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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
53sqz1 | what would happen if the world were to hit the reset button on the global economy? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53sqz1/eli5what_would_happen_if_the_world_were_to_hit/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7vvvxb",
"d7vvxct",
"d7vvxef",
"d7vy6m6"
],
"score": [
8,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If everyone agreed to this, it would be very bad going forward. It would mean all the bonds issued by all countries would have a value of zero, which would destroy retirements, investments, pensions, etc.\n\nA countries currency and bonds are tied to their credit rating. If we can just \"reset\" whenever we want, then what is it's value? As we can see from above, the reset causes a lose of value that is felt by everyone.",
"Nations don't owe each other. If they did the debts would just cancel each other out as logic dictates.\n\nIt's the people the governments take loans from. Suddenly saying \"lol no, you're not getting your money back\" would be a reset button for economics just like a nuke is a reset button for a city, when suddenly millions of investors are left high and dry.",
"Everyone would die. One person's debt (a liability) is another person's income (an asset). If they were all wiped out economy would cease to function. That would mean that businesses wouldn't be able to get what they need.",
"Have you SEEN Mr. Robot?"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
4mupmd | Did other nations have a similar "Manifest Destiny" period where huge numbers of settlers expanded the frontiers of the country? | According to wiki, there are three basic themes to manifest destiny:
*The special virtues of the American people and their institutions
*America's mission to redeem and remake the west in the image of agrarian America
*An irresistible destiny to accomplish this essential duty
Did other countries have any similar period? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4mupmd/did_other_nations_have_a_similar_manifest_destiny/ | {
"a_id": [
"d40j76p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Japan comes to mind with their expansion into the Northern region of Hokkaido. That period of history in Japan has many parallels to Western expansion in the states. Right down to the subjugation of the native people who lived in the region. In Japan's case the native people were the Ainu instead of Native Americans."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
85759g | if your neurones make a new connection when you learn something new, would it be possible to run out of space in your brain for new connections to form. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85759g/eli5_if_your_neurones_make_a_new_connection_when/ | {
"a_id": [
"dvv7czo",
"dvv9zff"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"No, basically a neuron is capable of thousands of potential connection to other neurons, your brain is formed of trillions of these neural pathways (synapses) and they do strengthen and weaken over time. Your brain cleans out old or unused pathways as it develops more. The potential for creating new pathways is always extremely high in our brain and we don't really know the upper limit capacity, but even if you could prolong human life by a significant factor, your brain would never reach full capacity as it would be losing connections as well as creating new ones.\n\nSometimes when you try to remember something and can't do it right away, then it comes back to you later, it's in essence your brain found a new pathway to old information because the old pathway to it was lost. This is an example of how you lose connections, but because there's trillions of connections there is almost always a backdoor to certain information.",
"Applaud the above. \n\nAnother way to visualize it:\n\nTack 2doz pins spaced out on a board. \nTie a string to one and wrap it around a second pin. Then a third. \nTake another string and do the same. \nYou can continue to add connections (strings) without changing the number of pins or space on the board. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
i8ej7 | Is racism due to society or biology? -Social/Psychology- | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i8ej7/is_racism_due_to_society_or_biology/ | {
"a_id": [
"c21pxcx",
"c21qtg3",
"c21rhmz"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
6
],
"text": [
"Inclusivity (ie, the feeling to exclude those you consider outsiders) comes from our inherent psychology (and by extension biology). That this can result in exclusion of other races comes from our history, I think (after all, other races for the majority of history were considered outsiders).",
"I would argue that racism is a psychosocial phenomenon, and not an inherent biological one. Here's why:\n\nIn an effort to reduce the inherent uncertainty in the world around us, humans take mental shortcuts (called heuristics) to simplify things. I suppose that this process is biological. The world has a bevy of complex information that we are motivated to make sense of. Stay with me, I do have a point to make...\n\nOkay, so how do we reduce this uncertainty? What shortcuts do we take? A big one is to group things into categories. Not only do we group ourselves into categories (roles and identities that we play in life: parent, worker, and specific social groups), we also group others into categories. The important thing about racism is that surface-level characteristics tend to be recognized first. Surface characteristics include readily visible things like one's gender, skin tone, and beauty. In contrast, deep-level characteristics include things like personality, values, beliefs, and ability. We cant infer deep-level characteristics without getting to know them. \n\nNow, I say it's a social-psychological phenomenon because society perpetuates stereotypical behaviors of certain race groups to possess certain qualities: at least in the U.S., supposedly Asians are smart, Jewish people are rich, Black people are violent, and Italians have greasy hair. An important point is that ANY GIVEN person who belongs to that surface-level category may not behave in alignment with these stereotypes, but ON AVERAGE, the media portrays these groups as such. So racism comes into play when we necessarily invoke surface-level categorizations (Asian) to stereotypical associations (smart). \n\nIt isn't just the media though. Other influences, such as our upbringing serve to make salient different associations with different races, or to make none at all (hooray for diversity). The key is that racism is surface-level characteristics driving broadbrush-stroke evaluations of groups. Indeed, research shows that in work teams, while surface characteristics dominate early assessments of diversity, over time, this tends to change towards evaluations based on deep-level traits (see Harrison, Price, & Bell, 1998; and Harrison et al. 2002).\n\nSo by definition, racism is a (generally negative, though not necessarily) subjective evaluation of an individual, based on a perpetuated categorization and subsequent association of surface-based characteristics group-level behavior.\n\n\n",
"The three most common classifications of people are age, gender, and race. Evolutionary psychologists have provided some evolutionary reasons for thinking that the first two ways of classifying are more \"innate\" but that race is not. This is because in what evolutionary psychologists call \"The Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness\" (EEA), i.e. the Pleistocene, everyone would've been the same race. They predicted that race is actually used as a proxy for coalition membership. [This](_URL_0_) study confirms the prediction. At least according to evo-psych, racism can be overcome, sexism is harder. From the abstract: \"More importantly, when cues of coalitional affiliation no longer track or correspond to race, subjects markedly reduce the extent to which they categorize others by race, and indeed may cease doing so entirely.\""
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/eraserace.pdf"
]
]
|
||
altxn8 | What is used as nutrition to cultivated cell meat? And how much antibiotics is used? | Where does the nutrition to the cells come from. And can you avoid using antibiotics completely | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/altxn8/what_is_used_as_nutrition_to_cultivated_cell_meat/ | {
"a_id": [
"efil9rv"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You can avoid antibiotics, but most tissue culture uses some. It is really difficult to do industry-sized cell culture without antibiotics.\n\nAlso, they use fetal bovine serum as a nutrient, which is essentially baby cow blood, so it isn’t vegan and isn’t very sustainable at this point. Maybe someday they can avoid this."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
72v1wd | why do some sites require credit card ccv numbers, and others (like amazon) do not? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/72v1wd/eli5_why_do_some_sites_require_credit_card_ccv/ | {
"a_id": [
"dnlh80u"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The CVV2 number isn't *required* to charge the card, but it reduces the risk of fraud. If the transaction is fraudulent, the merchant might end up having to pay fees or fines to their payment processor, so merchants have an incentive to check CVV2s. But if they don't want to and are willing to risk more chargebacks, they can decide not to require it (which is what Amazon's done)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1ayta7 | Why are the Planck Length, Time and Temperature so unbelievably minuscule or enormous while the Planck Mass is close to being on our scale, being the mass of a flea's egg or an eyelash? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ayta7/why_are_the_planck_length_time_and_temperature_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"c920o3g"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"That's an interesting misconception that seems to be rather common. Not everything with the name \"Planck\" behind is unbelievably small. \n\nWe physicists are lazy, and we don't like keep tracking of dimensions, so we use a system of units in which there is only one to measure things: in length and inverse length. (or inverse energy and energy). So time is a length. And also, mass is energy, temperature is energy, momentum is energy. And these quantities have their corresponding length scale, which is just the inverse of them. \n\nIn these units, Newton's constant has dimension of inverse mass squared, and this mass - the Planck mass - is HUGE. When I say huge, I mean huge in particle physicist's sense, as in 10^16 times bigger than the Higgs. The Planck temperature is actually also very very big, even in the scale of a non-particle-physicist, around 10^32 K. \n\nDo you remember the uncertainty principle? It says that dx*dp is bigger than a number. What this tells you is that in order to probe very short length scales, you need very big momenta. So when you build an accelerator that can probe energy scales at the order of the Planck mass, effectively you are probing an enormously short length: the Planck length.\n\nSo yes, you have a huge energy scale - and this energy scale corresponds to very short length and time scales."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
9i0vyh | AM modulation - What are sidebands? | Hi, I'm studying electronics and communications and our teacher explains things pretty poorly. I didn't understand what the sidebands are. According to what I understood from my teacher, they're the upper and lower borders of the carrier signal's envelope, but according to what I made of [wikipedia's](_URL_0_) first paragraph on the subject they sound more like by-products that exist on different frequencies.
I'm so lost! | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9i0vyh/am_modulation_what_are_sidebands/ | {
"a_id": [
"e6g0qf7",
"e6g4nsr",
"e6g6gnw"
],
"score": [
4,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Say you have a finite bandwidth baseband signal, with upper cutoff of Fmax Hz. When you modulate a carrier of Fc, the baseband frequency response is shifted to the interval (Fc, Fc + Fmax] called the *upper* sideaband. This is mirrored across Fc, creating the *lower* sideband on the interval [Fc-Fmax, Fc). ",
"Sidebands are just your actual signal, before modulation. They are the exact identical signal to what you transmited, represented in frequency domain obviously, just located in a new spot. \n\n\nSay we have sound, music or voice. It will have frequencies, tones, anywhere from about 20 Hz to 20 kHz. At any given instance in time, each frequency in here is at some amplitude. And as the sound changes over time, the amplitude of each of these changes. There may be frequencies present below or above this, but we can't hear them so they don't matter. \n\n\nNext we use a microphone to turn the sound an electrical signal, but the excatly same frequencies are preserved. \n\n\nNext, we modulate that on a carrier frequency. Assuming AM, all that happens is we shift them upward. Say our carrier is 1000 kHz. If we had 20 Hz sound in our signal, we know have amplitude in the sideband at 1000.02 kHz. If we had sound at 1 kHz, we now have amplitude in the sideband at 1001 kHz. If we had 15 kHz sound, we have amplitude in the side band 1015 kHz. All that happened is rather than our sound being based on DC/0 Hz, we now just shifted it to 1000 kHz, our carrier frequency. Sidebands *are* your signal. The carrier itself contains nothing, it's just there as a reference point rather than 0. \n\n\nSo if that's the upper side band, what about the lower? Well, in regular sound in 0 to 20 kHz, we could technically also say there is a mirror of it about 0 Hz to -20 Hz. Has no meaning normally, as it's bandwidth just mirror the real half and doesn't matter. If we now shift it from being about 1000 kHz rather than 0 Hz, that negative mirror is now occupying real positive frequencies. There's still another mirror of both sidebands around -1000 kHz technically, but again it doesn't matter. Any frequency there is, always has its negative mirror doing nothing. AM modulation just reveals the original negative half right below DC now right below the carrier. \n\n\nDo we need the lower sideband? No, it's just duplicate mirrored information. It's only 50% bandwidth efficient. We can use a filter to chop off the lower, or upper, sideband and still transmit the signal with half the bandwidth usage. \n\n\n\nOr we can use quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM) and transmit two different signals, both complete with both sidebands, at the same carrier frequency. So long as one signal is transmitted on a carrier delayed by quarter cycle (aka one on a cosine and one on a sine wave), they can be kept seperate from each other. They each have duplicate sidebands still, but the double stacking gets us back to 100% bandwidth efficiency, in a easier way than filtering a sideband out. ",
"Sidebands do indeed exist at difference frequencies from the carrier in AM. They are determined by the frequency content of the modulating signal. That spectrum (with sidebands) is what amplitude modulation is in frequency-domain. It's just a mathematical thing. For example from trigonometric product formulas you see that sinusoidal modulation of another sinusoidal is equivalent to sum of two sinusoidals at difference frequencies: sin(c)\\*sin(m) = cos(c-m)/2 - cos(c+m)/2. To understand how time-domain signals and frequency-domain signals in general relate to each other, one needs to understand how Fourier transform pairs behave (there is a kind of uncertainty principle between them which always makes modulation in time-domain spread the signal in frequency and vice versa)."
]
} | []
| [
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sideband"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
fhu5ht | how do viral test kits work? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fhu5ht/eli5_how_do_viral_test_kits_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"fkddue4"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"A technique called qPCR. You use an enzyme called Reverse transcriptase to convert viral RNA into DNA. Then followed by another enzyme called DNA polymerase to clone it multiple times.\n\nMix that with fluorescent DNA primers (short glowing chunks) that are used by the enzyme to build the target DNA, and you can count how much viral DNA there is based on how much fluorescence is given off under UV light.\n\nThere are other techniques but this is the easiest and most common."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5pp8b2 | how did ancient people find/define constellations when there was no light pollution? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5pp8b2/eli5_how_did_ancient_people_finddefine/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcsqa3x"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The pictures you see are long exposure photos, which don't accurately represent what you see when you look at the night sky without any light pollution. [This photo](_URL_0_) much more accurately represents what you see with your own eyes than [this photo](_URL_1_). As you can see, it's very easy to discern specific stars in the first photo.\n\nI suggest going out on an actual stargazing tour, it can be mind blowing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://www.nationaltrust.org.uk/images/stargazing1037595.jpg",
"http://i.huffpost.com/gen/2395022/images/o-STARGAZING-facebook.jpg"
]
]
|
||
4pv0i8 | are vegetables alive? | Are fruits and vegetables alive once they are picked but not yet growing into a new plant? Do they have any biological process occurring at all? For example a carrot once picked and kept in the fridge will eventually rot but will not sprout or grow. So is it technically alive or not. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pv0i8/eli5_are_vegetables_alive/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4o49gt",
"d4o5xku"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes they are alive. The carrot you have in your refrigerator may not sprout given the best care possible. The top was taken off. It was washed repeatedly, and is at the end of its life cycle.\n\nThe sweet potato I bought last Thanksgiving and left on the counter sprouted a week ago. I threw it out today. It was probably still good to eat.\n\nMost potatoes can be coaxed to grow if they have not been peeled. Watch The Martian.\n\nYour canned vegetables are not alive anymore.\n\nThe more processed your vegetables are the less likely they are to sprout. \n\nApple seeds will probably sprout. Maybe orange seeds. Everyone is always growing avocado seeds.\n\n",
"Yes and no. Some vegetables like onions and potatoes will often sprout if left long enough, but other times they will rot. Rotting is the breaking down of organic matter. Putting something in the fridge will slow down the growth of bacteria, but eventually it will rot unless it sprouts. Many plants can survive outside of the ground, but without water, they tend to die. This is one of the reasons stores spray your produce with water. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1iecmg | why do i always wake up from a dream immediately before i suffer some kind of fatal physical harm (ex. someone shoots me, stabs me, hits me etc.) | Intentional human (or humanoid)-on-human harm. I've read the threads about falling off of cliffs and so forth but I'm not really talking about that. I've been attacked in dreams from everything ranging from a gun to a rolling pin and I always wake up right before contact, with the in-dream implication being it would be fatal. I thought it was just me but friends say it happens to them too. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iecmg/eli5_why_do_i_always_wake_up_from_a_dream/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb3mv01",
"cb3nk1x",
"cb3obcu",
"cb3oqar",
"cb3oxoj",
"cb3palm",
"cb3pkva",
"cb3q65s",
"cb3qds6",
"cb3qfef",
"cb3rukn",
"cb3rvmn",
"cb3tdxm",
"cb3ugny",
"cb3votf"
],
"score": [
97,
8,
77,
47,
4,
21,
34,
3,
3,
9,
2,
2,
2,
2,
9
],
"text": [
"It's because your brain is reacting to the fear of the situation. It's like \"Oh! Bad situation. Done!\" so you wake up. Your mind doesn't want to go through that, and you've never experienced it, so you also don't know how to react. :)",
"You don't. \nDeath in dreams is a leading cause for lucid dreams. ",
"Because that was the kick.",
"I have actually been shot in two separate dreams. It hurt like hell and I felt the warmth of the blood leaving my body. I even felt the shock and disbelief afterwards too. One time in the dream I felt I was dying and thought I did until I was revived later in the dream. I have never been shot in real life so I guess my brain was imitating what it imagined being shot would be like.\n\nEdit: Added a bit",
"Dreaming is just your mind filling in the next event in a story with your own expectations. When you are awake, You see, react, and anticipate what comes next. in a dream, whatever you anticipate, just happens. So, any time you're unable to anticipate what comes next, your dream falls apart and you notice, and wake up.",
"Important question: How would you know if you *didn't* wake up? I mean, you dream a significant portion of the night, but very few people remember any significant portion of that time. What if you're getting killed in your dreams on a regular basis, but only remember the times when you wake up?\n\nI think your \"every time\" is an example of [selection bias](_URL_0_).",
"I read somewhere that dreaming is the mind's way of testing situations to find an outcome. If you get into a situation where you're about to die clearly it wasn't a good out come so your mind ends the simulation",
"Your brain knows you have just a single life, impending death creates a hyper awareness in your body that the brain is unable to ignore. It takes no chances between real death and an unreal one as the tiniest misjudgment can result in a Game Over. Essentially, it is telling itself better awake than sorry.",
"In two of my dreams, I have been shot, the dream kept going; when I woke up though...I could still feel the gun shot pain.\nNow some people wake up just before the bad thing happen because the brain cannot input more information into the scenario; the expected pain, result after death, etc.\nSome people will keep on going because they have experienced the pain or something close to it or the brain will simply forgo it to keep on going for what ever reason it deems. ",
"Reading all your answers makes me wonder why sometimes I DON'T wake up when I suffer some kind of fatal physical harm.\n\nI've had a few dreams where I've been drowning. I'm panicking. Holding my breath for as long as I can. Until finally I can't any longer. So I breathe in. I feel water filling my lungs. And it's freaking me out. But, that's it. After I notice I'm still alive and breathing the water, I just go about the dream.\n\nSame thing happens when I get shot or stabbed. Should I just make a separate post on ELI5?",
"This definitely isn't universal though. I've had horrible nightmares most nights since I was 10. In the dreams, I will be violently killed in one awful way or another, die, then spend the rest of the dream looking at my corpse until I eventually wake up. ",
"I always believed that it was because you're mind couldn't imagine what it would be like to go through that kind of pain. Like a dream malfunction",
"I distinctly remember being stabbed in the chest by a rapier and dying in a dream\nAlso having my head run over by a train\n\nEnded up going to some zen garden after death. It was pretty chill",
"No offense to any of the contributors, but does anyone have a detailed, scientific/psychological explanation? I'd be interested to read a little in-depth about it.",
"The human body has it's fight or flight response in case of dangerous situations. When you perceive a dangerous situation in a dream, whether it be slender man chasing you through a forest, or someone shooting you, the cognitive part of your brain believes it to be real, and starts pumping adrenaline and non-epinephrine to get your body ready to deal with pain and either haul ass or fight. When you feel pain in a dream, it's either psychosomatic or a result from you muscles tensing in a particular area to deal with expected pain. However, these chemicals that you're pumping out are stimulants, and will rapidly wake you up because your body is going \"oh fuck, a lion is creeping on us while we sleep, WAKE UP DUMBASS! We need to start running!\" So you are launched out of sleep. You expect bodily harm, and your body activates your fight or flight response.\n\nSource: Lab Assistant Human Physiology Major"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Selection_bias"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9sl4rx | Do we have any evidence that the Azores were inhabited by humans at any point prior to their discovery by the Portuguese? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9sl4rx/do_we_have_any_evidence_that_the_azores_were/ | {
"a_id": [
"e8q3a7u"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"We might! \n\nIt's very possible that sharp-eyed observers could have gained clues that the Azores were out there long before their official discovery; many migratory bird species stop there, and anyone watching birds moving northeast from the Azores could have deduced they were coming from islands to the southwest. \n\nThere is a tale from the 18th century that a hoard of Carthaginian coins displayed in Portugal was discovered in the Azores, but the supposed site was never charted and the coins themselves lost. \n\nMice in the Azores are largely descended from ancestors in Iberia; however, [mice on some islands have DNA from ancestors in Scandinavia](_URL_1_). This hints that Norse explorers may have visited the islands centuries before the Portuguese. \n\nMany medieval maps contain [islands in the general vicinity of the Azores](_URL_0_), but there is very little consensus on whether this reflects actual knowledge (passed down from Norse explorations or Iberian fishermen who guarded the location of their most lucrative fishing spots and secluded beaches) or inflated legends which happened to match up with the location. \n\nMost intriguingly, there may be a series of *hypogea*, or underground tombs, on the islands. A team led by Nuno Ribiero excavated there about ten years back and claimed they'd found several sites in natural caves, including Paleolithic rock art. As far as I can tell, though, these claims either haven't stood up to closer examination or are at the very least too preliminary to confirm the findings."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_Azores#/media/File:Corbitis_Atlas_(Azores_detail).jpg",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25394749"
]
]
|
||
ixhio | If a mosquito bites my eye, would it be able to suck up any blood? Would it itch? | I mean, there are little blood vessels I can see in my eye, but I've always been afraid to get bitten there. Does the answer change depending on which part of the eye gets bitten? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ixhio/if_a_mosquito_bites_my_eye_would_it_be_able_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c27h4qh"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"This is a great question (because there may not be a complete answer)!\n\n.\n\nFirst, an aside: When using PubMed to search for another unpleasant insect-eye interaction\n\n > [bee sting, eye](_URL_3_)\n\nThere are quite a few results... case studies of bees stinging people's cornea (the transparent part of the globe of the eye, through which you can appreciate someone's iris and pupil) and sclera (the white of the eye)([see this drawing](_URL_11_)). So far, we haven't learned much, except (1) bees are jerks, (2) this is the sort of thing that doctors would publish ... i.e. there should be case-studies for something common like mosquito bites.\n\n.\n\n > mosquito bite, eye\n\nDoesn't give anything useful. Weird. \n\n > mosquito bite, cornea\n\nNada.\n\n > mosquito bite, sclera\n\nZilch.\n\nMaybe the search is a bit too narrow. Removing the word \"bite\" from the above searches just gives a bunch of results for eye symptoms of mosquito-born illnesses. But, maybe people report bee stings because you can identify the stinger, but a mosquito bite leaves no definitive trace... let's try\n\n > insect bite, eye\n\n...well, we're back to a bunch of bee/[hymenoptera](_URL_4_) stuff. Scrolling through, I see examples of [ticks latching onto the inside of the eyelid](_URL_13_)... [huh, didn't even know walkingsticks *had* venom](_URL_1_)... [fire ants](_URL_12_) biting the eye of a child with \"neurological compromise\".\n\n.\n\nOK. \n\nThis gives an interesting thought: Maybe bees are commonly reported because they're *fast*. Mosquitoes are quite slow... if one landed on your eye, you'd blink, rub your eye, etc., etc. It wouldn't get a chance to bite your eye unless something unusual is already happening (e.g. being unconscious with an open eye). Another result from \"insect bite, eye\" was [this one](_URL_10_) about eye injuries in motorcyclists, caused by colliding with beetles at speed.\n\n.\n\nSo far, I've come up with no results. This is very odd, since we have results for ticks, beetles, walkingsticks, and tons of stinging insects. Now I start wondering what the mosquito would actually do if it got a chance to bite your eye. The sclera is *very* tough tissue. Not sure if a mosquito's proboscis could penetrate very deep. [Most of the blood vessels are superficial](_URL_14_), too... which leads me [here](_URL_0_):\n\n > A vascular plexus is found between the conjunctiva and the sclera\n\n**Part 1a of my answer: There's a nice, superficial set of blood vessels below the [conjunctiva](_URL_7_). I'm betting a mosquito could penetrate that small distance, and from there could feed on the blood.**\n\n\n**Part 1b: A healthy cornea is [avascular](_URL_15_). So, if the mosquito bites you there, it couldn't withdraw blood.**\n\n.\n\nBut, anyways, I'm thinking about conjunctiva... back to PubMed!\n\n > [mosquito, conjunctiva](_URL_16_)\n\n...and we get results referring to [filariasis](_URL_8_) and [dirofilariasis](_URL_2_), in particular. \n\nUnfortunately, most of these case reports are written in a foreign language, and/or are behind a paywall. But, there's [this](_URL_9_)([google translate version](_URL_5_)):\n\n > An 81-year-old woman living in the north of France had a history of sudden pain and swelling of the left orbit. On slit lamp examination, a white worm was seen under the superior [bulbar conjuntiva](_URL_17_). Excision of the subconjunctival worm was adequate treatment and was important for parasite identification.\n\n**Important** this *doesn't* mean that the woman was bitten on the eye. Instead, the nematode probably migrated there.\n\n.\n\nI'm really surprised by this. I can plenty of examples of eye symptoms caused by insect bites elsewhere on the body. I can find examples of motorcyclists hitting their eyes into beetles. I can even find examples of eye disease caused by insects that don't bite, but just feed off of eye secretions:\n\n[Thelaziasis](_URL_6_), which wikipedia says can be found in the eyeball itself... and unlike the filariasis example above, is apparently from direct exposure of the eye tissues to the parasite, as described here \n\nFrom a 'critical comment' by Shen et al., 2006, J. Parasitol., 92(4), \"Human Thelaziosis—A Neglected Parasitic Disease of the Eye\"\n\n > The transmission of eyeworms occurs when the species of flies (acting as intermediate hosts and vectors) feed on lachrymal secretions from animal and/or human and ingest Thelazia spp. first-stage larvae (L1s) produced by adult female nematodes (living together with males) in the conjunctival sac of the definitive host. After ingestion by flies, the larvae of T. callipaeda encapsulate in different parts of the vector’s body, that is, testes of the male and abdominal fat tissue of the female, and undergo development from the L1 to the infective, third-stage larvae (L3) (~14–21 days after infection). After a migration through the body cavity of the vector, the L3s of Thelazia emerge from the labella of infected flies, **after which they feed on the lachrymal secretions from infected hosts and develop into the adult stage in the conjuctival sac and prebulbar tear film within ~35 days** (Otranto, Lia, Cantacessi et al., 2005).\n\n.\n\n...anyways, **I am stumped by your question, (esp. the \"will it itch\" part) because I can't find any literature examples of someone being** *bit* **by a** *mosquito* **on the eye**. I know that the cornea's immune responses (e.g. to infection) are different than in other tissues, because (1) it's avascular, and (2) retaining transparency is a priority, so e.g. swelling would be very maladaptive. I suppose this means that a mosquito bite would be different, *somehow*, if it were on some part of the eye than elsewhere, but we don't know until it happens. The stunning lack of anything in the literature makes me think that mosquitoes are either too slow to bite the eye itself, or don't cause a reaction when a bite happens (hence, no reports). So, when you say,\n\n > but I've always been afraid to get bitten there\n\nI wouldn't worry about it. ...bee stings on the other hand..."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Episclera",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11150287",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dirofilariasis",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=bee%20sting%2C%20eye",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hymenoptera",
"http://translate.google.com/translate?js=n&prev=_t&hl=en&ie=UTF-8&layout=2&eotf=1&sl=fr&tl=en&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.em-consulte.com%2Farticle%2F219055&act=url",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thelaziasis#cite_note-3",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conjunctiva",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filariasis",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19769873",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20657212",
"http://www.thirdeyehealth.com/images/sclera-1.jpg",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9503321",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9467462",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sclera",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornea",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=mosquito%2C%20conjunctiva",
"http://www.medterms.com/script/main/art.asp?articlekey=9898"
]
]
|
|
1bwbuu | How does deionized water stay deionized? | It is my understanding, according the general chemistry classes and preparatory materials for the MCAT that I've taken, that water autoionizes all the time and produces H+ ions and OH- ions. How is it, then, that deionized water is produced in the first place, and what keeps it from autoionizing back to these ions in equilibrium?
Thanks in advance. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bwbuu/how_does_deionized_water_stay_deionized/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9aoqca"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Deionized water still autodisassociates just like all other water. The 'deionized' part refers to the fact that the protons and hydroxides are (nominally) the only ions in solution.\n\nA deionizer works by passing normal water (from the tap, usually) through a series of filters and ion exchangers. All of the cations in the tap water are exchanged with protons. All of the anions are exchanged with hydroxides. The net changes yield a solution of nothing but protons, hydroxides, and water molecules. The autodissociation equilibrium will have the proton and hydroxide concentrations at 10^-7 M at 298 K. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
8oskfv | Did any of the ancient civilizations know they were one of the first human civilizations or have any understanding of the significance of that? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8oskfv/did_any_of_the_ancient_civilizations_know_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"e06d1b7",
"e06o06g",
"e06odez",
"e06oi24",
"e06t6pg"
],
"score": [
117,
124,
69,
1498,
297
],
"text": [
"Hey all,\n\nIf you frequent the sub, you know the drill. If you're here from /r/all, or browse only occasionally, please be aware we have strict rules here intended to enforce the very high bar we expect from comments, so before posting, please read our [rules](/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules). We remove comments which don't comply, and consider everyone forewarned. If you have feedback or commentary about how things are run here, please don't post it in this thread. We'll just remove it. We love to hear thoughtful, constructive feedback via [modmail](_URL_0_) however.\n\nIt can take time for [an answer to show up](/_URL_2_), so we thank you for your patience. We know you're here because the question sounds interesting, and we eagerly await an answer just like you! While you wait though, there is tons of great content already written, which you can find through our [Twitter](_URL_1_), the [Sunday Digest](_URL_4_), the [Monthly \"Best Of\"](_URL_6_) feature, and [Facebook](_URL_3_). If you don't want to forget to check back late, consider a [Private Message](_URL_5_) to the [Remind-Me bot](_URL_7_) (cc /u/Str0nzo)\n\nAgain though, please remember the rules, and keep them in mind while you browse. If you don't like how this subreddit is run, keep in mind that this method has seen us continue to succeed and grow for years, and isn't going to change, so at least try and make your complaint original. /r/AskHistory exists, so complaining about the rules to us is like going into a fancy restaurant to complain they don't sell chicken nuggets, even though Chick-fil-A is nextdoor.",
"I answered almost this exact question a couple months back, [in this thread here](_URL_0_). Which includes links to a number of sources, but the short answer is that cities arose gradually and people didn't stop being nomadic hunter gatherers all at once. It was a slow transition that often looked like a hybrid between settled urban agricultural life and hunting and gathering. The evidence we have can't tell us what exactly they thought about the change but the safest assumption is that the transition was gradual enough that it wasn't seen as too drastic of a departure at the time.",
"Follow up/related question: Are there any 'meta' early writings, acknowledging the fact they're an early writing (in any capacity)? ",
"In the case of ancient Egypt, the answer is yes. Their mythology and history expressly stated that they were the first civilization. They believed that the universe was created on a \"mound of creation\" (as it's called by Egyptologists), which rose out of the receding flood waters of the Nile. There are various versions of the creation story, but in the most exciting one [Atum or Re-Atum](_URL_2_) created the first pantheon of deities by masturbating them into existence: \"Atum is the one who came into being as one who came [(with penis) extended](_URL_1_) in Heliopolis. He put his penis in his fist so that he might make orgasm with it, and the two twins were born, Shu and Tefnut.\"^1 This mound of creation is called Benben by Egyptologists (Egyptian 𓃀𓈖𓃀𓈖𓉴), and it was a common feature of temples for millennia of Egyptian history, demonstrating the incredible longevity of this idea.^2\n\nMost cultures have a creation myth that puts them at the center, so that doesn't completely answer your question. In Egypt, however, they kept written records of their history, which referenced their understanding of creation. There are frequent allusions to the \"original time\" (𓅮𓏏𓏖) in Egyptian texts, including the Pyramid Texts, and a glimpse of what they understood this to mean is found in the [Turin Royal Canon](_URL_4_).^3 That document records the reigns of kings from the New Kingdom back to the reigns of well-known Egyptian deities, including Seth, Horus, and Thoth. The tomb of the First Dynasty king [Djer](_URL_0_) (also in the Turin Canon, II.13 in the facsimile) was later venerated as the tomb of the god Osiris. \n\nSo not only did they believe that they were the first civilization, created ex nihilo by the gods, they had places where they could go and see those gods' tombs in person. Their official history recorded the descent of their living kings from ancient deities, and they continually referred to these deities in contemporary texts. When they found old things, they knew that those things belonged to their civilization, and that they were directly descended from the people who made them.\n\n\nSources:\n\n1. Translation from: Allen, James P. 2015. *The Ancient Egyptian Pyramid Texts*. See the original texts [here](_URL_3_). This quote is in *PT IV (422-538)*, p. 279. \n\n2. Obviously there is more to be said here. Representations of the mound of creation changed over time, but the central idea was always present. There's a great deal on this in: Kemp, Barry J. 2005. *Ancient Egypt: Anatomy of a Civilization*. \n\n3. The Wikipedia page is actually a great source for this. It has the original text, a transcription, and translation.\n\nEdit: Thanks for the 𓋞!",
"This is an answer I gave to a similar question a few years ago.\n\nSo I'm only gonna be talking about the Sumerians here. The only way that we are going to have any knowledge of what the first civilizations knew of their past is through written records. Writing first appears in Sumer in around 3000 BC, this is during the Uruk period (4000-3001 BC). At this time it was very much proto-writing and did not develop into a full written language until the Early Dynastic Period (2800-2500 BC)\n\nIt is not until the end of the Early Dynastic Period (2300 BC) that we see the emergence of the Sumerian King List which documents the kings of Sumer and gives us an insight into what the Sumerians may have believed about their past.\n\nThe King List, a collection of several sources, details the rulers of the cities of Sumer from the first antediluvian rulers to the last dynasty of Isin. The first king was Alulim, first king of Eridu. He ruled for 28,800 years. Now at first glance that may seem an unreasonably long rule and that is because it is. Alulim, the first king after the kingship descended from heaven created by the god Enki is clearly almost entirely mythical. This list of antediluvian kings ends with Ubara-tutu and the coming of the great flood that wipes the world clean.\n\nThe list resumes with Jushur the first of the dynasty of Kish. He ruled for 1200 years. 20 kings and 15255 years later we have En-me-barage-si who is the first king we have archaeological evidence for. He is dated from around 2600 BC from two pieces of alabaster vases found at Nippur which bear his name. Though he ruled for 900 years, a rather long time, it can be surmised that he is indeed real. He is mentioned also in the Epic of Gilgamesh alongside Gilgamesh himself giving credence to the thought that Gilgamesh is a historical figure. The King List continues into the time of rulers that can easily be verified such as Sargon of Akkad who ruled for 40 years and founded the Akkadian Empire. Thus we see the transition of the mythical into the semi-mythical and then verifiable history. But more on that later.\n\nThe Sumerian creation myth is important to note in this discussion. It recounts that the gods Enki among them created the first “black-headed people” (the Sumerians) and settled them in the land giving them the kingship and thus the first cities were created. A large part of the story is missing but at some point the gods decide not to save mankind from a flood which strikes destroying man and cites. Later the world is presumably repopulated.\n\nIn addition there is the “Debate between Summer and Winter” a creation myth from the mid 3nd millennium. This details the creation of the land and seasons by Enlil. In it he is seen to irrigate the land “guaranteeing the spring floods at the quay” and to begin the agricultural tradition of the land “making flax grow and barley proliferate.”\n\nFinally and most interestingly for this topic is the “Debate between Sheep and Grain” another creation myth written in the mid-3rd millennium . The myth details a time in which sheep and grain were unknown to the land. The people “went about with naked limbs in the Land. Like sheep they ate grass with their mouths and drank water from the ditches.” The myth ends with the virtues of grain being extolled “from sunrise to sunset may the name of Grain be praised. People should submit to the yoke of grain.”\n\nTherefore we can see that early history of Mesopotamia, the Ubaid period and before, is in Sumerian text seen in a divine light. The land was created by the gods as were the people and they were given cities and kingship. Enlil gave the people the summer and the winter, he gave them wheat and irrigation as Enki gave them kingship. Only in the “Debate between Sheep and Grain” is there indicated any knowledge of a time before sedentary agriculture. This myth clashes with that of the “Debate between Summer and Winter” though it is part of the same tradition indicating the lack of a unified view of their past. It seems that the Sumerians saw their past as part of a very real mythical tradition. Their kings begin as mythical figures and progress towards the non-mythical. The mythical and the non-mythical are closely linked in the Sumerian view of themselves and their past\n\nI would conclude that the Sumerians did believe themselves to be not just the first civilization but the first people, it is part of their creation myth. In addition there was no knowledge in the way we would think of a hunter-gatherer life preceding their urban civilization. If there is any hint it exists as another facet of the extensive and contradictory creation myth of the peoples of Sumer.\n\n[_URL_0_](http://_URL_0_/)\n\n[_URL_2_](https://_URL_2_/)\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules",
"http://twitter.com/askhistorians",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7s66yf/a_statistical_look_at_askhistorians_in_2017_part_i/",
"https://www.facebook.com/askhistorians/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Sunday+Digest%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all",
"https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5Bhttp%3A%2F%2FLINK-HERE%2F%5D%0A%0ARemindMe!++2+days",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/bestof",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5dpkvu/z/da6r7yg?context=3&sort=confidence"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Djer#Tomb",
"https://i.imgur.com/Ln9PBDj.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atum",
"https://christiancasey.github.io/PT/pt.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turin_King_List"
],
[
"etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk",
"http://etcsl.orinst.ox.ac.uk/",
"cdli.ucla.edu",
"https://cdli.ucla.edu/"
]
]
|
||
2aimrm | how can we show child sexuality in movies, books, and other media formats, but not in pornography? | I'm not a pedophile (not seeking material); this paradox is just something I noticed. In movies, like *The Virgin Suicides* and *White Oleander*, we're allowed to hear about children having sex. We even see a fourteen-year-old girl (in TVS), played by a minor, "grab" a boy.
