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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
60qtkl
|
How can we be sure that planets light years away will still be there when we get there?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/60qtkl/how_can_we_be_sure_that_planets_light_years_away/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df8t82c",
"df8z11b",
"df96vlj",
"df99m1v",
"df9secq",
"dfasue6"
],
"score": [
18,
7,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You cant. But the odds are pretty good for a planet to last a billion years or sk. We can tell what stage the star is at in its lifecycle. But yeah...especially if it's taking you thousands of years to get there the planet may have been destroyed or chucked out of its orbit (especially in a binary star system)",
"What do you suppose would have happened to it in the meantime? There has to be some mechanism for its destruction, planets don't just blip out of existence every so often. Our own planet wouldn't be quite so livable if that were a risk.",
"The most distant planets we have detected are generally only thousands of light-years away. The closer things are, the easier they are to see, so many of the best observed planets are only tens of light years away. This means we are seeing them as they were tens to thousands of years in the past. On the scale of a planet's lifetime, this is nothing. Even if we observe a planet on the far side of the galaxy, a hundred thousand light years away, that's still not very long on an astronomical time-scale.\n\nIf we're actually comparing with travel times, it depends on the speed of whatever hypothetical space travel we're talking about. If we assume some future spacecraft can go at 1% of the speed of light, then you just multiply all those numbers by 100. So it'd take 10 million years to reach something 100,000 light years away. How does that compare with the lifetime of a planet?\n\nWithout advanced technology, basically all that can destroy a planet is its host star ending its life. Asteroid impacts don't do much after the initial stages of a solar system formation - they might kill all life on the planet, but that's because life lives within a very thin layer and is very sensitive to its properties. The planet itself will remain.\n\nSo what we're really looking at is the lifetimes of the stars that the planets orbit. For a star like our Sun, this lifetime is billions of years. That's plenty of time. We recently discovered a number of good candidates for earth-life planets around a nearby red dwarf star. Red dwarf stars burn really slowly, and could last for trillions to hundreds of trillions of years, depending on the size. That is, no red dwarf star has died of \"old age\" in the entire history of the universe. So that's more than enough time too. But there are also blue giant stars that burn extremely quickly, and only last for millions of years. These stars are short-lived enough that their lifetimes are comparable to the time it would take to reach them with some future spacecraft that goes at 1% of the speed of light - so in that case, any planets detected around them might have been destroyed. However, these are unlikely places to find nice Earthlike planets. These stars are also more rare (although easy to see because they're so bright) - the majority of stars in the Milky Way are red dwarfs.\n\nIn short, planets just live too long for this to really matter. But if you happened to have a planet around a particularly short-lived star (which is not common), and you detected it at the far edge of the galaxy (which we can't do yet), then yes, it might just be destroyed before some future probe got there.",
"To tack on we can also observe blackholes and stars dying out nearby and plan accordingly. Our star is supposedly about 4.5 billion years old. And supposedly it's expected it won't die out for another 5 billion years.",
"Simple answer, no matter how far we get with technology the chance that a planet/star will \"die\" will be magnitudes smaller than the chance of humans or the ship they are traveling in to die.\n\nAlso, if you didn't travel to that planet and stayed on earth instead, what are the chances earth would still be there in the same time period? Assuming speed of light travel and lets say 20 year trip then 20 years of delayed information is the same as 20 years of what could happen in the future.",
"There's some inevitable speculation in the answer to this question as we still haven't developed interstellar travel, and there are no technologies to do this in the foreseeable future. I'm going to assume we would design an interstellar ship using the same methods we currently use for exploring the Solar System.\n\nWhat we currently know about exoplanets is very little - mass, radius and orbital period in the *best* cases, only two of those variables in *most* cases.\n\nWhen a spacecraft is conceived, mission analysis is one of the first steps. The mission phases are defined based on the different environments that the system will have to operate in, starting from launch and continuing through Earth orbit, interplanetary cruise, descent and landing, up to the final environment of actual operations. In other words, *we would never send a spacecraft if we don't have a precise knowledge of the target environment*. It would be an almost certain failure and consequently a waste of money, time and effort. If your question implies human travel then you must also consider the potential loss of lives.\n\nSo at this point I'm forced to speculate that by the time we try to get to an exoplanet, we will already have enough astronomical observations to be sure its orbit is stable. Then we can be pretty sure it will still be there. We should also have some knowledge about its atmosphere (necessary to plan entry and landing!), surface conditions (land? water? mountains? plains?), surface temperature, atmospheric composition (does it have harmful acid clouds like Venus?), etc. There will be no travelling without this knowledge, and observations to find all of this information out do not appear to be feasible using near-future technology.\n\nMost likely one of the first steps will be observations from orbit using probes.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3gswu7
|
what/ who are gypsies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3gswu7/eli5_what_who_are_gypsies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu168xf",
"cu18ta0"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The Romani (also spelled Romany; /ˈroʊməni/, /ˈrɒ-/), or Roma, are a traditionally itinerant ethnic group living mostly in Europe and the Americas, who originate from the northwestern regions of the Indian subcontinent.[28][29] The Romani are widely known among English-speaking people by the exonym \"Gypsies\" (or \"Gipsies\"). However, according to many Romani people and academics who study them, the word has been tainted by its use as a racial slur and a pejorative connoting illegality and irregularity.[30][31][32][33][34][35][36] Other exonyms are Ashkali and Sinti.\n\nRomani are dispersed, with their concentrated populations in Europe — especially Central, Eastern and Southern Europe including Turkey, Spain and Southern France. They originated in Northern India and arrived in Mid-West Asia, then Europe, around 1,000 years ago,[37] either separating from the Dom people or, at least, having a similar history;[38] the ancestors of both the Romani and the Dom left North India sometime between the sixth and eleventh century.[37]\n\nSince the nineteenth century, some Romani have also migrated to the Americas. There are an estimated one million Roma in the United States;[4] and 800,000 in Brazil, most of whose ancestors emigrated in the nineteenth century from eastern Europe. Brazil also includes some Romani descended from people deported by the government of Portugal during the Inquisition in the colonial era.[39] In migrations since the late nineteenth century, Romani have also moved to other countries in South America and to Canada.[40]\n\nMore info at : _URL_0_ ",
"They are a tightly knit ethnic group that lives nomadically. Many people complain that they will come to their region behaving anti-socially until their supplies run low, at which point they thieve from the surrounding community for supplies to live on at the next site.\n\nThey are characterized as a sort of pack of semi-wild humans. \n\nThere aren't many gypsies on the Internet, so please keep in mind that they don't have an opportunity to defend themselves.\n\nIt seems completely acceptable to discriminate against the gypsies, especially in parts of Europe. So, if you are American and a smug European ever discusses our cultural issues, you might bring up the Romani. There is a decent chance that smug European will try to claim that the discrimination is warranted in their case."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romani_people"
],
[]
] |
||
7cakmt
|
death by hanging
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7cakmt/eli5_death_by_hanging/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpodheu",
"dpodot8",
"dpodrx2"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends if they do it properly. Hanging is supposed to snap your neck, severing your spinal cord,and killing you fairly quickly.\n\nOften (especially when done by amateurs), if it isn't done right (drop isn't big enough, knot isn't done right, whatever), and the neck isn't snapped, they'll suffocate slowly.",
"It depends.\n\nWhen done properly, the drop causes the rope to tighten and uses the weight of the body to snap the neck in an instant. Death is (virtually) painless and extremely quick.\n\nWhen done improperly the drop isn't long enough and the body's weight doesn't break the neck. Then you get to the \"dance on air\" for a bit as you slowly strangle. Death comes from oxygen deprivation and (so I assume) sucks.\n\nWhen you REALLY fuck it up, the drop is too far and the weight is enough to pop the head off the body like a cork. Death is (one assumes) instant, but it is very messy and bloody.",
"Hanging is supposed to work by breaking the neck, causing immediate paralysis and, ideally, death without pain.\n\nThis is actually pretty complicated and requires careful placement of the noose and calculations for the persons height and weight. Most suicides are done by simple strangulation, where the noose pinches off bloodflow to the brain, causing death after ten to twenty minutes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
qp1t6
|
What is the driving force of the solar cycle? Does it significantly affect total solar output?
|
I know that the sun goes through periodic shifts in activity, and this cycle is measured by sunspots, flares, storms, etc. We are currently shifting to a solar maximum. Hence, this week's storm. So...a few questions...
First, is it known what causes or drives this periodic change? If not, are there any halfway decent ideas?
Second, does this represent a significant change in the amount of energy the sun puts out, or is the only significance that a tiny fraction of the total energy output has now been shifted to throwing chunks of the sun around?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qp1t6/what_is_the_driving_force_of_the_solar_cycle_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3zbgyt"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Sun is a giant rotating ball of plasma. Plasma is very electrically conductive so the currents in the Sun naturally give rise to strong magnetic fields. This \"solar dynamo\" is a complex phenomenon because the Sun's poles and equator rotate at different speeds, causing the magnetic field to evolve in an unusual fashion.\n\nTypically, for our Sun the Solar magnetic field will evolve over a 22 year cycle (give or take), alternating between periods of relative quiescence while being established at one pole then evolving into a chaotic jumble with a peak of sunspot activity then flipping poles and reprising the same track again. Often this is just called an 11 year cycle since mostly we don't care about whether the Solar magnetic field is \"upside down\" or not.\n\nDuring the periods where the magnetic fields are chaotic on the Sun this causes the formation of sunspots, Solar flares, etc. and changes the overall output of the Sun since sunspots are a slightly different temperature than the rest of the Sun. Additionally, it's known that the Sun can enter a period of time when it stops alternating the magnetic field and stops producing sunspots (a so called \"maunder minimum\" period).\n\nThese changes affect the total energy output of the Sun to a small degree (within about 1% or less), but they also change the Solar wind environment, which impacts cosmic ray flux at Earth and cloud formation, which has a complex impact on Earth's climate. There is a lot of suspicion that the maunder minimum was the cause for a general global cooling at around that time but overall the evidence is sketchy and such conclusions are more speculation than fact."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4dykuz
|
how do some websites keep you from navagating back?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dykuz/eli5how_do_some_websites_keep_you_from_navagating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1vhbfl",
"d1vkdew",
"d1vraq4",
"d1vuvye",
"d1w18qm"
],
"score": [
93,
8,
6,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually, this is done by sending people to a page, which immediately redirects to another page. So, if you click back on the second page, it just sends you back to the first page which immediately redirects you again.\n\nUsually, if you click back fast enough, you can get past it and eventually make it back to where you were.",
"When you click the link to whatever page is causing this, it's redirecting you to another page, often several times. This means that when you navigate back, you land on a page which will instantly redirect you again.\n\nYou can work around this by navigating back faster than your browser navigates you forward. I know Chrome will also help you navigate back to the desired page if you right click on the back arrow.\n\nThis is usually a symptom of shady websites, so I would personally recommend to avoid websites where this happens.",
"One trend I've noticed is that some websites don't send you to a new page when you click a link, they just change the content of the page you're on by hiding what you were looking at and unhiding the next portion. \n\nIt was a lot more popular back when Flash websites were a thing, since all parts of a Flash site all took place inside the Flash animation, the back button had no meaning since you never left the page. ",
"Adding to what everyone else is saying*(the page you load redirects you to another page, pressing back just brings you back to the redirecting page)*, if you want to prevent that in Firefox, you can go to\n\n**Tools - > Options - > Advanced - > General - > Warn me when websites try to redirect or reload the page.**\n\nThat'll prevent the redirect/reload, instead showing a bar at the top, prompting you if you would like to accept the redirect or not. It can be annoying, but it's a matter of choosing which annoys you more, the redirects fucking up your back button, or the prompt making redirects need another click.",
"Websites can use JavaScript to disable the Back button (and/or its functionality) -- maybe that's what the OP meant. In these cases, you can't physically keep clicking Back rapidly to go back. The best solution is to always open links in new tabs or windows, so that the original page is still there when you need to view it again. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ac9cib
|
I've heard a lot that pre-modern soldiers generally did not aim to kill, or would purposefully miss their target so-as to not kill. Was this also a problem when melee weapons and archery was the dominant means of warfare?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ac9cib/ive_heard_a_lot_that_premodern_soldiers_generally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed6ffw4",
"ed6w7zv"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"To clarify, are you asking about similar phenomena in historical periods (such as men refusing to charge/engage the enemy, routing, etc.) Or are you asking specifically about intentionally missing an attack in combat?",
"You may be interested in a [previous answer](_URL_0_) I wrote to a similar question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7j6m6t/the_effectiveness_of_hand_to_hand_combat_or_how/ds9jfzv/?context=3"
]
] |
|
70wkcu
|
Why was Gustav III of Sweden so determined to aid Louis XVI during the French Revolution?
|
I have been reading a few texts on the French Revolution, particularly a [collection of translated letters of Axel von Fersen the Younger](_URL_0_).
From what I've read, among all the powers of Europe at the time, it seems Gustav III was one of the most dedicated to the cause of aiding Louis XVI. But the reason for this isn't entirely clear. Did he have something to gain?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70wkcu/why_was_gustav_iii_of_sweden_so_determined_to_aid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnp22gg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Multiple reasons. First Gustav III was a king who believed in the idea of 'Enlightened Absolutism'. He'd instituted absolute monarchy (one of two quite short periods of that in Swedish history) in a coup d'etat, inspired strongly by Louis's absolutism, and Gustav in his coup strongly curtailed the power of the Swedish parliament. Gustav wanted to be hip to his age ('enlightened') but firmly believed in his - and other kings' - divine right to rule. (and indeed a huge stickler for rules and traditional formality in general, to the extent that other rulers like his cousin Catherine the Great found him annoying to deal with) His 'enlightened' ideas were - for instance - things like abolishing torture, but not popular rule.\n\nSecond, Gustav (as many others in Europe at that time) was a huge Francophile and admirer of France and the French monarchy, Versailles and all that. His court used French a lot more the Swedish language. (and the late 18th century is the one period in Swedish language history when loanwords from French dominated)\n\nThird, per the above he didn't have so much to gain from aiding Louis as he stood to lose by _not_ doing so. Louis's downfall started earlier but Gustav III still ended up with the dubious honor of being murdered first.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://archive.org/details/diarycorresponde00fers"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
3qhex6
|
Is the term "Cultural Marxism" actually historically related to a fascist reaction against Critical Theory?
|
I've noticed a number of right-wing folks (Reddit's own KiA, for instance) seem to be trying to bring back the term "Cultural Marxism". Part of this, from what I've seen, involves claiming that Cultural Marxism is a real academic term applied to critique a contemporary ideology. I have heard in the past that the term was used to vilify the Frankfurt School by the Nazis - but I don't know the context of that, either. What's its specific origin?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qhex6/is_the_term_cultural_marxism_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwfk0ve"
],
"score": [
56
],
"text": [
"Yes, that would be the idea that the term \"Cultural Marxism\" comes from the 1920s German concept of Cultural Bolshevism (Kulturbolschewismus - _URL_6_) - which along with \"Jewish Bolshevism\" (originating in pre-war Poland as \"Żydokomuna\" _URL_2_) was claimed to be the secretive and hidden attempt of Bolshevists to bring down Europe's \"beloved\" Nazi culture via the slow introduction of an insidious \"degenerate culture\" (a term you may have heard of already).\n\nThis is of great irony as the currently much accused Herbert Marcuse of The Frankfurt School was actually employed for a short time near the end of the war by the OSS (Office of Strategic Services - _URL_3_). Where some say he was involved in attempting to Americanize Bolshevist culture (_URL_5_). But I'd take that last part with a grain of salt.\n\nHowever according to Richard R. Weiner the English rendering of the term dates back to Trent Schroyer's 1973 The Critique of Domination - in which Schroyer is arguing that Critical Theory and Cultural Marxism must adopt MORE of Marx's historical materialism if it is to have an impact on society (although I doubt given Schroyer's tone that he came up with the term).\n\nSchroyer was as radical if not more radical than Fredric Jameson who straight up wanted Cultural Studies to be renamed \"Cultural Marxism\" (creating further confusion around the term).\n\nOf course, then cold-war era politicos like William S. Lind (_URL_1_) emerged during the 1990s Culture Wars (_URL_4_) and once again made the claim that these Cultural Theorists and Sociologists were actually trying to destroy his particular version of American Western Christianity by introducing a degenerate cultures. In 2002 he reportedly spoke on this topic at a holocaust denial conference - _URL_0_.\n\nSo the term has changed hands so often that it's fairly null in void today (with most understanding that criticism of all persuasions should remain part of a free society)... and it goes without saying that The Frankfurt School's (now 50 year old) model of hegemonic culture hasn't been nearly as influential as movements like The Chicago School of Sociology (fond of using statistical and demographic proofs) and The Birmingham School of Cultural Studies (who promoted the idea that all readings of culture come from specific cultural contexts), both of which have had more impact on Today's academic and intellectual landscape."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.splcenter.org/fighting-hate/intelligence-report/2003/%E2%80%98cultural-marxism%E2%80%99-catching",
"http://www.marylandthursdaymeeting.com/Archives/SpecialWebDocuments/Cultural.Marxism.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish_Bolshevism",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herbert_Marcuse#World_War_II",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Culture_Wars#1990s",
"http://www.the-atlantic-times.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=233:herbert-marcuse-and-the-cia&catid=30:life&Itemid=55",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cultural_Bolshevism"
]
] |
|
96qt31
|
High heels were primarily worn by men for the first 700 years after they were invented, changing to being primarily worn by women in the 17th century. What triggered this change? Was there a time when both genders commonly wore them?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/96qt31/high_heels_were_primarily_worn_by_men_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e42rao4"
],
"score": [
99
],
"text": [
"I've actually got a past answer that deals with this question: [How did heels became a purely feminine thing, after it was first used on shoes in the 16th century by noble or rich men?](_URL_0_) (For more on the Great Masculine Renunciation I mention in it, try [here](_URL_1_).) It's on the short side, though, so there is certainly room for someone else to write a fresh response."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/69qa0n/how_did_heels_became_a_purely_feminine_thing/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tlr6k/how_much_did_the_regency_era_and_george_brummell/ddnr1uf/"
]
] |
||
2y4fpw
|
What was the draw weight of a historical Yumi (Japanese bow)?
|
And if data is available, what would be the point blank kinetic energy of the arrows? I assume there will be a discrepancy in the generated energies between English bows and Japanese bows because the release method of Kyudo is supposed to increase arrow velocity beyond what draw weight alone would suggest.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2y4fpw/what_was_the_draw_weight_of_a_historical_yumi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp654t1"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"You would do far better to search on military forums, as there are no historical records of an actual number to it. There is no direct data that is reliable enough to draw a conclusion, unlike Chinese, Turkish and Middle Eastern, and European bows that still survive or were measured with quantitative draw weights. Not to mention that there are so many variables such as arrowtip, armour, range, penetration of various materials, the ability to wound v. kill, and so on. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1aozn1
|
How much land does it take to support one human being?
|
How big does my plot have to be before I can support myself with vegetables and fruit? I live in the UK, so temporate and usually more than adequate rain.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1aozn1/how_much_land_does_it_take_to_support_one_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8zge5h",
"c8zge70",
"c8zhhs7",
"c8zoqu9",
"c900473",
"c9008q3",
"c9065ov",
"c90bpxp"
],
"score": [
40,
102,
5,
16,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a fairly old study from 1994, but it gives a ballpark figure of 1.2 acres per capita to sustain a typical American diet.\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\nNaturally you can expect a great deal of variance based on the fertility of the land you grow on, the amount you consume, the actual rainfall you get. By cutting meat out of your diet you should reduce the amount of land necessary, but you still need staggered crops, or stockpile-able crops in order to maintain a year-round supply of food.\n\nNot going to do all the work for you, but if we conjecture Potatos as a ideal high calorie food item to supply all your needs: \nYield: ~400 (cwt) potatos/acre/year\n\n[\n_URL_1_](_URL_1_)\n\nIf we combine that with the ballpark figure of 1.2 acres, that's 480 (cwt) potatos per year. So, 24 tons of potatos per year under average agricultural conditions. That sounds pretty sufficient to feed a person for a year. According to [_URL_2_](_URL_2_) there are 258 calories per 300 grams of potato. We can extrapolate that out to: 390 calories/pound, thus requiring about 5 pounds of potatos per day per person.\n\nBy that standard your 24 ton annual yield will be depleted in 9600 days, or about 25 years. So you should be able to get away with a farm smaller than 1.2 acres, or maybe even go with more than one crop.",
" > The minimum amount of agricultural land necessary for sustainable food security, with a diversified diet similar to those of North America and Western Europe (hence including meat), is 0.5 of a hectare per person. This does not allow for any land degradation such as soil erosion, and it assumes adequate water supplies. Very few populous countries have more than an average of 0.25 of a hectare. It is realistic to suppose that the absolute minimum of arable land to support one person is a mere 0.07 of a hectare–and this assumes a largely vegetarian diet, no land degradation or water shortages, virtually no post-harvest waste, and farmers who know precisely when and how to plant, fertilize, irrigate, etc. [FAO, 1993]\n\nFrom the FAO (the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations\n\nNote: .07 hectare = .17 acres",
"Would we be able to increase yield by building structures that are shaped as inverted, tip-down cones? Water need aside, this would perhaps allow us to maximize daily sun area vs land usage.",
"You may be interested to know that in Saxon England there was a unit of land, called a hide, that was meant to represent the amount of land required to support a household. \n\n_URL_0_",
"According to *Mini Farming, Self sufficiency on a 1/4 acre*, they extrapolate some numbers from the USDA food pyramid guide and come up with these requirements per year for 1 person:\n\n* veggies: 456 lbs\n* fruit: 365 lbs\n* wheat, corn, oats, rice: 250 lbs\n* lean mean and eggs: 159 lbs\n\nnow, not getting in the various yields for the variety of fruits, veggies, nuts, and grains, yet alone the space for cover crops and other soil replenishment needs, nor chickens, goats, compost, greenhouses, equipment storage, housing, water harvesting and storage, living, personal space, etc, etc...\n\nEstimates are for 1950 square feet of harvestable land, plus room for 7-20 trees (~3000 sq ft), so 4950 total, which works out to about 0.11 acres, which I think is too small.\n\nJohn Jeavons and his Grow BioIntensive methods (_URL_0_) and Ecology Action garden center says with very careful management a vegan diet can be grown on 4000 sq ft.\n\nNormally it takes about 40,000 sq ft of grazing land for 1 cow/steer (for milk/meat) or 2 goats (for milk/meat/wool), or 2 sheep (for milk/meat/wool). and I think 1 acre is small for 1 cow given that you need to have 7-8 different rotations to give the land time to regrow plants for them to eat.\n\nOther research I've done shows 4 sq feet in a coop + 25+ sq ft of land per chicken (at a minimum) for eggs. Meat birds, depends on how you raise them, but I tend to look past 'industrial' models of meat production. This also doesn't provide land for feed for the chickens.",
"You're in the UK, if you can get ahold of 2 allotments (I think each is about 2800 sq ft), you can do a pretty good job. Extend the season with some greenhouses and movable hoop houses and you can produce quite a bit.\n\nYou should look at the [Winter Harvest Handbook](_URL_0_) for details on extending your growing season.",
"using aquaponics, we can achieve 90% of the nutrients an adult needs in 50 sq/ft.",
"Surprised that none mentioned the concept of [Ecological Footprint](_URL_0_) yet."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://dieoff.org/page40.htm",
"http://usda.mannlib.cornell.edu/MannUsda/viewDocumentInfo.do?documentID=1123",
"http://caloriecount.about.com/calories-potatoes-boiled-i11367"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hide_(unit)"
],
[
"http://www.growbiointensive.org/"
],
[
"http://www.fourseasonfarm.com/books/index.html"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecological_footprint"
]
] |
|
463az4
|
Louis XIV and absolute monarchy
|
Wiki is vague on how Louis and his mother Anne centralized the power of the king in france. So, how did they go about it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/463az4/louis_xiv_and_absolute_monarchy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d02hfhi"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The standard Europe 101 argument (and I just gave a lecture on it last week) is:\n\n- by building a state bureaucracy of non-noble, paid staff (instead of offices that would be handed to aristocrats) \n\n- by having loyal administrators, *Intendants*, travel to distant areas and keep an eye on things;\n\n- and by building Versailles... a huge symbol of status and power... and then inviting the most powerful nobles in the realm to come live there. (and distribute \"favors,\" such as the opportunity to dress him in the morning, which translated into access.) \n\nBut a cooler, much more sophisticated argument--too complex for my 101 class, unfortunately-- is in William Beik's book on Absolutism, which basically shows how it's just as much a *bottom up* process... namely, all the aforementioned things (bureaucratic state-building, Versailles) were going on, of course, \n\n... but the key factor became when the great nobles (Anjou, Berry, etc) started to perceive this growing \"state\" of Louis XIV's monarchy as an *opportunity*--as an avenue to advance their own interests. \n\nSo, imagine the Duc de Berry in competition with the Duc d'Anjou; instead of a futile (and often deadlocked) direct struggle of rallying their own supporters, resources, etc., the could now turn to the growing state--and use it to press their own claims to their own advantage. \n\nShort version: once the great nobles saw that they could *use* Louis XIV for their own interests, they increasingly made Louis the de-facto \"center\" of power... and thereafter could be increasingly coopted *by* him... \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1stizb
|
Can stars spit out elements we've yet to discover?
|
Okay. Well, I am a scifi buff. I play EVE Online. In EVE, we use minerals with scifi origins and and psuedoscience lore to explain their existence. We also use actual elemental stuff like technetium and polonium, to name only a couple.
I understand that all of the elements we know of on the periodic table, the ones we encounter here on Earth, originate from our star as a byproduct of the sun's life cycle. Heavy elements created as a byproduct of our sun's fusion, spat out in solar flares, traveling through the void and eventually collecting and making new stuff. Obviously not all of our celestial material came from just our star, but all of the material came from a star at some point.
What I want to know is, is there any scientific precedence, theoretical or known, that could explain the existence of elements that may be unique to a star system?
Like, for instance, an extremely large, very hot, very old star. It's so old it's spitting out elements heavier than any we've ever encounters naturally or in a laboratory. Kryptonite, because why the hell not?
Could these elements exist? Or are the elements we know of here on Earth and in our own galaxy consistent throughout the entire universe? Can modern science explain the existence of unique and strange elements we've yet to discover as a natural occurrence due to star emission?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1stizb/can_stars_spit_out_elements_weve_yet_to_discover/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce18svt"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Currently, for transuranium elements the heavier atomic weight is, the less is half-life. So, by simple extrapolation, heavier nuclei shouldn't really exist. Now, it has been theorized that there is an [\"island of stability\"](_URL_0_), where extremely heavy nuclei suddenly become stable. We are currently unable to test this hypothesis with our accelerators, so it's highly controversial. Also, it's worth noting that unless the half-life of an element is millions of years, it's challenging to find it in nature, since it has already mostly decayed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability"
]
] |
|
3d228a
|
how does photos taken on iphone geotag without service?
|
I was on vacation to the national parks and my phone geotagged the location without and service, how does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d228a/eli5_how_does_photos_taken_on_iphone_geotag/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct12la3",
"ct12pdi",
"ct12pyy",
"ct12vxz"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It simply uses the phone's built in GPS (which only requires a view of the sky) and puts the phone's current location into the metadata of the picture.",
"Geotagging works based on GPS, which is a system of satellites independent from cellphone service. \n\nAs long as your phone can connect to the GPS satellites, it can tag the pictures with your current GPS coordinates; no cell service necessary.",
"GPS does not rely on mobile service, which requires you to be within range of a cell tower to work.\n\nThe GPS signal is transmitted by satellite, and there are enough GPS satellites to cover the entire planet, so you should always have a GPS signal unless it's being jammed or otherwise interfered with. \n\nThe satellites are constantly broadcasting a very accurate time signal. The GPS reciever picks up four of those signals, and uses them to triangulate the phones position. The positions of the satellites are known, the time signal provides a measure of the distance from the satellite. Since the clock on your phone isn't nearly accurate for GPS to work, four satellites are required in order to triangulate your position in both space and time. For this reason, GPS recievers are sometimes used solely to provide an accurate time signal.",
"The phone's GPS feature doesn't require the cellular network in order to work. In other words, the GPS is separate from the stuff that lets you make phone calls and check the Internet. Your phone always knows where you are, even if you are in BFE and nowhere near any cell service. (It just can't tell anyone else where you are, until you return to an area with service.)\n\nThis is why map apps on your phone will continue to show your location even if you drive out of an area where you have cell service. The map part (the roads and geographical features, etc.) has to be downloaded, but your phone will cache a certain amount of it in advance. So if you drive into an area with no cellular data, the map will continue to work for a while, and then it will show you as a moving point on a map on a blank background."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
59lezl
|
why is a flat tax regressive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59lezl/eli5_why_is_a_flat_tax_regressive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d99emde",
"d99fjfh",
"d99jgem",
"d99my2n"
],
"score": [
2,
17,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"For things such as sales taxes, there are minimum requirements that all people in developed countries must buy (food, electricity, etc.). As such, a greater proportion of the poor's income in spent (on things) than the wealthy's (for whom much more money is saved) causing a greater percentage of the poor's income going to sales taxes.\n\nFor income tax, the link is less direct, but usually people argue that if a flat income tax were implemented, it would have to be relatively high (lower for the wealthy, but much higher for the poor) in order to keep revenues constant for the government. As a result, the poor are charged more than the status quo. Moreover, progressives often point out that a small decrease in taxation rate for the wealthy often must be offset by a major increase in the tax rate for the poor (which many see as extreme and unjust).",
"Let's look at two people:\n\n* A makes $50,000 and spends $25,000.\n\n* B makes $100,000 and spends $40,000.\n\nIf you have a flat consumption tax of 50%, A pays $12,500 and B pays $20,000. The effective tax rate (the amount paid in tax relative to income) for A is 25% and B is 20%. Since A pays more as percentage of his income despite making less, it is a regressive tax.\n\nIt works this way because as people make more money, they spend less of it as a percentage of their income. The more income you have, the less you have to spend to stay alive and the more you can save.",
"A poor person has to spend _all_ their money. A middle class person only has to spend _most_ of their money. A rich person barely spends any money at all.\n\nSo it's regressive because the more money you get and have, the more dollars sit around untaxed untill \"later\".\n\nAnd indeed, regions where luxuary goods are available get more income because more money is spent there.\n\nSo poor people in poor regions are stuck paying more taxes and still living in crappy conditions, while rich people will spend money in good places, giving those places more money per shopper/spender even as the fraction of money spent doesn't matter.\n\nAnd if you are rich enough you can spend your money \"elsewhere\", shipping your money away from everybody but saving on the taxes.\n\nAnd if you are rich enough you can afford to do the things that are \"not income\" so you can pass your money around without it counting for tax purposes.\n\nAsk yourself what part of each hour's gain will be paid as tax. A guy spending all his earnings every week is paying the \"flat tax rate\", but the guy who only has to spend half his money every week is paying _half_ of the \"flat rate\" and may well move away before he touches the other half. So he earned it here, but the tax went _there_ five years later.\n\n\"Regressive\" is econmists talk for \"unfair\". This particular unfairness is that substance level people have zero choice, and then the more money you make the more choices you have, until you get to people making so much that their lack-of-choice fraction approaches zero.\n\nSo you will pay the \"flat\" rate of 20% of your income, but William Gates will pay only fractions of a single percent of his because it's _impossible_ for someone to spend $100-billion dollars.",
"Regressive taxes are hard to explain in ELI5 manner. The easiest explanation is that a flat tax usually takes up a bigger percentage of poor people's income, but a lower percentage of richer people's income. But that's not really a complete explanation and it isn't always true. A flat tax usually refers to sales tax or income tax, but it could also be property tax. With income tax, a flat tax is a proportional tax (neither progressive or regressive). If the flat tax is 30% and I make $10,000 in one year, I pay $3,000 in taxes. If I make $20,000 in a year I pay $6,000. The ratio is always the same. The problem with this system is that up to a certain income level, basically all income is going to basic necessities, like housing, food, clothing, medical care, etc... As income rises, your money then can buy non necessities and luxuries, and you may even save some of it for later. Is it fair to tax someone $3,000 of money that would otherwise be spent on necessities the same rate as someone who is spending their extra money on luxuries or just not spending it at all? Most people think it is not. With sales tax, flat taxes tend to be regressive, but they do not have to be. This tax is based on what percent of your income you spend. Low income people tend to spend most or all of their income, while higher income people may be able to save. That is not always the case though. Someone who makes $10,000 might only spend $5,000 of it. At 30% sales tax, they would pay $1500 in tax. That is an effective tax rate of 15% Someone who makes $100,000 might spend all of their money and have to pay $30,000 in taxes. That is a 30% effective tax rate. Obviously it is easier to save money if you make more money, so usually this ratio is reversed. Also, taxing necessities like groceries the same as luxury goods, like jewelry, does not seem fair to most people. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ydyxj
|
Regarding the media treatment of President Kennedy's affairs in the 60's. Is this really accurate?
|
Hoping it is appropriate to post this here...
