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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1vdueh
|
how do websites, such as _url_0_, that have no advertisements and provide a free service stay in operation and even grow larger?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vdueh/eli5how_do_websites_such_as_craigslistcom_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cer8xhh",
"cer9cnx",
"cerb6w8"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"The overhead to run craigslist is pretty minimal, meaning much of it is automated and web hosting is pretty cheap these days.\n\nSomeone, somewhere, is running craigslist as a business expense, and using the cost to run as a tax deduction for their other business.",
"Businesses and car dealerships pay to post ads. I think other groups pay as well. ",
"Craigslist specifically operates by charging for certain posts. Here is a list of postings that have a charge and the associated fees:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > 1. Job postings in SF Bay Area—$75 per job per category (e.g. 1 job in 2 categories is $150).\n > \n > 2. Job postings in the following areas—$25 per job per category (e.g. 1 job in 2 categories is $50):\n > Atlanta, Austin, Baltimore, Boston, Central NJ, Charlotte, Chicago, Cincinnati, Cleveland, Columbus, Dallas, Denver,\n > Detroit, Houston, Inland Empire, Jacksonville, Kansas City, Las Vegas, Long Island, Los Angeles, Minneapolis,\n > Nashville, New York City, North Jersey, Orange County, Orlando, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Pittsburgh, Portland, Raleigh,\n > Sacramento, St. Louis , San Antonio, San Diego, Seattle, South Florida, Tampa, Washington DC.\n > \n > 3. Brokered apartment rentals in New York City—$10.\n > \n > 4. Therapeutic services in the United States—$10 (reposting of live ads $5).\n > \n > 5. Tickets by-dealer in the United States—$5.\n > \n > 6. Cars/trucks by-dealer in the United States—$5.\n\nMany companies start out operating at a loss with whatever investment money they have in the early years to build up a user base, then change to another model later on to generate revenue. Facebook is a good example."
]
}
|
[
"craigslist.com"
] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.craigslist.org/about/help/posting_fees"
]
] |
||
1056j8
|
Why is mathematics -- something humans develop in their own heads -- so effective when it comes to describing the external, physical world?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1056j8/why_is_mathematics_something_humans_develop_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ahhhl",
"c6ahj8u",
"c6aj4c5",
"c6alo0a",
"c6amqhb"
],
"score": [
9,
36,
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Perhaps the question can be phrased differently:\n\nHow can humans be so effective at perceiving at describing mathematical patterns inherent to the external, physical world?",
"This is sort of like asking why language is so good at describing the physical world—it's because **we develop the mathematics we need**. Mathematics is a formal tool for studying anything that obeys rules; physics obeys rules, so math is useful for studying it.",
"The other answers are good. It's mysterious. It's beautiful. It's marvellous. We don't know, but we're damn glad it is.\n\nBut on the other hand, it's not THAT mysterious. Humans don't develop mathematics the way they develop, say, a painting. You don't write down an equation, say, or a theorem, and say \"let it be!\". Mathematics is discovered rather than invented. In that way mathematics is much more like a science than an art, and so it's not entirely surprising the two are related. Of course, there's a lot of creativity in mathematics too, a lot of playfulness and a lot of personality, more like art than like sitting in a lab writing down numbers.",
"Because it is, in itself a description of the physical world.\n\nIf I am holding two apples, it is not a construct of my mind that I have two separate objects (without getting into philosophy), and that if I get rid of one, I will have only one. That is a reality of nature. We just made up words to describe it. Math is a collection and application of the terms we use to describe the physical world.\n\nPlus, we invent a lot of it as needed, just like any other tool. For example, there is no inherent \"length\" of an object. We quantify it with largely arbitrary numbering systems that we invent. Once quantified, we can use math to describe that object, and its interactions with other objects. Because the *relationships* between objects are constant, the units we use to measure them remain constant as well. This is the most important reason math works. Because the physical world behaves in predictable ways, the units we use to measure it do as well.\n\nOf course, math doesn't seem to be able to explain everything. There is a lot of randomness in reality that can affect outcomes, and reality rarely exactly matches the math. But that isn't because we \"made math up,\"\nbut because reality is so incredibly complex that we lack the understanding and capability to apply the appropriate math.",
"This article by Wigner (mathematician/quantum physicist, mainly) tries to answer this very question:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Unreasonable_Effectiveness_of_Mathematics_in_the_Natural_Sciences"
]
] |
||
73h2yy
|
why is "w" pronounced "double u" and not "wee"?
|
English consonants are generally sounded out by adding "ee" after the letter, e.g., "Bee" for "B", "Dee" for "D," and so on. So why does W stand out, the only letter that is described using an adjective with another letter of the alphabet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73h2yy/eli5_why_is_w_pronounced_double_u_and_not_wee/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnq8fbn",
"dnq8mk4",
"dnqbcuu"
],
"score": [
5,
13,
3
],
"text": [
"At a very basic level, it's because W literally came from two Us, hence \"double U\". Hundreds of years ago, there was no distinction between U and V. U was written as a V and so two Vs made W. Later, when the distinction between U and V came about, the name for W still carried over, despite V now not being a U anymore.\n\nAlso, this may be why writing W with a curly bottom (so literally two Us) is also acceptable handwriting.",
"Because historically it was a ligature (single graphics shape combining two or more letters) of two U/V. And U and V was the same letter in ancient Latin. Let's start with the classical Latin alphabet:\n\n ABCDEFGHIKLMNOPQRSTVXYZ\n\nThere are no J as I and J were just graphical variants of the same letter. There is also no U or W as U was just different graphical variant of V and W is just double U. Then in middle ages the Latin alphabet started being used to write other European languages. It was needed to somehow distinguish sound \"U\" from \"V\" and therefore latin U/V evolved into three separate letters \"U\", \"V\" and \"W\" (\"I\" and \"J\" separated too). Also some of the other ligatures eventually became letters on their own. Following ones made it to present times:\n\n* V + V = W\n* E + T = & *(\"et\" is latin for \"and\")*\n* A + D = @ *(\"ad\" is latin for \"at\")*\n* /100 = %\n* S + S = § *(also: ſ + s = ß in german; where \"ſ\" is the long s, a letter not used nowadays)*\n\nAnd many other not used in english, like \"Œ\" or \"IJ\" (this one may render as \"IJ\" or as non-continuous \"U\" depending on font).",
"U and V used to be pronounced similarly and were used depending on where it was in the word Us being in word and Vs at the beginning of the word. Sort of like V was a capital u. Likewise uu /VV were used similarly. They started to become distinct sounds in 1300s but wasn't fully accepted as separate for a few hundred years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6xnn3s
|
How correct is it to say that the IRA practically invented modern urban guerrilla warfare? How did the lessons learned by their struggle against the British affect other urban insurrections around the world?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6xnn3s/how_correct_is_it_to_say_that_the_ira_practically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmh6sih"
],
"score": [
95
],
"text": [
"Adapted from an old answer of mine:\n\nThe influence of Michael Collins and the pre-Irish Civil War IRA on post-1920s guerrilla campaigns is low and reached its peak in the late 1940s. Yitzhak Shamir, the leader of the Stern gang (or more officially, Lehi) and Vladimir Jabotinsky (who founded Irgun) were both influenced by Michael Collins in their campaigns against the British. However, this made perfect sense for Shamir and Jabotinsky (and, without any solid confirmation, Menachem Begin) since he too was fighting a war of anti-British colonialism. Shamir and Jabotinsky are not the only examples. Subhas Chandra Bose urged his followers to study the IRA. Irish texts were even translated into Burmese during the 1930s and were read by men like Ba Maw.\n\nThe truth of the matter is that there was nothing that particularly special or groundbreaking about the campaign carried out by the IRA. Collins himself was a student of and clearly influenced by the Boer commandos during the Second Boer War (1899-1902) and in particularly of the Boer general Christiaan de Wet, which he based the IRA flying columns on. There are some who claim that he 'invented' urban guerrilla warfare, overlooking the fact that theories had been printed on this since the late 19th century. The main reason for his influence, as we can see above, is that he fought a relatively successful guerrilla war against the British and was involved in anti-British activities. This clearly brought him and his methods to the attention of those also looking to combat the British, but certainly not all of them. It is interesting to note that the guerrilla campaigns during the Irish War of Independence also influenced the creation of the Special Operation Executive during WWII, which makes sense since this would have been the most accessible and recent guerrilla warfare campaign to be studied by the British. \n\nBy the 1950s, his influence appears to have vanished as insurgents the world over searched for and adapted to new theories. These theories, ranging from Mao Zedong's theory on guerilla warfare to the Guevara Foco theory, were only the basics for insurgents who adapted their strategies to a world of mass media and international discourses that the IRA of the late 1910s and early 1920s wouldn't have been able to predict."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3o56n6
|
Could we deplete the earth's core of heat?
|
Geothermal energy confuses me and I couldn't figure out how you could deplete the energy from the PV=nRT equation in the earth which causes it to have a greater Temperature due to pressure. If you removed that Temperature wouldn't the pressure still be the same because the force of gravity would increase it? I'm 100% I'm mistaken because it would disprove the law of thermodynamics, but I need an explanation!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3o56n6/could_we_deplete_the_earths_core_of_heat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvu77f8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
" > Could we deplete the earth's core of heat?\n\nNo. Not in any realistic scenario. We are too puny. Also, the geothermal energy is slowly dissipating in space even without our help.\n\nThe equation you are using is about *ideal* gases, and the Earth core is neither of those.\n\nMore importantly, pressure by itself does not sustain heat.\n\nIt is the change in pressure that produces heat. So if you had some air and compressed it, it would heat up, but it would start cooling down as soon as you started compressing it (usually slower than you are heating it up. So, once it is compressed and some times has passed the air would have cooled down."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
37v4sg
|
what happens when someone declares bankrupcy in us.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37v4sg/eli5_what_happens_when_someone_declares_bankrupcy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crq1ygi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Don't know about people. When companies go bankrupt, it actually can help. This is an ELI5 of what happens:\n\n0.) **why does it exist?** - the issue in bankruptcy is that there's not enough money left (in terms of assets) to pay off all of the debts the company has or is about to have at 100% of their value. So, since everyone is going to sue to get their share, they created a system to try and distribute what is left as fairly as possible. \n\n1.) **company files for bankruptcy** - Company goes to a bankruptcy court and submits a paper. Instantly they get bankruptcy protection, meaning no one can sue them to collect debts individually. \n\nSometimes the company will go into *chapter 7* bankruptcy, which is just a liquidation of the company. Assets are sold, the money is collected, and then divided up. Different kinds of debtors (people the company owes money to) get money in a different order, depending on the type of claim they have. After that, the company disappears. \n\n2.) **Make a plan** - the company comes up with a bankruptcy plan. This is when the company is going for *chapter 11.* The idea of chapter 11 is that the company can pay of all its debtors more if it stays in business then if it liquidates. But, it needs to convince the debtors that this is true. So it makes a plan, explaining what it will do, and how much different classes of debtors will get paid. \n\nSo, for example, imagine if Amtrak went bankrupt. They don't have many assets, since they just own the trains and the track, which won't sell for much. So they come up with a plan saying that rather than everyone getting say, 1% of their debts, everyone will get 50% of the profits of the company for the next 10 years, which will be way more than 1% of the debts.\n\n3.) **have a vote** - all the different debtors look at the plan, and then they vote. If every class of debtors agrees, then the plan goes forward. If some groups of debtors disagree, than you can have a *cramdown*, where if at least one other group agrees, and the judge decides that everyone is better off than if there's liquidation, the plan happens anyway. \n\n4.) **the judge approves** - the judge hears objections, and may or may not send the plan back for revisions. \n\n5.) **the end** - If the plan isn't approved then the company liquidates. If the plan is approved, the plan gets followed. Usually when a company is in bankruptcy---like with a person---it will become much harder for them to borrow. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3e8efn
|
Did armies ever send out one champion from each side to battle it out and winner takes all, instead of having everyone fight?
|
Just curious if armies have ever done this to save many lives from being killed.
Edit: Thanks for all the comments so far everyone!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3e8efn/did_armies_ever_send_out_one_champion_from_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctcl6io",
"ctcu3tt",
"ctcv03x",
"ctda6yq"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Judicial duels in Russia known for a long time. According said the Arab writers, X century Amin Razi and Mukaddezi depicting tradition Russes, \"when the king decides to dispute between two litigants, and they remain unhappy with his decision, then he says to them sort it out with their swords - whose sharp, that and win.\" The Slavs duel was called \"field\".\n\nThe first mention of the field in the Russian sources refer to XI-XII century. According to one version of the chronicle evidence of war sometimes, resolved single combat of two elected from different parties. The competition is going to mean both enemy armies. Outcome it was taken to be an immutable verdict of the divine will, which is equal to obeyed and those on whose share remained victory, and those that had to has pleaded convicted.\n\n",
"In Japan, never. Possibly before the Muromachi period, but I've never seen any account of it happening. Duels happened, but something where 'champions' were sent out from rival armies to settle a large scale conflict (we're talking tens of thousands of soldiers on each side), never. It would have been a huge gamble to take, especially during the Sengoku period, where you had so many soldiers on each side - remember as well that, during this period of civil conflict, daimyo were raising armies from peasant conscripts, so a justification to save many lives just wasn't logical. \n\nIt could be possible that minor conflicts, such as small land disputes between small retainers, could be resolved (should the ruling daimyo wish) by a duel, though these duels would have been relegated to non-lethal fights.",
"I'm not a historian by any means, but there is an example from Livy that I read while studying Latin about a battle between Rome and Alba Longa where this occurred. According to Livy, the Horatii (Rome) and the Curiatii (Alba Longa) were sent forth, each a set of triplets, to battle each other to decide the outcome of the battle. There might be a classicist here that can give you some better background, but here's a link to a translation of Livy. I hope that's helpful!\n\n_URL_0_",
"I believe in Ancient Greece, Sparta and Argos were at war and instead of going to a full blown war they each sent 100 champions to fight it out and decide the outcome. At the end, 2 champions from Argos left the field thinking all the Spartans were dead. However some of them were only wounded and on these grounds Sparta contested Argos' claimed victory. So then they went to all out war anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Liv.%201.24&lang=original"
],
[]
] |
|
3htwvq
|
How come Ireland adopted the language of England, but not its religion, while Finland adopted the religion of Sweden, but not its language?
|
Before the 20th Century, Ireland and Finland were both in similar positions of being ruled for centuries by their more powerful neighbours (Britain and Sweden). But in one case the religion and not the language was adopted, and in the other the reverse happened. Why was this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3htwvq/how_come_ireland_adopted_the_language_of_england/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuakxpr",
"cuaoqlz",
"cuaphbj",
"cuapxt8",
"cuavurq",
"cuazzcd",
"cubhu23"
],
"score": [
358,
283,
112,
10,
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I can't speak to Finland and Sweden, but in Ireland, English was pretty heavily enforced as a language by the British colonists. Irish was prohibited in British National Schools, and the famines hit the rural areas, where Irish was a majority language, much harder than urban areas where English was more popular. There's also the fact that English naturally presented more opportunities as a high-esteem language. \n\nReligion pretty much was adopted from Britain in Ireland. Roman Catholics brought it over in the 5th century. The English reformation was just much harder to enforce later on, as Catholicism had become a large part of the Irish identity. It's much harder to convert people when they don't speak your language, and while many English speakers in Dublin (and obviously Ulster) were Protestants, Irish speakers remained Catholic. \n\nDaniel O'Connell is a pretty famous Irish historical figure who championed Catholic Emancipation during the 19th century. He founded the Catholic Association which campaigned for and succeeded in getting the Catholic Relief Act passed in 1829. The act allowed Roman Catholics to sit in Westminster and generally signalled the turn of public opinion against the persecution of Catholics in previous centuries. ",
"As a Finn, I am going to have to point out that we did in fact adopt the swedish language. Of course, the common peasant would still speak finnish, but the language used in government, legislation and such was exclusively swedish for several hundred years. To this day it remains by law our second domestic language, which means every child has to learn it in school and all government services have to also be available in swedish. Even today over 5% of the population of Finland (mostly on the southwest coast) speak swedish as their primary language. \n\nAlso, any attempts from Sweden to further solidify their language's position in Finland were thwarted in 1809 when what is today Finland was taken over by the Russian Empire. They in turn later attempted to assimilate Finland and force Finland to adopt their language and religion, but these attempts weren't very effective, in no small part because at that time Russia was already heading into the October revolution.",
"Michael C. Coleman examines this very question in an article titled \"‘You Might All Be Speaking Swedish Today’: language change in 19th century Finland and Ireland\" in the Scandinavian Journal of History.\n\nIn it, he makes the case that these two factors are indeed linked. A central idea in Lutheranism is that everyone should be able to read the Bible, and in the Swedish Realm, the clergy would routinely inspect that their parishioners were able to read the Bible. He notes that thanks to the religious literature widely available in Finnish, even ordinary peasants were able to read in Finnish by the 18th century, although Swedish had the status of the language of the elite, of the bureaucracy, and of higher education.\n\nHe contrasts this situation to Ireland where the language used for Catholic liturgy was Latin. Although half of the island's population spoke Irish by the beginning of the 19th century, only a very small percentage of the speakers were literate in it. The national schools that were established in Ireland to teach the peasants only taught in English, which was also crucial for literature in Irish never becoming widespread. When Irish nationalist movements arose, even they would use English to publish their views.\n\nFinnish-language literature and newspapers on the other hand played important roles in spreading the ideas of the Fennoman movement that tried to elevate the position of Finnish from a \"language of the peasants\" to a language of higher learning. The 1835 publication of \"Kalevala\" in Finnish is regarded as an important milestone in firmly establishing Finnish as part of the Finnish cultural identity. The movement was successful, and by the time of Finland's independence, Finnish had supplanted Swedish as the dominant language in higher learning.",
"The relationship between Sweden and Finland has its roots in the Christianization of Northern Europe during the 12th century. As the Kingdom of Sweden began to form a distinct common cultural identity, the early Swedish kings embarked on a number of regional conquests ostensibly in the name of a crusade. By the late 14th century, Finland had become entrenched in the Swedish Realm with its own nobility, representation and government. After the fall of the Kalmar Union under Gustav Vasa, Finland began to drift closer to Sweden by mirroring its cultural and religious practices.\n\nThe real change in culture came during the Finnish War of 1809 when Gustav IV was forced to cede Finland to Alexander I of Russia. Alexander I used Finland as a testing ground of sorts and called the Diet of Porvoo in order to summon the Finns to pledge their allegiance. At Porvoo, Alexander I promised to allow the Finns the right to worship freely thereby resulting in a Lutheran Finland.\n\nAfter the annexation of Finland into Russia, the language of administration became German in an attempt to culturally shift Finland away from Sweden and to avoid using the language of their enemy. Translators were soon employed and the number of Russian civil servants grew as St. Petersburg tried to consolidate its conquest. Since German wasn't the local tongue and Russian too hard to teach in such a short time, the administration eventually decided to encourage the use of Finnish -- then a peasant language -- throughout the country. Finnish was therefore arguably revived and standardized in Finland while the religion of the people remained the same.\n\nEdit: For a source, please see this post [here.](_URL_0_)",
"One major difference that shouldn't be overlooked is that Christianity was introduced to Ireland already in the 5th century, whereas in Finland the earliest Christian items can be placed to the 9th century from grave sites at that time and on historical records it can be said to have been introduced earliest at the 11th century.\n\nFrom this it could be said that Ireland didn't adopt Anglican Protestantism because Catholicism already had strong roots, whereas the time period of Catholicism being the major religion in the whole of Finland was relatively short as Kingdom of Sweden ruled only the Southern parts of Finland. Most of the Northern Finland wasn't part of the Swedish rule, for instance Northern Karelia started to have significant habitation only in the 16th century and by that time Sweden also became Lutheran.\n\nBeing the one of the last countries Continental Europe to be converted into Christianity old pre-Christian religious habits in Finland were difficult to get rid of completely. Pagan beliefs and rites in one form or another remained relatively strong in one form or another still in the 16th century during and after Lutheran reform, Mikael Agricola the Bishop of Turku publishing a list of pagan deities the people in Häme and Karelia still worshiped at that time.\n\nSo in one way, Finland didn't exactly adopt the religion of Sweden or the language, both were practiced more by the Swedish people who had settled into Southern Finland, but as both belonged to the customs of the ruling class, they were learned to a degree. Even still, religious practices were partially only paid lip-service, and the majority of the common people never adopted the language enough to forget Finnish.",
"England too was Catholic when it took over Ireland. Irish missionaries had even been engaged in restoring Christianity in Anglo-Saxon England centuries before. So some northern parts of England adopted the religion of Ireland while the south took its lead directly from Rome. ",
"Not sure if anyone has noted this or not but the English outlawed the Irish language which certainly didn't help the native tongue. In the Western parts of Ireland one can find areas where it is used almost exclusively. \n\nSorry if I'm late to the party."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3htwvq/how_come_ireland_adopted_the_language_of_england/cuhpyko"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7e1at2
|
how do music/video editing programs isolate vocals, frequency, pitch, etc.?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e1at2/eli5_how_do_musicvideo_editing_programs_isolate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq1pqbf",
"dq1u5eg",
"dq1v5dv"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s pretty complex but I think what you don’t understand is that the editing softwares are not meant to isolate anything, they’re meant to take the isolated vocals and turn them into a final product. So with each recording you can edit its pitch and frequencies and do whatever other mixing you wish to do, and then you mix everything together so it’s one big composition. Basically like a puzzle.",
"I don't think there's a good ELI5 answer to this, but basically it's math. Sound is a waveform, you can add multiple sounds together to get a new one. It's just like adding two numbers together.\n\nBasically if you want to isolate vocals you just do the opposite. You look for parts of the signal that look like vocals and subtract them out.\n\nThe hard part is finding vocals. Typically programs will look for frequencies that correspond to vocals to find them but there are many tricks that involve very advanced mathematical techniques. ",
"in audio editing programs, you usually have a lot of tracks. each instrument or vocal will go on a track, ideally recorded in such a way as to not have a lot of sound from other instruments that would go on other tracks. \n\nin this way, you can target your adjustments to exactly which instrument / vocal you want. \n\nif you don't have a multitrack recording but are already using a stereo or surround mix it is a LOT tougher to make fine adjustments to specific instruments in the mix. however, if the instruments are separated from other ones in terms of when they play, what frequency they occupy, or where in the stereo / surround field (pan) they are, or if they are very fast and dynamic compared to the rest of the instruments (in terms of transient sounds) or very stable in dynamics (don't change in volume or dynamics much) - in these cases some wonders can be worked on whole mixes to change them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3biv3t
|
Why does happy instrumental music sound happy to us?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3biv3t/why_does_happy_instrumental_music_sound_happy_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csmncq9",
"csn6fmq",
"csneboh"
],
"score": [
8,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Because you have seen similar music used in contexts that were happy or meant to evoke happiness, like in movies where the protagonists experience joy. You now subconsciously associate those instrumental features with positive emotions. This sounds like a circular argument, but the process is self-amplifying, and so it could have started with a single composition used to accompany a joyful dance many hundreds of years ago.",
"I understand the popular opinion is that it's a societal thing but this is a topic for debate. There is strong evidence that most primitive cultures lean towards the 4/4 time signature and major chords for a reason. There is a reason a 1,2,3,4 beat makes you dance and a major chord makes you happy. Mathematically speaking one octave is exactly one particular frequency doubled. Assuming A above middle C is 440hz, the next A is 880hz. It isn't just some socially contrived sound. Following the harmonic series (think military taps on a trumpet without buttons) this mathematically leads to a major chord. Many believe our brains are tuned to recognize the harmonic series based on what is easiest for the voice to reproduce. When sound waves are made at specific frequencies, and are allowed to \"compile\" or \"stack\" naturally, they create overtones. Overtones follow the harmonic series. A, A, E, A, C#. This is a major chord. It \"makes sense\" and \"feels good\" not because movies and radio associate major chords with happy moments, but because it strikes us in a very deep mathematical sense. I'm on mobile and can't really provide links but if this gets any traction it's a topic I love to discuss and will be more than happy to dive into later.",
"It is most certainly not purely societal. There are reasons why different cultures all around the world develop very similar music systems. As /u/dalton05 mentioned, there is this thing called the overtone series. Have you ever seen a visual representation of a sound wave? Since sound is a wave, it's characterized by periodic behavior and is often shown as a sine wave, like this. _URL_1_\n\nImagine that within that first crest, you have 2 crests. This is twice the frequency, meaning that whatever source object makes the sounds vibrates twice as much. Now imagine that within that first crest, you have 3. Then 4, then 5, and so on. All of these kind of elementary frequencies form the overtone series, which are the notes of the major scale. \n\nThe reason why these notes sound good to us is because most things in nature don't produce single frequencies. The reason why a B flat on a trombone sounds different than a B flat on a violin is because the frequency is not a B flat frequency. It's a B flat frequency in addition to a bunch of overtones, since the vibrating source object has tendencies to vibrate in small integer multiples of the fundamental frequency. \n\nAs a result, our brains interpret any major chord as a single frequency. When you listen to a trombone, you don't hear all the individual frequencies that make up the sound. That would be too difficult. A single frequency sounds like a soft hum. Almost nothing in nature is like that - they all have a bunch of overtones. To make this mix of frequencies easier to process, our brain interprets major chords as single, unified sounds. This is called a consonance, and this is why major chords sound \"right\" to us. They just sound good, because our brains have evolved to interpret them that way for every day life.\n\nThere's also a bit to do with how the ear drum interprets sounds, but it's along the same principles - integer multiples of fundamental frequency - > one sound.\n\nEDIT for clarity: A summary:\n\n- Objects in nature tend to produce frequencies in small integer multiples\n\n- Our brains interpret these as single sounds - you can't really hear the individual notes of a C chord\n\n- Thus, they sound good\n\nHere's a good diagram: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://bagger288.com/goldenmaster/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/STA-harmonic-series.jpg",
"http://www.minelab.com/__files/i/5894/SineWave.gif"
]
] |
||
98pfb5
|
In the early days of firearms (16th and 17th centuries) how did one go about treating gunshot and cannon wounds?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98pfb5/in_the_early_days_of_firearms_16th_and_17th/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4httab"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Hi, not discouraging other contributions here, but you might be interested in some earlier answers\n\n* /u/xRathke provides an overview of medical thought in [What did pre-germ theory people think was going on when a cut got infected?](_URL_2_)\n\n\n* /u/staples11 in [During the buccaneering era of piracy (1650-1680), was pistol use commonplace for pirates? If one was shot during a seabattle, could the ship surgeon really do much to heal you back to full health after, or would you generally be considered a goner?](_URL_0_)\n\n\n* /u/jhd3nm steps through later advances in battlefield treatment in [US Military History: I made it back alive, but I've been shot in the thigh. What sort of medical attention do I receive and what are my chances for survival in 1862, 1917, 1944, 1968, and 1991?](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vrgav/during_the_buccaneering_era_of_piracy_16501680/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eau3f/us_military_history_i_made_it_back_alive_but_ive/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/885svl/what_did_pregerm_theory_people_think_was_going_on/"
]
] |
||
1uxu58
|
if your pouring molten steel into a cast, what prevent the cast from melting or distorting?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uxu58/eli5_if_your_pouring_molten_steel_into_a_cast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemq73m",
"cemrhhf"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"By having a different melting temperature than the metal that is being poured into it.",
"sand and plaster in a container to hold them in place. internal distortion is controlled with binders in the sand. Bentonite and horsehair come to mind although there are lots of others. Basically anything that will hold the sand grains in place, especially when the mold is preheated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
zwc9s
|
how do they get the caramel in the caramilk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zwc9s/eli5_how_do_they_get_the_caramel_in_the_caramilk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c68bki5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First they form the top of the bar. Looks like an ice cube tray. They then turn it over and fill the depressions with caramel. Then they place a chocolate slab on top (and that is the bottom). \nLook at the bar and you can see the seam\n\nYou owe me a carmilk now because I now crave one"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6phxcj
|
In whaling times, how were organic products preserved on board long enough to make it to market?
|
Since whale oil was a frequent product of the past, how did whalers preserve their product on the journey home, which at times could be longer then the shelf life of a dead animal?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6phxcj/in_whaling_times_how_were_organic_products/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkpu958"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Whale oil itself will not mold or rot and even is fairly resistant to rancidity (more so even than most vegetable oils). This shouldn't be too surprising as it exists naturally in large volumes inside the whale and if it required a lot of upkeep or immune activity to maintain it would be very biologically costly. Typically a whaling vessel would process whales not long after they were killed and either extract the oil (from sperm wales) or butcher the whale and render the blubber into oil where it was then stored in a vessel in the ship. For blue whales the whalebone was kept as well as the oil, otherwise the rest of the carcass was left abandoned. One of the major selling points of whale oil was precisely its incredible stability in a variety of temperatures and its resistance to spoilage.\n\nFor other kinds of organic products from other sources the typical methods of preservation were used: salting, drying, and curing meat; use of stable foods like olive oil and honey; use of fermented or preserved foods like cheese, wine, dried fruits, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
148xef
|
Did all land-dwelling creatures evolve from one, the first and only, amphibious creatures?
|
I was watching a show on Discovery about the evolution of human, starting from prokaryotes and eukaryotes.
Discovery claimed that fish were chased to shallow waters where the oxygen content was low and so they were eventually forced to pull themselves out of the water. This single species of animals that pulled itself from the shallow water was the first and only creature that eventually gave rise to amphibians, reptiles, mammals, and then primates.
