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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
38nvrb
|
how come you can see through smoke so easily & it's basically transparent, yet it casts such a dark shadow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38nvrb/eli5_how_come_you_can_see_through_smoke_so_easily/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crwe49x",
"crwhctt"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Rather like an uncaring wife's lies, isn't it?",
"Angles. take this image for example.\n_URL_0_\n\nthis is the view we have. sun comes down at an angle, smoke is going up. we can see the gaps inbetween it because of the sun shining around the smoke. basically we are seeing whats behind the smoke when it moves out of the way, there isnt enough smoke to completely cover our view since its always moving. however from the direction that light is coming, which is represented by the sun and its yellow rays, the smoke particles are blocking the sun. so as you can see hey arent lines up perfectly, which is why there are holes you can see through when looking at it from our view, but from this angle, there are enough blockages, as shown by the red lines that add up and slowly block out all the light going in that angle. so no sun is getting through there because there are so many layers of smoke particles floating around that while not aligned, its enough to block out the light at different points. once the smoke moves, another moving piece just takes its place. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://puu.sh/idoB3/3a655240c6.png"
]
] |
||
1i8df4
|
why is it considered okay for auto companies to basically turn the dash of a car into a touch screen tablet but it's illegal (in most places) for a person to use their phone while driving?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i8df4/eli5_why_is_it_considered_okay_for_auto_companies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb20f6a",
"cb27knq"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"That's a good question. There are some differences, of course. A touchscreen navigation system doesn't let you send texts. The one I have in my car blanks out certain buttons when the car begins to move. For example, when the car is in motion, you cannot enter a navigation query. Nor can you dial a phone number manually (so don't make a phone call where you might have to dial \"1\" for english!), but you can choose one of your speed dial numbers. You can choose a playlist, and choose a song on the playlist--this is no more distracting, really, than fiddling with an ordinary car radio. And the navigation system is designed to accept voice commands after pressing a button on the steering wheel. Not to mention the navigation system's screen is in the dashboard, right below the windshield, so your eyes are not as far from the road as they would be whilst looking down at a cell phone.",
"A car HAS to have some sort of controls in order to operate the vehicle, use the radio, HVAC system, etc. Besides entering a navigation destination, most other functions on an in-dash nav system can be operated with a quick glance, or with steering wheel controls. Nothing requires extensive reading or is inherently distracting like reading/writing texts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2gyg9h
|
How are submarines always balanced?
|
If the submarine is moving forward on the x axis (for reference), how do submarine crews and the engineers that build them avoid rotations around the x axis, or the y axis (e.g. too much weight in the front compared to the rear)?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gyg9h/how_are_submarines_always_balanced/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cko8n8c"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Submariner here; there are an equal amount of ballast tanks on both the port and starboard side of the submarine, usually found more forward and aft of the ship, these are carefully weighed and monitored on a regular basis, and depending on the weight of each individual tank, the ship has different trims and lists. Hope that answered your question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ehlua
|
Why arent steering wheels in the middle of vehicles???
|
What made people put them on the sides?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ehlua/why_arent_steering_wheels_in_the_middle_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjzp8p7"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Passenger space, putting the driver's seat off-center lets you add a rear view mirror (and prior to that being a thing, the ability to look over your shoulder- placing the driver in the middle gave them a rather bad blind spot right behind them) which has a better view of what's immediately behind the car. You also have to consider that, traditionally, the engine *must* be placed in the center of the car, given that it's the heaviest thing *in* the car. There isn't a lot of good ways to have the steering column fit *around* that without putting the engine on a mount *behind* the car, which can add cost and complexity. \n\n\nThen again, some of the first cars where rather *out there*:\n\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n_URL_2_\n\n\n_URL_3_\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.automotoportal.com/media/images/vijesti/070516008.jpg",
"http://www.speednik.com/files/2013/02/1905.jpg",
"http://www.americaslibrary.gov/assets/es/in/es_in_elwood_1_e.jpg",
"http://www.buzzle.com/images/autos/cars/car1.jpg"
]
] |
|
12ws7k
|
Did black politicians elected to office during Reconstruction attempt to stop disenfranchisement efforts?
|
I was recently reading about the [proportion of black officeholders](_URL_0_) in the US during Reconstruction. When Jim Crow laws/disenfranchisement began, did any of these politicians attempt to stop it? Would they have had the power to do anything? More broadly, how were these officeholders treated and did they have any legislative accomplishments?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12ws7k/did_black_politicians_elected_to_office_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ysa4q",
"c6yuof2"
],
"score": [
13,
10
],
"text": [
"While there were a significant number of black politicians elected during the Reconstruction period, they really never had a chance of stopping the wave of sentiment in favor of Jim Crow and other \"separate but equal\" legislation. In addition, despite blacks accounting for 40-70% of a state's population in the south, that same ratio didn't carry over to local, state, and federal representation.\n\nBy the time Jim Crow Laws were actually implemented towards the tail end of Reconstruction and beyond, southern Democrats had become so entrenched that it was pretty much an unstoppable force. \n\nIronically, it was two white politicians (Sumner and Ben Butler),that helped pass the Civil Rights Act of 1875 in a last-ditch effort to prevent these types of laws from being implemented. However, the Supreme Court ruled most of this law unconstitutional in 1883, and rest is history.\n\n",
"Southern state governments began passing the Black Codes, as discriminatory laws directed black citizens were called, in 1865. [Here](_URL_2_) is an example of Mississippi Black Codes passed in November 1865. These, like most, were primarily intended to curtail black freedom in the labor market. \"Vagrancy\" laws made it illegal for able-bodied people, even children, *not* to be employed. This meant that if they did not have a job, they could be arrested and fined $150-$200 - a vast sum at that particularly cash-strapped time. Jailed men, women and children then became cheap and convenient convict labor. As time passed, the scope of Black Codes broadened to legalize discrimination in other areas of life.\n\nDuring Reconstruction, black politicians attempted to stop discrimination. However, they did not hold the majority (they came closest in SC). In Georgia, the legislature simply decided that the constitution did not confer office-holding rights to blacks so all elected black legislators were expelled in 1868. One fourth of Georgia's black legislators at the time were killed, threatened, beaten, or jailed. This was not unique. Politically active black people throughout the South were attacked, sometimes killed for their beliefs. [Here](_URL_0_) is an account of the Camilla massacre, in which at least nine blacks were killed and 25 wounded at an 1868 Republican political rally.\n\nBlack officeholders attempted different strategies in their attempt to shape laws to help black citizens. Some fought back, others attempted to be conciliatory, and some did both. [Hiram Revels](_URL_1_), the first black member of the U.S. Congress, elected in 1870, successfully appealed to the War Department on behalf of black mechanics from Baltimore who were barred from working at the U.S. Navy Yard in early 1871. He supported black Georgians who argued for federal intervention into the 1868 ouster of black legislators. The Georgia legislature eventually agreed to a congressional mandate reinstating the legislators as a requirement for re-entry into the Union in July 1870. Revels had it easy compared to southern Republicans, who did not have the support of a Republican-leaning majority.\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconstruction_Era_of_the_United_States#African-American_officeholders"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/nge/Article.jsp?id=h-639",
"http://baic.house.gov/member-profiles/profile.html?intID=14",
"http://chnm.gmu.edu/courses/122/recon/code.html"
]
] |
|
3rsmki
|
why is the spotify "shuffle" feature still after all this time not random?
|
I honestly do not understand what is holding them back from programming a more random algorithm. Wouldn't it be a really simple update? Haven't they received a ton of flak by now regarding this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rsmki/eli5_why_is_the_spotify_shuffle_feature_still/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwqxnsk",
"cwqya92"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I've never even looked it up but I have noticed that when I shuffle it only cycles about 10-15 songs, and sometimes back to back. ",
"Since you haven't actually said what the problem with Spotify's shuffle feature it this is a hard question to answer specifically, so I'll answer for shuffling in general. \n \nShort answer: Random gives bad results when shuffling songs. \n \nLong answer: Shuffle isn't supposed to be random. Back in the day a shuffle is supposed to generate a random ordering for a given list of songs, so over the short term this means you won't hear a song shortly after it was already played, and over long term this guarantees that every song will get played an equal amount of time. \nWith the advent of the huge playlists people are getting shuffling has become a lot more complicated. Lets say you have three artists, if you get the same artist 4 times in a row then the human instinct is to feel that isn't 'random' but in actuality it's fairly likely to happen on long length scales. What a good 'shuffle' really means is that you get a playlist that appears random while maintaining 'diversity' (i.e. avoiding streaks of artists). This generally requires an algorithmic approach where different kinds of randomness are introduced at different times."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3k1o21
|
why does lemon juice "cook" fish when making ceviche?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k1o21/eli5_why_does_lemon_juice_cook_fish_when_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuu26en",
"cuu2ugr"
],
"score": [
31,
26
],
"text": [
"It doesn't actually cook the fish. The acid just denatures the proteins in fish meat in a similar process to cooking. It won't, for instance, kill pathogens in the fish.",
"Proteins are very long chains of a type of molecule called amino acid, hundreds or thousands of them. These chains tangle in a more or less random way (called protein folding), however organisms guide the tangling process so they end up in a specific shape that makes them useful.\n\nWhen you apply heat to a protein, these chains will move, and if they become hot enough, they might untangle a bit and then tangle again, which can cause them to change their shape. This process is called \"denaturisation\", and is what makes meat, fish and egg change their colour and texture if you heat it up.\n\nAcids like lemon juice will lower the forces that hold the chains together, which makes it easier to untangle them. Therefore, the temperature at which a protein will denaturate is lowered.\n\nBut as StupidLemonEater pointed out, this will not affect bacteria and parasites that can survive the stomach acid, which are usually killed off by high temperature. In that regard, you need to be just as careful as when you're making sashimi or carpacio. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
cm1tju
|
when you get up too quick and get dizzy
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cm1tju/eli5when_you_get_up_too_quick_and_get_dizzy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evzcg5i",
"evzctqz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let me know, this happens to me as well. Are you tall? I'm 6' 4, I always thought that could be a part of it",
"If it goes away quickly it's probably not a problem. It takes a lot of work for your body to pump blood against the force of gravity up to your brain. When you are sitting or laying down your heart doesn't have to work as hard to get blood to your head. Stand up quickly and your body has to respond to work harder and getting blood back from your legs and up to your brain. Being tired or dehydrated can make this feeling worse. If it happens to you every time it may be worth mentioning next time you have a physical. Just to be sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
602fvj
|
why is it called rule 34?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/602fvj/eli5_why_is_it_called_rule_34/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df2ysiv",
"df2yt67",
"df2zqbs"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
17
],
"text": [
"It was made by 4chan a while ago, probably a decade ago now. Dubbed the rules of the internet, they go as follows.\n\n1) Do not talk about rules 2-33\n\n34) There is porn of it. No exceptions.\n\n35) The exception to rule #34 is the citation of rule #34.\n\n36) Anonymous does not forgive.\n\n37) There are no girls on the internet.\n\n38) A cat is fine too\n\n39) One cat leads to another.\n\n40) Another cat leads to zippocat.\n\n41) Everything is someone’s sexual fetish.\n\n42) It is delicious cake. You must eat it.\n\n43) It is a delicious trap. You must hit it.\n\n44) /b/ sucks today.\n\n45) Cock goes in here.\n\n46) They will not bring back Snacks.\n\n47) You will never have sex.\n\n48) ???\n\n49) Profit.\n\n50) You can not divide by zero.\n\nThere are other versions which people are linking, but this is the original.",
"rule 34 is named as such because it is the thirty-fourth rule of the internet on the great list of internet rules. apparently there was a comic and 4chan was involved\n\n\nI think they are all [Here] (_URL_0_)",
"Since time immemorial (i.e. at least the early ’90s), there have been various lists of “rules of the internet”. Different lists contained different rules in different orders. A witty observation could be phrased as a new “rule of the internet”. The number “34” is arbitrary; the idea that there is a single authoritative list, of which a given rule is the thirty-fourth, is part of the joke.\n\nSeveral people have mentioned lists created on 4chan. One older list is as follows:\n\n1. There is no cabal. (That is, there is no shadowy organization running everything on the internet. This was meant to be tongue-in-cheek, because there *was* an actual “[cabal](_URL_0_)” reorganizing major parts of the internet)\n2. The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it. (Corollary: “information wants to be free”)\n3. To every opinion there is an equally loud and opposite opinion. (Corollary: “In cyberspace, everyone can hear you scream.”)\n4. “Godwin's law”: As a conversation goes on, the probability that one participant will compare another to Hitler approaches one. (Traditionally, once this happens, the conversation is over and the one who made the comparison is considered to have lost.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://rulesoftheinternet.com/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Backbone_cabal"
]
] |
||
26f8u1
|
why did i lose 5.6 lbs of water after i went to the bathroom?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26f8u1/eli5_why_did_i_lose_56_lbs_of_water_after_i_went/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chqhde8",
"chqhsp0"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"What are you weighing yourself with that is so accurate?",
"Over five pounds seems very excessive for urine. The male bladder can normally hold about 2 cups of fluid. This would not nearly be 5 pounds.\n\nAre you sure there was nothing else that changed between the two weights? Did you remove your shoes, or a jacket? Did you poop?\n\nThe only other thing I can think of is what is dissolved in your urine. With untreated diabetes, there can be a very high concentration of glucose dissolved in the pee, which would up its weight considerably, but you would notice the near syrup-like consistency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7vblhh
|
how are the football turf logos personalized & changed each game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vblhh/eli5_how_are_the_football_turf_logos_personalized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtr0r7j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Most stadiums do not ever change their logos. The team (professional, school, etc) own the field and the logo of that team is on it. \n\nSome artificial turfs have the ability to replace the logo section of the turf. It is expensive but can happen. \n\nFor real grass fields they will let the grass grow then when they cut the grass and \"erase the logo\" they paint the new logo in stead of the old. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jqucc
|
Can water from a dehumidifier be used for non-scientific applications that require distilled water ?
|
I have a few steam based appliances and tools that call for using distilled water to prevent mineral deposits from forming on the heating elements. I have also occassionally taken my motorcycle to a track that does not allow ethylene glycol based engine coolants, only pure water with approved additives.
The dehumidifier in my basement produces around a gallon of water a day.
Assuming that the container that it collects in and the storage containers are reasonably clean could this water be used for the applications I mentioned above that call for distilled water ?
The tap water where I live is considered to be fairly hard water.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jqucc/can_water_from_a_dehumidifier_be_used_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbhfi6y",
"cbhk7nx"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, i dunno what kind of basement you have, but generally there is some nasty stuff lookin for a moist spit to grow. Your dehumidifier is an ideal place for that. I wouldnt drink the water in my dehumidifier.",
"The problem with using water from a humidifier is that it may contain hydrated complexes (Sulfuric Acid, Nitrogen, Oxygen, etc.) from the atmosphere. I'm not sure how sulfur-containing complexes would affect the appliances you have but you could purify the water using a basic condenser which would effectively break the weak bond within the hydrated complex allowing you to collect nearly pure water (temperature dependent) which could then be used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9vt3b5
|
why does chocolate melt faster if it's been refrigerated?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vt3b5/eli5_why_does_chocolate_melt_faster_if_its_been/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9eurig",
"e9f1okb"
],
"score": [
162,
3
],
"text": [
"Chocolate requires tempering, which is a processes that takes very specific high and low temperatures.\n\nWhen the chocolate has been melted it ruins this tempering.\n\nThe tempering process evens out the fatty acids and ensures a uniform crystallisation. When this is consistent it requires more energy (heat) to disrupt it.",
"You have formed a polymorph of the original crystalline structure. A polymorph is the same chemical, but in different physical form. Cocoa butter, found in chocolate is used in pharmacy as a vehicle for making suppositories. Manipulating the vehicle incorrectly can lead to a messy delivery system. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
i1mmr
|
Why do humans 'enjoy' the musical notes that we do?
|
Please bear with me, my music theory is terrible.
Pretty much all music fits on a similar scale, ie every instrument plays the same notes and they are all tuned similarly (A, B, C, D, E, F, G).
Why do we find these pre-determined frequencies 'pleasant' and frequencies in between not so 'pleasant'?
If we had evolved differently might we find notes a few hertz higher or lower more pleasing?
Is the musical scale analogue, ie is it one whole gradient of pitch from low to high or are there set points along the way which sound good to us and points elsewhere that sound bad?
I can't think of many instruments that allow for totally free frequencies to be used... Theramin, fretless bass, etc. But they seem uncommon, why is that?
Sorry about all the questions, I'm just trying to articulate exactly what I mean and it's difficult. Could someone point me in the right direction?
Thank you
Edit: I've just realised that a huge amount of stringed instruments allow any frequency - stupid me.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i1mmr/why_do_humans_enjoy_the_musical_notes_that_we_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2059u3",
"c205d91",
"c207taf",
"c208bsq"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You may be interested in watching this, you can view it online.\n\n[Nova - Musical Minds](_URL_0_)",
"The intervals we enjoy are generally fairly simple ratios of frequencies.\n\nFor example, an octave (C to C) is doubling the frequency. A \"perfect fifth\" (C to G) is multiplying by 3/2. A \"perfect fourth\" (C to F) is multiplying by 4/3.\n\nAs for the notes in between, these actually differ between cultures, so it is somewhat learned.\n\n----\n\nSome extra points: in our Western \"equal temperament\" scale, we don't use exact ratios. Our scale is based on the twelfth root of 2. So a perfect fifth is actually 2^7/12 = 1.49830708, instead of the \"perfect\" value of 1.5.\n\nAlso, I'm not entirely sure *why* simple ratios sound \"good\", but I think it's something like because they interfere to produce more notes with nice ratios. Or something.",
"There is no fixed tonal center that the world revolves around. In Western culture, we usually say A is at or around 440 vibrations a second. In other cultures, it's a much more malleable thing. Also the types of note combinations we use varies per culture as well. \n\nOctaves are common across all cultures - these are doubled/halved frequency notes that sound as the same pitch (220, 440, 880, these are all 'A'). An interval of a 5th is common as well (C to G). The Western world divides its octave into 12 notes. This is a system that can, more-or-less, describe music you can find throughout the world. Most other cultures, however, are much more into the subtleties of pitch. Indian music varies wildly per song. A certain scale degree might be sung more sharp or flat depending on its context in the raag, or scale. I know most Indian musicians are comfortable singing quatertone scales - that's 24 distinct notes per octave, not 12. Same goes for Arabic music. \n\n[Listen to some Gamelan](_URL_0_) - it does not sound, tonally, much like what we think of as beautiful music. But it is absolutely beautiful! The instruments are precisely tuned and only work together as an ensemble.",
"**Diclaimer:** *This is a westernized \"music theory\" explanation, but it points to the [innate](_URL_2_) (specifically the birdsong that when slowed down is recognizably \"human\") concepts of pitch and harmony.* \n\nThe most \"consonant\" (pleasant) intervals are the first [overtones](_URL_0_) in the [harmonic series](_URL_1_).\n\nE.g. If you pluck a string tuned to A^1, the loudest tone you hear is the fundamental A^1. But, you also hear (more faintly) the pitch A^2 (twice the frequency of A^1). Still more faintly, you hear E^2 (three times the frequency of A^1). Then A^3. Then (approximately) C#^3 then E^3 . Then somewhere in between F#^3 and G^3.\n\n\nThe first 6 pitches are all **A, C#, or E** which spell out an **A major** chord.\n\nAdditionally, each new harmonic (or overtone) gives us a new interval:\n\nA^1 to A^2 = perfect octave\n\nA^2 to E^2 = perfect fifth\n\nE^2 to A^3 = perfect fourth\n\nA^3 to C#^3 = major third\n\nC#^3 to E^4 = minor third\n\nE^4 to F#^4 = major second\n\nF#4^ to G^4 = minor second\n\nAnd each interval is of decreasing consonance: \n\nOctave, fifth, and fourth are all \"perfect\", but in terms of consonance: 8^th > 5^th > 4^th\n\nand: 3^rd > 2^nd ; Major > Minor\n\nAll sorts of extrapolations follow in order to arrive at our present equal temperment, but it grew organically from the physics of psychoacoustics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/musical-minds.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ldPMifPbngc"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overtone",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Harmonic_series_%28music%29",
"http://torrentz.eu/e4357aea504bcf0d4973312b7be1e04db5d11f9b"
]
] |
|
1tbl0q
|
If Humans were seperated on several continents, why are we not differently adapted?
|
Why are Humans who grew up in Asia not different than humans that grew up in Africa? Since the two humans wouldn't interact, why didn't they evolve differently?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1tbl0q/if_humans_were_seperated_on_several_continents/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce6fctj",
"ce6ff1x",
"ce6grqk",
"ce6kjdn",
"ce6mopy"
],
"score": [
13,
12,
9,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"We are different. African people for instance have a much higher rate of sickle cell anemia because if you have 50% sickle cell and 50% reg red cells you are immune to malaria, as well as many other blood born bacteria that are common in Africa. Similarly British people are really pale because there is not as much sun light so they need to absorb more vitamin D from the limited sun exposure. ",
"We did.\n\nYou'll notice that people in more northern latitudes have lighter skin to absorb more of the weaker light there to make adequate vitamin D.\n\nYou'll notice that Africans have broad, flat noses with large nostrils to help dissipate heat more effectively.\n\nLots of little changes.",
"Also to add to what others are saying -\n\nVarious groups of humans have only been separated from each other for a short time, evolutionarily speaking.\n\nIf groups of humans were to be isolated for a longer time, then we could expect to see increasing variation. ",
"We are! Think about how African people have more pigmented skin. This absorbs more sunlight than pale skin does. It evolved because the sunlight in Africa is more harsh than Europe. The things that differ are kind of small because humans probably started off on the same continent and then there was some divergent evolution. I would guess now there is convergent evolution again because of technology and transportation.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nthat link is pretty good at explaining convergent and divergent evolution.",
"The other answers so far are missing something really, really important. There are small local adaptations to specific climates and diets but we just don't seem that diverse. This turns out to be a good observation.\n\nThe similarity is not just coincidence either. Genetically, we are all shockingly similar - [far, far more similar to eachother than chimps are to eachother](_URL_1_) despite a larger population and a bigger range. Other species with similar genetics have gone through a population bottleneck.\n\nThis is inexplicable unless we went through a major population bottleneck - a period when our population was drastically reduced and then remade from a few individuals leading to everyone being related. When and how this happened is unclear, but either sudden climate change from the [Toba eruption](_URL_0_) or from living in isolated hunter-gatherer groups with low population numbers for a really long time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://bioweb.cs.earlham.edu/9-12/evolution/HTML/converge.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toba_catastrophe_theory",
"http://www.ox.ac.uk/media/news_stories/2012/120302.html"
]
] |
|
1nijax
|
sleep walking and talking
|
I tend to fall asleep on my couch and my wife can't get me up. I'll open my eyes and talk to her, sometimes yell at her, i'll even sit up. However, the next morning or even when i wake up on the couch at 2am, I don't remember anything. I'll wake up sometimes aggravated that she didn't even try to wake me up.
