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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1g94zl
|
What is the oldest known human structure?
|
Pretty simple question to my (uneducated) eyes.
What is the oldest known building attributed to man?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g94zl/what_is_the_oldest_known_human_structure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cahz5ou",
"cahzwzf",
"cai1rkd"
],
"score": [
6,
12,
4
],
"text": [
"What about [Gobekli Tepe, in Turkey?](_URL_0_) That seems to go back to about 9000 BC, and although it's not a \"building\" per se (as in walls and a roof), it is a structure. I don't know if anything older is evident beyond the barest of remains (campsites, et cetera) but in terms of monumental stone construction and artistry Gobekli Tepe has been kind of a big deal.",
"Before about 10,000 years ago the evidence for human-built structures is very scarce. But that's not because people weren't building things, it's because they were building them exclusively out of fragile organic materials like wood and so, unlike stone, clay or mud brick structures, they aren't going to survive for archaeologists to dig up. There are some exceptions: [Mezhirich](_URL_1_) in Ukraine has spectacular 15,000 year old huts made out of hundreds and hundreds of mammoth jaw bones ([what they look like now](_URL_0_), [what they might have looked like standing](_URL_2_)). Earlier than that though we can infer the presence of structures from things like postholes (where someone in the past dug or planted a wooden stake into the ground, leaving behind a hole that's visible as different-coloured soil) or patterns of debris on the ground. Sometimes it's not clear exactly what we're looking at when the traces left behind are so ephemeral, and the early you get the more contentious it gets to say they're 'structures'. The oldest type of structure that's reasonably well accepted are simple windbreaks or lean-tos. People made them to shield their temporary, open-air campsites from the elements as early as 300,000 years ago.",
"[Homo heidelbergensis](_URL_0_), an early human species which adapted to cold climates is known to have built simple shelters from tree branches and other naturally occurring materials if there were no convenient natural shelters like caves. They lived from at least 600,000 years ago and may be the common ancestor of homo-sapiens and Neanderthals. Only traces of their structures survive in the archaeological record but I'll hazard a guess that they were quite rudimentary. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/history-archaeology/gobekli-tepe.html"
],
[
"http://donsmaps.com/clickphotos/mezhdig.jpg",
"http://archaeology.about.com/od/mterms/g/mezhirich.htm",
"http://donsmaps.com/clickphotos/mezhrecon.gif"
],
[
"http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=A0llBlzF6UgC&pg=PA116&lpg=PA116&dq=homo+heidelbergensis+shelter&source=bl&ots=c9GuUJdTbA&sig=JKzvcALz9GZsokjs0KMuHAHNEoI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Jb65UYDvBJHz0gWRxICYCQ&ved=0CEsQ6AEwBA#v=onepage&q=homo%20heidelbergensis%20shelter&f=false"
]
] |
|
2thad7
|
how can we use telescopes to see into the far reaches of space, generating massive resolution images, yet we have to send a spacecraft like dawn to see a white spot on ceres?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2thad7/eli5_how_can_we_use_telescopes_to_see_into_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnz1s4d",
"cnz1srw"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The things that we can see far away are **very** big and **very** bright.\n\nYou can easily see a billion burning candles arranged on a hilltop miles away in a pitch-black night (seeing another galaxy filled with billions of stars), but good luck seeing a discolored spot on a grain of sand 10 feet away by the light of a single candle at night (Ceres illuminated by the light of the sun).",
"Those massive revolution pictures you see are of unfathomably massive objects. Take the famous [Pillars of Creation](_URL_0_) photo taken by Hubble, which is something like four light years across (and is a composite of multiple pictures).\n\nCeres itself is less than 600 miles in diameter, ten billion times smaller. If the Pillars were the size of Earth, Ceres would be less than 100 nanometers across. That's smaller than a typical Human Immunodeficiency Virus. It's easy to see why you would need different equipment to take photos of those objects."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillars_of_Creation"
]
] |
||
48fedx
|
Is it possible to observe the process of a star becoming a black hole?
|
If so, how much of the process? What would it look like to an observer?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/48fedx/is_it_possible_to_observe_the_process_of_a_star/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0kmk3s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're most likely to see a regular supernova and that's it. Black holes are not visible so without any special equipment you wouldn't even know it's there when it forms only it's interactions to other objects can be detected."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2280u7
|
what do we know about what goes on inside of other planets in our solar system?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2280u7/eli5_what_do_we_know_about_what_goes_on_inside_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgk9u0w"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not a whole lot of direct study. We can make some measurements - for example, we know their mass and size, so we can calculate their density, which tells us something about what they're made of. Saturn, for example, is very light - less dense than water - so it can't have much of a solid core, if it has one at all. Earth, on the other hand, is very dense because of our solid iron core.\n\nMost of what we know about Earth's interior is from studying the waves from earthquakes as they pass through it. There were even a few nuclear bombs detonated to create controlled vibrations for study. But those observations aren't available on other planets, so our information about those interiors is mostly educated guesses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1psljm
|
- where do "royals" obtain their original claim of "royalty" from?
|
If I declared to everyone that I was God's chosen representative on earth here to rule over everyone, they would lock me in a cage.
