Search (1516 results, page 76 of 76)

0.005513538 = product of:
  0.011027076 = sum of:
    0.011027076 = product of:
      0.022054153 = sum of:
        0.022054153 = weight(_text_:k in 1751) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.022054153 = score(doc=1751,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.118322544 = fieldWeight in 1751, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=1751)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Im Teil A wird, neben dem menschlichen Urbedürfnis mit dem Streben nach dem Wissen, auf die vier epochalen Konvergenz-Zyklen mit ihren Kompetenzprofilen der Wissensordnungen im Wissenstransfer eingegangen. Insbesondere die Verschiebungen der Wissenschaftssprachen nehmen dabei einen erheblichen Einfluss auf die Abgrenzung der Klassifikationen zum impliziten, visuellen und explizitem Wissen. Daher werden den Äquivalenztypen im expliziten Wissensraum einer besonderen Aufmerksamkeit gewidmet, denn in unserer multilingualen Wissenslandschaft entstehen im Wissenstransfer zum Verfügungs-, Orientierungs- und Handlungswissen Artefakte, die auch auf die Gestaltung der Lernziel-Taxonomien einen Einfluss haben. Im Teil B werden zunächst die Arten, Merkmale und Klassifikationskonzepte des Wissens behandelt. Bei dem Versuch einer neuen Wissensordnung wird das kartesische / geodätische Koordinatensystem in ein Raum-Zeit-Gefüge gestellt, aus dem sich elf Wissensräume herauskristallisiert haben, die sowohl in ihren Definitionen, den damit verbundenen Ableitungen und Beispielen und einer Verortung im Wissensraum klassifiziert werden. Im Projekt <K-Space Visual Library in Dental Medicine> wird die problem- und aufgabenorientierte Navigation in den jeweiligen Wissensräumen erläutert und in der Diskussion die noch bevorstehenden Konvergenz-Forderungen der meist noch bestehenden proprietären digitalen Technologien und Programme skizziert, um diese bei der Modellierung der Wissensräume mit einzubeziehen.

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 3206) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=3206,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3206, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3206)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 3374) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=3374,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3374, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3374)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 3920) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=3920,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3920, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3920)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

17. 7.1996 9:33:22

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 571) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=571,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 571, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=571)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

13. 1.2013 14:53:22

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 3034) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=3034,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 3034, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3034)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 6.2016 16:08:54

0.0053056423 = product of:
  0.0106112845 = sum of:
    0.0106112845 = product of:
      0.021222569 = sum of:
        0.021222569 = weight(_text_:22 in 4165) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.021222569 = score(doc=4165,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.116070345 = fieldWeight in 4165, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=4165)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

22. 2.2018 12:13:57

0.0052452777 = product of:
  0.010490555 = sum of:
    0.010490555 = product of:
      0.04196222 = sum of:
        0.04196222 = weight(_text_:authors in 1077) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04196222 = score(doc=1077,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 1077, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=1077)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

