Glider

There are many people here who know more about the situation than I, so I am talking from a position of relative ignorance so please feel free to hurl abuse at this post. It is more of an hypothetical 'I wonder what would happen' kind of post, than a 'this is the solution' post, but what if everybody withdrew and just let them get on with it? It occurs to me that this conflict has been going on for so long now, and the reason may be that there has never been a clear winner or loser. Could it be that to let them fight it out and establish both clearly might finally bring an end to it? It seems to me to be something of a festering abscess and whilst other people rubbing cream onto it might soothe it temporarily, it doesn't resolve the underlying problem. Clearly, nothing anybody has done so far has brought about a solution. Might it be that this thing needs to burst on its own to drain the poison? Yes, there would be many deaths, and many innocent would die, but over the decades, how many innocent have died already? In balance, would there be fewer deaths in an acute, overt war than in further decades of sniping and bombing? It seems to me, that underneath all the politicking and moral maneuvering, these peoples simply hate each other and simply holding them apart evidently isn't changing that. I can't help wondering what would be the result of a 'To hell with it, do what you think is best. We want no further part of it' approach? As I say, feel free to hurl abuse, but I woud be interested in some thoughts too.

I think there are too many wars for a purely logical form of government to work. In a hypothetical war between two countries, country A could lose 200,000,000 people whilst country B could lose 200,000,001. Using pure logic, country A won. Is there a logical construct for a Pyrrhic victory?

To be honest, I don't really know, as I never tried it myself (I wish I had though). The brain definitely compensates so you can function, and I believe inverts the image after about 10-15 minutes, which is why removal of the goggles makes everything appear uside down again, but as I say, I can't be sure, never having done it myself. You should be able to find prism goggles somwhere to try it out for yourself. That should be fun

Apocalypse Now. I don't really get it.

It's 1. The brain corrects the image. About half the fibres cross over at the optic chiasm, but this is a lateral crossover. There is an interesting phenomenon you can experience yourself (it used to be one of those 'public participation' things you could do at the Science museum in London) whereby you wear glasses that invert the image so everything appears upside down. For a while it's very hard to function, but after a short time, the brain compensates and things appear normal. The tricky bit is, after you have adsjusted, you take the glasses off, and everything appears upside down again until the brain readjusts.

JFK, but that, I suspect, is due largely to my dislike of boredom.

Nope, if you don't mind joining my 'being called a dribbling idiot' club, which often happens to people who quote me. I own copyright on the 'fear and smarties' model of teaching though!

I agree with Mokele. It really doesn't matter how brilliant a person is, if they have no enthusiasm for getting the principles across to others, especially those who have no experience in their field (because they have to 'dumb down', which they find boring), then it just doesn't work. I believe that teaching courses, whilst teaching sound practice; methods and means of imparting information, can't teach the most important ingredient, which is a function of personality. Some of the best teachers I know can enthuse the whole lecture group by force of personality. With these individuals, it's not even that important that they are expert in their area (although fortunatley, they are). A good teacher who is not expert in the area can still teach more of what they do know than a poor teacher who is expert. Personally, I use a combination of fear and smarties, which also seems to work

The devices YT mentions are commonly used in plumbing and boiler fitting. If you have a new combi boiler fitted, the engineer will fit one as standard. They do work. I have one that feeds the boiler and the cold taps in the bathroom. Since it has been fitted, the limescale deposits around the taps have gone. Apparently, it works on the calcium ions and makes them stick together. The effect is only temporary though, so it's no good on a boiler with a hot water storage cylinder. I have deliberately boiled bathroom tap water in a kettle to see if would leave a limescale deposit, and it doesn't. The magnets for fuel lines apparently work too. I have little idea how, but I have seen the results of a rolling road test. It was quite impressive. The fuel burns at a higher temperature and there was (for this particular engine) a 15% increase in efficiency. It is, I'm told. different for different engines. The given explanation was that the magnet 'excites' the hydrocarbon molecules in such a way that they combust more readily and thus more efficiently. I have no idea whether that's true, but the rolling road output was quite compelling as far as evidence goes (assuming it was honest).