But I find it hard to believe that one amphibious creature gave rise to every land-dwelling creatures, especially when other species of fish were faced with the same problem of poorly oxygenated water.
Also, I know the Discovery show was significantly pared down, but I've still been hung up on this. Thanks for any insight.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/148xef/did_all_landdwelling_creatures_evolve_from_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7b4khc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The answer is no. Tetrapods, insects, crustations (several times), arachnids, meriopods, velvet worms, molluscs (several times), etc all invaded land separately.\n\n > But I find it hard to believe that one amphibious creature gave rise to every land-dwelling creatures, especially when other species of fish were faced with the same problem of poorly oxygenated water. \n\nMany species of fish have evolved to deal with low O2 by gulping air (gar, bowfins, electric eels, *Betta* fish, lungfish, arapaima, etc). There would have been several species of 'amphibious' fish during the early evolution of tetrapods - there certainly are several now (for example walking catfish and snakeheads can move overland during rainy nights, Reedfish can actually hunt on land, and mudskippers and Pacific Leapiing Blennies move around on land on the shore of tidal areas). Anyway, once one lineage diversified onto land it made it much less likely that other less well adapted groups could move into niches they already occupy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2gemn1
|
why do all animals, even insects, seem to go nuts over the red dot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gemn1/eli5_why_do_all_animals_even_insects_seem_to_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckielrb",
"ckii8r9",
"ckiogn0",
"ckipbm7",
"ckiq7d6",
"ckiuchs"
],
"score": [
1497,
23,
3,
10,
195,
12
],
"text": [
" > Felidae (all kinds of cats from large to small) brains and eyes are geared to a) notice motion and b) play with their prey. Playing with prey is the best way to kill possibly dangerous animals... especially things like venomous snakes. Dodge in, bat the hell out of it before it can strike, dodge out. After 5 or 6 repetitions of this, the snake is bleeding to death and/or has massive internal injuries. The same thing goes for any other animal that might fight back, like a cornered rat or mouse.\n\n > Lasers are BRIGHT. You don't think of the little red dot as very bright because it's so small... but if you measure its brightness, it's usually much brighter than the average lightbulb. \n\n > So laser light is a intensely bright spot of color (despite the fact that cats don't see red well. It looks mostly green to them) and motion, much brighter and more intense than anything it would be exposed to in nature. It hits all those feline eyes and brain cells like a ton of bricks and kicks their 'play with the prey' instincts and emotions into full gear.\n\n > The cat will happily exhaust itself chasing the laser dot in circles.\n\n > Imagine yourself watching a really good, suspenseful, action movie that gets your emotions up and makes you want to cheer. It's probably more intense than anything you'd experience in real life.\n\n > Same exact emotions and feelings, but kitteh gets it from running itself ragged chasing the dot.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Hadn't heard about insects going crazy over a laser dot. Anyone has anecdotes?",
"So the laser pointer definitely works on cats, dogs, some fish, and birds. There's got to be something to this. Anyone know if it works on reptiles, too? I feel like that's an important part of the question that got missed; ALL animals seem to delight in the red dot (apparently even insects)! Is it always the hunting instinct like top comment mentioned with cats?",
"They are not going crazy over only the red dot. It is also a combination of the erratic movements that indicate it is some sort of prey that triggers them. The brains are probably tuned to a \"attack\" response when it sees a simulated \"flee\" response. It is somewhat the same way that people can go into wild lion dens, by not \"behaving\" like prey.",
"The clear red dot is what biologists call a superstimuli or supernormal stimulus. It is appears not only be to be a distinct entity, but also it is maximally distinguible from the surrounding environment. Other prey normally camouflages itself at least to a very small extent. The cat decision threshold to attack normal prey is building up slowly in most cases ('Is this a mouse or a rock?'). Then at some point it's 'attack time'- when the cat is absolutely sure it's a mouse. With the red dot, it's in this attack mode all the time.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThen it's highly likely that it has to do with you moving the laser and not a machine, giving it the features of biological motion: directional change and nonlinear acceleration properties.\n\n_URL_1_",
"This will be buried, but I have to mention, that laser pointers are extremely dangerous to dogs and cats. They can cause serious OCD, reflection obsession/fixation, shadow obsession/fixation, etc. So be careful, and do not use laser pointers to exercise your animal as it may only cause issues."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j2tco/why_do_cats_chase_laser_pointers/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supernormal_stimulus#In_Biology",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_motion"
],
[]
] |
||
12kn6e
|
Are Induced Pluripotent Stem Cells as advantageous as Embryonic Stem Cells, research wise?
|
So I was researching the most recent news since the Chick fil A fiasco. Noticed one of the organizations they donated to is "Focus on the Family." Went to their website, saw they had a page dedicated to their position on stem cell research. I don't personally have any qualms with embryonic stem cell research. In the words of Sam Harris, "it's time we realize this arithmetic of souls just doesn't make any sense."
In any case, are iPS cells "as good" as Embryonic cells in the way of scientific/medical research?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12kn6e/are_induced_pluripotent_stem_cells_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6vv65k",
"c6vwpqj",
"c6vz2gz"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Short answer is no. While iPS cells have a lot of potential, they simply are not as undifferentiated as ES cells. This means ES cells can be used for a wider variety of purposes more effectively. Potentially we could find a way to program them like ES cells, but it's kind of a ridiculous step when ES cells are merely a moral problem to fundamentalists. There are other issues, including that some of the hacks we use to reprogram the cells can sometimes make them oncogenic. Needless to say, they're useful, but they really don't hold a candle to ES cells yet.\n\nInteresting review\n\n_URL_0_",
"Well, personally I think that each type has its own advantages and disadvantages.\n\n1. IPS cells can be patient specific, which ES cells generally cannot be.\n\n2. IPS cells are similar, but not identical to ES cells and depending on the method of pluripotency induction, could have problems with becoming cancerous.\n\nPersonally, because of reason#1, I think the induction of pluripotency in somatic cells has more potential for therapies. More research into methods that are more efficient and can lead to the supression of the epigenetic memory of the parent cell is needed, but I think we're making progress...the field is barely 6 years old.\n\nFinally, some people have been able to directly reprogram one type of somatic cell into another type - leading to the possibility that the intermediate step of induction of pluripotentcy might not even be neccesary.\n\nSo IPSCs are not as \"good as\" ESCs in some ways, but they definitely have a lot to offer that ESCs don't.",
"zk3's response to Xinlitik has the most comprehensive answer, although bluegreensunrise brings up absolutely relevant points.\n\nRemember that all cells of a single organism contain the same (or *extremely similar*) DNA. The only difference between iPS cells and ESC cells and fully differentiated cells are the epigenetic programs activated in those cells. It is, of course, far more complex to control the activation of these programs than it is to state that they exist, but there is not yet evidence that even the most fully differentiated cells **cannot** dedifferentiate under the correct assortment of stimulations. As others have said, more research is required in this brand new field."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/stem.788/full"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
5lb5bi
|
How effective would a stirling engine that is orbiting the sun be?
|
I remember hearing somewhere that in space its super hot in the light of the sun and super cold in shadow. Is it reasonable that you could have a stirling engine orbiting the sun, with one plate casting a shadow on the second plate of the engine to produce a massive temperature difference between the two plates?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5lb5bi/how_effective_would_a_stirling_engine_that_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbufv8p",
"dbulxrp"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It is possible. The main problems are that stuff with moving parts generally need a lot of maintenance, and that stirling engines involve gas, which is hard to keep hold of in space. It would also have to radiate the heat away from the heat sink, which isn't a fast process, but this is a problem with heat pumps in general and it's not like you could get around it by using solar panels.\n\nThat said, the massive temperature difference isn't as helpful as you might expect. The low temperature people quote is how low it would get if you waited long enough without heating it. But it only cools through radiation, which happens at a rate proportional to the fourth power of the temperature. So as it cools down, cooling further gets drastically slower. You could produce an extremely efficient heat pump, but only by processing very little heat. Since light is free, this is pointless. You're better off running the heat sink at a higher temperature and absorbing all you can. And in any case, having a low-temperature heat sink is only so helpful. The maximum efficiency is 1-T*_C_*/T*_H_*. If the heat sink is at half the temperature of the source, it will run at 50% efficiency.\n\nSo, long story short, you could run a heat pump at high efficiency. But the limiting factor is how much solar power you can get, and how long your pump will last. You could make something that's several times more efficient than solar panels, but it won't last long, and it will be much heavier. It's not really worth it.",
"Its commonly stated that space is cold, but outer space does not make a very good cold reservoir of the type that heat engines require. \n\nA good cold reservoir needs to be able to absorb a lot of heat rapidly without changing its temperature. In space, the dominant mechanism for emitting heat is blackbody radiation, which is very slow unless the object becomes quite hot ~ 1000K. So space, though cold, doesn't make a good sink for heat energy. An operating Stirling engine would quickly heat up the cold plate and ruin the efficiency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1nxj47
|
why are there so many atheists on reddit?
|
This isn't meant to be condescending to anyone's beliefs in any way. I'm just genuinely curious. Aside from the specific "atheism" themed subreddits, nothing about Reddit exactly seems to promote atheism in any way, but yet it seems as though the vast majority of people on here are atheist.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nxj47/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_atheists_on_reddit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccmykxn",
"ccmym5w",
"ccmz4oj",
"ccmzhx8",
"ccmzmh9",
"ccmzppk"
],
"score": [
3,
15,
6,
10,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The site is generally full of younger people more likely to be Atheist, and a lot of the popular reddit sections are based on learning things, science, world events etc... that's going to skew towards people who want to be more educated. ",
"Reddit appeals to a younger demographic, and younger people tend to be less religious (a trend which has been ongoing for many decades). For example, 20% of Millennials (those born in 1981 or later) are not religious. [[source](_URL_0_)]",
"Theists are frequently turned off by the comments they hear, and leave.",
"People don't have to pretend they are something they are not on the internet. ",
"* The internet in general, and reddit in particular, skew young, liberal, and technically savvy. That demographic runs towards atheism.\n* /r/atheism is probably the largest and most active atheism forum in the world. It attracts atheists to reddit.\n* Between the two, reddit has attracted enough of a critical mass of atheists and near atheists, that they are comfortable enough to express their beliefs openly in a way they often can't in other places.\n* Conversely, people of faith may find the atmosphere hostile to their beliefs, and be less likely to express them.",
"Reddit is hivemind, and also a lot of younger people. People often come to different conclusions based on stuff but it's it feels good to be in a group host makes more fun of others especially if it's less popular to the masses but popular within your secret club. \n\nPeople saying anything regarding intelligence are being silly. Being religious or atheist has nothing to do with your intelligence level. There are as many dumb and uniformed Christians as there are immensely trivial and stupid atheists as well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.pewforum.org/2010/02/17/religion-among-the-millennials/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
72l9m2
|
Why do some scientist think that in multiverse theory, the laws of physics would be different to our own universe?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/72l9m2/why_do_some_scientist_think_that_in_multiverse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnjvzpp",
"dnjzc50",
"dnk3so9",
"dnllbrt"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There are many multiverse theories, but the most popular one right now is eternal inflation.\n\nIn eternal inflation the inflaton field, which is postulated to have driven the postulated inflation in the very early universe, a period of extremely rapid expansion, has spontaneously decayed to its current vacuum value. This decay ends up producing all the fields which make up the universe in quantum field theory: Electron, photon, quark etc.\n\nBut the decay ends up defining the value of the fundamental constants in physics. These values could be randomly assigned, and so will be different if other parts of the pre-decay universe has decayed into their own universe bubble. This leads to radical changes in the laws of physics.",
"What scientists do you think think that?",
"\"Multiverse theory\" is not a thing. There are some ideas that would imply the existence of something you could call multiverse. Different ideas lead to completely different models how this multiverse would look like.",
"In string theory, there are always 11 dimensions, but the particular way these dimensions are arranged and knotted up can produce regions where it looks like there are fewer dimensions with different particles and forces. There can be transitions between these \"string vacuum\" states that would be similar to a big bang, so eventually there would be a wide variety of large regions with their own dimension, particles, and forces, each of which could be called a universe. This idea is called the \"String Landscape\", and it's the most well studied way that a multiverse like that could occur, but there's still much that isn't known. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1pbdev
|
what (if any) is the practical biological purpose of my beard?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pbdev/eli5_what_if_any_is_the_practical_biological/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd0mkf8",
"cd0mrj3",
"cd0mzdr",
"cd0n9ap",
"cd0ncp0",
"cd0nlou",
"cd0nm5f",
"cd0nopi",
"cd0nq0p",
"cd0nyhh",
"cd0nytb",
"cd0o6wm",
"cd0og66",
"cd0oguc",
"cd0pcvn",
"cd0rvw4",
"cd0rz4f",
"cd0sc6e",
"cd0tysd",
"cd0u87i",
"cd0vc6k",
"cd0vd1j",
"cd0vim4"
],
"score": [
243,
18,
10,
2,
3,
2,
11,
195,
7,
12,
14,
4,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
8,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"To keep you warm. \n\nTo keep dirt from you face, mouth, nose. \n\nTo act as a social signifier of post-pubescent\n\nTo make you look cool. ",
"Bear repellent.\n\nAlso, women have probably sexually selected for beards over time, but mostly:\n\nBear repellent.",
"Panty-dropping capabilities and Pansy repellant to ensure optimal virility",
"To attract a mate",
"A full and healthy beard is a good sign of a health man. Think of a beard as being very similar to a peacocks feathers. It shows potential mates and potential rivals that we are healthy and strong. On top of that it does have its practical uses like keeping your face warm.",
"SOME women love them. SOME hate them. Many are indifferent.",
"Male lions grow a mane after puberty, gorillas backs turn silver. I believe it is to signal females that you are capable of mating and to signal males that you are a competitor. It does not work like that anymore because we have become so disconnected with our hunter-gatherer animal instinct. Females are no longer looking for signs of breedability and (most) men don't find beards intimidating. So now its just an evolutionary bi-product that may someday be phased out as future generations react to evolutionary needs. In fact it may serve a reverse purpose now and actually be seen as a sign of a man who is behind in human evolution and be very unattractive to women, as their inner instinct would drive them to mate with the best human possible (human 2.0), because evolution defeats disease and genetic defects, and with evolution man is growing less hair, so hair is a subliminal signal of possible genetic defects.",
"Beards can provide warmth and UV protection for your face, but the best theory is that beards evolved as a secondary sexual characteristic. They send signals to both potential mates and rival males. A beard creates the illusion of a larger jaw, which seems more dominant. To mates, a beard signals not only that your are sexually mature, but also that your testosterone levels are high enough to grow a full beard, since testosterone is what controls the growth of facial hair. ",
"To catch cornflakes",
"Excessive testosterone causes baldness and beard, which is a visual cue for dominance, violence tendency and chemistry proficiency.",
"Same reason a male lion has a mane. It Protects your neck from attacks while not diminishing its motion range. Try to cut something through a thick cloth and see how that works out. Women don't have them because they didn't go out to hunt and fight but were protected by males.",
"**Your true answer: Soup straining.**\n\n1- Just because evolution selects for favorable traits, doesn't mean the reverse is true -- that all the traits we have must have some sort of evolutionary benefit. (This would be a logical error in thinking.) Some traits exist simply as genetic drift. Probably most of them. After all, a LOT of people don't have a lot of facial hair at all. The existence of the beard trait may not confer any particular advatnage or disadvantage *at this point in time* but in the future it may always prove beneficial/harmful if and when the environment changes because evolution acts on all traits.\n\n2- No one can ever really give you a definite answer anyway. Is there is a reason why you have two, rather than six, nostrils? One can speculate endlessly because we can't be sure of the many many variables that acted in combination with each other over a few million or so years...so isolating a cause-effect (\"we have beards because xyz\") relationship is simply impossible.\n\nFYI The evolutionary biologists who do engage in this sort of speculation are fun! They're usually sex-mad and influenced by a very 50's view of the world which combines a good dose of sexism and pop psych with a view of evolution that emphasized conflict and selfishness rather than cooperation and community bonds. So, they would speculate that beards are for proving dominance over other men, and getting chicks, naturally. For example, Desmond Morris' claim that men are attracted to boobs because they remind us of asses. One track mind!",
"Girls like beards. You'll understand when you stop thinking girls have cooties.\n\n*I know that not all girls like beards.*",
"Clearly you dont live above 8000 ft in the dead of winter.",
"I learned in my human evolution class that aside from head covering hair, the hair on human bodies is strategically placed in places that produce pheromones or identifying smells. Like your arm pits and pubic area. \nWe produce pheromones on our face (which is why we kiss) so I think that's why.",
"It helps larger people distinguish boundaries between their faces and neck.",
"To be awesome.",
"I don't know the real answer here, but want to add something for perspective. We didn't get beards as an additional feature as humans. We just didn't lose that hair like we did elsewhere. So the question shouldn't be necessarily be why we have beards, but rather why we lost our other hair, and why men's faces were treated differently.\n\nThis could have been sexual selection, or simply that face hair didn't matter enough to effect selection. Such that losing hair elsewhere gave those humans an advantage, but losing facial hair didn't matter. This would also suggest that hair on the face may actually be controlled by different sets of genes than other hairs we did lose. This on it's own could explain why we didn't lose it.\n\nThose passive possibilities aside, there seems to be a general pattern for us to have kept hair near our orifices - eyes, ears, genitals, in or noses, doesn't seem out of place that we have it around out mouths. Specifically why we have this hair, idk. Why the sexual dimorphism? Idk\n\nIdk much, just my 3 cents\n\nEdits: spelling, answered this on my android.",
"Because I find facial hair attractive.",
"She keeps your friends from finding out you're gay!",
"It strains microorganisms from the air for you to feed on, much as whale baleen strains seawater for krill.",
"The beard, like our eyebrows, or the antlers on deer, is a social organ.\n\nIt's purpose is to make the jaw appear larger and more intimidating.\n\nOur biological predecessors would fight with their mouths, so the appearance of large mandibles implied a powerful bite.\n\nIn more recent epocs, the ancient adaptation to make the jaw look more dangerous has been re-purposed to make it appear tougher and more resistant to striking attacks, which became the norm in fights.",
"To store food for later."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
14qa3j
|
Why is Nicolas II of Imperial Russia perceived as an incompetent ruler?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14qa3j/why_is_nicolas_ii_of_imperial_russia_perceived_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7fgc5a",
"c7fh5pz",
"c7fh9p8"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Editing to not be an asshole to the OP. \n\nYou noted that he was perceived as incompetent. His competency or lack thereof is difficult to gauge from outside historical context. What we do know is the result of his reign. The Russian Empire and Monarchy collapsed under his management. Despite the fact that he saw the British and American systems at work, he never entertained the notion to transfer governance to his subjects, but he did not plunge himself into work either. Another of his biggest failures was failing to understand how he and his rule are perceived by his people, and failing to manage these perceptions. \n\nA horrible stampede occurred during his coronation and related festivities. The coronation festivities for the people took place in a field in Moscow. Massive crowds gathered for the free food and drink, without enough police for crowd control. A stampede occurred, killing about 2000 people. Nicholas was scheduled to attend a diplomatic dinner. Back to failing to gauge and manage perceptions, he did attend the dinner instead of publicly mourning the stampede (he did spend time visiting the victims and the Crown took care of the families, but it was not enough). So, not a good way to start off your reign. \n\nThe next big failure was the Russo-Japanese war. Russia was the first Western Power to be defeated by an Asian power in some time, which greatly reduced the international standing of Russia and negatively impacted the image of the Emperor at home. Also, the nearly complete loss of the Baltic Fleet at the Battle of Tsushima completely destroyed any prestige of the Russian Navy and severely hampered any force projection that the Russian Empire had. \n\nDuring the war, there was unrest at home. On Sunday, January 22 1905, a peaceful demonstration to petition the Emperor at his palace was fired upon by the Imperial Guards. Depending on estimates there were around a 1000 casualties. Again, not something that resulted from Nicholas's policies of governance, but something that was blamed on him. The resulting social unrest and the military failures forced Nicholas to seek peace with Japan. \n\nDuring all this, nationwide unrest and violence are taking place. This became known as the Revolution of 1905. The results were a constitution and a sort of a representative government, while Nicholas retained absolute veto power and control of all military matters. So, he gave up some power, but not enough to be absolved of blame for governance and domestic problems. He was still on the hook for anything that went wrong. \n\nAnd finally, we come to World War I, which was disastrous for Russia. No need for me to go into the gory details, but the war resulted in food shortages and inflation of the Russian currency, while the social issues that were not resolved by the changes in 1905 continues to fester. The government weakened further while support for the various revolutionary factions grew. Nicholas went off to the front to nominally manage the war effort, but it didn't help. And then the collapse happened in March of 1917, when the provisional government assumed power and Nicholas abdicated. A few months later, in November, because the provisional government was determined to continue the war effort, the Bolsheviks managed to overthrow the provisional government. \n\nNicholas and his family were executed about a year later. \n",
"Like most topics in history, its a multi-faceted issue:\n\nAs /u/RyanGlavin stated below, he was seen as an incompetent military ruler. Not only was there the debacle with the Russo-Japanese war, but there was also his insistence to join the war effort personally as grand marshal of the troops.This was a horrible idea for two reasons: first, good ol' Nick was lacking as a strategist. Secondly, but arguably more importantly, by joining the war effort, he made himself personally responsible for the outcome of battles. Whereas other heads of state could simply scapegoat generals for the failures of a war, Nicolas II was now liable for every set back.\n\nAlso, there is the private nature of his lifestyle. Whereas other monarchs understood that one of the many roles as head of state was to fraternize with the public, Tsar Nic and his wife the Grand Duchess Alexandra led very private lives. The heir to the throne was extremely sick with hemophilia and yet the Tsarist family tried their best to hide this issue.\n\nHowever, this is not to say that there havent been incompetent rulers in Russia`s past at all.. Monarchist Russia has survived poor rulers before. However, the case with Tsar Nicolas II is one that is a bad mix of a incompetent ruler, poor advisers and a time of turmoil and anxiety where Russia needed neither of the above two..",
"There is an extensive amount of research and historians opinions out there on this subject, one of the biggest reasons was that he took command of the Imperial Army in the first world war as it was getting battered to improve the moral of his men, it did not work and many blamed him for the military failures. His wife was left in charge, she was a German and was not trusted by the people. Other than that you are going to have to research it, I did this question for my A levels and sounds suspiciously like an essay question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
w3h1m
|
"Spin" of elementary particles
|
I am vaguely aware of the concept, as I have taken a basic Chemistry course (Pauli Exclusion principal and all that jazz), but I never really understood what the idea of "spin" meant. Does this mean that the particles are actually spinning in the sense that they have angular momentum, like a child's top, or do physicists and chemists just use the word "spin" to refer to an entirely separate phenomenon (perhaps *similar* to angular momentum)?
EDIT: I should mention that I've look this up on [Wikipedia](_URL_0_, which initially says that particle spin **is**, in fact, defined in the same units as classical angular momentum [Js], but does this mean they are spinning? By comparison, moments and energies are both defined in [Nm], but a moment is not the same as energy.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w3h1m/spin_of_elementary_particles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c59wgpd",
"c59wiku",
"c59z7g3",
"c5a0c9l"
],
"score": [
32,
31,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"[Searched](_URL_2_)\n\nRelevant [discussion](_URL_0_)\n\nOriginal question by [pryomancer](_URL_1_)\n\n > What is meant by the spin of an elementary particle?\n\nTop comment courtesy [mufusisrad](_URL_4_)\n\n > Spin, at least with respect to elementary particles, has no simple classical counterpart. Classically, the intrinsic angular momentum of a body is found by considering the angular momentum it has due to rotation about an axis that passes through it. This is 'like' spin, but in so far as an elementary particle has no internal structure (as far as we know it is point-like), an elementary particle cannot rotate about an axis passing through it. However, in some sense, elementary particles will still interact with something like a magnetic field as if they had such a motion. A charged body spinning on its own axis will have a magnetic moment that can be tugged on by a magnetic field, so will a spinning elementary particle. There isn't really a nice, convenient classical picture, for the spin of elementary particles, though - so a lot of this analogizing is partially incorrect. It is fundamentally a quantum mechanical property.\n\n > Spin must be quantized in integer or half integer multiples of Planck's constant (i.e., it can only take on these values). Further, the 'total' spin of an elementary particle is a fixed quantity, which has tremendous consequences for many-body quantum systems behave. What I am referencing is the spin statistics theorem - the basic idea is that particles with half integer spin have wave functions that are constrained to behave in one way, and particles with integer spin have wave functions that are constrained to behave in another. The physics of magnetic materials, Bose-Einstein condensates, superfluids, and superconductors are all very much influenced by this. In high energy/nuclear physics, it places serious constraints on the manner in which identical particles collide with one another. These are just a handful of the reasons that it is \"important\".\n\nRelevant follow-up courtesy [dantastical](_URL_3_)\n\n > In Quantum Mechanics, the fundamental particles are described by wavefunctions - if you want to know where a particle is likely to be, or its probable energy, the wavefunction will tell you the probability of the particle being in such a state.\n\n\n > There is a very fundamental divide between the basic particles - particles with half integral spin (1/2, 1 1/2 etc) (called fermions) have antisymetric wavefunctions, whilst those with integral spin (0 1 2 etc) (called bosons) have symmetric wavefunctions. The impact of this, is that if you want to find the probability of 2 identical fermions in the same place, because their wavefunctions are antisymetric, they cancel out and the probability is 0. Thus you cannot have 2 identical fermions in the same state - this is the pauli exclusion principle, and is massively important! Bosons are not subject to this restriction though.\n\n > Spin has other important qualities of course but this is one major one.",
"\"Spin\" means intrinsic angular momentum. They aren't literally spinning. It looks like angular momentum and acts like angular momentum, but it doesn't arise from a literal spin.\n\nHere's a fun exercise: Suppose the electron's spin angular momentum arose because it was literally spinning. What would its rotation speed be, assuming its radius is the classical electron radius? You should find its more than 100 times the speed of light.",
"[Relevant Abstruse Goose](_URL_0_)\n\nMy advice: don't get caught up in the terms and take them as literal descriptions of the phenomenon.",
"Forget trying to think of particles as spinning around some axis - in quantum mechanics it makes no sense to think of a particle as having a geometry (can you tell me what an electron looks like?). Spin is just a property particles possess that happens to have units of angular momentum. Particles have properties such as mass, which allows for gravitational interaction, and charge, which allows for electromagnetic interaction. Spin is just another such property which happens gives a particle the ability to generate and react to a magnetic field."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spin_(physics)"
] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kkdy4/what_is_meant_by_the_spin_of_an_elementary/",
"http://www.reddit.com/user/pryomancer",
"http://www.reddit.com/search?q=particle+spin",
"http://www.reddit.com/user/dantastical",
"http://www.reddit.com/user/mufusisrad"
],
[],
[
"http://abstrusegoose.com/342"
],
[]
] |
|
3h90k1
|
how come people in america need $15/hr jobs if people from asia can apparently live off ridiculous wages like $2/hr?
|
What causes everything to be so expensive in America vs. other countries? Why don't prices fall to meet those other nations when things like outsourcing and free trade come up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3h90k1/eli5_how_come_people_in_america_need_15hr_jobs_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu5bfnb",
"cu5bhse",
"cu5bv3d",
"cu5eo7d",
"cu5fcds"
],
"score": [
46,
3,
5,
5,
15
],
"text": [
"Accepted standards of living, and societal expectations of what you will be capable of doing. \n\nOur standard of living requires that everyone have enough food for 3 meals a day, electricity in our homes, running water in our homes, plumbing in our homes, air conditioning, entertainments (books, tv, cable, internet, video games, etc), communication devices (e-mail, physical mail, telephone, instant messaging, texting, skype, etc), personal transportation, medications, and many other things. The reason people in Asia can pay so little is that they do not have these same basic standards of living. To them those things are luxuries. \n\nWe also require people to be accessible. Many jobs require you to be able to transport yourself to your work or to travel fairly significant distances on your own. Many jobs require you to have a cell phone or at minimum a landline phone. Many jobs require you to have regular access to e-mail. Without these things it can be difficult to get a job or keep one. ",
"[like this](_URL_0_)\n\nthis is going to get removed because it's just a link, right?",
"The cost of living is also different. Thing are much cheaper in a lot of poorer countries then in say, LA or NYC.",
"Part of it is supply and demand. The more popular a place is to live the more expensive it is to live there. In Asia, not every place is cheaper than the US. It's actually more expensive to live in Hong Kong or Tokyo vs some American cities. Similar if you look within the US itself. $15/hr is okay for Los Angeles but that money would go further if you lived in a small mid-western town.\n\nThe US also benefits from cheaper products than most countries. So not everything in America is more expensive than elsewhere. Food in Thailand is cheap but electronics, clothes and make-up can be 30% to 100% more expensive depending on the brand. \n\nLast, you should consider that lots of governments around the world view income disparity as a societal problem and work hard to close the income gap between the rich and the poor. A worker in China might get by on $2/hr but he or she lives in squalor compared to other Chinese who probably makes almost as much as an American and enjoys all the benefits and luxuries as you do.",
"Part of this has to do with a concept called [Purchasing Power Parity](_URL_0_). Basically, it looks at a country's currency in terms of, how much does one unit of the currency buy? It's complicated, as the price of everything is going to vary greatly depending on the location, and what things are people actually buying. But what it shows is that often wages that look really small to us when converted to American dollars, are actually capable of buying more for those people than Americans can afford on $15/hour."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://cdn.travelwireasia.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/05/JapanCapsuleHotel-654x424.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purchasing_power_parity"
]
] |
|
a6muwx
|
what is the difference between disk capacity and density with a ssd?
|
I'm trying to upgrade my system and have a vague idea. Want to clarify before I buy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a6muwx/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_disk_capacity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebw91ei"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Capacity is what you really want, that's how much total storage the drive provides\n\nDensity is about how much storage we can fit in one flash chip. Higher density chips enable higher capacity drives in the same size, or drives with the same capacity but fewer chips\n\nDensity matters in the long run, it's what has enabled us to go from 256 GB 2.5\" SSDs to 2 TB 2.5\" SSDs; but when you're building a machine you only care about what you can get right now and that's capacity"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
22rxps
|
Why have Argentine and Chilean political cultures been different?
|
Why have the Argentine and Chilean political cultures been different (despite some similarities, including tremendous British economic influence in the 19th and early 20th centuries plus World War I and II neutrality) throughout their history? Did it have to with Chile, compared to Argentina, a) having a smaller population, b) being more geographically isolated, c) receiving many fewer immigrants, d) having proportionally a much larger peasantry, e) having more mineral resources (like copper, nitrates, and silver), f) having an inferiority complex while Argentina has had a superiority complex, and g) receiving a higher proportion of German and British immigrants - known for their initiative and drive - relative to the population?
