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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2iiom3
|
What sort of evidence is there of the interactions early modern humans had with other species of archaic humans that were alive at the same time?
|
From what I understand, human evolution involved the emergence of many species that at times co-existed, before most eventually becoming extinct until we are left with just us. I know it is believed that early humans interacted with neanderthals in possible violent conflicts and displacement, but what about other species? Were there any significant conflicts, or co-operative efforts between the different early species of humans? Or did they for the most part just leave each other alone?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iiom3/what_sort_of_evidence_is_there_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl2inqk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a few anthropologists in this sub who might take a run at this post, but fyi, the question would do better in /r/AskAnthropology. In fact, there have been many posts in that sub asking related questions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7vjgk0
|
the finances of power grids
|
I've had no luck with google and explanations in previous threads (below) haven't helped me.
* [Why are there different power companies but only one grid](_URL_1_)
* [How does the power grid work](_URL_0_)
* [Electric companies and the power grid](_URL_2_)
(In the UK) With phone/internet lines, a company maintains and leases the physical wires for a regulated price (called line rental), then internet companies have services like exchanges, DNS and maybe even data centers which they charge the customers for, as well as passing on (and marking up) the line rental. This makes sense to me because I understand the connections between each entity.
With power grids, I think what I can't get my head around is how the payments made for electricity relate to the physical infrastructure.
1. How is it decided which power plants produce X amount of electricity and who pays them for it?
2. What transactions take place to buy/sell electricity between me, the energy companies and the power plants? How is the money routed? (for lack of better wording)
3. If all produced electricity is pushed to one grid, what difference does it make who I pay my bill to?
4. Who do energy companies pay and what do they get?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vjgk0/eli5_the_finances_of_power_grids/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtsv6i4",
"dtswebq"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"there is one grid that all plants give their power to. you sign a contract with a plant to pay them depending on how much you use, regardless of whose power you actually end up using. meanwhile the plants sign contracts with each other (or with the owner of the grid) to compare how much they produced and how much they were paid for\n\nif Plant A produced more than it sold and Plant B sold more than it produced, it means you used power from A but paid B. so B gives your money to A and they call it even. in return, B knows that A will do the same if the roles are ever switched\n\nat least that's the simple version. there is some nuance built in so it does matter which plant you pay, but it depends on the grid. they could do it so only part of the difference gets shared, so you can still support the plant you want (nuclear, solar, etc) by choosing who to pay",
"My explanation is for the US -- I believe the UK system is similar.\n\nThe entire system is kind of a masterpiece of capitalism, run by interacting private corporations and nonprofit organizations, with no central government control. The players are:\n\n* Generators, companies who make electricity\n\n* Transmission line owners\n\n* Distributors, who own neighborhood power lines and sell electricity to customers.\n\nIn addition, there's the\n\n* Independent System Operator (ISO), a nonprofit organization that makes the rules and manages how the players interact. An ISO controls the power network for a large region of the country (say, New England or the Pacific Northwest).\n\nHere's how it works. Every day, the ISO holds an auction for tomorrow's power usage, hour by hour. A coal plant offers to produce 500 megawatt-hours of power at 10 am for $55 per megawatt-hour. A local gas plant offers to make 20 MWh at 9 pm for $45... and so on. Once all the bids are in, the lowest bids are accepted, up to the amount of power that matches the predicted demand for each hour tomorrow. (It's like a Dutch auction on eBay.) The winning power plants have the right to put their energy onto the grid and make money, the losers must go dark.\n\nThe ISO holds the auction for power delivered to a single spot location in its network, but distributors will demand power, and generators will be creating power, at various places. This means the price of electricity varies from place to place. Transmission line owners can take advantage of this by buying power at places where it's cheap and selling where it's expensive. That's how they make a profit, and pay for the upkeep of the transmission lines.\n\nOne last factor: this all assumes that the ISO can predict the demand for electricity tomorrow. What if it's wrong? Maybe the weather's unusually hot, or everyone turns on their TV to watch a news event. To deal with this, there's also a real-time auction, in which power plants bid for the right to produce power minute-by-minute. If there's an unexpected demand, the price can spike drastically, and some power plants are designed specifically to take advantage of these price spikes to fill in any unmet demand.\n\nYou want to see something cool, check this out: real-time data from New England's ISO, showing current power prices across the region, current and forecast power demand and supply, and the current mix of power plants feeding the grid.\n\n_URL_2_\n\nFor more info on ISOs and how they work:\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37c5dr/eli5_how_does_the_power_grid_work/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jz04w/why_are_there_different_power_companies_but_only/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cw0zw/eli5_electric_companies_and_the_power_grid/"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Regional_transmission_organization_(North_America)",
"https://www.iso-ne.com/about/what-we-do",
"https://www.iso-ne.com/isoexpress/web/charts"
]
] |
|
3bcwvc
|
Does dyslexia only effect your reading skills, or does it effects other aspects of your life as well?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3bcwvc/does_dyslexia_only_effect_your_reading_skills_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csld2t6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I have only minor problems so I’m probably not the best person to answer this.\n\nFirstly, dyslexia is not well understood or defined. So there is a broad spectrum of cognitive disabilities that make it difficult to read, write and understand written text, but it is caused by a multitude of different symptoms.\n\nIn my case the letters jump around on the page, so I find reading very tiring and stressful and my spelling is terrible (I will have to check this three times before I post it).\n\nAs for other symptoms, my balance was very bad as a child, and I was always running into things. I also wonder if it affects my hearing, I seem to have much more difficulty understanding people in loud crowded environments.\n\nBut the worst aspect of it is the negative psychological problems it causes. You know there is something different about you but you don’t know what it is, so you don’t trust yourself, or other people’s opinions of you. And not being able to trust yourself is very damaging and limiting.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16xb8m
|
Does it make a difference if I turn my clothes inside out before I wish them?
|
Some of my friends turn their clothes inside out before loading them into a washington machine. Does it make a significant difference?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16xb8m/does_it_make_a_difference_if_i_turn_my_clothes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c808ken"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Side note - Stop using auto-correct if you're not going to at least proof read what it's typing for you"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
hn2d2
|
Follow up on my previous question "Does light orbit black holes?": Is it possible that light from a star is warped around a source of gravity such that it appears as two points of light in the sky?
|
I'm referring to [this](_URL_0_) post earlier. The consensus seemed to be "theoretically, yes." If that's true, is it possible that light from a star at point A on the night sky would travel through space and warp around a center of gravity such as a black hole or other massive object which is located at point B (if we could see it), and come off at a perfect angle in the direction of the Earth? Would it then appear to shine at both points A and B (roughly)? Would we even be able to identify them as the same source of light? How often, if at all, could we expect this to happen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hn2d2/follow_up_on_my_previous_question_does_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1wpdks",
"c1wpe1u",
"c1wpvnu"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"When a bright object is behind a heavy object (like a black hole) relative to our line of site, it's called an Einstein Ring and [it looks awesome](_URL_0_).\n\nIt's also possible for the same object to appear [multiple times](_URL_1_) depending on the geometry.",
"I saw a link to this:\n_URL_0_\nWhere they talk about dark matter and bending light... \nmight be of interest.",
"Indeed it's possible. The overarching phenomenon is called [gravitational lensing](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h5lz0/does_light_orbit_black_holes/"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Einstein_Rings.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c8/Einstein_cross.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.phdcomics.com/comics.php?f=1430"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens"
]
] |
|
d11a5g
|
Are/were there any ancient tombs that resemble ones depicted in the Indiana Jones series?
|
For example, the ancient Incan (I believe) tomb in the beginning of the first film is quite expansive and enigmatically ethereal; adorned with excessive daunting cultural decor, religious artifacts and symbols, and lethal "booby traps."
While I definitely am not asking if there were any tombs with 15 foot boulders (lol), I am curious if this level of intensity in a tomb is accurate to any degree. When I look online for videos of ancient meso-american tombs they seemingly look nowhere near as dramatic as hollywood has led me to believe. Any insight is greatly appreciated!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d11a5g/arewere_there_any_ancient_tombs_that_resemble/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ezirc38"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It seems this question is asked fairly regularly in some form or another. A search of r/AskHistorians gives [quite a selection.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search/?q=indiana%20jones&restrict_sr=1"
]
] |
|
1b5zqj
|
cyprus banking crisis
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b5zqj/eli5_cyprus_banking_crisis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c93zcyp"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"- _URL_9_\n- _URL_4_\n- _URL_7_\n- _URL_6_\n- _URL_3_\n- _URL_5_\n- _URL_8_\n- _URL_2_\n- _URL_0_\n- _URL_1_\n\n--- \n\nMy post from the first link:\n\nCyprus has a large banking industry that functions largely as a tax haven for foreigners (read: \"legitimate businessmen\" in Russia). Cypriot banks had enormous deposits, and invested those deposits. The financial crash caused many of those investments to fail, and the banks lost so much money that they are no longer able to pay back depositors. The nation of Cyprus doesn't want to lose all of the foreign banking business, but it simply doesn't have the money to fully guarantee everyone's deposits. And, since it doesn't control its own currency or monetary policy, it can't simply inflate away the brunt of the losses.\n\nTheir plan is to take out large bailout loans from the rest of the Eurozone, guarantee most of those deposits, and \"tax\" the remainder. This proved massively unpopular with ordinary Cypriots, who would lose part of their savings so that the government could bail out foreign ~~mobsters~~ investors. It seems that the new plan is to fully guarantee \"smaller\" deposits and tax larger deposits more heavily, which will probably spell an end to the Cypriot tax evasion industry.\n\nIf Cyprus had its own currency, and owed its debts in that currency, then it could simply \"print money\" using conventional monetary policy and avoid the worst of these problems, at the cost of inflation. But more powerful Eurozone nations don't want inflation, so Cyprus is out of luck on that front."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aqe11/eli5_how_is_a_small_country_like_cyprus_reaping/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b1htf/eli5_what_is_happening_in_cyprus/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1amodl/eli5_why_are_the_banks_in_cyprus_failing_and_how/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ax30u/eli5_the_economic_situation_in_cyprus_and_why_its/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ah9e3/eli5_what_exactly_is_going_on_in_cyprus_right_now/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1akj5f/eli5_2013_cypriot_financial_crisis/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1anogq/eli5whats_happening_in_cyprus_right_now/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ais3d/eli5_the_financial_situation_in_cyprus/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1afyvo/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_cyprus_right_now/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aywk2/eli5why_is_cyprus_on_the_verge_of_bankruptcy/"
]
] |
||
1x8spg
|
How many revisions of the bible did it take to get to the current, most widely accepted English version?
|
Watching Bill Nye the other night debate Ken Ham was great. But he kept referencing that the Ken Ham model of creation is dependent on the countless - er - NUMEROUS retranslations that have occurred. My questions is: How many scribes played Biblical telephone and what could have or is verifiably lost due to the translations?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x8spg/how_many_revisions_of_the_bible_did_it_take_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf95hq4",
"cf9blv2"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer: not many, and not much.\n\nVarious sects have their own bible preferences, of course, but the the best translation from an academic point of view is currently the NRSV. This edition was created from the Greek and/or Hebrew text, and we have copies of (almost?) all of these at least from the 3rd century. While any manuscript tradition will show some variation due to scribal error, interpolation, etc, modern scholarly techniques for creating a critical edition, that is, an edition which shows the most probable original text with major variations, are highly advanced. Thus, the Greek and Hebrew from which the NRSV is translated is considered to be highly accurate.\n\nWhile the NRSV was translated to English by competent scholars, translation will always be an act of interpretation. For example, the NRSV translators decided to represent the Greek word *ecclesía* as \"Church\", a meaning it would not have had for the actual authors of the New Testament, for whom it meant \"community.\" \n\nMost of these translator judgments are, however, relatively minor and only of interest with respect to intricate points of theology, and not of any practical consequence for most believers.\n\nSo, while I like Bill an awful lot, his point doesn't really stand up. ",
"The textual basis of the Bible is fairly stable, current critical editions are the work of sifting through hundreds of texts, and the amount of overall variation is relatively minor, and the point of meaning up for grabs in textual variations is also relatively minor (there's only so much you can make of a difference between 'Jesus Christ' and 'Christ Jesus' in a verse, for instance).\n\nThe idea of numerous retranslations is a bit misleading. I don't know the context of the comment, but all major modern English translations are based on a translation of our critical editions of the Greek and Hebrew. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
212fll
|
How many ants are there in the world? I've heard for every human on Earth there comes more then a million ants
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/212fll/how_many_ants_are_there_in_the_world_ive_heard/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg90wjv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Holldobler and Willson (The Ants, 1990) estimate 10 000 trillion individuals. So that's probably closer to 1.4 million per person.\n\nBut ants are a large and diverse group with about 14 000 species. They also have a communal ecology wherein most individuals don't reproduce and cannot survive without the rest of the colony, so maybe the colony is the better unit of comparison rather than the individual."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
aklogb
|
If the goal was to win WWII, why on earth would the American military segregate white and black soldiers?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aklogb/if_the_goal_was_to_win_wwii_why_on_earth_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ef6ekdo"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"By the start of WWII, the U.S. Army had been segregated since the Civil War, nearly 75 yeard ago. The Army had fought and won the Civil War, the Plains Wars, the Spanish-American War, the Philippine Insurrection, and WWI as a segregated force. From the Army's point of view, segregationist policies hadn't been an obstacle to victory in 1865, 1876, 1898, or 1918, so why change in 1941? Granted, that attitude would start to change by 1945.\n\nNow, the Army saw black manpower as highly useful in wartime, but often utilized black soldiers in non-combat roles. During World War I, the vast majority of the 367,410 blacks drafted were used as manual laborers or sent to service units. In WWII, much the same thing happened. Of the 922,965 black soldiers in WWII, most spent the war working in segregated rear-area service units. The all-black 2nd Cavalry Division was sent to North Africa and Italy, only to be broken up and used to provide troops for labor units or replacements for an all-black infantry division. The 555th Parachute Infantry Regiment wasn't ever sent to fight the Japanese, instead they spent the war as smokejumpers fighting forest fires in the Pacific Northwest. The U.S. Army had a huge need for laborers and support personnel to move supplies, build airfields, and do other vital work in rear areas. Although there was unquestionably a racial tint to the Army's choice, there was a certain half-sense to it - many black soldiers were undereducated and it would have been difficult to train them for other roles. \n\nSome Army officers believed there were racial differences between whites and blacks that justified, nay, demanded, segregation. This attitude, perhaps unsurprisingly, was prevalent amongst southern-born officers. Now, the U.S. Army deliberately assigned white officers from Southern states to command segregated black units. The theory was that Southern officers would have more experience dealing with blacks and would know how to handle them.\n\nThis lead to some ... issues. \n\nTake Virginian Ned Almond, for example. As a Brigadier General, Almond was made the assistant divisional commander of the all-black 93rd Infantry Division.* His divisional commander, Mississippi native Major General Charles P. Hall, was assigned to the unit for similar reasons. Later, Almond was promoted and given command of the 92nd Infantry Division, the \"Buffalo Soldiers Division\" before it was sent into combat in Italy.\n\nAlthough Almond had excellent paper qualifications, he was a terrible choice for the job. Almond was virulently racist (during the Korean War he called Chinese soldiers \"laundrymen\") and loathed his assignment. He went so far as to say:\n\n > \"No white man wants to be accused of leaving the battle line. The Negro doesn't care .... people think being from the South we don't like Negroes. Not at all, but we understand his capabilities. And we don't want to sit at the table with them.\"\n\nMany of Almond's white officers felt the same way. Being assigned to an all-black division was seen as a career-killer. Turnover rates were high, as some white officers schemed ways to get out of black units. Training and readiness suffered, especially since many black soldiers from Jim Crow areas could barely read or write. When the 92nd went into combat in Italy, it's combat debut went badly. Badly-lead and badly-trained soldiers failed to take objectives and took heavy casualties. Many black soldiers deserted or broke down. In fact, desertion became a chronic problem for the unit. Despite the fact he was partly to blame, Almond blamed his black soldiers and cursed his hard luck at getting the assignment.\n\nInterestingly enough, the combat failures of segregated units like the 92nd Infantry Division in WWII and the 24th Infantry Regiment in the Korean War spurred integration efforts in the late 1940s and 1950. Limited experience with integration in WWII had suggested mixed-race units did better in combat than segregated ones. \n\nDuring WWII, there had been some experiments with partial integration. Between June and January 1945, the Army had lost 430,000 troops in Europe. In January 1945, the Army desperately needed more troops. Lieutenant General John C.H. Lee suggested the Army send more black troops into combat. Lee was the Service of Supply (SOS) commander in the ETO, so he'd had extensive, often positive experiences working with all-black service units.\n\nThe Army accepted Lee's suggestion. To help fill the manpower demands, the Army sought out volunteers from all-black units. Initially, the Army only took 2,000 men (the maximum number that could be simultaneously trained at the Ground Forces Reinforcement Center (GFRC) in northern France). The spots were quickly filled with volunteers, many of them long-serving NCOs willing to be reduced in rank for a chance to fight in the rank. The Army now had enough manpower for 53 all-black rifle platoons. By March 1945, 37 platoons were ready. Some were formed into all-black company-sized units and attached to the 12th and 14th Armored divisions. Others were attached to all-white infantry companies to form a 5th rifle platoon (usually, rifle companies had three rifle platoons and a heavy weapons platoon).\n\nWhite officers were generally assigned to lead these new all-black platoons while they were in training at the GFRC. Some resented the job. Others, like combat veteran First Lieutenant Richard Ralston were more sanguine. He recalled:\n\n > \"There was a learning process on both sides ... They were pretty ginger about me because I was white, but once they were convinced that I was talking serious stuff and wasn’t racially prejudiced, they got down in the dirt and did what they had to do. They knew then I was talking survival.\"\n\n\"We kept training in earnest ... I exaggerated considerably about how many of them were going to die to try and scare them out of the unit. I only wanted the best and bravest. But nobody quit. They were pretty darned good.\" \n\nRalston's 5th Platoon was assigned to K Company, 394th Regiment, 99th Infantry Division. They were thrown into combat in March 1945. In the fighting around the Remagen bridgehead, the platoon took its first losses. It spent the rest of the war in the advance into the Rhineland. Another black platoon in the 393rd Infantry Regiment, 99th Infantry Division did so well it was regarded as one of the best platoons in the regiment\n\nOther all-black platoons did similarly well. Brigadier General Edwin F. Parker, the 78th Infantry Division's commander, asked for more black platoons after the fighting around Remagen. \n\nThe 104th Infantry Division reported:\n\n > \"Morale: Excellent. Manner of performance: Superior. Men are very eager to close with the enemy and to destroy him. Strict attention to duty, aggressiveness, common sense and judgment under fire has won the admiration of all the men in the country.\"\n\nThe 1st Infantry Division observed:\n\n > \"White platoons like to fight beside them because they laid a large volume of fire on the enemy positions.\"\n\nPost-war interviews revealed more. In mid-1945, the Army interviewed 250 officers and 1,700 enlisted men who had fought with or near the black soldiers. The results were promising. 84 percent of the officers said the black soldiers did \"very well\" in combat. The other 12 percent said the black riflemen had done \"fairly well.\" A mere 5 percent of officers thought black troops were inferior infantrymen to white soldiers. Race relations had also been better than expected. 73 percent of officers and 60 percent of NCOs thought black soldiers and white soldiers got along well with each other.\n\nIt is important to consider that the black soldiers in many of the 5th Platoons weren't representative of the average black soldier or the average Army infantryman in 1945. They were relatively older, longer-serving, and all were volunteers. That doesn't in any way diminish their combat performance or their service. It's just important context to consider when we evaluate their performance.\n\nOne company commander reported:\n\n > \"They were the best platoon in the regiment. I wish I could get a presidential citation for them. They are very aggressive as fighters — really good in woods and at close-quarters work.\"\n\nAnother officer had only one complaint:\n\n > \"The only trouble is getting them to stop; they just keep pushing.\"\n\nAfter the war, Supreme Headquarters Allied Expeditionary Forces (SHAEF) dissolved the black platoons and most of the men were forced to return to their original units. However, the experiment had been instructive to the Army. It had certainly given civil rights leaders lobbying for integration in the Army.\n\nIn July 1948, Truman signed Executive Order 9981, which read:\n\n > It is hereby declared to be the policy of the President that there shall be equality of treatment and opportunity for all persons in the armed services without regard to race, color, religion or national origin. This policy shall be put into effect as rapidly as possible, having due regard to the time required to effectuate any necessary changes without impairing efficiency or morale.\n\nThis integrated the U.S. Armed forces, although it would take years before the effort was complete. The need for troops, any troops, to provide casualty replacements in the Korean War really shoved forward integration.\n\n*The 93rd was nicknamed the \"Blue Helmet Division\" and had a blue French Adrian helmet on its shoulder patch. Partly for racial reasons, it hadn't fought under direct control of the U.S. Army, but had been attached to the French army. The blue helmet was a token of this history.\n\n\nSources: \n\n\"The 93rd Infantry Division: The Only African-American Division in the Pacific Theater\" by Stephen D. Lutz \n\n\"Bring on the Buffalo\" by Michael Lynch \n\n*The Day of Battle: The War in Sicily and Ital y, 1943-1944* by Rick Atkinson\n\n\"African American Platoons in World War II\" by David P. Colley"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
488tfi
|
what makes "the cloud" different from just a regular server? why is there a new term for something that was already done before?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/488tfi/eli5_what_makes_the_cloud_different_from_just_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0ht74b",
"d0htd48",
"d0hykgj",
"d0i41mr",
"d0i6cge",
"d0i8szd",
"d0iegjf"
],
"score": [
247,
14,
4,
2,
5,
3,
7
],
"text": [
"The \"cloud\" is mostly just a buzzword to refer to a concept that is a little more abstract than just \"server\".\n\nInstead of your data being stored on one particular server (e.g. that you own or rent), your data is being passed off to a third-party company (i.e. \"the cloud\") that handles the data for you and stores it as they see fit. The data may be stored on some random server that third-party owns, or it may even be stored / replicated across different servers in different locations, etc.\n\nAs the end user of the cloud service, none of this matters to you. You don't concern yourself with what server(s) the data is being stored on or how the data is being stored, you just know that if you pass data to the service then they will store it for you and then you can later retrieve that data (from anywhere you have internet access).\n\nSo, before companies started moving to \"the cloud\", they would (for example) often host their own email servers in-house and often the only way for employees to access their work emails would be to connect to the corporate network (either physically at the office or remotely via a VPN connection) and then use a desktop email client like Outlook to read their emails.\n\nNow companies move stuff like email \"to the cloud\" where they get major service providers like Google and Microsoft to provide cloud-hosted solutions where all the corporate email etc. is managed by those third-parties and employees can login to their corporate email from anywhere via \"the cloud\" (using just their web browser). \n\nNow the company no longer has to worry about things like server operating costs, server maintenance / security, etc. now they just pay a provider like Google/Microsoft for a corporate cloud-solution and they handle everything instead.",
"It's really just about marketing. In the IT world the cloud is not a new idea at all. It's used as a visual symbol to represent the internet in most IT textbooks, and has been for years(decades maybe?). So the cloud is really just the Internet, not necessarily a data server. \n\nMarketing campaigns from leading IT companies molded this into an idea to sell the public. The cloud became primarily about storage and backup in these campaigns. And people liked this idea of their data floating around just waiting for them to access it. So the idea stuck. \n\nBut in the IT industry the cloud still refers to systems utilizing the Internet. Cloud based systems are now just client server models that rely on an Internet link between the two. Weather it's for data storage and backup or things like [cloud9](_URL_0_), a complete development platform accessible to entire development teams and equipped with reconfigurable and custom environments. ",
"One of the key concepts that separates the cloud from a server bank is virtualization. \n\n The cloud provides a level of hardware abstraction that allows your application to run in a virtual operating system that can be supported by generic cloud hardware and replicated at a moments notice. That hardware is fault tolerant by co-location and duplication ensuring a nearly 100% up-time. Load balancing and provisioning of hardware resources can happen dynamically in real time (elastically). All because of the extra layer of hardware abstraction. \n\nThese are platform as a service (PaaS) services , and they are what makes the cloud more than just a bunch of servers somewhere. ",
"With a regular server, you as the user control physical and virtual access. You most likely own the box itself and is located on your premises. Cloud is an abstract for \"3rd party facilities\".\n\nThis is a useful proxy: _URL_0_",
"It's pure marketing. A \"cloud\" is an image used in networking maps to normally show the internet, instead of all the connections and routers in between a site to the Internet to another site.\n\nSo marketing used \"the cloud\" to just mean the data or service you are using is out somewhere on the internet. Saying \"it's in the Internet\" scared people to death with marketing having your important data or access to programs on the Internet, so they made up \"the cloud\" and it's often portrayed as being some specialized secure system to get people to commit.\n\n\nFunctionally, it could be a shitty desktop PC sitting in some jack wagons basement (I see local VOIP PBX hosters do this all the time), or a multi geographically redundant server platform with all sorts of power and functions.",
"Imagine your old style server architecture like your home closet. You know which closet to use, you put your coat (file) in a specific location that you know of, and when you want that coat (file), you go to that closet, find the specific spot where you stored the coat, and grab it.\n\nCloud is like the coat checker at a fancy restaurant. You give the coat to the clerk. They store the coat somewhere (you have no idea which closet they store your coat in, they might even store your coat, your gloves, and your hat at different closets), you just know that they store your coat securely and safely, and you can grab it any time you wish.",
"Computer Science PhD student here, researching mainly cloud computing and virtualization.\n\nThe best definition of cloud computing was made by NIST a few years ago and is (partially) as follows:\n\nCloud computing is a model for enabling ubiquitous, convenient, on-demand network access to a shared pool of configurable computing resources (e.g., networks, servers, storage, applications, and services) that can be rapidly provisioned and released with minimal management effort or service provider interaction. This cloud model is composed of five essential characteristics, three service models, and four deployment models.\n\nEssential Characteristics:\n\n**On-demand self-service.** A consumer can unilaterally provision computing capabilities, such as server time and network storage, as needed automatically without requiring human interaction with each service provider.\n\n**Broad network access.** Capabilities are available over the network and accessed through standard mechanisms that promote use by heterogeneous thin or thick client platforms (e.g., mobile phones, tablets, laptops, and workstations).\n\n**Resource pooling.** The provider’s computing resources are pooled to serve multiple consumers using a multi-tenant model, with different physical and virtual resources dynamically assigned and reassigned according to consumer demand. There is a sense of location independence in that the customer generally has no control or knowledge over the exact location of the provided resources but may be able to specify location at a higher level of abstraction (e.g., country, state, or datacenter). Examples of resources include storage, processing, memory, and network bandwidth.\n\n**Rapid elasticity.** Capabilities can be elastically provisioned and released, in some cases automatically, to scale rapidly outward and inward commensurate with demand. To the consumer, the capabilities available for provisioning often appear to be unlimited and can be appropriated in any quantity at any time.\n\n**Measured service.** Cloud systems automatically control and optimize resource use by leveraging a metering capability1 at some level of abstraction appropriate to the type of service (e.g., storage, processing, bandwidth, and active user accounts). Resource usage can be monitored, controlled, and reported, providing transparency for both the provider and\nconsumer of the utilized service.\n\n[Source.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://c9.io/"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/JcuBNl1.png"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://nvlpubs.nist.gov/nistpubs/Legacy/SP/nistspecialpublication800-145.pdf"
]
] |
|
k0dvx
|
explain contemporary indian politics like i'm 5
|
I've been brushing up on Indian history, and I've learned a lot about ancient and classical India, but I don't know much of its modern history. I was hoping someone could explain the politics of India, as they are today.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k0dvx/explain_contemporary_indian_politics_like_im_5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2gmxsy",
"c2gmxsy"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm commenting because I'm 5 and also want to know (when someone answers). ",
"I'm commenting because I'm 5 and also want to know (when someone answers). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4epacf
|
Could a dinosaur regrow a severed tail like some lizards?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4epacf/could_a_dinosaur_regrow_a_severed_tail_like_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d22hqz6",
"d22i91s"
],
"score": [
4,
34
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\nprobably not",
"Neither birds nor crocodiles can regenerate lost body parts, and being the closest living relatives to dinosaurs (in birds case they are direct descendants) it's likely that dinosaurs couldn't regenerate body parts either."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://scienceline.ucsb.edu/getkey.php?key=1103"
],
[]
] |
||
3zeygu
|
how do scientist figure out when man-made things will decompose, like how do they know styrofoam takes 1000 years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zeygu/eli5_how_do_scientist_figure_out_when_manmade/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cylit8j"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"Actually, we don't. Plastic bags have only been around for about 50 years, so there's no firsthand evidence of their decomposition rate. To make long-term estimates of this sort, scientists often use respirometry tests. The experimenters place a solid waste sample—like a newspaper, banana peel, or plastic bag—in a vessel containing microbe-rich compost, then aerate the mixture. Over the course of several days, microorganisms assimilate the sample bit by bit and produce carbon dioxide; the resultant CO2 level serves as an indicator of degradation.\n\nRespirometry tests work perfectly for newspapers and banana peels. (Newspapers take two to five months to biodegrade in a compost heap; banana peels take several days.) But when scientists test generic plastic bags, nothing happens—there's no CO2 production and no decomposition. Why? The most common type of plastic shopping bag—the kind you get at supermarkets—is made of polyethylene, a man-made polymer that microorganisms don't recognize as food.\n\nSo, where does the 500-year statistic come from? Although standard polyethylene bags don't biodegrade, they do photodegrade. When exposed to ultraviolet radiation from sunlight, polyethylene's polymer chains become brittle and start to crack. This suggests that plastic bags will eventually fragment into microscopic granules. As of yet, however, scientists aren't sure how many centuries it takes for the sun to work its magic. That's why certain news sources cite a 500-year estimate while others prefer a more conservative 1,000-year lifespan. According to some plastics experts, all these figures are just another way of saying \"a really, really long time.\"\n\nSometimes, even banana peels don't decompose once they reach the landfill. For sanitary reasons, modern landfills are lined on the bottom with clay and plastic to keep waste from escaping into the soil and are covered daily with a layer of earth to reduce odor. The landfill, then, acts like a trash tomb—the garbage within receives little air, water, or sunlight. This means that even readily degradable waste objects, including paper and food scraps, are more likely to mummify than decompose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
12mzu2
|
Would it be possible to make a bio-luminescent tattoo?
|
Over in /r/cyberpunk it was noted that [the glowing tattoos from the new Total Recall](_URL_1_) are pretty cool, followed by discussion of how to make them. One idea was an implanted LED system, another more interesting one was injecting bio-luminescent fungi or bacteria.