People say it was basically public knowledge that John F. Kennedy had an affair with Marilyn Monroe and many others...but that "back then" people just didn't talk about that kind of stuff. The media gave the President respect or privacy because it was a classier time.
I have heard this brought up when talking about President Clinton and "gotcha" journalism today with our politicians.
This seems pretty hard to believe, I'm skeptical. Wondering if any historians can give an accurate analysis about the validity of this idea.
I hope a related Wikipedia page is acceptable, as (their) claims are supposed to be sourced. In this article it is stated that [Mary Pincho Meyer](_URL_0_) had about "30 trysts" with the President and often brought pot and LSD. It is claimed that this was told to the media but no one reported it.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ydyxj/regarding_the_media_treatment_of_president/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ux9mp",
"c5v07fp"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of it was that the press really, really liked Kennedy. You don't smear people you like. No president since has been anywhere near as popular with the press, not even Obama, though he has come closest. ",
"In the old days, the media could not be scooped by some blogger or kid with an iphone. The rules were different.\n\nThe media hid Roosevelt's disability (and affairs) it was not just Kennedy, it was a different mind set. Reporters pretty much followed the administration's story lines.\n\nI don't think this changed until Watergate & Pentagon Papers in the 70's"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Pinchot_Meyer"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5mpi1g
|
To what extent was the spread of Islam bloodless?
|
When Islam first came around it spread amazingly quickly, at least in the sense that a lot of territory came under caliphate control very quickly. Was this purely through military might or was it not uncommon to see people newly brought under the caliphates convert without a fight?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5mpi1g/to_what_extent_was_the_spread_of_islam_bloodless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dc5e4io",
"dc5gsp7"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"You're absolutely right that the expansion of territory under the control of Muslims happened very quickly and through military conquest! However, scholars differentiate between *Arabization* and *Islamicization* (or Islamization) of conquered territories. It generally happens that conquest preceded the gradual acculturation of Arab culture which preceded the bulk of local conversions to Islam.\n\nHere are three earlier answers of mine that address the complexity of Arabization, Islamicization, the status of \"peoples of the Book\", and the possibilities of forced conversion:\n\n* [What does it mean that the Middle East was 'Arabized' over the course of history?](_URL_0_)\n* [How much of a financial burden was the jizya on non-Muslims?] (_URL_1_)\n* [Can we blame the West for radical Islam/its ideology? Has Islam always been violent?] (_URL_2_)\n\nHopefully this will get you started!",
"(1/2) Great question! The expansion of Islam came in several different stages, so I'm going to address those each in turn. The short answer is that when Islam came to newly conquered lands, they often left the population to their original beliefs, not requiring conversion (notably for the People of the Book - Christians, Jews, at times Zoroastrians, etc). However, the population normally found it within their interests to convert on their own, leading to a gradual \"Islamization\" of the Middle East.\n\n**From Revelation to Medina**\n\nThe phrasing of your question implies that you're asking about the spread of Islam out of the Arabian Peninsula, but we may as well start at the beginning to gain a comprehensive picture. \n\nIn 610AD, when Muhammad was 40, the Revelation of the Qurʾan began. This revelation would continue until his death in 632 with two distinct phases: the Meccan Phase and the Medinan. The Meccan verses were revealed between 610 and 622, when Muhammad was just beginning to preach in his home city of Mecca. At this time, Muhammad was in a socially weak position. Despite belonging to the Quraysh, the ruling tribe of the city, Muhammad’s ideals threatened the livelihood of the city. Mecca, and the Kaʿba in particular, was a pilgrimage hotspot for the Arabian polytheists, yielding quite substantial tribute as well as making Mecca a trading-hub in Arabia. At this time, Muhammad was largely protected by his Uncle, Abu Taleb, and first wife, a rich merchant named Khadija. \n\nConversion to Islam at this point in time was entirely voluntary. This is reflected in the parts of the Qurʾan revealed when Muhammad was in Mecca, which emphasize the Will of God, moral values, and takes a generally non-combative tone. The surahs are typically shorter, then to not contain rules or calls to struggle (*jihad*), and are rather overarching calls to faith.\n\nMuhammad was increasingly persecuted by the inhabitants of Mecca and began to look outward for another city in which to live and preach. In 622 AD, after several failed attempts (such as being laughed out of the oasis town of Taʾif) and having to flee an assassination attempt at his home in Mecca, Muhammad was invited to settle in a town called Yathrib, which would later be known as Medina.\n\nThe inhabitants of Medina at this time were a mix of polytheists, Jews, and some Muslims (during the annual pilgrimage to Mecca, Muhammad converted a group from the Banu Khazraj in Yathrib, and they continued to spread Islam within their own town). It was a group of these Muslims who invited Muhammad to their town to act as a judge and arbitrator between the tribes. The tribes of Yathrib had been warring on an off for over a century, with a large battle having taken place just 2 years before in 620 AD.\n\nShortly after arriving in Medina, Muhammad drafted what is known as the Constitution of Medina. This treaty united the differing tribes of Medina into a single community, an ʾUmmah. It gave freedom of religion to the residents (including the 8 Jewish tribes), established rules for peace such as blood money payments, and established Muhammad as an arbitrator for tribal disputes. For the first time, Muhammad was in a position of relative power and importance, and an Islamic state began to form.\n\nSo in conclusion, this period could be seen as almost entirely bloodless. Indeed, Muhammad acted as an important figure in preventing tribal disputes and establishing a relatively stable, multi-religious society in Medina (but which was not to last).\n\n**From Medina to the Arabian Peninsula**\n\nOnce in Medina, the tone of Islam began to change. Revealed surahs tended to be longer and entailed more obligations and punishments than mere calls to faith. This is also when other faiths began to be overtly mentioned, in particularly the People of the Book. However, Muhammad was feeling increasingly threatened by the Jewish tribes and desired to assert himself and Islam as an independent religion. Wael Hallaq posits that this was because the Jews were regarded as the guardians of monotheism. In any case, stricter rules were layed down, the direction of prayer changed for Jerusalem to Mecca, and slowly tensions grew between the Jews and the Muslims.\n\nAround 624 Muhammad began to lead armed excursions against the Meccans. These were not wars of conversion, but rather raids against caravans. The Muslims who followed Muhammad to Medina had to leave behind many of their possessions and so the overall community was rather poor. The Battle of Badr ended up being a turning point for Islam. Despite being outnumbered 3 to 1, the Muslims handily won the battle against the Meccans, giving impetus to Muhammad’s claims that he was a prophet of God. Shortly after this battle, Muhammad expelled one of the Jewish tribes of Medina, the Banu Qaynuqa, allegedly on charges of dealing with the Meccans. Thus the first “purge” happened. It was however still rather bloodless. The battles against the Meccans were par for Arabia and the Banu Qaynuqa were not killed off. Another Jewish tribe, the Banu Nadir, was expelled later that year, after the Muslim defeat at the Battle of Uhud. \n\n627 was the next turning point for Islam, with the Battle of the trench. The Meccans, along with the Banu Nadir, laid siege to Medina. However, they too failed. The failure of the coalition led to the slaughter of the last great Jewish tribe of Medina, the Banu Qarayza. In the first truly bloody act of Islam (although again, influenced also by economics and politics), the men of the Banu Qurayza who did not convert were beheaded and the women and children sold into slavery. This act is often brought up as “proof” that Islam has been inherently violent since its conception, but there was much more at play than religion. The Banu Qurayza were economically powerful within the city, and Muhammad had a political excuse to get rid of them following the Battle of the Trench.\n\nIn 628, the Treaty of Hudaybiyya was made between the Muslims of Medina and the polytheists of Mecca. This treaty lasted for 2 years until a tribe allied with the Meccans attacked a tribe allied with the Medina. Following the broken truce, Muhammad conquered Mecca in 630. He did destroy the shrines at the Kaʿba, however all but 10 men and women were spared and many converted. Those who were killed did so because they had openly mocked Muhammad in the past. Muhammad proceeded to rule from Mecca until his death in 632, spreading his power throughout the Arabian Peninsula.\n\nThis is the second stage of Islamic spread. It was more bloody than the first, involving several wars and the massacre of the Banu Qurazya. However, it wasn’t *excessively* bloody. \n\n**To the Levant and Beyond**\n\nFollowing Muhammad’s death in 632, he was succeeded as Caliph by Abu Bakr. Abu Bakr’s rule is characterized by the *Wars of Ridda*, or Wars of Apostasy. These wars were fought against Arabian tribes who claimed that their allegiance to Islam and to Mecca was given to Muhammad alone, and thus after his death they should be free of Islam and the tribute they had to pay. Abu Bakr, in launching these wars, set the precedent that de-version away from Islam was not to be tolerated. Thus the Islamic state began to act cohesively to not only spread Islam but ensure that it remained the dominant faith within its borders.\n\nAfter these wars, Islam began to spread Northward. I believe this is what primarily interests you (I got a bit carried away writing the background. Sorry about that).\n\nThe conquering Arabs initially intended for Islam to be the religion of the military conquers, but for the conquered to retain their original religions. For this reason, people were not forced to convert even when militarily conquered. Instead, they had to pay that *jizya*, or poll tax and lived as *dhimmīs*, or a protected class. I’m going to quote below something I wrote up on the jizya before.\n\n > One key aspect about the early expansion of Islam is that it did not attempt to force its way of life upon other people. Under the Caliph 'Umar, it was envisioned that Islam would be for the Arabs, who would exist as a sort of military caste above the conquered people. This meant that the conquered populations were disturbed as little as possible, and conversions were only on a voluntary basis. This precedent was set with Muhammed allowing the Jews and Christians of Arabia to keep their religion if they paid the Jizya (poll tax). This payment would make a member of the religions of the book - Jews, Christians, and later Zoroastrians - members of the protected class, or dhimmi. These people would be reserved from having to pay the aforementioned Zakat tax and from military service within the empire. This isn't to say that taxes wouldn't get absurdly high though, as Ira Lapidus notes that taxes on peasants could reach upwards of 50% of the value of the goods. It does, however, mean that the Muslim invaders were not hated. In fact, some Christian tribes had allied themselves with the Muslims against the Sassanians or Byzantines. \n\n > Oddly enough, the Religions of the Book flourished in the early days of conquest with Islams coming. Many previously repressed sects were able to abound, and apocalyptic messages were numerous. This changed though as time went on. 'Umar II (r.717-720) forbade Christians to hold powerful government positions. Other successive rulers forbade minority religions to ride horses, bear weapons, or show outward religious symbols in public. Repression came in waves, as one Caliph would crack down (Such as Yazid II destroying churches and animal sculptures) and then others relent. Keep in mind through all of this that from the 7th to the 11th century, upwards of half the world's Christians lived under Islamic rule, yet they were not forced to exile or forced to convert by force (at least in large-scale).\n\n**Hitting the character limit. Finished up in a second comment**\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xgwey/ive_often_heard_that_the_middle_east_was_arabized/",
"https://redd.it/3u2bts",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4p2vz6/can_we_blame_the_west_for_the_ideology_of/d4hq843/"
],
[]
] |
|
5erpls
|
can you get in trouble for streaming movies online for free?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5erpls/eli5_can_you_get_in_trouble_for_streaming_movies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daeoucz"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Any authority is much, much more likely to go after the host of the stream rather than an individual user who watches it. Legal? No, it's not. Going to get you into trouble? Unlikely. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2etgn5
|
How does a radio not pick up old signals?
|
How does a radio not pick up old signals? If radio waves travel over big distances how do the waves come in in the correct order?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2etgn5/how_does_a_radio_not_pick_up_old_signals/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck34116"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Old radio signals from space? Radio telescopes *do* pick up radio waves from long ago because it takes so long for the wave to travel through space.\n\nOld radio signals from Earth? They are absorbed and destroyed soon after they are created. For instance, a radio broadcast tower sends out waves. These waves travel through the air without being effected much. But soon after they reach the ground, people, antennas, and such, they are quickly absorbed. A little bit of the radio waves may be reflected around the local terrain for a fraction of a second, but with each reflection, the intensity of the wave greatly drops. It is possible to tell the difference between the primary wave and a significantly-delayed reflection of the primary wave from a microsecond ago because the primary wave is much stronger. The reflected signals act essentially as noise, degrading the primary signal. With the right set-up, the reflected signals can interfere quite a bit with the primary signal. But there are no radio broadcasts from 50 years ago still bouncing around along Earth's surface, if that's what you had in mind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f60htm
|
what does „star collapses under its own gravity” really mean when star dies?
|
Like in question what does it specifically means? What exactly happens?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f60htm/eli5_what_does_star_collapses_under_its_own/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fi1xmkj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The gravity of the star constantly pulls all of the mass toward the center. While the mass of the star is a plasma, a lot of that mass and energy pushes particles apart and forces the star to expand. The star expanding and the gravity pulling eventually reach a relative equilibrium that keeps the shape and size of the star. When the reactions stop, the star stops expanding and gravity overtakes the force of expansion as it weakens. This crushes the star.\n\nIt isn't a perfect overview; but, hopefully helpful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
96oprs
|
How much radiation would you be exposed to holding weapons-grade plutonium in your hand?
|
In a movie I saw yesterday there were several scenes of the characters holding spheres of weapons-grade plutonium in their bare hands with seemingly no concern for how radioactive it is.
My gut says this is a really, really bad idea, but I'm curious just how bad it would be. How much radiation would you be dosed with if you did that in real life?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/96oprs/how_much_radiation_would_you_be_exposed_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e421fpo",
"e427she",
"e430o8g"
],
"score": [
53,
4,
9
],
"text": [
"It depends on how much of it you’re holding, and whether or not criticality is reached. The “common” isotopes of plutonium are radioactive to alpha decay, but Pu always comes cladded in other metals, which the alpha particles can’t penetrate. Some fraction of the time, it will undergo spontaneous fission instead, which will also result in the emission of neutrons and gamma rays. These will in general penetrate through the cladding and give you a dose.\n\nAs long as there is no criticality reached, the dose rate won’t be *too* high. People can handle amounts on the order of a few kilograms of weapons-grade plutonium (I personally have done so) without receiving a dangerous dose.\n\nYou don’t just hold bare Pu in your bare hands though, the Pu is cladded with some other metal (like zirconium), and you generally wear gloves when handling it. The gloves are not very heavy-duty, as they’re not used to shield radiation. Instead they’re used to mitigate the spread of radioactive contamination. When you’re done handling the material, your hands will generally be tested for contamination, and once you’ve been given the all-clear, you remove the gloves and dispose of them.\n\nSo it’s really not as dangerous as you think. The real danger is in criticality accidents, but as long as you’re handling less than the critical mass with your given amount of moderation, then criticality can’t be reached, by definition. A fun fact about it though is that for kilogram amounts of Pu, the cladding actually feels warm to the touch due to the radiation (most of which doesn’t penetrate the cladding).",
"We can do the math on this, in fact...!\n\nLet's define your sphere as being 6 kg or so (about the Nagasaki bomb core), and say it is 93% Pu-239 (5.58 kg) and 7% Pu-240 (0.42 kg). From a purely half-life perspective, that's going to have an activity of 1.28e13 Bq for the Pu-239 and 3.53e12 Bq for the Pu-240, so about 1.6e13 Bq total. That's enough alpha activity to be physically hot — it would generate about 15 watts of heat (100º-110ºF). \n\nBut how dangerous would it be? Assuming it's not inside your body, the alphas aren't really a problem (your skin will stop them). But there will also be a host of gammas coming out as well, as the decays will unsettle the nuclei a bit. We can [use a converter like this to get some of them](_URL_0_) (it only does Pu-239, unfortunately, not Pu-240). Plugging our data for the Pu-239 activity into the calculator for, at, 1 cm of air distance, we get about ~0.6 Sv/hr — which is actually radioactive-enough to take some notice of! To put that into perspective, 1 Sv in a short amount of time will give you radiation poisoning, and 5 Sv can kill you. So this isn't \"so radioactive that you'll get sick from holding it or working with it carefully\" (an equivalent amount of pure radium, for example, would give you > 100 Sv a _second_), but it's \"radioactive enough that you don't want to be doing this regularly unless you've got shielding in place and know what you're doing.\"\n\nNow all of that activity is probably not going to be going right into you (unless you're curled around the core in the fetal position), and you'd need to spend a fair amount of time with it, in an unshielded manner, to pick up that much radiation (again, on the order of an hour at least). \n\nSo the answer appears to be: you can bare-hand a Pu sphere (hopefully one with some kind of coating, since it is chemically active, pyrophoric, and poses real contamination issues if uncoated) and not suffer _too_ much. Don't put one in your pillow, though. And really, you shouldn't bare-hand them. I haven't seen said movie yet (I think I know which one you're referring to), but if they weren't wearing gloves I'd expect them to complain about the temperature more than the radiation!",
"So I watched said movie — the contact they have with the plutonium is trivial. No radiation concerns from the brief touching that takes place. The main concern, in said movie, is that they stored three such cores within a few inches of each other. That's a _huge_ criticality risk, especially since those seemed to be rather large cores (I assume they were hollow, but still 5-8 kg of fissile material). A bare sphere critical mass of plutonium is around 10 kg; they had what looked like at least 15-20 kg, maybe more (depends on how thick you imagine the cores were, and how hollow). Very unsafe!\n\nThe real whoppers of the movie's plutonium are:\n\n* the aforementioned criticality issues from storage\n\n* the fact that even with all of their fancy tech the \"good guys\" could not distinguish the gammas from Pu-239 from a million medical sources (the kinds of scanners that modern day radiological contamination teams use can tell the difference between isotopes within seconds; there are really different \"signatures\" in the elements involved)\n\n* the purported yields of the weapons themselves were well above what was feasible from that amount of material alone (megaton range means fusion, and those weren't thermonuclear weapons)\n\n* I won't ding them too much on the non-standard design because at least they gave some nod to what a sophisticated implosion bomb would look like (close enough for plot purposes, a lot better than some other movie \"nukes\") — it doesn't at all jibe with the yield estimate given but it's close enough for an implosion bomb\n\nI also raised my eyebrow at the Norwegian nuclear weapons designer — given that Norway has no nuclear weapons program, that seems like a random and silly stretch (why not make him Russian, or British, or French, or whatever?), but maybe that's being too pedantic for such a film..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.radprocalculator.com/Gamma.aspx"
],
[]
] |
|
h0jim
|
Breathing fumes of dry ice, bad for you?
|
Dry Ice is frozen CO2:
_URL_0_
CO2 is toxic:
_URL_1_
Surely, if you had a big block of it in a room, you would feel these effects? Has anyone experienced this?
Backstory:
I was at a fancy restaurant and the waiter brings some dressing in a bubbling glass with what I assume was dry ice in there.
My friend asks me if that would be dangerous, I say no because CO2 is not poisonous, it's just bad if you're in a room of it since it could displace the oxygen. I came home and looked it up and apparently it is toxic!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/h0jim/breathing_fumes_of_dry_ice_bad_for_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ro9rt",
"c1roczf",
"c1rp2ga",
"c1rp8if",
"c1rpqo9"
],
"score": [
24,
3,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"A little bit of it, not that bad. But I once made the mistake of accidentally inhaling some really concentrated fumes, while bent over double trying to get some of the last chunks of the stuff out of a usually closed container. **River** of blood out my nose in under a second. Do not try at home.",
"There is some toxicity to carbon dioxide, but so long as the ventilation of your room isn't restricted it's unlikely to build up to a level that would cause a problem. Just inhaling a small amount coming off of dry ice isn't going to be a problem since it would only be one breath and not a constant amount, your body is quite capable of dealing with a small spike in carbon dioxide.",
"When I was younger my friends and I used to swallow small chunks of dry ice. The Co2 would build up in our stomaches until we keeled over and let out an enormous burp. That couldn't have been good for us. ",
"The fumes/smoke from dry ice in water are CO2 and water vapor. It's fairly harmless unless you concentrate it or try to breathe it directly. The amount in a drink glass will be pretty negligible.",
"When you get too much CO2 in your body / bloodstream you will end up in acidosis. In acidosis, the buffering system in your blood (CO2 and Bicarbonate) gets out of balance and causes your blood to become a lower pH, which means more acidic. This is the basis for CO2 toxicity \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dry_ice",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#Toxicity"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
68pcys
|
is the sugar in chocolate the same as the sugar in fruit?
|
is it fair to claim that "sugar is sugar" and there is no difference between the sugar in fruit and that in chocolate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/68pcys/eli5_is_the_sugar_in_chocolate_the_same_as_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh07xmr",
"dh086dc",
"dh08myo"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"No, they are different sugars. \n\nThe (added) sugar in chocolate is typically sucrose, the sugar in fruit is fructose. \n\nHowever In practice, they both become glucose in the body, so a comparable amount of sucrose is 'the same' as that amount of fructose. \n\nRemember, you're not just eating a teaspoon of sugar in either case. Eating fruit also means eating fiber, which tends to mitigate blood glucose spikes in a way that chocolate (or soda) won't. ",
"There are several naturally occurring things that we call \"sugar\", because they taste sweet. It is hard to see the difference without doing chemical analysis. For example: honey tastes sweet and contains different compounds that we classify as sugar. If you chew on a piece of grass, it will also taste sweet, and the same goes for bread, fruit, etc. This means they all contain \"sugars\". At least, that is how we used to determine this.\n\nThe sugar we use to make chocolate is often derived from \"sugar cane\", which is a distant relative of grass. This sugar is chemically different from the sugars we get from honey. The result is that some things taste sweeter when using honey instead of refined cane sugar, but the quality varies more, because we can't control how bees make their honey.\n\nTo conclude: sugars in fruit and sugars that we get from cane, or honey taste differently and one can be sweeter than the other. This is because they are different compounds. They all taste sweet, so we call them sugars.\n\nPlease note that in chemistry \"sugar\" and \"salt\" are names for different groups of compounds. These are based on the chemical structure, not the taste.",
"There are a few different types of sugar so not necessarily. But \"sugar is sugar\" is still accurate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1nngc5
|
how is it that the leaders in the house can hold back a vote (regarding the us budget)?
|
I've been reading articles that there is enough support in the House for a budget to pass cleanly; however, House leaders are denying the opportunity to bring it to a vote. What is the process here? What needs to happen in order for a vote be allowed to happen?
I did a search on google and, as usual with anything regarding the political process in the US, everything I found was extremely convoluted.
Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nngc5/eli5_how_is_it_that_the_leaders_in_the_house_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cck6oae"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"For one, spending bills have to originate in the House. Also, the House Rules Committee recently amended the rules to only allow the majority leader, Eric Cantor, to put bills before the House. This rule is temporary, but it is the reason why moderate Republicans have not allied with Democrats to pass a clean continuing resolution.\n\nIf you are wondering how/why this is legal or allowed, the Constitution allows the House to set its own rules with a simple majority vote, and the House has operated this way (majority party screwing minority party) for a long, long time. It's not democratic, but it is both legal and with precedent.\n\nAnyone with better knowledge of parliamentary procedure please feel free to correct the above."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1owhsa
|
is saudi arabia's rejection of its security council seat anything other than symbolic?
|
I can't find any MSM sources that discuss this. Are the rotating memberships of the council relevant enough to make this a big deal? Or is it an attention-getting tactic that ultimately doesn't mean much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1owhsa/eli5_is_saudi_arabias_rejection_of_its_security/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccwd7iy",
"ccwfowe",
"ccwqqbv"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I am not sure what would qualify this to you as a big deal. It is in protest of the veto members blocking Saudi's attempts to sanction Bashar Al-Asad. The security council seats are highly coveted as it signifies prestige and international influence for a country.\n\nThat region of the world will still have representation on the security council as the council is divided into regions (asia-pacific 3, africa 3, east-europe 2, latin america 2, europe/other 5, permanent members included in the count). The members are elected to two year terms. The Saudis declined their election to this council, so someone else from the region will be elected. ALthough one must question why Saudi Arabia campaigned for the seat in the first place, only to turn it down.\n\nIf you are questioning the power of a rotating seat on the security council is, then thats a different question. The Security Council members discuss and vote on matters of international peace and security (e.g. peacekeeping missions, sanctions, etc.). The 5 permanent members have power of veto. Saudi Arabia turned down the opportunity to participate and vote on such matters.\n\nHere is a good article from the NYPost:\n_URL_0_",
" > Are the rotating memberships of the council relevant enough to make this a big deal?\n\nUsually not. Without looking it up, can you name any of the non permanent members of the UNSC right now? No? Neither can I, and I pay a lot of attention to politics. \n\nBut it gives those countries a seat at the big kid table - and if they have ideas for whatever the worlds problems of the day are that's the place for them. Of course some countries (India, Brazil, Germany, Saudi) are influential enough they will be listened to if they have an idea, UNSC seat or not. \n\n > Or is it an attention-getting tactic that ultimately doesn't mean much?\n\nMostly this. They are expressing their discontent over the USNC's failure to authorize the removal of Assad. 2 years of sitting in meetings at the big boy table wasn't going to change that. No one is actually being punished for using chemical weapons, and Assad gets to stay in power in Syria. At least the chemical weapons are going to be gone, but 1/3 is more of a 'good start' than an 'end goal'.\n\nThe Saudi's are also, as other people pointed out, trapped by their relationship with Israel. They cannot be seen to be publicly acknowledging the existence of Israel at all, even though they well, have dealings with the Israeli's. If there's any prospect of an Israeli-Palestinian agreement they cannot be publicly supporting the US unless the Palestinians get a state and the settlements get disbanded, so a UNSC seat would put them in an awkward position. \n\nAnd that's pretty much it. Their main big issue - Assad, the UNSC basically didn't do what they wanted, and they can't change that. Their secondary issue they just want to not be involved in publicly until it gets sorted. \n\nWell, and they get some free press for complaining and a mild political win with their regional allies. ",
" > Or is it an attention-getting tactic that ultimately doesn't mean much?\n\nIt arguably means about as much as having a seat would have meant. Their primary goal, which would have been to persuade the UN to do more to end the conflict in Syria, was simply not going to happen. If there were signs it was, chances are they would have joined.\n\nThe 5 permanent members, in short, tend to be ineffective in stopping human rights violations among their allies. China and Russia in particular have pretty much destroyed any chances of significantly intervening in the Syrian conflict.\n\nCountries typically their seat to raise awareness of issues that affect them. Some receive increased aid, others push for sanctions or military support. Saudi Arabia would no doubt have benefited politically had they accepted the seat. But with the UK, France, and the USA leading the case for sanctions in Syria, and France in particular for intervention, together with Saudi Arabia itself being very wealthy (they give large amounts of aid rather than receive it, and currently buy more weapons than any other nation) as well as being relatively stable, it's ultimately debatable whether their rejection send more of a political message then accepting it would have allowed them.\n\nEither way, there's not a whole lot to be gained.\n\nThe UN Security Council is seen as biased and arbitrary in their actions, with double standards and inconsistent political ideals, by the Arab League as well as others. They authorised 'all necessary measures' to protect civilians in Libya, but have two permanent members shipping arms to Syria while they commit war crimes against their own civilian population. They took extensive steps to end the violence in Rwanda, but even basic efforts to address war-crimes in Myanmar got veto'd. They were formed in the political wake of WW2, and as such are ludicrously outdated in how they operate. Countries without close allies at the table are often seen as sidelined. The Saudi Arabia's rejection can be seen as representative of this, so I think to that end its more than a cheap gesture, and could be a step on the way to genuinely changing the way they operate - though that's just my opinion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/10/19/world/middleeast/saudi-arabia-rejects-security-council-seat.html?_r=0"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
21xdig
|
how is maintaining a high credit card balance bad for your credit score, even though you constantly pay off 10x the monthly payment at a time?
