Tisztelt Kollégák!
Ezúton meghívunk minden érdeklodot a
LÁTÁS KLUB
alakuló rendezvényére, melynek
helye: Semmelweis Egyetem, Anatómiai Intézet, Könyvtár
(Tuzoltó u.58, bejárat az Ülloi út 93 autóbejáróján keresztül)
idopontja: 2002. 02. 21. 17 óra,
Kérjük, hogy a részvételi szándékot a következo címen jelezzék: neurokogart(a)freemail.hu
üdvözlettel,
Vidnyánszky Zoltán
Tisztelt Kollégák!
Ezúton meghívunk minden érdeklodot a
LÁTÁS KLUB
alakuló rendezvényére, melynek
helye: Semmelweis Egyetem, Anatómiai Intézet, Könyvtár
(Tuzoltó u.58, bejárat az Ülloi út 93 autóbejáróján keresztül)
idopontja: 2002. 02. 21. 17 óra,
Célunk rendszeres találkozás, ismeretszerzés és eszmecsere lehetoségének biztosítása a látás (valamint tágabb értelemben véve az emberi percepció és megismerés) neurobiológiája iránt érdeklodok számára.
Az elso találkozáson ismertetjük a Klub muködésével és programjaival kapcsolatos elképzeléseinket valamint bemutatjuk a Klubhoz kapcsolódó intézményeket és a bennük folyó munkákat
Kérjük, hogy a részvételi szándékot a következo címen jelezzék: neurokogart(a)freemail.hu
üdvözlettel,
Vidnyánszky Zoltán
Non-member submission from ["Laszlo E. Szabo" <leszabo(a)ludens.elte.hu>]
---
Date: Sun, 03 Feb 2002 21:29:29 +0100
From: "Laszlo E. Szabo" <leszabo(a)ludens.elte.hu>
To: mafla <mafla(a)hps.elte.hu>, fizinfo <fizinfo(a)sunserv.kfki.hu>,
Multiple
recipients of list <koglist(a)cogpsyphy.hu>
Subject: Javitas!!! PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE COLLOQUIUM, FEBRUARY
Az eluzu hmrdetisben Hrasks Piter eluadasanak datumat elmrtam. Elnizist
kirek! Termiszetesen 25-in lesz.
_______________________________
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Eotvos University
Budapest, Pazmany P. setany 1/A
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE COLLOQUIUM
(http://hps.elte.hu/seminar)
________________________________________________
February program
18 February 4:00 PM 6th floor 6.54
Gabor Etesi* ** (lecturer) and Istvan Nimeti**
* Yukawa Institute, Kyoto University, Japan
**Alfrid Rinyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest
General relativistic- (and/or quantum-) computability; computing
non-Turing-computable functions in Malament-Hogarth spacetimes
It used to be a (meta) theorem of mathematical logic that
mankind will never know that ZFC (which forms the foundation
of mathematics) is consistent, assuming it is. We will argue
that this meta-theorem is gone, it is no more provable.
We will report on (convergent) results of various research
groups at various parts of the world coming, independently,
to the same conclusion which is, roughly, that Turing computability
may not (after all) be the final limit of the capabilities
of artificial computing devices. Some of the above mentioned
researchers are e.g. Hogarth (Cambridge), Malament, Earman,
ourselves, Kieu (Australia), F. Tipler, to mention only
a few.
We investigate the Church--Kalmar--Kreisel--Turing Theses
concerning theoretical (necessary) limitations of future
computers and of deductive sciences, in view of recent results
of classical general relativity theory. We argue that (i)
there are several distinguished Church--Turing-type Theses
(not only one) and (ii) validity of some of these theses
depend on the background physical theory we choose to use.
In particular, if we choose classical general relativity
theory as our background theory, then the above mentioned
limitations (predicted by these Theses) become no more necessary,
hence certain forms of the Church--Turing Thesis cease to
be valid (in general relativity). (For other choices of
the background theory the answer might be different.)
We also look at various ``obstacles'' to computing a non-recursive
function (by relying on relativistic phenomena) published
in the literature and show that they can be avoided (by
improving the ``design'' of our future computer). We also
ask ourselves, how all this reflects on the arithmetical
hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy of uncomputable functions.
(We note that the goal of ``computing the uncomputable''
is distincly more modest than executing so called supertasks.
Indeed, we do not claim possibility of the second.)
