q_id
stringlengths 5
6
| title
stringlengths 3
301
| selftext
stringlengths 0
39.2k
| document
stringclasses 1
value | subreddit
stringclasses 3
values | url
stringlengths 4
132
| answers
dict | title_urls
list | selftext_urls
list | answers_urls
list |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
4qwdyb
|
Why do we not hear about the 6,000,000 Jews who were about to die in Russia?
|
I found via an online newspaper database that there are literally dozens of reports of 6,000,000 Jews facing threat of extermination in Russia or starving in various east European countries. This was taking place from around 1905 to about 1930. What was happening during these times? Is there any relationship between the 6,000,000 in Russia and the 6,000,000 who died during the holocaust?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4qwdyb/why_do_we_not_hear_about_the_6000000_jews_who/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4wgcjn",
"d4wgkph"
],
"score": [
10,
94
],
"text": [
" > I found via an online newspaper database that there are literally dozens of reports of 6,000,000 Jews facing threat of extermination in Russia or starving in various east European countries. This was taking place from around 1905 to about 1930. What was happening during these times?\n\nLarge amounts of pogroms and anti-Semitism were forcing Jews out of these areas. More than 2 million fled West between 1880 and 1920, seeking better lives. Pogroms like the Kishinev pogrom of 1903 killed over 40 Jews in a matter of a few days at most, and left hundreds of homes looted or destroyed. The 1905 pogrom in Odessa killed hundreds of Jews, and destroyed thousands of homes.\n\nThese were not the only persecutions Jews faced that caused them to flee. Jews were limited in where they could live (think Pale of Settlement) and heavily concentrated in the areas they lived in.\n\n > Is there any relationship between the 6,000,000 in Russia and the 6,000,000 who died during the holocaust?\n\nNo. This belief is a common conspiracy theory that has no basis in fact. The estimate of 6 million Jews in Russia and 6 million killed in the Holocaust is not connected, and the estimate of 6 million made back then may even be an incorrect exaggeration from my understanding.",
"The website you linked and all the other websites out there who cite real and alleged news paper articles referring to this number are all Holocaust denial sites and they represent a classic tactic of Holocaust deniers. They go: \"Well here are some real newspapers and some I made up who mention six million Jews being in peril before WWII. Isn't that ~weird~? It can only mean that obviously the Holocaust is made up!!!1!!1\"\n\nThis tactic which works with the assumption that if doubt can be cast upon a certain detail through real or made up evidence, the whole Holocaust is somehow in doubt is what is deployed here. Two things about this though:\n\nFirst of all, the number of victims of the Holocaust is estimated as accurately as possible going through mounts and mounts of evidence, most of it produced by the Nazis themselves. How that works, I explain [here](_URL_0_) and here is a table for the number of victims:\n\nCountry| Est. Pre-War Jewish pop. | Est. Jewish population killed | Percent killed\n--------|--------|---------|---------\nPoland | 3,300,000 | 3,000,000 \t | 91\nBaltic countries | 253,000 | 228,000 | 90\nGermany Camp; Austria | 240,000 | 210,000 | 88\nBohemia Camp; Moravia | 90,000 | 80,000 | 89\nSlovakia | 90,000 | 75,000 | 83\nGreece | 70,000 | 54,000 | 77\nNetherlands | 140,000 | 105,000 | 75\nHungary | 650,000 | 450,000 | 70\nBelorussian SSR | 375,000 | 245,000 | 65\nUkrainian SSR | 1,500,000 | 900,000 | 60\nBelgium | 65,000 | 40,000 | 60\nYugoslavia | 43,000 | 26,000 | 60\nRomania | 600,000 | 300,000 | 50\nNorway | 1,800 | 900 | 50\nFrance | 350,000 | 90,000 | 26\nBulgaria | 64,000 | 14,000 | 22\nItaly | 40,000 | 8,000 | 20\nLuxembourg | 5,000 | 1,000 | 20\nRussian SFSR | 975,000 | 107,000 | 11\nDenmark | 8,000 | 120 | 2\nFinland | 2,000 | 22 | 1\nTotal | 8,861,800 | 5,933,922 | 67\n\nNow, when reviewing the above table, the answer to the question why these newspapers mention six million Jews especially in the timeframe of 1905-1920 should almost become apparent: Six million was the approximate number of Jews living under Tsarist Russian rule in the so-called pale of settlement and Congress Poland.\n\nWhat here is represented through interwar Poland, the Ukrainian SSR, the Belorussian SSR, the Baltic countries, Finland and the Russian SFSR is taken together roughly the number of Jews living in Tsarist Russia before 1917 and in the areas affected by the Russian Civil War until its end in 1921.Taken the numbers from this table, that adds up to 6,405,000, although in the case of Poland, some need to be subtracted since not all the areas that constituted interwar Poland were part of Tsarist Russia. According to sources like Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern and Nora Levin, the number of Jews in Tsarist Russia were somewhere around 5,7-5,9 million people. So when these newspapers refer to 6 million Jews in peril, they refer to all Jews in Tsarist Russia and later the areas affected by the Russian Civil War.\n\nNow, why they were in peril changes somewhat in this time frame. Between 1903 and 1906 Tsarist Russia saw a wave of bloody anti-Jewish pogroms sweep the land. It was the second wave of such pogroms after those in 1881-1884. The 1903 and 1906 pogroms were heavily related to the political struggle in Tsarist Russia at the time and the growing tide of nationalism of all varieties. Anti-Semitism ran high since it had become somewhat customary to associate Jews either with liberal ideologies or with foreign influence in Russia. Unsurprisingly, the forgery *The Protocols of the Elders of Zion* were produced in Russia right around that time, these pogroms erupted where people blamed Jews for political reform or lack thereof. Pogroms in Kishinev, Odeassa and about 660 other cities cost over 2000 Jews their lives and the international press saw pretty much the whole of Russian Jewry -- approx. 6 million -- in danger.\n\nA similar situation arose in the Russian Civil War. While Jews found themselves on both sides of the Civil War, the found themselves often on the receiving end of violence perpetrated by the White and other anti-Bolshevik faction during that time. The trope of the \"Jewish Bolshevik\" originated in the Tsarist empire and figures such as Leo Trotsky were used as \"evidence\" for its truth. White and other anti-Bolshevik factions often turned against the Jews they perceived as the fifth column for the Bolsheviks. Most of the pogroms during the Civil War took part in Ukraine and several authors estimate that more than 100.000 Jews fell victim to them (127.000 according to the NYT article you linked).\n\nSimilarly, after Revolution and during the Civil War, a famine affected a lot of areas in newly created Soviet Union and the areas adjacent to it. Droughts, problems with early Soviet Policy (War Communism and NEP) combined with the Civil War lead to this so-called Povolzhye famine, which killed somewhere around 6 million people in the years 1920-1921. It was so severe that an international relief effort was organized among others by the United States in form of the American Relief Administration under Herbert Hoover. This received a lot of press coverage and once again, international media outlets also reported on the situation of the Jewish population, which had been hit hard by this famine.\n\nSo, the TL;DR of this whole thing is that 6 million Jews, about half the world's Jewish population lived in Tsarist Russia in the early 20th century and especially in areas which were hit hard with pogroms and later the Russian Civil War and the famine that followed it (Poland and the so-called pale of settlement, the area where the Tsar had allowed Jews to settle). This is the origin of the six million number in these newspaper reports.\n\nLater when the Nazis marched into Poland the USSR, these Jews were of course hit particularly hard by Nazi genocidal policy. The Nazis didn't get them all, in part because Stalin evacuated/deported a lot of them in the beginning of the war to Kazakhstan and other Central Asian SSRs but in combination with the Jews killed from Western Europe, the number of murdered amounts to approximately the same number of Jews living under Tsarist rule in the early 20th century.\n\nSources:\n\n* Yohanan Petrovsky-Shtern: The Golden Age Shtetl: A New History of Jewish Life in East Europe. 2014.\n\n* Nora Levin: The Jews in the Soviet Union since 1917: Paradox of Survival. 1988.\n\n* Henry Abramson, A Prayer for the Government: Ukrainians and Jews in Revolutionary Times, 1917–1920. 1999.\n\n* Oleg Budnitskii: Russian Jews Between the Reds and the Whites, 1917-1920. 2012.\n\n* Moshe Lewin: The Soviet Century."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4gmxqm/why_the_count_six_million_still_persists_when_the/"
]
] |
|
fncf1z
|
How important was honour in Tokugawa Japan? Could it have possibly weakened rule e.g Ako incident and seppuku after the death on ones lord?
|
# How important was honour in Tokugawa Japan? Could it have possibly weakened rule e.g Ako incident and seppuku after the death on ones lord?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fncf1z/how_important_was_honour_in_tokugawa_japan_could/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flsqjvd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There isn't a simple answer to this question. Tokugawa Japan was not a monolithic society. There were diverse people living in Japan in this long period, separated by wealth, location, social status, gender, occupation and so on. Honor was certainly an ideal of the small but powerful samurai status group. But it was not necessarily the guiding imperative of other parts of the population. It was often parodied in plays, questioned in fiction, mocked in poetry, and celebrated in moralistic writings."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
av8cuu
|
Is human labor and delivery more dangerous than other primates'? Why?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/av8cuu/is_human_labor_and_delivery_more_dangerous_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehe27nu"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Yes, mainly because of a narrow pelvis, combined with large heads. (Children have huge heads in proportion to bodysize and weight, as they are born with about 33% of adult brain volume)\nHuman pelvi are so narrow because of bipedality, which, as other comments already explained, seems to have been a bigger advantage than having easy childbirths.\n\n[Interesting article about this topic](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20161221-the-real-reasons-why-childbirth-is-so-painful-and-dangerous"
]
] |
||
86g9de
|
Did Isaac Newton know how big the Earth is? How?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/86g9de/did_isaac_newton_know_how_big_the_earth_is_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw5f7wd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Almost certainly. The circumference of the Earth had been known for nearly 2000 years before Newton was born. In about 250BC, the head librarian of the library at Alexandria (Egypt), [Eratosthenes of Cyrene](_URL_1_), came across an interesting account in one of the library's manuscripts.\n\nIt observed that in the distant southern city of Syene, at noon on the summer solstice vertical columns would cast no shadow, and the sun would shine all the way down a deep water well. That means the sun was directly overhead at that time, but no other. Eratosthenes had never observed such an occurrence in Alexandria, but set about to test it.\n\nOn the summer solstice, he placed a stick in the ground plumbed vertically, and watched to see if it would eventually cast no shadow. But it always cast a shadow, first getting shorter, then longer as the day wore on. The shortest shadow would have been cast at noon, when the sun was highest in the sky.\n\nEratosthenes was a mathematician and also knew the sun was very far away. He made the assumption that the sun's rays that struck the earth were largely parallel. If not, sharp shadows would not be cast. He knew that at noon in Syene, the difference in the angle between a vertical column and the sun was 0 degrees. Measuring the shortest shadow in Alexandria, he calculated the difference in the angle between the vertical shaft and the sun was 7.2 degrees (actually described as 1/50 of a circle).\n\nIf the Earth were flat, the column (or well) in Syene and the stick in Alexandria would have cast no shadows at noon. But if the surface of the Earth was curved, the sun could be directly overhead at one spot (Syene), but not another (Alexandria). Given the difference in angles (1/50th of a circle), and the distance between Alexandria and Syene, the actual circumference of the Earth could be calculated using simple trigonometry.\n\nApocryphally, Eratosthenes paid someone to measure the distance between Alexandria and Syene by walking there and back with a camel. However, the empire's cartographers tended to make annual measurements and that is most likely the metric Eratosthenes used. The distance between the two cities is about 800 km\\*. That gives the estimated circumference as 50 x 800 km = 40,000 km. The actual circumference of the Earth is about 40,800 km.\n\nSo why is the sun overhead one day a year in Syene, but never in Alexandria? Because of the 23.5 degree tilt of the Earth (the angle between the axis of rotation and the plane of revolution around the sun), the sun is only ever directly overhead between the Tropics of Cancer and Capricorn (23.5 degrees above and below the equator) and only directly overhead on the summer solstice at each of the Tropics. Outside that region, the sun can never be directly overhead, and Alexandria is outside that region, whereas Syene is located very near the Tropic of Cancer.\n\n\\* At the time, Eratosthenes used a measure of distance that had not yet been fully standardized, stadia, and Alexandria is not directly north of Syene, so the original computed circumference may be off by as much as 17 percent.\n\n[Video of Carl Sagan on Cosmos](_URL_0_) describing this using a much better voice than mine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://vimeo.com/78787366",
"https://www.britannica.com/biography/Eratosthenes"
]
] |
||
14yz2n
|
What is an example of two very similar chemical formulas behaving very differently?
|
I remember someone illustrating this for me with a very good example but I forget what it was. I have someone arguing that baking soda is like lye because the formulas are similar...
EDIT: He's saying that baking soda dissociates to lye in water.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14yz2n/what_is_an_example_of_two_very_similar_chemical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7hqecy",
"c7hqhnd",
"c7hrv6o",
"c7huqk5"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Cisplatin, the anticancer drug, versus transplatin, which is almost chemically identical, but extremely ineffective as an anticancer drug.",
"There are many examples of this. The chemical formula itself is often not a good indication of its properties, rather, a compound's structure is often important. Take for example the formula C4H8O2. Two ways that we can arrange those atoms is as [ethyl acetate](_URL_1_) or [butyric acid](_URL_0_). Those two compounds have the *same* formula, but entirely different properties: one being an ester and one a carboxylic acid. ",
"I think thalidomide is one of the most famous examples. It was used as a morning sickness drug in the fifties or sixties. It is a chiral compound, meaning the same molecule has two configurations which are non super-imposable mirror images of each other. (Think your left and right hand.) One configuration was successful at easing morning sickness symptoms but the other caused terrible birth defects. Google image search thalidomide babies if you are interested.",
"Water and hydrogen peroxide (H20 and H2O2)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Butyric_acid",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethyl_acetate"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
gqjja
|
My friends are watching a documentary, and the host mentioned that "it is estimated that there are more stars than grains of sand on all the world's beaches." Does this have any basis, and is it really true?
|
To further the question: can one seriously even estimate that, realistically? I mean I also read something a while ago that said some guy estimated that all the ants put together have a mass equal to all humans mass together, and that also seemed impossible to guess.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gqjja/my_friends_are_watching_a_documentary_and_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1piqhv",
"c1piqum",
"c1piquq",
"c1pirb0",
"c1pje6h"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"After flicking my Google wand quickly, I found [this](_URL_0_). Hopefully a panelist can come in soon to answer this, but it seems plausible.",
"As for the first part of the question, we certainly can make that call. We can take detailed photos of a galaxy (such as [Andromeda](_URL_0_) which is a nearbyish galaxy) and count the stars to give a good indication of how many are in it. This gives us a rough indication of around a trillion (1,000,000,000,000) stars. Then we take a look around at wider photos of the sky and start counting the number of galaxies we see. Start multplying the numbers and you start to get some indication.\n\nAs for the number of grains on beaches? Sure, take a 10cm x 10cm x 10cm of sand and count the grains in it. Then work out how much volume of sand is in beaches (which will simply be width x breadth x depth) and multiply the numbers. Bam! Instant approximation of number of grains of sand :)\n\nPlease note that this is the *VERY* short version.",
"They can estimate it, the numbers will be rough but even using rough numbers this isn't that difficult to determine since the difference is vast.\n\n[I'm sure this isn't the only estimate but this is one done by the University of Hawaii](_URL_1_)\n\nThey come up with 7.5 x 10^18 or 7.5 billion billion grains of sand.\n\n[Calculation for the number of stars](_URL_0_)\n\nThey come up with 9 × 10^21 stars (9 billion trillion stars).\n\nBut if you really want to blow your mind, this is only for the observable universe and the best minds around agree the universe is infinite.\n\n",
"It is true, and it isn't that hard to estimate.\n\nGrains of sand is pretty to put an upper bound on, [here](_URL_0_) is a reasonable calculation, coming up with 7 x 10^18.\n\nTotal number of stars takes a little more guesswork, because we can only detect a few billion. But by extrapolating, we believe there to be at least 100 billion stars in the galaxy, and at least 100 billion galaxies. That gives us a lower bound of about 10^22 stars. ",
"Well are you comparing the grains of sand to the amount of stars in the **observable** universe or the **whole** universe?\nBecause most scientists believe the universe is infinite and therefor have infinite amount of stars."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview/id/539329.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andromeda_Galaxy"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe#Estimation_based_on_the_measured_stellar_density",
"http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/jsand.html"
],
[
"http://www.hawaii.edu/suremath/jsand.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3lodb9
|
why do some governments see the need to have a tax on taxi fees?
|
And why can't they tax Uber similarly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lodb9/eli5_why_do_some_governments_see_the_need_to_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv7vspm",
"cv7vyc8"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > Why do some governments see the need to have a tax on taxi fees?\n\nTo make money.\n\n > And why can't they tax Uber similarly?\n\nThey could pass a law to do so if they want to.\n\n\n",
"The Australian Taxation Office considers Uber services a taxi service, and so charges the 10% Goods & Services Tax on both. This is despite Uber being banned in most states. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4li304
|
What is it psychologically that makes $9.99 so much better of a price than $10.00?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4li304/what_is_it_psychologically_that_makes_999_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3pjc4g"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[Wikipedia has a whole article devoted to this idea, called *psychological pricing*](_URL_0_). In short, people seem to overestimate the difference between 99¢ and $1, which is why retailers price things in odd units."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Psychological_pricing"
]
] |
||
lhzbo
|
how did the economy work during the middle-ages?
|
We had some great explanations of how money is created today but how did it work when they didn't have all that virtual money?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lhzbo/eli5_how_did_the_economy_work_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2suqfv",
"c2swbe1",
"c2sxzea",
"c2suqfv",
"c2swbe1",
"c2sxzea"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Very simple. They traded in cash and goods. Cash was typically silver coins (and later gold). There were also accounting techniques which were used for bookkeeping.",
"Since they didn't have fiat money they were forced to barter with things that actually had value like livestock, goods and precious metals. They could always make/find more of those things so it's not surprising that supplies continued to grow.\n\nIf this doesn't make sense it's because I'm drunk.",
"The early middle ages can be viewed as effectively the worst economic depression western civilization has ever faced. Coupled with - and contributing to - that downturn was a sudden and overwhelming lack of law and order because the political and economic system that had previously maintained it - the Roman Empire - lay in ruins. \n\nFor these reasons, Europe started over economically. Europe developed a system over a series of centuries where virtually all power and wealth had to be created locally. It was an agrarian society, and its basic unit was a man's labor. Specialization became inefficient; if a town could not produce enough food to feed itself, there was no point producing goods that required specialized labor, like wine or clothing, for export. A local lord could control as much land, and therefore as much wealth, as he could effectively protect. Over time, this system built itself into a pyramid where the wealth created locally in farms was handed upward to increasingly powerful lords promising to defend more and more territory until you came to a King who claimed to protect them all. In turn, all of the lower sections of the pyramid would swear to help the lord above them - up to the King - in his causes and wars. You can see how in this system, wealth and power were intimately linked, and furthermore, that wealth was more easily expressed in land than in any concept of money. A modern CEO can define his wealth and power in his company and its well-measured incomes and expenses. But a Medieval lord was defined by the country he ruled: obviously, the Duke of Provence was better off than the Duke of Northumberland because Provence would be larger, better positioned for trade and much easier to farm. Therefore, an up-and-coming member of the vast interwoven noble class of Europe would rather become Duke of Provence through whatever means were at his disposal. \n\nObviously, there was trade during the middle ages. However it was difficult, expensive and exceptionally dangerous. On the other hand, a fortunate merchant stood to gain vast amounts of money by transporting products from where they were produced to wherever people would pay more for them. Ultimately, this is what slowly broke down the feudal system. A new and growing merchant class began to compete with the noble class for local power, and ultimately won it. This also led to improved roads and other trade routes and incentivized greater specialization of labor, allowing some towns to specialize in products that were not necessarily food. ",
"Very simple. They traded in cash and goods. Cash was typically silver coins (and later gold). There were also accounting techniques which were used for bookkeeping.",
"Since they didn't have fiat money they were forced to barter with things that actually had value like livestock, goods and precious metals. They could always make/find more of those things so it's not surprising that supplies continued to grow.\n\nIf this doesn't make sense it's because I'm drunk.",
"The early middle ages can be viewed as effectively the worst economic depression western civilization has ever faced. Coupled with - and contributing to - that downturn was a sudden and overwhelming lack of law and order because the political and economic system that had previously maintained it - the Roman Empire - lay in ruins. \n\nFor these reasons, Europe started over economically. Europe developed a system over a series of centuries where virtually all power and wealth had to be created locally. It was an agrarian society, and its basic unit was a man's labor. Specialization became inefficient; if a town could not produce enough food to feed itself, there was no point producing goods that required specialized labor, like wine or clothing, for export. A local lord could control as much land, and therefore as much wealth, as he could effectively protect. Over time, this system built itself into a pyramid where the wealth created locally in farms was handed upward to increasingly powerful lords promising to defend more and more territory until you came to a King who claimed to protect them all. In turn, all of the lower sections of the pyramid would swear to help the lord above them - up to the King - in his causes and wars. You can see how in this system, wealth and power were intimately linked, and furthermore, that wealth was more easily expressed in land than in any concept of money. A modern CEO can define his wealth and power in his company and its well-measured incomes and expenses. But a Medieval lord was defined by the country he ruled: obviously, the Duke of Provence was better off than the Duke of Northumberland because Provence would be larger, better positioned for trade and much easier to farm. Therefore, an up-and-coming member of the vast interwoven noble class of Europe would rather become Duke of Provence through whatever means were at his disposal. \n\nObviously, there was trade during the middle ages. However it was difficult, expensive and exceptionally dangerous. On the other hand, a fortunate merchant stood to gain vast amounts of money by transporting products from where they were produced to wherever people would pay more for them. Ultimately, this is what slowly broke down the feudal system. A new and growing merchant class began to compete with the noble class for local power, and ultimately won it. This also led to improved roads and other trade routes and incentivized greater specialization of labor, allowing some towns to specialize in products that were not necessarily food. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8y0mep
|
how the licence plate system is working in the usa ?
|
I am in California for a trip, and I was asking my self how the licence plate system could be such messy compare to EU. There is different color of plate, custom or not, with plate or not, cars from car dealers seems to have the plate of the car dealers.. I'm really confused and I need some answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8y0mep/eli5_how_the_licence_plate_system_is_working_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e273lfl",
"e273o0n",
"e2743o4",
"e275b48",
"e279itp"
],
"score": [
13,
5,
8,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"As far as I know, each state handles their own plates. So they are free to create as many custom plate styles as they see fit. Most of the custom plates are local government trying to get more money from you, as you have to pay more for these.",
"I'm from Canada, but ours is similar to the states, with custom licence plates.\n\nThe thing you see from the dealer is just the frame that holds the licence plate in place, it's not the plate itself. It often has the dealer on it because the frame typically comes with the car.\n\nHow the system works? Doesn't matter what the plate itself looks like, as long as the number and registration is clear to see. California is a bit odd in that new cars have a 90-day period of time where they don't need the licence plates on. Instead, they have a temporary registration in the windshield.\n\nEdit: I believe the California 3 month grace period is being repealed too, I may be wrong though.",
" > cars from car dealers seems to have the plate of the car dealers \n\nIf you see a license plate that says something like \"Jim's Toyota\" instead of having an actual license number and state name, that just means that the car is brand-new and waiting on the license plate to be mailed to the owner. Those don't generally stay on the car more than a few weeks until the correct plate arrives.\n\nAs far as the actual license plates, there are a few custom designs and you can pay an extra charge to have a custom \"vanity\" plate where you can pick what it says, like \"GEEKMAN\" instead of a normal ID number. But other than that, they're fairly regulated, with each state having a couple of standard design and a simple pattern. For example, I live in California, where a standard license plate has a pattern of a number, then three letters, then three numbers, like Z123ABC. Other states have different standards, New York for example follows a pattern of ABC-1234. Since everyone ends up with a unique license pattern anyways, it doesn't end up mattering much.",
"Every state has its own license plates and laws.\n\nDealer tags aren't license plates. They're supposed to be temporary tags for when you first buy a car and it hasn't been registered yet. Laws regarding those also vary by state.\n\nIn mine, they're entirely illegal but it doesn't stop people from driving around with them.",
"The first thing to consider is that unlike in most European countries the car and the plate are separate things. If I sell my car I can take the plate off and attach it to my new car, I notify the government and proceed as if that was always the plate. This is why you see cars with a paper licence plate stuck in the window. The plates are noirmally requested with you register the vehicle. If you don't have a plate to transfer, they send you a new one in the mail and give you a paper plate for your window.\n\nThe same logic leads us to the car dealer issue. Dealerships normally have a handful of plates registered to them but not registered to any particular car. When a car from that dealership is on a test drive, it gets one of the temporary plates. Normally they are a regular license plate in some kind of temporary housing (often just hung out of the trunk on some rope).\n\nEvery state, and Canadian province, runs their own license plate system. The registration and licensing of vehicles is handled at that level of government and those governments often make different choices about what the laws should be. Some places require front and rear plates, others are rear only. The numbers, colors and designs are also choices that those governments make. In addition most plates have some kind of saying on them. I live in Nova Scotia (in Canada) and the plates around here say \"Canada's ocean playground\" \n\nSome states offer a choice in what kind of plate you get, others don't. Sometimes you have to pay extra for one of these special plates. Where I live I can get a normal license plate or I can pay $50 extra and get one with a Gaelic symbol on it to celebrate the Gaelic heritage of my province. People with disabilities can get special plates that allow them to park in disabled parking spaces. Also volunteer firefighters can get special plates that identify them as such (so other emergency services know who they are). If your vehicle is considered an antique it's eligible for a special plate, and so on. \n\nWhile the numbers and letters on a license plate are more or less randomly assigned. You can also pay extra to get a vanity license plate made. It can say basically anything as long as the government approves it and it's not already taken. So people sometimes get their initials or other clever things. \n\nAgain, all of that is done on a state or province level and there's little to no uniformity across districts. Plates in my location normally go letter, letter, letter, number, number, number. But in other places it might be a mix like A#A $A$ or even have more digits (or fewer digits)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
901g1g
|
Is there any doubt that the Colossus of Rhodes existed?
|
I've heard a lot about how building the Statue of Liberty, an offspring idea of the OG Colossus, was quite expensive and hard to build. Plus it was apparently super tall, how could a people with worse metallurgy, probably not as many funds as 19th century NYC/France build a very similar statue and have it survive until an earthquake did it in?
Wouldn't rust screw it over way before it could've fallen?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/901g1g/is_there_any_doubt_that_the_colossus_of_rhodes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2nqigj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Strabo states with a degree of certainty that the ruins of the Colossus were visible when he wrote the *Geography* (English version [here](_URL_2_)) at around the turn of the 1st century AD, and Pliny the Elder's [Natural History](_URL_0_) goes into considerable detail about the construction of those ruins. We also have a fragmentary epigram dated prior to that appears to be [a dedication of the Colossus](_URL_1_), or at least of a giant statue of some kind at Rhodes.\n\nAs to its construction, I offer nothing beyond noting that there has been academic discussion that have reverse-engineered its construction (see [here](_URL_3_) if you have access). I do not know if Pliny (or Philo, who also attests to seeing its ruins) is accurate in regards to the estimate of its height - much of the time I mentally replace specific measurements in Classical texts with vague ones - but it could be plausible nonetheless."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A1999.02.0137%3Abook%3D34%3Achapter%3D18",
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Anth.+Gr.+6.171&fromdoc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0472",
"http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Strabo/14B*.html#ref9",
"https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/1-4020-2204-2_7"
]
] |
|
43ztnx
|
why does a deep scrape on elbows/knees/shins stay white for a period of time before bleeding?
|
Say when you dive into a pool and scrape your knee on the bottom, why does it stay white without much blood for around 30 seconds before properly bleeding?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43ztnx/eli5_why_does_a_deep_scrape_on_elbowskneesshins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czm808s"
],
"score": [
138
],
"text": [
"This is because initially after an injury, blood vessels contract in order to minimise blood loss. They increase again in diameter later to facilitate healing and the movement of specialised cells and materials towards the site of injury. You can see this contraction and subsequent dilation of blood vessels anywhere; try scratching your arm with your nail (don't cut yourself!) and you'll see that your skin will become pale initially, then redden. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3cev37
|
what "latter" means in a sentence. i've heard it for a few years now and don't understand how to use it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cev37/eli5_what_latter_means_in_a_sentence_ive_heard_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csuuc60",
"csuudua",
"csuuf28",
"csuuh94",
"csuv59s",
"csuvjfm",
"csuvzap"
],
"score": [
16,
5,
2,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If I ask whether you have an apple or an orange and you reply that you have the latter, you mean that you have an orange. If you reply that you have the former, you have an apple.",
"The last thing mentioned.\n\nExample: Here are two examples of discipline... one you send them to their room. Example two, you slap them across the face. The latter (the second example as opposed to \"in the first example\") is usually frowned upon though.\n\nCan elaborate more later if need be (i'm at work). \n",
"If I mention two different items, the \"former\" refers to the first of those two items, and the \"latter\" refers to the second. They're both kind of formal.\n\nFor instance, if I said both vegetables and fruits are important to eat, you might reply that you'll eat the former, but you prefer the latter - that is, you'll eat vegetables, but you prefer fruits.",
"Thanks, fellas! I got it now. I feel doopid for not knowing that.",
"You refer to two things previously in the sentence. \"former\" will then refer to the first one you mentioned, while \"latter\" refers to the second one.\n\nExample:\n\n\"Would you rather be dropped in a pit of spiders, or a pit of snakes?\"\n\n\"I'd much rather the latter, because I don't mind snakes, while I also have arachnophobia. So the former would be awful\"\n\nHope this helped.",
"Every organization has a scale of influence and a scale of authority. Although they often go together, climbing the corporate former is more meaningful than climbing the corporate latter.",
"It means the second of two. Sometimes you will hear it used as the last of more than two, but strictly speaking, this is incorrect and \"last\" should be used instead.\n\nIt's also used to mean \"more recent\", as in \"in the latter half of the 20th century\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1kmulq
|
why do we still use roman numerals?
|
For example, why do they call it “Super Bowl XLVIII” instead of “Super Bowl 48”
?” Or “Grand Theft Auto V” instead of “Grand Theft Auto 5.” It seems pretty pointless.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kmulq/eli5_why_do_we_still_use_roman_numerals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqiz3z",
"cbqnk7i",
"cbqnqru"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"It looks cool.",
"It's for style more than anything else.",
"It's used to lend a sense of importance, or specialness to something. To the best of my knowledge it comes from the resurgence of Classicism (admiration of things from Ancient Greek and Roman times). It pretty much stuck around because it made things seem important and sophisticated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5nql96
|
how will the rising antimicrobial resistance affect us in the future?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5nql96/eli5_how_will_the_rising_antimicrobial_resistance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcdhx9w",
"dcdq5t3"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Worst case scenario? We're back to the middle ages, when a cut could kill you if it got infected.\n\nWhat's actually likely to happen, though, is that certain bacteria will become highly resistant to antibiotics, and if we can't develop new antibiotics to combat them then those particular diseases will become more deadly and require much more in the way of treatment. It wouldn't be totally back to the days before antibiotics, but it would make life more difficult. Eventually, people would catch on and start to become more careful about sources of these diseases, and doctors would stop prescribing so many antibiotics, but that's likely to occur only after there's an indisputable problem. ",
"A lot of plastics are made with antimicrobial compounds like Triclosan. Think of the baby changing stations in public restrooms that say \"microban\" or antibacterial hand soaps. Those plastics are breeding grounds for mutant, antimicrobial resistant bacteria because they kill the weak, allowing the strong to populate the space instead. The soaps get washed down the drain, and the antimicrobial agents begin to put selective pressure on \"wild type\" bacteria, adjusting ecology as well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
b5991h
|
Did the Ottomans refer to Istanbul as Konstantiniyye?
