MigL

Are you starting to turn green when you get angry ? Or maybe get tingly sensations when something is about to happen, crawl up walls and swing from webs? But seriously, when I was in University, a small piece of radioactive material went missing. There were signs up all over the place suggesting that whoever took it should return it, as it was dangerous. And "Don't keep it in your pocket".

Don't worry about all the negative responses, Tampitump. As if none of them had ever lied to a woman in an attempt to get their way. Men lie. Women lie. You have to get through first impressions before they can get to know the real you. If your using it as a vehicle to meet people and break out of your shell, its perfectly fine. In time, you may want to re-think your position and explain yourself, once they get to know you and you become friends. She may open up and admit some lies of her own. We're all insecure to some extent. Everyone plays the game.

And the OP is not about you and your reaction to women ( although you could start a new thread about it; I'm sure you'd get a lot of contribution ). It is about Hillary Clinton, and the strengths and weaknesses she would bring to the Presidential office..

No Tar, the image I have is that she's opportunistic, and like a true politician, will say ( or use the excuse ) that she thinks is appropriate at the time. Sometimes, but not always, maybe even the truth. And I've never met her, nor, I presume, have you. So we both have just an image of her public persona. Both are subject to personal interpretation. Should yours be any more accurate ?

Sure. Some people put their hand over their chin when concentrating, some over their mouth. You'll notice both H. Clinton and B. Obama are somewhat squinting, which implies focus and concentration. She's certainly not wide eyed, and shocked by what she's seeing. And I really don't see the relevance of personal idiosyncrasies when concentrating. ( much like I didn't see the relevance of G.W. Bush's stunned reaction to the news of the 9/11 attacks while reading to the classroom of kids )

In opposition to Tar's views about the picture... I find her reaction 'humanizes' her, she looks concerned to me. And that's never a bad thing.

I realize there are only two candidates iNow. And were I American, I would be voting for H. Clinton, as I've stated for over a year now. The fact remains that she has 'baggage', too establishment insider and trust issues. And while we can all agree she is the more capable ( and honest ) of the two candidates, this 'baggage' is dragging down her polling. We are examining these issues. Are you suggesting we should cover our eyes, mouths and ears, and pretend these issues are non-existent ( or simply made up by a right wing conspiracy against her ). Edit: My apologies if I misinterpreted your statements Swansont. Your right, there could be some element of apprehension over the fact she's a woman, just like there was ( and is ) over B. Obama being a black American. But it is certainly not a major factor ( probably much less than B. Obama's case ).

To be fair... You accuse him of constantly moving goalposts. You just went and moved to a whole other playing field ! What exactly does D. Trump have to do with H. Clinton's trustworthiness ? Does the fact that he's a scumbag allow you to ignore her shortcomings ?

And I see you decided to give everyone an example of hyperbole and misrepresentation... It is NOT a fact that she's been cleared of any and ALL wrongdoing, because investigators couldn't examine all the evidence. How many e-mails are still unaccounted for ? With her penchant for telling fibs, I wouldn't be surprised if they start calling her 'Slick Hilly' soon ( like her husband Slick Willy).

Well, let's see... You, yourself, listed off about ten things back in post # 108 ( no, I won't quote it ) that she's been accused of. The implication being that if the charges didn't stick, she must be innocent. Nothing to see here. Lets move on. Maybe you're young and naïve, and believe the best about people, but I've come to realize that when dealing with politicians, usually 'where there's smoke, there's fire' And then there's DrmDoc's insistence that she's been cleared of any and all wrongdoing. And Swansont's willingness to believe that the only reason she's being attacked is because she's a woman. She's got bigger balls than most men !

I don't quote, it makes posts twice as long ( I dislike re-reading things two, three or more times ). And I don't point fingers. I'm sure you've been reading all the posts like I have, iNow.

I think we all know the score. Hillary Clinton is no angel. She isn't honest, and has been on the receiving end of many investigations over the years. So many, that one starts to believe the old adage about 'where there's smoke' there must be some criminality. I was an early supporter, because I thought she had the right attributes to be able to work with Republicans and avoid the 'bogging down' that B. Obama has suffered. But she was no-one's first choice, and most on this forum would have preferred B. Sanders. Even I would have liked to see B. Sanders as a running mate for her so that some of his ideology would have influenced her. But for some of you guys to now defend her like she's as pure as Snow White is absurd. She definitely has her faults. And for some of you other guys to pretend that her level of ineptness ( just an act, she's very sharp and conniving ), dishonesty and 'sliminess' reaches the same depths as D. Trumps is equally absurd. Of the two, she's certainly the best and most qualified for the job of President

Oh, I don't know Phi. I think H. Clinton is more of a 'bad-ass' ( that's the correct term ) than any of the others who sought the nomination, Republican or Democrat. Just ask Bill who he's afraid of more... An angry Hillary or D. Trump ?