Why do we treat these people differently?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1psljm/eli5_where_do_royals_obtain_their_original_claim/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd5kseu",
"cd5lmzo",
"cd5lust",
"cd5onxp",
"cd5qmj1",
"cd5rp31",
"cd5sas3",
"cd5uwz3"
],
"score": [
6,
75,
14,
7,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Well before the Enlightenment, everyone just agreed on whatever the Church told them.\n\nThe Church and the royals worked together, so the people never really questioned their leader much.\n\nJames I was the first (no pun intended) to declare \"divine right\", which is the idea that God placed the monarch on Earth specifically to rule his subjects. And his subjects were placed on Earth specifically to be ruled.",
"From stabbing people with swords who disagreed.",
"If you're able to find it, David Starkey's 'Monarchy' is a great series. It takes you all the way from the beginning up to the current Queen. The series has actors in period costumes acting out key points and was more interesting than reading it from a dry history book. I've learned a LOT from it that was never taught in school. The host's explanations are easy to follow and tells why freedom of religion was so important in the United States, for example. (Several civil wars from people trying to impose their form of religion, ending with the killing of a king around 100 years before the founding of the US, as one example.)",
"I own some nice land and people are willing to work on the land in exchange for me allowing them to live there. I decide to dedicate a lot of these people to being able to defend this land from other people who want to take my land from me. Eventually, I become friends with some people who own land near mine, but they don't have enough people to afford to protect themselves, we enter an agreement in which I protect their land too and they give me a portion of their resources. Sometimes I don't like my other neighbors but I like their land, so I use my big army to take their land and either keep it for myself or give it to a friend of mine under the condition that they consent to a similar arrangement as my other friends. Now, I won't live forever, but I love my kids, so I give them my land when I die and they continue the agreement with my friends and their kids. Sometimes I meet someone who, like me, is protecting their friends but could use a little help doing so. They enter a similar agreement, but I hold them in a bit higher regard because they're protecting their friends. After enough time the hierarchy of the agreement I made gets solidified in law and whoever is sovereign (they protect other people, but don't have someone protecting them) is king. My family retains the title of \"King\" until some filthy peasants start thinking they can run things better than I can. I tell them God says I should be in charge (makes sense, since if I shouldn't be in charge, God would take it away from me). Eventually, they don't buy it. They fight me for control over the government (which is my property, handed down in my family for generations!). They beat me and have the choice of either killing me and my family to prevent them from taking back what's rightfully theirs or if they like me, then they keep my family around, but take away our control over the government. We retain some of our land and wealth but we answer to the peasant-run government. Eventually the peasants forget how we became royalty in the first place. ",
"People got power through whatever means. Usually a combination of charisma and martial force.\n\nThen these people claim a god given right to rule over people. Some people believe this, others don't. Regardless, there isn't really much ability for people to object. Eventually some of the disbelievers will decide to believe.\n\nThe royal line then propagates under the claim that royalty is an inhereted trait, or at least is passed down through generations in some way.\n\n____\n\nEventually, there might be another claimant to the throne who is not a direct heir. A combination of the previous method and claiming some blood link to the original royal line is used as justification.\n\n____\n\nAs for why royalty exists today? A combination of tradition, power, and in some places oppression.",
"* Big tough guy takes over, says he is in charge, protects people from other big tough guys.\n* Big tough guy gets old, and wants his son to take over, gives him responsibilities, and people get used to listening to junior. Dad also takes care of any potential rivals to junior.\n* Dad dies, junior takes over unchallenged, because dad set him up, and because not he had all of dad's wealth\n* Generations pass, now there are a bunch of juniors running things things at various levels who want to keep it that way. They aren't as big and tough as the first guy, so they invent this idea that they are naturally better than regular people and should rule by divine right, and they call this idea nobility.",
" > If I declared to everyone that I was God's chosen representative on earth\n\nWell no one of any importance believed that bullshit back then either. The Papacy crowned kings on behalf of God only so long as 'God' got handsome collection of gold in exchange.\n\nMonarchy is just pre-capitalist rich people picking someone to be in charge. You don't have to be the biggest land holder, you don't have to be the richest, but you have to be the one that most of the money will go along with. \n\nThe Roman empire (yes those guys) had emperors before Christianity not long before, but before. The first guy was basically born rich, ambitious, and a competent leader, he threatened the (Roman senate) and got himself made Emperor. When christianity came into being the Romans used that as an excuse to justify their own emperorships (where applicable). And the tradition stuck\n\nBut if you trace any of the European monarchs back, they're all from very long lines of variously rich people, and when I say long lines, I mean > 1400 years sort of long. The upper classes of countries- not just europe, this applies to asia as well, live separate lives from the rest of us. They have they money, and the means of production (land), they intermarry, and when it suits them they add one of us common folk into their ranks either through marriage, buying a lordship or doing something awesome (like defeating Napoleon). They used to even have their own separate law system.\n\nSo why do they still retain the right to a portion of leadership? Well just because capitalists have started taking the leadership spots in wealth doesn't mean there aren't a lot of aristocrats still around. Wealth is represented in politics, whether you like it or not. \n\nMost of us have constructed government systems that necessarily require a monarch, and without one you end up with governments that can fail, hard - see Germany, France, the US, Russia, Italy, Greece etc. That isn't to say those governments are perpetually complete failures, they certainly aren't, but a lot of things have broken in those countries several times that have required major reforms (the French are on Republic version 5, the germans try and forget about Republic 2.0 which was the Nazis, the US still has government shut downs etc.), those of us with constitutional monarchs particularly look at all of the changes republics have had to make, and still have to make and figure its not worth it - there would still be a bunch of rich families buying politicians. At least in a system that is explicitly aware that it is happening you can explicitly act on it. Everyone else keeps pretending everyone is equal because some rich guy paid millions for ads telling them they're equal. \n",
"Just because some watery tart threw a sword at them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f437r8
|
How does the monarch butterfly change its lifespan between generations?
|
Heard today that while migrating some generations can survive up to almost a year
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f437r8/how_does_the_monarch_butterfly_change_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhx9k02"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Several things to consider here :\n\n* First of all, the genetic information doesn't say \"that individual will live this long\", it's more like the lifespan depends on many other genetic traits. That means it's not genetic information changing form a generation to another. At most, the phoenotype changes (that the expression of a gene)\n* Then, the familly the monarch belongs to can adapt their developpement according to environnemental conditions (but that's in their larva stages, maybe you're talking about the adult lifespan only)\n* For adults, I think it has to do with reproduction. In this familly, like in a lot of other insects famillies, adults are only made to mate and reproduce. It's highly possible that the adult mornarch is able to live a lot longer if it hasn't accomplished this mission - Lepidoterae are able to feed as adults. So I think it happens when local conditions are not met to reproduce, then they migrate, but it's just a guess I don't know the specifics for this specie.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nEDIT: according to wikipedia, they migrate in several generations when going north and one when going south. They do \"wait\" for better condition in a larva state. It's called \"diapause\". So the overall adult lifespan doesn't change to much like I expected."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6ru00i
|
The "germ theory of disease" Wikipedia page suggests that germ theory had many antecedents (people talking about "pestifera semina") going back to antiquity. Why was miasma theory popular as of the 19th century?
|
The [Wikipedia page](_URL_0_) suggests that early mentions of specific "seeds" spreading illness, go back to Thucydides' description of a plague in Athens. Many other examples are cited, which demonstrate some kind of hypothesis that some kind of illness-causing organism is propagating itself through people's bodies and spreading contagiously, even if the microbiological details are unknown.