My thesis discusses two related problems that have taken center stage in the recent literature on concepts: 1) What are the individuation conditions of concepts? Under what conditions is a concept Cv(1) the same concept as a concept Cv(2)? 2) What are the possession conditions of concepts? What conditions must be satisfied for a thinker to have a concept C? The thesis defends a novel account of concepts, which I call "pluralist-contextualist": 1) Pluralism: Different concepts have different kinds of individuation and possession conditions: some concepts are individuated more "coarsely", have less demanding possession conditions and are widely shared, while other concepts are individuated more "finely" and not shared. 2) Contextualism: When a speaker ascribes a propositional attitude to a subject S, or uses his ascription to explain/predict S's behavior, the speaker's intentions in the relevant context determine the correct individuation conditions for the concepts involved in his report. In chapters 1-3 I defend a contextualist, non-Millian theory of propositional attitude ascriptions. Then, I show how contextualism can be used to offer a novel perspective on the problem of concept individuation/possession. More specifically, I employ contextualism to provide a new, more effective argument for Fodor's "publicity principle": if contextualism is true, then certain specific concepts must be shared in order for interpersonally applicable psychological generalizations to be possible. In chapters 4-5 I raise a tension between publicity and another widely endorsed principle, the "Fregean constraint" (FC): subjects who are unaware of certain identity facts and find themselves in so-called "Frege cases" must have distinct concepts for the relevant object x. For instance: the ancient astronomers had distinct concepts (HESPERUS/PHOSPHORUS) for the same object (the planet Venus). First, I examine some leading theories of concepts and argue that they cannot meet both of our constraints at the same time. Then, I offer principled reasons to think that no theory can satisfy (FC) while also respecting publicity. (FC) appears to require a form of holism, on which a concept is individuated by its global inferential role in a subject S and can thus only be shared by someone who has exactly the same inferential dispositions as S. This explains the tension between publicity and (FC), since holism is clearly incompatible with concept shareability. To solve the tension, I suggest adopting my pluralist-contextualist proposal: concepts involved in Frege cases are holistically individuated and not public, while other concepts are more coarsely individuated and widely shared; given this "plurality" of concepts, we will then need contextual factors (speakers' intentions) to "select" the specific concepts to be employed in our intentional generalizations in the relevant contexts. In chapter 6 I develop the view further by contrasting it with some rival accounts. First, I examine a very different kind of pluralism about concepts, which has been recently defended by Daniel Weiskopf, and argue that it is insufficiently radical. Then, I consider the inferentialist accounts defended by authors like Peacocke, Rey and Jackson. Such views, I argue, are committed to an implausible picture of reference determination, on which our inferential dispositions fix the reference of our concepts: this leads to wrong predictions in all those cases of scientific disagreement where two parties have very different inferential dispositions and yet seem to refer to the same natural kind.

0.0052452777 = product of:
  0.010490555 = sum of:
    0.010490555 = product of:
      0.04196222 = sum of:
        0.04196222 = weight(_text_:authors in 2355) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04196222 = score(doc=2355,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 2355, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=2355)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Ask a person on the street whether new technologies bring about important social change and you are likely to hear a resounding "yes." But the answer is less definitive amongst academics who study technology and social practice. Scholarly writing has been heavily influenced by the ideology of technological determinism - the belief that some types or technologically driven social changes are inevitable and cannot be stopped. Rather than argue for or against notions of determinism, the authors in this book ask how the materiality (the arrangement of physical, digital, or rhetorical materials into particular forms that endure across differences in place and time) of technologies, ranging from computer-simulation tools and social media, to ranking devices and rumors, is actually implicated in the process of formal and informal organizing. The book builds a new theoretical framework to consider the important socio-technical changes confronting people's everyday experiences in and outside of work. Leading scholars in the field contribute original chapters examining the complex interactions between technology and the social, between artifact and humans. The discussion spans multiple disciplines, including management, information systems, informatics, communication, sociology, and the history of technology, and opens up a new area of research regarding the relationship between materiality and organizing.

0.0052452777 = product of:
  0.010490555 = sum of:
    0.010490555 = product of:
      0.04196222 = sum of:
        0.04196222 = weight(_text_:authors in 3460) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.04196222 = score(doc=3460,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.17628889 = fieldWeight in 3460, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.02734375 = fieldNorm(doc=3460)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Garfield wandte sich im Zusammenhang mit seinen Messgrößen gegen "Bibliographic Negligence" und "Citation Amnesia", Er schrieb 2002: "There will never be a perfect solution to the problem of acknowledging intellectual debts. But a beginning can be made if journal editors will demand a signed pledge from authors that they have searched Medline, Science Citation Index, or other appropriate print and electronic databases." Er warnte aber auch vor einen unsachgemäßen Umgang mit seinen Messgößen und vor übertriebenen Erwartungen an sie in Zusammenhang mit Karriereentscheidungen über Wissenschaftler und Überlebensentscheidungen für wissenschaftliche Einrichtungen. 1982 übernahm die Thomson Corporation ISI für 210 Millionen Dollar. In der heutigen Nachfolgeorganisation Clarivate Analytics sind mehr als 4000 Mitarbeitern in über hundert Ländern beschäftigt. Garfield gründete auch eine Zeitung für Wissenschaftler, speziell für Biowissenschaftler, "The Scientist", die weiterbesteht und als kostenfreier Pushdienst bezogen werden kann. In seinen Beiträgen zur Wissenschaftspolitik kritisierte er beispielsweise die Wissenschaftsberater von Präsident Reagen 1986 als "Advocats of the administration´s science policies, rather than as objective conduits for communication between the president and the science community." Seinen Beitrag, mit dem er darum warb, die Förderung von UNESCO-Forschungsprogrammen fortzusetzen, gab er den Titel: "Let´s stand up für Global Science". Das ist auch in Trump-Zeiten ein guter Titel, da die US-Regierung den Wahrheitsbegriff, auf der Wissenschaft basiert, als bedeutungslos verwirft und sich auf Nationalismus und Abschottung statt auf internationale Kommunikation, Kooperation und gemeinsame Ausschöpfung von Interessen fokussiert."