Would it be possible to do this?
[Link to original thread](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12mzu2/would_it_be_possible_to_make_a_bioluminescent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6woeaz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I couldn't find anything that had already been done the way you're looking for (UV tattoos have already been mentioned and I think you're looking for something that glows under any amount of light). So, I went about trying to figure out how this could be accomplished. The idea of bio-luminescent organisms was interesting but it brings up the question of a \"food\" source for the organisms. If you aren't having to constantly feed them by putting some sort of media on the tattoo, then one would presume they would have to take it from your skin in some way, and I imagine it would probably cause some long term damage to the skin. Then you run into problems of keeping the culture exactly in the shape of the tattoo and I'm sure countless other issues that I can't think of.\n\nThe solution that seemed easiest (or at least the most effective and practical) would be a light emitting and heat sensitive nanoparticle. [This article](_URL_0_) (which you can't access the full version without subscribing to the service, but the abstract and highlights are available to anyone) seems to be looking at a way to construct chains of nanoparticles that will absorb heat and emit light. I'm not suggesting using this particle, in particular, because I also can't access the full findings, but with the ever increasing number of nanoparticles being able to be synthesized and all of the different properties coming from them, I would imagine there are others with similar properties already being produced or at least in the making. \n\nThese particles could then be put into the \"ink\" and injected into the surface of the skin to produce the desired result. I will point out, though, that not a lot is known about most of the nanoparticles being developed today in relation to their toxicology. Nanoparticles tend to be very reactive with such a high surface area to volume ratio and this leads to many having unexpected dangers that have to be dealt with.\n\nThe conclusion I've reached, then, is that these tattoos are very possible but also most likely several to many years in the future, provided someone with the know-how and the resources decides to endeavor into tattoos.\n\nP.S. Please correct me if I've misrepresented anything and I'll make adjustments as necessary, it's 4 am my time."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Cyberpunk/comments/12hdf8/glow_tats_in_total_recall_are_very_cool/",
"http://imgur.com/smhp5"
] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0014305712001000"
]
] |
|
qudif
|
How fast do newly formed stars move away from the nebula where they were born?
|
How fast do new stars move away from the nebula where they were born?
I know that the universe is expanding, and technically all stars are moving; but how fast does a new star move away from it's place of origin and the other stars that have formed near it? I recently saw something talking about how our sun could have sibling stars that are across the galaxy.
-Is the movement visible to us on earth (have any of our satellites or telescopes tracked a newly formed star and it's departure from it's nebula)?
-Finally, what would cause the moving star to slow down/stop and potentially develop some sort of solar system of planets and/or asteroids?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qudif/how_fast_do_newly_formed_stars_move_away_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c40l3kr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Stars form from molecular gas clouds, which tend to be large. As more stars form in the cloud, the radiation pressure disperses the gas leaving what we see as an [open cluster](_URL_0_).\n\nWhile the stars form close together, gravitational perturbations make the stars disperse and the open cluster basically falls apart. For most clusters, the time frame for this to happen is on the order of millions of years, which is fairly short in the big scheme of things.\n\nAs the open cluster loses more members, they tend to still move roughly together and appear to have similar motions in space, just they're not in a nice little cluster anymore. At that point we can see them as a [\"moving group\"](_URL_1_), of which the most prominent is the Ursa Majoris group. The wiki article on kinematics is *okay* to start with, though I'll edit in a better one a little later."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_cluster",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moving_group"
]
] |
|
3pmwue
|
why won't a pair of aaa batteries neutralize their charges when you touch one positive end to the other's negative end?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pmwue/eli5_why_wont_a_pair_of_aaa_batteries_neutralize/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw7lza7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Batteries contain chemicals that will react when given a path for electrons to flow from the positive end to the negative end. Touching the positive end of one battery to the negative end of the next doesn't complete a circuit and allow electrons to flow, therefore nothing happens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
wq8z7
|
How many WWII draftees were working in the CCC before they were drafted?
|
If it's a significant sum, would the physical fitness developed during their CCC years have a significant effect on the military's overall readiness?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wq8z7/how_many_wwii_draftees_were_working_in_the_ccc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5fis4a"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Civilian Conservation Corps was far and away the largest of the make-work projects during the New Deal. It was operated by the US Army, since they were the only government organization in 1933 that had the ability to handle such a large number of men. The CCC workers were civilians, so the army could not boss them around, using army regulations. The army NCOs and lieutenants had to develop real leadership skills, to get the CCC workers to do their jobs. That was far more valuable for the military's overall readiness than any physical fitness benifits. CCC jobs were also temporary, and the turnover each year was enormous. There must have been at least a million CCC alumni in the World War II US Army. During the nine years the CCC was in operation, 2.5 million different men were on its payroll, although never more than 375,000 in any one year. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2o5vv4
|
why can news stations not delay the broadcast by a few seconds incase something goes wrong?
|
I thought of this when I saw this post:
_URL_0_
Is there any reason why they cannot delay the broadcast for a few seconds so this sort of thing doesn't happen? For example, with the post above they could quickly censor it, surely it shouldn't be that hard.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o5vv4/eli5_why_can_news_stations_not_delay_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmjz971",
"cmjzqyx"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"They can and do. However, the process still has some dependency on human attention and reaction time. [Here](_URL_0_) is a relevant article. ",
"Th person holding the delay control on that Fox Broadcast probably felt safe with the presenters so was drinking coffee or updating facebook. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/2o5awq/fox_local_affiliate_accidentally_shows_dick_pic/"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Broadcast_delay"
],
[]
] |
|
m8ool
|
What effect might hallucinogens have on a comatose patient? Could it bring them out of the coma?
|
This came up in another thread on reddit, and I was wondering if perhaps hallucinogens could potentially bring someone out of a coma by stimulating the brain.
I'm sure there are types of comas for which this would have no effect, and I'm also interested to learn about those. But is there a situation where this might have a chance to work?
Another user here pointed me toward [this article](_URL_0_), which says that some people have been brought out of a coma by being given sleeping pills. This makes me think it might at least be possible. What do you think?
[This is a repost. I deleted the first one since it had a terrible title.]
**EDIT:** Please guys, let's not turn this into a recreational drug experience diary. Let's try to keep this on topic and science-only.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m8ool/what_effect_might_hallucinogens_have_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2z02jc",
"c2z077z",
"c2z10yt",
"c2z1pjj",
"c2z5mro",
"c2z02jc",
"c2z077z",
"c2z10yt",
"c2z1pjj",
"c2z5mro"
],
"score": [
17,
5,
4,
2,
3,
17,
5,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Hmm, interesting idea. I have heard of Zolpidem (Ambien) being used recently for comatose patients [link](_URL_0_), which is kind of ironic since it's a sleep aid (and also a hallucinogen at clinical doses)",
"Most definitely if we look at the word 'could'.\n\nBecause these hallucinogens rather improve brain stimulation through external means (we're rather discussing through natural receptor stimulation, biochemics such as dopamine (so to say)). Nevertheless, watch the word 'could' and think of allergic reflexes and certain types of hallucinogens which could as well impose danger to the patient.\n\nThis definitely needs more research. Current legislation is rather obstructing that as well as stimulating public ignorance, obstructing even education and political means next to just scientific. \n\n[edit]\nA little question to moderators/scientists/otherwise posters in here;\nWhen posting in /r/askscience am I obliged to use scientific terms rather making people asking unable to understand?\nAlso, are postings of opinions allowed? To what I saw, it is.\nTo what extend is source propagation demanded?\nThank you. As well for downvoting without commenting, which is VERY unscientific.\n[/edit]",
"Can I tag a question onto this post? Fairly nubile redditor myself and the reddiquette is unknown to me. Are there different classifications for types of coma? Can someone provide information on how these different coma types, provided they exist, effect brain behaviour? I'd be grateful for the chance to get at that data and then take another look at how a few different hallucinogens work on the brain.",
"Semi-related, there has been instances when giving the sleeping pill Ambien to coma patients has caused them to wake up for short periods of time. link 1: _URL_2_\nlink 2: _URL_0_\nlink 3: _URL_1_",
"I see there are people in this thread talking about Ambien's use on comatose patients. Here is a video demonstrating the difference it can seem to make in severely brain damaged patients. _URL_0_",
"Hmm, interesting idea. I have heard of Zolpidem (Ambien) being used recently for comatose patients [link](_URL_0_), which is kind of ironic since it's a sleep aid (and also a hallucinogen at clinical doses)",
"Most definitely if we look at the word 'could'.\n\nBecause these hallucinogens rather improve brain stimulation through external means (we're rather discussing through natural receptor stimulation, biochemics such as dopamine (so to say)). Nevertheless, watch the word 'could' and think of allergic reflexes and certain types of hallucinogens which could as well impose danger to the patient.\n\nThis definitely needs more research. Current legislation is rather obstructing that as well as stimulating public ignorance, obstructing even education and political means next to just scientific. \n\n[edit]\nA little question to moderators/scientists/otherwise posters in here;\nWhen posting in /r/askscience am I obliged to use scientific terms rather making people asking unable to understand?\nAlso, are postings of opinions allowed? To what I saw, it is.\nTo what extend is source propagation demanded?\nThank you. As well for downvoting without commenting, which is VERY unscientific.\n[/edit]",
"Can I tag a question onto this post? Fairly nubile redditor myself and the reddiquette is unknown to me. Are there different classifications for types of coma? Can someone provide information on how these different coma types, provided they exist, effect brain behaviour? I'd be grateful for the chance to get at that data and then take another look at how a few different hallucinogens work on the brain.",
"Semi-related, there has been instances when giving the sleeping pill Ambien to coma patients has caused them to wake up for short periods of time. link 1: _URL_2_\nlink 2: _URL_0_\nlink 3: _URL_1_",
"I see there are people in this thread talking about Ambien's use on comatose patients. Here is a video demonstrating the difference it can seem to make in severely brain damaged patients. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state#Zolpidem"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing",
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9215-sleeping-pill-may-rouse-coma-patients.html",
"http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=2154940&page=1"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqUG3guq4Jk&feature=related"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Persistent_vegetative_state#Zolpidem"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2006/sep/12/health.healthandwellbeing",
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn9215-sleeping-pill-may-rouse-coma-patients.html",
"http://abcnews.go.com/GMA/OnCall/story?id=2154940&page=1"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eqUG3guq4Jk&feature=related"
]
] |
|
1iklfm
|
when is it the proper time to use the characters ; , : - in writing? examples would be helpful too!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iklfm/eli5_when_is_it_the_proper_time_to_use_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb5cu4j",
"cb5cwa3",
"cb5d7gq"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"I've used _URL_2_ many times and found it easy to understand.\n\nHere are their entries (with examples) on [semicolon](_URL_1_), [comma](http://_URL_2_/punctuation/commas.asp) and [colon](_URL_0_).",
"Colon (:) is used when making a list or explanation. For example: hey, look at that, I'm making an explanation already. \n\nComma (,) is simply used to separate things within a sentence. For example: in this example, i am using both a colon and a comma, and the comma is separating ideas.\n\nSemi-colon (;) is basically used to join a sentence and a clause related to it, and is used in place of words like \"and,\" \"or\" and \"but.\" For example: I am going to use a semi-colon in this example; they are easy enough to use.\n\nAlso, do not use semi-colons WITH conjunctions like \"and\" \"or\" or \"but.\" \nFor example: It is poor form to use a conjunction with semicolons; and this is an example of that. \n\nHyphens (-) are used in joining words without turning them into larger words (which can have different meanings). For example: if an NFL player retires from football, he can resign; if his team extends his contract, he can re-sign.",
"Commas (,) are used to separate clauses (groups of words about the same subject) within a sentence. It's a helpful way to break up sentences so that they're easier to read. Use it in places that you would pause while speaking a sentence. \n\n\"Billy could hear the ice cream truck driving down his street, carrying lots of frozen goodies.\"\n\nNote that the part of the sentence after the comma cannot exist as a standalone sentence; it's too related to the first part to work on its own. \n\nSemicolons (;) can only be used in places where a period would also work. It's not as definite of a stop as a period, so it allows for a smoother flow from one idea to another. \n\nFor example, \"I really like ice cream; it's my favorite kind of food.\" works, but \"I really like ice cream; which is my favorite kind of food.\" does not. \n\nIf the two halves of your sentence cannot both work as standalone sentences, do not use a semicolon. Also, the two halves have to be part of the same idea. \"I really like ice cream; Here comes the bus!\" doesn't really work, and a period would serve you better. As the punctuation suggests, a semicolon is a cross between a period and a comma.\n\nFinally, colons (:) are only used for one purpose: when you are listing or declaring something. The previous sentence works as an example, as does this one: \"Billy had three favorite flavors of ice cream: chocolate, vanilla, and strawberry.\" The phrase before the colon has to include whatever it is the phrase after talks about. In the previous examples, it was \"purpose\", \"this one\" (referring to the sentence), and \"flavors\" (of ice cream).\n\nDashes are used to hyphenate words, while double dashes (--) usually work about the same way as semicolons. The sidebar actually has a couple of examples! \n\n > Be polite and respectful-- rude, offensive, and judgmental posts will be removed at the discretion of the mods.\n\n > Remember the top answer may not always be the best one. It could even be incorrect-- be sure to read multiple responses!\n\n > Do not ask yes-or-no questions or ask for a walkthrough/procedure-- try /r/answers or /r/techsupport. This is for conceptual explanations.\n\nThere are official grammatical definitions for each of these, but that's the way I remember how to use them. Hope that helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/colons.asp",
"http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/semicolons.asp",
"www.grammarbook.com",
"http://www.grammarbook.com/punctuation/commas.asp"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
9qcogy
|
If hitler was arrested what crimes would he be charged for?
|
Assuming that he didn’t commit suicide and was captured at the same time when he would have died
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qcogy/if_hitler_was_arrested_what_crimes_would_he_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e88bv48"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"*Borrowing from a previous answer I have written, with some minor addendum*\n\nSo obviously, we can't *know* what would happen, but as has been noted by several mods, we can say what was discussed in the event that Hitler was captured. In the tome \"*What If?*\", Roger Spiller's chapter, \"The Führer in the Dock\", focuses on this very scenario, and while he goes on to contemplate various scenarios as they may have played out, he spends much of the chapter establishing how he arrives at those conclusions, and looking at how plans progressed up until Hitler's hypothetical capture in the Spring of '45.\n\nTo start with, there was considerable disagreement on just what would be done, although punishment for war crimes was essentially assumed by all - see the St. James Declaration of early 1942, which stated \"*international solidarity is necessary to avoid the repression of these acts of violence simply by acts of vengeance on the part of the general public and in order to satisfy the sense of justice of the civilized world*\". The Moscow Declaration of late 1943 would further solidify that sentiment, but while it directed 'minor' war criminals would be tried in \"*the countries in which their abominable deeds were done in order that they may be judged and punished according to the laws of those liberated countries and of the Free Governments which will be erected therein*\" it continued to leave open the situation with the 'big guys', explicitly noting that \"*major criminals whose offences have no particular geographical location*\" would be \"*punished by a joint declaration of the Governments of the Allies*\"... but no agreement on what that punishment would be had yet been hammered out! It didn't even spell out whether or not they would be granted trials.\n\nWinston Churchill, contemplated several possible scenarios through the years. Early in the war, he considered exile for the high-leadership of the Party, similar to the treatment of Napoleon, placing them on a remote island (although he specifically stated he would not desecrate St. Helena by doing so). He also proposed a rather gruesome end for Mussolini at that time, proposing that he be strangled in the same manner the Romans (who Il Duce sought to emulate) had killed the Gallic leader Vercingetorix. As the war progressed though, he became more amenable to summary execution. In a meeting of the War Cabinet in 1942, he stated:\n\n > If Hitler falls into our hands we shall certainly put him to death. [He is] not a sovereign who could be said to be in [the] hands of ministers, like [the] Kaiser.\n\nOthers also seemed to support a similar approach. FDR seems to have liked the very harsh proposal made by Henry Morgenthau for mass executions of Nazi \"archvillains\", possibly numbering in the thousands (And apparently joked [?] once or twice about mass castration of Germans to boot). Cordell Hull proposed a similar idea, executing Hitler within hours of his capture, noting:\n\n > I would take Hitler and Mussolini and Tojo and their accomplices and bring them before a drumhead court martial, and at sunrise the following morning there would occur an historic incident.\n\nIn the US, calmer heads prevailed though, and in discussions on the matter in October, 1944, Henry Stimson would have none of it. He was insistent that an international tribunal of the Nazi leadership was the only method of dealing with Hitler and his ilk while remaining true to the moral justifications that the Allies gave for the war, noting \"*the punishment of these men in a dignified manner will have all the greater effect upon posterity\", which did in the end win Roosevelt over. \n\nInterestingly, Stalin was also in favor of trials, although it is safe to say that a trial, as envisioned by him, was little more than a rubber-stamp show trial that was already typical of him. While earlier in the war, Stalin had expressed a desire for blood, toasting to \"*the quickest possible justice for all German war criminals*\" at the Tehran Conference in '43 for instance, although his accompanying suggestion that this would mean 50,000 executions might have been a joke. Certainly it shocked all present, but either way, he seems to have mellowed a year later. While Churchill might still have had bloodspilling on his mind, and certainly wanted execution to be meted out as punishment in the end, it was Stalin who turned him, during their Moscow meeting in 1944, where Stalin insisted that \"*There must be no executions without trial otherwise the world would say that we were afraid to try them.*\"\n\nIt perhaps went even further than that. When the first reports of Hitler's suicide were coming in, and Stalin heard of it, he was reportedly put out by the fact, and it seems to have been quite clear that he considered taking Hitler alive to be part of his victory, a trophy, and putting him on trial a means of displaying his achievement.\n\nTo be sure, that isn't to say, of course, than anyone necessarily *wanted* to deal with a trial of Hitler. A month before Hitler's demise, Anthony Eden remarked that were a Tommy to have the opportunity to capture Adolf, \"I am quite satisfied to leave the decision to the British soldier concerned\". And while Stimson might have won the debate in the US Cabinet, the concerns that he had fought against, namely that giving Hitler *any* sort of platform to defend himself was dangerous, never entirely went away. It is doubtful you can find very many leaders at the time who were put out by the fact Hitler escaped trial, as his death put the nail in the coffin of a debate that not everyone saw eye to eye on.\n\nIf you are interested in what such a trial might have looked like, well, I recommend you look for the book, but simply put, we can only guess. What we can say though is that while there were variances within the Allies about what to do, and some voices in the leadership would have liked nothing more than to dispose of Hitler and the Nazi leadership with \"no fuss\", by the last days of the war, the agreed to policy would be to put Hitler on trial for his life if captured. The charges would certainly have been the same four counts that the other principal defendents at Nuremberg had to face, as laid in the London Charter of the International Military Tribunal:\n\n > Article 6. The Tribunal established by the Agreement referred to in Article 1 hereof for the trial and punishment of the major war criminals of the European Axis countries shall have the power to try and punish persons who, acting in the interests of the European Axis countries, whether as individuals or as members of organizations, committed any of the following crimes.\n\n > The following acts, or any of them, are crimes coming within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal for which there shall be individual responsibility:\n\n > (a) CRIMES AGAINST PEACE: namely, planning, preparation, initiation or waging of a war of aggression, or a war in violation of international treaties, agreements or assurances, or participation in a common plan or conspiracy for the accomplishment of any of the foregoing;\n\n > (b) WAR CRIMES: namely, violations of the laws or customs of war. Such violations shall include, but not be limited to, murder, ill-treatment or deportation to slave labor or for any other purpose of civilian population of or in occupied territory, murder or ill-treatment of prisoners of war or persons on the seas, killing of hostages, plunder of public or private property, wanton destruction of cities, towns or villages, or devastation not justified by military necessity;\n\n > (c) CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY: namely, murder, extermination, enslavement, deportation, and other inhumane acts committed against any civilian population, before or during the war; or persecutions on political, racial or religious grounds in execution of or in connection with any crime within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal, whether or not in violation of the domestic law of the country where perpetrated.\n\n > Leaders, organizers, instigators and accomplices participating in the formulation or execution of a common plan or conspiracy to commit any of the foregoing crimes are responsible for all acts performed by any persons in execution of such plan.\n\nThese were charges which were successfully prosecuted against key figures of the Nazi hierarchy who survived, most importantly perhaps, given their proximity to Hitler, Goering (guilty on all counts), Hess (guilty on A, not guilty on B/C), as well as Martin Bormann (guilty on B and C, not guilty on A) who we know know to have been dead by then, but at the time, this being unconfirmed, was tried in absentia. There is no reason to believe Hitler would not have been found guilty on all charges, and hanged in due course, but any specifics are, again, speculative.\n\n-----\n\n*London Charter of the International Military Tribunal*. Aug 8, 1945.\n\nSpiller, Roger. \"The Führer in the Dock.\" In *The Collected What If?: Eminent Historians Imagining What Might Have Been*, edited by Robert Cowley, 744-65. New York: G.P. Putnam's Sons, 2001.\n\nThompson, Jonathan. \"Churchill Wanted a Captured Hitler to Die 'like a Gangster' in the Electric Chair.\" December 31, 2005. Accessed October 10, 2016. _URL_0_.\n\nTusa, John & Tusa, Ann. \"The Nuremberg Trial\", New York: Skyhorse Publishing, 2010.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/this-britain/churchill-wanted-a-captured-hitler-to-die-like-a-gangster-in-the-electric-chair-6112926.html"
]
] |
|
wx3e2
|
Why was there such a backlash against disco?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wx3e2/why_was_there_such_a_backlash_against_disco/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5h7d2i",
"c5h7z3r",
"c5h8lun",
"c5h98dn",
"c5hah9v",
"c5hb418",
"c5hbpie",
"c5hbxps"
],
"score": [
11,
29,
16,
5,
3,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I think that the backlash against disco came from a number of different factors at different times. This is because disco was not one homogeneous music and culture. The original disco came out of soul and funk. This party scene music was embraced by a gay subculture which obviously was hated upon by homophobes. The \"four on the floor\" rhythm was then co-opted by any number of producers who just wanted to jump on the bandwagon. Eventually there were many novelty hits e.g. Disco Duck and then you had The Bee Gees and Cliff Richard *et al* all cashing in upon it.\n\nSo in the first place homophobia and then after when it became the dominant pop culture there was a lot of derivative dross floating about being danced to badly by a lot of posers.",
"I was trying to get into the music biz around then, as a rocker. Although I didn't hate disco, I could under stand why mt friends didn't get into it. It's over-produced and most of the \"artists\" were just singers put up to sing someone else's music. And the lyrics were almost universally uninspiring, and mostly sounded like a narration of a night at a club. Pretty silly to anybody who takes music seriously.\n\nThe backlash caught on when disco had overwhelmed all other pop music. And like all pop phenomenons, it became over-exposed. I admit I got pretty sick of it, too, towards the end.\n\nThe music producers hastened the end by abruptly abandoning all disco in an over-reaction to the haters and made it seem as if the haters could take credit for ending disco suddenly with one punch.\n\nFor quite a while, dance music artists could only survive by clearly distinguishing themselves as apart from disco.",
"The answers so far are incomplete, disco was overexposed and it did come in for a lot of criticism for being production heavy, but the viciousness of the backless stemmed from the fact that as a genre it grew out of the gay and black subcultures. In the 50s and 60s you'd be running grave risks if you were openly gay, with discos in the 70s gay people started not only being open about, but celebrating, singing and dancing about their sexuality and a lot of people didn't like that. \n ",
"It's like baseball in New York. You can't be a Mets and a Yankees fan. Punk music came of age at the same time. You couldn't be a punk and a disco fan. Their ethos were in stark opposition to each other, although eventually their styles were more or less melded together to create what is known as \"post-punk\" or \"new wave\" in the mid-80s, sometimes by groups like Talking Heads and Blondie who were staples of the New York punk scene in the late seventies.\n\nYou can't ignore, as well, the third movement that started at this time - hip-hop, which took a little longer to catch mainstream attention or really produce a lot of really interesting music. (Note the \"a lot,\" there were a few really great early hip-hop artists in this time period).",
"There was also a big falloff in record sales as people didn't need to buy the records to hear the music - they went to clubs instead. So, part of the backlash came from the record industry, hoping to get people to buy music again, rather than gathering to hear it in discos. \n\nHere's a podcast from Stuff You Should Know that talks about disco (direct link to the podcast itself: _URL_0_\n",
"I remember reading once that Disco was the unholy union between gay culture and black culture. Also that the original Discos were more similar to modern day raves than the shit that was made up by Saturday Night Fever (which was written by people who had never even been to a Disco at that time).\n\nThis was probably the reason that a lot of \"Middle America\" didn't like it.",
"Disco lives. They just call it EDM now.",
"If you want a more detailed explanation then check out 'Last Night A DJ Saved My Life' by Bill Brewster & Frank Broughton. It chronicles Disco and a lot of other genres. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.podtrac.com/pts/redirect.mp3/podcasts.howstuffworks.com/hsw/podcasts/sysk/2012-07-17-sysk-disco.mp3"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
u8muf
|
why do people think that blacking out their eyes in pictures protects their identity?
|
Is it for plausible deniability or what? I feel like I would recognize someone with enough visible markers on their face or body. I dunno, but that's why I'm asking.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u8muf/eli5_why_do_people_think_that_blacking_out_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4t974d",
"c4t9c19",
"c4t9cgb",
"c4ta5iz"
],
"score": [
21,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Eyes presumably show the most emotion / personality etc of any body part, so we're most likely to remember those, if we see them again.\n\nAlso, who blacks out their own eyes..? It's usually done by others to protect the identity of someone.",
"Good question. I was going to answer \"so we don't remember them\" but I remembered that we remember people like Stevie Wonder and we've never seen his eyes.\nI guess it gives the sense of privacy and at the same time not ruin the photo by having a big blur spot in it. if someone were to try to find out who the person is with just the eyes area blackened, it wouldn't be difficult at all. \n\nWhen keeping the identity of a person secret is critical, then the whole head is blurred.\n",
"eyes give more of an individualized experience then any other part of the body, especially for ease of concealment. People are better concealed when their all fuzzed out and their voices are changed, but the blacking out of the eyes is a quick way to add anonymity",
"It works because humans make eye contact first, and it is where we look most of the time. It also takes out all or part of the nose. The other big features that are left are the chin, ears, lips, and hair. Generally not enough to know for sure unless you are doing a side by side. But you can still get a feeling for who it is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6h59tu
|
What's happening to the human body when it faints for 3 or 4 seconds, then regains consciousness for 3 or 4 seconds, then faints back again and so on? An example is on amusement park rides.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6h59tu/whats_happening_to_the_human_body_when_it_faints/
|
{
"a_id": [
"diwscnr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The short answer: Your brain loses oxygen for whatever reason, you pass out, you drop to the floor so gravity works less, the vessels relax etc, and more blood flows to the brain, which thus regains consciousness.\n\nThe long explaination (this is gonna be pretty complicated)\n\nThere are a lot of reasons for syncope (Fainting), but the major categories are\nNeurally mediated reflex (60 % of cases)\nOrthostatic hypotension (15 %)\nCardiac arrythmias (10 %)\nStructural cardiopulmonary reasons (5%)\nThe numbers are from Denmark.\n\nThere are also pseudo-syncopes, which are not a *real* syncope. For example, an old patient may not be certain if they actually passed out or not. For it to be a true syncope, it must be sudden and you must almost immediately regain consciousness.\n\nSo the most common is neurally mediated and the most serious are the cardiac ones.\nBut orthostatic is probably the one most people are familiar with, remember it's all (mostly) about losing blood in the brain.\n\nOrthostatic is when a person gets up from a chair, vision goes black and they pass out. What normally is when you get up, the sympathic nervous system will make the arteries in the legs smaller, so it presses the blood upwards / prevents it from going into the leg. But in people with hypotension or a weak sympathicus response (fx elderly), the response isn't sufficient, so the blood they have pool in the legs and thus the brain gets no blood, passes out to make you completely relaxed, then you regain blood supply to brain -- > conscious again.\n\nThe vasovagal reflex, which is (i'd imagine) the most common of the neural syncopes, is the one you're talking about in the amusement park ride. Can happen for a lot of reasons, doesn't have to be something scary, it can just be taking a dump basically. Or urinating.\n\nHere's a figure of the vasovagal syncope _URL_2_ from Boron & Boulpaep, Medical Physiology, 2nd ed, update 1.\n\n_URL_0_ and this is a figure of the nerves involved (if it's for example during defecation). Same book.\n\nSo what happens is basically - You have a stressful experience, for example a scare or a crazy ride (or an amazing poop). The nucleus tractus solitarii (NTS on figure 2) is activated, which increases parasympathetic tone and decreases sympathetic tone.\n\nThis causes multiple things (Figure 2):\n\nDecreased sympathetic tone to the heart meaning **less** ionotrophy and heart rate (So the heart relaxes/works less)\nLess sympathetic tone to the vessels, causing them to relax more, ie **dilate**\n\nThis combination makes sure that you cannot maintain a high enough blood pressure because your heart doesnt pump hard enough and the blood that it does pump is pooling in the legs.\n\nAnd thus you faint, until your brain gets blood back.\n\nThe exact mechanism as to why this happens in most cases is unknown.\nBut as mentioned, it comes down to rapid drop in blood pressure in the brain.\n\nAs for the numbers, I got them from a lecture I had about 4 months back. Not sure what the lecturers source is, but here's a source on some slightly similar numbers _URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.imgur.com/T6nazz8.png",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3295536/",
"https://i.imgur.com/nrjHKcr.png"
]
] |
||
1qtry9
|
why does the freight elevator in a building require a union employee to operate? (nyc)
|
Evening deliveries are impossible because the guy does not work late. I am told this is because of union rules.