So why did the miasma theory retain so much influence for so long?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6ru00i/the_germ_theory_of_disease_wikipedia_page/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dldjfcx"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I've been meaning to write an answer to your question since you posted it, but I didn't get around to actually writing it. Well, I hope that you're still waiting for an answer. \n\nI have a few problems with the history-sections of that Wikipedia page. The most basic would be that it doesn't paint a good picture of the miasma theory at all, completely reducing it to \"miasmatic vapors are the only thing that can make people sick\", disregarding its connections to and interactions with humorism. Beyond that, it shoehorns classical and medieval ideas of contagion into the development of the germ theory, even though that is technically not correct. Secondly, the article largely disregards that, up until the 19th century, miasma theory was actually superior – logically and empirically – to germ theory.\n\n**1. Miasmatic theory and contagion** \n\nEven though \"bad air\" was the central disease-causing factor within miasma theory, it was in no way the only one. Miasmatic air alone was only thought to be the base cause of epidemic diseases. There are still more factors that played into outbreaks: most importantly, a population needed a certain \"epidemic constitution\" for an outbreak to occur. This \"epidemic constitution\" simply referred to a humoral predisposition for certain diseases. And even beyond the mere outbreak of an epidemic, humoral medicine always had some relevance in most any medical question, simply because it was the absolute foundation on which Western medicine was built – basically since Hippocrates of Kos (5/4th century BCE), and again reinforced by Galen of Pergamon (2nd century CE).\n\nWhile the above may seem nitpicky, there is one thing missing in the article's description of miasma theory that is just wrong. \n > Such infection was not passed between individuals but would affect individuals within the locale that gave rise to such vapors.\n\nContagion may have played a minor role in the context of miasma theory and humorism, but it was not disregarded. Guy de Chauliac, physician to pope Clement VI, theorized in 1348 that the Black Death could be contagious in certain cases and advised Clement to avoid sick people. All of this while still firmly believing that miasmatic vapors were the prime cause of the epidemic. And he was not the only one who tried to avoid contagion: basically everywhere the Black Death arrived, local authorities set up quarantine measures to avoid or at least minimize contagion. By the 13th century, quarantines had been used for centuries: Gall of Clermont advised Desiderius of Cahors to close certain roads to areas where an epidemic that started in Marseille had spread.\n\nMiasma theory and contagion have historically never been seen as mutually exclusive in the context of Western European medicine. Most of the early writers the article identifies as predecessors of germ theory proposed their theories of contagion very much within the context of miasma theory. Empirical evidence that diseases can be transmitted from one person to another is not at all evidence against miasma theory. Their ideas of seeds and similar things try to grasp the concept of contagion, but were not derived from empirical data, but rather from logical thinking: it was simply unlikely that diseases just teleported from one person to another. They did not so \"propose or anticipate germ theory\", they tried to explain contagion within the context of miasma theory. These ideas of seeds and whatnot are attempts to integrate an unexplained empirical phenomenon into the dominant scientific paradigm of the time.\n\nAnd then there is Girolamo Fracastoro. You will find him, again and again, as the first proponent of a proper germ theory. Claiming that Girolamo thought \n > that epidemic diseases are caused by transferable seed-like entities,\n\nthe article basically just repeats a commonplace that is quite old and quite wrong (and look! There are no footnotes to be found for 2.5 paragraphs after that claim!). His treatise *De contagione* (1546) does claim that tiny living beings are responsible for diseases, but this becomes more of a footnote in a work that is mainly concerned with a philosophy centered around cosmic harmony. *De contagione* is only the first work in which microorganisms are said to cause illness in our modern understanding if you really, *really* want to read it that way.\n\n**2. The superiority of miasma theory**\n\nAll of the above outlines a number of problems with the way the article portrays the development of Western medicine. But even though, how can a theory that we now know as empirically completely indefensible continue to dominate medicine for almost 1.5 millenia? Simple answer: because miasma theory was, empirically, simply superior to germ theory. Huh, what?\n\nIf you want to prove that germs actually cause diseses, you need to prove two things. First, you need proof of the actual existence of microorganisms. Second, you have to prove that these microorganisms are actually the cause of a disease. \n\nMicroorganisms were not empirically observable before the invention of adequate magnification (i.e., microscopes) around 1600. And even then, microscopes only saw wider use by the second half of the 17th century. This means that up until this point, a critical piece of empirical evidence was missing. But this only means that now people knew that microorganisms existed. If you can not prove that, say, a bacterium is causing a disease, the transmission might work just as well through some sort of \"seed\". Up until this point, microorganisms fit just as well into miasma theory as into germ theory, and miasma theory will win because it is a) the dominant theory and b) has a lot of additional evidence on its side.\n\nTo illustrate how miasma theory was empirically superior, let us turn to the Black Death once more. Most of the evidence people during the 14th century had access to actually fit in really well with the miasma theory: human-to-human-transmission is quite rare in most varieties of the plague. Because the fleas carrying *Yersinia pestis* were carried by rats, the disease could break out anywhere were a sufficient population of rats felt comfortable. This led to a seemingly random spread of the disease with the possibility of it happening without any noticeable human interaction. Incidentally, the kind of places rats prefer are the same places miasma theory thought of as dangerous, like wet and humid surroundings. So the spread of the plague rather supported miasma theory, you may even say it did so almost coincidentally, while germ theory appeared as almost completely counter-intuitively.\n\nThe relative success of common countermeasures against the plague also seemed to support the miasma theory: quarantines and isolation of the sick, dedicated graveyards for victims of the plagues outside of cities, protective clothing, fumigation, burning of victims' belongings, leaving a region for a supposedly healthier one with clean air. Most of these can be summarized by \"try to (re-)establish sanitary conditions or else leave for somewhere with better sanitary conditions\". Sensible measures no doubt, but they were largely inspired by the belief that bad air causes disease. How do you identify bad air? It stinks. And where there are unsanitary conditions, you are likely to have bad smells. And so measures against the plague that actually worked seemed to support the miasma theory, even though these measures only worked not for the reasons people thought they would.\n\nEven if you can prove the existence of microorganisms it does not necessarily mean that they have to be the cause of diseases. By the 19th century, there were more and more people convinced that germ theory was actually superior to miasma theory. But they still had to fight with the problem that miasma theory still represented the dominant scientific consensus and that a central aspect of their theory – causation of disease by germs – was still unproven. People like Ignaz Semmelweis or John Snow, following germ theory over miasma theory, devised very effective medical measures but were shunned scientifically because they could prove just as little as the proponents of miasma theory why their measures worked. Only during the later 1800s the works of Louis Pasteur and Robert Koch showed that diseases are actually caused by the microorganisms themselves and not by bad air.\n\n**Sources**\n\nAnn G. Carmichael: Plague and the poor in Renaissance Florence. Cambridge 1986.\n\nMartin Dinges/Thomas Schlich (eds.): Neue Wege in der Seuchengeschichte. Stuttgart 1995.\n\nRosemary Horrox: The Black Death. Manchester 1994.\n\nManfred Vasold: Grippe, Pest und Cholera. Eine Geschichte der Seuchen in Europa. Stuttgart 2008.\n\nGeorges Vigarello: Le propre et le sale. L'hygiène du corps depuis le Moyen Âge. Paris 1985."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Germ_theory_of_disease"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
mgkk7
|
What prevents the intestines from tangling themselves like my headphone cords?