Please ELI5 sleep walking and talking. Why/how does this happen? Thank you...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nijax/eli5_sleep_walking_and_talking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccivxeu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Two things can occur, first is the body doesn't shut down response mechanisms when you sleep and your response functions continue functioning while you are asleep, when you sleep the brain doesn't normally send signals to the rest of the body so you don't injure yourself by flailing or kicking in your sleep, and you rarely verbalize anything. Sleep walking and talking are often caused when the brain doesn't shut down this activity, so you end up in an unconscious state of action, which can lead to injuries.\n\nThe second thing that is very common is you actually are conscious but your not in a complete state of consciousness memory wise, and thus do not remember the actions of the previous night, the same thing happens when a person get's completely drunk, they are conscious but their memory function is shut down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jya1x
|
what vitamins and supplements i should take and why
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jya1x/eli5_what_vitamins_and_supplements_i_should_take/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2g30c2",
"c2g30c2"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Flintstones vitamins. \n\n1 chewable tablet per day, unless you are significantly over/under the average weight for a five year old, in which case your parents should consult your pediatrician on your behalf.\n\n*spelling",
"Flintstones vitamins. \n\n1 chewable tablet per day, unless you are significantly over/under the average weight for a five year old, in which case your parents should consult your pediatrician on your behalf.\n\n*spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1mefjr
|
Which plant is the most effective at converting CO2 to Oxygen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mefjr/which_plant_is_the_most_effective_at_converting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc8ff4l",
"cc8iiik",
"cc8o8lp",
"cc8pbhv",
"cc8pcxf",
"cc8q28l",
"cc8ql0h"
],
"score": [
336,
67,
2,
24,
11,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"[Photosynthetic efficiency](_URL_0_) is the proper term for this and it's actually measured as sunlight to biomass. The reason is because the same amount of CO2 + (other stuff^1 ) = O2 + (other stuff^1 ), so efficient is always 1-to-1 ratio if you measure CO2 to O2 conversion. \n\nIn any case, the most efficient plant is sugar cane at around 7%. However, plants are put to same by algae have efficiency rations of up to 30%.\n\n^1 I know \"other stuff\" this is not very scientifically accurate but I'm trying to simplify things.",
"[This guy](_URL_0_) gives a great Ted talk on the 3 best plants to use for cleaning your air and oxygen production.",
"NASA did an experiment on this I tried searching for the actual study but I've found nothing.\n\nFrom memory I remember the Mother's Tongue and Acrea Palm as two of the best. There is also a related [TED talk](_URL_0_) on this on how to grow fresh air, the presenter doesn't objectively discuss which plant is most effective.\n\nIf anyone of you finds the chart of the values in the nasa experiment please tell me!",
"Going slightly away from your question, the organism with the greatest photosynthetic efficiently is not a plant, but rather a protist - the protist coccolithophore. In fact protists are responsible for 50% of the oxygen in the atmosphere and amazingly coccolithophore are by themselves responsible for 20% of all the oxygen in out atmosphere.",
"Algae is by far the most efficient photosynthetic organism when it comes to converting CO2 to O2. The primary reason is that it transfers gasses once they are in solution with the water the algae is suspended in, hence the rate of gas transfer is much greater and the surface area for gas transfer is much greater than that of leaves or bark on a tree.",
"Plants that use the C4 pathway as opposed to the more common C3 pathway. The catch is a higher energy requirement in the form of ATP.\n\n If I remember correctly less than 5% of plants utilize this pathway, most of which are monocots (although not all monocots utilize the C4 pathway) that grow in warmer and drier climates. The C4 pathway is only more efficient in these specific conditions and it is believed to be a more recent evolution than C3 plants.\n\nAs noted before, sugar is one of the most efficient plants at conversion of carbon dioxide to oxygen and utilizes the C4 pathway. Maize and millet are two other commonly known plants that use this pathway.",
"Quick note: it is not CO2 that is converted to O2, it is H2O. Water is oxidized at the photosynthetic reaction center. The oxygen attached to CO2 either remains bound to the sugar or is released as water in the Calvin cycle. The net reaction of photosynthesis simply involves the loss of CO2 and the gain of O2."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthetic_efficiency"
],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/kamal_meattle_on_how_to_grow_your_own_fresh_air.html"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gmn7tjSNyAA"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ujqtz
|
why don't cigarette packs in the us have gruesome pictures of lung cancer on them like in other countries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ujqtz/eli5_why_dont_cigarette_packs_in_the_us_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceirr5b",
"ceirrzx",
"ceitxgr",
"ceiu5kx",
"ceiuoks",
"ceiut77",
"ceiuzn6",
"ceiv4c1",
"ceiw2rn",
"ceixohp",
"ceiyluw",
"ceizbdu",
"cej64n3"
],
"score": [
87,
30,
46,
19,
3,
2,
5,
2,
6,
3,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because tobacco companies have far more leverage over politicians in the United States than they do in other countries.",
"It was actually mandated a few years ago, but was found to be unconstitutional as it infringed on the speech of the companies. \n\nMore info: _URL_0_",
"Know what? I'm a smoker. I know the health risks. I'm bombarded by a million commercials trying to get me to quit. I DONT WANT TO. STOP TRYING TO FORCE PEOPLE.\n\nHow about we print horrible mangled bodies from drunk driving accidents on liquor bottles. Don't like the idea? Yea didn't think so.",
"whenever i see those packs of cigarettes i can't help but think if they are doing that to cigarettes why aren't they doing that to other products? why don't they show the harmful impact on the body caused by soft drinks, fast food, sugary cereals, candy, fried foods, high fat foods, high cholesterol foods, alcohol, pastries like hostess and little debbie, etc? show people heart disease, rotting teeth, stomach cancer, intestinal cancer, obesity, diabetes. that would be an endless list. i smoked for 18 years. i can attest that i knew that every puff i took was extremely harmful to my body. i was 100% aware when i started smoking what i was getting into. i can also attest that no picture on a pack of cigarettes influenced me to quit a year ago. ",
"Because the US doesnt have nationalized healthcare, so there's no incentive for the government to pass preventative health legislation to stop people from smoking. Also, I imagine at the same time the tobacco companies are lining the pockets of politicians.",
"Where do you have those pictures? Because not in the Nordic countries, no.",
"It's pretty bullshit when you think about it. You have a product and then the government requires you to put gruesome photos of the effects on it? There is no other product like that, and it's not fair for the company. Yes, smoking is bad, but there are enough preventative measures being taken. Everyone knows smoking is bad, they just don't give a fuck. And that's their decision.",
"Seems like a pretty passive aggressive way to get people to not smoke.\n\nIf you're going to go that far, why don't you just ban cigarettes?",
"Because it is a petty and childish thing to do and it has no effect on the majority of people. Now, if you are simple minded politician, you can be swayed by the images.",
"Because: Big Tobacco Lobbyists",
"I am not a tobacco user, but I object to that type of \"safety warning.\" I don't have pictures of severed limbs on my chain saw. I don't have photos of bloody car wrecks on the dashboard of my car. I don't get a side of side of atherosclerosis images with my happy meal. Life is risky and some choose riskier paths, but it is insulting and offensive to choose to humiliate those who chose certain risks over others.\n\n ",
"Probably the same reason cupcakes don't come with gross pictures of diabetes ravaged limbs, cars don't come with photos of decapitated accident victims, and condoms don't come with photos of canker sores or herpes rashes. I'd like to think it's respect for free will. ",
"There are a lot of people in here saying things like \"but why don't Twinkies or chainsaws have warnings like that?\" \r\rIf you're stranded on a desert island with a pack of cigarettes, you're boned. There are no benefits to cigarettes. You can survive on Twinkies. Are they bad for you? Yes. But they fill a need. Hunger. You need to eat to live. Same with fast food. You can have a bit of fast food in your life and it will probably benefit you more than harm you. Starving at 2 AM? A McDonalds run will help you out.\r\rChainsaws serve a purpose. You use them for good. That's their point. I shouldn't even have to argue that one. \r\rLook at your argument in depth before you post it. Sure, I'd agree that alcohol should have more warnings. I'll give you that one. But cars? Fast food? C'mon."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.cbsnews.com/news/us-appeals-court-strikes-down-fda-tobacco-warning-label-requirement/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6emus3
|
how do information leaks happen?
|
[Not sure if repost, checked but couldn't find anything related] One I'm especially curious about is government information leaks. Who leaks this kind of information, and how do they get it in the first place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6emus3/eli5_how_do_information_leaks_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dibfne3",
"dibgb9y"
],
"score": [
2,
27
],
"text": [
"A government employee/official who has access to sensitive/classified information as part of their job passes that information on to someone not authorized to have it. That's about all there is to it. It's really not that complicated. \n\nThe information in question is usually information that comes to their attention in the normal course of the employee/official's duties, but can also be information to which they technically have access but would not normally have any reason to access (e.g., the Chelsea/Bradley Manning leaks). \n\nThe recipient is usually someone outside the government, but it can also be another person in the government not authorized to have it. If outside the government, the recipient is frequently someone connected with the media, but it could be just about anyone with a personal/professional interest in the information. \n",
"That all depends on which \"flavor\" of leak you're talking about. \n\nThere's the Edward Snowden type of leak where someone deliberately shares private and confidential information with the public because they felt the public needed to know. Conscious intent and action. \n\nSome leaks aren't intentional at all like the Podesta emails, and are obtained through illicit means like hacking/stealing/espionage. Malicious intent and action. \n\nThen there's the flat incompetent/accidental types of leaks like when the boss left the company's failing budget and list of people to get laid off next month on the printer for a bit too long. Genuine accident. \n\nThere are also tactical leaks used by politicians. You can spot these whenever the reporter is citing \"a Senior White House Official\" in their report. This lets the White House \"react\" to this new national issue and put public pressure on political opponents without looking like the bad guys. \n\nWall Street types will also use this to manipulate prices. Day traders are constantly watching company financial reports, and the pros are often looking for insider tips from big companies so they can make their plays ahead of the public. These leaks are often traders calling college buddies that work for Apple's Engineering department looking for key tips like \"the next Iphone has a 2hr battery life\" so they can sell before it tanks. \n\nIn all cases, reporters that get the first leaks are often personal or professional friends that have developed a trusting relationship with the leaker, who is trusting that they leak it appropriately, on their schedule, and for maximum impact. Politicians for example, may give a leak to a story, but ask the reporter to sit on it for a couple of days to avoid suspicion. Should the reporter jump to publish early, it fucks the politician and virtually guarantees the end of secret sources for that reporter. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
36rppx
|
why is rand paul filibustering the patriot act and how does filibustering help?
|
Let me be clear, I'm just uninformed on this subject. I'm not saying I dislike what he's doing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36rppx/eli5_why_is_rand_paul_filibustering_the_patriot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crggzr6",
"crgq6xj"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"The patriot act is a surveillance act that allows the NSA to spy on Americans to catch terrorism. Obviously, people are offended by the invasion of privacy.\n\nNow, filibustering is giving an incredibly long speech to cause the bill to run out of time to be passed. Senators are allowed to keep speaking for as long as they want, on anything they can think of, so long as they *keep speaking* and *don't sit down*. A senator can delay something nearly indefinitely so long as he doesn't sit or move from his spot.\n\nAnd yes, it works. It's also annoying as hell if you actually support the bill being opposed. But in my opinion, Rand Paul is doing a good thing.",
"Rand Paul wasn't actually filibustering, he was just giving a really long speech and didn't actually accomplish anything. For it to be a filibuster it would have to block consideration of a bill, and he didn't do that. He just prevented normal Senate things from happening. It didn't actually block or delay a vote on the bill. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1lwcxp
|
A book about Hypatia of Alexandria
|
This does not seem like the right place to post this, however, I'm not sure where else to go. I'm looking for a book about Hypatia of Alexandria that is more or less historically accurate. If this is the completely wrong sub feel free to downvote me!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lwcxp/a_book_about_hypatia_of_alexandria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc3jnqg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're indeed in the right place. Fear not!\n\nI'm not sure if there is a recent comprehensive academic study of Hypatia of Alexandria out there, but [here's](_URL_3_) a very long list of books either on her life or incorporating her into the history of mathematics.\n\nI would caution, however, that a lot of the stuff written about her life recently has been skewed to fit the antiquated [Conflict Thesis](_URL_0_). There have been publications - some inspired by the [recent and largely fictionalized film](_URL_1_) about Hypatia - that depict her as a martyr for \"science,\" \"reason,\" or whatever else people want to attach to her. Avoid [books like this](_URL_2_), which have a clear ideological bias."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_thesis",
"http://armariummagnus.blogspot.com/2010/05/hypatia-and-agora-redux.html",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=P6X1DJ7UIb4C&printsec=frontcover&dq=hypatia+of+alexandria&hl=en&sa=X&ei=TDErUv7lM8GtqgGEvoHQCw&ved=0CDUQ6AEwAQ#v=onepage&q=hypatia%20of%20alexandria&f=false",
"http://www.polyamory.org/~howard/Hypatia/books.html"
]
] |
|
i72w7
|
How many watts does the human body run on?
|
If the body needed to be sustained by an electric source what wattage would it need?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i72w7/how_many_watts_does_the_human_body_run_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c21fgmt"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Well, they say that the recommended daily intake of calories is 2200k. This is for an average woman, I believe, so me as a big, active guy probably need more like 3000kcal. The conversion rate from kcal to kilo Joule is 4.2. Over the course of 24h, that means that my body needs, on average, a supply of 4.2\\*3000 kJ /(24\\*3600 s) = 145 Watts. This is roughly as much as two regular light bulbs need."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ou1rv
|
why the tv sometimes turns off or turns on by itself.
|
This has been happening frequently to my cousin's TV. Sometimes it turns off or turns on by itself. Sometimes it goes off and on constantl a few times. A few days ago, my aunt's TV suddenly just turns on by itself.
Any explanation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ou1rv/eli5_why_the_tv_sometimes_turns_off_or_turns_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3k1ac2",
"c3kcvsl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are plenty of possible culprits:\n\n* Some prankster is sending remote control commands to the TV turning it off and on\n* The remote control is malfunctioning\n* The timer built into the TV is turning it on and off\n* The TV is picking up radio signals causing it to misbehave, are there any HAMs in the area?\n* The mains power is unstable\n* The components connected to the TV are causing it to misbehave\n* The TV is overheating and shutting itself off to prevent damage\n\nNote what circumstances cause the issues, and troubleshoot. Take the TV by itself to a different room on a different electrical circuit, and temporarily cover the remote control sensor with opaque tape like electrical tape. See if they still misbehave.",
"I used to have a TV that would turn on by itself. It was caused by humidity and something to do with the switch circuit. I also had another TV that would turn off by itself because of a loose power connection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4zv5tm
|
How would galactic internet work?
|
Nothing can beat the speed of light, and we all know that, at least with our current technology. However, since we are eventually going to conquer another planet someday, we would want to figure out how to access the internet from a nearby star system.
Let's say we conquer Proxima b - the closest planet that "supports" life, if we want the internet there, we'd have to start from scratch. If we wanted other websites from Earth, we'd have to wait 4.2 years, maybe even longer if the speed is slow. How would we turn this 4.2 years into seconds?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4zv5tm/how_would_galactic_internet_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6z0hgj",
"d6z0kne",
"d6z74f0",
"d6zk7h0"
],
"score": [
38,
3,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"You can't.\n\nThe only way to rapidly communicate over distances that long is to somehow overcome the limitation of the speed of light. But that is firmly in the realm of science fiction.\n\nA regular internet request from Proxima Centauri (and whatever orbits that star) will take more than 8 years. 4 years for the request to reach Earth and 4 years for the reply to get back to P.C. You can cut that in half for some services by preemptively sending data from Earth. For example news reports or emails could be sent without anyone on the other side having requested them and they're kept in cache on P.C. until needed. But this would be limited to anything that has been picked beforehand to be preloaded. Anything else would still take the full 8 years.\n\nSpace-internet is already an issue within our own solar system. The Moon is doable, signals would take about a second to propagate from the Moon to Earth or backwards, so 2 seconds for roundtrips. You could still do realtime voice and video chat provided there is enough bandwidth.\n\nMars, on the other hand, is a different story. The distance between Earth and Mars varies depending on where both planets are in their orbit around the Sun. But at its closest, a signal from Mars to Earth (or vice versa) would need a bit more than 2 minutes. On average, it's more than 10 minutes. At maximum distance, a reload of r/askscience would take more than 40 minutes. With those delays, using the internet on Earth is definitely possible, but the way the users browses the web will be quite different as he has to be far more direct in loading the content he wants.\n\nClearly, in this case, there is much to gain from a smart caching system where the Mars ISP holds copies of all the recently requested webpages and content, as well as preemptively loads links on pages that are requested by the user (bandwidth permitting). It would also be configured, along with the transmitting station on Earth, to preemptively transmit things like emails, social media updates for accounts of colonists, etc... \n\nSo internet on Mars that is connected to Earth is still doable, with some large tweaks. But anything beyond that will become rapidly less usable. And interstellar communication with reasonable latency is out of the question until we make one of the many sci-fi tricks become reality.",
"With transmissions taking 4.2 years to shoot data back and forth, something like the Internet is impractical. \n\nYou aren't going to turn that distance into second unless some serious wormhole/black hole technology is worked out.",
"It would work differently.\n\nYou don't have internet that connects you quickly to Earth. Instead, you have a completely separate internet at your location.\n\nThe people on that local version of the net would get to connect with each other like normal. If you want a certain website, TV show, etc., you would sync them to an Earth server. That would take years, of course, but once it's synced you, as a colonist, now have instant access to all of your favorite Netflix originals. You just had to wait a few years to get it. \n\nWith enough people living off-world, this would be an obvious commercial enterprise. I imagine you wouldn't get Netflix directly, but a subsidiary - maybe ProxTV, Inc. - that would strike a deal with Netflix, allowing them to download programs licensed to air outside of our solar system. You would then pay a fee to ProxTV to watch on demand.\n\nEmail service would also have specialized protocol, but would exist. In fact, I think it would be the first priority for building the new colonies. Information is the most powerful tool we have next to oxygen extractors, so we'd want those to work. You could keep up with people on Earth, but again, you can't beat the speed limit.\n\nA simple system of orbital relays can help boost signals until it gets to the Sol side of the system, where it can be sent to another set of relays and boosters. Probably some placed between to prevent signal degradation. That path would slow it down even more, since you can shoot a message directly between planets without taking other objects into account. These communications would have been placed during the initial trip out.\n\nThis syncing system allows you access to a lot of data, but it means that you can't participate in Reddit discussions with Earthers. You'd necro every thread you ever encountered. You might not even be allowed to post to non-local sites, since the delay would just be too difficult to handle.\n\nThis same system would work for Mars, which is much more realistic. We could actually get decent bandwidth, especially using laser communication relays. We would have to develop a separate protocol as well, as the current one requires back and forth communication. Checking file hashes to confirm receipt seems more reasonable, saving the very limited bandwidth for the constant 24/7 syncing process.\n\n",
"Very large caching systems. Basically we would cache the entire internet on all planets / stars and have a constant flow via laser light that gradually updates all the parts.\n\nThink of a bridge that gets pained and by the time you finish it you start again."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7e5qvi
|
why we don't we use nitrogen for capital punishment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e5qvi/eli5_why_we_dont_we_use_nitrogen_for_capital/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq2oysu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Nitrogen doesn't kill people as quickly and flawlessly as lethal injection, and comes with some major safety issues which would tend to make it undesirable. Of course if someone is exposed to a pure nitrogen atmosphere indefinitely they will surely die, but how long exactly will that take? 10 minutes? 15 to be really sure they aren't just severely brain damaged? 20 minutes of the witnesses staring at an unconscious body which may or may not be a corpse? It is much easier to inject something that will surely kill them rather than keep administering something until they are dead. It avoids the whole \"Oops, they woke back up, kill them again,\" problem.\n\nGasses also have the safety issue of being dangerous to handle. What if your gas canisters start to leak, or the mask leaks and fills up the execution chamber? What about the observers, are they at risk to your gas hazard? It is much easier and less hazardous to simply avoid getting an IV drug in your arm and you don't really need guards to have special training."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ym4yf
|
Was Marx racist?
|
I've heard him being accused of this and read some quotes that sound racist by him and Engels, and I was wondering if there was any validity to this.
edit: spelling
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ym4yf/was_marx_racist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfltjyl"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The problem really is the time period, as there wasn't a concept of \"racism\" in the 19th century. [(Oxford dictionary cites \"racialism\" as the first use in the early 1900s.)](_URL_1_) Basically, from what I've read, Marx uses the word \"nigger\" as a descriptive term, and there is little concept for a kind of supremacy of whites over blacks. He often supports black people while using the word, so this is clearly not damning evidence of a racist Karl Marx.\n\n > Mr Johnson’s policy is less and less to my liking, too. Nigger-hatred is coming out more and more violently, and he is relinquishing all his power vis-à-vis the old lords in the South. If this should continue, all the old secessionist scoundrels will be in Congress in Washington in 6 months time. Without coloured suffrage nothing can be done, and Johnson is leaving it up to the defeated, the ex-slaveowners, to decide on that. It is absurd. Nevertheless, one must still reckon on things turning out differently from what these barons imagined. After all, the majority of them have been completely ruined and will be glad to sell land to immigrants and speculators from the North. The latter will arrive soon enough and make a good number of changes. I think the mean whites will gradually die out. Nothing more will become of this race; those who are left after 2 generations will merge with the immigrants to make a completely different race.\n\n > The niggers will probably turn into small squatters as in Jamaica. Thus ultimately the oligarchy will go to pot after all, but the process could be accomplished immediately at one fell swoop, whereas it is now being drawn out.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nAs far as I understand it, many who campaigned for black rights in the 19th century, including Lincoln, did not desire full equality between the races. Accusing someone of racism from the 19th century is anachronistic, and it is better to evaluate someone by their actions and ideas towards black people at the time, rather to take a modern perspective.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1865/letters/65_07_15.htm",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism#Usage_of_the_term_and_related_terms"
]
] |
|
112vwl
|
With regards to the SCC aliens meme, what do you see if you're 65 million light years away from Earth, but are travelling towards it at a very high speed?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/112vwl/with_regards_to_the_scc_aliens_meme_what_do_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6itc3s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. The light would also: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blueshift"
]
] |
||
2hak0a
|
why does light from the sun make the sky look blue, but light from the moon does not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hak0a/eli5_why_does_light_from_the_sun_make_the_sky/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckqwd9i",
"ckqwozh"
],
"score": [
4,
15
],
"text": [
"Moonlight is just too weak. It is still sunlight you know, just reflected.",
"It does make the sky look blue, but our blue photoreceptors aren't sensitive to low light levels, so we can't see it. If you take a long exposure at night, the sky will look blue."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4ilqq6
|
why would large successful companies that are not in need of money sell shares of their company?
|
is there some advantage for something like google to sell its shares?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ilqq6/eli5why_would_large_successful_companies_that_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2z47hx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You have to separate an offering from normal trading. Normal trading is where people (not the company) who own stock trade it on the private market. This has nothing to do with the company who's stock it is, though some of the private individuals selling might be employed by said company.\n\nOfferings are when the company puts more shares up for sale by either creating them or by selling off shares they hold in reserve. There are many reasons for this, such as a need for capital, a feeling that the liquidity isn't high enough or the issuing of new stock grants/options to employees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
823w5y
|
if the big 3 religions and their denominations all worship the same god, how can there be so much violence and disagreement between them (and even within them between denominations)? considering that they have the biggest part in common (the deity), can't they agree to disagree on other stuff?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/823w5y/eli5_if_the_big_3_religions_and_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv7a4yk"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"The Abrahamic religions only worship the same god insofar as they all believe in the Old Testament, but they have drastically different views on what was divinely revealed after that. The Christians believe Jesus came down and was the son of God and thus that God is a trinity and that you need to worship Jesus, while the Muslims believe that Jesus was just a prophet and actually Muhammad was the final prophet and you need to follow him, and that God is not a trinity, which is to say that they don't really have the same idea of God. And the Jews don't believe any of that is legitimate. Aside from this they all have substantially different religious practices, hierarchies, and attitudes toward evangelism.\nBecause each religion takes its own doctrines so seriously, they all view each other as false religions, and also have internal fighting over specific doctrines. To top it off, they have a long history of fighting over the same lands, especially in the Middle East and Europe, and thus tend to see each other as enemy factions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ok3mq
|
What happens to a currency when physical tender is destroyed while in circulation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ok3mq/what_happens_to_a_currency_when_physical_tender/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cct4ixw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Different countries (central banks) have different ways of handling this. In most countries they have rules and regulations on how to deal with this issue. Some just write off an estimate of what is in circulation.\n\nI'd suggest that you simply contact the central bank that represents your market and ask them. They do answer to public inquiries.\n\nHere is a little info on the controlled form of introduction of money the the destruction in the US, conducted by the FED: _URL_1_ and what happens to the currency deemed to poor to re-use: _URL_0_\n\nIf there is a knowledge of how much money that got destroyed and what batch they simply remove those notes from the system and print new ones.\n\nEdit: An interesting fact is that all US currency is legal tender regardless of when it was issued. So if you find an really old dollar bill somewhere you can still get the face value of it. But if you find a really old bill I'd personally check if it is rare and worth more than its face value :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/faq.html",
"http://www.newyorkfed.org/aboutthefed/fedpoint/fed01.html"
]
] |
||
1trcf1
|
[Mathematics] If I roll a six-sided die 6 times, what is the probably that it will land on a particular face at least one time?
|
My bad probability calculations would say that the chance of landing on a certain face per roll is 1/6. We roll six times, so do we add 6 of these to get a probability of 1? Surely not. I can roll a die 6 times without landing on a particular face. It is possible.