0.0051982137 = product of:
  0.0103964275 = sum of:
    0.0103964275 = product of:
      0.020792855 = sum of:
        0.020792855 = weight(_text_:k in 92) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.020792855 = score(doc=92,freq=4.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.11155556 = fieldWeight in 92, product of:
              2.0 = tf(freq=4.0), with freq of:
                4.0 = termFreq=4.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.015625 = fieldNorm(doc=92)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Classification

BCA (FH K)

GHBS

BCA (FH K)

0.004594615 = product of:
  0.00918923 = sum of:
    0.00918923 = product of:
      0.01837846 = sum of:
        0.01837846 = weight(_text_:k in 4314) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01837846 = score(doc=4314,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.098602116 = fieldWeight in 4314, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4314)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Content

Dieses Jahr bot uns bereits zahlreiche interessante Themen: von der Sacherschließung ausgehend schnupperten wir auch in benachbarte Arbeitsund Forschungsfelder und regten andererseits interessierte Zuhörer/-innen aus diesen Nachbargebieten dazu an, die Aspekte der Inhaltserschließung aus einem für sie relevanten Blickwinkel heraus näher kennenzulernen. Die beiden öffentlichen Kommissionssitzungen des ersten Halbjahres 2010 und das SE-Panel im Rahmen der ODOK´10 in Leoben stießen daher nicht nur im engeren Kreis der Sacherschließer/-innen sondern auch bei Titelaufnehmern/-innen und IT-Experten/-innen auf verdientes Interesse. Sämtliche Vortragsfolien und begleitendes Material sind auf der KofSE- Seite chronologisch zugänglich. Am 29. April traf sich in Wien zunächst der am Grazer Bibliothekartag ins Leben gerufene Arbeitskreis K-KONKORD zum zweiten Mal: wir hörten kurze Berichte über laufende Projektarbeiten und Masterthesen zum Thema Klassifikationen-Konkordanzen und beschlossen, bis zum nächsten Treffen im Herbst unsere bis dahin gesammelten "Mosaiksteine" nach und nach in einem gesonderten Bereich auf der KofSE-Seite innerhalb der VÖB-Homepage abzulegen. Danach begann die KofSE-Sitzung mit einem Kurzbericht von Kurt SCHAEFER aus der UB Wien über seinen unmittelbar davor liegenden Besuch beim EDUG-Meeting 2010 in Alexandria. Nicht nur seine noch ganz vom ägyptischen Klima "aufgeheizten" und durch eine Bilderfolge lebendig dokumentierten Reiseeindrücke sondern v. a. die erste Zusammenfassung aktueller Trends innerhalb der wachsenden europäischen DDC- Community waren - spontan mitkommentiert von Karin Kleiber (Sekretärin der European Dewey Users Group, EDUG) und ebenso spontan ergänzt von Lars Svensson, der mit einer Telekonferenzschaltung von Deutschland aus an dem Meeting teilgenommen hatte - diesmal ein höchst aktueller Einstieg ins Thema Klassifikation. Darauf folgten zwei Gastvorträge:

0.004594615 = product of:
  0.00918923 = sum of:
    0.00918923 = product of:
      0.01837846 = sum of:
        0.01837846 = weight(_text_:k in 4531) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.01837846 = score(doc=4531,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.18639012 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.098602116 = fieldWeight in 4531, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.569778 = idf(docFreq=3384, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4531)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Footnote