I have also heard that others get around this by upgrading their elevators somehow. What gives? Is it a safety thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qtry9/eli5_why_does_the_freight_elevator_in_a_building/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdgfio3"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
" > Is it a safety thing?\n\nNo, it is a union thing. There was a time before unions when companies could offer whatever jobs they wanted, and workers were free to take them or leave them. A big problem was that companies would offer dangerous jobs with low pay, and yet workers would still take them and get angry about the conditions.\n\nSo, a bunch of them got together and decided that they would try to bargain with the companies as a group. If the companies wouldn't agree to their demands then they would all stop working, and then the company would be in trouble! This tactic tended to work, so the unions go what they wanted: Better working conditions and higher pay. ... And then rules preventing any new workers from being hired who didn't join the unions, so the unions would maintain their monopoly on bargaining with the company. Also, preventing any non-union person from doing their jobs so the companies remained crippled by union strikes. Also, some unions became involved with organized crime and would intimidate their opponents through physical attacks and backroom dealings.\n\nAfter a while the rules and limitations of companies which contained unions were so terrible that new companies would pay their employees more than those with unions, just so the limitations of the unions wouldn't get in the way of operating the business. Such as the stupid rule that only a union employee can operate a freight elevator, and that employee cannot be told to work late, meaning if you need to take a late delivery you are out of luck. Any normally functioning business could easily respond to such a request, but the union rules crippled it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
14gbax
|
gravitational pull in relation to the ocean's tide...
|
I get what it does, but I've never really understood *how...*
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14gbax/eli5_gravitational_pull_in_relation_to_the_oceans/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7csn0v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[I wrote this a few days back](_URL_0_), let me know if anything needs clarifying."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/14abcr/eli5_the_oceans_waves_and_how_theyre_caused_by/"
]
] |
|
pjbp7
|
What is the net metabolic benefit of the caffeine in a cup of coffee?
|
According to [this](_URL_0_), caffeine consumption burns a small amount of calories.
Is there any sort of quantification on that? How many calories can your Starbucks coffee, energy drink, or other caffeine source be before you are gaining more calories than the coffee is burning?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/pjbp7/what_is_the_net_metabolic_benefit_of_the_caffeine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3pvxpm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"EDIT: Caffeine Only\n\n\"Measurements of energy expenditure (EE) in a room respirometer indicate that repeated caffeine administration (100 mg) at 2-h intervals over a 12-h day period increased the EE of both subject groups by 8-11% (p less than 0.01) during that period but had no influence on the subsequent 12- h night EE. The net effect was a significant increase (p less than 0.02) in daily EE of 150 kcal in the lean volunteers and 79 kcal in the postobese subjects.\"\n\n100 mg every 2 hours is a lot of caffeine. For an example, to burn 150 kcal you would need 7.5 Red Bulls at 80 mg/250 ml. At 110 kcal per can, you drank 825 kcal. So, if you want to burn calories, you need a low calorie source of caffeine.\n\nSource: _URL_1_\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nI just found a group that studied a specific suplement. It contained 10 mg of caffeine and 5 mg of ephedrine. The crossover trial measured oxygen consumption for 45 minutes after taking two herbal dietary supplement capsules. \n\nThe Results were as follows: The herbal dietary supplement increased peak oxygen consumption 0.178 ± 0.03 (SEM) kcal/min (8.01 ± 1.35 kcal/min expressed over 45 minutes) above baseline (p < 0.0001), and 2.0 ± 0.56 kcal/min over 45 minutes compared to placebo (p < 0.006).\n\nSOURCE: _URL_0_\n\nI will try to find a \"Caffeine Only\" experiment."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.livestrong.com/article/467503-weight-loss-benefits-of-caffeine/"
] |
[
[
"http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/acm.2000.6.553",
"http://www.ajcn.org/content/49/1/44.short"
]
] |
|
3nya76
|
Suppose you visited Ireland in 1415, what would the farmland that would later be used for potatoes, have been used for at that time before they were brought back from the Americas?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nya76/suppose_you_visited_ireland_in_1415_what_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvscvzm"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"You'll expect a sizable arable farming component, based on wheat, barley, some oats, probably still rye in areas with monastic influence. Rye was big in the Early Christian Period and associated with monasteries. Some peas and perhaps other crops as well. However, Ireland's farming economy has always been (since the start in the Early Neolithic c. 3800 BC) predominantly based on pastoral activity. You will expect a lot of grazing (cattle, sheep) throughout the country. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4pp2va
|
why does playing music on devices at full volume decreases the lifespan of the speakers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pp2va/eli5_why_does_playing_music_on_devices_at_full/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4mrz7y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Why do fat people have knee problems? Because there's more force acting on the same object over time. \n\nThe same goes for speakers. When you play music louder, the suspension of the speaker cone is being driven with more force. Over time that wears it down faster than if it was played quietly. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
17mw90
|
During conditions of severe smog, etc, is the air quality indoors actually appreciably better?
|
So Beijing has been having severe smog problems lately.
(Some remarkable photos here - _URL_0_ )
And of course, as always in these situations
"residents were advised to stay indoors to avoid the heavily polluted air"
I can think of some reasons why one might want people to stay indoors during such crises, but as far as I can tell the air quality indoors isn't really going to be any better than the air quality outdoors.
What say you - during air quality crises is the air quality indoors generally just as bad as outdoors?
\---
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17mw90/during_conditions_of_severe_smog_etc_is_the_air/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8756ib"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on the building and the nature of the air quality crisis. Buildings have a turnover time of air, and you can lengthen that time by closing doors, windows, and vents. The air might get stuffy inside, but the smog won't mix much. If there is a few-hour smog event, that could reduce the interior smog level.\n\nSome buildings have HEPA or electrostatic filters on their interior air supply; these filters remove particulates from the air and can increase air quality if the main problem is small particles. \n\nSome buildings contain smokers. That degrades interior air quality.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com/infocus/2013/01/chinas-toxic-sky/100449/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
a04qg9
|
does sunlight coming through a windowpane onto skin provide any benefits at all?
|
Always wondered if you still got anything beneficial from sunlight if its through a window
Is it a feasible way to get sunlight you miss when working night shifts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a04qg9/eli5_does_sunlight_coming_through_a_windowpane/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eaek81b",
"eaelevr"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"That warm feeling like a cat napping in the sun?..........",
"It would depend on the type of glass — with just straight window glass with no coatings, yeah, there’d be some vitamin D benefit. With highly tinted or UV-coated glass, probably significantly less benefit, if any. \n\nThere are mood benefits to being able to see the sun, even through a window, so there’s that, at least...,"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
48juez
|
Is the Hubble sphere expanding or shrinking?
|
If the expansion of the universe is accelerating, shouldn't the Hubble sphere be shrinking? But some sources, including Veritasium's video: _URL_0_ , says it is expanding.
He states "due to the accelerating expansion of space, our Hubble Sphere is actually getting bigger."
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48juez/is_the_hubble_sphere_expanding_or_shrinking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0km8ap"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Hubble sphere is not the same as the observable universe. The Hubble sphere is the radius beyond which light *emitted now* will never reach us, whereas the observable universe is the radius from which light that *reaches us now* was emitted from. \n\nThe Hubble sphere does expand in an accelerating universe, but the Universe is expanding faster, and thus things within our Hubble sphere now can pass out of it in the future. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
4a6pjf
|
Gilgamesh in Cuneiform
|
Could anybody tell me where I could find The Epic of Gilgamesh in cuneiform? Ideally side-by-side with an English translation? Possibly a long shot, but Google isn't giving me much.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4a6pjf/gilgamesh_in_cuneiform/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0xxz1c"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"What you are asking for is the two-volume [*The Babylonian Gilgamesh Epic* by A. R. George](_URL_0_). This masterful work includes the editions of all of the known tablets of the Gilgamesh epic (except for [the most recenly discovered tablet](_URL_1_)), an English translation, and images of the cuneiform tablets. These aren't side-by-side like the Loeb Classical texts, but it's the best you will be able to find. The set is expensive, so you will likely need to find an academic library in order to use it. It also may not be suitable for non-specialists. The work was published mainly with Assyriologists in mind, so if you cannot read Akkadian, looking at the editions and the tablets won't be of much help."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=21xxZ_gUy_wC&dq=editions%3AFr2Fwz2MwJEC&source=gbs_book_other_versions",
"http://www.livescience.com/52372-new-tablet-gilgamesh-epic.html"
]
] |
|
y9qfm
|
Does fiber simply speed up our digestive system, or do our bodies want to expel fiber quickly?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y9qfm/does_fiber_simply_speed_up_our_digestive_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tm5ac",
"c5tmb0l"
],
"score": [
2,
18
],
"text": [
"Your body can't break down fiber, and it holds water as it moves through your bowels, making it easy to eliminate compared to denser or drier stuff. ",
"Fiber acts as a bulking agent, and as mentioned by HonorAmongSteves, it carries water, creating a rather substantial mass that moves through one's digestive tract. Peristaltic movements by the colon and eventually defecation are stimulated by stretch receptors present in the wall of the colon. Due to the increased bulk in the colon, stretch receptors are activated, passage is expedited, leading to a faster mouth to anus transit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2jtzs3
|
If you could make a race car's tires, and the road it drives on, out of any materials know to man, what combo would perform the best?
|
Cost and resources do not apply.
Is asphalt and rubber the best? Or can we do better?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2jtzs3/if_you_could_make_a_race_cars_tires_and_the_road/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clf512q"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Well it depends what you mean by \"perform the best\".\n\nLet's start off at the most basic level. Wheels work because of friction. An ideal wheel is one that does not slip at the point of contact. Imagine a car on ice - it wouldn't be going anywhere. The higher the [coefficient of friction](_URL_1_) the better. This allows the wheel to convert as much energy as possible to forward motion.\n\nAnother big factor is [rolling resistance](_URL_0_). A common misconception is that this resistance is due to friction; really, it is due to the deformation of the tire. Because of this factor, you would want a wheel that is as perfectly rigid as possible. The less the wheel deforms, the less energy is lost due to rolling resistance.\n\nWell, these two factors alone would mean you want a really hard material for your tire in contact with another material that provides as much friction as possible. [Metal on metal does that job well.](_URL_2_) This is one of the reasons why trains are so efficient at transporting cargo - they are \"the best\" at efficiently converting energy into forward motion and then maintaining that forward motion.\n\nThe way you put it, a race car with train-like wheels on a train track would be the best race car you could get based on the mechanics of wheels only. Unfortunately, cost and resources do apply to the real world. We couldn't just turn all the roads into rails - that would introduce a mind boggling number of engineering challenges. Not only that, but you loose out a number of other benefits to traditional rubber tire trucks/cars such as maneuverability and not necessarily needing a paved road to travel on. As far as the real world is concerned, asphalt and rubber is incredibly efficient and economical for the purposes it is used for."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rolling_resistance",
"http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/friction-coefficients-d_778.html",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/40/Flanged_wheel.jpg"
]
] |
|
1olp6w
|
When did local lords lose their political authority in England?
|
In the whole ideal feudal hierarchy, all the land is divided up by various lords, who have lesser lords under them, and they all have political and judicial authority over this land.
When and how did lords begin to lose this power in England? I've read that many noble families actually still own the land in England, but they obviously don't rule it anymore.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1olp6w/when_did_local_lords_lose_their_political/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cctao5b"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"I asked a related question (about when making knights became a royal monopoly rather than something any lord could do) about a month ago, and despite a very courteous effort by a mod, it wasn't really his field and I didn't get a satisfactory answer.\n\nHowever it prompted me to do a bit of research and the answer is 1504.\n\nHenry VII passed a law restricting non-royal retainers. This effectively restricted and regulated the swearing of fealty to anyone but the king. Thus the nobility (peerage rank) were unable to rely on the social and military support of their local gentry. \n\nFew lords personally owned all the land in the territory they controlled. However they were able to effectively control the middle-sized landowners in their locality through personal ties, diplomacy and the offering of political protection. Think of the Roman patron/client system rather than the lord of the manor/serf relationship, personal and economic ties rather than legal ones. \n\nThrough this system prominent nobles would have been able to call on the services of every landowning family in their area, and field a much larger army than through arming their own tenants and peasants alone.\n\nHenry VII, having successfully exploited this system to win the crown, didn't want anyone else to do the same. Hence the 1504 act of parliament. NB: gentry is a purely English term, the equivalent on the continent would be the lower nobility (nobility in England being tied to the peerage and thus restricted to those with actual titles).\n\nYour question wasn't phrased too well though, I almost answered 1998 since that was when Tony Blair kicked all but 90 of the hereditary peers out of the House of Lords.\n\nedit: added an interesting but a bit pop-historyish link _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/henry_vii_retaining.htm"
]
] |
|
3jytm6
|
color correction glasses
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jytm6/eli5_color_correction_glasses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cute0sx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[This question has just been asked and answered](_URL_0_?)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jylqh/eli5_how_do_enchroma_colorblindness_correction/"
]
] |
||
1ubpbw
|
How accurate is the TV series "Rome" in depicting the daily life of both plebians and patricians?
|
I'm extremely impressed by the first battle scene in the show, where instead of a bunch of soldiers fighting you can actually see the extreme discipline of the Roman legions. Looks like the producers did their research in regards to the army.
My question is how accurate was their depiction of city life in Rome itself?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ubpbw/how_accurate_is_the_tv_series_rome_in_depicting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cegi0h1",
"cegmzlk"
],
"score": [
21,
120
],
"text": [
"This has been discussed a few times before. Here are a couple answers I've found that might answer your questions.\n\n/u/Taiko offers their opinion on the accuracy of the show [here](_URL_0_). \n\nAnd /u/peripatos offers their take [here](_URL_1_).",
"Alrighty, first off - I'm going to preface this with a couple of disclaimers. Or a few. Whatever :P\n\n* **I LIKED *Rome*. What I say below doesn't change that.**\n\n* **The show is more accurate than most movies that are \"based on history.** \n\n* **Obviously, there are spoilers. I've only seen most of the first season, and I'm basing this off of what I've seen.** If you want to continue watching the show in blissful ignorance of the stuff that makes me go \"Well that's not quite right...\", then please, don't read any more! \n\n---\n\nOkay, now that the prelims are done with, I'm going to address the idea that the producers did their homework regarding the Roman army. Honestly, it's better than *most* (They're not wearing *lorica segmentata*, for one thing), but again, it's not quite right. I love how they showed the discipline of the Roman army, however, again, it was not quite right. For example, Pullo, when he breaks formation and strikes a superior officer, would have been executed on the spot. No questions. The Roman army had *extraordinarily* strict discipline and specific, harsh laws regarding their behaviour. Pullo should not have survived the first episode. Speaking of the first episode, the show depicted a battle - however, I'm not sure WHAT battle it was, even though they claim it was Alesia (By Vercingetorix being captured afterwards). The Battle of Alesia was a totally different beast - it was a desperate siege, with the besiegers themselves being besieged, and an incredible display of Julius Caesar's brilliance as a commander, as well as an indisputable example of Roman engineering at its finest. I didn't get that from the show :/\n\nThen, one little nitpick that would have been a HUGE deal. Caesar (and others) rode through the Roman camp. Again - seems like a funny thing to nitpick, no? The thing is, *no* one, not even kings and commanders, were allowed to ride through the camp - it was considered extreme bad luck, and at least one Roman loss that I've read about was blamed partly on a couple of individuals riding through the Roman camp. Caesar, a man who publicly based his reputation on his fantastically good luck, would never *ever* have committed such a *faux pas*. \n\nOh right. Speaking of Caesar and *faux pas*-es. Another thing he would never have done is shown that much favour to the Thirteenth Legion over all of his others - his favoured legion was the *Tenth*, and he spent the vast majority of his time with that legion, as opposed to the others. The *Tenth* went with Caesar almost everywhere he went (The only exception being the one legion he took with him when he went to Rome, crossing the Rubicon - which WAS the *Thirteenth*). When Caesar fought the Alexandrian Civil War, the *Thirteenth* wasn't originally with him, as shown (poorly) in the show - that was the *Sixth* and the *Twenty-Eighth*. But they did get the armour right, and it's absolutely possible that they rotated their ranks like they showed in the show, even if we have no proof of it! :)\n\n---\n\nNow, on to non-army things. As /u/Tiako noted so well [here](_URL_0_), with broad strokes, the show is pretty solid. Showing street life is fantastic, showing the colours of the city, rather than the blase, stolid marble that we're used to is utterly gorgeous. But then there are the little things - and I'll just give you a couple of examples of those.\n\nFirst of all, Caesar's...uh....sleeping around was rather well known. He'd slept with half of the married women in the Senate, it seems, and Servilia was Cato's (Who was FAR too old in the show, and would NOT have worn a black toga in the Senate) half-sister. Also, she had a daughter - who Caesar also slept with. Cato's wife? Yeah, Caesar slept with her too, I believe (He divorced her for sleeping around). Caesar's legionaries sang songs about how much Roman tax money was spent on Gallic women. My point to all of this is that *Caesar's wife would not have been surprised at his propensity to bang everything with boobs and two legs.* She certainly wasn't about to divorce him over it. \n\nThe one big one that ground my gears a bit - they got housing completely wrong. The vast majority of Romans would have lived in houses called *insulae*, which were essentially big tenement complexes. Rooms were small, shoddily built, and they were generally five stories tall or so. Contrast that with Lucius' lodgings - the room is relatively comfy, larger than you would get from one of these *insulae*, and, most of all, it had something that those tenements would NOT have had - a kitchen. Funny how we just take that bit for granted, eh?\n\nAnd then, of course, the excessive incest and random sex between Servilia and Octavia, Octavia and Octavian, Atia being batshit loony, etc etc are completely ridiculous. If you have specific questions about what you're looking for, please, feel free to ask them :) The issue with this question is that it's extremely broad - but in general, this all sums up to **NOT ALL THAT ACCURATE.** Compared to other Hollybood butcheries? It's amazing. Compared to reality? Not all that true.\n\nIf you'd like an amazing overview of life in the Late Republic, feel free to check out Adrian Goldsworthy's *Caesar: Life of a Colossus*. If you'd like some other book recommendations, just let me know and I'll provide :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/w6ih7/how_accurate_is_the_tv_series_rome/c5ap81l",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f4a1y/what_do_roman_historians_and_history_buffs_think/ca6tbog"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/w6ih7/how_accurate_is_the_tv_series_rome/c5ap81l"
]
] |
|
2a0fwg
|
when i have to "stop and think" to solve a problem, what is going no in my body as i stare at nothing? is this different from "stopping to think" to remember a fact?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a0fwg/eli5_when_i_have_to_stop_and_think_to_solve_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciqa31i",
"ciqg6qi"
],
"score": [
15,
2
],
"text": [
"You are simply shutting down the other activities that your brain is usually forced to multi-task, in order to divert more of your brains attention to the task at hand. You have markedly diminished critical thinking skills when you are multi-tasking, so if you can just quiet down for a second and stop intaking other sensory information, you can do a much better job of solving problems and thinking.\n\nNotably, you also function in the opposite way when you encounter a thought or situation that you find unpleasant. You will start moving, touching, and making noises to force your brain to multi-task and oversaturate so you can't focus on the unpleasant situation as easily.",
"I wonder if we look up when trying to remember something because there's usually less activity up there to distract us visually. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8qsj1y
|
Ancient Greek helmets on heads
|
Why did ancient Greeks wear helmets on their head like from some [sources](_URL_0_)? (e.g. Pericles)
Is it just because they were too lazy to hold them with hands?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8qsj1y/ancient_greek_helmets_on_heads/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0mvigl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi, not discouraging direct answers here, but you may be interested in some earlier threads: \n\n* /u/Iphikrates in [Is it true that those helmets of the kind Pericles is shown wearing in the now famous bust never \"closed\"? If yes, why? Is it supposed to represent an owl or was it an intimation thing?](_URL_2_)\n\n* Iphikrates and /u/XenophonTheAthenian in [Why do many Ancient Greek sculptures of Gods and soldiers depict their helmets atop their heads, rather than over their faces?](_URL_0_)\n\n* /u/Deirdre_Rose in [Why is the Corinthian helmet being worn over the forehead so common in Greek art?](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://thumbs.dreamstime.com/b/pericles-bust-ancient-marble-portrait-greek-statesman-45126192.jpg"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3wuaqp/why_do_many_ancient_greek_sculptures_of_gods_and/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6niib0/why_is_the_corinthian_helmet_being_worn_over_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4xyfrw/is_it_true_that_those_helmets_of_the_kind/"
]
] |
|
68gjyw
|
governing during american civil war
|
How did congress function during the civil war since roughly 1/2 the states seceded? Did they pass bills without any representatives from those states, were there congressman from those states who stayed with the union? Also, how did this affect the types of bills that were passed.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68gjyw/eli5_governing_during_american_civil_war/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgyh8zj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Its super complicated. Some representatives of these states stayed as like a goverment in exile, some positions were left vacant, representaives who took direct part in seccesion were expelled. \n\nThis gives a general overview of the beginning of the war. \n_URL_0_\n\nThere was definitly more pro union and north bills passed. West Virginia was also allow ro break off of virginia and was admitted. The southern states would had never allowed this to happen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/37th_United_States_Congress"
]
] |
|
2ercc1
|
how is it in tennis that players ranked in the hundreds and thousands are matched against players in the top 20?
|
Like in yesterday's Bellis/Cibulkova US Open game: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ercc1/eli5_how_is_it_in_tennis_that_players_ranked_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck26x4i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, large single elimination tournaments are seeded, meaning that the 'more qualified' participants are given an easier set of opponents.\n\nObviously this sucks for the poorly seeded participants, but it also serves to encourage viewers to watch the tournament to the end. If you wanted to watch really high-class tennis, and you knew the #1 and #2 would be matched up in round one, guaranteeing the elimination of one of them, a lot of viewers would stop caring after their hero lost.\n\nSo, for example, in a 64 entry bracket, in round one you have (1 vs 64), (2 vs 63), (3 vs 62), etc. This guarantees that #1 and #2 will only meet in the final."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://nyti.ms/VR6CCo"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2uv4ys
|
Why was Shakespeare not knighted?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2uv4ys/why_was_shakespeare_not_knighted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cobyby2"
],
"score": [
57
],
"text": [
"Most knights were either of low noble background, or knighted after making their fortunes. Most also had done governmental or military service to the crown; the modern practice of recognizing the arts with a knighthood simply didn't exist.\n\nFrancis Drake, for instance, was already a successful privateer in the service of the crown before he became a knight. Walter Raleigh had first been introduced at court as a child, but wasn't knighted until after he helped suppress Irish uprisings against England. As an arbitrary example of a non-military knight made by Elizabeth I, Nicholas Mosley started off his career as a weaver of wool cloth, but was knighted only after serving as Lord Mayor of the City of London.\n\nShakespeare was never in government, never a military officer, and poor. Knighting him wouldn't have made any sense to the monarchs of his day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4vyykx
|
Why is the earth so wet?
|
1. Why is water such a large part of the earth's composition? I read somewhere that water is the most common/abundant molecule on the planet. Why is water so common in the universe in general? I get why hydrogen is super common, but why is oxygen so common? And are there other compounds of similar complexity that are significantly more common?
2. Why are the compositions of planets so vastly different? Given the formation under such similar conditions inside our solar system, why aren't all the planets medium-sized rocks with iron cores and covered in water?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4vyykx/why_is_the_earth_so_wet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d62uk1l",
"d62v3i9"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"1. It's not the most common molecule. It's only about 0.02% of earth's total mass [Source](_URL_0_). Water is common simply because Oxygen is the 3rd most common element after Hydrogen and Helium. It's more common than Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron because it's synthesized in a few different fusion processes where Lithium, Beryllium, and Boron are mostly made from cosmic rays breaking apart heavier elements.\n\n",
"A partial answer to your first set of questions.\n\n > Why is water so common in the universe in general? \n\nHydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and oxygen is the third most abundant element in the universe (per mass). Since the second most abundant element (helium) is chemically inert, it shouldn't be that surprising that the two most abundant chemically reactive elements should form a common molecule.\n\n > I get why hydrogen is super common, but why is oxygen so common?\n\nBecause the most common fusion reaction in the [Alpha process](_URL_1_) produces oxygen.\n\n > And are there other compounds of similar complexity that are significantly more common?\n\nH*_2_* and CO are more common. See this answer by u/Stargrazer82301 for details:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.universetoday.com/65588/what-percent-of-earth-is-water/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mr1i7/is_water_the_second_most_common_molecule_in_the/cvj44s0",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alpha_process"
]
] |
|
e0w9s9
|
why a person can feel groggy and fatigued after getting very little rest, but feel energized after work with no sleep in between (no caffeine/drugs involved)
|
I very often find myself in a position similar to today; I couldn't fall asleep all night, finally passed out around 7am, then woke up at 9am for work. I felt like absolute death and as if I would welcome the comfort of my pillow more warmly than I ever had when I got home.
To the contrary, I felt more energized as the day went on, and when I got home the last thing I wanted to do was sleep.
This happens often and I know many other people have experienced a similar scenario.