Plus, was the reason that Chilean elites had interests in manufacturing and finance as well as land (where Argentine elites had interests mostly in land) because of the greater presence of minerals in Chile?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22rxps/why_have_argentine_and_chilean_political_cultures/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgq6c1f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I would say Chile's geographic isolation had a key role. Have a desert in the north and a frozen wasteland to the south tends to place the heart of the populace in the center. That eliminates the problem of regionalism that other countries at the time had. Chile never really had a caudillo problem because of that too. That allowed a more \"conservative\" regime to have more control by the 1830s and for decades afterward. Argentina was one of the more wealthy colonies, Chile never shined 'til after independence, so less attention was placed on them during the colonial times. \n\nI'm not sure what you mean by an \"inferiority complex\" though?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7p0y89
|
If the M14 was readily available and known to be a good weapon then why was the M16 used in Vietnam?
|
It seems like the m16 was a bad rifle, poorly made and prone to jamming with weaker rounds than opposing ak models. Why was it used when automatic m14s were around?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7p0y89/if_the_m14_was_readily_available_and_known_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dse3uat",
"dse4hsf",
"dsea2bq"
],
"score": [
52,
29,
18
],
"text": [
"The development and testing of the m16 is one fraught with bureaucracy and was generally mishandled by people who either: 1) had little experience with small arms design (ie generals) and 2)Those that simply wanted a rifle similar to the m1 garand with full power rifle ammo. Much of this story goes back to the initial trials and the formation of NATO. The idea was that this newly formed cooperative military organization would have a standard rifle with standard ammo for all nations involved. Many were hoping to see an intermediate caliber rifle fielded after noting the effectiveness of the \"Sturmgewehr\" assault rifle the German's developed toward the end of WWII. \n\nThis was an opinion held in Europe, but many in the US also saw this as the way forward. The majority (or perhaps, those with the most internal authority) within the US military, however, still wanted a full rifle caliber rifle, particularly one that was very similar to the m1 garand. This sets the tone of the environment the m16 was to be birthed in. Rifles of the time were still steel and wood, firing something that's very similar to a typical hunting caliber. The m16 was made of aluminum and plastics and was also very light, with the m16a1 weighing about 6lbs, so it's toy like feel and appearance likely didn't help. An early prototype's barrel also blew up in a an officer's hands, but essentially it was a very new and radical design. One of the earliest adopters of the rifle was the us airforce, which allowed the design to get it's foot in the door for further military procurement. The earliest adopters of the m16 were military advisers and other special forces troops who enjoyed the lighter weight and better ergonomics of the m16 along with its lighter and lighter recoiling ammo. \n\nOk, so lets get into the issues now that we have the backstory. The main cause of the m16's issues was the army's switch to a different powder type. Not to get into too much technical detail, but a gas operated firearm needs the proper mount of force when cycling the weapon to ensure proper feeding and, more importantly to this topic, must not be so intense that it causes premature wear on parts. This is essentially what occurred with the m16 as is discussed by it's lead designer, [James Sullivan](_URL_0_) . In addition, there were other reasons for less than reliable initial performance, namely a lack of chrome plating on the internal parts. Many soldiers in the field were also not properly instructed on the new weapon when the army replaced the m14 and cleaning kits were often not issued. Chrome is very slick and corrosion resistant which would help immensely in a jungle environment. The m16 was, and is a precision made, modern firearm. I sourced this information from an author and expert on the subject, [Chris Bartocci](_URL_1_) . \n\nYour second assertion I would have to disagree with simply on a technical point. A firearm with an open action, like the m14, will be inherently more exposed to the elements than one that is sealed, such as the m16. This open action often makes them less reliable. The m16 family as a whole tends to be more inherently reliable than the m14 family. \n\n*edits for bad content and grammar and added small additional bits of info on it's reception/development ",
"First off, the M16 was not a bad rifle. It was a competently designed gun, with space age materials like aluminium and polymers that made the gun lighter. The fact that the US army and many of its allies use some variant of the M16 50 years later after dozens of attempts to replace it is a testament to this. The reasons why the M16 had such a poor reputation include: \n\na) The gun was incorrectly labelled as \"self-cleaning\", when it needed regular maintenance just like any other gun\n\nb) The ammunition that was issued was not to the same spec as was first given to the manufacturers who designed the trials guns\n\nc) Troops in general are pretty poor judges of their own equipment, especially firearms. \n\nThe reason why the US switched to the M16 in the first place goes back to late WWII. The Germans designed the MP-43/MP-44/Stg-44, which were the first mass-fielded assault rifles and the basis for every standard infantry rifle in modern armies. Indeed, it gave us the word assault rifle (sturm: to storm, as in to assault a trench, gewehr: rifle). The assault rifle was a select-fire infantry rifle that fired intermediate cartridges, because the Germans (and basically everyone except the Americans soon after WWII) realised that most combat took place in under 400m, and the battle rifles of the day were too powerful; the recoil made battle rifles inaccurate and impractical in full auto, training times were longer, and the targets weren't far enough to justify rounds that big. The Russians followed suit by designing the Kalashnikov line of rifles which are still in use today. \n\nAs an aside, the 7.62x39mm round that the AK used at the time was not more energetic than the 5.56 either. It used a heavier bullet at a lower velocity, but in the gun world, they are both considered the same class of cartridge. Additionally, the Russians switched from 7.62 to 5.45mm in 1974, which is very similar in specs to the M16's 5.56mm. \n\nThe Americans, on the other hand, stuck with the full-sized.308 because of army culture, and basically strong-armed the fledgling NATO into adopting it too, even though most of the other major players such as the British were coming up with intermediate cartridge rifles. The M16 was pretty much when the US military complex realised that they needed to get on with the times and design an actually modern rifle. It is claimed that the M16's poor performance early on was no less than sabotage by the more conservative elements in the army sabotaging the new program. \n\nSo, in summation, the M14 was outdated the day it was conceived, the M16 was better than its reputation and was possibly sabotaged.",
"The background for the weapons have already been discussed fairly well. I'm just going to include some more context:\n\nJust to recap, the M16 was ultimately a good weapon undercut by a poor fielding and teething issues. It's worth keeping in mind the Vietnam field trials with the AR-15 went very well with rave reviews for the weapon, and the 5.56 round. \n\nThe early run M16s (or more broadly, the XM16E1s) did not go well, again for reasons listed by other posters (namely the lack of chrome coating for the chamber, the choice in ammo, and the frankly astounding failure to include maintenance and care training in the initial fielding). When these issues were ironed out in the M16A1, and an improved training regime instituted for the weapon, the weapon became quite reliable.\n\nWhile not \"proof\" as someone who's put a few thousand rounds through M16A2s and M4s, the only reliability issues I had related to worn out magazines, and blank rounds do not work as well on the M4.\n\nSome other factors to consider too:\n\n1. The M14 is heavy, and so are it's rounds. For a dismounted soldier, weight is a very big consideration. With the lighter M16, a solider could carry more rounds or more equipment at the same sized load. \n\n2. For mounted soldiers (air cavalry, mechanized troops, cavalry scouts, truck drives etc) the M14 is large and unwieldy in tight quarters. The M16 did not suffer this problem.\n\n3. Much like all 7.62X51 rifles, the full automatic option was of dubious utility (it's a lot of recoil for a fairly small package). The 5.56 was much better suited for rapid/accurate fire. \n\nBasically in summary, the XM16E1 was a bad gun paired with a very poor fielding plan and training. The M16A1 was a solid rifle and there's a reason the M16 family is still going strong decades later vs the M14 which had the shortest service life of any combat rifle in US use (for it's intended use, specialist marksmen or ceremonial use notwithstanding) "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.forgottenweapons.com/jim-sullivan-on-the-m16-in-vietnam/",
"http://www.smallarmsreview.com/display.article.cfm?idarticles=1735"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2klv9y
|
eli:5 - what is with the giant outrage of texas demanding id for voting?
|
I understand a lot of underprivileged adults don't have the valid identification required to actively vote. If we don't hold up for voter fraud inciting instances that, like the 2000 request for recount by the Bush Administration, completely change the outcome of the election. Why are people saying doing these things are bad saying the GOP trying to suppress poor voters (which they are) instead of attacking the facts that we DON'T as a nation demand these COMPLETELY RELEVANT documents for our nation's leaders
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2klv9y/eli5_what_is_with_the_giant_outrage_of_texas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clsobjo",
"clmion5",
"clmjufr",
"clmkoms",
"clml719",
"clmmjyw"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know how many Texans are commenting here but as one I'd like to believe that Americans are the only ones determining the outcome of American elections. ",
"Because some people argue that as these IDs require money and time to acquire, it constitutes a poll tax, which is unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause as determined by the case of Harper v. Virginia Board of Elections (1966).",
"Texas wants every voter to provide government issued proof that the voter is who they say they are in order to vote. Interestingly, this ID requirement does not apply to votes by mail. There has recently been strong evidence that votes have been cast by people who are not eligible to vote and this is a means of preventing that from happening.\n\nVoters who do not have an ID can pick up an election identification certificate from any Texas driver's license office at no charge.\n\nYou are misremembering the Bush-Gore contest. The Bush campaign did not request a recount because they had won the election day count, and the following mandatory machine recount. The Gore campaign attempted to have a quartet of Gore friendly counties hand re-counted and was quashed 7-2 by the Supreme Court on equal protection grounds--you can't cherry pick counties to recount in a state wide election.",
"Every time I voted I had to show my ID and they ticked my name off of a list of registered voters. So when did you just get to walk up and vote willy nilly? ",
"The outrage is because the type of voter fraud these laws *allegedly* prevent just about doesn't happen at all (and CERTAINLY not enough to make even the faintest detectable dent in even a county election), so one must wonder why the \"party of smaller government\" is so keen on passing them.\n\nAnd the answer to that is because the laws were designed by Republicans to make it just a little harder for poor and elderly people to vote, and by an incredible coincidence, they are groups that overwhelmingly vote Democratic.\n\nThis is not partisan speculation. At least three Republican party officials have admitted it on camera:\n\nHere's one:\n\n_URL_1_\n\n > > “cut Obama by 5 percent” in 2012... “probably Voter ID had helped a bit in that.”\n\nHere's another:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > > \"Voter ID, which is gonna allow Governor Romney to win the state of Pennsylvania, done.”\n\nAdmitting on camera that you passed a law specifically to favor a particular party or candidate...done!\n\nNow how this can be even in the same time zone as legal, I cannot explain. But courts have begun to strike down these laws.\n",
"There's no problem with voter ID laws in and of themselves. The problem is that these laws are being created specifically to suppress the vote of people who historically tend to vote for Democratic candidates. If you don't see this, then you haven't been affected by this or know someone that has been affected by this...and that's not your fault. It is, however, the truth.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thinkprogress.org/election/2012/06/25/505953/pennsylvania-republican-voter-id-laws-are-gonna-allow-governor-romney-to-win/",
"http://thinkprogress.org/justice/2013/07/17/2313571/top-pennsylvania-republican-admits-voter-id-helped-suppress-obama-voters/"
],
[]
] |
|
28zcjp
|
How accurate is Da Vinci's painting of the Last Supper from what people at the time would have visualized the Last Supper as?
|
When people were taught about that event, would they have been taught to have visualized all of them on the same side of the table, that big of a room, etc? Or was it painted with specific details that were requested?
Edit: Also, what would the customs of been for eating at a meal like that one when it was originally held?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/28zcjp/how_accurate_is_da_vincis_painting_of_the_last/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cig5fb2",
"cigqd1y"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Da Vinci's The Last Supper is a special portrayal of the biblical event because it was commissioned by Ludovico Sforza, the Duke of Milan, to be placed in the dining hall of the Santa Maria delle Grazie monastery, which the Duke had recently had renovated. The reason this makes it special is because Sforza requested that the scene be painted as if the monks, whom would be eating beneath this painting daily, were dining with Jesus and his apostles, which is why they are all portrayed to be sitting on the same side of the table. \n\nIn real life, this would be a very awkward way to set a dining table, as it would be hard to make conversation with those at the far end of the tables. In portraying the dinner in this awkward way, Da Vinci was able to make the monks feel as if they were truly dining with Jesus and his apostles, as well as easily paint every member of the dinner with such striking detail that, even after the painting fell to ruin in ten years due to a failed experiment by Leonardo, who, instead of painting in the fresco method of painting on wet plaster, painted directly onto the wall, the details were still sharp and discernible, allowing them to survive to this day. \n\nHow this differs from what people at the time would have visualized the last supper as being, of course depends on the person. The bible provides little detail as to the setting of the supper, and rather focuses on the dialogue and intrigue of the dinner. However, as we can see by [other](_URL_5_) [representations](_URL_1_) [of](_URL_3_) [the](_URL_4_) [event](_URL_2_), there are many different artistic portrayals of this famous biblical scene. While we will never know how this looked exactly, any of these works can be a guess as to how it actually looked. \n\nSources: \n\n* Kenneth Clark.Leonardo da Vinci, Penguin Books 1939, 1993, p144\n* \"The Last Supper\". _URL_0_. Retrieved 2014-06-24\n* \"DaVinci\". The Mark Steel Lectures. Series 2. Episode 2. The Open University. 7 October 2003. BBC. Retrieved 2014-06-24\n* \"Leonardo's Last Supper\". Smarthistory at Khan Academy. Retrieved 2014-06-24\n",
"/u/explicit_snark already answered your question, but I wanted to provide you with this link:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nYou can search for \"The Last Supper\" here to see how different artists depicted it. \"Same side of the table\" is actually fairly common."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"lairweb.org.nz",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Comunione_degli_apostoli,_cella_35.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Valentin_de_Boulogne,_Last_Supper.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:%C3%9Altima_Cena_-_Juan_de_Juanes.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Jacopo_Tintoretto_-_The_Last_Supper_-_WGA22649.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:BouveretLastSupper.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.wga.hu/index1.html"
]
] |
|
9hcitw
|
how can the fbi seize a website?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9hcitw/eli5_how_can_the_fbi_seize_a_website/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6avspd",
"e6awhnk",
"e6azs3g"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The website is stored on a server which is physically located somewhere. If it's located in the United States then the FBI can get a warrant to take possession of it (or at least the section of it that the website is on) to shut the service down. If it's located in another country then they have to cooperate with the local authorities and come up with an agreement to take the site down. In some cases the authorities in the other country won't cooperate because they don't care. ",
"There are different ways.\n\nSometimes they can do little more than size the DNS entry and simply have the name of the website now direct at their servers.\n\nOn the other hand of the scale is them getting their hands on the physical server that actually host the website and taking possession of it.\n\nA lot fo that depends on the way the website is set up and on jurisdiction.\n\nUS law enforcement will have trouble getting a hold of a computer stuck in some criminals basement in a foreign country, but they can more easily get warrants to compel US companies hosting websites on servers in the US to give them full access.\n\nJust because you see a FBI notice when you visit a bookmarked site does not mean that the FBI has actually gotten to the data that used to be on that site (and more importantly the users data that visited it).\n\nSometimes they can however get full control, like when they arrest someone they think trades in child porn or something and they can get warrants and or cooperation to take over his website. Mostly by making a copy of the original data, putting the original into evidence and running the copy on some infrastructure they control.",
"For foreign websites on servers in someone's basement, they can direct (via international agreements) the companies that run the domain name system to stop directing requests to see that site to the actual server, and instead direct them to a landing page run by the FBI (with the logo and the seizure message).\n\nThe website is still up, but the foreign agent has lost control of their domain name and routing information to their website, which will significantly lower traffic. \n\nOf course there's not just one domain name system in the world, but there's only one that Joe Average uses, so this method is fairly effective."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qagj9
|
What would a explosion look like in space?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qagj9/what_would_a_explosion_look_like_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdavhs4",
"cdaw293",
"cdawpo3",
"cdaynr8",
"cdaz49d"
],
"score": [
28,
5,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"im by no means an expert on the subject, but I have a couple links that may interest you. look into [Starfish Prime.](_URL_1_) it was part of a series of High Altitude Nuclear Tests carried out by the US. This one in particular was conducted 400km above Earth. The highest ever recorded nuclear test was also conducted by the US during Operation Argus at an altitude of 540km. Also, for [your viewing pleasure.](_URL_0_)",
"Catastrophic failure of the ISS wouldn't necessarily be an \"explosion\" in the sense we think of with special effects like a gas tanker blowing up; unless the [propulsion module](_URL_8_) (which uses [MMH](_URL_5_) and [N2O4](_URL_3_)) were struck, it would just be a pressure leak. MMH + N2O4 are hypergolic, meaning they react upon contact. [This](_URL_6_) is a Draco engine (which IIRC uses MMH + N2O4) firing in vacuum. Shuttle thrusters (for steering) use the same stuff; [here's video of STS-133 thrusters in vacuum.](_URL_0_) And [here](_URL_7_) is another video. So, there is some emission of light with these reactions. Whether such a reaction would be evident during a catastrophic failure would depend upon many factors, such as mixing of the compounds, particularly in vacuum, in comparison to a nice, tidy nozzle.\n\nThere are, of course, other types of explosives, including pyrotechnic devices (an intimate mixture of fuel and oxidizer, pressed together into a device such as an explosive bolt), and video of LEMs from the Apollo era will show these. [This video](_URL_1_) shows the explosive bolts popping right at separation. Same deal with [Apollo 15.](_URL_4_) Skip to about :45 to save yourself some time.\n\nThe [various compositions](_URL_2_) employed in explosive bolts would also emit heat and light energy, and therefore also be visible.\n\nI'm not sure what a monomolecular explosive without metal (such as TNT, RDX, nitroglycerin, etc.) would look like in a vacuum explosion.",
"Not an expert, but here's my thoughts:\n\nSpace is 1) Cold and 2) Lacking oxygen. Fire will definitely dissipate quickly. Any explosion will be determined by the physical fragments' radiative abilities. If it can radiate heat quickly, the glow will dissipate quickly. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a matchstick in microgravity. Notice the flame is spherical because lack of air weight effects. Any explosion will continue in the direction that it started in, so if it were disc shaped, it would continue out as a disc. If it were a complete and utter explosion, it'd probably be spherical.",
"As a follow-up question, let's talk about nukes in space (which has kind of been mentioned here already).\n\nWithout an atmosphere to turn into a blast wave (the most damaging part of a nuclear blast), how effective would a nuclear weapon actually *be* in space? Ignoring the high energy particles affecting crew, but would pretty much the only outcome be concussive shock (assuming a direct impact) and heat damage from the fireball? How large would the fireball even get compared to an atmospheric detonation?\n\nIt would seem to me that if you had materials strong enough to withstand the heat and didn't suffer a direct impact, there'd be quite little damage from the weapon.",
"We'll all know when Betelgeuse goes super nova. \n\nWhenever that happens, we will find out about 400 years later, because it's around 400 light-years away. May have happened in the last couple hundred years, and we just don't know it yet. \n\n\nThree things for certain. \n1) It WILL happen in less than 1 million years\n\n2) When it DOES happen, we will need about 400 years to see it. \n\n3) At it's peak, there will be several days when it is visible in the daytime before it slowly fades. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKvvrNrCOnw",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starfish_Prime"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1xT4GstMyKs",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n4yYZh1U908",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrotechnic_fastener#Compositions_used",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitrogen_tetroxide",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BMBcLg0DkLA",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monomethylhydrazine",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z5j5exxNZFw",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ClPAPkh-f1M",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ISS_Propulsion_Module"
],
[
"http://upall.co/fire-in-zero-gravity-1340.php"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1lzvi2
|
Does plastic deteriorate/lose integrity over time?
|
Does plastic react to the atmosphere that might then degrade it's integrity? I know there are different types of plastics out there, does this only affect certain kinds of plastics?
This question arose from the idea of car seats having an expiration date. After five years, or so, the manufacturer states that the car seat expires. I'm wondering if this holds any credibility.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lzvi2/does_plastic_deterioratelose_integrity_over_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc4hsld"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Yes, and it really depends on the plastic.\n\nSome plastics react to moisture or oxygen in the atmosphere and will break down over time. These are fairly rare and not used as commodity plastics yet, but occasionally you'll come across that biodegradable cup where this applies.\n\nMost plastics will degrade upon exposure to UV light. Over time the bonds in the actual polymer chains will break and the mechanical integrity of the plastic will slowly become compromised.\n\nAdditionally, many plastics contain small molecules along with the long chains as part of their design. These can be added to promote flexibility or other desired material properties. However, over time they can break down, evaporate/sublimate out, or be leached out of the plastic. When enough of these small molecules are gone the plastic can also lose its mechanical integrity and become brittle or other bad things.\n\nThe 5 year safety rating probably has a hefty safety margin. but yes the plastics in a car seat would lose some structural integrity over the years. Things like the foam inside the seat (likely also a polymer) could also become compressed to the point of not offering shock protection anymore, which would not be a chemical degradation but a physical one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1tqmb6
|
does it rain over all the oceans and seas? are any areas over an ocean or a sea classified as deserts?
|
Well I was watching some documentary and they mentioned ancient dried up seas. This got me wondering why they dried up, the obvious answer was the geology changed. But then I thought to myself, so why didn't a giant lake form here instead and I realised that since the geology had changed, there had been so little rainfall that the water all evaporated.
Which means that a area over this Sea would not have gotten rain, making it a Desert, right?
Does that question even make sense? I am a bit high..
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tqmb6/eli5_does_it_rain_over_all_the_oceans_and_seas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceajsc0",
"ceallor"
],
"score": [
11,
8
],
"text": [
"There are definitely bodies of water which get rained on more or less depending on where they are. The amount of precipitation which falls in the arctic is very small compared to that which falls in a tropical region. Areas of ocean which are downwind from deserts also get very little direct precipitation.\n\nOceans and seas which can accept ocean water can maintain their water levels because the water will slosh around to roughly even things out. If a body of water gets cut off from oceans, then the area which it can draw water from becomes a lot smaller and this sea is now going to be much more affected by local weather than the larger oceans. All surface water bodies evaporate and most seep into groundwater as well and many lose water to creatures (particularly humans in recent timse), but if the water isn't being replenished fast enough, then the water level will drop and eventually disappear, but many water bodies surrounded by land are able to find a balance point for a long time where their levels stay within a particular range across the seasons.",
"/u/eideid is correct. There really are regions over the oceans where it doesn't rain at all or does so only very rarely. There is a large area in the Pacific west off of Chile where so far no rainfall has ever been observed. Off the coast of Namibia, where the sand desert immediately meets the ocean, rainfall is also extremely rare or absent. \n \nHowever, land deserts are not only characterized by their lack of rainfall. They are also empty places where living things are rare and far between; of course this is a consequence of the lack of water. \nIn an ocean, that is not an issue; so you can argue that there is a different definition of 'desert' for oceans that concentrates on the availability of nutrients in the water. \nAnd in fact, such places exist, too. There are areas like large swathes of the Pacific and Atlantic oceans that are blue, 'pure' water - water with little nutrient content where primary production (Algae & Cyanobacteria photosynthetising) is very low. Other spaces, often near coasts, are 'green' water full of life. Both regions exist independently of rainfall; the region off Chile is really empty while the Namibian coast is anything but. Here cold, deep nutrient-rich water is pushed up from below and together with the intense sun makes for a very productive area and huge amounts of fish live there. Rain doesn't concern them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
20lml3
|
How do NASA scientists take such clear long exposure photographs of Nebulas and galaxies, if the Earth is constantly rotating itself and around the sun?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20lml3/how_do_nasa_scientists_take_such_clear_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg4iles",
"cg4iqaz",
"cg4iu7i"
],
"score": [
5,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Telescopes are motorized to track a location in the sky as the Earth rotates under them.\n\nThe [Wikipedia article on equatorial mounts](_URL_0_) has a bunch of examples and pictures of telescope mounts.\n\nEven relatively small backyard telescopes can have motorized mounts, for amateur astronomers who want to take long duration photographs.\n",
"Galaxies are extremely far away from us, so far in fact, that for the purposes of taking a photograph of them from an orbiting telescope, they don't move. There is a very tiny amount of relative movement of the telescope along its orbital path however, so gyroscopes and and reaction wheels are used to keep the telescope pointed at the target. Often times images are actually composites, collected over many orbital periods. \n\nEdit:words",
"Telescopes counter-rotate to cancel the rotation of whatever platform supports them (*e.g.*, the Earth). They use auxiliary \"guide cameras\" to maintain this pointing by keeping star images stable on the image plane.\n\nThe orbit of the Earth around the Sun is not an issue when looking at objects far outside the Solar System. The distances are too great for it to have a significant effect."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equatorial_mount#Astronomical_telescope_mounts"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
dagje4
|
How does cocaine get into the hair structure through use and environmental exposure?
|
I'm reading an article that was published in Analytical Chemistry that discusses the current methodology for forensic hair drug analysis in Europe.
The Society of Hair Testing says that hair samples should be prepped with an organic solvent wash followed by aqueous washes to remove contaminants.
However, a 3-year-old paper discovered that if the hair is somehow contaminated with cocaine (I guess either through lab error or maybe the person goes to places where cocaine particulates/vapor is in the air) the cocaine will permeate throughout the hair and present like user hair.
The authors looked at the cross-section of hair with a MetA-SIMS (TRIFT II TOF-SIMS) and compared it with conventional methods (LC-MS/MS). The contamination wasn't removed in the washes with organic solvents and water according to the LC-MS/MS, it permeated throughout the hair according to the TOF-SIMS.
I'm trying to figure out 2 things. One: How does cocaine chemically enter the hair if you're a user? Two: If cocaine hydrochloride (cocaine a rich person might buy) is water soluble, why isn't it coming out in the water? Why is permeating the hair further? (However this is also true for cocaine base, or "crack" cocaine. Though I'm having issues determining solubility with crack cocaine.)
FWIW, hair is composed of mostly keratin. Keratin is helical due to hydrogen bondings and has sulfate groups due to cysteine. Hair also has minerals due to diet and water, and contains lipids (cocaine vapor is lipophilic).
