Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "ccvkpzc", "ccw0u37" ], "score": [ 8, 2 ], "text": [ "The major issue with that is it wouldn't be a good control *because* of the lack of a group taking the placebo. When they do most trials they do them double blind. Neither the subject nor the doctor knows who is getting the real drug and who is getting a placebo (until afterwards, of course). ", "It would eliminate blinding, which is an important measure to control bias. The risk of being in the placebo group is part of being in a clinical trial, as is the risk that the active ingredient won't have the desired effect, or have severe side effects. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cegqmdl" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "If lightning hits a power line or transformer, it could greatly increase the voltage of the lines relative to Earth ground, and a lot of equipment connected to those power lines would be damaged. Varisters or Transorbs are places across power line components to protect them form sudden increases in voltage. While these components are acting, they may prevent the normal flow of electricity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eroluag", "eromavr", "eromo6r", "eroo5f1", "erp2ys9", "erpe2a0", "erpi1xo" ], "score": [ 2, 35, 19, 11, 3, 2, 18 ], "text": [ "Cold. Bigger bodies are better at retaining heat in cold climate. As the climate warmed over the past 10-20,000 years smaller bodies that shed heat quickly became more advantageous.", "We don’t *actually* know but some theories are that temperature of the earth was the major factor for mammals getting so big. If the ambient temperature is lower, the heat/energy of a larger mammal is much easier. \n\nFor insects (and maybe plants), there was a much higher concentrations of oxygen in the atmosphere that helped produce gigantic bugs (we think) and when birds were getting bigger and preying on them (we think) they started to die off (we think)", "I will point out that the blue whale is the biggest animal to have ever existed as far as we know", "Humans. Look at Australia, Europe, America. Wherever humans spread to, megafauna vanish. They’re either really good food sources or dangerous predators to exterminate, and early humans had zero interest in conservation.", "The oxygen levels were about 30% as compared to the 20% we live in now ...due to Oxygen rich atmosphere the plants and animals would be larger than those existing today", "Do you mean fauna and flora? Fauna are animals.", "First off, it isn't strictly true. \n\nBlue whales are the largest animal by mass ever to exist. \n\nGiant redwood trees are amongst the largest trees ever to exist. \n\nElephants are pretty big too.\n\nBut the world has seen larger insects, fish, birds, reptiles and land animals that is true. So why?\n\nInsects don't have lungs. They breathe through their skin. As size goes up, volume increases faster than surface area so the amount of insect increases faster than the amount of skin it can breathe with. The limit to the size of insects is directly related to the amount of oxygen in the atmosphere. \n\nThis was higher in the past. \n\nReptiles and fish - cold blooded. The maximum size depends on temperature and the amount of food available. It was hotter in the past so they could get bigger, and so did the stuff they ate. That's not the full story, as there are many things that will limit the size of an animal, but it a the major difference between today and the dinosaur age.\n\nBirds and land animals - These mega fauna lived not so long ago in the grand scheme of things. Their extinction suspiciously coincides with the arrival of a new breed of predator spreading across the globe. \n\nAnimals such as giant sloths, giant kangaroos, mammoths, moas all survived ice ages and subsequent warm periods before the world plunged into another ice age, again and again. \n\nThen, during the last ice age, they start disappearing. \n\nBecause of us. Humans spread out of Africa and the mammoths of north Europe and Asia started dying out. Humans spread across the Indonesian archipelago to Australia 40000 years ago, and that's when the giant kangaroos died off. 12000 years ago and humans rapidly swarmed through the Americas starting in Alaska down to Patagonia in only a few centuries, driving the extinction of giant sloths and other megafauna southwards with them. \n\nThe big animals living on the Caribbean islands outlived their mainland cousins by a few thousand years until humans reached the islands by boat. \n\nMoas were big flightless birds native to New Zealand. They had lived there for thousands and thousands of years. \n\nThey only had one predator - the Haast Eagle aka the largest eagle ever to exist. \n\nThis was the last major landmass (other than Antarctica) that humans reached. The Maori arrived sometime in the 13th century. \n\nBy 1445, all Moas were dead. Haast eagles followed shortly after. \n\ntl;dr there are big animals, but the planet isn't warm enough or oxygeny enough for big reptiles and insects. Humans ate the rest." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmjzz0j", "cmk00on", "cmk0cmt", "cmk49vk" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Well in the US we have a thing about taxing people who don't have representation in the body that decides what those taxes are. They aren't states either because the don't want to be, or Congress won't admit them, or both.", "They just don't pay *federal* taxes. Since they don't have representation in the federal government, they aren't taxed by it.", "They do pay taxes, and even some federal ones, like Social Security/Medicare payroll taxes. The exemption is on federal income tax, although most territories will have an income tax of some sort.\n\nThey aren't considered states because Congress hasn't admitted them as states. There are probably a few reasons - tradition, their small size relative to other states, possibly partisan reasons (territories tend to elect Democratic non-voting members of Congress, so if they had full-fledged representation in Congress and the Electoral College, it'd give Democrats a huge boost relative to the population).", "They *could* legally be required to pay taxes like other citizens, but are not. All territories receive far more assistance from the federal gov't than their taxes would provide, so it is kind of counter productive to tax them just to give that money back.\n\n > Why aren't they considered a state?\n\nMost territories just don't have enough people to form a state. The one that does, Puerto Rico, doesn't want to be a state." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dx30wk2" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[From a previous answer](_URL_0_):\n\nSo the history of the KKK and the Nazi movement isn't a particularly big one, but given the similarities - being largely centered around ideologies of racial exclusion - it shouldn't be a surprise that they did, occasionally, intersect.\n\nAs far as Nazi Germany itself goes, it isn't entirely clear just how aware Hitler and the Nazi movement even was of the Ku Klux Klan. To start, the Klan itself had a very minimal presence in Germany. A Klan inspired group, the Order of the Knights of the Fiery Cross, was founded in Berlin in 1925 by three Americans, but doesn't seem to have been explicitly connected to the American KKK, and its membership seems to have capped at under 400. IT was quite short-lived, and had no real impact, being just one of many small groups that popped up during the Weimar period. Some members likely went on to join the Nazi Party, but there was no direct connection with the NSDAP.\n\nHitler's associate Ernst 'Putzi' Hanfstaengl claimed that Hitler broached the idea of cooperation with the Klan, but Putzi is not necessarily the most reliable source, as the German-American 'Old Fighter' had a hard fall from grace and later worked for the Americans during the war. Putzi, with his American heritage, would certainly be aware, and others in the Nazi hierarchy made comments on the Klan, such as Alfred Rosenberg, whose Party journal *Der Weltkampf* published several articles which made mention of the Klan in the mid-1920s, but Hitler seems to have left no explicit mentions which would demonstrate his personal familiarity. That said of course, Hitler did make broader public statements which expressed approval for the Jim Crow regime of the American south, and other Nazi publications likewise do disturbingly positively of Southern racism. Grill and Jenkins characterize an article by E. van Elden published in 1927 thus:\n\n > Elden graphically described the burning of a black man who had been accused of raping a white woman in a small Georgia community. The author questioned whether lynching was ever justified and concluded that it was actually essential whenever blacks raped white women. Any other lynching, however, represented only mob rule. Elden easily saw German parallels with the American South because of \"the lust of black beasts in the Rhineland.\" One could not blame southerners, concluded the article, for attempting to protect women from the \"moral depravity of Negroes.\"\n\nSo in short, while explicit praise for the Klan was quite limited within the Nazi party, this likely reflects a lack of familiarity, as there was certainly \"appreciation\" for the kind of extremist racial views that the Klan held. Somewhat Ironically, Americans also saw the similarity, using it to lambast the Klan as the \"nearest approach that any American organization has to the Nazi party in Germany\", as the Birmingham News wrote in 1933. An important thing to keep in mind though is that by the time when the Nazis rose to power and Americans were paying attention to it... the Klan had significantly collapsed, losing its power through the 1920s and having fairly limited influence in the 1930s. The American South was still *rife* with racism and neck deep in Jim Crow, but many Southern newspapers followed the lead of the Birmingham News, vociferously condemning the Nazi movement in the 1930s as similar to the \"extremists\" of the KKK, while entirely missing the irony in condemning Nazi Germany's \"[denial] to a whole class of its people their equal rights as citizens on account of their Jewish descent\" while themselves instituting a regime of racial exclusion against African-Americans. Black publications followed suit in their condemnations of Nazi racial doctrine, but of course took a much more open-eyed stance as they compared it to the situation on their own doorstep, such as with a 1938 editorial in Crisis which stated \"The South approaches more nearly than any other section of the United States the Nazi idea of government by a 'master race' without interference from any democratic process.\"\n\nBut, of course, what about the Klan itself? Simply put, the Klan was cautious, but not entirely opposed, at least prior to the outbreak of war, and there was some interaction between the KKK and the German-American Bund, i.e. the American Nazi Party. As noted, the Klan had been in marked decline by the beginning of the 1930s, and some Klan leaders believed that an alliance could help stem its loss of members, and maybe even bring about new growth. Outreach between the two groups was quite slow, but eventually the result of this was a rally held at the Bund's NJ compound 'Camp Nordland' where a joint meeting between members of the Bund and the KKK - bedecked in their \"regalia\" - occurred on August 18, 1940. The organizers claimed 3,500 attendees, while other estimates claim it was only about 1,000. The KKK participants were a distinct minority of the attendees either way, but certainly numbered at least 100 or so. Regardless of the numbers, the meeting also was emblematic, though, of the decline of the Bund, whose leader, Fritz Kuhn, had recently been sentenced to prison for embezzling Bund funds and tax evasion. So not only did the Klan-Bund combined rally draw protesters who gathered at the camp entrance to picket against both groups, but it also drew protests from within the Bund, as several dozen Kuhn loyalists showed up intent on starting a ruckus over disagreements in leadership, resulting in several arrests for assault.\n\nRegardless though, as for the rally itself, it saw speakers from both groups, with 'Grand Giant of the New Jersey Realm of the Klan', the Rev. Edward E. Young' giving an impassioned speech about the shared values of white supremacy between the two groups, similarly echoed by Bund member, and the principal organizer of the rally, Edward James Smythe, who proclaimed it his \"patriotic duty\" to effect the meeting of the two groups. Grand Dragon of the New Jersey Klan, Arthur Bell, received particularly great applause when he railed about how the Jews were behind attempts to force the US into the war. Asked later about the rally during a Congressional investigation by Rep. Martin Dies Special Committee on Un-American Activities, August Klapprott, one of the Bund leaders, stated \"[O]f course, I welcomed the idea [of] an Americanization rally\" which essentially speaks to the general tenor of how the cooperation was viewed at the time by both groups of participants, namely a rally for their views of what America should be - a country for white men. \n\nTo be sure though, while that was how it was billed, it wasn't how it exactly went. Both before and after, there was much disagreement within the Klan about whether it was a good idea. As noted before, the 'pro-camp' believed that the alliance would be a good move for retaining membership, and they were willing to accept the veneer of Americanization that the Bund tried to project, but many Klansmen were opposed as they didn't accept it, and were much more favorable to the idea that the German-American Bund was nothing more than an ~~front~~ advocate for a foreign power. The Bund, having many first and second generation immigrants, additionally offended the sensibilities of some Klansmen. At its height in the 1920s the Klan had been quite vocal in opposition to German immigrants, but a decade, and necessity, was breaking down at least some members' opposition, although hardly all, especially in the South, where the largest outcry against the Bund came from, published in the Klan publication *The Fiery Cross*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6gy4nr/the_recent_e3_reveal_of_the_new_wolfenstein_game/diugt1v/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhc5h1v", "dhc5k31" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Yep, someone draws every inch. Well, \"models\" is the correct term since it's mostly done in 3D programs now, and there are usually entire teams of designers and the work gets split up among them. It takes a long time to build those kinds of worlds.", "They actually do \"draw\" the world piece by piece. It's usually done by groups of people, not just one dude. They first make a rough terrain curves (hills, rivers, canyons...) then they just polish it till it looks really nice. Then they have to add all the props, like trees, buildings, people... \n\nSo yeah, they are actually modeled inch by inch, there's nothing more complicated in it. \n\nException could be randomly generated games like Minecraft, where the game continues to load new piecea of world. It's not really random, the blocks are dependent on their neighbours. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d22dlmm" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "**1/3: Historiography**\n\nThe Battle of Leuktra (371 BC) is notoriously difficult to reconstruct. As Pritchett once remarked with obvious exasperation, \"there are more reconstructions of Leuktra than of any other ancient battle, and the end is not in sight.\" There are a number of philological and historiographical reasons for the controversy, but the main one is - ironically - that we have so many sources for the battle. Most Classical Greek engagements are known from just one source. For Leuktra, we have four full accounts:\n\n* Xenophon, *Hellenika* 6.4.9-15. This is the only contemporary source, and written by an experienced commander with close ties to the rulers of Sparta.\n* Diodoros of Sicily, *Library of History* 15.55-56. Written in the 1st century BC, possibly using the lost work of the 4th century BC historian Ephoros as a source.\n* Plutarch, *Life of Pelopidas* 23. Written in the 2nd century AD. Plutarch was himself a Boiotian, and possibly used the lost 4th century BC historical accounts of Ephoros and Kallisthenes.\n* Pausanias, *Tour of Greece* 9.13.3-12. Written in the 2nd century AD, presumably based on local traditions.\n\nIn addition, there are numerous anecdotes about Leuktra in both Polyainos' and Frontinus' collections of stratagems. Now, if all these sources were complementary, we would know more about Leuktra than about any other ancient battle. But, of course, they're not. They offer completely incompatible accounts of the battle that get more fanciful the greater the chronological distance form the actual event.\n\n* **Xenophon** describes a simple battle in which a deep Theban phalanx preceded by a cavalry screen crashed directly into a shallower Spartan formation, making the allies of both sides irrelevant to the course of the battle. As attrition mounted and key officers fell, Spartan morale eventually broke.\n* **Diodoros** has it that the Spartans advanced in a crescent formation, hoping to encircle the outnumbered Theban force. Seeing their advance, the Theban commander Epameinondas deployed his army in echelon to keep his weaker troops out of the fight, and concentrated all his strength on one of the pincers of the Spartan crescent.\n* According to **Plutarch**, the Spartans advanced in line, but attempted to extend their line to the right and then wheel inwards to attack the Theban phalanx in the flank. To prevent this, Epameinondas first ordered his elite Sacred Band to charge into the Spartan wing mid-manoeuvre, and then led the main phalanx against their main force as they tried to regain their formation. Plutarch alone mentions the Sacred Band.\n\nWhat are we to make of all this? For centuries, scholars have recognised that they must choose one account over the others, since they will not coexist. They have offered arguments in favour of all 3 accounts, and their reconstructions of the battle have varied accordingly. I won't bore you with the initial blows of this controversy, which involve a lot of Germans and Gothic script; the key modern interpretation is that of J.K. Anderson.^1 \n\nFirst, Anderson pointed out that Diodoros' account perfectly mirrors the solution offered by Diodoros' contemporary, the tactician Onasander, in the event of encountering an enemy in crescent formation. Since the crescent formation is otherwise unheard of in Classical Greece, it seems all too likely that we should dismiss Diodoros' account as a purely theoretical tactical exercise with no basis in historical reality.\n\nSecond, Anderson argued that Xenophon was biased in favour of the Spartans, that he hated the Thebans, and that he was merely writing an apology for the Spartan defeat. He was not the first to assume that Xenophon's account is basically worthless, but he started a trend in recent scholarship (including notable figures like Buckler^2 and Cartledge^3) that starts from the premise that this contemporary source is best ignored.\n\nThird, he made a forceful argument in favour of Plutarch's account. He pointed out that the manoeuvre described in this account is the same as the one the Spartans used to win at the Nemea in 394 BC, and that it is also described in detail in Xenophon's fictional account of the battle of Thymbrara in the *Kyroupaideia*. Of course, Xenophon would not have described such Spartan sophistication at Leuktra, because he wasn't trying to give an honest account; but Plutarch, according to Anderson, preserved the truth. The Spartans were trying to outmanoeuvre the Thebans, but they were caught off guard by Epameinondas' rapid response; they were no match for the combined might of the Sacred Band and the 50-deep phalanx.\n\nThis interpretation has remained dominant until very recently. The revolt began quietly with Devine, who pointed out that Xenophon, as a contemporary source, probably should be taken seriously.^4 But his own reconstruction of the battle is completely mad. The case was made much more forcefully by V.D. Hanson a few years later.^5 Hanson showed how the accounts of Diodoros and Plutarch were themselves based on unreliable sources already discredited in antiquity, and stressed that we should trust Xenophon, the veteran mercenary general, to know what he was talking about. Indeed, for all its simplicity, Xenophon's version perfectly explains how the battle was won and lost. Hanson then makes the crucial point that modern authors are probably hesitant to rely on Xenophon precisely because he suggests *the Spartans were beaten by very crude tactics and Epameinondas did nothing new.* Modern scholars have been guided by their assumption that the Spartan defeat could only be accounted for by spectacular tactical innovations. This led them to favour the less reliable accounts of Plutarch and Diodoros over the actually quite blunt and honest picture sketched by Xenophon.\n\nNow, I said \"very recently\" because it took a long time for Hanson's view to catch on. A lot of scholars probably still favour Anderson and therefore Plutarch; some might even be in the camp of Hammond and therefore Diodoros. But with Hutchinson,^6 Lendon,^7 Wheeler^8 and others now endorsing Hanson's \"simple\" view of Leuktra, it seems Xenophon and Theban brute force are now gaining ground. It fits much better within the tactical context of 4th century BC Greece than the later accounts. New interpretations of the Sacred Band also support the view that they had no decisive role to play at Leuktra. It would take a lot to persuade scholars to return to accounts that are inevitably later and more derivative.\n\n**References**\n\n1. J.K. Anderson, *Military Theory and Practice in the Age of Xenophon* (1970)\n\n2. J. Buckler, 'Plutarch on Leuktra', *Symbolae Osloenses* 55 (1980), 75-93\n\n3. P. Cartledge, *Agesilaos and the Crisis of Sparta* (1987)\n\n4. A.M. Devine, 'EMBOɅON: a Study in Tactical Terminology', *Phoenix* 37 (1983), 201-217\n\n5. V.D. Hanson, 'Epameinondas, the Battle of Leuktra (371 B.C.) and the \"Revolution\" in Greek Battle Tactics', *Classical Antiquity* 7 (1988), 190-207\n\n6. G. Hutchinson, *Xenophon and the Art of Command* (2000)\n\n7. J.E. Lendon, *Soldiers and Ghosts: A History of Battle in Classical Antiquity* (2005)\n\n8. E.L. Wheeler (ed.), *The Armies of Classical Greece* (2007)\n" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ejs5f/why_were_there_so_many_famous_pitched_battles_in/d21cea5" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl1pocu", "cl1pq9b", "cl1psh2", "cl1rd0h", "cl1sakn" ], "score": [ 83, 69, 14, 75, 8 ], "text": [ "Because soups with massive sodium content are still much, much, ***MUCH*** less salty than sea water. That's not to say they're healthy, though, Americans eat way too much sodium as it is. \n\nEdit: in fact, salt water is so salty, that getting a mouthful of it is known to cause immediate vomiting. It's happened to me before. We in the SCUBA diving community call it \"feeding the fishes\". (and yes, when it happens, fishes often crowd around your face to eat your vomit. It's disgusting and cool at the same time)", "Salty soup is still far less salt than is in sea water. ", "As others said, huge sodium difference. \n\nAlso, if you are in reach of soup, you're probably not dehydrated as it is. If you're stranded in the middle of the ocean, you're already at a disadvantage. ", "The advisory against drinking sea water is made under the assumption it is your only source of hydration. Unless you can get non-saline water to balance your salt/fluid ratio from somewhere else (like you probably can when your're eating salty soup in a civilized context) then the salt content in the sea-water will kill you.", "Sea water is around 3% salt by weight. Brine used for preserving stuff is at 5%. Chicken noodle soup typically has about .3 grams sodium per 240 gram serving, plus about 1.5 parts by weight chlorine per part by weight sodium for a total of around .8 grams salt per 240 grams, or around .3% salt by weight. Guesstimates made by a drunk person to one significant digit to account for instrument error." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cepl7o9" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Great question! Both cats of different breeds and dogs of different breeds are of the same species (*Felis catus* and *Canis lupis familiaris* respectively). As such, they can act as donors within their own species of both blood and organs.\n\nThat being said, there are things that you have to watch out for.\n\n1. When it comes to dogs, with organs that can vary drastically in size between breeds, you have to select animals that are of similar dimensions.\n2. As in other donors/recipients it would be nice to try to match [MHC I](_URL_0_) between the donor and the recipient. This is the molecule on cells that tells the immune system that a cell is either self or non-self. Matching makes the organ less likely to be rejected. This is likely not going to happen since it would be very expensive and time consuming, and most veterinary medicine neither has the time nor the money. As a result, the recipient animal will have to be put on [immuno-suppressive drugs](_URL_1_) for life. This procedure takes place in the case of [feline renal transplantation](_URL_3_) at the University of Pennsylvania.\n3. Dogs can, and often do in emergency trauma cases, receive blood transfusions! They have a set of their own [blood types](_URL_2_), although if the animal has never gotten an transfusion before and it is an emergency, any type will do. After that initial transfusion, antibodies toward the new blood type are formed, and subsequent transfusions must be made with matching blood type.\n\nI hope that answers everything! Source: the above references, and I'm a 2nd year student of veterinary medicine." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MHC_I", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Immunosuppressive_drug", "https://ahdc.vet.cornell.edu/clinpath/modules/coags/typek9.htm", "http://www.vet.upenn.edu/veterinary-hospitals/ryan-veterinary-hospital/services/surgery/renal-transplantation" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1e7755", "d1e9sn5", "d1ec08s", "d1efrg7" ], "score": [ 12, 7, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Let's start off with a statement, society evolves towards increased compassion for all members of society. On the forefront of that evolution is radical thought that tends to be less judgemental of others. For example, native Americans are equal humans (1920s), women are equal humans (1940s), Blacks are equal humans (1950), Gays are equal humans (1990). The population in general is conservative, they find radical though scary. Thus social regulation has to be created to help move on society (equal opportunities acts, etc.) This is called \"political correctness\" in that the politics of the time have moved on past the status quo of the population. \n\nOf course, there are always people looking to mock evolution of society because it scares them a lot. This is usually because they are in some way inadequate and need oppression of sectors of society in order to keep their inadequacy \"punching above their weight\". These people use \"political correctness\" as a mocking term. They are trying to undermine a fairer society so that they don't need to address their own failings. \n\nSo, to answer your question, leaders need to create political correctness in order to evolve our society forward to a better place. By that definition PC will always be pushing the majority ", "Because \"politically correct\" is a term used to describe compliance with a certain set of values -- either liberal/progressive, or highly tolerant/sensitive, or something like that depending on the speaker.\n\nThis set of values is not necessarily held by the majority of people. In fact some firmly oppose these.", "There was an interesting point that my sociology of cultures teacher brought up, that if laws were made to serve the majority, it would lead to up to 49% of the population being marginalized and discriminated against. It leads to a situation of classes and power differentials. Laws are better off made to serve the needs of the minority groups in a community/society. In this way the majority still has their freedoms and rights and will always be more privileged, but no one is left out of the equality. It took me a while to wrap my head around it but I really agree with that position now. \n\nI also believe that there is always a disparity between the speed a society evolves, grows and improves, and the speed at which individual members of society are able to adapt or grow as people. It takes a lot of personal introspection and energy to, for example, change the way you see someone of a different race after a lifetime of believing something that is actually wrong but is the bedrock of your belief system. Change is scary, and shaking the very foundation of what a person has thought their whole life is a scary place for them, so sometimes people have to be pushed a little, and even if they go the rest of their lives believing that change was wrong, it's to be expected and is no reason not to make that change. \n\nThe American civil rights movement is a good example. The majority of voters in places like Alabama were actually against integrating black people into schools and so on, but it was forced upon them since it's clearly the right thing to do. Most people accepted it once it became clear the sky didn't fall. Others will go to their graves never accepting it, and that's their right. As long as their beliefs are no longer infringing on the rights of someone else, they can be as angry as they want. \n\nAnother example is recycling. A lot of communities full of older people just want to throw everything in the garbage. They're having recycling programs forced on them and told they'll be fined if they are caught throwing recyclables in the garbage. They might hate it, but it's the better way to do things and so they'll have to learn to live in a world where we recycle now, or face the consequences. Ultimately their way was hurting other people, (by polluting and causing environmental damage,) so it has to be changed. Change is hard and scary though... ", "Because \"politically correct\" is subjective, and for the most part, doesn't really mean anything.\n\nIt is mostly a straw man used to mock those who would use fear of offending others as a tool to silence those who disagree with them.\n\nConsider gay rights. Some people would call getting offended over an anti-gay slur to being \"politically correct\". Others stalk message boards and call people as homophobic if they don't use the exact labels they consider to be correct. \n\nThe whole politically correct thing runs the gamut between the two, and there is no precise, objective definition of what is or is not politically correct. So it is kind of meaningless to say things like \"gay marriage has been politically correct\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c30tkgc", "c30tkgc" ], "score": [ 10, 10 ], "text": [ "Microscopically the edge of paper is like a saw blade rather than a razor, it has to slide along the skin in order to make the cut.\n", "Microscopically the edge of paper is like a saw blade rather than a razor, it has to slide along the skin in order to make the cut.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d24a64n" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "There's not really an objective way to answer your question, tastes can certainly vary. His restaurants have earned 16 Michelin stars, which are pretty sought after, so you may take that as an endorsement. At least some of these stars have been earned while he has been head chef at a location. He's undoubtedly technically skilled. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "co1psuq" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I wrote [an answer](_URL_0_) to a similar question a few months back. The tl;dr of it is that Nero likely never was crazy, he was just really unfit to be an emperor of Rome." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iuvet/why_and_by_who_was_nero_accused_after_the_fire_in/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2x8kwm", "d2xu06w" ], "score": [ 7, 3 ], "text": [ "This was a guestion in AMA with Sir David Attenborough:\n\nIn all your time of shooting nature programs, what is the most human thing you have ever witnessed an animal do?\n\nA chimpanzee does in fact tell lies. If you can believe that. Also, when some Colobus monkeys find a very precious piece of food, it calls the alarm call that it would make if a snake were to arrive, and all the other monkeys run away and it gets the food.", "There was a case where a gorilla blamed a cat for destroying a sink, using limited sign language. So lying seems to be possiblefor animals beside humans. Talking to animals is pretty hard, as you need to raise them while teaching them a form of language, so it might as well be possible for pigs or dolphins to lie, but theres currently no evidence to back that up." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1dh6ej", "c1dh7xv", "c1dhcg9", "c1dhfao", "c1dm1my" ], "score": [ 4, 11, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "There could be little subtleties that your brain picked up on, like slight wind resistance in the direction of motion, or the apparent motion of certain light intensities in the room that you could perceive through your eye-lids, etc.\n\nBut you're correct that, under ideal conditions, it should feel exactly the same whether you spin one direction or the other.", "The construction of the inner ear (see [semicircular canals](_URL_0_)) allows you to detect the direction of acceleration. Once the turbulence in your inner ear settles, you will perceive yourself to be at rest as long as you don't feel acceleration, ignoring the sorts of small details mentioned in other comments.", "From [Wikipedia](_URL_0_):\n > The labyrinth of the inner ear [...] contains i) the cochlea (yellow), which is the peripheral organ of our auditory system; ii) the semicircular canals (brown), which transduce **rotational movements**; and iii) the otolithic organs (in the blue/purple pouches), which transduce linear accelerations.\n\nIt seems that we not only have built-in accelerometers, but also gyroscopes (which tell you your rotation speed and direction)\n\nEdit: formatting", "The Coriolis force can help you decide in which direction and how fast you are spinning, but only if you move something outwards.\n\nFor example you suddenly move your arm forward, if you are spinning clockwise and want your arm to keep the same angular velocity as the chair, i.e. keep it rigid, you will feel a force to the left that you will have to compensate for. Since your arm was at your chest (or whatever) before, it had a lower absolute velocity compared to your fingertips after you stretched out your arm. If you are spinning counter-clockwise, you will feel a force to the right. \n\nIn other words, after you stretch out your arm, your total angular velocity will have decreased, which means there was a phase of deceleration in a certain direction, breaking the symmetry, which you should be able to detect.\n \nThis is why ice figure skater can control their angular velocity by pulling their arms in or stretching them out. I hope I could adequately explain what is going on.\nI could imagine that the human body has some mechanism built in so you don't need to stretch your arms, but I don't know anything about that, so I'll have to refer you to the other posts.", "This might be an inner-ear thing, but this happened to me this weekend:\n\nI was on one of those self-push merry go rounds. With the blue arrow being your body's \"forward,\" coming out of your chest, turn your head 180 degrees. If you switch from looking towards the center to away from it (with your eyes closed), you can convince yourself you went from doing front flips to doing back flips (in addition to getting sick). _URL_0_\n\nFor this to work, I suspect your head can't lie on the axis of revolution, so I don't know if this would be possible in a desk chair." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semicircular_canal" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vestibular_system" ], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/rh3CI.png" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fg5bmyy" ], "score": [ 695 ], "text": [ "Hotel living has a *long* history--the *Eloise* books by Kay Thompson are probably the most famous example. I can talk a little bit about some of the earlier history, specifically, hotel living in Paris!\n\n*(This is adapted from several of my earlier answers with some new stuff thrown in).*\n\nParis is the City of Lights...but it sure wasn't very lit in the late 19th and early 20th centuries, when it had one of the lowest electrification rates of any major city. It also had one of the worst housing situations in the Euro-American world, especially given the *doubling* of the population between 1871-1920. As you can imagine, this burden fell mostly on immigrants and the lower classes.\n\nAttempts at mitigating the horrific conditions, like establishing factories in the suburbs instead of the city (with extensive slum settlements building up around them), or even some government-sponsored housing projects, could never come even close to meeting demand.\n\nAs a result, Paris even more so than other cities developed a system of \"hotels.\"\n\nBut these are not what we often talk about in the U.S. at the time--the de facto boarding houses for single men where housekeepers would take care of \"women's work\" for them, or for single working women where they could be watched and \"stay respectable.\"\n\nNo, these were tenements with really lousy--metaphorically and often literally--living conditions.\n\nThe *hotels garnis* resembled very lousy--metaphorically and often literally--versions of our hotels today: single-room \"apartments\" with no kitchen. (Although, sometimes also no bathroom). They even often had a restaurant on the ground floor. So when you hear about Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre spending all their time in cafes...well, guess what.\n\nParisian hotels were filled with transient workers, new immigrants, basically the young and poor--single women and men, single women with children, young couples.\n\n\nTo give you an idea of the conditions of the worse of these: Helmut Gruber describes housing for the working women of Paris (in the slum tenements known as \"insalubrious islands\" and in the hotels garnis) as:\n\n > The majority lived in domiciles lacking indoor water, heat, electricity, daylight, and ventilation, and they shared slovenly sanitary facilities...It is difficult to imagine where and how they actually washed their clothes, and how often...The absence of hygiene is evident from reports by teachers of the lack of cleanliness of children and from the high death rate from tuberculosis and pulmonary disease.\n\nBut despite these conditions, hotel residents weren't all just sitting around cafes philosophizing. Gruber also notes that tenement and hotel residents were *very* active organizing in order to keep rents down to something they could afford on their salaries, protesting to the government to enforce protections for them against landlords/slumlords.\n\n~~\n\n*We used to have a really great answer on the U.S. end of things I mentioned, but that user seems to have deleted it.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f82ahx3" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "I think a couple of things are getting mixed up here. \n\nFor the process of amending the Constitution, as laid out in the 1787 document (Article V), here is the original language:\n\n > The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate.\n\nSo what that means: first a Constitutional amendment needs to be passed by two thirds of each house of Congress, or two thirds of the states need to call for a Convention to propose amendments.