Peterkin

Works for me! That's quite strict. I suppose the words would have to be distinctive enough (i.e. not "came from that direction" or "a fat grey dog walked") to be recognizable. I'm pretty sure I wouldn't catch that... unless it were "It was the best of times;"

That's quite true, but we're unlikely to solve the problem without a massive ad campaign - and that still leaves all the distrusters of public media and conspiracy subscribers. About the most positive approach, in the meantime, is advocacy of natural and simple remedies, rather than commercial overkill products. It's the same with insect and weed control in the garden - chemical warfare on everything. I figure, if ScienceNostalgia is shunning that route, he's already on the right track. That's what will kill us all - plastic everywhere.

I honestly don't know any more ways beyond those we've already tried to explain the difference.

No, salt water won't do it. Drop the cap into a small container of vinegar, then rinse and air-dry. Ingesting vinegar residue won't harm you in any way.

Plagiarism is cheating. It's like buying an essay - or the research that someone else did in writing their essay - only, without paying for it; IOW, stealing it. It's also a form of cheating yourself out of the process of learning, and thereby, out of the earned knowledge. And cheating the other students who may be competing for the same reward but doing their on work. And cheating your future employers, clients, patients or whoever depends on your knowing everything your certificate claims you know when you graduate. Using another person's work and words is nothing like using examples from history to elaborate on your own work. If you researched a historical period or event, and looked up contemporary documents, you can quote short passages to illustrate your thesis, footnoting source and author - preferably several different sources. Handing in a seven-page passage from Gibbon with your own name on top of it is cheating.

It looks to me like a giant salamander. https://nationalzoo.si.edu/animals/japanese-giant-salamander They're amphibian, but can survive on land.

I sympathize - and wonder how many excellent academics feel the same way. It's a spiral, innit?

He may or may not be capable of understanding. We can't tell from his work, because he he hasn't done the work. So, it's better to assume. If he understood the subject matter, he wouldn't need to cheat, and he would avoid the risk of being caught, failed and expelled.

In the case of plagiarism, they're not taking the lecture, or copying what the teacher wrote on the blackboard. They're given an assignment to research a topic and produce their own report on it. Instead, they are copying another person's report, without doing the research, which was the path to understanding. Therefore, understanding does not enter into the issues surrounding plagiarism. That's completely beside the point. It's not about great pedagogy or understanding. They want the paper credits: the certificate, the diploma, the official recognition that they have completed a course of studies, so that they qualify for a position. But they have not actually learned the material, so they will not be competent in that position. You'd better hope none of them are your pharmacist!

What is often - even routinely - replaced is the head of the femur and the lining of its socket. That's done without disturbing the pelvis or changing its shape, so none of the ligaments or muscles have to fit any differently after the surgery. (Still a longish recovery time, though.) But if you tried to do it the other way around, the legs wouldn't fit right. See what I mean? One relatively simple way I can see of making the hips wider or narrower is adding a graft to or taking a piece out of the pubic bones on either side of the pubic symphysis. If the change is not too drastic, the alignment of the legs could adjust. That's assuming that childbirth is not an issue. That, In conjunction with reshaping the flare of the pelvis, might be all you need. It wouldn't affect function or load-bearing capacity, yet produce a more desirable body shape. Perhaps not an ideal one... But I think you have to consider practicality (risk, discomfort, healing time, long-term function, ease of locomotion) over vanity. I don't know which is better. The plastic version is light, durable, replacable and probably a whole lot less expensive. It's custom designed ahead of time, so you know exactly what the final product is. The greatest advantage is speed. Growing your own is great for repair, and certainly an enormous amount of progress has been made since I harvested graft material back in the last century sometime. https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1359836820334946 Those attachments can't be got around. They're literally everywhere. All surgery on bone compromises some muscle function. With cosmetic surgery, you have to find the balance: how much risk for how much improvement? But the techniques and materials are advancing all the time: they can do magic now that was unthinkable in 1980. Not exactly my position. What I said, in the context, was that undergoing the most drastic version of such surgery for only a slightly improved appearance would be crazy. I'm perfectly fine with the corrections I did suggest: reshaping the flare at the top, along with reduction or extension of the pubic bones. That would change the appearance of the hips and waist sufficiently, with far less risk, pain and time than replacement of the entire pelvic girdle. Weigh and balance! It's actually the other way around. Techniques developed for traumatic damage can now be used for elective surgery. (Which is great, IMO) I have no idea. That's way beyond my area of imperfect understanding. Sounds pretty cool, though. It would revolutionize plastic surgery. But I'm afraid, with everything else going on in medicine as well the world these days, such esoteric research may be retarded in its progress.

