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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
6dun97
|
why aren't more uplifting, good news (the ones that put faith in humanity) shown in journalism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dun97/eli5_why_arent_more_uplifting_good_news_the_ones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di5h17u",
"di5h3gt",
"di5hai6"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It is not really wanted by the public. Good news, while uplifting is not entertaining to the majority of people. If it is not entertaining then fewer people will buy the newspaper, watch the news broadcast, or click the internet link. The journalists simply do more business and therefore make more money focusing on the things that are bad news. ",
"Because they don't sell. \n\nEditors want their medium (website, newspaper, TV channel) to gain as much range as possible, you can't do that using good news.\n\nI can't explain the psychological aspects of it, but humans \"enjoy\" bad news, and they enjoy more news and only the latest, juiciest stories.\n\nRemember Panama Papers? It's not fresh and hot anymore, thus nobody reports on it.",
"Longtime communications person w/ a journalism degree and a lot of feeling about this topic.\n\nSpeaking to American journalism specifically, the vast majority of outlets are for-profit (as opposed to non-profit), so they have to try and generate revenue through their reporting to stay afloat. Think NY Times, FOX News, etc. \n\nThere's a saying in reporting: \"If it bleeds, it leads.\" This means that media outlets put all your negative/sensational stories at the front of the broadcast/on the front page because its what peaks people's interest and keeps their attention. In a consumer-driven market, the consumer's interest dictate what outlets report on.\n\nConversely, if the entire country stood up and \"All I want are tella novellas and cooking shows on TV!\" and - here's the important part - ACTED ON IT by not consuming any other kind of media, we'd have nothing by tella novellas and cooking shows on TV by this time next week. So people can bitch and moan about the low quality of reporting, but if they don't act on it, there's no incentive for the outlet to change their reporting style. So its ultimately the consumer's fault.\n\nMeanwhile, you look at non-profit/public reporting outlets, you tend to see much more measured, thoughtful reporting about things that actually matter.\n\nTLDR: In for-profit journalism, the outlets are forced to pursue revenue, which in turn makes them publish stories that people respond to. People like sensational stories, so outlets publish them because there's no motive to publish stories people aren't going to read."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
20q388
|
How did Hezbollah go from a small militia to such an impressive paramilitary force?
|
They're described as stronger than the Lebanese army but how exactly were they able to create something like this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20q388/how_did_hezbollah_go_from_a_small_militia_to_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg5t2bz",
"cg6bgki"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Quick answer: Support from Iran via Syria and stong social presence. More detail:\n\n* Hezbollah military men get trained in Iran. They also get weapons from Iran through Syria. Lots of weapon and artillery. They know the country and the villages and the inner streets so they are very well positioned to fight off any attack. \n\n* Hezbollah men will fight to the death because it is a cause they are born and raised to believe in, unlike regular soldiers. Plus if they die, other than the prestige, they become martyrs and their wives and children are taken care of financially by the party. \n\n* In addition, they created themselves as champions of the Shia sect. Shia in Lebanon were the underdog and completely neglected by the government,they had virtually no representation. So Hizbollah provided them with a voice, not to mention all the charity and rebuilding work, so Hizbollah had a major popular base.\n \n* Hizbollah's leader, Nasrallah, is a seriously intelligent and charismatic man, he has a large appeal in the country even among some of the Christians.",
"- The first thing is that Hezbollah emerged essentially in fertile ground. Lebanon had been experiencing civil conflict for a while before Hezbollah appeared on the scene, so they weren't just some random guys getting together, they could draw on a degree of experience.\n\n- Reinforcing this, Hezbollah received training in Iran and from cadres from the Islamic Republican Guard Corps, which is to this day well regarded for its skill for irregular warfare etc. As a side note, a question I wouldn't mind being answered is just how the IRGC got to be so good at its job. AFAIK it didn't really have an Iranian pre-cursor, and while it might have picked up some knowledge from what remained of SAVAK etc. this would seem strange at the IRGC was set up essentially as a counter to the 'old regime' (specifically the army), which would make their precursor being the Shah's secret police seem odd. Anyhow, I digress.\n\n- Part of it was also an evolutionary pressure thing - Hezbollah had to be good to survive. It emerged in an area under Israeli occupation, and to add to the pressure it found itself in conflict with other Lebanese paramilitary groups like Amal (another Shia group) in the War of the Camps. It might be notable that Hezbollah sided with the PLO in that conflict - perhaps Hezbollah received assistance (training, funding etc.) early in the piece from Palestinian militant groups?\n\n- In terms of finance, Hezbollah was receiving support from Iran, Syria, Lebanon's large Shia population and also the Lebanese diaspora. And no, it isn't just drug money. Hezbollah's economic portfolio is pretty diverse and not all of it is illegal either, they have their own [construction companies](_URL_0_) for example.\n\nAs to how it got to be stronger than the Lebanese army, part of that isn't why Hezbollah is strong, and more about why the Lebanese army was weak. The army had been deliberately kept weak by Lebanese governments for fear it would be used by one ethnic group or another to seize power or whatever. Then with the onset of civil war and successive invasions, occupations etc. the army was hurt badly. Even if the government had had a change of heart and wanted to build up the military, this would have been difficult, since the economic base of Lebanon had been badly hurt by the civil war and occupation. So post occupation, you find an army still trying to find its feet while Hezbollah is now 'free', a leaner and meaner force that wasn't necessarily short of heavy weaponry due to its foreign backers.\n\n*Editted for typos... I hope I got them all this time"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jihad_Construction"
]
] |
|
b6x6m8
|
how do you explain that depak chopra and other woo woo new age pseudo science/medicine is bogus to someone that is deeply invested in them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6x6m8/eli5_how_do_you_explain_that_depak_chopra_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejnlrm0"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sounds like it is trying to take advantage of the placebo effect, a real phenomenon. Honestly, people who are deeply invested in these pseudosciences usually will not listen to reason and they will reject any evidence that doesn’t support their belief, much like a person who is delusional with a psychiatric illness. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
31mij4
|
Do any ancient bibles/scriptures show that Jesus did not resurrect?
|
I was thinking about this with it being Easter and such.
I thought I had read one time that some of the ancient scriptures did not show Jesus resurrecting but I can not find any source now.
Are there any truth behind this? (From a historical stand point)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31mij4/do_any_ancient_biblesscriptures_show_that_jesus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq2zp8e"
],
"score": [
35
],
"text": [
"Honestly, not really. Even in the earliest gospel (Mark), after women enter Jesus' tomb, an angel says\n\n > \"Do not be alarmed; you are looking for Jesus of Nazareth, who was crucified. *He has been raised; he is not here*.\"\n\nAnd the earliest sources that we have -- the epistles of Paul -- are permeated with references to Jesus' resurrection.\n\nThe only thing that's been hypothesized is that the earliest Christians originally did not believe that Jesus underwent *bodily* resurrection, and that they instead believed that his body really did remain dead (wherever it had ended up), and that it was just his spirit that was \"exalted to heaven.\" But, again, this was just hypothetical, and doesn't enjoy wide scholarly support; and the only texts that we have are insistent on resurrection."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
41v1vu
|
if we were to go extinct today, would earth be able to erase any evidence of us completely?
|
I don't just mean fossils and stuff but all these constructions, bridges, heavy steel stuff etc. Would they be identifiable in a million years? Or a billion?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41v1vu/eli5_if_we_were_to_go_extinct_today_would_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5blx1",
"cz5bq9o",
"cz5bwnc",
"cz5d9cy",
"cz5deam",
"cz5e7pb",
"cz5e9fi",
"cz5emt6",
"cz5n786",
"cz5ofx2",
"cz5qrog",
"cz6afnr"
],
"score": [
5,
23,
74,
12,
16,
18,
7,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"From the surface, yes. All traces of us will either erode away or be buried. However, we have fossils of single celled organisms that are [3.5 billion years old](_URL_0_). That's a significant fraction of the age of the earth itself. It's at least plausible that we would leave fossils that would last that long, if not until the sun becomes a red giant and erases pretty much all evidence altogether, which wouldn't necessarily be that much longer after that. As far as structures, I think it is plausible some of our materials will persist a good long time, depending on the circumstances of their burial.\n\nTLDR: It seems at least reasonably plausible that there will be evidence of humans as long as the Earth exists.",
"There was a show called Life After People. It showed what the earth would look like if people just disappeared. Each episode went a little farther back in time. Eventually all traces would be gone.\n\nKeep in mind this show started with the premise that we just disappeared. No natural disaster, no war or anything that \"killed\" us. Just \"poof\" we're gone. So no fossilized human remains.",
"Yes and no. The things you mention, such as buildings and bridges, would pretty much fade to oblivion. Foundations would probably remain for some things but for the most part, we would simply fade away. However, many of our more forward thinking projects, such as seed banks, would be around for millennia. When we decide that we want something to last, we can do a pretty good job of it. Furthermore, our effects on the planet will live on for the rest of the Earth's lifespan. Trapped in the geology of our planet will be records of our lives here today. Changes in carbon and methane levels, along with traces of elements and isotopes which simply do not exist naturally, will be infused into the planet for all time. To a future civilization, it would be as clear as the words you are reading right now.",
"Naturally occurring uranium is about 99% ^(238)U and 1% ^(235)U. It is enriched to 3-4% ^(235)U content for nuclear reactors, and 90+% for weapons. There is no known means for uranium to be significantly enriched naturally.\n\nTheses uranium isotopes have half lives measuring in the hundreds of millions of years. Even if nothing else man made remained, it would be apparent to any future alien archaeologist coming across enriched uranium that is was not natural.\n\n",
"Interestingly the last thing that will probably remain of humanity are the things we left on the moon. Almost no weathering would occur and very little chemistry.",
"Ceramics lasts a long long time. In a million years, when all of the steel and concrete is gone, the surface will be littered with urinals, crappers, and old tubs. ",
"All of our space junk isn't going anywhere. Assuming whoever comes after us looks at the stars in the sky at night they will be able to see satellites and our stuff for quite some time (def not in the billions of years tho)",
"There was a tv series on the History channel a few years back called \"Life After People\". It goes into detail about how long it would take for certain structures to collapse, grass and trees to grow through streets and things like that. \n\n",
"Given a billion or two years however wouldn't all that stuff all that evidence get subdicted through tectonics and melt back into mantle?",
"It is currently up for review whether we should consider the Earth to be in a new epoch. The proposed name is the Anthropocene Epoch (epoch of the humans).\n\nThere is considerable evidence that suggests the Earth has been changed in permanent ways. At least from a geological perspective.\n\nCement and plastics will stay around for a long long time.\n\nHumans have made many pure elements that just don't exist naturally, such as elemental aluminum. \n\nThe amount of nuclear detonations that have occurred have left of dusting of heavy element isotopes across the globe.\n\nSupposedly, we have physically altered 50% of our available landmass.\n\nAlong with some other examples.\n\nHowever pertaining to your question, in a million years there *might* be some very heavy duty structures that might be somewhere. In a billion years? More than likely not. ",
"Check out the 'Life After People' series, it goes in to a lot of detail as to how long various things we've made will last.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nPretty much only the stuff we've carved out of rock outside of earthquake free zones can be considered permanent.",
"Some solid Bronze statues might last until the sun expands in 5 Billion years and melts the Earth. Here's a possible scenario: Let's say the human race dies out but our cities aren't destroyed. All over the US there are hundreds of bronze statues in public parks. The statues would sit outside in the sun and the rain for thousands of years and they would be ok. (although acidic bird poop might ruin a lot of them) Most of those statues will be standing on stone bases. Water will get into cracks in the stone and freeze and the cracks would expand. Eventually the bases would crack apart and the statue would fall over. Time would pass and after 100 years the statue might be 100% covered by dirt. Once the statue is underground it could survive indefinitely. Icebergs might grind away a lot of the statues but statues near the equator might be spared. After a few million years, the surviving statues would be encased in layers of protective sediment.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ucmp.berkeley.edu/bacteria/cyanofr.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life_After_People"
],
[]
] |
|
1mdbyj
|
why do humans feel shame?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1mdbyj/eli5_why_do_humans_feel_shame/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc855sw",
"cc85nl1"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"It's a social emotion similar to embarrassment. When you feel shame, it's usually from doing something not socially accepted and whatnot, so you feel a bad emotion to be discouraged from doing it again, as humans are social creatures, and we generally prefer to be accepted by our communities. ",
"Interesting question, I do not know but I'll try to guess. \n\nLike most words for emotions there would seem to be more than one meaning to the word, which do not describe the same phenomena. \n\nPerhaps the most common meaning of shame is the feeling of discomfort and lowered self esteem connected with the perceived loss of social status due to a action even event. \n\nHedging that purpose in the context of evolutionary traits can only ever refer to a mechanism which makes the positive impact on trait survival plausible. Id say that the purpose of shame is likely two fold. \n\nShame causes a set of immediately recognizable behaviors, first showing people that you are ashamed(red face, hesitation) then later reducing the attention paid to you(subdued behavior) in your social group for a while. Basically a non verbal my bad followed by a please look over there instead. As such it would seem to serve the purpose of reducing the loss of social status(apology ) despite the inevitable mistakes you will make and events beyond your control and reduce conflicts during your move downwards in the social hierarchy should this be required by the group. As you perceive the group having normalized its interactions with you the shame subsides, until the event is brought to focus by some external event. If this is the case then accepting the shame and bearing the behaviours it causes while remaining in contact with the social group is critical to allow the shame to subside. Hiding away entirely will not let this happen while at the same time ensure that your group relations do not normalize. \n\nSecond shame likely plays a significant part in the feedback mechanism with regards to learning both direct and long term. As a feeling to which we are averse it will negatively affect the probability that we take actions which we find similar to the actions which caused the memory too which the shame is connected.\n\nLearning mechanisms are not perfect and when shame becomes associated with behaviors which would reduce the shame felt it can be come paralyzing since any attempt to learn the behavior which would reduce the shame would be negatively impacted by the shame itself. \n\nTL;DR; \nShame facilitates group cohesion and is part of the way you learn not to do things due to their social impact. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3t9nev
|
why its carl's jr. on the western half of the u.s and hardee's on the midwestern/some eastern
|
I know they essentially serve the same things, but why two different names. Also, are there any other companies that do this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3t9nev/eli5_why_its_carls_jr_on_the_western_half_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx4ayyg",
"cx4b31o"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I know that burger king in Australia is called hungry jacks! This is due to naming rights for burger king in Australia. it could be something similar to this",
"Carl's and Hardees were originally different restaurant chains. Back in 1997, the parent company of Carl's Jr. bought Hardees and is slowly combining the two restaurants. I expect they will keep the names separate indefinitely, as there's no reason to throw away name recognition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6l8v3i
|
how does lying to yourself work?
|
How do people actually believe the lies they tell themselves to be true, even though they "know" it's not?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6l8v3i/eli5_how_does_lying_to_yourself_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djry8g6",
"djs188t"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I feel like this is a psychology question, and I am in no way an expert, but maybe this helps:\n\nYour every actions come from your brain, and every decision you make is made after considering your options.\n\nAs you get older and make a lot of similar decisions you get in a habit of reacting the same way to the same actions. There are paths in your brain you \"like\" to take, because you are so well used to them.\n\nIf you treat depression you teach the patients how to get out of their every-day thoughts and finding a different approach to your thoughts and react differently.\n\nIf you tell a lie often enough your brain makes a \"path\" for the lie and all the actions that come from it. They know this isn't the right path, but it is the easiest one to take because it is often used.\nGetting out of that habbit is a lot of work and is in no way easy once the path is big enough",
"You don't actually \"lie\" to yourself. You don't say something factually wrong like \"I'm not fat\" and suddenly believe you are not overweight.\n\nWhat you do is delude yourself about things that are less factually certain. You say things like \"I might be overweight, but I am still pretty healthy\". You focus on the evidence for being healthy, like being able to go on long bike rides, and pay less attention to the evidence against, like your high blood pressure. Next time you have to decide between a double cheeseburger and a salad, you comfort yourself with how healthy you are, and get some fries with that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3zyrz0
|
what exactly is a bruised bone?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3zyrz0/eli5_what_exactly_is_a_bruised_bone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyq49lf"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"A bone bruise, or a bone contusion, is an injury to bone typically caused by trauma that results in [microscopic fractures and the build-up of blood and fluid in the surrounding tissue and bone](_URL_0_). Bone bruises can be very painful but are much less severe than a fracture. While fractures can be seen on x-rays, a bone bruise can only be seen on MRIs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.md-health.com/images/10401984-bone-bruise.jpg"
]
] |
||
2drx86
|
why do people have pairs of chromosomes? what does that do?
|
Ok, so people have 23 pairs of chromosomes, for a total of 46. What's the difference between the two chromosomes in a pair? Why are there two, what makes them a pair, what purpose does it serve?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2drx86/eli5_why_do_people_have_pairs_of_chromosomes_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjsft4w"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"You get one chromosome from each parent. It increases genetic diversity by giving you one from each parent, rather than just one chromosome from one parent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1amczl
|
Why does it hail in warm weather?
|
Inspired by a post on the front page today. How is the formation of hail different than that of sleet or freezing rain? Sorry if this is really basic stuff..
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1amczl/why_does_it_hail_in_warm_weather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8yq2ly",
"c8yq33o"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"It has to be cold very high up, and windy. Hailstones will rise and fall many times due to the wind, repeatedly picking up a new coating of water, then being carried to a higher, colder layer of air by the wind, where it freezes. The hail stone falls to Earth when the wind isn't strong enough to lift it any more.",
"Sleet is just normal rain which freezes prior to hitting the ground. Freezing rain is also just normal rain, but freezes on contact with a surface. Hail on the other hand, is formed by a completely different mechanism. The stones are created deep inside strong updrafts in powerful thunderstorm, very high up in the atmosphere where the air temperature is still below freezing (even if it is 80 degrees on the ground). \n\nFor more on how hailstones form, see [this page](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.srh.noaa.gov/jetstream/tstorms/hail.htm"
]
] |
|
m9pmn
|
How are vaccination schedules determined?
|
How did everyone come up with the ages/grades for which kids should be vaccinated against different diseases? What determines whether a vaccine requires a booster? How critical is the duration between the first dose and the booster - as in, would you lose immunity by ignoring or delaying the booster?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m9pmn/how_are_vaccination_schedules_determined/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2z8oqd",
"c2z8t63",
"c2zpkgx",
"c2z8oqd",
"c2z8t63",
"c2zpkgx"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3,
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"There's many things going on when deciding on vaccine schedules. From the top of my head, there's \n\n**Maternal antibodies** (The mother will transfer some antibodies to the infant that lasts for a couple of months and might interfere with the vaccine response)\n\n**Risk of side effects** of the vaccine versus severity of the disease should infection occur (It is a common thing for medical personel to delay vaccination of preterm babies - this is often contraproductive since the consequences of e.g. whooping cough is especially severe in preterms)\n\n**When** the disease that is vaccinated against tend to occur.\n\n**Burden to the parents**. Asking the parents to vaccinate their children too often results in a drop in compliance and acceptance, which is a big issue. Therefore multiple vaccinations tend to be pooled at a single point in time that is a good compromise between optimal time periods for the individual vaccines. \n\n**Ease of administration.** Ideally, you want to time the vaccinations so that they come jointly with other routine contacts with the health care, such as follow-up visits after the child is born, school entry and so on. This factor can make schedules in different countries diverge quite a bit. \n\n**Whether the vaccine is good enough** that a single dose give a good protection or if several doses are needed. This touches on your other question regarding booster necessity. Basically, decisions on boostering are based on research on what level of antibody presence is deemed protective, together with trial-and-error clinical trials; you first conduct a clinical trial with a certain schedule set up to the best of your knowledge, and if the vaccine is not quite protective enough you may try and add a booster. In the case of late boosters (e.g. three doses at 3,5 and 12 months of age, and then a 5 year booster), you take into account immunological and epidemiological research regarding the decline of vaccine effectiveness over time. \n\nRegarding the duration between doses, there can be a bigger risk with taking the doses too close in time versus spacing them out more. If taken close enough, the immune system might just ignore the extra provocation that the new vaccine represent, and you won't get any benefit at all from the booster. Waiting a bit longer just mean that you have a longer period of not-quite-optimal protection.\n\n[CDC](_URL_1_) has a nice overview that at least partly talks about what influences various decisions. You might also be interested in reading the english summary on page 36ff of [the swedish report on revision of vaccine schedules](_URL_0_) that was delivered in 2010.\n\nDisclaimer: I'm a statistician that has been working on epidemiological analysis of vaccine schedules of B.Pertussis, not an MD. There's probably several simplifications and mistakes present in the above.\n",
"*I lost my previous comment by closing one tab too many while finding the correct articles - here is the rewrite*\n\nYou ask a lot of questions concerning vaccinations, I will try to answer them from my experience with the Mumps vaccine. Some notes before we get started:\n\n1. No disease is the same, hence no vaccination is the same. Things I will describe here might not be directly applicable to vaccinations in general - others will have to chime in.\n\n2. I have been on the European board that discussed the ethical concerns related to 'mandatory' vaccination, this experience made me somewhat bitter towards (self-proclaimed) experts and health-organizations. More on that later, but your takeaway should be that vaccination is a subject on a slippery slope and so are all related legislations.\n\n**General info**\n--\n\nThe main concept behind vaccinations is that your body is exposed to immunogenic proteins and polysaccharides from the infectant. This allows your bodies T-cells to 'fight' an inactive intruder. And due to the incredible way your immune system works it keeps the 'effective' antibodies around. This is the ideal case - but your body does not keep every type of antibody that ever worked around. Some T-cell counts decrease over time, making you again susceptible to an infection of the same virus. (There also exist the case where viruses mutate and are not recognized anymore, preluding a new T-cell learning bout).\n\nThe advantage of vaccination is that your body will early on be able to identify the infectant and hand it over to the cleaning crew, diminishing the effect of the illness. Being exposed to the same disease multiple times heightens the bodies ability to fight it off. \n\n**The Mumps**\n-\n\nIn case of the Mumps, a pretty mild disease, there has been a lot of research. I can not stress how much research has been done with respect to the vaccine and vaccination strategy. You might find this [1] review article a good stepping stone.\n\nThe short answer to all your questions is that the research data tells us what vaccination schedule is **economically** more effective. This obviously means that a lot of people did not get the 'ideal' schedule or vaccine. \n\nThe rationale for the two-dose schedule - in case of mumps - is to boost declining antibody concentrations, reach those who did not receive the first dose or, in lesser extend, did not respond to it. There is also a psychologic effect, which has a softer scientific edge to it. The fact that all kids at the age of six (or 12 - depending on where you live) have to be vaccinated again against a common enemy, helps build the awareness that is required to maintain a decent coverage. \n\nIn case of mumps there is no medical need to receive your second vaccination - but it also doesn't hurt. \n\nIf memory serves me right the HepA vaccine requires the booster to be applied within one year, because the initial antibody concentrations drop pretty fast in the first 24 months. But after the second vaccination it will last for 20 years.\n\n--\n\nExcellent Mumps review article\n\n[1] A.M. Galazka, \"Mumps and mumps vaccine: a global review\" *Bull World Health Organ* 1999 [PDF link](_URL_0_)\n\nUneasy read\n\n[2] P. Beutels *et al.* \"Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programmes: A Consensus Statement Focusing on Viral Hepatitis.\", *Pharmacoeconomics* 2002",
"I work in rational vaccine design. The above comments from GrynetMolvin, KeScoBo and Blasfemy are excellent summaries.\nUpvotes all round! ",
"There's many things going on when deciding on vaccine schedules. From the top of my head, there's \n\n**Maternal antibodies** (The mother will transfer some antibodies to the infant that lasts for a couple of months and might interfere with the vaccine response)\n\n**Risk of side effects** of the vaccine versus severity of the disease should infection occur (It is a common thing for medical personel to delay vaccination of preterm babies - this is often contraproductive since the consequences of e.g. whooping cough is especially severe in preterms)\n\n**When** the disease that is vaccinated against tend to occur.\n\n**Burden to the parents**. Asking the parents to vaccinate their children too often results in a drop in compliance and acceptance, which is a big issue. Therefore multiple vaccinations tend to be pooled at a single point in time that is a good compromise between optimal time periods for the individual vaccines. \n\n**Ease of administration.** Ideally, you want to time the vaccinations so that they come jointly with other routine contacts with the health care, such as follow-up visits after the child is born, school entry and so on. This factor can make schedules in different countries diverge quite a bit. \n\n**Whether the vaccine is good enough** that a single dose give a good protection or if several doses are needed. This touches on your other question regarding booster necessity. Basically, decisions on boostering are based on research on what level of antibody presence is deemed protective, together with trial-and-error clinical trials; you first conduct a clinical trial with a certain schedule set up to the best of your knowledge, and if the vaccine is not quite protective enough you may try and add a booster. In the case of late boosters (e.g. three doses at 3,5 and 12 months of age, and then a 5 year booster), you take into account immunological and epidemiological research regarding the decline of vaccine effectiveness over time. \n\nRegarding the duration between doses, there can be a bigger risk with taking the doses too close in time versus spacing them out more. If taken close enough, the immune system might just ignore the extra provocation that the new vaccine represent, and you won't get any benefit at all from the booster. Waiting a bit longer just mean that you have a longer period of not-quite-optimal protection.\n\n[CDC](_URL_1_) has a nice overview that at least partly talks about what influences various decisions. You might also be interested in reading the english summary on page 36ff of [the swedish report on revision of vaccine schedules](_URL_0_) that was delivered in 2010.\n\nDisclaimer: I'm a statistician that has been working on epidemiological analysis of vaccine schedules of B.Pertussis, not an MD. There's probably several simplifications and mistakes present in the above.\n",
"*I lost my previous comment by closing one tab too many while finding the correct articles - here is the rewrite*\n\nYou ask a lot of questions concerning vaccinations, I will try to answer them from my experience with the Mumps vaccine. Some notes before we get started:\n\n1. No disease is the same, hence no vaccination is the same. Things I will describe here might not be directly applicable to vaccinations in general - others will have to chime in.\n\n2. I have been on the European board that discussed the ethical concerns related to 'mandatory' vaccination, this experience made me somewhat bitter towards (self-proclaimed) experts and health-organizations. More on that later, but your takeaway should be that vaccination is a subject on a slippery slope and so are all related legislations.\n\n**General info**\n--\n\nThe main concept behind vaccinations is that your body is exposed to immunogenic proteins and polysaccharides from the infectant. This allows your bodies T-cells to 'fight' an inactive intruder. And due to the incredible way your immune system works it keeps the 'effective' antibodies around. This is the ideal case - but your body does not keep every type of antibody that ever worked around. Some T-cell counts decrease over time, making you again susceptible to an infection of the same virus. (There also exist the case where viruses mutate and are not recognized anymore, preluding a new T-cell learning bout).\n\nThe advantage of vaccination is that your body will early on be able to identify the infectant and hand it over to the cleaning crew, diminishing the effect of the illness. Being exposed to the same disease multiple times heightens the bodies ability to fight it off. \n\n**The Mumps**\n-\n\nIn case of the Mumps, a pretty mild disease, there has been a lot of research. I can not stress how much research has been done with respect to the vaccine and vaccination strategy. You might find this [1] review article a good stepping stone.\n\nThe short answer to all your questions is that the research data tells us what vaccination schedule is **economically** more effective. This obviously means that a lot of people did not get the 'ideal' schedule or vaccine. \n\nThe rationale for the two-dose schedule - in case of mumps - is to boost declining antibody concentrations, reach those who did not receive the first dose or, in lesser extend, did not respond to it. There is also a psychologic effect, which has a softer scientific edge to it. The fact that all kids at the age of six (or 12 - depending on where you live) have to be vaccinated again against a common enemy, helps build the awareness that is required to maintain a decent coverage. \n\nIn case of mumps there is no medical need to receive your second vaccination - but it also doesn't hurt. \n\nIf memory serves me right the HepA vaccine requires the booster to be applied within one year, because the initial antibody concentrations drop pretty fast in the first 24 months. But after the second vaccination it will last for 20 years.\n\n--\n\nExcellent Mumps review article\n\n[1] A.M. Galazka, \"Mumps and mumps vaccine: a global review\" *Bull World Health Organ* 1999 [PDF link](_URL_0_)\n\nUneasy read\n\n[2] P. Beutels *et al.* \"Economic Evaluation of Vaccination Programmes: A Consensus Statement Focusing on Viral Hepatitis.\", *Pharmacoeconomics* 2002",
"I work in rational vaccine design. The above comments from GrynetMolvin, KeScoBo and Blasfemy are excellent summaries.\nUpvotes all round! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/14/70/58/fe540f2d.pdf",
"http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm?s_cid=rr6002a1_e"
],
[
"http://www.who.org.mv/LinkFiles/Reports_mumps.bulletin.who.pdf"
],
[],
[
"http://www.regeringen.se/content/1/c6/14/70/58/fe540f2d.pdf",
"http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/rr6002a1.htm?s_cid=rr6002a1_e"
],
[
"http://www.who.org.mv/LinkFiles/Reports_mumps.bulletin.who.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
14wz75
|
Does soap attack or dissolve phospholipid bilayers? (cell membranes and such)
|
EDIT: In the title I should have said "attack and dissolve" or something to that effect. I'm not asking "Does soap attack it or does soap dissolve it?", I'm asking "Does soap effect any destructive physical change on it?" /EDIT
I ask because the two substances have similar structures - a charged, hydrophilic head and a neutral, hydrophobic tail. Considering that, it seems like the soap and phospholipid molecules would be miscible. Although now that I think about it, both do have negatively charged heads, so does that eliminate the miscibility?
A second question:
Soap in an aqueous environment forms into micelles, little blobs in which the hydrophilic carboxylates are on the surface and the hydrophobic bits are on the inside. Why do phospholipids not do this, rather than form into bilayers?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14wz75/does_soap_attack_or_dissolve_phospholipid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7h7do3",
"c7h8gjz"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"It attacks *by* dissolving, so to speak. It doesn't destroy the individual phospholipids, it disrupts the membrane. \n\nEdit: And surfactants form micelles instead of bilayers because they only have one nonpolar tail, unlike phospholipids which have two tails. ",
"Since there's already a thread discussing question 1, I'll start one for discussing question 2.\n\nPhospholipids *do* form micelles. \n\nAmphiphilic molecules like phospholipids and soaps are lyotropic liquid crystalline molecules. A liquid crystalline molecule exists in a phase of matter that is intermediate to a solid and a liquid. A lyotropic LC, specifically, has phase behavior that changes as its concentration increases. As a contrast, another major type are thermotropic liquid crystals, which have phase changes based upon temperature. The LCs in your television, for example, are of the thermotropic type. Most biological molecules that have liquid crystalline phase behavior are lyotropic. Phospholipids, lysophospholipids, and cholesterol all have these phase behaviors and are the most well-studied, but in recent years concentration-dependent formation of LC phases has been found in DNA and certain filament-forming proteins. Anyway, I digress.\n\nAs I mentioned, the phase behaviors of soaps and phospholipids are dependent upon concentration. Micelles and bilayers are simply different aspects of this same basic phenomenon. Refer to this image:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAs you can see in this image, you can construct a phase diagram (much like the phase diagrams that every 1st year chemistry student sees) of the different phase subtypes. Note that the axes are not temperature and pressure but temperature and amphiphile concentration. \n\nBelow a certain concentration -- called the critical micelle concentration or CMC -- amphiphilic molecules are dispersed in solution. This is intuitive but still contrary to what most intro bio and intro chemistry students are taught. Above the CMC for a given temperature, entropy effects drive amphiphilic molecules to aggregate into micelles. As the concentration continues to rise, amphiphilic molecules move through a variety of exotic LC phases before finally forming the lamellar phase at high concentration, relatively speaking. \n\nThis phase diagram will be different for soaps/surfactant which will be different than what you see for phospholipids and different than what you see for cholesterol, etc. \n\nTo the point made by Hmmhowaboutthis, geometry is important but not determinative. Surfactants do still form lamellar phases, and phospholipids do still form micelles; however, the geometry of surfactant molecule tends to stabilize micellar phases and the geometry of phospholipids stabilize lamellar phases."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/a/a0/Lyotropic1.jpg"
]
] |
|
lifzy
|
How do Americans get 115V?
|
Well obviously from a plug socket, but I digress.
In Europe, our power is generated in 3 phase (Red, Blue, Yellow, all 120 degrees apart), and when it's transformed down to its consumer power level, the voltage across any two phases is 400V. When there is a star load, you can take power from a single phase relative to the star point, and that comes out as 230V.