|
Curious if they referred to as Constantinople still. If so, when and why did it change to Istanbul?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b5991h/did_the_ottomans_refer_to_istanbul_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejcx16n"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"The official name change was after the Ottomans. It took place in the 20th Century.\n\nThere is a nice discussion anchored by /u/spoonfeedme at [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28ppbd/was\\_there\\_any\\_international\\_criticism\\_against/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28ppbd/was_there_any_international_criticism_against/"
]
] |
|
12evz6
|
If I can increase the air pressure in an opened 2 liter bottle of soda would that prevent it from going flat?
|
No matter how tight I screw on the cap of a 2 liter bottle, once it is opened it goes flat within a day or two. My assumption is that because the bottle is no longer pressurized the CO2 has room to escape into the air that is in the bottle. If I had a special cap that allowed me to pump air into the bottle would that be enough to keep the CO2 trapped in the soda? If so would it all escape as soon as I opened the bottle, or would it work to keep the soda from going flat?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12evz6/if_i_can_increase_the_air_pressure_in_an_opened_2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6uo51h",
"c6uhalx",
"c6uhr3w",
"c6ulg4z",
"c6ullo7",
"c6ulnk3"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
6,
2,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Pumping air in wouldn't help -- but pumping CO2 in would. What matters for the soda going flat is the partial pressure of CO2 in the atmosphere around it - to a high degree of precision, the CO2 evaporative physics/chemistry is independent of the other gases (like N2 or O2) that might be present over the soda in the bottle. \n\nThis is why the counterintuitive method of squeezing the bottle to expel air helps slow down the flattening. If you expel all the air, the gas over the soda is basically 100% evolved CO2 -- ie the partial pressure of CO2 is near 1 bar almost immediately. If you *don't* expel all the air, the total pressure in the bottle immediately rises above atmospheric pressure, but the partial pressure of CO2 remains lower than atmospheric for a long time (maybe forever) - so CO2 will evolve from the solution faster than it does in the squished-bottle case.\n\nPumping air in would help, by raising the partial pressure of CO2 - but it would not help very much, since air doesn't contain much CO2.\n",
"Squeezing the bottle then capping it will produce a less than 1 atmosphere pressure condition inside the bottle because the flexible container will try to return to its original shape. The reduced pressure inside the squeezed bottle will encourage the carbonation to be released from solution. This will make the soda go flat sooner.\n\nTherefore to keep the soda from losing its fizz, it should be stored capped, cold and at an elevated pressure. so you are correct in thinking that increasing the pressure in the bottle will indeed keep your soda from going flat as quickly.",
"Yes, you would need to pressurize your bottle to properly keep carbonation.\n\nThe amount of pressure varies among brands, but is around 30 psi at refrigeration temperatures.\n\nAnd as far as implementation, there are actually some practical ways to do this, from a few off-the-shelf carbonation savers, to a keg system, like homebrewers use. With a regulating valve and a couple adapters, you could make this work with small CO2 cartridges.",
"Replace \"air\" with \"CO2\" in your reasoning and you would be correct. The fugacity difference between liquid and vapor CO2 will always thermodynamically favor the vapor phase at standard T,P. If you want to calculate this, yCO2. P = xCO2. Psat for pressure up to 10 atm of CO2. ",
"Here's a thought: If you put a carefully calibrated piece of dry ice (solid CO2) into the soda bottle before you closed it, you could raise the pressure in the bottle enough to re-fizz your soda.\n\nOf course, if you put too much, the bottle will explode.",
"The partial pressure of CO*_2_* in the air is too low. The CO*_2_* will still come out and make the drink go flat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2za7ld
|
if websites like google take a double shot using the captcha (first makes sure you are not a bot, second using you as a worker to do a job for them by reading let's say a house number that is not legible for a machine), how do they know what is that so-called number?
|
If they know why they get you to read that specific thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2za7ld/eli5_if_websites_like_google_take_a_double_shot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cph1gkb",
"cph1gsl",
"cph26yu",
"cphlq0e"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"One of the things in the captcha is known to the system already. This is the one they are using to make sure you're not a bot.\n\nThe other one is not currently known. It takes your answer, looks at it and a bunch of other people's answers for the same image, and takes the most common answer. Then this becomes a known picture that can be used for validating.\n\nThis strategy relies on the average person giving the right answer to both the pictures. It works pretty well, unless there is an organized effort to screw with it, like 4chan did that one time.",
"They show you two words/numbers, one of which they know. If you get the first one right then they believe you're not a bot and let you in, and also assume that you got the unknown one right. To make sure, they'll show the same unknown image to several people to check that you give the same answer.",
"I still don't get it. By \"most people\" there should be a first time or the first few but it needs to decide if they are right or not.",
"**tl;dr: machine learning**\n\nGoogle is running machine learning algorithms on these images to predict what those numbers/letters are. Note that, we are at a point that Google's system can outperform most humans. Anyways, the way machine learning works is essentially training. You tell the algorithm what is right and what is wrong and tell it to learn from it. It already knows that the number is, but it will also take a human answer to check how right or wrong it is. \n\nFor example, if the algorithm predicted that some picture had the numbers \"8233\", but almost every human that it ran the test across responded with \"8238\", it knows that it must've made a mistake. It adjusts it's parameters to that error. The whole point of machine learning (especially neural networks, which is the method Google uses to predict these numbers/letters), is to reduce the error on guesses and adjust parameters to fit these errors/corrections."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5xo2pl
|
What happens when one plant's pollen gets into another plants reproductive area? If the species are similar enough, will it produce offspring?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5xo2pl/what_happens_when_one_plants_pollen_gets_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dejqxyo"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, in some cases hybrids can form by pollen fertilizing eggs of a different species. The likelihood of this happening is generally dependent on how different the two species are.\n\nResearchers who study speciation (the process of how new species form) identify traits that are responsible for determining whether individuals from two different species (heterospecific) mate or not. They categorize these traits as \"[isolating mechanisms](_URL_0_)\" that generally fall into two broad categories, based on whether they have an affect before or after fertilization: \n\n* pre-zygotic isolating barriers (e.g. geography, using different pollinators, having a different mating call)\n* post-zygotic isolating barriers (e.g. hybrids are sterile or dead)\n\nSometimes, a third category (post-copulation, pre-zygotic) is used to describe factors that happen between (in animals) insemination and fertilization. This is a good analogy for pollen tube growth, as pollination has happened but a zygote has not yet formed. \n\nThis paper by Williams et al. ([PDF](_URL_1_)) shows an experiment done in birch, where pollen from two species was mixed in different proportions. Heterospecific pollen was associated with slower pollen tube growth rate and lower siring probability. When only heterospecific pollen was added, some hybrid seeds were formed. However, when heterospecific and conspecific pollen were mixed, the conspecific pollen \"won\" over 99% of the time.\n\nPollen tube competition may therefore be an effective isolating mechanism between two incipient species, assuming conspecifics are also present."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reproductive_isolation",
"http://www.pnas.org/content/96/16/9201.full.pdf"
]
] |
||
2h4iih
|
I have seen footage from World War I and there were two soldiers carrying big, round thing, what could it be?
|
Sadly I'm not able to give You a link to the video, I have seen it on tv some time ago.
Two soldiers were running through the field and each on of them held it from one side. It looked kind of like dark-coloured hula hop-like thing. I'm aware of how it may sounds, but this thing seemed to be important equipment. So do You have by any chance an idea what could be this thing?
edit: Crappy-looking sketch: _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h4iih/i_have_seen_footage_from_world_war_i_and_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckphj8p",
"ckpi2bo",
"ckpjhws"
],
"score": [
3,
8,
20
],
"text": [
"Did it look like anything on this page?\n\n_URL_0_",
"Some more details would help. Was it smooth or did it have a rough shape? How thin was the tube compared to the hole? Did it look heavy or just unwieldy? Was it one solid thing or a composite? Did it have handles mounted? How big was it in relation to the soldiers? Where were the soldiers, near trenches or somewhere else? Were they under fire or just hasty?\n\nMost obvious in WW1 is a roll of (barbed) wire.",
"It's a roll of Concertina Wire. Effective barrier against infantry and vehicles.\n\nBasically it's barbed wire rolled in a circle to make it hard to ignore and easier to set up. 3 of them in a pyramid shape are the standard configuration.\n\nSource: I've set up plenty of this\n\nAdditional Source: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/ngYpTqj.jpg"
] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=demolition+wire+reel+world+war+I&safe=off&espv=2&biw=1325&bih=741&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=g2EgVJqKA8qQyATHuoCYCQ&ved=0CAcQ_AUoAg#safe=off&tbm=isch&q=demolition+wire+reel"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Concertina_wire"
]
] |
|
2k0cr0
|
Can anyone identify these microorganisms?
|
_URL_0_
I found these near the lake at my school.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2k0cr0/can_anyone_identify_these_microorganisms/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clgskm5",
"clgtd7i",
"clgxqkc"
],
"score": [
81,
43,
11
],
"text": [
"Number 1 is **likely** a [Rotifer](_URL_0_) from Phylum Rotifera. They are common in fresh water environments. Some are free floating while others anchor themselves to something (plants, soil, rocks etc...). They feed by having the cilia on their corona (these large flaps that protrude from their mouths, a bit like lips) sweep food into their mouths. They can blow through the water like a street cleaner, sweeping debris and food into their mouths for consumption.\n\nNot sure on the second one, likely a larval form of an insect, not very good with those.",
"I'm not sure about the first one, though I think u/Agretlam343 may be correct about it being a rotifer (I wouldn't have guessed that on my own, but it does look rotifer-ish). The giveaway would be the coronal cilia Agretlam describes, specifically when observed living. The movement of the coronal cilia has the appearance of two little wheels pulling food into their mouths. In fact, the name Rotifera means \"wheel-bearers\", and they are sometimes called wheel animals.\n\nThe second looks like it's very likely a chironomid (non-biting midge) larva. Chironomids (family Chironomidae) are true flies (Insects in the order Diptera). I've looked at thousands of these guys, so I'm pretty sure this is correct, it's just hard to be 100% certain based on the image alone.",
"1 and 3 are probably rotifers and number 2 looks like a chironomid fly larva.\n\nFun fact about bdelloid rotifers: Males are unknown and the entire class reproduces only through parthenogenesis. Despite this, there are over 450 species, giving one of a very few examples of successful asexual lineages."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/2Owbt"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rotifer"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4rbyvb
|
how can food be "smoked" or have a "smoky taste"?
|
When I've googled it's not really been easy for me to understand. Could someone give me the 5 year old treatment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rbyvb/eli5_how_can_food_be_smoked_or_have_a_smoky_taste/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4ztps2",
"d4ztson",
"d4ztu79",
"d5004jc",
"d50262b",
"d5043bs",
"d504r6t"
],
"score": [
36,
8,
5,
3,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I smoke and use a \"green egg\" type grill on almost a daily basis.\n\nThe \"smoke\" flavor is absorbed by the outermost part of the meat being cooked, when you cut into it, chicken being the easiest to tell with, a pink ring is created in the meat. this is the \"smoke ring\" where the flavor from whatever wood you have chosen resides. \n\nEverything you cook with, leaves a flavor is the general gist of it. fruit tree wood tends to be a bit sweeter, some smoke chips are made from things like whiskey barrels, that you can get a \"whisky\" flavor imparted. but again, whatever you cook with, gas, charcoal briquettes with lighter fluid ( which is horrible tasting ) leaves some sort of flavor behind. Some good, some bad. Smoking normally occurs at lower temps, this allows the meat to absorb more of the \"smoke\" flavor. different woods, have different flavors. Mostly, its personal taste. I hate hickory, but love cherry, or apple wood. \n\nSmoking meat mostly in earlier days was used to help preserve meat, there are compounds produced in the smoke, that kill, and restrict the growth of bacteria and germs.",
"When you burn wood at a low temperature some of the chemicals will only be partially broken down. Most of the smoke will be CO2 and steam however there will be some sot, alcohols and acids. These last chemicals will add color and smell to the smoke. When you let the smoke go over a piece of meat some of the chemicals will dissolve into the moisture of the meat. It may also react with the meat changing its color and texture. It will also help kill off bacteria which means you do not have to cook it as well. When you eat the meat the chemicals from the smoke will be released again and you will smell some of the aspects of the smoke as you are eating.",
"When you burn something (say, sage), it releases chemicals in the air, which give it that characteristic smell. When \"smoking\" meat, the lid on top prevents the chemicals from wafting away. A portion of these chemicals stick to the meat. Since both smell and taste contribute to the overall flavor of food, smoking changes the flavor of the meat you've cooked.",
"Smoking isn't just for meat. Watch Project Smoke on PBS sometime, that guy has smoked everything from cheese to cheesecake.",
"There is also a trick that BBQ joints sometimes use (as I did when I worked at one)...Liquid Smoke. Yes, it's a real thing and gives that smoky flavor to a sauce or anything you marinate without actually smoking it. ",
"Pick a type of wood you like,hickory,apple wood,mesquite,alder, it's your choice. You should make a brine first (the brine breaks down the meat and allows it to take on the smoke flavor) either wet or dry and brine it for at least 8-12 hours.Coarse salt and brown sugar dry brine is popular. Rinse off the fish or meat and either hot smoke it or cold smoke (more popular and takes 2x as long eg.8-12 hours depending on size,cut etc.). Research first and you'll be smoking pretty much whatever you want in no time.",
"A lot of good information in here, and some bad info mixed in by some people who claim they're daily 'smokers'. First off, smoking is usually a very time-consuming way of cooking food. So someone who smokes every day either doesn't have a job, or works at an actual smokehouse/bbq place.\nLiteral ELI5: Smoking is like baking something, but with smoke from certain types of woods in the chamber. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3387re
|
why can't i relax my jaw to be able to freely move it with my hands?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3387re/eli5_why_cant_i_relax_my_jaw_to_be_able_to_freely/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqifw3h",
"cqiggsg",
"cqii55o"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, you actually *can* move the jaw by external force. If you've ever been hit in the chin, or bumped your chin against something, and it made your teeth collide with each other, that's what happened.\n\nThe reason it doesn't happen much is that the muscles that move your jaw (the masseter is the one that closes it, and I'm blanking on the name of the one that opens it) are very strong, particularly for their size. Also, because opening and closing your mouth are such instinctive movements, the muscles almost act of their own accord, without you thinking about it. This is good because without the muscles working all the time, your jaw would just hang open constantly.\n\nTLDR: Jaw muscles are very strong, and are basically \"always on\". While you can move your jaw with external force, it's surprisingly difficult.",
"You are most likely leaving out the key part of cupping the balls",
"Don't know what you guys are talking about, but I can definitely relax my jaw enough to move it easily with my hand. Granted, there is still a bit of resistance but it is minimal. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
psjv2
|
Arsenic in food. What's the real story?
|
Last year it was dramatic reports of arsenic in apple juice. Today it's arsenic in baby formula via rice. I read the initial press release on [Bloomberg News](_URL_0_), but the study by Dartmouth said it only found higher levels in two out of 15 infant formula brands and only one brand was higher than what's acceptable in the US water supply.
I haven't found any gov't set levels for arsenic in food, so I'd like to know if all this coverage is just the media looking for a scintillating story or is it really a concern in the US food supply?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/psjv2/arsenic_in_food_whats_the_real_story/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3rwa72",
"c3rxjqy",
"c3s0c20",
"c3s2u8w"
],
"score": [
10,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The CDC's Chemical Profile page for [Arsenic](_URL_0_) is a really good place to start.\n\nIn the US the only exposure levels that have been set are for occupational exposure, by OSHA, and the EPA has set a standard for arsenic in drinking water (0.01 ppm).\n\nIn general, you probably won't ingest enough arsenic from food to give you cancer, but a chronic low level exposure to arsenic will cause other health effects (nausea, vomiting, skin discolouration, ...) \n\nIt also depends on the type of arsenic and type of exposure. Inorganic arsenic is more readily absorbed through the skin, and has been found to be more harmful than organic arsenic compounds. Organic arsenic is found in pesticides, so that's more likely the type you would ingest.",
"The FDA does not, and the government does not currently have any guidelines for arsenic in food. There is no legal requirement for monitoring or regulating it. The amount of Arsenic is 'ok' at 10ppb, but at that level, it's estimated that 1 out of 500 people will get cancer during their lifetime because of it. Bottled water is not regulated nearly as much as tap water and is not held to the same standards as tap water. It's a concern, but not as big of a concern as most other things going on.\n\n_URL_2_\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_",
"I can shed some light on the apple juice concern.\n\nAs of [2006](_URL_1_), the standard for drinking water as set by the EPA is **10 parts per billion**. In [2001 (PDF)](_URL_2_) the standard was **50 parts per billion**.\n\nAs reported by [Dr. Oz](_URL_0_), the very highest found in apple juice was **36 parts per billion**.\n\nIt's also notable that apple juice is drunk much less frequently than water. In any case, the current levels of arsenic in apple juice are as dangerous as drinking tap water from 10 years ago.\n\nFear-mongering.",
"Arsenic is naturally found in the soil and its toxic . People who smoke cigs are exposed to high levels of arsenic for this very reason . The same goes for cadmium , thallium , etc . If you are exposed to levels of arsenic deemed dangerous by the EPA then its a problem . \n\nSo yes . If they find high levels of arsenic in a certain food product or water then its not good....but it happens .\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-02-16/-worrisome-level-of-arsenic-found-in-baby-formula-study-finds.html"
] |
[
[
"http://www.atsdr.cdc.gov/toxfaqs/tf.asp?id=19&tid=3"
],
[
"http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm",
"http://www.fda.gov/Food/ResourcesForYou/Consumers/ucm271595.htm",
"http://www.nrdc.org/water/drinking/qarsenic.asp"
],
[
"http://www.doctoroz.com/videos/dr-oz-investigates-arsenic-apple-juice",
"http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/sdwa/arsenic/index.cfm",
"http://www.epa.gov/ogwdw/arsenic/pdfs/ars_final_app_f.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
3n5rk9
|
How efficient/inefficient are computers really?
|
This might be a silly and/or meaningless question, but I'm just a little too curious to let this one pass.
Anyway, I read the other day that a computer is just as good, if not better, at heating up the surrounding air as any other electric radiator is, which made sense at the time. However, today I got to think that this just can't be right.
There has to be some energy that's gone in to doing stuff with the "information" in the computer, and therefor isn't being converted to heat as well, right?
If 100W of electricity in a computer generates exactly the same amount of heat as a 100W radiator does, wouldn't that mean that a computer, in theory, could do the same amount of "work" (moving electrons around), regardless of how much energy it gets?
Obviously, this isn't the case. And I might be reading a bit too much into that statement. It's just that to me, it does seem like a computer in reality is extremely inefficient, with all of the (mostly) unwanted heat it generates. Is this the case?
Also, as I was discussing this with a classmate earlier today, we also hit upon the "issue" of actually relating energy to information. HDD's we kind of think we understand how one would relate energy to the information alone, but SSD's and ram chips seems a bit more messy. Unless it's only the matter of moving and removing the electrons?
As I'm just an undergrad student in mechanical engineering, I realize that I might be looking at this the wrong way.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3n5rk9/how_efficientinefficient_are_computers_really/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvnk5pu",
"cvou1ab"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > As I'm just an undergrad student in mechanical engineering, I realize that I might be looking at this the wrong way.\n\nNo way, you're asking a great question. This is an absolute gem of a question and you've posed it very clearly and thoughtfully. I'm really happy I noticed it because it's directly related to my work.\n\nLet's forget about the monitor and other peripherals. Also forget about the efficiency of the computer's power supply, because that's not essential to the question. We're asking about whether or not the information processing part of a computer really needs to consume power.\n\nThe short answer is that processing information does not require consumption of energy. You can see why through the example of a mechanical computer. As shown in a few [various](_URL_2_) [examples](_URL_3_), you can construct logic gates mechanically. Any energy consumed by these simple push/pull rod and gear mechanisms is lost as friction, a.k.a. heat. After using the mechanical gate there's nothing left over as potential energy. Note that this means that, at least in principle, we can get the energy consumption of the gate as close to zero as we want by using low friction materials. That alone proves definitively that it is possible in principle to build a Turing machine which consumes no energy. You may need to operate it really slowly to avoid electromagnetic loss channels and whatever else, but given an efficiency target we can always beat it in principle because the information processing part itself does not consume energy.\n\nNow look at your computer box. It's not lifting weights up onto a shelf. It doesn't store chemical energy or have some capacitor that it charges up to indefinite amounts of charge. When you turn it off it's in the same state as before you turned it on (except for the hard drive, but you could use a computer without one). Therefore, whatever energy you dumped into it while you used it must have gone into either heat or computation. However, we just proved that computation itself doesn't take up any energy, so it must all be heat. Since *all* of the energy consumed by your computer is going into heat, it is *exactly* as efficient a heater as an electric radiator. I mean, it *is* an electric radiator.\n\n > If 100W of electricity in a computer generates exactly the same amount of heat as a 100W radiator does, wouldn't that mean that a computer, in theory, could do the same amount of \"work\" (moving electrons around), regardless of how much energy it gets?\n\nYes, but only if pushing electrons around didn't consume energy. As you know, the power consumed by pushing electrons around is `P = IV` where `I` is the current and `V` is the voltage on any particular element. That power loss happens because as the electrons move, they scatter off of the ions comprising the solids. This causes vibrations (also known as [phonons](_URL_1_)) which eventually wind up as heat or sound. So you see, when your computer pushes electrons around that is exactly the process that's generating the heat because the materials in the computer have nonzero resistance.\n\n > It's just that to me, it does seem like a computer in reality is extremely inefficient, with all of the (mostly) unwanted heat it generates. Is this the case?\n\nWell, that's certainly a matter of opinion since \"extremely inefficient\" has to be compared against something. Let's compare to a human. You require roughly 2000 Cal per day. That comes out to a power of 100 Watts. If you want to compute a the cosine of a million floating point numbers to twelve digits of precision that would take a human considerably longer than his/her life time. One a computer it's trivial. On that comparison the computer wins the efficiency match handily.\n\n > Also, as I was discussing this with a classmate earlier today, we also hit upon the \"issue\" of actually relating energy to information.\n\nGood for you two. This is a really interesting topic.\n\n > HDD's we kind of think we understand how one would relate energy to the information alone\n\nMay I ask how?\n\n > but SSD's and ram chips seems a bit more messy. Unless it's only the matter of moving and removing the electrons?\n\nThe different types of memory aren't really all that different from a physical point of view (although DRAM is different in a sense because it's life time is really short). If you could explain your thoughts I can respond.\n\nReally great question!\n\nP.S. If you're interested in reading a little bit about the physics of computation and in particular about *quantum* computation, you can check out the first chapter of [my PhD thesis](_URL_0_) :D.",
" > There has to be some energy that's gone in to doing stuff with the \"information\" in the computer, and therefor isn't being converted to heat as well, right?\n\nYour question is very deep. The answer is that a computer has to generate\nheat, in order to be able forget something. There are operations that are not reversible. When a memory location is overwritten with a 1, the result\nhas to be 1, and it shouldn't matter anymore whether the previous state of the location\nwas 0 or 1. This means that the memory location has to go through a process where\nthe 0 and 1 state converge to a common state. This can only be obtained by friction (resistance), which creates heat. \n\nSo the answer to your question is: The heat is caused by the things that the computer has forgotten,\nthe things that it remembers are still in the computer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://web.physics.ucsb.edu/~martinisgroup/theses/Sank2014.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phonon",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM6bXji5SQg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q8oohrO7ZEQ"
],
[]
] |
|
17c5oo
|
17 and need to know how taxes work?
|
So basically i just got a new job and filled out a w-4. I realized that i know nothing about taxes and how they work. Any information will be helpful.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17c5oo/eli5_17_and_need_to_know_how_taxes_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c844rpq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Ask them what you have to do to have the most amount withheld (probably have to use `0`). \n\nHow do taxes work? I'd say they don't. But to answer your question, an amount gets withheld from your salary each pay check and gets sent to the government every quarter. Then, at the end of the year you file your returns which tells whether you have paid too much already or not paid enough. In your situation, you have probably paid too much (which I'd say is a good thing) and you wait for a check in the mail (you can also have it directly deposited to your bank account). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
38683b
|
In films like "The Pianist" and "Schindler's List," German guards seem able to kill prisoners at any time without restriction. Did concentration camps and ghettos have rules stating when and how soldiers could kill inmates?
|
It seems like these random executions could be carried out by even the lowest ranked soldiers. Did the commanders of these soldiers encourage acts like these or were there limits to when and where prisoners could be shot?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38683b/in_films_like_the_pianist_and_schindlers_list/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crsokhg",
"crt0c58",
"crtg7gk"
],
"score": [
1894,
31,
11
],
"text": [
"The problem with camps was a lack of oversight once the initial responsibilities had been established. Meaning the answer to this question depends largely on who the camp commandant was and how tight a ship they wanted to run.\n\nLet's start, not with concentration camps, but with Soviet POW camps. Soviet POWs were kept in horrible conditions, and German guards often tormented them. A common practice was siccing guard dogs at prisoners and betting on which dog would do the most damage. Guards also liked to use Soviet POWs for \"target practice.\" So needless to say random killings of prisoners was a common practice, at least among certain aspects of the army.\n\nNow moving to camps, as said above it depended on the camp commandant. Majdanek stands out in this regard. It's two successive commandants, Karl Koch and Hermann Florstedt, stole from the camp massively and instituted a regime of terror in the camp. It became notorious for its corruption and brutality at every level. So in this case random murders of inmates was a common feature of life in the camp. The guards were also Romanian and Croatian, they developed a reputation for savage cruelty and brutality, as well as being difficult to control. Eventually both Koch and Florstedt were arrested for wastefulness. Koch was particularly famous for an event, where in he selected a group of Jews marched them in front of a gate and had them executed; later claiming they tried to \"escape.\"\n\nSo there wasn't a time when you could just kill whenever you wanted, but if a guard did just randomly execute an inmate, depending on the camp the punishment would range from nothing, to a slap on the wrist. Radicals on the bottom worked to satisfy the whims of those at the top. Take low ranking SS lackey Gustave Sorge. He enjoyed beating defenceless prisoners to death in Buchenwald. He later would testify: \"We believed that we were helping state and leadership when we abused prisoners and drove them to their deaths.\" \n\nThis violence wasn't just during the later periods either. In early 1933, when groups of Jews were temporarily sent to Dachau, hundreds died from abuse/murder by the guards despite the Nazis not yet wanting to kill Jews. Another example is the case of four Jews in Dachau, Erwin Kahn, Rudolf Benario, Ernst Goldmann, and Arthur Kahn. They were made an example of by the newly inaugurated SS leadership. However, the SS commandant had worked his men into a frenzy, and one day a group of SS guards took it upon themselves to lead the 4 Jews out to the woods and execute them. A wave of killings by power hungry SS guards followed after that.\n\nHere is what a Czech prisoner, named Karel Kašák, wrote in his observations while spending time in one of the camps:\n\n > May 9 [1941]. Again a Jew shot in Freiland II. He started to run. The sentry told us that although he has instructions to shoot without warning, he shouted twice. The [prisoner] stopped and just exclaimed: “I want to go there” and fell after two shots … Again they have put a group of lifeless and unconscious Jews on the cart. Human flesh, the bodies of these sons of God, stacked like logs, arms and legs swaying limply—a horrendous picture that we witness daily … \n\n > May 14. In the afternoon they again shot a Jew in Freiland II … \n\n > May 15. Again a Jew shot. They threw his cap behind the sentry and the Kapo forced him with a truncheon to fetch it. Complete exhaustion has made [the Jewish prisoners] unrecognizable, like in a trance, with a far-away gaze … \n\n > May 16. At nine in the morning two more Jews shot in Freiland II. They threw the exhausted men into the water and held them under water until they had almost lost consciousness, and definitely lost their minds, and Kapo Sammetinger hit them with the spade until he had forced them to cross the sentry line, whereupon they were immediately shot.\n\nNow Ghettos were worse for this type of behaviour. The liquidation of the Ghettos was an orgy of violence. In one roundup in the Warsaw Ghetto during 1942, 10,000 people were shot. Mostly because the soldiers later claimed they were \"resisting\" or they were trying to send a message to get the other Jews moving faster. A similar story is told in other ghettos. In Luniniec ghetto around 2000 were shot during the liquidation. During the liquidation of Yanov another 2000 were shot. Liquidations were never pretty, and by their nature very chaotic. \n\nA source I would recommend if you want some reading. Check out *KL: A History of the Nazi Concentration Camps*\nby Nikolaus Wachsmann. ",
"It highly depends on the camp and you cannot really generalize it. I did some research and some (pregrad) papers on the Mauthausen concentration camp ( _URL_0_ ), which was one of the worst ones (but not as horrible as Auschwitz). \n\nMauthausen itself also went through different phases ... in the beginning it was meant as a work camp with \"only\" the ones who were not able to work any more being murdered, but over the time it basically changed into a death-camp where the guards were basically allowed to do whatever they want with them (it's recorded that they led them outside in the winter to shower with cold water and then let them freeze). \nIn the sub-camps (those were camps that were basically founded to give companies that helped the Nazi government) there was an astonishingly high survival rate and the prisoners actually did not get shot or tortured, but what happened often is that the ones who were weak or old were deported to the main camp in Mauthausen to die. \n\nSo yeah as very often in history I would say the answer to your question is: partially. \n\nSorry if it is written in a confusing way ... pretty much everything I have done about this topic was in German. If you have any specific questions I will try to answer in more detail. ",
"Sid_Burn's answer is great. \n\nJust want to add that it also VERY much depends on the year. The regime radicalized after 1936, and especially after 1939/40. And this meant that commandants, police supervisors, etc., who may have been more \"legalistic\" and kept a fairly tight reign over their men--not uncommon in 1934--were often eased out, replaced by more radical (and brutal) officials in the late '30s, and especially after the war began. Some of this radicalization was due to the internal politics of the SS, under Himmler. \n\nBut most importantly, as the complexion of the camps changed, so too did the \"allowable\" treatment of prisoners change. \n\nTo give a famous example: Dachau. \nDachau was established right after Hitler came to power, in 1933. Originally, in 1933-34, it held mostly socialists and communists (rounded up after the Reichstag Fire, in a massive purge of the left.) Many of these Socialists were only interned in Dachau for a few months--they were released (with the threat of a return always hanging over their heads, ensuring their good behavior). \n\nAfter 1936, more so-called \"undesirables\" were sent there, such as homosexuals, criminals, vagrants & beggars (rounded up during the pre-Olympics sweep), and Jehovah's witnesses. These non-political prisoners made up more than 50% of the camp population by 1936; they were generally NOT released, and treatment of them was far harsher. \n\nIn 1938, in the days after the mass-arrests Krystalnacht, 30,000 Jews were rounded up and sent to concentration camps; many Jews ended up in Dachau. \n\nHere's the thing: \nIn Dachau, in the mid-1930s, the official number of deaths (caveat: the OFFICIAL, i.e. SS-recorded deaths) were about 40 people a year, with the causes listed from disease or \"shot while trying to escape.\" Many of these deaths were sheer brutality--prisoners beaten to death, though this was usually not listed as the cause. \nBut after Jews arrived in Dachau in large numbers in 1938, this number jumped to about 2,000 in 1939. (with the same alleged reasons for death--disease, escape attempts--listed). \n\nClearly, as the camp makeup changed (from political prisoners, to \"undesirables\", to Jews) treatment of prisoners became harsher and more lethal. \n\nAfter 1940 or so, of course, everything changes again, as Jewish prisoners were deported in large numbers to ghettos and (after 1941) death camps in Poland. \n\nAnd conditions in (and treatment of prisoners in) camps in Germany also became far, far worse after 1940. \n\nOne of the other commenters used Mauthausen, in Austria, as a prime example of this… from a work-camp in 1938, to a brutal work-camp in 1941, to a brutal work-camp that, by 1944, so starved its prisoners to death, that it might as well be considered an extermination camp in all but name and method (namely, starvation instead of firing squads or gas chambers). \n\nClearly, the \"rules\" (especially the unwritten rules of what was allowable or desirable) changed dramatically over time. \n\nEdit: grammar"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.mauthausen-memorial.at/index_open.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3bxj4q
|
what is the benefit of having all these subreddits going private?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bxj4q/eli5_what_is_the_benefit_of_having_all_these/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csqgbs9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIn short, Victoria, the AMA lady, was apparently fired today with no notice and no support for the mods and subs who depend on her, and subreddits are shutting down left, right, and center either because she was critical to their operations or as a show of solidarity for all the people who are being screwed over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/OutOfTheLoop/comments/3bxduw/why_was_riama_along_with_a_number_of_other_large/"
]
] |
||
bnl3pk
|
how can matter outside of the observable universe travel faster than light?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bnl3pk/eli5_how_can_matter_outside_of_the_observable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en6m014",
"en7751t",
"en7da93"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It can't. Nothing with mass can ever travel at or faster than the speed of light in a vacuum (c). It sounds like you may be confusing the observable universe with the Hubble volume. Beyond the Hubble volume, objects are receding from us at faster than c because of the expansion of the universe. The objects themselves are not moving faster than light, but rather space is expanding faster than light.",
"Think of ants crawling around on the surface of a balloon. The ants can't move very fast but if you blow the balloon up faster than the ants can move, the ants still aren't moving around very fast even if the space between them is expanding faster than they ever can.",
"Nothing with mass can accelerate to the speed of a massless particle in space. But when universe expands it gets bigger but nothing accelerates. And as universe expands the things in it move faster than speed of light. Like slow ants on a quickly inflating baloon. The ants seem to move apart from each other quickly, but the ant could never attain that speed on its own."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
gdmxy
|
What is the best way to become an astrogeologist?
