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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
crev00
|
Why don’t fermented foods (kimchi, sauerkraut, etc.) not have lots of alcohol?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/crev00/why_dont_fermented_foods_kimchi_sauerkraut_etc/
|
{
"a_id": [
"exatoeb"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There are different kinds of fermentation, and not all produce alcohol. For kimchi and sauerkraut, lactic acid is the main product."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
mhrv9
|
why do we measure the energy in food in calories?
|
I understand a calorie is a unit of energy, and it is calculated by burning whatever it is we want to measure and then determine how much it can raise the temperature of water. But our bodies aren't little fires, right? Is there more to calories than the number? Are our bodies better at extracting energy from some type of food than other types of food?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mhrv9/why_do_we_measure_the_energy_in_food_in_calories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c311h3t",
"c311iz9",
"c311h3t",
"c311iz9"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"We measure energy in calories because both our cells and a fire are doing the same thing - releasing energy by breaking apart molecules. The basic principle in a fire is that the bonds holding the atoms together are rapidly broken, releasing a certain amount of energy. We can harness the energy in heat to do work (basic thermodynamics, if you're interested), but it usually comes minus a small penalty - entropy and all that.\n\nHowever, The simple answer is that our bodies are roughly doing the same thing: converting the chemicals in our food into energy by breaking the same bonds and harnessing the energy. Of course, this is where you start to get into the wonderful biochemistry of it all in which you can look at exactly how energy from bonds is used to power the body. \n\nTo make a long story short, cells generally use a single molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to store this energy, so each time a bond in your food is broken, you produce some amount of ATP. (If you really want to know, you're using a high-energy phosphorus-phosphorus bond, converting ADP (a molecule containing 2 phosphates) to ATP (a molecule containing three phosphates).\n\nLater on, the body can break off that extra phosphate and use that energy for whatever purpose it needs - muscle contractions, making proteins, etc etc etc. \n\nThe only real difference between the fire and your cells processing food is the rate at which the bonds are broken. In the food in a fire, it happens REALLY quickly, and the energy is released as light and heat. In the body, the energy is harnessed and stored for later use.\n\nThus, using calorie, a measure of energy, for both is pretty much the only way to do it. (Of course, most of the world uses metric and the unit for that is Joules.) And that does mean that yes, we are little fires - but VASTLY more controlled than the flame you're referring to. (We even ex-hale CO2 like a fire... we essentially burn carbohydrates, but that's another post for another day.)\n\nFor the last parts: no, there's not much more to calories than the number - however, there's much more to nutrition than the calories would tell you. Not everything we eat is broken down to basic components. And some foods aren't even broken down completely to ATP... some get stored as fats, some get used \"as is\" (vitamins) and others don't even get into our body, as they're eaten by our gut flora. (Isn't biology interesting?)\n\nDon't confuse calories with nutrition - calories are just a measure of how much energy is available in a certain item, not an indication of how your body uses it.\n\nSo, yes, our bodies are pretty highly evolved to make use of some foods and not others. Olestra is a great example of that. It's a manmade fat substitute, and our bodies have absolutely no way of breaking it down - consequently, it just passes right through and you get zero calories out of it. \n\nHowever, most actual \"food\" is pretty well used by the human body. There's some interesting information on how different sugars are used differently by the body - and one of my favorite lectures is this one : _URL_0_. It's pretty accessible to everyone. tl;dr: Fructose turns into fat, glucose is used as energy. Don't eat too much fructose.\n\nHonestly, despite being a long rant, this is a fascinating subject and I've only scratched the surface of it. Biochemistry is an incredible and rich field and it's hard to not follow up on the millions of tangents that I could have above.\n\nCheers.\n",
"The amount of energy in a sample of food is measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. The process is simple: a small amount of the food to be tested in dehydrated and placed in a vessel that is surrounded by water, the food is combusted, and we measure the energy based on how much the temperature of the water changed. One calorie is enough energy to raise one cubic centimeter of water one degree celsius. \n\nAlso, something to note, a food Calorie (with an uppercase C) is actually 1000 scientific calories (with a lowercase c), so when a wrapper says something has 200 Calories, it's actually 200 kilocalories, or 200,000 calories.\n\nHumans don't combust food, we perform respiration, which has the same net formula as combustion (C6H12O6 + O2 - > H2O + CO2), it has more steps, which means it produces slightly less energy than put combustion, but has the upshot that we don't burst into flames when we eat.\n\nWhile digestion and respiration is very similar to combustion, the human body (like any animal body) digests different sugars in different ways. The true calorie input from food can be adjusted by analyzing the feces of someone who just ate a sample of food and seeing what parts of the food did or did not get digested.\n\nTl;dr Bomb calorimeters measure the raw energy, looking at the poop of someone who just ate allow us to adjust for true calories. ",
"We measure energy in calories because both our cells and a fire are doing the same thing - releasing energy by breaking apart molecules. The basic principle in a fire is that the bonds holding the atoms together are rapidly broken, releasing a certain amount of energy. We can harness the energy in heat to do work (basic thermodynamics, if you're interested), but it usually comes minus a small penalty - entropy and all that.\n\nHowever, The simple answer is that our bodies are roughly doing the same thing: converting the chemicals in our food into energy by breaking the same bonds and harnessing the energy. Of course, this is where you start to get into the wonderful biochemistry of it all in which you can look at exactly how energy from bonds is used to power the body. \n\nTo make a long story short, cells generally use a single molecule called ATP (adenosine triphosphate) to store this energy, so each time a bond in your food is broken, you produce some amount of ATP. (If you really want to know, you're using a high-energy phosphorus-phosphorus bond, converting ADP (a molecule containing 2 phosphates) to ATP (a molecule containing three phosphates).\n\nLater on, the body can break off that extra phosphate and use that energy for whatever purpose it needs - muscle contractions, making proteins, etc etc etc. \n\nThe only real difference between the fire and your cells processing food is the rate at which the bonds are broken. In the food in a fire, it happens REALLY quickly, and the energy is released as light and heat. In the body, the energy is harnessed and stored for later use.\n\nThus, using calorie, a measure of energy, for both is pretty much the only way to do it. (Of course, most of the world uses metric and the unit for that is Joules.) And that does mean that yes, we are little fires - but VASTLY more controlled than the flame you're referring to. (We even ex-hale CO2 like a fire... we essentially burn carbohydrates, but that's another post for another day.)\n\nFor the last parts: no, there's not much more to calories than the number - however, there's much more to nutrition than the calories would tell you. Not everything we eat is broken down to basic components. And some foods aren't even broken down completely to ATP... some get stored as fats, some get used \"as is\" (vitamins) and others don't even get into our body, as they're eaten by our gut flora. (Isn't biology interesting?)\n\nDon't confuse calories with nutrition - calories are just a measure of how much energy is available in a certain item, not an indication of how your body uses it.\n\nSo, yes, our bodies are pretty highly evolved to make use of some foods and not others. Olestra is a great example of that. It's a manmade fat substitute, and our bodies have absolutely no way of breaking it down - consequently, it just passes right through and you get zero calories out of it. \n\nHowever, most actual \"food\" is pretty well used by the human body. There's some interesting information on how different sugars are used differently by the body - and one of my favorite lectures is this one : _URL_0_. It's pretty accessible to everyone. tl;dr: Fructose turns into fat, glucose is used as energy. Don't eat too much fructose.\n\nHonestly, despite being a long rant, this is a fascinating subject and I've only scratched the surface of it. Biochemistry is an incredible and rich field and it's hard to not follow up on the millions of tangents that I could have above.\n\nCheers.\n",
"The amount of energy in a sample of food is measured by combusting it in a bomb calorimeter. The process is simple: a small amount of the food to be tested in dehydrated and placed in a vessel that is surrounded by water, the food is combusted, and we measure the energy based on how much the temperature of the water changed. One calorie is enough energy to raise one cubic centimeter of water one degree celsius. \n\nAlso, something to note, a food Calorie (with an uppercase C) is actually 1000 scientific calories (with a lowercase c), so when a wrapper says something has 200 Calories, it's actually 200 kilocalories, or 200,000 calories.\n\nHumans don't combust food, we perform respiration, which has the same net formula as combustion (C6H12O6 + O2 - > H2O + CO2), it has more steps, which means it produces slightly less energy than put combustion, but has the upshot that we don't burst into flames when we eat.\n\nWhile digestion and respiration is very similar to combustion, the human body (like any animal body) digests different sugars in different ways. The true calorie input from food can be adjusted by analyzing the feces of someone who just ate a sample of food and seeing what parts of the food did or did not get digested.\n\nTl;dr Bomb calorimeters measure the raw energy, looking at the poop of someone who just ate allow us to adjust for true calories. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
],
[]
] |
|
efp1sq
|
Legality of political paramilitary organizations in the Weimar Republic
|
I have been reading the "Rise and Fall of the Third Reich" by William Shirer. Obviously the SA played a huge role in the political ascent of the NSDAP. However, I don't quite understand the legality of these different paramilitary organizations attached to political parties, not only limited to the NSDAP (e.g. the Roter Frontkämpferbund). Why did the state police tolerate these ruffians throughout the Reich? Is it because the time was generally tumultuous and political violence was deemed more acceptable in the young democracy?
My understanding of the SA is that the NSDAP and allied organization were very much tolerated by the Bavarian state and later other federal states at the time since the entire republic (with the army guaranteeing its' continued survival) was rather blind on the 'right eye'.
Thank you!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/efp1sq/legality_of_political_paramilitary_organizations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fc36ymj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Hey there, I wrote an answer which goes into more detail about the paramilitary organisations which you can find [here](_URL_0_).\n\nIn terms of legality, the organisations were broadly tolerated until they stepped over the line. Smaller groups such as Organisation Consul or the killers of Rosa Luxemburg who carried out political assassinations were pursued by the police, although the right wing bias of the judiciary meant that the trials themselves were often not conducted to the highest standard. Similarly, the SA were banned in Bavaria after the Beer Hall Putsch.\n\nThe prevalence of the paramilitary groups would have made it difficult to fully outlaw them. Anywhere up to six million Germans were members by 1933 so the scale of outlawing and enforcing the ban would have been huge. Since these paramilitary groups were linked to political parties (the SPD, KPD and NSDAP had the largest) there was no political appetite to ban them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cqk4sy/lawful_political_violence_during_hitlers_rise_to/"
]
] |
|
5jk16p
|
Why couldn't Austria-Hungary take Russia during the WWI?
|
Seeing how Russia was fighting a civil war at the time which was wrecking its military, wouldn't it have been relatively easy for Austria-Hungary to march in and take Moscow? Was Russia still stable enough during this period to fend off the attackers?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5jk16p/why_couldnt_austriahungary_take_russia_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbgu6ub"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Your chronology and facts are off here. Although it is difficult to pin down an *exact* start date for the Russian Civil War, it roughly started in November/December 1917 and only really began in earnest the following year. The Russian Army had begun a process of desertion and demobilization (sanctioned and unsanctioned) in the aftermath of the earlier February Revolution in 1917. But for all of the problems of tsarist Russia in the war, the army really was the last Romanov institution to break in the tumultuous revolutionary year of 1917. The Duma, the peasantry, the urban workers, and a myriad other social groups and institutions turned against tsardom before the military began its protracted disintegration.\n\nIn the meantime, the political health of the Austro-Hungarian Empire was not that much better than that of tsarist Russia. The Dual Monarchy's military suffered a series of reverses, such as the Siege of Przemyśl in which the failure of the relief effort and the surrender of the garrison severely damaged the Empire's morale. The Austro-Hungarian war economy was sputtering as well, especially as fighting on the frontiers of the Empire created an internal refugee crisis. Food became quite scarce in the Empire's cities, and when the Austrian Minister-President Karl von Stürgkh was assassinated while at lunch in 1916 there was very little public sympathy for a man that many blamed for the Empire's food crisis. Ethnic relations within the Empire, never the most stable to begin with, began to fall apart with the spectre of national separatism emerging. \n\nGermany did not nearly have so many problems as its Habsburg ally, and many on the German military and government saw the Russian Revolution and the makings of the Civil War as a godsend. In negotiations with the Bolsheviks, a faction willing to negotiate the end of the war, the Germans dictated the Treaty of Brest-Litovsk which would have reduced much of the western Russian Empire into independent vassal states dependent upon Germany. Although the negotiations for Brest-Litovsk were complex, Lenin agreed to them in the gamble that Germany lacked the manpower and resources to enforce this Carthaginian peace and would likely lose the war in the Western Front. Lenin's calculated risk proved correct. Although the Germans and their Central Power allies did try to carve out their own fiefdoms out of the corpse of the Russian Empire, they really could not keep this territory. The relative freedom of movement of the wartime German *Ober Ost* troops and the postwar *Freikorps* does testify to the overall collapse of Russian authority during the Civil War. Many of the German paramilitary formations used wartime stocks of materials and offered themselves up as freebooter companies to the Whites while their leadership toyed with carving out a neo-Germanic state on the Baltics. Such dreams were unrealistic and these German military units could not form a lasting political order or government over this largely non-German population. Many of the *Freikorps* ended up ejected from their would-be conquests. If it was impractical to occupy the Baltics, then Moscow, where the Bolsheviks had relocated the capital to in 1918 because of Petrograd's proximity to the fighting, was simply out of reach. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
rmvh1
|
Is it possible to control a nuclear explosion?
|
I don't mean in terms of a bomb, but could you create some sort of chamber to control a nuclear explosion and focus all the energy in one direction creating a thrust, if this is possible could we apply it to space shuttle's creating "nitrus" for space shuttle? Control the explosion force all the energy in one direction, presumeably behind the shuttle, surging the shuttle forward for however long the blast lasts, then all of the radiation and smoke would leave through vents that would be opened, and the process repeated, is this possible?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rmvh1/is_it_possible_to_control_a_nuclear_explosion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4731xy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > I don't mean in terms of a bomb, but could you create some sort of chamber to control a nuclear explosion and focus all the energy in one direction creating a thrust ...\n\nYes, this is possible, in fact there was a program to develop this kind of thruster ([Project Orion](_URL_0_)). The only reason it's not being done is public concern over safety. And, since Fukushima and Chernobyl, that concern seems justified.\n\nNevertheless, in the future, I think this idea will be reconsidered. And I think it ought to be.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_pulse_propulsion"
]
] |
|
1szbb2
|
the egg grading system, ie are there grade b eggs?
|
Also, who decides egg grades and what are they based on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1szbb2/the_egg_grading_system_ie_are_there_grade_b_eggs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce2rx8l",
"ce2sk3d",
"ce2tau5"
],
"score": [
6,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"\"A very fresh egg has a small air cell and receives a grade of AA. As the size of the air cell increases, and the quality of the egg decreases, the grade moves from AA to A to B. This provides a way of testing the age of an egg: as the air cell increases in size, the egg becomes less dense and the larger end of the egg will rise to increasingly shallower depths when the egg is placed in a bowl of water. A very old egg will actually float in the water and should not be eaten.\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) provides a voluntary grading service for eggs. See [Haugh Units](_URL_0_). They established certain formal egg grade standards and weight classes. *Other countries have other standards.* That said, there are no government standards yet for some terms, like \"free range\" or \"organic\".\n\nGrade AA\n\n* whites are firm, yolks are round, shells are pristine.\n* are beautiful, and best for frying, where appearance is important.\n\nGrade A\n\n* everyday grocery eggs.\n\nGrade B eggs\n\n* are used for commercial baking and restaurants, rarely sold in retail.\n* white is thinner, yolk is flatter. shells are rough, dirty or both.\n\nGrade C eggs (lowest)\n\n* are used in manufacturing, never sold in retail\n* white is thinnest, yolk is flattest. shell is cracked.",
"As a kid, my dad joked that he wanted grade B eggs when he sent me to the grocery store on my bike. About fell out of his recliner when I came home with them. Literally have never seen them again since that day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egg_%28food%29#Anatomy_and_characteristics"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haugh_unit"
],
[]
] |
|
z0gu5
|
How did people live in a barter system?
|
How does a barter system actually work? I wonder how people traded before large amounts of coin was available. Was debt a big factor? How did people pay for the few specialised trades- blacksmith, wheelwright etc. Or did they do it all themselves? If so this must have been a huge problem for any improvements.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z0gu5/how_did_people_live_in_a_barter_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c60g7r5",
"c60jata"
],
"score": [
12,
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, debt was the main method of paying for services, just like it is today. In barter economies, debts are integral to the fabric of the society; less so today because we tend to pay our debts shortly after incurring them with money, so the social component is mostly lost.",
"There's an interesting new book out, \"Debt - the first 5000 years\" or so, haven't got around to reading it yet but it promises to answer exactly what you have asked. Anyone read it yet and got an opinion on what it's worth (i.e. I'm short on money atm and not sure if it's worth buying...)?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1h1jrc
|
how were measuring systems created? why are less convenient methods still being used?
|
How do we came to the consensus that 1 pound/1 inch/1 second/1 gram was just that?
And why, when we have more convenient methods such as the metric system, are pounds and inches still being used?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h1jrc/eli5how_were_measuring_systems_created_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capx0s8",
"caq2eaw"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"A lot of the imperial meausres are derived from what was practical..\n\nFor example in the middle ages, an Acre was the area that could be plowed in a day with a single yoke of an oxen...\n\nCheck out [this article](_URL_0_) on the history of measurement. ",
"A lot of them make sense in the context they were created. The best example is temperatures.\n\nCelsius and Fahrenheit are both based on water. Celsius uses 0 and 100 at the freezing and boiling points of pure water. Fahrenheit uses salt-water, or basically the ocean. Kelvin is basically using the Celsius scale (to make things easier to convert), but shifted so 0 degrees equaled absolute 0.\n\nConvenience depends on who you are. I'll admit the metric system is far more logical. However, try telling a person who spent their life, decades, to switch over to this new fangled system. Fine, the average fifty-year-old is a lost cause. Let's go for the kids!\n\n\nWell, ignoring parents who would feel the use of a \"foreign\" system forced on this kids is an indoctrination and attack on their way of life, these kids will go home to those who use the old system. Their older siblings use the old system. Their teachers largely use the old system outside of science classes. While not as bad, it is like trying to teach a kid to speak a foreign language and to use that as their main language. Let's say Japanese. However, said kid lives in Atlanta, Georgia. (Place your bets! Watch me get egg on my face when it turns out there is a large Japanese community in said city.)\n\n\nAnother way to do it is to phase it in. Speed limit signs? Start with MPH in big letters, but below it in KM/H. Then after so many years switch that. Then finally only KM/H. However... well... who has the money to waste on new speed limit signs? Multiply that by *everything*.\n\n\nAdd to it that there are people making the jump... oddly. I've seen people who decided they like metric's use of decimals over the screwy fraction system. Only they don't want to use metric. I've seen things measured like 4.63 feet. I've seen people going from using ounces (16 ounces per pound) to a decimal system there too.\n\n\nConcluding, basically there just isn't a pressing need to force everyone to change, the cost would be high, and in the U.S. people are beginning to convert to the love child of metric and imperial that combines some of the benefits (death to fractional units!) with the laziness of not having to learn a new system.\n\nTL;DR:\n\nThere was logical reasons behind each system when they were created. For most people it is more convenient personally to keep the old system than to learn the more logically convenient system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_measurement"
],
[]
] |
|
3nc09u
|
If a history textbook does not include sources/citations for it's claims, how much credit and reliability can it be given?
|
I'm currently taking a U.S. History class at my college and we are using the textbook, "Give Me Liberty!" Seagull forth edition by Eric Foner. Like any text book, it summarizes and makes claims about events that have taken place in the past, but it also does not make citations for them at all. Granted, in the preface the author notes how there have been "Innumerable historians on whose work [he has] drawn in preparing for this volume" and that "In the suggested reading list at the end of each chapter offers only a brief introduction to the vast body of historical scholarship that has influenced and informed this book." He then lists 45 professionals from around the nation that he has received comments, criticisms, and suggestions from. With that credit being given however, the question still remains: can we be certain in the claims made throughout this textbook, even though there are *no* citations for *any* of the claims? I ask this question because I have been taught the importance and necessity of citing your work when pulling information from other sources. Is there a point, however, where this rule no longer applies? Or am I missing something all together?
Thanks!
**Edit:** Wording
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nc09u/if_a_history_textbook_does_not_include/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvmnrwx"
],
"score": [
55
],
"text": [
"Most textbooks don't give footnotes, actually. There's a widespread belief among publishers that footnotes make a book look difficult to read, and scare away students. As a result, many popular press books - and almost every textbook - don't provide notes for its arguments. (Though there's often a For Further Reading... section at the end.) This lack of citations is further justified by the perception (whether accurate or not) that overview textbooks are giving you the story upon which everyone agrees; hence their contents are essentially 'common knowledge'.\n\nThis isn't an approach you want to follow in your own writing, and I'm personally not entirely comfortable with it in textbooks myself. But, for better or worse, it's how publishers encourage textbook writers to write.\n\nSo you're correct to question to this, but ultimately it's not a direct reflection of the author's credibility. It's, instead, a statement about how textbook publishers underestimated your intelligence by assuming that you *wouldn't* want to see sources cited."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
agwlx6
|
How do quantum computers perform calculations without disturbing the superposition of the qubit?
|
I understand the premise of having multiple qubits and the combinations of states they can be in. I don't understand how you can retrieve useful information from the system without collapsing the superposition. Thanks :)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/agwlx6/how_do_quantum_computers_perform_calculations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ee9pp2v",
"ee9qktr",
"ee9ua8m",
"eea5s6j"
],
"score": [
76,
466,
55,
20
],
"text": [
"The quantum computer will at least once, at the end of the computation, collapse the superposition. Some algorithms may also collapse parts of the computation as an intermediate step. The end state of the collapsed qbits depends on all possible computation paths from start to end, so that the outcome can be non-classical, similar to the case where a photon in the double slit experiment produces an interference pattern, because it went through both slits at once.",
"It seems to me you are asking two distinct questions\n\n > How do quantum computers perform calculations?\n\nCalculations are achieved by the application of [operators](_URL_0_) on quantum states. These can be applied to the entire superposition at once without breaking it.\n\n > How can you retrieve information without collapsing the superposition?\n\nAs has been correctly answered by /u/Gigazwiebel below, you cannot retrieve information without collapsing the superposition. This is why quantum algorithms are so clever and so hard to design, by the time of measurement your superposition should be in a state so that it gives the correct answer some high probability of the time when measured.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEven if somehow you managed to measure the whole superposition without breaking it (which of course is against the laws of quantum mechanics), you would be restricted by [Holevo's bound](_URL_1_), which says you can only retrieve n classical bits of information from n qubits.\n\n & #x200B;",
"This video on Deutsch's Algorithm might be of use to you [_URL_1_](_URL_1_) . It will hopefully allow you to see the role of superposition in one of the first algorithms formulated that demonstrates the edge quantum scaling can have over classical computation. Superposition allows all possible states to be calculated on at once, but as others have said performing measurements will collapse the superposition. If you're really interested in quantum computation, head to IBM's quantum experience [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) . Not only does it give you a good overview of quantum computing, you can have a go at building your own circuits and running them on one of IBM quantum computers.",
"If you want to *retrieve* information from you quantum computer then you *do* want to make a measurement and turn your quantum state into a classical description of that state that has the answer you're interested in in it. \n\nGenerally, you start with a classical thing (the problem you want to solve), you encode your input in some way onto your quantum system, and then do some quantum operations on the system (entangling operations, some rotations, etc.), and then at the end measure a classical outcome. Depending on the algorithm in question the measurement at the end might give a (up to errors) deterministic answer, or it might give one of several answers with some probability. \n\nThe measurement in general will screw up the quantum system and it will need to be reinitialised. In my own field, for instance, the measurement is to literally detect the photons, which then stop existing. We then make another quantum state to do the next calculation....\n\nIs that clear?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/quantum/qmoper.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holevo%27s_theorem"
],
[
"https://quantumexperience.ng.bluemix.net/qx/experience",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5xsyx-aNClM"
],
[]
] |
|
1fl9uw
|
Monday Mysteries | Local History Mysteries
|
**Previously:**
- [Fakes, Frauds and Flim-Flam](_URL_4_)
- [Unsolved Crimes](_URL_1_)
- [Mysterious Ruins](_URL_2_)
- [Decline and Fall](_URL_0_)
- [Lost and Found Treasure](_URL_3_)
- [Missing Documents and Texts](_URL_6_)
- [Notable Disappearances](_URL_5_)
**Today:**
The "Monday Mysteries" series will be focused on, well, mysteries -- historical matters that present us with problems of some sort, and not just the usual ones that plague historiography as it is. Situations in which our whole understanding of them would turn on a (so far) unknown variable, like the sinking of the Lusitania; situations in which we only know that something did happen, but not necessarily how or why, like the deaths of Richard III's nephews in the Tower of London; situations in which something has become lost, or become found, or turned out never to have been at all -- like the art of Greek fire, or the Antikythera mechanism, or the historical Coriolanus, respectively.
**Today, let's talk about historical mysteries near *you*.**
We'll relax the "no anecdotes" rule for this one along with offering the usual light touch in moderation.
Basically, I'd like to hear about any historical mysteries that have some local connection to where you currently live or where you grew up. Did your hometown have a mysterious abandoned shack that held dark secrets? An overrun cemetery where the stones bore no names? A notorious disappearance?
Really anything of this sort will be acceptable, but in your reply give us a sense of where your chosen thing is happening and what impact it had (or still has) on the local community.
So... what have you got for us?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fl9uw/monday_mysteries_local_history_mysteries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cabd4p6",
"cabfrqa",
"cabgfry",
"cabgr20",
"cabi27r",
"cabikdg",
"cabimia",
"cabj93z",
"cabn3dh",
"cabpupw",
"cac9mnm"
],
"score": [
25,
7,
12,
16,
9,
9,
13,
27,
3,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"As a metal detectorist who hasn't been active for a few years I tend to delight in the little things people find and try to work out the story. Last year, I was working as a vendor at the Grays Harbor County Fair in Washington State, and spent most of my breaks drooling over old steam engines and an exhibit of local artifacts hosted by the local historical society. One such relic was a badly rusted and worn trapdoor Springfield carbine that had been found a couple years ago by a fisherman who was fishing far up a local river. The museum had it mislabled as a civil war muzzle loader (which I corrected for them ) but the main conversation always was how the rifle wound up in the river. \n\nWe'll never know of course, but the tiny mystery of someone loosing or even deliberately throwing away a rifle lead to some entertaining conversation on local history of the era and the people who lived and hunted the area. Unsolved murders and lost graves are delightful, but sometimes I like to turn an out of place artifact over in my hands and try to figure out how it wound up where it did. ",
"I dunno if this is really what you're looking for, but [The Villisca Axe Murders](_URL_0_) have always been an intriguing story to me growing up in Iowa. The reports of the house being haunted really give an eerie feeling to the whole thing, too.",
"There has a been talk / rumors going round for years that a few decades ago the original great doors to [this church](_URL_0_) where there has been a religious site of one sort or another for nearly 1000 years (met with a local historian a few years back) were lined or contained in their make up in someway with human skin dating back to the vikings! Can't find any media on this but my Dad mentioned it all took place in the 70's or 80's. \n\nInterestingly the place is the sight of a former prime ministers family tomb (amongst other arguably famous English Graves) as well as 'the bloody acre', site of a English civil war battle. \n\n*forgot to mention that I live around a 2 minute walk away.",
"During the 1930s, the city began to build the airport to the northeast of where I live. As they were clearing space for the runway, they found quite a few peculiar items. The first was a large bone that was believed to be from a dinosaur, but later confirmed to be a mammoth bone. The strangest thing they found was 35 skeletons. Along with the skeletons, WPA workmen found breech-loading rifle cartridges. No one is quite sure what happened or why there were 35 graves there. The best answer that we have for it is that it was Inka Pa Duta's band of Sioux, and he attacked the local settlement in the 1860s. The U.S. Military organized a group of soldiers and American Indians to track Inka Pa Duta's band. After finding them, a fight broke out between the U.S. Military and Inka Pa Duta's band. Inka Pa Duta's band was nearly wiped out, but Inka Pa Duta likely escaped.\n\nUpon finding the remains, the city took ownership of them and displayed them at the museum that I now work at. Because of the Native American Graves Protection and \nRepatriation Act, the museum no longer has them.",
"My favorite local mystery is that of Sieur de La Salle's *Le Griffon*, one of the first full-sized sailing vessels on the Great Lakes. She was lost somewhere (most likely Lake Michigan or Huron) after leaving the Green Bay area of Lake Michigan. Wiki write-up [here.](_URL_0_) \n\nSo many interesting theories of how she was lost and seemingly one possible find of her final resting place every decade. So far, none have proven to be her, but a recent discovery is currently pending a legal battle between the French government, state governments and more before it can be confirmed as *Le Griffon.*\n\nThe lakes also hold the secrets of what finished the *Edmund Fitzgerald,* the lost French minesweepers *Inkerman* and *Cerisoles,* and countless other mysteries. Just endless interest in this area ripe for research. ",
"My father's cousin in eastern North Carolina owns land that includes an overgrown gated Civil War cemetery on its edge. My dad wrote down the names on the tombstones back in his youth, and there are indents outside the gated part to indicate the graves of slaves. It's quite sad really. However, we're still unsure as to what the former landowners did exactly. Concurrently in the same area, I've found arrowheads and a fossil deposit filled with old shark teeth, so it's all quite valuable but more so confusing to me.",
"Perhaps this isn't as histori-sexy as a spooky cemetary, but there's a neighborhood in Atlanta that bears the less than prestigious name of [Cabbagetown](_URL_0_). It was a White working-class neighborhood centered around a [cotton mill](_URL_1_), but has since heavily gentrified and the old mill has long since been converted to lofts. That's just local color though, not the mystery.\n\nThe mystery is that no one knows for sure why the area is called Cabbagetown, and there are two primary competing myths as to it's origins. The first is that the blue-collar mill workers subsisted on so much cabbage, and left pots of it boiling so often, that the entire neighborhood constantly reeked of the smell. The alternative story also involves the heady odor of boiling cabbage, but this time not as a staple food, but from an opportunistic looting of an overturned truck carrying a load of the greenery.\n\nOf course, neither of these stories could be true, or both could be partly true. A [local reporter](_URL_2_) recently tried tracking down the origin of the name and, despite coming up with a book quoting old time residents of the neighborhood, came up with no conclusive proof; even people born in the area near the turn of the century disagreed on why (or even if) the neighboorhood was called that.\n\nCoincidentally, Cabbagetown is separated from the neighborhood to the south, Grant Park, by Memorial Drive, a major thoroughfare. A small northern chunk of Grant Park is similarly separated from the rest of the neighborhood by I-20. This isolate section has since become known as Taco Town because (and these all reasons I've heard): there were a lot of Latino immigrants to that area, it's \"Taco'd\" between Memorial and I-20, and (my favorite) the family who currently owns a nearby Mexican restaurant used to sell tacos out of their house in the area. Again, these explanations could all be equally false, true, or somewhere in-between. Or it could just be that this is a creeping trend of renaming neighborhoods after foods. Either way, it's a mystery.\n",
"I live in Tampa and one that I can think of is the whole controversy surrounding the Dozier School for Boys. It was a boarding school where families would send their unruly, troublesome, and delinquent boys. Its history is FILLED with tales of abuse, sexual abuse, murder, fishy deaths etc., it basically functioned like a prison and had its own cemetery. Recently the archeology department at the University of South Florida wanted to exhume bodies at the graveyard for analysis and the like. The current owners of the property are trying to prohibit them for various reasons that sound awful suspicious \"let sleeping dogs lie\" or \"boys will be boys\" and \"nothing good can come from digging up the past\". The thing is, it's extremely likely that a significant number of bodies are there because of foul play and the school has only been closed for a relatively short amount of time meaning any evidence of nefarious wrongdoings could still have consequences for those involved. I believe it's in the court system right now whether Usf will be allowed to examine the site or not.",
"I live near-ish to where the Robison family murders took place in Good Hart, Michigan. They (the mom, dad, and four kids) were murdered in their cabin in Good Hart in 1968 and while the police had pretty good evidence for one suspect (who committed suicide once he learned charges would be brought against him), they never charged anyone with the murder and the case is still open. [Wiki Article](_URL_0_)\n\nAlso, I have been going through oral history tapes at work and apparently a Detroit gang called the [Purple Gang](_URL_1_) had a presence in my town during the 20s. The tape that I was listening to mentioned a local casino burning down and he seemed convinced that the Purple Gang blew the building up since some of the remains of the building were further away than they would have been had it just been a fire. I believe the casino was run by a rival of the gang so that's why they wanted to blow it up. This is all his speculation though. I had no idea there were gang ties to this town before that tape though. I have found other sources for local gang ties so that much is true but as for blowing up the building...that is pretty much speculation.",
"The only fatal nuclear accident in the United States happened in Arco, Idaho, not too far from where I live. The [SL-1](_URL_0_) was a nuclear reactor that malfunctioned January 3, 1961 and killed three people (John A. Byrnes, Richard Leroy McKinley, and Richard C. Legg)\n\nThe radiation released was so intense that all three of the men were \"buried in lead-lined caskets sealed with concrete and placed in metal vaults with a concrete cover.\" In addition some of the more radioactive body parts were buried in the desert as nuclear waste. \n\nThere isn't any mystery as to why the reactor failed--one of the control rods was withdrawn too far, leading to a series of catastrophic failures. The investigators discovered that the rod had been withdrawn to almost 26 inches when it should have only been withdrawn about 4 inches. They also determined that the men who handled the reactor knew exactly how far it was supposed to be withdrawn, and that drawing it further was a bad thing, though maybe they didn't know *how* bad. \n\nWhat's a mystery is **why** it was withdrawn so far. Suicide is one theory. Deliberate sabotage is another. Another is suicide-murder from one of the men. There seems to be pretty strong circumstantial evidence that Byrne and Legg did not get along. Rumor was that Byrne was either having an affair with Legg's wife, or had sex with her before Legg got married. \n\nNothing official was ever released as to why someone would withdraw the rod so far and all the gossipy bits aren't mentioned. \n\nFun fact: The Arco nuclear plant was the first one to create electricity from nuclear power. Additionally the town of Atomic City was the first town in the world to get its electricity from nuclear power. \n\nFun fact 2: The site at Arco was used to train Navy personnel on how to deal with nuclear submarines. They also tried to develop nuclear powered air planes there. I always found it somewhat ironic that there used to be thousands of Navy personnel stationed there and the place is in the middle of the desert. \n\nFun fact 3: The Idaho National Laboratory (as it's now known) has built more nuclear reactors than any other site. \n\n\n\n ",
"I can't give a citation for this one, and I don't know if it was ever published. A father of a friend is a well-known amateur archaeologist, recognised for his work on Neolithic remains in Upper Teesdale. He's said to be pretty good and has several published papers. However as his day job he is a surveyor. Apparently he discovered some linear constructions (probably old walls) on the hills about 20 miles south of his normal area. They are over a mile long, separated by about half a mile, and run parallel to each other. They are overlaid by 18C features, but he believes them to be quite ancient. It's not clear what they are, what purpose they had, or how they were laid out.\n\nAnother oddity is not really a mystery. Near where I live now there is a pub called the [Bladebone Inn](_URL_0_) which claims to have a mammoth shoulder blade hanging in a case outside the front. You can see the golden object on the right hand side of the pub in this photo. Inside the pub is a scrap from a 19C newspaper explaining the story. According to legend, a mammoth was causing problems in the area until the stout men of Thatcham slew it. Later the skeleton of the mammoth was recovered, and the shoulder bone was encased in wood and hung outside the pub. The article relates that a few years previous to its writing, the case had been opened, and the bone was found to be in good repair."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dslor/monday_mysteries_decline_and_fall/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1eoypm/monday_mysteries_unsolved_crimes_in_history/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e9el2/monday_mysteries_ancient_ruins/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dcbb3/monday_mysteries_lost_and_found_treasure/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f57b0/monday_mysteries_fakes_frauds_and_flimflammery_in/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ce73h/monday_mysteries_notable_disappearances/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1cvbaz/monday_mysteries_missing_documents_and_texts/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Villisca_Axe_Murders"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/All_Saints%27_Church,_Childwall"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Le_Griffon"
],
[],
[
"https://maps.google.com/maps?q=cabbagetown&rlz=1C1CHFX_enUS496US496&um=1&ie=UTF-8&hl=en&sa=N&tab=wl",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulton_Bag_and_Cotton_Mill",
"http://clatl.com/atlanta/how-did-factory-town-become-cabbagetown/Content?oid=5102804"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robison_family_murders",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Purple_gang"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SL-1"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Provisions_at_Chapel_Row_-_geograph.org.uk_-_350250.jpg"
]
] |
|
124ra7
|
What kinds of evidence have to be, or should be, present if we are to determine the existence of a certain disease in the past?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/124ra7/what_kinds_of_evidence_have_to_be_or_should_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6s5sbm",
"c6scr6g"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you're going to be strict about this, you require molecular genetic evidence. Diseases rarely have a set of symptoms that are unique and therefore unmistakable, and due to evolution it's hard to be certain that a given condition isn't due to microbes that have either mutated or otherwise since gone into hiding. \n\nWithout the molecular evidence, the best that can be said is that symptoms are consistent with the historical sources.",
"I'd like to add that, while molecular evidence would be the best/ideal evidence of a disease, skeletal signs/symptoms are the most frequently occurring biological evidence. This is due to the fact that skeletons are much more likely to be preserved than soft tissue in a majority of the world's environments. Because of this, there is a bias in the bioarchaeological record towards diseases that affect bones and teeth. There's also been a long history in the discipline of Paleopathology about using subjective criteria to identify diseases in a skeleton, which is only more recently starting to be resolved (I'd recommend Waldron's Paleopathology textbook if you want to learn about specific diseases).\n\nOutside of biological evidence, historical documents would be the best way to go. A phenomenal example of this is Pax Americana, which details a smallpox epidemic that spread through Colonial America, New Spain, and the Plains and Northwest Indians.\n\nIf you are interested in the history of disease specifically, I'd suggest looking into the disciplines of epidemiology and evolutionary/Darwinian medicine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
18vtrl
|
why do i look skinnier/more attractive when i wake up in the morning?
