Glider

Diabetics carry glucose because hypoglycaemic episodes are much more common than hyperglycaemic episodes. The reason for this is that whilst people with diabetes rarely forget to take their insulin, they do sometimes forget to eat enough for the insulin they have taken, so they carry around a 'top up' to be safe.

Not that it really matters these days, but 'I know' is an infinitive and makes sense. 'I absolutely' doesn't make sense and 'I absolutely know' is a split infinitive. The correct form would be 'I know it absolutely'. As for playing with the dog, I imagine that 'I played happily with my dog' would be as correct as 'I played with my dog happily'. I may be wrong

Adaptive behaviour is 'normal' therefore it doesn't really matter what the behaviour is

I think if 'national identity' is that weak that it depends on, or is affected signficantly by the crap shown on TV, then it's not really worth bothering about.

Not as far as I know. I think the danger exists only at the time the body is trying so hard to compensate for overheating. I can't see any reason why there should be any cumulative effect. However, I suppose it may be possible that constant stressing of homeostatic mechanisms might do something over time.

Phi is right. Too quick a change in body surface temperature invites a vasal response and the body has to work hard to compensate. People fainting in the shower is quite common. What is more common is people fainting after taking a hot bath, and then standing up to get out. Due to vasodilation caused by the hot water, the blood just falls from the brain (postural hypotension). Whilst the hot water itself may not hurt you, smashing your head against something hard and tiled has never been a good prospect.

I'd have to disagree. The most obvious difference is time. In court, the case can take many weeks, even months of argumant, counter-argument debate and deliberation. On the street, decisions are made in seconds, by many fewer people, who are in possession of often flawed evidence and who are driven by their interpretation of it within the current context. They are functioning on what they believe to be the case, rather than any detailed weighing up of carefully collected evidence. I hope so too.

Well, I think we have to start somewhere

Re the George Carlin routine. Whilst I agree on the whole, I do think his take on the transition from 'Shell shock' to 'Post-traumatic Stress Disorder' is a poor example. This transition was a refinement in diagnosis, not the 'softening' of the term. In the first world war, they used to think the the condition was caused by the shock waves generated by shells passing overhead (hence 'shell-shock'). These days we know this to be inaccurate. We know now that the condition is a syndrome of maladaptive psychphysiological stress responses that present after exposure to psychological trauma exceeding what one would normally expect to have to deal with in life (hence post-traumatic stress disorder). I pretty much agree with everything else he says This seems more likely. I know there are some pretty whacked out theories coming from the teaching and learning groups regarding 'student empowerment' and suchlike. I have a little talk I give first year students. I tell them that whilst they have the right to Higher Education, they do not have a right to a degree. They have the right to try for a degree, but they also have the right to fail and whilst I will help them attempt to gain a degree, I will not interfere with any of their rights in the process. I come from the Tommy Lee Jones school of teaching

Babies can be given water. Water isn't 'digested'. It is absorbed as is. Milk is mainly water (with a fat emulsion and some proteins and sugars).

Do you think your state of mental health is cause for concern? Does your ability to see these images prevent you from coping, or doing what you would normally do? Do you have problems dealing with daily tasks or interacting with friends? If you don't have any such problems, then consider your ability an 'extra' rather than a problem. If you go from day to day with no more trouble that the rest of your friends, you have nothing to worry about.

If the data are ordinal, the Mann-Whitney U test is the one to use (non-parametric test of difference between two independent samples). So what is your level of measure? If it is interval or ratio, you can use a t-test. If it is ordinal then use the Mann-Whitney U. If it is nominal, you will have to use a Chi Squared test.

Well, what you are testing for determines the test. If you are testing for a difference in means between samples, then you have to use a t-test. The difference in sample sizes won't influence what test you need to use, but as it is such a large difference, it will weaken your experiment. The greatest power is achieved when the sample sizes are equal. What are you measuring? i.e. are the data parametric or non-parametric?

Yep. The bell curve is also known as 'the normal distribution'. However, measures of behaviour and attitude do not fit under the normal distribution the same as measures of height, pulse, IQ etc. The word 'normal' is not used so much when referring to behaviour because there is not really any normative value for behaviour. The terms more commonly udes are 'adaptive' and 'maladaptive'. Adaptive behaviour is 'normal' therefore it doesn't really matter what the behaviour is, the criteria are that it in some way benefits or helps the person cope with situations. Maladaptive behaviour indicates a failure to cope with 'normal' situations or behaviours that are likely to bring harm to the individual.