\n\nHowever, once an Amendment passes this stage, it needs approval by three fourths of the states. This can either come in the form of the state legislatures voting for the amendment, or through special state conventions elected to vote for or against the amendment. \n\nEvery single constitutional amendment to date has been passed through Congress. All of those amendments bar one (the 21st Amendment, repealing the 18th Amendment) were approved by state legislatures, rather than state conventions. \n\nThe method of proposing amendments through a Convention requested by at least two thirds of the states has to date never actually been attempted, and it's not very clear just how this process would even work in practice.\n\nThe notable feature of Section 6 is less the ratification requirement of three fourths of the states, which is constitutionally-required, but the deadline for ratification of seven years. This is a feature for constitutional amendments that was introduced in the 20th century - the 18th, 20th, 21st and 22nd Amendments have deadlines in the text of the amendment, and the 23rd, 24th, 25th and 26th amendments have deadlines in the introductory text of the amendment as passed by Congress. The 27th Amendment notably had no deadline as it was originally approved by Congress as part of the package of Amendments known as the Bill of Rights, was ratified by a few states, and then largely left \"dormant\" until being rediscovered by an undergraduate student at University of Texas Austin, Gregory Watson. His paper on the amendment got a C from his TA, but ultimately his research led to a campaign to get the amendment ratified by three fourths of the states, which happened in 1992.\n\nSo why time limits? Richard F. Hamm's *Shaping the Eighteenth Amendment* gives some clues as to why this particular amendment was the first one to have such a rider successfully attached. Opponents of Prohibition had originally wanted a two year grace period for implementation after ratification, and/or compensation to brewers and distilleries - Congress eventually came up with a one year period. Opponents also saw a seven year window for ratification as \"fair\" - the original proposal from then Ohio Senator Warren Harding was for four years. It was basically a means of weakening attempts to block the passage in Congress by providing a window of time to prevent passage in the states.\n\nOf course, it's not super clear just how constitutional or binding time limits are. In 1921 the Supreme Court heard *Dillon v. Gloss*, in which, to make a long story short, an arrest under the Volstead Act (enforcing alcohol prohibition) was contested under the pretext that adding a time limit to the 18th Amendment invalidated the whole amendment process. The Supreme Court basically said: \"Time limits are fine, we guess.\" But notably the 18th Amendment had been ratified by the necessary states before the time limit was up, so it wasn't necessarily a very tough call to make. \n\nOf course there is a potentially interesting case to be made about the legality of time limits because of the Equal Rights Amendment, passed in Congress in 1972 with a seven year limit, that in 1978 was extended to a ten year limit (ie, to 1982). This ten year limit was set by a resolution voted on by a simple majority, and in any case due to increasing political resistance, it was not passed by the necessary states by 1982 (although four states rescinded their ratifications in the 1970s, and this isn't something provided for or forbidden in the Constitution). Of course several states have since ratified the amendment, with Illinois being the 37th in 2017. If a 38th state ratified the amendment - well, it's not 100% clear just what would happen.\n\nTo go back to Article V, note the two exceptions to the amendment process: no amendment could ban the slave trade before 1808 (when Congress was constitutionally allowed to ban it), and no amendment can change the number of Senators each states has (it's theoretically an un-amendable part of the Constitution, unless each State agrees to it)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "df7c4nl" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Fortunately there is a cook book from the late 4th or early 5th century CE. That book is Apicius. Keep in mind these recipes would have been for the upper class of society. There is a section on fowl which includes chicken, pheasant, goose, duck and doves. It also includes ostrich and peacock along with a few others. If you'd like you can check out the book at the following link from project Gutenberg.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou are also correct in turkey being a recent addition to European cuisine. The turkey is among one of the New World foods. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.gutenberg.org/files/29728/29728-h/29728-h.htm#bki_chvii" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2crpo8", "c2csl1f", "c2crpo8", "c2csl1f" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "It's hard to attribute a chronology to Zelda, though some aspects can be assumed ( like Wind Waker seems to be a post-apocalyptic Hyrule, the Great Sea having flooded the world ), and each of the games has similar themes for the most part. Seeing as Link is the \"hero of time\", I always saw the series as two omnipresent \"forces\" that are epitomized by Link and Ganondorf, good and evil, a conflict that reoccurs every century or so. We can be sure all this is happening within the same world, seeing as certain constants exist (the goddesses, zelda, hyrule, termina, deku tree, faeries, etc) but I dont think anyone knows for sure", "[This](_URL_0_) is the best description of the chronology of the Zelda Series I've seen.", "It's hard to attribute a chronology to Zelda, though some aspects can be assumed ( like Wind Waker seems to be a post-apocalyptic Hyrule, the Great Sea having flooded the world ), and each of the games has similar themes for the most part. Seeing as Link is the \"hero of time\", I always saw the series as two omnipresent \"forces\" that are epitomized by Link and Ganondorf, good and evil, a conflict that reoccurs every century or so. We can be sure all this is happening within the same world, seeing as certain constants exist (the goddesses, zelda, hyrule, termina, deku tree, faeries, etc) but I dont think anyone knows for sure", "[This](_URL_0_) is the best description of the chronology of the Zelda Series I've seen." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194" ], [], [ "http://www.gametrailers.com/video/zelda-retrospective-the-legend/15194" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dtdm4nw" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "Practically all objects that breaks the sound barrier cause a double sonic boom. First at the front of the object, where it is pushing away the air, and second at the end of the object, where it stops pushing away the air. At both these points there is a big and rapid change in pressure.\n\nThe F9 actually creates three sonic booms though. At the engine, at the landing legs and at the grid fins." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpvzxg3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "It was taken from the hands of the nobility in 1999 when Labour removed the rights of peers to sit in the House of Lords, which is the UK's second chamber.\n\n92 hereditary peers are left there today, along with 26 Princes of the Church. The rest are members of political parties that were ushered while their party was in power. Sixteen years later it's still a controversial issue and reeks of corruption to many.\n\nFYI, this subreddit has a rule that excludes everything that happened under twenty years ago. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fcuwcdg" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "Both the Hiroshima and Nagasaki bombs were devices meant to create a supercritical state in a mass of enriched uranium (Hiroshima) or plutonium (Nagasaki), which allowed for an explosive nuclear fission chain reaction. In more layman's speak, this means that they quickly created the conditions so that [splitting one atom of uranium-235 or plutonium-239 would lead to the splitting of more than one additional atoms](_URL_0_), which over the course of a millisecond of such exponential splitting would release a lot of energy. They used different fuels and were of different designs because of those fuel choices. In the Hiroshima bomb (Little Boy), one piece of enriched uranium was shot into another through a gun barrel using high explosives. This created a brief supercritical mass of uranium. In the Nagasaki bomb (Fat Man), a solid sphere of plutonium-239 was compressed symmetrically from all sides through the use of explosive lenses, which increased its density by a factor of 2 or so, squeezing its atoms closer together. This meant that its existing mass was now supercritical. \n\nThere are many more details involved with making this work in practice, but the basic concept is as described. Atomic bombs are just complex machines made to produce the conditions for the chain reaction. \n\nThe above is totally separate from why they were detonated in the air. The choice of an air bust was made to maximize blast damage to the targets on the ground. When the blast wave proceeds downward from above, it reflects off of the ground. It can then catch up with the rest of the blast wave, increasing its strength. This expands the area of medium/light damage considerably, at the expense of heavier blast damage. For a \"light\" target like a city, this is (clearly) entirely adequate. [You can see a diagram of this reflection here](_URL_1_), and a [photograph of the reflection here](_URL_2_) (the latter is for a weapon with the same yield as the Hiroshima bomb, from the 1950s; those little dark things on the ground are tanks). This technique is sometimes used with conventional explosives as well." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://thumbs-prod.si-cdn.com/Pn6USKsoZIvYhw6pDb4cbVd4qWM=/fit-in/1072x0/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/50/46/504659b9-3185-420c-9b86-d83c702b4ddd/file-20171129-12035-4shqnh.png", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blast_wave#/media/File:Mach_effect_sequence.svg", "http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/12/Grable_reflection.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3n2mqt", "c3n2n9i", "c3n2uas", "c3n2y2k", "c3n33l1", "c3n42hr", "c3n462n", "c3n48a9", "c3n4jjz", "c3n4wh4", "c3n5km6", "c3n6gd7", "c3n6lap", "c3n6r61", "c3n7bz8", "c3nauxw" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 177, 10, 2, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "valuable market research and advertising revenue", "The 800 million users' profile information is theoretically worth twice as much as that.", "They do have a product they sell, a very valuable one... You.\n\nAll those statuses, all those 'likes', all those location check-ins... That data isn't just there for your friends to see. It is organized and categorized and analyzed and creates an unbelievable source of data for directed advertising. You dump every detail of yourself onto Facebook which tells them exactly what to try and sell you. The ads may be small and seem insignificant, but they are the digital equivalent of real estate on Manhattan Island. Add to that the ads beyond the actual _URL_0_ site itself. The 'like' button you see on virtually every website now, ever wonder why you don't log in every time you use it? A cookie based system is essentially tracking your every online movement while at the same time allowing advertisers to customize ads anywhere based on your FB info. Not just Facebook either: Google, Yahoo, Foursquare, Twitter... All these 'free' products we take for granted as \"Innovative communications tools for the 21st century!\" are vast information fishing nets for well-paying corporate clients.\n\nI always chuckle when the semi-annual \"Facebook is going to start charging a fee!\" outrage kicks up. No they aren't. They have zero need to ever extract a penny from us, more likely they will keep tacking on new free feature after another. When you sell something you charge the fee to the buyer, and we aren't the customer... we're the product.", "Facebook is valuable because so many people use it. \n\nPeople tend to include their demographic information (asl) in their profile as well as their interests.\n\nWhen people \"Like\" a topic or post about a topic, Facebook can track this activity. \n\nAll this information is valuable to a lot of industries, advertising companies in particular. \n\n*An example:* You work for a television studio and want to know whether you should release a new buddy sitcom. Facebook has access to statistics on the number of people who have \"Liked\", mentioned, or posted references to similar sitcoms (Big Bang Theory, Always Sunny in Philadelphia, How I Met Your Mother, etc.)With this information, you can gauge what the interest might be in *your* sitcom.\n\nNow, when you release your sitcom you have limited advertising dollars. So you want to make sure your target audience (let's say males 18-30 in the United States) is the primary consumer of your advertising instead of, say, old people. Facebook lets you target this demographic with ads directly on the Facebook site and can tell you which venues are more popular (they've been \"Liked\" or mentioned more) with your targets so you don't waste ad dollars. \n\nFinally, once your sitcom's ad campaign is up and running, Facebook can give you data on how many times people have \"Liked\" or shared your ads as well as mentioning the show in their status or in a wall post to a friend. \n\nFacebook doesn't need to make a product. *You* and your information are the product. ", "Can someone explain where the $80B valuation number comes from? What exactly is worth that amount of money?", "Basically, Facebook's wealth lies in how much information they have on it's users. How do they get this information? We give it to them! While most of this information they sell may not be directly about you, Facebook uses millions of data points to essentially paint a picture of the social network and the world it has created.\n\nBecause so much of the information they have on users is accurate, the picture Facebook paints with its millions of data points is very similar to real world demographics. This concept of metadata or \"data-about-data\" is essentially what Facebook utilizes to create a bridge between companies that want you to buy stuff, and you.\n\nPersonally, I think it would actually be interesting to see how this continues. Imagine if the only ads you saw, were ads that you actually enjoyed. This is slowly becoming a reality. Because of this, the web is essentially being tailored to fit YOU. Google does this with your searches as well. Some say it is convenient, as relevant websites are more easily available. Others suggest this is a soft censorship.", "**real answer**\n\nIt isn't. ", "It has hundreds of millions of unpaid workers creating content (us)", "They just filed for an IPO and have revealed their financial standing as part of that procedure. Here's a nice, simple explanation:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIn broad strokes, Facebook made $3.71 billion last year. They divide up that revenue as 1. money made from advertising and 2. payments and other fees. The advertising makes up most of the revenue.\n\nBecause they have a big, popular network, investors think that Facebook is a good, safe bet (i.e. it will continue to grow and make money in the next few years). Their thinking is that if it made almost $4 billion last year and seems to have strong, reasonable plans to make more than that next year and the year after, that the company could make at least $80-100 billion over its lifetime.\n\nThis valuation can and will change, especially once it becomes a publicly traded stock. You will be able to see investors' opinion change in near-realtime as the expected value of the company fluctuates.\n\nTo address your question directly:\n\n > Facebook is not making any products/ selling anything.\n\nThey are selling ad space. That's where most of their revenue is generated. Zynga is a big chunk of their income as well -- they get a cut of every real-money transaction that takes place on Facebook.", "The Thing I don't understand, which was brought up by some new programs I was watching, is how they plan and making MORE money. I mean I assume they use adverts as a large source of income, but how will they increase their worth? I would say a majority of people already use facebook, and there is no real competition, so they won't be gaining a significantly greatly client base. Does anyone know how they plan on increasing their value, if at all?", "To be honest this damned facebook IPO is giving me an identity crisis of sorts since I, shockingly, was a computer nerd in high school and thus had a cute nerd friend who later on became one of the first facebook employees. Me? I had a really bad experience with a computer science instructor who basically turned me off of making a career of it. And now I'm here posting at 8AM on reddit after a night shift, six figures in student loan debt wondering whether or not I really made the right life decisions after all. Oh well, I'm sure it'd be a pain in the butt to be a billionaire, amiright?\n\nI could post an actual explanation of why it's fairly valuable but I think everyone else had that covered, though I do think that the valuation based on the IPO is a little optimistic. Their revenue is pretty awesome but to really justify a $100 billion valuation they'd have to keep growing their revenues and profits at insane rates which I find really hard to believe since there's limited advertising dollars out there so it'll get harder and harder to grab more of those dollars. And they're also not in a great position in the Chinese market at this point-right now the Chinese market has limited advertising dollars to earn but the problem is that there are players there cementing their positions for the future where advertising spending will be significantly higher in China. Facebook really has to break into that market for optimal long term revenue growth.\n\n", "So, once they go public and have a board of idiots, won't Facebook become quite shitty like other corporations? Not a lot of faith in publicly traded businesses here. Google's doing OK so far but I think that's only because they are swimming in mountains of money like Scrooge McDuck.", "It's the power of applied bullshit", "In a nutshell, if you're using a service and you're not paying anything for it, then you're not the customer. You're the livestock. ", "It's not that valuable. Facebook is really big and they do make money, but like almost every other dotcom they have a grossly inflated market valuation that isn't based on their potential performance as much as fervor and speculation. ", "They made $1B in profit last year." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "Facebook.com" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://mashable.com/2012/02/01/how-facebook-ipo-makes-money/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chgjcw6", "chgplz8" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I can tell you that having really curly afro hair in the summer heat means that I can sick my fingers in my hair and it feels like there is a little private AC unit in there. It keeps my head cool, I imagine it does, and has for other afro haired humans who are almost entirely of recent African descent, where it would have been beneficial in the hot environment.", "About 70,000(a small time on an evolutionary scale) years ago, the human species was bottlenecked to a small population. That is why we have very little genetic differences between two humans as opposed to other populations. Now these physical traits such as eye color or hair type, were most likely sexually selected among small populations. I think it is still a debate why the traits such as blue eyes were sexually selected, but it is pretty clear that there is no to little economical function that they serve, or else other populations would have evolved them in the same environments." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnl53cr", "cnl63k6", "cnlai6x" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "They printed instructions on how to play the disk in pictograms onto the disk cover.\n\nsee this picture on the explaination of the pictograms\n\n_URL_0_", "It was also used as a memorial of humanity to be sent through space for when we get extinct. ", "They don't know, it's sort of a blind hope. Furthermore, it's pretty unlikely that the probe will ever hit any celestial object, let alone a planet, let alone a planet with life on it, let alone a planet with life on it capable of understanding what it is (imagine an alien probe landing on Earth in dinosaur times). It's a symbolic gesture. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voyager_Golden_Record#mediaviewer/File:Voyager_Golden_Record_Cover_Explanation.svg" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwsq0li", "dwssgyw" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "A tariff is a tax on imports or exports.\n\nFor example, if you have a 100% tariff on iron, that means someone wanting to import (or export) iron into your country must pay 100% of the value of the iron in taxes.", "You have a lemonade stand and your friend bakes 2 dozen cookies. You let your friend sell their cookies for $1 each at your stand and he sells them all for $24. You ask him to pay you $0.50 each to let you keep selling them tomorrow. He agrees, but now he raises the price to $1.50 so he still makes $1 each cookie.\n\nThe next day you baked cookies too. You sell your $1 cookies right next to his $1.50 cookies. No one wants his and everyone wants yours. You sell 20 cookies and they make $20 and he sells 4. He gives you $2 and he keeps $4 and hates that your cookies are cheaper and he's still paying you for access." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9e5ovo" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "It either oxidizes the material responsible for the coloration to the point that it becomes water soluble and rinses away or until it no longer absorbs light in the visible spectrum (organic dyes absorb light in certain color bands based on the energy level of their electrons - adjust the electronics and you adjust the absorbtion band. The process is called bleaching because this is also what bleach does)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6ta2fv", "c6tdaen", "c6tdefi" ], "score": [ 3, 5, 9 ], "text": [ "There's an [interesting article on this at _URL_0_](_URL_1_).", "Rodney Stark wrote an interesting article in the mid-90's arguing that as early Christianity attracted a disproportionately large number of female converts, they were therefore accorded a higher status within the subculture than in the society at large. IIRC, he argues that they unlike Greek and Roman societies, the church regularly allowed women to serve in positions of power and authority, especially as deaconesses. ", "This is mainly about the upper classes, as a necessity mandated by our sources. But an extremely brief summary: Greek and Roman medical theory believed that women had not received enough heat in the womb, and thus had failed to mature into full humans, i.e. men. So women are considered inherently biologically inferior. Women were expected to get married, get married early (~14), produce children, and re-marry if their husband died in order to produce more children. Remaining unmarried was highly anomalous, even religious virgins (such as the vestals) generally only remained virgins for a set period (for example until 30). The production of children was considered absolutely vital to the future of the state, community, and family. It was also hugely dangerous. Marriage was understood as one of the core institutions of the Empire, vital to maintaining it. Men were the unquestioned head of the household, all the property, etc. Women essentially passed from the control of their fathers/older brothers to husband.\n\nChristianity, on the other hand, brings with it a strong focus on bodily asceticism, of which sexual renunciation (and given above, extremely visible) was an important part. Christians both encourage consecrated virginity among young women, but they also support widows who wish to remain unmarried. Both of these allowed women to escape the societal strictures of the time, and to at least a limited degree the control of men, and to avoid the terrifying (we can see this in their literature) dangers of childbirth. Also vitally, it enables widows to retain control of their deceased husband's property, which for the upper class could be quite substantial (some of the widows who corresponded with Jerome in the 4th century were among the richest people in the world at the time). This is all pretty problematic from the point of view of prevailing society. Thus, in Late Antiquity it is Christianity which is accused of being anti-family. \n\nIt's also important to note that many, if not most, Roman religious practices excluded women, whereas Christianity did not. Perhaps not unsurprisingly, Christianity was very popular with women. \n\nA lot of this comes from Peter Brown's *Body and Society* which is a really excellent study of this sort of thing. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "PBS.org", "http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/first/women.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3zjp5o", "c3zjsnj", "c3zkby7", "c3zkzwe" ], "score": [ 10, 97, 14, 9 ], "text": [ "What is the OWS subreddit?", "I only have a tenuous grasp of the situation, but what I gathered was that some dick (username: [TheGhostOfNoLibs](_URL_0_)) finagled his way into a moderator spot on [/r/occupywallstreet](/r/occupywallstreet). Several people were complaining that he directly opposes just about everything the OWS movement stands for, has a war hawkish disposition, and regularly makes inflammatory and offensive comments. A lot of people were banned from the OWS subreddit for pointing out that this guy is an asshole and has no business being anywhere near an OWS community. Evidently he was stripped of his position recently. [source](_URL_1_)", "This doesn't really need to be ELI5, does it? Sorry I can't answer because I'm unaware, but this seems like a pretty simple question more fitting of ask reddit. \n\nEDIT: See Not_Me's reply. ", "[Here's](_URL_0_) a link to r/subredditdrama explaining the situation\n\n\nHope this helps :)\n\nEdit: [And Here's](_URL_1_) a thread from [/r/worstof](/r/worstof) discussing what happened" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/user/TheGhostOfNoLibs", "http://www.reddit.com/r/ronpaul/comments/qo7uo/enoughpaulspam_moderators_have_become_moderators/" ], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/qonx3/update_roccupywallstreet_allegedly_taken_over_by/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/worstof/comments/qoyau/neoconservatives_gain_moderator_status_at_rows/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg6grlr", "cg6qbcd" ], "score": [ 8, 4 ], "text": [ "It is not human nature to enjoy the suffering of others, quite the opposite in fact. Empathy is the one of the very important reasons our society functions well. \n\nSometimes however, the relief that we are not the ones suffering can be mistaken for enjoyment. \n\nIn modern day it can be seen as weak or soft to be empathetic, leading to a growing tendency for people to stifle or repress their feelings of empathy. However if this keeps happening, society as we know will start to deconstruct, as everyone will become overwhelmingly selfish at the expense of others.", "What you are referring to is known as schadenfreude, and while humans may seem to enjoy it all, it isn't necessarily embedded into human nature to enjoy the pain of others.\n\nBecause human behavior tends to be inconsistent, we are not always pleased when we see that misfortune has befallen another (unless you completely lack empathy, in which case you may be a psychopath). Social comparison theory suggests that we evaluate ourselves by the comparison of others. Being a graduate student, I would compare myself to other graduate students. In that case, I would be very happy to learn that a classmate of mine failed a test if I received an A because that makes me look smarter, i.e., better.\n\nHowever, going back to empathy, if the classmate was a good friend of mine, I would feel sad because I empathize with her misfortune. Also, I would not experience schadenfreude if I found out a graduate student in another program failed a test. I cannot evaluate myself compared to that person since they are in another program, so I don't care. [link](_URL_0_)\n\n**TL;DR Humans don't always enjoy misfortune of others, but when we do, it's probably to make us feel better about ourselves.**" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/24/arts/sorrow-so-sweet-a-guilty-pleasure-in-another-s-woe.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dsf0tx4" ], "score": [ 20 ], "text": [ "There is a disorder literally called Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) that is similar to Dyslexia. It is an abnormality in the processing of sound in the central auditory nervous system and it affects the brain’s ability to filter and process sounds and words. Most people that have Dyslexia also tend to have this disorder as well." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccytptg" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "To get the speed of light, you can take Maxwell's equations, assume there are no charges anywhere, and 'pluck' the electric or magnetic field and watch what happens. The solution to these assumptions is a wave propagating through the EM field at the speed *c*. Maxwell proposed that light might be an EM wave because this behavior matched what was known about light at the time.\n\nOriginally, it was thought that this wave was propagating in a 'luminiferous aether', as these charge-free EM fields were assumed to be mathematical constructs, not physical things (because the only known way to measure the field was with charges or magnets.) The [Michelson-Morley experiment](_URL_2_), along with the analysis provided by Einstein, convincingly demonstrated that no such thing exists. Further measurement of the properties of light and results like the derivation of [Snell's law](_URL_1_) and the equations of [diffraction](_URL_0_) from Maxwell's equations cemented the idea that light was an electromagnetic phenomena.\n\nEM Fields were then taken to be fundamental, essentially taking the electromagnetic field itself as the medium for the propagation of light. The electromagnetic field could be measured without the use of charges by measuring light." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffraction", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snell's_law", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson%E2%80%93Morley_experiment" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8bxlkz", "c8bzsg0" ], "score": [ 269, 20 ], "text": [ "No, there is no sharp cut off, though we don't have a standard term for super-high energy photons. Typical gamma rays from nuclear have energies of 10^(5) to 10^(7) eV. Astronomical sources can yield energies around 10^(13) eV, indicating that they coming from processes other than radioactive decay. If you can find a way to create a high energy photon, it will have more energy.\n\nIn fact, the notion of a photon's energy is dependent on the frame of reference of the observer. The fastest particle every observed was a cosmic ray (likely a proton) with an energy of 3x10^(20) eV. Imagine that that cosmic ray was observing a gamma ray that we observed as traveling towards the cosmic ray and, in our frame, with an energy E. To the cosmic ray, that gamma ray would have an energy that was between 10^(11) and 10^(12) times bigger. That means, if things were lined up right, nuclear gamma rays we observed at 10^(7) eV or astrophysical gamma rays that we observed at 10^(13) eV would, to this cosmic ray, have energies of over 10^(18) or 10^(24) eV, respectively.", "Some in the lattice gauge theory community have seriously(-ish) considered [_URL_0_] the possibility that spacetime is discretized; if this is the case then the fundamental lattice spacing would impose a limit on the minimum wavelength. Any physical quantity dependent on momentum would be periodic in 2pi/a, where a is the lattice spacing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://arxiv.org/abs/1210.1847" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drkbuv0", "drlzkz9" ], "score": [ 5, 6 ], "text": [ "This is incredibly interesting as a way to approach teaching. Do you know if this is implemented in non-indigenous settings too or is it something that is a process within specifically indigenous settings?", "Another very fascinating write-up, thank you. I actually have a few questions.\n\nIn most threads on indigenous or marginalized/subaltern peoples of any kind, there is a common caveat that accompanies any historical answer on this subreddit. For example, from a recently excellent answer about Native American perceptions of dinosaur bones:\n\n > This is my general notice that \"Native American\" encompasses two vast continents filled with innumerable people in the various landscapes of those continents, whose thoughts, traditions, and cultures were not static, but evolved and flourished over a period of thousands of years.\n\nYet, in our current thread, your post is written about \"Indigenous peoples\" and \"Indigenous pedagogy\". Essentially, I'm curious, are these methods specific to certain indigenous groups? Is this a kind of generalization (i.e. for a United Statesian context)? A better question might be: What is the historiography of indigenous historical methodology? Is this a post-colonial construction, or did the pre-colonial Aztecs and the Algonquin peoples share fundamental educational values which could be summed up as \"Indigenous pedagogy\"?\n\nAddendum to this: is \"Western\" a kind of misnomer, in this case? Do pedagogical systems in China or the Middle-East fall under this purview? I just fear that there may be a less Eurocentric way to frame the divide. \n\nSecondly;\n > These benefits also extend beyond Indigenous students and can be applied to non-Indigenous students alike, those who, in my opinion, do not benefit from many Western methods of teaching as previously thoughts \n\nThis was interesting to me, because I usually encounter criticisms of educational paradigms through a self-fulfilling lens; education systems help student navigate educational systems and a workforce based on those educational systems. That is, the system serves itself, and society at all levels is shaped by and for people which went through the system. In this sense, a radical departure from Western educational paradigms could potentially undermine Indigenous attempts at prosperity, equality, and agency, despite the equal (if not greater) value of the pedagogical system itself. \n\nEssentially, if an indigenous student goes through an undergraduate degree with a more indigenous pedagogy, would they be at a disadvantage in moving on to medical school and being forced to navigate a less-familiar Western pedagogical system? \n\nAnd finally:\n > Thus, the words of elders to relate what happened in the past has as much authority as the written word (if we are putting Indigenous peoples and Western societies on level playing fields, that is).\n\nThis may be outside the scope of the thread, so feel free to link to a previous answer on the subject. My understanding of both the academic consensus on psychology and criminology is such that human memory is far, far more fallible than generally believed. Not that written sources are infallible or anything of the sort, I'm just curious, is that an uncontroversial statement to make (written word having as much authority as the spoken)? I understand the social and political reasons to avoid civilizational arguments for the superiority of literate texts, but from a historiographical perspective, is this opinion shared by scholars working outside indigenous contexts (givenn that all human cultures still maintain some oral elements, i.e. folklore and whatnot)? \n\nSorry for all the questions, I'm really diving into unknown territory for myself here. " ] }

[]