|
This has probably been answered before, but Why doI look skinnier/more attractive when I wake up in the morning? Something to do with you spine not being compressed by gravity all night?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18vtrl/eli5_why_do_i_look_skinniermore_attractive_when_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8if9dl"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're on avarage taller in the morning and you often have an empty stomach. It should be that simple."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ba3wo7
|
How does a nerve gas mask differ from other gas mask?
|
WWI mask were tested against chlorine , phosgene and mustard gas. What would be the necessary modifications to be effective against nerve gases, such as tabun and sarin?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ba3wo7/how_does_a_nerve_gas_mask_differ_from_other_gas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ek9fpdz",
"ek9hran",
"ek9hsn4",
"ekc0m6m"
],
"score": [
5,
80,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"Well nerve gases are not actually gases, they are liquids with boiling point over 150°C so they hardly become gas. The point of gasmask isthat it covers your face so you dont come into contact with the compound. \nIt CAN be dissolved in suitable solvent but even then its delivered as an aerosol not gas. \n\nIirc from class, gas mask mostly have common activated charcoal or zeolite type filters with high surface area that traps the gas. There CAN be some additives to improve selectivity towards some specific gases but they are likely quite specific. \n\n",
"So i actually do this for a living, and the other comments have partially correct info but not the whole story. Firstly, nerve agents are not the only threat, they do however have alot of notoriety. There are other things to also consider such as blister, blood, and choking agents and biological agents (like anthrax) to consider as well.\n\n A gask mask is meant to stop these from entering your body via inhalation, however there are many different agents that can seep through your skin or light clothing, and thats where other methods of protection come in such as JSLIST suits or level A/B suits that you often see in movies but since your question was about the masks, we will start with those. \n\nWhat they do in most cases is filter your air through filters (sometimes only one) while providing an air tight seal around your face to prevent chem/bio agents from being inhaled. They cannot however filter our Volitile Organic Compounds (VOCs) such as carbon monoxide as these particles are often similar in size to oxygen and are therefore still deadly. In such conpromised environments, what is usually then used is a level A/B suit with an oxygen supply to prevent you from being exposed to the hazardous agents/VOCs.\n\nAs to your question about modifications, gas mask technology evolves to meet new threats, and usually the only \"improvements\" revolve around filter technology, materials used in the mask itself, or the shape/usage of the mask as it affects combat readiness.\n\nEdit: also, nerve agents hadnt been invented yet so naturally they would not have been used in testing.",
"CBRN trained. There is no difference between any gas mask used by armed forces. There are filters that differ in effectiveness, but The Armed Forces use only a filter that will filter all known agents. There would not be a situation where a lesser filter would be used as it would not be mission effective. Gas masks do not supply oxygen, so if an agent is used that is heavier than air, to say it pushes the air, oxygen, out of the area, the troops would have to evacuate or die...No oxygen to breathe. As stated previously, nerve gas is not a gas. It is droplets/mist and would either be inhaled through mouth or nose or absorbed through an individual's eyes, skin or mucus membranes. \n The CBRN mask and suit work together to protect an individual as a system, along with Decon agents and anti agents. \n These systems and procedures are always evolving. The best scenario is where you do not have to use the mask or suit, or at the very least have it on before contamination occurs.",
"As it turned out, both the Germans and (after the war) the Allies found that the standard gas masks that were designed to protect against WWI gases also worked against the nerve gases, so no modifications to the masks were necessary. If Germany had used nerve gas during the war, the big problem would have been that the existing Allied gas detection tests would not find it and it does not have a strong smell, so it could surprise soldiers before they could put on masks.\n\n > On May 15, 194, to chemists at the CWS Development Laboratory, Captain Robert D. Coombs III and First Lieutenant Charles W. Sauer, began a study of Tabun, which was completed three and a half month later. The two men puridied and analyzed the German nerve agent and found that standard Allied respirators provided complete protection against it. They also assessed the ability of existing U.S., British, and German indicator papers and detector tubes to recognize the new agent. Although mustard gas detectors worked for liquid Tabun, they could not reliable detect the cloud of fine droplets and vapor released by the explosion of a chemical shell. Thus, until an automatic vapor detector could be developed, U.S. troops would have to don gas masks at the beginning of a heavy artillery bombardment and wear them for long periods, impairing their fighting ability.\n\nFrom Jonathan B. Tucker, _War of Nerves_, 2007, which cites: Captain Robert D. Coombs and First Lieutentant Charls W. Sauer, \"Investigations on MCS and MFI\" (Secret), SPCWM 471 ASF, May 29, 1945 [FOIA]."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
lc2eo
|
why bus fare (for example) keeps going up
|
When I was in junior high (in the early 90s), bus fare was 75 cents. Now it's $2.45.
Same goes for the cost of other small items like chocolate bars, canned drinks, newspapers, etc. The prices seem to go up by small increments every year.
Are we going to get to the point where a newspaper costs $5 and the bus costs $7.50? Is there a limit to this? 100 years from now, is a chocolate bar going to cost $50?
Why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lc2eo/eli5_why_bus_fare_for_example_keeps_going_up/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2rgehj",
"c2rgfgm",
"c2rh0jg",
"c2rh2eq",
"c2rho6m",
"c2rgehj",
"c2rgfgm",
"c2rh0jg",
"c2rh2eq",
"c2rho6m"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
5,
3,
3,
6,
10,
5,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"One word: Inflation",
"Simple answer is inflation. The price of petrol is always going up, leading to everything that relies on it having to spend more. Buses are directly affected by this as they use petrol obviously. Other energy sources like gas are always increasing in price too, costing companies even more money. This leads them to increase prices to cover the higher costs. I believe the rate of these rises is the rate of inflation? To combat this workers are usually given a pay rise above the rate of inflation, but this also leads to the company having higher costs!",
"The reasons for inflation (which are hotly debated) can be, in my opinion, broken down into two main reasons. The first is that resources are more expensive. An example of this would be the dramatic increase in the price of oil. This cost is passed onto the consumer.\n\nThe second reason is the increase in *money supply*. The amount of money in circulation in a given economy increases year on year ([US Money Supply](_URL_0_)). If you consider an economy with only 100 dollars and in which you were getting paid 10 dollars. If the amount of dollars in this economy then rose to 110 dollars yet you were still getting paid 10 dollars, you are in effect getting paid relatively less.\n\n/drunk explanation",
"The price of the bus fare isn't going up. The price of the chocolate bar isn't going up. The price of the newspaper isn't going up.\n\nThe value of your dollar is going down.",
"This is simply inflation, or the devaluation of currency.\n\nThink of it this way: you are stuck on a remote island with 5 people. You form a small society and determine some form of currency (lets just say some rare sort of shell). You find 100 of these shells and distribute them evenly amongst the islanders (20 each). You use these shells to exchange goods, services etc. So, while some may be richer/poorer than others, the average shells per person is around 20. \n\nSo now lets say 5 more people are born on the island, doubling the population. Now the average amount of shells is only 10 per person. This is actually called *deflation*. Assuming that the islanders are getting the same goods and services, these exchanges will actually decrease in price while having the same value. So while a coconut on this island may have cost 2 shells when there was a population of 5, the price will likely decrease to 1 shell with a higher population and less money to go around.\n\n\nNow, you are probably wondering how this all relates to *inflation*. Well the thing is our government can print money as the population and economy grows. As they inject more money into the system (through government bonds) the prices for things will go up, as there is more currency to pass around. Most world governments want a little bit of inflation in order to promote trade. Think of it like this. If there was *deflation* then the value of your money would go up by simply holding onto it and not spending. The economy needs a bit of *inflation* so that people feel the need to spend. The problem arises when governments print money like crazy and completely devaluate thier own currency. (Look into Zimbabwe and post WWI germany)",
"One word: Inflation",
"Simple answer is inflation. The price of petrol is always going up, leading to everything that relies on it having to spend more. Buses are directly affected by this as they use petrol obviously. Other energy sources like gas are always increasing in price too, costing companies even more money. This leads them to increase prices to cover the higher costs. I believe the rate of these rises is the rate of inflation? To combat this workers are usually given a pay rise above the rate of inflation, but this also leads to the company having higher costs!",
"The reasons for inflation (which are hotly debated) can be, in my opinion, broken down into two main reasons. The first is that resources are more expensive. An example of this would be the dramatic increase in the price of oil. This cost is passed onto the consumer.\n\nThe second reason is the increase in *money supply*. The amount of money in circulation in a given economy increases year on year ([US Money Supply](_URL_0_)). If you consider an economy with only 100 dollars and in which you were getting paid 10 dollars. If the amount of dollars in this economy then rose to 110 dollars yet you were still getting paid 10 dollars, you are in effect getting paid relatively less.\n\n/drunk explanation",
"The price of the bus fare isn't going up. The price of the chocolate bar isn't going up. The price of the newspaper isn't going up.\n\nThe value of your dollar is going down.",
"This is simply inflation, or the devaluation of currency.\n\nThink of it this way: you are stuck on a remote island with 5 people. You form a small society and determine some form of currency (lets just say some rare sort of shell). You find 100 of these shells and distribute them evenly amongst the islanders (20 each). You use these shells to exchange goods, services etc. So, while some may be richer/poorer than others, the average shells per person is around 20. \n\nSo now lets say 5 more people are born on the island, doubling the population. Now the average amount of shells is only 10 per person. This is actually called *deflation*. Assuming that the islanders are getting the same goods and services, these exchanges will actually decrease in price while having the same value. So while a coconut on this island may have cost 2 shells when there was a population of 5, the price will likely decrease to 1 shell with a higher population and less money to go around.\n\n\nNow, you are probably wondering how this all relates to *inflation*. Well the thing is our government can print money as the population and economy grows. As they inject more money into the system (through government bonds) the prices for things will go up, as there is more currency to pass around. Most world governments want a little bit of inflation in order to promote trade. Think of it like this. If there was *deflation* then the value of your money would go up by simply holding onto it and not spending. The economy needs a bit of *inflation* so that people feel the need to spend. The problem arises when governments print money like crazy and completely devaluate thier own currency. (Look into Zimbabwe and post WWI germany)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Components_of_US_Money_supply.svg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
35acww
|
is our perception of time relative to our mass? eg: an ants lifetime seems to them, the same amount of time as what our lifetime seems to us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35acww/eli5_is_our_perception_of_time_relative_to_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr2hmr6",
"cr2qdq9"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There's no particular evidence to support this idea, although since it regards perception, I don't know that you could absolutely rule it out. I'd just say 'Probably not.' There are, after all, humans more than twice the mass of other humans, and we don't see much reporting of this discrepancy. ",
"I see two ways of looking at this, I will explain both.\n\nFirst perception- If I lock someone in a room for there entire life and give them fish to eat only and don't tell them there is other food they will like fish. If I give them fish and have pictures of other food then they will desire that food and not like fish so much.\n\nSame thing with the ants. If the ants know that we live longer than them then their lives will seem shorter, but if they don't know then their life would seem normal.\n\nThis is similar to the question if we were all the size of spiders would we know it.\n\nSecond- The other side I see involves the theme of the movie *Interstellar* in which they age different on planets with different gravity. The ants however have the same force of gravity exerted on them as humans do so the comparative force would be the same, however, this theory suggests that, again, they know it or not."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5g72jc
|
what is the difference between daydreaming and psychosis?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5g72jc/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_daydreaming/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dapzcsb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Daydreaming is mostly controlled, Psychosis is mostly uncontrolled. \n\nDaydreaming you still understand what is reality and what is not. Psychosis and other mental disturbances can make those distinctions much more difficult. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1p7lep
|
How exactly does a short-circuit damage a device?
|
I accidentally left my iphone turned on in my pants when I was washing them a few weeks ago. Suffice to say it was dead as dead afterwards. It got me curious. How is it that a short circuit damages the device? I feel intuitively that just because electricity is taking a different path it shouldn't damage the device, but obviously it does. So, explain!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p7lep/how_exactly_does_a_shortcircuit_damage_a_device/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cczorv6",
"cd01pj8"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First it is important to understand how electricity works. The rate at which electricity flows through a circuit is determined by its resistance. In fact, resistors are extremely important in circuits for this very reason, because they place limits on how much electricity can travel through a given part of the circuit.\n\nFor instance, if a given circuit, at 18v, has a resistance of 180 ohms, then it doesn't matter of the power source can supply 100mA (all that is required for the circuit) or 20A (which is a lot of power).\n\nHowever, at 18v, a .9ohm circuit can handle 20A. This means that it depends on the power source whether it can provide that full 20A or not. 20A is enough to melt metal very quickly, so if the circuit wasn't made to handle 20A (really thick metal plates, etc), and the power source can supply it, then 20A will simply melt it.\n\nSo if that all makes sense, then you see that if the battery in the iphone can provide much more power than the circuits can handle (and it can), when you give an ultra-low resistance path like water directly connecting components that were never meant to handle that much juice, that it can quickly blow those components or even melt the plastic / metal used.\n\n\n",
"It is not necessarily the case that a short circuit is what killed your phone. There are numerous metal contacts and connections in the device which are simple 'contact' points which would be disrupted by even a small amount of corrosion. Similarly, many ICs are inside protective packages, but those packages are not waterproof so even exposure to water would result in internal corrosion of those devices.\n\nRegardless, dead is dead."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fmvf1a
|
how does a company know how many shares to make public?
|
How would a company that wants to go public decide how many shares to put out?
Why do some companies issue 100 million shares while others issue 1 billion shares?
How much percent wise does a company hold in 1 share? Why isn't there a fixed amount of shares for all companies to issue when going public?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fmvf1a/eli5_how_does_a_company_know_how_many_shares_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fl69b0r"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"How many shares to make.public is based on what a company wants their stock price to be. \n\nSo the two biggest reasons that different companies have different numbers of shares when going public is that 1) not all companies have the same valuation and 2) some companies want different levels of liquidity than others. \n\nSome companies don't want it to be easy to buy or sell their stock. They want the stock price to remain stable, they don't want people trading it very often, and sometimes they really don't want individual investors to have any, as opposed to institutional investors. Also, remember that the corporation is accountable to shareholders, and shareholders get to vote on things, and the company may not want to have to answer to random jackasses who bought stock. So, they make it too expensive for regular trading. BRK.A, Warren Buffett's firm, costs something like $300,000 *per share*.\n\nSo let's say you think your company is worth $5 billion and you want your stock price to be about $100 per share. You'd issue 50 million shares of stock at $100 a piece. But what if you want your stock to be $500 per share to cut down the trading volatility? Then you'd only issue 10 million shares. \n\nAs far as how many to keep, generally the founder is going to keep at least 51% so they can still be in control of the company. Some founders are playing for the long term and are only going public to raise funds for their company. They'll only release as many shares as it takes to raise the amount of money they think their company needs. Some founders just want to cash in so they'll release as much as they think the market will buy and take the payout."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
816icz
|
with bee populations being decimated why haven't we seen major shortages of any produce?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/816icz/eli5_with_bee_populations_being_decimated_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv0t66u",
"dv0ug5p",
"dv0wnol",
"dv0xz87",
"dv0ygz0",
"dv0yjvx",
"dv0yxl5",
"dv0z12n",
"dv100qr",
"dv10nc1",
"dv10sim",
"dv112nx",
"dv1299l",
"dv138k9",
"dv16txv",
"dv1821n",
"dv188dr",
"dv1ebne",
"dv1ef13",
"dv1ew3w",
"dv1ff7a",
"dv1fk0a",
"dv1fwlp",
"dv1oi7h",
"dv1rgwa"
],
"score": [
2,
1666,
77,
381,
8541,
1795,
7,
2,
3,
323,
26,
10,
4,
19,
5,
2,
10,
423,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Simply put, it takes a while for that to have a noticeable effect. Consider the episode of *The Simpsons* with the Ribwich. In the context of the episode, eventually Krusty Burger has to stop selling it because the critter they were processing to make it went extinct. There are a lot of plants that are pollinated by bees, and many are found in multiple locations.",
"Because they're not collapsing.\n\nThe amount of bee commercial honey bee colonies in the US has increased from 2.3 million in 2008 to 2.8 million in 2016. So, pollination is fine.\n\nThat's not to say there aren't issues. Even with CCD receding, losses remain high. But because we're dealing with bees, and new colony can be created in less than a year, the number remains stable. This however results in greater costs for bee keepers. The cause of the losses is varied, ranging from parasites to pesticides to loss of good flowers.\n\n_URL_0_",
"One thing people never speak of is the fact that bees are actually invasive species to America and there are other insects that pollinate plants as well. In fact one could argue that bees are bad due to the fact that they compete with and often crowd out native pollinaters due the fact that they are raised and protected on farms in mass numbers compared to other local pollinators.\n\nAdditional note: my use of \"bees\" is obviously horriffically simplified. I am aware of this but I feel that the specifics of it were not important to my overall point that the imported bees have upset the natural balance of pollinators. Yes there are native bees to America but the most common bee used for honey is now bees that were not native to America and this has changed the landscape of pollinating insects in many areas of America.",
"Because the bees that are suffering are the wild honey bees, like bumblebees. NOT the commercial European honey bees that we use to pollinate plants on big grow fields.",
"It's not the general bee population that's collapsing, it was the wild bee population that collapsed. Commercial beekeeping is what keeps them alive at this point. ",
"A lot of farmers rent bees so they know their crops will get pollinated. My neighbor runs a bee business. Transports them south to work in the winter, brings them back north in the summer. \nMy friend owns an orchard and they rent bees during flowering season. It is a business and they make sure they have enough bees to do the job. \nIn China there was a bee shortage and they pollinated by hand which resulted in a much higher yield (because bees are inefficient) but also a higher cost.\nThis article is from several years ago. My understanding is that return of the bees and higher wages mean that they have gone back to natural pollination. _URL_0_",
"Bees are not the only pollinators. Mosquitoes, butterflies, moths and even flies among other insects also pollinate. It's also not all bees. Certain bee species are declining, but not all are affected.",
"Becsuse the CCD apocalypse was a fad. Really the European Honeybee we use had a brief decline and then rebounded. Also many native bee species were just fine.\n\nIt's a sign of the dangerous of removing genetic diversity, but it wasn't the end of days like many people thought it would be.",
"Because 9/10 are still alive?",
"Ironically I watched the film theory for bee movie that was made recently and learned something about bees.\n\nWe often think honeybees are the sole pollinators but there are many other species of bees, as well as beetles, moths, and butterflies can all act as pollinators.\n\nIn the video it's mentioned there are some studies talking about how the environment would be better without honeybees.\n\n_URL_0_",
"My father since I was a child till my early 20's owned bees. I often helped him out with them. There are a few deases that kill them and will kill your whole colony. My father got out of bee keeping because his colonies kept dieing on him and it was a hobby for him. The money back then wasn't the best but it supported the hobby at least. Now there is a documentary on Netflix called rotten that will get you up to speed on what's the true issue of the industry. With the organic craze honey consumption had increased because people see sweetened products with honey is healthier than cane or vorn sugar but really sugar is sugar. The demand has increased larger than supply so people started cutting honey with maple syrup. I remember when the story of a major company got caught cutting honey with chineese honey from my father's beekeeping magazines. Check out rotten on Netflix I beleive it's episode 1 as it does a good job explaining it. When a country starts producing more honey than their bee population can sustain more than likely they are cutting it with sugar. \n\nJust a side thought incase people wonder you don't water down honey. You add some water for fluidity but there is a art/science for it. This was a major juding point when you send your honey to the county fair for judging.",
"The 1st episode of Rotten in Netflix goes into detail about answering this question. A quick and short answer is because the Chinese are adulterating honey with rice syrup. Unlike sugar and corn syrup scientist can’t detect it in honey. ",
"It depends on what you mean by decimated. While there are certainly declines of natives (which btw some are much better pollinators than honies, it’s not like the populations are on the brink. There is one bumble bee( for America) on the IUCN red list of endangered species.",
"There is a documentary on Netflix called Rotten. One episode talks about honey and how a lot of it is imported from China and cut with rice syrups or similar. \n\nThis may also explain why there is no shortage of “honey”. ",
"There is an episode of Rotten on Netflix that describes exactly this :\n\nRotten episode 5. Milk Money\n_URL_0_ \n\nHoney production is nearly flat, but consumption is way up. Studies account for the disparity with counterfeit honey from Asia. Asian producers mix a small amount of honey with lesser sugars, derived from rice or sugar cane and sell it as 100% honey.\n\nIt is a big enough problem that there is an arms race between the counterfeiters to produce undetectable fake honey and trade regulators to devise a test to identify fake honey.\n\nThis and the rest of the series are really high quality. I recommend it to anyone with any interest. ",
"Because its more fear mongering and a push by \"organic\" fans and farmers. Our food supply has been under attack for thousands of years by insects and ever year a new insect will emerge as the top threat to wipe out a large chunk of production. Every year farmers have to worry about the new insect or in this case the damage done to bee populations. Evolution happens whether you use modern chemicals or 1000 year old practices. The difference is modern chemicals allows far more ways to combat it.",
"Because the honey you eat isn’t really honey. It’s mostly synthetic honey from China mixed with real honey from around the rest of the world.\nEdit: Buy Local Honey\n\nThere’s also a tv show on Netflix called “Rotten” \nand the first episode explains a lot about this",
"So this is a case of an environmental issue being simplified for the general public to understand. \n\nSo first of all, what we have to know is that produce is almost always pollinated by the domesticated honey bee, which came from the European honey bee- Apis mellifera. Now these bees are one of 20,000 or so bee species, keep this in mind for a bit later.\n\nAt one point back around 2006, domesticated honey bee farmers were seeing something odd. They were seeing massive die offs in their hives, and hives collapsing. They called it Colony Collapse Disorder, or CCD.\n\nNow we do have to keep in mind that some collapse is normal. Winter loss is especially large, due to the stress that winter causes. New colonies can be made by making/buying new queens and splitting colonies- I'm not a bee keeper, so I don't know the details here. \n\nSo the statistics out there are a little confusing, because there is annual loss rate and winter loss rate. Winter loss is when the most happens, as mentioned. It gets even more confusing, because I can't find data for annual loss percentages before 2010. I can only find winter loss rate. Oh, I'm taking about the US only.\n\nSo, winter loss rate in 2006-2007 was about 32%. An acceptable rate would be around 15%. This got higher in 2007-2008 at around 36%. This has gone down since then, but some years have been better than others. Winter loss in 2014-2015 was about 22% or so, but in 2015-2016 it was about 28%. Annual loss peaked 2012-2013 at around 45%. Last I heard, in 2016-2017 it was 33%.\n\nKeep in mind not all of that is from Colony Collapse Disorder. Some are due to other things, like a queen dying, or other things. One of the key symptoms of CCD is that there is a live queen left. The other two are a capped brood and a food storage of honey and bee pollen. A capped brood just means that their are larvae and pupae in capped honeycomb cells. Usually the hive takes care of these, and won't leave until they have metamorphosised into adult bees. \n\nOkay so now that all the stats are out of the way, why did this happen? That's a tough question. Environment issues are almost NEVER one thing, keep that in mind when you read stuff about the environment. So some people might have heard about parasites, pesticides, and diseases. Which one is right? Probably all of them. \n\nVarroa mites not only weaken bees by sucking their hemolymph- basically invertebrate blood- but they also carry diseases, like deformed wing virus. That name means exactly what it says too- the bees come out of their pupae with tiny, malformed wings and can't fly. They also don't really eat if they are sick too, which leads to their death. There's also other parasites, like trachea mites, that might cause issues.\n\nSo where do pesticides come in? Well neonicotinoids were shown to stress bees in a lab setting. Stressed bees, and really animals including humans, are more susceptible to diseases and parasites. This is... Kinda controversial though, because some argue the lab concentrations were too high and bees in the field would never see those concentrations unless they were directly sprayed... \n\nAnother factor that may play a role is travel. So beekeepers travel with their bees to reach all sorts of crops. They move from almonds in California, to blueberries in Maine and everything in between. When the bees are in transit, they eat sugar syrup. It's thought that this syrup doesn't have the right nutrient balance for them, and may stress them too. \n\nIt's interesting to note that Australia did not see massive bee colony decline. They don't have Varroa mites, but they do have neonicotinoids. Just an interesting bit, I don't know enough about the relationship to say much more.\n\nAnywho, varroa mites don't like high temperatures, and can be killed by raising the hive temperature to over 100 F, but the bees just continue to work. So, we're figuring out ways to solve this issue. Some researchers and organizations say bee populations are growing, though some others question that... The decline numbers are going down though!\n\nBUT. What about those other bees? The 19,999 or so other species? Well, some of them are doing alright, others, not so much. I know the rusty spotted bumblebee, which exists near me, is Critically Endangered. \n\nThe main issue I've heard they face is habitat loss. Corn and wheat are wind pollinated, and soybeans are self pollinated, so bees don't really visit those flowers. Unfortunately, that means the fields we have of them take up area that could be food for bees, like wild flowers and trees. Neonicotinoids may also play a role in this. Varroa mites have also spread from honey bees to bumblebees, so... That might be an issue too.\n\nSo some species in Hawaii are also endangered, though island species have their own set of problems, like being susceptible to diseases, having a smaller, more sensitive habitat, and invasive species. I haven't followed their issues as much.\n\nFun facts, some flies and beetles look like bees! Woo Batesian mimicry!\n\nTl;Dr The domesticated honey bee is showing signs of recovering from Colony Collapse Disorder, but some wild bee species are seeing declines.\n\nOh if you want sources, just ask! I'm on mobile so it gets messy with links everywhere. I do think the stats source is important though, so here's that one!\n_URL_0_\n\nEdit: I removed an extra \"are\" in the part about the Hawaiian bees. Sorry!",
"Bees aren't the only pollinators there are plenty of species that pollinate other than bees ",
"Because bees are an invasive species in America and our ecosystem is not reliant on them to pollinate. [This Film Theory episode](_URL_0_) does a pretty good job at explaining it in a way anyone can understand with some added humor for good measure.\n\nThe short of it is bees are not native species to the Americas and are not the only bugs that pollinate plants here. For millions of years plants did just fine without them. \n\nIts basically a lie that bees are needed for plants (atleast in north and south america, they are native to europe so im sure they are more important there), hundreds of other insect species can do and have pollinated plants long before bees came around. \n\n",
"Wild honey bees are declining in numbers. In recent years , here in Ohio, the bumblebee, wasp, and yellow jacket population has risen. Plants are getting pollinated , just commercial handlers are making the honey. I don't really think any honey we would eat is natural anyways, it's all farmed.",
"Butterflies and flies and other bugs also help our bee friends out in the huge job of pollinating too. So the little guys arent alone ^_^",
"I didn't see it posted yet but I may not have scrolled far enough. A little nit-picking, but decimate means to reduce by 1/10th specifically.",
"While the wild bee population has been hit worse than commercial bees, beekeepers have seen a dramatic decrease in their bee numbers. For several of them, they can no longer stay in the black, so they use their colonies pollinate orchards for extra cash. \n\nAs far as honey goes, imported honey as well as artificial honey make up a huge part of the market. In fact, theres a pretty good chance that the \"pure honey\" that you've bought in store wasn't made by bees, but in a lab. On top of this, pressure from China, who illegally imports honey and undercuts American honey farmers, has also led to a significant decrease in real honey. \n\nHere's a couple of sources about the illegal imports:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nIn addition, I would recommend that you watch the episode about honey on the documentary \"Rotten\" which is on Netflix.\n\nEdit: I just realized OP was talking about vegetables. ",
"Because honey bees aren't the only [polinators](_URL_0_) out there! I wonder how well posting a Film Theory video will go..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-08-13/the-bees-are-better-but-they-re-not-all-right"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.chinadialogue.net/article/show/single/en/5193-Decline-of-bees-forces-China-s-apple-farmers-to-pollinate-by-hand"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/Kf2-86o5S1o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.netflix.com/title/80146284"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://agresearch.umd.edu/news/nations-beekeepers-lost-33-percent-bees-2016-17"
],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kf2-86o5S1o"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.ice.gov/news/releases/hsi-chicago-seizes-nearly-60-tons-honey-illegally-imported-china",
"http://www.craiggoodwin.com/year-of-plenty/2010/09/03/feds-bust-chinese-honey-smuggling-ring-has-ties-to-pacific-northwest",
"https://modernfarmer.com/2015/02/feds-seize-2-million-worth-illegal-chinese-honey/"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/Kf2-86o5S1o"
]
] |
||
41148d
|
Was the cursive script a product of the quill and inkwell system of writing?
|
I don't have personal experience, but it seems like there would be more ink dots and drips if you don't use cursive, that is, if you are using quill and inkwell.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41148d/was_the_cursive_script_a_product_of_the_quill_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyz5h9b"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Someone who knows how to use a quill can use it pretty skillfully, and if it's kept in good condition and properly blotted, it won't drip. A manuscript written by a skilled scribe usually looks pretty clean. Of course, we might expect to see different things depending on the type of manuscript. Something like the Ostromir Gospels, a luxury item created for a mayor of Novgorod, is going to look much cleaner than a book of homilies for personal use in a monastery or home. We have a ton of clean-looking manuscripts written in uncial or semi-uncial.\n\nThat said, I think there's to the idea that cursive script required something like a quill to happen, but the reverse (a quill requires cursive) is definitely not true. Cursive, at least in the (East) Slavic regions, seems to have grown as a time/space-saving device. *Skoropis'* 'quick-writing' developed over the course of the 15th-19th centuries, and you need a bit of specialist training to actually read it. You can see a table of [letter-forms from the 18th century here](_URL_1_). The left-most forms are (usually) the most uncial or semi-uncial ones, and then they sort of go from there to become progressively less-recognizable. Special letter forms developed for certain positions in a word or on the line. [Here's an image](_URL_0_) of 17th century *skoropis'* in use. The script was mostly about saving time and space. In certain contexts, things get even more difficult to read, especially when the people writing the records are the only ones who expect to be reading them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://whitemouse.ru/font/img/54_1.gif",
"http://xlt.narod.ru/pg/pic/sk18a.gif"
]
] |
|
4lphf1
|
if a baby is born on the iis, and the mother and father are astronauts/cosmonauts from different countries (usa+russia), what is the citizenship of the baby?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lphf1/eli5_if_a_baby_is_born_on_the_iis_and_the_mother/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3p413y"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Citizenship is determined by the citizenship of the parents rather than the location. A person born in Germany to two English parents would get English citizenship by birth. So in your example the baby would have duel US + Russian Citizenship."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
76skd7
|
what causes chromosome abnormalities?
|
Besides smoking, drinking, drugs. What are other reasons of errors in cell division, and what causes it to happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/76skd7/eli5_what_causes_chromosome_abnormalities/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dogicq9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There are lots, but one *major* issue that contributes to many cancers is recombination. \n\nNormally recombination isn't really a bad thing, and gives us genetic diversity. When your cells are dividing to make sperm or eggs, the chromosome you have from both mom and dad line up. Because they are structurally similar, it is possible for them to \"swap\" segments, [like this](_URL_0_). This means you could pass on one of your dad's chromosomes, but with your mom's \"blue eyes\" gene inside of it. \n\nThe problem comes in when the swap doesn't work very neatly. Instead of having Chromosome 9 swap with another Chromosome 9, it might swap with Chromosome 22. Sometimes this is fine because the DNA is *still there*, but in different places. However, it often turns out that DNA is lost, or gets coupled to another segment of DNA that makes it inappropriately active."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://i.ytimg.com/vi/WcfAeZ0nEc8/maxresdefault.jpg"
]
] |
|
1e6n75
|
everyone in the world raises their arms/fists to represent success and victory. why is that?
|
Every culture (to my knowledge), every country, and every civilization that all developed independently of eachother, and yet everyone raises their fists or arms up in the air to proclaim 'yes!' or 'victory!'.
Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1e6n75/eli5_everyone_in_the_world_raises_their_armsfists/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9xa7pj",
"c9xaaj2",
"c9xaupm",
"c9xbfs1",
"c9xfhq8",
"c9xfjj5",
"c9xhuqu",
"c9xira4"
],
"score": [
63,
5,
28,
7,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It is just a human reaction. Recently, saw a video on TEd talks about body language. It said there was a study done and when someone who was blind and has always been blind won a challenge they raised thier hands up in the air, in victory. Even people who have never seen that done, react that way.",
"I'm just assuming, in the same way a hug is used because it shows vulnerability so therefor trust, that raising fists makes the person appear more vulnerable, as their chest is an easier target. \nAlso it makes them look bigger. \nTherefor it is kinda intimidating/ look at me I'm so powerful I can stand in a vulnerable pose like this and still not be killed?",
"Like you're five: This is a human universal emotional expression for pride. \n\nTo go a bit beyond the 5-year-old level: There are many universal human expressions of facial features (see work by [Paul Ekman](_URL_2_)), and it has recently been established by Jessica Tracy and colleagues that shame and pride have similarly universal innate expressions. [Here's an awesome article about blind athletes in the paralympics making the same expressions as sighted people make](_URL_0_). Jessica Tracy is the leading authority in this area, and you can find her lab page [here](_URL_1_). ",
"It's an important part of our evolutionary communication systems. However, culturally it isn't always accepted. For example, in Japan performing this motion in a show of victory is considered unsportsmanlike. However, being a fan it is okay to do so. So there certainly can be a cultural override.",
"There is a really awesome TED talk that is all about body language and how our own body language affects ourselves. In the beginning she talks about how across all cultures throw their hands in the air to signify victory because making our body language bigger releases endorphins etc. Totally worth the watch. \n\n_URL_0_",
"It's not just humans. Our closest biological relatives seem to do it as well. I would venture a guess that it is an instinctual reaction of appearing larger than your opponent, as seen in the animal kingdom where the alpha stands tall and the beta cowers. I'm not a behavior scientist nor biologist but it seems to make sense. ",
"When you raise your arms, it makes you \"taller\" than others and the center of attraction. Another thing I noticed is that it it makes you feel more opened up and relaxed than with your arms down. ",
"You just did something great and want to draw attention to it. When you're ashamed of something or trying to hide, you slouch and draw less attention to yourself. \n\nHiding one's face while laughing at the misfortune of others is another global expression. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/wp-content/files_mf/pnaspublished.pdf",
"http://ubc-emotionlab.ca/people/dr-jessica-tracy/",
"https://www.paulekman.com/"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/amy_cuddy_your_body_language_shapes_who_you_are.html"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
47w4or
|
slow charge vs fast charge overnight
|
So is it better to slow charge a smart phone (nex 6p) overnight with a low amp charger (750 mah), vs plugging it in to the included fast charger(I think it's 3amps)?
Info:
I have a cheap charger that's only 750mah and it obviously takes FOREVER to charge my phone to full. Before going to bed I imagine the slow trickle to full is healthier than blasting the battery with the higher amp charger it comes with. Is this true?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47w4or/eli5_slow_charge_vs_fast_charge_overnight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0fw8uk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It doesn't matter. It automatically regulates power supply to prevent anything from damaging the battery; for instance, when the phone reaches 100% it stops charging, and only starts charging when it falls below like 98%-95%."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4l24o1
|
what is the significance of splitting an atom, and how does it make nuclear weapons so much more devastating than conventional ones?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4l24o1/eli5what_is_the_significance_of_splitting_an_atom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3jo746",
"d3jof04",
"d3jwty0"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you \"split\" an atom, what you're doing is making the big, heavy atom into two lighter ones. \nThe curious thing is that the two lighter ones combined weigh less than the original. \nWhere did the mass go? \nIt went into E=mc^2 \n\nNow, keep in mind that c is a *huge* number. It's the speed of light. Which is really fast. \n\nEven a little tiny mass converted directly into energy yields a tremendous amount of energy. \n\nIn \"conventional\" explosives, you put some energy into making the molecules that decompose when they explode, and you're not getting anywhere near the speed of light in those equations. ",
"A nuclear reaction converts some amount of matter into energy. And it turns out that it takes an immense amount of energy to make even a little bit of matter. \n\nThe amount of energy \"bound up\" in a gram of matter is basically equivalent to the amount of energy released in an explosion of 21,000 tons of TNT.\n\nConventional explosions (like TNT) rely on energy stored in chemical bonds between atoms. These bonds can only hold relatively tiny amounts of energy. ",
"Just want to point out that you're asking a question that has a flip side to it. Splitting an atom is called nuclear fission. Combining atoms is called nuclear fusion.\n\nFusion bombs are much more powerful than fission bombs, and indeed require a fission reaction to achieve the temperatures required to set off the fusion reaction (which is, by the way, the reason we don't have fusion power plants, and also the reason \"cold fusion\" is a sort of holy grail of physics).\n\nThe simplest type of fusion reaction combines two hydrogen atoms into one helium atom.\n\nI'm not a physicist, so I can't explain why that's so much more powerful than fusion, but I thought it was worth mentioning."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
978pu2
|
Did slave traders struggle with morality? Did they ever question themselves, their practice and the people they were killing and enslaving?
|
While visiting the African-American Smithsonian in Washington, DC, I was dumbfounded by the brutality but also the loss of life. One wall in particular documents hundreds of ships, their voyages, and the ‘number of souls’ on board when they left Western Africa and when they arrived in the New World. The casualties were staggering, sometimes above 60%.
Considering the number of traders, the length of time the trade lasted(im referring to the Atlantic slave trade that centered on the America’s), and the countries involved, there has to be some account of traders who struggled with or were horrified by the trade. Many of the artifacts and journals have Christian references and clergy accompanied some trips. Are there any accounts of dissenting opinions? Of a captain watching a woman throw herself overboard and thinking “what is wrong with me and all of this?” Or were potential moral authorities mostly complicit or even encouraging?
Yet I couldn’t find any first person accounts in the museum. I’m fascinated by motivations and morality and would love to read more. I was also told that the justification of racial inferiority was developed as the trade went on, is this true?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/978pu2/did_slave_traders_struggle_with_morality_did_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e46qt6q",
"e47f4u0"
],
"score": [
4,
11
],
"text": [
"I hope somebody can come along and give you specific accounts but you might find this existing thread interesting about how the bible was used to justify slavery\n\n\n > _URL_0_\n\nBy /u/dubstripsquads",
"You may be familiar with the famous Christian hymn *Amazing Grace*. This hymn was written in 1779 by the poet, Anglican priest, and slave ship captain John Newton. \n\nNewton was a seaman who prayed for deliverance from a storm in 1748, and found his prayer answered. This marked the beginning of a long and gradual conversion to evangelical Christianity, but was immediately followed by his entry into the slave trade. He continued in the trade until 1754, and continued investing in slaving trips after. He began serving as an Anglican priest in 1764, and became a close friend and confidant of William Wilberforce and Hannah Moore, major abolitionist figures. \n\nIn 1788, Newton wrote a pamphlet called [\"Thoughts Upon the African Slave Trade.\"](_URL_0_) This quote perhaps best speaks to your question:\n\n > Thus I was unexpectedly freed from this disagreeable service. Disagreeable I had long found it; but I think I should have quitted it sooner, had I considered it as I now do, to be unlawful and wrong. But I never had a scruple upon this head at the time ; nor was such a thought once suggested to me by any friend. What I did I did ignorantly • considering it as the line of life which Divine Providence had allotted me, and having no concern, in point of conscience, but to treat the slaves, while under my care, with as much humanity as a regard to my own safety would admit. \n\nIt seems he had some misgivings, but they were largely blunted by his desperation for work, and the general acceptance of the practice around him. The whole piece is worth reading, and does an excellent job of viscerely portraying the horrors of the slave trade. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3dsyyj/how_was_slavery_justifiedtolerated_by_largely/ct8k6nj/"
],
[
"https://www.biblestudytools.com/classics/newton-posthumous-works/thoughts-upon-the-african-slave-trade.html"
]
] |
|
1slbze
|
how do solid state devices store information
|
I Understand how HDDs work along with CD's, DVD's, and Floppy disks, but how do things like flash drives and SSDs store memory?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1slbze/eli5how_do_solid_state_devices_store_information/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdyquz2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[This](_URL_0_) pretty much explains it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://computer.howstuffworks.com/solid-state-drive2.htm"
]
] |
|
1pjcwb
|
if george washington warned us about the power of parties, how was he imagining the government to work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pjcwb/eli5if_george_washington_warned_us_about_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd2w61b",
"cd2wczq",
"cd2wtro",
"cd2xg1f",
"cd2xh9t",
"cd2xqs8",
"cd2xvz7",
"cd2xypa",
"cd2y4kh",
"cd2y7bs",
"cd2yhon",
"cd2yvxs",
"cd2zhok",
"cd300jv",
"cd302s8",
"cd30fwy",
"cd30god",
"cd30in0",
"cd31n5t",
"cd32kgu",
"cd32sej",
"cd33ze3",
"cd343pv",
"cd348c3",
"cd34fzt",
"cd34qel",
"cd362op",
"cd3bohh",
"cd3bzzc",
"cd3c42k",
"cd3cnhp",
"cd3dtog",
"cd3ev3t",
"cd3fxwf"
],
"score": [
1167,
6,
53,
39,
2,
9,
2,
659,
2,
3,
2,
9,
18,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
8,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A multiple party system is fine. The more groups there are, the more they have to work together as a team to meet the majority set in the rules and pass a law. Thus, the things that get passed are generally what the majority approves of.\n\nA two party system leads to black-or-white, zero sum thinking. If my team didn't win, then we lost. All ideas are boiled down to three options: agree with group A, with group B, or just don't participate because you don't agree with either. That leads to us vs. them mentalities, or voter apathy.\n\nWashington's famous quote about this starts: \"The alternate domination of one faction over another\". He's really saying when two parties trade off, alternating running a country, this is a Bad Thing. ",
"He was imagining that the opposing parties would end up becoming close-minded, ignorant and constantly at each other's throats. He imagined it would lead to children being indoctrinated by their parents into political views tied with race and religion, e.g.\n\n > \"if you're a good Christian surely you will vote Republican! Those other guys are baby killers!\"\n\nor\n\n > \"Vote for Democrats, they're the side that supports minorities! You're not a racist/homophobe are you?\"\n\nIn other words, George Washington was psychic and saw the bullshit start right before his eyes.",
"Let's not pretend that any founding father alive in the 1700s could have any possible idea what politics are like today with professional corporate lobbyists, mass media campaigns for elections, etc. They didn't have some magic 8 ball, they didn't somehow incredibly predict every possible future event the country's government could possibly face. They did a pretty good job throwing together a form of government with some checks and balances that was pretty robust under very difficult circumstances (pending war with Britain). Let's not pretend like it was fucking magical, and worship it like a deity. It was created by men, it's not infallible and although it's pretty darn good, if we need to tweak it to adapt to the challenges and political gridlock this country is now facing, then by all means let's do so.",
"A lot of the posts in this thread make good points, but they don't really address what George Washington thought, which was your question.\n\nIf you want more historically accurate responses, I'd recommend posting this question in /r/AskHistorians.",
"Washington was a very great man but not infallible.\n\nIf he and the other Founding Fathers hated political parties as much as a modern fashionably cynical people really believe they did they would have written that hate into the constitution.\n\nIt's difficult to run something so large and with so many responsibilities as a government without people starting and joining formal organizations related to the process. Washington didn't understand that, and back then many people didn't because American democracy was so new and different, and now it's popular for people to say they don't like political parties despite voting for one of the parties about 90% of the time.\n\nSource: polisci/history major and political activist.",
"Probably unpopular to say, but... Considering that George Washington ran unopposed for both of his elections, maybe he's not the best guy to ask how to run a Democracy? It's easy to say \"no parties\" when there's nobody running against you. North Korea has closer-fought elections than George Washington did, for crying out loud.",
"He imagined intellectual people to be elected to office",
"He believed each candidate would self-finance, they would run on their personal record, and they'd vote their conscious on every issue. Coalitions were likely to form over topics (trade, slavery, banking, etc) but they wouldn't require the trade protectionists people to also be pro-slavery. \n\nIt was naive, though. This was shown almost immediately following his address. ",
"Honest answer - Ignorantly. These guys weren't fortune tellers that could predict the future. They did the best that they could for their time. They often got as much right as they got wrong. ",
"Unless he imagined a democracy in which we governed by rotating committees and/or townhall votes, with a very decentralized government, he was just wrong about this. ",
"It's worth remembering that at that time communication across long distances was much more difficult, and the population was far smaller. This meant that you were likely to know much more about the local candidates than about a national party. In that environment, it's feasible to say voters should be making their choice based on sending a reasonable man who can represent his community, rather than basing the choice on affiliation with a distant party. \n\nThese days, with national media being the typical source of political information, party identification is often the most salient piece of information a voter has about their local candidates. Most voters will have heard much more from people like Obama, Boehner, Romney, etc. than from the local representatives they're choosing between. In that environment parties are a good way of informing the voters which set of beliefs a candidate identifies with. Of course, this would be more effective in a multiparty system with a parliament, but it's still better than picking with no idea who your candidates are.",
"Well, that's the thing: they imagined the government to work EXACTLY how it is now--Shutdown included!\n\nGoing back to Madison's \"Federalist 10,\" you can do one of two things with political parties (aka Factions): remove their causes or control their effects. American Democracy, by way of the Constitution, chose to control the effects.\n\nHow? Through checks and balances and the separation of powers.\n\nThe idea was all these political parties or interest groups (factions) would all fight. More conflict, less compromise. Intuitively, you might think that, \"well, this is a democracy, the majority has to win.\" This is not what the Framers had in mind. In fact, the idea was to slow down the process and force discussion to prevent a tyranny of the majority. And if you think your party or faction is going to win that fight, you're gonna need to make it through these different branches of government.\n\nIf the U.S. was designed to have a single representative, lawmaking body (a unicameral legislature), then one can assume that a 50%+1 majority could dominate policymaking. And assume the Framers did:\n\nThe created a bicameral, two-level legislative branch--the House of Representatives and the Senate. \n\nI'll save the talk about checks and balances for later and focus on the Framers' intentions, since Washington was ostensibly part of this club...\n\nWhen the Constitution was drafted, Senators were not directly elected. The states decided who would occupy that chamber. Oh, and let's not forget that today, even the President isn't truly directly elected...states make their own rules regarding their allotment of electoral votes, but that's another story. And finally, a reminder that the Supreme Court is staffed by, that's right, unelected Judges. \n\nWhat does this mean? It means that on paper, in 1787, only ONE of the Four branches of Government (House/Senate/President/Supreme Court) was elected DIRECTLY by the people. \n\nSo its 1788, and you want to pass a law that reflects your Faction's interests. Good luck. It needs to make it through not only the House of Reps, where you would start this process, but then through the Senate. Have fun with that. Those guys are the the elder statesmen, and they care about their own states. And the President? \n\nTL;DR The U.S. government is purposefully slow and inefficient because the Framers did not trust the average person to make laws.",
"How he imagined government to work is irrelevant, because the government he helped to found was not designed to scale up to what we have today. \n\nIn his time it took days or weeks for messages, goods or people to get from one town to another. Messages now are instantaneous, goods can get anywhere in the continental U.S. within a day or two. In his time, and for decades after, it took months to travel cross-country, and the people you started the journey with may not the same ones you ended with (due to deaths and births along the way). Today one can travel 3000 miles in a single day. \n\nThe system of government he envisioned and helped create, was designed around participation by white male landowning slave-owning citizens, for whom politics was not their fulltime profession, who did not have the support of a staff of fulltime career political advisors, all to represent and govern tens of thousands of people.\n\nRegardless of any theoretical flexibility to modify and update the system of government, that system, created in that time, does not scale to a nation of 400 million+ people spread across what we now have as the United States. \n\nAsking about George Washington's intent around political parties is possibly an interesting bit of historical background, better answered by an historian (as noted [here](_URL_0_)). If that's the purpose of your question, sorry for my tangent here. But if the purpose of your question is \"how can we get our current political party system back to how The Founders intended it to be\", the answer is \"that's likely not a relevant question to ask in the first place, as it's apples and oranges, on a par with asking a person from the 18th century how they washed their clothes and then using that information to design a better laundromat for downtown Chicago\".",
"Basically, as others have stated, Washington and the other Founders initially saw America as being a republic ran by unaffiliated individuals who would run and campaign using their own wealth. It is important to note that for Federal positions at this time, only members of the House of Representatives were directly elected by voters of their state, Senators were selected by state officials and the president was selected purely by the electors of the electoral college. \n\nFor a deeper explanation on the Founder's views of factions, one should look at Madison's Federalist No. 10 (_URL_0_). In short, they viewed factions as being potentially destabilizing and destructive to America, due in part to the structure of how America was being established (it should be noted that the Federalist papers were written when we were still debating having The Constitution). Madison argued that in a republic, majority factions could cause problems, hence why the Federalists wanted a larger government with more members, they saw it as a way for keeping checks on the larger power or faction. \n\nThe most important thing to take away is though that the Founders saw factions not in the way we see political parties today, but more in terms of regional and state blocs. Around this time, we were still using the Articles of Confederation, which had a very weak central government. At the same times the states were quite strong and basically ran as their own independent nations. The main concern was that one region or state would gain so much power and influence as to utterly dominate the others. Their main belief in the check on factions was that as America grew larger, more states would balance each other out (again because only the HOR was directly elected).\n\nPolitical parties as we know them are the result of the vote being expanded to more and more people, and is reflective of the organization needed to create a broader organization to elect people of a similar view.\n\nOne final note to think about is that Madison, Washington and the others argued against factions, yet saw the rise of what could be considered the first two political parties in America, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans. These groups were arguing over weather the constitution should be ratified or not. \n\nTL;DR: Washington and others saw the expansion of more states in America as the way to check factions since \"parties\" at this time more were focused on regional or state blocs. They didn't see parties as we see them since America at the time was run entirely by a wealthy elite and the only voters were a wealthy elite. Parties as we see them now a-days are modern constructs that emerged as a result of the expansion of the vote. ",
"The problem wasn't necessarily parties, but factionalism. Read Federalist 10.",
"Maybe he saw this happening:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Just read the Constitution, that's it. People vote for an individual who represents the voter's interest in the government. What part of that requires parties? \n\nSee the difference? Presently we have parties telling the \"representatives\" how to \"represent\" the voters, the voters are almost always voting for a party, not a person. \n\nWashington, et al, believed that the representatives would actually give two fucks about their constituents; with parties, the representatives just obey the parties irrespective of what voters say. Presently we see single digit approval ratings of Congress but they stay in power, I bet, because people will continue to vote for parties instead of people. \n\nThe system is completely broken and the Constitution is in abeyance. ",
"What if we voted for a person not because of any affiliation they have to any organization but because of the things that they have done for their community and the ideas they have about how to further help the community. Parties are supposed to be an easy way to tell, but will always degenerate into what we see today. \n\nCampaigns are rarely about ideas and what will happen if they win but rather attacks about what the other person might intend to do. \n\nIf people voted for people based on their ideas then we might ahve a better country. Hold people accountable to the ideas they express after they are elected. Or else you are useless as a citizen . ",
"Politics was never meant to me a full-time career. ",
"That we'd vote for people on the issues and their policies and not blindly on parties like herded sheep?",
"The top comment is false. Washington (though Hamilton wrote the speech) was interested in something closer to the system he started his term with, no openly declared parties. Grouping together for issues is a part of the political process, Washington wasn't naive, he just didn't want standing party mechanisms which he saw as malicious. \n\nHe hoped that a system of notables (local elites) from around the country would be elected and speak for the local interest. Even though proto-parties where being formed then, they were not very powerful or pervasive. Most issues still came down to the conscience of the elected official. Plus, compared to now, the money and pervasive power in being a Congressman really wasn't there back then, so they had much less reason to not vote their conscience.",
"Damn, /r/theoryofreddit would have a field day with this one. Top voted comment doesn't answer anything.\n\nThe real answer about how political parties were imagined to work, starts in Federalist #51:\n\n > Ambition must be made to counteract ambition. The interest of the man must be connected with the constitutional rights of the place. It may be a reflection on human nature, that such devices should be necessary to control the abuses of government. But what is government itself, but the greatest of all reflections on human nature? \n\nHere Madison explains that factions and political parties are so powerful, that the only thing that way to stop them is to fight fire with fire (ambition vs ambition). While many founders were very aware of all the issues with special interest groups and political parties, ultimately they decided that the most effective way to deal with this inevitable encroachment was not to write down a bunch of rules on a piece of paper, but to design a system where factions, political parties, and other concentrations of ambition can only be limited by an opposing party/faction/ambition.\n\nWashington acknowledges this and even tacitly agrees! (From his [Farewell Address](_URL_0_))\n\n > There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast, patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party.\n\nBut his point is that we don't need to worry too much about this though, because this tribalistic team mentality thing is really in our human nature.\n\n > From their natural tendency, it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose.\n\n**TL:DR Basically, he is saying \"Guys, we all agree we need political parties, but political parties can get out of control and get super petty. So in order to prevent that, we all just need to watch ourselves**\n\nOr, a more poetic form:\n\n > And there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion, to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, **it demands a uniform vigilance** to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.\n\nBasically what he is imagining is a pre Gingrich era, where political parties aren't the uber-tribalistic, hyper-partisan \"my team vs your team\" things that they are now.\n\nIf you don't know how Speaker Gingrich changed Washington ([Starter Here](_URL_1_)), the gist is that he centralized power in the Speaker's office, forced Members to spend less time getting to know each other in Washington, and revved up the idea that the sole purpose of the political party is to defeat the other guy (rather than, you know, serve the country).\n\nUltimately this leads to an environment where political leaders are saying their biggest single agenda item isn't any particular policy that helps people, but \"defeating President Obama.\"\n\nSo Washington accepts tribalism and he accepts partisanship, he just warns us not to take the path of \"uber\" and \"hyper\" that we're on right now.",
"Several people replied to my comment on how to maybe fix our system. Ill do some explaining.\n\nSo there are a couple of cool options that we have but Ill highlight, what I think, in my opinion are the strongest 2. \n\n1. One of the biggest problems that our fucking campaigns have is the amount of money that goes into them. And more importantly the money that goes into the Big 2 (Dem and Reps). There's no goddamn way Ralph Nader will ever be president but because there is just not enough money in the Green Party to campaign against the Big 2, regardless of how smart the guy is. Now people are probably going to comment on this about super-pacs and shit and how they are ruining our system. Thats just categorically false. The root of the monetary issue, is that it facilitates a political environment where 2 parties dominate. Why specifically 2? Because most issues in politics are binary. SO HOW DO WE SPREAD THE MONEY AROUND. A great idea is to just inflate the fuck out of the system with political credits. These would be credits that have a dollar value, but can only be spent on political campaigns. These would be the only funding campaigns had. Each person regardless of social, political, economic etc. standing would have X amount of dollars to spend on Y amount of candidates. So if Nader is running now and people actually like him, they can donate all of their political credit to him so hell have enough money to run a successful campaign. There are kinks? How the fuck would we fund this? How much credit do we give everyone? Is it ethical to have like some sort of bastardized democracy that is EXPLICITLY based off of money? Meh you can think about it. \n\n2. We already talked about how the root issue is a bi-partisan system. One thing that contributes to this are the primaries. Many of which you can only vote either democrat or republican, and you can only vote for one person. AND its a FIRST PAST THE POST SYSTEM, meaning the person with the most votes wins outright...so if 49 people vote one way and 51 the other, 49% of the constituency is left out to dry. What the fuck. Representative democracy my ass. So how do you fix this. One way is to have your votes elastically attached to your favorite candidates by rank. So you could vote for candidates A,B,C all the way to Z, in that order. This would mean if A loses then B gets your vote, is B loses then C gets your vote. So you have a system with far greater representation of the reality, where in the current system its more like: You vote for A, A loses, So Z wins...and now youre fucked. \n\nFeel free to comment/question/correct. \nEDITS: My grammar sucks. \nSource: National Constitution Team Champion",
"He believed in a system where the representative served the will of the people that elected him instead of doing what the \"party\" wanted. ",
"The fact that he was wary of the power of parties doesn't mean that he felt they had to be completely excluded, only that they shouldn't grow too large, powerful, or exclusive. There needs to be room for more parties, and \"what party are you with\" should matter less.\n\nIt's worth noting that, in Washington's day, politics was an as-needed thing; it was carried out largely by individuals who had other responsibilities, and who didn't make their living at it. Career politicians started happening at a point that is, roughly speaking, midway between Washington's time and ours (closer to his, but not by more than a decade or two) (**Edit:** I was grossly off, there; it's more like two thirds of the way back from our time to Washington's, but still well outside of his lifetime).\n\n\"Boss\" Tweed was an early career politician. He's the one you see represented in Gangs of New York, the bearded head of Tammany Hall.",
"Along with James Madison and the rest of the framers, they designed the government to be run by Congress and their representative lawmaking powers. Madison planned on the representatives of both houses actually representing their constituents ideas and voices rather than the current \"me me me\" model of congress.",
"I reckon he though men with common sense and a common goal could work together without bickering like children.\n\nBoy was he wrong.",
"I doubt any of you will see this because I am so late to the game but James Madison wrote about this in the Federalist Papers. Even though he and Washington thought political parties were bad they knew it was unstoppable. However they also said that there would be enough views to balance things out. This idea is called pluralism. ",
"Here's the thing... HE DID NOT HAVE AN ANSWER.\n\nThe founding fathers are great men. We should respect and revere them, but never think they were anything more than humans with flaws like all of us. \n\nThat's the reason it's make a \"more perfect union.\" \n\nIf they had all the answers, it would have said make a \"perfect union.\"",
"I find this entire thread to be absolutely amazing. However I may have missed this somewhere in my reading and it is a bit off topic. No one has really addressed the fact that the government was not actually meant to be what it is. Each State is an independent Country within the Union. To be governed by it's own laws and not by the Federal Government. The Federal Government was supposed to organize the nation so we would have a unified front to present to the rest of the world. Standardizing trade, currency, military, etc. Not to dictate unfair laws and withhold funding. The beauty of the system was that each State was a representation of the people in it. Two parties for the entire Union falsely assumes that the majority and minorities have the same goals in each state. ",
"I don't think he imagined 350 million people - getting rid of the idea of town square and everyone actually coming together. Just I guess, prolly wrong :)",
"This guy has a ton of political videos.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWith our political structure, we're always going to have a two party system. It's statistics.",
"Washington wasn't exactly a skilled politician or a key designer of the constitution. He was a reluctant political leader who was a shoe-in after his success as a *general*. \n\nLook to Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, etc. and also French revolutionary minds of the time for the actual political theory behind our government's initial founding.",
"he only warned us about one or two parties having too much power - that is all"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pjcwb/eli5if_george_washington_warned_us_about_the/cd2xg1f"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._10"
],
[],
[
"http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo#"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp",
"http://www.cnn.com/2011/11/19/opinion/lessig-gingrich-change-washington"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
emaso4
|
how do products like static guard work to reduce static cling?
|
I'm sitting her in my sweatshirt that has decided to be an electrical generator today and thinking, i wish I had some of that stuff that makes static charge go away.
And then I'm like, how does that stuff work, anyhow?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/emaso4/eli5_how_do_products_like_static_guard_work_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fdo04gy"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When two objects bump against each other, there is a chance that electrons will jump from one object to the other. If the two objects are made from a different material, it is possible that one holds on to its electrons more tightly, so it is more likely to receive electrons in such an event. When your clothes are in a dryer, they are rubbing against each other a lot, making this transfer happen a lot.\n\nStatic guard works by coating all of your clothes in a thin layer of the same stuff. Now that everything has the same stuff on its surface, the electrons are as likely to stick to one as to the other, so nothing generally accumulates a significant enough charge to be noticeable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
20g7aq
|
Is it possible for an object to have zero kinetic energy?
|
I was thinking about how kinetic energy seems mostly to be a relative measurement. While mass is a constant, velocity is looked at in entirely relative terms. A car's velocity relative to the Earth, Earth's velocity relative to the sun, the sun's velocity relative to the center of our galaxy, our galaxy's velocity relative to other galaxies.
Is there a way to determine simply how fast a galaxy is traveling? Can we approximate the location of the big bang and use this as an origin?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/20g7aq/is_it_possible_for_an_object_to_have_zero_kinetic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg302te"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
" > Is it possible for an object to have zero kinetic energy?\n\nYes. The kinetic energy of an object is relative to the reference frame in which it is measured. This is because motion is relative to the reference frame, and [kinetic energy is the energy an object possesses due to motion](_URL_0_).\n\nIf you measure the energy in an object's center-of-momentum frame (where its momentum is zero), it will have zero kinetic energy. This is actually how we define the rest mass of systems -- the rest mass of a system is the sum of its energies in its center-of-momentum frame.\n\n > Is there a way to determine simply how fast a galaxy is traveling?\n\nThe speed of a galaxy will be dependent on the reference frame you are measuring from, but in reference frames where a galaxy is moving, we can determine how fast it is travelling by measuring the redshift of photons that are emitted by well-known electronic transitions of common molecules, such as hydrogen. When the electron in a hydrogen atom is excited, it emits electromagnetic radiation of specific frequencies, and by measuring the redshift of those frequencies, we can determine the speed.\n\n > Can we approximate the location of the big bang and use this as an origin?\n\nNo, we cannot. This is because the big bang *did not have* an origin; the universe's expansion occured (and is still occurring) at all points simultaneously. This is actually a common misconception about the big bang; you may want to search through the FAQ for more information.\n\nHope that helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinetic_energy"
]
] |
|
1jiqfs
|
Why do we need large rockets like the Saturn V and Falcon Heavy to travel to the moon?
|
Couldn't we send up an empty S-IVB type rocket, then send up it's fuel, an SM, a LM and then a crewed CM and dock them all together?
Would this be more costly then having to redesign a new type of heavy rocket?