A paper advocating carefully and it detail the view we adopt
here -- that developments in the background physical theory
can influence profoundly the fundamentals of the theories
of computability and logic -- appeared in Bull. Symbolic
Logic Vol. 6 No 3 (2000), pp.265-283 by Deutsch et al. Our
paper on this subject is available on the following internet
address:
[http://ipsapp008.lwwonline.com/ips/frames/menu.asp?J=4779&S=36698&M=40800#]
A further useful reference is Hogarth, M.: ``Predictability,
Computability, and Spacetime'', pp.1-123, available from
[mh10026(a)cam.ac.uk].
25 February 4:00 PM 6th floor 6.54
Piter Hrasks
Janus Pannonius University, Pics
Mit mond a kvantumelmilet az alagzteffektus idutartamarsl?
(What does quantum theory say about the duration of tunneling?)
A kvantumelmilet az alagzteffektus valsszmn{sigit pontosan
megjssolja, de nem ad egyirtelm{ elumrast az alagutazas
idutartamanak a kiszammtasara. Az utsbbi iduben lehetuvi
valt a problima kmsirleti vizsgalata fotonokkal, mert siker|lt
olyan fsliat eluallmtani, amely foton-barrierkint viselkedik.
Ez a fejleminy tette aktualissa az alagutazasi idu problimajat,
amely vsszef|gg a spontan allapotredukcis kirdisivel is
a kvantumelmilet alapjait irinti. A kirdiskvrbe a R. Y.
Chiao, [http://ArXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811019] vsszefoglals
nyzjt bevezetist. Az eluadas szorosan vett timajat a P.
Hrasks, [http://ArXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010056]
cikkben vigzett alagutazasi-idu szammtas alapgondolata kipezi.
___________________
The organizer of the seminar: Laszls E. Szabs
--
Laszlo E. Szabo
Department of Theoretical Physics
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Eotvos University, Budapest
H-1518 Budapest, Pf. 32, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36-1)372-2924
Home: (36-1) 200-7318
Mobil/SMS: (36) 20-366-1172
http://hps.elte.hu/~leszabo
Non-member submission from ["Laszlo E. Szabo" <leszabo(a)ludens.elte.hu>]
Date: Fri, 01 Feb 2002 22:30:15 +0100
From: "Laszlo E. Szabo" <leszabo(a)ludens.elte.hu>
To: mafla <mafla(a)hps.elte.hu>, fizinfo <fizinfo(a)sunserv.kfki.hu>,
Multiple
recipients of list <koglist(a)cogpsyphy.hu>
Subject: PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE COLLOQUIUM, FEBRUARY
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Eotvos University
Budapest, Pazmany P. setany 1/A
PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE COLLOQUIUM
(http://hps.elte.hu/seminar)
________________________________________________
February program
18 February 4:00 PM 6th floor 6.54
Gabor Etesi* ** (lecturer) and Istvan Nimeti**
* Yukawa Institute, Kyoto University, Japan
**Alfrid Rinyi Institute of Mathematics, Budapest
General relativistic- (and/or quantum-) computability; computing
non-Turing-computable functions in Malament-Hogarth spacetimes
It used to be a (meta) theorem of mathematical logic that
mankind will never know that ZFC (which forms the foundation
of mathematics) is consistent, assuming it is. We will argue
that this meta-theorem is gone, it is no more provable.
We will report on (convergent) results of various research
groups at various parts of the world coming, independently,
to the same conclusion which is, roughly, that Turing computability
may not (after all) be the final limit of the capabilities
of artificial computing devices. Some of the above mentioned
researchers are e.g. Hogarth (Cambridge), Malament, Earman,
ourselves, Kieu (Australia), F. Tipler, to mention only
a few.
We investigate the Church--Kalmar--Kreisel--Turing Theses
concerning theoretical (necessary) limitations of future
computers and of deductive sciences, in view of recent results
of classical general relativity theory. We argue that (i)
there are several distinguished Church--Turing-type Theses
(not only one) and (ii) validity of some of these theses
depend on the background physical theory we choose to use.
In particular, if we choose classical general relativity
theory as our background theory, then the above mentioned
limitations (predicted by these Theses) become no more necessary,
hence certain forms of the Church--Turing Thesis cease to
be valid (in general relativity). (For other choices of
the background theory the answer might be different.)