How does America get 115V? Is it transformed down from 230V at some point? Is the 3-phase voltage different? Is there some other witchcraft going on?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lifzy/how_do_americans_get_115v/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2sy8ov",
"c2syadd",
"c2szpf3",
"c2szqm8",
"c2t0wjk",
"c2sy8ov",
"c2syadd",
"c2szpf3",
"c2szqm8",
"c2t0wjk"
],
"score": [
49,
33,
4,
5,
5,
49,
33,
4,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"most of us do get 240V to the home, as a single phase- but that phase is \"split\" - the transformer that supplies the house is center-tapped, that center is pinned to ground, so there's effectively a +120 and a -120. obviously not really positive and negative since it's a/c, but they're 180° out of phase. so some circuits get one polarity, some get the other, and if we need the full 240 (like for an air conditioner or the stove, etc) we use both.",
"You sound fairly knowledgeable for power in europe, so I can make this quick.\n\n > Is it transformed down from 230V at some point? Is the 3-phase voltage different?\n\nThat is the 3 phase voltage. Utilities will deliver 240V, 3 phase, at the transformer. Once inside a structure, the wiring will center tap resulting in 2 120V lines.\n\nAppliance designers will design for 115V +/- 10%. Even though 120V is delivered, there will be some line losses.\n\n\n > Is there some other witchcraft going on?\n\nWitchcraft is saved for [frequency changing](_URL_0_).",
"There are commercial power hookups that are 480V three-phase. As other posters mention here, most homes have 240V single-phase with a center tapped transformer.\n\nHonestly, though, I've been to europe and seen the wiring there. I very much like the higher voltage, lower current system you have. Your wires to a standard socket are much smaller as a result of this decision.\n\nP = VI.",
"In North America whether it is 1, 2, or 3 phase, any single phase is generally 120V +/- 5% from neutral (although many equipment manufacturers specify 115V +/- 10% to handle brown-outs better, and some old systems used 110V, but really 110, 115, and 120V all mean the same thing).\n\nIn Europe, the individual phases are 240V from neutral.\n\nFor most power distribution much greater voltages are used, so the difference is determined by the type of step-down transformer used.\n\nMost houses are wired with 2 phases that are 180 degrees out or sync, so in North America you can get 240V (e.g. for stoves) by using both phases. In Europe doing this would give 480V.\n\n3 phases (120 degrees out of sync) are used mostly for industrial applications since 3 phase works very well for driving motors but it is rarely seen in homes. I say rarely because I had a friend with an apartment in a former industrial building who got 2 phases out of a 3 phase circuit. Since these 2 phases were only 120 degrees out of sync the stove only got 208V peak to peak so could produce only 75% of the heat output.\n\nYou can also get phase change converters to go from 1 to 2 or 3 phase power, or shift from 120 degrees out of sync to 180 degrees out of sync.",
"So how easy/impossible would it be to access 240 in the home without hiring an electrician?",
"most of us do get 240V to the home, as a single phase- but that phase is \"split\" - the transformer that supplies the house is center-tapped, that center is pinned to ground, so there's effectively a +120 and a -120. obviously not really positive and negative since it's a/c, but they're 180° out of phase. so some circuits get one polarity, some get the other, and if we need the full 240 (like for an air conditioner or the stove, etc) we use both.",
"You sound fairly knowledgeable for power in europe, so I can make this quick.\n\n > Is it transformed down from 230V at some point? Is the 3-phase voltage different?\n\nThat is the 3 phase voltage. Utilities will deliver 240V, 3 phase, at the transformer. Once inside a structure, the wiring will center tap resulting in 2 120V lines.\n\nAppliance designers will design for 115V +/- 10%. Even though 120V is delivered, there will be some line losses.\n\n\n > Is there some other witchcraft going on?\n\nWitchcraft is saved for [frequency changing](_URL_0_).",
"There are commercial power hookups that are 480V three-phase. As other posters mention here, most homes have 240V single-phase with a center tapped transformer.\n\nHonestly, though, I've been to europe and seen the wiring there. I very much like the higher voltage, lower current system you have. Your wires to a standard socket are much smaller as a result of this decision.\n\nP = VI.",
"In North America whether it is 1, 2, or 3 phase, any single phase is generally 120V +/- 5% from neutral (although many equipment manufacturers specify 115V +/- 10% to handle brown-outs better, and some old systems used 110V, but really 110, 115, and 120V all mean the same thing).\n\nIn Europe, the individual phases are 240V from neutral.\n\nFor most power distribution much greater voltages are used, so the difference is determined by the type of step-down transformer used.\n\nMost houses are wired with 2 phases that are 180 degrees out or sync, so in North America you can get 240V (e.g. for stoves) by using both phases. In Europe doing this would give 480V.\n\n3 phases (120 degrees out of sync) are used mostly for industrial applications since 3 phase works very well for driving motors but it is rarely seen in homes. I say rarely because I had a friend with an apartment in a former industrial building who got 2 phases out of a 3 phase circuit. Since these 2 phases were only 120 degrees out of sync the stove only got 208V peak to peak so could produce only 75% of the heat output.\n\nYou can also get phase change converters to go from 1 to 2 or 3 phase power, or shift from 120 degrees out of sync to 180 degrees out of sync.",
"So how easy/impossible would it be to access 240 in the home without hiring an electrician?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_changer"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Frequency_changer"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
e71ssr
|
Why does the trait of skin color mix together into a shade rather than being one or the other, like eye color?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e71ssr/why_does_the_trait_of_skin_color_mix_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f9ymyxa"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Most interesting traits are polygenic - they are controlled by many different genes, not just one or two. \n\nWhen we’re taught introductory genetics, we’re taught inheritance with Mendelian diagrams showing how one dominant/recessive gene set is inherited. Later maybe we’re taught how two or three genes get inherited, and maybe given a few words on co-dominant and more complicated combinations. \n\nThis is all true, and it does apply to a handful of traits - eye color is one of the few (though even there, real life is more complicated than the simplistic versions we’re taught). But more interesting inherited traits, like height and skin color and propensity to heart disease and so on, are influenced by dozens, hundreds, or thousands of genes, all interacting together. \n\nIf you think about the apparently complex inheritance patterns you get with, say, three genes, imagine what happens with a thousand different genes. Everything ends up blending together, and instead of a tidy on/off appearance, you get what looks like a normal distribution of possible outcomes. \n\nHistorically, this polygenic inheritance led to lots of confusion. Darwin never figured out inheritance properly, while Mendel did. Is that because Mendel did the experiments and Darwin didn’t? In fact, Darwin did exactly the right experiments, almost identical to Mendel’s. The difference is that Mendel was lucky, and looked at plants (peas) and traits (wrinkled/smooth, etc) that have simple one-gene two-allele inheritance — the unusual, exceptional situation that allows you to figure out what’s going on. Darwin looked at primroses, where such simple traits are not as obvious. ([Darwin, C. R., 1877 The Different Forms of Flowers on Plants of the Same Species. John Murray, London.](_URL_1_)), and didn’t figure out that he was not seeing blending inheritance. \n\n(I’ve read that there are simple inheritance models in primroses and that Darwin could have spotted them if he’d been primed for it, so Mendel still gets credit for understanding what he was seeing in his model.)\n\nPolygenic inheritance looks like [blending inheritance ](_URL_0_), which was the main explanation for inheritance in Darwin’s time and until Mendel was rediscovered. The difference is that (as Darwin understood) evolution by natural selection can not work with blending inheritance - it needs Mendelian (particulate) inheritance for his theories to work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blending_inheritance",
"https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=FhOP8L8GAbIC&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Darwin,+C.+R.,+1877+The+Different+Forms+of+Flowers+on+Plants+of+the+Same+Species.+John+Murray,+London.&ots=bUIOTmIwbm&sig=KIOhJazcwfjre3REiF9F7QjfU1o#v=onepage&q&f=false"
]
] |
||
1unpen
|
how do i perceive myself as a single entity, when i'm actually composed of a group of cells that are each self replicating blocks of life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1unpen/eli5_how_do_i_perceive_myself_as_a_single_entity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cejwlcr",
"cejwytr",
"cejxfdh",
"cek0t17",
"cek1c3h",
"cek21mc",
"cek2vaj",
"cek4uk2",
"cek5nil",
"cek6h48",
"cek7bin",
"cek7vls",
"cek9am0",
"cek9pbk",
"cekapl1",
"cekau03",
"cekaubf",
"cekavyo",
"cekay4p",
"cekbkoh",
"cekboup",
"cekbr5s",
"cekc3ue",
"cekd0t4"
],
"score": [
5,
48,
14,
7,
2,
4,
340,
2,
2,
36,
25,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
3,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Saving this, hoping for some kind of super deep answers...",
"Although you are the composition of many \"moving parts\" so to speak the control center is your brain. This means all these parts report back to your brain and your brain acts as the representative of your body and your \"conscious\" is in your brain. The reason why you perceive yourself as one entity is because, although you are made up of many cells and receive many signals from your body, your brain compiles these and forces you perceive them as a whole, thus creating the illusion that your are one entity.\n\nTL;DR your brain is the control center of your body which controls everything. Therefore you only exist in your brain, and perceive yourself as one. \"You\" are just a brain controlling meat, muscle, and other tissue.\n\nAnalogy: if you are in a car do you see yourself as part of the car? No, just one thing controlling car. The rest of your body is the car and your brain is you in that analogy.",
"This is such [/r/showerthoughts](_URL_0_) material. Love it.",
"imagine if a five year old actually asked you this though ahahaha",
"The same way countries see themselves as single entities...",
"There is no such thing as your \"self.\" You believe some \"self\" entity exists because your experience of reality seems to be continuous. So you say, surely there must be some \"thing\" that is continually experiencing reality. \n\nIn fact, each moment you experience reality is discrete, quantum, separate, autonomous, whatever-word-you-wanna-use. This \"thing\" that experiences reality is born, acts, and dies in each of these moments. There is no continuous self that proceeds from one moment to the next. Your self, mind, ego, whatever-word-you-wanna-use is an illusion.",
"You just asked \"what is the nature of consciousness?\" People have been debating and researching that for millenia.",
"I think it's funny that people here think they can answer this question in a way that a: everyone can understand and find useful and b: sounds like it's just common knowledge and the questioner is the last person to figure it out. Or maybe he is....",
"You seem to be asking about consciousness. That's your real question; What is consciousness? How am 'I' conscious when I'm just made up of unconscious cells? \n\nDan Dennett does a great job in this video: _URL_0_ and I also recall a longer hour long one I liked better but can't find at the moment. My takeaway from this is that consciousness is an emergent illusion. Illusion, to me, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, just that it doesn't exist how we think it does, i.e. that it isn't dualism. From Wikipedia: \"Dualism is the position that mental phenomena are, in some respects, non-physical, or that the mind and body are not identical.\" Which to be pretentious, sounds like a pretty stupid idea in the first place. Maybe consciousness is imbued through fairies, or aliens, or little people inside our heads, or god, or something else equally ridiculous. But physics and reality seem more likely.",
"All of these answers completely miss the point of your question. What you're asking is called The Hard Problem of Consciousness and no one on earth has even the slightest clue as to an answer. \n\nSomehow singular consciousness is an emergent property of modular non conscious units. No one knows how though. ",
"I think none of the answers here will satisfy your question, I know that because I have the same question and so do a lot of people. This is famously know as the \"hard problem of consciousness\" and no one really has an answer for it.\n\nIt is easy to say that consciousness is an emergent property of the brain but in my opinion that is just a lazy answer trying to avoid the question by saying it just pops up at some point due to sheer complexity. It's a poor explanation if nothing else. \n\nIf everything in the universe is made of stuff then surely there would be the stuff of thought which is inside our head, but many respected scientist argue this point and say that the universe is made of two different kinds of stuff, the material and the mental. This is kind of an old school view but it has never been proved to be wrong. Personally I don't agree with the latter, but there you go. \n\nIn conclusion, there is no answer to your question as of yet, only speculation. Speculation is good tho and asking questions is the most important thing that will bring us to the answer. \n\nIf you want to learn more, I would suggest reading into philosophy of mind, you will find there many different theories and you may choose the one that sounds best to you since none has been proved or disproved yet. If you're feeling adventurous for a controversial theory, look up Roger Penrose's theory which is called Orchestrated Objective Reductionism or \"Orch OR\" for shorts. It is based on quantum mechanics and a bit of a trip but very interesting and plausible. \n\nI am sorry if this is not so much explain like I'm five but I thought I should post it either way. Cheers. \n\n",
"**You are the nexus through which all information you consciously perceive passes.**\n\nWhere this point is, in your body, is hard to say. It's not in any of your organs other than your brain. It's not in parts of your brain you can live without. It might not even be a fixed point; it might not even be a local point, but rather a collection of points, networked such that they all believe they share the same name, when they exist in different locations, like the blockchain in a cryptocurrency.\n\n",
"To play devil's advocate...\nWhat if your multitudinous cells and their conglomerate you call a person were producing not just one single mind, but a multitude of minds. You would still be able to ask your original question, no? You would just simply be aware of your one, single mind, and not the others. Then the question would be something like \"Why am I only aware of one mind and not many\"?\nAnd if you were aware of the many minds, would you recognize that fact? Or would you still feel like you were perceiving one single mind? And if so, would that lead you to ask your original question all over again?\n",
"Go watch on netflix.. Stephen Hawking's Grand Design: The Meaning of life. \n\nTo think that there are more receptors in our brain than there are known stars in our galaxy = Woooow....",
"Your perception of yourself as a single entity is a flawed perception. This perception began when you incorrectly made a distinction between self and other. There is no self as you have discovered -as your body is composed of other cells and your mind is composed of many different processes and thoughts. Buddhism addresses this confusion and when you understand it you are enlightened. Please read the Diamond and the Surangama sutra to learn more.",
"Ants are the closest answer. A single ant is powerful, but nothing compared to a legion of ants. Once several ants are together, they form a group mind, similar, if not exactly like, the cells of our body.\n\nWho's to say we experience ourselves as single, individual entities? It could be our cells working together to form ideas with the help of electrical currents.\n\nHave you ever shared a special connection with someone? It can be otherwordly. Since we're all made of the same substances, this makes it more so.\n\nEventually, these self replicating blocks of life end their replication and we die.\n\nTruth being, I don't know.\n\nGreat question and philosophical debate.",
"Interestingly one of the main aims of Buddhism is to free yourself from this notion, to realize it is merely an illusion. What you view as \"yourself\" is an illusion, the whole universe is one. You're nothing and at the same time you're an undefinable small part of everything. Everything in the universe, including you, is in a constant flux. The cells and particles that make up you are not the same from one instance to the next.\n\nA bit of further reading for anyone who's interested: [The Buddhist Concept of Impermanence](_URL_0_).",
"My bio teacher explained something similar. I'm cells you have a nucleus and organelles. The nucleus is the \"brain\" of the cell, it tells what all the parts of the cell to do. But the nucleus tells the cell how to do basic functions, it doesn't have feelings and can't really control itself, once all your cells are together you use your brain to control your body, I guess because the cells cannot think for themselves and decide what to do, your cells aren't thought of as an individual being. Once all these cells are brought together to form you, you control movement, and you can choose to do things and make choices. So you are one being.\n\nSorry if it's confusing, it's 2 am here and I can't sleep, I'm also on my phone! ",
"In short, it's because some sets of matter are disorganized and some sets of matter are what we'd call \"integrated systems\" or to use an esoteric term, \"holons.\" \n\nA \"holon\" is something that is both a whole and a part of another whole. You are a holon, as you are a whole person, yet a part of your culture. Your cells are holons because they are whole cells, yet also a part of you. Your arm is not a \"holon\" because it is not a whole thing nor a single part of you. It is many parts, and by itself is not a whole organism.\n\nIt has been suggested that all holons have consciousness because of the nature of their integration as holistic systems. most people think of this as pure bullshit -- an atom can't be conscious, a cell can't be conscious -- but to me, I can't perceive of any other place consciousness could come from other than being made of its parts. the fabric of empty space becomes holon-particles which then become holon-atoms which become holon-cells which evolve into many-celled life which has consciousness.\n\nThis would mean that consciousness is actually not located in your individual self, but in the fabric of the universe, and that it merely takes a shape and form as yourself through integration of parts.",
"OP can you share some of whatever you're taking?",
"I've always thought of myself as a byproduct of layered control structures.",
"I think it's based on the emergent behaviour of a complex system. Each cell does it's own thing, but everything is tweaked by evolution so that the resulting system is very functional. In other words, your behaviour defines your sense of self-identity, not the other way around. ",
"And then, how do you perceive yourself as a single entity when there is no self and reality is an illusion?",
"There's an amazing book on exactly this subject, Thomas Metzinger's The Ego Tunnel. 1-2 Philosophy-Science combo punch exploring both logical reasoning and experiential phenomena (like lucid dreaming/out-of-body experiences) to explain why we experience life as just one \"I\".\n\nAdvance warning - concludes that there is no such thing as a self. Prepare for long, dark nights."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Showerthoughts"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fjbWr3ODbAo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.urbandharma.org/udharma8/imperm.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1lyc0u
|
What were the attitudes of the labour movements in New Zealand and Australia towards the indigenous populations?
|
Many people will only know the answer for one of those countries; you don't have to answer both parts.
I've seen a couple of things that suggest that the labour movement in NZ was pretty positive about Māori (for example, the news publication the Maoriland Worker used the name "Maoriland", a suggested alternative name for New Zealand that acknowledged the Māori, in its title). I haven't seen similar stuff in what I've read of Australia's labour movement, but I don't know if that means positive attitudes didn't exist.
Were the feelings of white workers affected by the degree of actual labour competition that existed between them and the natives?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lyc0u/what_were_the_attitudes_of_the_labour_movements/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc403zb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This question is made for /u/w2red and /u/Algernon_Asimov but I can answer for one union in particular... \n\nThe North Australian Workers’ Union (AWU) founded in the Northern Territory in around 1911.. Their history is covered in this doctoral thesis by Bernie Brian\n_URL_0_\n\nTo quote from there:\n > For the most part the union movement was not interested in the plight of Aboriginal workers except for when they competed with ‘white’ union members for jobs. The only exception to this was when members of the Communist Party were leading the union in the period immediately after the Second World War.\n\nThis however puts it a little mildly, the AWU clashed frequently with the administration of the NT, with several rounds of strikes, and eventually succeeded in getting the administrator (Gilruth) removed in what is now known as the Darwin Rebellion, this also led to the Territory getting direct representation in federal parliament...\n\nOne of the many issues they clashed on, was that Gilruth was employing Chinese and Aboriginal labour in state hotels, and occasionally paying equal wages to them, which outraged the AWU. As Brian puts it:\n > many members of the NAWU and its predecessors were aggressive proponents of the racist white Australia policy and callously disregarded the plight of Aboriginal workers.\n\nOther social relations in Darwin at the time in most sources are were typified as\n\n > a leading member of the Communist Party, remembers the \nmain past-time in Darwin as drinking, gambling and ‘chasing gins’ (slang term for \nAboriginal women).\n\nThis changes post-war, and Jack McGuinness was head of the union for a while, did quite a lot for indigenous rights, as did many other unions Australia wide..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://espace.cdu.edu.au/eserv/cdu:6353/Thesis_CDU_6353_Brian_B.pdf"
]
] |
|
7c3bth
|
Why do many people take sniper kill counts for granted? Can we really trust any of the offical numbers, some as high as 4-500? How reliable are the figures?
|
I recently learned that Simo Hayha's original claimed number of 505 kills was more likely to have been around 200-230 kills.
Why do so many military historians take the numbers for granted? How did snipers and their observers keep the score and why do we have any reason to trust them, when you factor in things like propaganda? It seems to me that inflating these numbers was something people would do for propaganda services.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7c3bth/why_do_many_people_take_sniper_kill_counts_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpnba4c",
"dpnghm0"
],
"score": [
172,
735
],
"text": [
"Follow up question.\n\nWasn't the only way to \"confirm\" a kill to collect the dog tags? I highly doubt that snipers collected dog tags, especially when their targets would usually be surrounded by soldiers?\n\nEdit: had a little dig around online and found that some snipers in WW2 would claim a hit (bullet hitting target) as a kill. When in reality it could be non-fatal. This must surely mess up the numbers right? ",
" > Why do so many military historians take the numbers for granted?\n\nSo the question is... do they? Now, to be sure, *popular histories* like those kinds of numbers. Take for instance the aforementioned Simo's profile on \"[_URL_1_](_URL_0_)\", which, as an aside, also manages to only go 2 for 3 of actual photos of the man, the third being a common misattribution, but while his exploits might be the main fact your average internet denizen knows in regards to the Winter War, a quick check of several books on the Winter War which I'd consider to be at least a decent level in their approach turned up only one which makes mention of him, and presents a cautious approach to his 'kill count'. Gordon F. Sander states \"the reported number would eventually rise to as high as 505\", which reads as doubly hedged, in my opinion, and in any case the larger point is that you just generally won't find more serious histories caring too much about *individual* snipers. It falls into the coverage of popular histories, which, when checking, for instance, \"The Winter War 1939-40\" from Osprey Publishing, not only makes a number of mentions of the man throughout, but even credits him with 542 *confirmed* kills, which is doubly an error, since that includes his (likely inflated) confirmed number plus unconfirmed! So anyways, my point here is that while you might read uncritical acceptance of these numbers from Simo, I would venture - admittedly not taking a *super* in-depth survey of the literature - that this is more common with works which are less academic in their approach.\n\nNow, as to the broader topic at hand, I'm going to briefly touch on why, yes, you shouldn't trust these numbers! I'll focus specifically on the Soviets, simply because it is both the angle I'm best suited to handle, and also the cult of 'Sniperism' was far and away most developed there during World War II, and I don't think it is a stretch to say the Soviet snipers of WWII were the most singularly notable collection of the 20th century. In simplest terms, the Soviets were crazy for snipers. Even before the war, they put a good deal of effort into training and deploying them, and they, as you allude to, saw great value in them as propaganda tools. For those familiar with the film \"Enemy at the Gates\" it is a fairly loose dramatization of one of the most famous from the war, Vasily Zaitsev, and while it plays quite loose with the facts, in all fairness, much of the source material it draws upon does as well. The sniper duel with \"Major Konings\" which forms a central part of the film is taken right from Zaitsev's memoirs, yet any attempts to actually corroborate the account has been met with failure. \n\nThis is only a single example, but endemic of the entire propaganda machine which operated around the cult of the Sniper in the Soviet Union. With numerous 'sniper heroes' lauded and credited with kills of several hundred, I would again question the premise of the question though, at least when approaching those improbable heights allegedly achieved by figures like Zaitsev of Pavlichenko. From my own readings - popular and academic - I find that it is more common than not that those who discuss 'Sniperism' include the caveat that these numbers need to be approached for what they are, propaganda, or at the very least present them as less than certain even if dispensing with a paragraph on their speciousness. Certainly there is little doubt that they are *generally* reflective of the success of those individuals, but few accept that they are specifically reflective of an accurate accounting of confirmed kills. There really isn't any way to ascertain the true numbers, as those records were simply not left behind, and the snipers themselves at the very least bowed to the needs of the state and went along with the 'official tallies', even if they knew the real numbers. And of course, they *did* likely had a fair idea of that number, going about tallying their confirmed (A confirmed kill, according to Zaitsev's memoirs, required the signature of a witness on the report, but doesn't seem to have required physical confirmation) and unconfirmed kills and reporting them, but it just wasn't for public consumption, or posterity. Interestingly, the Soviets on at least one occasion inflated *German* kill counts too. It is alleged that Pavlichenko recovered documents off a sniper following a duel that she bested him in, which showed over 400 confirmed kills - but all against British and French early in the war. There is no corroboration beyond the Soviet's claim though, almost certainly intended to inflate the prowess of their own sniper.\n\nI think it is also important to add one small caveat there as well, namely that you don't see it thus suggested that these snipers simply *weren't good*. Those who found themselves at the forefront of Soviet propaganda - \"She has killed 309 Fascists, what have you done?\" - most certainly were talented and accomplished marksmen and -women, and their successes were inflated, but there is no reason whatsoever to believe they were created out of thin air. Certainly German accounts, especially of urban combat in areas like Stalingrad, recalled the threat fearfully. But the short of it is, you are absolutely on the money to suspect that \"*it seems to me that inflating these numbers was something people would do for propaganda services*\", as there is no doubt that, at least in the case of the Soviet sniper movement, this was very much the case.\n\nNow, as for other countries, I can't speak too much to, say, how reliable American kill counts are regarded (in WWII or otherwise), so I'll leave that to others, but for the Soviets, hopefully this provides you a bit more information to confirm your existing gut feelings on the matter.\n\nSources consulted (by which I mean, in some cases, literally just checking to see what phrase is used to describe sniper kill counts):\n\n* The Sniper at War by Mike Haskew\n* Notes of a Russian Sniper by Vassili Zaitsev\n* Soviet Women on the Frontline in the Second World War by Roger D. Marwick\n* The Stalingrad Cauldron by Frank Ellis\n* Victory at Stalingrad by Geoffrey Roberts\n* Winter Storm: The Battle for Stalingrad and the Operation to Rescue 6th Army by Hans Wijers\n\n* The Winter War: Russia's Invasion of Finland by Robert Edwards\n* The Winter War 1939-40 by Vesa Nenye & Peter Munter & Toni Wirtanen\n* War of the White Death: Finland Against the Soviet Union 1939-1940 by Bair Irincheev\n* The Soviet Invasion of Finland: 1939-1940 by Carl van Dyke\n* The Hundred Day Winter War: Finland's Gallant Stand Against the Soviet Army by Gordon F. Sander\n* A Frozen Hell: The Russo-Finnish Winter War of 1939-40 by William R. Trotter\n* Finland and World War II: 1939-1944 by John H. Wourinen"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hayha.html",
"Badassoftheweek.com"
]
] |
|
2a7kf3
|
how do seasons work around the world? is it summer everywhere, or is it just summer on a part of the world?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a7kf3/how_do_seasons_work_around_the_world_is_it_summer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cis9jhd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When it is summer in the northern hemisphere, it is winter in the southern hemisphere. When it is hot in the US, it is cold in Australia. When the days are long in the US, they are short in Australia. This is due to the tilted axis of the earth, resulting in the different hemispheres getting different amounts of sunlight as we travel around the sun."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
e7wad4
|
how can we recall memories and imagine scenarios and see them visually, while also seeing and observing the current environment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/e7wad4/eli5_how_can_we_recall_memories_and_imagine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fa6l0kz",
"fa6l2dl",
"fa6s18w"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your brain does lots of things simultaneously, if it didn't your heart would stop when you needed to take a breath, or when you thought about a math problem. \n\nNeedless to say, the thing you're seeing in actuality is based on stimulus coming from your optic nerve. That path only takes inputs from your eye (normally) whereas the input from your imagined scenarios is coming from elsewhere in the brain. They may have some overlap in terms of where they are processed in the brain (giving you the sense you are \"seeing\" a memory), but that portion of the brain is pretty good at doing things simultaneously.",
"because while the sensations might *feel* similar, both being visual, your imagination and your eyesight are not directly connected. Your brain doesn't have to stop processing what you're seeing in order to visualize something, and what you're visualizing doesn't make you start hallucinating.\n\nIn a similar sense how your inner monoloug doesn't prevent you speaking, imagining sounds doesn't make it harder to hear the outside world, and imagining what something disgusting smells like doesn't make you vomit. \n\nWhile the functions are similar, your imagination and your sensory inputs are processed differently in your brain, even if there is some overlap in where they get processed at different stages.",
"I've always been able to render things over my current environmental input. It's not real, I know it's not real, but I can place a virtual thing anywhere I want. I write software and I do the same thing with my software before I write it. Helps a lot with designing things before you write them. Takes a lot of energy though. \n\nThose organically rendered VR objects are recalled from the part of our brain that reconstructs objects based on visual input. Your brain is like a giant AVR machine. Amazing! The objects you perceive as they are perceived by you are rendered or constructed by your brain in real time!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
15da30
|
It seems like every modern President of the US was a golfer. Were there any who weren't?
|
...excepting obvious ones like FDR. 'Modern' in this case refers to presidents who took office since the game became standard fare for America's upper class, which I'd imagine would exclude most of those before the 20th Century.
**Bonus questions**: if someone who didn't play golf were elected President, how big of a paux pas would this be? Would he have to hire a golf coach?
Also, who's considered the best and worst golfers of modern presidents?
Thanks. (edit: clarity)
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15da30/it_seems_like_every_modern_president_of_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7lgb9k",
"c7ln4co"
],
"score": [
13,
3
],
"text": [
"Teddy Roosevelt, Hoover, Truman and Carter were the only US presidents not to play golf since McKinley, who introduced it to the White House. [Source](_URL_1_)\n\n[FDR considered himself a golfer even though he was physically unable to play.](_URL_0_) I'll leave it up to you whether or not to include him in the list.",
"IIRC Kennedy was a 2 handicap (very good) can't speak as to the worst (I've heard Obama is shit from people that played with him)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1156523/index.htm",
"http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/06/when-presidents-play-golf/240645/"
],
[]
] |
|
3pjj2g
|
Is there a timeline of the history of women's rights in ancient Greece between the 5th and 1st century BC?
|
I am writing as essay for my history class and because curious if the first production of Medea (431 BC) coincided with a better quality of life for women. At what point did women begin to receive more fair treatment?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pjj2g/is_there_a_timeline_of_the_history_of_womens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw6xmuf"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Is this a homework question? It says in our [rules](_URL_1_):\nOur users aren't here to do your homework for you, but they might be willing to help. Remember: AskHistorians helps those who help themselves. Don't just give us your essay/assignment topic and ask us for ideas. Do some research of your own, then come to us with questions about what you've learned. This is explained further [in this [META] thread](_URL_0_). \nYou can also consider asking the helpful people at /r/HomeworkHelp."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/35pkem/askhistorians_homework_question_policy_rehash/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_homework"
]
] |
|
1dfxzd
|
Why can i not see the exhaust from a bus, but i can see its shadow
|
The bus i take to school everyday has the exhaust pipe on the back of the bus, when i look at it, i see nothing(except the occasional puff if black), so why can i see the shadow of this invisible gas?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dfxzd/why_can_i_not_see_the_exhaust_from_a_bus_but_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9q3758",
"c9q55hl",
"c9pxmyr"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
21
],
"text": [
"The reason is really because the light casting the shadow is collimated. I.E. it is all coming from the same direction. However, when you are simply looking at the exhaust, light is coming from multiple directions, so it hides the distortion. If you look closely, the exhaust will still blur whatever it is in front of still.",
"The refractory index of the exhaust is markedly different to the surrounding air. ",
"Its a [shadowgraph](_URL_0_) caused by the difference in index of refraction between the hot exhaust and cold air.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadowgraph"
]
] |
|
127dj3
|
How dangerous are dog bites?
|
What are some complications that can be brought upon by the bacteria found in their saliva?