I'm surprised that even when missions to Mars are discussed the mission profiles all seem to stem from one launch vehicle on Earth. Why do we have to do it all in one go, or is too complex to assemble these craft in space?
edit: almost forgot the SM
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jiqfs/why_do_we_need_large_rockets_like_the_saturn_v/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbf35dm"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"I don't know what you mean by a S-IVB as that's a stage of the Saturn IV. \n\nWe could use existing rockets like a Atlas V or Delta IV Heavy (both can be man rated btw). You'd probably need a handful of launches to get everything up there. After assembling in LEO you'd go to the moon.\n\n > Would this be more costly then having to redesign a new type of heavy rocket?\n\nFirst, rebuilding the Saturn V would be much more expensive then using current EELV rockets. Why do that?\n\nWith respect to the Falcon Heavy, look at the projected cost per launch. It's [80-125 million](_URL_0_) vs [250 million](_URL_2_) for the Delta IV Heavy. On top of that, a single Falcon Heavy launch can lift twice the payload to LEO as a Delta IV Heavy launch. So, per kg, the Falcon 9 Heavy is about 4x cheaper. Furthermore your point about redesign costs is irrelevant here: SpaceX is a private company. The government isn't paying for the development like they did for the shuttle. In response to your question: No, the Falcon Heavy is cheaper.\n\n > I'm surprised that even when missions to Mars are discussed the mission profiles all seem to stem from one launch vehicle on Earth.\n\nI have no idea what you are talking about. All mission profiles involve assembling a vehicle in LEO. \n\nHere a study done at MIT when Constellation was being discussed. I'm sure there are other studies but I am personally familiar with this one: _URL_1_\n_URL_3_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falcon_Heavy",
"http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/hofstetter08a.pdf",
"http://www.astronautix.com/lvs/delheavy.htm",
"http://systemarchitect.mit.edu/docs/wooster07.pdf"
]
] |
|
7g4xb3
|
Why does vacuum-energy exist? How can nothing have some energy?
|
Or maybe I'm just very confused.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7g4xb3/why_does_vacuumenergy_exist_how_can_nothing_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqgktxb",
"dqgy7tx"
],
"score": [
97,
8
],
"text": [
"Well any theory that predicts a non-zero vacuum energy also predicts that the vacuum itself has a complex non-trivial structure. Like the vacuum of quantum electrodynamics for example. It can fluctuate, it can interact, it can become polarized.\n\nIt is also worth pointing out that from this perspective the vacuum isn't \"nothing\" but rather the situation where all quantum fields are in their lowest energy state. These vacuum states of fields have both energy and fluctuations.",
"Science never really answers why questions. It just answers how questions. The short answer is there's no such thing as nothing and we can't create it either or at least we've never observed anything like that.\n\nIt's not entirely obvious that vacuum fluctuations or space itself are a thing independent of matter. Empty space might not make sense without matter configurations from which to emerge and vacuum fluctuations might not occur without matter. Sean Carroll had a nice paper about quiet vacuum.\n\nIt's also not clear if we're talking about the cosmological constant or quantum vacuum here. Ofc they might or might not turn out to be the same thing. I'm sure someone will eventually collect their Nobel for coming up with an interesting explanation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7n2kxs
|
how come you can have a good or bad sleep?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7n2kxs/eli5_how_come_you_can_have_a_good_or_bad_sleep/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dryk3mi",
"drykcal"
],
"score": [
14,
5
],
"text": [
"Simplest answer: variance.\n\nBetter answer: there are multiple factors involved. Light sources in the room or before you go to bed mess with melatonin production, which signals your body to sleep. If you wake up in certain parts of your REM cycle, you'll feel groggy instead of rested. Nightmares can make you tense during sleep, which makes some people less rested. Alcohol interferes with sleep quality. And I've heard that sleep you get before midnight is twice as restful as sleep you get after midnight. The effects of stimulants shouldn't be underestimated. The half-life of caffeine is about 6 hours. This means that if you have a cup of coffee at 2 or 3 in the afternoon and go to bed at 8 or 9, half the caffeine from your afternoon coffee is still in your system, interfering with your sleep.\n\nAnd the list goes on...",
"Imagine you are a phone with a rechargeable battery. \nYou use energy throughout the day and every night you need to recharge your battery or else it will be dangerously low the next day or even dead. \n\nFor some people, they have batteries that need only 5-6 hour charge but for the average adult an 8 hour charge will get you through the day.\n\nThe tricky thing with charging your battery though is that the battery doesn’t charge right way when you plug it in. The charging cable has to be inserted for around an hour and a half and stay connected for a full charge. \n\nSometimes you forget to put the charging cable in all the way. It starts to charge but then disconnects itself and you don’t get a full charge.\n\nMost nights the charging cable goes in all the way and the battery is able to reach a full capacity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ty708
|
why google+ has so much fewer users than facebook.
|
From everything I read before it was open to the public, people seemed really happy with it, some claiming it was going to kill Facebook, and many more saying they liked it better than Facebook. But as it stands now, there are very few people who use Google+, and I was just wondering why that is.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ty708/eli5_why_google_has_so_much_fewer_users_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4qpqwg",
"c4qprol"
],
"score": [
14,
2
],
"text": [
"There's a concept called the \"network effect\". Basically, the more people you have using something, the more useful it becomes. To be dead simple, people use Facebook because their friends are on Facebook. Google+ didn't offer enough of a benefit to get people to move over en masse and without enough people moved over, you won't get people following their friends.",
"The answer to this can be very subjective.\n\nMy personal feeling is that they lost the momentum by keeping it invite-only for so long."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2v9kqr
|
Would a lower class soldier in a medieval army be rewarded or punished for killing a noble or royal?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2v9kqr/would_a_lower_class_soldier_in_a_medieval_army_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cofvb1v",
"cogqioc"
],
"score": [
71,
5
],
"text": [
"There is no hard and fast answer to this question. Medieval warfare is difficult to define and as chaotic as warfare in any other era. Individual commanders had their own ideas about how to treat enemy combatants, or made decisions based on the circumstances.\n\nBefore he died Richard I pardoned Pierre Basile and according to some accounts even paid the boy a stipend. Basile was reportedly executed after Richard’s death by a mercenary.\n\nSticking with the English army the longbow was a weapon which would allow a peasant to kill a nobleman and this has been credited with producing an egalitarian spirit amongst the English ranks. Geoffrey the Baker reported Edward of Woodstock, the Prince of Wales, referring to his archers as “descended from the blood of… Kings of England…” ahead of the Battle of Poitiers in 1356 which is very high praise indeed. For fighting in close quarters, longbowmen might use a small sword or a hammer to enable them to pick out week spots in an enemy’s armour and reportedly after a battle they would be allowed to patrol the battlefield putting enemy soldiers out of their misery. In this sense there were no issues on the English side with a peasant killing noblemen and although there are reports of longbowmen being held in contempt by the French, this is probably more to do with their general effectiveness rather than their ability to stick it to the aristocracy.\n\nAs for taking prisoners there can be no doubt that an imprisoned nobleman is a valuable asset as long as the cost of housing and feeding them is not greater than the potential ransom. I have found no evidence that anyone in fear of their life would be expected to try and capture an enemy nobleman rather than kill them. At Agincourt in 1415, Henry V took the unusual step of having a large number of prisoners executed (possibly over a thousand), probably because he was concerned that they might be able to overwhelm his small army. It is reported that English knights refused the order and so a company of longbowman carried out the King’s wishes.\n\nAs /u/CopperRoyce has alluded to, a soldier’s fate is most likely to depend on whether he wins or loses the battle. I’m not aware of any soldier on the winning side being punished for killing an enemy nobleman and retributions against the losing side were always likely regardless of individual soldier’s actions.\n\nApologies for not being able to give a definitive answer, but hopefully this gives you an idea of the complexity of the subject, the wide variety in medieval warfare and the role that circumstance has in influencing commanders’ decisions. Hopefully there will be plenty of other answers from users familiar with other areas of medieval warfare.",
"In Japan, a commoner killing a high ranking enemy combatant was the number one most reliable way to rise up the ranks for hundreds of years and actually represented the main form of social mobility in Japanese society. \n\nThe tradition of cutting off the heads of a high ranking enemy that they had slain and subsequently bringing it back to show their own lord was fairly standard. They would then have been slowly elevated, with many peasants becoming part of the privileged samurai class. \n\nBeing elevated to a higher social position would also entail their associates, rising, with families becoming clans/houses and elevated far enough, they would have become lords in their own rights, with even extended family being elevated and forming subsidiary branch houses with their own vassals and holdings. \n\nThe entire system of rewards, identifying the kills, division of spoils, competition on the battlefield for heads and corpses, etc. is very extensive and grew organically to its peak during the Sengoku Period, where most soldiers in Japanese armies were semi professional commoners, all competing and constantly looking for high ranking samurai to behead and take home for a big payout. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6qgxo8
|
why does dirt on my glasses always show as a perfect circle when my eyes don't focus on them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qgxo8/eli5_why_does_dirt_on_my_glasses_always_show_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkx69fd"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"That's an effect you get from point light sources (or shadows) being out of focus, and the shape is down to the shape of your own [pupil](_URL_0_). \n\nPhotographers use that same phenomenon in cameras, to artistic effect, and they call it \"Bokeh\". [As you can see](_URL_1_) in this picture, the camera this was taken on had a non-circular artificial 'pupil', or aperture, as it's called in photography-speak.\n\nThe aperture in the camera would've looked something like [this](_URL_2_) and if your eye's iris was that shape, you'd perceive that shape in out of focus dirt on your glasses. As it is, your pupil is circular, so you see circles. \n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/9/9c/Close-up_Image_of_a_Human_Iris.jpg/1126px-Close-up_Image_of_a_Human_Iris.jpg",
"https://pursuitofillumination.files.wordpress.com/2012/01/xmas_bokeh.jpg",
"http://petapixel.com/assets/uploads/2014/10/aperture1.jpg"
]
] |
||
dyuk4h
|
What happened to people whose homes were bombed in WWII?
|
I watch a lot of British TV and have long wondered what happened to people after their homes were bombed in WWII, mostly because I know that given the era (especially coming out of the depression when trust in banks was low) most people’s wealth was in “things” - their home, art, silver-wares, candelabras, etc.
I know that in England there were teams launched after each bombing to help the residents find temporary shelter, as well as providing a warm cup of tea during the cold night, but what happened to them FINANCIALLY? Could a family be ruined because a bomb hit their house vs. their neighbor’s, like some sort of reverse lottery? Was there a government program to help reimburse them for damages, like a “costs of war” type thing?
I’ve been curious about this for awhile so thank you in advance for your answers. (I’m also curious about how the other European countries handled this problem, but that’s a LOT to answer, so I’m primarily asking about England right now.)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dyuk4h/what_happened_to_people_whose_homes_were_bombed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f84ajb1",
"f84b1z3"
],
"score": [
218,
804
],
"text": [
"A couple of years ago I recorded some oral interviews with people who'd survived the Hull Blitz as children. I can give you an answer from their perspective although it has to be remembered that Hull was a densely populated city full of terraces (houses built in rows) filled with workers from the fish, chemical and lumber trades that characterised that port city in the 1930s. 95% of Hull's 195,000 houses were damaged or destroyed during the war, it was the worst-hit city outside London, largely due to the importance of the immense docklands along the south of the city and the large-scale chemical works up the central River Hull.\n\nEach of the interviewees who talked about their house being destroyed or heavily damaged explained that they simply moved to another or that they moved in with relatives. This was before the age when home ownership was common so they would be in rented houses. Their landlord would move them to another house. Sometimes that meant moving in with another family although houses were becoming empty through both 'normal' causes and wartime events.\n\nFor families like the ones in Hull there was little recognisable wealth in their houses. There was likely no family silver to be lost and no expensive artwork. There may have been valuable candelabras in some houses (Hull still had a thriving Jewish population at that time) but I didn't speak to any such families - I'd presume that such items would be hidden, buried, or stored elsewhere for safekeeping.\n\nIn general the greatest loss would be items of a sentimental value and, of course, the things required for day-to-day life like clothing, bedding, crockery and utensils and (most importantly for winning a war) a kettle and teapot. Families might return to their bombed house to try to recover items or they could purchase/borrow/receive items from stores of items retrieved from other bomb-sites. Compensation for damages was available although this scheme didn't take hold until later in the war, was difficult to access for \"normal\" families and principally benefited bricks-and-mortar owners rather than tenants.\n\nOne thing that struck me was how families simply got on with their lives, work and school. Living in an age of personal ownership and high material consumption the idea that people could so easily get up and move on to \"new\" belongings and lodgings felt alien to me. Some described that in different ways: \"*I knew me father had it worse than me, he was on the ships looking for the Germans*\", \"*I had me mam and that was all I needed. I'd only ever worn me brother's trousers anyway*\", \"*You just get on don't you?*\".\n\n & #x200B;\n\nReferences:\n\nThere are still many resources from the UntoldHull project available online at [_URL_2_](_URL_0_), they may help you find further answers to your questions.\n\n[Documents from the War Damages commission](_URL_1_) are available at the National Archives.",
"In Britain insurance did not cover bomb damage. Though Lloyd's had insured against Zeppelin (and other aircraft) attack during the First World War the increase in destructive potential of bombers between the wars led to fears of a \"knock-out blow\", a massive, devastating bombing attack using explosive, incendiary and poison gas bombs to cause such catastrophic damage as to render a country unable to fight. Such fears led to insurance companies excluding war damage from 1937; the government announced, prior to the declaration of hostilities, that it would pay compensation for buildings, furniture and clothing, but due to the pre-war estimates of catastrophic levels of damage and the more pressing requirement to prosecute the war the precise terms of compensation were left for post-war settlement.\n\nThe Blitz, though awful, proved to be less destructive than feared. With no obvious end to the war in sight and people in desperate need for assistance the chancellor first agreed to make advanced payments of compensation to families with an income of less than £400 per year then introduced a War Damages Bill in 1940, a collective scheme of insurance in which all property owners paid a premium to cover compensation. \n\nAround two thirds of people did not own their own homes, so property insurance was not an immediate concern for many rendered homeless, and outright destruction of houses was comparatively rare; in the first six weeks of attacks around 16,000 houses were destroyed, 60,000 seriously damaged but repairable, and 130,000 slightly damaged. Unexploded bombs also forced many houses to be evacuated, with over 3,000 UXBs by the end of November 1940 awaiting disposal. Repair of damaged houses was therefore a priority, with empty houses requisitioned for those who required rehoming. \n\nThere was compensation for possessions, but only \"essentials\" - furniture, clothing, tools that were vital for employment. Luxuries were not covered, though what constituted a luxury for one may have been essential to another - a music teacher's piano, for example - so judgements were made by the Assistance Board who administered compensation schemes. This could be an area of friction as the Board was established in 1934 as the Unemployment Assistance Board and its officers \"had not been trained to develop skill in the treatment of applicants\" with the shift to dealing with bombed-out civilians and \"When they erred in the interpretation of instructions, they usually erred on the side of parsimony.\" (*Problems of Social Policy*, Richard M. Titmuss)\n\nInevitably not all claims were genuine; Joshua Levine's *Secret History of the Blitz* notes the case of Wallace Handy who, in 1940/41, made no less than 19 applications for the £500 lump sum awarded to those who had lost their homes. He was sentenced to three years imprisonment with hard labour, but many smaller scale claims doubtless were made - Levine also quotes Mary Brown who staffed an emergency assistance centre, where they had details of the exact location of bomb damage:\n\"Somebody would say 'I was bombed out last night.' \nI'd say, 'Where did you live, dear?' \nShe'd say wherever it was. \nI'd say, 'Well, that was at least five streets away from where it happened, wasn't it?' \n'Oh, well, I got me windows blown in!' \n'That's not quite the same...'\"\n\nThe [War Damages Bill](_URL_0_) was passed in 1941 and ultimately some 4 million claims were made under the resulting Act, payments totalling more than £1,300 million and continuing [into the 1960s](_URL_1_).\n\n\nFurther reading: \n*Britain's War: Into Battle, 1937-1941*, Daniel Todman \n*The People's War: Britain, 1939-1945*, Angus Calder \n*The Bombing War: Europe 1939-1945*, Richard Overy"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://UntoldHull.org",
"https://discovery.nationalarchives.gov.uk/details/r/C1035",
"UntoldHull.org"
],
[
"https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/acts/war-damage-act-1941",
"https://api.parliament.uk/historic-hansard/commons/1964/feb/12/war-damage-bill#S5CV0689P0_19640212_HOC_299"
]
] |
|
1nxsca
|
eli 5: why does my iphone get slower each time a new iphone or software update comes out?
|
So.... Yeah.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nxsca/eli_5_why_does_my_iphone_get_slower_each_time_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccn1aw8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Because each new update uses more and more power that your phone does not have. They do this A: to advance technology and compete with other companies and B: to make you feel like your phone is slow so you go buy another"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dk3pex
|
How Did the Myth Surrounding the Boston Tea Party Start?
|
I'm American, and most people I know don't realize the Boston Tea Party actually resulted from a decrease in the price of tea. They think it was from an increase the colonists were mad about because now tea costs more.
Was this a result of propaganda to portray the events differently, or did the true story fall out of memory and overtime people just assumed it was an increase to taxes? Or do you think it was something different?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dk3pex/how_did_the_myth_surrounding_the_boston_tea_party/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f4giycz"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"This is a truly interesting question! \n\n**Background:**\n\nFirst, to verify what you said, The Boston Tea Party was a response to a tax being lifted off of tea, not a new tax that was imposed on it. American Colonists had been paying taxes on tea for years before the Boston Tea Party happened. [When the Townsend Acts were put into effect in 1767, it taxed tea and many other imports](_URL_0_). Colonists revolted, and most of the taxes were lifted except for the tax on tea. However, this really didn't matter to most colonists. Why? Because many colonists couldn't afford tea nor did they want to drink it. So for years, tea remained a taxable item and Americans largely accepted it. It simply wasn't worth fighting over it when there were many more pressing issues. Plus, smugglers began working their way around the system by sneaking in tea from foreign ports (which was incredibly illegal), such as Holland (where much of the smuggled tea came from), enabling them to sell their tea without a tax on it. However, all of this would change in 1773.\n\nIn May of 1773, the British Parliament decided to help the British East India Company -- one of the two largest corporations of its day -- with a piece of legislation. It was [known as the Tea Act](_URL_3_) and it was designed to help boost the sales of the financially-struggling East India Company which had massive stores of tea. The Tea Act, as you might have guessed, eliminated tax on the EIC’s tea, and ***only*** the EIC’s tea, enabling them to sell their tea at a lower price than the other competition. It also gave them several other advantages that no other businesses were granted. This infuriated the colonists, to say the least. Robert J. Allison explains some of their fury much better than I can, so check out this excerpt from his book below:\n\n > [*The \"Day is at length arrived,\" a committee of Philadelphia merchants declared when they learned of the Tea Act, \"in which we must determine to live as Freeman--or as Slaves to linger out a miserable existence.\" The Tea Act would make Americans subservient to the \"corrupt and designing Ministry\" and change their \"invaluable Title of American Freemen to that of Slaves.\" Americans must not give Parliament the power to control their lives. The Philadelphians insisted that no tea be landed.*](_URL_4_)\n\nAt first, the rejection of the tax was simple. Ports across America, including those in Boston, Annapolis, Philadelphia and many more, simply refused to unload imported tea. But this created tension between merchants, customers, officials, representatives from the British East India Company, and, of course, the American population themselves. And when these officials started to really push for the unloading of their imported tea, well, the colonists in Boston took matters into their own hands. \n\nThe citizens of Boston had grown tired of the British being in their city and the local gentry were ready to start capitalizing on their frustrations. They organized and decided they would storm the British East India Company ship that was in their harbor and destroy the tea. On December 17th, 1773, they did just that. They dressed up like Native Americans (most likely intended to have a more comedic or satirical effect) and destroyed a massive amount of tea -worth over $3.5 million in today's currency. The effects were echoed throughout the colonies. Soon, cities everywhere would be following through with similar tea parties and infuriating British businessmen and politicians across the ocean. The losses of the tea in Boston also directly led to the British sending more military units to the city when the British government decided they wanted to tighten their grip around Boston.\n\nSome leaders, like John Adams (a Boston Native), immediately wrote in praise of the Tea Party the very next day:\n\n > [*This is the most magnificent Movement of all. There is a Dignity, a Majesty, a Sublimity, in this last Effort of the Patriots, that I greatly admire. The People should never rise, without doing something to be remembered—something notable And striking. This Destruction of the Tea is so bold, so daring, so firm, intrepid and inflexible, and it must have so important Consequences, and so lasting, that I cant but consider it as an Epocha in History.*](_URL_2_)\n\nThe consequences that he spoke of were farther reaching than he probably could have imagined. Newspapers, like the Boston Gazette, favorably reported on the Tea Party and soon, all across America, Tea Parties were repeated in Philadelphia, Charleston, and many other American cities.\n\n**Why it's remembered differently:**\n\nThis is a question that historians have asked for quite some time. The problem, overwhelmingly has to do with the rise of public education in America, especially in the early 1900s. The issues seem to be linked to early school textbooks that were printed in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Strangely, the story seems to have changed in popular memory from 1773 to 1900, where the outrage expressed from a tax being lifted off tea to empower a corporation, simply changed to outrage over taxes. I think there's several reasons this likely happened.\n\nFirst, the actual context of the issue itself is complicated. As you can see from the first part of my answer, the subject isn't easily explained. I also think that it was easier for early authors, who were more concerned over writing history to reflect the morals of the time instead of historical accuracy, found it much easier to describe the tea party as a revolt against taxes than explaining that it was about pushing back against governments favoring corporations. This similar type of misremembering history isn't new in America. [Parson/Mason Weem](_URL_1_)'s biography of George Washington, published just after Washington's death, is an early example of authors changing or simply inventing history to match up with their overall goals of their day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.britannica.com/event/Townshend-Acts",
"https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/parson-weems/",
"http://founders.archives.gov/?q=This%20is%20the%20most%20magnificent%20Movement%20of%20all.&s=1111311111&sa=&r=1&sr=",
"http://ahp.gatech.edu/tea_act_bp_1773.html",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=c2J2CAAAQBAJ&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=invaluable+title+of+American+Freemen+as+Slaves&source=bl&ots=71NR6ugF6a&sig=PRBNW6BNvRR4sZIbO0ZDnmTivKU&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiDl_n5vKTOAhXCeCYKHSqlBlYQ6AEIIDAA#v=onepage&q=invaluable%20title%20of%20American%20Freemen%20as%20Slaves&f=false"
]
] |
|
45yyap
|
standard shift... why does shifting into second gear before first make going into first gear easier?
|
Similarly, reverse can be much easier to engage after shifting into fourth from a standstill.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45yyap/eli5_standard_shift_why_does_shifting_into_second/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d015c7q",
"d015sxv"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It won't if the gearbox isn't worn. \n\nIn the gearbox is a mechanism called the [synchromesh](_URL_0_). This brings the gears you're going to engage together up to the same speed before allowing them to slide together. \n\nThe synchromesh has things called baulk rings which prevent the gears sliding into place if they're not up to speed. \n\nWhen the synchromesh is worn the gears can't readily get up to speed, and the baulk rings won't retract. You can help things along by shifting into another gear first which sets the whole pack of gear spinning, saving the worn synchromesh from having to work so hard.\n\nThe synchro is often the first part of a box to wear out because many drivers lack the mechanical sympathy to wait for the synchro to do its job and jamming the lever into place regardless. \"Beating the synchro\" knackers boxes.",
"What car is this? It's possible 1st gear is unsynchronized as a cost cutting measure. It's pretty rare to shift into 1st while moving, so a cheap car could get away with it. Reverse is almost never synchronized, since you always change into reverse from a stop, and thus the output shaft of your transmission is not spinning.\n\nSynchronized transmissions, have an intermediary gear that makes up the synchromesh. It's purpose is to aid in accelerating the gear you are shifting into, up to the same shaft speed as the output shaft on your transmission. Since it's synchronized, you don't have to double clutch and perfectly rev-match the engine RPMs every time you shift.\n\nYour difficulty in getting reverse into gear, is that it does not have a synchromesh. You are literately sliding toothed gears into each other, and depending on the angular location of the transmission's output shaft gear, the open spots in the gears may not line up. Since 4th gear is synchronized, it can easily slide in, and set up the shaft to be lined up for reverse gear potentially."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manual_transmission#Synchromesh"
],
[]
] |
|
5wotm2
|
why can the potus be caught blatantly lying, red handed, time after time, without any consequences.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5wotm2/eli5_why_can_the_potus_be_caught_blatantly_lying/
|
{
"a_id": [
"debp6z0",
"debp89x",
"debpgxv",
"debpixh",
"debr9ki",
"debs03q",
"debya99"
],
"score": [
2,
16,
10,
12,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Rs have the executive, legislative and soon the supreme court. They can do nearly anything they want for at least 2 years",
"Because (last I checked) **lying isn't a crime**. Well.. lying under oath is, but President Trump is not under oath and the only people who could try him in any case is Congress.\n\n",
"When you hold the people that are covering for him responsible. \n\nThat would be your state's senators and representatives. If they don't hold the president accountable, vote them out of office and elect someone who will.",
"Lying isn't illegal. The only consequences are that people stop trusting him, and won't elect him. \n\nHowever, people who are accustomed to being lied to constantly and eat bullshit for breakfast like religious folks, Fox news viewers, etc. have a shaky view of trust and will apparently elect anyone they are told to.",
"1. There are consequences of his lying, some of them quite severe. However, they are just not criminal/legal.\n\n2. There is no \"moral judge\" that presides over the POTUS. Until he does something illegal such as lying under oath, the only consequence is for the public to reflect upon why they've elected such a person.\n\n3. I know this is cynical and I will get down-voted for this comment but here it goes. Everyone lies, leaders lie, presidents lie. There have been times when lying has had disastrous effects/consequences. WWII is rife with these examples. The current POTUS has greatly damaged relations with multiple groups of people. Whether or not you view this as a severe consequence depends on: A) Whether or not you support his views and B) How resolute are you about A).\n\nI did not vote for Trump and I am not defending him as a person. However, the POTUS is the leader of my country, so I try to challenge our opposing views not because the President deserves it, but our country deserves it even if the President is a dickbag.",
"Congress is about the only branch that can really punish the President in any meaningful way, by either passing legislation to limit his powers, or by impeachment. To pass legislation against him though is going to take 2/3 on Congress to agree because the President will just veto anything that limits his powers. \n\nSimilar for impeachment, it is going to take half of the house of Representatives to vote yes before the Senate will see it. Once the Senate takes it to a vote, it will require 2/3 of the Senators to agree.\n\nBut Congress is controlled by the Republicans, and they aren't going to put any real pressure on Trump until he either negatively effects their political/business/states/personal affairs, or until their constituents put enough pressure on them. \n",
"The Supreme Court has ruled on this and basically said that due to the nature of what constitutes a fact and the burden of proof to prove intent, politicians cannot be held to a scientific standard of \"truth,\" or be punished for things like mistakenly misquoting numbers since studies could disagree or later be proven false \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/amp/amp.usatoday.com/story/9962817/"
]
] |
||
3nrkwc
|
Are there any materials that exist at a Plasma Phase at the same Temp/Pressure that any other material is a Solid?
|
I'm curious how any material can be at a Plasma state at the same temperature and pressure that any another material is at a Solid state.
Are their any good examples where such 2 materials can co-exist in the same environment?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3nrkwc/are_there_any_materials_that_exist_at_a_plasma/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvr4mr2",
"cvradsf"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"There's a field of research called plasmonics. Sounds a little bit like plasma, but it's actually about metals. What do metals have in common with plasmas? A plasma is just a neutral gas of charged particles. A metal consists of some positive ions and of electrons free to move around. So it's quite like a plasma, and it is helpful to treat it as such when the goal is to study optical properties of metals.\n\nMetals are solids that are very plasma-like. I'm sure it's not the answer you're looking for, but maybe you'll find that interesting.",
"There is a technique called [plasma cleaning](_URL_1_) where a plasma and a solid are allowed to interact, and it is very useful for removing impurities from the solid. If you ionize a gas, it takes a bit of time for the ions to recombine. So continuous ionization of a gas can produce a steady state plasma at reasonable temperatures. This is happening inside a [fluorescent bulb or in a neon lamp](_URL_0_) as well, so you have a plasma and the glass wall existing side by side in that case."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_(physics\\)#Common_plasmas",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plasma_cleaning"
]
] |
|
1umhvq
|
Who led the US mobilization of its economy for war during & before World War II?
|
Everytime I read a book on WW2, I keep asking myself how the US was able to convert factories, train workers, garner resources, and build new weapons with such effectiveness and quantity.
Who were these directors of the War Department (?) that were so successful at preparing the US for fighting a war on two fronts?
Perhaps someone could recommend a book on this subject?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1umhvq/who_led_the_us_mobilization_of_its_economy_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cejkzyu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The Roosevelt Administration and Congress created a plethora of bureaus and offices designed to coordinate and liaise with already existing departments and bureaus of the government. The important ones were the Office for Emergency Management, the Office of Economic Stabilization, the Office of Price Administration, and the War Labor Board. The War, Navy, and Treasury Departments also had their own procurement divisions, such as the Army Quartermaster and the Navy Bureau of Ships, which would have been responsible for awarding contracts and delivering the necessary specifications to the contractors. The private sector itself would have responded to the incentive of massive federal war contracts and retooled for war production, though there were grants and loans given out through government programs such as the Reconstruction Finance Corporation, which targeted specific fields in need of development (such as synthetic rubber). The most well known oversight body was the Truman Committee, otherwise known as the Senate Special Committee to Investigate the National Defense Program; it was run by Senator Harry S. Truman (yes, that Harry Truman) in order to prevent war profiteering. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
rrp87
|
What did the Romans know about the Chinese?
|
I got really into the history of the world in 100 objects podcast when it came out. The one take away I had was just how interconnected all these civilizations turn out to be if you look carefully. Which brings me to my question.
What did the Romans know about the Chinese?
I don't necessarily need a literally answer, but I would like to know more about how much contact ancient civilizations had with each other. I'm interested in how much some of these civilizations knew about the rest of the world (including geographically). Obviously the Roman knew the Sassanids controlled a lot of land, but did they realize how large Africa and Asia were?
Obviously, people are generally more interested in the world around them, but it sort of seems as though no one really takes the trouble of exploring the world until the 17th century.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/rrp87/what_did_the_romans_know_about_the_chinese/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c484fsp",
"c484g05",
"c484ixh",
"c484yd4",
"c485ebg",
"c4863o9",
"c4881z3",
"c48824p",
"c48mft4"
],
"score": [
19,
6,
36,
34,
14,
4,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"And conversely, what did the Chinese know about the Romans?",
"just to keep this alive: I would very much like to hear about it too. of course, roman can mean many things if you include the eastern empire.",
"There is this [wikipedia](_URL_0_) article, for what it's worth.",
"Quite a bit, actually. By 0 CE, trade along the Silk Road had blossomed to such an extent that silks were [the most popular luxury item in Rome](_URL_0_).",
"Ancient civilizations had more contact with one another than you'd think. the Romans certainly knew a good bit about the Chinese, and vice versa. While the Chinese knew of the existence of the Romans, they didn't particularly pay them or any other outside culture much attention. They did, however, trade fairly regularly with them, though it was indirectly through trade with the peoples who lived between the two flanking Eurasian powers, that in turn traded with the Romans (Arabs, Slavs, Indians). The Chinese would exchange lacquered goods, fine silks, china (pottery), etc. for Roman goods such as embroidered rugs, glassware, ore, etc. \n\nRomans and other ancient civilizations had some idea as to the size of their own and other continents, certainly not like we have today, but they had explorers, merchants, and traders that brought back hand drawn maps, journals, etc. that contained reports of what they had seen, the geography of the land, and descriptions of the peoples that lived there. ",
"I remember hearing somewhere that they found little copper and gold Buddhas in Pompeii. There wasn't an epic meeting of Emperors, but they knew of the \"great lands\" one way and the other. Problem was this was like trying to trade with the moon, if space was full of dudes trying to make the most of cheese routes.",
"This is a bit off-topic, but you might want to read up on [Greco-Buddhism](_URL_0_), which led to a lot of interesting cultural stuff in both East and West, including quite possibly the anthropomorphic representation of the Buddha (why do you think he's wearing a toga?)",
"Thread from /r/ancientrome: _URL_0_",
"Here's the show that the OP mentioned, currently downloading all the episodes!\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romano-Chinese_relations"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road#Roman_Empire"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greco-Buddhism"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/ancientrome/comments/pctsq/roman_contact_with_china/"
],
[
"http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/ahow/all"
]
] |
|
2upzrq
|
what aol actually does, in 2015?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2upzrq/eli5_what_aol_actually_does_in_2015/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coalzvo",
"coan0p8",
"coano3f",
"coaoi3r",
"coaoity",
"coaop1f",
"coar03z",
"coarlkn",
"coasech",
"coasf9f",
"coavmpe",
"coavmti",
"coavonh",
"coavv58",
"coaw6na",
"coawp03",
"coax9ym",
"coaxe2t",
"coaxfup",
"coay612",
"coayrnc",
"coazplw",
"coaztf7",
"coazx77",
"cob01bf",
"cob1wr3",
"cob4ddp",
"cob8so1"
],
"score": [
43,
54,
9,
21,
22,
1117,
10,
5,
16,
3,
2,
2,
3,
10,
5,
2,
2,
3,
2,
6,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Well, according to [Cnet in 2013](_URL_0_), 3 percent of America (that's roughly 2 million people) still uses Dial-up modem... so I imagine, in 2015, that AOL still manages to be an ISP.",
"And you wouldn't believe the amount of people who still use aol email addresses, so this will get aol some ad revenue ",
"I believe for quite some time they've mostly been investors in tech companies and web sites. They own dozens of companies, some of which may sound familiar..MapQuest, _URL_0_, Huffington Post",
"In addition to the old, dwindling internet access business (which still makes them a bunch of money), AOL owns and runs many different brands: Engadget, Huffington Post, Moviefone, AIM, MapQuest, and TechCrunch to name a few. They also have their own ad network.",
"I heard on the joe rogan experience that AOL still have about 1,000,000 people who still pay for the service by the month",
"They're a lot like Yahoo, they produce web content for people to enjoy. They don't really DO much of anything under their own name anymore (other than maintain a disappearing, antique dial-up system that I can't imagine is making them much money anymore) but they own a lot of websites you probably use. Engadget, TUAW (RIP dudes), etc... \n\nJust like Yahoo owns Flickr, for example. Or Google owns pretty much everything else. It's all the same basic business model, start with the search site, and purchase/design supporting products to go along with it. \n\nThe reason you didn't know that is because AOL continues to do everything both badly AND much later than everyone else. They were years late to the web content game because they...I really don't know what they thought was going to happen. I guess someone was banking that broadband internet would just be a fad. So they kept AOL the service provider going, like some kind of horribly slow, buggy ISP version of Weekend at Bernies. Finally, years later, they snapped out of it and went \"Wait, what? Where is everyone?\" and got with the program.\n\nThey only run 1.3% of all web searches, and they've tried to make inferior versions of pretty much every other web service out there. Well, I say they try to \"make\" crappier versions of things, whereas what they really did was WILDLY succeed at BUYING crappier versions of things everyone else had perfected years ago. \n\nRemember the smash-hit social media website Bebo? Of course you don't, no one outside of Ireland (where they briefly actually did pretty good) does. That didn't stop AOL from buying them for 850 million in 2008, only to sheepishly sell it to a hedge fund operator in 2010 for a whopping 10 million dollars. That doesn't include the cost of flying in the world's greatest sad-trombone-sound-making-guy to really call attention to how idiotic that move was. For those of you playing at home, that is a *staggering* ROI of -98.8%. It directly cost the CEO at the time his job, apparently.\n\nLest you think the hedge fund managers scored some kind of killer deal, Bebo then went bankrupt in 2013. I know, I know, how the heck could that have happened, right?! Nothing makes sense for me anymore either, after I learned that. Calculating the overall ROI various Bebo owners have combined for now breaks math as we know it, so later in 2013 someone picked up Bebo's former shell of itself for a song and dance. Who was this? THE FOUNDERS OF THE SITE WHO SOLD IT FOR 850 MILLION TO AOL FIVE YEARS PRIOR. They just restarted it in 2015 and with AOL's luck it will cure cancer.\n\nSo currently, in 2015, AOL spends its days handling a tiny percentage of the world's search traffic, paying some guy named Rusty 10 bucks an hour to watch over the cobweb infested shack that houses AOL's dial up network, and watching \"You've Got Mail\" while it cries cheap tears and drinks Popov, thinking of the good old days.\n\n**edit**: re-reading this just now, I feel like I may have momentarily veered off on a slight tangent. I'm not re-writing it because I used to work for AOL and OH MY GOD they are the just the worst, you have no idea. Hopefully it still answers your question. \n\n**edit 2**: Whoever gilded this post, seriously, that was really really nice of you and it's really appreciated. \n\nI also wanted to make this link a little more visible than it would be if I put it in the comments:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI see a LOT of people mentioning friends or relatives are keeping AOL service just for the e-mail address. AOL never did a good job at advertising it (go figure!) but there is definitely an easy, straightforward way to cancel the service and keep your @aol.com e-mail. You can even get the E-mail back if you cancelled the service previously but miss having the old address! (Click the section that says \"How do I reactivate a cancelled AOL Account? (web users)\"). Don't worry, you can reactivate it as a free account, you won't have to pay!\n\nDon't get me wrong, some people just want to stick with AOL, and more power to them. But if you know anyone stuck paying money just to keep an e-mail address they love, set them free!",
"They stay in business producing online content for a little add profit in order to still have the structure to collect auto fees. 80% AOL's funding comes from its dialup business. According to consumer reports 75% of that is due to people whom have forgotten they have AOL. They neglected to cancel so they are still automatically deducting from their bank account or credit cards each month. \n\nSo what does AOL do? exploit peoples sloth and forgetfulness in regards to their personal finances.\n",
"Surprisingly enough they still offer dial up service and have 2.3 million dial up customers. In some rural places your only internet options are dial up or satellite internet. Satellite internet can be expensive and there is also a big ping time involved so it doesn't work very well for things like gaming. And if you live in a mountainous area a mountain could block your signal to the satallite. _URL_0_",
"They provide me easily accessible dirty chat rooms to talk about all kinds of disgusting fantasies. AOL4Lyfe. ",
"AOL also owns a number of patents still, not sure if Microsoft leased or purchased them. But there was a deal about two years ago where Microsoft bought a bunch of rights off of AOL.",
"They're still trying to get my dial-up connection from 2001 to work",
"I worked for them up until earlier last year - I spent quite a bit of time watching the sad slow downward spiral of one of the first Internet Greats.\n\nThey still have a bunch of web properties and are desperately trying to leverage their sites and anyone else they can get to use their ad-delivery service. Other than that, as said elsewhere they still have a few million dial-up subscribers. 10 years ago it cost maybe 50 times as much to keep a single subscriber online, today; with all the gear completely owned and the bandwidth of a single dial-up subscriber being a negligible cost they can run dial up for pennies on the dollar of what it cost in 2005. For example in 2005 there were probably 75 people in operations running the AOL client, today there's literally one person.\n\nWhen I started there was around 28,000 employees - after all the layoffs and RIFs there were maybe 4k when I left (I'm frankly surprised I lasted as long as I did)\n\n",
"My company provides modem services for them. They are still alive. It is funny to go to meetings and talk about Managed Modem service in 2015. Weird. ",
"Mostly, in 2015, they fire talented writing staff. ",
"My parents still use that. They think that's where the internet is. Ive... I've tried",
"I have friend that still has a aol email she said that she never changed it because she doe not want to have to keep track of different emails ",
"Provide an email service to people like my Mom that just never moved on. Whenever I'm at my parents house I'll hear the \"You've got mail\" announcement. And like the top commenter said they've also made some shitty investments. ",
"I started laughing my ass off the other day my mom came to me saying she needed to cut some costs. So she tells me she is switching to gmail because she is tired of paying for AOL, I was confused \"you pay for aol?\" I guess she has been paying 40 dollars a month for AOL's crappy browser and email service for 8 years.",
"I still use AOL email. They gave me a good username.. To far in to switch now. ",
"E-mail for old people.\n\nSource: Work a call center. Every time I see an AOL e-mail on somebody's account, I mentally go *fuuuuuuuuuuu...* because I know they are very, very, very non-tech savvy, can't see or hear for shit, and YET they refuse to use their glasses or a hearing aide.",
"I helped a coworker put together a custom PC. While I was installing windows, I was on my laptop downloading software to install later. I had my coworker make a list of all the software they needed. AOL was on that list. I asked him about it thinking maybe he just uses the AIM messenger. Nope. Wife will only use AOL. They have a broadband connection, but the only way she understands the internet is through AOL. I was amazed.",
"I don't know but judging from my parents pc it has something to do with managing multiple tool bars.",
"You'd be surprised at the number of people that just haven't canceled their accounts. One of the folks in my office has been paying 20 bucks a month since 1997. Just canceled in November.",
"I worked near their former HQ in Sterling Virginia. Place is absolutely dead. MAYBE 20% staffing anymore. \n\nLooks sad compared to the equally large Raytheon campus across the street.",
"They sell ads on their home page. My friend's work buys these ads sometimes and they're something like 70k for one slot in the carousel on their front page for a day.",
"While they still do provide dialup and broadband internet services, Aol rebranded themselves many years ago as an online media company. They spent the last several years buying up various websites (like Huffington Post, Engadget, TechCrunch, Moviefone, MapQuest). Most of their revenue comes from advertising sold on those sites.",
"They've no longer produce free CDs, instead they make beer coasters.",
"Here's my two cents: Stop thinking web portal, start thinking (potential) programmatic player.\n\nAOL has been quietly selling off its non-profitable products for months, and their traditional ad sales team is the latest to go. By releasing its underperforming or obsolete assets (e.g. non-profitable websites), the company is ostensibly freeing up funds to focus on improving its ad tech platform. Users may flock to AOL's premium content sites such as Engadget and Huffington Post, but the company has struggled to monetize those platforms amidst the avalanche of online content from competitors. Developing an ad tech platform to leverage both its demand-side and supply-side platforms could carve out a much-needed competitive edge.\n\nThis view is shared by more than a few analysts, and is echoed by statements from such organizations as Starboard Value LLP, which penned a letter to Yahoo shareholders calling for a merger with AOL. More recent M & A rumors have also included Verizon, citing the fact that gaining access to AOL's ad platform and extensive library of online and video content could be Verizon's greatest opportunity to compete against AT & T, which acquired DirecTV for $48.5 billion in 2014.\n\nIf AOL can expand upon its ad tech offerings, it could be in a good place to capture a solid chunk of the predicted increase in programmatic ad spending. According to TechCrunch, one of AOL's most highly-trafficked sites, 73% of the company's Q3 revenues (about $454.5 million) came from advertising. In terms of pure profit, however, the primary driver remained subscriptions, not advertising. AOL is now making major moves to change this paradigm. To sum it up, take a look at a recent quote from AOL CEO Tim Armstrong: \n\n\"As we look out to 2015, our strategy and decisions will be driven by the following organizing principles...Number one, we’ll focus our capital allocation resource management and management time against scaled assets and platforms. Two, we will organize our asset portfolio around scaled value and scaled growth assets. Three, we’ll simplify everything that can be simplified.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.cnet.com/news/3-percent-of-american-adults-still-cling-to-dial-up-internet/"
],
[],
[
"About.me"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://help.aol.com/help/microsites/search.do?cmd=displayKC&externalId=11605"
],
[],
[
"http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2014/08/07/aol-still-makes-most-of-its-money-off-millions-of-dial-up-subscribers/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ym71s
|
why are there security levels higher than the one the president of the usa has?
