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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
7t7zob
|
how do fraternities work? do they serve any real function to the university?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7t7zob/eli5_how_do_fraternities_work_do_they_serve_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtalb6b",
"dtalm0a",
"dtas5qd",
"dtas91d",
"dtasr21",
"dtat37l"
],
"score": [
39,
15,
24,
368,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Interesting question. Fraternity is a short for Fraternal Organization. Literally a brotherhood. Like minded, funded, intrests etc\n\nIn the case on campus many began over a century ago as literal acedemic and social clubs. Like any many a club they have standards for admission. Not everyone can join the varsity baseball team,. Marines or country club. \n\nThey have dues, silly rituals, and housing. Members pay rent to live there. They act as small businesses running a rental property and paying for social activities. Yes parties. A frat at one point greased the social wheels allowing the members to meet women. \n\nWhy were/are the women there? Boys I guess. \n\nExclusivity at one time increased their desirability. Like now, people want what they can't have. At their best the provide a center for campus life, housing and academic support for their members. At their worst well we all hear about that \n\nWhat purpose now? Well they still provide the good and the bad but campus values have changed. Isms like elitism is considered bad. Exclusion is considered bad now in our postmodern collegiate reality. \n\nIt works for their members and pisses off more for these reasons given. \n\nIs there a net benefit to the campus? Well if you are truly diverse you have those who believe exclusive is good and those that think bad. \n\nBut that isn't what vox collegeum can accept now. \n\nIt's not clear they ever were a plus or minus for colleges. \n\nLess know fact, up until the 70s most frats had a House Mother, an older woman that lived in the house. I sometimes wonder if many of the bad things we hear about frats would be mediated if that Mom returned",
"This is one that will surely receive different answers depending on who you ask. Interestingly (at least to me), I was a British student who studied in the US for four years and joined a Fraternity in my first year at College, so I feel I have a good view on this subject. Primarily, a fraternity is a brotherhood of men who are bound by the guiding principles and standards that are associated with that particular fraternity. They vary from fraternity to fraternity but usually ground themselves in principles such as brotherhood, education, leadership, etc. \nOn the face of it, it looks like a group of guys who like to drink and party together. Whilst this is essentially true (and surely that’s a large part of college anyway), we used to put on several charitable events for a national charity and would volunteer in the local community as well. We were able to raise a lot of money for those in the community and would bring good pr to our chapter and university. I’m not suggesting we were always saints but the boys were a family away from my family and we had a great time together and I made friends I hope to keep forever. It’s not for everyone but made my time as college a great one!",
"Depending on the university, they can be the core of \"involved\" students. A commuter school, or small school, often has its student government, sports pep rallys/student sections, volunteering, homecoming parades, etc being done by the Greek system. These are sometimes the students that are heavily involved in the extra curricular activities. \n\nThe dbag frat boy cliche stereotype does definitely have truth to it tho, not always, but often. ",
"Benefits to University:\n\n- Provides a social network for students who join.\n\n- Provides social and extracurricular events for students without the need for university resources.\n\n- Provides opportunities for students to gain experience holding leadership positions.\n\n- Often provides housing, which can be limited on some campuses.\n\n- Depending on a university's relationship with fraternities and sororities, it can provide the university with ways to regulate social events that can't be applied as easily to non-Greek events. \n\n- Fraternities and sororities typically require some amount of philanthropy, which benefit the community and improve a school's reputation. \n\n- Provides for networking opportunities that can help students with their careers.\n\n- Increased donations from alumni. \n\nHarm to University:\n\n- \"Pledging\" a fraternity or sorority often involves hazing, which can mentally and physically distress students. There have even been instances of people dying due to hazing.\n\n- Fraternities and sororities generally throw parties with alcohol, which can lead to irresponsible behavior, injuries, crime, etc. This is bad for students and the university's reputation.\n\n- Associating mainly with one's own brothers or sisters may limit interactions with other students and/or decrease the diversity of people a student gets to know. \n\n- Students may feel pressured to spend unnecessary amounts of time and money on matters related to their chapter.\n\n- Dealing with fraternities and sororities requires time on the part of the university's staff, often requiring hiring people specifically for this purpose. \n\n- Promotion of \"fratty\" culture, which can include immature behavior, sexism, sexual misconduct, excessive alcohol consumption, etc.",
"Social Fraternities (i.e. the Greek System) are social organizations that are supposed to bring together like-minded individuals and give a structured recreational environment to balance the generally individual focus of academic studies. \n\nThe original goal was not to create drinking clubs, but instead provide a semi-organized environment where students could relax, develop social skills, and have a support environment to assist in a student's studies. They were designed to offer benefits to the school through community service, philanthropy, and competitive pride as frats tried to out-perform one another in academics and intramural athletics. \n\nSadly, a significant number of people join them today because of the perceived party lifestyle. In that sense, they can be actually disruptive to the academic mission of the school. \n\nNote that there are academic fraternities to which you gain entrance through school performance or professional area of interest/study. While these may use the Greek letters for their names, they are not part of the \"Greek System\" at a college or university. ",
"Plenty of universities function without them. They have benefits and drawbacks to those who get involved but they make ultimately make no necessary contribution. Their functions can be found otherwise."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
327gim
|
Why would decreasing the extracellular concentration of Na+ cause the membrane potential to increase (get more negative)?
|
We did a simulated experiment where we decrease the extracellular concentration of Na+ from 150mM to 30mM, the intracellular concentration stayed at 5mM. At 150mM the membrane potential was -70mV. when we lowered Na+ to 30mM, it went down to -72.
Why would it do that? Does it have to do with channels?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/327gim/why_would_decreasing_the_extracellular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq8mw8p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"To start with, your terminology is out. Getting more negative is a decrease in membrane potential. But it is quite confusing, that's why we always try to say depolarize or hyperpolarize.\n\nIn response to your question, it is a little hard to know why in YOUR simulation changing [Na+]o (extracellular sodium concentration) changed the resting membrane potential. But in general it boils down to the reversal potential of a given ion.\n\nThe reversal potential of an ion is the potential at which the ion bulk direction of travel, either into or out of the cell, reverses. Or more simply, the reversal potential is the potential the ion tries to pull the cell to, when it flows. That is to say, that if the reversal potential for potassium was -90 mV, when potassium channels opened, they would try to pull the cell to -90 mV.\n\nThe reversal potential of any ion channel that is permiant for a single ion (X) is given by the Nernst equation, which is:\n\n RT/zF * ln ( [X]o / [X]i )\n\nYou can look up what those various constants mean, but ultimately it boils down to the fact that when you change the intracellular or extracellular concentrations of ions, you change its reversal potential. So for Sodium, when you have 150 mM outside the cell (and probably about 10 mM inside), the reversal potential for Na+ is +70 mV. When you changed the extracellular concentration to 30 mM, the reversal potential dropped to about +30 mV.\n\nWe can calculate the current that flows into a cell with the following simple equation:\n\n i = G*(Vm-Ve) Where G = conductance, Vm = Membrane potential and Ve = the reversal potential\n\nThus you can see, that by changing the reversal potential, and in this case, by bringing it closer to Vm, we reduce the magnitude of the sodium current. I don't know what the total sodium conductance in your cell is, but it must have been something. Whether that conductance was due to a persistent sodium channel, or perhaps the Ih channel, I don't know. But ultimately, with a smaller sodium current, you remove s slight depolarizing influence.\n\nTLDR. Changing the extacellular concentration of any ion, changes its reversal potential, and hence the force driving the ion into/out of the cell. This means greater/lesser current, and hence a change in membrane potential."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
248vhd
|
Why was Unit 731 commissioned and did Japan ever intend on using their "research"?
|
I just read the book [Island 731](_URL_0_) and am quite interested to know more about the Unit.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/248vhd/why_was_unit_731_commissioned_and_did_japan_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch54jf7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You can get the US gov't documents here.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nPages 32-34 and 46-49 gives summaries of the activities during the investigation.\n\nPages 53-55 gives a Q & A of Unit 731 in 1995.\n\nIt's a US gov't report so it's very concerned about what happened to US PoWs.\n\nYou should read the documents for yourself but here's my summary:\nUnit 731 began experiments in 1932 on Biological Warfare in order to defend against a possible BW attack. This phase included human experiments such as figuring out the minimal dosages necessary for infection and for lethality. (The BW experiments were not conducted on US PoWs, but rather on Chinese criminal sentenced to death, at least 3000 were subjected to these horrific experimentations.)\n\nUnit 731's General Ishii Shiro then began to experiment on possible uses of BW as an offensive tool. This phase (1940-1941) starts the field tests, such as artillery shells and bombs with BW agents and crop destruction in China. So Chinese civilians (!) and soldiers are subjected to these tests a total of 12 times. Mostly unsuccessfully, thankfully: a total of 25946 people were infected after 6 tests according to data from the papers of Kaneko Junichi, a Japanese doctor who was part of Unit 731. [I don't know how many of them subsequently died.] \n\n_URL_1_\n\nTo me it seems clear that this is following a very similar pattern to many military research. \"The enemy has a devilish plan! We must defend against it by making our own!\" You make out the enemy to be inhuman, and in the process you yourself become inhuman.\n\nFinal point: Some people have accused the US of using BW during the Korean War and that because of this, there's massive cover up of the activities of Unit 731 even today. (The US government gave Unit 731 immunity from war crime prosecutions in exchange for their data.) There's no way to know for sure if the cover up is still going on or if all the information has been released, so for now I will only go with the documentary evidence that we have available instead of the hearsay that may or may not be accurate.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Island-731-Jeremy-Robinson/dp/0312617879"
] |
[
[
"http://www.archives.gov/iwg/japanese-war-crimes/select-documents.pdf",
"http://www.anti731saikinsen.net/nicchu/bunken/kanekokaisetu.html"
]
] |
|
2g74tv
|
In general, how were utilities (plumbing, electricity, gas) handled in the United States during the late 19th and 20th centuries?
|
I was watching Boardwalk Empire last night and a poor character bought his wife a "vacuum sweeper" and everyone was excited. Girlfriend chimed in saying, "won't that just increase their electric bill when they're struggling for money?" I figure back then you just paid a flat fee (maybe monthly) for access to electricity and plumbing and such. Anyone have any insight into how it has worked through time, eventually getting to the status quo of paying for metered amounts?
Thanks very much!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2g74tv/in_general_how_were_utilities_plumbing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckgewtb",
"ckgqn1v"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The modern induction type electromechanical watt-hour meter was invented for the Westinghouse corporation in 1894. Prior to that there were several different designs for metering electricity running back to Samuel Gardiner who invented a meter that measured how long electricity was applied to the load (it didn't measure how much power was used just when power was used) and to Thomas Edison who in 1881 developed a meter for his DC power system.\n\nRead all about it [here](_URL_0_)",
"In the US metering began very early, coin operated meters were not uncommon and were popular in older urban buildings for sub-metering purposes. The utility meter reader would collect the coins on his rounds. \n\nUtilities were very 'consolidated' the company I currently work for grew by developing trolley lines to new suburbs, running the gas and electric to the area, financing home building then selling appliances, electric, gas and transportation to those new homeowners.\n\nFor what its worth unmetered, flat fee service still exists for niche markets (area lighting and various body politic services). On the other side of the spectrum you have interval billing which fluctuates minute to minute and measures not just total KWH but capacity factors as well net billing which allows selling back into the grid. \n\nWhat has definitely changed is the format of the bill. I've seen many 60+ year old electric bills (apparently at one time it was fashionable for people to save the first electric bill after they bought their first home). They would just display your current and previous reading and the total amount owed. No rate breakdowns, no explanations or long complex fee structures just a simple PAY X by Z. They are about the size of a postcard.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.metering.com/the-history-of-the-electricity-meter/"
],
[]
] |
|
5m0h55
|
why does coconut oil and other oils soak into some people's skin, and sit on top of others?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5m0h55/eli5_why_does_coconut_oil_and_other_oils_soak/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc0906b",
"dc0k4w9",
"dc0tup2",
"dc0uzvu"
],
"score": [
12,
13,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Do they? I have never heard of this",
"Now that you mention it...Coconut oil will absorb on my upper body but just sits on my legs. It doesn't even help with the ash. You can see the ash under the oil if you look closely. ",
"I figure it depends on the oil used, and how much of it they use. AFAIK, oils do not get \"absorbed\", they just stick to your skin. I think this isn't the case for oils, but for creams and other such products, they have a big amount of water in it. The water eventually evaporates and all that remains is a thin layer of fat which prevents water from evaporating quickly, keeping your skin moist, thus preventing dryness. That's why your skin gets drier after taking a shower: you've taken all the fat from your skin so you dry quickly.",
"My understanding is that our skin is very porous and will absorb stuff put on it. That's why nicotine strips work. Might not work as well if you sweat a lot."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
10u99h
|
If stars emit light and planets don't, how do we discover new planets? Their reflection of their nearest stars?
|
Someone asked me this and I was kinda stumped
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10u99h/if_stars_emit_light_and_planets_dont_how_do_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6goomm",
"c6goomo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Wobble and transit.](_URL_0_)\n\nIn the first one, the gravitational effects of a planet-sun coupling cause a \"wobble\" that permits detection from afar.\n\nIn the second one, the planet's orbit is such that it goes between the distant star and the observer; this 'transit' blocks some of the light on a regular basis.",
"There are a few ways. Here's what [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) has to say on the topic.\n\nHere's one common way.\n\nIf the plane of the orbit of the planet is aligned correctly, we can see the planet pass in front of the star. This partially eclipses the star and we can detect the decrease in light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://curiosity.discovery.com/question/planet-float-on-water"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methods_of_detecting_extrasolar_planets"
]
] |
|
rxrrw
|
Why do objects in space tumble when rotated on a certain axis?
|
I saw a video on the front page and was very curious as to why this happens.
[Original Video](_URL_1_)
[Similar Video](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rxrrw/why_do_objects_in_space_tumble_when_rotated_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c49hrsq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Objects will appear to \"tumble\" if they are not being rotated about one of their three \"principle axes.\" If you rotate an object about some arbitrary axis, then the angular momentum vector will not, in general, be in the same direction as the rotation vector. Because the angular momentum vector must be conserved, the rotation axis changes to keep the angular momentum vector pointing in the same direction and the object appears to \"tumble.\" If you happen to rotate the object about one of its principle axes (such as the deck of cards at the beginning of the second video), then the rotation and angular momentum vectors are aligned and the object does not \"tumble.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fPI-rSwAQNg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2o9eBl_Gzw"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ap16n
|
why does it seem like coca cola is sold in nearly every country of the world, even underdeveloped ones, but bottled water seems hard to come by?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ap16n/eli5_why_does_it_seem_like_coca_cola_is_sold_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csemgol",
"csemu6g"
],
"score": [
14,
8
],
"text": [
"Bottled water is available there also, but you hardly hear about it because bottled water doesn't have the marketing budget of a small country like Coca Cola pumps into marketing for it's Soft Drinks.",
"In an undeveloped nation, Coca Cola is a rare treat that the locals enjoy. In contrast, bottled water is something for tourists because the locals aren't going to spend good money on something they can get for free from a local stream."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2gz1gu
|
Why does traditional Japanese architecture only rarely use stone structures?
|
I noticed that most buildings in Japan from all pre-modern periods were entirely build from wood. Even military installations.
Is there a historical reason for foregoing stone entirely? The castle walls themselves look to be very high quality stone work (suggesting availability of stone an the skill set to work it effectively) - so why not build the central keep and the wall towers from stone as well?
Wood seems to have a rather obvious disadvantage as a building material for military installations - wooden buildings burn easily. It is almost comical to read about various Japanese castles or temples, because inevitably there will be a point in history were the structure burned to the ground - sometimes for reasons easily avoidable, like Nijo Castle in Kyoto, which central keep burned to the ground because of a *lightning strike*.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gz1gu/why_does_traditional_japanese_architecture_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cknt69z"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"hi! additional input is welcome, but meanwhile, you may be interested in responses to these earlier questions\n\n* [Why are Japanese castles built of wood as opposed to stone?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [What military value did Japanese castles have, compared to European castles?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Why didn't Asians build castles like the Europeans?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Why didn't Europe adopt Japanese castles?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Why don't we restore ancient ruins?](_URL_6_)\n\nsiege warfare in Japan\n\n* [What were some defense tactics used in castles?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [How did the Japanese lay siege to their castles?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1udrlt/how_did_the_japanese_lay_siege_to_their_castles/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/u305c/why_didnt_asians_build_castles_like_the_europeans/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pkoc2/why_didnt_europe_adopt_japanese_castles/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j6atc/what_military_value_did_japanese_castles_have/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13bmeu/what_were_some_defense_tactics_used_in_castles/c72ml8a",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ih4r9/why_are_japanese_castles_built_of_wood_as_opposed/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cd4g7/why_dont_we_restore_ancient_ruins/c9fjcj3?context=1"
]
] |
|
1hgc7s
|
what is depression and how do i deal with a friend that has it?
|
My friend went to the doctor and the doctor said he has depression and prescribed him some pills. I want to be a good friend but I'm not sure what to say or do. It's not like he has cancer or something where I hug him and tell him it's alright. But it's not like it's not something serious. And I don't want to be the guy that just says "Just cheer up"
Any advice would be great.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hgc7s/eli5_what_is_depression_and_how_do_i_deal_with_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cau1g9s",
"cau2bqz"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Given that your friend was prescribed pills, his depression may stem from a chemical imbalance within the brain. Not sure what kind of anti-depressant he was given (Zoloft, Prozac, etc.), but if it helps, it helps. Like you mentioned, you can't just tell him to cheer up and pretend it's not there. I had an SO who was also diagnosed with depression and the best advice I can give you is to just be there for the person, listen to any problem he has, and just do your best. Also, just take others' advice and read articles or vignettes of others' experiences. For the most part, just be well informed of the situation and tailor all possible help to your friend. We're all different so some things may or may not work. ",
"I dealt with depression for a while and to be honest it was worse than any other physical pain I've ever experienced. It is something that is definitely overlooked or seen as not a big deal by a large part of our society because people don't understand it.\n\nWhile you will need to take what I say with a grain of salt, depression and the feelings and side effects vary enormously between cases so there is no, \"do this and that\" to make it better. Depending on the type of depression your friend is dealing with, there are different things they may want or not want, but overall, **just be a good friend.**\n\nHere are a few things related to my specific bout with depression that I felt and wanted:\n\n* First and foremost, do not treat them like there is something wrong with them. It is probably the worst thing you can do by treating them any differently because you know there is something wrong with them.\n\n* I was very cynical and negative about everything because I just couldn't see how anything good could happen to me. I didn't feel like I was making progress in my life while everyone else moved on around me. \n\n* I couldn't make friends. I probably could have had I actually tried but my persistence in the matter wasn't exactly very high which only perpetuated my thoughts that I just wasn't \"friend material.\"\n\n* I had little to no motivation to do anything. Everything was boring and dull to me, like walking around a gray world looking for those sparks of colors that never seemed to appear. I lost interest in all my old hobbies and couldn't seem to pick up any new ones. I had no future even in my sights because I didn't know what I wanted and didn't have any motivation to find out what that might be.\n\n* I wouldn't really cry very much (I'm not really that kind of person) but when I did it was always about things other people had that I felt like I would never experience. Things like having a best friend or finding a girl to love and marry. I didn't have these things because I was subconsciously expecting it to just fall in my lap. I wanted the experiences but didn't want to do any work to fulfill it.\n\n* I didn't have very strong will power. Sure I wished things would be different but I didn't have the will power to actually make things any different. I got stuck in a rut of complacency and didn't even care to get out although I said I wanted to.\n\nWhile there were several things that I definitely could have done, there were a few simple things I wanted from other people:\n\n* If we make plans, don't cancel on me for something else you think is more fun. If someone is in depression, going out and doing something in public with other people is a big deal to them. With me personally, if I made plans to go out with someone to do something it was because I **really** wanted to do it. When they would then casually cancel on me or worse, just not show up, I took it personally and prevented me from even making plans again for another month because of the fear of that personal rejection. \n\n* Make an effort to listen. I am a rather soft spoken person and when I would say something in a group of people it was sometimes lost on the group. It would get to a point I would say something and I would see they knew I said something but didn't know what it was but they didn't care enough to even ask me \"what?\" I felt like no one even cared what I had to say, that I was just there to make the group bigger. Also aside from physically listening, listen to the content of what it is. There were just too many times I was completely dismissed and mocked that I simply stopped talking because it only brought more hurt to me.\n\nIn my opinion the best thing you can do for your friend is to treat them like a friend. Return their phone calls and text messages, ask their opinions on small things (politics and religion would be big things, probably shouldn't talk about these unless you know you are both comfortable with it). Treat them like they matter, like they are a part of your life and you want to keep them there. Invite them out to things you think will interest them, it may be difficult as they probably won't want to do anything but keep in mind forcing them can also be bad. On the flip side, make sure they know you are there and would love to hang out or go anywhere with them and that they only need to ask.\n\nFeel free to ask me anything you might want to know!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
dvbgwf
|
Is the expansion of Soviet influence and creation of the USSR considered imperialism?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dvbgwf/is_the_expansion_of_soviet_influence_and_creation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7h1and"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"It's generally (though not universally) accepted that the Soviet Union behaved in the manner of a traditional empire, however calling the Soviet Union 'an empire' is a bit of a loaded statement-- especially in the context of the 20th century when the British Empire and French Colonial Empire were either alive and well or living in the not-so-distant memory of the peoples of the world. Thus, the short answer to this question is yes-- the Soviet Union is (rightly) considered to have been an imperial power but no-- the term \"Soviet Empire\" is not appropriate to throw around without qualification. I talk about the USSR's transition from its revolutionary origins to a more traditional international actor in [this answer](_URL_3_) which I think provides a good lead-in to the kinds of issues that need to be understood when answering this question, I'd recommend you give it a read-- the following excerpt summarizes the key point though which is this:\n\n > \\[A\\]t its inception the Soviet Union tried to style itself as a sort of 'post-nation-state' nation-state but was forced to behave more and more like a traditional international actor as time progressed.\n\nThere are plenty of examples of the Soviet Union evincing traditional imperialist tendencies, no matter how much they tried to dress it up as Revolutionary Internationalist policy or how loaded the term 'empire' may be. This is a country (or collection of countries) which:\n\n* Expanded its borders by force, against the will of those whom it was absorbing.\n* Established puppet regimes in areas not contiguous to its quote-unquote natural borders which acted at the behest of their Soviet overlords' faraway capital.\n* Used [propaganda](_URL_1_) to define and beatify a 'Soviet way of life,' as a model which could (and more importantly, *should*) spread the across the globe. (Translation of the poster text: *Leninism is our banner-- the future is on our side!*)\n\nThose are the big ones, and just to be clear-- I'm defining 'imperialism' in the most reasonable way I can here using Harrison M. Wright's guidelines for doing so in his 1967 essay *Imperialism: the Word and its Meanings*^(\\[)[^(1)](_URL_2_)^(\\]): the process by which a nation uses military force, coercion, and propaganda to gain territory and influence. If you have a *very specific* expression of imperialism that you want to understand with respect to Soviet policy, I'm all ears and will try my best to answer any follow-up questions.\n\nIf you don't have time to read Wright's whole essay linked above, allow me to summarize: the author talks about the inherent pitfalls of using words like 'imperialism' in the post-imperial modern world when the word has become a pejorative and its meaning has been obscured to the point of near-ambiguity and certainly diminishing returns on any actual substantial definitional power, which is why I'm spelling it out so explicitly-- it doesn't come from a place of condescension or abject pedantry.\n\nAll that disclaimed though, this conversation becomes infinitely more interesting when you start asking *why* the Soviet Union behaved imperially. Here, there are two conflicting schools of thought which I'll personify with Professors Robert Service and Richard Pipes (RIP). Service argues that the impetus for Soviet imperialism lay within communism (and to a lesser extent Marxism) itself and therefore Revolutionary Internationalist policy is an inevitability in any nation which claims to be striving toward those outcomes. Pipes argues that there was something authentically Russian about the expansionary policy of the Soviet Union and the banner of Marxism-Leninism was more like a placeholder than a rallying ideology-- that is, maybe communism was nominally the justification Moscow was using to push its borders further and further west, but in fact, that desire was rooted in Great Russian territorial ambitions to the core.\n\nNeither Service nor Pipes is 100% in either camp-- of course. They are just convenient proponents for each of these respective hypotheses so I've chosen to use them in that manner.\n\nFrom Pipes' *Survival is not Enough* (1984):\n\n > The decisive factors \\[for Soviet authoritarianism\\] are not the ideas but the soil on which they happen to fall.\n\nCompared to a 1993 political opinion piece Service wrote for *The Independent*:\n\n > \\[T\\]he Orwellian maxim that he who controls the past also controls the present still holds true. \\[...\\] historians who once lauded Lenin now proclaim that he was a mass murderer. The entire Marxist-Leninist experiment is denounced. The blame for all Russia's ills is placed squarely on the Communist Party. \\[...\\] \n > \n > Yeltsin and his supporters are not totalitarian in aspiration; but they recognise that, in Russia's present turmoil, a new identity has somehow to be formed. The main problem is that, until recently, Russians were encouraged to think of themselves as the main constituent segment of 'the Soviet people'. This was Stalin's way of conferring a quasi-imperial role upon them.^(\\[)[^(2)](_URL_4_)^(\\])\n\nBut what about contemporaneously? Both of these historians are looking backward and assessing the events after the fact. Can we know what the Soviets were thinking at the time? *Why did they* think they were expanding?\n\nAt this point, the most valuable contrast to answer this question is the one between Lev Trotsky and Iosef Stalin. Trotsky, the inveterate revolutionary, is going to play the role of Service here (that is, the USSR is expanding to further the cause of worldwide communism) and Stalin, the inveterate pragmatist, is going to be our Pipes (that is, the USSR is expanding to further its superior Russo-centric culture and/or 'protect' Russia proper). I'm going to use the Winter War as the backdrop for this conversation since we can almost all agree that the Soviet invasion of Finland in 1939 was about as pure an act of imperialist expansionism by the Soviet Union that you're going to find (which doesn't seek to belittle the invasions of Poland, Afghanistan, Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia, Georgia, Ukraine, Belarus, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Mongolia, China, Iran, or any others-- I just find this example to be the most fitting for my own purposes here).\n\nFrom Trotsky's *Balance Sheet of the Finnish Events* (Trotsky gets a gold star for euphemism on that title):\n\n > \\[T\\]o approach the question of the fate of small states from the standpoint of 'national independence,' 'neutrality,' etc., is to remain in the sphere of imperialist mythology. The struggle involves world domination. The question of the existence of the USSR will be solved in passing. \\[...\\] So far as the small and second rate states are concerned, they are already today pawns in the hands of the great powers. The sole freedom they still retain, and this only to a limited extent, is the freedom of choosing between masters.^(\\[)[^(3)](_URL_0_)^(\\])\n\nHis justification for the invasion of Finland (in which he played no part remember, Trotsky is writing here from exile in Mexico) is, 'well they've got to be someone's lackey so they may as well be ours because communism has the best interests of the working man in mind.' That opinion in and of itself epitomizes the imperialism of 20th century grand narrative: the 'inevitability' of the subordination of small nations to their more powerful neighbors as justification for their subordination to their more powerful neighbors was the generally agreed upon talking point that the great powers used to more or less arbitrarily adjudicate the lines on the map against the will and without the consent of entire nations of people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.marxists.org/archive/trotsky/1940/04/finnish.htm",
"http://www.oaklandmagazine.com/images/cache/cache_4/cache_b/cache_c/CCArtPoster9Courtesy0218-4bd7acb4.jpeg?ver=1519245113&aspectratio=1.4860681114551",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/40970749?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cvxmw4/why_didnt_the_soviet_union_annex_the_warsaw_pact/",
"https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/a-country-in-search-of-its-soul-russia-has-lost-its-soviet-empire-but-may-still-harbour-imperial-1495150.html"
]
] |
||
8wbfuk
|
we’re all told that using phones while they’re charging is bad. can anyone of the good people here tell me why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8wbfuk/eli5_were_all_told_that_using_phones_while_theyre/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1u572r",
"e1u5kjq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Who told you that? It increases the amount of time it takes to charge, but is otherwise fine.",
"Never heard of that before. I go back to the Motorola clamshell (look it up you little punks - and get off my lawn!) and have always done that. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2yoitc
|
Searching for books about Current Elites in Korea (~ < 50 yrs) for research. Any recommendations? (x/post /r/korea)
|
Hi, a redditor friend has told me this might be a good place to ask for guidance for a **research** I want to do on **Korean Elites (Rise to power or the way they currently are)**.
