, I must say that it does not stand the slightest
criticism. Kostrzewa is in favour of fighting the opportunist opposition, but in
such a way as not to lead to discr

reading system test...

[piq]

kurka wodna
pupka
psiakrew
psiamać
kurde
pieprzyć
wajdać oskary
chędożyć
pinkolić
praw dziwka
dupa jaś
nasr.. post
gó.. warte
dupcyć kozy
pie..ć bzdury
jebnąć z liścia
ku..tura żołądka prawa
ku..tura żołądka lewa
ch..owo ale bojowo
karta cipowa
gwizd pizd
po prostu ku.. żesz mać

TEST OSTATECZNY:

moderować

Opiniuje docent Włodek Miodek herbu Przodek Wyrąbany:
"Wyrażenie >moderować< jest wyjątkowo niecenzuralne. Wynika to z analizy
słowotwórczej: >moder< jest pradawnym rdzeniem indoaryjskim oznaczającym
>matkę<, a >wać< to bardzo brzydkie polskie słowo. Bardzo. Złączone oznaczają
przypuszczalnie, ehm, brutalny gwałt syna na matce połączony z morderstwem
(patrz słowo: >moderca<. Dlatego uważam, że niniejszy post należy usunąć."

analiza testu

[piq]

usunęło to, czego się spodziewałem, oraz dwa medyczne terminy oznaczające
krzywiznę ściany żołądka.
Ale głupie, nie?

REASUMUJĄC:
system jest do chrzanu