Glider

Yes. Presumably the OP was talking about mammalian cells.

One of this list ain't like the other ones... one of this list just don't belong... doo-doodedoo Red blood cells (erythrocytes) aren't 'alive' to begin with. Unlike the other cells in the list, they have no DNA, no nucleus and no metabolism.

Yeah. Humans are a funny looking bunch of hairless apes who need to wear stuff like £200 trainers just to feel adequate. Many of them still feel the need to wear the skins of other animals to feel good about themselves. Surely that shows that those individuals at least, consider other animals more purty than them? Seriously though, I really can't see how anybody who lives on this planet and has eyes and understanding can consider man(kind) the most beautiful thing on it.

You're welcome.

So cool!

The UN, as with any such organisation, only has the power that member nations give it. If member nations choose to ignore the UN, then it has no power.

There are people who aren't?

I think the worst possible thing you could do is to put monetary value on human organs. The second a thing becomes a comodity, people will flock to trade in it. The second a thing shows itself to be potentially very profitable, necessary questions stop being asked. If you think these are just the words of a cynic, take a look around. It's already on the slippery slope. The alleged Chinese use of death-row prisoners; 'organs to order'. Also, the phony red cross at the Turkish earthquake where they found bodies with nephrectomy wounds and significant blood-loss (i.e. the people were alive when they had both kidneys removed), etcetera. This and more is already going on and the trade of kidneys for profit is not legal. Do people really think that legalising such trade will enhance control over it?

Yep. Further. a steady gentle breeze can move a lump of mist as a whole (rather than dispersing it), so it can appear a long way from where it was formed, but still exist as a bank of mist. NB. Fog is low cloud, i.e. cloud at ground level. Mist is formes in the ways described above, i.e. it comes up from the ground or bodies of water (I just thought it was worth mentioning )

I don't think the same applies to motor function. Sensory systems require more overall integration and the 'output' of sensory systems is arguably more complex than the output of motor systems. I would think that if infants were raised 'swaddled' and unable to move, they could still learn to do so, although the learning would be slower and their motor skills and coordination would suffer. People learn to drive, play instruments, walk on stilts and a whole buch of other motor stuff long after the sensitive period of neurological growth. Audition is not really comparable to vision. Those apes who were raised in the dark and were functionally blind could still see light and dark, they just couldn't percive any kind of patterns. With audition if you can hear sound, you are not deaf. The visual system is a lot more complex. Beyond the promary primary visual cortex, there are cells in the visual system that have evolved to respond to very specific stimuli such as horizontal lines, vertical lines and so-on (i.e. differences in contrast at various angles). There are even individual cells that respond optimally to faces (face detection cells). The auditory systems by contrast is a lot simpler. The coil of the cochlea is lined with detector cells. Each of these projects a hair into the cochlea and they are all the same. Vibration moves the hair and triggers the cell. What determines the frequency of the sound we hear is how far along the cochlea these cells are. Those responding more to low frequency are closer to the wide end (beginning) of the cochlea and those responding to higher frequencies towards the narrow end of the cochlea (where high frequency vibrations can reach). The cell speciallisation in the auditory system is a lot less than in the visual system. I think, like the visual system, these very basic detectors would still function if an infant was raised with ear plugs. However, there may well be impairmant of the areas higher up the system that make sense of the sounds we detect. I suspect it would the higher integrative systems that would suffer. Wernicke's and Broka's areas are more to do with language comprehension and production than plain audition. If they are damaged, the person becomes unable to understand language and their own language becomes garbled; grammar and syntax suffer, but the person can still hear.

Rather inhumane animal studies done some time ago showed that if animals (chimpanzees) are raised in a completely dark environment, they remain able to detect light but unable to detect any form of pattern (i.e. they are functionally blind) (see e.g. Riesen, 1947). Studies sisnce then have shown that being raised in the absence of visual stimuli causes neuronal atrpohy in parts of the visual system. These cells, if denied stimulation during the normal development period, remain unresponsive. Further studies showed the specific nature of visual system development. For example, raising kittens in an environment containing only vertical stripes left the animal completely incapable of perciveing horizontal planes. Conversely, animals raised in environments containing only horizontal stimuli were blind to vertical stimuli (Blakemore, & Cooper, 1970). These studies show that there is a critical period for the development of cells in the primary visual cortext and other related areas. Any damage, or failure in this development during this critical period is permanent. In short, removing cataracts from a person who had been blinded by them sisnce birth would not make them see. They would be able to tell light from dark, but nothing else. References: Blakemore, C., and Cooper, G. F. (1970). Development of the brain depends on the visual environment. Nature, 228: 477-478. Cited in: Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C. Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J. and Hilgard, E. R. (1990). Introduction to Psychology (10th Ed.). USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich. Reisen, A. H. (1947). The development of visual perception in man and chimpanzee. Science, 106, 107-108. Cited in: Atkinson, R. L., Atkinson, R. C. Smith, E. E., Bem, D. J. and Hilgard, E. R. (1990). Introduction to Psychology (10th Ed.). USA: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.

Yep, pretty much. A good debate is like sparring with a friend. It's all hunky-dory until one or the other gets a contact jab to the face and starts to lose their temper. The problems with debating beliefs such as religion are that neither side is provable, so you can never expect to reach a resolution, i.e. an end to the debate. There cannot be a winner in any single debate, so the chances of somebody getting a contact jab are increased. Also, most people, at least partly, define themselves by their beliefs (e.g. you hear "I am a Christian" never just "I believe in Christianity". Therefore, any percieved attack on Christianity is a personal attack, by definition. What consitutes an attack is largely down to the sensitivity of the individual. Those who are secure in their beliefs tend to be more laid back about stuff, taking comfort from the axiom "X is true, and is not dependent upon the beliefs of others". This truism holds for both sides of any such debate. Going into a debate secure in the belief that one is right is ok. Going into a debate believing others are wrong will usually result in argument. There is a subtle difference between the two. Believing one is right still allows the possibility that whilst one is right, others may still believe something else. Going into a debate believing others are wrong a) undermines one's one's own beliefs because it defines them by what other's beliefs are not, and b) puts one in a combative stance from the outset.

