Analysis and features parameters normalization EMC cosmic devices and systems
The paper analyzes the underexplored aspects of the development of the Russian geographical tradition, especially the spatial dimensions of the production of geographical knowledge. It explores the debates among Russian geographers, statisticians, ecologists, and economists in the context of their cooperative involvement in the regional cadastral surveys and in other government-sponsored projects. The paper argues that the distinctive Russian focus on regionalization has been a product of the more or less explicit admission by the elites of a continental empire that their mastery over space cannot be achieved by means of eradicating difference or by subsuming it under the binary distinction between the metropole and the periphery. Instead, Russian authorities and intellectuals had continually to negotiate and renegotiate the strategies of rationalizing and controlling the social and natural inner boundaries within the empire's space, and this resulted in conflicting projects of regionalization.
Evolution of informational technologies in 21st century opens a door for a new form of both governance and political struggle. What is technology today, what influence does it have on society, why and how did mental and material changes interlace - these issues are considered in the article.
The chapter explores the semantics and pragmatics of the Russian temporal syntactic phraseme ‘X to X,’ (a construction characterized by a semantically restricted set of lexical items able to fill in its syntactic variables) which expresses either the speaker’s surprise at the fact that events go as planned (surprising punctuality interpretation) or the speaker’s surprise at the fact that unplanned events go as if they had been pre-planned (surprising fateful coincidence interpretation). While the construction is not unique, and occurs in other languages, its preferred interpretations are language-specific. The chapter demonstrates differences between Russian and English outlooks on time, based on their fundamental differences in linguistic worldviews. According to one of the central key ideas of the Russian linguistic worldview, events are difficult for human subjects to control, as they are commonly controlled by outside forces, such as fate, and therefore surprising punctuality interpretation prevails in Russian. English, which does not view punctuality as something out of the ordinary, favours the surprising fateful coincidence interpretation of this syntactic phraseme. The idea of fate in relation to temporality is also found in other languages, as demonstrated by Bernard Charlier’s research on Mongolian temporality in his chapter in the current volume.