Why is this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e0w9s9/eli5_why_a_person_can_feel_groggy_and_fatigued/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8k3md9",
"f8knjjx",
"f8le4lg"
],
"score": [
8,
18,
4
],
"text": [
"My first experience working was with 40 hour weeks which is a bit of a shock for a 17 year old and this used to and still happens to me. \n\nI reckon your threshold for energy just increases the more active you are. It kind of makes sense when you think about how you always feel much more tired when you do nothing all day or after a long car journey. Your body probably gets used to what you're doing and gives you energy accordingly.",
"Being tired isn't just caused by being awake for a certain amount of time, it's also caused by your natural biorhythms. It's a balance of the two. Most people are programmed to get tired at night, because we evolved to sleep when it's dark out. In your case, my guess would be that, for some reason, your body's 'clock' has been thrown off so your body sends 'wake up' and 'sleep' signals at the wrong times. Maybe try melatonin to help reprogram it? Not sure how well that works...",
"You don't want to go to work. But you do want to leave work. Your mood can effect your energy just as the amount of rest you get can."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
247zwr
|
Why are there so many variations of some names? For example: Edward, Edwin, Edmund, etc.
|
Just curious, thank you for any answers
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/247zwr/why_are_there_so_many_variations_of_some_names/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch4jj17"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"In this case, this is due to the nature of ancient Germanic personal names. They were “dithematic,” *i.e.* composed of two meaningful elements (though there were “hypocoristic” names, of which only one element was commonly used; over the course of time, these monothematic names became normal names of their own right—cf. Hugh/Chuco, Charles/Karl or Otto). This onomastic structure became very common in Europe as a result of the Germanic take-over of the majority of the former Roman West. These elements were transmitted within family groups and recomposed to form new names ([here is an example](_URL_0_) [1] of the transmission of a few elements in a 7th-century Frankish family). The choice of these elements was precisely made to emphasise one's position within a family group. Over the course of time (in royal families at first, and then in the aristocracy), recomposition stopped and was replaced by transmission of names (something historians link with the transformation of family structure: belonging to a (paternal) line became more important). But these names were still inherited from the previous system; therefore, the plurality of Ed- names reflects the relative frequence of the theme “Ead” in Anglo-Saxon royal onomastics. Similarly, several continental names were formed with the component Adal- (A(da)lbert, Ad(al)olf), whose Old English equivalent was Æthel- (Æthelberht, Æthelbald—though its influence was not, in this case, paralleled in modern personal names).\n\n[1] from Régine le Jan's *Famille et pouvoir dans le monde Franc*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://uppix.net/Ishef2.png"
]
] |
|
2e8hak
|
Why did Greek cuirasses and Roman-style plate armor disappear from Western Europe?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2e8hak/why_did_greek_cuirasses_and_romanstyle_plate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjx8do6",
"cjxaf5t",
"cjxbmin",
"cjxbqj1",
"cjxdmqp"
],
"score": [
3,
12,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Follow up question: How did plate armor go from basic infantry armor in the form of Greek cuirasses and grieves to the most expensive and protective armor [like that used by Henry VIII](_URL_0_)?\n\nEdit: Added detail.",
"By \"Roman plate\" I assume you mean lorica segmentata, which is what you tend to see a lot of in popular culture. We're not exactly sure which Roman troops used it, or even how the Romans themselves called it, but it was used from 1st - 3rd century AD. Lorica hamata (mail armour) is what most Roman troops wore throughout Roman history. As for why, it's because it is more costly to build and maintain than mail armour. After the crisis of the 3rd century there wasn't enough economic power to sustain it. ",
"All \"plates\" are not made equal. Just because the Romans use a type of solid metal armour does not make it immediately similar to late medieval plate, as the technology involved had advanced quite a bit. The invention of the blast furnace in Europe allowed armourers to produce high quality plates cheaper and in a fraction of the time it took to produce a maille shirt. It's economics basically, when the Roman slave factories could no longer produce lorica segmemtata at a profit they fell back on the time consuming lorica hamata. A slave's time is a lot cheaper than a armourers.",
"As others have noted it was mostly a change to large scale use of chain mail (which the romans also used). This has several benefits over plate: It can be easily \"tailored\" to fit different wearers without losing integrity, even by people who don't know how to work a forge, it can make use of relatively low quality iron an still be effective (to make large pieces of strong plate you need relatively pure steel, not just iron), it is excellent at protecting against slashing weapons and missiles, perhaps even better than plate at protecting against stabbing weapons since it doesn't have joints, and it is much lighter.\n\nThe main reason the high middle ages turned to solid, largely steel plate, was because of improvements in missile technology most notably the bodkin arrow and the crossbow. These were designed to pierce mail, so if you were going to war and could afford it you now wanted solid steel plate to stop some peasant from killing you with an arrow you as you charge.\n\nAdditionally, technology did develop over the course of the period in question say 0-1600AD, such as the blast furnace, bloomery furnaces for iron tools, which made steel more accessible and mines more productive.",
"There was less continuity between Greco-Roman arming traditions and the Medieval period than there was between Germanic and later Carolingian arms and Medieval Christendom. \n\n Late Roman armies mostly used chainmail, as well as their Germanic successors. \n\nThe early middle ages was dominated by chain mail, and plate armor didn't become common until after the high middle ages- around the 14th century. Complete plate- covered joints and the like- wasn't even a thing until the late 1400's. \n\n[Timeline of the development of Western armor from 650-17th century.](_URL_1_) \n\nPlate armor developed because of advances in metal shaping technology and novel weapons developments- particularly more devastating missile fire (longbows could pierce chainmail in the 1300s, steel-string crossbows in the 1400's+, and finally gunpowder). Hand-to-hand combat also changed, with short swords meant for thrusting ([an extreme example](_URL_0_)) eventually becoming the norm by the late medieval period (two handed swords remained but were developed for specialized uses in pike combat). Rapiers and other piercing swords became more common, though some larger cutting swords made a comeback in the 17th century. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/oXwbb6I.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cinquedea",
"http://www.thortrains.com/uniforms/medtime.htm"
]
] |
||
3q8pqs
|
how to government officials get away with proposing/enforcing laws with the argument "because of my religious belief."
|
I mean, separation of church and state right? How is it someone doesn't come in and say "ah... you can't say that?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3q8pqs/eli5_how_to_government_officials_get_away_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwd2mmu",
"cwd3hd3",
"cwd45eh"
],
"score": [
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The 1st Amendment prohibits the US government from establishing a State religion that people must be a part of and it prohibits the government from hindering people from practicing their religion. \n\nFor those who are religious that religion is the foundation that their ethical and moral codes are built. When our elected representatives vote on and draft potential laws they use their ethical and moral codes when doing so. That means that their personal religion will influence how they vote and for the government to attempt to prevent that would be violating the 1st amendment rights of that representative. \n\nThey cannot make a law \"because _____ religious text or doctrine says murder is wrong\" but they can make a law \"because my religion tells me that murder is wrong I think it is a big enough threat to society to make a secular law also forbidding it\". ",
"I'm going to assume you're referring to the United States, since it's so common here...\n\n/u/cdb03b is correct on why there is no law prohibiting this.\nHowever by the very same 1st Amendment other government officials are more than free to come out and say something against it. It would be pretty reasonable to say something like, \"Okay, your religion says this thing is bad, but are there any other points you can make on this issue that don't just pull back to your own personal beliefs and interpretations of your religious texts?\".\n\nThe reason we haven't heard anything like that is because it would be absolute political suicide. In the U.S. there's really just one main citation for religious beliefs in politics; Christianity. In 2014 a Gallup poll (_URL_0_) found that 75% of Americans are Christian. When that large a group of your populace agrees with your basic belief system, and may want to be able to cite their faith themselves, then you're not going to see a lot of push-back. This goes for any mainstream media outlet as well as most figureheads and famous people\n\nIn the case of lawmakers you have an even bigger incentive to not say something when a colleague invokes their religious beliefs in relation to lawmaking. The lawmaker who spoke out against the other's religious justification would gain almost instant publicity thanks to the 24 hour news stations. There would be big headlines about the \"War on Christianity\" and many of their colleagues would begin to shy away from them for fear of their re-election chances being harmed through association. On social media there would be large groups formed denouncing the \"Christian hating\" lawmaker both for his religious intolerance and, especially, for violating the 1st amendment rights of the religious lawmaker (despite the fact that the 1st amendment is irrelevant in the case of two individuals). On top of that, many of their colleagues may even feel personally attacked by proxy, since they may perceive this as being directly damaging to their faith.\n\nSo now you've spoken out against using religion to justify the laws of your country, you've attempted to demand true reasons instead of blind appeals to an authority that not everyone accepts, and what has been gained? You've become a national news story, there's selective soundbites of you on every major social media outlet making you sound stupid, no one even remembers what the issue being discussed was from before, you're probably getting at least a few death threats (because that's just a normal thing for things like this now), this issue that you cared enough about to speak up about will be ignored in favor of your hatred for religion in every news appearance, your previously almost certain re-election is in danger, and even with all this you're probably a practicing member of the religion that everyone is accusing you of attacking.\n\nTL;DR The conditions in the United States created by the 24-hour news cycle, social media, and general combativeness make the idea of such a thing a losing proposition.",
"They don't get away with it. Courts overturn laws and actions that are unconstitutional. It can be a slow process, and that can be sped up, but there's no way to prevent unconstitutional actions from happening. If censors did exist, they'd be chosen by the same people making the laws."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/180347/three-quarters-americans-identify-christian.aspx"
],
[]
] |
|
kv5sj
|
Can you experience time faster than it actually passes?
|
Light takes about 8 minutes to travel from the sun to Earth. We are effectively seeing 8 minutes into the past when we look at the sun, yes?
However, if you were *on* the sun, you'd be seeing its light in a nearly-instantaneous fashion - due to your close proximity to the source of the light.
If you flew from the Earth to the sun, the 8 minute lag would slowly decrease, correct? As a metaphor: when watching a video with the picture lagging behind the sound, it sometimes corrects itself by playing the picture at an increased speed to catch up to the sound's "real" time. Wouldn't something similar happen in the physical world?
I prefer to think of it the other way around. Traveling from the Sun to Earth, moving fast enough, you *could* see people walking around in fast-forward and clocks moving faster than normal, right? (If you had reallllly amazing vision.)
So on a very very small scale, any time you walk towards a clock, you are seeing it move an incomprehensible smaller amount faster than actual time due to the lag-decrease, right?
It still seems unlikely for some reason, so where is the error in this logic? Am I giving too much tangibility to the concept of time?
*One more thought:* A horse's legs would theoretically appear to move slower as it sprints away from you.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kv5sj/can_you_experience_time_faster_than_it_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2nhq0b",
"c2njel5",
"c2nhq0b",
"c2njel5"
],
"score": [
18,
2,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"What you're talking about does not require relativity or time dilation at all. It's merely the [Doppler effect](_URL_0_). If you walked toward a metronome playing at 100 bpm, you would hear the beats slightly faster than 100 bpm. \n\nThe effect is of order v/*c*, where v is your velocity relative to the stationary metronome, and *c* is the speed of sound. *i.e.*, the effect is small if you're not going near the speed of sound. Smaller still if you're using vision (light) to count the beats of the metronome. (The speed of light is much greater than the speed of sound.) ",
"i've always thought it would be interesting to read a sci-fi story about aliens who experience time at a different rate than we do. either they move really fast or really slow compared to us. for example, we experience time at a rate of 1sec/sec, but they would experience time at a rate of .5sec/sec or 2sec/sec.\n\ncould make for some interesting storylines.",
"What you're talking about does not require relativity or time dilation at all. It's merely the [Doppler effect](_URL_0_). If you walked toward a metronome playing at 100 bpm, you would hear the beats slightly faster than 100 bpm. \n\nThe effect is of order v/*c*, where v is your velocity relative to the stationary metronome, and *c* is the speed of sound. *i.e.*, the effect is small if you're not going near the speed of sound. Smaller still if you're using vision (light) to count the beats of the metronome. (The speed of light is much greater than the speed of sound.) ",
"i've always thought it would be interesting to read a sci-fi story about aliens who experience time at a different rate than we do. either they move really fast or really slow compared to us. for example, we experience time at a rate of 1sec/sec, but they would experience time at a rate of .5sec/sec or 2sec/sec.\n\ncould make for some interesting storylines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Doppler_effect"
],
[],
[
"https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Doppler_effect"
],
[]
] |
|
8drzz7
|
Why is Rhode Island a state?
|
It seems like it could’ve easily been slotted into Connecticut or Massachusetts. Why was it separated?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8drzz7/why_is_rhode_island_a_state/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxqcw87"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"The United States isn’t a country divided into states; it’s a country formed when states joined together. So your question is a bit like asking why Luxembourg wasn’t simply slotted in with Germany or Belgium. Who would do the lumping together?\n\nRoger Williams and others who had been banished from the Massachusetts Bay Colony for religious reasons in the 1630s took up residence on coastal land controlled by local Indian tribes, and got an English royal charter for a new colony. More than a century later, the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations was one of the colonies who broke away from Great Britain and then joined together to form a new nation.\n\nYou can read the royal charters on p. 106 of *Boundaries of the United States and the Several States,* a US Geological Survey book [available as a PDF here.](_URL_0_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://pubs.er.usgs.gov/publication/b1212"
]
] |
|
1hg1g8
|
Basques in North American prior to Columbus?
|
In on of his books (["Cod"](_URL_0_) I think), Mark Kurlansky either heavily implies or states outright that Basque fishermen already knew about the New World (and were fishing there) prior to Columbus.
Searching the AskHistorians popular questions, I found [this reference](_URL_1_) but nothing else.
Is there any evidence that the Basques knew about the New World, pre-Columbus? Even if there's no evidence, is it reasonable that such a thing could have occurred? To put it another way, would it have been possible for, let's say, a group of experienced fishermen from a relatively insular ethnic group to decide to do some exploring with part of their fleet, chance upon a great discovery, and then reasonably keep it a secret for at least a few decades?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hg1g8/basques_in_north_american_prior_to_columbus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cau0a9o",
"cau18jt"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"It's possible but there is little evidence. Some argue that John Cabot discovered Newfoundland in 1497 and lured the Basques there, while other believe Basques were there well before that time. What we do know is that by 1534 ,when Jacques Cartier claimed the land and named it Canada, hundred of Basque fishermen were already working the surrounding waters. As for your following questions, sure its possible but that's nothing more than speculation since we have little evidence of such an occurrence (to my limited knowledge at least).\n\nSource: *Atlantic* by Simon Winchester (282-285)",
"I am almost done reading his book \"The Basque History of the World\" in which he discuses it in a bit more detail.\nFlavored_crayons is right in that there is little evidence but after having read Kurlanksy I have come away with the impression that they did: in the book (which I encourage you to read if you enjoyed \"Cod\") he explains how the Basque were the first major whalers in Europe - this was due to the fact that only did there used to be many whales off the Bay of Biscay but because of the unique trade tariffs in the Basque land that allowed them to import to the rest of Europe without having to pay Spain taxes for the importations.\nBack to North America though; the Basque's had contact with the Vikings and were known to make trips across the sea to the Faeroe Islands as early as 875 - this was a 1,500 mile journey and this tied in with the fact that they provided so much whale material to Europe (which would have needed extensive fishing locations) leads to deductive arguments about how they were there before or around the same time as the Vikings.\nKurlanksy also notes that \"numerous reports claim that Cabot and other early explorers arrived in North America [and] encountered native tribesman who spoke Basque.\"pp 58 - 59\n\nAll of this is without concrete evidence and more sources should be looked into but you should definitely read this book!\n\nI am continually surprised at the influence on the world that this small, and very old (the most ancient language still spoken in Europe today) people have had on the world.\n\nSource: *The Basque History of the World* by Mark Kurlansky (43 - 64)\nThe Gernika chapter is depressing as hell but I really enjoyed reading the book while I was in Bilbao the past week.\n\nEdit: weird that I came across this post as I was using the book to keep my hot laptop off me."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.amazon.com/books/dp/0140275010",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/wuxal/question_about_unofficial_first_contacts_in_the/c5gxnt5"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4fqrfv
|
why mustangs don't need anyone to maintain their hooves, but domesticated horses do?
|
I get that it could be due to the fact that mustangs roam free and domesticated horses don't, but even free ranging horses need assistance with regards to their hooves. Why is this so?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fqrfv/eli5_why_mustangs_dont_need_anyone_to_maintain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2b6fae",
"d2b7c5x"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I'm not a horse expert, but I assume that people make domesticated horses walk where and when a wild one wouldn't.",
"Their hooves get worn down because they're almost constantly moving. Even when ridden all the time, domestic horses don't travel enough to significantly wear down their hooves because they're still stalled/pastured. In fact, a lot of farriers have taken to studying the shape of mustang hooves in order to find different ways to trim domestic horse hooves in a way that makes them stronger. There's demand for this because shoeing can be very damaging to the feet, though it'll always be necessary for a significant portion of domestic horses who are tender footed or subject to tough terrain/roads. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7tq2cf
|
Is there a case in nature in which a species A can breed with species B, which can breed with a species C, but A and C can't breed with each other?
|
I hope the question makes sense. I've been think about speciation and subspecies and how that happens. There are some animals which are different species, like horses and donkeys (different number of chromosomes even!) that can breed, even though they produce sterile offspring. I'm wondering if there are situations which go a little further like the one I described in my question. Thanks.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7tq2cf/is_there_a_case_in_nature_in_which_a_species_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtfz6qw"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, what you describe exists, they are called [Ring species](_URL_0_). All populations involved in such a ring may be considered the same species since gene flow can still occur between the most distant populations, through the intermediaries. However if the populations in the middle were to be wiped out, the two distant populations could no longer interbreed, so would be considered a different species. These cases do highlight how fluid and somewhat arbitrary any species concept is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ring_species"
]
] |
|
79hm0x
|
c3, c4, and cam pathways. what is the difference between them, and in what type of plant are they used?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/79hm0x/eli5_c3_c4_and_cam_pathways_what_is_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp214mf"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"C3 converts CO2 into a 3-carbon acid. Most plants use this mechanism, but it works best in wetter areas with moderate temperatures. As temperatures go up, growth is stunted because it becomes less efficient. C4 converts carbon into a 4-carbon acid, and this works in warmer weather with less water. Tropical plants tend to be this.\n\nCAM is something else entirely, where the plant takes in carbon dioxide at night and stores it for the daytime use. Then it seals off when the sun comes up to avoid losing water and photosynthesizes using the stored carbon during the day. Orchids, bromeliads, cacti, cactus form spurges, succulents, and other things without much water will use CAM."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9pqzkw
|
It is the year 900 in the kingdom of Wessex. What’s for dinner?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9pqzkw/it_is_the_year_900_in_the_kingdom_of_wessex_whats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e840zhk",
"e855vnu"
],
"score": [
20,
8
],
"text": [
"Who's eating? The average peasant, a petty noble, or the King himself?",
"So, my answer is actually from Mercia, since it's based on archaeological evidence from the *burh* at Stafford built by Æthelflæd in 914, but cross-border culinary differences in the intervening 15 years are unlikely to have been that noticable.\n\nCentral to the diet for any class is bread. A common feature of both West Saxon and Mercian *burhs* built in rhe late ninth and early tenth centuries are bread ovens. At sites like Wallingford, Stafford and Eddisbury, bread ovens were built as permanent structures near to the settlement ramparts. For the wealthier classes, and perhaps luckier members of the *fyrd* garrison, the bread is likely to have been a loaf of bread made from wheat flour as we might recognise it today. For the lower classes and particularly for labourers, 'bread' is likely to have taken the forms of 'bannocks' made from oat or barley. These are essentially like baked loaves of porridge - oatmeal to an American audience - with a much rougher grind and much more chaff than the wheat bread, but also much more calorie-dense.\n\nMeat was also an important part of the diet, in increasing proportions as one moved up the social scale. Excavations at Stafford have found vast amounts of animal bones dumped in what was a swamp from the *burh*'s butchery district. Compared to under the strict forestry laws which came in after the Norman Conquest of 1066, hunted game was an important part of the supply and constituted up to 30% of the meat diet. The principle meat among the nobility was beef from cattle, although venison and game fowl were also common. Before the Conquest, hunted game was an important if occasional source of meat for the peasantry. Mutton was typically eaten rather than lamb, but this would have been largely as a by-product of the wool trade - a significant part of the Anglo-Saxon economy - rather than sheep raised for meat. Pork would also have been commonplace.\n\nDepending on your location in the country, dairy products, especially cheese, would have also been commonplace as an important source of fat and also of calcium. Near the coasts, fishery was also popular. The keeping of bees was a popular monastic pass-time, so honey would have been available at least in these communities, and possibly used as a payment in kind for peasant labour on monastic land.\n\nThis food would have been accompanied by a variety of root and other vegetables. Cabbage and other leafy greens would have been common in the UK, and sources suggest that nettles - often used to brew medicinal drinks - may also have been eaten. For the lower classes, meals are likely to have taken the form of a pottage or stew, most likely left almost constantly slow-cooking over a hearth and simply topped up when necessary. This had the benefit of not only eking out a more meagre supply of meat and making less choice cuts far more palatable, but was also highly calorific. For the upper classes, meat is likely to have been spit-roasted over a hearth. For all classes, meals are likely to have been washed down with ale, although this was likely to have been both weakier and 'breadier' than our modern ales. For the wealthier and for religious communities, wine is likely to have been a more common feature. Mead, which has entered popular culture as **the** medieval drink of choice, is distilled from honey, and as such is more likely to have been the preserve of monastic communities, although would likely have also been enjoyed by the local elite, and perhaps by wealthier freemen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2pidww
|
Was the Southern Defensive War really that crucial to the South's early wins?
|
The turning point of the Civil War is usually considered Gettysburg but before then, the south was winning the war. After Grant and Sherman, the war was tilted to the North but under McClellan the North didn't win many battles because of his reluctance to push forward and fight the offensive.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pidww/was_the_southern_defensive_war_really_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmxr9rx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I disagree entirely. While the Confederacy won an early initial victory at Manassas/Bull Run, the overall picture for the South for much of late 1861 and 1862 (the period in which the South stood on the strategic defensive) was incredibly gloomy. Let's run through the list of disasters briefly. November 7 1861: the US Navy seizes Port Royal, South Carolina, thus driving a wedge between Charleston and Savannah. January 19, 1862: the Confederate army in eastern Kentucky is routed at Mill Springs, opening the way for a Union invasion of Tennessee. February 6: Fort Henry falls to US Grant, opening the Tennessee River to the Union. February 16: Fort Donelson is surrendered, opening the Cumberland to Union troops and gunboats. April 6: the combined western Confederate army fails to break Grant's army at Shiloh, and with the arrival of Don Carlos Buell's forces, are forced to withdraw, making the fall of Corinth inevitable. Finally, McClellan, despite his flaws, comes within a few miles of Richmond before being driven away by an inferior, but very aggressively commanded Confederate Army of Northern Virginia.\n\nIt is true that a period of Confederate superiority followed *in the east*. But even for the year or so that the Army of Northern Virginia was dominant, the Confederacy continued to collapse steadily in the west."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1qzxbs
|
food tax, why in a restaurant but not a store?
|
For example, here in Washington state, we don't have a tax on food products bought from places like Safeway, Wal-Mart, etc. But, if you go to a restaurant, you have to pay tax on the meal. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qzxbs/eli5_food_tax_why_in_a_restaurant_but_not_a_store/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdi5py1",
"cdi5q97"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Likely because buying food at a store is basically a necessity of life, especially if you can't afford to eat out every meal.\n\nEating at a restaurant is basically a privilege, not a necessity, so it makes more sense to tax that, than to tax basic food. \n\nUp here in Canada, our national tax (GST) applies at all stores, but not on basic food items like milk & bread etc. ",
"Taxing food can be considered what is called a regressive tax. Generally, taxation works best when it is progressive, meaning those who have more means are taxed higher. The revenues generated by the government is higher as a result, thereby giving the government more money to invest in infrastructure or offer services to the public. A regressive tax is when the poor is taxed higher per dollar earned, and it ends up harming their living standards. If food purchased at the store is taxed, it could mean going without for individuals with very little means. Whereas, going out to eat is a luxury, and the tax can be afforded by those participating in this activity.\n\nedit: grammar"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
21gxec
|
Why do atoms "want" to form covalent bonds?
|
I basically understand the nature of covalent bonds, but *why* do they happen? All I hear is that atoms "want to have their shells filled" – but atoms don't actually *want* anything, so what does this mean?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/21gxec/why_do_atoms_want_to_form_covalent_bonds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgczzke"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"When someone tells you atoms or molecules \"want\" to do something it is almost always code for \"would be in a lower energy state\" if they did that. Saying that two atoms want to form a covalent bond just means that the state in which the two atoms are bonded is lower in energy than the one in which they are not."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
xcn2h
|
Ignoring the difficulty of capturing a comet or adjusting its orbit: If we could arrange for a comet to strike Mars, what would the effect be? Could we terraform Mars by hitting it with a cubic mile of water?
|
As a child, I loved "The Martian Way" - a short story by Asimov where 2nd generation Martian colonists establish their independence by "stealing" a piece of Saturn's rings and bringing it back to Mars as a water supply. These days we know that his story was based on bad information - for one thing, Saturn's rings aren't made from convenient cubic-mile chunks and, for another, we now know that Mars has no atmosphere to speak of, making it hard for a colony to get established in the first place.
But I still wonder if there was a nugget of gold in that old story: What if we grabbed a chunk of ice & methane from the outer solar system and just dropped it on the Red Planet? Could we restore Mars' atmosphere that way? If we did, how long would it last before the solar wind stripped it off again?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xcn2h/ignoring_the_difficulty_of_capturing_a_comet_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5l848i",
"c5l96o1",
"c5l9dj0",
"c5l9nep",
"c5lb1if",
"c5lbkoe",
"c5lckiw"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
13,
8,
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I posted earlier from my phone, but couldn't find a source. So I deleted it and reposted.\n\nBasically, you don't need to use a comet. You *can*, but it's probably not the only way to do so.\n\nAccording to Michio Kaku's book [Physics of the Future](_URL_0_), you could drop a few nuclear devices on the ice cap and it might have enough of an effect.\n\nOtherwise, if you wanted to do it without the radiation (although since it'd take a long time anyway, the radiation is probably not *that* big of a deal...), you could use a kinetic impactor or comet to achieve much the same effect. ",
"Another book to add to your reading list is \"Mining the Oort\" by Frederick Pohl. Features this as a major plot driver.",
"The smart thing to do would be not to smash a comet into Mars directly, but to aerobrake one in Mars' atmosphere. The temperature of atmospheric entry would be enough to not only break up & melt the comet, but also split the water molecules into their constituent oxygen & hydrogen. \n\nIf you planned the comet's entry into the atmosphere *just so*, you'd be able to control how much of the O & H got liberated, or re-combined back into water after the fact. So you'd get to choose the proportions of oxygen, hydrogen & water you introduced. \n\nOxygen is obviously very handy! The hydrogen would be so much lighter than the rest of the atmospheric gases that it would rise to the atmosphere's upper layers, and get preferentially stripped away, protecting the more valuable oxygen & water vapour.\n\nHowever, it would a good hundred comets to so much as double the mass of Mars' atmosphere. So you're better off grabbing a Kuiper Belt Object.\n\nEven then, the real issue with terraforming Mars is a lack of nitrogen. You ideally want some sort of inert gas to make up the bulk of the atmosphere. Too much oxygen, and everything is flammable. too much carbon dioxide and people can't survive. Nitrogen is also vital to plant (and therefore animal) life on earth, in the form of the nitrogen cycle.",
"Crashing huge chucks of ice into Mars was also part of the terraforming recipe in Kim Stanley Robinsons Mars trilogy. It has occured to me that adjusting the orbit of a comet to crash it into a planet could be easier than doing the same thing with an asteroid. If a number of large flat mirrors could be put into solar orbit and pointed with some super sensitive gyroscopes, we could use solar energy to heat up certain parts of the comet. The resulting offgassing would act in a manner similar to tiny rockets attached to the comet. Over a period of a year this might be able to make enough of an alteration to it's orbit to either crash it directly into Mars or get it into a suitable elliptical orbit to hit Mars in the next few decades. The nice thing about this system is that the mirrors could be reused for multiple comets over the duration of their lifetime.",
"Deflecting an astroid to hit a planet is really not very difficult. [Phil Plait has a TED talk explaining how to do the reverse - cause a asteroid to *miss* a planet, but it's the same idea.](_URL_0_)",
"One of the things that people often neglect when discussing the terraforming of Mars is that Mars has little if any magnetic field due to a \"frozen\" core. This is probably why the Martian atmosphere is so tenuous. Without a magnetic field to protect the planet from the solar wind, any atmosphere will inevitably be blown off over time.\n\nSo it's more than just a matter of finding a way to give Mars an atmosphere, we'd have to find a way to get it's iron core spinning again. Good luck with that.",
"Comets must hit Mars on occasion naturally, so there has to be more to terraforming than simply dropping one comet on Mars. Maybe a bunch of comets all at once? You'd have to get nitrogen from somewhere too, although my understanding is that comets can also contain a fair amount of ammonia ices."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=lGS9Lbv0PdsC&pg=PA272&lpg=PA272&dq=nuclear+bomb+mars+ice+cap&source=bl&ots=_5-_WOrBsn&sig=d_n4qxT_7PnyAYHzTHbm0lqyT8I&hl=en&sa=X&ei=QZQVULeYBYqm9ASD7YGQBw&ved=0CFoQ6AEwAg#v=onepage&q=nuclear%20bomb%20mars%20ice%20cap&f=false"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/rjECbQ1r-k0"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
a6hsgr
|
why do men get a weird feeling in their penis when they see an injury or cut
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6hsgr/eli5_why_do_men_get_a_weird_feeling_in_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebux2om"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Ummm no we don't? You should go see a doctor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1kl9op
|
How did the Seven Years War begin?
|
I understand there was a multitude of factors that led to this conflict, that it was fought by different nations at different times and at different places, and that its consequences were felt by a great portion of the world (the influence on the American War for Independence being, perhaps, the most known). But one thing that escaped my understanding is: how did the war begin, and why did it involve most of the Great Powers of its time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kl9op/how_did_the_seven_years_war_begin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbqayqm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In 1740, a new king came to power in Prussia, Frederick the Great. His predecessor built a large, well-organized army, and Frederick immediately used it to defeat Austria in the War of the Austrian Succession from 1740-1748. By doing so, Prussia became a great power in Europe, attracting the suspicions of other nations such as France and Russia. In 1756, Austria's queen, Maria Theresa, used diplomacy to unite France and Russia against Prussia. England naturally joined in against France, her biggest rival. The immediate cause of the war was a French assault of a British base in Minorica. Prussia quickly took to the offensive, and the war continued from there. \n\nIn North America, the war began in 1754 as a result of land disputes between New France and the Thirteen Colonies over the fertile Ohio Country. France had long standing claims over the area, but pioneers in the British colonies kept moving west, settling in any land they could get their hands on. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2d9s3j
|
let's say, everything in the universe (not the atoms!!) get's 10 times bigger. would it effect anything?
|
Suddenly, everything grew 10 times the size. But not the atoms. That means that the number all the atoms got by 10. Would it effect anything like surface tension, viscosity or any rules of physics?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d9s3j/eli5_lets_say_everything_in_the_universe_not_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjng3io",
"cjngfgc"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If you were 10 times bigger you would weigh 1,000 times more, so you and most everything else would be crushed under its own weight.",
"Interesting question. I feel like the biggest issue would be the change in gravity. If the radius of the Earth went up by 10 and its density stayed the same, its volume (and therefore its mass) would increase by a factor of 1000. The acceleration due to gravity is proportional to the object's mass, so gravity would be pulling with 1000 times the acceleration."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1brczo
|
[Chemistry] Are there reactions that aren't endothermic or exothermic?
|
So in today's chemistry class we talked about self ionization of water, an endothermic reaction.
