15. ok (jen ne v 12:45-cca14:00 bo mam jinou zkouskovou polizanici)
16. ok
17. ok
18. ok
19. má svátek můj strýc, né žebysme slavili, ale ráda bych jela na Vysočinu
15. ok
me je to uplne jedno kdy bude potreba tehdy to provedu.
weel • 2009-06-08 20:34:12 • 90.180.x.xteoreticky radši 16. ale 15. není takový problém, ale nejdřív od 9:00 ráno, nechce se mi vstávat v 5
15 ok
16 ok
17 odpoledne/vecer piju
18 ok
19 nicht
P.S. skoda ze nevyuzivame moderni technologie (kalendar co mira zaridil)
15 ok
PaVeL • 2009-06-08 21:47:07 • 90.178.x.x15. - 17. ok...18. a 19. už bude problém
Tak nevim čí fleška měla ukrývat podklady na učení a už neukrývá, nicméně je zjevné, že se nemáme z čeho učit a proto bys měl Štrublíku asi poprosit pana doktora nejen o termín, ale i materiály. Upečem ti štrúdlík.
...o Global Warmingu a tak
http://technet.idnes.cz/dechberouci-film-o-zemi-uvidite-zdarma-na-youtube-oficialne-p4r-/sw_internet.asp?c=A090607_165012_sw_internet_pka
Flashka toho kdo stal u global warming jako posledni dotycneho ukryva tajne materialy a nebyla jsi to nahodou ty? :)
A komunikacni kanal zajistuje mr caha ;)
15-17 je OK
mdennah • 2009-06-08 23:05:49 • 90.179.x.xMam velice zly dojem, ze to opravdu byla moje flashka, les ta zadny poklad neukryva... Mozna to bylo dejavu... vcera v noci jsem koukala na Fringe a desne to ovlivnilo muj pohled na svet.
Sama jama data fuc.
Cahikuuu :-) napis mu ;-)
jakykoli z navrzenych datumu ok, od ted az do 20. jsem stale v Olomouci, takze se prizpusobim.
strublos • 2009-06-08 23:51:34 • 88.146.x.xTak napisem ze terminy 15,16,17 jsou ok? A ze nejlip 15? Je nekdo proti?
ivan • 2009-06-09 00:05:50 • 83.208.x.xjsem pro
ja uz nic nezarizuju, tohle je na moc slozite....nechapu proc si kazdej vymrcuje kdy se mu to hodi a kdy ne. je to zkouska, tak kdyz bude danej termin, tak si to snad kazdej zaridi tak aby na ni mohl dojit, ne?
barca • 2009-06-09 12:54:30 • 88.100.x.xno, kdyz ale v tu dobu proste budeme ve Vidni, tak asi nic. S takovouto se nedmluvime - mu napiste: ze nam videnakom vyhovuje jen toho 15. a vy ze muzete cely ten tyden, ze my si to alternativne napisem pak s doktorantama jindy, bez nej...
Mira • 2009-06-17 00:11:46 • 88.146.x.xClanek k radiokarbonovemu datovani:
Basics of radiocarbon dating
The term “radiocarbon” is commonly used to denote 14C, an isotope of carbon
which is radioactive with a half-life of about 5730 years. 14C is produced by cosmic
rays in the stratosphere and upper troposphere. It is then distributed throughout the
rest of the troposphere, the oceans, and Earth’s other exchangeable carbon reservoirs.
In the surface atmosphere, about one part per trillion (ppt) of carbon is 14C.
All organisms absorb carbon from their environment. Those that absorb their
carbon directly or indirectly from the surface atmosphere have about 1 ppt of their
carbon content as 14C. Such organisms comprise almost all land-dwelling plants and
animals. (Other organisms—e.g. fish—have slightly less of their carbon as 14C; this
affects how radiocarbon dating works, and there are methods of adjusting for it.)
When an organism dies, carbon stops being absorbed. Hence after 5730 years,
about half of its 14C will have radioactively decayed (to nitrogen): only about 0.5 ppt
of the carbon of the organism’s remains will be 14C. And if the carbon of the remains
is found to be 0.25 ppt 14C, then the organism would be assumed to have died about
11 460 years ago. Thus, a simple calculation can find the age, since death, from any
14C concentration. (Remains older than about 50 000 years, however, have a 14C
concentration that is in practice too small to measure; so they cannot be dated via 14C.)
Ages are conventionally reported together with the standard deviation of the
laboratory 14C measurement, e.g. 900±25 14C BP (14C-dated, years Before Present).
This should be doubled to obtain a 95%-confidence interval, e.g. 850–950 14C BP.
(The true range of 95%-confidence, though, will often be larger than this, due to nonlaboratory
sources of error—e.g. the admixture of impurities with the remains.)
Although a tree may live for hundreds, even thousands, of years, each ring of a
tree absorbs carbon only during the year in which it grows. The year in which a ring
was grown can be determined exactly (by counting); so radiocarbon dating can be
tested by measuring the 14C concentrations in old tree rings. Such testing found errors
of up to several centuries. It turns out that the concentration of 14C in the surface
atmosphere has not been a constant 1 ppt, but has varied with time. Thus the simple
calculation of age from 14C concentration is unreliable.
Tree rings, though, also provide a solution to this problem. The concentration of
14C in an organism’s remains can be compared with the concentrations in tree rings;
the tree rings that match, within confidence limits, give the years in which the
organism could have plausibly died. Ages determined this way are called “calibrated
14C ages”; others are called “uncalibrated 14C ages”, or simply “14C ages”, and
continue to be reported as “14C BP”. (Calibration via tree rings, though, does not
extend for 50 000 years, only several thousand. Other ways of calibrating are therefore
being developed.) Calibrated 14C ages are generally greater than uncalibrated 14C
ages, with the differences increasing with age.
MrijaStudio 2006,2007