Also, I was told that if a person is treated with antibiotics to combat the infection, that a second bite would be resistant to it, causing a more severe infection. Is this true?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/127dj3/how_dangerous_are_dog_bites/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6statj"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on the severity and how it is treated. \nAs a veterinarian, I get bit often. Most of them heal fine with soap and water, but one started to cause intense pain and swelling that spread through my entire finger after 24hours. Without antibiotics, there is a real chance I would have lost my finger, or worse.\n\nAn elderly client of mine broke up a fight between his chihuahuas with his hands. Apparently, the bite wounds were not all that extrnsive, but he didn't get treatment, an infection started which eventually went systemic and killed him. \n\nIn short, if you are asking this because you've been bit, go get treatment. And see if you can find out the dog's rabies vaccine status. \n\nAs for the bacteria becoming resistant from one bite to the next, I'm calling bullshit on that unless there is some sort of odd circumstance you can elaborate on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
643h6z
|
Iceland was one of the poorer countries in Europe 1980. How did it grow so quickly after that to become so wealthy today?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/643h6z/iceland_was_one_of_the_poorer_countries_in_europe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfzmwyz"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"I would like to preface this post by saying that I am not an economist and nor do I specialize in economic history. I am, however, somewhat acquainted with the economic development of Iceland as well as the historiography of this phenemenon due to being an Icelandic historian.\n\nIt is true that Iceland endured some economic hardships during the 1980s. This includes both catch failures for cod and capelin as well as massive inflation. Indeed, inflation rose to heights of more than 100% during 1983 and consistently stayed above 50% from 1980 to 1983. Government responded by devaluing the currency multiple times in a bid to boost the exports of the main economic sector - the fishing industry. Obviously, such measures were incredibly unpopular with the average worker whose purchasing power simultaneously decreased. This period of economic development can best be described as a time of monetary policy failures. Price levels fluctuated wildly and inflation was a chronic ill. The króna declined by almost 600% against the US dollar from 1980 to 1986.\n\nThis was followed by a short time of economic expansion from 1985 to 1988. This was mostly due to an increase in fishing catches as well as a boost in exports. However, this economic prosperity proved to be shortlived as fishing catches (mainly cod) failed again in 1988. During the late 1980s the Icelandic economy can best be described as stagnant. Although inflation fell, unemployment rose at the same time and Iceland's competitive position in the global economy detoriorated. In 1990, however, the cornerstone towards economic stability is sometimes said to have been laid when government managed to strike a tripartite deal with employers as well as labour unions. This deal is generally referred to as 'The National Agreement' (Þjóðarsáttin) and is considered a notable economic achievement for a few reasons. Firstly, the vicious cycle of wage increases followed by price level increases (and inflation) was ended. The labour unions agreed to relatively modest wage increases over the next few years in exchange for more stable price levels - which was made possible thanks to a fixed exchange rate of the króna. Secondly, this is one of the few instances in Icelandic history where collective bargaining of the government and labour movement was possible. Historically speaking, this inability to strike collective bargains has mainly been explained in terms of a very left-wing labour movement in conjunction with mainly right-wing goverments. In 1988, however, a left-wing government had been formed which facilitated this deal. Lastly, the National Accord of 1990 is generally seen as a prerequisite to the economic changes that Iceland underwent during the 1990s. These changes include economic liberalization, privatization of state-owned banks and utility companies as well as Iceland's membership of the EEA which was approved in 1992. Taxes were lowered and a period of economic prosperity began. However, these changes are also seen by many as a major cause of the 2008 Icelandic financial crisis wherein the entire financial system of Iceland collapsed spectacularly.\n\nI would also like to add that although Iceland struggled economically during the 1980s it can hardly be classified as a poor country. Indeed, if we look at indicators such as GDP per capita we can see that Iceland was on par, if not ahead, of most Western European states during this time. For instance, Iceland's GDP per capita was $12,057 in 1984, compared with West Germany's $9,277 and France's $9,432. It is important to state that Iceland's economy is extremely volatile and most recessions are deeper and more frequent than in other European states. This is due to a number of factors. Firstly, because of the small size of the Icelandic economy as well as its unvaried nature and heavy emphasis on fish exports. Secondly, there are natural factors to consider, such as the weather and natural disasters (like volcanic eruptions and perhaps even avalanches). Thirdly and lastly, we can name the very pro-cylical economic and monetary policies of successive Icelandic governments which generally excerbated these crises with massive devaluations of the currency. Iceland can thus truly be called an economy of instability.\n\n**Sources:**\n\nÁrni H. Kristjánsson. *Þjóðarsáttin 1990: Forsagan og goðsögnin*. BA-thesis. University of Iceland, 2008.\n\nGuðmundur Jónsson and Magnús S. Magnússon, ed. *Icelandic historical statistics*. Reykjavík: Statistics Iceland, 1997.\n\nPalle S. Andersen and and Már Guðmundsson. *Inflation and Disinflation in Iceland*. Reykjavík: Central Bank of Iceland, 1998.\n\nSigurður Snævarr. *Haglýsing Íslands*. Reykjavík: Heimskringla, 1993.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
17v8kv
|
putin's government in russia and the quality of democracy that exists there.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/17v8kv/eli5_putins_government_in_russia_and_the_quality/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c896js4",
"c89a057"
],
"score": [
12,
14
],
"text": [
"Since you haven't gotten a bite, try posting in /r/askpolitics\n\nYou'll prob get a great answer.",
"Well, I lived in Russia during Putin's primetime. And in all honesty, 10 years ago he was the best thing that happened in Russia. He made the country great, became a very popular, most people loved him. Then when reaching his maximum term, he declined to rewrite a law (that would let him stick around longer consecutively) and all the country praised it as an honorable act. Then Medvedev took over, and the people seemed to take a liking to him as well...eventually, which seemed to upset Putin. Putin got jealous, over reacted, and made sure he won the next election... and now he's setting dumb policies in place. \n\nSo how is life there now?\nWell, the media always has to be careful of criticizing the govt., the people still get beat up for having even peaceful protests, and there is still a ton of corruption (which will take decades to go away). The mindset of Russian people is what makes the difference. I personally believe it's great that every person in the US has the ability to buy a weapon, but I feel the opposite about the same issue in Russia... God forbid that Russians get access to guns (technically it's fire-powder ban, I believe). Russia is nowhere near developed enough to trust it's people to that extent. The current anti-democracy measure are a bit much, but I think there needs to be a balance between govt control and peoples freedom in the Russian Federation. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
72tjau
|
How much did scientists know about the makeup of other planets in our solar system prior to spectroscopy?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/72tjau/how_much_did_scientists_know_about_the_makeup_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnljivn"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Even though I don't have a clue, I'll take a stab at answering, since no one else has. I'm going to take it as sort of a running narrative of how I'm researching it... No particular reason why.\n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_4_) states astronomical spectroscopy dates back to the (rather unhelpful) \"early 1800s\", but states that there were retail devices available by at least 1884. Of course, it also took awhile for spectrographic lines to be made sense of and mapped. To begin with, it informed us more about the nature of light and matter itself, than the planets or sun. So... hopefully 1884 is just as good as any other date.\n\nSo, if we look at a [timeline for astronomy](_URL_0_) and work backwards from 1884... Well, aside from spectroscopy, there's not a whole lot.\n\n* 1846, Neptune is credited to Johann Gottfried Galle, but there's evidence Galileo may have discovered it.\n\n* 1801 an asteroid is discovered by Giuseppe Piazzi and demonstrated by William Herschel.\n\n* 1781 Uranus is discovered by William Herschel (busy guy!).\n\netc.\n\nDoesn't help as much as I thought.... Too vague to properly answer your question. So, we can take a look at what we knew about *specifically Jupiter*. Turns out, the [red spot](_URL_3_) has been observed since 1830, but was observed earlier by individuals. The first time it was described as being \"red\" was in a painting by Donato Ceti in 1711, though (based just on the Wiki description), it may have been artistic license, since the next description as red doesn't come until spectrography. \n\nHow about moons...? Well, aside from the [Galilean moons](_URL_1_), there were a few prior to mid-to-late 1800's. Specifically, 20 prior to 1884 (not counting the actual \"moon\" - that was way early).\n\nSeems we didn't know a lot about the planets. Some idea of color. They had a good handle on the math to calculate basic orbits, but based on wikipedia on the discovery of the moons during the 1800's, they weren't first demonstrated mathematically (though many of the articles are vague on the issue). [Ceres](_URL_2_) is something of an exception, so they did have some basic rules of orbits and such.\n\nHope this helps you get started... I'd dig further, but I'm out of time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_astronomy",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timeline_of_discovery_of_Solar_System_planets_and_their_moons",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ceres_(dwarf_planet\\)#Discovery",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Red_Spot",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Astronomical_spectroscopy"
]
] |
||
69oj81
|
what keeps a bowling lane from getting warped from thrown balls?
|
You always see those bowling ball videos of people punching through the ceiling and it coming back down, and you can hear it occasionally in public lanes where the release isn't really on point, so what keeps the wooden lane from getting warped, dinged, or dented?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69oj81/eli5_what_keeps_a_bowling_lane_from_getting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh85e3x",
"dh8avj5"
],
"score": [
96,
23
],
"text": [
" Wood lanes are shaved down usually every 2 years. Also the lanes are not 1 continuous piece of wood. There are sections. The front part of the lane (where balls land) are made of a harder wood.\n\n Most lanes today are made of a synthetic material. Also in sections that can be replaced.",
"Also, there are many dents in most lanes from people throwing the ball. They are just hard to see depending on the light. They are minimized by the harder wood at the front, completely sanding the lanes every few years, and putting down a new finish (at my old bowling alley we did this every year). Most league houses don't use real wood anymore, which I understand is easier to repair. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1xsukw
|
I am looking for a Site which has a database of News Clippings of English Newspapers from 1900-1950??
|
While I was studying the protest movement against the partition of Bengal in 1905 I became inquisitive (as an Indian) about the reactions it generated in Britain. Thus I am looking for news articles (preferably editorials) in the British Press on the Independence movement in India. Please tell me about sites where I can access such clippings.
One more thing I want to know of the several newspapers in England which were sympathetic to the demands made by the Indian Leaders and which were of the Imperialist school of thought?????(Just to ease my search)
Thanks In Advance....
Edit: Must be Free
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xsukw/i_am_looking_for_a_site_which_has_a_database_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfeckdy",
"cfez7po",
"cfg1ak3"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"[Proquest Historical Newspapers](_URL_0_) has the Guardian and the Observer. If you are member of a uni, library or other institution with a subscription, it's free.",
"Try some of [these](_URL_0_). (One of the rare moments in which answering with a Wikipedia link on this subreddit is justified.)",
"The British Archives has some online newspaper collections.\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://search.proquest.com/news"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:List_of_online_newspaper_archives#United_Kingdom"
],
[
"http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/records/research-guides/newspapers.htm",
"http://www.nationalarchives.gov.uk/default.htm"
]
] |
|
adhakp
|
is there a reason why all or most ip addresses begin with 192.168..?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/adhakp/eli5_is_there_a_reason_why_all_or_most_ip/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edgube5",
"edgue4i",
"edguh65",
"edgwq4r",
"edhmpnm"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
46,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"These are internal IP addresses. If you are on a home network, you will have this IP address. Even if you have one computer on a wireless router connected to a modem, you are on a home network.",
"192.168.x.x is reserved for [private networks](_URL_0_), i.e. your local network (for your home, office etc.)\n\nIn some places, each device could also be assigned a public IP address (for accessing the internet), or all the devices in the network could share the same public IP address using [NAT](_URL_1_).",
"192.168.x.x is part of the 'private' range of addresses set aside by the Internet masters (APNIC). Whilst these are valid addresses, they are specificically designed not to be transmitted across the wider Internet. There are actually 3 such sets, (Class A, B and C).\nThese are: \n\nA: 10.0.0.0 to 10.255.255.255.\n\nB: 172.16.0.0 to 172.31.255.255.\n\nC: 192.168.0.0 to 192.168.255.255.\n\nThe Technical term is '[Non Routeable IP addresses](_URL_0_)'\n",
"First you need to understand the difference between public and private IP addresses as well as the term routable. \n\nPrivate IP addresses are used internal to your network and public IPs are used external also known as routable. You may have 50/100/1000s of devices inside of your network they can all share one public IP address via Network Address Translation and the use of port numbers. \n\nIf you google “what is my IP” you’ll see a much different ip address. That is your public IP and it’s how you talk to the world. This is dynamically assigned via your ISP. \n\nThe best way to put it is this, your house has a unique address: 123 Main Street, city State zip code. No where else in the world does that address exist and it’s how UPS knows to find you. Now inside of your house you probably have tons of things that everyone else has. UPS doesn’t need to know where your fridge is to deliver you packages for the fridge just how to get to your house. \n\nThis all exists because there is a limited number of IPv4 address so every routable IP can have thousands of Private IPs behind it. \n\nThere are three private spaces:\n\n10.0.0.0/8\n172.16.0.0/12\n192.168.0.0/16\n\nI’m not 100% sure why most retail devices went with 192 as the IP range. Technically they could have used any of them. In my house I use several different subnets with the use of Vlans.\n\n192.168.98.0/24 vlan 998 management\n192.168.99.0/24 vlan 999 Lab\n192.168.100.0/24 vlan 1000 Home Network\n192.168.101.0/24 vlan 1001 IOT\n192.168.102.0/24 vlan 1002 Media\n192.168.103.0/24 vlan 1003 Cameras\nVlan 1004 retired\n192.168.105.0/24 vlan 1005 Servers\n192.168.106.0/24 vlan 1006 NAS \n\n\nThat’s about the basics of a network. I’ve been a network security engineer for about 10 years.. it’s a really amazing career with lots of jobs and the entry is minimal. Hope that helped. \n\nEdit: also understand most things in Network were developed 20-30 years ago when not many home users had internet. That is why 127.0.0.0 range is reserved.. the thought was we would never run out of IP address.. and it’s why IPv6 is becoming the new standard. ",
"You have a limited view of the IPv4 address space. This is most likely due to the use of the 192.168.0.0/16 address space by consumer routers. \n\nThe entire IPv4 address space is heavily utilized except the highest numbered addresses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Private_network",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_address_translation"
],
[
"https://www.lifewire.com/what-is-a-private-ip-address-2625970"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
dcea88
|
why are americans so obsessed with halloween?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dcea88/eli5_why_are_americans_so_obsessed_with_halloween/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f27lw8g",
"f27m03v",
"f27mf1r",
"f27n7pl",
"f27n7th",
"f27ogpa",
"f27ojl0",
"f27pg0s",
"f27qag4",
"f27svol",
"f27wqdr"
],
"score": [
12,
56,
16,
11,
20,
7,
9,
10,
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Why not, enjoy the holiday?",
"Because Halloween is fun. The little kiddies dressed up in their costumes out getting candy. The harmless pranks people can play on others. Great movies on T.V. Everything about Halloween is just fun.",
"Americans Excited about Holiday that Glorifies Eating Candy and Dressing Slutty.\n\n\"Shocking!\", says nobody.",
"Halloween has become a bit of it's own counterculture in a way. As the Christmas holiday has continued to bloat and start earlier and earlier each year, people respond by opposing it in various ways. Thanks to internet and meme culture being what it is, Halloween itself has started to become overly bloated itself. You'll find that most people who rave about halloween online dont actually do much to celebrate it.",
"Canadian here, we also adore Halloween. It’s fun. It’s a bit of a free pass to show your excited/eager/more youthful exuberance for something as an adult. You get to buy miniature versions of your favourite candies, and rewatch your favourite Halloween movies while keeping an eye for new ones. You get to see kids grinning from ear to ear as they go door to door chanting “trick or treat!” And swoon at the toddlers “twik-o-tweeting” \n\nThere are few tricks nowadays, so it’s actually one of the more wholesome holidays. If you’re an adult there is alcohol costume parties - it’s like returning to childhood + alcohol. If you have kids there are family pumpkin patches (some on wineries, with charcuterie, wine by the glass or bottle) and loads of usually free outdoor kids activities. Ditto with corn mazes on some of the pumpkin patches. Family Halloween parties with old school games like bobbing for apples etc. \n\nAnd candy. Loads of candy, chips, chocolate and cheap toys. It’s just fun.",
"I’ve grown to hate Christmas because family systems are so broken that sharing kids with all these different sets of parents and grandparents is just a huge burden. Halloween is all mine. Not complicated at all.",
"Why do you ask this question like it's a bad thing? It's a friggin holiday for fun...",
"America is pretty into all it's major holidays (there aren't that many) Halloween is just one of the more social-network friendly ones since there's a large degree of personal flair and diversity in decorating as well as dressing up so it's a high visibility holiday.",
"We like to party. Add some costumes and candy, hell yeah. I personally love fall , so i stay pumped about the seasons changing.",
"Halloween is a fun holiday, just like so many others, but it gets hyped due to marketing. Just look at all the retailers that can make money selling candy and costumes and decorations and all the massive piles of useless, expensive, shoddy shit. What you're experiencing is the effects of marketing hype. It's like Christmas. Do people enjoy it? Sure. Are people so fucking nuts about it that they demand Christmas shit on the shelves in October? That's a thing, but it's just the retailers trying to capitalize on the market, it's not in response to demand.",
"It's a truly simple festivity that is non-religious, non-political, and non-historical. Therefore, the common person can enjoy it without feeling they have to please a particular demographic's beliefs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8yr9mc
|
Can you layer sun protection products and is their SP factor cumulative?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8yr9mc/can_you_layer_sun_protection_products_and_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2el0sn",
"e2f2x0c"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"You can layer but you will only get the higher protection. 15 + 15 does not equal spf 30. \n\nThey’re tested at a rate of coverage that equals about 1/4 teaspoon for the average male face too. It’s a good idea to measure it for a while to be sure you are getting enough. \n\nIt doesn’t last all day, so reapply about every 2 hours or after profuse sweating or swimming or rubbing. ",
"No, that's not how it works. SPF stands for sun protection factor, it's a measure of how much uv-b light is blocked by a proper application of the sunscreen. A sunscreen that blocked half of the uv-b rays would have an spf of 2, an spf of 15 means it blocks 93% of uv-b. Ostensibly spf translates to how long you'd need to be in the sun to get a sunburn. If it took 10 minutes to get burnt with no sunscreen (if your are extremely pale, for example) then it should take 150 minutes to get burnt with spf 15 sunscreen on (or 300 with spf 30).\n\nThe reality is that above a certain spf level, about 30 or so, the amount of uv-b received is so low you won't burn at all. However, spf doesn't measure uv-a so a \"50 spf\" sunscreen might still leave you vulnerable.\n\nIt's possible that combining two sunscreens based on different chemicals to give you more total protection, but there's no way to know without testing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7a3oua
|
Which books of the Bible attributed to a single author (ex: first six books of Old Testament to Moses, Luke/Acts to Luke, John/Revelation to John, various letters by Peter and Paul) do scholars agree were really written by the same person?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7a3oua/which_books_of_the_bible_attributed_to_a_single/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp6uo9j"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You might want to post this in /r/academicbiblical as well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5fjq51
|
why are some people great at abstract thinking but terrible at algebra which involves it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5fjq51/eli5_why_are_some_people_great_at_abstract/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dakqh89"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Math requires abstract thinking to understand why you're supposed to do certain things, but not to literally do them. You need abstract thinking to understand why you can divide two from both sides of 2x=4, but not to do it.\n\nThe people that are good at math before calculus are people that can do well in a system that requires logical and step by step thinking. It isn't really until calc and beyond that you need to understand why you can/cannot do certain things. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3y8e2r
|
In fantasy it is common to read about colored or painted armor. Is there any historical basis for this?
|
I remember lots of descriptions of this kind of stuff in fantasy books. Like the knight having red and gold plate armor.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3y8e2r/in_fantasy_it_is_common_to_read_about_colored_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cybhsvs",
"cyblq4k",
"cybm6b8",
"cybnkv1",
"cybspgh"
],
"score": [
101,
104,
11,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"Oh yes. When I first read your question I thought of enameled armor but some poking around turned up [this wonderful article from The Met](_URL_0_). Depending on the fantasy story, I doubt armor was *quite* as colorful (at least anything that wasn't gold, silver, or bronze, but as the article details there were many techniques to add color) but it could get extremely elaborate and could have color. ",
"There was a style that became popular in 16th century Germany referred to as \"black and white\" armor. Decorative patterns were created by selectively polishing certain areas. [Here's a good example.](_URL_1_) As you might expect, the higher one's status, the fancier of a pattern one could afford. [This](_URL_0_), by contrast, is a relatively \"budget\" example.",
"A slightly-off topic, but cool example that you can find mentioned is in David Parrott's *The Business of War* (at least where I encountered it first) are the Landsknecht of the early modern Europe period in Germany. They were known to be particularly colorful in terms of dress both in and out of battle. Many old representations of them show them in very ostentatious, bright and what we today might consider to be gaudy dress. Their dress was very distinctive for their time, with feathers, hats, etc., that would tell anyone and everyone of their profession at a glance. Not quite the question you asked, but I figured I'd turn you onto other kinds of military dress. ",
"[Here's](_URL_0_) a helmet from about 1500 that has a monster face painted on the visor. It's also unusual as it's an example of relatively low-quality 'munition' armour, as opposed to the higher quality examples that usually survive. I also came across [this](_URL_1_) album on imgur that contains a couple of examples of painted sallets (along with some modern reproductions).",
"In *The Armourer and His Craft*, ffoulke describes armour covered with velvet - not like a slipcover, but a permanent surface. Boiled linseed oil, like oil paint, could be tinted before being used as water-proofing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/dect/hd_dect.htm"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/6ZhyYS9.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/NCE2Y29.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.wallacecollection.org/whatson/treasure/102",
"http://imgur.com/a/dFqh2"
],
[]
] |
|
3w3q7w
|
the yahoo-alibaba spin-off
|
I read the articles but because of the terminology i didn't quite understand how that affects the company, the products and the board.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w3q7w/eli5_the_yahooalibaba_spinoff/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxt2gu2",
"cxt7lfq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Yahoo is doing terribly and its' core business is pretty much worthless. However, Yahoo owns a lot of shares in a company called Alibaba, which is actually very profitable. So they want to get rid of their actual business and make money on the shares instead.",
"So yahoo way back when,bought into alibaba.\n\nNow yahoo is basically worthless compared to alibaba.people want them to split because if they want alibaba shares,they don't want to also have to pay for the (relatively crappy) yahoo stuff on top of it\n\nYahoo stock=bad\nAlibaba=good\n\nYahoo+alibaba= ? Weird mix\n\nSo people really want those alibaba shares,and the way to split them off is to make a new company. But in order to sell them,yahoo has to do some weird stuff to avoid taxes.alibaba is literally worth enough that those taxes are massive (more than yahoo entirely),so it's worth dodging them\n\nHowever,the IRS came out and said \"hey don't sell off your alibaba shares or well sue you for not paying taxes on it\" (not that directly,but that's basically what they said). No one is sure whether they would win or lose in court.\n\nSo now,instead yahoo is basically splitting itself off to get around it.\n\nI shortcutted a lot in that explanation,but if you're looking for more, Matt Levine on bloomberg has a bunch of articles that I thought were easy to follow\n\nEdit: in case it wasn't clear,it shouldn't really affect the company/board/products right now (although if it comes to it,those shares are worth more-they could literally get rid of all of yahoo and still profit)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
37gbr2
|
the bill of rights
|
Each of the amendments. I'm trying to understand it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37gbr2/eli5_the_bill_of_rights/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crmf7e6",
"crmfch7",
"crmh3cc",
"crnabuq"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"**First Amendment**\n\n*Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.*\n\nThe government cannot criminalize or arrest you for speaking your mind, exercising your religion, associating with people, protesting the government, or publishing news.\n\n**Second Amendment**\n\n*A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.*\n\nThe government cannot criminalize or prevent you from having weapons or forming militias.\n\n**Third Amendment**\n\n*No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law*\n\nThe government can't force you to house members of the military.\n\n**Fourth Amendment**\n\n*The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized*\n\nThe government cannot search or seize you or your possessions without a warrant or probable cause.\n\n**Fifth Amendment**\n\n*No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.*\n\nThis one's a doozy, basically it establishes the requirement of a Grand Jury to indict people for major crimes, protects people from being tried for the same crime twice, protects you from self-incrimination, and prevents the government from arresting and incarcerating you without following \"due process.\" Also says the government can't take your stuff without due process and just compensation.\n\n**Sixth Amendment**\n\n*In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defence.*\n\nYou have a right to a fast and public trial, a partial jury of your peers, be told of the charges against you, be able to question witnesses against you and provide witnesses in your defense, and you have a right to a lawyer.\n\n**Seventh Amendment**\n\n*In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.*\n\nGrants you a right to a jury trial for civil cases exceeding $20 and protects the results of those cases from being overruled by a judge.\n\n**Eighth Amendment**\n\n*Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.*\n\nThe government cannot issue excessive bail or sentence people to cruel and unusual punishments.\n\n**Ninth Amendment**\n\n*The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.*\n\nBasically, just because the Constitution mentions certain rights by name (such as freedom of speech) this doesn't mean people don't have other rights *not* mentioned in the Constitution.\n\n**Tenth Amendment**\n\n*The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.*\n\nAny power not explicitly granted to the Federal Government by the Constitution is instead reserved to the States or the people.\n\nNote: This is a simplification. Centuries of application have created various case laws which flavor and limit these amendments to some degree or another.",
"Most of them are pretty self-explanatory.\n\n1. There can be no laws against what you say, or what religion you follow, or who you associate with.\n\n2. We need a military force, so you're allowed to own guns.\n\n3. You cannot be forced to house troops.\n\n4. Your home can't be searched without an OK from a judge.\n\n5. You can't be tried twice for the same offense. You can't be forced to testify against yourself.\n\n6. You have to have a fair public trial with witnesses you can cross-examine.\n\n7. If you want a jury trial, you are entitled to have it.\n\n8. The punishment must fit the crime.\n\n9. This is not an all-encompassing list. You may have other rights too.\n\n10. If it's not specifically a federal issue, then it's automatically a state issue. [There's more, but I can't really describe it LY5.]",
"The bill of rights enumerates some of our most important fundamental [natural rights](_URL_0_). It doesn't *grant* any rights. It enumerates them and explicitly forbids the government from infringing on them. This is an important distinction that is clearly expressed with the ninth amendment.\n\nThe constitution doesn't grant you the right to free speech or to bear arms. You already had it.\n\nIt's also interesting to note that the term \"natural\" is used and not \"God given\" like we hear so often today. The founding fathers were surprisingly irreligious considering the limited scientific knowledge of the day.\n\n\n",
"The REALLY important thing to understand about the Bill of Rights--which, alas, neither much of the public or the government seems to grasp--is that it was NOT written as a memo from the government to the people saying, \"look at all these sweet-ass perks we're letting you have because we're nice guys.\"\n\nIt was actually intended as a memo from the people to the government saying \"U can't touch this.\" Rights are not revokable, they don't apply to JUST people we like, they are simply not subject to any legislation less than another Constitutional amendment.\n\nYeah, it frequently doesn't work out that way in real life, and people are partly to blame when the government abridges their rights, for not screaming bloody murder and running the scoundrels out of office on a rail.\n\nAnd THAT, Timmy, is why the President of the US today has the authority to order the summary murder of a US citizen on *suspicion* of being an enemy of the state.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Natural_and_legal_rights"
],
[]
] |
|
zfmxv
|
the philosophical concept of epiphenomenal qualia and jackson's "mary" thought experiment.
|
I have to write an essay on this and I just don't know how to write anything of substance. I don't understand why it's not an open and shut 'Yes, she does learn something new; what it is to actually experience the colour red' case. I was comparing it to something like -knowing everything there is to know about the theory of swimming won't mean you can jump into a body of water and swim (theoretical knowledge vs functional or applied knowledge). But then I read a statement from Jackson himself that said this was not what he is getting at, so I think I've missed the point.
Any guidance would be greatly appreciated.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zfmxv/eli5_the_philosophical_concept_of_epiphenomenal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c645yfw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's not open and shut because it's not demonstrable that Mary *has* learned anything new. [Mary's room](_URL_1_) has been argued by greater (or at least more singularly focused) minds than either of ours, and yet they still disagree.\n\nThis is how I see it: Suppose Mary *and Martha* work together in the black & white room, studying color vision. After a thoroughly complete study, and a development in both researchers of a complete-as-possible understanding of the phenomenon, Mary leaves the room and experiences color vision for the first time. When she returns, Martha asks her what she has learned. Can Mary tell Martha anything that will expand Martha's understanding of color vision? I think it is obvious that she cannot, so Mary really hasn't gained any new *knowledge*, even though she may perceive that she has.\n\nSimilarly, a person using \"magic mushrooms\" or LSD may perceive subjectively that they have expanded their consciousness and gained knowledge far beyond what their tiny minds could have held before. This is subjective, however; the knowledge is \"useful\" only within the tripper's own psyche.\n\nLastly, take a look at the problem from another angle used in the study of artificial intelligence. It is obvious that while in the black & white room, Mary does not experience color vision. However, the *system* which is composed of Mary, the room, the monitor, and all connected cameras and sensing equipment, *does* experience color vision. That *system* can differentiate a red apple from a green one just as readily as any person who can perceive color naturally. That person, after all, is a system of optics, sensory apparatus and neural tissue that can perceive color, even though the actual sensors (the [cone cells](_URL_2_) of the [retina](_URL_0_)) only register relative light intensity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Retina",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary's_room",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell"
]
] |
|
11m22d
|
Today I was in a 15 story building during an earthquake. If the building collapsed, would I have been safer on the first floor, 15th floor or somewhere in between?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11m22d/today_i_was_in_a_15_story_building_during_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6nongy",
"c6noni7",
"c6novdh",
"c6npq3j",
"c6nrgn1",
"c6nrk7z",
"c6nrkls",
"c6ns31d",
"c6ns48w"
],
"score": [
88,
11,
32,
8,
425,
8,
9,
41,
2
],
"text": [
"When a roof or building of multiple floors collapses, the safest place usually is usually where you have a sturdy floor beneath you (closer to weight bearing walls/pillars) and directly next to something incredibly sturdy. There is typically a right triangle of safety, for example, next to (but not underneath) a large bed or desk on a first floor, even if the roof collapses on it.\n\nYou typically don't want to be underneath anything if a roof collapses, as the force will typically destroy whatever you're underneath, causing you to be crushed under it. However, in the process the falling roof loses most of its momentum to destroy anything at a lower level directly next to it.\n\nI know that doesn't really answer your question, as I don't believe we have a truly definitive answer for that, but hopefully it offers some insight.",
"Depends on how it collapses. A 15 floor concrete floored building that pancakes you will be safest on the roof rather than getting sandwiched between the floors..\n\nLike the old top gear test where they put a toyota pickup on the roof and it survived. _URL_0_\n\nA 15 floor building is 50 m tall. People have been known to survive higher falls than that.",
"I too work in a high rise in an earthquake prone city. I wonder this daily. I've always figured my only hope would be in a stairwell or next to a load bearing wall on the ground floor, with the hope that I could end up in a cavity. I've always used the experience of 9/11. I guess there was the [one dude](_URL_0_) who says he was on the 22nd floor and one on the 15th and 16 in stairwell B between 2-4 of the South Tower but the vast majority of everyone else died while several were found alive underground.\n\nI'd personally pick the odds of ending up in a cavity on the ground floor rather than falling 50 m onto a debris field.\n\nIs there any evidence or studies of this from any of the big devastating earthquakes (Sichuan or Japan or Mexico City or Iran)? Do they indeed find survivors from the roofs? Or are they all dug out of cavities within the debris?",
"The stairwell at the ground level will be the safest place in a building designed for seismic loading with a load bearing core. If the building is a diagrid structure or something similar, where lateral loading is directed towards the building's external structure, this is no longer true because the core is not engineered to take on lateral and eccentric loading resulting from an earthquake. ",
"Structural engineer here. Everything is coming straight down in a total collapse. Think building demo. People have this idea of buildings falling way sideways like a Jenga block and it doesn't work that way at these scales.\n\nBut what you should do in an earthquake is different than the ideal place for a building collapse. Remember, engineers design buildings in earthquake zones to survive earthquakes that statistics indicate are the likely worst case. The same is true for hurricanes along the gulf. \n\nIf I knew for a fact the building was coming all the way down I'd want to be the hell outta there. If I had to be in the building I'd pick the basement beneath the biggest columns and girders I could find. Buildings tend to be pretty close to free fall once total collapse is induced. So the idea of riding the roof down isn't too different from jumping. In the middle you get crushed. At the bottom you probably get crushed by you may be able to pick a spot that doesn't get pancaked and hope to be dug out.\n\nOdds are good the building (in america or japan, don't know about other places) will survive ~~and~~ an earthquake, but you will get partial damage.\n\nIn an actual earthquake *you should not assume a full collapse*.\n\nGet to the inside (away from extererior windows), stay out of the elevator, stand underneath a doorway if you can. The main structure should hold-anything in it is likely to move or collapse.",
"In the Christchurch earthquake people on the top floor of the CTV building survived. Also people of the top of the PGG building survived. People on the lower floors were not as fortunate. Generally those that were on the top floor or close to the stairwells survived. A tragedy for all involved.\n\nEdit:\n\"Ms Spencer said the top floor stayed intact until it hit the ground.\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\nKeep in mind that this building did not meet building code in some ways.",
"During the 1999 [921 earthquake](_URL_1_) in Taiwan [many concrete buildings](_URL_0_) collapsed 1 story, [crushing the first floor](_URL_2_). This may be specific to the design of the buildings there however, so I imagine the answer to your question is highly dependent on the type of structure and how total the collapse is.",
"Structural engineering PhD here attempting to weigh in.\n\nLet's assume that we are dealing with a severe seismic event:\n\n1) The majority of buildings will suffer member failures (i.e. concrete spalling and delamination, shear failures at joints, beam buckling, bursting of column covers, etc.)\n\nHOWEVER,\n\n2) Most buildings will remain standing despite these type of failures.\n\nSo, assuming there are three deformation modes due to seismic displacement (shear, flexural, and axial), the question comes down to a \"member failure rate vs. elevation\" problem.\n\nIn the shear case, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near the first floor, since shear forces are transferred and are stronger at the foundation.\n\nIn the flexural case, if we assume the building acts like a cantilevered beam, then failure will still be greater at the first floor and none at the top floor.\n\nIn the axial case, the forces should dampen with height so, again, the top floors will be safer.\n\nBased on all of these premises, and if the building sections are constant throughout the elevation, then the TOP floor will be the safest during an earthquake.\n\nNow, if the building sections become larger with decreasing elevation, then the behavior will depend on the specific design and whether it adequately offsets the greater loads experienced at the base.\n\nNote: If you were in a building that suffers catastrophic collapse, then height becomes irrelevant (i.e. a penthouse roof caving under your head is no safer than a basement roof caving in under your head). Under those circumstances, I'd want to be near a shear wall near the core of the building, hopefully under a door-frame or desk in order to minimize the chance of debris injuries.",
"Proven by experiment the safest place is on the top of the building:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kFnVZXQD5_k"
],
[
"http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/48985518/ns/today-today_news/t/survivor-surfed-debris-i-couldnt-believe-it-myself/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/canterbury-earthquake/109194/survivors-of-ctv-building-collapse-give-evidence"
],
[
"http://travel-cities.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/tw82.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/921_earthquake",
"http://www.world-housing.net/uploads/100858_061_11.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Uc4Ksz3nHM#t=2m13s"
]
] |
||
2nozip
|
the lake effect, as in what happened in buffalo.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nozip/eli5_the_lake_effect_as_in_what_happened_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmfilnp",
"cmfinp1"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, the Lake Effect is what happens when cold air moves over warmer water, picking up water vapor which freezes in the air, and then comes down as snow when the air moves downwind to land. Since Buffalo is right next to Lake Erie and Ontario, there is plenty of water for the cold air to move along. Additionally, since Buffalo has a higher elevation than the lakes, then the air moves up when it deposits snow, causing very intense snowstorms. ",
"The Great Lake are big and warm compared to the air. This encourages moisture to be taken up by the air passing over. The air is usually traveling west to east in that area. Once that air goes back over land it cools again and can't hold as much moisture. It falls as snow not very far away. It means that Buffalo, New York, can get five feet of snow while Syracuse gets nothing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
s1yix
|
Is there any other way for life to develop besides cells?