[ "https://i.imgur.com/yfzc5B1.png" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eilln99" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Seasonal fuits are grown in both the northern and southern hemispheres and shipped all over the world. A lot of summer fruits that are available in grocery stores in the winter in northern countries are grown in Chile, Argentina, New Zealand etc. The same is true of winter fruits that are available in grocery stores in the summer in northern countries. \n\nFruits that cannot be shipped and stored easily are not available out of season. Apples, for example, are very easy to ship because they are hard and so do not bruise easily, and they can be stored in refrigerators for months. Strawberries, on the other hand, are too delicate to ship long distances or to store for months because they will bruise and rot quickly. \n\nSome of these more delicate seasonal fruits can be grown out of season in greenhouses, but they tend to be very expensive. They can also be grown in more temperate regions like California and Mexico, which have much longer growing seasons, but they still still have to be shipped on trains and trucks. Avoiding bruising and spoilage is a difficult process. \n\nTropical fruits like bananas, pineapples, and papayas are grown year-round in tropical climates. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d39346l", "d3934wu", "d3938hi", "d39o74q" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Usually you would want to do it in post-production because screens don't film well due to different refresh rates. They may have prompts on the screen if the scene calls for it though. ", "These days the screens as filmed are all green screens, and the contents of the screens are added in post.\n\n[Generally like this](_URL_0_)", "Simulated screens can be created with graphic design and editing programs. Then the fake program - which is now just a collection of images, video or a mix of the two - can either be put on a device/computer OR it can be put into the original footage (an actor sitting at a computer with a blank screen) to make it look like its running on that system.\n\nFor some background, I've worked in the film industry both in front of and behind the camera for the last 12 years.\n\n", "There are people who are paid by studios to create the \"OS\" that are seen in movies and shows. [Mark Coleran](_URL_1_) is one such person. The idea is to tell the story of what the character is doing with the computer in a way that can be understood by the audience en masse. Most of the time, this is usually done in real time. The actor \"psuedointerfaces\" with the computer via a dummy keyboard and mouse while the images on the display are triggered off camera by an operator. \n\nAs a side note, I recalled that [The Matrix Reloaded](_URL_0_) was praised back in the day for its semi-realistic portrayal of hacking, with Trinity running nmap to find an open SSHv1 port, utilizing [a known exploit](_URL_2_), then logging into the remote system." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xd/492406308.jpg?v=1&c=IWSAsset&k=2&d=DF8D445051B40C7410989D060BD8CDE2DD9BE2D9A1DB104CA41314691DF08E4AEB30ADFDF762C549" ], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PxTAn4g20U", "http://www.imdb.com/name/nm1268048/", "https://www.exploit-db.com/exploits/20617/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ei66567" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The 3rd prong is just an added safety precaution. To be approved by the UL anything with an exposed metal case needs to have the 3rd prong so if a wire inside the device comes loose and into contact with the case the current will go down the ground prong and not to you if you touch it. game consoles have plastic cases, computers have metal cases around their power supplies which is exposed on most systems." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdrl620" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Just taking some of the relationships from [here.](_URL_0_) We have:\n\n- Lifespan is proportional to M^-2.5 \n- L is proportional to M^3.5 \n- L is also proportional to T^4\n\n(where L is luminosity, T is temperature and M is mass). So combining all of these, we get lifespan is proportional to T^-10/3.5 or T^-20/7 ." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_sequence#Lifetime" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4a5o71", "c4a5rlh", "c4a60p2", "c4a8g5l", "c4a8jph", "c4a8o8n", "c4a8r5r", "c4a8wpc", "c4a9wld", "c4aa3e5", "c4aa9yj", "c4aaa8d", "c4aaawb", "c4aahvs", "c4abkg8", "c4ac49f", "c4aegu7", "c4afnt2", "c4afujk" ], "score": [ 266, 42, 7, 4, 4, 2, 18, 6, 3, 10, 54, 7, 8, 5, 2, 2, 10, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "First sale doctrine applies to libraries, video rental outfits, etc.\n\nFrom [Wikipedia](_URL_0_)\n\n > The doctrine allows the purchaser to transfer (i.e., sell, lend or give away) a particular lawfully made copy of the copyrighted work without permission once it has been legally obtained. This means that the copyright holder's rights to control the change of ownership of a particular copy ends once ownership of that copy has passed to someone else, as long as the copy itself is not an infringing copy.\n\nThey purchased the copy legally, so they can lend, sell, or rent it out as they see fit so long as they're not duplicating it. ", "Books traditionally do not have licensing rights attached to second hand distributions. Music, video, and software (among other things) do have licensing rights.\n\nIn Copyright Law, the owner of the copyright has ultimate say-so in the copy, distribution, and licensing of the work she owns.\n\nWhen you buy a book (or check out from the library) you do not own the text. You only own the medium in which the text is imprinted (like the pages of the book, or the disk a digital book is written to), but not the content. The rights to that content is still reserved by the copyright holder.\n\nWhen you download content (legally) you are downloading the availability of the content, and through some agreement, you have permission to do so.\n\nWhen you download content (illegally) you are bypassing the rights of the copyright holder and in effect \"stealing\" her opportunity to capitalize on the content.", "Libraries have a limited number of copies, so only a small number of licensed volumes are available at a time which are paid for with taxes. Even with eBooks they have a set number of copies that can be checked out based on the amount of license they have purchased.", "Essentially, I figured it's because libraries pay for the books or films you borrow. If you don't return the book or film, you're charged an overdue fee or eventually a replacement fee. \n\nWhen you download something online for free (illegally), nobody is paying for it.", "I think the most interesting thing about this point is the fact that its unlikely the library system could be established the way that copyright law is currently written.", "(I'm assuming US law)\n\nThe concept of the public library is ancient and (until recently) so well accepted that it had occupied a special place in copyright law. Digital downloads are a new phenomenon and more vulnerable to the industries' efforts to restrict it. As more library content becomes digitized, this will threaten the library's ability to fulfill its mission.\n\nNote that when someone illegally torrents digital content, they most often are not just downloading the files but also uploading (pieces of) them to other users. The penalties for illegally distributing content are very steep compared to the penalties (if any?) for merely obtaining it. Thus we end up with situations where massive media conglomerates are able to pressure common citizens using statutory penalties that were originally intended for professional pirates.", "The clue is in the word *copyright*. A copyright is the right to make a copy.\n\nWhen you're checking a book out of a library you're not making a copy which doesn't require permission from the person who owns the copyright (the \"rightsholder.\") On the other hand, when you download something you're making a new copy.\n\nIn order to legally make a copy you require permission from the rightsholder. In order to get permission, you have to do whatever the rightsholder says, which is usually to pay a fee.", "I wouldn't mind \"renting\" a movie from TPB for free and then \"returning\" it. I don't need to keep my movie files, who wants to develop a free, literal, online library that utilizes the notion of the \"first sale doctrine\"? I'd subscribe.", "In my opinion, morally, they are not any different.", "TIL (after reading through the comments) that no one really understands all the this shit, especially all us 5-year olds. ", "Librarian *and* bookseller here:\n\nPublishers are getting less and less happy with allowing libraries to purchase and loan downloadable ebooks (which have special DRM to prevent transfer, and \"expire\" on your device after a specific length of time), because there is no **\"friction\"** with downloadable content. **\"Friction\" = \"The inconvenience of actually borrowing a physical object, and having to return it\"**. To loan a physical object requires two trips to the library: one to pick it up, and one to return it. Anyone can download an ebook or eaudiobook from their home computers, and because it is so easy they are borrowing lots and lots of them, more than they would have if they had to actually visit the library building. ", "Actual ELI5 answer: WTF are you doing downloading things on the internet! You're going to pick up tons of viruses, and see things you shouldn't be seeing yet! You're grounded. \n\nAnswer you were looking for: \n\nThe Library is OK because: \n\n1. Someone bought the books for the library to use in the first place.\n2. The rights to use materials from the library are restricted to the local residents. \n3. The library only holds a specific amount of copies to share within the community. \n\nThe internet is a different animal since it may or may not have been purchased ever, and is open to the entire world instead of just the local township. Also, software's non-physical nature means that infinite copies can be shared instead of just the 2-3 per municipality. \n\nI'd be interested to see what would happen if the Library of Congress scanned/transcribed everything they have and opened it's internet doors to the municipality of America. I imagine it'd make a pretty interesting supreme court case. ", "Duplication is the key difference. It would be illegal to take said book from the library, photocopy it and hand out copies to friends.", "When a library lends a copy of a physical book, they are within their rights under the first-sale doctrine. They do not violate the rights of the copyright holder.\n\nDownloading them online (illegally, I presume) violates the rights of reproduction, duplication, and public performance.", "Short version: copying is the difference\n\nIf you checked out a book from the library, and you (somehow) made an exact copy of it and kept the copy, it would be the exact same thing as pirating movies/etc online", "The library purchases the material, and is essentially lending the material in a \"one at a time\" scenario. The library uses your tax dollars, so you are still paying for it. This is logically equivalent to anyone else purchasing material and lending it to their friends one at a time, which the media producer should expect to happen anyway. There is still a bottleneck of availability that was enabled by a purchase. At worst the media producer makes a profit from each copy bought (this depends on demand) for each library where the media becomes available.\n\nWhen you download movies, the argument is that you are breaking this paradigm and performing a one to many distribution. The cost is paid once, and a potentially unlimited number of people have simultaneous access to that media. This changes the economics in a way that removes the profit associated with the inefficient distribution system of the library.\n\n/ELI5\n\nRant about copyrights, trademarks, patents, etc begin:\n\nI don't think stretched comparisons is the right way to argue this. We have to be honest and realize that \"downloading\" is a different paradigm. And the real argument is about availability, efficiency and cultural enrichment (from remixing, for example) that downloading enables versus the one sided economics of the old publishing paradigms.\n\nThe old guard argues that good works are only produced by the incentives that exist with their economically based system. However, the easy counter argument is to observe that this is a monopoly (over each particular work), and that reduces choices like any other monopoly. Take a look at the film: \"This films is not yet Rated\" or \"Orgasmo\" (or the recent movie about Bullying whose name escapes me at the moment) -- the MPAA uses its censorship powers to prevent those films from getting better distributions for no other reason than their own corporate driven agenda. It blocks culture that can be formed from remixing or other unlicensed usages of the media. And wikipedia is proof that economic funding is not the only way to incentivise the production of valuable media.\n\nThink about rage comics for a second. Can you imagine if the heavy hand of copyright was applied to them? People suing each other because their joke was too similar, others copyrighting/tradmarking certain characters, people trademarking \"derp\", etc. It would absolute wreck the whole concept of rage comics. Remixing, reusing, a blatantly ripping off others is what makes rage comics work, and its what makes them so good. I feel that the best rage comics are pretty much at the same level of the best Newspaper comics -- and that should surprise nobody. After all, how did wikipedia become as high quality, if not higher than Britanica?\n\nDownload and remix is the not some marginal fringe thing. And who cares if nobody makes money off of media based culture? Who says that the existence of such media giants is a good thing? You can't just rattle off a list of good media and claim it was all due to the economic media monopoly system -- you don't have anything to compare against. What would people have produced if the copyright regime were not enforced? Would the aggregate creativity of people go down because there was no media conglomerate to pay for a few high quality pieces? The lesson of wikipedia, rage comics, musical sample based remixes, redubbed videos, autotune, etc is that entertaining media is just a matter of giving people an outlet and just letting the art happen.\n\n", "**Why Libraries Are Different From Piracy**\n\n*by John Green*\n\n(Sorry if this is to complicated for a five year old)\n > Yesterday on twitter, I expressed annoyance with the hundreds of people who send me emails or tumblr messages or whatever to let me know that they illegally downloaded one of my books, as if they expect me to reply with my hearty congratulations that they are technologically sophisticated enough to use google or whatever. (I dislike it when people pirate my books. I know that not all authors feel this way, but I do. As I’ve discussed before, I think copyright law is disastrously stupid in the US, but I don’t think piracy is an appropriate response to that stupidity.*)\n\n > I then pointed out that my books are already available for free at thousands of public libraries not just in the US, but also in Europe, South America, Australia, Canada, Mexico, South Africa, the UK, etc., to which many people replied, What’s the difference between pirating a book and checking it out from the library?\n\n > * 1) Libraries are broadly collecting institutions curated by experts. The curation facet of a library is hugely important: We train these librarians to organize information based not solely on what is popular (which is what piracy does), but also on what is good. The truth is you can’t get “anything” via piracy; there are hundreds of thousands of books you can’t get, because they aren’t yet popular. American public and school libraries play a huge role in preserving the breadth of American literature by collecting and sharing books that are excellent but may not be written by YouTubers with large bulit-in audiences.\n\n > Libraries improve the quality of discourse in their communities in ways that piracy simply does not. And if it weren’t for the broad but carefully curated collection practices of libraries, the world of American literature would look a lot like the world of American film: Instead of hundreds of books being published every week, there would be four or five.\n\n > * 2) Libraries buy books. Lots of them. And there are tens of thousands of libraries around the country. That is good for me and good for my book. (Like, the average library copy of The Fault in Our Stars might get checked out 100 times, or even a thousand, but single files of Looking for Alaska have been illegally downloaded more than 50,000 times.)\n\n > * 3) For the more than 100 million Americans without Internet access at home, libraries are the only free places to use the web to search for jobs or connect with family or buy t-shirts at _URL_0_. I am very happy if my books can help add value to institutions that facilitate such important services. I do not feel the same way about BitTorrent.\n\n > * 4) And this is the most important: I believe that creators of books should have control over how their work is distributed. If, for instance, a musician doesn’t want her songs played during Rick Santorum rallies, then Rick Santorum should not be allowed to use them. I don’t want my books to be available for free download (unless you borrow an e-copy from a library, that is). I just don’t. It’s not because I’m a greedy bastard or want to keep my books from people who might otherwise read them. It’s because I believe books are valuable. Right now, on Amazon, my brand new hardcover book costs about $10, which represents 1.2 hours of work at the federal minimum wage. I believe books are worth 1.2 hours of work. \n\n > One last thing: A lot of people compare the world of books with the world of music. I think this comparison is unfair. For one thing, CDs were overpriced before Napster. I really don’t believe that books—at least my books—are currently overpriced**. More importantly, most musicians have a secondary source of income: They can charge for live performances. Writers—or at least the vast majority of writers—can’t do this. The book is The Thing. The book is all we have to offer.\n\n > And in my opinion, libraries preserve the integrity and the value of the book in ways that piracy simply does not.\n\n > Based on how many of you have already seen Season 2 of Sherlock, I realize that most of you disagree with me. And I’m happy to acknowledge that I might be wrong. I welcome your thoughts and responses on these complicated questions.\n\n > * The whole argument that piracy is some kind of civil disobedience in response to unfair copyright laws is ridiculous and indicates to me that not enough people are reading Civil Disobedience, or even the wikipedia article about it.\n\n > * As pointed out by no less an authority than John Darnielle, CDs weren’t overpriced by many independent record labels. Also, I should add that many books—particularly literary fiction hardcovers published for adults—are overpriced, sometimes dramatically. I think this is a bad and discouraging trend, which is one of the (many) reasons why I like publishing my books the way I do: It’s still possible for a hardcover to cost less than $20, and if you adjust for inflation, it always should be.", "Cause having fun isn't hard, when you've got a library card.", "The biggest difference is the ease of doing it. I guess from the text of the post that's not what you meant though. \n\nAs lots of people have said, the difference is that content distributors get paid for each physical copy and, the library is only able to supply one person at once so, to supply everyone that wants the content, we need lots of library copies. Also, the inconvenience of having to go to the library to borrow it every time you want to use it makes you more likely to purchase it. \n\nPersonally, I am very dissatisfied with copyright law as-is. I think most people would be given the facts. I don't have any faith that it can be sorted out by our current political system (I live in the UK but, I think the same is true in the US and practically anywhere). I also don't really accept the validity of imposing laws like this, that limit people's freedoms without protecting someone else's, on someone who disagrees with them, just because the majority believes they are ok so, I wouldn't really accept the moral validity of copyright law even if I did think it was democratic. I'm also pretty pissed of with how the content industries have acted and curtailed my freedoms to protect their arbitrary and artificial rights. All in all, I don't feel that there is any moral problem with me flouting copyright law. I know that if everyone did, there would be a problem without some reform but, I hope more people do so that it makes reform more urgent for the content industries. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First-sale_doctrine" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "dftba.com" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgfszaw" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sending military support is only one way NATO countries can show support. They can also provide financial aide, legal aide, or advisory aide.\n\nUnless one NATO country attacked another, I can't imagine a situation where the other NATO countries wouldn't provide some sort of support, no matter how indirect." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cm38t2w" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Production of lithium from helium is highly *Endothermic*, meaning that it consumes massive amounts of energy instead of creating it. Secondly the fact that it's endothermic results in a significant *Energy Barrier* that needs to be overcome, on top of the powerful electrical repulsion between nuclei.\n\nThe most likely way one would assume lithium would be produced is from a hydrogen nucleus colliding with a helium-4 nucleus. (2 protons and two neutrons), producing Li-5. *However Li-5 is extremely unstable (half life = 3.7 × 10^−24 s) and almost instantly decays back into helium-4, spitting the proton right back out.*\n\nLi-6, the first stable isotope, would need to be produced by fusion of deuterium (Hydrogen-2) with helium-4. Deuterium in the sun is only about 23 parts per million, because it tends to fuse more easily into highly stable helium, than bare hydrogen-1. So it's consumed almost as fast as it's produced.\n\nAdditionally producing Li-6 runs up against the *energy barrier* mentioned earlier, making this process astronomically rare. \n\nIn fact the majority of the lithium in the sun has probably been there since the sun's formation. Lithium, Berylium, and Boron are among the rarest elements in the sun.\n\nLi,Be,and B are probably produced in outer space by [Cosmic Ray Spallation](_URL_0_) from much more common, heavier elements. Not produced by fusion in stars.\n\nBerylium is likely produced from lithium-7 by neutron capture via the [S-Process.](_URL_1_) (PDF)\n\nIn fact, lithium-7 is much more common than lithium-6, because the latter is much better at absorbing neutrons.\n\nCertain reaction in the sun involving hydrogen isotopes, end up producing high-energy neutrons. These neutrons may be absorbed by heavy elements in the sun. In some situations this converts them into higher elements through successive beta decays. In other cases this may produce lighter elements plus helium by triggering alpha decay.\n\n" ] }

[]

[ "http://universe-review.ca/I14-08-elements.jpg" ]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_ray_spallation", "http://www.mpa-garching.mpg.de/lectures/ADSEM/WS0910_Goblirsch.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f8ct7hk", "f8cu174", "f8d0ams", "f8d7y28", "f8dbflp", "f8ddruo", "f8dgfdx", "f8dhk97", "f8dkpwl", "f8dmube", "f8doh0j", "f8dt55p", "f8dv0hm", "f8e3q0i", "f8e5rku" ], "score": [ 188, 5436, 57, 11, 2, 2, 2, 9, 2, 2, 15, 3, 7, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "In cooling mode, the thermostat will wait until the temperature goes over 25°C and then turn on the AC until it falls back under 25°C. This produces a 'spike' of cold air when the AC is on, followed by the temperature slowly drifting up toward warm.\n\nIn heating mode, the thermostat will wait until the temperature goes under 25°C, then turn on the heater until it is back over 25°C. This produces a 'spike' of hot (and dry!) air when the heater comes on, followed by the temperature slowly dropping back down toward cold.\n\nNaturally, these feel different from one another.", "The unit isn't putting out air at 25 C.\n\nIf it's in cooling mode, it's putting out very cold air until the ambient temperature reaches 25 C. \n\nIf it's in heating mode, it's putting out very warm air until the ambient temperature hits 25 C.", "Humidity is also important. \n\nAir can hold a certain amount of water. The closer it is to capacity, the less additional water it can absorb and the more humid it feels. The farther from full capacity it is, the more water it will absorb and the drier the air feels.\n\nHot air can hold more water than cold air, and the A/C doesn’t change the amount of water in the air, it just adjusts the temperature.\n\nSo if you start with cold air, there will be very little water in it, because it can’t hold much, but because it can’t hold much, that little bit of water gets it most of the way to full, so it doesn’t feel very dry. If you heat that air up, there is now a lot more room for water in the air, but it is still only holding that little bit of water, so now it’s going to feel very dry.\n\nIf you start with hot air, it has more room for water, so it will be holding a good amount of water. Cool it down, and now it has less room for water, but is still holding that larger amount, so it feels more humid.\n\nIf you’re heating the air to 25C, the end result is going to feel drier than if you’re cooling the air to 25C, because the amount of water in the air to start with is likely to be different depending on which direction you’re coming from temperature-wise.", "Top tip: if the day is t too hot but it’s really humid, some air cons have a ‘dry’ mode. Use this to remove the moisture front he air and the air will ‘feel’ cooler whilst using less energy", "An AC is designed to put out air 20F cooler than the ambient temp. Doesn’t matter if you set the thermostat to 25 or 0, same temp will come out. It will just stop once it reaches the temp you set.\n\nSo the air you are feeling isn’t 25C", "It is mentioned else on this thread that the output temperature is going to be different whether you are in cooling or heating. In addition, the air has a different level of humidity between in heating or cooling. When in cooling the dew point is like 54F. In heating it can be much much lower. The lower dew point will feel colder because it more readily allows moisture to evaporate.", "I would have had to pay the difference of the previous month’s electricity bill to get my grandpa to keep the temperature at 25C", "Humidity. If you heat to 25, chances are it is colder outside and dryer, so the humidity is lower and it feels colder. If you cool to 25, the opposite is in effect.", "Holy moly I thought this would be covered already... your body loses/ gains heat by radiant heating/cooling according to the heat differential between you and the walls. If the walls and windows are cold (I.e. you’ve got the heat set to 75) you’re going to feel the heat loss. Same thing if you’ve got the A/C set to 75, that means the outside is probably hotter than 75 and you’re gaining heat from radiation.", "Also to add on to this, why does it feel different inside when it could be the very same temperature outside? I feel dumb for this but I have wondered forever.", "Don’t forget: you perceive the average radiant temperature of your surroundings. \nIn summer with HVAC at 25C, the walls might be 28C so you feel warm. \nIn winter with the HVAC set at 25C, the walls could be 18C, so you feel chilled.\n\nAlso, HVAC is always playing catch up- if the unit is on in summer, the air is warmer than 25, if it’s in in winter the the air is cooler than 25.", "Moisture/humidity. Key factor to get to the standard \"comfort zone\" in heating and air design. Combine latent temp with actual temp at the standard levels and as long as the unit is properly sized and removing the moisture during summer you feel comfortable. In winter the heat is dominate with less moisture so often it \"feels\" different to different people. The standard is pretty close for most people though. If you add a humidifier to your system you can control the psychometrics and feel more or less the same year round indoors if you wanted to go that far.", "Mean radiant temperature also plays a part, a heated room will have colder walls and you will feel less radiant heat from them. A cooled room will have warmer walls radiating more heat towards you.", "This actually has more to do with the humidity of the air. When your unit is cooling mode, the air’s humidity is reduced. With the reduction in humidity it is easier for our bodies to evaporate sweat, carrying off some of your heat. Heating increasing the humidity of the air, which will slow down the rate of sweat evaporation, making you feel warmer. Most people like a humidity of 40-60%.", "Air conditioners also work buy lowering humidity, heating doesn’t so in addition to temp, there could be a measurable change in humidity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdita75", "cditglh" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Here's a NOAA map of the last ice age sea levels at their peak (trough) _URL_0_\n\n", "It depends on what land bridge and when. The Bering straits land bridge connecting Modern day Alaska to Russia is said to be at one point 1000 miles wide. But as Ice melts and sea levels rise, it shrinks into nothing so your friend is technically correct if people/animals were making the pass when the water was starting to rise above it.\n\nTL;DR Sea freezes water levels drop, crossing possible. Ice melts sea rises crossing disappears. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/topo/pictures/GLOBALsealeveldrop110m.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c40vg51", "c40ygin" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In descending order of fanciness:\n\n- **[White Tie](_URL_2_)**, otherwise known as Evening Dress or Top Hat And Tails.\nThis is as formal as it gets in Western fashion, and is generally restricted to very high occasions like state dinners, royal functions or very formal balls and evening weddings. White Tie is strictly to be worn after 6 PM, though many agree that anytime after dark is fine. For events of similar importance during the day, [Morning Dress](_URL_0_) is the thing.\n\n- **[Black Tie](_URL_1_)** is for any highly formal occasion for which White Tie is not required; charity galas, formal weddings, awards ceremonies. It is generally considered good etiquette for the host of an event to indicate on the invitations whether or not Black Tie is appropriate, or whether Formal Wear will suffice.\n\n- **Formal Wear** is sometimes called \"informal attire\" to set it apart from Black Tie, but as often as not that ends up with Bob from Accounting showing up in khakis and a Hawaiian shirt. Formal wear is pretty basic, just a suit and tie. Lots of leeway here in terms of colour, fashionable cut, accessories etc., if you want to know more about this in detail I think it's done in detail on GQ's website.\n\nThe only big things to keep in mind with Formal Wear are that one should always wear black or very dark grey to a funeral, and one should never wear black to a wedding unless the event itself is listed as Black Tie. While we're talking funerals, even if the only black suit you own is a tuxedo, never wear it to a funeral as Black Tie is considered to be for celebrating.\n\n- Below Formal you might see \"Smart Casual\" or \"Business Casual\"; the former usually refers to some variation on a blazer and dress pants, while the latter is a nightmarishly vague reference to \"any pants nicer than jeans, paired with virtually any shirt with a collar and no logos\". When to wear either of these gives many men great difficulty; if in doubt, ask your host or employer in advance.\n\n", "Tuxedos are super formal. You'll look really out of place in a tuxedo in anything other than an event that *specifically* states it's a black tie (or white tie). Basically you never want to be the only one in a tuxedo because you'll look like a goof. Tuxedos absolutely require matching pants and a bow tie. If you're wearing a neck tie you're doing it wrong.\n\nA blazer is a jacket, similar to a suit jacket, but it does not have matching pants. They are more casually cut so they have features likes flap-less or patch pockets, metal buttons, and are made of heavier clothe. They can be worn with a tie or without, and tend to be used in less formal settings.\n\nA blazer is similar, but not exactly the same thing as a sports jacket, or a boating jacket. The terms are used somewhat interchangeably. Blazers tend to be solid colours, while sports coats tend to be patterned clothe like tweed, herringbone, etc." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Morning_dress", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_tie", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_tie" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c41wsqf", "c41zyip" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Satellite radar systems can correlate a specific band of the electromagnetic spectrum with surface pressure, but according to my relatively limited knowledge of remote sensing, this technique is not commonly in use. Surface pressure is generally recorded in the ocean by anchored buoys, or potentially by [dropsondes](_URL_0_) in the case of a special mission to record pressure fields in tropical storms.", "This is a good question. Theoretically, I think you could indirectly \"measure\" the surface pressure by estimating total column density. If you know the solar spectrum very precisely, and the surface properties, by measuring the reflected solar radiation you can estimate how much absorption occurred and that tells you how much gas was along the radiation path. Assuming hydrostatic balance, the surface pressure can be estimated just as the weight of the air column multiplied by the gravitational constant.\n\nThat being said, I'm almost positive that is never done in practice, because the errors would be far too large for that method to be useful - surface pressure does not vary by a lot, and I'm sure the errors would be much larger than the small surface pressure you are trying to estimate.\n\nSo, how this actually works in practice is that a weather forecast model is predicting the pressure field in data sparse regions. The simplest way to think about it, is that the pressure field out in the ocean is an interpolation from from all other available data, using physics-based methods; this interpolation is much better than just a mathematical interpolation because it takes into account all the dynamics of the way the atmosphere moves. In addition, estimates of temperature and winds are continually made over the oceans by satellites, and that helps guide the pressure and wind field of the forecast model. And, as dijitalbus mentioned, there are measurements from ships, buoys, etc, which can also be \"ingested\" by the forecast model to improve the interpolation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dropsonde" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c45cayx" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "The volume of Earth's atmosphere, using the [accepted definition of the edge of the atmosphere](_URL_0_) is approximately 5.18*10^19 m^3 . Not very useful without something to compare it to, but it's a place to start." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karman_line" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgd5b5l" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The store benefits by getting rid of physical money and using electronic funds transfer - less money to transport in an armoured truck, less loss if they are robbed" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdn5v46", "cdn6q0h", "cdn9dzb" ], "score": [ 6, 6, 4 ], "text": [ "Metrics such as temperature describe the behavior of a system that is made up of components. These types of properties are termed emergent properties because they are derived from the behavior of the system as a whole and are not observable if you were to look only at the components.\n\nSo, for your specific question, individual molecules do not have temperature. They are not \"hot\" or \"cool\" exactly, although they do have energy that is zipping them around their surroundings. Molecules with more energy will move faster and collide with other matter more frequently and with more force. It is only when you begin to look at a system of molecules that ideas such as temperature start to be meaningful. In that sense, a group of molecules with a certain amount of energy will correspond to a certain temperature. If these molecules are \"hotter\" than other molecules, then they will be moving about much more rapidly and they will be less dense than the latter group of molecules. Properties such as temperature and density are emergent from the system of molecules interacting with each other and interacting with their surroundings.", " > an area of hot air becomes less dense, and so it rises above colder areas of air. \n\nFirst, you need to look at it the other way around - hot air doesn't rise, cold air sinks. As it sinks, it forces the hotter air upwards.\n\nNow, think of a mess (and I do mean 'mess' for the imagery, not 'mass') of cold air, with the molecules fairly still and fairly dense. Then, something heats up a bit of it near the bottom - what's going to happen?\n\nThe molecules of hot air will bounce around a lot more than the cold, and sometimes they're going to bounce up. When they do, the less active cold air is more likely to fall into the gap than to move in another direction, and now there's nowhere for that hot air molecule to go because it will only bounce off the cold air molecule if it bounces downward again. (Transferring some heat in the process, but we can ignore that for the purposes of this explanation)\n\nMultiply this by unimaginable numbers of interactions, and you end up with a column of hot air rising while all the cold air around it rushes in to fill the gap at the bottom.", " > > But what if there was a single constituent molecule from that wood existing in the water? Would it float? It is neither densely nor sparsely aggregated, existing all by itself.\n\nMy reaction to this is no not really - a single molecule would have dynamical behavior that isn't familiar like the bouyant force example you gave. I have no idea how to describe what that situation *would* be like - but I'm positive it would be invalid to treat it like a whole plank of wood floating." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ev9wpif", "ev9xi9p", "eva6m6q", "eva6tk8", "evaf0vn", "evaihjg", "evapauu" ], "score": [ 112, 13, 13, 3, 5, 120, 3 ], "text": [ "They haven't really. \n\n1) They utilized all of the science that NASA learned thus they \"had\" the same experience level as NASA. \n\n2) NASA has never had a massive budget. Even during the Space Race their budget was relatively small. Companies like Space X's budgets are comparable in size. \n\n3) NASA stopped designing new Rockets for a time when they were operating the shuttle. When they retired the shuttle they started designing new Rockets again and will be constructing them for the upcoming missions.", "Aside from using known published resources from NASA and likely the old Soviet era, technology has changed dramatically since the 60s. \n\nThey’re able to run many simulations in a short time period that would have been impossible for NASA back in the day. \n\nThere’s likely less politics involved too. \n\nComputer technology I’d guess been the key difference that has allowed them to do things like reusable components. I’d assume material science has had a big change since the 60s too. \n\nIn all fairness, NASA built the shuttle which was a pretty damn impressive bit of tech. Not without it’s issues but it was cutting edge.", "To build a new rocket, lots of design and testing is needed. Problems will be found, so how quickly these are found and fixed decides how quickly a new rocket can be completed.\nBecause of restrictions due to it being run by the state, Nasa can't adapt anywhere near as quick as spacex; for example, when spacex realised carbon fibre wasn't the way to go for the BFR, they fired all the workers working on carbon fibre designs. This was necessary, but would not be possible in Nasa.\n\nThe fact that they have to be acting in the best interests of the country means that designs from Nasa are dictated by created jobs, and less by the actual advantages of the design, leading to many issues that are delaying many programs.\n\nThey also have major direction changes with each election, meaning that they work towards one goal for 5 years, then a new leadership tells them they want a different project doing, so they cancel the first one, and end up getting nowhere.", "A point I do not see mentioned yet is that SpaceX does not need to please any governors in different states, so they can have their production wherever they want, and basically SpaceX can do whatever they want in that regard. In comparison, Nasa has widespread production and facilities, and is a much older organization.\n\nIf Nasa were to be completely wiped and restarted, I doubt that they would not be able to do similar things to what SpaceX has done.", "NASA is heavily regulated, risk avoiding, and making decisions by committee.\n\nSpaceX has been able to build on all of NASA's experience, as well as take advantage of more modern underlying technology. The other big innovator in this field is Elektron, in my opinion.\n\nI think the elephant in the room is nothing to do with NASA, but rather ULA. Why is SpaceX able to build such a better business model than ULA, who has the years of experience and the resources?", "I think the other people have missed the critical element here.