Yep, I do have SAD, but it's sub-clinical (i.e. I can still function and the depression is not completely debilitating). I think most people feel a seasonal change. SAD is is more a question of degree than either/or. I can usually manage mine, but some days it gets a bit much, particularly in February.

So, you use examples from 40 years ago and 200 years ago to reach the conclusion that "Social Science is about as scientific as creation science". Can anyone else see the flaw here? Well into the 19th century, physicians believed that letting blood would restore a healthy balance in the 'humours'. Therefore medicine is about as scientific as creation science. Have you actually done any reading of recent material in the social sciences?

Yes. Ganglion refers to a collection of neuron cell bodies outside of the CNS. In the CNS (brain & spinal cord) such collections are called nuclei. In the sympathetic division of the autonomic nervous system (ANS), the cell bodies of the sympathetic fibres form a connected chain of ganglia that run down each side of the spine. This (as I say) allows the entire sympathetic division of the ANS to act in sympathy with itself. I'm not sure what you mean here. All ANS neurones are efferent, yes. Both the sympathetic and parasympathetic fibres effect changes, but opposite to each other. If you're referring to all neurones projecting from the 31 pairs of spinal nerves, then many are afferent. In the peripheral nervous system (PNS) all efferent neurones project from the ventral horns of the spinal cord and all afferent fibres enter via the dorsal horns. sympathetic ANS neurones do because the ganglia are formed from their cell bodies. Most PNS motor neurones have their cell bodies in the ventral horns of the spinal cord, so they do not pass through the sympathetic ganglia. The PNS and the ANS are separate and independent systems.

The sympathetic division has short pre-ganglionic fibres because the ganglia run down each side of the spine and are connected. This allows each part of the system to work 'in sympathy' (hence the name). The parasympathetic division has long pre-ganglionic fibres as the ganglia are not connected and reside in the effector organs (glands, blood vessels etc.).

Polymodal fibres (C fibres) are assocated with the detection of temperature change and noxious heat (>40 C). These are also 'slow' pain fibres (A delta are 'fast' pain fibres). So C fibres are doing both really; detecting changes in temperature and, above a certain threshold, acting as nociceptors.

I suppose if the effect is due to caffiene, then it would occur with all caffienated drinks. I guess any difference would be due to differences in concentration.

Yes, it is culture. Many of the behavioural differences attributed to ethnicity are actually associated with culture. This has been found to be the case even with such things as eating disorders. For example, in Japan, anorexia nervosa is virtually unknown. However, among first generation immigrant japanese people living in the UK and USA, the prevalence of anorexia is the same as for the 'indigenous' population.

No point in asking. He'll only deny it. Therefore it must be true!

So, that would be foreplay?

The default embryonic morphology is female, regardless of the genotype of the embryo. It takes testosterone to masculinise the foetus. There are cases of foetal insensitivity to testosterone which result in XY babies being born with female morphology. But essentially, prior to masculinisation, all foetuses are the same. They all have the same basic structures, including nipples. Whether or not these structures develop and how they develop depends upon the presence or absence of testosterone.

What?

It depends. Would it help your case to help them see the longer term cost/benefit balance? No, but if you take open-mindedness to mean the ability to accept alternative opinions or to see alternative arguments, then the ability to see beyond the outcome of the immediate argument must be an element.

Well, yeah, but as usual, things are more complicated than that when it comes to human cognition. For example, as you probably know, people arguing are often arguing the same point, just from different perspectives. The argument exists simply because each wants to be acknowledged as being right. In such cases, it is possible that increased cognition would allow one to see this and to concede the point, realising that the long term gain of being seen as a generous and 'flexible' thinker would outweigh the short term gain of 'proving another wrong'. Another (although related) possibility is simple social politics. Most people function on a 'cost/benefit' scale. By contrast, people involved in arguments tend to get focussed on the cost of losing the argument (reduction in esteem etc.) versus the benefit of winning (increase in esteem at the cost of the opponent). It is possible that increased cognitive function may allow a person to see the bigger picture; what do I really lose by conceding this point (not much, depending on the point), versus what do I really gain by persisting in the argument? (the possibility of hostility, animosity and a social enemy). Generally, people will persist if they see the point as sufficiently important. As you say, if a person's argument is wrong, then it is wrong. However, if the argument is all one can see, then it will be the most important thing. If, though increased cognitive function, one can see beyond the immediate argument to longer term costs/benefits in terms of social politics, or in terms of future debates (e.g. to show now how reasonable one can be in argument, which would strengthen future positions), then the outcome of the immediate argument may become less important.