In this reaction, an Hydrogen atom goes from one water molecule to another. During this, an H-O bond is broken and another H-O is formed.
Since the energy lost when the bond is broken equals to the energy gained when the following bond is formed, then the variation of energy at the end of the reaction is 0. (Or is it?)
So:
1.Are there reactions that are neither endothermic or exothermic?
2.Why is self-ionization of water an endothermic reaction if the energy variation is 0?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1brczo/chemistry_are_there_reactions_that_arent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c99bgnr",
"c99fjs6",
"c99gskl"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The H-O bond that is broken turns H2O into a OH-.\n\nThe H-O bond that is formed (in autoionization) turns H2O into H3O+.\n\nThe bond-breaking and bond-forming reactions are nonequivalent, as the products side (hydronium and hydroxide) and reactants side (water) are nonequivalent.\n\ndeltaG is defined as 0 at chemical equilibrium. Not sure if that answers your question.",
"Answering the first question:\n\nNo, I don't think there are reactions that are neither endothermic or exothermic. A reactant passes through an activation barrier (activation energy, or a \"transition state\" by one theory) when going from one thermodynamic point (reactant) to another (product). Both the product and the reactant have specific free energies (\"delta g thingy\").\n\nChemistry uses \"endothermic\" or \"exothermic\" if the difference in free energy is positive or negative respectively. I think that there are reactions that have values close to 0, but it doesn't make sense if the value IS 0 since there is no difference in thermodynamic end-points. It would be as if the reactant passed through an activation energy barrier to become itself, again.\n\nNote, when a SYSTEM is at equilibrium, the net change in free energy is 0. My response is about one forward reaction without considering the reverse.\n\nEdit: Aaaaand superjerry said essentially the same thing.....oh well, I'll keep the post up, anyway!",
"I do not believe that any reactions exist which are neither endothermic nor exothermic. By nature, most chemical reactions occur because the reactants involved are looking for a way to achieve a lower energy state and thus become more stable (hence why there are seemingly so many exothermic reactions).\n\nGranted, at equilibrium a reaction will neither produce nor consume heat, but this is because the rate of the forwards and reverse reactions are the same, and not because the reaction is neither exothermic nor endothermic. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
vgcti
|
Where are we on fusion power? How clean would it be? How long can we see fusion power in grid?
|
According to wikipedia,
On March 15, 2012, the NIF's array of 192 lasers fired a shaped pulse of energy that generated 411 trillion watts of peak power - 1,000 times more than whole of the United States uses at any one moment. [56] The total energy created as the pulse was generated, was calculated to be 2.03 million joules, making the NIF the world's first 2MJ ultraviolet laser – about 100 times more powerful than any other laser in existence.[57]
"Mike Dunne, the National Ignition Facility’s director for laser fusion energy, is expecting the giant laser system to generate fusion with energy gain, or "burn", by the end of 2012" [58]
-----------
But are we at all close to harnessing this power?
Also, where are we at on Tokamak reactors? How come many of them are no longer operating.
-------------
Note: I tried to search, but search doesn't really return any meaningful results.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vgcti/where_are_we_on_fusion_power_how_clean_would_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c549w2i",
"c54tzep"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We cannot sustain fusion without enormous energy usage. We cannot produce any energy from fusion yet.\n\nIt will probably be a long time before it's used for commercial power production.",
"NIF has yet to reach ignition. That is to gain more power from the fuel than was used to generate the laser pulse. If NIF cannot reach this mark, it would represent an awesome laser experiment and materials shock wave physics testing platform but would not be suitable for a power source. Even if ignition were to be achieved, there are several significant challenges yet to overcome.\n\nThe fuel will need to be mass produced, we are talking about many thousands for sustained energy production. These capsules have to be manufactured to a very high precision and will be fired at a rate of ~80/s.\n\nEnergy will need to be captured from the chamber and converted into useful energy (i.e. electricity). This process will be relatively inefficient, due to Carnot efficiency limit, which in practice requires a significantly greater amount of energy to be produces before the power required by the laser shot is repaid.\n\nThe materials in the chamber will experience significantly hostile environments, a high rate, high radiation, high (and non constant) temperature profile makes the materials selection problem tricky. In practice we do not have much experience in this area of materials science (except in the Nuclear Weapons Programs) and therefore producing a commercially viable system, that is cost efficient to run, will require a fair bit more work.\n\nWhile there are a few other problems I could list that imply that Fusion is a fair way off, let me be very clear, without Nuclear Fusion we are unlikely to support a growing population which is developing at a very fast rate. Nuclear Fission (and other alternative fuel strategies) will not cover the gap in the longer term. Without a stable energy source, that is easy to manage, we will have to realise a world where scarce resources continue to hamper our development. This may not affect you significantly in your lifetime, but I suspect it will affect the children who have been born today and will live until the end of this century.\n\nIn terms of realisable goals, I think that NIF is worth pursuing but I suspect that tokamak based designs are far more realisable as a commercial product. We are building the ITER reactor at present, which won't be a suitable power source but will let us iron out many of the bugs to design the first generation of DEMOnstration reactors that will realise commercial fusion power.\n\n\ntl:dl Ignition - i.e. power in = power out, is still a fair way off with NIF. Even with ignition, we need to sort out how to commercialise such a device which includes looking at energy capture and materials design problems that have yet to be tackled properly. I think that fusion is vital for our planet and that tokamak based designs are more realistic as a first go for commercial viability.\n\np.s. I'm very sorry that there aren't more references, I'm not at work so I can't go and hunt down a few papers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bxys1w
|
Why did Republicans become so conservative so suddenly in the 1920s?
|
Overnight, they switched from the party of LaFollete, Lincoln and Roosevelt to a party that's espousing some early version of supply side economics.
What happened?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bxys1w/why_did_republicans_become_so_conservative_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eqcc20y"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"/u/Samuel_Gompers has your number. He previously answered:\n\n* [Can someone address a brief history of Democrats vs Republicans, specifically the change in Dems from the early 1900s being against civil rights to a more progressive party in the 50/60s leading much social change in the U.S.](_URL_0_)\n\n* [Why was there such a huge shift in the core viewpoints of the Republican Party in the past 100 years?](_URL_1_)\n\nI hope you find those answers helpful, but an answer related to conditions in the decade specified would be welcome."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yczua/can_someone_address_a_brief_history_of_democrats/c5ui4pm/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nolzz/why_was_there_such_a_huge_shift_in_the_core/cckrkh5/"
]
] |
|
6c439w
|
why does ctrl+alt+del'ing into task manager sometimes unfreeze frozen applications in windows?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c439w/eli5_why_does_ctrlaltdeling_into_task_manager/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhrq5rb",
"dhruhn0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely it doesn't. Unless freeze is somehow fixed by changing window focus, pressing ctrl+alt+del doesn't affect the program in anyway.\n\nProbably application just wasn't completely frozen or suck in forever loop. Windows shows application being frozen if it doesn't handle events in certain time. Some applications do potentially long taking tasks in main thread that handles the events. Eg. if you open a huge image, the application might appear frozen until it finishes the loading.\n\nUsually these kind of temporal freezes are caused by slow IO. Well made applications use separate thread for these tasks so the main thread handling events isn't blocked and application doesn't appear frozen. But not all IO tasks are moved to separate thread just because they are so small that they don't normally cause any meaningful pause and threading is hard and can cause other problems.\n\nSometimes even small IO tasks take unexpectedly long: small file on network drive + physical drive on power saving mode + network problems and suddently loading a single 1kB file takes multiple seconds.\n\nFreeze can also be caused by bugs in program that in some conditions cause logic to go loop that doesn't end or takes seconds to complete.\n\nTL;DR: Application wasn't in unrecoverable state and something just took longer than it should have and Windows just though the program was frozen. Application starting to work after pressing ctrl+alt+del was just a coincidence",
"The question seems to have been answered, so here's a tip: Ctrl + Shift + Esc will open task manager directly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
25wn7c
|
What factors determine how fast a CPU runs?
|
What besides clock speed and number of cores determine how fast a CPU runs? The [Intel i7-4960](_URL_0_), which has a clock speed of 3.6 GHz with 6 cores, scored a [14185 CPU Benchmark](_URL_1_). However, the [AMD FX-9590](_URL_3_), which has a clock speed of 4.7 GHz with 8 cores, only scored a [10318 benchmark](_URL_2_). Why is it that the Intel chip performed significantly better when the AMD one had a much higher clock rate and more cores?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/25wn7c/what_factors_determine_how_fast_a_cpu_runs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chlfxpg",
"chlie0x"
],
"score": [
5,
11
],
"text": [
"My expertise lies in embedded systems, not desktop cores, but one big factor for embedded systems is the underlying architecture and instruction set. The instruction set is the most basic list of functions that a computer can operate. These are things like moving a value from position a to b, or multiplying the values of a and b.\n\nA less capable architecture has fewer instructions available, requiring it to emulate more advanced instructions. One good example of this is software emulated floating point math. Hardware driven floating point math can execute hundreds, or thousands, of times faster than software emulated FP operations.\n\nIn a more powerful instruction set, FP math could be performed in just a few clock cycles. In a weaker instruction set, that same operation could take thousands of clock cycles.",
"Well there are a bunch of things. We have billions of transistors to utilize to make our CPUs work. Utilizing them in different ways is going to cause variations in how the CPU performs.\n\nHere are a few other things that matter. It's not just hardware that improves performance, it's how well the software can utilize the hardware.\n\n* The code running on the machine itself, and specifically how it was compiled\n* How well the OS is tuned to work with the architecture itself\n* Whether or not each core can issue instructions from multiple threads\n* Whether the CPU is designed to maximize single thread performance or good performance of several threads\n* Cache statistics, such as size, associativity, number of caches, depth of the cache hierarchy, bandwidth to main memory, number of entries in the store buffer, etc\n* TLBs also matter immensely and depend on the results from the previous bullet point\n* Number of ALUs and various other functional units that can have instructions issued to them.\n* Reorder buffer size, and physical register file size\n* The interconnection network between cores, but this is again how well the program uses the CPU effectively.\n* The accuracy of the CPUs branch predictor, and it's misprediction penalty.\n\nAs you can see, there are a lot of things that can affect CPU performance. This is just a random list off of the top of my head, and I'll probably come back and add more later.\n\nAll of this however is well beyond what the average user ever sees. The relationships between these subsystems in a CPU are complex, and that's why even experts rely on results from benchmarks to see how things operate."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819116938",
"http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=Intel+Core+i7-4960X+%40+3.60GHz&id=2026",
"http://www.cpubenchmark.net/cpu.php?cpu=AMD+FX-9590+Eight-Core&id=2014",
"http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx?Item=N82E16819113347"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1txr05
|
At what point is a system considered random as opposed to just too complex to predict? Is there any difference?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1txr05/at_what_point_is_a_system_considered_random_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cecltyq",
"cect071"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"in science, we use 'random' to describe effects that aren't determined by the parameters of the models used to describe whatever phenomenon we're looking at. often you have an idea that you *could* parameterize those effects, but it's not worth the trouble because they're very small and average to zero. for example, there's 'random noise' in the retina produced by the isomerization-by-heat of photopigments (that ideally are being isomerized by visible light). in theory you could predict most of those isomerizations by precisely characterizing the dynamic distribution of heat in the retina, but they're marginal enough that they can generally be ignored (or just characterized by a summary statistic rather than by a mechanism). so at that level, we would characterize the retinal response as a random system only because we can't (or don't care to) fully specify the system, although theoretically we *could*.\n\non the other hand, at the very lowest physical levels, you have probabilistic randomness, which cannot be parameterized. so, the light falling on the retina has an average intensity, but the incidence of photons *per photon* is probabilistic (following a Poisson distribution). this makes incidence of a photon a random event, and beyond knowing all the optical parameters and the parameters of the summary distribution, you can't predict exactly when or whether a photon will pass by a certain photoreceptor. this kind of thing is why quantum randomness is in sometimes characterized as 'truly random' - the system can never be *fully* specified.",
"_URL_0_\n\nThe double pendulum system is a solid example of something that is considered \"too complex to predict\" but not at all random.\n\nThe equation that governs the motion of a double pendulum system are very simple. But tiny pertubations in initial conditions yield wildly different movements.\n\nSo while it is perfectly modeled mathematically, it's actual motions cannot be predicted."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_pendulum"
]
] |
||
blw1ns
|
What happens when you superimpose two coherent, out-of-phase beams of light?
|
What initially got me thinking was seeing [this](_URL_0_) question over on r/explainlikeimfive about the general nature of destructive interference and the conservation of energy.
The basic examples are all pretty clear to me (Interference pattern in the double slit experiment? The bright parts contain the energy that the dark parts are missing. Shining two lasers against each other? They produce a standing wave.) But I came up with a scenario where I cannot simply come up with a solution as to where the energy goes:
& #x200B;
E
|
|
E--M====
With `E` being the emitters of a single coherent beam of light each, `M` being a semi-transparent mirror and `=` being the superposition of the two laser beams (I'm ignoring the part of the light that will go in a downwards direction for ease of "drawing", though it should be completely analogous to the light going to the right). If you control for polarisation and phase shift at the emitters, `=` could be made to be of of the form `sin(t) + sin(t+pi)`, which is constantly equal to 0.
There is clearly energy going into `M`, yet it seems like destructive interference should completely negate any outgoing energy. Which is obviously impossible.
Does the mirror simply heat up? If so: How? What are the exact mechanics involved? Or am I missing something else?
& #x200B;
& #x200B;
Edit: Typo.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/blw1ns/what_happens_when_you_superimpose_two_coherent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ems0okm",
"ems1nuz"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"This is basically a [Michelson interferometer](_URL_0_). The semi-transparent mirror is semi-transparent in both directions. Destructive interference on the path to the right will mean that no energy goes that way: instead, there will be a beam with constructive interference going *downward* from M on your diagram.\n\n E\n |\n |\n E----M . . . . . no beam\n ||\n ||\n ||\n beam",
"There’s a different phase shift involved at the two outputs that you need to take into consideration. You can’t assume that the outputs will be the same in the two directions. ([This link](_URL_0_) covers more of the math.)\n\nSo you’ll have destructive interference at one output and constructive interference at the other, in this scenario."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bl02np/eli5_when_light_destructively_interferes_what/"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michelson_interferometer"
],
[
"http://www.pas.rochester.edu/~howell/mysite2/Tutorials/Beamsplitter2.pdf"
]
] |
|
6xvter
|
If someone were to die today because of an accident involving an unexploded WW2 bomb, would they be added to the list of WW2 casualties?
|
This is in reference to the evacuation at Frankfurt.
Would a death in this scenario count as a WW2 casualty?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6xvter/if_someone_were_to_die_today_because_of_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmjjui3",
"dmjmqyu",
"dmjp6fd",
"dmjtlgh"
],
"score": [
143,
15,
316,
2
],
"text": [
"I am not a historian and I've never posted here before. Please let me know if I've done anything wrong mods. \n\nLet's start with who is considered a causality. That alone doesn't have an easy answer and is considered a controversial subject. Groups like the US Military, UNICEF, and [WHO](_URL_4_) all have their own definitions. Then to make things more confusing further distinctions are made like 'civilian casualties' and 'casualties of war'. [This is one of the reasons you'll see different estimates for the same wars.](_URL_3_) (p. 16) \n\n[I am not able to properly source this but it seems UNICEF counts after the war deaths as civilian casualties, like in the case of landmines](_URL_2_). According to wiki (I know!) \"3. Those dying, whether during or after a war, from indirect effects of war such as disease, malnutrition and lawlessness, and who would not have been expected to die at such rates from such causes in the absence of the war;\" are included in their counts. I only include this because the numbers UNICEF releases don't make sense unless they are counting indirect after the war causes. \n\n\n[The nato definition for casualty is as follows:\n ](_URL_5_)\n > In relation to personnel, any person\n > who is lost to his organization by\n > reason of having been declared\n > dead, wounded, diseased, detained,\n > captured or missing.\n > Related terms: battle casualty; died\n > of wounds received in action; killed\n > in action; non-battle casualty;\n > wounded in action.\n\nThe definition for non-battle casualty is (same source): \n > non-battle casualty / perte hors\n > combat\n > A person who is not a battle\n > casualty, but who is lost to his\n > organization by reason of disease\n > or injury, including persons dying\n > from disease or injury, or by\n > reason of being missing where\n > the absence does not appear to\n > be voluntary or due to enemy\n > action or to being interned.\n > Related terms: battle casualty;\n > casualty; died of wounds received\n > in action; killed in action;\n > wounded in action.\n > 01 Sep 2003\n\nThere is an in-depth paper discussing the increase of civilian casualties of war [from a professor at the University of Oxford and it seemingly includes civilians killed by landmines after the war as casualties](_URL_0_). \n\nThe definitive answer seems to be that they can be, but most organizations do not include after battle casualties unless their injuries were sustained during the war. From the definitions I read it seems that social type groups include them ([as evidenced with mines casualties which is a large problem even today](_URL_1_)) and government groups do not include them. \n\nEdits: Added more sources.",
"It might be hard to give a singular answer to this question, since even now different sources have varying definitions of what they consider a casualty of war and what they attribute the death to.\n\nOne source in which such deaths might be counted towards the WW2 death toll is \"Wars and Population\" by Boris Urlanis.\nIn it the author classifies bombing deaths as not only those inflicted directly by an explosion, but also deaths from homelessness caused by bombings *even past the surrender of Germany* through causes such as disease (but not hunger).\nHowever, in the book only deaths that have a statistically significant impact on the population are discussed as examples and since none such death is described and classified in it, a clear answer cannot be given in relation to this source.\n\nAs an aside the insurer \"Techniker Krankenkasse\" in Germany classifies the deaths of bomb squad members while disarming unexploded ordnance as work accidents. By their own definitions the death of unrelated personnel through such unexploded ordnance would also be classified as an accident. While this holds no historical significance, it is important in practice, which can sometimes influence sources being written today.\n\n**Edit**: I'm leaving my post up, but by now there are better and more in-depth answers in this thread, so refer to those instead.",
"So I considered taking a stab at this question last evening, and while there are a few comments which do strike in the direction of an answer, I think that a META answer is also in order here. \n\nFirst, and perhaps most important, there is no \"list of WW2 casualties\", at least in the sense of an official, agreed upon one. In fact, only a few countries can even provide more than generalized estimates of the number of their citizens killed in the conflict. [Here is a table from John Ellis' \"Statistical Survey\" book on the War](_URL_0_), and you'll notice everything is in nice, round numbers. So my point here is that if the recent bomb in Frankfurt went off and killed someone, Ellis isn't going to be going back to edit the next edition of his book from 2,050,000 civilian casualties to 2,050,001 civilian casualties in Germany. And of course, the estimates themselves vary, so you won't always see agreement on some statistics across various works, depending on what method a given historian uses, and/or what primary sources they give more weight to.\n\nSecondly though, is the fact that there isn't going to be an Official *Universal* Definition of who gets to be a casualty and who doesn't. These statistics are originating from a wide variety of persons, groups, and governmental organizations, and while there will be a general consensus on the main points (i.e. someone killed in action is definitely a casualty), *there is no world law* preventing Dr. John Smith from writing a book in which he includes deaths from exploded ordnance decades later as part of the total casualty numbers. That doesn't mean that other works need to agree with him though. I have not, nor am I capable of, doing a survey of every work on World War II which touches on tabulating casualty numbers so while I suspect Dr. Smith is in the minority, I couldn't say quite how much he is, although it is likely safe to say he is in a small one, as no works come to mind which make a point of arguing for it.\n\nSo finally, the closest thing we're going to see to an *answer* is less about how historians will judge the deaths in terms of \"how many died in World War II\" and instead how the death is treated in practical terms. If someone is killed or injured by unexploded ordnance, how does their insurance policy classify the death or injury, for instance, assuming it includes any sort of provision that touches on armed conflict. In all honesty I can't say, but that is a question for a lawyer, or perhaps an underwriter, not an historian. Likewise, presuming the government has any sort of compensations which were tied to war deaths or injuries, it would be a matter of what their written policy is on that matter, which will vary country-to-country. There may be other practical considerations that I'm missing, but again, that isn't a question for an historian, as it has little bearing on casualties *as an aspect of historical study*. It is a question for someone who is versed in the German *Sozialgesetzbuch* or another appropriate law/program/group/etc in which practical effects are relevant, so again, a lawyer or a government official (and likewise for France, Belgium, Poland, etc. and so on). They might be able to give some semblance of an answer, but for an historian, there is no \"official rules\" on this, so it is a matter of opinion and argumentation.",
"I would like to add to what /U/Georgy_K_Zhukov mentioned in his post to expand and look at modern unexploded ordinance, and used the following sources for my points:\n\n[Legacies of War](_URL_0_)\n\n[Washington Post long read](_URL_1_)\n\n*Aftermath: The Remnants of War: From Landmines to Chemical Warfare--The Devastating Effects of Modern Combat* by Donovan Webster\n\nAfter the first explosive ordinance was used during the American Civil War, there have been casualties amongst farmers, children, bomb disposal experts, and other unfortunate victims of these 'iron harvests'. It appears from the reading and research I have done that these victims are not counted as victims of the conflict the ordinance was utilised in, rather, they treated as modern victims of the ordinance outside of the realms of a specific conflict.\n\nTwo major examples of this, the Vietnam war and World War I (which I linked to in my sources), show that despite major efforts to clean up the battlefields, these are still millions of shells left in the ground waiting to be 'harvested', and that the legal liability for that ordinance has passed from the belligerent force who discharged or placed the shell/mine, into the hands of the government who controls the land. As /U/Georgy_K_Zhukov points out, there are issues such as indemnity and legal liability for the death/mutilation of the victims of the ordinance, and as such insurers are highly unlikely to insure an individual if the risk of an accident happening is high, which is where government/foreign aid steps in to ensure that the victims of explosions are compensated.\n\nAll of that brings me back to your point, which is that it appears to me through the research that while technically those deaths are directly related to the conflict in which the original belligerent utilised the weapon, unless there is a concerted effort by historians to reclassify the victims as part of the original conflict, those victims are treated as victims of an act of god, separate and unique from the original war.\n\nTo expand on the point about how historians measure war victims, there is nothing stopping a historian reviewing the death/injury figures in 200/300 years time and correlating the deaths from unexploded ordinance as part of the original war. /U/Georgy_K_Zhukov's point about the round figures stands, and while it is unlikely you will ever see an explicit figure, you could theoretically see a war memorial to the long tail victims of WW2, Vietnam, or Iraq who died decades and even centuries after the initial war being commemorated. This would boil down to a matter of scholarly insight, political will, and societal understanding, as it would probably happen after a shift in the perception of war and historigraphy. An example of this is how [animals in war](_URL_2_) were commemorated with a stature in London in 2013; the nature of sacrifice and the victims of war shifted as British culture changed, and memorial stands as an example of a deeper understanding of war.\n\nUltimately, I would argue your question is possibly 50 or 100 years too early, and that when the last ordinance is removed from the effected cities we may see a cultural shift that sees the modern victims of the original conflicts as victims of the original war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://weblearn.ox.ac.uk/access/content/user/1044/survival_jun-jul_2010_-_ar_on_lives___statistics_-_non-printable.pdf",
"http://www.icbl.org/en-gb/home.aspx",
"https://www.unicef.org/graca/mines.htm",
"http://cow.la.psu.edu/COW2%20Data/WarData_NEW/COW%20Website%20-%20Typology%20of%20war.pdf",
"http://www.who.int/whr/2004/annex/topic/en/annex_2_en.pdf",
"http://www.dtic.mil/doctrine/doctrine/other/aap6.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/a/7dutT"
],
[
"http://legaciesofwar.org/about-laos/secret-war-laos/",
"https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2015/08/13/the-bombs-beneath-us-unexploded-ordnance-linger-long-after-wars-are-over/?utm_term=.8ce6b40da377",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animals_in_War_Memorial"
]
] |
|
cn27gr
|
the passage of time
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cn27gr/eli5_the_passage_of_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew6aaa4",
"ew6akmu"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you think antimatter is something other than it is.\n\nAntimatter is exactly the same as regular matter, but with opposite charge. If our entire universe was switched from matter to antimatter, everything would be *exactly* the same when observed.",
"There's a lot to unpack here. First, antimatter has nothing to do with the possibility time travel. Anti-particles are the same as their normal counterparts but with opposite charge (so a antiproton has a negative charge because a proton has a positive charge). That's it. All of their other properties are the same. \n\nAs for the rest, I honestly don't know how to answer that because I have no idea what you're even talking about."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2ctbmr
|
do good quality tires improve gas mileage?