\n\nThe critical element was the shift from disposable to reusable rockets. Now, to their great credit, NASA did make that move in the 70s with the space shuttle, but it was a bit too early, and the whole shuttle project was a bit of a logistical and political shitshow. \n\nBy the time SpaceX came along, technology had advanced considerably. Here's a great talk by Raffaello D’Andrea explaining it [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nIn short, between the Space Shuttle and the Falcon 9, feedback control got good enough, and cheap enough, that the idea of landing an otherwise traditional rocket vertically was very feasible. By this point, the Shuttle was seen as a failure - technologically impressive, but economically unviable, and increasingly outdated. So NASAs focus was off of reusability and onto cheap disposability. In that environment, dumping money into R & D is a bit pointless if you have designs from the 60s that are reliable and well understood. They'll only fly once, and the cost of space flight is really in the minimization of failures. So, advances in engines and control systems largely stopped. \n\nSpaceX saw things differently. Believing they could take what looked like a conventional rocket and land and refly it, meant they could change the economic model. Launches were rare because the cost of disposing a rocket each time was high, and because the cadence was low - there was no incentive to build out production lines that could spit out a rocket every two weeks. But if you could reuse the rocket, even just one more time, you'd need half as many of them. Refly it 4 times, and you need to build only 20% as many. So, SpaceX went for a commodity strategy - build one really really good motor to serve first and second stage, rely on modern control electronics to regulate 9 motors operating together in the first stage, and engineer for reusability, and get your reliability that way, and dramatically cut costs to fly the rocket and use that money to pay for the new R & D. Digital feedback control wasn't the only thing that had dramatically advanced since the 70s, so had manufacturing techniques and materials engineering. So SpaceX could build simpler rockets that performed better than was possible in the 70s. \n\nNASA didn't want these rockets, believing in their tried and true approach, but private companies did want them and with time SpaceX won them over. Bezos saw the same opportunities, as did others. Existing companies didn't see the opportunity because their value was in their tried and true methods, their decades of engineering experience at this, their detailed knowledge of how these old system worked, which made them reliable. \n\nThis is also a story of why established companies rarely pivot their business model to adapt to changes, and why startups and other new entrants are key to advancing industries. They can take these risks, they can invest in the new technology and not invest in the legacy technology. Had SpaceX failed, we wouldn't even be talking about them - so there's some survivors bias baked in here too.", "SpaceX has a few advantages, but I'd say the core thing here comes down to two main factors. \n\nFirst, big NASA rocket projects (and by this I mean something like the Shuttle or SLS), which are not exactly made by NASA but are designed and built by them in cooperation with oldspace companies like Boeing and Rockwell, have to answer to a large number of competing interests. The companies of course want to make a profit and NASA wants their science, but also congressmen want some of the contracts for building these rockets to go to their states, and sometimes the military wants specific capabilities, and sometimes the system needs to be designed to use a specific set of preexisting resources or expertise, etc. And since all this stuff is subject to funding bills, etc, it can't be easily or cheaply changed. SpaceX, in contrast, is more or less answerable only to themselves (except when fulfilling a specific contract). If they need to switch an approach or try a new thing or whatever, they can just decide to do it. This gives them a lot more flexibility and helps them do things for a lower price.\n\nThe second is the drive of necessity/lack of money/lack of being established. Oldspace companies (who are a better comparison here than NASA, which doesn't really build Falcon style rockets) have been launching rockets for ages and were dominant in the market. Sure, their rockets were expensive, but they got the job done effectively and all their customers were willing to pay the price and no one was undercutting them. Spending a lot of research money to make it possible to build rockets for cheaper and maybe even reuse them just didn't make sense to them. Why take the risk and expense when life was already good? But SpaceX didn't have that option. If they wanted to survive at all, they had to be able to figure out a way to undercut the competition and win their contracts. That means taking risks and working hard to make rockets for cheap, using more cost efficient manufacturing. That was the first revolution of SpaceX, and more important to their past success than reusable landings (though that will be more important going forward). There have been other new rocket companies that tried this and failed..it is a risky approach, but SpaceX made it work. Worth noting that this is not limited to the rocket industry, many industries have had established players get overturned by new upstarts who were better because only a better company could break into the market in the first place. It's not even limited to industry for that matter.\n\nA factor I _don't_ think is as important: technology...the stuff SpaceX is doing is impressive but not due to any particular unique technological breakthrough on their part. It was within the capacity of NASA or ULA or Boeing or whoever to do the same thing if they chose to put in the engineering work. They couldn't have done it in the 60's (and SpaceX probably couldn't have existed at all back then) but they could have done it when SpaceX was doing it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4IJXAVXgIo" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9bvyy7" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It rather depends how you define things. If you count tribal disputes as wars, then it is unlikely there was ever a year without war. If you don't count tribal disputes, only formal armies, then the majority of human existence was without war. Mind you, most of human existence was before history." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuhanfl", "cuhb7qj", "cuhbh6s" ], "score": [ 85, 20, 8 ], "text": [ "This one is kind of complex. \n\n[Operation Barbarossa](_URL_2_) was the operation the Axis had planned to invade the Soviet Union. Nazi Germany had started to amass troops and equipment and had a pretty substantial force at the border in February of 1941. The original plan for the operation was to take place in May of 1941. There really was no shock, Stalin knew of the amassing of German troops and was warned by Soviet military leaders of an impending attack.\n\nMussolini and the Italian Military were fighting the [Greco-Italian War](_URL_3_) in Greece and making no headway. This is considered the start of the [Balkan Campaign](_URL_6_). The stalling of Italy in Greece lead to Hitler start [Operation Marita](_URL_4_) which was the German invasion of Greece, which coincided with the Italian invasion of Greece, which had stalled. Hitler had no intentions of invading Greece at this point, but was forced into action by Mussolini.\n\nTo sum it up quickly at this point. Italy tried to invade Greece from Albania, without Hitler and a lot of other important Italian leaders knowing, and failed. Greece actually pushed back and started taking ground in Albania. Hitler pushed forward with Italy to invade and defeat Greece.\n\nThe failure of Italy to defeat Greece on their own meant that some of the troops and materials for Operation Barbarossa were used in The Balkan Campaign. Which, with some other weather related issues lead to Operation Barbarossa being delayed. The delays are questionable at this point, there is some speculation that the Operation could have continued, even with the Germany military being deployed in Greece. \n\nPrior to the entire Greek campaign, Italian forces under Mussolini had dealt with setbacks in the North African Campaign. Which lead to Rommel being deployed to Africa to aid the Italians in that campaign.\n\nThe relationship between Hitler and Mussolini was complex and stressed. Mussolini never felt like an equal and the invasion of Greece was not advised by Hitler, rather performed by Mussolini to impress Hitler. Which basically lead to Hitler having to bail him out. Hitler commonly didn't communicate with Mussolini, so not knowing about the invasion of the USSR isn't odd.\n\nSo to answer your first question. Mussolini already had his hands full with the Greco-Italian war. Aiding Hitler at the border of the USSR would have been near impossible. Hitler delayed Operation Barbarossa to aid Mussolini in Greece. \n\nAnecdotally, I would assume that there was some irritation on Hitler's part with Mussolini. From everything I have read about the relationship between Hitler and Mussolini, Hitler never viewed Mussolini as an equal and Mussolini never felt like an equal. Even prior to any invasions. \n\nSo while both Italy and Germany had signed the [Pact of Steel](_URL_0_), both countries had trouble with meeting the obligations of the pact.\n\nAs to when did the Italians get into the USSR? The [Italian Expeditionary Corps](_URL_1_) were deployed to the USSR in July of 1941. Later the expeditionary corps were upscaled to a full sized army unit in [July of 1942](_URL_5_)\n\nOperation Barbarossa had started in June of 1941, so the assistance of the Italian military had come less than a month after the campaign started.\n\nThen you get into the whole invasion of Northern Italy. Hitler had basically set up a puppet government and put Mussolini in charge of Northern Italy after Southern Italy was retaken by the Allied forces. Mussolini and his mistress trying to escape to the Swiss border, being captured by allied Italian fighters, both of them being shot and then their bodies were hung in a park in Milan and defaced by many, many Italian citizens.\n\n\n\n\n\n", "In general the two Axis powers did not have a productive or coordinated relationship. Though they'd bonded in the mid 30s over Abyssinia and Spain, Hitler never clued Mussolini on big decisions like the Anschluss with Austria or the invasion of Czechia, and cracks began to emerge as Hitler pushed for war in 1939. Mussolini had promised to stand with Germany when the time came, but he had anticipated a conflict in the mid 40s and when things got serious he had to tell Adolf that Italy wasn't ready. This was a big blow to Mussolini's prestige, made worse when the Wehrmacht bowled France over the following May. Italy's hasty and embarrassing declaration of war on France followed. \n\nAs a result, Mussolini started to look distinctly unreliable, and Italy a decidedly second rate ally. This made Hitler, never the most consultative person, even less likely to share major plans. In late 1940, envious of Hitler's triumphs and unhappy with Italy being sidelined to the North African theatre Mussolini decided to recapture some status by invading Greece. \n\nThis was a terrible idea that rapidly became an absolute disaster, not only because Italian troops got their arses handed to them by a smaller, poorer nation. It threw off the timetable for the North African campaign at a point where Britain was scrambling to defend Egypt, it as good as invited the Allies to send forces to the Balkans, it upset Stalin and meant that forces would have to be diverted from Barbarossa preparations. It was in this context that Hitler met Mussolini in January 1941 and gave no hint that he was preparing to invade Russia.\n\nSources: \n\nKershaw *Fateful Choices: Ten Decisions that Changed the World 1940-1941*, 2007\n\nKershaw *Hitler 1936-1945: Nemesis*, 2000", "I can't answer your central question \"why didn't Hitler tell him\" completely, but here's some relevant context:\n\nThere wasn't a lot of consultation between German and Italian leaderships regarding plans for the war to begin with - when Germany attacked Poland (September 1st 1939), Mussolini had only known about the plan to do so less than a week before (August 25th). \n\nRegarding plans to attack the USSR in 1941, the Germans couldn't expect much help from Mussolini's Italy anyway - the Italian military hadn't been prepared for a new war of aggression like the German had, and it was just going through a kind of consolidation phase (remember, the late 30s had been a phase of military activity for Italy, the Italo-Abyssinian War and the occupation in Africa as well as the intervention in Spain had already used up resources when Germany attacked Poland).\n\nIt's also important to consider how the relationship between Germany and Italy had changed between 1939 and 1941: before that, there was *some* kind of at least political and symbolic equity between the two regimes. When the war began, Italy wasn't ready for the kind of Europe-wide war Hitler wanted (to put it bluntly, somebody might want to add nuance to that). \n\n* Italy stayed out of Poland in 1939,\n\n* rushed into France in June 1940 when the Germans made visible progress, but showed a lack of military planning and equipment, losing lives and time for small and insignificant gains of ground in the Alps,\n\n* started a war against Greece in October 1940, partly because Mussolini wanted to repair the damage to his and Italy's reputation that had come out of the embarassment in France (his standing as *duce del fascismo* relied partly on military success, which was an important motivator for him to rush into the next aggression despite the considerable strain already on Italy's military and also despite the Germans trying to get him off the idea); \n\n* and lost out again and again against the British in Africa between December 1940 (in Egypt) and May 1941 (when Italy lost its colonies in East Africa).\n\nThat was Italy's military track record in 1941. Mussolini had attempted to lead a \"parallel war\" to Germany, and had pretty much failed. The balance within the Axis had shifted heavily towards Germany.\n\nWhen the attack on the USSR began, the Germans (especially Keitel, the Wehrmacht's chief of staff) tried to convince the Italians not to send troops. They changed this stance only after their own war against the USSR had begun to stall. Hitler wrote a personal letter to Mussolini in December 1941 in which he basically greenlighted Italian participation in Russia. So regarding the second part of your question: Italy got into the war in Spring 1942 with up to 220 000 soldiers at one point, which is a considerable number regarding the circumstances. However, they weren't really equipped for the climate, didn't have much heavy artillery and would also not effectively work together with the Germans since German and Italian leaderships couldn't agree on combining command structures.\n\nSources: Wolfgang Schieder, Der italienische Faschismus (and less directly Brunello Mantelli, Kurze Geschichte des italienischen Faschismus). Both of these books are short oversight monographs, not extensive academic works (although both written by historians with a reputation for that specific topic)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pact_of_Steel", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Expeditionary_Corps_in_Russia", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Barbarossa", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Italian_War", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Greece", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Italian_Army_in_Russia", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Balkan_Campaign_%28World_War_II%29" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4067vk", "c406fzq", "c406h5e", "c407w4o" ], "score": [ 26, 3, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "You, my ELI5 friend, are made of cells. Billions and billions of them, and they all have special jobs, shapes, and grow a different rates.\n\nSometimes we want cells to grow and divide a lot, like skin cells. And sometimes we don't want cells to grow and divide a lot, like brain cells. Each cell knows, because it is in the DNA, when to stop dividing. \n\nBut the biochemical machines that run cells don't always work properly, and sometimes a cell doesn't stop growing. The reasons why are complex and varied (i'll go into them if you want but it's not very ELI5ish). \n\nThis broken cell keeps growing and dividing, consuming resources from surrounding cells, and getting bigger, which will cause harm to surrounding organs. This is called a tumor.\n\nCancer is named from what kind of cell it arises from. Leukemia is a special kind of cancer, where the broken cell is a white blood cell or leukocyte. Leukemia doesn't usually have a tumor, but can be found in the bone marrow (where all blood cells are 'born') and will destroy the bone there. ", "Sounds like a great question for [/r/ExplainLikeAPro](/r/ExplainLikeAPro). I am going to x-post this there. :)", "Not-so-shameless plug: A gamer acquaintance of mine (redditor, too, I think) has leukemia and [we're doing our part to spread word about marrow donation](_URL_2_). If you live within an hour of New Castle, PA, you should go there March 24^th to get swabbed!\n\nOr, head over to [_URL_0_](http://_URL_0_), where you can sign up to be mailed a free cheek swab kit. You might save a life!", "uncontrolled cell growth" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "marrow.org", "http://marrow.org", "http://www.pittco.org/blog/2012/03/11/marrow-registry/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cypsb1b", "cypssbn", "cypt1ue", "cypufnt", "cypv7wn" ], "score": [ 8, 9, 3, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Because when you take the bones and perform the same reconstructive methods used on modern skeletons, they end up looking like some old Polish people. They were, generally, European.", "Most, if not all, skeletons found of Homo neanderthalensis were found in Europe, especially places like France. As you may know, the people native to most places in Europe are Caucasian, including people like the Gauls (the tribe whose descendents make up a quite large percentage of native French people).", "Europeans often have a decent amount of Neanderthal DNA, and it appears as though there was significant interbreeding in Europe.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI'm told that redheads in particular often have a higher percentage of Neanderthals, and I'd call red hair a pretty Caucasian feature.", "The genes for pale skin, light colored red or blond hair, and being particularly hairy compared to most of the rest of the world, are traits Europeans probably [**picked up from Neanderthals**](_URL_0_).", "It's speculative. Historically older species of hominid were often given vaguely African features, in accordance with the scientific racist notion that black people are less evolved than white or Asian people. This is countered in modern times, partly based on DNA studies that show some or all Neanderthals had fair hair (blonde or ginger), and partly as acknowledgement of the fact that they lived in Europe for well over 100,000 years - significantly longer than Homo Sapiens who developed white skin in a much shorter evolutionary time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-33226416" ], [ "http://www.dailytech.com/NeanderthalHuman+Breeding+Was+Hard+But+Yielded+Benefits/article34236.htm" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8b2e5s" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In the case of the Roman empire, there are several possibilities:\n\n- The loss of North Africa to the Vandals. North Africa was the breadbasket of the Western Roman Empire, and without it, huge cities could no longer be supported. There was a similar but less dramatic depopulation of Constantinople after Egypt was lost to the Arabs in the 7th century. This is probably the most important reason.\n\n- In the waning days of the western empire, invading Germanic tribes cut the supply of water into Rome and only the Aqua Virgo, which ran completely underground, continued to deliver water. In other words, large Roman cities were dependent on proper maintenance of aqueducts, and if they were destroyed for any reason, it would be difficult to continue to support a large population.\n\n- There were several severe and protracted plagues, combined with a long period of invasions and conflicts.\n\n- It has been speculated that the deforestation of the Western Mediterranean might have been an important cause. I really can't say how well accepted this argument is at the moment." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cohdpj5", "cohdr32", "cohdsfh", "cohdtsx", "coho17b" ], "score": [ 3, 4, 3, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "The US Army is actually looking at replacing the Beretta. Probably within the next two years.", "They're in the process of evaluating new pistols. As I understand it the current M9, even with updates, is already out of the running...I don't think they were invited to participate.", "Some folks have reportedly reverted to the ancient 1911 pistol. I'm not too familiar with firearms, but the logic is simple enough - for a backup weapon, reliability and durability are the way to go. \n\nMeanwhile, in the Air Force...", "Military firearms tend to have a long life. They like to standardize. When you've got a million of *anything* it's a big deal.\n\nThat said, they're [currently looking into a replacement](_URL_0_). These things can take time. Since handguns haven't fundamentally changed in decades, there's no major rush.", "If which pistol your troops are using matters, you have already lost the war. Modernizing pistols just isn't much of a strategic priority.\n\nThat said, I believe they are in the early rounds of picking a successor.\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modular_Handgun_System" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6zjky0", "c6zjn8y", "c6zkbf2", "c6zl3m9", "c6zl9vu", "c6zlm3o", "c6zm347", "c6zmink", "c6zmlz5", "c6zmzas", "c6zoly0", "c6zomp7", "c6zqe2r", "c6zvcz8" ], "score": [ 2, 8, 6, 3, 21, 12, 2, 4, 2, 7, 3, 2, 3, 4 ], "text": [ "To answer my own question, in case anyone is curious, some of my own favorite books to recommend are the following:\n\nWW2\nSurvival in Auschwitz, by Primo Levi\nWith the Old Breed, by Eugene Sledge \n\nEconomics/Society\nFreakonomics and Superfreakonomics, by Levitt and Dubner\nThe Tipping point, and Blink, by Malcom Gladwell\nConfessions of an Economic Hitman, by John Perkins (not really strict history, but a fascinating book)\n\nUS history:\nLies my Teacher Told me by James Loewage \nHoward Zinn's \"A People's History\"\n\nWorld: \nA History of the World in 6 Glasses by Tom Standage \nGuns Germs and Steel (surprise surprise)", "Egyptian History:\n\n1. The Literature of Ancient Egypt, by W. K. Simpson and others. Offers a really wide range of great stories/texts/hymns/poems etc, with a little blurb for each discussing where it comes from/why it's important etc.\n\n2. Ian Shaw [editor] The Oxford History of Ancient Egypt. Covers everything up to the Roman period, in solid detail, but in an inherently accessible manner.\n\n3. Aidan Dodson - Amarna Sunset and Poisoned Legacy. Two very accessible yet thorough discussions covering Egypt's Late New Kingdom - from the heresy of Akhenaten to the decline of the Ramesside Era. Really interesting stuff that doesn't often appear in popular knowledge, and includes some recognisable names eg Tutankhamun, Ramesses II etc.\n\n4. Miroslav Verner, The Complete Pyramids: the story of Egypt's Old Kingdom told through the medium of the great monuments. Is written by one of the foremost scholars on that period, and discusses the history of Egyptology at the same time as talking about the monuments and people of the time.", "Modern China: * Oracle Bones* by Peter Hessler. I recommend it to everyone! ", "Vincent Cronin's *Napoleon.* It is a biography about none other than the first Emperor of the French, and it is one of the best available.\n\nFor something much denser and with more of a pure military focus, there is David Chandler's *The Campaigns of Napoleon,* which I cannot recommend enough for anyone interested in the period. It is a rarer and more expensive book, but it is more than worth the cost.", "Updating a list I wrote earlier for a request for resources on North Korea and the Kim regime:\n\n - **Refugee account:** *The Aquariums of Pyongyang* by Chol-Hwan Kang and Pierre Rigoulout. A terrifying account of the Yodok concentration camp where the families of political prisoners are/were sent for punishment. Yodok was actually fairly high on the pecking order of North Korean camps, and the reason the book exists in the first place is that Kang is among the few who not only survived but was released. The book gained widespread recognition in the West after it ended up on George Bush's reading list and its authors were invited to the White House. Victor Cha (see below) comments on this and the effect it had on Bush's view of Kim Jong-Il.\n - **Overview of propaganda:** *The Cleanest Race: How North Koreans See Themselves and Why It Matters* by B.R. Myers. Not everyone is on board with the author's conclusions -- he's extremely harsh to the generation of South Korean politicians behind the Sunshine Policy, which he considered both an ethical problem and a strategic blunder -- but it's a thorough look at the toxic ideology that is approved for mass entertainment and journalism in North Korea. This is what they say to themselves when no one is looking, although perhaps it might be more accurate to describe it as what you can say in North Korea without getting arrested or shot. \n - **Statistical accounts:** *Famine in North Korea: Markets, Aid, and Reform* by Stephen Haggard and Marcus Noland, and *Witness to Transformation: Refugee Insights into North Korea* by the same guys. By necessity, these are somewhat drier accounts of what's going on in North Korea, but it's a mindfuck to read what statisticians *think* is going on in the country and what later refugee accounts corroborate. For example, Haggard and Noland arrive at the conclusion that the true roots of the North Korean famine probably started in the late 1980s when the Soviet Union started to fall, and stopped giving a shit about paying to support the ridiculously inefficient NK economy. Then you read Demick's book (see below) and see accounts from housewives in North Korea who say that they started getting shortchanged by the public distribution system at the exact same time. *Witness to Transformation* will give you some background on who is most likely to escape North Korea in the first place and what happens to them afterwards, with accompanying commentary (none of it terribly optimistic) about what this implies should the NK government eventually fall.\n\nAs an aside, reading the *Markets, Aid, and Reform* study was what convinced me that B.R. Myers was probably right about the damage that South Korea did to nuclear negotiations during the Six-Party talks. \n\n - **Mixed bag o' topics:** *North of the DMZ: Essays on Daily Life in North Korea* by Andrei Lankov. This one's unique, as it's a series of essays written by a Russian writer who went to school in North Korea back during the 1980s, and that's a perspective that the Western world rarely sees. Lankov's articles are not only a valuable window into how the North Koreans were seen by their allies -- or more appropriately, \"allies\" -- but he also comments on a very wide variety of topics not usually addressed by scholars. Interestingly, his time in North Korea predates Andrew Holloway's (see below) by only a few years, and the NK that he writes about from that era is both recognizably the same NK that Holloway describes and an interesting contrast to the changes you'll see in the society as the Kims tried to prove that they could have co-hosted the 1988 Seoul Olympics. \n - **If you read nothing else, read this:** *Nothing to Envy: Ordinary Lives in North Korea* by Barbara Demick. Demick was a Los Angeles Times reporter who was assigned to the Seoul bureau for several years and spent a lot of time interviewing North Koreans who'd escaped the country before it became somewhat common. This one really brings home to you the number of personal and family tragedies that the regime has caused, and why everyone who helped Kim il-Sung on his rise to power should have been shot. A finalist for the National Book Award in 2010.\n - **And after you read Demick -- or maybe before you do:** *Under the Loving Care of the Fatherly Leader: North Korea and the Kim Dynasty* by Bradley K. Martin. This one gives a lot of background into the stuff you'll see in Demick's book, and interestingly also gives some insight into academic arrogance in the Western world concerning the Korean peninsula. The popular narrative on Korean history as written by vanguards like Bruce Cumings was far kinder to the Kim regime than it deserved, and Martin was given a lot of crap for writing about the concentration camps and the famine.\n - **An American diplomat's perspective on the Six-Party talks and international relations in Asia:** *The Impossible State* by Victor Cha. This was published within the past year and, like Lankov's perspective, it's unique. Cha was the Director for Asian Affairs for the NSC under Bush and saw a lot of Japanese, Russian, Chinese, South Korean, and North Korean diplomats for his job. This isn't the book to read if you want an in-depth history of North Korea, but it's an incredibly cogent commentary on why NK is popularly known as \"The Land of Lousy Options\" in diplomatic circles, and what the American perspective was during the talks. There's also several behind-the-scenes stories from both the White House and the diplomatic world, including Bush's drop-in on a visiting group of Chinese generals and an interesting insight into the North Koreans' (correct) interpretation of Japanese politicking concerning aid.\n - **The true believer turned hopeless cynic:** *[A Year in Pyongyang](_URL_0_)* by Andrew Holloway. Holloway was a Brit who lived in Pyongyang editing NK's English-language propaganda for a year, and he wrote the book as a way to keep from going insane while trapped in a fairly boring and extremely controlled city. If nothing else, I find it an absolutely fascinating meta-commentary on what one person can see of a society even when that society is determined not to let him see anything. As he says, he was a Marxist who was sympathetic to what appeared to be the underlying goals of North Korean society, but he managed to figure out that the wool was being pulled over his eyes despite a fairly regimented year. \n\nThere's still some heartbreaking assumptions, though -- mainly his firm belief that, whatever the Kim regime's mistakes, they would never commit the atrocities he had seen in more capitalist countries elsewhere, that NK just wasn't that kind of society. Turns out NK was *exactly* the kind of society that would ship people off to death camps. Holloway's account has many mistakes, but they were honestly made, they reflect what the Western world knew of North Korea at the time, and he obviously struggled with his portrayal of a society that he genuinely wanted to like due to his personal beliefs, but knew was deeply flawed. ", "World War One! *Check it*.\n\n**Lead-Up and Causes**\n\n- Barbara Tuchman's *The Guns of August* (1962) is a marvelously accessible narrative history of the early days of the war. It does a good job of situating the conflict within the waning era of the Empires, and its combination of solid research and exhilarating prose has more than accounted for the acclaim it has received.\n\n- However, you might also fruitfully check out Tuchman's *The Proud Tower* (1966), which gives an account of the world and its tenor in the years immediately prior to the war (1890-1914 is the scope, if I recall correctly). It's more of a collection of essays than a sustained narrative, but every last one of them is fascinating and useful.\n\n- Richard Hamilton and Holger Herwig (who is awesome) have put together *The Origins of World War I* (2003), which makes as good a run at being the definitive treatment of this subject as any text has yet achieved.\n\n- Similarly, Herwig's *The Marne: 1914* (2011) is an excellent account of the war's astounding opening battles. Provides a sound, easily comprehensible description of why the war was not \"over by Christmas [of 1914]\", and for how the static system of trench warfare at last came to be.\n\n- Fritz Fischer's *Griff nach der Weltmacht* (1961) is an essential -- though controversial -- work describing the manner in which Germany instigated the war and asserts that her war aims were essentially predatory from the start. The debate over this work is enormous, but Fischer's claims must be contended with by anyone who seriously hopes to understand what the war was about.\n\n- Annika Mombauer's hotly-anticipated documentary anthology, *The Origins of the First World War: Diplomatic and Military Documents*, comes out in March of next year. There've been a number of similar volumes over the years, but if the advance buzz on hers is anything to go by it will easily eclipse them all. In any event, this or something like it will provide a very useful background against which to view the developments of the summer and autumn of 1914.\n\n**General Histories**\n\nJohn Keegan's *The First World War* is a fine single-volume introduction, but not the only one. There are others:\n\n- Hew Strachan's *The First World War* (2004) offers a remarkably international view of the conflict, and in a compact single volume at that. This was meant as a companion piece to the (also quite good) television documentary series of the same name which he oversaw. Still, if you want more, look to his much larger *The First World War - Vol. I: To Arms* (2003) -- the first of a projected three volumes and absolutely staggering in its depth. This first volume alone runs to 1250 pages.\n\n- Sir Martin Gilbert offers *The First World War: A Complete History* (2nd Ed. 2004). The title is a bit of a lie, but this work from Winston Churchill's official biography is as lucid and sensitive as anything else he's written.\n\n**Famous General Histories**\n\nThese volumes have become subjects of study in their own right, but are still well worth reading for the student determined to tackle this conflict in depth:\n\n- Winston Churchill's *The World Crisis, 1911-1919* is a work in 5 volumes that contentiously holds the title of the \"most comprehensive\" history of the war. A modern abridgment (clocking in at around 850 pages) is readily available, and well worth a look. There are significant debates within WWI historiography about Churchill's judgments and biases, so it would be worth looking into them as well before taking everything within the book at face value.\n\n- John Buchan's twenty-four volume *Nelson's History of the War* began being released before the war was even over (in 1915, if I recall correctly), and remains a thoroughly lucid, readable account of it. Anyone reading it must always bear in mind that most of its volumes were written without knowing what would happen next -- this lends the work a striking degree of immediacy, but also harms its ability to contextualize events in the light of stuff that would come later.\n\n- C.R.M.F. Crutwell's enormous volume, *A History of the Great War, 1914-1918* was published in 1934. It has become the subject of historical inquiry in its own right, and the gigantic Strachan volumes I noted above were commissioned as a replacement for it.\n\n- The *History of the Great War Based on Official Documents* (finally completed in 1948) is the official British history of the war as compiled by Sir James Edmonds with the help of Cyril Falls, F.J. Moberly and others. It runs to twenty-nine volumes and is predicated upon the conveyance of straightforward information rather than any kind of narrative whatsoever.\n\n**The British**\n\n- Richard Holmes' *Tommy: The British Soldier on the Western Front, 1914-1918* (2004) is a work I cannot recommend too highly or too often. It is thick, ferociously well-sourced, entertaining and comprehensive. Holmes was one of the best we had until his untimely death last year, and *Tommy* finds him firing on all cylinders.\n\n- Paddy Griffith's *Battle Tactics of the Western Front: The British Army's Art of Attack, 1916-1918* (1996) is one of the more provocative and influential texts in the \"learning curve\" movement, which maintains that the British army experienced a sharp uptick in the quality of its tactics thanks to the lessons learned on the Somme. Griffith is a somewhat irascible figure well known in the table-top war-gaming world, but this remains an essential work.\n\n**The French**\n\nA regretable gap in my general knowledge of the war's historiography. I'll do some poking around and try to update this later.\n\n**The Germans**\n\nIn addition to the Fischer book I already mentioned above, you should consider these:\n\n- Holger Herwig's (yes, him again) *The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary, 1914-1918* (1996) is arguably *the* modern text on the subject of how the Central Powers conducted their end of the war and what the cultural impact of it upon them was. A sometimes heartbreaking work, but all the better for it.\n\n- Christopher Duffy's *Through German Eyes: The British & The Somme, 1916* (2006) is a remarkable and necessary work that offers a recontextualization of the Somme Offensive -- so often viewed as a thoroughly British tragedy -- from the perspective of those troops against whom wave after wave of Englishmen advanced in the summer and fall of 1916. Seeing this event from the other side paints a somewhat different view of it than is typically enjoyed, and I cannot recommend it highly enough.\n\n- Norman Stone's *The Eastern Front: 1914 - 1917* (1975) is a very readable account of the German army's efforts against its Russian counterpart. It has also benefited from a recent republication by Penguin, and as such is very readily available.\n\n**The Canadians** \n\nI have to get the oar in for my own people here, so I'll recommend Tim Cook's marvelous, modern two-part analysis of the Canadians at war: *At the Sharp End: 1914-1916* (2007) and *Shock Troops: 1917-1918* (2008). Dr. Cook is a good man to share a beer with, and en even better writer -- these are well worth a look even for those who are not immediately interested in Canada's involvement.\n\n**Specific Engagements**\n\n- Herwig's work on the Battle of the Marne was already mentioned above.\n\n- Gordon Corrigan has a good single-volume appraisal of the Battle of Loos in 1915 (*Loos 1915: The Unwanted Battle*, 2005). Something of a prelude to the Somme Offensive of the following year, it is most popularly remembered now (which says a lot, and I don't know if anything good) as the battle that killed Rudyard Kipling's son.\n\n- There are too many books on the Somme Offensive to name, so I'll settle for William Philpott's *Bloody Victory: The Sacrifice on the Somme* (2009), which commendably combines absurd expansiveness with a novel thesis. A highly necessary (and fucking welcome) antidote to the otherwise all-prevailing \"absolute tragedy thesis\" that seems to mark the rest of the major writings on this campaign.\n\nWith regard to the Ludendorff Offensive in the Spring of 1918:\n\n- Martin Middlebrook has a penchant for taking a single day and using it as the basis for a broader historical inquiry. Just as he did with the First Day on the Somme, so has done in *The Kaiser's Battle: 21 March 1918 - The First Day of the German Spring Offensive* (1983). It focuses primarily on the one day, but has frequent recourse to the campaign as a whole.\n\n- John Terraine's *To Win a War: 1918, the Year of Victory* (1978) remains a classic account of the war's final year, and has much to say about the circumstances that caused the Spring Offensive to fail and the Hundred Days Offensive to succeed.\n\n- David Zabecki's *The German 1918 Offensives. A Case Study in the Operational Level of War* (2006) is admirably focused but without sacrificing breadth.\n\n**Conscientious Objectors and Pacifists**\n\n- Adam Hochschild's *To End All Wars* (2011) is an admirable attempt to integrate the story of objectors, resisters, pacifists and the like into the already well-established tableau of the war's history. It is a less than objective work, to put it mildly -- the tone is often one of outrage rather than dispassionate provision of facts. Still, the war seems to bring this out in people in a way that others do not, so this is scarcely a surprising feature. It's still a good start, though; broadly focused on Great Britain and British colonies.\n\n- Louisa Thomas' *Conscience: Two Soldiers, Two Pacifists, One Family* (2011) examines the tensions involved in non-combatant decisions on the American home front, with particular focus upon her great grandfather, Norman Thomas, who refused to fight at a time when two of his brothers had chosen otherwise. More of a meditation than an outright history book, but still quite interesting.\n\n- Peter Englund's fascinating narrative history, *The Beauty and the Sorrow* (2011), contains about twenty interwoven accounts of the war from a variety of perspectives, many of them on the home front. It's more determinedly international than the other two books I've mentioned, and is focused on a variety of different cases (not all of them strictly relevant to the title heading above).