|
Really, I've always wondered this.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mgkk7/what_prevents_the_intestines_from_tangling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c30r5we",
"c30rank",
"c30rjvb",
"c30r5we",
"c30rank",
"c30rjvb"
],
"score": [
3,
10,
23,
3,
10,
23
],
"text": [
"They are held in place by connective tissue. It doesn't give them much room to move around.",
"They can get tangled, and it is a very serious medical problem that if left untreated can kill a person. \"Luckily\" it is also exceedingly painful, so it rarely goes ignored. It's not exceedingly rare either.\n\nAs has already been mentioned, there are a variety of ways the body prevents this from happening, mostly in the form of connective tissues.",
"Dentist here. We concentrate on the teeth, but we do study the whole body in pretty gross detail.\n\nThe short answer to your question is that the intestines are attached to several different connective tissues, particularly mesentery and omentum. Mesentery is a very stretchy connective tissue that loosely holds the intestines in place. Omentum is a fatty connective tissue that is heavily vascularized. Together, these two tissues provide the intestines with most of the support they need to prevent tangles. Unfortunately, they are both very stretchy tissues, and some lengths of the intestine do not attach to them, leading to (luckily!) rare tangles and hernia.",
"They are held in place by connective tissue. It doesn't give them much room to move around.",
"They can get tangled, and it is a very serious medical problem that if left untreated can kill a person. \"Luckily\" it is also exceedingly painful, so it rarely goes ignored. It's not exceedingly rare either.\n\nAs has already been mentioned, there are a variety of ways the body prevents this from happening, mostly in the form of connective tissues.",
"Dentist here. We concentrate on the teeth, but we do study the whole body in pretty gross detail.\n\nThe short answer to your question is that the intestines are attached to several different connective tissues, particularly mesentery and omentum. Mesentery is a very stretchy connective tissue that loosely holds the intestines in place. Omentum is a fatty connective tissue that is heavily vascularized. Together, these two tissues provide the intestines with most of the support they need to prevent tangles. Unfortunately, they are both very stretchy tissues, and some lengths of the intestine do not attach to them, leading to (luckily!) rare tangles and hernia."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
k1hsr
|
antitrust lawsuits
|
This thought was sparked by the US Govt. filing an antitrust lawsuit against the AT & T and T-Mobile merger.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/k1hsr/eli5_antitrust_lawsuits/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2gtdgg",
"c2gtdgg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's say you have two companies selling apple. Now both companies will sell apples at a good price, let's say that price is $1 an apple. If ether company was to raise their price then they'd sell less apple cause who would want to buy an apple for $1.50 if they could buy an apple for dollar.\n\nOne day the head of one company is talking to the other company and is like. \"You know what... if we both sold apples for $1.50 then we'd both make more money. What if we both come to agreement and say we will not sell an apple for less then $1.50.\" The owner of the other company say \"Why stop there let's make it $2.00\"\n\nGeorge find out about this. George has a apple farm way, way,way out in the country but it was always too much work to bring the apple into the city to sell. To make any money he would have had to sell his apple $1.25 and no one would have wanted to buy them... But now that Apples are $2.00 it's worth his wild. \n\nThe other companies aren't happy about this. So they buy the road that George has to use to get his Apple to the city. They charge a Apple toll of $1 a apple to any apple that goes down the road... Now George can't make any money and the other companies are still making twice as much as before. \n\nAntitrust lawsuits are all about promoting competition between companies. If a company has no competition it's often called a monopoly. If a company has a monopoly then people are forced to buy from them, and the company can charge whatever they want and people have it pay it.\n\nAT & T bought T-Mobile not because they needed it to provide better service but to prevent them from loosing clients to T-Mobile and so they'd have more control over the market. Some people said it would be to much control and that's what the lawsuit it about. ",
"Let's say you have two companies selling apple. Now both companies will sell apples at a good price, let's say that price is $1 an apple. If ether company was to raise their price then they'd sell less apple cause who would want to buy an apple for $1.50 if they could buy an apple for dollar.\n\nOne day the head of one company is talking to the other company and is like. \"You know what... if we both sold apples for $1.50 then we'd both make more money. What if we both come to agreement and say we will not sell an apple for less then $1.50.\" The owner of the other company say \"Why stop there let's make it $2.00\"\n\nGeorge find out about this. George has a apple farm way, way,way out in the country but it was always too much work to bring the apple into the city to sell. To make any money he would have had to sell his apple $1.25 and no one would have wanted to buy them... But now that Apples are $2.00 it's worth his wild. \n\nThe other companies aren't happy about this. So they buy the road that George has to use to get his Apple to the city. They charge a Apple toll of $1 a apple to any apple that goes down the road... Now George can't make any money and the other companies are still making twice as much as before. \n\nAntitrust lawsuits are all about promoting competition between companies. If a company has no competition it's often called a monopoly. If a company has a monopoly then people are forced to buy from them, and the company can charge whatever they want and people have it pay it.\n\nAT & T bought T-Mobile not because they needed it to provide better service but to prevent them from loosing clients to T-Mobile and so they'd have more control over the market. Some people said it would be to much control and that's what the lawsuit it about. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
kfd21
|
why can't we recreate dinosaurs just like in jurassic park?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kfd21/eli5_why_cant_we_recreate_dinosaurs_just_like_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2jtdmr",
"c2jtgpj",
"c2jtu3v",
"c2jtyr1",
"c2jv68g",
"c2jtdmr",
"c2jtgpj",
"c2jtu3v",
"c2jtyr1",
"c2jv68g"
],
"score": [
59,
5,
12,
10,
3,
59,
5,
12,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"To create clones you need to take the nucleus of a cell of one animal and place it in an egg without a nucleus of the same species. This is then given to the female and is grown in the normal fashion. Blood (in human's certainly) tends not have cell nuclei, hence it wouldn't be possible for humans. Even if you were able to get the cell nucleus from the blood of an animal trapped in sap for millions of years you wouldn't have an empty egg to put it in, nor would you have a mother capable of hosting it for long enough to harden and form a foetus.\n\nIn 5 year old speak - imagine you have one of those cars that you pull back, let go and they shoot off into the distance. You could take out the little motor of that car, but you'd need another little car that was almost identical to put it in to make it work. Not only that, but you'd need the exact same colour of carpet to pull it back on for it to work too.\n\nIt's been a while since I was 5.",