|
I was going over the points we use to define if something is alive, and I thought that perhaps life, developed on a different planet, might not contain cells.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s1yix/is_there_any_other_way_for_life_to_develop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4afgmi",
"c4agimk",
"c4agj2n"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It seems like this question gets into the philosophical definition of \"what is life.\" Scientists are still debating whether or not viruses constitute a form of life, so realistically we haven't even nailed down a definition of life on earth. \n\nThat being said, I don't see why life on other planets would have to adhere to any of the rules that life on earth follows.",
"Cells are developed because it allows a control of internal environment and blocking out the outside environment. Without a membrane, it's pretty difficult but life could exist, in that DNA and metabolic machinery could be swimming around without being confined by a cytoskeleton or membrane. ",
"I believe one of the characteristics of life is maintenance of homeostasis. This means that life has to be able to compartmentalize itself from the environment. \n\nAlso, as far as I know water is required for life, as that's how we are determining where to look for life. This would require life to have a permeable, hydrophobic region that separates it from the environment. \n\nFor life to develop, or evolve, there has to be some kind of information (genetic code) that you pass down to your offspring. This could be in the form of proteins, DNA, RNA, or some other thing we haven't seen before.\n\nIn essence, a cell is still the fundamental building block of life, although the various components that make up our cells may be variable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7xs78t
|
How are electrical signals traveling on neurons directed to its target?
|
How do cells differentiate between an electrical signal traveling down an axon that is destined for different areas, for example the right great toe versus the left gastrocnemius? Cell biology textbooks does a great job at explaining the process by which the signal is passed between cells but how it reaches it's target is a mystery to me.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7xs78t/how_are_electrical_signals_traveling_on_neurons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dub40zp",
"dub7624"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The textbooks don't explain it because there is nothing to explain. The cells don't differentiate anything, it's a one origin to one destination signal conduction.\n\nA single axon runs to one single area (say, a receptor on your toe) and nowhere else. It never splits into two and never merges with another axon.",
"What /u/unia_7 said. Each nerve carries a large number of individual axons. Each axon either goes to one group of muscle fibers, or from one sensory receptor. \n\nThat said, an axon CAN split in two and make synapses onto multiple separate target neurons. But it can't 'route' electrical signals down one branch vs. another. A branched axon duplicates the information it transmits; it can't selectively route information."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
yxdnd
|
what are the blue and orange/yellow lines that i see on the edges of everything when i have my glasses on?
|
Whenever I use my glasses (not contacts), I will see on the side of every vertical edge, a side with a blue glow, and a side with an orange/yellow glow. I don't see the glow without my glasses of course. But, what is it? And what causes it? Can anything be done to glasses to prevent it from happening?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yxdnd/eli5_what_are_the_blue_and_orangeyellow_lines/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5znkir"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"You are nearsighted, your eyeglass lenses are concave, and the outer edges act like prisms that split up light into its component colors. A white object, seen through the edge of your lenses, will appear to have a reddish halo that oozes out towards the outer edge of your lens, with a corresponding bluish halo that oozes in towards the center of your lens - and this happens no matter if you are looking through the left, right, top, or bottom edges.\n\nAt night, you can enjoy superhuman vision skills. Go outside and glance at a distant street light through the outer edge of one of your lenses. You will see a truncated rainbow - just three or four colors instead of a full wash - and you will be able to tell whether the streetlight is a sodium-vapor lamp (a heavy orange halo) or mercury-vapor lamp (a blue halo plus a green halo) just from the spectrum that only you are able to see because of the lenses that give you mutant powers."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
42g4lm
|
Why is New York City named the same as the state? IE why do the city and state share the same name? Do any other places on earth do this?
|
I just always thought it was such an odd idea, to have an address like "New York, New York". Why did they decide to name the city this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42g4lm/why_is_new_york_city_named_the_same_as_the_state/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cza2kdu",
"czacrly",
"czagedt"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
6
],
"text": [
" > Do any other places on earth do this?\n\nThere's one example in Germany: Bremen, Bremen. Bremen (the city) is part of Bremen (the state), together with another city called Bremerhaven (roughly translates to *Port of Bremen*). This is the only example in Germany, for Hamburg and Berlin, there is no distinction between the state and the city.",
"In North America (New) Plymouth and Providence had earlier shared the name between town and wider territory, though both later merged with neighbouring colonies. \n\nIt's also in accordance with a long British tradition in naming counties - Hertfordshire, Bedfordshire, Northamptonshire, Leicestershire, Nottinghamshire and of course Yorkshire, or the County of York, a style still common in 19th-century official usage and surviving into the 20th. Only Durham survives without the \"-shire\", as County Durham. \n\nIn France the practice may be older, though as in England (Sussex, Berkshire, Cornwall) other counties didn't carry city names. But of course it's far older, as in a recent discussion of [Athens](_URL_0_). ",
"The Dutch were originally in control of the city of New Amsterdam, which was part of the larger province of New Amsterdam. When the British took over in 1664, they renamed both the city and the province after James, the Duke of York (later King James II); for a short time, from July 1673 to November 1674, the Dutch recaptured and occupied New York, renaming it New Orange, but it was given back to the British when the Third Anglo-Dutch War ended and the name reverted back to New York. Until 1898, when the city was unified into the five boroughs, New York City exclusively referred to Manhattan, which is reflected in the address of New York, New York. The outer boroughs use their respective names, although the residents of Queens often put one of five neighborhood names instead (they are Long Island City, Flushing, Jamaica, Floral Park and Far Rockaway; which neighborhood residents choose depends on their zip code). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41ig16/what_was_the_peak_population_of_classical_athens/"
],
[]
] |
|
5hhhd7
|
does having a "will to live" help you overcome a severe illness or injury, and if so, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hhhd7/eli5does_having_a_will_to_live_help_you_overcome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db08kx2",
"db0oyk5",
"db0p66a"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Definetly. Someone who has given up on everything is less likely to think about his/hers well being. As someone who has a will to live will check up symptoms, have less anxiety. Some cures in life are really the pure basics like sleeping and eating well. ",
"Research has shown Single old people with dogs live longer given the same other circumstances. \nThey have something to live for. ",
"I used to work for a company that made shades for hospitals and offices, and one of the benefits for hospitals patients was the ability to see outdoors through the loosely woven shade when it was down and the bedside remote control to raise and lower the shade. The remote gave the long-term bedridden patient the ability to have some control over their lives when so much of their illness was out of their control. The scene through the shade helped to keep them connected with the activities of the outside world and with nature. Thus the psychological disposition of the patient was affected by the shade and greatly helped their ability to recover sooner. The faster you can feel normal again, the faster you can recover. So logically, having the \"will to live\" will at the very least make you better able to deal with a terminal disease.\n\nOn the other hand my mother died because she lost the will to live because she no longer functioned normally due to life long case of diphtheria and was bedridden for a long time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
69eom4
|
when nuclear weapons were added to the us arsenal, why was the ability to launch them given to the president of the united states and not congress?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69eom4/eli5when_nuclear_weapons_were_added_to_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh5y8ax",
"dh5y97h",
"dh5yn8m",
"dh5zdkm",
"dh6097i",
"dh6717e",
"dh6huz4",
"dh6jfjf",
"dh6l45i",
"dh8bun7"
],
"score": [
42,
15,
5,
66,
5,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the main purpose of a nuclear weapon is to retaliate if someone attack you. It serve as a deterrent, if you attack us, you will be destroyed.\n\nIf you need the approval of the congress, which could takes days at best, it would make the deterrent value of nuclear weapons useless. Someone could destroy the US with nukes before congress can approve a retaliation.",
"The President is the Commander in Chief. He has control over all the armed force's weapons. While he is required to get Congress approval for certain actions, if he gives an order the military will follow it.\n\nIt is not the job of Congress to give orders to the military or any other armed force in America.",
"Imagine if we got attacked with our current congress. First, they'd have to meet up to approve anything which is a problem if Congress is in recess or it's 3 in the morning when nukes hit, then they will argue over party lines for a few days about whether the nuclear attack really happened and if the country that did it is really not a friend. \n\nJoking aside: Even in a one party congress where everyone agrees it'd take too long to organize and vote on that so it was given to the only single person who's supposed to be knowledgeable and trusted enough to make that decision",
"Constitutionally, (although not really in practice any more), Congress is the sole authority on declarations of war or authorizations of the use of military force, but the President is the commander in chief of the armed forces. Congress can't tell generals what to do and it can't give or veto military orders. A nuclear attack is a military order and as such only the President has the authority to initiate it.\n\nOn a more practical note, if nuclear missiles have already be launched at the US, there would be only a few minutes to authorize a retaliatory strike, and even a functional congress is not capable of acting that quickly. No country in the world with nuclear weapons has that authority given to their legislatures. In every case it's the head of government or the head of state.",
"The need to use nuclear weapons -- particularly in response to a nuclear attack -- requires a very quick response. Congress, under the best of circumstances, can make a decision in a few days.\n\nIn the nuclear age, a decision may have to be made in a matter of minutes. The law authorizing the President, with the concurrence of the Secretary of Defense, to use nuclear weapons reflects this reality.",
"here is everything you ever wanted to know about the history of the president and the bomb...great read\n\n_URL_0_",
"Check out the podcast Radiolab. In a recent episode called \"Nukes\" they talk about the issues at play having one person with the keys and if there are better ways. ",
"Congress has never in the 228 years of their existence had the authority to issue orders to the military(fire that cannon, move those troops 500 yards forward etc). That power belongs to the President as Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. A nuclear strike is an order from the civilian Government to the military, making it the power of the President and not Congress.",
"Originally they were just another weapon, and controlled by the military like any other weapon. You don't consult the government before shooting at the enemy in an already declared war. Truman could probably have stopped the two bombs from being dropped on Japan if he had really tried, but he was mostly outside of the loop, it was a decision made by generals, not the president. \n\nTruman didn't really understand the consequences until they had already been dropped. He then sat at the middle of a political firestorm of protesters asking just what using these horrific weapons really accomplished. He decided if he was going to get the blame for their use he damn well was going to have control of when they were used, and took steps to set up the current system where nukes are only used by presidential order.",
"People who appeal to the Constitution are using a post facto rationale to what was already in place. (The War Power is actually pretty complicated Constitutionally, esp. if you try to use the Constitution to make sense of a post-18th century world, where wars can happen sort of instantly and do not require conscripting of new troops, etc.)\n\nThe short answer is, because the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 made it that way, and Congress passed it. Congress gave that right to the Executive. They did not see it, at the time, as a giving of the right away from Congress — they saw it as enshrining the idea of civilian control of nuclear weapons, as opposed to giving the military control over them (as would be most weapons). \n\nAs for why they did that: you have to get into the history of the Atomic Energy Act, which went through two major revisions. The first (the May-Johnson Act) basically gave the military a relatively stronger role. The second (the McMahon Act) stripped that entirely away, and vested the power in the Executive. To my knowledge Congress never even considered giving themselves that kind of role — it just wasn't on the table. They did not outline anything like a chain of command. (Johnson himself emphasized the need for greater Congressional control over atomic energy matters — he was ridiculed by McMahon as implying that he wanted them to lead armies into battle.) \n\nIt didn't specify chain of command, but it made clear that the civilian Atomic Energy Commission (an executive agency) was in physical control of the weapons unless so delegated by the Presidency. This became enshrined over the Truman, Eisenhower, and Kennedy administrations as Presidential control. Again, in resistance to the idea of military control, a very different question than President vs. Congress. \n\nBy the time of Johnston it was basically taken for granted that Presidents had unilateral authority on this point. The requirements for rapid response in the Cold War (by the 1960s, the Soviets could nuke the USA within 20 minutes or so) also dictated a very streamlined chain of command. \n\nIn the 1970s and 1980s there were some proposals to add Congress into the chain of command, at least for first strike uses (e.g., not for \"instant retaliation\" purposes), but they didn't go anywhere. There is currently a bill in Congress (the Lieu-Markey bill) which tries to do something very similar. The context post-Nixon has changed very dramatically — it has ceased to be civilian vs. military, and more a question of \"should this be in the hands of one human being?\" \n\nCongress has never tried to seriously assert power in this area. They could presumably do it, under the same justification of the War Powers Act (which passed under Presidential veto). The Constitutional questions are seriously involved."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://blog.nuclearsecrecy.com/2016/11/18/the-president-and-the-bomb/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1osowz
|
why are the baby boomers considered the worst generation?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1osowz/eli5_why_are_the_baby_boomers_considered_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccv7blf",
"ccv7go6",
"ccv9voo",
"ccvaspl"
],
"score": [
14,
35,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Obviously this is subjective, but there's a very strong case to be made that baby boomers are the most selfish generation. See [this](_URL_1_) and [this](_URL_0_) and [this](_URL_2_), for example. \n\nLong story short - unlike previous generations of Americans, the baby boomers inherited a very prosperous country and made a number of extremely short-sighted decisions that benefited them but screwed over their children, particularly in the areas of fiscal solvency (read: entitlements), education, and infrastructure. ",
"Generally because they inherited a hard-won and prosperous welfare state but then proceeded to dismantle it in the name of short-term profit at the expense of their children. This current generation are the first who, on average, are going to be worse off than their parents, and the policies of deregulation and privatisation pursued in the 1980s are directly responsible for that.",
"TIL; Apparently, the greatest generation were also the worst parents ever?",
"The general (anti-boomer) narrative can be quickly reduced to this: Boomers benefited from a substantial government investment in human capital and then grew up generally less willing than their parents to accept high tax rates.\n\nWhen Boomers were young, government built interstate highways, made education affordable (and for many who fought in the military, essentially free), expanded social safety nets (classic entitlements like Social Security, Medicare, and Medicaid), and spent 32 cents of every federal dollar on long-term investments (compared to 16 cents on the dollar now). It's undeniable that Boomers benefited substantially from these investments. \n\nNow, Boomers tend to be conservative ([source](_URL_1_)). Specifically, they tend to be skeptical of government spending/taxation and strongly in support of entitlement spending ([source](_URL_1_)) which will drive long term debt when Boomers retire. \n\nInitially, this seems hypocritical. The generation that benefited the most from government seems defensive of their safety nets and yet unwilling to use government as a tool to fix broken education systems, crumbling infrastructure, etc. The rule of the last few Presidents seems to embody this - they have spent their children's money (debt) to finance huge entitlements and tax cuts rather than massive infrastructure investments and serious investments in education. (see the piece - it's long - that started it all, by calling the Boomers the \"[Worst Generation](_URL_0_)\")\n\nThat is the common narrative. As with any generalization about millions of people, you should take it with a grain of salt (and weigh it against the fact that at least some Boomers fought the Vietnam War without a choice and helped dismantle the racist/sexist institutions maintained by their parents). \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/07/30/opinion/keller-the-entitled-generation.html?_r=0",
"http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2055497/JEREMY-PAXMAN-Baby-Boomers-selfish-generation-history.html",
"http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.esquire.com/features/worst-generation-0400",
"http://www.people-press.org/2011/11/03/the-generation-gap-and-the-2012-election-3/"
]
] |
||
21m6wj
|
why my car windows do this and how i can prevent it? mostly happens in rain.
|
_URL_0_ It's dangerous and I'm not sure how to deal with it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21m6wj/eli5_why_my_car_windows_do_this_and_how_i_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgedsb7",
"cgeduyu",
"cgedvmq"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It's condensation because of the temperature/humidity difference between the cabin of your vehicle and outside.\n\nThey make antifogging coatings that you can use (rainx makes one, for instance) but for immediate relief, use the defrosting setting on your air conditioner.",
"Turn on your vents, put your temp gauge warmer. If you find its happening more often, you need to clean your air filter.",
"If the car is equipped with air conditioning, turn it on, set the vents to defrost, and set the temperature to a warm setting. \n\nIn most cars, this will set the air from recirculate to outside air. The AC will remove moisture from the air and you will still get warm air.\n\nThe condensation will stop."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/zedWjrF"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
55sjzk
|
do those pedestrian button things at traffic lights actually do anything? how do they work?
|
Or is it like elevator door close buttons and office thermostats, where it's only there to make people think they have control?
If they actually do anything, how do they work? They don't seem to be wired to anything, if anything they seem bolted on and it's as if they're usually connected to nothing at all.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55sjzk/eli5_do_those_pedestrian_button_things_at_traffic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8dbfpk",
"d8dbw25",
"d8dcr9w",
"d8e2xnr"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They simply activate the walk and don't walk lights.\n\nSome activate lights in high traffic areas. For instance, on a main road there might be a factory that employs a large amount of people. Parking is on the other side of the multi lane road. Lights may be put up, but they are only ever activated when someone presses the button. This allows the employees to cross the street safely.",
"It will depend on where you are (including which country you're in) and even what time of day it is. It may be that some of those buttons are just there to make people feel they have some sort of control, but many of them -- I can attest from personal experience -- really do work.\n\nI have encountered pedestrian crossings, for example, where you have to push the button or the lights really won't change. This is always true when it is just a light-controlled pedestrian crossing and not also an intersection. And I have encountered pedestrian crossings at intersections, where at busy times the lights change whether or not you push the button, while at less busy times they only change if you do push the button.\n\nAs for how they work, they send a signal to the software controlling the lights. On simple pedestrian crossings they change the traffic lights to red and then, after a short pause, the crossing lights to green; if the lights have recently been operated in this way, the software waits before changing the lights, so ensure that cars aren't backed up forever as pedestrian after pedestrian pushes the button.\n\nAt an intersection, the software waits for the traffic lights, as they go through their normal sequence, are switched so that the pedestrians can cross, and then change the crossing lights to green.\n\nThe box with the button may seem to be simply bolted on, but where that box contacts the post it's bolted to, there will be a hole.",
"In the UK we have 'Pelican Crossings' which are all pedestrian operated, if the button isn't pressed the lights won't change at all as they have no bearing on other lanes of traffic ",
"I remember vaguely from my traffic engineering class 10 years ago that those buttons do work, but not as most people think. The buttons actually control the amount of time the light will stay on for people to walk. The more people who press it, the longer it stays \"Walk\".\n\nBut this is all from memory a long time ago, and I was most likely daydreaming about the hot girl in class during that time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2y2k5z
|
how does the common signature hold so much power confirming identity? anyone could copy it and there are much better tools available.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2y2k5z/eli5_how_does_the_common_signature_hold_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp5milt",
"cp5p5ws"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Signatures don't confirm identity, they affirm it. When you sign something, you're making a promise that you're the person named in the document.",
"It doesn't prove identity, it proves intent. Notarizations are used to prove identity - a notary reviews a person's identification (for example, a driver's license), watches the person sign the document, and affixes an official stamp or seal."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
k43hb
|
copyright / trademarks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k43hb/eli5_copyright_trademarks/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2hd6fn",
"c2hd6fn"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"**Copyright:** You wrote something, and nobody else gets to make copies unless you say they can. Also they don't get to make a movie of your book, or a performance of your play, unless you say they can. There are some exceptions for people who are talking about your work, teaching, writing reviews (\"fair use\"). For music, you can't stop people from singing or playing the tune you wrote, but they have to pay you (\"compulsory licensing\").\n\n**Trademark:** You made up a name for something you're selling. You use that name on your product and your ads, so that people can recognize it. Competitors aren't allowed to call their products by the same name or one that's confusingly similar, because that would trick the customer. But you don't get to stop people from using the name of your product when they write reviews or articles about your product. And if you *let* your competitors call their products by the same name, or customers just decide that your product's name is the name of the whole general concept (like \"xeroxing\" or \"kleenexes\"), then you can't go after them any more.",
"**Copyright:** You wrote something, and nobody else gets to make copies unless you say they can. Also they don't get to make a movie of your book, or a performance of your play, unless you say they can. There are some exceptions for people who are talking about your work, teaching, writing reviews (\"fair use\"). For music, you can't stop people from singing or playing the tune you wrote, but they have to pay you (\"compulsory licensing\").\n\n**Trademark:** You made up a name for something you're selling. You use that name on your product and your ads, so that people can recognize it. Competitors aren't allowed to call their products by the same name or one that's confusingly similar, because that would trick the customer. But you don't get to stop people from using the name of your product when they write reviews or articles about your product. And if you *let* your competitors call their products by the same name, or customers just decide that your product's name is the name of the whole general concept (like \"xeroxing\" or \"kleenexes\"), then you can't go after them any more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3eoobm
|
why don't big companies get hitmen to off people who successfully sue them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3eoobm/eli5_why_dont_big_companies_get_hitmen_to_off/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctgwueh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's not particularly easy to commit murder without leaving a trail to follow. It's too much of a risk for the company. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6jfxy4
|
Why didn't the Roman Empire expand into Africa more then it did?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6jfxy4/why_didnt_the_roman_empire_expand_into_africa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djf3xwd"
],
"score": [
21
],
"text": [
"Because of a little something called the Sahara Desert. The only real routes of expansion into Africa were along the southern Moroccan coast (which was desolate, sparsely inhabited all the way up to the late 18th century, when the Moroccan government began to encourage irrigation projects there) and via the Nile Valley. However, the rough terrain and relative poverty of the Sudanese and Ethiopian highlands meant that it was not really worth challenging the Kushite and Axumite lords of the upper Nile region for control. Then a far more economical policy was to maintain a web of buffer vassal states to hold off the more powerful kings in the southeast.\n\nIn other words, both the paths into Africa were impractical to use for any sizeable party in ancient times, much less a host of men, animals, and camp followers the size and scope of several Roman legions. The regions were, for lack of a better term, nigh on unconquerable in ancient conditions. Even a thousand years later, the Ottoman Empire found it extremely difficult to extend its rule south of the Wadi Halfa, and by then the introduction of the camel had led to the establishment of proper roads due to the trade explosion. \n\nThough the lack of true oceangoing ships prevented any Roman colonisation of the West Coast of Africa, in theory it would have been possible for them to preempt the Arab colonisation of Eastern Africa even with galleys, establishing tradeposts around the Horn of Africa. However, the only really suitable port, Baranis on the Red Sea (Berenice Troglodytica)... Simply put, it did not have any trees, at least not of sufficient size and tensile strength to build proper vessels. It functioned as an emporium for the Red Sea trade, but could not construct vessels of its own. In other words, for a Roman living in Alexandria to set up a trade post e.g. near Zanzibar, he would first have to travel down the Nile with hundreds of settlers, cross the desert mountains filled with Tuaregs, Berbers, and probably bandits, to get to Baranis, and there *buy* enough ships to take his entire party and supplies on a practically blind four-month journey into uncharted waters. Once there, he would have to find a trade goods worth exporting all the way back to Baranis, then set up and fortify his colony while establishing farmland and regular trade routes with Baranis, all the while probably fending off hostile natives... It was simply not worth it, when spices and ivory could be obtained far more cheaply from Indian, Arab and Ethiopian merchants.\n\nIf you want a more detailed answer, I can recommend some books and articles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1s8ffp
|
the void
|
I have no idea how this works.
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1s8ffp/eli5_the_void/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdv15ru",
"cdv8dkz"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Instructions were not clear. I hurt my back trying to shake my 27 inch CRT monitor.",
"Had no effect on me\rConclusion: I'm batman "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/WvdmV7S.png"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b26oz0
|
How do plants get the material to grow so much from just a tiny seed?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b26oz0/how_do_plants_get_the_material_to_grow_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eiqv41h",
"eirww8x",
"eit16wn"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Carbon dioxide out of the air, water and nutrients out of the ground and energy from the sun. The carbon dioxide and nutrients make up the cell structures of the plant. The water helps move everything around and inflate the cells. The sun gives it the energy to do all of it.",
"Seeds densely pack energy and very flexible cells that can use that energy to create specialized organs (leafs, roots etc.) of a plant. Once those organs reach to the surrounding resources (water, minerals, sunlight etc.) in the environment they start to use the resources in the environment to continue their growth.",
"I don't think the other answers quite hit the nail on the head here. The seed provides the initial nutrients required for a tiny sprout after which the bulk of the material comes from the carbon dioxide the plant absorbs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ig72k
|
How do Historians use other Social Science disciplines in their research?
|
I am going to be attending a prominent university for Latin American Studies in the fall but would like to continue to focus on the History of Latin America. I have BA's in Sociology and History and love political science and philosophical issues throughout history (I love the more modern histories of the 19th and 20th centuries). I am curious, do many class/labor historians focus more on sociological dynamics in history as it provides an avenue to better understand an issue? Do Environmental historians use hard sciences in their work? Or Biographers using psychology to better analyze historical figures? I hope I have made myself understandable.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ig72k/how_do_historians_use_other_social_science/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb45eu3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I use sociology, LGBT studies, queer theory, gender studies, and even dance studies in my work. In my case it is largely out of necessity, as there are no true histories of the AIDS crisis and still fairly few about gay and lesbian history. Other disciplines can offer a different perspective when you are dealing with a well-researched area of history, and are sometimes your only recourse when dealing with a less known area. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ev13g
|
In 17th Century Europe, how were coffee and coffeehouses viewed?
|
* Was there a cliche of the typical "coffee drinker"?
* Was the effect of the caffeine considered in how they were viewed? That is, was it understood to be a substance people indulged in?
* What sort of discussions might have been had at this or that coffeehouse, and how did coffeehouses become the locales for public/philosophical/artistic/political discussion?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ev13g/in_17th_century_europe_how_were_coffee_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca43nsp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'll have to make this brief as I'm about to go out (but I can explain (a lot!) more, if necessary).\n\nTo answer those three questions in a go, let's establish the 17th century coffee-house in general (funnily enough, I have a chapter more or less dedicated to this in my PhD):\n\nDuring the latter half of the seventeenth century, coffee-houses were becoming increasingly popular, across a fairly diverse social scale. For the fairly inexpensive price of a dish of coffee (about a penny, according to John Spurr - see ref below), an individual got the opportunity to see whatever published paper the coffeehouse subscribed to (most likely the *London Gazette* thoughout the 1670s until licensing lapsed in '79), as well as whatever manuscript newsletters were available.\n\nThe discussion, therefore, often concerned a composite of foreign and domestic news, which is a pretty significant thing - Jurgen Habermas and others (more recently, Mark Knights, John Sommerville, Steve Pincus) have even seen this as the birth of 'public opinion' - that is, a shared and widespread perception of 'current events', inspired by a communal experience - in this case, news reception and mutual interpretation. \n\nIt's precisely this reason why official authorities tended to severely mistrust coffeehouses (See John Sommerville's 'The News Revolution in England'). A place where the ordinary folk could get together and discuss the actions of their superiors? Never!\n\nSir Roger L'Estrange (Surveyor of the Press to 1679) perhaps best summed up the official view in the mid-1660s:\n\n'[Coffee-house News] makes the Multitude too Familiar with the Actions and Counsels of their Superiours; too Pragmatical and Censorious, and gives them, not only an Itch, but a kind of Colourable Right, and License, to be Meddling with the Government.' (this is from his *Intelligencer* in the early 1660s)\n\nSo mistrusted were the businesses, in fact, that in the 1670s, there was a brief period where all coffeehouses were actually barred from trading in London, to which the government relented very shortly after. There was quite an outcry! \n\nMuch work has been done on this recently - Steve Pincus' article 'Coffeehouse politicians does create' is very good, as is Sommerville's work noted above. For more info, these are good places to start (Sommerville's especially).\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8sb8mq
|
why does symmetry make people look more attractive?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8sb8mq/eli5_why_does_symmetry_make_people_look_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0y113l"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Not 100% sure about this but I think that it is in our genes. \n\nSymmetry is associated with healthiness. Back then when it was \"only the strongest survive\" symmetry was (and is) a sign of a healthy individual with good genes.\n\nIf you have a healthy partner, you and that person are more likely to create a strong and a healthy descendant that will survive till he/she is able to pass your genes to the next generation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
38apug
|
what exactly happened in the olympic boycotts in 1980/84?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38apug/eli5_what_exactly_happened_in_the_olympic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crtm22h",
"crtnchp",
"crtnz7n"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"That was the one Russia hosted right? Basically no one went there to spend money in Russia while they spent money to host it and sped up their financial collapse of the soviet union.",
"There were 4 significant Olympic boycotts, two in 1976 and one each in 1980/84. I mention the 1976 boycotts because they inform the subsequent ones:\n\n**Chinese-led boycott**: Taiwan (officially the Republic of China) and China (officially the People's Republic of China) both boycotted over the recognition of the other, each insisting it was the sole government for all of China.\n\n**Congolese-led boycott**: In July 1976 the New Zealand Men's Rugby Team participated in a tour of South Africa, playing against all-white teams. In response to this \"approval\" of apartheid 26 African and Middle-eastern nations boycotted the Olympic Games that started that month. Most athletes were already in Montreal when they learned of the boycott and had to return home without competing.\n\nThus, in this climate the Soviet Union was set to host its Olympics in 1980.\n\n**US-led boycott**: President Jimmy Carter announced that the US would not participate in the 1980 Moscow Olympics in response to the 1979 Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. It was clear to the western world that the Soviets were making an effort to extend its oil resources at the expense of the Afghani people. 65 countries joined the United States in boycotting the games, and several others did ceremonial boycotts of the opening ceremonies or releasing their athletes to compete under the Olympic Flag.\n\n**Soviet-led boycott**: The Soviet Union and 14 other countries did not participate in 1984 games in protest of \"chauvinistic and anti-Soviet\" attitudes. It is widely understood that this boycott was retaliatory for the 1980 boycott.",
"Flashback to the late 70's. Your country is either Communist (Soviet Union/Russia, Eastern Europe, China, Cuba) or it isn't (Western Europe, US, Canada, Mexico, Japan, Australia). Most of the world is planted in one of these two camps. The intensity of these international relationship is high - a politician's sneeze could set off thorough nuclear war. 3rd graders were taught to duck under their desks in case of nuclear war. No kidding. It was wild.\n\nThe 1980 Olympics was hosted in Moscow. The Soviet Union (USSR) invaded Afghanistan in late-1979, and the ensuing world controversy resulted in a boycott of the Olympics from most of the non-communist world (which really didn't like the Soviet Union, and their influence over other nations). \n\nThe 1980 Olympics were held (in Lake Placid, NY) as normal, and were dominated by Russia and East Germany, save for the USA's hockey victory over the USSR, which was largely passed over in the Soviet Union. I doubt that the huge upset had anything to do with the boycott, though it's popularity shows the heated rivalry between US and USSR.\n\nSo by summer 1980, the invasion had been in the press for a few months, and the boycotts began after the Winter Games that year. In total, 65 nations (including nations who won about 70% of the medals from the previous 1976 Montreal Games) boycotted. The Olympics probably lost a ton of money, as NBC canceled coverage in the United States. \n\nWith the USA and Western Europe, it was no surprise to see the 1980 games dominated by the home-field Soviet Union team, and East Germany (who was, politically, the Soviet's bitch anyways). \n\nIn 1984, there was some payback to the West, as the games were long since scheduled to take place in beautiful Los Angeles, California. Disclaimer: I am a lifetime LA area resident, I was there. 16 nations, mostly the Soviet Union's posse from Eastern Europe, boycotted. Also, Iran and Libya boycotted, I recall because of our alliance with Israel. Iran especially has a history with Israel, and will sometimes refuse to compete. Iran boycotted *both* Olympics, because, well, crazy government.\n\nNotably, Romania, Yugoslavia, and China, all Communist/Socialist nations, did *not* join the Soviet-led boycott. \n\nWithout the USSR and East Germany, the United States dominated the Olympics, along with West Germany. Romania had a good showing, especially in Gymnastics and Weightlifting.\n\nSince the '84 Olympics had US broadcasting money, as well as a crapload of corporate sponsorship, they made some money, and Peter Uberroth (who was the director of the LA games) was a potential candidate for president. \n\nCompared to the 1980 boycott, which darn near killed the games, the '84 boycott was harsh, but not as nearly as bad.\n\nA forgotten winner from the boycotts was Ted Turner, who organized the \"Goodwill Games\" in Moscow (1986) and in Seattle (1990). These two events helped cement Turner as a major media guy when CNN (the first 24-hr news station) and TBS (the first 'national' TV station) were still new. The events, showcasing the US vs. USSR meeting in 'alternative Olympics' was a TBS exclusive, quite a win when cable TV wasn't nearly as common as it is now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9xkfkp
|
Following the Muslim conquests, many local languages, such as Berber or Coptic, were gradually replaced with Arabic and turned into minority languages. What allowed Persian to not share the same fate?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9xkfkp/following_the_muslim_conquests_many_local/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9tfo6r"
],
"score": [
68
],
"text": [
"I apologize that I mostly know about Coptic and Berber but I will try to demonstrate why this question is hard to answer and then introduce a recent theory into this particular subject. First, I would like to point out that when talking about \"Berber\" or \"the Berber\" one is actually talking about quite a diverse group of people and languages, some of which are not around today and some which still exist. I will reference \"the Berber\" in as general terms as I can but understand there are exceptions and differences among them. Additionally, there is not as much research on the Arabs and the Berbers in context with linguistic shift as there is for Coptic and Persian.\n\nOne is tempted to believe that conversion to Islam would inherently coincide with adoption of Arabic but those two factors actually don't share as close of a link as you would expect. Coptic Christians were using Arabic in their own Bibles as early as the 10th century^(2) They continued to be Christian and speak Arabic for the next century and to a lesser extent thereafter. Coptic Christian scholars eventually complained that Christians couldn't speak their own language in the 11th century^(3) Many Berbers converted to Islam quickly and revolted against the Arabs as early as 749 under their own form of Khawarij Sufrism yet their languages proved more resilient than Coptic over time (likely in great part due to the formation of the Almoravid dynasty)^(4) . Many early Muslim scholars would be angry with me for calling many Berbers of the Middle Ages \"Muslim\" since they often practiced syncretic forms of the religion but it's still a strong point in demonstrating separation between the religion and the Arabic language. Meanwhile, Persia (correction, see comment: Main Persian speaking area) became Islamisized quicker than either of those locations (early 8th century, there is some controversy to this, though) and yet the Persians managed to hold onto their language^(5). These cases demonstrate that conversion to Islam is a tricky factor in determining the cause of local languages *extinction* in comparison with one another.\n\nOne is also tempted to believe that the level of Arab migration an area received would influence the vitality of local languages. Indeed, the decline of the Coptic language in the 10th and 11th centuries coincided with increased Arab immigration yet it also coincided with a shrinking Coptic population, decreased heretic oppression, and an expanding economy under the Fatimids^(6 7). I will also concede that the Berber languages in North Africa do not seem to have declined so greatly until that area received higher migration but I also want to point out that Persia actually received more Arab migration in its earlier years than Egypt^(1)\n\nLanguage replacement and language adoption are two different things. After all, bilingual societies exist around the globe and Coptic itself persisted under centuries of Greek rule when Greek became a dominant language in Egypt. Why do some societies exist bilingually and others not, though? Many factors come into play when considering language shift. Recently, scholars by the names of Reza Ghafar Samar and Tej K. Bhatia have released a study proposing that surface level structural similarity between two languages greatly influences the development of a bilingual society or a monolingual society where one language overcomes another. In a recent article released last year the two scholars attempted to explain why Arabic overcame Coptic while Persian persisted by comparing the structural similarities of the two languages^(5). They worked off the premise that when two languags come into contact they demonstrate \"borrowing\" (the wholesale importation of individual words or phrases from one language into another, often with target language influence) or \"code switching\" (switching between languages completely.) They argue that the more structurally similar two languages are the more likely speakers of one language who most often encounter both are to participate in code switching instead of just borrowing. They demonstrate that Arabic and Coptic share many similarities that Persian does not and therefore Coptic speakers would have participated in code switching moreoften than just borrowing. They argue that code switching contributed to language extinction and that this phenomenon can even be seen in surviving Coptic texts.\n\n**Therefore, Persian persisted into today in great part to its lack of structural similarity with Arabic.** That also explains its abundant borrowing.\n\nMany more details exist in their article and I encourage you to read it since they obviously explain it better than I can. I hold a small amount of skepticism towards their article, though, because I do not believe they properly delineated MSA from historical dialectal Arabic found in Persia vs. Egypt. Additionally they make no mention of Berber vs. Arabic.\n\nAdditionally I would like to mention looking into the Shu'ubiyya movement and the pro-Persian practices of the Abbasids but I will let those better versed in Persian history expand on those .\n\n1. Abdul-Husain Zarrinkub**The Arab conquest of Iran and its aftermath** R.N. Frye (Ed.) (2007), pp. 1-57\n2. Mullen, Alex, and James, *Multilingualism in the Graeco-Roman Worlds*, 68.\n3. Cotton, Hannah. *From Hellenism to Islam: Cultural and Linguistic Change in the Roman Near East*. Cambridge University Press, 2012, 426.\n4. Abun-Nasr, Jamil M, *A History of the Maghrib in the Islamic Period, 39.*\n5. Predictability of language death: Structural compatibility and language contact Reza, Ghafar Samarab, Tej K. Bhatiac\n\nPredictability of language death: Structural compatibility and language contact [RezaGhafar Samarab](_URL_2_!)[Tej K.Bhatiac](_URL_2_!)\n\n6. Sullivan, Shaun. \"Coptic Conversion and the Islamization of Egypt.\" *Mamluk Studies* *Review* 10, no. 2 (2006): 6579. [_URL_1_](_URL_0_).\n\n7. Parker, Kenneth S. \"Coptic Language and Identity in Ayyūbid Egypt1.\" *Al-Masāq* 25, no. 2 (2013): 222 39. doi:10.1080/09503110.2013.799953."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR_X-2_2006OSullivan.pdf",
"http://mamluk.uchicago.edu/MSR\\_X-2\\_2006OSullivan.pdf",
"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0388000117300670#"
]
] |
||
3qb4er
|
the who announcement regarding processed meats.
