Glider

Nicotine counteracts some of the negative effects of alcohol and allows the smoker to maintain the alcohol 'high' for longer.

Mine range from around 10 years older than me to 10 years younger. Whilst there aren't that many people I class as 'true friend', those I have span a generation. It's quite cool watching one set of friends 'repeat' what the other set did 10-15 years ago. The offspring of my older friends are nearly as old as my younger friends. I never really though about it much, but I think it's very cool.

As I said, the energy stopped because the processes producing it stopped. Me neither, and in the same vein, I choose to believe that death = extinction and will do so until I see some compelling evidence to the contrary. It's unfortunate that such cases are used by people like that to 'prove a point'. I find such cases fascinating and definitely worth further investigation, but unlike the lawyer, I would not consider these cases a sufficient basis for drawing any particular inference yet. I agree, it's a bit shoddy. However, the relevence comes from the method used to obtain these memories. The method by which these 'previous life' experiences are recalled is the same method that 'false memories' were 'recalled'. If the method is flawed, then any data gathered by using that method must be viewed with caution. I don't believe it's a hoax. I believe that in most cases, the subjects themselves believe it is true. If a person is relating what they believe to be true, then they cannot be said to be lying, even if the information is false. In cases of regression, we have no way of knowing what information the subject has been exposed to throughout the course of their lives. Due to the amount of processing that occurs outside of conscious awareness, even the subject has no way of knowing. The work of Wilder Penfield showed that we remember things we have been exposed to in great detail, even of we cannot recall it voluntarily, and that we needn't even have been aware of having been exposed to that information. As far as memory goes, it seems we are capable of retaining (encoding) information even if the processing of that information took place outside of our awareness. This suggests that should we be made to recall that information, by whatever means (hypnosis or direct stimulation of the temporal lobes), we would have no knowledge of ever having been exposed to it 'in this lifetime'. So would I. It's certainly worthy of further investigation, but as far as evidence goes, it's N=1, which is not strong enough to allow inferences or generalisations to be made. How many coincidences are allowed? As many as occur. As far as I know, the frequency of coincidence can be inversely related to it's probability, i.e. the higher the number of coincidences, the lower the probability that it is coincidence, but at no point does it become impossible. Well, I would accept evidence that has managed to eliminate all equally plausable alternative explanations, and that was reliable, i.e. repeatable between subjects. If reincarnation is 'the way of things', then it must apply to all humans. If this is the case, why are there so few cases of previous life memories?

Vasodilators, as their name suggests, cause the veins, venules and capillaries to dilate. They are successful insofar as they do what it says on the tin. They cause veins, venules and capillaries to dilate. The effect of vasodilation is a reduction in blood pressure. If you imagine a closed (but elastic), fluid filled system, then any increase in the volume of the system will result in a reduction of the pressure exerted by the fluid within it. This has two main effects: 1) It makes it easier for the heart to pump blood around as there is less resistance. 2) It allows better perfusion in the periphery as the capillaries are more open. Many capillaries are so fine that erythrocytes (red blood cells) can only move along the vessel in single file. If these are constricted, erythrocytes can't pass along them at all (the reason our skin goes white when it's very cold). It this state persists, then tissue begins to necrose due to lack of oxygen and ulceration occurs (the surface tissue breaks down leading to a shallow, open and chronic leision). This happens in the vascular conditions associated with diabetes. If you administer vasodilators, you increase peripheral perfusion allowing more blood flow through the fine capillary beds and can avoid or alleviate these problems.