|
That is my understanding of how credit scores work. So why is it seen as bad that I have ~$1,000 balance and keep buying more stuff even though I constantly pay more than 10x the monthly minimum each month? Sometimes I'll even pay up to 20x the monthly minimum. It's just that I'd rather buy something for $600 now and pay $300 twice later because I never actually have $600 at one given time.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21xdig/eli5_how_is_maintaining_a_high_credit_card/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cghcfvu",
"cghcfy9"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"if you \"constantly pay off 10x the monthly payment at a time\" then you won't have a high balance for very long so this doesn't really make sense.\n\nHaving $1k isn't really an issue for most people, but if you have $10k limit on your card and you're constantly running up against that limit the you're seen as more of a risk, because you might need to take even more cards, which make it much more likely you'll miss payment on the first one.\n\nIt's all about risk. Spending $600 this month and paying it off over the next couple months is not going to hurt your credit score unless you fail to actually pay it off and it gets close to your credit limit all the time.",
"Credit score is all about saying how responsible you are with credit. If you have a $10,000 credit limit, but you routinely carry a $9,000 balance, that tells other creditors that you run it pretty close to the edge and that you borrow a lot of money and take time to pay it back. They don't care *how much* you pay each month, that doesn't even show up on a credit report. They care that you pay on time, and that you pay off your debts.\n\nEDIT: Think about it this way. Would you rather lend money to a friend who is constantly borrowing that money right back from you and always owes you a ton of money, or would you rather lend money to a friend who will pay it all back within a short time and usually doesn't owe you very much?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
a7ba86
|
during the late 80s to mid 90s, every home computer came with their own operating system. now almost all home computers comes with just windows, why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a7ba86/eli5_during_the_late_80s_to_mid_90s_every_home/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ec1lqv9",
"ec1phk1",
"ec1v16r",
"ec1vite",
"ec1w4ec",
"ec1yinn",
"ec1z11y",
"ec21vqe",
"ec22n5c",
"ec22po2"
],
"score": [
39,
827,
3,
29,
4,
9,
17,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"When any sort of technology has multiple competing standards there is a tendency to converge on a single one. This is just the nature of the industry.\n\nImagine being a software developer in the late 80's. You would have to write your software 4 or 5 times to have a good coverage of the marketplace. Now most software is written once, targeting Windows. That has benefits for the developer and the consumer because they get a broader software library available to them.\n\nConsumers notice when the system they use doesn't have much adoption across the industry because they will see that software they want to run isn't available on their computer. So, when they make their next purchase they will tend to pick the system that has the most software available for it. In operating systems this was MS-DOS and Windows.",
"The short answer: because Microsoft, lead by Bill Gates, engaged in illegal anti-competitive actions to drive competitors out of business and establish a near-monopoly. They engaged in [wide-spread predatory business practices](_URL_0_) designed to drive out direct and indirect competitors in the OS market.\n\nTo give just a few examples:\n\n- Microsoft used their domination of the office suite market (Word and Excel) to sabotage their competitor DR DOS, by having their software detect when it was running under DR DOS and [falsely report that it wasn't compatible](_URL_4_).\n\n- Microsoft used their growing monopoly power in the PC market to \"negotiate\" deals with PC manufacturers (\"agree to our terms, or we'll stop supporting your PC\") for what became effectively compulsory royalties. Royalties were tied to the number of PCs sold, not the number of Windows OS supplied. Consequently, if you bought a PC from a major brand they paid for Windows regardless of whether or not they actually supplied Windows. Of course they passed that cost on to you, the consumer, and **you still paid for Windows** even if it wasn't supplied. This [\"Microsoft tax\"](_URL_2_) made it impossible for alternative OSes such as BeOS to compete even though they were much better and faster.\n\n- Microsoft partnered with IBM to develop OS/2 for servers, while secretly using the knowledge they gained to develop Windows NT as a direct competitor. Then, before OS/2 could be established in the server market, they dropped out of the partnership released NT, and used their domination of the PC market to likewise dominate the server market.^1\n\n(Funnily enough, the early versions of OS/2 written by Microsoft were full of technical flaws which similar early versions of NT did not suffer from. It was only when IBM more or less re-wrote OS/2 themselves was it a decent server-class OS, but of course it was too late by then.)\n\nIn the 1990s, the US Department of Justice [took action against Microsoft](_URL_3_) and found that they had [acted illegally](_URL_1_), but by the time Microsoft was found guilty, the US government under President Bush Jr lost its stomach for doing anything about it and merely gave them a slap on the wrist and made them promise to not do it again. But for a time, there was real talk about splitting Microsoft into two separate companies to break the monopoly.\n\nThe longer answer would have to acknowledge the effect of non-predatory economic factors such as network effects (if all your friends used Windows, there are advantages for you to use Windows as well), piracy (software piracy helped MS DOS spread in the first place, and especially helped Excel and Word succeed against more established incumbents such as Lotus and WordPerfect), high costs of entry etc. The Dept of Justice findings of facts does a good job at explaining those as well.\n\nNevertheless, the major reason that Microsoft dominates the OS market is that they illegally lied, cheated, sabotaged competitors and stifled innovation. We're still paying the price for that now, even though Microsoft appears to (mostly) no longer be acting in such ways, thanks to legal actions by both the US and EU threatening to break the company apart, plus the disruptive effects of the Internet.\n\n^1 Microsoft never dominated the server market to the same degree they did the desktop. Unix and Unix-based OSes, especially Linux, continue to hold a large share of the market. But among the *DOS compatible* server market, Windows dominated.",
"Today is very hard to say what is a home computer. If you think about PC, standalone desktop machine, then it is Windows, but you still have a choice to buy a MAC. Or to run a computer with Linux.\n\nIn my opinion, the home computer can be a tablet or even your smartphone. Depends on your needs. But then we have an Android OS as a possibility. And Android has a quite good share in the market. \n\nWindows got that advantage with PnP standard. That was a crucial moment for Microsoft, in 1995. That made Windows flexible, practical, and turned out to be something that users really needed during the later developments of PnP interfaces. For more info Google \"Plug and Play\".",
"Firs of all, the \"IBM compatible PC\", that is PCs which could run the same software from different manufactureres. That totally transformed the industry (to the better) and increased competition, suddenly the OS actually in practice could be made by whoever, instead of the hardware-maker (think of the non-compatible machines more like todays consoles). That paved they way for someone like MS. Who started off pretty well, and then used shitty practices to continue their domination. They are much more well behaved today, and get some of the same treatment in return from competitors in fields where they have become small.",
"IBM started to use DOS in their \"personal computers\". Microsoft \"rented not sold\" DOS and the IBM model of personal computer was cloned and DOS went with it.\n\nThe other computer companies used a form of basic that DOS drove from the market and many of these companies started to make IBM clones.\n\nApple went its own way and had a brief \"cloning\" experiment but decided to keep all software and hardware in house at a later date. ",
"The OSs before windows were much simpler and easier to code. OS/2 is perhaps the one listed that actually had a chance if IBM had been willing to develop it rather than go with windows.\n\nBefore Windows, MS DOS was ubiquitous when you actually had to load the OS rather than have a simple system in ROM. It was considered complex because it had to actually handle floppy disk drives rather than cassette drive.\n\nWhen IBM came out with the PC and chose MS-DOS, the bit players were doomed. Compatibility and software availability was the key. Why recode for Atari, CPM or TRS-DOS when 95% of the market wants it for MS-DOS (and later windows).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nNote: I started programming in MS-Basic on a TRS-80. The OS in Rom was only BASIC with Cassette handling. When floppies came along they went to TRS-DOS but eventually Tandy went to MS-DOS as well. Businesses used Unix or CPM as they were the \"professional\" OSs apart from mainframes.",
"Allow The Simpsons to explain:\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"Also, Microsoft has agreements with major brands to keep windows flowing on new units. They want to keep their market share so they volume license for a cheaper price.\n\nKeep in mind back in the early 80's, Bill Gates gave commodore an open license to use microsoft basic on every commodore labeled product. That was the first and last time Bill Gates did that.",
"amiga and atari died out?",
"TLDR: Developing operating systems (_especially_ modern OSes that do a lot of things) costs a lot of money and time and expertise.\n\nKeep in mind that the 3 major desktop OSes -- Windows, MacOS, and Linux -- these OSes are the products of literal decades of development by hundreds and thousands of developers. The overhead here is not small.\n\nWhy would Acer develop their own OS when they can just license the work from someone else?\n\nThen there's the compatibility/cross-platform issue...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.nytimes.com/2000/04/04/business/us-vs-microsoft-overview-us-judge-says-microsoft-violated-antitrust-laws-with.html",
"https://www.justice.gov/atr/us-v-microsoft-courts-findings-fact",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microsoft_tax",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Microsoft",
"https://www.theregister.co.uk/1999/11/05/how_ms_played_the_incompatibility/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H27rfr59RiE"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
evvb1b
|
how do construction workers put together a crane
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/evvb1b/eli5_how_do_construction_workers_put_together_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffy96vj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I assume you mean a tower crane. That is done piece by piece as with another mobile crane as helpt initially. You put it together with the horizontal beam relative close to the ground and then the crane can raise itself up and add another vertical segment.\n\nLook at [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) The self raising part start at 4 minutes.\n\nYou can see a real video at [_URL_1_](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RB91Sm-kGJ8",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UC9m3sGRlnE"
]
] |
||
21pp9q
|
why is it so easy for a person to believe in a complex conspiracy such as the illuminati?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21pp9q/eli5_why_is_it_so_easy_for_a_person_to_believe_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgfcgwx",
"cgfcozg",
"cgff9iv"
],
"score": [
30,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It's easy for people to believe conspiracy theories because they are basically shortcuts to explain the world. Understanding the Federal Reserve is complicated, understanding how power is allocated and what motivates people in power is complicated. Accepting cancer rates are rising due to known carcinogens, but we rarely know exactly which ones isn't satisfying. Understanding cancer rates are rising because people are living longer isn't satisfying. \n\nBasically conspiracy theory fulfills two basic needs, feeling smarter than other people and replacing uninteresting work i.e. studying a dry subject with interesting work e.g. studying aliens. \n\nIf you don't like the explanation for something you can explain it however you want and be outraged at whoever you want. That's appealing to people. Chem trails cause it and Ronald Reagan started chem trails. It's arbitrary what \"it\" even is. The person gets to feel smart, explain a mystery and blame whoever they want without putting in any actual work into understanding the problem. ",
"It's human nature to seek connections between seemingly unconnected or random occurrences.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's more comforting to think that the world is in someone's control, even if that person is evil and seeks to do harm, than to think that the world is not in anyone's control."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apophenia"
],
[]
] |
||
3aw3i7
|
what causes a drug addict's veins to deteriorate when i've been donating plasma for months with no deterioration?
|
Pretty self explanatory. Been donating plasma for a while and i get told all the time i have good veins. What causes addict veins to be bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aw3i7/eli5_what_causes_a_drug_addicts_veins_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csghutn",
"csghypv",
"csgi1xg",
"csgihu4",
"csgobl2",
"csgoxoe"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're getting a needle from a phlebotomy nurse who knows what they're doing. You aren't randomly sticking yourself so that you can get high. Drug addicts have other concerns than giving themselves a safe injection.",
"Repeated use of the same vein, injection of drugs that irritate and damage tissues, improper technique, and [damage caused by reusing needles](_URL_0_).",
"Junkies get high more often than you give plasma. They also probably don't take care of their health. Constant drug use can also effect your heart and circulatory system. Collapsing a vein can happen to anyone, junkies are just more risk prone.",
"[Here's my arm after 2 years of shooting H 3-4 times a day](_URL_0_). Only been about every second day for the last 2 months though cause I'm on Suboxone. So it's not always too bad.\n\nIt's not because drug users 'don't know what they're doing' as mentioned here. 99% of the time I get it right on the first try, and I've hit someone who nurses have a hard time with. And safely injecting is a big concern for drug addicts.",
"They also may get many infections from not being sterile. The body takes care of the infection but creates scar tissue too.",
"Nutritional deficits and dehydration probably play a part. Non-poor drug users are able to keep it up for years, partially because their wealth allows them to maintain physical health and a healthy weight despite the drug use. Poor fiends have little money, and don't eat enough or stay hydrated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://images2.wikia.nocookie.net/petdiabetes/images/4/49/Newneedle.JPG"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/olntVtt.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2rq9el
|
what happens to the Carbon-14 that decays inside of us?
|
i know it decays into nitrogen, but my carbon is doing stuff, like making up my cells. what happens when all of a sudden the carbon in those molecules turns into nitrogen? does this have any meaningful impact on our biology? is it so rare that it's negligible, or what?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2rq9el/what_happens_to_the_carbon14_that_decays_inside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cniuv8r"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It pretty much does what you think it might. It changes into nitrogen which changes its chemical properties. Since Carbon typically makes 4 bonds while Nitrogen prefers 3 if the bonds aren't destroyed by the nuclear reaction itself (Since these reactions can often give off a fairly large amount of energy) they'll likely react immediately to form a more stable structure since you'll have a nitrogen cation with 4 bonds. You'll also have an extra electron floating around if it doesn't exit your body which can also cause a few problems of its own. \n\nAs a result whatever had the carbon-14 in it would most likely not be the same compound it started as. However, since Carbon-14 is both in low abundance and has a fairly long half life (over 5,000 years if memory serves me right) the rate at which this occurs in your body is so rare that you will most likely replace the carbon through natural processes before it can actually do anything in your body. You might have a handful of these events occur in your entire lifetime. Over the course of a 100 years only about 1-2% of the C-14 that was present when you were born will have decayed and your body's Carbon is over 99.9% C-12 and C-13. \n\nAnd even in the event that it does decay, it's fairly likely the damage will be so small that your body will either remove the damaged area or may just end up ignoring it altogether. \n\nC-14 will never do enough damage fast enough, but on the other hand fast decaying isotopes in large enough quantities could do damage. The most common threat is Iodine-131 which has a half-life of about 8 days. Since your thyroid uses Iodine for its processes (and not much iodine is needed I might add) you can absorb enough to start killing thyroid cells. Between the radiation given off and the change of the chemical make up, it absolutely messes with your thyroid. Needless to say this is a very bad thing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
45kzmy
|
why can't we simply restart the brain?
|
Why is brain death permanent?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45kzmy/eli5_why_cant_we_simply_restart_the_brain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czyiqpm",
"czyisbh",
"czyjtr5",
"czylmqm"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Without energy to supply them, your brain cells begin to die. When they die, they collapse, leaking their goo out of them. This destroys the structure of the connections between them, meaning that the brain is then irreparably damaged.",
"Your brain stops producing \"electricity\" and your body stops producing essential nutrients and basic body to keep it going for example , blood stops flowing. \n\nWhile all of this stops your brain no longer works and cells starts dying, as we know brain cells cannot be reproduced. \n\nYour brain is basically the core of all the factory called the body, once the hearts stops flowing blood and lungs giving oxygen, the core no longer has what it needs to work properly, I'm not a biologist so correct me if I'm wrong but from my understanding that's what happens. ",
" Brain-dead doesn't mean the software in your brain has crashed and requires a reboot. Brain death means the hardware of your brain has been chemically destroyed. It's not usable anymore. ",
"The brain is run by electro - chemical impulses.\n\nThere's two parts to that, electricity and chemicals.\n\nWe could supply shocks to the brain, it's what electroshock therapy is.\n\nThe problem is that once the brain has died, it means it is damaged to the point that the chemicals can't be produced, transported and received properly.\n\nBrain death isn't a computer that needs a reboot. It's a computer where the motherboard has been destroyed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8bpfb3
|
In 1095, the First Crusade is called to aid Byzantium, a Christian power, against their Muslim enemy. In 1204, the Fourth Crusade conquers the capital of Byzantium. How on earth did this happen?
|
Why did relations between the Catholic and Orthodox churches decline so much?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8bpfb3/in_1095_the_first_crusade_is_called_to_aid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx90k8h",
"dxahp0j"
],
"score": [
134,
5
],
"text": [
"While it is true that the relationship between the Catholic and Orthodox churches did decline this isn't them main reason for the 4th Crusade conquering Constantinople. The 4th Crusade wasn't called against the Byzantine Empire, infact the pope excommunicated the participants of the 4th Crusade because they weren't fighting against the target the pope had intended.\n\nThe 4th Crusades' original target was Egypt, the Crusaders planned to capture Egypt, and then move on to the holy land, in order to prevent a counterattack from Egypt against the Holy Land when the Crusaders left, as happened after the 1st and 2nd Crusades.\n\nThe Crusaders decided to travel by boat because they were heading to Egypt, and because previous expeditions by the German and French contingents that travelled by land through Anatolia during the 2nd and 3rd Crusades had suffered high casualties.\n\nTherefore the Crusaders commissioned Venice to build a fleet for them, promising to pay them 85,000 marks when the crusade began, however when the Crusaders showed up they only had 35,000 marks, and since Venice had made a huge investment in building the fleet they weren't willing to reduce their price by that much.\n\nInstead Enrico Dandolo, who was the Doge of Venice said that they would transport the crusaders, if the crusaders would help the Venetians recapture the city of Zadar(also known as Zara), which had rebelled against Venetian rule in 1181. Doge Enrico also prevented food from being transported to the island the Crusaders were stationed on until the crusaders agreed to the deal. Therefore the crusades' leaders agreed, despite the fact that Zadar was a Catholic city, and under the protection of Emeric I, King of Hungary and Croatia. \n\nIn October 1202 the Crusade left Venice and they besieged and captured Zara in November 1202, in response to this King Emeric asked Pope Innocent III to excommunicate the Crusaders, which he did, although most members of the Crusade didn't hear about this fact.Since the siege had ended on November 24, by which time the weather wasn't suitable for sailing, the Crusade had to spend winter in Zara. \n\nMeanwhile Boniface I Marquess of Montferrat who was one of the leaders of the Crusade had left to visit his cousin Philip the Duke of Swabia, and King of Germany. Philip was married to Irene. Irene had a brother, Alexios IV (who wasn't emperor at this point I'm just including his regnal number to avoid confusion) who was living at their court. The father of Alexios IV was overthrown imprisoned and blinded in a coup carried out by his older brother Alexios III, in 1195. Ever since this Philip had supported Alexios IV claim on the Byzantine throne and they plotted to place Alexios IV on the Byzantine throne. When Boniface went to Swabia he met with Alexios IV, and they presumably reached an agreement, although we don't know exactly what happened at their meeting due to a lack of primary sources.\n\nIn January 1203 Boniface arrived at Zara alongside envoys from Alexios IV, Alexios IV offered to give the crusaders 200,000 marks, as well as pay off all of their debts to the Venetians, give 10,000 men to the crusade and permanently maintain 500 knights in the holy land, have the Byzantine navy transport the crusaders, and mend the great schism of 1054 by placing the Byzantine Church(Eastern Orthodox) under the authority of the Pope. This offer was strongly supported by Boniface, Doge Enrico, and Louis I Count of Blois. The other leaders of the crusade eventually agreed to the offer as well. This prompted a few of the crusaders to leave the Crusade, however the vast majority of the crusaders remained with the crusade.\n\nWhen the weather improved and the crusade gathered supplies, in April 1203 the crusade left Zara alongside the Venetians, at this point a majority of the Crusading force was Venetian. With there being 14,000 Venetians and 10,000 \"regular\" non-venetian crusaders. The Venetians relationship with the Byzantines was much worse than that of other Catholic countries. Since Venice made a large amount of its wealth by trade, and the Byzantines were rivals to the Venetians, and through their competition and their favourable treatment to Byzantine merchants were harming Venetian profits. Also in 1182 after Alexios II was overthrown by Andronikos I, the supporters of Andronikos I performed a massacre of Catholics who lived in Constantinople, which resulted in over 10,000 Catholics dying (there is a wide number of estimates for the death toll ranging from 10,000-80,000). Before 1182 there were a large number of Venetians living in Constantinople, and many soldiers in the Venetian navy had lost relatives in the massacre, causing the Venetians to hate the Byzantines a lot more than average Catholics hated them.\n\nIn June 1203 the crusade arrived in Constantinople . The Crusaders had hoped having Alexios IV with them would convince the garrison to defect, but that didn't happen. During the siege in July Alexios III, after a failed sally attempt fled the city prompting the people of Constantinople to release Isaac II from his imprisonment and proclaim him as Emperor, the Crusaders then demanded that Alexios IV should be proclaimed as Emperor as well, at which point they stopped besieging the city.\n\nAt this point the Crusaders didn't control Constantinople, instead it was in the hands of their ally Alexios IV. In August 1203 another smaller massacre of Catholics happened in Constantinople, due to the Crusader army being away fighting against Alexios III in Thrace. Meanwhile Alexios IV was trying to fulfil the promises he had made to the Crusaders. Placing the Eastern Orthodox Church under the Pope was very slow, however even this little effort annoyed a great many Byzantines. The main promise Alexios IV tried to fulfil was the financial one, however even after melting down statues to make money he could only raise 100,000 of the 300,000 marks he needed to make the payment.\n\nHis attempts to fulfil his promise to the Crusaders made Alexios IV very unpopular with the people of Constantinople, who overthrew and killed him and his father on February 1204, and named Alexios V as Emperor instead. The crusaders still demanded that the promise of Alexios IV should be fulfilled, however when they realised that Alexios V wasn't going to abide by the deal the Crusaders besieged Constantinople, sacking it in April 1204.\n\nIn summary political upheaval in the Byzantine Empire resulting in the massacre of Catholics soured the relationship between the Byzantines and Catholics, leading to the Venetians hijacking an indebted Crusading force and taking it to capture Constantinople. The pope had called the 4th Crusade against Egypt, not the Byzantines.\n",
"u/wowbuggertheinfinite has a great discussion of the Fourth Crusade and how it all went so off the rails, but I want to highlight another important part of this whole incident: relations between the Latin West \\(and Crusaders in particular\\) and Byzantium were on rocky footing well before the Fourth Crusade.\n\nRelations between Byzantium and the West deteriorated significantly in the Central Middle ages. One major contributing factor was the Norman 'conquest' of southern Italy. I say 'conquest', because it was more like a slow edging out of the previous political elites and replacing them with newly arrived Normans \\(initially hired as mercenaries\\) than an out and out brutal conquest, and in that way very different from the more famous Norman Conquest in 1066 \\(which is not to say it was entirely peaceful either, it was still pretty violent\\). Byzantium ostensibly ruled over southern Italy and the previous rulers had sworn allegiance to the Empire. The new Norman nobility were less interested in paying their respects to a distant power and Byzantium lacked the strength to force them to, especially after the disastrous defeat at Manzikert in 1071.\n\nThings took a significant turn for the worse in the 1080s when the Normans, led by Robert Guiscard a prominent leader in the conquest of Southern Italy and Sicily, invaded the Balkans \\- lands definitely under Byzantine rule. This conflict lasted from 1080 until Guiscards death in 1085 \\- which roughly coincided with a major Byzantine\\-Venetian victory against the Norman forces. Somewhat ironically, many of the Norman participants in this invasion would go on to join the First Crusade, most notably the future Prince of Antioch \\(and Robert Guiscard's son\\) Bohemond of Taranto.\n\nThe First Crusade had a rocky start to Byzantine\\-Crusader relations \\(the presence of his Norman former enemies was not exactly something Alexios I loved\\), but mostly everyone got along reasonably well until the siege of Antioch. This is one of the major events of the First Crusade, and literal books have been written about it, so I'm going to limit myself to the big picture and skip over many very important and complex details. The short version is that the Crusader forces pushed ahead of Alexios' armies and besieged the stronghold of Antioch, at the same time the Atabeg of Mosul, Kerbogha, was summoning a massive Muslim army to crush the Crusade. The siege of Antioch dragged on for months, things were looking dire for the Crusaders. Bohemond managed to get a local resident to betray the city and let in a small force one night, and the Crusaders took the city just in time for Kerbogha to surround it and put them under siege. Alexios was supposed to come relieve them, he didn't \\(much ink has been spilled over this decision\\), it looked like the Crusaders were all about to die, but in a rather miraculous turn of events they road out of the city to fight Kerbogha and won. The First Crusade was triumphant, and feeling like they were betrayed by Alexios and the Byzantines. Bohemond was given control of Antioch, and declared that he didn't have to turn it over to the Byzantines despite previously have agreed to do so because they had abandoned the Crusade in its time of need. Alexios didn't really see things that way.\n\nThe relationship between Byzantium and Antioch would continue to be fraught for the next two centuries. Bohemond actually assembled another army while touring Europe promoting his success on the crusade and used it to invade Byzantium **again**, this time with disastrous consequences. He was roundly defeated, captured by Alexios, and forced to pledge his loyalty to the Byzantine Empire. He died without returning to Antioch, and his son \\(now Prince of Antioch\\), decided that his father's oath to Alexios didn't apply to him. Relations continued to be problematic after that.\n\nRelations between Byzantium and the Latin West continued to be problematic through the Second Crusade, although they again mostly cooperated but there were a lot of hard feelings after the Crusades failure and a strong desire in parts of the West to blame that failure upon the 'treachery of the Greeks'. Relations took an even worse turn in 1185 when the Angelos dynasty deposed the last Komnenoi emperor and then pretty much refused to help with the Third Crusade at all. The Angelos dynasty was marked in particular by strong anti\\-Latin sentiments, and were eventually deposed as part of the Fourth Crusade.\n\nThis has been a super broad survey of a very complicated topic, but I think it is important to keep in mind that throughout this period relations between Byzantium and the Crusaders were not all rosy, and while the Fourth Crusade is arguably an extreme result, it is not entirely without precedent.\n\nPeter Frankopan's *A Call from the East* is a good history of the First Crusade from the Byzantine perspective and covers the fraught relations beforehand pretty well.\n\nThomas Asbridge's *The Crusades* is a great survey of the whole period.\n\nAndrew Buck's *The Principality of Antioch and its Frontiers in the Twelfth Century* is a serious scholarly work, and not one I'd recommend a beginner jump in to, but has some great detail on the complicated relationship between Antioch and Byzantium in the century before the Fourth Crusade."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b4k22r
|
what is that yellow foil around space probes and what is its function?
|
You know what I'm talking about. That yellow material that surrounds a probe and nearly covers the entire craft. Just what is it and what is it used for?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4k22r/eli5_what_is_that_yellow_foil_around_space_probes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej766r1"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"The gold and silver colored sheets you see are often a single layer of aluminized polyimide with the silver aluminum side facing in. The yellowish-gold color of the polyimide on the outside gives the satellite the appearance of being wrapped in gold.\n\nMulti-layer insulation is used on satellites primarily for thermal control and protects the delicate on-board instruments from the extreme temperatures of space. Depending on its orbit, a satellite can experience temperatures from below -200°F to well above 300°F, sometimes at the same time! Not to mention the high temperatures the onboard instruments can produce."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2yd09n
|
If I filled up a water bottle underwater in the deep part of the ocean, and brought it back up again, would the bottle explode?
|
Since underwater pressure is greater the deeper you go, I thought that water that's been pressurized would expand as it rises (like air in a balloon) and eventually make the bottle explode.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2yd09n/if_i_filled_up_a_water_bottle_underwater_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp8kful"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"**Short answer:** Probably not, but it depends on the quality of your plastic bottle.\n\n**Long answer:** Gasses and liquids behave a little differently when under pressure. The temperature or pressure of ideal gasses, for example, will have a dramatic response when compressed. \n\nWater is different- in fact, it's often taken to be an *incompressible fluid* meaning that it's density doesn't really change as the pressure on it increases. This means that you have to squeeze really really hard on water to change it's volume a small amount. If you filled your water bottle at the very bottom of the ocean and brought it up, the change in pressure will only have a minute effect on the volume of the fluid. Provided your bottle is some sort of crazy cool pressure vessel that can handle deep sea pressures without getting crushed, then it's certainly capable of handling the water once it's back at the surface. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zskfm
|
Can you tell the age of someone by their DNA?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zskfm/can_you_tell_the_age_of_someone_by_their_dna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfwsbt9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To some extent, yes. In the S-phase of the cell cycle, when the cell is preparing to undergo mitosis, the chromosomes containing our DNA are duplicated by the DNA-polymerase enzyme.\n\nThe telomeres are strands of nucleotide bases at the end of the chromosomes where no genes are located. These are used to provide the location for RNA primers, allowing DNA polymerase to synthesise the lagging strand of the DNA.\n\nAs the first part of this video _URL_1_ shows, there is a small nucleotide sequence lacking at each replication, but since the telomeres are not involved in the translation of DNA to protein, they are expendable. However they will continue to get shorter at each replication and are widely believed to be responsible for part of the ageing process in eukaryotes.\n\nBy combining the knowledge of DNA replication rates in various tissues and the telomere length, an estimate of age can be provided.\n\n\nSources:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nCampbell Biology, Pearson Education"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.news-medical.net/health/Telomere-Shortening.aspx",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AJNoTmWsE0s",
"http://www.nature.com/scitable/topicpage/replication-and-distribution-of-dna-during-mitosis-6524841"
]
] |
||
82ced7
|
In video games and popular media, the Sengoku Period of Japan are often characterized as a period of conflict between Japanese clans which were small but were of equal economic or military strength with each other. Was this accurate?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/82ced7/in_video_games_and_popular_media_the_sengoku/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv98ymi"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Well...it really depends on the specific clan, battle, and war. When we are talking about local strongman vs local strongman, it's probably not too far off to assume each side only had a few hundred, or at most a couple of thousand. However, things could be quite large and lopsided. For instance, the overall engagement at Nagashino was, according to the Chronicles of Lord Nobunaga, 38,500 for the Oda and Tokugawa and 15,000 for the Takeda, with the decisive engagement at Shitaragahara 32,000 vs 12,000. And this is the *lower* end of pre-modern sources. And engagements after Yamazaki got stupidly large because of the wide range of resources and clans mobilized.\n\nOn the other hand... it's my experience that media often *exaggerate* the strength disparity to make for a better story, so I'm not sure which media you're referring to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1of441
|
if humans have a night and day circadian clock, why have i (and others) been a night owl since birth?
|
As far back as I can remember I have always stayed up late nights.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1of441/eli5_if_humans_have_a_night_and_day_circadian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccrdvgd"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I'm right there with you. Our knowledge of sleep is still very limited (as well as pretty much anything that has to do with our brain), but there are a large range of classified sleep disorders. Insomnia, night terrors, narcolepsy, things you've probably heard before. [Here's a good Wikipedia article on Delayed Sleep Phase Disorder](_URL_2_), which I'm guessing will sound pretty familiar to you.\n\nDSPD (and its opposite [Advanced Sleep Phase Syndrome](_URL_1_)) is an *uncontrollable* shift in your sleep cycle. People with DSPD commonly go to sleep well past midnight. They find it difficult to keep a \"normal\" schedule, especially with standardized work hours being 9-5. If left on their own they will resort to a regular (albeit shifted) sleep schedule. This is more common in adolescents (possibly as high as 7%), and less common in adults (around .15%). If the DSPD does not disappear after adolescence/early adulthood it will be a lifelong condition. \n\nThere are some treatments, including medication and non-medication. Light therapy, sleep phase chronotherapy, meltanonin, modafinil, are more common. A significant thing to note, with DSPD you may find that people will label you as lazy. While this may be true, it is entirely separate from the condition itself. DSPD is a shift in how a person is able to fall asleep and wake up, not their ability to get out of bed--though it is far easier to get out of bed when your body wakes up naturally after a full night's rest. \n\nYou may find that you have difficulty feeling tired after a late night on Reddit. If you're looking at a screen late at night, the blue light (which is the majority of the light coming out of the screen usually) disrupts your sleep cycle by suppressing melatonin, [proportional to the light intensity and length of exposure](_URL_0_). I would recommend installing a program like [f.lux](_URL_3_) to lower the amount of blue light coming out of your screen late at night. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Melatonin#Light_dependence",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advanced_sleep_phase_syndrome",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Delayed_sleep_phase_disorder",
"http://justgetflux.com/"
]
] |
|
4khyuz
|
How common were certain Roman names, and are there any reliable statistics on this?
|
I know that in Ancient Rome, there were some names which were so common they had abbreviations, e.g. C for Gaius, Cn for Gnaeus, M for Marcus, etc. My question is, how common were these names as compared to other, less common ones. How big was the selection in possible names? Was it mostly just a "pick your favorite of the top 20", or were more diverse names common as well? And apologies, but I don't have any specific period in mind; Republic, Empire, even Kingdom would be fine. Basically any Latin-speaking society in what is considered the "ancient world" would apply to my question.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4khyuz/how_common_were_certain_roman_names_and_are_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3f5fre"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The traditional Roman male *tria nomina* were made up of three elements. The *tria nomina* was a symbol of Roman citizenship and quite often thought as the 'classic' form of Roman nomenclature, but in reality, it was actually used for a relatively short amount of time in Roman history and all sorts of other formulas and variations were popular at different times, but maybe there's no need to go into that just now. Benet Salway's 1994 [article](_URL_1_) offers a classic review of changes in Roman onomastic practise if someone's interested. \n\nWe can take Cicero's, that is, Marcus Tullius Cicero's name as an example. There is the *praenomen*, which was the first name that originally was used as the main diacritic within family (Marcus). Then, there's the *nomen gentilicium* or sometimes called just *nomen* (Tullius), which was basically the family name that showed which *gens* you belonged to. The Romans had laws for protecting these *nomina*, and using an Italian *gentilicium* even when you were not a citizen was a punishable offense. The *gentilicium* always passed from father to sons and daughters, and the *praenomen* almost always, so that the sons of the family often had the same first name. The last element, the *cognomen* (Cicero), then was originally used as an added personal touch that could differentiate males in the same family or family line. In reality, these were often hereditary as well, which can make it very difficult to differentiate between generations. *Cognomina* could for example differentiate between the sons in the family and mark the order of birth; Primus, Secundus, Tertius etc. were very popular. They could also have something to do with the characteristics or achievements of the individual - Plutarch says that Cicero (which means 'chickpea') had gotten his name from an ancestor who had a small nose that looked like a chickpea. \n\nSo, to go back to your questions, are you only interested about the *praenomina*, i.e. the first names? If yes, the Romans had a *very* [limited repertoire](_URL_0_) of *praenomina*, some three dozen. *Praenomina* practically always passed from father to sons, and freedmen usually took their old master's *praenomen*. So, \"what should I call my son?\" was very rarely a puzzle for Romans. The Wikipedia article says that about a half of those in the list were in popular use, but I could limit the names that were really popular to an even smaller number; the most common one's you'll see are Gaius, Gnaeus, Lucius, Marcus, Publius, Quintus, Sextus, Tiberius, Titus - perhaps Statius and Servius can make that list as well. *Praenomina* other than these are pretty rare. I'm pretty sure I've seen statistics for different Roman regions about how popular each *praenomen* was, but, sorry, I can't remember on my feet where I could find one just now :P There will be regional variations, and I don't think anyone has done a survey for the *whole* Roman world, since we have tens of thousands of inscriptions and therefore personal names from the Roman era!\n\nIf you're interested how common some *gentilicia* and *cognomina* are, that's a more difficult question because there are huge amounts of them. Study of Roman personal names, known as onomastics, is a big academic field of its own. People who work on this field, among other things, make lists of *gentilicia* and *cognomina* and track how popular certain names are in certain regions and eras. These can be used to make some guesses about where any individual came from the Roman world. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Praenomen#Masculine_names",
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/300873?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents"
]
] |
|
3lkavd
|
Should the Atlantropa project (the partial drying of the Mediterranean sea) be realised, wouldn't the newly freed land be too salty for agriculture ?
|
I just heard about the incredible [Atlantropa project](_URL_0_) and I'm trying to understand it a bit better.
