Glider

This is true. Doctors have to see so many patients in a day that any prescripion or pathology request they write tends to be scrawled. It doesn't really save any time though. For example, if a phlebotomist can't read a pathology test request, s/he can't take the sample. The patient has wasted hours waiting for the test, and has to go back to the doctor for a new request form (if the doctor can't be contacted by phone, which they rarely can). If the phlebotomist tries to help out, takes a guess at the test and gets it wrong, all hell breaks loose. In the UK, it's mandatory that all drugs charts, pathology requests and prescriptions are written in block capitals. They never are though. I wish the doctors, as pushed for time as they are, would try to remember how dangerous it is to write such things unclearly.

We call it Voight-Kampf for short

If you do believe, then you'll be Christened and everything is ok. If you don't believe, then you'll have a wet foreheard, nothing significant will have happened but your mother will be happy and everything is ok. As far as 'legal papers' I have no idea.

Multi faceted means many facets of the same personality. It implies depth and complexity. The manifestation of multiple personalities within the same person is a psychiatric disorder (which is not really an insult). Multi-faced (or to be accused of having at least two) is an insult.

Unless you are the mother.

I made a boomerang that works extremely well. I've nearly killed myself with it many times (it's quite large too). Thje way I did it was to make each of the 'wings' an aerofoil profile. Holding the flat side in the palm of your hand, the top blade (pointing forward) has the leading edge facing forward and the blade in your hand has the leading edge facing back. When thrown (hard) it gains altitude and circles around really well. On traditional boomerangs, I believe they are not quite so complex as to have actual aerofoil profiles, but they still have a flat side and a curved side and this acts in the same way (obviously).

...and there you have another problem Then, I believe it's down to the immediate (legal) guardians or parents, or the courts if they are wards of court.

In the US, 'Living Wills' are legal, although often disputed (cf the recent case in Florida). In the UK, living wills are not recognised under law. However, I think they are the way to go. They really are the only way to access the wishes of a patient who is otherwise incapable of making them known.

There is quite a bit of research on this topic. As far as I remember, females tend to consider their handwriting an extension of themselves; an extension of their personality, as opposed to males who consider it a means of transferring information. As such, females will experiment with their handriting and in many cases, will change it completely several times, usually according to the degree to which they consider it an accurate reflection of the way in which they see themselves. As for grammar, females have a general advantage over males when it comes to the use of language. They develop their language skills earlier, and their lexicon grows faster. This advantage would logically extend to grammar, insofar as famales would be likely to make fewer grammatical errors, having practiced more. However, depending upon need (i.e. occupation after school etc.), these differences tend to reduce in adulthood.

I agree. It looks like an assasin bug to me too.

It's called the Stroop test. It demonstrates interferance between two different cognitive 'processing channels'.

Yes, the lower pH binds certain minerals, particularly iron, making them available to these plants, . Acid loving plants in an alkaline soil develop chlorosis (the main symptom of which is yellowing leaves with green veins). As I said, a drench with sequestered iron can solve the problem.

It's unethical to mess with peoiple's brains when you don't really know what you're doing. If anybody was going to mess with my brain, I would not want it to be somebody who assumes a linear relationship between number neurones and IQ.

Plants that prefer acidic soil (ericaceous) tend to have less efficient roots due to the conditions in which they evolved. Alkaline soils tend to lock up magnesium and particularly iron, which plants need. The less eficient roots of ericaceous plants can't unlock these minerals, where other plants can. Reducing the soil pH frees up these minerals to they are useable by plants such as azalea, rhododendron etc. If you have ericaceous plants in alkaline soil, they will thrive, as long as you provide iron in a form it can utilize (i.e. chelated). A sequestered iron drench once a month will keep them healthy.

Area 25 refers to Brodmann's area 25 which is the subcallosal gyrus. A part of the anterior cingulate gyrus that curves under the corpus callosum.

That's a reinforcement of the old adage "The pen is mightier than the sword", and it's caveat "however, the sword holds sway at any given point in time".

The human pain experience is composed of several components: We have the sensory-discriminative component, which allows us to determine the location, duration and intensity of the stimulus. There is also the cognitive-evaluative component, which is what that stimulus 'means' to us in terms of probable outcome. Finally we have the affective-motivational component which is our emotional response to the stimulus and the resulting behavioural drive to remove it (or remove ourselves from it). The affective-motivational and cognitive components are what constitute the 'suffering' associated with human pain. Opioid analgesia effectively knocks out the suffering component. It does have some influence on the nociceptive pathways (dorsal horn and projection neurons) but the strongest influence of morphine is in the limbic regions. If you take organisms that have no limbic brains to speak of, then you must question the degree to which they can experience the affective, or 'suffering' component of pain. Many experiments in pain have been conducted on rats, using the 'tail-flick' response as a measure of pain. Rats do have limbic brains (as do all mammals), but even then, to observe a rat chosing to flick its tail away from a noxious stimulus and then to say the rat felt pain is a huge assumption. Humans respond to mosquito bites in such a manner (almost an automatic response to an irritant), but it cannot really be said that mosquito bites are painful, although they are very irritating.

It could interpreted as anything; e.g. a triggered response to remove an 'irritation', perhaps more usually caused by parasites (where 'irritation' is not pain). The point is, saying what the behaviour is will always be an interpretation. Yep. The limbic brain emerged in the first mammals and remains limited to mammals. Fish have elements of the limbic system, but mainly those associated with motivated behaviours, i.e. the three 'F's (fighting, feeding and reproduction). You could looke here for a bit of background http://www.reptilianagenda.com/brain/br121804g.shtml The funny thing about the brain is that whilst you are quite right, there is so much about the brain that we don't understand, those bits we do understand tend to be universal. I.e. the thalamus (for example) in humans, performs the same functions as the thalamus in all other animals.

It's not possible that fish feel pain in the same way we do. Our experience of pain is generated largely in the limbic areas of the brain. Fish have no limbic brain. The experiment involving the injection of bee venom into the lips of a fish resulted in the fish "rubbing their lips on things". That's all that can be said. to say that this behaviour was an attempt to 'remove pain' is a guess. Pain is non-observable and what was observed was just a behaviour.

The ANOVA (in fact, MANOVA, as you had 2 DVs) was your a priori test. Any tests you run now, based on the results of the MANOVA, will be Post Hoc by definition. Usually, post hoc tests on the results of ANOVA are variations of studentised t-tests (e.g. Tukey's HSD, LSD etc.). Many people just run repeated t-tests.

No it doesn't

Really? So all that research funding is just going to waste? Damn! There's a funny thing about common sense: It's not really that common. For example, common sense would suggest tell one that assumptions and conjecture are a poor basis for conclusions concerning the aetiology of such ilnesses. Common sense would suggest that such conclusions need to be supported by evidence. Of course, this evidence must be generated by researchers, however tedious and laughable their intellect may be.

You should tell somebody. There are thousands of people wasting their time looking for the root cause of such illnesses, and there you are with the answer all along, keeping it to yourself.

I have no idea either, but it's a good thing to know.