|
If you buy a $200 tire, will it improve my car gas mileage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ctbmr/eli5_do_good_quality_tires_improve_gas_mileage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjirtb8"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"proper tire inflation will have more of an impact than tire \"quality\"....\n\nbut you shouldnt buy quality tires for the MPG.....you should buy quality tires because that is the only thing responsible for stopping your 2 ton death trap.....\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
233x4d
|
how come when i have to pee, i can sometimes postpone it for a pretty long time, and sometimes my bladder can't even hold it in for a couple of minutes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/233x4d/eli5_how_come_when_i_have_to_pee_i_can_sometimes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgt8i3y",
"cgt9hgt",
"cgtgk4f"
],
"score": [
16,
26,
4
],
"text": [
"How come after I drink a bunch and of beer and jack off or bang.. Usually the former, I can pee like every 5 mins and it's uncomfortable.",
"It will vary with how much food and drink you've had. Think of your bladder like a balloon. It will expand as it fills up with urine. If your bladder is full, it will take up a certain amount of space in your abdominal cavity. Suppose you eat and drink a large amount. As things digest and pass down to your intestines, your bladder has also been expanding and taking up space. It may take a couple hours before your bladder needs to be relieved. But after you pee, the balloon is empty. Now all the other stuff in your gut takes up that space and puts pressure on your bladder, preventing it from fully expanding. You'll feel a similar pressure to pee, but much less urine will come out.\n\nThe mystery of \"breaking the seal\" when drinking is compounded by the fact that alcohol is a diuretic. Your kidneys are working overtime but your bladder's capacity gets constricted after the first piss. ",
"Can I add a second question to this? Why is it that when you want to take a sh*t and it gets you on the street you can fairly hold it but the need to do it rapidly increases as you get closer to the toilet? I can't think of the many times I have been able to postpone it for hours but those last metres and seconds seem to be miles and hours!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
27i88a
|
if being attractive is an important aspect of sexual attraction, why hasn't natural selection turned us all into super models?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27i88a/eli5_if_being_attractive_is_an_important_aspect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci120lc",
"ci123ep",
"ci12an8",
"ci12cnz",
"ci12jkw",
"ci12khr",
"ci12kt3",
"ci12lt2",
"ci12nl7",
"ci131o8",
"ci136u8",
"ci1396w",
"ci13ver",
"ci1466n",
"ci14va5",
"ci16s9n",
"ci17p5u",
"ci189dv",
"ci18mbx",
"ci18t5u",
"ci18ujb",
"ci1939o",
"ci199cz",
"ci199fc",
"ci19fgs",
"ci1a681",
"ci1ab35",
"ci1abtw",
"ci1agj9",
"ci1axbw",
"ci1b5pf",
"ci1b5q3",
"ci1b81w",
"ci1bcnn",
"ci1bets",
"ci1bexk",
"ci1bgcp",
"ci1bp8f",
"ci1bt07",
"ci1bvt5",
"ci1c0d1",
"ci1c0vr",
"ci1c1wv",
"ci1c2ic",
"ci1c3ui",
"ci1c3z4",
"ci1c9t8",
"ci1cfsf",
"ci1cp7c",
"ci1cp7d",
"ci1cr0f",
"ci1curj",
"ci1cynv",
"ci1d349",
"ci1d3xr",
"ci1d8av",
"ci1dbrg",
"ci1dc5c",
"ci1dk0n",
"ci1dl8m",
"ci1dp9y",
"ci1duvp",
"ci1dv47",
"ci1dvxe",
"ci1dwgq",
"ci1dwrd",
"ci1eh8h",
"ci1ehh1",
"ci1eib3",
"ci1ejvu",
"ci1eo2i",
"ci1etqa",
"ci1f0af",
"ci1fehn",
"ci1fgnt",
"ci1fjjg",
"ci1fkmv",
"ci1fl7r",
"ci1fll9",
"ci1fo1r",
"ci1ftfp",
"ci1ftgg",
"ci1fv2q",
"ci1fzrz",
"ci1g0tf",
"ci1g254",
"ci1g2yp",
"ci1g4h2",
"ci1gemw",
"ci1gumo",
"ci1gw7o",
"ci1gy02",
"ci1h123",
"ci1h7i6",
"ci1h981",
"ci1haim",
"ci1hfqd",
"ci1hl66",
"ci1hozc",
"ci1hw6j",
"ci1i18g",
"ci1i45b",
"ci1i6pj",
"ci1i7py",
"ci1iaho",
"ci1ibj7",
"ci1ii3n",
"ci1inw4",
"ci1iowu",
"ci1iran",
"ci1j4xy",
"ci1j8qq",
"ci1jawk",
"ci1jqxj",
"ci1kdxl",
"ci1lksi",
"ci1lxot",
"ci1meyg",
"ci1mgpy",
"ci1mh89",
"ci1n6y8",
"ci1ngl2",
"ci1rcxj",
"ci2i2sl"
],
"score": [
304,
194,
18,
7,
4,
2190,
12,
3529,
267,
33,
4,
5,
15,
40,
7,
2,
2,
5,
6,
6,
2,
10,
20,
2,
4,
13,
5,
2,
16,
2,
6,
2,
3,
8,
3,
3,
2,
26,
2,
2,
2,
156,
2,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Fashion and what is attractive changes with time.",
"Because not everyone is attracted to the same thing.\n\nSource: check out the \"most watched\" categories on porn sites. Half of the shit will probably disgust you, but other people find it amazing.",
"Because even if average people can't get laid by super hot people they can still get laid by less attractive people. You take what you can get.",
"For most of human history, attraction didn't have a heck of a lot to do with mating.",
"I would guess for most of history people lived in small communities and just mated with whoever else happened to be in that community, around their age. No TV or internet so you weren't really aware how much less attractive your mate was when considered with the rest of the world.",
"In comparison to even a couple hundred years ago, we are generally super models. We are taller, freer from birth defects, ethnically interesting, overall healthy, generally able to spend time and resources on our hygiene and appearance. \n\nThe bar just keeps rising. ",
"Have you seen photos of people from like 100 years ago? There are some ugly mugs memorialized out there. \n\nEdit: spelling",
"Ugly people will still mate with ugly people.",
"How do you know it hasn't? How do you know the human race isn't 20%, or 50% \"prettier\" in average than how we would be if sexual attraction played no role?",
" Long story short:\n\n\nThere are too many \"Branches\" to the selection tree, I.E. there are so many variations as to what people think are \"attractive\" that you wouldn't see a change in biological traits for centuries if at all. ",
"Attraction is different to different people. \"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder\"",
"What we consider attractive changes.\n\nYears ago rounder more heavy people where considered the ideal of beauty (just look at [older artwork](_URL_0_)). ",
"Its not necessarily the case that two attractive people will have attractive children. Think of it this way, while a father may have features that are attractive on a male and a mother may have attractive features on a female, that doesn't mean that those features will be attractive if they are inherited by a child of the opposite sex. ",
"It has! Sort of!\n\nThere has been [research](_URL_0_) recently into attractiveness that has found that \"average\" is attractive. That is, people with \"average\" attributes (in terms of measurable things like distance between the eyes, length of the nose, etc), are widely perceived as attractive.\n\nWe need to make a caveat, though, because super models are not at all \"average\". In fact, they are chosen for this reason, to stand out and make an impression. So no, evolution hasn't turned us all into super models, but evolution *has* made us *on average* quite attractive!",
"People didn't have much choice who to mate with even 100 years ago, let alone on evolutionary time scales. Think back before cars or bikes or any kind of fast travel. Most people lived in small communities and had very few options. Ugly or not you'll probably reproduce. Also, what is attractive now wasn't necessarily attractive a long time ago.",
"standard of beauty change radically due to culture. the obvious example is that fat used to be attractive.",
"Because what one person finds attractive might not be the same as what the next person finds attractive... Not everyone finds \"Supermodels\" attractive, most are too unhealthy ribcage showing thin...",
"Rich people can be ugly.",
"Because ugly people fuck and create ugly children. ",
"1. Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. \n2. DNA copying routines occasionally make mistakes, which has positives and negatives. Good for the species as a whole, though. \n3. Nutrition at an early age plays a role in development ",
"One word: Alcohol",
"Getting pregnant is something the 'super model type' tends to avoid. \n\n It's a lot of work to regain a perfect physique after a pregnancy.",
"You think ugly people don't want to have sex too??",
"There are ugly people who mate with ugly people.",
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. Not everyone has the same definition for beauty.\n\nAnother point to keep in mind is that natural selection is not based on sexual ATTRACTION, but is instead based on sexual SUCCESS. I've been attracted to plenty of women but have not been sexually successful with all of them.\n\nSpeaking of attraction vs success, we also have to consider the \"take what you can get\" mentality. People will lower their standards based on their perception of themselves. Although I wasn't thrilled with the movie overall (and never read the book), I love the quote from The Perks of Being a Wallflower that goes \"We accept the love we think we deserve.\"\n\nAll these factors and more will play a role in keeping the subjective trait of \"beauty\" quite varied for some time to come. But it isn't because natural selection isn't working, it's simply because of how people perceive themselves and how society helps influence those perceptions.",
"**Human beings are just really sexy chimps.**",
"Because 'I'm horny and you're good enough' counts too.",
"The way I see it is this:\n\nSuper models are typically seen as \"more attractive that the average person.\" If everyone ended up looking like supermodels, or at least, what we view to be \"attractive supermodels,\" then most people would not really be able to compare the differences. Imagine that out of a scale of 1-10, everyone was an 8.5 or higher (to our standards right now). In a world where everyone looks like a model, people we would normally view as an 8.5 now, could be like a 5 or a 6 in that world",
"Ethics. We're not Sparta. We don't kill our perceived inferior stock because we hold the value that every human life is precious/has something to contribute to society. \n\nCapitalism. The more insecure you are, the more shit you buy that you don't need. There's no incentive for society to work towards everyone being healthy and beautiful; If everyone was gorgeous and confident, they would buy less things to make themselves feel better/prettier. People buy more clothes, makeup, and drugs when they're miserable.\n\nSubjective beauty. Not everyone finds the same things to be beautiful and this causes us to argue over what is beautiful... it's going to be an issue until we've 100% conformed to each other. \n\nTLDR; Murdering [your idea of] ugly people is wrong and there's no financial incentive to establish a healthy society. ",
"Natural selection due to sexual preference requires hundreds of years to become apparent. The idea of a modern day 'super model' physique is a recent phenomenon made apparent by the media. In the 18th century and earlier, attractiveness was beholden in those much heavier than the average 'attractive' person now (fat was attributed to wealth, which made it 'beautiful'). It could be concluded that the opinion of attractive has changed rapidly enough that natural selection cannot act quick enough to maintain a standard.",
"The problem is that, given a healthy body, *everyone* can be attractive. However, what evolution doesn't consider is the fact that we don't live in caves anymore. Food is easy to find, but our body doesn't really tell us to stop eating because we were designed to store as much calories as we could, since food was difficult to get. This makes us fat. My main point however is how our mind developed. Now, I don't believe that \"beauty is in the eyes of the beholder\" but we're kinda close. We learned that certain smells/features/behaviours are not attractive because our society is based upon different ideas. Try to think back to the Iron Ager: there were no perfume there nor razors, everyone smelled like pig, but they still got laid, because they had no idea what a perfume is. We do, and since we like it we've built and entire mindset around it. Nowadays, if you don't clean yourself, you stink. There are pleny of answers to your question but they have already been told, I just wanted to add something els ",
"because society dictates what is deemed \"attractive\" ",
"Not everybody is attracted to super models.",
"Ever see someone ugly by a bonfire, or candlelight?\n\nDo you also have perfect vision unaided?\n\nThat was what we were dealing with up until a few centuries ago.",
"beauty is in the eye of the beholder, so unattractive people find mates and have kids too and think they are beautiful. plus, have you ever seen a good looking family with one ugliest kid, it happens. sometimes someone you might consider ugly could look good with a change of hairstyle, good skin care and a wardrobe change.",
"People tend to subconsciously become attracted to people that are more on their \"level\" per say in terms of sexual attractiveness. In other words, ugly people will take what they can get.",
"Because there's someone out there for everybody man :D No matter how ugly you may think you are, someone, somewhere, would fuck you",
"Is this a default subreddit now? Because wow has it gone to shit.",
"I have no source for this, and it's just a thought, but perhaps we *are* a lot better looking than we were, but as the standard rises so does people's expectations. ",
"Supposing that everybody who has ever mated was attractive, how would we recognize ourselves as \"supermodels?\" \n\nWe will always point out differences in each other (unless this turns into 1984 or that episode of the twilight zone, \"Number 12 Looks Just Like You\"). \n\nWho knows, we may even have a case of \"Eye of the Beholder\" on our hands. \n\nHow do we define \"beautiful,\" or \"attractive\"? To me, these words mean scoring \"above average\" or better from the standpoint of appearance. Well, mankind may have been doing this since the beginning (that is, selecting those which we find \"attractive\"), and we just don't recognize it because, as times change, so do our perceptions. What was considered grounds for being \"attractive\" 100 years ago may be \"ugly\" to us now, but we don't realize it because our perception of beauty has evolved as much as we have.",
"definition of attractive varies faster than evolution could ever catch up. see what was considered attractive mere 50 years ago compared to now.\n\nplus, being not perfectly attractive doesn't prevent people from having children.",
"Who's to say natural selection HASN'T turned us all into super models, but over time, we got used to everyone being sexy and raised our insanely high standards even more? ",
"We are supposed to breed kids fast. The more, the better. Quantity > quality.",
"When looking for someone to bear and raise children whilst within a hostile environment, beauty, all of a sudden, becomes a forgotten luxury. Attractiveness, of course, is an important trait that would attempt to float to the top of the gene pool. However, it's not the only important trait as it can be deemed unimportant fairly quickly.\n\nThere's also money, security, health, sustainability, responsibility, strength, etc... And who knows how many more, it's all circumstantial. \n\nSimple version: Which man has more of a chance of protecting me from ravenous beasts, the studly looking man or the slightly less attractive man who is super strong? Or conversely: which woman has more of a chance performing her fair share, the beautiful maiden, or the down n dirty girl who gets the job done? \n\nIt's not that these qualities are exclusive, but it's an example at the least.",
"Because ugly people still fuck. They ruin it for us beautifull people. Fucking inconsiderate cunts. We should do something about it. ",
"Interesting the number of men who comment on wealth in this discussion. ",
"Who says we aren't?",
"One thing that has not been mentioned so far, is the theory that different genes give attractiveness to the two genders. So a very attractive woman mating with a very attractive man would not necessarily give rise to the most attractive kid, because the hyperfemale and hypermale characteristics cancel out.",
"Because there's beautiful people like Angelina Jolie + Brad Pitt who decide to adopt.",
"Attractiveness is perceived relative to the population. \n\nSuppose that nature pushed us to be more attractive. You would still see variation in looks, so you would still be asking the same question. \n\n\n",
"Have you seen pics from the 1800s? Compared to them, we ARE super models.",
"Because attractive people dont have too much of a competitive advantage. Ugly people still reproduce and dont just die out.",
"Natural selection takes a long, long time, and humanity has only been around for give or take 50,000 years. And plus we have gotten a shitload more \"attractive\" in that time given a normal evolutionary scale.",
"Never heard the phrase \"beauty is in the eye of the beholder\" attractiveness is subjective.",
"Because ugly people need love too.",
"I don't think anyone mentioned here that what people consider as \"attractive\" changes over time. In order for activeness to have meaning is has to be relative to something we consider unattractive, sort of how rich people are considered rich relative to poor people. It's us humans competing for something and beauty is subjective and decided culturally.",
"What is considered \"attractive\" is a personnel preference, so I assume it's borderline impossible to evolve 1 attractive person using 1 million peoples opinions. \n\nThough, I guess you could argue we have evolved into what we generally consider to be attractive, because most Woman tend to have a curvy body, which most Men consider attractive, same goes for Men, I don't know what most Women are attracted to, but I assume most Men have the ability to look attractive. It seems like we're all born with the tools to be \"attractive\" we just don't all take advantage of that, allot of us eat shit, and don't exercise.",
"For a trait to dominate a species there has to be selective pressure for survival, being average looking does not lessen your chance to survive and proliferate.",
"Being \"Attractive\" is a purely subjective thing. For example, almost every day, on r/ladyboners they post pictures of Chris Pine. I think he is a forehead with a face, and therefore, not attractive. Women say they want a hot guy, but end up with the fat slob who can make them laugh. It's not always about physical appearance with humans.",
"I dont know what you say but i am a freaking super model...",
"For females, 70% of being hot is being thin and wearing make up.",
"Humans ARE already super model status. If we weren't you'd see super ugly asymmetrical people everywhere. (Symmetry is a key factor for beauty)",
"attractive females will still fuck money over looks. let the feminist riots begin..",
"Ever been drunk?",
"Different standards of attractiveness is one of many reasons.",
"Being unattractive doesn't stop people from having sex. It's like gravity.",
"You should have seen us 100,000 years ago... ",
"Because the ugly people continue to breed with ugly people. ",
"You could blame government assistance for giving the poor, ugly people money to survive.",
"So really we need to keep ugly people from fucking.",
" > Albert Einstein and Marilyn Monroe were seated together at a table. \"Hey Albert,\" said Marilyn. \"Imagine if we had a baby and it had my looks and your brains-it could do anything it wanted.\" \"Yes, my dear,\" replied Einstein. \"But what if it has my looks and your brains?\"\n\n-- Attributed to Groucho Marx or George Bernard Shaw",
"It has, your standards just keep rising. ",
"Evolutionary Biologist here: Lots of points to be made - \n\n1) Some people are saying that the ugly will still have kids with other ugly people, or that tastes vary. This is true, but ugliness is definitely a real, objective thing, and is definitely a marker of reduced fitness. selection *will* act against it....\n\n2) In fact it already has, ugliness conferring traits, deformities are rare. , there will always be ugly people because ugliness is an evolved reaction. It says \"this person has a poor genetic/developmental background, don't reproduce with them\". It's a moving target - if humanity became much more attractive over night, we'd all re-calibrate. But this will never happen because...\n\n3)The human genome, like all genomes, is the site of a constant battle between mutation and selection. Every time you copy it, errors are introduced. Those errors can only be eliminated by selection (much of it at the level of sperm cells and eggs). Even if your parents had literally perfect genomes, you'd have hundreds of new mutations. Where those mutations happened to fall will dictate, amongst other things, how ugly your are.",
"Because there are people (like me) who have low (or no) standards and will have sex with anyone if given the opportunity.",
"There is such a varying standard of beauty across cultures, that what we might perceive as beautiful may be interpreted by someone else as hideous. There are groups in Africa that think stretching ones neck with metal rings makes a person beautiful. Another factor to consider is how much we as a species have interbred with other people from around the world, producing children with a menagerie of features that come from a variety of different cultures, which inevitably leads to some unlikely combinations of features that sometimes look good, and other times look terrible. And finally, two amazing looking people can just have an ugly kid. Recessive genes can be a real bitch sometimes.",
"Sexual selection allows us to choose which changes the parameters of natural selection. No longer do the fittest survive, but those who have the purdies do",
"Speak for yourself OP",
"Go back and look at some old pictures or look at most paintings from the past. We ARE supermodels in comparison. \n\nMona Lisa was the bomb.",
"The quick and easy answer is that our evaluation of what is physically attractive moves in line with out change in attractiveness.\n\nThink of it like intelligence. If we all got smarter and smarter, we'd all get A's in school, right? Except that assumes the evaluation stays fixed. We take the variation of scores across the population of students and set the highest as A and lowest fringe as F. \n\nIn that context, we'll never be more attractive; we'll always (as a population) be average attractiveness. This occurs because attractiveness functions as a *differentiator*. The feelings of attraction are all about reading signals that the other person is of \"higher quality\" of what is out there for mates, meaning where they fit on the variations of the population. If we were all of similar appearance quality (meaning proxy indicators for potential reproductive success) there'd be no differentiation. If there's no differentiation, there is no selective pressure to evaluate based on appearance. If there is no selective pressure to evaluate based on appearance, there is no pressure to *be* more physically attractive. So the concept of us all becoming supermodels is self-defeating; sexual selection can't get us there.\n\nAlso, physical attractiveness isn't the *only* driver of mate choice, particularly for females of a species. They have to be more discriminating because of their greater investment in reproduction, but the discrimination is on things that maximize their reproductive success like providing them with extra calories, resources, protection, etc., while pregnant and nursing, and protection of the offspring. So resource acquisition (wealth), strength, social status, family commitment, etc., are all attractors in addition to the purely physical appearance. Males, on the other hand, maximize their reproductive success either by impregnating many more females (lower discrimination) or by committing to a younger, fertile, parasite-free female with no other kids. Male judgment of beauty tends to follow proxies of these things: young appearance, flush (blood flow showing fertility), engorged red lips (hi-jacking our attraction for the other set of lips), and so forth. Things like ability to acquire resources and social status aren't as important for male reproductive success, so don't tend to be as big drivers. But for females, there are many more drivers of attraction.\n\nFinally, you also have to consider that our modern appearance is not just a factor of \"attractiveness\" genes. For example, our love of high-sugar and high-fat foods came from a time of scarcity; craving those things would have given us a reproductive advantage in acquiring and storing calories. And, those with a tendency to easily store calories might have had an advantage. In modern times of abundance, these tend to make us fat, slow, and diabetic. ",
"The flaw with this argument is that what makes a man's face attractive is very different to what makes a woman's face attractive. \n\nLet's imagine a gorgeous couple. The male has a strong and imposing square jaw and rugged features. These include an overhanging brow that make his eyes look all the more intense and give him the classic brooding looks of a 50's film star. The woman has delicate features. In short, they both fit our stereotypes of what features are attractive for a male and female. \n\nThey decide to have children. Their first child is a girl. \n\nShe inherits most of her father's dominant features. Have you ever seen a beautiful woman with a strong and imposing square jaw and an overhanging brow? It happens, but generally a broad jaw looks more appealing on a man as it's considered a masculine feature.\n\nYou can imagine the reverse, too. A guy with a delicate button nose and bow mouth. (Probably easier to get away with than the reverse.) \n\nI'm sure you can think of many real life examples where the children of celebrities have inherited the features of their opposite sex parent..\n\nBeautiful parents provide no guarantee of supermodel offspring. And so what? Variety is the spice of life!",
"It sort of has... Have you seen what beautiful women looked like a couple hundred years ago? Apparently Mona Lisa was a real looker. ",
"Lots of good responses, but I'd like to point out also that attractiveness as it relates to facial structure / prettiness has a lot to do with what faces you have encountered thus far is life. Your brain averages out these features in all the faces it has \"decoded\" and pretty becomes the most average. There are certainly other factors like the ratio of distances between facial elements and bilateral symmetry but this averaging plays a big role. In that sense, and many others, attractiveness evolves over time.",
"Now you know damn well we can't live in a world of pretty people. Or else we would all just be jealous of each other and stab each other in the back...more",
"Jesus gave us wine.",
"a lot of the comments provided are all akin to Darwin's theory of Evolution. Attraction is based on an constantly evolving and diverging scale. In a famine a mate that has more body fat would be more attractive. When food is plentiful some other quality would become the new driving force for attraction(Money for instance). To go even beyond attraction being a deciding factor for reproduction. You must think of attraction being based upon the level of Fitness for your environment. A good example of this can be seen in diseases that are genetically transferred. One would think that the genetic diseases would just inherently be bread out. Yet they are still present, this is because at some point having the disease was beneficial to your fitness/survival in your environment. A simple example of this is Sickle-Cell anemia, not a favorable condition in developed countries. Yet, in countries where malaria is rampant Sickle Cell helps prevent you from the affects of Malaria. There are many more variants to this, Ashkenazi Jews have a multiple variance of genetic diseases that have had similar +/-, just as Sickle Cell. So, all in all your fitness/attraction level is all based on your surrounding environment and how you successful you are within it. In our short lives compared to the over all existence of Homo sapiens. We have lived in a commercially driven, Wealth orientated society. We have ben groomed to believe that attraction is the driving force behind reproduction. Sadly this is our environment, and we are now reproducing based on what our environment is perceived to be. A photo shopped commercial, if we can agree on that. Then we would just be now breeding based on attraction. This would not be enough time in terms of evolution to have a population of just supermodel people.\nSorry for grammatical and poor writing.\nTLDR; attraction is based on environmental fitness. ",
"Speak for yourself.",
"Maybe we all are supermodels compared to people from hundreds of thousands of years ago...",
"[Evolution makes women more attractive](_URL_0_)\n\nWomen are evolving to be more attractive. There are other factors that are more important to mate selection of males, though. Strength, for example.\n\nBut there are also environmental factors that effect attractiveness. So you could have very attractive genes, but getting sick or injured while developing can make you less attractive. \n\nBut on average, the more attractive women have better access to higher quality mates, so they reproduce more effectively - and the race has grown more attractive, at least on the female side. \n\nI mean, have you even *seen* pictures of people from the 1890's?",
"If any of us travelled back 10,000+ years we would look like supermodels to the people there. So your loaded question assumes something that isn't really true. ",
"Watch Idiocracy, it'll clear a lot of things up in the first 5 minutes, then enjoy the rest of the hilarious movie.",
"Have you *seen* what dudes will fuck?\n\nThat is the meanest thought I'll have today. \n\nStill, though.",
"if you've seen the jeremy kyle show before, you would know that disgustingly repulsive people still have children together",
"I'm no scientist, but another contributing factor is the fact that pretty women will put up with ugly men if they are great providers. A phenomenon that still exists today. ",
"Alcohol and faulty condoms play a role.",
"Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. We often fall in love and become attracted to people who aren't necessarily beautiful to others, but they have other attributes. Even if the parents are \"conventionally attractive\" there is likely still DNA from ugly ancestors in the mix.",
"Look at Bruce Willis' daughter... attractiveness isn't a gene thing",
"Because people like your Dad still rape fat chicks like your mom.",
"Money and power. Ugly rich men banging supermodels.",
"Because society's standard of beauty changes over time, and individual definitions of attractiveness vary greatly. ",
"If you ever go to Oxford, MS you'll notice a plethora of really gorgeous white people (there are gorgeous black people too, but thats not the point here). It really is a unique area. There is a higher percentage per capita of petite beautiful blonde women and large muscly men-folk. \n\nFrom what I understand, many decades ago, Oxford was the preeminent spot to go if you wanted to pursue pageantry (Ms. America, etc). There were world-renowned trainers there and such. \n\nAnyway, after many many years of beautiful people flocking there for that and a lot of them settling down there and having kids, there is a legitimately distinctness to the city where a large number of the people are really really pretty. \n\nThey're still a bunch of racists though. ",
"Sexual selection has probably paid a big part of how humans now look. It's just that what's attractive changes by era and by culture. ",
"everyone has their own perspective on beauty",
"If everyone is a super model, then nobody is a super model",
"We ARE all supermodels, you should see how ugly the ones are that have been removed due to natural selection.",
"Stupid people breed more. And are usually significantly less attractive. ",
"Evolution and survival is 100% about reproductive success. If you are a non-human animal and you lost the genetic lottery, you have a low chance at reproductive success because of the reliance on physical features. \n\nFor humans, this is still true, but there are other factors that go into reproductive success. \n\nHumans obviously have a unique and complex social structure. Other species only have tiny samples of the incredible magnitude of rules, norms, and behaviors expressed by humans. \n\nOur ability to reason on an advanced level has allowed us to internally score our reproductive success based on our interactions with others. Each factor gives us a weighted score, which is combined. The weights change with age. \n\n- Physical attraction. Tall, dark muscular. Tall, big tits, big ass. Symmetrical facial features. Physically healthy. These factors score higher than asymmetry, lack of height, and being overweight.\n\n- Social competency. How is this person in social circles? Are they the alpha dog? Are they a passive beta dog? Are they somewhere in between? \n\n- Intelligence. Despite the number of dumb people breeding, I still think that perceived intelligence is a large factor.\n\n- Ability to care for family. The obvious indicator of this is money, but there are other factors like having a big family (especially if money is hard to come by).\n\n\nSo in this equation - if you were to plot it out, you'd see some autocorrelation:\n\n- Some people get hired to well paying jobs because they're physically attractive and socially competent\n- Some people are socially competent because they're incredibly physically attractive\n- etc\n\nAs we age, the score weights shift. A young person will weigh Physical attractiveness higher than ability to care for family. A 35 year old woman might adjust these weights as she's almost at the end of her peak years to give birth. ",
"We look better then apes. I'd say we did pretty good. It's all relative.\n",
"Because humans destroyed their natural selection long ago. ",
"Please define attractiveness? ",
"I think everyone's perception of beauty is different. Gisele Bundchen is a supermodel that a lot of people do not find attractive. Survival is and always will be the main priority when it comes to natural selection. ",
"The concept of what is attractive changes from time to time, and culture to culture.",
"Compared to a chimpanzee, every human is massively attractive... to humans.\n\nThe fact that there's still variation is an important part of evolution: the mutation part. If everyone had the same genetic makeup evolution would stop.",
"I'm not sure that we haven't. Let me 'splain...\n\nWe have undoubtedly become taller on average as well as faster and stronger as measured by records in international competition going down to the high school level. Additionally, we have eliminated or greatly reduced or have treatments for some of the most disfiguring diseases like elephantiasis and small pox. I would also be willing to bet--though I have no proof that things like facial symmetry and incidence of coming close to the golden ratio have become more common over the last several thousand years.\n\nSo, in short...maybe in a way we have.",
"One word ... Tequila",
"How do you know we aren't all supermodels compared to people 10,000 years ago?",
"I'll actually explain like you're five:\n\nA penis will get inserted into a vaginga. Literally all the time no matter what.",
"I don't find super models attractive. ",
"Having a lot of money trumps over being attractive.\n",
"Because beauty is subjective and what's considered attractive is constantly changing so it's kind of impossible for natural selection to accommodate that. ",
"If you rated everyone on a scale of 1-10 you would find most people couple with individuals within 1-2 points of themselves.",
"Attractiveness comes in different forms.....physical beauty isnt everything. I've dated several gorgeous guys only to find out they are really stupid, self absorbed or a complete bore to be around. I grow up a little, meet someone who isnt model material, but he makes me laugh treats me like I'm a prince, and so much more....he's so much more attractive to me than any of the other hot guys I've dated. Our 13 years of bliss being together has proved that!",
"because ugly people get laid too",
"Two wrongs don't make a right? \n\nTwo fuglies don't make a super model. ",
"Because uglies fuck uglies"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.daydaypaint.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Venus-and-Cupid-Painting-by-Tiziano-Vecellio.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://homepage.psy.utexas.edu/HomePage/Group/LangloisLAB/PDFs/Langlois.PS.1990.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.abc.net.au/news/2009-07-29/evolution-makes-women-more-attractive/1371676"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4hdbhv
|
Is it possible to 'write' in Cuneiform?
|
Hi /r/askhistorians!