I'm finding a lot of speculation online and I was hoping for some more concrete cocaine chemistry. Thanks in advance.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dagje4/how_does_cocaine_get_into_the_hair_structure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1qwqpo",
"f1r1tz4"
],
"score": [
14,
6
],
"text": [
" > is water soluble, why isn't it coming out in the water? Why is permeating the hair further?\n\nI can't answer your other questions, but keep in mind there is a lot of water in the human body, inside cells and tissue and bodily fluids etc. Just googling it hair is apparently 10 - 13% water. Might be wrong but I think anything water soluble that enters your bloodstream is liable to be transported to other areas of your body as your blood does its thing, transporting oxygen and nutrients and such.",
"I can't offer you any solid answers, but just to touch on one point (and this is still basically speculation), crack cocaine (or freebase cocaine) and cocaine hydrochloride are going to behave mostly the same once they have entered the body and become dissolved in blood or other aqueous fluid.\n\nIn that case, the lipophilicity of the cocaine molecules and their tendency to partition into aqueous solution vs. non-polar things like cell membranes or possibly hair is dictated by the pH of the environment which dictates the ionization of cocaine at its tertiary amine. \n\nCocaine has a pKa of about 8.6 at its tertiary amine / nitrogen atom, so at physiologic pH of ~7.4, more than 90% of cocaine molecules will exist as the ionized R3-NH+ form which is more water soluble and is less lipophillic. \n\nI imagine that cocaine molecules are permeating deep enough into the hair that the solvent and water washes aren't reaching them.\n\nWhether the cocaine was originally crack or cocaine HCl, it should be highly soluble in an acidic (or even pH 7) wash solution since hydrogen ions from the wash will convert molecules of cocaine base into the more water soluble cocaine ion with a salt counterion. So assume the water wash is acidic or neutral pH, I would assume it isn't removing cocaine because the wash isn't able to penetrate fully into the hair.\n\nEDIT: Also, have you read this? Lots of good stuff in here although it is a bit dated.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nSome data about washing on pages 51-55."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/Digitization/146672NCJRS.pdf"
]
] |
|
13czbs
|
Could a hydrogen car have a water dispenser inside the car?
|
It is said commonly that the only emission of hydrogen fuel cells is hydrogen. So if you collected the exhaust could you dispense water inside the car? Would the water be hot/cold? Does the fuel cell convert all of the hydrogen, or would there be dissolved hydrogen in the water? or dissolved oxygen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/13czbs/could_a_hydrogen_car_have_a_water_dispenser/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c72v2co",
"c72wdzn",
"c72weum"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, that is in the world of \"could.\" I doubt that the hardware required to store a meaningful reservoir of water would be worthwhile for most vehicles, though.\n\nA more practical example would be a household or neighborhood level hydrogen power cell, that uses provided hydrogen to generate both electricity and drinking water.\n\n[Accoring to NASA](_URL_0_), the fuel cells in the space shuttle helped provided drinking water.",
"The water produced by this process would be pure, and would need to have minerals added to it to make it safe for regular human consumption _URL_0_",
"Hydrogen fuel cells actually *consume* hydrogen gas and produce water as a byproduct. This is usually done in fuel cells by the process of elctrolytic ion solution, so no flames are produced as when the gases are burned normally. This process results in several things. Since the process does not impart excess energy in the form of heat to the water as combustion does, this energy can be utilized by the fuel cell's electrical system. Secondly, this would mean that the water would not be unreasonably hot, and should not come out of the cell at anything hotter than above ambient temperatures. Furthermore, since the process is done through an electrolytic solution (which acts as a semi-permeable mediator of the H^2/ 2O^2 reaction), excess gases can be recycled into the system, with the hydrogen reused and the oxygen + H20 returned to the surrounding environment. Therefore there would be no diffusion of the gases between each other, and only water would be produced as a result.\n\n\nSo to answer your question! Theoretically, we could harvest the water that is produced, but the process would still be too expensive/energy inefficient/slow for feasibility and use in everyday cars, although dedicated systems already exist for things such as the space systems and the ISS."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nasa.gov/topics/technology/hydrogen/fc_shuttle.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distilled_water#Health_concerns"
],
[]
] |
|
97gkpo
|
Why can't herbivores eat meat, and why can't carnivores eat plants?
|
Is there a fundamental difference in the digestion process? Is it psychological? I know very little about animal anatomy or biology, but I would love to learn more!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/97gkpo/why_cant_herbivores_eat_meat_and_why_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e48hpyf",
"e48hz3y"
],
"score": [
6,
12
],
"text": [
"Carnivores stomaches have an extremely low PH allowing them to process raw meat without harmful parasites thriving. Many herbivores have several stomaches in order to digest the very tough cell walls of plants. Dietary needs as well as digestion Is vastly different between the two types of animals.",
"Depends. The difference is very rarely psychological. The main difference is the digestive systems in place and the energy demands of the animal.\n\nDeriving energy from plants is hard work thanks to cellulose and a whole heap of other barriers including poisons. Herbivores therefore either need to be specialists and focus on a handful of specific vegetation, or have most of their body devoted to processing nutrient poor but numerically plentiful food. The first strategy you can apply to, for example, squirrels, and the former to cows. In order for these systems to work they need specific enzymes to break down the food they are eating, and in the cow’s case several stomach portions and a whole regurgitating system for further breakdown. To further drive their food needs, their physiology has evolved to need energy and vitamins in proportions to what they typically eat. Even if meat is nutritionally more dense, a cow wouldn’t receive a great deal of benefit from it because a)\nWrong enzymes to break down the food and b) the meat will have vitamins and minerals in wrong forms and proportions.\n\nTo add a further hurdles, having a multi-chambered, enormous digestive system, or other herbivore digestive demands such as grinding teeth, mean that you are poorly suited to catching prey.\n\nSame goes for carnivores. They lack the enzymes or indeed the sheer length of digestive tract needed to break down plant matter, and their bodies require nutrients and minerals that can be obtained from prey. For example, cats have practically all their dietary demands in near perfect proportions in the form of mice.\n\nWhat about omnivores? Well they have a grab bag of enzymes that can eat *some* plant matter but this is usually very easily digestible, such as berries or nectar. One of the earliest pre-requisites for civilisation was the design and harvesting of easily digested plant matter in the form of fruits, vegetables, and grain. Omnivores\ncan also exploit meat thanks to enzymes, and their bodies are not so devoted to eating vegetables that they are hampered by the digestive systems. Omnivores tend to either need a heap of energy due to behaviour and size (such as overland migration) and be in areas where both plant and meat isn’t particularly plentiful. Occasionally you have omnivorous scavengers who simply exploit what they can. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1ljfta
|
How did elite Westerners entertain long-term visitors before the twentieth century?
|
I was recently at Andrew Jackson's estate in Tennessee, and started wondering about elite men like Jackson (or Thackery, or Ben Franklin, and so on) who seem to have entertained guests for weeks -- even months -- at a time. Certainly this depends on the individuals involved, but broadly what was the nature of these long-term visits, and how and when did they change? How much contact might Jackson have had with a multi-week visitor to his estate, for example? And was the ability to travel in this way largely limited to elite men, perhaps accompanied by their wives and families?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ljfta/how_did_elite_westerners_entertain_longterm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbzxwkw",
"cbzzv18",
"cc00i8y",
"cc00uhh",
"cc0185w"
],
"score": [
13,
29,
3,
7,
10
],
"text": [
"Nothing elaborate, and not an answer to your question, but one thing I will point out just for some reference is that prior to the late 19th century, the entire idea of a hotel did not exist. Sure you had inns and taverns, but those were not places the wealthy would stay. Instead if the wealthy traveled, they would be staying at the houses of friends or other people they knew.",
"This is right at the end of the 19th century, in the Gilded Age in America, but [The Biltmore Estate](_URL_0_) gives you a good idea of how the tippiest-top of the elite would entertain. I visited about a year ago so it's on my mind. \n\nWhile you were staying with the Vanderbilts you could expect: \n\n- formal dining every night, including dressing for dinner, all in all you'd have to change your clothes several times a day while a guest\n- walking their estate (a relatively common entertainment) \n- looking around the greenhouse \n- riding their estate\n- outdoor sports like tennis, croquet\n- partaking of their state of the art gym\n- reading in the library \n- swimming in their indoor swimming pool (pretty uncommon) \n\nYou'd have a fair amount of free time to do these things, but you'd be expected to dine with your host/ess every night. You might find some fruitful reading in [*Manners and social usages* by Mrs. John Sherwood](_URL_1_) (1877) especially Chapter 50 on house guests (which is stubbornly not letting me link directly to it). It's written by a lady for ladies, but it lays down the expectations that both host and guest would have around that time. ",
"Check out \"The Sorrows of a Summer Guest\" in[ this collection](_URL_0_), which is from 1918 but still has a Victorian flavor. If nothing else, it's entertaining reading.",
"Musical evenings, handcrafts, dances, parties w/ neighbors, fishing, hunting, outings to local points of interest and other estates, church. \n\nIf a male guest had an inclination or ability to assist w/ work on the estate, any real help would be welcomed and they may spend days with his male host, then evenings at home together. If a guest didn't have those skills, a male host would take some time away to entertain him, but would still have to tend to his own business. Major social visits were planned for the slowest times of the year. A visitor or guest of necessity wouldn't expect to be babysat when a man must obviously do his job. Women were a lot more flexible. \n\n > was the ability to travel in this way largely limited to elite men, perhaps accompanied by their wives and families?\n\nEasier for elite men. A poorer man who was traveling was more suspect in most regions unless well outfitted (w/ wagons, horses, equipment, family) or showing other signs of prosperity (cash). Lone indigent men are percieved to be on the move because they *must* be. ",
"In her prologue to the second edition of Frankenstein, Mary Shelley writes about how she come up with the idea: her husband and her were visiting Lord Byron, and the three of them would often get into storytelling sessions every night. \n\nShe couldn't come up with anything, until one night she had a nightmare that was the basis for a story, that later became the book.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.biltmore.com/visit/house_gardens/default.asp",
"http://hdl.loc.gov/loc.music/musdi.237"
],
[
"http://onlinebooks.library.upenn.edu/webbin/gutbook/lookup?num=8457"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2sm36r
|
why is it ok to insult religion in name of freedom of speech, yet not ok to be a racist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sm36r/eli5_why_is_it_ok_to_insult_religion_in_name_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnqr0or",
"cnqrbxe",
"cnqrcp0",
"cnqre35",
"cnqrilr",
"cnqrqc2",
"cnqs9wy",
"cnqzvka",
"cnr5cp6",
"cnr7wbq"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
12,
3,
8,
10,
4,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because no-one is responsible for the colour of their skin, but they are ultimately responsible for their own belief system.....\n\nYou can only ridicule someone based on the stupid choices they have made (such as believing in imaginary friends as adults) & the things they have done, & not on things they have no control over, such as race, sex, or handicap.",
"Neither is ok. Both are forms of protected speech.",
"Being racist is also protected by free speech. \n\nIt is illegal to discriminate based on race or ethnicity, but you are fully allowed to think, speak, draw or do anything you like that is racist so long as you do not directly harm or call other to harm someone. ",
"Insults to race and insults to religion are the same as far as \"freedom of speech\" goes. \"Freedom of speech\" just means the government won't punish you for the idea you are expressing. \n\nInsulting religion and insulting a race will still make people mad, depending on how they feel about the insulted race or the insulted religion. These concepts aren't necessarily related.",
"There's a difference between \"legally OK\" and \"socially OK\". It is legally OK (in the United States) to say or write things that are racially or religiously bigoted. It is not, however, socially OK to do either, in general.\n\nSometimes you will find a group of people within society who think it is OK to express bigotry of one kind or another. You will generally find those people are, in fact, bigots. Unfortunately, society isn't always polite, and sometimes it's a *very large* group.\n\nThat said, the distinction between legal/social can be summed up as \"I don't think you *should* do this, but I think you should be *allowed* to.\"",
"Religion is a choice, race is not. Its perfectly fine to criticize and ridicule someone's choices. ",
"You can choose your religion. You can't choose your race ",
"Its not really OK to do either. You are free to do so, as in you wont be jailed, but that doesnt mean you *should*.",
"People have rights. Ideas don't. \n\nSimple as that, I can talk shit about whatever idea (wich includes religion) I want to and mock them. They are not people. ",
"Probably has something to do with religion being a threat to humanity as a whole. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fx2pno
|
Historians who read languages for which there is no known pronunciation, or for which there are large gaps in pronunciation, how do you do it?
|
It seems very odd to imagine reading something and not hearing it sounded out in my head. How do you cope when one leg of the visual-auditory-meaning trio is taken out of the equation? How does it make you feel? How did you, personally, manage to learn the language in the first place without being able to link characters and speech?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/fx2pno/historians_who_read_languages_for_which_there_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmssmyk"
],
"score": [
33
],
"text": [
"This is exactly what I work on (and I mean *exactly*). Most Egyptian texts are written in a phase of the language called Middle Egyptian. Middle Egyptian was only spoken until the mid second millennium BCE, but the written language continued to be used for formal writing for the remainder of Egyptian pharaonic history. Because most Middle Egyptian texts were written during a state of diglossia (the formal and vernacular languages did not match), it's difficult to say much about how this language was pronounced. By the time we get good information about pronunciation in Coptic, 2000 years passed. Most words do not survive into Coptic. Even when they do, the specific grammatical form is not attested, because the grammar of the language changed as well. \n\nAdd to that the fact that many Egyptologists never learn Coptic at all, and the result is that we almost never know how to read a hieroglyphic word aloud. The solution generally adopted is to put e's (phonetic [ɛ]) between the known consonants, and to treat some consonants as though they represented vowels. This is done to deliberately mark the fact that we don't know how it would have been pronounced.\n\nYou've probably seen this happening in practice without realizing it. The name \"Ra\" is known from Coptic as ⲣⲏ ([re]), so his name should always be rendered as \"Re\", but people pronounce it as \"ra\" because the hieroglyphic spelling is 𓂋𓂝𓇳 (*rꜥ* in Egyptian transliteration, [r_ʕ] phonetically). Names like 𓇋𓏠𓈖𓊵𓏏𓊪, \"Amun is satisfied\", may be rendered as \"Amunhotep\" from Coptic ⲁⲙⲟⲩⲛ+Ϩⲱⲧⲡ or Imenhetep based on Egyptological convention.\n\nThe key thing to recognize there is that \"Imenhetep\" is *deliberately* wrong. It couldn't possibly be the word's true ancient pronunciation. If you ever see a piece of pop culture where people speak Egyptian, they've probably misunderstood what Egyptologists are trying to accomplish by pronouncing things this way. The list includes [Philip Glass's Akhenaten](_URL_2_) and [Assassin's Creed: Origins](_URL_3_).\n\nSo this is what we do when we read for the most part, we mispronounce things on purpose to show that we don't know. People who are obsessed with vocalization, like me, tend to use the Coptic pronunciation or the various Coptic-based vocalizations. That's a minority practice to be sure. I always read [Demotic](_URL_0_) with Coptic pronunciation in my head, but I know many highly-competent Demotists who don't know any Coptic whatsoever. It's pretty flexible in practice.\n\nI've been arguing forever that the absence of this crucial component of language learning hamstrings our understanding. Many people disagree. That's more of a personality thing. There are plenty of Egyptologists who are more interested in extracting meaning than they are in revivifying the spoken language of ancient Egypt. For them, being able to read the text seems separate from being able to hear it. I think they're incorrect. I did an experiment a few years ago with a Late Egyptian class where I taught one class Coptic alongside the hieroglyphs. The students who had Coptic vocalizations performed better on vocabulary quizzes, but my sample sizes were too small to be confident in the results (p = 0.54 😕). I'm hoping to try the experiment again on a larger scale.\n\nSources available at r/AncientEgyptian. See especially the [thread on Allen's *Middle Egyptian*](_URL_1_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demotic\\_\\(Egyptian\\)",
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AncientEgyptian/comments/eblzib/allens_middle_egyptian_megathread/",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rSn_UAquOfw",
"https://youtu.be/3gVlx_GkNPY?t=159"
]
] |
|
5rorcg
|
was fighting in ice hockey allowed since the beginning of this sport, or was it introduced later - and if so how that happened.
|
I always wondered how it turned out.
The first time I ever seen a fight in Ice Hockey game I was really surprised that referees allowed it to finish. I started questioning myself, if I was watching Hockey game where you score the goals or two guys fighting in a ring until the one falls on the ground. With time I started understanding why this is a thing in Hockey, but I still question how that began.
So like in the title. I was wondering if fighting was in this sport since beginning or if it was introduced later. And if it was introduced later then how the process of that looked like?
Cheers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5rorcg/eli5_was_fighting_in_ice_hockey_allowed_since_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dd8yr8n",
"dd8yru9",
"dd90jp7",
"dd9lm5y"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's not allowed. That's why there are penalties for fighting. \n\nFighting is a result, usually, of three things. \n\n1. Get your team to raise their game. I'm willing to drop gloves and get into a fight. What are you willing to do to get our team back into the game?\n\n2. Defend a team mate. That little a-hole just unloaded a dirty hit on my guy, I'm going to make sure he doesn't think about doing that again. \n\n3. To pay the price. I need to fight him to atone for a bad play that hurt someone or nearly hurt. This one is a rare one. \n\nHockey is a sport of passion and grit. Players are tough as nails and don't like having their ice disrespected. If you allow a player from the opposing side to disrespect your team once what's to stop him from doing it again? Even worse if the ref keeps missing it or doesn't think it's a penalty.",
"I read a book on this once and it talked about how the fights could extend up into the crowd like in Slap Shot. I have no idea what the name of the book was since this was decades ago. Wikipedia has a decent primer on how it evolved in the rules and some theories as to why.",
"Fighting in most sports will get you ejected from the game. \n\nIt will only get you a penalty in some hockey leagues, the NHL being the most famous. Many other hockey leagues (especially youth and amateur leagues) won't allow any sort of fighting. \n\nThe origins vary since people fight for all sorts of reasons. If you see a hockey fight today it might be because one team is playing too recklessly (or focuses that recklessness on one player) and so a fight breaks out to show the opposing team you aren't going to take it lying down even if the referees aren't calling other penalties. \n\nAnd many in the audience like the fights. Hockey already suffers in being an underrated sport and if people go to games because of the prospect of a fight then why get rid of it? ",
"Ice Hockey is brutal. Much more so than it seems. Ice is hard, the boards are rock solid, the puck is solid, heavy, frozen rubber. Everyone has a piece of hooked lumber and they all have sharp metal blades on their feet. The players move fast and there is body contact and it's crowded. \nSo players take tremendous abuse, hockey is painful all the time, teeth knocked out, cuts stitched up and you keep playing. \nNow you get big men playing a painful, brutal sport and there is a broad range of ways to inflict extra pain, called a cheap shot. An elbow to the face can damage a person for life, but may be penalized in a minor fashion (2 minutes penalty) or not penalized at all. \nFighting occurs in hockey, generally, when a player is playing over the edge and is hurting players regularly and certain players will take it upon themselves to curtail this behaviour. So if a player throws out a few cheap shots he may find himself in a fight. Or a player causes pain to a player who's having a rough night and suddenly he's in a fight. Or a player tries to injure a star player, more so if this star player is known as a sportsmanlike player or is known to shun playing to hurt others. In this case a player may fight this person as retribution. Or two players known for fighting fight just to see who wins, but that generally is a lot harder to explain. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d7buc3
|
Why did germanic migrants lose more of their language in favour of Latin?
|
I don't know alot about germanic migration between 100 and 500 AD but always found it particularly odd how the vandals, visigoths, ostrogoths and Franks who settled most of western Europe had their language evolved from old Germanic to the romance languages of today such as italian, french, Spanish, Portuguese etc. So what really happened? Was it because of christianity or was it the remaining roman inhabitants that caused it?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d7buc3/why_did_germanic_migrants_lose_more_of_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0yytbh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"An answer ([Why are the spanish and french not considered Germanic](_URL_0_); u/Libertat) I posted some time ago might provide with some elements of response. \nBasically, it's doubtful that each Barbarian coalition had its own \"national\" language, being made up from the IInd century of various (indigenous or migrating peoples) and being growingly Romanized due to their relations with Romania and the influx of slaves, fiscal refugees and deserters among them from the IIIrd century to the Vth, especially as Barbarians entered the empire. A good part of Goths, Franks, Vandals, etc. probably didn't really spoke a Germanic language at this point, while Germanophone Barbarians were more or less importantly Latinized \n\nSo, it's both a result of the resilience of Late Roman society (or its collapse in Britain and Illyricum) and the appearance of Barbarians as \"peoples of the limes\" then as Roman armies/groups since the IVth century. \nNot that they didn't had an influence on the development of Romance language (although this is especially the case for northern Gallo-Romance and Retho-Romance languages), neither that the Germanization of the Rhineland couldn't be attributed to a stronger Germanophone presence : but we're talking of an evolution that took centuries and didn't really stabilized before the Xth century. Apart from that, actual evidences for an everyday use of Germanic speech in former western provinces are quite rare, and generally assumed to have died out as such (although preserved in ceremonial and institutional terms) by the Vth or VIth century."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cy8r3e/why_are_the_spanish_and_french_not_considered/"
]
] |
|
6v8so3
|
why does damage to eyes not become apparent immediately and takes time ranging from a night's sleep to years to show up?
|
Read a few posts in an AMA request where people say it took years to see the damage in the eyes from viewing a earlier eclipse without appropriate protection.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6v8so3/eli5_why_does_damage_to_eyes_not_become_apparent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlyijs1"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"It's like a sunburn. At first, it's just all red and painful (but your retina has no pain receptors, so it doesn't hurt). The next day, your skin is literally falling off your body. In that time, the damaged cells were figuring out that irreparable damage had occurred and that they might be cancerous. When they do, they enter mass suicide mode."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3v9uwj
|
why does the us senate always seem so empty?
|
Often when I watch a speech a Senator is giving or a Bill is being discussed the senate is practically empty. Shouldn't the Senators be in there doing their jobs? Or what am i missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3v9uwj/eli5_why_does_the_us_senate_always_seem_so_empty/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxlkwdg",
"cxllcim"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most of them are doing their jobs. Their jobs just have very little to do with the debate floor. Think about it, how inefficient is it to have one guy speak to a room of a hundred about some issue while everyone else has to feign attention. During that time a politician could be meeting with lobbyist, working on acquiring new votes for a bill, discussing the matter with his staff, etc.",
"Many senators defer the decisions and voting to the committees and sub-committees as they are likely more knowledgeable of the details in the proposed legislation. Outside of a few key bills, there is usually far less debate necessary than, say, in the House, as the senate is less adherent to party lines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1jz5ey
|
can someone explain the difference between a university and a technical school?
|
A technical school just seems like a far better option to me by far. But what are the pros and cons of each?
P.s. Already applied and got accepted to one. Just don't fully understand why people are against it in my life.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jz5ey/can_someone_explain_the_difference_between_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbjpw3i"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"In the US, technical schools focus mainly on job training and associates degrees in specific fields. They're great if you want to be a plumber, electrician, automotive tech, or some other sort of skilled trade.\n\nThere may be a stigma against the sort of jobs you'll likely be training for. You wouldn't be able to train as a physicist, doctor, or get your MBA at a trade school (and maybe those as the aspirations those other people have for you), but the world will always need plumbers and electricians, it doesn't need another twenty something with a liberal arts or philosophy degree."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
typsw
|
hare krishna
|
What is it? Why the yellow smudges? Basic teachings? Yes I am curious after seeing it on Mad Men.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/typsw/eli5_hare_krishna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4quwpr",
"c4qwzbo"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They are a branch of Hinduism that started in New York in the 1960's. Sort of.\n\nSpiritually they try to grow closer to the Supreme Lord Krishna, through various methods.\n\nThey require members to be vegetarians and abstain from 'illicit' sex, gambling and intoxicants. They highly regard four virtues: self-control, mercy, truthfulness and cleanliness.",
"\"Hare Krishna\" is a chant used and promoted by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). They're called the Hare Krishnas because of that, but it might be pejorative. The rest is as TasfromTAS said."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
338xpk
|
why has no one crossed a dandelion with a carrot or parsnip, thus creating a nutritious vegetable that grows wild as a weed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/338xpk/eli5_why_has_no_one_crossed_a_dandelion_with_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqimc3n",
"cqiq9lz",
"cqir9dw",
"cqj3n5e",
"cqj5ize",
"cqj5pc3",
"cqjd89z",
"cqjd8w3",
"cqjfn7v"
],
"score": [
182,
18,
9,
5,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A few things. First, dandelions *are* nutritious vegetables that you can eat lots of ways.\n\nSecond, a weed is just any unwanted plant - they typically grow more aggressively than cultivated plants because they are evolved specifically for the environment in which they are found and because they don't waste any energy producing something extra for humans. For example, there are wild carrots, they just don't produce as large and tasty a root as cultivated carrots. Cultivated carrots need more support, because we've bred them to be *inefficient* as plants in order to be efficient as food. It's hard to get the weedy-ness of a weed and the wasteful extravagance of cultivated plant.\n\n(Also, it's typically only possible to cross plant varieties of the same species or at least the same genus. Otherwise you're crossing wildly different species - it's like trying to get a chicken and a pig to successfully mate. Maybe it would produce delicious bacon flavored wings, but too bad cuz it ain't gonna happen.)\n\nYou might be interested in heirloom plants varieties, though - these are older varieties of cultivated crops that typically offer a lot more variety than more modern versions and tend to be more adapted to specific areas.",
"Carrots do grow wild as a weed; they're extremely common in North America, although they aren't native. [Wild carrots are Queen Anne's Lace](_URL_0_) and they grow in almost every vacant lot. People seldom eat them, because they have reverted to wild genetics, which makes the root smaller and more fiborous. Also, growing in rough conditions makes the root much tougher. Finally, there are a few lookalike plants that are toxic, including deadly water hemlock. \n\nBut your dream of widespread wild carrots is already a reality. The fact that they aren't widely eaten throws a spotlight on how farmed crops differ from wild foods.",
"I think the question you are asking might be better phrased like \"Why are there no plants that are edible that act like an invasive species, and just grow like crazy?\" \n\nThere are may of these plants actually. The wild parsnip is one that is currently spreading across Ontario and other places. The dandelion, as mentioned previously here, is also edible. \n\nThen the question might be \"Why aren't we eating them?\"\n\nI think the main issue is twofold. First, invasive species often don't have the same history as native species do with local populations. A meal of dandelion salad, nutria chops and wild parsnips doesn't sound too inviting to most people, but how would it sound of you grew up eating such things?\n\nSecond, we are used to the lush/plump/mild tasting food, made available to us at the local supermarket. Wild plants and animals often have a taste/look about them that is not as appealing as these store bought alternatives, not to mention the work often required by the end consumer to gather them. ",
"a few plants that might be interesting to you, as they are all edible and generally considered weeds.\n\ndandelions, plantain ([not the banana looking thing](_URL_0_)), clover and kudzu \n ",
"Because they aren't even slightly related. It's the equivalent of asking why no one has bred a pig and a blue whale to create a more efficient Bacon source.",
"Cow parsnips or queen annes lace can cross with carrots.",
"What the fuck is a parsnip?",
"Genetics just don't work that way. It's much more complex than taking A plant and B plant and getting half of the properties of each. Even assuming you successfully cross a strain, you'll likely end up with a plant that's more weed like than a vegetable but not as weedy as weeds and more nutritious than dandelions but less so than a vegetable. So it's all about careful, slow selection for the optimal plant.",
"A few people are telling you that wild carrots are abundant. Please DO NOT indiscriminately eat something you think -might- be a wild carrot. There are a few plants that are difficult to tell apart from wild grown carrots (they even kinda smell the same) that will make you very sick, maybe even kill you. Poison hemlock is the most famous.\n\nIf you wish to start foraging for food I recommend doing some thorough research first, and if possible take a class locally. This will let you know what your particular area has to offer and mitigate some of the risk."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ediblewildfood.com/queen-annes-lace.aspx"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=lawn%20weed%20type%20plantain"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cn21v
|
Why does the Hercules-Corona Borealis Great Wall baffle cosmologists, but not its namesake constellations?
|
"It is a huge group of galaxies forming a giant sheet-like pattern. It is about 10 billion light-years long, 7.2 billion light-years wide, and almost 1 billion light-years thick. It is about 10 billion light-years away in the constellations of Hercules and Corona Borealis, hence its name." States Wikipedia, but if the Wall is ***in*** those constellations, they're 10 billion light-years away as well, right? Why weren't scientists confused about the constellations when they found them?
