imatfaal

The system is perfectly clear. That the system is purely subjective guesswork and has no objective repeatability is also plain from the explanation. Why Tom came up with it is less clear but he attempts to explain it. Nothing in Tom's explanation detracts from the assertion that Tom's system is complete rubbish

! Moderator Note does not even reach the level needed for speculations forum. thread closed

Yep. Hallelujah - Jeff Buckley (although the writer Cohen is still alive). Johnny Cash - Hurt (ditto on writer)

1. The CIA has no remit to collect that sort of information domestically (regardless of the source) - they are primarilly a foreign intelligence agency. 2. People on televisions, especially experts, even more especially security experts talk a load of baloney. 3. The Director and the DNI would be toast if it were found that they were infiltrating the White House as a matter of course 4. In real terms only the electorate get to keep tabs on the elected leaders - to an extent the courts and legislature do so too; but the legislature have only seemed to do it recently to settle partisan grudges and the courts are loath to investigate (as opposed to react against) elected officials. There are methods available when serious concerns are raised - but these are long winded. I do not believe any relatively free democracy has pre-existing and governmentally accepted covert scrutiny of the workings of the higher administration.

blue89 has been suspended for abuse of the reporting system and hijacking threads right, left, and centre.

Agreed - I am going to try to remember to use it in future

A few days ago I wanted iNow out on the streets of Texas to cement an amazing victory for Clinton - now I want Phi out on the streets of Colorado to sure up a potential victory (thank you Director Comey). Come On Phi! Colorado is 70:30 likely to go Clinton; if this moves any further towards Trump I am not sure I am going to sleep till the concession speech out of sheer worry. Colorado and Penn voting red would probably swing it for Trump - maybe even Pennsylvania and little New Hampshire would be enough

Me too Even at 23 my thought was "poor kid!" - I think we all have moments at University / away from home for first time when we slip back into a comfortably usage that suddenly makes us look like a 9 year old to our peers. My father at age 18 had joined up with the Fleet Air Arm (ie Royal Navy flying) and never lived it down that he once called his NCO "Dad" in front of the whole squadron (? not sure of the right term)

! Moderator Note I have hidden post arguing with SwansonT's clarification of the rules; this is not the place. The thread should probably have been locked in the first place so I am doing that now. We really do not have the time nor the will to argue every rule and diverse interpretation with new members. We try to be fair and even-handed - if you have a non-personal gripe with the rules then open a thread in the Suggestions forum; please do not do this if you just want to argue moderator action taken with regards to one of your posts/comments.

What is anti-L ? The only possible meaning I can bring to mind is the reciprocal; but that would mean that L* ~L = 1.

Could we limit the candidate with those criteria as well?

My point is that when there has been a Republican President there has been a general mood of sullen cooperation from the opposition and realisation that things still need to get done - but when there has been a Democrat President the opposition have used fair means but mainly foul means to stop any progress (even items they would normally and rationally agreee with). The response of the Democrats and the response of the Republican whilst in opposition and whilst in power has been vastly different - sometimes I imagine it would be fun to play the bad guys and frankly Hillary Clinton would make the best Bad M*****F***** President.

They definitely have the ability to "write in " candidates - this, I believe, has actually ocurred at not unimportant elections and substantial numbers of votes are cast for candidates who do not appear on the ballot paper. I also believe that in most jurisdictions of the USA that this is a valid vote as long as the write in candidate is properly identified. I agree with your sentiment - there should be a "none of the above" and IMO voting should be mandatory

I must admit I would like to see Hillary in her acceptance speech turn to her secret service detail and say with that cold hard look she has (and I am a fan): "OK - find that scum-sucking orange-faced sexual predator and fly him off to Guantanamo - no need to plan for the return trip" But then we are the good guys and that won't happen. Oh, Trump and the GOP will continue to try to derail the train of state, try to impeach the new President, frustrate the will of the people, and generally act like spoilt children who have failed to get their own way - but we will and we must treat them with the respect their position deserves.

Or perhaps the fact that women think about these things a lot more and a lot deeper - the best friend saw right through the little deception and correctly surmised that the suitor wanted his troth plighted through indirect means.