The **book/text/paper** can be **sociological, anthropological, from political science, historic, journalistic (If it's a detailed analysis)**
The text can be in English/Spanish/French/German because I don't know Korean, unfortunately. I have no preference about the nationality of the author, everything is welcome :)
FYI, I live in Argentina so recommendations will probably have to be in electronic format, I don't think I'm going to be able to bring books from abroad due to the high cost and import restrictions.
Thank you very much.
I'm already browsing through the [/r/AskHistorians book master list thread](_URL_0_) to see what applies but it will be good to have insight and guidance from people with experience.
edit: ~ < 50 yrs meant post WWII/Korean War period. Not the age of people. My bad.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2yoitc/searching_for_books_about_current_elites_in_korea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpbqmby"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I've done research on Korea from an economic perspective (looking at how political changes and actions were central to development), but there's some overlap with you want so here's a few papers that might be a good starting point. If you are looking for specific individuals then these papers won't be much help, but if you want an idea of what sort of groups elites belonged to then I think they will be helpful. The links are mostly about how economic and political elites were both focused on growth and development, with political favorites and corruption being part of the relationship.\n\nI also don't know how much basic info you have about the Park government but I would definitely start by researching the dramatic changes Park introduced into the country and economy because they form the basis of Korea in the second half on the 20th century.\n\n[Corruption and NIC development: A case study of South Korea](_URL_1_) Looks at how corruption between Korean conglomerates (the Chaebol) and the government was intertwined with development.\n\n[Crony Capitalism: Corruption and Development in South Korea and the Philippines](_URL_2_) Compares crony capitalism in the two countries. Useful because the corny capitilists were the economic elties, andf worked with political elites.\n\n[The Treatment of Market Power in Korea](_URL_0_) About how Chaebols are entrenched in Korea, and how they were even more entrenched previously. Shows the entrenchment of the economic elites who head them.\n\nI don't have time to track any more links down now but if you let me know what specifically you are looking for or are interested in I can check again later and hopefully find some more relevant sources for you!\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1403l7/askhistorians_master_book_list_ii/"
] |
[
[
"http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1019617325739",
"http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023/A:1008344718274",
"http://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=im465FAopWMC&oi=fnd&pg=PP8&dq=park+korea+corruption&ots=RxAbGt5yDW&sig=NAssD2o6XhstjpQTThQSyjlqobo#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
] |
|
3b0ap7
|
even if we could terraform mars, wouldn't its lack of magnetic field mean cosmic radiation would continually bombard whatever is living on the surface?
|
Basically, is a magnetosphere essential for life, or not.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b0ap7/eli5_even_if_we_could_terraform_mars_wouldnt_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cshmppr",
"cshohwc"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, the lack of a magnetosphere would be a big problem on Mars. That said, if we were able to deal with the other problems relating to colonizing a planet (like Mars' lower gravity, an arguably bigger hurdle) we could solve this one. NASA has even gone far enough to suggest long vertical rock covered shafts already present on the surface of Mars could offer some protection from solar radiation and a great deal of protection from dust storms.",
"Radiation doesn't just blast the surface with cancer rays, it also whisks away the atmosphere. Mar's atmosphere is very thin and complex life that we have on Earth cannot survive (it is called the Armstrong Limit)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3kqgpd
|
Did the U.S. experience any diplomatic fallout due to non-Japanese casualties of the atomic bombs?
|
And the corresponding premise: were there any third-party nations who had a notable number of citizens perish in the blasts?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3kqgpd/did_the_us_experience_any_diplomatic_fallout_due/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv08zwr"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I haven't really looked into the diplomatic fallout, though the issue did surface from time to time in the press. I know of nothing specific on this, but that doesn't mean anything (other than, maybe, the idea that it isn't something that has been written a lot about — but that doesn't mean it didn't exist). \n\nAs for \"third-party nations\" — the main non-Japanese victims of the bombs that come to mind are POWs (British, American, and Dutch), Koreans (laborers), and Germans (the Jesuits at Hiroshima, and maybe others). Of these groups, the ones most represented in American media are the Germans, who were featured quite prominently in John Hersey's _Hiroshima_, among other sources. The Koreans were by far the largest group of victims, of those groups."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1frm5e
|
How does your body remove excess salt from your body on a physiological level?
|
After being absorbed, does the salt go into your cells, or between your cells? My teacher said that it is inside the cell. Let's say your cells have too much salt. I know that water is absorbed into the cell via osmosis. What happens next for the water to wash out the salt (specifically the name of the process). Is it diffusion? Hydrostatic pressure?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1frm5e/how_does_your_body_remove_excess_salt_from_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cad49sx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Excess salt doesn't really go into your cells, because you have a pump that pumps it out in exchange for pumping potassium into the cell. If large quantities of excess salt went into the cell, osmosis would, in fact, pull water into the cell causing it to swell and eventually burst.\n\nInstead, the salt remains in your plasma, where it reaches the kidneys. Your kidneys have various mechanisms for adjusting the salt concentration in your urine. For example, there are cells in the kidney that can detect high levels of salt in the blood, which ultimately prevents your kidneys from reabsorbing salt back into your body. You can think of it as your body maintaining a certain salt concentration - if you have too much salt, your kidneys will \"use\" extra water to remove it. There are other mechanisms as well - for example, taking in a lot of salt increases your thirst drive, trying to dilute the salt that's in your body to maintain the proper concentration.\n\nI realize that this wasn't too specific, but the main point is that it would be very bad if a lot of salt were permitted to enter your cells, so your body has mechanisms to keep that from happening. The kidneys are the primarily regulators that maintain a proper concentration of salt in your system by controlling how much salt you pee out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7qumum
|
Does anyone have book recommendations covering the Battle of the Aisne (WW1)?
|
I've found great recommendations in the sidebar for the Battle of the Marne but can't find anything too helpful on the Ainse.
I'd love to learn more about the battle and welcome any resources whether in books or online somewhere.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7qumum/does_anyone_have_book_recommendations_covering/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dss9x73"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Aisne is at the center of my research, and I feel your pain. There's not much out there. \n\nIn the grand scheme of things, overviews of the 1914 campaign tend to view the Aisne as the final stage of the Marne. To historians of the French and British armies, it represents the Entente's inability to exploit the gap between German First and Second Armies. Some trenches were dug, and the battle stabilized before both sides started swinging around the northern flank. To German historians, the Aisne often comes off as Moltke's last act and the final death of the Schlieffen Plan. He ordered his forces do dig in, and then he was out. Falkenhayn picked up and turned his attention to the northwest.\n\nI've found one English-language book on the Aisne: Paul Kendall's *The Aisne 1914: The Dawn of Trench Warfare.* It's not very good, and it's not an academic history by any means. There are lots of pictures, lots of talk about operations and the movement of units, and short biographies of some of the British officers, but it breaks no new ground in terms of what it says about the battle. Yes, the Aisne was the start of trench warfare (for the British), but it doesn't drive at what the battle says about the army, its preparedness, or its ability to cope with the demands of the fighting in 1914. \n\nIf you want to know the operational side of the battle, the first volume of the British official history is still your best bet (Edmonds, *Military Operations: France and Belgium 1914*, volume 1). You can download it for free, I believe, on _URL_0_. Though a bit stale and lacking interpretation or critical assessment, the narrative is richly detailed and dense. \n\nIf you are more interested in analysis of the battle, Nikolas Gardner, in his *Trial by Fire,* has a chapter on the Aisne that I'd highly recommend. Gardner addresses the operational hazards of the Aisne and how the British army adapted to the changing nature of the fighting there. It's a proper academic study that actually looks at the Aisne in the context of the army's performance and development in 1914. \n\nAlong those lines, my paper (Dykstra, \"'To Dig and Burrow Like Rabbits': British Field Fortifications at the Battle of the Aisne\") looks at how the British army handled the transition from mobile to trench war at the Aisne from the defensive perspective. There isn't a ton of operational info in there, but it gives a good sense of how the army prepared for defensive trench war and how its trench systems performed at the Aisne. It's due to come out in October 2018, but Chapter 2 of my MA thesis has much of the same info. You can get that [here](_URL_1_). \n\nOther than that, the Aisne, like I said, is usually glossed over as being either an addendum to the Marne or the first stage of the Race to the Sea. Personally, and this is probably because I've spent most of my academic life studying it, I think that the Aisne was an important moment for the British army: the point at which it learned, for the first time, the true power of modern artillery, particularly howitzers. The battle also conditioned the army to large-scale entrenchment and afforded commanders the opportunity to refine their field fortification system, something that helped, to some extent, later at Ypres. \n\nHappy to answer any follow-up questions you have. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"Archive.org",
"https://prism.ucalgary.ca/bitstream/handle/11023/1538/ucalgary_2014_dykstra_bodie.pdf?sequence=2"
]
] |
|
3l7v9m
|
When Did Black Canadians Gain the Vote in Canada?
|
I've done a little bit of digging on the matter, but I'm having difficulty finding anything about voting legislation with regards to Black Canadians.
I'm aware Asians and immigrants were denied entry and/or voting privileges during the early 20th century, but I'm not finding anything else.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l7v9m/when_did_black_canadians_gain_the_vote_in_canada/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv42phh"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I've found a bunch of sources saying it was on the 24th of March 1837, at least for Lower Canada, but none of them tie into usable links, actual documents or even elaborate..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ybgv7
|
How did the KKK become anti-semitic? I've read before that older members of the KKK claim that it wasn't anti-semitic initially, but that became part of the organisation's ideology over time. How and when did this happen?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ybgv7/how_did_the_kkk_become_antisemitic_ive_read/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp80mvo",
"cp8x4h9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Follow up question:\n\nCould this have been influenced by Nazism?",
"There have really been 3 distinct KKKs over time. The first one was created in the wake of the Civil War by Nathan Bedford Forrest and others, and its target was blacks. That KKK attacked, terrorized, and killed former slaves until Jim Crow laws created a more legal venue with which to oppress blacks. Then the KKK's size waned.\n\nThe second KKK was created in Georgia by William Simmons in 1915, shortly after Birth of a Nation was released and a few months after Leo Frank (a Jewish man) was lynched in Georgia by \"the Knights of Mary Phagan\" (made up of core members of what would become the 2nd KKK). In brief: Mary Phagan was a young white girl who was raped and murdered in Atlanta. Leo Frank was fingered for the crime despite lack of evidence, and anti-semitic comments were trotted out at the trial. Also, there was a large wave of immigrants to the US from Eastern and Southern Europe and Ireland that began a bit before the second Klan was founded, and a lot of anti-immigrant sentiment followed. Birth of a Nation is all about the founding of the original Klan after the Civil War, and how glorious and wonderful and necessary it was. It was by far the most popular and profitable film of its time and it inspired a lot of people to talk about/believe in the glory days of the Klan. This attitude tied in with then-popular eugenics ideals and the popular anti-immigrant ideas. Plus the Mary Phagan situation became a lightning rod for antisemitism in the US, and a large percentage of Atlanta's Jews were driven out of the state at this time. And hostility came to be directed against the immigrants, particularly Catholic immigrants from Italy and Ireland. This KKK became somewhat of a social club in some areas, while being a terrorist organization as well. Like, in Indiana, a large percentage of prominent white, non-Catholic men became members. The second klan also began adopting some of the elements of the Klan on display in Birth of a Nation that were artistic license by D.W. Griffith's but that the first Klan had not used. For example, the first Klan did not burn crosses. But crosses were burned in Birth of a Nation and so the second Klan did that, too. Because this all happened before there were Nazis, there was no influence by Nazis on the second Klan's anti-semitism. It was all American-grown. However, the second Klan died out a bit after World War II. Then, the third Klan was founded as a reaction to the civil rights movement. Their anti-semitism had a lot of influence from Nazis and the white supremacist movement. \n\nI should mention, though, that Birth of a Nation has an intertitle (the text on the screen that silent movies have instead of speech) that can be misleading in this regard. It says \"The former enemies of North and South are united again in common defence of their Aryan birthright.\"\nNowadays, \"Aryan\" is closely associated with Nazis and white supremacy. but in 1915, Aryan referred to Europeans in general, not specifically blond-haired, blue-eyed northern Europeans only. So it was used in the film in a white supremacist way, but no specific reference to Nazis occurred."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
damdqg
|
why have some languages like spanish kept the pronunciation of the written language so that it can still be read phonetically, while spoken english deviated so much from the original spelling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/damdqg/eli5_why_have_some_languages_like_spanish_kept/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1qxf1b",
"f1r93nb",
"f1rcygb",
"f1rgl9t",
"f1rve90",
"f1rwlxl",
"f1rxhjg",
"f1s4voe",
"f1s9it0",
"f1sa0o9",
"f1sajis",
"f1schy9",
"f1sda9t",
"f1sevxu",
"f1shw8f",
"f1tdm8l",
"f1to6xn",
"f1tt8y3",
"f1twxyx",
"f1v4laz",
"f1ve1au"
],
"score": [
299,
6302,
249,
3,
22,
33,
4,
4,
24,
119,
72,
2,
20,
2,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Spanish has an academy whose mission is to standardize and grow the Spanish language, so that helps Spanish to keep its strict pronunciation. English is, and has always been, a total shitshow, linguistically speaking.\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_1_)",
"English did not originally have fixed spelling. People would spell words however they thought it sounded. This means that spelling varied from person to person and region to region. Also, due to being made of bits of several languages all smushed together often retaining parts of the original language's rules, there's no consistency as to how words are pronounced or where you even get the spelling from. A man named Samuel Johnson eventually wrote a dictionary in which he spelled the words however he wanted to and because of how popular it became, that became the fixed spelling. Johson liked stuffy fancy spellings rather than simple phonetic ones and he set the idea of telling people the \"correct\" way to write instead of telling them how words were normally used. Webster eventually did something similar for American English, although he preferred simplified spellings, hence some of the differences between American and British spelling.",
"A mix of historical change and language attitudes. English spelling was mostly standardised just before a [major series of sound changes](_URL_0_)happened, and the spelling mostly reflects the pronunciation from before those changes. Spanish hasn't had really much of anything quite so disruptive happen - it's been more a long series of much smaller changes. On the attitude side of things, English speakers have made a huge deal out of the concept of 'spelling things right', to the point that major change is largely unthinkable at this point - too many people have too strong of feelings about the current spelling system. (This might also be due in part to English's more major sound changes! It would take a massive reform to update English spelling, and it would have even if the reform had happened in 1600, thanks to the above-mentioned Great Vowel Shift - updating to account for even just that change would require a major change. Spanish on the other hand has largely been able to get by on a rolling series of small tweaks.)\n\nPlus, now English has different standard dialects in different places, and it would be impossible to achieve a Spanish-like level of one(ish)-to-one(ish) letter-to-sound correspondences in all dialects simultaneously without having different spellings per dialect.\n\nFor some other examples, compare Tibetan - which has a worse spelling-to-pronunciation correspondence than English does - and Swedish and Norwegian, where Swedish has much less predictable spelling than Norwegian despite them being basically dialects of the same language (from a purely linguistic perspective). Norwegian has gone through a series of language reforms (not confined only to spelling) since Norway's independence from Denmark in 1814, in part as a way of asserting a separate linguistic identity from Danish; Swedish just hasn't ever had the same impetus to change. Tibetan went through a drastic change somewhat like English did, where several kinds of previous consonant distinctions got turned into tone distinctions all in one go; I suspect that's also part of why Tibetan hasn't been updated.",
"There’s also the fact that as English has absorbed words from other languages, it sometimes stuck to the original pronunciation, but has more often anglicized it into something that sounds more like a word that’s English. \n\nTake the French word “foyer, “ which is pronounced in American English with a hard “r” at the end. Or the Japanese word “karaoke,” which I have heard butchered as “ka-row-kee” and “karry-okie” (not those spellings, just those pronunciations), when the Japanese pronunciation is “kah-rah-oh-kay.” But having those middle vowels is not an English thing, so the word gets pronounced like I showed.\n\nThose are recently absorbed words, but the same thing has been happening for centuries.",
"English actually did enunciate phonemes that are no longer enunciated. For instance, in night the gh was pronounced, and the e at the end of “silent e” words was said as an “ee” or “e” sound. Many of these much more Germanic enunciation were spoken all the way through to at least Early Modern English, and sometimes even into late modern English. It began as a much more phonetic language, but the incorporation of Latin language aspects into its every day language, along with dialectical phonemic changes over time made it deviate from original pronunciation.",
"No language has “original spelling”. Languages are oral and evolve based on usage.\n\nWriting systems weren’t introduced until very late in the history of language.\n\nEnglish spelling was standardised in the 1600s in the middle of something called “The Great Vowel Shift” where certain vowels and diphthongs shifted up (yes up, physically) in the mouth. \n\nFor instance “House” used to be pronounced exactly as it is spelled “Hoos-uh”. During the great vowel shift the pronunciation changed, but the spelling never did. \n\nEnglish has no central authority, whereas Spanish does, and it has so many dialects now that even if it did have an “English language academy”, which one becomes the “standard” dialect? I’m sure the 67 million people in Britain would *never* accept an “American standard English” spelling reform based on American pronunciation.",
"Part of the issue here is that you're comparing apples and oranges. There isn't really any single set of phonetic rules for English to deviate from. Spanish is a purely romance language, so it's based on a single previous language. English is based on many, so any given word might have very different phonetics than another. English even borrows heavily from other languages like Spanish and French, so even though those are both based on Latin, they gave their own unique spin to the sounds, and English copies both.",
"Because English is a germanic language with a relatively large influence from languages of non-germanic origin, such as french and a plethora of other romance languages. In terms of pronunciation and spelling, germanic languages are more straightforward than romance languages. This particularly large french influence, however, can be traced back to the norman conquest of england.\n\n To illustrate how modern english has deviated from its early, germanic roots; Icelandic is, among living languages, the most closely related to old english. Seriously, I strongly encourage you to look into the similarities between Icelandic and Old English (anglo saxon). It is fascinating",
"English is a MESS.\n\nThe languages spoken in the British Isles first are various versions of Pict and Celtic. Britain was then invaded repeatedly. first invasion with a written record was by the Romans (and the Greeks tagged along). Various place names show signs of it, including any town called -caster, which suffix is derived from the Latin word 'castrum', which is a fort or castle.\n\nEventually, the Romans left (the Roman Empire was in decline), and then various tribes of Germanic peoples migrated, taking their languages with them. This includes the Angles (where the word 'English' eventually formed), the Saxons, the Jutes, and probably a few other tribes. Eventually the Angles and the Saxons intermarried and mostly won out for the moment, hence the term 'Anglo-Saxon'.\n\nThe Danes and other Norse peoples were a constant pain in the English backside, leaving behind all sorts of words (including most that start 'kn-' with the k being silent). In fact, the Norse invasion of 1066 drained the English King Harold's army's reserves badly, so when the Norman Duke William decided he wanted to force Harold to give up the throne (there was a lot of brute force politics involved), Harold's exhausted army couldn't withstand William's fresh one and Harold was slain. The Normans spoke French, and a lot of the 'fancy' English words are originally French.\n\nThis whole mess has led to English being a mess, phonetically. It's also led to a pair of fun sayings.\n\n1. 'English is the product of Norman knights wanting a little fun with Saxon barmaids, and is no more or less legitimate than any of the other results.'\n\n2. 'English doesn't just borrow words from other languages. It follows them down dark alleys, knocks them out with a club and goes through their pockets looking for loose vocabulary.'",
"Ditto to everyone about the random spellings and eventual \"uniformity\" inspired by dictionaries and an increased number of literate speakers.\n\nI'm a L2 (second language learner) of Spanish and a native English speaker. \n\nSpanish only has 22-24 phonemes while English has 38-45. (World languages like these two have A LOT of speakers spanning a big portion of the globe).\n\n*Phonemes are distinct sounds of speech. We think of these as letters, but English doesn't have the same amount of letters to match the phonemes.\n\nEnglish also has a lot more phonemes than Spanish so exponentially there are more combinations in English than in Spanish.\n\nExamples- English sound /zh/ or /ʒ/; this sound has no singular letter to represent it. Example words are azure, measure, Jacques (loan words/names from French), casual. \n\nSo /ʒ/ can be represented as z, s, j, or s. This variation is confusing so many people believe that /zh/ could be an allophone of /s/ /sh/ /z/ or /j/. S sound, Sh sound, Z sound, or J sound (/dʒ/ for j sound) respectively.\n\nAn allophone is a variation of a phoneme because phonemes change based on mouth position and the way your produce the sound (though teeth, throat, nose, etc.,,) \n\nAllophone example- Stop versus top. Say stop and put your hand in front of your mouth to feel if air hits your hand when you say the t (it shouldn't), but when you say top it should. These are two different sounds of /t/, but we only use one letter for these sounds. The two variations are the same phoneme or base sound. \n\nThis happens a lot in any language. Allophones are everywhere, but we don't notice them because our brains steam line when we're in diapers.\n\nI could go on. Comment if you want more explanation.",
"It is important to note that spoken languages always evolve in the way that they're spoken. Spanish is no exception to this; 1600s Spanish is very different to the Spanish of today, and even among different regions and countries, Spanish is spoken differently.\n\nThere are a couple of key differences between Spanish and English that makes it more 'phonetic': \n\n* Note that both languages use the *Latin alphabet*. The language for which it was most suited for is, by and large, Latin, which had five vowel sounds and some number of consonants. English has always had more than five; hence why we have to distinguish between the *long* vowel sounds and the *short* vowel sounds, and why two vowel letters like 'ew' make one sound. Spanish is also not quite a perfect match to Latin's sounds: letters like 'h' are pretty much obsolete as Spanish doesn't have this sound, and letters like 'b' and 'v' actually make the same sound in Spanish. So Spanish isn't as phonetic as it might seem at first glance.\n\n* Spanish has updated its spelling to reflect changing pronunciations. This is largely thanks to a central body governing - written - Spanish: the Réal Academia, which happens to be highly respected by education and the media, and so any decisions they make happens to eventually make it through to all parts of society. English lacks such a central body, and so it's much harder to convince people to spell differently. For all the rag that English gets, no one actually seems enthusiastic about a more phonetic variant. Quite a few Commonwealth speakers I know seem to scoff at the idea of adopting even American English spelling, even though it was born out of Noah Webster's (failed) attempt to make English a more phonetic language.\n\n* The pronunciation of Spanish has changed in a way that doesn't seem contradictory to the way it's written. For example, 'g' and 'd' have evolved to a much softer sound than we would say them in English. When a Spanish speaker says 'de nada', it's closer \"de natha\", but since Spanish originally had no 'th' sound to begin with, d just becomes associated with that 'th' sound; same with 'g', whose pronunciation is closer to the soft Dutch 'g'. Contrast this with English; the 'ea' in 'meat' and 'ee' in 'meet' where once pronounced differently, but these two sounds merged a few centuries ago to give the modern pronunciation. \n\nThis, on top of no one being able to convince speakers to spell them the same when they started to be pronounced the same, creates a very much 'fossilised' version of English; a spelling of English that largely reflects its old pronunciation, while Spanish has, for the most part, managed to keep up the way it writes with the speaking populace.\n\nSide-note:\nThere exists this big misconception that language use is dictated by the way it is written; this is very much false. In all regards, the way a language is written is subservient to the way that the people speak it. Written English (or written Spanish) is not the 'ideal' nor 'correct' way to use or speak the language; this is just a by-product of the way writing evolves: the elite and educated use writing, therefore how they do it must be somehow 'correct'. This is, of course, not at all reliable. When the French Revolution occurred, the way the bourgeois used French immediately became stigmatised, and the language of the revolutionaries became the 'correct' way. The point being, what happens to be considered the 'correct' way of writing or using a language has no objective reason; it's just that that version happened to be in vogue.",
"There’s broadly two reasons why English spelling is terrible. The first is that when we borrow words from other languages that use the Latin Alphabet, we generally just leave the spelling as-is, even if the spelling rules in that language are different. This is how you get words like chauffeur (from Old French I think). The second is that we don’t update the spelling of a word to reflect pronunciation changes. So words like knife and what were originally pronounced more like k-nife and hwat, respectively, and we never got around to changing the spelling. This is exacerbated by something called the “great vowel shift” where basically all the vowels changed their sounds but spelling didn’t change.",
"Short version: The Latin-based words in English haven't shifted much. Ditto, Spanish. The Germanic/Old English words *have* shifted lots, because they're not used as much by the posh people who controlled Standard English and therefore controlled the pronunciation of English. Also, the spellings *used to be* phonetic but they only reflected the pronunciations that the 1% used. So, from the very start, the spellings were all jacked up.\n\nEnglish was given standardized spelling in the 15th Century by the Chancery, a government agency (king's court, whatever). The spelling was based on the way words were pronounced within the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle, a chunk of England where rich, posh, well educated people lived. This led to two problems.\n\n1. Other accents, other dialects (subgroups of English), etc. were ignored.\n2. As pronunciation shifted, both inside and outside the London-Oxford-Cambridge triangle, spellings didn't keep up. Therefore, over time, spellings ceased to reflect the pronunciation.\n\nSpanish is heavily derived from Latin. So are Italian, Romansch, Languedoc, Romanian, French, and ... something else. That's why their spelling and pronunciation didn't shift all that much. They're Romance languages, which means they're balls-deep in Latin. (That's a technical term.)\n\nEnglish, on the other hand, is primarily Germanic. It uses a lot of French and Latin because of the Norman Invasion and the Catholic Church respectively. Still, there's always been a tension between the two groups of words. Old English (AKA Anglo Saxon, AKA pre-1066 'English') words tend to be pronounced *very* differently from Latinate (AKA Latin/French/romance) words.\n\nIf you look at the posher, more highfalutin' words, they're Latinate and their pronunciation hasn't shifted that much. Check this out. \"I desire to inquire as to the propinquity of my artisanal cutlery. Your concomitant reply is appreciated.\" It sounds pretentious because it's all Latinate. The bigger words' pronunciation hasn't shifted much because they're Latinate and share much with Spanish/French/etc. \n\nNow, try the inkhorn (more Germanic) version. \"I want to ask where my stuff is. Tell me. Thanks.\" Much more casual, much more 'common', and much more prone to shifts in pronunciation. 'Want' was *vanta*. 'Ask' was *ax* or *ascian*. Stuff was *stoppian*. Thanks was probably *tanke* or something.\n\nCompare that to 'desire' (French *desirer*, Latin *desiderare*), 'inquire' (French *enquerre*, Latin *inquirere*), etc. The Latinate words are so close to Latin that you can almost understand high-register English without studying it, if you know enough Latin.\n\nNow, consider this. The posh folks who controlled English spelling also controlled Standard English pronunciation, either consciously or unconsciously. (Think about Downton Abbey and how influential it is. Then, think about monks, politicians, and aristocrats. They control the schools, which produce the next generation of high-register English speakers, and so on.) So, not only do the 1% control the money, but they also control how high-register English (Latinate English) evolves. Pronunciation won't shift much, because spelling won't shift much, because the spelling of Latinate words doesn't usually *need* to change, because the pronunciation is already set by the Oxford-Cambridge-London triangle. It's quite circular in reasoning and in feedback.\n\nCommon English, AKA inkhorn English, AKA low-register English, can evolve much more and *does* evolve much more. There are 100 dialects, 200 regional accents, etc. and most of them contain words and phrases that pre-date the Norman Invasion. Fore example, Geordie contains a surprising about of Danish. Naturally, those words didn't make it into Standard English. Still, the spellings of inkhorn English could evolve in those communities because most people spoke two dialects anyway (Standard English and the local dialect of English). The 1% felt no need to regulate non-standard dialects, and hoi polloi felt no need to kiss the 1%'s ass by tweaking their own spellings.\n\nEventually, as I said, the Chancery did standardize inkhorn spellings, but no one really paid attention to *speaking* in those spellings. The spellings *were* phonetic briefly, but they were standardized about the Oxford-Cambridge-London pronunciation! So, from the very start, the spellings did not reflect the way that most English-speakers talked. Matters worsened as the centuries passed, because English evolves... and whereas Latinate words' pronunciations stayed true to their roots (because the 1% tried super-duper hard to keep on speaking 'nicely'), the inkhorn words' pronunciations shifted all over the bloody shop (because that's what happens when normal people speak normal English in 200 different ways).",
"Bill Bryson’s book “Mother Tongue” is a great read that explains the history of the English language, as well as its peculiarities and similarities/differences to other languages. And it’s actually funny, which isn’t easy with a potentially dry subject.",
"English didn't deviate from original spelling. Spelling adapted to the English language speakers throughout its history. And its why it gives so many secondary speakers a vocabulary pronounciation headache of its own. 😁\n\nI wouldn't say Spanish has kept pronunciation for the same reasons above and below. It was adapted to its speakers.\nBut Korean fits this description of being pronounced as written because modern Korean was constructed to be so.\n\nSo why isn't English pronounced the way it's spelled? As logical as it would seem from convenience and efficiency in learning, languages don't always evolve that way. They become designed that way once speakers become aware of their sound and written language and try to find ways to standardize it so it's easier to educate others and make the population literate. This is what happened with Korean. The Chinese characters didn't exactly fit the pronounced language. So they designed a written language to fit their pronounced language (Korean characters literally tell you how to make the sound in your mouth) to make it easy for everyone to learn and be literate. But for a language to change like this takes strong influences, like an effective government and education system.\n\nBut languages don't always turn out this way because native speakers get used to inconsistencies and inconveniences. People learn to adapt to the 'logic' of their language. And in the case of English, you just have to learn those awkward pronounciations ( thought, night, this, house, mice, exam ) because a lot of foreign influences over hundreds integrated into English.\n\nFirst there was the Celtic languages.\nThen the Romans came, left, then came back with Caesar and established some of the latin in our grammar and alphabet.\nThen Germanic groups like the Angles ans Saxons brought Old English, which is not too unfamiliar from Modern English.\n\nThen the Vikings raided and gave us some cool words like that start with sk, sky and skill.\n\nThen the Norman french invaded and slowly killed off Germanic Old English after making French the court language for awhile, which is why English has a lot of French vocabulary that trickled to the peasantry. (Colour, battle, castle) Apple used to refer to all kinds of fruit in general rather than just a Red Delicious or Granny Smith.\nIt wasn't until around the Tudor era that Early Modern English broke out of the French from court. We also had the Great Vowel shift where our pronounciation of vowels in words went rose in the mouth. \n\nColonialism and Exploration added some words from Dutch, German, Spanish, and Portuguese into English because of over seas trading.\n\nAnd by this point the printing press was made so more people started to become literate and read and write in English. But everyone had their own spelling and writing conventions.\nDictionaries and rules of style to standardize English were slowly being established mostly in the 1700s by a lot of educated men who had their own ideas of what proper grammar and spelling for English should be, like Samuel Johnson for the British and Webster for the Americans. (This is why the British spell Colour and Americans Color.)\n\nHope this explains why languages don't always pronounce as they're written.",
"I think it's important to mention that Spanish hasn't retained anything. There is an institution that actively works to keep spelling consistent with pronunciation.",
"One thing I haven't seen mentioned yet is that English as far as I know just never updated their spelling as opposed to for example German (my native language) which has spelling reforms every few years.\n\nYou know. So we spell things the way they're spoken.",
"You are assumeing that the original spelling of english words were phonetic.... They were not",
"Macedonian is the same with spanish,one letter makes a sound and that sound is always the same in every word.\n\nI feel bad for the people who have English as their 1st but still struggle to spell.",
"You have two options: embed all the information into the writing of the language or make the writing more efficient by relying on the memories of the people. Languages like Spanish embed more of the information into the writing. But then, numbers require many more syllables. So it’d easier to teach reading and writing, but harder to learn mathematics. Languages like Chinese have a single symbol for each word. They rely MUCH more heavily on the memories of the people. But numbers have one syllable, and saying 11 is just saying 10-1 (or vice versa, I don’t remember). So it’s harder to teach reading and writing but easier to teach mathematics.",
"I just want to know how it's spelled.....gray or grey?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association\\_of\\_Academies\\_of\\_the\\_Spanish\\_Language",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_of_Academies_of_the_Spanish_Language"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Vowel_Shift"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5tnn88
|
Why were most of the popular ancient literature written in verse?
|
The Bible , Dante's Divine Comedy, Ovid's Metamorphoses, Homer's Iliad, etc.