The problem of the salinity seems like such an obvious objection, I don't see why it didn't emerge during the decades where this was in discussion. Did the mind behind it had ideas on how to circumvent it? Would it be possible to find a way to circumvent it? Could plants be genetically engineered in order to grow on ground with very high salinity or used to decrease it?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3lkavd/should_the_atlantropa_project_the_partial_drying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cv733h2"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"It's not easy but the Dutch have been doing it for a long time now.\n\nYoutube clip, 19 minutes: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nLong read about the Dutch desalination and reclamation of land: \n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atlantropa"
] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pxawZhwI7Ug",
"http://dirt.asla.org/2010/09/10/the-netherlands-changing-relationship-with-water/"
]
] |
|
3hxy1g
|
why streaming porn on my tablet loads 10 times faster than any other video streaming domains.
|
Edit: thanks guys! Makes a lot more sense now!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hxy1g/eli5_why_streaming_porn_on_my_tablet_loads_10/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cubkqoo",
"cubkujc"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"There are a LOT of people using SFW video streaming domains like Netflix and YouTube. Compared to the relatively small amount of data not-video content takes up, it's an absolutely massive amount of traffic. Porn sites get a lot of traffic too, but I'd be willing to wager that at least within the US (because copyrighted material isn't as available in other countries), sites like Netflix, YouTube, and Hulu have a much higher demand. When you factor in the fact that most content watched on porn sites is lower resolution/bitrate, it's a lot easier to stream a 480p 5-minute video than a 1080p 55-minute episode of Orange is the New Black.",
"Porn is way more massively consumed and porn sites have more servers with replicated content geographicaly. This is called CDN (Content Distribution Network).\n\nIn English: surely porn site A has a server nearer you and way faster than video B from youtube. Or the video you are watching is not replicated in the server close to you cause it does not have that many visits in the area. That is why chinese internet sites load sooo slowly. Even if the Internet is somehow abstract and everywhere, there will always be geographic limitations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2mnn6f
|
Russian roulette - what is the origin? Has it actually been played? Are there testimonials from survivors?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mnn6f/russian_roulette_what_is_the_origin_has_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm5y0wf",
"cm5y1i8",
"cm65c5w",
"cm69hdz",
"cm6dmpz",
"cm6n0yb",
"cm6t69q"
],
"score": [
677,
200,
82,
41,
12,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"One of the first mentions of Russian Roulette in literature was in a 1840 novel by Russian poet Lermontov \"Hero of Our Time\" (Full ebook available on [Gutenberg Project](_URL_1_), scene is in the last chapter of the book).\n\nSince Lermontow was a Russian officer who served in Caucasus and at least some facts\\stories in the novel (which is a work of fiction) were autobiographical, the Russian Roulette story might have some real background behind it.\n\nEDIT: I did some additional research and found some obscure references in a biography of Russian general Mihail Skobelev (russian only, Google Books link [here](_URL_0_), unsure if it was ever translated), who lived 1843—1882 and was famous due to his service in one of many Russian-Turkish wars in 1870-s. The books mentions that Skobelev was aware of the risky game his officers played, unofficially approved it as a display of valor and bravery, but was forced to punish it severely due to special order from Emperor Alexander II by demoting involved officers to common soldiers (officers were mostly nobility, soldiers were mostly peasants, so this demotion would be quite shameful). Book fails to reference any sources though, and I also was unable to find any traces of such law or order.\n\nBut if those facts are true, it all fits quite well. Early 1800s during Lermontov time the Roulette appeared among officers on Caucasus (note that Lermontov describes the game, but never actually calls it Russian Roulette), late in 1870s it is well known, has its official name \"the Roulette\" and is popular enough to requite special actions from Emperor and generals to stop its spread among officers.",
"The concept may stem from a story in Collier's in 1937, per the Oxford English Dictionary, (G. Surdez in *Collier's* 30 Jan. 1937), which describes the practice as it's come to be known. A search of the New York Times turned up dozens of references prior to the 1960s (65 between 1942-1959 in fact), most of which are death notices involving young men to have been killed in the U.S. playing the \"game.\"\n\nThe earliest examples:\n\n* \"Gamble With One Cartridge in Revolver Costs Life of Fordham Sophomore, 20\"\n*New York Times* 02 May 1942: 15.\n\n* \"RUSSIAN ROULETTE' FATAL: Boy, 12, Is Killed by the One Cartridge in Revolver\"\n*New York Times* 27 Feb 1949: 36.\n\n* \"RUSSIAN ROULETTE FATAL: Youth, Exhibiting His Luck to His Brothers, Is Killed\"\n*New York Times* 28 Dec 1953: 28.\n\nInterestingly, the first of these explains the term by noting it was \"said to have been practiced in the army of the Czar\" while the second speculates that it \"originated in the movies.\" The third doesn't bother to define it at all, so one might assume that by 1953 the writer believed his audience to know what Russian roulette meant and did not require any additional explanation.\n\nIn all of these stories young men/boys (the youngest victim was 12) die playing the game with friends.",
"Of course \"Russian Roulette\" became popularized in the late 1970s after the release of Michael Cimino's Oscar Winning Film \"The Deer Hunter\".\n\nIn the film American prisoners of war are forced to play the game while their North Vietnamese captors bet on the outcomes.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI believe Cimino made it clear in later interviews (I will try to find a source) that the scenes were to be taken metaphorically; indicative of the impossible state these prisoners found themselves in. And there were no true reports of prisoners of war being forced to play Russian Roulette.\n\nBut this did not stop many people (typically kids) from playing the game themselves. [This report from the Christian Science Monitor](_URL_1_) in 1981 reports that 15 people had died from playing the game, apparently inspired by TV showings of the Deer Hunter that year.\n\nIt's an excellent, long article. Well worth reading.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Frank Andersson - A Swedish Olympic wrestler have played Russian roulette, I have translated what he said about it in an interview by Expressen, a Swedish newspaper: \n\n“I have played Russian Roulette. It was a late night in 1985. I was the only one who tried it and I won 50 000 SEK since there were nobody else that dared…It happened, of course, at a boozeroo [party with loads of alcohol. My not.], says Anderson and laughs. –You don’t think. You just pull the trigger. And everything went fine so there was nothing more to it. –Your chances are good if you think about the statistics. Says Andersson and continues. –I’m not sure if it was a challenge, but I have always sought thrills my whole life. But I would never redo it.\n\n[Link to the interview, in Swedish.](_URL_0_)\n",
"Malcolm X claimed to have played a game of Russian Roulette in his lifetime in his [autobiography](_URL_1_), but the [reporter who helped him write it later claimed](_URL_0_) he had palmed the round, ensuring his safety.",
"Since there was a question about testimonials from survivors: It's too recent to qualify as \"history\", but in June of 2014 the journal *Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery* published a case study of a 20-year-old Albanian man who had survived a through-and-through gunshot wound to the head from a .22 revolver during a game of Russian Roulette. The article indicates that the authors were able to find only one other published case study involving a survivor of a Russian Roulette-related gunshot wound to the head: an Italian man whose case was described in that same publication in 2009. A citation for that piece is provided at the end of the article. I mention this article and its conclusion in order to provide an explanation for the apparent lack of cases falling outside the 20-year window that defines eligibility for this subreddit.\n\nThe article can be read [here](_URL_0_). Please bear in mind, however, that it includes some extremely graphic images of pre-surgery facial injuries, and as such is NSFW (unless, of course, you work in reconstructive surgery or a similar field).",
"If you're looking for references of it actually being used I can suggest the book Can't Stop, Won't Stop by Jeff Chang which describes the beginning of the Hip Hop culture in Bronx and other New York suburbs in the 60's and 70's. In the book he has gathered testimonials of gangs at the time with a lot of information about their perspective of what they experienced (mostly as a result of the building of the Cross-Bronx Expressway). Some of the testimonials include former gang members' recollecting their initiation rites; some which included, among other things, performing a russian roulette."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.ru/books?id=qehNAgAAQBAJ&dq=%D0%93%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B8%D0%B9+%D0%B2%D0%BE%D0%B9%D0%BD%D1%8B+%D0%A1%D0%BA%D0%BE%D0%B1%D0%B5%D0%BB%D0%B5%D0%B2.+%22%D0%91%D0%B5%D0%BB%D1%8B%D0%B9+%D0%B3%D0%B5%D0%BD%D0%B5%D1%80%D0%B0%D0%BB%22&source=gbs_navlinks_s",
"http://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/913"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aCW9NsrV6VM",
"http://www.csmonitor.com/1981/0205/020562.html"
],
[
"http://www.expressen.se/sport/jag-har-spelat-rysk-roulette/"
],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=vWBxXUEZ13EC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=alex+haley+malcolm+x+russian+roulette&source=bl&ots=Gmgw5VFmG-&sig=_7slCUC3KImAqhNbvvCtSC5kQNw&hl=en&sa=X&ei=BcNrVLGAMcSLyATVrILQCQ&ved=0CDsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=alex%20haley%20malcolm%20x%20russian%20roulette&f=false",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/autobiography-of-malcolm-x-with-the-assistance-of-alex-haley/oclc/219493184"
],
[
"http://mobile.journals.lww.com/plasreconsurg/_layouts/oaks.journals.mobile/articleviewer.aspx?year=2014&issue=06000&article=00060"
],
[]
] |
||
kw0f3
|
What is the best book to explain the evidence and the argument for climate change?
|
I have a BS in physics, so I am not a complete layperson, but I'd like a book that really breaks down the evidence and presents the complete case, what do you suggest? If their are any climate change deniers/skeptics out there, I will take your suggestions too.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kw0f3/what_is_the_best_book_to_explain_the_evidence_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2noy0n",
"c2npdtw",
"c2ntj73",
"c2noy0n",
"c2npdtw",
"c2ntj73"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There is a wealth of resources that deal with climate change.\n\nFor a brief summary, I think the [booklet published by the Australian Academy of Science](_URL_0_) does a fair job. There are probably many similar booklets out there.\n\nIf you want more details, the website [Skeptical Science](_URL_1_) is one extraordinary resource. Not only do they have concise explanations (with different technical levels) to many climate change phenomena and myths, they are also constantly addressing claims from the contrarian community.\n\nThe [IPCC 4th Assessment Report by Working Group I](_URL_2_) is actually a somewhat lengthy but good resource. If you don't want to read all of it, try the Technical Summary or FAQ chapters.",
"Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming by Michael Mann and Lee Kump. Both are preeminent climate scientists. They are not journalists or science writers, they do the science on which our understanding of climate is based. \n\nThis book is a distillation of the 2007 IPCC report. It is comparatively easy to read. \n\nAND it looks like it is on sale for cheap on Amazon. I second the Skeptical Science website as well. ",
"Here's a fantastic source, cannot recommend it enough:\n\n[The Discovery of Global Warming](_URL_0_) by Spencer Weart. It's all free on the website.\n\nFor cypherpunks, [here](_URL_1_) is the chapter spefically on biosphere interactions",
"There is a wealth of resources that deal with climate change.\n\nFor a brief summary, I think the [booklet published by the Australian Academy of Science](_URL_0_) does a fair job. There are probably many similar booklets out there.\n\nIf you want more details, the website [Skeptical Science](_URL_1_) is one extraordinary resource. Not only do they have concise explanations (with different technical levels) to many climate change phenomena and myths, they are also constantly addressing claims from the contrarian community.\n\nThe [IPCC 4th Assessment Report by Working Group I](_URL_2_) is actually a somewhat lengthy but good resource. If you don't want to read all of it, try the Technical Summary or FAQ chapters.",
"Dire Predictions: Understanding Global Warming by Michael Mann and Lee Kump. Both are preeminent climate scientists. They are not journalists or science writers, they do the science on which our understanding of climate is based. \n\nThis book is a distillation of the 2007 IPCC report. It is comparatively easy to read. \n\nAND it looks like it is on sale for cheap on Amazon. I second the Skeptical Science website as well. ",
"Here's a fantastic source, cannot recommend it enough:\n\n[The Discovery of Global Warming](_URL_0_) by Spencer Weart. It's all free on the website.\n\nFor cypherpunks, [here](_URL_1_) is the chapter spefically on biosphere interactions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html",
"http://www.skepticalscience.com/",
"http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm",
"http://www.aip.org/history/climate/biota.htm"
],
[
"http://www.science.org.au/policy/climatechange.html",
"http://www.skepticalscience.com/",
"http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/contents.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.aip.org/history/climate/index.htm",
"http://www.aip.org/history/climate/biota.htm"
]
] |
|
6tembu
|
do birds pee?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6tembu/eli5_do_birds_pee/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlk1stw",
"dlk20km",
"dlk44id",
"dlk4dty",
"dlk4vtc"
],
"score": [
44,
86,
18,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Their pee and their poop is the same thing. The white of bird poop contains the uric acid crystals that are dissolved in liquid in human pee. ",
"Water is a pretty heavy material, so if birds were to have a bladder it would significantly affect weight distribution. So instead of converting amino acids to urea which needs to dissolve in water to be removed, a lot of water. The convert it to uric acid which forms a paste when a small amount of water is added to it. Lizards do the same since they live in dry, water sparse regions ",
"Birds have a single opening for pee, poo and reproductive uses. A cloaca. As one of the other comments described, it has to do with water saving. By combining all waste, the weight of a bird is reduced making it a more efficient flyer. So, yes a bird pees, but not in the regular sense of the word. ",
"Peeing gets rid of ammonia (toxic) in the body and animals do it 3 different ways.\n\n1. Fish: release it straight as ammonia since they are surrounded by water that quickly dilutes any nasties.\n2. Birds: convert ammonia to uric acid for short term storage and secrete it with their poo\n3. Warm blooded land mammals: convert it further to urea which is safe for longer term storage since there are predatory effects to where the animal urinates. Urea takes more energy to make than uric acid but it is a necessary cost for survival.",
"The white part of a birds 'poop' is actually their equivalent of pee, while the black bits are the true poop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
sug2n
|
Any book recommendations on the history of contemporary music?
|
I'm not a scholar of history but I do enjoy reading history and biographies. Historians seem to like creating a narrative out of the events of history and relating the story that way. I'm also a music nerd and I definitely think that it is possible to take this historian's approach to writing about the history of contemporary music. It seems to me that there's a narrative there and I'd like to read about it. Could anyone recommend books on the history of contemporary music (since the 60s or so)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sug2n/any_book_recommendations_on_the_history_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4h9ggm",
"c4hzqx5"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"First off, because you mention the 60's as your starting point for learning about the history of music, I am going to assume your focus lies in the British reinvention of rock and roll and the countless genres spawned by this event. This happens to be an area with which I am familiar. However, our culture glorifies the 60s and \"classic\" rock. This doesn't mean that all of a sudden there was a huge burst in creativity untapped by mankind previously which resulted in rock and roll music. On the contrary, rock is a development in an ongoing series of musical developments (by no means linear).\n\nMy quasi historical approach to music would be to appreciate it as a series of movements. These movements originate because of artistic desire, which seeks originality. Nobody wants to sound stale. Important musical groups in history synthesize various musical influences into a \"fresh\" sound: for instance, Nirvana \"created\" grunge music.\n\nThere is an inherent problem in this model in that it gives far too much credit to individual artists. Usually, these artists operate within a musical scene. For Nirvana, they came from Seattle in the late 80s, which was frustrated with the glam-metal that reigned supreme at that time. These artists didn't care about apperance (shaggy hair, thrift store flannels and jeans, et cetera) and wrote music, well, I can't really define grunge (this isn't my area of expertise as far as music history goes). Anyway, this music became popular with Nirvana's breakthrough album \"Nevermind.\" Therefore, by reading biographies of Nirvana, you will gain information on the particular variables that lead to the creation of grunge music. This gives you an insight into the overall progression of musical development.\n\nBut what do I know? [ Here](_URL_0_) (scroll down a tad) is the famous chalkboard from the movie \"School of Rock\" in which Jack Black instructs his students about the history of rock music since the 50s. That chart is pretty helpful in showing the major movements as well as the most important innovative artists. \n\nAs for choosing particular biographies based on my approach... Good luck with that. I would suggest doing a search on amazon and then checking out the reviews.\n\nHopefully, one of our peers can provide a more effective method to understanding this music. If I ever happen across a worthwhile book on the subject, I'll shoot you a pm =D",
"I haven't seen too many good scholarly works on the history of music since the 60s. There are lots of history of rock and roll books out there, and many are interesting but I can't pick out a specific one for you. \n\nBy far my favorite work about American music is about early Jazz. It's \"Cuttin' Up\" by Court Carney. A good entertaining read about the development of jazz music in America. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://mailemusicproject.com/about/"
],
[]
] |
|
5ob6a6
|
After WWII, what did the International Red Cross conclude, in it's investigations into the holocaust?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ob6a6/after_wwii_what_did_the_international_red_cross/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dchy55t",
"dchydo3",
"dcifhbm"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
10
],
"text": [
"Hi! As this question pertains to basic, underlying facts of the Holocaust, I hope you can appreciate that it can be a fraught subject to deal with. While we want people to get the answers they are looking for, we also remain very conscious that threads of this nature can attract the very wrong kind of response. As such, this message is not intended to provide you with all of the answers, but simply to address some of the basic facts, as well as Holocaust Denial, and provide a short list of introductory reading. There is always more than can be said, but we hope this is a good starting point for you.\n\n##What Was the Holocaust?\n\nThe Holocaust refers the genocidal deaths of 5-6 million European Jews carried out systematically by Nazi Germany as part of targeted policies of persecution and extermination during World War II. Some historians will also include the deaths of the Roma, Communists, Mentally Disabled, and other groups targeted by Nazi policies, which brings the total number of deaths to ~11 million. Debates about whether or not the Holocaust includes these deaths or not is a matter of definitions, but in no way a reflection on dispute that they occurred.\n\n##But This Guy Says Otherwise!\n\nUnfortunately, there is a small, but at times vocal, minority of persons who fall into the category of Holocaust Denial, attempting to minimize the deaths by orders of magnitude, impugn well proven facts, or even claim that the Holocaust is entirely a fabrication and never happened. Although they often self-style themselves as \"Revisionists\", they are not correctly described by the title. While revisionism is not inherently a dirty word, actual revision, to quote Michael Shermer, *\"entails refinement of detailed knowledge about events, rarely complete denial of the events themselves, and certainly not denial of the cumulation of events known as the Holocaust.\"*\n\nIt is absolutely true that were you to read a book written in 1950 or so, you would find information which any decent scholar today might reject, and that is the result of good revisionism. But these changes, which even can be quite large, such as the reassessment of deaths at Auschwitz from ~4 million to ~1 million, are done within the bounds of respected, academic study, and reflect decades of work that builds upon the work of previous scholars, and certainly does not willfully disregard documented evidence and recollections. There are still plenty of questions within Holocaust Studies that are debated by scholars, and there may still be more out there for us to discover, and revise, but when it comes to the basic facts, there is simply no valid argument against them.\n\n##So What Are the Basics?\n\nBeginning with their rise to power in the 1930s, the Nazi Party, headed by Adolf Hitler, implemented a series of anti-Jewish policies within Germany, marginalizing Jews within society more and more, stripping them of their wealth, livelihoods, and their dignity. With the invasion of Poland in 1939, the number of Jews under Nazi control reached into the millions, and this number would again increase with the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941. Shortly after the invasion of Poland, the Germans started to confine the Jewish population into squalid ghettos. After several plans on how to rid Europe of the Jews that all proved unfeasible, by the time of the invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941, ideological (Antisemitism) and pragmatic (Resources) considerations lead to mass-killings becoming the only viable option in the minds of the Nazi leadership.\nFirst only practiced in the USSR, it was influential groups such as the SS and the administration of the General Government that pushed to expand the killing operations to all of Europe and sometime at the end of 1941 met with Hitler’s approval.\n\nThe early killings were carried out foremost by the *Einsatzgruppen*, paramilitary groups organized under the aegis of the SS and tasked with carrying out the mass killings of Jews, Communists, and other 'undesirable elements' in the wake of the German military's advance. In what is often termed the 'Holocaust by Bullet', the *Einsatzgruppen*, with the assistance of the Wehrmacht, the SD, the Security Police, as well as local collaborators, would kill roughly two million persons, over half of them Jews. Most killings were carried out with mass shootings, but other methods such as gas vans - intended to spare the killers the trauma of shooting so many persons day after day - were utilized too. \n\nBy early 1942, the \"Final Solution\" to the so-called \"Jewish Question\" was essentially finalized at the Wannsee Conference under the direction of Reinhard Heydrich, where the plan to eliminate the Jewish population of Europe using a series of extermination camps set up in occupied Poland was presented and met with approval.\n\nConstruction of extermination camps had already begun the previous fall, and mass extermination, mostly as part of 'Operation Reinhard', had began operation by spring of 1942. Roughly 2 million persons, nearly all Jewish men, women, and children, were immediately gassed upon arrival at Bełżec, Sobibór, and Treblinka over the next two years, when these \"Reinhard\" camps were closed and razed. More victims would meet their fate in additional extermination camps such as Chełmno, but most infamously at Auschwitz-Birkenau, where slightly over 1 million persons, mostly Jews, died. Under the plan set forth at Wannsee, exterminations were hardly limited to the Jews of Poland, but rather Jews from all over Europe were rounded up and sent east by rail like cattle to the slaughter. Although the victims of the Reinhard Camps were originally buried, they would later be exhumed and cremated, and cremation of the victims was normal procedure at later camps such as Auschwitz.\n\n##The Camps\n\nThere were two main types of camps run by Nazi Germany, which is sometimes a source of confusion. Concentration Camps were well known means of extrajudicial control implemented by the Nazis shortly after taking power, beginning with the construction of Dachau in 1933. Political opponents of all type, not just Jews, could find themselves imprisoned in these camps during the pre-war years, and while conditions were often brutal and squalid, and numerous deaths did occur from mistreatment, they were not usually a death sentence and the population fluctuated greatly. Although Concentration Camps *were* later made part of the 'Final Solution', their purpose was not as immediate extermination centers. Some were 'way stations', and others were work camps, where Germany intended to eke out every last bit of productivity from them through what was known as \"extermination through labor\". Jews and other undesirable elements, if deemed healthy enough to work, could find themselves spared for a time and \"allowed\" to toil away like slaves until their usefulness was at an end.\n\nAlthough some Concentration Camps, such as Mauthausen, did include small gas chambers, mass gassing was not the primary purpose of the camp. Many camps, becoming extremely overcrowded, nevertheless resulted in the deaths of tens of thousands of inhabitants due to the outbreak of diseases such as typhus, or starvation, all of which the camp administrations did little to prevent. Bergen-Belsen, which was not a work camp but rather served as something of a way station for prisoners of the camp systems being moved about, is perhaps one of the most infamous of camps on this count, saw some 50,000 deaths caused by the conditions. Often located in the Reich, camps liberated by the Western forces were exclusively Concentration Camps, and many survivor testimonies come from these camps.\n\nThe Concentration Camps are contrasted with the Extermination Camps, which were purpose built for mass killing, with large gas chambers and later on, crematoria, but little or no facilities for inmates. Often they were disguised with false facades to lull the new arrivals into a false sense of security, even though rumors were of course rife for the fate that awaited the deportees. Almost all arrivals were killed upon arrival at these camps, and in many cases the number of survivors numbered in the single digits, such as at Bełżec, where only seven Jews, forced to assist in operation of the camp, were alive after the war.\n\nSeveral camps, however, were 'Hybrids' of both types, the most famous being Auschwitz, which was a vast complex of subcamps. The infamous 'selection' of prisoners, conducted by SS doctors upon arrival, meant life or death, with those deemed unsuited for labor immediately gassed and the more healthy and robust given at least temporary reprieve. The death count at Auschwitz numbered around 1 million, but it is also the source of many survivor testimonies.\n\n##How Do We Know?\n\nRunning through the evidence piece by piece would take more space than we have here, but suffice to say, there is a lot of evidence, and not just the (mountains of) survivor testimony. We have testimonies and writings from many who participated, as well German documentation of the programs. [This site](_URL_5_) catalogs some of the evidence we have for mass extermination as it relates to Auschwitz. I'll close this out with a short list of excellent works that should help to introduce you to various aspects of Holocaust study.\n\n##Further Reading\n\n* \"[Third Reich Trilogy](_URL_4_)\" by Richard Evans\n* \"[Hitler, the Germans, and the Final Solution](_URL_1_)\" by Ian Kershaw\n* \"[Auschwitz: A New History](_URL_3_)\" by Laurence Rees\n* \"[Ordinary Men](_URL_0_)\" by Christopher Browning\n* \"[Denying History](_URL_2_)\" by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman\n* [AskHistorians FAQ](/r/AskHistorians/wiki/wwii#wiki_nazi_germany)\n",
"Also, since your question specifically focuses on the Red Cross, [this older thread](_URL_0_), specifically the answer by u/commiespaceinvader, may be of interest to you. ",
"From an [older answer concerning this specific claim about the ICRC](_URL_2_). And for good measure one on the actual death toll [here](_URL_3_)\n\nWith regards to the documents by the International Committee of the Red Cross:\n\nThis myth of a Red Cross document originates with famous Holocaust Denier Richard Harwood in his propaganda book *Did Six Million really die*, which has not only been disproven several times – among the most famous incidents at the trial of Ernst Zündel – but also by the International Committee of the Red Cross itself.\n\nHarwood is in typical fashion for deniers twisting evidence and words in this case. He cites a document by the International Tracing Service of the Red Cross compiled in response to a query regarding the number of deaths in concentration camps they had so far recorded based on surviving documents from the various camp administrations. Given the practice, as the Nazis themselves described it, that the majority of Jewish prisoners send to camps like Auschwitz or the Reinhard Camps were not even registered in those camps but rather killed immediately upon arrival and that a lot of the documentation of the Nazis was destroyed by the same Nazis before the end of the war – see also my answer concerning the [Auschwitz Death books here](_URL_1_) – this document was never intended or claimed as numbering all the victims of the Nazi killing spree. Yet Harwood and other deniers ignore this and base their dubious and politically and morally abhorrent claims on the falsification of this document among other things.\n\nThe ICRC published [a refutation of said claims](_URL_0_) in a 1979 bulletin where they write:\n\n > A machination initiated years ago has gone so far that the ICRC is now entangled in its mesh. Its object is to whitewash the National Socialist system in wartime Germany of the accusation of genocide. (...) Consequently the ICRC considers it must make clear the fact that is has never published – or even compiled – statistics of this kind [meaning statistics of all victims of the Holocaust] which are being falsely attributed to it.\n\nAs to the ITS document numbering 271.000, they write:\n\n > The same propaganda scheme has recently been making use of other figures, namely the number of deaths recorded by the International Tracing Service on the basis of documents found when the camps were closed. Obviously this number bears no relation – though the authors of the propaganda pretend otherwise – to the total deaths in concentration camps; firstly because a considerable number of documentary material was destroyed before the departure of the Nazi administration, and secondly because many deaths were never recorded, such as those which occurred in the extermination camps where records were generally not kept. \n\nThey end with this very true statement:\n\n > There is, incidentally, something revolting about this arithmetical controversy as if such a tragedy could be reduced to mere figures.\n\n\nSources and further reading:\n\n* Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It? by Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman (2002).\n\n* Denying the Holocaust: The Growing Assault on Truth and Memory by Deborah Lipstadt (1994).\n\n* History on Trial: My Day in Court with David Irving. by Deborah Lipstadt (2005).\n\n* Lying About Hitler: History, Holocaust, and the David Irving Trial by Richard J. Evans (2002). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HFB-dkuZzSwC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Z7FiPwAACAAJ",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=Q-0B9-D5Vz4C",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=bx-dZEV228QC",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=HZmXOPGTGjIC",
"http://holocaustcontroversies.blogspot.de/2012/10/index-of-published-evidence-on.html"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4958qm/how_was_it_that_the_red_cross_was_so_deceived_by/d0pkdt5/"
],
[
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/0031322X.1978.9969431",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4d2qrf/in_auschwitz_did_more_catholics_than_jewish/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ccjw8/so_how_many_jews_died_in_the_holocaust/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5od6oj/where_did_the_6_million_jewish_deaths_fact_come/"
]
] |
||
anuzar
|
Are there the equivalent of speech impediments in sign language?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/anuzar/are_there_the_equivalent_of_speech_impediments_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efxjulz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I've worked with a lot of impaired students, and some of the students who sign have physical disabilities with their hands/arms, or cognitive disabilities that affect their motor skills. So yes, trying to understand their signing is a lot like trying to understand someone with a severe speech impediment "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
20wwez
|
why do we have to move our eyes when remembering something?