|
I'm getting pretty sick of my liberal arts majors, I've got to admit. Little kid me would be pretty pissed off at adult me for not being in the sciences. I'm only about halfway done with my undergraduate degree, so it isn't too onerous to change over to something else.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gdmxy/what_is_the_best_way_to_become_an_astrogeologist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1msqkg",
"c1msrb8",
"c1mssw1",
"c1mst5v",
"c1mthv4",
"c1muxtw"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"get into geology... im assuming you want to study meteorites? Then get to to a facilty that studies the rocks.",
"1. Get a bachelor's degree in astronomy or geology.\n\n1A. Get research experience with a professor.\n\n2. Get a PhD in whichever you didn't do your undergrad in.",
"See if any schools offer a degree in planetary geology. Or get a degree in astronomy, geology, or astrophysics. Then do some research in your field of interest.",
"I switched to physics from Electrical Engineering after 3 years and don't regret it a bit (it took 6 years total to get my degree). Its never too late to do what you want.",
"Double major in geology plus either astronomy, astrophysics, physics, or some specialized program. ",
"I do meteorite research and teach geochemistry and introductory planetary geology. I got my BA and PhD in Geology and have come into the field through the back door. I suggest you get a Geology degree and then attend a school that has a strong program in planetary geology for graduate school. Good luck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
46ym6c
|
If I had a rod that was two lightsyears long and suspended in space, and I pushed one end, how long would it take the other end to react?
|
I think it would move at the speed of sound/the equivalent of such in the material, but I wanted to confer with people wiser than I.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/46ym6c/if_i_had_a_rod_that_was_two_lightsyears_long_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d08w0yi",
"d0987fu"
],
"score": [
17,
5
],
"text": [
"You are right. The deformation of the material would propagate through at the speed of sound in the material, and so that would determine how long it would take till the other end moved.",
"In the future you can also consult the [physics FAQ](_URL_0_) for common questions such as this one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/wiki/physics"
]
] |
|
14fztw
|
Home experiment demonstrating particle nature of light?
|
I know the double-slit experiment is a famous way to demonstrate the dual nature of light, and there are many tutorials for setting up that experiment. A laser shines on the two slits, causing an interference pattern. That was how Thomas Young demonstrated the wave nature of light.
But are there any relatively easy experiments to demonstrate the particle nature? The classic experiments involve electron guns and particle detectors to collapse the wave, which would be awesome to do, but seem impractical for the amateur experimenter.
Edit: Maybe I'm talking about a Quantum Eraser experiment? I'm hoping for something that makes it visually clear that light has a particle nature, similar to how the double slit visually makes the wave nature clear.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14fztw/home_experiment_demonstrating_particle_nature_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7cppka",
"c7cqhfy",
"c7cqohs",
"c7cqz43",
"c7cr057",
"c7crni8",
"c7ctdvf",
"c7ctjtv"
],
"score": [
21,
4,
8,
6,
3,
8,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"[here](_URL_0_)'s a good example of how you can demonstrate the photoelectric effect at home.",
"Unfortunately I don't think you're going to find much on a macroscopic scale. The quantization of light is on the absolute smallest of scales; unless you amplify the effects of this quantization (for example through the photoelectric effect) to macroscopic scales you won't be able to demonstrate that it is quantized. It is this very reason why it took experiments like the ones done by Einstein to discover the photoelectric effect to demonstrate that light had a particulate nature.\n\nIt's much easier to demonstrate the wave nature of light visually, because large numbers of coherent photons (i.e. normal light) will exhibit wavelight behaviour in most circumstances.",
"One possibility would be to use an avalanche photodiode (you can buy them off ebay for circa $70) in Geiger mode and a very dim light source. Using a nested 'dark box' setup you should be able to get down to single photon detection where the rate can be varied by covering/uncovering one or more holes on the outside of the box. Feed the output signal to an amplifier and you could either flash a visible light or make a click noise for each individual photon detected.\n\nEdit: Spelling",
" > A laser shines on the two slits, causing an interference pattern. That was how Thomas Young demonstrated the wave nature of light.\n\nFYI, Young did not use (or have) a laser. To obtain a coherent light source he took sunlight and passed it through a single, narrow slit.",
"I don't know of a good home experiment to demonstrate the particle nature of electromagnetic radiation, but on a slightly-related note there is a fantastic way to demonstrate the particle nature of nuclear radiation. \n\nThere's a device called a [Spinthariscope](_URL_0_), which is basically a radiation source behind a phosphor screen. When nuclear decay products strike the screen, they create discrete points of light you can see with the naked eye -- you're literally seeing (albeit indirectly) the individual alpha particles. Shouldn't be hard to find one for a reasonable price. Again, I know it's not what you asked about, but I thought you might be interested nonetheless.",
"You can also look into making a home made cloud chamber to visualize the particles of background radiation _URL_0_",
"Not sure if this is what you need, but a neat home experiment on the nature of quantum effects. Get a cpuple of old pairs of the polarising glasses from the cinema and remove the lenses. Now align/rotate 2 of the lenses until all light is blocked. You have first filtered out one polarity, then the opposite, so no light gets through. The interesting part comes when you place a 3rd lens between the first 2. You can destroy the information from the first lens, meaning some light gets through. It makes absolutely no sense in a classical world, but quantum theory means it works.",
"Not to be overly trite, but taking a picture with a digital camera is a demonstration of the particle nature of light. The photoelectric effect is what allows pixels in a detector to detect incoming photons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=muxRZ1irsrk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinthariscope"
],
[
"http://hackaday.com/2011/01/23/your-very-own-cloud-chamber/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
15fcis
|
what the hell is going on in india right now?
|
I admit i'm not very aware of the general atrocities going on in the world, but suddenly India is all raping rape victims and killing reporters, and i'd like to understand it in a more profound way than what reading a couple of articles would result in. How the hell did it get here? Has it always been like this? WHY?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15fcis/what_the_hell_is_going_on_in_india_right_now/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7lyx2n",
"c7lz2tx",
"c7lzktu",
"c7lzqlp",
"c7lzy9o",
"c7lzz52",
"c7m0kla",
"c7m1nlj",
"c7m1yx3",
"c7m2fkx",
"c7m3xir",
"c7m5kmy",
"c7m73ka",
"c7m8url",
"c7ma7jn",
"c7mag42",
"c7mbqx8",
"c7mi09o",
"c7w3hd7"
],
"score": [
79,
53,
17,
71,
31,
9,
1665,
5,
13,
10,
39,
17,
3,
3,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you are a girl in India, you are expected to merge with the crowd outside and not stand out. Even if you don't stand out, you can expect some lewd remarks, comments, groping in the bus or in the subway. \n\nThe sheer expanse of the country makes it impossible to police the people. How do you stop an ignorant monster of a man who thinks he has the God-given right to punish a women who is not subservient. \n\nMost of the rape that happens in the less developed regions of the country often go unreported. \n\nEverything has to do with the culture and conservative mindset of the population. Even women, join men in blaming the victims of rape for inviting this shame on the family. [Here is a link to a story of policemen blaming victims of rapes.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe events that happened this week are unique. Social network and multiple media outlets competing to report the same story has made this specific rape occurrence a focal point of discussions. \n\nEvery year, thousands of women are reported to be raped. Unreported cases would be even more since they may happen within family, in remote regions of the country or even by members of the armed forces. \n\n\n",
"Nothing special is going on right now, it's business as usual. Only difference is that you know about it because it was in western media.",
"_URL_0_\n^ This is what has been going on for the women in India for decades/centuries.\nThe dam of public anger broke recently because of a rape case in Delhi when a girl was brutally gang raped and then beaten up on a moving bus by six men. Add to that the almost apathetic behavior of the political class and the police.\nThis led to widespread protests across the country and everything that followed was result of that.",
"This is a result of sickness at the heart of Indian society. More-than-rampant sexism, ladies, if you get raped, you must have inflamed nice, innocent Indian boy(s) by your outrageous Western-influenced behaviour and you only get what you deserved.\n\nNot my own opinion, I hasten to add.",
"The ways to handle rape in India are horrible, to say the least. The problem is, that many and especially conservative Indians are of the opinion, that women aren't really humans that deserve to be equal to men. Also they say, that men in many occasions can't reasonably turn down the tempting chance to rape a woman, so it's not their fault.\n\nNow this would not be a problem, if the police enforced the law. Contrary to many other voices, rape is not legal and the penalties according to the official law are as far as I know not even that light. The real problem are panchayats. They are groups of men that \"govern\" small towns or areas of big towns. Many habitants listen to them, before listening to the government, and so does the police. Now these panchayats mostly consist of said conservatives and often come along, when men accused of rape are caught and pardon them without further questioning.\n\nAlso the police in many regions of India is corrupt and they will change their mind, if your price is right. Thus rich men don't really fear any penalties for rape, since they can pay there way out of it.\n\nFinally victim blaming in India is not something that some fucked up idiots do. Even if the woman was obviously completely innocent (which is the case, most of the time), the woman's family will have to suffer from dishonor and will be looked down upon, if they don't immediately get their daughter out of town, for example by marrying her to someone from a far away place. \nThe idea of the woman being the ones to blame is reinforced with the most ridiculous arguments. Yesterday I read a quote from an official politician, who doubted that is was even possible to rape a woman, who doesn't want to be raped, thus she had no right to accuse anyone for it.\n\nAnd as we see, eventually that mistreatment of a big part of the Indian society has lead to many Indians becoming incredibly furious. Since the police and the panchayats won't let them enforce law and rightful punishments, these people are now raging relentlessly, because they don't see anyone, who would bring justice to them. Thus there are so often protests, that end up being murders or at least very violent. The police on the other hand fights back with violence (even if the protest is peaceful).",
"Someone turned the cameras onto the day-to-day travesties. It's fun to tut-tut at other people's mistakes, so these cases are making our news. \n\nThe frequency of reported rape cases to the U.N. is 27/100k in the U.S. versus 2/100k in India. But people prefer news that stops at a certain level of truth, and that line is usually *observation* and stops before the realm of *analysis*. \n\nBasically, even if more bad shit is being reported in India, that's probably a better thing than not hearing about it at all. A really good thing would be if the news was talking about places having an absence of something bad, but that doesn't get pageviews. \n\nMerry Christmas.\n\n\nedit: and yes, I do consider this to be a succinct analysis of the situation for ELI5. I would like if the world taught children this way. ",
"Indian here.\n\nFor the past decade or so, rape has been a constant fixture of the criminal landscape. Urban centres like Delhi, Mumbai and so on are just as affected as the rural areas. Our society has almost always dismissed these as the fault of the victim - blaming them for dressing provocatively, being out late at night, being in the company of young horny men and so on. A generally cunty cop-out, but one that society at large accepted for the many years that rapes went on unchecked. Surely it must be the fault of a lascivious young woman and not the WholesomeIndianMale™.\n\nIn keeping with the general attitudes of civil society, cops act pretty shitty toward rape victims too. The reason rape is the #1 most under-reported crime in this country is because cops are *assholes*. They mock victims when compaints are being filed, insinuate that they are loose, *easy* women and frequently fail to follow up properly on rape cases (check out this [particularly egregious situation](_URL_0_) - this is the norm for police conduct, not the exception).\n\nHowever, a few days ago, a girl got gang-raped, and had her insides all but scooped out with iron rods in New Delhi, our capital city. Unusually, she was accompanied by a male friend, at a fairly conservative hour, and was on a \"sort of\" public transport bus when it happened. This renders all previous cop-outs invalid - how could it be her fault?\n\nConfronted with the harsh reality that they were barely separated from animals, delhiites went properly apeshit.\n\nThe powers-that-be have all been trying to pass the buck, but people are no longer interested in being taken for a ride and are not withdrawing just because so-and-so issued some wishy-washy statement of sympathy. For a nation of generally passive, cowardly fucks, this is unusual.\n\nMy personal take? I've lived here for years, I know how this crap works. The ruling classes will apologize, sympathize and generally grovel for as long as it takes for the outrage to die down. Then things will go back to normal and this city of ca. 15 million will go back to life as usual.\n\nSomeone needs to die for anything concrete to happen. Now, I know this is a rather dire statement, so bear with me. If the Mob™ grabs the police commissioner or the governor, or chief minister of Delhi and lynches the bastard, the rest of the ruling classes will suddenly sit up in bed and think \"Bloody hell, I could be next.\" Suddenly, their lives provide the incentive to give the citizenry the justice they want and the safety they deserve. Suddenly the VIPs stop sucking up the city's police force for their personal security and give the city its due, because for the first time in their miserable existence, they are being held physically accountable.\n\nBut of course, this will never happen. I said it earlier - we are a nation of cowards. There is no will to carry this forward into an \"Arab Spring\" for the subcontinent. This will die down, like the hundreds of corruption, misgovernance and crime scnadals in the past. Indians deserve India and vice-versa.\n\nEDIT1: To the folks asking for a proper ELI5 or TLDR, I'm awfully sorry, I have no idea how to shorten or simplify this.\n\nEDIT2: My highest-rated comment on Reddit! At least it happened here and not in a pun thread.\n\nEDIT3: To those accusing me of inciting violence - I am not calling for bloodshed, nor do I condone it.\n\nI am merely making an observation - peaceful protests have accomplished very little on a national scale in our nation's 60-odd year history. This indicates, to *me*, that if there is a clear and present *physical* danger to members of the legislature or security forces from the public, they will be more likely to act than if there were no consequences for their inaction, as has been the case so far.\n\nThe same thing could be accomplished by, say, performance-based reviews. You perform, you keep your job, you don't, you get fired. However, the legislature is *never* going to pass a law establishing such a procedure, which brings us back to square one: zero accountability.",
"Things get reported in the news in clusters because it's an echo chamber.",
"India has a very [diverse culture](_URL_4_) and to top that the average person/family is dirt poor. Almost [68.7% of Indians](_URL_2_) live on less than $2/day. About a [quarter of the country](_URL_3_) is illiterate and it ranks [94th](_URL_6_) (out of 176 countries) on corruption index. The [list of government scams](_URL_1_) is endless. Caste system still exists in India and is followed by most Indians. City dwellers are able to ignore it to some extent but it's a fact of life in the rural areas. \n\nThe [reports of rapes and other abuses](_URL_0_) that hit the western media recently were from New Delhi (capital of India). \n\nNow for some subjective evaluation based on my pov. \nFrom a societal perspective in India, women have been traditionally considered as playing second fiddle to men. India has a conservative patriarchal society. It's a whole lot different than western patriarchal society although there are some similarities. Indian women are mostly treated as second class citizens even though from outside it seems that Indian laws gives them the same rights as the western women. Marrying off one's daughter is still considered as a prime duty of the father or the family even if from outside it would seem that that should be upto the girl or woman. After marriage a female might be able to work but it depends on the person she married or the family she married into. If she gets divorced then she is looked down upon in society. The situation is a bit lenient in the cities but by not much. \n\nNow you would say why all this discussion about other stuff rather than the crime that occurred here? Well, the crimes against women are so rampant in India (the rape case is from the capital) because they are seen as objects and don't have a whole lot of social standing in the society's eyes. They are the easy prey. There are many other reasons too for such abuse against women. People committing these crimes don't expect to get caught. Bribing people in law enforcement and using political influence works for just fine for a lot of the rich folks in the country. The guy(s) who committed the Delhi rape are not rich, but are most likely dirt poor and somewhat illiterate. They don't much care for the law or have much respect for women. The western media only likely reported the rape because of the grisly details of the crime.\n\nSo, is there hope for India? Will it get better for women in India? Well, there is hope for anything and everything in the world. As time passes and society matures India will improve. Think how the US was like 100 yrs back. Women only got the right to vote in the US in the 1920s and blacks only got their civil rights in the 1960s. US has had independence since 1776 while India has had it since 1947. So India has a whole lot of catchup to do. India will get there, it might be another 50-100 years from now but India will get there. \n\nIn words of Andy Dufresne - [Hope is a good thing....](_URL_5_)",
" > How the hell did it get here? Has it always been like this? WHY?\n\n\nGood question. Yes, it has always been like this and it is not sudden at all. I am a woman who grew up in India and 99% of the Indian women I know have been sexually harassed in India. Seriously. \n\nNo part of India is truly safe for women but Delhi (the capital of India), is infamous for being the 'rape capital in India'. It has the highest number of reported cases of rape per year (over 500 per year and many of them gang rape). Delhi police is also infamous for blaming rape victims and not taking complaints seriously. There are several studies to show this. Protests have gone on for years, but this time, it seems to be more than usual and this seems to have grabbed global attention. That is the only reason it feels sudden to an outsider. Hope this helps. Feel free to ask more questions if you have them.",
"There's a huge amount of misinformation in this thread :(\n\nIndia is a very large country with a gigantic population and in general law enforcement isn't the best. Police are underpaid, overworked and there just aren't enough of them. Violent crime is often unreported. The judicial system is incredibly slow and inefficient. Corruption happens and police tend to dismiss rape cases or problems with the poor, and in rural regions the \"lower castes\" are treated really badly by the entire system.\n\nParticularly in rural areas all kinds of heinous things happen, and it's largely ignored by mainstream media.\n\nLike many other developing countries there's a massive rift between the rich and poor and society is also quite different from the West. There is a very deep seated misogyny and the value of life just isn't there. Women are still very much viewed as property (of men), and sadly rape \"taints\" women. This is a really ass-backwards view of rape that's quite normal in patriarchal societies, where the actual agony of the victim from such a vicious act becomes secondary.\n\nRapes aren't \"suddenly\" starting to happen, violent crime has obviously happened before. It's just that the private media in India seems to have taken an extremely keen interest in rape.\n\nIt's important to remember that much like Fox news, Indian media is private and fed by TRP sensationalism and a breaking-news culture. They seem to focus on one particular story and magically ignore vicious atrocities happening elsewhere.\n\nThe protests happening in the capital city Delhi are part genuine but unfortunately part slacktivism.\n\n > killing reporters\n\nThis is a sensationalist and distored headline, violent protestors in a completely different region were clashing with law enforcement, and a reporter got in the crossfire. It's not really a conspiracy to kill the freedom of speech.\n\nAnyway in general it's public outrage at a generally lax attitude of law enforcement in handling rape, along with some other complaints about the general safety of women that were triggered by this particularly horrific rape. Some of the protestors turned violent and in fact an innocent policeman died from some of the hooligans present at the site.\n\nIt's not really a revolution, and there's no breakdown of democracy at all or an \"abuse of power\" type thing. And no this is not an \"Arab Spring\" event happening again. India is a functioning parliamentary democracy but still a developing country with obvious problems like sporadic corruption, a huge social divide and a somewhat backwards and repressive society. Still, by and large, stuff works and progress happens.",
"Indian here. \n\nDetailed explanations have already been provided, so I'll give my take on it in a tl;dr fashion.\n\nIncident - A girl in Delhi was sexually and physically assaulted so brutally that she is missing most of her intestines and will probably die a painful death. This resulted in massive mob protests against the government and reciprocation from the government in terms of employing polic force to suppress the movement. \n\nThere are 2 good news here, nevertheless - \n\n(a) The perpetrators were NOT well-connected or rich people, but rather ordinary folk. Hence were promptly arrested and some even confessed, unlike other cases where witnesses are silenced and evidence tampered. I predict justice will be delivered quickly.\n\n(b) The girl was wearing conservative clothes, in normal time of the day in a good neighborhood and escorted by a male (her boyfriend). This has opened the eyes of the people. For the first time in Indian history, there is no slut-shaming or victim-blaming. No one - not even conservatives said that the \"girl was loose\" or was \"asking for it\". People finally realise that rape doesn't happen only to provocatively dressed slutty girls in backalleys late at night and hence well-deserved (which was an extremely strong sentiment hitherto). Now, people have finally come to their senses and realized rape can happen to anyone and one must not blame the girl. I personally consider this a drastic reversal in the country's sentiments.\n\nMe, like most Indians are emotionally stirred by the matter. The torture inflicted upon the girl is inhumane. \n\nShe is undergoing huge amounts of surgery now, and has sent a written note to her mother from the hospital, \"Mom, I want to live.\" She will most probably not.",
"You people need Gandhi.",
"What I'd like to gain is some perspective. I always hear that South Africa is the rape capital of the world. Is it seriously worse than India? I mean, we're hearing some pretty horrific things in India recently, but is it actually worse in South Africa?",
"What's always been going on, it's just now it's getting media coverage.",
"Watch the film Phoolan Devi, the Bandit Queen. ",
"Did a Ctrl+F Reporters, no one seems to have answered it, let me take a shot at it.\n\nThe reporter was shot by the police in a state called Manipur. Manipur lies in the north-east of India, a part of India largely ignored by the government (and the rest of India) for many reasons. This trend is changing, but not quickly enough.\n\nThe north-east of India is a sensitive area considering that it borders 4 countries (China, Bangladesh, Myanmar/Burma and Bhutan) and the fact that since the time of independence, the indigenous tribes have been asking to separate from India and be their own countries. There are many 'underground' militant outfits who operate in the area, especially Manipur, so there are always many bombings, killings, kidnappings etc. \n\nTo combat this militancy, the Indian government has slapped an shamefully draconian law on the North East called the [AFSPA](_URL_0_) or the [Armed Forces Special Powers Act](_URL_0_) that allows an officer to kill anyone he suspects of being /aiding a terrorist. Needless to say, this has been used to get rid of anyone who might be little more than a thorn in the side of the government.\n\n[A list of Journalists killed in india](_URL_1_) tells you that a lot of them have been from Manipur, and that by no means is this a rare occurrence. These are also just a small portion of the statistics, considering that every so often one reads about the death of whistle-blowers, photographers, freelance journalists or stringers in India.\n\nEdit: On re-reading, it seems I place the blame of killing reporters entirely on the state. I'd like to clarify — in the north-east, reporters are on the bad side of both the state and the militants. [Most of the reporters killed](_URL_2_) are indeed by militants, but the state tries its hand at it too.\n\n\n",
"As an Indian woman who came to the USA to study, this is what makes me scared to go back. I am single and will have no males to protect me. I have been groped in crowds, trains and even a university library and I have never reported it because I knew it would be meaningless and I would bring unnecessary scandal on myself. I wore very modest clothes in India, loose-fitting salwar suits with dupattas. I never even told anyone after those incident because there are no counseling services like there are in the US, and I had a distant kind of relationship with my mother where I couldn't talk about my difficulties with her and instead had to be her support system and attend to her problems and complaints.\n\nI still have residual trauma from those incidents. I still cannot go to look for books in a library or a supermarket aisle unless there are a lot of people around - I feel like I will pass out. If there is just one man in a supermarket aisle, I wait till he is done and then I go in. I feel like I will have a panic attack and pass out if there is just one man and me in a supermarket/library aisle. Thankfully books can now be requested online in the US and I just pick them up from the library front desk.\n\nI can seriously say that the United States has provided me with a much better living environment and I feel much safer and more at home here. A lot of my current issues are due to residual effects of experiences in India.\n",
"I live in the UK. The reports of this rape, and details of what it is like to be a woman in India today, have distressed me deeply. One of the most saddening things I have learnt is that a lot of the misogyny prevalent in the culture is fostered by women themselves - female abortions are routine, female infanticide is common. I read a comment from one mother\" I decided to let her die, because I knew what her future would be if she lived..\" It seems that Indian women have no knowledge of their own self worth. How can people from the outside world help? This problem appears to be so enormous, and so entrenched - has anyone any suggestions what we might do? My only thought is that we might support a world wide boycott of the Indian tourist industry. Indian women have no power, and money talks - I believe that tourism raised 1.9 billion USD in 2011, and that was 7.3 of the GNP. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ndtv.com/article/india/in-and-around-delhi-cops-blame-rapes-on-women-tehelka-investigation-with-ndtv-194735"
],
[],
[
"https://docs.google.com/document/d/19yaNXenL5tC5gnKThfZIFp30TNwKdKuEENVfhr6JJoc/edit"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2005/sep/16/india.gender"
],
[],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-20765364",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scandals_in_India",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty_in_India",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Education_in_India",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_of_India",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=9K30e9O3Nng#t=30s",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corruption_in_India"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AFSPA",
"http://cpj.org/killed/asia/india/",
"http://e-pao.net/epSubPageExtractor.asp?src=features.Focus_On_Media.Safety_of_Journalists_in_Manipur"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2hlqa2
|
Was the Catholic Church founded by St Peter or Constantine?
|
First I am Catholic and nothing said here will offend me or take me away from my faith. I ask this because there did not seem to be a single authority or church for years after Jesus died, as far as I know the gospels were not written until at least 30 years after his death.