|
There are 21 security clearances above the one the President of the USA has. Why is this, considering he's the most powerful man in the world? Also, who may obtain the higher levels and what kind of jobs do they have?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ym71s/eli5_why_are_there_security_levels_higher_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cflqxs3"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Well... Number one, don't believe everything you read or hear. Most likely, this is not entirely accurate information. 21 levels above the President? That seems highly unlikely. So many levels? What would you need that for? Think about it from a practical standpoint. And misinformation is a cornerstone of governmental secrecy.\n\nOn the other hand, it is very likely that many government officials know a lot of very high-security things that the President does not know. The President of the US is a high-profile target. You would not WANT him to know certain things. HE would not want to know certain things. They can't be extracted from him if he does not know them. And he only gets 4 or 8 years, and then he just goes home, and he knows all that stuff? Some things they can't just change when a new President is elected and sworn in.\n\nMost likely, there is quite a bit of Compartmentalized information in the US government. That is to say, there is a lot of seriously top-level information, and no one knows all of it, and they don't want to. Terrorist organization understands this concept, that's why they have \"cells\". How much more so the most powerful nations in the world would want their governments to be compartmented.\n\nAs far as who MIGHT know the most top-level information, probably somebody who nobody has ever heard of. Not some men-in-black guy living in a bunker somewhere, but some seemingly ordinary and mundane guy. Maybe a military officer? Maybe a CIA employee? Maybe a White House staffer? Somebody with years of experience and a mid to high level rank/authority?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
nc8lm
|
When speaking why do we sometimes jumble the words of a sentence?
|
For example; this morning I said "That was the pregnant she got weekend."
I understand that language in itself is a complicated subject but are there any leading theories that cover this?
As a side note I remember reading Pinker having an example of never forgetting 'words' when thinking to ourself as proof that we don't think with language. As the above phenomenon only happens in speech it suggests the same.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nc8lm/when_speaking_why_do_we_sometimes_jumble_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c37y8xy",
"c37y8xy"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"This is called metathesis if you want to just like google search and find shit.\n\nBut basically there are a lot of theories about how exactly sentences get made, but there's a general pattern of - > vague nebulous meaning area - > get words that have those meanings - > make those words into an english sentence - > send english sentence to articulators. So basically most speech errors actually occur on the level between word retrieval and grammaticalization (I just made that word up don't search for it). Your muscles are doing what they're supposed to be doing, it's just that their orders are shitty and dumb. So your brain has retrieved all the English words it needs to communicate this sentence, but when it goes to set it up grammatically it's statistically prone to making an error every now and then. One of these errors is just switching two words of similar nature, like notice that you almost never say \"That was the she pregnant got weekend.\"\n\nSo it's like after your brain retrieves all the words it doesn't have all the data attached to those words about what it retrieved those ones. So it's possible to switch up two nouns in this sentence, because your brain only has so much information really quite there and it just obeys this as it constructs the sentence. Usually this doesn't happen because your brain is pretty well made, but it's not impossible for the brain to lose all of the semantic value of a word for a second and only have some vague categorization, and which point it takes a stab at word order and goes for it. So your grammaticalization center fucked up something fierce and sent it to your poor motor cortex to tell the mouth to say it.\n\nI don't know how interested you are but there are a lot of interesting things about speech errors that show how our brains process languages. For instance, if I switch the words \"The dogs ate the shit\" to \"The shits ate the dog,\" I change the \"s\" sound from actually a z sound in dogs to the s sound in shit. This is because that's a rule in English and we construct plurality at a certain point blah blah blah. But you can read about this if you look up stuff like \"neurolinguistics sentence production\" or \"slip of the tongue\" or \"speech error\" and so on.",
"This is called metathesis if you want to just like google search and find shit.\n\nBut basically there are a lot of theories about how exactly sentences get made, but there's a general pattern of - > vague nebulous meaning area - > get words that have those meanings - > make those words into an english sentence - > send english sentence to articulators. So basically most speech errors actually occur on the level between word retrieval and grammaticalization (I just made that word up don't search for it). Your muscles are doing what they're supposed to be doing, it's just that their orders are shitty and dumb. So your brain has retrieved all the English words it needs to communicate this sentence, but when it goes to set it up grammatically it's statistically prone to making an error every now and then. One of these errors is just switching two words of similar nature, like notice that you almost never say \"That was the she pregnant got weekend.\"\n\nSo it's like after your brain retrieves all the words it doesn't have all the data attached to those words about what it retrieved those ones. So it's possible to switch up two nouns in this sentence, because your brain only has so much information really quite there and it just obeys this as it constructs the sentence. Usually this doesn't happen because your brain is pretty well made, but it's not impossible for the brain to lose all of the semantic value of a word for a second and only have some vague categorization, and which point it takes a stab at word order and goes for it. So your grammaticalization center fucked up something fierce and sent it to your poor motor cortex to tell the mouth to say it.\n\nI don't know how interested you are but there are a lot of interesting things about speech errors that show how our brains process languages. For instance, if I switch the words \"The dogs ate the shit\" to \"The shits ate the dog,\" I change the \"s\" sound from actually a z sound in dogs to the s sound in shit. This is because that's a rule in English and we construct plurality at a certain point blah blah blah. But you can read about this if you look up stuff like \"neurolinguistics sentence production\" or \"slip of the tongue\" or \"speech error\" and so on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
aan5dm
|
What about rabies makes it to where a blood test cannot determine if an animal or person is infected?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/aan5dm/what_about_rabies_makes_it_to_where_a_blood_test/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecuxodd"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"The rabies virus does not circulate in the blood. It takes hold in muscle tissue, and from there goes to the nerves, and starts working along the nerve tissues. No detectable amount breaks loose to float around in the bloodstream. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6k90e2
|
Why does sand on a surface create patterns when subjected to sound waves?
|
I've seen plenty of amazing videos showing the strange effects of sound on both small particles and liquids. I got curious and I guess I have two questions:
1. HOW does different sounds frequencies create these seemingly structured patterns with sand?
2. Will the pattern be the same if the sand is scrambled and subjected to the same frequency again?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6k90e2/why_does_sand_on_a_surface_create_patterns_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djk7rso"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"1. For these patterns to emerge, the sound has to be confined. What you're seeing are standing waves. \n\nThe sound wave emerges from a speaker, travels through a material, encounters a boundary and is bounced back into the material (an echo). When it goes back, it encounters itself so to speak. Then an effect called interference happens. This gif explains it: _URL_0_\n\nRemember, waves are travelling displacements of the molecules in the material. The horizontal axis in that graph is the location in the material (in one dimension for clarity). The vertical axis is the displacement that the molecules undergo (usually up and down, but their location on the material doesn't change a lot) when the wave passes by.\n\nThe first wave is the original sound wave originating from the speakers. The second wave is the same wave after it bounced back on the edge of the material. Since the sound is continuous the first wave is still present when the second wave comes along. Molecules can't be in two locations at the same time, so instead the actual displacement is the sum of the two waves. This is visualised in the third wave. As you can see, this wave is not moving, it is standing still: a standing wave. It is going up and down (amplitude change) but not moving in space. Some points on this wave don't move at all (like the first bold dot). Others move a lot (the second bold dot), but they only move up and down. This is in only one dimension, but the principle is the same in two and three dimensions, only slightly more complicated patterns arise.\n\nSo when sand sits on that material, the grains that are on locations that move heavily will be pushed away to locations without any movement as they are \"left alone\". The results are interesting patterns.\n\n2\\. Yes, as long as the material it is bouncing on doesn't change. Or the frequency of the sound wave."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/superposition/standing.gif"
]
] |
|
1o9z74
|
Were there successful labor strikes among miners?
|
I ran across an interesting letter written by a mining engineer to his wife: "July 20, 1880. The new superintendent of H. S. Mg. Co. [Horn Silver Mining Company, Frisco, Utah] A Mr. Hill made an attempt to cut down the miners wages, resulting in a strike yesterday. The men last evening went in force and compelled them to stop the smelters and declared that no other work should go on and Mr. Hill backed down and sent word for them to go to work at the old wages. The miners are getting slightly higher wages than in some other places $3.50 per day, but it ruins the health of every man that works in this mine" (qtd. in Colleen Whitley, ed. *From the Ground Up: The History of Mining in Utah* (Logan: Utah State University Press, 2006):369.
The Horn Silver mine was isolated and I think it would have been difficult, but not impossible, to replace miners quickly. Did these particular miners have that much of an advantage by their isolation to have better wages than "other places" and to keep them so easily by threatening a strike? (Maybe the new superintendent was a pushover and caved at the first sign of trouble?)
Most labor dispute narratives seem to describe long, protracted strikes that involved scabs and violence and ultimately the miners losing. I'd like to know if this was an unusual situation or are there other instances of labor "winning" against management like this?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o9z74/were_there_successful_labor_strikes_among_miners/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccqdrxb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Comstock Mining District in Nevada had what appears to be the [first miners union](_URL_0_) west of the Mississippi (1863). The first attempt was broken by the territorial governor, but with statehood in 1864, the miners unionized again, and controlled the apparatus of state government. This ensured that miners only had to imply they might strike, and management had to accede to demands, which included a minimum of $4 per day for underground work, 8 hour shifts, and extensive concessions when it came to safety."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.onlinenevada.org/articles/miners-unions-comstock-case-study"
]
] |
|
jiwfu
|
Since Alan Turing's time, how much closer are we to making machines "think"?
|
> "I propose to consider the question, 'Can machines think?'" Since "thinking" is difficult to define, Turing chooses to "replace the question by another, which is closely related to it and is expressed in relatively unambiguous words." Turing's new question is: "Are there imaginable digital computers which would do well in the imitation game?"
[source](_URL_0_)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jiwfu/since_alan_turings_time_how_much_closer_are_we_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2chvj2",
"c2ckv9l",
"c2chvj2",
"c2ckv9l"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Not very, by that definition. We've made lots of progress in artificial intelligence, but to my knowledge no computer has ever successfully passed a Turing test.",
"What an excellent question! Scholars regularly like to check in and ask how things are going with the AI project, so it's always great to answer this question. The cynical answer is that AI is just thirty years away, and that this is the same answer that was given in Turing's time :) However, the real answer is much deeper and more interesting, so we'll go into it.\n\nLet's stick to Alan Turing's question's version of the question, first. \n\nThere's an annual competition to try and pass Turing's Test, known as the Loebner prize. There are winners every year, although to my knowledge none quite impressive enough to take home the gold medal. Some are quite convincing, including those based extensively on human input, such as Rollo Carpenter's [cleverbot](_URL_0_)\n\nProgress in this area is improving rapidly due to the wealth of massive data we have available on the web. You can compare recent contenders to early chat programs like Eliza -- the difference is staggering. At times it's easy to chat with an automated agent online and be fooled into believing that you're talking with a real human being, so in this sense, we've written programs that can imitate human nature quite well in certain scenarios.\n\nNow, these machines attempt to do well in the imitation game, but nobody argues that they are really consciously thinking in the same way people do. Truly conscious machines are a different beast: we know that humans brains think, but we don't know much about how to make artificial brains that think. Some philosophers of mind have argued that creating software programs that think (so-called Strong AI) is either a fundamentally contradictory notion (Searle) or extraordinarily unlikely (Dreyfus). However, software programs demonstrate considerably more intelligence today than they did in Turing's age. After all, we can take a look at systems like IBM's Watson for a good example of perceived excellence in intelligence, or in Thrun and Google's driverless cars. In certain constrained settings, these programs can be said to outperform humans, and thus in a very constrained sense are 'outthinking' humans -- though there's no reason at all to think this entails consciousness or can even lead to consciousness.\n\nThere are promising approaches to simulate whole brains or significant components of them, but to my knowledge these are all in their infancy; however, I have not followed the literature on brain simulation approaches to AI in a few years.\n\nOn the purely biological front, there have been interesting results with neurons in a dish controlling various software programs (see Steve Potter's work at GATech). In my opinion, these results are more likely to create entities that really think than software approaches; however, software approaches are going to win the imitation game much sooner than we'll see artificially-constructed biological thinking machines.",
"Not very, by that definition. We've made lots of progress in artificial intelligence, but to my knowledge no computer has ever successfully passed a Turing test.",
"What an excellent question! Scholars regularly like to check in and ask how things are going with the AI project, so it's always great to answer this question. The cynical answer is that AI is just thirty years away, and that this is the same answer that was given in Turing's time :) However, the real answer is much deeper and more interesting, so we'll go into it.\n\nLet's stick to Alan Turing's question's version of the question, first. \n\nThere's an annual competition to try and pass Turing's Test, known as the Loebner prize. There are winners every year, although to my knowledge none quite impressive enough to take home the gold medal. Some are quite convincing, including those based extensively on human input, such as Rollo Carpenter's [cleverbot](_URL_0_)\n\nProgress in this area is improving rapidly due to the wealth of massive data we have available on the web. You can compare recent contenders to early chat programs like Eliza -- the difference is staggering. At times it's easy to chat with an automated agent online and be fooled into believing that you're talking with a real human being, so in this sense, we've written programs that can imitate human nature quite well in certain scenarios.\n\nNow, these machines attempt to do well in the imitation game, but nobody argues that they are really consciously thinking in the same way people do. Truly conscious machines are a different beast: we know that humans brains think, but we don't know much about how to make artificial brains that think. Some philosophers of mind have argued that creating software programs that think (so-called Strong AI) is either a fundamentally contradictory notion (Searle) or extraordinarily unlikely (Dreyfus). However, software programs demonstrate considerably more intelligence today than they did in Turing's age. After all, we can take a look at systems like IBM's Watson for a good example of perceived excellence in intelligence, or in Thrun and Google's driverless cars. In certain constrained settings, these programs can be said to outperform humans, and thus in a very constrained sense are 'outthinking' humans -- though there's no reason at all to think this entails consciousness or can even lead to consciousness.\n\nThere are promising approaches to simulate whole brains or significant components of them, but to my knowledge these are all in their infancy; however, I have not followed the literature on brain simulation approaches to AI in a few years.\n\nOn the purely biological front, there have been interesting results with neurons in a dish controlling various software programs (see Steve Potter's work at GATech). In my opinion, these results are more likely to create entities that really think than software approaches; however, software approaches are going to win the imitation game much sooner than we'll see artificially-constructed biological thinking machines."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turing_test"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://cleverbot.com"
],
[],
[
"http://cleverbot.com"
]
] |
|
91x3ej
|
Why did so many people move to Rhodesia after UDI and during the war?
|
I know that a lot of them didn't stay for longer than 2-3 years, but still, immigrants kept coming all the way until the late years of the war. White Rhodesian men were subject to a hard conscription in the middle of a war, both of which didn't exist back in England. Furthermore, reservist call-ups were very frequent, and man could expect to spend some time in the bush at least one tour a year. Did they really trade a peaceful civilian carefree life in England for a one of constant call-ups, possible danger to you and your family in what is essentially a low-level war, all for some better weather and bit better living standard? I'm talking about ordinary people and families, not male volunteers who came with a specific purpose to fight.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/91x3ej/why_did_so_many_people_move_to_rhodesia_after_udi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3235sr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are a number of assumptions to address in the question, so there are a variety of points to make in an answer.\n\nFriction with Britain and the breakup of the Federation of Rhodesia and Nyasaland was in the early 1960s. The Unilateral Declaration of Independence was 1965, but the bush war didn't started to heat up until winter 1972, and military callups really got strong in 1976. I see them as different periods, and looking at the numbers, apparently so did the immigrants.\n\nI wouldn't say that it could be called \"so many people\" without qualification. In the late 1950s, the average migration was some 14K per year, but in the early 1960s, it averaged 8K per year. The largest number of immigrants after UDI in 1965 was a sharp spike to about 15K in 1971. True, all these numbers were large in proportion to the white population, which was in the 200K range (finding housing and services for immigrants was a government concern), but of course not that large in absolute numbers. In 1973-4, it was down to 9Kish; there was a spike in 1975 to 12K, due to the collapse of the Portuguese empire; it trailed off down from 8K in 1976 to 3K in 1979.\n\nAs for who was coming, it wasn't just England. Yes, post-World War 2, there was a boom in British immigration, but it was a small majority of immigrants, and after that, South Africa's share increased and the UK's share decreased. Rhodesia relaxed or abandoned restrictions on immigration from the 1960s. More southern Europeans came in, and some Portuguese entered in 1975-6 with the collapse of their colonial rule (the final spike). Immigration and emigration details were to some extent secret, and to some extent records weren't kept, so I don't have great data for details. As for their attitudes, later in the 1970s, there were more criminals (after UDI and sanctions, there weren't Rhodesian immigration offices abroad to vet immigrants) and white nationalists (local chapters of the John Birch Society and the American Nazi Party starting in 1977).\n\nWhy immigrate to Rhodesia? The economy was a big factor. This was an advertisement in a Dublin newspaper (later 1960s, I'm guessing from context):\n\n > the weather ... If you want a spacious home, good wages, reasonable taxation, first-class school, expert medical attention, help for the missus in the house [meaning cheap black domestic servants] and a bright sunny future for all. If you want assisted passages for yourself and your family if you qualify, and a two year special concession, where a family with two children can earn up to £1748 (£200 Sterling) tax-free, ...\n\nA *Newsweek* (U.S. magazine) ad in 1970 more focused on the economy. It wasn't a \"bit better\" living standard. In 1970, a sixth of all whites had a swimming pool. In 1952, Rhodesian whites had car ownership rates not seen in the U. S. until 1977.\n\nRhodesia was not the Hotel California -- you could get out without much trouble, even late when there could be issues with call-ups or financial penalties. Rhodesia had always had a significant percentage of immigration (I'm not sure non-whites were allowed in) and emigration, and people staying for only a few years -- from 1955 through 1979, immigration and emigration each averaged roughly 4% *per year*; over that period, there were more total immigrants and more total emigrants than the maximum population! Ian Smith was the only prime minister of Rhodesia (or Southern Rhodesia, as it was called before UDI) to be actually born in Rhodesia [1]. In 1971, about 1/4 of all whites in Rhodesia hadn't bothered to become citizens. Brownell writes, \n\n > The 1969 census revealed that three-quarters of Rhodesia’s white population over the age of 16 were born outside Rhodesia, of whom 59 per cent were born in either South Africa or Britain.... Of 1,460 people surveyed in the Rhodesian diaspora in the 1990s, only 36 per cent were born in Rhodesia, 39 per cent went to Rhodesia for jobs, and 22 per cent went as children.... In 1969, only 40 per cent of Rhodesians were born inside of Rhodesia. Among adults it was only 25.5 per cent.... In 1975, 45 per cent of the white population had been in Rhodesia for under ten years\n\nThe military callups: as I mentioned, the bush war was really starting in 1973, and ramped up in 1976. But in 1973 the callup was just 3,000, and half of them evaded it. In 1978, the Army said it needed at least 1K, but only 570 reported.\n\nAnd until 1976, immigrants were exempt from conscription for 5 years. In that year, it was reduced to 2 years.\n\nSummary: it was the economy, mostly. There was a long-standing culture of nipping in for a few years to make some money in a sunny land and then heading off somewhere else.\n\nMy major source is Josiah Brownell, *The Collapse of Rhodesia: Population Demographics and the Politics of Race*, I. B. Tauris, 2011. I've seen a review criticizing his conclusions, and his lack of opinions from Rhodesians and Zimbabweans, so I aimed to use mostly his primary quotations and figures. Barry M. Schutz, \"European Population Patterns, Cultural Persistence, and Political Change in Rhodesia\", *Canadian Journal of African Studies*, Vol. 7, No. 1 (1973), _URL_0_, gave me some data for previous years.\n\n[1] Using modern country names for the 8 prime ministers in order: South Africa, Botswana, UK, UK, New Zealand, British Embassy in Berlin, UK, Zimbabwe (Ian Smith).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/483748"
]
] |
|
1pudqa
|
how do celebrities manage social media accounts with millions of followers?
|
I am aware that not all celebrities actually manage the official accounts that are titled after them, but unless I am mistaken, some of them actually do own the accounts and post to them daily.
For example, Snoop Dogg(Lion) has 2,300,000 followers on Instagram. He frequently posts pictures of him with friends, selfies, and personal things. The descriptions for the photos are written in what seems like Snoop's type of writing, filled with slang and not always correct grammar. So how does he manage when up to 90,000 people 'like' one of his photos? Does he actually get a notification for each one? I've got an account with less than 200 followers and if 20 people 'like' a photo I get a notification for each one.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pudqa/eli5_how_do_celebrities_manage_social_media/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd64xoc"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"You can turn notifications off. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2h07at
|
why does mega download your file into your local cache and then save it, as opposed to downloading through your browser's download manager?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h07at/eli5_why_does_mega_download_your_file_into_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cko6g9t"
],
"score": [
85
],
"text": [
"It is *probably* because the file stays encrypted on the server. Mega downloads the file onto your computer and at the same time it is decrypting the file so when it is done downloading/decrypting, You can tell the browser where you want it saved. Then the browser simply moves the file.\n\nIf you simply download the file from the server as is with your browser, you would probably have an encrypted file and would otherwise have to decrypt it with the key that goes along with the url of said file.\n\n\nEdit: The file on the server is always encrypted. It is always encrypted/decrypted on the client browser before it is uploaded/downloaded to and from the server. The server never has decrypted files."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
d8kdr0
|
How absolute was the reign of kings during the Middle Ages?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d8kdr0/how_absolute_was_the_reign_of_kings_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1bmt64"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Hello !\n\nI'll try to answer the question, even though it's a very broad one. As a French who studied medieval French politics and warfare, I'll be mainly focused on France.\n\nShort answer is : it depends. It depends on both time and place. The power of the French kings was not the same as the English king, nor of the Holy Roman Emperor. It evolved a lot through time, too. The period called Middle Ages covers more or less a thousand years, and things changed quite a bit.\n\nNevertheless, their power was, in general, far less absolute that it came to be in the XVII-XVIIIth centuries, with the rise of Absolute Monarchy. I'll give a few exemples.\n\nFirst one, and quite a significant one, is about taxes. In France, kings basically relied on two sources of taxes : ordinary and exceptional taxes. Ordinary taxes were \"all the time active\" taxes, enforced by customs, ancient laws, privileges or deals. They generally took the form of indirect taxes that could be compared to our modern VAT, for instance. \n\nExtraordinary taxes were special taxes which were to be collected by the king in times of need. Those needed consent from the local population. It was nearly impossible for the king to ask for such contribution against the will of the \"people\". Those taxes were generally adopted by representative of local elites and bourgeoisie, but seldom for free. The demanded local privileges or the re-validation of old rights. The most common demand was that the taxes were to be collected by the representatives in the name of the king, the representatives being responsible for division and effective collect, the money then being delivered to the king, sometimes months or even years later.\n\nThis shows that even for such important and central things as taxes, French kings did not wield absolute power.\n\nSecond thing is military service. Noblemen were, theoretically and practically bound to military service to their liege. The king, in particular, could summon is Ost, his feodal army of lords, to assist him in his wars. \n\nHowever, things were not that simple. First of all, nobles did not always heed the call and answered. If you take the exemple of the English campaign in France of 1415, which ended with the battle of Agincourt and the siege of Calais, the French king, Charles VI, summoned is nobles many times, which is a sign of inefficacy (if you need to call them twice, that's because they didn't show up the first time). It took months for them to gather and answer the call, some coming with only few knights, or very late. \n\nThey were to be paid, moreover, if the time of service exceeded 40 days a year (I'm talking about the period of 1350-1450, that I know best. Rules evolved and so did indemnification of knights summoned to the king's host). Past that time, they were paid for their service, according to their dignity (squire, knight, banner lord) and the amount of fighters they brought with them. \n\nThis shows too that the kings couldn't, in reality, muster their Ost for a large amount of time, nor quickly. Furthermore, the influence of great lords was important. If you look at the battle of Agincourt you will see that many Burgundian knights were missing (even though a great deal fought - and died -). The reason is linked to the great rivalry between the Duke of Burgundy and the king's most prominent ministers at the time (France was on the verge of open civil war). The Duke himself was asked not to come in person and therefore forbade his knights to answer the call to arms. Some still went to the ost, but many didn't and that leads to my third point.\n\nThird point, then : the influence of prominent lords. The biggest (most powerful, rich and influential) nobles had a great amout of political power in medieval France. Some of them were part of the king's Private Council. They also had their say in the collection of extraordinary taxes within their lands (which constituted the biggest part of the realm until late XVth century). At times, and especially in the earlier period, they could be a match, or even superior, to the might and power of the king.\n\nFor instance, Duke William of Normandy, remembered for his conquest of England (1066), first fought against his king and liege, king of France (1052 - 1054 primarily). The king Louis VI (the Fat) is mainly remembered for his numerous wars against his vassals to increase the royal autority.\n\nThe greatest nobles also had some extraordinary power, such as the right of justice on their lands, were they were the main source of justice and judgement, even though the kings tried to limit this with time.\n\nAll this taken into account, it is necessary to talk a bit about the evolution of the situation. It is generally considered that Medieval France experimented an ongoing centralization and increase of power of the kings. They strengthened the administration, increased its number. This was a very long and progressive process, that had to face the opposition of lords and population alike.\n\nThe great turning point, however, was the Hundred Years War. Before it started, Philipp VI (le Bel, the Fair), seriously reinforced the power of the royal administration (which is one of the elements that increased the tensions with the English, the king of England, duke of Normandy, was therefore a vassal to the king of France, a situation made difficult with the increase of royal power and control over his subjects).\n\nAfter him, the French kings, confronted with repeted wars, devastation and challenge of their authority, managed to increase their grip over the vassals. Things were allowed due to necessity of war : exceptional taxes were more easily conceded, the idea of a permanent, professional army was accepted, the local autonomy of great nobles was reduced (many of them being relatives, sons, brothers or uncles of the king himself). \n\nThe defeat of Burgundy, last great feodal challenge to the authority of the French king, was a signal for strengthened royal power and administration. Charles the Bold, duke of Burgundy, was unable to preserve the status of quasi-independence his father, Philipp the Good, was able to establish, leading to the reintegration of Burgundy into the king's privy domain. \n\nIt would be bold to assume that late medieval (Charles the Bold died in 1477) kings of France had absolute powers. Their power was certainly stronger and more easily enforced than their predecessors, yet they were very far from total control. Their incapacity to avoid or overcome swiftly the great religious turmoils of XVIth - XVIIth centuries shows that even despite their efforts, they could not enforce their religion and their will easily over the whole kingdom of France. You'll have to wait until Louis XIV, whose personal reign was 1661 - 1715, to see a real \"absolute monarch\".\n\nI hope this answer your question, feel free to ask for follow up question or details, I'll try to keep an eye on this subject."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
30swua
|
why is the uk parliament being dissolved ahead of the general election?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30swua/eli5_why_is_the_uk_parliament_being_dissolved/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpvgy2m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It's a formality that signifies that each seat is now vacant and every seat is up for election. The ministers still do their respective jobs until the election results come in, they just have to put themselves forward for re-election."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
amc2jf
|
what, why, and from whence are these super tiny flies that congregate in tiny swarms at face-level?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/amc2jf/eli5_what_why_and_from_whence_are_these_super/
|
{
"a_id": [
"efkwd8e",
"efkwh6c"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Would help to know which country you are in and even which region of the country as the little bugs will vary considerably from place to place including thrips.",
"I believe they're basically gnat orgies. They all come together in big swarms to fertilize each other. Not sure what they're doing for the rest of their time when they're not having a root. Not a gnat expert but last time I asked someone wtf was with all the bug clouds that's what I was told."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
uwdtm
|
if water makes up 70% of our earth and we have things such as water purifiers, why are we running out of drinking water on our planet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/uwdtm/eli5_if_water_makes_up_70_of_our_earth_and_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4z59i6",
"c4z5ald",
"c4z6ia8",
"c4z6q2h",
"c4z8sth",
"c4zakd7"
],
"score": [
6,
40,
3,
11,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Because large scale water purification and desalinization is expensive and inefficient. ",
"We're *not* running out.\n\nThe problem isn't the amount of drinking water, it's the *distribution* of the water.\n\nMost developed countries could probably hydrate their population 50 times over, if they wanted (assuming there's no drought). Whereas, for example, in hot African countries where water is scarce, contains diseases and there is little technology available to purify the water, *then* you get dehydration problems..",
"A slight caveat to the amount of water on earth, only 2.75% of water is **fresh** water.\n\n[Here's a nice visual representation of water on Earth](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: and like harrisonbeaker said, water desalinization (making salt water into drinking water) takes **a lot** of energy.",
"Water makes up 70% of the earth's surface, but almost all of it (97.5%) is *salt* water, which is basically useless. We can't drink it, we can't use it for agriculture, and we can't use it for industry. We can desalinate water, but that's very, very expensive.\n\nOut of the fresh water that's left (2.5%), most of it is frozen in glaciers and ice caps. Lakes, rivers, ground water, and rainfall make up all that we can practically use. Some places have a lot more of these than others. There are plenty of arid areas where people are using more water than the local environment can replenish (for example, the Colorado River, or the Ogallala Aquifer). \n\n_URL_0_",
"[Water does NOT make up to 70% of our earth!](_URL_0_)",
"You mean that 70% of earth's *surface* is water.\n\nMost of it is salt water and thus must be processed before it can be used, which takes a lot of resources."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Earth_water_distribution.svg"
],
[
"http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/earthwherewater.html"
],
[
"http://ga.water.usgs.gov/edu/2010/pictures/full-size/global-water-volume-large.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
y5cg8
|
What were NATO's defensive plans for a conventional invasion from the Soviet Union in the 80s?
|
I was wondering if there have is any information about NATO defensive plans in the 1980s if the Soviet Union launched a conventional (i.e. non-nuclear) invasion of West Germany? I recently read a fiction book involving such an invasion and I started wondering about what were the real plans. I'd like to limit the time period to the 80s since plans change over time and the 80s were the most recent. I had the following specific questions, but any broader information would also be appreciated.