I was wondering if it was possible to write new documents in Cuneiform. obviously it's vocabulary is limited, but would it be possible to pull from a vocabulary to craft new 'sentences' or phrases in Cuneiform, similar to the way we can with Hieroglyphic and Latin?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4hdbhv/is_it_possible_to_write_in_cuneiform/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2padqq"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind that cuneiform, as a script, is not identified with any single language or language family, but was rather adapted via Sumerian origins to write a collection of Mesopotamian languages, some of which belong to extinct families and none of which are related to Sumerian itself. Which is to say, familiarity with Sumerian offers precisely nothing whatsoever toward the comprehension of any other language written using cuneiform script. In the same way that our ability to decipher Linear B as a script, via Greek, offers nothing to our comprehension of syllabic Linear A (whose language appears to be non-Indo-European, but is otherwise a mystery). \n \nThis being the case, the answer to this question is *entirely* dependent on which language is being spoken of. Akkadian is very well understood, as it offers an extremely large and well-studied corpus, and belongs to an otherwise well-understood language family (Semitic). Elamite is poorly understood by comparison, as it is, like Sumerian, a language isolate, but lacks Sumerian's central importance to the study of human language history. \n \nSo can we write *new* documents in these languages, *analogous to the documents which have survived in them, from the ancient period?* Yes! But therein lies the caveat. Eblaite accounting ledgers may give scholars a good understanding of Eblaite names for various commodities, and means of enumerating values. But they do not instruct one in how to say \"How is your mother doing these days?\" A 1000 word historical record may tell us a great deal about how events can be described in the past tense third person indicative, but provide us not a single second person inflection or phrase in the imperative mood. The genre of a text frequently dictates what it can teach us and what it cannot, leaving inflectional paradigms a messy, incomplete patchwork. And ancient corpora are seldom diverse in their genre content. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
66ajc0
|
how come headphones/earphones can sometimes break in such a way that when you listen to audio, the background noise is audible but all the voices are completely mute?
|
Context: Dropped my headphones, wanted to test if it still worked, connected it, and watched a music video. Could hear all the trees rustling, cars, etc, but not the actual singing. Gave the headphone a few whacks then replugged it - and it started working like brand new again.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66ajc0/eli5_how_come_headphonesearphones_can_sometimes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dggw91d"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you look on most headphone plugs, there are rings. Some have 2, if they have a microphone there will be 3 or more. Inside the headphone jack, there are corresponding metal nipples, one transmits sound from the left and right, etc. When one of those rings or nipples gets damaged you get unpredictable sound.\n\nLife pro tip, don't wrap your headphones around your device while they are still plugged in, that's a one way ticket to device failure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4c7ui8
|
Did the Roman Empire have its own Urban Legends, and if so what were they?
|
Our society is pervaded by persistent urban legends such as "Walt Disney was cryonically frozen in waiting of medical advances susceptible of reviving him" or "Baby alligators sold as pets in Florida were flushed in New York toilets and are thriving and breeding there".
Did the Roman Empire have its own Urban Legends, and if so what were they?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4c7ui8/did_the_roman_empire_have_its_own_urban_legends/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1fszoq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The term \"urban legend\" was created to describe modern, traditional stories to be believed. Legends have always fallen into several groups, but the genre hangs together as stories that are generally intended to be believed. Not all of the stories are traditional (even if they employ traditional beliefs). \n\nFor example, if I tell someone, \"you wouldn't believe what I saw last night. It was really weird and I think it was... [fill in the blank with an entity that is regarded as possible by modern standards - including, an angel, a ghost, an extraterrestrial].\" That story may not be repeated so it ends with that. It is what the great folklore theoretician Carl Wilhelm von Sydow (1878-1952) called a \"memorate\" - a personal account that may employ traditional beliefs but does not rise to the level of becoming a traditional story by being repeated. Probably all cultures tells these short forms of stories, so we can imagine the Romans did as well.\n\nOther legends consist of traditional stories and beliefs. In pre-industrial cultures, we generally refer to these as migratory legends. The first to catalogue these stories was the great Norwegian folklorist Reidar Th. Christiansen (1886-1971). These tended to die out with modernization. When folklorists recognized that modern society had legendary-like stories being told over distance and time, they arrived at the term \"urban legend\" in recognition that these stories were modern and they thrived in an urban setting. There is a flaw in the distinction implied by this name since migratory legends could also thrive in a pre-modern urban setting. In fact, the term \"urban legend\" is unfortunate because it implies that \"our\" folklore is different from that of pre-industrial people. \n\nThe only significant difference between an urban legend and the migratory legend is that the former tends to be debunked quickly, so its life is often shortened. Also, some of these legends are dependent on technology, and so when technology changes or becomes general accepted and understood, the urban legend fades. Thus, when I ask my folklore classes if anyone has heard the story of the poodle in the microwave or of the foreign tourist misunderstanding how cruise control works while driving on an LA freeway, students younger than 40 tend to have never heard the stories, while those older remember them very well. These were very popular in their time, but they quickly become obsolete and so they faded away.\n\nWhich gets us to the Roman Empire and the question of migratory legends. These would be what people in the empire would have told to be believed - the counterpart of today's urban legend. Since we have a great many sources from the period, we can recognize many stories that were captured in Roman literature that were repeated until the nineteenth century, and we can glimpse stories that may not have survived but were likely traditional for at least a while even if they did not survive.\n\nFor example, the first-century \"Satyricon\" includes two legends, one involving the supernatural abduction of an infant and the other a man transforming himself into a werewolf. Motifs associated with both stories are recognizable in European folklore collections from the nineteenth century. Other stories appear in primary sources involving Roman-era mythology, and these too (they were stories told generally to be believed) are often echoed in pre-industrial migratory legends.\n\nSo the answer to your question is that people in the Empire did indeed tell stories to be believed that echoed what we know today as urban legends. The traditional European migratory legend typically lasted longer than an urban legend, but it behaved in much the same way. These were entertaining stories that were thrilling to hear and imagine to be true. Skeptics in any century may ruined the fun but the genre continues to thrive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
47uj27
|
Can an object become a black hole by moving fast enough?
|
this week in school we have been learning about special relativity and we learnt that an objects mass increases as its speed approaches c. Does this mean there would be a point where its mass is large enough that it could become a black hole?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/47uj27/can_an_object_become_a_black_hole_by_moving_fast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0fqzxt",
"d0fw2dx",
"d0fwyzj",
"d0g8bk4"
],
"score": [
1190,
21,
502,
3
],
"text": [
"No. The easiest way to see why the answer is no is to remember the laws of physics have to work the same in every inertial frame of reference (per special relativity). If the object won't act as a black whole in its stationary frame of reference, the same must be true for any other frame of reference where its speed can be arbitrarily high.",
"No, because the mass of an object does not grow with velocity. There is a term \\gamma * m_0 (m_0 is the mass of the object at rest) that appears in some formulas of special relativity. A few decades ago this term was interpreted as \"relativistic mass\" that increases with increasing velocity of the object.\n\nNowadays this interpretation is dismissed because it does not yield a better understanding of relativistic physics. The term in the formula is correct, but the \"growing relativistic mass\" is not physical in the sense that the object becomes really heavier.",
"Here is my (well-deserved) rant against relativistic mass. (Your answer is buried in there somewhere. The answer is \"no\".)\n\n---\n\nI honestly do not know why many intro texts, courses, and teachers insist on telling students that an object's mass increases as its speed increases. This concept is so incredibly misleading and incorrect, that it's no wonder so many students are confused by it.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe concept of relativistic mass is used only in some vain attempt to keep the Newtonian formula for momentum (p = mv) true in relativity as well. That seems like a good idea, for then the formula for total energy would be rather simple also (E = mc^(2)). Beyond those two very specific uses, there is no use for the concept of relativistic mass and you just end up getting a bunch of nonsense.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nFor one, you find that Newton's second law no longer has the nice formula F = ma, and you have to assign different relativistic masses to each direction of the force. That is, in SR, the force is not always parallel to the acceleration, and the \"mass\" appearing in the tangential direction is different from the \"mass\" appearing in the transverse direction. Second, we end up getting rather nonsensical implications, like that which the OP has come across. If mass increases as an object's speed increases, then eventually it should be massive enough to be within its own Schwarzschild radius and become a black hole... but in its own rest frame it's not massive enough. So what's going on? (It's not a black hole.)\n\n & nbsp;\n\nRelativistic mass is really just another name for the energy E. So where does relativistic mass come from anyway? The formula for the momentum of a particle with \"rest mass\" *m* and velocity **v** in SR is **p** = γm**v**, where γ is the Lorentz factor. So to retain the formula **p** = M**v**, we define a new \"relativistic mass\" given by M = γm. But it's actually just much more natural to define a new quantity called the 4-velocity, whose spatial components are γ**v**. The time-component is γc, and the whole thing is U = (γc, γ**v**). The 4-momentum is then P = mU, in analogy with Newtonian physics. The mass of a particle is then *invariant*. All observers agree on the value of *m*.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nRelativistic mass is really just a desperate attempt to hang on to old formulas and concepts from Newtonian physics. An object that is accelerated *does* appear to have increasing inertia, but only if you look at the problem from a Newtonian view. The object's speed cannot exceed *c*. If the object (in its own frame) is accelerating at some constant (proper) acceleration *a*, the outside observer will see the object slowly decelerate to zero acceleration as its speed approaches *c*. So it appears as if the inertia (the *m* appearing in F = ma) is increasing. This is a *terrible* way to analyze that problem. For one, this analysis is based on Newton's second law, yet the relativistic mass is related to the number *m* appearing in the momentum formula p = mv. This is a subtle issue. In Newtonian physics, the \"m\" appearing in F = ma and p = mv are automatically the same number. But if you carry out the above analysis that the accelerating object's inertia is increasing, then you have to give up the notion that the \"inertial mass\" and \"momentum mass\" are actually the same. (Again, the reason is that the force is actually not parallel to the acceleration in general, and to have any hope of consistency, relativistic mass would have to be different in the transverse and parallel directions.) Today, we understand that energy plays that inertial role. The mass doesn't change, but the energy formula has changed in such a way that the object's energy approaches infinity as its speed approaches *c*.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nWhy jump though all those hoops and redefine the concept of mass in such a way that turns out to be woefully inconsistent once you start to analyze more complex problems? It's better just to realize that relativity requires that the universe has a different *geometry* than that of Newtonian physics. The impossibility of an object's speed exceeding *c* has nothing to do with increased inertia, but rather the underlying geometry of the universe. Thus it is more natural to change how we view and define position and velocity, especially once we see that time and space must be unified into spacetime. (Of course, once you go to GR, despite the difficulties in defining mass, it is very immediately obvious that you should not define it in a frame-dependent way. So relativistic mass is super incorrect in GR.)\n\n & nbsp;\n\nDespite Einstein himself discouraging the use of relativistic mass, the concept became very popular. In the late 1980s, several physicists began a bit of a movement against relativistic mass. I was in high school in the early 2000s when I first learned physics, and I have never personally used a text or taken a course that used relativistic mass. (I didn't even realize such a concept existed until halfway through college when I came across an old text on relativity.) So I am guessing that somewhere in the 1990's or maybe even the early 2000s, the majority of physicists had gotten on board with the death to relativistic mass. So today when I read questions like that of the OP, I just cringe and wince. Who the hell is out there still teaching this terrible and outdated concept? Ugh.",
"You could theoretically produce a black hole by having two objects moving fast enough strike each other, that is to say squeeze into a small enough space the system is smaller than its Schwartzchild limit, but it would require an unfeasibly large amount of energy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4e7oe6
|
How do languages develop unnecessary complications? Why don't they evolve out of the language?
|
There appear to be many unnecessary complexities in most languages, such as distinctions or words that don't really add anything to the languages. These might be bad examples, but off the top of my head:
"is" vs "are” in English. They don't really have different meanings, but one just 'sounds right' with plurals and the other doesn't.
or
"Ikaw" vs "ka" in Tagalog. They both mean "you" but one tends to be used when a sentence starts with "you" and the other the rest of the time.
This sort of thing seems to add unnecessary complexity to a language. For instance, using "is" vs "are" doesn't really add any information to a sentence. So why hasn't it evolved out of the language?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4e7oe6/how_do_languages_develop_unnecessary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1y0itg"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Having agreement features - such as verbs agreeing with their arguments, genders on nouns (and their respective adjectives, determiners, etc) are all redundancy features. Think of them like a safety net. Language is not some perfect system, nor is the world we live in perfect for communication (due to things like background noise, misunderstandings, etc). Having redundancies in language allows for information to be better retained and transmitted. Think of it like this, if you take the two statements \"He is here\" and \"they are here\" but my dog barks during the first word you end up with [BARK] is here vs. [BARK] are here - you retain some information about who is here one person or several. \n \nThe same goes for things like case marking, some languages overtly mark nouns for their role in the sentence such that you don't confuse \"The dog bit the man\" with \"the man bit the dog\" even if the word order gets changed (for whatever reason. \n \nThere are two old r/linguistics threads which go into why languages have gender - found [here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_) - which is in the same line of thinking. Languages aren't designed to be logical and perfect. But these seemingly \"pointless\" features do make sense. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/36m6wq/what_are_the_benefits_of_having_gender_nouns/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/linguistics/comments/1kdxsc/are_there_any_reasonable_theories_as_to_why_nouns/"
]
] |
|
25pd6s
|
What side of the road did traffic drive on in allied occupied France in WWII?
|
So I'm on my phone right now and can't link to the picture but on the Wikipedia article for Pegasus Bridge it shows traffic driving on the left after capture by the British, however surely it would have been in the allied interest to have all traffic on the continent on the right? Sorry if I'm speculating but could anyone shed any light on this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25pd6s/what_side_of_the_road_did_traffic_drive_on_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chji1oz",
"chjkrx0"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"They drove on the right, as did the French.\n\nOf course, when a small area was under the total control of the British, practices may have varied—and a convoy of right-hand-drive vehicles proceeding across a bridge might find it easier to judge clearances if they drove on the left.",
"Practice varied dependent upon the formation. 21st army group's (Anglo-Canadian and polish forces) area of operations had left hand drive, the American sector was right hand. This was due to an inability to agree on which side was the correct side, and was responsible for a significant amount of rage and confusion at all levels during the war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
65e3tl
|
how much of my hunger is based on my regular eating schedule and how much on my body actually needing food?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65e3tl/eli5_how_much_of_my_hunger_is_based_on_my_regular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg9kk2r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Quite a lot is psychological. I feel hungry if I don't eat at lunchtime when I'm at work, when I usually eat a proper meal. I don't at the same time at weekends when I usually skip food until the evening. So feelings of hunger must be tied in to outside clues as to whether the body expects food."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
16gx8j
|
If the human population were reduced to one man and one woman, which types of incest would give the race the best chance to survive?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16gx8j/if_the_human_population_were_reduced_to_one_man/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7vxblx",
"c7vxrvj"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"On average, you share as much DNA with your siblings as you do with either of your parents. Not sure it would make an difference at all. ",
"This question was asked in a slightly different form in the past two weeks. The question comes down to population genetics and probabilities - how many people are necessary to keep a small population from becoming inbred.\n\nIIRC, the answer given there was ~16 people, where after a generation that large selective choices for mating could reduce or eliminate most problems associated with inbred genetics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
11frp8
|
autoimmunity
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11frp8/eli5_autoimmunity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6m2hd7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your immune systems attacks your own cells because they think they are foreign. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1si0v8
|
The Western Way of War: How true is the assertion that the Greeks preferred pitched phalanx battle and despised cavalry, missile troops, and most of all, archers?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1si0v8/the_western_way_of_war_how_true_is_the_assertion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdxs4ou",
"cdy2d3t"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"In respect to cavalry and missile troops, it isn't true.\n\nCavalry had been used to cover the flanks of armies on the battlefield but due to terrain, cavalry wasn't heavily used until Philip II. As for missile troops, slingers and peltasts are commonly used after the Persian Wars to skirmish and soften up the enemy but there is a distaste for archers. Archers don't have a strong tradition in the Greek or Roman armies. ",
"Just as a follow-up comment to /u/DonaldFDraper, the \"Western Way of War\" is classically understood to be not related to technology at all (although modern American military scientists continue to insist on technology's inclusion). In the classic sense, it a theory which posits the success of \"western\" cultures on the battlefield relies on an understanding of war which enables killing on a much grander scale than other cultures. \n\nSince the 1950s, modern American military science has started to suggest three elements (technology, willingness to kill (also sanitised as \"destructiveness\"), and \"whole of societal approaches\") are characteristic of the west, although this is disputed in the rest of the world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
35llio
|
What was Nazi Germany's attitude to the former German Royal Family?
|
What was Hitler and the Nazi Party's attitude towards the Kaiser? Did they like them, dislike them or was it more of an indifferent response?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35llio/what_was_nazi_germanys_attitude_to_the_former/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr5jx5i"
],
"score": [
87
],
"text": [
"Hitler and the Nazis took a very dim view of the German monarchy and were quite hostile to monarchist sentiment and supporters. That being said, he did allow the younger generation of nobles to serve as officers, seeing that they were more open to national socialism than their predecessors and seeing that they were invaluable as officers. Many of Kaiser Wilhelm's sons had children serving in the army, and many royals died in service to the Wehrmacht. But most royals were kicked out of the army as the war went on and Hitler grew increasingly paranoid about a possible monarchist coup. He held Bismarck in quite high esteem, and he saw the Monarch, specifically Kaiser Wilhelm as being the main stumbling block to Germany's success. This quote from Hitler during a meeting in 1941 is quite illuminating:\n\n > The injustice committed by the Kaiser at Bismarck's expense\nfinally recoiled upon him. How could the Kaiser demand\nloyalty from his subjects when he had treated the founder of\nthe Reich with such ingratitude? The shameful thing is that\nthe German people allowed such an injustice to be committed.\nThe generation of 1900 was lost—economically, politically and\nculturally.\n\nHe also spoke critically of the Kaiser's ability to command troops (with no sense of irony):\n\n > Apart from the great victories, like the battle of Tannenberg\nand the battle of the Masurian Marshes, the Imperial High\nCommand proved itself inadequate.\nThe Kaiser put in an appearance on one single occasion,\nbecause he believed that all would go well. During the great\noffensive of 1918, it was trumpeted around that the Kaiser was\ncommanding it in person. The truth was, the Kaiser had no\nnotion of command.\n\nHitler, at a dinner party in May of 1942, again went on a long rant about the Kaiser:\n\n > The behaviour of Wilhelm II in society was unworthy of a\nmonarch. Not only did he consistently ridicule the members of\nhis immediate entourage, but also fired a constant stream of\nironic remarks at his guests for the amusement of the remainder.\nHis bad taste and familiarity with other monarchs—backslapping\nand the like—robbed Germany of much sympathy.\nA monarch must learn that self-restraint and dignity must be\nobserved in everyday life.\nThe example of Wilhelm II shows how one bad monarch can\ndestroy a dynasty. In the same way, those who wish to play\ntheir parts in history must understand that one single bad\ngeneration can cause the ruin of a whole people.\n\nNow Hitler didn't hate monarchy as rule of thumb, indeed there were many German Kaisers and monarchs he respected, but he held dim a view of the Kaiser Wilhelm's monarchy. \n\nHimmler had a different view of the nobility, while Hitler saw them as needlessly decadent and incompetent. Himmler saw their years of selective breeding as being a good thing, assuming it would produce great racial qualities. As a result many young nobles joined the SS. By 1938 a fifth of the top SS officers were nobility. Many like Erich von dem Bach-Zelewski (who played a key role in the suppression of the Warsaw Uprising) found a home in the upper ranks of the SS. \n\nSo moving on from the military, things were not good for monarchists on the home front. In 1934 the Brownshirts and the Gestapo began cracking down on displays in favour of the monarchy. For example private celebrations of the Kaiser's birthday were banned, and celebrations were ruthlessly broken up. Hitler lavished bribes upon old monarchist officers like August Von Mackensen in order to drive them away from Monarchist sentiments. This particular case caused a bit of a ruckus because Von Mackensen wrote to the Kaiser asking if it was okay to accept a gift from Hitler. This show of respect managed to anger both Hitler and the former Kaiser. Finally, with the death of Hindenburg and Hitler's ascension to absolute power, many Monarchist organizations were banned and any hope of a restoration was gone completely.\n\nAmong the monarchists opinion was divided over the Nazis. During the Wiemar years a clear generational gap had emerged. During the Wiemar years many aristocrats had been deprived of their estates and had grown impoverished and had been politically marginalized by the Republic. They longed for the return of the good ole days of the German Empire. To the monarchists the Nazis plans of conquering and colonizing the eastern territories appealed to them and reminded them of their German ancestors who had done the same in Pomerania and Prussia. But to the older monarchists were also familiar with extremist groups. They viewed the Nazis with distrust and saw their fanaticism as being a fatal flaw. The Nazis racial speeches and violent tactics did little to win over the old monarchists. \n\nHowever, the generational gap had created a group of young, radicalized nobles. These nobles, many of whom belonged to the former royal family held much the same views as Hitler with regards to race and foreign policy. Much like Hitler, these young nobles despised the older generation for surrendering in 1918. This group of young nobles supported the Nazis. And the Nazis made great use of these supporters during election time, using them to win votes from conservatives who otherwise would have been put off by the Nazis fanaticism. Prince August Wilhelm of\nPrussia and Crown Prince Friedrich Wilhelm were both early supporters of Hitler. \n\nSo how did the Kaiser himself react to Nazism? Well he held much the same view that the older generation did. He initially supported the Nazis assuming that they would restore the monarchy, but once the Nazis made it clear that wasn't going to happen, he turned against them. He viewed things such as the night of the long knives, where the Nazis purged many monarchist supporters among others, as \"gangster tactics\" that had no place in Germany. \n\nKaiser Wilhelm in his later years kinda waned between being a supporter of Nazi racial doctrine, and being against it. He would often complain of a Jewish plot against Germany, with Jews manipulating Britain against Germany. But he also opposed the violence of things like the Night of Broken Glass, where Nazi supporters and angry German citizens attacked Jewish shops and synagogues. He said \"What would people have said if I did such a thing?\" \n\nThere was an incident before WWI, where Kaiser Wilhelm's son was given a book, written by a nationalist author named Konstantin von Gebsattel, called \"If I were Kaiser\" which argued for harsh measures against the Jews and the Social Democrats; as well as authoritarian rule by the Kaiser. The author forwarded his ideas to Kaiser Wilhelm's son, a known nationalist. The Kaiser shot down his son's and Gebsattel's ideas as \"Childish\" and \"potentially destabilizing.\" Furthermore Gebsattel was regarded as a \"Weird Enthusiast.\" None the less the Kaiser did read the book \"Foundations of the Nineteenth Century\" by Houston Stewart Chamberlain and looked fondly on its anti-Semitic stereotypes. But the Kaiser never dreamed of actually acting on those ideas, and didn't dream of seriosu restrictions on the Jewish population. \n\nWhen the Nazis took over the Netherlands, Kaiser Wilhelm was given a permanent SS guard and people were forbidden from visiting him to pay respects. Even Hermann Goering, the number 2 man in Nazi Germany, couldn't visit the Kaiser. Which speaks to Hitler's irrational fear of Monarchist sentiment. \n\nEdit:\n\nFor the quotes I drew directly from Hitler's Table Talk and Mein Kampf. For the Nazis smashing of the Monarchist movement I recommend Richard J. Evans' treatment of the Nazi political movement in his book \"The Third Reich in Power.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2zfj9i
|
when someone has their identity stolen, why is their responsibility to fix it and not those of the banks/organizations who allowed the thief to do so?
|
I can understand if my card gets skimmed and used at a bunch of retail outlets, but as far as taking out a mortgage or opening a new bank account, why aren't these institutions held responsible for not verifying one's identity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zfj9i/eli5_when_someone_has_their_identity_stolen_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpig91v",
"cpih66j",
"cpihoah",
"cpj4yxz"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"quick tip, when i trash anything that contains my info, and i dont have a shredder, i just put like 5 liters of water in to the bag, if you want to steal my info, better be prepared to deal with bunch of wet ripped paper in a bag.\n\ngood luck.\n\nif it dries before you get to it, all the better.",
"As a general rule, the bank/organization didn't let the thief steal your identity, you did. The bank didn't give them your info, they got it from something you did. Order online from a sketchy site? That's on you. Pay at a sketchy restaurant? That's on you. Use a tampered ATM? Also you. Bottom line is that unless someone hacks the bank's database to steal your info, they got it from *you,* so it's *your* responsibility to get it fixed. Typically banks will help you out by freezing your accounts when they see suspicious activity, but that's just them doing you a favor.",
" > as far as taking out a mortgage or opening a new bank account, why aren't these institutions held responsible for not verifying one's identity?\n\nIn such situations (which I suspect are *very* rare) the bank *did* verify the person's identity. The identity thief had all of the necessary documents and information to prove that they were you. That is, they provided the same documentation that you yourself would have been asked to give.\n\nSure, you could ask that the bank do a more thorough job, but that comes at a cost. Do you want to have to show a birth certificate and passport just to be able to open a savings account? Some risk is necessary to make the product they're offering convenient enough to be used at all. And if an identity thief manages to get a fake driver's license and social security card, knows the answers to all your security questions, etc. then the bank is just as much of a victim as you are.",
"There are a few good answers here already, but I'll delve into one more aspect of it - it's hard to determine liability in these situations. Did the bank lose your information, or did the identity thieves get that information through multiple sources? Was there active negligence on the part of the bank, or did the thieves exploit a bug that the bank was unaware of? If they exploited a bug, is it the bank's fault or the software vendor's fault?\n\nTake the Target breach that took place in late 2013. The thieves hacked into a company responsible for maintaining some A/C units to then gain access to Target's network, from where they attacked the server that pushed updates out to all of the cash register systems. They loaded a custom virus onto those servers which then exploited normal processes and was pushed out to all of the registers, from where they exploited the fraction of a second where the credit card number wasn't encrypted to capture it and send it off to the criminals who wrote the software. Who is at fault for that? Target, who had some very serious effort going in to maintaining information security? The A/C repair vendor, who didn't actually have anything to do with the servers in the first place? You, for shopping at Target and giving up your personal information to them? The software vendor that got exploited on the main server? \n\nThe problem here is also reflected in the prosecution of these crimes as well, in that these crimes are frequent, extremely complex, and usually take place over multiple jurisdictions (local, state, federal, and international). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ef1dac
|
why do fingernails turn translucently clear and become more flexible when wet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ef1dac/eli5_why_do_fingernails_turn_translucently_clear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbxrn2p"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Nails are made of the same stuff as your hair, and rhino horns: a protein called keratin. Keratin can come in lots of sizes and shapes. In your nails, it is like stacks of thin scales one on top of the other (you've probably seen nails that are damaged can flake and peel). The whiteness of your nail tips isn't from the colour of the keratin itself. It's white for the same reason clouds are white even though they're made of transparent water: it reflects light. The reflections happen at the edges of the keratin scales, where there are air gaps. When your nail gets wet, water fills these tiny air gaps and this reduces the amount of light that can get reflected: it can travel straight through and make the nail look transparent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ef2ik
|
What specific part of cigarettes are cancerous?
|
What is a carcinogen in cigarettes? Is it the smoke, nicotine, tar etc.. ? Also, what is the chemical makeup of the carcinogen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ef2ik/what_specific_part_of_cigarettes_are_cancerous/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9ztjwc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of carcinogens in cigarettes, with ~60 out of the 2000 - 4000 chemicals being known human carcinogens. The most common known carcinogens in cigarettes are:\n\n- Tar\n- Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (e.g. naphthalene, benzopyrene)\n- Nicotine (this hasn't be confirmed, however there have been associated links between tumor promotion and nicotine)\n- Formaldehyde\n- Nitrosamines\n\nOf course there's a fair few others such as Polonium-210, a radioactive element (low amounts, but still enough to be carcinogenic with frequent usage).\n\nThere are also other chemicals present in cigarette smoke that while might not be directly carcinogenic, could indirectly increases ones chances of cancer due to the cellular damage caused by said chemicals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ox28h
|
why is the letter "w" sometimes pronounced like the letter "v" and vice versa, the letter "v" is pronounced like the letter "w" in some non-english languages?
|
Two languages I can think of that do this are German and Latin
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ox28h/eli5_why_is_the_letter_w_sometimes_pronounced/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw17kbs",
"cw1b8sb"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Not all languages have the same grammatical constructs as English. Latin didn't have all the letters of modern day english, it was missing the J and W, and had the I and V in their place. ",
"The letter V was originally used in Latin to represent the sound /w/ (The English \"w\" sound). In vulgar Latin, that /w/ sound became the bilabial fricative /β/ between vowels. That sound is similar to a /v/ sound (as in English \"vat\"). Other languages borrowed the Latin alphabet, but they had a /w/ sound that Latin no longer had. So they used the digraph \"VV\" (or \"uu\") to represent that sound. Over time, that digraph began to be written as a ligature, \"W\". So they were using the letter W to represent the sound /w/. In some languages, that /w/ sound evolved into /v/, but they kept using the same letter. That's why German and other languages (I think Slavic languages and maybe a few other Germanic languages) use \"W\" to represent a /v/ sound."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2q1fec
|
If the speed of light changes when it travels through different mediums, does this mean light accelerates when it enter and leaves a medium?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2q1fec/if_the_speed_of_light_changes_when_it_travels/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn2bdjs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The short answer is no, the process of refraction is actually tricky to explain properly, but I will do my best! If we consider the classical picture of light, we have an electromagnetic (EM) wave which consists of oscillating electric and magnetic fields. As this wave enters a medium (such as glass) the oscillating electric and magnetic fields interact with the atoms that make up the material and cause the electrons within these atoms to oscillate as well. As these electrons oscillate they in turn produce EM waves themselves. \n\nSo now in our system we have our original EM wave from our light source, as well as many more EM waves created via oscillating electrons. All of these individual waves will interfere with each other and produce some total wave which is a superposition of all the contributions from the many EM waves in our system. In general, the result of this superposition is a wave which has a velocity less than the speed of light. However, it is important to note that this is not because any of the individual EM waves are moving slower than the speed of light, but because of relative phase shifts between the waves which leads to a superposition that gives a wave with a speed less than that of light.\n\nTo answer your question specifically, as light moves from one material to another the contributions to this superposition will change which will change the speed of the resultant superimposed wave, however the individual EM waves of light are not themselves accelerating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dv2gjz
|
How did debtors’ prison work?