|
If I stare at something and try to remember something from the past, it is very difficult to do so. I have to move them.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20wwez/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_move_our_eyes_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg7i32a",
"cg7isl7",
"cg7iyg8",
"cg7izxy",
"cg7jj6n",
"cg7jp03",
"cg7lb1z",
"cg7pa6f"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
12,
4,
23,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I actually just learned this. It's your brain trying to access the information. If it is something you saw, your eyes move up and point towards the pre frontal cortex which houses your rational thought and reasoning. When you look left or right, you are attempting to remember something you heard. Down left and down right have significant too. One is accessing your creative side and I can't remember the other. Hope this helps some!",
"Funny, I moved my eyes just thinking about it",
"Disclaimer: Not a cognitive scientist, just somebody who thinks cognitive science is cool. \n\nIt's a really good question and there are a lot of possible answers. The truth is that although our understanding of the brain has increased by leaps and bounds over the past few years, we don't have a perfect understanding of why/how the brain works. \n\nIt's helpful to remember that every mental process is also physical in nature. Memories have to be physically stored in the brain in some way. Current research suggests that memories exist in the brain in the form of interconnected pathways. For example, imagine a smell from your childhood. Maybe your mother's perfume, or cookies, or whatever. That memory exists because those particular pathways in your brain -- the pathways that lit up when you smelled those cookies, or that perfume -- have been activated at the same time as the pathways that were lit up by the visual input of your mother, or your house, or what have you. \n\nSo when you're trying to recall that memory, your brain needs to access those same pathways. The human brain is highly visual, so many memories are at least partially visual in nature. Frequently the easiest way to access a memory is to remember what that situation *looked like*. \n\nEvidence suggests that our brains reconstructs visual input the same way it encodes it, which is a process that typically involves the eyes scanning whatever's in front of us. Something about the connection between our eyes moving and the brain interpreting/reconstructing a visual image makes it so that it's easier to do both rather than one or the other.",
"Used in psychology and can be used to determine how someone thinks i.e. visually through images or through feelings and emotions and can be used to determine if someone is telling the truth or lying.\nThough maybe 90% of the population are wired this way the other 10% being reversed.\n_URL_0_",
"I'm not a neurologist or psychiatrist, but I can tell you how it kind of works for me. When I move my eyes to remember, it's more like I'm looking away from what I was focused on rather than visually focusing on something new. It's kind of like daydreaming when can be staring off into space without really seeing what you're looking at. Looking away just helps me look inward to figure something out (working out a problem, going through memories, etc).",
"_URL_0_\n my answer via samuel l jackson",
"Your thought processes are really just abstractions. There's no concrete, conscious action you take in order to remember things or make them up. However, by associating a concrete action or ritual with a psychological function, it makes it much easier to do so.\n\nRemember how when you were a young, young kid of about 5, your parents were never just \"Okay go to bed.\"? Usually, you had a nightly ritual. The regularity of physical action helped your brain recognize when it was time to sleep. Similarly, by connecting an action to recall, it's easier to focus on that task. Your eyes moving around or in certain directions are associated, in your mind, with searching for something.\n\nTL;DR, when your eyes move around while you think, it's because at the moment you are \"looking\" around through your mind for that memory.",
"we dont, however through Associative learning, you have established a focus point within your brain. \n\nIn short it is a subconsciously learned Associative social behavior reflex. in short; as a young child, you saw someone do it, and then associated that action with deep thought, your brain then registered that as a focusing action , and now it is \"a trained\" action for your brain to recall things when performing that action, therefore making it into a focusing medium for you. \n\nits the same reason people bite their thumbs, or touch parts of their face when in thought, or pondering. its a learned action, and prior to learning it has no true bearing over thought process. you could train a child at a young age that touching the tip of their tounge with their toe was a good way to formulate a thought, or recall a memory, and they would have the same end result. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://katherinebuddtake2.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/eye_cues_chart.gif"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q0xqrvefO7Q"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
7vrtsd
|
How strong is the electric current in Earth's core that produces Earth's magnetic field?
|
I'm also interested in kWh. All very rough estimations, of course.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7vrtsd/how_strong_is_the_electric_current_in_earths_core/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtuod9t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[Here](_URL_0_) is a discussion on this topic, the first comment used the formula for a current loop and came up with a value of around 10^8 amps. The comments note that this uses the field strength at the surface when it should be at the core, so more like 10^11 amps. \n\nI’m not really sure how valid of an estimation this is, as I understand it dynamo theory says the liquid iron motion itself is what causes the field, not the current through the liquid. So we’d be looking for equations that relate the motion of liquid to field strength as opposed to equations for current. Would think that also kinda throws out the concept of current flow. Could be way off on that though. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/342633/how-many-amp%C3%A8res-are-flowing-in-the-earths-core"
]
] |
|
yv3a9
|
A foolish question on my part, but it's bothering me (Relating to stellar evolution).
|
I can't quite understand why larger stars live sufficiently shorter lives than smaller stars. The more common answer is that they exhaust their fuel at a faster rate, but shouldn't their increased mass balance it out?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yv3a9/a_foolish_question_on_my_part_but_its_bothering/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5z404a"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"All other things being equal, more mass would mean longer lifetime, but all other things are not equal. The luminosity of a star increases much faster than its mass; it typically goes something like (mass)^3.5 (the exponent varies somewhat depending on the mass of the star), and so the increased rate of fusion wins out over the presence of more mass to go through.\n\nWhy is this? The rate at which the star undergoes fusion is fixed by the star hitting an equilibrium between the gravitational forces pulling matter inward and the pressure pushing outwards resulting from the fusion at the core. A more massive star will require a greater outward pressure to achieve balance, and so it will compress to achieve a greater rate of fusion at the center than a lower mass start would have."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3mtw8x
|
what is it about video games that turns some lazy people into completionists?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3mtw8x/eli5_what_is_it_about_video_games_that_turns_some/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvi18xj",
"cvi1yo3"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"They are psychologically designed to do exactly that- to be as playable and fun as possible, for as long as possible, using sophisticated psychological techniques,",
"I'm not sure who you mean by \"lazy people\" in the title, but let's assume you mean someone like me. I'm at work and I'm on reddit, despite having made multiple appointments on my calendar that simply say (no exaggeration), \"get to work.\"\n\nYet I'm an achievement whore of OCD caliber.\n\nThe reason is simple: Video games offer short, measurable, attainable goals, and they offer them repeatedly, and in some cases reward you for them with in-game benefits.\n\nThis was true even before achievement systems. A 70-hour RPG starts with basic characters at low levels, levels which are surpassed in minutes, not hours. So that's easy. Along with the numeric counter measuring your progress, when the character learns a new fire or ice spell, it's easy *and* you're rewarded. \n\nThis is why MMOs use non-linear progression. You become accustomed to rewards and progress when they're easy. When they're harder, all those dopamine hits from easier goals start paying off, and you feel like even very complex achievements are worth the trouble. Also, they are rarer, so whatever bragging rights you feel are amplified, and in-game rewards become more prestigious or valuable too.\n\nCompare this to life at work. There is no directly visible reward for anything I accomplish today, easy or difficult. Nothing pops on screen that says, \"You did it!\" Also, since my job is completely different from everyone else's, comparing difficult accomplishments is a wash.\n\n(Oh sure, I'm paid a salary for the labor, but that becomes very intangible after awhile. If you don't do the work, it vanishes, and you depend on it for living, so it feels more like a negative incentive than a positive one, even if in fact it's the most positive incentive there is.)\n\nFurthermore, for longer term goals, there is no path or route that's obvious to me. There is no list of checkboxes that will lead to a raise or promotion, it's all very amorphous and vague. (Some jobs it aren't; mine is.)\n\nIn addition, Achievement Systems are more than just things for players to 'accomplish.' They also serve as guides to the game. An achievement to complete a number of quests per zone clues you into how many quests there are. Even if you never complete the achievement, you know whether you were almost done, stopped halfway, or barely scratched the surface, which you wouldn't otherwise know.\n\nAn achievement list of all the dungeons and modes tells you right away how many are there, and how much progress you've made. An achievement to conquer all of Calradia is a clue that doing so is possible and others have done it, even if it seems insurmountable by the gameplay.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2d05a8
|
how can some parts of the universe be so far that light hasn't reached them, since nothing can travel faster than light?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d05a8/eli5_how_can_some_parts_of_the_universe_be_so_far/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjkquyg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because space can expand faster than the speed of light, matter cannot however."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4ossb5
|
The United States Second Amendment starts with "A well-regulated militia...". What was intended by the phrase "well-regulated" if the right extends to gun owners who are not part of an organised group?
|
As I understand it (and forgive me if I'm wrong, I'm not from the US), the 2nd Amendment was created so that there would be a standing army of the people to combat threats from outside (like the British) and inside (like a tyrannical government, or a military coup). However nowadays it only seems to be exercised by private gun owners, and organised militia groups are rare and generally frowned upon in a stable country like the US. I guess I'm asking if the right always extended to private individuals, and whether this wording has been contested.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4ossb5/the_united_states_second_amendment_starts_with_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4fe4zp",
"d4felht",
"d4uppd2"
],
"score": [
1912,
290,
5
],
"text": [
"Looks like I am a little late to the party, however, I just answered a very similar question a few days ago, so [I will copy and paste it here:](_URL_3_)\n\nSpecific question I answered: \"Why would Thomas Jefferson write in, and founding fathers put their signatures on, the 2nd amendment after Shays rebellion?\"\n\nThis is an incredible question and I'm very glad you asked. Before I answer it, I'd like to briefly describe what Shay's Rebellion actually was:\n\n**Context:** \n\nShays' Rebellion was an armed uprising led by former Massachusetts Militiamen and Veterans of the American Revolution which took place between 1786 - 1787. Daniel Shays led several thousand \"rebels\" to fight against the economic injustices that were facing farmers and agrarian peasants all across America. These farmers were experiencing extreme poverty following the end of the Revolutionary War. All across Massachusetts (and the rest of America) farmers saw their lands foreclosed on in unfair property seizers, and they wanted to fight back, which they did here. They were also trying to fight taxes which were beginning to be levied against them. They fought this in many ways, but among them was closing and obscuring roads so that government agents couldn't reach rural parts of the state. Shays' Rebellion would ultimately be put down, but it startled the gentry who feared further uprisings throughout the United States. \n\nI also like to point out that the naming of this event is really interesting. The people who did this, called themselves Regulators ( [modeling off of the North Carolina Regulators](_URL_2_) who also fought against economic injustices before the start of the American Revolution.). The idea of Civilian Regulation was a popular idea that sought to end government corruption and stamp out the overwhelming power of the gentry. They believed that if the government wasn't regulating itself on behalf of \"We the People\", then \"the People\" had the right to regulate, or take back the government -- to take it back and do what they believed was right. They didn't see themselves as a rebellion, but rather the gentry labeled them as such in order to de-legitimize their cause. The gentry didn't want to call these men \"militiamen\" or \"regulators\" for this reason (which they clearly were), but instead, branded them as \"rebels\" who needed to be stopped. \n\nVeterans like Benjamin Lincoln would raise militias on their own and mounted their own assaults against the \"rebels.\" They call themselves the \"the Massachusetts Militia\" even though it was the former militias who they were fighting! So as they begin to debate this on the national stage, especially in 1787 at the Constitutional convention, the gentry singled out Daniel Shay (even though there were actually many other leaders), and they said he was crazy and people were only following a demagogue. They hailed The Massachusetts Militia as the victors and saviors and asserted that militias are what will save America in the future against such madness.\n\n**Answer:**\n\nAlthough the Constitution was drawn up in 1787 and ratified in 1788, the Bill of Rights was not ratified until December of 1791 when the Bill of Rights was finally agreed upon. Whether or not to include the Bill of Rights (and what to include inside it) was a matter of extreme contestation between the Founders and everything within it was deeply fought over. \n\nWhen we look at the Second Amendment specifically, we should look at a few things before hand. First, by the 1790s, other small rebellions had popped up all over the country. Terry Bouton's article \"A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania\" (The Journal of American History, Vol. 87, No. 3 (Dec., 2000), pp. 855-887) masterfully explains the fighting and rebellion that took place in the rural countrysides of Pennsylvania that mirrored what had happened in Massachusetts with Shays' Rebellion. Simply put, the gentry were terrified that they were losing control of rural America, and as a result they would not be able to seize foreclosed land and collect taxes, which they deeply wanted. Empowering militias to be trained and carry firearms allowed the gentry to call up these men in times of need and suppress these rebellions that were taking place. \n\nNow there was already precedent in existence for protecting militias and their rights to bear arms in many states. Multiple other bills of rights from other states had already protected a militia's right to bear arms (such as [Section 13](_URL_1_) of Virginia's Declaration of Rights) and many of these states were fighting to have the federal government protect this as well. \n\nNow, look at the very wording of the [Second Amendment](_URL_0_).\n\n > A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.\n\n\"A well regulated Militia\" is the key phrase. They are referring to the militias led by people like Benjamin Lincoln and his Massachusetts Militia not Shays and his \"rebellion\". The initial goal was to protect a state's right to call up arms against rebels, not to arm the masses. The Founders feared that in some states (like Rhode Island) that were already being drastically controlled by the poor (rather than the gentry), that local governments would start being able to choose who could keep and bear arms, and that by creating the Second Amendment, the gentry would always have the ability to call up and arm militias in times of need. \n\n**Clarification:** I also need to stress that this question mentioned Jefferson by name, however he was not a signer of the Constitution, but did certify the adoption of the Bill of Rights in 1792.\n\nTl;Dr: The second ammendement wasn't passed *in spite of* Shays' Rebellion, rather it was passed *because* of Shays' Rebellion.\n\n**EDIT: 1**\n\nWow, what a response from everyone! I started posting responses to people below, but alas it is Father's day and I am heading out with my family to do some fun stuff for the day. I will do my best to answer questions I wasn't able to answer when I return tonight and will also answer any news ones that I can. I would like to say thank you to /u/DBHT14 , /u/Georgy_K_Zhukov , and /u/FatherAzerun who have helped me answer many of these follow ups (and given some pretty fantastic answers themselves)\n\n**EDIT: 2**\nThank you to everyone for your patience. Sorry for the delay. Father's day and then NBA Finals and then Game of Thrones -- busy day! \n\nHere are some great secondary sources that many of you have requested from me. I will post some more by tomorrow evening. Please let me know if you have any follow up questions. \n\n Shalhope, Robert.\"The Ideological Origins of the Second Amendment\" *The Journal of American History*, Vol. 69, No. 3 (Dec., 1982), pp. 599-614. \n\nBouton, Terry. \"A Road Closed: Rural Insurgency in Post-Independence Pennsylvania\" *The Journal of American History,* Vol. 87, No. 3 (Dec., 2000), pp. 855-887\nI always recommend starting with this one. It's an excellently written article that is extremely well-respected in the field. It helps set up a much broader perspective for what was going on in the rural countryside with agrarian peasants who were rebelling during this time period. \n\nParker, Rachel. \"Shays' Rebellion: An Episode in American State-Making\" *Sociological Perspectives*, Vol. 34, No. 1 (Spring, 1991), pp. 95-113\n\nKonig. David. \"The Second Amendment: A Missing Transatlantic Context for the Historical Meaning of 'The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms'\". *Law and History Review,* Vol. 22, No. 1 (Spring, 2004), pp. 119-159\n\n**Edit 3**\n\nOnce again, thank you to everyone for your patience. I am still getting PM requests for books, so I am adding two plus a few more articles. If would you like the articles emailed to you, please PM and I will send them to you. **Please be aware** that I am posting books that are on **both** sides of the gun control debate because **both** sides pretty much universally agree that regardless of what the founders' original intent was, a major (if not the major reason) for including the Second Amendment for the Bill of Rights were the incidents of rebellions, insurgencies, and regulators. \n\nIf anyone has more questions on this, I am perfectly willing to discuss them. Just ask the question in /r/AskHistorians and feel free to tag me. \n\n\nCress, Lawerence. *Citizens in Arms: The Army and the Militia in American Society to the War of 1812* The University of North Carolina Press; First Edition edition. 1982\n\nMalcolm, Joyce. \"To Keep and Bear Arms: The Origins of an Anglo-American Right* Harvard University Press. 1996\n\nCress, Lawerence, *An Armed Community: The Origins and Meaning of the Right to Bear Arms\" *The Journal of American History*, Vol. 71, No. 1 (Jun., 1984), pp. 22-42\n\nHigginbotham, Don. \"The Federalized Militia Debate: A Neglected Aspect of Second Amendment Scholarship\" *The William and Mary Quarterly,* Vol. 55, No. 1 (Jan., 1998), pp. 39-58\n\nShalhope, Robert. \"The Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms: An Exchange\" *The Journal of American History*, Vol. 71, No. 3 (Dec., 1984), pp. 587-593\n\n",
"This is both an important question, and, as many other respondents have noted, also a thorny one. While I appreciate the citation of Heller as a strong indication of modern interpretations of the history of the phrase “well-regulated militia” as seen through legal eyes, both the controlling and dissenting opinions have found dissent. Since much of the origin of that dissent falls outside of the historical realm (and long discussion of it would violate our 20 year rule), I’d rather leave that for now and look to some historian’s interpretations, and see if that helps illuminate your question. \n\n(Apparently I was had typed this up this morning that comment may have been removed for that reason, so sorry if I am responding to a phantom post now)\n\nJust as a caveat, though: Clearly this is a question that has sharp divides, and the context of the way the question is framed today might itself be seen as ahistorical.\n\nAs noted above, there is a well-established concern that a militia stood in contrast to a Standing Army, which was seen as the “tool of a tyrant.” But one of the ways to answer this question about the militia specifically is to examine the historical context of what constituted a militia (and here I am focusing on the period before the Revolution) versus what did not at the time, since colonials did react to armed citizens taking up “defense” differently in different contexts.\n\nIn general, for a militia to be “well-regulated” it would have to have been mustered out by colonial authority, specifically the colonial Governor. Other groups that owned individual weapons and “mustered out” on their own – even if was regional and massively popular – were seen not as proper militias but as illegal actors or vigilantes. On the eve of the American Revolution in South Carolina, there was a set of vigilante groups in the western backcountry that eschewed the courts and decided to muster themselves out and attack outlaw gangs. This “Regulator Conflict” of 1767 was not seen as a proper use of militia but instead as a criminal activity, although people in the Western backcountry saw it as simply a necessity due to lack of governmental protection afforded to people by the governments along the coast. (I should note that western backcountry uprisings and “taking law into their own hands” is a subject worthy of an entirely other thread, one can go back to Bacon’s Rebellion as an example.) The eerie parallel is that the regulator conflicts presaged some of the complaints American Revolutionaries would have after the implementation of smuggling offenses being tried in the military Vice-Admiralty Courts – there were too few courts, too far away, although in some ways the complaints were polar opposites – the backcountry decried the lack of convictions of criminals, whereas the Vice Admiralty Courts were seen as tools of oppression, placing colonials who (in the colonials minds) were doing minor civilian infractions being sent to military Tribunals.\n\nSo not every group of citizens arming themselves and engaging in “defense” was seen as well-organized. Also, some historians have argued there is evidence in the early Republic that the second amendment was not seen as an individual right. I am specifically thinking of an essay in the collection edited by Saul Cornell, Whose Right to Bear Arms Did the Second Amendment Protect? – and I apologize as I do not have the book on hand and a quick google search didn’t help me find the list of essays, but I’ll come back later and append if there is interest – but one of the early essays in the book cited the example of George Washington’s experience with the Whiskey Rebellion – not only, as mentioned in a previous response, drummed out the militia to deal with the uprising, but he also ordered disarmament of the Rebels. Therefore, the author concluded, the second amendment was not was not intended to reach beyond the militia mustered by the government. However, the point of that text was also to show other historians who had differing interpretations as well. It’s a good resource to examine some of the historiography of the debate. One of the co-editors, Cornell, is famous for making an argument that the two legal methods of viewing the second amendment (individual or collective) are both not quite right, and there is a third view entirely. Since I have not read his book on the matter – only an abstract and reviews – I cannot comment on its veracity, but as he is a rather esteemed scholar on this debate you may find it of interest as to how the framing of the debate today may be in and of itself flawed when we ask these questions.\n\nHowever, one needs caution. I want to point out that some historical books need to be avoided. I myself was influenced at one time by a book that was highly lauded but ended up being upended. One of our great modern scandals involving the Bancroft Prize happened when in Emory professor Michael Bellesiles published Arming America, which tried to argue that the American value of gun ownership was more a locus of Pre-Civil War America and not a phenomena rooted in colonial, Revolutionary, or Early National America. As a new Assistant Professor, I personally tailored some of my lectures around what was seen then as groundbreaking new scholarship. As you might guess, it ended up that the book was an embarrassment – indeed, a lot of the evidence was simply fabricated – and it led to the Bancroft Prize being rescinded. (I think this is the only time that has happened.)\n\nOne other area worthy of investigation is to recognize that the idea of what constitutes a militia evolves as well over time in America. Since this goes beyond my period of expertise, and I am not specifically a military historian, I will let my colleagues tackle this if they wish, but I would point to the fact that Congress has defined the militia differently over time, and as pointed out in another response, the rise of the National Guard codified the militia in a way that was clearly different from colonial understandings. You might wish to look at the The Efficiency in Militia Act of 1903 passed by congress to get one such example.\n\nOne last note: Because of the politicization of the gun issue, the diminishing role of the militia in United States defense and the rise of the Professional (standing) Army has often been treated in a bubble. But I would argue that you can see parallels in other American institutions as well, where previously services that were volunteer or privatized and sometimes scattershot begin to be seen as disorganized, unresponsive, or ill-equipped to handle the challenges of an expanding population and urbanization over time (and particularly by the late 19th and early 20th centuries) and that expanded roles for government organization and professionalization are called for: The evolution of city watch and Sheriffs to the Robert Peel model of policing that is the foundation for much of our structure of modern police forces; there is a similar evolution from volunteer firefighters into modern professional Firefighters. Since Police, Military, and Fire response all entail safety and all have had somewhat similar evolutions into professionalization and government institutionalization, looking at the way who is tasked to do these behaviors – and who is prohibited – may provide insight into how control over these institutions have evolved without stepping on the second amendment political landmine.\n",
"The Bill of Rights did not just happen over night. There was an exhaustive debate that took place in the public forum over many months in newspapers, journals, letters, and essays. The purpose for the 2nd Amendment was laid out for us in writings by the very men who wrote and ratified our nation's founding document. One such argument was laid out by James Madison on January 29, 1788.\n\nYou might remember Madison as the 4th President of the United States. What you may not remember is that Madison also penned the Bill of Rights. One of his arguments for ratification of the 2nd Amendment was published in the form of Federalist Paper #46 (an excerpt of which is provided below). Madison argued that the standing army of our newly formed nation should not exceed 1/100th of it's overall population, or 1/25th the size of the armed civilian population. In no uncertain terms, he states the reason for this as: \n\n\"It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.\"\n\nMadison was not concerned with hunting nor the self defense of ones home. He was concerned with the people not having the ability to form militias in a manner capable of fending off a standing army following the orders of a future tyrant. It is interesting how James Madison's math has held up over time:\n\n1788 Figures\nUSA Military Personnel: 25,000 (1/100 of 2.5M)\nArmed Militia Potential: 625,000 (25x Military)\n\n2016 Figures\nUSA Military Personnel: 2.1 Million (1/150 of 315M)\nArmed Militia Potential: 100 Million (50x Military)\n\nMany who are opposed to guns describe as \"ultra-right fringe\" those who believe the 2nd Amendment is intended to ensure the public can defend itself against a future tyrannical government. Laid before you is evidence to the contrary. \n\nPeople on both sides of the debate are entitled to their opinions. However, during the course of the debate we must ensure that we do not engage in intellectual dishonesty. If you believe the 2nd Amendment is an outdated right, then make the case that it should be repealed. However, please do not attempt to rewrite history in order to circumvent original intent in an effort to impose laws that violate our Constitution in its current form.\n\n***** Excerpt from Federalist Paper #46 *****\n\n\"Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. \n\nThis proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops. Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it. \n\nBesides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached, and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.\"\n\n***** End of Excerpt *****"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/bill_of_rights_transcript.html",
"http://www.archives.gov/exhibits/charters/virginia_declaration_of_rights.html",
"https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/542884.Breaking_Loose_Together",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4obrjg/why_would_thomas_jefferson_write_in_and_founding/"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5l4bv8
|
how do biologists and doctors know what chemical to use in order to make something happen in the body?
|
Title pretty much sums it up. How do doctors know what substance is needed to induce the wanted effect? For example, how do geneticists know what enzyme is needed to cut off a DNA strain at the desired place? Or how do cancer researchers know that this chemical is needed to attack cancer cells in the brain?
Thanks
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5l4bv8/eli5_how_do_biologists_and_doctors_know_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbsttec"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"The collective body of herbalists, doctors, chemists, and witch doctors from the past two to three thousand years have been documenting findings and studying effects of substances on the human body. \n\nLets work out an easy example. In our tribe of neanderthals, everyone knows if you eat the red berries from the bush by the river you're going to do nothing but shit for the next three days. We also know that if you eat leaves of the tree on that hill over there you won't shit for a week. \n\nThe town doctor recognizes this, and whenever someone has food poisoning due to bad water, they'll advise them to eat the tree leaves to stop the pooping. Can't poop and now your belly hurts? Red berries bro. That'll clean you right out. \n\nAs time goes on, he teaches his son where to find the best herbs & spices for various ailments, which allows his son as the new town doctor to look for even more, since he didn't have to spend his entire career finding the same medicines as his father. Eventually they start writing it down, and now all of the five nearest towns know how to treat more and more diseases. \n\nEventually, scientists become a thing, they start looking into the berries to see what about them makes you poop, and if there are other plants that have the same property. Eventually someone discovers how to extract just the pooping oils from the berry and bottles it so now a doctor can carry the equivalent of 100 berries in their pocket. \n\nSince they know one berry = 1 drop = 1 poop, they start administering that to stopped up patients. But eventually someone REALLY needs poop, and the drop didn't work, so they administer more drops. The guy poops! Hooray! He poops more! Yay! He poops blood! That's probably bad. He passes out! That's definitely bad. He dies covered in shit-blood! Whoops. Too many berries. Note for next time: 1 Poop-berry can cure a potentially lethal ailment. 10 poop-berries is potentially lethal. Administer no more than 9 Poop berries to adult males. \n\nFast forward thousands of iterations and documentation, and we now know that the chemical [Sennosides](_URL_0_) is what caused the poop reaction in the body, and that 15mg is a good 'standard dosage'. After even more research we discover a way to use Science and Chemistry to manufacture Sennosides directly, skipping the berry harvest altogether. \n\nTake this logic for literally every medicine we have, and you have the basis for every medicine we use today. Our scientists inventing drugs are standing on the shoulders of everyone that came before them. Some treatments have been discovered hundreds of years ago, but manufacturing and sourcing technologies needed breakthroughs to make what worked on paper possible. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=ex-lax+effective+ingredient&oq=ex-lax+effective+ingredient&aqs=chrome..69i57.7307j0j1&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8"
]
] |
|
23gk2q
|
Is it possible or even part of the theory of evolution that a population produces multiple beneficial mutations at once?
|
Most explanations or examples of evolution paint a picture of small changes in a species spreading quickly to future generations one at a time. But I can imagine a situation where two or more beneficial mutations occur in the same population and end up commingling in the next few generations. Is this a commonly understood possibility, or is it so mathematically unlikely that it's not part of the model? If it were possible, this sort of "genetic parallel processing" would really decrease some of the timescales of speciation, I would think.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/23gk2q/is_it_possible_or_even_part_of_the_theory_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgwxx4g",
"cgx1t8u"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know about the mathematical possibilities of it -- I'm a biologist, most of us don't know from math -- but there's nothing stopping two beneficial mutations from arising at once. Why would there be? It hardly seems beneficial to a population to one-at-a-time evolutionary adaptations. \n\nAs for speeding things up, I don't know. Evolution occurs over vast, vast periods of time. Vast, vast periods of time divided by two are still a vast period of time. ",
"This happens, people tend to follow one mutation down generations only for simplicity of demonstration but of course each and every gene develop in parallel. Millions of genes all develop at the same time.\n\nMathematically, however, the most common mutations are minor, insignificant mutations that do not affect reproductive capacity. Thus any strong beneficial mutations will be diluted within a population. Also, there can also be detrimental mutations that may be passed on. Thus the timescales are still very long."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2yj9zl
|
what is the difference between gaming fps, where it's normally around 60, and slow-motion fps in videos, where it says 1000 fps.
|
Okay, so video games have FPS and so do movies. When I play League of Legends for example I get 200 FPS or whatever. Everything is smooth and looks nice. There doesn't seem to be a difference from 60 FPS or 200 FPS. Now I saw this praying mantis jump at 1000 FPS in a video. Why is this so slow? Am I just not understanding something here? Is video FPS different than video game FPS? Here is the video that I watched. _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yj9zl/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_gaming_fps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpa1r88",
"cpa1rt8",
"cpa1xwr",
"cpa1zc2",
"cpa2an2"
],
"score": [
3,
17,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Its all about the speed the film is played back. If you film something at 1000 fps but playing it back at say 30 fps, the same video clip takes 30 odd seconds to play back.\n\nWith fps in games the playback rate is fixed.",
"The 1000 FPS in the video is referring to the number of frames per second the camera captures, not the number of FPS the video is playing back.\n\nWhen you're playing LoL and getting 60 FPS, the game is rendering 60 FPS, and displaying it at 60 FPS.\n\nThe 1000 FPS camera is capturing 1000 frames in a second, and then the video is displaying it at, say, 60 FPS. \n\nIf you have 1000 frames of footage, but are only showing 60 in second, an action that would normally take one second, is taking 1000/60 seconds--about 16.7 seconds of footage. This is why it appears to be in slow motion.",
"The question has been answered but I need to point out your confusion when playing league.\n\n\nYour monitor is the limiting factor here. Most monitors are 60hz I.e they can only refresh 60 times a second. You can get more expensive monitors that are 120 or 144hz and they can refresh 120 and 144 times a second but this is the fastest they will refresh.\n\nSo even though your graphics card is outputting 200 fps you're only seeing 60fps. You're also probably seeing less than this as your graphics card is not synced to the monitor refresh rate. I highly recommend turning vsync on of you have an nvidia GPU. This will force 60fps but will sync it with your monitor as best it can to ensure its actually 60fps you're seeing (when rendering at over 60fps the graphics card can miss the monitor refreshes by essentially refreshing the image too many time so the time moved forward is inconsistent between frames, only by milliseconds but it can still have an effect plus you can get screen tearing).\n\nThis was written on a phone at 7am so just accept any grammar/spelling mistakes :P\n",
"When you say that a game or movie **plays at** 60FPS, you're saying that it will play at 60 frames per second. This also usually means that it was recorded or rendered at 60 frames per second or whatever the framerate is.\n\nWhen you say that a video was **recorded at** 1000FPS, that's how many frames per second were captured. 10 seconds at 1000FPS is 10 x 1000 = 10,000 frames total. If you played this video normally, you'd have 10 seconds of very smooth 1000FPS video.\n\nBut 1000FPS is a lot of frames. More than you can reliably see. So we can bring it into an editing program and slow it down. We could show 50FPS instead of 1000FPS, but we still have 10,000 frames to show. So 10,000 (frames) / 50FPS = 200 seconds. What was recorded at 1000FPS as a 10 second video has been slowed down to a 50FPS, 200 second video.\n\nBut the content of those frames doesn't change just because we've slowed it down. The result is a video that appears to be very slow. 10 seconds / 200 seconds = 1/20. That's the rate we're going at: 1/20th of real time. What you see is a video that was recorded at 1000FPS, but played at 50FPS.\n\nThis isn't something we could have done if we had used a regular camera and slowed it down. If we recorded a 10 second video at 60FPS, we'd have 600 frames of video. If we want so slow it down to 1/20th of real time, we'll need to slow it to 3FPS. The result is what looks like a 200 second long slideshow. A video that was recorded at 60FPS, but played at 3FPS.",
"Game = displaying 60 frames per sec of not sped up or slowed down timescale.\n\nRecord 1000 fps and play it back at 60 fps and it will look slow, or play it back at 1000 Hertz/Fps and it will look like normal speed."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UMv5pvsrzRU&list=PLrEnWoR732-BHrPp_Pm8_VleD68f9s14-&index=47"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5ic0o4
|
Has David Irving contributed anything positive to Holocaust academia? Or have his contributions worked to purposefully obfuscate real Holocaust research? Additionally, are there any other examples of well-known "researchers" to watch out for?
|
This is a question based on the excellent Holocaust-denial post made by /u/commiespaceinvader back during a Methods Monday. I watched a documentary made by NOVA about his trial, and it seemed like a lot of his "research" was subject to confirmation bias and not conducted comprehensively. I'm wondering if he's done anything useful for this field. In addition, are there other examples of famous "alternatively-motivated historians?"