"I read in a dawkins book that there's just no way the DNA could survive so long. Even enclosed in amber and mosquito bodies.",
"I highly recommend watching the TED talk by Jack Horner: [Building a Dinosaur From a Chicken](_URL_0_)",
"Did you even see Jurassic Park?! THATS WHY. It was a documentary.",
"Because dinosaurs… uh… had their shot. They had it, and it was… uh… 65 *million* years ago. Trying to throw humans and dinosaurs back together… well… the kind of control that would take, drunkenAmoeba… it's not… uh… it's not possible. Chaos theory… which shouldn't take much explanation if you're five because… uh… when you're five… well… *everything* you do has unexpected consequences… heh… says you can't because if you do then *velociraptors will eat your face.*\n\n(As I think about it, explaining things to a movie audience isn't actually much different from explaining things to a five year old in the first place.)",
"To create clones you need to take the nucleus of a cell of one animal and place it in an egg without a nucleus of the same species. This is then given to the female and is grown in the normal fashion. Blood (in human's certainly) tends not have cell nuclei, hence it wouldn't be possible for humans. Even if you were able to get the cell nucleus from the blood of an animal trapped in sap for millions of years you wouldn't have an empty egg to put it in, nor would you have a mother capable of hosting it for long enough to harden and form a foetus.\n\nIn 5 year old speak - imagine you have one of those cars that you pull back, let go and they shoot off into the distance. You could take out the little motor of that car, but you'd need another little car that was almost identical to put it in to make it work. Not only that, but you'd need the exact same colour of carpet to pull it back on for it to work too.\n\nIt's been a while since I was 5.",
"I read in a dawkins book that there's just no way the DNA could survive so long. Even enclosed in amber and mosquito bodies.",
"I highly recommend watching the TED talk by Jack Horner: [Building a Dinosaur From a Chicken](_URL_0_)",
"Did you even see Jurassic Park?! THATS WHY. It was a documentary.",
"Because dinosaurs… uh… had their shot. They had it, and it was… uh… 65 *million* years ago. Trying to throw humans and dinosaurs back together… well… the kind of control that would take, drunkenAmoeba… it's not… uh… it's not possible. Chaos theory… which shouldn't take much explanation if you're five because… uh… when you're five… well… *everything* you do has unexpected consequences… heh… says you can't because if you do then *velociraptors will eat your face.*\n\n(As I think about it, explaining things to a movie audience isn't actually much different from explaining things to a five year old in the first place.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0QVXdEOiCw8"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
33x7do
|
sd cards
|
multipart question (poor formatting because I'm mobile)
1. SD cards, a very small piece of plastic with a few grams of metal, is extremely expensive. whats the raw cost of an SD card (the price of the plastic + metal), ignoring everything else -surely the price is extremely small, and manufacturing these on a large scale should be eady, surely the price would be less than what it is?
2. A modern SD card can storeup to 500gb, my clunky hard drive weighs a decent amount and is quite big. If you out all the actual data storing parts of an sd card and laid them together in the same volume as a hard drive, you'd have .....a lot
Please forgive my ignorance and answer my questions with patience! Thank you! Apologies for my stupidity
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33x7do/eli5_sd_cards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqp8bde"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You are right the plastics bits and the copper contacts that make up moth of the SD card that you can see have a negligible price. They are not worth much.\n\nThe actual flash memory itself inside the card is what makes up most of the price. It consists of stuff like silicone and metals and other stuff that doesn't seem to be to expensive (there are some that uses titanium which is expensive but they only use it in minute quantities).\n\nthe trick is that when you say that your SD card stores 500GB that means that it stores (roughly) 500 billion bytes or 4 trillion bits. There has to be structure inside the SD card to store every single of these bits (actually more due to error correction etc). These structures are incredibly fine (they might be on the scale of 40 nano-meters where 1 nm is a billionth of a meter).\n\nThe trick is not the raw materials but getting the stuff in the right shape down to a scale that is a thousand time smaller than the width of a human hair. This is not easy and a lot of very expensive research had to be done to figure out how to get it right and some extremely expensive machines have to constructed and kept running to make these things.\n\nThe price for current solid state storage is actually pretty cheap if you have been around for a few years and remember how much more expensive everything used to be.\n\nThe thing that you are proposing with the harddrives is basically what a [modern SSD is](_URL_0_). the tiny black chips here contain (sort of) the same sort of things that are in your SD card.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/j4C4iST.jpg"
]
] |
|
1oaldb
|
if a bank goes out of business and i happen to have a mortgage with said bank, what would happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1oaldb/eli5_if_a_bank_goes_out_of_business_and_i_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccq91f3",
"ccq9vy4"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"They would sell your debt to someone else as a way of paying off their debts, and now you owe your mortgage to some other entity.",
"Essentially, the debt they have on you is an asset, in much the same was a copy machine or the office desks are an asset. If they go bankrupt, they don't just burn the building and walk away, they sell their assets (Xerox machines, mortgages, etc...) for as much as they are able in an attempt to satisfy THEIR creditors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
96x8vk
|
Are planets exclusively formed after stars from the remaining material, or are there other natural ways we've observed/theorized planet(s) forming?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/96x8vk/are_planets_exclusively_formed_after_stars_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e45c3sa"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Technically speaking a planet is defined as an object orbiting a star, though this gets a bit problematic when considering rogue planets that have been ejected from their stars.\n\nThe same process that leads to star formation--collapse of cloud of gas in a nebula--can sometimes fail to collect the critical mass necessary for fusion, around 13 times Jupiter's mass. The resulting planet-sized object is classified as a Y-type brown dwarf, but in many ways it resembles a gas giant. It lacks the rocky core of gas giants in our solar system, but theoretical modeling indicates that gas giant planets can sometimes form around stars without these cores, so these planets would be in many ways near-identical to those small brown dwarfs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
qw1bu
|
Resources for Medieval Church/Choir Music
|
I was wondering if any medieval scholars could point me to resources where I could get my hands on authentic medieval choir music for a project. I'm thinking of the stereotypical music you hear in movies and video games which immediately connote the medieval.
Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qw1bu/resources_for_medieval_churchchoir_music/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c40xmhy",
"c40yxv2"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer sort of depends on exactly what you're looking for. Most of the music used in video games and movies is composed recently, it's not authentic medieval music. They get the same sound by using a lot of open fourths and fifths, but real medieval music would sound horribly boring in a modern video game. If you're looking for truly medieval music, there are may books on plainchant and orgaum (look for something by Leonin or Perotin, they're fairly well known organum composers). There is also the late medieval/early renaissance *ars nova*- look for Guillaume de Machaut. You probably are looking for some later music, however. Organum has only two lines and gets very boring after about 30 seconds, unless you're into that stuff. I would suggest looking at some Renaissance composers- Johannes Ockeghem, Josquin des Prez, Orlando di Lassus, William Byrd and Palestrina. Those composers represent the full spectrum of Renaissance music, and I think you'll be happy with what you find from them.\n\n* [This](_URL_0_) is one of Josquin's more famous pieces\n* [Here](_URL_1_) is a sample of Guillaume de Machaut.\n* And [Here](_URL_2_) is a Perotin organum, with the original score in the video.\n\nAs for the others, a search for di Lassus, Palestrina or Byrd should turn up some good results. As for where to find scores, [imslp](_URL_3_) is probably the best resource out there for musicians looking for free scores. Hope this was helpful.",
"The style of music you're looking for is known as Gregorian Chant. There are already some great examples on here, but i'll still throw in one more. [Léonin](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xt3H2uGxFLI",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RPQjqZm6q0Q",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bpgaEFmdFcM&feature=related",
"http://imslp.org/wiki/"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtkmnhnHWhw"
]
] |
|
8tnr78
|
What did the people of the Spanish peninsula look like before the Moors arrived?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8tnr78/what_did_the_people_of_the_spanish_peninsula_look/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e19p4ph"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Hi there! So if we're talking about what they \"looked like\" I'm assuming you meant in terms of their actual physical appearance. The short version is that there was an array of people and cultures in Iberia and their appearances varied accordingly. The racialist myth of \"the white iberians before the moors turned up!\" is just that - a myth. A very simplified one.\n\nThere aren't a LOT that talk specifically about how they looked physically. But there are some hints. For example, Abdul Rahman III, the first Caliph of Cordoba and one of the most famous Andalusi rulers of all time was born to a mother named Muzna. Maribel Fierro says that Muzna was a *rumiyya* which meant that she was a christian, most likely a northern Christian. His paternal grandmother was also the daughter of Fortun Garces, a 9th-10th century King of Navarre. And how was Abdul Rahman described? As having white skin and dark blue eyes. And he was ethnically an arab, but he obviously had some hispano-roman and probably Basque ancestry too, owing to his heritage from the Pamplona/Navarre royalty.\n\nAs a side note: I know you didn't ask this, but: Who were the people that invaded initially? \"Moors\" is a fairly non-descriptive and just generally not a useful term and who it refers to varies depending from person to person. Spanish people later used it to refer to Andalusis of all kinds (muslims, arabicised christians and jews) used it to refer to berbers, etc. Mostly the initial invaders early on were Berbers led by Arabs. They generally looked quite different in complexion from each other too. Berbers often rebelled and in the *Chronicle of 754* as noted by Nicola Clarke, an Andalusi Christian source, wrote that an arab cavalry unit 'recoiled instantly due to the colour of the Moors' skin' and how dark it was comparatively, indicating a fairly light complexion on the andalusi arabs' part ( no surprise there, light complexions are common in many arab cultures).\n\nIn the century immediately before the Andalusis arrived on the scene the population were largely what are called Hispano-Romans, ruled by Visigoths. Isidore of Seville, a 6th to 7th century archbishop and famous scholar of his era did write about the local peoples as well. In his *Etymologiae sive Origines* (20 books long!) he describes 3 groups he refers to as Gallaeci, Asturi and Cantabri of Iberia explicitly. The Gallaeci are said to have a light complexion, moreso than all the other Hispanian people, and are described as claiming to have Greek ancestry (and he calls them cunning as a result). He somewhat outdatedly describes the Goths as wearing pigtails a lot (contemporary sources don't back up the pigtails), and also describes them of \"reddish in hair\" as well as \"tall and strongly built\" but doesn't say much of their complexion (but they were Germanic, so take from that what you will).\n\nThey were by no means a single group of people. They were a diverse set of different cultures and these peoples' heritage was influenced by celtic, roman, greek, german, carthaginian, berber, arab, phoenician, and other sources over the years. That's why in one particular book I have, Lucy A Sponsler describes women in Hispano-Roman times as looking quite different depending on what part of Iberia they came from - \"women of the north were tall with fair skin and light reddish-brown hair. In the central portion of the peninsula they were shorter and wiry, while in the south they were dark with lively eyes\". Sponsler notes that subsequent invasions (by Germanic people, and then by Berbers and Arabs) only heightened this difference rather than creating it. This is a difference still observable today. \n\ntl;dr pre-Islamic Iberian people ranged from light skin to dark skin depending on both region and ethnicity. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1imlbm
|
the difference between poisonous and toxic things
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1imlbm/eli5_the_difference_between_poisonous_and_toxic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb5xi1l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The term poison refers to any substance that is harmful to your body if consumed. Toxin is a specific branch of poison, defining naturally created poisons. For example, many household cleaning substances are poisonous, but are artificially made and are not toxins.\nHere is the Article my information came from: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.omg-facts.com/Science/Poison-Toxin-And-Venom-Are-Three-Complet/52899"
]
] |
||
30n57t
|
If there was no oxygen and paper was heated to a super high temperature, would it melt not burn?
