Glider

The easiest to work with would be pine. They have a symbiotic relationship with exomycorrhyzae (many other plants are associated with endomycorrhizae, which exist inside the root cells of the plant and are harder to work with). With pine, the mycorrhizae exist as a creamy white 'matting' around the roots, easily visable to the naked eye. To test the effects of mycorrhizae, you would simply need to give your test sample a soil drench with a garden fungicide, backed up with a dose of systemic fungicide. These will not harm the tree, but will eliminate the mycorrhizae. Then simply compare the growth and vigour of your treated sample to an untreated control, provide the same levels of feed, water and light for both. This is based on a mistake new bonsai growers often make; treating a pine for something like powdery mildew with a systemic fungicide, which wipes out the beneficial mycorrhizae as well as the bad fungus.

Often, when people ask for advice, they are actually asking for objective justification for a decision they have already made. If the advice given differs to what they want to hear, it usually doesn't go down too well.

No. Ivan Pavlov was the one who found that you could condition dogs to associate a non-related (unconditioned) stimulus with a conditioned stimulus (food), to produce a conditioned response (salivation). This is known as classical conditioning.

Better, but noticable as not being a native accent.

True, but we're not insects, nor did we evolve from them. So you must expect some differences. As for 'controlling the sex drive', the drive to have sex we can largely control (although not as completely as perhaps people think we can). The drive to reproduce is less easy to control. There are over 6bn humans on the planet. The population growth is exponential. this species is at no risk of extinction through dwindling population growth, and all logic suggests that to put the brakes on overall population growth would not be a bad idea about now. Nonetheless, look at the priority given to reproduction by humans. Even those barely able to feed themselves will reproduce. Consider the advances in IVF and fertility treatments; the money and resources used on fertility research. There are still no cures for HIV, hep C, cancers, etc., yet the amount of money thrown at fertility research and treatment is HUGE. Consider also what people are prepared to undergo in order to reproduce. Fertility treatment is quite horrible, and has nasty effects on the person undergoing it. It is neither life-saving, nor curative, yet those who can afford it will willingy tolerate it, often on repeated occasions (it's success rate is still quite poor). There is also a black market in babies. Those with the financial resources and who are not eligable for fertility treatments are turning to buying babies from Eastern European countries (yes, this is still going on). Consider the efforts and medical resources the go towards making those neonates born with profound congenital disabilities survive. We would rather commit a team of clinical professionals to an individual for the life of that individual (such as it is), than accept the possibility that perhaps a person with such crippling physical and mental disabilities is not going to have a life to speak of, no matter how long they live. All this is a function of the human psychology of reproduction. A drive so basic and powerful that any rational argument against it will be trashed out of hand. We simply cannot see any other perspective.

Specifically, it is the hypothalamus that is responsible for the basic survival drives, known as the three F's (Feeding, Fighting and Reproduction). The drives produced by the hypothalamus are very basic, very powerful and necessary for the survival of the individual and the species. It is unlikely that evolution will 'phase out' the hypothalamus, or the products of its function. With a bit of luck, the species may mature enough to be able to control these drives more effectively though.

Or the word 'simply', apparantly I think it's pretty much universally agreed in the UK that the worst attempt at a British accent was provided by Dick Van Dyke in Mary Poppins. I've heard one or two US actors/actresses do brilliant UK accents though.

That's true. Although, the normal rules of acceptable behaviour (accepting blame when wrong, etc..) seem to be reversed if you go high enough. For example, the £1M bonus paid recently to railtrack bosses.

As for blaming others, I have always liked this story: A woman in a hot air balloon realized she was lost. She reduced altitude and spotted a man below. She descended a bit more and shouted "Excuse me, can you help? I promised a friend I would meet him an hour ago, but I don't know where I am. "The man below replied "You are in a hot air balloon, hovering approximately 30 feet above the ground. You are between 40 and 41 degrees north latitude and between 59 and 60 degrees west longitude." "You must be an engineer" said the balloonist. "I am" he replied. "How did you know?" "Well," answered the balloonist, "Everything you told me is technically correct, but I have no idea what to make of your information, and the fact is, I am still lost. Frankly, you've not been much help so far." The man responded, "You must be in management." "I am" she replied, "But how did you know?" "Well," said the man, "You don't know where you are, or where you are going. You have risen to where you are due to a large quantity of hot air. You made a promise, which you have no idea how to keep, and you expect people beneath you to solve your problems. The fact is, you are in exactly the same position you were in before we met, but now, somehow, it's my fault.”

Any Infection Control nurse over here would have thrown her off the ward. In ITU, surgical recovery and high-dependancy units, paper caps are mandatory. Even on general wards, nurses have to have their hair tied back. These are the cause of infections, but it takes poor practice to make them rampant. They are usually spread by staff not observing barrier techniques with infected patients.

I think life stories, however convoluted and interesting, are best taken in small snippets with lots of tequila in a good pub somewhere. That also rules out the need for awkward, self-conscious photos.

Of course. Consider the arrogance of moving to a new country and expecting it to learn your language. 'Brits abroad' are often guilty of this when they're on holiday.

My thoughts exactly. Perhaps also, you could start with principle of the spitting cobra and GM it so that the venom it produced was phosphorus based. That way, the stream on venom would spontaneously ignite on contact with oxygen and there would be no need for an ingition spark.

