Glider

...and gets completely ignored by everybody on the bus, he becomes a humiliated, undermined little twat faced with the knowledge that he doesn't even have the power to elicit a response. One who causes a riot has demonstrated his power to effect change and that the people kicking the crap out of him are as predictable as he is.

Hmmm. My opinion of the true distribution of human personality types on this planet just got further justification. I shall, of course, include this in my report when I get home.

I think it's very cool. I think the many uses that these diamonds can be put to in medicine and computing technology far outweighs the bitching of those who rely on a bunch of polished stones to show mow much better off they are than everybody else (whilst those who genuinely appreciate the beauty of diamonds should be unaffected). For example, currently, younger people awaiting knee replacements have to wait for ages, undergoing multiple arthroscopy and flush procedures until they are of an age where it becomes worth replacing the joint. Current knee replacements wear out comparitively quickly and it's hard to repeat the procedure successfully. If you could somehow create 'bushings' for the prosthetic using a substance like diamond, this would no longer be a problem. The same with prosthetic hips. A diamond bushed prosthetic acetabulum and head of femur would last a lifetime.

I think you're right, it would be a rush to see cheetah hunting the Canadian prairies. It's an amazing animal. Thing about the other predators is that in the natural balance of things, you're right, they couldn't take out the fittest adult pronghorns, but they could take weaker ones; the very young, very old, the lame or the less watchful. That's the benefit of predation, it keeps the population controlled and healthy. Couger are ambush hunters, like lion, only moreso as they hunt alone. Their habitat indicates that they're not runners. They have to get very close (or wait for their prey to get close) and then attack. Bears (comparitively slow) and coyote (comparitively small) are more likely to take advantage of newborns (or discarded placentas) the crippled, sick dying or dead (they will happily scavenge). Wolves on the other hand are very organised hunters and whilst no wolf could run down a pronghorn, a pack could. The pack will start the pray animals running and will keep them running, often in a large circle, until the weaker animals begin to drop back. Each individual wolf runs in relay to wear the chosen pray animal down until it's exhausted. Even so, I think pronghorns would be a challange as they can maintain high speed for hours. However, wolves have been know to 'probe' groups of animals; starting them running to assess whether or not there are any weak or lame animals in the group that are likely to get left behind. If there aren't, they call off the attack as a waste of energy. The teamwork and coordination of wolf packs is amazing.

Especially where 'detrimental' means 'costs a few dollars or reduces our profits'.

No worries. Find out what level of measurement the SDI yeilds, and also exactly what your teacher has agains you using correlation.

I have no idea. It's not my area. I heard "We use blah blah blah at A2". It doesn't mean anything to me and the A2 is a road to Dover. I can't help you with that side of things.

Well the 8 height zones can be ranked in a meaningful way. What is sdi? something like species diversity index or something? If that gives you continuous (scale) data, then you can use a correlation to test your hypothesis.

Well, if you want to show an effect of one on the other (i.e. height on the hill on soil water content), correlation isn't the way to go as you can never assume a causal relationship from a correlation. Although a correlation between the two would support the hypothesis that the higher on the hill you are, the less water content you are likely to find. You just couldn't say it was because you were higher on the hill. If your teacher wants you to do species frequency by height, that suggests you will have categories for each of the different species you are counting. In this case, you will need to break height into gategories also, and then use a Chi Squared test. You can't use Spearman's Rho on catagorical (nominal) data. What is your hypothesis by the way?

Well, Spearman's Rho is for ordinal (non parametric) data. If you want to run correlations on parametric data (in this case number of species against depth of soil, both ratio level of measure) you should use Pearson't product moment correlation coefficient. However, your teacher's objection appears to be that it is not appropriate because it is a statistical test. I'm not sure why this might be, possibly s/he is considering other factors involved? Basically, you can test for correlations between any two variables, whether or not it's actually sensible to do so (e.g. IQ and shoe size). Occasionally, by chance, you will come up with a significant relationship that means absolutely nothing. This is where many people go wrong and is one of the sources of spurious statistics. As you (or your teacher) know more about your project than I do, you would have to ask yourself 'is this a sensible question'? and 'Would the answer mean anything?'.