|
What defines "processed"? Is this only about red meat and not say, Turkey/Chicken? What is the science behind this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3qb4er/eli5_the_who_announcement_regarding_processed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwdno3k"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"So first off you really need to understand what the numbers look like here. We're talking about maybe 34,000 cases worldwide. Almost 13 million cases of cancer are diagnosed every year. So even if we take this announcement at face value, you're looking at about .002% of all cancer. Over the course of your life you have about a 40% chance of getting some kind of cancer (much more likely very late in life) so if you live to be around 80 you're looking at about a .001% chance that you'll get any sort of cancer from your bacon intake assuming this is correct. \n\nHere's the thing: almost any sort of cooking that alters the food a lot might be carcinogenic. A good char on your steak? Probably a little bit carcinogenic. The same applies to that char of your tofu, too. This sort of modified chance is less about meat (and the processing of it) as much as it is about the methods used to make things. \n\nAlso, you need to be aware that when they did this study they basically used the crappiest bacon you can find. A crap bacon made of a miserable pig full of nitrates and nitrites really is not the same thing as a traditionally smoked and cured slice of bacon from a healthy and properly raised pig. When we're talking about odds this small, those things matter a lot. \n\nBut basically this is because these things have nitrates in them. It's not news or new. Nitrites degrade into nitrosamines in high acid or high heat environments. Nitrosamines are carcinogenic. Even \"uncured\" meats have nitrites in them, as they are cured with celery juice which contain high amounts of natural nitrates instead of chemical curing agent. \n\nPeople seem to have it in their heads that the idea of living is to never die, but it's not. You evolved to make other humans by the time you hit middle age. After that, there's no promises. Something will kill you. If it's not the 0.002% chance it's bacon, then there's the much larger chance that it's liver failure from alcohol consumption or heart disease or the massive environmental stress put on a body by a lifetime of not enough sleep, too much work, and weird exposure to electronics 24/7. All of it's got a chance of being the thing that does you in, but only one of them gets to win and ultimately one of them will. That's what this means. \"of the people that have cancer, a really small number of them had it triggered by the carcinogens that came from nitrates in processed meats as opposed to the carcinogens that came from just about every other aspect of their life or from the free radicals that they generated themselves.\" \n\nEDIT: TL:DR: life is a cost benefit analysis in action. Everything you do might have a negative consequence somewhere. Some things have a better change of hurting you than others. Eating bacon is absurdly safe compared to most everything else you do. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
393amq
|
when i eat apples my face sweats, why reddit
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/393amq/eli5when_i_eat_apples_my_face_sweats_why_reddit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs006ld",
"cs00fbt"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Are you allergic to apples? I never had this happen or heard of it happening to anyone. Bot pls don't kill me :( Friend bot?",
"Sounds to me like an alergic reaction.\n\nDoes it happen with apple juice?\n\nstop eating apples. You risk tightening your esophagus if you really are allergic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5wi89i
|
what happens to water when it goes stale?
|
What happens to the water to give it that tangy, metal-like taste? Is it something to do with the plastic bottles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wi89i/eli5_what_happens_to_water_when_it_goes_stale/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deacv0b",
"deaj870"
],
"score": [
4,
13
],
"text": [
"Part of it has to do with some of the gasses inside the water evaporating out, like how when you leave water out for a while it starts developing little bubbles along the walls of the glass.\n\nThe rest, as you mentioned, is from the container itself reacting with the water and the minerals inside it. ",
"After about 12 hours tap water starts to go flat as carbon dioxide in the air starts to mix with the water in the glass, lowering its pH and giving it an off taste"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3b2oc4
|
why hasn't a car company come up with a new better performing, more efficient air cooled engine?
|
It seems like you get more space, save weight, and reduce complexity with an air cooled engine. Why hasn't a manufacturer put R & D into making a modern version for today's compact cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3b2oc4/eli5_why_hasnt_a_car_company_come_up_with_a_new/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csi957h",
"csiaiz6",
"csic4cv"
],
"score": [
12,
7,
5
],
"text": [
"Ironic username is ironic. \n\nI think engineers like water cooling because it helps solve a number of problems. It quiets the engine, provides a reliable source of heat for the HVAC systems and allows the temperature of the engine to be contained to a narrower range, allowing it to run more efficiently. \n\nThat said, I long ago promised myself that my next car will have an air-cooled boxer six in the rear. Still waiting, however. ",
"Because you're dealing with a fuck-tonne of heat in the car engine. The reason water is used is because it takes a huge amount of energy to change its temperature, whereas air only needs a little bit of energy for its temperature to change. \n\nOn top of that, water boils at a temperature lower than the melting point of the engine parts. This happens to be a good thing because when something is boiling, its temperature stays constant. This allows you to plan for your parts to expand and run at a certain temperature range if you use water as your coolant. Air, on the other hand, lacks this benefit because it wouldn't be changing state in the environments that people typically use their cars in. \n\nI'm pretty sure that smaller combustion engines such as the ones on lawn equipment are air cooled, but those have less rigorous tolerances, and don't put off nearly as much heat as a car engine.",
"A common misconception about Porsche's (your username) is that they were only air cooled. The engines in fact were oil-cooled. They had a tremendous oil capacity and cooling system for it. Cooling with air is very difficult because it is an insulator and an engine has a lot of volume without enough surface area (opposite of a radiator) to dissipate heat. A typical cooling system on an engine is not as complicated as you seem to imply and it is very effective. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1xk0w2
|
Do blind people have better short-term memory for auditory input?
|
I was discussing memory with a couple of classmates when this came up. First, we couldn't fully establish whether or not short-term memory has a separate capacity for different stimuli - in this case auditory and visual are most relevant. What's the case?
In any case, will the lack of "visual short-term memory" (if the term makes sense), make room for better auditory short-term memory? If it doesn't make sense to categorize short-term memories like that, does less/no input from one sense make more room for the input perceived by other senses?
One of my classmates suggested that the average short-term memory capacity is 30 seconds, so that any perceived information will stick in the short-term memory for ~ 30 seconds. With this said, I can divide my question like so:
* Will blind people (generally speaking) store audible information in their short-term memory *longer*?
* Will blind people (generally speaking) be able to store *more* (auditory) information in their short-term memory?
One could also flip it and consider deaf people. If you for some reason can answer that question more precisely, please do.
**A major problem** when exploring this topic is that blind people are more likely to process more auditory input than others. This means that more of the audible information they perceive will be passed on to the working- and long-term memory, which would explain why a blind man in any given situation might be more likely to remember audible information than a seeing man in the same situation. The same concept goes for deaf people. Keep in mind that this is only an assumption I make, and I haven't read up on it. It just seems like common sense to me that without one sense, one would have to process more information from the other senses to properly navigate the environment.
A way to bypass this issue and properly test the hypothesis would be to blindfold a seeing individual, then have him and a blind individual exposed to the same auditory input before testing short-term memory (in whatever way that is usually done).
tl;dr: Read the title.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1xk0w2/do_blind_people_have_better_shortterm_memory_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfgv1sm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I might just be spitballin' here, but i'm pretty sure when someone is blind/deaf, they compensate for it through neuroplasticity. As some parts of the brain are lacking input and just using space (ie neurons in the visual cortex that are not in use due to being blind), your brain will develop connections with neighboring subsystems based on the stimuli you need to get around in the environment (ie better auditory perception to compensate for blindness). \nBack to the question, i think you are talking more about working memory; the memory system that best supports the relationship between ST and LT memory. Working memory is a constant feedback loop between auditory and visual stimuli that work together to encode information to LT memory based on ST memory inputs. If one of the stimuli isn't going to work (in the case of blind people, visual stimuli just isn't a thing), i believe that under the idea of neuroplasticity, blind people will not store information longer, but be able to attend to it longer and work with it longer due to the additional connections the brain made to compensate for being blind.\njust vise-versa everything i said in the case for deaf people.\n\nHope this helps with your understanding. And i hope the reddit community will correct any mistakes i may have written. but i think this is the best explanation for your speculations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
lj043
|
time signatures
|
Like I'm 5, please.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lj043/eli5_time_signatures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2t2p0a",
"c2t3l9w",
"c2t2p0a",
"c2t3l9w"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Simply, a time signature is the number of beats in a measure.\n\nListen to a piece of popular modern music, and count the beats. You'll most likely notice that it goes BOOM dot dot dot BOOM dot dot dot or some variant on that. The most significant beat happens every fourth beat.\n\nIn music, these four beats define a measure, which is an organizational unit. The time signature tells you how many beats there are in a measure. A time signature of 4/4 means there are 4 beats (top 4), and each is a quarter note (which is the bottom 4). The quarter note part is only important for reading the music, as it identifies which note is the beat.\n\nNow listen to a waltz. You'll notice that the main beat (aka the downbeat) comes every three beats: oom-pah pah, oom-pah pah, and so on. (Note: fast waltzes tend to sound like there's only one beat, but they are subdivided into three.) This is a time signature of 3/4: 3 beats, and the quarter note is the beat. Some waltzes are written in 3/8, which means the eighth note has the beat. This sounds identical, but the music is written differently (usually, this is done to make it easier to read).\n\nSome pieces are in two. These often include marches (which are otherwise in 4) and polkas. Think of the oom-pah, oom-pah tuba beat that underlines a stereotypical march. This is written as 2/4 and sometimes 2/2 (which means the half note has the beat; this looks like a 4/4 measure but has 2 beats. This is done for clarity reasons too).\n\nThe next most common signature is 6/8. This means there are 6 notes to a beat, but it can also be subdivided into 2 groups of 3 notes or 3 groups of 2 notes. This signature is used for some marches and dances (for example, a march where three notes can happen per beat instead of two). [Example](_URL_5_)\n\nThese are the most common time signatures: others exist, but aren't used as frequently. \n\nSome music is in 5, which means there are 5 beats to a measure. This can be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; or it can be subdivided into 1-2-3, 1-2 or 1-2, 1-2-3. [This piece](_URL_6_), which is in 5/8, mostly alternates between the latter two. [This one](_URL_2_) is in 5/4, and goes 1-2-3,1-2. This is more common for dances; a march isn't fun if you have to take an odd number of steps.\n\nSome pieces are in 7/4 or 7/8, which can be subdivided in several ways ([here's](_URL_3_) an example). Time signatures like 9/8 and 12/8 can be used to divide a 3/4 or 4/4 measure into threes.\n\nThere are also pieces which switch time signature, which makes things even more fun. This can be done for a variety of reasons: the music switches from a march to a dance, for example, but sometimes, the melody doesn't really fit into a time signature, so assigning it one that isn't awkward creates some odd signatures. [This](_URL_4_) piece alternates between 5/4 and 6/4, because the melody is free-flowing and assigning any one signature would have interfered with the structure. Composers can use changes for notational reasons: [this](_URL_0_) section of this piece is in 7, but the composer wrote it in measures of 2/2, 2/2, and 3/2 alternating so it is easier to read. (If you listen further into this piece, you'll see the time signature change because the nature of the piece changes.)\n\nThese changes can get strange; [this piece](_URL_1_) starts out in \"free time,\" where the conductor marks each chord, and then moves between 1/8, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 1.54, and 2.5/4. (Basically, this is because the composer, Grainger, was really weird.)\n\nThe odd and obscure time signatures are just that; you won't see them often, and the first few are the ones worth knowing.",
"Count from one to three, and then keep repeating it (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3....)\n\nNow count from one to four in the same way (1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4...)\n\nDid you FEEL the difference in the rhythm? That's what a time signature tells you. \n\nHint: the top number in a time signature is the only important one. It tells you what number to count to.",
"Simply, a time signature is the number of beats in a measure.\n\nListen to a piece of popular modern music, and count the beats. You'll most likely notice that it goes BOOM dot dot dot BOOM dot dot dot or some variant on that. The most significant beat happens every fourth beat.\n\nIn music, these four beats define a measure, which is an organizational unit. The time signature tells you how many beats there are in a measure. A time signature of 4/4 means there are 4 beats (top 4), and each is a quarter note (which is the bottom 4). The quarter note part is only important for reading the music, as it identifies which note is the beat.\n\nNow listen to a waltz. You'll notice that the main beat (aka the downbeat) comes every three beats: oom-pah pah, oom-pah pah, and so on. (Note: fast waltzes tend to sound like there's only one beat, but they are subdivided into three.) This is a time signature of 3/4: 3 beats, and the quarter note is the beat. Some waltzes are written in 3/8, which means the eighth note has the beat. This sounds identical, but the music is written differently (usually, this is done to make it easier to read).\n\nSome pieces are in two. These often include marches (which are otherwise in 4) and polkas. Think of the oom-pah, oom-pah tuba beat that underlines a stereotypical march. This is written as 2/4 and sometimes 2/2 (which means the half note has the beat; this looks like a 4/4 measure but has 2 beats. This is done for clarity reasons too).\n\nThe next most common signature is 6/8. This means there are 6 notes to a beat, but it can also be subdivided into 2 groups of 3 notes or 3 groups of 2 notes. This signature is used for some marches and dances (for example, a march where three notes can happen per beat instead of two). [Example](_URL_5_)\n\nThese are the most common time signatures: others exist, but aren't used as frequently. \n\nSome music is in 5, which means there are 5 beats to a measure. This can be 1, 2, 3, 4, 5; or it can be subdivided into 1-2-3, 1-2 or 1-2, 1-2-3. [This piece](_URL_6_), which is in 5/8, mostly alternates between the latter two. [This one](_URL_2_) is in 5/4, and goes 1-2-3,1-2. This is more common for dances; a march isn't fun if you have to take an odd number of steps.\n\nSome pieces are in 7/4 or 7/8, which can be subdivided in several ways ([here's](_URL_3_) an example). Time signatures like 9/8 and 12/8 can be used to divide a 3/4 or 4/4 measure into threes.\n\nThere are also pieces which switch time signature, which makes things even more fun. This can be done for a variety of reasons: the music switches from a march to a dance, for example, but sometimes, the melody doesn't really fit into a time signature, so assigning it one that isn't awkward creates some odd signatures. [This](_URL_4_) piece alternates between 5/4 and 6/4, because the melody is free-flowing and assigning any one signature would have interfered with the structure. Composers can use changes for notational reasons: [this](_URL_0_) section of this piece is in 7, but the composer wrote it in measures of 2/2, 2/2, and 3/2 alternating so it is easier to read. (If you listen further into this piece, you'll see the time signature change because the nature of the piece changes.)\n\nThese changes can get strange; [this piece](_URL_1_) starts out in \"free time,\" where the conductor marks each chord, and then moves between 1/8, 2/4, 3/4, 4/4, 5/4, 3/8, 4/8, 5/8, 1.54, and 2.5/4. (Basically, this is because the composer, Grainger, was really weird.)\n\nThe odd and obscure time signatures are just that; you won't see them often, and the first few are the ones worth knowing.",
"Count from one to three, and then keep repeating it (1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3, 1, 2, 3....)\n\nNow count from one to four in the same way (1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4, 1, 2, 3, 4...)\n\nDid you FEEL the difference in the rhythm? That's what a time signature tells you. \n\nHint: the top number in a time signature is the only important one. It tells you what number to count to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=422-yb8TXj8&t=1m22s",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pKyRAP7tY",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKdjmBKjHI&t=2m",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5r8sa863Ts",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXjpiAQatvE",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r7jfKdBzy0&t=4m36s"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=422-yb8TXj8&t=1m22s",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b2pKyRAP7tY",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L0bcRCCg01I",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7zKdjmBKjHI&t=2m",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_5r8sa863Ts",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HXjpiAQatvE",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5r7jfKdBzy0&t=4m36s"
],
[]
] |
|
24c8aj
|
Why was Alfred the great viewed positively by later kings when they only came to power by taking the country from his dynasty?
|
I'd have thought they'd want to down play the positive aspects of those who came before William
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24c8aj/why_was_alfred_the_great_viewed_positively_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch60bov"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Alfred the Great was extremely popular. He established a model of kingship in England that was built upon by his successors, and copied by later conquerors. Alfred established fantastical roots both for his kingship, and for the Anglo-Saxon people, tying them together with Christianity as glue in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. He rallied all the petty kings in England under his own West Saxon aegis, and became the first king of the English. He began a campaign of literacy and literary production to bring England back to the glory days of 8th century scholarship, when England led the world in learning. He and his successors adopted Carolingian models both for kingship and for monasticism (i.e. the Benedictine Reform), tying politics and religion together into a theocratic form of rule. He was a genius, and his work was so far reaching that he set a course for what England would be that in some ways even withstood the flood of Norman politics and Anglo-Norman culture that would later come to dominate the island.\n\nPeople tend to forget that Cnut the Great took the kingship before William the Conqueror. There were two instances of domination by an outside force, not one, and they came in relatively rapid succession. Cnut and William the Conqueror had very different ways of ruling the country though. Cnut modeled himself after the English kings, and prime among them was Alfred. He wrote laws in a form similar to what came before him, and styled himself after English kings in many ways. See [Cnut's Letter to the English](_URL_0_) to see how he reaches out to the English and connects back to Alfred's English lineage by saying that he will uphold the laws of Edgar. Cnut knew that Alfred and his successors were extremely popular, or at least some of them were, like Edgar, who was in many ways carried on Alfred's program of politics and culture better than any other English king, so its no wonder that Cnut singled him out as his model lawgiver. \n\nWilliam handled things quite differently. He dominated the English from afar and sent barons in his stead to rule the country. He built churches in a very different style overall, and changed the laws of the country dramatically. There are poems in the AS Chronicle that complain about his style of domination and note that he changed the landscaped entirely by building new buildings everywhere. This is an instance of one kind popular sentiment finding its way into the history books.\n\nSo why then would later kings take up Alfred as a positive figure? In my view, it is because they had no choice and it was advantageous for him. Alfred had long since become a figure in the popular imagination, and tales where told about him. He was a big enough figure that there are four MSS from the 13th century, in early Middle English, that preserve a text called *The Proverbs of Alfred*. He was such an important figure that he was seen as a font of gnomic proverbs even 250-300 years after his death in England. That's a tide you can't push back, no matter what. So later kings incorporated Alfred into their political and social programs.\n\nTake a look at David Pratt's *The Political Thought of King Alfred the Great* for details about Alfred's political program, with special attention to the role of learning in his model of kingship. Elaine Treharne's *Living Through Conquest: The Politics of Early English* looks at the period of the conquests using the status of English to focus her discussion of the history of the period. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://historyonline.chadwyck.co.uk/getImage?productsuffix=_studyunits&action=printview&in=gif&out=pdf&src=/ehd/ehd00196/conv/ehd00196.pdf&IE=.pdf"
]
] |
|
2z7gxr
|
how come i wake up a minute or two before my bus stop more or less like clockwork when i fall asleep on the bus?
|
I've been commuting for 6 years and I've been taking the same bus line for those years and almost every time I take it in the afternoon I fall asleep and wakeup in just in time to press stop and get off.
I've been thinking about it and I can think of any que that really indicates that it's the right stop unless I'm unconsciously counting the amount of stops it makes but that isn't foolproof either since it doesn't necessarily stop at every stop everyday. The time it takes also varies depending on whether it stops at a bus stop to pick people up or not and how many which could delay my arrival by ~5 minutes.
But the puzzling part about it is that I haven't missed my stop when I've been sleeping on the bus quite frequently for 6 years. Only happened a few times when I first started commuting.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2z7gxr/eli5_how_come_i_wake_up_a_minute_or_two_before_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpgdbgu",
"cpgen89"
],
"score": [
2,
7
],
"text": [
"Same here. I've always thought that it's about habit - even when you aren't fully conscious, so long as it's not a truly deep sleep, a body probably has to stay aware of its surroundings (in case of danger?), and therefore, through habit, the body knows when to wake you up, but I have no scientific reason for thinking this, haha.",
"It's probably a combination of a bunch of subtle clues that you subconsciously pick up on. It could be a pattern in the stops right before yours, subtle changes in the scent of the air near your stop, specific sounds that you only hear near your stop, the absence of the voice of a person who gets off right before your stop, or a combination of any or all of these and more. There are literally millions of variables that your brain can subconsciously pick up on, and wake you up at the perfect time to get off the bus. Having ridden the same route for 6 years, your brain will be excellent at picking up on subconscious clues that you may not even be able to notice consciously."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6b5bmz
|
How much urbanisation was there in South America, besides the Inca cities?
|
I know central America had the Aztecs and so on, and in Peru there was the Incas. What about the rest of South America though? (Or lower central America, tbh).
Were there other urban cultures besides the Incas? The stereotype I have is just thousands of square miles inhabited by hunter-gatherers and perhaps the occasional hut-dwelling villages. But I know that's not true in North America, so I assume it can't be in South America.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6b5bmz/how_much_urbanisation_was_there_in_south_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhk5s8b"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Hey there! Are you asking about urbanization in *regions* other than that which the Inca controlled, or are you interested in cultures that inhabited the same areas before them and whose own urbanisms developed into the Inca's?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cwr3gu
|
why is brown rice so much dryer than white rice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cwr3gu/eli5_why_is_brown_rice_so_much_dryer_than_white/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eye2vvh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Brown rice is just white rice that hasn't been processed so it still has a thing called a bran layer. \n\nThe bran layer is a tough fiberous coating. It isn't very absorbent and it surrounds the outside of the rice grain, so when you feel it in your mouth, it feels drier and more coarse than regular rice which has that tough paprt removed so only the inner more absorbant and soft middle is there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a9v9s3
|
how do glow sticks light up when broken
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9v9s3/eli5_how_do_glow_sticks_light_up_when_broken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecmr9c6",
"ecmra0c",
"ecmrb81"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"They contain two chemicals that, when mixed, produce light. One of these chemicals is stored in a thin glass vial. When you crack the stick, the chemicals start mixing & the reaction can take place.",
"There is an inner glass tube that when broken allows 2 chemicals to mix. The reaction causes them to glow with different chemicals making different colors.",
"The outside tube is made of flexible plastic and contains a solution of phenyl oxalate and fluorescent dye. Inside that is a glass tube containing hydrogen peroxide. When you bend the stick far enough, the glass tube breaks and the two chemical solutions can mix. The reaction between phenyl oxalate and hydrogen peroxide produces energy, which goes into the fluorescent dye. The dye then emits that energy as light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
141cij
|
What kind of programs or movements existed to assist the homeless between the 19th century and the Great Depression?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/141cij/what_kind_of_programs_or_movements_existed_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c79731b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Unions, Churches and Ethnic clubs/General Community organizations. \n\nBefore Roosevelt, there was a strong mainstream belief that the poor should not rely on a government dole in order to get by. If they needed some help, then the community could help somebody when they were down. But this was temporary and it relied totally on the community for support. If the entire community was generally down (like during the depression) then this help could dry up completely. \n\nFurther, Union membership could help a person (usually a white man, but non-Chinese minorities and women were accepted into the Knights of Labor, and eventually this would happen in other Unions as well) get jobs. Further, organizations like the First International Workingmen's Association (a European Marxist organization) would often give money to people who were striking in order to prolong the strike. But that was only if your strike was important enough, and if the government (even the US!) didnt put you down first. \n\nThis doesnt really effectively change until the New Deal, when Roosevelt creates work programs like the WPA and the CCC which payed people to work. Note: it payed people *to work*. It wasnt until Roosevelt's second term that he passed the Social Security act which, in addition to giving money to grannies, created unemployment benefits and disability payments. This was essentially a government dole, you got paid for \"nothing\". But until the New Deal this idea of free money was looked down on as socialist(and even look at what people say about Well-fare and people on long-term unemployment). Even employing people (as opposed to hiring companies) was generally avoided by the government."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1nh9sq
|
how they change wedding rings size without cutting?
|
How jewelry shops changes wedding rings size without cutting?
I saw this machine, but i dont know how it works. How can you change the size and keep the same size (yo dawg)?
Does it make the ring thinner?
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nh9sq/eli5_how_they_change_wedding_rings_size_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccikv8o",
"ccimnzc"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The machine linked in the OP stretches the ring to make it larger, or compresses it in one of those dies around the base to make it smaller. Gold is pretty malleable, so it's not terribly hard to change its size this way. Yes, of course it will affect the overall thickness of the band. if you stretch it, the band will get thinner, for example.",
"Hey, goldsmith here. The picture you linked is, like another user said, a device we call a \"ring stretcher\". There are various forms of it and it usually includes a compressor as already mentioned. This works only for rings of one color, and that are the same all the way around the band. Jewelers will not use this for a ring that has any stones in it, or rings that are two-toned, or that have areas that are thinner than others, because it causes \"unexpected and/or undesired results\".... As you have already guessed, the rings when compressed and stretched maintain their original weight, it is all the same material, but you are either stretching it out thinner to cover more area, or compressing it to cover smaller area. If you compress a ring a single ring size, it will not suddenly gain a whole millimeter's worth of thickness; it's much smaller and not very noticeable. You would need to stretch or compress a ring about 5 sizes or so to see a noticeable change in the ring. Usually in rings that are going down in many sizes that are not very thick you will see a concave depression happen on the inside of the band. If you stretch a ring that is two-toned, or white gold and yellow gold, you may cause the rings to separate, because the alloys to make karat yellow gold and karat white gold are different and stretch and compress differently; if you stretch a ring with stones set in it the areas removed to accommodate the stones will stretch faster and cause the settings to become weak and the metal to stretch irregularly, same with rings that have thin and thick design areas. Additionally, rings that have plain bottom shanks and elaborate crown and shoulder areas can also sometimes be stretched, but usually at the cost of the thickness of the shank- this can be done by placing the ring on a steel ring mandrel and \"tapping\" on the shank gently with a brass or steel hammer. There are many limitations to this but it can generally safely be done to a ring that has never been cut-sized and has been properly annealed 1/2 to 3/4 of a single size up."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/lnCkuP9.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fvpv99
|
why do modern phones lack the soap opera effect of modern tvs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fvpv99/eli5_why_do_modern_phones_lack_the_soap_opera/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmjxd4o",
"fmk0pj3",
"fmk1pae"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"I think they r referring to that hyper realistic quality in the picture.. i dont like it..it does remind me of a soap opera..I thought i was high the first time i saw it on someones tv..",
"The effect you’re talking about is the motion blending that takes what is normally 30fps or 24fps material and turning into into 120fps, which makes everything look like shit and if you have it turned on you’re a horrible person. \n\nI don’t know for sure why it’s not on phones, other than maybe no one fucking wants this garbage feature. And also it would absolutely wreck your battery like this wrecks whatever it is you’re trying to watch.",
"Newer TV's use display panels with much higher refresh rates than the programs they are showing. That means the program is made at 24 or 30 frames per second but the panel itself is refreshing up to e.g 200 times per second.\n\nIn order for the motion to be smooth and without jitters and judders the TV has to interpolate the other 170-ish frames every second. It does that using an algorithm running on a processor. And algorithms like that can't account for every eventuality. So they get it wrong sometimes and the motion looks weird.\n\nThere should be an option to disable the interpolation. Samsung calls it Auto Motion Plus, LG calls it TruMotion, Sony calls it MotionFlow, and so on.\n\nEdit : Sorry that didn't actually answer your question. I would guess phones don't do the same because of the cost of integrating or developing their own interpolation system. I think the decoding of most video formats is already done in integrated third party hardware (GPU chips) and tacking another stage onto that wouldn't be easy or cheap. And of course the reduction in battery life isn't something their sales literature could easily spin as a worthwhile tradeoff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wn5br
|
how do companies like primerica make you money?
