Peterkin

We recently acquired a bread machine. (All four of our hands are too arthritic for kneading.) We still have to use commercial ingredients, of course, I get to pick which ones and in what proportion. The bread is not as fluffy as the packaged ones, nor as crusty as the bakery product, and it's only good for about three days. However, it has extra fiber and the close texture makes thin slicing easy. I make a 1 or 1.5 lb loaf either on the weekend of after 7 pm when electricity is cheaper. Since we don't eat much bread, I usually take four or six slices the next morning and freeze them. The last of the loaf usually becomes spiced croutons. Which reminds me, it's time to go pick some tomatoes for dinner salad.

Sheep are not so unlike antelope that you need special evolution for it. Fruits, including cucurbits, nuts and roots were always part of the hominid diet. Grains, too, though the strains have been modified over time to suit human needs: they have been accelerated in their evolution by us. Cooking food, including flat-breads, has been in our repertoire for quite a long time; it was the norm well before agriculture was. The problem isn't an evolutionary one; it's commercial one. The more processing an ingredient undergoes, the more of its nutrients are lost - and usually the more refined sugar and chemical preservatives are added.

Oh. In that case, I guess metabolic function counts as much as facial features. And while one can see which facial features came from which side of a family, metabolism and cell functions are so widely distributed that I'd guess it's impossible to tell how much of any individual's are dominated by which parent's set of genes, until an illness is traced to some hereditary flaw.

How does it affect physical appearance?

Because the X chromosome is bigger than the Y? But the metabolic enzyme and brain function information on the X chromosome wouldn't show up in physiognomy ?

As to the title question : No. People are more likely to resemble the parents who has the most dominant genes. How much more likely depends on the presence of recessive genes in both parents. The only thing always determined by the father's chromosomes is the sex of the offspring. Their appearance depends on a large number of quite random factors.

Hallucinations can be caused by many different health conditions that affect the senses. This is a simple outline of hallucinations and possible causes.

That's why soaking baths are so relaxing, I guess. Maybe not for everyone, but it's a widely used escape for women who find being pulled in opposite directions by the obligations of work, home and relationships quite stressful at times. My daughter's bathroom is also thick with candles, so I guess there is a component of that different quality of light. Hers are icky scented ones, so add in aromatherapy.

Yes. I'm holding out for the ambiance - the lightness of body, the soft motion of water, the gently waving plants, the quiet, and especially the diffuse green light. I find the quality of light, even in an ordinary room, has an effect on my mood. I wonder whether translucent green and blue patterned bedroom curtains would help with some issues, like anxiety and overstimulation.

It has to be clear. No entrapment.

It would have to be a statement of intent with the option of acceptance or refusal, before anyone joins the forum. Something like: Do you agree to having your ratings and comments monitored for the purpose for research? Then you'd have to explain who does the monitoring, for what reason, and what privacy safeguards are guaranteed. Including the promise of not reading comments by people who opt out. I'm not sure anyone who actually read the site guidelines would still join, or if they did, whether they would make use of the rating and comment option. After all, there is no anonymity behind the scenes; a mod can out you at any time. (I've seen that happen.)

Certainly - with the subjects' informed consent. Same with organs: the donor should be able to specify the purposes for which they consent to have their organs used. This could also apply to tissues surgically removed. As to behaviour, observations are made all the time in treatment facilities, institutions, many work-places and schools. To what extent these data are analyzed, and to whom they are reported depends on the purpose of the observation. When psychologists conduct studies and publish the results, the identity of subjects is never revealed, to prevent any potential harm. Scientific studies, of course, need to be very strictly defined and controlled to be as bias-free as possible, while observations of office interaction require a much lower standard of precision to be useful in removing stress points or impediments to efficiency.

It's not clear to me. https://www.frontiersin.org/articles/10.3389/fpsyg.2018.02495/full In the articles I've seen, the therapy is mainly for gangrene and would healing, though they've been finding it useful for emotional trauma. Don't know about chronic illness. It wouldn't work for me: I have an almost pathological dread of having to enter one of those things.

I doubt it. But I can see the underwater environment having a soothing effect, the same way a forest does: the green, diffused light, in particular may be responsible. Plus the lightness of body and ease of movement, the solitude, absence of pressure to conform and the expectations of other people. Other people can be extremely trying, even if one is well adjusted; if one has emotional issues, the fear of judgment is an additional burden. Deep salt water lifts a lot of that burden, both actually and metaphorically. I'm not sure you can always draw a clear distinction between psychological and physiological effects.

For a while. You don't see a lot of horse-drawn carriages and buggies on the roads (Mennonite regions excepted, and there, they're restricted to the gravel shoulder, so as not to impede car traffic.) There comes a time when enough of the infrastructure has adapted to the incoming technology that it becomes more costly and inconvenient to keep using the old.