De nada

Psychiatrists are physicians. They may diagnose and prescribe. Psychologists (in this case therapists) cannot diagnose or prescribe. If you have a condition requiring the use of drug therapy to control the symptoms (e.g. Schitzophrenia), you should see a psychiatrist. If you have problems with stress, PTSD, phobias or any other emotional/behavioural issues, you should see a psychotherapist. Personally, for what you describe, I would opt for cognitive behavioural therapy. I can't help with the rest of your question. I don't know what a PPO is.

No, it's not illegal, nor is it in breach of copyright. [EDIT] Actually, I should say that in this case it's not illegal. The paper came from a free site and the only difference between myself and Karnage was that I knew where to find it and he didn't. It is not a University licenced portal, a privilaged access site nor a 'pay per paper' site. The full text version of this particular paper is available on a free access site, which essentially puts it in the public domain. Had I had to use my University access or a Uni licenced site, I couldn't legally have presented it here. If I'd had to pay for it, I certainly wouldn't have presented it

Here you go. Right click and 'Save Target As'.

Ironic. Life imitating art, or the other way round? A chicken or egg dilemma.

I agree with swansont, this is not a valid conclusion. Al lot of it is about your use of language. It needs to be more precise. People who think scientifically will generally accept something for which there is evidence, whilst knowing that no theory can be proved. Accepting something is a long way from holding it as a 'belief'. Whilst they accept a proposition for which there is evidence, they are equally prepared to re-evaluate it when presented presented with evidence to the contrary or to drop completely should it be refuted. In general they won't defend a thing if that defence runs contrary to the weight of evidence. This, essentially, is the difference between accepting a thing based upon evidence for it, and believing a thing as an act of faith.

Without testing for things like elevated white-cell count, the signs of localised infection are simply swelling, heat, redness and pain. Heat and redness is what differentiates between bruising and infection. As you say there is no heat or redness, I suspect deep bruising of the joint (soft tissue injury). That too will result in a degree of swelling, but without infection. The joint will be stiff for some time as deep tissue injuries, especially in joints, take some time to heal. I got my hand caught between the frames of a sash window (the sashes had gone and the top section came down like a guillotine) resulting in soft tissue injury to the second joint of my left anular finger. This happened in june and the joint is still stiff (it's improving slowly). I wouldn't put yourself on a course of antibiotics unless there were definite signs of infection. Firstly it wouldn't help and secondly the unecessary use of antibiotics is not good.

I'm sorry you see it that way, but thanks for the opening.

But as the HIV virus attacks the immune system, knocking out T-cells, it doesn't really matter what shape your immune system is in to begin with. It's funny your should say that. I wear a silver eagle pendent to protect me against being eaten to death by eagles. As I've never been eaten to death by eagles, it must work! (it's actually a phoenix, but don't tell the eagles!).

True, but that doesn't give carte blanche for illogical argument and pointless statements. And from a scientific standpoint, none of this constitutes evidence for God. Because these people rely on evidence. Not really. There are usually maker's stamps and receipts for those beautiful things. The origin of coffee tables is not really a point of contention. Good for you. I don't challenge your faith. I hope it gives you support and comfort, but as others have said, there is nothing in this thread that hasn't already been covered on these fora, so, unless you have anything new to add? I presume to speak for others here, but I believe the general atheist explanation is that there is no evidence for God. Quite simple really.