|
I want to save for retirement but I don't understand how IRAs make you money or how dependable a company like Primerica is. I don't know how stock generates money.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wn5br/eli5_how_do_companies_like_primerica_make_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf3l3vo",
"cf3mezc",
"cf3nt7g"
],
"score": [
6,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"These companies are known as \"Multi-Level Marketing\" and have a structure *very* similar to that of a pyramid scheme (though legally, because they have a product they aren't classed as pyramid schemes).\n\nThe way it works is that someone recruits you to sell a product (in this case it's insurance). You have to pay your recruiter to be able to sell the product, and he/she gets a cut of any sales (and whoever recruited them gets a cut of whatever they make, and so on). The company encourages you not to focus on selling insurance, but instead on recruiting other people to work under you. The vast majority of people walk out of these schemes having lost large amounts of money.",
"Don't use Primerica. It's a scam, or at least as close you can legally be to a scam. Their fees are insanely high, and their products are way too expensive.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_9_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_8_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_7_\n\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_6_\n\n_URL_4_\n\nIf you really want advice on things like retirement saving, IRAs etc. come ask at /r/personalfinance. They have had quite a large number of detailed discussions on these things if you search back, and the community is generally willing to help everyone out.",
"How about using Kramerica instead? \n\n\".... if you would have told me twenty-five years ago that some day I’d be standing here about to solve the worlds energy problems, I would’ve said you’re crazy… Now let’s push this giant ball of oil out the window.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.consumeraffairs.com/employment/primerica.html",
"http://www.ripoffreport.com/r/Primerica-Ripoff-Report-Verified-Safe/Edmonton-Alberta/REVIEW-Primerica-offers-excellent-business-opportunities-stands-behind-its-products-s-23615",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20070208210054/http://www.ripoffreport.com/reports/ripoff127284.htm",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20070210200729/http://www.ehmac.ca/showthread.php?t=25840",
"http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2013/05/primerica-financial-services-the-fake-job-interview/",
"http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2013/09/losing-money-in-herbalife/",
"http://www.sequenceinc.com/fraudfiles/2013/10/article-on-nuskin-fraud-in-china/",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20070202130254/http://www.armydiller.com/financial-scam/",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20070520032731/http://sastools.com/b2/post/79393875",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20070206092441/http://www.revolution242.com/blog/2005/05/primerica-scam.html"
],
[]
] |
|
29bgsr
|
For a peasant/farmer, how onerous was Roman taxation? Was it good value for the services provided?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29bgsr/for_a_peasantfarmer_how_onerous_was_roman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cijawoe",
"cijbj9f",
"cijc4xx"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It really depended on where you were and when. Even in modern times there have been areas that could resist taxation with remoteness, despite modern states having considerably more coercive power. In general, however, taxation was collected by local authorities and folded into rent payment. This could be ruinous, or it could be light. Historical sources mention instances of peasant farmers successfully negotiating an advantageous payment, and others being ground down by extraction.",
"If I could piggyback on this question, how much did peasants, if at all, \nbenefit from the Empire's high levels of economic integration? What do we know about Roman \"peasant culture?\"",
"One thing we also have to consider is the significant change from the late Republic to the Imperial Period. Under the Republic, tax collection in the provinces was carried out under contract by tax farmers. They would make a bid to deliver X amount of taxes, and realized profit by collecting more. This was hugely profitable for the Roman State, but incredibly onerous on those being taxed, as year on year you would see your people being wrung dry by a succession of tax farmers trying to realize the most profit they could on their limited contract (tax farming was one of the most lucrative ways for equites to get some serious coin).\n\nThe Empire, starting with Augustus, began to change this (although we aren't entirely clear when tax farming was phased out completely) by relying on more comprehensive censuses to allocate tax burdens based on actual wealth. This was intended to be a more sustainable solution to taxation for a working and lasting Empire, not just the imperial territory of a city state. Now, Tiako mentions the 'where and when' part of this. Although, I don't know personally of any source that dictates how often these censuses were taken (the depiction in the Bible is largely fanciful), they were quite large undertakings. These would determine one's tax burden. These systems are often an advantage for the taxed because in between when the census was taken and the point you were paying taxes, theoretically you could have realized a growth in wealth. Imagine if you had to pay income tax rates based on this year's income for the next five or ten years. How much money could you save? However, this could also be very bad. Imagine you had to pay income tax rates based on this year's income but suddenly lost your job. Often special dispensation of tax relief was granted by the Emperor in cases of natural disasters, but if you personally faced a particularly hard year, you would not suddenly see your burden lessen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
181nm9
|
If Mitochondria exist as almost separate entities from the cell, does it always divide perfectly during mitosis?
|
Or does it sometimes not coordinate well enough, giving a cell no mitochondria. If so, how frequent does this happen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/181nm9/if_mitochondria_exist_as_almost_separate_entities/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ay5ae",
"c8b67t5",
"c8bijaz"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"In mammals, mitochondria don't necessarily divide during mitosis; instead they divide when the host cell requires more energy and combine or die out when less energy is needed. During mitosis, the mitochondria present are split up between the two daughter cells. In single celled eukaryotes; the mitochondria divides with the cell cycle to ensure each daughter cell receives a mitochondria. That being said, mitochondria divide by [binary fission](_URL_2_) much like prokaryotes do. This process is simple, when compared to mitotic division, and is as close to perfect as possible, except the sizes might not be congruent.\n\nMitochondria are essentially a cell of their own. They have their own DNA, produce their own energy, but must acquire its nutrients from the host cell. In return, the host cell gets a healthy supply of energy. This symbiotic relationship makes it so that one cannot survive without the other. The mitochondria will starve due to lack of nutrients and the host cell will eventually die without a good source of energy. The [Endosymbiotic theory](_URL_1_) can help with understanding how this could have occurred. Not all eukaryotic cells require a mitochondria though (amitochondrial). A [RBC; Red Blood Cell](_URL_0_) is an example of this. \n\n > If so, how frequent does this happen?\n\nI'm not sure as to how frequent this happens but I will assume that it doesn't happen very often or that the cells do not last long enough for us to observe this happening enough.\n\nSource: Biotechnology student.\n\nTL;DR: Mitochondria divide pretty damn perfectly except for size sometimes. I assume it would be hard to gauge at how frequent cells are given no mitochondria. Someone else may be able to help with this point.\n",
"When a mother cell divides into two daughter cells, the mitochondria divide between them. Each cell will receive some mitochondria, but not the same mitochondrial mix as the mother cell. Mitochondria are very fascinating: I suggest you look up LHON, a human mitochondrial disease that has interesting relationships with mitosis.",
"I'll answer your question, but I recommend you keep reading if you are *awesome* and want further insight into mitochondrial behaviour!\n\n**Firsly:** all it takes is one *fragment* of a mitochondrion to repopulate the entire cell with mitochondria. So it isnt critical that the population be split equally (though it would help with smooth operation of the cell).\n\n**Secondly**, [Have a look at this image](_URL_0_). It represents the 3 conventional morphologies of a mitochondrial network. Here are the morphological characteristics associated with mitochondria during the stages of cell division (mitosis):\n\n* **Interphase:** Reticular around nucleus and the periphery the cell\n\n* **Prophase:** Fragmented but excluded from the spindle apparatus\n\n* **Metaphase:** Fragmented but excluded from spindle apparatus and spindle equator\n\n* **Anaphase:** Fragmented and evenly distributed in the cell periphery\n\n* **Telophase:** Fragmented with repopulation of the spindle equator\n\n* **Cytokinasis:** Reticular with some fragmentation\n\nBasically: mitochondria alter their morphology to ensure their division is synchronised with the cell. \n\n\n**Reference:** \nMartínez-Diez, M., Santamaría, G., Ortega, Á. D., & Cuezva, J. M. (2006). Biogenesis and Dynamics of Mitochondria during the Cell Cycle: Significance of 3′UTRs. PLoS ONE, 1(1). doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0000107\n\n\n\n... buuuuuuuut Its hard for me to shut up when talking about mitochondria...\nI research their degradation within the cell, and every day i study them i find something new that demonstrates their archaebacterial origins!\n\nI occasionally use the following metaphor when discussing mitochondria:\n**\"the cell is a ranch of mitochondrial cattle\"**\nThis metaphor is particularly appropriate when talking about their dual behaviour as individuals or as a \"herd\" (network) depending on the situation. \n\nThe mitochondrial network is normally **reticular** in many cells, and only changes in response to specific stimuli. *(like cattle grazing a field)*. [NOTE: not all cells contain a reticular network, but stick with me here]\n\nMitochondria become **hyperfused** in response to threats like starvation. When mammalian cells starve, they initiate autophagy (literally \"self-eating\") to recover nutrients from useless or old organelles. By banding together, the mitochondria avoid being trapped and digested by the cell. *(like cattle forming a herd to avoid predators).*\n\nMitochondria become **fragmented** when *other* mitochondria threaten their survival!\nMitochondria produce large amounts of Reactive Oxygen Species (ROS) which damage lipids, DNA & proteins (i.e. everything that mitochondria are made of). Damaged mitochondria produce more ROS than healthy ones, so mitochondria fragment when ROS levels increase in the cell. *(like cattle avoiding a disease in the herd... (i dont actually know if cattle do that, but it makes biological sense)).*\n\nI hope this extra info gives you a new perspective on the little critters inside our cells!\n\n**Extra references:**\nFrank, M., Duvezin-Caubet, S., Koob, S., Occhipinti, A., Jagasia, R., Petcherski, A., … Reichert, A. S. (n.d.). Mitophagy is triggered by mild oxidative stress in a mitochondrial fission dependent manner. Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular Cell Research, (0). doi:10.1016/j.bbamcr.2012.08.007\n\nTondera, D., Grandemange, S., Jourdain, A., Karbowski, M., Mattenberger, Y., Herzig, S., … Martinou, J.-C. (2009). SLP-2 is required for stress-induced mitochondrial hyperfusion. The EMBO Journal, 28(11), 1589–1600. doi:10.1038/emboj.2009.89\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_blood_cell",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endosymbiotic_theory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Binary_fission"
],
[],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Q3JU8xP.png"
]
] |
|
4tlpo9
|
why are fiber-optic connections faster? don't electrical signals move at the speed of light anyway, or close to it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tlpo9/eli5_why_are_fiberoptic_connections_faster_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5i9bk8",
"d5i9mxc",
"d5i9omk",
"d5i9qfd",
"d5i9z4i",
"d5iakel",
"d5iaxwx",
"d5ib36m",
"d5ib573",
"d5iei9b",
"d5iel9z",
"d5igrda",
"d5ihc1c",
"d5iki2v",
"d5ikj5n",
"d5il8fr",
"d5ilr7x",
"d5intdk",
"d5iot35",
"d5ipwa5",
"d5irdcz",
"d5irgmt",
"d5isbq3",
"d5isxpd",
"d5it4is",
"d5iv5fj",
"d5iv69r",
"d5iwsdw",
"d5ix7j6",
"d5j26jb",
"d5j27sk",
"d5j5hb9",
"d5j5x7e",
"d5j5zqm",
"d5j60sx",
"d5j7b46",
"d5j7j3a",
"d5j8ep2",
"d5jc5ka",
"d5jchkj",
"d5jcv2u",
"d5jevpk"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
36,
3657,
3,
101,
2,
3,
3,
5,
3,
4,
12,
2,
115,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3574,
2,
4,
2,
4,
5,
2,
2,
2,
23,
9,
3,
3,
14,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It's not directly faster but indirectly it can be much faster than copper depending on what needs to be done. Fiber has the advantage of not having to deal with any kind of electro-magnetic interference along the wire, no matter how long it is or how many wires are bundled together. So you can get much more bandwidth out of the same diameter cable than you would with copper. It's also harder to splice into to eavesdrop on the traffic so security conscious engineers prefer it over copper. ",
"The \"speed\" of your connection is not determined by the speed in which the messenger particles travel. But rather the speed in which they can convey information.\n\nIn this case the issue here is not raw speed of photons vs. electrons, but the bandwidth if information they can carry. Photons can operate at higher frequencies and therefore carry more information per photon. Electrons cannot operate well at those higher frequencies so are limited in the amount if information they can carry.",
"Light in optic fibre is actually pretty slow, about two-thirds the speed of light. Electricity through copper carries data much closer to the speed of light, so that isn't the answer to your question.\n\n\nThe reason fibre is faster for home broadband, which is probably what you're actually wondering, is because of the technologies used. \n\n\nDSL makes use of the copper phone cables to your house, but it's fighting a battle against a noisy phone line to do so. More noise (interference) on the line reduces the amount of data that can be sent, akin to shouting at a friend over the noise of a roaring highway.\n\nCable is faster, and that's because it uses a higher-quality connection to you in the form of coaxial cable. This adds shielding to the electrical signal, reducing the noise that interferes with the signal. However, your cable is shared with many other properties, so you'll be fighting for your share of that data with your neighbours.\n\n\nA fibre connection runs through glass that is quite impervious to outside noise. Electricity from outside doesn't affect it like it can with copper, and it isn't affected by light from outside the glass, either. This means that the signal is not fighting as much noise, and you can push more data over the fibre than you could over copper.\n\n\nI haven't mentioned latency, but most questions about speed are usually referring to bandwidth, not latency.",
"Individual signals inside both fiber and electrical cables do travel at similar speeds.\n\nBut you can send way more signals down a fiber cable at the same time as you can an electrical cable.\n\n\nThink of each cable as a multi-lane road. Electrical cable is like a 5-lane highway. \n\nFiber cable is like a 200 lane highway. \n\nSo cars on both highway travel at 65 mph, but on the fiber highway you can send way more cars. \n\nIf you're trying to send a bunch of people from A to B, each car load of people will get there at the same speed, but you'll get everyone from A to B in less overall time on the fiber highway than you will on the electrical highway because you can send way more carloads at the same time. \n\n\n**Bonus Info** This is the actual meaning of the term *bandwidth*. It's commonly used to describe the speed of an internet connection but it actually refers to the number of frequencies being used for a communications channel. A group of sequential frequencies is called a *band*. One way to describe a communications channel is to talk about how wide the band of frequencies is, otherwise called *bandwidth*. The wider your band is, the more data you can send at the same time and so the faster your *overall* transfer speed is. \n\n**EDIT**\n**COMMENTS** Many other contributors have pointed out that there is a lot more complexity just below the surface of my ELI5 explanation. The reason *why* fiber can have more lanes than electrical cables is an interesting albeit challenging topic and I encourage all of you to dig into the replies and other comments for a deeper understanding of this subject. ",
"Electrons move close to light speed, but the signal carried by them in a cable moves much slower, depending on the cable. The electrons don't actually move very far, they just bump into each other, like a sound wave. That wave can be as slow as 60%ish of light speed. \n\nFor what it's worth, the light in fiber optic cable also isn't going light speed, ironically enough. Light moves slower in a medium than in a vacuum, and the light is not taking a straight path, but bouncing around. Still, it's much faster than coaxial cable, at least.\n\nFor most applications, you're not going to notice the difference. The cable in your neighborhood is going to stay copper. But the nodes going out of neighborhoods, that handle all the incoming traffic there, and which have to communicate with the ISP directly, would greatly benefit from fiber optic cable. The distances are long enough, and the bandwidth high enough that fiber optic will make a huge difference.",
"It's not sending you information *faster* but rather its sending you *more information* at a time, which means more total data transmitted over a given period of time, and that's typically what we refer to as \"faster\" \n\n\nThe reason it sends you more information at a time is, as others have described, it is very insulated against noise and other external factors. \n\n**I like bad analogies so here you go**\n\nImagine if I have 50 eggs and my goal is to take them 100 yards as fast as I can, and the goal is to get them there without breaking them.\n\nFirst time I try I am given nothing. I use my shirt as a \"pouch\" and fill it up with the eggs and then run. A lot of the eggs bounce/fall out as I'm running and half of them are broken or missing when I get there. \n\n\nSecond time I try I am given metal box to put them in. While running the eggs bounce around inside the box and about 1/3 of them break. \n\n\nThird try I am given a thick plastic bag. I fill it up with the eggs and only 4-5 of them fall out the top on my way there. Nearly all the eggs made it safely.\n\n\n-I can run near the speed of light. \n\n-I am your ISP\n\n-Eggs are data\n\n-My shirt is DSL\n\n-Metal box is coax\n\n-Plastic bag is fiber",
"\"Latency\" = the time that it takes a signal to go from sender to receiver. If you're talking, it's affected by the speed of sound. If it's radio, it's the speed of light. Wire and fiber optic are both close enough to the speed of light.\n\n\"Throughput\" = the amount of data that you can transmit or receive in any given unit of time.\n\nSo, for example, if you want to send a bunch of data from New York to Washington DC, you might have two choices:\n (a) send it over the internet\n (b) put it all on hard drives, load those hard drives into a minivan, and drive them\n\nIf you choose option (a), Washington will start receiving the data long before it would if you chose option (b). But, if you're sending enough data, Washington may finish receiving the data sooner if you choose option (b).\n\nSimilarly, if you want to move a pile of gravel from one place to another, 10 yards away, you might have two options:\n\n (a) pick up individual pieces and throw them over\n (b) load up the gravel into a wheelbarrow and cart it over\n\nYou'll get some of the gravel there faster with choice (a), but you'll be done sooner with choice (b).\n\n\nSo, when you hear people talk about \"speed,\" they don't mean \"how long does it take to get the first little bit\" (that would be latency, which is affected more by the speed of light). They mean \"how long does it take this to finish?\" and that's affect mostly by throughput.",
"You’re confusing two concepts.“Speed” as in how long it it takes to download a big file, and “speed” as in the time it takes for communication to be exchanged. They’re not necessarily related.\n\nLet’s say you need to move some toys. You could hire a truck or you could hire a train. Trucks and trains can make the journey in approximately the same span of time, but trains carry a lot more while doing it.\n\nFibre optics are like the train in this analogy. Each individual unit of information doesn’t get to the destination any faster, but you can send a whole lot more of them per second.",
"Lot of \"meh\" answers... The answer is closer to the fact that you can switch optics much faster (THz range) compared to low GHz range for wires. Yes, you can also use multiple wavelengths but individual signals can carry more bits per seconds than a copper connection.",
"So I see the answers here about the speed of electrons:\n\nYou can outrun electrons in a wire.\n\nI know this isn't ELI5 below but\n\nA major thing to remember is that they do not move in a straight line. They're always bumping into one another and it's more of a collective \"drift speed.\" let's take a wire with a 0.001mm radius with a current of 1 amp.\n\n________I_______ \n Q * e * R^2 * p\n\nThe electrons are traveling at .00025 m/s.\n\nSo the reason the activity is instant when using electronics is that it's similar to filling a tube with tennis balls. Put one more tennis ball in one end, and it forces one out the other end.\n\n",
"To transfer a lot of information, you don't just need to transfer a signal, you need that signal to *change quickly*, the more quickly the better.\n\nAnd electric signals that change quickly are really hard to transmit over long lines: they create magnetic fields and radio waves, through which they lose energy until you can't measure them anymore, or they are simply dampened by capacitive resistance.\n\nLight, on the other hand, is transmitted the same, no matter how quickly its intensity changes; it's limited purely by the electrooptical elements that create and receive the signal. ",
"It depends what you mean by \"faster\". There are two possible measures - how long it takes to transfer a certain amount of data (bandwidth) and the delay before your data arrives at the other end (latency)\n\nIf latency is critical, and you are communicating over a long distance, then fiber may not be the best option. In a fiber cable, the signal travels at about 0.6x the speed of light (the light travels more slowly through the glass fiber than air).\n\nHowever, in a radio network (or a professional microwave beam system), the signal travels at the speed of light.\n\nIf you need to link computers a long distance apart (several hundred miles or more), and you need low delay (latency), it is better to do it with wireless links. This is particularly important for financial work, where deals are done in order they are received, and to get the best deal, you need to be first in line. If a company is doing this type of work, then they usually prefer a wireless link between private wireless towers than a fiber link.\n",
"People often get confused between bandwidth and latency. Imagine a funnel used to pass water; size of the funnel is the bandwidth and the rate at which water passes is the latency. Now if the water itself is being passed slowly, increasing the size of the funnel will not help.\nMany times you complain to the ISP of bad network performance and almost all times they suggest to increase your bandwidth; but if the packets themselves are traversing at a slow rate, increasing the bandwidth will not help.",
"They're not necessarily faster. They just have less loss. Think of Fiber like a perfectly paved road and copper as a paved road that turns into a dirt road, then a trail, and then hits a brick wall.",
"There is quite a bit of misinformation here, so I will try and ELI5 for you.\n\nFirst - what is bandwidth? Bandwidth refers to the number of electrical pulses transmitted over a link within a second. Each pulse carries individual bits of information. Bandwidth is the data transfer capability of a connection and is commonly associated with the amount of available frequencies and speed of a link. \n\nData Throughput - is the actual amount of data that can be carried over this connection. When people discuss upload/download speeds they are actually discussing data throughput.\n\nNow onto the question at hand - why are fiber-optic connections faster? There are many reasons, but here is a quick breakdown for you. \n\n1. Cable lengths, resistance and attenuation. Glass has much less resistance to light than copper does to electrical signals. This allows the light to travel faster and further. For copper wires, more repeaters are required to ensure signal strength is not lost. Every time a signal hits a repeater the transmission is delayed. \n\n2. Noise. Copper wires also are at a higher risk of EMI radiation. This radiation can disrupt your signal and cause the systems to have to resend the frames (bits of information). Cross talk is also a type of noise (when a signal jumps from one wire to another) and can also cause signal loss. \n\n3. Cable size. In Canada/USA, the typical Copper connection (Coaxial) which is used for most home installations is a 10Base2, ThinNet cable. This allows for about 10Mbps for Ethernet. Think of this as the size of the pipe itself. Fiber uses larger pipes1000Base-x which allows for speeds of 1000 Mbps.\n\n4. Cable Sharing. Coaxial is also the tunnel used to bring your tv services to your home. This sharing of the line is called broadband. Different frequenciess spectrums are used for different purposes. If you have fiber installed, it is typically dedicated for your internet services. Coaxial is also shared amongst other customers in your region and thus reduces your available data throughput further.\n\nI think this about sums it up, but it has been a while since I studied this.",
"In a bunch of the replies, there are great answers and analogies. However, none of them mention modulation. \n\nCable modems, dsl modems. Modem stands for modulator/demodulator. The point of the modem is change the electrical signal from digital to analog for transmission and from analog to digital for receiving. It's difficult for an analog signal to represent 1s and 0s so it does this by using a sine wave. It uses the process called phase shift keying in which it represents the individual 1s and 0s as a shift in phase on the sine wave. To get more bandwidth, you add more possible shifts in the sine wave to represent more bits at a time. This is where the term noise comes into play. The more noise, the harder it is for your modem to recognize the phase shift. Each phase shift is a Hertz, cycles per second. It is the same concept as 4g, lte, 3g, 2g in your phone. 2g uses less types of phases compared to 3g. \n\nFiber is different. Fiber doesn't need to convert data to analog before sending it down the line. It can transmit data faster by adjusting the intensity of the light. \n\nI apologize for the lack of ELI5.. -ness but it is really hard to put this into simpler terms. I'll edit it when I'm not mobile. \n\nEdit: for correctness. I forgot fiber doesn't need to convert to an analog signal before transmitting and receiving.",
"I'm sure the answer is already here, but it's not so much speed as it is bandwidth. \n\nBut to answer the actual question, the speed of light in a standard fibre optic cable is 0.69c and the speed of electricity through copper depends on a few things... Signal frequency, current, conductor size, insulator. For all intensive purposes, the speed of the signal propagation is extremely close to a fibre cable. Like 0.64c-0.72c\n\nWhere fibre has the advantage is bandwidth. A similarly sized fibre cable can carry a much wider bandwidth of signal, allowing for speeds upwards of 100gbe, where I think the max you'll get over your cat5/6 is around 1gbe. But the word \"speed\" in the context of Internet bandwidth is a little bit misleading. If you were to compare it to copper pipes transporting water to your house, an Ethernet cable is like a 1/2\" copper pipe, while a fibre optic cable is like a 5\" pipe. The water flows at the same speed, but you can get way more water from your 5\" pipe.",
"Here is an actual ELI **5** for you.\n\nConstant stream is no information, because how would you know where the information starts and where it stops ?\n\nYou send information by starting and stopping the stream of electricity or the light or whatever.\n\nElectricity is lazy, it starts and stops slowly.\n\nLight is not as lazy as electricity, you can start and stop it much faster.\n\nTherefore sending information by light is faster.",
"Much of the confusion stem from the word faster or speed. Some people equate volume to speed. 500mbps is fast! Well, a 500mbps connection over satellite will be over 1000ms because the data has to travel to space and back. Conversely, a 56kbps connection to an adjacent server could be 1ms. So was is fast?\n\nFor most people (1gbps users,) fiber and copper connection operate the same. In fact, the difference between copper and fiber are almost nothing. Last month, a coax carrier had the highest average bitrate for netflix. This month they are 10kbps slower than the current #1. There are many fiber carriers that have lower average bitrates than coax counterparts.\n\nIn most applications, copper and fiber send the same volume of data. There are even 10gbps specifications for copper. One bonus you do get is wavelength-division multiplexing. You can send different colors of light over the same piece of glass and they do not interfere with each other. Most people do not deal in C/DWDM.",
"Copper lines also degrade signals over distance. That's why when you used to call long distance from NY to CA, it would cost a fortune. Phone companies had to amplify that signal every time it degraded to a point. Not an issue with fiber.",
"As a communications technician who went to tech school and has worked in data centers for Microsoft, facebook, and wells fargo installing and maintaining thsee sorts of connections...\n\n1. Copper cabling is electrical in nature. Because of this, you can only send so much through the cable before you start to reach a physical limitation of the electrical signal interfering with itself via EMI (Electromagnetic interference)\n\n2. Fiber does, in general tend to move faster. The speed of light is only constant in a vaccum. Fiber is just light impulses being sent throught glass. Copper is actually electrons running through a conductor, and there is a lot of drag.\n\n3. Fiber can have multiple signals overlaping eachother in orders of hundreds of signals per strand. Part of the job the boxes at either end is to put the signal back together. Copper can do this but at less then 0.1% the magnitude. Rule of thumb. One fiber connection can handle the load of 1000 copper lines.\n\n4. The way my tech school instructor explained it to me in layman's terms was: Imagine you're standing in walmart. Your thumb nail is copper. The rest of Walmart is fiber.\n\nIn short, the main reason we don't have more fiber is actuallt because of a lack of skilled labor that know's what the fuck they're doing. If you like money, it's a good field. Tedious but I'm making 24/hour and I'm only 25.\n\nEdit: formating",
"I'll explain it like you're five.\n\nElectrons in a wire move really fast, but photons in a vacuum move faster.",
"IAA[G]NE (I am a [Google] Network Engineer) so I think I'm fairly qualified to chime in here to clear things up and dispel some inaccuracies in other comments. Not completely ELI5 but more ELI15.\n\nIt's got nothing to do with the speed of light. Sure there are differences, but that only affects latency a little, not really speed (see other comments here for more on that). It's more to do with how fast you can turn the signal on and off.\n\nAbout claims of fibre carrying more channels/signals:\n\nSo fibre can carry hundreds of signals / streams at once. More signals = more throughput. But so can electrical - just look at your cable tv connection - 200+ channels, and all sent over the one wire. It's the same principle - different frequencies on the radio dial. Fibre uses the same principle, and can carry 100+ channels, but the frequencies are represented by different colours, split and combined using a prism - though you cant see these colours as they're deep into the infra-red (like how you cant see the light from your TV IR remote).\nThe main difference is that electrical has a limit to how much total combined speed it can carry...\n\nLet's look more at the differences between electrical and fibre signals.\n\nElectric cables are susceptible to noise - think about if your mobile phone is near a speaker and you get the buzzing. Lots of things aside from your phone can give out this interference - power lines, other cables in the same duct, TV/Radio stations, even radio hiss from space! Now imagine that over a looong cable between two cities and you're talking about a lot of noise on the signal (like radio static on a weak station). Even shielding them only reduces the noise to a certain extent.\nAs well as receiving noise, electrical cables radiate signals - they are like a long antenna, some of the signal gets radiated and lost this way so it gets weaker.\n\nFibre signals aren't susceptible to noise - a solid black tube can't pass any light at all, so the fibres within the cladding are completely blacked out from external light. (Note there can be reeealy tiny amounts of noise from quantum effects and the electronics at each end, but its minuscule compared to electrical.)\nThe light within the also doesnt leak out. Refraction is like a near-perfect mirror, keeping the signal bouncing inside the fibre for a very long distance.\n\nSo we've established that electrical signals get noisy, and fibre optics don't pick up interference.\n\nNext, we have signal degradation.\n\nElectricity has \"inductance\" - this manifests itself very similarly to physical inertia, which means it resists being changed. Heavier objects are harder to move and stop than lighter ones. So electricity has the same thing, it takes time to change the signal - which is what happens when the zero and one bits are transmitted. The longer the cable, the more the inductance (i.e \"inertia\"), so the longer it takes to change that zero to a one. Therefore you have to send signals at a slower rate to allow the electrons to keep up with the changes. There is a similar related effect called capacitance which also slows down the maximum rate of change.\n\nLight has no inductance, (so there is effectively no \"inertia\") - therefore changing it from zero to one is pretty much instant. That means you can change it much faster - more \"bits per second\" - regardless of distance.\n\n(note it's not really \"inertia\", the above is mostly an analogy, but it behaves like it)\n\nNext is resistance. Electrons are large (compared to photons), so they interact with the copper atoms as they travel through the wire. This interaction is analogous to friction. Friction creates heat, which is where the energy goes. In a wire, some electrons lose energy in the same way as heat (which is why power cables can get hot when carrying a lot of current). So over a long distance, much of the signal diminishes due to resistance. For high speed signals (1-10Gbps), this typically happens within a few hundred metres. Not very useful when you need to get cat videos between cities!\n\nLight interacts much less with fibre optics - the photons are tiny and much less likely to interact with the glass - especially as it's super clear specially made glass. The signal can travel up to 100km before it gets too weak for the other end to \"see\".\n\nSo we have problems of \"interference\" and \"signal degradation\". Electrical gets both problems, fibre only degradation, and much less so.\n\nEventually the signal degrades to such a weak one. For electrical signals, the noise from interference drowns out the original signal and you can no longer detect it. For the speeds that matter (1Gbps to 10Gbps) electrical signals are drowned out after just a couple of hundred metres.\nWith fibre, the degradation happens after around 100km (depending on the power of the lasers at each end). There are other interesting effects with fibre (e.g dispersion), but they are more advanced topics.\n\nWhen the signal starts to get weak, but before it's too weak to extract, you install an amplifier to boost the signal. It's much more feasible and economical to install fibre amplifiers/repeaters every 100km that it is every few hundred metres for electrical. And that's why fibre is used for anything except short network connections (usually only inside buildings).\n\nTL;DR: High speed electrical signals can only travel ~100m before they get too weak and drowned out with noise. Fibre optics don't pick up noise and the signal can travel 100km before you need to amplify it.\n\n\n[edit: better wording]\n\n[edit 2: I know people are nit-picking. This is meant to be a simple(r) explanation using terms/analogies that avoid some of the deep detail].\n\n[edit3: more clarification - and Gold, thank you!]\n\n[edit 4: clarified a bit especially on inductance and the inertia analogy]",
"Multiplexing lets a single wire carry more than 1 conversation. When you multiplex though, you have use a carrier frequency that is several magnitudes greater than the frequency of whatever you're transmitting (human voice for example).\n\nAs the number of conversations you're multiplexing goes up, the carrier frequency must also go up. It gets to a point when the frequency is so high that the signal no longer stays on the wire. It gets radiated out and never returns; the wire basically becomes an antenna.\n\nThis is the bandwidth of the wire. The \"width\" of the band of signals that can travel on the wire is fixed by the properties of the conductor and the electromagnetic spectrum - radio waves.\n\nFiber does not have this limitation. The signal will never radiate from the wire. Consequently, you can raise the carrier frequency really high and cram *even more* conversations onto a single wire... er fiber. This gives fiber a larger bandwidth of possible frequencies it can carry.",
"Yes they both move at near light speed. Difference is frequency. Bandwidth has nothing much to do with it. Reason fiber is better is that there is no interference in the frequency's. For both cable type's they must follow a frequency plan. With copper cable the issue is harmonics. Harmonics will cause interference between signals causing them to be distorted so in the end you will lose data.\n\n Since they are following a set frequency plan that does not allow 1 signal to interfere with another this limits the number of signals on a line. Fiber frequency's are different since it is in area of visible light spectrum. They can tune a line to hold several signals allowing you to have more data without loss. So really its not that fiber is faster, Fiber allow you to have more signals running without interference caused by harmonics. Easier way to think of it there are 2 10 lane highways. 1 is a normal 10 lane people moving in and out. Other is a smart lane controlled by computer where everyone moves at a set speed and distance. On one side people will interfere with others the more people on the highway the more interference. On the computer controlled side it knows when they need to get off and when to allow people to move around to keep the speed constant. They both can get you from A to B but on one side you have interference the more people. Other side the amount of people do not cause interference. Yes there is a cap to how many people are on the highway. ",
"Is this /r/shittyaskscience ?\n\nTo OP: One pound of sugar and one pound of cotton weigh the same.\n10Mbps on copper is the same as 10Mbps on fiber. Which speed tier you have with your ISP is the only thing that matters.",
"Imagine a stretch of road, for sake of argument it is 1km long, the road represents our fibre or copper link. People travelling along the road are the bits of data. Lets say there are 1000 people we want to get from one end to the other. The problem is the road has only a single lane and each person must go in a separate car and each car must be 100m apart. Cars must travel at the imposed speed, 10m/s, analogous to the speed of light.\n\nIt takes the first car 100 seconds to reach the end of the road however the last car is still stuck at the start because only 10 cars can be on the road at a time. Each car starts every 10 seconds Thus it takes 10000 seconds for the last car to get under way. The latency of the link (100 seconds) is far smaller than the time it takes to transfer all the data (10100 seconds). \n\nTo speed up the transfer time, make the connection faster, we need more cars travelling at the same time. We can do this in 3 ways, add more lanes (multiple carriers), make the cars closer together (higher frequency) and thirdly put more people in each car (use advanced modulation schemes).\n\nIt turns out that these 3 things are easier to do with light and fibre cables than electrons in copper cables. Copper cables are like a bumpy road, put the cars too close together and they easily crash, fibre optics allows the cars to pack very close together without crashes. This also means we can't pack as many lanes into the road either because the cars need a wider lane.\n\nIt also turns out that copper cables are like a road with a steep gradient, the cars eventually slow down and need a push to get running again. This further means that we can't pack the cars as close together. \n\nIn practise the cars on our copper road have to be about 1000 times further apart than on a fibre optic road. This results in data transfer speeds which are 1000 times faster with fibre!",
"A somewhat simplified explanation: To send a train of digital pulses down a cable as quickly as possible, the pulses need to be as short and as closely spaced as possible. The shorter the pulses, the higher the frequency components required to create them. (This is called the uncertainty principle of Fourier analysis.) Fiber optics cables can carry visible frequencies, 10^15 hertz, whereas coax cable cannot, they operate at lower (microwave or below) frequencies, so digital pulses can't be as short or closely-spaced in coax as in optical fibre. ",
"Fiber are not faster, but being an optical medium it allow the signal to be transfered at much lesser loss and interference. And by having higher quality signal, it is also easier to develop protocols and tech to squeeze in as much as possible.\n\nFor example a Long Wave fiber with the right 10G trancievers can transfer up to 10 over miles while a copper 10G tech can only goes up to at most 30 feet.\n\nFor cases like home fiber, it is much more cost efficient to push passive optical network over long distances than using copper as we don't need a couple of middleman equipment along the way.",
" > Why are fiber-optic connections faster?\n\nIt doesn't. Not always at least.\n\nBack in the old days, if you want to have 100Mbps connection to your ISP, a dedicated Ethernet cable connecting your home and your ISP is required because that's the max speed of Ethernet cable (let's assume better cable was never invented, anyway). It's expensive, so we normally don't have that. And now there's optic-fiber. An optic-fiber is able to transfer multiple 100Mbps sessions. Cost down, and that's why we can all afford to 100Mbps Internet connections today. This may lead to the stereotype that fiber is faster.\n\n > Don't electrical signals move at the speed of light anyway, or close to it?\n\nThe speed of the movement of the signal is not what we know about the speed of Internet connection. When an ISP advertises 100Mbps, it's the amount of data transfered over a specific time. 100 million bits per second, for example. It really doesn't matter if the signal, optic or electric, travels at the speed of light. As long as this parcel of 100 million bits data delivers from the ISP to my home within one second, it's 100Mbps.\n\nDisclaimer: This answer contains biased, comprehensive or inaccurate information. Please always refer to a reliable source for more detailed technical information.",
"You get the same ping, but better speeds, with fiber.\n\nThat's like getting your water from a small pipe vs a large pipe: a specific drop of water (i.e. a bit, aka a 0 or a 1) might not come out of it any faster, but you'll get much more water every second from the larger pipe (bits per second).",
"The number of wrong answers on this thread is truly epic.\n\nHere is a really simple ELI5 answer:\n\nA fiber optic line can transmit much more information per second than a typical copper line, whether twisted pair or coaxial.\n\nOn a twisted pair or coaxial cable, the signal is sent as a radio frequency signal, and the maximum frequency such a cable can transmit is measured in gigahertz, or billions of cycles per second.\n\nLight is also a radio frequency signal, but it is at a much higher frequency, measured in terahertz, or trillions of cycles per second.\nBecause fiber optic lines transmit light, which is at a much higher frequency, it allows for transmitting a larger signal. The size of a signal is measured in bandwidth, and the bandwidth of a fiber optic signal can be many orders of magnitude larger than a signal can be on an twisted pair or coaxial cable.\n\nEach bit of data is not sent faster one way versus the other, but by sending more of them simultaneously, the fiber optic signal transmits much more data in the same amount of time.",
"No. Electricity in general does NOT operate at the speed of light. Electron currents do not flow at that speed through conductors.\n\nThe thing most people don't realize is electrons move through metals and semiconductors much as [an ink drop moves through water by diffusion](_URL_0_). \n\nThe electrons move a short distance, hit an atom, and then careen away in a different direction until they hit another atom. This is how diffusion works as well. The typically path length before a collision is typically in silicon is about 1 nanometer or 1 billionth of a meter. Metals like copper are a bit longer at 50-100 nm.\n\nSo it's pretty slow in terms of forward progress down a wire. Far slower than the speed of light. But faster than most things you experience daily. This speed is captured by a parameter called \"carrier mobility\" and \"drift velocity\". For silicon maximum \"saturation\" velocity is ~0.03% of c. For metals it's a bit higher but less then 1% of c.\n\nThis fairly low speed is also related to why magnetic fields generated by electrical currents are relatively weak: the magnetic field is a relativistic correction to electrostatics but the electron velocity in metals is just barely relativistic so the effects are weak so magnetic fields require a lot of current.\n\nThere's also another way that energy gets transmitted electrically : not by electron movement but by electromagnetic radiation fields propagating along the wires. \n\nThese operate faster then the diffusion processes of electron movement but typically still at a fraction of the speed of light. These are sort of like having a radio signal propagating along the surface of the metal. The interaction with the metal slows it down but it's faster than the electron velocities.\n\nThere's a specification typically associate with electronic cables called the \"velocity factor\" that captures this numerically. A common value is 70% (of the speed of light). But this is only for high speed AC signals.\n\nSo compare this to fiber optic cables. The speed of light in a fiber is defined by the index of refraction, N, of the cable material. However it's possible to tune this value to increase the speed (N=1 is the speed of light, 1/N is the speed in the material).\n\nLab versions of fiber materials have managed [99.7% of the speed of light](_URL_1_).",
"There are a lot of good answers here clarifying that optics' real advantage is interference, power, signal integrity, etc all leading to higher throughput.\n\nI would just add one fun fact that a lot of folks are glossing over. Contrary to your post, a signal can actually propagate FASTER over copper than over most fiber optics. This is because the speed of electricity through copper is on the order of 0.75c, while the speed of light through a normal backbone optical cable is around 0.5-0.66c.\n\nSo if your goal was to send data with the absolute least latency-- and you had a dedicated connection, such that bandwidth / interference were not issues-- copper would actually be a significantly better choice.",
"Technically the speed of light is different depending on the medium it is passing through. The well known speed of light that everyone refers to is the speed of light through a vacuum. A quick Google search indicates that scientists have gotten light to move as slowly as 17 meters per second through some special semi conductor. As for the differences in data transmission speed in wire and optical fiber, that's already been pretty well addressed. But a short answer involves the term multiplexing. The way prisms can separate a beam of light into many different colors means that you can actually merge multiple light signals into one and then separate it again at its destination. Another huge benefit with optical fiber is that it preserves the signal. Electromagnetic interference has no effect on it.",
"This thread is too far gone and no one will read this, but in short, fiber is not inherently faster than copper. There are many ways to cram *more* data down a fiber, but an IP packet moving over a fiber will move at the same speed it does over copper. As to the more part, there are things like Dense Wave Division Multiplexing (DWDM) that let you put 40 or 80 signals down a single fiber in a way you can never do on copper. There are also things like Quadrature amplitude modulation (QAM), which is how your cable modem works in part, that function over copper and fiber. Source: I do this for a living.",
"As a side note. As far as internet speeds fiber being better this is because the fibers can be made very very thin, orders of magnitude compared to copper. The actual conductor being thinner allows more signal per area. \n\nSent from mobile. ",
"It's not about the speed at which the data moves, it's about the bandwidth. You can send signals at higher bandwidths through a fiber rather then through copper wires. Higher bandwidths means there's the possibility of sending higher bitrates which finally allows you to receive more information per second.",
"to put it in extremely layman term, lets rule out all the interference in this case. electrical signal can move up to 99% of what light speed does exception that the medium it is using is generally copper.\n\nthere are so much blocking for the electrons to move across, heat is a issue on physical medium which changes everytime, hence the throughput will never be 99%, more of like 50% or even lesser then lightspeed.\n\nwhere else for fibre, it really depends on it's medium! lousy plastic mimicking a good fibre glass may give somewhere 70% of the light speed quality. a good one without much diffraction will result a close 99%. \n\nfibre use reflection for it's bound. this is taught in basic engineering.\n\nme too, network engineer from Singapore telecom and communication is my forte since 18 year old.",
"It's not about speed of travel, it's about speed of modulation. We can modulate light waves (THz) much faster than we can modulate electric circuits (GHz). The faster you can modulate, the richer the signal you can encode into a signal of a given duration. This translates into downloading faster, as you are able to receive more information in a finite span of time.",
"There are different kinds of speed. The speed of light effects latency, that is how long it takes to send a message and start to get a response. But what fiber optic cables are better at is throughput. This can be viewed as how wide the cable is. More information can fit in the fiber optic at the same time. So the result is that your web page will start loading just as fast with both, but it will finish loading faster with fiber optic cable. ",
"I am a cable dawg, I do install these.\nFiber is literal light. No interference. \nCopper is not and has interference. \nFiber is muy Bueno ."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k_okcNVZqqI",
"http://www.extremetech.com/computing/151498-researchers-create-fiber-network-that-operates-at-99-7-speed-of-light-smashes-speed-and-latency-records"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1zmdje
|
Has the privilege of knights to make knights ever been abolished?