So what is the true probability that the die will land on a particular face at least once if I roll it 6 times?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1trcf1/mathematics_if_i_roll_a_sixsided_die_6_times_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceapakx",
"ceapb98",
"ceapddo",
"ceapwzk",
"ceaqzyu",
"ceauuzr",
"ceayg80"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
100,
6,
13,
20,
3
],
"text": [
"You are correct in your assumption that there are certain events that are impossible (in fact, I can roll a fair dice a million times without landing on a 6).\n\nTo calculate the \"true probability\" of an event not occurring, you have to take the complement, which is the probability that an event *will not* happen. In your case, the complement is 5/6, and the probability of not rolling a side after 6 trials is (5/6)^6. Therefore, the probability that you *will* roll that particular side is (1-(5/6)^6).\n\nA simple rule to remember is that probabilities of consecutive events always decrease. To picture this rule, you can consider all possibilities as partitions on a square.\n\n",
"The chance that it doesn't land on that face is (5/6)^6 since every time it has a 5/6 chance of not landing on that face. So the chance that it does land on that face at least once is 1 minus the chance that it doesn't, i.e. 1-(5/6)^6 = 0.665.",
"the trick is to flip the problem...instead of thinking \"what is the probability it will land on this face\" instead think, what is the probability it WON'T land on some face.\n\nso, what is the probability of NOT landing on some face (we'll say...2) for a single roll....obviously it's 5/6...because 5 out of 6 times, it will land on some other face\n\nso given that, what is the probability it WON'T land on that face 6 times in a row?\n\n(5/6)^6\n\nbecause the probability of two independent events A and B occurring is A*B, so we end up multipleying 5/6 by itself 6 times, once for each roll\n\nso we have the probability of it NOT landing on that face for 6 rolls, the the probability of it landing on that face is just 1-(5/6)^6\n\nsince the probabilities of ALL outcomes must add up to 1, and the only two possibilities are 1) the face doesn't come up, or 2) the face comes up at least once, then we just subtract the probability of the face not coming up from one.....so 1-(5/6)^6, or about 66%\n\n66%",
"Other people provided the \"textbook\" answer here (flip the problem and think about probability of not landing), but if you want to take the direct approach, you can do it like this:\n\nLet F_t = landed on face I want\n\nLet E_t = landed on face I want either now or at some point in the past\n\nLet ~E_t denote negation (did not land on face I want either now at time t or any time in the past)\n\nWe want P(E_6)\n\nRoll 1: P(E_1) = P(F_1) = 1/6\n\nRoll 2: P(E_2) = P(E_1)P(E_2|E_1) + P(~E_1)P(E_2|E_1) = (1/6)*1 + (5/6)*(1/6) = (1/6)*(11/6) = 11/36\n\nRoll 3: P(E_3) = P(E_2)P(E_3|E_2) + P(~E_2)P(E_3|E_2) = (11/36)*1 + (25/36)*(1/6)\n\nAnd so on. Repeating this procedure gives you the answer everyone else got. The reason this works is that P(E_t|E_{t-1}) = 1 always -- if you saw your face at or before time t-1, you saw it at or before time t. If you didn't, you get to roll again.",
"You're right that probabilities shouldn't be added; they should be *multiplied*.\n\nThink about it like this. If you flip a coin, there's a 1/2 chance you'll get heads. If you flip twice, what's the chance you'll get heads both times? It's 1/4. There's a 1/2 chance you'll get heads the first time, and then *if* that happens then there's a 1/2 chance of getting the next heads. Similarly there's a (1/2)^3 = 1/8 chance of getting heads every time if you flip three times, (1/2)^4 = 1/16 of getting heads four times in four flips, and so on. (If you don't believe me, make a list of every possible outcome, and count how many give you all heads.)\n\nWe can use this logic for your problem as well, although the \"at least\" part of your question makes it a bit more complicated. The most straightforward way would be to take the probability you'll land on that face only once, the probability of landing on it only twice, and so forth, and add them all up.\n\nBut - as others have pointed out - there's a more clever way and simpler of rephrasing the problem. Let's say instead that you wanted the probability that you'll *never* land on a particular side. That's easy. There's a 5/6 chance of not landing on that side each time you roll, so the probability of not landing on that side all six rolls is (5/6)^(6), just like with the coin flips.\n\nBut that probability is the opposite of the one you're asking for. Either you never land on that side, or you land on it at least once. There's no alternative. The probabilities of all possible outcomes have to sum to 1 (there's a 100% chance that *something* will happen), so the answer is 1 - (5/6)^(6).",
"As others said, the correct answer is 1-(1-1/6)^6.\n\nCuriously, if you replace 6 by n, 1-(1-1/n)^n becomes a sequence with limit 1-1/e ~ 0.6321. So if you pick big n - say, 10000-sided dice and throw it 10000 times, there's about 63% probability it will land on a particular side at least once.\n\n > We roll six times, so do we add 6 of these to get a probability of 1? Surely not.\n\nTo see this even more sharply, if you roll seven times, the probability cannot be 7/6.\n\nThe error in this reasoning is that you can replace probability of union by sum of probabilities only if the events are disjoint. Otherwise, you're double counting the intersecting events. There's the [inclusion-exclusion principle](_URL_0_) which formalizes this fact, but for this task it's an overkill.",
"The explanations have already been provided by others but the best way to understand this (i.e. probability applied to finite set of independent events) is by visualization.\n\nDraw a tree labeling the nodes with the expected values of each throw. Thus the first level will have the set { 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 } and the second throw will have the same set *repeated for each* of the above values. This will at once make it clear that probabilities are *multiplied* rather than *added* at each throw. The solution than becomes clear.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_inclusion-exclusion"
],
[]
] |
|
1i867i
|
how does a high profile trial such as george zimmerman's affect the personal lives of the jurors?
|
(I've searched for something to answer this question, however I came up with nothing. If there is an answer on this sub, or elsewhere on Reddit, please direct me!)
We hear so much about the jury in high profile cases, as they hold the fate of the defense in their hands, and I'm curious as to what happens to their personal lives. Obviously their jobs, families and mental health must be affected. Since their identities are kept secret, who are they actually allowed to speak with? How do you tell your employer you have to serve on a jury without leaking that it's one that has gained national attention? Are their personal lives "put on hold?" (for lack of a better phrase)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1i867i/eli5_how_does_a_high_profile_trial_such_as_george/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb1wtd8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In some cases, their lives really are put on complete hold. They can be 'sequestered' by the judge, which basically puts them on lock-down, sometimes in a local hotel, to keep them away from ANY media coverage about the case, so as to remain as impartial as possible. For these big, high profile cases, it can be very taxing.\n\nEmployers, I believe (at least in some/most states?) are required by law to grant you time off for jury duty. All you can tell your employer is that you have jury duty and will be out for an indeterminate amount of time. You're not allowed to tell anyone which case you're sitting on, as they could have an interest in swaying your decision (plus it's dangerous to be exposed in high profile cases where one party has good...connections)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1kosnh
|
At any given moment in time, are there a finite number of planets in the universe?
|
This question stems from an argument I had with a buddy of mine over lunch one day. Both of us are university students (so we have some basic scientific knowledge) but we are also both in the social sciences (so we were more or less talking out of our asses). Now I'm curious to know the real answer.
I understand that the universe is infinite (sort of) and ever-expanding, but if we could magically freeze time and use GoogleGalaxy (tm) to fly around the universe, wouldn't we able to establish a finite number of planets that existed for that precise moment in time?
Maybe the problem stems from my inability to truly understand the concept of infinity. Or maybe it's a question that isn't really answerable with our current understanding of the universe. Thanks in advance for any answers, please throw whatever relevant articles you can at me so that I can try and muddle through the abstracts!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1kosnh/at_any_given_moment_in_time_are_there_a_finite/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbr414f",
"cbr4i38"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We can't give you a definitive yes or know answer. \n\nWe don't *know* that the universe is infinite, but so far our measurements are consistent with infinite and the laws of physics as we know them allow it with no problem, but they are also consistent with a very large finite universe.\n\nWe also don't *know* that the laws of physics as we know them are the same throughout space and time, nor that the universe is truly homogeneous over the whole universe, though both of these so far are true as well as we have been able to measure as far as we can see. It's possible though that we are within a bubble in which the universe has [one type of vacuum](_URL_0_) and outside are other vacua with different physical parameters that do not allow for the existence of planets.\n\nOne also runs into a subtlety defining \"one moment in time\" for the whole universe, because [relativity says that simultaneity depends on your reference frame](_URL_1_). Picking the wrong reference frame could mean there are no planets far enough in one direction because the universe is still a plasma, and in the other all the protons have decayed away. However there fortunately exists a \"comoving frame\" in which the local time since the big bang is the same in all places *given the assumptions above*. It's the same reference frame in which the cosmic microwave background is red-shifted the same amounts in all directions, and we are currently about 371 \nkm/s off that reference frame.\n\n\nIf all of the above are actually true, then yes, it should follow that there are an infinite number of planets. But that's a lot of ifs.",
"Let me just try and address this more abstract part of your question, regarding \"counting up\" the planets:\n\n > I understand that the universe is infinite (sort of) and ever-expanding, but if we could magically freeze time and use GoogleGalaxy (tm) to fly around the universe, wouldn't we able to establish a finite number of planets that existed for that precise moment in time?\n\n > Maybe the problem stems from my inability to truly understand the concept of infinity.\n\nIt sounds as though you think that, even if the universe is infinite, if we could somehow freeze time, then we'd be able to \"count up\" all the planets. Let me know if that's (in)correct.\n\nIf so, let's imagine something simpler instead: a checkerboard that extends infinitely in all directions, and let's try and count all the squares. If we kind of work our way outward in a kind of spiral, we won't miss any of the squares, and given a particular square, it will be counted after some finite amount of time. (there are, of course, other patterns we could use to count the squares). \n\nBUT! There's no finite time after which we will have counted **all** the squares. The planets (if the universe is infinite and homogeneous) are pretty much the same way - we have to spend some time finding the next planet to count, but freezing time still doesn't help the duration of the overall count - it still takes an infinite amount of time to count them all up.\n\nAside: this idea is what mathematicians call \"countably infinite\". There are infinitely many things, but at least there's some way to enumerate (\"count\") them. Common examples are the integers, and (perhaps surprisingly) the set off all fractions (specifically, numbers of the form p/q where both p and q are integers).\n\nThere are still \"greater\" infinities, for instance there are so many real numbers that one cannot even come up with a method for enumerating them; we say the real numbers are \"uncountably infinite\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Relativity_of_simultaneity"
],
[]
] |
|
2zlxbx
|
if the earth's rotation is 23 hours and 56 minutes long per cycle, how come we do not see days where the clock says it is nighttime or vice versa during the year?
|
I just wanted to say that I have been thinking about it, and boy, am I stumped.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zlxbx/eli5if_the_earths_rotation_is_23_hours_and_56/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpk3v4g",
"cpk3x9z",
"cpk3ycg",
"cpk401t",
"cpk40ho"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
12,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you have to account for the Earth orbiting around the Sun each day, which is accounts for about 4 minutes, which makes one day very close to 24 hours.",
"I think you're talking about stellar day, which is different than the earth's rotation relative to the sun which is much closer to 24 hours.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The Earth moves roughly one degree per day around its orbit, so the Earth has to rotate 361 degrees for the same point on the surface to be pointing at the Sun again. That extra degree(ish) takes the extra 4 minutes.",
"23 h 56 m is the approximate length of the *sidereal day*. If you had a sidereal clock, as some astronomers do, you would in fact see 1 pm occurring in the middle of the night.\n\nHowever, during the time it takes the earth to complete a full rotation, it travels about a degree along its orbit around the sun. It need to rotate a little bit extra...about 4 minutes, to get back to the same facing towards the sun. Add on that little bit to the sidereal day, and you get the *solar day*.",
"The earth is rotating around the sun, and also spinning on its axis. The number that you're citing (23h 56m) is the length of a *stellar day*, which is how long it takes the Earth to rotate against the stationary background of other stars. However, during that time, the Earth has also moved a bit further around the sun, which causes the next sunrise to be a few minutes later. This results in a *solar day* (the time it takes for the sun to reappear in the same position in the sky) to be almost exactly 24 hours."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth%27s_rotation"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2lupqb
|
Was there ever any domestic opposition to imperialism in Europe?
|
Obviously many opposed their government holding onto empires that were uneconomical and going through vicious civil war but was there ever domestic opposition on the basis of its morality? Eg. Were there British Parliament members who advocated for the abolishment of the empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2lupqb/was_there_ever_any_domestic_opposition_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clych75"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Actually, New Zealand is an almost perfect example of this. Australia had been set up as a penal colony in 1787 when the \"First Fleet\" arrived, and much persecution of native Aborigines followed. At this time Britain had recently lost the American Colonies, and though there had been a lot of domestic support for the American revolution, the feeling was still very much that colonies fared better under British influence. By the 1830's however attitudes began to change. Britain abolished slavery, repealed many oppressive laws designed to keep Catholics down, and the idea of Humanism was beginning to establish itself in London. The topic of New Zealand cropped up a lot in parliamentary debates, many Radical members (Forerunners of the Liberal Party) thought something out to be done to protect Maori interests and sovereignty.\n\nNew Zealand, by 1835, was essentially a lawless land where merchant ships often traded muskets or alcohol with local Maori for women and land. So in 1835 New Zealand was declared independent from Australia (previously it had been under the jurisdiction of the government of New South Wales) and formed a colony in it's own right. People debate the reasons for this, but it's generally accepted this was a measure to reduce lawlessness and protect Maori from getting swindled. Certainly the first two governors, Hobson and Fitzroy, did a lot of work in protecting Maori interests as well as preventing tribes from warring and the French attempting to establish a colony on the South Island.\n\nIn 1840 the Treaty of Waitangi was signed between the British Crown and many Maori chiefs (Though certainly not all, and controversy surrounds the Maori translations of the English text). One of the main clauses of the treaty was that Maori would only be allowed to sell land to the Crown and any and all previous land deals were considered void. Prior to this and for a long time after Maori chiefs travelled to London, held audiences with British Royalty, and were basically treated as 19th century celebrities."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1id3s1
|
How close is the measurement of horsepower to the power output of an actual horse?
|
I know the term is was coined by James Watt when he was trying to sell his first steam engines. Is his term accurate or just advertising?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1id3s1/how_close_is_the_measurement_of_horsepower_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb3a2cu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"[Stevenson and Wassersug](_URL_0_) state that the peak power output for a horse could reach 15hp, but that this was not sustainable (much like you could push a car uphill for a short amount of time, but doing it all day would be rather difficult). They then cite contemporary publications from the 19th/early 20th century, which recommend work equalling about 1hp for healthy working horses, implying that a horse could manage a horsepower on a regular basis without trouble."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.readcube.com/articles/10.1038/364195a0?locale=en"
]
] |
|
5qcuco
|
do all muslims follow sharia law or is it more comparable to all christians following the 10 commandments.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qcuco/eli5_do_all_muslims_follow_sharia_law_or_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcy7qal",
"dcy88gd",
"dcy8m9q",
"dcy8pm0",
"dcy8tbg",
"dcy8yj5",
"dcy946n",
"dcy94hv",
"dcy9fke",
"dcydjr2"
],
"score": [
64,
11,
3,
22,
3,
4,
3,
7,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"First, Sharia law is more like a set of rules and guidelines derived from multiple sources. It is less like the ten commandments and more like the Talmud or the collected decisions of the Catholic Church. \n\nSecond, individual Muslims interpret and abide by the rules to different measures and degrees, just as is the case for Christians, Jews, and members of other faiths. So there isn't really a general answer for how \"muslims\" treat these rules, and within Islamic communities people will differ. \n\nThird, to illustrate that, not all of your list of bullets reflect clear aspects of sharia. The discussion on the [wiki page for FGM](_URL_0_) for instance, points out that even though many schools of Islamic thought view FGM as permissible or even required, not all do and that the specific Hadith cited is viewed by scholars as weakly supported. Likewise Taqiyya isn't really a part of Islamic law, but a component of Islamic ethics/theology about when it is acceptable to lie to defend one's faith. There are parallel discussions in Christianity and Judaism, as well as secular systems of ethics. (Even the most orthodox jew, for instance, is permitted to break an ethical rule to save someone's life, even very important ones like keeping Kosher or eating on a fast day. It's not required, but it's allowed.)",
"Shaira Law isn't comparable to the Ten Commandments. There are actually several entries in Shaira Law which *contradict* the literal reading of the Quran, as I have read it.\n\nThe closest parallel in Catholic Christianity would be Papal Law. It claims Religious Authority while not being derived from the word of the Religion's Prophet. Instead, it was created by the Religious Authorities of the day.\n\nBoth exist for the same reason: The Bible and Quran do not cover every situation that can exist. When circumstances that are not covered by the text, or existing tradition, pop up... someone has to make a call. Those calls pile up, and you get some nice *Word of Dante* to sit *just below* your *Word of God*.",
"No, they do not. \n\nSharia law is not \"law\" in the civil sense. It's a set of guides for living an Islamic life. You are more in the ballpark when comparing it to the Ten Commandments, although it's probably broader than that (maybe more akin to *all* the Old Testament laws that the Jews were to follow, not just the Commandments). \n\nAs with the Ten Commandments in predominantly Christian countries, the sharia does have an influence on civil law in Muslim-majority countries, though, and Muslim extremists do try to get parts of sharia law codified in the civil law of many Muslim-majority countries. It's not solely extremists, though; Saudi Arabia probably implements more of sharia in their civil law than any other country, but Americans are less up in arms about the Saudi government, because, you know, _oil_. \n\nLast summer, the Washington Post did a good look at the [myths about sharia law](_URL_1_) as well [a history of how sharia became a topic of the American political debate](_URL_0_). TL;DR: it's mostly Newt Gingrich's fault. ",
"A lot of the things you posted are not actually sharia law at all. Washing myself for prayer is sharia law. Helping my neighbour who just had a heart attack is covered by sharia law. Prayer, fasting, charity, inheritance, the list goes on. \n\nIn this sense, all practicing Muslims practice at least some sharia law, every day. \n\nNot all sharia law is enforceable in a non Muslim state. So there is no wrongdoing on my part if I am robbed and the thief is punished according to western rules. \n\nAdditionally, you might find it interesting to know that the taking of a hand is not the immediate punishment for all forms of theft. If the thief is trying to raise money to feed their family, they are not punished, but rather the mayor or leader of that community is punished for not taking better care of their constituents. Even stealing for the sake of stealing isn't immediately punishable by the taking of hand; there is a gradual buildup of punishments, and a hand is only removed once it becomes clear the thief refuses to live any other way. \n\nYou or I or anyone is free to ask about the Quran. Is it valid, why do we think so, has it been changed, what does it mean, I disagree with that idea, etc etc. Lying about it is something different, but questioning the text or an interpretation of the text as a means of learning is correct, although it may make some people uncomfortable who were not raised as doubters :) I frequently ask for clarification, background, is there discussion on this by the scholars, etc. \n\nAsking to start an argument is not encouraged, as we are discouraged from having arguments for no real reason. But there is no penalty for asking questions about the Quran. \n\nWomen are banned from driving in Saudi Arabia only and there has been some noise about overturning that law of late. Plenty of Muslim women drive, all over the world. \n\nAdditionally many of the things you wrote are just plain wrong. I didn't need permission to divorce my husband from anyone, for example. ",
"I don't think Christians follow the Ten Commandments: they make images of the divine (Jesus, Sistine Chapel), and they don't keep the sabbath holy (instead they celebrate \"the Lords Day\" on Sunday after sabbath is over). ",
"While I can't help you with your Muslim questions, I'd like to clarify that Christians don't follow the 10 commandments...\n\nThe commandments were created for the Jews.\n\nChristianity specifically binds to a new covenant rather than subscribing to Old Testament (Jewish) laws. \n\nWhere the old laws were basically living guidelines to prevent the Jews from sin, the whole point of Jesus (the Christ) sacrifice was atonement for sins.\n\nIf you're interested, here are some relevant Biblical scripture on why Christians no longer are bound to the Old Testament (law):\n\n* Old Law faded away - 2ndCorinthians 3:7-8\n\n* Old Law passed away - Romans 7:1-6 [law comparison to marital adultery where if a wife left her husband (law) for a new husband (law) she could not serve them both]\n\n* Vanished away - Hebrews 8:7-13\n\nFurther confirmation that Christians no longer live under the old covenant, but the old covenant (testament/law) is helpful:\n\n* Hope for faith - Romans 15:4\n\n* Defense of sin - 1st Corinthians 10:1-?\n\n* Leads Christians to salvation - 2nd Timothy 3:14-15\n\n\n\n",
"For those reading this thread: What OP posted is not \"Sharia Law\", but a bunch of random rules from the Quran designed to display on the most extreme and negative aspects of Islam.",
"Not a Muslim, but I do have a lot of Muslim friends from childhood.\n\nMuslim law is divided into \"Shariah\" and \"Kanoon\". Shariah refers to religious law and Kanoon refers to secular law or law of the land. These are general terms and not specific references to anything.\n\nNow what constitutes \"Shariah\" entirely varies from community to community, from scholarly debates about nuances in elite circles, to generic family values passed as Shariah to Bible-Belt like Televangelists interpreting Shariah in strictest sense of the word. \"Shariah\" also comes from multiple sources including Quran, Sunnah and Hadiths, and there are various interpretations of that. Islam (currently) does not have a Caliphate, and hence there is no central authority to formally make a list (like Catholic Church). This means things vary widely from \"Fire and Brimstone\" version to \"Family values and Modesty\" to \"Eh, peaceful\" to \"Spiritual\". \n\nHowever, the caveat is that, unlike Bible, which is considered divinely inspired, Quran is considered the LITERAL word of God, which puts more restrictions on interpretative differences. On top of that, since Muslim countries are (currently) are the most religious and conservative societies, \"Muslim\" has become synonymous with good, and \"Shariah\" has become synonymous with righteousness or fairness, (in the same way as \"That's a very Christian thing to do\"). Hence, it is near-impossible to oppose Shariah without coming across as \"evil\" or \"against goodness\".\n\nBut differences still exist, For example, there is a line that says something like, \"Female believers, don't be bare-bodied, put on a Hijab over your breasts and have shame\", which could mean anything from [This Hijab](_URL_0_) to [This Hijab](_URL_1_). This is where Kanoon comes in. Kanoon can put additional rules over and above Shariah, as long as it doesn't force Muslims to do anything against Shariah.\n\n----------\nHence :-\n\nShariah : A man CAN marry upto 4 wives, ie, a man can have 1, 2, 3 or 4 wives, not more.\n\nKanoon : A man can marry upto 1 wife in this country. \n\nShariah : A man CAN beat his wife for insubordination. Ie, he may or may not, both permitted.\n\nKanoon : A man cannot beat his wife in this country.\n\n-------\n\nBut the catch is, this can go the other way too :-\n\nShariah : A woman must cover her chest with Hijab.\n\nKanoon : A woman must cover her chest, but in addition also hands, legs and head in this country.",
"The thing is that there's no \"real\" Sharia law.\n\nEvery \"Muslim\" country will extract a command or an advice in the Quran differently. There's no real paragraph to exactly look up to. Punishment in Islam is as far as I'm concerned only something that god or in other words Allah can do in the hereafter.\n\nHe Quran often gives examples such as leave these people(corrupt) alone as those are the ones bringing mischief amongst you.... and then it will end will \"indeed it is Allah that hears and sees everything, he is the one who judges over them....\".\n\nNowadays we'll have countries mixing up their cultural values with religion.\n\nBefore Islam female newborns were buried alive as they were seen as something bad (not having a boy). After Islam this tradition stopped and women were the rulers of the house but not too long as people started to bring up partially old traditions such as stoning etc.... Nowadays you'll see the Saudis using these kind of tortures.\n\nThere are plenty of countries obeying Sharia where women and men have both the same rights. Unfortunately we don't really see much from them as they appear \"normal\" to us with our western values.\n\nThere are people quoting and citing from the Quran verse by verse without a the context and history of the chapter or will mistranslate it. E.g. Quran said that it is recommended to cover ones hair. Often you'll see punishment in strict countries for not wearing one. (Men also cover their hair when praying or in every day life) \n\nI'll give you an advice which is also the advice I followed. Get as many translations of the Muslim book and read them, if sth seems fishy in translation, look up the Arabic for it and try to find the correct translation in context. Don't listen to people and their opinion. Read on your own. And remember the translation of the Quran id just the opinion of the translator of it. So it might be also helpful to learn some arabic and rhetoric for this case.\n\nThis is what I did for the past 10 years regarding every monotheistic religion. It's by far the best advice. Hope I could help in some way. Forgive any misspellings or mistakes, English isn't my first language.\n\n\nedit: I don't know who your source for those copy paste article is but they are very very inaccurate. Taqqiya for instance mean the act of denial. Denying your religion in case of a dangerous moment such as somebody wants to harm you for following your religion, this was also practiced by the jews and muslims durig the Christian reinquisition of Spain. Just an example of how much things can be mistranslated and even turned against their initial motivation.",
"I need to tell that most of the Muslim doesn't follow sharia and most reject it. My wife is muslim and the religion is very close in values as christian.love,peace,sharing and _URL_0_ least its suppose to.the extremist branch of the religion,culture,and low education/village mentality play a big role in this too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Religious_views_on_female_genital_mutilation#Islam"
],
[],
[
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/01/08/how-sharia-law-became-embedded-in-our-politics/",
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/five-myths-about-sharia/2016/06/24/7e3efb7a-31ef-11e6-8758-d58e76e11b12_story.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/4c/Benazir_Bhutto.jpg",
"https://static.independent.co.uk/s3fs-public/styles/story_medium/public/thumbnails/image/2009/03/30/23/IN8778281Burqa-clad-women-w.jpeg"
],
[],
[
"respect.at"
]
] |
||
4v21jg
|
Do birds ping?
|
I own several very vocal caique parrots, which have a variety of calls and sounds they make. One of the things they often do is send out a short single note, to which they seem to expect a reciprocal response from me (with a return whistle, if they can't see me) or one another, if they are separated. I just wondered if this is unique to my caiques, or if this apparent pinging as a way of locating and reassuring one another of location is common in birds?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4v21jg/do_birds_ping/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5v5vt3",
"d5wir7b"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I know a few bird species that do this ( it may not be common across a lot of them) cardinals, blujays, chickadees, and a variety of song birds use \"contact calls\" to locate one another.",
"Sounds like contact calls to me! Though I am unsure if a species specific call has been studied or described for caiques in particular, I know for a fact that many other parrot species (parakeets, budgies, amazons) use contact calls regularly to maintain their pairs or groups. In fact, on a recent trip to Nicaragua my lab and I collected data on contact call dialects in wild Yellow-naped amazons. With this species at least, birds in different areas show structural variations in contact calls which functionally serve the same purpose. So I can imagine that if your birds are using a contact call (that they didn't learn from their wild brethren), it might be a particular variant for your home flock. A home dialect of sorts. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8d4122
|
what exactly does it mean when one country 'recognises' another country? conversely, what does it mean when one country refuses to recognise another country?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8d4122/eli5_what_exactly_does_it_mean_when_one_country/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxk3s65"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
" Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: What does it mean when one country refuses to acknowledge the existence of another country? ](_URL_0_) ^(_8 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How does international recognition of a country differ (e.g. South Sudan, Kosovo)? ](_URL_1_) ^(_8 comments_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38fh4a/eli5_what_does_it_mean_when_one_country_refuses/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4eo985/eli5_how_does_international_recognition_of_a/"
]
] |
|
133z3v
|
How many different types of visible light are there?
|
I'm unsure if light only comes in flavors of red/green/blue and the other colors are a result of destructive wave interference of the different types of wavelengths or if something like orange light independently exists without need of red and green light. So are there just the three main types of visible light, or does each frequency represent an independent form of light, that is not a result of interference?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/133z3v/how_many_different_types_of_visible_light_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c70lk10"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are an infinite number of frequencies of light. By themselves they don't group into colors, they're just a frequency (wavelength). We perceive colors because of the nature of our eyes. We have receptors that are differentially sensitives. Most people have three different types, corresponding to the three different primary colors. Colorblind people have fewer. Some women have four types and presumably see colors based on four primaries rather than three."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3l23b9
|
When, and why, did the US close its borders to Mexico.