Also, how come a super structure as big as the Hercules–Corona Borealis Great Wall theoretically can't exist? I understand that it shouldn't grow that big in the time allotted to our estimation of the age of the universe, but isn't it commonly believed that the big bang caused matter to move faster than the speed of light? Isn't it possible, with that logic, to chalk it up to something like that?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3cn21v/why_does_the_herculescorona_borealis_great_wall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csxbshh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The constellations are merely local stars visible from earth and have no relation to the galaxy structure other than direction. The galaxy structure is behind the stars that make up the constellations and hence from our observational point of view \"in\" those constellations the same way a distant lighthouse is in a window when you look outside."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6vyfzf
|
How does the fact that energy is quantized explain blackbody radiation?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6vyfzf/how_does_the_fact_that_energy_is_quantized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dm42gs1"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"If you assume that EM radiation at thermal equilibrium can have arbitrary energy in each mode, you run into an ultraviolet divergence (call the ultraviolet catastrophe). The total energy goes like ω^(2), integrated from zero to infinity, which is divergent.\n\nIf you assume that radiation can only be absorbed and emitted in quanta, implying that the amount of energy in each mode can only come in integer steps of ~~h~~ω, then you resolve the issue. Instead you're integrating ω^(3)/[exp[~~h~~ω/kT) - 1] from zero to infinity, which is convergent.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) some more on it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mod6.html"
]
] |
||
5ahsb8
|
how does a barometer actually measure air pressure?
|
I've known it does for years but I never exactly knew how.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ahsb8/eli5_how_does_a_barometer_actually_measure_air/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9gjrdw",
"d9gk6yy"
],
"score": [
132,
32
],
"text": [
"Inside a barometer is a sealed can, containing air. This makes it a bit like a metal balloon in that air is trapped, and can neither flow in or out of the can.\n\nIf the air pressure outside of the can changes, it'll squash the can slightly. If the air pressure drops, the can will expand. It's these changes in shape that drive the needle on a barometer.",
"When you [look at a barometer](_URL_0_) one of the unit of measurement it uses is mmHg.\n\nmillimeters of mercury. What this means is if you fill a glass tube with mercury. Turn it upside down. The distance between the glass bottom and the mercury. The weight of the mercury is pulling it down but the air pressure is pushing it up. The higher the pressure, the higher the distance. Lower the pressure, the lower the distance.\n\n[Example Image](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://images.wisegeek.com/barometer.jpg",
"http://2012books.lardbucket.org/books/principles-of-general-chemistry-v1.0/section_14/8cec964659fd2bb7ec4dc6c2c78eb4f9.jpg"
]
] |
|
4234fq
|
Does special relativity preclude multiple time dimensions?
|
Could objects have multiple futures and multiple pasts? I was just wondering if anything in special relativity actually precludes this from being the case. I realize that even if not, it is still an unfalsifiable position for now.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4234fq/does_special_relativity_preclude_multiple_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz7ksun",
"cz7lo28",
"cz7muqh"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
7
],
"text": [
"No, it doesn't. Special relativity admits a simple generalization to p time dimensions and q space dimensions by replacing the Lorentz group with SO(p,q), the group of transformations that preserve the line element:\n\nds^2 = (dt^1 )^2 + ... + (dt^p )^2 - (dx^2 )^2 - ... - (dx^q )^2\n\nThe real problem is that multiple time dimensions allow CTCs, and so timetravel; or seen from a completely different mathematical angle partial diff equations become ultrahyperbolic and so lose existence and uniqueness. Translated in human multiple time dimensions have a botched causal structure and cannot sustain any meaningful physics.",
"It allows multiple time dimensions, but it doesn't work like you think. There aren't multiple pasts. An object would still move along a single path through space-time. It's just that instead of heading towards one future, it could go in multiple directions. And just like how you can't go from 1 to -1 without passing through zero but you can go around if you add another dimension, adding an extra time dimension means something can go from moving forwards along the t axis to backwards along it. So the whole idea of causality pretty much stops working at all.\n\nThat being said, the Many Worlds Interpretation of quantum physics is pretty clear that there *are* multiple futures and multiple pasts. It's not just that it allows it. That's pretty much what it is. The multiple pasts thing doesn't generally come up much in practice, but it still can. The double slit experiment works because of the histories where the photon went through the left and right slit resulting in the same present and interfering with each other.",
"Special relativity does not explicitly rule out extra time dimensions, but there are nevertheless a lot of problems with that idea.\n\nTo expand on the answer of /u/rantonais, multiple time dimensions change the equations of physics in a highly problematic way. With one time dimension, it is possible to use some knowledge of the current state of the universe (with finite error), to predict the future state of the universe (with finite error). With two or more time dimensions, this is no longer possible, and you can no longer make any predictions whatsoever about the future. But the ability to predict things about the world is necessary for life to exist (otherwise, there's no way to be sure reproduction will occur). It's even worse with intelligence - what use is it if you can't use your current knowledge to make any decisions at all? \n\nFor these reasons, there is a strong [anthropic argument](_URL_0_) that intelligent life can only exist in a universe with exactly one time dimension."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://arxiv.org/abs/gr-qc/9702052"
]
] |
|
59qowq
|
how did all matter fit into an area less than an atom at the beginning of time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/59qowq/eli5_how_did_all_matter_fit_into_an_area_less/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9akl3b",
"d9am3e2",
"d9ba1tc"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't know! But it probably wasn't really what we would consider to be \"matter\" at that point anyway as even subatomic particles wouldn't have been precipitated out yet.",
"anything before t=1 is useless to theorize about. The rules that govern the universe where non existence before then. you might as well ask how many chess pieces is a touchdown worth. there simply no way to know if what rules if any governed the time before t=1.",
"As others said: we dont realy know. We just can see the universe is expanding and therefore it was very smal in the past. So sientists apply the known formulas, like how strong an electron pushes another one, to very small space and see what should happen if this space comes closer to zero space. These results are strange for some formulas, like infinit force or something becomes negative. So we experiment (like in CERN) what happens with particles pressed together in small areas, but this way we will always just come closer to the big bang/the begining/t=1 but never reach it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
42drou
|
Is there a historical reason why, in regards to U.S. currency, the coin denominations are 1, 5, 10, 25, 50 while the dollar denominations are 1, 5, 10, *20*, 50?
|
It seems more logical to have a $25 bill than a $20 bill.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/42drou/is_there_a_historical_reason_why_in_regards_to_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz9uxan"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The 25c denomination is historically derived from the usage of the Spanish colonial 8 reale or \"Spanish Dollar\" coin in British colonial America. The Spanish Dollar (and smaller denominations such as the 4 reale, 2 reale or quarter dollar, 1 reale, and half reale) is estimated by some to have comprised half the coinage in colonial America so it's importance cannot be understated. As well as being minted in smaller denominations the the 8 reale coin was cut into halves, quarters, and eights to provide smaller change. The tradition of the \"quarter\" continued in 1796 when the first was minted for the US and has continued to date. Interestingly the USA toyed with a 20 cent coin from 1875 to 1878 but it failed to take off. A further point of interest is that a reale was known colloquially as a \"bit\" and a quarter \"two bits\", a term the quarter is sometimes known by.\n\nAs to the denominations of the notes, the 1, 2, 5, 10, 20 and 50 notes follow the 1-2-5-10-20-50 number series. The US does have $2 note but it is not generally used. This number series uses prime factors of 10 (1x10, 2x5, 5x2, 10x1, 10x2, 10x5) which makes arithmetic easier. \n\nA lot of other countries use this same numbering system for both their coins and notes, for example Great Britain, Australia, New Zealand, and the Euro circulating countries. Countries such as Canada and Panama still have a 25c coin but use the 1-2-5 numbering system for their bank notes.\n\n**References**\n\nJordan, Lewis - Colonial Coins - Section Contents. 2016. Colonial Coins - Section Contents. [ONLINE] Available at: _URL_0_. [Accessed 24 January 2016]\n\nColin Bruce, 2007. Standard Catalog of World Coins 1701-1800. 4 Edition. Krause Publications\n\nColin Bruce, 2010. 2011 Standard Catalog of World Coins 1901-2000. Thirty-eighth Edition Edition. Krause Publications\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.coins.nd.edu/ColCoin/ColCoinContents/Contents02.html"
]
] |
|
xfucu
|
why gas mileage goes up the slower you go
|
I've always heard how if you go 5 miles under the speed limit you get better mileage. Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xfucu/eli5_why_gas_mileage_goes_up_the_slower_you_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5lz5kt",
"c5m04p2",
"c5m1ff4"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your gas mileage depends more on the RPMs (rotations per minute) than anything. Have you ever noticed when the pedal is pushed down, the RPM meter goes up? Well, that's when more gas is spent. Because not only is gas being spent on making the wheels turn, but it's being spent on how fast the wheels turn. That's why when you put larger tires on a vehicle, it gets less gas mileage. It takes more work to get a higher RPM, because the tire is larger.",
"How much fuel is used is directly related to how much energy it costs to move the vehicle forward. The two main forces that influence how much it energy it costs to move a vehicle forward are rollingresistance and air resistance. \n\nRolling resistance exists because gravity is pulling the car down, the car wants to move over the ground but it costs energy to do this. This is why we use wheels, they minimize rolling resistance. As long as there is gravity on earth there will be rolling resistance, no matter how smooth the road and the tires are. \n\nAir resistance is caused by the air that you are pushing as you drive. In the vacuum of space where there are almost no particles in the air and there is no gravity to pull you down, something can keep moving for a long time. Down here on earth, the air that you are pushing away slows the car down. This costs a lot of energy. \n\n\nSo, here is the kicker. It turns out that when you measure air resistance, it goes up exponentially the faster you go. This is counter-intuitive because it feels like going twice as fast would cost twice as much energy. However, it's closer to something like four times more energy to go twice as fast. Rolling resistance goes up almost linearly, but air resistance goes up exponentially as you speed up. \n\nThat means that the faster you go, the worse your mileage gets. You probably would get the best mileage if you drive very slowly. \n\nEdit: Small corrections.",
"Each car is a little different but there are two things to consider: Air resistance and RPM.\n\nAir resistance doesn't go up at a constant pace, the resistance going 20 mph is not double the resistance going 10 mph, it much higher. And the faster you go, the more air tries to stop you moving. So the difference between going 55 mph and 65 mph looks small from inside the car, but it makes a big big difference to the air hitting the car.\n\nRPM is how fast your engine is spinning, not how fast your wheels are spinning. When you change gears as you go faster, the engine can start spinning more slowly because the gear connecting the engine to the wheels changed. The amount of gas the engine uses is mostly based on how much the engine is spinning so when the gear changes and the engine slows down you get more mileage. \n\nEach car is a little bit different, some are affected by wind more because they are boxy, and not all cars have the same kind of engine or gear. But, **the statistical average is that the most efficient speed for a car is 53 mph**. For some cars it's more, some it's less, but that is the rough average. \n\nThis is because **53 mph is around when most cars hit the most efficient part of their last gear**, which is the most efficient gear for maintaining speed. In the last gear, the car covers the most distance per rotation of the engine, making MPG higher by covering more miles. To make the car go faster in it's last gear you have to make the engine go faster and that uses more gas. \n\nAnd 53 mph is also about the time most cars start have **wind resistance increase dramatically**. The difference between 53 and 58 mph is huge compared to say 33 and 38. More wind means more energy needed means the engine works harder.\n\nEach car is different, but most are within a few miles of that target. Unless you have a specialty car (BMW has a much higher \"peak efficiency\" speed for example) it might be different but chances are it's around 53 mph and it's for the two reasons above. Hope that was like-you're-five enough.\n\nEdit: On a side note if you want to increase fuel economy, drive calmly and avoid sudden anything. Sudden stops slow you down more than gradual stops (which means more acceleration), sudden turns slow you down more than gradual turns, and gradual acceleration uses less gas than sudden acceleration. Also try whenever safe and possible to not accelerate up hills, it uses so much more gas than accelerating before the hill and maintaining the speed up the hill. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
84p4gw
|
Why is the fall of the Mississippi River considered a great blow to the Confederacy?
|
I've seen plenty of people using the phrase "cut the Confederacy in half" with regards to Grant taking the rest of the Mississippi River in 1863, and how it was a great loss to the Confederacy.
But it wasn't anywhere near half. By states, it was 2 cut off from 9. By population, it was a little over 1 million on the west side, 8 million on the east side. I don't know how to tell whether they produced any useful supplies for the rest of the Confederacy. By transport, there were hardly any railroads crossing the Mississippi River ( _URL_0_ : includes gauges!), so almost all supplies would have gone by rivers to the Mississippi or the ocean; the previous loss of New Orleans and the increasing US blockade would have blocked ocean travel anyway. I wonder whether the main value of the Mississippi River was to allow the US Midwest to export abroad ... except that they could do that already with the Great Lakes + Erie Canal, or by the extensive railroad network.
So why is it said to have been a great blow?
Edits:
(1) About the stated importance: Grant in his *Memoirs*, I, 567, wrote "the fate of the Confederacy was sealed when Vicksburg fell". McPherson quotes that when writing "The capture of Vicksburg was the most important northern strategic victory of the war".
(2) /u/free_world33's assertion (removed) provokes a question. I wonder if it's a separate top-level question or a/the major followon here. In 1860, what trade happened *across* the Mississippi River, where did it come from, where did it go? What trade happened *along* it, where did it come from, where did it go?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/84p4gw/why_is_the_fall_of_the_mississippi_river/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvsvngo"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"You are correct in the assertion that geographically, the Confederacy wasn't split in \"half,\" but it was irreparably split. Think of the consequences had the British been successful in controlling the entire Hudson River and split New England from the other colonies. Geographically it wasn't half, but would have been a decisive blow. \n\nVicksburg was vital for two reasons. One, it was a southern bastion that had to be taken to effectively control the River. The Union could not simply bypass it, and they couldn't ignore it, so it had to fall. Two, the Mississippi was vitally important to the transport of goods and materiel for around ten states. The Ohio, Missouri, Tennessee, and Cumberland Rivers, plus the Red River all flow into the Mississippi. Granted several parts of these were in seceded states, but goods moved to and from Indiana, Ohio, Illinois, and Missouri all needed the Mississippi to move and obtain goods. Railroads were in place, but much of the midwest did not have easy access to the Great Lakes, mainly since the MS River was there to use (until it wasn't). Vicksburg was on a high bluff at a hairpin turn, and after New Orleans, Memphis, and Island No. 10 fell, Vicksburg was the last blockage to allowing Union forces and gunboats to move men and supplies to other vital areas much faster. And with complete control of the River, Richmond no longer had any real control over anything in a large section of the Confederacy. Texas did supply a large number of soldiers in the Confederate Armies, as well as being a vital route to funnel (i.e. smuggle) goods from ports in Mexico. \n\nIt's also important to remember the Mississippi River wasn't the only valuable objective. By July 1863, The Union controlled the entire Cumberland River, and the majority of the Tennessee (which is why the Emancipation Proclamation didn't cover Tennessee, as it was technically under Union control then), New Orleans, parts of North Carolina, West Virginia, Kentucky and Missouri (which had remained in the Union officially but had many occupying Confederate forces early on). In other words, Vicksburg was one of the last major waterways the Union needed to seal the fate of the Confederacy. On its own, it wasn't quite THAT important, but taken as a whole, the Confederacy was doomed by losing its rivers, the Mississippi being one of them."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://railroads.unl.edu/views/item/1864rr?p=2"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
180rzy
|
the usps is struggling financially and therefore eliminating saturday deliveries, while ups and fedex are doing just fine. why doesn't the usps try and model itself after them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/180rzy/the_usps_is_struggling_financially_and_therefore/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ak3nn",
"c8ak8ho",
"c8ammou",
"c8amzn0",
"c8ao3r6",
"c8aqn4y",
"c8ar1mm",
"c8ark0b",
"c8art8p",
"c8arxms",
"c8as2ir",
"c8atpb7",
"c8atzt7",
"c8auk2e",
"c8auopq",
"c8av0ww",
"c8av4l5"
],
"score": [
235,
1367,
16,
165,
71,
2,
7,
5,
2,
3,
32,
11,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The USPS has a government-mandated monopoly on letter delivery, granted on the condition that they deliver to every single valid address in the country. Private carriers like FedEx and UPS can refuse to deliver to specific locations.",
"Got it backwards, kind of. UPS, Fedex and other carriers were modeled after the USPS.\n\nAs for why the USPS is struggling, the answer is that the USPS has an albatross around its neck that nobody else has: In 2006, the Congress — *God* knows why — passed a law requiring the USPS to shovel *vast* sums of money into a fund set aside for paying retirement benefits to workers who haven't yet retired. This is the *only* reason why the USPS is losing money. If it weren't required by law to stuff all this cash under its mattress — a requirement no other enterprise *on the planet* has, and which no sane person would ever choose to do — the USPS would be back to operating close to break-even, as is appropriate for a publicly owned enterprise.",
"Something else I haven't seen mentioned yet is that FedEx and UPS also charge more for Saturday delivery. USPS would be doing great if they could convince millions of Americans to pay a dollar a week to keep getting mail on Saturday.",
"The USPS is also financially struggling because it is the only government agency required to prefund pensions for each employee. ",
"1. FedEx and UPS don't offer regular delivery service on Saturdays.\n2. FedEx and UPS are not obligated (by the US Federal Government) to deliver letters to rural/residential addresses at the lowest imaginable prices. Their minimums start around $8 for most rural deliveries, and usually hit double that amount for even the smallest parcels.\n3. The USPS is being forced (again by the Gub'ment) to pre-fund the retirement pensions for ALL employees, for the next 75 years. The USPS is the *(edit:) second* largest employer in the United States, and this burdon to prefund those accounts at an accelerated rate has broken their backs. They would be solvent if it weren't for this pre-funding requirement.\n4. The volume of mailings have gone *down* exponentially, over time, with the advent of electronic documentation, signatures, and even advertising.\n\n*edit: my claim the USPS is largest employer is disputed. Wiki and other articles cite 574,000 employees. While USPS says 546,000. This places them at second, right after Walmart.* ",
"its illegal for the USPS to compete in the market in many ways because it is run by the government, changing this would have to ultimately be passed by congress who have been at a near standstill for years",
"It should be mentioned that the USPS will continue package deliveries on Saturday because that is still profitable. It is only shutting down Saturday mail deliveries.",
"All this, also:\n\n > Other Innovative Foreign Postal Programs: In addition to offering hybrid mail services, the foreign postal services studied by the GAO have partnered with retail facilities like grocery and drug stores to offer postal services, including parcel pickup. Along with being more numerous and more conveniently located than post offices, the retail facilities are open longer hours. In many cases, the postal services are owned and operated by the retail partners, thus reducing costs for the postal services. From 12% (Switzerland) to 98% (Germany) of the foreign postal services' facilities are now owned and staffed by their private retail partners.\n\nUSPS has all these awesome locations where people flock to every single day. Why not take advantage of this? Sell other items-- prepaid phone cards, etc.\n\nHOWEVER, we do have something to be proud of:\n\n > Efficiency may not be the first word that comes to mind when Americans think of the USPS, but U.S. mail carriers are better at using their limited resources than any of their counterparts, according to OSC's study. In one year, America's mailmen and women delivered 268,894 letters and 2,633 parcels per carrier -- more than any other country -- to 151 million addresses. All told, the USPS accounts for 40 percent of the world's mail volume (yes, that figure counts your Victoria's Secret catalogues). And despite complaints about customer service, when researchers in a different study tested 159 countries' post offices on how fast an average letter sent to a fake address would be returned, the United States also came in first.\n\nSupporting sources:\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_\n",
"There was a The Economist story on how the post office is unique in that it charges a flat rate no matter the distance (within US, charges are by weight) and that was something private enterprise just wouldn't be able to do. I can't be arsed to find it though. ",
"Don't FEDEX and UPS use the USPS for faster delivery of many of their parcels????????????/\n",
"It's struggling because it's been under attack via \"oversight\" since the 70's and every few years some chucklehead gets it into his politically driven noggin that he's going to \"fix\" it's issues. This usually means that someone notices that the independent arm of the government has alot of money tied up in pensions/benefits and they want to soak it for whatever they can. \n\nThe easiest way to explain why the USPS is having financial issues is the PAEA which has been noted but the second easiest is how the mail carriers get paid. \n\nYour average mail-man/women/alien gets paid against a chart scale. That scale is defined by mail volume per route against costs of delivery per route. Each route is designated, metered and logged for mileage, time and whether or not it's rural or urban. \nSounds simple right?\n\nWrong. \n\nHere's why... Mail volume is estimated in \"counts\" these counts used to happen when you would get a good median; a high volume like December against a lower volume like July. This got changed a few years back and now they happen in May and October (IIRC) both lower months. Now, that would shift the ledger a little if that was the only thing that happened during counts but every mail carrier I know will tell you 'plain as day', that during Counts, mail(particularly pre-paid and bulk mail like catalogues and adverts but just about anything if there's a goal in mind) is held at the distribution centers to be delivered after the Count. That is unless there is a national conspiracy of retailers to not send bulk mail during count events which is really tin foil hat territory.\n \nChanging the counts and holding bulk mail lowers the overall mail volume and shows a lower expense on your USPS costs ledger which means the cost of sending a piece of paper from Maine to Hawaii stays low rather than inflating to cover the actual costs. \n\nThe other way they cut corners is in the way rural route carriers are paid. Most rural carriers use their own vehicles and are reimbursed a portion of their costs. *A portion* not all of them, because when a route is Metered by a guy that drives it once in a Honda Civic he's not going to get the same results as the guy who actually delivers it. Most rural carriers need a 4x4 SUV to deal with the terrain/weather and have enough cargo space to carry everything. That means that the carrier actually has higher costs than the projected costs done by the Metering. This again shifts the numbers in the ledger to show lower overhead but it negatively affects the people actually doing the work and costs them money out of pocket to deliver your mail. \n\nFor every Mail carrier there are two Substitutes who get paid on a per run basis. Don't worry...they don't' affect the bottom line...or didn't until someone decided that Saturday was meant for fighting and they dropped the pay rates for Subs. They not only dropped the rates for subs, they changed how they classified subs and the ones that made more were given a choice to run mandatory routes 2 or 3 days a week at a lower wage or be let go. While the ones that were paid less, or were only available certain days, were told to kick bricks. This has led to a huge issue between the regular carriers and the subs because they're currently losing tons of Substitute Carriers. This means if your mail man is sick you might not get mail until he's better. If it's something serious like cancer you might not get Gramma's brithday card with $5 in it for a month or two. That's until they can trick someone into delivering it or you trot your happy ass down to the post office to pick it up. \n\nThe big issue is the bottom line. The people in charge of oversight want smaller costs and the people directly under them are responsible for destroying a fantastic institutional means of communication by purposefully altering costs analysis to meet a political demand instead of raising the costs to the consumers and re-obtaining solvency. \nNeither wind nor rain nor sleet nor commonsense can overcome bureaucratic confunglery.\n\nEdit: IF you find something I'm incorrect on let me know. My info is all from chatting up Carriers I've known. \nEdit 2: Formatting & Such ;)",
"FedEx sends around 1/3 of their shipments by USPS so that's a hard business model for the USPS to follow.",
"FedEx and UPS are for-profit institutions. USPS is not. When funding gets cut for the USPS, they can't simply raise the prices on other aspects of their business model to compensate.",
"UPS and FedEx raise rates yearly....",
"The USPS is like a 20-year old Chinese guy. He moved out and has to make his own money, but at the same time, he can't make any decisions without his parents agreement (Congress).\n\nHis parents do not give him allowance, so he has to make money working. He can't do his work well, cause his parents are basically poopooheads.\n\nAlso he's way too nice and afraid to lose his friends, so he has a piggy bank with way too much money in it.",
"Part of it is that fedex & UPS are not required, by law, to deliver to the middle of bloody nowhere. The USPS, on the other hand? If your mail box meets federal regulations, they have to deliver mail/packages to you 6 (5?) days a week, or as often as it comes, whichever is less frequent.\n\nOn the other hand, UPS and FedEx can, theoretically, wait until there are enough deliveries in your area to make it worth spending the money to drive out to your area. What's more, I have seen packages that are nominally delivered by FedEx/UPS which were actually dropped off at my house (easily within a major metropolitan area) by the USPS. Apparently the shipping company handed the package off to the Post Office, and paid them to do the final delivery. USPS don't have that option.",
"Also because the USPS is not allowed to make a profit. They are so cheap that UPS and Fedex often have USPS transit their shipments as much as possible."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://iret.org/pub/ADVS-285.PDF",
"http://usgovinfo.about.com/od/consumerawareness/a/USPS-Could-Learn-From-Foreign-Posts.htm",
"http://www.foreignpolicy.com/articles/2013/02/06/the_world_s_best_post_offices"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
642def
|
how can someone open a credit card under my name.
|
thanks all!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/642def/eli5how_can_someone_open_a_credit_card_under_my/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfyunyl",
"dfyvxxp"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Did he actually open it under your name? If he did, you would see the bank summary and transactions as far as I know. He probably added you as an authorized card holder to one of his accounts. I have cards from my parents that are like that",
"What you are describing sounds your uncle opened a credit card account for himself, then added you as an authorized user.\n\nIt's his card and his credit, you just get to use it. That's a pretty generous uncle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1dx15q
|
How did Werner Van Braun feel about being taken to the US?
|
Additional question if any of you fantastic historians feel like answering: How did the treatment of Germans scientists differ between the Americans and the Soviets?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dx15q/how_did_werner_van_braun_feel_about_being_taken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9uoajx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"German scientists were taken to some sanatorium at Gorodomlya island at Seligyor lake, they lived there much more comfortably than most of Soviet scientists. They actually had made a contract to work there and were allowed to take with them wives (or mistresses) and children. German engineers were paid quite well and worked in USSR till 1951-1953.\n\nThese 150 German persons helped a lot in copying V-2 rocket and building Kapustin Yar launch site. Impression of V-2 made Soviet researchers change priorities from cruise rockets to ballistic rockets (even Korolyov worked on winged cruise missiles before the war)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
abpj4t
|
Is it possible to culture healthy gut bacteria outside of the body with the intention of reintroducing it?
|
Basically here's the process I envision,
Step 1: Bacteria is collected from source or possibly multiple sources
Step 2: Bacteria is placed in an environment that as closesly matches the human digestive tract as possible
Step 3: Nutrients from healthy foods are introduced at regular times to promote growth of wanted bacteria
Step 4: Reintroduce healthy bacteria into system
I'm laying it out very simply here as I know of some hurdles and potential issues that would need to be overcome and accounted for. But I'm curious if it is possible and if it's been done.
Edit: Should be tagged under Medicine but wasn't given the option in RIF.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/abpj4t/is_it_possible_to_culture_healthy_gut_bacteria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed2e653",
"ed65e5v"
],
"score": [
12,
3
],
"text": [
"There's actually a technique called \"[poop transplant](_URL_0_)\" where they transfer poop from a na healthy person to the patient, they do this to restore the microbic biome in the patient's guts, usually is done after something nasty happened to the patient's bacteria (example: chemotherapy). ",
"Yes! But it is difficult to replicate the human gut in vitro. It's anaerobic, so you have to deal with that, and then a lot of the gut bacteria is dependent on the other bacteria in that community, so you have to get the balance right, and then the folds of the intestines (the tiny, tiny ones) are hard to replicate but necessary for a good replication of the conditions. However, it is possible. Just difficult!\n\nI could find some sources later, I am at work, but for now, my source is just being a microbiologist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fecal_microbiota_transplant"
],
[]
] |
|
7phbwc
|
how did the notion of sharing blood with family members came about in ancient and medieval times?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7phbwc/eli5_how_did_the_notion_of_sharing_blood_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dsh8ll7",
"dsh8ob2",
"dsh98qo"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Even before our understanding of DNA, there was still a conception and understanding of inherited traits. At the time, the blood was considered the essence of a person's life and contained your personality.\n\nSince offspring inherited a parent's physical and behavioral traits, it is not a big leap to suggest they inherited the \"blood\" of their parents.",
"it was pretty clear when one human being gave birth to another human being that they were related... Tracking family trees isn't super hard, and they did it for royal families pretty rigorously.\n\nIts not about dna (though in modern times we can tell it is) its purely about family relation through birth. ",
"The idea of inheritance of traits are not a new thing. The understanding exactly how it works it quite new.\n\nSelective breeding of animals and plants gave been know since prehistory times. The roman had treatises written of how to selective breed animals for different purposes.\n\nThat it is the case is quite easy to observe if you have animals with short development times. Especially when the difference is the color of the fur. They also know that the same was the case for plants and humans. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ei0fs
|
Would Jesus have been educated or familiar with the teachings of Plato, Socrates, and Aristotle? What do we know about the education of young Jews of his time period?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ei0fs/would_jesus_have_been_educated_or_familiar_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctf79z4",
"ctf7vra"
],
"score": [
10,
110
],
"text": [
"Follow up: would Plato or Aristotle have been familiar with Genesis or Jewish thought?",
"So the simple answer to this would be: probably not. The longer answer is, in order for Jesus to have studied these philosophers, even on a basic level, he would have had to have learned how to speak, read, and write ancient Greek, and while there is a legitimate chance he could have spoken greek, he likely didn't learn to read and write it. However, at the heart of this question is asking what Jesus' educational level, which Bart Ehrman addressed in his book, [Jesus: Apocalyptic Prophet of the New Millennium](_URL_0_) where he says: \n\n > There are multiply attested traditions that Jesus spoke Aramaic. Sometimes, for example, the Gospels quote his words directly without translating them into Greek (see Mark 5:41; 7:34; John 1:42). This would make sense contextually, since Aramaic was the normal spoken language of Jews in Palestine in the first century. Moreover, there would be no reason for anyone to make up the tradition... It is also indicated in the Gospels that Jesus could read the Scriptures in Hebrew (e.g., Luke 4:16–20; see also Mark 12:10, 26), and that he eventually became known as an interpreter of them. He is sometimes, for example, called “rabbi,” that is, “teacher” (see Mark 9:5; John 3:2). At the same time, there are independently attested traditions that those who knew about Jesus’ background were surprised by his learning (Mark 6:2; John 7:15). \n\n > **Together, these data suggest that he did learn to read as a child—that is, that he had some modicum of education—but that he was not considered an intellectual superstar by the people who knew him as he was growing up.** There are no traditions that specifically indicate that Jesus spoke Greek, although some historianshave surmised that living in Galilee, where Greek was widely known, he may have learned some. Moreover, some have suspected that he communicated with Pontius Pilate in Greek at his trial—although we will see later that it is very difficult to know exactly what happened then. At best we can say that it is at least possible that Jesus was trilingual—that he normally spoke Aramaic, that he could at least read the Hebrew Scriptures, and that he may have surmised that living in Galilee, where Greek was widely known, he may have learned some. Moreover, some have suspected that he communicated with Pontius Pilate in Greek at his trial—although we will see later that it is very difficult to know exactly what happened then. At best we can say that it is at least possible that Jesus was trilingual—that he normally spoke Aramaic, that he could at least read the Hebrew Scriptures, and that he may have been able to communicate a bit in Greek. The final point is, in my judgment, the least assured. (P. 99-100)\n\nSo we've established that he was likely literate in at least one language (which already made him elite since about 90% of the Roman occupied population during this time period was illiterate), but it was most likely primarily directed at learning and teaching about the Torah. Also, in all my studies of of the New Testament (and also classical Greece from my undergraduate degree) I've never seen anything to suggest that Jesus learned or incorporated these ideals into his teachings.\n\nAnd to answer your final question, most Jews during this time period were illiterate. We know that at least two (probably most) of Jesus' followers were illiterate and uneducated as well. Next I'd like to pull in a quote from the bible, specifically the book of Acts, where it talks about two of Jesus' most important followers.\n\n > When they saw the courage of Peter and John and realized that they were unschooled, ordinary men, they were astonished and they took note that these men had been with Jesus. (New International Version)\n\nNow the word \"unschooled\" here in the majority of ancient manuscripts is: ἀγράμματοί (agrámmatoí). This word is often translated to \"unschooled\" or \"uneducated\" but typically it directly implies that they are illiterate. That said, it would then suggest that these men didn't know how to read or write, making it likely they were never taught anything of significance about Greek Philosophers.\n\nIt's also worth noting that philosophy wouldn't have generally mattered to peasants, especially for middle of no-where towns like Nazareth. These men and women of this time period were preoccupied with following Mosaic Law and following it's teachings, so learning about other philosophies could have been sacrilegious during this time period.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Jesus-Apocalyptic-Prophet-New-Millennium/dp/019512474X"
]
] |
||
16sk08
|
Is it true that Kruschev wrote in his memoirs that during the Cuban Missile Crisis, JFK told him that the military might overthrow him?
|
So I was able to find [a source for this](_URL_0_), in The Untold History of the United States by Oliver Stone and Peter Kuznick. Stone's position regarding JFK's assassination is well-known, so I wanted to ask some real historians, and, if it is true, see if you folks can provide any more context.