|
For example if there was a piece of paper in a sealed box (able to withstand high temperatures) with no oxygen (maybe filled with an inert gas like neon?) what would happen when it's heated enough to break the C-H bonds and have nothing to react with? would it just create pure C and H2 gas?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/30n57t/if_there_was_no_oxygen_and_paper_was_heated_to_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpuire7",
"cpupm0a"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. There couldn't be any chemical reactions, and if you reach the necessary temperature it will break down into its parts. That would happen around 250° celsius temperature. You would be left with charcoal and hydrogen gas.",
" > would it just create pure C and H2 gas?\n\nYes, or some combinations of them as light hydrocarbons. This is known as [pyrolisis](_URL_0_), it is a reaction that absorbs heat and it's commonly done in some industries.\n\n > would it melt not burn?\n\nI wouldn't call this \"melting\" since it doesn't transition to a liquid state without changing its chemical composition."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pyrolysis"
]
] |
|
1iw189
|
If I continuously shot charged particles into a black hole, what would happen over time with the buildup of charge?
|
Let's say I have an unlimited source of electrons. If I continuously let them stream into a black hole, in what ways do the electrons influence their surroundings? Could an observer ever feel an electrical repulsion or attraction from a charged black hole? Also, given enough buildup, could the charge rip the black hole apart as more and more like particles try to repel away from each other?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1iw189/if_i_continuously_shot_charged_particles_into_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb8nz67",
"cb8o0yf"
],
"score": [
4,
70
],
"text": [
"From the [no-hair theorem](_URL_0_), the only things that external observers can measure from a black hole are its mass, charge, and angular momentum. \n\nSo yes, the black hole will become more and more negatively charged, and if you were to put a test charge somewhere outside the black hole, you could measure that charge. \n\nInside the black hole, it doesn't make sense to think of there being individual particles anymore. Everything is in the singularity at the center, which is essentially a point mass. Also, a black hole *never* \"rips apart\".\n\nI should probably note that there's no rigorous proof of the no-hair theorem, but it's widely accepted among physicists.",
"Assume a nonrotating black hole.\n\nNow start pissing electrons into it. First, it'll gain mass as the electrons cross the event horizon, with the radius of the event horizon now steadily increasing. The electrons end up smooshed together at the singularity- the crushing forces inside the black hole are irresistible. The electrons end up in the singularity, as does their charge. \n\nNot only is there a gravitational field around the black hole, but now there's an electric field. \"But wait, if nothing can escape the black hole, then how can the electric field due to the charge in the black hole be felt outside? No information is supposed to be able to get out!\" you might say. And I would say, \"good question.\" From the point of view of someone outside the black hole, the mass takes an infinite amount of time to cross the event horizon, and their last seconds of life will be unfolding in slowmo for the rest of forever. You can argue that the electric field is then seen from this point, but this isn't quite accurate. I've heard there exists a fancy proof in QFT that describes the exact mechanism that creates the electric field, but I'd be lying if I said I've seen it. \n\nNow inside the event horizon, as the charge increases, there exists a second 'horizon.' You can think of the event horizon as the gravitational horizon, and this one as the electromagnetic horizon. It's called a Cauchy Horizon and - this is a huge simplification here - the space inside is 'normal space' like exists outside the black hole, instead of 'black hole space.' The 'black hole space' now exists in a shell between the event horizon, and the Cauchy horizon inside it. \n\nAnd if you keep pumping charge into the black hole, that shell will get thinner and thinner, and eventually the horizons will meet. If this were possible, it would mean there would exist a mechanism for producing singularities that aren't hidden inside black holes. It would mean there are 'naked' singularities which could exist in the universe without the shroud of fancy horizons and 'black hole space.' If you could prove this, you would disprove the \"cosmic censorship hypothesis\" which says no such naked singularities exist. You would not pass go, nor would you collect $200, you would go directly to Nobel Prize. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No-hair_theorem"
],
[]
] |
|
3xa2bb
|
how did futurama win 6 emmys but got canceled twice?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3xa2bb/eli5_how_did_futurama_win_6_emmys_but_got/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy2tyq0",
"cy2ux2e",
"cy2vdiy",
"cy31pw1",
"cy31q8z",
"cy31s2e",
"cy31s4q",
"cy31ud8",
"cy31uyv",
"cy325cr",
"cy32p6r",
"cy32x09",
"cy33b3l",
"cy33e7j",
"cy33m4z",
"cy344g3",
"cy349ay",
"cy349pl",
"cy354oq",
"cy35j0w",
"cy3662l",
"cy368jh",
"cy36kd3",
"cy36ntm",
"cy36r4n",
"cy37g1w",
"cy37p6x",
"cy383m7",
"cy387jj",
"cy38a0a",
"cy38jin",
"cy3931a",
"cy393o3",
"cy39590",
"cy39a1a",
"cy39lad",
"cy3abzd",
"cy3acaj",
"cy3aoup",
"cy3apug",
"cy3bhjh",
"cy3bkoz",
"cy3buxk",
"cy3bxt1",
"cy3c98p",
"cy3ccfg",
"cy3crgg",
"cy3dmz4",
"cy3dy0x",
"cy3e64b",
"cy3eqn7",
"cy3ev37",
"cy3ewbb",
"cy3fffx",
"cy3flam",
"cy3gqbt",
"cy3hor6",
"cy3hy9a",
"cy3jhg2",
"cy3k1sx",
"cy3kyck",
"cy3m96s"
],
"score": [
4244,
206,
78,
195,
67,
1655,
23,
15,
556,
7,
3,
40,
245,
10,
5,
2,
60,
7,
18,
5,
3,
2,
2,
6,
2,
3,
8,
3,
2,
13,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
15,
3,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Being a good show doesnt mean a lot of people like it. A show may have great acting, amazing plot, good dialogue, etc., but the genre/premise/etc. may just not interest people. My father doesn't take animation seriously, he would never watch Futurama, no matter how much he would like it if he did. \n \nThere are a lot of shows people praise, but the premise of some are of just no interest to me, that doesn't mean I can't acknlowedge it's a good show. \n \nEDIT: This is now my highest comment/post, which was unexpected.",
"Most movies that win oscars don't make that much money either. awards doesn't mean popularity. That being said it will go down in history as being one of the best shows ever, along with scrubs ",