|
I've looked around a bit, but only come across "Regan did it" as an answer without much to support it. From what my mother mentioned, immigrants from Mexico had a day of registration every year, and that was it. What changed?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3l23b9/when_and_why_did_the_us_close_its_borders_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv2ldn9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Around Reagan's presidency, drug trafficking was popular. Pablo Escobar and the rest of the Medellín cartel were bringing 15 tons of cocaine to America a day. Many of their trade routes went through the Mexican-American border. This was a big factor to having heavy control over the border during Reagan's War on Drugs.\n\nBut even in the past we see that the border has been in constant dispute. The annexation of Texas led to the Mexican-American War, which ended with the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo (1848) where America also gained New Mexico, Arizona, and California. Then the U.S. bought Tucson and Sierra Vista in the Gadsden Purchase in 1854 to build a railway. America gained a lot of land and it's kinda been America's mission to keep it for ourselves, away from the Confederate States during the Civil War, the French, and the Mexicans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ep6wr
|
why california hasn't embraced desalinization to deal with the water shortage?
|
I understand that it's expensive to desalinate water, but doesn't the need for water outweigh the expense of the energy to desalinate it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ep6wr/eli5why_california_hasnt_embraced_desalinization/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck1md5x",
"ck1md8j",
"ck1mniw",
"ck1o98x",
"ck1v4wu"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Desalination is expensive, and takes a lot of equipment to do it at a municipal level. So they could start building the centers to combat the drought, and they would be done in 2-10 years. ",
"It does if you're dying if thirst, but not if you just need people to not waste water on their silly lawns and 30 minute showers.",
"Because it's much cheaper to truck water in from somewhere else then to invest in desalination ",
"If I remember correctly, desalinization has a few disadvantages:\n\n1. Like you said, it's expensive. Estimated costs for a desalinization plant in California are about 36% more than what they're paying now (source: _URL_0_). That source is from 2008, but close enough.\n\n2. There are environmental concerns. Desalinization plants produce waste like brine and solids. They can also potentially kill fish, plankton and other critters that are sucked in with the ocean water.\n\nWhen you get right down to it, I think the need doesn't outweigh the cost yet. Though I'm not especially familiar with California's water situation, it seems that right now they can sorta squeak by with water restrictions. Eventually they'll have to make some serious water use changes and/or go for desalinization though.",
"We are, the largest desalination plant in the world is currently being built in Carlsbad, Ca. (About 30 miles north of downtown San Diego, Ca)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/SB120053698876396483?mg=reno64-wsj"
],
[]
] |
|
1vx5ao
|
Why isn't cloud seeding more common?
|
In places like California where we are having a dry warm winter and officially in a drought, why isn't cloud seeding used when it can be used? Moisture isn't high enough for it to work? Is there a negative waste by product? Expensive? Doesn't work as I understand it would?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1vx5ao/why_isnt_cloud_seeding_more_common/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewo4wh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For the most part, we don't know if it works. Would it have rained or snowed without the seeding? Who knows? While research is ongoing, seeding has been used for well over half a decade now, with no conclusively convincing evidence of its effectiveness. Weather is pretty complex, and it's really hard to determine if seeding contributes significantly enough to well... be statistically significant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
w70gb
|
why is increasing your heart rate through physical activity good and for anxiety reasons bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/w70gb/why_is_increasing_your_heart_rate_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5atmpr",
"c5awxnp"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"The main reason is that it's better to have relaxed artery walls. Increasing heart rate through physical activity causes arteries to relax. In anxiety, it causes them to constrict. ",
"Incomplete answer: Anxiety triggers hormones that are good in emergencies (I'm might die right now!) but bad over the long term. Increased energy and alertness from these hormones can help you survive a threatening situation. But, the same hormones cause wear-and-tear on your system (ex: inflammation and hardening of the arteries). If you are chronically anxious (living a stressful lifestyle), your body is wearing itself out by being in emergency mode all the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
49rx28
|
if every household collected rainwater, would it hurt the environment? how does this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/49rx28/eli5_if_every_household_collected_rainwater_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0uc7av"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It depends on how they were going about doing it. \nIf everyone covered all their lands with plastic tarps and took all the rain water than less of it would be flowing into streams and lakes. \nBut this would require extreme amounts of collection. \nA more likely scenario is that all those collection of standing fresh water will breed mosquitoes, potentially spreading mosquito borne diseases faster."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2pwn1o
|
What is the effect of air pressure on melting point of water?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2pwn1o/what_is_the_effect_of_air_pressure_on_melting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn0nqpk",
"cn0rmqa",
"cn0xi4s",
"cn13rwn"
],
"score": [
195,
9,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"If you look at the [phase diagram of water](_URL_0_) you can see that the melting point decreases weakly as pressure is increased, reaching a minimum of about -20 C at extremely high pressure. [Here](_URL_1_) is a zoomed in version but I don't trust the scale.",
"Pressure causes Melting point lowering and boiling point raising. Another effect that is similar is adding solutes to solutions (salting roads to melt the ice). The former is actually the reason skiing and ice skating work so well. The added pressure from the weight of your body pushing on the ice via your skis lowers the snow's melting point enough that you melting is occuring at a molecular level on contact, allowing you to slip and slide down the slopes. The same concept is applied to skating but at a much higher amount of pressure due to the pin point surface area of the blade. Once the pressure has passed, the molecular film of water is allowed to refreeze. Cool stuff.",
"The line between Solid and water in this diagram is the intersection of pressure and temperature that makes the solid change phase. Basically this line means that at that temperature and pressure, there is enough potential energy to change the phase of water, and all that potential energy turns into kinetic energy and the transformation happens. As you can see in this diagram, if you keep temperature constant and raise the pressure, you can actually melt ice at certain temperatures. _URL_0_",
"Here is an explanation at the molecular level. At the triple point, the rate in which the water is becoming a vapor, liquid and solid are equal. Once you add more air (assuming no dissolution), you are increasing the rate of collisions between the liquid and the gas. Therefore, it will become increasing more difficult for a water molecule to escape the liquid phase. Each time a water molecule has enough energy to escape, it is now likely to collide with either a water OR an air molecule so it returns back to the water phase. \n\nThe reason why the liquid phase of water is favored with increase in pressure is because water in the liquid phase happens to be the most dense. This is a highly unique property of water and explains why ice floats on liquid water (ice is less dense than liquid water). One way to think about this is that the pressure forces the water molecules to be closer to each other. \n \nTechnically, an increase in pressure will allow more air molecules to be dissolved in the water. This can be ignored because air is non-polar and not very attracted to water or itself. This means that it takes very little energy for an air molecule to escape the liquid phase. Clearly the equilibrium will lie with most of the air molecules being in the gas phase.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.stack.imgur.com/n6LXj.gif",
"http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/research_education/equilibria/h2o_phase_diagram_-_color.v2.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://d32ogoqmya1dw8.cloudfront.net/images/research_education/equilibria/h2o_phase_diagram_-_color.v2.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
1ims8o
|
why was "smells like teen spirit" considered such a revolutionary song? and what's so special about kurt cobain?
|
I've heard the song before, I was born in the 90's, I still don't understand why this song is considered one of the best ever. I do like the song, don't get me wrong, but it doesn't really ring that much to me. And Kurt Cobain (bless his soul and rest in peace) what's his legacy? Besides being in Nirvana, did he had an impact with his music? Or was it something else?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ims8o/eli5_why_was_smells_like_teen_spirit_considered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb5ywow",
"cb5yzi4",
"cb60oak"
],
"score": [
4,
9,
6
],
"text": [
"One reason why their songs don't sound as revolutionary now as they did then is that nearly all rock songs after them imitated their sound.\n\nIf you go and look at music in the late 80s it was Madonna, Roxette, Phil Collins. Nirvana was a genuinely new sound and attitude.",
"Nirvana gets a lot of the credit for starting the \"grunge\" movement. What makes smells like teen spirit so different is it's grunge sound and lyrical content. This was the first mainstream song to sort of glorify angsty, awkward teenagers and give them a coherent voice. It probably rings less with you because so much music has been heavily influenced by it. As far as his legacy is concerned, as one of the pillars of grunge music he has had a major impact on the last 20 or so years of rock music, most specifically alt/college rock.",
"Consider the state of mainstream music up until late 1991. Since the 70s, we'd been subjected to progressive rock in some form or another, be it heavy metal (Aerosmith, Van Halen, etc), light metal (Boni Jovi, Winger, etc), or hair metal (Mötley Crüe, Poison, etc). That's about two decades of the same shit over and over only variating slightly. The public was clearly sick of it, as the music industry hit a slump in sales roughly from 1988 to 1991.\n\nPunk rock had popped up back in the late 70s in response to this, but it seemed impossible to make it mainstream. '77 punk (Ramones, etc) never was successful, as it was treated by the media as a fad for New Yorkers. Hardcore punk had only one charting album (Black Flag's *Damaged* at #99 on the Billboard charts) due to lack of exposure to the general public. College rock (or indie rock as it is now known) couldn't get big until the 90s, as bands like REM were seen by mainstream producers as simply too different to promote. (And keep in mind that we didn't have the internet back then to expose us to these bands; you only knew of them if you lived in or traveled to big cities, and even then you had to make an effort to find them.)\n\nThe industry wanted something new to promote, but they wanted something close to what they usually made. They first tried louder hair metal (Guns 'n Roses), but that was only moderately successful at best. They tried thrash metal, but that only appealed to a small niche as most people were afraid of those bands. (Yes, back in the day you could wear a Metallica T-shirt and people would actually think you were dangerous.)\n\nEventually, they noticed that the song \"Touch Me I'm Sick\" by Mudhoney was popular with young people on the west coast. They then started signing bands from Seattle and bands that associate with them. Soundgarden was moderately successful after signing, so they grabbed up more of them. After Sonic Youth signed on, Nirvana was convinced to sign as well.\n\nThe thing that made Nirvana different was that they were not strictly a grunge band. Grunge is basically punk rock with heavy metal ironically mixed in. This is why bands like Soundgarden and Alice In Chains have a sludgier sound than Nirvana. Nirvana, on the other hand, mixed grunge with college rock - the very thing the industry bet against. This made them sound like nothing that had been on the radio or MTV before.\n\nSo if you were some average music fan who had no exposure to punk or its progeny throughout the past few decades, listening to Nirvana for the first time was listening to a form of rock music that simply never existed as far as you knew. It was a chance to hear a genre that was authentically produced by your generation, not by Baby Boomers who were now manufacturing music to maximize profits. It was a complete change to your worldview of what rock music could be because you were no longer being convinced that the range of the genre was as narrow as it had been since the 70s.\n\nAnd everything about Nirvana was in complete contrast to the metal bands that had dominated the past few decades. Metal bands looked clean, made-up, and fantastical; Nirvana looked like the guys who serve you at a coffee shop. Metal songs used the progression of classical music; grunge had the three-chord sound of punk. Metal songs were about sex and having fun; grunge was about emotions and the struggle with life's issues. Even the music video was different; while metal videos were clean, bright videos about making the band look like rock gods, \"Teen Spirit\" was dingy and focused on the mosh pit while obscuring the band (notice how Kurt is always obscured by light and his hair and we get only brief glimpses of the Dave and Krist).\n\nTo put it simply, it was revolutionary because nothing else in the mainstream was like it, and everything else had worn out its welcome decades ago. With something so fresh and original available, demand for metal dried up and demand for alternative rock, punk rock, and pretty much *everything* that the mainstream music industry wasn't willing to expose the public to increased sharply. Since then, rock music has been varied rather than repetitive as it had been for 20+ years. \"Teen Spirit\" wasn't just a really good song; it was the leader in a movement towards artistic freedom."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
158y9b
|
i've heard that roads tend to be safer without speed limits. why does the us still have them?
|
I've also read (_URL_1_, so not super reliable) that fewer road signs in general, and replacing dangerous intersections with roundabouts tend to be safer. It seems like a lot of European and Scandinavian countries are learning these things, but the US doesn't even try anything new. Is there a reason?
(article that made me curious: # 5-- > http://www._URL_1_/article_20106_6-little-known-driving-tips-that-could-save-your-life.html)
/u/trouphaz added another good article from cracked: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/158y9b/ive_heard_that_roads_tend_to_be_safer_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7kba79",
"c7kbli1",
"c7kc9xv",
"c7kci3w",
"c7ke9o2",
"c7kfagn",
"c7kfh65"
],
"score": [
10,
38,
2,
45,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Here are a few of my theories.\n\n1. One is that it is counterintuitive to think that removing speed limits can actually make roads safer and many people don't seem to like to refer to scientific studies. Instead, they'd rather believe what their gut tells them. One of the issues then that we deal with in the US is that many of these sorts of decisions are made by regular people who worked their way through government instead of by scientists and the like.\n2. In order to feel like they are accomplishing something, politicians would rather add laws than remove them. So, someone got credit for adding the speed limit, but no one wants to get credit for removing it. Again, the average person is going to just *feel it in their guts* that speed limits increase safety and think you are horrible. Politicians generally seem to care more about reelection than actually doing what is right.\n3. Speed limits likely generate a TON of money for local and state government and they can feel good about the highway robbery by say, \"Well, you did break the law. So, you need to be punished.\"\n4. Just wanted to add one more.... it is possible that the studies referred to in the Cracked article aren't definitive enough to apply to all US roads. Yeah, Montana is not a good place to judge other places like NJ, NY, etc.\n\n\nEDIT: added one more. oh, and one more thing, you posted the wrong link. it should be _URL_0_",
"Revenue from speeding violations is probably one of the likely reasons.",
"It doesn't feel right to me, and I can't help but think of all the fucking assholes coming out of the woodwork. But the base principle makes sense, most people drive at the speed they feel comfortable with not what the speed limit says. \n \n_URL_0_",
"Because roads *are* safer with speed limits. There are many scientists who work in road safety, and they would be in 99% agreement over this. The European and Scandanavian countries that have the lowest fatality rates in the world also have the lowest speed limits (UK, Netherlands, Sweden).",
"That is just crazy. There is almost no reason that going faster would make things safer. It makes car crashes worse, and lowers potential or reaction time. The only positive thing is that maybe it would force people to pay more attention, but that seems like a draconian method of accomplishing that.\n\nI just do not like highways even as they are. Go to Los Angeles (where people drive super fast and there is always lots of traffic), and see all the car accidents. Eliminating speed limits is an absolutely insane idea.",
"European cars are built for this kind of thing, American not so much.\n\nIn my rural-ish area, everyone rocks SUVs or pickup trucks (many of which never pick anything up, just status symbols), that can easily roll over, with mile long stopping distances at any real speed. Automatic transmissions aren't much of a braking assist, either.\n\nAdd in lack of safety inspections in many states, meaning you can legally drive a car with bald tires and almost no brakes, and it would be a slaughteryard out here.\n",
"Well the fact is that these experiments were carried out in locations where people were already familiar with road laws, so when the signs etc. were removed, they relied more on their situational awareness in congruence with their knowledge of road laws. If such things were not there in the first place, the drivers would be less skilled overall and more accidents would occur."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_the-5-most-popular-safety-laws-that-dont-work.html",
"cracked.com",
"http://www.cracked.com/article_20106_6-little-known-driving-tips-that-could-save-your-life.html"
] |
[
[
"http://www.cracked.com/article_17216_the-5-most-popular-safety-laws-that-dont-work.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.motorists.org/speed-limits/do-limits-matter"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1c0ohy
|
If the universe is infinite in all directions, does that mean no matter where you move you will always be in the exact center?
|
Just a question I was thinking about, maybe some people could tune into this and help me out? We understand the universe is infinite in all directions. So in theory does that not mean that no matter where you move, you are in the exact center at all times?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1c0ohy/if_the_universe_is_infinite_in_all_directions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9c3l39",
"c9c5s84",
"c9c94do"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Not really. The Universe has no center.\n\nThe Big Bang wasn't just an explosion of \"stuff\", it was the rapid expanding of space itself. The entirety of space is slowly moving away from each other not just it's edges/ends/corners/terminals/whatever (There's no real correct term here - The end of the universe is literally the end, as far as we know there's nothing beyond).\n\nAssuming the Universe is at least somewhat spherical: The center of a sphere is the point equidistant from the points on the edges. Since the universe has no conceivable edges or end, there is no center.",
"If the universe is infinitely big (which is the go-to assumption nowadays, and at least somewhat supported by evidence, but it has not been proven yet), then there is no center. Talking about the center of the entire universe becomes pretty meaningless.\n\nYou will always appear to be in the center of your observable universe. This is true regardless of whether the universe is infinite or not.",
"\"Infinite\" means \"without end\". A space, or (Easier to imagine.) a stretch that does not end does not have a center at all. And no, it's not ok to imagine that everywhere is the center then.\n\nThe definition of \"center\" (in one dimension) is \"the point that has the *same* distance to the outer border in both directions\". \"Infinite\" is not a number, it is not a defined value, it just means \"without end\". So, a point that has an infinite stretch to the left and also to the right is still not in the middle. Only *the word* is equal. The value it stands for is not defined, so the value is not equal, so the point is not at the center. It's not akin to saying \"-x ... 0 .... x\", it's rather akin to saying \"x ... 0 ... y\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1prcd4
|
if reddit only has user-driven content with highly upvoted posts receiving the most attention, why does it have mods removing posts and banned websites?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1prcd4/eli5_if_reddit_only_has_userdriven_content_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd56vfg",
"cd575q1"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The most common reason for a site being banned from reddit is for the site to be engaging in practice that ether encourage their content to be upvoted or prevent their content from being downvoted. In effect prevent the system that was in place to control the content.",
"Reddit is not a democracy. Each subreddit is run by the mods according to their wishes. If a mod team thinks that links to certain sites are harming the discussion in their subreddit somehow (false information, biased source, etc.) then they ban it because they think it will make the sub better. The democratic part comes back in though because if you don't like the mods of a certain subreddit, you can always make your own."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6mmjys
|
cars with a "sport mode" button and what exactly goes on inside them when you press it.
|
Got myself a 2017 Jeep Renegade recently but i had to go for the "Sport" model cause it's really the only one with a manual transmission nd i really get bored driving autos. It has this strange "sport" button, and when i press it, everything that involves the motor seems to work a lot better, but nobody could really explain that to me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6mmjys/eli5_cars_with_a_sport_mode_button_and_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk2nbqx"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It's highly dependent on the car, but what can happen may include:\n\n* If your car has a dynamic suspension, the shock absorbers may become more ridged, or the car may be lowered\n\n* Your power steering may be adjusted to be more responsive, or shut off (it typically shuts off at higher speeds anyway)\n\n* The engine mapping might change to produce more power\n\n* Traction control may adjust the threshold and parameters it engages to allow for more aggressive power transfer at the risk of some slip\n\n* Automatic or semi-automatic transmissions may adjust their shift points to act at much higher RPM\n\n* Certain features may be enabled, like launch control, if you have it\n\nEDIT:\n\nYour engine may \"work better\", but fuel economy goes right out the window.\n\nYour engine undergoes a shit ton of design and instrumented testing during it's development. They use these special test \"cells\" that control every possible operating parameter, and they run these engines through the gambit, essentially every possible speed, load, and environmental and atmospheric condition, at $10k/hr, to develop the \"map\", if you can imagine - essentially a gigantic table of all the operating parameters for the engine.\n\nBased on what the car's sensors are telling it, the computer will select the ideal operating parameters in the map. These maps are conservative, for fuel economy, emissions, and engine reliability.\n\nNormally, when driving, you're doing so under \"closed-loop\", where sensors provide feedback and the map selection is adjusted, as I had suggested above. Under the right conditions, such as under load or demand (such as going full throttle), the map switches to \"open-loop\", where the computer basically disregards the sensors and selects a mapping that produces power at the expense of all else.\n\nThere's also a shorter term \"learning\" (used, very, very loosely) system that will make adjustments beyond the map. So if your engine develops a misfire, or a hot spot, or you used some shitty fuel, or you bolted on a turbocharger without tuning the engine for it, this system can mitigate all these things.\n\nSo this is the system that changes when you go into sport mode. You're using a different part of the map and the operating parameters are adjusted differently for performance, sacrificing all else, which is why you turn it on when you're going to use it, and turn it off when you're not. Never just run in sport mode just because, as it puts unnecessary wear on the engine, running at higher RPM for no reason, and wastes fuel.\n\nAs I said, this map from the factory is conservative, and meant to work under all conditions, appropriate for mass production and a world wide market. A tuner can adjust this map to gain performance, fuel economy, and emissions, by making it specific to your region. They can, it doesn't mean they will - because the manufacturer spent $10k/hr to develop their map, and any Joe in their garage and with a hand unit from Autozone can call themselves a tuner. If you were ever to do this, do your research and find a reputable tuner that actually knows what the fuck they're doing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a24fp7
|
According to the BBC, the average life expectancy for an Allied pilot in 1915 was just 11 days; how were they able to recruit pilots? Was it understood just how hazardous a posting it was? What major technical advances (if any) were made through the course of the war to make it safer?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a24fp7/according_to_the_bbc_the_average_life_expectancy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eawyhm6"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Was that 11 days on which combat occurred or 11 days in a row? I ask because I once read something like the average life expectancy of American bomber crews in combat in WWII Europe was something like 35 seconds, but this was because of the strict definition of what constituted “combat” and the funny ways averages sometimes behave in certain datasets."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ripf2
|
If your skin temperature is lower than usual and you stick your hand/foot in hot water, does it do actual damage?
|
I was thinking of this as I went to take a shower last night and my feet were cold. The water wasn't hotter than it normally would be but it felt like sticking my feet in boiling water. Is it just the sensation or is there actual damage being caused? Also, what exactly causes this to happen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ripf2/if_your_skin_temperature_is_lower_than_usual_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnghciz"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Sensory or neural adaptation is a change in time in responsiveness to a constant stimulus, for example, what your clothes feel like on your skin. When your feet are cold, the neurons that transmit a feeling of warmth are not firing. When you submerge them in warm water, these warm-sensing neurons begin firing rapidly signaling heat, but you're also signaling a rapid temperature change. Because of the rapidity with which your body was sensing the rise in temperature, nociceptors, or receptors that signal pain, became activated, warning you that something may be potentially wrong.\n\nUnless you are actually using boiling water, there is likely no damage being caused."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6pzd49
|
How common were fighting churchmen in Medieval Europe?
|
By "fighting churchmen" I mean ministers like priests/bishops, monks, and friars who took active roles (i.e. fighting and killing) in battles. I know there were monastic orders of knights like the Hospitallers and Teutonic Order so I'm not asking about those (correct me if I'm wrong but my understanding is most of the actual fighters in those orders were laymen anyway).
And yes, I know "Medieval Europe" encompasses a lot of people, places, and wars over a long stretch of time so if the experts wish to speak specifically on one or two times and places that's fine, or just a general overview is fine too.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6pzd49/how_common_were_fighting_churchmen_in_medieval/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkuep3w"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In Spring 1218, an Oeselian army, a pagan people of the Baltic, marched upon the Christian settlements in Metsepole, a region in Latvia. A parish priest, Godfrey, mounted his horse and rode to the surrounding villages, summoning help from the German bishop of Riga. The next day, the Christians faced the pagans in battle:\n\n\"There were only seven of the servants of the German bishop and the eighth was the priest Godfrey, who belted on his weapons for war and put on his breastplate, like a giant, desiring to save his sheep from the jaws of the wolves. They rushed valiantly upon the Oeselians from behind, killing some of them most bravely.\"\n\nThis account is taken from the chronicle of Henry of Livonia, himself a parish priest. Clerical armsbearing certainly did happen though it is difficult to state exactly how common it was. Canon law had repeatedly condemned clerical violence in the eleventh century. From 1049 to 1079 twelve church councils or synods, seven under the direct auspices of the papacy, forbade clerical armsbearing in some form, suggesting it was relatively common, or at least the church thought it was. However, by the late medieval period this opposition had shifted. The advent of the crusades, military orders like the Knights Templar, and new developments in just war theory all contributed to more lax rules on clerical violence as did the conclusion that by natural law priests had the right to defend themselves. A late fourteenth century canon lawyer in Bologna, Giovanni da Legnano, assessed a series of instances to decide when it was acceptable in canon law for priests to fight and kill. These scenarios included:\n\n* When attacked whilst baptising a dying child\n\nAnswer: yes, but only if the child will survive the time it takes to kill your attacker. Otherwise you need to baptise them whilst you're being murdered.\n\n* Killing someone in self-defence whilst celebrating mass and then continuing with the ceremony?\n\nAnswer: Yes, but only if you are in mortal danger and there was no other way to defend yourself and continue the mass.\n\nAfter the eleventh century clerical violence was no longer repeatedly condemned as it had been. Of the seven ecumenical councils from 1123 to 1311, five did not mention the matter at all. When armsbearing was condemned, it often seemed contradictory, as at the council of Vienne in 1311-2. The same council ordered that Benedictines could not bear arms in their abbey precinct without the permission of their abbot, suggesting that they could bear arms outside. In 1289, Nicholas IV allowed the Franciscans to carry weapons 'in defence of the Roman Church, the Christian faith, or their country, or with the permission of their ministers'.\n\nSenior clergy were sometimes freed from restrictions on armsbearing. The Carolingians tacitly exempted bishops and abbots from the definition of 'clericus', allowing them to serve militarily. The 1050 council of Coyanza ruled that priests and deacons in the Castillian diocese of Oviedo, were barred from 'arms of war'. Bishops were not mentioned, possibly deliberately as such senior ecclesiastics could often be found serving as royal commanders. For example, Anthony Bek, bishop of Durham, was with Edward I when he put down a Welsh uprising in 1295, participated in the English invasion of Scotland in 1296, and fought at the Battle of Falkirk in 1298. In 1300 he besieged and stormed his own cathedral of Durham following a dispute with the prior over the right of visitation. An anonymous poem of the event recounts that:\n\n\"From boyhood Bishop Anthony \nHad learned to fight most readily, \nAnd in violence trusted more \nThan in the texts of canon law\"\n\nBut such violence was not universally condemned. The Pope made Bek patriarch of Jerusalem in 1306. When he died in 1311 Bek was buried in the same cathedral he stormed and whose monks he attacked. He became the first bishop of Durham since St Cuthbert to be buried there.\n\nIt is likely that frontier areas like Livonia and the Crusader States were where clerical violence was most common and perhaps the most tolerated. In 1119 Bernard, patriarch of Antioch, defended the city with a force of 'armed clergy and knights' until Baldwin II of Jerusalem arrived with a relieving force. In January 1120 a church council at Nablus, held by Baldwin II and the patriarch of Jerusalem, allowed clergy to bear arms for defence. \n\nHenry of Livonia's chronicle has several instances suggesting that priests in the Baltic had to be prepared to fight at short notice. The passage above states that Godfrey's weapons and breastplate are 'his', suggesting that this parish priest had his own weaponry and armour. Henry also appears to have approved of Godfrey's actions. 'like a giant, desiring to save his sheep from the jaws of the wolves' are references to passages from Maccabees and elsewhere in the Bible. \n\nAnother passage describes an attack by the pagan Kurs on Riga: \n\n\"The citizens, the Brothers of the Militia [the Sword Brethren], and the ballistarii, few though they were, together with the clerics and the women, all had recourse to arms\"\n\nHenry even mentions an anecdote featuring himself ready to fight. He and his fellow priests were interrupted whilst baptising a man called Kyriawan:\n\n\"While we were on the point of annointing him with the holy oil, a great clamour arose and a rushing of our army through all the streets and everyone ran to arms, crying that a great host of pagans was coming against us. We immediately put down the holy chrism and the other holy articles, therefore, and hurried to the ministry of shields and swords.\"\n\nSources:\n\nJames A. Brundage, *The Chronicle of Henry of Livonia* (Chichester, 2003).\n\nLawrence Duggan, *Armsbearing and the Clergy in the History and Canon Law of Western Christianity* (Woodbridge, 2013).\n\nT. E. Holland and F. W. Kelsey (eds), *Tractatus de bello, de represaliis et de duello* (Oxford, 1917)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
z9kcd
|
Why is it that gravity slingshots work? Don't the violate conservation of energy?
|
How is it that you can gain kinetic energy without inputing any force?