I wouldn't go that far Swansont. Maybe she was 'expected' to smile because she's not a miserable prick like D. Trump.

If a BH is due to stellar collapse, it will have a lower size limit ( Oppenheimer limit ? ) and this limit is large enough that no BHs could have evaporated ( via Hawking radiation ) in 13.7 bil yrs. However if they were due to density variations in the early universe, and formed by direct collapse rather than going through the star phase, they could have any size, Airbrush. That means that some of the microscopic ones would have evaporated already, while some slightly larger, would be evaporating as we speak. The final act of the evaporation of a BH, via Hawking radiation, occurs when there isn't enough mass left to sustain an event horizon. At this point the remaining mass is converted violently to radiation, and if this had, or was happening, we would detect the tell-tale gamma ray burst. Nothing hs been detected ! The only way for micro BHs to survive evaporation is if every single one had become a 'seed' for galaxy formation, and would then have grown faster than its evaporation rate. And this would again be due to the quasar mechanism.

Quasars are not confined to a region of space, but rather a period of time. In the early universe, hot, fast-burning giant stars at the centers of young galaxies collapsed into huge Black Holes. The relative closeness of these central stars provided for huge accretion disks to the Black Holes. During this 'active' phase the accretion disks spiralling into The BHs, created highly energetic polar jets of radiation, many thousands of times brighter than the galaxies themselves. That era is now mostly over. The gigantic central BHs of most galaxies are now dormant, having 'gobbled-up' all nearby masses. They are not quite invisible though, as they are still ingesting some mass, and so are loud X-ray sources.

So what's stopping you ? Other than yourself. And that's a perfectly valid reason for wanting a PhD.

My own personal opinion is that religion has little to do with intelligence. Religion is a 'faith', based on untestable beliefs, it is not based on facts or evidence, and doesn't lend itself to analytical or logical thought. So why would it depend on intelligence ? We've seen the intelligent half of your modes. We haven't seen much of the 'brain dead' half. Your success has nothing to do with your beliefs. You can be religious and successful, or atheist and successful. They are not mutually exclusive. All you need is confidence in your abilities and perseverance.

There you go with the negativity again. Cut it out ! The advice everyone has given you is DON"T GIVE UP. Everyone seems to have more faith in you than you do in yourself. You can't accomplish anything if you don't even try.

Isn't the very act of deleting governmental e-mail an offence ? At least it is in Canada ( as our Liberal Provincial Government has found out ). Never mind the contents of the e-mails, she should know better than to delete ANY of them. She's committed various acts of bad judgement ( maybe even criminal ) but I'll still be glad when she becomes president. Just consider the alternative.

Maybe, DrmDoc, H.Clinton does have skeletons in her closet, but the republican congress hasn't requested a special prosecutor for these transgressions because they're afraid of a D.Trump presidency also.

No, whether fermions or bosons, they are indistinguishable from similar quantum particles. An electron is an electron, and there is no way to tell them apart. Fermions, like the electron, however, have to fit into certain 'slots' when in a system. And once the 'slot' is occupied, it is full and no more can fit. We can then, associate that particular electron with that 'slot', or state.

I'm not going to comment on the Religious aspect. We have enough threads on the subject. Maybe too many ! You say that everyone you went to school with was more intelligent than you. And in comparison, you were a 'moron'. You've made this, and similar statements, quite often since you joined this forum. And IIRC iNow has repeatedly told you not to do that. Has it ever occurred to you that maybe, just maybe, you're wrong about your intelligence ? Maybe school wasn't a 'priority' for you at the time and you didn't apply yourself. Maybe you had different interests. Now, maybe, you've gotten serious. You've consistently made solid, logical arguments. Some I didn't agree with, but you've certainly displayed a level of intelligence which may be above average even on this forum. Stop selling yourself short, and have a little confidence in yourself. Others can see it; when are you gonna recognize it ?

I don't personally have a post-grad degree, but of all the scientists I am familiar with ( mostly physicists ), there are only a couple that I know where their PhD was done. Their reputations are built on the work they've done, not the school where they did their research. A great PhD thesis done at a mediocre school will go a lot farther than a mediocre thesis done at a great school. IOW even if you don't get into a 'prestigious' school, don't give up ! ( that seems to be the recurring sentiment ) As to your second problem... Do you want a PhD in neuroscience so you can get a cushy job, or do you want to learn and explore the field just for the sake of learning ( even if you end up driving a cab ) ?

Not really, Swansont. You're not slimy and dishonest. And I don't think you could get away with 'massaging' the truth or outright lies. That's a skill set most lawyers are trained in.