I read it. Here's an interesting section: "Besides' date=' private enterprise is active in what can be called the Kerala school of ayurveda. The result is the blossoming of panchkarma clinics and hospitals al lover India. The panchkarma are the five internal cleansing procedures akin to the six in yoga. They are: vasti (enema), vamana (vomiting), virechana (purgation), nasya (application of herbal preparations through the nostrils), and rakta moksha (therapeutic release of toxic blood).[/i']" Enema, vomiting, herbal inhalations and bleeding. Yep. That should help. Here's the section(s): "Through a combination of intensive research, Ayurvedic theory and the clinical experiences at the Sharma Clinic, Dr. Mukesh Paneri has come up with formulas and drugs to cure Parkinson's disease. The drugs used in western medicine, mainly Levadopa, has strong side effects like cramps, nausea, constipation, lack of bladder control, interference with memory, changes in blood pressure, explosive diarrhea, dry itchy skin, dry eyes, and on and off effects, interfering with movement. The herbal medicines of Dr. Paneri have very minor effects like occasional constipation, and mild dizzy spells in the early phase of treatment. Unlike western medicine, Dr. Paneri's medicines have cured patients from this disease. His medicines are taken along with western medicines, with gradual phasing out of western medicine. Referrals from patients he has treated and is treating around the world, are available through Dr. Paneri. First improvements are usually seen within 3 to 4 months and 1 to 3 years later, the disease disappears 90% to 99%. The medicines do not have to be taken again." and "Dr. Paneri's treatment restores the natural balance of the patient's body. Through a well-defined regimen of herbal medicine, diet, exercise and body biofeedback, the body is able to regenerate its capacity for normal movement." If this were true, I promise you we would have heard about it. There would have been a stampede of all countries (not just the evil British), to Dr. Paneri's door. Parkinson's is a degenerative condition resulting from the progressive destruction of DA cells on the substantia nigra. It can be controlled for a while, but there is, as yet, no cure. The most successful treatment to date has been with foetal cell transplants. Interesting bits: "Cardiovascular problems have been dealt with at length in Ayurveda, which describes hridaya (heart) as a body organ governing emotions and circulating blood to keep a person alive and healthy." Well, we know that 50% of that statement is rubbish. Most of this page deals with anecdotal evidence. However: "Plants have contributed immensely in the development of certain allopathic cardiac medicines. Many modern cardiac drugs like dioxin, digitalis purpurea, digitalis lanata, strephanthus gratus, thevetia neriifolia, are based on plant extracts. So why haven't Ayurvedic drugs like Terminalia Arjuna become as popular since they too are based primarily on plant extract? Prof S.D. Seth formerly head of Department of Pharmacology at AIIMS and now emeritus scientist at the Indian Council of Medical Research (ICMR), has an answer. He says, " The problem is that Ayurveda has never submitted itself to clinical tests and hence it has been ignored by the medical community." So, Ayurveda has never submitted itself to clinical testing necessary for any kind of validation, and yet: "Maharishi Kaviraj Nanak Chand Sharma does not agree that a lack of clinical evaluation has left Ayurveda in the cold. He blames both the British rulers and successive Indian governments for the sorry state of affairs." Somehow it's our fault? "The buildup of chemical imbalances in the physiology can create psychological imbalance. These impurities often aggregate due to poor diet, weak digestion and blocked elimination. According to Ayurveda, psychological disturbances start when fundamental imbalances develop in the deepest level of physiological functioning, the biological intelligence that controls all bodily processes. Biological intelligence has three divisions called Vata, Pitta and Kapha. When Vata is imbalanced a person becomes prone to anxiety, fear, mental instability and insomnia. When Pitta is imbalanced the individual becomes prone to anger and irritability. When Kapha is imbalanced the person is prone to lethargy and depression." So this is saying that psychopathologies can be attributed to poor diet, weak digestion and/or constipation? Oh please!

It's what they give to patients prior to gastrointestinal surgery, to clean them out completely. You shouldn't take it unless you're within short running distance of a toilet.

This is a science forum. If you had any understanding of scientific method, you would know it is not possible to prove the non-existence of a thing. You would also know that any argument for the existence of a thing based on this impossibility is an argument based on the absence of evidence and is therefore pointless. This being the case, I'm going to remove this thread in a day unless you can provide a more substantial argument.