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ic0o4/has_david_irving_contributed_anything_positive_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db7nbeo",
"db821m7"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Personally i have a lack of knowledge on the work by David Irving. What i can talk about is other Holocaust research and academia. Due to battery life, this will have to be a tad limited, sorry for this.\n\nYou ask for \"well-known\" researchers, then i will give you three.\n\n* Raul Hilberg \n* Christopher R. Browning\n* Daniel J. Goldhagen\n\nStarting with Hilberg, the so called \"Grandfather of Holocaust studies\" creating what can be deemed to be the basis of all modern holocaust research. His magnum opus \"The Destruction of the European Jews\" is 1273 pages.\n\nVery noteworhy is Christopher R. Browning, famous in the field of Holocaust research, especially for his book \"Ordinary Men: Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland.\" What makes Browning so interesting is his work with the 101 police battalion, showing the people behind the killing. He conclude with the same fact that Hilberg does in his book, that in fact that it was 'ordinary Germans' that were the perpetrators of the Holocaust, not just SS-troops or the Einsatzgruppen. \"*They did not kill because they were coerced by the threat of dire punishment for refusing*\"^1. Browning argues that the 'ordinary Germans' became killers based on basic obedience to authority and peer preassure, not based on bloodlust or primal hatred. \n\nLast, as you mention people that have \"prevented\" Holocaust research, you have the obvious name of Daniel J. Goldhagen with his, New York Times Bestseller \"Hitlers Willing Executioners: Ordinary Germans of the Holocaust\". This book is an indirect response to Brownings book on the Police Battalion, where Browning argues the fact that even if the perpetrators were Ordinary Germans, they did not kill the Jews out of their own will, Goldhagen argue that due to the German Phenomenon, mentioned a few lines down, the perpetrators were willing executioners. His book takes the stance that the Holocaust could only happen in Germany based on a German Phenomenon called \"Eliminationist Anti-Semitism\". Goldhagen argues that this was the sole motivation for the Holocaust and comes often with outlandish and overconfident statements. \"*With regards to the motivational cause of the Holocaust, for the vast majority of perpetrators, a monocausal explanation does suffice.*\"^2 and “*their[German people] approval[of the holocaust] derived in the main from their own conception of Jews is all but certain, for no other source of motivation can plausibly account for their actions.*”^3\n\nAfter Goldhagen became a massive commercial success, increasingly many scholars started writing reviews and essays explaining how Goldhagen was wrong. Hilberg goes as far as to outright dismiss the work of Goldhagen. Notable reviews and Essays regarding the book: Yehuda Bauer \"On Perpetrators of the Holocaust and the Public Discourse\", Hilberg \"The Goldhagen Phenomenon\" and Browning \"Daniel Goldhagen's Willing Executioners\".\n\nGoldhagen is an important example of someone using the same sources as others (Browning) yet reaching comepletely different conclusions, although his work was dismissed by most scholars, it is an important lesson to learn from, do not only pick information that help your case.\n\n1. Christopher R. Browning “Reserve Police Battalion 101 and the Final Solution in Poland”, 1998, p.191\n2. Daniel J. Goldhagen \"Hitler's Willing Executioners\", 1996, p.416\n3. Goldhagen, 1996, p.416\n\nSources: \n\nBauer, Y. and Finkelstein, N. G. (1998), The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 89, No. 1/2 pp. 123-126 \n\nBauer, Y. (1997) On Perpetrators of the Holocaust and the Public Discourse. The Jewish Quarterly Review, Vol. 87, No. 3/4, pp. 343-350\n\nHilberg, R. (1997) The Goldhagen Phenomenon. Critical Inquiry, Vol. 23, No. 4, pp 721-728\n\nBrowning, C. (1996). Daniel Goldhagen's Willing Executioners. History and Memory, 8(1), pp.88-108\n\nGoldhagen, D. (1996). Hitler's willing executioners. 1st ed. New York: Knopf\n\n\nEDIT: Goldhagens' book is a very interesting read where he bring up case studies like the death marches, I would definitely suggest reading up on the \"duel\" between Goldhagen and Browning",
"Irving's early works including *Goering* and *The War Between the Generals* were considered scholarly and well-researched. This was a period when a lot of the first generation of postwar history was being questioned, and certain myths brought into question.\n\nIt was in the 1980s that Irving became more and more associated with Nazi apologists, emerging from his willingness to criticise the Allies. His book *The Destruction of Dresden* is unquestionably the result of original research, but his methodology to arrive at a casualty figure of 135,000 is highly dubious.\n\nHis trial showed this. Close analysis of his writings didn't completely discredit him, it found a tendency, increasing over time, to interpret his findings in a subjective way.\n\nI consider AJP Taylor to be of a similar ilk, but because he's not a Nazi apologist its much less of an issue. Some of his statements, his sweeping dismissal of contentions, are astounding. This is especially so in relation to his treatment of First World War Allied commanders."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tmoe2
|
Does the "will to live" among the very ill create biochemical changes in the body that helps keep them alive?
|
In other words, is there any evidence one can mentally influence biochemical processes to help one overcome a deathly sickness?
I hear often about people just "giving up" or not having a "will to live" anymore, and they shortly after they pass on. Is there any research being done to test this phenomenon? What is this phenomenon called?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tmoe2/does_the_will_to_live_among_the_very_ill_create/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4nyacg",
"c4nyc55",
"c4nyi26",
"c4nyw7s",
"c4nzv90",
"c4o1rf6",
"c4o310f",
"c4oa3xa"
],
"score": [
450,
74,
22,
7,
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a number of articles and research papers indicating that a positive mental attitude towards an illness such as cancer can have a profound effect on the rate of recovery. The reasons for this are not particularly well known. It's potentially an extension or application of the placebo effect in that a person can effectively will themselves back to better health. \n\nIt's true not only of physical ailments but also of mental disorders such as chronic depression. Oddly in placebo testing, even being made aware of the fact that a placebo is being administered doesn't change the effect of such a treatment as much as would be expected. In fact in most testing the participants with the placebo have a significantly higher rate of improvement than those receiving nothing at all. \n\nWent a little off topic there but in a nutshell, the will to live does have a profound effect on recovery rates but as yet there is not a great deal know as to why this happens as far as I have read. Bearing in mind that I'm just graduating from a psychology bachelors I may be wrong/not as well read as some so I may have missed some more recent or appropriate literature that might give a little more insight but I hope I've helped a little. \n\nEdit: I posted some related articles lower down for some further reading so I thought I'd add them here.\n\nOk, so here's a little article about placebos acting even when they are known to be placebos. _URL_0_ - Well worth a read.\n\n_URL_4_ - Much more in depth journal article on placebo (specific to sudden loss of hearing) in which there seems a much smaller gap than you would imagine between placebo and medical treatment. (this is full of stats and jargon but if you can bear with it, it's very interesting).\n\n_URL_1_ - An article describing how the placebo effect can alter brain function.\n\n_URL_5_ - another article describing how the placebo effect works in certain cases. This one is well worth a read. It shows that in some cases placebos are not the magic bullet they are sometimes painted as in journal articles.\n\nWould do more but I have to get back to revision. I get the feeling I'll be back to have a look at this topic soon enough though.\n\nEdit: I've seen a few posts citing that I didn't back up the information regarding cancer sufferers specifically so I found a couple of articles that would hopefully shed some light on this. I can't cite the peer reviewed journals as the library account at my University doesn't allow direct links so I did my best to find some informed yet admittedly not peer reviewed articles on the subject. \n\nOk, so specifically to cancer sufferers, _URL_6_ - This article shows that people without the stresses of a distressed relationship show a much quicker state of recovery than those who do not. \n\n_URL_2_ - This is more a Q & A for those suffering from breast cancer but shows that good mental health can increase the level your body heals or responds to the negative sides of the treatment itself. \n\n_URL_3_ - A further article explaining the links between good psychological health and cancer survival rates explaining the positives of good mental health on the stresses of being diagnosed with cancer. \n\nSorry I didn't cite these earlier. Didn't have much time on my hands but I hope this goes some way to explaining and backing the claims I made regarding cancer in the original post. ",
"I cannot help with any biomechanical changes but I do have some citations about possible psychological effects that impact the date of our death.\n\n[Here](_URL_1_) is a paper from 1990 examining the death rates among elderly chinese women around the harvest moon festival. They found that mortality dipped 35% before the festival and raised 35% after the festival. This is not a universally accepted study but it is some place to start. The same researcher also did a larger study regarding deaths around birthdays, though I am not sure how well accepted his research is.\n\nThe book [Quirkology](_URL_0_) has a small section on this effect.\n\n > There is certainly some anecdotal evidence to support the notion. Charles Schulz, the multi-millionaire cartoonist and creator of the “Peanuts” strip, died on the eve of the publication of his last comic strip. The final cartoon con-tained a farewell letter signed by Schulz. Also, no fewer than three American presidents, John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, and James Monroe, all died on July 4, thus raising the intriguing possibility that they held on long enough to ensure an auspicious date of death.\n\nHowever, this does come after a section of the book about people lying about dates of birth/death (priests are statistically more likely to be born on Christmas, politicians on July 4, etc). So these sort of effects may be explained if someone has a reason to lie about when their parent/sibling died.\n\nEdit: Here are a few more papers on the subject of date of death. I don't have time to link them so I am just copying them from the back of Quirkology.\n\nD. P. Phillips and D. G. Smith, “Postponement of Death Until Sym-bolically Meaningful Occasions,” Journal of the American Medical Association 263 (1990)\n\nD. P. Phillips, C. A. Van Voorhees, and T. E. Ruth, “The Birthday:Lifeline or Deadline?” Psychosomatic Medicine \n54 (1992): 532–542.\n\nJ. A. Skala and K. E.Freedland, “Death Takes a Raincheck,” Psychosomatic Medicine 66(2004): 382–386.\n\nS. A. Everson et al., “Hopelessness and Risk of Mortality and Inci-dence of Myocardial Infarction and Cancer,” Psychosomatic Medicine 58(1996): 113–121.\n\nW. Kopczuk and J. Slemrod, “Dying to Save Taxes: Evidence fromEstate-Tax Returns on the Death Elasticity,” Review of Economics and Statistics 85, no. 2 (2003): 256–265",
"\"The will to live\", as you like to call it, leads to better dealing with the stress of the situation. Stress has been linked to earlier mortality rates than in people with the lack thereof.\n\nA very relevant study I sadly can't remember the name of details the effects of stress on HIV patients. Those who were more worried about dying soon had higher levels of cortisol, which is linked to stress, and those who had a positive outlook seemed to have less cortisol and also outlive the others.\n\nOf course, stress is just one aspect, but it does lend towards the idea that positive thinking helps you stay alive. \n\nSource: IB psychology guidebook in the health psychology section. I don't remember the name of the psychologists, however.\n\nEDIT: clarity",
" > I hear often about people just \"giving up\" or not having a \"will to live\" anymore, and they shortly after they pass on.\n\nIsn't it likely that the body can sense that its situation looks bleak and they lose their will to live as a result, rather than it being the other way around?",
"Well from what I have learned in psychology, stress can severely inhibit the immune system, so anything that would reduce stress, like a positive mental attitude, should increase the bodies natural abilities to defend and repair itself. ",
"The practice of 'mindfulness', a psychological technique adapted form eastern traditions, has been shown to [alter brain and immune function](_URL_0_), as measured through EEGs and antibody production in response to immunization. The technique helps one focus on the moment and has been associated with improvements in positive affect.\n\nI'm sure that an actual psychologist/psychiatrist would have more to say about it, as my only encounters with this technique have been through discussions with a psych resident.",
"To expand upon OP's question, could a person recover from an sickness easier if they were misinformed to believe that their sickness was much less severe than it actually was?",
"My roomate's grandma is in hospice right now. She has no pulse in her right arm and her left leg which means those two limbs are essentially dead and are beginning to rot. She should have died 3 days ago, but she's still holding onto something. This has baffled the doctors and they have told the family that she is holding on to something, that there's a problem in the family and she will not go until it is resolved. The family knew what it was and so they called up some family members that they don't really talk to and they let those family members talk to the grandma. The grandma is not too responsive...she's just holding on and basically breathing, but as soon as she heard their voices, her pulse went up and her eyes started fluttering, indicating that this was what she was needing. Those family members are on their way and after they touch the grandma for one last time and talk to her, she will probably pass. \n\nThis is all accounted from my roommate, but it sounds like it's kind of the same thing. She will not pass until this family issue is resolved. She's got to be in a lot of pain from those two rotting limbs.\n\n**EDIT** The grandma died on 5/16/12 around 5:30pm. My roommate found out a few hours ago and she looked like she wasn't too sure how to handle her emotions. She didn't really show any and was trying to skirt around them. It is possible that the estranged family members showed up to see her, and so the grandma was able to finally pass. I'll know more from my roommate at a later date."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/dec/22/placebo-effect-patients-sham-drug",
"http://www.apa.org/monitor/mar02/placebo.aspx",
"http://www.apa.org/helpcenter/breast-cancer.aspx",
"http://www.highlighthealth.com/research/the-link-between-positive-psychology-and-cancer-survival/#s-article",
"http://fhs.mcmaster.ca/otolaryngology/documents/september2010Meta-analysismedicalrxofSNHL_ftp.pdf",
"http://www.placebo.ucla.edu/news/PDF/newsfactor020110.pdf",
"http://psychcentral.com/news/2008/12/09/marital-discord-impacts-breast-cancer-survival/3473.html"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Quirkology-Discover-Truths-Small-Things/dp/0465010237/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1337019955&sr=8-1",
"http://www.soc.washington.edu/users/hargens/w11Soc401/Postpone.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.psychosomaticmedicine.org/content/65/4/564"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
xvb6j
|
If you traveled back in time wouldn't you being there mean that more mass has entered the universe than was originally there?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xvb6j/if_you_traveled_back_in_time_wouldnt_you_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5pvw21",
"c5pvzdj"
],
"score": [
39,
4
],
"text": [
"So you're asking \"if you violate the laws of physics, wouldn't that mean you've violated the laws of physics?\"\n\nYes.",
"If you treat time as another reference point similar to other positional coordinates say x,y,z,t the then all you need is a sufficient amount of energy and the right process to transfer that mass/energy to a different location in the coordinate system. \n\nJust as moving any objection in 3d isn't the creation of new mass but simply a transfer. \n "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1fj4yj
|
- why don't we clean up satellite debris?
|
My understanding of satellites et cetera is that there is a *ton* of debris orbiting the earth. Why are we trying to harvest from asteroids but not trying to clean up?
Would that not give us some material while simultaneously make it easier for satellites/spacecraft to orbit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fj4yj/eli5_why_dont_we_clean_up_satellite_debris/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caarp3m",
"caat0bz",
"caawd4q"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"High cost, low benefit.",
"Launching rockets is expensive, and with the relatively tiny budget that space agencies have it's not worth it to focus on space debris instead of actually doing something useful.",
"Cleaning up satellite debris is a touchy subject because each country would have to be responsible for it. The most recent satellite debri issue was when a Chinese missile blew up an old satellite of theirs as a \"test\". Either it was legitimately a test or a show of \"hey, we can knock your spy satellites out!\" is debatable. \n\nNo country would agree to allow anyone else to clean up their satellites regardless of who owned the cleanup process. \n\nFor example, if Russia had a private company that offered to clean up a downed DirecTV satellite, the US government would put a HUGE stop to that. Without going to great details, the US government piggybacks off commercial satellites for security reasons. \n\nIIRC, some satellites have a slingshot-out-of-orbit protocol to prevent it from falling into the wrong hands as opposed to a controlled Earth reentry like most other satellites. Older ones just perpetually orbit the Earth near indefinitely. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2jy0qr
|
why does food that should be warm seem to taste worse when cold? also why does it seem cold when left out for too long, when it should only be room temperature?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jy0qr/eli5_why_does_food_that_should_be_warm_seem_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clg3w4l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When it's warm, it has more flavor. Some liquids evaporate and give off that aroma, some liquids better coat your tongue.\n\nFood left out *is* cold, compared to the temperature it's served at and the temperature of your body. Food is usually heated above 100 degrees F. You body is in the 90s. Room temperature is usually 15-25 degrees lower than your body. Go lick something with the same heat transfer rate as oil and it will seem just as cold. If you had two pieces of food and put one in the fridge and left the other out, it'd be pretty obvious the refrigerated one is much colder when you tasted it.\n\nEdit: fixed \"it\" to \"out\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5smz92
|
Info on English Lancegays seems to be impossible to find on, are there any sources that I can be pointed towards as to how these were used? Any treatise or manuals as to how they'd be used in combat?
|
I see them described as 8 foot spears that were useful on horseback or on foot, but that's practically all I can find
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5smz92/info_on_english_lancegays_seems_to_be_impossible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddgbt4b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > [...] there is no identified archaeological evidence: nothing that can show us exactly how long or heavy a lancegay was, what the diameter of the shaft was, what shape of head it had, or whether it had heads at both ends, as is sometimes claimed. There is also no detailed description of a lancegay in any known written source; and there is no instance in any of the visual media that can indubitably be identified as a representation of the weapon. As is so often the case with weapons terms in the Middle Ages, writers of literature and other documentary sources assume that one knows what technical words denote, making it unnecessary for them to supply explanations or descriptions. As a result, everything we believe we know about the lancegay has to be *deduced* from what is said about it.\n\n-David Scott-Macnab, [Sir John Fastolf and the Diverse Affinities of the Medieval Lancegay](_URL_0_)\n\nThere are no surviving fectbuch or manual involving a section on the lancegay, although there are surviving treatises (or sections thereof) on spears and lances, such as [Fiori de'i Liberi](_URL_1_), and the techniques involved would presumably have been similar."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.researchgate.net/profile/David_Scott-Macnab/publication/236870083_Sir_John_Fastolf_and_the_Diverse_Affinities_of_the_Medieval_Lancegay/links/5658870f08ae1ef9297dd28f.pdf",
"http://wiktenauer.com/wiki/Fiore_de%27i_Liberi"
]
] |
|
849aqi
|
why blood turns brown after it dries?
|
We've all seen an old bandage before.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/849aqi/eli5_why_blood_turns_brown_after_it_dries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvnucff",
"dvnzzdm",
"dvoc446"
],
"score": [
8,
14,
4
],
"text": [
"I believe it’s because it becomes oxidized. Blood has iron, and when it dries oxidation is complete, so it makes it look “rusty”. ",
"When the liquid from the blood is seeped into the bandaid, the only thing left outside are the dead red blood cells. That is what you are seeing. \n\nAlso: the brown colour of poo is caused by the dead red blood cells filtered out by your liver. The contents of your guts before this is added is grey. ",
"Red blood cells are basically bags of hemoglobin, the protein that carries oxygen in the blood. Hemoglobin is a big globular protein (globin) with a [heme group](_URL_0_) attached. The heme group is where the oxygen molecule actually attaches. Oxygen binds to the iron atom in the center of the ring.\n\nOne of the interesting things about heme is that it is a relatively large molecule with lots of alternating single and double bonds. That's called an extended conjugated system. And because of some weird stuff you learn about in organic chemistry, that means it can absorb and reflect light of particular wavelengths (colors). \n\nWhich specific colors are absorbed or reflected depends a lot on the exact chemical state of the heme and the central iron. \n\nNormally the iron atom in heme is in its ferrous state, shown as Fe^2+ or Fe(II). If it is carrying an oxygen molecule, as in arterial blood, the heme looks red. If it is deoxygenated, like the blood in the veins, it looks dark purplish blue. \n\nOnce in a while the heme iron gets oxidized, meaning it gives up an electron and goes from ferrous (Fe^(2+)) to ferric (Fe^(3+)) iron. In this case the heme looks brown and cannot carry oxygen. Inside the body there are mechanisms to try to fix this by reducing the iron back to ferrous form. These mechanisms obviously don't exist outside the body, so in the dried blood on the bandage, all the heme eventually oxidizes and turns brown."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heme#/media/File:Heme_b.svg"
]
] |
|
1mixh6
|
What would Gettysburg battlefield have looked like in the 1950s? (story behind question inside)
|
Hello everyone. I'm asking this in the hopes that someone can either confirm or deny a story that my father has been telling for the past fifty years.
Prior to giving it away (which is a bad story in it's own right), my dad had this cannonball. He had it since before I was born, and it had always been in the garage by his tool box. If you google "civil war cannonball", all of the top image results look pretty much exactly like it.
He claims that, as a boy, he found this cannonball on the Gettysburg battlefield during a school trip and snuck it back out with him. This would have been some time in either the late 1950s or very early in the 1960s.
I've tried doing a little research and this thing looks, for all intents and purposes, exactly like a union cannonball. However, my dad is kind of an alcoholic and has a habit of making up stories about his life. I'm trying to figure out whether this one has a greater likelihood of being true or false, and whether the cannonball might actually have come from Gettysburg. What would the likelihood have been of a school child finding an artifact like this during the 50s/60s? Had they all been removed by then, or would there still have been some in the ground that could have been easily removed and taken away?
Probably a silly question and not the kind you are used to, but I appreciate your taking the time to read. Have a good day!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mixh6/what_would_gettysburg_battlefield_have_looked/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc9qs2d"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"The Gettysburg National Military Park was established and gained it's initial protection status in 1863, about a hundred years before you father visited. The park received federal protection in 1893, was designated a National Park in 1895, and added to the National Register of Historic Preservation in 1966. Keeping in mind that the park had been established and protected in some fashion or another for at least 90 years before you father visited, it's extremely unlikely that he found a canon ball just resting on the surface somewhere and absconded with it.\n\nThere were a variety of different field guns deployed by both sides during the battle, and the size and composition of the ammunition used is likewise diverse. Shot and bolts used in the battle would have been composed of solid iron or bronze, and would have weathered pretty poorly in the open.\n\nI suppose it's possible he could have lifted a ball from a stacked display, but I'd count it as unlikely that a school aged boy could effectively remove and conceal a canon ball successively. They can be quite heavy.\n\nOn the off chance that your father did remove a canon ball from the field, or from a display, it would have been a punishable violation of the National Historic Preservation Act after 1966, the Historic Sites Act after 1935 and the Antiquities Act after 1906. More than likely it would have been a violation of any number of local laws as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jce0p
|
how does someone bet that a country's credit rating will fall and make money?
|
_URL_0_
**EDIT 1:** Some clarification: I'm just curious how this works. I don't understand how one could bet against a credit rating.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jce0p/eli5_how_does_someone_bet_that_a_countrys_credit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ayoxh",
"c2azjjk",
"c2ayoxh",
"c2azjjk"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's like betting on any futures.\n\nThe better the credit rating, the better the value is of a piece of paper that says someone owes you money. If you expect the credit rating to go up, you would buy more, if you expect it to go down, you would sell what you have.\n\nThe complicated part happens when someone figured out they could sell more than they have. If they are really sure the value of a bond will drop, they can essentially make a deal to owe someone that bond in return for money, then when it does drop, they can buy it at the low value to pay to give to the other party, and come away with a profit. Of course, if the value goes up instead of down, they're in trouble.",
"The most direct way would be via credit default swaps (CDS) on the issuer of the bonds, in this case the US, but could also be other governments such as Italy, Germany, France, etc, as well as corporations, like IBM or Microsoft.\n\nWhat these are is basically insurance against default of the bond. Nearly all bonds mature at the price of 100, or 100% of the loan. What this means is the date of the last payment, the person who owns the bond receives their final interest payment as well as the principal back. the principal is the value of the bond. \n\nCDS are essentially insurance contracts against the issuer (US) not being able make payments on time for either the interest or the principal. if this happens, a \"credit event\", the value of the CDS becomes the difference between 100 and the price the defaulted bond is currently priced at, making the person who bought the CDS whole, ie they didn't lost money due to the default. if someone defaults, the bonds still traded, its just at a low price based upon the likely hood of the issuer eventually paying out again.\n\nfor this protection, the person who buys the CDS will pay the person who sold them the CDS a quarterly premium based upon a percentage of the amount they want to protect. if you want to protect $1M worth of bonds, you may have to pay 1% per year (usually divided into quarterly payments) of that to the person who sold you the CDS for however long you want to insure them. Again, in exchange for this you get the right to be paid if they bond issuer defaults.\n\nRemember that 1% payment i mentioned? well as the credit of the bond issuer gets worse, this payment increases. In this sense it trades like anything else. you don't need to own the bond to buy the CDS, so if you bought it when the quarterly payments were 1%, you can now sell it in the open markets now that the quarterly payment is 2% because of the downgrade. the value of the cds will increase as the likely hood of default increases. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It's like betting on any futures.\n\nThe better the credit rating, the better the value is of a piece of paper that says someone owes you money. If you expect the credit rating to go up, you would buy more, if you expect it to go down, you would sell what you have.\n\nThe complicated part happens when someone figured out they could sell more than they have. If they are really sure the value of a bond will drop, they can essentially make a deal to owe someone that bond in return for money, then when it does drop, they can buy it at the low value to pay to give to the other party, and come away with a profit. Of course, if the value goes up instead of down, they're in trouble.",
"The most direct way would be via credit default swaps (CDS) on the issuer of the bonds, in this case the US, but could also be other governments such as Italy, Germany, France, etc, as well as corporations, like IBM or Microsoft.\n\nWhat these are is basically insurance against default of the bond. Nearly all bonds mature at the price of 100, or 100% of the loan. What this means is the date of the last payment, the person who owns the bond receives their final interest payment as well as the principal back. the principal is the value of the bond. \n\nCDS are essentially insurance contracts against the issuer (US) not being able make payments on time for either the interest or the principal. if this happens, a \"credit event\", the value of the CDS becomes the difference between 100 and the price the defaulted bond is currently priced at, making the person who bought the CDS whole, ie they didn't lost money due to the default. if someone defaults, the bonds still traded, its just at a low price based upon the likely hood of the issuer eventually paying out again.\n\nfor this protection, the person who buys the CDS will pay the person who sold them the CDS a quarterly premium based upon a percentage of the amount they want to protect. if you want to protect $1M worth of bonds, you may have to pay 1% per year (usually divided into quarterly payments) of that to the person who sold you the CDS for however long you want to insure them. Again, in exchange for this you get the right to be paid if they bond issuer defaults.\n\nRemember that 1% payment i mentioned? well as the credit of the bond issuer gets worse, this payment increases. In this sense it trades like anything else. you don't need to own the bond to buy the CDS, so if you bought it when the quarterly payments were 1%, you can now sell it in the open markets now that the quarterly payment is 2% because of the downgrade. the value of the cds will increase as the likely hood of default increases. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.examiner.com/finance-examiner-in-national/1-billion-bet-july-of-us-downgrade-brings-questions-of-insider-information"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Credit_default_swap"
]
] |
|
2edxgk
|
why is no mouth cpr what everyone is told to do now?
|
Is it because an untrained person will do it wrong, or are the breaths simply not worth doing? When I was trained to do CPR it was with breaths so should i just not do them now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2edxgk/eli5_why_is_no_mouth_cpr_what_everyone_is_told_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjyj1a0",
"cjyj40i",
"cjyjapm",
"cjyjrm8",
"cjyl7bg",
"cjym4ff",
"cjyxfcc"
],
"score": [
13,
2,
61,
4,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"More important for an untrained person to focus on compressions rather than breaths. You can live longer without breathing, than you can with your heart not beating.",
"One big danger with mouth to mouth is the victim vomiting into your mouth. They do sell easily portable barriers to protect against that, but very few people I know except EMTs actually carry them on their person.",
"The breaths aren't worth doing. Keeping the heart pumping (doing the compressions) is far more important. This is because while people will lose consciousness from carbon dioxide build up in a couple of minutes, the average person actually has enough oxygen in their blood to stay alive for for a while (nearly 20 minutes) if the heart is pumping. There's really a caveat that after about ten minutes you need to start doing rescue breaths if they're not breathing. But the idea is that in most \"man on the street\" rescue efforts professionals show up and take over before the person would actually die of lack of oxygen. So for an amateur trying to operate in a high stress situation they probably aren't super practiced in, keep it as simple as possible to have the best effect. Add to that rescue breathes don't have much oxygen in them anyways, since your lungs filtered it out when you inhaled. ",
"It's more important to keep doing chest compressions then waste time tying to force more air into the lungs. Some air is already being moved in and out of the lungs with the chest compressions. ",
"The body retains more oxygen than we thought before. By giving rescue breaths, you need to pause chest compressions. Without compressions, no oxygen gets circulated. Keeping the oxygenated blood circulated is what is vital for life. \n\nSo, compressions-only cpr is being taught simply because it's more effective at saving lives and it prevents possible spread of disease from giving rescue breaths. Also, hopefully people will be more willing to do cpr if they need to since it's easier to do/less to remember.",
"Dammit now i can't blame cold sores on saving lives. \n\nIn all reality is because breathing in that sense isn't that important. Air still moves from the compressions alone. Another reason is mouth to mouth contact prevents many people from offering aid. More often than not the patient vomits firing the process.",
"The first aid course I took few weeks ago taught:\n\n* If you see them collapse, and they don't have a pulse, they probably have enough O2 in their blood so you don't need the breaths.\n* If you didn't see them collapse, then do the breaths since you don't know how depleted their O2 levels are.\n* If you don't have a face shield, pocket mask, or something with a one way valve on it to stop the person from spitting up into your mouth, then protect yourself and don't do the breaths."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3aiub7
|
why don't newly pressed vinyl records use the whole side?