So how can the Catholic Church claim they were founded by St Peter or be more authentic than other churches? I know the religion lasted through various saints who were martyred but it doesn't seem until Constantine that the religion had one voice. Could it be argued that Constantine was the real founder of the Church and not St Peter?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hlqa2/was_the_catholic_church_founded_by_st_peter_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cktxpk1"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Well, neither is probably the best answer.\n\nThe claim of the Roman Catholic Church is founded on basically two things: a documentary tradition that claims Peter was the leader of the church in Rome and passed on his authority to its bishop as a passing on of apostolic *authority* as well as *primacy*. However that documentary tradition is itself a development of the idea of Roman primacy that takes place over several hundreds of years. One cannot trace this idea, or at least the fullness of the claims of the RCC, back to surviving 2nd century documents, let alone 1st century ones.\n\nIt is complicated by the claim that there was always an unwritten tradition that accompanied the New Testament documents, an unwritten apostolic tradition that was authoritatively transmitted by the church, and that the RCC itself is the authoritative arbiter of such pronouncements.\n\nYou are right that the first Gospel text probably didn't appear until at least the 60s AD. Paul's earliest letters probably were written in the early 50s. \n\nHowever Constantine is not really a good contender either. By the time Constantine emerges on the scene, there already exists a large, connected network of churches that recognise each other and have a concept of unity. Indeed, Constantine does not establish that at all, rather they appeal to him to deal with the problem of the Donatists, a separatist group dominant in North Africa. In that issue you already see a church that considers itself both unified and universal attempting to deal with a group of believers that the mainstream considers outside the church.\n\nFurthermore, a very great deal of Constantine's dealings with the church take place in the Eastern half of the church, which down the track will comprise the portion that begins to be identified as Eastern Orthodox in contradistinction to the Roman Catholic Church dominant in the West.\n\nWho founded the Roman Catholic Church is not actually that helpful an historical question to ask. As a *tradition*, the RCC can legitimately claim a historical continuity that goes back to the earliest period. But so can several other branches of Christianity. Furthermore, what exactly 'historical continuity' guarantees is not so certain. There was historical continuity between the Roman Empire in 1453 and the Roman Republic in 100 BC, but they were vastly different things. The RCC has a long and involved history in itself, and it's difficult even to decide when we should start talking about the RCC as something distinct from other 'Church' entities. Personally I wouldn't distinguish the Western church as \"Roman Catholic\" before the 5th century."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9zszk7
|
why do people say “he died for our sins”?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zszk7/eli5_why_do_people_say_he_died_for_our_sins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eabsc8k",
"eabsfi1",
"eabsqr5"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"if you don't sin he died for no reason, so sin whenever you are able to, make his death worth a thousend sins",
"Because people need a loophole that can be treated as a ticket to heaven regardless of whether they sinned or not. Assigning the responsibility to a character attributed to a very remote past time effectively creates a free pass, since your sins are already paid for by someone long ago. A convenient way to excuse oneself from responsibility for one's actions. (Especially handy considering the paradigm that all people are born of sin anyway and are sinful at conception, thus making sure there is no way to actually live without sin)",
"In the Jewish faith you had to hold animal sacrifices yearly to absolve yourself of the sins you accumulated over the year. For Christians who worship the same God as the Jews Jesus became that sacrifice, and in their doctrine being the perfect Son of God his death was such a tremendously powerful sacrifice it absolved all the sins of those who follow him (Christians) for the rest of time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6nnnnk
|
how were mitochondria allowed to survive in foreign cells without being treated as invaders and digested?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nnnnk/eli5_how_were_mitochondria_allowed_to_survive_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkaslfq",
"dkav2n5"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Cells have pretty basic immune systems even now, with a lot of issues with bacteria crawling in and out of them and a lot of human disease involving types of bacteria that can enter cells and the body immune system having to deal with it because the cell immune system can't. Go back a hundred million years and the immune system was even more basic. ",
"Because they offer major benefits to the host cells, the ones that \"failed\" to recognize them as invaders survived and reproduced better than the ones that destroyed them. \n\nEven if this gave advantage/success to cells with \"weaker\" defense mechanisms, evolution isn't a perfect process. Sometimes genes/traits have negative side effects, but get passed on as long as the overall effect is helpful. If a cell happened to be \"apathetic\" towards cellular invaders but it also got mitochondria and their huge energy benefits... it would still (potentially) thrive compared to better-defended cells without mitochondria. \n\nAt this point in time, cells that have mitochondria are much more developed and likely have genes that do a good job of \"recognizing\" mitochondria as friendly. Meaning, it's now a specific adaptation instead of being associated with weak/ineffective defenses, even if it may have started that way. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8d80s5
|
how does entropy prove why time only goes forwards?
|
In a college class today we watched a clip in which Brian Cox said "entropy is the reason time only goes forwards". how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d80s5/eli5_how_does_entropy_prove_why_time_only_goes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxkztsx",
"dxkzyr6",
"dxl0qzn",
"dxl9abl",
"dxlgtyf"
],
"score": [
9,
13,
279,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"Entropy is the gradual decline of the universe from order into disorder. It's irreversible, too; any energy we spend to create order in one area will inevitably create disorder in another area. The only way it would be possible to reverse the effects of entropy would be to reverse the flow of time. ",
"I'm not sure what video you watched. Was it this one? _URL_0_\n\nIf so, I'm not sure I can explain it better than he does. The glacier falls apart and the chunks of ice come to a state of rest. The water will never spontaneously re-organize itself into a block of ice and leap back onto the side of the glacier. That would require additional energy (eg, something to lift the ice and propel it back to the glacier)\n\nAnother example I like to use is to imagine a hot teacup sitting on a table. The heat from the teacup will dissipate and achieve equilibrium with the rest of the room, so that the teacup becomes 'room temperature.' But the heat will never spontaneously decide to concentrate itself back inside a cold teacup. The only way to re-heat the tea is to add more energy in the form of a hot stove, or sunlight from a window, or something like that. \n\nCox is saying that this process never reverses itself, which we know with great certainty. He then expands this to infer that time itself will never run in reverse. What we call 'time' is our perception of change as it occurs. Since the process of entropy never works in reverse, we can confidently say that time itself never moves in reverse. ",
"Think about burning a piece of toast. Can you unburn the toast? No. Why not? Because we didn’t change the toast into a new thing called burnt toast, we just burned up part of the toast. The way our universe works, so far as we can tell, this only goes one way. Once you burnt the toast you can’t make it back the way it was. Even if you had a way or rebuilding it, it wouldn’t be the exact same toast. Even if you found a way to rebuild it with the exact same stuff and it was the same toast (impossible as far as we know) then you would have needed to spend lots and lots of energy to do that, which means we still lost something, right? Not quite.\n\nWe didn’t lose anything, really we didn’t even lose anything when we burn the toast. We just converted what was toast into other things. The universe didn’t lose anything, it still has the same amount of stuff it had before. We see it as loss because the heat and burnt crumbs aren’t as useful to us. The universe doesn’t care for toast, it’s not picky at all, it just wants to keep all its stuff. So it’s not that stuff disappears, it just gets turned into less complicated stuff by breaking it down into its most basic parts, including just plain old forms of energy like heat and light.\n\nThis may not seem like a big deal, but stretch it out of millions and billions and trillions of years and it starts adding up. Eventually everything get’s less complicated, which means eventually everything becomes the same thing. To put this in human terms, everything dies. When we see this happening we call it time passing. \n\nTime and Entropy are twisted together, one has to be that way because other is. Break one and you break the other.",
"So interestingly, most of the equations which govern things at the quantum level don't actually care about the direction time moves in. If time was moving backwards, individual atoms and their particles wouldn't look or behave any differently from what you would normally expect. \n\nBut somehow at the macroscopic level, that's clearly not the case. If time ran backwards, things would look and behave strangely, and they would violate the second law of thermodynamics, which we know to be impossible. Because of entropy, time can only go in one direction.\n\n*Why* that's the case is still an open problem, known as the [arrow of time](_URL_0_).",
"A physics professor of mine likened it to smashing a wine glass. The fact that the universe makes it much easier to smash than to un-smash the glass demonstrates that there's a definite direction to the way things happen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vLACGFhDOp0"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arrow_of_time"
],
[]
] |
|
7ztam8
|
My professor told me that one of the worst mistakes a historian can make is to engage in a teleological reading of history. What is that, and why is it so bad?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7ztam8/my_professor_told_me_that_one_of_the_worst/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duqw4fg"
],
"score": [
56
],
"text": [
"Going back to the philosophical debates of the ancient Greeks two of the most prominent competing overarching theories of the nature of the Universe in general were teleology vs. mechanism. Teleological beliefs are those that say that things exist or happen for a reason. For example, the idea that the reason clouds exist is to provide rain to water crops so that humans can grow food for themselves. It elevates \"purpose\" and indeed the concept of sentience or conscious thought to the level of fundamental force in the Universe. Competing against that is the theory that the underlying structure of the Universe is fundamentally mechanistic, based on simple rules and brainless processes without underlying final purpose. Things such as conscious thought and human life aren't planned for integral aspects to the Universe, rather they are emergent accidental phenomena. The process of science has over time settled on a decidedly mechanistic view of the Universe.\n\nIn other words, your professor is warning you against the idea that things happen in history purposefully to enable other things in the future that result. For example, it has been very common to elevate the early democracies in Greece by seeing them as intentional ancestors of modern westernized democracies. To see Charlemagne as the creator of France. Or view WWI through the lens of WWII. Especially since so much of history comes down to the actions of individuals acting on their own motivations it's very easy to cast new motivations on them based on what was happening elsewhere or what would happen later. A lot of history comes down to things happening by accident combined with very complex motivations by numerous individuals some of whom are acting together or at cross purposes. Even when you have a lot of detailed information on a historical event it takes a lot of work to understand exactly why some outcome was achieved vs. some other outcome, and it's very easy to ignore all of that and think of history as inevitable or happening within some constraint of a larger purpose or larger system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
20kpfi
|
why are relays (electronics) used?
|
I have a general idea of how relays work, but I don't see why they'd be used instead of just connecting the system to a direct switch.
Also, what does it mean for a PLC to be turned on via relay **contacts** like the following product has listed:
_URL_0_
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20kpfi/eli5_why_are_relays_electronics_used/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg46q2z"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A relay allows a much smaller current to switch a very large current, or a DC signal to switch an AC signal, or for a single signal to switch multiple signals. They're very versatile. \n\nTo be turned on via relay contacts just means that power is supplied from the electrical contacts of the relay. A signal goes into the relay, telling it to supply power to output contacts, which then would supply power to the load (in this case, a PLC)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.z-e-d.com/uv_monitor_pro16.php?range=monitors"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
3i4ls9
|
why do my joints hurt during menstruation?
|
Why do my knees and hips hurt during menstruation? How is my uterus connected to my joints?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i4ls9/eli5why_do_my_joints_hurt_during_menstruation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cud8kf8",
"cudb81b",
"cue01oy"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Estrogen affects joints by keeping inflammation down and estrogen levels decline during menstruation. ",
"I get this is well, and my doctors can't explain it. I'm at a perfect bmi (actually maybe a bit on the low side) and it's only my right leg. But all my right leg joints hurt: hip, knee, ankle and even my toes. And only for a couple days each month. It happens during ovulation for me, I always know when I'm ovulating because my right leg kills. ",
"could also be that your body is stealing potassium from other places to calm down the cramping in your uterus. next time it happens try eating a banana or a potato and see if that helps. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2w34rk
|
Are the busts of Roman leaders like Caesar taken from death masks or are they impressions crafted from contemporary descriptions?
|
Basically I am asking how accurate the busts of figures like Sulla, Marius, Pompey, and Caesar are. Is there a definitive answer or is it more speculative?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2w34rk/are_the_busts_of_roman_leaders_like_caesar_taken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"conntvv"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Follow up query; Octavianus, Trajan and even Constantine I had a bust, however Basil II did not. At what point did they stop producing busts for each emperor and move towards using mosaics like that of Zoe and Constantine IX or Ioannes II Komnonos at the Hagia Sofia?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
n8be5
|
Is it possible that our solar system is inside of the event horizon of a black hole?
|
From what I understand an observer out side of a black hole looking in on an object moving towards one will appear stretched to infinity, but that to the observer moving into the black hole the rest of the universe appears normal. Is it possible that the observable universe is really the event horizon of a large black hole, but also that the black holes we observe are also inside of this larger black hole?
Side question: is it possible for a black hole to exist inside of another black hole?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n8be5/is_it_possible_that_our_solar_system_is_inside_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c371vo5",
"c371vo5"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"This write up seems to refute the idea - [relevant post by robot roll call](_URL_0_)",
"This write up seems to refute the idea - [relevant post by robot roll call](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f1lgu/what_would_happen_if_the_event_horizons_of_two/c1cuiyw"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f1lgu/what_would_happen_if_the_event_horizons_of_two/c1cuiyw"
]
] |
|
5qacn3
|
If you pour equal amounts of hot and cold water in a container, would the resulting mixture be the exact median of the two temperatures?
|
Or would one overpower the other? And can someone explain the reasoning behind it?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5qacn3/if_you_pour_equal_amounts_of_hot_and_cold_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcxsl39",
"dcxvxqe"
],
"score": [
21,
6
],
"text": [
"In good approximation yes, as the total energy is conserved and the temperature is a direct measure of energy per volume. The mixture will have the average energy per volume of the two initial portions and therefore the same temperature.\n\nHowever the factor of proportionality between temperature and energy itself is also slightly temperature dependent (as shown [here](_URL_0_)), so that this will be only true in first approximation.\nCalculating the final temperature taking this into account will be slightly more complicated and requires you to invert the polynomial relation between heat and temperature.\n\nAs you can see heat capacity greatly increases when you come close to freezing/boiling temperatures. This is because at these temperatures energy that you transfer into the system will not only affect the average movement/vibrations of a the water-molecules, but will also be used to change the state of aggregation. Ice at zero degrees has a very different energy content than water at zero degrees.",
"Q=m*∫Cp*dT\n\nTo find the heat given or taken by a substance, equation above should be used. Since heat capacity is a function of temperature, ([here](_URL_0_) you can see Cp of water as a function of temperature) final mixture temperature won't be average. In small temperature ranges, accepting heat capacity as constant and taking it out of the integral is a fair assumption in engineering point of view, though it still depends on the material, however if you are working in large temperature differences, you can't take Cp out of the integral.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://syeilendrapramuditya.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/water_specific_heat_capacity_vs_temperature.gif?w=500&h=300"
],
[
"https://s0.wp.com/latex.php?latex=C_p%28T%29%3D%7B4.214-2.286%5Ctimes10%5E%7B-3%7DT%2B4.991%5Ctimes10%5E%7B-5%7DT%5E2-4.519%5Ctimes10%5E%7B-7%7DT%5E3%2B1.857%5Ctimes10%5E%7B-9%7DT%5E4%7D&bg=fafcff&fg=2a2a2a&s=0"
]
] |
|
2om7zl
|
how do we know that my blue is your blue?
|
How are we so sure that we see the same colors as each other? What if we just think that each color looks exactly the same to others as it does to us, but in reality it looks some color unimaginable to anyone else- because its unique to us? ELI5 and shower thought in one.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2om7zl/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_my_blue_is_your_blue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmogjhm",
"cmogl8h"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Like [This](_URL_0_) ?",
"We aren't. This holds true for all \"fundamentals\" in human perception - sound, taste, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PvRJ1hVjl_c"
],
[]
] |
|
1m9w3g
|
how does overheating affect a laptop's performance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1m9w3g/eli5how_does_overheating_affect_a_laptops/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc753fy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Excessive heat can damage the silicon logic or the metal wires or capacitor's electrolytes or melt insulation. It can set fire to dust inside the machine. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6b2l44
|
how do audio editors manage to dub movies without losing the rest of the sounds(i.e. ambient noises, background music, gunshot noises)
|
I'd imagine that music isn't so hard to add back, but what about other sounds, are they simply replaced with pre-recorded ones, or is the process more complicated than that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6b2l44/eli5_how_do_audio_editors_manage_to_dub_movies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhjaku6",
"dhjbngi"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There are multiple soundtracks going on at the same time and each soundtrack can be adjusted individually. So they record the background noises, they record the voices and they record other things as well.\n\nWhen they replace the voices, they just switch out the voice track but keep others the same or adjust them.",
"You know how music has a left and right channel?\n\nWell, for a movie, you can record all the voices on one channel and all the background sounds on a different channel.\n\nIt's actually far more complicated than that, but that's essentially how it is done. When you play it all back it all blends together, but when it's being recorded, everything is kept seperate. \n\nThat way when they want to overdub into another language they just mute the channel that has all the english dialog on it and have a different set of actors record the same words in Hungarian or whatever on a different channel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1s5qs7
|
What was the Cuban side of the Missile Crisis?
|
What was the reasoning behind the stance of Castro, Che, etc? What about the Cuban people? Was there any opposition to having Soviet missiles and/or starting a devastating war?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s5qs7/what_was_the_cuban_side_of_the_missile_crisis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdu87o5"
],
"score": [
43
],
"text": [
"Leading up to the Cuban Missile Crisis, and even throughout the crisis and for a time after it was concluded, the CIA was carrying out acts of sabotage and terrorism in Cuba. This was called the [Cuban Project](_URL_0_) (alternatively, Operation Mongoose). While the failed invasion of the Bay of Pigs was approved under the Eisenhower administration, the Cuban Project was authorized by Kennedy. \n\nIn [this article](_URL_2_), Noam Chomsky talks about the crisis, I wouldn't say from a Cuban side, but rather from a side that challenges the prevailing orthodox view of Kennedy bringing back the world from the brink of annihilation and being a saviour. \n\nKeeping in mind that the United States had once before attempted an invasion of Cuba in 1961, Kennedy seriously contemplated a military invasion of Cuba to eliminate the missile threat.\n\n > From the ExComm records, Stern concludes that on 26 October President Kennedy was \"leaning towards military action to eliminate the missiles\" in Cuba, to be followed by invasion, according to Pentagon plans. \n\nBut Khrushchev sent two messages to Kennedy, the first of which offered that \"The missiles would be removed if the US promised not to invade Cuba.\"\n\nSubsequently:\n\n > Kennedy also made an informal pledge not to invade Cuba, but with conditions: not just withdrawal of the missiles, but also termination, or at least \"a great lessening\", of any Russian military presence. (Unlike Turkey, on Russia's borders, where nothing of the kind could be contemplated.) When Cuba is no longer an \"armed camp\", then \"we probably wouldn't invade,\" in the president's words. He added also that if it hoped to be free from the threat of US invasion, Cuba must end its \"political subversion\" (Stern's phrase) in Latin America.\n\nSo Cuba had to quit political subversion in Latin America (stop spreading communism) but the US had to abide by no such restraint. Still, the continued existence of Castro was still seen as a threat that was needed to to be taken care of:\n\n > In the case of Cuba, the State Department policy planning council explained:\n\n > \"The primary danger we face in Castro is … in the impact the very existence of his regime has upon the leftist movement in many Latin American countries … The simple fact is that Castro represents a successful defiance of the US, a negation of our whole hemispheric policy of almost a century and a half.\"\n\nAnd the Cuban Project continued:\n\n > The crisis, however, was not over. On 8 November, the Pentagon announced that all known Soviet missile bases had been dismantled. And on the same day, Stern reports, \"a sabotage team carried out an attack on a Cuban factory,\" though Kennedy's terror campaign, Operation Mongoose, had been formally curtailed at the peak of the crisis. The 8 November terror attack lends support to Bundy's observation that the threat to peace was Cuba, not Turkey – where the Russians were not continuing a lethal assault. Not, however, what Bundy had in mind, or could have understood.\n\n > More details are added by the highly respected scholar Raymond Garthoff, who also had a great deal of experience within the government, in his careful 1987 account of the missile crisis. On 8 November, he writes, \"a Cuban covert action sabotage team dispatched from the United States successfully blew up a Cuban industrial facility,\" killing 400 workers, according to a Cuban government letter to the UN Secretary General. Garthoff comments that \"the Soviets could only see [the attack] as an effort to backpedal on what was, for them, the key question remaining: American assurances not to attack Cuba\"\n\nSo, while the intensity of attacks lessened during the crisis, they were quickly resumed:\n\n > Kennedy officially renewed the terrorist operations after the crisis ebbed. Ten days before his assassination, he approved a CIA plan for \"destruction operations\" by US proxy forces \"against a large oil refinery and storage facilities, a large electric plant, sugar refineries, railroad bridges, harbor facilities, and underwater demolition of docks and ships\". A plot to assassinate Castro was apparently initiated on the day of the Kennedy assassination. The terrorist campaign was called off in 1965, but \"one of Nixon's first acts in office in 1969 was to direct the CIA to intensify covert operations against Cuba,\" Garthoff reports.\n\nThe American government was still dead-set on overthrowing the Castro regime. Although it had promised not to invade, it kept up attacks from inside Cuba by exiles and CIA operatives. \n\nSo that gives a general idea of what Cuba was going through at the time. It was besieged, subjected to sabotage and was threatened with invasion twice. There is an interesting documentary on Robert McNamara called The Fog of War, and in it he gives an account about the time he met Castro after the crisis. [This is the specific part.](_URL_1_) The impression you get is that Castro urged Khruschev to fire the missiles at the United States in some state of madness. What he actually meant was that he urged Khrushchev to fire the missiles *if Cuba was invaded again*. Given the circumstances, it was understandable. Cuba was, and saw itself, as under existential threat.\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuban_Project",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtUfBc4qQMg",
"http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/15/cuban-missile-crisis-russian-roulette"
]
] |
|
5zrb1d
|
How did Western Europian Socialist Parties view the USSR?
|
I'm primarily asking about from the end of the Russian Revolution to before the start of World War Two.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5zrb1d/how_did_western_europian_socialist_parties_view/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df16twf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"With regards to Italy, the matter is very complicated. \n\nThe Italian Communist party had a love-hate relationship with the USSR. \n\nThe Italian Socialist Party was a generally capitalist-oriented, pro-European, \"Third Way\" party, although when he was Prime Minister, Socialist leader Bettino Craxi enjoyed a cordial working relationship with Ronald Regan. \n\nAnd lastly, the Italian Social Democrats never got enough votes for anyone to ask them for their opinion, but they entered in a number of coalitions with the pro-American Christian Democracy party.\n\n**Il Partito Comunista Italiano** (Electoral Range: fluctuating between 22% and 30%)\n\nThe Italian Communist Party (PCI) was the spiritual successor to the Communist militias which had taken up arms against the Fascist Regime between 1944 and 1945. Although these militias were composed of existing anti-fascist activists as well as returning soldiers/deserters, they received small albeit perceptible amounts of aid from the Soviet Union. The \"Sovietization\" of these militias, and by extension the \"sovietization\" of opposition to the dying regime, definitely was tangible. Although he's not a historian, in Hemingway recalls the mood of the moment in *Across the River and Into the Trees* by recounting that the owner of Harry's Bar in Venice has bought an equal number of cases of Whiskey and Vodka, being unsure of who would liberate Venice first. \n\nIn its early days, the most members of the Italian Communist Party leadership were definitely pro-USSR, and the General Secretary Togliatti had a direct line to Moscow. However, by the 1950s it became increasingly difficult for the PCI to justify increasingly evident oppression in the Eastern Block, culminating in the Hungarian Revolution of 1958. Togliatti began advertising \"The Italian Way Towards Socialism\" in the 1958 election, signaling that the pro-USSR faction within the party was definitely in the minority. By the 1968 Prague Spring, the PCI was actively condemning the Soviet Union. By 1976, the General Secretary of the PCI, Enrico Berlinguer, declared in a high-profile interview in the *Corriere della Sera* newspaper that his “Eurocommunism” was unconditioned by the regimes behind the Iron Curtain, and that at any rate he felt safer living under the umbrella of NATO than he would be in a Warsaw Pact country. A vaguely pro-American declaration, although Berlinguer wasn't by any means supportive of US policies in Europe and the world. \n\nIn spite of Berlinguer's official line, there remained a backbone of pro-USSR administrators in the Italian Communist Party such that when Berlinguer suffered a fatal stroke at a rally in 1984, the Communist Party leadership sought refuge in pro-Soviet nostalgia, only to lose any ability to form coherent policy after Michail Gorbachev’s reforms within the Soviet Union gained steam.\n\n\n**Il Partito Socialista Italiano** (electoral range: between 7% and 15%)\n\nThe Socialists were in great part perceived as \"Diet Leftists,\" seeing as the Italian Communist Party itself was founded as a direct reaction to the 1921 PSI congress when Socialist Party leaders denounced the use of arms. In fact, the Italian Socialist Party (PSI) was only ever the \"Younger Brother\" of the Italian Communist Party until the 1960's, when youth activism revealed the ruling Christian Democrats (DC) were very unpopular with younger voters, pushing together center-left coalitions. Prior to then, there had been a \"Unity of Action\" between the Communist Party and the Socialist party, and this had extended to foreign policy: the Socialists opposed Italian entry into NATO in 1949, but also began to denounce the Soviet Union in the 1950s. \n\nHowever, unlike the Communists, in the Socialist party the pro-Soviet faction was only small (albeit vocal) and rapidly evaporated. By the time the Socialist-led governing coalition of the 1980s came to power, the Socialist Party was committed to a strong pro-European line. Relations with the USSR were non-existent, while relations with the US were pragmatic: most prominently, Craxi affirmed Italian sovereignty during the hijacking of the Italian cruise ship “Achille Lauro” off the coast of Egypt by members of the Palestinian Liberation Front. Already peeving Italy’s NATO allies by negotiating with the terrorists, after the hijackers’ getaway plane was coerced by American fighter jets to land on a NATO base in Sicily, Italian *Carabinieri* (the national Gendarmerie) impeded a detachment of American Special Forces operatives to apprehend the four hijackers, so that they could be tried in Italy. In spite of not realizing that one of the negotiation aids sent by the Palestinian Authority had been intimately involved with the hijacking, Craxi’s firm stance during the crisis strengthened his public image.\n\n**Partito Socialista Democratico Italiano** (electoral range: between 2.5% and 6%)\n\nThe Italian Social Democrats had originally been founded as a splinter group of the Socialist Party in 1947. The Socialists had proven to be too centrist for some important members of the party. However, their focus on social welfare policy quickly led them to be perceived as a single-issue centrist party, seeing as the ruling Christian Democrats were also not opposed to generous welfare policies. Their impact on Italian foreign policy was negligible, although they did act as important scale-tippers in numerous governing coalitions. \n\nSources on European Political History you might be interested in:\n\n*The Italian Revolution: The End of Politics, Italian Style?* (1995)\n\nand \n\n*European Integration: A Concise History.* (2012) \n\nBoth by M. Gilbert \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7itnyd
|
how can we so distinctly remember things that never actually happened?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7itnyd/eli5_how_can_we_so_distinctly_remember_things/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dr1ac22"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It is possible to vividly imagine something and then simply re-categorize that mental image as a memory rather than something you imagined. The act of remembering it works just the same. You can see what it looks like, hear the sounds or voices, and so forth. You just have attached a wrong category to it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
56p0jd
|
how to simplify square roots, such as √99 into 3√11? i just can't understand this concept.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56p0jd/eli5how_to_simplify_square_roots_such_as_99_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8l4alf",
"d8l4dnm"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"To bring numbers outside of the root sign, they have to be a square. Then when you bring it outside, you take the root of it. \n\nThink of √99 = √(9\\*11) = √(9)\\*√(11) = 3√11\n\nFactor out any squares inside the root, then you can remove them.",
"okay! so basically you divide while it's still inside the square root. so √99 = √(9•11)=(√9)•(√11). √9=3. so √99=3•√11=3√11. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ohf9v
|
Can you break your own teeth by closing your jaw?
|
I'm just curious, if you close your jaw hard/fast enough, is it possible to break your teeth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ohf9v/can_you_break_your_own_teeth_by_closing_your_jaw/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3h9uhf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If your teeth are damaged from tooth decay you most certainly can.\n\nThe teeth are made of calcium and if they aren't taken care of they can slowly get eaten away by bacteria on the teeth. This will weaken the surrounding layer of the tooth and eventually make them brittle and prone to damage.\n\nEven if your teeth aren't damaged from tooth decay they can still get damage from grinding your teeth. People tend to do this in their sleep or if they are nervous. What happens is a person will unconsciously or consciously bite down and move their jaw from side to side. This causes the teeth to slowly grind down through one another like rubbing two stones together."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
55w9lh
|
. how do soda fountain machines work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55w9lh/eli5_how_do_soda_fountain_machines_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8ekixb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Lots of tubes, and a mixer on each nozzle. \n\nBasically there are 3 parts that go into your fountain soda. \n\nWater - first tube from water supply to each nozzle. \n\nCo2 - large canister in back (think like size of a large helium tank) - 2nd tube to each nozzle. \n\nSyrup - generally come in boxes. Heavy plastic bag inside box with about 3 gal of syrup - 3rd tube to each nozzle. \n\nNozzles contain a mixer mechanism - basically can control hoe much of each of the 3 to dispense. (ie 1 part syrup to 1 part CO2 to 4 parts water.)\n\nThe carbonated water and syrup spray into the funnel part of the nozzle and into your cup. If the funnel part were removed, the carbonated water and syrup would be seen coming out as 2 separate streams. \n\nIf you ever see a Coke nozzle dispensing only carbonated water - the syrup box is empty and needs to be changed out (takes about a minute)\n\nIf your soda is totally flat, time to switch Co2 canisters. \n\nIf your soda is too bubbly and not enough flavor - time to recalibrate the dispenser quantities. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9dp605
|
Why does plasma create light, when it is just a superheated gas?
|
I understand that most extremely hot things create light, and that plasma is just gas that gets so hot that atoms start to fall apart, but why do very hot things and exothermic reactions create light?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9dp605/why_does_plasma_create_light_when_it_is_just_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5j6rc9",
"e5j7enq"
],
"score": [
10,
11
],
"text": [
"The same reason as everything else. When an object is heated, energy is added to it. Specifically this is kinetic energy of the atoms, they vibrate at higher and higher frequency. Some of this energy is transferred to the electrons in the atom, which may then become \"excited\" (jump to a higher energy level). This only occurs if the kinetic energy of the electron is great enough, and this \"excited\" state is very unstable. Because of the instability the electron will lose energy and rapidly fall back down to its \"ground\" state. This loss of energy manifests itself as a photon whose wavelength depends on the amount of energy levels the electron \"jumped\". Sorry if this explanation was confusing I'm pretty tired atm, but hope this helped.",
"Everything emits [black-body radiation](_URL_6_), across a continuous spectrum of temperature which determines the distribution of emitted photons, \"hot\" things just emit significantly in our visual range.\n\nSeparate from that, when atoms or molecules transition from a higher to a lower energy state, [they emit specific frequencies](_URL_4_), forming \"bands\" rather than a smooth spectrum, which is how [spectroscopy](_URL_5_) can determine the composition of an object.\n\nGenerally a plasma, as with a candle flame, is hot enough to emit light both ways. There are \"cold\" or [\"non-thermal\" plasmas](_URL_1_) in which the electron gas is thousands of kelvin, but the atoms are at room temperature, and so not visible from black-body radiation, and can be invisible. It can also be too hot to be visible. In [this image](_URL_0_) from [_URL_2_](https://www._URL_2_/mag/2/18):\n\n > the brightest areas of the photo are in fact the coolest. At 150 million °C (the temperature in the centre), the plasma doesn't emit in the spectrum of visible light. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.iter.org/img/resize-450-90/www/content/com/Lists/Mag%20Stories/Attachments/18/kstar_plasma_3.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonthermal_plasma",
"iter.org",
"https://www.iter.org/mag/2/18",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emission_spectrum",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectroscopy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black-body_radiation"
]
] |
|
3g6nf9
|
what was so major about that debate yesterday?