I believe you're right. Exposure once or twice is no problem, but repeated exposure is not good.

I don’t believe in a God. I don’t believe God is an explanation for anything nor is necessary as such. In daily life, I don’t need the promise of paradise to make me a good person, or the threat of damnation to stop me being a bad one. As a scientist I see no evidence for the existence of God and I don’t expect to see any for the non-existence of God. Thus, I despair of the endless and futile debate.

Hmm...tough choice.

Formaldehyde is a good steriliser, but you're right, I wouldn't be washing my hands in it too frequently. The bodies have probably been fixed in formaline, same as the bodies used by mecial students, but even so, gloves are mandatory.

No. Gloves are mandatory.

Bonsai. Crouching in a corner rocking gently with your thumb in your mouth and whimpering into your blanky can also help in extreme cases, but I prefer taking down one of my trees and grooming it for an hour or so. The concentration makes everything go away until I'm calm enough to deal with it.

Me too. It's good when things work out like that. It's often said (usually in mawkish films) that everybody deserves a second chance. The reality is that very few people get one. They are extremely rare and they are valuable because you carry the lessons from the first chance which will help prevent this: "I worked nights, he worked days, and we only ever saw each other for 2 hours at the most in a day, and usually one of us was tired and wanted to sleep... and it was like that for almost 4 years." from happening again. I'm very happy for you IMM

It also depends on the time of day/night. There are diurnal effects caused by changes in Hypothalamic-Pituitary Axis (HPA) activity and hormone levels (melatonin, cortisol etc.). For example, if you stay awake all night, the lowest part of your 'day' will be between 2 and 4 in the morning. When morning arrives, melatonin levels drop and cortisol levels spike, waking your body up. This leads to feelings of energy and euphoria. If you do this regularly (e.g. working night shift) your body adapts after about 5 days and the effect goes away.

After reading these posts, I cracked a bottle of Quervo and decided to let it breathe. I came back after 15 minutes to find that it wasn't breathing! I had to give it mouth to mouth. Oh yeah... That's the stuff..

Heh Mine wouldn't. He sleeps there. He might take a dump in my boots though. Yeah, see? Staff!

As CanadaAotS says, it's probably not worth it. But if you did, yes, you could tell him about antivirals whilst pointing out that your concern wasn't that the game should provide education, but that it should avoid providing misinformation.

I don't think so. In my experience (of working dogs in Wales), the owners of working dogs (sheep dogs & gun dogs) generally do not consider them pets, although many of these dogs occupy that role within the owner's family (i.e. with the kids). The owners consider them something between a tool and a partner. There is genuine affection between the working dog and its owner and usually a great deal more respect than between a 'pet' and its owner. There's also a lot less sentimentality and anthropomorphism. The working dog's quality of life is extremely high on the owner's list of priorities, and I think in general, the owners of working dogs probably hold a much clearer view of what constitutes a good quality of life for a dog. I have never seen an obese sheep dog stuffed with freshly cooked chicken kiev, wearing a stupid raincoat and cute little wellies, wheezing and waddling along behind its owner, with a dull, blank expression and showing no real interest in things around it. Most of the working dogs I have seen have been healthy, well muscled and extremely fit. Everything about them is 'up'; ears, tail, eyes, general carriage and they're into absolutely everything (unless they're actually working). I think the thing that differentiates working dogs from slaves is that the dogs (as far as one can tell) genuinely like doing what they do. They look forward to doing it (e.g. showing signs of excitement when the owner grabs his coat/gun) and show signs of huge enjoyment whilst doing it; ears pricked, alert, tail wagging all the signs you'd expect from a happy dog. This is not true. Most pet owners are quite capable of normal and healthy social interaction and are able to form healthy and meaningful relationships with other members of their own species. Pets provide something 'other'. This is not true either. Domesticated animals are not unwilling prisoners. If this were true, they would make a break for 'freedom' at any and all opportunities. They would have to be penned and caged at all times. Instead, they return to their owners freely and of their own volition. I have an open flap in my kitchen door. Every day my cat goes out through it. If he was my 'unwilling prisoner' I would not find him asleep on my bed every time I come home from work. Cats, of all domesticated animals, are perhaps the least dependent on their owners. If they are abused or unhappy or neglected, they leave. Any that could make the abstract and prospective comparison between their current situation, i.e. The constant battles for territory/mates, the constant hunger, the constant threat of predation (for non-predators), the persistant irritation from untcontrolled parasites, untreated illnesses and injuries, and the possible situation of; the reliable provision of food, water, shelter, warmth, contact comfort, freedom from parasitic infestation, treatment of illness and injuries and a regularly scratched belly. However, there are, as yet, no animals that are capable of making such abstract comparisons (bar one).

A slave exists to do the things for you that you should be able to do for yourself but can't be bothered. The requirement is that you are happy. The quality of life of a slave is not high on your list of priorities. A pet exists to give you a feeling of reward through caring for it. You do not generally expect a pet to do things for you that you do for yourself. The requirement here is that for you to be happy, your pet must be happy. The quality of life of your pet is very high on your list of priorities. Cats are the exception to that rule. They don't have owners, they have staff.