Was it only because it was easier to memorize, or was "normal" prose frowned upon? Verse nowadays seems confined to music, theater and poems. What is an explanation for such change?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tnn88/why_were_most_of_the_popular_ancient_literature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddnt3rk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I think there is a flaw in your question, or at least several problematic assumptions about literature, ancient and modern.\n\nLet's take your examples. Firstly, the Bible contain significant portions of poetry (Psalms, large portions of the Prophetic books), but it is not all poetry, and it is not even mostly poetry. \n\nHomer's Iliad is verse, because it emerges in the context of a pre-literate society. Generally, highly oral cultures tend to maintain a high value on poetry and song, because those forms of composition do indeed lend themselves to memorisation. It's much harder to memorise long prose texts, and it's much less interesting to hear long prose texts \"performed\". Sticking with ancient Greek literature, though, plenty of non-verse material was produced. Herodotus, Thucydides, etc.. The prose genre of history, among others, was \"popular\". You just have selected a poetic example.\n\nA very similar thing could be said about Ovid's Metamorphoses. Yes, it's poetry. But Romans produced plenty of prose literature - philosophy, for-publication epistles, history - that was popular. At least as much as poetry was.\n\nDante, I will skip, since it's much later than your other examples of \"ancient\" literature, and the context of its composition is a different literary world to antiquity.\n\nI think the flaw in your question can be demonstrated simply by reversing the examples: \"why was so much prose written in ancient times? The Bible, Livy, Herodotus?\"\n\n > Verse nowadays seems confined to music, theater and poems.\n\nWhich is exactly the same. Your examples are all poetry, that's why they are written in poetic forms. Similarly, plays tend to be written in verse as well (in antiquity). Songs, too, obviously, though our knowledge of ancient melodies is severely limited."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
in4ps
|
How long before a nuclear weapon is incapable of producing a nuclear explosion?
|
Given the uranium/plutonium decays over time I was wondering if it decays to the point that the weapon won't work anymore, and if so how long would it take?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/in4ps/how_long_before_a_nuclear_weapon_is_incapable_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2531lg",
"c2533zd",
"c25354e",
"c253vbr"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The decay of the fissile material is much less likely to be the limiting factor than is the lifetime of the warhead, e.g. the electronics which cause it to detonate. Or in the case of a rocket-based warhead, the rocket may become nonviable while the warhead is still perfectly capable of exploding if you don't mind it going off in your own silo.",
"So the uranium 235 bombs required 56 kg of uranium. For an actual nuclear weapon (not a dirty bomb) about 85% of uranium must be weapons grade (not decayed).\n\nSoo.. Using formula N(t) = N e^ (-(half life)(t))\nwhere N(t) = 85% * 56 = 47.6\nN = 56\nhalf life constant = 9.72*10^-10 atoms per year\n\nt = 1.67201x10^8 years! A loooong time. Easier to disassemble the nukes than to wait for them to expire. ",
"Let's assume bomb makers don't want to waste their rare and expensive isotopes, using as little as possible to achieve the desired yeild. Adding a small safety (heh) factor, let's guess that below 95% of the original materials, the bomb fails.\n\nUranium 235 has a half life of 700 million years, so the 95% point is reached after 60 million years or so. So your bomb will be subducted by a continental plate or defused by highly evolved crab people before it loses it radioactive punch.\n\nPlutonium 239 has a half life of 24,100 years, so it would \"only\" take 1,800 years to reach the 95% point. Rusted to pieces long before that. ",
"Nuclear arms require conventional explosives to start the initial chain reaction. Most of these conventional explosives are unstable over long periods of time and are almost certainly going to be the first things that fail on weapons. After that, unstable / rusting wiring, casing, etc. will kill the weapon. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8n8oge
|
When did people start to identify more with skin color rather than language/culture.
|
The Ancient identity system was more about language. Romans saw Celts as barbarians, for example, even though they were both European and had the same phenotype. I know the modern terms and understanding of race comes from the Colonial era, but why did it shift? And what caused this? Any works written on this subject would be much appreciated!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8n8oge/when_did_people_start_to_identify_more_with_skin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dztnr5l"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Hi there -- you may be interested in [this recent answer](_URL_0_) from u/sowser, in which they go into some detail about how race is constructed through the experience of the Transatlantic slave trade. The whole thing is worth a read, but constructions of race are in part 4. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8n19s0/suffering_slaves_and_suffering_serfs_whats_the/"
]
] |
|
i5xmz
|
If you were to theoretically use a microwave to heat a freeze dried food product in an environment with 0% humidity, what would the outcome be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i5xmz/if_you_were_to_theoretically_use_a_microwave_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2164di",
"c216f7m"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Just a guess but here goes: Microwaves don't heat *only* water. They will heat a number of molecules, even if they're \"tuned\" to water or whatever. Anyways, The microwaves heat up the dehydrated food, but since it no longer has water to boil off, I imagine it could heat up above a combustion point quickly. So it could perhaps begin combusting within the microwave.",
"A microwave oven will cause any molecule with dipoles to 'vibrate.' This includes water but also includes fats and sugars, so it would still heat up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1zdvui
|
it takes 11 minutes of hypoxia for the brain to die, but yet you can kill a man by strangling him much less. how come?
|
ELI5 that is capable of dealing with deadly subjects.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zdvui/it_takes_11_minutes_of_hypoxia_for_the_brain_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfss2wy",
"cfss9ah"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Strangling someone where pressure is put on the blood vessels in the neck can cause feedback to the heart which can cause it to go into cardiac arrest (gentle massage to the carotid is used to slow down rapid heartbeats). If done properly that can be done in only seconds. The person still takes a while to die but they have no heart beat. ",
"the brain doesn't die for 4-5minutes. but the heart stops causing imminent death (not immediate)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3peo97
|
How far does the effect of time dilation "spread" from an object traveling at relativistic speeds?
|
Consider a typical explanation of time dilation - a clock on a spaceship, traveling near-c, runs slower than a clock on Earth.
How far does that effect spread from the ship, if any? Let's say I'm in orbit around the Earth. There's a control clock on the surface. I have my clock that's going a little slower due to orbital speed. Then a spaceship zooms past at 0.99c.
Does this affect my clock? Is space warped near me? If there is an effect, how close does the ship need to be to measurably affect my clock? Or does nothing happen to me at all?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3peo97/how_far_does_the_effect_of_time_dilation_spread/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw5p392"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"No, it doesn't affect your clock at all (except an incredibly tiny amount of gravitational time dilation, which I don't think is what you're talking about and certainly isn't important for the discussion.)\n\nIn special relativity, time dilation is not a 'field' or localized effect. It's just a thing that happens to objects that are moving *relative to you*. Importantly, from the spaceship's point of view its clock is totally normal and your clock is the one going slow. It doesn't matter how far away the ship is or whether or not you can see it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9h1v9j
|
During the height of the Cathar movement, what were gender relations like among the Cather Christians? Did their theology translate into women having a more equal status in society?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9h1v9j/during_the_height_of_the_cathar_movement_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6aiy55"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Catharism is a well-studied topic, and while you are waiting for fresh responses to your question, it is well worth reviewing [this earlier thread](_URL_0_), led by u/sunagainstgold, which looks at the the history and historiography of the supposed heresy, and points out that our understanding of \"Catharism\" is really a construct imposed by the outsiders who persecuted it, adding that \"medievalists today are pretty unanimous that there was no such thing as 'Catharism' in southern France in the 12th-13th century.\"\n\nSun does also touch on the specific area of gender relations in the time and place that you're interested in.\n\nMeanwhile, and in the same thread, u/idjet (who was writing a dissertation on the Cathars) pushes back in posts that argue for something more approaching the old standard view of Catharism as a distinct set of real beliefs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/49rn50/how_did_catharism_start_develop_and_become_so/"
]
] |
||
13asz0
|
Why does the reflection in a shallow pond change depending on the viewing angle?
|
From a top-down view you can see the bottom of the pond, but at a viewing angle closer to perpendicular the reflection becomes much clearer and more powerful.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13asz0/why_does_the_reflection_in_a_shallow_pond_change/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c72cxur"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The answer you seek lies in [Fresnel Equations](_URL_0_). While Snell's Law (n1 Sin[theta1] = n2 Sin[theta2]) will tell you about the angle of refraction compared to the angle of incidence, you need Fresnel equations to tell you *how much* light is refracted vs how much is transmitted.\n\nTake a look at [this image](_URL_1_), which shows reflectance and transmittance as a function of incident angle (in this case, specifically in regards to light transmitting between air and glass). You can see in the graph on the left - light in air striking a surface of glass - that when the angle of incidence is close to zero, there is a very low reflection coefficient, which means that *most* of the light that hits the surface will transmit rather than reflect. As that angle of incidence increases, the proportion of light that is reflected only increases. Eventually, the brightness of the reflected light will outstrip the brightness of any transmitted light coming from inside the glass/second material.\n\nThis same thing applies to seeing a reflection in a pond. At low angles of incidence (looking straight down), very little light reflects so most of what you see is transmitted from under the water out into the air. At high angles of incidence a lot of light reflects so that reflected light is most of what you see."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fresnel_equations",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/a/a4/Fresnel_reflection.svg/800px-Fresnel_reflection.svg.png"
]
] |
|
r54cc
|
the process and significance of "making partner" in a law firm
|
How does one become a partner? What changes? What are the advantages/disadvantages, if there are any?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r54cc/eli5_the_process_and_significance_of_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c42z9z6",
"c42za1z",
"c42za72",
"c42zeay",
"c431r73",
"c432z85"
],
"score": [
3,
209,
14,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Significance, you become technically a part owner, and instead of just making your salary, you spin off profits from everyone else's billed hours too. A percentage of everything an associate bills goes to the \"partner fund.\"\n\nThis may be completely wrong, it's just what I've learned from books.",
"It takes anywhere from 2 to 10 years to make partner at an average law firm (sometimes longer). In order to be considered for a partner position (while working as an associate), you usually need to work very hard and contribute a lot to your firm's business. It helps if you can pull a lot of all-nighters, find new clients through connections, publish articles in law journals to gain prestige for your firm, or show great talent in a particular field of law that your firm works in.\n\nIn some firms, once you've gained enough experience, you're given a big, important client or assignment. If you succeed, you are promoted to partnership. A partner usually owns a share in the company, which means that they automatically make money every year by receiving a portion of the company's profits. There is also less pressure on a partner to work hard, because they've already \"made it\". So as a partner, you can take it easy unless you're really into your work or want to make even more money. An associate at a big law firm makes around $100,000 per year. A partner at the same law firm will make anywhere from $300,00 to over a million. In small firms that only have a couple of partners, your last name will also be added to the firm's name. So if your name is Johnson and you work at Anderson and Smith, your firm may be renamed to Anderson, Smith and Johnson once you make partner.",
"Alrighty, I'm only a 1L so this will probably have lots of holes in it.. but here you go.\n\nSo you have a law firm, lots of lawyers at different levels working on different shit. Associates are the lower level people doing research and appearing in court sometimes, while partners are the upper level people who oversee the operations of the entire firm. Some partners might be in court regularly while others might focus strictly on the business of running the firm.\n\nOne of the main differences is payment. Associates get paid a salary, as in they get $_____ per year. Partners get partial ownership in the firm. At the end of the year when they tally up the firm's profits, they split profits between all the partners depending on their percentage of ownership in the firm.\n\nSince one lump sum payment at the end of the year is kind of a shitty way to get paid, they often pay partners on a draw. This means they guesstimate how much a partner will get at the end of the year and divide it by 12, then pay this amount out each month (or divide by 24/paid every 2 weeks, whatever). In this system, however, when they tally up the end of year profits the partner can either get a bonus or actually owe the firm money because his draw was bigger than his contribution to the firm.\n\nAlso, Partners are required a certain number of billable hours for the firm each year, but one of their more important roles is to bring in new clients.\n\n*I say \"he\" because I was trained to write by sexist women, but there are many great lady lawyers who are partners at great firms!",
"Most law firms are established as private partnerships, meaning that the owners are a small group of individuals (called 'partners') who collectively share control of the business as well as its profits and losses.\n\nWhen a lawyer \"makes partner\", it means the existing partners have invited him to become a partner; ie. they've invited him to share ownership of the business. He becomes an employer as opposed to an employee. Instead of getting his employee salary, he gets a cut of everything the business makes (or loses), *and* he becomes one of \"the bosses\".",
"It's all about money and power. Partners receive a greater share of the firm's income beyond their salary. Additionally, partners have voting rights. If you think of the firm as a company then the partners are all stock holders / owners in addition to employees. ",
"An equity partner has ownership interest in the firm."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
n4fuf
|
the corruption in illinois.
|
So after reading [this](_URL_0_), I'm really curious as to what the redditors in Illinois are complaning about. I'm from Canada btw, I hope that's an excuse for my ignorance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n4fuf/eli5_the_corruption_in_illinois/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c365vd9",
"c366o04",
"c365vd9",
"c366o04"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"good question. \n\nillinois and chicago politics has a rich history of filth. ",
"If you're looking for a simple answer, you're not going to find one. The various motivations and relationships between corruption, politics, and power is an extremely complex issue that can be interpreted through multiple lenses. Aside from what you can easily read on the relevant Wikipedia articles, there's a deeper story about the history of Illinois politics vis-a-vis the history of Chicago.\n\nI was born and raised in Chicago; much of the historical corruption here is a result of the city's rise as an industrial powerhouse in the late 1800s and its foundation as both a nexus of immigration and as a labor/union stronghold. Chicago was the first uniquely \"American\" city - unlike Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston, it does not have its roots in the colonies. As such, it has its own set of unique cultural and sociological identifiers that differentiate it from other urban metropoles. \n\nChicago was a huge destination for Irish, German, Polish, Russian, and Italian immigrants (to name only a few) during the industrial era... these ethnic groupings paved the way for Chicago's [political machine](_URL_0_) that sought to protect the interests of ethnic immigrants by trading votes for patronage. Being the two primary nodes of political power in the state, Springfield (Illinois' capital) and Chicago have historically maintained a very close relationship as well.\n\nAlthough the era of the ethnic political machine has passed, elements of machine politics are still very much prevalent today. While this does not provide an explicit answer for the contemporary corruption in Springfield (Blago, Ryan, et cetera), I feel that the history of Chicago provides a lot of context to why the game of politics is played just a bit differently here than in other places. It really is a fascinating story.",
"good question. \n\nillinois and chicago politics has a rich history of filth. ",
"If you're looking for a simple answer, you're not going to find one. The various motivations and relationships between corruption, politics, and power is an extremely complex issue that can be interpreted through multiple lenses. Aside from what you can easily read on the relevant Wikipedia articles, there's a deeper story about the history of Illinois politics vis-a-vis the history of Chicago.\n\nI was born and raised in Chicago; much of the historical corruption here is a result of the city's rise as an industrial powerhouse in the late 1800s and its foundation as both a nexus of immigration and as a labor/union stronghold. Chicago was the first uniquely \"American\" city - unlike Philadelphia, NYC, and Boston, it does not have its roots in the colonies. As such, it has its own set of unique cultural and sociological identifiers that differentiate it from other urban metropoles. \n\nChicago was a huge destination for Irish, German, Polish, Russian, and Italian immigrants (to name only a few) during the industrial era... these ethnic groupings paved the way for Chicago's [political machine](_URL_0_) that sought to protect the interests of ethnic immigrants by trading votes for patronage. Being the two primary nodes of political power in the state, Springfield (Illinois' capital) and Chicago have historically maintained a very close relationship as well.\n\nAlthough the era of the ethnic political machine has passed, elements of machine politics are still very much prevalent today. While this does not provide an explicit answer for the contemporary corruption in Springfield (Blago, Ryan, et cetera), I feel that the history of Chicago provides a lot of context to why the game of politics is played just a bit differently here than in other places. It really is a fascinating story."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/n449h/til_that_the_past_two_governors_of_illinois_and/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_machine"
]
] |
|
2zx5be
|
why do phone carriers (verizon, etc) have a say in the release of updates for android phones, but not iphones?
|
Android updates often take forever to get pushed out because they have to go from Google to the phone manufacturer, and then through the service carrier. I can kind of understand why they have to go through the manufacturer (to get customized to work on all the different handsets) but why do carriers get a say? Why do I have to wait on Verizon to push out an update to my moto x? Why can't I get it straight from Motorola? Carriers don't even get to touch iOS updates, so why do they with android devices?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zx5be/eli5why_do_phone_carriers_verizon_etc_have_a_say/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpn33gl",
"cpn37my"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"iPhones are a locked ecosystem. The software & hardware is produced by them and therefore updates are pushed out whenever they want independent of the carrier. \n\nAndroid is an operating system that runs on other peoples hardware ... The hardware manufacturer has a deal with the carriers, the carrier sells their phones if they add in / lock the phone to that carrier and add their proprietary apps with backdoor access. \n\nTherefore google launches an updates, but until the hardware manufacturer configures it for the phone and hands it to the carrier and then the carrier rolls it out ... You are stuck in the middle. ",
"Because with Android phones, those providers make their own fork of Android - like with Ubuntu, openSUSE, Fedora, etc. all being versions of Linux (the changes made within Linux are more substantial than in this case, but basically it is the same concept). \nOn iPhones, Apple provides the OS, no matter who sells the phone. \n\nThis, on one hand, can be a good thing - as independent groups can make custom Android versions, more diverse hardware can be supported, carriers/retailers can add features to make their product more desirable, the whole thing is open source, etc... but it can also be bad, because after Google pushes an update for Android, Verizon and all the other carriers have to implement those changes into their Android versions. \n\nSo TL;DR iPhone OS always comes directly from Apple. Android is generally developed by ~~Apple~~ Google (obviously, thanks /u/chaoticsuono), but the carriers use their own versions of Android on the phones they sell - so updates additionally have to go through them before they get to the end users. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
69kf9y
|
What did Paul Mattick mean when he said that Marx was a Socialist and not an economist?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/69kf9y/what_did_paul_mattick_mean_when_he_said_that_marx/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh7qw3f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I am not Marxian nor Marxist in anyways so my views would not be reflective of these sorts of views. That being said... the context of this quote and of the author is important. \n\n > It is often asserted that while Marx's theory transcends bourgeois economic theory in order to solve \"economic problems\" that cannot be satisfactorily dealt with by bourgeois price theory, it must, for that reason, be as empirical as any other science. It is assumed, in brief, that Marx's Capital is a better part, but still a part, of the \"positive science\" of economics, whereas it is actually its opposition. Marxian theory aims not to resolve \"economic problems\" of bourgeois society but to show them to be unsolvable. Marx was a socialist, not an economist. In Marxian theory the concrete phenomena of bourgeois society are something other than they appear to be. Empirically discovered facts have first to be freed of their fetishistic connotations before they reveal empirical reality. The abstract generalizations of value theory disclose the laws of development of a system that operates with a false comprehension of the concretely given facts. The inductively won data do not correspond with, but camouflage, the real social relations of production. Bourgeois economy is not an empirical science but an ideological substitute for such a science; a pseudo-science, despite its scientific methodology. \n\nIn other words: the author argues that despite the perception that Marx's work Das Kapital was a work of economic theory (compared to for instance Smith, Ricardo, Keynes, and others), Marxist thought rejects outright the constraints of economics. In effect the author argues that economics is a false discipline with no basis in reality. Incidentally, Paul Mattick Jr, the son of the more famous Paul Mattick Sr, is the one that made this quote. \n\nEssentially, modern economics relies on two key ideas: a) people in aggregate are rational (meaning that they will seek (in the aggregate) to pursue their best interests) and b) that we can use math and statistical data to help model these out. Mattick Jr. rejects the use of math as he argues that the assumptions that economics rely on are false and are a construct of our \"money-based\" society. \n\nNow whether or not his allegations have any actual basis behind them is uncertain, but suffice to say that this was published in 1983 and economics is still going strong. If anything, the discipline has become even more quantitative. Make of that what you will."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
21gwht
|
Do all species eventually face extinction?
|
Is it possible for a species to exist infinitely? Or is it inevitable that it will one day meet its doom? For example, humans. Sure, the Earth may have its downfall, but what if by then we're living on the moon/another planet? The destruction of earth aside, is it theoretically possible?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21gwht/do_all_species_eventually_face_extinction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgcyyxg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"So I hesitate to answer your question, because it enters more of a philosophical realm to truly answer it. What you're asking is basically:\n\n1) Can species remain indefinitely?\n2) Are all species subject to extinction?\n\nI break these up because they require different answers, which are:\n\n1) sorta\n2) Yeah\n\nWhen we see radial speciation happen (as with Darwin's finches) at what point does the ancestor cease to exist? This question is philosophical as much as it is biological. Certainly we can use the biological species concept to differentiate between species, but from a strictly taxonomical standpoint, the ancestor and it's daughter species are part of the same lineage and sometimes the distinction between the nodes of the evolutionary tree of life becomes a little arbitrary. A descendent never ceases \"being\" it's ancestor, which is why birds are dinosaurs and humans are amphibians (if we're being technical). If we considered the species merely a lineage over time, then yes there have been lineages that have last since life began 3.5 billion years ago. \n\nFor the second answer, all species will eventually go completely extinct, with the exception of small amount lineages that are continued on. Van Valen gets at this with the Red Queen hypothesis: at some point the environment in which an organisms lives will change to the point where the organism cannot adapt and will drive it to extinction. The central idea behind this is **constraint**. Both genetically and physiologically, most species are limited in their capability for diversification, and more often than not, the environment proves too much for the organism driving it to extinction. These timescales are very large, on the order of millions of years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3fudmq
|
when drinking water, what is the mechanism that decides if the water will go to the bladder or be absorbed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3fudmq/eli5_when_drinking_water_what_is_the_mechanism/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cts1bvt",
"cts1jk2"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"The water is absorbed. \n\nThe water that goes to your bladder is excreted by the kidneys as it filters your blood. ",
"All of the water is absorbed into your bloodstream in the intestines. It gets filtered out by the kidneys to help dilute urine and keep you properly hydrated. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
39rpfv
|
how can they prove paedophilia, such as rolf harris, decades after the offences?
|
Where do they get the evidence to prove their guilt?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39rpfv/eli5_how_can_they_prove_paedophilia_such_as_rolf/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs5wpa8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They usually take statements and try to corroborate them with accused testimony alibi.\nI watched a case link to Jimmy Saville where the women described a wall covered in graffiti where she was raped, years later they took new wall paper down and it was still there, all names of underage girls and their phone numbers. \n\nThen it's usually put forward to a jury for them to decide."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f79nd
|
Is it possible that our universe exists within something else? Where can I find more information about this?
|
We defined time and estimated the age of our universe. I've read about the multiuniverse theory and that it might be possible that our physical constants are different there.
The question that came to mind was if it is possible that our universe exists within something else (like another universe or unimaginable object) with different a physical constant, like time for example. Is it possible that in this other something, our universe only exists for a, to a human standard, short time?
I understand that these questions are really theoretical and not easy to explain in simple terms. Sites containing information about this subject are a welcome answer as well.
If I don't make any sense or fail in the basic understanding of physical constants, please tell me. I'll find better things to do on a saturday night.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f79nd/is_it_possible_that_our_universe_exists_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1dt9sl",
"c1dtasz",
"c1dtecz",
"c1dtpqw"
],
"score": [
7,
11,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"This is more philosophy than science, since it's untestable. It's in that fuzzy realm where everything is still mathematically rigorous, but never demonstrable.\n\n\nCertain string theories have massive quasi-degenerate ground states, each representing a different type of universe. You can tunnel from one state into a slightly lower energy state, and that represents essentially the beginning of the destruction of one universe and conversion into another. In this picture, our universe is a large bubble, existing inside other bubbles.\n\n\nAt any time, a new, more stable universe may start and propagate in our own, destroying ours. However, since the ground state is nearly degenerate (energies are close), the timescale for this to happen is immeasurably long.\n\n\nThis picture matches with the anthropic principle, because in order for the principle to be significant, you must have a large number of potential universes, which is exactly what string theory gives.\n\n[Andre Linde](_URL_0_) is one of the proponents of this idea. His papers on the inflationary multiverse may provide more insight.",
"There are a few things you should know: \n\n1. Science is based on **observation**, not conjecture. An idea is worthless if it has no evidence to uphold it.\n\n2. We observe things that are very far away by detecting the light they emit.\n\n3. For things that are very, very, very far away (say, at the other edge of the universe), the light we use to observe them has been travelling for billions of years, close to the age of the universe itself.\n\n4. We can't observe anything that's more than about 14 billion light-years away, because the universe came to be about 14 billion years ago. The light we use to observe such objects would have had to travel for longer than our universe has existed. \n\nAll these things come together to support one fact: Not only do we not know what's outside our universe, it seems we *CAN'T* know what's outside our universe. It would violate the laws of physics.",
"I love the fact that your question is, word-for-word, \"Where can I find more information about this?\"\n\nThe answer is nowhere. Literally, nowhere. You cannot now, nor at any point in the future, find any information about this at all. Because anything that exists outside the universe is going to be separated from us forever by an effective event horizon. And no information can ever cross an event horizon, in either direction.\n\nI know that's taking your question a bit more literally than you meant it, but it's true nonetheless. People can speculate about \"multiple universes\" and such like — and Lord knows they have — but the fundamental, unbreakable laws of physics that govern *this* universe dictate that we can never know anything about any such thing. Not even definitively whether or not they exist.",
"The universe, by definition, encompasses all that physically exists."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47myid
|
why do people constantly encourage others to vote, when 90% of the public are uneducated about the topics they are voting about?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47myid/eli5_why_do_people_constantly_encourage_others_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0e4j0r"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You are right, in principle, that people probably shouldn't vote if they don't know what they're doing. But obtaining a basic overview of issues and candidates is not hard--someone who is encouraged to vote is more likely to educate themselves in this way than someone who does not vote. Besides, a great many people who *do* have basic civic knowledge do not vote.\n\nThere has to be more than just the mechanical action of casting a ballot, you're right. But it makes more sense to encourage people to vote *and* to try to educate them than to discourage them from voting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
10eoiv
|
How big of a nuclear bomb would be needed to disrupt or destroy a massive wedge Tornado?
|
I had a trippy dream about this last night, thus the reason I am asking.