Books can get even more explicit. Some literature, like *Flowers in the Attic* features full-on child sex scenes. Books have a bunch of stuff with minors having sex too (think young adult fiction).
Yet child pornography is illegal (not upset about that!!!) and sites like _URL_0_ can't even *mention* people under the age of 18 sexually. (And I've read some pretty graphic stuff about child rape in regular fiction, like Oryx and Crake). Why??! How can this be?
| explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aimrm/elif_how_can_we_show_child_sexuality_in_movies/ | {
"a_id": [
"civhpdl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
" > In movies, like The Virgin Suicides and White Oleander, we're allowed to hear about children having sex. We even see a fourteen-year-old girl (in TVS), played by a minor, \"grab\" a boy.\n\nAnd none of that is pornography. It's not sexually exploiting children.\n\n > Books can get even more explicit.\n\nBecause they're fictional, and don't involve any actual children.\n\n > Yet child pornography is illegal\n\nBecause child pornography often involves **actual sexual abuse of actual children.**\n\nIt's the same reason that you can have a movie or book about a murderer, but you can't murder people in real life."
]
} | []
| [
"Literotica.com"
]
| [
[]
]
|
|
15vmg8 | Has a wholly or mainly guerrilla opposition ever driven out a large conventional force, without the aid of another country? | Before we begin, I'd rather not discuss Vietnam(I don't feel it's what I'm asking about entirely), as I know that will be what this thread is flooded with.
Also, Afghanistan vs the USSR doesn't seem to be as much an actual military victory as much as it is a side effect of the Cold War's toll.
It just seems guerrilla tactics are more of a stall than something that actually wins you a campaign. Even in the American Revolution there was still a need for a large conventional force, subsidized and reinforced by the French.
What inspired this question was my reading of *"Empire of the Summer Moon"* by S.C. Gwynne. It details the late Comanche of West Texas basically. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15vmg8/has_a_wholly_or_mainly_guerrilla_opposition_ever/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7q7rz1",
"c7q9bs3",
"c7qa15x",
"c7qa1lg",
"c7qbvbb"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
4,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There might be a few anti-colonial conflicts worth looking at here. The FNLA in Algeria didn't (AFAIK) receive any substantive aid from other countries, nor did the major revolutionary movements in Rhodesia/Zimbabwe. \n\nI'm pretty sure FRELIMO in Mozambique drove out the Portuguese without assistance, whilst the MPLA in Angola only received limited support from Cuba.\n\nFinally, a case might be made for the RPF in Rwanda, although I don't think they could easily be categorised as guerillas in the way the other groups could, as they were largely composed of deserting Rwandan units from the Ugandan army.\n\nOf course, guerilla tactics are ideal for combating colonialism precisely because they stall - by making colonialism economically untenable, they could make granting independence a more attractive choice than staying in control.",
"Shivaji who was king of the State of Maharashtra, parts of Madhya Pradesh, Gujarat and Andhra Pradesh (all these states are in India, and geographically these would be bigger than say France and the low countries+Western Germany put together) sucessfully fought Guerilla campaign against the Mughals of Aurangazeb's empire.\n\nIt was classic assymetrical warfare as we know it now. Shivaji and the Maratha's used the thickly forested areas as a base, and struck at Mughal supply lines, tax collectors, vulnerable villages, cities. They even hit mughal garrison's....He used speed, location of attack and most importantly surprise to balance the force equation which was heavily in the side of the conventionally larger and better equiped Mughal force.\n\nHe even used the idea of scorched earth warfare to deny resources to the Mughal army...\n\nA good starting point would be \n_URL_0_",
"While not necessarily fitting your criteria of winning with guerrilla tactics, the Finnish Army made great use of guerrilla warfare to block the Soviets from completing their objectives for the initial months of the war. The Finns defence made the Soviets do a complete restructuring of their operations in this war, including a change in command. Under new leadership, they switched from the maneuver warfare of their four-pronged assault into Finland (minimal gains for heavy casualties) to a war of attrition, when they concentrated their forces on the Mannerheim Line following a shift in command.\n\nUntil the concentration of forces, the Finns had effectively halted the Soviets in what to me is an interesting case of (at least) partial unconventional warfare between two conventional armies. \n\nHopefully this is at least sort of what you were hoping for. ",
"Define \"without the aid of another country\"? If you mean physical presence within the country then the War of Independence was a largely guerrilla war fought without the aid of another country that ended in the creation of the Irish Free State.\n\nThe Irish Volunteers did however receive their initial arms and ammunition from Germany. After that I believe most arms were taken from storming RIC barracks and military installations.",
"I think there is confusion between Guerilla tactics and Guerilla Warfare. But to how about Cuba? I think Castro got some small donations before the war from many different supporters like CIA(if I recall correctly) they were not big or significant to the actual guerilla war. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shivaji#War_against_the_Mughal_Empire"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
25oco0 | is sleeping in a fetal position (curled-up back) as bad for your posture as slouching for 8 hrs a day? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25oco0/eli5_is_sleeping_in_a_fetal_position_curledup/ | {
"a_id": [
"chj5wap",
"chj8ff3",
"chj8v8q",
"chj9owx",
"chjcrig",
"chjdkpl"
],
"score": [
20,
9,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I would assume that it is *not as bad* simply because you don't have the same downward pressure on the arch when you are lying down as when you are slouching in a seated position. That said, it probably isn't great for your posture to sleep in a fetal position (I do the same thing, and slouch, and have horrible posture myself).",
"No. Slouching is bad because gravity is tugging the spine all day. Sleeping in any comfortable, neutral position is just fine.",
"im no scientist, but it seemed clear to me that the problem with slouching is that gravity is weighing down on you",
"They are right about the gravity and pressure on your back being bad.\n\nBut there's also the matter of muscle tightness that is important to be aware of. Most people in modern society sit often, so our bodies (mainly our musculoskeletal system) have adapted to a seated position. \n\nSo when you sleep in a fetal position, it is comfortable because your muscles are not being stretched, and are just going to their naturally tight position. \n\nBut the problem is that since most people don't stretch their muscles to even/balance them, your muscles will get progressively tighter and tighter. And if you sleep in the fetal position, your muscles won't be stretched during the night to counteract the tightness. If you had slept on your back, your tight muscles would be given a chance to loosen a little for a long period (hours while you sleep).\n\nTL;DR - It's not directly bad for your back, but its bad in the sense that it doesn't help prevent muscle tightening as much as sleeping on your back. The best bet is to sleep in whatever way you feel most comfortable (because sleeping well is super important) but to also do stretches and move around during the day so your muscles are stretched evenly and not tight!",
"My girlfriend is gone for the summer, I honestly have not left our bed for the last 3 weeks, gone so far to even pee in a bottle, and put the microwave and mini fridge on the nightstand. It's amazing.",
"I instantly sat up straight while reading this thread."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
314w9p | Good Holocaust books dealing with holocaust denial? | I understand that I could read the histories in the book list, but Ideally I would like to read something that specifically targets the common arguments made by deniers, and has a focus on explaining what the sources and the like are. If only because I encounter a couple deniers on various things and it would be easier for me to engage with them if I had a more targeted work I could refer to rather than just a history of it. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/314w9p/good_holocaust_books_dealing_with_holocaust_denial/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpyumzu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Michael Shermer and Alex Grobman's *Denying History: Who Says the Holocaust Never Happened and Why Do They Say It?* is a survey of deniers. \n\nGood luck engaging Deniers though, it's equivalent to yelling at a brick wall. Denialism thrives off of ahistorical arguments and although many deniers style themselves as historians or skeptics, they are not playing by the evidentiary rules of either. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2frhvr | why are people hiding ebola victims? | I keep hearing about how dangerous Ebola is, and how easily it is spread to caretakers like close family members and medical staff. Sierra Leone has made harboring the infected a crime, though I find it odd that such a step would be necessary. Why are people hiding the sick from those seeking to treat them, especially since it increases one's own risk of contracting the disease? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2frhvr/eli5_why_are_people_hiding_ebola_victims/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckc1men",
"ckc1sfy",
"ckc2erh",
"ckc3aai",
"ckc9l0r",
"ckcg6d4"
],
"score": [
17,
21,
116,
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Africa is a different place, with a very different culture than most people in the west are used to. There is a lot of distrust of hospitals there, and Ebola wards in particular. Most people there still believe in medicine men and traditional healing. So, people who are sick with Ebola or anything else, tend to seek help from traditional healers rather than real hospitals. These traditional healers treat people in their homes, aided by their families, and not take people to hospitals. Thus 'harboring' victims. The problem with this approach of course, is that people can;t isolate victims effectively in their homes, and this promotes the spread of the disease.",
"Africa has a long history of westerners showing up with some claim or other then screwing everyone over. \n\nEbola is real, we know that, but it sounds like just another scam to fuck with Africa. \n\nLike imagine if north koreans showed up in America and were all 'hey we need to take these people, they have a disease, TRUST US\". A lot of Americans would be all 'uhhh, no?\" too, even if it turned out in the end it was real. ",
"A person you've never met before, dressed in a spacesuit, walks into your home and tells you that your sick child must go with them. You have to walk miles to the hospital where they've taken her. They tell you she died. They won't let you see her. They won't let you have a funeral. They bury her in a plastic bag.\n\nAnd if you do go to a hospital this is what you find:\n\n > **There was blood on the walls, starving patients and hygienists using water that was “brown like mud.” Health workers moved from high-risk to low-risk areas without changing clothes;** “you never knew who was next to you,” Chenard says. “It could be a patient, suspected or confirmed … it could be hospital personnel.”\n\nThe President of Doctors Without Borders, Joanne Liu, said:\n\n > **“Ebola treatment centres are reduced to places where people go to die alone, ...\"**\n\nIt's a desperate situation and I guess they would rather die at home.\n",
"As crazy as it sounds a lot of people there do not even believe its a real thing. Monkey Meat and the Ebola Outbreak in Liberia: _URL_0_",
"The same reason people hide zombie bites in moves",
"Nothing is stopping me getting treatment for depression...but I don't. People are stupid."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/XasTcDsDfMg"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
35tmik | what are the main differences between hydraulics and pneumatics? | I know that Hydraulics are with liquid and Pneumatics are with air, but why would you use one over the other? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35tmik/eli5_what_are_the_main_differences_between/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr7omu3",
"cr7onu6"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"Air can move far more quickly than hydraulics. If you want something to move fast, air is the answer.\n\nAir is also compressible, if you want shock absorption (like air ride suspension in cars and trucks), again, air is the answer.\n\nHydraulics use an oil instead of air, but the way they work is almost identical. Hydraulic fluid moves slower, but can be compressed to far higher pressures. When you need to move big and heavy loads, and don't have to do it fast, hydraulic is the answer. This is why you see it on all those big machines (dump trucks, bull dozers, front loaders).\n\nSince fluid doesn't compress, there is no shock absorption, but that also means there is no \"bounce\". When something needs to be held steady (like an electric company bucket, or a fork lift balancing a load), again, hydraulic is the answer.\n\nThanks to these two properties, hydraulic is also more precise than pnumatic. When high accuracy is needed, you're probably going to see hydraulic. Believe it or not, even with a huge excavator, a good operator can pick up a coin or fold a napkin thanks to the incredibly accuracy a hydraulic system can provide.",
"Air is highly compressible, and so unsuitable for power transmission or operation at any appreciable pressure. It is cheap and clean though. Typical uses are low power actuators, valves, etc. Pneumatic systems are frequently employed in factory automation and automotive systems.\n\nHydraulics offer functionality at extreme forces and pressures, as well as superior cooling and lubrication, better position control and repeatability, corrosion control and power transmission ability."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
fdlzqo | why are non-real ids still available in the us? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fdlzqo/eli5_why_are_nonreal_ids_still_available_in_the_us/ | {
"a_id": [
"fjicwx1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"State governments just refusing to implement the new documentation requirements in a timely manner. Plus the process also involves some individuals having to physically visit an office to present documents before their current IDs expire."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
3dp0uy | What was the average number of children a Christian family had around 0 - 100 A.D.? | Not looking for specifics but rather a general answer. Trying to work out if family size was fairly similar to families today, or if they were significantly larger. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dp0uy/what_was_the_average_number_of_children_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct7fuen"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This is an interesting, but extremely difficult question to answer. The reason for this is that the question transcends more than just a religious group. We have evidence that by 50 to 60 AD, Christianity had spread (although it was incredibly small at this time) to cities all over the Levant, ancient Greece and all the way to Rome itself. We also know, by the quality of the writing, especially in the seven letters of Paul that we know are authentic, and by the style of the Gospels, that the writers were all fairly well-educated. This is significant because it shows that By the time Paul started writing his letters (around 50-55 c.e.) until the time the Gospels started being written (70-90 ce) Christianity had gone from being a small Jewish sect of peasants to having a diverse demographical make up. (For more on this I recommend reading, Ramsay MacMullen's (a Roman Social Historian) book [Christianizing the Roman Empire: A.D. 100-400](_URL_0_) which explains this in quite a bit more detail. \n\nThat said, numbers mean a lot and Christianity needed to spread an awful lot and quickly to go from between 20-30 people (which I recently discovered is the mainstream belief for Early Christianity Historians) at around the time of Jesus' death (around 30 ce, plus/minus 5 years) to being 5% of the population by the early fourth century, which would have been 3 million people. Rodney Stark's book [The Rise of Christianity](_URL_1_) although incredibly controversial and disputed by many scholars, did make one assertion that many scholars either agreed with or didn't oppose. That is, that he believed that, on average, Christianity needed to gain about 40% more followers per decade until the year 300. \n\nSo why do I mention all these numbers? Well, because it shows that A: Christianity started out incredibly small and remained small for quite some time. But B) it did get more progressively popular over the course of the first three centuries CE and that it wasn't limited to just the area around the Levant so again, we aren't just dealing with a specific group of people -- we are talking about different cultures from all over the Mediterranean, most of which had different practices for bearing children.\n\nHowever, it's safe to say a few things demographics wise. On average, typical Jewish peasant who lived an agrarian type of life-style could typically have up to 4-8 children, of course not all would live to be adults. Those who lived in cities or were more wealthy probably had fewer children, but again, we have no exact numbers on this. I am not qualified to answer how many children people in Ancient Greece or Rome would have had, so I digress from answering that aspect of the question. \n\nTLDR: Ancient Hebrew peasant families typically had 4-8 children, yet Christianity had spread to multiple cities and states over those first few decades, so individual studies would be needed to answer the question in more detail.\n\nSorry if this wasn't the exact answer you were hoping for."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Christianizing-Roman-Empire-A-D-100-400/dp/0300036426",
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Rise-Christianity-Religious-Centuries/dp/0060677015"
]
]
|
|
3620lh | Is it possible to create a sonic boom by waving a stick really fast? | If you wave a stick in an arc shape, would it be possible for the end to create a sonic boom? How fast would I need to shake it?
Alternatively, how long would the stick have to be to shake it at a reasonable speed? Assume stick is more or less weightless and will not break | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3620lh/is_it_possible_to_create_a_sonic_boom_by_waving_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr9z49w",
"cra29gb",
"cradlwy"
],
"score": [
44,
20,
10
],
"text": [
"Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if this was totally possible. In fact, this is basically the mechanism for making a whip crack - it's just a sonic boom - [these guys have a good high speed video and discuss the exact physics at play in a whip](_URL_0_).",
"Turboprop design actually needs to take mach number into account since the tips of the propeller can go supersonic. The Russian TU-95 actually uses props that go supersonic at the tips, making it one of the loudest aircraft ever built.",
"Professional baseball players can swing a bat at about 90-100mph at the end of the bat. If you made a thin, long, and rigid rod with the same moment of inertia (about 15,000oz-in^2), a professional baseball player could break the sound barrier if the rod was about 20 feet long. You would run into aerodynamic (drag) issues as you approach Mach 0.9-1.0 though"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"https://youtu.be/cVpr9ufcMOI?t=272"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
6abqcx | Did the early-modern developers of the physical/chemical atomic theory explicitly credit ancient philosophical Atomism? | So, as a physicist, it's clear that the ancient Atomism and the physical atomic theory come from completely different approaches - philosophical Atomism is not empirical in the same way etc.
But at the same time, the early modern developers of the physical/chemical atomic theories chose to use the word "atom", apparently in reference to the Atomism tradition - I skimmed John Dalton's 1808 work "A New System of Chemical Philosophy" and noticed that he seems to assume that readers are already familiar with the term, as he uses the term without defining it first.
So, I'm wondering how strong the links are here. Does Dalton or any other scientist from the period explicitly discuss the ancient Atomism of Democritus, Epicurus etc as an inspiration, or do they simply adopt the word because it was in common usage amongst intellectuals? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6abqcx/did_the_earlymodern_developers_of_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"dhdhkjy"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"By the late-18th/early-19th century the idea of Atomism had been hashed over for literally centuries. They weren't going back to the Ancients at that point. Dalton's own discussions of Atomism were rooted more in the work of Newton (who made various corpuscular assumptions in his work) than they were in Democritus or Epicurus. \n\nIf you go back to the earlier discussions, e.g. Robert Boyle, you get a much more complicated picture. Boyle's Atomism was certainly done with knowledge of the Ancient philosophers on the subject, but his more immediate inspiration were discussions within alchemical theory about the nature of matter (which are more Aristotelian than Democritus/Epicurus; e.g. \"what is matter made of that allows it to be X sometimes and Y another?\"). \n\nThe sort of place where I've seen explicit invocations of Democritus and Epicurus has been in discussions about the vacuum and Plenism (Atomism's antagonist philosophy, which argues for a continuum of matter, and lack of vacuum). The line between the philosophical and the empirical in this discussion, in the 17th century anyway (again, over a century before Dalton), is completely fuzzy. Hence one of the biggest arguments was between Boyle (a \"chemist\" in a modern framing) and Thomas Hobbes (a \"philosopher\"), who both saw themselves as doing semi-empirical, semi-philosophical work. Hobbes deployed Democritus and Epicurus to argue _against_ Boyle's conception of the vacuum, and thus against Boyle's interpretation of his late 17th-century air-pump experiments. Which is just to say: everyone in that time would have recognized that these figures were involved in putting out philosophies of Atomism, but even by the 17th century it wasn't required to go back to them to get the ideas, there were plenty of other sources.\n\nDalton's accomplishment was not in re-inventing or even re-invoking Atomism. It was in trying to give it a strong physical basis and tie that into its possible chemical implications. It is very much the project of someone who has already stopped caring about what the Ancients said about such a matter, which itself is a very late-Enlightenment, post-chemical revolution sort of move. An earlier figure, like Boyle, cared a bit about the Ancients — not so much because he thought everything they said was accurate, but because they formed sort of a bedrock of understanding that he could push back against or build off of. And because he did think that ultimately what he was doing was a form of philosophy, even if he made an argument that new machines (like the air-pump) could serve as a run-around to philosophical quandaries. And the influence of alchemical theorizing on Boyle cannot be overstated — it was core to his understanding of what might have been going on in _all_ of his experimental work. \n\nThis is a big topic and I don't claim to know every in and out of it (I am not an early modernist in the slightest, though I dip a toe into these readings sometimes for teaching purposes, and find the Boyle stuff pretty interesting for its strangeness). On Boyle v. Hobbes, Shapin and Schaffer's _Leviathan and the Air-Pump_ (1985) is the classic text. On Dalton's Atomism, I found this article very useful a little while back: Alan J. Rocke, \"In Search of El Dorado: John Dalton and the Origins of the Atomic Theory,\" _Social Research_ 72, no. 1 (Spring 2005), 125-158. Rocke does a great job of situating Dalton's Newtonism and what exactly he was trying to accomplish. On Boyle's (and others') alchemical atomism (and various other Atomisms at the time), see esp. William R. Newman, \"The Significance of 'Chymical Atomism,'\" _Early Science and Medicine_ 14, no. 1/3 (2009), 248-264. Newman is one of the great scholars of Boyle and alchemy. It is a difficult world to translate into modern physical/chemical terms on the whole — that is just not how they saw it working, and you sort of have to dive in on their own terms."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2ovb8y | Why didn't slaves in ancient times just run away? and how were they distinguished from free men? | And by ancient i mean around 1500 years ago. since slaves came from different cultures and ethnicities you couldn't tell a slave from a free man just by appearance alone (I speculate). was there a way that someone could recognize a slave just by appearance?
also how come they didn't just run away? surely they weren't kept in shackles and chains all the time?
Also, were things different for slaves from region to region? i mean, was it different in Rome that in the Arabian peninsula for example? ie: in regards to the questions above. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ovb8y/why_didnt_slaves_in_ancient_times_just_run_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmr0vy3",
"cmr2ksp",
"cmr5lpi"
],
"score": [
12,
131,
48
],
"text": [
"Piggyback question: In the show Spartacus they paid the slave gladiators an allowance that increased with good performance. This was portrayed as making the slaves more loyal and eager to fight in the arena.\n\nWas the practice of paying slaves/gladiators a thing? How common was it? \n\nIf a slave was paid an allowance how would they be able to spend it? It's not like a branded slave can just waltz into town, or could they?",
"First off, many slaves in the ancient world *did* run away and the possibility was always there. There were also numerous large-scale slave revolts, most famously the one led by Spartacus that had to be put down by a Roman army. To prevent mass escapes, Roman slave owners used either the carrot or the stick. Branding, shackling, abuse, and torture were used to keep many slaves in check, while others in more favored positions were given a stipend (Lat. *peculium*) and much more independence. The most-favored slaves were those belonging to the emperor, who, along with his freedmen, had a hand in administering the empire.\n\nHarper, Slavery in the Late Roman World, AD 275-425 is excellent recent study on the subject. [Here](_URL_2_) he discusses different types of incentives offered to slaves.\n\nTo give just one example of a fugitive slave from a documentary source, [P.Cair.Preis. 1](_URL_1_) (148 CE) ([image](_URL_0_)) is a report of judicial proceedings from the province of Egypt concerning an enslaved woman named Eutychia, who was purchased for 1,160 drachmas (a hefty sum, enough to employ some 40 men for a month). According to the report, \"after she stayed with him (the new owner) for a short time, she ran away taking with her the sale contracts and much of his belongings.\"",
"Put yourself in their shoes: you are a slave, let's say the child of two Gauls captured by Caesar. Your Latin is imperfect at best, you know very few people outside of the household and those you do know you are a slave. Where do you run to? You have no property or connections and your speech immediately marks you out. To top if off, there is a reward on your return, and the shepherd you run across may have heard of it as he sees this scraggily desperate looking figure dressed in rags.\n\nOn the other hand, instances of civil strife, such as the wars of Sextus Pompey, Spartacus and provincial rebellions, seem to have been a magnet for escaped slaves. Now they have a place to run away *to*, and it seems those brave or desperate enough did. What is lacking in ordinary times is a destination.\n\nFor your other question, while patterns in slave owning varied enormously, it is difficult to recover actual slave conditions. It is almost certain that the status of slaves varied regionally, but we can't really say how."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://ipap.csad.ox.ac.uk/Preisigke-bw/300dpi/P.Cair.Preis.1.jpg",
"http://papyri.info/ddbdp/p.cair.preis;;1",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=IPU8ZAcrOtIC&pg=PA239&dq"
],
[]
]
|
|
1hcl8o | how did obamacre kill jobs, if it really did? | I googled it and it seems like it has...but I'm sure it was because of health insurance or something? > _ > | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hcl8o/eli5_how_did_obamacre_kill_jobs_if_it_really_did/ | {
"a_id": [
"cat2a5s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe that arguments comes from one of the articles of the bill that requires employers that have a staff of certain size must provide insurance for their employees. If an employer might have trouble affording this cost, they might have to lay off workers or cut back hours in order to compensate.\n\nOf course, the counter-argument to this is that one of the main goals of Obamacare is to push down rising health care costs, so that offering it to your employees won't hit the bottom line so hard. As well there are tax breaks and incentives to help ease the costs. Other arguments for it include the cost savings of having a work force that is healthy. With health insurance, small health problems can be taken care of before they become large health problems. A person who comes down with influenza without health care may have to just tough it out, costing them weeks of missed work shifts or the chance of infecting their coworkers. With health insurance, he'd be more likely to see a doctor and get treatment, turning a long sick leave into a relatively shorter one. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
3mbhrh | How will Climate Change affect the the level of the Caspian Sea? | The Caspian sea seems to have a lot of very low-lying land nearby, so if the sea-levels there rise, it would be disastrous. On the other hand, at a glance it seems completely cut off from any oceans or glacier-fed rivers. Will it equalize anyway? Or lower due to increased evaporation? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mbhrh/how_will_climate_change_affect_the_the_level_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvdqeq2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The Caspian Sea is in it's own drainage basin (also known as a [endorheic basin](_URL_1_)) so it is isolated from the rest of the worlds' oceans. As global sea levels rise, they won't directly effect the Caspian since it is not connected. The water levels in the Caspian vary based on the balance of rainfall and evaporation over the basin. So it's fate depends on how climate change alters the precipitation patterns in the region and predictions of how climate change will alter precipitation are still not all that well known - there are so many factors in the freshwater budget. There are other important human impacts, specifically dams on the Volga River (a major tributary) and diversion of water for agriculture. The nearby Aral Sea has mostly disappeared due to water diversion projects.\n\nMore information at [This article in Natural History Magazine](_URL_0_)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/112161/fate-of-the-caspian-sea",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorheic_basin"
]
]
|
|
8ufmte | how does type i diabetes develop so quickly in a seemingly healthy person, and how does this differ to the development of type ii? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8ufmte/eli5_how_does_type_i_diabetes_develop_so_quickly/ | {
"a_id": [
"e1f3udp",
"e1f4pkr"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Type 1A diabetes is an autoimmune disorder. It occurs when you have a genetic predisposition for the condition and then something triggers the onset (most likely suspect is a virus). So you can have the genetic predisposition but never be exposed to the triggering event, and therefore never develop the condition. \n\nGenerally speaking, the average age of onset is 8, but you can be diagnosed with T1 diabetes at any age. If your father has T1, you have a 1 in 17 chance of developing T1 yourself. If a sibling has it, you have a 1 in 10 chance of developing it. Interestingly, it does not always occur concurrently in identical twins, which indicates that it’s partially an environmental issue. \n\nAs for the onset, it’s not believed to be as rapid as people think. TrialNet is a longitudinal study looking at people who have an immediate family member with T1 and are therefore at risk of developing the disease themselves. One thing that has been found through this study is that people who eventually go on to develop T1 diabetes have signs of it starting for upwards of several years (increases in their A1C, poor response to glucose tolerance testing, fluctuations in insulin production). Symptoms will only appear when blood sugar reach very high levels. \n\nThe term “diabetes mellitus” actually encompasses a number of distinct medical conditions, each with their own etiology. T2 diabetes is a completely different condition, one that has nothing to do with T1 other than increases in blood glucose levels. While T1 diabetes results in a complete inability to produce insulin (and the condition is imminently fatal if the missing insulin is not replaced), T2 diabetes is a metabolic disorder wherein people make insulin but are resistant to it (so their blood sugar rises). While there are lifestyle factors that increase one’s risk of developing T2 diabetes (being overweight, poor diet, lack of exercise), it also has a significant genetic component. This is why there are many T2s who are not overweight and why there are plenty of overweight people who never develop T2. ",
"In the simplest way I can describe it, with Type 1 diabetes, your pancreas isn't working right and not producing the insulin needed to lower your blood sugar. In Type 2 diabetes, you are almost constantly in a state of high blood sugar, so the pancreas is constantly churning out insulin. Because of all this insulin, your body develops a tolerance to it so insulin doesn't work as efficiently as before. Conceptually, it's similar to how drug addicts need higher doses to achieve the same high."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
3y30ob | What did Germany hope to achieve strategically with the invasion of Russia in WWII and how was this war sold to the public? | What were the main reasons for Germany's invasion of Russia? My understanding is that it was primarily ideological(lebensraum and hatred of the communists). Strategically, what did Germany gain by invading Russia?
Also, how was the war sold to the public? Did the Germans resort to using some sort of propaganda? I remember reading that the war was sold as being a preemptive one against a possible Russia invasion. I'm not sure how accurate this is.
