Glider

I think it shows the totalitarian streak is alive and well in Denmark. Bear in mind, they only stopped mandatory sterilisation of the mentally ill in 1974. PS. This is not a pop at Denmark, it's a pop at totalitarianism. This exists everywhere, it just seems easier to spot in Denmark, due to articles such as the one posted.

I'm quite harsh when I find it used in essays and reports. We're supposed to be teaching them to write in a manner that will allow them to do things like get their work published, and write a CV that potential employers won't burn whilst laughing themselves to a stroke. I tell them that first impressions are important. They laugh, because I'm a scruffy sod. I wear jeans, t-shirt and a leather waistcoat. I tell them that's my point. The first introduction people will get to them in their professional lives will be in writing. So, it doesn't really matter what I look like, my writing wears a suit, so I got my job as a senior lecturer and I get published.

As long as she used a sterette to clean the skin of her ear first. Otherwise she simply used a sterile needle to inoculate the wound with her skin flora and fauna (S. aurius et al.).

Briefly (because I don't want to derail the thread) I don't think it's a valid test of PK ability where the definition of Psychokinesis is along the lines of "The influence of mind upon matter, as the use of mental 'power' to move or distort an object." (see Wikipedia). The original apparatus involves an actual pinball with a board and precicely spaced pins. People are expected to influence a physical object as it falls. Here, what would people be influencing? Their monitor? Their CPU? their RAM? The flow of current through any or all of these? What would the subject focus their 'influence' on? What is there to influence? Is an electronic random number generator (which is essentially what it is) even subject to an influence that can (allegedly) move physical objects? I don't believe I have any PK ability, but I can move a physical object by poking it with a stick. However, even by using that direct physical influence I couldn't influence an electronic random number generator.

Comparing only one nominal variable, in this case frequency of correct observations, against what would be expected at chance level would be a 'goodness of fit' Chi squared, just in case you ever need it .

'In-group - out-group' identities. The minute a person identifies with a group, they begin to attribute more negative qualities to all people identified as 'out-group', and that often leads to problems (See Sherif, 1956 The Robbers Cave Experiment) Nothing much as far as I know. It may reduce the in-group/out-group thing in the short term, but as for the long term, I don't think it will have any particular effect. It won't produce a bunch of social clones or anything. It may teach people that personal appearance is context dependent though, i.e. that dressing how you like is fine in your own time, but if you want to play someone else's game (i.e. get a job), you have to be able to play by their rules.

De nada

Yep, as I said: "Some of these changes involve the gut: Digestion shuts down, and large veins in the gut contract as blood supply is rerouted away from the gut to deep muscle where it is more needed...These physical changes, along with the overall increase in arousal and levels of hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are likely to be the cause of the 'butterfly' sensations."

I don't think doing the 'responsible' thing in making an informed decision not to have firearms in the house along with young kids equates to giving up your right to own firearms. The weapon is out of harms way, but the right to bear it still exists. Just because you have the right to do a thing doesn't mean you have to do it, or that you lose that right if you choose not to do it.

Not only that, but if you put, for example, one paper clip in contact with a magnet, it becomes magnetic and other paper clips will stick to it. By that principle, as soon as your boots touched the floor, your whole suit would become magnetised and your arms would stick to your body and your legs would stick together and...well, you see the problem.

It's the physical sentation resulting from elevation in sympathetic activity in the autonomic nervous system. When you percieve a potential threat (i.e. a challanging situation where both your ability to meet the challange and the outcome are uncertain), your brain increases its levels of arousal in order to meet the challange. As most of the challanges we evolved to meet were physical, this elevation in arousal is accompanied by physiological changes associated with activity in the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system, resulting in physical arousal (fight or flight response). The fight/flight response in not all or nothing. There are degrees, according to the degree of challange/threat and how much importance the individual attaches to the outcome. So, a situation that presents a challange, like an interview, will produce the same sympathetic responses as a threat to life, but to a lesser degree. Sympathetic arousal causes physical changes in preparation for expending energy. Some of these changes involve the gut: Digestion shuts down, and large veins in the gut contract as blood supply is rerouted away from the gut to deep muscle where it is more needed. Also, heart rate and respiration increase, as does blood pressure. These physical changes, along with the overall increase in arousal and levels of hormones such as cortisol and adrenaline are likely to be the cause of the 'butterfly' sensations.