In other words, lets say someone wanted to run an experiment to see how big a blast would be needed to destroy a tornado, and prevent that particular supercell from spawning another, how big of a yield would a bomb need? I'd imagine it would be in the megaton range, but could someone here give an estimate as to *how* many megatons? Ignore the small problems like fallout and 3rd degree burns.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10eoiv/how_big_of_a_nuclear_bomb_would_be_needed_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6cxri8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That is one of the coolest questions I've ever seen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3b63w8
|
what was building 7? why do conspiracy theorists use it as an example? what is the "real explanation" behind its collapse? what do the theorists think happened?
|
Apparently 43% of Americans don't know about it, and i'm one of them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b63w8/eli5what_was_building_7_why_do_conspiracy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csj7a2o",
"csj7iwv"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The World Trade Center was a complex of seven buildings. The twin towers were 1 WTC and 2 WTC. Four other buildings were on the same block, and 7 WTC was across the street.\n\nWhile only the twin towers were struck by planes, their collapse caused substantial, irreperable damage to all the other buildings part of the WTC, and other neighboring buildings as well. 3 WTC immediately collapsed from the twin towers essentially falling on it. Same thing happened to a church across the street. Debris that struck 7 WTC didn't cause it to collapse immediately, but started fires that weakened the building, causing it to collapse later that day.\n\nConspiracy theorists think that, because the building was across the street from the WTC and its collapse wasn't *directly* caused by the collapse of the twin towers, that its collapse must have been a controlled demolition. They add to this that the building had offices of the SEC and Secret Service, theorizing that someone wanted to set back investigations into potential financial wrongdoing. ",
"\"Building 7\" refers to 7 World Trade Center, a 47 storey building which was damaged in the 9/11 attacks and collapsed at roughly 5:20pm that afternoon. Conspiracy theorists claim the building was purposely demolished.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nWhat happened was that falling debris from the collapse of the north tower (1 WTC) damaged 7 WTC and started fires. The building's sprinkler system had a number of issues (some fundamental design flaws, and some due to the circumstances on the day), in particular there was very low water pressure available to firefighters so the fire was able to burn out of control.\n\nAs the fire burned, the steel beams which ran along the floors of the building heated up and expanded. Ultimately this pushed a key beam off a column, shifting how loads were distributed through the building, causing a column to fail and the building collapsed from there.\n\nConspiracy theorists claim that fire shouldn't be hot enough to deform the beams like that, and that it was actually a controlled demolition. However official reports include analyses which rule out these claims."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7_World_Trade_Center#9.2F11_and_collapse",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_controlled_demolition_conspiracy_theories#7_World_Trade_Center"
]
] |
|
fi53z3
|
Why were entertainers looked down on in Ancient Rome?
|
From what I understand one of the big ways in which Nero shocked proper Roman society was by personally performing on stage, which I'm told was treated with about as much respect as prostitution.
But everyone likes music and to be entertained, and in the days before TV and recordings I would have thought entertainers would be MORE treasured than today. Why did Romans looks down their noses at musicians and actors?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fi53z3/why_were_entertainers_looked_down_on_in_ancient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fkpes3z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First, disclaimer: Ancient Rome is not my area for this (China is) but I have dug into this a little in my reading.\n\nBoth prostitutes and actors were classified legally as *infames*in Augustus’ moral legislation. This was in part because they were viewed as faking emotions for money, and both groups also engaged in cross-dressing. The root of your question comes down to the phenomena described by Bakhtin as “the low-Other” in society which was further refined by Stallybrass and White as a commodification of desire for the low-Other by those at the top of the social hierarchy in their bid to maintain social control. \n\nThat is, prostitutes and actors were on the same social level, and playwrights took inspiration from the work of prostitutes as that of equivalent to actors and repackaged them for consumption by the masses as both entertainment and cautionary tales. The stock character in Roman Comedy of the *meretrix* is almost always either a “hooker with a heart of gold” type or “heartless man-eater only out for the money” type, and are either commended in the text of plays as support for the main male or denigrated as villainous. There were even direct comparisons between acting and prostitution as professions that fake emotion in the plays. \n\nIn Roman cities neither actors nor prostitutes were segregated from the rest of society—unlike in Renaissance England, or China and Japan. Actors could be legally subjected to being beatings in the streets by Roman citizens, though this was later restricted to only while they were on stage. That actors would satirize powerful political or social figures did make them entertaining to the general populace, but it also was extremely risky. Gladiators were also classified as *infames*, and their audience was highly entertained, but this doesn’t mean they were of high social standing like members of professional sports today. So, too, with actors and prostitutes.\n\nAnd that’s what Stallybrass and White point out: the top of the social food chain will co-opt the figures of the lowest classes for entertainment value initially and then will strip those figures and art forms from that low-Other and realign them with the upper class paradigm. That the 19th century and early 20th century changed the view of acting from a low-class activity and divested it of much of its relationship to sex work and transformed it into an elite class of celebrity has more to do with the growth of capitalism and industrialization than it does the craft itself. \n\nSources:\nFaraone, Cristopher, Christopher A. Faraone, and Laura McClure. Prostitutes and Courtesans in the Ancient World. University of Wisconsin Press, 2006. \nStallybrass, Peter, and Allon White. The Politics and Poetics of Transgression. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 1995."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5tgcdd
|
How were the Romans able to field much larger armies than Medieval Europe?
|
Edit: Because I've gotten a lot of PMs about it, the podcast is by Mike Duncan. It's a full, comprehensive history of Rome, and if you're not a fan of hours long podcasts, the episodes are fairly short.
I'm currently listening to the History of Rome podcast (if you haven't listened to it yet, do it right now), and I'm still in the Roman republic era, yet Rome is shown to have fielded massive armies. The typical army was 40-80 thousand (depending on how many consuls were commanding an army) and sometimes armies numbering in the hundreds of thousands were raised. And this didn't just include Rome. There are multiple times where outside powers engaged Rome with armies just as massive, such as the Gauls and I believe Carthage, who engaged with massive armies numbering up to 100 thousand.
Now because I know this subreddit prefers specific times, for a point of comparison I'll look at England during the Hundred Years' War era, while searching for an answer here, I found a comment saying the English armies were rarely higher than 15 thousand. I'm on mobile so I'm unable to link the comment at the moment.
So my question: What the hell happened? Comparing the middle Republic era of Rome (not even the height of their power), to one of the more well known series of conflicts of the late medieval era, and Roman armies, as well as a few other ancient armies, were way more massive. Though if there are any experts on other times and places in medieval Europe, I'll take answer on that as well.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tgcdd/how_were_the_romans_able_to_field_much_larger/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddmijot"
],
"score": [
652
],
"text": [
"Firstly, keep in mind that the ancient armies you are describing were fielded by what were essentially ancient superpowers. At the time of the Punic Wars, the Carthaginians held an empire that controlled the western Mediterranean, spanning much of North Africa and Spain. Similarly, when you look at the various Persian Empires, they controlled vast territories and had a large population base to draw upon (consider Thermopylae, where the smaller Greece was only able to assemble a few thousand men against the hundred thousand of Persia). The size of the ancient powers' armies was larger than those of medieval kingdoms in part because the ancient powers were simply larger than medieval kingdoms.\n\nWith the Gauls and other European barbarians that the Romans encountered, often the Romans were encountering an entire society of people who were living there (Gaul) or an entire society that had picked up and migrated (Cimbri, Teutones). The size of their armies gets blurred a bit there, since numbers may include civilians as well as soldiers.\n\nAnd lastly, at least later in the Roman Republic and through the Empire, the army consisted in large part of *auxilia,* or foreign auxiliary forces drawn up from allied and conquered territories, which included most of the European countries you are comparing the Roman Army to. So, the reason the Roman Army was so much larger than the English Army is in part due to the fact that the English Army was just one part of the Roman Army."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4f3gx9
|
Did the UK have any options at the start of World War I other than to commit a land army?
|
I mean couldn't the UK have simply limited their commitment to a naval one? Blockading Germany and preventing the Germany Navy from intervening in the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4f3gx9/did_the_uk_have_any_options_at_the_start_of_world/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d25kyri"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Not really; for one thing, with Britain now at war, the staff talks with the French Army came into play, wherein the British would despatch an expeditionary force to assist them in fighting the Germans. Plus, the immediate reason for British involvement was the Invasion of Belgium, so the British could hardly be seen to sit around and do nothing while there was serious fighting taking place across the Channel.\n\nYou also have to take into account the fact that it took until November 1914 for the Blockade to actually be in place, and it wasn't until March 1915 that it became much stronger (and also borderline illegal). The British did not have the time to wait around for two months doing nothing, while their now-allies the Russians and the French bore the brunt of the fighting. It's also important to consider that a more 'material' contribution by the British, ie actually sending ground forces to fight instead of just relying on their Navy while the French and Russians absorbed casualties, would give the British greater influence in negotiations when the war was over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
17j2q8
|
What's the difference between an endosome and lysosome?
|
We're learning about protein/receptor mediated movement of proteins inside the cell, and in my textbook and slides they seem to use them interchangeably, but I know they're not the same thing.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17j2q8/whats_the_difference_between_an_endosome_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c867876",
"c86ary2",
"c86au8p"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"My understanding is that all material that's internalised by a cell starts as an endosome. If this material is destined for degradation, it becomes a lysosome. I.e., an endosome is a step on the way to lysosome. ",
"An endosome is simply a small, membrane bound compartment in eukaryotic cells that function as a sorting mechanism. Several things can go to the endosome, either from endocytosis from the plasma membrane, or from the Golgi. From here, endosomes can either recycle back to the plasma membrane, Golgi, etc, or mature further into lysosomes (e.g. fuse with existing lysosomes).",
"They are different steps along a trafficking pathway.\n\nThe first step is the early endosome, the vesicle that has been internalized via endocytosis. They mature to late endosomes (some proteins/lipids get sent back to the plasma membrane via recycling endosomes) mainly by action of a proton pump that is acidifying the endosome.\n\nThe next step is multivesicular bodies which are made by fusing multiple late endosomes together and then budding events into the lumen (inside) of the MCB. The internal vesicles are destined for degradation by the lyosome.\n\nMVBs fuse with lyosomes and the internal vesicles and their contents get destroyed.\n\nEndosomes and lysosomes have different lumenal pHs and different protein contents. Lysosomes have enzymes for breaking down lipids and proteins. They also have a low (acidic) pH created by proton pumps. The enzymes breaking down the lipids/proteins only work in low pH which is a method of making sure that they don't function unless inside the lysosome, and so that if a lysosome breaks it doesn't digest the cell."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4spadx
|
What did people think of fossils before modern archaeology and carbon dating?
|
What did people think they were? Did they deny their existence?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4spadx/what_did_people_think_of_fossils_before_modern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5bmq05",
"d5bsbjp"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"If you don't get an answer here, I recommend posting to /r/askhistorians instead.",
"Fairly insightful views were held by a few of the Ancient Greek philosophers, most notably Aristotle, who noticed the similarity between shells of contemporary sea creatures and fossilised shells he came across. He speculated that areas of former life had been turned to stone by the particularly strong petrifying forces of vaporous exhalations emanating from nearby bodies of water. Wrong of course, but Aristotle was keen to give an explanation rooted in natural processes of the Earth. There are records of at least one Ancient Greek (I forget who) making the leap that current areas of extensive land had once been underwater, using the fossil shells of marine animals as evidence. \n\nMany explanations elsewhere centred on story telling and legend, there were (and are) countless different explanations and names for various fossils, a lot of which seems to have recognised that a fossil was once something living - many parts of Asia would call any fossilised bones dragon bones. Common finds in England include sharks teeth and ammonites, which were called tongue stones and snake stones respectively, the latter being used to protect against snakebites. Some claimed that they had fallen from the moon, or there was a popular legend that ammonites were snakes which were turned to stone by St. Hilda of Whitby (614-680). Often snake heads were carved on to the ammonites before selling them to tourists. Three ammonites are on the Whitby town shield, complete with snake heads. \n\nA commonly accepted explanation for fossils in the Middle Ages were that they were pieces of preserved life all originating from the same event - the great biblical flood. I'm sure there were explanations linked to other religions in the non-Christian world. \n\nThe Renaissance saw a more rigorous study of many natural things and Da Vinci strongly rejected the biblical flood narrative, with the simple logic that washed up things should be all mixed up, but fossil assemblages were often found in the kind of communities you would expect to see them in during life.\n\nThings became more illuminated with the birth of modern geology. In the late 1700's leading up to 1800 the [law of superposition](_URL_2_) became accepted, ideas that the Earth was actually very much older than a few thousand years started to be incorporated into scientific theories, and [William 'Strata' Smith](_URL_0_) joined up many of these dots when observing the different layers of the Earth and their fossil assemblages, formulating the [principle of faunal succession](_URL_3_). Further study using this principle allowed geologists to determine the *relative* time sequences in which layers were deposited, and is the means by which distinctions in the stratigraphic record are formally made. \n\nIt was also an appreciation of this huge timescale and gradual changes in preserved fauna through layers of earth and time that helped Darwin to formulate a theory of evolution. \n\nWith the advent of radiometric dating the geological timescale could be dated absolutely, providing a picture of how long ago certain life existed, although there was little change in the timing of strata and fossils relative to one another. \n\nCarbon-14 is often used in archaeology as you say, but due to its relatively short half life of 5,730 years, it's not useful in dating anything older than about 60,000 years. Obviously this is no good for the 542 million years since the Cambrian Explosion of life on Earth, and so longer half lives of other radiometric systems (usually the uranium-lead or potassium-argon systems) are used to date the surrounding rock of a fossil rather than the fossil itself. \n\nOne last twist - sedimentary rock cannot be dated directly like this, as it would give a date that the minerals in the rock were originally cooled from igneous rock before being weathered and eventually ending up in a sedimentary sequence, which could be millions or even billions of years later! Radiometric dating must be used on igneous material at the start and end of sedimentary sequences to give an accurate (but potentially large) date range. Layers of preserved volcanic ash are particularly useful as they will have been incorporated into the strata at practically the same time they were created. Therefore using both absolute and relative dating methods together is necessary in order to build up a full picture of the fossil record and it's timescale. \n\nGetting back to the original question on ideas of fossils before all the refinement of timescales, the story of Johann Beringer deserves a mention. A medical academic at the University of Wurzberg in Germany in the 18th Century, Beringer was interested in the serious study of fossils which were not understood at the time, and he became victim to a cruel and extended hoax started in 1725, with the creation of many fakes placed for him to discover. [Beringer's Lying Stones](_URL_1_) as they came to be known were quite fantastical, but Beringer only realised what was going on after publishing a book about them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Smith_(geologist)",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beringer%27s_Lying_Stones",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_of_superposition",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_faunal_succession"
]
] |
|
34v7ry
|
why do children dislike the taste of alcohol so much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/34v7ry/eli5_why_do_children_dislike_the_taste_of_alcohol/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqydbqq",
"cqyt1fc"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
"Who likes the taste of alchohol?",
"Why are you giving children alcohol?\n\n\"Why do children hate the back of vans with blacked out windows so much?\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
f9m9fz
|
Are Tardigrades susceptible to viral and/or bacterial infection? Can they get ‘sick’?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f9m9fz/are_tardigrades_susceptible_to_viral_andor/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fisty9x",
"fiswzqw",
"fit1t7s",
"fiuc8ii",
"fiv1etp"
],
"score": [
457,
1314,
41,
40,
2
],
"text": [
"Virtually all living organisms (probably all, but I am not 100% certain) can get infected with viruses. And many are susceptible to bacteria. \n\nSurprisingly, a web search turned up the following article, [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) , which reports a tardigrade that was infected with a fungal pathogen. The most surprising part is that the paper is over 40 years old. I didn't even realize people studied tardigrades back then.",
"In addition to the fungi u/drkirienko mentions, tardigrades also clearly act as hosts for various bacteria. However, it's more difficult to say which of these are beneficial, neutral, or antagonistic to their hosts.\n\nThis is a little tangentially related to your question, but it's an interesting story nonetheless. When the first tardigrade genome ([*Hypsibius dujardini*](_URL_2_)), was sequenced by [Boothby et al. 2015](_URL_8_), it was reported to have a [large percentage of genes with bacterial origin](_URL_0_). This was initially considered to be evidence for horizontal gene transfer on a pretty unprecedented scale, which was pretty interesting but also led to some [rather garbage science reporting](_URL_1_). \n\nHowever, as you will have noticed if you looked at the Boothby paper carefully, these results have since been challenged by many. [Arakawa 2016](_URL_7_) and [Bemm et al. 2016](_URL_3_) both suggest that the bacterial DNA actually came from, well... bacteria. I.e., they think that the tardigrade samples were contaminated, which does seem like a more plausible explanation. Bemm et al. were even able to assemble the entire [genome of an unknown type of bacteria](_URL_9_) from the published tardigrade data.\n\nOf course, those bacterial contaminants were not necessarily actually living in the tardigrades, and may have been introduced some other way. Fortunately, some other studies have looked in more detail into actual associations between tardigrades and various microorganisms. [Vecchi et al. 2016](_URL_6_) review reports of bacteria living in the heads, skin, and guts of tardigrades, and also point out that they can act as vectors for certain bacteria which infect plants such as [*Xanthomonas campestris*](_URL_5_). The same group published a more detailed study in [Vecchi et al. 2018](_URL_4_) which identified several distinct groups of bacteria. Neither of these studies were really able to say much about the exact nature of the relationship between these bacteria and the tardigrades they live in though, so it's still somewhat unclear whether they are symbiotes, pathogens, or neither. And of course, these roles may fluctuate depending on the conditions even for the same bacterial species!",
"Well yeah. Tardigrades are susceptible to everything that other organisms are outside of their stasis which is only activated when their bodies have been desiccated. Otherwise tardigrades are just tiny bug things that eat algae juice and get eaten by slugs.",
"Tardigrades are animals, they are multi cellular eukaryotes.\nThey are susceptible to viral, and fungal infections as well as bacterial attacks, like the rest of us. While they can \"survive\" extreme conditions, they are not imortal and can die quite easily if they're exposed wrong. They are, like most microorganisms, bound to water. Outside of water, and in other environmental extremes, they go into a dormant hybernation like state of rest where they slow their metabolism and harden themselves. That is the state where they survive extreme pressures, radiation, heat/cold, etc, etc. A live, awake Tardigrade does not enjoy those conditions and goes dormant untill the conditions improve. They can die from infections/disease as you suggest, but also predation, being squished physically (on a slide), lack of food, or any other general causes of death that aren't environmental. Unfortunately their not immortal in the slightest. Bacteria can be extremeophiles, hydras and polyp jellies are actually \"immortal\", but when it comes to animals tardigrades are some of the most *resilient*, especially when in cryptobiosis.\n\nIt's worth noting some bacteria and single celled eukaryotes are similar in size to tardigrades, so rather then a bacterial infection, its more like predation in some cases. Viruses infect an organism cell by cell to modify its dna and reproduce, so they work on this scale to even more effect than on macro-animals. Tardigrades are susceptible to other microorganisms, to answer the question\n\n\n[Tardigrades: chubby, misunderstood, and not immortal](_URL_0_)",
"Although i cant give proper evidence i would like to st least state that recently there has been the discovery of a family of viruses that infects other viruses. Theres a group of nonliving pathogens tjat infect other nonliving pathogens. Basically anythings possible lol"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/3758693?seq=1"
],
[
"https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/112/52/15976/F1.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1",
"https://v1.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/165220-Scientists-Have-Sequenced-the-Genome-of-the-Tardigrade-Finding-it-Contains-More-Alien-DNA-than-Any-Other-Animal",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypsibius_dujardini",
"https://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/E3054",
"https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00248-017-1134-4",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b3/Xanthomonas_leaf_spot.png",
"https://academic.oup.com/zoolinnean/article/178/4/846/2691467",
"https://www.pnas.org/content/113/22/E3057",
"https://www.pnas.org/content/112/52/15976",
"https://www.pnas.org/content/pnas/113/22/E3054/F2.large.jpg?width=800&height=600&carousel=1"
],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/kux1j1ccsgg"
],
[]
] |
||
8b635l
|
In fiction, the gamma radiation (esp. from nuclear weapons) is usually depicted with a greenish, yellowish colour, and often makes objects glow. Does this occur in real life?
|
Fallout is a great example of what I'm talking about. For example, in Fallout 3, the sky is a permanent greenish yellow colour because of background radiation, and the water is green too. Highly radioactive objects and creatures also often glow this greenish yellow colour.
In real life, I know radiation has no odour or taste and is invisible, but can gamma radiation actually make objects appear greenish yellow or even glow?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8b635l/in_fiction_the_gamma_radiation_esp_from_nuclear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx4d246",
"dx4elgr",
"dx4k6aa",
"dx4p9dc"
],
"score": [
8,
11,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Emitting gamma rays doesn't change the appearance of an object. You can't see it at all.",
"You can also look at the aurora borealis, which is caused by interaction of fast electrons (beta radiation) with the molecules in the atmosphere. The different molecules give off different colors after being excited by interaction with the electrons.\n\nIn fiction (movies) you have the problem that the viewer needs to be guided to understand that the object is somehow special without using to much screen time - a glow is easy to do and serves the purpose. Realism is usually not the first priority. ",
"It is a fictional indicator. As you said yourself, and as other have said, gamma radiation is invisible to the human eye.\n\n*Why* fiction depicts it as neon yellow-green, I'll quote /u/thetripp \nwho answered [a similar question in 2013](_URL_0_):\n\n > One of the first widespread applications of radium was luminescence - self-powered lighting. For instance, Radium Dials or clock faces were popular, as they glowed in the dark. These materials convert the kinetic energy of radioactive decay (and subsequent ionization) into visible light. If you combine a radioactive source with the right phosphor, then electrons which were knocked away from their atoms will emit visible light when they fall back into an orbital. Zinc sulfide doped with copper was a common choice for the phosphor component in the early 1900's, which glows green.\n\n > This was also one of the first times that the dangers of radiation became apparent. Many of the factory workers who painted these dials began to be diagnosed with cancers of the blood and bones at very young ages.\n\nTLDR: radium in glow-in-the-dark applications is yellow-green, Radium = early 1900's spooky & dangerous, therefore fictional radiation is glow-in-the-dark yellow-green.",
"Very intense radiation can ionize the air and produce colorful glows — usually blueish but in the wake of nuclear tests all sorts of colors ([purples](_URL_0_), pinks, blues,etc.) have been reported. But this is not the kind of thing you'd see normally from a regular radioactive source; the sources would have to be very, very intense (like the first few minutes after a nuclear test, or during a criticality accident, which creates a brief \"[blue flash](_URL_2_)\") to do this.\n\nNuclear reactions in water make it glow blue. This is known as [Cherenkov radiation](_URL_4_ radiation). This is not the radiation itself but a byproduct of its movement through a slowing medium like water. \n\nEarly applications of radioactive substances in the 1900s through 1930s or so involved making [luminescent dials](_URL_3_) which glow a greenish yellow in the dark. Basically the radiation from the decay of radium was used to excite a phosphor and give off a steady amount of light. This is probably why green in particular became associated with radioactivity. Initially (up until the 1930s) this was associated with the magical, transformational powers of science — modern technology, modern medicine, etc. Radioactivity was hailed as a healthy thing. In the 1930s several cases led to people associating it with something more unpleasant and fearful: the Radium Girls occupational health case (in which many radium dial painters developed terrible bone cancers from licking the paintbrushes) and the horrible death of Eben Byers, a millionaire who essentially overdosed on radium treatments, re-associated the green glow of radium paint with a sense of dread. Hence our use of it today.\n\nVery radioactive objects can also be hot enough to glow in the way that a coal does. So [here is a low-light photo of a pellet of plutonium-238](_URL_1_), which is used for its thermal properties. This is just regular heat, but heat caused by the radioactive decay of the plutonium, so it's going to look like a typical black body (e.g., reddish or yellowish or orangish depending on the amount of heat — like if you put a piece of steel into the oven and heated it up until it was very hot). Note that the photographic settings can exaggerate how much light would be given off (there's a slight glow but it's not as bright as that photo makes it look like).\n\nSo the basic answer is: radioactivity by itself doesn't have any direct color. The particles are not photons within the visible wavelength of light, to put it simply. But radioactivity can interact with various nearby materials, or the medium it is going through, and these can generate photons that are visible. And as should be pretty clear: the Fallout series should not for a moment be taken as a realistic indication of anything relating to nuclear weapons, radioactivity, what have you; it does not in the slightest attempt to be accurate about how these things function and it is variously wrong and inconsistent. (That's not a criticism — it's not meant to be a science textbook — but just be warned that you should not base your understanding of _anything_ real on that particular series.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1g51b1/why_is_radioactivity_associated_with_glowing_neon/"
],
[
"http://www.sonicbomb.com/content/atomic/carc/us/ranger/limg/fox2.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/71/Plutonium_pellet.jpg",
"https://www.newyorker.com/tech/elements/demon-core-the-strange-death-of-louis-slotin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Radium_Dial.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cherenkov"
]
] |
|
3bpfy3
|
When and why did the "corporation" become the dominant business entity in America, when all of the great gilded age companies were organized as "trusts?"
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3bpfy3/when_and_why_did_the_corporation_become_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csoovo7",
"csoutrj"
],
"score": [
35,
11
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure I agree with the premise. The corporation's popularity spread with the growth of railroads: large undertakings, needing lots of investors, operating over large areas, usually with some years before any dividends would accrue—and most importantly, whose operations were inherently dangerous. Investors naturally sought to be shielded from personal liability for wrongs done by some remote employee.\n\nTrusts arose much later, as a way to get around the early restrictions on corporations. State laws often did not allow corporations to own stock in other companies, to operate in more than one state, or to undertake activities (such as owning an office building not entirely for their own use) even slightly peripheral to the powers enumerated in their charters.",
" > when all of the great gilded age companies were organized as \"trusts?\"\n\nThis is a misunderstanding. The trusts were mechanisms to consolidate and streamline control of the vast web of corporations that made up the great \"Gilded Age\" business empires, they weren't the operating businesses themselves.\n\nFor example the first such 19th century business trust was established by Standard Oil in 1882, in which the individual shareholders of the many separate Standard Oil corporations agreed to convey their shares to the trust. The trust was governed by a board of 9 trustees, with John D. Rockefeller owning 41% of the trust's certificates.\n\nYou can see how this makes governing the corporate empire much easier than having to deal with the individual stock and governance of each corporate entity separately."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1t8t8e
|
Who decided that north was up?
|
And have there been peoples/societies/civilizations that looked at the world or the poles oppositely? Have any maps been discovered that showed the south pole at the top?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1t8t8e/who_decided_that_north_was_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5ibpq"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Great answer to this question from /u/khosikulu [here](_URL_0_).\n\n > Historian of cartography (among other things) here. The northward orientation has a great deal to do with the importance of northward orientation to compass navigation. Portolans, and later projections aimed at navigation purposes (e.g., Mercator), made note of latitude and direction much more reliably than longitude, so the coastline was easier to fit to an evolving graticule that way (plus it worked better relative to sun- and star-sighting) while the east-west features were still of uncertain size and distance. Smileyman is right that cartographers often didn't put north at the top before the Renaissance and Enlightenment eras and the flowering of European navigation, and that Claudius Ptolemy is probably a big culprit for why it's north-up and not south-up--the power of classical conventions at that moment is hard to deny. It also helps that we're very clearly north of the Equator in the European Atlantic, so that would be the first area depicted to the terminus of navigation.\n > \n > Have a dig in volume 1 of the monumental History of Cartography Project and you may find a bit more. Volume 3 would also discuss some of the specific developments of the Renaissance era but that's still in print only; I'm not even sure Volume 4 is close to release yet.\n\nThere's some more good threads about this topic listed in the [FAQ](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ywxgz/why_have_cartographers_always_pictured_north_as/c5zqlph",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/maps#wiki_why_is_north_shown_as_.22up.22_on_maps.3F"
]
] |
|
272pav
|
what happens when i "zone out" after a few hours of being on the computer?
|
Sometimes when I'm on the computer for too long, I "zone out," an I'm kind of in a fog for the next few hours. What is this and how can I prevent it?