"...If the situation continues much longer, the President is not sure that the military will not overthrow him and seize power. The American army could get out of control."
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16sk08/is_it_true_that_kruschev_wrote_in_his_memoirs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c87x2cv"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi. I'm not a historian but I am reading [Tim Weiner's *Legacy of Ashes: The History of the CIA*](_URL_1_). Here are a few thoughts.\n\n* Weiner writes about an Oval Office conversation on October 27, the day before the crisis was resolved, in which Robert McNamara burst into the office to report that the U2 was shot down over Cuba. Subsequently, the Joint Chiefs \"now strongly recommended that a full scale attack on Cuba should begin in thirty-six hours\" (chapter 19, no page on my kindle). Weiner writes of no threats of a coup or other plans to act without Kennedy's orders.\n* Kennedy may have been playing good cop (if that's an okay analogy) and trying to bluff. The goal might have been to surprise Kruschev and force him to act or else believe that the big bad US military would usurp control and strike first.\n* Kennedy may have been advised by [Allen Dulles](_URL_4_) that the Soviet intelligence on the US military wasn't very good, with the goal to mislead Kruschev and persuade him to abandon any ideas of military action. (I think [Willie Fisher](_URL_3_) was the last resident Soviet agent until the late 1960s. The Wikipedia entry for the [KGB during the Cold War](_URL_2_) depicts a depleted Soviet intelligence network in the US because of McCarthyism and other internal spy hunting in the 1950s.)\n\nEdit:\n\n* For some more context, [here](_URL_0_) is a taped telephone recording of a conversation in which JFK called Eisenhower for advice during the Cuban Missile Crisis. Neither man mentions the possibility of the military acting out of order."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://books.google.ca/books?id=0WwIjdg47PoC&pg=PA310&lpg=PA310&dq=oliver+stone%27s+untold+history+khrushchev+memoirs&source=bl&ots=gMHdzxd8dJ&sig=bKhpoeb6eNb7khosAhE4Q2tHY1w&hl=en&sa=X&ei=jbP4UMOvG8rLqAHAgYHABQ&ved=0CEkQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=oliver%20stone%27s%20untold%20history%20khrushchev%20memoirs&f=false"
] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zkzjodKAQhA",
"http://www.amazon.com/Legacy-Ashes-History-Tim-Weiner/dp/0307389006",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kgb#During_the_Cold_War",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vilyam_Genrikhovich_Fisher",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allen_Dulles"
]
] |
|
4hx8an
|
Why is a dust particle floating upward in my room?
|
I'm in an indoor room. The windows are closed. Doors are shut. No air is coming through the vents.
But I see a dust/lint/feather/whatever particle floating upward toward the ceiling. How is it floating upwards? Why does it float upwards instead of gravity making it fall to the ground?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4hx8an/why_is_a_dust_particle_floating_upward_in_my_room/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2t7a0u"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Air is still circulating in the room. If it weren't, then all of the air molecules would collect around the ground and there would be big troubles for us."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2ps3sv
|
how come if a car sits for an extended period outside, the tires get dry rot, but the tires on my daily driver which sits outside all the time don't?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ps3sv/eli5_how_come_if_a_car_sits_for_an_extended/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmzi6hg"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because tyres work via friction on the road. Friction generates heat. Heat cycling a tyre causes chemicals used in the curing of the tyre to be released which stops them from cracking/rotting. Tyres that do not get heat cycled by driving the chemicals in the tyre remain in one place.\n\nYou can see this on motorbikes especially well. You go out for a ride and scrub the tyres in. That is to remove slippery waxy white layer that covers a tyre when it is new from the factory.\n\nYou can go hit some corners and ride like crazy and scrub your tyres down to the edge (what bikers call chicken strips). You heat cycle your tyres. Within a few days the the edges of your tyres (the bit you do not ride on) turn blue from the curing chemicals coming out from the heat cycling. Because motorbikes don't always ride up to the limit on the bit which contacts the road you can see the blueing. \n\nCar tyres are designed to go through many heat cycles as a balance between life and grip. Racing cars and motorbikes are designed to go through limited heat cycled as they want grip."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9m1llr
|
How and why did so many of the Buddhist monastic orders and sects that took root in Asia become divorced from meditation as a cornerstone of the religion/practice?
|
I understand that vipassana meditation (Pali, “insight”), comes from the oldest tradition of Buddhism, the Theravada. Did this part of Buddhism fade out as it spread around Asia?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9m1llr/how_and_why_did_so_many_of_the_buddhist_monastic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7b8msi"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It was not the 'cornerstone' for many. There are other parts of the Noble Eightfold Path, after all. And there are many 'Dharma doors': devotion, faith, charity, compassion, ethical behavior, the path of study, the path of shamanism, the path of work, the path of yoga, lay and monastic paths, social and hermetic paths.\n\nBut one historical factor was that in the effort to establish, preserve, and study a ratified canon of scriptures, focus on the letter rather than the spirit of the teaching sometimes took precedence. Some radically meditative schools arose in response.\n\nMillennia later, Zen set root in America before most other Buddhist sects, in part because western Buddhism is made in the image of the Western mind: heavy on the intellectual, light on the empathetic and physical, and always with the question \"what's in it *for me*\" resounding Western individualism. The vernacular by which Asian language and concepts were conveyed was, back then in the 1930s to 1960s, the terminology of psychology and to a lesser degree of atomic science.\n\nBecause Westerners are head-heavy, our concept of Buddhism is head-heavy. The common person generally thinks it's about meditation, but more fundamental concepts like compassion and faith are not widely embraced, largely because that's not what our culture recognized and glommed onto when Buddhism arrived here.\n\nBut outside of pop Buddhism, there are vibrant and authentic practice centers, and second and third generations of Western Buddhist masters unfolding a uniquely Western Buddhism without losing the grounding and lifeblood of lineage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
8hd2y5
|
How did CollegeBoard manage to get its SAT and AP tests to be such important steps in getting into most universities in the US?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8hd2y5/how_did_collegeboard_manage_to_get_its_sat_and_ap/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dymv12y"
],
"score": [
67
],
"text": [
"The short answer to your question is that the College Board is the Old Boys Club in education made tangible. \n\nThe College Board (originally called the College Entrance Examination Board) is basically one of the first educational think-tanks in this country, founded in 1899 by educational leaders including Nicholas Murray Butler, future president of Columbia, with the explicit purpose of strengthening the connection between secondary and tertiary education. The Board would be joined in the educational landscape by others including The Carnegie Foundation, The Ford Foundation, and American Council on Education, all focused on \"improving\" education. Due the early leadership of Henry Chauncey, the Board gave some of their tests over to Educational Testing Services (ETS) and became a major player in the assessment of Americans - when scientific management became all the rage for schoolmen, they advocated for the new invention that was the multiple choice test. As public high schools advocated for courses for their students that would earn them college credit, similar to what some private schools did, the Board made Advanced Placement courses available to more schools. And when the gap between college acceptance criteria and high school exit skills became noticeably large, they were instrumental in making the SAT part of school culture.\n\nAP has been around since the late 1950's when it was started by a group of private schools in partnership with Harvard, Princeton, and Yale. In effect, the AP exams were about giving young men from families of means an extra leg up on their path to college. AP would expand beyond private schools and Ivy League colleges and is now a way for High School students to earn college credit. In some cases, high schools give extra weight to AP courses on a student's HS transcript, which can elevate their Grade Point Average (GPA). In addition, college admissions offices may view students who've successfully completed AP courses more favorably as it suggests they can handle college-level reading demands and rigor. \n\nThe College Board not only shepherded the Advanced Placement exams, they were also part of the evolution of the mental tests like the Army Alpha test, IQ tests, and the GRE. Chauncey, who was responsible for the College Boards' networking prowess and eventually the founding of Educational Testing Services (ETS) was deeply committed to the idea of meritocracy. Informed by the work of men like Alfred Binet and Edward Thorndike, he believed it was possible to create a test that would measure a learner's true ability and that test could help make America a true meritocracy. \n\nHe wasn't alone in this sentiment. American public schools began to adopt a philosophy of increasingly secular, liberal arts in the mid-1800's. The general goal was to provide all children (all never means all, though - mostly white children, mostly boys) could best be prepared for citizenship through a broad curriculum that touched on a variety of topics in a variety of ways, without requiring a young person commit to any particular future. This vision contrasted with the then reality of college - most East Coast colleges and universities had their own admissions exams, often very specific to the professors who worked there. By the late-1800's, the gap between college admissions criteria and high school exit skills was becoming an explicit source of frustration for schoolmen. One of the clearer examples of this involved a man who would eventually become a college president. He wanted to attend a particular university but when he arrived for the entrance exam and interview, realized his high school curriculum didn't align to what was expected and he had to spend at least a year studying with a tutor before taking their particular entrance exam. His personal experiences would be a recurring talking point at educational conferences in the early 1900's and is a compelling example of how personal a great deal of educational reform has been. This gap explicitly challenged the notion that America was a place where anyone (mostly white, mostly boys) could succeed, provided they worked hard enough. \n\nThe evolution of the SATs was the result of relationships between eugenicists and educators and there was a feedback loop between colleges, the US Army, and high schools as they developed, what they felt, were better and better tools for assessing things that were previously unknowable. Most of the leaders involved in the College Board's work were exposed to formal education from childhood, were from families with the means to provide their son with advanced education, and were white. None of the them were women. College presidents, private school headmasters, district superintendents, and leaders of groups like the College Board generally came from the same pool of East Coast educated of men, meaning those who advocated for change were typically viewing that change through a particular lens and pool of experience. That the College Board members' philosophy that tests can distinguish levels of thinking and abilities is so widely accepted today speaks to the networking that happened. \n\n\n\n___\nFurther Reading:\n[This](_URL_0_) is a pretty solid timeline of the SAT's evolution over time \n\nLemann, N. (2000). *The big test: The secret history of the American meritocracy.* Macmillan.\n\nRiccards, M. (2009). *College Board and American Higher Education*, Fairleigh Dickinson University Press. \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.erikthered.com/tutor/sat-act-history.html"
]
] |
||
2vpx6l
|
How surprising was the American military's dominance over Iraq in the Gulf War?
|
I just read the line "stunning U.S. victory in Operation Desert Storm" in an article, were people truly surprised?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2vpx6l/how_surprising_was_the_american_militarys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cok61yo"
],
"score": [
87
],
"text": [
"Well for one thing, observers were looking at what seemed to be building up to a massive scale conflict and Iraq's military was certainly nothing to sneeze at. \n\nWe have the gift of hindsight and many today seem to consider Iraq's military forces as weak, incompetent or 'not standing a chance' against US/UN coalition forces both during the Gulf War and the subsequent invasion several years later.\n\nThis can be compared to the disingenuous but fairly popular idea that French military forces or Polish military forces were 'weak' because of the results of World War II. \n\nAdmittedly, I am not expert on Iraq's military forces but I have some information that can provide some insight for you while we wait for someone more qualified to answer. In all honesty, I wrestled with whether or not I should post since my limited knowledge might not be able to fully answer all your questions, but since there hasn't been an answer yet, I'll try to fill the gap for now!\n\nSo what made Iraq's military seem a dangerous and capable enemy for the UN coalition forces??\n\n**Well, for one thing Iraq had one of the largest standing armies in the world at the time of the conflict.** They theoretically could field upwards of a million personnel in their standing army and half again that many in various paramilitary groups. Of course, this was mainly on paper but it still stands that they drastically ramped up their conscription numbers and investment into the military, focusing on using any and all manpower they could find. \n\nAnd of course numbers don't mean everything, especially in a modern conflict, but the ability to maintain, supply, equip, and sustain an army of this size certainly meant something. If nothing else, Iraq had the sophistication of doctrine and infrastructure as well as command & control capability necessary to make such a large military work smoothly. \n\n**Iraq had also just come out of a long drawn out war with Iran.** There was no shortage of veterans and many of the officer corps leading Iraqi forces had cut their teeth in real actions during the Iran-Iraq War. Having a competent officer corps is essential for smooth operations. \n\nThe special forces and paramilitary units were considered fairly significant shock units that were deeply loyal to the Ba'ath Party and had seen action during the Iran-Iraq War. They had been expanded and given better equipment and apparently US military analysts expected to fight them to fight fiercely and inflict casualties even in the face of their own probable horrendous casualties. \n\nAnd of course Iraq had tons of equipment. They had over 5000 tanks, close to 1000 combat aircraft, thousands of artillery pieces and thousands more of other various AFVs. Many of their vehicles were purchased from Chinese or Russia arms makers and they were not lacking in spare parts, ammunition, maintenance crews, or fuel. The Iraqi air force was not something they could just disregard as they had proven themselves more than capable flying many missions in previous conflicts and being well trained. \n\n**The key worry coalition forces probably had was the vast array of effective anti air weaponry that the Iraqi military had.** The Iraqi forces had plenty of anti aircraft artillery (AAA), SAMs, MANPADs, etc. and the extensive AA network posed major threats. \n\n**The other major worry for coalition forces was Iraq's notorious use of chemical weapons and SCUD missiles.** There was constant worry that Iraq would use one or both, the worst case scenario being SCUDs with chemical warheads. Iraqi SCUD launchers were incredibly difficult to locate and neutralize because they would operate mostly at night, 'shoot and scoot' and during the day would be hidden in extremely effective camouflage, under bridges, inside hardened bunkers, etc. \n\nAll these things added together meant that coalition forces were expecting significant casualties, especially in losing air assets as well as fears of mass chemical attacks. \n\nSo how did coalition forces inflict such a one sided loss on the Iraqi forces?\n\nIt can be summed up in three main things. \n\n**Air superiority** \n\nThe initial air strikes that vastly reduced Iraqi ability to respond directly in the air paved the way for total aerial superiority over the skies in Kuwait. And because of the technology that the USAF fielded in stand off weaponry, it was able to negate much of the risk of flying into the extensive network of Iraqi AA defense. The effect of this cannot be overstated. Coalition air packages basically flew round the clock missions to constantly interdict Iraqi convoys, supply lines, command structures, and key infrastructure. \n\nBy the end of the conflict, many Iraqi forces simply routed because of the effect of nonstop air bombardment on morale. Many had no personal way to strike back at the aircraft and it must have felt terrifying to feel so powerless against an enemy that could blow you away with almost certainty. \n\n**Information control**\n\nCoalition forces had a massive advantage in battle intelligence over the Iraqis. Firstly, after air superiority was achieved, **air strikes immediately began to target known elements of the Iraqi command structure**. While the Iraqi military had a solid officer corps of upper ranking decision makers and generals, their lower rank officers were doctrinally inflexible and not prone to taking initiative. \n\nThis meant targeting communications and command units a priority for coalition forces, so as to 'chop off the head' of the Iraqi forces. They predicted that without clear, effective coordination from above, many Iraqi units would have their combat effectiveness drop drastically. \n\nThe other part of this was the integration of **GPS** as a standard for situational awareness and movement across the battlefield. This gave the coalition forces the ability to know in real time where their allies were and where Iraqi forces were situated, giving them the ability to track and engage enemy units at will. \n\nMeanwhile, Iraqi forces had to operate by maps, landmarks, and high command's coordination to figure out where they were and the location of enemy forces. \n\nAnd while we talk about GPS, the final big advantage for coalition forces was **technology**.\n\nAlong with GPS, US air force weaponry, avionics, and comms were simply much better than Iraqi technology. Laser guided munitions, radar missiles that eliminated SAMs, better radar, etc. \n\nCoalition tanks outclassed Iraqi tanks by a wide margin, which was more about the electronics than the thickness of armor or size of their barrels. \n\nFor example, M1 Abrams had excellent sights and gun stabilizers, along with GPS and their comms net allowed them to engage Iraqi tanks at distance and speed. Iraqi armor brigades were overwhelmed. \n\nSo yes, people were very surprised that there weren't a great deal more coalition casualties and they seemed to beat the Iraqis 'easily'. \n\nHopefully someone more informed than I comes along soon!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
n1nnu
|
If I smashed my hand with a hammer, and someone cut my hand off instantly after, would I still feel the pain from the broken hand?
|
I understand that pain acts as a deterrent sent to the brain by your nerve endings to prevent you from damaging your body. If the nerve endings causing the "pain signal" to be sent are removed, do you still feel the pain sent by them before they were removed?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n1nnu/if_i_smashed_my_hand_with_a_hammer_and_someone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c35l9lo",
"c35leha",
"c35lwhw",
"c35l9lo",
"c35leha",
"c35lwhw"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
24,
6,
5,
24
],
"text": [
"No, you would not feel the pain from the broken hand because the pain receptors that were sending the signal that you perceive as pain are no longer attached. The signal that they send to the brain is very very fast and once they are gone that signal is terminated immediately. \n",
"Put your hand on a hot stove. Or smarter still imagine putting your hand on a hot stove. There's a looney toonesque lag between hand placement and your comical over-the-top \"OUCH!\" isn't there? Its not just that your flesh has to warm up, your pain fibers send signals over uninsulated \"unmyelinated\" nerves meaning they travel slower than the body's max of about 60 mph (which is still far from instantaneous). That being said, they still travel pretty quickly. So make sure its a friend with a sharp sword and a fast arm. ",
"This question doesn't have anything to do with Phantom Pains. I'm not sure why it's the top voted comment right now. It has everything to do with how neurons conduct impulses.\n\nWhen you smash your finger, the sensory neurons in that [dermatome](_URL_0_) are stimulated and send a signal of pain to your brain. You brain interprets the signal as pain and that's how you get the response. What you're asking is if you cut off your hand immediately after, would you still feel the pain from smashing your hand.\n\nThe answer is that it depends on if you cut off the hand before or after the signal has passed the point that you're cutting at. If the signal hasn't yet reached the point that you cut off, then it will not get to the brain, and will not be interpreted as pain. If it passes the point before you cut off the hand, it will still be interpreted.\n\nIt all depends on if you allow the signal to be sent to the brain. Hope this clears things up.",
"No, you would not feel the pain from the broken hand because the pain receptors that were sending the signal that you perceive as pain are no longer attached. The signal that they send to the brain is very very fast and once they are gone that signal is terminated immediately. \n",
"Put your hand on a hot stove. Or smarter still imagine putting your hand on a hot stove. There's a looney toonesque lag between hand placement and your comical over-the-top \"OUCH!\" isn't there? Its not just that your flesh has to warm up, your pain fibers send signals over uninsulated \"unmyelinated\" nerves meaning they travel slower than the body's max of about 60 mph (which is still far from instantaneous). That being said, they still travel pretty quickly. So make sure its a friend with a sharp sword and a fast arm. ",
"This question doesn't have anything to do with Phantom Pains. I'm not sure why it's the top voted comment right now. It has everything to do with how neurons conduct impulses.\n\nWhen you smash your finger, the sensory neurons in that [dermatome](_URL_0_) are stimulated and send a signal of pain to your brain. You brain interprets the signal as pain and that's how you get the response. What you're asking is if you cut off your hand immediately after, would you still feel the pain from smashing your hand.\n\nThe answer is that it depends on if you cut off the hand before or after the signal has passed the point that you're cutting at. If the signal hasn't yet reached the point that you cut off, then it will not get to the brain, and will not be interpreted as pain. If it passes the point before you cut off the hand, it will still be interpreted.\n\nIt all depends on if you allow the signal to be sent to the brain. Hope this clears things up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatome_\\(anatomy\\)"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dermatome_\\(anatomy\\)"
]
] |
|
2yo1gk
|
why was it a trend to add 2000 and 3000 to the end of products?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yo1gk/eli5why_was_it_a_trend_to_add_2000_and_3000_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpbb2q2"
],
"score": [
26
],
"text": [
"There was a time when year 2000 was the future."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
r8yob
|
Can electromagnetic radiation create sound?
|
i.e. when light, microwaves, gamma rays, etc. travel through a medium (such as air), can they create sound waves?
Edit: Sorry about the hazy definitions, I'm not very adept on this. Essentially my question is whether or not an electromagnetic wave anywhere in the spectrum can interact with a medium it is traveling through in such a way that is produces sound.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r8yob/can_electromagnetic_radiation_create_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c43vil1",
"c43vmg3",
"c43wrsm"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Your definitions are a little hazy. On one end of the spectrum you have radio waves (which you can't hear directly...try listening now) on the other end you have gamma rays (which silently irradiate you). However if radio waves travel through the medium of a crystal radio you can definitely hear them. There is also radiation pressure which is one of the ways it interacts with matter.\n",
"Interestingly enough, you can actually achieve the opposite.\nThey've started using electromagnetic radiation (specifically TMS - noninvasively inducting a current in the brain with a magnetic field) to treat tinnitus (where you hear a persistant phantom noise) by stimulating the auditory cortex. I know you were looking more for a literal, physical world answer, but I thought it was a pretty neat, slightly relevant tangent.",
"If the Energy density is high enough, the radiation will ionized the air and you will hear and see the bang. as you will need a pulsed laser it will not be a constant sound but correlated to the frequency of the laser pulses.\n\n- > video: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iBui-CSK5w8"
]
] |
|
2ycr8e
|
with websites using shortened links(reddit, youtube, twitter ect), why do they still use the full link at all?
|
_URL_1_ vs _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ycr8e/eli5_with_websites_using_shortened_linksreddit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp8cc5m",
"cp8h2gn",
"cp8ie65",
"cp8j8vg",
"cp8zn71"
],
"score": [
17,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's just semantic. With the long URL, you can tell what subreddit it's in and what the title of the post is. You only need the thread ID to grab the thread's data, but it doesn't mean anything to any of us because we aren't relational databases.",
"Short URL are very useful when you share them on Twitter. I think that micro blogging is the main reason why shortened URL are so common. But the long version help people to know before visiting the links.",
"One tells you what the link points to, the other doesn't. ",
"It has to do with search engine rankings.\n\n\nSee this for more information: _URL_0_",
"Another reason I don't see mentioned is search engine optimization (SEO). You get a higher ranking for terms that are in your URL, so having a name that is meaningful to humans is going to increase your ranking when people search for those terms."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ycr8e/eli5_with_websites_using_shortened_linksreddit/",
"http://redd.it/2ycr8e"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://searchengineland.com/seo-friendly-url-syntax-practices-134218"
],
[]
] |
|
1r3y2y
|
From an infantryman's perspective, what war from the beginning of the 20th century to the present has been the most horrific?
|
You can address the question in terms of combat, living conditions, medical care, (or lack thereof) psychological effects, and so on.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r3y2y/from_an_infantrymans_perspective_what_war_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdjdveb",
"cdo7632"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I think this will be almost a matter of taste. In chronological order, and taking no stance on which one is worst:\n\n* The Boer war is notoriously the last in which the British Army suffered more casualties from disease than from combat. Also where concentration camps were invented, although this perhaps didn't bother the average infantryman too much. \n\n* The Great War is perhaps not quite as bad as its reputation, but still, it was genuinely awful. Mud, rats, charging into machine guns, living in the trenches for months on end waiting for the shell that would finish you - perhaps it has been exaggerated, but still, it's all *true*. Also of note for the near impossibility of getting medical help if you were wounded between the trench lines. NB: No antibiotics, lots of muddy battlefields. Widespread use of chemical weapons by both sides.\n\n* WWII, well, what can one say? You asked about infantrymen, so I'll leave the Holocaust out of it. But at least on the Eastern Front, things were pretty grim all around. Being taken prisoner - and let's note, neither side was that keen on prisoners - meant death by slow starvation. For the Russians, even those who survived captivity could expect some years in the Gulag. Something on the order of 80% of the Russian men born in 1923 died. \n\n* Korean War: I can't think of any area in which this one was plausibly the worst. \n\n* Vietnam: No support from home, or at least, none that was very obvious in the media. Perhaps the first unpopular war in which the soldiers could really *feel* that the home front didn't have their back. \n\n* Iran-Iraq war: Unarmed teenagers charging into minefields. 'Nuff said. \n\nOf course this is only a selection. No doubt I've missed some little hellhole in an obscure corner of Africa that's notorious for 50% of its veterans having PTSD, or something of the sort. All in all, I think I would put my money on the Great War; but there are a lot of strong contenders out there. ",
"I'll go for WWI, not only the living conditions in trenches were horrible but the tactics were suicidal. In \"The price of glory: Verdun 1916\" Alistair Home describes how entire French regiments were placed in trenches, whose previous occupants had been wiped out hours earlier by German artillery bombardment, just to avoid having any positions unmanned, but it was pure slaughter with no purpose. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7zaiwr
|
Do wild animals get physical addictions to substances?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7zaiwr/do_wild_animals_get_physical_addictions_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dumqiyw",
"dumzylh",
"dun2xd1",
"dunhmsl"
],
"score": [
40,
3,
12,
5
],
"text": [
"They certainly *can*, though I have no benchmark for how common this is in most species.\n\nThere is plenty of documentation for various animals seeking out psychoactive substances on the semi-regular. Common ones include preferential selection of fermented fruit over newly fallen material for the purpose of getting drunk. (Or at least, that's a common conclusion for why they do it.) My understanding is that goats are especially likely to seek out anything psychoactive they can find, including hallucinogens and the like.\n\nBut these examples of drug *use* doesn't necessarily give us usable data on how many of these animals are **addicted** per se. I don't actually know of any studies that looked into that specific aspect of drug use within the animal kingdom.",
"I had a friend who did research into the genetics of addiction using mice and cocaine. The results seemed similar to human behavior: some could take it or leave it, and others would do nothing else until they wasted away and died.\n\n\nHe was heavy into cocaine himself that summer, and had a lot of guilt-filled mornings empathizing with the addicted ones ",
"Dolphins intentionally seek out pufferfish to get high from the venom, and elephants in South Africa apparently seek out alcohol. If you want an example of the dolphins watch the documentary Spy in the Pod by BBC. It's very interesting. Are these animals addicted? I really don't know, but we do know that we're not the only species that likes to get wrecked sometimes. ",
"Some most certainly do! Koalas mainly eat eucalyptus leaves and other animals don't because eucalyptus is toxic/poisonous, so the koalas are getting high from the toxins in the leaves and are so addicted they only eat eucalyptus. Dolphins will iritate pufferfish so that it inflates and will play with it, intentionally letting the pufferfish spines poke its nose to get high from the toxins produced by pufferfish. Deer, moose, and caribou will eat psychelic mushrooms. Monkeys, hares, birds, and bees well wait for fruit to over ripen and ferment to get drunk. Wallabies eat poppies, the plant thay heroin is made from, and will wander in circles and pass out. All cats, from your house cat to lions and tigers, become hyperactive after inhaling or ingesting catnip. I'm sure there's many more, but that's all I can think of right now"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6zjmz3
|
In the 1800s in "wild west" America were there neighborhoods that people lived in similar to today? Or were there singular houses spread out randomly?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6zjmz3/in_the_1800s_in_wild_west_america_were_there/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmvr2x4"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The West is an enormous place so generalizations are difficult to make. That said, the majority of the region was and continues to be largely urban in its settlement. Since most people in the nineteenth century did not have a horse (contrary to the Hollywood-based stereotype), people had to be able to walk to work, shopping, places of worship, places of leisure, etc. This often resulted in tightly-packed houses. There was often room in the back (for an outhouse and also for a place for chickens or growing vegetables, etc., but the idea of a large yard surrounding a house and setting it away from the road is a fairly late ideal for the West."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ajzhw
|
Can someone elaborate on the natural gas pipelines of the Han dynasty?
|
You probably can guess the post I'm referencing:
_URL_0_
The wikipedia page cites *The Genius of China: 3,000 Years of Science, Discovery, and Invention* by Robert K. G. Temple. Is this a reliable source? Does he go into any further detail about these pipelines seeing as the wikipedia excerpt is just a just a few sentences.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ajzhw/can_someone_elaborate_on_the_natural_gas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csdg699"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"[You might find this interesting.](_URL_1_) Can't say I know much more than that, but I recall Needham mentioning the same thing in one of his books on China. You can download his books [here](_URL_0_) if you're interested. Sorry for the short answer and I haven't read RKG's book, but this is something right? Maybe /u/Asiaexpert can help out."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/todayilearned/comments/3ajdpr/til_the_han_dynasty_of_china_drilled_for_natural/"
] |
[
[
"http://monoskop.org/index.php?search=needham&title=Special%3ASearch&go=%E2%8F%8E",
"http://csegrecorder.com/articles/view/ancient-chinese-drilling"
]
] |
|
1ee5ki
|
What is Mitochondrial Decay? Is this real?
|
My question comes from some discussions I've been having with someone at my work. I recently found out he has a somewhat creationist view, he says it's more that he's not sure of what we were or if we were anything before we were humans. He thinks we started as humans but were more brachial. He's open to discussion on the topic and we both enjoy talking about it so I'm trying to poke holes in his theory(as he is mine).