\n\n**Interesting, Quirky Case Studies**\n\nIt's a coincidence (I think!) that both of the following are set within a naval context, but there it is:\n\n- Giles Foden's *Mimi and Toutou Go Forth* (2004) tells the absolutely insane story of the Battle of Lake Tanganyika in Central Africa, 1915. A gang of British eccentrics dragged two boats through the jungle to do battle with the German *Graf von Gotzen*, and a more motley band of people has seldom been assembled. Geoffrey Spicer-Simson, their commander, is the kind of man who makes one feel intensely inadequate.\n\n- Richard Guillatt and Peter Hohnen's *The Wolf* (2005) is the remarkable tale of how a state-of-the-art German warship was disguised as a merchant freighter and then taken around the world in a multi-year campaign of piracy and destruction that was nevertheless marked by the absolute chivalrous gallantry of its captain and crew. The *Wolf* was forced to survive only on what it could capture from other ships, and by the time it returned to Kiel it carried over 400 passengers from 25 different countries, the bulk of whom had become great friends with one another and with their courteous German captors.\n\n**Commendable Fiction and Autobiography**\n\nThere have been rather a lot of novels and pseudo-memoirs written by veterans of the war and others; not all are equally worth one's time. These, however, are:\n\n- Frederic Manning's *The Middle Parts of Fortune* (1929): A moving, honest and finely-wrought account of the career of a deeply intellectual and sensitive man who is nevertheless content to remain among the lower ranks. For my money, this is the best of the works produced during the \"war books boom\" of 1927-33.\n\n- Ernst Jünger's *Storm of Steel* (1920) . For convenience's sake I'll just point you to the appraisal [I wrote of it here](_URL_0_).\n\n- Cecil Lewis' *Sagittarius Rising* (1936) is one of the few major books from this period that focuses on the war in the air, and it's pretty damned good at that. Lewis went on to co-found the BBC and win an Oscar (in separate incidents), for whatever that's worth, but his book would be worth reading even apart from that.\n\n- A.O. Pollard's *Fire-Eater: Memoirs of a V.C.* (1932) is one of the more bracing and positive memoirs to come out of the war, and the fact that it was written by a guy whom his superiors suspected of almost recklessly enjoying the war might account for this.\n\n- Rebecca West's *The Return of the Soldier* (1918) has little to do with the war beyond using it as a backdrop for a very sad, beautiful little story. It takes no time at all to read, but is so completely worth it.\n\nThere are plenty of other such works (I could go on about them in a post as long again as this one), but there are limits!\n\n**To Be Avoided (For Now)**\n\n- Paul Fussell's *The Great War and Modern Memory* (1975) is probably the most influential and important work on the subject of the war's history and remembrance ever written, and it is just... disgustingly poor. It's very well-written, certainly, but it is so limited in its scope, so biased in its perspective, so cavalier with its deployment of historical fact, so bitchy in its tone and so basically useless to anyone who wants some idea of what was actually going on that I frankly wish I could go back in time and punch the then-still-living Fussell in the kidneys until he agreed to write something else. I go into more detail on this [here](_URL_1_).\n\n- A.J.P. Taylor's *The First World War: An Illustrated History* (1963) is highly accessible and entertaining, but the author's casual disdain is absolutely insufferable and frequently harms his objectivity. Worth reading primarily to demonstrate that a book this inadequate was not only once tolerated but actually praised.\n\nI'd also warn against anything by John Laffin, Alan Clark or Julian Putkowski, for the time being.", "I highly recommend Benedict Anderson's 'Under Three Flags: Anarchism and the Anti-colonial Imagination' (Verso, 2007) It situates the more radical and liberal events in philippine history during the late nineteenth century in the larger setting of worldwide radical movements at that time. I used this as a source in my final paper. You would have to have some knowledge of Philippine history beforehand though.", "Latin American History:\n\nMatthew Restall, \"Seven Myths of the Spanish Conquest\"\n\nBasically a historian goes over 7 (actually 8) popular myths that people hold about the Spanish conquest of the Americas. Using historical evidence, he shows why they are wrong. Its popular history, so its a pretty light read compared to most stuff you'll see.\n\n\nAmerican History:\n\nElija Gould, \"Among the Powers of the Earth\"\n\nBasically situates the American struggle for independence from 1756-1823 in the context of the world. Interesting read, and its global focus brings up a lot of interesting stuff you probably wouldn't have known before reading it.", "Here is my modest contribution with some WWII suggestions. If students in your area are like the high school students here, they can't get enough of WWII literature.\n\nK.H. Frieser, *The Blizkrieg Legend: The 1940 Campaign in the west*. This book gives some fascinating insights on the Blizkrieg. It states it was not a thought-through strategy and shows how the improvised campaign succeeded. It also goes a long way to breaking the myth of a overpowered German army at the start of the war. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nIf you're interested in the Japanese side of the story I can highly recommend *Soldiers of the sun: the rise and fall of the Imperial Japanese army*. This book describes in great detail the way Japanese society and its army was shaped from the 19th century to the Second World War. It is incredibly interesting and sometimes really moving. I was really touched reading this. \n\n_URL_0_\n", "It's late, so only one book for now. \n\n*Building New Deal Liberalism: The Political Economy of Public Works, 1933-1956*, by Jason Scott Smith. \n\nIt's my favorite book simply because it puts a numerical face on the PWA and WPA. Sure you've heard about the post offices, bridges, and roads, but the numbers are just staggering and impressive. For example, the PWA completed projects in 3,068 of 3,071 counties in the United States, including 7,488 schools, 388 bridges or viaducts, and the aircraft carrier USS *Yorktown*. The WPA built a total of 40,000 new public buildings and imporived 85,000 others. Much of the infrastructure our post-war boom grew on was built during the New Deal. ", "Environmental history, particularly US:\n\nChanges in the Land, William Cronon. Early, preeminent work in the field -- and short enough to be readable by students. It began life as a grad school seminar paper, so it's fairly tight in scope. Describes the environmental impact of the colonies, and vice-versa. Certainly shorter than\n\nNature's Metropolis, by William Cronon. Fascinating book; fairly big, though. Might be too big for a high school student to tackle. If I had to recommend something easy to digest, I might go with\n\nFlight Maps, Jennifer Price. Getting old now, but still a great introduction to how we deal with nature in a consumer culture.\n\nCrimes Against Nature, Karl Jacoby. Particularly if your high school is in rural america, this or one of the other recent histories of hunting might be interesting to your students.\n\nAnd then there's all the many environmental histories of cities; if you live in a major city in the US, there's been a recent book about it. Rawson on Boston; Klingle on Seattle; Colton on New Orleans. Many more.", "Late 19th Early 20th Century Paris: *Spectacular Realities: Early Mass Culture in Fin de Siecle Paris* by Vanessa Schwartz. Far too often we miss little clues as what the average person found entertaining. The lighter side of the reading will give you a really fun read about different forms of entertainment that are only 100 years old but seem completely foreign to us (the Paris Morgue, for instance, was a tourist destination). The heavier discussion that takes place asks questions about the individual in the crowd, and the construction of the world's first \"modern\" city.\n\nI find that a lot of people have jumped to conclusions on the Arab Spring, but that has also led to a lot of interest in modern Middle Eastern History: *Being Modern in the Middle: Revolution, Nationalism, Colonialism, and the Arab Middle Class* by Keith David Watenpaugh is a fantastic book detailing the rise of a middle class in Syria. For a long time these kinds of histories focused on 'notable' men who 'pushed history forward'. Watenpaugh does a great job of constructing a middle class that, by it's very nature, seeks to be modern. The real question lies in what do non-western cultures consider to be modern? \n\nI'm not going to burden you down with my whole bibliography, but those are my two favourite books in my areas of expertise. These are both really good reads, they flow well and can help students become interested in scholarly reading. Also they're both relatively short with Schwartz topping out around 200 pages and Watenpaugh arough 300. ", "The book list I organized is specifically geared towards \"advanced laymen\".\n\nAlso, I am about to hit the character limit for that list. I can make a new list, or someone who feels capable can do so. Just let me know.", "The AskHistorians Master Book List is [here](_URL_10_). You may find it very useful. \n\n**American Civil War**\n\n* Shelby Foote's massive three volume work [*The Civil War: A Narrative*](_URL_14_)\n\n* Ulysses S. Grant's [*Memoirs*](_URL_13_). One of the absolute best memoirs of a war-time general ever. \n\n* Sherman's [*Memoirs*](_URL_4_) Not quite as good as Grant's, but still very, very good. \n\n* [*Blue-Eyed Child of Fortune: The Civil War Letters of Colonel Robert Gould Shaw*](_URL_0_) Collected letters of Shaw (Colonel of the 54th Massachusetts). May prove to be particularly interesting to fans of the movie *Glory*. \n\n* [*This Hallowed Ground*](_URL_15_) by Bruce Catton. Excellent one volume account of the Civil War. \n\n**American Revolutionary War**\n\n* [*Iron Tears: America's Battle for Freedom, Britain's Quagmire: 1775-1783*](_URL_12_) Excellent account of the politics of Britain concerning the Revolutionary War. \n\n* [*Redcoats and Rebels: The American Revolution Through British Eyes*](_URL_7_). Another account of the war from a British perspective. \n\n* [*Washington's Crossing*](_URL_2_) by David Hackett Fischer. Thoroughly researched account of the Trenton campaign that completely debunks the myth that Washington killed a bunch of soldiers who were drunk and asleep. \n\n* [*The First Salute*](_URL_6_) by Barbara Tuchman. Tuchman takes the title from the action of the governor of St. Eustatius. The focus is on the naval aspect of the war, particularly the interactions of Holland, France and England. \n\n**Random Reading**\n\n* [*Agincourt: Henry V and the Battle That Made England*](_URL_17_). Top notch account of Agincourt, but also does a great job covering that entire campaign. \n\n* [*Empires of the Sea: The Siege of Malta, the Battle of Lepanto, and the Contest for the Center of the World*](_URL_9_). Account of the siege of Malta in 1521 that was fought to control the Mediterranean. \n\n* [*Cadillac Desert: The American West and Its Disappearing Water*](_URL_8_) Reisner's eye opening account of the history of dam building and water usage in the West.\n\n* [*The Last Indian War: The Nez Perce Story*](_URL_1_). Elliott West does a great job of explaining the history of the Nez Perce, the conflicts with white settlers, and then covers the war. \n\n* [*Longitude: The True Story of a Lone Genius Who Solved the Greatest Scientific Problem of His Time*](_URL_16_). Dava Sobel's popular history of John Harrison's quest to build the perfect clock and thus win the Longitude Prize. \n\n* [*The Pirate Coast: Thomas Jefferson, the First Marines, and the Secret Mission of 1805*](_URL_5_) Richard Zacks' account of the Barbary coast pirates and the man who was tasked with stopping it. \n\n* [*Hero: The Life and Legend of Lawrence of Arabia*](_URL_11_) Korda writes a comprehensive biography of Lawrence. Many biographies of Lawrence are focused mostly on the war years, but Korda goes well beyond that. \n\n* [*An Army at Dawn: The War in North Africa, 1942-1943*](_URL_3_) Very well written and researched look at the US Army's role in the invasion of North Africa. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.aidanfc.net/a_year_in_pyongyang.html" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/san2c/thoughts_on_storm_of_steel_in_stahlgewittern_by/c4cka77", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12mw78/what_impact_did_the_first_world_war_have_on_the/c6wjaoi" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Soldiers-Sun-Rise-Imperial-Japanese/dp/0679753036", "http://books.google.nl/books/about/The_Blitzkrieg_Legend.html?id=7Y0MxdP-ws4C&redir_esc=y" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Blue-Eyed-Child-Fortune-Letters-Colonel/dp/0820321745/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669508&sr=1-1&keywords=letters+of+robert+gould+shaw", "http://www.amazon.com/Last-Indian-War-Pivotal-American/dp/0199769184", "http://www.amazon.com/Washingtons-Crossing-Pivotal-Moments-American/dp/019518159X/ref=pd_sim_b_15", "http://www.amazon.com/Army-Dawn-1942-1943-Liberation-ebook/dp/B000ZMRSGM", "http://www.amazon.com/Memoirs-General-Sherman-Library-America/dp/0940450658/ref=pd_bxgy_b_text_y", "http://www.amazon.com/Pirate-Coast-Jefferson-Marines-Mission/dp/B0016J2CCI", "http://www.amazon.com/First-Salute-Barbara-W-Tuchman/dp/0345336674", "http://www.amazon.com/Redcoats-Rebels-American-Revolution-Through/dp/0393322939/ref=pd_sim_b_2", "http://www.amazon.com/Cadillac-Desert-American-Disappearing-Revised/dp/0140178244", "http://www.amazon.com/Empires-Sea-Battle-Lepanto-Contest/dp/0812977645", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_askhistorians_master_book_list/", "http://www.amazon.com/Hero-Legend-Lawrence-Arabia-ebook/dp/B003V1WTDG", "http://www.amazon.com/Iron-Tears-Americas-Britains-1775-1783/dp/B004JZWW80/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669889&sr=1-1&keywords=revolutionary+war+iron+tears", "http://www.amazon.com/Ulysses-S-Grant-Selected-1839-1865/dp/0940450585/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669386&sr=1-1&keywords=grant+memoirs", "http://www.amazon.com/Civil-War-Narrative-Vol-Set/dp/0394749138", "http://www.amazon.com/This-Hallowed-Ground-History-Vintage/dp/0307947084/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1352669738&sr=1-2&keywords=bruce+catton+this+hallowed+ground", "http://www.amazon.com/Longitude-Genius-Greatest-Scientific-Problem/dp/080271529X", "http://www.amazon.com/Agincourt-Henry-Battle-That-England/dp/0316015040" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqy298x", "cqy3kzk" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "The same way that the millions of illegal immigrants from other countries living in other places do those things. Some get a stolen social security number. More often they just pay in cash, get paid in cash, drive without a license or don't drive at all (or live in a state that allows illegal immigrants to get drivers licenses), and wait for medical problems to get bad enough to go to the ER. ", "Housing: rent and pay cash. Find landlord that doesn't care if you're illegal.\n\nDriver license, just don't get one. Take bus or subway. Or drive illegally and not get pulled over.\n\nHealthcare, go to emergency room, pay in cash or don't pay at all" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3tnhsg", "c3tni53", "c3tnmgf", "c3tpat2", "c3trv2s" ], "score": [ 4, 2, 15, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "An interesting question, but it turns out that most moons are tidally locked to their planets, so the same side is always facing the planet, just like our Moon. However, the process that causes this is actually identical to the process that causes tides, except that it is not oceans that are moving, it is the surface of the moon itself.", "When you say around a planet the size of jupiter...do you mean a moon that is literally the size of jupiter, or, the regular sized moons around the planet jupiter?", "(not my field of expertise) The moons of Jupiter have huge tidal forces. For instance take Io, it's the closest large satelite of Jupiter and it's tidal forces are so extreme that they heat the core of the moon, causing volcanos with plumes hundreds of kilometers high!\n\n_URL_0_\n\n(I remembered all of this from Arthur C Clarke's 2010)\n\n", "It also depends on the mass of the planet and the moon, because both spheres enact the same amount of force on one another. \n\nI suppose it's all relative. The Earth is very small compared to Jupiter. ", "I was watching \"Wonders of the Solar System\" - Brian Cox a while ago. And I recall seeing an episode where he mentioned that the gravitational pull of larger planets, such and Saturn/Jupiter would be so great in some cases that it would cause tides in the rock / ice of these moons. In other words there would be walls of rock rising and falling just like the tides of liquid ocean on earth. \n\nI found that amazing and a testament to the sheer force of the gravitational pull the parent planets exceed on their moons.\n\nedit: I am currently on my lunch break at work, so I will try find more sources / which episode it's in later tonight if anyone is interested (or perhaps someone could shed more light on this)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Io_(moon)#Tidal_heating" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d079919", "d079ayn", "d07bs6i", "d07ipg8", "d07ttxh", "d080q2a" ], "score": [ 10, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Actually it is for strength. An arch is incredibly strong and puts far less strain on the materials than a flat surface. ", "Since most of the curved type of hangars are military or government use, it often comes down to one factor. Price. The engineering of these large building is already done and tested, they can be prefabbed and moved with the pieces stacked into each other so that part is cheap, and they can be assembled without specialized construction techniques so they can use fewer highly trained workers to put them together. ", "Everyone seems to be hitting around it, but *technically* it's to optimize load-strength-per-unit-weight and -per-unit-cost. For all of the reasons mentioned. Just sayin.", "The tallest part of the aircraft is the tail. A dome-shaped hangar would have to be much larger to fit the same airplane.", "Dome is indeed stronger that arch, its also significantly more expensive, longer, and harder to build, while the need for such extra durability is aren't exist.\n\nyou gonna need so many stuff in order to build a dome hangar such as extra heavy lifting, extra precision, and extra professionals help.\n\nWhile arch just need little effort to build compared to dome, and all contractors can to build it.\n\nConstructing flat roof hangar as easy and cheap as constructing arc roof, but flat roof significantly weaker. You gonna need extra funds for reinforce beam truss to have the same result as the arch beams.\n\nThus, the most optimum option for those hangar between those three are arch.", "Apart from the structural benefits of an arch it allows rain water to run off it and not pool." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cotdn0x", "cotdn4c", "cotr800" ], "score": [ 4, 30, 9 ], "text": [ "'The Rise and Fall of Ancient Egypt' by Toby Wilkinson describes how \"original sin [and] final judgement before a great god, and the promise of a glorious resurrection\" (p143-144) are already devised during the reign of pharaoh Pepi 2 (around 2250 BC). Although initially the resurrection was for Kings only, this eventual resurrection would soon be adopted by all the royal family and shortly after anyone who could afford a coffin.\n\nTo be fair: Egyptian Theology kept changing in these centuries, but if we can believe this way of thinking, based on inscriptions on millenia old burial sites, this idea of Judgement Day is unbelievably old indeed. Much older than the Greek civilisation.", "To quote Mettinger's [The Riddle of Resurrection](_URL_0_), which is probably the best survey of ANE gods and resurrection (Baal, Dumuzi-Tammuz, Adonis, Melqart-Heracles, Osiris, Eshmun-Ascelpius):\n\n > The dying and rising gods were closely related to the seasonal \ncycle. Their death and return were seen as reflected in the changes of \nplant life. The death and resurrection of Jesus is a one-time event, not \nrepeated, and unrelated to seasonal changes.\n\nand\n\n > There is, as far as I am aware, no prima facie evidence that the death \nand resurrection of Jesus is a mythological construct, drawing on the \nmyths and rites of the dying and rising gods of the surrounding world. While studied with profit against the background of Jewish resurrection belief, the faith in the death and resurrection of Jesus retains its unique 1 character in the history of religions. The riddle remains.", " > Ancient religions were full of \"dying gods,\" gods and goddesses who died and then rose in a specific cycle. We have Adonis, Persephone, and Dionysus, and that's just in Greek mythology. The list is massive, but these all have the idea of a cycle in common. They'll die again, and come back again, forever.\n\nI think I'd better point out that there's a pretty gigantic hole in your assumption, here. Ancient religions aren't nearly as full of this trope as 19th century naturalist interpreters of religion would have you believe. Ancient religions aren't all *that* full of dying gods (there are quite a few, but they're all complicated and different from each other), and annual cycles usually only appear if you look at liturgical practice.\n\nIf you ignore practically everything about Adonis and Persephone, then yes, they start to look a little bit similar. But they're certainly not \"gods and goddesses who died and then rose in a specific cycle\". Adonis dies once and once only. Persephone and Dionysus don't die. Dionysus gets *born* twice (and twice only). Adonis has a regular seasonal residence while he's alive, and Persephone continues to have a seasonal residence, but that's just about the least important thing about them.\n\nThe reason someone like Adonis gets caricatured as \"the dying god\" is because his death was celebrated and reenacted with a regular liturgy on an annual basis. But exactly the same is true of Jesus: go to a church on 30 March-18 April this year, and you'll see a reenactment of his entry into Jerusalem, veneration of the torture device on which he died, and hear accounts of his death. Go again on 20-26 March 2016 and you'll see exactly the same thing again. Does that make Jesus a god who dies and then rises in a specific cycle?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.worldcat.org/title/riddle-of-resurrection-dying-and-rising-gods-in-the-ancient-near-east/oclc/48966476&referer=brief_results" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4faq8g" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Probably, but not just because it's irrational. For example, the [Liouville constant](_URL_1_) is irrational but has only 0's and 1's in its decimal expansion.\n\nHowever, pi is strongly conjectured to be a [normal number](_URL_0_). If this is the case, you certainly can find a billion 3's in a row in its decimal expansion—in fact, you'd find this infinitely many times. Of course, the first occurrence would be *very* deep, but it would be there." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_number", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liouville_number#Liouville_constant" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce5xlli" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ " > Assuming I am US, by what method did the NSA just get hold of either/both the credit card details and travel information?\n\nSo the NSA is a spying agency, that also is involved in technical standards. They have court oversight through FISA, who can issue warrants that compel companies to turn over data. \n\nLets walk through what you just did.\n\n > I submitted my credit card details online\n\nYou sent communications over a telecoms channel. The NSA has (literally) secret black closets in telecom company centres. If it's running over telecoms is most of the world they can intercept it, either via submarine cables, collaborating agencies or their own equipment in big telecom company centres. \n\n > encrypted\n\nSince the early days of encryption standards the NSA has been involved in, and deliberately weakening crytographic standards. Kinda. This is a bit complex, but the NSA, since the DES days, has wanted encryption that is strong enough that you need to be a big organized outfit to break. That sounds contradictory but isn't. Imagine you came up with a trivially bad encryption system - well then anyone could break it. That's not any good. But imagine you came up with an encryption system that required 100 million dollars in hardware to break efficiently. Ah, that's secure enough for most things, but vulnerable enough for an intelligence agency. With DES they shortened the key to make it vulnerable to brute force attacks, but eliminated an exploit that would have made it much easier to break. More recently they put an (obviously ridiculous) random number generator into standards that was bizarre in how sloppy it was at trying to be a back door. \n\n > gmail\n\nThe NSA has had people working for them from inside Google for some time, particularly communication between data centres, some officially and some not. So they could easily be looked at your data inside the google data centres network. Your data is only useful if it can be read after all, so there has to be a recoverable form and key. \n\n > Assuming I am US\n\nIf you are a US citizen they can spy on you to be sure you aren't also an agent of a foreign power, or they could get a FISA warrant to see what you are up to. \n\nBack in June Yahoo's efforts to fight a FISA warrant were revealed. In short. Yahoo lost.\n\n > credit card.... US\n\nThe NSA is a US government agency, with courts who virtually never say no. You should presume that if the government ever wants access to anything about you stored with a company then there is nothing you can do to prevent that. \n\n\n\nMost likely the NSA is not spying on your random credit card transactions. They don't need to. For that they can get metadata about your transaction history from the banks. But if someone there is specifically trying to track what you're up to, then there's an issue. The NSA doesn't really need (or want) to decrypt or credit card details - that they have access to anyway. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkrp16a", "dkrpa9g" ], "score": [ 2, 5 ], "text": [ "Fire requires fuel, oxygen, and heat. When you know out a flame, you're removing the heat necessary to continue the self-sustaining combustion reaction.", "Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: Why can air both extinguish and stoke up a fire? ](_URL_2_)\n1. [ELI5: Why does blowing air on a small flame put it out, but doing the same on a big fire only fuels it? ](_URL_1_)\n1. [ELI5: Why does blowing on a flame put it out, but glowing on coals makes them brighter? ](_URL_4_)\n1. [ELI5: If fire thrives on oxygen, then why does wind blow a fire out? ](_URL_5_)\n1. [ELI5 Why does a flame (like on a match, lighter, etc.) go out when you blow on it but when I blow on an ember it intensifies? ](_URL_3_)\n1. [ELI5: How does wind blow out fire, like on a match? ](_URL_0_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34y4gj/eli5_how_does_wind_blow_out_fire_like_on_a_match/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23w5ck/eli5_why_does_blowing_air_on_a_small_flame_put_it/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55upp6/eli5_why_can_air_both_extinguish_and_stoke_up_a/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ii9jp/eli5_why_does_a_flame_like_on_a_match_lighter_etc/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iqmrk/eli5_why_does_blowing_on_a_flame_put_it_out_but/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pa3ia/eli5_if_fire_thrives_on_oxygen_then_why_does_wind/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "db1de3v", "db1riqa" ], "score": [ 7, 2 ], "text": [ "Short answer: Because mirrors show a mirrored version of your face that you are used to/comfortable seeing. Photographs show a \"correct\" version of your face where it is not mirrored and it looks off to the person who perceives sees their face in a mirror on a regular basis\n\n_URL_0_", "It's similar in a way to how people hate hearing audio recordings of their voices. We have an internal visualization of how we look and sound that we have grown accustomed to. To see or hear it presented differently than that makes us uncomfortable because it's not what is expected. In a mirror, or a photograph of ourselves, we have expectations of how we would look. Our brains already anticipate the image being flipped, so when we see the opposite of that, it triggers anxiety in our brains because we know something is off. We may quickly be able to reason out that \"Oh the image is just flipped\" but our cognitive process in our brain tends to be a bit slower than our reactionary processes, so it's already too late to stop the uncomfortable feeling of anxiety from happening because it's triggered almost instantly based off the sensory input." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://imgur.com/iRL3DT5" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmf5apb", "cmf5atn" ], "score": [ 3, 6 ], "text": [ "There is no minimum speed required to reach space, just a minimum speed to stay up there. What your probably thinking about is Escape velocity, and it is an actual speed, speed that is needed to attain a geosynchronous orbit or to escape earths gravitational pull without putting in any more energy. Once you've floated into space, say, as far away as the moon, what's to stop you from falling back to the earth once you stop flying? ", "The term escape velocity refers to the speed you need to never fall back down to the Earth, assuming you stop pushing on your craft. If you can somehow continue to travel with a constant force away from the Earth, there is nothing stopping you from coming back down. Real craft will eventually run out of fuel, and thus must reach escape velocity before that happens, otherwise they will either orbit or fall back down to Earth." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e7e47di", "e7e5em7" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "That's his unit. Company A, 13th Machine Gun Battalion.\n\nSee page 76 of this PDF\n\n_URL_0_", "Hi there! The MG BN probably stands for Machine Gun Battalion. You might find our [resources on locating military records](_URL_0_) useful, and if you know his name and the cemetery he is buried in then it might be possible to find more information through them, although I'm not sure if the US has an equivalent of the Commonwealth War Graves Commission." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://history.army.mil/html/books/023/23-2/CMH_Pub_23-2.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjtn5KMgffdAhXIT98KHV4jDaoQFjAFegQIBRAB&usg=AOvVaw03HCpceVlbfoUvg93XYMmJ" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/militaryrecords" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnmg7si", "cnmganw", "cnmhw15", "cnmirsf", "cnmjgxd", "cnmjmqy", "cnmk13g", "cnmkfu6", "cnmkx13", "cnml03c", "cnmqgpt", "cnn1gfk", "cnn6ym2", "cnn8byc", "cnncf9i", "cnneakw", "cnnhqri" ], "score": [ 6, 13, 105, 12, 5, 4, 12, 259, 9, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "It's not just about speed, it's about consistency.\n\nArmstrong won event after event for a very long time, if he weren't cheating he'd unquestionably be history's greatest cyclist when held up against today's.", "The riders today are not absent of technological advances. Carbon fiber is much better than it was when lance was in his prime. Components on bikes have made huge strides as well with electronic shifting, lighter and more accurate sensors/ computers, and not to mention the advancements in the science of training and nutrition. Riders today shave ALOT more than the guys 10 years ago did. \n\n\nEdit: hahahah I meant HAVE not shave. They have alot more. They might shave a lot more too but I haven't given it much thought :)", "Modern high-performance athletic competitions are as much about circumventing drug testing mechanisms as they are about human endurance. It's getting to the point of ludicrousness, to be honest. ", "In addition to the fact that the riders are not now and never will be clean, as time goes on, the goalposts for what counts as clean also moves a bit.", "Because they are too?\n\nIt's very easy to find out where the drugging starts. The first big gap between bikers.\n\nYou cannot keep up with doped byciclists, so if you do, you are no prodigy. You are doped. Very simple.", "They made an example out of Lance, while at the same time going all-in on his observation that the sport had cleaned up when he made his comeback. Pretty hypocritical of the UCI. Riders are still doping, that is how a climber like Nibali is rocketing across cobblestones and dropping a Pro Tour FIELD.\n\nDrugs-wise, I think riders are using the same drugs in smaller amounts and with better timing. You don't see the out-of-this-galaxy performances you used to see, but you still see feats that are pushing the limit of what is humanly possible on the best day ever....at the end of a 3-week race. \n\nAlso, I don't think Lance was as heavily doped as his competitors, which is how he was able to be at that level consistently for his 7 tour wins. The campaign against Armstrong is both a lot of truth and a lot of hyperbole. \n\nThe thing you should focus on is how cycling is at least doing SOMETHING...at the very least cycling is at a place where an athlete who does drugs to an extent that they risk their health/life WILL be found-out. No more U23 development kids dying in their sleep from syrup-blood. We also still have exciting racing, but the hero's are no longer invincible! ", "What records are being broken?\n\nIts hard to compare in cycling because race routes are different every year. You also have strategic reasons that not everyone is setting their best possible time all the time. The closest thing we have to comparable segments are the most famous mountain climbs that are reused every few years. [This article gives times](_URL_0_) for two of them. \n\nNo one recently is anywhere near record times. The top times are all from the doping era. Does this prove the top riders of today are clean? Nope. But I just don't see what records you are talking about being broken today. ", "what records are you referring to exactly? if we're talking about the time it takes to climb Ventoux or Alpe d'Huez, [those times have actually gotten markedly worse since the doping crackdown](_URL_2_). in both cases, the best certifiably clean result isn't in the top 10 times up those climbs. or the top 20 (i'm looking at Sanchez's 2011 and Froome's 2013 attempts, Sastre is still a bit questionable in my opinion). this doesn't seem surprising at all in context--not doping should cause the time it takes to ride these climbs to increase. they certainly aren't record breaking. i'm mentioning this because this is the only sort of record Armstrong would really have been able to take, as this was kind of his forte.\n\nhow about a one-day race then? paris-roubaix is (arguably) the most important of these. [the fastest average speed was set in 1964](_URL_3_). though i give credit to cancellara for an excellent ride in 2013, there are plenty of fast editions of this race that have been ridden over the years--they don't seem to be concentrated on a particular time period.\n\nok, so maybe you mean the [hour record](_URL_1_)? the hour record rules have been officially changed in the last year. several people have attempted or are planning on attempting to beat it. it's a brand new metric, and it isn't comparable to either of the old hour record definitions, which top level cyclists largely ignored.\n\nrecords in track racing? sure. those get beaten at an incremental rate. but then again, doping doesn't really seem to have hit the track discipline quite as hard as it did with road, [as evidenced by the amount of doping cases in either](_URL_0_).\n\n**tl;dr** this generation of cyclists really *aren't* beating records, at least not on the road.", "They aren't. As pointed out by several people here, there are no records being broken by today's records. The 20 fastest times for fastest ascent up the Alp d'Huez were all in 1994 or 1996. \n\nThe only notable record broken recently is the hour time trial. And there's a simple technological reason for that--before this year, the record had to be done on a specific bike with 1970s technology. As soon as they opened the record to modern bikes, the record was broken.", " > Is there any way this is remotely possible without drugs?\n\nNoop!", "I thought Lance Armstrong wasn't using drugs but \"blood doping\".... which is just where you filter your own blood with 100% oxygenated blood that makes it harder for your muscles to burn out and you can just keep going for longer periods.\n\nIs that true or did he use some drugs like HGH or something?", "Someone should photoshop a what a cyclist would look like if he could dope all he wanted. The ideal cyclist. Powerfull ripped legs. Aerodynamic body and arms. Huge barrel chest for heart and lungs. ", "Everyone in professional sports uses some doping. Some more than others but just because a test doesn't pop means nothing. Dopers stay ahead of the testing curve.", "What makes you think they do it without drugs? They use drugs to do it and you have to be crazy to think otherwise. There are always ways around tests. Always. ", "what records? lol\nNibili was climbing around 5-6 minutes slower than patani/armstrong era guys in the tour and he was still winning. ", "Testing also found that the other top ten cyclists were doping too, so I wouldn't be so sure to say it's all \"un-aided\" now\n \nAs Bill Burr said \"Our doped up guys beat their doped up guys\"", "I would bet they are using newer drugs/techniques that the authorities haven't discovered yet....its a cat-mouse game and the dopers will always be a step (or pedal) ahead" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.bikeroar.com/articles/biggest-climbs-shortest-times-cycling-drugged-vs-clean-comparison" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_doping_cases_in_cycling", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hour_record", "http://www.bikeroar.com/articles/biggest-climbs-shortest-times-cycling-drugged-vs-clean-comparison", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paris%E2%80%93Roubaix#Fastest_editions" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ewin1dq", "ewinf5j", "ewio92u", "ewio9l2", "ewirj31", "ewirlik", "ewiu9jv", "ewium2x", "ewiuxd1", "ewiv1bb", "ewiv2ik" ], "score": [ 102, 7, 15, 34, 59, 9, 10, 2, 6, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "At this point he was ready to bring down the people around him with him. He was a liability for all of the guilty elites that took advantage of his services. He already almost died once due to a cop beating him senseless, so this isn’t that big of a surprise.", "the only reason it took so long was every government agency, elite assassin, paramilitary group, and illuminati sleeper cell on the planet was outside his jail cell fighting over him for two weeks", "He may have done it himself.but he was placed on suicide watch which means someone is actually watching you 24/7 to prevent it.. why was that person not doing their job", "There’s been a lot of evidence brought to light in the last month or so, mostly showing Epstein’s shady connections to very powerful people across the world.\nThe idea among some of the more suspicious folk eyeing this case is that such powerful people will do anything to ensure they aren’t found to be complicit in any potential crimes associated with Epstein. \nSeeing as he is dead, the idea is that he isn’t in a position to bargain with prosecutors for a deal anymore. There’s literally no incentive left for Epstein to provide evidence of other powerful pedophiles.