Edit: answers are as good as it goods, marked solved.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/272pav/eli5_what_happens_when_i_zone_out_after_a_few/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chwuubp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's sort of like a vegetative state. You're letting your brain run on auto-pilot without paying attention to the world around you. This is why video games warn you to \"take frequent breaks\" these days - they reassert your grasp on reality and keep you from trancing too long.\n\nMy advice? Set something in motion _before_ you get on the computer that will \"interrupt\" you later and snap you out of it. Like setting an alarm in the other room, or telling a friend to come get you for a walk later."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4xoqze
|
how do humans lose 100 hairs per day and still maintain a full head of long locks?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4xoqze/eli5_how_do_humans_lose_100_hairs_per_day_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6h80y9",
"d6h879b",
"d6h9thx",
"d6h9xta",
"d6ha966",
"d6hb65p",
"d6hbg4v"
],
"score": [
27,
234,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Most people have over 100,000 hairs on their head. The number you lose in the shower is easily replaced without notice in that big of a crowd. With all the hairs growing and falling out all the time the total number stays pretty steady.",
"Because if I have 100,000 hairs and lose 100 every day it would take 1000 days for me to run out IF I wasn't making more. For hair this is about 3 years which in that time My hair would have grown an additional ~18 inches or ~6 inches per year or half an inch per month.\n\nAt that rate, you would have to be losing more than 10x that amount before you noticed your hair was thinning and even then your hairs growth rate might cover it up.",
"Actually we lose 300 to 500 hairs a day. We still have hair because our hair has 3 stages of growth. Anagen catagen and telogen and all hair is in different stages at different times so you will lose hair but new hair replaces it. We also have so many hairs that you wont notice when those hairs fall out.",
"Two reasons \n\n1: You've got a lot of hair all over and your head, regardless of the common assumption, is not the source of all hairs lost. You have Pubic hair, body hair, nose hair, eyelashes, facial hair and so forth. \n\n\n2: Your hair regenerates.\n\nThe level of loss is not greater than the level of regeneration therefore you don't lose it all. IF the rate of regeneration was lower than the shed rate you would run out.",
"You should probably be picking up that hair from the drain after every shower. It clogs the pipes.",
"Btw, if you're shedding A LOT, you might want to get your iron levels checked to make sure you're not anemic or something.",
"Think of it like a relay race. For every one hair that has fallen out, you have another that is about halfway grown in, and another starting to grow. It doesn't all grow at the same time.\n\nThis is why you have to go back every six weeks for 3-6 sessions during hair removal. You can zap the shot out of the hair that is present, but in six weeks, a whole set of new hair follicles will have sprouted."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1pxzpq
|
How was bidirectional travel handled on the transcontinental railroad?
|
It was an impressive undertaking to build rail track across the United States. For a time though, there must have been only one track for both directions. How did the rail companies direct traffic such that trains could travel in both directions?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1pxzpq/how_was_bidirectional_travel_handled_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd78s2u"
],
"score": [
22
],
"text": [
"Many, many rail lines have only one track. Passing sidings are installed at regular intervals, and the train orders specify things like \"Train #97 take siding at Danville to await passage of eastbound train #38.\" Unlike earlier railroads, the transcontinental was accompanied the entire length by extension of telegraph lines. Thus revised train orders—using updated info about the location of other trains on the line—could be given the conductor at any staffed station.\n\nIn earlier decades, some lines used \"timetable control:\" during a certain period only the eastbound train had authority to use a certain stretch of track. In later decades, electric-light signaling systems would be installed showing whether the \"track block\" ahead was clear, and usually the status of the block beyond that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7ymx8o
|
why did adolf hitler consider native americans as equal to “arians”?
|
To an uneducated person, like myself, this claim seems contradicting to Hitler’s other views on race.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ymx8o/eli5_why_did_adolf_hitler_consider_native/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duhp7dz",
"duhqqp2"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Germans used to, and to this day often do, have a very favorable view of native americans. Part of the reason for that are the works of writer Karl May, an \"adventure novelist\" who wrote a lot about the \"nobel\" heritage and life of native americans - from a totally racist viewpoint. A good but not ELI5-Explainer is over at _URL_0_ and at _URL_1_\n\nAnother part of the explanation is that Hitler personally had a negative view of America, going as far as saying half of the US was \"jewified\", the other half \"negrified\". \n\nSo really it's a mix of a popular meme and a negative view of the US society.",
"Noble Savage type of thing. He was a member of the Rune Society (sp?). They believed in the restoration of the ancient Germanic way. If memory serves me, he was president of the group at one time. Some of his initial support for becoming Chancellor may have come from this association."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2007/09/12/travel/12iht-12karl.7479952.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Native_Americans_in_German_popular_culture"
],
[]
] |
|
6478p7
|
How are gaseous elements harvested and purified?
|
I've read about third world communities harvesting methane from livestock. They then use that for cooking and heating water.
Harvesting methods must capture impurities-dust as well as large volumes of other gasses. How would you refine a gas that's harvested like this?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6478p7/how_are_gaseous_elements_harvested_and_purified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg024t1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They aren't harvesting cow burps. They are taking all the livestock dung, putting it in a huge airtight container and letting bacteria digest the organic matter. Methane is a biproduct of the bacterial digestion process. They then collect the methane, compress it, dry it and then burn it.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biogas?wprov=sfsi1"
]
] |
|
19mthj
|
reddit, can you explain to me the relationship between megapixels, resolution, and screen size?
|
Just trying to educate myself on the topic.
Alright, so, for example, the resolution of 720p is 1080x720, and the resolutin of 1080p is 1920x1080, correct? I'm positive on this.
But what about screen size? There are new smartphones coming out with 1080p resolutions, but there's also obviously 42 inch TVs with 1080p resolution! How is this possible? Are the pixels different sizes? Does there have to be a certain amount of pixels per inch (ppi) for something to be considered 1080p?
Then what about extremely large images, like those with resolutions on /r/VeryLargeImages? They have more pixels, so they are (I guess) physically bigger?
Can someone put this in perspective for me?
Thanks in advance!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/19mthj/eli5_reddit_can_you_explain_to_me_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8pg21y",
"c8pg31w",
"c8phjvd"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A screen's resolution tells you how many individual pixels or dots of light are there both horizontally and vertically.\n\nSo 1920x1080 means there's 1920 pixels horizontally on the screen and 1080 vertically. If that's spread out over a screen that's 42 inches across that just means there's more room to put each individual pixel in. But you get the same amount of pixels on a screen that's 42 inches diagonally or 4 inches diagonally.\n\nThe same goes for photos. This means that if you're looking at a very lage image, ( lots of pixels ) on a screen with a smaller resolution your screen won't be displaying all the pixels that there are in the image.\nBut you can zoom in on a particular part of an image to reveal the extra pixels. So the image you're viewing remains sharp.",
"Now an addition with megapixels, this is something introduced by the camera industry when digital camera's where still a new thing. \nWhen you're talking about megapixels you're talking about the total sum of the pixels in an image.\nSo 1920x1080 gives you about 2 million or 2 megapixels.\nA high quality print on a sheet of A4 stencil needs about 2-4 megapixels.\n\nAfter that the image quality really improves when you're using high quality lenses and other technical stuff most people (including me) dont'really understand.\nManufacturers know this and they see something people DO understand. Bigger numbers. So it was an easy step to focus on the size of the image and use that to advertise their products.\n\nA 12 megapixel image is fun, But unless you want to look really closely at a small detail in a picture, there's not much use for it.",
"I'd just like to point out that 720p is actually 1**2**80x720.\n\nOther than that, it was all explained: megapixels and resolution relate to the number of pixels regardless of display size, and screen size relates to the display size regardless of the pixel count. PPI is the relation between the two."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
52fzsq
|
why if co2 is only .038% of atmospheric gases, does it have so much impact on global warming?
|
This is knowing that nitrogen [constitutes 78% and oxygen 21% of the total gases in the atmosphere](_URL_0_). How can we be so certain that CO2 is to blame?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52fzsq/eli5_why_if_co2_is_only_038_of_atmospheric_gases/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7jxwvr",
"d7k0gq4",
"d7k1ldf",
"d7keu8s",
"d7khrre",
"d7kq9d7",
"d7ksrf8"
],
"score": [
67,
31,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The most abundant gases - O2, N2, argon - don't absorb heat. CO2 and H2O do absorb heat so when you increase them, you are directly increasing the greenhouse gas effect because you are increasing the most abundant heat absorbing molecule (with H2O). \n\nThat's very crude, but it's ELI5. Also as an aside, it's somewhat of a diversion tactic to say, \"it's only a small amount therefore it can't be that important.\" Skeptics/denialists love this tactic but it's pretty flawed. Think of it this way: It won't take but a very small amount of cyanide (less than 1% of body weight) in my body to notice it. ",
"All the other reasons here are basically true. But I think there is one big thing they left out. The reason such a small amount of CO2 or methane can make such a huge difference is because there is SO MUCH energy from the sun striking the planet every day (over 12,000 gigawatt-hours, more than 20,000x what the human race consumes) that even a very small change in how much gets absorbed can lead to a significant temperature change.",
"You know your favourite food fish fingers? Well, there are tiny tiny amounts of something called arsenic in there. You don't notice because it's so small but if you increased the amount of arsenic it would make your tummy very unhappy and you would go to sleep for a long time. It would still be a tiny part of your fish fingers but some things have a powerful effect even when they are small relative to everything else around it. CO2 is like that too. A small increase won't effect the climate very much but doubling it will make the earths tummy very upset and it will get a temperature. ",
"It doesn't. There are many other things in the atmosphere which trap heat better than CO2 like water vapor and methane for instance. However, since removing water from the atmosphere is a sysiphian task and we kind of need it for weather, it's cheaper to curb CO2 emissions. \n\nThe earths atmosphere used to have lots of CO2 in it and little oxygen before plants came along. The plants and algae over billions of years reduced most of this CO2 by using it to build their bodies with the carbon, while freeing the oxygen, and they take the carbon with them when they die. Just as long as they don't decompose or get burned. \n\nSo the coal, wood, and oil we use for fuel is billion year old carbon compounds that used to be our ancient atmosphere, got converted to plants which died, got buried over time, and now re-join the atmosphere again when we dig it up and use it for fuel. \n\n",
"First, a small increase can make a bigger difference than it might seem by numbers alone, here's a good demonstration:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\nNext remember that our atmosphere is about 300 MILES deep (_URL_0_). Yes it gets thinner the higher you go but even at 30,000 feet (over 5 and a half miles) there's more than enough for a huge plane to easily and efficiently get lift. So even if you are only slightly increasing the chance of a beam of light interacting with some CO2, over the course of the traverse through the atmosphere that still piles up to a lot of opportunities for interaction.\n\nFinally as \\u\\ex_stripper said, theres a LOT of energy coming from the sun. So if you increase the amount of energy absorbed by a tiny tiny percentage, it turns into a lot of energy relative to the norm.",
"Congratulation, you've discovered a cascading effect. These are some of the most amazing things to study and there are areas of expertise for studying them in almost every field of science (Bio, Medicine, Computer Science. Cognitive Science, just to name a few)\n\nThere are lots of things like this, where a small move one direction or another can change things massively.\n\nexample: imagine that you stabbed your 3rd grade teacher with a knife. They survived, and only suffered a small scar. Do you think this small change would have a dramatic effect on your life 10, 15, or 20 years later? Of course. We have an intuitive sense about how large connected systems (like the flow of our life, with one act leading to the next) can be greatly impacted by small changes at specific points.\n\nThe same is true for the very connected system of the climate. A small change in how much heat is trapped at the polls causes more ice to melt, causing there to be less snow, which now is no longer reflecting the sun, causing more heat to get trapped. These sort of chains are easy to understand in isolation, but can feel almost magical when viewed as a group.\n\nWhy are do they feel 'magical' as a group? Humans are really bad at understanding compound effects. (This is why people don't intuitively understand interest rates) I've never heard anyone claim they know why this is the case, but it is. So you are in good company. ",
"CO2 (as well as methane and water vapor) is just really good at absorbing energy from the sun that would otherwise just hit the surface and reflect/re-emit back into space. Basically, it keeps more of the sun's energy for a longer period in earth's atmosphere, hence it increases the temperature.\n\nHere is a graph that shows absorption spectra of atmospheric gases: _URL_0_\n\nYou can clearly see that nitrogen(dark green) does not absorb much at all and oxygen(dark blue) also just has 5 relatively discrete absorption lines. CO2(red) absorbs a much wider spectrum in infrared and with 1,000-1,000,000 times the intensity. That way 0.04% CO2 absorbs (more) energy (than) equivalent to 40-40,000% oxygen. \n\nYou can see methane(yellow) and especially water(light green, responsible for 50-75% of greenhouse effect) do absorb a lot of, too, but methane concentration is much lower (about 1/500) and cloud cover actually reflects a lot of energy. Also, water is more of a passive factor/not (directly) caused by humans and levels vary a lot in the atmosphere.\n\nEDIT: Oxygen and nitrogen do absorb most of shorter than visible wavelengths but that accounts only for a very small fraction of the sun's output."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/17683-earth-atmosphere.html",
"https://youtu.be/81FHVrXgzuA"
],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/61/Synthetic_atmosphere_absorption_spectrum.gif"
]
] |
|
2v4qtx
|
How muh gear would a WWII British Commando carry into the field? Also: beret or helmet?
|
As the title says; I'm just wondering how much equipment a WWII Commando would actually carry on his person during a conflict?
I recently saw a piece of artwork featuring the Commandos in a combat situation; the bullets were flying, men were running around fighting, and yet every single guy had his backpack firmly on.
To me this seems a little far fetched - surely if you came into a live fire situation like that you'd take the earliest possible opportunity to drop your heavy bag and lighten yourself up?
In the same image, it shows the soldiers fighting whilst wearing their distinctive berets rather than a tin hat. Again, this seems strange; I don't quite find it believable that some of the most professional and pragmatic soldiers in the world would choose to wear a beret instead of protective headgear.
Maybe it's just an artists interpretation, or maybe my thoughts are completely wrong. Either way, I'd be interested to know. Cheers guys! :)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2v4qtx/how_muh_gear_would_a_wwii_british_commando_carry/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coernfh",
"cof8a99"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Not sure about the packs, but the steel helmet protects against shrapnel, not direct hits from bullets. Since the commandos were involved in small raids and unconventional warfare, it's not unreasonable that they would have preferred to save on weight when shrapnel would have been unlikely.\n\nSee this youtube video for a steel helmet penetration test:\n_URL_0_",
"Helmet, absolutely a helmet; berets in combat are the realm of video games, 1960s Hollywood, or a particularly poor NCO.\n\nCommandos standard combat load would not differ greatly from that of a British rifleman. \n\n > I recently saw a piece of artwork featuring the Commandos in a combat situation; the bullets were flying, men were running around fighting, and yet every single guy had his backpack firmly on\n\nCommando units raiding at night, perhaps not, but many of the 4 and 40 series units fought during full spectrum operations in 1944, such as in the Sword and Gold sectors; Lord Lovat's being a prominent example. Infantry fight with their packs, especially if they intend to *hold* the seized ground. Entrenching tools, ammo, rations, medical supplies; these are not things the [standard British webbing](_URL_1_) could carry without the aid of a pack. As I said at the start; with the exception of low-light raids, a helmet would always be present, or at least with them on their kit. A wool cap would be evident in matters of stealth, to prevent the rattling of the helmet or the sheen of one that hasn't been properly dulled in moonlight, otherwise, if bullets were expected to fly hard and often, a tin helmet would be worn.\n\nIn addition to the standard combat load (100-120 rounds, per man, [.303 British](_URL_0_), several Mill's bombs, bayonet, knife/gravity knife, entrenching tools, 3 spare BREN magazines, and so on... ) a Commando on a raid may have tools for sabotage, additional radio equipment, ammunition, rations or packages for *liason* with Resistance Forces, demolitions...the list is nearly endless. A pack would be absolutely necessary and a unit that is designed to operate well beyond the scope of logistics would indeed require to take all their equipment with them.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VEYXFGhIpJ0#t=135"
],
[
"http://media.midwayusa.com/productimages/880x660/Primary/131/131830.jpg",
"http://www.geocities.ws/sabresquadron/PM13008.jpg"
]
] |
|
6hqdbo
|
how do locksmiths verify that you own a key before making a copy of it?
|
I mean, couldn't you just get a key, make a copy and give the original back? How do they know that you aren't a thief?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hqdbo/eli5_how_do_locksmiths_verify_that_you_own_a_key/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj0b3pe",
"dj0cwy4",
"dj0hb8x",
"dj0iwgl",
"dj0jbzk"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2,
48
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately there isn't always a way to tell.\n\nThere are mechanical kiosks at big box stores that copy keys for a small price.\n\nIn that case there is no verification, like you said - There's no proof that you aren't a theif required for copying a key. \n\nEdit: That's why most landlords buy keys with \"DO NOT COPY\" engraved.",
"Quite simply, they don't. Unless it is part of thing called a Restricted System, then you have to sign for the key & you have to be on a list of authorised signatories. These are usually the \"Do Not Copy\" keys.\n\nRestricted keys should have the issuing locksmith stamped on the key head, and *only* they may issue further copies with an authorised signature.\n\n",
"They don't it's up to you to protect your keys and restrict access to them. If you ever lose them or someone steals them you need to be changing your locks.",
"They don't. AFAIK some countries have a centralized system where you request the keys from a special certified locksmith that cross-checks your credentials before making a key for your particular house (A french friend told me this as he was impressed on how easy and cheap you could copy a key around here).",
"They don't know you aren't a thief. However some locks and some keys are protected from this with security measures. Locksmiths aren't worried about copying a house key. But if you try to get a key for a high security lock copied, it's not going to happen. These keys will often have writing on them for \"do not copy\" and use multiple rows of pins. \n\nThe only time that a locksmith might want to verify your identity is if you are asking them to get into a locked car, house, or business. They need reasonable assurances that you are authorized to be there and to enter the premises. If it turns out that you are lying and the police get involved the locksmith has an out if they took reasonable precautions to ensure you were authorized. \n\nSource - I'm an amateur lock smith with about 10 years experience keying, re-pinning, picking, repairing, and bypassing locks. \n\nLocks do not keep someone from breaking in to a home or vehicle in any case. They are there to keep honest people honest, and to deter thieves to pick easier targets. If someone wants to steal from you, there is not a lot you can do to stop them short of guarding your property 24x7. However you can take reasonable precautions so you aren't the low hanging fruit when a thief wants to break in. \n\nAnd if someone does want to steal, they are not going to use a locksmith who could be a witness against them. They will simply smash and grab, or con their way on premises. \n\nAnd being a locksmith, if I wanted to break the law and make a key I don't need the original key to copy. I can cut my own key for most locks using a few simple tricks for pin lengths. But I wouldn't bother. Most residential locks can be opened in under 10 seconds by an amateur simply by raking. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
z9us8
|
If a woman's on birth control that stops her menstruating once a month, will she remain fertile for longer?
|
My girlfriend is on a birth control regime where she only menstruates once every three months. From what little I understand of fertility in women, you've got pretty much a set number of ova and once you run out, you hit menopause and can't conceive.
Since she only has 4 periods a year instead of 12, does that mean she'll hit menopause later?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z9us8/if_a_womans_on_birth_control_that_stops_her/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c62rt3o",
"c62skry",
"c62y5ld"
],
"score": [
16,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"That makes sense biologically (and is why nulliparity is thought to contribute to earlier menopause). However, this is not always supported by epidemiological studies. \n\n[This study](_URL_0_) found that history of oral contraceptive use significantly *increased* the risk for *early* menopause (defined here as prior to 49yo), while parity did not.\n > Ever-users of OC in our study had a mean age at menopause of 45.7 years (SD 6.00 years) while never-users' mean age at menopause was 47.2 years (SD 5.50 years).\n\nIt goes on to explain:\n > It is known that OC use and pregnancy disrupt the ovulation cycle. Whether this contributes to a later age at natural menopause is disputed. We found that ever-use of OC was significantly associated with early rather than later natural menopause. We have no obvious explanation for this finding, thus it is important that others investigate this. A Dutch cohort study found that ever-users of OC had a significantly later natural menopause than never-users (mean 51.2 years, SD 3.29 vs 50.1 years, SD 4.16; P < .01). In contrast to these findings, the Massachusetts Women's Health Study did not find an association between ever-use or duration of OC use and age at menopause.",
"A [recent study](_URL_0_) suggests that women may be able to create new eggs after all, challenging that belief that women are born with all the eggs they will ever have.",
"As far as I have seen in the literature, you are correct that women have a set number of eggs, however the way that most hormonal pills work is by preventing the release of the egg in the first place. Even women who get their monthly \"periods\" shouldn't be ovulating. However your body can't keep eggs in stasis forever so it still attempts to cycle them through normally. What happens is that when they reach a critical point in development in the ovary they do not get the hormonal signal needed to become mature eggs and so they die (atresia). So whether or not you menstruate you are still losing eggs over time. There may be a small difference in the number of eggs you lose, I'm not sure, but it shouldn't be enough to affect when you hit menopause. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21514918"
],
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/02/120229-women-health-ovaries-eggs-reproduction-science/"
],
[]
] |
|
476umw
|
Are there any biographies available about Native North Americans who lived before 1492?
|
In other words, is there a specific person who lived out his/her entire life in North America before European involvement, for whom there exists a written biography?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/476umw/are_there_any_biographies_available_about_native/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0ayvz3",
"d0b0env"
],
"score": [
12,
10
],
"text": [
"Because of the strong oral traditions in many Nations, it is difficult to find records of individuals, and the ones who do get recorded are those who have done something great, and they get wrapped into lessons and tales that it becomes hard to tell if the person existed at all. \n\nWere you looking for a story of the life of someone, or how someone would have lived before European contact? ",
"Well this may not fit your criteria very closely (or even at all, since his life was post-contact and you may or may not include Inuit in Canada under the term \"Native North Americans\"), but [Peter Pitseolak](_URL_0_) wrote a memoir that may be of interest. He opens with stories of his father's life pre-contact, contact, and the impacts of contact throughout his own life. The book is [*People From Our Side: A Life Story with Photographs and Oral Biography*](_URL_2_), co-authored by [Dorothy Harley Eber](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Pitseolak",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dorothy_Harley_Eber",
"http://www.mqup.ca/people-from-our-side-products-9780773509962.php"
]
] |
|
2e3bxv
|
if the metric system is designed to make for easy calculations and conversions, why wasn't the 60 minute hour changed to a base 10 unit?
|
Obviously there has been a lot of jokes about metric vs imperial lately and this crossed my mind. Conversions and calculations with time are just as difficult as any other imperial unit. Why didn't the time units get changed as well?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2e3bxv/eli5if_the_metric_system_is_designed_to_make_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjvn45v",
"cjvn4hq",
"cjvobv5",
"cjvq28u",
"cjvq6qi",
"cjwaahs"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
6,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[Metric time]( _URL_0_) is in fact part of the metric system. Its just hasn't become used in most people's every day lives.",
"time is always expressed in seconds in the metric system.\nor multiples, like milliseconds, kiloseconds, etc.\n\"Other units of time, the minute, hour, and day, are accepted for use with the modern metric system, but are not part of it.\"\n_URL_0_",
"The French tried, but couldn't get it to stick. When dealing with SI units, you are technically not *supposed* to use minutes, hours, days, or whatnot, but because the conversions to these units of time are so widely known and accepted, it is never that big of a deal.",
"A) 60 (prime factors 2, 3, 5) is more easily divisible than 100 (prime factors 2, 5). You can slice it into fractions more easily, making it more useful in everyday life. \n\nB) Our entire society is based on non-decimal time. A workday is 8 hours. A week is 7 days. If a week is decimalized to be 10 days, how does that affect the workweek? Do workers still get 2 days off per week, but now they have 8 days to slog through before the weekend instead of 5? If a day has only 10 hours instead of 24, how long is a standard workday - 3.33? Or 4? Or 2? All this would have to be figured out. All for the sake of taking a system that works fine and making it more mathematically \"pretty\".",
"science works in seconds. the rest is just useful for day-to-day stuff. \n\na base 10 system for time would actually reduce the number of factors, so you couldnt chop up and hour as cleanly if it were base 10",
"They tried it doesn't work. Why? Because our natural time cycles; day, seasons, year, don't line up nice and square. And our 60 minute system proves quite useful"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_time"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3oto53
|
how exactly is there a connection with binaural beats and lucid dreaming -
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3oto53/eli5_how_exactly_is_there_a_connection_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw0e7ly",
"cw0eyms"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"At least in my experience, first of all not all binaural beats do anything and secondly, they do not really get you to dream lucidly, they rather get you to dream more vividly, which makes it easier for you to write a dream diary (important step for lucid dreaming) and makes entering the lucid status more easily. But if you can't do it, binaural beats won't suddenly make you able to.",
"so the sound doesnt help u dream just remember your dream?\n\nthis is the description from the track i was listening to \n\n\"Using a complex pattern of binaural beat and isochronic tone frequencies dedicated to help you achieve good sleep and have lucid dreams, this 8-hour music track is divided into four unique sections. In the first 2 hours we've used frequencies that range from 3-13Hz (Alpha-Theta range) to help calm your mind and feel deeply relaxed. There is a pleasurable feeling of floating and it will give effects such as stress reduction, relaxed awareness, release of serotonin, and an induction to sleep spindles as your mind and body allows itself into sleep. It also contains triggers for creativity and imagery and access to subconscious images as you doze off.\n\nThe second and third sections contain more of the Theta waves, which are also present in dreaming, sleep, deep meditation and creative inspiration. As you have already fallen asleep, the binaural beats tap into your subconsciousness as your mind prepares itself into a lucid dream state. The music is more steady so as not to interrupt your sleep.\n\nThe fourth and last section returns itself to the Alpha range with a mix of Theta and Delta. This is where deep sleep occurs and more often than not, the dream state. There is a decreased awareness of the physical world. This section also contains the Earth Resonance or Schumann Resonance, which will leave you feeling revitalized upon waking up.\n\nIn order to achieve Lucid Dreaming, please research on different tips found on the web. Lucid Dreaming doesn't happen all at once, so patience is an important factor.\n\nWe also advise you to keep a dream journal near you. We hope you'll enjoy our first-ever 8 hour full audio track. Share with us your experiences in the comments section! We'd love to hear from you.\"\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
10g3el
|
Why do different viruses (HPV/Warts, Herpes) discriminate between different areas of the body?
|
Like the title says, why will a wart on your hands not be able to spread to anywhere other than your hands? Or oral herpes and genital herpes (which will occasionally cross-spread) do so very rarely?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10g3el/why_do_different_viruses_hpvwarts_herpes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6d5zhl"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"That is called as tropism, specifically tissue or cell tropism. Usually, there is a specific receptor on certain tissue to which the virus attaches (virus attachment protein). A typical example is the human immunodeficiency virus and its affinity to the T lymphocyte cells. \n\nHerpes simplex 1 exhibits tropism towards epithelial and neural cells, papilloma virus to cutaneous tissue and mucosal cells. Oral, plantar/palmar and genital warts are caused by different sub-types of the papilloma virus."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
15o7bu
|
What spoken language carries the most information per sound or time of speech?