Rez. in: Mitt. VÖB 64(2011) H.1, S. 153-155 (K Niedermair): "Vor einigen Wochen war in der Wochenzeitung Die Zeit ein dreiseitiger Beitrag über die gerade 10 Jahre alt gewordene Wikipedia zu lesen, unter dem Titel "Das größte Werk der Menschen": Wie könnte Wikipedia dieses Prädikat verdienen? Wohl schon aufgrund der Quantitäten: Die freie Enzyklopädie Wikipedia ist, seit sie am 15. Jänner 2001 online ging, extrem gewachsen, es gibt Plattformen in den meisten Sprachen, mit sehr viel Content, am meisten natürlich in der englischsprachigen Version, nämlich über drei Millionen Beiträge, auch die deutschsprachige ist beachtlich vertreten mit ca. einer Million. Wikipedia ist zu einer wichtigen Informationsquelle geworden, im Alltag, im Beruf, im Lehr- und Wissenschaftsbetrieb, dies zeigen immer wieder Befragungen von Studierenden und Wissenschaftler/innen. Verdienstvoll ist Wikipedia auch, weil sie nicht auf Gewinn orientiert ist, auf Werbeeinnahmen verzichtet. Wikipedia lebt vom Idealismus unzähliger freiwilliger Mitarbeiter/innen, die nicht um Geld, sondern aus Freude an der Arbeit gemeinsam dem großen Ziel verpflichtet sind, Wissen zu sammeln, zu ordnen und bereitzustellen - und zwar kostenlos für alle zu jeder Zeit und an jedem Ort. Es ist wohltuend, dass dieses Programm einer universalen Enzyklopädia publico in der kommerzialisierten Wirklichkeit des Internet überleben konnte und dass Erfolg und Wachstum im Internet nicht immer mit Geld zu tun haben müssen, wie es Google, Facebook usw. nahelegen, deren Gründer bekanntlich inzwischen Milliardäre sind. Und Wikipedia ist insofern ein starkes Argument gegen die landläufige These, dass Information nur brauchbar ist, wenn sie etwas kostet: Qualitätssicherung von Information hängt nicht zwangsläufig mit ihrer Ökonomisierung zusammen. Tatsächlich ist Wikipedia inzwischen eine massive Konkurrenz für die herkömmlichen, kommerziell orientierten Lexika und Enzyklopädien.

0.0044959527 = product of:
  0.0089919055 = sum of:
    0.0089919055 = product of:
      0.035967622 = sum of:
        0.035967622 = weight(_text_:authors in 3380) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.035967622 = score(doc=3380,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.23803101 = queryWeight, product of:
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.15110476 = fieldWeight in 3380, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              4.558814 = idf(docFreq=1258, maxDocs=44218)
              0.0234375 = fieldNorm(doc=3380)
      0.25 = coord(1/4)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Abstract

Philosophy "done informationally" has been around a long time, but PI as a discipline is quite new. PI takes age-old philosophical debates and engages them with up-to-the minute conceptual issues generated by our ever-changing, information-laden world. This alters the philosophical debates, and makes them interesting to many more people - including many philosophically-minded people who aren't subscribing philosophers. We, the authors, are young researchers who think of our work as part of PI, taking this engaged approach. We're excited by it and want to teach it. Students are excited by it and want to study it. Writing a traditional textbook takes a while, and PI is moving quickly. A traditional textbook doesn't seem like the right approach for the philosophy of the information age. So we got together to take a new approach, team-writing this electronic text to make it available more rapidly and openly.

0.0044213687 = product of:
  0.008842737 = sum of:
    0.008842737 = product of:
      0.017685475 = sum of:
        0.017685475 = weight(_text_:22 in 4567) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017685475 = score(doc=4567,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4567, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4567)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

3. 5.1997 8:44:22

0.0044213687 = product of:
  0.008842737 = sum of:
    0.008842737 = product of:
      0.017685475 = sum of:
        0.017685475 = weight(_text_:22 in 4610) [ClassicSimilarity], result of:
          0.017685475 = score(doc=4610,freq=2.0), product of:
            0.1828423 = queryWeight, product of:
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.052213363 = queryNorm
            0.09672529 = fieldWeight in 4610, product of:
              1.4142135 = tf(freq=2.0), with freq of:
                2.0 = termFreq=2.0
              3.5018296 = idf(docFreq=3622, maxDocs=44218)
              0.01953125 = fieldNorm(doc=4610)
      0.5 = coord(1/2)
  0.5 = coord(1/2)

Date

24.10.2008 14:19:22