We also look at various ``obstacles'' to computing a non-recursive
function (by relying on relativistic phenomena) published
in the literature and show that they can be avoided (by
improving the ``design'' of our future computer). We also
ask ourselves, how all this reflects on the arithmetical
hierarchy and the analytical hierarchy of uncomputable functions.
(We note that the goal of ``computing the uncomputable''
is distincly more modest than executing so called supertasks.
Indeed, we do not claim possibility of the second.)
A paper advocating carefully and it detail the view we adopt
here -- that developments in the background physical theory
can influence profoundly the fundamentals of the theories
of computability and logic -- appeared in Bull. Symbolic
Logic Vol. 6 No 3 (2000), pp.265-283 by Deutsch et al. Our
paper on this subject is available on the following internet
address:
[http://ipsapp008.lwwonline.com/ips/frames/menu.asp?J=4779&S=36698&M=40800#]
A further useful reference is Hogarth, M.: ``Predictability,
Computability, and Spacetime'', pp.1-123, available from
[mh10026(a)cam.ac.uk].
18 February 4:00 PM 6th floor 6.54
Piter Hrasks
Janus Pannonius University, Pics
Mit mond a kvantumelmilet az alagzteffektus idutartamarsl?
(What does quantum theory say about the duration of tunneling?)
A kvantumelmilet az alagzteffektus valsszmn{sigit pontosan
megjssolja, de nem ad egyirtelm{ elumrast az alagutazas
idutartamanak a kiszammtasara. Az utsbbi iduben lehetuvi
valt a problima kmsirleti vizsgalata fotonokkal, mert siker|lt
olyan fsliat eluallmtani, amely foton-barrierkint viselkedik.
Ez a fejleminy tette aktualissa az alagutazasi idu problimajat,
amely vsszef|gg a spontan allapotredukcis kirdisivel is
a kvantumelmilet alapjait irinti. A kirdiskvrbe a R. Y.
Chiao, [http://ArXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/9811019] vsszefoglals
nyzjt bevezetist. Az eluadas szorosan vett timajat a P.
Hrasks, [http://ArXiv.org/abs/quant-ph/0010056]
cikkben vigzett alagutazasi-idu szammtas alapgondolata kipezi.
___________________
The organizer of the seminar: Laszls E. Szabs
--
Laszlo E. Szabo
Department of Theoretical Physics
Department of History and Philosophy of Science
Eotvos University, Budapest
H-1518 Budapest, Pf. 32, Hungary
Phone/Fax: (36-1)372-2924
Home: (36-1) 200-7318
Mobil/SMS: (36) 20-366-1172
http://hps.elte.hu/~leszabo
Non-member submission from [Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)cogprints.soton.ac.uk>]
---
Date: Sat, 2 Feb 2002 13:16:57 +0000 (GMT)
From: Stevan Harnad <harnad(a)cogprints.soton.ac.uk>
To: september98-forum(a)amsci-forum.amsci.org
cc: neuromot <neuromotor-control(a)ai.mit.edu>,
vision <Vision-List-Request(a)ADS.COM>
Subject: Reading Without Writing: (Comments on Sperber: text-e.org)
I append my own commentary, by way of provocation, below.
You are encouraged to comment too, at: http://www.text-e.org
---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Thu, 31 Jan 2002 17:05:37 +0100
From: text-e(a)text-e.org
Subject: New text on text-e
A new text is online at http://www.text-e.org.
Dan Sperber : "Reading without Writing".
You are all invited to take part into the discussion.
Gloria Origgi & Noga Arikha
moderators of text-e
--------------------------------------------------------------------
Writing Skill: Its Peripheral Motor and Central Cognitive Components
Stevan Harnad
Dan Sperber makes the very reasonable prediction that a good deal of
our writing will eventually be done by dictation, once automatic
speech-transcription becomes sufficiently reliable, but that we will
continue to read. For whereas we speak much faster than we can write,
we speak (and listen) much slower than we can read.
Dan is also quite right that much of this is because we have evolved a
brain that is specifically speaking/listening-prepared rather than
reading/writing-prepared (although the fact that language originated in
an organic adaptation for an oral/aural "culture" makes our latter-day
reading alacrity a rather remarkable epiphenomenon!).
But I am not so convinced by his predictions about the future of
writing, and instruction in it. I of course don't mean calligraphy or
typing skills. I mean the exercise of the act of creating lapidary
written text, by whatever motor organ one may use, be it hand, foot or
mouth. The essence of the skill of writing no more resides in the
muscular adeptness of a motor endorgan than oratory skill resides in
the adroitness of the lips.