I think that's a very limited perspective. The gridlock is not due to an insufficiency of roads, but to heavy reliance on personal vehicles. However roads are built, more cars make more trips and spew out more CO2. That's inefficient, unintelligent use of the roads. If you built more roads, they'd fill up in a few years, blocking migration routes, cutting habitats in half, killing wildlife and endangering one another. Why is there even a "rush hour" in every city? Where on Moses' tablets does it say everyone has to live on the outskirts of a city and work in the center from 9 to 5 every weekday? Why are cities so badly designed and organized? It's an erroneous one. The general idea for autonomous cars, atm, is to provide cheap taxi service. At least that's the plan in China. That, of course, would reduce the number of cars downtown. They'd still have to spend a lot of money on something that sits idle most of the time. Having robotaxis on call would be way more convenient: you'd still get to surf the net, without the hassle of looking a parking space at the end each little trip. The robotaxis themselves would be on the road most of the time, doing the work of a hundred private vehicles. Anyway, it's all speculative. What will be will be. You sure can build a mountain!

Better than the 1980 miniseries? I'll see it as soon it's streaming - we don't go to movie theaters.

That was the Nixon strategy. Reefer Madness predates that by about three decades or more. At first, cannabis was the main target, in order to aggrandize and enrich the He used Jim Crow and fear of Mexican migrants to promote the ant-drug agenda. When prohibition ended, the FBI and Customs police were facing cuts to their budget and power. They jumped right on board, waging valiant battle against a new bogeyman. That the subsequent disproportionately harsh sentencing happened to damage the nonconformist subcultures was a bonus; the vast amounts of money and manpower suddenly available to law-enforcement was the real payoff. The infamous movie Not unusual in other areas, either. Can you imagine how The Law would react if Leon D. Washington uttered as many threats as Donald J. Trump has?

It would be a derail to go into detail here. Suffice to say, I had extensive radiation and chemo therapy for stage III squamous cell carcinoma of the throat in 2008. I was unable to swallow any solid food for several months; was feeble and miserable. Medical marijuana might have helped, at least with the nausea, but none of my doctors prescribed it. Touchy subject under a conservative government - they tend to make wars on things that don't hurt anybody, to collect in the religious vote. Besides, I sure wasn't about to start smoking again three months after quitting. It comes in tincture for vaping, but not a form you can add to the nutritional liquid muck in a feeding tube, so it wouldn't have been much use to me anyhow. What did help some was club soda.

I couldn't; had a feeding tube for six months. But pot didn't become legal and readily available until several years too late. Mary Jane was never a culprit; only a scapegoat - the whole reefer madness mania was a farce.

Yes, it seems the situation keeps developing. Last I heard, Level 6 autonomy was not yet cleared to roam free without human supervision; only under testing conditions. That may already have changed. In Ontario, it's still a pilot program, under strict regulations. Some states seem to have permitted Level 4 and 5 autonomous vehicles and several have not yet drafted the pertinent legislation. Then the autonomous car would be reduced to calling for help, just like a human driver. Only, it would happen less frequently, because the autonomous vehicle never leaves its storage garage less than fully charged (while many human drivers leave home with less than half a tank, assuming fill-up opportunities along the way). They would unobtrusively listen in on weather, traffic and road condition reports at all times and be warned in time to avoid the detour, as a human driver rarely is. The dangers and foreseeable problems are very similar to those confronting all drivers - minus fatigue, distraction, diminished capacity due to emotion or chemicals. The possible sources of danger include mechanical malfunction, error, infraction and bad judgment by other drivers, weather, sudden hazards like runaway cattle or truck wheels - plus hostile action by humans who resent autonomous vehicles. Certainly, the problems are real - but then, they already exist. Some will be solved, some won't, as has always been the situation. Change happens: some people welcome it, some don't, but it happens anyway.

That's not difficult. My outmoded cellphone indicates the level of battery charge and signals when it needs to be plugged in. As all autonomous cars will eventually be electric, they already "know" when a charge is/will be required. They also have GPS and there is no magic to an app showing where the charging stations are. Automatic debit or credit payments are also common. Pretty soon, too, the charging stations will be robotic, so the passenger need not even insert the plug. https://www.roboticparking.com/ In fact, you can do that a hundred times, since the fully driverless incarnations are not yet allowed on public roads without a human pilot. You can already choose a number of destinations for your GPS; no reason your car can't remember your usual commute, shopping and family outings. For tour-buses, it's a piece of cake. What you can't anticipate are routes and destinations for robotaxis and delivery vehicles.

Superficially, yes. But people brought up in Saudi don't adapt so readily to the Finnish sauna and westerners sojourning in Arab countries regularly run afoul of alcohol laws. Even when they overcome, intellectually, the taboos of their native culture and assume the mores of a more permissive one, the deep shame regarding body, sexuality, profanity, unclean food, etc is never wholly erased; whereas, moving from a liberal to an authoritarian environment, they may obey the letter of the law and keep up appearances, but never develop a sense of shame if they get away breaking a rule. Dogs, btw, don't seem to be abashed unless they're caught in wrongdoing. Sometimes they'll even pretend innocence in the very teeth of overwhelming evidence. It's easier to adapt in childhood and becomes more difficult to impossible as a person grows older in an environment where some behaviours carry social stigma. It's not all that easy, breaking older dogs of learned behaviour patterns, either. There are other factors besides age: intelligence, imagination (have you always secretly or overtly questioned the validity of your culture's mores?) subservience/emotional dependency on others; the consistency of early indoctrination and how stringently it was enforced in your formative years; the level of disapproval you've encountered from peers...

Yeah - so?

Or Mao or the Fatherland or King George. So? The root of organized religion is patriarchy. The Father is the arbiter of right and wrong, virtue and vice, pride and shame. It's still early, internalized socialization.