Eg. Voyageur 1 performed a slingshot around Neptune to transfer into a hyperbolic orbit.
Where did that energy come from? Did the planet slow down it's rotation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z9kcd/why_is_it_that_gravity_slingshots_work_dont_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c62o39p",
"c62ocbp",
"c62onst"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"No scientist here, but I'm pretty sure that the conservation of energy is true with planets as well. The amount Neptune slowed down is probably like 0.0000000000000000001% but that was enough to propel voyager further. ",
"Slingshots only work with planets that are in motion. For example, it would not work with a stationary planet (assume all the planets were stationary for simplicity). But if a planet is moving quickly, we can gain some of that energy with a slingshot maneuver.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\"The \"assist\" is provided by the motion of the gravitating body as it pulls on the spacecraft.\"\n\nThis line is also interesting and relevant:\n\n\"Interplanetary slingshots using the Sun itself are not possible because the Sun is at rest relative to the Solar System as a whole. However, thrusting when near the Sun has the same effect as the powered slingshot described below\"",
"Close - the energy comes from the *orbital kinetic energy* of the planet - the planet slows down in its orbit around the sun.\n\nIt's useful to look at this problem from a couple of different perspectives. First, our camera is following along with the planet. Here, the planet is stationary. The probe falls towards the planet, slingshots around it, and then flies away from the planet. From this perspective, the probe's speed has not changed, even though its direction has. The probe has the same speed relative to the planet before the interaction as it had afterwards.\n\nNext we focus our camera on the Sun. In this perspective, the planet appears to be moving quite fast. The probe's speed also looks different from here. Suppose the probe was flying directly towards the planet at 10 km/s (relative to the Sun), in a \"retrograde\" orbit - i.e. they're moving in opposite directions and are going to hit head-on. The planet is moving at say, 30 km/s relative to the Sun. So from the planet's perspective, the probe is approaching at 40 km/s. It swings around the planet, and suppose it achieves a full 180 degree turn. It is still moving at 40 km/s relative to the planet, but it is no moving in the opposite direction. This means that relative to the Sun it is moving at 40+30=70 km/s - a huge increase in speed. To make this balance out, the planet must be slowed down a little in its orbit - while it was slingshotting around, it was pulling the planet in the opposite direction, slowing it down slightly.\n\np.s. I like your French spelling of \"Voyager\" :P"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravity_assist"
],
[]
] |
|
1795mk
|
who, or what, is citizens united, and why have they all of a sudden been in the news so much lately?
|
I've been seeing a lot of posts on Reddit pop up, and in the morning news programs on the drive into work about Citizens United, though nobody has ever really stopped and talked about why they exist, what they stand for, and why they're causing such controversy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1795mk/eli5_who_or_what_is_citizens_united_and_why_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c83cl5l",
"c83g0yq"
],
"score": [
31,
49
],
"text": [
"Citizens United has been in the news for a long time.\n\nIt's the name of a group, but it now refers to the major supreme court decision \"Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission\". In this decision the supreme court specifically said that corporations can spend money on election related messages, including advertisements.\n\nThis decision lead to billions of more dollars being spent during the last election by various corporations and groups that previously weren't allowed to contribute in the same way.",
"Citizens United refers to a court decision *Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission*.\n\nCitizens United was making a movie that was critical of Hillary Clinton and wanted to advertise it before the 2008 democratic national convention. Before the ruling, it would have been illegal to do so within 80 days of an election and within 30 days of a primary.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that preventing a group of people (Citizens United) from expressing their opinions during an 80 day window or 30 day window was a violation of free speech.\n\nThe decision *does not* have anything to do with whether or not money is speech or corporations are people.\n\nI know this isn't ELI5 friendly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3o53lb
|
how do monarch butterflies migrate through multiple generations, considering that one of them can only make it part of the way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o53lb/eli5_how_do_monarch_butterflies_migrate_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvu5vvy",
"cvu6vxm"
],
"score": [
49,
6
],
"text": [
"Genetically learned traits. Basically they've been doing it so long it's become ingrained in their core. They even fly around an obsticle (can't remeber if it was a mountain or lake) that's not even there any more! A million (or whatever) years ago this feature of the Earth went away, but the butterflies still circle where it once was.",
"Watch this; very interesting.\n_URL_0_\nKind of explains and beautiful too"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i07Jlq2Gx4w"
]
] |
||
mwx8m
|
in factory shows like how it's made, who plans those assembly machines that know how to perfectly do everything?
|
How It's Made needs to do a How How It's Made is Made episode.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/mwx8m/eli5_in_factory_shows_like_how_its_made_who_plans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c34hve3",
"c34ibtz",
"c34jehp",
"c34kmqq",
"c34hve3",
"c34ibtz",
"c34jehp",
"c34kmqq"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
12,
3,
3,
4,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Mechanical engineers. They look cool an all. But to design them,it's all math. ",
"engineers - they work out the assembly line required, then plan it all from start to finish. \n\nIn most places \"automated assembly lines\" aren't just build from scratch, usually the place started with some automation, then built up over time, and as funds came in.",
"It's usually a mechanical engineer who designs the actual machine, or an engineer in the field of what it will be making. Very complex processes are researched by engineers with a master's degree or a PhD at a university or private research company. Once they show that whatever it is they're making can be profitable, they usually sell the technology to a company who has its engineers make it faster and cheaper. \n\nAs far as the assembly line, plant layout, and human-machine interfaces, it's usually an industrial engineer. If it's a chemical plant with reaction chambers, pressure tanks, and chemical flow, it's usually a chemical engineer. Of course, being one type of engineer doesn't stop you from knowing all the things.",
"Engineers. And they know how from conducting trains. ",
"Mechanical engineers. They look cool an all. But to design them,it's all math. ",
"engineers - they work out the assembly line required, then plan it all from start to finish. \n\nIn most places \"automated assembly lines\" aren't just build from scratch, usually the place started with some automation, then built up over time, and as funds came in.",
"It's usually a mechanical engineer who designs the actual machine, or an engineer in the field of what it will be making. Very complex processes are researched by engineers with a master's degree or a PhD at a university or private research company. Once they show that whatever it is they're making can be profitable, they usually sell the technology to a company who has its engineers make it faster and cheaper. \n\nAs far as the assembly line, plant layout, and human-machine interfaces, it's usually an industrial engineer. If it's a chemical plant with reaction chambers, pressure tanks, and chemical flow, it's usually a chemical engineer. Of course, being one type of engineer doesn't stop you from knowing all the things.",
"Engineers. And they know how from conducting trains. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
b4k84x
|
when a study says "n=979", what is the significance of the n?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4k84x/eli5_when_a_study_says_n979_what_is_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej7660r"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Usually it's the amount of people that are being subjects in the study.\n\nIf you're talking about the r/science article on teens and young adults and solitude, the n=979 means that 979 teens and young adults were looked at in the study."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
81xrkc
|
why does our brain tune out sound that we’re constantly exposed to?
|
My old house alarm beeps every 5 minutes and I've completely tuned it out. The only reason I even thought about it is because I had a guest over that asked how I don't notice the repetitive beeping all day.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/81xrkc/eli5_why_does_our_brain_tune_out_sound_that_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv5zj05",
"dv64vyz"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"That's what our brains are designed to do. If a constant sensory input is eventually regarded as something to be ignored, your brain will do just that. \n\nFor some people, this mechanism doesn't work properly. In some cases of autism and schizophrenia for example, their brains have a hard time ignoring excess sensory input so they become very overwhelmed and over-excited.",
"The short version is that all of your primary sensory neurons, like your optic nerve for vision, your cochlear nerve for sound, etc must pass through an area of your brain called the thalamus, which is part of a set of brain structures called the diencephalon.\n\nThe thalamus has pathways to your primary cortical areas, and in a sense determines which sensory stimuli you are able to perceive. When a stimuli is new, the thalamus relays that information to your primary sensory cortices, so you can consciously perceive it. \n\nSo if the alarm beeps every 5 minutes, your cochlear nerve detects the sound, which then relays it to the thalamus. Your thalamus then relays the sound to your primary auditory cortex, part of your temporal lobe. \n\nAfter a while, your thalamus stops sending this information to the primary auditory cortex, and you habitualize to the information and stop perceiving it.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3p4tkr
|
why is tomato sauce (ketchup) so ubiquitous? what is it about the flavour of tomatoes in particular that makes it so universally used with such a range of other foods?
|
There are many many varieties of fruit and vegetable to choose from, and honestly, tomato doesn't seem like a totally obvious choice to me.
Don't get me wrong, I love it, but I can't tell if that's because I've been told it tastes good with other foods growing up, or because, for whatever reason, the flavour of tomato really does go with almost any other savoury flavour.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p4tkr/eli5_why_is_tomato_sauce_ketchup_so_ubiquitous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw347r0",
"cw34sau"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think it's the flavour of tomatoes per se (because ketchup *doesn't* taste like tomato) so much as the availability and relative cheapness of ketchup's key ingredients that makes it so common. It's easy to produce in large quantities, it's inexpensive, and it has a long shelf life.\n\nYou might also be able to sell the idea that the bright colour appeals to children, so they \"like\" it and parents decide to put it on anything their child refuses to eat in order to get them to choke it down. That's what my parents did, after all.",
"Ketchup is simultaneously sweet, salty and sour, and as such , pairs naturally with a wide variety of foods. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ecr6lj
|
how does money get printed and why isn't the technology used to do it commercialized?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ecr6lj/eli5_how_does_money_get_printed_and_why_isnt_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbd7y7x",
"fbdg46z"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"If you want to be blunt, money printing technology IS commercialised. There are only a handful of companies around the world who manufacture the machinery for the production process, but they ARE companies. Selling to all the government customers who need their products.\n\nBut, you know. One of the reasons that they are still in business is that they flat out refuse to sell their products if you can't provide proof that you indeed are a government entity who is actually authorised to produce money for a country's central bank.\n\nIf you boil it down, every time there is new, fancy production abilities that roll out to government customers, counterfeiters start to look at and analyse the new bills in an attempt to copy the manufacturing process close enough that it's difficult to tell the bills apart.\n\nWhich means that every few years, the official manufacturers have to come up with a new, fancy anti-counterfeit measure. And every few years, the circulated money has to start being replaced with bills that are a hint more difficult to copy than last years money.\n\nOccasionally, it comes to the point where you just can't keep the old ones in circulation any longer because they are too easy to copy; Every 10-15 years or so, central banks tend to issue bulletins where they declare that a certain bill design is going to have it's value nulled and voided.",
"the tech exists. but currency isn't digitally printed. it's analog pressure pressed. using custom made impression plates, custom ink, custom media. \n\nthe authentic plates are guarded at the dept of engraving under machine gun guards. \n\nthe ink is made by a single company under specific sole contract with the gov. transported by machine gun guards.\n\nthe media is sourced by a single company under specific sole contract with the gov. transported by machine gun guards.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nwithout those plates, that ink, that media, you're making forgeries. you need to make those plates yourself. you need to make that ink yourself. you need to make that media yourself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2d3chy
|
why are so many bombs that are dropped from planes duds?
|
So apparently tens of thousands of bombs are found around the world, every year that never detonated when they were dropped from WWII ect. Why are there so many duds? You'd think that explosive dropped from several km/miles up would explode on impact. Right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d3chy/eli5_why_are_so_many_bombs_that_are_dropped_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjlmyao",
"cjlmzop",
"cjlnocy"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"No, we look for stable explosives. These things get shipped and stored (and reshipped, re-stored) possibly being handled dozens or hundreds of times before use or disposal. \n\n If just dropping things made them explode, we would have lost at least one of the Carolinas to dropped nukes. Nuclear weapons are triggered using more conventional explosives. \n\nSince we are trying to make the accidental rate zero, it works out pretty well that so few weapons turn out to be 'duds'.",
"I wouldn't think that. Bombs are made to be stable until deliberately detonated. If the firing mechanism doesn't fire, the bomb shouldn't go off.\n\nOf course, I am not an engineer, so I'm not speaking with any authority either. So I've got that going for me... \n",
" damage in luggage handling. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2gp0by
|
In the middle ages, was romantic love between spouses encouraged or considered profane?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gp0by/in_the_middle_ages_was_romantic_love_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckllcn8",
"cklmh3n",
"ckmcjju"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Middle ages\" covers a huge amount of time; could you be more specific? Also, where?",
"As stated by /u/EyeStache, the middle ages is huge and \"8th-16th century\" does nothing to narrow it down.\n\nTo give you a general/generic answer to a vague question: At least in Western Europe, the more \"noble\" you and your bloodline was, the more \"practical\" and arranged your life+marriage was, especially if you were prime (or close to it) inheritor of a dynasty. Lowborn and common people were free to marry based on love and did so, though there was often some interaction from the family, especially for women.\n\nTo directly answer the spirit of your question - there's no evidence that \"romantic love\" was considered taboo or odd, but it would be found to be impractical if you were in any position of nobility. Outside of dynastic relations, that mattered much less. People married often with and against familial wishes and for self-interest. This is evidenced somewhat in the copious amount of romantic literature and plays based on love.",
"If your interest is captial-R Romantic love then yes, it was condemned by members of the Church on occasion (not that the armed martial elite of the High and Late Middle Ages seemed to care!). If you mean the more intimate and personal love of two individuals then no - not as long as it didn't contravene whatever particular sexual regulations the Church was imposing at that particular juncture. Unfortunately this is was the crux of Romantic love, it tended to exist outside of the bonds of marriage (this could be acceptable to both sides if it remained unconsumated).\n\nI've written on marriage and adultery and the [tension between chivalric society and ecclesiastical admonitions before](_URL_1_) and [above/below](_URL_0_) I've expanded on how even a supposed argument in favour of love might be perceived as perverting the natural order. This is, of course, a rather select case study of late twelfth-century texts. The wider debate stretched across centuries and was affected by many different variables which do make a general answer impossible.\n\nLove was a powerful driving emotion in the Middle Ages but remains one of the most difficult emotions to articulate. There are some excellent studies available on love in the Middle Ages and if you'd like a shortlist of some of them then I'd be happy to provide one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gp0by/in_the_middle_ages_was_romantic_love_between/ckmagxm",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a7bsk/how_ethical_were_the_knights_of_the_late_middle/cj1cith"
]
] |
||
2id254
|
How were the relative abundances of chemical isotopes discovered (without sampling every atom on earth)?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2id254/how_were_the_relative_abundances_of_chemical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1di15"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Statistical Sampling. Take a bunch of randomly selected lumps of earth and see what they contain. The error between measured values and the true values will decease in proportion to the square root of the number of samples taken. This is the same reason that voter surveys don't have to ask every voter to come up with a reliable result. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8sfkza
|
how do air conditioners work? is the working of a window ac different from a split ac?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8sfkza/eli5_how_do_air_conditioners_work_is_the_working/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0z2b1m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Both work in the same way, although a split system is obviously more aesthetic and flexible (although also more difficult to install).\n\nThe basic concept is simple. When you compress a gas it gets hotter, when you decompress it it gets colder: this is doubly true if it transitions to liquid when compressed (gas does this: water can boil at low enough pressure at room temp). You might have experienced this with deodorant, the liquid decompresses into gas and it's cold on the skin, near the end of the can it starts to feel almost warm (actually just room temp but you expect cold).\n\nAn A/C just works by cycling a refrigerant fluid (generally one with a boiling point near room temperature so it responds a lot to pressure changes) around. On one side it's compressed, then ran through a radiator to cool it. This is the hot side. On the other side it's decompressed, then ran through a radiator to warm it, this is the cold side.\n\nThus an A/C is a heat pump that can move heat from A to B. The cold side faces inwards, with fans blowing air over the cold \"radiator\" to cool the air. The outward side has fans to keep the warm side radiator as close to ambient temperature as possible, to keep efficiency up. \n\nIn the States normally to cool a room by removing heat. In New Zealand lots of people get general purpose heat pumps that can cool the room in summer, but also pump in heat efficiently in the Winter (heat pump efficiency is dependent on the difference in temperature, NZ has quite mild winters so it's much more efficient that just using an electric heater)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dnywey
|
how is a qubit in a quantum computer physically represented?
|
I understand that in traditional computing, a bit is either 0 or 1, where the physical representation is zero voltage for 0, and positive voltage for 1.
From my limited research of quantum computing, it's saying that a qubit can be 0 and 1 at the same time (in a "superposition"), but how does that translate to electronics and electricity if voltage can only be one or the other at any given time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dnywey/eli5_how_is_a_qubit_in_a_quantum_computer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f5i2568",
"f5j2vgo",
"f5jlnzv"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, first off, voltage actually *can* be analog. It is simply less efficient to do that. You can have 1 volt, 2 volts, or 1.26947298 volts. In quantum computers, the quibit is stored in a quantum state of a particle. I'll use photons as an example because I actually understand them: Photons can be polarized. Their polarity is basically a direction. If we choose two directions and say they represent 1 and 0, then anything between these two is a little bit of both. If it is closer to 1, then it is a higher percentage 1. The bit is represented by the polarity of the photon.",
" > but how does that translate to electronics and electricity if voltage can only be one or the other at any given time?\n\nIt doesn't. Current quantum computing devices generally fall into one of these categories, none of which use electricity to represent qubits.\n\n* NMR quantum computers: in which qubits are physically realized through molecules that are manipulated and measured by the same principles by which MRI machines work.\n\n* Optical quantum computers: qubits are realized and manipulated through the use of light and devices that manipulate light (including things as basic as mirrors).\n\n* Trapped ion quantum computers: qubits are ions that are trapped and manipulated through electric and magnetic fields.",
"Qubits are two-state quantum systems. That means they are systems that can be subject to the laws of quantum physics, but at the end of the experiment can only end up in one of two states. There are several different types of qubit, like superconducting loops, ions, and light. The common quality of all of these things is that they can be held in quantum states states that we can read and manipulate.\n\nThe way in which they store information has no classical analogue. That’s part of what makes it so powerful. The information isn’t held or processed by transistors or anything that normal computers use, so don’t think in terms of voltages or that sort of stuff. Rather, a qubit is put in a state that holds information about how much 0-ness and how much 1-ness it has. It doesn’t matter what the qubit is actually made of, it’s the state that has the important information. The role of the qubit is to hold that state in reality and interact with other qubits while we control and eventually observe them. The way in which the states interact drives the qubits towards being more 0 or more 1. Ultimately, information that you eventually get (0 or 1) is read off via classical means, the exact method of which will differ depending on the type of qubit (for some types it will end up being a current measurement), but the information processing during the computation is due to the interacting states of the qubits, and while that’s going on we have no access to that information *nor is it being held in a way that we can ever observe*.\n\nThis is quantum information being manipulated by quantum interactions, so don’t try to think of it in terms of transistors or voltages. It’s a wholly quantum world. We can’t think in terms of quantum physics other than in a mathematical sense, so if it seems weird then that means you’re actually thinking about it.\n\nIf you want an ELI10 then [here](_URL_0_) is a comic by one of the geniuses in the field."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.smbc-comics.com/comic/the-talk-3"
]
] |
|
1c5bvj
|
game of thrones plot.