|
How could one possibly acquire the funds necessary to get out of prison while being locked up? Unless someone came to bail them out, I see no other way. Is it possible perhaps that they were forced to work in the prison? Even then I am curious to how this would work, because the person owed money and the person keeping one captive were not the same. This would mean that one could not pay off his debt by simply working at the prison, they would have to work for money to then pay off the person they owed. What type of work would be done in these prisons anyhow? Also, the function of debtors prison is unclear to me. If you were owed money, would you be able to turn in your debtor and have them imprisoned by force?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dv2gjz/how_did_debtors_prison_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7c3at1"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The assumption by the creditors, in having a debtor put into a prison, was that the debtor's friends and family would step forward and pay the debts, that the debtor would somehow find the money somewhere...and that, unless the debtor wasn't put in jail, they would never step forward and do that. It is a pretty bizarre notion to our modern minds, but you have to remember that , for most people England in the 18th - early 19th. c., the world was structured into family units. Farms, businesses, great houses and estates of the nobility were generally all owned by families. If, as a young adult, you learned a trade or simply learned to serve, as an apprentice or a servant, you would move from your family household into another family household. So, the idea that a family would come to the rescue of a debtor in prison was not as far fetched as it seems now.\n\nIt was also easy to get into debt. There was a generally a scarcity of currency, and lots of people would also have a seasonal income, so most merchants ( if not all) would carry purchases on their books- if they approved of you , you'd stop in, buy something, and have it added to your account. Then periodically you'd pay your account ( and there might be some trading, here- like, bringing the merchant a few geese, instead of a few shillings). It was therefore comparatively easy for people to fall into the trap of living beyond their means. Of course, it was readily seen that some fault therefore lay with the merchant, and the merchant might also be more than a little aggressive ( he , too, would likely have debts to pay). With a lawyer he could swear out an affadavit that the debt was owed, that could b presented to the judge, and if the debt was over a certain amount ( 2 pounds, in England) the debtor could be arrested- he would not be asked for records of his own , before he was detained. He might be able to get someone to bail him immediately- accept paying for his debt. But otherwise, he was on the hook. As Samuel Johnson wrote ( in his *Idler* essays)\n\n > The confinement ... of any man in the sloth and darkness of a prison, is a loss to the nation, and no gain to the creditor. For, of the multitudes who are pining in those cells of misery, a very small part is suspected of any fraudulent act by which they retain what belongs to others. The rest are imprisoned by the wantonness of pride, the malignity of revenge, or the acrimony of disappointed expectation\n\nJohnson was imprisoned for debt a couple of times, his friend Oliver Goldsmith as well. It was a common theme in Hogarth's paintings and etchings. [Here](_URL_1_) in the Rake's Progress you can see the Rake finally getting arrested for debt, with an officer of the court standing off and letting the rough-looking bailiffs handle the apprehension. Later, you can [see him in the prison](_URL_0_), with both jailer and a serving boy from a tavern wanting to be paid. Nothing was free in debtor's prison: a criminal had his basic needs met, but not the debtor. Though, interestingly, in England after 1759 the creditor had to put up a very small amount of money for the debtor- basically, so they would not just starve.\n\nHow could you work off your debt? If you were lucky, you might write a play or something that could be sold ( notice that's what the Rake seems to be doing) . Or you might simply beg. Or your wife: just as married men were responsible for the debts of their wives, wives had no immunity from the debts of their husbands. While not being locked up, they could stand outside and appeal to passersby. The debtors ( in England) could not be made to work, however. Of course, if the debtor was well-connected, had wealthy friends, they could pay for much better lodgings for him, more decent food. If the debt was huge, that could be preferable to paying it. But the well-connected would often simply abscond to someplace like France, where the creditors couldn't reach them. The poor had little chance of that.\n\nJerry White: *Mansions of Misery*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rake%27s_Progress#/media/File:William_Hogarth_018.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Rake%27s_Progress#/media/File:William_Hogarth_026.jpg"
]
] |
|
44irjv
|
is it even possible to make a perfect circle?
|
I might sound very ignorant right now but I don't see how it's possible to make a perfect circle. I know pi is actually the circumference divided by the diameter but I also know pi is an irrational number and has never ending digits. So does this mean that either the diameter or circumference will be irrational? Which leads me to the final question, can you make a perfect circle if you need either the circumference or diameter to be a number that really never ends?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/44irjv/eli5_is_it_even_possible_to_make_a_perfect_circle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czqh88p",
"czqiudo",
"czqk9zf"
],
"score": [
4,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"You can't actually make any perfect figure of any given dimension.\n\nAt some point of the infinitely small, you'll get smaller than the size of atoms and the way we consider things like boundaries and continuity of a line cease to make sense. They only make sense when looking at them from above, with low and lossy precision, where all measures are approximate.\n\nRational or irrational numbers do not have bearing on this. A Universe where they would is imaginable, but it is not ours.",
"The inability to make a perfect circle is one of the things Plato points out to support his philosophy of \"the forms.\" We can *imagine* a perfect circle, but it does not exist in the material world. Similarly, though Plato never speaks about this specific example, if you were to kill all the mosquitoes in the world, the *idea* of mosquitoes would still exist. So, Plato says there is a \"world of the forms\" where such ideas reside and that all material existence is a cheap knock-off of the version of that thing in the world of the forms. \n\nI know that wasn't what you asked, but it was somewhat related, so I went ahead and posted it.",
"You will never be able meausure or construct anything with infinite precision. That would require the transfer of an infinite amount of information in a finite time.\n\n Also, most numbers are like pi. And what I mean by that is practically all of them are like pi. You will never see an integer measurement of a distance. If you draw a line, its length will always be like pi--transcendental and probably normal. \n\nPi itself has infinite precision because it is the ratio of two precisely defined ideas, circumference and diameter. Thus we can come up with algorithms to generate arbitrary digits of pi. But when you draw a figure, you are uncharted territory as far as math is concerned and so there is no formula to define your figure (or anything else in your life).\n\nSo you exist in this weird spot where everything you do is defined by infinitely long and seemingly random numbers, but you can only transfer a finite amount of information from one place to another in a finite time. You can draw a line and it's length will automatically be an infinitely long and random string of digits. Now you can never draw a line of that same length ever again. You could copy the line to a finite precision, but that's all.\n\nOf course this is ignoring other physical limitations like plank lengths or how sharp your pencil happens to be. Those limitations ruin the fun, I think. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1g9q0s
|
How important was the Carolingian Renaissance?
|
I've been reading online, but most of the info is pretty vague. I was just surprised that there was a Renaissance in the middle of the dark ages.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g9q0s/how_important_was_the_carolingian_renaissance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cai424p",
"cai4ofi",
"cai4xto",
"cai5zgf"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
5,
11
],
"text": [
"Renaissance is perhaps not the best word to describe that period because our modern connotation of the word involves a general flaring of interest in cultural matters. The Carolingian Renaissance depended wholly upon the \"interest and and driving force of one man, the ruler\" or the Carolingian emperors like Charlemagne and Louis the Pious. However, the movement was not \"provincial\" but rather \"its participants were drawn from every quarter of the Latin West\" which meant that although it was centered in one area it drew from a broad base. Charlemagne wanted to educate people to service and help govern the empire so he encouraged cathedral schools to expand but this also caused the flourishing of intellectual life as well. When it comes to actual products and benefits of the Renaissance there a few. Many Latin manuscripts were copied and stored and scholars attempted to standardize the Bible. A number of histories were written like *History of the Lombards* by Paul the Deacon and *The History of the Sons of Louis the Pious* by Nithard. In art and architecture there was a blending of styles as evidenced by the palace church in Aachen. \n\nThe quotes come from *Europe in the Middle Ages* by Hoyt and the rest is summary.",
"[We've pointed out before](_URL_0_) that the term \"Dark Ages\" is a gross misrepresentation of the European Middle Ages. There were numerous intellectual and cultural revivals before the \"Renaissance\" with a capital-R. The Carolingian Renaissance is one such revival, which entailed an increase in literacy, a flourishing of poetry, and an expansion of institutions of higher learning.\n\nA good source on this is [_Renaissances Before the Renaissance: Cultural Revivals of Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages_](_URL_1_), ed. Warren Treadgold (1984). John Contreni has an essay in that collection specifically about the Carolingian Renaissance.",
"Yes, it was absolutely important, and there were multiple \"renaissances\" during the Middle Ages, depending on how you want to define the term (the other most famous one being the 12th century renaissance [of course, the notion of renaissance is problematic itself, as is the time period we generally call the \"Renaissance\" since it is extremely vague])\n\nMuch like bowies4 said, Charelmagne and the other Carolingian rulers made a real effort to sponsor learning in their courts and promote the spread of cathedral schools. They also instituted a number of reforms with wide ranging effects. For example, the Carolingians developed a [new, easier to read, style of writing](_URL_1_), which was the standard for much of the Middle Ages. They were responsible for enshrining Benedictine Monasticism as the dominant form of religious expression for a huge chunk of the Middle Ages. Carolingian ideas about kingship, about saints, relics, about the state, the monastery, were all hugely influential on Medieval thought. There were also many economic reforms, establishment of currency, that had wide ranging effects on later centuries. There's a lot more. Bartlett's [*Making of Europe*](_URL_0_) is an excellent book that touches on this subject and also gives a wider perspective of the influence of the Carolingians (and more generally the Franks) on the formation of Europe. ",
"Perhaps the most important aspect of the Carolingian \"Renaissance\" is the issue of uniformity. All the individual accomplishments that wedgeomatic, bowies4, and others have touched on were all attempts at creating a single unified way of doing things. After Charlemagne had come to dominate such a disparate area, it became quite clear that each city, province, abbey, etc. had its own way of saying the liturgy, writing, using coinage, etc. Charlemagne gathered together the brightest minds he could and had them work through these. \n\nHandwriting, for example, was radically different in the different centers, so a single common minuscule form was developed which is still largely what we use today. Jerome's Vulgate bible had taken on many idiosyncratic readings and so these were standardized into a common bible. The Latin language itself was standardized and remodeled in terms of spelling and grammar along the lines of ancient grammars, helping to distinguish it from the Latin spoken by the common person (which was approaching what we would call French, Spanish...). Monastic centers had numerous rules and practices they followed and so they picked one rule, the Benedictine Rule, somewhat augmented and adapted, to be used throughout the empire. Churches too had grown up over the centuries with their own ways of saying the mass and performing the sacraments and these were standardized. Coinage was too, I think. It could be argued that the notion of Europe as a single entity is something of the product of these attempts at unification, though I wouldn't want to press these claims too far. \n\nSo the answer is yes, the Carolingian Renaissance was very important, although Renaissance might not be the best term for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/middleages#wiki_the_.22dark_ages.22",
"http://books.google.fr/books?id=2TGsAAAAIAAJ&printsec=frontcover&hl=fr&source=gbs_ge_summary_r&cad=0#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Making-Europe-Robert-Bartlett/dp/0691037809",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule"
],
[]
] |
|
1jh2vw
|
; why does the usa have so many federal crime agencies?
|
id est FBI DEA ect. Unlike many countries that just have one, like Australia (AFP).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jh2vw/eli5_why_does_the_usa_have_so_many_federal_crime/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbep7i7",
"cbesncz"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The two major US political parties are BOTH a mix of authoritarian and borderline paranoid anti-authoritarian. Sometimes the same person can have both sentiments in their head at the same time.\n\nThis means that a Republican sees a problem (\"dope pushers corrupting our children!\") and want a federal response (War on Drugs! Establish the DEA!). But they think \"National Police issuing a national ID card? First step toward forcing us into socialist reeducation camps!\"\n\nSame thing for the Democrats. \"We need to protect against evil industrialists who secretly pollute! The EPA should have a Criminal Enforcement division.\" But also \"Whoa! Centralized tracking of criminal activity? Fascism!!!1!!!\"\n\nSo there's a tendency to solve each problem ad hoc -- small agencies with limited purview. If it's narrow in scope then it feels more controllable, even if it is horribly inefficient and confusing to the public.\n\nThis pattern also reflects the historically (90+ years ago) small scale of the US government. Agencies started off with mundane missions, and grew into big police agencies as the mission changed. The ATF started off as purely an agency to tax manufacturers, not really aimed at controlling who bought and used their products. The US Marshall Service ran federal court security and policed the territories before they became states (now they hunt fugitives, run Witness Protection, transport federal prisoners). The FBI started off literally as Investigators for the federal prosecutors, to coordinate with state and local police forces (now they also handle terrorism, counterintelligence, bank robbery, kidnapping).",
"Even though there are multiple agencies, most of them (including the FBI, DEA, and ATF) fall under the department of justice, which would probably be more analogous to the Australian agency. There are some exceptions but those are usually due to historical legacy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1pbxsm
|
tom bombadil in lotr
|
Specifically, who he is? he is not an elf or a man. what exactly is he, and what is his significance. it is not explained well in the book, and the movies pretend he never existed.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pbxsm/eli5_tom_bombadil_in_lotr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd0u9po"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Tolkien on Tom Bombadil: \"Even in a mythological Age there must be some enigmas, as there always are. Tom Bombadil is one (intentionally).\"\n\nAnd additionally, Tolkien explained that Tom's existence demonstrates that there are entities in the world for whom the war is largely irrelevant or unimportant.\n\nTom isn't an anomaly, some randomly or mistakenly placed character. He is an enigma; a mystery with a subtle or abstract purpose. What \"race\" he happens to be is anyone's guess. But it isn't important.\n\n**Like you're five?** Tom is intentionally a symbol for mystery and untouchable power. He exists to show that not everything matters to the story in the same way. Sometimes we can't always understand every detail."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
uyic7
|
What was the first life form that ever came into existence?
|
A single cell organism, but what exactly was it? And how long did it take for that single cell to split into two cells? Was that the first mitosis?
In what environment did that first organism come into being? I always think of the last episode of *Star Trek: The Next Generation*, when Q sticks his hand in primordial goo and says that in a few moments life will begin there. But is that accurate? What was that goo?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uyic7/what_was_the_first_life_form_that_ever_came_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4zpda3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"a self replicating chain of complex chemistry might be the first bit of \"life\".. life history from that deep in time is a bit hazy and we only have educated guesses. \n\nAfter that we expect self replicating cells and later more complex multi-cellular sorts of life. \n\nQuoting star trek and more importantly Q on abiogenesis theories might be misguided. \n\n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1kw79s
|
why is car insurance complusary and not optional like other insurances?
|
I know it covers the other driver but why is that? The whole thing just really confuses me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kw79s/eli5why_is_car_insurance_complusary_and_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbt7mvt"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because by driving a vehicle you're potentially putting other people at risk. If I don't have homeowner's insurance and my house burns down, that sucks for me and my family, but nobody else is really harmed if I can't afford to buy a new house.\n\nBut if I drive my car into a sidewalk full of pedestrians and hurt a bunch of them, they could face all sorts of medical costs, and I would likely be held responsible. If I have no insurance or assets, then I couldn't pay to cover those costs, and those pedestrians would potentially be stuck having to pay them through no fault of their own.\n\nEdit: It's worth noting that I bought my house via a mortgage from a bank. So if my house burned down, the bank would have its investment at risk. That being the case, the terms of the mortgage require me to have homeowners insurance on my house.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1g64rh
|
Was Joseph Smith a convicted con-man?
|
Apparently the founder of Mormonism [was convicted of disorderly conduct](_URL_0_). Is this true? (not sure about reliability of the site and I'm having trouble finding other sources) If so, what does this indicate about Smith? Also, how common was this sort of behavior ('seer stones')?
Thanks, and let me know if anything needs clarifying.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g64rh/was_joseph_smith_a_convicted_conman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cah847n",
"cahgxze",
"cahhm3t",
"cahhrrv",
"cahi6a7",
"cahizyh",
"cahnasi"
],
"score": [
36,
18,
12,
22,
6,
12,
7
],
"text": [
"Disorderly conduct is a really broad charge in NY, even today, where it's defined as \n\n > A person is guilty of disorderly conduct when, with intent to cause public inconvenience, annoyance or alarm, or recklessly creating a risk thereof:\n\n > 1. He engages in fighting or in violent, tumultuous or threatening behavior; or\n2. He makes unreasonable noise; or\n3. In a public place, he uses abusive or obscene language, or makes an obscene gesture; or\n4. Without lawful authority, he disturbs any lawful assembly or meeting of persons; or\n5. He obstructs vehicular or pedestrian traffic; or\n6. He congregates with other persons in a public place and refuses to comply with a lawful order of the police to disperse; or\n7. He creates a hazardous or physically offensive condition by any act which serves no legitimate purpose.\n\nIt's a bit hard to gather case law from the 1820s, but in that period of time, anything that causes excessive noise (see Conrad v. Williams, 6 Hill 444 (1844)) or causing public strife (see Duffy v. People, 6 Hill 75 (1843), Cowden v. Wright, 24 Wend. 429 (1840)) have been considered as disorderly conduct. With such broad common law examples, it would not be amiss that a lot of people's conduct fell within the prima facie definition. So the mere fact that he has been convicted a disorderly conduct charge doesn't say a whole lot about him. I can't comment as to how it ties into the greater scheme of things during his rise.",
"The following links trace back and use quotes from [Fawn Brodie,](_URL_2_) in her seminal biographical volume focusing on Joseph Smith, *No Man Knows My History.*\n\n* Smith was put on trial for cheating a man named Josiah Stowell in 1826 in South Bainbridge, New York. The result of the trial remains opaque and hard to know for sure.^[1](_URL_4_) It is clear they took statements from the people involved. Smith addresses it in his own history that is part of the LDS canon.^[2](_URL_0_) \n\n* Smith's quasi-banking institution, the [Kirtland Safety Society,](_URL_1_) went bankrupt in 1837. He had a warrant for his arrest, but obsconded 800 miles away into the western frontier of the United States. If he hadn't have left Kirtland in January 1838, he would have faced charges for running an illegal bank.^[4](_URL_3_),[5](_URL_5_)\n",
" > Also, how common was this sort of behavior ('seer stones')?\n\nIt wasn't that uncommon. According to [D. Michael Quinn](_URL_0_) folk magic practices were used for all sorts of things by the people of that era and locale. Besides seer stones the use of dowsing rods has numerous references among early mormonism. There is evidence that leaders would use seer stones and dowsing rods in a ouiji board like fashion.^[1](_URL_1_)\n\nAlso, Smith used a seer stone placed in a hat to translate the golden plates,^[2](_URL_2_)\n claimed as the basis for the Book of Mormon, which were hidden somewhere in the woods. The plates were not usually in the same room, nor placed in the hat.",
"**TL;DR - We know he practiced glass looking and was brought to trial. We do not know if he was convicted.**\n\n----\n\nHere are the facts as I understand them:\n\n* In 1825, 19 year old Joseph Smith Jr was asked by Josiah Stowell to scry for a lost spanish silver mine via Joseph's seer stone. [Stowell sought out Joseph](_URL_1_) based on his reputation as a scryer and his purported ability to find \"hidden treasures in the bowels of the earth\". \n\n* For a period of one month, Joseph and his father worked for Stowell. No treasure was found. Instead, Stowell was told that the treasure seeped back into the earth or was otherwise hidden by spirits (depending on the account). \n\n* Joseph continued to work for stowell until 1826, when then 20 year old Joseph Smith Jr was brought to court under the charge of \"Glass Looking\".\n\n* Judge Neely oversaw the trial. As this was a misdemeanor, no record of the verdict is available; however, we do have [this bill for services rendered](_URL_4_) from the judge. [Legible version here](_URL_3_). \n\n* The result of that trial is up for debate. Some argue [the mittimus](_URL_5_) is not authentic, while others argue it's [proof of conviction](_URL_0_). \n\n* Historical testimonies tend to fall along religious lines as well. Leading authorities in the fledgling church state that he was acquitted, while those outside claim he was convicted. [Read the testimonies here](_URL_2_)\n\nIn the end, the conviction is the unknown factor; however, Joseph Smith's history and the modern mainstream LDS church agree that Joseph was paid by Stowell for the purpose of scrying treasure he never found. \n\n----\n\n*Edit*: Apologies to the mods for linking to partison sites. The matter of a conviction has just enough unknown to spark intense debates on both sides, and the topic of conviction is mostly irrelevant to those without intrinsic interest in the religious authenticity of the LDS church. ",
"Here is a [peer reviewed article](_URL_0_) on the trial. People may try and dismiss it as a BYU journal, but BYU studies is a peer reviewed journal refereed by people in and out of BYU.\n\nOne of the things your link is conveniently not telling you is Joseph never went to a real trail. Such a trial requires a verdict signed by official witnesses which if you look at the documents was *not* the case. This was a pre-trial hearing to see if there was anything to these complaints.\n\nInstead of fraud, Joseph was charged with a misdemeanor called \"glass-looking\" (again, your link won't mention the actual charge nor admit it was only considered a misdemeanor). This is the modern day equivalent of being charged with playing with a Ouija board. \n\nThe judge decided Joseph should just be fined the daily court fee of $2.68 and be on his way, with no need to to face a more formal trial. (Something else your link fails to mention)\n\nOne seriously has to ask themselves, in if the judge felt Joseph was defrauding these people, why not send this to a more formal trial. Why only accuse of \"glass-looking\" and nothing further and just fine the daily court fee and send him on his way? I am pretty sure, if you examine the evidence you will find that's because the judge realized Joseph is really guilty of nothing worse then playing with a Ouija board and so sent him on his way without the need for a more formal trial. You can decide for yourself if this makes Joseph a convicted con-man.",
"Even as an ex-mo, I don't like the phrasing of the question. It doesn't separate two different questions, each which can be answered differently than the other.\n\nJoseph Smith could have been convicted for fraud, but may not have been a con-man, and he may have been a con-man, but was never convicted, or both, or neither.\n\nJoseph Smith was convicted for destroying a printing press as mayor of Nauvoo, Illinois, after which he was killed in jail once the accusations against him by the printing press were brought to light.\n\nWas he a con-man? That's the messier part.\n\nIf you believe that he was commanded by God to do all the things that he claimed God told him to do, and that the world wasn't ready to accept what he had done, then, no, he was not a con-man.\n\nIf you use the evidence that Joseph Smith falsified the existence of Golden Plates to write a story about Jews who built boats and sailed to America and were later turned into Native Americans, despite opposing DNA test results, whose story contains anachronisms such as the inclusion of chapters form the Book of Isaiah which wasn't written until 100 years after these Jews left Jerusalem, along with the translation errors that have since been discovered in the King James Version, as well as the claims of translating papyri written by the hand of Abraham, which were later translated by professional Egyptologists and found to not be about Abraham at all, then, yes, he was a con-man.",
"Joseph Smith, in 1827, was convicted, at preliminary hearing, of being a disorderly person. Specifically, there was enough evidence of him being a disorderly person and glass-looker for him to be tried in a regular court. Joseph Smith jumped bail, and had the equivalent of an arrest warrant issued for him. He never appeared in the regular court, though, for reasons that are unknown - an off-the record deal with the judge is suggested.\n\n[This is a link to the authoritiative paper on the matter](_URL_0_) by the historian Dan Vogel, who walks the reader through the maze of historical documents and contemporaneous legal procedures.\n\nHere's a bit of the article:\n > ¶5 The court record shows that Smith was arrested and brought before Justice Neely as a result of a warrant issued by Peter G. Bridgman, Josiah Stowell's nephew, who charged Smith with being a \"disorderly person and an Impostor.\" While \"Impostor\" is not a criminal offense, as Gordon A. Madsen has noted,[12] it points to a specific section of the New York statute that describes various kinds of offenses under the definition of \"disorderly persons.\" The section of the statute applicable to Bridgman's charge states: \"All jugglers [deceivers],[13] and all persons pretending to have skill in physiognomy, palmistry, or like crafty science, or pretending to tell fortunes, or to discover where lost goods may be found ... shall be deemed and adjudged disorderly persons.\"[14] This was probably the statute Joseph Knight, Sr., referred to when he said, speaking of Smith's 1830 trial in South Bainbridge, that Smith had been arrested for \"pretending to see under ground\" and that his prosecutors were motivated by \"A little Clause they found in the york Laws against such things.\"[15] John S. Reed, Smith's legal counsel during his 1830 trials, remembered that Smith had been arrested \"for the crime of glass looking and juglin fortune telling and so on which the State of New York was against it and made it a crime and the crime was a fine and imprisonment.\"[16]\n\n > ¶6 Despite Walters's discovery of the Neely and DeZeng bills, the outcome of Smith's pretrial hearing is a matter of continued debate, much of which has centered on the court record's concluding statement, \"And therefore the court find[s] the defendant guilty.\" Mormon writers Gordon A. Madsen and Paul Hedengren have argued similarly, but for different reasons, that the court's judgment was \"a later inclusion\" or \"an afterthought supplied by whoever subsequently handled the notes.\"[17] Madsen points to the record's consistent reference to Smith as \"prisoner\" except for the judgment where he is called \"defendant,\"[18] while Hedengren believes it is inappropriate for pretrial hearings to pronounce judgment.[19] Without the original court record, this theory cannot be verified. However, Neely's use of the term \"guilty\" does not necessarily imply a judgment had been reached in Smith's case, only that Neely had found sufficient evidence against Smith to proceed with a formal trial. Regarding pretrial hearings, the Revised Statutes of the State of New York for 1829, for instance, instructs:\n\n > If it shall appear that an offence has been committed, and that there is probable cause to believe the prisoner to be guilty thereof, the magistrate shall bind by recognizance the prosecutor, and all the material witnesses against such prisoner, to appear and testify at the next court having cognizance of the offence, and in which the prisoner may be indicted.[20]\n¶7 An 1820 Ohio statute is even clearer on this matter:\n\n > Sec. 2. Be it further enacted, That if the judges upon examination find the prisoner guilty of a bailable offence, they shall recognize him or her ... and in case the prisoner fails to give security, he or she shall be remanded to jail, and in all cases where the prisoner is found guilty, it shall be the duty of the judges to recognize the witnesses on the part of the state, to appear at the next court of common pleas ...[21]\n¶8 Thus Neely's use of the term \"guilty\" in the record of his preliminary examination of Smith is consistent with early-19th-century terminology.[22] And although the issues are complicated, there were good reasons to support Neely's finding Smith guilty of \"disorderly conduct\" and binding (or recognizing) him and three material witnesses over to the next Court of Special Sessions.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.mormonthink.com/QUOTES/js1826.htm"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/100yhw/a_timeline_perspective_of_some_critical_events_in/c6d63ps",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirtland_Safety_Society",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fawn_M._Brodie",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/wg9e6/is_there_a_follow_up_to_this_the_shields_article/c5d7s0w",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/wm0i4/court_notes_from_1826_in_bainbridge_new_york_the/",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/mormon/comments/1g601p/salt_lake_city_cemetery_luke_s_johnson_a_memeber/cahauni"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/D._Michael_Quinn#Early_Mormonism_and_the_Magic_World_View",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/1fsvt0/walking_canes_casket_sticks_dousing_rods_and_more/cadjwo7",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/exmormon/comments/xlhws/translated_from_a_hat/c5nk2u2"
],
[
"http://www.ldsorigins.com/morehistory_9sept2010_final.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Early_life_of_Joseph_Smith&oldid=555565338",
"http://www.omninerd.com/articles/The_1826_Trial_of_Joseph_Smith_Jr",
"http://i.stack.imgur.com/9rCAP.gif",
"http://www.utlm.org/images/newsletters/no68highlightedbillwholep1.gif",
"http://byulaw.blogspot.com/2005/09/joseph-smiths-arrest-records-found.html"
],
[
"https://byustudies.byu.edu/PDFLibrary/12.2HillJoseph-4b6c221e-f738-4111-bc66-6b60309a27b8.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://mormonscripturestudies.com/ch/dv/1826.asp"
]
] |
|
605o1w
|
how do viruses like hiv transmit through fluids like blood, breast milk, semen, and vaginal secretions?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/605o1w/eli5_how_do_viruses_like_hiv_transmit_through/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df3plyc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure what you are asking. The viruses are within those secretions, moving there as they do through any sort of tissue. By their presence they are transmitted to whatever encounters those substances."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.