|
Specifically the one all over the news about Donald Trump or something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3g6nf9/eli5_what_was_so_major_about_that_debate_yesterday/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctvcp9b",
"ctvcqfe"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I got majorly drunk playing the Debate Drinking Game...\n\nIt's not really that major. It's just a tool the Republican Party uses to gauge which candidates are least likely to be eaten alive in the public eye. ",
"The process has to start somewhere. There are 15 candidates that are declared, have some amount of reasonable funding, and at least a shot at the nomination. The debates help voters choose who to support and there will be people writing checks (or not writing checks) today based on what they saw yesterday."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
x64b7
|
Why do people experience cravings years after they have quit the substance to which they were addicted?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/x64b7/why_do_people_experience_cravings_years_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5jiw1a"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"You should think about addiction as a *learned* behavioural response. Cravings are usually triggered by two events, first is when exposed to drug related stimuli (e.g. seeing a crackpipe, bong, watching people take drugs, walking past the pub, thinking about drug use) and the second is when exposed to stressors. \n\nIn the first example, the person has previously *learned* to associate drug related cues to reward related internal processes. This is a natural learning process most likely mediated primarily by [classical conditioning](_URL_0_) and is the same kind of learning as when you associate a particular perfume smell to that old girl/boyfriend you used to date. So when exposed to drug related cues, you get that automatic association with reward pathways. And humans at their most basic are driven to obtain reward - hence cravings.\n\nIn the stress induced cravings, the person has previously *learned* that the use of drugs can reduce the negative feelings of stress and negative mood states. This learning process is mediated by [negative reinforcement](_URL_1_) learning. So in this sense, craving can be induced by a desire to reduce the negative feelings.\n\nBased on this, it is important to note how difficult it is to unlearn something. So going back to the example of the perfume, the thoughts you have of the old girl/boyfriend are almost automatic. The learning is very strong. Same way as if you have a particular strategy (maybe it is having chocolate, or seeing a movie, or playing with your kids) for calming yourself down when you are angry, or increasing you mood when feeling down. Imagine taking that tried and tested strategy for reducing the negative mood. This is what cravings are all about. They are automatic responses to a strongly learned behavioural response."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classical_conditioning",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinforcement#Positive_and_negative_reinforcement"
]
] |
||
5rh2ne
|
why is it that when my feet are cold and i put them under my covers, they start sweating but they're still freezing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rh2ne/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_my_feet_are_cold_and_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd7b9hk",
"dd7g1f9",
"dd7ia3n",
"dd7nfh3",
"dd7o307",
"dd7p1xf",
"dd7rrq3",
"dd7shaz",
"dd80qcd",
"dd80t0w"
],
"score": [
5686,
58,
2,
2,
20,
4,
2,
172,
11,
4
],
"text": [
"The control center in your brain for body temperature (the hypothalamus) is part of a different network than the sensory system for perception of heat (primary somatosensory cortex).\n\nThe control center for body temperature is more concerned about the temperature in your brain and other vital organs; so if your core is too warm, you will sweat all over. The will happen no matter how cold your feet are. Cold feet is less of a problem than a brain that is too hot.",
"To build on what others have said, your brain cares a lot more about it's core temperature than the temperature of your fingers and toes. Other than sweating when too warm, or shivering when too cold, the primary method the brain uses to regulate your temperature is by deciding how much heat to lose through your extremities.\n\nThink of your hands and feet like radiators. There is a lot of surface area and they are usually in contact with the floor or with surfaces you are holding, so if you are too warm your body will send lots of blood to your hands and feet and they will feel really warm because they are purposefully radiating away lots of extra heat your body is trying to get rid of. (After you do a lot of exercise, feel how warm your hands or feet are, they are probably burning hot). \n\nMeanwhile, when you are too cold, your body restricts the amount of heat it sends to your toes and hands because (1) those appendages can handle cold temperatures a lot better than your internal organs, and (2) your brain knows heat that goes that far away from your core will just be lost right away because your hands and feet are exposed to the elements so it's not worth \"wasting\" heat trying to keep them warm.\n\nWhat's my point with all of this? **If you have cold feet, it's because your body is colder than it wants to be, not because your feet themselves are cold.** Don't worry about warming up your feet directly, that will help, but so will just putting an extra blanket over your body and raising your overall temperature. It's impossible to have cold feet while feeling hot in the rest of your body. Put on and extra sweater or blanket, then your core temperature goes up and your feet will warm themselves up real quick as your body shunts it's excess heat out to your toes.",
"YOU NEED TO DRY THOSE FEET WITH HOT AIR, they wont dry under the covers quickly because the humidity will rise and IMPEED EVAPORATION and they wont dry efficiently outside of the covers because the evaporative cooling as the name implies cools your feet down AND THE ROOM IS COLD THIS IS slowing evaporation WHILE keeping them cold.. \n\nas others have suggested your body doesn't care about the feet but that is merely an observation not the core issue your having HAHA CAPS",
"I've never once in my entire life experienced this under any sort of cover or blanket. I am generally a very warmblooded sweaty gorilla but despite that my feet have a strong tendency to get cold and stay cold once they are cold. Putting them under a blanket slowly warms them up, zero sweating. Strange. \n\n[Male][40's] ",
"If your feet sweat, they will get cold. Some people (like me) have feet that sweat regardless of the temp if they cannot breathe. When your feet sweat and the temp is low, they will stay cold as long as they are wet. \n\nTo combat this at work, I wear slip on dress shoes and take them off under my desk while sitting there, which allows my feet to breathe and stay dry, and thus warm. They slip on easily enough they most people never notice. When I ride motorcycles long distance I'll be riding 20 hours a day or more. Obviously removing my boots would be practical or safe, so I use anti-monkey butt powder between my toes, dri-max socks, and gore-tex boots. I've found this combination to work the best for me, but it is expensive. At home I wear real sheep fur lined slippers. So warm and cozy and they breathe, unlike the synthetic lined ones. ",
"I've been fat for a few years in the past, and this happened ONLY during that time.\n\nMaybe it's a fat issue?",
"Another possible reason, admittedly more likely in the case of a diabetic, is some degree of restricted circulation. ",
"I want the advice, but half the replies here are already deleted. How's a guy supposed to learn how to keep his feet dry?",
"The ice in your feet is melting. Alternatively its condensation like a mcdonalds cup. Alternatively your feet are claustrophobic and theyre just nervous. ",
"I guess its weird that this never happens to me? My feet are always cold... my nose is always cold... I'm usually always cold... i keep my room in the mid 70s with a space heater while everyone else in the house is alright at 65. \nAnd in the summer I'm like \"ahhhhh, the sweet glorious feeling of melting in the sun....\"\nIm not sure but this might be proof that I am indeed a spawn from hell... "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bxz9xx
|
why do some recent films from the 2000s need to go through a remaster process into higher resolutions like 4k? aren't the original source files already at their native resolution, especially if they were filmed digitally?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bxz9xx/eli5_why_do_some_recent_films_from_the_2000s_need/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eqas3gf",
"eqb1a18",
"eqb6s5b",
"eqbciop",
"eqbogvo",
"eqboy8w",
"eqbpmsk",
"eqbsgoj",
"eqbyf5o"
],
"score": [
1320,
88,
26,
3,
83,
4,
7,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"No, there was still a lot of film used in the 2000s. Even so, digitization for HD (1080) is very different from digitization for 4K (2160) because different bitrate limits are needed for the different formats. There might have been a 4K \"digital\" version for theaters with digital projectors in the 2000s, but that's not the right bitrate for an Ultra HD Bluray.",
"Even now, films are shot in 4K or 8K but cgi is done in 2k due to rendering time. A remaster may be just re-rendering the cgi in higher resolution/native for the film.",
"\nA film like your describing will need to be “transferred” to 4k from master and then encoded into whatever format for distribution.\n\nThe source files or “masters” are indeed at their native recorded and maximum resolution/quality. That is why the process is called remastering.\nThey’re going back working off the master.",
"They're all shot at a higher resolution (especially anything that is film stock, since film can be projected to massive sizes before it becomes blurry, but need to be exported for the higher format.\n\nRather than exporting at a higher resolution which means a lot more rendering with original assets, an easier way is to simply interpolate the pre-existing 1080 version.",
"Most feature films were still shooting on film in the 2000s, and digital didn't make up the majority of productions until the 2010s. For anything originally shot on film, it makes sense now to go back and re-scan those elements at 4K (or higher) as most Home Video versions done in the 2000s and into the 2010s were only 1080p. Even if a 4K Digital Cinema version exists, there's still a color conversion process that needs to happen and requires creative oversight before that could be viewed at home in 4K.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEven for films that were shot digitally in the last 15 years, there are some that are worth re-mastering in 4K. 10 years ago, it was a big deal to try to work with 4K files even if your camera was capable of recording them. Many projects had the cameras recording at 4K, but only went through finishing at 2K to save time and money. For those projects, it would be worth it to re-master them from the original camera files now that it's easier to work with those materials and we can actually watch material in 4K at home.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIn addition to those two cases, the advent of HDR and Atmos for Color and Sound are other new technologies that can be added into the finishing process for anything being re-mastered in 2019. Anything shot on film and a majority of material shot on digital cinema cameras has the necessary information to create an HDR version but it would take a remastering process that goes back to those original camera files or scans rather than just being able to do some kind of conversion.",
"For most mainstream theatres outside of New York and Los Angeles, the first major digitally shot and exhibited film was Hannah Montana in 2005. And the last of the first run 35mm houses were gone by 2011. So that gives you a good frame of reference for the transition on the front end.",
"Nope! many were filmed in 1080 native. The Clones Wars was the first big digital movie and it was 1080. So they basically can never have a 4K version of those films. Because you can never make a resolution higher then source filmed.",
"I wonder what the new scanners can scan 35mm film to. What about imax film?\n\n\nIs 16k possible?\n\n\n\nimax scanned _URL_0_",
"Our first feature was shot in 2004 and a snakeoil salesman convinced us that we should use this all-digital Panasonic. It was used on Episode 1, he claimed (we later found out it was just a vfx shot b cam). We were fresh out of school and it was pretty cheap! Until we found out the deck was 20K to rent and we had to carry $1M in insurance because there were only two decks in the world. The footage was 520i at 60 fps giving us an effective 720p, but with tons of combing. The high def version we finally released used a Photoshop batch to decomb the source frame by frame and then we had to manually conform to 23.98. It was GRUELLING."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://vimeo.com/323590745"
],
[]
] |
||
8alfy3
|
why does an extra oxygen atom make such a big difference between h2o (water) and h2o2 (rocket fuel)?
|
I would expect a little bit of an "extra trait" from one to the other, but it's two completely polar opposites. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8alfy3/eli5_why_does_an_extra_oxygen_atom_make_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dwzjjp6",
"dwzk70o",
"dwzkcm8"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The bond between the two oxygen atoms in H2O2 is not very strong and, as a result, the molecule as a whole is rather unstable. H2O2 readily breaks down into normal H2O and O2, producing heat in the process.",
"Well, the LOX and LH2 are stored separately and then combined in the combustion chamber of the rocket. One oxygen atom is way too unstable so it reacts with a neighbouring oxygen atom to create O2. The LH2 and LOX are mixed at a 2:1 ratio so that it combines into H2O. ",
"When hydrogen peroxide(H2O2) breaks down due to warmth, UV exposure, or just randomly, it turns into stable water and a free Oxygen atom that wants to bond with anything it can find and give up some energy. Water is super stable and generally doesn't break down like this so it is relatively nonreactive.\n\nThis is what makes H2O2 so different from H2O\n\nOxygen is a really good oxidizer(surprise, i know) and gives off a lot of energy when it bonds. If you start creating a lot of oxygen you're going to have a problem pretty much no matter what else is in your system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
67fm6m
|
The Fukang meteorite is estimated to be 4.5 billion years old, how is it that people manage to estimate its age?
|
I just wonder how it's even possible to date something to be that old, and based on what evidence would someone give it that estimate?
_URL_0_
EDIT: Added link
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/67fm6m/the_fukang_meteorite_is_estimated_to_be_45/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgq9dll"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The age of meteorites is measured the same way we measure the absolute age of materials on Earth, via [radiometric dating](_URL_0_). I'm going to venture a guess that your confusion might stem from a common misconception, namely that radiometric dating always equal carbon, or ^14 C, dating which is only useful over a few tens of thousand of years (and thus is not useful for measuring the age of meteorites or most geologic materials on Earth for that matter). In detail there are a whole host of useful radioactive isotopes that decay to stable products and that have half lives long enough to make them suitable for dating materials several billion years old. Specifically for meteorites, the most common radiometric systems are U-Pb, Sm-Nd, and Rb-Sr with half lives of 0.7 (for ^235 U - ^207 Pb), 4.5 (for ^238 U - ^208 Pb), 106, and 50 billion years, respectively (I've seen Ar-Ar dating used as well, which has a half life of 1.3 billion years, but usually in the context of dating an impact as opposed to the age of the meteorite itself). The useful range for any given isotope (i.e. the age of material you can date with it) is roughly between 1/10 to 10 times the half life, so all of these systems are useful for meteorites that formed at the same time as the rest of the solar system. Which radiometric system is used (and the details of how it is applied) will depend on they type of meteorite as these different radiometric systems only work with specific minerals as you need minerals which incorporate the radioactive parent into it's structure during crystallization and which retain the daughter isotope during decay."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2129747/The-beautiful-mysterious-Fukang-pallasite-meteorite.html"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating"
]
] |
|
61ambb
|
why is it illegal to copy the appearance/design of others' inventions, but not illegal to copy the taste of other brands' foods?
|
For example, store brand vs national brand.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61ambb/eli5_why_is_it_illegal_to_copy_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfcztl7",
"dfd0fth",
"dfd6827",
"dfd7zpg",
"dfdmr3g"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Appearance or design seems much more quantifiable than taste, which is far more subjective and varies from person to person.",
"Because most designs are patented or copyrighted. Some flavors are patented too, but it's easier to find things that taste similar and change a few ingredients. ",
"IANAL, but one thing that sticks out right away is that I generally don't sell the food I make, whereas I might sell a T-shirt design I copied off someone else online. Like, you CAN make \"Applebee's Chicken!\"(C) or whatever -- there are all kinds of recipes online where people try to copy recipes of a famous restaurant -- but you're usually doing that in your home or for your friends. Similarly, you CAN draw Artist123's drawing by copying it off her profile online if you just like it and think it looks good on your wall, but you're again doing that in the privacy of your home. \n\nCopyright problems only come in, as a very general rule, when you're trying to sell what you're making for money. This is why you can busk covers on the street or walk around singing an Elvis song, because it's not a charged concert, but if you're charging admission to an event you need official permission to sing a song. If you were ever in band or orchestra or a musical in high school, you might have noticed that the conductor needed to get a permit to perform the musical or concert piece if there was any money paid for the play. Same thing for artwork. This is why estates/familes of dead artists make money still; people still need permission for certain things. The point of a copyright isn't that you can't use or enjoy the product, it's that you can't make money off someone else's product.\n\nIf you do decide to charge money for the food you make -- and I'm talking over the table, not a lemonade stand -- rules *do* in fact apply for copyright infringements, you're right. However, as others have said, intellectual property is a lot easier when something is more objective (like a logo with the exact same picture as another logo) than when it's subjective (like taste). In order to violate a patent that someone else has taken out on their food, they would have to copyright the food in the first place. I suppose that, theoretically, someone *COULD* make a case for a certain proportion of salt, pepper, thyme and garlic on steak as an invented recipe to which nobody else had the rights, but the next person who made it could just add a LITTLE more salt to mess up the proportions on purpose. Or say, \"no, you're tasting it wrong, I actually didn't put that much salt in, your taste buds are weird\", even if they did copy the recipe exactly. You see what I mean -- it's a tough thing to prove that you and you only should have the rights to this/have invented this combination yourself, and equally hard to prove that someone's violated that.\n\nThe one instance where I could see this being a problem is if a restaurant has a famous or even, yes, classified recipe (as I've heard Coca-Cola does) and you remake that recipe, sell it, and attach that same name. For instance, if I remade KFC's chicken exactly and sold it in Babelincoln27 Cafe under the name \"Kentucky Fried Chicken,\" that would be a copyright of the name, and I think I'd get in trouble. But if I remade the chicken exactly and called it Babelincoln Chicken, I think they'd have a tough time proving it was that exact recipe.",
"Food is not protected by IP law. You can copyright a specific recipe (but not the resulting food) and get other IP protection for a brand name or other related concepts, but the actual food item itself is not protected.\n\n",
"You genrally can't copyright a recipe. (although you can keep it secret. but if someone reverse engineers it, you're out of luck)\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHere's some posts that go into it more ( [this one] (_URL_1_) is pretty good). You can't copyright recipes\n\nYou can copy stuff like presentation. When you're seeing store/national brands that are nearly identical (like Hellman's Mayo vs Best foods, the jar wrapper is literally the same except for the name), they're usually owned by the same company, or it's licensed. Often in the case of store brand, they're made in the same factory as the name brand, but it's a way to get rid of excess capacity, or slightly flawed (but totally fine edible wise) food."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/search?q=copyright+recipe&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance&t=all",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qxyll/eli5_are_there_copyrights_on_recipes/"
]
] |
|
8j8ajo
|
Why is it so difficult to clean up oil spills that happen in large bodies of water?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8j8ajo/why_is_it_so_difficult_to_clean_up_oil_spills/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyzcgn8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, compared to other liquids, lipids can be removed quite easily as they are less dense than water and therefore float. When you pour oil into a tub of water, you can simply lay a tissue on the surface and it is going to absorb the oil quite neatly. I think for oil spills on the oceanic level the problems are that the sheer amount of oil is too enormous to be cleared easily. Also, animals will come into contact with it nevertheless (especially when the spill reaches the coast) and will cause the terrible problems that are associated with this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
11z2wo
|
Does the age in which you procreate affect what is inherited by the child? For example, will a child that is conceived by 20 year old parents have traits very different than if the parents were in their 50's?
|
I remember reading somewhere that because our DNA and physical attributes go through changes as we age, it changes what traits we pass on to our children.
I know I am not asking this properly, but I do remember either hearing a story about it on PBS or hearing a news segment. The topic has always fascinated me but I've never been able to find it in any of my internet searches.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11z2wo/does_the_age_in_which_you_procreate_affect_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6qrt6r",
"c6qrwts",
"c6qt5lt"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I know Autism is linked to the age of the Father.\n_URL_0_",
"Downs syndrome is more likely as the mother gets older. I'm pretty sure that has nothing to do with what genes are inherited though. Its pretty much completely random no matter what age the parents are.",
"Your DNA does change as you get older, for example each of your chromosomes ends in a telomere, which is like a protective cap of extra DNA. Every time your cells make a copy of themselves these get shorter, and telomere length has been associated with some signs of aging. \n\nHowever this is only true in autosomes (the cells that make up most of your body), and doesn't affect your offspring. Gametes, sperm and egg, are protected from this effect so their telomeres don't shorten as you age. \n\nHowever, as others have mentioned there have been studies that show that older parents can lead to increased risk of certain diseases in the offspring. This is especially true if the mother is older (the classic example is Down's syndrome). \n\nThis is because all the eggs a woman will ever produce are actually made when she is developing in her own mother's womb. Those eggs sit around in a kind of stasis and every month one (or two) of those eggs gets randomly brought out of storage. As those eggs are sitting around they can accumulate random defects, since they are never copied or checked over once they are made. In contrast, men make millions of new sperm every day, they don't sit around accumulating defects, so effects from older fathers are not as well described (but they do exist).\n\nI've only looked at the abstract for [this article](_URL_0_), but it will have more detail than I can provide. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://psychcentral.com/news/2012/08/24/fathers-age-linked-to-autism-schizophrenia-risk/43626.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1568163710000796"
]
] |
|
gp802
|
Does the 5 second rule actually work - how do germs attach themselves to things?
|
Let's say I drop an m & m. How do germs latch onto it? Are they "sticky" - do they have molecules that automatically latch onto other things? How do germs attach themselves to things, especially hard things (I presume spilling juice results in picking up way more stuff than an m & m because juice is sticky... but again, why?). Germs aren't like spiders; they don't, say, crawl, do they? (Oh god, please say no to this).
And however this works, does that mean that there's really no 5second rule, because as soon as something hits the ground, any germs that would attach to it do so immediately? So I really can eat that twinkie that's been sitting in the corner under my desk for the last day?
Sorry for the total ignorance about everything > < . But I would like to know. Thanks dudes :).
Edit: Oh my god, germs can crawl and swim. Excuse me, I have to go bathe everything I own in bleach. Anyway, I'm in a meeting right now, and then I have to go through all these links, but thanks for all the replies, and please expect more in-depth questions in a bit :).
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gp802/does_the_5_second_rule_actually_work_how_do_germs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1p8c7r",
"c1p8gg6",
"c1p8kgd",
"c1p95pl",
"c1p9twj"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"[_URL_0_](_URL_1_) addressed this. \n\nShort version: There is no 5-sec rule, if there is something there is attaches immediately, if there is nothing there, it can sit for a long time.",
"Sorry to say, but germs can crawl, at least swim, using whip-like tails called [Flagellae](_URL_0_).\n\nAlso, bacteria can be quite sticky: [Biofilms are ubiquitous. Nearly every species of microorganism ... have mechanisms by which they can adhere to surfaces and to each other.](_URL_1_)",
"[Residence Time and Contact Time: Testing the 5 second rule](_URL_0_)\n\nConclusion, contamination can be detected almost immediately on contact. This was only done with *S. typhimurium* which has pili for attachment onto M cells in the body, these probably play a role in surface attachment as well. \n\nThis bacteria is motile by way of multiple flagella and many species of bacteria are motile. To move they need to be in an aqueous environment but in a dry environment many bacteria can survive from days to weeks waiting to find a more suitable environment.",
"ok, here we go. I am a plant pathologist who works specifically with bacteria. However, this is simply my personal observation. We do a lot of liquid seed wash plating in my lab, which means that we use semi-selective media (petri dishes with agar and antibiotics) to grow bacteria. In my personal experience, if I drop a plate on the floor I do not see a significant increase in saprophytic bacteria. Please note, that we also have huge greenhouses at my lab and frankly our floors get filthy. So there is an increased probability of nasty stuff on our floors. That being said, we do test for a bacteria that can literally live on a surface for up to seven _URL_0_, I guess what I'm saying is that, yes, if you drop food on the floor it will pick up something, whether that something is going to hurt you, that's a risk that's up to you to take. Personally, I say five second rule works for me.",
" > Oh my god, germs can crawl and swim. Excuse me, I have to go bathe everything I own in bleach.\n\nI know you're probably joking here, but I hate this mindset, especially since goddamn Lysol has apparently decided to make such hypochondria a central part of their advertising strategy. Fact is, you're covered with micro-organisms, inside and out - and that's good, because you'd probably die otherwise (or at least suffer ill effects). There's some thought that such \"hyper-cleanliness\" is actually responsible for the rise in allergies in the Western world - google \"hygiene hypothesis\" for further reading."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Snopes.com",
"http://www.snopes.com/food/tainted/dropped.asp"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flagellum",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biofilm"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17381737"
],
[
"years.So"
],
[]
] |
|
3nmc7q
|
Did Vikings have music and/or art (paintings, sculptures, etc)?
|
I saw the series Vikings and Athelstan (catholic priest) sais that there is no music nor art. Is that true?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nmc7q/did_vikings_have_music_andor_art_paintings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvr7ufm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Art is so much and hard to define. I would argue that the Vikings were very artistic. Look at their wood carvings on boats especially. There are some very fine details you can see this very day on the well preserved **Oseberg Ship** for example. \n\nThe Vikings worked with material they had plenty off. Therefor is there no marble statues you find south in Europe for example. What they did, beside carving tree, was decorating stones and stone walls. Not only did they carve illustrations on stones (Hunnestad Monument in Sweden), they wrote heathen poems and songs on them. An example is **Røksteinen** (Rök Runestone) in Sweden. This stone is actually the first piece of Sweden litterateur and tells stories from Norse mythology. \n\nYou ask for music. And there was music. They made songs at feasts, after battles, before battles and when heroic people passed away or were killed in battle. Our problem is that they did not write lyrics (as we know of) and neither did they know about notes. What we do know is what instruments that were used because we have found them preserved in burial grounds and such. Mostly instruments you blow in to make sound, flutes like pan flutes and *blokkfløyte*, lur/lure/lurr, (a long blowing horn), wooden lyre (Greek string instruments) and horns of different sorts.\n\n**Sources:**\n_URL_2_ a very good source for information about the Vikings available in English, Norwegian and some articles are in Danish.\n\nNorwegian:\n_URL_2_s/life/music/n-music-iceland.html (Viking music with focus on Icelandic music)\n\nDanish:\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.viking.no/s/life/music/d-musikk-mogens.html",
"http://www.viking.no/s/life/music/instrumenter/index.html",
"http://www.viking.no/",
"http://www.viking.no/s/life/music/n-music-iceland.html"
]
] |
|
5oyc6o
|
why are most cars sold in muted colors as opposed to bright ones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5oyc6o/eli5why_are_most_cars_sold_in_muted_colors_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcmzbft",
"dcn238d"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Bright colors (except red) typically do not sell very well as compared to greyscale or muted colors. Not that many people want bright colors like green/cyan/yellow, and cars used for commercial purposes are almost exclusively greyscale.\n\nNew Car dealerships, especially smaller lots, do not want to stock something they believe won't sell at a profit. Manufactures will still make many color varieties by request for those who want them, so there is not much incentive to stock them at dealerships. ",
"Bright colors get to me too much for something so large that one interacts with daily for so long... most people depend on their car every day and expect to own it for 5 years. it's not like a shirt you wear once a month, or a dress that's in style for a year. A car is a long term commitment. There's also an adult/juvanile component to it... bright colors are considered childish and frivolous, and people want to be considered adults/mature. So even when you see cars in colors that aren't black/white/greyscale, you see deeper colors like Navy blue or dark green or maroon.\n\nAdditionally, there is the resale aspect, where a bold color that's less widely desires will depress the market when trying to unload the car, whether selling yourself or trading in (a dealer who knows it'll be harder to move a lime green civic will offer less).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
oob88
|
What exactly is an analog computer and how do they work?
|
I have been reading up on this trying to understand it but I still don't get how something like [this](_URL_0_) would work.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oob88/what_exactly_is_an_analog_computer_and_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3ir3im",
"c3irhfp",
"c3iscnw",
"c3iseb5",
"c3itcqt"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"A computer is basically any device or method which can satisfy or solve a complicated inquiry or problem faster than a human brain would be able to figure out. See a [slide rule](_URL_0_), for a good example. ",
"The linked example is actually a digital not an analog computer. The idea in that comic isn't that complicated. A digital computer keeps track of 1s and 0s as electric current and based on those does operations to them. Well, there's no reason you can't do something similar with stones, say having a stone by itself represent a 0 and having a pair of stones represent a 1. Now, you can then follow through and do everything single operation to move the stones just like a computer would. If one is patient and follows through the detailed instructions (in your comic the person is a very bored immortal), you could run any calculation a computer could run. ",
"The people calling the thing in the comic a Turing machine are mistaken.\n\nIt's actually a giant 1 dimensional [cellular automaton](_URL_0_).\n\nFor a Turing machine, you'd need a gigantic shopping cart full of rocks and you'd just walk back and forth along the same line, adding ~~and~~ or removing one rock at a time.\n\nWith a cellular automaton, there's no pointer moving back and forth. Rather, on each tick of the clock (represented by each new row of rocks in the comic) the entire system is updated at once.\n\n**edit:** fixed the link syntax, minor grammar tweaks",
"The computer described in the comic is a 1 dimensional [cellular automaton](_URL_2_), specifically one called [Rule 110](_URL_1_). (note the pattern of triangles is similar to that of the ones in the comic) It is actually an extraordinarily simple digital computation engine. Towards the end of the article you can see how it can be made to act like a computer that can perform operations on a string of bits.\n\nThe rules are like so: lay out an initial row of stones in the top row of a grid, this is where you input the beginning state of the machine. For the next row down, take each square and consider the 3 squares just above it in the original row (above, above and left, above and right). Leave the space blank if the above squares are all full, all empty, or if there is only a rock in the above-left square. Otherwise put a stone there. That's it. That's enough for a [*universal*](_URL_0_) computation machine, given that you have enough rocks and time.\n\nThis is possible because there are a few patterns that propagate reliably through such a system, and these can be exploited to perform computations. It turns out that you actually need to start with an infinite pattern for them to work forever, but since the signal can only travel a maximum of one space left or right for every space you go down, you can make the grid wide enough to finish a computation before the edges of the grid mess up the middle. \n\nIt's not currently known if the true laws of physics are actually computable, but you could surely make the simulation close enough that it would look very much like our kind of universe. Which may or may not be the same thing as that universe existing in the same way ours does. (hmm...)\n\nBtw a [slide rule](_URL_3_) is an example of a computer that is actually analog. It gives results by matching two lines on some sticks and reading the answer from another part of the stick, so it doesn't perform operations on bits of data.",
"I would like to add to what others have said by saying that you have touched on what is perhaps the most amazing hypothesis in all of computer science. We believe that *anything* that can be computed by a regular series of steps can be computed by a simple little device know as a Turing Machine. The \"machine\" given in the linked comic isn't a Turing Machine, but it is equally as powerful. \n\nThis means that anything that could be done with a fancy new computer could be done using pen and paper and lots of time. In fact, if the conjecture is true, anything that could be done on *any* machine could be done using pen and paper and lots of time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://xkcd.com/505/"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_computation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_110",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellular_automaton",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slide_rule"
],
[]
] |
|
987v7h
|
can someone explain to me what is right, far right, left, far left, middle right, middle left and such in politics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/987v7h/eli5_can_someone_explain_to_me_what_is_right_far/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4e04cm",
"e4e0mjq",
"e4e0uqz",
"e4ecgdk",
"e4qorj5"
],
"score": [
2,
23,
14,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"“Right” and “left” refer to the conservative and liberal groups in a country. “Right” refers to conservative and “left” refers to liberal. These terms are relative to time and country. For example, in the United States, the Democrat party is considered “left” or liberal, though in many other countries a comparable party would be considered conservatives. \n\n“Far left” and “far right” refer to the heavily idealistic supporters of each party. They generally support policies that are considered extreme even by moderate members of their own parties. By contrast, people in the center have a mixture of conservative and liberal views (they may be liberal on race relations, sexuality, and other social issues while conservative with regards to government spending) or tend to take a middle ground between conservative and liberal views on most issues. ",
"There is no easy answer to this as it depends on both where someone is and their personal perception, as well as the perception of others, to an enormous degree.\n\nFirst, the terms \"right\" and \"left\" come from France around the time of the French Revolution. In 1789, France convened something called the National Assembly. There were two major groups, people who supported the monarchy, and people who wanted a popular revolution. The supporters of the king sat on the right hand side of the debate hall, and those who supported revolution sat on the left. Presto, right-wing and left-wing. \n\nTo build on that further, the terms \"progressive\" and \"conservative\" can be applied to this makeup. A conservative wants to *conserve* things as they are. A progressive wants to *progress* onto something else. And that is where a lot of the confusion arises. Conserve what exactly? Progress from what towards what else exactly? Well that's going to be different in each nation or region. Hard line communists in the USSR in the late 80s would actually be conservatives, as they wanted to conserve the communist rule of the Soviet Union, and the progressives would be the ones who wanted to get rid of the communist party and progress to something else. Those same communists with the exact same ideology would have been the progressives in 1917,and the Tsarists would be conservatives. Conservatives in the mid to late 1700s in English North America were anti-Revolution loyalists, and the progressives would be those who wanted an American revolution (this is also where the term 'liberal' as in 'one who wants liberty' comes from). \n\nBut as times, governments, social and political attitudes and populations change and shift over the decades or even centuries, who wants to conserve what and who wants to progress past that also change and shift too. The people who wanted to progress past a monarchy in the North American colonies and wanted a constitutional republic became conservatives once they achieved that constitutional republic. They just gained it, they don't want to give it up for something else. They've progressed as far as they want and got what they wanted, now they want to conserve it. \n\nThen you throw in perceptions, both of yourself and how you see others. For simplicity's sake, lets say that someone who agrees with 100% of the Republican Party platform is full right-wing, and someone who believes in 100% of the Democrat Party platform is full left-wing. To someone on the full right, someone who is only 75% in favor of the Democrat Party is still probably far-left, but to a centrist, they probably only seem left-leaning compared to someone who is 100% in favor of the Democrat Party. How \"far\" someone is in one direction depends on where you're viewing them from. Same with how they see themselves.\n\nThen you add in the fact that in many nations other than the United States, these terms are completely shifted towards one end of the spectrum or the other, or they're switched entirely, or some people have completely different explanations that aren't country specific for what \"left wing\" and \"right wing\" mean to them, such as the further left one is the more authoritarian and statist they are, and the further right someone is, the more individualist and libertarian(small L) they are. And others will see it completely opposite. Far Right in Germany does not mean the same thing as it does in England, or in the United States or in Japan (if they even use those terms).\n\nThe terms are naturally confusing from the start since the original meanings that actually made sense, where one sits in the French National Assembly and how much they want the monarchy or revolution, are totally lost at this point, and the rest of us are just trying to apply them to other people, or self apply them, in ways that will never be fully accurate. \n\n\nTLDR; /u/N7_Astartes's post is a good summary. ",
"I will try.\n\nFar Left = I demand everything about our government should change right now at all costs.\n\nLeft = We should change elements our government because there is something better out there but we should do this over time.\n\nCenter Left = I kind of like some change in my government but I don't want it to change too much I like what we have.\n\nCenter = convince me of something, I don't really care.\n\nCenter Right = I kind of prefer my traditional government but I recognize that sometimes you might need to adjust something but not very much.\n\nRight = We should maintain our traditional government and any change needs to prove itself over time before I accept it.\n\nFar Right = We need to become like our mythical past and I will do anything to take us back to where we belong.\n\nThis is the best way that I know how to explain that does not rely on partisan point scoring and takes into account all political systems and histories, i.e communism is Far Left in the US but it is Right in China.",
"Many comments here strike at some things but are missing some key aspects. The political spectrum is not just linear continuum between \"left\" and \"right\", but rather a two-dimensional field with an economic left and right dimension on one axis, and libertarian vs. authoritarian as the other axis, [like this chart illustrating the relative political positions of the presidential candidates in the previous US election](_URL_0_)\n\nThis way you can more accurately visualize the relationships and differences between tendencies on the authoritarian left (e.g. Lenin, Stalin, Mao) and libertarian left (e.g. anarchists, libertarian/stateless communists and socialists, people like Rosa Luxembourg, etc), but also the authoritarian right (Musollini, Franco and Pinochet), and libertarian right (classical liberalism, neoliberalism, \"small government\" conservatism and those Free-Man-On-The-Land people).",
"Tolerance of inequality.\n\nLeft wants society to be more equal, Right is fine with steep hierarchies so long as the rules make sense.\n\nAdd the level of personal freedom to this and you get the political compass.\n\nThe terms get very muddled, but this will help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.politicalcompass.org/uselection2016"
],
[]
] |
||
1hpmaq
|
do canadians have the same rights and freedoms as americans?
|
After watching [this video on Reddit](_URL_0_) I wondered if these same rules and such are the same in Canada?