|
When your friend flips a coin, and you say "heads" or "tails", you convey only 1 bit of information, because there are only two possibilities. But if you record what you say, you get for example an mp3 file that contains much more then 1 bit. If you record 1 minute of average english speech, you will need, depending on encoding, several megabytes to store it. But is it possible to know how much bits of actual «knowledge» or «ideas» were conveyd? Is it possible that some languages allow to convey more information per sound? Per minute of speech? What are these languages?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15o7bu/what_spoken_language_carries_the_most_information/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7o91s9",
"c7o927x",
"c7o98kq",
"c7o9oi9",
"c7o9pmn",
"c7o9pv5",
"c7o9u7c",
"c7o9wfp",
"c7oa2db",
"c7oa4gt",
"c7oa5uq",
"c7oaade",
"c7oadji",
"c7oaq8v",
"c7obb60",
"c7oblgi",
"c7ocfic",
"c7od9kc",
"c7oe2if",
"c7oeoez",
"c7ofn2z",
"c7ofr2i",
"c7ogf1u",
"c7oghjy",
"c7oh29e",
"c7oh99f",
"c7oj8j8",
"c7oogak"
],
"score": [
948,
5,
174,
2,
6,
4,
8,
23,
3,
2,
4,
83,
8,
15,
3,
5,
6,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"[Here's](_URL_0_) a paper on information density vs speed of speech, done by the University of Lyon. I am not sure how accurate their methods are, but they seem to believe that some languages convey more information per syllable and for 5 out of 7 languages, that ones with lower information density are spoken faster. Note that the sample size was only 59 and only compared how fast 20 different texts were read out, all silences that lasted longer than 150 ms were edited out as well.",
"I remember reading a couple of articles about this a while back.\n\nI tried to find the article, and I found it: _URL_0_\n\nHere's a link to a paper, too:\n_URL_1_\n\nBut I'm not a linguist. Maybe you should wait around for a more informed response.",
"When dealing with natural language (as opposed to 'heads vs. tails') it's quite difficult to count the information encoded in an utterance. Words have connotations, not just single simple meanings, and as protagonic mentioned briefly, there's more to a sentence than just the whole of its parts - pragmatics deals with the context of the utterance, the common ground shared by the interlocutors, prior discourse, and a bunch of other things.\n\nThe study linked to by Lurker378, while interesting, is notably restricted to reading a set sample text. It can't really tell us much about information-conveying strategies employed by native speakers under normal conversational conditions. And the one thing it *might* cue us into is that speech rates *might* differ depending on information conveyance rates. Shooting from the hip here, but it's possible that there might be a limit to information encoding/decoding in the brain that impels a cap on information conveyed over time via natural language.\n\nIt's a valid question, but do know that it's not easily answered, and anyone who provides a simple answer (\"Korean does it fastest!\") is oversimplifying or misleading you.",
"This is one of those topics best learned about in via audio IMO.\n\n[Lexicon Valley](_URL_0_):, a terrific podcast from Slate with the excellent Bob Garfield (of [NPRs On The Media](_URL_1_), my favorite news source in any medium) at the helm, did [a great episode on basally exactly this topic.](_URL_2_)",
"I noticed that with Latin it is possible to use a lot less words than we use to, but on the other hand a good writer like Virgil could also use 3 sentences just to say \"the next day\".",
"Whilst I have neither the qualification or resources to give a concrete answer, I found [this article](_URL_1_) on an artificially created language, Ithkuil. It was designed to be as minimal as possible whilst still expressing much information, and is an interesting read on that subject.\n\n[wiki](_URL_0_) and [grammar reference](_URL_2_)\n\n > A sentence like “On the contrary, I think it may turn out that this rugged mountain range trails off at some point” becomes simply “Tram-mļöi hhâsmařpţuktôx.”",
"I wonder how much metaphor plays a role in this e.g. Pyhrric Victory.",
"You might want to re-ask this on r/linguistics although you'll probably get much the same sort of answers.\n\nAs a linguist, I'd say the language I've worked with that has the most staggering amount of information density would be Navajo and related languages, but they're spoken quite slowly as compared to languages that indo-European speakers are used to. Generally there does seem to be an inverse relationship between semantic density and speed of utterance.\n",
" > Is it possible that some languages allow to convey more information per sound? Per minute of speech? What are these languages?\n\nSign language! No sound, no speech, all of the information.",
"could words like shit and fuck and other 'curse' words be considered a zip file language? where you wanna say so much, but its just faster to say !@#@$ and it conveys the message across.",
"Conversational English uses a lot of idioms; metaphors compared to other languages, which would suggest less information per syllable. That doesn't mean English sentences couldn't be formed which convey a lot of information per syllable, but in practice that's not the case.",
"I just read a [fascinating article](_URL_0_) about a synthetic language called Ithkuil, which aims to be \"an idealized language whose aim is the highest possible degree of logic, efficiency, detail, and accuracy in cognitive expression via spoken human language.\" Long, but highly relevant and recommended.\n\nFor instance:\n\n > Ideas that could be expressed only as a clunky circumlocution in English can be collapsed into a single word in Ithkuil. A sentence like “On the contrary, I think it may turn out that this rugged mountain range trails off at some point” becomes simply “Tram-mļöi hhâsmařpţuktôx.” ",
"I know you're looking for a succinct answer, but if you'd like to learn about this topic, I'd highly recommend James Gleick's [The Information](_URL_0_). It's not a short read (544 pages), but it answers your question perfectly, and gives a great background in information theory. Very accessible, and very enjoyable.",
"Possibly [Ithkuil](_URL_0_)? Probably not what you're looking for since it's an artificial language, but technically it is spoken by a very small number of fanatics. In any even the article I linked is pretty interesting.",
"Great podcast on the subject, which I think discusses the same research in other comments: _URL_0_",
"I believe sanskrit is highly compressed . Words like to,for,by,into,'s, hey,hi,hello does not exist in this ancient language .Also there is form between singular and plural. I can't exatly explain this . Translation of 10 words from sanskrit into hindi/gujrati/marathi/bengali(prakrit based indian languages) can create full paragraph of 30 words .",
"Even flipping a coin and saying heads or tails can carry more than one bit of information. How you say the word can convey things such as enthusiasm or boredom.",
"English haiku poetry is an example of this \"information-per-syllable\" differences between languages. The traditional 5-7-5 syllable creates/forces/ and/or allows for a far more verbose poem in English, than Japanese (ironically running contrary to a main cornerstone of haiku). ",
"One issue we run into with this is what I like to think of as 'auction speech'. If you have ever heard a professional auctioneer doing his thing, you know what I'm talking about. They can string together words at an ungodly speed (I lack data, please provide some if you have any). However the average person is going to really struggle with comprehending what it is that they are saying, as they cannot process that information so quickly. So it all ends up being dependent upon both the ability to interpret information at high speeds and the ability to speak very quickly, unless I misunderstood your question (which is not only very possible, but highly likely.)",
"The New Yorker has a piece about a guy that created his own language with the goal of condensing thought into as little space as possible. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Ideas that could be expressed only as a clunky circumlocution in English can be collapsed into a single word in Ithkuil. A sentence like “On the contrary, I think it may turn out that this rugged mountain range trails off at some point” becomes simply “Tram-mļöi hhâsmařpţuktôx.”\n",
"I'm no scientist but perhaps using programs like operating systems that have been translated into 100's of different languages - judging by how much data is required to provide the translation would be a good way to judge how efficient languages are (in a written form) this could also be applied to wikipedia articles and such things. \n\nJust a thought.",
"Didn't someone postulate once that the reason Germanic-language speakers had pretty much dominant success over Latin speakers was the information per sound?\n\n",
"The problem is one of definition; if a language relies more on context, it can convey 'more' information in less space. But we usually consider that to be a 'higher entropy' language. This is very important for things like machine translation, because it is very difficult to translate from a higher to lower entropy language (lowering entropy is always hard). Whereas the inverse is not so hard. Here is a specific example:\n\nJapanese (high entropy, context reliant): taberu?\n\nEnglish: Do you wanna eat some? Is he going to eat some? Is the cat going to eat it? \n\nThere is literally no way to tell from the sentence as given and it is a totally natural, everyday Japanese sentence. In contrast, each one of the English sentences could easily be translated into Japanese by a machine. It would sound stiff, but the meaning could be accurately conveyed. \n\nSo, although considered a high entropy language, Japanese is actually communicating *more* with substantially less, as it is simply relying more on inference and context.\n",
"Also take into account that different dialects or accents of the same language are not spoken at the same pace.",
"Bear in mind that when it comes to human language, 'information' is a difficult proposition to pin down. : /\n \n\n \n",
"As someone who has had to modify sites to accommodate the length of French text, I can say for sure that French is not the answer. ",
"If you look at some of the multi-language instructions that come with many products it seems that English requires less words/space than other languages. ",
"I'm going to add some information from the signal processing / voice compression world. Right now, the upper bound on the amount of information a voice can transfer (without regards to context) is approximately 350-400 bits per second (2.5-3 kilobytes per minute). This is of course beyond context, and can be narrowed down when limited to a certain language. [Lurker378's post](_URL_0_) links to a study which limits it even further, but I am not sure how effectively. \n\nAs for knowledge and ideas? When an ex girlfriend asked me \"remember us at our best?\", swirling through my head where pictures, videos, even conversations memorized; emotions, who I was at the time, who she was. The bedsheets in her grimy student apartment, the way her boobs looked when we were under the sheets. How we smoked pot in bed, what it's like to have sex when so high on hormones, love and pot. Each of these also has a context.\n\nThe amount sent depends on the listener; there are levels of recursion to depth of information, since we work not according to simple definitions like a computer, but rather through learning. Fire for instance; every baby touches something that is too hot, and is hurt. This sends a rush of dopamine into a very impressionable brain, causing further acceleration in the learning process. Next, when a child sees a fire again, he remembers that touching it hurt. But now he adds an added connotation; fear of pain. The learning process is very tiered, and it goes back to very early parts in the childhood and even genetically encoded information (as assumed by Chomsky about languages, for instance). So a single phrase can contain as much information as the brain processes in order to understand it.\n\nQuite frankly, we do not know enough to quantify this. We're laughably too ignorant as to how the brain actually works."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ddl.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_to%20appear_Language.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=fast-talkers",
"http://ohll.ish-lyon.cnrs.fr/fulltext/pellegrino/Pellegrino_2011_Language.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley.html",
"http://www.onthemedia.org/",
"http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/10/lexicon_valley_on_the_common_perception_that_some_languages_are_spoken_faster_than_others_.html"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ithkuil",
"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer?currentPage=all",
"http://www.ithkuil.net/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer?currentPage=all"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Information-History-Theory-Flood/dp/1400096235"
],
[
"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer"
],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/podcasts/lexicon_valley/2012/10/lexicon_valley_on_the_common_perception_that_some_languages_are_spoken_faster_than_others_.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/12/24/121224fa_fact_foer"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15o7bu/what_spoken_language_carries_the_most_information/c7o91s9"
]
] |
|
17inkq
|
bohr's theory of the hydrogen atom
|
Can someone explain that to me, because i dont get what the big picture is?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17inkq/bohrs_theory_of_the_hydrogen_atom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c85urfi"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, the atom was understood like a solar system. Electrons orbiting the nucleus. Bohr suggested that the electrons could only be in very specific orbits and light was emitted when it went from a high to a lower orbit and light was absorbed when it went from a lower to a higher. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2wswt4
|
Did Moses exist and was there an exodus of people from Egypt corresponding to the story?
|
Forgo all the mystical events I.e. the plagues and the parting of the sea etc. Just focusing on historical facts and records. Was there an event in or around Egypt that corresponded to the exodus?
If this is not the right venue then could you please point me to a subreddit where I can ask that question?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2wswt4/did_moses_exist_and_was_there_an_exodus_of_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cotvdai",
"cou2dkv",
"coulqlt"
],
"score": [
14,
42,
2
],
"text": [
"This has previously been addressed. _URL_0_",
"I strongly recommend (edit: [this video lecture](_URL_1_) is better than the one I initially recommended) [this video series](_URL_10_) for a synopsis of what's currently known and believed about the exodus and the hebrews. \n\nAs for further reading, try /r/AcademicBiblical:\n\n* [The Exodus (please help!)](_URL_13_)\n\n* [Did Moses write the Torah and why do atheist argue he didn't exist?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Is the scholarly view about the authorship of the Pentateuch and Isaiah due to a bias against prophecy? Or are there valid reasons why Moses or Isaiah didn't write](_URL_6_)\n\n* [Scholarly consensus (or majority belief) on the Bible authenticity?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [J, P, E, D, etc. is it still the scholarly consensus of the Pentateuch's composition?](_URL_14_)\n\n* [How do scholars determine the age and origins of Old Testament stories?](_URL_17_)\n\n* [Isaiah was written by multiple authors. How many other Biblical texts have multiple authors or which texts do you suspect have multiple authors?](_URL_8_)\n\n* [Was the Exodus a real historical event or how are we generally meant to understand it?](_URL_16_)\n\nThere's also a lot on /r/AskHistorians:\n\n* [Does the Egyptian history record the ten plagues mentioned in the Bible?](_URL_15_)\n\n* [Historicity of Moses and Abraham](_URL_11_)\n\n* [Is there any reference to Moses, the plagues, or the Exodus in Ancient Egyptian writings?](_URL_5_)\n\n* [It's often said that the Pharaoh in the book of Exodus is Ramses II. How accurate is this, and why is Ramses II the go-to for our conception of the historical Pharaoh in the Exodus?](_URL_18_)\n\n* [My Orthodox Jewish Rabbis, insist that the torah scrolls they read from (five books of moses) are exactly as they were written when given to the Jews by God on Mt. Sinai. Is this possible?](_URL_9_)\n\n* [Do we know who the 13 tribes of Israel were?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [Besides the Bible, are there other historical records of the Jewish being enslaved by the Egyptians?](_URL_7_)\n\n* [What is the oldest Biblical story that is also mentioned by non-Jewish primary sources?](_URL_3_)\n\nWhen you search a topic, use google instead of reddit. Try \"site:_URL_12_ searchterm searchterm\". You'll usually get a few hits. (Obviously substitute \"askhistorians\" with whatever sub you're searching.) And please pop in over at /r/AcademicBiblical if you have further questions! We only bite a little.",
"Ultimately you aren't going to get a satisfying answer because the sole piece of evidence is the biblical book itself, and so your take on the historicity of the sorry is more or less entirely dependent on your take on the historicity of the text, or even ancient texts in general. One person may consider important events like that would be remembered, and this we can take it as broadly accurate. Others think that such tales from very distant times are invented to serve the purpose of the tellers. Others think there is a kernel of truth surrounded by embellishment.\n\nPersonally I like Ian Morris' take: there is a memory of the highly multicultural world of the late bronze age, but we can't really say anything about the event itself"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1grzha/the_reality_is_that_there_is_no_evidence/"
],
[
"http://redd.it/2rl5ff",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x6TsppQ5UNY",
"http://redd.it/1w14og",
"http://redd.it/1zg4n7",
"http://redd.it/16cod5",
"http://redd.it/22fdp5",
"http://redd.it/2oqgdv",
"http://redd.it/2npt9q",
"http://redd.it/2tmewj",
"http://redd.it/2eyq82",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7wNyDP5N1HU&spfreload=10",
"http://redd.it/1cgw8l",
"reddit.com/r/AskHistorians",
"http://redd.it/2vmc2v",
"http://redd.it/1fhm2g",
"http://redd.it/1tvwsg",
"http://redd.it/2q19yt",
"http://redd.it/2q8479",
"http://redd.it/2sk7kk"
],
[]
] |
|
9ykt5o
|
How did chemists explain reactions before the discovery of the atom?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ykt5o/how_did_chemists_explain_reactions_before_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea26z0s",
"ea2bm02",
"ea3w480",
"ea41yph",
"ea42s0v"
],
"score": [
172,
77,
3,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"To put it bluntly, they didn’t. The first attempts at explaining the states and reactions of matter led to the postulates that theorized the existence of the atom, so they were mutually dependent. Reactions such as fire and the creation of alloys were found empirically, but never studied like they are now. \n\nThere were early theories as to what composed matter, such as the idea that all matter consists of fire, water, earth, etc. But such theories never tried to “explain” reactions other than saying that things were how they were.",
"Here's one example:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"Phlogiston theory states that phlogisticated substances are substances that contain phlogiston and dephlogisticate when burned. Dephlogisticating is the process of releasing stored phlogiston, which is absorbed by the air. Growing plants then absorb this phlogiston, which is why air does not spontaneously combust and also why plant matter burns as well as it does.\"\n\nSurprisingly accurate, if you ignore the nonsense.",
"The classical philosophers argued about three forces of life and other reactions: vitalism, purpose, and atomism. \nVitalism where objects and creatures had life forces and heat inside them and when that ran out they died or burned up (instead of the other way around).\nPlato spoke of forms which pointed to things life and objects doing what they did because it was their purpose and made that way.\nOthers thought of a mechanistic world of atoms and void, but with with them being of infinite shapes and sizes.\nSource; Life’s Ratchet be Peter Hoffman",
"Their explanations were very ambiguous. For example, there was knowledge of what an acid was before the discovery of the atom based on physical and chemical properties, but there wasn't an explanation of what an acidic molecule was like. So a reaction would be run and the scientist would say they made an acid based on testing the properties. A lot of the analysis of products was done by comparing melting point, acidity, relative reactivity, and sometimes even taste (!) to known natural chemicals.",
"Like many subjects, chemistry has evolved over time. \n\nInitially things started out as a kind of mythological understanding (i.e. ancient alchemy.) A lack of true understanding lead to people trying to turn various things into gold. We now know that you can't do that, but back in antiquity people had no idea. They knew if you mixed A with B you'd get C. So in theory, you could mix D with E to get gold. You just need to figure out what D and E were. \n\nThe ancient civilizations understood that everything was made up of stuff. Originally this was as simple as fire, earth, water, air. Then people started to understand that stuff was made up of other smaller stuff. The word \"atom\" comes from the latin \"atomos\" meaning indivisible or uncuttable. Atoms therefore became name for the smallest building block of everything. (We now know this isn't exactly correct. Atoms can actually be further divided.) We went from saying things were made of fire and water to understanding that there were other things (i.e. elements.) \n\nThere were varied explanations as to why certain things worked but no real concrete explanation. As time goes on, people start focusing on the *why.* Experiments were designed to test these theories. For example, wind. We can't really see it, but it is there. We feel it on our skin and see it move the leaves on trees. Well, why does wind move trees? It's probably not the breath of Zeus or the wrath of Athena. There must be something that makes the leaves move. What are those things? Atoms! What do those look like? There have been many explanations of this: Bohr, Rutherford, Thomson, etc all had theories. Continued exploration eventually figured out that atoms are positive centers with orbiting negative particles and so on.\n\nThe more we learned about the composition of the parts of compounds, the more we understood how they work. The more we understood the more we could explain.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nSo in short, they just kinda BS'd it. Fake it til you make it irl. If you want a more detailed explanation, grab any gen chem textbook. One of the first chapters in most textbooks will cover the discovery of the atom from the simplest models to the current quantum mechanical theory.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor example: Lead white is a compound that has been synthetically made and used since antiquity in white paints. The preparation for this compound has been described as early as 300BC by Theophrastus. Theophrastus' description says lead was placed in a vessel with vinegar and left until it formed a crust. The crust was then scraped off and the lead was placed back in the vessel and the process repeated until there was no more lead. The scraped off crusts were dried and powdered andddd bam! You've got paint pigment. Why does this work? They had no idea, but it's how you get white lead. Now we know it's a process called corrosion (aka the formation of a metal oxide.)\n\n & #x200B;\n\ntl;dr Fake it til you make it. Explanations were given based off the information of the time and evolved as the science became more understood. \n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phlogiston_theory"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3curlp
|
How do they determine the longitude on another planet?
|
So I am going through an immense Wikipedia rabbit hole session, ended up reading about the Soviet space missions and I'm currently at the Venera programme (Venus probes) but it tells about [landingsites](_URL_0_) of the probes and with that a geographic location.
Now I can imagine how they calculate the latitude on another planet (since that's basically a scale from pole to pole), but I can't think of a way to do this for longitude, because there aren't any cities on Venus to mark the 0° line (like on earth, Greenwich).
Can anyone explain this to me?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3curlp/how_do_they_determine_the_longitude_on_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cszdqfj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"For a rocky planet like Venus, the prime meridian is chosen to cross through some arbitrarily chosen reference surface feature, like a crater. The direction of increasing longitude is then measured in a direction opposite to the rotation of the planet about its axis. So, for instance, if you look down at Venus's north pole, then the planet rotates clockwise. So from the prime meridian, longitude increases from 0 to 360 degrees in the anti-clockwise direction (i.e., east).\n\n(Note that the convention of the direction of increasing longitude is for non-Earth planets only. Earth rotates anti-clockwise as seen from above the north pole. But Earth longitude also increases in the anti-clockwise direction.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Venera#Scientific_findings"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
1dh9ps
|
why is the tea party republican? why aren't they their own party?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dh9ps/eli5_why_is_the_tea_party_republican_why_arent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9qa2fv",
"c9qa7qj",
"c9qahgt",
"c9qahss",
"c9qe14n",
"c9qit52",
"c9qn9br"
],
"score": [
24,
16,
9,
7,
124,
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Because they need the establishment GOP votes to succeed. If they created their own party, Democrats would win every election ever since the Tea Party guys would vote for the Tea Party candidate, the establishment GOP guys would vote for their candidates, and Democrats would vote for the Democratic candidate. There are more Democrats than Tea Partyists and more Democrats than GOPists, but not always more Democrats than all GOP members.\n\nSince they're funded by the Kochs, Adelson, and other shady billionaires looking for more money, they have to have an effective strategy.",
"In the American system a third party isn't viable. If the Tea Party were to split off from the Republicans, they would either end up dying out (the more likely scenario) or kill off the Republican party, in which case the moderate Republicans would probably not follow them, and if they did, the party would basically look like it does now. ",
"Aethec and Tic-Tac are right, but as an explanation, the US uses a First Past the Post system (idk if you're an American or how much of our political system you know). That means that whoever gets the most votes is the winner of the election, no matter what. Third parties thrive in other countries because many countries have a proportional vote; if a party gets 10% of the vote, they'll get some representation, whereas in America they'll get nothing. And there are all kinds of other tools in other countries like instant run-off (you rank candidates, so if your first choice is very unpopular your vote will move from your first choice to the second). The US doesn't have any of those.\n\nSo it's pretty hard for a third party to break into the two party system. And a two party system is pretty inevitable, if one party breaks up another will take its place soon. Think of what would happen if all the conservatives were in one party and all the liberals were split between two parties. The conservatives would win every single election. If the liberals then merge (even though their ideology may differ to an extent) they can compromise and actually focus on getting a unified agenda passed. That means that parties in the US are divided into factions. For example, the Democrats have a bunch of moderates, but they also have a bunch of progressives. The Republicans have theocrats and libertarians, among others. So if the Tea Party formed their own party, the _best_ case scenario for them is that they never became popular and never did well in any elections. Because if they did do well, they'd sap most of those votes from the Republicans (who they are ideologically similar to) and the Democrats (who they are ideologically opposed to) would always win.\n\nThe kinds of people who vote or run third party are generally the ones who are fed up with both majors and refuse to compromise.",
"[This](_URL_0_) video explains pretty well, and is entertaining. What more could you ask for?",
"You and a bunch of your friends decide to vote on what to do this afternoon.\n\nYou want to play baseball.\n\nJimmy wants to play baseball.\n\nMike wants to play soccer.\n\nTommy wants to play soccer.\n\nJenny wants to play dolls.\n\nMary wants to play dolls.\n\nAnne wants to play dolls.\n\n3 people want to play dolls.\n\n2 people want to play soccer.\n\n2 people want to play baseball.\n\nIf everyone votes what they want to do, dolls wins.\n\nBut if the two people who want to play baseball dislike playing with dolls more than they dislike playing soccer, they can switch their vote to football and play soccer.\n\nThe Tea Party is like the boys who want to play baseball. They want to play baseball, but they will accept playing soccer over playing with dolls.",
"Republicans hijacked a libertarian movement.",
"The tea party exists as a reaction to Obama. Their wailing and moaning about the debt and deficit was non-existent when Bush was putting 2 wars on the credit card, pushing through an upaid trillion dollar expansion of medicare, and cutting taxes on the rich to the tune of 350 billiion a year. Its basically racist old white people and some young libertarian idiots.\n\nBut the old gaurd republicans saw it as an opportunity to rebrand. The tea party got astroturfed and is a de facto arm of the republican party, just a lot more conservative, crazy, racist and extreme on social issues. It is not like a great movement got hijacked. \n\nRepublicans just seized on a radical subset of people who thought that Bush was the second coming and could not stand to see the country being \"taken over\" by a socialist darkie. \"We want our country back\" was their rallying cry. Back from who?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1o37wh
|
Did the Japanese ever repulse an island invasion by the US during WWII?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o37wh/did_the_japanese_ever_repulse_an_island_invasion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccofhzw"
],
"score": [
131
],
"text": [
"No. After the initial Japanese victories in the Pacific War, the United States won every major campaign and battle it entered. Even those cases where the Japanese scored tactical victories were strategic losses. Japan lacked the steel to make good its naval losses, and its cadres of experienced pilots were consumed in battle, making its carriers steadily less effective. The tensest point might have been the Japanese naval victory in the Battle of Savo Island, two days after the Allied landing on Guadalcanal; however, the Japanese did not press their advantage. They might have pulled off a victory there with luck and determination. Even so: it wouldn't have delayed the war long, because a Japanese victory at Guadalcanal would have simply fed the Allied strategy of attrition. \n\nThroughout the Pacific war, the United States brought to bear significant and growing advantages in resources and technology. Japanese air and naval forces became increasingly unable to contest American mobility and logistics. The Americans had the ability to dictate the day of battle, with combined-arms support that the Japanese simply could not respond to. \n\nThe Americans were also able to bypass or \"leapfrog\" many of the more difficult targets; thousands of Japanese soldiers were simply stranded across the Pacific. For instance, the island of New Britain was held by 100,000 Japanese soldiers. An invasion would have been risky and extremely costly. Allied bombers neutralized the island's ports and airfields, leaving it surrounded by a ring of air bases. Limited offensives continued throughout the war, and the Japanese bases there were bombed in training missions for new Allied aircrews. When Australian troops accepted the island's surrender at the end of the war, there were still almost 70,000 Japanese soldiers there.\n\n*Edit: conflated Rabaul with New Britain*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ttp4l
|
Bacteria can only live at certain temperatures, so when I eat cooked meat, am I eating a lot of dead bacteria? If not where do they go?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ttp4l/bacteria_can_only_live_at_certain_temperatures_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co2j029"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Yes you are. Or at least the chemical composition or chemical products of cooking that made them up. \n\nCooking kills bacteria by raising their internal temperature to the point where they die. \n\nDepending on the process and the temperature, the cell walls of the bacteria can rupture, they can carbonize and effectively turn to carbon char, they can just sit there as a dead cell, or they could be partially digested by enzyme or other chemical processes that destroy and/or dissociate the chemicals that compose them. \n\nSome of those constituents, such as water, could boil off or be washed out in the cooking water or oil in the frying pan or \"burn\" into carbon dioxide, and others will simply go into your mouth and be digested same as any other food.\n\nFinally, if you're eating leftovers or rare meat products, or eating meat that's been sitting out for a while, you're eating live bacteria too. But your body's digestive systems can easily handle most types of live bacteria without any trouble, it's only certain ones that cause problems, so that's usually nothing to worry about."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
50cliw
|
why is it that lead in paint is harmful, but the 40% lead in solder material isn't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/50cliw/eli5_why_is_it_that_lead_in_paint_is_harmful_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d73071s",
"d7309t8"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Lead in solder is harmful. There just aren't many alternatives. Lead free solder does exist, but it has a tendency to \"whisker\" which can create shorts that damage parts. ",
"Large areas are covered with lead paint, often where there's lots of casual contact and rubbing off onto people. As lead paint ages, it crumbles into flakes (sometime very tiny) and even rubs off as powdered lead, which is easily eaten or inhaled.\n\nMost people don't come into direct contact with lead in solder since it's usually enclosed in some sort of box (so people don't get shocked, or electronics don't get shorted out), and it simply doesn't flake off where is gets on and into people like the lead in paint.\n\nPaint = uncontained, lots of casual exposure\nSolder = contained, little to no exposure"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
17l4cr
|
what is the "cursive writing" thing i keep reading and what is the big deal about it?
|
I gave it a google and is cursive writing like this?