The cerebellum doesn't have anything to do with Schitzophrenia. The cerebellum is mainly associated with muscle tone, posture and automatic (ballistic) motor function. Badchad is correct. Schitzophrenia results from a combination of genetic and environmental factors as far as is known. There are neurological changes associated with the condition; increased volume of the lateral ventricles, elevated levels of dopamine etc,. but these could be a product of the condition rather than a cause. Schitzophrenia is not fully understood.

It depends. Coughing up blood is usually the result of damage to the lungs or trachea. What we see in films is a bit crap though. If a person is bleeding into their lungs or trachea, they are essentailly drowning, so they would be choking too much to be capable of speech. However, the result of a ruptured oesophegeal anurism can be quite impressive. Blood gouts from the mouth. The immediate risk here is aspiration. Similarly, if there is damage to the oesophegus through a stabbing, the person is quite likely to bring up blood. If the wound is lower, i.e. anywhere lower than the pyloric sphincter/duodenum then it's unlikley the person would bring up blood. Bear in mind that the stomach itself is quite high; directly under the left lung and largely protected by the ribs on that side. Stab wounds to the abdomen would usually miss the stomach and hit lower in the GI tract. In this case, it is highly unlikely your character would bring up blood. Ok, if she is to survive, she could go to stage 5, or 6 (above) for a short time. With such a loss of volume, she is at extreme risk of cardiac arrest. Whoever finds her will need to push fluids and plasma expanders, i.e. cannulate her and get a peripheral line in (which will be hard because of her peripheral shut down, so finding a vein would be very difficult). They might have to use the femoral vein as finding a vein in normal cannulation sites would be a nightmare (unless they were large and shallow). They can't use whole blood as presumably she hasn't been crossmatched. Plasma expanders are substances that increase the blood volume. Things like albumin, gelatin and starch are used. Obviously fluid is necessary too. Normal saline (sterile 0.09%NACL solution), or pre-mixed plasma expanders (depends on the resources of whoever finds her). There are also artifical oxygen carriers that can be used in place of a whole-blood transfusion (temporarily), but the priority would be to get her BP up to avoid her arresting. The other priority is to try to stop what you are pushing in from squirting back out. Her physical state would be blanched, clammy and cyanotic with low BP, fast, weak pulse and rapid shallow breathing. She would possibly be on the verge of unconsciousness and not too coherent although possibly responsive to verbal stimuli. Her vision would be impaired. Moving her to an upright position would be a mistake. I hope this helps.

It's impossible to say. With an abdominal stab wound there will always be internal bleeding. The result can be anything from the wound healing (i.e. no real damage and the body's own mechanisms stopping the heamorrhage) to death in well under a minute (puncture to the left ventricle or ascending aorta) although they would be more thoracic wounds. So survival times are directly related to which area/organs are damaged. If the liver is damaged there will be serious bleeding. If it is badly damaged you might live for a couple of hours. If the hepatic artery is hit, you will live for minutes only. The same for kidneys or renal arteries. If you hit the pancreas, bleeding will be severe and could kill you in anything from a few hours to minutes depending on the severity of the injury. GI (gastro-intestinal) wounds including any section of the colon result in less severe bleeding, but then the main risk is peritonitis; serious infection caused by leakage of the contents of the illium or colon into the peritoneum. This can kill you in days if left untreated. Punctures to the vena cava (the venous analogue to the aorta) will also kill you, but more slowly than punctures to the aorta as the blood pressure in that vessel is a lot less. So, the short answer is that it depends entirely on the severity of the injury and what structures are damaged.