If someone could elaborate on the above 2 points it would be great. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3y30ob/what_did_germany_hope_to_achieve_strategically/ | {
"a_id": [
"cya6gyv"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"Initially, one of the main reasons for the German invasion of Russia was food. The Nazi regime wanted to Germany to be able to support itself agriculturally, without having to rely on imports from the Soviet Union. The German administration had perceived the vast plains of Ukraine and southern Russia as the perfect solution to Germany's food issues. The ground was fertile and full of minerals, so crops could be brought back in surplus to the German people (obviously with the sacrifice of the rest of the Russian people, who would be seen as a deficit.) In fact, Hitler envisioned the invading German forces as being able to supply their own food from the lands they captured, meaning less supplies were needed to be sent to the eastern front. Of course Operation Barbarossa was a failure, and the crop yields of the captured lands supplied one third of the food that Germany needed, let alone hoped for.\n\nFrom what I know, the German government sold the idea of an invasion of the Soviet Union through the notion of a 'self-sufficient Germany.' Hitler stated that there would be no food shortages like in the first world war, and some day in the future, people could travel to the new German frontiers in their 'people's cars' (Volkswagons) and spend holidays in the new lands.\n\nSource: The Silk Roads: A New History of the World by Peter Frankopan."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
7buzbs | what are neural networks? specifically rnns. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7buzbs/eli5_what_are_neural_networks_specifically_rnns/ | {
"a_id": [
"dpl1wbq",
"dpl9gvj",
"dpl9z34",
"dplaz38",
"dplbdy6",
"dplbok2",
"dpldsm4",
"dplgdo9",
"dplmy9y",
"dplpoz1",
"dplxipf"
],
"score": [
6759,
10,
160,
220,
19,
5,
3,
5,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"The little league team you coach just won the big game, and you ask them if they want to go out for pizza or for burgers. Each kid starts screaming their preference, and you go with whatever was the loudest.\n\nThis is basically how a neural net works but on multiple levels. The top-level nodes get some input, each detects a certain property and screams when it sees it...the more intense the property, the louder they scream.\n\nNow you have a bunch of nodes screaming \"it's dark!\", \"it's has red!\", \"it's roundish!\" as various volumes. The next level listens and based on what they hear they start screaming about more complex features. \"It has a face!\", \"It has fur\", until finally get to a level where it is screaming \"It's a kitty!\".\n\nThe magic part is no one tells them when to scream, it is based on feedback. Your little league team went for burgers, and some of them got sick. Next week, they might not scream for burgers, or might not scream as loudly. They have collectively learned that burgers might not have been a great choice, and are more likely to lean away from the option.\n\nA neural net gets training in much the same way. You feed it a bunch of kitty and non-kitty pictures. If the net gets it right, the nodes are reinforced so they are more likely to do the same thing in similar situations. If it is wrong, they get disincentivized. Initially, its results will be near random, but if you have designed it correctly, it will get better and better as the nodes adjust. You often have neural nets that work without any human understanding exactly how.\n\n",
"I'll try and start from a real simple overview-explanation and work my way down to more and more specifics.\nBasically, a Neural Network is a system that is able to learn a complex function from a large set of examples. Let's say you have a couple of thousand pictures of cats and another couple thousand pictures of dogs. Each image has a label, e.g. 'cat' or 'dog', although that would be represented by a number, so cats are -1 and dogs are 1 or whatever. You feed these pictures through the network, which for now is just a black box for us, and it gives you an estimate of what the picture shows. (It spits out a number between -1 and 1, in this simple case.) In the beginning of the training process, the result is going to be random. But the network is punished every time it gives a wrong answer and changes some of its parameters, and gradually, over time, the accuracy improves. After a couple of thousand training iterations (that is, feeding an image in, receiving an answer, punishing/rewarding the network, adjusting parameters) the network has learned to distinguish between images of cats and dogs. \nNow, how does that work?\n\nThe smallest part of a network is a neuron. A neuron is a really basic thing, it takes in a couple of inputs, sums over them and pushes that sum through a nice little function, a sigmoid for example or a ReLU. (You might wanna google these to look at a graph, a sigmoid is just a function that is shaped like an S. It squishes inputs from the real numbers to the interval between 0 and 1, for example) So, for example, five numbers go in and one number comes out. The simplest network you could construct contains only one neuron. This is where the magic happens: before the inputs are summed up, they are weighted, that is, multiplied with some real number. So, for example, our network receives the inputs 4, 5 and 6. Those might be the values of pixels in an image. They might be the height and length of the animal we are trying to classify. They might be < insert other example here > , doesn't matter, its just data. 4 is multiplied by -1.3, 5 is multiplied by 2.1, 6 is multiplied by 0.4. (You might be asking where those weights come from, I'll get to that in a minute) Now, we sum over those weighted inputs and push that through a sigmoid, out comes another number. In a really simple network with only one neuron, that number would already be the networks output: something close to 1 for a dog, something close to -1 for a cat. In more complex networks, the output of this neuron would be the input to the next neuron, in the next layer. There can be millions of neurons in large, complex state-of-the-art networks.\n\nThe important point to take home is: numbers are multiplied and summed up, the result is squished and then fed forward to the next layer. This is why this process is called feed forward. \n\nBut I promised to explain where the weights come from. Truth is: In the beginning, those are random numbers. Which explains why the output of those networks in the early stages is pure garbage. The interesting thing is how those weights are adapted, and for that we use an algorithm that is called backpropagation. What basically happens is that the output of the network is compared to the actual label of the image (or data point, to be more general). So, we calculate the error that the system made. That error is propagated back through the layers, and those weights that are responsible for the error are adjusted. (To be even more specific, ELIlikemath or so: The weights span a vector space called the weight surface. We can use calculus to relate the error that the system makes to the constellation of weights. There is a combination of weights that leads to the smallest possible error, and that combination of weights corresponds to a valley in the high dimensional vector space. We can calculate the gradient of the network function to walk downhill in that vector space)\n\nDepending on how the neurons are connected in the network, we give it a different name. What I just described is just a Multilayer Perceptron, MLP for short, the vanilla version. More complex version are Convolutional Neural Networks, CNNs, and Recurrent Neural Networks, RNNs. I am no expert on RNNs, the basic idea is that it is possible for information to flow through the network backwards as well, I think.\n\nEdit: added paragraphs, was not aware of the fact that you have to add a blank line",
"Let me give this a try.\n\nNeural networks are a computing architecture inspired by biological brains, although they are not an exact replica.\n\nThe brain is a network of connected cells called neurons. Each neuron takes input from other neurons. If the signal from all of the input neurons is strong enough, then it fires and sends its own signal to downstream neurons. Brains learn by creating and destroying connections between neurons, and altering the strength of existing connections.\n\nNeural networks are simpler than biological neurons, but they are inspired by the same principle. A neural network takes input in the form of numerical data. It passes that input through multiple layers of neurons. Each neuron adds up the input from the layer above it, and sends its own output to the layer below. Eventually the last layer in the stack produces an output.\n\nThe network learns by a process called back-propagation. To train a network, you show it samples of input, and the matching samples of output. Back-propagation alters the strength of connections between individual neurons so as to reduce the error between the sample output (\"what the output should have been\") and the actual output that the network produced when it saw the sample input.\n\nAfter many, many such training iterations, the network may have configured its connections (or \"weights\") so that it is able to make meaningful correspondences between inputs and outputs.\n\nAs a simple example, a neural network might learn to recognize cows by looking at a series of pictures. Some of those pictures are cows and some are not. The pictures are turned into numbers (pixel by pixel) and passed into the top layer. The output from the bottom layer will have a signal strength that is interpreted as \"yes, cow\" or \"no, not cow\". If the network got it right or wrong, the connections that helped/hurt the conclusion are strengthened/weakened accordingly.\n\nA recurrent neural network (RNN) is the same concept, with one extension. The neurons don't just process the input coming from the layer above, but also connect back to themselves so that they have a way to \"remember\" their prior states and prior input. There are various specialized neurons such as long short-term memories (LSTMs), gated recurrent units (GRUs), etc that accomplish this in fairly sophisticated ways. \n\nHope this helps? Happy to explain in vastly more detail any part that you like. I realize this answer isn't literally meant for a five year old but I hope it's accessible to most non-technical adults.\n",
"The current top analogy is so unrelated to neural networks that it doesn't help, so let me try expand on it:\n\nImagine someone is looking at an object, like a cat. They write down lots of traits that the object has - for example, \"four legs\", \"furry\", \"brown\", \"has whiskers\", etc. Now let's say you want to make a machine that, when given that list, will figure out what the object is. \n\nThe simplest way to make that machine is obvious: make a list of qualities for every object in the world, and then have the machine check which of those lists matches the one you just wrote for that cat. It'd work, but obviously this is far too much work to do. So you think \"Hey, a lot of these objects have a lot in common - why do I need to make separate lists for each one?\"\n\nSo instead, you have lots of smaller machines that only asks one question. For example, a machine that checks \"Is this an animal?\", and it'll see if \"is breathing\" or \"has a heartbeat\" or such are on the list, and say \"Yes, this is an animal\". And then there's another machine that checks \"Is this a mammal\", and that'll ask the animal-checking machine for if it's an animal and then check the list for \"has hair\". Some machines would only check the list, and some would ask many other machines for their answers, and some would do both. And eventually, just from machines-asking-machines-asking-machines, you have a final machine that answers with \"Yes, this is a cat\".\n\n...Of course, even making those smaller machines is still too much work for categorising every object in the world, so instead you try have it build itself - using random guesses for what the categories should be - until you end up with a working system. This can result in crazy smaller machines, like one that might ask \"Does it have two legs, two arms, and nose hair longer than 3.5cm?\", but it should overall work fairly similar to the cat-detecting model I just talked about.\n\nRight, now as for Recurrent Neural Networks, it's pretty simple: it's exactly the same as what I just said, but where smaller machines can also ask questions from the *previous* list's answers. For example, in voice recognition, one machine might go the \"It is/isn't an 'ow' sound\" machine and instead ask \"Was the *previous* thing he said an 'ow' sound?\".\n\n(The one thing I didn't mention is that most small machines would actually have answers in a probability rather than yes/no, but that's not true for all neural networks.)",
"The insight behind neural networks is that if you take a bunch of simple equations that each do a tiny little bit of processing (like adding up the results of other equations and tweaking the value based on its size), and you stack enough of them together, they can do pretty much anything you want. You just need to find the right \"settings\" or \"weights\" for them so they do the specific thing you want instead of something else.\n\nWe've discovered special rules that let us take the output values we want and the input values we want and adjust the math in between to make the whole network more likely to produce the desired output when it's fed the desired input. Repeating this over many input-output examples eventually leads the network to \"generalize\" - i.e. to capture the structure of the information so well that it can work on inputs it hasn't seen before. \n\nA \"neural network\" is just a big stack of these simple equations that have been tuned using one of these special rules to map a particular set of input and output examples together. Once it's \"trained\" in this manner, it can be used on new examples to do useful work without needing human judgement. \n\nAn RNN (or recurrent neural network) is simply an extension of this, where the network is solving a problem that takes place over many steps, so many copies of the network are initialized in sequence, each being fed some information from the past copy like a colossal game of telephone, letting it preserve some \"memories\" from the past and make multiple outputs before stopping. \n\nAs an example, you can use an RNN to generate text. If you feed it text one letter at a time, and train it to predict the next letter of the text, it'll eventually get pretty good at it: it'll \"remember\" some information about the letters that came before, and use that context to make a guess at the next letter. Once it's trained, you can feed it its own output as input (basically telling it \"you were right\" after each guess) and it'll happily spit out line after line of text that structurally resembles the text it was trained on. \n\n",
"A neural network is a set of mathematical operations that maps a set of inputs to a set of outputs. They are useful because they can map _any_ set of inputs to _any_ set of outputs. The really interesting thing is that the \"weights\" of the network, which define how the inputs get transformed as they move through the set of computations, are adjustable. This means that you can take the outputs predicted by a network with one set of weights, compare them to the outputs it _should_ have given you, and then intelligently adjust the weights to get closer to the right answer next time. With enough repetitions of that process, you can \"train\" a neural network to do pretty incredible things, simply by showing it enough of the right data.\n\nAn RNN is a special type of neural network called a \"Recurrent Neural Network.\" A regular neural network can map one set of inputs to one set of outputs, and then it is done. An RNN takes the outputs from one \"time step,\" or one prediction, and feeds it back into the network along with the data for the next prediction. This gives it the ability to \"remember\" things it has seen recently in the context of new inputs. In other words, a regular neural network might be able to look at a picture and tell you whether there is a cat in it or not. An RNN could look at a series of pictures from a movie and tell you what the cat is doing in them.",
"ill try and eli5 this.\n\nbasically neural networks are ways to solve problems by recognizing patterns.\n\nso suppose i want to solve an addition problem.\n\n i can write a series of steps like you may you have learned. write the numbers one on top of each other. start at the right and add down. carry 1s if the result is more than 10... that is a definite way to solve it and you get the exact answer.\n\nnow some problems are really hard to write down such an exact method. things like identifying things in pictures.\n\nso you can use a neural network to figure out a pattern which can give you an answer. it maybe not be correct. but it tries. so you train the neural net with a bunch of inputs and correct outputs and it tries to learn the pattern.\n\ngoing back to the addition example. youd feed it data like.\n1+1 = 2\n3+4 =7\n100 + 200 = 300\n...\n\n\nthe more samples you give it to learn the better chance it has of a good answer. also the bigger the neural net (nodes) the better chance of a good answer\n\nsuppose i just gave it the 3 values above to train on.\nthen i asked it what is 50 + 10\n\nit might come up with the answer 100. its not correct, but its not a bad estimate.\n\n\n\n\n",
"I'm going to try for an actual ELI5-level answer... artificial neural networks (or ANNs) are magic boxes that are full of magic numbers. These boxes have the following properties:\n\n1.) They take some numerical inputs and give some numerical outputs\n\n2.) They know how wrong their output is (\"error\")\n\n3.) Based on their error, they know roughly which direction each of their magic numbers should be adjusted to be less wrong\n\nAlthough these properties are actually the result of fairly straightforward algebra and calculus, neural networks can be surprisingly powerful for certain problems, especially when a bunch of them are stacked on top of one another (this is a \"deep\" neural network and does \"deep learning\"). \n\nRNNs (recurrent neural networks) are the same as vanilla ANNs, except that they care about the order and context of their inputs. This makes them good for things like text processing (a regular ANN wouldn't care about the difference between \"the quick brown fox jumped over the lazy dog\" and \"the quick brown dog jumped over the lazy fox\"). \n\nThe name and \"biologically-inspired\" label are sort of misleading... ANNs used to be called weighted matrices (and a lot of other things) a long time before they were associated with anything biological. It was only after we found out that they were particularly good at many of the same kinds of problems brains are (particularly vision and speech-related tasks) that we started calling them \"neural networks\". Also because it sounds cool.",
"Imagine you needed to write a program that would model the relationship between a temperature in Celsius and a temperature in Fahrenheit given a set of example conversions. Well that's easy because the relationship between the two is linear, you can just find where it intercepts 0 and what rate at which one increases with the other and plug it into y = mx +c. You can in fact model any linear relationship with that equation, as can you model parabolic relationship with y = ax^2 + bx +c, and as you go to further degrees you can model more and more complex relationships, but it gets harder and harder to intuitively find the values a, b, and c, etc etc for however many variables you want to introduce.\n\nThis is where learning algorithms come in; using enough data points and maths, you can model extremely complex systems with just one massive equation and thousands of dollars in hardware, electricity, and time to compute the constant values.\n\nFirst things first, we need to solve the problem that the y = ax^1 + bx^2 + cx^3 ... form of equations only have one input and output, X and Y. And complex systems might need many inputs and outputs, so we use matrices!, if we allow the input values to be matrices, you also allow the output values to be matrices, and therefor give many values out, matrix multiplication allowing you to multiply two matrices together and get a different shaped matrix, taking you from as many inputs as you like, to as many outputs as you like.\n\nNeural networks use a different form of equations, based, incredibly loosely, on neurons in the brain, but let's completely ignore that right now, basically the form is & delta;(A * W + B), which is Activations times Weights plus Bias, then you get the result, and call the function again with the output of the last call as the new Activations.\n\nSo our formula looks like this & delta;( & delta;( & delta;( & delta;(A) * W1 + B1) * W2 + B2) * W3 + B3), and you can nest as far down as you like, I'm ignoring most of the maths, but what I will tell you is that if you have a large enough W matrix (w is a matrix remember) and you nest enough levels deep, this formula has been proven to be able to **approximate** *any* function, so if you can find the values for every element inside matrices W_1 to W_n, and the biases, you can essentially do anything. But of course, as we mentioned earlier, the more values you have to find, the harder finding those values becomes. Luckily we have now have a learning algorithm, known as backpropogation that will find these values for you, using calculus.\n\nI hope that helped, and if it helped, there might be something wrong with you.",
"**Actual ELI5:** You know those stupid captchas? They have you select boxes--which ones have signs, which ones have trees, etc. By looking at them, you know which ones to select. Even if you could only see what's in each box individually, you would be able to figure out pretty well whether or not there's a tree there because we've seen trees before (training data). So, let's say we have an image and we know what trees look like, even when we can only see a little box of the image. Now, we have a new picture. We start off with a teeny tiny box--not sure, but we've learned something. Then, we get bigger boxes over the entire image--we've learned a little more. There's something that looks textured like bark, something that could be a leaf. Even a larger box now--okay, we can tell that those are clusters of leaves and here's an entire branch. Now we know it's a tree.\n\nLet's say that now, we have a video. We figured out that the picture is of a tree, but now we want to know if the next frame also has a tree. If you're smart, you think \"of course!\" not that much can change from frame to frame. So we look at the next picture in the video and do the process over again, except this time, we know, \"hey, this box said it had bark texture or a leaf shape last time\" and we can figure out if it's the same this time.\n\n.\n\n.\n\n.\n\nIf you want the tedious explanation: \n\n**Neural Nets:** an input (images, a sentence, etc.) goes into a series of nodes in hidden layers, which output what you want (yes/no, things that are discrete - classification, a regression - possibilities, various values, etc.). What happens in the hidden layers, broadly, is that in the first layers, features are made by some mathematical process. Further layers would generalize upon features, getting more and more abstract. A NN can be as small as 3 layers (input -- > hidden -- > output) or larger like what you see with CNNs.\n\nCNNs are a specific kind of NN that use convolutions of different sizes (matrix size) and strides (how far each convolution occurs from one another). Imagine a convolution as a box going over an image--it can be 5x5 pixels big or 25x25 pixels big or 2x2 pixels big and move over 1 pixel at a time or 20 pixels at a time. Each of these decisions end up affecting what features are output. There are other parameters to tune like learning rate (how fast things are learned--too fast and one bad training example can screw you up, too slow and it just takes forever to get a functioning CNN), momentum, weights, etc.\n\nIn networks, everything is initialized randomly. Then, as training data goes in, each layer of nodes gets their numbers changed by these mathematical processes. Epochs are how many times you run your training data through, you do it until you reach a plateau, which you can determine by the validation accuracy plateau-ing (95% would be good, but if you plateau at 30%, you know you need to fix something--you don't just keep training and hope it gets better).\n\n**Reccurent Neural Networks:** These are particularly useful for things like sentences and videos, where what comes before and after are important. This is a broad area, so I'm not going to explain each one. RNNs are basically just NNs where the input data is not only your training data, but also what the output of previous/posterior nodes has been. There's a feedback loop connecting it to past decisions so that those are carried forward. The issue with these are that there are so many operations--you know how 2^10 = 1024, but 2^20 = 1048576. Imagine that, but on a huge scale, where the values of these nodes can quickly explode to huge numbers or vanish to near-zero. The following is supposed to solve that issue.\n\nLSTMs are a specific RNN that can learn long-term dependencies. We have a list (cell): they figure out which information we want to throw away from the list (forget gate) and what we want to add based on input data (input gate), and then update the list. As you run through it, some old bullet points of the list still make it through and some new ones are there too. But, how much the new items influence your list depends on a parameter you set. The gates start to learn how much data is supposed to flow and what should flow the way CNNs learn feature detectors.\n\nHow does this solve numbers exploding or vanishing? It does so by adding functions instead of multiplying. So if one of your numbers is smaller or larger, it's no(t as big of a) biggie. \n\nSource: PhD student, this is my area. I can expand on more, but I figure things would get too long and I skipped over things like backpropagation and gradient because I figured the layperson wouldn't care. I got lazier and lazier...so the latter is a lot less specific, sorry!",
"[These videos provide a decent introduction to neural nets in general](_URL_0_) (I'm not sure if the series is complete or if he'll go into further details in future videos)"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aircAruvnKk&list=PLZHQObOWTQDNU6R1_67000Dx_ZCJB-3pi"
]
]
|
||
6kgwn0 | Why has Linear B been deciphered but not Linear A? | If Linear B is an adaption of Linear A why has deciphering Linear A eluded us? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kgwn0/why_has_linear_b_been_deciphered_but_not_linear_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"djm90iy"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You must understand both the writing system and the language(s) in order to claim a decipherment. Most successful decipherments are based on bilingual or trilingual inscriptions (e.g. cuneiform, Egyptian hieroglyphs, and the Cypriot Syllabary) or knowledge of the underlying language(s) (e.g. Linear B and Maya hieroglyphs). In cases where one has neither, such as Linear A, Cypro-Minoan, and the Indus script, decipherment may prove impossible.\n\nLinear B has been deciphered successfully because the language was identified (Mycenaean Greek), and scholars were able to understand words based on their knowledge of Greek. For example, a-ku-ro corresponds to Greek ἄργυρος (\"silver\") and pa-te is instantly recognizable as Greek πατήρ (\"father\"). \n\nThe language of Linear A, however, has not yet been identified, and the grammar and lexicon therefore remains elusive. It's as if someone who speaks French picked up a book written in Hungarian. Since Hungarian uses a modified version of the Latin alphabet, the French speaker would understand the letters of each word and perhaps even be able to read them out loud more or less accurately. The meaning of the text, however, would be incomprehensible without learning Hungarian. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
d5yqjy | In medieval Europe, how common would it have been for non-nobility to own weapons or have access to them? | As the title states, would it have been possible for your average peasant, artisan, etc, to own weapons like a sword or spear? Was this a common practice and was their ever anything similar to a modern 2nd amendment put in place? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d5yqjy/in_medieval_europe_how_common_would_it_have_been/ | {
"a_id": [
"f0ufse4"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"'Middle Ages' are generally understood as a period of almost 1000 years, so the subject is quite complex. In the following entry I'll limit myself to High and Late Middle Ages, focusing on Germany, Poland and England.\n\nIn general, weapon ownership was quite common. There were no rules preventing anyone from possessing any kind of weapon or armour and anyone could have commissioned any type of weapon at the local craftsman, provided the latter was able to make it (your average rural blacksmiths were usually able to make a spear tip, but not a high-quality sword) and the customer could have afforded the commission, what was not always a given, as peasants had relatively little money to spend, especially in earlier part of the Middle Ages when the weapons and armour were relatively more expensive than in 14th or 15th century. In short, every free man had an access to weapons, although some could not have afforded most of them. With the low social mobility and relatively small size of the settlements, people living in a city district or a village were usually forming a well-knit community, where people knew and often helped each other, as the well-being of community was directly tied to their self-interest.\n\nIn many cases such possession was actually required by law, though. For example, English Assizes of Arms require each free tenant to have a specified weapons and pieces of armour, depending on their wealth. The Assize of Arms of 1181 issued in the name of Henry II stipulates that '*every burgher and every freeman shall have a gambeson, an iron hat and a spear*' what was a bare minimum for all free people (although 'burgher or freeman' usually meant the head of the family), while 'those who have possessions or rents worth at least 16 marks shall have an armour, a helmet, a shield, and a lance'. Clergymen were generally exempt from all such considerations. Assize of Arms of 1242 issued in the name of Henry III stated that '*the citzens, burghers, free tenants, villeins and others aged 15 to 60 should convene and their be assessed what they should bear in accordance to their land and property, to wit: whoever possesses land worth 15 pounds - one armour, iron hat, sword, knife and horse* \\[...\\] *(who possesses) less than 10 marks but more than 40 shillings - falxes, knives, guisarmes and other small arms*' (this section contains ten different wealth classes, I included only first and last for brevity's sake). Given that 40 shillings was a relatively small amount of money when applied to personal wealth, it meant that even relatively poor people were expected to have some form of military weapon, with the wording giving assumption that it was supposed to mean 'any weapon one can afford', including common tools, such as axes or hammers. Enea Piccolomini, later Pope Pius II, who had served as a pastor in several German states noted in 1444 that every 'respectable household', no matter whether rich or poor, was armed adequately to the means available and that Germans show high skill in using said weapons.\n\nIn medieval cities, the defense forces were primarily composed of the militia, and thus the edicts of the city councils often required the burghers to possess weapons. This was usually limited to people possessing a real estate withing the city walls, but the required equipment could have been quite costly (although not excessively so). For example, according to the edict issued by the city council of Wroclaw in 1290, every owner of a real estate within a city should possess 'bow or crossbow) while a Prussian land regulation of 1410 required all Prussian burghers to possess equipment composed at least of mail shirt, breastplate, kettle hat, plate gauntlets and a crossbow. Those who were found to not possess the required equipment were subject to a fine (although one could not borrow their weapons and armour under penalty of confiscation and additional fine). Control was usually conducted by the city councilmen and high-ranking craft representatives (owners of the real estate in a city were largely craftsmen or merchants united in craft organizations). An interesting thing is that some Polish cities required citizens to actively train in the art of shooting (e.g. prince Bolko of Świdnica issued such law in 1286) with shooting contests being a common occurrence, much like in contemporary England renowned for its archers. In 14th and 15th century, winners of such competitions often were either provided with new weapons and armours or were given a monetary equivalent if the already possessed them.\n\nNow, people were able to possess weapons, but in cities they were generally not allowed to carry. Specific regulations varied from place to place, but in German cities in 14th and 15th century councils usually forbade carrying of all 'swords and long knives'\\* either at all or only after dusk, usually under penalty of weapon confiscation on top of a relatively small monetary fine or a jail time of several days. Carrying any form of weapon (even a dagger or a knife) into a church or to any formal meeting (e.g. that of craftsmen in a guildhouse) was often strictly prohibited.\n\n\\*A city council edict issued in 1394 in Koenigsberg stated that no burgher is allowed to carry a knife longer than one ell within the city walls (we also need to remember that German word 'messer' could have meant either a common, table knife, or a large weapon, essentially a short sword)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6yi2we | how do people spend billions of dollars on water? | I was looking at a Google webpage that lists various charities, one of which was World Vision. They say $1 = 3 months of clean water for 1 child. So if you were to look at that on a macro scale that would be $4 billion a year to provide clean water to 1 billion children. Why does water cost so much, who is making money off the sale of water, and how do they come by owning water to begin with? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6yi2we/eli5_how_do_people_spend_billions_of_dollars_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmniypr",
"dmnj03h",
"dmnjb2s"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"That is incredibly cheap, $4 for a whole year of clean water. How could it be cheaper?\n\nThe costs are mainly for digging wells and installing pumps -- and then filters if the water isn't clean.\n\nIf you don't mind your water dirty and 50 feet underground, can have it for free.",
"Purifying packaging and transporting water is where the costs come from. Bottled water is popular here becauae its convenient and we can afford it. It's a necessity in places without potable sources and infrastrcture.",
"Water doesn't cost much. Potable water being clean of bacteria, viruses, harmful chemicals is expensive relatively. Take a bucket of water from a pond and drink it, you'll most likely get sick. Probably get some new work friends in your stomach as well.\n\nTreating a million gallons of water is no small engineering feat. You need to build a water treatment plant and keep it staffed and maintained. In established countries, this is paid by the government who is in term paid by the citizens. My water bill paid to my county is about $40 a month. There's almost a million people in my county. So that's a monthly operating budget of $40 mil for the public works department. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
5jyk9t | why do people who are going to be executed not put up a fight when they know they are going to die either way? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5jyk9t/eli5_why_do_people_who_are_going_to_be_executed/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbjxqos",
"dbjzb5i",
"dbjzboh"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
11
],
"text": [
"Unless you've been captured by a terrorist group/drug cartel, most executions are made quick and painless out of respect. If you put up a big fight, your captor is more likely to make you regret it by torturing you and/or killing you slowly. ",
"you see the execution. you didn't see the entire month before when they'd be beaten senseless non stop, starved, humiliated, and tortured",
"By the same logic, why would you fight? It's not going to change the outcome. Might as well make your own death quick and painless instead of making it a struggle by fighting."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1x1jdt | Did dinosaurs actually roar or is it just a construct of movies to make them scarier? | I'm just thinking about reptiles in general, and none of them really make any noise (except frogs but we all know they're amphibians, come on). It makes me think that all the dinosaur sounds in Jurassic Park probably didn't exist. Any dinosaur experts know if they had noise-making abilities? The talking dinosaurs in Land Before Time doesn't count as proof. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1x1jdt/did_dinosaurs_actually_roar_or_is_it_just_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cf7h85x",
"cf7hmel",
"cf7okra",
"cf7p8ct",
"cf7ryzp",
"cf84ccu"
],
"score": [
48,
3115,
28,
8,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Dr. David Weishampel did a study of lambeosaurine skulls includin CT scanning that seemed to indicate they made a deep bellowing, horn-like noise. I remember an undergraduate course I took where a video was played that used a computer simulation to produce the expected sound of various dinosaurs based on the acoustic properties of their skulls, necks and chest cavities that mirrored that result. ",
"You're on the right track in looking at living species to infer what extinct dinosaurs may have sounded like. We can explore traits that wouldn't preserve in the fossil record using [phylogenetic bracketing](_URL_12_). However, you're off on which species to look at.\n\nBasically, we look at related animals on [either side of the tree](_URL_0_) from the organism we're interested in, and if those animals possess a trait then it was probably present in the common ancestor of all those animals, so the organism we're interested in most likely does as well. This works pretty well for extinct dinosaurs, because [birds are living theropod dinosaurs](_URL_7_) and crocs are [archosaurs](_URL_3_) that fall outside of Dinosauria. Traits that both crocs and birds possess are likely ancestral to all archosaurs and therefore would be present in dinosaurs unless they were secondarily lost.\n\nCrocodylians are surprisingly [vocal](_URL_6_) - and social, in fact. Just like we've made assumptions about dinosaurs, we've made assumptions about crocs. They are more like birds than we give them credit for. But I digress! Crocs do roar and [bellow](_URL_11_) using their larynx. They also hiss, and their bellows actually have a subaudible component to them. The wavelength of these subaudible sounds corresponds to the distance between the keels on their scutes, creating the \"water dance\" they use in their mating ritual (and the dancing water is made up of [Faraday waves](_URL_1_)).\n\nMost of birds' unique vocal abilities are due to a [syrinx](_URL_10_), which is an organ that sits at the base of the trachea. It's not the same thing as a larynx; it's a different organ. Birds do have a larynx, but the degree to which they can vocalize with it is limited (and poorly understood). Not all birds have a syrinx. No New World vultures (like turkey vultures) do, so they're limited to grunts and hisses. \n\nThe syrinx of songbirds is extremely complex, allowing for the wide variety of sounds. Birds make [a ton of vocalizations](_URL_2_), from hisses to warbles to squawks. Some [can haz cheeseburger](_URL_4_).\n\nWe know that not all dinosaurs had a syrinx; it evolved at some point in theropods. It's present in all bird groups, so it was likely present in their common ancestor. It seems to rely on the [presence of an airsac in the clavicle or collarbone](_URL_5_) (sorry, paywall), which is part of a system of air sacs connected to the lungs of many reptiles. As far as we can tell that clavicular airsac first arises in [enantiornithines](_URL_8_), which are dinosaurs that are so birdlike that they're generally just called birds.\n\nEarlier non-avian dinosaurs probably vocalized more like crocs than birds, but of course their morphology was quite different. Some animals like *Parasaurolophus* had weird hollow chambers that might have [been used for vocalizations](_URL_9_). Given the amount of diversity we see in the sounds modern archosaurs can make, and the variation we have in extinct dinosaurs, there was probably a great variety in vocalizations. However, we have no way to test for that in most fossil species.\n",
"[How Jurassic Park's Dino SFX were made](_URL_0_)\n\n* Raptors = Hissing goose + Tortoise sex noises + horse\n* T-rex = Jack Russell terrier + baby elephant\n* Brachiosaurus = Pitch shifted donkey sounds\n* Triceratops = Cows",
"There is ample evidence that duck-bill dinosaurs at the least were able to make impressively loud honking noises. In addition, behavior is just as important (perhaps more so) than comparative anatomy. Flocking and herding species are generally more vocal (and with greater variety in vocalizations) than species which live more solitary lives. While in modern reptiles, grouping appears to be a very recent development (except denning in certain snake species) some groups of dinosaurs quite clearly herded. In such species vocalizations (to keep track of one another, to warn of danger, to call to young, etc.,) are most probably certain. T-rex however was a probably a solitary hunter, and as scent was its primary sense, had little reason to develop calls of any kind and aside from an intensely loud hiss, probably lived a mostly silent life.",
"* [Alligator growl](_URL_5_)\n* [Chameleon hissing](_URL_1_)\n* [Gecko calling](_URL_3_)\n* [Monitor growling](_URL_2_)\n* [Budgett's frog screaming](_URL_4_)\n\nReptiles and amphibians make plenty of sounds. That said, dinosaurs are closer to modern day birds than reptiles.\n\nBut you're right that the sounds from Jurassic Park were specifically engineered to sound terrifying.\n\nIt's also worth pointing out that there's whole families of dinosaurs who have skulls that appear to be shaped to produce complex sounds. Hadrosaurids like the [parasaurolophus](_URL_0_) have skulls full of oddly shaped chambers that appear to work similar like the tubes of brass musical instruments. It's just a theory of course but an interesting one.",
