Group items tagged

Someone who is controlling his/her right margin must write more slowly.

people who keep their margins even all around are most interested in the visual effect. They actually see the paper as almost like a work of art. They are extremely appearance-conscious and interested in beauty, design, symmetry, order, and balance.

very detailed-minded, and, of course, to give up spontaneity in the process. Such people plan everything ahead to a great degree.

the person who has a very wide left margin is subconsciously putting up an imaginary barrier between himself and the past. This trait is almost always an indication of someone who’s had a terrible past from which he is eager to flee.

When you are moving to the right, you’re moving towards your goals and the future. When you stop too soon at the end of your lines, somewhere in your subconscious is a little voice saying, “Uh-oh. I have to stop. I have to return to the left, to the past and the familiar. This is as far as I can go.”

Writing with margins that are too wide all around is abnormal

. This sort of person needs to be protected by four solid walls. He cannot make it on his own. He doesn’t relate to his environment in a normal manner or fit into society in an average way. 

rapid and spontaneous writing. If you’re writing quickly and spontaneously, you will leave wider and wider left margins as you descend (down) the page.

a tendency to start out brave, going towards the future, but eventually retreating to the past and what is familiar.

Some people write all the way to the side on both the left and right, leaving no side margin whatsoever. This trait indicates one who leaves no room for other people. Such a person doesn’t see things from other people’s point of view

He takes up all the space and doesn’t see himself properly in relation to his environment, leaving no room for the rights and opinions of others. 

. The left margin represents “the line of society.” Thus, each time we return to the left, it’s up to us whether we’re going to align the next word, or we’re going to get “out of line.” That small percentage who do not have a straight left margin are those people who cannot conform to society’s standards. These are also people who, quite expectedly, would not do well in a strict nine-to-five job

With no margins, filling every inch of the paper, indicates someone who feels he must fill every waking moment of his life with an activity. It means compulsively busy, leaving no stone unturned. Very such people have miserly natures as well. This person also leaves no room for the rights or opinions of others

The lower you start, the more you tend to have formal, respectful feelings toward the person to whom you’re writing, such as a letters/papers to teachers, businesses…etc. You waste more paper to show respect, and you “lower” down on the paper. 

a narrow upper margin means you are feeling more familiar than formal toward the person to whom you are writing. By starting high on the paper, you don’t “bow down” or “lower yourself” to show respect.

writing until there was no room left - until the writing is crushed. This means someone who delays the inevitable. Such a person is so eager to express himself that he feels it would take too much time to turn the paper over or get another sheet. 

dangerous impulsiveness. People like this bash their heads into the wall and do it again and again - (They don’t learn from their mistakes.) They don’t have the sense to say it to themselves, “Hey, wait a minute. You know, the paper ends, and I have to accommodate.” They don’t say it because they don’t care or think about it

Perhaps Gemma isn’t enormously au fait with the history of the Cold War or the break-up of the Soviet Union, but she’s possibly seen photos in the tabloids of Vladimir Putin with his top off riding a tank or letting stallions nuzzle him – and that’s enough to guide foreign-policy strategy for most of us.

As access to the internet makes many of us feel cleverer, more connected, more omniscient, more infallible, it’s tempting to write off all the people “left behind”.All those little unthinking people without university degrees who shape our nails, or clean our houses, or mend our toilets, or rewire our kitchens, and can’t even spell a president’s name without messing it up.But the fact is, they might not know where Ukraine is, and they might not know why Germany doesn’t favour sanctions against Russia, but when the lights go out in your house, they know where the fuse box is and which wires to fiddle with to mend it. And right at that moment that’s a damn sight less stupid than you

"[And] it was extremely hard combining family and career," Bell Burnell said, partly because the university where she worked while pregnant had no provisions for maternity leave.

Born in 1922 in the Bronx, Esther Lederberg would grow up to lay the groundwork for future discoveries on genetic inheritance in bacteria, gene regulation, and genetic recombination.A microbiologist, she is perhaps best known for discovering a virus that infects bacteria—called the lambda bacteriophage—in 1951, while at the University of Wisconsin.Lederberg, along with her first husband Joshua Lederberg, also developed a way to easily transfer bacterial colonies from one petri dish to another, called replica plating, which enabled the study of antibiotic resistance. The Lederberg method is still in use today.Joshua Lederberg's work on replica plating played a part in his 1958 Nobel Prize for physiology or medicine, which he shared with George Beadle and Edward Tatum."She deserved credit for the discovery of lambda phage, her work on the F fertility factor, and, especially, replica plating," wrote Stanley Falkow, a retired microbiologist at Stanford University, in an email. But she didn't receive it.