An early clue to this mismatch of cognitive skill levels comes here:
Dan Sperber: "Is it that writing systems are more complex than
languages? Quite the opposite.... [L]inguists have not yet succeeded in
providing a fully explicit grammar of any language, whereas writing
systems are based on fully explicit rules."
But that is comparing apples and fruit! The right "system" to compare
with the writing system for complexity is not "language," but speech.
In other words, grapheme systems must be compared with phoneme systems.
The two will be found to be of approximately the same level of
complexity (although herein might lie some of the clues to the
remarkable speed-advantage of the visuospatial [graphemic] mode over
the audiotemporal [phonemic] mode for input [but not for output]). Yet
it is LANGUAGE that both modes encode. And language is the system with
which grammarians are still struggling, not writing or speech.
So what has gone wrong? Dan notes that "Writers can write, correct,
rewrite." Indeed. And what are they correcting? They are not correcting
their penmanship or their typing skills. They are correcting their
WRITING, and by writing skill I mean something similar to what we mean
when we refer to a speaker's "oratory" skill (how well he expresses
himself in words orally, in real time).
Writing is not an online, real-time, do-or-die skill like oration. Let
us not forget that until the very recent advent of audio recording,
speech left no permanent residue (apart from the impressions in
auditors' minds and memories: the oral tradition). Writing, in
contrast, is an off-line, doing and redoing skill, in which the output
undergoes a variety of dynamic transformations (each of them in
principle preservable) before it is finally etched in stone. And
writing's essence is that it does preserve a residue: a plastic,
manipulable one.
And that, entirely independent of the peripheral input/output
sensorimotor modality, is the central essence of writing skill -- what
it is that a writer must LEARN, through trial, error and feedback,
rather than already KNOWING, ex officio, so to speak, by virtue of
already knowing how to speak.
I don't want to be too apodictic about this. Some writers are
"naturals," writing lapidary texts literally "as they speak." But I
believe such gifts are a rarity, even among gifted writers, whose skills
lie as much in the editing and rewriting as in the spontaneous
generation (dictation, if you like) of the first draft.
What resources does Dan envision for the dictaphone version of this
skill?
Dan Sperber: "As soon as technology will make it possible to see one's
speech properly transcribed as it unfolds, and to modify the
transcription by means of oral instructions (and also, probably, of
pointing and highlighting hand movements), writing will present no
advantage that is sufficient to justify its cost."
If we are agreed that using a computer, keyboard, screen and mouse to
edit text -- to erase, write over, cut/paste, move, transpose,
search/replace, compare, etc.) is indeed old-style writing (closer to
calligraphy than oratory), then the real empirical question here
concerns how useful people will find it to inject an oral/aural element
into this interaction with their graphemes.
Dan may be speculating here that there will be a more convenient way of
cutting and pasting using oral commands rather than reaching out and
grabbing text with a mouse. (The "highlighting hand movements" are
equivocal, if they are merely shadowing what one does with a mouse!)
Perhaps he is right. Or, equally possible, once the first draft has
been generated by dictation, the rest of the writing will be more
effective with mouse, keyboard and screen, or still-to-be-discovered
sensorimotor peripherals, with the mouth reserved only for relatively
long bursts of inserting new text. It is hard to second-guess this in
advance, before the hybrid vocal/manual dictation/manipulation
capability is actually implemented, and then tested for its usability
and user-friendliness by "human factors" specialists.
But what seems clear is that this new hybrid oral/manual skill will
indeed be a new (peripheral) motor skill, one that users will have to
master! and having mastered it, they will have to turn to mastering the
higher level (central) cognitive skill that this technology was devised
to serve. And that higher level skill will be WRITING, not SPEAKING.
And both skills will probably have to be taught.
Dan Sperber: "Once writing isn't practised anymore (except by
calligraphists), what will happen to its teaching?... [An] economy of
effort... would result from teaching children just to read [rather
than] teaching both skills [reading and writing]."
I can't quite see the economy. Calligraphy (penmanship) is certainly
gone. Possibly (though not surely) keyboarding too. But the bimodal
motor skill underlying this new, hybrid oral/manual manipulation of
graphemes and lexemes? Will that not have to be taught and learnt too?
And only then begins the instruction in the USE of these bimodal
text-manipulating motor skills in the service of the real higher-order
cognitive skill in question, namely, writing.
