hypervalent_iodine

This is what I am getting as well. I think what they're waiting for is an "establishment" candidate that they can rally behind and for all the money to get funnelled into, but that isn't going to happen until more people get out of the way. Rubio seems to be the pick of the moment, but Kasich and Bush did rather well this primary and both seem intent on spending money to screw over Rubio. On the other hand, Rubio did not do as well as he probably needed to. Even if both were to get out of the way (and I agree with iNow that Bush probably won't), I wonder how he'll come out of it. Whatever the case, if someone doesn't budge soon, things are going to be interesting for the GOP.

Those would be my three picks also. I for one am looking forward to less of all three of them, if nothing else. I was skeptical of Bush pulling enough votes for his team to justify going to South Carolina, but he's currently ahead of Rubio at 4th.

That much is definitely true, but based on where of where we are now I just can't buy it as being that huge. Could I have predicted it a year ago? Nope. A few months ago? Probably. In any case, my point is that I don't think the win signals much about his future chances. I don't think he can motivate the right people in the right way to carry it through the rest of the primaries and get the nomination. Still, I'd be interested to see what a new poll looks like. The last one I saw was from the 23rd of Jan, and a bit has happened since then that might make Bernie's numbers improve. As for the Republican side: I seem to recall a lot of them saying they would drop out should they not do well or win in NH. I suspect that after this week, the pool of candidates should be at least a little smaller than it was. It will be interesting to see the polls after that happens.

The results in NH are not that surprising. I saw an article just before by Slate about Bernie's win with the comment, 'That's a big freaking deal." I'm sorry, but no it freaking isn't. He was leading in polls by double digits going into it. It's not going to be anywhere near as easy for Sanders to motivate people in states like SC as it was in Iowa (which tends to get the more ideological voters on either end) or in the NH primary, and all of the polls going in have Hillary pegged well above him. I doubt he's going to have a win there, though his numbers have been on the up and up.

I don't think anyone expected it to be different, did they? I'm interested to see how the Republican candidates end up faring once it's all in. Not looking so good for Rubio if he can't get up past the 10% he's currently on.

! Moderator Note computingtoday, Please outline the content of your slides here. I have removed the link that you posted. Members should be able to reply to the content of your discussion without having to open external documents or links. These should really only be present to support the body of your post.

! Moderator Note Eldad Eshel, this isn't a thread for you to discuss your bizarre moral quandaries with porn, nor is it the place to talk about your mother's breasts or your various other pointless anecdotes. If you want to partake in this discussion, please support your claims with scientific justification and evidence. If you cannot do this and continue to drag this thread off topic, I will be placing you in the mod queue.

! Moderator Note To add to swansont's comment, Robittybob1, what I told you via PM was that you are welcome to outline your ideas in your own thread if and only if you were to do so in accordance with the rules of the Speculations forum. Please review these if you are unsure of them.

! Moderator Note Dan98, The people responding to you in this thread are giving you well thought out advice that stems for their own experience in the matter. Is this not what you came here for? Calling someone a jackass for helping you is absolutely inappropriate and will not be tolerated. With respect, your attitude here and your stubborn determination to skip undergrad without considering the benefits of not doing so shows that you are not ready for a PhD. I commend you on learning as much as you claim to in so short a time, but please understand that undergrad is not just about memorising content, and not doing one puts you at somewhat of a disadvantage. At the very least, you would do well to take on the words of other members here with more grace and humility than you are currently demonstrating.

! Moderator Note Rajnish Kaushik, Welcome back from your two year suspension. You may want to review the forum rules (http://www.scienceforums.net/index.php?app=forums&module=extras&section=boardrules) now that you have returned. Please try and leave the pseudoscientific claims out of other people's threads. If you have your own scientific ideas to discuss, please do so by opening a thread in Speculations. Do not respond to this within the thread.

! Moderator Note This isn't a place for preaching. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note The insults are to stop. The Angry Intellect, please review the forum rules, which you agreed to upon signing up.

I did something similar as a favour to a friend a few years back. I spent two hours in an MRI watching a video and pressing a button on either my left or right hand when something popped up on the screen. Admittedly, two hours of perfect stillness made it very difficult to stay awake, so I'm not sure my reaction times were ideal. I spent half of the time pinching my sides. Got a nice photo of my brain though! I keep a small copy with me in my wallet in case I'm ever accused of not having one.

! Moderator Note That's not speculation as is pertains to this forum, that's non-scientific rubbish based on a story book. If you want to preach, get a blog. Thread closed.

! Moderator Note These posts have all been split from here. Please try to stick to the topic of the thread. Confusi, if you can't provide actual, scientific evidence that chemtrails are more than just the product of someone's overactive imagination, this is getting closed. And in future, don't hijack other threads with off-topic nonsense.

No problems. I don't know what you mean by this. In any case, it's wrong. The electrons don't move that way. You generate a positive charge in the ring, not a negative one. Could you explain your logic behind the first image? I'm struggling to understand what you were trying to do there.

What have you done on this problem and where are you stuck?

In fact, neither image is correct at all. Firstly, you are missing the + charge on the nitrogen in all of them. A nitrogen with 4 bonds will have a + charge. If it didn't, the nitrobenzene would have a - charge, but it doesn't. You first image looks very bizarre. Why have you got all three double bonds breaking in the ring like that? Even if that did happen (it definitely doesn't), you've completely missed out the 3 positive charges that would be on the other carbons in the ring. The second one is also a bit off. In the first step, why do you take the electrons away from the oxygen rather than the double bond in the ring? What you have drawn, which generates a + charge on the oxygen, doesn't make a lot of chemical sense. This will change the charge you have put on the ring. Even if your first step were correct, you would still be missing a structure between your last resonance structure and the original one.

I did quick Google search and came across this paper. It was published in 1985, but seems to be supported by other literature examples.

How do you separate actually having done it from random events (breezes, etc.)? That you've only managed to do it a few times (out of how many attempts?) suggests that it is nothing more than chance.

! Moderator Note Mike, do you have a specific point here? This thread, like many of your other ones, is so broad and vague as to make real discussion almost impossible. Requests to define and refine what you are talking about only seems to result in more tangents and less sense. This is a problem of yours that needs to be resolved. If you don't want to have all of your threads shut down, then you need to make a better effort at detailing exactly what they are about in as precise and scientific a manner as possible.

I can't comment about whether or not iTaq adds A's, but a 1 bp difference seems like it wouldn't be noticeable on a gel.

This would be how I would do it. The pKa of the acid is around 3.8, so NaOH should be sufficient.

We can put you in touch with admin if you wanted access to your old account? They can let you know which email you used and potentially change it for you.

NaCl will dissolve because it is very soluble in water. This has nothing to do with the reaction between HCl and Mg, however, and I see no way that it would act as a catalyst.