! Moderator Note No need to worry - they are different subjects and we will always prefer to keep subjects narrow and defined. It is really in Speculations that we prefer to keep every part of a speculative topic quarantined in its own little hermetically sealed reserve and thus we resist multiplication of those threads. This thread is a good example of an explanatory / exploratory thread - and the more of those the better It might be an idea just to pursue one line of enquiry at a time merely for your own sanity - there is clearly a lot of thought going into this thread and I am not sure I for one could maintain that level in two distinct discussions. Thank you for thinking about this. Feel free to PM staff or ask questions in Suggestions Forum.

The FBI haven't exactly shown their technical nous recently - but maybe they thought pragmatically "if we look at them and if in the future anyone can tell we looked then our case will be screwed; all evidence from the emails and gathered later because of the contents of the emails would be rendered inadmissible". Basically, the decision is between do the wrong thing legally and get fired if it comes out during the subsequent trial or do the right thing legally and keep your arse covered in what might be the most politically tense trial for decades. Agree with WaitforUFO - they probably got info from other sources and once they had laptop in possession just had to make fact public and apply for warrant. Comey was sailing between Scylla and Charibdis on this case. I think the delay / compromise position taken was incorrect - either announce the instant you have laptop in possession or keep schtum till after you have warrant post-election.

Love your posts Mordred but this one has me foxed. So you give the critical density function - OK. And then define k - twice, and k is not even mentioned in the equation! [latex]R^2 \left(H^2 - \frac{8}{3} \pi G \rho \right) = -kc^2[/latex] Is the Friedman equation not the relevant one - your equation being a version of it when density is at critical level

Write in the third person with a suitably critical view and maintain a distance from the protagonist. Very few autobiographies follow the form of a good biography - perhaps try to be different and indeed write a biography of oneself

650,000 is not such a large figure to become automatically suspicious - I have north of a million emails on my pc. I get hundreds a day most of which are automatically archived by Thunderbird rules - almost all of them will never be read but I need to have access to the information they contain, a small percentage will have the information stripped out of them by custom software, a smaller percentage will get automatically booted to someone else to deal with, and I read a few dozen

1. For two object to multiply together to give zero © one of them MUST be zero - so either L or ~L is zero 2. From (a) and (1) we know that ~L is less than a product which must equal zero. Thus ~L is negative and has an absolute value which is not zero 3. From (d) we have confirmation that ~L is negative 4. From (b) we gain no new information So presuming normal rules have applied we can say that L=0 and that ~L is negative a. 0 times any negative is greater than any negative , 0>any negative b. 0=0 c. any negative * 0 = zero d. zero is greater than any negative Thats all you can say L=0 , ~L<0

The passage of time is, of course, necessary - but I could measure the velocity of a test object passing a point without any measurement of time. I would have to stop the object to do it - but if I were allowed to fire small objects at it in the opposite direction to travel I could measure the force used over a certain distance to accelerate these objects , I would already know their mass, and thus their velocity when I launch them. I would then use how many of my fired objects were required to stop the test object.

I really have not paid attention to this but I would think the FBI have very carefully not looked at the emails yet - they had a warrant to investigate the laptop for emails from Weiner about his sexual approaches to a minor case, they did not have a warrant to look at emails from Abedin. American evidential law is complex (and far more stringent than English) but I know that in cases like this the investigators must be very careful not to potentially poison ( and render inadmissible) any evidence then find whilst they are overstretching a warrant for a different matter. BTW - Why is it Hillary and Huma but Comey and Weiner? Little women don't deserve enough respect to be called by their surname?

Read Flatland whilst dropping some LSD...I presume someone has already posted the obligatory xkcd cartoon

Sorry - hadn't realised you were talking that small. I see no reason why a transverse oscillating masses would not produce gravitational waves in a very hypothetical sense - but the disturbances are vanishingly small and without any detail, I would guess that anything accurate enough to detect would be absolutely swamped by noise (from residual particles in strong vacuum to quantum background). If something is theoretically impossible to detect can you really say it is there? For instance, I would think that the slight imbalance of charge inherent in the human body and between hands would produce far larger readings in emr than the g waves