|
Historically, I understand that it was the privilege of any knight to make any of his followers into a knight. (Or anyone at all, I suppose, though obviously it would be restricted in practice.) Is this still the case? In theory, can Sir Andrew Davis or Sir Terry Pratchett or some such modern knight just make anyone they like into a knight?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zmdje/has_the_privilege_of_knights_to_make_knights_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfux69x",
"cfva9gy",
"cfvd58u"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Alternatively I'd question the premise. Did common knights (as opposed to Barons, Earls, or other titled nobility) ever have the right to bestow knighthood upon others - particularly with regard to England, Great Britain, or the UK? If not, where did this idea arise?\n\nToday all knighthoods are bestowed by the Queen or by a member of the Royal family on her behalf. I have no idea with regard to the past.",
"As an Englishman I can only really answer this in regards to the Kingdom of England and the subsequent United Kingdom effectively, as my knowledge of foreign knightly orders isn't great.\n\nWhat I can tell you is that a knight has never been able to make anyone a knight. The only person who can bestow knighthoods and other titular dignities such as peerages is a Fons Honorum (Fount of Honour). This is almost always a monarch, but some individual orders exist with their own Fount of Honour, though these are not considered legitimate by most.\n\nIt's also worth bearing in mind that knights always belong to orders and orders have set numbers of members. For example, The Most Noble Order of the Garter has twenty four members and never any more. Other knightly orders, like The Most Honourable Order of the Bath have ranks such as Knight Grand Cross and Dame Grand Cross, Knight Commander and Dame Commander and Knight Companion. Whilst Knights and Dames Grand Cross have influence on the monarch and might informally advise the Fons Honorum on who to appoint, they cannot under any circumstances knight anybody else.",
"For the first century and a half or so in which knighthood was in existence - perhaps 900 to 1050 CE - it was not a title but an occupation. You were a knight (*miles* is the period word) if you possessed a horse, mail, a sword, and a lance, and had the training necessary to use them. You could be either a landowner, through vassalage or outright allodial holding, or a dependent member of a noble household. \n\nGradually, the concepts of knighthood and nobility became enmeshed, and by 1100 nobles were increasingly self-identifying as knights. From this point onward knighthood as a class becomes more formalized, more rigid, and more static. Formal dubbing ceremonies develop, and become more elaborate over time. The concept of heraldry is invented and then expanded upon. By the end of the 13th century knighthood has so many duties and expenses attached to it that it is only available, basically, to very wealthy landowners; the everyday business of war is carried on by men-at-arms, who are knights in all but title. People often confuse these men as being lower class soldiers, but they generally came from knightly families, but could not afford to be themselves knighted. They are frequently referred to as esquires, but as people tend to confuse this with boy servants, I avoid using it in a general discussion such as this. Any esquire's hope was to enrich himself enough to be knighted, but this was increasingly unlikely."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
60cvp0
|
why do so many superhero origin stories involve parents dying?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60cvp0/eli5_why_do_so_many_superhero_origin_stories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df5c5tx",
"df5ceoo",
"df5chgt"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Parents are only there to cause angst for the hero. If they're loving and supportive they must die. If they're not then they're mean and abusive so the hero must run away bemoaning his fate.",
"Because so many superhero writers are unimaginative hacks. It's easier to fall back on a trope like that than it is to write an interesting and unique origin story.",
"It is a very common trope in fiction. It is frequently used because it can accomplish several things\n\n- give the protagonist a motive. Why are they a superhero / chasing this villain / in this job. Easy answer: their parents died.\n\n- if the crime was committed by the main antagonist, it's an easy way to establish that they are bad business. They are obviously evil cause they will just kill a kid's parents (or even try to kill them). It can also serve to show how incompetent law agencies / other people are in the story if this villain won't be caught for the crime until our hero gets involved.\n\n- it clears the way for the protagonist engaging in things parents would normally stop you from. \n\n- it gives the protagonist a source of angst (which, to be honest, some writers mistake as a fully-functioning personality) / helps create a dark and edge tone to the work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
236qf1
|
what's the difference between cables that send power and cables that send data? how come phone cables can do both?
|
How come the cables that come from a computer's power supply send JUST power and what is difference between those cables and the SATA cables that send data. Following that, why can the iPhone and Android cables send power and transfer data - is it due to it being USB?
Thanks, just a niggling query that I've never had explained to me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/236qf1/eli5_whats_the_difference_between_cables_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgtzant",
"cgu0u23"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"At each end of every cable is a connector. Typically cables have a male connector that plugs into the female connector on a device. On every connector there are multiple \"pins\" or connection points. You solder a wire to each pin, and encase it into one cable. \n\nFor example, on an instrument/old telephone connector there are 2 pins, labeled signal and ground. Inside the cable are two wires of different colors, one soldered to signal and the other soldered to ground. \n\nNow a USB connector has 4 pins. Vcc (+5V supply), D- (Data -), D+ (Data +) and Ground. There is also a more or less standard for color coding the wires inside the cable, where Vcc is red and Ground is black, D- is white and D+ is green. If you cut open an iPod charging cable you can see those four individual wires. \n\nIn some applications you have to have multiple pins on a connector for supplying power and signal, or multiple signals. In other applications you can send power and the signal on the same line (like telephones), or multiple signals together using a technique called multiplexing (which is how TV cables work). You generally need a different connector and cable for different applications because of the difference in power requirements, number of signals, size of the device, etc. \n\nHope this helps! ",
"ELI5: Technically there is none, it depends on the hardware sending the power and receiving the power. Both transmit electricity, but if the hardware is made to do so it can transmit a pattern in the electricity that hardware on the other end can understand. Having them separate has to do with cost, efficiency, flexibility, and complexity of the hardware.\n\nUSB is actually a bundle of cables, 4 to be exact, you can see it on the pins. The outer 2 are for transmitting power. The inner 2 are data. Once again this is likely done to allow more flexibility. For example, some external hdd units have a usb cable with 2 plugs. 1 is for data, the other power. This is because in some situations the power supplied by 1 usb plug is not sufficient to power the hdd.\n\nMore detail (And a bit of a rant):\nThere are various engineering reasons why there are dedicated cables. The SATA one is likely related to efficiency and modularity. Passing power through the motherboard is not as efficient as grabbing it from the power supply directly.\n\nThis is also why it's utterly silly when iPhones have a proprietary plug with 30 some odd pins. You need at most 3 related to power (+/- and ground) and 2 for data since all communication with your computer is done via usb anyway. Sure you can dedicate pins for certain tasks but the fact that Android phones can do the same bloody thing with 4 pins (they use a std usb plug by design) means that this is primarily motivated by business reasons rather than engineering reasons.\n\nAlso, the cables themselves play a relatively minor role as can be seen with USB 1, 2, and 3. All of them use the same plugs with the same 4 wires in the cable. Yet the data transfer speeds are vastly different. This is because each of those iterations improved the hardware sending/receiving the signals making them more efficient and able to cram more data into the cable. As a note wire quality does play a role in it as a bad wire can severely impede the speeds. But don't buy into the Monster cable sales pitch, most of the time it doesn't matter all that much unless you got a really bad cable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1yp57j
|
Are artistic traits, such as being able to draw exceptionally or excelling in the musical arts, dependent on one's genes?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1yp57j/are_artistic_traits_such_as_being_able_to_draw/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfmmi36"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"'Artistic' is probably not a genetic trait. But if you break it down into its component parts, then each of the following things are at least PARTLY genetic: hand-eye coordination, fine motor movement, gross motor movement, depth perception, color perception, tonal perception, dexterity, muscle composition, flexibility, memory, etc.\n\nIf you have a genetic predisposition to a large number of those sub-traits then you may be well on your way to being genetically 'artistic.'"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
j21g3
|
A question from my 4yo son
|
Is the sun hard or squishy?
I'm not entirely sure how to answer him. I mean, it's gas, but I'm betting that hydrogen squashed hard enough to fuse is pretty dense.
How hard *is* the sun?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/j21g3/a_question_from_my_4yo_son/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c29w5h9",
"c28hjoh",
"c28hkii",
"c28hl87",
"c28hlnx",
"c28hlvv",
"c28hxuf",
"c28hybu",
"c28jm71",
"c28jsrp",
"c28lxkl",
"c28ohdv",
"c29w5h9"
],
"score": [
2,
20,
87,
109,
81,
231,
4,
2,
6,
2,
8,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Is the Sun soft or hard? As explained to a 4 year old.\n\nGood question. What is hard or soft? Generally hardness is a property that only solids have, but under certain circumstances non-solids may have a similar reaction to stress. Hardness is the measure by which an external force permanently changes the shape of an object. Hardness can be defined by several other properties such as plasticity, elasticity, and in liqiuds viscosity and surface tension. Viscosity is a material's internal resistance to change and surface tension basically the same except on the surface to external stress. Now... the sun.\n\nThe sun is mainly made up of Hydrogen and Helium. Both of these are gases like what you find in balloons or gaint airships. So... it's not a solid, or a liquid so we stop there right? Weeeeellll.... all matter has various phases of state: solid, liquid, and gas. These we are all familiar with, but there are other phases too. When a gas gets hot enough, it can become something known as plasma, for example... lightning. When enough heat and pressure is applied a gas or liquid can form something known as a supercritical fluid. Supercritical fluids are liquid-gas hybrids in that they are both liquids and gases at the same time. They also have no surface tension. ZERO. The gases in the sun are really hot, around 2'000'000 degrees hot. There is also alot of them, so dense that it's 200 times the density of Earth's air (about the density of cork really). All of this and the immense gravity give it huge pressure. Enough that the gas become both a plasma and a supercritical fluid. What does this mean well... since it has no surface tension it's like the ultimate in soft liquids. So the sun is soft.\n\nAnd hopefully you won't ask me about the viscosity of the plasma, because I have no idea how to figure that out.",
"The sun is plasma, not gas.\n\nIf your could touch it, it wouldn't feel solid until you were near the core.",
"Tell him also that the sun accounts for about 99.86% of the total mass of the Solar System. :)",
"It's only really dense in the middle. It's so huge that overall it's actually about as dense as water. The inner bits are a lot more dense than that, and the outer bits are a lot less.\n\nSo if you had a space-ship that was immune to heat, it'd just fall through the outer bits.",
"I don't know for sure. But If I had to make an educated guess (I am currently doing a PhD in physics) I'd say it is a bit like a flame. A very hot flame. A bit like the flame of a gas burner or something. Pretty squishy. You wouldn't even feel it if you touched it, but it's very hot of course.\n\nAn interesting fact, by the way: The sun has an atmosphere also called the corona. This atmosphere is very much hotter (1 000 000 celsius) than the surface of the sun (10 000 celsius). And no-one really knows why :(\n\nEdit: Spelling",
"All from Wikipedia - _URL_0_\n\nThe core (25% of the radius) is up to 150 times the density of water.\n\nThe next layer, the radiative zone, (from 25% to 70% of the radius) has a density from 20 times the density of water (similar to gold) to one fifth the density of water (similar to cork).\n\nThe convective zone (from 70% to the visible surface) has a density that drops to 1/6,000th the density of air.\n\n",
"Look at [this](_URL_0_) (and related videos). I think that answers pretty well... not hard, not squishy, I’d rather say viscous. Like a huge burning ball of honey, for example — it’s a image I’d propose to a 4 years old.\n",
"A neutron star has a solid surface.\n\n_URL_0_",
"As a layman interpreting this answers for a four year old I think it might be safe to tell the child that \"Kind of like the the earth, some parts are hard while others are squishy\"",
"I would say squishy, because at some definable 'surface' the gas would *not* be dense. ",
"Neither, it's more like a cloud. A giant burning cloud. If you were floating just above the surface of the sun, you could swipe your hand right through it without feeling any resistance (though your hand might not survive). As you fly deeper into the sun, it will start to feel like a thicker cloud, eventually feeling like you're under water, then like you're in a pool of syrup, then so thick that you can't move at all. \n\nBut the dense part is really fairly concentrated at the center of the sun. So if you were a giant and the sun was just the size of an apple to you, you could squish it without any problems. \n",
"Not that this is truly germane to this discussion, but I find it fascinating that a 4yo's curiosity has caused an almost day long debate between people with enough cumulative degrees to start their own university. This is why I love Reddit.",
"Is the Sun soft or hard? As explained to a 4 year old.\n\nGood question. What is hard or soft? Generally hardness is a property that only solids have, but under certain circumstances non-solids may have a similar reaction to stress. Hardness is the measure by which an external force permanently changes the shape of an object. Hardness can be defined by several other properties such as plasticity, elasticity, and in liqiuds viscosity and surface tension. Viscosity is a material's internal resistance to change and surface tension basically the same except on the surface to external stress. Now... the sun.\n\nThe sun is mainly made up of Hydrogen and Helium. Both of these are gases like what you find in balloons or gaint airships. So... it's not a solid, or a liquid so we stop there right? Weeeeellll.... all matter has various phases of state: solid, liquid, and gas. These we are all familiar with, but there are other phases too. When a gas gets hot enough, it can become something known as plasma, for example... lightning. When enough heat and pressure is applied a gas or liquid can form something known as a supercritical fluid. Supercritical fluids are liquid-gas hybrids in that they are both liquids and gases at the same time. They also have no surface tension. ZERO. The gases in the sun are really hot, around 2'000'000 degrees hot. There is also alot of them, so dense that it's 200 times the density of Earth's air (about the density of cork really). All of this and the immense gravity give it huge pressure. Enough that the gas become both a plasma and a supercritical fluid. What does this mean well... since it has no surface tension it's like the ultimate in soft liquids. So the sun is soft.\n\nAnd hopefully you won't ask me about the viscosity of the plasma, because I have no idea how to figure that out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun#Core"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PkW_yByO7r4"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Neutron_star#Structure"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9rmy0m
|
how do public policy think-tanks work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9rmy0m/eli5_how_do_public_policy_thinktanks_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8ifgpw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They get paid to think about problems and write reports of their conclusions. The analysts that work in these places combine expertise in the subject matter (economics, foreign policy, ...) with critical thinking and analysis skills to explore the problem, the solution space, and possible courses of action."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2gu714
|
Were the Persians and the Chinese empires aware of each other's existence and did they frequently interact?
|
I imagine that the Persians and Chinese knew about each other since even the Romans and Chinese had vague interactions with each other. The Persians, being between the Romans and Chinese, must have interacted with the Chinese. Was there any direct trade or were there any wars between the two?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2gu714/were_the_persians_and_the_chinese_empires_aware/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckmkbtq",
"ckmtyec"
],
"score": [
62,
4
],
"text": [
"The first known interaction was reported by Zhang Qian, a Chinese explorer. He wrote that they were an advanced civilization, and commented on their currency, wine, cultivation and walled cities and also of the amount of cities. This was in 126 BCE and the two people started trading embassies and missions and had a peaceful relationship. \n\nAs they entered the Sassanid Period the two civilizations benefited greatly from trade on the silk road and were very close. Both of them worked together to guard the trade routes, and they continued to send missions to each other. The Persians were noted to send great entertainers to the Chinese courts.\n\nAfter Persia was conquered by Islam, the relations continued. However in 751, the Abbasid Caliphate and the Chinese had a border dispute. They proceeded to battle over Syr Dara at the Battle of Talas. The Persians won a great victory, and after the battle, relations returned to normal, trading envoys, goods and missions between the two, and working together.",
"The problem with this question is that there have been Persian and Chinese Empire**s** more or less continuously for the past 2200 years. The Persian heartland of Fars and the Chinese Central Plains together represent two of the oldest and most continuous loci of political power on the planet. In the context of trade and contact, for much of the past thousand years Persian was the lingua franca of the Indian Ocean, which historically probably the most dynamic commercial zone on the planet, and China was the largest economy.\n\nIf you mean during the Parthian period, yes, [the Chinese knew about them](_URL_0_), but we can't say much for the reverse because we actually know distressingly little about the Parthians."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/hhshu/hou_han_shu.html#sec10"
]
] |
|
2htcv7
|
When and how did pop culture associate all things Nuclear with the color green?
|
It seems that every time we see nuclear waste/ materials in pop culture (especially cartoons) it has a distinctive green glow. Where did this trope come from? Nuclear materials rarely glow, and in the rare cases that they do, the color is blue, not green.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2htcv7/when_and_how_did_pop_culture_associate_all_things/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckw7kbp"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Radioactive materials are often portrayed as green because back in the mid 20th century, there was a trend of making glowing watch faces with radioactive paint mixed with phosphorus. As you say, radioactivity is impossible to see with the naked eye and if you have Cherenkov radiation, it's a visible blue. The phosphorus interacting with the radioactive decay is what makes a green glow. As time went on, the glow of the phosphorus was associated with radiation. As was the case with these watch faces. Some were even made with radium.\n\nThese sorts of watches were pretty popular and had to be hand painted. Sadly the women who made them had horrible amounts of cancer from working with all these radioactive materials. \n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2008/05/20/2249925.htm"
]
] |
|
4v3phu
|
why do you need to pay to get a divorce and pay to get married?
|
Update: Thank you guys for educating me!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4v3phu/eli5_why_do_you_need_to_pay_to_get_a_divorce_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5v6phv",
"d5v9nn2",
"d5visau"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because it requires paperwork which your government has decided it will charge a fee to process.\n\nGenerally it is a nominal fee. Is ~$10 really stopping anyone from getting hitched?",
"Previous answers are correct.\n\nGovernments have to decide, for each service they offer, whether to charge a fee or to use tax money -- either way the staff need to be paid.\n\nUsually if the service benefits very large numbers of people, or if it's for poor people, they use tax money. But if it's for just one person or family at a time, and it's not specially focused on the poor, it seems fairer that the person benefiting from the service would pay for it.",
"Why does it cost money to get divorced?\n\nBecause it's worth it!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1k3r77
|
How common was the surname 'Hitler' in Germany/Austria prior to the 1930s? Did people later drop it because of its connotations?
|
What about other notorious dictators/fascists in Germany and elsewhere?
I seem to recall the first name 'Adolf' or 'Adolph' is relatively common; I think there's a Joseph Conrad book where it is used for the main character.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k3r77/how_common_was_the_surname_hitler_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbl2xeo",
"cbl3281",
"cbl5mu4",
"cbl7k7q",
"cbl8fx9",
"cblbeog",
"cble5ws",
"cblf8wn"
],
"score": [
385,
64,
7,
14,
8,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"This is some anecdotal evidence.\n\nThe name \"Adolf\" was a relatively common one in Belgium prior to World War II. One of the most famous 19th century Belgian politicians was [Adolf Daens](_URL_1_). After World War 2, the name died out. Parents stopped naming their babies Adolf, but I don't know if existing \"Adolfs\" changed their name. Nowadays the frst name is non-existant here.\n\nSidenote: post-WW2, a lot of Belgian names were based on American/English names such as Danny, Willy, Ronny, Michael, Daisy, Bettybut are uncommon these days for newborns.\n\nRegarding the name \"Hitler\". His father, Alois Hitler, was actually born Alois Schicklgruber. He started (officially) using his stepfather's name, Hiedler, in the 1870's. That name got registered as Hitler for unknown reasons. So, Hitler's father was actually the first person to take on the name of Hitler. From there, it's relatively easy to track Hitler's (male) relatives after World War II. [William Patrick Hitler](_URL_0_). He was a British nephew of Hitler and joined the US Navy in 1941. He later changed his name to Stuart-Houston. \nHitler's half-nephew, Heinz Hitler, died in World War II leaving no children behind. \n\nI couldn't find anything else on other male relatives of Hitler, so I think the name naturally went extinct after world war II with the exception of William Patrick Hitler.\n\nI don't know about the name Schicklgruber however.",
"Hitler was not a common name in that time. In fact, Hitlers father \"invented\" that name. Alois Hitler, Adolfs' father was considerd to be an illegitimate child of a Farmer in Lower Austria, who was called \"Hiedler\". Alois was called \"Schickelgruber\" after his Mother. After the death of Alois' alleged real father he changed his name into his fathers name, and changed it to Hitler. It is not clear why he did this. \n\nHilter also had siblings. Some of them changed their surname even before Adolf Hitler became \"the Füher\" because he didn't wanted the public to know about his family. E.g. Paula Hitler, Adolfs Sister changed her name to \"Wolf\"(=Wulf). \n\nSome of the Hilter offspring still live today, but they have changed their names. In fact, the Name Hitler doesn't excist anymore in Germany or Austria\n\nOther Realtives of the NSDAP-Leaders like Göring have decided to sterilize themself, because of the difficulties with their Name.",
"[Here are some statistics](_URL_0_) concerning the French cognate (\"Adolphe\") of the first name Adolf (abscissa is year and ordinate is the number of males born in that year who received \"Adolphe\" as first name).",
"New York Times: Three Quiet Brothers on Long Island, All of Them Related to Hitler\n\nNone have children, it was rumored that they made a pact to end the Hitler bloodline.\n\n_URL_0_",
" > What about other notorious dictators/fascists in Germany and elsewhere?\n\nIn cases where the surname is common, at least, it doesn't seem to have had a large effect. Francisco Franco was dictator of Spain for years, and yet today we still have the [president of Paraguay](_URL_1_) and [an American actor](_URL_0_) named Franco. And the surname of the Greek dictator of 1967-74, Georgios Papadopoulos, is still one of the most common Greek names (it means something like \"son of a priest\").",
"I've always wondered if he had the civil/parish documents destroyed for some reason, once he came to power.\n\nBut perhaps reality is simpler.\n\n",
"Hitler was a rare last name but it did exist, and some Hitlers did change their names (including relatives of Adolf). For example, in letters to the editor [here](_URL_0_),a few people talk about their families changing their names from Hitler.\n\nAdolf died in popularity after WWII in Germany, Germany, Switzerland and France where the name had some presence (as Adolf, Adolph or Adolphe). In Spain, which did not fight in WWII, the name didn't get such terrible connotations and Adolfo is an acceptable normal thing to name a child. I have a Spanish friend named Adolfo myself.",
"i have a only slightly related question which i wanted to ask for quite some time. When i worked for a newspaper in Germany, people often sent postcards to take part in sweepstakes organized by the newspaper. There were quite a number of people born 1943-45 who were named Adolf or even Adolphine (the female version). \nAre there any records what happened when the parents of those children claimed to not have been nazis after the war?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_Patrick_Hitler",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolf_Daens"
],
[],
[
"http://www.meilleursprenoms.com/stats/histogram.php3?recherche=Adolphe&image.x=0&image.y=0"
],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2006/04/24/nyregion/24patchogue.html?pagewanted=all"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Franco",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federico_Franco"
],
[],
[
"www.theguardian.com/notesandqueries/query/0,5753,-57564,00.html"
],
[]
] |
|
9i5n8z
|
how can we drive for minutes, maybe even hours, without really paying attention to the road? i have daydreamed and come back and not known what has happened the past 15 minutes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9i5n8z/eli5_how_can_we_drive_for_minutes_maybe_even/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6h1l2w",
"e6h1rx0",
"e6h1s50",
"e6h1u6o",
"e6h1xdq",
"e6h24fu",
"e6h2a4n"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
7,
27,
20,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Seriously, I kind of shutter every time it happens",
"Driving involves a lot of habits and muscle memory. You do it so much your body just learns how to do it on it's own. Basically your subconcious kinda takes over the driving thing leaving you free to daydream. This is fine if you were on a open road with no traffic or hazards but in the real world the environment is always changing which makes that kind of driving dangerous. Your subconcious is great at the basic repetitive task of keeping the vehicle at speed and between the lines but it has no clue how to deal with other stuff like traffic or pedestrians, so it just doesn't. If you don't snap out of it in time you'll just run into someone/thing. ",
"Ever done a mundane task at work and don’t really have to think about it? Same process. Your body just goes into autopilot",
"Not remembering what happened for the last 15 minutes doesn't mean you weren't reasonably alert during that period, it just means that you weren't forming long term memories of what happened. It is possible for that part of your brain to take a break because whatever is happening is so irrelevant that there is no need to store it beyond the short term. The result is you have no memory of that period but if something unexpected happened you would still be able to react to it.",
"It's called [Highway Hypnosis](_URL_1_) which is a form of [Automaticity](_URL_0_).\n\nThe short version is that for tasks like driving, the thing you're doing is relatively simple. Stay in the lines, go about this fast, stay a certain distance from other cars, etc. As such once you have a certain amount of practice at doing it you don't really need to think about it as long as nothing unusual happens.",
"To put it simply, your brain filters out useless or redundant information, such as memories of extremely repetitive or monotonous tasks. \nIf you’ve ever been doing a job and zoned out for hours without realizing it, it’s effectively the same thing. \nThere’s no reason for your brain to store your memories of that time, so it doesn’t.",
"I get scared witless when I realize I’ve been driving on autopilot. It’s truly scary stuff. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Automaticity",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Highway_hypnosis"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
82r2er
|
Would rain droplets on a lower gravity planet be larger, on average, compared to our own planet?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/82r2er/would_rain_droplets_on_a_lower_gravity_planet_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvcexnk",
"dvcf1gw",
"dvcfcli",
"dvcn0u0",
"dvczc52"
],
"score": [
20,
108,
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Disregarding all of the minor/major changes that lowering gravity would do to atmospheric formation of clouds, etc., and we accepted for the sake of the question that identical precipitation clouds are forming on this planet in relation to what we experience here on Earth:\n\nI would think that with lower gravity the droplets formed would need to reach a higher \"critical mass\" before they could break from suspension in the atmosphere and fall as conventional rain. Obviously this mass point would change based on density of the atmosphere, ambient temperature at that altitude and more, but again, I'm saying that in identical circumstances as Earth save for lower gravity, I would theorize that yes, rain droplets would need to be larger due to a lessened force acting against their atmospheric suspension.",
"I'm by no means an expert, but my understanding as a mechanical engineer is that the shape and size of rain droplets depend on 3 sets of parameters:\n\n1, the acceleration due to gravity (9.81 m/s^2 on earth)\n\n2, the fluid dynamic properties of the atmosphere (namely density and viscosity of the air)\n\n3, the fluid dynamic properties of the rain water (again density, viscosity, and other effects such as surface tension)\n\nThe size and shape of rain drops represents an equilibrium in the interaction between all of these parameters, so changing any of them will alter the result.\n\nNow someone with more fluids experience than me can explain what would happen to the drops if they have less acceleration.\n\n[edited for formatting]",
"I feel like this is a hard question to answer without knowing atmospheric composition... Presumably, if Earth had lower gravity, its likely that larger drops would form because the terminal velocity of the drop would be lower.\n\nA big part of the drop size is determined by the relationship between velocity, air density, and surface tension. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Raindrop size is a balance between surface tension of the drop, aerodynamic forces from its terminal fall speed and force from collisions with other drops. \n\nIn general, reduced gravity would result in a lower terminal velocity and increase the size drops could grow to before being torn apart by aerodynamic forces (assuming pressures and temperatures like that of earth).\n\nThere would likely be some feedback from collision dynamics as well as from reduced efficiency of surface tension of larger mass drops that would lead to a nonlinear change in the size dustribution. Lamb and Verlinde provide a detailed explanation of the microphysics involved \n\n",
"This 2012 Nature paper, [Air density 2.7 billion years ago limited to less than twice modern levels by fossil raindrop imprints](_URL_0_) (paywalled, I can provide a pdf if anyone wants), says that raindrop size is unrelated to atmospheric density (although raindrop velocity is related to it).\n\n\nI'm not sure if that also applies to pressure, though I would imagine it does, in which case raindrop size will only depend on the species you're raining out. In that case, all water raindrops would be the same size (surface tension being the key factor).\n\n\n\nSidenote, other people have mentioned it, but in general atmospheric pressure and planet size are fairly independent, so lower gravity isn't all that important a parameter. Venus is about the same size as Earth but has 100x as much atmosphere. Mars is about half the size of the Earth but has less than 1% its atmospheric pressure. Titan is a bit smaller than mars but has a higher pressure (and significantly higher mass) atmosphere than Earth. Atmospheres are a tiny component of the total mass of a planet, so it's pretty easy to have way more atmosphere without asking much of your planet, allowing them to vary wildly."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/06/2000px-Raindrops_sizes.svg_.webp"
],
[],
[
"https://www.nature.com/articles/nature10890"
]
] |
||
6st27k
|
How did Venice lose her maritime importance while the less-powerful Genoa maintained as Italy's largest port today?
|
Today's Venice is a famous premier tourist destination thanks to her unique city scenes that are full of canals. In fact, tourism is the main driver of the Venetian economy today. However, before Venice became a tourism-focused city, she had been the center of one of the most powerful maritime empires in the Mediterranean until the 19th century.