Coronary muscle cells contract autonomously, even one on its own will contract rhythmically. Their membrane has 'leaky' sodium channels so at regular intervals the membrane reaches the threshold for an action potential to occur. If several or many are put together in contact with each other, they will tend to come into phase and contract together as the AP generated by one spreads to the others. The sinoatrial node is really just there for timing. It takes its input from the vagus nerve which control rate (according to demand). The atrioventricular node carries the impulse down to the apex of the heart through the bundle of His to make sure the wave of contraction starts there and moves upwards. The heart contracts in a kind of wavelike twisting or squeezing motion (the most efficient for expelling maximum volume). I guess in a foetus, the 'heart' would begin to beat as soon as there were sufficient coronary cells in proximity to constitue a heart. However, there is free flow between the left and right ventricles so, whilst the foetal heart beats and moves blood at a round day 22, it's not really doing much until the coronary septum closes.

Yes, it's the inability to recognise familiar faces.

The inability to recognise familiar faces is prosopagnosia.

I don't think it is ethical. It's like saying "Yeah, I know it was your wish, but screw you, you're dead". If you take that to its logical conclusion, what's the point of a will if the executor is going to ignore it? "I see you've left your estate to your favourite charity, but I don't think I agree, so I'm going to cash it all in and bury it with you". If a person has made a decision as to what happens to their stuff (including them) when they die, it should be respected, or there is no point in making such decisions.

The stunting of growth in trees in nature result from many things: short growing seasons, poor soil, limited rainfall, limited room for root growth (e.g. cracks in cliff faces, or shallow soil deposits in rock bowls), constant predation (e.g. deer eating the new growth), and harsh conditions (e.g. high winds or sharp frosts). In Bonsai circles, trees that have grown naturally stunted are considered highly valuable. They are known as Yamadori. In true bonsai, it takes constant care; careful watering, feeding and pruning of both top growth and roots to maintain the size and proportions of the tree. People mistakenly think that keeping a tree in a small pot will stunt its growth. This is not true. All that happens is that the tree becomes root-bound and dies because it can't take up what it needs. As a general rule of thumb, given that the term 'bonsai' roughly translates as 'tree (in a) pot', any tree that isn't in a pot, stunted or otherwise, isn't a bonsai.

The problem with discussing Psychology as a whole (i.e. using terms like 'Psychology is standing still', or not), is that it is such a broad discipline, encompassing a huge range of sub-disciplines. Also, it is often confused with Psychiatry, which is not the same thing at all. Psychology spans a continuum from (what I call) 'the pink and fluffy' end; counselling, therapy, social psychology and so-on, to the harder end; Cognitive neurosciences, psychoneuroimmunology, experimental social psychology, psychobiology, psychophysiology etc. The upshot is that one cannot sensibly discuss 'change in Psychology' without being specific. Each sub-discipline changes at a different pace. Areas like Freudian Psychodynamics will change very little, whilst those at the other end have changed radically in the last 10 - 20 years. Experimental social psychology has been using cutting edge fMRI techniques for a decade. Psychoneuroimmunology has cut new ground on the relationship between an individual's psychology and immunocompetence, and so-on. At the 'harder' end, new theories are being proposed, tested and refined all the time. The other thing is that seminal theories won't change at all, certainly in teaching Psychology. For example, Melzack & Wall's (1962) Gate Control Theory of Pain is still taught, because it is still valid. Even major theories that are are no longer considered valid (e.g. Schachter & Singer's (1982) 'Cognitive Labelling') are taught, because they show the path that was travelled to get where we are. These have to be taught, at least at an introductory level, to give an understanding of how Psychology got to where it is. Anone who teaches at introductory level (i.e. BSc) and who is not also actively involved in research will get the impression that little has changed because more or less the same stuff is being taught. It has to be. It constitutes the basics of the discipline. At higher levels (e.g. MSc) where more advanced and specialist stuff is being taught, or when involved in active research, it becomes apparent how much certain areas have changed.

There has been a change to the way orthopaedics depts. share information. New software has allowed x-rays and CTs to be shared electronically now (this is fairly recent). However, whilst you can browse these images at home, for clinical purposes, the monitor has to be of 'diagnostic quality', i.e. it has to have sufficient resolution, accuracy and clarity to be able to show extremely fine detail. I don't know whether the diagnostic class monitors are CRT or LCD, but I do know they are very expensive. Not your normal 'gamers' monitors.

That's a good point. If you follow the logic of the sins of the fathers being paid for by sons and daughters, then you have the problem of where to stop. By that logic, we (in the UK) have legitimate claims against France for invading us, taking all our land and turning us into slaves (surfs and villeins) in 1066. Also, we have a ligitimate claim against the Norwegans and Danish for taking North East England, Scotland and parts of Ireland in 794AD, Germany for taking England in around 450AD. Also, the Italians for trying to take England in 55 - 54 BC and again (successfully) in 43-51AD and keeping it for four-hundred years (those bastards!). Where exactly should it stop?