|
I really like the Dothkraki story but I'm not able to understand the plot entirely. It will be great if anyone explains the script briefly.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c5bvj/eli5_game_of_thrones_plot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9d5jgc",
"c9d5pf4",
"c9d6b0m",
"c9d6ksf",
"c9d7c9h"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
5,
37,
4
],
"text": [
"Shit goes down, heaps of people want the crown, wanker gets it, multiple armies want to overthrow the wanker. Of course there's more, but that's the main point and I did elyw5",
"If you're looking for an overview of the plot, I suggest you read the Wikipedia synopsis. [Here is the season 1 synopsis for instance.](_URL_0_)\n\n If you'd like to discuss the plot details, visit /r/gameofthrones ",
"Shit happens in the north.\n\nShit happens in the south.\n\nShit happens in the east.\n\nShit happens pretty much everywhere. \n\n",
"The show is complex, which is why it's hard to understand. Most of the difficulty comes from backstory, names and the relevancy of the various side-stories. I tried to organize it with this in mind.\n\n**Spoiler Warning:**\nThis post is nothing but one big **spoiler**, but there are **no spoilers** from the books that go beyond the most recently-aired episode (currently S03E02).\n\n**Prior to the TV series:**\nThe Mad King (Aerys II - a Targaryen) killed Ned's father and older brother. Among other grievances, Ned Stark and Robert Baratheon went to war against the Mad King. They win and Robert becomes King. Ned returns to Lordship over his northern town of Winterfell, now ruled by the new king. King Robert marries Cersei of the very wealthy Lannister family.\n\n**First Episode:**\nThe Hand of The King (\"Jon\") ends up dead and King Robert fears for his life. He demands that Ned becomes the new hand of the king.\n\n**Ned Stark, Lord of Winterfell, Hand of the King:**\nNed learns that Jon was murdered and begins to dig into why and who, and starts uncovering secrets about the Lannisters, discovering that Robert's supposed son, Joffrey, is actually the inbred bastard child of Queen Cersei and her brother Ser Jamie. Ned didn't know why, but his son, Bran, was previously pushed out of a window because he saw Jamie and Cersei having sex.\n\nNow hand of the king, Ned's excessive probing, honor and transparency is ultimately seen as a liability to everyone who is keeping secrets. King Robert, possibly drunk/drugged by another Lannister, is fatally wounded in a hunting accident and declares Ned the new king until Joffrey comes of age.\n\nThose who felt threatened by Ned conspired against him before the secret about Joffrey did much damage, possibly because of the financial sway that the Lannisters hold (Cersei, Jamie and Joffrey are all really Lannisters). This resulted in Joffrey becoming king, who chooses to kill Ned. Both of Ned's daughters are still in the city, presumably being held captive, although Arya secretly escapes and heads north.\n\n**Robb Stark, Son of Ned Stark, heir to Winterfell:**\nAllies of Ned's family in the north are very upset about Ned's children - the attack on Bran, the daughters being held captive. Ned's oldest son, Robb, rallies the allies and heads south to war. This was such a successful rally that the northerners decided Robb should be the new king of the north. Robb and his army of northerners are primarily fighting the Lannister army as they make their way toward the king.\n\n**Theon Greyjoy, Prisoner of war, Adopted by Ned Stark:**\nTheon was taken and raised by Ned Stark when Theon's father as a consequence to the Greyjoy rebellion. He was began fighting with Robb Stark (essentially as an adopted brother), but when given the opportunity to impress his father, Theon decides to attack Robb's home, Winterfell. He succeeds, but then things go badly - Robb's allies surround Winterfell. The Greyjoys with Theon burn Winterfell down and escape. Theon is captured and tortured (but not much else is known as of the latest TV episode)\n\n**Stannis and Renly:**\nMeanwhile, the oldest of Robert Baratheon's younger brothers, Stannis, who is overseas, decides he is the rightful heir to the throne. He allies with a witch (essentially) and prepares people and boats for war. His younger brother, Renly, who is closer to the capital, assumes Stannis is not fit or present to be king, and rallies a small army as well. He refuses to cooperate with his brother, and the witch helps Stannis kill Renly.\n\n**Tyrion Lannister:**\nThe dwarf (Tyrion Lannister) is wrongly accused of attempting to murder Bran. He escapes, meets with his father, and is told to act as the hand to the new King Joffrey. Tyrion plays the game significantly better than Ned - keeps secrets to himself, cleverly figures out who he can trust, and successfully defends the city against Stannis' ships. Tyrion's father arrives with his army somewhat too late, takes credit for the defense, and brushes Tyrion off.\n\n**Daenerys, Khalesi Queen of the Horse Lords and Mother Of Dragons:**\nParallel with the entire story, the daughter of the Mad King Aerys Targaryen II, Daenerys, is married to a primitive warlord (Khal Drogo) by her asshole brother (Viserys), supposedly in exchange for Drogo's army. Viserys butts-heads with Drogo, and Drogo kills him by pouring melted gold on his head. No thanks to Daenerys' abundant trust, Drogo is (put simply) killed by a witch of a village he raided, and Drogo's warriors leave. Daenerys is left with very few followers, but she figures out how to hatch dragon eggs. She ends up with some fairly useless baby dragons.\n\nThe dragon mother, Daenerys, spends a lot of time (ie - wandering in the desert) trying to find people and ships to help her get her father's throne, without much success. She eventually steals gold from a man who tried to cheat her, and uses that to buy an army and ships.\n\n**Jon Snow, Ned's bastard of Winterfell, Member of The Night's Watch:**\nAlso parallel with the story, Jon Snow, the bastard son of Ned Stark, decides to defend the enormous ice-wall to the north of the known land, against a speculative unknown... giants, zombies and other magical themes are seen and suggested. Winter is not predictable in this world, but it is anticipated that this winter will bring a huge invasion of who-knows-what from the icy north. Jon Snow, with other rangers from the wall, head north. Jon gets caught by some native people with another ranger. This ranger exchanges his life for Jon's chance to gain the trust of these natives (\"wildlings\"). Numerous zombie-like creatures are amassing. The natives plan to march south and beyond the large ice wall, mostly to escape the zombie army.\n\n**Side-Stories:**\n\nNed's daughter **Arya** is a tomboy and is traveling with Robert Baratheon's bastard son, **Gendry**, a blacksmith, toward Winterfell or the wall. Arya is somewhat trained in swordplay.\n\n**Sansa** is Ned's other daughter. She was to be married to Joffrey, but after the accusations of Ned's treason, Cersei and Joffrey opt to keep her in the capital (due to the war with her brother Robb).\n\nJoffrey instead chooses to marry **Margaery Tyrell**. Margaery is interested in the power of being queen, and joining the Tyrell house is strategic. (Not sure if the bastard King Joffrey thinks he's joining Tyrell and Lannister, or Tyrell and Baratheon... haha). Margaery Tyrell happens to be the sister of Renly's gay lover, but with Renly dead, this doesn't matter much anymore. She was to be wed to Renly before he died.\n\nTyrion falls in love with **Shae** and brings her to the capital, but tries to hide her identity/relationship by having her act as Sansa's bedmaid.\n\n**Sandor Clegane, The Hound** (whose face is scarred from a fire) is sick of Joffrey, and after fire starts being used during the war with Stannis, he leaves the capital. Clegane is has a very hardened demeanor, but has a soft spot for Ned's oldest daughter Sansa.\n\ntl;dr: Many people want to become king: the defeated king's children, the defeating king's brothers, and the northerners who are upset about the newest king's treatment of the Stark family.\n\nEdit: Thanks for all the comments. I've addressed your corrections so far as I've seen it accurate and relevant.\n\nEdit: Named the sections. Added a section on Theon.",
"BASICALLY. So, the country of Westeros was once ruled by the Targaryens, a family that had hundreds of years prior conquered most of the continent. \n\nA few years prior to the show's start however, there was a revolution. Robert Baratheon's fiance, Lyanna Stark, sister of Eddard Stark, was kidnapped by Prince Rhaegar Targaryen, who was Daenerys Targaryen's oldest brother, because he fancied her basically. So, Lyanna's brother and father, Brandon and Richard went to Rhaegar's father, King Aerys II Targaryen (who was by all accounts insane due to his family's inbreeding) to get Lyanna back. Instead, they were both tortured and killed by Aerys II. In response, House Stark, Baratheon and Arryn revolted against Aerys II out of anger. In the end, all of the Targaryens except Viserys and Daenerys (who were whisked away to the eastern city-states) were killed. Robert Baratheon became king, and because Lyanna was killed, married Cersei Lannister because her father at the last moment helped them overthrow the Targaryens.\n\nFast forward a few years, Winter is coming (which usually lasts several years) and Eddard is lord of House Stark, and has many kids. Robert has grown fat and has 3 kids that he thinks are his, (in reality, they belong to Cersei and her twin brother Jamie). And Viserys and Daenerys are in the eastern cities.\n\nBut, the series starts with Robert's Hand of the King (basically right hand man), Jon Arryn dying (of suspicious causes). Basically it turns out Cersei and/or Jamie had him killed because he discovered that none of Cersei's kids belonged to Robert. (He did this by tracking down all of Robert's bastard children who all had black hair, and comparing them to the Baratheon family history; but Robert's 'true' children were all blonde. Jon's last words \"The seed is strong\" is reference to Robert's family dominant trait of black hair).\n\nSo, because they all think Jon's death was natural, Robert heads up North to the Starks to ask his good friend Eddard to become his new Hand of the King. Eddard agrees, and he takes his two daughters (and a whole bunch of other people and stuff) down to King's Landing with him to serve as Hand of the King. While there, a BUNCH of politics goes down, but Eddard discovers the truth about Jon and that Robert's kids aren't actually his, they're Cersei's and Jamie's. But, before he can tell Robert, Robert is fatally wounded on a hunting trip by a boar, leaving him incapable of being told. However, he is ordered by Robert to take the throne until Robert's oldest son, Joffrey, is ready. Cersei ignores the order, and Eddard's men are all killed. Eddard is taken prisoner, and his eldest daughter Sansa is held as a hostage, betrothed to Joffrey (who's a terrible person). Eddard's youngest daughter escapes and runs off with a recruiter from the Night's Watch, who are all friendly with the Starks, in an attempt to get home. Eddard agrees to publicly state that Cersei's children are in fact Robert's, though they're not, in exchange for being allowed to join the Night's Watch, but Joffrey has him executed anyway. This causes an uproar, causing BOTH of Robert's brothers to run away and claim the throne as theirs, and Eddard's oldest son Robb to declare a rebellion against the Lannisters.\n\nMeanwhile, Eddard's bastard son Jon goes and joins the Night's Watch, a group responsible for defending The Wall, a huge wall that separates the country of Westeros from the barren harsh far north. Turns out the Whitewalkers (an ancient, cold dwelling enemy of mankind that can raise the dead) are back, but no one really knows that yet.\n\nIn the end of book/season 1, Jamie Lannister is captive of the Starks who are heading down south in rebellion, Daenerys has 3 dragon hatchlings and no real army and Joffrey is sucking balls as a king.\n\nFeel free to ask questions for clarification. I probably missed stuff, but this is as outlined as I can make it I think."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_of_Thrones_%28season_1%29#Plot"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
w1640
|
What Are The Long Term (Next 100 years) Implications For The Higgs Boson Discovery?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w1640/what_are_the_long_term_next_100_years/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c59bxdr",
"c59bxza"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nYou'll see that the question of future implication has been asked many times there as well.\n\nThe problem with trying to predict future implication is that there are too many unknowns. If you ask about the implications of quantum mechanics 80 years ago, it is not immediately obvious that tunnelling electron microscopes and MRIs will become mainstream instruments.",
"[Searched](_URL_1_)\n\nRelevant [discussion](_URL_0_)\n\nOriginal text\n\n > As we all know, CERN made a major announcement regarding the fact that they have seen an occurence of the Higgs Boson particle. After reading the various FAQs and threads going around, I feel I have a good understanding of exactly what the direct implications of the discovery are and where we are going with it next.\n\n > What I don't see a lot of discussion about is the very long term implications for a discovery like this. I have heard people talking about it being similar to Einstein's theory of relativity in terms of impact which, of course, must be rather large.\n\n > Without getting too much into layman speculation, I have heard that understanding the mass/energy relationship at a particle level can possibly lead to the the discovery of pie in the sky things like teleportation and infinite power loops for cars if extrapolated enough.\n\n > Are there any truths to this kind of thought? What kind of discoveries/ progresses should we expect to see in the next 100 years because of this?\n\nTop comment courtesy [iorgfeflkd](_URL_2_)\n\n > > Okay, if the origin of mass in the universe is 'found' what implications does this have on science\n\n > More evidence that the Standard Model is an accurate model of fundamental interactions.\n\n > > and culture?\n\n > None.\n\n > > I can imagine the discovery of the Higgs boson would shatter some religious theories\n\n > We have more than enough evidence to show that the universe does not need a deity. Religious persists and will persist.\n\n > > help prove with further legitimacy that the Big Bang was what started our universe\n\n > That's already pretty legit. There's some theorists that think that there were previous universes before the big bang, but our current one starts with it.\n\n > The Higgs boson still won't explain gravity, and until we have a quantum model of gravity then our understanding is incomplete."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w0qgf/the_official_higgs_announcement_thread/"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e775a/i_posted_this_in_a_thread_in_rphysics_and_have/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=implications+higgs&restrict_sr=on&sort=relevance",
"http://www.reddit.com/user/iorgfeflkd"
]
] |
||
1n80ia
|
why is evolution banned in some schools?
|
I been curious of this but couldn't understand why, enlighten me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n80ia/eli5why_is_evolution_banned_in_some_schools/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccg707b",
"ccg713i",
"ccg767v",
"ccg7e7i",
"ccg7jvn",
"ccg7lom",
"ccg89rp",
"ccg978f",
"ccgbu3l"
],
"score": [
14,
2,
2,
5,
32,
11,
3,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Because some people believe in religion more than evolution. If you get enough of those people together and they outnumber those who believe in evolution, they can pass a law getting it banned.",
"Some people oppose the teaching of evolution because it demonstrates that humanity arose from apes. This would certain imply, if not shout quite loudly, that we were not created in our present form 6000 years ago in Missouri.\n\nHumanity may have evolved, but we're still scared that what we carved into stone tablets was wrong.",
"I think you mean why is the teaching of evolution banned, because evolution is a natural and on going process that cannot be \"banned\".",
"In public schools (government funded) they can't ban the teaching of evolution because that violates separation of church and state. A private school though can choose not to teach it. Private schools are usually catholic or something.",
"Okay, so there are a sub-group of Christians called \"Fundamentalists\". They believe that the Bible is *literally* true. And Genesis says that the Earth was created in 6 days, along with humans and all the animals. They were literally created, in six days. \n\nBut Evolution specifically says that animals (and since humans are animals) change and evolve over time from other animals. Humans too would logically have developed from some sort of lower form of animal. \n\nThis directly contradicts the *literal* interpretation of Biblical creation, since evolution takes far longer than the 6 days + ~6000 years of human civilization. \n\nSo thats the basic idea. In some areas of America, Fundamentalists are extremely politically powerful, so they want to keep kids from learning about \"dangerous\" beliefs. ",
"I think a major factor is that people generally don't understand what a scientific theory really is. Because of this, they become insulted with their idea that evolution isn't a fact when it very much *is* a fact.",
"Could you cite a school that is doing so? We had a supreme court ruling concerning the matter. ",
"because there are regions of the United States that are highly religious, and because they exist in the majority they can pass a law banning the teaching of evolution. if this is deemed unacceptable in the eyes of the court, they are capable of forming a private school where evolution is not necessarily taught or taught in a biased way. Finally, if all else fails these individuals can chose to withdraw their children from regular schools and homeschool them. \n\nI find this interesting because this raises some interesting questions about democracy, should people be allowed to pass non-discriminatory laws because of personal beliefs that may end up harming them in the long run? I argue yes, as it is often times difficult to determine what is \"harmful\", and to impose your own idea of harm on a different community could be as detrimental as passing if they push their cultural values onto you.",
"Evolution is NOT banned in any schools around the world. \n\n All the organisms in and around all schools actively participate in it, BUT, some of the organisms just refuse to acknowledge it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2829gh
|
Will we ever be able to reach The Core of the Earth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2829gh/will_we_ever_be_able_to_reach_the_core_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci6v9be"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It is impossible. \nWhy?\nNo material can survive the temperatures at the center of the Earth. Even the strongest therotical chemical bond degrades at about 4000 degrees C. Tungsten melts at 3400 degrees C.\n\nThis means that even a craft build out of the strongest materials physically possible will melt before it reaches the outer core.\n\nThe other option is ablative armor. It is armor designed to sacrificially melt away and protect the lower layers. The problem is that you would need a craft that either makes the down and up trip very very quickly... or is kilometers thick at the start, and returns as a stick. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5n9mnr
|
Is Soviet-style command economy really a bad economic model or is the disparity a result of western sanctions?
|
Given that the vast majority of the world's wealth before the rise of communism was already concentrated in the West?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5n9mnr/is_sovietstyle_command_economy_really_a_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dca2rdq",
"dca5tj6",
"dcaa6g2"
],
"score": [
86,
17,
25
],
"text": [
"Back in the 1920s the effectiveness of socialism (in the sense of a planned economy - \"collective ownership of the means of production\") was a topic of live debate, with Ludwig von Mises and later Frederick Hayek arguing that a command economy couldn't work out what goods and services needed to be produced due to the knowledge problem - planners wouldn't know what opportunity costs producers faced, or what end consumers wanted. \n\nTo illustrate, say there's a big fire at an aluminium plant, and thus total aluminium output falls. Under a market economy prices rise. So every aluminium user starts looking for ways to reduce their aluminium use. Perhaps it's easy to convert to using wood for window frames instead of aluminium, while aluminium is very useful in food and drink containers. Under a market economy, the higher prices would lead the substitution to mostly be made by window frames, not food. (I have no idea about the relative value of the two uses in actuality, the point of von Mises' argument is that I don't need to know.)\n\nAgainst that, Oskar Lange and others argued that a central planning board could bring production in line with that of a market system by 'trial and error'. I don't have the quote to hand but I recall once Hayek noting in a book I was reading that the socialist economists had gone from arguing that socialism could beat market outcomes to arguing that socialism could equal them. \n\nFrom the free-market side, however, Bryan Caplan has pointed out that history hasn't proved it was the calculation problem that made socialism (remember I'm defining it as a centrally planned economy) impossible, after all the USSR and Eastern Europe did function for several decades under communism, and socialism has a number of other problems (eg motivation). \n\nSo the topic isn't finally settled, but there are theoretical reasons to think that a centrally planned economy has fundamental problems. \n\nAs for the importance of Western sanctions, when I hear this argument I always wonder what the proponents mean by it. If trade is so important that Western sanctions wrecked a country's economy, doesn't that imply that trade with Western countries is pretty vital for growth? \n\nSources:\n\nMoss, Laurence, The Economics of Ludwig von Mises: Toward a Critical Reappraisal, [Chapter 5, Ludwig von Mises and Economic Calculation Under Socialism](_URL_0_ 5) by Murray N. Rothbard, 1976\nMurray N. Rothbard\n\n[Len Brewster on \"Towards a new Socialism? by W. Paul Cockshott and Allin F. Cottrell, Nottingham, U.K.: Spokesman Books, 1993\", Review Essay] (_URL_2_), The Quarterly Journal of Austrian Economics, Vol.7, No.1 (Spring 2004): 65-77. (Note this has a succinct summary of the calculation debate.)\n\nBryan Caplan, [Why I Am Not an Austrian Economist](_URL_1_)",
"Let me try and get your question right. If Russian Empire hadn't been poorer than the West before the revolution and if the USSR hadn't had to spend so much on military (it actively traded with Western nations even during the Cold War) and its satellites, would its economy have kept up with the West?\n\nThat's two very big ifs for a history question. I doubt you'll get a definite answer.\n\nIf you really want a clean slate comparison between market and planned economies, history won't give you that.",
"The economic historian Robert Allen wrote an interesting reassessment of the Soviet economy's performance in *Farm to Factory: A Reinterpretation of the Soviet Industrial Revolution*, which is summarised in [this paper](_URL_0_). He argues that the Soviet economy performed fairly well until about 1960-70, and its economic growth was faster than most other countries starting at a similar point; in 1917 Russia's economy was not comparable to countries in western Europe. During the 1930s he says that the command economy was effectively able to move workers from rural to urban areas, where they were more productive, and create capital to increase productivity, with the result that consumption increased along with output in heavy industry. But by the 1960s the plans made did not support high growth any more, and led to stagnation. The easy part of development was over as there wasn't a lot of surplus labour in rural areas that could be put to more productive use, and the planners failed to adapt to new industries, instead putting resources into renovating old plants. Military spending during the Cold War also diverted resources from civilian economic development.\n\nGeneral lessons - I think China's development performance shows something similar, though I don't know as much detail about that - are that (a) command economies can outperform capitalist economies in the early stages of development if the planners have the right ideas, but if the planners are misguided they can underperform capitalist economies (compare China under Mao to China under Deng), so in a sense capitalist development might be more reliable, and (b) it's much harder for command economies to outperform capitalist economies in the later stages of development where growth is more about innovation than just accumulating capital."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.econlib.org/library/NPDBooks/Moss/mslLvM5.html#Essay",
"http://econfaculty.gmu.edu/bcaplan/whyaust.htm",
"https://mises.org/sites/default/files/qjae7_1_6.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.507.8966&rep=rep1&type=pdf"
]
] |
|
3d0hw7
|
Did the Nazis ever seriously consider invading Ireland?
|
In light of its strategic position with regards England
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3d0hw7/did_the_nazis_ever_seriously_consider_invading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct0pt9z",
"ct0swrt",
"ct0v2zp",
"ct0vcq9",
"ct0wrsi",
"ct0xsfh",
"ct1266g",
"ct17w6s",
"ct1gdpa"
],
"score": [
87,
212,
8,
526,
8,
4,
143,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"So, how \"serious\" was Operation Green, then? I mean, the whole job of a General Staff is to come up with contingency plans for pretty much everything, right? So was there ever real consideration given to doing it, was it more a theoretical exercise?",
"This thread seems to be accumulating multiple below standard posts. Remember, if you can contribute nothing more than your skills at using Google to find an article, please don't post.\n\nAsk yourself these questions:\n\n* Do I have the expertise needed to answer this question?\n\n* Have I done research on this question?\n\n* Can I cite my sources?\n\n* Can I answer follow-up questions?\n\nIf you answer \"Yes\" to all of these questions, then proceed. If you answer \"No\" to one or more of these questions, seriously reconsider what you're posting. For more clarification, see [our rules](_URL_0_).",
"\"Serious\" is difficult to quantify. Were mobilization plans ever executed upon? No. Were there German agents operating in Ireland and some studies a la \"Operation Green\" type research? Yes.\n\nAs you touch on in your question... Ireland was considered an appetizing strategic position for the Germans against the British, as it would open up a western flank against Great Britain, and provide a superior base of operations for naval support and aerial patrols in the North Atlantic. That's not to mention the anti-British sentiment among a great number of Irish citizens (not the majority, but enough to provide a significant native support network).\n\nAs far as exploration of a real plan, the IRA did share intelligence with the Abwher. Mark Hull wrote a fantastic book on the subject; [Irish Secrets and German Espionage in Wartime Ireland](_URL_0_). But Germans were more afraid of a counter-offensive - knowing the British could quickly counter-invade, and probably occupy / control / defend Ireland far easier than they could.\n\nAlong the same lines, Britain actually wanted Ireland to join the war on their side - going as far as offering Northern Ireland be united with the Irish Republic if there was an Irish Declaration of War against Germany and Italy. de Valera rejected this, there's not a lot of great sources on the matter, but my understanding is that he feared the offer was not genuine - and Ireland would need to commit troops to a conflict while the unification would not be clearly part of the deal until after the war.\n\nOn the German side, many officials resisted the idea because any slight step towards an alliance with or an invasion of Ireland would justify the British to do the same. Much as with their hope for the U.S. - the Germans saw an alliance as unlikely and problematic for a variety of logistical reasons, and felt neutrality was the best possible outcome for Germany.",
"I don't think so. Because the German Navy suffered such heavy losses to the Royal Navy in the Invasion of Norway in mid 1940, the Nazis never again had the power to contest the Allies at sea. To somewhat circumvent this, the Blitz was meant to gain air superiority over a potential invasion of England over the English Channel. Operation Sea Lion, however, was postponed on September 15, 1940 when the Luftwaffe incurred a particularly heavy defeat at the hands of the Royal Air Force. By October, Operation Sea Lion was called off completely by Hitler. So as to a potential invasion of Ireland, The Luftwaffe could not support any potential sea landing because it would be outside of their range and the Nazis also did not have a Navy that could contest the Royal Navy. One of the United Kingdom's greatest strengths in World War II turned out to be its island nation that the Wehrmacht could not take advantage of.\n\nZeiler, Thomas. \"Annihilation A Global Military History of World War II\". Oxford University Press, 2011.",
"Would Ireland's neutrality have worked as a deterrent of sorts? Also, was there ever any sort of evidence of the Germans trying to get the Irish on their side?",
"As a follow up question: I always heard that Ireland was moderately supportive of Germany, providing some volunteers and resources. Is that just an urban legend?",
"Well, the thing is, you could almost as easily ask why the British didn't invade! Irish neutrality during the war is interesting, to say the least! /u/Nonstr isn't wrong about the logistical shortcomings of any attempt to invade. Although Hitler commented on how wonderful a base Ireland would offer for bombing the UK, if Germany couldn't manage to cross over to the English coast, Ireland would be considerably harder, even given their meager defenses. Operation Green, the planned invasion of Ireland, even existed on paper, but importantly, it was only envisioned in conjunction with Operation Sealion at best (it was hardly a necessary component and wouldn't necessarily have happened even if they did invade the UK), not as a standalone matter. So the very short answer is that German consideration of an invasion of Ireland was at best serious only insofar as an invasion of Britain was, and when that didn't materialize, the invasion of Ireland became a pipe-dream at best. But just because the chance of invasion was slim doesn't mean that we don't have a ton to talk about!\n\nPrior to the war, as war looked more and more likely, the Irish were willing to throw their weight around, comparatively. In 1938, PM de Valera insinuated that if Britain went to war with Germany while still still occupying Irish territory, it would engender hostility from the Irish, and as such as able to secure the British removing themselves from the Treaty Ports, three ports in Ireland which the British still occupied, and would have used to station escort destroyers had war broke out. And after that concession, the Irish only continued to press, now focusing on the partition of Ireland and Northern Ireland. As such, when war broke out, relations between the UK and Ireland were not their best.\n\nThe Irish Defense Forces had 6,000 active men in the army, *almost* doubled with reservists and Local security services when war broke out, as well as a few poor quality planes, and no navy at all. Initially, the Irish pushed a hard neutral stance. They did nothing to hamper the status of German nationals, and rebuffed British attempts to gain transit rights, let alone return use of the Treaty Ports as many expected. Churchill, being then in charge of the Admiralty, was livid, privately was accusing the Irish of provisioning German U-Boats, and trying to push for the taking of the Treaty Ports by arms. It didn't happen though, and although the ports did not return to British control, secret negotiations did result on concessions towards clandestine cooperation. British officers worked with the Irish for a joint defense plan against German invasion, and Irish coast-watchers, although not linking directly to the British, would transmit reports in clear, rather than code, purposefully allowing the British to easily intercept and use any spottings of German ships and subs. There was also unspoken approval to allow British \"hot pursuit\" into Irish waters. Churchill still wasn't happy, but his armed trawlers patrolling the Irish coast never spotted a single German sub reprovisioning...\n\nChurchill's rise to PM of course did nothing to assuage Irish concerns about the British, and negotiations with *both* sides were going on, demanding Germany promise to respect Irish soil, and that if Germany won they would respect an independent and united Ireland (Which Germany happily hinted at), while at the same time seeking promise from the UK that they would rush troops to the defense if Germany invaded - but of course not a moment before a German boot hit the shore (and hinting that were they given Northern Ireland, maybe they would even join the war, which while tentatively explored, never resulted in anything).\n\nBritish concerns reached a boiling point in November, 1940. Churchill gave a firey speech about how Ireland refusing to cooperate hurt British interests before Parliament, and in response, while the Irish 1st Division remained guarding the coast, the 2nd Division now began guarding the northern border (although it was more a political message of defiance than any actual fear the British were going to invade). The Germans, seeing an opening, offered to ship military equipment to bolster Ireland's meager forces, and in a perhaps not so subtle message, the equipment offered was British made arms that had been recovered at Dunkirk... Additionally, an \"expanded military mission\" was going to be seconded to the Embassy in Dublin. Realizing that while he wanted to be prickley, this would be an insult too far for the British, de Valera did not accept the German offer, and even ordered that if the German military mission flying into Dublin on Dec. 24 landed, they were to be arrested. So only a month after trading barbs with Britain, it was now the Germans who the Irish were faced off against, and the military was put on alert (\"Which side?\" was the supposed question of the Chief of Staff upon being informed). A plane did in fact show up, but never tried to land.\n\nThe Germans were pissed, and the German Ambassador alluded to consequences. A week later, bombs fell on Ireland two nights in a row, killing three and wounding twenty-four. Ambassador Hempel probably did not know this was what would happen, and on his counsel, nothing further happened, and the Germans in fact withdrew their offer of arms, as well as their general campaign to force Ireland into their camp.\n\nAs for the British though, Churchill was willing to keep playing hardball, proposing that the \"400,000 tons of feeding-stuffs and fertilizer\" shipped to Ireland could no longer be undertaken. Although part of a trade where wheat and fertilizer was exchanged for beef and beer (seriously), Churchill believed that the UK could do fine without the Irish side of things. Simply put, the pressure didn't work. The Irish were able to put up with some hardship, and make up for others, including imports from other neutrals like Portugal and Spain. And they could always point out that while the British civilian was rationed heavily on meats, butter and eggs, they were able to enjoy theirs with minimal trouble.\n\nNow, there is an irony here. The Irish were neutral, and as noted, not trusting the British, but in the end, it would be wrong not to say that they were, in the end, at least *slightly* favoring of the Allies, if only for their own ends. They continued to try and expand their military, by 1941 with 40,000 men under arms and five times that as reserves, so arms and equipment was needed, and the UK and US obliged, including torpedo boats (essentially their entire navy), a few planes, and rifles. Even as they were negotiating for the arms though, namely a large shipment of rifles from the US in early 1941, Minister Frank Aiken bluntly (to FDR's consternation) asserted that they were to repel aggression, whether British or German. \n\nBy 1942, Ireland seemed less important. The US was in the war, and the benefits of bringing Ireland in as an ally, or at least a leaning non-belligerent, became less and less important. Sure, there was still attempts to undermine de Valera, but they were not as harsh or public as in 1939-1941. There was still distrust, but on several key matters, there was understanding and cooperation anyways. Allied and Irish counterintelligence officers worked jointly to monitor German military personnel in the Dublin Embassy. The last serious \"attack\" on the Irish came from US Ambassador David Gray and British Ambassador John Maffey, although it was hardly necessary at this point and speaks more to settling a score for earlier slights. Despite the aforementioned cooperation, which they of course knew about, they wanted to publicly embarrass de Valera's government, sending him both \"notes\" in Feb. 1944 requesting the expulsion of all Axis diplomats. \n\nThe Irish were of course seriously offended by what he took as a threat and undermining of sovereignty, and once again the Defense Forces were put on high alert. Rumors of invasion soon came up, and de Valera did little to quell them in his speech a week later, noting \"at any moment war may come upon us\", only feeding concerns. Instead of embarrassing de Valera by either a) Forcing him to comply or b) Publicly state he was \"hostile to Allied interests\", he had called their bluff, and now it was the Anglo-Americans who were embarrassed, since they certainly weren't going to follow through and do anything. Churchill of course, never one to back down, responded by curtailing exports to Ireland further, which just looked like more bullying and cooler heads had to issue a statement assuring the Irish that it was a temporary measure as the Allies built up their forces for the invasion and would be ended as soon as possible. \n\nDe Valera's popularity only went higher and higher, having stood up against the Brits and not flinched. And then he almost screwed it up! Having shepherded Ireland through the way safely, on May 2nd, he personally visited the Irish embassy to offer his condolences for the death of Hitler... The Irish people may have enjoyed seeing him pull the British lion's tail, but they certainly didn't like that, just when the World was learning of the true extent of Nazi horror. Churchill of course could not leave it unremarked, noting in a May 13th speech that the Irish \"frolicked with the Germans and later the Japanese representatives to their heart's content\". Had Churchill just let de Valera's words stand, maybe he would have finally won the \"victory\" he craved, but this simply opened a window for de Valera to respond, giving a stirring radio address, both reminding the people of Britain's hostility, but also praising Britain's victory where she stood alone against Germany for a time, comparing it to a similar, nearby island which also 'never accepted defeat nor surrendered her soul'. The Irish ate it up, and his misstep was soon forgotten. (EDIT: [Link to the speech](_URL_0_), thanks /u/International_KB)",
"Naval invasions are incredibly hard.\n\nThink about D Day: the allies had complete air control, complete naval control, and the vast majority of german troops (including the best forces) were involved on they Eastern front. Still it was considered a risk.\n\nNow consider a situation where the English would have control of the airspace (because of the large distance for the German airforce), near complete control of the seas, and the ability to reinforce Ireland MUCH easier than Germany. If the German's somehow managed to have a force land, then it would be: Cutoff by a superior British navy, without supplies, under constant aerial attack, without heavy armor, and without retreat. Even in a best case scenario, the German's would have not been able to reinforce any footholds they got.",
"Kind of unrelated, but how did the nazi racial ideology view the Irish as a race? I've seen a few examples of \"racial science\" from the late 19th century that tried to present the Irish as sub-humans. I'm interested in whether or not the Nazis incorporated this kind of thinking into its ideology"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Irish-Secrets-Espionage-Wartime-1939-1945/dp/071652807X"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbgPpG8pO8U"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
23e3u5
|
how is baldness determined by our mothers?