I'll preface the rest of this by noting that I only have a rudimentary or intermediate understanding of genetics, which is why this is difficult for me to debate him on. His claim is that DNA decays over long periods of time and the same DNA can only be folded so many times because it deteriorates too badly. This is why he thinks that we couldn't have evolved from something else, our DNA would be too badly decayed.
I've looked up mitochondrial decay, as he's called it, and couldn't find anything on the topic. I've asked him for sources and he says he'll get some, just keeps forgetting. He's a really smart guy and I have no doubt he has some info on it but I'm a little impatient and definitely skeptical so I'm hoping someone here can help explain this to me and hopefully find the flaw in his argument.
If anyone has something to show that he's correct, I'm also open to that.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ee5ki/what_is_mitochondrial_decay_is_this_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9zemm3",
"c9zh4eg",
"c9zn9r0"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
" > His claim is that DNA decays over long periods of time and the same DNA can only be folded so many times because it deteriorates too badly.\n\nsounds like he pulled that one out of thin air. DNA in synthesized/repackaged de novo every time a cell divides.",
" > I'll preface the rest of this by noting that I only have a rudimentary or intermediate understanding of genetics, which is why this is difficult for me to debate him on. His claim is that DNA decays over long periods of time and the same DNA can only be folded so many times because it deteriorates too badly. This is why he thinks that we couldn't have evolved from something else, our DNA would be too badly decayed.\n\nNo, DNA doesn't deteriorate over generations. Perhaps he was confused with telomeres on the end of chromosomes that do deteriorate leading to splices on the end of DNA. However, this deterioration occurs in individuals and is not connected at all to generations of DNA or evolution. \n",
"Mitochondrial DNA decay is a weak argument against evolution. Creationists are still looking at developing sciences and demanding immediate proof for \"gaps\" in scientific knowledge. \n\nThe primary role of mitochondria is to increase the energy extraction from glucose with cellular respiration by about 16 times over anaerobic respiration. There are ~1,000 mitochondria in each cell. Each mitochondrion has its own set of DNA, which is distinct from the cell's nuclear DNA. The mitochondrial DNA is arranged in a single loop and has 180,000 times less DNA than the nuclear DNA. The mitochondria reproduce asexually, most likely by binary fission. Its DNA will change over time, just like in bacteria, and it is subject to intracellular evolution. Like some bacteria, there is evidence that mitochondria are also able to repair their DNA with DNA recombination.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThis is mostly edited, since I initially didn't answer the question in order to address some misconceptions (which I am leaving below).\n\nIt took several biology courses before I had a thorough and continuous understanding of evolution from base pair and codon, to proteins and traits, to the biosphere. I'll try to be as concise as possible.\n\nDuring mitosis (eukaryotic cell division for growth and cell replacement), after initial corrections during DNA synthesis, DNA deteriorates (mutates) at a rate of about 1 in a billion base pairs per replication. With somatic cells, if the mutation is significant enough and is caught by the G2 checkpoint, the cell will initiate autolysis (self destruct), otherwise, it could lead to a cancer cell. \n\nGenerally, the mutations do not cause any significant impact on the function of the cell (genes not expressed, or mutation doesn't affect protein). DNA synthesis truncates the chromosome each time in most somatic cells by initially cutting off the telomeres (extra non-coding DNA). Eventually, the telomeres are cut off completely, and coding DNA is damaged, which leads to loss of function.\n\n\nDuring meiosis (creation of sex cells for reproduction), gametes form from stem cells that add the lost pieces of telomeres to the ends of the chromosomes, but there is still the same 1 in a billion base pair error rate.\n\nThis, as well as other sources of mutation, is the root cause for both positive and negative additions of alleles to the population/species. The significant negative additions, as judged by fitness to the environment, are eliminated by natural selection. Most new alleles cause no change in fitness, but many result in lower fitness.\n\nOn rare occurrences, positive mutations are introduced (rare), which contribute to a greater fitness to the organism with the new allele compared to the existing population. This organism with the new allele is then selected for by natural selection, and this increases the frequency of the allele in future populations. This is what is referred to as \"macroevolution\". I use quotation marks because there are differences in how this word is interpreted. I am not a creationist, but creationists have argued that the rate of additions of beneficial alleles to a species is not consistent with the result of the proposed ~2 billion years of evolution.\n\nAdditional note: microevolution is generally referred to as the change in pre-existing allele frequency (traits) in a population."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion"
]
] |
|
dy7fos
|
how does a website know i mistyped my card number before i even click “place order”?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dy7fos/eli5_how_does_a_website_know_i_mistyped_my_card/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f7yzju9",
"f7yzug6",
"f7z09zz",
"f7z3i37",
"f7zrbfp"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Part of the card number identifies the type of card so it can tell immediately if you have tried to put a debit card instead of a credit card (or vice versa) or if that part of the number doesn't match any type of card.",
"There are calculations that can be done to determine if it's valid before you submit. There is a pattern that they all follow - without going into too much depth. Similar to how it knows an email address needs to have characters followed by \"@something.something\" which all emails follow. Anything that doesn't follow that pattern at least is invalid.",
"Credit card numbers are not random. They have information that identifies the type of card and even a \"check\" digit that helps ensure that the rest of the digits were received correctly. \"Good\" payment pages will include some code that will check/validate the card number before it's even transmitted to the server to not waste the time processing a bad number.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n [_URL_0_](_URL_0_)",
"There are two quick and easy ways. The first digit usually indicates what kind of card it is: Visas always start with \"4\". If you have indicated you are entering a Visa, but the first number is a \"3\", they know you've made a mistake.\n\nThe other way is the last number is a check digit. You can look up the exact formula, but the idea is you take the first number, multiply by the second number, take the rightmost digit from that and add the 3rd digit, and so on down the line. If the last digit doesn't make what the formula says it should be, you have a problem.",
"* the first one or two numbers identify the type of card (Visa, MC, Amex, etc), it is obvious if you don't have a valid value for those\n* the next few digits identify the bank (Chase, Citibank, BoA), and again only certain values are valid\n* most cards have 16 digits, but Amex only has 15 and Diner's Club and Carte Blanche have 14\n* the last digit of the card is a usually checksum, a digit computed from the other numbers, if you get a digit wrong, the checksum won't match up...this is probably the most common way bad numbers are rejected"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.creditcardinsider.com/learn/anatomy-of-a-credit-card/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
164oie
|
How do molecules such as ATP, mRNA and proteins, transport around the cell?
|
For example, ATP is produced inside the mitochondria. How does that ATP then get outside the mitochondria and get to all the spatial locaions in the cell that need ATP?
Another example: mRNA needs to get outside of the nucleus and to a ribosome for protein synthesis. How does it get there and meet up with the ribosome?
A third: proteins are created by ribosomes. How do these proteins end up all over the cell, building the different pieces of it?
I lack any kind of intuitive understanding of how this self-assembly and transportation happens. If you could help me develop this intuitive understanding, I would appreciate it!
EDIT: I am aware (at a basic level) of the existence of motor proteins and their ability to transport substances around the cell by walking around microfilaments. However, this just sort of pushes the question down further, to: how do the substances find a motor protein to get hooked to, and what happens to the motor proteins when they reach the end of their filaments?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/164oie/how_do_molecules_such_as_atp_mrna_and_proteins/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7spcib",
"c7sq4i7"
],
"score": [
8,
11
],
"text": [
"The simple answer is [diffusion](_URL_1_). An easy, somewhat intuitive, non-thermodynamics way to think about it is to take some food coloring and put a drop of it in a glass of water. After a while the entire glass will be that color. The molecules of the food coloring spread throughout the water.\n\nThe way things get to \"where they are supposed to go\" is that they get 'stuck' there once they get there. Going back to the food coloring analogy, if the food coloring was \"supposed to go to the surface of the glass\" then molecules in the coloring would stick to the glass. Eventually the water would be mostly clear and the glass would become colored.\n\nDiffusion is sometimes also called \"random walk\" or [\"brownian motion\"](_URL_2_). The idea of random walk until being captured (binding to a target) and then trapped in a new space is sometimes called brownian ratcheting (I don't like the wikipedia page on this, so here's a different link that I think is a bit more clear: _URL_0_).",
"Proteins bind a host of other proteins that both direct their transport and physically move them throughout the cell. Freshly translated proteins are loaded into little structures known as vesicles, these vesicles are bound by 'motor' proteins that physically walk up and down long polymerised tracks known as microtubules that extend throughout the cell. In this manner proteins can be delivered to the area of the cell in which they are required. Each protein normally contains a short sequence of its amino acid sequence that acts a barcode, letting the transport machinery know where it's supposed to go. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://pages.uoregon.edu/linke/res_ratchet.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diffusion",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brownian_motion"
],
[]
] |
|
iw3or
|
The need for air conditioners to have a solid barrier between inside and outside...
|
My wife keeps suggesting we place our window air conditioner on a table in the bedroom. it won't fit in the window. I keep telling her that it won't do any good unless there is a solid barrier between the two sides of the air conditioning unit.
Can you please help me explain this to her in simple terms? And in scientific terms? Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iw3or/the_need_for_air_conditioners_to_have_a_solid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c273ayy",
"c273bbx",
"c273ikw"
],
"score": [
21,
6,
7
],
"text": [
"An AC doesn't make \"cold\" out of nothing. In reality there is no such thing as making cold. What it does is separate hot from cold. So cold air comes out one side, and hot air comes out the other. If there is no barrier. the inefficiencies of the whole process would actually make the room hotter.\n\nTL;DR - It would be like pooping on the floor instead of in the toilet - the waste has to go somewhere",
"AC units don't \"make cold,\" they pull warm air out of the room. The hot air comes out the back leaving the room colder. Unless the back is not in the room the net effect would be to warm the room up!\n\nTell her to put her hand round the back of a fridge.",
"(someone much better then I in thermodynamics can give a scientific response)\n\nSimple explanation:\n\nImagine you have a bucket filled with water and a pump. If you wanted to pump the water out of the bucket you'd want the output to be *outside* of the bucket not inside. Otherwise your spending a lot of energy to move the water around inside the bucket. Now imagine the AC is the pump and the water is \"heat\". "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bfekp4
|
why iron is considered the most 'stable' element. wouldnt helium or the inert gases be it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bfekp4/eli5_why_iron_is_considered_the_most_stable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eld0ymp",
"eld2et0"
],
"score": [
16,
8
],
"text": [
"It’s a different kind of stable. Helium is stable since it doesn’t react with other elements, while iron is stable in the way that if you have a single iron atom, it isn’t going to fall apart.",
"Helium and the noble gases are stable in that they don't want to make friends with other atoms and form molecules because their electron shells are already full and perfect\n\nIron is stable in that it takes the most amount of energy to change its nucleus out of all the atoms.\n\nYou get energy out of fusing atoms together until they get up to Iron at which point it takes more energy to ram the extra parts into the nucleus than you'll get back out. The same goes for fission, splitting things larger than iron will give off energy because they move to a more stable state and don't need all that energy anymore, but once you hit iron it'll take more energy to split it than you'll get back out.\n\nThe electrons around an iron nucleus want to make friends, but the protons and neutrons in the iron nucleus have the perfect amount of friends and don't want any more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3dr9lx
|
is there an actual law stating that the opposite genders aren't allowed to go into the other's restroom in a public space, or is it just a common courtesy being practiced?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dr9lx/eli5_is_there_an_actual_law_stating_that_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct7vy32",
"ct7x08p",
"ct7xr8b",
"ct7zf7m"
],
"score": [
4,
15,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"AFAIK, there are no existing laws at the federal level that make it illegal for a man to use the women's restroom, or vice versa. It could theoretically open you up to charges of sexual harassment or something similar, but that's not really the same issue.\n\nSome members of the Florida House of Representatives did try to pass a bill earlier this year, but it failed in April. [House Bill 583](_URL_0_) would have made it a first-degree misdemeanor, with up to $1,000 in fines and a year in jail. ",
"I dont think there's any law. I was at Belmont a few years ago to see Smarty Jones, there was a record breaking crowd there. I am in the mens room taking a pee as some nice looking well dressed girl walks right past me, as I am standing in the urinal. Jeezus that freaked me out. I told her what the hell! and she's like \"the women's room is filled\" \n\nJeezus, just try this as a man. ",
"It would surely depend on the jurisdiction, but I am not aware of any specific laws on that. It would generally fall under the catch-all provisions of the \"disorderly conduct\" laws. Which basically means \"does the judge and/or jury think you ought not have done that\".\n\nNow if you were being lewd and lascivious, or trying to be a peeper, that could fall under other more specific laws.",
"While not the norm, there are places that simply offer \"unisex\" restrooms/locker rooms. Universities and cities with a sort of hippie/liberal/libertarian bent will tend to have more of these. They are NOT required, but do exist in some restaurants/gyms/schools/whatever. I don't mean the little one-person rooms, but the general large restrooms.\n\nYou might be taken up on a lewd/misconduct charge as it is fairly unusual for someone to use the opposite sex restroom, but afaik there is no law (unless local) against just walking into one.\n\nThat said, using the wrong public restroom in a moment of desperation is really unlikely to get you anything resembling legal trouble--perhaps someone will yell at you, but as long as you mind yourself in a stall and don't loiter the worst you'll get is some uncomfortable stares/comments, and possibly be asked to leave if the other party really pushes things. There are far easier ways to get in trouble--there was just a news article recently about someone leaving their camera phone on 'video' in a Starbucks restroom, for example. Or looking over the stalls, urinating in public, flashing in public, lewd and suggestive behavior in any number of situations...using the wrong bathroom on accident is so far down the list as to be negligible :S."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.myfloridahouse.gov/Sections/Bills/billsdetail.aspx?BillId=53629"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2grkut
|
why is it i feel more comfortable walking around while im on phone? am i alone in this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2grkut/eli5why_is_it_i_feel_more_comfortable_walking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckltkho",
"cklud7u",
"ckluiuj",
"cklut9i"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I do the same thing and have always wondered why. I always guessed that it was because it's a habit to move away from other people while talking on the phone as to not be rude. ",
"I recall this answer being helpful when this question was asked previously:\n\n > You do your best thinking when you walk. \n\n > It's well known that your mind is stimulated when you are active and upright. Many scientists and composers adopt this method for idea generation and some of the greatest artists and thinkers from Darwin to Britten were at work whilst walking:\n_URL_0_[1]\nWhen you are on the phone and focused on the conversation your mind switches to focus on the 'place' where the phone call is happening. If you watch people who are deep in conversation they will also be facing downwards and very slightly huddled. As a result you become far less aware of your surroundings and subconsciously your body is telling you to go for a wonder so you can do some thinking - as a sort of coping mechanism. It's the same as people rubbing their chin or wringing their hands in a meeting (although this is a stress relief). Stress balls also perform this task.\n\n > In the UK driving whilst on the phone causes more crashes that drink driving and is banned.\n\nCredit goes to /u/orwellsocietyguy\n",
"My boyfriend walks when he talks on the phone, sometimes not even noticing how far he has walked. One time, he talked to his mom for half an hour, and had walked around the neighborhood, bare-footed, and hadn't even noticed. \n\nHe says that walking while on the phone is just a habit. He likes to take his conversations elsewhere, so as not to disrupt the people around him. He also feels that walking away and being by himself while on the phone allows him to give all of his attention to whomever is on the phone.",
"You're not alone. \n\nGenerally when I make a call I start walking in a circle around my apartment with my cat chasing me and grabbing at my feet (it's a game to her) for the entire call. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/music/2013/jan/30/benjamin-britten-composing-walks"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ctdrk
|
What two ethnic groups are genetically farthest from each other?
|
Based on migrations (out of Africa and other theories) as well as existing DNA sampling what two ethic groups are genetically most different? I use ethnic group here loosely and am really talking more about genetic groups rather than cultural groups.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ctdrk/what_two_ethnic_groups_are_genetically_farthest/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9jt0ts",
"c9jtck1",
"c9kebg6"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't know which specific groups, but at least one of them, and maybe both, would be associated with sub-Saharan Africa. All of the populations associated with other parts of the world would have diverged more recently, ie. after having migrated farther away, and are therefore more closely related to each other. [Here's a diagram of pre-modern migrations based on mitochondrial DNA](_URL_0_). I can't guarantee it's up to date or exactly correct (Wikipedia, after all), but it generally conveys the out-of-Africa model.",
"This sounds like a question for the new r/askanthropology subreddit ",
"Supplementary table 1 in [this paper](_URL_0_) has some good info. The usual measure for this stuff is the F statistic (F*_ST_*), which partitions the total variation in a population into an individual- and between-subpopulation component. The latter allows us to compare two different subpopulations to see how different they are. If the two sub-populations are highly diverged, F*_ST_* will be close to 1. On the other hand, if the sub-populations are basically the same, F*_ST_* will be close to 0.\n\nIn general, humans have pretty low genetic differentiation between groups. That is, most of the genetic variation that exists in the human population exists between individuals. I.e., two Africans are about as different from each other as they are from a European, genetically speaking. Only 3-5% of genetic difference is due to between-group differences (although, obviously these may be significant differences since they're more likely to have been selected for).\n\nThe full table from that paper, recapitulated here:\n\n| | Africa | Europe | Middle East | Central/ South Asia | East Asia | Oceania |\n|-------|-------|--------|------------|-------------------|----------|---------|\n|Europe | 0.040 | | | | | |\n|Middle East | 0.033 | 0.005 | | | | |\n|Central/South Asia |0.037 | 0.008 | 0.008 | | | |\n|East Asia | 0.054 | 0.038 | 0.038 | 0.026 | | |\n|Oceania | 0.068 | 0.061 | 0.059 | 0.049 | 0.047 | |\n|America | 0.101 | 0.079 | 0.081 | 0.068 | 0.060 | 0.102 |\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map-of-human-migrations.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencemag.org/content/298/5602/2381.full"
]
] |
|
2jdhgy
|
why are spray bottles cold, instead of hot, to the touch?
|
I would think that spray bottles with compressed air would be hot because, according to the ideal gas law and what not, air gets warmer as it is compressed and colder as it expands. So why is it that it is the opposite of just that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jdhgy/eli5why_are_spray_bottles_cold_instead_of_hot_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"claoupb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"1. they aren't hot or cold when resting. If they stayed hot while under pressure then you'd have just discovered infinite energy! The bottle may _feel_ cold because it absorbs heat readily (e.g. it's made of aluminum).\n\n2. you may be feeling the bottle after it has lowered its pressure. The bottle will become - as you mention in your post - colder when the pressure is released. (e.g. spray an aerosol can for a while and it will be cold)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4fzhk4
|
why do we have to go through us customs in canada, but not the canadian customs in the us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fzhk4/eli5_why_do_we_have_to_go_through_us_customs_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2dbbgw",
"d2dbdwd",
"d2dbmzc"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It used to be that you went though US customs in the US, and Canadian customs in Canada. Some smaller airports continue to work this way.\n\nBut then the US introduced customs pre-clearing, so instead of checking after you've arrived in the USA, the check everything before you get there. ",
"In the Airport? When flying from Canada to the US?\n\nIt's called US Preclearance and you do it in Canada (or in other countries like Ireland) then you land like your flight originated in the US\n\nIf you didn't do that then you would have to go through Immigration and Customs in the USA\n\nIn the other direction you just go in Canada, they usually have less issues",
"You always have to go through customs...somewhere.\n\nAs a matter of convenience, US customs has a presence in larger Canadian airports. It is much easier to show up a little earlier and clear customs before your depart than to try to do so on a layover.\n\nAlso, the US, unlike most other countries, does not have a \"in transit\" customs status...everyone who enters the US has to clear customs, usually at the first US airport they reach. Have US customs in major Canadian airports makes it easier for Canadians who fly through the US to another destination. The reverse isn't true, because Americans who just have a layover in Canada don't have to go through customs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
vycop
|
ocams razor and the burden of proof
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vycop/eli5ocams_razor_and_the_burden_of_proof/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c58t6kz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"**Occam's razor:** The original, from William of Occam, is: *\"plurality should not be posited without necessity.\"* This means that you shouldn't add assumptions that are not needed to explain something.\n\nNowadays it is used to say that, of several possible explanations, the simpler one should be preferred, because it is most likely to be true. Note that it's not true all the time, but in an argument it puts the holder of a more complex explanation in a weaker position, and puts the burden of proof on them.\n\n**Burden of proof:** If the burden of proof is on you, it means that it's up to you to prove something, not up to other people to prove you wrong. This happens when you make a claim that strays for the default position (sometimes called the null hypothesis). \n\nFor example the default position of the existence of things is that they don't exist. If you make the claim that something exists, it's up to you to prove that it does. If I claim that there's a teapot on my desk, I can get proof: I can see it, touch it, I can take a picture of it and show it to you, etc. If I claim that there's a teapot orbiting the sun somewhere between Earth and Mars orbits, I can't prove it. You can't disprove it either, but the burden of proof is on me. In the absence of proof of its existence, we shouldn't consider that it exists.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
12vixj
|
From your period of expertise, what is a human trait that was revered, held in high regard or even just generally accepted that would typically be looked down upon today?
|
I recognize this is a very open-ended question, but I imagine there are a lot of very unique answers out there.
I'm curious about everything from physical deformities/genetic disorders, human behavior, physical traits, but nothing is off the table!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12vixj/from_your_period_of_expertise_what_is_a_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ygjwk",
"c6ygygp",
"c6yhg8d",
"c6yijco",
"c6yisro",
"c6yjk0a",
"c6yjn3g",
"c6yjz28",
"c6ykiye",
"c6yo6vf",
"c6yoegq",
"c6yonhv",
"c6yotf3",
"c6yp1hg",
"c6ypxas",
"c6yq9dd",
"c6yqpp4",
"c6yr5ro",
"c6yr7wy",
"c6yrdrv",
"c6ywajc",
"c6yz57g"
],
"score": [
80,
67,
22,
69,
38,
24,
55,
14,
15,
49,
14,
20,
12,
14,
5,
8,
8,
10,
10,
8,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"There is absolutely no way that the media would have given FDR the same consideration of his disability that they did in the 1930's and 40's. Even when he was \"walking\" you could tell something was wrong. Many people knew he had problems, but the full extent of his disability was relatively well hidden. Also, the media ignored many sex scandals or, rather, people didn't contact the media about them (Grover Cleveland's illegitimate child being an exception). ",
"The Roman word \"obnoxium\" means, rather than to puff yourself up, to make your self humble before someone. It still had the negative connotations that we have today for the word obnoxious, but meant the complete opposite. Being humble was as socially unacceptable as boasting is today.",
"\"Bully\" used to be a term of approbation for someone strong and aggressive.",
"Being overweight used to be a sign of wealth, power, and in some cases beauty. ",
"Blind obedience by the warrior class to their lords. While not always a bad thing, it often led to civilian massacres, futile last stands, and more famously, the seppuku ritual. ",
"It's known that for a period in European history fair-skinned woman were considered far more attractive than those who had tanned. Having fair, creamy skin was a sign of status and beauty for many early Europeans. This trend was not unique in nature to any one specific country; it expressed the social opinion of Europe as a collective rather than characterizing one particular group of people.\n\nWhile not *generally* frowned upon, having pale skin represents the exact opposite in modern society; attractiveness began to shift over to how tan/bronzed you were, and pale skin began to be seen as an undesirable trait.",
"Raping a slave child was fair game. After all, they were only property. Sometimes I feel I'm not disgusted enough by the stuff I read day in day out. Jokes about this are all over Roman satire.",
"Not a historian but ancient Greeks and Romans sometimes took boys as lovers. _URL_0_\n\nEDIT: For example, Roman Emperor Claudius was viewed as weird in his day because he *didn't* engage in sexual behavior with boys or men.",
"The ability to produce thousands of handaxes or respect for labor jobs and their workforce.",
"The Russians in their Christian Orthodox tradition revered a type of madman called a юродивый (yurodivy), or in English a \"Holy Fool\". That person was believed to be doing all those weird, unstable things because they were inspired by the Holy Spirit; they functioned rather like a court jester in that they could speak frankly to anyone without being punished. They were quite highly regarded - St Basil's Cathedral in Moscow is named after a Holy Fool, for instance.\n\nNow, it's a bit of a pickle to know if all of these men and women were genuinely mad or if some of them were feigning: the ideal was that these men \"voluntarily take up the guise of insanity in order to conceal their perfection from the world, and thus avoid praise.\" But speaking now from memory, the Professor who taught me about Russian religious practices seemed to believe that most of the Holy Fools were genuinely mentally ill - he believed that the sources supported an interpretation which suggested that Basil especially probably had some sort of Autism. \n\n((If the Byzantine expert would like to jump in, I would be interested to see if this idea of a Holy Fool is organic to Russia, or if it was acquired from their tradition.))\n\nOn the same Eastern European vein; the minstrels of the Ukraine that sing their truly epic били́ни (Byliny) used to be blind. Teaching them to sing these songs was a form of trade for them - it allowed them to earn money and gave them a place in society which prevented them from being a \"burden\" on society. Best source for this is [And The Blind Shall Sing](_URL_0_) by Natalie Kononenko.",
"I recall that, for the greeks, having a small manhood was considered best.",
"The biggest thing of all: Paganism. It was as universal and normal and as entrenched and self-evident as sex, and it wasn't going away. \n\nThat it would eventually die off in the West and mostly around the world so quickly is completely unthinkable, and the closest thing in history that I can describe as a miracle. So next time one of you /r/atheists see a Christian, thank them for their philosophical bombshell on the world, because without that enormous movement in the early millennia science wouldn't have had a chance. After all, the Christian tradition was a largely secular movement that didn't treat nature as sacred and put the divine object *outside* of reality and treated reality as fair game to control and manipulate and probe, thus opening the door for the sciences. So when you think Christian superstition and science suppression, you're usually thinking about remnants of European mysticism and their political structures infiltrating/associating with Christendom.\n\nI am not a Christian.",
"[Lincoln's Melancholy](_URL_0_) - this man's history would not be tolerated in the presidency today.\n\nThere's a part in it discussing where people viewed as melancholic (depression is the wrong word, I think) were highly valued by society - as deep thinkers who ruminated on life and the difficulties of being human.\n\nSee also Churchill's 'black dog'.",
"That massacres of enemies was an excellent way to make them fear Rome, and for them to come to terms.\n\nHostage taking (It was more formalized, in the sense that 'allied' leaders would be expected to come with cavalry and light infantry auxilia so that the Roman promagistrate could keep them in his power).\n\nOne of the major benefits to being a legionary was the ability to rape and pillage after a successful siege. \n\nDisturbing to the modern eyes, but Roman citizens would have no issue with any of this, and would be supportive of most of it.",
"In Feudal Japan, especially during what is known now as the Warring States (Sengoku) Period, a warrior was expected to kill himself in the most painful manner possible if he did something to tarnish his honor. War tales of this era (usually written in the Tokugawa era, after the end of the Sengoku period) idolized men who committed suicide rather than face their own failures. This isn't exactly uncommon knowledge, though. ",
"It really depends on who you are asking. I study medieval history and I would say many people would criticize the extremism of many of the saints, specifically their asceticism. Many female saints were praised for their ability to fast extreme amounts, where today they would probably be considered to be anorexic. An interesting side note of fasting and anorexia is that a lot of the language to describe fasting in the middle ages is similar to the language anorexics use today.\n\nedit: for more on the subject of fasting by women in the middle ages see Holy Feast and Holy Fast by Caroline Bynum, it is really a fascinating read if you are interested in the subject.",
"In Ancient Greece, having a small penis was thought to be the greatest thing ever, whilst \"Long, thick penises were considered -- at least in the highbrow view -- grotesque, comic or both ...\".\n\n[source](_URL_0_)",
"In late medieval Western Europe, it was considered beautiful/fashionable for a woman to have a high hairline or forehead, sometimes with shaved eyebrows. \n\nYou hardly ever see it in movies or modern depictions because it's just so unappealing to modern eyes.\n",
"In many Native American nations, tribes, and groups, being someone who would currently identify as LGBTQ was nearly always accepted and often revered. The current pan-Indian moniker for such peoples are two-spirits.\n\nGiven the wide diversity of languages and cultures indigenous to North America, LGBTQ treatment was not uniform throughout. However, it is widely agreed upon by historians and modern Natives that the concept of two-spirit people was pervasive and accepted across the continent. ",
"In medieval times getting together and burning cats alive, etc was considered great fun. Today if you saw someone doing that you'd think they were training to be a serial killer. ",
"Around 1650-1750 in Europe, too much evidence of hard work in order to achieve results was frowned upon in performing arts and conversation. There were a lot of learned skills people were expected to possess, but when the time came to present them, they were supposed to pretend it was nothing and never admit it if they had worked hard to make it happen. So in performing arts, those who acted like perfectionists were unpopular, while those who acted like it was a lazy, easy, offhand thing were applauded. This attitude of sponteneity and ease was known as sprezzatura. While it can still be found today, in fashion, for example, and in the concept of \"untrained talent\" that seems to captivate people, today we publicly applaud hard work and discipline. Back then hard work and discipline were sometimes encouraged privately but when it came time for performance, they were a secret. ",
"Self flagellation and mutilation by pious members of the nobility throughout the medieval period in Europe. I cannot count the number of lives of saints I have read that revere the subject for their devotion to whipping themselves. Nowadays we'd send them to a therapist instead."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pederasty#The_ancient_world"
],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/gp/search?index=books&linkCode=qs&keywords=0765601451"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Lincolns-Melancholy-Depression-Challenged-President/dp/0618773444"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/2627/why-does-so-much-ancient-greek-art-feature-males-with-small-genitalia"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2re1zi
|
what happens to a copyright when the company that holds it goes out of business?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2re1zi/eli5_what_happens_to_a_copyright_when_the_company/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnezr6i"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The rights would be considered an asset by the liquidators and sold in order to pay creditors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
84av3k
|
Where did Western Europe get its natural gas during the Cold War?