"There are some good answers here, to which I'd just add the following:\n\n1. Being vocal and \"roaring\" are not the same thing. Some people describe certain crocodylian sounds as \"roaring\" but you'd never confuse those noises with what mammals do when they're being loud. The sounds you hear the *T. rex* making in \"Jurassic Park\" are deeply improbable for a couple of reasons:\n - It's way too mammalian, for one thing. Mammals use their diaphragm to push air past their vocal folds and achieve very loud sounds in this way, but more to the point, the character of those sounds is distinctive. And not like what crocs do, even when they are being loud.\n - No animal roars in the situations in which you see the *T. rex* roaring in the movies. Predators do not yell at their prey, or announce their presence ahead of time, but that's typical for movie predators.\n\n2. The work on *Parasaurolophus* and other hollow-crested duckbills was speculative - it addressed the question of what it **might** sound like **if** they pushed sound through those chambers. But there's no real reason to think they did that. And there's good reason to think those chambers were for olfactory enhancement, because the olfactory nerves are actually exposed inside the chambers.\n\n3. If you spend any time in the wild, the one thing you notice is how *quiet* it usually is. In North America, birds are the noisiest things around. Even in Africa, most large mammals are quiet most of the time. So a world of dinosaurs would not have been filled with noise all the time. We like to imagine dramatic animals as having sounded dramatic to human ears, but that's not the point of animal vocalizations.\n\n4. Lastly, we have no idea whether a syrinx appeared at the same time as a clavicular air sac, only that such an air sac is needed for its use today. Conceivably the air sac could have preceded the syrinx by a long time. Pneumaticity in general seems to have evolved quite variably as well, and so any particular air sac (or rather, an air sac in a particular anatomical position) could have evolved more than once within theropods with a basic air-sac system.\n\nAll this to say that yes, dinosaurs were almost certainly vocal. It's quite reasonable to infer they could hiss, grunt, and perhaps bellow. But \"roaring\" like in \"Jurassic Park\" is unlikely, and in the sense it was portrayed perhaps impossible."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://palaeos.com/phylogeny/images/epb.gif",
"http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/alligator-mating-physics/",
"http://people.eku.edu/ritchisong/birdcommunication.html",
"http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/diapsids/archosauria.html",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RTnVvAb3BRk",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08912960903033327",
"http://crocodilian.com/cnhc/croccomm.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lb9q3/are_birds_taxonomically_considered_dinosaurs_or/cby8604/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enantiornithine",
"http://blogs.smithsonianmag.com/dinosaur/2011/02/how-parasaurolophus-set-the-mood/",
"http://www.hearbirds.com/content/syrnx1.htm",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8s_jrCoWQp0",
"http://archosaurmusings.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/the-extant-phylogenetic-bracket/"
],
[
"http://www.vulture.com/2013/04/how-the-dino-sounds-in-jurassic-park-were-made.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.nl/search?q=parasaurolophus&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=TnjyUuGmGM-c0wXKroGIBg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1242&bih=1346#facrc=_&imgdii=_&imgrc=aZdHkCImtW-4TM%253A%3B7mfMMZoVLa6U7M%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fupload.wikimedia.org%252Fwikipedia%252Fcommons%252F1%252F14%252FParasaurolophus_cyrtocristatus.jpg%3Bhttp%253A%252F%252Fen.wikipedia.org%252Fwiki%252FParasaurolophus%3B1980%3B1464",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g1mOfcKR3Mo",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vy70YE_7DU",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lF0gmHAG3cw",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ELCmK-gFAVY",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=t_nChjR23qA"
],
[]
]
|
|
3lz32k | why is it socially acceptable to make as much noise as possible while riding a motorcycle? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lz32k/eli5_why_is_it_socially_acceptable_to_make_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvajjdy",
"cvajo11",
"cval10e",
"cval29g",
"cval782",
"cvall8l",
"cvalqz8",
"cvammhc",
"cvanglx",
"cvanula",
"cvapdg7",
"cvapuyu",
"cvaqog5",
"cvar36j",
"cvasjml",
"cvasmsr",
"cvasobf",
"cvaswmo",
"cvau1sf",
"cvau5ja",
"cvau5xl",
"cvavdu0",
"cvbz3f6"
],
"score": [
875,
9,
2,
117,
10,
84,
15,
17,
59,
24,
132,
3,
3,
9,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's not generally acceptable, if a bike is loud it's because the owner made it that way.\n\nSome m/c groups like to think its a safety device, but in reality it's because they think it sounds cool.",
"Cars can be loud and some are with performance exhaust but it can be expensive. Aftermarket exhaust for a motorcycle is relatively inexpensive and in many cases provides better aesthetics at the same time.\n\nEdit: thanks for pointing out my typo, pretty funny",
"A guarantee that the reader opinion page of some daily newspaper somewhere in the world is covering this topic right now. Loud motorcycles aren't socially acceptable. They're actually socially controversial and they motivate noise bylaws in every city that has noise bylaws. I don't think I could find a more \"complaint from an elderly neighbor\" topic if I tried.\n\ntl,dr: like most ELI5, your premise is fundamentally flawed. Loud motorcycles aren't socially acceptable.",
"They aren't socially accepted. Most everyone bitches about it, except for those who own the same kind of motorcycle. People makes arguments that it's safer. But that is bullshit. Motorcycles get in accidents typically when someone pulls out in front of them. Or when someone switches lanes and the motorcycle is in their blind spot. Both of these scenarios being loud does nothing for the biker. ",
"Social context plays a lot into the acceptance. Tearing down a suburban street on a Harley with straight pipes males you an asshole no matter what, most bike owners try to be as quiet as possible in situations like this but a few bad apples spoil the rest. As far as why, there is the benefit of being heard before you are seen, but the reality for most is its simply more thrilling. The sound of a v-twin or tuned 4 cylinder bike moter, feeling the motor through your body, the wind on your face and smell of the air, it's all part of the experience. Could you imagine silent fireworks? It would be cool but there is something inherently exhilarating about the feeling in your chest you get from the concussion. Loud motorcycles, cars, stereos, guns, they all follow along those same lines...",
"Wow, what shitty responses.\n\nIt's not socially acceptable. There is a reason why South Park made a whole episodes calling Harley riders faggots. Also stock factory mufflers keep these bikes quiet. Even from a legal standpoint, you will get ticketed for noise pollution if your bike is too loud. Don't buy the whole thing about \"loud pipes save lives\" bullshit. The bikes aren't actually that loud when cruising. The issue is apparent when they are at WOT (wide open throttle).\n\nSo the question is, why is it so common? Because the crowd that enjoys bikes is not much different from the crowd that enjoys fast sport's cars with modified exhausts. However, it's a lot cheaper and practical to do it on your bike. It's not just the fact that bikes themselves are cheaper. They are also cheaper to modify. Not to mention they are primarily weekend \"toys\" where it makes more sense to make it obnoxious over your single daily car.",
"They CLAIM it's so that people in cars can hear them and avoid hitting them. They are typically the same people that, if they do own a car, it has a bumper sticker prominently featured that says, \"Look Twice Save A Life\" even though most of them don't even bother wearing helmets or any protective gear at all and demonstrate no interest whatsoever in taking precautionary steps to save their own lives, as they feel that responsibility belongs to everyone else on the road.\n\nIt's like how gun nuts say they own it for protection when they really own it because they like guns. These bikers don't have loud bikes to improve safety, they have it because they like being louder than everyone else and getting attention for it, even if it's negative attention.",
"As a long time motorcyclist I agree loud exhaust pipes as a safety measure is ridiculous. If the riders want to be really safe, they would wear brightly colored leather or high tech clothes, not dress in black and jeans, have bikes that are maneuverable rather than the heavy rolling death traps they ride. I live in the mountains with lots of sharp turns. Lots of those big heavy Harley's don't make the turns, not because of excessive speed, but because of poor handling characteristics. And if they want to be safe, how about not drinking and driving. Sorry, but really, why not enforce the noise ordnances. My Mom sold her home in Florida because of the incredible motorcycle exhaust noise as bikers accelerated to go over a bridge near her home. A BMW or Honda was barely noticeable. It is really annoying, but the folks that have those loud bikes know that and enjoy annoying people and animals -why else would they do it other than herd mentality. Rant officially ended-that is all. ",
"I just want to know why a Harley can tear down a quiet subdivision at 3am but I get a ticket for excessive noise if the cop can hear my car stereo. ",
"Wow, really, you need this explained? The reason some motorcyclists make a lot of noise is *because* it isn't socially acceptable. That's the point: they're outlaws, misfits, anti-social, et cetera et cetera.",
"The police seem to look the other way for bikes, but if a car was that loud, you'd get a noise ordinance ticket. \n\nAnd what's up with Harley guys at stop lights? They just keep reving their engine like it will die if they don't. ... Will it die if they don't? Because it's really annoying and it makes their bike look like a piece of shit that has to work *really* hard just to stay running. ",
"I live on a hill, a block above an underpass, where people love to rev their bikes/cars as they pass under. It makes me so fucking ragey, especially at 1 in the morning. \n\nThis doesn't provide anything relevant to the topic. I just fucking hate it. That's all. ",
"I drive a motorcycle myself and don't understand this. My motorcycle has a nice sound to it, but I don't rev it more than I have to. This weekend there was a bike gathering that I did not know of outside the local harley shop and a multi bike brand shop. I passed the crowd and parked in the far end where you had to drive in to the parking lot. When I came out again, there was a Harley dude pulling out to the street and he reved the Harley all he could the couple of hundred feet there was to the roundabout. I can't understand how the person on the bike probably had a feeling of accomplishment after doing this.",
"Right before I read this a motorcycle came tearing down my quiet side street spewing a deafening roar that could tear through the very fabric of reality. Sure, it got me really pissed off having to hear that while relaxing in my house, but at least the whole neighborhood stopped what they were doing to receive a nice ear raping! As he weaves in and out of traffic with a total disregard for other cars, he can rest assured that we are feeling a terrible twisting sensation in our stomach and fighting the urge to punch their stupid face in. He didn't stop at merely being audible, this fudge-tard felt that the crew of the ISS needed to be aware that he was coming through and outfitted his hog with a sustained Horn of Valere, so he could make sure he was even pissing off the dead heroes of ages past! \n\nI get that you want your bike to be loud enough that people are aware of you, especially when some bikers drive like douches through traffic the way they do. But it gets to the point of absolute absurdity with the level of sound some of these bikes put out and then drive by my house at any time; day or night. At this point they are just ignoring everyone around them and being self-centered scumbags who don't give any consideration to those around them in the least bit. Find some other way to get attention which doesn't involve forcing your presence on me and my family in the most abrasive audible manner possible.",
"The people who chose to forgo the customary steel cage when flying down the highway amongst similarly equipped travelers (some of whom are texting) would like you to pay special attention to them because the lack of a steel cage makes them especially killable and they choose to behave like obnoxious children to help with that. ",
"It's not. Most of us hate the guys that rip around like morons one gear too high or that obnoxious pipe. Harley riders are the worst. I choose not to associate with them.\n\n/crotchrocket rider",
"Girl Harley rider here. I will say from experience, \"Loud pipes save lives\" is a legit thing. I have lived in three major cities and it's essential to be heard in dense traffic with a bunch of Priuses trying to kill you. I can't tell you how often I've thankfully been seen because I was heard first. \n\nHowever, you can get nice middle-ground sound without being an asshole. It also helps if you're not an asshole to begin with.... ",
"There are very few actual answers here, so I'll give it a shot. \n\nMotorcyclists are generally much more into their bikes than a car driver is into their car. Motorcyclists are more likely to modify their bikes because their bikes are a much larger aspect in their lives than a car drivers car, generally speaking. They like to have their own spin on whatever they do, like all people. \n\nMotorcycles generally come with quiet exhausts and because slip-ons are so easy to use and motorcycle exhaust systems aren't very complicated anyway, it is one of the first points of modification. There is a modicum of truth to \"Loud Pipes save Lives\" in that a person is more likely to hear something than see it as our hearing has a 360 degree range and our sight is near 180 degrees on the best of days, focused field of view is really much smaller than that but it is difficult to test at my desk. That being said, pretty much all motorcycles come with stock exhausts that are plenty loud enough to be heard by a motorist. Some 250's are very quiet and there is some argument to be made there, but even if you ran a 250 with no exhaust at all it wouldn't be too bad, like a lawn mower really. \n\nWhen you get down to it, if people are into vehicle modifications, specifically exhaust, they will have a loud vehicle. The fact that there is not a single rider in the United States that doesn't love riding coupled with the super duper ease of Exhaust mods on bikes makes for loud bikes most of the time. If you leave your bike alone it will be perfectly civilized 100 percent of the time. \n\nUnless it is a dual sport, those always sound like turds but I love them so. \n\n\nEdit: I forgot to mention, the noise limit is actually quite high, in PA it is 82 dB for motorcycles, which is the sound level you'd expect at a concert, a rowdy concert. ",
"While lane splitting the louder bike gets noticed more. Or just at lights, intersections.\n\nNo one looks for bikes, but if they hear you, they may look out for you\n\nYou run the risk of startling people of it's too loud or scary.\n\nI have a Harley and it is a bit loud but I usually coast down my street in neutral to cut it off early and be respectful. I never rev it at intersections sitting still. Where I will give it some noise is when someone starts creeping into my lane or someone starts making a turn, someone cuts me off, someone opens their door etc. my horn doesn't make any noise. I hate guys who rev bikes at stop lights. Most are just trying to get attention. Some are doing it to keep their bike running because it has a low idle and will stall otherwise. ",
"I used to work at a Harley dealership. I hated it when some douche got new pipes and would sit outside revving it for 10 minutes. My bike is louder than most and I don't do that. \n \nI built my bike from the ground up. I have a big engine and straight pipes because who buys aftermarket pipes with mufflers? I don't even know if you can. I also noticed that nobody runs me off the road anymore. ",
"Most responses ITT miss OP's point entirely by simplistically joining the circle-jerk and saying \"it's not acceptable!\" \n\nBut it is acceptable... At least, *relative* to how acceptable it is for cars. So you asked quite a fair question, and are deserving of real answers. Here you go:\n\n~motorcyclists have a rebellious image, much like smokers. They know what they are doing is dangerous, and they don't care because they're so cool. Sort of like how smokers are mostly too cool to not litter their butts. Acting like you don't give a shit goes with the image, and society expects that from \"bikers.\"\n\n~due to the aforementioned danger, bikes tend to attract more youthful and less-responsible people. This means that on average, bikers are less likely to pressure each other to conform to the rules of polite society. I would absolutely ridicule an adult peer for modding out his car, but I don't think my teenage son would do the same.\n\n~bikes are much cheaper than cars. Cheaper things are usually owned by younger/poorer people, which correlates to nonconformism.\n\n~bikes are easier to customize. Switching a bike exhaust takes probably a quarter the work and equipment as a car.\n\n~bike exhaust and emissions systems are decades behind cars in terms of complexity, since they're a smaller target for smog control legislation. Cars have gotten VERY complex with computer controls, whereas by comparison, Ducati didn't even introduce *fuel injection* until after the year 2000. My point being, removing the emissions system from a new Volkswagon is waaaay more illegal than doing it to a Harley.\n\n~motorcycles are by design, far more powerful for their size than car engines. It's not unusual to get twice as much power per liter from a sport bike engine compared to a modern car. For that reason, bike engines are genuinely straining harder than your accord's, and making more noise is more natural for them.\n",
"I love the low iqs who rev their bikes over & over at red lights. We know you aren't cleaning. You are a loser begging for the little attention you can force others to barely give to you. No one is impressed. ",
"I can only post from my experience. I'm a younger guy and ride a Suzuki SV650S with an aftermarket exhaust. One of the reasons I need a loud bike is so when I'm on the interstate, the dumbass on his phone texting/talking is able to hear me roar by as I'm revving and shifting up. Sure, at highway speeds with the windows down he might not be able to hear me, but it's better than the giant tin can I had on my bike previously.\n\nOther reasons are performance and reducing weight, as well as aesthetics. I'm in a college town so people are always on their phone talking/texting/listening to music. They might not hear my weak horn, but they'll hear my exhaust.\n\nIt also cut off probably 15-20lbs of weight off my bike by removing the factory muffler and I haven't had any issues with inspections or noise complaints. Most of the other guys I ride with that have crotch rockets also have some sort of aftermarket exhaust or another, and that's even the case with some cruisers we ride with. Thankfully, no obnoxious Harley riders to deafen me as I'm riding."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1o92ed | how does renting a property with option to buy work? does your rent go towards the down payment? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1o92ed/eli5_how_does_renting_a_property_with_option_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccpvdez"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Usually these are case by case basis, whatever the renter/buyer and the landlord/seller agree to, there must be some legal contract with the terms spelled out and everybody signs or somebody is going to get screwed and it will probably be the renter. Normally it is the case though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
4brmo8 | why do some speakers have "mini" speakers around the large ones? | Image for context.
_URL_0_ | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4brmo8/eli5_why_do_some_speakers_have_mini_speakers/ | {
"a_id": [
"d1bqwr2",
"d1bqypj",
"d1bspao",
"d1bvsee",
"d1by4ox",
"d1c8gqy",
"d1c8ikf",
"d1cbl2m",
"d1cboki"
],
"score": [
31,
494,
25,
131,
3,
4,
7,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Those parts of the speaker are called cones. The little cones, known as tweeters, reproduce the high frequency parts of the music. \n\nThe larger cones, called woofers, reproduce the mid and low frequency parts of the music.\n\nThe size of the cone corresponds to range of frequencies it can reproduce. That's why sub-woofers that can produce the really low notes often have very large cones.\n\nThere is actually a little filter circuit called a crossover that is built into the speaker box that separates the incoming signal into the parts that go to each cone. If you open your speaker box up you'll see the little circuit board. ",
"Loudspeakers (the whole box) often have several *drivers* in them...which are those parts that vibrate and make sound. The larger ones are called *woofers* and are used for low-range sounds, while the small (\"mini') are called *tweeters* and are used to make the higher frequency sounds. Inside the loudspeaker there is an electrical circuit called a *cross over* that takes the input signal and \"splits\" it into high and low frequencies.",
"Sound engineer here, the smaller speakers are called \"tweeters\". They are responsible for producing sound frequencies on the high end, thus why they're called tweeters, as birds tweets are higher in pitch. Conversely, the larger speakers are called \"woofers\", they are responsible for your bass, which is why they're called woofers, after a dog's bark. If your tweeters are blown, you will notice a significant difference in audio quality and your music will sound like absolute shit.",
"Big speakers play low pitch sounds, like the steps of a big monster coming to you. Small speakers play high pitch sounds, like the one a little mouse makes.",
"There are two parts to a speaker, the tweeter (small) and the woofer (big). Inside the speaker is a crossover that decides which speaker will play which notes, with the tweeter playing the high notes and the woofer playing the low notes",
"Essentially, it's a matter of mass. The highest high pitch sound a human can hear is around 20,000 hertz, or cycles per second. The low end for most speakers is around 20 hertz. The smaller, lighter tweeter has to move a small amount of air really, really fast to produce 20,000 hertz. The larger, heaver woofer has to move a whole lot of air really slow. The tweeter just can't move enough air to do 20Hz very well, and the woofer is too large and heavy to vibrate at 20,000Hz.",
"Imagine you have a set of bells. You know how the smaller ones ring with a higher pitch than lower ones? Its similar with speaker drivers, smaller ones can resonate at higher frequency easier. Larger ones at lower frequency. Having multiple sizes of 'mini speakers' (drivers) means that the sounds that each is best at making can be sent to it. It ends up making a speaker that sounds clearer and has better response across all frequencies than ones that try and do it all with one driver.",
"The smaller ones play the same track at a lower frequency for dogs and other various pets to be able to also hear the audio being played, this way they won't be confused when they see their owners dance or in any other ways react to the musi... Wait a minute this isn't /r/shittyaskscience is it.",
"The large speakers are like the Daddys, and can sing the low notes very well. The clusters of small speakers are like the kids, with higher voices. The kids are the only ones that can sing the highest notes, so they do. Together they are a musical family that lives in a box."
]
} | []
| [
"http://imgur.com/un6GU5K"
]
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3o8z3z | how do electronics spin in full circles without getting their wires tangled? (example in text) | [Example!](_URL_0_) Obviously the lights on the fan are getting energy from somewhere since they're lighting up. What gets power to the lights? If it's wires how do they not get tangled? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3o8z3z/eli5_how_do_electronics_spin_in_full_circles/ | {
"a_id": [
"cvv1ghs",
"cvv2uk0",
"cvv7qyu"
],
"score": [
22,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The rotating portion receives electricity through a device like a \"rotary electrical connector\" or a \"brush slip ring\". They allow current to pass through two concentric rings, one inside the other, separated by an insulator, and depending on how fast it's intended to rotate, possibly sealed and lubricated.\n",
"Some use a metal wire brush that rubs against a metal ring, the current is passed through that way as it spina",
"To add onto what others have said, the lights on the fan are probably wired into a little chip in the center part of the fan. That chip will get power from the slip ring connector."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.flashingpanda.com/files/1/LightUpFan_anim.gif"
]
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2y0tf2 | whats going on with the racial motivated rape gangs going on in europe? | Its still an issue? I heard about it months ago, people havnt been prosecuted yet or are there even more of these gangs?
Also, Any update of the same groups in Rotterdam and the rest of netherlands? And of course those in Britain which seem to be some of the worst with hundreds of victims, most of which being underaged and white? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y0tf2/eli5_whats_going_on_with_the_racial_motivated/ | {
"a_id": [
"cp55pda",
"cp5883v"
],
"score": [
6,
11
],
"text": [
"I am Dutch and I like to think I keep up reasonably well with the news here and I've never heard of any racially motivated rape gangs. To be hones, this sounds like the same sort of bullshit as the Sharia triangle bullshit we had on the news here a while back. Basically fear mongering from people who can get an advantage from people being fearful. (aka politicians with certain policies and reporters that want the next big scoop)",
"Im guessing you mean Rotherham (UK), not Rotterdam. At least that's what it says in the article you linked. The stories are still floating about, but the main bulk of the interest from the public is more relating to how the police and child protective services made systematic failures, many resulting from not wanting to come off as racist."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
3puxao | how to move out of my parents house (aka. downpayments, interest rates, credit) | Basically how to move out, if you were explaining it to a child. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3puxao/eli5_how_to_move_out_of_my_parents_house_aka/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw9ogu2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Unless you are in no hurry and already have a lucrative job you expect to keep for many years, I would not try to buy a place just to leave your parents house.\n\nSave up a few months worth of income and then rent something. If you rent small, close to work/school, avoid car ownership, and always - every month - spend less than you earn, you'll be fine. One day when you have that lucrative job you can look at buying if it makes sense. \n\nDon't get sucked into the myth that renting = poverty and buying = easy street.\n\nGood luck\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2fhv6l | Given that many insects are attracted to light sources at night, do spiders take advantage of this? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2fhv6l/given_that_many_insects_are_attracted_to_light/ | {
"a_id": [
"cka0qlc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are a few species of bat which have learned that a lot of insects can be found near light sources at night. The few species in Europe that have learned this behaviour are quite light-tolerant though, other bat species actively avoid light. So it might be possible that some spiders are more likely to build webs near lights. See _URL_0_\n\nI don't know if there's been research on spiders for this though."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.lichtopnatuur.org/zoogdieren/vleermuizen/"
]
]
|
||
2ogvmk | Why are there so many companies getting hacked? | Is there some common loop hole and why dont they fix it? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ogvmk/why_are_there_so_many_companies_getting_hacked/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmn0ssf",
"cmn2qjm",
"cmn5oet",
"cmndd5s"
],
"score": [
26,
21,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Major companies operate networks that are absolutely massive. It's simply not possible for them to operate them in a way that is impervious to attack. Anyone who tells you they can operate such a network is lying. With computer systems it isn't a matter of *if* they will be hacked but of *when*.\n\nMoreover operating a server is a very dangerous thing to do if you aren't careful. Case in point, I run my own internet-facing server that I use for various tasks. Since midnight (~11 hours ago) it has seen:\n\n* 70 attempts to log in over SSH (basically log in as administrator)\n* 15 attempts to exploit [Shellshock](_URL_0_) against some website hosting software\n* ~30 attempts to log in to the administrative panel of said website hosting using what look like gibberish as the name and password\n\nThat's just my no-name server hosting nothing of particular importance. All of these things are automated attacks that are fire-and-forget and the scale they occur at is astounding. \nWorse yet, you wouldn't actually know if they succeed. The attack would insert some malicious payload that enables the attacker to come back later and steal your data or use your server to launch further attacks. The only defense is pro-actively monitoring for suspicious activity and staying up to date with security patches.\n****\n\nBack to big companies. People attack them because that's where the money is. Target and Home Depot got hit with the same malware that infected the POS terminals used to process credit/debit transactions and whoever was responsible walked away with something insane like information on over 40 *million* credit cards. Worse is that the companies were using extremely out of date security software that was effectively useless. The attacks were certainly impressive in scope but the security they were up against wasn't exactly state-of-the-art or robust.\n\nWith Sony it's very much a developing situation and we don't know how or why it happened. The reported size of data stolen is enormous (~100TB) and it's been reported that leaked portions show extremely bad security practices like keeping usernames and passwords in a text file in a folder named \"Passwords\".\n\ntl;dr: Everyone gets hacked. *Everyone*. What makes the difference is how quickly they identify and respond to those events.\n\ne: For more gory details written in a mostly-layman accessible manner about the Target attack, [this article](_URL_1_) is a solid read. It breaks down the attack into a play-by-play look at how it probably happened.",
"Its *real* hard to build secure systems. Like ludicrously difficult. There are a lot of reasons for this but I'll list two that I think are very important. \n\n1. Security does not compose. You might expect that if you took two secure systems and connected them that the result might end up being secure but this isn't always the case. This means that when setting up a company's IT infrastructure the admins need to be aware of the entire global system. They cannot just work on individual pieces by themselves. For systems of any size this is basically impossible and its really easy for things to slip through the cracks. And this only gets worse as things get more and more complex. \n\n2. You cannot measure security. Anybody who comes to you and says they can put a number on how secure your network is is a liar. Many companies hire pentesters to come and try to break their systems so they can find problems before a real hack happens but pentesters can very easily miss stuff. There is simply no way somebody can look at a reasonably sized system and say \"I've checked everything that could go wrong\". \n\nNow take the fact that it only takes one mistake for the whole thing to come crashing down and you've got a real problem. Misconfigured SSH? Get hacked. Didn't quickly update to the new version of OpenSSL after heartbleed was found? Get hacked. SQL injection vuln in the commercial software you bought to manage your administrative web portal? Get hacked. The list goes on and on and on and on. \n\nIt also doesn't help that there are massive financial incentives to hack large companies. This means that its not just a few guys trying to hack into your system because they feel like it. Its thousands of smart and coordinated people trying to hack you *all the time*. Large organizations receive thousands and thousands of hacking attempts every day and if a single one gets through its bad. \n\nComputer security is **hard**. ",
"Because we historically live in the time when computers are becoming ubiquitous in society, yet security concerns have not yet penetrated the public consciousness. Consumers confidently swipe their credit cards at retail locations without giving any thought to the legions of criminals trying to steal their accounts. \n\nIt's a bit like cars in the 1950's or 60's. Big tail fins but not very safe. Today in order to bring a car to market you have to spend a lot of research and manufacturing costs on safety. Seat belts, antilock brakes, etc. Traffic fatalities in the US used to run 50,000 a year; now they're down to 33,000 even with more people driving.\n\nIn the future, nobody will be able to sell software or networking equipment without major security features designed in from the beginning. We'll look back on today and think, how could people have been so naive? ",
"One factor is that companies that make security products are not held accountable for the failure of those products. If a company made a bank vault that a bored teenager could break into, you can be sure the vault maker.would get sued. But that's never even a consideration where computer security is concerned. I know that it's impossible the way all the tech is tangled up, but that's part of my point - if companies knew their own business was on the line if their customers got hacked, you could be sure they design unambiguous 'boundaries' into their products. There's no motive now to do so."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shellshock_%28software_bug%29",
"http://www.securityweek.com/report-examines-unanswered-questions-around-target-attack"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1hijix | why when you get sunburned you get sleepy/tired? | When you get sunburned it seems to make you tired, why? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hijix/eli5_why_when_you_get_sunburned_you_get/ | {
"a_id": [
"cauo3g4"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sunburns usually come with dehydration as well. Mix dehydration and your body trying to repair a sizable chunk of skin, its quite draining. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
1mouo5 | english bill of rights | I am awful when it comes to history and would love it if someone could break down The English Bill of Rights to me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mouo5/eli5english_bill_of_rights/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccba95t"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Bill of Rights is to do with establishing England (and later Great Britain and then the UK) as a constitutional monarchy, and formally sets out the relationship between monarch and parliament:\n\nIt states that Parliament is the ultimate decision-making and law-making body in the land. Parliament makes rules in the name of the monarch, but the monarch can not and must not interfere in Parliament's work or decisions, and specifically mentions that:\n\n* Parliament is the only body that can impose taxes on the population. In particular the monarch cannot set up his or her own private income stream based upon taxation.\n* The monarch cannot declare war without Parliament's say-so\n* MPs and Lords cannot be sued for libel or slander for things they say in Parliament -- it is the only place in the UK to have absolute freedom of speech\n\nThe Bill of Rights also introduced for the first time a written requirement that the monarch must not be a Roman Catholic, nor married to one -- a ruling that has only very recently been rescinded.\n\nThere is a lot more in the actual text of the document, but the above points are the most important ones with regard to modern-day Britain."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
ifpgf | Great ape crossbreeding... possible? | So, a recent thread asks about a cross between a chimp and a human. It supposedly can't happen because of the number of chromosomes, but what about the other great apes that have the same number of chromosomes? Can there be offspring between a gorilla and an orangutan or chimpanzee or other such species? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ifpgf/great_ape_crossbreeding_possible/ | {
"a_id": [
"c23f7ao",
"c23f850"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The most closely related African Ape species are the bonobo and the chimp. [Comment 24 has a link to a citation of a known hybrid.](_URL_1_) There are also Orang-orang species hybrids.\n\nThe next closest relation in the phylogeny of apes is humans to bonobos and chimps. I've said before **the number of chromosomes is not a hard species barrier**, it just makes reproduction in the F1 more difficult. So *Homo*-*Pan* would be the next most likely to produce offspring.\n\nEDIT: [Under MOAR](_URL_0_) is an explanation of Robertsonians.",
"A lot more goes into interbreeding than simply chromosome number; species with different chromosome counts can interbreed, though often the offspring are not viable or, when they are, tend to be sterile.\n\nIn the case of orangutan and chimpanzee or gorilla, you must keep in mind that these are species which have been separated by literally hundreds of thousands of years of evolution. While each of these three species does have 48 chromosomes, the location of various alleles differs greatly between them. The enzyme activity also differs enough that any resulting embryo from a forced fertilization would likely not be viable.\n\nAnd then there's the issue of fertilization itself. Sperm are able to penetrate the membrane surrounding an egg because the enzymatic activity is recognized and an influx of Calcium ions is released, allowing the sperm to more actively penetrate the egg. Because the enzymes are different between species, there would not be such an influx of Calcium ions, making penetration difficult. The chances that a gorilla's sperm could fertilize an orangutan egg are remote.\n\nAnd, of course, this could only happen in a lab. Gorillas, chimpanzees, and orangutans are not only genetically but also behaviorally isolated. In the wild, they would not recognize each other as potential mates; if anything, they'd either ignore or attack one another on sight.\n\nSo the short answer is no, crossbreeding would not be possible. It has not been possible for over a million years, if I recall correctly. I'd have to consult my primatological genetics text if I wanted to be sure."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fs3wh/please_explain_chromosomal_polymorphism_to_me/c1i8yin",
"http://scienceblogs.com/tetrapodzoology/2009/12/yaounde_zoo_mystery_ape.php"
],
[]
]
|
|
1d6gvq | why can't enemy combatants on the ground hear apache helicopters (or whatever) before they strike? | I'm referring to the countless videos on YouTube and LiveLeak of Apache helicopters ambushing groups of combatants. Wouldn't they be able to see/hear a hulking death machine circling around for the several minutes before they strike?
I tried googling for the answer, but I wasn't finding the most thoughtful responses. Hoping to get a little insight on how these raids work.
[Example](_URL_0_) (Black-and-white NSFL)
Also, I'm hoping all the military acronyms can be extended if they are used in this ELI5 thread! | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1d6gvq/eli5_why_cant_enemy_combatants_on_the_ground_hear/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9nd296",
"c9nd49n"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"If you look at when they fire that missile, there's about 2.5-3s between launch and impact. Wikipedia lists the speed of the [Hydra 70](_URL_0_) rocket as 2,300 feet per second. That puts the chopper over a mile away from the target - plenty of distance for the sound to die out.\n\nThe camera footage you're looking at is zoomed in considerably, making the soldiers appear far closer than they are in reality.",
"I live under a helicopter tour company's flight path, so I have a lot of exposure to them. I find that the sound waves change considerably depending on the aircraft's orientation. If they are flying level and going forward towards you, they are very quiet. I assume that the rotor wash is going down and slightly behind them to propel them forward, and the exhaust points up or back. When they turn and go the other way, it's a *lot* louder.\n\nIf you couple those characteristics with the training the military pilots must get, they probably use the geography to their advantage as well to disperse the sound waves [hills, valleys, buildings, etc.] to gain the advantage of surprise."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7TZOxlTwAvA"
]
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydra_70"
],
[]
]
|
|
1t2de9 | the psychology of a troll (serious) | I'm relatively new to Reddit and today I've been noticing so many accounts with tens of thousands of negative karma points. Are these people getting off on being contrarians? Is it like with kids who don't get enough attention, any attention is attention? I understand why some people try hard to get positive karma, but I don't get the negative karma.