|
I've learned that baldness comes from our mothers' genes. How does this work and how can I explain it like a five year old because my 45 year old relatives don't understand science.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23e3u5/eli5how_is_baldness_determined_by_our_mothers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgw66tm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's a concept called sex-linkage. Females have two X sex chromosomes (so are known as homogametic) and males have and X and a Y sex chromosome. The Y chromosome has fewer genes than the X so some genes are only present on the X chromosome. Since women lack a Y chromosome all males get their Y chromosome from their fathers, and therefore the X from their mothers, and as the gene for baldness is only on the X chromosome in all males the gene for baldness comes from the maternal side of the family."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2hgqxx
|
Why did Pope Alexander II give approval to William's conquer of England
|
Why did he send his approval to William before the invasion, what was his hate towards Harold.
Sources would be much appreciated
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hgqxx/why_did_pope_alexander_ii_give_approval_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cksuu7r"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"He didnt hate Harold, was probably barely aware of him. Simplistically put however there had been an ongoing dispute over who was Pope, Alexander II or Honorius II. The former elected by the Church, the latter elected by the German court of Henry IV, via his mother as he was still a kid. The Sicilian Normans, once in disagreement with the Papacy, were now aligned and supportive of Alexander II. Its therefore no surprise that when the Norman Normans turned up wanting a favour that the Pope would agree. Firstly because it kept the Sicilian Normans onside and secondly because it 'proved' that he was the Pope with Authority, unlike that other Pope. Additionally when you only hear one side of the story you may be more inclined to believe it.\n\nTheres no primary source I've come across that will say 'and so Pope Alexander II, who hated the Anglesaxon King...', as its more inferred by surrounding issues and events. However this is a start.\n_URL_0_ "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com.au/books?id=Sf8-AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA206&lpg=PA206&dq=%22pope+alexander+Il%22&source=bl&ots=J1UzfTM8Nh&sig=2uaprlwj5mm2p7ReiPbtkCBoMIw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=nuokVJamNIvjoATEmIHABw&ved=0CDkQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=%22pope%20alexander%20Il%22&f=false"
]
] |
|
128js1
|
How do we track our own stealth aircraft?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/128js1/how_do_we_track_our_own_stealth_aircraft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6t30jn",
"c6t40vl",
"c6t5wye",
"c6t67bj"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a transponder, the signal is encrypted. The transponder uses spread spectrum communications so it is difficult to see the signal if you do not know what your looking for. \n\nSpread spectrum signals use many parts of the spectrum and low power so the signal appears as background noise.\n\n",
"Is there any evidence people can track their own stealth aircraft? \n\nThe location of friendly submarines is not always known.",
"There is no real reason to track our aircraft during many normal stealth operations. It is more important for our aircraft to know where bad guys are. We could use radar on our aircraft to find bad guys but then we are emitting and the bad guys can see us if we emit. We do not want to emit. That is like turning on a flashlight in the dark. \n\nThe way we tend to give our aircraft data on bad guys positions is to use another plane away from the combat zone to emit. We us AWACS aircraft for this and send the data to the stealth aircraft. The stealth aircraft know their own positions so can properly display bad guys in relationship to them and engage, without having to emit (IR guided missiles) or emitting for a very short time ( radar guided missiles).\n\nThe use of IFF is discouraged in stealth operations for obvious reasons. Do not emit! Burst data link can provide positional info to command and control if necessary but that still emits.\n\nThe real trick is proper mission planning and training which will help ensure your assets are where they need to be when they need to be so they do not run over each other.\n\nAs to spread spectrum remember your cell phone uses spread spectrum; they are not to hard to track. Spread spectrum makes it harder to decode data in it but in a sophisticated electronic warfare environment it will still give elevation and azimuth information. Which gives them a direction to shoot. \n\nI am not aware of an operational IFF that ultramarineblue mentions.",
"In addition to the answers other have provided so far, stealth aircraft carry radar cross section enhancers when in the public, like at airshows. The B-2 has little nubs on the wings which also function as nav lights, the F-117 had them on each side of the fuselage and the F-22 has a little pod that hangs on the lower fuselage, between the engines.\n\n[Here's a photo of the F-22's RCS enhancer.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/fNZzc.jpg"
]
] |
||
sypfk
|
Why is China considered the oldest continuous country when thorough it's history it's been shattered and conquered?
|
When Italy was invaded by barbarians the western roman empire ceased to be, even though the rulers said they were the new kings of Rome. Yet, when the Mongols invaded china and took over it was still considered Chinese.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sypfk/why_is_china_considered_the_oldest_continuous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4i3233",
"c4i35mi",
"c4i372v",
"c4i69da",
"c4id5zn"
],
"score": [
51,
13,
13,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the Roman Empire wasn't just taken over wholesale by one barbarian tribe - then it probably wouldn't have been considered to have fallen completely. Instead, it splintered and the government and culture gradually faded away and ceased to exist. China, from the Qin dynasty to the end of the Qing, always had a more or less consistent culture among its people, a consistent (written) language, a consistent form of bureaucracy, and at least among the citizens, a consistent national identity. Outsiders conquer and replace the Chinese government, but they get assimilated into Chinese culture rapidly. As for Roman culture? When the Visigoths and the Vandals and whatnot came in, it splintered and basically ceased to be. They didn't keep a consistent cultural identity with Rome, instead brought in new institutions and new traditions that's inconsistent with Roman traditions. Latin also became a dead language. The Mongols as well as the Manchus and Jurchens and whoever else took over \"China\" quickly reverted into using Chinese bureaucracy, the Chinese language, the Chinese system of everything, and more importantly, considered themselves as a direct successive dynasty to the last Chinese dynasty. \n",
"Two reasons: One, there was never the sort of large scale cultural replacement that happened after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Europe in 1000 CE was more Germanic than Classical, while the Mongols (and later Manchus) were almost entirely absorbed into Chinese culture. the other reason is that the invasions of China never \"stuck.\" The Mongols and Manchu, as well as other groups that occupied northern China after dynastic collapse, were expelled.",
"I'm not an ancient historian, but I believe the problem is that you're thinking about ancient and early modern history in terms of modern concepts.\n\nWhen barbarian tribes invaded the Roman Empire, the empire itself didn't \"cease to be,\" even in the West. It was simply transformed over time into something new. True, the empire in its old form no longer existed (a process that took centuries), but Rome was still Roman. It was now the center of \"Christendom\" instead of the old empire.\n\nThe same holds true of the Mongols and China. What we call the Chinese empire has changed significantly over the course of several millennia. At times, it has only included what is considered \"Han\" China, or present-day southeastern China. Manchuria and the western lands were at various points imperial possessions, protectorates, autonomous territories, or otherwise in some kind of diplomatic and administrative relationship with the imperial government. When the Borjigin and Yuan Dynasties ruled the empire, it was still the Chinese empire, just with a different ruling family.\n\nIt's important not to think of ancient and early modern empires as modern-day nation-states; they need not necessarily be ruled by someone who's from that empire. The Hapsburgs in Europe, for example, sat on the thrones of Austria, Spain, and the Holy Roman Empire at one point. Holy Roman Emperor Charles V was known as Charles I of Spain until he abdicated to take a new throne. \n\nAristocrats didn't think of themselves as \"Spanish\" or \"German\" as much as they identified with a house or a family. Many kings and queens didn't even speak their region's own dialect as a first language. The imperial Russian court, for example, used French to converse with one another. Like the Austrian empire, the Chinese empire was multi-ethnic and multilingual. Chinese emperors didn't think of themselves as ruling a single people, but rather an empire of peoples.\n\nIn this sense, China didn't \"fall.\" What fell when the Mongols invaded was the ruling dynasty.",
"The key point here is definitely that even outsiders who managed to invade China converted to Chinese customs instead of forcing their own upon the Chinese. Even the Mongols adopted Chinese governance, rituals, etc. Chinese culture and bureaucracy was always so ingrained and seemingly intransigent that it really couldn't be overcome or destroyed.",
"If you're talking oldest nation state, I don't think anyone considers it the oldest. Its borders have changed over the centuries, its rulers have changed, but every time a new conqueror comes into China, they adopt Chinese culture as their own so it has remained relatively unchanged. The Mongols adopted Chinese Culture, so did the Qing. Essentially when Rome got conquered, Rome was over, a new culture was brought in with the new dynasty and it led to fragmentation so that while the city of Rome survives, the culture of ancient Rome is long gone. In China, the Mongols came in and started a new Chinese dynasty. I guess that is the main difference. there are other things you could point to like the longevity of the Chinese language for example, but I think the main thing is the dominance of Han Chinese culture in general, language being part of that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1s0ifs
|
why do tv shows now divide themselves into yearly "half seasons" instead of yearly seasons?
|
As far as I can tell, they are just regular seasons, but now are arbitrarily divided into two halves of a twice-as-long "season."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s0ifs/why_do_tv_shows_now_divide_themselves_into_yearly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdspf05",
"cdspg50",
"cdsrnyq",
"cdt3kyk"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Fall spring is divided into two because usually there is more holiday programming, and in the case of the US football heads into the playoffs, which decreases viewership of competing shows. And by splitting it into two, they can potentially create more viewers through reruns between and hold onto viewers through cliff hangers. Or alternatively, if a show is failing, a half season is less expensive than a full one.",
"They break the season around times of low viewership. There are many reasons why viewers would go down for an extended period of time. For instance, as Christmas gets closer, people are more likely to be traveling, so they are less likely to watch their TV shows.\n\nThe use of the mid-season finale makes people anticipate the returning episode and return to the habit of watching the week it comes back. ",
"* Production scheduling can sometimes benefit from the inherent and logical break in a season.\n\n* Advertising. A channel, like AMC, does better advertising a 'Mid-Season Finale\" than simply advertising \"The last episode before the holiday hiatus\". \n\n* It can be used as a tool to keep a show on the air for an additional year without having to bother with pesky things - like re-negotiating contracts with cast/crew and giving them their increased pay. This is, essentially, what happened with Breaking Bad's final season... Though, that move also helped get them a few extra episodes in the end... and AMC, at least, was cool enough to lift the 'non-compete' clause... Which meant the cast were still able to go look for other work during the final season... Which is why you saw Dean Norris on 'Under The Dome'.",
"Double the end-of-season-finale frenzy for hype and profit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7uw2zy
|
why aren't foreign words originating from non-latin alphabets (e.g. yarmulke) spelled more phonetically?
|
It just seems odd that when transcribing it to the Roman alphabet, words like that would be spelled how they sound. Like "yammuka" for example. Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uw2zy/eli5_why_arent_foreign_words_originating_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtnnn5s",
"dtnomb3",
"dtnsmay",
"dto3zhn"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The major reason for this is that many languages contain sounds that don't exist in English, and cannot be represented with the English alphabet. So the typical solution is to decide \"these characters mean this sound, and these other characters mean this other sound\", even when doing so isn't strictly phonetic to how English is normally pronounced. \n\nHowever, your example is kind of a poor one for this, because \"yarmulke\" **is** spelled phonetically. In Hebrew, you pronounce the 'r' and 'l' sounds. We just tend to pronounce it wrong in English.",
"I assume that the the spelling should be yarmulke that is a Yiddish word.\n\nYiddish developed in Europe from the 9th century in a environment with languages around it that used Latin and Cyrillic script it used used a Hebrew alphabet.\n\nTo quote wikipedoa\n > It originated during the 9th century in Central Europe, providing the nascent Ashkenazi community with a High German-based vernacular fused with elements taken from Hebrew and Aramaic as well as from Slavic languages and traces of Romance languages. Yiddish is written with a fully vocalized version of the Hebrew alphabet.\n\nSo it is not a language that have developed in isolation from languages written Latin and Cyrillic script and Hebrew words have been translated to different languages with different writing system around the. The Old Testament is primary written in Hebrew and it and names in it have been translated. There have been contact between the languages since ancient times. Rome took control of the Palestine 63 BCE and that started the dispersion of the Jewish people around the world\n\n\nIf you look oh the [wiktionay page](_URL_0_)\n > Borrowed from Yiddish יאַרמלקע (yarmlke), from Polish jarmułka (“skullcap”) or a Ukrainian cognate of the same. This is probably from the Turkish yağmurluk (“rainwear”), though it could also be from Medieval Latin almutia (“hood, cowl”). The term has been attested since 1903.\n\nSo the spelling in Yiddish transliteration used today is yarmlke and the polish origin jarmułka is close to the spelling used in english.\n\nI would guess that the spelling in english was done by people with Yiddish as there primary language that moved to a English speaking environment. They transliterated it in a way that match the original spelling in Hebrew alphabet. You would likely do the same thing if you tried to spell English words in another alphabet.\n\nSo there is a bit of a difference of how you spell something if you move from the Yiddish to English compared to if a English speaker tried to write down a words that they just heard and never read. Especially if it is from a language that does not have a written form or is it not based on a alphabet where transliteration is impossible.\n\n\n",
"One interesting example of trying and failing to phonetically spell out a foreign word is the Chinese province of 四川, which was initially spelled out as \"Szechuan\"\n\nThe first syllable in the name is a sound that doesn't really exist in the English language. If you say the word \"glasses\" in a normal sentence, the sound made by the -se- will be kind of like an s sound, but a little bit creakier. At first they tried to phonetically spell that out as \"sze\" but then people just ended up saying \"sess-you-on\" which is ridiculously far away from the correct pronunciation. Now it's usually just written as \"Sichuan\".\n\nThere's also Nguyễn, the most common Vietnamese family name. The first two letters are another case of trying to spell something phonetically and just making a worse mess of things. The English language actually has that sound! Plenty of words end with it, like sing, wrong, bring, - it just never goes at the beginning of a word. People who just look at the spelling by itself tend to say \"Na-goo-yen\" and people who know a little bit more just say \"win\" because even though it isn't technically right, it's close enough. ",
"\"Phonetically\" for whom?\n\nThe word \"yarmulke\" comes from a Yiddish word which it got from Polish: \"jarmułka\". In Polish, the \"j\" is pronounced like our \"y\", and the \"ł\" is pronounced a bit like our \"w\" -- we think of \"l\" and \"w\" as being completely different sounds, but they're actually oddly similar.\n\nThe word was transliterated into Yiddish with the Hebrew letters yud, alef, reysh, mem, lamed, kuf, ayen, which gives us \"yarmlke\" (the \"u\" is not written). There's no \"w\" sound in Yiddish, so \"ł\" is transcribed as \"l\".\n\nUsing a special alphabet called the \"International Phonetic Alphabet\", used for writing exact sounds, a dictionary might offer the following pronunciations:\n\n* British English: /ˈjɑːməlkə/\n* American English: /ˈjɑ(ɹ)mə(l)kə/\n\nThe thing that looks like an apostrophe means: \"The next syllable is stressed,\" so in both cases the stress is on the first syllable. The thing that looks like a colon means: \"Make the vowel long,\" so for British speakers the first syllable is a long drawn-out \"yaaaah\". The symbol /j/ is the \"y\" sound, the /ə/ is that indistinct \"uh\" sound, and /ɹ/ is the usual American English pronunciation of \"r\".\n\nThis means, then, that British speakers always pronunce the \"l\", but they don't (in the standard dialect at least) pronounce the \"r\" -- this is no surprise, because in British English the \"r\" isn't pronounced after a vowel unless it is followed by another vowel.\n\nBut in the US pronounciation, the symbols for the \"r\" and the \"l\" are in parentheses, meaning that some speakers pronounce them, and some don't.\n\nSo you see, what is \"phonetic\" depends on who you ask."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/yarmulke"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2f5l58
|
In the early 1900's ,Were there any religious or cultural resistance towards the use of flying machines such as Bi planes?
|
Humans were not supposed to fly
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2f5l58/in_the_early_1900s_were_there_any_religious_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck7bftr"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"There was no widespread \"flying is evil! down with planes!\" movement in the early 1900s... but by then, humans had been flying for [more than 100 years](_URL_0_). \n\nThe airplane had to have shown up in a few sermons in the first decades of the 20th century, but was generally treated more like a novelty - not so many hymns as funny songs like [\"Come Josephine in my Flying Machine\"](_URL_2_).\n\nPerhaps it helped that the Wright Brothers' [father was bishop in the United Brethren](_URL_1_)...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hot_air_balloon",
"http://www.wright-brothers.org/Information_Desk/Just_the_Facts/Wright_Family/Milton_Wright/Milton_Wright.htm",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C71EmjRtiH0"
]
] |
|
1pm1wc
|
where do nuns(roman chatolic) outfits originate from (design)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pm1wc/eli5_where_do_nunsroman_chatolic_outfits/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd3or7c",
"cd3ownw"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"since most religious habits were patterned on the garb for either unmarried women or widows in their own cultures, I imagine only religious orders that began in Middle Eastern countries have (or had) habits patterned on typical female garb in those countries, and what may still be traditional in those societies that are not westernized, whether Muslim or Christian. Orders that began in western Europe would have had their original habits based on whatever the modest, unostentatious garb for widows or virgins was at that time and place, and I don't know that those \"fashions\" were based on middle Eastern patterns.",
"I just asked my mother this question (who was a nun for 6 years right after high school). She said that the older orders just wore the \"garb of the day\" and didn't change it as fashions changed. Newer orders designed their habits (\"habit\"= nun clothes) to be similar to those of existing orders. Once the rules changed after Vatican II, my mother said many of the different orders actually hired designers to come up with more practical habits. \n\nEDIT: By \"garb of the day\" I mean that they adopted whatever style was typical for peasant women at the time the order was founded."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1cfhcn
|
Why do they elevate bruised areas of the body to decrease blood flow? Why isn't the opposite more beneficial?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cfhcn/why_do_they_elevate_bruised_areas_of_the_body_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9g5ftj"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Elevating an injured limb is not to decrease blood flow. It's to decrease pooling and swelling.\n\nRecall that blood is pumped outward to your limbs in pressurized arteries, but it returns in veins, which aren't under much pressure and have less motive force to move the blood along.\n\nIf the injured limb is allowed to hang downward, then gravity works against the flow of blood in the veins, slowing down the flow. More blood stays in the veins and capillaries, increasing swelling and pain.\n\nBy elevating the limb we can make gravity work for us instead of against us. Pressure in the arteries easily pushes the blood uphill, and then gravity helps it drain back through the veins. There's no chance for it to pool in place and cause swelling, and because there's less resistance, the total blood flow may be greater."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1f95jd
|
who are some of the contenders in the 2016 u.s. presidential election that have a strong foothold in the door? how well do they reflect the values of their party?
|
I've been reading up a bit here and there and it seems like party views and policies are changing. How are the viewpoints of the political parties changing and what effects will this have on our U.S. policy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f95jd/eli5_who_are_some_of_the_contenders_in_the_2016/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca84jlt"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Super, super early, but some of the strong possiblities:\n\nHillary Clinton will almost certainly run in 2016. She did very well as Secretary of State, but a possible issue will be Benghazi. That's one of the reasons the GOP has been stretching out what seems to be a non issue for so long. She'll have strong challengers of course, but as of right now it's hers to lose.\n\nSome other possibilities (sorry, not much to add to these guys as the Democrat is much less wide open than the GOP race):\n\nElizabeth Warren\n\nMartin O'Malley\n\nMark Warner\n\nFor the GOP:\n\nMarco Rubio will have a big following and has all but stated he's going to run. As a Hispanic, he represents a major growing part of the electorate who the GOP has been awful with recently. They know that they need to stop the bleeding in this community, and Rubio is generally liked. One issue is that a lot of Hispanics don't necessarily identify as well with the Cuban diaspora in the US.\n\nChris Christie may run, but he has some issues in his own party. Insanely enough, a lot of people were pissed that he wasn't critical of President Obama's handling of Sandy, and instead gratefully accepted federal assistance in the aftermath. A lot of more moderate Republicans and Independents probably gained a lot of respect for him, as it was a great case of governance over politics (which in time, might turn out to be a greater political boon than if he had just been petty and insulted President Obama).\n\nJeb Bush could be an interesting candidate as well. His last name is going to be an issue, though not nearly what it was in 2008 or 2012. Bush bashing is no longer in vogue, and Jeb sems like a capable and intelligent governor (much more so than his bro).\n\nRand Paul will also likely run, and will do better than his father ever did. He's young and charismatic. He's had some really *REALLY* bad gaffes, though, and it's unlikely he'll win much of anything. His supporters will be the loudest and most obnoxious. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7idfdk
|
can kings and queens be removed from power due to deteriorative illnesses of the brain and such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7idfdk/eli5_can_kings_and_queens_be_removed_from_power/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqxxurz",
"dqxy2bq",
"dqxyem5",
"dqxz37b"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"That fully depends on the country and the rules that they have set up for succession. Virtually all have the ability for voluntary abdication which would be used for severe illness or anything that rendered them incapable of fulfilling their duty. Most would also have some method of forced abdication if they were not coherent enough to voluntarily step down, or if they were refused to do so. But there are a few that historically required death for the monarch to change. ",
"It really depends on the exact power structure of the monarchy and where that power is derived from.\n\nI think in the general case, the heir to the throne would step up and assume most of the duties of the monarch with consulting them as much as possible.",
"Or you open the gates to an ostensibly friendly army who then proceeds to sack it, and you get killed by your own king's guard right before you cook everyone in town with wildfire. Talk about some poor decision making due to deteriorative illness...\n",
"In the UK, the answer is sort of.\n\nThere is a procedure for declaring the monarch unfit to do their duties. But they would not be forced to abdicate, instead a regent would be appointed to act as monarch in their place. Usually the regent would be the next in line to the throne.\n\nThere is a period of British history called \"the regency\" because \"mad\" King George III was unfit to rule due to mental health issues, so his son (the future George IV) acted as regent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1rgzx3
|
How does the melt rate change based on the mass of ice and the temperature of the surrounding air?