|
I have a nice collection of vinyl. Most inherited from uncles and aunts that haven't been listening to them for years. But I also have some new vinyl that has been pressed in the last few years. The old vinyl is cut almost right up to the sticker in the center making sure a full album fits on two sides. On the new vinyl, only three or four songs fit on one side making almost all of them two disc albums. Is there something that doesn't translate when things are recorded digitally or is it just to charge more for a record?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aiub7/eli5_why_dont_newly_pressed_vinyl_records_use_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csd0m03",
"csd8hik"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I can tell you that some recording lathes (the machine that cuts the master disc that the record stampers are made from) are adjustable...to make the tracks closer together. This is done to increase the amount of music on the side. However, some lathes are better than others, and some engineers (who run the lathes) tend to be conservative. The more bass-heavy (low notes) the music is, the more room it takes up (really!)\n\nI would like to say that in your case, they wanted to cut the best possible record, and so gave themselves lots of room when cutting the master. ",
"Low end and high end. As someone else pointed out in this thread, the more bass that is used, the wider the grooves are, which reduces the amount of space for full songs on a side. Also, for a reason that escapades me right now, sibilance, or \"s's\" that sound like \"shhh\" can increase as the needle reaches the inner diameter of the record as well,so by using less of that, quality stays consistent throughout the album. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
tme6i
|
Does the US meet traditional definitions of an empire?
|
NOT POLITICALLY MOTIVATED. I notice how many of the historians here refer to their specialties as based on the study of an empire. There is much discussion here about the merits and costs of imperialism at various times, and on the cultural ramifications of a given empire. Ignoring the use of the term as an attack on modern corporatism and American diplomacy, does the US today meet whatever criteria are generally accepted for branding a cultural / political center as an empire?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tme6i/does_the_us_meet_traditional_definitions_of_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4nuik5",
"c4nupby",
"c4nuwyt",
"c4nv0sr",
"c4nxs4k",
"c4nzwkv"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
22,
16,
10,
4
],
"text": [
"I would say that most historians would characterize the US as an empire. Quite simply, I really can't see why the most powerful nation in the world who has military bases throughout the globe and routinely wages war on other countries could *not* be considered an empire.",
"Seems we have changed the language enough in discussing US actions/politics/influence/wars that the perception of empire is avoided. \n\nDoesn't make it any less true of course.",
"It depends on what qualities defines an Empire, really. This is quite a hard question to answer for sure.\n\nThe element that is most iffy is the central idea that an Empire not only has the original culture subjugate others, but then attempts to create a state that actively manages all of those cultures at once. In the case of the USA, it never began as a single-culture enterprise at the time in which it was integrating other cultures, it seems to me. Almost like the Imperial part was done in reverse order.",
"A couple of factors that I think define an empire:\n\n1) Unifying Ideology for Conquest - Why is the mother country conquering other states? Is there some overarching narrative or is it simply resource extraction? (See: White Man's Burden)\n\n2) Serious Resource Extraction - Has the mother country begun extracting large scale amounts of resources from the subjugated country?\n\n3) Creation of an Imperial Bureaucracy - Has the mother country created an extensive network of diplomats, soldiers, and tradespeople who facilitate the empire?\n\n4) Conflict with other Empires - Does the mother country's holdings bring it into tension with other large political bodies?\n\nI don't think its possible to say definitively that the US is or isn't an empire but I think there's compelling arguments for both sides. I'd personally be more fond of calling it a hegemony given that over the last 50-60 years it's made extensive use of both hard and soft power.",
"No, the US does not meet the traditional definition of Empire. Traditionally when thinking about an Empire we have thought of a single government that rules over a large amount of territory that has no say in how it is governed. With the occupations in Afghanistan and Iraq coming to a slow and painful end, there really isn't any area in the world that the US so dominates. There are a few areas that don't enjoy full representation in the US, but are controlled by it. Namely: the Virgin Islands, American Guam, the Northern Marianas Islands, Puerto Rico and Washington, DC. However all of these territories enjoy some level of political representation in the US, and have local political control, also (as far as I know), none of those areas have serious pro-indepence movements suggesting they are comfortable being part of the US. \n\nGiven these circumstances I don't feel that you could realistically define the US as an empire in the traditional sense.",
"No. The US no longer wages aggressive war for the purpose of territorial expansion; doesn't create colonies out of and/or exploit the natural resources of places it has captured; doesn't treat foreign peoples in less developed countries as barbarians in need of civilizing (racism as policy); doesn't use its military superiority to give itself an unfair advantage on the international market.\n\nThe US gave up imperialism when they granted their only major colony, The Philippines, independence in 1946."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6967yg
|
Why was there such a regression in technology from the time of the ancient Greeks and Romans to the Middle Ages?
|
Okay, first off I want to just preface this by saying I'm not really that well versed in history at all, so I apologize if I mess any facts up.
From what I understand, ancient Greeks and Romans were much more advanced than the majority of Europe in the middle ages. Not only did they have a working sewage system through the use of aqueducts, but they also developed a number of pioneering medical practices, and were able to engineer complex machines such as the Antikythera mechanism. But then 800 years later, all of a sudden people are just living in their own filth and bleeding themselves to get rid of headaches.
What happened to cause such a regression?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6967yg/why_was_there_such_a_regression_in_technology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh43737"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hiya, not discouraging any new answers coming in, but I think you might find the [part of our FAQ about the so called \"Dark Ages\"](_URL_0_) helpful and interesting. Scroll down a tiny bit when you open the link:)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/darkages#wiki_the_.22dark_ages.22"
]
] |
|
5qu3b5
|
what is it about apples that makes us have so much variety compared to other fruits?
|
For example, at any supermarket I go to, there's at least 6-8 kinds of apples. This is not the case with other fruits.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5qu3b5/eli5_what_is_it_about_apples_that_makes_us_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd2378x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In many cases there are in fact many different kinds of a fruits or vegetable. We just either dont sell them or they got breeded out for what was considered better looking or tasting. For example there are multiple types of bananas, oranges, ( berries in general actually), etc. Theres also variety in vegetables with various kinds of greens, peas, corn, carrots, etc.\n\nCarrots are a prime example of breeding out different types. The orange one you see today was created mostly by cross breeding, not naturally\n\nAs for fruits that only have one type thats mostly because they only grow in a very select few places under fairly strict weather requirements leaving little room for mutations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
azogum
|
In medieval times, was it common for average citizens to go about their daily lives with weapons?
|
Hollywood depictions of medieval life seem to feature a lot of people casually walking around with swords/other weapons, was this actually common? Would the average Joe make sure to bring his sword if he were just going down to the pub? Would he even own a sword?
Thank you for your insight!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/azogum/in_medieval_times_was_it_common_for_average/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiacauu"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"The answer to this somewhat depends on your meaning of 'armed'. For example, early medieval English fashion called for the carrying of a *Seax*, a long, single-bladed knife that was worn horizontally hanging from a belt on the waist, roughly the size of large kitchen knife. The Saxons derive their demonym from this, but it was carried by Angles as well. Early medieval English culture is essentially one of ostentatious display; from horse tackle, to brooches, to jewellery, wealth and status are displayed in personal ornamentation and the Anglo-Saxons are famed for their metalwork featuring ornate patterns and inlaid gems. For those who could no afford gold and gems, burnished brass and glass could be used, much like costume jewellery today. Part and parcel of this culture of display, therefore, would have been the regular wearing of a *seax*, both as an indicator of wealth, but also as a practical tool for everyday life.\n\nWhile the *seax* was technically a weapon, it was predominantly a hunting or utility weapon; in warfare the main weapon of the Anglo-Saxons would have been the spear or javellin, and these are unlikely to have been carried socially. Swords are a slightly different beast again; although they are weapons of war, the time and skill necessary to make a sword means that they are largely constrained to the nobility, and as such once again become an object indicative of wealth and status. As such, we might not expect to see a *thegn* or *ealdorman* \"casually\" wearing a sword, but we might if he was performing a civil action - presiding over a trial, say - as a signifier of his status."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5sawal
|
how / when did scotus judges become so partisan to predict a decision on the basis of party appointment rather than on the merits of each case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sawal/eli5_how_when_did_scotus_judges_become_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dddmmy8",
"dddmomn",
"dddqq5e",
"dddr7cd",
"dddxxd2",
"dddyvw9",
"dddzzur",
"dde0gvp",
"dde0ibp",
"dde1fvt"
],
"score": [
72,
4,
156,
29,
8,
8,
5,
2,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"They really aren't that partisan. The majority of cases are decided between 9-0 and 7-2. You hear about the 5-4 decisions because they are the most controversial, or it's an incredibly gray area of law, where the court has to set a precedent where none existed prior. All Federal Judges are lifetime appointments, not just the Supreme Court. Some States have elections for Judges. That's an issue for their State to decide.",
"The job of a Supreme Court justice is to interpret the Constitution and decide whether a particular law is constitutional, based on that interpretation. There is more than one way to interpret the Constitution, otherwise we wouldn't need a Supreme Court in the first place. When people talk about a *conservative justice* or *liberal justice*, what they really mean is *a justice that interprets the Constitution in a way that conservatives agree with* or *a justice that interprets the Constitution in a way that liberals agree with*. As you can see, that's a bit of a mouthful, so we shorten it to \"conservative justice\" or \"liberal justice\".",
"They're really not as partisan as people make it seem. However, they are human. The constitution and laws have a lot of ambiguity to them. People are going to interpret certain things differently-\n\n > If Supreme Court Judges are as partisan as everyone else they shouldn't be given lifetime appointments.\n\nThe founders thought the opposite. The idea is that if you have a lifetime appointment, you don't need to make partisan votes in order to get re-elected. You can tell your party to fuck off, if you disagree. If you have the ability to be replaced, you don't have that freedom.\n\nAnd what's to stop Congress from just replacing a conservative judge with a new conservative judge? Not much. That's basically how Congress gets elected now, and they are far more partisan.\n\n > When non-SCOTUS judges are elected, how possibly can they remain impartial?\n\nThe short answer is they aren't. Ideally, they do the best they can, and you try to make sure you vet them heavily before allowing them onto the court. There's no magic way to find someone who isn't political. The job is inherently political.\n\nThe check/balance on this is that if it gets bad enough, judges can be impeached. Also, both parties in congress has a lot of power in screening(or making new laws), so that tends to moderate judges quite a bit (and worst case scenario, if congress screws up, voters can vote them out). If voters don't vote them out, the founders figured that means it doesn't bother them that much.\n\nBut just to emphasize, for the most part, even though they tend to vote on \"party lines\" (and keep in mind, the big cases in the news tend to be ones where there is a split- there are many that are unanimous), generally speaking, they do have a coherent ideology , even if you don't agree with it.\n\nedit:\nIn addition, precedent matters a lot. If Scotus decides \"x is legal\", it's incredibly hard to over turn that-they almost never reverse themselves. They're very very away that if you say \"x is legal\" and it benefits one party today, it might be the other way in the future, and they've put themselves in a box. That is a huge check on their power.\n\nTo give a recent example, a big part of the recent ruling by Judge Robart putting a stay on the immigration ban- relied on the decision to prevent Obama's immigration changes a few years ago. It really can come back to bite you in the ass, and the Judges are not so partisan as to not be blatantly inconsistent (for the most part)",
"A few things: \n\nthey aren't judges they are justices. Now you may think that doesn't matter but it does. They are mainly charged with interpreting the constitution or matters between states. \n\nMost of these cases are decided by 7-8-9 justices and not along ideological lines.\n\nMost judges aren't partisan, politicians just make it seem that way on decisions they disagree with to fire up their voters. At the Supreme Court level for instance the deciding vote for the ACA was a conservative minded justice who ruled that congress had the power to pass the law.\n\nAs for lifetime appointments, it is necessary to keep judges from becoming politicized. They don't need to worry about pleasing anyone, getting elected or finding his or hers next job. Any overtly political judges will be overruled at the next level. As for the Supreme Court, the vetting process of years of being a judge and then getting confirmed means most people are the leading legal minds in the country and have a vested interest in upholding the law and not a personal agenda. That is also why there are 9 of them.\n\nAs for elected state judges, it's a sovereign state decision to make judges accountable to voters but the next levels (appellate and supreme) courts for the state are appointed to prevent the implementation of the law from becoming overly politIcized.\n\n",
"Usually people determine if someone is partisan or not by whether they agree with them. If you agree with them, then they are voting based on sound reasoning and rational interpretation. If you disagree with them, they are a partisan hack.\n\nAs someone else mentioned, the law is often very grey when it gets to the SCOTUS. The word \"abortion\" appears no where in the Constitution, and there are multiple ways to interpret it. The second amendment is incredibly poorly written, and there are multiple ways to interpret that as well for two obvious examples.",
"All justices are people and people are fallible. There is no 'objective view' in many of these things, only different interpretations. What different interpretations potentially do is a) change the decision b) how to get to the decision. There are several ways to interpret the constitution. I'll cover the two broad ways currently in use. \n\nThere is the originalist, that interprets the law how the judge believes it was originally meant. This is related to textualism- this is basing it purely on what is written and excluding things like intent of the law and what it is supposed to fix. This is summed up as the Constitution is dead and fixed for all time view. \n\nThe 'opposite' view is the contextualist. This view considers not just the words and the text, but also the context in which is was written. Things like, what the intent was, what the issue it's trying to resolve is, what will the consequence of the ruling be.\n\nThe originalist/textualism interpretation roughly aligns with the current Republican/conservative view. They like strong congress and executive branches, and a narrow interpretation of the law. Conversely the contextualist view is associated with the left block of the SCOTUS (at this time). \n\nNote that it does not mean they will vote the way the political alignment suggests. The ACA was passed by a conservative justice because they interpreted the constitution to say congress has the power to make that law. In other words, one can come to a left wing or right wing decision regardless of interpretation. Right now, the left block and right block tend to use these contrasting ways of reaching their respective decisions, but it's not always the case. \n\nWhat the parties do when electing one toe the SCOTUS is two things. Look at their history to see how congruent it is with their parties beliefs. See how they reached those decisions. They want a way of reaching the decisions that the ruling party views as more likely to favour them. Judges tend to be very consistent with *how* they make their decisions, even though they may not be consistent with whether that decision is viewed as a win for the left or right. ",
"The Justices are predictable not because of their politics, but because they have a long track record of written decisions of law literally called \"opinions\" in their wake. Some judges come around on certain theories or ways of thinking, and sometimes the world moves under them making them seem more or less left or right, but you know who a judge is at the end of the day. It's beyond politics, it's deeper. It's just how they view the world, read and interpret words, and logic through problems.",
"the *perception* of partisanship increased with the 5-4 Bush v. Gore decision, wherein judges appointed by the father of one of the participants in the case was part of the process of appointing some of the judges...not to mention that Justice Roberts was, at the time, one of the lawyers for Bush's case. \n\nFrom then on, the appointment process went from being 90+ for most justices to closer 60-40ish senate votes, as the senate saw that SCOTUS justices were more than just a president's prerogative, but could perhaps decide the next presidential election. ",
"They aren't partisan.\n\nSupreme Court judges rule by *constitutional* ideology, not *political* ideology. If you read any Supreme Court decision, this becomes very clear. \n\nOne of the reasons Antonin Scalia was so noteworthy was because he was pivotal in bringing \"originalism,\" or interpreting the Constitution as it was \"intended\" by the framers, back into popularity (where it was heavily criticized and rejected in the decades prior to his appointment). \n\nFor comparison, other interpretations of the Constitution include the \"living document\" reading, which interprets the Constitution as it should apply in the modern day, and the \"strict constructionist\" reading, which interprets it strictly by the exact wording. All of the schools of thought have their own merits, which is why they are all used or have been used by Supreme Court Justices now and in the past.\n\nAs others have pointed out, the vast majority of SCOTUS cases are decided unanimously or close to it. Only the controversial ones (often landmark cases) end up as 5-4 or 6-3 decisions, which are the ones you hear about. \n",
"Justices are primarily influenced by their judicial philosophy rather than their political philosophy. Categorizing justices based on their party membership (if applicable) and attempting to use that as a basis to predict how they will vote on a case is wildly unreliable.\n\nFor example, Antonin Scalia was a notorious textualist because he believed that properly worded statutes (and other legal documents) left little room for misinterpretation; if the drafters of a certain legal provision intended that provision to be interpreted in a certain fashion, it should be written as such or amended through the democratic process. He was also a strong believer in the separation of powers and vigorously opposed judicial overreach or legislating from the bench.\n\nClarence Thomas is a textualist akin to Scalia and often voted alongside him even if their reasoning was different. However, Thomas is known for being willing to override previous decisions if he viewed them to be defective; in Scalia's own words \"Thomas doesn't believe in Stare Decisis, period\".\n\nRuth Bader Ginsburg on the other hand is much more willing to adopt and apply social expectations and modern concerns into her decisions even where they do not fit neatly within the text or spirit of the law.\n\nEvery justice is unique, and party membership doesn't really play a big part in what they bring to the nation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
32w56j
|
why do dogs care about babies?
|
There's a lot of pictures floating around with captions like "Taking care of his little brother!" Or "he'll protect them!" And it's always pictures of dogs with (human) babies. It seems to hint that the dogs have some aspect of caring for babies. Is this actually a thing, and if so, why? I assumed dogs would take care of their young, not some other's kid - especially another species. Is there a reason for this, or do we just hope man's best friend is looking out for our little guys?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32w56j/eli5_why_do_dogs_care_about_babies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqf7acx",
"cqf8ccl",
"cqf927d"
],
"score": [
17,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Domestic dogs view themselves as part of a human pack, the family. Since babies are part of the pack too, and the pack's alpha members (us) like them they must be worth keeping (dog logic).",
"To a large degree it's also an instinctual reaction. Human babies give off a lot smells that trigger a \"nurturing\" response. It makes sense if you think about the history of dogs around humans. Any dogs that were aggressive towards human babies would have been killed or kicked out of the tribe, but those that were nurturing and protective would have been the favourites and the most like to be taken care of (and the last to be eaten if food ran short). Over time the \"nurturing\" dogs had a better chance of survival and breeding so this characteristic became more common.\n",
"Dogs see their owners as family members and babies as part of that family.\n\nIf you look at a pack of feral dogs and wolves, the whole pack pitches to feed, raise and protect the puppies regardless of who the parent is."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
12th4n
|
Is dairy really that crucial to our diet?
|
Throughout my entire life, it's been pounded into my head to drink my milk. Dairy even takes a significant portion of the food pyramid.
But what about 100-200 years ago? I can't imagine it being feasible for everyone to have cows or goats. It doesnt make sense that our body would evolve to require a food source that was as scarce as milk. Our daily requirements for Vitamin D come from the sun and Calcium can be found in alot of places, even plants. So why dairy?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12th4n/is_dairy_really_that_crucial_to_our_diet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6xyp74",
"c6y06hu",
"c6y23j1",
"c6y46l1"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"As long as your getting the necessary amount of vitamins, I don't think it matters what form they come in. There are civilizations all over the planet that don't consume diary and they're doing fine.",
"As others have said, dairy is absolutely not necessary.\n\nI suspect the recommendation to drink milk is based on the fact that it's an easy and affordable way to get some decent nutrition: 1 L of milk has 1200 mg of calcium, 1500 mg of potassium, and 30 g of high-quality protein.",
"As others have said, many, many perfectly healthy people live entirely without dairy (myself included).\n\n > why dairy?\n\nGovernment food recommendations are based as much on economics as health, if not more so. Cheap high-yield staples are not the basis of the recommended diet for health reasons. Health issues are considered, of course, but certainly not exclusively.\n\n > Throughout my entire life, it's been pounded into my head to drink my milk.\n\nMost of the popular conception about milk being necessary for calcium and so on comes from advertising. Most of that advertising is paid for by the dairy industry, and exists for the same reason that all other advertising does: profit.\n\nedit: Sorry, not very AskSciencey. With nutrients, how absorbable they are is important, calcium merely being in a food doesn't mean it is useful to your body. Many vegetables are a good absorbable source of calcium[1], mostly leafy greens.\n\n[1] _URL_0_",
"Lactase is the enzyme that allows humans to digest lactose, and it's encoded by the LCT gene. The ability usually disappears in humans around 5 years of age, but different circumstances have caused the production of lactase to persist into adulthood in some populations (with histories of pastoralism, for example). From an evolutionary perspective, drinking a glass of milk with every meal is pretty strange and definitely not necessary. Like you said, we can get vitamin D and calcium from other food sources, and we can synthesize our own vitamin D."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19021804"
],
[]
] |
|
4zl735
|
why does norway have some of the world's highest gas prices despite being the 15th largest oil producer (1.9m bbl/day)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4zl735/eli5_why_does_norway_have_some_of_the_worlds/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6wq2gk"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"It's mainly because they tax it ALOT. This is to make an negative incentive to drive as much because of the negative effects of traffic, the impact it has on local environment (bad air) and the global environment. This is also a huge way for the government to earn a lot of taxes which go to building infrastructure or other goods.\n\nIt should also be noted that norwegians have an high average income, thus making their purchasing power stronger than most of the world, which would make the prices seem high when you compare it to countries with less income per capita."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2353nx
|
Is anyone creating Atoms? Or is this even possible?
|
Recently I saw J. Craig Venter speak and he was describing how his team is building artificial life by creating strings of DNA and planting them in cells. This got me wondering on whether the advancements being made in creating artificial life are also being made in creating atoms from scratch.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2353nx/is_anyone_creating_atoms_or_is_this_even_possible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgtu9e7",
"cgtyjjl"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of the elements on the periodic table above uranium are synthetically created.",
"While building atoms one proton or neutron at a time is certainly possible, it is very inefficient. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
x059y
|
Is there any rational explanation for these noises?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/x059y/is_there_any_rational_explanation_for_these_noises/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5hzsh0",
"c5i0nzl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Are they heard in any rural areas? It sounds like traffic noise echoing off of buildings.\n\n(It would be easy enough to drop in a sound to a film to further conspiracy theories, btw.)",
"In addition to the explanation offered, other possibilities include:\n\n- Man-made structures that produce the sounds inadvertently (e.g. wind currents from passing trains in a subway system, rushing out vents that produce a \"pipe organ\" effect). [Here is an example of structure built to purpose](_URL_0_). \n\n- [Natural structures](_URL_1_) that produce a pipe organ effect from wind.\n\n- Distant train, ship, or highway noises reflected oddly by natural or man-made structures.\n\n- A hoax.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.oddmusic.com/gallery/om24550.html",
"http://visitcuster.com/nationalparksmonuments/windcavenationalpark/"
]
] |
||
10a263
|
Bio: X-inactivation and x-linked disorders?
|
Okay so I have two questions: why does x-inactivation occur if all other chromosomes (autosomes) have two active homologues? Why is the x the only one that needs to run on only one copy? Also, wouldn't x-inactivation counter the advantage that females have against x-linked disorders? Like say there is a disorder on one x chromosome and a different disorder on the other. By deactivating one x chromosome wouldn't that force the cell to accept one of the disorders even if it is heterozygous for it, considering both x-chromosomes?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10a263/bio_xinactivation_and_xlinked_disorders/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6bq6vm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"We evolved to handle two sets of every gene...except when it comes to the sex chromosomes. Having too much of certain proteins wreaks havoc during development (e.g. trisomy 21, having an extra chromosome 21 causes Down Syndrome), with most trisomies being fatal.\n\nX-inactivation serves the purpose of making sure you only have one X chromosome doing its thing, because doubling the dose with these particular genes can cause a lot of problems.\n\nIn fact, [Klinefelter's Syndrome](_URL_0_) is what can develop in someone with XXY. Even though their extra X chromosome does get inactivated, it's apparently not completely inactivated and causes some issues from the doubling doses of particular gene expression."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klinefelter%27s_syndrome"
]
] |
|
8mjhse
|
if we can have physician assisted suicides, why are there sometimes major malfunctions when administering the 'death penalty'?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mjhse/eli5_if_we_can_have_physician_assisted_suicides/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzo2ih3",
"dzoba1g"
],
"score": [
13,
4
],
"text": [
"Physician assistant suicide is often phenobarbital, something people would OD on back in the day. One single drug, gently knocks you out and kills you without any dramatic stuff. It basically amps up the brain receptor that says \"chill out neuron\" so your whole brain chills out, till it knocks you out, and your respiratory drive chills out too and you die. \n\nDeath penalty, that doesn't use such a method. There's a cocktail of 3 drugs, one to knock you out, then one that relaxes your muscles, then one to stop your heart. Since your heart is a muscle, the anti-heart drug also messes with your muscles so they can very dramatically spasm if the anti-muscle drug didn't work right. This is also complicated by many pharma companies refusing to provide the drug for moral reasons. Or the electric chair, which also doesn't always work. Or hanging, which can be ugly. \n\nDeath penalty uses more complicated and less reliable methods, physician assisted uses simpler and more reliable methods. ",
"Also, physicians or even nurses aren’t allowed to participate in lethal injections, so it’s left to prison employees with little to no medical training, which leads to incorrect dosage, placing the IV incorrectly, etc etc "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
364ze9
|
what's the purpose of the num lock key on a full sized keyboard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/364ze9/eli5whats_the_purpose_of_the_num_lock_key_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crastc0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The first IBM PC keyboard had 83 keys. The numeric keypad doubled as the cursor control keys, and you used Num Lock to toggle between the two.\n\nA few years later, IBM introduced what is now the familiar 101 key layout, with dedicated cursor control keys. Even though the Num Lock key was no longer strictly necessary, they left it in for backwards compatibility (some programs use it for other purposes) and because some people preferred the cursor control keys in the numeric keypad layout.\n\nEven through that was almost 30 years ago, the layout has become so standard no one has seen a need to change it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
95bu6z
|
how is it so hard for many people to even try to read or pronounce foreign names?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/95bu6z/eli5_how_is_it_so_hard_for_many_people_to_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3rg5ae",
"e3rgebu",
"e3rjlzz",
"e3rkc43",
"e3rl2fk",
"e3rp593"
],
"score": [
7,
10,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a strange question. We more or less use the same alphabet, but the letters and combinations are pronounced differently in every language. \n\nIf you think its easy, try these Irish words and names:\n\nConchubhur\n\nDé Domhnaigh\n\nMilseáin\n\nCaoilte\n\nró the",
"Part of how most people read is not by looking at each individual letter but rather looking at the word as a whole, more like a singular shape rather than a string of letters. If you've been reading \"by shape\" and have to switch to reading each individual letter it's pretty jarring. Also different languages will pronounce the same letters differently and so combinations that make sense in Spanish won't make sense in English. ",
"Different languages (that use the same alphabet) have different rules for how letters map to sounds, but these rules often work on letter combinations and have the same letter pronounced differently depending on what other letters to before or after.\n\nWhen you see a word in a language you don't speak and thus don't know these pronounciation rules, you'll have two main problems:\n\n* You'll pronounce parts according to the rules you know and the result is simply wrong.\n* You'll encounter letter combinations that the language(s) you know never uses and therefore does not have pronounciation rules for. You have no idea how to pronounce that. And if a single word has several such unknown combinations, you have little chance to gloss over it or wing it in some way.",
"Each language has their own rules about how to produce sounds based on letters. If you don't know the rules, then you can at best make guesses about what those rules might be. Even worse, each language has their own set of sounds they use to communicate, and these sounds are clumped together based on rules inherent to the language. For example, English has quite a bit of variance in the ways you can pronounce 'a'. In some languages, these ways are distinguished so that they are actually separate, and using the wrong one would change the meaning of the word. Which would be awkward for an english speaker since to them the words both sound the same, more or less.",
"It's probably caused by the differences between the sound of the letters on different languages. And there are some sounds that don't exist at all on some of them, like the \"TH\" in english, it was hard to me to learn (i'm brazilian) because in portuguese it sounds like a simple \"T\", but in english it's totally different. \nApply the same logic on names. I took a long time to learn properly how to speak \"Deutschland\" because the letters sound totally different from what they'd sound in portuguese.",
"If you do not speak a language commonly, and potentially rarely ever hear it spoken then you have no concept in your brain of how to pronounce the words in it. Some of the sounds may not even exist in your language at all and so your ability to say the word properly will be next to impossible. \n\n > I know that most english speakers can't roll their \"R\" like most Spanish speakers do, but having a word in front of you and not being able to read it just blows my mind.\n\nEnglish and Spanish share an alphabet. The English speaker is saying the word pronouncing all the letters in the way they are said in English in this scenario. As someone who has to dealt with Mexican Immigrants from time to time they do the exact same thing with English words, saying them wrong because they are using the pronunciation of letters that Spanish has. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
85p1bb
|
if water is not compressible, why does a pressure exists if pipe has limited volume of water ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85p1bb/eli5_if_water_is_not_compressible_why_does_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvz24kr",
"dvz26da",
"dvzg69n",
"dvzgpq6"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Water is compressible; everything is. Water pressure is typically generated by having the storage tank at some height above the pipes. The static pressure in the pipes is proportional to the height.",
"Water is compressible and the pipe is expandable. Neither the bulk density nor the volume are fixed. Water is just not very compressible compared to air",
"The compressibility of water is so negligible, that it is essentially zero.\n\nWater companies pump water (an incompressible fluid) into (nearly) rigid pipes using pumps. To keep the pressure constant, and to prevent accidental pipe rupture, accumulators are used as shock absorbers. Accumulators are essentially vessels filled with compressed gas, that provide the expansion and contraction necessary to keep pipes safe, and water pressure constant. The pipes themselves also stretch (a little).\n\nIn a closed vessel, when water pressure increases, the vessel itself stretches, which then acts on the water it contains. Even metal tanks stretch somewhat, which is why you can have a water vessel with no bubbles that maintains its pressure. ",
"You do not need to be able to compress at all to have pressure.\n\nPressure means force per surface area. So if a pipe has pressure of one pascal it means that the water inside is pushing one square meter of pipe with force of one newton.\n\nYou can also have pressure with solid matter and solid matter complresses even less than water. For example if push at weak ice with sharpl stick you can break it easily but if you push with a flat plate the ice won't break."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1w7hd6
|
Were there any examples of Fascist states before 1930's Europe?