How did Venice decay from being one of the most powerful maritime entities to being a backwater that now relies solely on tourism? I read that the Venetian Republic was powerful because it held a trade monopoly between the East and the West until the rise of Ottoman Empire took away this monopoly. Is this loss of monopoly truly the main reason behind Venice's fall?
Also, whether the rise of Ottoman Empire was the reason behind Venice's fall or not, why did the same cause not lead to the fall of Genoa - a comparable but less-powerful maritime republic? In fact, Genoa today has even gained more importance as Italy's largest port while Venice never regained her former glory. I am curious why the two Italian maritime republics had two vastly different futures.
---
**tl;dr version**: Why did Venice lose her maritime importance, and why didn't the same cause lead to Genoa's fall as well?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6st27k/how_did_venice_lose_her_maritime_importance_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlfm6li",
"dlfnqgi",
"dlfrp4x",
"dlfrrr0",
"dlftfgc",
"dlg4djb"
],
"score": [
27,
87,
6,
542,
85,
7
],
"text": [
"More to the point, why did Genoa become an industrial power, and Venice did not?",
"I can answer at least to the part about Venice's decline. What you said about the Ottomans wasn't entirely correct. When the Ottomans came into power, they were perceived as an enemy of Europe. This stopped flat the entry of Silk Road goods into Europe. The main exception to this, actually, was Venice. Many merchants in Venice struck deals with the Ottomans to trade those Silk Road goods, giving them a monopoly on these goods when trading with the rest of Europe.\n\nWhat caused Venice's decline was the discovery of alternate trading routes with Asia, because suddenly Venice lost their monopoly. This situation was further worsened by sporadic conflicts with the Ottomans which plummeted Venice into increasing irrelevance.\n\nAs for industrialization, it is important to consider Venice's position as a small island in the Adriatic. This means that any and all raw materials coming to Venice have to incur import costs. This wasn't a problem when the city flourished, as wealth was abundant to cover these costs. But since the decline, these costs have actually become a large obstacle to the survival of the city. Venice in modern days is suffering from depopulation and is in a state of disrepair, a truly sad state for the Serenissima.",
"I have been studying quite a bit of Mediterranean history at university, and what others have said about the decline of Venice is very true. Discovery of the cape route most certainly the decline in trade for Venice, but also the entry of the English and Dutch in the 16th and 17th centuries (the so-called Invasion of the Northerners) undercut their monopoly heavily.\nOn the other hand, Genoa was already mostly out of the trading business by the 16th century with the loss of their Black Sea and Aegean colonies. But they remained financially very central to Europe through their banking business and they were able to profit from the growth of long distance trade by transforming their port into a free port (although mostly limited to grain). Opening up the port meant that Genoa became a point from which grain was distributed to the rest of the peninsula, and in term kept traffic flowing through it as the Genoese got into other businesses.\n\nI would suggest looking at works by Thomas Allison Kirk for Genoa and for Venice Frederic Lane's works are pretty good. Maria Fusaro (one of my tutors) has some works on the English 'invasion' which I highly recommend as well.",
"I think you are conflating together some things that happened centuries apart. In fact Genoa's mercantile empire declined faster and more dramatically than the Venetian one. To the point that Genoa essentially lost political independence much earlier than Venice.\n\nA first phase of relative decline of the Republic begun with the long conflict with Venice, culminating in the War of Chioggia in the 1380s. Genoa's expansion was ended and most of the resources of the Republic went into consolidation of its oligarchic structure and the former trading empire evolved into a prominent banking venture. The founding of the Bank of St. George in 1407 marked a turning point in the evolution of the Republic that, surrounded by more powerful nations, had to suffer repeated periods of French and Milanese occupation in the XV Century. The fall of Constantinoples - the Genoese had been traditional allies of the fading Bizantine Empire enjoying special trading privileges - was another blow to their trading ambitions.\n\nIt was in fact the Bank which helped the City survive and avoid permanent conquest: in the XVI Century the Genoese bankers became prominent lenders to the Crown of Spain. Under the rule of the Doria family, strong of the ties with the Spanish kingdom, the city saw a period of resurgence. Noetheless the absolute prominence of the Bank within the City meant a growing identification of the Administration with the Bank's \"shareholders\". Very few most renown families held control of the Bank, which was to say of the entire economy of the City, as the Bank also oversaw traffics, tariffs and taxes, held lands under direct or indirect control; it also brought a situation where the leadership was essentially extracting money by financing no longer the debt of foreign nations but the public debt of the city itself. \n\nThe decline of the Spanish finances during the late XVI early XVII Century marked therefore a new period of decline for the Genoese; again they were subject to political and military pressure from outside forces: the French and the Austrians took turns as major influences until, after the brief restoration of the Republic during the Napoleonic Campaign in Italy, Genoa ended up with the Kingdom of Sardinia. Which is also the moment when some resurgence of its trading nature begun, as it became the main port of the Kingdom under the reactionary Carlo Felice and his more progressive son Carlo Alberto. \n\n\nIn any case, despite the glorious parenthesis of the XVI Century, the Genoese decline was more marked than the Venetian one. Venice retained a larger trading influence for longer time, a larger degree of political independence and, despite being forced to abandon its policy of conquest on the mainland, roughly after the War of the League of Cambrai a the beginning of the XVI Century, a larger mainland crossed by some trading routes. The progressive erosion of their commercial empire under pressure by the Ottomans led Venice to a similar evolution in a conservative-oligarchic sense. Here though, having retained a significant portion of land, the Venetian leadership was heavily based on land possession and the public debt was therefore transofrmed in a series of concessions - at times very unfortunate - that developed a system of internal tariffs and borders, which ultimately resulted in a general backwardness of the agrarian and (almost non existent) industrial production of the main land in the late XVIII Century.\n\n\nBy the time of the Restoration, both Venice and Genoa were in deep economic and political decline; but Venice was perhaps in slightly better condition. Unfortunately for them - if the annexation to the Austro Hungarian Empire brought a progressive elimination of the internal borders, as the Austrians used the Venetian mainland as a pathway to their more advanced Lombard holdings - the Austrians already had a main port on the Adriatic sea: Trieste. And they saw no purpose in developing another one, despite the Venetian maritime tradition becoming important for the Empire.\n\n\nBy the way, the port of Genoa isn't necessarily the largest port of Italy by every indicator - for example Trieste carries more tonnage as you can see [here](_URL_0_) and Venice is far from a merely turistic city (you usally don't visit the port and industrial town of Mestre-Marghera because frankly they are desperately unpleasant to the eye).\n\n\nThe resurgence of Venice as an industrial pole is usually tied to the personal efforts of Giuseppe Volpi, who is famous for an infinite list of things: the Cinema Festival, being in charge of the finances under Fascism, the creation of the often renamed Adriatic Society of Energy, pioneering the Hydroelectric sector with the construction of Alpine dams, etc.\n\nThis process continued during the Italian economic boom in the post WW2 period and would bring us to cross the 20 years barrier. \nAlso it must be noted that there are geographical limitations to the access to the Venetian lagoon that have made harder to logistically accomodate large volumes of traffic; essentially the need to develop and maintain channels dug into the lagoon.\n\n\n\nFor sources I used G. Candeloro's *Storia dell'Italia moderna*.\n\nI also used some data from [this publication of the City of Genoa](_URL_0_)\n\n\n\nEdit: Added a couple of sentences that were left in my fingers when I posted. \n\nAlso I think I broke the record for the use of the adjective prominent...\n\nFinally, this is a long, long subject to deal with and I am not entirely familiar with it, as Candeloro's work mostly focused on the condition of pre unitary Italy and the nature of the economical relations within the various states. I hope someone may fill in the gaps I left; also you may want to know more on the Venetian development process after WW1 but of that I know very little unfortunately.",
"Timely question! I'm actually reading Alvise Zorzi's *Venezia Austriaca* right now! \n\nI've been going a bit crazy writing tediously winding posts about Italian economic history, so I'll try to be more concise here. The short answer is: The Railroad. \n\nFirst things first: Venice continued to be the political, economic, and social center of the Republic of Venice even after the stratospheric rise in Atlantic trade made Mediterranean trade comparatively less of an economic force. [Further, the relationship between Venice and the Ottoman Empire was more complex than it is commonly depicted](_URL_0_). Just because northeastern Europe accelerated doesn't mean that economic activity in southern Europe stopped altogether. Far from being a \"backwater,\" to this day Venice is the political and administrative capital of the Veneto region, one of the most industrious in Italy. Although the historic portion of the city only houses twenty thousand people in a space built for ten times as many, the area administrated by the city council extends over multiple islands in the lagoon and far into the mainland, governing two hundred and fifty thousand people. The Venezia-Pedua-Treviso urban area houses over two and a half million people and is home to three universities, two airports, and [according to an OECD study](_URL_1_), manufactures 23% of Italian exports. So just because the historic center of Venice is swamped with tourists doesn't mean there isn't anything else going on nearby. \n\nHowever, a depopulation like that experienced in Venice's city center has no precedent in Italy. Once the Republic of Venice was amalgamated into Napoleon's Kingdom of Italy, and later handed off to the Austrian Empire's constituent Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, two things happen: the apparatus of government moves to Milan, and Triest exists. You see, although Venice was awarded the title of \"Joint Capital\" with Milan, apart from the pomp and circumstance surrounding occasional royal visits, the city housed none of the offices of government above the provincial level. The city's educated young men hoping for a career in government found that they had to move to the Lombard capital, and often took their families with them. On the entrepreneurial level too, although the region was (and still is!) economically vibrant, local entrepreneurs found increasingly few reasons to visit the city from their estates and manufactures in places like Treviso, Vicenza, and Verona. Of course, they city population had already been on the decline as emergent manufacturing shifted the economic focus from the city to the mainland, but as long as the city was the gateway to the Republic it retained some economic relevancy; annexation by the Austrian Empire ended that. The reason for that is the second point I brought up: Triest. The Austrian Empire's historic port on the Adriatic was not only closer to the Empire's heartland, but also not in the middle of a lagoon. The Empire's industrialists could unload goods from ships directly to railcars in Triest, while in Venice they had to load them onto river-boats, and in a second moment load them onto railcars. River navigation had been in use for hundreds of years, and the navigable river and canal network in northern Italy was certainly extensively developed, but could in no way compare to the boon in transport and industry brought by railroad. \n\nIn addition, Austrian policies often disproportionately favored Triest. In Venice, an early boon thanks to the Austrian fleet being based there was soon erased after a series of mutinies triggered a policy of de-italianization in the navy, in addition to its relocation to, you guessed it, Triest. The move was doubly beneficial, since the triestine seaport was also revamped and updated to accomodate the move. Also, because Triest was the closer port of entry for Austrian entrepreneurs, it was declared a duty-free zone, with the natural consequence that lot of Italian trade that had previously passed through Venice was also redirected there. Edit: It's worth saying that there *were* attempts to connect Venice to the mainland via rail, however at the time of the revolt of 1848 the line stopped at Verona (and just two years prior stopped even earlier, in Vicenza). By 1857, the line to Milan was completed, but that same year Triest's connection to Vienna was also finished, sealing that port's position as the preferential point of entry for the Empire's Austrian, Czech, and Hungarian realms. \n\nOnce Italy was unified, there were some attempts to stop the city's moribund trajectory: the Università Ca'Foscari was founded, which was meant to be a training academy for the Italian Kingdom's diplomatic corps. Starting in the early 20th century, a large port complex was constructed just across the lagoon in Mestre and Marghera, and the historic center was connected to these facilities (and the mainland) with a railway bridge in the 1930s. After WWII, the government sanctioned a large petrochemical refinery to be constructed just across the lagoon. However, if these policies were meant to revitalize the city, they were sorely misguided: with so many new structures just across the lagoon, the historic center depopulated even more rapidly. \n\nThe story of Genoa was somewhat different. After it's zenith in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, it would first become a puppet of the Milanese, and later construct itself as a client-state of Spain, giving up sovereignty and in return becoming an important financial center. In a twist of fate that had a surprisingly positive effect, the Congress of Vienna awarded the Republic of Genoa to the Kingdom of Sardinia as a reward for the little kingdom's firm anti-Napoleonic stance. The Kingdom of Sardinia was a bizarre polity, centered on Piedmont but in possession of its namesake island since 1718 due to curious circumstances following the War of Spanish Succession. Under Piedmontese rule, Genoa would again flourish: the \"Royal Road\" connecting the seaport to Turin became an important transit line in northwestern Italy, while in 1844 King Charles Albert commissioned the Genoa-Turin railway, which would become one of Italy's most important industrial axis. Indeed, The Turin-Milan-Genoa triangle would become the country’s industrial heartland after unification; with Genoa the key point of departure to and from Milan and Turin. \n\nIf you'd like to know more about Italian economic history, I'd suggest the following:\n\nDavis, John A. *Italy in the Nineteenth Century, 1796-1900*. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2000. Print. \n\nAnd if you can read Italian:\n\nRomani, Mario. *Storia Economica d’Italia nel secolo XIX.* Bologna, Italy: Il Mulino. 1983. Print.",
"[Paul Strathern](_URL_0_) argues that, among other things, the fall of the ERE and rise of the Ottoman Empire was one of the tipping points in Venetian history. Venice, in many ways, was *not* ideally situated for the type of commerce it mainly engaged in, to the point where the Council of Ten considered leaving and being the Republic of Venice somewhere other than the Venetian islands. \n\nPart of what had previously made Venice successful were lucrative trade deals that the Republic had made with the ERE, including trading rights in Constantinople and other major ports. With the ERE on its deathbed and the Ottomans rising, the Venetians had hoped to renegotiate these trade rights with the Sultan, which is likely part of the reason why they delayed a relief fleet which was meant to go to Constantinople. However, that did not work out as well as they had hoped and the Ottomans were far less willing to negotiate trade deals than the Greeks had been. \n\nIn addition, the 15th century was filled with many economic and technological changes, one of the most important being the Portuguese navigating a route around the Cape of Africa. So diminished trade opportunities, foreign competition, and a less-than ideal geographic location were factors to the decline."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.infodata.ilsole24ore.com/2016/02/17/traffico-merci-nei-porti-italiani-37-le-tonnellate-movimentate-container-a-05/?refresh_ce=1"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6diwuv/how_does_history_regard_the_venetian_republics/di5g5xx/",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=b3Vzk0BFb24C&pg=PA31#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Venetians-History-Marco-Polo-Casanova-ebook/dp/B00GJ7WXR6"
]
] |
|
3q9ue1
|
Since DNA is an acid, is there such thing as DNA salts?
|
EDIT: Woah this blew up
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3q9ue1/since_dna_is_an_acid_is_there_such_thing_as_dna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwdbt0q",
"cwdqfn2"
],
"score": [
2385,
95
],
"text": [
"Not only can DNA exist as a salt, but this is pretty much its standard form in the solid state. In an aqueous medium, DNA exists as a conjugate base with negatively charged phosphate groups stabilized by a bunch of [counterions](_URL_1_) that are floating around in the solution such as Na^(+). When you precipitate the DNA (e.g. as is most commonly done through the [addition of ethanol](_URL_0_)), these cations will bind to the phosphate groups and the DNA will precipitate out as a salt.",
"Interesting tidbit: The salt of inosinate (RNA monomer, equivalent for the present question) is a common food additive. One of the many umami flavor molecules. I think it was discovered by the same guy who first found MSG.\nIt is likely that the neutral molecule is an internal salt - phosphate deprotonated and the base ring is protonated. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethanol_precipitation",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Counterion"
],
[]
] |
|
23u67r
|
why is it impossible to stop thinking?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23u67r/eli5_why_is_it_impossible_to_stop_thinking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch0nhof",
"ch0p64k",
"ch0ph3r",
"ch0pozs",
"ch0pw9y",
"ch0qejr",
"ch0r79l"
],
"score": [
29,
5,
9,
4,
5,
20,
2
],
"text": [
"Some kinds of meditation are the attempt to silence your thoughts. Through willpower and training you can silence the internal monologue of your thoughts. Of course your brain is still functioning and processing information, it does that even when you're asleep.",
"it isn't, it took me some self control but i can stop my verbal thought at will for however long i will.",
"Since I don't feel anybody here has adequately answered the question directly, I will take it upon myself.\n\nThe reason WHY it is impossible (or near impossible)?\n\nEvolutionarily, thinking means you're doing something, usually productive. Be it food, comfort, sex, success, understanding, your thinking is always trying to help you in a potential scenario. Those who didn't think as often ended up not being able to account for many outcomes, and died/failed to reproduce because of surprises they didn't account for.\n\nIn addition, constantly thinking keeps you alert and aware of your surroundings. It's like trying to run a program on a computer. Would you rather run it on the computer that's already on and warmed up, or the one that's off and needs to be booted up? It's not much of a difference for a mind, but biologically, split-seconds save lives and pass genes.\n\n**TL;DR: You're always thinking because it helps you react to possible and unexpected situations**",
"Hard* not impossible.",
"It isn't. The only problem is, you cant catch yourself not thinking.",
"It's not impossible, it requires a lot of practice. Here is how we start learning to silence what we call the \"monkey brain\" in zen:\n\nSit in a quiet room and close your eyes. We are going to only focus on breathing. Breathe in to an eight count. Count the numbers in your head. I know that this is thinking, but it's just how we start. Hold the breath for an eight count, release on an eight count, and hold your exhale for an eight count.\n\nOther thoughts and pictures will enter your mind as you do this. Every time this happens, say to yourself \"thinking,\" push it aside having noted it as such, and resume your counting.\n\nStart off only doing this for five or so minutes at a time, slowly building up to twenty minutes or so. After a time (you won't realize when), you'll become comfortable doing this without counting your breathing and will have achieved being able \"not to think.\" You should be able to clear your mind at will at this point and have completed the first step of learning to meditate.",
"Would you even know if you stopped thinking?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2utq0y
|
During the American civil war Why weren't bayonet charges used often?
|
I read that during the war European observers were shocked to find that rather than shoot each-other for a bit then charge the Union and Confederacy would just line up and shoot each-other until one or the other would collapse more often then not.
Why weren't bayonet charges used as often as among European armies?
was it cultural, officers not trained with that in mind what?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2utq0y/during_the_american_civil_war_why_werent_bayonet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cobp6yh",
"cobvrl5"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"it appears to be inexperience by these armies. in the beginning of the war, the armies grew in size, many times their normal peacetime strength and so you have inexperienced leaders at every level; and large numbers of raw recruits. Frank Vizetelly an English war correspondent makes mention of this in a National Geographic article in April of 1961 (100th anniversary issue).\n\nI seem to recall that as the war went on bayonet charges were used more, at Spotsylvania, the Crater, Ft. Pillow, etc. These are all in 1864. ",
"I think that one of the reasons was because of the improved accuracy of the new rifled muskets. They could be effective out past 500 yards while older smoothbore muskets were only effective 50-100 yards. So getting close for a bayonet charge when the enemy has rifles would be suicide."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
385405
|
caitlyn jenner in vanity fair and the big deal of it?
|
I dont follow these sorts of things but it has popped up in my FB feed and people are praising her for being a strong women and all that.
What is the significance of this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/385405/eli5caitlyn_jenner_in_vanity_fair_and_the_big/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crscuae",
"crscwb5",
"crscyhq",
"crsd50q"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Caitlyn Jenner was formerly Bruce Jenner, an internationally renowned Olympic athlete who was the face of masculinity and athleticism in the 1970s. She recently came out as transgender. She is very likely the biggest celebrity in history to come out as trans.",
"She is transgender, and this is her first public appearance as a woman. She was a big Olympic hero back in the day and become famous again more recently in reality tv. She was formerly Bruce Jenner. ",
"A famous Olympic athlete named Bruce Jenner (who's been in the news a lot in recent years as he was married to the Kardashian family's mom), came out as transgender a little while back. Since Bruce was a huge star and pretty much the national standard for masculinity back when he was competing, this was pretty big news, and raised a lot of people's awareness of transgendered people.\n\nSo Vanity Fair has now given Caitlyn (formerly Bruce) Jenner a with no other headlines obscuring the picture - pretty much unheard of for a magazine like this. Since she's one of the most famous transgendered people ever to come out and is being interviewed in a very popular mainstream magazine, it's a pretty big deal for LGBT awareness.",
"Caitlyn is the new name of Bruce Jenner, who recently came out publically as a male-to-female transgender. She is known as one of the world's most celebrated Olympic athletes and a symbol of American triumph in the Cold War, having beaten the returning Russian champion of the Decathlon and setting a new world record.\n\nShe was the picture of peak masculinity, and for her to self-identify as a woman - in a time when transgender people are facing a lot of distrust, hatred and even violence - is seen as opening doors for acceptance of the LGBT community. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2r6wzq
|
why is the credit card considered so secure if all the information required to make a purchase is on the card?
|
There isn't any memorisation (such as PINs) aspect to the credit card. To make a purchase from one, you just need the physical (or a photo of the) card.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r6wzq/eli5_why_is_the_credit_card_considered_so_secure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnd0v17",
"cnd1ttu"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Though chip/PIN aspect protects the cardholder and merchant from one type of fraud, the security procedures and insurance of the entire industry protects both from the other type of fraud.\n\nLet's say I have your credit card information. I can make a purchase online, but I generally need an address to ship it to, or I need to be somewhere to cash in (e.g. plane tickets). I get caught both ways.\n\nLet's say I am able to get a store to ring in a purchase from just the plastic card (no chip/swipe) or just from the numbers. Even if I get away with that, chances are that there will be a report soon enough (either from the cardholder, or the bank's security people) that the card or card information was suspected as stolen.\n\nIn most cases, the cardholder is protected (insurance). The merchant could also be protected, depending on whether or not the employee ringing in the purchase checked ID, signature, or phoned the bank to make sure the purchase was okay.\n\nEdit -fdjklas;",
"I work at Saks and we see significant credit card fraud at our store. For this reason we don't have a customer swipe or pin pad, you have to hand your card to the cashier, we frequently ask for ID as well. Banks and CC companies are getting more vigilant as well, we frequently have cards declined because people are traveling and our store is located in a high end outlet mall. So the bank will see charges from the Gucci outlet, the Armani store and Burberry and freeze the card because it's outside your normal spending habits. Even so, we lose money to fraud, although I don't know exactly how much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2qx085
|
Is air indoors more polluted than outdoors?
|
Was just wondering about this, and if so, why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2qx085/is_air_indoors_more_polluted_than_outdoors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnarsi0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think it seriously depends on the situation but the EPA suggests that particle levels are the same or lower than outdoors in houses without smoking ([source](_URL_1_)). The Texas Commission on Environmental Quality (discovered via Google, see [source](_URL_0_)) suggests that indoor levels could be a few times higher, and given some things I've read following links on these two websites, I think it comes down to mostly factors such as burning things (obviously) or heating systems and proper ventilation.\n\nI'll add that in places with extreme outdoor pollution, such as smog, indoors is almost certainly lower, especially with simple filtration systems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.tceq.state.tx.us/airquality/sip/criteria-pollutants/sip-pm",
"http://www.epa.gov/iaq/rpart.html"
]
] |
|
1vw2s5
|
why are most corporations considered evil?
|
I have never fully researched or looked into the world of corporations and all the things they do (or don't do) most of what I do know is based on peers or people around me talking about it. For example? Company's like EA or Bayer (knowingly giving medication that could give HIV). I have recently decided to expand my knowledge on this particular topic so I can be well informed and have my own opinion on it as well as information to back my opinion up. It's embarrassing to admit how uninformed I am. I sometimes wonder if I am avoiding it because i know it can be a hard pill to swallow. Any input will be appreciated!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vw2s5/why_are_most_corporations_considered_evil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewbpye",
"cewbt1o",
"cewbv67",
"cewc6oo",
"cewclcx",
"ceweux7"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
7,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Most corporations aren't evil and just do useful things like make your bread for your breakfast toast or make wires for your house.\n\nOf those that are evil often their evilness can be often put down to either to outright corruption in management ranks, which is just the human condition.\n\nAnd secondarily companies often do evil things because traditionally directors (CEOs etc) can be sued personally by the shareholders of that company if they don't act in such a way to make the most possible money. This leads them to make unethical decisions just to make larger profit. Because if they don't. They could potentially be sued by the shareholders for running the business improperly.\n\nSome countries (recently the UK) have passed laws to try and allow the directors more leeway in how they run the company.\n\nI believe in the UK directors of companies are now protected from shareholders sueing the director if the director acted in a fashion that was intended to benefit society or the environment.\n\nA lot of other countries are passing similar laws\n\n",
"No matter how altruistic a company may seem, it's ultimate purpose is survival. \n\nAs a company grows in size and takes on more responsibilities, the situation worsens as the company is faced with more and more difficult decisions. Customer satisfaction becomes increasingly at odds with maintaining profit margin, competition with others, and employee benefits. \n\nOnce the company grows further and takes on large loans and investors from varied groups, it's purpose slowly shifts from survival to dominance, and will ultimately stop at nothing to achieve this.\n\nMy .02$\n\n\"All corporations are foreign.\" - [Immortal Technique](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"A company's reason for existing is to make money for the owner(s) and shareholders. They have no social responsibility except to obey applicable laws.\n\nSome of the things some of them do to make money may be considered questionable or even evil. Take for example Myriad Genetics which owned a patent on methods of testing for genes associated with breast cancer. They could prevent anybody from performing those tests without paying them, despite that those tests were likely to save lives. It also made it difficult to get second opinions from other labs not licensing their technology. It did, however, make them a lot of money, and was perfectly legal until a court case decided otherwise.\n\nEdit: the court case was decided against them because the genes were naturally occurring and their tests were not novel except as they applied to the naturally-occurring genes. The court held that naturally-occurring genes could not be patented.",
"A business main's goal is to make profit. \n\nMost things today now runs like a business. This can include charity, government, and events. The core of it all is that it can only run and survive on one particular resource: Money.\n\nThe more money, the more things they can do like investing, innovating, and spending back into the economy.\n\nCompanies as you have described are portrayed to focus only on the money and not the customer.\n\nWhen a corporation goes public, they sell their stocks to shareholders. The stocks give the shareholder some controls of the company in exchange for their financial investment to the corporation. Now you got shareholders pressuring you to keep making money and you now have a lot less control of your company. You have to balance between running the company and keeping your investors happy. These shareholders will only join in if they find your corporation profitable.\n\nTo me, evil is subjective.\nDo you trust a business that hides their real intentions and claiming to be a \"good company\"?\nOr do you trust a business that is honest with the fact that their goal is focused on the money?\n\nEdit: Added more info on Publicly traded companies.\n",
"If someone wants to take your children's toys, you would react. Corporations start when someone has new ideas, or is lucky, and take a slice of the market share and keep growing, until other corporations or newcomers try to take their share of the market. They then consolidate and adapt the culture of the business, moving jobs to where it is cheaper and less regulated, lobbying politicians, and even financial and other shenanigans.\n\nAre they evil? No, but what they often do is.",
"Many good answers in this thread, but I think the simplest one is this:\n\n\n*Short Term Profit is a temptation that most corporations can't resist.*\n\n\nThe issue is that to pursue the lifeblood of a corporation (money) thousands of decisions must be made. The decisions that lead to money savings and money generation are the ones that are typically going to be chosen. Intended and unintended negative consequences are rarely weighed by those making the decisions, as the corporation's responsibilities are spread out over many groups and individuals.\n\n\nThis is contrasted with a small business that has the decisions and responsibility centralized in the owner's hands, along with the larger scale impact reduced."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/QJuxb7HddOM"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
vqmyu
|
Landing on Mars with a glider?
|
I just saw the video about landing on mars, the [Seven Minutes of Terror](_URL_0_), and I was wondering why they opted to use a rocket landing instead of using a glider. With a glider, they can conserve a lot of resources and power instead of rocket propulsion. Plus, a soft landing is more possible than rockets without kicking up a dust storm.
Does it have something to do with the 100 times thinner atmosphere? Does that affect a gliders ability to soar through the air?
If that the case, would a rocket propelled glider be just as effective to land on Mars?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vqmyu/landing_on_mars_with_a_glider/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c56r80q",
"c56ra8n",
"c56riz1"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
" > Does it have something to do with the 100 times thinner atmosphere\n\nProbably. NASA engineers are smart people and think of all the angles, and then go through rigorous math to compare the price and effectiveness of various techniques. When you're sending something up into space, often the most expensive part of it is sending it up on a rocket *into* space and to Mars. So, I suppose they realized that, in that particular case, a rocket would be lighter, cheaper, and less prone to failure than other alternatives.",
"The wings of the glider would have to be BIG. Very thin atmosphere and the weight of the rover come into play. \n\nOnce those wings get big enough, their own weight comes into play. Also you would have to find a way to make the wings compact enough to be launched in a rocket, then unfurl once they were needed.",
"A very [interesting read](_URL_0_) about this subject from the author of the X-Plane flight simulator.\n\nFor people who are not so well versed in aviation terms, [indicated airspeed](_URL_1_) is sort of an airspeed that takes into account the atmospheric pressure. In a lower pressure the same true airspeed generates less lift but indicated airspeed takes this into account so a plane will always stall at the same indicated airspeed, regardless of the pressure. So when he says there that indicated airspeed is one tenth of the true airspeed on Mars, it means that to generate the same amount of lift you need to go ten times as fast on Mars. So if your plane can take off at 60 knots on Earth, then on Mars the same indicated airspeed would be at 600 knots true airspeed. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pzqdoXwLBT8&feature=player_embedded"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.x-plane.com/adventures/mars.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indicated_airspeed"
]
] |
|
1cc400
|
If you listen to music loudly (via earphones) in a very windy situation, where you can barely hear the music (for example in a convertible going fast), is the music still doing damage to your ears?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cc400/if_you_listen_to_music_loudly_via_earphones_in_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9f3w34",
"c9f3wjx"
],
"score": [
8,
30
],
"text": [
"One of the leading causes of hearing loss for motorcycle riders is \"wind noise.\" So playing music that is even louder than that most definitely has damaging potential. ",
"Yep. Same thing with being at a bar or loud concert and yelling into your friends' ears so that you can hear each other. No different then if someone was yelling into your ear in a quiet room. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.