Dan Sperber: "One may assume that the teaching of writing will long
outlive its obsolescence."
This often happens, out of habit and superstition, sometimes until an
entire generation dies off. But is that what is at issue here? Will the
counterparts of both the peripheral motor skill and the central
cognitive one underlying writing -- the latter always overlapping with
the cognitive skill of speech, but never coextensive with it -- not both
continue to exist, as skills to be taught and mastered, rather than
being supplanted, as Dan suggests, by the extant skills of reading and
speaking?
Let us not, by the way, underestimate the importance of the exercise of
motor skills, both peripheral and central. What Held & Hein's (1963)
experiments (with the active and passive kittens) showed us was that
the passive "reading" of visual patterns is not even enough to allow us
to learn how to see: Active, dynamic sensorimotor interactions between
our bodies and the shapes and locations of objects in space --
trial-and-error, fumble-and-find practice in navigating, reaching,
manipulating, using our muscles, guided by feedback from our mistakes
-- are necessary, in order to develop normal vision.
Now speaking is "virtual" writing, just as writing is virtual speech. So
it is unlikely that we would become either aphasic or alexic, like the
passive kittens, if all we were allowed to do was to speak, read, and
dictate text. But without the further dynamic interaction with text
that is involved in real writing, and editing, and re-writing, I doubt
that we would ever generate some of the great prose stylists our
species has produced so far. (I make no case for teaching, because I am
not convinced that the higher-order skill of writing can be taught; it
is learned, yes, from reading and speaking, but also from practice in
writing and re-writing text, and not just dictating it -- at least by
those of us not among the lucky few who can spontaneously "write as
they speak" and "speak as they write.")
Nor should we forget the homology with calculation, a skill of which the
computer has relieved our brains -- to the great cost of the numeracy of
a subsequent generation. (Dan's suggestion that speaking and reading skills
are all you need for writing seems rather like suggesting that seeing
and walking skills are all you need for dancing!)
Dan Sperber: "It is all too easy to speak of a return to orality. The
most profound effect that writing has had on human civilizations has
been to allow them to become truly cumulative instead of evolving
forever within the limits of human long-term memory. Far from reversing
these effects, the new technologies allow new forms of cultural
accumulation as well as new ways of mining the accumulated
information."
Agreed. But the question is: What will those new ways be? Dan thinks
instantaneous speech transcripts (lexemes, really: one wonders about
non-alphabetic languages) will be the "killer" application, with
reading & dictating then replacing reading & writing.
In contrast, I think "skywriting" (the rapid online manipulation of,
and communication using, digital text) will become faster and faster
and more and more powerful, no doubt accelerated by vocal input in
place of keyboard input, but that the navigation and manipulation of
the visuospatial graphemes is unlikely to be optimal by voice alone,
nor even predominantly.
The real revolution, in my view, lies in having accelerated the speed,
scope, and interactiveness of writing (sic) to something closer to the
speed of thought (whose tempo is of the same order as the speed of
speech, for which our brains were specifically "co-prepared"),
rather than in its replacement by transcribed speech (Harnad 1991,
1995, 2001).
Harnad, S. (1991) Post-Gutenberg Galaxy: The Fourth Revolution in the
Means of Production of Knowledge. Public-Access Computer Systems Review
2 (1): 39 - 53
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad91.postgutenberg.h
tml
Harnad, S. (1995) Interactive Cognition: Exploring the Potential of
Electronic Quote/Commenting. In: B. Gorayska & J.L. Mey (Eds.)
Cognitive Technology: In Search of a Humane Interface. Elsevier. Pp.
397-414.
http://www.cogsci.soton.ac.uk/~harnad/Papers/Harnad/harnad95.interactive.cog
nition.html
Harnad, S. (2001) Beyond Access and Impact: The Ultimate Benefit of
Skyreading/writing.