Maybe I am just paranoid, but I find it a little unnerving. Not on its own, but as another degree. The government in the UK are introducing compulsory ID cards which will carry biometric (and possibly other) data. Apart from the fact that we're going to have to pay for the buggers and they look to be very expensive, it just seems that by increments, a minority of people are collecting huge amounts of information on the majority. There is another idea here. To help create more revenue, they want to put GPS tracking units in all new cars. The idea is that drivers then get charged by the mile to drive, depending on the type of road and the time of day. This is purported to be fairer than car tax (although I doubt they'll abolish that when they introduce the system), but it also means that data will be collected concerning who is out, where they are, where they're going and when. Add this information to their ID records, their credit records etc., and it all begins to get a little 1984. There were huge celebrations in the UK when ID cards were abolished after the second world war. Apparently, that act symbolised what the war had been faught for; individual freedom and the right to a private life etc.. So it just seems a little odd?

But it is the 'sex offenders' register. If you have not committed a 'sex offence' why should you be on it?

I'm a bit confused too. You say you have 2 samples, but your post also implies you have 55 samples (5 control 50 treated). What do you mean by 'sample'? Give a little more information regarding your experiment and we may be able to help.

The problem is that they fragment to such a degree that you are left with lots of radioactive dust. Whilst the radioactivity is not high, the dust gets everywhere, skin pores, lungs etc. This is bad.

I don't think it will have the effect desired by the terrorists. I work in Regent Street and go through King's Cross every day, twice a day. It won't stop me. From what I've heard from others, it won't stop them either. The thing about bombs is that they're indiscriminate and impersonal. So, you can't fear them. It's like fearing lightning, or meteor strike. Some years ago, I watched two go off (IRA, not Al Queda). One was in a rubbish bin in cavendish square (where I often have lunch as it's behind the Uni). That one went off and a few minutes later, another went off in John Lewis, which backs on to Cavendish Square. I saw both. The panic lasted only minutes. Within half an hour, the place was cordoned off completely. Within an hour, everything was more or less back to normal with people going about their business. I do feel for the families of the people who lost their lives and for those who were maimed, but the terrorists have failed. Their function is to induce terror; to disrupt the normal functioning of people and the way of life of a city. In this, they have failed, and they will continue to fail. In London, we've been living with the threat of bombs for too long, what with the IRA and all. Al Queda have made the same mistake. The people of london are a bit like wet cornflour. They may seem a bit stodgy and complacent, but the more you push them, the more they harden against you. The terrorists are winning no symapathy, they are not changing the way people behave and more importantly, they are not inducing fear and terror, they are hardening people against them. That's all. As for retribution against muslims, I doubt that will be a serious problem here either. London is so multicultural. The muslim community has already come out against the attacks and are as affected by them as anybody else. Do London muslims not use the underground system or buses? They run the same risks from terrorism as any other Londoner. There may be a few incidents from the more paranoid and ignorant, but I really don't think it will be an issue. As an aside, I will be using King's Cross and the underground from there again tonight. I fancy a wee drinkie in Camden Town, and no threat of bombs will stop me doing that.

The old idea of using coffee to sober up a drunk is a bit of a myth. If you ply a drunk with coffee, you just end up with a wide-awake drunk, not always the best idea. In the longer term however, caffine does elevate metabolism temporarily, so it will increase the rate at which alcohol is passed through the system, but not by enough to make a huge difference. As long as the person is not dying of alcohol poisoning, it's usually best to just let sleeping drunks lie. The alcohol-caffine mix (e.g. vodka & Red Bull) is popular because it's a 'party mix'. The alcohol will do its usual 'social function' of lowering inhibition etc, and the caffine prevents the associated drowsiness, but again with too much, all you end up with is wide-awake drunks which often translates as a bunch of 17 year olds trying to push broken bottles into each other in town centres on Saturday nights.

Yep. I love it!

Hmmm...to achieve suspended animation in humans is now considered an easier option than avoiding wars, stabbings and GS wounds. How depressing is that?

In essence, he was busted for a statistical probaibilty? "You did A. A is not a sex offence, but A is often a precurser to B, so we're busting you for B too". Surely that can't be legal?

There's the rub. Personally, I'm not sure about the viral hypothesis. I would go with you on regulatory genes, myself, and certainly some genetic/environment interaction. Something genetic is providing a strong propensity, but on it's own, that's not enough. It needs some kind of trigger too, and nobody seems to know exactly what that is. Funny thing about the dopamine. They use dopamine receptor antagonists to control the positive symptoms, but the brain compensates by producing more receptor molecules. Eventually, the same levels of dopamine are getting through as before (they can't increase the dose of DA antagonist without causing Parkinsonian symptoms), but the positive symptoms don't return. Bizarre, ain't it?