I should think a textbook, small or huge, is not read continuously like a novel, but one lesson at a time, taking notes all the while, presumably following a lecture and followed by a discussion, each accompanied by notes. A research paper would serve a different purpose and would be read as background to course material. I wouldn't read it sequentially, but in sections. Read the abstract: that tells you the reason a study, experiment or project was done, on what, in what existing conditions, with what limitations, in what framework, and what it aims to accomplish. After that, you don't necessarily have to understand every single paragraph. What do you need to know? Scan the introduction and look at the table of contents, if there is one. What are you going to use from this paper, and what will you use it for? Once you figured that out, you can pick out the relevant sections; scan or browse the intervening parts and study more intensely the sections that relate to your own work.

Something else to factor in is the age/maturity/dependency of the student. In the early grades, a child is very much influenced by parental and societal behaviours and expectation. They may simply want to please a demanding parent, or they may have great pressure exerted on them to perform to an adult's standard. These habits may then become ingrained, unless some other very strong influence turns them in another direction. In some cultures, parental expectation and control is all but absolute throughout a young person's life, until they become self-supporting. In some cultures, competition for ranking, prizes, places in the respected institutions of higher learning, prestigious professional firms or hospitals is so intense that a weaker student may resort to desperate measures - simply because the price of failure, or even just quitting, is too high. Some students commit suicide. Some act out, act up, get arrested, get expelled - anything to get that achivement-monkey off their back. Some cheat and get away with it and go on to become extremely successful business tycoons. That seems like nothing more than laziness to me. * Obviously, I started the above a long time before posting it. Duties elsewhere intervened.

So, it's really not so much about the ethics of plagiarism - or whatever degree of appropriation of other people's effort - as about education itself. Whether it's meant to be a process of knowledge building, or just a means to some unrelated end.

There is also - and most of all in science - the matter of intellectual engagement. In doing research for an assignment, even if the assigned topic doesn't make your heart flutter, you come across data that lead to some other information that opens a new path of inquiry, and so forth. Not only do you retain more of the information itself, but you also become more adept at tracking down relevant facts and making connections and that, in turn, can lead to discoveries.

That makes you an exceptional student. Unfortunately, most students just want to get the credits, move on, get the diploma, move on, get the job, move on, get the pay, move on, get the promotion, move on ...

The main lesson my daughter took away If they just go on cutting and pasting? Because it can be done without all the expense of building schools and training teachers. The central lesson my daughter took away from that experience had nothing to do with cod depletion or lobster farming - it was" Why bother making an effort, if you get more credit for using somebody else's work?"

To me, the issue was the purpose of a school assignment. It's not that the teacher wants to see pictures of fishing boats and read articles from the National Geographic; it's that the student should learn about Atlantic fisheries. My teachers, back in the Dark Ages, held that I would retain more of the information if I hand-copied the illustrations and rendered the text into my own words. If there was an element of creativity involved, we got extra praise. There was a sense of achievement, too, that was missing from my children's school experience. We've taught children how to cut out pictures by the time they graduate kindergarten. Why waste another 12 or 20 years educating them?

When my daughter was in Grade 12, in the late 1980's, she had a history project. I insisted - in spite of tears and slammed doors - that she draw ever picture and write every word herself. It turned out very well and she got a B. Later, I saw the A papers on the bulletin board in her classroom. Every one had paste-in pictures and articles cut out periodicals. Apparently, the teacher was already less clear on the concept and a lot more flexible in the definition of "original work" than mine had been a few decades before.

And these same teachers will probably punish any students they catch doing it. I suspect these teachers back for an upgrade have busy adult lives and not very much time to work on assignments. At the same time, they may not take the program itself seriously: it's not for their education or qualifications, it's just for the certificate. Unfortunately, shortcuts and 'hacks' already are part of the culture at large, as well as education. It's bound to happen in a highly competitive society, where the accoutrements of excellence - degrees, prizes, grades, the reputation of the school - is more conducive to obtaining a decent wage than competence in some useful field.

My first post was entirely on point. In the second, I my intention was not to hijack; only to respond. But if it's important to adhere strictly to category, I shall do so henceforward. Afterthought: Anatomy, Physiology and Neuroscience could, without too great an effort, include hormone therapies.

What if people don't want to change the way they incline, or feel, or identify themselves? Might it not be less trouble to change the way society reacts to masculine-looking women and a feminine-looking men? If we were just more broadly accepting of other people's appearance, maybe nobody would have to change their bodies or their brains or their orientation...