\n\nI’m also seeing comments that he was on suicide watch as well, so I suppose that adds to the suspicion.\n\nEpstein’s suicide has been a running joke on a lot of threads since the day he was arrested, so it’s a little unnerving to see it all play out so coincidentally.\n\nFeel free to school me, or add any information to my comment. I’m not 100% informed on the entire situation, but that’s the general idea I’ve been able to formulate so far.", "Because he was an ultra-high profile prisoner who had already attempted suicide. \n\nSo he would have been stripped of anything dangerous and watched very closely..\n\nSo how did this happen?", "$$$ = power. You can buy people with very little money; equivalent to pennies to the rich and powerful that were potentially going to get ratted out by Epstein.", "There are a few factors:\n\n1. He was on suicide watch already. He was [found unconscious with neck injuries](_URL_1_) not long ago. This means he should not have had any means to kill himself, and would be getting checked on constantly to make sure he hadn't found an unexpected way to hurt himself.\n\n2. There was a batch of names of co-consprators [released recently](_URL_0_)\n\n3. The names released so far are theorised to just be the small players.\n\nSo the overall theory is that some *very* powerful people were about to be implicated, and they had him killed in prison. \n\nThere's a slight chance he killed himself, but that would only really happen if the guards were incompetent (possible, but unlikely given how high-profile the case is), or they were paid to look the other way while someone provided Jeffrey the means to kill himself, or they provided those means themselves. So either they killed or helped kill him, or they let someone in that killed him.\n\nIt's pretty fucky whichever way you want to call it.", "I know that the answer to this question may seem obvious, and that is due to said high profile people not wanting him to squeal on them, but surely him dying of suicide while under 24/7 suicide watch makes it all seem too coincidental? Won’t the prison guards and others close to him now be investigated? The circle of people that they can investigate just grows every time someone new is introduced (aka a prison guard paid to “look after” him).", "Dude, trailer park moms have the resources to successfully hire hitmen to kill people. There isn't a single billionaire that **doesn't** have the power and resources to whack him.\n\nThe only reason I think Epstein even lived this long is because all of the hitmen kept tripping over each other and fucking up each others' plans. Hell, the prison guards probably were taking bribes from half a dozen sources and kept getting confused.", "Imagine you have $200,000.00 in the bank. And someone has information that could potentially mess your life up for good and they have nothing else to lose. Now imagine for $200.00 you could silence them and your problem forever . For 1/1000 of what you own, you could make a potential life altering problem disappear. Now instead of 200,000 assume you are worth 10,000 to 20,000 times that much money but would still lose it all. What would you be willing to do to make sure it never sees the light of day? Now imagine if you have 100 friends in the same boat as you, all of who could be destroyed by the same single problem, a problem that you and your friends have almost unlimited resources to take care of, if you decided to. Would you just sit Idly by and say well I deserve this outcome, or would you perhaps try and fight for what you currently have. Now hypothetically, an inmate on suicide watch who is the center of one of the biggest scandals of the century, who is ready to give up everyone would have literal round the clock guards. Yet, he was able to hang himself in a room that should have been literally empty, wearing a fabric that can’t be torn up, with check-ins every 15 minutes, that’s some major good luck to a bunch of billionaires and powerful ppl who had a lot to lose potentially and very hypothetically of course", "Hopefully there's enough evidence already to take down many of Jeffrey's peers. Not that the justice system will want to punish their own." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.thedailybeast.com/jeffrey-epstein-unsealed-documents-name-powerful-men-in-sex-ring", "https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2019/07/25/epstein-found-unconscious-new-york-cell-neck-injuries/" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu5p4ox", "cu5ttl0" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I would assume that it is because bad smells are most often things that can negatively affect our health, like feces and rotting food and we should avoid as long as it is around. \n\nThe running shoes example doesn't exactly fit, although that may be due to cultural/evolutionary distance from apes in the same way that sweaty stinky men don't attract women like pheromones do in other animals.\n\nOn the other hand, good smells like flowers and fresh fruit are often not directed at humans specifically but other mammals and birds that the plants \"want\" their seeds/pollen spread by which likely have stronger senses of smell.\n\n(I can expand on it more if it isn't ELI5 enough)", "To me it is like taste. Say you were making a sauce, it is difficult to get it tasting 'nice' because there must be a delicate balance of different flavours. Similarly 'nice' smells are a delicate blend of aromas. However if the sauce contains an unpleasant ingredient (rotten egg for example), like your room with the running shoes, the balance is lost and the whole thing loses all appeal. \nAs for the power of smells, some things are just more pungent than others. It is not a case of bad things smelling more than nice things, since things like perfume and deodorant are extremely powerful. No it is more that bad smells are more pervasive since they overpower anything nice. Someone with a more science-oriented education may be able to explain the details of smell particles and what makes one things smell more than another. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csdhqx8", "csdlns8" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "[This page](_URL_0_) has a pretty good explanation of it. In some cases, it's because the part of your brain that controls the movement isn't fine-tuned to only move that one finger, so the signal to bend get sent to the other fingers as well. The index finger and thumb are the most used fingers of each hand (dominant and non-dominant), so your brain has refined control of those fingers, and only moves that specific finger when your brain sends the command.", "What happens between the pinky and ring finger is nerve signals sent to the pinky get picked up by the ring finger because your brain can't actually control the pinky very accurately so to do more it sends signals intended for the ring finger. All of your fingers do this to a degree. Try extending all your fingers, and then closing the last 3 while keeping the index finger pointed. You can't do it. It will try to close and after your fingers close then you will be able to straighten it back out.\n\nNow with other fingers, like your index finger closing all the way forces the middle one to go down, involve tendon lengths and muscle connection.\n\nGenerally, if it's the top knuckle moving any restrictions are muscular but the second knuckle movement restrictions are nervous." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.psychologyinaction.org/2012/02/18/muscles-and-the-mind/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c68wuz9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Inheriting two copies of the gene usually leads to death in infancy [1], and a lot of achrondroplasic dwarfs have chronic pain, which would cause a general decrease in \"fitness\" (in the Darwinian sense). It seems fair to say it probably puts people at a pretty serious sexual disadvantage as well. \n\n1. _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0002544/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2wedzp", "d2wi2ot", "d2wqt6m" ], "score": [ 13, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "A Faraday cage works because the electrons in the cage respond to an external electric field and re-arrange themselves naturally to create an equal and opposite field.\n\nHypothetically, if you had a large enough externally applied field that all the free electrons moving from one side to the other does not produce a large enough counter-field then your Faraday cage would fail to block it. However, my feeling is such a strength of field would be very unrealistic.", "This is a quote from the [relevant Wikipedia article on Faraday cages](_URL_0_). It's not exactly what you're asking but a cool little note very similar to your question:\n\n\"A common misconception is that a Faraday cage provides full blockage or attenuation; this is not true. The reception or transmission of radio waves, a form of electromagnetic radiation, to or from an antenna within a Faraday cage is heavily attenuated or blocked by the cage. However, a Faraday cage has varied attenuation depending on wave form, frequency or distance from receiver. Near field High powered frequency transmissions like HF RFID are more likely to penetrate. Solid steel cages provide better attenuation over mesh cages.\"", "From the standpoint of classical electrostatics, no. The result of complete shielding of external fields in the static limit comes from application of [Gauss' Law](_URL_0_), which in turn is based on Coulomb's Law, which has been [shown to hold](_URL_1_) over a large range of length scales. \n\nIn the static limit , the amplitude of the external field doesn't matter. For time-varying fields, some finite penetration can occur depending on frequency, cage wall thickness , and cage material properties.\n\nIf the external field was strong enough, it might be possible to cause buckling in the structure of the cage itself due to the applied internal stress from the induced external charge distribution, but dielectric breakdown would probably happen first." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage" ], [ "http://farside.ph.utexas.edu/teaching/302l/lectures/node24.html", "https://www.princeton.edu/~romalis/PHYS312/Coulomb%20Ref/TuCoulomb.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "camg6xt" ], "score": [ 52 ], "text": [ "It all comes down to grain structure. Neither steel nor iron is a completely homogenous solid. A single crystal of metal can deform easily along the crystal axes; but if your metal is made up of a large number of small crystalline regions that are oriented randomly, they can't all deform in the same way and the bulk material is stronger.\n\nAdding or removing various impurities (like carbon) changes the crystal grain structure because it changes how the metal freezes from the melt. As the molten metal cools, it separates into multiple distinct phases (like if you freeze salt water, it'll separate into pure-ish ice and brine, and if you get it cold enough it'll end up as chunks of ice separated by frozen brine). If you have the right ratios of impurities, you can control how the metal solidifies and get a grain structure that's especially strong.\n\nThis is also what happens when you're tempering, annealing, or work-hardening a piece of metal, fundamentally— you're changing the grain structure, making the grains smaller or larger or differently organized.\n\n[Here's a link to the iron-carbon phase diagram](_URL_0_). It's fairly complicated, and it gets even more complicated when you add other alloying elements (there are tons: chromium, molybdenum, manganese, nickel, vanadium, and on and on). Plus you can get different results by cooling the metal differently (tempering, quenching, etc), since it actually takes time for various individual phases to separate, for crystal grains to grow, etc. This is what makes metallurgy interesting.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.sv.vt.edu/classes/MSE2094_NoteBook/96ClassProj/examples/kimcon.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dzo18x7", "dzo1a3m", "dzo2295", "dzo2e9z", "dzo60qz", "dzo6utu", "dzoa5py", "dzoavvc", "dzobyzy", "dzod4ru", "dzof46d", "dzogjwm" ], "score": [ 60, 255, 4, 5, 25, 3, 11, 8, 5, 2, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "You don't have to swear on a Bible, or swear at all. You can simply affirm that you will tell the truth. As you noted non-religious or non-Christian people may have an issue with swearing on the Bible. Likewise some Christian denominations do not believe in swearing or oath-taking and aslo affirm/attest rather than swear.", "In the US, very few jurisdictions have people swear on bibles anymore. Those that do offer alternates to non-Christians. Some religions, like the Jehovah's Witnesses, who do not allow swearing, are allowed to affirm instead.\n\nNote there is no legal significance to swearing on the bible or any religious book, it is purely symbolic. All the swearing process means is that you are promising to tell the truth and acknowledging that you can be charged with perjury if you do not. Any religious trappings are legally irrelevant to that purpose.", "By not swearing the oath on bibles. I've seen several courtroom oaths and taken a few, and have never seen a prop offered or used. In places that do still want a prop, you can replace it with some other religious book, a non-religious book like a law book or simply blank pages in a black binding. Heck, you could use the phone-book (if you can still find one), it wouldn't change your legal obligations. Or take an affirmation with no prop at all.", "The most common place to see someone swearing an oath on a Bible is on a TV show. Very few places in the US administer oaths in this manner, and even when it was commonplace, the witness has had the opportunity to affirm instead of swear the oath if that makes a difference to them. Under the law, it makes no difference at all.", "Good answers here; it's worth adding that \"some people don't want to swear on a Bible\" is not a new problem, and the US constitution has avoided it from the very start. In the American colonial era, the Quakers were a common religious group that thought swearing an oath was forbidden. So the constitution requires the president and congress to \"swear **or affirm**\" that they will obey the Constitution.\n\n_URL_0_", "You do not have to swear on a bible. You just have to swear an oath or affirm that you are telling the truth. You can do this without anything, with any religious text you want, with a book of law or copy of the constitution, etc. You could even swear on a comic book if you wanted to do so. ", "I recently was called as a witness in a grand jury proceeding and while I wasb's terribly surprised that no Bible was offered, I was a little taken aback that the oath the foreman read didnt even contain \"so help me God.\" As an atheist who isn't hung up on such things but still feels it's important not to particpate in civil religion, I had given some thought to how I should respond and in the end it didnt matter.\n\nI was a little amused that I was asked to \"swear or affirm\" but didn't really have a choice (I didn't have to repeat the oath, just say \"yes\" or \"I do\") so only God knows if I was swearing or affirming.", "In Canadian courts they have a stack of holy books for the person to chose from and the option of none at all. When I was in jury selection, I counted 8 holy books. Only about 3 of the 12 jurors chose a book.", "In my jurisdiction the courts have a bible, Torah and Quran. You pick whichever text you want to touch, if any. The judge then says “do you swear or affirm” and ends with “so help you God or whatever you personally believe in”. In addition to Jehovah, some Jews won’t swear and never on the Sabbath, and a few other religions don’t allow swearing at some times of the year, etc. \n\nBut legally all you would need to say is that you agree under penalty of perjury to tell the truth. The religious element doesn’t have any basis in my local law and it’s more tradition that anything. \n\nLocals expect it when they sit on a jury (tv will do that to you) so the lawyers (hi!) ask for the swearing on the book so the jury doesn’t misjudge the witness as a dirty atheist (hi again!) ", "I've given evidence as a witness in court and also been a jury member. Both times, I affirmed which is pretty much promising to tell the truth (\"I do solemnly and sincerely and truly declare and affirm that the evidence I shall give shall be the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.\") and to determine if the defendant was guilty or not guilty fairly when I was a jury member (\"I solemnly, sincerely and truly declare and affirm that I will faithfully try the defendant and give a true verdict according to the evidence.\")\n\nFor other religions, I understand courts generally have the holy books of major religions. I ought to point out that I'm referring entirely to the English and Welsh court system here. I expect other countries have different wordings but with similar meanings.", "I work in a courthouse so I can answer this! This is particular to Canada.. \n\nWhen a witness is sworn in, they are given the option of swearing an oath on the bible or making a solemn affirmation. The ladder is essentially a promise to the court that they will tell the truth, the whole truth, etc., rather than a religious oath. If either party (prosecutor, defence, plaintiff, whatever) is planning on calling a witness that prefers to swear in their own religion, they make arrangements with the court staff prior to the trial. The courthouse I work in has options for several different religions. For example, for Sikhs, we would administer the oath on their holy script, and provide them with a head covering, water to wash their hands, and allow them to remove their shoes. The script that we recite (the “do you swear to tell the truth..”) is also different according to the religion. ", "I’m a notary public so I can provide some insight.\n\nThere are oaths and affirmations. They’re functionally the same thing, but they’re worded differently. The point is to make them understand that what they’re saying needs to be true, to the best of their knowledge, or they’ll face criminal penalty.\n\nHere’s what each sounds like (may be different in different states or contexts):\n\nOATH: \"Do you solemnly swear that the statements contained herein are true to the best of your knowledge and belief, so help you God?\"\n\nAFFIRMATION: “Do you solemnly and sincerely affirm and declare that the statements contained herein are true to the best of your knowledge and belief, under pains and penalties of perjury or false statement?”\n\nBoth are equally valid legally and lying after taking an oath or affirmation does subject you to being penalized for perjury. There are other kinds of oaths, like oaths of office, but the same thing applies. Neither oaths nor affirmations require a bible or any sacred text for them to be legally binding. The usual custom is for the person taking the oath to raise their right hand.\n\nHere’s what an oath of office sounds like... \"You solemnly swear that you will faithfully discharge, according to law, your duties as.......to the best of your ability, so help you God?\"\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=99539230" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ekqsr3w" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Not to stifle discussion, but /u/hillsonghoods wrote [some fantastic replies to a similar question](_URL_0_) of mine which I'd recommend checking out." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9h8xj3/from_ska_to_rocksteady_and_reggae_to_dub_jamaican/e6ae1oa/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cymod9v" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "The ancient sources for helots are of such paucity and quality that scholars keep getting to diametrically opposite conclusions about who they were, what was their servial status, and the timing of their servitude. If you're interested in Helotry, I'd recommend this [collection of essays](_URL_0_), edited by Susan E. Alcock and Nino Luraghi. It's a fascinating book and great because many of the authors hold completely contradicting views, reflecting how 'thorny' the whole topic is. Following is a brief outline of the basic facts that most academics (well, me at least!) agree with. \n\nAs the holy *Oxford Classical Dictionary* reminds me, other Greek states than Sparta had servile populations which were not privately owned *douloi*, but, because their status seemed superior in important respects, came to be categorized as ‘between free men and *douloi*' (Pollux 3. 83). When discussing non-Doric states, we might call them serfs etc.; 'helots' is specific to Laconia and Messenia. 'Helots' were thus not an oppressed ethnic group, but rather a term referring to a certain social class. Helots could be manumitted (although at least in Sparta, in only exceptional circumstances) and thus 'stop' being helots. Our best sources to helots are about Spartan helots - I cannot say to what extent the Spartan example can be generalized into other Doric city-states. In Sparta, helots had some property rights, unlike slaves (which weren't very common in classical Sparta, mind), and whereas slaves were always considered as a personal property of one individual, helots were sort of considered to be the property of the citizen community as a whole. Spartan helots had some military obligations, too, whereas slaves did not; their main responsibility, however, was to provide their Spartan masters and mistresses with a fixed quota of natural produce. \n\nTo answer your question, what do we know about helots before they were helots; not much, really. It is believed that the classical helots are descendants of those Greek peoples that the Dorians enslaved during the [Dorian invasion](_URL_2_), somewhere between the 7th and 10th centuries. The word 'helots' (*heilōtai*) is most likely derived from a root that means *to capture*, and the helots certainly 'enjoyed' the position of being ritually demeaned and considered as a sort of the 'enemy within' in the Spartan state (J. Ducat in his *Spartan education* stresses this 'ritual demeaning' of helots), on top of the very real fear of a helot revolt (e.g. [Thucydides 4.80](_URL_1_)). Every year, the Spartan [ephors](_URL_3_) ritually declared a war against the helots, and Spartans could guilt-free kill helots. The ancient sources suggest that this was to keep the massive helot population in check, which the ancient authors believed to by far outnumber the citizen population. Not that it made any sense for the Spartans to kill helots on everyday basis; the helots were basically the bedrock of the Spartan states as their main source of agricultural labour. The most famous example of the helot oppression is of course the infamous *krypteia* institution, which was an initiation rite for young Spartan men where they went to the countryside in groups to randomly kill helots with daggers (well, this is the picture Aristotle paints; e.g. Plato described it a bit differently). \n\nHelotry survived as an institution well into Hellenistic era, and it wasn't the helots who freed themselves in the end. Helots survived as a self-perpuating body until Theban general Epaminondas freed the Messenians from the Spartan league in 369, and the remaining Laconian helots weren't freed until early 2nd century B.C. A revolutionary chap called Nabis seized the Spartan crown around 207 B.C., and he put under way some badly needed modernizations, including effectively ending the status of helots, and also the *periokoi* class of citizens was practically abolished later during his reign. \n\nEDIT: spelling" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://bmcr.brynmawr.edu/2005/2005-06-26.html", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Thuc.+4.80", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorian_invasion", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephor" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ei7g1b7", "ei7mdjy" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "We refine crude oil which contains gases in the oil(similar to carbonated beverages but less fizzy) and can undergo chemical reactions which will take bigger molecules and break them down into smaller molecules, like propane, which we then seperate out. ", "Propane is a product of the refining process of crude oil. The longer hydrogen carbon chains are cracked into smaller ones, propane, hexane and benzine are common products.\n\nNatural gas is different, it formed naturally is often found in pockets above crude oil and I think coal " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3u5a87", "c3u5am3", "c3u5be3", "c3u5v2o", "c3u6oas" ], "score": [ 3, 9, 50, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "I'm not a professional, but I actually did this as part of a project in my University.\n\nThe answer to your first question is no, absorbing waves in point x does not reduce the power of a radio wave at point y. We were able to charge a hydrogen fuel cell, not very efficiently I might add, with a D.I.Y magnetic coil connected to it. We estimated about 80% of the power from the source was lost which was in close proximity, but 20% is quite a lot of power and considering the amount of radio transmission that is going on and that we had quite a bad coil as it was wound up / made by ourselves. It's enough to charge your phone over a couple days plugged in, basically.\n\nIt could be used in portable solutions for low power things... say clocks, watches, remote controls. They would never need recharging. But it would be more expensive than batteries (atleast initially).\n\nTo explain the science, think of a wave in water. Light and radio waves behave the exact same way.\n\nDrop a penny into calm water and watch the circle of the wave disperse and you'll see how it gets weaker as it travels. This is due to the wave dispersing over a larger distance / as the circumference of the circle gets larger the wave spreads out over a larger distance: \n_URL_0_\n\nThus the further from the source, the less power you receive from a wave, especially considering that waves like these work in 3 dimensions as opposed to water which is 2. \n\nAnyway, when you absorb power from a wave you only take in what is at that point / the rest of the wave is still there to propagate through bouncing around the walls and such. \n", "In layman terms, a receiving antenna is a piece of wire \"converting\" an electromagnetic wave into an electric potential difference (voltage) between its terminals due to [electromagnetic induction](_URL_0_).\n\nThe circuitry in the receiver amplifies, filters, and eventually demodulates said electric signal, thus allowing a VERY tiny current to circulate along the antenna rod.\nSome of the em field gets absorbed because it has been converted into electric energy (some current circulates anyway, in fact grounding the antenna can be even better to that effect).\nThe antenna is casting a (somewhat irregular and faint) electro-magnetic \"shadow\"\n\nNow imagine surrounding yourself with a tall fence made of thousands of parallel grounded antennas.\nYou just mentally build a Faraday's Cage and if the rods are close together enough (as a rule of thumb, closer than the smaller wave length you want to stop) you won't be able to use your mobile phone while inside it.\n\nThe amount of energy in received radio signals is so tiny (intensity drops at a rate proportional to the squared distance from the source) that in the early days of radio, amplifying them enough to make filtering viable was an engineering challenge.\n\nYou would need a gigantic array to extract any significant amount of energy, and as a side effect you'd most likely create an EM barrier blocking many radio frequencies people would rather use to transmit information.\n", "Substitute \"radio signal\" with \"sunlight\" and \"antenna\" with \"solar cell\".\n\nYou assume that there's such thing as _the_ power of the signal, as a property of the emitter that everyone has direct access to. No, radio waves are not fundamentally different from light, so what you have instead is independent power of the signal in various places; receiving the signal with an antenna removes it from that particular region of space and creates a radio shadow behind it.\n\nSo for example to black out a radio emitter you have to build a [Faraday cage](_URL_0_) around it.", "Yes, you can convert that energy and use it. It's the principle of [crystal radios](_URL_0_) that convert it to sound. \n\nHere is a video of an LED powered by a Crystal Radio: _URL_1_", "The answer can be provided in two ways. First, absorbing the electromagnetic wave does reduce the energy of the wave at that point. However, you will not know you have reduced the energy unless you measure the wave energy. Energy cannot be created or destroyed only converted. Therefore, measuring the wave energy converts some of the energy to the instrument or radio. Second would be to transmit an electromagnetic wave inside a Faraday cage. The cage acts as the antenna with infinite coverage. The result is the energy is converted and the signal is lost beyond the antenna. This is the principle of the microwave oven. The microwave energy is absorbed by the shielding (antenna) and directed to the ground preventing the signal from passing. Therefore, the signal is reduced when it interacts with the antenna, albeit dependent on the efficiency of the conversion." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://imgur.com/LYBWa" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electromagnetic_induction" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faraday_cage" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crystal_radio", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcui0K7JZXA" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ebyekw3", "ebyi9at" ], "score": [ 35, 3 ], "text": [ "If you look at this problem by trying to figure out your wetness as you walk through the falling rain, then it can be pretty tough. But it actually becomes easier if you look at it from the frame of reference of the falling rain. In this reference frame, the rain is just sitting there, still, and the ground is moving up through it with you moving along. Then, as you move through it, you will carve out a tunnel through the rain and how wet you get will be proportional to the volume of this tunnel.\n\nTo get the volume of this tunnel you can simplify it further by noting that it's basically just a thickened line, and so the volume will be roughly proportional to the length of this line. The slope of this line will depend on how fast you go. If you go really, really, slow, then the line will be very steep, as you are going more up through the rain than forward. It will be very, very shallow if you go really fast, as the ground hardly has time to move up before you're done. In general, then, this line traced out by your path is the hypotenuse of a right triangle. The bottom leg of this triangle is just the distance that you have to go across the ground, L, and the height of this triangle is basically the amount of time you spend in the rain, T (well, proportional to it depending on how fast the rain is falling). The length of this line, and the subsequent volume of rain you carve out, is then given by the Pythagorean theorem as the square root of L^(2)+T^(2). \n\nSo how wet you get is then basically proportional to sqrt(L^(2)+T^(2)). Since L doesn't change the only way you can make this less is to make T smaller, which means running faster. \n\n[MinutePhysics](_URL_0_) has a more well put together presentation of this.", "Running will never make you more wet. \n\nWhen you get to the point that you are running at the same speed the rain is falling, you have achieved 'minimum wetness'. If you run slower than that, you will be in the rain for longer and get rained on more.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3MqYE2UuN24" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0q10ff" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "They're [stenotypes](_URL_0_) which are much faster than typing, but don't transcribe speech directly into readable English but into a form of shorthand.\n\nWhy? It's quicker - the words are formed with \"chords\" rather than letter at a time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c361utk", "c361ze2", "c361utk", "c361ze2" ], "score": [ 33, 8, 33, 8 ], "text": [ "It's pretty cool, actually. I'll start with the basics. Each letter on the keyboard is connected, or paired, to another letter. So, if you press the A key, for example, you might see K light up. Similarly, if you press K, you'll see A light up. So, if you were to press H-E-L-L-O, you might get something like T-W-I-I-M. You send the new message \"twiim\" to the recipient. The recipient's machine is wired the same as yours, so pressing T-W-I-I-M will result in the letters H-E-L-L-O. Make sense so far?\n\nHere's where it gets interesting. On each Enigma Machine is three rotors that can each be set by the user. Each rotor has a setting from A to Z. So, when I'm using my Enigma, I can set the three rotors to anything I like, such as: G-E-K. The rotors basically take all the letter pairs and scramble them; all the wires that go from and to each letter are shuffled depending on each rotor setting. Imagine a railroad junction where the track can switch between two paths; it's like that, but with 26 different options, 3 different times in a row.\n\nHowever, if I were to type a message scrambled in this way, it would be very easy to crack because each letter just corresponds with a different letter. If somebody were to intercept the message, he/she could just guess which letters are which and eventually come up with the original message. In fact, this is so simple that newspapers publish puzzles with this encryption format, sometimes known as a CryptoQuip. [Try it yourself!](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is where the brilliance of the Enigma machine comes in. Every time you press a letter on the keyboard, the rotors turn. (kachunk!) So, the letter pairings are completely rescrambled with every letter you choose. Suppose my rotors were set to: G-E-K. After I press a single key, the rotors will shift to: G-E-L, and so on, until G-E-Z, and then G-F-A. Anybody who intercepts the message won't be able to pair up letters because every single character uses a different pairing schematic as defined by the rotor setting. Even if the interceptor has an Enigma Machine, he/she can't decode the message unless the rotors are set the same way. The rotor settings can't efficiently be guessed by hand because there are 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 different settings to try. This, combined with the plugboard settings for each letter, and the option of shuffling the rotor order, means there are about 10^21 possible combinations to go through. (Modern computers can do this with some work.)\n\nSo, as long as the sender and receiver use the same rotor settings, the letter pairs are matched. Plus, each time a key is pressed, the rotors rotate, including for the receiver. So, the receiver's rotors stay in sync with the sender's, allowing for total encryption and decryption for both parties.\n\nFun Fact: The Enigma was cracked not because its encryption method was flawed, but because radios were very poor quality. The protocol was to repeat certain key letters to make sure that the receiver didn't miss any info, but the extra information made the messages mathematically feasible to crack.", "Nice try, Time Hitler.", "It's pretty cool, actually. I'll start with the basics. Each letter on the keyboard is connected, or paired, to another letter. So, if you press the A key, for example, you might see K light up. Similarly, if you press K, you'll see A light up. So, if you were to press H-E-L-L-O, you might get something like T-W-I-I-M. You send the new message \"twiim\" to the recipient. The recipient's machine is wired the same as yours, so pressing T-W-I-I-M will result in the letters H-E-L-L-O. Make sense so far?\n\nHere's where it gets interesting. On each Enigma Machine is three rotors that can each be set by the user. Each rotor has a setting from A to Z. So, when I'm using my Enigma, I can set the three rotors to anything I like, such as: G-E-K. The rotors basically take all the letter pairs and scramble them; all the wires that go from and to each letter are shuffled depending on each rotor setting. Imagine a railroad junction where the track can switch between two paths; it's like that, but with 26 different options, 3 different times in a row.\n\nHowever, if I were to type a message scrambled in this way, it would be very easy to crack because each letter just corresponds with a different letter. If somebody were to intercept the message, he/she could just guess which letters are which and eventually come up with the original message. In fact, this is so simple that newspapers publish puzzles with this encryption format, sometimes known as a CryptoQuip. [Try it yourself!](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is where the brilliance of the Enigma machine comes in. Every time you press a letter on the keyboard, the rotors turn. (kachunk!) So, the letter pairings are completely rescrambled with every letter you choose. Suppose my rotors were set to: G-E-K. After I press a single key, the rotors will shift to: G-E-L, and so on, until G-E-Z, and then G-F-A. Anybody who intercepts the message won't be able to pair up letters because every single character uses a different pairing schematic as defined by the rotor setting. Even if the interceptor has an Enigma Machine, he/she can't decode the message unless the rotors are set the same way. The rotor settings can't efficiently be guessed by hand because there are 26 * 26 * 26 = 17,576 different settings to try. This, combined with the plugboard settings for each letter, and the option of shuffling the rotor order, means there are about 10^21 possible combinations to go through. (Modern computers can do this with some work.)\n\nSo, as long as the sender and receiver use the same rotor settings, the letter pairs are matched. Plus, each time a key is pressed, the rotors rotate, including for the receiver. So, the receiver's rotors stay in sync with the sender's, allowing for total encryption and decryption for both parties.\n\nFun Fact: The Enigma was cracked not because its encryption method was flawed, but because radios were very poor quality. The protocol was to repeat certain key letters to make sure that the receiver didn't miss any info, but the extra information made the messages mathematically feasible to crack.", "Nice try, Time Hitler." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.wordles.com/getcrypto.aspx" ], [], [ "http://www.wordles.com/getcrypto.aspx" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5rtcxw" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "LEAN and 6sigma address two different aspects of factory production.\n\nLEAN applies analysis to find the minimal cost steps needed to produce the item. It could mean the difference between giving a power tool to a worker instead of a manual tool. or having a conveyer delivery belt move the component to the worker instead of the worker walking around the factory to get the components from their bins. all of it centers on the methods to measure and reduce the cost of the production in both time and money (which boils down to same thing).\n\n6sigma is concerned about whether items that come out of production all meet quality control standards. bad items are categorized as errors vs defects. errors are caught inside the production area. defects make it out of production area. the total cost of an error is the time and cost to remanufacture the item within the production area. the total cost of a defect is error cost PLUS defect management overhead cost PLUS potential customer impacts. 6sigma goals is to measure the existing rates and find ways to reduce the rates. \n\n1sigma is 69% mistakes. \n\n2sigma is 30% mistake.\n\n3sigma is 6.68%.