Sorry if this seems like a dumb question to you internet vets, but sometimes the trolls get to me and maybe if I understood why they do what they do, I could just roll my eyes instead of letting them bug me. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t2de9/eli5_the_psychology_of_a_troll_serious/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce3mb8x",
"ce3mqny",
"ce3msif",
"ce3n494",
"ce3rxup"
],
"score": [
9,
9,
3,
20,
3
],
"text": [
"People like to feel powerful. When you're desperate enough for it, even power to fuck people's day up is better than nothing.",
"They've never outgrown the childish mindset that 'any attention is good attention,' basically. If you're angry at them, you're paying attention to them, and attention and validation is what they crave - and if negative attention is the easiest kind to get, then it's the kind they will seek.",
"I believe it is because those people are just reeeeally bored with their lives and find humor in screwing with others. It also may be fun for them to see disaster/controversy stirred up and know that theyre the cause of it.",
"It's really the basest way to get acknowledgement on the internet. Whenever you write a well thought out response, you're putting yourself out there to be ridiculed. You put in your ideas, your insight, maybe take the time to reread and edit, and then post; for all that, someone can easily just say \"nope\" and downvote. And that downvote - as far as karma goes - essentially negates all your work. \n \nWhen you troll, especially with troll accounts, you're just changing the goals of your redditting. Instead of saying \"I have something thoughtful to contribute\", you say \"I'm just going to be incendiary\". If your only goal is to agitate people, that's pretty manageable. Each downvote represents an occasion when you've gotten a reaction out of someone. ",
"To play the Devil's advocate, downvotes do not necessarily correlate with trolling. Reddit is self-famous for upvoting stupid shit (racism/misogyny, sensationalist articles, anything involving a bear or puffin or duck). Some people are \"contrarian\" trolls just to illuminate this trend.\n\nBut the real answer is that attention is attention. *It's Always Sunny In Philadelphia* summed it up best:\n\n\"It's my character. I'm the TRASH MAN! I come out...I throw TRASH all over the ring! And then I start eating garbage! And then I pick up the trash can and I TRASH the guy on the head!\"\n\n\"I'm not gonna be the ref! **I'm a villain, doncha see?!\"**"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
3xglx2 | why is it that illegal aliens are routinely arrested and deported but legal action is rarely if ever taken agains those that employ illegal aliens? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xglx2/eli5why_is_it_that_illegal_aliens_are_routinely/ | {
"a_id": [
"cy4hvq6",
"cy4icur"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"So since this is already heading into THEY STEALING ER JERBS territory lets break it down. \n\npretty much every company in the USA pays at least minimum wage and auto deduct taxes. That's a whole lot of liability coverage since good luck proving they knew the person was undocumented. Also they probably actually don't know in the first place since there isn't much incentive for those companies to hire undocumented workers what with the minimum wage thing. Their papers looked good, and it's not your employer's job to conduct the kind of in depth and expensive background check needed to spot the issues. Got a SIN number? You can work. \n\nFor everyone else, most undocumented workers are doing cash in hand work. In which case good luck proving they were employed in the first place, or that they knew the persons immigration status especily since A: everyone is getting paid cash in hand, and B: no one is expected to even check a SIN number when you hire for casual day labor since they're only in your employ for a short time.\n\nFailing that sort of work, they also self employ. Quite a few of them actually. One LLC registration later and now they've got their own business doing whatever they care to do. ",
"What makes you think action is rarely taken? You can't judge by relatively publicity, because not every case of someone reaching a plea deal over hiring illegal workers will make the news.\n\nBut searching for \"hiring illegal works sentenced\" turns up a fair number of hits. This [Washington Times article](_URL_0_), from March, describes two owners of a hotel who were sentenced to jail for hiring illegal workers. It also mentions that the Justice Department has shifted to targeting employers instead of the illegal workers, but doesn't give any background or details on that assertion. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2015/mar/9/hotel-owner-sentenced-prison-for-hiring-undocument/"
]
]
|
||
1omzoe | How does something as large as a city affect the crust/mantle below it? Could a city become so large and heavy that it would collapse or compress the earth underneath? | Always wondered how something as massively heavy and all-covering as an urban area (with sewers and sediment of more ancient city walls below etc) manages to not just sink. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1omzoe/how_does_something_as_large_as_a_city_affect_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cctl5du",
"cctlpv4",
"cctlt7w",
"cctmdkz",
"cctmwjx",
"cctnfjf",
"cctnl2x",
"cctoaag",
"cctos93",
"cctpooj",
"cctsxdf",
"cctt6yn",
"ccttcvl",
"cctw440",
"cctycze",
"cctzo16",
"ccu0m6t",
"ccu1iya"
],
"score": [
33,
24,
11,
4,
427,
6,
5,
13,
4,
3,
3,
2,
5,
3,
2,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"I guess it depends on the kinds of soil. For example, Mexico City sinks a little bit every year because it is built on a dry lake or swamp soil (idk the correct term). If you look photos of the cathedral you'll see that its base is below ground level and many structures need constant maintenance",
"Cities don't weigh that much. From our small perspective cities seem like massive heavy metal things, but buildings are hollow and really don't way all that much on a global scale.\n\nEven the biggest heaviest buildings in the world are miniscule compared to a mid sized mountain.",
"Las Vegas, Nevada is subsiding. The weight of the casinos plus the nearby reservoir called Lake Mead is causing subsidence. This subsidence is accommodated by the city draining their water aquifers in excess. The space left behind when the water is removed allows the ground above to sink into that space. BUT this isn't the entire crust that is sinking, it is only localized to the very upper portions of the crust. /u/jace53 is correct, cities are just a speck compared to what causes flexure in the crust/lithosphere. [News article on the subject](_URL_0_)",
"I believe the reservoir created by the three gorges dam was so large that it not only effected the tectonic plates on which it is held but also effected the gravitational field of the earth due to the change in local mass (this change was theoretical and instruments may not be able to precisly measure it). Any who, the effects on the tectonic plates did not go without consequence. It is believed by some that the earthquake that occurred before the 2008 Olympics was a result on the stresses the reservoir put on the plate. Small movements we unable to be released due to the built of pressure and a cataclysmic release of tectonic tension was inevitable ",
"I'll try to make this as clear as possible. \n\nFirstly, your answer is no (at least with respect to the crust/mantle). As far as compress the earth underneath, speaking in purely scientific terms, any weight will compress the earth underneath, whether it is 100,000 lbs or 1 oz. The degree of compression is what you are wondering. \n\nYou can see from [this](_URL_0_) boussinesq chart that the load of a *properly loaded* foundation member the weight is distrbued such that at a depth approximately 6 times the length of the footing, the load \"felt\" by the soil is only about 10% of that at the surface. Now, I'm sure you're wondering why don't we just make a 3 inch diameter pile and load it with 1,000,000 lbs and say \"well, at 18\" the load is dropped to 100,000, so we'll double that make it 3 ft and call it a day!\" That won't work; notice I said \"properly loaded\", this means you have to take settlement into account, at an improper load, the foundation will sink (kind of like a hypodermic needle going into skin). So you need to size the footing to avoid this.\n\nBuilding foundations are designed by geotechnical engineers. The first step in this process is to determine the soil properties below the proposed building; this includes getting information on soil properties deep below the surface (hundreds of feet sometimes) using differing methods (SPT, CPT penetrometers, ground penetrating radar, geophone/shear wave recording, etc) Then based on certain methods of settlement (Schmertmann's method is one, also using Boussinesq force distributions) you can determine the structural capacity of the soil. If you have the approximate weight distribution of the building, you can size your footings so that the force doesn't \"over-stress\" the soil. This would result in various failure, either the foundation \"rolling\" over (due to eccentric loading or eccentric support, think two soils next to each other that have different strength), or much more commonly (as noted below with the Mexican example) settlement. \n\nNow, with the soil properties known if it is determined that you can't support all of the load on the surface of the ground, you need to do deep foundations. Commonly these will either be \"drilled shafts\" or \"driven piles\". For huge buildings, it will almost always be a drilled shaft because these are basically holes drilled into the ground (commonly over 10 ft in diameter) then a reinforcement cage lowered in, then concrete filling it. A driven pile, is basically a column that is driven into the ground and don't get much bigger than ~30 inches in diameter. Drilled shafts can be several hundred feet deep. This type of foundation relies more on side friction between the concrete and soil (think about a 100 ft deep, 10ft diameter concrete member buried in sand. It has over 3000 square feet for friction to act on. This is a HUGE amount of resistive force. \n\nIf you determine that the weight of the building will be too large, then you need to redesign it (either by using light weight concrete, which is about 50-60% of the weight of normal weight concrete or by using more steel as it is stronger when compared pound for pound). \n\nThink about it this way, when you go to the beach and stand in the water, you start to sink , but only a couple inches. So what has happened is that your feet don't provide enough force on the surface to keep you up, so you start to settle *until the side friction between your ankles and the sand, plus the bearing capacity of your feet* is equal to your weight. \n\nOn this note, 1.) quicksand is not a thing. You can have sand in what is known as a \"quick\" condition, which is where water is flowing upward. and 2.) in this situation, you will not drown (unless you can't swim), sand is about twice as dense as water, so if the water gets to a fully quick condition, it will just become buoyant sand, meaning it is about the same density as water, and you can swim through it.\n\nIf you want more clarification, let me know.\n\nSource: Masters degree in geotechnical engineering, working on Ph.D.\n\nEDIT: Thank you to whomever gave me gold!\n",
"I live in Kentucky which has a largely limestone bed. Aside from cool caves, sinkholes are a major problem. And underground water source can erode the foundation of a structure and it falls in. They are pretty good about it now, mostly older buildings and roads are at risk. However the University of Kentucky has a very big and expensive modern library built over a sinkhole and apparently its slowly sinking into the ground. There is another large one directly beside it that already collapsed. ",
"In many cases cities and buildings do sink. Look at Venice or the leaning tower of piza. These are caused by sinking of the earth (part of the crust). However it depends on how far down or what portion you really are asking about and where the city would be located. Some city areas obviously have sink holes which are caused by water eroding the subsurface foundation of the city. However many areas of the entire crust can be several miles deep (some south african mines go over a mile underground). So most cities will not deform the crust down into the mantel significantly. If entire mountain ranges like the rockies do not collapse back into the ground immediately (though they do compress the mantle), it is unlikely that any city (with much less mass) would do so. There is however a general limit how tall mountains can get give the pull of such structures back into the earth.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Short answer, yes it can affect the crust/mantle but not it won't collapse. The earth's crust has a flexural strength (think of bending a ruler) which can support some load without any change (think of placing a penny on the end of a ruler, nothing happens. now place 100 pennies, you get bending). Now, assuming enough material has been brought in compared to what's been excavated and removed from the city, it can bend the crust. I remember doing a back of the envelope calculation for the Manhattan, and for normal crustal properties, you should get just under a meter of depression in the center and a couple millimeters of a flexural bulge surrounding it. Now, when all this occurs is an important point. The mantle (actually the asthenosphere) beneath the crust (actually the lithosphere) is viscosity with a Maxwell time on the order of thousands of years, so it will take time for the mantle to respond. This Maxwell time is why the crust is still rebounding in response to the removing ice sheets 18 thousand years ago.\n\nEDIT:\nFurther explanation: If you load the earth's crust over a large enough wavelength, the crust will respond by sinking an amount equal to the ratio of the density of the material you add to the density of the asthensophere (~3300 kg/m3). So you need a large city, like NY, Mexico City, Japan to have an impact. If you take all the building materials added to the crust there and spread them out into a layer (let's assume a density of concrete, so 2400/3300), the crust should sink ~0.7 times the thickness of your layer (not you have remove all the air in between the floors, and between buildings to come up with your thickness of added material). Now, because of flexure, the maximum depression will occur at the center of the city, but note you might not get the full depression if either the city is not large enough or the crust is particularly strong. So bigger municipalities and weaker crust will help facilitate this effect.\n\nSource: I'm a geologist. Teaching isostasy and flexure to my students tomorrow.",
"This happened to Seattle long ago. The current Seattle is built on top of the old Seattle, now known as Seattle underground. \n\n[You can even go down and take a tour of it.](_URL_0_)",
"The city of Orvieto, Italy actually began to collapse under its own weight some time ago. This was largely due to the unauthorized underground tunneling and quarrying that occurred in the tufa rock below, but big sections of the city began to collapse in. They've since stopped digging underneath the city to prevent any further damage, but it's very possible that more sections will collapse in the future. You can read more about it at _URL_0_\n",
"To expand on that of others. What you are asking is a question of soil mechanics. The reason why cities don't sink is because we design them not to. Furthermore, there are very large safety factors used (some of the largest in engineering). \n\nHere is an image of the [soil pressure bulb](_URL_2_)\n\nThis illustrates the way loads are transmitted into the soils beneath. When designing a structure, the specific soils are examined and load bearing capacity is determined. Much of the important work in this field was done relatively recently considering how critical it is by [Karl von Terzaghi](_URL_1_). [This Website](_URL_0_) shows you the basics of determining the soil bearing capacity using Terzaghi's methods. \n\nTo answer your question of \"can a city become so large it collapses the earth underneath?\", the answer is kinda. It is very difficult to examine an entire city and, ideally, the individual elements of the city will be design with knowledge of each other so as not to interact or to do so in a controlled fashion. So, for the sake of your question, lets ask \"Is it possible for a load to collapse the soil beneath it?\". The answer, absolutely. If the load on the soil exceeds the soils bearing capacity you will produce a shear failure. The structure will shift and look something like [this](_URL_3_). [This slideshow](_URL_4_) demonstrates more about shear strength. \n\nThere are other movements that can be created even if you have sufficient bearing capacity. Most notable is settlement. Basically, under load, the soil particles can rearrange into a more compact configuration. This can result in long term settlement. This can also be calculated and designed for based on the soil types and loads. \n\nAs far as the mantle is concerned, we don't apply loads onto it. The crust is far to thick, dense and, as other have stated, the loads we create are minuscule compared to those.\nSource: I am a geotechnical engineer in Texas\nEdit:letters",
"If you look at the skyline of manhattan, you will notice that skyscrapers cluster downtown, and midtown.\n\nIn between there is an area of lower profile.\n\nThat is because the bedrock is thinner there.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAdditionally, the entire weight of the Empire State Building, in the same width and length, is only 50 feet high of granite. So the city weight isn't that much extra from a geological point of view.\n\n_URL_1_",
"While I'm sure these aren't the only examples, but New Orleans, Venice, and Mexico City are all known to be sinking. While I'm not sure of all the mechanisms involved, I recall hearing that it is believed that New Orleans is sinking due to the way the dikes and other water control features are drying out the swamp land that was once there, and without the water, the open airspaces allow the land to compress. I don't believe these things would be felt at the depth of the mantle. ",
"New Orleans is a great example of something like this. After draining much of the back-of-town, swampy areas between the river and the lake, much of the organic material in the soil dried out and broke down, leaving pockets behind.\n\nOver time and combined with added weight of settlement on top, the area subsided. In some cases, I've heard of houses with the wrong foundations spontaneously exploded from the pressure of having the foundation break up.\n\nsource: *Bienville's Dillema* by Dr. Campanella",
"The very simple answer is that the load influence of buildings on the ground doesn't go very deep before it tapers off to effectively zero and that the weight of all the buildings on earth is a miniscule fraction compared to the weight of soils and rock masses.\n",
"Given that the earth's crust under a city is 20+ miles thick rock, I don't think the weight of a city makes any difference at all. It's like putting a sticker on a bowling ball and asking if the weight of the sticker compresses the ball.",
"I think it should be pointed out that the mantle is solid (so is the crust obviously). It's a common misconception that under the solid crust is a liquid mantle. People see volcanoes and think that's what's \"under\" the hard stuff near the top. But it's not. The pressure keeps everything solid even at stupid temperatures.\n\nSo basically, you're building \"stuff\" on top of 1000's of miles of solids already under amazing pressures. ",
"The whole \"solid ground\" or crust is afloat on a dense \"semiliquid\" material called the mantle. Pushing down on the crust does make it sink deeper into the mantle. Mount Everest makes the deepest dent in the mantle, about the same down as up. A city in comparison to a mountain is so light that it is more like cotton candy than a rock. Filled with huge spaces of air, even a skyscraper is very light compared to a solid structure. No worries there."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1755&dat=19750929&id=JOohAAAAIBAJ&sjid=H2cEAAAAIBAJ&pg=4146,6420533"
],
[],
[
"http://www.strutturista.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/07/Boussinesq-4-Onorio-Francesco-Salvatore.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jIWhzYq16Ro"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=seattle+underground+tour&safe=off&espv=210&es_sm=91&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ei=bRtgUua1G-TbigL35YHYCg&ved=0CAkQ_AUoAQ&biw=1362&bih=647&dpr=1"
],
[
"http://www.orvietounderground.it/index.php/en/orvieto-underground-en/the-discovery"
],
[
"http://www.geotechnicalinfo.com/bearing_capacity_technical_guidance.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Karl_von_Terzaghi",
"http://static6.theconstructor.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/04/clip_image0043.gif",
"http://dianemckinney.files.wordpress.com/2010/05/shear-strength.gif",
"http://www.engr.uconn.edu/~lanbo/CE240LectW111shearstrength1.pdf"
],
[
"http://www.fordham.edu/images/academics/graduate_schools/gsas/economics/dp2010_09_barr_tassier_trendafilov.pdf",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mbou2/eli5_how_is_it_that_manhattan_doesnt_collapse/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
9yezqy | Is time exactly symmetrical? If we were to rewind it would it play back as the reverse of it playing forwards? | Is this true always? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9yezqy/is_time_exactly_symmetrical_if_we_were_to_rewind/ | {
"a_id": [
"ea10yrc"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Time reversal is not a complete symmetry of our universe. We know this, because we can observe T-violation in experiments. We know that the weak force violates CP, and if CPT is a good symmetry, that implies violations of T as well. We can see T-reversal in the shapes of atomic nuclei. There are nuclei which have electric octupole moments (meaning they’re pear-shaped), which is a violation of T symmetry. People are also looking for electric dipole moments in neutrons and other particles, because that would also indicate T-violation."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
tkk4m | What are some modern social concepts that would be completely alien to a person living during the time of you expertise? | An example would be the conept of homosexuality and ancient Greeks
(Edit: As in, they didn't have an identity of being homosexual, it was just something you did)
The more surprising the better! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tkk4m/what_are_some_modern_social_concepts_that_would/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4nez8m",
"c4nfftv",
"c4ng313",
"c4ng3ux",
"c4nh7k4",
"c4nj8t8"
],
"score": [
15,
3,
14,
5,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"It's not just homosexuality - heterosexuality and bisexuality *as modern Western society understands it* would also be a strange idea to a person of that time depending on the nation-state they hailed from. (Greek sexuality is a little early for me but my understanding is that the erastes/eromenos relationship, which I believe is what you are referring to, was by no means a universal social construct within Ancient Greece as a whole, and the norms of the relationship varied from polis to polis.) \n\nRomans, more my speed than Greeks, knew that there were some men who liked other men exclusively, and some women who liked other women exclusively, and some who preferred the opposite sex exclusively, but in general society functioned under strict laws of *pudicitia*, or sexual morality, for the privileged classes, that were more about preserving honor by restricting the types of sex acts that could be performed under a given circumstance. So Roman insults were more about specific acts performed (e.g. *cinaedus* and *pathicus* - which were the equivalent of \"buttfucker\" except in the reverse - maybe \"pillow-biter\"?) rather than the gender with whom the sex was happening.\n\nAdditionally, the idea of democracy as we currently practice it would have seemed really strange and awful - we include women, and poor people, and in some countries they even allow non-citizen residents to vote! Quelle horreur!\n\nThe way we view marriage is a relatively new concept and would have seemed odd to the Romans, for whom marriage was very much about the joining of families rather than the union of two people madly in love. The idea that it was entirely about property is misguided, but it was very much about using procreation to alter the social status of a family, especially among the privileged classes. Even among the lower classes, though, love wasn't really the primary consideration, at least not from the evidence we have, and so when you get beautiful epitaphs extolling a husband's love for his wife (like the Laudatio Turiae, which is totally worth a read), or vice versa, it makes it even more sweet. At least in my opinion.",
"Atheism and secularism. If you showed up in any period prior to modern times and claimed that there was no God/gods, and that government and religion should be separate you would most likely be considered totally insane.",
"Oh my goodness. So many weirdnesses just in my small scope reading at the moment on early modern London, let alone the entire world in 16th-18th centuries. I mean, the modern nation-state would look insane to anyone in 1500, let alone things like the fact we've had men on the moon and robots on Mars. \n\nIt is actually a favorite sort of mental exercise I do when reading, to imagine a person from the period and region drawn forward into the modern age. I always wonder what the shareholders of the East India Company would think if they saw modern multi-national corporations. Or what a second generation Dutch silk worker living in London would think of our modern immigration issues. Or even what a merchant living in Edo during the Tokugawa shogunate would think of the city today. \n\nI also like to imagine what sort of culture shock I would experience traveling back to that point in time. For example, as a woman of Scotch-Irish descent in her mid 30s, my expected social role would be hugely different than it is today were I to live in 1650s London. And then I remind myself I wouldn't likely be alive, given all the medical issues I've got, and that their treatments didnt exist then. \n\nThe shear scope of modern medicine would likely confound anyone from the past, at any point in time, if they were shown many of the miracles we can perform today. To have eliminated small pox alone! That we can cure diseases that killed people every day, perform surgery that doesn't kill the patient more often than not, and that the vast majority of children in developed countries survive to adulthood: all of these would be mindbogglingly amazing even to someone from 1900, let alone from 1500. ",
"Late 1700s - early 1900s colonies - racism. So much blatant, unabashed, even casual racism, the type that'd make /r/SRS blush. It's not just from the Europeans, but every society, even ones that are still fairly racist or xenophobic today, really outdid themselves in the colonial era. Also, the double-standard of it being entirely okay for white men to take up native concubines in the colonies and even to a degree, go native (Sir William Johnson, Col James Kirkpatrick, etc), but the other way around was entirely unacceptable (all the white women who chose not to come back when ransomed in North Africa)",
"The idea that 'aristocracy' could be considered immoral or bad. Even in the most democratic of societies like Athens in its phase of 'radical' democracy (as termed by Aristotle), there were aristocrats in positions of high influence. In Rome, the echoes of the Patrician class lasted long after the barriers to Plebian advancement had been removed. The idea was that the aristocrats weren't just major landowners with pedigree and probably a posh accent, it was that they also formed the educated class. Literacy was relatively uncommon, even in places like the Roman Empire. Also, traditionally these aristocrats monopolised religious positions of importance. See for example the fact that Julius Caesar's position of Augur in Rome had been practically guaranteed to him since his birth. And the aristocrats really were expected to be warriors and leaders; many states exclusively utilised their aristocracy as the basis for their cavalry, because the training and the horses were both expensive. In Athens, the aristocracy formed the pool from which the city's generals were selected.\n\nSo, for many ancient societies, aristocrats were the warrior class, the intellectual class, and at times the priestly class, all at once. This multifaceted role means it's rather difficult to imagine many ancient states without aristocrats being entwined in these areas to a greater or lesser degree. The idea that everyone can be equally educated would therefore seem bizarre to them, especially the degree of access to higher education. Our tendency to select on ability and not consider economic background a character trait would also puzzle them. Likewise the idea that many manual professions could be seen as skilled labour, or at least the aristocrats would see that as odd. It's a very odd thing, the results of manual labour would often be seen as beautiful or marvellous, but the people who made the objects and the process behind making them were both regarded as lower class and vulgar.",
"E. P. Thompson has a great piece on the emergence of \"work-time discipline,\" or the notion that schedules are regimented by hourly time, rather than by the amount of sunlight in a given day (for example):\n\n[E. P. Thompson, _Time, Work-Discipline, and Industrial Capitalism_](_URL_0_).\n\nSomeone living in a period before the industrial revolution wouldn't have the same parsed concept of time as, say, a factory worker - punch in to work at 6am, lunch at noon, hourly wages, public transit that runs on a timed schedule, etc."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://libcom.org/library/time-work-discipline-industrial-capitalism-e-p-thompson"
]
]
|
|
6ixij2 | WW2: What do these patches mean? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6ixij2/ww2_what_do_these_patches_mean/ | {
"a_id": [
"dj9w4jo",
"dj9wgm8",
"djaa6dj"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"The circular patches with the \"A\" are the insignia of the US 3rd Army, which in WW2 was under the command of Gen. George S. Patton. The triangular tricolour patches are the insignia of the US 16th Armoured Division. If you look closely, the embroidery below the 16 shows a tank track. The 16th Armoured was established in 1943, and reached Europe in 1945. It saw combat very briefly at the end of 1945 in Czechoslovakia, before withdrawing in accordance with a treaty with the advancing Soviets.\n\nThe patch at the bottom left with the winged star is the symbol of the USAAF, which is a little confusing. Did he transfer to or from the airforce at any point?",
"The \"16\" patch is 16th Armored Division, which served in the European Theater from February to October, 1945. The triangle patch without the \"16\" is US Armored Force patch. The red, white, and blue \"A\" patch is Third Army. The red and white \"A\" patch is Ninth Army. The 3-color circle is the US Army Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), established in 1973. The patch with wings is the US Army Air Forces.",
"The three-color circular patch is the shoulder patch for the Army's Training and Doctrine Command (TRADOC), but during WW2 it was that of the Replacement and School Command, which was charged with the responsibility of training Army personnel. The three stripes are in the colors of, and refer to, the basic combat arms; they also refer to the components of the \"One Army\" concept: Active Army, Army Reserve and Army National Guard. Background The shoulder sleeve insignia was originally approved for the Replacement and School Command on 22 March 1943, and was reassigned to the U.S. Army Training and Doctrine Command on 1 July 1973. So it could very easily have been a WW2 patch in this collection. Many soldiers coming back from overseas combat were reassigned to Training and Doctrine command prior to demobilization, and some of them were used as instructors, to take advantage of their experience. The White \"A\" in a Cloverleaf on red is the patch for the 9th US Army, which was a major headquarters unit for the Americans during the invasion of Europe."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
2njnwm | how withdrawl from drugs causes severe illness? sometimes death? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2njnwm/eli5_how_withdrawl_from_drugs_causes_severe/ | {
"a_id": [
"cme7ava",
"cme84hr",
"cmebixk"
],
"score": [
2,
21,
2
],
"text": [
"The body has been trying to compensate for the disturbances of the drugs by slowly making changes in hormone levels. Sudden withdrawal results in a body with lethal levels of these hormones still circulating. This is why a long term alcoholic suddenly deprived of alcohol may suffer fatal seizures. ",
"The worst withdrawal symptoms seem to be from drugs that are sedating: narcotics, alcohol and benzodiazepines. \n\nThese types of drugs tend to alter the amount of signaling via various neurotransmitters and their receptors. When one receptor is constantly activated by a drug then it will often be \"down regulated\" to try to bring things into balance. Other counter regulatory pathways may also get upregulated. But then when the drug or alcohol is suddenly stopped - you generally get activity that is the opposite, more or less, of what the drug was causing. \n\nWith alcohol and benzo withdrawal this can be really dangerous - marked increases in sympathetic nervous system activity (fight or flight) occurs, heart rate and blood pressure go up, and seizures may occur. If these reactions are severe, death can occur.\n\nNarcotic withdrawal may cause severe discomfort - but generally not life threatening without other health problems: anxiety, sweating, aches, diarrhea, nausea, cramps and dilated pupils - many of which are from nervous system activity that is essentially the opposite of what you get with the drug itself.\n\nIn contrast, after prolonged stimulant use, stopping leads mostly to sleepy folks who are in a bad mood all the time. But not usually very ill from a medical / vital sign perspective.\n\n\n",
"Lets look at Opiates:\n\nWhen you an ingest an opiate (Oxycodone, Morphine, etc) it is essentially putting an excess of certain neurotransmitters in the brain that are normally regulated and produced as needed. Over time, the brain begins to produce less of these neurotransmitters because they're being put into the brain from an external source. When you abruptly stop the use of an opiate, the brain goes into a sort of neurochemical shock where the levels of these neurotransmitters are now too low to function normally and thus produce a wide variety of unpleasant symptoms.\n\nIn the case of benzodiazepines (where W/D can be fatal), the neurotransmitters involved can cause fatal seizures when in a state of withdrawal and their levels are out of balance.\n\nTried to keep this as simple and light as possible."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
85s4ns | About the fancy uniforms we see in war paintings. | Were soldiers like the finely dressed Jannisaries or colorful French Musketeers really dressed fancy, or is this more akin to making soldiers prettier to look at for the paintings.
If they really did wear such fancy clothing, was it for identification purposes? Or morale purposes? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/85s4ns/about_the_fancy_uniforms_we_see_in_war_paintings/ | {
"a_id": [
"dw1ab7s"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Artists who do not travel with armies or have the chance to see one in a situation other than a parade may improperly display soldiers in battle. For example, many artists during the american civil war will draw every soldier with their knapsack (backpack) on and sometimes wearing gaiters, purely because thats what they saw when a regiment marched out of a city or in a parade. However in actual battle knapsacks were dropped before going in and gaiters were thrown away by most soldiers to begin with as they were very disliked.\n\nBut for the most part, uniforms in art are pretty accurate. They did indeed wear such fancy uniforms back then, and for a variety of reasons. A large one is these complex uniforms make distinguishing a friendly soldier from an enemy easy in battle. Though complex uniforms may be especially fancy for prestige reasons, such as the Imperial Guard of Napoleon or the Russian Leib Guard."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
37nvyb | why is the triple crown in horse racing so rare? | Since 1948, there have only been three horses to win the Triple Crown, and none since the 1970's. I imagine horse racing is as competitive as any other sport, but how is it possible that nearly 40 years have elapsed since one horse won those three races? Shouldn't a dominant horse be more common? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37nvyb/eli5_why_is_the_triple_crown_in_horse_racing_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"crobqj2",
"crocwyk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because they allow a horse that hasn't raced in the Kentucky Derby and Preakness, to compete in the Belmont and stop a horse that has raced all three from winning. Stupid ass rules. ",
"The three tracks are different lengths. So it's similar to asking why no one wins the 100m, 200m and 400m gold medals - horses, like people, specialize at certain distances."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2rjj8a | Why does Patton seem to be disliked by most of the commanders of his day, yet a prominent figure by the enemy? | It appears that a lot of Allied commanders such as Bradley had personal issues with Patton as a General. Why did he earn this reputation? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2rjj8a/why_does_patton_seem_to_be_disliked_by_most_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnh544i",
"cnhc259"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you have to remember that Patton, for all his considerable skill, could be a thoroughly infuriating figure. Arrogant, rash, abrasive, impatient, and often intolerant of anything less than an almost reckless abandon for action the best that can be said about him is that he won, and that's probably all he or Eisenhower cared about. And, while it's true many American and British generals disliked him personally, most of even his staunchest adversaries admired his skill and ability. His reputation amongst the Axis forces was because, in many ways, he was the most successful emulation of their type of armored campaign. His ability to conduct brash and often reckless maneuver with great success at the expense of multiple German commanders earned him a thorough and almost universal admiration and respect as the best the Americans had to offer. All in all it was mostly his personal baggage that earned him a foul and sometimes unfair reputation and led many to downplay his professional successes due to personal grievances.",
"Mostly because the German high command only got to see a man with many victories under his belt while the US generals had to deal with his actual personality. He was someone who could be easily disliked. especially by his own soldiers and anyone who told him that his strategy wouldn't work. He knew he was good and assumed everyone else was wrong. So it gave him a bad reputation with his fellow generals when he looked down on them and their ideas for strategy on the western front."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
vutq2 | If someone spoke gibberish to babies would the babies mistake it for real language? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vutq2/if_someone_spoke_gibberish_to_babies_would_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"c57tn8p"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It would have to be consistent in order to learn, and if it were then it would just be another language (even if it was made up)."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5r3yj5 | How did Genghis Khan's father die, specifically? | [deleted] | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5r3yj5/how_did_genghis_khans_father_die_specifically/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd4li5j"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yesugai the Brave, by various accounts, was poisoned at a meal on the steppes, by Tatars who by custom owed even an enemy hospitality. \n\nWe do not know if it was actually poison. This could have been a simple bacterial infection. However, actual poisons were available, such as from poisonous mushrooms.\n\nFecal matter would have been a hit-or-miss matter, depending on the local pathogens and whether Yesugei Baghatur had been exposed to them in the past. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2zk56z | unix vs macosx/windows/linux | I've read that UNIX is an operating system, but why don't we hear it like we hear of the MacOsx/Windows/Linux OSes.