1) Was NATO still considering using tactical nuclear weapons if a Soviet victory looked likely? And if they were still being used, who would need to okay their use before they could be deployed (e.g. just the US, or unanimous agreement from all NATO countries). I know early in the Cold War there was a lot of research into tactical nuclear weapons, but it was later dropped because of the danger of escalation to global thermonuclear war.
2) Was the military strategy significantly hampered by political fragmentation? Did some NATO countries (I'm thinking in particular West Germany) have veto power over plans which made military sense but would surrender too much politically important territory, or was NATO dominated by the US to such a degree that other countries would acquiesce to their plans?
3) What role would peripheral NATO countries play? Countries like Norway, Turkey and Greece weren't directly connected to central Europe, but they were bordering the Soviet Union or Warsaw Pact countries, which seems to put them in a difficult position to fulfill their allied obligations but also defend their own countries.
4) What were the balance of forces between NATO and the Warsaw Pact in this time period? Were they evenly matched or was one side significantly stronger than the other?
5) Were there any realistic NATO plans to launch first offensives / first strikes against the Soviet Union / East Germany?
6) Was the main line of defense going to be the West German / East German border, or were they planning it to be one of the rivers? Was there a strong mentality of holding certain positions at all costs, or were they planning to trade space for time for the US to transfer more forces in?
Again, any information about NATO plans during this time period would be appreciated - these questions were just prompts for specific information because this topic is probably pretty big.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y5cg8/what_were_natos_defensive_plans_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5sgyc7",
"c5siyix",
"c5skfxb",
"c5sn00a",
"c5synbs",
"c5syyzt"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
30,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Try looking at a few of the auto-biographies of generals from the period. I've not read them all, but Sir Richard Dannatt's book contained a large portion of truths about NATo preparation, including the belief that should the Red Army cross the Iron Curtain, it was quite probable the war would have gone thermo-nuclear almost immediately, followed by a war of attrition for what ever was left. Either way, I say that reading those books as opposed to some journalist or politician or somebody who generally just read the reports and had no clue as to what commanding a faction involved.",
"Some answers in brief. I'm sure there is someone here who can give you some better answers:\n\n1) Yes, absolutely. The conventional wisdom (especially that of the neo-conservatives in America) was that the Soviet Union had such a massive conventional advantage that a nuclear response would be the only option.\n\n2) Yes. Fortunately, how much of a hindrance the infighting would have been is just speculation.\n\n3) Not sure, possibly difficult to guess at. I don't think many would have guessed on Spain's semi-neutrality during the Second World War.\n\n4) On paper, the Soviet Union still had massive superiority in conventional and ICBM strength. In reality we now know that this wasn't true. An actual war could easily have been fought to a very bloody stalemate. It's amazing to read about how little both sides actually understood of each other and their capabilities. In actuality, the technological edge that NATO had in the 1980's (much of it to counter imaginary threats) would likely have been able to counter the imbalance in numbers.\n\n5) The option was always there to launch the first nuclear strikes, particularly if the conventional war was going badly. If there were any first offence plans in the 1980's then I haven't heard of them. It's possible that they might be classified.\n\n6) The Eisenbach gap was the most likely point for conflict. There was a US armoured cavalry regiment there to provide first response, to buy time for NATO forces to react and deploy.",
"Ok, so...\n\n1) NATO would probably *not* have considered the user of tactical nukes until it looked like it was completely over for them. There are only three nuclear states in NATO; the U.S., Britain, and France. France might have gone nuclear first at Germany's expense, but that's only if they actually fully participated in the war (France's membership is weird). Britain was the least likely to go nuke due to the fact that even if NATO lost, they could still hold out as a U.S. ally. The U.S. might have gone nuclear but it wouldn't have done so without probably the approval of NATO allies. The Germans, French, English, etc. wouldn't have been keen on getting irradiated.\n\n2) Only France would have been an obstacle in the war. [Like I said, their membership is weird](_URL_4_). It would have depended upon the internal political climate of France, and the cause of the war for them to participate fully. Without their assistance, the logistics of trying to land NATO reinforcements from the U.S., Brittan, and Canada would have had to be funneled through the Dutch Chanel ports. This is why the WARSAW Pact would have rushed through Northern Germany, cut off Denmark, and overrun Belgium and Holland to cut the ports. If France played along, they probably still would have rushed the Low Countries because of the logistical difficulties of shipping across France.\n\n3) Norway would have helped close the Baltic Straights and performed overwatch for the Arctic passes for the Soviet fleets out of Arkhangelsk. Iceland would have served as a big aircraft carrier in the North Atlantic which would have kept the Soviet sub fleets off guard and allowed refueling to fighters and cargo flights to Europe. If there was going to be a big WWIII style naval battle, it would have been near Iceland. Greece and Turkey would have closed the Black Sea at the Bosporus and, while Span shut down the Straights of Gibraltar. All of these countries would likely face minimal Warsaw Pact attacks as their main focus would have been to defeat NATO in Germany.\n\n4) It would vary. While the Soviet Army was massive, it's reliability in many divisions would be questionable. The Soviets used a grade scale for their units sort of like A through F. A was the top of the line units, while F would have been 55 year old reservists and 30 year old tanks. The Pact would have actually sent its C and B teams in first to wear out NATO forces and then hit them with the A's. The D's, C's, and F's, would have been the rear support and home security forces. F's would have been the ones loading ammo onto trains in Minsk. \n\nThe rest of Warsaw was a mixed bag. Probably only the East Germans would have been the most reliable, followed by probably the Czechs. Hungarians, and Poles. The Poles probably would have had Soviet units nearby to keep the in check in case they got uppity. Poland had always been unreliable in Soviet eyes. Only the East Germans would have been able to operate on their own. The Hungarians, Poles, and Czechs would have been used as either fodder or as diversionary forces in non-critical engagements. the Romanians, Bulgarians, and Albanians would have probably tried to tie down the Greeks, Turks, and Italians to keep them busy.\n\nAs for NATO forces, their equipment was pretty standardized. While each nation had its own gear, you pretty much could grab ammo from a German crate and load it into a British rifle. The American M1 Abrahms uses a German cannon, so the NATO equipment was pretty interchangeable. The difference would have been in training and discipline. All would have been pretty high, with the Greeks, Turks, Spanish, Italians, being on the low end. The top tier would have been the US, Britain, France, Germany. The mid players would have been the Dutch, Belgians, and Norwegians.\n\nAt almost all times Warsaw would have outnumbered NATO by the magnitude of 2 or 3 to 1. However, Soviet battle doctrine lacked a lot of finesse and relied on fighting like Mike Tyson....get in there and hit hard, fast, and often, we have plenty of troops and tanks. NATO would have been Muhammad Ali, duck and move and wear them out then beat the crap out of them.\n\n5) NATO in all likelihood would have never struck first. They lacked the manpower reserves and strength in Europe to launch a major offensive against Warsaw, and if they tried to build it up, the Soviets would have attacked first anyway to negate any attempts at a NATO build up and to keep the initiative. Additionally, with the political climate of Western Europe and the US (for all of its bluster) it would have run into a lot of political conflict on the domestic front in trying to instigate the war. There probably would have been riots in London, Paris, Bonn, San Francisco, L.A., and New York if NATO tried to instigate.\n\n6) For the U.S., who's area of operations in Germany was [the Fulda Gap](_URL_1_), they would have wanted to funnel the Soviet thrust into a pocket along the plain which they would have attempted to counter attack and cut off. They at most would have tried to make their stand at the Maine River. You had the [North German Plain](_URL_3_), where NATO would have tried to hold Bremmerhaven, but probably would have gotten pocketed, but would have tried to slow them down at the Elbe, then Wesser.\n\n\nUnfortunately all the really good theory books about WWIII in Europe have been culled from the shelves of libraries these days to make space for newer books. Classics like [\"The Third World War\"](_URL_0_), [Red Army](_URL_6_), [Team Yankee](_URL_2_), and [Red Storm Rising](_URL_5_), are actually hard to come by these days. These books are of course fictional adventure books but the homework involved by the authors is immaculate. You will probably only be able to find works about WWIII scenarios and military science in college libraries at this point.",
"If you want a fictional read on what could have potentially happened I would read \"Red Storm Rising\" By Tom Clancy. I read that book in one day and did not put it down till i finished it.",
"Red storm rising?\n",
"Some points to consider about the Warsaw Pact/USSR\n\nA)They didn't study defensive tactics at anything above the tactical level. After WW2 they were set on the idea that the best form of defense was attack, which is probably why they seemed to threatening to the West.\n\nB)The USSR never planned a non-conventional attack. That is, if they went to war with the West it was going to be nuclear right from the start. They planned to lay down a nuclear carpet ahead of their ground forces and they were to sweep into Western Europe.\n\nSoviet thinking was that you should use your most powerful weapons first so that you weaken your enemy as much as possible and preserve your own strength as much as possible.\n\nAlso (and I'm not 100% about this part), the plan was not to start a nuclear exchange on a strategic level with other nuclear powers (ie, they weren't going to nuke the USA, France or the UK). They planned an intense nuclear bombardment on Germany and the low countries to prevent NATO resistance, but they weren't going to start trading their own cities and population with NATO powers.\n\nC) As others have pointed out, Warsaw Pact allies would have been of questionable loyalty, but there were measures to safeguard against this. Warsaw pact allies were never allowed to form organisational structures above the Divisional level (that is, Corps and Armies) - they were directly incorporated into Soviet ones commanded by Soviet Generals. The same goes for their navies and air forces.\n\nThe book Inside the Soviet Army gives a taste of these ideas and the thinking behind it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Third_World_War:_The_Untold_Story",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fulda_Gap",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Team_Yankee",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_German_Plain",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NATO#French_withdrawal",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Storm_Rising",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_Army_%28novel%29"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1wwo9u
|
What was the truth behind the Allies' accusations that the German Army committed horrific war crimes/atrocities in Belgium during World War One?
|
The claim that [Imperial Germany partook in a "Rape of Belgium"](_URL_0_) often comes up in conversations about WW1 and about propaganda in general. I was wondering if any of the fine people here had some knowledge to share about this topic. How much truth did the Allies' accusations contain?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wwo9u/what_was_the_truth_behind_the_allies_accusations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6263i"
],
"score": [
273
],
"text": [
"This is an important and complex question. The **TL;DR** on it is \"yes, more or less, but it gets complicated.\"\n\nTo begin with, [here is a proclamation](_URL_3_) by the German General Otto von Emmich, distributed widely in Belgium in the autumn of 1914 as the German army crossed the tiny nation’s borders and began its slow march south. The declaration it makes is rather incredible:\n\n > It is to my very great regret that the German troops find themselves compelled to cross the Belgian frontier. They are acting under the constraints of an unavoidable necessity, Belgium’s neutrality having been violated by French officers who, in disguise, crossed Belgian territory by motor-car in order to make their way into Germany.\n\nIt goes on to insist that the Belgian people should look upon the soldiers of the German army as “the best of friends,” that those soldiers would “pay in gold” for anything requisitioned by that army in the course of its uneventful passage through Belgium, and closes with von Emmich’s “formal pledges to the Belgian population that it will have nothing to suffer from the horrors of war.” The document carries an ominous tone throughout, however; the reader is coolly informed that von Emmich “hope[s] the German army of the Meuse will not be forced to fight you,” and that any Belgian destruction of their own bridges, tunnels and railways “will have to be looked upon as hostile acts.” The Belgian reader could be forgiven, perhaps, for looking upon the above assurances with a degree of skepticism.\n\nThis skepticism was more than borne out by the course of events.\n\nOn August 4th, 1914, the German army began crossing the border into Belgium. The Belgians, understandably unwilling to allow such a thing to occur without offering firm protest, chose to stand and fight. Bridges were indeed destroyed. Roads were blocked. Barricades were put up — and, while the nation’s small and ill-equipped army could not hope to defeat the German invaders, it did manage to slow them down to such an extent that the carefully drafted timetables of the planned invasion had to be rewritten from scratch, and the British Expeditionary Force was able to arrive in time to further delay the attempted conquest of Belgium and passage into France. In an abstract sense, the First Battle of the Marne was won in the fields outside of Liège.\n\nWhen the dust had settled, only a small sliver of Belgium south of the inundated Yser remained unoccupied — the rest of the kingdom, including the great cities of Namur, Liège, Antwerp, and the capital Brussels, had been taken. The popular Belgian King, Albert I, remained at liberty and in command of the ~150,000-strong army that held the ground from Nieuwpoort through to Ypres.\n\nAll of this is fairly straightforward, but a peculiar thing has happened when it comes to the popular Anglo-American memory of the events that transpired in Belgium during the autumn of 1914: once the narrative of the war reaches the establishment of the trench system and the commencement of the long-standing stalemate that is viewed as such an essential aspect of the war in the West, Belgium and its people seem to vanish from the story entirely. Why might this be?\n\nThe answer to this question is the one your post here suggests: the troubled history of “propaganda” and its complex role in the war. I've [written elsewhere](_URL_5_) about the roots of modern propaganda in the First World War, but in the meantime let it suffice to say that a great deal of propagandistic hay was made of the sufferings of Belgium in the war’s early stages — especially by British journalists, statesmen and public intellectuals. The most notorious example of this is likely the *Bryce Report* (or, more extensively, the [*Report of the Committee on Alleged German Outrages*](_URL_4_)), first released in 1915. The report has long been a bête noire for those cultural historians examining popular attitudes during the war, it having been concluded by some very emphatic commentators in the 1920s and 1930s (such as Arthur Ponsonby in *Falsehood in War-Time* and Irene Cooper Willis in *England’s Holy War*) that the Report was simply a tissue of lies. Modern research, as we shall see, has confirmed that the *Report*’s conclusions were substantially correct.\n\nAs a consequence of this and other dismissals, the quite real sufferings of this nation and her people have since (in my view) been unjustly swept away along with everything else that now smacks of the sensationalism, hate-mongering and outright invention that are believed to have been the propagandists’ stock in trade. This would be a too-simple evaluation of the situation in general terms, but, in the case of the plight of Belgium, it is a very serious error indeed.\n\nAs we approach the beginning of the war’s centenaries, it is only fitting that pieces of the puzzle that have hitherto been missing finally be put back into place. So:\n\nIt is true that many of the more sensational stories of German “outrages” perpetrated in Belgium during the course of the invasion and ensuing occupation are very hard to believe, much less corroborate. German soldiers eating Belgian babies; German soldiers hanging Belgian nuns between church bells and ringing them to death; German soldiers crucifying dozens of farmers by the roadside; and so on — these are stories that are familiar to us through the fact of them having now become standard examples of why “propaganda” is not to be trusted. Claims like these (it is said) poisoned the home front’s understanding of the war; works that made such claims disgusted the war poets and memoirists so much that they rose up in reaction against them; stories of this sort caused the English-speaking peoples to be so skeptical of atrocity reports that they were too late in reacting to the events of the years leading up to 1939. All of this is considerably more complicated than these summaries suggest, but that's more than I wish to get into just at the moment.\n\nThe point is that we need not dwell on such extreme suggestions to see much in the German occupation of Belgium worth acknowledging. Let us consider some numbers:\n\n- The total Belgian deaths during the war amount to some 100,000 — 40,000 military deaths and 60,000 civilian deaths.\n\n- Of those civilians who died as a direct result of the war, some 6,000 were deliberately and premeditatedly executed. More on this below.\n\n- Nearly 1.5 million Belgians were displaced by the German occupation of their land, with impoverished refugees fleeing in every direction. Some 200,000 ended up in Britain, and another 300,000 in France. The most, by far — nearly a million — fled to the Netherlands, but did not always have an easy time in doing so. The German army constructed a 200km-long [electrified fence](_URL_0_), called the *Dodendraad* by the Dutch, that claimed the lives of around 3,000 attempted escapees during the course of the war.\n\n- Some 120,000 Belgian civilians (of both sexes) were used as forced labour during the war, with roughly half being deported to Germany to toil in prison factories and camps, and half being sent to work just behind the front lines. Anguished Belgian letters and diaries from the period tell of being forced to work for the Zivilarbeiter-Bataillone, repairing damaged infrastructure, laying railway tracks, even manufacturing weapons and other war materiel for their enemies. Some were even forced to work in the support lines at the Front itself, digging secondary and tertiary trenches as Allied artillery fire exploded around them. I've gone into some more detail on this subject [here](_URL_2_), though some of what I've already provided above draws on that content already.\n\nIn all of this, then, it would seem that there is plenty that deserves the benefit of modern memory and which cannot easily be dismissed as mere invention for Allied propaganda.\n\nHow, then, might it be best to remember this suffering? What place might it play in the ongoing debate over just what tone and tenor the upcoming centenaries should take? The advent of the hundredth anniversaries of so many events provides an ideal moment for reflection and re-evaluation — particularly when it comes to things that “everyone knows.” It is now a commonplace that “everyone knows” the British state and news media lied about German atrocities in Belgium to maintain popular support for the British war effort, but it is well past time to re-examine what is commonly said about those lies and that support.\n\nAlan Kramer and John Horne, in their magisterial volume on this subject (*German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial*; 2001), have painstakingly reconstructed the reality behind the propaganda in a way that should leave no reader in doubt. Through years of careful archival research they have reached the conclusion that there was indeed a systematic program of civilian executions — sometimes en masse — conducted in Belgium, by the German army, with the purpose of breaking the spirit of resistance and striking terror into the heart of the population. The anniversaries of the worst of these catastrophes are upon us; on August 23rd, 1914, the German army took revenge upon the Belgian city of Dinant for what it falsely believed to be the actions of Belgian *francs-tireurs* (“free-shooters”, or non-military partisans). This revenge took the form of the burning of over a 1,000 buildings and the execution of some 674 civilians. The oldest among them was in his 90s; the youngest was barely a month old. These civilians were killed in a variety of ways. Some were bayoneted, others burned alive; most were bound, put up against walls, and then executed by a volley of rifle fire — all in reprisal for something that had not actually happened. Two days later (August 25th), the same spirit of reprisal played out again elsewhere — [in Leuven](_URL_6_).\n\nIt is important to note, in closing, that we need not examine events such as those described above and come away with nothing but a “[Blame Germany](_URL_1_)” perspective. Alan Kramer has convincingly shown in his 2007 follow-up volume, *Dynamic of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War*, that the increasing radicalization of military occupation was a feature of the war to be found in numerous theatres, not solely in Belgium or solely at the end of a German gun. As ever, it is very hard for anyone involved in the war to come away with their hands clean.\n\nNevertheless, with the transnational turn that has been taken by much of First World War historiography in recent decades and the centenary-inspired willingness to re-evaluate long-held assumptions about the war’s meaning and conduct, it is perhaps well past time for the wartime sufferings of Belgium and her people to move out of the realm of convenient fiction and back into that of uncomfortable fact.\n\nAll of this is a very long-winded way of saying, to conclude, that -- yes -- the German army did indeed do some pretty nasty stuff in Belgium. It was not alone in doing so in occupied territory, and some stories about its activities are certainly inventions or exaggerations, but what it did do should probably be enough to give the reader pause. \n\n**Suggested Readings**\n\n- Kramer, Alan and John Horne. *German Atrocities, 1914: A History of Denial* (2001).\n- Kramer, Alan. *Dynamics of Destruction: Culture and Mass Killing in the First World War* (2007).\n- Stibbe, Matthew ed. *Captivity, Forced Labour and Forced Migration in Europe During the First World War* (2009).\n- Thiel, Jens. *‘Menschenbassin Belgien’: Anwerbung, Deportation und Zwangsarbeit in Ersten Weltkrieg* (2007).\n- Hull, Isabel V. *Absolute destruction: Military Culture and the Practices of War in Imperial Germany* (2005).\n- Becker, Annette. *Oubliés de la Grande guerre* (1998).\n- Jones, Heather. *Violence Against Prisoners of War in the First World War: Britain, France, and Germany, 1914-1920* (2011)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/1/1a/RapeOfBelgium-171105-nytribune.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/wwi/comments/1kuua3/photo_at_the_belgian_frontier_with_the/",
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/history/world-war-one/10249760/Germany-intervenes-in-WW1-commemoration-debate.html",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/wwi/comments/1j86js/war_diary_of_a_belgian_soldier_aug_1731_1915_at/cbcdxwa",
"http://archive.org/stream/scrapsofpaperger00malc#page/4/mode/2up",
"https://archive.org/details/allegedgermanout00grea",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19zi3f/how_was_propaganda_used_in_your_area_of_study/c8ssasc",
"http://www.firstworldwar.com/battles/louvain.htm"
]
] |
|
792n9k
|
why has hdr been so common in cameras for so long but is only now beginning to move into mainstream tvs, smartphones and games consoles?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/792n9k/eli5_why_has_hdr_been_so_common_in_cameras_for_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doyoc2q",
"doyoch1"
],
"score": [
3,
14
],
"text": [
"HDR-photos are typically just composite images of several photos, taken with different exposures.\n\nWhat proper HDR is about, is being able display/capture truely dark and really bright parts of the image, both at the same time. This is what's new, and it's not easy.",
"They're different technologies. The HDR in cameras involves taking two shots at high/low exposure, then merging them to a single photo. The HDR in video displays refers to the ability to show a wide range of brightness."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
57mukn
|
if a country has birthright citizenship i.e. all those born there are automatically citizens, couldn't a woman go there on vacation/business/illegally, give birth, then the child would be a citizen giving the parent rights to stay/move there too?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/57mukn/eli5_if_a_country_has_birthright_citizenship_ie/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8t7r32",
"d8t7w50",
"d8t81wc",
"d8t8nmq"
],
"score": [
10,
5,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Contrary to popular belief, if an illegal immigrant has a kid in the US, they're still at risk for deportation if caught, in which case the child is sent back with them.\n\nAlso, pregnant women sometimes have difficulties getting Visas (particularly tourist Visas) in order to dissuade people from trying in the first place.",
"Yes, the child is a US citizen, but it doesn't nessicarly flow that the parents can stay and get citizenship. It certainly helps but really it just accelerates the paperwork.\n\nAlso, if you're pregnant you could get denied entry if you're entering on a travel visa with the intention of having the child in the US so you can stay forever.",
"They're called Anchor Babies [Wikipedia]( _URL_1_)\n\nThere's a whole industry called Birth Tourism [Wikipedia]( _URL_0_)\n\n[It's an issue in Canada too.]( _URL_2_)\n",
"[Wiki Anchor Babies](_URL_0_)\n\n\"There is a popular misconception.... Current federal law prevents anyone under the age of 21 from being able to petition for their non-citizen parent to be lawfully admitted to the United States .... "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birth_tourism",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby",
"http://vancouversun.com/news/local-news/b-c-aware-of-26-baby-houses-as-birth-tourism-from-china-booms"
],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anchor_baby"
]
] |
||
32mrgs
|
how do professional sports teams turn a profit?
|
I live in South Florida and I'm currently watching the Marlins game and I'm thinking "How does a team like this stay alive?".
Here are some numbers I'm looking at:
* The [payroll](_URL_0_) for the players alone for 2015 is : $85,531,500
* The [average](_URL_2_) attendance for 2014 was: 20,997
* The [average](_URL_1_) ticket cost at Marlins Park is: $27.02
* Average attendance * Average ticket * 81 home games: $45,954,454.14
So now we have $85,531,500 - $45,954,454.14 = $**39,577,045.86** short to break even on payroll of the roster. Not including team expenses, front office, management, etc.
I'm sure they pay a ton of taxes (Not really sure of the scam they pulled on Dade County with the stadium) each year so I don't know those numbers. I don't see many players selling jerseys other than Stanton.
This is just one example. I'm watching the Braves vs Marlins tonight as well and Turner Field is empty just one week after the season begins.
Obviously Jeffrey Loria is earning some kind of money from the Marlins since he's been the owner for a long time and doesn't SEEM to be actively selling the team.
I know my numbers is solely based off attendance but I didn't know what else to factor in.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/32mrgs/eli5_how_do_professional_sports_teams_turn_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqcnapp",
"cqcnbo3",
"cqcncwz",
"cqcnd0t",
"cqco25s",
"cqcogvj",
"cqcqqzo"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You forget money from licensing, clothes, hats, figurines, etc. Plus advertising at the stadium. Sales of the private booths, Revenue from renting out the stadium to other venues, like concerts. And of course revenue from showing the games on TV. Plus I'm sure I'm missing a few other revenue sources for them.",
"Generically, you are only looking at half of the income they have coming into their coffers.\n\nYou are leaving out:\n\n* Onsite Vendors - People like McDonalds and Chick-fil-a pay the stadium to rent the space to sell their product as well as a percentage of everything that is sold from their stall during operation.\n\n* Off Site Vendors - People who sell merch to retailers across the country\n\n* On site Merch - Merchandise that is sold in the stadiums on gameday. Namely Jerseys, hats, foam fingers, and many other \"essential\" items during the visit to the stadium.\n\nAnd other forms of things that are brining in millions of additional dollars from other sources.",
"Advertising. Professional sports teams get a lot of money from people wanting to advertise around the stadium or on the jerseys of the players. Being a sponsor of a certain team can be a very prestigious thing for companies so they are very willing to pay the big bucks for that. Additionally, lots of sports teams get money out of the sale of memorabilia and the concession stands at the stadium. There is a reason why you pay for much for a stupid hot dog.",
"they have advertisements all over, and merchandise that is basically guaranteed to be bought by literally everyone who supports that team. The demand is so high that they can charge huge amounts for it",
"TV deals and revenue sharing is where most teams get most of their money.",
"ads, TV/radio contract, apparel, endorsements...",
"_URL_0_\n\nThere is also revenue sharing, where smaller market teams are basically getting a cut revenues from the big markets. It's a large reason bad small market teams are able to be profitable with low attendance."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://espn.go.com/mlb/team/salaries/_/name/mia/miami-marlins",
"http://www.statista.com/statistics/203469/mlb-average-ticket-price-for-florida-marlins-games/",
"http://espn.go.com/mlb/attendance"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fangraphs.com/library/business/revenue-sharing/"
]
] |
|
3prj9j
|
Why have Jews been expelled in so many countries?
|
I seen what Netanyahu said about Hitler only wanting to expel the Jews and that got me thinking, i had known about the Alhambra Decree where in Spain they were Expelled.
So then i googled 'where have jews been expelled from' and i got [this](_URL_0_)
So i want to know how accurate that video is and why they have been expelled from so many countries?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3prj9j/why_have_jews_been_expelled_in_so_many_countries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw927td",
"cw92kpi",
"cw948y0",
"cw986lm",
"cw9c3s4"
],
"score": [
36,
1076,
6,
3,
30
],
"text": [
"As a piggyback question can I ask if Jews have faced persecution in India? I visited an old synagogue in Cochin, India a couple of years back and they had a bunch of paintings illustrating how Jews have been visiting and settling in that part of India since around 200 BC. ",
"Let's start at the beginning. In 722 BCE, the Northern Kingdom of Israel fell to the Assyrians and the majority of its population was apparently expelled. These are the \"Ten Lost Tribes\". This sort of forced migration seems to be part of standard part of Assyrian management of newly conquered territories. In about 586 BCE, the Southern Kingdom of Judah (remember, that Israel had been divided into two distinct kingdoms) was conquered by Babylon, and only the notables led off (the \"Babylonian exile\"). In neither of these cases do the Hebrew/Jews seems to be particularly singled out.\n\nLets skip to the Roman Era. Here, the Jews are unique. Roman policy granted wide religious freedom--however, there were two exceptions. 1) secret \"mystery cults\" were widely suspected, 2) groups that refused to sacrifice to the emperor (first Jews, later also Christians) were treated as suspect. The Jews led a series of wars against the Empire called the \"[Jewish Wars](_URL_0_)\" that ended up with the destruction of the Temple after the First Jewish–Roman War (67-70 CE) and ultimately the majority of the Jewish population of Roman Province of Judea being killed, exiled, or sold into slavery in the aftermath of the Bar Kokhba Revolt (132 – 136 CE). These are exemplary of the unique relationship Jews have within the Roman Empire, but is likely not what you're asking about.\n\nMost of what people think of are the Medieval and Early Modern expulsions from states in Christian Europe. One thing to note is that Jews existed in these places at all. No other religion besides Christianity existed in these states at all. Judaism had a special status that, say, Roman Paganism did not, and therefore they (often) were the only religious minority allowed to exist. So, it's important to note, they were the only religious minority that *could* be expelled from Europe (besides various Christian \"heretics\"). It's worth noting that the vast majority of expulsions of Jews were done by Christians, with a few isolated (and generally late) cases of expulsion by Muslim rulers.\n\nKaren Barkey and Ira Katznelson have an interesting article, whose name I forgot, that argues that the expulsion of the Jews by England in 1290 and France around the same time were the result of \"state formation\"/\"state making\". Remember, for most of post-Roman history the centralized state as we imagine didn't exist. It was an overlapping series of domains where rulers claimed varying levels of sovereignty. Katznelson and Barkey argue that the Jews were expelled in England as a compromise between the royalty and the nobility in the process of state formation (primarily, the nobility owned Jewish bankers a tremendous amount of money, as Jews often formed the only source of credit). In France, they argue that they were expelled for a different reason (I believe because the King owed them money, but I can't be sure). But in both cases, though the exact reasons were different, the expulsion of the Jews was part of the same process of state formation, a result of negotiations around the clashing interests of royalty and nobility. This pattern, they argue, is repeated in other states (Western and Northern Europe is generally seen at the vanguard of modern state formation in Europe--see Charles Tilly's epic *Coercion, Capital, and European States, AD 990-1992*).\n\nIt's also worth mentioning that Jews were often the only available scapegoats. Many of the expulsions took place during plagues, especially in Germany, where Jews were often accused of poisoning wells. They were also often occurred after an accusation of [blood libel](_URL_1_). Historically, it's worth noting that blood libel accusation (which date back to at least the 12th century in Christian Europe) never occurred in the Islamic World until the 19th century, and even there, not coincidentally, the first several cases accusation were brought by Christians living under Ottoman Rule at the same there was expanding European influence in the Ottoman. But in general, the relationship with minority communities was different in the Ottoman World (much is made of \"dhimmi\" status, but there's a reason for that--especially in the Ottoman Empire, the \"millet system\" in both formal and informal forms was an important strategy for rule). In the Muslim World, Jews and Christians were often included alongside Muslims as (unequal) subjects in a way that they were not in Europe. Granted, even these limited rights were frequently violated, but this legal framework of (unequal) belonging provided the Jews (and minority Christians) with much more stability than they had in most of Europe of the same period. This situation remains essentially until nationalism arrives in the 19th century century.\n\nNationalism, the idea that the legitimacy of the state comes from its relationship with a titular \"nation\" (France is for the French, Germany for the Germans), generally dates only back to the French Revolution (this is the traditional starting date). There were of course other forms identity underlying the legitimacy of states before this--especially religion, as John Armstrong argues in *Nations Before Nationalism*, but this wasn't really nationalism in the sense that we see (a political demand for a Christian state for all the Christian, etc.). A few scholars--Philip Gorski, Liah Greenfeld, Anthony Marx--have argued, convincingly I think, that we should see nationalism as an Early Modern phenomenon, rather than entirely a Modern one (remembering that \"the Modern Era\" for political history is conventionally dated to around the French Revolution). Among these, Marx argues most convincingly that nationalism comes not just from union--gathering all the Rutherians into the Rutherian state--but from exclusion. He engages with three main examples (England, Spain, and France). In Spain, we see this process of expulsion--this Proto-Spanish nationalism--in the form of the expulsion of Muslims and Jews from Spain in 1492 (and from Portugal in 1496). This sets the ground for the later Spanish nation state. Similarly, in France we see expulsions, but not of Jews. Rather, we see France kill and expel *Protestants* to create a purely Catholic realm (cf. St. Bartholomew's Day massacre in 1572). These sorts of expulsions were common during the European \"Wars of Religion\". So nationalism, and the drive to create in theory culturally homogenous states, wasn't merely a process that affected the Jews, though it was a process that often affected the Jews. It's also worth noting that \"Jewish emancipation\"--Jew being able function as equal citizens--doesn't emerge until the French Revolution, and the question of whether Jews can *really* be members of the nation-state isn't settled until the 19th and 20th centuries (cf. the Dreyfus Affair in France, or the Nazi stripping of the rights of German Jews). Many of the expulsions of Jews (and Catholics and Protestants, etc.) that occur during the early Modern Period, Anthony Marx argues, should be seen as examples of emerging nationalism where cultural identity becomes tied to the polity (compare this to earlier empires which were inherently diverse).\n\nSo, therefore, recent social science works argues that 1) since Jews were the most common religious minority in Christian Europe, they were the ones most commonly persecuted against, 2) that a lot of the Medieval struggles around nationalism have to do with negotiations of elites around the beginnings of modern state formation/centralization, 3) I forgot to mention also the traditional answer of the late Medieval religious revival, including the Crusades, that ultimately led to the Reformation and the Counter-Reformation, which mattered in some places (especially when tied to Blood Libel), just not the French and English cases I mentioned, 4) eventually the goal of religious homogeneity presaged the overall goal of cultural homogeneity of nationalism. Again, this is all primarily in Europe until the 19th century, though there were large populations of Jews in Anatolia, North Africa, Mesopotamia, Arabia, and Persia who were mostly unmolested. This, I think, is evidence that the repeated expulsion of the Jews is not necessarily something inherent in the Jews, but something (or several things) that characterized the relationship between Jewish minorities and Christian rulers during this period.\n\nEdit: One final note. In the video, they often repeat the names of territories in a relatively short period. The reason for this is Jews were expelled, here for either reasons related to Christian religious revival or debts due to state formation, and then were at times often quickly let back in for economic reasons (i.e. the state needed lines of credit that only the Jews could provide in this period), and then quickly expelled either for economic reasons again (rulers had quickly racked up debt) or because of a deal with religious revivalists. But the reasons they were let back in hints at one of the reasons they were expelled.",
"Can someone tell me more about the expulsion of Jews in the American South mentioned in the video? Did it happen? What was the aftermath?",
"Can someone please present this information in map format? I have a hard time visualising everything at once, and I love to think cartographically. ",
"One component of \"Jewishness\" is that it isn't *just* a religion, or genetic heritage, it is both of those but there is also a an incredibly strong cultural and community aspect that also identifies heavily with keeping the community and culture together while in a foreign land, and this goes way back to the very foundations of Judiasm ~3,000 years ago. \n\nWhat we know as Judaism today developed over many centuries, beginning with a henotheistic tradition where people had a patron deity among a pantheon of deities and shrines and idols could be found in homes and hillsides around the countryside, and evolving to a strict monotheistic sect that insisted there was only a single god and he was to be worshiped in a single location (the Temple in Jerusalem). \n\nThen the land of Israel was overtaken by Assyrian and the Babylonians, and many Israelites were taken into captivity by the Babylonians. They took what holy writings they could with them as they went into enslavement. \n\nNow this is where things get interesting, and more relevant to your question. What we see historically in these kinds of situations is that the people who were overcome accept that their deity failed and so come to accept the victorious culture's deity as their new object of worship, and they begin to meld into the culture they are in. Not so with the enslaved Israelites. \n\nThe Israelites were able to adapt their beliefs so that instead of their god losing against a more powerful god, they took the perspective that their god was punishing them for disobedience, using other cultures to do so. Also, instead of requiring a single location for the worship of their god, they were able to change it to worshiping through personal and group observances. \n\nIt is during this Exhilic Period that the last changes were made to the Hebrew Bible (which up until that point had been a more fluid collection of documents over centuries). Eventually the Israelites were released from Babylonian captivity and returned to Judea. Judaism and the Old Testament as we know it today by and large cemented in place. Later conflicts dispersed the Jews out of Israel, and the major Jewish Dispora began and the Jewish people dispersed around Europe. \n\nGoing back to your question with that understanding, we see the Jewish people exiled that maintaining their cultural identity while in a foreign (and even hostile) culture is deeply ingrained in the very roots of the religion and cultural identity. \n\nSo if you put this group in another land, they aren't going to assimilate the new culture, but instead maintain their own community within the larger community. This sets them up to be an easy target as an \"other\" when tensions rise and the us-vs-them mentality starts to set in to the general population. \n\nYou also get the influence by the Catholic church, who for centuries blamed the Jewish people for the death of Christ, further tarnishing the Jews in the eyes of Europeans with their predominant Christian religion. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kr9fyxUgkok"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish–Roman_wars",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blood_libel"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jihja
|
why is it legal to drink 1 beer and then drive, but illegal to drink 1 beer while driving?
|
I understand that you aren't "allowed" to drink beer while driving due to the "open container" law, but what is the reasoning behind this? You'd have just as much alcohol in your system either way.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jihja/eli5_why_is_it_legal_to_drink_1_beer_and_then/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbf1w43",
"cbf28kk",
"cbf3k6w",
"cbff3tt",
"cbfm3si"
],
"score": [
25,
4,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I always figured it was because it's not very practical to pull someone over and ask,\"Is that your first beer? Okay good, just checking. Have a nice day.\"\n\nEasiest way to enforce that law is to have a 0 tolerance policy on open containers/drinking & driving.",
"It's actually not illegal in a lot of places. And it's not the same ticket for having an open container. It's a much much lower charge than drunk driving. We always make sure to have a cracked beer when we drive through pats of Mississippi.",
"There is a lot of misinformation in here, and a real answer will depend on what state you live in. Generally speaking it works like this:\n\nIt is not legal to operate a motor vehicle with a blood alcohol content of greater than 0.08 (in most states). If you consume a beverage and it raises your BAC to above 0.08 then it is illegal. The reasoning behind laws which ban consumption while behind the wheel are simply a way to eliminate drunk driving.\n\nAs for searching your car or your car being a public place... there are entire courses dedicated to this but basically it boils down to a few things. \n\n1. Searches with your consent - Consent can be tricky, a simple casual remark can be construed as consent. If I can make a judge believe that you gave consent then you gave consent.\n2. Searches made by \"plain view\" - You got an ounce on the dash? you are getting searched (and arrested).\n3. Searches made from an arrest - You throw your stub out the window? Bam, you're getting arrested for littering, and I'm searching your car.\n4. Searches made from probable cause - If I have probable cause to believe you have committed a crime I can search your car.\n5. Plus a bunch more local, state and edge case type laws depending on where you live.\n\nMoral of the story is, don't drink then drive and don't drink while driving.",
"As i did my driver license i drove behind a traktor (landmachine) and the farmer in front of us drank his beer and ate his Sandwich. No one mentioned it, we just giggled a bit.",
"I was at a party the cops busted once and I had an interesting conversation with the officer. Since almost every one there was underage they pulled out the breathalyzers and started testing everyone. I wanted to lighten the mood so I asked the officer what the highest BAC level he has ever seen was. I can't remember the exact percentage but he told me he has tested people and they have shown results that mean they should be dead with that amount of alcohol in there system. BUT it was because they had JUST finished drinking. Allowing people to drink while driving would make breathalyzer tests less reliable in court because people could say they had just taken a sip right before they got pulled over so they could argue they weren't really drunk. By not allowing people to drink while driving this is a non issue. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
35aaqj
|
why do dogs (and foxes) like balls so much?
|
See this: _URL_0_
The fox went for the ball. It isn't domesticated, so it's not been taught.
Thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/35aaqj/eli5_why_do_dogs_and_foxes_like_balls_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr2hox8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's part of an old instinct to chase small quick animals. They are naturally attracted to things that are small and move quickly and their natural instinct is to chase them"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/gifs/comments/358jo5/baby_fox_practicing_its_sneak_attack/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
65uvqm
|
please. how do you milk an almond to make almond milk?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/65uvqm/eli5_please_how_do_you_milk_an_almond_to_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgdd0hf",
"dgdo5yo"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"With a screw press. Roughly chop, then sqeeze them like olives or peanuts to get the moister out. The remaining paste can be used as a thickening agent.",
"What Druid posted about the press is correct but typically they will also soak the almonds in a watery mixture that when pressed/processed creates a slurry of water and oil and solids. The solids are filtered out.\n\nThe protein content of the almonds remains in the physical paste leaving the liquid mixture as \"milk\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9x3btd
|
how does gps jamming work? like what the russians did during the recent nato exercise.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9x3btd/eli5_how_does_gps_jamming_work_like_what_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9p8w9l",
"e9p9n04",
"e9p9rrl",
"e9q0gp3"
],
"score": [
29,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The same as normal jamming, they sent out a bunch of signals on the frequency that GPS satellites use to confuse the receivers- like trying to hear a code someone is telling you(The GPS signal) when someone is shouting in your ear(The Russian Jamming.) \n\n01001 01100 01001 01011 00101 10100 10010 00001 01001 01110 10011... \n\n#I LIKE TRAINS, VARIABLE-SPEED CORN MUFFINS, HI GUYS WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, ARE YOU HAVING A CONVERSATION, AM I INTRUDING? ",
"GPS works on a series of satellites at predictable positions in orbit around the Earth. A GPS receiver basically \"sees\" these GPS satellites, the radio signals they put out, and can figure out its own location based on them.\n\nTo jam a radio signal, you just need to flood the area with other signals at the same frequency, preventing anyone from getting useful information from them.\n\nImagine turning a spotlight on and off to send a message in morse code. Jamming would be like having a hundred other spotlights also flashing randomly at the same time. The real signal is in the mix, but there's no way to tell what is signal and what is noise, so it is all effectively noise.\n\nAnyway, since GPS signals are just radio signals at a specific frequency, you can jam them just like any other radio signal.",
"First how GPS works: GPS satellites in orbit are like special radio stations that continuously send a very long pattern of numbers and their positions relative to the Earth. GPS receivers are radio receivers that know the same pattern. The receiver compares its pattern with the transmitted pattern to know how long ago the GPS satellite sent it. This time delay is converted to a distance and the distances from three or four GPS satellites are used to determine the location of the receiver through a calculation called triangulation.\n\nJamming: Unfortunately, civilian GPS is not securely verifiable so a receiver can't tell the difference between a real and fake transmission on the same frequency. Russia probably transmitted either noise or a shifted version of the pattern to confuse receivers , making the receiver believe satellites were closer or farther than they really are. If the Russian transmission was stronger, which is easy to do since the real transmitters are all the way in space, they could cause GPS receivers to report an incorrect location.\n\n\nEdit: Since you were asking about a military drill specifically, it's likely Russia was just transmitting noise to prevent the real signal from being received. Civilian GPS is even more vulnerable in that an attacker can create fake signals to cause a receiver to believe it's in the wrong place, though it would be hard to do for multiple spread out targets simultaneously.",
"Wait, did this happen? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
nj984
|
what is wireless spectrum scarcity and why is it a problem now?
|
AT & T cited wireless spectrum scarcity as the reason it wanted to acquire T-mobile. Verizon is also buying smaller companies to secure more wireless spectrum. What puts strains on this spectrum and why is it so scarce right now? Is wireless spectrum the same thing as the frequency bands (like AT & T running on 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, etc.) or is it something different? Why doesn't the government just release more spectrum?
Thanks!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/nj984/eli5_what_is_wireless_spectrum_scarcity_and_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c39jcho",
"c39jcho"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"[this](_URL_1_) gives you a great explanation, but i'll give you the TLDR\n\nSpectrum is allocated from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Basically different devices require a certain amount of bandwidth to send signal. When you create 4G (or even faster forms) you need more assigned spectrum. \n\n > What puts strains on this spectrum and why is it so scarce right now? \n\nmore electronic devices that require a radio frequency, any technology really...\n\n > Is wireless spectrum the same thing as the frequency bands (like AT & T running on 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, etc.) \n\nsame thing, just at different ends of the range. Scroll down to the bottom of [this](_URL_0_) \n\n\n > Why doesn't the government just release more spectrum? \n\nits already clogged up, they need to sell/take over more spectrum, but that usually involves pissing somebody else off. \n\nELI5: Think of it like you're in a class, and the teacher asks you to paint a mural, gives you 30cm (1ft) each within the long sheet. Then another 30 kids walk into the classroom halfway through and want to paint too. So the teacher tells you to give them half. You've already started your 30cm masterpiece, why the fuck would you surrender it?",
"[this](_URL_1_) gives you a great explanation, but i'll give you the TLDR\n\nSpectrum is allocated from 3 kHz to 300 GHz. Basically different devices require a certain amount of bandwidth to send signal. When you create 4G (or even faster forms) you need more assigned spectrum. \n\n > What puts strains on this spectrum and why is it so scarce right now? \n\nmore electronic devices that require a radio frequency, any technology really...\n\n > Is wireless spectrum the same thing as the frequency bands (like AT & T running on 850 MHz, 1900 MHz, etc.) \n\nsame thing, just at different ends of the range. Scroll down to the bottom of [this](_URL_0_) \n\n\n > Why doesn't the government just release more spectrum? \n\nits already clogged up, they need to sell/take over more spectrum, but that usually involves pissing somebody else off. \n\nELI5: Think of it like you're in a class, and the teacher asks you to paint a mural, gives you 30cm (1ft) each within the long sheet. Then another 30 kids walk into the classroom halfway through and want to paint too. So the teacher tells you to give them half. You've already started your 30cm masterpiece, why the fuck would you surrender it?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2003_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management"
],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/United_States_Frequency_Allocations_Chart_2003_-_The_Radio_Spectrum.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spectrum_management"
]
] |
|
2c4s5j
|
why does my back itch if i'm not wearing a shirt, but nothing else on my bare body does?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c4s5j/eli5_why_does_my_back_itch_if_im_not_wearing_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjbxrgd",
"cjc20p0"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
" > Looked it up and didn't really find anything\n\n\nObviously you didn't try WebMD... it's cancer, definitely cancer.",
"Not an expert at all, but I read that some evolutionary psychologists believe that the reason you get itchy for no reason is to encourage grooming (think back when we had fur that needed grooming). You can't reach your back yourself, so it doesn't get groomed. So, your back gets itchy to encourage you to find a way to scratch/groom it, usually by finding someone else to scratch it. Or at least rub against some tree bark."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
gno54
|
Are Pharma companies evil like everyone says?
|
I think you must have heard the stereotype of pharma companies being evil:
Wont research a cure but will research a treatment they can keep you on for life, so they can leach your money
Wont research antibiotics even though we desperately need them
Will only find cures for western problems
... The list is endless
How much truth is there in this? Do they have more legitimate reasons than just trying to whore profit out of everyone?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gno54/are_pharma_companies_evil_like_everyone_says/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1oy85r",
"c1p1jtl"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You are asking a loaded question. A company is a group of people, policies, etc. I'm curious as to what criteria you would weigh in making a determination if a company is 'evil'?",
"Pharma is just a company, like any other, and as such they are bound by the law just like any other. According to the law (the SEC we're talking here) the company MUST do what is in the best financial interests of the shareholders, or the corporate officers (CEO etc...) can actually be charged with a crime and go to prison. \n\nAs a result the pharmaceutical industry has almost no choice but to pursue products that they believe will generate the best return. They have to make products for people who can afford them, and products that people with money want to buy; sadly this means often developing erection pills over drugs for tropical diseases.\n\nThis being said, Pharma companies do indeed develop drugs for the developing world, and the people in the companies absolutely would like to work on these problems, but it's an expensive process.\n\nTD;DR Pharma companies are not good or evil, they are just following the laws of the land, morality isn't a factor in any large business."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5xzxa7
|
why can we see faraway light source (e.g. cars, lamps, stars) clearly when it doesn't seem to illuminate my position?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xzxa7/eli5_why_can_we_see_faraway_light_source_eg_cars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dembx3o"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The difference is this: For you to see light, the light has to be strong enough to reach your eye and produce a reaction there. For it to illuminate you, it would have to reach you, scatter off you, reach someone else's eye, and produce a reaction there. During the scattering, the light is spread out more, so it becomes fainter.\n\nLet's look at the case of a laser pointer. Point the laser at the wall, and the scattered light is comfortably visible. Point it at your eye, and you're looking at serious eye damage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
79z79x
|
Were the pyramids really gold capped?
|
I've been playing a lot of AC: Origins recently and I see most of the pyramids are capped with gold, I've also seen this referenced in other movies and media (I.e. The Mummy)
I was wondering if this is true, and how do we know? Saying as even the oldest photos don't show any gold on top
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/79z79x/were_the_pyramids_really_gold_capped/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp68sya"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"When it first came out, someone asked if the pyramids would still have caps at that time. [So I hope this answer is at least partially useful, though no doubt we have other ancient accounts that are older.] (_URL_0_) I'm not sure what the last mention of the gold caps would be,\n though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6h11h4/the_new_assassins_creed_game_is_set_in_ptolemaic/"
]
] |
|
2v15bd
|
do people who hear for the first time, after something like getting hearing implants, know what the other people are saying?
|
They may be able to still read the lips of the person who is talking to them, but wouldn't it all really just be meaningless sound if you heard it for the first time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v15bd/eli5_do_people_who_hear_for_the_first_time_after/
|
{
"a_id": [
"codkub2",
"codqpih"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"When the senses are developing there is a time called the [critical period](_URL_0_) in which sensory neurons physically become associated with certain parts of the brain, with the result being that different functions can be mapped to distinct regions of the brain. This is called topography. If there isn't any sensory input during this critical period, then the topography will not develop properly, and it may be impossible for it to develop once the critical period has ended. One example is babies born with cataracts. If they don't get them removed right away, then they won't be receiving any visual stimulus during the critical period, and even if they get the cataracts removed in the future, they will still be blind for live. A similar thing happens with people who are born deaf. Hearing implants in someone who has never heard before may give them some auditory function, like they may be able to detect that there is a noise and where it is coming from, but they won't be able understand speech or language, which is a very complex neurological process. Their ability might improve over time, but it will probably never get to the point of a non-hearing impaired person.",
"Most types of deathness of the ear are caused by things like car crashes, or a natural cause which doesn't effect you right at birth.\nThus some people are known to still remember or still recognize words. Don't forget that people who can't hear can still read, thus most, even if you forget, people who can hear afterwards are usually very easy to be retaught. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Critical_period#Auditory_Processing"
],
[]
] |
|
5ypew0
|
How successful were the programs of forced sterilization of Native American women?
|
I live in an area where these programs were carried out. There aren't many native americans left here, even though this is an area where you would expect to find a lot of them; its mostly white.
No one locally ever talks about the programs locally, except for every now and then a retired (and I think dead) local doctor's name will come up with quite a bit of contempt attached to it.
If there is anyone that could shed light on the rumors and stories that go around, and separate fact from slander and whitewash, I would greatly appreciate it. Objective historical research of this sort is difficult.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ypew0/how_successful_were_the_programs_of_forced/
|
{
"a_id": [
"detpj77"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"So from the context of your post, I feel like you're asking this sincerely. I'd like to start out by saying \"successful\" isn't a good word to use. Perhaps it wasn't your intention, but using the word \"success\" carries with it a connotation of justification. These types of programs are never justified. A brief discussion about this was had just the other day about the Nazi eugenics programs.\n\nAight, let's break it down now...\n\n##U.S. Eugenics Programs\n\nThe term \"eugenics\" was coined in 1883 by Francis Galton. It is closely related to Darwinism and essentially advocates the framework of ideas that genes can be manipulated to produce a \"better\" population by controlled breeding. This notion became popular in the United States during the late 19th and early 20th centuries, lasting even up through the 1970s. People ranging from political figures and scientists to your average individual adopted this ideology,^[1] one that was grounded in the [perceived conceptions of race.](_URL_3_)\n\nAs noted in the first cited reference, this was the thought on eugenics by Henry F. Osborn, then president of the American Museum of Natural History in New York, in 1921:\n\n > In the US we are slowly waking to the consciousness that education and environment do not fundamentally alter racial values. We are engaged in a serious struggle to maintain our historic republican institutions through barring the entrance of those unfit to share in the duties and responsibilities of our well-founded government. … In the matter of racial virtues, my opinion is that from biological principles there is little promise in the melting-pot theory. Put three races together (Caucasian, Mongolian, and the Negroid) you are likely to unite the vices of all three as the virtues. … For the worlds work give me a pure-blooded … ascertain through observation and experiment what each race is best fitted to accomplish. … If the Negro fails in government, he may become a fine agriculturist or a fine mechanic. … The right of the state to safeguard the character and integrity of the race or races on which its future depends is, to my mind, as incontestable as the right of the state to safeguard the health and morals of its peoples.^[1]\n\nPrograms of eugenics in the United States became a big deal. Compulsory sterilization laws adopted by over 30 states and there is evidence of eugenics in all 50.^[2]\n\nThe renown of the U.S. eugenics program was widespread. It was even commented on by Hitler in his book *Mein Kampf,* where he notes in his chapter denoting the importance of race to citizenship (bold mine):\n\n > [**At present there exists one State which manifests at least some modest attempts that show a better appreciation of how things ought to be done in this matter.** It is not, however, in our model German Republic but in **the U.S.A.** that efforts are made to conform at least partly to the counsels of commonsense. By refusing immigrants to enter there if they are in a bad state of health, and by **excluding certain races from the right to become naturalized as citizens,** they have begun to introduce principles similar to those on which we wish to ground the People's State (p. 315).](_URL_2_)\n\nPaul Popenoe comments in volume 25 of the *Journal of Heredity* under \"The German Sterilization Law\" by saying:\n\n > [While the German law is well drawn and, in form, may be considered better than the sterilization laws of most American states, the success of any such measure naturally depends on conservative, sympathetic, and intelligent administration (p. 259).](_URL_5_)\n\n[The American College of Physicians denotes the similarities between the Nazi and American eugenic/sterilization programs.](_URL_6_)\n\n##Sterilization of American Indians\n\nThe programs run by the United States specifically targeted multiple groups of people, ranging from the mentally ill and disabled to those of disadvantaged and marginalized social groups.^[2] One of those groups included the one group of people the United States had, and still has, an obligation of the highest degree toward: the American Indians.\n\nThe Indian Health Service (IHS) is a federally run service for American Indians and Alaska Natives. It is, obviously, responsible for providing proper health care for native peoples as established via the treaties and trust relationship between tribes and the U.S. Government. However, on November 6, 1976, the Government Accounting Office (GAO) released the results of an investigation that concluded that [between 1973 and 1976, IHS performed 3,406 sterilizations on Native American women.](_URL_1_) Per capita, this figure would be equivalent to sterilizing 452,000 non-Native American women.\n\nAccording to the above article, many of these sterilizations were conducted **without the consent of the women being sterilized or under coercion.** [Table 1 on page 403 of this article from the *American Indian Quarterly*](_URL_0_) shows a steep decline in birthrates among several Native American tribes. This journal denotes many of the issues that arose in the IHS protocol for administering these sterilizations. It says:\n\n > The report stated that the violations occurred because \"(1) some Indian Health Service physicians did not completely understand the regulations and (2) contract physicians were not required to adhere to the regulations.\" The GAO discovered that the sterilization consent forms used did not comply with HEW regulations and that IHS medical providers used several different forms. The majority of the forms \"did not (I) indicate that the basic elements of in- formed consent had been presented orally to the patient, (2) contain written summaries of the oral presentation, and (3) contain a statement at the top of the form notifying the subjects of their right to withdraw consent\" (p. 407).\n\nAnd that's just the summation. The following pages detail how jacked up the IHS procedures were. While the journal notes that the GAO did not verify if the sterilizations were truly performed without consent, there were certainly many circumstances that would've let to that result. The sterilized women were not even interviewed (noted on page 407 as well).\n\nThe journal continues by examining the aftermath of these programs:\n\n > The IHS damaged tribal communities in several ways. Tribal communities lost much of their ability to reproduce, the respect of other tribal entities, and political power in the tribal councils. Tribal communities represent sections of the entire tribe, much as counties represent specific areas within a state. The population of a community reflects the number of representatives it can elect to the tribal council and to national pan-Indian organizations. Therefore, a community's level of power within the tribal government is affected by the number of people in the community. A lowered census number might also affect federal services a tribal community receives. Finally, a tribal community that suffers a great number of sterilizations can lose the respect of other tribal communities because of its inability to protect its women (p. 411).\n\nThe point being that these sterilizations had grave impacts on the tribal communities that suffered them. However, this might not be the answer to your main thought: where are all the Indians?\n\nDepending on where you live, your area could have also been hit by all the relocation programs. From the 1950s to the late 1960s, the federal government launched \"relocation programs\" in an attempt to move Indians off the reservations and into more urban centers in an attempt to solve the high poverty rates among the American Indian populations. These attempts often amounted little success for Indians who failed to receive further assistance after being forced from their homes with the goal of assimilating them. What it did do, however, is significantly disperse the Indian population around the country from their reservations.^[3] But the sterilization programs could easily have played a part.\n\n[Despite what might appear as an initial \"success,\" the American Indian population has actually been increasing since the beginning of the 20th Century.](_URL_8_) These numbers will fluctuate based on how \"American Indian\" is defined and counted, but in general, we can consider there to be an increase.\n\nAs for why you haven't really heard about it, the connection to Nazi Germany is something that could impact that. Obviously after World War 2, the United States wasn't too keen on many things related to Nazism, socialism, communism, fascism. Additionally, American Indians are still largely marginalized in today's world. The historical interactions between tribes and the U.S. isn't taught accurately in schools, if at all besides the stereotypical lessons in the curriculum. I am actually a bit surprised to see a question about these sterilizations, for it is one of the more obscure things that many Americans are unaware of, from my own experiences. Any other reasons really depend on your specific geographical location and its politics.\n___\nReferences\n\n[1] - [U.S. Scientists' Role in the Eugenics Movement (1907–1939): A Contemporary Biologist's Perspective by\nSteven A. Farber.](_URL_7_)\n\n[2] - [Eugenics: Compulsory Sterilization in 50 American States by Lutz Kaelber, Associate Professor of Sociology, University of Vermont.](_URL_4_)\n\n[3] - *Rights of Indians and Tribes* by Stephen L. Pevar (2012)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://faculty.utep.edu/LinkClick.aspx?link=lawrence.pdf&tabid=19869&mid=71730",
"https://cbhd.org/content/forced-sterilization-native-americans-late-twentieth-century-physician-cooperation-national-",
"http://www.angelfire.com/folk/bigbaldbob88/MeinKampf.pdf",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5j6b4i/monday_methods_no_but_what_race_were_the_ancient/",
"https://www.uvm.edu/~lkaelber/eugenics/",
"http://www.eugenicsarchive.org/eugenics/image_header.pl?id=2310&printable=1&detailed=0",
"http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.729.9247&rep=rep1&type=pdf",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2757926/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK233102/"
]
] |
|
7tlrg1
|
Why were guns created in Europe, instead of Asia?
|
As I understand, gunpowder was invented/discovered in China, before being transported west to Europe, where it was employed in warfare quickly, leading to cannon and hand guns and all the rest. Why did these innovations not take place in Asia? I understand that some Asian cultures had, sorts of hand guns and small cannon, but during the Sengoku Jidai, Japan was importing Portuguese cannon and matchlock rifles. In general it appears that most Asian cultures developed gunpowder weapons more slowly than their European counterparts, despite being closer to it's birthplace (China). Why?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7tlrg1/why_were_guns_created_in_europe_instead_of_asia/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtdqmcl"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
" > Why did these innovations not take place in Asia?\n\nThey did. It isn't that gunpowder made it to the West, and then cannons and handguns were invented in the West, but gunpowder made it to the West because it was already being used in guns.\n\nFor example, in the Mongol siege of Jin Kaifeng in 1232, guns were being used, and appear to already be a mature and effective technology.^1 The early development of gunpowder weapons is covered in vol 5 part 7 of *Science and Civilisation in China*.^2\n\n > In general it appears that most Asian cultures developed gunpowder weapons more slowly than their European counterparts, despite being closer to it's birthplace (China). Why?\n\nThe usual explanation is that Chinese development of firearms was slow due to China already being dominant in the region and not needing new and better weapons, and conservativeness of Chinese society, and Confucian disdain for practical and military matters on the one hand, and Europe being divided into small states constantly at war with each other and seeking any advantage they can get. There are some elements of the real story in this version, but this shouldn't be mistaken for the real story.\n\nFirst, it is important to know when European firearm technology was ahead of Asian firearm technology. Initially, China led firearms technology. By the late Ming, Western and Ottoman firearms technology was ahead, with the western technology pulling ahead in about 1450. After that, Western gun technology tended to stay ahead of East Asian gun technology, but the difference stayed relatively small (in part due to rapid adoption of Western improvements by China and other East Asian states) until the late 18th century, when developments driven by the scientific revolution such as the adoption of the carronade by the British Royal Navy in 1779 greatly improved the performance of Western artillery. The gap grew, and there was a decisive qualitative difference in the 19th century, which remained until the modernisation of Asian armies (beginning in the mid 19th century, and continuing into the 20th century). One should not be misled by this late gap in firearms technology into thinking that a large gap was the normal historical condition. The normal historical conditions were (a) Asia ahead, until about 1450, and (b) Asia behind, with a small gap, until the late 18th century.\n\nSecond, the rate of development of military technology does depend on the frequency of warfare, the military technology of the opponents, and the threat to the state posed by the warfare. The \"Europe at war\" part of the usual story does explain why there was rapid development of gun technology by European states and the Ottomans. It also explains why Chinese development slowed down about 1400. The gun was developed in China and continued to develop in a period of extensive warfare: war between the Song Chinese, Liao/Khitans, Jin/Jurchen, and Mongols for control of China, followed by fighting between various rebel groups for control of China as the Yuan (Mongol) Dynasty collapsed, which was won by the Ming, followed by expansionist wars during the early part of the Ming Dynasty. The story of the development of firearms over this time is told in many sources.^3,4,5\n\nThe mid-Ming period of relative peace resulted in slower development in China; this is when the West pulled ahead. Chinese development didn't halt, though a key part of Chinese development in this period was the adoption of Western improvements.^3,4 At the same time, other states like Japan also adopted European-style firearms (some of the adoption of \"European\" weapons was directly from Europeans, and some was from other Asian states).\n\nOne key element of early Western (and Ottoman) cannon technology that didn't occur in China was the development of wall-breaking cannon. In the West, this led to major changes in fortress construction to better resist artillery. There were many fortified cities, and other fortifications, in China, in a period when guns were available, and multiple states were fighting for control of China (and those fortified cities and other fortresses). Why weren't wall-breaking cannon developed for the purpose? Because Chinese fortifications were already cannon-proof. Western fortifications typically consisted of tall (to resist escalade) but fairly thin walls. The Theodosian walls at Constantinople were extremely thick by European standards - the inner walls were up to 6m thick. However, Chinese walls, typically stone or brick faced rammed earth, were often 10-20m thick. This is the style of wall that was adopted in Europe to resist cannons. Since existing walls were effectively already cannon-proof, there was little incentive to develop cannon to unsuccessfully try to breach such walls.\n\nKorea provides a compact example - early adoption of guns as the Joseon Dynasty rose from the wreckage of Mongol rule, followed by a long period of peace until the Japanese invasions of 1592-1598, followed by wars with the Manchus. The Koreans entered this period of warfare around 1600 with very few handguns, and 14th century cannon, and emerged with perhaps the best musket-armed forces in the world - the Korean force (mostly (80%) musketeers - about 10,000 musketeers) sent to aid the Ming against the Manchus performed very well in the Battle of Sarhū, 1619.\n\nReferences:\n\n1. G. Schlegel, On the invention and use of fire-arms and gunpowder in China, prior to the arrival of Europeans, *T'oung Pao*, vol. 3, pp. 1-11, 1902.\n\n2. Joseph Needham and Ho Ping-Yü, *Science and Civilisation in China: Volume 5, Chemistry and Chemical Technology, Part 7, Military Technology: The Gunpowder Epic*, Cambridge University Press, 1987.\n\n3. Peter A. Lorge, *The Asian Military Revolution: From Gunpowder to the Bomb*, Cambridge University Press, 2008.\n\n4. Tonio Andrade, *The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West in World History*, Princeton University Press, 2016.\n\n5. James Waterson, *Defending Heaven: China's Mongol Wars, 1209-1370*, Frontline, 2013."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7e2gz2
|
Why are math and physics considered liberal arts subjects?
|
Small liberal arts colleges often seem to have good math and/or physics programs, whereas very closely related STEM fields are not present at all. How did this come to be?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7e2gz2/why_are_math_and_physics_considered_liberal_arts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq20oue"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Liberal arts does not mean \"humanities\" as opposed to \"sciences.\" The term, for one thing, long predates the entry of \"science\" into the western vocabulary. The *artes liberales*, where *ars* means \"skill\" (as is usual; Hogwarts isn't teaching students Defense Against Dark Paintings and Statuary), were and are a series of seven disciplines subdivided into two groups, one of three (the *trivium*) and one of four (the *quadrivium*). They are called *liberales* because they are the skills required for a free person to be considered educated. The first reference to them is in Cicero, *de oratore* 1.16: *[artes] quae libero dignae*, \"the arts which befit a free person.\" The liberal arts were entirely intellectual, requiring no manual labor, unlike the *artes serviles* or *vulgares*, essentially trades and crafts. Originating in Greek thought and passed to medieval society by the Romans, the *artes liberales* consisted of rhetoric, grammar, arithmetic, logic, astronomy, music, and geometry. These were further subdivided into the *trivium* (grammar, logic, rhetoric) and the *quadrivium* (arithmetic, astronomy, music, geometry). The intellectual path from the *quadrivium* in particular to modern mathematics and physics is not a hard one to work out, but its historical development should be outlined. Already by the later Middle Ages Thomas Aquinas was noting that the *trivium* and *quadrivium* together were insufficient as a framework of education regarding certain philosophical studies. The *artes liberales*, always conceived of as a set unit that must be taught together, were by the late Middle Ages being broken up into independent disciplines. The *trivium* was more neatly organized--all three of its subjects dealt with language--and held out somewhat better, and instead of being preliminary to the *quadrivium* was transferred into the universities alongside it, especially by the humanists. The Renaissance saw changes to the framework even of the *trivium*, however: grammar became more generally philology, and added were poetry, moralizing philosophy, and history. The *quadrivium* had already been dying in the Renaissance, but to the *trivium* humanist scholars added physics and metaphysics. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3yuxhw
|
How do we know how organic molecules look like, and how do we also know how reaction mechanisms proceed?
|
So this is a question that has always intrigued me after taking courses such as Organic Chemistry.
I understand that we have developed many techniques to determine the structure of a molecule (NMR, X-Ray Crystallography, etc) but when I looked at examples of these techniques being performed I still found it confusing as how chemists were still able to obtain the structure of the molecule from it.