_URL_0_
(I'm from Belgium and here everyone writes like this)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17l4cr/what_is_the_cursive_writing_thing_i_keep_reading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c86hspd",
"c86inxx"
],
"score": [
9,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, that's cursive, in contrast to \"print\".\n\n[Here are some examples](_URL_0_)\n\nIn the USA, kids usually learn cursive around ages 7-10, and print before that.",
"Cursive writing doesn't look like that. Sure, the individual letters do, but you can't really call it cursive if it isn't all joined up. You don't get the full picture unless we see an actual example of writing.\n\nI don't know what the deal is with Belgium and cursive writing, or continental Europe in general. All I know is how Americans and the British deal with it. In the UK, cursive writing is synonymous with \"joined-up\" writing. Joined-up writing is just writing with all the letters joined together. They don't lift their pen for every letter. It's very simple.\n\n*American* cursive, on the other hand, is quite different. Schools teach a *very specific* cursive that is quite strict, and they start it from the fourth grade. All work *must* be cursive for it to count. They emphasized that in college, you *have* to write in cursive. However, by the end of middle school, American children have already stopped. \n\nThis isn't because \"Americans are so dumb lol\". It's because the specific way they teach it (or taught it, at least) was so specific that they didn't allow any deviance from the model, or else it wouldn't be \"proper cursive\". We learned it *after* we learn print-writing, so it doesn't come across as natural anyway, and the rest of society doesn't *use* cursive anyway. It's more difficult to read. \n\nThe controversy is whether it's worth teaching cursive so much in a society where no one uses it anymore. Keep in mind that it takes up a *lot* of teaching time, and slows down the class significantly when it comes to doing homework and tests, etc. Time that could be spent teaching math or science."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTq0-h3UadXthKOFJXIQgSsot5m3tq2fT8cm7zUxkoIwoiR6FV9"
] |
[
[
"http://www.guesthollow.com/homeschool/printables/files/handwritingsamples.gif"
],
[]
] |
|
2k42hf
|
What were the geographical boundaries of the "Old West?" Would we see "cowboy culture" in Canada? Mexico? The Caribbean?
|
I use "cowboy culture" for lack of a better term, but I don't necessarily mean actual cattle drovers. I mean (to the extent the following examples even properly define the "Old West") the boomtowns and settlements, the six-shooters and ten-gallon hats, the conflicts with/fear of natives, and the trade with more cosmopolitan areas. I'm relatively aware of what was going on in the mid-late 19th-Century in the Southwestern U.S., but how far did that culture extend? Would it be similar in a rural town in, say, Cuba?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2k42hf/what_were_the_geographical_boundaries_of_the_old/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clhroy5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I can speak for Canada a bit, having grown up in a cattle town. We have plenty of cowboy culture, especially in my home province of Alberta.\n\nFor most of the our province's history, our main industries were agriculture and ranching, and even today, they are second only to oil and gas.\n\nAlthough a lot of the cowboy culture has faded, many of the values remain. Rodeo still thrives in Canada, centred around the Calgary Stampede and many other rural rodeos. We also have our own rodeo sport, chuck wagon racing, which I actually have a lot of family competing in. It's the main event here, but to my knowledge, has never caught on elsewhere.\n\nFor the most part, Canada's cowboys resemble the American variety. This is because borders were basically meaningless back in our frontier days. One big difference might have been gun laws. In Canada, the North West Mounted Police (the first mounties) enforced strict laws on where guns went. It was illegal to carry a gun in most towns, especially during the Klondike gold rush. Another difference was the lack of Mexican cultural influences, slavery, and the American civil war. The first cowboy in Alberta, the man who brought cattle to the province, was actually a freed slave from the states named John Ware.\n\nThe native population was never as violent as it is depicted in the states. They were relegated to reserves fairly early. When the Calgary stampede first opened, the natives were actually included in the festivities and events. Before that, their admission into the city was very regulated.\n\nThe gold rush in the Yukon and the whiskey trade brought a lot of 'old west' culture to Canada as well. Canadian prohibition was never as strict as it was in the states, so lots of boot leggers out west here smuggled whiskey and rye across the border to serve Americans.\n\nSmaller populations and in turn less government and industry meant that the cowboy era in Canada started and ended a little later than in the states, but it was basically a branch of the same tree. It was all the frontier 'old west', and then somebody drew a line through it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3g8p4m
|
How did the Native American tribes in the western portion of the U.S. get firearms, and when did these tribes first come into contact with firearms?
|
I know the tribes on the eastern seaboard got them from the British. From whom did the western tribes get them?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3g8p4m/how_did_the_native_american_tribes_in_the_western/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctw3o5n"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"With the exception of the unwieldy, unreliable early firearms that might have been brought to the Plains by the Coronado *entrada*'s [search for Quivira in 1540-1542](_URL_0_), the Plains nations would have started to regularly see firearms in the mid-seventeenth century. While horses flowed up from Mexico, or through mission communities in New Mexico, the Spanish tended to avoid supplying their Native American neighbors with firearms. When Iroquois raids caused the westward Algonkian-Huron diaspora, the refugees and their French allies brought firearms to the Upper Mississippi watershed. The French provided firearms to the Algonkian and Huron, who then used them to carve out some territory among the Quapaws, Poncas, Omahas, and Eastern Sioux. While the Sioux naturally fought against the Fox, Potawatomi, Ottawa, Kickapoo, and Miami immigrants, the Hurons tried to stem the flow of firearms to the Plains in an effort to maintain their advantage. They nurtured hostilities between the Plains nations and the French to maintain their favored trading status, though gradually the weapons made inroads into the interior of the continent. \n\nFurther south the Osages, pushed west by the reverberations of contact, remade themselves as the trade middlemen on the doorstep of the Plains. They used an alliance with the French to secure firearms, then used those weapons against Wichitas, Pawnees, and Caddos further west to raid for horses and captives. They blocked the westward expansion of firearms, in 1719 a visitor to the Wichita saw only half a dozen firearms even though the residents were eagerly trying to purchase more. The Osage were so powerful they even started attacking French traders when they encroached on their lands. When the Comanches-Wichita-Pawnee peace was struck in the late 1740s they were able to purchase weapons and go on the offensive against the Osage. The overall access to firearms on the frontier decreased during the Seven Year's War, but many of the shocks of contact, including the introduction of the horse, the gun, and the displacement of nations to the east, were already transforming the Eastern Plains. \n\nObviously, this is just a brief introduction to the politics of trade on the doorstep of the Plains. Calloway's *One Vast Winter Count: The Native American West Before Lewis and Clark* is a great resource if you would like to learn more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Francisco_V%C3%A1zquez_de_Coronado#/media/File:Coronado_expedition.jpg"
]
] |
|
3m79y0
|
why can we use controllers with pcs but not keyboard and mouse with consoles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m79y0/eli5_why_can_we_use_controllers_with_pcs_but_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvckejn",
"cvcnstr",
"cvconto",
"cvcsrda",
"cvct11a"
],
"score": [
32,
5,
8,
25,
3
],
"text": [
"Consoles can use a mouse and keyboard. Almost any USB mouse/kb will plug in and function with modern consoles. You can type messages, browse the web, etc.\n\nSome games do support kb/m on console: Counterstrike and War Thunder for example.\n\nMany games don't just because it takes extra effort to program for, and the kb/m has a distinct advantage in many game types that makes it unfair.\n\nTL;DR: It's extra work and an unfair advantage, but kb/m can be used on consoles and on certain console games.",
"It all depends on whether support is there. On PS2 I am able to play Dirge of Cerberus: FF7 with a keyboard and mouse. On PS3 I am able to do the same with Unreal Tournament 3. If the game supports it, you're good. ",
"For the gaming factor at least, KB+M isn't allowed on most console titles because of the precision they offer over controllers. It wouldn't really be an even playing field. On PC, pretty much everyone uses KB+M, but you can choose to use a controller if you wish, though it will be a bit less accurate.",
"Microsoft did a study back in 2010, because they were considering adding keyboard and mouse support to the xbox. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe controller people lost so bad that it would be totally unfair if they were matched up together. So Microsoft abandoned the idea. \n\n > the console players got destroyed every time. So much so that it would be embarrassing to the XBOX team in general had Microsoft launched this initiative.",
"Because it will be too obvious that is a lesser PC after all. They want you to think that consoles are specialized hardware black boxes to run games. \n\nAlso KB/Mouse doesn't fit in a living room."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.gamesradar.com/pc-gamers-destroyed-console-gamers-in-tests-says-voodoo-pc-founder/"
],
[]
] |
||
5z4hza
|
Why does there seem to be such a lack of emphasis on the Pacific Theater of WWII in American pop culture and History?
|
I've been reading a number of books lately on the Pacific theater. The fighting was intense, perhaps even more so than the European theater. The Japanese atrocities on the conquered peoples and POW's were eye-opening to me largely because in history classes we focused mostly on Hitler and the holocaust and glanced over America's role in the Pacific. Since reading about various battles I've also started looking for movies and TV shows, but they seem to be few and far between post 1950's. So my question to the historians here is why is the Pacific theater seemingly glossed over in terms what is taught in schools and what is represented in popular film and TV?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5z4hza/why_does_there_seem_to_be_such_a_lack_of_emphasis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dev9jsn"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I would wager it has partially to do with the different racial components of the two theaters, and the subsequent disparity in the \"goodness\" of the war in each.\n\nThe fight against the Nazis has been continuously held up since the 1940s as the epitome of a \"good war.\" American soldiers fought and died to liberate Western Europe from a Fascist anti-democratic foe, which has been consistently depicted in propaganda and pop culture as evil incarnate (an example of the latter might be the frequency with which Nazi soldiers are the bad guys in FPS video games, whose deaths in the games are never controversial). The eugenicist and genocidal practices of the Nazis lend greater support to this idea of the European theater being a fight between the forces of good and evil (this is helped by the fact that American eugenicist and anti-Semitic policies in the 1930s and 1940s are largely unknown or under-known by Americans today). \n\nMeanwhile, the American war in the Pacific is not nearly so easily depicted in stark moral terms. Although the war was initiated by a sneak attack carried out by Japan on the US, the American response to that attack was to corral the West coast's Japanese American population, citizens and noncitizens alike, into concentration camps. Furthermore, American propaganda throughout the war depicted the Japanese in explicitly racist terms; while the war in Europe was depicted as a fight between freedom and fascism, the war in the Pacific was depicted as a fight between white democracy and Oriental despotism. Finally, anti-Japanese sentiment lingered for decades after the war ended, while anti-German sentiment almost immediately disappeared at the beginning of the Cold War.\n\nIn short, it has been relatively easy to depict WWII in Europe in terms of stark moral and political contrast (good vs evil, democracy vs fascism, liberty vs tyranny), while America's war with Japan was much more controversial, both in terms of its conduct (concentration camps, racist propaganda) and its aftermath (lingering anti-Asian sentiments and violence). Given this state of affairs, pop culture more readily focuses on the European Theater while paying much less attention to the Pacific. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
812nw0
|
Can someone with a weakened immune system receive a vaccine?
|
I was wondering if the weakened form of the virus would have free reign over the body due to the fact that the immune system can't do away with it.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/812nw0/can_someone_with_a_weakened_immune_system_receive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv08hxx"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"It depends on the vaccine and illness.\nLive vaccinations tend not to be given to persons with compromised immune systems (e.g. yellow fever vaccination), whereas some inactivated viral vaccinations may be given to those with weakened immune systems (depending on their clinical condition).\n\nFor example, it might be preferable for someone on long term immune modulating drugs to receive a flu vaccine to prevent them developing full on flu.\n\nIn the UK we use \"the green book\" for vaccine requirements and contraindications as well as taking into account an individual's clinical picture."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
krqch
|
Could we in theory create Saturn style rings around the Earth, for shits and giggles.
|
If I recall correctly the rings around Saturn are supposed to be caused by a moon or something that exploded and all the pieces and rocks and ice circling it and forming what appear to be rings.
Would it be possible to do the same thing to Earth, intentionally, how would we go about this? And would there be any negative consequences (I'm pretty sure that there'd be enough of a gap between the surface and the rings for it to not interfere with satellites or planes or anything)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/krqch/could_we_in_theory_create_saturn_style_rings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2mnrof",
"c2mns45",
"c2mnuyo",
"c2mo0ow",
"c2mo3vm",
"c2mo8ly",
"c2moc48",
"c2mocv9",
"c2mqtzl",
"c2msq0e",
"c2mnrof",
"c2mns45",
"c2mnuyo",
"c2mo0ow",
"c2mo3vm",
"c2mo8ly",
"c2moc48",
"c2mocv9",
"c2mqtzl",
"c2msq0e"
],
"score": [
35,
249,
7,
3,
8,
4,
27,
17,
5,
3,
35,
249,
7,
3,
8,
4,
27,
17,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The only thing I know about this is [The Roche Limit](_URL_0_). \n\n > is the distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's tidal forces exceeding the first body's gravitational self-attraction. Inside the Roche limit, orbiting material will tend to disperse and form rings, while outside the limit, material will tend to coalesce. \n\nAll you have to do is figure out Earth's Roche Limit, as a first step. Then figure out a mechanism to bring the Moon there. Then its' a long waiting game.",
"Some people theorize that the Earth may have had a ring or two in it's past, and that they caused massive climate changes. Because of the Earth's significant tilt, a ring would cause winters to be far colder due to the increased shade. It is also thought that the Earth could not hold on to a ring for more than a million years or so due to solar wind and interference from the moon.\n\nSource: [Sandia National Laboratories](_URL_1_)\n\n[Astroscience](_URL_0_)",
"If you send up enough space junk up there on the right orbits we will have rings, using reflective objects would mean we would need less material to see it with the naked eye. So it is possible, if we had enough money I think we could do it (1000 tons of metal filings would probably be visible and we could do that).\n\nWith that said, i think it would mess with satellites, its a lot of space junk.",
"Don't we have a ring now made of little tiny bits of something? (someone smart please come and say what those little bits of something are, I just read reddit)\n\n*Edit*\n[found it](_URL_0_)",
"There's a good image here showing the location of satellites and debris in Earth orbit: _URL_0_\n\nNow, the important thing to bear in mind here is that to maintain a stable orbit any object is falling towards the earth, so must be travelling sideways fast enough to 'miss'. If you want an idea of how this works I can thoroughly recommend going and having a play with Kerbal Space Programme - a free game which lets you play with launching rockets and reaching orbits. The physics is slightly different to earth, but the principals are identical.\n\nThe basics of the problem are that objects in low orbit have to be travelling very fast, and objects in higher orbit need to be travelling slower. That ring in the image of space objects represents the geosynchronous orbit - i.e. the altitude at which an object has to travel at a velocity such that it orbits once every 24 hours (meaning it sits exactly above the same point above the equator as the earth rotates). For all the other points, bear in mind that most of those points are in elliptical orbits, so occupy a lot more space over time than a single dot can represent.\n\nGenerating a disk is pretty straight forward - dump enough material up there in the right orbital plane and a disk will self generate. Objects moving too fast for their current altitude will prograde out, objects travelling too slowly for their current altitude will fall back in, over time generating a disc. There's a demonstration here. _URL_1_\n\nNot sure how you're envisaging a gap between the rings and the satellite range - as with anythign in orbit, it either progrades out and eventually we lose it to space, or it retrogrades in eventually entering our atmosphere.",
"On that note, would it be practical or beneficial if we built a ring space station around Earth? Would there be negative effects on the Earth? Or maybe something like Halo? I guess that's getting a little too carried away...",
"Until someone gets this done for you, watch [this](_URL_0_).",
"I'm not sure this qualifies as \"saturn style\" but an artificial ring around the earth was created in the early sixties.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[We already are.](_URL_0_)",
"Rings are pretty and all but in terms of practicality, that's like putting a minefield in orbit for anything else you want up there. The larger particles in these rings are still small and pretty well spaced out, so you could plan around it, but it would be a serious hindrance to earth-orbit spaceflight.",
"The only thing I know about this is [The Roche Limit](_URL_0_). \n\n > is the distance within which a celestial body, held together only by its own gravity, will disintegrate due to a second celestial body's tidal forces exceeding the first body's gravitational self-attraction. Inside the Roche limit, orbiting material will tend to disperse and form rings, while outside the limit, material will tend to coalesce. \n\nAll you have to do is figure out Earth's Roche Limit, as a first step. Then figure out a mechanism to bring the Moon there. Then its' a long waiting game.",
"Some people theorize that the Earth may have had a ring or two in it's past, and that they caused massive climate changes. Because of the Earth's significant tilt, a ring would cause winters to be far colder due to the increased shade. It is also thought that the Earth could not hold on to a ring for more than a million years or so due to solar wind and interference from the moon.\n\nSource: [Sandia National Laboratories](_URL_1_)\n\n[Astroscience](_URL_0_)",
"If you send up enough space junk up there on the right orbits we will have rings, using reflective objects would mean we would need less material to see it with the naked eye. So it is possible, if we had enough money I think we could do it (1000 tons of metal filings would probably be visible and we could do that).\n\nWith that said, i think it would mess with satellites, its a lot of space junk.",
"Don't we have a ring now made of little tiny bits of something? (someone smart please come and say what those little bits of something are, I just read reddit)\n\n*Edit*\n[found it](_URL_0_)",
"There's a good image here showing the location of satellites and debris in Earth orbit: _URL_0_\n\nNow, the important thing to bear in mind here is that to maintain a stable orbit any object is falling towards the earth, so must be travelling sideways fast enough to 'miss'. If you want an idea of how this works I can thoroughly recommend going and having a play with Kerbal Space Programme - a free game which lets you play with launching rockets and reaching orbits. The physics is slightly different to earth, but the principals are identical.\n\nThe basics of the problem are that objects in low orbit have to be travelling very fast, and objects in higher orbit need to be travelling slower. That ring in the image of space objects represents the geosynchronous orbit - i.e. the altitude at which an object has to travel at a velocity such that it orbits once every 24 hours (meaning it sits exactly above the same point above the equator as the earth rotates). For all the other points, bear in mind that most of those points are in elliptical orbits, so occupy a lot more space over time than a single dot can represent.\n\nGenerating a disk is pretty straight forward - dump enough material up there in the right orbital plane and a disk will self generate. Objects moving too fast for their current altitude will prograde out, objects travelling too slowly for their current altitude will fall back in, over time generating a disc. There's a demonstration here. _URL_1_\n\nNot sure how you're envisaging a gap between the rings and the satellite range - as with anythign in orbit, it either progrades out and eventually we lose it to space, or it retrogrades in eventually entering our atmosphere.",
"On that note, would it be practical or beneficial if we built a ring space station around Earth? Would there be negative effects on the Earth? Or maybe something like Halo? I guess that's getting a little too carried away...",
"Until someone gets this done for you, watch [this](_URL_0_).",
"I'm not sure this qualifies as \"saturn style\" but an artificial ring around the earth was created in the early sixties.\n\n_URL_0_",
"[We already are.](_URL_0_)",
"Rings are pretty and all but in terms of practicality, that's like putting a minefield in orbit for anything else you want up there. The larger particles in these rings are still small and pretty well spaced out, so you could plan around it, but it would be a serious hindrance to earth-orbit spaceflight."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit"
],
[
"http://www.astroscience.org/abdul-ahad/earth-ring-dynamics.htm",
"http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2002/earth-sci-fossil-fuel/ringworld.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/j93kw/antiproton_ring_found_around_earth/"
],
[
"http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/map-space-junk",
"http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/HowRingsFormAroundAPlanet/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT2sQ7KIQ-E"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford"
],
[
"http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roche_limit"
],
[
"http://www.astroscience.org/abdul-ahad/earth-ring-dynamics.htm",
"http://www.sandia.gov/news-center/news-releases/2002/earth-sci-fossil-fuel/ringworld.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/j93kw/antiproton_ring_found_around_earth/"
],
[
"http://discovermagazine.com/2006/nov/map-space-junk",
"http://demonstrations.wolfram.com/HowRingsFormAroundAPlanet/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UT2sQ7KIQ-E"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_West_Ford"
],
[
"http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/IOTD/view.php?id=40173"
],
[]
] |
|
1fkazw
|
In the American Civil War, was the Union victory at Vicksburg of equal, lesser, or greater significance than Antietam and/or Gettysburg were to ending the war?
|
More generally speaking, is the Eastern campaign of the Civil War overemphasized? Are there other battles or campaigns that don't receive the attention they deserve given their level of significance? Thanks for any answers!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fkazw/in_the_american_civil_war_was_the_union_victory/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cab8emi",
"cabwcvf",
"cac7fj0"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a good question and difficult to asses still nowadays.\nFirst Antietam, I believe it was never considered a big victory like Vicksburg or Gettysburg. It was still considered a victory, and good enough for Lincoln to issue his Emancipation declaration, but for the public in general it was obscured by the fact it was the bloodiest day of the war up to then, and Lee left the field by extricating his troops over night which made a Union victory for the standards of the time. But it was an inconclusive victory anyway.\nReaction to Vicksburg and Gettysburg was quite different. On one hand Vicksburg was well documented and expected, Grant had put the city under siege for months and everyone expected the outcome, the campaign was well covered by the newspapers. \nGettysburg on the other hand just happened, and engagement was foreseen sooner or later as soon as both armies were set in motion, they should clash at one point.\nReaction to both victories varied however. Grant's victory was much praised, Meade's victory in Gettysburg however seems to have received some criticism specially from President Lincoln himself. Meade was criticized for not counterattacking and pursuing Lee's army to destroy it. Pemberton's army at Vicksburg collapsed and surrendered, the place was lost and the Mississippi river closed to the Confederacy. Gettysburg on the other hand represented no territorial gains, Lee's army retreated (with heavy losses and never to regain the initiative) but kept its cohesion to fight again for 2 more years, the Union army of the Potomac was heavily battered too after 3 days of fighting, and overall the South did not seem to have perceived it as a major defeat. Yes, Lee was repulsed and it was a setback but he was not bowed. \nAt the end after all these battles nobody could see a clear end to the war, and they were right as the war went on for 2 more years. Professor Gary Gallagher argues around it extensively.\nAnswering your question, Vicksburg seem to have had a greater impact on the American public in terms of victory perception. Vicksburg would also precipitate the rise of Grant as military commander in chief of all Union armies bringing a much needed change in the chain of command and a badly needed change in the Eastern theater and the overall Union strategy.\n",
"The Vicksburg campaign was absolutely huge for the Union victory. What it essentially did was cut off vital sections of the Confederacy from the rest of it. Furthermore, the fall of Vicksburg gave the Union a much easier route into the South in the western theater of the war. Think of the Mississippi River as a huge road into the South with Vicksburg as the largest defense of it. Once the city fell, the Union now had free reign to use the river as it pleased to get South. The victory was also a significant blow to the Confederate fighting force as 30,000+ soldiers surrendered and were no longer able to fight. In addition to this, Vicksburg was a huge morale blow to the Confederacy. The city of Vicksburg was one of the most heavily fortified cities in the Confederacy with several natural barriers that gave it the reputation of being impregnable, and when did fell, a huge blow morale-wise was felt in the CSA.\n\nThe importance of Gettysburg truly lies in the fact that it was the last time that Lee was able to take the war to the North. While Meade was not able to completely destroy Lee, the CSA would not be able to invade north anymore, and ultimately, the war became defensive for them. Furthermore, the idea that Robert E. Lee was an invincible general no longer remained intact, and the Union became encouraged to launch offensives on Southern soil in the east.\n\nImo, both battles act in conjunction as one giant turning point, as they take place only a day apart. I will say that Vicksburg holds a bit more significance militarily and strategically, in that the victory split the Confederacy in 2 and cut off vital supply lines from Texas and Arkansas. Aside from this, the victory and disabling of the Confederate army, gave Grant a huge amount of prominence which eventually led to him becoming chief commander of Union forces. Ultimately, Vicksburg split the CSA, cut CSA supply routes, and gave the Union an easy road south, while Gettysburg changed the complexion of the war from the North being on the defensive to quickly taking the offensive.",
"In recent decades there has been a torrent of criticism regarding the emphasis of ACW military studies. Shelby Foote for instance has repeatedly criticized historians for focusing far too much on the Army of Northern Virginia. Foote has also repeatedly said that the Confederacy itself focused far too much on Lee's army and not enough on the west, where the confederacy repeatedly met with defeat. Foote famously said that Lee \"was marching the wrong way\" when he set out for Gettysburg noting that Lee should have moved to relieve Vicksburg, or redeployed forces to Johnson's army. It is notable that the major Confederate Victory to occur in the West, Chickamauga, occurred with Longstreet's Corps having been redeployed to the West."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
16s2in
|
please explain utilitarianism to me like i'm 5.
|
I need to know what utilitarianism is for my upcoming LD Debate. Please help me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16s2in/eli5_please_explain_utilitarianism_to_me_like_im_5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7yulu0"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There's this Cookie Monster, and he's obsessed with getting cookies. Whatever gets him the most cookies is what makes him the happiest. So if by taking a cookie from someone, the Cookie Monster can get two cookies, even though the person you took the cookie from is losing a cookie, there's still a net gain of one cookie. \n\nUtilitarianism is that idea on a grander scale. Whatever causes the greatest worldwide happiness is the best thing to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5e70wo
|
what do ionizers in airpurifiers do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5e70wo/eli5what_do_ionizers_in_airpurifiers_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daa6sl3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It introduces a mild charge to the small particles in the air, which makes them stick to things in the room rather than float around forever. \n\nBut on a practical level with consumer devices...i cant actually tell when they're on or off so i don't think they do much. I leave mine off for the most part. I wouldn't factor the ionizer into your decision at all. \n\nI have cats, but I'm allergic to cats, so my allergy symptoms are a decent indicator of whether something works or not. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
72q0jx
|
how exactly are compounds named?
|
I’m so confused by how compounds are named, I don’t really get it. Why do some compounds end in -ate, -ide or -ite? Why does the first element sometimes end in -ous or -ic but sometimes it can be done like Iron(II) or Iron(III)? Why is it called Hydrogen PERoxide or Potassium PERmanganate? Why do some elements use the Latin name when naming, like Sn or Au?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72q0jx/eli5_how_exactly_are_compounds_named/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnkfm4p"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"-ide is the suffix of any negatively charged anion, eg. the anion of chlorine (Cl) is called chloride (Cl^(-))\n\n---\n\n-ate and -ite are the suffixes of some polyatomic ions. That's a really messy topic to get in to and some of the naming isn't always logical.\n\nNitr**ate** is NO*_3_*^(-), nitr**ite** is NO*_2_*^-\n\nChlor**ate** is ClO*_3_*^(-), chlor**ite** is ClO*_2_*^- (also there is **per**chlor**ate** which is ClO*_4_*^(-) and **hypo**chlor**ite** which is ClO^(-)...)\n\nSulf**ate** is SO*_4_*^(2-), sulf**ite** is SO*_3_*^(2-)\n\nPhosph**ate** is PO*_4_*^(3-), phosph**ite** is HPO*_3_*^(2-)\n\nWhich is which sort of just has to be memorised, sorry...\n\n---\n\n-ous and -ic have been depreciated but some syllabuses haven't been updated\n\n-ous is the lower of two oxidation states, -ic is the higher, and this gets applied to the latin name eg. ferrous is iron(II) and ferric is iron(III), cuprous is copper(I) and cupric is copper(II). Like I said, this system has been depreciated, IUPAC recommends everyone uses names like iron(III) chloride instead of ferric chloride.\n\n---\n\nperoxide denotes an oxygen-oxygen single bond, hydrogen peroxide looks like this: H-O-O-H\n\npermanganate is another polyatomic ion like the other -ate ones above...it is MnO*_4_*^- not to be confused with just regular manganate which is MnO*_4_*^(2-)...\n\n\n---\n\nAs above the latin names have been depreciated, but you'll still have to learn them...\n\nThe modern way is to write the oxidation state in brackets immediately after the metal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1a1xzj
|
I've read a little bit about the affects of THC on Cancer. Is any of this research substantial or is it just not known enough?
|
Here is a link to the article that I am referring [link](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1a1xzj/ive_read_a_little_bit_about_the_affects_of_thc_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8tcq9c",
"c8tqvj4"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The research done in this paper was done to cell lines so it was not quite *in vivo*.\n\n > One possible drawback could be that use of select CB2 agonists to kill tumor cells may also cause immunosuppression. Thus, further studies are necessary to address the relative sensitivity of normal and transformed immune cells to CB2 agonists in vivo.\n\nThe pathway they are testing here is very specific, so the researchers need to test it in a living specimen to see if they will get the same results. A lot can change from *in vitro* to *in vivo*. But it still is a cool study on THC. It was published in 2006 so there may be more modern articles",
"one thing to notice is that Jurkat cells do not form solid tumors. And that kind of rules out majority of the cancers as potentially targetable using THC for treatment. \n\nTHC research has been mainly focused on palliative care for patients undergoing chemotherapy or other treatments. A brief overview of the research done on THC's anti-cancer effects can be found on [NCI's website](_URL_0_)\n\nAlso, you can check out the research by [Donald Abrams from UCSF](_URL_1_). he is a big proponent of using marijuana for treating cancer and AIDS. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://mcr.aacrjournals.org/content/4/8/549.long"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.cancer.gov/cancertopics/pdq/cam/cannabis/healthprofessional/page4",
"http://profiles.ucsf.edu/donald.abrams"
]
] |
|
1dvem0
|
why can dishwashers both wash and dry dishes, but clothes washers cannot wash and dry clothes?
|
Seriously.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dvem0/eli5why_can_dishwashers_both_wash_and_dry_dishes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9u6zzo",
"c9u708m",
"c9u70ee"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"[They can. But they aren't particularly efficient at it.](_URL_0_)",
"Because clothes can't be tried as easily by just making them super hot like a dishwasher does. Since dishes don't absorb water, and they also don't burn.\n\nDual machines for clothes can and do exist, but they're more expensive, and more prone to failure. Since the two jobs are really quite different (and plenty of clothes can be machine washed but not machine tried) it just makes more sense to buy them separate.",
"They can. There are units that can do both. They're popular with small apartments. From what I've heard from my friends that have them, they take a long time and don't do a very good job."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.livingdirect.com/Haier-2-Cubic-Foot-Ventless-Front-Load-Combo-Washer-Dryer-White/HWD1600BW,default,pd.html?mtcpromotion=PLA%3EHome_Appliances%3ELaundry%3ECombo_Washer_Dryers%3EHWD1600BW&src=SHOPPING&gclid=CMWt4-q-hLcCFUJx4Aod8z8AiA"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3gnu1e
|
Are there waves of air on top of our atmosphere like waves of water on the surface of the ocean?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3gnu1e/are_there_waves_of_air_on_top_of_our_atmosphere/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu025no",
"cu0f97r"
],
"score": [
29,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, sort of.\n\nThere's no real top to our atmosphere the way there is a surface of the ocean - it just sort of gradually thins out.\n\nWith that said, though, both experience the same kind of [gravity waves](_URL_0_). Note these are not at all the same as *gravitational* waves you'd see around a black hole - similar name, very different phenomena. Gravity waves are essentially waves driven by a buoyancy force. In the ocean, you see them manifest as surface waves; in the atmosphere, they can sometimes be seen as undulations in clouds.\n\nGravity waves in the ocean break when they hit the beach. In the atmosphere, they tend to propagate upwards, breaking when the air gets so thin that it can't really carry them any more. There's good evidence to show that quite a few upper atmospheres are warmer than expected due to gravity waves breaking and depositing their energy at those locations.",
"Kelvin-Helmholtz wave clouds are formed when there are two parallel layers of air that are usually moving at different speeds and in opposite directions. The upper layer of air usually moves faster than the lower layer because there is less friction. In order for us to see this shear layer, there must be enough water vapor in the air for a cloud to form. Even if clouds are not present to reveal the shear layer, pilots need to be aware of invisible atmospheric phenomenon.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_wave"
],
[
"http://www.siskiyous.edu/shasta/env/clouds/bm1s.jpg"
]
] |
||
48o3y3
|
If computers/electronics short circuit due to water damage, and if pure water does not carry current, could an electronic technically run under pure water?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48o3y3/if_computerselectronics_short_circuit_due_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0mz3wh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes it's technically possible, but the hazard that water poses extends beyond simply shorting circuits. Water can be corrosive to a lot of the different metals and chemical on a circuit board and it can especially react when exposed to metal containing flowing current. However, a circuit would most certainly be able to survive much longer in distilled water than it would tap water. \n\nOne interesting fact about distilled water is that it is still slightly conductive! Even with 100% pure water, it will still be slightly conductive due to a thing called hydronium, however I'm not sure if this would be conductive enough to short any circuits. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ipsld
|
Why do wireless electronics only use 2.4 and 5ghz bands?
|
I hear all the time that there's concerns with 2.4ghz because of how noisy of a channel it is and 5ghz is often used because its less noisy. But even then 5ghz often gets brought with significantly reduced range and more power needed operate that band.