What rights do I have when stopped by police in Canada? What should I do? Most information pertaining to this online is for Americans.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hpmaq/eli5_do_canadians_have_the_same_rights_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cawn4g9",
"cawnigu"
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text": [
"The US and Canada have different legal systems. While many rights and freedoms overlap between both countries you should never apply any legal advice regarding the US into the Canadian system. ",
"In general, your rights when dealing with the police here are similar to what exists in the US. There are significant differences though. Whenever this sort of question comes up, I like to refer people to the [Canadian Civil Liberties Association's guide](_URL_0_) to this subject."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w-WMn_zHCVo"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://ccla.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/Know-Your-Rights-Booklet1.pdf"
]
] |
|
5ealz2
|
Books on Finland During the Cold War
|
I recently stumbled upon the term "Finlandisation" and wish to know more about the path it took to survive.
The term is heavily political but the writing does not have to be regarding the politics. Anything regarding Finland during that era is welcome.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ealz2/books_on_finland_during_the_cold_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dabtt2e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You could look at *Urho Kekkonen: A Statesman for Peace* edited by Keijo Korhonen, written in 1975. \n\nThe book focuses on the long-term president of Finland, Urho Kekkonen, and his policies with respect to foreign relations with the Soviet Union and with Western Europe. It includes contributions from Finnish, American and other international scholars. Since it was written in 1975, it is written in the context of an ongoing Cold War. So, it lacks information that has become available since the opening of the Soviet archives in the last 25 years. Also, it can't discuss the last 10 years of the Kekkonen presidency (until 1986), which were still to come when the book was published.\n\nWith all those caveats, I think the book is highly relevant to the question of Finlandization."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3qo7cm
|
what is that warm, fuzzy feeling in your stomach when you fall in love with someone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qo7cm/eli5_what_is_that_warm_fuzzy_feeling_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwgydxo"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"That fuzzy feeling is actually a baby that starts to grow, if u love each other then it continues to grow until it comes out but if things don't work out then it shrinks back to inexistence"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a6rmj4
|
Are there precious resources (ie gold, copper, titanium) on the moon? Would it be possible to mine them?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a6rmj4/are_there_precious_resources_ie_gold_copper/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebykx5x"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The moon actually has a fairly high abundance of titanium compared to most bodies in the solar system--so far as we're aware--and in general you should expect to be able to find all metals on the moon in rates comparable to Earth. It's nonmetals like carbon, nitrogen, and phosphorus--all necessary to life--that are hard to come by (oxygen is present in water ice and in silicate and other oxide minerals)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
20ipl3
|
Why were there no medieval Eropean cities with a population as a high as first century Rome?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20ipl3/why_were_there_no_medieval_eropean_cities_with_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg3qazp"
],
"score": [
38
],
"text": [
"Because a city so large needed a massive amount of land and the centralization of power to control what happens on that land to feed it. The *annona* was, among other things, the tax with which the Roman empire fed the city of Rome. There was a Prefect of the Annona whose sole job was to oversee the supply of grain to the city (and later, another Prefect of the Annona was established for Constantinople). \n\nBecause of the way it was conquered by Julius Caesar, and passed down to Augustus, the Province of Egypt had the odd position of being the personal possession of the Emperor, as opposed to a province in the way we would recognize it. Egypt, thanks to the Nile and its flooding, was one of, if not *the* greatest breadbaskets of the Roman Empire, and large portions of the grain grown in Egypt were shipped to Rome, where the Prefect of the Annona was in charge of getting it made into bread and handed out to the people of Rome. Any person who was a Roman Citizen in the city of Rome was allotted a certain amount of bread, though often if a citizen didn't need it, they would sell their allotment of bread to poor non-citizens. This is part of what Juvenal was mocking when he coined the term \"bread and circuses\" from this passage: \" for the People who once upon a time handed out military command, high civil office, legions — everything, now restrains itself and anxiously hopes for just two things: bread and circuses\".\n\nEDIT: I'm rereading the paper I wrote on this in undergrad, and realized something I said above wasn't quite right- in the 1st Century AD, when OP was asking about, it was given out as grain, and only the rich could afford to bake it into bread. The poor ate it as oatmeal. In the 3rd century, Septimius Severus and Aurelian added olive oil and wine to the *frumentatio*, and Aurelian started giving the grain out prebaked into bread, which required the construction of massive bakeries in Ostia, Rome's port. It was important enough that to ensure things went smoothly, various emperors offered tax breaks and citizenship to the people involved in the process, the ships captains who transported it and the millers and bakers in Ostia.\n\n**Sources:**\n\n Garnsey, Peter. *Cities, Peasants and Food in Classical Antiquity*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1998.\n\nGarnsey, Peter. *Famine and Food Supply in the Graeco-Roman World*. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1988.\n\nSirks, Boudewijn. *Food for Rome*. Amsterdam: J. C. Gieben, 1991.\n\nBowman, Alan and Andrew Wilson. “Quantifying the Roman Economy: Integration, Growth, Decline?” in *Quantifying the Roman Economy*, edited by Alan Bowman and Andrew Wilson, 3-84. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2009."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bmyal7
|
why does your leg jerk when you hit the ligament below the knee?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bmyal7/eli5_why_does_your_leg_jerk_when_you_hit_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"en0t0hu",
"en14qo7"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"I'm not a native speaker but I'm pretty sure I know what your question is.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe answer is kinda simple: It's supposed to tense the leg when falling/jumping on the ground to catch the bodies weight. The \"shock\" that goes through your body from landing would trigger this mechanism and tense (?) the leg to catch your fall.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf this wasn't the case, not only would you fall over more often, even when it's just a 1 or 2 meter drop, but you would also hurt your knee and ankles a lot more (yes theres a similiar reflex for your ankles)\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIf you want more information on how this works biologically, I suggest you look it up on your own, it's been a while since my last biology lesson.",
"It is called \"The myotatic reflex\" basically it's a stretch reflex.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nWhen you hit, the extensor muscle (I suck at anatomy) will get stretch and it sends a signal to your spinal chord that activates a motoneurone that will tell said muscle to contract and extend. It's very usefull to maintain your position."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1hepsz
|
how cameras work. how do they capture an image and print it?
|
It's mind boggling to me.
Bonus ELI5: How is it some people walking in [this picture](_URL_0_) are still but the man behind me is blurred?
Edit: Thank you! Although it still somehow puzzles me, I appreciate all of your explanations!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hepsz/eli5_how_cameras_work_how_do_they_capture_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"catm3k8",
"catm46i"
],
"score": [
35,
16
],
"text": [
"Imagine if you were holding a piece of paper with a bunch of glue. Now imagine if someone put glitter in front of a fan, the paper would catch the glitter and you'd have a picture.\n\nNow imagine if your sister stood in between the fan with a metal door she could open. You tell her to open it for 1 second only, and you'll catch what you want to see on your glue paper. In this example, your sister is kind of like a camera and the glue paper is your camera's really sensitive image sensor.\n\n____\n\nBonus:\n\nImagine if your glitter fan was making a rainbow of colors. You tell your sister to open it for 10 seconds instead of 1 second, and you get more glitter and your picture is brighter, fine.\n\nBut if your dog runs through the blue half of the rainbow during those 10 seconds, he'll mess up and blur the glitter. Now the blue part of your rainbow picture is blurry.\n\nIn real life, someone probably had to take the picture for a \"long time\" e.g. 1/2 of a second instead of 1/100 of a second, and something moved fast enough during this time, enough to blur. The people in the front stood still for the whole 1/2 second and are fine.",
"In digital cameras, the sensor is made up of thousands of tiny light sensors. When light hits them, they generate a tiny electrical signal (depending on how much light is hitting them).\n\nYou can then measure how much voltage came out of each sensor, to tell how light was distributed over the sensor area. The camera's processor then infers the image that the camera was pointed at. \n\nFor color cameras, there is a red, green and blue sensor at every pixel. This measures how much of each color is there, and from the three primary colors, you can put these together to get a color image. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/0ZMwtQI.jpg?1"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3e50rf
|
why don't gas pumps themselves accept cash?
|
Why do we have to go inside to prepay for our gas. Since the pumps accept card couldn't they just accept cash and reimburse the difference if you overpay.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3e50rf/eli5_why_dont_gas_pumps_themselves_accept_cash/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctbk0n2",
"ctbkexj",
"ctbkfo2"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because if they did accept cash, they would need to be stocked with cash to dispense change and also have added security features to protect that cash and any cash you add to it. They would also need to hire someone to come and restock and collect the cash. No, they can not just get the clerk at the station to do it because you don't want them skimming off the top.",
"Gas station manager here. We actually tried something like this, with a carwash terminal that could accept cash as well as cards. It didn't go so well. You're probably never going to see gas pumps that can accept cash, and here's why:\n\nReason one is practical, as automatic cash handling machines are inaccurate and somewhat finicky. The more cash they handle, the worse it gets. Everyone has tried to get a vending machine to take their dollar bills, so you can imagine that scaled up 50X. Bills get counted incorrectly, change back is wrong, its messy and creates overhead for the gas station and headaches for the customers.\n\nReason two is security, as anything that holds money will get broken into. An automated gas pump would need to hold hundreds of dollars in order to be functional. It would also need to be opened, emptied, and restocked regularly, creating more overhead and bigger risks of robbery.\n\nReason three is profit, as gas stations make all their money not from gas sales, but from convenience store sales like tobacco and sodas. If everyone can pay outside, then that cuts into profits, and may make the gas station an inoperable as a business.",
"About fifteen years ago I saw some that did. They were there for a couple of years and then the bill acceptors were taken out. I asked the gas station owner, he said it was because very few people used it, and with the number of times they had to go out to clear jams, it was more trouble than it was worth.\n\nI also suspect that they didn't like the idea of having to empty the cash box out in the open.\n\nAnyway, if that station's experience was typical, it's likely because there are not enough cash customers to make it worthwhile. Most gas stations I see will issue regular customers a card that will preauthorize the pump for cash purchases."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s4tge
|
Were the founding fathers radicals?
|
Mounting a revolution seems radical, but the form of government they developed borrowed a lot from ancient Athens. By modern standards, how radical were the founding fathers? And does it make sense to think about them on any sort of progressive/conservative spectrum?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1s4tge/were_the_founding_fathers_radicals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdtxdkb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The most radical of the generally-recognized “founding fathers” was Thomas Paine—his views on politics and religion, and his bitterness at what he felt was betrayal by other revolutionaries, eventually made him an outcast in American society.\n\nPaine also took an active part in the French Revolution—but by French standards he was only moderately radical, and his opposition to the more-extreme Montagnards almost cost him his life. So using Paine as a yardstick, the American revolutionaries weren’t terribly radical even for the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
c22zq8
|
how do gas stations make money, or account for the volatility when oil prices are falling? do they "buy" the gas when the fuel trucks refill the station or are their profits calculated at a spot price each day based on how much gas they sell?
|
This is a follow up question to u/A2I_WWJD post about how fuel stations maintain enough fuel for thousands of cars each week
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c22zq8/eli5_how_do_gas_stations_make_money_or_account/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erh6wfx",
"erh76lr",
"erh9pkb"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Gas stations plan pricing semi-long-term. They will set a price that accounts for predictable fluctuations in oil prices - in one week the oil price might drop a little, but the gas station will keep their prices the same, because it's likely the oil price will bounce back up the following week. Over time, their profits remain stable.\n\nIf there's a prolonged change in oil prices in one direction or another, the gas station will then alter their pricing to suit.",
"Just for clarity—gas stations make minimal profits of actually selling gas. That’s not the business they are in. Yup, sounds odd, but gas stations aren’t really in the gas business\n\nGas stations make almost all of their profit in their convenience store—not gas! Cigarettes are particularly major for their profits. \n\nThe gas just gets customers to go into their convenience store is all. They make their money because their margins in the store are big and they sell lots of cigarettes and alcohol.",
"Gas stations typically use \"cost-plus\" for pricing, meaning that whatever they pay for the gas wholesale for the tanker truck worth of fuel, they tack on a set amount on top. Let's say it's 50 cents/gallon... if they pay $1.80, they charge $2.30, if they pay $3.20, then it's $3.52. So their revenue per gallon stays constant no matter the wholesale costs. And they often raise/lower with each change in cost -- it's not uncommon to see stations change price multiple times in a week."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dfbh08
|
what’s the difference between a stratocaster and a les paul.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dfbh08/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_a_stratocaster/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3241wb",
"f3247nv",
"f324idk"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"The les Paul has a bigger body and a deeper tone. Strats are extremely versatile with tones. They are also light weight and sound killer through any kind of amp.",
"A big **difference between** the **Stratocaster** and the **Les Paul** is their scale length—the length of the strings measured from the nut to the bridge. ... The **Stratocaster's** longer scale results **in a** brighter, more chiming sound whereas the LP's shorter scale is to an extent responsible for its rounder, warmer sound.\n\nFirst answer on Google.\n\nFurther explanation from me would be Stratocaster single coil pickups and less wood lending to a brighter and crisper tone, Les Paul having much more wood, heavier construction and humbuckers lending themselves to a thicker, fuller tone with less buzz and crackling. The amount of wood used in the construction changes the dynamics of the instrument, less so with a bolt on neck than a neck through or set neck but it does have an effect on tone the less.",
"Pickups are generally what's called single coil in Stratocasters, but Les Pauls have humbuckers, which are really just two single coils together to make the guitar louder and to stop the 60cycle hum that single coils use to make (why they're called humbuckers)\n\nThe shapes definitely are the defining characteristics of each guitar, but the shape has less to do with tone and more with feel. Less obvious things like weight (Les Pauls are generally heavier) and tonewood (Les Pauls are mohogany and maple, Strats can be pine, alder, swamp Ash) play a bigger part in the tone of the guitar. \n\nThat's not even getting into the shape of the neck, the assembly, the glue, pots, capacitors, which guitar enthusiasts can actually be quite picky about. \n\nThese aspects aren't going to have as big an effect on tone, but some well trained ears, and I mean very well trained, can really hear those differences. \n\nThe debate rages on about whether or not that stuff really matters. Some people swear by 70's strats with bigger headstocks because they say they have better tone. \n\nAt the end of the day, though, all that matters is that the guitar gives you the sound you hear in your head. Some people hear strats, some hear Les Pauls. As players progress, the guitar they hear gets more specific."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3zw7z0
|
why is it that rap disputes are/were far more common, and typically more violent than other genres of music?
|
The Metallica/Megadeth dispute never lead to shootouts, Lynard Skynyrd and Neil Young was more of just being cheeky, and the whole Erin Church/Blake Shelton thing just blew over somewhat quickly. What makes rap/hip-hop different?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zw7z0/eli5_why_is_it_that_rap_disputes_arewere_far_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cypi1zq"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Rap and Hip-Hop grew out of gang culture: dance and rap battles were a way for gangs to solve minor disputes without resorting to violence.\n\nThis meant that many early Rap and Hip-Hop stars came out of gang culture; and when their rap battles grew heated and serious; they did what they had before: turned to violence. Meanwhile, most other music genres didn't (and don't) have the same association with social groups that solve their problems with violence, and so conflicts between them are solved in different ways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lwwfn
|
How do astronomers turn observations of a celestial object (eg. Halley's comet) into solid information about its position, size, orbit, etc, and be able to predict it's behaviour in the future?
|
I guess what I'm looking for here is an introduction into the bridging between looking out into the sky, and then extrapolating that data into a 4 dimensional grid of our solar system and surrounds.
What reference points are used in space?
What reference is used in time?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lwwfn/how_do_astronomers_turn_observations_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc3ln0k",
"cc3nebc"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Wow this a huge question so i'll try to keep my answer short and simple:\n\n\nThe position of bodies on the solar system are determined using either radar (for big bodies) or the parallax method for smaller ones:\n_URL_0_\n\n\nThe orbit is extremely notorious to calculate, you need to fit the position points of the comet in a model and try to simulate the orbit that fit best, with enough points only one will.\n_URL_1_\n\n\nThe size is also difficult to obtain, you can use radar or a large number of observations from different locations on earth to try to constraint the size. An easy case is binary bodies, where their speed of rotation will inform you on their mass, so if you know it density you can get an approximation about its size.\n\n",
"sloan_wall answered the bulk of the question, but I want to address this part:\n\n > What reference points are used in space? What reference is used in time?\n\nThe most commonly used reference points in astronomy are the Earth, the Sun, and the Galactic center. Since there are no absolute reference frames, astronomers tend to use only reference points which are either the Earth/Sun or have physical significance for the things we're observing. Distance measurement can often be quite difficult in astronomy, so generally objects' positions are quoted as a direction and distance from the Sun, rather than a position relative to other objects.\n\nRelative to the Galactic scale, the Sun moves very very little on human timescales, so it can be used as a reference point with some efficacy. However, the Sun and other stars are moving relative to each other, so you have to keep track of the [proper motions](_URL_1_) of nearby stars. [Barnard's Star](_URL_0_) is a very nearby star which has the highest proper motion of any known star, 10.3 arcseconds per year. Even so, it will take 350 years for it to move a single degree on the sky.\n\nAs for time reference, astronomical observations are generally kept on \"[Universal Time](_URL_3_)\" (basically Greenwich Mean Time) and the [Julian date](_URL_2_). It's true that time, just like space, is relative and depends on one's reference frame, but since most astronomers are pretty firmly stuck to Earth, the Earth's reference frame is used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://spiff.rit.edu/classes/phys230/lectures/geom_time/geom_time_2.html",
"http://copernico.dm.unipi.it/~gronchi/PDF/gronchi_discuss.pdf"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barnard's_Star",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proper_motion",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_day",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coordinated_Universal_Time"
]
] |
|
bagkd0
|
What causes the two big population spikes in China's population pyramid?
|
China's population pyramid is unique, as it has two large groups of people at the age 25-35 and 45-55. I would guess this has something to do with their one-child policy and their explosive population growth since the 1900s. but i haven't found any sources on this. Could anyone help me out?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bagkd0/what_causes_the_two_big_population_spikes_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekbmyaz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I believe the first \"spike\" was due to (a) the great leap forward in the early 1960s which killed a lot of people, and (b) decreased birth rates starting around 1970 due to a two-child policy and then one-child policy. Basically, starting in the mid 1960s, birth rates dropped. Consider also decreases in mortality, especially [infant mortality](_URL_0_), in the 1960s and 1970s, which tends to shift the spike later.\n\nThe second is an \"echo\" of the first spike. There were more young adults entering breeding age around 1990 compared to 1980 or 2000, due to the earlier spike.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://knoema.com/atlas/China/Infant-mortality-rate"
]
] |
|
1w9hfk
|
why aren't red pandas and other cute/exotic animals bred as pets?
|
I'm pretty sure everyone would like a pet red panda or other other cute animal. I know the population of a lot of these animals tend to be low, but wouldn't breeding and domestication help grow their population?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1w9hfk/eli5_why_arent_red_pandas_and_other_cuteexotic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cezx0sm"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Not every cute animal would make a good pet, relatively few species out there can thrive while domesticated like cats, dogs, etc.\n\nMany will never be tame, or may need a lot of space to be happy, or cannot be house trained, etc. You can try to breed pet-like qualities, but it won't necessarily be successful. Besides, if you are trying to save a endangered species, is breeding out all their wild qualities really saving them? Certainly we aren't okay with wolves dying out just because we have domesticated dogs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
l6k8t
|
Kilogram or Newton?
|
Why do we use kilograms to describe weight instead of Newtons? Weight = mass * gravity, and kilogram is a mass unit.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l6k8t/kilogram_or_newton/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2q6qii",
"c2q6tjj",
"c2q7jg2",
"c2q6qii",
"c2q6tjj",
"c2q7jg2"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
14,
2,
6,
14
],
"text": [
"We interchange between them because they are directly proportional to each other. (That's within the variations in the Earth's gravitational field--much to small to typically matter.) If you know one value, you also know the other. Depending on the situation, one can be more meaningful than the other. If you're talking about lifting something sitting in your house, then perhaps weight is more useful. If you're talking about sending a probe to another planet, or about computing a density, then perhaps mass is going to give you more useful information.\n\nGenerally, though, you are inaccurate when you say that most of the world uses kilograms to describe weight. The scales used all over the world convert the weight of an object to its mass. If someone tells you that an object, \"weighs 0.45 kg,\" they're just using incorrect terminology.",
"Because the intention is to measure mass. Your bathroom scales don't require a great deal of accuracy and *g* doesn't vary a whole lot, so they can provide a reasonable approximation of your mass anywhere on earth.\n\nFor scales requiring higher accuracy, they are calibrated on-site using calibration masses. Basically, the outputs at zero mass and with some calibrated mass that is a good portion of the scale's range are used to calibrate the scale. This compensates for the local ~~gravitational constant~~ acceleration due to gravity.\n\n**EDIT:** Changed \"calibration weights\" to \"calibration masses\" to be more scientifically correct! But you would have known what I meant anyway... Plus constants tend to be constant, so changed that one as well.\n\n",
"Because if you make the distinction between mass and weight while on the Earth, you're being a dick.",
"We interchange between them because they are directly proportional to each other. (That's within the variations in the Earth's gravitational field--much to small to typically matter.) If you know one value, you also know the other. Depending on the situation, one can be more meaningful than the other. If you're talking about lifting something sitting in your house, then perhaps weight is more useful. If you're talking about sending a probe to another planet, or about computing a density, then perhaps mass is going to give you more useful information.\n\nGenerally, though, you are inaccurate when you say that most of the world uses kilograms to describe weight. The scales used all over the world convert the weight of an object to its mass. If someone tells you that an object, \"weighs 0.45 kg,\" they're just using incorrect terminology.",
"Because the intention is to measure mass. Your bathroom scales don't require a great deal of accuracy and *g* doesn't vary a whole lot, so they can provide a reasonable approximation of your mass anywhere on earth.\n\nFor scales requiring higher accuracy, they are calibrated on-site using calibration masses. Basically, the outputs at zero mass and with some calibrated mass that is a good portion of the scale's range are used to calibrate the scale. This compensates for the local ~~gravitational constant~~ acceleration due to gravity.\n\n**EDIT:** Changed \"calibration weights\" to \"calibration masses\" to be more scientifically correct! But you would have known what I meant anyway... Plus constants tend to be constant, so changed that one as well.\n\n",
"Because if you make the distinction between mass and weight while on the Earth, you're being a dick."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ah5re4
|
how do drag racers get grip at the beginning of a race by spinning tires?
|
I see that when drag racers try to get grip they burn out at the beginning of a race, but use that same surface to go flying down the racetrack. How do they not burnout at the beginning of the race? What are they doing to get this grip and how does it make it better for racing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah5re4/eli5_how_do_drag_racers_get_grip_at_the_beginning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eebnm2o",
"eebnm8x",
"eebnokm",
"eebona6"
],
"score": [
10,
4,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"They burn out to heat up their tires and soften the rubber to make it more sticky. When they race they carefully control the throttle and clutch so that they are right at the edge of breaking their tires loose into a burnout but not quite. If they accidentally do burn out during a race they will lose unless their competitor makes a worse mistake ",
"One major part of that burn out is to warm the tires up. Getting them to essentially burn makes them much stickier and gives them a lot more traction. I’m sure there is more to it than just that, but that’s one of the reasons why they do it. ",
"Most tires get stickier when they heat up. The rubber compounds melt when they spin the tires which cause them to get stickier. Also most tracks and racers use various liquids to add to the stickiness",
"I drag race quite frequently at the track and have owned a slew of all wheel, front wheel and rear wheel drive cars. Technically a burnout is un needed for a car with street tires. Sometimes you might spin them a little bit to clean them off, but doing a large smokey burnout doesn't really help much when it comes to a street tire, warming the compound up too much actually causes the rubber to get slippery. Now with a drag radial, the compound is made to be heated up to help it stick. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
56vhst
|
how come being outside in 90 degree weather is uncomfortable, but 90 degree water is amazing...65 degree weather is very comfortable, but 65 degree water is awful?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56vhst/eli5_how_come_being_outside_in_90_degree_weather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8mp31g",
"d8mp9la",
"d8n00nm",
"d8n1hhz",
"d8n1xtv",
"d8n3puw",
"d8n4se4",
"d8n5at3",
"d8n5c3o",
"d8n5y5z",
"d8n6sqa",
"d8n79dk",
"d8n7spq",
"d8n998y",
"d8nchys",
"d8new28",
"d8nhz1q",
"d8njett",
"d8nmodb"
],
"score": [
5104,
230,
3,
35,
31,
151,
11,
8,
5,
3,
6,
9,
5,
2,
6,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The thing is, your body doesn't really measure temperature - it measures a little something known as heat flux.\n\nHeat flux is pretty much the rate at which heat enters or leaves your body. For us, the most comfortable state is when we have a little bit of heat leaving our body. \n\nIn all of these cases, heat is moving from the body to the surrounding environment, since your body is always warmer, but the important part here is the rate. Different materials touching have different willingness to transfer heat to each other, as it turns out, water transfers heat easier than air does. The farther the temperatures between the two materials is, the faster the heat transfer will occur as well.\n\nSo, 90 degree air is uncomfortable because your body wants to move more heat from your body to the surrounding environment, but water, which conducts heat better, will transfer the heat from your body to it much faster, making it a comfortable feeling.\n\nThe opposite is true. 65 degree air pulls quite a bit of heat from you, but still it is within normal comfortable range. Water on the other hand will pull much more heat from you, making it cold.",
"Your body is essentially a heater, and in order to be comfortable, it needs to be able to lose some of its heat.\n\nWater is much better at transporting heat away from your body than air, so if it's a little colder than your internal body temperature, you feel fine. If it's significantly colder, you lose too much heat.\n\nAir is not very good at transporting heat, so the temperature difference between the body and the air needs to be larger. If it isn't large enough, there's no way to get rid of the excess body heat without sweating.",
"Heat transfers away from our bodies more easily when we are immersed in water than air. \n\nOur body tries to maintain, roughly, a set temperature. However normal body processes generate extra heat that we need to get rid of to maintain this temperature. \n\nNormal body temperature is \n~ 36.5–37.5 °C (97.7–99.5 °F)\t\n\nWater a little bit cooler than us (90ºF) lets us get rid of this excess heat without being so cold that we lose heat *too quickly*. \n\nWith air, we need a bigger temperature difference to cool us effectively. So as the air temperature begins to approach our ideal body temperature, it becomes difficult for us to cool ourselves and we overheat.",
"Heat your oven up to 300 degrees and put your hand inside the middle of the over for a second. It will feel hot, but you will be fine.\n\nNow heat a pot of water up to 140 degrees and put your finger in for a second. Whoa! Better take it out quick before you get burned!\n\nAir is really bad at conducting temperature. Air is kind of like an insulating blanket that the heat or cold has to move through slowly.\n\nWater is really good at conducting temperature. It's like removing the blanket of air and putting the fire or ice directly on your skin.\n\nWhen it comes to weather and feeling comfortable, you have to realize that the body's default temperature is around 98 degrees, and it always strives to maintain that temperature.\n\nIf you are in a 65 degree environment, that temperature is held in the air, and is slowly applied to your body. If your body is burning fuel (food), and if you are wearing clothes and have a decent metabolism, you should be able to maintain a temperature of 98 degrees pretty easily, since the slow cooling effect is roughly equal to how much excess heat your body is generating.\n\n65 degree water, on the other hand, has a much more rapid effect on your body's temperature. Temperatures get transferred very quickly in water!\n\nIf your metabolism is trying to keep your body at 98 degrees, but you are in 65 degree water, that difference in temperature starts to quickly become a problem. As time goes on, the water starts to cool down your body, and your metabolism simply can't keep up! The reason why it feels uncomfortable is because your body is warning you that you are in danger!\n\nThe key to keep in mind is that your body is essentially a furnace that is generating excess heat, and to keep it at 98 degrees, you need to find ways to cool it down. If the air is cool, this is easy. If the air is hot, then you sweat, and the evaporation of the sweat cools you off. This enables you to survive hot temperatures for a lot longer than you would otherwise normally be able to. Your body also has a limited ability to scale your metabolism up or down, burning more fuel when cold, and less when hot.\n\nSweating can only introduce temperature change so fast, though. This means that in 90 degree weather, it's easy for your body to overheat past 98 degrees (and sweat won't provide enough cooling effect to maintain your core temperature). That's why 90 degree weather feels so uncomfortable. Air isn't fast enough at moving the temperature build-up away from your body, and you may overheat.\n\nOn the other hand, if you are in 90 degree water, you are immersed in something that is very good at rapidly conducting temperature. Additionally, the temperature is less than your body's core temperature (but relatively close to it). This means that the pool of water is able to cool your body down at about the same rate that your body is generating excess heat. When you are in such an environment, you will feel comfortable.",
"Someone care to explain how much is that in Celsius? I'm too lazy to go to a temperature converter",
"As an Englishman, both temperatures are uncomfortable, except in one case you are uncomfortably dead. ",
"this is a biased question. i mean, i love 90 degree weather. that's the temperature of weather here pretty much year round. in 65 degrees, i'm dying. that's way too cold for me. i'm definitely wearing a jacket and jeans.",
"another point: air temperature is measured in the shade. 90 degrees is 90 degrees in the shade. if you are standing not in the shade but in the direct sun on a day when the temperature is \"90 degrees\" you are experiencing something significantly hotter. so the comparison you are making between weather and water may not be exact.",
"90F air feels oppressive because it tends to go together with high humidity and bad air quality.",
"Water transfers heat A LOT faster than air. When you're in the water it cools you down very quickly. This is why you should always dry someone off quickly if they are hypothermic after being in water. ",
"Water conducts temperatures better than air does.\n\nSo when you're in a pool that is 90 degrees, it will feel like 90 degrees. If you're standing outside, it will feel warmer (most likely), because air is shitty at conducting heat.",
"What is 90 degree water amazing for? Certainly not drinking... ",
"I used to wonder this as well before I took chemistry, where we learned about specific heat. Water has a very high specific heat compared to air, so it can absorb more heat from stuff in it. That's why we use water as a coolant over air.",
"If you go out in 65 degree weather with no clothes on (or a small swimsuit), after many hours you could die of hypothermia. It may feel comfortable for the first few hours, but your body will lose heat, and then it would suck. ",
"Because the thermal conductivity of those two things are completely different.\n\n0.024 for air vs 0.58 for water (W/m*K)\n\nRecall that the \"feeling\" of warmth or cold is the feeling of your body losing or absorbing heat. When the thermal conductivity is that much greater for water, you lose heat much faster, so it \"feels\" much colder in comparison.\n\nThe hotter temperature is more of the same, and some of it has to do with the fact you are usually talking about a shower or something, where the water is flowing past you. If you sit in a hot tub, you will start sweating, it is still hot.\n\nAt 90 you are still talking below body temp, so the water is carrying away heat, and given the higher thermal conductivity, it does it fast enough that it is comfortable compared to air.",
"The heat capacity (which describes how easily a substance transvers heat) of water is much higher than that of air.\n\nTry holding your hand in water of around 50°C, you wont last a second. While you can move your hand quickly through a flame of around 200-300 °C.\n\nAlso liquids are more dense so they have more mass/molecules in the same amount of space who transfer heat. \nThis explains why metals are hotter to the touch than most gasses even though their heat capacity is in general lower. \n\nEdit: bad example\nEdit 2: part about density",
"Heat transfer is the reason.\n\nWith air at 90ºF and high humidity, you start to overheat because your body uses evaporative cooling and that becomes less effective with higher humidity. With low humidity, you actually would be pretty comfortable because it would work even better - this is how people can stand Phoenix AZ better than Florida.\n\nWith water at 90ºF, this is still cooler than your body temperature so it's a \"cold sink\". The thermal conductivity of water is higher than air however, so it actually acts like a coolant at 90ºF so it's more comfortable. I know this well as this is the temperature of the water at some beaches in Thailand and it's more comfortable in the water than the air.\n\nThe same reason is why 65ºF water is unpleasant - the higher thermal conductivity sucks far more heat out of your body and you feel colder than you do from 65ºF air.\n\nA common theme is \"gradients\" of heat and humidity, combined with entropy that says heat goes from hot to cold.",
"Short answer is you feel comfortable when the rate you generate heat = the rate you dissipate heat. Air is a good insulator (think double pained glass windows) so you don't lose much heat into the air unless the air is much cooler than your skin. Water can absorb a lot of heat quickly so you need the delta between your body temp and the water to be smaller to feel comfortable. You can actually get hypothermia in 60-70 degree water if you stay in it a long time.",
"Probably has something to do with specific heat and micro climates. Water has a really high specific heat, which means it takes a lot of heat to heat it up. So if you're in cold water, a lot more energy is being sent out to heat up that water making it feel very cold, while air doesn't as much. 'Micro climates are very very small pockets of space around an organism, Like the air trapped in pockets under your hair. You hair keeps the air there, heats it up once and is done. Water keeps running over it, ruining the micro climate"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1v1783
|
Would matter-antimatter annihilation be any different than nuclear explosion?
|
Ratios of released energy are 100:1 of these two reactions, so I assume matter-antimatter annihilation would be much more volatile than nuclear one (assuming same weight of used material), but do these two explosions have same properties, ie. Mushroom cloud followed by EMP and radiation? Is any of these two "cleaner"?