Of course corrective and reconstructive surgery can change the shape of a pelvis - or any other bone. The ilium can be enlarged with grafts, or reduced by trimming; the flare might even be widened or narrowed. None of that would need any special procedure that's not available now. Cosmetically, it's perfectly feasible, either way, to produce a more desired body shape. All the doctor needs is skill and access to good surgical facilities; all the patient needs is lots of time, money and high tolerance for pain. Functionally, it's more difficult, if not impossible. While it may be possible to enlarge a male pelvis' greater foramen to somewhat resemble a female's, you can't reduce a female's to the proportion of a male one. Also, if you tried to mess around with the shape and configuration of either, you'd run into serious problems with the socket joint for the femur - i.e., might render the patient unable to walk. https://onlinesciencenotes.com/differences-between-male-pelvis-and-female-pelvis/ I'm unclear on how this works. Two sections, one surgery at a time, detaching and re-attaching the sacrum? I would be concerned about the security of that seam afterwards - I mean the spinal column and whole upper body depends on it. Might be concerned with re-establishing adequate blood supply, as well, but maybe they've figured that out. Reconstructive surgery after trauma or cancer damage is difficult enough. Undergoing such a risky procedure just to look more masculine or feminine - only slightly more, since nobody's going to replace their legs and shoulders - would be .... I dunno... crazy? However, there may be hope of doing it better, cheaper. https://all3dp.com/2/3d-printed-bones-projects/ There mains, of course, the attachment of ligaments, tendons and muscles - a very complicated series of challenges, not without risk.

Once you get over the trepidation and the first two failures, both cooking and baking can be very good therapy. As well as making you self-reliant and confident. Any new skill does that, but food preparation is particularly satisfying, both for the social persona and the inner animal.

That depends on what you mean by 'thrive'? If it destroys the ecology that was there before, it's not only wrong, but eventually fatal. Two things: 1. Distinguish types of 'farm animal'. I have no problem with horses kept for riding or pulling; sheep and llamas kept for wool, cows and goats kept for milk, hens or geese for the eggs. (The male offspring would still have to be killed young because of the feed, tending and grazing, as well as the rivalry among them, so they wouldn't have much to thriving time.) I'm not sure old cows and sheep would be very palatable, but I suppose you could eat them once they've had a long and happy life. I do have a problem with animals bred and kept for no other reason than to be killed young, for their flesh: pigs, steers, waterfowl, turkeys. But my aesthetic objection to breeding and raising animals in order to be killed, even if humanely, is the lesser of the problems. 2. Keeping farm animals in conditions that I could describe as "a good life" is a whole lot less economical than factory farming. It's just not commercially feasible in the world as we find it. (I can imagine changes that would make it feasible, including wide-spread permaculture, but the current economic structure does not encourage alternative methods. I think the movement started half a century too late.) The biggest obstacle of all is the sheer number of humans demanding a meat-heavy diet. To meet that demand, you need to produce on a scale that's impossible to sustain through humane and ecologically sound farming practices. If the demand were reduced by 90%, we could manage. (Though there still remains the problem of all those billions of carnivorous pets.) I had not previously made a moral argument. I do have convictions on the matter, and do grapple with compromise. I have not found a way to live in the world without compromises, some of which are uncomfortable.

I appreciate that you said 'minor' problems, but I'd like to address them anyway. Almost everything in modern human life is a long way from 'instinctive'. We spend our formative 18 or so years, learning to control and suppress our instincts, learning to live in high-rise cities, wear neckties and high-heeled shoes, stare at computer screens for a living and go to a dentist with a toothache. Learning to choose and prepare one's food is part of every child's education. I won't go hunting for the statistics, but it seems obvious to me that a diet of fast and manufactured foods causes considerably more medical cost than ignorant vegans. It's meat that requires freezing; meat and dairy that require refrigeration and have limited shelf-life. Other crops can be preserved by the traditional methods: in grain vaults, oil jars, barrels: fruit and soft vegetables are preserved by canning; nuts and pulses, and even fruits can be dried and stored almost indefinitely. Apples, root crops, squash and cabbage last several months if stored properly. That's exactly what people in poor countries do and have done for about 6000 years. Only, in order to keep the storage pigs alive through a winter, you have to preserve the surplus crops in some way. Then you must butcher the pigs as soon as the surplus runs out, and the only way to preserve all that surplus meat would be rendering the fat and smoke-drying the flesh - which people have also been doing long before artificial refrigeration. Chickens are slaughtered at 6-8 weeks. Cattle, between one and two years - except veal and obviously not lamb. The average life expectancy of dairy cows is five years. It's probable that a small family farm with a greater proportion of its investment of money and effort in each animal they keep would extend the useful life of those animals - eg. not eat the chickens that still lay eggs; not eat cows as long as they give milk - but of course, the majority of roosters and bull calves have no function to justify their keep beyond the moment they attain maximum size. Livestock can't be compared in any realistic way to either wild animals, because they have been painstakingly bred to fill our needs, rather than their own, or to pets, which we feed, cherish and protect, but do not slaughter (except the surplus). It's a destiny assigned to them by man. Man giveth, man taketh away - and not usually in the kindest manner.