As far as I know, those who postulated the existence of these things did so by extrapolating from what was already known using logical steps, e.g. 'if A = 1 and B = 2 then it is likely that C = 3' and so-on. This is a far cry from the kind of 'knights move' progression that proposes 'if we are conscious when we are alive, then our consciousness must pass into another being when we die'. In this case, the 'then' is not a logical progression from the 'if', or at the very least, it is no more logical than proposing 'if we die in battle with a sword in our hands then we must gain access to the halls of Valhalla' (or be accepted into the arms of Mithras, or be greeted across the river by Briga and Nemain' or any other such postulation). If you accept that it is possible that on death, our consciousness passes into another being (and I'm not saying it's impossible, just not likely), then you must accept the possibility of all the other propositions, and they can't all be right. I have seen one or two examples of this, but I have also seen as many examples of these being refuted, or equally reasonable alternative explanations. My personal take on such examples is that they're interesting, and I'd like to know more, but so far, I haven't seen enough to make any particular inferences. His logic worries me. He states for example that "...there is no EVIDENCE that human beings come back as anything less than human as some Eastern sects believe.". This argument, for a lawyer, is worrying (or merely a confirmation of the lawyer stereotype) because whilst he uses 'lack of evidence' to refute claims that humans come back as anything less than human, implicit within his statement is the assumption that (therefore) humans (must) come back as humans, for which there is an equal lack of evidence. Bloody lawyers trick. It means that if you agree with him that there is no evidence that humans come back as anything less than human, then you have already agreed with him that humans come back as human. Clever, and it might work in court, but not in science. He then goes on to present a number of anecdotes (many of which would be counted as hearsay in a court). These are interesting, but do not constitute evidence. Whilst I accept his statement that there is no evidence that human beings come back as anything less than human, I have to say that I have seen no evidence that human beings come back at all. A while ago there was a furore over the validity of evidence for childhood abuse gained under hypnosis. It turned out in many cases that, without intent, these 'memories of abuse' were produced as a function of the hypnotic process and the questioning that occurred whilst in that highly suggestible state. This became known as 'false memory syndrome'. As far as I'm aware, 'evidence' gained under hypnosis is no longer accepted in court (if it ever was, I'm not sure). If this can happen in investigations into a person's 'current' life, I don't believe evidence of 'previous' lives gained by the same process can be given any more credence. If such evidence is not at least acceptable in a court of law, I see no reason to accept it at all.

Yeah, I can take marmite, but I prefer vegemite; less salty.

Yep, that's by far the best way to go. If he really is such an arse, then why does he matter? Why would you put so much energy into any kind of interaction with him? Surely watching grass grow would be more rewarding. If he's as much of an arse as you say, then it's his problem (whether or not he knows it yet). If you let him wind you up, you're allowing it to become yours. Just be glad you're not him. That your ex is going out with him merely reaffirms why she is your ex. A final point to consider, if you work so hard to bring someone else down (which seems to be his 'thing') then you're playing his game by his rules, which would make you as much of an arse as he is. Don't you think you're better than that?

Hmmm...if nobody can possibly know what they are talking about, there seems little point in discussion, does there? Yeah, funny that. You'd think that if God wanted everybody to believe, it would be within His/Her/Its power to make sure we did. On the other hand, if God really wanted us to have free will, how come followers think they know better and spend so much time trying to convert us heathens? Surely they can't think they know better than God in their attempts to deny us the freedom of choice that was granted by God? A third option is that God wants those who have 'seen the light' to convert those who haven't. But it seems to me that that's just asking for trouble and brings His/Her/Its wisdom into some question I would think. I used EEG as an example (note the e.g.). Although, to continue in the same logic, if something has never been detected, then there is equally no reason to suppose it does exist. As an aside, Buddhism is one of the belief systems I have the least problem with. In fact, for the most part, I have a lot of sympathy for it as a philosophy of life. I tend to have a problem where such systems turn to philosophies of death and thereafter, because these are attempts to direct people's lives using threats and promises of unknowable and non-demonstrable outcomes. I don't need the threat of hell, purgatory or being reborn as a slug to stop me being a bad person. I don't need the promise of eternal bliss, 70 virgins or living forever wearing fluffy white wings to make me a good person. I have what I consider to be a resonable set of ethics. If I do a good thing, I do so because I believe it's the right thing to do, not for the promise of reward. If I avoid or refuse to do a bad thing, it will be because I think it's the wrong thing to do, not because somebody threatened me with an eternity of paddling in molten brimstone. Whatever I do, good or bad, I do in the knowledge (belief) that this is my only shot at it. If I screw this one up, then tough, but it won't really blemish the big picture that much.

It doesn't go anywhere. Whilst it's true that energy can neither be created not destroyed, we do make use of biological processes to convert substances into energy that we can use. Once these biological processes stop, so does the energy conversion, so on death, there is no mental energy to go anywhere. If you wish to think of it in terms of radio waves, the argument: ignores the fact that as well as a receiver, there must also be a transmitter, and this requires power (energy). It talks about radio waves as if they were autonomous and objective entities rather than the product of an energy conversion process ocurring in a transmitter. If the transmitter 'dies', i.e. you pull the plug out, there is no more power and no more radio waves. So, it's not that energy is being destroyed, it's just that it isn't being converted and transmitted anymore. It isn't at all the same. The brain is not a transmitter. Although there are signals that are detectable at close range (e.g. EEG), these are a byproduct of energetic processes ocurring in the cortex. On death, these stop (as shown by the EEG 'flatline'). So, if transmission of personality were at all possible, it would only be so during life. If this were so, surely we would be 'transmitting' our personality to every emryo within range during the course of our lives?