Do we have knowledge of how matter-antimatter annihilation process works?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1v1783/would_matterantimatter_annihilation_be_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cenqag1",
"cenrfzn"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The annihilation reaction is much \"cleaner\" as all the reactants form photons with the same energy. There would be a large flash of almost monochromatic gamma radiation. A nuclear reaction leaves free neutrons and radioactive nuclei flying around. The dust, clouds, etc would depend on the environment that the bomb was detonated in.",
"The actual mechanics of the explosion may be different due to time scales. Nuclear explosions behave differently than chemical explosions since the energy is released in a smaller time scale. This may be true for antimatter/matter explosions too. There would still be a mushroom cloud if it was near the ground. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7640s3
|
Why is the French Revolution (1789) is considered much more important than English Revolution (1649)?
|
Both resulted in somewhat republican state, both killed their kings, both ultimately failed but changed their countries.
Yet if you look at various timelines or important dates lists French Revolution is always there and English one is rarely ever mentioned. Why?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7640s3/why_is_the_french_revolution_1789_is_considered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dobepj4"
],
"score": [
207
],
"text": [
"There are a number of contributing factors to this disparity. First and foremost is the wider global impact of the English Revolution, or rather the lack thereof. The French Revolution is particularly unique among revolutions(other than the Russian Revolution, but I won't get into that) in that the ideas of it spread throughout all of europe, and thus the world. When looking at a single point to mark the beginning of the modern world, the revolutionary period (marked as 1789-1815) is one of the most important transitionary periods(at least in terms of the society, modern tech seems to have made another change on that scale...). Looking at areas where you wouldn't expect much rest-of-world impact, such as Latin America, we can see the direct impact of the French revolution (more on that later). Secondly it's about the final state of these periods. When everything settled out, Parliament being the dominant power within England had been settled, but it had been the de facto case for decades before that - hence why the parliament was able to challenge the king successfully in the first place. In France on the other hand, it was something of a shock that something like this could have taken place, one of the best analogies I've ever heard for grasping this is \"Imagine if the modern United States were overthrown by Maoists [communists]\", France under the bourbon's had been one of the most autocratic governments in Europe, and the legacy of the Sun King made France the most important nation in European politics, so when France of all places was overthrown by an enormous burgher revolt it was quite shocking to everyone. Although there was a king again at the end of the period, it didn't last and France ended up settling out as a Republic so it's not accurate to say that it ultimately failed to change (though if you don't count the whole period it's understandable that you'd believe that). The final major factor involved is the nature of the revolution. In England it was largely a question of religion and of who has authority, it was never a question of what form society should take. In France on the other hand, as things spiraled out of control and more heads started being taken during the terror, the whole structure of the society began to be under question - the peak of this being all that silliness around changing the calendar to 'Thermidorian'. This meant that the French revolution had a much broader range of thought, and the notions of freedom would later go on to infect everywhere that napoleons troops went as he conquered most of Europe(the Napoleonic ideas ended up being the largest influence on Sardinia-Piedmont when it started marching to unite Italy, and for that alone it would be important).\n\n1) Global Impact:\nThe list of places impacted by the French Revolution is too long to reasonably mention if it's explained (which I intend to do). The list ranges from the USA - the Louisiana Purchase would never have happened without it. To Latin America(something of a pet focus of mine) where the independence of the entire region, from Mexico to Argentina happened directly as a result of the Revolution. The important thing to understand about the independence revolutions of the various latin american states is that they were fundamentally run by local Creole elites, quite different from other independence movements. The revolutions all had the same casus belli, the restoration of the 'Desired One' which was the heir to the King of Spain that had been deposed by Napoleon. Here we see the link. Napoleon deposing the king of spain and putting his step-brother Joseph on the throne directly led to the independence of Latin America. This is just one of the many Global reasons why the French Revolution is much more important than the English one.\n\nThe next two are closely linked so I'll actually discuss them as one.\n2) Long-term results:\n3) Intellectual Nature:\nIn the long run, France settled out as a republic, as I said before, whereas we see that England still has a monarchy, power reduced though it might be. The Ideas of the French Revolution and the societal changes, particularly to the idea of war, are unmatched in any other revolution of history(Except maybe the Russian Revolution, but this is something that is under much discussion these days in the post-Soviet world). The change in armies from a small professional group to an entire society at arms is crucial to understand the gap between pre-modern warfare and early modern warfare. In addition to this, the soldiers of Napoleon's armies mingled with people all across europe as he marched around taking stuff, which spread the ideas of the revolution which were FAR from unified. Everything from Liberal Democracy to Communism that we see in the modern world has some roots in the French Revolution, and it was spread all over the place as a result of it, so the long term impact is undeniable. It's quite possible, though this part is debatable, that Unified Germany was strongly impacted by the experience of the Napoleonic Wars, which are linked intrinsically with the revolution by most historians - the process of divide and conquer that allowed Napoleon to steamroll the Rhine made it a much easier to argue that Germany should become one state with one policy to defend against 'the vile french'.\n\nIn conclusion, the English revolution ended merely having codified the de facto laws that existed before, whereas the French revolution was a fundamental change to the way France worked. In addition to this, the scope was much larger, with the French revolution impacting places all across the globe in both the short and long terms. Finally, the nature of the Revolution was much more intellectual and helped give birth to many modern ideologies and setting the roots in place to the others.\n\nThis was just a basic overview of the reasons, but I hope it answered your question satisfactorily.\n\n\nSome of my Sources: (I was mostly drawing from memory and don't have specific page numbers for my facts without tracking down each book again)\n\nSmall unprofessional note: WHY ARE ALL FRENCH REVOLUTION BOOKS SO BORINGLY NAMED????\n\nConnolly, S. (2003). The French Revolution. Chicago, Ill.: Heinemann Library\nA good timeline orientation with some pleasant asides. Rather standard as I recall, but fairly good for further reading nonetheless\n\nKates, G. (1998). The French Revolution : recent debates and new controversies. London: Routledge. \nI think there's a newer version of this but I can't vouch for anything about it. I'd also tend to read this one last as it's at times a bit preachy but gives an important unusual perspective to some of the discussions that few other books give.\n\nLefebvre, G. (2001). The French Revolution: from its origins to 1793. London: Routledge.\nI'd recommend this alongside others since it's originally a French Source, though it introduces a few associated biases, it still offers some good perspective.\n\nMelton, J. Van Horn. (2001). The rise of the public in Enlightenment Europe. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.\n\nThis book was one of the first books I had to read for a class in undergrad, the chapter on the rise of the public in France is CRITICAL to my own understanding of the societal changes associated with France during this period.\n\n\nThere's one other book that's on the tip of my tongue as it were and I'll add it here once I've found it...\n\nEDIT: Here it is: (if i recall correctly, which it's possible that I don't) this book provides some nice details on how the Latin American revolutions were different, including the impact of the French Revolution on it, which has a special place in my heart.\n\nGraham, R. Independence in Latin America : CONTRASTS AND COMPARISONS. THIRD edition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2omwgj
|
Why aren't small invasive species collapsing ecosystems?
|
We hear about rats and snakes and ants invading ecosystems and taking over. I assume mites, worms, and other microscopic things are also going to catch rides to new places and be just as invasive. Why do we never hear of a nematode infestation destroying an ecosystem, for example?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2omwgj/why_arent_small_invasive_species_collapsing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmozc5h",
"cmp30bf",
"cmp8w6s"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They do.\n\nFor some reason invasion of tiny unmentionnables is just not that sexy a topic in journalism and it usually slides under the radar.\n\nYet there are huge problems with (for instance) [the introduction of earthworms to northeast N America](_URL_1_), or [the uncontrolled expansion of the Mountain Pine Beetle](_URL_0_) to name a few.",
"Check out the history of the American Chestnut\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nA tiny fungus from Asia basically killed the most numerous tree in all of the Appalachian mountains in a matter of decades and along with it the large amounts of edible chestnuts the trees created. \n",
"I think they probably are, but the definition of \"collapsing ecosystem\" is so vague it's hard to really really answer the question. \n\nThis is not a critique of the question, but rather I think the scientists in the field haven't done a precise job of objectively defining \"ecosystem collapse\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sibacs.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/environmental-impacts-report-final.pdf",
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/invasive-earthworms-denude-forests/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chestnut_blight",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_chestnut"
],
[]
] |
|
1pj2xl
|
Which civilization in the ancient (latest being Early Middle Ages) world held the highest literacy rate? Were there any authors who weren't scholars in that civilization?
|
When I'm reading about history I hear all of these names of scholars that are always mentioned (For good reason) but I was wondering if there were any lesser known authors who wrote joke books, creative writing or even gossip-type documents?
I'm hoping for books written by people from all of the ages, whether it be on a stone tablet that had a joke or whole books dedicated to something novel. Sorry if it's too loaded of question.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pj2xl/which_civilization_in_the_ancient_latest_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd2w8rv",
"cd2w9a9",
"cd2xly5",
"cd2yqva",
"cd2z5gu",
"cd30pd0",
"cd30tz0",
"cd31yl1",
"cd3319s",
"cd331hw",
"cd34lmg",
"cd34q10",
"cd357pe",
"cd35wna",
"cd395sk"
],
"score": [
18,
68,
12,
231,
19,
8,
71,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"**EDIT** Okay, pretty much everything I've written here is contradicted by u/Silence_Dobetter's below comment and source. Further digging suggests that high literacy among ancient Jews is something of a myth. I'll take this up with my source.\n\n**********\n\nPerhaps the Israelites?\n\nI took a class on the history of anti-Semitism where the prof ([a well known jewish scholar](_URL_0_)) postulated that the Israelites created the earliest form of socialised education in 1300 BCE because of rules laid down in the Torah:\n\nNumber 10 - To read the Shema` twice daily, as it is written \"and thou shalt talk of them . . . when thou liest down, and when thou risest up\" (Deuteronomy 6,7).\n\nNumber 11 - To learn Torah and to teach it, as it is written \"thou shalt teach them diligently unto thy children\" (Deuteronomy 6,7).\n\nNumber 17 - For every man to write a Torah scroll for himself, as it is written \"write ye this song for you\" (Deuteronomy 31,19). \n\n[from the wiki article: History of education in ancient Israel and Judah](_URL_1_)\n\nBasically, in order to follow God's law, men had to be able to read, and this led to high literacy rates.\n\nMy prof also postulated (although I've never found other sources on this) that this commitment to education had a lot to do with the staying-power of the Jewish people.\n\nEDIT typo\n\nEDIT 2 I took a class which touched on this subject, I claim no other expertise in this area.",
"I can't address the literacy issue, but if you want gossip and slander from 6th century Byzantium, you need look no further than [Procopius of Caesarea](_URL_0_). For example, when describing the Blues (the faction backing Justinian):\n\n > Next they decided to wear the purple stripe on their togas, and swaggered about in a dress indicating a rank above their station: for it was only by ill-gotten money they were able to buy this finery. And the sleeves of their tunics were cut tight about the wrists, while from there to the shoulders they were of an ineffable fullness; thus, whenever they moved their hands, as when applauding at the theater or encouraging a driver in the hippodrome, these immense sleeves fluttered conspicuously, displaying to the simple public what beautiful and well-developed physiques were these that required such large garments to cover them. They did not consider that by the exaggeration of this dress the meagerness of their stunted bodies appeared all the more noticeable. Their cloaks, trousers, and boots were also different: and these too were called the Hun style, which they imitated. ",
"Actually early writing was used primarily for buisness and government, not schololary works. Some of the Athenian plays fit what you're looking for. Aristophanes, a Greek playwrite, wrote subversive satire filled with toilet humor and slander (according to Plato) about the leading figures of his day.\n\n",
" > a stone tablet that had a joke\n\n > gossip-type documents\n\nYou might be interested in [graffiti from Pompeii](_URL_0_). Warning, a lot of this is explicit and NSFW! \n\n* *Theophilus, don’t perform oral sex on girls against the city wall like a dog* \n* *Weep, you girls. My penis has given you up. Now it penetrates men’s behinds. Goodbye, wondrous femininity*\n\n* *Restituta, take off your tunic, please, and show us your hairy privates*\n\n* *Lovers are like bees in that they live a honeyed life* \n\n* *I screwed the barmaid*\n\n* *If anyone does not believe in Venus, they should gaze at my girlfriend*\n\n* *Secundus likes to screw boys.*\n\n* *I screwed a lot of girls here.*\n\n* *To the one defecating here. Beware of the curse. If you look down on this curse, may you have an angry Jupiter for an enemy.* \n\n* *Gaius Valerius Venustus, soldier of the 1st praetorian cohort, in the century of Rufus, screwer of women*\n\n* *We have wet the bed, host. I confess we have done wrong. If you want to know why, there was no chamber pot*\n",
"One of the main problems in defining literacy is how differently modern society views 'literacy' as opposed to ancient societies. Generally, it is expected of a 'literate' person today to be able to read general literature, like newspapers, textbooks and novels. This is in stark contrast to what can be perceived as 'literacy' in somewhere like ancient Rome during the Principate. Were people able to read poetry or literature? Could they read simple sentences but not complex ones? Were they able to read quietly or did they have to sound out their writing? \n\nA prime example of this would be the Res Augustae. It is attested by Suetonius that the deeds of the emperor Augustus were published on a golden plaque that rested on the Mausoleum of Augustus (although unfortunately this is said nowhere else in contemporary latin). These were simple phrases, using lots of numbers and possible colloquialisms (utilizing phrases like \"at the city\" as opposed to the more specific \"at Rome\"). Later, the Res Augustae were translated into Koiné Greek and inscribed on temples around the ancient Roman world. But really, how can scholars tell what segment of the population was able to read this? Why would Augustus and later emperors inscribe these writings if the vast majority of the population couldn't read? \n\nThis is a fascinating question, but ultimately plagued by a very difficult assessment of not only how to assess what literacy entails, but how exactly modern scholars are supposed to draw out a statistic on a subject that is little documented in archaeology or literature. ",
"Literacy has been high with the Bamar people in Burma since the introduction of Buddhism. Traditional monastic learning mandated that young boys and girls should learn to read and write. Upon independence, Burma had a literacy rate of 82% (which went higher in the Bamar people once you disregard the other ethnicities). The government schooling system has, for the most part, replaced traditional monastic learning, so the literacy rate is much higher now.\n\nBuddhism became the dominant religion in the Irrawady valley around the 4th century. I have no idea when monastic learning became prominent, but I would assume a century or two later. I don't know the literacy rates for the period back then, but British visitors claimed that nearly half of all adult males and 5% of adult females were competently literate in around 1830.",
"Although I don't know about the literacy rate in China or Persia (pre-Arab Invasions), I can say with certainty that the civilization with the highest literacy rate in Europe during the Late Classical/Early to High Medieval period (5th-12th Centuries AD) was in the Byzantine Empire, where estimates of literacy range anywhere from 30-50% (*Brownworth*, *Magdalino*, etc.). Most, if not, all of the upper and middle classes had at least basic reading and writing, and during certain periods of ascendancy, the Empire boasted primary education for most of its inhabitants (even in small towns and villages), as well as secondary, and even tertiary education for city and town dwellers. And not only that, but highly unusual for the time, women were also allowed to pursue their education, as evidenced by Anna Komnene, and Styliane, the daughter of Michael Psellos, and the need for female physicians in the Imperial *xenonia* hospitals.\n\n*Well, you might be asking, what did these people study in schools?*\n\n Much of the primary education (generally for children) pertained to the ability to read/write scripture and nursery rhymes or famous folk tales, but there was also rudimentary education in mathematics, history, and philosophy. Secondary education, which was to be found in moderate sized cities and towns in the Empire (and designed for older children and teens), generally moved on to things such as public oration, study of the classical epics, and things such as law, observational science, and theology. Tertiary education was found only in the largest cities, but could be attended by really anyone with the drive and aptitude (and the pockets) to do so, although, it seems that especially gifted students from less affluent origins could attend if they were deemed important enough. The Pandidakterion, or University of Constantinople, was perhaps the most prominent of these, and offered over 40 different degrees in the fields of medicine, mathematics, theology, oration, law, and many others.\n\n*And finally, how do we know this?*\n\nThere is a lot of primary source evidence which supports the existence of public education within the Empire. For example, in Michael Psellos' ode to his daughter, Styliane, (who tragically passed away at the age of 20), he remarks that she was \"throughout her life, the best and brightest among her class of pupils\", telling us that there was an organized educational system for non-royalty during his lifetime. \n\nAdditionally, the presence of several novels (like *Drosilla and Charikles* and *the Two-Blood Border Lord*) support the existence of high literacy rates within the Empire, as they were obviously written to be popular amongst a wide range of peoples and classes, otherwise, I cannot see why they would bother to invest so much time and effort in crafting such elaborate and detailed works. \n\nAnd finally, the fact that Emperors and prominent generals wrote many tactical and strategic manuals (such as Leo VI's *Taktika* and the *Praecepta Militaria* of Nikephoros II Phokas) for use as \"reference manuals\" for other generals and officers in the Imperials Army and Navy tells us that the authors expected these manuals to be read and understood by their underlings. ",
"I cannot back this up with anything but my vague memory of a Swedish documentary where they had found small wooden pieces with short messages written in runic scripts in either Scandinavia or a norse city in Eastern Europe from the middle ages/\"the viking age\". My memory holds that the messages read things like \"Mom says you should come home\" and \"x fucked y\". However, as I said, I don't have more info on this. Hopefully, someone on this sub perhaps has?\n\n**Edit:** Only found some casual educational pages in Swedish. [Page 1](_URL_1_), [page 2](_URL_0_). A message quoted in both pages is a short love poem:\n\n > Love me\n\n > I love you\n\n > Gunnhild\n\n > Kiss me\n\n > I feel you\n\n(Translated by me from Swedish, so keep in mind that this is a secondary translation as it has been translated from Old Norse/Old Swedish to modern Swedish.) The second page quotes more short runic messages found on various objects, all of the following are translated by me from Swedish, I'll add the time period the page says the objects were found:\n\n* \"Torkjel Coin Master sends you pepper.\" (ca 1200)\n\n\n\n* \"Ragnar owns this yarn.\" (ca 1200)\n\n \n\n* \"Likko owns the knife.\" (ca 1100, carved on a knife.)\n\n\n\n* \"Margareta owns me.\" (1300s. \"Me\", in this case would probably be the object this was carved on. The site doesn't state what the object is.)\n\n\n\n* \"Ingeborg loved me while I was in Stavanger.\" (1100s)\n\n\n\n* \"Jon Velvet Pussy owns me, Guttorm Pussy Licker carved me, Jon Pussy Ball(?) deciphers me.\" (1100s)\n\n\n\n* \"Ole is shieldless, he was fucked in the ass.\" (ca 1200)\n\n\n **Edit 2:** /u/grantimatter knows more about this, see below.",
"Ancient literate not-exactly-scholars brings to mind the [Shang dynasty oracle bones](_URL_0_), which are some of the oldest known examples of written words anywhere. They go back to 1600 BCE. \n\nThey were being used in divination - toss a bone or turtle shell into a cooking fire, then see if the cracks spell any messages out. \n\nSome of the questions preserved along with the old bones (some carved into the bones themselves) are things like: \"The king dreamed of white cattle - shall there be a disaster?\" and \"The Wife Hao shall give birth - will it be a happy event?\"\n\nDiviners asking questions of bones were in all likelihood from an educated class and functioned like professionals or specialists in court, so were something like scholars. But the questions and answers are not scholarly writing - a whole other kind of way to use letters. \n\nThough if you read ahead a couple of pages in that linked source, you'll find some ways the diviners were writing something like histories. Narratives about specific events. \n",
"there is a Roman comedy written in the mid second century called the Metamorphoses by Apuleius, today we call it the Golden Ass. it is pretty good. it is also the only Roman novel that survived in its entirety.\n\n ",
"you might be interested in Gaius Valerius Catullus (ca. 84–54 BC). He was a Latin poet that is known for his vulgar poems.\n\nBelow is a link to the translation of one of his most famous (and also vulgar) poems. \n\n_URL_0_",
"FYI, there are more responses in this post from a few weeks ago. It also includes links to several more:\n\n[What was the literacy rate of nobles, kings and Emperors in Europe during the Roman Empire and Middle Ages?](_URL_0_)",
"I can't believe nobody has mentioned medieval Islam. From [Wikipedia](_URL_0_): \n\n\"In medieval times, the Caliphate experienced a growth in literacy, having the highest literacy rate of the Middle Ages, comparable to classical Athens' literacy in antiquity.\"\n\nMost of the knowledge we have of ancient literature was preserved by Islamic scholars.\n\n[edit] To answer your question though, non-religious poetry was popular during the Abbasid period. They were clever and relied on puns, but not quite \"ha-ha\" funny.",
"The archeological site at [Deir el-Medina](_URL_0_) (*Set Maat*) provides exceptional insight into the living conditions of skilled craftsmen during The New Kingdom of Egypt (1550-1069 B.C.E.). The finds there suggest that the majority of adults of both sexes were sufficiently literate; they wrote letters, had copies of popular literature, collected spells and incantations, wrote receipts for goods, etc. \n\n > The surviving texts record the events of daily life rather than major historical incidents. Personal letters reveal much about the social relations and family life of the villagers. The ancient economy is documented by records of sales transactions that yield information on prices and exchange. Records of prayers and charms illustrate ordinary popular conceptions of the divine, whilst researchers into ancient law and practice find a rich source of information recorded in the texts from the village. Many examples of the most famous works of Ancient Egyptian literature have also been found. Thousands of papyri and ostraca still await publication.\n\nOne has to keep in mind, however, that the people populating Set Maat were not necessarily a representative sample of the population as a whole. These were mainly skilled artisans and their families. Some undoubtedly kept slaves, who would have been poorly literate, if literate at all. ",
"Silence_Dubetter [argues that the Jews](_URL_6_) were not the first to achieve universal Jewish literacy because in the 1st century CE Jewish had about a 3% literacy rate. The 1st century is the exact wrong place to take this measurement, because scholars only claim widespread Jewish literacy after the second century CE. Let me explain. The high priest [Joshua ben Gamla](_URL_3_) is the one who is supposed to have established \"a universal system of education after all previous attempts failed. He evolved a system whereby 'teachers of young children be appointed in each district and each town,' whereas previously they were to be found only in Jerusalem.\" ben Gamla died in c. 65-70 C.E., so the *2nd* century is when you start having claims of universal Jewish male literacy. Here's the [Jewish Encyclopedia](_URL_0_) page on him, Nut the name source we have on him is in the Talmud on *Baba Batra* 21a, which is available [here](_URL_1_). Commentary from the [Steinsaltz edition of the Talmud](_URL_4_) by [Adin Steinsaltz](_URL_2_) adds: \n\n > Yehoshua ben Gamla is most likely one of the last kohanim gedolim (=high priests) of the second Temple period, who is mentioned in Josephus as Yehoshua ben Gamliel. If this identification is correct, he was appointed to this position by King Agrippas II.\n\n > Yehoshua ben Gamla is praised by the Sages for a number of things, among them donating golden plates for the Yom Kippur lottery, but chiefly for instituting a formal elementary school system in every city in Israel. This led the sages to say about him, \"were it not for him, the Torah would have been totally forgotten.\"\n\n**Anyway, it is generally said that only through ben Gamla's innovative school system, which only started in the second half of the first century CE, that gave Jews achieved near universal male literacy**, perhaps starting as early as the 2nd century. \n\n[*The Chosen Few: How Education Shaped Jewish History 70-1492*](_URL_5_) by Maristella Botticini & Zvi Eckstein (2012, Princeton University Press) adds on page 72:\n\n > Although Josephus solemnly claimed at the end of the first century CE that \"children's' education is the principal care among the Jews\", there is no direct evidence that primary education became universal within either the large Jewish community in the Land of Israel or the Jewish communities of Mesopotamia and Egypt. In fact, the vast majority of the Jewish population in the Land of Israel during the first two centuries was probably illiterate.\n\n > The slow implementation of Josha ben Gamla's ruling regarding children's instruction is understandable if one remembers the historical context in which the new religious norm came into existence. The Pharisaic high priest issued this ruling at a time when the Jewish leadership was split between Sadducees and Pharisees. Joshua himself was forced out of the post of high priest after one year. There is no evidence that Sadduccees' high preists, who were then in power, accepted and supported this ruling. In his detailed historical accounts, Josephus, who called Joshua ben Gamla his friend, did not report any information regarding the establishment of primary schools in his time. Moreover, the first Jewish-Roman war, which broke up within a few year of Joshua ben Gamla's ruling, would have made it difficult to immediately implement the educational reform envisaged by the Pharisaic high priest.\n\n > Whether or not the ruling of Joshua ben Gamla was swiftly implemented into world Jewry in his time is irrelevant for the theory we present in the next chapter. What is important is that this ruling was issued in the form a *takkanah*, a legislative religious enactment that every Jewish had to obey. Religious instruction (i.e., learning to read and study the Torah) for both children and adults became a religious norm that grew to be the \"lever of Judaism\" in subsequent centuries\n\nThis obviously became particularly important after the Temple was destroyed and R. Johanan ben Zakkai, founder of the academy at Javneh, declared that animal sacrifice on the altar had to be replaced with prayer.\n\n*ibid*. pg. 75,\n\n > At the institutional level, the legacy of the Pharisees [*effectively the founders of Rabbinic Judaism*] was to transform into reality the religious norm of Joshua ben Gamla by making primary education almost universal in world Jewry. The authority of the rabbis of the Land of Israel deeply influenced, and was accepted by, the Jewish communities in Mesopotamia and the rest of the Diaspora.\n\npg. 100:\n\n > The growth of the academies in Mesopotamia documented in many passages of the Talmud indirectly suggest that more Jewish children must have received some primary education--a perquisite for entering the secondary schools and then the academies.\n\n > Both the Talmud of the Land of Israel and the Babylonian Talmud [*there are two versions of the Talmud, don't worry about it, we usually talk about the Babylonian Talmud*] are filled with discussions and ruling regarding schools, synagogues pupils, books, duties and wages of teachers, duties of parents to provide for their children's Torah study, and duties of pupils towards their teachers. Such issues were unheard of in other rural civilizations of the time.\n\n > The picture that emerges from this enormous body of discussions and rulings is one of a farming society that was setting up economic, legal, and social tools to implement the religious ruling of Joshua ben Gamla and to make primary education universal among Jewish boys. For example, the Talmud of the Land of Israel reports that Hillel, the son of Gamliel III and grandson of Rabbi Judah haNasi, worked to establish an educational system despite the financial difficulties of his times. To accomplish his goal, he asked three distinguished scholars to travel to many locations and to appoint teachers of children in many towns and villages. Some debates and rulings in the Talmud regulated the practical organization of primary instruction. One ruling, for example, established a communal tax to provide for the wages of teachers of the Torah and Mishna. Another ruling required that unmarried people with no children who resided in a town had to pay for the wages of teachers. A third ruling allowed the community as a whole to fire a teacher if he did not follow the parents' instruction.\n\nPg. 111:\n\n > The four centuries spanning from the redaction of the Mishna circa 200 to the rise of Islam in the mid-seventh century witnessed the implementation of Josha ben Gamla's ruling and the establishment of a system of universal primary education centered on the synagogue. This sweeping change completely transformed Judaism into a religion centered on reading, studying, and implementing the rules of the Torah and the Talmud. A Jewish farmer going on pilgrimage to and performing ritual sacrifices in the Temple in Jerusalem was the icon of Judaism until 70 CE [the destruction of the Temple]. In the early seventh century, the emblem of world Jewry was a Jewish farmer reading and studying the Torah in a synagogue and sending his sons to school or the synagogue to learn to do so.\n\nTL; DR: That 3% Jewish literacy in the 1st Century CE may well be true, but it's before the time most scholars claim that Jews had universal male literacy. What you'd like to see is data for Jewish literacy *after* c. 200 CE, which seems to suggest that Jews *were* the first people to achieve universal male literacy.\n\n*edit*: as for the second part of your question, \"I was wondering if there were any lesser known authors who wrote joke books, creative writing or even gossip-type documents?\", that I don't know about. I'll message the /u/koine_lingue, /u/gingerkid1234, and /u/SF2K01 as they're more likely to know than me."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://liberalartscollege.concordia.ca/faculty-and-staff/krantz.php",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_education_in_ancient_Israel_and_Judah"
],
[
"http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/basis/procop-anec.asp"
],
[],
[
"http://www.pompeiana.org/resources/ancient/graffiti%20from%20pompeii.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.multiart.nu/grimner/svenska/texter/runhist.html",
"http://litteraturbanken.se/#!presentationer/specialomraden/RunornasLitteratur.html"
],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=IE-u0zSrZ84C&lpg=PA10&dq=shang%20dynasty%20oracle%20bones&pg=PA10#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[],
[
"http://rudy.negenborn.net/catullus/text2/e37.htm"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nscus/what_was_the_literacy_rate_of_nobles_kings_and/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maktab"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deir_el-Medina"
],
[
"http://www.jewishencyclopedia.com/articles/8912-joshua-jesus-ben-gamla",
"http://www.on1foot.org/text/talmud-bavli-baba-batra-21a",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adin_Steinsaltz",
"http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/judaica/ejud_0002_0011_0_10355.html",
"http://steinsaltz.org/learning.php?pg=Daf_Yomi&articleId=1696",
"http://press.princeton.edu/titles/9744.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pj2xl/which_civilization_in_the_ancient_latest_being/cd2yh47"
]
] |
|
4ryg6e
|
what is the difference between the different types of antidepressants? (ssri, snri, tca, etc.)
|
I don't really get pharmacology but I try to read up on the drugs I take. What is the difference, not necessarily chemically, but in what they do and why one would be prescribed over another. I was just prescribed an SNRI.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ryg6e/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_the_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5576w1",
"d5590dm"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Finally something psychology based that I can answer!\n\nOkay, I don't know how much you know, so I'm going to explain everything that I need to. Here goes:\n\nThe biological theory of psychology states that mental illness is caused by imbalances in chemicals in the brain called neurotransmitters. In most cases of depression, there is a deficiency of serotonin and/or norepinephrine. Serotonin is a monoamine neurotransmitter that regulates happiness and good moods. Norepinephrine (also called noradrenaline) is a neurotransmitter that regulates the body's levels of alertness, awakeness, vigilance, anxiety, and the fight or flight response.\n\nThere are four basic types of antidepressants. First generation antidepressants, tricyclic antidepressants, second generation antidepressants, and third generation antidepressants.\n\n* **First Generation**, also known as MAOIs inhibit a family of enzymes called monoamine oxidase in the brain/body which causes serotonin levels to decrease. This family of enzymes also serves to break down tyramine in the liver. If tyramine levels are too high, they can lead to elevated blood pressure, so people who take them need a restricted diet. They also react with a lot of different medications. Examples include Nardil and Parnate.\n\n* **Tricyclics (TCAs)** have a three ring portion of their molecular structure (hence the name). They slow down serotonin and norepinephrine reuptake. They're essentially early SNRIs, but they have a bunch of cardiovascular side effects and a really high potential for accidental overdose that make them undesirable for many patients. Examples include Elavil, Pamelor, and Tofranil.\n\n* **Second generation antidepressants** are the Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors (or SSRIs). These slow the reuptake of serotonin from its receptor at the synapse. These don't have as many side effects as the ones that came before them, but the side effects that they can have are fairly undesirable, including decreased sex drive, agitation, nausea, and increased risk of seizures. They also take at least 4 weeks to take effect. Some examples are Prozac, Celexa, Lexapro, Paxil, and Zoloft.\n\n* **Third generation antidepressants** consist of Serotonin-Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (SNRIs) and Norepinephrine Reuptake Inhibitors (NRIs/NERIs). These do the same as SSRIs, but with either just Norepinephrine or both Serotonin and Norepinephrine. These also have similar side effects to SSRIs. Some examples include Cymbalta, Effexor, and Pristiq.\n\nEdit: I fixed my mistake",
"It usually comes down to side effects, effectiveness and 'safety'. Whilst no drug is truly safe, some of the newer ones (SNRI/SSRI ) come with less side effects and reduced levels of medication required to reach the therapeutic range (amount in your body that is effective in its treatment, below levels of toxicity). Conversely your TCI/MAOI can have more systemic effects & increased toxicity (smaller therapeutic range). there are different types of SSRI/SNRI, it can be a bit of trial and error as to what works best, entirely dependant on the person taking them. Anecdotally, I was on Pristiq which is a pretty common starting point for ADs, it didn't work for me but I was able to change to Effexor which is related but slightly different molecularly and have better outcomes yet my mum had poor prognosis with Effexor. Hope that helps. \n\nEdit to add: from what I understand and remember from nursing school, as the name suggests they're selective S/N reuptake inhibitors. Basically this means ADs don't increase your levels up serotonin but increase/ decrease the availability of the S/N by holding it in the synapse (gap between neurons which transmit nerves)\n\nEdit 2- this was a random thought I had in the shower but medication is also chosen on selectivity, that is to say whether it is selective to its target receptors. I realised that was the third component of drug - safety, efficiency and selectivity. Something more selective is obviously going to be favoured to that which is comparatively broad. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2szczh
|
My grandfather was a German soldier in WWII and I found this map in his old Atlas.
|
First of all I hope this is the correct Subreddit for this.