|
Also along those lines: I know a large belief in Fascism is the acceptance of inequality. Does the "inequality" in a Fascist state always equate to racism?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1w7hd6/were_there_any_examples_of_fascist_states_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceznlg5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Fascism at the best of times is a vague description. As a Marxist, I see fascism as being a reaction to a crisis of state brought on by a crisis of capitalism, as such, to argue that fascist states existed before capitalism wouldn't make sense. The goal of a fascist state then is to try and maintain capital as a mode of production, even if this is an unconscious and only historical role. Have there been dictatorial states and rulers before fascism? Yes, but I think to describe them as being fascist would be taking fascism out of the specifics of the 20th century. A nice pamphlet you can read would be Gilles Dauve's [When Insurrections Die](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.prole.info/texts/insurrectionsdie.html"
]
] |
|
3m79f9
|
where did the misconception that radioactive waste glows green come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3m79f9/eli5_where_did_the_misconception_that_radioactive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvck6j8",
"cvck76e"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"An early use of radioactive material was luminescent applications. You've seen glow in the dark watches as an example. These commonly involved a phosphor that glowed green via interaction with the radioactive substance. \n\nThis also led to [radium girls](_URL_0_) as an early terrifying example of what can go bad with radiation. \n\nSo you have a combination of 'green glow' and 'horrible radiation damage.'",
"Probably from [uranium glass](_URL_0_). Before we knew that tiny amounts of it were highly radioactive, we used Uranium based glass for all sorts of stuff. It turns out it's a pale green. If I had to guess, that's where this idea comes from."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radium_Girls"
],
[
"http://www.allthepages.org/images/blog/ura-turtle.jpg"
]
] |
||
308cdo
|
Clarification of the disputed status of the Nagorno-Karabakh region
|
At the end of the Nagorno-Karabakh war, why was the region under Armenian control not formally annexed by Armenia (especially given Armenian forces retain control over the region until today)? I only have minimal understanding of the conflict but was under the impression that by the end of the war, the Armenian forces had gained an upper hand. If that is the case however, why was Armenia not in a position to dictate more favourable terms for itself?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/308cdo/clarification_of_the_disputed_status_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpq1plf"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"International norms. Since roughly WWII, it's been very rare for international organizations like the UN or NATO to recognize territorial changes adjudicated through conquest. Look at North Cyprus, or Western Sahara--they've been under the control of Turkey and Morocco, respectively, for decades but few countries formally acknowledge it. When you see a UN health statistic map, for example, you'll see that Western Sahara has \"no data\" even though Moroccan data includes data from Western Sahara and it is made to appear like the data from Cyprus covers the whole island. [Look at this map for example](_URL_0_) (you can't really see Cyprus, but trust me, it's undivided in that map).\n\nSecond, the norms of how states change borders have become fairly firm. Other than colonial possession, you see states can split up (as in the Soviet Union or Yugoslavia, most famously, but also East Timor from Indonesia, Singapore from Malaysia, Eritrea from Ethiopia, and South Sudan from Sudan), and you see them combine (as in Vietnam, Tanzania, Germany, Yemen, Sikkim going in India), but I can not think of a single case since 1946 where a significant part of one state broke off and was allowed to join another, other than a few random post-colonial cities like Ifni or Pondicherry or Hong Kong. There have been many attempts that have failed, like Iraq's attempts to annex parts of Iran and all of Kuwait, but I honestly cannot think of an example that has succeeded. You see small border adjustments here and there, but they're mainly technocratic things that affect few people--nothing like before WWII when you'd see Alsace go to France, and then the Sudetenland go to Germany, and then Germany and the USSR split Poland, etc. Kosovo is 90% ethnic Albanian, but when it broke off from Serbia, it was explicitly not allowed to join Albania. Furthermore, when 10% of Kosovo that is ethnic Serb lives next to Serbia, but they're not allowed to split off from Kosovo and join Serbia. The international community is also generally very reluctant to recognize split-off claims at all without the state they're splitting off from approving, which is why we have a laundry list of things like Transnistria, Abkhazia, Puntland, Somaliland, Tamil Eelam, North Cyprus, Palestine, Daesh, and even Kosovo itself (Serbia officially only recognizes Kosovo as having a \"special status\" within Serbia--Kosovo was a weird precedent for NATO to set, but they haven't really followed up on it). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.undispatch.com/un-content/uploads/2014/09/suicide.jpg"
]
] |
|
1dx9jy
|
Were their any non-medieval jousts, for example in Japan or Ancient Rome?
|
[Jousting](_URL_0_) seems to be confined to the Middle Ages and the Renaissance. But did the aristocracies of earlier or non-Western societies also engage in 'sport-combat'? I know the Romans had gladiators, but gladiators weren't aristocrats. I can imagine that the Japanese samurai had something similar to jousting but I don't know if it really happened.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dx9jy/were_their_any_nonmedieval_jousts_for_example_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9vvyp0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"OP, I was waiting for 3rd or 4th level comments to mention this, but since there aren't any responses... \n\nI actually saw a jousting tournament at a marina in southern France (Nice?) but rather than two knights on horseback, it was two teams of two in small boats: one standing on the prow with a sheild & jousting pole, the other rowing. Per Wiki, I find that *[joute nautique](_URL_1_)* has not only existed in Southern France for centuries, but traces back to ancient [Egypt](_URL_0_), Greece and Rome. I'll leave further searching for you."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jousting"
] |
[
[
"http://www.corbisimages.com/stock-photo/rights-managed/IH019988/egyptian-relief-depicting-joust-on-the-water",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_jousting"
]
] |
|
1o8noi
|
Has anyone come across any papers on attempts to elucidate how telomerase becomes upregulated in cancerous cells?
|
Sorry if this should be in a more specific subreddit, if one exists then please let me know.
It's well known that telomerase is active in cancerous cells, granting them immortality. Virtually everything review and paper I've read, however, completely glazes over how telomerase becomes upregulated. Has anyone any links to any research where this was even studied? I'd really appreciate it, I'm in a spot of academic bother.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1o8noi/has_anyone_come_across_any_papers_on_attempts_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccpt0n3",
"ccptgj9",
"ccq2nc8"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Try this one:\n\nWnt/β-catenin signaling regulates telomerase in stem cells and cancer cells.\nHoffmeyer K, Raggioli A, Rudloff S, Anton R, Hierholzer A, Del Valle I, Hein K, Vogt R, Kemler R.\n\nStem cells use Wnt signaling through receptors (Lgr5 for instance) which modulates ß-catenin activity. Without Wnt ß-catenin is degraded by the SCF-ßTrCP E3 ligase complex, but the moment Wnt binds to Lgr5 this degradation is inhibited, ß-catenin moves to the nucleus and triggers accumulation of TCF BCL9 and ß-catenin complexes in the nucleus. \n\nThis then leads to a whole variety of signaling events that are associated with stem cell phenotype and behaviour, including upregulated telomerase activity.\n\n[EDIT]Cancer cells, especially as the disease progresses, display a lot of so-called stemness; a phenotype that closely resembles stem cells. Wnt-signaling plays an important part in many, many cancers, either directly by aberrant upregulation of Lgr5 or by disruption of the downstream regulation mechanisms.",
"Upregulation of genes can come in a variety of ways, from activating mutations in the gene itself or promoters, loss-of-function of inhibitory proteins or sequences, increased expression, increased protein half life, etc.\n\nFor TERT (telomerase reverse transcriptase) the main telomere extending enzyme, specifically, this \"upregulation\" has been well studied in the context of cancer. What generally happens is an increased level of gene expression:\n\n* [In this Cell Signals paper](_URL_3_) the authors found that in a variant of Mesethelioma, TERT is overexpressed in cancer cells compared to control and there are mutations in the promotor binding region that further increases expression\n\n* [Some TERT promoter region mutations can also lead to changes in the histone acetylation patterns which in turn can cause activation of transcription of the gene](_URL_1_)\n\n* These two reviews, in [Gene](_URL_2_) and [Cellular Signalling](_URL_0_), outline some of the common protein signaling pathways in which mutations or phosphorylation can cause upregulation but overexpression or loss of repression.\n\n",
"This paper has found that the MAPK pathway is used in estrogen-induced telomerase upregulation in human endometrial cancer. The paper was just published this year.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0898656813002441",
"http://cancerres.aacrjournals.org/cgi/pmidlookup?view=long&pmid=18829567",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111912001679",
"http://www.nature.com/onc/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/onc2013351a.html"
],
[
"http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0055730"
]
] |
|
1nluhl
|
why do certain franchising companies limit intentionally limit their geographic distribution? (i.e. why is there no steak n shake or in n out in the northeast?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nluhl/eli5why_do_certain_franchising_companies_limit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccjrfuf",
"ccjrxme"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Part of bring a.franchise is maintaining uniformity of goods. You can't have an In N Out unless you get their meat, bread, etc. The parent company doesn't want to deal with shipping food across the country or setting up regional distribution.",
"In and out doesn't use frozen beef. Because they deal with only fresh beef, their locations have to be within a reasonable distance from the meat processing plant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
110wx9
|
What were the economic causes of the Hundred Years War. And are there any parallels today?
|
I was watching a doco on youtube, linked to from reddit. The doco was called "masters of money", and is a multipart series. The first series is about John Maynard Keynes.
Towards the end of the documentary, an expert is asked what Keynes would think about the state of the world today. I'm not sure exactly when the doco was made, but the question is definately about the context of the 2008 crash.
The person answers that Keynes would be very concerned about the state of the world, and that he would see the (paraphrased quote) "the causes of the 1418 war happening in slow burn".
The guy also mentioned another war, but I couldn't quiet hear the dates he was saying.
Here is the section from the documentary:
_URL_0_
I figure that the guy was talking about the Hundred Years War. That's the only one I can think of that started about then.
So, what were the economic causes of the Hundred Years War. And are there similarities between the state of things then and now?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/110wx9/what_were_the_economic_causes_of_the_hundred/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6icdl8",
"c6ifast"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Man I really wish I could give you a clear and direct answer but it has been a while since I spent any time on the 100 Years' War. \n\nI'll try to sketch out some of the basic economic aspects of the war but a real late Medieval or Early Modern person can probably go further and do better.\n\nFirst off, 1415 is not the beginning of the 100 Years War but rather the beginning of its last phase, marking the resumption of hostilities after a peace which had lasted since 1389. 1415 is the year that Henry V invades Northern France and things get rolling again.\n\nSome economic aspects:\n\n* The Wool Trade. England's economy was heavily dependent upon the wool trade which was intimately connected with Flanders (Belgium, the Netherlands and Northern France). Control or easy access to this area was essential to both the merchants in England and the Crown which taxed those merchants.\n\n* Chevauchée. Much of the 100 Years War was in reality a series of ongoing raids by the English, rather than attempts to conquer and hold land. These raids allowed for the taking of booty, the sacking of town and were generally about making a profit and earning praise. The fact that these had ceased when peace fell was extremely unpopular among the aristocratic classes (both high and lower) who had a lot to gain from these military ventures. Moreover even the 'yeoman' class, the typical class of everyday soldiers, could stand to make a living off these events. \n\n* Ransom. While war could certainly be bloody the 100 Years' War is more known for the number of nobles (including a French king) who were captured than who were killed. Capturing a noble was a great way to make bank. I recall reading a court case where a French night found himself captured three times in one day and the various claimants of his ransom were disputing in court. Warfare could be a great way to bring in money to the English economy in this way as well.\n\n* Banking. While warfare could generate income for nobles it was, in fact, incredibly expensive for the Crown overall. Edward III pawned the crown jewels to Italian bankers, for instance, in order to raise cash to campaign in Northern France. Credit certainly became scarce and there was always a fear that the crown would default on its loans or worse that race-riots would target Italian bankers (as happened under Richard II). \n\nSo those are some of the economic elements. I would imagine that the issue of credit and banking is what the lecture was talking about but again a real expert would probably be able to answer you.\n\nSome other places to look would be:\n\nJonathan Sumption's *The Hundred Years' War* is huge (3 BIG volumes so far) but it also narrative and a good read. The caveat, it is not complete yet, which means it doesn't actually get up to 1415! \n\nC. T. Allmand's book *The Hundred Years War* (noticing a trend?) is much smaller and easier to read but not nearly as exhaustive.\n\nFor a great primary source check out Jean Froissart. It is in translation in penguin, cheap.\n\nGood luck!",
"The causes of the 100 years war were political rather than economic.\n\nIt was the appreciation by the French Kings of the reality that France was not a big enough country for two Kings and so the English one had to go.\n\nAn appreciation as accurate as it was trenchant.\n\nThe 100 Years War should be seen as a continuum of the policies of Philip Augustus that ejected the English from Normandy and Anjou at the beginning of the 13th century.\n\nBy the early 15th century the war was already some 60 years old and by that time the economics were very much to the fore, with the English wool trade to Flanders and the Bordeaux wine trade to England central to everyone's considerations.\n\nThe best source for this is of course Sumption's masterful history. This guy is not only an excellent historian but also an English supreme court judge and he brings his lawyer's intimacy with the frailties and fundamentals of humankind to his work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=3rIs5YF5gqw#t=3330s"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
malzz
|
the problem with hipsters
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/malzz/eli5_the_problem_with_hipsters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2zis3m",
"c2zis3m"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Hipsters invented hipster hate as a way to make themselves appear more underground and oppressed. It is my belief that the majority of hipster hate posts are originated by hipsters....",
"Hipsters invented hipster hate as a way to make themselves appear more underground and oppressed. It is my belief that the majority of hipster hate posts are originated by hipsters...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3so6cx
|
when we call or write our representatives in congress, what incentive do they have to listen to us instead of just doing what they wanted to do in the first place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3so6cx/eli5_when_we_call_or_write_our_representatives_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwyyfd7",
"cwyyhm9",
"cwyza7h"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because you voted them in and will choose whether or not they get re-elected in the next election. If your representative doesn't represent you very well, you're much less likely to vote for them next time.",
"In theory, they will not get reelected (or may even get impeached and removed from office) if they don't listen to the voters. In reality, the voters mostly don't pay attention and end up just electing the same people who really only listen to their donors.",
"There may be an issue which either they believe lots of people support when they don't, or they think it has low salience (people won't care). Lots of people contacting them to say 'I disagree with you, and I care about it' places their re-election in doubt, and encourages them to vote in a manner their constituents find pleasing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26ngkg
|
What exactly is asthma? Like what is it, how does it form, and how severe can it get
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26ngkg/what_exactly_is_asthma_like_what_is_it_how_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chspwbu",
"chsvh23",
"cht23du"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Asthma is, essentially, a chronic inflammatory disease. After, being exposed to an allergen, your body sensitizes itself to that pathogen, so that in the future it garners a large immune response. In the early phase, you have cells that release a substance called histamine, this causes bronchoconstriction (basically your airways getting smaller) and make it difficult for you to breathe all of your air out. So you get hyper inflated lungs and people tend to hyperventilate. After this there is usually a later phase called an inflammatory phase that involves swelling of the airways. So you get airways that are smaller, and are more prone to collapse.\n\nAsthma ranges from mildly severe to being extremely severe. Luckily we have pretty good medications that help prevent attacks, and quickly treat them when they do occur.",
"Asthma is a chronic disease of airway over-reactivity and inflammation which causes *reversible airway obstruction*. Asthma is characterised by airway constriction, airway oedema, and mucus plugging affecting the small sized airways. Clinically it appears as episodes of shortness of breath and wheeze (due to obstruction of gas flow in the smaller airways) that occurs episodically and is reversible with drugs such as salbutamol (albuterol). Airway obstruction is demonstrated by spirometry on a maximal forced expiration, or more simply by using a peak flow meter (and showing improvement following albuterol/salbutamol).\n\nEpisodes can occur due to exposure to an antigen like pollen, cat hair, dust mites, smoke, or it can occur due to exercise, or a change in weather, or due to a viral illness, or it can occur without any apparent trigger. Episodes can be mild moderate or severe and life threatening. Episodes can occur rarely, infrequently, daily.\n\nSomeone with mild asthma may get a bit of wheeze on exercise that is relieved by their inhaler. Someone with severe asthma may get frequent severe attacks requiring hospital admission and corticosteroid treatment. Severe attacks can become life threatening as the person tired from the excess work of breathing. These life-threatening attacks can require tracheal intubation, mechanical ventilation, and sedation (\"coma\"). People die from asthma, but less commonly nowadays due to improved awareness and treatments to prevent exacerbations (basically with inhaled steroids). (At least in my affluent country.)\n\nIt doesn't really occur in infants and children < 2 or 3 years. Infants tend to get bronchiolitis from viral infections. Infants and small children can get wheezy, but it is hard to diagnose it as asthma when they are very young because it is hard to demonstrate reversibility of airway obstruction in a small child (because they aren't good at blowing a peak flow meter).",
"GLAD YOU ASKED....I did my graduate work on asthma and COPD.\n\nAsthma is a reversible hyperresponsiveness of the airways to stimuli. That's it. Your airways are bounded by little rings of smooth muscle, and these rings of smooth muscle contract and relax in order to change the velocity and volume of air that can go through your lungs. \n\nIn healthy people, these will contract in response to things. For example : Get a little dust in there, and the airways contract to increase the velocity of airflow in an attempt to dislodge the dust. \n\nIn an asthmatic, however, this response is exaggerated. The airways constrict more dramatically, and/or take longer to relax. Sometimes, the airway can completely close off. \n\nThe \"reversible\" bit means that your airways may twitch closed, but they can be reopened.\n\nThis overreaction can be caused by many things. The nerves that are connected to that muscle ring may be twitchy, the muscle itself may be hypertrophied (bro, do you even lift?), the inside of the airway tube may be thicker than it should be, the tube itself may be more \"floppy\" than it should be, the structures supporting the airway may be weak or not present...or a host of other things or combinations of things.\n\nAfter your airways violently twitch closed a few times, there is damage. This damage can generate an inflammatory response, and this inflammatory response can lead to *remodeling* events...that is, your lung changes its structure in response to what's going on. This can include thickening of the airway walls, hypertrophy of the smooth muscles, breakdown of the internal and external support structure of the airways, and increased inflammatory cells....see where this is headed?\n\nAsthma is a cycle....it causes (and can amplify) its own causes...this is from the molecular level on up.\n\nWe do not know what ultimately causes it. \n\nIt can range from subclinical (that is, you may not even know you have it) to deadly (as in you literally die from it).\n\n* EDIT : Asthma is NOT allergy. There is allergic asthma, but asthma is most certainly NOT allergy. In the case of allergic asthma, the thing that you \"hyprerespond\" to is an allergen...but it's not the allergy that is the asthma. The asthma is the underlying hyperresponsiveness to stimuli. The allergen just so happens to be the stimulus."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cg7es
|
I just read that major works by Cicero, Aristotle, etc. are missing. How often do these things get found? Any hope of excavating a library? ...
|
Oh and I am familiar with how Catullus's works were discovered but I won't object to having it retold here because it is such a good story ... :)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cg7es/i_just_read_that_major_works_by_cicero_aristotle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9g8dsh",
"c9gb8lb"
],
"score": [
29,
3
],
"text": [
"Absolutely there is - hope of excavating a library, that is - and new works continue to be discovered, not on a timetable, but regularly. The Greeks and Romans generally used papyrus scrolls to record works of literature, and, in most places where the Greeks and Romans lived, papyrus and linen don't preserve well - but there are some major exceptions. One is in Egypt, where the dry desert preserves practically everything; tens of thousands of documents and literary works have been dug out of [a rubbish heap at Oxyrhynchus](_URL_7_) - and there's no reason to think that Oxyrhynchus is in any way unique - and Egyptians tended to reuse scrolls, including literary works, to wrap mummies, which preserves the text quite well indeed. The most important recent discoveries I know of came from mummy cartonnage: a [fourth poem by Sappho](_URL_5_), published in 2005, and a large fraction of a [book of poetry by Posidippus](_URL_6_), published in 2001.\n\n(Edit: I just saw an article in /r/archaeology discussing [a new discovery of 4500-year-old papyrus texts in Egypt](_URL_2_), including a *diary* from one of the builders of the Great Pyramid. This may not be as exciting as finding Euripides' lost *Telephus* would be, but it's still really neat - and suggests what other sorts of things are still out there beneath the sands.)\n\nAnother exception is Pompeii and Herculaneum, where [we did excavate a library!](_URL_3_) The papyrus scrolls - burnt and charred - survived under the volcanic ash; it was once thought impossible to unroll and read scrolls like that, but science finds a way. Since many wealthy Romans had private libraries, further excavations in those cities - if Italy can find the funding, [which is doubtful](_URL_1_) - are very likely to dig up more collections of this sort.\n\nA third way new texts can be discovered is by using modern technology to read *erased* texts from existing parchments that were cleaned off and reused for other purposes. An example of this is the [Archimedes Palimpsest](_URL_0_), a medieval prayer book which reused pages from (lost, and now rediscovered) treatises from Archimedes, speeches from Athenian orators, etc. \n\nSo yeah, tl;dr: new texts are appearing all the time, and the development of new *technologies* for reading burned and erased texts means that we're entering into a new age of textual discovery. [Science!](_URL_4_)",
"there is also _URL_1_\nthat was a big coup for the development of epicurean philosophy\n\n_URL_0_\n\nanyone know of a place online that reports new findings? i find it very interesting but whenever i hear of something to that effect it is just by random luck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.archimedespalimpsest.org/",
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/nov/11/the-second-fall-pompeii",
"http://cosmiclog.nbcnews.com/_news/2013/04/15/17767610-4500-year-old-harbor-structures-and-papyrus-texts-unearthed-in-egypt",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri",
"http://xkcd.com/54/",
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2005/jun/24/gender.books",
"http://blog.ancientlives.org/2013/01/31/posidippus-the-milan-papyrus/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oxyrhynchus_Papyri"
],
[
"http://www.classics.ucla.edu/index.php/philodemus",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Herculaneum_papyri"
]
] |
|
tfzik
|
What happens if an electron met the nucleus of an atom?
|
Alright, I know how atoms work, and I know that the only way this could happen is either at or near absolute zero, but what would happen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tfzik/what_happens_if_an_electron_met_the_nucleus_of_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4mac3i"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nIt has nothing to do with temperature. Electrons are already in the lowest energy state they can occupy relative to the nucleus."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electron_capture"
]
] |
|
832yja
|
What was the medical process like when an organ displayed symptoms (e,g gall or kidney stones, liver disease, stomach ulcers) back in the Medieval times?
|
Hi. I recently had gallbladder surgery, and living it being bad inside me before the surgery was pretty terrible and made me have a restrictive diet. I was wondering how they would handle someone back in the medieval days having symptoms of an organ being bad, and what that was like on the person displaying symptoms. Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/832yja/what_was_the_medical_process_like_when_an_organ/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvfpcmj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"One of our most interesting sources for medieval medicine is *Bald's Leechbook*, an Anglo-Saxon medical textbook of sorts, likely dating from the late ninth century and potentially a result of Alfred the Great's literary and educational reforms. The book itself is the only surviving copy, and was written by a scribe called Cild on Bald's behalf.\n\nThe text itself is split into two sections, dealing with external and internal maladies and afflictions respectively. As one might expect from an early medieval source, much of the 'medicine' therein is of a 'folk' nature and involves ritual almost as often as it does actual remedy, coming dangerously close in some places to the kind of 'witchcraft' proscibed by contemporary penitentials like the *Scrifboc*. Some afflictions, for example, may be caused by Elves and cured by carving runes into a ceremonial dagger hilt. However, we must as always be wary of presentism and accusing the Anglo-Saxons of a 'primitive' or even dangerous superstition or lack of medical awareness. The *Leechbook* appears to be the result of a genuine attempt to compile the best and most effective medical treatments from a variety of Anglo-Saxon, British, Roman and Greek sources, and we must assume that the cures it provides appeared to be in some way effective at the time, even if only through the power of placebo. Indeed, the text gained some passing fame in 2015 when researchers at Nottingham found that one of its cures for dealing with an eye infection was surprisingly effecacious against antibiotic-resistant MRSA.\n\nMany different afflictions of organs are discussed, particularly of the *maw* and *wamb* (stomach and intestines) and the liver, which is discussed in surprising detail. Many remedies appear designed to flush out an organ, or to reduce swellings. Crushed poppy seeds in wine or in a poultice are regularly prescribed as a painkiller. Wormwood is a particularly popular panacea, one which is somewhat born out by modern medicine, as is vinegar. Refined honey mixed with vinegar is prescribed for an 'evil humour' of the upper belly, which may indicate ulcers. For symptoms of 'maw' pain which may be gallstones, great importance is made of diet: fatty meats are to be avoided, bread and water and fruit should be eaten instead. Vinegar and oil should also be ingested.\n\nIn cases of liver disease, the *Leechbook* recommends forgoing medical treatment until diet is properly examined, and especially until fat is given up. Then a medicine of dill, wormwood, marchseed, pepper and costmary should be taken. Vinegar and wine and other 'cure-alls' should be avoided.\n\nAn online archive of the *Leechbook* can be found [here](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://archive.org/details/leechdomswortcun02cock"
]
] |
|
1lxe9n
|
if you want to heat an oven or stove to 175 degrees, does turning it way up to 400 degrees make it get to 175 faster?
|
Got into this argument at work today and I honestly don't know if I'm right anymore. It seems like it would take the same amount of time to me, but I have no idea why. ELI5?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lxe9n/eli5_if_you_want_to_heat_an_oven_or_stove_to_175/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc3og0k",
"cc3ognm",
"cc3qafb"
],
"score": [
27,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"For an electric oven, no. The temperature control is a thermostat, not an accelerator. If the oven is below the set point, the element is on; otherwise it's off. It will take the same amount of time regardless of the setting.\n\nFor a stove, it depends. A gas stove uses valves to control how much gas comes out, so turning it up will heat the pan faster. A regular electric stove turns the element on more if you turn the knob higher, so it will also heat faster. An infrared or ceramic cooktop works with a thermostat, as described above, so turning it up will not speed it up.",
"No. An oven heats up at a fairly constant rate once the element is up to temperature. The temperature setting just controls when the element cuts out, ie when it has got the oven to the required temperature. ",
"[relevant peep show] (_URL_0_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zNqcuzUleNQ"
]
] |
|
4dnlw4
|
How are scientists sure that the theory of a singularity at the centre of a black hole, is correct?
|
Let me preface this question by say that I am merely an engineering student, and not a physicist, so apologies if this is a naïve question.
However, in everything I have studied related to real world systems, a singularity is always considered an error.
It is almost taken as granted in engineering that nature "doesn't like" singularities (the Kutta condition on an aerofoil's trailing edge for example) and does everything to correct it.
Applying this somewhat basic logic to black holes, how are scientists so sure that black holes have a singularity where all our understanding of physics breaks down rather than saying that the theory may have inaccuracies?
Edit: Spelling.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4dnlw4/how_are_scientists_sure_that_the_theory_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1st2d0",
"d1stjub",
"d1stngd",
"d1sv3ow"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"GR black holes have singularities. Most physicists expect that if we had a theory of quantum gravity these would disappear, but they are fairly [unavoidable](_URL_0_) in GR",
" > how are scientists so sure that black holes have a singularity where all our understanding of physics breaks down rather than saying that the theory may have inaccuracies?\n\nWhen they say \"all our understanding of physics breaks down\" is the same in this context as \"the theory may have inaccuracies.\" \"The laws of physics break down\" or some similar variant is a pretty common hyperbole in this and other scenarios, but what is really meant is that the laws of physics we use break down. Inside a black hole, it's likely that a theory of quantum gravity will dominate, and we don't have a working (and experimentally verified) theory of quantum gravity.\n\n*Classically* the existence of singularities is inescapable. The Hawking-Penrose singularity theorems guarantee that a singularity will form under reasonably physical conditions that come with the formation of a black hole in general relativity. However, nature is not fully classical. I'd wager most physicists working near the field suspect that this singularity will disappear completely in a full theory of quantum gravity. Physicists don't like singularities hanging around in their theories.",
"We consider this singularity to be an \"error\" too, or at least an indication that our model of gravity is not complete. \n\nMost engineers (yourself included) would see singularities in their fields in the same light. Somewhere in the construction of your mathematical model you made some simplifying assumptions (i.e. you could neglect certain forces or nonlinear terms in an equation) that just aren't true in a certain range of parameters. One example I can think of is the [Van der Waals](_URL_0_) equation, where the isothermal compressibility goes negative below a critical temperature. At this critical temperature, more than just pairwise inter-atomic interactions become important, and you get a \"singularity\" (which we understand to be a phase transition). \n\nThe general relativity that we know and love is an elegant mathematical model for the physics of gravity in the limit of large length scales and low energies. When you apply the model to short length scales (i.e. below the plank length) and high temperatures (above the plank temperature), you can get nonsense results because you are not using the appropriate model. ",
"Attempting to answer perhaps the spirit of the question, as others have answered the specific: Physics is fundamentally in a weird spots at the frontiers of its applicability. It runs, for example, to the very core of how things are calculated at high energies (quantum field theory) that our theoretical description IS NOT complete. As you have some math background I'd describe it as basically none of the important integrals that need to be solved with bounds from positive infinity to negative infinity can be solved. But rather we need to force some limits on these quite complicated integrals and say \"they're really big but not infinite\" and then we solve it. But crucially, the answer we get, DOESN'T depend on WHAT that trivial upper or lower bound was. Thus, in order to get numbers out we effectively have to say, at SOME energy, our theory must fail, in order to get experimentally verifiable predictions out. Add to that the bizarre situation that, so far, none of these predictions have failed. They're all super accurate. So in some sense, in something like the LHC, people want to fill in the small parameters in the theory that require experimental fits. But on the other hand people would really like to see evidence of some breaking point. So far everything is in order. For particle physicists that's somewhat infuriating"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Penrose%E2%80%93Hawking_singularity_theorems"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_equation"
],
[]
] |
|
2b3crn
|
eli 5 if there is so much junk and satellites orbiting earth, how come we never see any of it in the background of pictures taken from space?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2b3crn/eli_5_if_there_is_so_much_junk_and_satellites/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj1e20k"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because there *isn't* that much.\n\nYes there is a lot of it, but the amount of space is *huge*. You're talking about a density like one Volkswagen Beetle in the state of Texas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eal2wg
|
What's past the cosmological horizon?
|
Do we know what's past the cosmological horizon in the un observable areas of the universe?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/eal2wg/whats_past_the_cosmological_horizon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fayqanp",
"fayqzgq",
"fazo6u9"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"By definition, no; the observable universe encompasses all that we can have any information about. But there's no particular reason to imagine it would be much different from the local area--it's just impossible to confirm.",
"The definition of the cosmological horizon has it that it is the furthest we can have information from; there's no way of knowing about anything further. The *assumption* is that it's just more space, the same of here, nothing of interest. From there you can speculate on things such as the [shape of the universe](_URL_0_), but so far there has been no experiment to suggest that the universe is anything but boring and flat.",
"As the universe is the same everywhere we can look it should be the same in places a bit farther out as well. But this is purely inference, we can't observe it by definition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe"
],
[]
] |
|
31frfy
|
why couldn't data be transmitted back to us beyond the event horizon of a black hole, i understand gravity prevents light from escaping, but how, and would it be a similar scenario for data?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31frfy/eli5_why_couldnt_data_be_transmitted_back_to_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq1483c"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Well, first off, the data would be travelling as some frequency of light, like radio. So, consider them one and the same.\n\nThe way it prevents light from escaping is that gravity actually bends space. Light travels along space, and when [space gets curved](_URL_0_), the light has a longer journey and that journey takes a little longer.\n\nIn the case of a black hole, space gets bent so much that the light can't get out -- [kind of like a deep, deep hole](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://scienceisbrilliant.files.wordpress.com/2013/10/space-time1.gif",
"http://holofractal.net/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/black-hole-singularity.jpeg"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.