Glider

Another way of looking at it is that making prostitution illegal doesn't seem to have had much of an effect really, does it?

filosofie magister sounds more like it would equate to M.Phil (master of philosophy), which is the research-based equivalent of the M.Sc., which is a taught course (i.e. you attend modules and do a dissertation). But then, I'm only going on what it sounds like.

De nada

That's right. The initial jump is the result of the reticular system in your brainstem sending out a 'wake up' alarm which elevates general levels of arousal very rapidly, and makes you orient towards the stimulus. If you think about it, that is the most immediate thing that happens. Limbic areas, e.g. the hypothalamus, left amygdala and anterior singulate gyrus assess the valence of the stimulus (good/bad - safe/dangerous) within 250 milliseconds, and by then the autonomic system is already preparing you for fight or flight. The racing heart, panting and other related autonomic changes are the result of that. The evaluation of the stimulus by limbic areas occurs preattentively so, should the stimulus be assessed as dangerous, you would be running before you had consciously identified what it was that made you jump in the first place.

An (unfortunately) not unknown situation: "Doctor. I have a problem with my bowels. I've been seeing my homeopath for nearly a year with this problem, but nothing (s)he gives me seems to help. What can I do?" 10 days later, after test results "I'm sorry to tell you, you have bowel cancer. Unfortunately, you have developed secondary metastices in your liver and lymphatic system. If only you'd come to see me earlier. I'm afraid there's nothing we can do now". This happens and it is tragic. I agree with the first line in the first post; Homeopathy need to demonstrate THAT it works. However, it needs to do so through through accepted methodology, rather than adjusting the methodology to accomodate homeopathy (nothing can fail under those terms). Moreover, I don't think homeopathic techniques should be practiced UNTIL they have been shown to be effective. Physicians generally work to the principle 'Do no harm'. If homeopaths work to the same principle, then they must know that providing even harmless intervention is still doing harm if: a) it is ineffective, and b) it prevents the patient from seeking effective treatment as soon as possible.

Dang! More degrees than a compass!

The startle response is 'a' shock, rather than (clinical) shock per se. A severe startle can also produce a vaso-vagal response, but it is usually in the opposite direction, and very acute. The startle response is associated with a rapid autonomic change from relative stasis to high arousal, with concommitant changes in alertness, a shift of blood from the periphery to deep muscle (peripheral vasoconstriction), increased respiration and elevated heart-rate and BP. Also a large release of glucose and adrenaline (or epinephrine, depending on which side of the Atlantic you're on). Clinical shock, on the other hand is associated with a significant drop in BP, either from sudden vasodilation or bleeding.

Good point. I think it's because nobody appreciates the absence of illness until they're sick. In the same vein (so to speak), when given a vaccination, the use of a modern triaxially ground hypodermic needle would only be appreciated if they were shown the rusty hollow nail they used to use for injections and phlebotomy.

Yep...though I think you're gonna need some help carrying it.

It can't hurt, and would help your employment prospects too

Shock is just a reduction in blood pressure/volume. This can be through vasodilation (pooling of the blood as in a vasovagal response) or bleeding. Either way, it can be fatal if severe and not treated.

Well, by recovery, I mean that people who suffer for example, speech impediment after stroke, can usually regain most, if not all of their ability to speak, with a lot of speech therapy, and depending on the severity of the damage. They have to re-learn from scratch as undamaged but related regions begin to take over the functions of speech. Memory is different however. It depends on the type of amnesia he has; retrograde or anterograde. If it's retrograde (the loss of old memories) then they will be gone. You can't re-learn a memory, though if it's the traces that are gone, rather than the memories themselves, some may re-surface, given the right stimuli. If it's anterograde (the inability to form new memories) then he might improve with time, but it will require his learning new techniques for remembering things by the use of deliberate strategies. Again, the degree to which this will happen depends on the severity and precice location of the damage.

Anaesthetics Antiseptics (and aseptic technique) The modern hypodermic needle

SD = 15 (or 16 in some texts).

Once an area of brain dies through stroke, even micro strokes, it tends not to regenerate. In small strokes however, the functions of the damaged areas are taken up more readily by proximal areas than the functions of larger areas of damage. Large strokes often damage more than one region (areas dedicated to particular functions), which makes it hard for other areas to compensate. However, even damage through minor strokes require lots of re-learning by the individual; re-learning to speak, to control fine limb movements etc. The brain is quite a marvel. All the areas surrounding the damaged region, that are not actually dead can re-learn other functions. The degree of recovery by stroke patients can be quite amazing, over time of course.