http://makeashorterlink.com/?D28851D5http://www.text-e.org/debats/LeftFrame/printthreads.cfm?ConfText_ID=7&Parent
=0&Top_ID=253&Intervention_ID=253
Held, R., & Hein, A. (1963). Movement produced stimulation in the
development of visually guided behavior. Journal of Comparative and
Physiological Psychology, 56, 872-876
http://www.sscl.uwo.ca/psychology/faculty/goodale/research/active.pdf
From: "Krajcsi Attila" <krajcsi(a)IZABELL.ELTE.HU>
To: "koglist" <koglist(a)COGPSYPHY.HU>
Subject: =?iso-8859-2?Q?Kognit=EDv_Online_pr=F3bav=E1ltozat?=
Date sent: Fri, 18 Jan 2002 19:58:52 +0100
Kedves Kollegak,
Kognitiv Online neven uj internetes portalt inditunk a megismerestudomany
kutatasban erdekeltek szamara. A Kognitiv Online a Pszichologia Online
alsite-jakent a http://www.pszichologia.hu/kognitiv cimen talalhato
egyel re. Az oldal probavaltozata mar most megtalalhato, bar a hivatalos
indulast a X. MAKOG idejere tervezzuek, januar vegen. A Pszichologia
Online-nal ellentetben azonban f kent a szakemberek szamara erdekes
informaciokat szeretnenk elhelyezni az oldalakon.
=====
Ennek jegyeben az indulaskor az alabbi rovatokat hozzuk letre:
Esemenynaptar. A hazai megismerestudomannyal kapcsolatos el adasok,
konferenciak, koenyvbemutatok, stb. teljes, mig a kuelfoeldi rendezvenyek
valogatott listaja. Barki kueldhet a szerkeszt segnek ertesitest ilyen
esemenyr l, egyel re az info(a)pszichologia.hu cimre. [jelenleg csak sosorn
koevetkez 3 program erhet el]
Linkgy jtemeny. A hazai megismerestudomannyal kapcsolatos oldalak teljes
gy jtemenye lesz, mig a kuelfoeldi oldalakbol ismet valogatast nyujtunk: a
legfontosabbak vagy legerdekesebbek keruelnek fel. A mar fent lev koen kivuel
oeroemmel veszuenk tovabbi javaslatokat, ugyancsak az info(a)pszichologia.hu
cimen. [a feltuentetett linkek most meag csak oemlesztve erhet ek el]
Szakember adatbazis. A megismerestudomannyal foglalkozo szakemberek
katalogusa. A regisztracio oenkentes, igy mindenki megadhatja elerhet segeit
(email, telefon, sajat honlap, stb), kutatasi es erdekl desi terueletet, stb.
Mindenkit biztatunk, hogy regisztralja magat az adatbazisba. A regisztracio
egyel re csak emailen toertenhet (tervezzuek a webes megoldast is). [jelenleg
a rovat az oldalrol meg nem erhet el]
A regisztracios adatokat Fiser Jozsefnek kueldjek a fiser(a)bcs.rochester.edu
cimre az alabbi adatokkal:
- Nev
- Cim
- Telefon
- Mobil
- Email
- Honlap
- Vegzettseg, iskolak
- Korabbi munkahelyek
- Kutatasi, erdekl desi teruelet
Mindegyik adat opcionalis, tehat akar el is hagyhato, kiveve ertelemszer en
a nevet.
Koenyvismertet k. Nem tul meglep modon recenziokat talalhatnak itt az
olvasok. Egyreszt nehany szakfolyoirattal egyuettm koedve veszuenk at
ismertet ket, masreszt pedig mindenkit batoritunk, hogy a mar megjelent
ismertet jet kueldje el szerkeszt seguenknek. A szerz i jogi kerdeseket,
kerjuek, hogy a szerz intezze. [a kiadokkal a targyalasok folyamatban
vannak]
rasok, felhivasok, hirdetmenyek. Ide keruelhetnek fel roevid cikk
ismertetesek, konferencia es egyeb felhivasok, stb. Reszben hirdet tabla
funkciot toelt majd be ez a rovat.
=====
Egyreszt tehat oeroemmel vesszuek ezen rovatokhoz valo minden hozzajarulast,
masreszt szivesen varunk megjegyzeseket, kritikakat, javaslatokat a site
tovabbi alakitasara.
A most (januar koezepen) megtalalhato probavaltozat sok ponton meg nem
m koedik, pl. a linkek adott esetben rossz helyre mutatnak, vagy egyes
rovatok meg nem latszanak a weben - ez pusztan annak koeszoenhet , hogy a
fejlesztes folyamatban van.
Kerjuek, hogy ezt a levelet tovabbitsa az ebben erdekelet kollegaknak is.
A toebbi szerkeszt - Fiser Jozsef, Kovacs Gyula es Vidnyanszky Zoltan -
neveben is varja a kommentarokat es hozzajarulasokat,
Krajcsi Attila