So I was browsing threw some old family books when I was home for Christmas and stumbled upon my grandfathers old school atlas. I was flipping through the pages until I came across a [map](_URL_0_) of Poland and noticed handwriting on it. I knew my grandfather joined the German army at the age of 17. After I asked my dad about it he said his father never really talked about the war and destroyed all his fills before passing away. All we know is that my grandfather was involved with tanks, he said he used to look out the top of the tank, so maybe a tank commander? So I guess im asking if anyone could help me find out what division he was in or something like that.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2szczh/my_grandfather_was_a_german_soldier_in_wwii_and_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnud5fd"
],
"score": [
88
],
"text": [
"The retreat from Warsaw that's plotted on the map corresponds in time and places to the so called \"wandering cauldron of Kielce\" of parts of the 342 Infantry Division - more specifically the XXIVth Panzerkorps. \"Cauldron battle\" is the German term for an encirclement battle - the troops were encircled by the Soviet troops and fought themselves free along Petrikau, Shiraz, Kalisch and Lissa on to Glogau in Germany. These places are all marked on the map in a dashed line, most likely to mark a retreat (opposed to the straight line marking the march to the front to Warschau/Warsaw).\n\nWhile I haven't been able to pinpoint any more specific units your grandfather may have fought in, I hope this might serve as a first pointer to someone more versed in these matters than me. It's late here and I need to go to bed, but I'll have another look at it tomorrow and try to find out about these battles around Warsaw to further narrow down which unit your grandfather may have belonged to.\n\n\nEdit: Had another quick glance at the map - the unit your grandpa was in seems to have ended the war near the town of Budweis/Budějovice. (From the location on the map, even though it is not mapped itself. But if you'd draw a triangle between Budweis, Prague and Pilsen, and put it on the map from your grandfather, you'd get approximately the same area that he plotted). The XXIVth Panzerkorps ended the war in this area and was dissolved there, so it seems very likely that your grandfather volunteered/got drafted, trained in Germany and sent to Warsaw where he joined the XXIVth Panzerkorps, fought in the retreating battles of the Eastern front and then saw the end of the war in the Czech Republic."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/DFJz9kX.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
bfo6m4
|
[Mathematics] Is there a faster way to multiply (large) numbers?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bfo6m4/mathematics_is_there_a_faster_way_to_multiply/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elfop44"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There's two operations in here: multiplication and addition. Addition is considered cheap in that the trivial algorithm runs in linear time, which is optimal. So I won't consider the number of additions needed in what follows (there'll be some linear term).\n\nYour algorithm is the standard long multiplication algorithm, and runs in O(n^(2)) time (n is the number of digits in each number). The exponent (2) can be improved by swapping to a recursive algorithm like follows: if your two numbers are am+b and cm+d (ie. write the numbers as 'two-digit' numbers in base m), then you compute:\n\n1. A = ac\n2. C = bd\n3. D = (a+b)(c+d)\n4. Your result is Am^2 + (D - C - A)m + C\n\nFor appropriate choices of m (ie. m ~ 2^(n/2)), this divides an n-digit by n-digit multiplication into 3 (n/2)-digit by (n/2)-digit multiplications, giving a recurrence relation F(n) = 3F(n/2) + O(n), which has bound F(n) = O(n^(log_2{3})). Better recursive algorithms improve this exponent further, but note that for small numbers, the recursive overhead makes all such algorithms slower than the algorithm you gave -- implementations will generally cut off at some number of digits and just do the multiplication your way (this is a standard practice in implementing recursive algorithms).\n\nMore complex algorithms exist as well to bring it down to the approximately linearithmic range. However, again due to overhead and the simplicity of the \"more obvious\" (but asymptotically slower) algorithms, these algorithms are not actual improvements until the numbers are enormous.\n\nWork from this year (see [here](_URL_0_)) improves this to O(n log n) which is conjectured to be optimal for multiplication (the only provable lower bound is the trivial one of Omega(n)).\n\nEdit: Corrected an error pointed out by /u/mfb-"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-02070778/document"
]
] |
|
7x1seh
|
why do our toes taper down in size?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7x1seh/eli5_why_do_our_toes_taper_down_in_size/
|
{
"a_id": [
"du4tuu6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The big toe is a left over from our days as apes. Their feet were shaped more like our modern hands and the big toe functioned like a thumb, allowing us to grip onto branchs to avoid falling. [Human vs Chimp foot](_URL_0_)\n\nAlthough good in trees, this wasn’t useful when our ancestors switched to standing and walking on two feet. Thus our feet changed shape to reflect their new role, and our toes reduced to what they are today. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://ahcuah.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/desilva05.jpg"
]
] |
||
aynpj9
|
since animals do not brush their teeth how do they prevent cavities? how do they get fluoride for their teeth enamel?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aynpj9/eli5_since_animals_do_not_brush_their_teeth_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei22egx",
"ei22mfx",
"ei23z82",
"ei2608b",
"ei28lhv"
],
"score": [
65,
5,
7,
163,
3
],
"text": [
"Strictly speaking, most animals don't have high-sugar diets, so are generally less susceptible to cavities in the first place. They also have much shorter life spans and die before tooth decay becomes a huge health problem anyway. \n\nIt's worth noting that a lot of animals do get their teeth cleaned regularly in the wild though. Typically, this is done by other animals (shrimp, birds, etc). Those animals see a 'dentist' far more frequently than a human :)",
"It has a lot to do with their diets. Most animals don't eat sugary foods unless we feed them to them, and sugar and acid are one of the main causes of cavities. That being said, as animals age they do tend to have dental problems. Their teeth can eventually rot and fall out. When that happens, their gums tend to become calloused and hardened, which enables them to still chew almost as well as before they lost the teeth. I've had a lot of cats over the years and the ones that survive into their late teens have all had to have their teeth scaled and cleaned, while still losing one or several teeth.",
"I just found this out the hard way. My dog has an infected tooth. My vet told me about dental chews, which are basically just a chewy log, which acts a little like a toothbrush rubbing down the dogs teeth and getting into hard to reach places.\n\nI also read up a little bit on it and saw that vets do recommend brushing your pets teeth 😑",
"-They don't prevent cavities. (more later)\n\n-Fluoride exists in nature, and most water sources to some degree or another, but isn't _necessary_ for enamel formation it's just helpful to improve its toughness. So the fluoride question is sort of \"where do bears buy styling conditioner for their fur?\" Human's use of fluoride is a luxury, not a necessity. It improves our health and so extends our lives, but it's not a necessity.\n\nBack to the cavities...\n\nSome animals like rats and beavers just have teeth and tusks that just keep growing. As the exposed part wears away the base of the tooth just gets longer and more tooth comes out.\n\nSome animals like sharks shed old teeth and replace them with new teeth.\n\nSome animals like birds and turtles don't have teeth, but have beaks, which, like finger nails and claws, just keep growing and have to be worn down like the rat teeth.\n\nMany animals simply don't live long enough for tooth decay to be a problem.\n\nMany more, like the big cats, lose their teeth to age and damage and decay and then starve.\n\nHumans development of technology, particularly the invention of fire and so cooking, has had a remarkable effect on our dental circumstances. Freed from the all-day chore of chewing hard and raw stuff and so our teeth and jaws got smaller and our food choices expanded immensely.\n\nWe then invented agriculture and selective breeding of crops and medicine and whatnot.\n\nWe now put a remarkable number of things in our mouths, many of which are full of sugars and starches and acids that would have sickened or killed our ancestors. This not only causes us to host particularly aggressive bacteria, but those bacteria get the chance to build protective coverings of plaque that let them stay in place and do extra harm.\n\nLemonade is, for example, one of the most tooth-damaging things you can put in your mouth.\n\nBut we also get to constantly replenish the supply of tooth harming stuff because we can snack all day, constantly adding just a little more acid and a little more bacteria food.\n\nThat's not to say the past was \"better\". The ancient Egyptians showed us that they rarely had tooth decay. This sounds great, but it's only half the story.\n\nFor every cavity they were spared, they wore away a similar amount of tooth because the sand and grit in their foods mechanically polished away their teeth. The sand also basically gave them all a kind of lung disease that we now reserve for coal miners as inhaling silica dust all day sucks.\n\nSo in terms of the various dental issues, we kind of just traded ailments around. More cavities, but fewer abscesses and fewer food-borne illnesses, and more interesting an varied food choices and so improved nutrition overall.\n\nTL;DR? The reason you \"never look a gift horse in the mouth\" is because if you look in an old horse's mouth it's a disgusting mess of cavities and receding gums (so for eons it's been considered rude to look for the flaws in a gift so obviously). Animal mouths can get disgusting just like people's, the reasons simply vary by species and location.",
"They don't eat sugar so they don't get cavities in the young age.\n\nThey don't live long enough to have these problems in the old age.\n\nBut some animals do suffer from bad teeth. Elephants often starve when they are old as a result. They are large enough to have long lives without being eaten and their diet of grass requires chewing very large volumes of low quality food. Once they teeth wear out, they die.\n\nHorses and dogs live long lives because humans take care of them and they do have teeth problems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5u9db0
|
if real estate in downtown toronto, (specifically toronto, not the gta in general), is so overvalued, why does the population continue to grow at a relatively consistent pace?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5u9db0/eli5_if_real_estate_in_downtown_toronto/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddsaq7a"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Overvalued\" isn't really a functional concept. In practice, it's just used when something is more expensive than someone wants it to be.\n\nThe real estate in any given place is worth as much as someone is willing to pay for it. If the prices are high, it means people are paying a lot of money for it, so that's what it's worth. If the population is growing and the prices are high, it probably means that the area is desirable enough that wealthy people from other places are moving in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a0c73b
|
why is buying from small businesses better?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a0c73b/eli5_why_is_buying_from_small_businesses_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eagis6w",
"eagjm6t"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"It helps people maintain and develop new opportunities, almost all the big chains were once small businesses, and they only grew because people gave them a chance.\n\nAlso you tend to get better customer service, and higher quality products (if made there) by a smaller bussiness. \n\nReminds me of Dunder Mifflins sales pitch in the office. ",
"It's not, necessarily. There are both advantages and disadvantages to buying from a small or large business. \n\nSmall businesses make up the bulk of businesses, pretty much everywhere. Money that you spend at a small business is much more likely to stay in the community. I.e., if you buy product X from a small, local retailer, then the profit from that sale goes into the small business owner's pocket; if you buy it from Walmart, then the profit goes into the corporation's pocket. The small business owner is more likely to spend their profit locally, in their own community (or on their own business) than would Walmart, which might spend that profit to open a new store a thousand miles away. So buying from small businesses tends to boost the local economy more. \n\nHowever, small businesses usually have higher costs. They don't have the economy of scale to buy in bulk like a Walmart or Target or Barnes & Noble or Kroger does, so they're paying higher wholesale prices for their goods and that gets passed along as higher retail prices to you, the consumer. That means your dollar typically doesn't go as far when you're buying from a small business as it would when you're buying from a big retail chain. If you show at big retail chains, you can get more goods for the same amount of money, which is (potentially) good for you and potentially good for the _overall_ economy, because your dollars are being \"invested\" (i.e. spent) more widely in more supply chains. \n\nThe reality is that the economy relies on a mix of small and large businesses. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
n62nt
|
How many Decibels can kill a human?
|
I'm in science class and we're discussing sound and so on. And I asked how many decibels it would take to kill a human, if it even can kill one. Though she did not know an answer to my question. And I thought whom shall I ask, then I though r/askscience.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n62nt/how_many_decibels_can_kill_a_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c36jetg",
"c36jkp6",
"c36k04j",
"c36kdk7",
"c36kir7",
"c36kiry",
"c36l2lo",
"c36l641",
"c36jetg",
"c36jkp6",
"c36k04j",
"c36kdk7",
"c36kir7",
"c36kiry",
"c36l2lo",
"c36l641"
],
"score": [
6,
59,
2,
35,
3,
22,
2,
3,
6,
59,
2,
35,
3,
22,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"End of the day, sound waves are just variations in pressure in the air, essentially the same thing as explosives. So if you were able to find a figure for the smallest value of pressure that is not survivable by a human, you could probably then convert that figure into equivalent decibels. \n\nEdit: I came back to post this interesting table from wikipedia [here](_URL_0_) but it seems Justinthevaginy has found the answer to your question already, nice work. ",
"This was covered back in 2001 by [The Straight Dope](_URL_0_).\n\ntl;dr - \"German physicist Jürgen Altmann, who has written about the physiological effects of high-intensity sound, tells me the threshold for suffocation or embolism following lung rupture is 2.6 to 11 times atmospheric pressure, depending on pulse duration.\"\n\nOr around 200 decibels to cause lung rupture and presumably embolism due to air blast. The typical [stun grenade](_URL_1_) stays under these levels, at around 160 to 180 decibels.\n\nAnd no, I don't know what you would need to shatter, melt, or otherwise cause some immediate and theatrical 'instakill' of the human body. I'll leave that to Hollywood.\n\nLet me know if you need additional information.",
"There was a very interesting show on Radio lab just about this: _URL_0_",
"I am an audiology student currently studying a bit of psychoacoustics. To clearify a bit:\n\n+ 3dB is two times the sound energy\n+ 6dB is two times the sound effect\n+ 10dB is percieved as twice as loud\n\nand yes we do percieve different frequencies as different in loudness even when they are presented at the same objective level, see: _URL_0_\n\nAlso, 198dB is the loudest sound that can be produced. Since sound is the densification and thinning of air, or really air molecules, 198dB is the loudest sound that can be produced before the thinnest part is nothing but vacuum. Yes, air pressure can be bigger, e.g with an explosion, but that is not really the same thing as a sound, and would not be percieved as sound but that is of course a question of definition.\n\nAlso, dB is a reference scale. Meaning 0 dB is the same as the reference, not just \"nothing\". The most used dB scale is the \"Sound Pressure Level\" or SPL where 0 dB SPL equals 20 mikro pascal.\n\nMy 5 cents, thanks for interesting thread.",
"Additional question, but would it be possible to make sound at a lower amount of decibels in the resonant frequency of say the brains to kill you?",
"A couple things. First, above 194 dB, it's hard to call it a \"sound wave\" anymore, as that's where you start getting shockwaves. In a shockwave, the \"floor\" of the pressure wave is negative (which is why when an explosive shock wave passes over you, you get a lot of overpressure followed by a lot of underpressure.\n\nWhen discussing damage from shockwaves, there are two things you want to look at: the amount of overpressure, and its duration. The more those increase, the more damage will occur.\n\nAs for fatality, it varies widely based on position of the person (side-on vs face-on vs top-on), but the most widely cited values are in the 60-80 psi overpressure range. There is evidence from Army research that repeated exposure to sub-fatal blasts can be fatal, just as repeated exposure to non-injurious blasts can be injurious.\n\nAt lower overpressures (even as low as 5 psi overpressure) you can start seeing things like eardrum rupture. Slightly higher you get GI tract hemorrhaging and lung lesions. In small amounts, these are subclinical, but in larger amounts, it can quickly cause real problems.\n\nFor further reading, the term in literature you're looking for is \"blast injury\". A lot of the publication on the subject comes from the 40s-60s, especially from the American atomic tests.",
"It looks like [about 200 dB](_URL_0_) (list with references at bottom).",
"At GM I work next to a tire machine that puts out between a 90 to 110dB blast of air every 60 seconds. Its left me with tinnitus in both ears.Now I go through 6 pairs of earplugs a week. The safe level for 8 hours is 80dB and 90dB for 4 hours. OSHA doesn't agree my college text book authored this year, go figure...\nThanks OSHA! Fuck you.",
"End of the day, sound waves are just variations in pressure in the air, essentially the same thing as explosives. So if you were able to find a figure for the smallest value of pressure that is not survivable by a human, you could probably then convert that figure into equivalent decibels. \n\nEdit: I came back to post this interesting table from wikipedia [here](_URL_0_) but it seems Justinthevaginy has found the answer to your question already, nice work. ",
"This was covered back in 2001 by [The Straight Dope](_URL_0_).\n\ntl;dr - \"German physicist Jürgen Altmann, who has written about the physiological effects of high-intensity sound, tells me the threshold for suffocation or embolism following lung rupture is 2.6 to 11 times atmospheric pressure, depending on pulse duration.\"\n\nOr around 200 decibels to cause lung rupture and presumably embolism due to air blast. The typical [stun grenade](_URL_1_) stays under these levels, at around 160 to 180 decibels.\n\nAnd no, I don't know what you would need to shatter, melt, or otherwise cause some immediate and theatrical 'instakill' of the human body. I'll leave that to Hollywood.\n\nLet me know if you need additional information.",
"There was a very interesting show on Radio lab just about this: _URL_0_",
"I am an audiology student currently studying a bit of psychoacoustics. To clearify a bit:\n\n+ 3dB is two times the sound energy\n+ 6dB is two times the sound effect\n+ 10dB is percieved as twice as loud\n\nand yes we do percieve different frequencies as different in loudness even when they are presented at the same objective level, see: _URL_0_\n\nAlso, 198dB is the loudest sound that can be produced. Since sound is the densification and thinning of air, or really air molecules, 198dB is the loudest sound that can be produced before the thinnest part is nothing but vacuum. Yes, air pressure can be bigger, e.g with an explosion, but that is not really the same thing as a sound, and would not be percieved as sound but that is of course a question of definition.\n\nAlso, dB is a reference scale. Meaning 0 dB is the same as the reference, not just \"nothing\". The most used dB scale is the \"Sound Pressure Level\" or SPL where 0 dB SPL equals 20 mikro pascal.\n\nMy 5 cents, thanks for interesting thread.",
"Additional question, but would it be possible to make sound at a lower amount of decibels in the resonant frequency of say the brains to kill you?",
"A couple things. First, above 194 dB, it's hard to call it a \"sound wave\" anymore, as that's where you start getting shockwaves. In a shockwave, the \"floor\" of the pressure wave is negative (which is why when an explosive shock wave passes over you, you get a lot of overpressure followed by a lot of underpressure.\n\nWhen discussing damage from shockwaves, there are two things you want to look at: the amount of overpressure, and its duration. The more those increase, the more damage will occur.\n\nAs for fatality, it varies widely based on position of the person (side-on vs face-on vs top-on), but the most widely cited values are in the 60-80 psi overpressure range. There is evidence from Army research that repeated exposure to sub-fatal blasts can be fatal, just as repeated exposure to non-injurious blasts can be injurious.\n\nAt lower overpressures (even as low as 5 psi overpressure) you can start seeing things like eardrum rupture. Slightly higher you get GI tract hemorrhaging and lung lesions. In small amounts, these are subclinical, but in larger amounts, it can quickly cause real problems.\n\nFor further reading, the term in literature you're looking for is \"blast injury\". A lot of the publication on the subject comes from the 40s-60s, especially from the American atomic tests.",
"It looks like [about 200 dB](_URL_0_) (list with references at bottom).",
"At GM I work next to a tire machine that puts out between a 90 to 110dB blast of air every 60 seconds. Its left me with tinnitus in both ears.Now I go through 6 pairs of earplugs a week. The safe level for 8 hours is 80dB and 90dB for 4 hours. OSHA doesn't agree my college text book authored this year, go figure...\nThanks OSHA! Fuck you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels"
],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2298/can-a-noise-be-loud-enough-to-kill-you",
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/xm84.htm"
],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/oct/04/walls-jericho/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://makeitlouder.com/Decibel%20Level%20Chart.txt"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sound_pressure#Examples_of_sound_pressure_and_sound_pressure_levels"
],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2298/can-a-noise-be-loud-enough-to-kill-you",
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/systems/munitions/xm84.htm"
],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/blogs/radiolab-blog/2010/oct/04/walls-jericho/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal-loudness_contours"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://makeitlouder.com/Decibel%20Level%20Chart.txt"
],
[]
] |
|
lehz9
|
what does this german sign mean?
|
I went to Germany and saw yellow signs on every bridge. It shows a tank or truck, arrows and numbers. [Photo's](_URL_0_).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lehz9/eli5_what_does_this_german_sign_mean/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2s0snt",
"c2s0snt"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
" > **NATO military bridge classification signs**. Posted near bridges and viaducts and indicates the safe load-carrying capacity of the bridge for military vehicles.\n[source](_URL_0_)\n\n[See also](_URL_1_)\n\nTo ELY5:\n\nIt means that tanks and trucks that are heavier than that number can't cross the bridge or else the bridge might fall down.",
" > **NATO military bridge classification signs**. Posted near bridges and viaducts and indicates the safe load-carrying capacity of the bridge for military vehicles.\n[source](_URL_0_)\n\n[See also](_URL_1_)\n\nTo ELY5:\n\nIt means that tanks and trucks that are heavier than that number can't cross the bridge or else the bridge might fall down."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/a/08f5V"
] |
[
[
"http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen2.shtml",
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-34-343/chap5.htm"
],
[
"http://www.gettingaroundgermany.info/zeichen2.shtml",
"http://www.globalsecurity.org/military/library/policy/army/fm/3-34-343/chap5.htm"
]
] |
|
3pmr95
|
What determines whether the country uses its indigenous language as the main language or a foreign language as the main language?
|
An example is Finland and American countries. Finland was Russian for more than 100 years. The Russian language is not a main language of Finland. All American countries use languages which are not indigenous as the main languages.
What determines whether the country uses its indigenous language as the main language or a foreign language as the main language?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pmr95/what_determines_whether_the_country_uses_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw7me1b",
"cw7q471"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"The Finns always remained in Finland, even when they were under Russian occupation. Similarly when the Swedes owned the land the language never \"died out\" as such, as it was still spoken by the majority of people - Swedish became Finland's second language however, as the nobility spoke it.\n\nOn the other hand, the Americas saw huge swathes of native people dying due to disease and/or conquest, and colonialism took root. The modern nations are mostly based on the colonies that founded them, and so the languages spoken by the colonists have become the main ones, in almost all countries except Paraguay (where Guaraní is still the most spoken language).\n\nThe main difference is the fact that Finland was never a colonial nation, that is, it was always in Europe and therefore was never exposed to the difficulties nations that were not European (e.g. Native American peoples) had. Africa is an interesting thing to think about here - although it was colonised to a similar extent to the new world, the native languages remained. People did not die from diseases in the same way that they did across the Atlantic, as traders would already have brought the diseases millennia ago.",
" > All American countries use languages which are not indigenous as the main languages\n\nSlight nitpick: Guaraní is more widely spoken in Paraguay than Spanish (though both are spoken as a first or second language by > 85% of the population), and both are official languages."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3cslm7
|
How bloody was the Spanish occupation of the Netherlands?
|
Did the people buckle under the weight? Was dissent routed out and crushed? Did revolutionary groups form? Were there mass-roundups similar to the horrors of the 20th century?
Or was it relatively orderly which much of the bloodshed done on the battlefield?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cslm7/how_bloody_was_the_spanish_occupation_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csymkkg",
"csz4g3e"
],
"score": [
18,
5
],
"text": [
"Considering the revolt of the Netherlands lasted 80 years, this varied greatly by period. Regents such as Mary of Hungary was able to increase the wealth of the region through trade, although she was over-ridden by Charles V who captured and executed leaders of the Ghent revolt to discourage further objections to higher taxation. \n\nMargaret of Parma was a weak regent, which saw the rise of further objections to taxation and the rise of Calvinism. She also saw a power struggle between herself, the clerics, the magnates, the council of state, and Protestants. Her alarming letters, warning of hundreds of thousands of rebels, led to Philip II sending the Duke of Alba at the head of tens of thousands of Spanish troops. \n\nOf course, the reign of the Duke of Alba itself started with the Council of Blood that saw strong repression of rebels, both Catholic and Protestant. Most importantly, those executed include Count of Egmont and Philip de Montmorency, both heroes of Philip II's army. Instead of pacifying the region, this fortified the belief of local nobility that their king was out for blood and revenge. Further, the presence of such a large body of troops led to increased tax and burden to local towns. The Duke of Alba was mostly victorious in battle, but the locals increasingly turned against him. \n\nHis replacement, Don Luis de Zuniga y Requesens preferred compromise. He recommended amnesty to all except the most ardent heretics. He led armies to victory in battle. However, when money failed to come from Spain, he was forced to negotiate and worse some of his troops mutinied and sacked towns. \n\nKing Philip II's illegitimate brother Don Juan of Austria, fresh off his great victory at Lepanto, was sent to the low countries to be regent, however he died and was replaced by Alessandro Farnese, son of Margaret of Parma. Farnese was able to rally the catholic rulers, mostly in the south, behind him. With local support he was able to win back cities that had been lost: Tournei, Maastricht, Breda, Bruges, Ghent, opened their gates to him rather than risk a protracted and bloody siege. He laid siege to Antwerp and won that city. \n\nWere the Spanish the only ones who tortured and murdered dissenters? Not even close. As an example, Calvinists tortured and murdered Catholics in Brielle. Watergeuzens captured civilians and sold them to Mediterranean slavery. \n\nThis is a very big topic that is best answered if you specialize your question to certain periods, groups, or regions. \n\nLastly, you have to keep in mind that the first half of the conflict saw Spanish troops largely winning field engagements, as they had much higher quality troops. Their main challenge was money and local politics. This results in sackings and mutinies. This is not to say that the other side is innocent, but this impacts portrayal especially in English language historiography.\n\nEdit: if you can read only one paper on this, I highly recommend: G. Parker, \"Why Did the Dutch Revolt Last Eighty Years?,\" Trans. Royal Historical Society, vol. 26, December 1976. It covers the outbreak and development really well, and in good context.",
"There wasn't really a \"Spanish occupation\" akin to the Nazi occupation where \"the Spanish\" took over the country. The Dutch provinces, at the time, were simply another part of Philip II's domain, and when unrest was on the rise he used Spanish and Italian troops to try and restore order.\n\nThe Dutch revolt was one of open resistance, mostly by defiant cities, rather than a guerilla campaign or insurrection. Only at sea did privateers such as the Watergeuzen and the Dunkirkers wage irregular war on eachother's merchant shipping, but that was pretty much par for the course in those days. On land, it was a tale of siege and counter-siege, not of the Resistance skulking about in the dark.\n\nNow, these sieges and counter-sieges could be very bloody. There were a number of violent massacres enacted by both sides, which did include mass-executions on occasion. On the Dutch side the massacre of the Martyrs of Gorkum is particularly infamous. [u/Itsalrightwithme](_URL_0_) referred to this incident when mentioning the killings of Catholics at Brielle/Den Briel.\n\nIn typical Dutch histories, the command of the duke of Alba is considered infamously violent and bloody. The duke is depicted as a bloody tyrant who ordered massacres at Mechelen, Naarden and Zutphen, typically called \"bloodbaths\" in Dutch.\n\nNow, Spanish troops in the Low Countries regularly sacked cities they captured, but that was in part because they were perpetually underpaid and mutinous. This was the case at Antwerpen, and at Haarlem, where the Spanish commander proved unable to honour his agreement that the city would not be sacked. (Though Alba did deliberately execute the entire 2000 strong garrison at Haarlem.)\n\nAt the other sackings mentioned, however, Alba deliberately instigated massacres as a terror-tactic. In a letter to Philip II he boasted that \"Not a man born escaped\" the sack of Naarden. His bloody sack of Zutphen indeed succeeded in intimidating many other settlements into surrender, though the massacre at Naarden had the opposite effect.\n\nIt should be noted that the Dutch and Spanish depictions of these events do differ in some aspects: the Spanish claim that the Dutch civilians never offered surrender at Naarden, whereas contemporary Dutch histories claim the massacre came after the town had opened its gates in what they call an example of Spanish treachery.\n\nThe Dutch used events like these heavily for propaganda purposes throughout their history, lending their cause an air of righteousness. To illustrate: the later 17th century historian P.C. Hooft accused the Spanish of practising cannibalism at Naarden. \n\nThen again, cardinal de Granvelle did think call Alba's use of violence extreme, calling it \"counterproductive\" in one of his letters. Eventually, after many complains and limited results, the duke of Alba was recalled and replaced.\n\nThe Dutch also didn't depict other Spanish commanders in the same light as Alba. Alessandro Farnese, the duke of Parma, for example, has a quite favourable reputation in Dutch history books, despite coming much closer than Alba did to stomping out the Dutch revolt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/user/Itsalrightwithme"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.