There are chairs specifically designed to encourage good posture. You can find them in specialist shops. They are kind of 'Z' shaped and finely adjustable and they make you sit straight in a manner that does strengthen the small muscles each side of your spine (the ones most people pull). These chairs have two major advantages: 1) They provide specific support that is designed to encourage a good posture, which is a lot better than no support at all, which just encourages a compensatory posture. 2) They are stable and designed so that the user can sit at a work station both comfortably and well (posture) for hours without undue strain (although they can take a week or two to adapt to depending on how good or bad your posture is to begin with). The whole point of a well designed chair in a workplace is that you should be able to sit on it for long periods of time whilst maintaining a healthy posture without strain or fatigue and without the risk of falling off.

I can't say for certain, but I wouldn't have thought so. For a start, they are not stable, and so Health & Safety are likely to have something to say about it. Even those chairs ergonomically designed to encourage healthy posture have to be stable to be allowed in workplaces. Stability is quite strictly defined by health and safety too. For example, in hospitals in the UK, 4 legged wheely chairs are no longer acceptable. They will tip over on any one of four axes if they are wheeled and hit the edge of a carpet (for example). If a chair has wheels, it has to have 5 legs to be considered stable (very hard to tip over, even if wheeled against an obstruction). This even applies to drip stands! Further, I doubt that sitting on one for hours at a time could be shown to be particularly good for posture (or even comfortable). It's a sphere. There is no inherent lumbar support, no consideration of support for your ischial tuberosities (which might lead to problems with the ligiments that connect them to your sacrum) and finally, there's the question of the effect of it's inherent instability on you. Your constant unconscious motor adjustments to compensate for changes in your centre of gravity as you move your upper body would prove extremely tiring after a few hours. However, if you wanted to sit on one at home, in front of your own computer, I can't see it being a problem for short periods. If you did lose balance and smack the back of your head on the floor, nobody else would be liable . I suspect you'd get tired of it after a while though, especially if you spend many hours at a time in front of the computer.

This is not strictly true. The heart is really a single muscle. The difference in contraction between the atria and the ventricles is attributable to the difference in propogation times of electrical signals through the muscle. A signal propogates from the sinoatrial node causing the atria to contract first, from top to bottom, squeezing blood into the ventricles. At the atrioventricular node there is a short delay before the signal propogates across the AV node and down the main tract (bundle of His) in the septum to the apex of the heart (bottom of the ventricles). The signal then propogates out into the left and right bundle branches, causing the ventricles to contract from the bottom up, squeezing blood into the the ascending aorta (left ventricle) and the pulmonary artery (right ventricle). The reason heart muscle does not tire is that it is unique, insofar as it is a mixture, i.e. has the properties of, both smooth and striated muscle. It has the fast twitch capability of striated (skeletal) muscle, but the long term 'stamina' of smooth muscle. Each cardiac muscle cell contracts autonomously (due to 'leaky' sodium channels) and at its own rhythm, and will continue to do so invitro. Groups of these cells joined together will come into phase. The electrical impulses associated with a heartbeat are triggered at the sinoatrial node by the Vagus nerve which, as the heart will beat autonomously, even outside the body, is only responsible for controlling the timing, according to demand.

Not really. The requirement is that you wash your hands properly before and after contact with each patient. Washing your hands badly for twenty seconds is a waste of twenty seconds.

I have to admit, neither do I. We don't really use partial correlation here, because it's largely pointless. Partial correlation, as far as I recall, is an attempt by bivariate correlation to account for error in a model containing more than two variables. As you can only have two variables in a correlation, partial correlation is based on a huge assumption. I wish I could be of more help, but honestly, I don't even understand the relevence of the question.

Imrpinting is an instinctive behaviour, not a learned behaviour. An instinct is defined as a hard-wired (unlearned) behaviour that is universal to the species. Thus, it is genetic. Many animals are 'hard-wired' to imprint on the first moving thing they see (which is usually a parent). Because this imprinting instinct is not specific to 'mother', but to the first moving thing (with a few specific instinctive exceptions), animals sometimes 'mis-imprint', but not often enough to make it a disadvantage. Having imprinted, the baby animal will follow the object of its imprint. It has been shown that the harder the baby has to work to follow its 'mother', the more the bond is reinforced (a kind of compensatory mechanism ensuring the continued viability of the imprint and improving a weaker baby's chances of survival). Whilst many animals have an imprinting instinct, imprinting is particularly pronounced in certain birds, e.g. ducks, geese and the corvids (crows, jackdaws, magpies etc.). You should look up the work of Konrad Lorenz for more information on imprinting.