Please eli5 Unix and how it compares to the 3 OSes i explained | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zk56z/eli5unix_vs_macosxwindowslinux/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpjnfuk",
"cpjnh09",
"cpjo70x"
],
"score": [
4,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer is complex. Unix is a very old operating system (actually, a group of operating systems) that was designed to operate on pre-personal-computer-era machines.\n\nHowever, Unix has consistently been praised for its simplicity and ease of portability. Unix is a \"pocketwatch\" in an age of overblown digital alarm clocks.\n\nLinux is very similar to Unix and carries over many of the concepts of Unix to the modern PC environment.",
"Unix is an old OS developed by Bell Labs in the 70s. Since it was copyrighted, there have been many clones that have since grown and branched off. Linux is a notable example, BSD is another one which in turn is what OS X is based off of. These are called Unix-Like operating systems. Windows is something totally different. \n\nedit: One thing worth mentioning is that Linux itself is not an entire desktop OS. This is why we have distributions like Ubuntu, Fedora, Debian, Red Hat, etc. These are all something you can install to your desktop and server and run but also very different in what they include. Linux is just the kernel (which you can think of like an engine in car).",
"In additon to what everyone is saying, it's important to note that you almost certainly use Linux in your day to day life. If you have a router, an android phone, any modern digital household appliance, etc., you're using linux. When you post on reddit, you're using linux. It's everywhere because anyone is free to redistribute it."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
4tugbx | what are the historical reasons for which english cuisine is usually regarded as "bad" whereas french cuisine is usually regarded as "good"? (at least i think this is how we see it in the us... | Is there something intrinsically good or bad in them? Why? Btw, I love fish and chips and hate cassoullet... does that mean there is something wrong with me? :p | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tugbx/eli5_what_are_the_historical_reasons_for_which/ | {
"a_id": [
"d5kdba6",
"d5liml2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They were culturally different. Also under Napoleonic rule, France controlled almost all of continental Europe (but obviously not Britain) which allowed French chefs to experiment with ingredients from all around the continent. \n\n\nThe short answer is simply that French chefs had the ingredients available and the cultural passion to elevate cuisine to higher levels than Britain had. It's not about skill it's about generations of tradition and availability of ingredients and culture. \n\n\n\nBrits love their curry though! Can find much better curry and Asian food in general in Britain than in France. \n\n\nUnrelated side note: Was in London last summer. Went past a noodle bar called \"Phat Phuc\"",
"French cuisine is particularly varied, and there's a strong cultural pride in their food over there.\n\nThe UK was the first country in the world to industrialise, and it happened pretty rapidly that people moved en masse from small rural communities to the growing cities. In the process many of our regional cultural traditions died out. This is why we're the only European country without a \"national dress\" for example. It also broke the connection with our traditional regional food culture as people just ate what could be easily mass produced and transported into cities. Other countries didn't experience this upheaval in such a rapid and extreme way.\n\nI have to say that I think post-industrial Britain is starting to love food again, and we do now value some of our iconic foods (cheeses, sausages, baked goods, beer) more than we have for generations."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
2wnco6 | why does my bottom lip get dry and chapped, while my top lip always remains smooth? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2wnco6/eli5why_does_my_bottom_lip_get_dry_and_chapped/ | {
"a_id": [
"cosf3x7"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think because when you smile, your upper lip remains straight but wider while your lower lip gets wider and bends down, effectively becoming longer than your upper lip, i.e.: stretching more than your upper lip."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ay3t85 | why can’t pc hardware run mac os but mac can run windows? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ay3t85/eli5_why_cant_pc_hardware_run_mac_os_but_mac_can/ | {
"a_id": [
"ehy0a4g",
"ehy0b4n",
"ehy0d34"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Windows software supports many hardware configurations, because many companies make Windows-compatible hardware.\n\nMac software supports many fewer hardware configurations, because Apply makes only a few hardware configurations.",
"They can, it's just that apple doesn't permit OSX to be run on unauthorized hardware, and the lack of included drivers for anything but authorized hardware can be a huge challenge to overcome.",
"They are. If you have the specific hardware combination, then you can run OSX on it (look up hackintosh setups), though you won't have some features. It's just a combination of 1) OSX is designed to run on specific hardware while windows must fit general hardware 2) apple is the big mean and intentionally makes it difficult for people to run OSX on unauthorized hardware."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
5ocbfg | why do different numbers of protons/neutrons/electrons cause such drastic differences in the elements of the periodic table? | Follow-up question: is it theoretically possible to transmute any element into any other element given enough energy and the proper chemical process? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ocbfg/eli5_why_do_different_numbers_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dcibq5g"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You can think of them as chemical properties and atomic properties. \n\n~Chemical properties are mostly caused by the outer most ring of electrons (valence) orbiting the nucleus. You see electrons are lonely little guys and they like to be with other electrons, exactly 8 to be specific. If they can find a way to hook up with other electrons so there are 8 of them in an orbital, the resulting chemical becomes stable. \n\nFor instance you have Carbon, with 4 valence electrons but it really wants to have 8. But take 2 carbons and put them together and they can share each others electrons, 4+4 = 8 and bang, you have a carbon chain. Or take Oxygen, it has 6 valence electrons but wants 8. However if you took 2 Oxygen and a carbon, each oxygen could share 2 electrons with the carbon making 8 total, and the carbon would be sharing 4 electrons between the two oxygen atoms also getting 8. And bam, you have carbon dioxide. Or take 2 hydrogen each with 1 valence electron, add them to an oxygen which has 6 and 1+1+6=8 and you have water. \n\n\nSome atoms already have their valence shells full and neither want to give or take electrons. Because they are quite happy to be by themselves, they very rarely interact with other elements and we call these the noble gases. They are stable, and not very reactive because they already have a full valence shell. \n\n\n\n~Nuclear properties. The number of protons and neutrons affect the mass of an atom, which in turn affects how heavy that element is. For instance Hydrogen has one proton, and it's the lightest gas there is, and Uranium has 92 protons and 146 neutrons (in some isotopes) , so it is one of the heavier elements (and the heaviest naturally occurring one)\n\nAside from the mass of the atom, as the nucleus gets larger and larger, the ability for the nuclear forces to hold it together get weaker. Above a certain threshold the mass is so large, and the force holding it together so weakened that the atom can split apart and form 2 new elements. This is how radioactivity and fission works. \n\n~Transmutation is a fact of life, yes. For instance most of the helium in the world today is a byproduct of uranium and thorium decomposition. As the uranium radiates and splits into smaller nuclei it breaks down and helium and lead are the byproducts. Helium is so light it would float off into space if we didn't capture it so Earth lost it's original helium a long time ago. Most of the helium we use today comes from natural gas deposits, where the helium is released by decaying uranium and thorium and trapped with the natural gas for the same reason the natural gas is, it's a pocket of impermeable rock holding it all in. It's expected that gases under the earth should tend to collect together. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
6xg3ut | how does the definition of "species" work in single cell organisms? | the definition i know of species is something that can mate and make fertile offspring. i dont see how that works in single-cell asexual organisms. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6xg3ut/eli5_how_does_the_definition_of_species_work_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"dmfnei3",
"dmfnqtq"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, bacteria were classified by characteristics of theirs that were observed in a lab. For example, the most fundamental division of bacteria is between bacteria that are stained by a Gram stain and those that aren't. (This corresponds to important differences in their cell wall and membrane.)\n\nLooking at other features like morphology (what the cells look like under a microscope), colony morphology (what the blobs that grow when you put them on a Petri plate look like), metabolic features (what can it eat and what wastes does it produce; also, what vitamins it needs), and other lab tests, bacteria were further and further classified until the scientists were satisfied that they couldn't discern any differences within the last groups defined. Those groups were species.\n\nSo for a hypothetical example, bacteria in genus X might be Gram-positive (stained by a Gram stain) with spherical cells ~1.5 microns in diameter that form very flat greenish colonies and are catalase negative (do not make hydrogen peroxide bubble when mixed with it). Within genus X, species Y can use glucose, maltose, and lactose for food, while species Z can only use glucose.\n\nWith the advent of easy DNA sequencing, bacterial species are mostly defined by their genome sequence. But when the genome sequence databases were built, they made them by sequencing the genomes of bacteria classified by the old methods and assigning the sequence to the old species name.\n\nIn the end, \"species\" is not really a well-defined concept for single-celled organisms and it will always be a little fuzzy and inconsistent.",
"It is a bit different.\n\nFirst the microbiologists discovered that bacteria can exchange genetic material. It is not the sexual mating of multicellular organisms. But nuclear material does get transferred from one single celled organism to another.\n\n\"Species\" is a concept invented by humans. Linne did this. He enthusiastically started classifying living organisms into species. When he and his buddies got down to microscopic creatures he did not stop. They named them all. If a single cell organism looked like others, they were called members of a species. \n\nIt worked. Microbiologists could classify those little creatures. Studying them under the microscope they could name them by shape, rod, sphere, (cocci), twisty ones, (spirochetes). This really did help a lot. A scientist could describe experiments. Another scientist could duplicate these experiments.\n\nThey described the organisms they worked with by naming their species. Mostly the experiments worked. The experiments could be duplicated. They studied how they stained and what they grew on. So the species descriptions began to include phrases like gram negative lactose intolerant. It became understood that their were various strains of these species. If a scientist described an important experiment they would keep cultures of the organism used. Someone wanting to replicate the experiment could request a test tube of the organism.\n\nThis happens now too. Many species of bacteria have had their complete DNA sequences recorded.\n\n It is still important to name single cell bacteria as species. Vaccines are developed which will immunize against infection by named species. Reference strains are kept in laboratories to use to develop the vaccines. If the vaccine works against the reference strain it will work against what are called \"wild\" strains.\n\nSome strains of bacteria grown in culture in a laboratory must be periodically used to infect a lab animal. The bacteria in their blood is cultured and used to keep the strain virulent. \n\nSo single celled bacteria which spread a particular disease will have the same physical appearance and DNA. Recognizing an organism recovered from the blood from an infected person or animal is an important Eureka moment. Malarial species are still named. They also exchange genetic material. Part of their life cycle is asexual reproduction. Part is not.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
33kfrt | Has anything in the bible been proven to be historically wrong? | Has anything in the Bible been proven to be historically inaccurate? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33kfrt/has_anything_in_the_bible_been_proven_to_be/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqltimo"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"Where does one begin?\n\nTo give a very brief summary of the kind of thing you're asking about:\n\n* The world was not created in 4,000 BC.\n* There was no global flood in the 25th century BC.\n* The world did not speak one language and all live in the city of Babel (Babylon) in the 23rd century BC.\n* The biblical patriarchs (Abraham, Jacob, Moses, etc.) are folklore characters and probably did not exist, at least in the way they are depicted biblically.\n* The biblical exodus of two million Hebrews from Egypt did not occur.\n* The Israelites did not violently conquer the Canaanites. They *were* Canaanites.\n* The kingdom of David and Solomon (if it even existed) was not a mighty empire stretching \"from the Nile to the Euphrates\".\n* Jonah never converted Nineveh to Judaism.\n* The book of Daniel gets the kings of Babylon and Persia wrong. In particular, there was no such person as Darius the Mede.\n* Some of the historical details in the Gospels are implausible; there was no empire-wide census under Caesar Augustus as Luke claims, and the dead did not rise out of the graves and wander around Jerusalem as Matthew claims.\n\nThe real problem is treating the Bible as a history textbook, when it is more of a cultural artifact that includes poetry, mythology, folklore, fiction, allegory, satire, and so on. It is the modern reader who insists that holy books be literally true, not necessarily the ancient one."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2ehvmp | What causes the liquid in a full spray bottle to siphon out entirely? | I know this is an odd one, but Googling leaves me stumped. My Dad and I are fascinated by what happened to the full Windex bottle in his semi truck. It sits in a plastic storage compartment along the cab floor. He got in his truck a few days ago and the bottle was floating in its liquid--every drop of what was once inside it was now a pool in which the bottle was floating. I've seen fluid get "sucked" out of a spray bottle in small amounts due to the pressure differential created by the spray nozzle, but every drop?!
The truck stays locked, windows cracked, and there were no significant temperature fluctuations. Was it just a faulty nozzle apparatus? Has this ever happened to you, and could anyone explain what caused it? Many thanks. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ehvmp/what_causes_the_liquid_in_a_full_spray_bottle_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjzym8j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Based on what information you provided, I would say that the cause would have been a temperature fluctuation paired with a faulty nozzle. As gases heat up, they expand, and when they cool, they contract. Even minor temperature changes (5°-10°C) are enough to make a noticeable difference in volume. So as the air inside the bottle rated up, it would have pushed all of the liquid out of the bottle through a potentially faulty nozzle head."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2zgh5l | why do our bowels release when we are scared? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zgh5l/eli5_why_do_our_bowels_release_when_we_are_scared/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpinw5c",
"cpio8q1"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Bowel contents are not required in an emergency.",
"Your body needs to lose weight and save energy. \nIn instances of literally pants shitting, bladder empting terror, your body is likely going to need to move as quickly and agilely as possible. \nEmptying your bowls can immediately drop your weight by about 1%. \nIt also takes effort to hold it in. So all the extra oxygen/glucose the muscles of you sphincter is using get channeled elsewhere. And all the neurons controlling said sphincter stop hogging the blood that the rest of your brain needs to prevent you from being messily devoured."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
17syyj | the difference between libertarian economics and anarcho-capitalism. | I'm currently looking at various schools of though on economics. I'm confused on the difference between Libertarian Economics and Anarcho-Capitalism.
Could someone please explain like I'm five. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17syyj/eli5_the_difference_between_libertarian_economics/ | {
"a_id": [
"c88kg6s",
"c88kge1",
"c88orxc",
"c88otq5",
"c88r4md"
],
"score": [
20,
8,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Libertarians believe that a government should exist that supports property rights (e.g law enforcement (police), courts, etc) whereas, Anarcho-Capitalists believe that there does not have to be a government to protect property rights as everything associated with them (law enforcement, courts, etc) would exist without government funding, people would pay for their own security.\n\nSo just as Libertarians believe that government doesn't have to fund some things as they would exist privately (e.g, healthcare, education, etc) Anarcho-Capitalists go one step further and believe the same of law enforcement, thus there is no need for a government whatsoever.",
"Libertarians think the government is necessary. They want a much, much *smaller* government than the one we currently have, sure. But at the end of the day, libertarians think that we need a government to keep people from breaking the law.\n\nAnarcho-capitalists don't think this. They think that government isn't necessary to enforce the law; people could just shop around for dispute resolution services, and subscribe to the best one.",
"Libertarianism is an umbrella term, so you will not find much agreement on what libertarian economics is. Just [look at the wikipedia page](_URL_0_). It is a very wide grouping of ideologies, with economic subdivisions ranging from the extremes of capitalism to socialism.\n\nAnarcho-capitalism falls under the libertarian umbrella. It is the belief that private markets and voluntary interactions can provide all the goods and services a society needs to survive, with no need for a formal government.\n\nIn the US, the most mainstream libertarian ideology would be that of the libertarian party, which at its most basic is laissez-faire. The role of the government is to provide only public goods (those goods which cannot be efficiently provided by private action), typically providing courts, law enforcement, and national defense, sometimes including roads. Government should be minimally intrusive; private action provides all the proper incentives for an efficient economy.",
"Libertarians believe that the playground needs yard-duty teachers to enforce basic school rules.\n\nAnarcho-capitalists believe that the people on the playground are not children and can make their own decisions.",
"You may want to take a look at the Austrian School of Economics, whose ideas are very closely related to libertarianism and anarcho-capitalism: /r/austrian_economics ."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
205c0j | when a multi-billion dollar transaction occurs between two companies, how are the funds transferred/managed? | For example, let's say that American Airlines buys 50 Boeing 787-8 for the price of 50*$211.8M = $10.59B. Does a staff member of AA log in their system, enters the amount, then click 'Transfer' to Boeing's bank account, or is it more complex? Are the funds transferred by gradual amounts or in a single package? Are there special security procedures AA and Boeing must follow? Where do the funds end up? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/205c0j/eli5_when_a_multibillion_dollar_transaction/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfzwkc5",
"cfzx31d",
"cg038vi",
"cg0dvla"
],
"score": [
10,
14,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Yup. Just a bank transfer. They will - in this particular case and many others - be broken up into smaller transactions, but not exactly because of the volume of money, but because when you're doing that size of a deal you're going to have complex contracts with lots of smaller deliverable and milestones and payments associated with each. ",
"Typically by Wire Transfer. \n\nWire Transfers, unlike checks or regular electronic bank payments (known as ACH transactions in the US), are irrevocable once final -- even in the case of fraud. (That is, if someone authorized to make a wire transfer makes one, even if defrauded or illegally embezzling funds, the accountholder are still liable for the payment. If someone at the bank who isn't authorized to make a wire transfer illegally makes one, the accountholder is not liable.)\n\nThe idea is that businesses need finality when they receive payments, they can't just have money disappear from their accounts like if a \"chargeback\" or \"stop payment\" is done. If a wire transfer is made and you need your money back, you have to sue the recipient -- you can't just ask the bank to reverse the charge. For transactions between businesses, it's assumed that the need for finality outweighs the fraud protections that checks and nonwire electronic payments provide. (In the US, wire transfers are rarely used by consumers. Also why scamsters try to get you to wire money to them - people wrongly assume that wire transfers have the same protections as consumer payment systems.) Source: The Uniform Commercial Code Article 4A.",
"See venture Capitalism _URL_0_",
"Oh man, its so anticlimactic. Basically, the business folks and the lawyers from both sides get on conference call with all the banks involved. Both sides say they're ok to release the wire, then the buyer's bank wires the money through the Fed wire system to the seller's bank and the bankers confirm on the call that the money has been sent/received. Usually a day or two ahead of time, an email will be sent, cc-ing all parties, with the wire information so its all agreed to ahead of time. Then its done. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[
"http://thumbnails.visually.netdna-cdn.com/a-tale-of-two-cows_5125901371eac.jpg"
],
[]
]
|
|
3bbmz0 | why won't youtube fix the issue of saving the video quality even though it's the number one complaint they get? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bbmz0/eli5why_wont_youtube_fix_the_issue_of_saving_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"csko5tf",
"cskth93"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You mean when you start a new video? It's becomes HD every time I enter full screen.",
"YouTube Help Forum Top Contributor here. I don't know what you mean by \"saving the video quality\", but whatever it is -- no, it's not the \"number one complaint\".\n\nIf you're uploading gaming videos, then I suspect that you're complaining about compression artefacts. They practically unavoidable. That is, they *could* be avoided, but only by making it impossible for most people to actually watch the video.\n\nIn my experience, gamers are *extremely* sensitive about the slightest loss of quality, even if most other people would never notice anything \"wrong\".\n\nBut whenever you upload a video, YouTube has to transcode it into a number of different resolutions and formats for playback on a wide variety of devices. And it has to keep the file sizes as small as possible, partly to save bandwidth at YouTube's end (the cost of bandwidth alone is *insane* -- YouTube uses more bandwidth than the entire internet did ten years ago), and partly because most people on Planet Earth still don't have access to decent high-bandwidth internet (I get less than 6 Mbit/s). This *always* involves sacrificing a little quality, although it tries to make it unnoticeable.\n\nUnfortunately for gamers, the typical gameplay video is extremely difficult to compress efficiently. Things like lots of fine, sharp detail, fast action sequences and rapid cuts are the mortal enemies of efficient video compression, so those videos suffer the most, especially when viewed at lower resolutions.\n\nYouTube is currently switching over to the WebM video codec, a process which is pretty much complete, although many browsers still don't support VP9. But this should compress a bit more easily, so it should show at least some improvement in video quality."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
54zbhz | i know the 2 major parties don't want 3rd party candidates in presidential debates unless polling is at 15%, but why does the media let the parties control who is invited to these debates? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54zbhz/eli5i_know_the_2_major_parties_dont_want_3rd/ | {
"a_id": [
"d867usm",
"d8680q3",
"d868bp0",
"d868tbc",
"d86al4n"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the media knows that the candidates can always take their debate to another network. Since both sides tend to agree to this idea, it's even easier to get the media to agree.",
"The media doesn't.\n\nThere's a non-profit organization who coordinates them, called the Commission on Presidential Debates.\n\nTheir rules for who appears on stage are based on the rules held by the League of Women Voters, which set a standard of \"must appear in 15% of reputable polls\" way back when.",
"\"The media\" is not invovled.\n\nThe debates are held by the Commission on Presidential debates. Which is run bipartisanly by republicans and democrats.\n\nCommission sets the rules and the parties agree. The media just covers the debate. ",
"_URL_0_\n\nThis is a petition to allow all qualified candidates to participate in the debates if you're interested! ",
"Cynical answer: They're all in it together, maaaaaan. They want to control your MIND.\n\nMore practically- despite literal decades of whining, everyone knows Gary Johnson wants to sell guns made of pot to teenagers for bitcoin and that Jill Stein is the sort of person that makes Bernie go on old man rants about the \"fuckin goddamned hippies\". We get it. Every four years, there's the mid-race think pieces, and interview, and \"THERES OTHERS OPTIONS GUYS\" as bored reporters think they're the first ones to discover this. \n\nThere's no public interest, theres no point, and Gary Johnson keeps doing unsettlingly weird shit. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.change.org/p/commission-on-presidential-debates-include-all-qualified-candidates-in-2016-presidential-debates"
],
[]
]
|
||
563qls | why the english speaking nations are more successful than any other linguistic nationalities in history? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/563qls/eli5_why_the_english_speaking_nations_are_more/ | {
"a_id": [
"d8g2jt8",
"d8g2ws5",
"d8g3czd"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not *English* that does it. It's luck, mostly.\n\nEurope had the industrial revolution first. That gave it an unprecedented ability to conquer other lands, which many countries did. The Brittish Empire just so happened to be in the right place at the right time to spread its influence far and wide.\n\nThen came the United States. It had an ungodly amount of resources and land, which supported a *massive* population. It also was isolated enough that it could grow in strength before and during the world wars. All that combined to make it an economic superpower. The USA is in fact so big that it can swing the entire world economy to its whims. At the time when the US was rising to power, neither China nor India could really compete economically, and after WWII, the USSR dissolved, losing its power.\n\nGiven that English existed both in the USA and in practically every former Brittish colony, English quickly became the language of trade. If you spoke English, you could talk with all the big players, which is obviously a good thing if you want to make money.\n\nIf some other country, say Portugal, Spain, or France had settled the land that would become the USA, it might have been Portuguese, Spanish, or French that became the language of trade.",
"They werent in the 18th century, US has only been the leader since ~WWI but was tied with a lot of other groups like Japan the UK and France until WWII, the UK lost most of their power after WWI ~1920 as their economy got surpassed, new independence movements and their military shrinks. France was the world power until Napoleon ~1812 after Napoleon it went to the UK, before that Spain until their Armada's defeat in 1588 after that it was France. Before Spain it was the Ottoman empire, Mongol Empire, Byzantine empire, Abbasid Caliphate etc. etc. \n\nI left some out and the dates go backwards.",
"What about the Romans? Ancient Egypt? The Tang Dynasty?\n\nEnglish domination is relatively recent on a historical scale."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
abvgl1 | when a company commits a gross violation that affects people (physically/mentally/financially, etc.), why is the company forced to pay the government, instead of the people they hurt? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abvgl1/eli5_when_a_company_commits_a_gross_violation/ | {
"a_id": [
"ed37dsz",
"ed381pr"
],
"score": [
10,
4
],
"text": [
"Usually they'll have to pay both. Fines levyed by the state is not meant to replace money companies have to pay for the damages they cause a person.\n\nLet's say a company causes you to lose a leg because of negligence, they might be fined by the state if they broke the law, but *in addition to that* they have to pay you money for the damages they caused you specifically.",
"The company pays the government for violating federal codes. They are punitive, not compensatory. Compensatory actions are done through the court system via individual or class action lawsuit, though the ruling that determines the fine will typically help the case for compensation for those that have been affected. They are separate actions. \n\nSame as getting into an accident while drunk. The state fines you for your crime along with any other penalties, the lawsuit by the person you hit will compensate them for their injuries, etc. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
2hsgoq | what's the difference between killer bees and honey bees? | -As an Australian we don't have them over here. And in film and television shows they're pictured as the title implies "killer bees". I just want to know if there's something different in the venom or if they're just more aggressive, and if they actually kill. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hsgoq/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_killer_bees_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckvkaug"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The \"killer bee,\" AKA the Africanized honey bee, is a hybrid bee created from Western and European bee strains.\n\nFor whatever reason (and I'm not a geneticist nor a beekeeper, so I don't know how this happened), the Africanized bee picked up a few nasty traits. They are excessively defensive of their hive, and will swarm much more aggressively in defense of it. They are also known to pursue more aggressively. Where normal honeybees will swarm a threat and pursue for a limited distance, returning to the hive once they feel the invader is no longer a threat, killer bees are known to swarm greater numbers of bees and will chase for a much greater distance. They're thus much more likely to inflict lethal numbers of stings than basic honeybees.\n\nSeveral swarms of these bees escaped captivity. The problem then became the fact that they compete more aggressively than European honeybees and tend to push them out when they compete for territory, meaning that the \"killer bee\" is rapidly spreading as wild swarms supplant the native wild honeybees."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
aud4bl | How do scientists know the decay progression of Uranium-238 if it takes place over billions of years? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aud4bl/how_do_scientists_know_the_decay_progression_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"eh953mc"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Because the rate is the same. You can observe it for any period of time and extrapolate that rate of decay across whatever unit of time, whether it's days, months, or billions of years. Even if you observe it for a normal human period of time, there's still a tiny tiny change, and if you measure accurately, the rate is there."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
5rujl4 | Why was the Spanish colonisation of the Americas so brutal and destructive compared to their colonisation of the Philippines? | When you compare the Philippines to Hispanic America it seems the Philipppines retained so much of their indigenous culture. Filipinos all speak their indigenous pre-colonial languages and most of them are not mestizos or white due to mass rape. I read somewhere that something like 1% of Filipinos can even speak the Spanish language, which is obviously a huge contrast to countries like Mexico and Peru.
I get the impression there was just total genocide of the Aztec or Mayan cultures and people when the Spanish arrived in the Americas. Most of the indigenous people died and they lost most of their culture.
Why were the two regions treated so differently? Or why do they look so different today (culturally and linguistically)? Today you could go to the Philippines and not even realise it was a Spanish colony for centuries. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5rujl4/why_was_the_spanish_colonisation_of_the_americas/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddaxi9t"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You have a mistaken impression about the Spanish conquest. I don't know much about the Mayans and others, but the Spanish didn't genocide the Aztecs, though in other cases, like with the Pueblo, there's certainly a case to be made for genocide. \n\nThe reasons so many Aztecs died were primarily diseases. It's not really clear how many died, but one estimate made by historians at Berkeley University even puts it at 95% of the Aztec population dying because of repeated epidemics. Admittedly, the early Spanish colonial system was filled with abuse as the conquistadors formed their own fiefdoms with the Indians as their servants, a system called the encomienda system, but that system was abolished relatively quickly and replaced by a much more benign system, where Indians generally were left to rule themselves in their own communities, called pueblos de indios, or at least be ruled by Indian mayors called gobernador de indios, who were in turn elected by the local Indian nobility, the caciques, alongside a Spanish administrator called a corregidor.\n\nMestizos aren't the product of mass rape, they're the product of simply intermixing over the course of several centuries. It's the same reason you have Afro-Indians and Afro-Europeans in Mexico. The early Spanish conquistadors didn't bring their wives along, so they just started marrying native women. Same with slaves and Indians and slaves and Europeans. Though the Spaniards had instituted a racial caste system, race was such a vague system that it was practically useless. Indian nobles were above a poor Spanish farmer de facto, and a village full of black people could be classified as an Indian village simply on basis of location. \n\nIn general, the Spanish king had a very paternalistic view towards Indians, so if they were abused he did try to help them generally, although it was from a somewhat misguided point of view. There are still hundreds of letters in Spain between Indians nobles appealing their cases to the Spanish king. This was one of the reasons the Spanish king abolished the encomienda system, alongside the more practical reason that he didn't want the conquistadors to form independant kingdoms in the New World. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
2ntri0 | i love that t-mobile does this, but how is allowing unlimited data for music streaming not a violation of nn? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ntri0/eli5_i_love_that_tmobile_does_this_but_how_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmgt0zh",
"cmgt18o",
"cmgtb50",
"cmguzf8"
],
"score": [
11,
12,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Net neutrality says companies need to provide equal bandwidth access to all sites. T-Mobile is still providing equal bandwidth which conforms to NN. Data metering is different as you get a set amount of data you can use on any site. They just don't meter you for the music site they prefer. You're still able to use another streaming service if you prefer with the same download speed. \n\nIt does seem like a loophole to NN though. ",
"It is actually a violation of it. However, people aren't really fighting it because people like T-Mobile. Also, allowing unlimited music streaming scissor benefits people, so they like it.",
"This has nothing to to with network neutrality. \n\nAn example of a violation of NN would be if they, for example, wanted to make sure that you used their music service instead of iTunes, so they looked at every data packet you are getting, and decided to 'lose' or give low priority to the ones from iTunes.\n\nThey are just saying 'here, we have songs. Listen to as many as you want.'\n\nI hope you see there is a difference. \n\n",
"It would be very easy for T-Mobile in two years to say: \"Ok streaming services, time to pony up some cash if you want your streaming to still be free and unlimited\". So yes, this is a violation of net neutrality. Furthermore, what if a new up and coming streaming service pops up down the road? They will be at a disadvantage because T-Mobile customers will be less likely to use a service that is not part of T-Mobile's music freedom feature."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3qwipr | how do they make boneless chicken breasts? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qwipr/eli5how_do_they_make_boneless_chicken_breasts/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwixd26"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"They take regular chicken breasts and take the bones out of them. There isn't any magic beyond that. They aren't growing boneless chickens out there."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
u4ds0 | how does amazon ec2 work? | I've looked into it a bit - but still confused. So you rent slots or something? What happens when traffic skyrockets on your site? etc. I've always been told this is what people are doing to address scalability nowadays. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/u4ds0/eli5_how_does_amazon_ec2_work/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4sao4m"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Amazon EC2 is a service that allows you to rent servers and pay for what you use in an easy to use way.\n\nWith the amazon ec2 you do not pay for a server by the month though, you pay for it by the hour. So let me create a scenario for you:\n\nLet's say you have a theory for the stock market that you want to test out. You've written some program to analyze historical data to see how accurate your theory has been throughout the stock markets history. The problem is there's a TON of data, and you only need to analyze it once to see if your theory will work. How do you do this? \n\nWell, you could do it on your home computers, but it will probably take forever and what if your program makes requests to webpages each time it analyzes a price? Something like looking up how many news articles were released about that company on that specific day in history. That would kill your internet bandwith and probably get your internet suspended by your ISP if you tried to run all that at home. \n\nSo the next logical thinking is, I know, I'll get a dedicated server to process all this. You head over to rackspace and quickly realize that they want a year contract for servers, and it's going to be EXPENSIVE. Before cloud computing services like the ec2, these were your only options. You could either shell out a bunch of money to test your theory, or you could scale it way down, run it on your own computer, and not get a completely accurate picture.\n\nNOW, with the amazon ec2, the way to solve this is to rent a server. Remember you pay by the hour, so if you rent a giant ec2 server with 16 cpu cores and 64 gb of ram, it wont take very long to analyze all that data will it? Maybe it would take 6 hours or so? Well, after those 6 hours, you can simply stop the server, and you will no longer be paying for it. Doing it this way makes it affordable (you pay to rent a giant server for a little while, instead of shelling out the money to buy it all month or all year) even for the little man. \n\nThere are numerous other benefits like easily making backups, changing network configurations instantly, and yes scalability (the problem i presented above is a scalability problem).\n\nWe use the ec2 and other AWS stuff heavily where I work, so if you have any questions feel free to ask."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
fzjnl6 | is human brain at it's limits? and are there other stages of human brain development that will lead to us getting smarter. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fzjnl6/eli5_is_human_brain_at_its_limits_and_are_there/ | {
"a_id": [
"fn4vc60"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"A helpful way to think about the brain is not as a something that reaches 'capacity'. Our brains are very efficient, so as we develop and grow we keep reinforcing the neural pathways that help us the most in life - i.e. how should I interpret someone shouting at me, or someone crying.\n\nIf you grow up with a lot of exposure to learning, you'll create very efficient pathways that make you very good at lets say math, or writing, or critical analysis. This means that by the time we reach adulthood, we have very established connections which act as a kind of 'cheat sheet' for interpreting external stimulation - we see something and the brain draws on past experience to make sense of it. \n\nBUT what is very interesting is work being done on psychedelics right now. Essentially, under the influence of certain things in psychedelics our mind opens up and we can forge brand new neural connections much more easily - that is bits of the brain that weren't talking before can now talk to each other. This gives us new perspectives and insights and returns our mind to state like when we were young, that is when we were building our neural pathways. \n\nSo our brains are never at their limits because what they can build strong neural connections for are endless - they are just set in their ways."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
1ex5ez | Does WiFi have any detrimental effects? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ex5ez/does_wifi_have_any_detrimental_effects/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca4qoun"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"While it's prudent to repeat the experiment, there's nothing that is known so far (as in, reviewed and shown to be repeatable) that would indicate negative effects of Wi-Fi. The most serious detrimental effect of Wi-Fi is the rage it induces when the connection is too weak for whatever you're doing."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ar3l57 | why do governments, schools, and big businesses (mostly) always use hp printers? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ar3l57/eli5_why_do_governments_schools_and_big/ | {
"a_id": [
"egkixcr",
"egkiya8",
"egklgm2",
"egkq646"
],
"score": [
12,
7,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"So they? All I ever see is RICOH",
"hp usually gives away a lot of printers for free, but makes you sign a contract to buy supplies ie ink, toner, and paper from them. so businesses jump at this due to the low upfront cost since some of those higher end printers can easily cost 10k+",
"HP has payment plans for equipment. That includes computers and printers. Like a rent to own. They also do contracts where they will replace equipment X is Y years. Maintenance contacts are also available. The willingness of HP to work with the needs of the company is hard to beat. ",
"It's mostly Konika Minolta nowadays.\n\nIn any case, HP has / had a great tech support plan. Costly, but they offered \"our technician will be at your location tomorrow first thing\" as an option, 15+ years ago. Big businesses and governments want their stuff to work, so getting stuff fixed fast was a big deal."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
3tjtk3 | if shadows are the absence of light, why do you get different coloured shadows with different light sources? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tjtk3/eli5if_shadows_are_the_absence_of_light_why_do/ | {
"a_id": [
"cx6r268"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"A shadow is generally not the total absence of light. It is simply an area where there is less light because a light source has been blocked by something opaque. \n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
||
ap172a | Is the black hole of our galaxy, rotating around something else? | Is our black hole in place and the entire galaxy rotates around it? Or is it also rotating around something else? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ap172a/is_the_black_hole_of_our_galaxy_rotating_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"eg53jjk"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"The galaxy rotates around itself. All the stars are being pulled by all the other stars, which tends to mean they are revolving around the center of mass - the barycenter.\n\nSagittarius A\\* happens to be at the center (well, near it), but the Sun doesn't orbit it. It isn't nearly massive enough."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
o6z7g | Could we send a spacecraft to LEO using solar sails? | So I was reading a xkcd “blag” and they proposed a funny idea. Basically they were wondering if you could send a craft to another star system, like Proxima Centauri, by harnessing the Sun’s power. Here is the [blog](_URL_1_). They go into how if you could keep the photons moving back and forth between sail and photon source, you could get far more energy pushing on the sail. I guess they based the idea on an actual [paper](_URL_0_).