The problem with the concept is that there ain't no such thing as 'positive discrimination'. All discrimination that is based on irrelivant factors is negative and bad. To discriminate against a group because of its race is bad. To discriminate in favour of the same group on the basis of its race is equally bad, because it means you are discriminating against all other groups on the basis of race.

The promisary notes fromt the Bank of England were based on silver (sterling). The British pound sign '£' is a stylised 'L' which is for the Latin 'Libre' = Pound. Back when money was worth something, the promisary note for say one pound (£1) was worth, and reclaimable from the bank for one pound of sterling silver, which is why British pounds are called 'pounds sterling'. Today, a pound coin is barely worth the metal it's stamped from *sigh*

I think general weapons training, range discipline and training on the particular weapon of choice should be mandatory before taking posession of any firearm. The cases you list are a danger to themselves and everybody around them. "I didn't know it was loaded" is never an excuse. If you don't know, check. If you think you know, check. Even if you believe, check. If you take posession from somebody who tells you it's unloaded (even an armourer), check. Until you have checked, consider it loaded. If somebody doesn't know that cocking a semi puts one in the breech, they shouldn't be allowed near one. I haven't been near a firearm since I left the Army, but recently I got an air pistol to deal with the local tree-eating vermin that have started eating my bonsai. The drills I learned on the ranges are so ingrained that even though I'm the only one to use it, and even though it's only an air pistol, I can't take it out of the case without cocking the bolt, checking the breech is clear, uncocking the bolt and putting the safety back on, even though I will have done the same thing before putting it away. It actually feels uncomfortable to handle it unless I have done that. Punishment by the range marshall for failures in safety were swift and harsh

This would have been simply to speed things up, rather than to get the surgery to begin with. Not true. Anybody who goes into renal failure gets dialysis. The only age limit is for transplant, and that's variable as it depends on other factors such as general health, probability of recovery from surgery, ability to cope with anti-rejection medication and so-on. The UK is the victim of a large degree of what we call 'health tourism'. People coming to the country and 'suddenly' falling ill enough to require admission and treatment. Such people are admitted and treated. Many, when presented with the bill (as people who do not pay taxes in this country are not eligable for free medical treatment) subsequently skip the country and go home. The problem is so common that diagnoses are almost becoming redundent. We can look at where the tourist came from and it will give a good indication of what they have. We still treat things like tuberculosis, dengue fever, lhasa fever etc.. These are becoming demographics rather than diagnoses. Strangely enough, we deal with many many cases from America, of women who fly to the UK whilst heavily pregnant. Stay here to give birth and then go back afterwards. Apparently it's cheaper to get a plane across the Atlantic and pay for an hotel than it is to give birth in the US.

I remember a piece of research that was done some years ago. It showed that in America, 95% of women in labour requested some form of narcotic analgesia, whilst in the Netherlands, only 5% of women in labour did. Given that there are no significant differences in physiology between American and Dutch women, the research concluded that it was attributable to differences in social attitudes. In the USA, there is a greater clinical involvement in pregnancy, so pregnancy becomes associated with clinics and hospitalisation and so pregnant women tended to adopt the 'patient role'. Further, there seemed (at that time) to be a greater expectation that, in the richest country in the world, with all its advances in technology, everything should be pain-free and safe. There should be no reason to feel pain and so they did not expect to. The women from the Netherlands by contrast, accepted that, by definition, labour involved some discomfort and so tended to just get on with it. The interesting thing is, on overall measures, the Dutch women tended to suffer less during labour in general, simply due to these difference in short-term expectancies. I use the past tense because this research is about 10 years old and I don't know if it's still valid.

What about those millions who have been (and are being) cremated? If you've been cremated, then you have given up all organic attributes. That's a bummer. But wait a minute. When the sun eats the earth, all organic remains will be cremated, both dead and living. Looks like we're all screwed. that's a truism. That's a bitch, and rather obviates any reason to prepare for it in this life. More to the point perhaps, is that your proposed scenario suggests an eternity of degeneration. Or, if there are many lives, each life would be a new level of suffering as we accumulate the effects of injury, pathology and so-on throughout each cycle. What the hell's the point in that? Sounds to me like we'd all be better off donating all our organs in this life. That's odd, since many of the these pathologies don't involve other life-forms such as bacteria, but result from things like spontanious organic changes triggered by the health behaviours of the individual, or mis-transcription of that individual's DNA or suchlike. I suspect you're just yankin' my chain now.