|
The topic of Russian sanctions has been coming up in the news a lot recently, and a common talking point is that Europe can't enact total sanctions because they rely on Russia for their natural gas. How did they get around this during the Cold War? I can't imagine the Soviet Union was trading with NATO.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/84av3k/where_did_western_europe_get_its_natural_gas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvr40l2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If I may add a few supplementary points to u/kieslowskifan 's answer... \n\nAt the beginning of the Cold War period, natural gas was not in wide usage as a fuel in Western Europe. Coal gas was made in gasworks local to many towns and cities, then piped to homes. The USA moved from coal gas to natural gas earlier than European countries, due to domestic discoveries. \n\nStern: \n > The modern history of natural gas in Europe began in 1959 with the discovery of the Groningen field in \nthe Netherlands, followed a few years later by the first discoveries in the UK sector of the North Sea. This was followed by equally substantial discoveries of gas in the Norwegian sector starting in the 1970s. But while the UK had a huge domestic market, Norway did not and created a huge export business with a number of pipelines delivering gas to both Continental Europe and the UK. \n\n\nNatural gas was already known in smaller quantities from the North Sea area - it was the scale of the discoveries which was new. There were also some smaller onshore discoveries, including in France in the late 1950s. Natural gas discoveries led to infrastructure conversions (although France also strongly favoured nuclear power in its energy policy). \n\nIn Britain, the change from town/coal gas to natural gas began in 1958, and by 1971, 69% of domestic gas supplies were via natural gas (Kreitman, 1976). Major discoveries were made in the North Sea in 1965-7, showing it was a significant gas bearing area, and the change was accelerated. Dodds & Desmoullin state \"In the 1960s, large deposits of natural gas were discovered under the North Sea and the UK Gas Council decided to switch the entire country from manufactured town gas to natural gas in a national program over a 10 year period.\" \nSo, alongside the import of natural gas from North Africa, Western European countries were supplying much of their own natural gas in the 1970s and 1980s than they do now. \n\nStern: \n > Even before Dutch pipeline gas exports started to flow, the first LNG ships were arriving in the UK and France from Algeria. Over long distances or across water too deep for pipelines to be laid, LNG can be a very convenient alternative to pipeline gas. However, in the early 1960s the technology of liquefying gas to minus 161 degrees Celsius, loading it on to ships to be regasified on arrival, was both demanding and expensive. LNG-receiving terminals were built in the UK, France, Italy, Spain and Belgium, and later in Turkey and Greece, but the rate of growth of LNG in Europe was modest until the early 1990s when new developments in technology made LNG more competitive.\n \n \n\nHis paper shows the following figures for European OECD (pre-1991 member countries) gas production and demand, in billions of cubic metres: \n1960: 10.4 | 10.4 \n1970: 79.7 | 82.2 \n1980: 199.1 | 235.4 \n1990: 196.7 | 290.1 \n\n% imports from non-OECD countries: \n1960 0 \n1970 1.0 \n1980 15.3 \n1990 31.7 \n \nETA (Adding this quote from p.1. Now deleted: totals figures from Stern's Table 2 which include Russian gas exports to some East European countries as well as some of Western Europe.) \n > Between 1970 and 1980 deliveries of Soviet gas to Western Europe increased from 3.4 BCM to 26 BCM. By 1990 gas exports had risen to 109 BCM and Western Europe, with 63 BCM of imports, was the largest customer for Soviet gas. \n\nUnfortunately there isn't a breakdown showing how much of the 1980s increase in imports to Western Europe occurred after Gorbachev announced reforms. \n \n\n**References** \n\nPaul E. Dodds & Stéphanie Demoullin, 'Conversion of the UK gas system to transport hydrogen', International Journal of Hydrogen Energy, Volume 38, Issue 18, 18 June 2013, Pages 7189-7200. \n\nNorman Kreitman, 'The coal gas story', British Journal of Preventive and Social Medicine, 30, 86-93 (1976). \n\nJonathan Stern, Natural Gas in Europe: the Importance of Russia \nAvailable from: _URL_0_ \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.centrex.at/en/files/study_stern_e.pdf"
]
] |
|
dq33ya
|
why do objects that are the same temperature as our average body temperature feel hotter than our hand when we touch them?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dq33ya/eli5_why_do_objects_that_are_the_same_temperature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f607x0g",
"f60da71"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"Because 37 degrees is the body core temperature. Your fingertips are often colder than that, especially the skin, where your thermoceptors are.",
"We can not feel \"temperature\", our senses measure \"heat loss\".\nBecause of that, we also sense iron \"cold\" and wood \"warm\" although both materials were at the same temperature; metals can take away our heat production faster and in consequence we feel it colder."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1ndawj
|
Sleeping with music playing
|
Hi guys, i'm wondering. Almost 5 years I have been sleeping with my music on, not headphones, just playing it from my laptop, pretty silently, but still easy to listen to (chillstep mixes, trance and so on).
I just hate that buzzing sound I hear when i'm trying to sleep and there is not a single sound around. It starts to drive me crazy and I can't fall asleep
Does this kind of music sleeping ( not headphones) has any effects on my sleep cycles, rest, productivity ?
Thank you
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ndawj/sleeping_with_music_playing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cchl3n8",
"cchl671",
"cchq94b"
],
"score": [
5,
221,
7
],
"text": [
"To add onto his question: does listening to an audiobook while asleep provide better recollection of it?",
"In general, noise throughout the night is disruptive to sleep, especially if the noise level is highly variable, e.g., occasional loud noises. However, a steady background noise (e.g., white noise) can be beneficial to sleep quality if the environment is inherently noisy, e.g., [the ICU of a hospital](_URL_0_). Of course, if the white noise itself is very loud, [sleep quality is adversely affected](_URL_1_).\n\nThere have been several studies assessing the use of music to fall asleep. Most of these have involved listening to music for ~45 minutes around bedtime. For example, [this study](_URL_5_) in students with sleep complaints found that listening to classical music around bedtime could improve sleep, relative to listening to an audiobook or to nothing. [This meta-analysis](_URL_4_) found some beneficial effect of bedtime music interventions on sleep quality. However, it was based on only 5 studies in different populations, and found a relatively small effect. Many sleep/music studies have unfortunately been poorly designed, as discussed [here](_URL_3_). Note also that most studies involving music as a sleep-aid have naturally been targeted at groups that have sleep problems. [This study](_URL_2_) found no effect of listening to classical music for 45 minutes at bedtime in healthy sleepers.\n\nI am not aware of *any* studies where participants listened continuously to music throughout the night. Based on prior results, one could reasonably expect that sleep quality would be reduced if the sound level or quality changed frequently during the night (e.g., a playlist with many different types of music or high-tempo music). It is plausible that listening to calm relaxing music (e.g., classical music) throughout the night could be beneficial if there are already noise problems in the environment or if the individual has sleep problems. But without an appropriate study, it's not possible to say for sure.",
"60 dB (normal conversation) is fine for all-night listening and won't cause hearing loss. Sounds over 85dB start to be problematic. OSHA limits 90dB sounds to 8 hours a day.\n\nThere is one study on listening to Binaural beats during sleep, where they played music for 6 hours I think (rather than the entire duration of the sleep). It showed that binaural beats can enhance your memory during sleep. (_URL_1_)\n\nHere is some free binaural beat music. _URL_0_\n\nDr. Oz quotes a study that said 40% of light sleepers (which includes tinnitus sufferers like you) sleep better with background sounds. I can't find the reference to that though.\n\nI run a small business selling headphones for sleeping, and all of our 100,000+ customers listen to music for sleep. About a third of them listen all night to music to block out snoring and apartment-living noises. I receive testimonials all of the time saying that it helps with their sleep, and therefore productivity. So you're definitely not alone.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1389945704002242",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1469-8986.1972.tb00757.x/abstract",
"http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/08098131.2013.783095#.UkhJOD8lKwQ",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0167876006003011",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2009.04982.x/abstract",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2648.2008.04602.x/abstract"
],
[
"http://www.sleepphones.com/mp3/free-mp3-downloads",
"http://www.cell.com/neuron/abstract/S0896-6273(13)00230-4"
]
] |
|
ydwvu
|
Why are creatures more energy efficient the larger they become?
|
I've always wondered why a mouse (pound for pound) consumes and burns energy so much faster and more wastefully than an elephant. Why aren't creatures simply as efficient as possible across the spectrum opposed to being more wasteful the smaller they are? Why is this exactly?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ydwvu/why_are_creatures_more_energy_efficient_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5uoewg"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"At least for warm-blooded animals, surface area to volume, and heat loss are significant factors. Mammals, for example, keep a body temperature that is almost always warmer than their surroundings. \n\nImagine you have a cube mouse, 1 meter x 1 meter x 1 meter. This mouse has a volume of 1m^3, and a total surface area of 6m^2. It has a surface area to volume ratio of (6m^2 )/(1m^3 ), which works out to be equal to **6:1** (m^2 /m^3 ). It has 6 square meters to lose heat from for every 1 cubic meter of body tissue.\n \n Now we make the mouse bigger, increasing its size to 2m x 2m x 2m. The mouse has a volume of 8 m^3, and a surface area 24 m^2. The mouse now only has to deal with 3 m^2 of heat loss for every 1 m^3 of volume, it has a SA/V ratio of only **3:1** (m^2 / m^3). Since producing heat requires burning metabolic energy, the larger mouse will be able to expend proportionally less energy in order to maintain the same body temperature, making it more efficient."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1in0pk
|
How did the armies of Genghis Khan handle logistics?
|
How do you supply and coordinate an army that conquered most of the largest continent in about 20 years in an era before motor vehicles or modern communications? Did they just mostly live off the land and pick up conscripts from conquered cities, or did they actually have some sort of formal supply system?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1in0pk/how_did_the_armies_of_genghis_khan_handle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb64zhc"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"First I would recommend looking at Mongol culture and lifestyle. The Mongols come from a harsh steppe, and had a strong nomadic culture. It's cold at night, and hot during the day. The land is generally pretty terrible for farming, and there aren't many forests or trees around to cut up to build stuff with. Water is pretty rare, but not quite as rare as your typical desert. \n\nAs you can predict, Mongol society around the time of Genghis Khan was based around herding livestock (goats mostly) on the Mongol plateau. Without livestock, it was practically impossible to survive on the steppe. \n\nThus, the nomadic Mongols traveled in nomadic clans and subclans to protect their livestock and people from raiders of enemy clans. A clan chieftain was typically responsible for politicking and providing protection for his entire clan. Regardless, all boys from a very young age learned to ride and travel by [horse](_URL_0_). \n\nBTW, the Mongolian Domesticated Horse is one hell of a horse (especially the way they trained it). Definitely check out the link above if you have time.\n\n They also made and practiced with their famous recurve bows from a very young age. \n\n**Traveling and living off the land**\n\nThis harsh lifestyle made it easy for them to live off rich lands, like medieval Persia, northern India, China, and eastern Europe. \n\nWhen traveling for war, each Mongol soldier had about 3-5 horses, all mares (the Mongols preferred mares for various reasons). One great utility the mares provided was milk on the go. If necessary, a mare could be slaughtered for her meat. When things got really rough, there are stories that claim the Mongols would drink the blood of their mares mixed with milk for nourishment, and survive like this for weeks. \n\nDuring the time of Ghenghis Khan's conquests, conquering a nation usually involved the pillage of cities, execution of fighting-aged men, and enslavement of women, children, engineers, and other \"useful\" people. Sometimes slaves were also used as fodder at the beginning of battles. \n\nUsually siege weapons, small weapons stockpiles (arrows mostly), came by supply train. The animals pulling the train needed water and food, so it wasn't a huge deal to move that stuff around as long as a route was scouted before hand (which the Mongols were masters at). \n\n**Communication**\n\nThe Mongols created a pan-empire horse-post-relay system to send written messages around the empire, but I think you were asking about communicating during war? Coordination between multiple armies was done through horse messengers (mentioned previously). During combat, the Mongols used any combination of the following based on what most practical given the environment, geography and weather, or what the commander preferred: beating kettles, horns, flags, smoke signals, and signal arrows. \n\nI wrote a set of rather lengthy papers a while back on the effectiveness of the Horse-mounted archer and recurve bow and its role in the rapid expansion of the Mongol Empire, so there are a LOT of sources that I'm not going to remember. I'll try to list some. \n\nA lot of this stuff could also be wrong since it's primarily from memory of my research, and the paper is not accessible right now. \n\nSources: \n\n* **[Primary Resource]:** The fall of the Jurchen Chin: Wang E's memoir on Ts'ai-chou under the Mongol siege (1233-1234)\n\n* The Devil's Horsemen: The Mongol Invasion of Europe - J. Chambers\n\n* Warriors of the Steppe: A Military History of Central Asia, 500 B.C. to A.D. 1700 - E. Hildinger\n\n* Mounted Archers of the Steppe 600 BC-AD 1300 - A. Karasulas\n\n* The Mongols - D. Morgan\n\n* The Mongol Art of War - T. May\n\n* The Rise and Fall of the Second Largest Empire in History: How Genghis Khan's Mongols Almost Conquered the World - T. Craughwell\n\n\nThere are many others, including primary documents that I can't remember right now. I'll check my papers once I get home from work and will update. In the meantime, please correct or point out any errors I've made.\n\n\n**EDIT 1**: Thanks /u/screwyoushadowban for correcting me on the type of horse.\n\n**EDIT 2**: Full list of relevant sources added"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongolian_horse"
]
] |
|
8v2itq
|
how are deisel-electric engines more energy efficient than direct-drive deisel engines?
|
Why are deisel-electric engines more efficient than direct drive systems? Wouldn't it be more efficient to remove the "extra step?"
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8v2itq/eli5_how_are_deiselelectric_engines_more_energy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1k1tsy",
"e1k1uva",
"e1k2cbi",
"e1k2jas",
"e1k5bh5"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"It comes down to being able to run a diesel electric engine at the optimum efficency while a straight diesel engine is responding to the load of the train. ",
"The diesel motor can run constantly at its most efficient rpm to charge the battery, rather than having to scale up and down as the vehicle accellerates. You can also get benefits from regenerative braking.",
"It eliminates the need for a mechanical transmission, which for a train would be massive, complicated, and inefficient. The engine can run at its optimal rpm, and the electric motors it powers serve as the transmission. ",
"So all engines have a power band, and within that band is a precise set of operational conditions (so, speed and fuel flow rate) where you maximize your fuel energy efficiency.\n\nHybrid powertrain engines (not just diesels, but Spark Ignited engines as well) are able to sit *right on that precise spot* for maximum efficiency, whereas direct-drive engines have to rev up and down by user input, dependent on what precise speed the user wants at the wheels (which correlates to your vehicle's speed).",
"Don’t think of it as an “extra step”. There has got to be *something* getting the energy from the engine to the wheels. Drive trains and transmissions don’t have perfect efficiency either. \n\nA big factor for diesel efficiency is the speed of the engine. With diesel electric you can always run the engine at the exact most efficient speed, and that’s a big factor in making it better. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24pxho
|
why do i find it so hard to change my eating habits? how do i get myself to like eating something?
|
I haven't really eaten vegetables or fruit since I was around 12. I was spoiled and wasn't made to eat them and now I've fallen out of habit and can't stand the texture. Why do I find it so hard to eat healthy and how do I get over the texture of something so I can appreciate taste? Any time I've looked it up nutrition talk has been like jumbo jumbo and has as baffled me.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/24pxho/eli5why_do_i_find_it_so_hard_to_change_my_eating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch9iswy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The way I see it is that the keyword is habit. It's amazing how closely related food and smells are to conditioning, think Pavlovian conditioning and the salivating dogs. When we eat or smell something high in fat or sugar our brain releases chemicals, most of them feel good. Seeing many of us have a choice in our food and they usually tend to be high in these we tend to get conditioned to feel good when eating them and bad when eating something else, hence we are conditioned to eat them more often. In this way a person could become a \"chocoholic\", but not to that extreme. Also food and smells are very closely connected to memories, this is why nostalgic food exists. This also leads back into the conditioning where you remember and associate foods. To my knowledge there is no way that you can force yourself to like another food, accept for dong exactly that. Studies have shown that if you lie to your self and generally have a good reason to you may start to believe that lie to an extent. Also if you can form a positive association with that food, eat a carrot when ever you do something you like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6454bw
|
Was there a period in the 19th century when Portugal was essentially governed from Brazil?
|
The recent talk about a hypothetical Canada - Scotland political union has me wondering whether an old world country has ever been ruled or governed from the new world. Outside of marginal cases such as the American occupation zone of Germany, the closest analog seems to me to be my (dimly recalled and possibly mistaken impression) that at some point during the Brazilian monarchy, Portugal was run from Brazil. Is this correct?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6454bw/was_there_a_period_in_the_19th_century_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg02pqu"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You are correct. But as you might guess the situation was far more complicated than that.\n\nIn 1803 the UK and France went back to war. Portugal was a long standing ally of England, but wanted no part of war with Napoleon. So the regent João (later João VI) tried to walk a line of neutrality between them. João was in a precarious position as he was ruling on behalf of his insane mother Maria I, and not by his own authority.\n\nIn 1807 Napoleon demanded that Portugual join the continental system, close their ports to the British, and seize British property. João not wanting to piss off his British allies only did part of what Napoleon wanted, stoping short of seizing property. He hoped that would be enough to appease Napoleon while stil not upsetting the British too much. It wasn't enough and by November Napoleon had troops marching on Lisbon.\n\nOn November 29th, some 15,000 Portuguese royalty, nobility, and attendants boarded Portuguese and British ships and sailed for Brazil. On December 1st general Jean-Andoche Junot entered Portugal. Portugal was divided into three zones of occupation and the Spanish and French took over rule of the country.\n\nThe Portuguese populous didn't take too kindly to the occupation. In 1808 the locals joined in popular uprisings in both Spain and Portugal kicking off the Peninsular war. In 1809 the future Duke of Wellington arrived and drove the French out of Portugal. The French were back in country shortly after, and especially the north of Portugal was invaded and liberated several times. In 1811 Wellington was able to push out of Portugal for good, and the rest of the Peninsular war was fought exclusively in Spain. During these first few years it's hard to say anyone was ruling Portugal, let alone the Portuguese court in distant Rio. Rule either fell to whatever local politicians could hold, or to whichever military officer happened to be closest. \n\nBefore long the British officer, William Beresford was made Marshal and commander in chief of the Portuguese army, in March of 1809. He also acted more or less as the military governor of Portugal throughout the rest of the Napoleonic wars. As time passed this role was made more and more official, but it was largely just the Brazilian court recognizing the power he had already just simply seized. As the years passed, even after the war ended, he made trips every couple of years to Rio where he was consistently invested with more and more power.\n\nThe Portuguese were very unhappy with this turn of events. Once the war was over they had expected to see the court return to Lisbon. They wanted a return to preeminent status in the empire, and they wanted their British overlord to go away. So in 1820 when Beresford returned from a visit to the Court in Rio, he found a revolution in progress, and the locals didn't even let him off his ship. The revolutionaries demanded a return of the crown, that Brazil be downgraded back to a colony, and a constitution. By 1822 got everything they wanted. \n\nSo while nominally Portugal was ruled by Brazil for 15 years or so, in practice war and insurrection greatly limited the court's practical control. Functionally Portugal was ruled by no one or everyone depending on local conditions. Little thought was given to the opinions of the far away court in Rio. Most of all it was ruled by a British general who's authority was half appointed and half seized. It's hard to say that there was ever a point that Portugal was essentially ruled from Brazil."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1n3b8y
|
why does steam/valve insist that linux is the future of gaming?
|
I can't wrap my head around this idea that Steam/ Valve are pushing forward. Firstly the range of games available at the moment (which I know is ever increasing), but then the issue of hardware drivers not being great, graphics cards being the primary problem. Why does Gabe have such confidence in an OS that accounts for lowest percentage of the gaming community?
EDIT: Thanks /u/stumro and /u/MnemonicZebra well explained
EDIT 2: Thanks to all others that are contributing, keep it coming! I feel like I've learned something today!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1n3b8y/eli5_why_does_steamvalve_insist_that_linux_is_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccf0dyo",
"ccf0pdj",
"ccf2ohj",
"ccf45vz",
"ccf4hwf",
"ccf4k00",
"ccf569y"
],
"score": [
18,
91,
12,
3,
2,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"There are a variety of reasons, I'm probably not the best person to try and answer this, but I'll give it a shot.\n\nFirstly Linux is highly optimized and can be dedicated to running just steam whereas with windows, you will have to run heaps of their applications.\n\nWith Linux being so streamlined, a player can have cheaper components and have a game run amazingly.\n\nWith steam making the big move towards Linux, it will force the GPU produces to be more open with their driver creation and to create better drivers.\n\nWith more than Microsoft as an OS, developers are more likely to use an open source encoder which will allow more platforms to play and thus more money for the creator.\n\nUltimately, it will be cheaper for the gamer as they wont have to buy an OS also. It will be better for the industry as more people can play great games.\n\n\nThis is just things I have picked up about it from reading around, though it could be a bit off with stuff there.\n\nEDIT: simple spelling errors and some grammar",
"There are several reasons for Valve pushing Linux or specifically SteamOS.\n\nFirst reason is streamlined PC gaming, providing a more console like experience where everything just (usually) works. I.e. by taking all the weird crap people often have installed on their Windows machines out of the loop and instead just provide a gaming focused OS with good driver support there should be far less of the compatibility issues often associated with PC gaming.\n\nSecond, is Valve trying to optimize graphics and audio performance, although to be honest I doubt they can really do it that much better than Microsoft. You can say a lot about MS but DirectX is actually pretty good. I think the whole L4D2 working better on Linux is more about Valve wanting to create a good story for their Linux support than any inherent Linux performance edge.\n\nThird, what I believe is the most important reason and the reason Valve don't talk about is, platform control. Valve sees what Microsoft is doing with the Windows Store in Windows 8 as a major threat. On Windows 8 RT devices, the only way to install apps is the Windows Store. Valve fears that Microsoft will eventually move in the same direction with non-RT devices, this would be a deathblow to the Steam platform. Such a move from Microsoft will take time, but Windows 8 is the first step and Valve recognized that they would need to move early to counter it.\n\nBy creating their own platform, SteamOS, Valve gains complete control. They can kiss competition from Origin and other digital game pushers’ goodbye. I can promise you that in SteamOS you only buy from the Steam platform. Using the trusted platform technology already built into many PCs today, they could also make SteamOS more resistant to game piracy, a huge incentive for game publishers to support SteamOS.\n\nSo yeah, I’m excited about SteamOS as much as most here on reddit, but I doubt it will be a huge gaming revolution for Linux distros that aren't SteamOS and don't think that Valve is doing this out of the goodness of their hearts. This is a business decision, plain and simple. \n",
"I believe the most important factor seems to be that Microsoft have started moving towards windows no longer being an open operating system (with the introduction of the windows 8 store)\n\nIf this happened (it hasn't yet any software can be run on windows with no problems) then Microsoft could start asking steam for a cut of the money from all sales, which steam don't want.\n\nWith large companies motivation is almost always money, right now steam can sell on to windows with no fees being paid to Microsoft. With windows 8 Microsoft laid the groundwork for windows to become a lot less open, requiring a fee to publish software for the OS, much like the IoS store or Xbox. In response to this it seems steam are laying the groundwork to fully transition its service to free (for them) open platforms, Steam OS and Linux.\n\nThe reason i believe this is a larger factor than anything else is that before Microsoft made these moves towards a more closed system i saw very little from steam that indicated they cared at all about linux as an OS for gaming.\n\nI also don't believe that Linux will ever be a widely used home/office operating system without a complete rethink of its user interface systems (or unless programming and computer science become compulsory)\n\nalso where i say linux read Ubuntu as that is the linux version i have most experience with",
"Microsoft really is the gatekeeper on PC gaming. And let's face it, they have a conflict of interest in helping PC gaming flourish. They have sunk tens of millions into their proprietary gaming platform. Others here have already touched on Windows 8 so I won't repeat that, but combine that with the increase in tablet/laptop sales and declining desktop sales the writing is on the wall if we stay current course. Valve is diversifying.",
"A lot of companies have pegged linux as the future of a lot of industries. It's attractive because it is open and easy to customize to the needs of a specific idea. For example, android is linux based and in a short 5 years has revolutionized the mobile phone industry. We are now using android to game both on consoles like ouya and phones and tablets.\n\nValve is putting a lot of money into optimizing linux for gaming. With increased interest you will see better hardware drivers. The most recent builds of valves source run just as well under linux as they do on windows.\n\nAs for game availability, I believe \"If you build it, they will come.\" is appropriate here. With Valve dedicating so much effort to the platform, their ability to work with game developers to not only convince them of their ideas but help them accomplish them...its just a matter of time before this blows up.",
"Dev: \"Hey Sony, can I make a game for PS4?\"\n\nSony: \"Sure, for a huge platform licensing fee.\"\n\nDev: \"Hey Microsoft, can I make a game for XB1?\"\n\nMicrosoft: \"Sure, for a huge platform licensing fee\"\n\nDev: \"Hey Valve, can I make a game for SteamOS?\"\n\nValve: \"Sure.\"",
"There are a few reasons.\n\n1) From a business standpoint Valve doesn't like relying on Microsofts good graces to continue to exist. Valve started Steam when Windows was considered an \"open\" operating system. You can install any program you want from anywhere with no approval process. Lately in Windows 8 Microsoft has started to close down the OS. Valve is concerned about its long term viability if the dominant OS is closed. Valve wants PC Gaming to remain on an open operating system, it's good for not only their business but for the whole industry.\n\n2) From a consumer standpoint Valve thinks it can provide a better experience for its customers if it has its own OS. Valve can fix a lot of issues that plague PC gaming (compatibility, drivers, ease of installation). An operating system designed for gaming will be inherently better for gaming than one that isn't.\n\n3) Another potential reason is because of PC industry trends. People aren't buying desktops anymore. Large PCs are starting to trend towards a niche market of gamers and a/v professionals. Regular consumers are preferring laptops, tablets and phones. Microsoft is beginning to target the smaller, touch based form factors which has a completely different set of priorities than a gaming computer. Essentially Valve is trying to keep PC Gaming in its current form alive.\n\nWhen it comes to market share, the existing Linux installation base doesn't really matter to Valve. Its best to think of SteamOS as a new console platform that happens to run on basically any machine imaginable. It already has 200+ games and supports streaming of games that aren't compatible with it. Compared to other consoles, that is a huge starting lineup of titles with a MASSIVE catalog of streaming titles. All in all its a pretty attractive proposition for Valve, consumers, developers and hardware manufacturers. It's pretty much a win for everyone but Microsoft (who kind of did this to themselves)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
67t1ld
|
title ll of net neutrality. how could isp's benefit from having control of internet speed on certain websites and apps?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67t1ld/eli5_title_ll_of_net_neutrality_how_could_isps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgt1rn2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They would get the power to censor as they see fit (we don't want you to visit site X, so we'll just restrict all data flow to and from it) and they would get the opportunity to add extra fees - an example would be to limit data speeds to the point where streaming becomes impossible, and then they'd charge you extra to raise the limit so you can watch Netflix, or have Netflix pay them extra not to do that so their customers can access their service.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9dc72a
|
how do arms deals work?
|
Here in the UK there is seemingly never ending controversy about UK sales of arms to counties like Saudi Arabia. The news often talks about government involvement in these deals but presumably it's private companies delivering the arms so is it accurate to say "the UK sold arms" rather than, for example, BAE systems?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9dc72a/eli5_how_do_arms_deals_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5gqhig"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The deal is between the UK government and the Saudi government. Regulations prevent BAE Systems (or anybody else) from just selling dangerous weapons on a retail basis. They sell them to the UK government, deliver them in Saudi Arabia, and get paid by the UK government with money they got from the Saudi government.\n\nIf you just set up your own munitions factory and sell to anybody - you're a terrorist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
78ncwf
|
Was the collapse of Rome felt/realised in China?
|
Just a random thought I got recently.Like the massive migrations that happened because of the collapse, like were there people in China or close to China who migrated towards west? And was it in such big numbers that Chinese people were theorising on what is happening somewhere west?
Also I'm quite sure that silk got to Rome, would that have effected directly to the economy of China?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/78ncwf/was_the_collapse_of_rome_feltrealised_in_china/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dow9vkh"
],
"score": [
31
],
"text": [
"I asked this question a few years ago\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe top comment by /u/Ambarenya states that the Chinese were at least vaguely aware of the Roman Empire's existence and had at least some limited communication. After a while the Chinese noticed that the limited communication had faded down to barely a whisper, giving the impression that something had happened to the Romans. By the 7th century the Chinese are at least aware of the Byzantine empire, which they identify as a successor to the now defunct Roman Empire"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3oc1cz/did_ancient_china_know_about_the_fall_of_the/"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.