Anyways, I was wondering if this could be used for pushing craft into orbit. I know JP Aerospace wants to fly balloons into sub-orbit and keep pushing them to LEO using ion thrusters, but that seems impractical. The energy requirements would mean dragging along a ton of equipment. So instead of dragging all of that up there could we shoot a Beam of light at the craft and push it up to orbital velocities? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o6z7g/could_we_send_a_spacecraft_to_leo_using_solar/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3evdm3",
"c3ewuhv"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Solar sails provide a very small but consistent force. For a 100 square meter sail, the force is about 0.0005 Newtons. In space, that will provide a small acceleration, which over long times will give it appreciable speed. On Earth, however, there is the 10000+ Newton force of gravity keeping it down. 0.0005 won't do much.",
"There is [this](_URL_0_) but I don't know if they've ever developed this concept further."
]
} | []
| [
"http://cat.inist.fr/?aModele=afficheN&cpsidt=13593751",
"http://blog.xkcd.com/2008/02/15/the-laser-elevator/"
]
| [
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LAdj6vpYppA&feature=g-hist&context=G2ef629cAHTwiqMwAZAA"
]
]
|
|
1vkdqj | why is there a stigma with google glass? | I posted a comment on [r/technology](_URL_0_) a while ago, and got some hate for defending Google Glass's camera. That's one of the main features, and some people want it removed because they don't want someone to take a picture of them without knowing. I get that some people don't want their picture taken without knowing, but if someone really wanted to, they could very easily take your picture with a smartphone without you knowing. I fell like until this stigma goes away, companies are going to be scared to innovate in wearable technology. Why do you like/hate cameras being integrated into wearable tech like Google Glass, Galaxy Gear, etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vkdqj/why_is_there_a_stigma_with_google_glass/ | {
"a_id": [
"cet3oim",
"cet4niv"
],
"score": [
5,
9
],
"text": [
"It's just rude to video tape people that don't want to be on video.\n\n",
"As with all emerging technology it's paranoia and fear. We've had cameras that you can't even see with the naked eye that can take decent pictures/video for a while now. We've had hidden camera tech going back decades that's gotten even easier to conceal and hide.\n\nThe thing is: No one gives a shit about you enough to record you. This is hard for some people to accept but it's the truth of things. There's plenty of already semi-discreet ways to take pictures/record someone with your phone without them suspecting anything.\n\nAnd sure, some people do. But Google Glass isn't really changing anything that wasn't already quite possible and easy to accomplish anyway. If you don't like being recorded in public, stay home."
]
} | []
| [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/technology/"
]
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
1tm1ew | What different tactics were developed by both the French and Germans to assault enemy trenches? | Tertiary question that I want to tack on is, how did officers keep convincing soldiers who by the end of the war who had to know that charging an enemy trench was basically certain death to actually go over that trench instead of just saying "no, screw you"? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tm1ew/what_different_tactics_were_developed_by_both_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce9agjv",
"ce9bwct"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Are you referring to a specific war, or in general?",
"Towards the beginning of the war, the French and Germans utilized very similar tactics on the offense. This would involve extremely long preparatory bombardments (lasting days, or even weeks, and firing millions of shells) at enemy positions. The idea was, the bombardment would destroy emplacements, ruin trench networks, and break up wire obstacles. Gas shells (which the Germans pioneered) and Livens projectors (which were actually more like holes in the ground with gas canisters which were opened at the right moment time) would be used during the final minutes of the attack to force the defends to stay in their trenches (or, by the defender, to disrupt the impending attack). As the bombardment began to fade, the attackers would come out of their trenches and cross no-mans land. Ideally, the defenders would be so broken from the bombardment that the infantry could quickly cross and size the first trench line. Then follow up bombardments would allow the attackers to continue until the had broken through the trench network, where Cavalry would exploit the the victory and win the war! \n\nProblem was, the defenders were rarely broken by the bombardments and gas attacks. Frequently, the bombardments would only serve to ruin the battlefield and make the crossing *more* difficult. And the Germans became particularly efficient at creating deep dugouts which were difficult to collapse. The defenders could sit for days underground before the bombardment would stop, and the defenses would be remanned. In these conditions, the infantry attack would be brutalized before it gained much ground. Some improvements, like the Creeping Barrage (which was used by all sides) helped, but not much. \n\nBut in the French army, these problems were all exacerbated by their concept of *elan*. It roughly means dash or eagerness bordering on zealotry. French troops were expected to attack aggressively, push the enemy hard, and overwhelm them in close combat. Thus, the bayonet was an integral weapon for the French. \n\nLater in the war, the French and Germans began to differ in tactics. The French invested heavily in tanks, which they employed with mixed success. After a shorter bombardment, the tanks would advance against German strong points and absorb their fire. The infantry would advance behind these tanks, support them in bad ground, and secure the success that they achieved. But in practice this almost never happened. Heinz Guderian's *Achtung Panzer* goes into detail with French tank tactics, their success, and their critical failures. He argues that the French attacks failed in two major areas: Concentration and support. They failed to employ enough tanks to penetrate the German lines reliably, which ruined their element of surprise, as well as allowed the Germans to concentrate fire on fewer targets. Further, where tanks were successful, Infantry rarely supported them to secure their success. For one reason or another, tanks were often forced to operate without help. This meant they were vulnerable, and isolated if they ran into mechanical trouble (which many did)\n\nOn the other hand, the Germans imported a tactical concept that they first experienced in the East. The German name for it was *Hutier* tactics, and it was a radical departure from the older forms attack. The *Hutier* attack first called on a powerful but short artillery barrage called a Hurricane Bombardment. The issue (as one might expect) with the long bombardments was that they telegraphed the location and timing of an attack. If somebody was willing to burn 1million shells in a sector, it was pretty obvious they were up to something. With the Hurricane Bombardment, the attackers focused more on an extremely heavy, but very short, bombardment. During this bombardment, stormtroopers would already begin crossing no-mans land. They would operate in small teams, and were armed with grenades, flame throwers, and other close combat weapons. When the bombardment ended, the stormtroopers would leap up and immediately attack the defender while they were leaving their dugouts. The hope was, the enemy would be completely overwhelmed by the storm troopers in the transition, and the first line of trenches would be rapidly secured. Obviously this didnt work in *every* place, but where it did, the stormtroopers were quickly reinforced by the regular infantry, who didnt have to contend with heavy resistance. Meanwhile, the artillery was already beginning a bombardment of the secondary trench lines. Not only would that prevent any major reinforcements, but it would serve as a jumping off point for the *next* assault. So the Germans could quickly overwhelm several positions, and the *Hutier* tactic brought the Germans as close to the fabled breakthrough as they would ever get. \n\nAs for your last question, I would direct you to the [Mutiny of the French Army](_URL_0_). I dont have time to elaborate more, but if you have questions, ask away. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Army_Mutinies"
]
]
|
|
2dh96q | When did mortgages start to be sold regularly? | It's now very common for a borrower's mortgage to change owners even three or four times, when did this come to be the case? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2dh96q/when_did_mortgages_start_to_be_sold_regularly/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjpirnz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"In _The Ascent of Money: A Financial History of the World_ by Niall Ferguson, he discusses (among many other things) the history of debt instruments. The truth is, the buying and selling of debt obligations has been around almost as long as debt obligations themselves.\n\nSpecifically, you may be referring to the changing of hands of the *servicing rights* of the mortgage. I have to delve a bit into current events here, but when you get a mortgage today (and this has largely remained unchanged since the sub-prime crisis of a few years ago), the mortgage itself is likely to be sold only once and only once - probably to Fannie Mae, Freddie Mac, or Ginnie Mae, depending on the type of loan, but sometimes to private companies (although not nearly as much since the real estate bubble popped). Then, the cashflow from hundreds or thousands of loans is sold to investors in the form of bonds. The company that actually accepts your monthly payment (say, Wells Fargo or Bank of America) does not own the loan. They accept a servicing fee each month to pay for their expenses in servicing the loan (I've seen between 0% and 1.25% of outstanding principal as a servicing fee), and pass the rest of the payment onto the trustee which administers the bond. It is not uncommon for the servicing rights to change hands during the life of the loan, and was quite common during the real estate boom in the US in the previous decade.\n\nAway from current events now, and back to history.\n\nModern securitization as described above is a system that came about with the chartering of Freddie Mac in 1970, and the creation of the first residential mortgage backed security (RMBS) by the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development. But securitization of mortgages had been around since the mid 1800s. It's easier for a small local bank to loan out money when they can sell their mortgages immediately on the secondary market, rather than have their money tied up for many years. However, and getting to your question, even when the mortgage itself was sold, the mortgagor (usually a farmer) still made payments to the same bank that originally made the loan. It was not until the Great Depression and the creation of Fannie Mae that the secondary market included government sponsored enterprises (GSE). Before that, it was large, usually East Coast, banks that bought mortgages on the secondary market.\n\nSo I guess the answer to your question would be around 1970, with the creation of the first government sponsored RMBS, and then the late 80s, with the creation of the first private label RMBS. The RMBS structure allows Bank A to make a loan, Bank B to buy and repackage the loan, and Bank C to service the loan, potentially removing the originating bank (Bank A) from the equation before the first payment is even made (in all three cases, I am using the term \"bank\" loosely, because these are very different kinds of banks). In previous forms of securitization (the ones going back to the 1800s), the originating bank was either the owner of the mortgage, or at least retained the servicing after they sold it (otherwise, they wouldn't have gone to the trouble of originating it).\n\nBesides the above book, my source for the second paragraph, where I discuss modern mortgage servicing, is that I've been in the industry for 10 years, including some very interesting front row seats working as an RMBS securities analyst from 2007-2009. I hope that's ok, and that I answered your question."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
24t08k | Was Jesus trying to reform the Jewish faith as opposed to trying to begin a new religion? | I took a humanities class at my university a couple of years back, and I recall my professor saying that Jesus was a, "Jewish guy trying to reform his *church*. Is this true? I was under the impression for a long time that Jesus was indeed beginning a new religion.
Thanks | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24t08k/was_jesus_trying_to_reform_the_jewish_faith_as/ | {
"a_id": [
"chakvj5",
"chaky26",
"chanryd",
"chau421"
],
"score": [
41,
18,
9,
4
],
"text": [
"From the New Testament gospels, we can find a portrait of a Jesus wherein he certainly considered himself to be operating within \"Judaism.\" I mean, there are any number of phrases we could select to show this (for a particularly 'conservative' one, try \"Do not think that I have come to abolish the law or the prophets; I have come not to abolish but to fulfill. For truly I tell you, until heaven and earth pass away, not one letter, not one stroke of a letter, will pass from the law until all is accomplished,\" in Mt 5:17-18).\n\nScholars debate the so-called \"parting of the ways\" between Judaism and Christianity; but virtually everything about this is mired in ambiguity. It's probably most useful to talk about the parting of the ways in terms of when separate groups (like some of the figureheads in Rabbinic Judaism) would consider other groups to be \"illegitimate,\" and would attempt to exclude them from their sphere of influence and various normative social practices, etc. Certainly, in the New Testament gospels, words are placed in the mouth of Jesus that were deemed heretical--beyond the pale of \"minimal\"/normative Jewish belief--both by Jewish figures *within* the gospels, and without (and this obviously continues up to the modern day, among Jews). But, in a sense, the ideology behind this was probably thought to be a *corrupt* form of Judaism, rather than a totally separate ideology.\n\nThere were certainly anti-Judaic trends that developed among early Christian theologians--one of the great ironies of history. I mean, although there's an obvious sense in which this is ridiculous, you have some sayings by Paul (and others) that on the surface seem to be diametrically opposed to those positive statements made about the Law by Jesus (like the quote from Mt 5:17-18 earlier). And then you have things like [1 Thessalonians 2:14-16](_URL_0_), which was fodder for anti-Judaism.)\n\n____\n\nAddendum: there is a phenomenally difficult crux underlying everything here (and, really, underlying *many* issues of religion, identity, etc.): who is the person who gets to decide who is or is not a Jew (or a Christian, or a “liberal,” or whatever)? Do we look for a \"normative\" body of belief and practices, find all of those who conform to these, and then exclude all others? Or are the claims of the (supposed) \"outsiders,\" that there are in fact really *insiders* (just as much as any other person), enough to establish their insideness, in-and-of-themselves? \n\nIs Islam the \"perfected\" Abrahamic religion, over against Judaism and Christianity? Are Mormons/LDS \"Christians\" just as much as anyone else is?\n\nThe ambiguities of insider/outsider identity in regard to Judaism/Christianity are probably no more tangible than at the beginning of the 9th chapter of Paul's epistle to the Romans:\n\n > For I could wish that I myself were accursed and cut off from Christ for the sake of my own people, my kindred according to the flesh. 4 They are Israelites, and to them belong the adoption, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the law, the worship, and the promises; 5 to them belong the patriarchs, and from them, according to the flesh, comes the Messiah, who is over all, God blessed forever. Amen. 6 It is not as though the word of God had failed. *For not all Israelites truly belong to Israel*, 7 and not all of Abraham's children are his true descendants; but \"It is through Isaac that descendants shall be named for you.\" 8 This means that it is not the children of the flesh who are the children of God, but the children of the promise are counted as descendants. ",
"Simple answer: yes, according to the texts of the New Testament, Jesus was a Jew acting as a continuation and a fulfillment of Jewish messianic prophecies.\n\nMy first point is that there are repeated references in the Gospels and the entire New Testament to the Hebrew Bible, where Jesus (and others, like Peter, Paul, John the Baptist, and a bunch more) would quote from Jewish scripture. \n\nJesus was, in the view of the New Testament, the arrived Messiah, properly filling the requirements set forth by prophecies from the Hebrew Bible. Matthew 1:22-23 (that is, the Gospel of Matthew, the very first book of the New Testament), for example, is a quotation from Isaiah 7:14. Isaiah states (depending on your translation) that the messiah would come from a young woman, or more commonly, a virgin. Matthew uses this and Mary as proof that the child here is the one whose coming was foretold in Isaiah. In the second chapter of Matthew, at 2:5-6, we come across a combined quotation from Micah and 2 Samuel stating that the messiah would hail from Bethlehem, which Matthew tells us is where Jesus was born. There are around fourteen references through the Gospel of Matthew alone to various Jewish texts that reaffirm that Jesus fits all the criteria necessary to be the Jewish Messiah, not to mention the significant number of others in the books beyond.\n\nI would contend that the myriad references to Jewish texts were attempts to legitimize him as the Jewish messiah, linking him to Judaism in a profound way.\n\nIt's also tough to ignore the references to Jewish figures alongside Jesus in the text. This quotation from Mark, known as The Transfiguration, is a good example: *\"After six days Jesus took Peter, James and John with him and led them up a high mountain, where they were all alone. There he was transfigured before them. His clothes became dazzling white, whiter than anyone in the world could bleach them. And there appeared before them **Elijah and Moses**, who were talking with Jesus. Peter said to Jesus, “Rabbi, it is good for us to be here. Let us put up three shelters—one for you, one for Moses and one for Elijah.” (He did not know what to say, they were so frightened.) Then a cloud appeared and covered them, and a voice came from the cloud: “This is my Son, whom I love. Listen to him!” Suddenly, when they looked around, they no longer saw anyone with them except Jesus.\"* (Mk 9:2-8)\n\nThen, of course, there's Jesus' \"cleansing of the Temple\" in Jerusalem in John 2:13-24. He angrily addresses the people in the temple selling various goods and changing money.\n\nA second quick point is that, according to the Gospels, Jesus was born a Jew. Luke 2:21 tells us that \"After eight days had passed, it was time to circumcise the child; and was called Jesus....\" To my knowledge, really the only ones circumcising their children at this point in that region were the Jews.\n\nThirdly, there isn't ever really a place where Jesus says anything about creating what I would understand as a new religion. He talks of a new covenant (as does Paul later in the New Testament when discussing the meaning of Jesus' death); he talks about being the \"new Temple\": *\"Jesus answered them, “Destroy this temple, and I will raise it again in three days.” They replied, “It has taken forty-six years to build this temple, and you are going to raise it in three days?” But the temple he had spoken of was his body\"*; he even talks about a \"new commandment\" in the Gospel of John. \n\nIn several of the accounts of his death in the Gospels (all but Luke, in fact), Jesus is referred to as the \"King of the Jews,\" and this proclamation, according to the New Testament, is what got him killed.\n\nThe references to Jewish scripture, the details around Jesus' life and ministry as related to Jewish life, and the lack of any statements from Jesus suggesting that he intended to build a new religion all point to an intended reformation, rather than an attempt to break away and build something new.\n\nHope that helped! Post questions if you've got 'em! :)",
"Sure, Jesus was trying to reform Judaism, in that he claimed to be the fulfillment of Jewish texts--but the binary nature of the question (\"reform the Jewish faith\" *or* \"trying to begin a new religion\") can be a little misleading.\n\nYour humanities professor said Jesus was a \"Jewish guy trying to reform his church\"--but the really interesting part of that sentence is the beginning. Jesus certainly wasn't claiming to be \"[just] a Jewish guy\". According to the only record we have of his teachings, he claimed to be something way more important than that--so it doesn't make much sense to call him a \"reformer\" if that draws comparison with guys like Martin Luther, who emphatically weren't claiming independent divine authority to speak the word of God.\n\nHe claimed that the Old Testament prophets testified of his coming, that the ruling authorities of contemporary Judaism were out of sync with their teachings--and that he was the Son of God, able to authoritatively interpret God's law regardless of tradition and precedent. That sounds like \"reform\" of a sort, but how radical does a reform need to be before it's something fundamentally new?\n\nTo illustrate--Muhammad also claimed to be restoring the correct interpretation of the Abrahamic tradition, and leaned heavily on the Hebrew prophets, but you would hardly call him a \"Jewish reformer\".",
"Thank you so much to everyone for the answers, it is more clear to me now. Now I realize it is a more interesting and involved concept than I had originally thought."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1Thess%202:14-1Thess%202:16"
],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
|
i978w | Is it possible that humans have evolved to have a tolerance to alcohol? | any thoughts? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i978w/is_it_possible_that_humans_have_evolved_to_have_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c21w9qn",
"c21wa9y"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"Ask some native Americans.",
"It appears that we have evolved a tolerance to alcohol. Acetaldehyde dehydrogenase is more expressed in humans than other mammals. Some people lack the enzyme (usually asians) which causes them to get red-faced and feel ill after drinking.\n\n > society may have partly formed due to beer\n\nThis is nonsense. Apes have societies and they don't make booze. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
|
20hrtr | why did apple's iphone gain so much popularity but windows phones have seen such meager market penetration? | Pretty self explainatory | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20hrtr/eli5why_did_apples_iphone_gain_so_much_popularity/ | {
"a_id": [
"cg3c7pi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The iphone had no competition, the windows phone did. The iphone has a positive market image, while windows phone does not.\n\n"
]
} | []
| []
| [
[]
]
|
|
5ub64q | when a person is attempting suicide (eg about to jump from a bridge) and gets saved by emergency services, what happens to them next? what's their follow up care? could they just walk away? | Follow-up question: Does this differ by county? Like would someone on a bridge in America be treated differently from someone in the UK/Europe? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ub64q/eli5_when_a_person_is_attempting_suicide_eg_about/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddsr12i",
"ddsr1g2",
"ddssugz",
"ddsyswh"
],
"score": [
6,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well I don't know about the American system, but I imagine it's similar to here in the UK. If you tried and failed at suicide, they would treat you for whatever damage you did in the attempt, after which you would see a psychiatrist who would almost certainly section you, so you would have to stay in hospital to be treated for whatever it is that is causing you to attempt suicide, until the psychiatrist thinks it's safe for you to go home. ",
"Just gonna leave this here: \n\n**National Suicide Prevention Lifeline**\n\n_URL_0_ ",
"I can't speak for other countries, but in America, you will be emergency petitioned, which is to say that you will be escorted to the emergency room. This is often by police, but it doesn't have to be. You will then be contained to the mental ward until the doctors decide you are no longer a threat to yourself. From there, you can go into therapy or back to therapy if you were already in it. ",
"In the US, most states have laws that allow anyone suspected of being mentally unstable to the point they might harm themselves to be put on a 72-hour psychological evaluation. They get confined to a facility for three days, and after that, they might be released on their own, released to under the supervision of others, or held for a longer period of time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[
"https://suicidepreventionlifeline.org/"
],
[],
[]
]
|
|
1aflf1 | What muscle are involved in your tongue sticking out | I am a Anatomy Teaching Assistant, (so you can use anatomy jargon/go into deatail) I have long wondered how we can stick out our tongues, as muscles only contract (shorten) and never lengthen, thus I can not figure out for the life of me how our tongue is able to stick out | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1aflf1/what_muscle_are_involved_in_your_tongue_sticking/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8wy1cd"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The primary muscle is the [genioglossus](_URL_0_). Note the figure there - because it attaches to the inside of the chin, contraction of the muscle 'pulls' the tongue forward. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genioglossus"
]
]
|
|
emiox6 | how can you love yourself? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/emiox6/eli5how_can_you_love_yourself/ | {
"a_id": [
"fdoyd1x",
"fdp0ldk"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If anyone ever is raised by their family *not* to love themselves, to have that voice in their head that speaks loving thoughts, then their family has failed them terribly (likely because they themselves were failed and so on..). No, that is not okay and not right and should be different. Everyone should work hard so that never happens.",
"A big part of the *how* is self-improvement.\n\nIf there’s something you don’t like, you alone have the power to change it. Change is not overnight, and often requires baby-steps.\n\nI struggle with this myself. All you can do is set small, realistic goals and take it one day at a time."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
5rzgyp | why people eat salty food then crave sugary food and repeat the cycle? what's going on in human body that causes this craving? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rzgyp/eli5_why_people_eat_salty_food_then_crave_sugary/ | {
"a_id": [
"ddbj1rr",
"ddbk2dn"
],
"score": [
14,
27
],
"text": [
"We need salt and sugar to survive. Salt is vital for water retention and brain chemistry. And sugar is used by the body as well and natural sources of sugar like fruit and veggies are extremely good for us. \n\nAlso sweet and salty I believe are two major components of our taste. So our brain rewards is heavily for getting those things into our mouth and into our system. \n",
"We've evolved in environments where sugar and salt were no where near as abundant as they are today, and because they're so vital for our survival we've evolved to enjoy the taste of them in order to make us want to eat them to get the nutrition we need(ed). Now, there's a bit of a mismatch because of how readily available sugar and salt are. Not sure if this explains why you'd crave one after the other in a cycle though. "
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[]
]
|
||
m4ksf | all the different kinds of alcohol, what they are, how they're different, what each one kinda tastes like, etc. etc. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m4ksf/eli5_all_the_different_kinds_of_alcohol_what_they/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2y1ipd",
"c2y1kay",
"c2y2hbi",
"c2y2q12",
"c2y32ky",
"c2y3b7h",
"c2y3bac",
"c2y3len",
"c2y3rqq",
"c2y42tl",
"c2y43dz",
"c2y4ori",
"c2y55ec",
"c2y62eu",
"c2y66ti",
"c2y7b7j",
"c2y7g98",
"c2y1ipd",
"c2y1kay",
"c2y2hbi",
"c2y2q12",
"c2y32ky",
"c2y3b7h",
"c2y3bac",
"c2y3len",
"c2y3rqq",
"c2y42tl",
"c2y43dz",
"c2y4ori",
"c2y55ec",
"c2y62eu",
"c2y66ti",
"c2y7b7j",
"c2y7g98"
],
"score": [
12,
216,
29,
15,
12,
7,
103,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
12,
216,
29,
15,
12,
7,
103,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll go ahead and post this comment in place of the requisite reference to how five year-olds wouldn't exactly care-for or need these instructions.",
"This is something you kind of need to experience yourself but here goes nothing:\n\n* **Wine** is broken into two main categories: red and white. Wine is generally made from fermenting grapes. The color is mainly determined by whether or not the grade skin was strained out. It has a pretty low alcohol content relative to liquor, but a little bit higher than beer. 8-12% alcohol by volume is common. It tastes somewhat like grape juice but less sickly sweet (though some wines are very sweet, so called dessert wines). White wines are generally \"crisper\" than reds, but they all have such a wide variety of specific flavors that it is hard to generalize. Also in the wine category I am going to through champagne, which is basically really fizzy wine.\n\n* **Beer** is made from grains, and usually has a slightly lower alcohol content than wine. 5% for light beers, to 8 or 10 for regular. Some can get even higher. \"Bready\" is probably the best taste descriptor for someone who has never had beer, but again you really need to try it, and several different kinds.\n\n* **Liquor** is the last main category. Liquor is distilled, rather than simply fermented, giving it a much higher alcohol content than wine or beer. 40% alcohol by volume is kind of the \"standard\" content, but it can range from 20 up to 96ish. Different liquors can be made of different things, so I will address them in groups. **Vodka** is made from grain or potatoes. It is notable as a mixing ingredient because it has very little taste on its own. Good vodka is judged largely on how it feels in your mouth. It can easily be flavored with basically anything. **Gin** is basically vodka flavored primarily with juniper, giving it a \"christmas tree\" like taste. Very piney, with hints of citrus and other flavors. **Rum** is made from molasses, and has a complex flavor that can vary largely depending on the type. **Whisk(e)y** is made from grains, and has no one flavor. Some are described as smoky, peaty, but rarely fruity, if that gives you any general idea. It is broken down into Bourbon (usually from kentucky), Tennessee whiskey, Irish whiskey, Scotch (whisky), and Rye whiskey, broadly speaking, depending on where its from and what its made with. **Tequila** is made from the blue agave plant, and I really can't tell you what it tastes like because I have never had it straight. **Brandy**, **Cognac**, and **Port** are all basically fortified wines. This means wine was taken and distilled to a higher alcohol content. Brandy and cognac can be made from other fruits but they follow the same process. \n\nI probably missed a ton of stuff but hopefully this helps a bit.",
"People all over the world have basically been sticking whatever carbohydrate-rich local agriculture they have access to in a vat in order to ferment and get an alcohol content. (That means that yeast takes molecules and make them into other molecules, in this case alcohol). \nThese fermented agriculture drinks include things like beer, cider, mead and wine. \n\nThen, someone discovered that by heating this stuff to just the right temperature (around 70°C), you can get the alcohol to turn into steam, while the water and all the other stuff will be left behind. If you catch the steam and cool it down, it turns into liquid alcohol again, only stronger than before. These are destilates, such as vodka (potato-based alcohol steam) cognac (grape-based alcohol steam) whisky (corn-based alcohol steam) and rum (sugar-based alcohol steam). \n\nEdit: Carbohydrate-rich, not protein-rich.",
"Scotch tastes kind of like you lit a stick on fire, let it burn for a while, and then started chewing on it.... whether or not you put out the fire before chewing depends on how much you paid for the bottle.",
"Wow, I read the title of this thread and assumed OP wanted to know the difference between actual types of alcohol. Like ethanol, isopropyl, methanol, etc.\n\nIn fact, a literal reading of the title still seems to mean that. Though why you'd want to taste rubbing alcohol is beyond me.",
"**Mead** This is a very old and often forgotten drink. It is believed to be one of the first alcohols, beer would be it's contender. Mead is made from honey, with the addition of other botanicals as well. Many people refer to it as honey wine because of its taste and i would agree. It is usually sweet, but with a little twang at the end and can be flavored with different honey and fruits to make it even more exotic, some have even been flavored with hops and won beer medals because [of it](_URL_0_). The term honeymoon actually comes from mead. Back in the medieval times newlyweds were given enough mead to last a moon cycle in the hopes that they would consummate a baby hence honeymoon. overall they run between 8% and 15% abv.",