Peripheral nerves can regenerate if the damge is not too bad. These axons can grow at about 1mm per month. It used to be thought that cells in the central nervous system don't regenerate, but evidence of cell division has been found in certain areas of the brain. However, the process is slow and comparitively rare as there is no nerve growth hormone in the CNS. This is adaptive as the CNS is completely encased in bone and significant growth would be fatal to the organism. For all practical purposes, you might still say that brain cells, once damaged will not heal. The damage done by severe strokes (for example) is permanent. However, that evidence of cell division in the CNS has been found does suggest an interesting avenue of research with an aim to healing stroke damage and other CNS trauma.

I don't think they do either, at least girls don't. I heard somewhere that "Girls don't like boys, girls like cars and money". This hypothesis is supported to a degree by empirical observation.

If this were true, then it would be equally true to say that you are heterosexual by choice. As you are (presumably) heterosexual, you no doubt find members of the opposite sex sexually attractive, but find the idea of same-sex relations repellant. That doesn't sound like a choice. Why should it be any different for people who find members of the same sex sexually attractive, and the idea of opposite-sex relations repellant? As both males and females find it extremely difficult, if not impossible to perform sexually with a partner to whom they are not sexually attracted (or perceive as sexually repellant), the only choice anyone has is between engaging in sexual relations with people they find sexually attractive, or celibacy. So, is it true to say you are heterosexual by choice? Do you find members of the same sex attractive, but deliberately choose to have sex only with members of the opposite sex?

Well, it is a film . Briefly, it's about a virulent and lethal virus that gets released into the US through the illegal import of an infected monkey. Long story short, an entire town gets infected, and there is a race between the good guys (Dustin Hoffman et al.) to find a cure, and the bad guy (admirably played by Donald Sutherland) who wants to drop a FAE and wipe out the whole town. No, the principle of an explosive used to 'blow out' a fire (as used on oil fires) wouldn't work on a forest fire. It might, as you say, work on a grass fire, but I was thinking that given the tremendous pressure wave and subsequent vacuum, it might be effective if used on the periphery to create a break. However, with FAEs, there is a risk; sometimes they don't detonate, but burn (rapidly, but still not a detonation), which would just make things a whole lot worse.

Hehe..yeah, and in 'Outbreak'. Cool film!

Well said sir!

This is the function of fuel-air bombs too. These are thermobaric explosive devices designed to burn the air itself. They are often known as 'vacuum bombs' and have an output comparable to a low yield nuclear device (but without the fallout). These are the devices that were used in Afghanestan to suck the air out of caves and kill the occupants.

A daisy cutter would probably render firefighting pointless, as there would be nothing left to save. A fuel-air bomb might create the right conditions to 'blow out' a fire though, if it was used as an air burst.

Homosexuality isn't hereditary (think about the logic there). There is a genetic component to homosexuality though (but this does not mean hereditary). There is also (apparently) a teratogenic effect which occurs during gestation. This has to do with the balance between several hormones; testosterone for one. The 'default phenotype setting' for all embryos is female (regardless of XX or XY genotype). The influence of testosterone is required to 'masculinise' an embryo, including certain areas of the brain (thalamic or hypothalamic I think) associated with sex. Homosexuality has been associated with an imbalance in sex hormones at particular stages of development. The areas of the brain associated with sex typing are more developed in females and less so in males. These areas are to do with sex typing. Post mortem studies have shown these areas to be developed in homosexual males, and under developed in some homosexual females. This would suggest a strong physiological influence in homosexuality. As was mentioned, young children are unaware of sexual differentiations, but this is a developmental factor. Different hormones kick in at different stages (i.e. puberty). The hormaones that kick in depend to a degree on the sexualisation of the brain. Think about this. If you were rejected by the opposite sex, would you turn to same-sex relationships? I doubt it. er...what? No gay I ever met ever 'blamed' their sexuality on anything at all. They don't feel the need to defend it, even though so many around them persistently feel the need to attack it. Would they want to be straight if they could help it? This is exactly like asking you 'would you want to be gay if you could help it?'. I have never met a gay who wasn't (at least on the face of it) happy with the way they are. It's those around them who are unhappy with it. Whose problem do you think that is?

Read up on sleep deprivation studies carried out by the Japanese and Germans during WWII.