In addition, when we learn about reaction mechanisms, are these mechanisms for the most part hypothetical? In other words, are the mechanisms what chemists THINK how the reaction proceeds, considering it is nearly impossible to see the transfer of electrons and what not?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3yuxhw/how_do_we_know_how_organic_molecules_look_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyib7fh",
"cyhke1i"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Mechanisms are indeed hypothetical in principle, but they get their scientific confirmation via kinetics. For example, if you suppose a reaction to proceed as an [SN1](_URL_0_) you will measure a first-order kinetic evolution experimentally (thus exponential decay), if instead you measure second-order it means it could be following an SN2 mechanism.",
"Okay, I'll try to explain it the best way I can without going through the meticulous details of how analytical instruments work. Basically, if you propose a structure for a molecule, you imply certain physical relationships. In an NMR, those relationships are proton couplings and with a COSY spectrum, you can tell which ones are coupled to which other ones. In a complex molecule, the NMR is characteristic of a particular structure and the chance of you finding another molecule that has the exact same NMR peaks with the same splitting pattern approaches zero. But NMR usually isn't the only thing reported in synthesis papers. People also report IR spectra and mass spec. IR spectra help to confirm structures the same way NMR does - via characteristic peaks that would be predicted from a given structure. Finally, our mass spec instruments have gotten to the point where we can actually get the mass of a sample with accuracy down to four+ decimal places. So if the mass of your sample doesn't match the predicted mass to four decimal places, it's not the molecule you predicted. So I like to think of this whole process as not completely eliminating the chance occurrence that two complex molecules with different molecular structures could generate the exact spectral pattern but rather reducing that chance to near zero. Kind of like how you can say with 99.999% certainty that somebody is somebody else's child using DNA analysis. \n\nSecond, mechanisms are another story. It is usually very difficult to prove a mechanism and in modern organic synthesis methodology papers, people generally don't go through a vigorous process of proving the mechanism. They usually report \"proposed\" mechanisms and show some rate data, etc. that give support to the mechanism. But in terms of the classical organic mechanisms, most have been studied enough that it is functionally certain that that is how they proceed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SN1_reaction"
],
[]
] |
|
xqgio
|
why do some men's button-up shirts have the last buttonhole horizontal while the rest are vertical?
|
I was just doing some laundry and noticed that the bottom buttonhole on some of my shirts are horizantally stitched while the rest of the buttonholes are vertically stitched. What's the reason for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xqgio/eli5_why_do_some_mens_buttonup_shirts_have_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ooybu",
"c5oqe9m",
"c5otqnh"
],
"score": [
89,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Stress concentration. \n\nButtonholes are weakest along their long dimension. If you pull on that vertical buttonhole, it will want to rip in the corner of the buttonhole. The lowest button is usually the one under the most stress due to trousers, [shirt garters](_URL_0_), and beer bellies, and it doesn't have neighbor buttons on both sides to help share the load. Going horizontal with that button lets the fabric spread the load better.",
"I thought it was so that you could feel where the buttons ended and not fumble around for the next buttonhole that isn't there.",
"I saw butthole. Had to do a retake."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shirt_garter"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
358hfe
|
How important were Special Forces in WW2?
|
I've heard many stories. For example the O.S.S. would disrupt Nazi transportation, under water demolition teams that paved the way for ships on DDay. And the most insane story was a Special Forces team sent out to the bitter icy cold in the middle of some mountains to destroy Hitler's "heavy water" facilities in order to derail his plans for an ATOMIC BOMB. It is frightening to think it could have been used on an allied country.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/358hfe/how_important_were_special_forces_in_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr2608i",
"cr2kc4p",
"cr2lph7"
],
"score": [
10,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Black and Green Ops are really hard to rate in such a manner. In WWII in specific, the line between Black/Green/Regular Operations became intensely blurred as well. Many formations that could conduct a stereotypical, independent raid or sortie were also used, by design or necessity, as larger combat formations in a traditional role. \n\nUnits that are now considered to be the forebearers of Special Forces operations in North America, such as the mixed Special Service unit, the Ranger Battalions, the Commandos and the \"Specials\", were large formations that often fought conventionally as often if not more so than conduct our stereotypical view of a \"Special Forces\" mission. The British Commandos and their nearest equivalents - in my mind - among their enemies; the Brandenburg regiment, are prime examples of this.\n\nBoth units were used in relatively small-unit actions of mixed success early war. The British commandos often conducting high-risk descents upon occupied Europe to actively sabotage or raid enemy facilities. The Brandenburgers were originally conceived as a sort of armed branch of the Abwehr, and their early missions are imaginative, to say the least. Often attempting to secure bridges along the route of advance through a mix of subterfuge (wearing enemy fatigues, for example) and active and traditional infantry combat. As the war progressed, both became increasingly more conventional, with the British Commandos committing combat units to the Normandy landings and the Brandenburgers acting as a Panzergrenadier division in name during the final fights on Germany's eastern frontier.\n\nThe positive experiences of having small, well trained, rapidly deployable forces of infantry meant that the concept of Special Forces expanded rapidly post-war.\n\nMore traditional intelligence agencies, like the O.S.S and SOE were *paramount* to Allied success. The British intelligence community in particular were quite systematic in the training of foreign resistance movements and most famously the turning of all German agents in the British home islands. The success of the O.S.S, SOE et al. truly shines in their counter-intelligence. I'll provide an example given by Bill Yenne in his exploration of early Japanese successes and failures. In his book he notes that the Japanese intelligence efforts in the USA and North America were as botched as their German counterparts; with OSS and FBI planted agents in the armed forces able to root out in particular one effort to turn a US Seaman into an informant for the Japanese government. \n\n",
"On the Norsky Hydro raid (the heavy water facility) — I don't want to take away from the drama, because the raid was certainly dramatic. But its impact on the German ability to get an atomic bomb was negligible, because the Germans were not actually racing towards a nuclear weapon. It slowed down their reactor research program a little bit. But that program was never going to develop nuclear weapons during World War II — it was laboratory-scale, when what you need for an atomic bomb is industrial-scale. The Allies certainly _thought_ the Norsk Hydro raid was consequential at the time, but in retrospect we now know that it didn't do much with regards to the outcome of the war. \n\nTo put it into perspective, the US experimental heavy water reactor built during World War II (CP-3) required around 6,000 kg of pure heavy water. The total German stockpile of heavy water was around 330 kg of pure heavy water (and 1760 kg of diluted substance). Norsk Hydro had produced about 500 kg of impure heavy water that was destroyed in the raid. It could only produce about 10 kg of the stuff per month, anyway. Even if the Germans had gotten an experimental reactor running, it would not produce enough plutonium to be useful for bomb-making. (They would have needed multiple, industrial-sized reactors to do that in the amount of time required for the war. The US built three industrial-sized, carbon-moderator reactors in Washington state during the war, and used those to produce the plutonium for two atomic bombs.)\n\nThe Allied Manhattan Project, by contrast, built four heavy water plants during the war, produced 20,000 kg of the stuff, and didn't even really need it, in the end. \n\nAgain, the raid was dramatic, and dangerous. And the Allies certainly thought it was worth the drama and risk. But we know, with the benefit of hindsight and history, that it wasn't what kept Hitler from getting an atomic bomb. What kept the Nazis from developing atomic weapons is that they didn't give the program high priority, and even if they had, there were many technical reasons other than that which would have made it extremely unlikely. One of the biggest myths of World War II is that the Allies were _actually_ in a race for the atomic bomb against the Germans. They _thought_ they were until around mid-1944, when they found out that the Germans weren't actually racing. But thinking you are in a race does not mean you actually are in one.",
"If you want to read a serious history of this, a great starting place is \"Spec Ops\" by William McRaven. It covers a series of case studies on the employment of special forces. Six of the studies are from WWII. I can't recommend it enough. \n\nIt covers the reason why a special operation was considered, why conventional forces were not used, how the operation went, and what lessons learned were. It is the best starting point for someone interested in learning the principles of special operation. \n\nAlso, the author is the former commander of US Special Forces so he knows what he's talking about. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Spec-Ops-Studies-Operations-Practice/dp/0891416005/ref=sr_1_10?ie=UTF8&qid=1431098532&sr=8-10&keywords=spec+ops"
]
] |
|
2bvn7d
|
How is a Damping Coefficient Interpreted in Equations Concerning Harmonic Motion?
|
Hello /r/askScience. I'm just posting what is probably a very simple question that I had while working some problems in a Differential Equations class. I'm an engineering student and Diff. Eq. was my last mathematics requirement, but my first course in physics doesn't start for another month, so although I have no problem solving differential equations based in physics, I occasionally have a hard time interpreting exactly what the equations signify.
My question is: if a damping coefficient is given as, for example, "with resistance equal to instantaneous velocity", what does this mean in practical, physical terms? If, say, a spring-mass system is "immersed in a medium that imparts a damping force equal to ten times the instantaneous velocity", what is instantaneous velocity in this context referring to? I can see that the initial damping term here is 10x', but I'm not clear on where this comes from, or why instantaneous velocity is assumed to be 1 regardless the context.
Thanks for any help with this. This is my first post here, so I apologize if I overlooked some rule about posting.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2bvn7d/how_is_a_damping_coefficient_interpreted_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj9hvvc",
"cj9n5tx"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the phrase should be \"with resistance proportional to instantaneous velocity\". \n\nOne way of commonly modelling drag or resistance is to assume that the resistance an object feels is linearly proportional to it's velocity at any given moment. This is sometimes called [Stokes drag](_URL_0_).\n\nThe idea behind it is that the faster an object is moving the more drag it feels. This is unlike something like rolling friction, which is always the same (to a good approximation) no matter how fast you're going. \n\nIf you want some practical experience, walk around in a pool. It's quite easy to move slowly, but in order to walk faster you need to exert even more force. \n",
"It's a rate at which energy leaves the system. Depending on how this compares to the resonant frequency gives the under over critical damped regime. Instantaneous velocity is just dx/dt. Typically when understanding the behavior of an ODE you want to understand the relevant timescales. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drag_(physics)#Very_low_Reynolds_numbers:_Stokes.27_drag"
],
[]
] |
|
21m396
|
How does Morocco get the honor of being America's first ally, yet we were in cahoots with France during the Revolutionary war?
|
In a US Navy manual it asked a question "Which country was the first one to recognize America's Stars and Stripes?". The answer being France.
Anyway, I read a book about the history of Islam in America, and it said that Morocco was the first nation to recognize the US as a nation. I googled the Morocco thing, and it seems to be correct.
Just how does all this stuff work on the international level? I am sure its based on the choice of words.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21m396/how_does_morocco_get_the_honor_of_being_americas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgedbpk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Morocco's early relations with the US were actually somewhat mixed. [Michael Oren writes](_URL_2_) that the ruler of Morocco at the time, Sidi Muhammad bin `Abdallah, \n\n > claimed to have been the first monarch to have recognized American independence and the first Muslim leader to seek a formal treaty with the young Republic. Congress dallied, however, and managed to offend the emperor. In relatiation, the Moroccans began seizing American ships (28).\n\nPeace came at a price, and for $20,000 the US was able to buy back its ships and secure [the longest-standing treaty in US diplomatic history](_URL_1_). [The US consulate in Tangier](_URL_0_) would also become the US's oldest legation building and its first piece of property owned beyond its borders.\n\nThe concessions that the nascent US paid to Morocco set a costly precedent and other North African states picked up on how they could also extract money from the US. The US did not have a navy and so its merchant ships were easy prey. It was not until 1815 that the US was able to put together a navy and force a peace with the `barbary states,' putting an end to the concessions that at times accounted for 20% of the US's annual budget."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Legation,_Tangier",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moroccan%E2%80%93American_Treaty_of_Friendship",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power,_Faith_and_Fantasy"
]
] |
|
41a8tm
|
how do herbivorous animals that birth only one offspring at a time, maintain higher populations than their predatory counterparts that birth multiples in a litter?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41a8tm/eli5_how_do_herbivorous_animals_that_birth_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz0qpuh"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"because plants are a more common form of food and requires less energy to collect. predators have to compete with eachother to survive and most of the time an entire litter doesn't survive"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
jbqal
|
What happens to the movement areas in the brains of paralyzed individuals?
|
I read somewhere that in blind individuals, the brain regions normally associated with vision can be 'taken over' and used for hearing or other tasks. Does a similar thing happen to the brains of paralyzed individuals? Could this lead to paralyzed individuals having superior compensatory abilities, (like mental visualization), similar to how blind individuals can have superior hearing? Or do these movement areas just go "dark"?
Somewhat related: Do we know the low-level mechanics of how brain remapping takes place when it does? I tried reading the wikipedia article on neuroplasticity, but I couldn't make head or tails of it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jbqal/what_happens_to_the_movement_areas_in_the_brains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2asx2c",
"c2atdwl",
"c2ath0k",
"c2atsx4",
"c2atv5w",
"c2auu9c",
"c2asx2c",
"c2atdwl",
"c2ath0k",
"c2atsx4",
"c2atv5w",
"c2auu9c"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Also what are the movement areas apart from the motor cortex?",
"Atrophy I suppose. We were always told in undergraduate classes that when you lose a limb, the area devoted to that area shrinks and surrounding areas take over it - though there is no gain-of-function associated with this area increase.",
"In a paralyzed person, the unused motor cortex can be \"adopted\" by nearby cortex and used for its purposes. It probably wouldn't be used for visual or auditory abilities though. According to this [motor homunculus](_URL_0_) the unused cortex could possibly be readapted for upper body motor skills in paraplegics, or facial motor skills in quadriplegics. Or, since the somatosensory cortex is next to the motor cortex, paralyzed individuals may have heightened sensitivity to touch in non-paralyzed parts of the body.\n\nI don't really know much about the mechanics of neuroplasticity. I know it involves changes in the amounts of neurotransmitters that are released by neurons, but I don't know how that translates to new connections being made.",
"The neuroplasticity of the brain will be great in children before 4 year olds after that it is very difficult to regain or compensate with cell loss. By the way, cerebellum has a wonderful plasticity. If you have cerebellectomy or lesions from stroke or something else, the rest part of cerebellum will take place the function of the rest and it is clinically seen that these patients will be better (less imbalance) from time to time.\nFor the motor cortex, if the lesion is limited to that part. The area of the brain beneath the cortex (called pyramidal tract) will be released from control and then give the muscles more spastic. So we normally see that the patient will have a flaccid limb immediately after stroke or paralyzed but later become spastic that can compensate for walking training. \nSo I would say, it is difficult for that compensatory abilities will be occur in adult with fully neurodevelopment (have some low level plasticity) but if that occur in a very young children, there is some possibilities that the other part of the brain might compensate for that loss function. ",
"Your question needs to be more specified to get a better answer (though, there are some lovely general responses in the thread).\n\nI say this because there are many, many possible answers to your question. This one is just plain fun and I try to use this reference any time I can:\n\n[Women with complete spinal cord injuries still feel sexual pleasure (via self stimulation) mediated by the vagus nerve](_URL_0_). And the catch is, the probably shouldn't. ",
"I would highly recommend reading the papers on cross-education written by Tibor Hortobagyi. He is a neurophysiologist/biomechanist from ECU (now at Groningen) It has more to do with non-decussated pyramidal motor pathways and the clinical applications at this point deal more with stroke victims, but there is a lot of potential.",
"Also what are the movement areas apart from the motor cortex?",
"Atrophy I suppose. We were always told in undergraduate classes that when you lose a limb, the area devoted to that area shrinks and surrounding areas take over it - though there is no gain-of-function associated with this area increase.",
"In a paralyzed person, the unused motor cortex can be \"adopted\" by nearby cortex and used for its purposes. It probably wouldn't be used for visual or auditory abilities though. According to this [motor homunculus](_URL_0_) the unused cortex could possibly be readapted for upper body motor skills in paraplegics, or facial motor skills in quadriplegics. Or, since the somatosensory cortex is next to the motor cortex, paralyzed individuals may have heightened sensitivity to touch in non-paralyzed parts of the body.\n\nI don't really know much about the mechanics of neuroplasticity. I know it involves changes in the amounts of neurotransmitters that are released by neurons, but I don't know how that translates to new connections being made.",
"The neuroplasticity of the brain will be great in children before 4 year olds after that it is very difficult to regain or compensate with cell loss. By the way, cerebellum has a wonderful plasticity. If you have cerebellectomy or lesions from stroke or something else, the rest part of cerebellum will take place the function of the rest and it is clinically seen that these patients will be better (less imbalance) from time to time.\nFor the motor cortex, if the lesion is limited to that part. The area of the brain beneath the cortex (called pyramidal tract) will be released from control and then give the muscles more spastic. So we normally see that the patient will have a flaccid limb immediately after stroke or paralyzed but later become spastic that can compensate for walking training. \nSo I would say, it is difficult for that compensatory abilities will be occur in adult with fully neurodevelopment (have some low level plasticity) but if that occur in a very young children, there is some possibilities that the other part of the brain might compensate for that loss function. ",
"Your question needs to be more specified to get a better answer (though, there are some lovely general responses in the thread).\n\nI say this because there are many, many possible answers to your question. This one is just plain fun and I try to use this reference any time I can:\n\n[Women with complete spinal cord injuries still feel sexual pleasure (via self stimulation) mediated by the vagus nerve](_URL_0_). And the catch is, the probably shouldn't. ",
"I would highly recommend reading the papers on cross-education written by Tibor Hortobagyi. He is a neurophysiologist/biomechanist from ECU (now at Groningen) It has more to do with non-decussated pyramidal motor pathways and the clinical applications at this point deal more with stroke victims, but there is a lot of potential."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_06/i_06_cr/i_06_cr_mou/i_06_cr_mou_1b.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451368"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/flash/i/i_06/i_06_cr/i_06_cr_mou/i_06_cr_mou_1b.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15451368"
],
[]
] |
|
1t98ks
|
Where did the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA come from originally?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1t98ks/where_did_the_sugar_molecules_in_dna_and_rna_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce5mwqt"
],
"score": [
51
],
"text": [
"Good question. These days, the sugar molecules in DNA and RNA (called ribose in the case of RNA; deoxyribose in the case of DNA) come from the human body. They are produced inside our cells using energy from food.\n\nBefore there were human bodies or cells to manufacture ribose, it could be produced chemically from formaldehyde (H2CO) in a non-reducing atmosphere, with the help of some energy (lightning discharge, UV radiation, etc). This is called the [formose reaction](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formose_reaction"
]
] |
||
1j80uk
|
What would need to change or evolve in order for us to be able to see light outside of the visible spectrum with our naked eye?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j80uk/what_would_need_to_change_or_evolve_in_order_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbc14r6"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The molecules that absorb specific colors/wavelengths of light are found in the cone and rod cells of the retina. They are called opsins or [photopsins](_URL_0_) for the color proteins in the cone cells and [rhodopsins](_URL_3_) for the black/white night vision in the rod cells.\n\nReally all that would need to happen would be mutation to alter the protein so that it absorbed a photon in the UV or the IR range. There are plenty of examples of this already in nature -- salmon have a [UV opsin](_URL_2_) and snakes have an [IR opsin](_URL_1_). The salmon story is actually pretty interesting -- their ability to detect UV (and polarized) light is pretty nifty in the world of vertebrates, and actually changes when they go from fresh - > salt water and back when they go back from salt - > fresh water.\n\nAnyway, \"all\" you would need is a gene duplication and/or some sort of mutation to broaden the absorption characteristics of the human opsin. Rhodopsin would be a good one to start with. That would leave you with an expansion of the monochrome sensitivity and you could see more light in the dark. Kind of like black and white film, which has more UV sensitivity than the human eye.\n\nA more complicated question is \"What would have to happen for us to perceive this light differently?\" like an additional color for vision. That's more complicated, as different colors (and monochrome from rods) are processed differently from the photoreceptor all the way down the visual system to the cortex. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photopsin",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2855400/",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17251489",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhodopsin"
]
] |
||
2cpidg
|
what is actually going on when water "opens up" whiskey?
|
You read the advice to add a little water to a glass of whiskey to "open up" the taste. I've noticed the difference, but of course I can't be sure that's not just because I was looking for it. But assuming it does make a difference, is anything going on besides simple dilution--any kind of chemical changes? If not, does diluting it by the glass matter, or would it be the same if I added a half-cup of water to the bottle when I opened it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cpidg/eli5_what_is_actually_going_on_when_water_opens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjhq8b0",
"cjhr1aw",
"cjhw94k",
"cjhzkad"
],
"score": [
29,
3,
2,
10
],
"text": [
"It's dilution, pure and simple.\n\nBecause most whiskey has high alcoholic content, there is likely to be some \"burn\" in the taste or smell. By adding some water, you dilute that, which allows some of the more subtle flavor to emerge (because the more aggressive flavors are lessened).\n\nIn theory, you could dilute an entire bottle to the same effect. However, as taste is a purely personal experience, it would be highly impolite.",
"Because our tastebuds can't handle the full impact of what it's sending you, so you tend to miss things in the burn. In order to be able to catch all of the subtleties, you have to dilute it. ",
"purists will tell you the only acceptable water to add is water from the same spring as used the make the whisky.",
"There is another factor beyond simple dilution of the alcohol. The various flavours in whiskey are several organic compounds (ex [whisky lactone](_URL_1_)). Organic compounds tend to be more soluble in ethanol than water, so dilution of the alcohol will force these compounds out of solution and into the air above. Since scent is such a big role in taste it is possible that this is a mechanism by which more scent is found in dilute solutions. This is as far as I know, unconfirmed in whiskeys, but it is certainly the cause of [louche](_URL_0_) in absinthe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absinthe",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis-3-methyl-4-octanolide"
]
] |
|
3sdnzu
|
Why Delta-V and not Acceleration?
|
I hear the term Delta-V from rocket scientists a lot. If I recall from my University Physics 101 course, the change in velocity with respect to the change in time is called Acceleration.
So why does the Rocket Science Community use the term Delta-V instead of just saying Acceleration?
Or do I fundamentally misunderstand? What is the difference between Delta-V and Acceleration?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3sdnzu/why_deltav_and_not_acceleration/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwwak7i"
],
"score": [
93
],
"text": [
"Acceleration is the measure of how quickly your velocity is changing, whereas delta-v is the total required change in velocity in order to complete a maneuver. So if in order to get to a certain orbit you will need to increase your velocity by 1000 m/s, an acceleration of 10 m/s/s will allow you to complete the maneuver in 100 seconds. \nDelta-v: A change of 1000 m/s.\nAcceleration: 10 m/s/s.\n\nThe reason why delta-v is useful is because typically fuel gives you a specific impulse (for every unit of fuel you get so much change in momentum), so it is a more useful figure when talking about fuel consumption."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
uw7ff
|
On the day of the Berlin Wall's construction, were citizens who were visiting the other side stuck there?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/uw7ff/on_the_day_of_the_berlin_walls_construction_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4z3o9h",
"c4zryhx"
],
"score": [
26,
3
],
"text": [
"No, because they were legally citizens of West Germany, and could therefore leave at will.\n\nSome East Germans who were in the West at the time decided to stay there, though.\n\nSee [here](_URL_1_), [here](_URL_3_) and [here](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: also [here](_URL_2_)",
"My father told the story of he and his family traveling to Berlin for a weekend getaway (air force family stationed in W.Germany... I forget where) They hit a road block outside of the city and were advised to turn around and head back to base as movements were being restricted and they weren't sure how safe things would be in the city.\n\nI wish I had more details about this anecdote, but my dad passed away 13 years ago, so I can't go ask him."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_Schumann",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republikflucht",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crossing_the_inner_German_border",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schie%C3%9Fbefehl"
],
[]
] |
||
6e6ud9
|
why does an orchestra need a chief to perform? what is the man with a stick doing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6e6ud9/eli5_why_does_an_orchestra_need_a_chief_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di80i8e",
"di80k56"
],
"score": [
2,
6
],
"text": [
"The conductor? He's keeping time. Imagine a group of people trying to read a book out loud together. The \"man with a stick\" makes sure everyone is literally, on the same page, by giving cues and in general maintaining a beat for everyone to follow.",
"The conductor (person with the stick) sets the pace for all the different areas of instruments, to keep the whole group playing at the same tempo/timing. He or she also directs each instrument section in how loud or quietly they should play their part.\n\n\nThe conductor of an orchestra is similar to the director for a movie in that they have an idea in their head of how everything should go, and then they coordinate everyone in how to play their part so that it fits together seamlessly. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
96ft3k
|
why does corn pop and expand into yummy cinema treats?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/96ft3k/eli5_why_does_corn_pop_and_expand_into_yummy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4049yp",
"e4052km"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"All grains pop with enough heat... Rice, corn even wheat, ragi etc. I don't know why they pop but they do pop if heated. ",
"The hard kernel provides resistance, allowing pressure to build then pop. \n\nThe pressure is caused by the moisture content creating steam.\n\nThe resulting airy foam is the starchy inside of the kernal, which is very briefly exploded then solidifies into an airy mass. \n\nOther grains will puff (see: puffed wheat cereal) but corn's harder outer shell allows for more pressure and a larger release of energy giving a large fluffy popped corn."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ct5cp
|
Could salt water be chemically desalinized?
|
Could salt water be chemically desalinized by adding a molecule that reacts with the dissolved sodium chloride to form a non-polar molecule that could be easily removed?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ct5cp/could_salt_water_be_chemically_desalinized/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9jsxcc",
"c9juz9h"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"sure, there is no reason *a priori* that this couldn't be done. In fact, *salt metathesis* reactions are an example of this.\n\n I don't know of any practical method for doing this, however. \n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n",
"I believe what you are talking about is called a Ligand or a molecule which will come in and bind to an ion. \n\nWhile there is no reason to suggest they can't exist for Sodium, there is a small problem. First of all if you want a non-polar molecule you need to eliminate or neutralize the charge for both the sodium and chloride. Which in turn means you need something that is strong enough to reduce sodium yet not so strong that it reacts with water. If you can't make it non-polar then you need a compound which will cause the new complex ions to precipitate out. Both of which presents its own problems.\n\nTypically the largest problem with ionic species is the fact you have to maintain charge neutrality. This is either done by eliminating charge or replacing charged species (Similar to what a ion exchange resin does). In the case of sodium it is so soluble in water that it is very hard to pull it away from water. \n\nEven if you did successfully find a compound that would do this, odds are it would take way more funds to produce it than it currently costs to distill or use other desalination methods."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salt_metathesis_reaction"
],
[]
] |
|
1j240a
|
If a magnetic field requires a moving electric charge, how does a permanent magnet work?
|
And even if a permanent magnet has some sort of current flowing in it, how does the current stay moving without the input of energy?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j240a/if_a_magnetic_field_requires_a_moving_electric/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbabw7s"
],
"score": [
72
],
"text": [
"First of all, a magnetic field doesn't necessarily require a movement of charge. All it needs is a change in electric flux with time.\n\nSecond of all in an atom, the electrons are \"spinning\" around the nucleus, usually in random directions. Every single one of them is like a tiny bar magnet (the more technical term is dipole). In an object where the electrons are mostly \"spinning\" in the same direction, all the dipole moments sum together and make one big dipole."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2nhcze
|
why is piracy and copyright law such a derisive issue on the internet? shouldn't artists be entitled to distribute how they want and charge what they feel is appropriate?
|
Edit: To clarify, why is piracy considered okay by the internet community at large?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nhcze/eli5_why_is_piracy_and_copyright_law_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmdl3ir",
"cmdle48",
"cmdlikj",
"cmdlkqs"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Artists can and do distribute how ever they want. Unless they have a contract with a big studio such as Sony, whose sole purpose is to squeeze every last cent out of them.\n\nThere's a lot of royalty free music out there, it's just not the way to earn money and do business with.",
"It's considered OK because people like their free stuff and they're willing to do mental gymnastics in order to justify their actions. It really is immoral to just download content without compensating the creator.\n\nThere is something of an exception when it's not reasonably possible to buy the content through normal channels, and definitely an exception when you already purchased the content in a different format, and just need a particular format you can't convert to on your own.",
"Once upon a time (like 15 years ago), media companies didn't offer people a way to use music/movies on computers or other devices, and there was a large group of younger, tech-savvy people who really wanted to do so. Since the media producers didn't offer any way to do it legally, consumers turned to illegal ways to create/use/distribute media, and justified it by saying that there was no other way.\n\nMedia companies have come around, and now you can get just about any content in digital format. However, many people who grew up in the \"piracy or nothing\" era feel entitled to \"free\" media, and this attitude has been adopted as a convenient way for other people to not feel bad about pirating content.",
"Piracy isn't ok, but it is a consequence of marketing and pricing. There is no justifying it, but there is some explanation of it.\n\nWith saturation advertising, there's literally almost no direction I can look, right now, where I'm sitting, and not see an advertisement for digital media. The whole point is the advertisers want you to feel that you want this product and you want it *now*, in order to induce a purchase.\n\nAnd they're successful, at large, too successful, actually. The value of media is inflated, music and video isn't actually worth what they're charging, as evidenced by the rampant piracy. The working class hasn't had a pay raise in 22 years and has less buying power now than they did in the 1980s, cost of living increases, and the price of media has always been ~$15 for an album. And you get less today than ever. You used to get a cover, an insert, and art, bundled with the album. Today, you get an mp3 download. It costs fractions of a penny to digitize the final product and distribute it on the internet, you'd think that would drop the price. It costs $0.017 to produce a CD, just as a point of reference, and digital distribution is orders of magnitude cheaper.\n\nSo here you have a market who wants your product and wants it now, and can't or won't afford it. I'm not saying it's ok, but this is the catalyst that allows people to justify it.\n\nThe way the industry works is an artist is contracted to produce content for the publisher, they don't own their own songs, and they're literally lucky if they get any money, at all, from the sale of their media. Artists make money by performing, and even then, they're responsible for the cost of the production, which cuts into their profits.\n\nSo publishers are seen as big, bad, rich, faceless corporations - profiteering gluttons who don't need any more money for something they own but they didn't make, so fuck em', right? The world is such a big place and so many people do buy the album that they won't even notice I stole a copy... Or so the mindset goes.\n\nThere are scenarios where people do pay, when they feel the price is fair and when they feel the profits are distributed to those whom they see entitled."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bpqce2
|
What are the benefits or detriments of using Asphalt covered concrete highways?
|
Interstate 94, west of Chicago is concrete highway but is currently having a layer of asphalt added on top. Why? Doesn't this make for more potholes? Is this "Big Asphalt" lobbying for more resurfacing contracts?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bpqce2/what_are_the_benefits_or_detriments_of_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"enzgzc6"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Asphalt is like a protective glove on the top of the concrete. In Chicago you will notice that on the strictly concrete roadway the concrete has been worn into channels where the cars drive all day everyday. Concrete has the ability to last a long time which allows for the material to breakdown through tire erosion versus other physical means. Retaining a layer of blacktop allows for that road to be refurished while mainting the structure of the concrete underneath the asphalt layer. A roadway that has channels is harder to clear of snow during the winter becasue the blade of the plow cant get into the channels. If those channels are not clear of snow and ice, cars will be traveling on that dangerous surface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ovc5c
|
Just finished making a high temperature superconductor for solids lab. How exactly does the Meissner effect (pic inside) work?
|
So some of the groups in my solids lab got to make high temperature superconductors (YBa2Cu3O7 (YBCO)) this quarter. We finished ours a few days ago.
Meissner effect: _URL_0_
I'm just wondering how the Meissner effect in this situation actually works. I have a decent grasp on how the superconductor is "purging" itself of magnetic field. How exactly does this give rise to repulsive levitation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ovc5c/just_finished_making_a_high_temperature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3kbzrw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Although no dynamical explanation yet exist it's not actually a repulsion in the usual sense that keeps the magnet suspended. Because magnetic fields are excluded from the superconductor it locks into position. You can push the superconductor closer to the magnet, or further away, and it will stay there to. You can also suspend the superconductor under the magnet and it also stays there.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/YipSS.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lC-3li6ScUE"
]
] |
|
9b8r7m
|
How was the clean up of the Dunkirk beach done?
|
There was a post about a set of amateur pictures of Dunkirk after the evacuation and the amount of vehicles and materials left behind was astonishing. My question is how and who did the clean up and were the materials left behind every integrated into the army for anything other than scrap?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9b8r7m/how_was_the_clean_up_of_the_dunkirk_beach_done/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e51cxrt"
],
"score": [
55
],
"text": [
"The Germans cleaned up, hardworking as ever.\n\nAs in need of new equipment as Germans were, they practically pressed anything intact into service. The British left behind eight divisions' worth of equipment in Dunkirk, including nearly 900 field guns, about as many AT guns, 300 heavy artillery pieces, 700 tanks, 500 anti-aircraft guns, 11.000 machine guns, 20.000 motorcycles and Bren carriers, and a whooping 45.000 trucks and lorries.\n\nThe amount of mileage Germans got from Dunkirk equipment is nothing short of extraordinary. Due to the finiteness of ammunition, artillery mainly went to coastal defense and other fixed duties, as well as reserve and rear line units. The 2-pounder AT gun became the 40mm PaK 192(e). The 25-pounder became the 114mm leFH 361(e). Several of the BL 60-pounders went to coastal batteries. The 94mm FlaK M 39(e), the designation for the 3.7'' heavy AA gun, was so liked that the Germans started producing ammo for it. Thousands of Bren guns were modified to fire the 8x57 and used by occupation forces, designated LeMG 138(e).\n\nThe vehicles were used even more. SdKfz 731(e), aka the Bren carriers, were used to an immense degree. Germans put anything from MG 34's to light AT cannons on them. Cruiser tanks were converted to flamethrower vehicles and issued to the 18th Panzer Division in Soviet Union. Tens of thousands of Bedford trucks, already similar to the German Opels, were used to motorize the Wehrmacht.\n\nThen there is Major Alfred Becker, Wehrmacht's tank chopper par excellence, who made something out of any Allied vehicle available. Vickers Mk VI tanks became self propelled guns armed with the 105mm leFH 16, along with munition carrier and command version: Becker's 227th Infantry Division whose artillery was armed by these had the only self-propelled artillery unit in Barbarossa. French Lorraine 37L's were made into tank destroyers(Marder I) or self-propelled artillery pieces armed with 105 and 150 milimeter guns. Hotchkiss tanks were turned into tank destroyers, self propelled artillery, or even were armed with the Wurfrahmen rocket artillery. Baukommando Becker, formed in 1942 and headed by Major Becker and staffed by many of his Krefeld comrades from his old artillery battery, was literally forming combat-worthy converted vehicles from even battle wrecks left over from two years ago left exposed to the elements, using the Hotchkiss plants near Paris. More than two thousand battle-worthy vehicles were created by Becker in France using nothing but Allied scrap and armor plates from Alkett."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f41lzj
|
why does the engine of this plane rumble?
|
[_URL_1_](_URL_0_)
& #x200B;
Even the window shakes...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f41lzj/eli5_why_does_the_engine_of_this_plane_rumble/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhnhj0w"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Resonance frequency, basically the structure is receiving a little push in step with how the material normally flexes since each push is perfectly timed it is like pushing someone on a swing at the perfect time when the swing has reached its peak. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/4W9t2Bw_mqE?t=109",
"https://youtu.be/4W9t2Bw\\_mqE?t=109"
] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/l2QVRkF0d2M"
]
] |
|
1dk3oq
|
Is the super-massive black hole at the center of the Milky Way spinning in the plane of the rest of our galaxy? Would this just be a coincidence, or does one or the other have ability to influence the other into matching it?
|
In all the animations I've seen of the SMBH at the center of the Milky Way, it's axis of rotation always seems to be the same as that of the surrounding galaxy. Is that just an assumption we've made, or is there some evidence to back that up? And if it does hold true, then how did that happen? Is the SMBH really massive enough to gravitationally pull the rest of the galaxy to rotate around it? Or as it migrated (I'm assuming that's what happened?) to the center, did the galaxy impart the rotational direction?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dk3oq/is_the_supermassive_black_hole_at_the_center_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9r2n2p",
"c9r2o1c",
"c9r4ub0",
"c9reaao"
],
"score": [
4,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
" > Is the SMBH really massive enough to gravitationally pull the rest of the galaxy to rotate around it? Or as it migrated (I'm assuming that's what happened?) to the center, did the galaxy impart the rotational direction?\n\nThe BH is part of the galaxy, it appeared and grew as a part of normal processes that exist in most galaxies.\n\nThe galaxy as a whole has a spin. When galactic matter falls into the BH, spin is conserved. The BH grows by feeding on galactic stuff, in the center of the galaxy, more or less. Ergo, the spin of the BH should follow the direction of the overall galactic spin pretty closely.",
"A black hole's spin is determined by the matter which has fallen into it (and by its initial spin, for example when a stellar core collapses to form a BH, it has some spin). Since most of the matter which has fallen in came from the plane of the galaxy, we tend to assume that the SMBH's axis of spin is roughly aligned with the axis of spin of the Milky Way. The SMBH's spin does **not**, however, determine the spin of the rest of the galaxy.",
"It's likely that our black hole spins on the plane of our galaxy disk as most other galaxies do. Evidence is in visible polar jets coming from the center of some galaxies.\n\nRead about polar jets here:\n\n_URL_0_",
"The answer to your question is: we don't know yet, but we will rather shortly. Indeed, one can assume that the spin axis is oriented with the disk, but since the mass of the SMBH is correlated with the spherical bulge component of a galaxy rather than the disk, it's not a great assumption. \n\nShep Doeleman, Vincent Fish, and a crack team of psycho badasses are actually trying to *image* the event horizon of our black hole (Sgr A*), with a collection of telescopes in the millimeter wave around the world, and are getting pretty close. I saw a colloquium about it recently in my department; pretty lovely stuff."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polar_jet"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.