Why don't companies use bands I'm between like 3ghz? Couldn't it work if electronics like headphones were on a band in-between? Why not add more bands to WiFi routers so that there would be as much clutter on 2.4 and more range than 5?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ipsld/why_do_wireless_electronics_only_use_24_and_5ghz/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuij8gz",
"cuijqkk",
"cuikj5f",
"cuikn34",
"cuil5qm",
"cuild84",
"cuimufm",
"cuioiad",
"cuit4cj",
"cuit64p",
"cuj7bl1"
],
"score": [
244,
73,
8,
35,
3,
13,
8,
19,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The relevant regulation can be found [in this Wikipedia page for ISM Band](_URL_0_). Your short range consumer electronics are designed to operate in the ISM band because it does not require a license.\n\nThe Wikipedia page for [frequency allocation](_URL_1_) will also give you an idea of what the other bands are used for.",
"2.4 GHz and 5GHz are more-or-less globally allocated for non-licensed use, so electronic devices can be sold and interoperate with devices from other countries.\n\nConsider that many other RF spectrums are not the same in the US, Europe, and Asia. First example that comes to mind is FM radio, which uses a lower band in Japan (starting at 76 MHz), channels on odd frequencies (106.1 MHz) in the US, and channels on even frequencies in Europe (94.2 MHz).",
"It's part of the radio frequencies the government has deemed unlicensed spectrum. If you were to make a device on other bands of spectrum the license owner would have legal recourse against you. Your cell phone uses licensed band for LTE and they vary depending on the carrier to prevent overlap. ",
"Licensing. \n\nYou can't just broadcast on any frequency you choose. FTC and other organizations sell, monitor, release consumer frequency, and enforce certain rules and regulations.\n\n2.4 ghz, 5.8 ghz (not 5) and some things like 900 mhz are unlicensed. Moreover that's not the whole story.\n\nYou are also limited to certain channals and also a certain power output, in some cases how you manipulate the frequency and specifications. For 2.4 ghz often we use 802.11.\n\nWhy do we do this? To make sure people aren't interfering with signals, preserve some frequencies for special purpose and companies and many other reasons.\n\nNew mesh network I'm working on uses 900 mhz, 2.4 and 5.8 and forms a network automatically.\n\nSource:rf tech.",
"The 2.4GHz band is overcrowded and noisey as many more WiFi devices operate in this spectrum (802.11 b, g and n). As more devices are capable of using \"5GHz\" spectrum this will become more crowded. Some older smartphones only have a 2.4GHz radio and cannot connect to 5GHz hotspots. ",
"There is a crucial bit here:\n2.4 Ghz (which seems to be the most crowded) is common because it's unregulated - you don't need an FCC license, which makes consumer sales possible/easier.\n\nBut it's unregulated because when regulations were, it was already noisy. A microwave oven runs at ~ 2.4 Ghz. So they didn't bother regulating it further, since it was already the realm of uncontrolled noise. If you've never tried it, connect to an A/B/G hotspot with your phone, stand near your microwave and cook something, and watch your signal.",
"Because literally every other frequency is jam-packed with other things. Around 3ghz is probably satellites and WiMax already. The reason we even have ISM bands is that RF heating is _a thing_ in the form of induction welders, microwave ovens, etc. and there has to be a spot to put those in. So WiFi piggybacked on a slice of \"junk\" spectrum that's earmarked for heaters and the like and was never intended to become communications spectrum.",
"In plain english - Most of the other frequencies are being used or reserved by law for things like Cell phones, TV, Radio, Commercial and Government Comunications, Scientific research, etc etc.. 2.4 and 5ghz just happen to be a couple of the few \"free to use\" unlicensed frequencies (in the US at least, although there is a lot of commonality with international bodies and standards). \n\nHere is a graphic that shows how all the frequencies are allocated, and how much radio crap is actually filling the air around us. This is why spectrum allocations are so valuable and why companies like Verizon or AT & T pays billions when a piece comes up for auction, so they can add bandwidth to their mobile device networks \n\n_URL_0_",
"Governments carve up the frequency spectrums for different purposes. \n\nTechnically you can transmit at any frequency, up until someone from the government sends you a BIG FINE and/or takes your illegal hardware!\n",
"All the (correct) regulatory answers aside, there's also physics - those frequencies are high enough that small, easily-concealed antennas can still transmit efficiently, but low enough that they don't suffer from extreme attenuation due to ordinary building materials. So they're a good compromise in terms of wavelength. ",
"Lots of folks have commented about the FCC and US guidelines; however, it's the ITU that sets the World Radio Regulations found here:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEvery 3-4 years members of every country in the world descend upon ITU HQ in Geneva and discuss changes to the Radio Regs. It is a consensus organization. Once the changes have been agreed upon, it is then up to specific administrations to implement those regs nationally. \n\nIn the US the FCC is responsible for commercial spectrum and the NTIA is responsible for government spectrum. In most countries, they only have 1 agency for this, like OFCOM in the UK or ACMA in Australia. But this is 'merica so we need two.....\n\nAnyway, frequency bands below 6 GHz are HIGHLY sought after, they have the best propagation characteristics in the atmosphere. The unlicensed spectrum in 2.4 and 5 GHz was a compromise, it was enough to placate (then) the unlicensed people. \n\n\nTL:DR. The Radio Regs are complicated and full of horse trades and compromises."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISM_band",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_allocation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/df/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2011_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.itu.int/pub/R-REG"
]
] |
|
40sdzi
|
When was the last time a president was elected who was "filled in" during local ballots?
|
I am under the assumption that is how it was done before. When did it become commonplace for a National Committee to tell me who they think the president should be?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/40sdzi/when_was_the_last_time_a_president_was_elected/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cywofxr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Just to clarify, as I think I understand what you're asking about, but I want to be sure, you're talking about a 'straight ticket' ballot [such as this one](_URL_0_)?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/5JSCffJ.jpg"
]
] |
|
cotmzh
|
does the music you listen to in your childhood affect your future personality?
|
I was wondering because Im really into rap nowadays but i used to be into kpop/pop/dubstep. if i listened to rap my whole life would i be a different person?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cotmzh/eli5_does_the_music_you_listen_to_in_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewl5dzl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I truly think it has a great affect. I grew up listening to a lot of 60s and 70s rock, I still listen to it and it's shaped a lot of who I am and how I see the world. I love the lyrics, sound, expressionism and aesthetic. And I don't think I couldve gotten through the dark periods of my life without the wisdom those songs installed in me throughout my whole childhood. I sometimes feel as though I'm from that eras but reincarnated lol. Long live the hippie movement ✌️"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5r1uc6
|
Did the people actually believe that World War I would be over by Christmas when it started or is that a common myth originated after the war?
|
Much like Titanic being deemed "unsinkable", which was something that had become popular no earlier than 1930s.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5r1uc6/did_the_people_actually_believe_that_world_war_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd3vlgv"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"Not my area of particular expertise, but the answer to this is, perhaps annoyingly: \"yes and no.\"\n\nTo my reading the \"no\" camp-- that is, those who thought that a great power conflict in Europe would be a long, protracted conflict-- was relatively small but included some incredibly influential people involved in war strategy and planning on all sides including Kitchener, Haig, Falkenhayn and Joffre.\n\nThose who thought the war would be over quickly, I think, have actually been widely misunderstood. \"Over by Christmas\" was not some pie-in-the-sky, chauvinistic belief in victory for one's own side; it was the necessary outcome given the strategies and assumptions employed on all sides about the consequences and nature of the coming conflict.\n\nThe German strategic necessity for a short war is perhaps the best illustration of this. The logic of the German Schlieffen plan was that the war *had* to be over quickly. That Germany *had* to knock out France and then pivot to knock out Russia because a protracted two-front conflict implied a German defeat once its much larger neighbors were able to reach full mobilization. Adding Britain to the side of the entente made that logic even clearer. A British naval blockade of of Germany would not be sustainable.\n\nThe assumptions of British war planning was a precise mirror image of that German concern. British war planners believed that a kind of \"economic warfare\" would devastate Germany. That lack of access not only to global shipping but to global *capital* out of the city of London would rapidly leave Germany impotent.\n\nThinking from a more global perspective there were also influential thinkers who thought that the devastation involved in a great power conflict would be so great as to not be possible to continue for more than a few months. British Admiral Beatty wrote: \n\n > There is not sufficient money in the world to provide such a gigantic struggle to be continued for any great length of time.\n\nHe thought the war would be over by winter.\n\nJan Bloch's *The War of the Future in its Technical, Economic and Political Relations*, the abridged English translation of which was titled *Is War Now Impossible?* argued among other things that a great power war would bring about a kind of financial and economic apocalypse, and therefore couldn't be sustained. \n\n(Mind you, he wasn't entirely wrong on that front. Britain had to back away from aspects of economic warfare plans when it became clear that it would be economic suicide. The outbreak of war nearly destroyed global financial markets and easily ranks alongside 1929 as one the great financial crises of the 20th century.) \n\nIn that sense many British thought that the war would be short, but knew that the longer it went on the more assured of victory they would be.\n\nPolitically, as Hew Strachan writes in his chapter on \"The Short War Illusion\":\n\n > Both armies feared that general mobilization would give rise to strikes and demonstrations. They expected domestic disaffection to deepen rather than dissipate. After all, in the 1880s Engels had anticipated with relish the possibility of a war lasting three to four years precisely because it could create the conditions for the victory of the working class.\"\n\nLogistically it was not thought that basic supplies could be long enough maintained. Strachan again:\n\n > [The German general staff's] focus was less on the raw-material needs of the war industries than on the maintenance of food supplies. The initial involvement of the general staff in the issue of economic mobilization was motivated by the need to feed the army. Of related concern were the problem of liquidity (as cash was needed to buy food, fodder, and horses), and the interruption to civilian transport.... The possibility of domestic opposition to, and disruption of, its plans for war fed on the fear of socialism. \n\nI'm less familiar with the popular understanding of a short war at the soldier's level, but Strachan writes that it was pervasive, and actually continued throughout the war, such that the end to the war was perpetually thought to be only months away even years into the conflict and that this attitude was nearly universal. This was not the result of kind of war enthusiasm or innocence that was then supplanted by disillusionment, however, so much as popular inability to conceive of the long war.\n\nI think you'll agree that it's easy to see how many of these arguments might have seemed compelling, so I think it's also worth examining why they were wrong. As I already mentioned, one reason was that actually going ahead with total economic war nearly proved to be economic suicide for Britain and could not actually be carried out. German access to capital was reduced, but still possible via banking houses in neutral countries, which thrived during the war. Likewise, British shipping to neutral countries which then ultimately ended up in Germany was extensive.\n\nVirtually all of the \"knockout\" war plans or battles on all sides failed, including the Schlieffen plan, the British attempts to force the Straits at Constantinople, the confrontation between the British navy and the German High Seas Fleet, and so on. In the case of the Ottoman campaigns which I'm most familiar with, the British simply constantly underestimated Ottoman capabilities and overestimated their own.\n\nMichael Neiberg also makes what I think is a [great point](_URL_0_) which is that because virtually all sides viewed the conflict as defensive, there really were no clearly articulated strategic goals in the conflict. In Germany the scale of the conflict meant that in order to compensate for its losses, its war aims had [ballooned to such proportions that only a total defeat of the enemy could possibly accomplish them](_URL_1_) and made compromise impossible. It also explains why virtually every socialist party in Europe actually backed the war, thus delaying or averting the socio-political socialist nightmare that conservative war planners so feared.\n\nSource wise:\n\nHew Strachan's *The First World War*, specifically as I said the section on the short war illusion.\n\nNicholas Lambert's *Planning Armageddon*, and his lecture [\"The Short War Assumption\".](_URL_2_)\n\nThat Michael Neiberg lecture that I linked too is excellent and that entire YouTube channel, the WWI Museum and Memorial, is great.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iMBD71SB10E&t=43m0s",
"https://books.google.ae/books?id=2yYFn-SzIyQC&pg=PA125&dq=michael+neiberg+war+aims&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwj9_8jhuOrRAhWB2xoKHT4cAlwQ6AEIMjAF#v=onepage&q=michael%20neiberg%20war%20aims&f=false",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kp7jJ-POo90"
]
] |
|
2lup7k
|
why is it impossible to fold a piece of paper in half more than eight times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lup7k/eli5_why_is_it_impossible_to_fold_a_piece_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clybomk",
"clycbd5",
"clydxd6",
"clygtmh",
"clyn58l",
"clynpb9"
],
"score": [
74,
9,
2,
28,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For a regular A4 at eight folds its 256 layers thick and since the paper is so small at that point the amount of space needed to make a fold in each of the 256 layers there isn't enough room. \n\nHowever if you just get a bigger paper then you can, even though you are folding it by half each time. \n_URL_0_",
"Not true\n\n_URL_0_\n\nMight have been beaten since.\n\n",
"Additionally to the area problem with A4 you get different sizes of areas per layer.... \nif the innermost layer folds onto itself basically all the paper is a flat sheet with a very tight bend where the fold is. Now the outermost layer The bit on top and below the whole stack of 256 layers are separated by 256*thickness of paper. Which even if the thickness is only 0.1 mm will amount to about 1 inch... so you need more paper for the outer layer than the inner layer.. 8 fold is probably a value of experience where this problem makes the paper unfoldable ... also eventually the outer layers will rip... ",
"Something becomes unfoldable when its width becomes comparable to its thickness. It has to be long enough to span the circumference of the fold. A macaroni noodle is a decent example of something barely foldable. Paper is easily folded, because it is typically much longer than it is thick. If you fold the paper many times, though, its thickness grows exponentially, and its width decreases exponentially. The two becomes comparable very quickly. It happens to work out that 8 folds is the limit for a standard sized piece of a paper.",
"When you fold something you turn a flat piece of paper into two flat pieces of paper, and a semicircle section where the fold is. The length of this semi circle is about 3.14 times the length of the thickness of the paper before the fold. (1/2 circumference = pi * radius)\n\nOthers have said that each fold doubles the thickness of the paper, so after a while, and it also halves the size of the paper, after a certain number of folds, there just is not enough paper to even do the semi circle, so it is literally impossible to fold the paper further.\n\nHow many folds depends on the thickness of the paper and the original size of the paper. ",
"Fun fact: if you fold a piece of paper in half 103 times it would stretch across the observable universe from end to end. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRAEBbotuIE"
],
[
"http://pomonahistorical.org/12times.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1zobb1
|
if lockpicking guides and tools are available widely, why are so few houses lockpicked into?
|
You can buy a clear test lock for 20 pounds, that's pretty cheap, you could probrobally make that back by picking into someones house and stealing from them
Why do so few people do it? Are there no laws about selling lockpicking tools and guides?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zobb1/eli5_if_lockpicking_guides_and_tools_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfvffxs",
"cfvfgze",
"cfvg0uw",
"cfvhhvw",
"cfvhjx6",
"cfvi0pu"
],
"score": [
80,
14,
3,
10,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Its far easier and more efficient to break a window or kick in a door.",
"Houselocks are too hard for most amateurs. Plus lockpicks are considered burglary tools, which means they are illegal to carry on your person without a locksmithing licence. Additionally, some people have morals.",
"It's far more valuable to get in and out quickly, than it is to do so quietly.",
"Speed is the name of the game. [Lock bumping](_URL_0_) (where possible) is far quicker and less noticeable to outsiders than picking a lock.\n\nAlso, [about 30 percent of all burglaries are through an open or unlocked window or door](_URL_1_), so picking a lock isn't even necessary many times.",
"As someone who picks as a hobby (Yea, [toool](_URL_0_)!) The answer really is most of the people who pick have no desire to break into a house and those that do, would rather smash and grab than take the time to pick. Picking - it's fun to do while passing time and as a hobby, but even the simplest of locks can pose problems at times and there is no guarantee that you will pick it.\n\nAs someone that can pick, if for some reason I was going to break into a neighbors house - I'd pick popping a window with a crowbar or screwdriver. Window locks are even more vulnerable than door locks and a lot of people forget to lock them. \n\nPeople also don't maintain their locks - I pick with pretty much pristine store bought locks to play around with, but in the wild there are going to be all kinds of various gunk and junk built up in and on the locks that will make them harder. \n\nThat being said - in the US, probably 95%+ of the locks on homes are qwikset or dexter - even someone who has never picked before can probably rake open one of those in less than 5 minutes. \n",
"Firefighter here and I consider myself well versed in forcible entry as well as finesse-ible entry. \n\nIf we get called to a house for a house lockout I will size up the house and look for a weakness. You would be surprised how many people have open windows. Pop a screen and your in. If I can't find anything for a commercial structure we can do some through the lock and with minimal damage gain access to a locked building. \n\nThis is if we have time. If your house is on fire, we are breaking in quick. \n\nI think a burglar would take the same approach if he can quickly find a weakness he would take it. But walking around a house. Or bending down at a door lock for an extended period of would look suspicious. I think a thief would opt for the quick in and out kick of the door or quick pry with a crow bar. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping",
"http://www.safeguardtheworld.com/statistics.html"
],
[
"http://toool.us/"
],
[]
] |
|
21bbh3
|
Does light accelerate to the speed of light, or is it instantly the speed of light as soon as it is released from an electron?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21bbh3/does_light_accelerate_to_the_speed_of_light_or_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgbe66i",
"cgbr87f"
],
"score": [
30,
3
],
"text": [
"They don't start off at zero, and there's no acceleration. They start off at c and always travel at c. This is because, due to special relativity, any massless particle can only ever move at c, any other speed isn't allowed physically. Source: [adamsolomon](_URL_0_)",
"/u/SlimfishJim's answer is great, but I'd like to approach it from a different angle.\n\nSuppose you have a stretched out slinky. Maybe the slinky is nailed between two walls. You then make a triangular bend in the slinky near one end so that it looks like this:\n\n--^-----------------\n\nAnd you let go. You snap three photos, and they look like this:\n\nPhoto 1: --^ -----------------\n\nPhoto 2: -------^ ------------\n\nPhoto 3: ------------^ -------\n\nDid that wave take time to accelerate up to speed in moving from left to right? No! The wave isn't accelerating in the x direction at all! The individual piece of mass that make up the slinky are accelerating up and downward, like [this GIF](_URL_0_) (look at the red dot on one wave crest). There's no x-acceleration, only exciting parts of the metal further and further along the slinky, which looks to us like a wave moving left to right. How fast will this wave appear to move along the slinky? It depends on how heavy the slinky is, how tightly it's stretched, etc. The fancy word for this kind of thing is the \"bulk modulus.\"\n\nLight is similar to this situation. I have an elecromagnetic field (the analog to our slinky). I excite this field (maybe I wave an electron around). The excitation of the electric field causes an excitation of the magnetic field. This excitation of the magnetic field causes an excitation of the electric field. (Faraday's law at work.) Rinse and repeat. This repeated excitation of the electromagnetic field looks to us like a wave moving through space, just like the slinky wave 'moves' through space. And how fast does it do this? Well, like the slinky, it depends sort of on the \"bulk modulus\" of light. We call those things the permitivity and permeability constants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1der30/when_a_photon_is_emitted_from_an_stationary_atom/c9pldid"
],
[
"http://resource.isvr.soton.ac.uk/spcg/tutorial/tutorial/Tutorial_files/transverspointcurated2.gif"
]
] |
||
1v1gd5
|
when i'm hungover why do i always crave greasy foods like pizza rather than foods that are better for me?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v1gd5/eli5_when_im_hungover_why_do_i_always_crave/
|
{
"a_id": [
"censfhl",
"ceo140t",
"ceo2e3j"
],
"score": [
25,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Your body is depleted of various electrolytes and calories since alcohol zaps your blood sugar levels, and dehydrates you, fatty salty food is an efficient albeit unhealthy way to replenish those stores. ",
"FWIW: Fat is not bad for you, carbohydrates are.",
"_URL_0_ this is a really informative video about hangovers and greasy foods :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Soo4f6e1zCs"
]
] |
||
495n8d
|
why does this camera distortion happen?
|
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/495n8d/eli5_why_does_this_camera_distortion_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0p85pe"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"That is buffeting. Something is shaking the back of a digital video camera. You're seeing the effect of that vibration beat frequency interacting with the camera's 50-60Hz frame rate."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://vine.co/v/iWE9qI6QZI0"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2qpgsb
|
what do car fog lights *actually* do?
|
Turning them on last night in moderate to dense fog, I saw only an increase in visibility on the far sides (where my normal headlights don't cover), but a slight decrease in visibility in front of me due to the reflection of the fog lights on the water vapor causing the fog ahead of me to light up, washing out my ability to see farther ahead.
So other than for aesthetics, what are those things for?! A Google search has been surprisingly unhelpful, so I'm turning to the people of Reddit (probably physics majors) to help.
This might be a ELI25 thing though, which I'm up for.
Edit: thanks for your help. It sounds like at the highway speeds I was thinking about, those lights aren't supposed to be effective for what I was hoping. And yes, I was talking about the white front fog lights (I don't think I've ever seen rear-facing fog lights here in the US, so I didn't think to specify).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qpgsb/eli5_what_do_car_fog_lights_actually_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn894eg",
"cn895nw",
"cn89k8s",
"cn8ixgf"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Fog lights are not for you. It's for other drivers so that they can see you better!\n\nI always turn them on during heavy rain or fog",
"Fog lights produce a short but wide beam spread which illuminates the road close to the front of the vehicle. The driver can then see the edges of the road and slightly ahead without the blinding glare primary headlights would create during a heavy fog. \n\nMy guess is only those who have been in a very thick fog or snowstorm appreciate the value of having fog lights -- the rest just have it for show.",
"This is where EU and USA differ. In the EU the rear for lights are most important, so no one runs into you as you creep along. In the US only the front fog lights are important so you don't need to slow down in your charge into the future ",
"Fog lights are an optional second set of front headlights that aim downwards so you can see the road about 10 feet ahead in poor visibility."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
edvhss
|
is it true that consuming your own species' flesh can cause madness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/edvhss/elif_is_it_true_that_consuming_your_own_species/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fblig25",
"fblkmal",
"fblmgip"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I think you’re thinking of Kuru. Here’s the definition:\n\nKuru is a very rare disease. It is caused by an infectious protein (prion) found in contaminated human brain tissue. Kuru is found among people from New Guinea who practiced a form of cannibalism in which they ate the brains of dead people as part of a funeral ritual.",
"When humans use animals for food, they use what they think are the best parts. Some bright spark had the idea that the leftovers - the parts we didn’t want to eat (nervous system tissues) - could be fed back to the animals as a protein supplement.\n\nHowever, what they didn’t realise was an organism (prions) that caused certain diseases (BSE in cows), could survive the standard treatment process and get into the food chain.\n\nOver time, it became clear that these prions destroyed the brains of the animals that were eating the protein supplement. This brain damage caused the animals to act unnaturally, and the lay terms similar to “mad cow disease” became popular.",
"Its not so much flesh, it's brain. \n\n\nSo there are these really scary things called \"prions\". They are pretty much a copy of proteins that your body makes, but they get jumbled up and then start jumbling up all the other copies of that protien that they come in contact with. \n\nThere are a few different prion diseases humans can get, and they all have terrible symptoms, there is no cure, and you will %100 die if you have it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ct6wt
|
does a person who has unprotected sex for 15 seconds have the same exposure to sti's that a person who has unprotected sex for 15 minutes?
|
Assume person A stops and puts on a condom whereas person B just says yolo.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ct6wt/eli5_does_a_person_who_has_unprotected_sex_for_15/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csyown5",
"csyox87"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"No, person B has much more exposure to the STI. However, depending on the STI and whether the other person is actively showing symptoms, 15 seconds and 15 minutes might not make much of a difference in terms of whether or not the person gets infected.",
"I want to say yes and no. It's like the classic 5 second rule, when you drop that piece of honey ham on the ground bacteria basically spontaneously transfers. The transfer won't be as severe if you pick it up immediately, the longer it sits the worse it will get. Moral, protect yourself, don't do people with sti's"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
aggsvf
|
nyquist theorem perfect signal reproduction
|
I understand the concept, and have read the past posts on this topic. The part I can’t seem to find explained, is the shape of the derived wave between sampled points. If a 1khz sine wave is sampled using a sample rate of 2khz, and the sampled points are at the peak (1) and trough (-1), if a line is drawn between the points, would this not reproduce a saw wave? Is there some type of assumed curvature
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aggsvf/elif_nyquist_theorem_perfect_signal_reproduction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee665w9",
"ee76pry",
"ee8c65s"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The key element you are missing is the Nyquist limit. For perfect reconstruction the signal must have all frequencies at less than half the sampling rate. This limiting of the frequencies guarantees that only one continuous wave could have produced those samples. In the case you mentioned of sampling a sine wave at the peaks and troughs (which doesn't actually quite meet the Nyquist limit) cannot have been produced by a saw tooth wave. This is because a saw tooth wave would have very frequencies exceeding the Nyquist limit. A saw tooth wave isn't continuous either for that matter. ",
" > Is there some type of assumed curvature\n\nThere is usually a low pass filter on the analog circuits to avoid aliasing. The filter's performance is very important. ",
"The digital to analog convertor will adjust the output at the beginning of each sample, and hold it till the beginning of the next sample, creating a stairstep pattern. Any waveform, including this stairstep can be reconstructed by adding sine waves together. The frequency of the sine waves needed to produce the sharp jumps from one sample to the next will be far above the Nyquist frequency. Those frequencies were never in the original signal, so you want to cut them out, which the DAC does with a lowpass filter. That filter will (theoretically) roll off all frequencies above the Nyquist frequency. If you look at the resulting output, it will look (theoretically) identical to the input signal before you digitized it.\n\nI saw a video where someone used a signal generator and an oscilloscope to compare the signal from the generator and the one being replayed from the sound card. They were basically the same even though he was able to show the stairstep pattern in his digital audio workstation. That's why when vinyl bugs tell you that digital sounds worse because it's choppy, and they show you the stairsteps, they are misinformed.\n\nI said theoretically a couple of times because you can't get a filter to let all frequencies below a cutoff through, and mute all frequencies above that cutoff. In the real world, frequencies are attenuated (their power reduced) starting at the cutoff , and this attenuation becomes more and more extreme at higher frequencies. That's partly why, the other being historical reasons, we use a sampling rate of 44100 Hz, which puts the Nyquist frequency at 22050 Hz, when the limit of human hearing is only around 20,000 Hz, and even then only for young people. The extra 2050 Hz leaves room for cheap lowpass filters to do their work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.