Yeah. I know there are much better trees out there than mine, but they're not mine, if you know what I mean (I haven't formed them or had any input into their growth), so I'm not tempted to keep collecting. If you cut the hazel in spring and haven't cut back the roots, you should see a massive burst of growth in the remaining stem, probably enough for it to fruit that year.

Trees (bonsai) Many years ago' date=' sombody bought me a bonsai. As luck would have it, it was a good one (rather than the awful twisted micky-mouse specimens you get in shops around Christmas). I was blown away by the form and detail, and particularly by the aesthetic effect (a good bonsai evokes the image and mood of its natural envoronment, i.e. where it [i']would[/i] be growing in nature). Plus, with deciduous trees, you get to watch the seasons turn in miniature. The bright flush of spring (particularly in trees like the Katsura and Deshojo maples), the rich maturity of summer, the brilliant, fiery blaze of autumn (again, most maples are renowned for this) and the skeletal forms of winter. It really gives you an eye for the detail and form of trees in the natural environment and I find I notice a lot more detail, even with trees growing in the centre of London. Initially, simply the number of different kinds of tree. Each has its own 'mood'. The rugged power of the black pine (the 'King' amongst bonsai), the delicate femininity of the maples (the 'Queen' of bonsai). Each kind of tree presents a different form and 'feeling'. Now however, due to the constraints of space (and time), I don't add to my collection any more, or at least I have created a 'one in, one out' rule. If I get a new tree, I have to lose one (sell or give away). This means that the standard (and therefore price) of any new tree has to be a lot higher than the standard of any tree I currently have. I have between 30 and 40 trees. There are collectors who have hundreds, although I suspect they are more hooked on 'collecting' than the trees themselves or the art of bonsai. My approach is that I'd rather spend a lot of time on a few trees, ensuring their health, style and grooming, than let many go untended through lack of time and just end up with 'bushes in pots' that are diseased, unhealthy, ungroomed or have deep wire cuts etc.. With the number of trees I have, there is not a needle or leaf that I don't know. There isn't a patch of mildew or aphid attack that I'm not aware of and can deal with immediately. With hundreds of trees, I couldn't know them all that well and many would suffer (not literally, just basic health and form). De nada By the way, YT, how's yer apple tree doing mate?

Sorted for ya.

The Kandel book is very good. I'd recommend that one.

I wouldn't have thought the fly would stop, it merely changes direction and the sudden deceleration on its current vector equates to an equally sudden acceleration on the vector of the train. But, I ain't no physicist.

I'd need to know what you mean by 'part correlation' and 'partial correlation'. Are you using SPSS? If so, the output will be in two sections: There will be an ANOVA, which shows whether the overall model is significant. This also presents the value for the adjusted R squared which shows the overall variance accounted for by the model (i.e. the strength of the model). The second section will be the regression analyses which lists your predictors and shows the strength of each by presenting both the Beta and t values and level of significance. The higher the values for beta (or t), irrespective of sign (+ or -), the greater the predictive strength of the variable. Multiple regression is a very robust test and the only way to screw it up is if the predictor variables are not independent of each other (i.e. if they correlate with or are predictive of each other). In this case the adjusted R squared might be large showing that the model accounts for a large proportion of the overall variance, but the variance accounted for will be between the predictors and not between any predictor and the criterion variable. So, you get the situation where the ANOVA indicates a singnificant model and the adjusted R squared shows the model is strong (accounts for a lot of the variance), but none of the predictors actually predict the criterion variable. I'm not sure whether this helps you, I'd need to know the values you are looking at when you talk about 'part' and 'partial' correlations. If you have run separate correlations on the predictors and the criterion variable (e.g. Pearson's or Spearman's), then the values will be different, because running single bivariate correlations will not account for the overall variance inherent in the model.

It's an off-topic reference to the crucifixion scene in the film 'The Life of Brian'.

Or host.

As far is I know, the sun is far enough away from the earth to make the light waves from the sun almost parallel. If this is true, then the umbrella would need to be around 500km to produce a 500km shadow. As for the second point, warm water in the ocean tends to exist in streams of current, so shading just the path of a hurricane wouldn't help. You'd have to cool the current, wherever that was coming from. I may be wrong