Not really. You are talking about distinguishing between not remembering something you learned, and not remembering something you never learned. The former is amnesia, the latter isn't. How you, as the individual concerned could tell the difference, there is no way. For example, how, if you can't remember, how do you know you that you ever knew what it is you are trying to remember in the first place?

Failure to encode new memories is anterograde amnesia. This is characterised by being able remember your youth, and all events prior to the injury/illness that resulted in the condition, but an inability to recall events ocurring a few minutes ago. Retrograde amnesia is characterised by an inability to recall your past, or memories that existed prior to the illenss/injury that resulted in the condition, but a normal ability to form new memories. Thus, people with retrograde amnesia won't remember events from years ago, but will remember you if you leave the room and re-enter 15 minutes later. By contrast, people with anterograde amnesia will remember events from years ago, but will not remember you if you leave the room and re-enter 15 minutes later. Alzheimer's is characterised by the anterograde form of amnesia.

As YT intimates, the total energy used in the brain is quite high and takes many forms. The brain is a greedy organ, using around 25% of our total oxygen intake. The activity (energy use) in the brain takes many forms, oxydisasion of glucose (Kreb's cycle), which also generates heat, the movement of ions; particularly Na and K, the molecular mechanics of ion pumps and so-on. Much of this changes according to demand and so is hard to measure. However, the basic mechanism of neural function is electrochemical, and it has been estimated that the net electrical potential in the brain is about enough to light (and maintain) a 10w lamp.

Nope. Not kidding. Diamonds don't melt. They are carbon. They burn. Diamonds burn at 726.85 degrees Celsius , or 1,340.33 Farenheit (1000 degrees Kelvin). See here http://philmintz.tripod.com/Chemistry/page5.html

Not simplistic at all. That's how it should be. People with lots of mates (i.e. a large social support network) are less prone to depression than people without. It's just that these days, with the 'nuclear family', the increasing prevalence of single parent families, increasing mistrust of 'strangers' and increasing social competition and isolation, sound social support networks (i.e. a large-ish group of really good mates) is becoming rarer. The key factor is not so much a large groups of 'mates' but people we trust enough to tell such stuff to. Social competition is increasing and any admission of deeper problems is seen as weakness, unless you have your own therapist, which is seen as cool.

As far as I know (not being from the pink and fluffy end of Psychology), CBT works by focussing on the 'cognitive filters' that encourage depression, and the behavioural components of those filters. To put it in simple terms, depressed individuals see things through 'depression tinted glasses'. For example, when looking back on past events, people with depression will remember more negative events. When looking forward to the future, they will predict more negative outcomes to their actions (elements of Seligman's Theory of Learned Helplessness). They are aften blind to positive events; literally unable to perceive or remember them. They are also more likely to interpret neutral events/situations in a negative way. Their behaviour is guided by their cognitive processes so their lives become a kind of self-fulfilling prophesy. Normal life challenges become perceived as insurmountable demands, so, for example, when offered a promotion, a depressed person is more likely not to, because they feel they won't be able to cope with the extra demands. But then they find themselves stuck in a menial role that bores them whilst they watch others climb over them (which is depressing). Unlike many other schools of therapy, CBT therapists don't tell the person what to do, they don't really counsel as such. They act as objective guides, and enter into a partnership with the individual, rather than a 'therapist - patient' relationship. Between them, they agree a set of objectives and form targets; small, achievable steps towards those objectives. The depressed individual will try to reach those targets. The therapist will provide support, and objective perspective. In CBT, the therapist doesn't lead, rather he/she 'walks next to' the client, offering different perspectives on the client's perceptions of events/situations. When faced with some event, the client will tell the therapist their perception of it, the therapist will offer different ways of viewing the same event. When something positive happens, the therapist will help the client to recognise it, which provides the tools for the client to recognise positive elements in events on their own. The eventual aim is to help the client develop a different, less negative set of cognitive filters; the ability to perceive alternative perspectives on events and to alter their automatic behavioural responses to those events (e.g. to reduce the automatic propensity to say 'no' to a promotion). Their lives (as are most people's) will still be, to a degree, self fulfilling prophesies, but the underlying prophecy will be less negative, if you see what I mean?

Medication alone is usually not very effective. Chemical intervention is properly used to break the depressive cycle, giving the individual a chance to change their thought patterns, often through some form of counselling. It's a bit like nicotive patches; they deal with the craving, whilst the individual changes their behaviour. Antidepressants alone may provide some relief from the worst of the depressed feelings, but they're not a cure for depression. Outcome measures plus follow-up studies have shown that the most effective combination with clinical depression is primary chemical intervention backed up with cognitive-behavioural therapy. This combination has a very good sucess rate, and excellent maintanance. Individuals are usually weaned off medication during the CBT process.

One man's rebel is another man's freedom fighter. It's just a question of perspective. We call them rebels because we disagree with them. To those who agree with them, they are freedom fighters. It's not a question of trust. It's a question of due process.

Doesn't seem like there would be much point. You hunt camels?

So, guilty until proven innocent then?

Apart from the flash eliminator and bayonet mount, is there any other difference between those weapons?