\n\n4sigma is 0.6%\n\n5sigma is 0.0233%\n\n6sigma is 0.00034%" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etw117b", "etw4kzd", "etw4myb" ], "score": [ 9, 6, 3 ], "text": [ "It checks the way that the person clicks the button (path, speed, etc) to determine if the clicker is indeed a human", "There's some secret sauce behind these tests, but they check a lot of things.\n\n1. How your mouse moves; if you move in straight lines at a constant speed or instantly jump from place to place, you're probably a robot. There's an amount of random motion they expect from a human.\n\n2. If you click the correct things; computer vision and object recognition is one of the hardest practical problems in computer science today, so it's virtually guaranteed that you haven't written a bot better than the absolute giants of the tech industry throwing millions of dollars a year at the problem.\n\n3. Your IP address; if you're coming to a website from somewhere that has historically had users up to no good, the system is more suspicious of you.\n\n4. Cookies; if you have cookies (small files websites place on your computer that let you save your settings or login status) on your computer that look like a normal person's, the system is more likely to think you're a real person.", "The ones that require to click all pictures with a car are/were being actively used to train computers to do the task. They're cases that computers have trouble with so a computer can't just click on the pictures. \n\nthe ones that require you to just check a box rely on an advanced algorithm to determine if you're a bot or not. The details of how it works aren't publicly available (for obvious reasons)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqwpbxr", "cqwph1c", "cqwpj8m", "cqwpow2", "cqwpu8y", "cqwpw0x", "cqwq0ep", "cqwq1jn", "cqwq3bh", "cqwq781", "cqwqbtu", "cqwqmfq", "cqwqwks", "cqwr2lx", "cqwr3p4", "cqwr3up", "cqwr5a1", "cqwr8ee", "cqwripe", "cqwrnbx", "cqwrnp4", "cqwrpe6", "cqwrrjo", "cqwrtgi", "cqwrukd", "cqwrvt3", "cqwrw2m", "cqws09v", "cqws28o", "cqws3dl", "cqwsd8q", "cqwsiuh", "cqwsk0a", "cqwslv2", "cqwsmpt", "cqwsrhm", "cqwst5q", "cqwsx3q", "cqwte7z", "cqwtg38", "cqwti8h", "cqwtjjp", "cqwtjwa", "cqwtrxe", "cqwtsfc", "cqwu7gj", "cqwu915", "cqwue6r", "cqwugoi", "cqwuptp", "cqwv3b1", "cqwv3pi", "cqwv4wy", "cqwv6d3", "cqwv87m", "cqwvfgu", "cqwvlx6", "cqww9ft", "cqww9mv", "cqwwaqz", "cqwwewu", "cqwwgq6", "cqwwogg", "cqwws8l", "cqwwvq6", "cqwwzc8", "cqwx3oh", "cqwx8jr", "cqwxe3t", "cqwxpap", "cqwy0qo", "cqwy344", "cqwy9a9", "cqwy9rq", "cqwyd66", "cqwye0f", "cqwynyw", "cqwyphu", "cqwytzl", "cqwzaqk", "cqwzes4", "cqwzguk", "cqwzzxs", "cqx09f0", "cqx0agf", "cqx0v1k", "cqx0xwu", "cqx1h8l", "cqx2q8l", "cqx2ra3", "cqx44yh", "cqx45o8", "cqx5wlj", "cqx7j67", "cqx8kah", "cqxbol4", "cqxoxk3" ], "score": [ 542, 19, 3799, 29, 211, 46, 399, 1780, 8, 31, 4, 22, 135, 3, 51, 147, 2, 2, 9, 2, 2, 167, 4, 4, 4, 4, 3, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 5, 29, 2, 39, 6, 2, 2, 3, 30, 7, 3, 14, 2, 4, 509, 4, 6, 4, 56, 20, 2, 2, 47, 85, 4, 3, 3, 3, 2, 13, 2, 2, 8, 5, 3, 7, 3, 386, 3, 2, 2, 3, 3, 3, 2, 2, 4, 5, 3, 2, 7, 2, 29, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 2, 8, 2, 3, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Mayweather is the greatest defensive boxer of all time. I don't like him, but he is a clever boxer. \n\nI wish neither him or manny played it safe, but that is the way it is.", "Mayweather outboxed Pacquiao. He threw less punches and connected more and Pacquiao wasn't nearly active enough to make up the difference.", "Pacquiao was the aggressor for most of the fight, and he swung a lot more. The crowd was clearly on his side, and Mayweather rarely drove forward. \n\nBut these things don't matter to the judges, or at least they shouldn't. Who was better at landing punches, who dictated the pace, who did the most damage, these things matter. And Mayweather did all those things. He threw less, but landed more. His hits were doing more damage. It was very rare that Mayweather ever seemed trapped, even buried in the corner. \n\nPacquiao need a lot more of those flurry pieces, and he didn't get through Mayweather's defense most of those times. \n\nEDIT: it's been brought to my attention that MW actually threw MORE punches as well. Paq threw more power punches but MW threw more total punches. Thank you fellow redditor for pointing that out. ", "Winning a round scores you 10 points. A close loss of a round will normally score 9 points. Penalties (no penalties were awarded in the match) will deduct from your final score. Mayweather won more rounds. I believe one scorecard was 8 round Mayweather to Manny's 4 rounds. Winning 8 rounds out of 12 is 116 points. ", "Because just because you are the more aggressive fighter doesn't mean you are the fighter that deserves to win (and rightfully so) Mayweather landed many more punches/power punches despite being much more defensive and it paid off", "Mainly his defensive skill.\n\n\nPacquiao was more offensive indeed, threw a lot of punches, did flashy combos and was a victim of lots of pace killing clinches.\n\nBut he didnt land that many clean hits. Most of his punches hit Mayweather's guard or the air. \n\n\nMayweather not only is great at defending and setting the pace, but also in counter punching. He scored a lot of points with those shitty counter jabs he kept throwing.\n\n\nIn the end its all about punches thrown and punches landed ratios. And Mayweather landed more clean hits.", "ELI5: What is clinching and why's it allowed in boxing? Opponent is trying to punch me? Let me subdue it by hugging him.", "Wasn't too big on boxing before this fight. Definitely not a fan of it after.\n\nIn my little knowledge of boxing, it seemed pretty clear that Mayweather's strategy was to avoid as much contact as possible, and issue a few counter punches.\n\nHe executed his plan to perfection and made Manny statistically look bad, which I assume won him the fight. As for actual fighting, though, I feel that Manny participated.", "If you look at the stats Mayweather landed ~140 punches were as Manny only landed ~80. I think they threw about the same #. A lot of Manny's flurries didn't connect and refs will sometimes discount that as well. Manny also did not adjust well and was getting hit all night with the jab. Mayweather is a defensive genius ", "he threw more punches and landed a higher percentage of punches. I really don't understand how an unbias person could watch this fight and not see Floyd winning it. Too many people see boxers rush in and throw 5 - 7 punches while only landing like 1 or 2 and assume it's hurting them and having some sort of effect.\n\nManny had only one or two moments of decent success while Floyd would just picking him off and countering him the entire fight in the centre of the ring. This is boxing. The art is hitting the opponent and not getting hit. If you want to watch a brawl go watch UFC, or even better head down to your local bar on a friday evening.", "Remember that fully and partially blocked punches do not count. Pacqiao didn't land near as many scoring blows as Mayweather. Ring generalship also went to Mayweather in most rounds as he was controlling the pace of many of them.\n\nYou can't expect to win when the judges only remember you going for it when your opponent is on the ropes -- it's just not enough. ", "Boxing isn't fighting. Its a sport. The only sport that comes close to true fighting is MMA, and even that isn't a perfect comparison. Just because Pacquiao was more aggressive and impressive doesn't mean he did a better job of boxing. Mayweather was the greater boxer, and the lesser man.", "Fights are somewhat loosely scored on several criteria I'll try to address each. \n\nClean Punching- Put simply who land the most punches on scoring areas, Floyd has an unparralleled defence and very rarely takes hits to scoring area deflecting or avoiding most shots thrown at him, he did this effectively in this fight. \n\nThe stats for punches: _URL_1_ \n\nYou'll see that Mayweather threw more and landed a lot more punches. One point I've seen floated is about his light touch jabs but please also note he also landed more power punches. \n\nPretty clear win for Floyd on this one. \n\n\nEffective Aggression- This one is really a matter of opinion Pacquiao did come forward a lot but probably not enough to counter the natural style of Floyd to any extent, it appeared as if Floyds counter punches caused more damage than people give them credit for and Pacquiao was hesitant about pushing forward too much but at this stage it is like much of boxing scoring, opinion. I would perhaps tentatively say that Pacquiao takes this category. \n\nRing Generalship- This refers to dictating the pace and nature of the fight. The general discomfort with the result seems to be that Floyd turned it into anti boxing with his movement and clinching. The fact that people see this as an issue at all basically proves that Floyd was dictating the flow of the fight giving him this category also. \n\nDefence- This is basically the opposite of the clean punches and refers to making sure your opponent cannot score. Whilst people may call Mayweathers movement and clinching \"hugging and running\" and that it shouldn't score him points the important aspect is it prevents Pacquiao from scoring. You might not call Floyd a winner in this category but he certainly inhibited Pacquiao's ability to score. \n\nFinally so you can get an idea of how this all transpired to the ultimate result here are the judges scorecards: _URL_0_", "The same thing happened between Sugar Ray Leonard and Roberto Duran in the 80s.\n\nLeonard was a dancing clown and Duran was a man. But in boxing, dancing clowns win. ", "Staunch Pacman supporter here. Take it for what you will...\n\nIn a word, reach. Mayweather controlled that fight from the start. Other than his 5\" reach advantage, which severely hampered Pacman, he controlled the tempo of the bout. Pacquiao lost that fight partially due to corner mistakes and misinterpretation (bias) of his performance...\n\nTo the people giving Money shit about bouncing around: Did you watch the same bout I did? Did you see the surgical precision that Mayweather exacted on Pac in the first few rounds? That can't be ignored...\n\nPac did what he could against an adversary who commanded something he obviously didn't have enough respect for, and lost. Pure and simple. He put up a hell of a fight. Even with the bullshit lack of calls early, I doubt he would have caught up on the cards. I saw this as Pac in 8...\n\nI did appreciate that both of them were very classy afterwards. But, damn. Money won this bout, fair and square, and it fucking sucks...", "Lets think of it like riding a bike, Manny was pedalling hard but the chain came loose so he wasn't going anywhere (lots of swings but nothing connected). Mayweather only pedalled 20 times or so per round but most of those helped propel the bike forward. In the end Mayweather won the distance travelled race. Scored 116-112 meaning Mayweather won 8 rounds and Pacquiao won 4.", "basically, he kept his percentage and points high by landing a bunch of sissy love taps, and a few good punches, then running away, dodging and hugging. just as far as points go, I agree he \"won\". but he looked like a pussy. I want a rematch in Manilla, Philippines ", "and this is why no likes boxing. mayweather pretty much ran away...waited till pacquiao got aggressive and got hits in when he was off balance. i feel sorry for the people that paid $100 for this fight. ", "The simplest explination... look at punch count.\n\nThey threw an almost identical amount of punches... mayweather landed 5x as many... \n\nThats all it comes down to. People complaining dont know what they are talking about..there ARE measurables in boxing..and Floyd dominated the measureables... chasing a guy around a ring isnt \"controlling\" it..if you never actually hit him, and are constantly getting popped in the face.\n\nPeople saying it was a bad fight or was Mayweather \"running away\" just dont know shit about boxing or strategy...\n\nMayweather knows if he keeps a shorter, heavier fisted opponent at a distance..he CANT lose... so thats exactly what he did.. he didnt try to out-brawl a boxer who prefers to brawl...\n\nIt was a strategically brilliant fight from Floyd... play it EXTREMELY safe in the first 5,6 rounds. Once you KNOW he no longer has the power/speed to knock you out on a single combo, due to exhaustion, you can start making small exchanges, pick him apart, and take the win.", "Boxing is like those David Copperfield magic shows that used to be on tv. They'd build it up for weeks like it was going to be the best thing ever. At the end a plane would disappear and we'd all feel ripped off.", "If mayweather had lost this fight, subsequent fight would probably not be worth as much and make less money right?", "I'll just add, because it's implied but not spelled out,\n\nDodging someone like Manny for 12 rounds like that is NOT easy. People seem to think that being a defensive fighter is some simple process that just requires you to run away, but it's really not. He's excellent at dodging and blocking punches, and then being accurate on counters. Seriously accuracy is king in these lower weight divisions where people can really move, and that's not just why he won, but honestly why he deserved to win (and I wanted him to get his teeth knocked out).", "Where were the chairs? And nun-chucks?", "Wait is this the first time most of you guys have watched boxing? ", "ELI5 what's the big deal about this match, and why is everyone suddenly interested (or pretending to be interested) in boxing?", "He's a counter puncher. Manny moving forqard was only to his own detriment. Good fight by both, they both fought their fight. Floyd proves why he will most likely remain unbeaten. Hes hard to tocuh and even harder to get inside on. Good night for boxing I dont care what all these People say. Anyone who is a true boxing fan knows this fight played out exactly as expected.", "The goal of any boxing match or any fight in general is not to knock someone out, but to win that fight. You survive by any means necessary. Floyd is great at that he picks his punches and he deflects and dodges the rest. Manny needed to throw a lot more punches and land them in order to win and he just didn't have that in him.", "Mayweather was more efficient in throwing his punches. The art of boxing is to punch and to not get punched. When scoring, the judges award you points for making a clean hit which Floyd was able to do better than Manny. Although it looked like Manny was punching more, he simply was throwing ineffective punches because none of them hurt Floyd albeit a couple and most were blocked and deflected by Mayweathers standard highly defensive strategy. Another thing that sways your opinion is listening to the crowd and commentators. The crowd was anti Floyd and everytime Manny threw combinations the crowd was cheering, but the punches he was throwing weren't effective. Alot of boxing fans watch a fight on mute to get rid of factors that may skew your judgment.", "Boxing is such a lame sport. Run around the edges of the ring while dodging punches. Then after 12 rounds, collect your absurd paychecks and go home without even a cut on your faces. That fight was incredibly boring. The only way I'll ever watch another goofy-ass boxing match is if they remove the damn judges and just let them fight until one of them goes down from exhaustion or a K.O. I'd rather watch a 30 round actual fight than the crap that was going on in that ring tonight.", "Just look at it like a game of Mortal Kombat...you maybe throwing all kind of combos but if you never make contact...it doesn't matter the life bar will stay the same for the opponent!\n\n...I play to many damn video games...smh", "You know how when you're playing a fighting game, and no one get's knocked out in time, so the winner is who had the most health? That's pretty much what boxing is like. Manny threw more punches, but didn't do a whole lot of damage overall. Mayweather connected much more and landed more good punches. Liu Kang threw a bunch of punches at a blocking Scorpion, but Scorpion landed three Spear Throw to Uppercut combos.\n\nGot [the comment](_URL_0_) from /u/PatriArchangelle.", "Mayweather sticks his head out and pulls back in order to lure Pacquiao to throw punches. He then uses his extra reach to connect jabs when his opponent closes in. He then re establishes distance through footwork manoeuvring or clinches. Eventually he tires Pacquiao to a point where he starts to make more mistakes. More counter power punches can be taken when this happens. A pretty straight foreward strategy.", "He was clearly the best fighter. His head movement was amazing, his footwork was great and his punches landed. Pac man only landed 18 of 189 jabs. He was not as accurate and focused as Mayweather. Just because the other guy was liked more is not an excuse for judges to have decided anything else", "Not a huge Mayweather fan but he deserves his props. His first 35 fights produced 24 knockouts. His last 13 fights only two knockouts. When mayweather got older and lost his punching power he changed styles. When other champions got older and had diminished punching power they lost fights. ", "Because moneyman knew this fight is 5 years to late for pacquiao ,\nbut the perfect moment to cash in ", "Movies have ruined boxing for people. NOT getting hit is much more important than hitting your opponent. Floyd avoided being hit and dealt more damage with the punches he threw, it's that simple. ", "I personally think Floyd is a insufferable douche. He might think he doing an Ali type head game, but Ali was funny, Floyd is just ignorant. He is however a smart boxer. The days of slug fest boxing is pretty much over. No one want to end up punchy. Yeah I see how it can how it can be boring, but seeing the technical aspects might help people find enjoyment. ", "I came to a conclusion today after seeing the decision...Admittedly, I am more of a fan of UFC over the past few years. I used to be more of a boxing fan prior, but it finally hit me that I was holding boxing to the standard of UFC from an entertainment and physicality standpoint. I personally felt that Pacquiao fought better just because he appeared to have a bunch of powerful flurries and was more aggressive throughout the fight...However, in the boxing world, those things don't dictate the winner and the loser. The more technical boxer typically wins. And in this fight, Mayweather was the more technical fighter. Based on the way he skirted around the ring, dodged punches, and chose his punches more wisely...He was the better fighter. \n\nBut in my eyes, Pacquiao was more exciting to watch. It was very frustrating to see Mayweather dodge and hug whenever things got tough, but he did in a way that is more \"Technically sound\". In comparison to UFC, we are always looking for the knockout punch or the crushing blow that allows the aggressor to get in a full mount and go to town. \n\nSo in conclusion, make sure we are looking at the winner and loser from the perspective of a boxer rather than UFC. This conclusion became obvious very soon into the fight just by listening to the announcers, who are obviously more knowledgable about the sport of boxing than I am. The entire time they were seemingly \"sucking Mayweather's dick\" by constantly talking him up, even during an aggressive flurry from PacMan. Initially I thought it was unfair but I suppose it is just the technical ability of Mayweather that someone like myself may not be able to see, IMO of course. ", "Mayweather is the best defensive boxer in the world. He's too quick to hit, and unfortunately that means he won last night. If he'd gone toe to toe and trading blows with Pacquiao it could've been different.\n\nHowever, there have been times where he took more of a beating and the judges have still scored it as a unanimous decision when it should've been much closer, but most people agree boxing is corrupt and Mayweather has the judges in his pocket.\n\nUnfortunately, that style also makes him incredibly boring to watch, which made for a terrible fight and ruined it. Buy hey, he got his $180m so who gives a shit about the fans. ", "Is there a stream for the replay, or at least a video with highlights? \n", "As someone who actually boxes (amateur featherweight/lightweight): All these armchair Mayweather advocates are full of shit. Congratulations, you know the rules of scoring. Nobody is fucking impressed, we all know how this idiot won. In no way does the fact that Mayweather (notice his shills refer to him as 'Money') fights like a terrified robot make this a clear victory. Pacquiao deserved this win, and had enough power hits connect on target that would have resulted in a strong KO if this fight's entire ruleset weren't meticulously decided by Mayweather.\n\nThose gloves didn't allow a KO to be part of the equation, and Pacquiao sure as shit knew that. Listen to his post-match interview, the dude has never been that angry. Mayweather spent more time running than he did fighting, including counters. He never ONCE got deducted for clinching, which he was doing entirely too much, as per usual.\n\nFucking apologists are making me sick. Good job everyone, you're helping to ruin boxing further. I don't even want to fight knowing that it's no different than fencing at this point. The only people interested in modern boxing all seem to think it's fucking hip or meta to back Mayweather, like they're on some secret level knowledge because they understand how rounds are scored.\n\nFucking annoying. Glad I didn't buy this fight, knew it'd come to a decision and that Mayweather would take it handily due to A) rigging the contest from the start and B) Pacquiao having no answer for the inevitable penalty-free clinch escape from every corner play.\n\ninb4 b-b-but Manny had a lower % of punches land!! I'm through watching this sport at a professional level. Fuck it. There isn't a reason to both with this boring fuck Mayweather at the top. RIP Sweet Science. Wish I hadn't seen this coming.", "Nah the real winner here was both the boxers, the boxing promoters, the celebrities who got their few seconds of me time and the companies. The biggest loser here is folks like us. I seriously could have just donated the money to charity at least I would have felt good about that.", "Floyd won a boxing match. The key is hit the other guy and don't be hit yourself. It's a sport not a fight to the death.\n\nAll the people criticising him and all those booing when it was over aren't boxing fans. If you just want to see two guys slug it out just wait outside a night club on a Friday evening, 2 drunk idiots are bound to give you what you want to see.\n\nWanting Pacquiao to win and supporting him is fine, but show some respect to Mayweather. He won fair and square.", "This fight was so boring. the only time I've ever truly enjoyed watching boxing was with Mike Tyson in the ring. He had no gears. It was either 100 mph or a knockout in the first 3 rounds. ", "It's my own fault really, I should have stayed off reddit.\n\nnewsflash, not everyone can watch stuff live...", "Because about 30 years ago, they secretly changed boxing to Tag. \n\nFloyd \"Tag, You're It!\" Mayweather is the undisputed Tag champion.", "How he won, by scoring points within the rules of boxing, period. You get points for landing hits on the face and body cleanly. And he landed more, he always does, and if you analyse the tapes you can see he landed about 75% more punches. In other words, he completely dominated this fight. And the judges saw that and awarded him between 8 and 10 of the 12 rounds.\n\nNow punches landed, that goes into scoring. But it's difficult to see when a punch takes a fraction of a second. So subjective things like pace, aggression, poise etc all play a non-official role in scoring. Here we see Mayweather dictate the pace of the fight and showing ring leadership. We perceive aggression from Pacquiao because he comes forward more, the key way in which aggression is measured. But aggression can also be measured in punches thrown, although it's less striking as you can punch while backing up (like Mayweather does), and here we surprisingly see that it's Mayweather who threw more punches by a very tiny margin. While Pacquiao was clearly more aggressive, he threw nowhere near the normal rate he usually does, which gets him the win.\n\nSo why not? What prevented Pac from throwing volume? Mayweather is a master of defence, and has the physical advantage of length and more reach. This allows him to hit at a distance where Pac can't hit him, requiring Pac to lunge in and punch from a relatively less stable position. Mayweather can anticipate and counter, or move away. When he did get pinned down on the ropes, he carefully timed his exit and pivoted around Pac towards the center of the ring, where he can dictate the range of the fight. If Pac came in with too many angles preventing Mayweather from escaping, he'd go in for the clinch and pivot. After they break up, he's center ring again. By doing this, Pac's offence was neutralised.\n\nThat's mostly it. There are details, but that's the gist of it. \n\nMost people don't like watching Mayweather fight, they want to see a slapfest while Mayweather plays chess. Mayweather barely does combinations because combinations put you at risk of getting hit. Instead, he takes potshots, controls distance, his stamina, his position in the ring etc. That's why May's KO percentage is relatively low and why many consider him to be a boring fighter. The people that watch him do so because 1) he is unbeaten and they want to see if he'll get defeated or worse, KTFO 2) some are starstruck by his earnings and think he must be interesting to watch 3) he's a very complete and tactical boxer. Number (3) is pretty rare among mainstream people who watch one or two boxing matches a year, but it's the reason he is considered the pound for pound best fighter active today.\n\nAt the end of the day this is boxing, a sport with certain rules, within which he thrives. He's not the most exciting or powerful fighter, not the one who brutally beats people up. He is unbeatable by today's fighters within the parameters of the sport of boxing, but loses out within the parameters of most spectators. ", "Why is everyone saying Mayweather ran all night? He threw as many punches, landed more, and out boxed Pacquiao. Pacquiao didn't show up for this fight, plain and simple, which sucks because I would have loved for him to pound the shit out of Mayweather.", "If two boxers faced off against each other both utilizing Mayweather's strategy would there even be a fight? ", "Even a tap to the stomach is counted as a \"punch\", Mayweather did a lot of his \"scoring\" punches on the Body. \nPacman looked more aggressive because, well he was more aggressive, but also he was aiming for more upper punches and harder punches too.\n\nMayweather fought NOT to lose, he back pedaled, jabbed whilst on a defensive stance, Pacman went forward almost 80% of the time. \n\nEntertainment wise, Pacman delivered... but judges look for the punches... Mayweather blocked a lot of Pac's punches too... whilst he connected with a lot of body shots... even if those were weak punches... they count. \n\nBasically, Mayweather's strategy was to win via jabs and decision all along... he had the reach advantage. Pacman was going for the knock out.. sadly he allowed Mayweather to put him in a range where Mayweather got a lot of jabs in.", "Calling it a fight is kind of misleading in the first place and can often confuse people, it happens in MMA as well. He won a boxing match.", "Reading all these top comments proves that boxing did not do their job of turning new people on to the sport. ", "Remember when the winner was the guy not flat on his back?", "He basically won because he threw more punches throughout each round. Last I heard he threw like 120 punches while pacman only threw like 110. ", "And people wonder why the sport of boxing is on life support. Yes, I know this event was a huge draw but it was obviously and rather predictably a disappointment to people looking to watch a fight. Instead they saw the sport's reigning champion do what he does best, that is dodge and win on points. It's an effective strategy to win the fight but it's little more than that. The sport needs a Tyson and Maywether and Manny are not, and have never been it. Great boxers they are, but last night was not a great boxing match, it was about fat paychecks and fighting not to lose.", "Boxing fan here backing up /u/ArthurRiot\n\nThe fight is scored by 3 different judges using a 10 Point Must system. Every round, each fighter starts with 10 points. Who ever the judge sees landing more punches wins that round, keeping his full 10 points. The other fighter gets deducted 1 point so he scores a 9 for that round.\n\n\nThe rounds are scored separately meaning the scoring or activity does not carry over from previous rounds and shouldn't affect future rounds.\n\n\nAs a Manny Pacquiao fan, it was obvious to me Mayweather won the fight. In 9 out of 12 rounds, Mayweather landed more shots. Floyd Mayweather is an elite boxer and has figured out low risk strategies that pull him through rounds.\n\nWhen scoring fights, you have to make sure you don't put your emotion into it. Just because Pacquiao was throwing more and being more aggressive does not mean he wins that round if Mayweather landed more. The crowd in the arena usually erupt when Pacquiao throws combinations even if they all miss. You need to ignore that and not let it affect your scoring.\n\nNow, speaking as a Pacquiao fan, I was disappointed with his punch output. He usually throws double the amount of punches per round in other fights. Here may be an explanation why he was throwing less. _URL_0_\n\n\nWas it boring? To a casual viewer, yes. Even as a boxing fan it didn't look very exciting. But the right \"fighter\" was awarded the victory.\n\n*On scoring a round, a fighter can also gets a point get deducted if they get knocked down or if they foul the other fighter and the referee decides to penalise them.*\n\n\nEDIT: Ahh shit wrong link haha. Thanks /u/ChildishFiasco\n\n", "He won because he landed more punches. More clean and effective punches. He made Manny miss a lot. Actually as well he stayed true to his style at times with counter punching which apparently according to post-fight Manny said felt a bit like Margarito's punches so it had a little bit of power, this of course made Manny hesistant to throw. Look at the CompuBox stats if you want to see the accuracy. It was a boxing match not a match of who can keep coming forward. Although, had Pacquiao taken the old Maidana route and thrown his hands more it wouldve been more competitive", "I feel like Floyd Mayweather is the Chelsea FC of boxing. Is that somewhat accurate?", "Landing clean punches is the most important criteria when judging boxing and frankly, Mayweather was streets ahead on that count. ", "This fight was easy to judge. Mayweather hands down won. Pacquiao had the exciting moments in the fight but Mayweather completely controlled it. This is Mayweathers script. It is boring but effective. ", "I thought the Mayweather win was obvious. He's the only one who landed a significant number of punches. I had Manny winning three rounds and one of those was just because I wanted him to and I was probably bias. Mayweather was a standoff boxer but he executed flawlessly while Pacman scraped and flailed for the points he got.", "I hate this whole \"running\" bullshit people are saying. What Floyd was doing was not running it was something extremely dangerous. He draws Manny into the corner than defends, counters, and moves away. Manny had the advantage every single time but Mayweather's defense and counters were almost perfect. It seems most people here don't actually know what boxing is. If they did they would've seen a master that perfected his craft with skill and calculation instead of a guy \"running\" which is pretty far from what really happened. Mayweather is pure boxing at its finest. That near perfect performance last night puts Floyd among legends. Its clear 95% of peeps commenting have no idea what they are talking about and have never seen a Mayweather fight. Its sad that people don't get it.", "I was actually surprised when all 3 judges scored in favor of Floyd. Thought at least 1 would call it in favor of Manny. God those last 2 rounds were brutal for a Manny fan to watch...", "Might not be exciting but there was no chance at all that Pacquiao could have won that fight.\n\nMayweather is boring as fuck but his technical play and defense are basically perfect it is frustrating to watch. ", "He out Boxed Manny. He made Manny miss while Mayweather connected at a higher percentage. They threw roughly the same amount of punches but Mayweather landed more. Thats pretty much why he won. I only gave Manny one round, i think it was the fifth or fourth. The 2 other rounds that Harold Lederman? (if i remember correctly) gave Pacquiao could be argued about but im pretty sure those were the rounds where Mayweather put his hands up and let Pacquiao throw punches at him. And while yes Pacquiao was obviously connecting he was not connecting on body parts where he could score points like the body or the head. Instead almost all those punches that he threw landed on Mayweathers arms and elbows. He also could have wom those rounds on aggressiveness but Mayweather still landed more in those rounds so i gave it to him. Even if those rounds were given to Pacquiao Mayweather still would have won the fight. He won a guaranteed 9 out of the 12 rounds. But could be argued that he won 11 out of the 12 like i had him at.\n\nThats really it, Pacquiao just got out boxed and couldnt land on Mayweather. Mayweather spent his time moving and landing at a higher percentage. Most casual Boxing fans call what Mayweather did as, \"running,\" but what its really called is Boxing, the art of hit without being hit back.", "This is why boxing fails. The way it is \"scored\" encourages pansy-asses like Floyd Mayweather not to take any risks at all, not to try to finish the fight in any way, but rather to play the entire fight \"safe\" and \"touch\" his opponent with punches that have no power, no significance beyond the fact that they \"touch\" the opponent. This is why MMA will always be superior to boxing. Boxing is out-dated and archaic, like fencing. No one gives a damn about it anymore, and last night's fight was a perfect illustration of why.", "Because Floyd came into the fight with the advantage of being taller, stronger, faster, greater reach, better technique, all of which lend him more power.", "I'll add that from the beginning to the end, Mayweather was using a ton of subtle psychology* to throw off his opponent. I'll give some examples:\n\n* For the first 6 rounds, the round would end with MW hugging Pac which was a neutralising tactic in showing that Pac's offense \"wasn't doing much\".He would also add in some \"good round\" talk too...which is also another psych out tactic.\n\n* Often, MW would lower his guard and push his neck out taunting Pac to try and hit him. It had two advantages, one, it would tire out Pac quicker(from him trying to punch MW) hopefully leading to a KO and two, there was a counter waiting for Pac if he tried.\n\n* MW often put himself in a corner so that when Pac came in to punish the supposed \"cornered\" foe, he would easily escape. This helped neuter Pac's thoughts on being offensive.\n\n* Clenches are a big part of MW's game as it stops whatever pace or form his opponent can make. Whenever Pac was about to lay some punches in, MW would instantly neutralise them with a clench.Important as the first 6 rounds were basically laying the foundation for the rest of the match so Pac's strategy might have changed because of how those rounds went.\n\n* Before the match ended, MW put up his hands signalling that he KNEW he won. Pac never done that till the bell rung, but even then Pac knew he didn't win but couldn't hide it. To make things worse, MW went up on the top rope to shout to both fans and haters that he was declaring his victory and even went to Pac's corner for another hug. Not sure if the judges noticed this but this all helped create the atmosphere that MW had won which was important.\n\n* One time, Pac got MW into the ropes and gave him a flurry of punches. It DEFINETELY did damage to MW but when Pac had to back off, MW shoulder shrugged as if to say \"didn't do anything\" even though it clearly did because MW stopped doing the \"come to me, I'm at the ropes\" tactic.\n\nThat, combined with MW's excellent agility and stamina ensured that Pac never got the decisive hit he needed. \n\n*(Subtle psychology may not be subtle)", "I just dont understand how everyone is so mad if you know Mayweather, that's exactly how he fights and how he wanted the fight to go, its no surprise.", "Mayweather's what's known as a technical boxer, meaning that, in a way, he exploits boxing's rule set rather than physically dominating his opponent. When you're only concerned with the numbers on the scorecards, there's no need to burn yourself out after four rounds. He outlasts and chips away at them, luring them into launching clumsy volleys of blows that lower their hit percentages. All the while he patiently dances about, throwing fewer punches but connecting more often.\n\nThis intrinsically defensive approach has also granted him a much longer career than many of his contemporaries. ", "Because Mayweather landed about 60 more punches than Pacquiao did, with a roughly equal number of punches thrown. He was far more efficient and accurate, and his timing was far superior as well. ", "They both loss that fight in my opinion.. They should go 15 rds in title fights .. Or more they didn't even break a sweat .. ", "Step 1: Delay the match by six years so you won't have to face your opponent in his prime, like the coward you are, Floyd, and you damn well know it.", "I think it's interesting how many people were surprised by this being a snoozefest. Mayweather is constantly billed as one of the greatest defensive fighters of all time, and add to that the fact that both men are in their upper to late 30s. I don't know what people were expecting. From a technical standpoint, that was a beautiful fight by Mayweather.", "how can this even be a question, it was clear Mayweather landed more blows. He played fantastic defence and shut down Pacman. Not the way I wanted it to go but he pretty much put on a clinic on how to play defence.", "Seemed like this fight was judged more on Olympic rules where the number of punches landed outweighs the total quality of the fight ", "Because technically mayweather won, and that is all that matters. The rules are not tailored to produce the most exciting fight, they are based on who landed more punches.", "To those complaining about the 'boring' fight. Real Boxing is nothing like you see in movies like Rocky.", "Summary of this entire thread :\n\nMayweather won because he knew how to game the points, not because he was a showman or a passionate fighter, so, it's not their fault the match was shitty, the match was shitty because box is shitty. \n\nDon't pay $$$ for this shit anymore! ", "Problem was, Pacman wasn't aggressive enough. Although he tried to corner Mayweather, Mayweather would run away escaping the myriad of punches. This was basically the whole fight.\n\nBut in comparison regarding the strategy, to be the only one that's the aggressor for 12 rounds (Pacquiao)..that's more tough and you expend more energy than being a defensive fighter/counter for 12 rounds. Therefore if you continue to choose the path of extreme offense, you'll also be vulnerable to an elite defensive fighter (Mayweather).\n\nWhat this fight was missing as in all Mayweather fights is the purpose of 2 fighters \"boxing\" vs chasing. It's always at Mayweathers pace. Fans want to see boxers going at it heads up, Mayweather doesn't engage in a fight like that. Therefore Mayweather doesn’t care about boxing lol he doesn't care about pleasing or catering to the fans of boxing, he's all about his legacy and money.