|
I saw an ice sculpture tonight and it was about 76 degrees and I was wondering if there was a mathematical correlation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1rgzx3/how_does_the_melt_rate_change_based_on_the_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdngq51"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are definitely equations that can describe what is going on! Heat and mass transfer are an important part of physics and engineering. \n\nIn order to melt, the ice must be raised to its melting point temperature, then given enough energy to melt into liquid. This energy needs to come from somewhere. Heat moves from hotter to colder places, so the warm air will give energy to the ice (and water) until they are the same temperature. \n\nThere are some complications in calculating all this, however. For example, if the air is stagnant then it will get colder as it gives up energy, which means transfer to the sculpture will slow down. If the air is moving, we also have to think about how fast it's going and if it's removing some of the water as vapour too. \n\nThere are many more and less detailed ways of describing what's going on, but in the very simplest terms, the bigger the temperature difference between the air and the ice, the faster energy will transfer. The lower the ice temperature is below its melting point, the more energy needs to be added to make it warm up and melt. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2tp5pk
|
fps in film
|
e.g. 30fps vs 29.99999999
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tp5pk/eli5_fps_in_film/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co126id",
"co12zjm"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The reason why 29.97 FPS has historically been such a common frame-rate in North America is quite complicated.\n\nFirstly, the reason why ~30 FPS has been the North American standard for TV (compared to the 25 FPS standard used in Europe) has to do with the electrical power system.\n\nBack in the old days, TV's relied on counting the power cycle oscillations (from the AC electrical outlet) as a timing device to trigger the refresh of the display. In North America, power systems used 60 Hz cycles, but filming and distributing TV at 60 FPS at that time just wasn't feasible (too costly/complicated), so they opted for half of that (30 FPS) to be the standard. TV sets would then display one frame for every two power cycles counted.\n\nThis was all fine until color TV came around. Engineers discovered a problem. The carrier signal used to carry color information in the TV broadcasts was interacting with the carrier signal used to carry audio information. This resulted in huge distortions in the video quality that had to be remedied. The fix was to slow down the frame-rate by a very small amount to bring the two signals out of phase of each other so they would no longer cause interference.",
"First, let's talk about progressive-scan vs interlaced video. All video is made up of still images shown rapidly in succession, like an animated flip-book. \"Progressive scan\" is where you show a complete image, then another complete image, then another, etc. The images are called frames, and this is the way it's done in a cinema and on most modern video setups. But in the CRT era, we used *interlaced* video, which is where one moment updates all the even rows of pixels on the screen, and the next updates all the odd rows. (We didn't necessarily use pixels but let's keep it simple.) Instead of frames, we claled those updates *fields*. Sometimes fields are created by splitting frames in half (like when you show film), but sometimes TV cameras actually shot fields to start with, and you could never turn them back into frames without distorting them.\n\nSo, the NTSC TV system (used in the USA, Japan, and some other places) ran at 60 Hz, and the PAL TV system (used in Europe, Australia, and some other places) ran at 50 Hz. This meant 50 or 60 fields per second, or 30 or 25 frames per second if you were running film material.\n\nWhen colour TV was introduced, they added an extra signal on top of the black and white image -- this was a nice way to do it because it meant that the new colour broadcasts were still perfectly compatible with black and white TVs, which would just ignore the additional signal. Unfortunately, the colour signal \"clashed\" (to avoid getting technical) with the main NTSC image signal. So they had to change its frequency slightly, dividing it by 1.001. This meant that NTSC TV now ran at 59.94 Hz, for 29.972997 frames (for progressive material). PAL used a different signal setup so this wasn't an issue.\n\nHere's where it gets fun! Film was almost always shot at 24 frames per second. To get 24fps film material up to 59.94 Hz for TV broadcast, they used a process called 3:2 pulldown. For each four frames of film material, you would produce ten fields. It would go: Frame 1 odd, Frame 1 even, Frame 2 odd, Frame 2 even, Frame 2 odd again, Frame 3 even, Frame 3 odd, Frame 4 even, Frame 4 odd, Frame 4 even again. This meant that 4 frames could become 5 frames, and you could run 24fps material at 30fps. (This is why movies have distorted motion on US TV broadcasts.) But you're not running 30, you're running 29.97, so you have to actually slow the film reel down by 0.1% to get it there; the film framerate becomes 23.976.\n\nSo US broadcast rates are 23.976, 29.972997, or 59.94, depending on the material. The simply \"why such a weird number\" is \"because they had to squeeze the colour signal in.\"\n\nPAL runs at 25fps, so to get 24fps film running, they just *sped it up* by 4%. This means that a movie that runs 100 minutes on American TV will run 96 minutes on European TV. It also used to mean that all the audio was slightly higher pitched, but they fixed that in the 90s with software that could speed audio up while preserving its proper tone and pitch. \n\nMore recent TV and video standards have really made things simpler and neater, Blu-rays can now run at 24fps native and make everyone happy without any weirdness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
392bg7
|
Is it possible to create diamond like crystals from other elements?
|
I mean crystals with the same crystal structure made from other elements. Not crystals that exhibit diamond like qualities.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/392bg7/is_it_possible_to_create_diamond_like_crystals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs0cobi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. Diamond has a structure called [FCC(face centered cubic)](_URL_1_) with two atoms in the base. That means for each \"spot\" in an fcc, there are two atoms - one on the spot and one shifted along the diagonal of the unit cell (1/4, 1/4, 1/4).\n\nTo answer your question: Yes. [To quote wikipedia:](_URL_0_)\n\n > While the first known example was diamond, other elements in group 14 also adopt this structure, including α-tin, the semiconductors silicon and germanium, and silicon/germanium alloys in any proportion.\n\nEDIT: Accidentally a word."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diamond_cubic",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_crystal_system"
]
] |
|
4ak6u2
|
After throwing out monarchy (and then dictators) in favor of the republic hundreds of years before, how did Roman contemporaries react to its fall and the institution of the empire?
|
I know they were proud of the more "evolved" nature of the republic. Did people notice or write about the parallels as it happened? After it happened?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ak6u2/after_throwing_out_monarchy_and_then_dictators_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d123r29"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I might be able to answer this one! Well at least give insight. But I'm no historian and merely an enthusiast of Roman history. If my answer is not within guidelines, please mod let me know! \n\n**Short Answer**: Most of the Roman people actually didn't mind or even cared. Continuous blood shed from civil wars and numerous political upheaval exhausted Rome's citizens and they just wanted stability. \n\n**Long Answer**:\nThe start of the fall of the Roman Republic and the rise of the Roman Empire arguably came from Lucius Cornelius Sulla. Sulla is considered to be one of Rome's greatest generals, having never been defeated in battle and even successfully attacked Rome.. twice! Sulla during the climax of his career (a little after 100 B.C. Note that Julius Caesar was a teenager around this point) had a dispute (understatement) with another well known Roman general, Gaius Marius. Long story short, Gaius Marius wanted command of the eastern armies that was legally given to Sulla by the Senate; Sulla gets backstabbed politically; Sulla becomes angry; Sulla uses his loyal Marius reformed army (ironically) to take back command and defeats Marius in battle. \n\nMarius having been beaten, was exiled to Africa while Sulla finally returns his attention to the east. Though successful in his campaign, his absence allowed Marius to consolidate his power and returned to Rome. But again, in conclusion, Sulla attacks Rome a second time and becomes dictator. Sulla leaves his legacy for having set precedent of Caesar's march to Rome and to his dictatorship. Unlike Caesar, however, he actually gave up his power as dictator and retired to his villa until his death. Interesting man, that Sulla.\n\nAnyway, that was the \"First\" and \"Second\" Civil War of that era. \n\nNow in comes Julius Caesar. Julius Caesar, in 50 BC after having successfully subjugate Gaul, was ordered by Pompey to disband his army and return to Rome. Fearing that he'd be prosecuted after relinquishing his title as governor, he crossed the Rubicon river with his army and marched towards Rome causing yet again another Civil War. Caesar defeats Pompey and declares himself dictator. The senate wouldn't have any of that and so they decide to backstab him.. literally. \n\nAnother Civil War.\n\nBut this isn't about Antony and Octavian (Augustus) vs Brutus and Cassius just yet. This is actually Antony and Octavian duking it out before they formed the Second Triumvirate. Well they didn't go to war, but Octavian was recruiting Caesar's veteran soldiers to his side with some even defecting from Antony's forces. Antony did come to blows with the Roman Senate and was defeated in the Battle of Mutina. \n\nWhat about Caesar's assassins? Well, Antony and Octavian (and Lepidus) finally reconciled and created the Second Triumvirate. With their combined forces, they went to war (Yep! Again!) against Brutus and Cassius (the leaders of the Liberators) and defeated them in the battles of Philippi. Julius Caesar was avenged and the Caesarian faction was the sole ruler of Rome.. Until everyone became power hungry.. again. \n\nOne more Civil War. \n\nWith Octavian ruling the West, Antony ruling the East, and Lepidus being an afterthought, Octavian and Antony co-ruled with a delicate alliance with one another. By 33 BC, despite Mark Antony being married to Octavian's sister, Octavia, Antony was having an affair with the Queen of Egypt, Cleopatra. Now this isn't much of a problem since it was just a political marriage and everyone and their mother cheated on their wife/husband, but after Antony's successful invasion of Armenia, he declared his and Cleopatra's son Alexander Helios the King of Armenia. In addition, he awarded the title of \"Queen of Kings\" to Cleopatra. \n\nThis was enough for Octavian to try to convince the Senate that Mark Antony was not looking at the best interest of Rome. And even more, Octavian found Mark Antony's will stating that his sons will inherit Roman conquered kingdoms and for Mark Antony's body to be buried in Alexandria. Now this is important because this was used as propaganda that Antony is no longer considering himself Roman. \n\nThe Roman Senate ended up declaring war on Cleopatra and Egypt. Mark Antony laid his loyalty to Egypt. In a similar fashion to Caesar's and Pompey's Civil War, Octavian (or really, Marcus Agrippa) defeats Mark Antony's Army in Greece and finally Antony and Cleopatra in Egypt, thus making Octavian the single ruler of Roman Republic. \n\nOctavian, now known as Augustus, ruled while upholding republican traditions. He still gave the Senate power with acts like relinquishing his control of provinces and armies. But really, Augustus couldn't give up his authority for fear of another power struggle among generals. The \"republic\" was essentially Augustus' empire. \n\nWith Augustus however, over 100 years of political strife and civil wars had essentially ended. After 100 years of bloodshed and political instability, Augustus created an empire that achieved internal peace and prosperity known as the Pax Romana. So despite of them being proud of being a republic, peace is definitely better than endless war. \n\nSource: *Caesar* by Adrian Goldsworthy; *Augustus* by Adrian Goldsworthy "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3vmk8f
|
why do the police follow me for a while before pulling me over?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3vmk8f/eli5_why_do_the_police_follow_me_for_a_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxota50",
"cxotaig"
],
"score": [
4,
7
],
"text": [
"They are looking for suspicious behavior. swerving, speeding up or slowing down or if you notice you are being followed and throw evidence out of the window.",
"They're looking up your plate to see if your car has any violations or if the registered owner has a warrant or had reported the car stolen. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3zg95y
|
why do many people see policing and military as necessary things to support with their tax dollars, but see a more subsidized healthcare system as a form of communism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zg95y/eli5_why_do_many_people_see_policing_and_military/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cylusf2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because everyone needs the police and the military. The rich and the upper middle class dont need subsidized health care and dont want to help fund it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
azahog
|
Why does the devil play the fiddle? Where did that idea come from?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/azahog/why_does_the_devil_play_the_fiddle_where_did_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei7xxq1"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"Music's etherial power over the emotions has a long and storied history. Traceable as far back as the mythological story of Orpheus and the lyre that could hold the Gods in sway, or Pythagoras who could change the temperament of a raving man by playing songs in certain modes. The point is, music has a hold over our souls that we have long struggled to find an adequate explanation for. So, as we often do with phenomena that escape our explanatory power, we attribute that power to supernatural forces.\n\nMusic enchants, mysteriously so. This is a problem for many church fathers. St. Augustine (in the *Confessions,* see the excerpt translated in *Struck's Source Readings in Music History*) has a veritable crisis over music, wrestling with the fact that music at its best can give the word of God greater lustre, but at the same time that music incites pleasure, and pleasure is a sure path to weakness of spirit and, thence, sin. Music's place in the church was thus complicated, the subject of much debate, and ever-shifting. But to cut through this interesting and multifaceted history with the bluntest of machetes, music was fine so long as it amplified text and was therefore subservient to the word of God. Music for its own sake was not. Practically, this means that singing (and lightly accompanied singing) was good. But instrumental music existed to give *pleasure* and to incite revelry through practices like dance, and such things were no bueno. \n\nThus, music has a powerful effect on our souls that we have attributed to supernatural forces. Secondly, instrumental music, through its associations with pleasure and dance, were seen as temptuous and therefore sinful. The next step in our history is the personification of sin in the Devil, who is seen as an agent in the world actively impinging upon human existence. While Satan is of course a figure in the medeival church, he did not exercise a whole lot of power. The satan-as-master-villain view arises more as a fixture of protestant theology. Accompanying this growth in Satanic agency is the mounting fear of his alleged earthly conspirators: that is, witches. \n\nAnd it is here, around the 16th century, that we begin to see the violin associated with demonic forces. It is precisely the violin's role as a dancing instrument that is at stake here, it starts to appear in artistic representations of witches sabbaths, like the [following](_URL_0_) from the *Compendium Maleficarum* (the 1626 edition). In its role as a dancing instrument, the Violin was in many ways the polar opposite of the human voice. Singing alone is capable of giving life to musical sound and words at the same time, and thus singing was easily interpretable as an *elevation* of speech toward the divine. But the violin glorified sound for it's own sake, it tempted its hearers to dance, and thus it became viewed as a way of conjuring Satan as sin personified.\n\nThe rise in witch panics over the 15th and 16th century likewise points to an emerging attitude that viewed apparently supernatural abilities as evidence of a pact between that individual and the devil. This in turn is the origin of the \"deal with the devil\" view of musical virtuosity, the lengthy history of associating dazzling musical talent with satanic origins. In truth, this attitude is not necessarily violin-specific, though the 19th century virtuoso Paganini is one of the most iconic examples of this myth, it was also attached to, say, guitarists like Robert Johnson. What is important is that the tongue-and-cheek accusation called out virtuosic *performers* (it wasn't typically applied to composers, unless they were also performers), and it called attention to a kind of \"sinful\" excess in the playing, something so excessive that it didn't seem humanly possible. \n\nLastly, and returning to the violin, one aspect of this instrument that is special is that it has deep connections to both high and low art. The violin, after all, is perhaps the most central instrument in the symphony orchestra, and it remained an important instrument for social dancing well into the 20th century. This is important because it means that the violin is one of the only instruments capable of carrying both aspects of the \"satanic\" legacy traced in this post: its \"low culture\" association with revelry and dance and its \"high culture\" association with seemingly otherworldly virtuosity. \n\nI am less familiar with the history of actually representing the character Satan: ie, *Paradise Lost* or *Faust.* So I do not know precisely how the jump was made from \"violin conjures Satan\" and \"violinists make pacts with Satan\" to \"violin is played by Satan.\" But hopefully this post has helped you understand why the association of violin with Satan makes sense within the European mythos!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://c8.alamy.com/comp/HHEDWD/woodcut-depicting-a-group-of-witches-and-warlocks-dancing-with-the-HHEDWD.jpg"
]
] |
||
1r91x0
|
why are streets and housing developments in residential areas across the us named so consistently and generically, often with no relation to geographic features? e.g., hillcrest, hillview, pinewood, oakwood, lakeview, fairview, etc.? does this happen in other countries?
|
A quick google maps search will show numerous results for all of the above, or any combination of tree names, crest, view, ridge, etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r91x0/eli5why_are_streets_and_housing_developments_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdkt1cu",
"cdku1mz"
],
"score": [
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Sounds like the same sorts of names you'll see across English speaking Canada too, really. They are generic and evoke pleasant sounding semi rural retreats. ",
"The joke I heard is that streets and housing developments are named after whatever natural things were removed to make room for the streets and houses. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bxz3h7
|
Art History question: Was 'modeling' a profession or was there a modeling industry pre-19th century in the Middle, Renaissance, Baroque and Rococo eras? Were there famous, sought after models who commanded higher prices? Were there agents and managers?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxz3h7/art_history_question_was_modeling_a_profession_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eqgukzi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"*pauses* \n\nThis is actually a lot trickier than my initial \"no\". Mostly no. There were \"allegorical\" portraits. Elisabeth Stuart, the Winter Queen, commissioned a few of these. One was to showcase the plight and what she saw as inevitable triumph of her dispossessed children. Agnes Sorel, one of the earliest known mistress of the King of France, was painted as the Virgin Mary. Wedding paintings could also be allegorical. \n\nWhich in turn leads to Botticelli and the great debates of model attribution. Simonetta Vespucci is one of the more persistent names to be a model in both Primavera, which was probably commissioned for a wedding, and Birth of Venus. This is a bit doubtful, but we can blame Ruskin. (Ruskin was awful to his wife, I don't feel bad about this.)\n\nBut it also points to a massive problem- you can't always tell who a model is. Famous subjects are probably more likely to have a definite answer for this. Even then, it can be doubtful. Read any biography of Anne Boleyn, and they should include a lot of the very different paintings that \"might\" be her. Even the famous portrait is a later copy of an original.\n \nBut for the most part, artist's models were usually... not considered all that respectable. The hired models were usually sex workers of some kind, and are patchily known. Usually, better known subjects were women who were well off, had relationships with the artist, or mistresses of well off men. Even then, the attribution issue will haunt them. Emma Hamilton is probably something a bit closer to what you wanted- the subject of a number of portraits by George Romney, but he was commissioned to paint by her then-lover, so not quite. You need to get to the 19th century before you can start getting more information.\n\nSo it's less famous model than \"I really like this person, so I'll paint her when I have a chance\"/\"I am paid to paint this person\".\n\n_URL_1_\n\nEttle, Ross Brooke. “THE VENUS DILEMMA: NOTES ON BOTTICELLI AND SIMONETTA CATTANEO VESPUCCI.” Source: Notes in the History of Art, vol. 27, no. 4, 2008, pp. 3–10. JSTOR, _URL_2_.\n\nDaughters of the Winter Queen by Nancy Goldstone.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.britannica.com/biography/Caravaggio",
"https://www.brooklynmuseum.org/eascfa/dinner_party/heritage_floor/agnes_sorel",
"www.jstor.org/stable/23207901"
]
] |
||
12uazu
|
In terms of physique, would real gladiators have been more similar to Andy Whitfield of TV's 'Spartacus' or to Russell Crowe of the film 'Gladiator'?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12uazu/in_terms_of_physique_would_real_gladiators_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6y5pcr",
"c6y6lxp",
"c6y86qs"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"They look pretty beefy in contemporary Roman mosaics and statues. \n\n[Example](_URL_1_), [Example](_URL_2_), [Example](_URL_3_)\n\nAnd here's a recently discovered statue of a [female gladiator](_URL_0_).",
"_URL_0_\n\nApparently, they wouldn't have looked beefy at all.\n\n > **New evidence indicates gladiators may not quite match Hollywood's interpretation.**\n\n > The researchers expected gladiators would need a protein-rich diet to build muscle - however their analysis of the bones in fact suggested a vegetarian diet...\n\n > Plants contain higher levels of the element strontium than animal tissues. So, people who consume more plants and less meat will build up measurably higher levels of strontium in their bones. Levels of strontium in the gladiators' bones were two times higher than the bones of contemporary Ephesians...\n\n > This agrees with some historical reports of gladiators eating a diet of mainly barley, beans and dried fruit, says Grossschmidt.\n\n > It would have given them a lot of strength, but may also have contributed to the tooth decay found in teeth in the cemetery and **potentially made the men fat.** However, a little extra weight could actually have had benefits in protecting vital organs from cutting blows during fights, argue the researchers.\n\nBasically, gladiators would have had great muscle strength and exceptional muscular endurance. But they also would have had quite a bit of fat, caused by a diet that was really high in carbohydrates.",
"They were fatter than depicted in those shows for one, it was better to have some fat to take blows and cuts and live then to be chiseled and spilling your entrails the first time you're cut. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2012/04/120419-female-gladiator-statue-topless-science-ancient-rome/",
"http://i1-news.softpedia-static.com/images/news2/People-And-Beasts-on-the-Roman-Arenas-3.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/2/28/Borghese_gladiator_1_mosaic_dn_r2_c2.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/07/Astyanax_vs_Kalendio_mosaic.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.cosmosmagazine.com/node/1369"
],
[]
] |
||
1dbiy9
|
why do sirens sound like they do? why do they vary by country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dbiy9/eli5_why_do_sirens_sound_like_they_do_why_do_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9oqkoy",
"c9oscwn"
],
"score": [
12,
12
],
"text": [
"They are designed to get your attention - simple as that.\n\nWhy do they vary by country? Because there's more than one way of getting someone's attention! I know that here in the UK, they use a variety of sirens because they found that changing from one to another actually gets people's attention better than playing any single one continuously. You'll often hear emergency vehicles change their siren at crucial times, eg when they're just about to go through a red light.",
"Sirens often produce a musical interval called a tritone. A tritone is composed of two individual notes where there are six half-notes between them. It is considered dissonant. This dissonance is what you are referring to.\n\nWhy do they vary by county? Tritones are not instrument/speaker dependent. For example, two tubas can produce a tritone just as a computer speaker can. They may vary by country due to the instrument/speaker that's producing it. Two tubas producing a tritone sound different than a computer doing the same, but they both are dissonant.\n\nFor clarity, tritones are not the ONLY sound/musical-interval a siren makes. It is just a common one. Some may have the pitch slide up and down between a tritone interval for example. Some may use minor-seconds (which is a different musical interval). Ultimately, they want to produce dissonance, (to get your attention) and a tritone does that well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3a5yan
|
How long did it take for the relations between England and America to recover after the revolutionary war? And what were some significant milestones in that process?
|
I was wondering about that after reading about the relationship between Churchill and Roosevelt during the second world war.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3a5yan/how_long_did_it_take_for_the_relations_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csa4qtv",
"csa7mvw"
],
"score": [
26,
2
],
"text": [
"On a government level, we signed the Jay Treaty during the Washington administration which gave favorable trade terms to the British.\nUnder John Quincy Adams, we drafted the Monroe doctrine (JQA doesn't get credit for it since he lost re-election soon after it was ratified) which told Europe to stay out of the western hemisphere. Since we really had no army or navy though, we couldn't enforce it. The British navy was the enforcer, less because they felt the need to back our tough words and more to keep their rivals from gorging and enriching themselves in any more new world colonies. \nAs far as reestablishing relations on a social level, where the hoople-heads weren't damning England in the streets, I don't know.",
"hi! you may be interested in this section of the FAQ\n\n* [Anglo-American Relations](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/us_history#wiki_anglo-american_relations"
]
] |
|
14gi7e
|
If two people, A and B, ate the same amount of food in terms of caloric intake and quantity but A exercised and B didn't, would both defecate the same amount of feces in terms of weight?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14gi7e/if_two_people_a_and_b_ate_the_same_amount_of_food/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7cukry"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Someone please answer this man, I'm incredibly interested"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
95k6fd
|
If there is a breach in a fusion reactor, what will happen?
|
I'm writing a novel and I want to have a fusion reactor breach its walls through some kind of coolant malfunction or whatever.
My question: If you had a stable reaction going, and then removed a chunk of the wall, would the resulting energy escaping be catastrophic or would things just flicker out? I'm hoping catastrophic for the books sake...
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/95k6fd/if_there_is_a_breach_in_a_fusion_reactor_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3tfduo",
"e3uuizp"
],
"score": [
25,
6
],
"text": [
"If you remove a part of the wall but not the magnets the fusion reaction will heat the magnets until they stop being superconducting. The magnetic field breaks down, the reaction stops - essentially instantaneous, probably before you even managed to fully remove the wall segment.\n\nThe energy stored in the plasma at any given point in time is small - less than the energy in a hand grenade probably. Fusion reactors cannot explode or do anything else dangerous.",
"Fusion, as produced in a reactor on Earth, is inherently unstable and not self-maintaining. In fact, managing to get the conditions exactly right so that fusion can be maintained for any length of time is the largest part of the challenge to build a reactor*. Any small disturbance stops fusion from occurring and the system comes to a halt. \nFission, i.e. nuclear reactors, have to be kept is a ‘supercritical’ state where they produce energy. Every fission event produces neutrons, which then cause other atoms to fission as well, repeating the process. This carries the potential for an uncontrolled runaway reaction - including a nuclear catastrophe. \nIn fusion, this is not the case. The entire potential for a runaway event is not present. Any damage to a fusion reactor core would mean the release of a small amount of slightly radioactive matter, and maybe a small explosion. The fusion process would simply stop. \n \n/* one that produces more energy than it consumes, that is. If you are prepared to accept a net energy loss, you can can buy a working fusion reactor for your desk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.