Glider

I don't think it's ethical. The problem in all interogation is recognising the true response. Using physical torture, you may achieve a response faster, but the problem still remains, how do you know it's the true response? Torture does not eliminate this problem, which makes it largely pointless, as well as unethical.

Mean individual position within a student intake of 300?

Sorry. Reading your post as it stands, there is no way of knowing that.

No you didn't. The n form is the population standard deviation, the n - 1 form is the sample standard deviation. That's why the top one uses Mu, denoting the population mean, and the bottom one uses XBar, denoting the sample mean.

Moreover, the cells will continue their processes (maintaining osmotic homeostasis) for some time after the heart has stopped (until each cell runs out of its own energy).

I think you need to read the previous posts.

Then living to 93, which many people don't, is even more impressive.

Plant respiration will speed up as photosynthesis speed up. The faster the rate of photosynthesis, the greater the need for CO2 (and H2O) to provide the building blocks for the sugars the plant is creating. You can see this in some oxygenating aquatic plants. When you shine light on them, they start to release bubbles of oxygen. When you turn the light off, the bubbles stop. If you turn the intensity of the light up, the rate of bubbles increases, up to a point.

Good. Ta very much

Alcohol is a supressive. It supresses neural function. Unless you are a chronic alcoholic (in which case memory disfunction is likely due to Korsakoff's psychosis), the most likely explanation for your memory loss, is that you simply did not encode the memories in the first place. Reliable memory formation requires that you register events, understand them and can relate them in a meaningful way to existing knowledge. When you're that pissed, you cannot focus on events, nor really understand them. You have little real grasp on what's going on. All you encode is a blurred set of images and snatches of meaning that don't relate to each other as your attention wanders randomly. These can't be recalled well, as they don't carry much meaningful information. So, you never lost the memory of events, you just didn't form it completely in the first place. As an aside, there is a thing called context sensitive learning (although the evidence for it is somewhat shakey). Chances are that if you get pissed again today, you will be able to reconstruct a bit more of last night's events.

From a completely impersonal perspective, as there are >6bn humans on this planet, I wonder about the great urge to save/prolong life, especially when quality of life is a far greater problem than quantity for so many (largely due to there being so many). I'd go for quality over quantity, but that's just me. Why would I need to? There are literally hundreds of different shampoos out there right now. How many different types of hair cleaner do we need? How clean can your hair be? As for medical testing, I can see the point. But I also feel that the division between necessary and unnecessary testing is extremely fine and needs to be trod with extreme care, and a lot more thought than is being shown here. Hmm...s'pose you did that only to find out the day after that it wasn't really necessary as there was a viable, though more expensive alternative? Bummer, huh? Kill your dog or pay a bit more. Would you be prepared to pay the extra money?

They've started using those weird chairs with no backs at our place. You kind of half kneel on them. I tried one on Wednesday. They are surprisingly comfortable, and they make you sit in a better posture naturally (i.e. It didn't feel like I was being 'forced' into position). Maybe you should try one of those. After half an hour on it, I felt I could quite easily sit at the computer for a long time without slouching over.

So are we. But being human, we are supposed to have some level of humanity. A rabbit doesn't have to suffer being chemically blinded. This is the point. Animal testing for medical science is one thing, but to satisfy human vanity, that's another thing entirely. Killing something just so you can have 'squeaky-clean hair', don't you think that's a bit much? Like the testing shampoo kind of thing?

Being so old, I remember when it was the parents who used to interact with children, and then, when a child was a little older, other children. In the old days, we used to call it 'socialisation'. This was how kids used to learn how to interact with other human beings.

It is to do with the curing process. Bacon, gammon and ham all have lots of salt added, sometimes cuts are packed in salt to cure, sometimes they are steeped in salt water before drying/smoking, depends on what product you want to end up with. It's mainly the salt that stops the meat from rotting.

My actual point was that whilst we can't prove suffering in animals, they have the neurological structures associated with pain and suffering, and show behavioural and autonomic correlates to the suffering state, therefore the safest conclusion is that they probably do suffer. As I said, we can't actually prove suffering in humans either.

I use Eudora. It seems to work well, especially with multiple accounts.

As far as that goes, you're absolutely right. MRSA is a perfect example of a major problem caused by (abuse of) a cure.

Oh yeah...def'nitely.

This is a pseudonym, right?

MRSA is not really any more virulent or nasty than normal staph. aurius (SA), which is a natural part of our bodily flora and fauna (swab under your watch, or your wedding ring, you'll find it there). During infection control checks in hospitals, nose and throat swabs are taken from people working on the wards. Sometimes they'll come up positive for MRSA, but the person won't even have known it (they're just required to stay away from patients until they're clear). SA is only a problem if a) it gets into a wound, and b) your immune competence is compromised (e.g. you're very old, very, very young, or very ill), and the only reason MRSA is a problem, is that it's resistant (to methycillin in particular) and thus very hard to treat and so is becoming more prevalent. MRSA is actually a very good argument for open plan hospitals. It's a weak bug that cannot survive for long away from its preferred environment. It also blows off clothes in the wind. If you have an open plan hospital, like some of the older more rural hospitals where staff have to walk outside to get from ward to ward, they're pretty much clear of MRSA by the time they arrive. As long as they wash their hands and kit too, transference is reduced to a minimum. One of the problems is that large 'super hospitals' concentrate people all in the same enclosed space, so if you get MRSA on one ward, the fact that it's an enclosed space means the airborne concentration of MRSA is higher, and the sheer number of people wandering around means the probability of transference to other wards is extremely high.

That would be nationalism. Patriotism = Loving one's own country Nationalism = Hating everyone else's

Hmm, even 750,000 years ain't so long on the grand scale of things. There's no record, as far as I'm aware, of mass extinctions or other majorly bummy things at that time. Wasn't it 30-35k years ago that all the ice melted (apart from the poles)? Hell of a bump by the way.