Lise Meitner's work in nuclear physics led to the discovery of nuclear fission—the fact that atomic nuclei can split in two. That finding laid the groundwork for the atomic bomb.Her story is a complicated tangle of sexism, politics, and ethnicity.After finishing her doctoral degree in physics at the University of Vienna, Meitner moved to Berlin in 1907 and started collaborating with chemist Otto Hahn. They maintained their working relationship for more than 30 years.After the Nazis annexed Austria in March 1938, Meitner, who was Jewish, made her way to Stockholm, Sweden. She continued to work with Hahn, corresponding and meeting secretly in Copenhagen in November of that year.Although Hahn performed the experiments that produced the evidence supporting the idea of nuclear fission, he was unable to come up with an explanation. Meitner and her nephew, Otto Frisch, came up with the theory.Hahn published their findings without including Meitner as a co-author, although several accounts say Meitner understood this omission, given the situation in Nazi Germany."That's the start of how Meitner got separated from the credit of discovering nuclear fission," said Lewin Sime, who wrote a biography of Meitner.

Chien-Shiung Wu overturned a law of physics and participated in the development of the atom bomb.Wu was recruited to Columbia University in the 1940s as part of the Manhattan Project and conducted research on radiation detection and uranium enrichment. She stayed in the United States after the war and became known as one of the best experimental physicists of her time, said Nina Byers, a retired physics professor at the University of California, Los Angeles.In the mid-1950s, two theoretical physicists, Tsung-Dao Lee and Chen Ning Yang, approached Wu to help disprove the law of parity. The law holds that in quantum mechanics, two physical systems—like atoms—that were mirror images would behave in identical ways.Wu's experiments using cobalt-60, a radioactive form of the cobalt metal, upended this law, which had been accepted for 30 years.This milestone in physics led to a 1957 Nobel Prize for Yang and Lee—but not for Wu, who was left out despite her critical role. "People found [the Nobel decision] outrageous," said Byers.Pnina Abir-Am, a historian of science at Brandeis University, agreed, adding that ethnicity also played a role.

Rosalind Franklin used x-rays to take a picture of DNA that would change biology.Hers is perhaps one of the most well-known—and shameful—instances of a researcher being robbed of credit, said Lewin Sime.Franklin graduated with a doctorate in physical chemistry from Cambridge University in 1945, then spent three years at an institute in Paris where she learned x-ray diffraction techniques, or the ability to determine the molecular structures of crystals. (Learn more about her education and qualifications.)She returned to England in 1951 as a research associate in John Randall's laboratory at King's College in London and soon encountered Maurice Wilkins, who was leading his own research group studying the structure of DNA.Franklin and Wilkins worked on separate DNA projects, but by some accounts, Wilkins mistook Franklin's role in Randall's lab as that of an assistant rather than head of her own project.Meanwhile, James Watson and Francis Crick, both at Cambridge University, were also trying to determine the structure of DNA. They communicated with Wilkins, who at some point showed them Franklin's image of DNA—known as Photo 51—without her knowledge.Photo 51 enabled Watson, Crick, and Wilkins to deduce the correct structure for DNA, which they published in a series of articles in the journal Nature in April 1953. Franklin also published in the same issue, providing further details on DNA's structure.Franklin's image of the DNA molecule was key to deciphering its structure, but only Watson, Crick, and Wilkins received the 1962 Nobel Prize in physiology or medicine for their work.

Nettie Stevens performed studies crucial in determining that an organism's sex was dictated by its chromosomes rather than environmental or other factors.After receiving her doctorate from Bryn Mawr College in Pennsylvania, Stevens continued at the college as a researcher studying sex determination.By working on mealworms, she was able to deduce that the males produced sperm with X and Y chromosomes—the sex chromosomes—and that females produced reproductive cells with only X chromosomes. This was evidence supporting the theory that sex determination is directed by an organism's genetics.A fellow researcher, named Edmund Wilson, is said to have done similar work, but came to the same conclusion later than Stevens did.Stevens fell victim to a phenomenon known as the Matilda Effect—the repression or denial of the contributions of female researchers to science.Thomas Hunt Morgan, a prominent geneticist at the time, is often credited with discovering the genetic basis for sex determination, said Pomona College's Hoopes. He was the first to write a genetics textbook, she noted, and he wanted to magnify his contributions."Textbooks have this terrible tendency to choose the same evidence as other textbooks," she added. And so Stevens' name was not associated with the discovery of sex determination.

the first wife of Albert Einstein should be in this list. People know so little about her, and I think she deserves to be known. 

Vera Rubin, for accurate studies discovering dark matter.

How sadly ironic that the very woman who set the stage for the  DNA structure discovery, which in 1994 helped make it possible to genetically test and confirm BRCA carriers like Angelina Jolie and me (with familial cancer holocausts generation, after generation, after generation), did not have access the test that could have saved her life so she could go on with the research she loved and win a Nobel Prize.