"**EDIT: A number of people have asked for more info, so here it is. I'm rearranging the article to make a bit more sense as well.** \n \nIf you want something done right... \n \n* **Wine** is fermented grape juice. Red grapes fermented in contact with the skins on make red wine. White wines are (usually) made from white grape juice that is fermented in the absence of the \"pomace\" (skins and pulp). Rose can be made by partly fermenting with the skins, from pink grapes (there are very few of these), or blending white and red wine (forbidden in some countries, I believe). Either red or white wine may be fermented and/or aged in oak, which gives them a 'toasty' flavour. \n* Adding a little bit of sugar and some fresh yeast just before bottling carbonates the bottle and makes **sparkling wine**. Champagne is the most famous sparkling, coming from the Champagne region of France. Sparking wine can also be made by pressurizing the still wine with CO2, or a few other methods. Force-carbonation is less than ideal, though, and mostly reserved for cheaper wines. Typically wine is 8-13% alcohol. \nRegardless of the style, grape or colour, the flavour of wine is generally a mixture of sugar, acid, alcohol, and (for reds) tannins. Young wines tend to be fruity and flowery, and as they get older, develop 'darker' flavours. Keep in mind that about 85% of wine produced is intended for drinking within a year or two of bottling. \n* **Fortified wines** are such things as Port (\"porto\"), Sherry, and Madeira. They are made by adding a hard alcohol (see below) to partly fermented wine. They tend to be quite sweet (with some exceptions!), round-about 20% alcohol, and are very unique. Sherry tastes somewhat like dates or prunes, Madeira is sometimes compared with soy sauce, and port tastes like...everything you ever dreamed of. (yes, I'm a port lover :-) OK, port is almost always sweet and fruity, often tasting the most like unfermented grape juice of all drinks. \n* **Sake** is wine made from rice instead of grapes. It has its own flavour, and I can't really compare it to anything else. All I can say is that it tastes like Sake. If anyone else want to chime in, I'd love some comparisons! \n* **Retsina** is resinated wine; that is, it's white wine made with pine resin added to the fermenting tanks. It has a VERY distinctive turpentine flavour and aroma that tends to overpower the base wine flavour, until you get used to it. \n* **Beer** is generally an extract of malted barley and hops that's been fermented. **Lagers** and **Ales** are made with yeasts that ferment on the bottom or top of the fermenter, respectively. Lagers are usually fermented slowly at cold temperatures, which gives them a crisper and often more complex taste than Ales, which tend to be more wine-like in character. These are very VERY broad categorizations. Beer flavours are driven by hoppiness (usually in the smell), maltiness, bitterness, and sweetness. Light beers can taste almost like carbonated alcoholic water, while some dark beers can taste like chocolate and woodsmoke. Note also that beer is sometimes made from rye, wheat, or rice. Also, Belgian (or Belgian-style) beers are an almost completely different category, often without hops, and with wild yeasts that give them a sour, winey flavour. Beer is typically about 3.5-6.5% alcohol, but can get as high as ~10%. Beer may be the broadest category of styles and flavours of all the different drinks out there, and is the oldest alcoholic drink we know of. \n* **Cider** is fermented fruit, typically hard fruits like pears and apples. (Note that in the USA, I believe this is called hard cider. Soft cider in the US is generally known elsewhere as unfiltered juice.) It tastes much like the fruit combined with alcohol, and is usually crisp and refreshing. \n* **Liqueurs** are usually manufactured drinks, that is they're made by adding alcohol to a flavouring. They can taste like absolutely anything - mandarin oranges, liquorice, pepper, vanilla, or anything else you feel like turning into a beverage. Alcohol content is all over the map, from ~20% to 50% or more. Most are made with neutral spirits (i.e. ethanol), but there are some liqueurs made from Whisky (**Drambuie** and Cream liqueurs such as **Irish Cream** are examples). \n* **Mead** is fermented honey, or honey wine. It can run from about 6-18% alcohol (typically 8-11%), and tastes like honey and when still young, wallpaper paste! It can be still or sparkling, dry(-ish) or sweet, and can have spices or fruit added. These drinks are called **metheglin** and **melomel** respectively. Mead always has a bit of an odd sickly flavour to it, and commercial meads are (sadly!) often sickly-sweet. \n\nI've got to head to work, but if there's interest, I'll do the hard liquors when I get there (~1/2 hour), and expand on any points above. I may be a borderline alcoholic, but I know my booze! \n\n* **Spirits, hard alcohol, liquor** are essentially cider, beer, or wine (or another basic fermented booze) that has been distilled. There are a huge variety of them. Mostly they are ~35%-45% alcohol, although some can be higher (cask-strength can get over 60%, and \"Everclear\" is basically straight alcohol). Because spirits are generally quite harsh when they're first fermented, they're often aged in oak (raw or \"toasted\", i.e. flamed inside, and sometimes barrels that have been used in other roles, such as red wine). \n* * **Vodka** is made from distilled anything--often potatoes because they're cheap and ferment cleanly. It should theoretically be a neutral spirit with no flavour other than the alcohol and water; but there are definite variations in quality, as well as flavoured vodkas. You can get things like chocolate vodka of course, but various regions around the world have traditional flavours as well - **Akvavit** is flavoured with caraway or dill, for an example, and **Ouzo** is flavoured with anise. \n* * **Gin** is vodka that has been flavoured with spices, typically juniper berries and assorted other components that are added at distillation time. It tastes...exactly like that. In the Netherlands (where Gin originated), **Jenever** is usually aged for a number of years and develops a soft nutty flavour. \n* * **Absinthe** is traditionally made in the same way as gin, but with fennel, anise, and wormwood. It is usually bottled at a very high alcohol level (~50-75%), but intended to be diluted with water and sweetened with sugar, ideally in an elaborate ceremony. It tastes quite spicy, and burns going down at almost any dilution. A compound (thujone) in the wormwood is a mild hallucinogen, and hysteria about it causing madness led to the general banning of absinthe around most of the world, until fairly recently. \n* * **Brandy** is distilled either from wine or from fermented pomace, the crud left behind from pressing the grapes. It is usually aged in oak for a number of years, but not always (many **Grappa**, for instance). Different parts of the world have the legal right to give their own regional name to their brandy, which is where **Cognac** and **Armagnac** come in--they are brandies from those respective regions of France. Brandy tends to be off-dry and have a rich caramel flavour in addition to the wine flavour in the background. \n* * **Fruit brandy** is brandy made from...fruit! That is, it's distilled cider. For some reason, these fruits tend to carry their basic flavour through more than grapes. **Calvados** is a (wonderful!) example of distilled apple cider. \n* * **Whisk(e)y** is, generically, a fermented grain that has been distilled. In other words, distilled beer. **Bourbon** is made from corn mash, **Rye whiskey** from (you guessed it!) rye, **Scotch and Irish whiskies** are made from malted barley (in fact, the stuff that goes into the stills in Scotland is very much like unhopped beer). **Canadian Whisky** is usually just called rye, but in fact is mostly made from rice. In fact, rice ferments and distills quite neutrally, so is added to a number of whiskies during fermentation to lighten the character. Trying to break down the flavours of these is almost impossible, since they're so wide-ranging. Depending on the region and methods used, Scotch Whisky alone can be sweet, dry, peaty, smoky, briny, astringent...it just goes on and on. Bourbon typically has a sweet vanilla flavour, whereas rye is usually a bit sour. What they all have in common is being strongly flavoured, and having a fairly pronounced flavour from the wood they're aged in. The spelling (with or without the 'e') is a bit of a mess. When in doubt, use whisky for Scotch, and whiskey for everything else, and you probably won't be beaten *too* hard. \n* * **Rum** is made from sugarcane juice, usually in the form of molasses. It has a (surprise!) characteristically sweet flavour, which becomes more pronounced in the darker (usually older) rums. White rum is fairly unique in that it's aged and then filtered of colour; most spirits are either unaged if clear, or coloured as a result of aging. This filtering renders it fairly light in flavour too, but probably not as harsh as if it hadn't been aged at all (NOTE: this is my own conjecture, based on grappa and the like). Also, spiced rums are exactly what they sound like--rum with spices added; typically cinnamon and Christmassy flavours, or coconut. \n* * **Tequila** is distilled from the Blue Agave cactus, and has a distinctive spicy, peppery, plant-like flavour. It can be sold unaged, or aged in oak for several years. Like any spirit, the harshness softens and develops more complexity as it ages in oak. \n \nThat's...well, lots of them. Certainly not all. There are a number of styles of coolers which are a base alcohol (vodka or wine) that have been sweetened and flavoured, and they taste mostly like the flavour that's been added. People have made wine from almost anything that ferments to a reasonable percentage (fruit, dandilion, lilac petals), and beer from any grain that grows (spelt, millet, sorghum...). There are drinks make from coconut (**arrack**) and from milk (**kefir** and **kumis** are two of many. Most likely by the time you get the chance to try them, though, you'll be far more knowledgeable about what to expect for flavour. \n",
"Everyone else has been explaining different kinds of alcoholic beverage, when the OP asked about different kinds of alcohol.\n\nAll taste strong. Ethanol is the alcohol in alcoholic drinks. Other alcohols (eg, methanol) can be harmful. Don't drink them.\n\nEDIT: corrected statement\n",
"A few people have said that the difference between lager and ale is down to the type of yeast used in the fermentation process and while that's a decent basic overview it's not a strict measure. Lagers will always use a bottom-fermenting yeast and what are termed 'real ale' will always use top-fermenting yeast, but many other ales are made with bottom-fermenting yeasts. Porter, a type of ale originating in London in the 18th century, is an example of an ale that can be bottom-fermented.\n\nI think the better distinction is in temperature.\n\nLagers are fermented at lower temperatures than ales. This is why most lagers are clean-flavoured and refreshing - but not necessarily simple or light. As well as the malted barley and hops that are characteristic of every lager, other flavourings and fermentable material can be used. Wheat, for example, provides some classic and superb wheat beers, quite different to the mainstream light gold fizzy liquid that is often associated with the label lager. Blue Moon is a wheat beer that also uses orange and coriander to add more flavour.\n\nAles are fermented at warmer temperatures. This is why ales usually have more complex flavours and aromas than most lagers. It's also why ales are traditionally served warmer than lager, because each is more suited to the temperature at which it was brewed.",
"Best way to find out is by experience. Trust me on this one ;)",
"I'll just talk about what I know: hard liquor. These are all 80 proof (40% alcohol) minimum.\n\n* **VODKA** is 40% alcohol and 60% water. Plain as it comes. It tastes like burning. Mix with whatever, or shoot it and chase with your favorite juice/soda, you girl. They drink it straight in Eastern Europe. My favorite: *doesn't matter, they all taste the same*\n\n* **RUM** is distilled from molasses. Spiced rum (e.g. Captain Morgan) is brownish and probably what you think of most often. White rums are purer and more vodka-like. Careful, some have been purified to ridiculous levels (e.g. Bacardi 151, 75.5% pure alcohol). My favorite: *Sailor Jerry* with Coke\n\n* **TEQUILA** is made in Mexico, and tastes like it. It's like a burro kicking you in the teeth while a Tijuana hooker squeezes your balls. If you buy expensive tequila, you want to sip it, the traditional Mexican way. If you buy cheap tequila, shoot it, the traditional American way: lick your hand, put some salt on it, lick the salt, take the shot, bite a lemon slice. Yowza. The first time you do this, you'll think \"that wasn't so bad,\" do six, and barf. There is a superset of tequila called **MEZCAL** which has a stronger flavor and sometimes a worm (seriously). My favorite: *Monte Alban* mezcal (the only mezcal sold at American liquor stores)\n\n* **WHISKEY** is the drink of classy motherfuckers and shameless drunks worldwide. It ranges from really good and expensive to really cheap and trashy. Subdivided into **WHISKY**, **WHISKEY**, **SCOTCH**, and **BOURBON**. Drink it straight if you're man enough. Nothing wrong with some plain old Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. The most popular Irish whiskey is probably Jameson. If you buy scotch, I recommend spending $50 on a good single-malt, it's really worth it. Don't drink it all at once. My favorite (that's not super expensive): *Bushmills* on the rocks\n\n* **GIN** is a horrible concoction drunk primarily by old people. In my opinion, any drink involving gin is improved by the substitution of vodka. Gin has a rather piney flavor. Personally I hate it.\n\n* **SOJU** is a Korean rice liquor that tastes like water and will get you absolutely wasted. It's considered rude to pour your own; let someone else fill your glass. Don't let them fill it more than 5 or 6 times though, because the Koreans are dedicated drinkers and excellent hosts. Shoot it straight, it tastes like nothing. My favorite: *no clue, I don't speak Korean*\n\n* **ARAK** is an Arabic liquor. It's clear in the bottle, and very strong undiluted, but you're supposed to mix it with a small amount of water in your glass and it turns cloudy. Tastes a bit like licorice. I've never had **OUZO**, a Greek drink, but it's supposed to be similar.",
"An alcohol is an organic compound (meaning it contains carbon) that has a hydroxy (OH- , think bases like NaOH) functional group attached to a carbon. People typically think of alkane alcohols such as methanol, ethanol and butanol.\n\nEach alcohol has differing characteristics and there are so many that I can't list them all here. But alcohols are generally toxic and very strong smelling/tasting. They're commonly used as solvents; some are used as polar solvents because the polar OH- group is able to overtake the non-polar carbon chain. These alcohols will mix into water. Others are used as non-polar solvents because the carbon chain \"wins out\" over the polar OH- group.\n\nBecause of the weak hydrogen bonding between the OH- groups, alcohols have higher boiling points than other hydrocarbons. Allowing them to be liquid at room temperature.",
"Not sure if it was mentioned, but all these different types of drinks are related: they all contain [ethanol](_URL_0_), which is a type of alcohol. In drinks, alcohol is a general term, but in chemistry there are many types of alcohols, just as there are many types of salts (not just table salt).",
"Just a minor correction to the things people are saying:\n\n**Gin is not juniper flavored vodka**, it's a spirit distilled from juniper berries with a couple of other spices for flavoring. Gin that's a neutral spirit with flavoring is called \"compound gin\" and it is terrible.\n\nDo yourself a favor. Only drink London Dry Gin. (I highly enjoy a locally produced gin called Clearheart that is especially citrusy, but Bombay Sapphire is enjoyable as well.)",
"No one's really approached what they taste like, so I'll give it a go.\n\n**Vodka** tastes like alcohol. It's not supposed to have a taste of its own. This makes it an excellent mixer.\n\n**Gin** tastes like a sparkly christmas tree. This is better than it sounds.\n\n**Whiskey** tastes kind of woody and sometimes a little like caramel. It is very enjoyable, but will always retain its presence in what you put it in.\n\n**Scotch** tastes like liquid smoke or lighter fluid. I am told this is enjoyable. It is always drunk straight. Wars have been fought over whether this should be done at room temperature or chilled.\n\n**Tequila**, when it's cheap, tastes like it has thorns. The good stuff is smooth, vaguely citrusy, and rather astringent. \n\n**Sake** tastes kind of like the sea. In my experience, it's much saltier than other liquors.\n\n**Absinthe** tastes like a particularly vicious black liquorice.\n\nMost liqueurs taste pretty much like what you'd think they would based on their ingredients.",
"again: you need to experience each. but... if i want to do it like we're all drunken kindergarteners, mixing sensations and tastes, here's my taste:\n\n* red wine: plums, grapes, and wood\n* white wine: bubbles, grapes, and sugar\n* beer: bread and burps\n* vodka: sharp and heavy\n* gin: sharp and fruity or bright\n* rum: mellow and round\n* whiskey: sharp wood juice\n* tequila: watery butter\n* brandy: see whiskey, but rounder\n* bourbon: see whiskey, but sweeter\n* port: dizzy raisins\n* sake: nail polish remover\n* cider: unsweet apple juice",
"The best drink in existence is the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. The effect of drinking one of these is rather like having your brains smashed out with a slice of lemon, wrapped around a large gold brick.",
"I'll go ahead and post this comment in place of the requisite reference to how five year-olds wouldn't exactly care-for or need these instructions.",
"This is something you kind of need to experience yourself but here goes nothing:\n\n* **Wine** is broken into two main categories: red and white. Wine is generally made from fermenting grapes. The color is mainly determined by whether or not the grade skin was strained out. It has a pretty low alcohol content relative to liquor, but a little bit higher than beer. 8-12% alcohol by volume is common. It tastes somewhat like grape juice but less sickly sweet (though some wines are very sweet, so called dessert wines). White wines are generally \"crisper\" than reds, but they all have such a wide variety of specific flavors that it is hard to generalize. Also in the wine category I am going to through champagne, which is basically really fizzy wine.\n\n* **Beer** is made from grains, and usually has a slightly lower alcohol content than wine. 5% for light beers, to 8 or 10 for regular. Some can get even higher. \"Bready\" is probably the best taste descriptor for someone who has never had beer, but again you really need to try it, and several different kinds.\n\n* **Liquor** is the last main category. Liquor is distilled, rather than simply fermented, giving it a much higher alcohol content than wine or beer. 40% alcohol by volume is kind of the \"standard\" content, but it can range from 20 up to 96ish. Different liquors can be made of different things, so I will address them in groups. **Vodka** is made from grain or potatoes. It is notable as a mixing ingredient because it has very little taste on its own. Good vodka is judged largely on how it feels in your mouth. It can easily be flavored with basically anything. **Gin** is basically vodka flavored primarily with juniper, giving it a \"christmas tree\" like taste. Very piney, with hints of citrus and other flavors. **Rum** is made from molasses, and has a complex flavor that can vary largely depending on the type. **Whisk(e)y** is made from grains, and has no one flavor. Some are described as smoky, peaty, but rarely fruity, if that gives you any general idea. It is broken down into Bourbon (usually from kentucky), Tennessee whiskey, Irish whiskey, Scotch (whisky), and Rye whiskey, broadly speaking, depending on where its from and what its made with. **Tequila** is made from the blue agave plant, and I really can't tell you what it tastes like because I have never had it straight. **Brandy**, **Cognac**, and **Port** are all basically fortified wines. This means wine was taken and distilled to a higher alcohol content. Brandy and cognac can be made from other fruits but they follow the same process. \n\nI probably missed a ton of stuff but hopefully this helps a bit.",
"People all over the world have basically been sticking whatever carbohydrate-rich local agriculture they have access to in a vat in order to ferment and get an alcohol content. (That means that yeast takes molecules and make them into other molecules, in this case alcohol). \nThese fermented agriculture drinks include things like beer, cider, mead and wine. \n\nThen, someone discovered that by heating this stuff to just the right temperature (around 70°C), you can get the alcohol to turn into steam, while the water and all the other stuff will be left behind. If you catch the steam and cool it down, it turns into liquid alcohol again, only stronger than before. These are destilates, such as vodka (potato-based alcohol steam) cognac (grape-based alcohol steam) whisky (corn-based alcohol steam) and rum (sugar-based alcohol steam). \n\nEdit: Carbohydrate-rich, not protein-rich.",
"Scotch tastes kind of like you lit a stick on fire, let it burn for a while, and then started chewing on it.... whether or not you put out the fire before chewing depends on how much you paid for the bottle.",
"Wow, I read the title of this thread and assumed OP wanted to know the difference between actual types of alcohol. Like ethanol, isopropyl, methanol, etc.\n\nIn fact, a literal reading of the title still seems to mean that. Though why you'd want to taste rubbing alcohol is beyond me.",
"**Mead** This is a very old and often forgotten drink. It is believed to be one of the first alcohols, beer would be it's contender. Mead is made from honey, with the addition of other botanicals as well. Many people refer to it as honey wine because of its taste and i would agree. It is usually sweet, but with a little twang at the end and can be flavored with different honey and fruits to make it even more exotic, some have even been flavored with hops and won beer medals because [of it](_URL_0_). The term honeymoon actually comes from mead. Back in the medieval times newlyweds were given enough mead to last a moon cycle in the hopes that they would consummate a baby hence honeymoon. overall they run between 8% and 15% abv.",
"**EDIT: A number of people have asked for more info, so here it is. I'm rearranging the article to make a bit more sense as well.** \n \nIf you want something done right... \n \n* **Wine** is fermented grape juice. Red grapes fermented in contact with the skins on make red wine. White wines are (usually) made from white grape juice that is fermented in the absence of the \"pomace\" (skins and pulp). Rose can be made by partly fermenting with the skins, from pink grapes (there are very few of these), or blending white and red wine (forbidden in some countries, I believe). Either red or white wine may be fermented and/or aged in oak, which gives them a 'toasty' flavour. \n* Adding a little bit of sugar and some fresh yeast just before bottling carbonates the bottle and makes **sparkling wine**. Champagne is the most famous sparkling, coming from the Champagne region of France. Sparking wine can also be made by pressurizing the still wine with CO2, or a few other methods. Force-carbonation is less than ideal, though, and mostly reserved for cheaper wines. Typically wine is 8-13% alcohol. \nRegardless of the style, grape or colour, the flavour of wine is generally a mixture of sugar, acid, alcohol, and (for reds) tannins. Young wines tend to be fruity and flowery, and as they get older, develop 'darker' flavours. Keep in mind that about 85% of wine produced is intended for drinking within a year or two of bottling. \n* **Fortified wines** are such things as Port (\"porto\"), Sherry, and Madeira. They are made by adding a hard alcohol (see below) to partly fermented wine. They tend to be quite sweet (with some exceptions!), round-about 20% alcohol, and are very unique. Sherry tastes somewhat like dates or prunes, Madeira is sometimes compared with soy sauce, and port tastes like...everything you ever dreamed of. (yes, I'm a port lover :-) OK, port is almost always sweet and fruity, often tasting the most like unfermented grape juice of all drinks. \n* **Sake** is wine made from rice instead of grapes. It has its own flavour, and I can't really compare it to anything else. All I can say is that it tastes like Sake. If anyone else want to chime in, I'd love some comparisons! \n* **Retsina** is resinated wine; that is, it's white wine made with pine resin added to the fermenting tanks. It has a VERY distinctive turpentine flavour and aroma that tends to overpower the base wine flavour, until you get used to it. \n* **Beer** is generally an extract of malted barley and hops that's been fermented. **Lagers** and **Ales** are made with yeasts that ferment on the bottom or top of the fermenter, respectively. Lagers are usually fermented slowly at cold temperatures, which gives them a crisper and often more complex taste than Ales, which tend to be more wine-like in character. These are very VERY broad categorizations. Beer flavours are driven by hoppiness (usually in the smell), maltiness, bitterness, and sweetness. Light beers can taste almost like carbonated alcoholic water, while some dark beers can taste like chocolate and woodsmoke. Note also that beer is sometimes made from rye, wheat, or rice. Also, Belgian (or Belgian-style) beers are an almost completely different category, often without hops, and with wild yeasts that give them a sour, winey flavour. Beer is typically about 3.5-6.5% alcohol, but can get as high as ~10%. Beer may be the broadest category of styles and flavours of all the different drinks out there, and is the oldest alcoholic drink we know of. \n* **Cider** is fermented fruit, typically hard fruits like pears and apples. (Note that in the USA, I believe this is called hard cider. Soft cider in the US is generally known elsewhere as unfiltered juice.) It tastes much like the fruit combined with alcohol, and is usually crisp and refreshing. \n* **Liqueurs** are usually manufactured drinks, that is they're made by adding alcohol to a flavouring. They can taste like absolutely anything - mandarin oranges, liquorice, pepper, vanilla, or anything else you feel like turning into a beverage. Alcohol content is all over the map, from ~20% to 50% or more. Most are made with neutral spirits (i.e. ethanol), but there are some liqueurs made from Whisky (**Drambuie** and Cream liqueurs such as **Irish Cream** are examples). \n* **Mead** is fermented honey, or honey wine. It can run from about 6-18% alcohol (typically 8-11%), and tastes like honey and when still young, wallpaper paste! It can be still or sparkling, dry(-ish) or sweet, and can have spices or fruit added. These drinks are called **metheglin** and **melomel** respectively. Mead always has a bit of an odd sickly flavour to it, and commercial meads are (sadly!) often sickly-sweet. \n\nI've got to head to work, but if there's interest, I'll do the hard liquors when I get there (~1/2 hour), and expand on any points above. I may be a borderline alcoholic, but I know my booze! \n\n* **Spirits, hard alcohol, liquor** are essentially cider, beer, or wine (or another basic fermented booze) that has been distilled. There are a huge variety of them. Mostly they are ~35%-45% alcohol, although some can be higher (cask-strength can get over 60%, and \"Everclear\" is basically straight alcohol). Because spirits are generally quite harsh when they're first fermented, they're often aged in oak (raw or \"toasted\", i.e. flamed inside, and sometimes barrels that have been used in other roles, such as red wine). \n* * **Vodka** is made from distilled anything--often potatoes because they're cheap and ferment cleanly. It should theoretically be a neutral spirit with no flavour other than the alcohol and water; but there are definite variations in quality, as well as flavoured vodkas. You can get things like chocolate vodka of course, but various regions around the world have traditional flavours as well - **Akvavit** is flavoured with caraway or dill, for an example, and **Ouzo** is flavoured with anise. \n* * **Gin** is vodka that has been flavoured with spices, typically juniper berries and assorted other components that are added at distillation time. It tastes...exactly like that. In the Netherlands (where Gin originated), **Jenever** is usually aged for a number of years and develops a soft nutty flavour. \n* * **Absinthe** is traditionally made in the same way as gin, but with fennel, anise, and wormwood. It is usually bottled at a very high alcohol level (~50-75%), but intended to be diluted with water and sweetened with sugar, ideally in an elaborate ceremony. It tastes quite spicy, and burns going down at almost any dilution. A compound (thujone) in the wormwood is a mild hallucinogen, and hysteria about it causing madness led to the general banning of absinthe around most of the world, until fairly recently. \n* * **Brandy** is distilled either from wine or from fermented pomace, the crud left behind from pressing the grapes. It is usually aged in oak for a number of years, but not always (many **Grappa**, for instance). Different parts of the world have the legal right to give their own regional name to their brandy, which is where **Cognac** and **Armagnac** come in--they are brandies from those respective regions of France. Brandy tends to be off-dry and have a rich caramel flavour in addition to the wine flavour in the background. \n* * **Fruit brandy** is brandy made from...fruit! That is, it's distilled cider. For some reason, these fruits tend to carry their basic flavour through more than grapes. **Calvados** is a (wonderful!) example of distilled apple cider. \n* * **Whisk(e)y** is, generically, a fermented grain that has been distilled. In other words, distilled beer. **Bourbon** is made from corn mash, **Rye whiskey** from (you guessed it!) rye, **Scotch and Irish whiskies** are made from malted barley (in fact, the stuff that goes into the stills in Scotland is very much like unhopped beer). **Canadian Whisky** is usually just called rye, but in fact is mostly made from rice. In fact, rice ferments and distills quite neutrally, so is added to a number of whiskies during fermentation to lighten the character. Trying to break down the flavours of these is almost impossible, since they're so wide-ranging. Depending on the region and methods used, Scotch Whisky alone can be sweet, dry, peaty, smoky, briny, astringent...it just goes on and on. Bourbon typically has a sweet vanilla flavour, whereas rye is usually a bit sour. What they all have in common is being strongly flavoured, and having a fairly pronounced flavour from the wood they're aged in. The spelling (with or without the 'e') is a bit of a mess. When in doubt, use whisky for Scotch, and whiskey for everything else, and you probably won't be beaten *too* hard. \n* * **Rum** is made from sugarcane juice, usually in the form of molasses. It has a (surprise!) characteristically sweet flavour, which becomes more pronounced in the darker (usually older) rums. White rum is fairly unique in that it's aged and then filtered of colour; most spirits are either unaged if clear, or coloured as a result of aging. This filtering renders it fairly light in flavour too, but probably not as harsh as if it hadn't been aged at all (NOTE: this is my own conjecture, based on grappa and the like). Also, spiced rums are exactly what they sound like--rum with spices added; typically cinnamon and Christmassy flavours, or coconut. \n* * **Tequila** is distilled from the Blue Agave cactus, and has a distinctive spicy, peppery, plant-like flavour. It can be sold unaged, or aged in oak for several years. Like any spirit, the harshness softens and develops more complexity as it ages in oak. \n \nThat's...well, lots of them. Certainly not all. There are a number of styles of coolers which are a base alcohol (vodka or wine) that have been sweetened and flavoured, and they taste mostly like the flavour that's been added. People have made wine from almost anything that ferments to a reasonable percentage (fruit, dandilion, lilac petals), and beer from any grain that grows (spelt, millet, sorghum...). There are drinks make from coconut (**arrack**) and from milk (**kefir** and **kumis** are two of many. Most likely by the time you get the chance to try them, though, you'll be far more knowledgeable about what to expect for flavour. \n",
"Everyone else has been explaining different kinds of alcoholic beverage, when the OP asked about different kinds of alcohol.\n\nAll taste strong. Ethanol is the alcohol in alcoholic drinks. Other alcohols (eg, methanol) can be harmful. Don't drink them.\n\nEDIT: corrected statement\n",
"A few people have said that the difference between lager and ale is down to the type of yeast used in the fermentation process and while that's a decent basic overview it's not a strict measure. Lagers will always use a bottom-fermenting yeast and what are termed 'real ale' will always use top-fermenting yeast, but many other ales are made with bottom-fermenting yeasts. Porter, a type of ale originating in London in the 18th century, is an example of an ale that can be bottom-fermented.\n\nI think the better distinction is in temperature.\n\nLagers are fermented at lower temperatures than ales. This is why most lagers are clean-flavoured and refreshing - but not necessarily simple or light. As well as the malted barley and hops that are characteristic of every lager, other flavourings and fermentable material can be used. Wheat, for example, provides some classic and superb wheat beers, quite different to the mainstream light gold fizzy liquid that is often associated with the label lager. Blue Moon is a wheat beer that also uses orange and coriander to add more flavour.\n\nAles are fermented at warmer temperatures. This is why ales usually have more complex flavours and aromas than most lagers. It's also why ales are traditionally served warmer than lager, because each is more suited to the temperature at which it was brewed.",
"Best way to find out is by experience. Trust me on this one ;)",
"I'll just talk about what I know: hard liquor. These are all 80 proof (40% alcohol) minimum.\n\n* **VODKA** is 40% alcohol and 60% water. Plain as it comes. It tastes like burning. Mix with whatever, or shoot it and chase with your favorite juice/soda, you girl. They drink it straight in Eastern Europe. My favorite: *doesn't matter, they all taste the same*\n\n* **RUM** is distilled from molasses. Spiced rum (e.g. Captain Morgan) is brownish and probably what you think of most often. White rums are purer and more vodka-like. Careful, some have been purified to ridiculous levels (e.g. Bacardi 151, 75.5% pure alcohol). My favorite: *Sailor Jerry* with Coke\n\n* **TEQUILA** is made in Mexico, and tastes like it. It's like a burro kicking you in the teeth while a Tijuana hooker squeezes your balls. If you buy expensive tequila, you want to sip it, the traditional Mexican way. If you buy cheap tequila, shoot it, the traditional American way: lick your hand, put some salt on it, lick the salt, take the shot, bite a lemon slice. Yowza. The first time you do this, you'll think \"that wasn't so bad,\" do six, and barf. There is a superset of tequila called **MEZCAL** which has a stronger flavor and sometimes a worm (seriously). My favorite: *Monte Alban* mezcal (the only mezcal sold at American liquor stores)\n\n* **WHISKEY** is the drink of classy motherfuckers and shameless drunks worldwide. It ranges from really good and expensive to really cheap and trashy. Subdivided into **WHISKY**, **WHISKEY**, **SCOTCH**, and **BOURBON**. Drink it straight if you're man enough. Nothing wrong with some plain old Jim Beam or Jack Daniels. The most popular Irish whiskey is probably Jameson. If you buy scotch, I recommend spending $50 on a good single-malt, it's really worth it. Don't drink it all at once. My favorite (that's not super expensive): *Bushmills* on the rocks\n\n* **GIN** is a horrible concoction drunk primarily by old people. In my opinion, any drink involving gin is improved by the substitution of vodka. Gin has a rather piney flavor. Personally I hate it.\n\n* **SOJU** is a Korean rice liquor that tastes like water and will get you absolutely wasted. It's considered rude to pour your own; let someone else fill your glass. Don't let them fill it more than 5 or 6 times though, because the Koreans are dedicated drinkers and excellent hosts. Shoot it straight, it tastes like nothing. My favorite: *no clue, I don't speak Korean*\n\n* **ARAK** is an Arabic liquor. It's clear in the bottle, and very strong undiluted, but you're supposed to mix it with a small amount of water in your glass and it turns cloudy. Tastes a bit like licorice. I've never had **OUZO**, a Greek drink, but it's supposed to be similar.",
"An alcohol is an organic compound (meaning it contains carbon) that has a hydroxy (OH- , think bases like NaOH) functional group attached to a carbon. People typically think of alkane alcohols such as methanol, ethanol and butanol.\n\nEach alcohol has differing characteristics and there are so many that I can't list them all here. But alcohols are generally toxic and very strong smelling/tasting. They're commonly used as solvents; some are used as polar solvents because the polar OH- group is able to overtake the non-polar carbon chain. These alcohols will mix into water. Others are used as non-polar solvents because the carbon chain \"wins out\" over the polar OH- group.\n\nBecause of the weak hydrogen bonding between the OH- groups, alcohols have higher boiling points than other hydrocarbons. Allowing them to be liquid at room temperature.",
"Not sure if it was mentioned, but all these different types of drinks are related: they all contain [ethanol](_URL_0_), which is a type of alcohol. In drinks, alcohol is a general term, but in chemistry there are many types of alcohols, just as there are many types of salts (not just table salt).",
"Just a minor correction to the things people are saying:\n\n**Gin is not juniper flavored vodka**, it's a spirit distilled from juniper berries with a couple of other spices for flavoring. Gin that's a neutral spirit with flavoring is called \"compound gin\" and it is terrible.\n\nDo yourself a favor. Only drink London Dry Gin. (I highly enjoy a locally produced gin called Clearheart that is especially citrusy, but Bombay Sapphire is enjoyable as well.)",
"No one's really approached what they taste like, so I'll give it a go.\n\n**Vodka** tastes like alcohol. It's not supposed to have a taste of its own. This makes it an excellent mixer.\n\n**Gin** tastes like a sparkly christmas tree. This is better than it sounds.\n\n**Whiskey** tastes kind of woody and sometimes a little like caramel. It is very enjoyable, but will always retain its presence in what you put it in.\n\n**Scotch** tastes like liquid smoke or lighter fluid. I am told this is enjoyable. It is always drunk straight. Wars have been fought over whether this should be done at room temperature or chilled.\n\n**Tequila**, when it's cheap, tastes like it has thorns. The good stuff is smooth, vaguely citrusy, and rather astringent. \n\n**Sake** tastes kind of like the sea. In my experience, it's much saltier than other liquors.\n\n**Absinthe** tastes like a particularly vicious black liquorice.\n\nMost liqueurs taste pretty much like what you'd think they would based on their ingredients.",
"again: you need to experience each. but... if i want to do it like we're all drunken kindergarteners, mixing sensations and tastes, here's my taste:\n\n* red wine: plums, grapes, and wood\n* white wine: bubbles, grapes, and sugar\n* beer: bread and burps\n* vodka: sharp and heavy\n* gin: sharp and fruity or bright\n* rum: mellow and round\n* whiskey: sharp wood juice\n* tequila: watery butter\n* brandy: see whiskey, but rounder\n* bourbon: see whiskey, but sweeter\n* port: dizzy raisins\n* sake: nail polish remover\n* cider: unsweet apple juice",
"The best drink in existence is the Pan-Galactic Gargle Blaster. The effect of drinking one of these is rather like having your brains smashed out with a slice of lemon, wrapped around a large gold brick."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://draftmag.com/features/drafts-top-25-beers-of-the-year/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://draftmag.com/features/drafts-top-25-beers-of-the-year/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alcoholic_beverage"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
]
|
||
1fn3kb | what's the deal with the uk independence party? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fn3kb/eli5whats_the_deal_with_the_uk_independence_party/ | {
"a_id": [
"cabuxre",
"cabvkrm",
"cabz0ej"
],
"score": [
7,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"The uk traditonally had two main parties, Labour, left wing, and the Tories/conservatives , Right wing, Over the last few decades both parties have moved more to centre-left and centre-right. This is where the UkIP comes in. The Ukip is right wing party that aims to appeal to the more right wing members of the conservative party who feel disenfranchised by the Tories more recent moderate stance.\n\nOne of the Ukip's main positions is the UK should have more autonomy from Europe and European law. Possibly going far enough for the Uk to leave the European union.",
"AmazingEmmet has put it quite well. UKIP has been around for a long time, it's only major policy being 'leave the EU', and nobody paid it much attention. Since the last election, however, its significance has skyrocketed.\n\nMy personal view on this is that it's a result of the Eurozone economic crisis making people worried about us being a member state (as if leaving would help at all), conservative voters disappointed with their party's stance on gay marriage, Europe and other social issues, and people who voted liberal as a screw-you to the main two parties but now can't do that anymore because they're in government.",
"Bunch of twats."
]
} | []
| []
| [
[],
[],
[]
]
|
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.