\n\nMayweather is a business fighter and pacman is a show fighter ", "I'm by no means a Mayweather fan but he fought the fight everyone knew he was going to fight. He slowed the pace down and used footwork to avoid Manny's punches in bunches. A lot of people are mad at him for running and yes his fights can be boring but he's a defensive genius, he uses the shoulder roll to counter perfectly, and even when he did take shots he covered up and rolled to his right...something he ALWAYS does. Be disappointed in Manny because he knew Floyd was going to do all these things and he did nothing to combat them. Floyd fought the same fight he always fights so if you thought he was going to stand in the pocket and trade shots with a fighter like Pac I can see where your frustration would be.", "I fully agree mayweather won but all this taught me is how shitty of a sport boxing is. $100 for that \"Fight of a lifetime\" pssshhh", "He won by avoiding an actual fight. Anytime Pac got good hits in May would just clinch him to end it. ", "He threw more punches. He landed more punches. He landed more power punches. He did this in 9 of 12 rounds. He completely dominated because he hit manny and barely let manny hit him.\n\nThe casual boxing fan has no business watching any weight class other than heavyweight, casual fans wanna see knockouts. mayweather is an elite boxer but 150lb guys don't beat each other to death. they avoid being hit if they're smart and they land precision punches. ", "This thread, TLDR:\n\nCasual: Wow, that was a superfight? Boxing is super boring.\n\nBoxing fan: MAYWEATHER OUTBOXED PACQUIAO!!\n\nCasual: Yes. Boxing is boring.\n\nBoxing fan: But Mayweather OUTBOXED him!!! \n\nCasual: It looked like a lot of running away and hugging.\n\nBoxing fan: IT'S REALLY __HARD__ TO RUN AWAY AND HUG LIKE THAT!\n\nDana White: lol", "Mayweather and Pacquio threw almost the same amount of punches... (Pac 6 more) Mayweather landed 148 of them and Pacquio 81... Pac could barely touch floyd. Floyd dodged and countered all night. it wasn't close. Pacquio got destroyed. ", "Pacquiao landed around 10 good head shots & everything else was blocked. Are you kidding me?", "This is why Boxing is and has been a dying sport. Big fights are questioned by the public but then nothing is done, because everyone just forgets about it within a week. ", "Defensive boxing. You win points by counter punching and controlling he fight. Manny never landed any real shots while Floyd controlled him with jabs and counters. Though Manny was the aggressor, Floyd won by fighting his usual style.", "easy he outpointed him, mayweather's style is defensive outboxing he keeps his distance, chips away at his opponent and scores points from landed punches while avoiding his opponent's punches.\n\n_URL_0_ ", "Easily. \nTo hit out, avoid being hit back. \nProtect oneself, while dictating the fight. \n\n20years unbeaten, never taken damage, record earnings that's the ultimate boxing display. \n\nStyles make or break matches, there are fighters and there are boxers ", "Mayweather kept landing those jabs and counters, that theatrically don't look at appealing to fans, compared to Pacquiao's combinations, which rarely landed. \n\nI'm pretty sure just like the bar I was in for the fight, the place erupted anytime Pacman busted out a combination but you could clearly see he wasn't landing them that much..\n\nMayweather was surgical like always and boring like he always is. ", "Because he landed more punches.\n\n\n| | Mayweather | Pacquiao |\n|:-----------|:------------:|:------------:|\n| Punches thrown | 435| 429 \n| Punches landed | 148| 81 \n| Jabs thrown | 267| 193\n| Jabs landed |67|18 \n\nSource: _URL_0_", "Pretty much like playing whack a mole it only counts if you land a hit and the more hits you land the more points you get.", "Pacquiao is most damaging when he gets in close and lands a flurry of punches, and Mayweather negated that strategy by keeping his distance (which he had the reach advantage to do) and landing mostly long bombs *and* by counterpunching effectively when Pacquiao did throw punches.\n\nIt was a classic case in boxing of one overall strategy winning out over the other.\n\nMy biggest disappointment in the fight, however, was not seeing Pacquiao's mom trying to put a hex on Mayweather, like she did against her son's last opponent.", "On points. Pacman made more attempts at punches, mayweather made more connections. He wasnt running and bobbing for no reason lol", "At it's simplest, boxing is about hitting the other guy without being hit. Pac looks good when he throws in bunches but if you pay close attention or watch it frame by frame most of his shots land on the arms or shoulders of Mayweather... they don't count. Meanwhile Mayweather is lighting him up with straight right hands without setup or left hooks when Pac starts considering coming in.\n\nMayweather actually lands the same amount of power punches that Pac lands TOTAL. Then factor in all the jabs.\n\nThere's also another thing that judges base decisions on which is basically who controls the fight more. This can be broken down into a few parts, who sets the pace / dictates the fight / pushes forward.\n\nSo each of these is judged based on a per round basis. Mayweather consistently dictates the fight by establishing the jab which keeps Pac at range. Then about half the time Pac comes in he gets caught with one of those two shots and Mayweather pivots away back to the center of the ring. Most of the time Pac doesn't get caught he still cant generate anything before he gets tied up in a clench or Mayweather ducks under and pivots out. (I'll also note here that in the first third or half of the fight Pac was clenching more than Mayweather)\n\nTo illustrate how smothering the counterpunching and defense is, Pac averages landing 35% of his punches. This fight he landed 19%. Typically fighters against Pac land about 25% of punches. Manny usually throws something like 650 punches. \n\nMayweathers averages? His landing average is 43% and he only takes about 19% of his opponents punches.\n\nIn this fight, Pac landed only 19% of his punches and was lit up by 38% of Mayweathers. And he only threw 430. Why the significant difference? He throws a lot less because of how often he got caught on the way in. Getting punched in the face sucks. Getting punched in the face while your moving INTO the punch sucks a lot more. It makes you kind of hesitant to keep doing so. And when he picks his spots to move forward and doesn't get caught he can't land through Mayweathers defense.\n\nSo looking at the match, looking at all the numbers Mayweather controlled the fight by boxing. He made the next best fighter in the entire world look like just any other \"average\" fighter. A lot of people deride Mayweather as not having ever fought anybody good. What if he just makes good people look.... average? \n\nLast note, Pac didn't even do best against Mayweather. Maidana did a lot better." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/TUUgUPj.png", "http://i.imgur.com/BXNv0Ax.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34oxaj/eli5_how_did_mayweather_win_that_fight/cqwrzb5" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/boxing/manny-pacquiao-fought-with-injured-right-shoulder--denied-shot-in-locker-room-060910259.html" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.gmanetwork.com/news/story/480790/sports/boxing/look-stats-show-mayweather-threw-and-landed-more-punches-than-pacquiao" ], [], [], [ "http://www.bbc.co.uk/sport/0/boxing/32574434" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci2ui42" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You're overthinking the way it actually works.\n\nWhat happens is they use a source that generates literally billions and billions of protons, these are all then accelerated around the machine and then finally allowed to crash into each other. Most of them don't even hit each other and are just absorbed. If the scientists are really, really lucky some of the protons WILL hit each other, if they're luckier still then when they hit each other they'll decay into simpler particles, and if it's the scientists' best day ever they'll decay into the exact simpler particles they've been looking for." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjtzqr7" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Frankly I only know of the common topknot (\"Chonmage\") which was mostly done as a way to ensure that the kabuto helmet would fit snugly on one's head. The idea was that the topknot would be able to fit through a small hole in the helmet. Over time, while this tradition was forgotten, as the bushi and local daimyo began to take power, they continued using topknots as it was a sign of their military prowess." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cltri7t" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "There are a lot of fixed costs in packaging drinks and the price of a bigger or smaller can may not make much difference. Most of an items price has nothing to do with the size.\n\nI designed labels for a big box store once and learned that the difference in cost to make a 16oz can of soda and a 32oz can is often less than 1 cent per can.\n\nNaturally, even if it is priced less than the smaller cans, there's still room for profit. \n\nHere's an example of all of the math involved. Hope this helps!\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.pdco.com/node/88289" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyq6hkd", "dyqeagb", "dyqf8yu", "dyqlx1u", "dyqn2u6", "dyqq2ub", "dyqqcri", "dyqsa17", "dyqtbnq", "dyqtpym", "dyqu16s", "dyqukcl", "dyqve3l", "dyqvpek", "dyqy4ce", "dyr41cs", "dyrbwyb" ], "score": [ 166, 127, 83, 3910, 19, 3, 2, 2, 60, 3, 2, 4, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Light is radiation. Radiation is like a really tiny bullet that can shoot through important stuff in your cells (like your DNA). Damaged DNA can cause cancer. When your body detects that the DNA in a cell has been damaged, the cell kills itself for the greater good of the body. No cell, no potential cancer. \n\nNow think of a tinted window in a car. Not as much light gets through it, right? Like a tinted window, your body releases a “tint” called melanin which is what makes you darker when you’ve been in the sun. Your body does this to avoid as many radiation “bullets” passing into skin cells and making them commit suicide. \n\nIf you expose yourself to 4 hours in a row, you don’t give your body time to release the melanin to protect your cells so they die and cause sunburn.\n\nIf you give your body enough time, it can tint your skin to protect you and you don’t burn (or not as severely).\n\nEdit: \nI could go into detail about basal reversal repairs and the issue with double helix breaks, but would it be an ELI5? I’m not going to explain enzyme metabolic rates n shit to a 5 year old. The melanin vector is easiest (and is one of the primary factors).", "Something I think folks are missing is how much the sun's power depends depends on time of day- if that four hour window includes noon-2PM, you are getting way more light intensity than 15 minutes at 8 AM or 10 AM.", "Imagine having to drink 5 gallons of water in one hour. Now imagine have to drink 5 gallons of water over the course of a week. Same amount of water, different amount of time. You're giving your body more time to process the 5 gallons of water.", "The explanations so far are not correct. 4 continuous hours of sunlight will give your damaged cells less time to repair DNA and less time to apoptose (safely die without causing inflammation).\n\n4 hours spread out over increments gives your cells time to repair DNA and, if need be, apoptose irreparable cells in-between exposures.\n\nIf you do not have this break time in-between exposures, cells will become damaged so badly that they cannot die in a safe, organized manner (apoptosis). Instead, they die quicker and release their proteins into the space between cells. Nearby cells sense this, freak out and release chemicals that cause inflammation and pain.\n\nAdditionally, immune cells in skin undergoing DNA damage from UV may directly contribute to inflammation.\n\nFun fact: When you feel heat, when you are out in the sun, it’s from infrared light. A lot of people have the misconception that they aren’t feeling the heat from the sun, so they aren’t getting burned. The “heat” (really just pain) from a sunburn will come on much later, and is produced by inflammation and hypersensitive nerve endings.\n\nEdit: I should add. Even if your 4 hours is broken up into increments, if you’re fair-skinned, you’ll probably still get burned.", "Vary basicly spoken. \nIts the same as if you wave your hand trough a candle light flame for 1 secund 60 times, or keep your hand in the flame for a full minute in 1 go. \n The warmt/heat/radiation will be spread over longer time or not.", "Put your hand in 130 degree water for 10 seconds, take a 10 minute break, and redo 10 times. Now put your hand in 130 degree water for 100 seconds and see which hurts more and damages more. \n\nIt’s the same concept. Your body has time to reset and recover if there are breaks in between. ", "UV when it come into contact with cells messes with alignment of DNA. This DNA has 4 possible things it could be ACGT (adenosine, cytosine, guanine, thymine) these 4 nucleotides in a order make up our genetic make up and have a complimentary antiparallel strand holding them for stability. when UV touches a part of DNA with 2 Ts together they break their bond with the antiparallel partner and bond with the other T. This is a thymine diaper this causes DNA damage. The body has the ability to fix this but over time these diapers build up and eventually cells have to go kaplooey. When you do tests between UV and nonUV your body has time to fix these diapers and not constantly bombarded (think like those cartoons with leaks and how everytime Tom plugged a hole another leak would be sprung, that's what happens to DNA except each leak is another TT diamer.", "Exactly the same thing as running for exemple, It’s not hard to run 15 minutes, rest? and do it 16 times.\nOn the other hand, it’s extremely hard to run 4 hours.\n\nThe simple answer is that, in the second case, your body gets to recover.\nThe more detailed answer is already in the comments. ", "This seems like a good time to remind everyone that May is Skin Cancer Awareness month, and folks in the states can get a free skin cancer check courtesy of the American Academy of Dermatology. Find your nearest screening here: _URL_0_\n\n", "ELI5: You regenerate. You don't regenerate fast enough to maintain 4 continuous hours of sun. ", "60 seconds underwater results in death but 60 seconds broken up into 10-second chunks does not. \n\nSunburn is a result of cell death, let them recover and you can bombard your cells with UV again. ", "Touch a hot stove for 1 second and pull you hand away before it burns it. You can repeat that a dozen times as long as there's a break inbetween.\n\nMeanwhile, touch a hot stove and hold you hand on it for 10 seconds, you're going to burn your hand.", "Holding your hand to a stove for 5 seconds burns you, poking the stove once every 10 seconds does not", "4 hours? I was thinking more along the lines of 4 minutes. ", "4 hours? You haven't experienced sun until you can't go out for more than 7 minutes without protection or staying in the shade.", "Nurse here with related topic: I just completed a Skin Check clinic with an MD. We saw 55 people in 6 hours. Our job was to do a quick skin check, and refer them to their primary MD or a dermatologist if we found something suspicious.\n\n11 people had something that needed to be addressed, but wasn't urgent. \n\n5 people had something that was very likely skin cancer. In two of those people, the condition had progressed due to lack of diagnosis and care. One of those was almost certainly melanoma, but a biopsy would be needed for any diagnosis to be sure. They were all urged to get to an MD asap.\n\n1 case of undiagnosed psoriasis, lots of eczema, and acne, and a whole host of other skin conditions.\n\nThis is what I have learned as a nurse and as someone with a history of squamous cell skin cancer: get yourself checked out. Yearly. The things that you are worried about? Probably nothing. The things that you aren't worried about? Might very well be something.\n\nMake sure your MD is doing a thorough check... you have to get nude, and you have to part cheeks. If your MD wants to rush through the body check, get another MD. Better yet, go to a dermatologist. Dermatologists are best, because skin conditions are so nebulous, even a primary MD might not know what they're looking at. \n\nRemember: most of the really scary skin stuff is caused by sun exposure, so be aware of that! Everyone thinks of the beach, but consider gardening/yard work, outdoor exercise, walking to and from your car, even driving (your left arm is almost always exposed to the sun because it's against the window). Beaches and snow reflect the sun. Don't play outside between 10 and 4. \n\nSo: sun screen, sun screen, sun screen. Reapply every 2 hours, even if you don't get wet. Hats. Long sleeved shirts. No sunburns allowed! Wanna look good as you age? Avoid the sun and don't smoke.\n\nFinally: go online and learn the ABC's of skin cancer. It could save your life, or the life of someone you know and love.\n\nedit: words, and then some more words.", "A few second of water down your throat is drinking. A few minutes of water down your throat is drowning. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.aad.org/public/spot-skin-cancer/programs/screenings/find-a-screening" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dsj5sa9" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "They're batteries that use solid electrodes or electrolytes instead of liquid.\n\nThey have potentially higher energy density, and are safer since they're not flammable. They also have longer lifespans and don't produce as much heat.\n\nI think the problem at the moment is that they're not ready to be mass produced and so they're expensive." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg9qcyw" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "Not discouraging any new answers coming in, but you better believe that /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov wrote about [this topic already](_URL_0_). Hope it helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4sgees/in_western_europe_or_the_americas_did_women_ever/d593h46/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgv84l4" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Conservation of angular momentum. The wheels of the bike are spinning on a particular plane, and they naturally \"want\" to continue spinning on that plane, so they resist any change in that motion. In this case they resist the bike tipping over due to gravity. The faster they are spinning (meaning the more momentum they have) the more they will resist a change in that momentum. Once they slow down and lose momentum the bike will tip over." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgill1s" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There's nothing illegal for different taxation at different levels of government for different purposed. Different taxes are for different governing bodies, some are more regressive, some more progressive, some go to specific uses while others go to general revenue streams. The amount needed to be collected is the same, so whether it was a 50% state income tax that also got distributed to cities and the Federal gov't or paying 3 different levels of taxes don't change the totals... in fact they might be higher, because different levels have different types of credits, etc. Like you might lose mortgage interest deduction if you didn't pay the Feds directly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clfsc9t", "clfsjjm", "clfspz8" ], "score": [ 2, 14, 5 ], "text": [ "Think about it this way; you get your newspaper every morning, you sit down, and you read the headline story. Let's say it's a story about a car crash; you get an idea of what happened, who was involved, etc.\n\nNow imagine that instead of just reading *one* report, you could read several different reports with different opinions, all without going out and buying a whole stack of papers. *That's* what the Internet is.", "Basically just go over the history of computers so that each step is easy enough to imagine from the last:\n\nYou know adding machines? Well we've made them better. Much better. Instead of being mechanically constructed to do sums or other things with numbers we enter with some buttons we've extended them to be able to do all that calculating from instructions written on 'punch cards'. The punch cards specify what numbers to work on and how. This way we can, without needing a human to press all the buttons or work it all out, get this computer to perform complex calculations. It can count up all the numbers fed into it by the punch cards or get the ratio of how many of the values are above or below 5 or something, etc. Basically we replaced the buttons on the adding machine for pre-made punch cards that let you do the same thing without needing a human to push all the buttons. By putting census data or something on the punch cards we can feed it data and cards quickly without a human punching it all in manually.\n\nNext we started advancing it further - instead of punch cards we made electricity the 'card'. Just like in a radio a current is used to make the speakers vibrate differently - and thus make noise - we can use a current to signify data or instructions to the computer. Varying voltage is used rather than holes in cards. This lets us feed things into the computer much faster.\n\nAdditionally we found ways to store the data without the cards. It's possible to make extremely small 'marks' on special-made disks. It's almost like grammophone records. We mark these disks and can read them back with a very small head.\n\nThis lets us store data and instruction sets on these disks which are far smaller than punch-cards and can be fed in more quickly.\n\nWe then took these so-called 'drives' and integrated them into the computer directly so we didn't have to load every instruction set or data set in disk by disk. Now you could save commonly-used instruction sets to the computer and the computer had a mechanism added so you could just ask it to load these programs from the drive. This meant we no longer needed to load the new instruction set every time we wanted to do different things; an operator could switch what it was doing quickly.\n\nNext we made typewriter like 'keyboards' for the computers that let us start interacting with the computer. Special instruction sets were made to react to things we typed into it. If I typed in 'echo 5 + 5' the special instruction set would get the computer to add 5 and 5, then put the result on the monitor. (The monitor being like a TV that the computer can control to produce images for us.)\n\nIn time these computers were connected to the phone networks. Now computers could place calls to one another and exchange data using the phone network. This let us share things between computers. People started making centralized centres of knowledge for all sorts of things and we could ask our computer to call them to see this data on our own computer. \n\nEventually the phone-line system was replaced with a dedicated cable network just for computer to talk to one another.", "It's like a telephone that can call anyone, anywhere, and you can see through it like a television. You can choose what you want to see, like visiting a library, but you never have to leave your house. There are classifieds like in a newspaper, business listings like the yellow pages, movies like in a theater, and a seemingly endless library of magazines, journals, and bulletin boards. You can use it to buy things like you would from a catalog, and you can even see what other people who bought that item think about it. And you can write to other people looking at the internet, like a letter, but it's delivered almost in an instant. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqbtgxs" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "**Commenters:** Please keep our commenting rules in mind as you respond to this. We've already had to remove a lot of comments that weren't up to the standards of the subreddit.\n\n**OP:** We actually have this question asked from time to time, or questions like it. You might be interested in these previous posts:\n\n* [So, what do we actually know about the life, existence, etcetera of the man called Jesus Christ?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [What do we really know about Jesus Christ?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [How is it that we can have so much concrete information on Ancient philosophers like Parmenides and Plato, yet so little on Jesus?](_URL_6_)\n\n* [What are your views on the mentioning of Jesus in Josephus' histories? Added later by people copying it down or authentic?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [I'd like a real historians critique of American Biblical scholar Joseph Atwill's \"new discovery\": ancient confessions recently uncovered now prove that the New Testament was written by first-century Roman aristocrats and that they fabricated the entire story of Jesus Christ.](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What do we actually know about Jesus?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [How much evidence is there for a historical jesus christ besides the bible?](_URL_1_)\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rubhc/so_what_do_we_actually_know_about_the_life/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/259vcd/how_much_evidence_is_there_for_a_historical_jesus/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sbq67/we_are_scholarsexperts_on_ancient_judaism/cdwb6nl", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1la62e/what_are_your_views_on_the_mentioning_of_jesus_in/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o1ca2/id_like_a_real_historians_critique_of_american/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/twdyv/what_do_we_really_know_about_jesus_christ/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15mtgq/how_is_it_that_we_can_have_so_much_concrete/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clf7ctb", "clfhjkt" ], "score": [ 25, 3 ], "text": [ "It's hard, because planets are big. \n\nThink about what an atmosphere is. It's an razor thin envelope of gas that wraps around the surface of a rocky planet. There's no way to *fake* that. You don't want an *artificial* atmosphere, so much as you are actually asking for a real *bona fide* atmosphere.\n\nTo give the moon an atmosphere, you would literally need to come up with all of those gas molecules, the whole billion megatons of them. For perspective, [the mass of the earth's atmosphere is about 5x10^18 kg.](_URL_0_) I don't even know the SI prefix for that amount of mass- is that an exagram? Like a million billion kilograms? Good luck. \n\nFor the moon, there's just no way to come up with that amount of matter. But there's a bigger problem: the low gravity and the lack of a magnetic field. The moon's magnetic field is basically nonexistant compared to the earth, and it's smaller mass makes it less able to hold onto any gas at it's surface. This means it has no way to hold onto what it has or really shield itself from the solar wind, which is the wall of charged particles and radiation the sun is throwing out in every direction. This will strip the planet of any atmosphere in no time. \n[Edit: Astromike saves the day again, please see his comment below for a more accurate account of this.](_URL_1_)\n\nMars, similarly, has this problem. Mars is no longer tectonically active, and it's magnetic field has largely died. If Mars once had water, there isn't much of it left in the atmosphere. The water molecules, without the shielding of an ozone layer and magnetic field, would get broken up by the high energy rays from the sun into separate hydrogen and oxygen, and that hydrogen would float up to the top of the atmosphere (because less dense things like to be on top of more dense things, like oil on water), and would get stripped by the sun. Any Martian water that survived this dessication is either locked up in the polar ice caps, or underground.\n\nSo in an *xkcd-eqsue* what-if scenario, what if we wanted to make Mars habitable? Well there's a large science fiction literature about that, called terraforming. Terraforming involves processing the natural atmosphere of a planet or moon into one that is more earth like. In the case of Mars, you would want to add green house gasses to warm the planet. \n\nPossible mechanisms include: \n\n1. Bringing in large amounts of ammonia from comets to serve as green house gases to melt the polar ice caps. But how do you get them there? It's hard enough getting people to the ISS, let alone doing astronomical construction projects. \n\n2. Set up solar panels that will use the energy they generate to break the Martian CO2 atmosphere into carbon and oxygen. But CO2 is really stable and carbon needs something to bond with, so where are you going to come up with that material to serve as your carbon sink? And if this was so easy, why not do it on earth and solve global warming?\n\n3. Put a satellite with a mirror in orbit to focus light onto the polar ice caps, melting them. But you'll need a really fucking big mirror to even make a dent. Annual difference due to solar weather will make more of a difference than your mirror. \n\nRemember, the sum of humanity has been pumping carbon dioxide into the earth's atmosphere for the better part of 200 years, and the effects have been slow to appear, so slow that's it's still hard to convince Americans it matters. So now how do you get a small team of scientists to do it on a planet we haven't even set foot on yet?", "The [Biosphere project](_URL_0_) aimed to do just that, to test whether you could create a self sustaining atmosphere and ecosystem inside an airtight greenhouse. They weren't completely successful, but a lot of useful lessons were learnt from the project.\n\nYou can't add an atmosphere directly to the moon because it doesn't have enough gravity to hold on to it, but you could create an artificial atmosphere in large airtight structures like Biosphere." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atmosphere_of_Earth", "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2juf49/can_we_create_artificial_atmospheres/clf8wxu" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosphere_2" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dndfujv", "dndfuzk", "dndhj33", "dndhs34", "dndi4mc", "dndm9am" ], "score": [ 3, 8, 4, 2, 7, 7 ], "text": [ "Extra fuel is extra weight. Extra weight requires more fuel to lift it and slow it down. More economical to use the atmosphere as a brake", "\"at the expense of additional fuel\"\n\nThat's a really big expense, both in cost and weight. Its just literally not economically viable right now to do it that way. Though things like space x are starting to work on it.\n\nRight now it makes most economic sense to just let it burn and crash and rebuild it, because thats how much more expensive that extra fuel is.", "The reverse thrusters would increase the total fuel required for the trip by over 2x! You need the fuel to slow down from 8 km/s which is going to be almost your full starting fuel load, *AND* the fuel required to lift all that fuel into orbit and speed it up to 8 km/s\n\nAny additional weight results in a significant increase in fuel requirements which requires a bigger rocket. It took a Saturn V rocket to get the Apollo mission to the moon, to use retrorockets to slow the command module for reentry would likely have doubled the payload mass requiring an even bigger rocket, bigger than any rocket ever made by anyone ever! Its just not feasible, a heat shield works pretty damn good and is pretty reliable and light", "A spacecraft like The Shuttle or The Soyuz cannot physically carry enough fuel to slow it down enough to where it will not require a heat shield when it enters the atmosphere. Think about how freakin big the rocket was just to get it up there in the first place. Now when in orbit, your speed is directly related to how high the craft flies over the planet. Add additional speed and your craft will fly higher and vice versa. If you slow your craft down too much, it will enter the atmosphere at a very steep angle, this is bad. Heat shields can only handle so much and diving through the thicker layers of the atmosphere at sub-orbital velocity is a great way to burst into flames. The easiest and cheapest way to land a spacecraft is to slow it down just enough to dip into the higher layers of the atmosphere. Then using these thin, upper layers to slow the craft down. That way the heat shield can take the heat and you don't have to spend so much fuel slowing down.", "Everyone else here has given great explanations. If you want to see how fuel, weight, and all of that interact, go download a copy of Kerbal Space Program. You'll get to see what all it takes to get things into orbit and back down.", "People are saying that it would take much more fuel, but I want to try to quantify that a little bit. This isn't exactly ELI5 but I feel that it's illustrative. You can skip the maths and just read the conclusion, if you want.\n\nThe relevant equation for changing the speed of a rocket is the imaginatively named [rocket equation](_URL_0_), which looks like this\n\nΔv = v_exhaust * ln((m_fuel + m_rocket)/m_rocket)\n\nwhere Δv (pronounced delta-v) is how much your rocket can change its velocity, v_exhaust is the exhaust velocity of your rocket engine, m_fuel is the mass of all the fuel you're starting with, and m_rocket is the weight of your rocket with no fuel in.\n\nRearranging a bit gives us \n\nm_fuel = m_rocket * (e^(Δv/v_exhaust) - 1)\n\nWe can plug some values in from a real rocket now to get a sense of how much more fuel we'd have to carry to completely slow down before entering the atmosphere.\n\nThe Space Shuttle weighs about 69 tons empty, and its engines have an exhaust velocity of about 4.4 kilometres per second. If it were coming back from, say, the International Space Station, and we wanted to completely slow down then it would need about 7.7 kilometres per second of delta-v. Plugging these values for v_exhaust, m_rocket and Δv into our equation gives us \n\nm_fuel = 69 tons * (e^(7.7/4.4) - 1)\n\nYou work that out, and you'll find it's almost 330 tons of fuel. That's almost *5 times* the weight of the Space Shuttle itself. You can clearly see that this is a wildly unrealistic amount of fuel. Conversely, slowing down just enough to be able to use the atmosphere for aerobraking takes only on the order of 100 m/s of Δv, which is easily achievable." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsiolkovsky_rocket_equation" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "di3f5v1" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "When it started to be a planet.\n\nTo be a planet, it needs to fit three criteria:\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun with a diameter greater than 2000 km.\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun whose shape is stable due to its own gravity.\n\nA planet is an object in orbit around the Sun that is dominant in its immediate neighbourhood.\n\nSo, basically, it needed to coalesce into a stable shape and clear out the immediate neighbourhood.\n\nThere's no hard-and-fast answer of when it \"became\" a planet. There's no point where you can say \"Before this instant, it was not a planet, but now it is.\"\n\nJust like how if you have a pile of seeds, and then take one seed away at a time, you can't say there's a specific time when taking away a single seed made it from a pile into something that isn't a pile anymore. Obviously if you have only one seed, it isn't a pile. Is two seeds a pile of seeds? Probably not." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1whgp8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "heat loss is fairly uniform throughout the body." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9c6qi7" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Perhaps. Experiments have been done where new visual pigment proteins have been introduced into red-green colorblind monkeys, and afterwards the monkeys could distinguish colors that they were not able to previously. However, these experiments did not implant new cones into the monkey retinas. Instead new proteins were expressed in previously existing cones, and the circuitry already in place adapted to the new spectral properties of the photopigments.\n\nSee the [Neitz Lab website](_URL_0_) or their [published paper](_URL_1_) for more info." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.neitzvision.com/content/genetherapy.html#humans", "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2782927/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cquojaj", "cquqwml" ], "score": [ 310, 53 ], "text": [ "First of all let me say that Stalin didn't leave a diary so we can't exactly say what his emotions or personal thoughts were with confidence. That said, he was probably neither of those things. \n\nThe idea that he locked himself in a room for 3 days is certainly not true. We do have a record of his itinerary of the first day after the German invasion. Stalin spent the entire day meeting senior officials and generals, from before 6am to after midnight. He continued to have a fairly busy schedule that entire week. Nor could we say that he was really \"shocked\". Under a cover of military exercises, the Red Army began to mobilize before the Germans had invaded and certain units were ordered to move toward the border. A special directive was issued to the troops that an imminent attack was likely. All of these steps were significantly belated - mobilization should have began nearly a month prior. To say that Stalin was completely shocked would be misleading. Also to say that Stalin and Hitler were \"friends\" is a bit preposterous - the two have never met or even interacted directly. \n\nThat said you COULD make a case that Stalin fell into a state of despair or panic slightly later, about a week after the war began, when it became clear that things were developing catastrophically, the city of Minsk had fallen, and that war might be lost. He retreated to his dacha outside of Moscow, and didn't see people for a period of 3 days. Stalin is described as depressed. When several senior officials came to visit Stalin, upon seeing him he supposedly thought they came to arrest him. However this hypothesis, too, is tenuous. Stalin frequently worked in his dacha, so him being there isn't really evidence of him trying to hide. Almost all evidence comes down to memoirs of a single person, Anastas Mikoyan. Unlike several people who later wrote about Stalin's possible depression, such as Khrushchev, Mikoyan was the only one actually on the scene. It is certainly possible that Stalin was feeling down after receiving terrible news from the front. Anthony Beevor writes that Stalin even floated the idea to offer huge swaths of western USSR (including Ukraine and Belarus) to Hitler in exchange for peace but was then dissuaded of this. In short, it seems that Stalin was more affected by how poorly the war was going rather than the start of the war itself. Beyond that, there isn't a whole lot of evidence to go on, beyond a couple memoirs and speculations of Stalin's associates. \n\nLastly, there is the idea that Stalin himself was about to invade Germany and that Hitler just preempted him. This hypothesis was popularized by a former Soviet spy who wrote under a pseudonym Viktor Suvorov. However, almost no reputable Russian or western historian supports this idea. While it is definitely possible that Stalin planned to eventually attack Germany, it is extremely unlikely that would have happened that year. The Soviet military was undergoing wide-sweeping reforms and reorganization and was in no shape for a major war at the time. \n\nEDIT: My first gold ever - thank you kind sir/lady!", "Isn't it true that Stalin made several attempts to form alliances with the Western powers against the radically anti-communist Hitler and was rejected every time? And the pact with Hitler was really a temporary last ditch effort to protect the USSR?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]