"Because it was expensive to make. \n\nWhat is better?\n\nSpend $1000 and make $10000 (so you keep $9000) or spend $10000 and make $18000 (so you keep$8000)?\n\nSince money is all that matters, the first option is much better even if it's not as good a show and liked by less people.",
"The *only* reason shows exist is so companies can sell ads that play during those shows. They can charge more for the ads when more people watch the show. The quality of the show has nothing to do with how many people watch it.\n\n(We are now living in an exciting time for TV in which companies are figuring out that they can make money without showing commercials, but that's a new thing that's irrelevant to why Futurama kept getting canceled.)",
"Because tv show ratings are still based on the system widely known for being hopelessly outdated and inaccurate: the Nielsen ratings ",
"Television shows stay on the air because they are successful, not because they are good. \n\nFuturama got canceled. Two and a Half Men was still the #1 show with Ashton fucking Kutcher.\n\n\nA great example would be the old Sci-Fi channel's show Farscape. Excellent show. One of the best science fiction shows ever made. But it was expensive, and the execs at the network didn't believe they could expand its audience any further, so it was canceled in favor of higher margin programming. Television networks run on money, not on quality. If both money and quality intersect (like the case with most HBO shows, for example), it's more of an exception, rather than the rule.\n\nSuccess, more often than not, means appealing to the broadest audience possible, and that often means a lower common denominator.",
"Grew in popularity, dropped in popularity, canceled.\n\nCult status, grew in popularity, dropped in popularity, canceled.\n\npretty much how it went.",
"You know how some shows are popular with certain kinds of people? Like computer geeks like Mr. Robot more than average, comic book fans like Agents of Shield more than average, college students like Archer more than average... Well, the people who select entertainment to give out awards are just a different group/subculture, and they can like stuff regardless of how popular or unpopular it is with the general TV watching audience.",
"I believe I had read somewhere that Groening went through hell to get Fox to put it on the air, and they kept putting it in terrible time slots. Poor and irregular scheduling to make room for sports or other events would make even dedicated viewers stop tuning in.\n\nEDIT: Wikipedia was my source, as a college student that's good enough for me.\n\nEDIT 2: Forgot the r in Groening ",
"Oh my god. Dude. I've been searching for the name of this show for so long. No one I asked had heard of it. I tried to look it up but the only thing I could remember is that it had a robot in it. I'm gonna try to watch every episode now. I just need to know if it's on Netflix.\n\nEdit: It is on Netflix, people!",
"The easiest way to explain it is this: Numbers.\n\nYou don't win awards based on how many people watch the show. You win awards based of what other people in the industry think of your show. If you have shitty viewer numbers, you will be canceled.\n\nIt sucks to be that way since I liked stuff like Jericho and Pushing Daisies and Wonder Falls, but they just didn't have the numbers backing them.",
"Here's what no one is saying: because it was EXPENSIVE. Futurama, if I remember correctly, cost upwards of a million dollars per episode. That's a LOT of money to recoup with advertising, so it's easy to see how even a really good show might still lose money for the network. ",
"Originally because FOX didnt know what the fuck they were doing.\n\n\nThe first and foremost cause of FOX refusing to order new episodes after four production seasons is attributed to the price of the show and its decreasing popularity. Despite Futurama's pilot episode, \"Space Pilot 3000\", being the most watched pilot episode on FOX when it aired,[3] the show had been decreasing slowly in popularity over time, and FOX was disappointed in the show, which they had assumed could gain a popularity like their other show, The Simpsons, and even within FOX, arguments arose regarding whether they had kept Futurama alive for too long.\nHowever, despite FOX's own disappointment with the show, FOX themselves were to some degree responsible for the decreasing viewership of the show. Indeed, its popularity had not gone down, but rather the amount of viewers it had, as the show had moved to a less popular timeslot since \"I, Roommate\". In addition to the less popular timeslot, it was also highly unstable, as FOX would often put off an episode for another event, e.g. sporting or news reports. This made new episodes highly unpredictable for viewers.\nIndeed, FOX's unstable airing eventually led to the airing of five broadcast seasons, rather than the four produced.[4][5] Not only were episodes aired out of order, but examples like \"The Route of All Evil\" had to be pushed back two entire seasons.[6] This unpredictable nature, the unpopular timeslot eventually lead to the demise of the viewership and the show's popularity in terms of numbers.\nDespite the fact that \"Space Pilot 3000\", the pilot, was a very popular pilot episode in terms of viewership,[3][7] as well as the second episode, \"The Series Has Landed\",[8] whose popularity was attributed to the Sunday line up it was in, with the lead-in show of The Simpsons as well as X-Files after the show, FOX decided to move the show to its Tuesday line up instead, beginning with \"I, Roommate\", which as expected hurt the show's ratings.[9] And the show continued to dwell on these ratings for four broadcast seasons.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\nTLDR- FOX kept changing the timeslot and playing things out of order, saw loss of veiwers as loss of populatity.",
"Because you don't get emmys for ratings, and that's what decides if a program stays or goes. ",
"Most likely because lots of the jokes went straight over plenty of people's heads. You had to have at least a high-school grasp of math and science to understand many of the more subtle jokes, and this is in a country where people are proud of not understanding science. \n\nIt makes me so sad that one of the most intelligent and funny shows I've ever seen was canceled because not enough people were smart enough to get it.",
"I seem to recall Futurama was a hotspot for drama. Fox wanted more control over it and the producers wouldn't give it to them. This led to shitty time slots, which led to a dwindling audience, which led to Futurama getting canned for the first time.\n\nThat led to the direct to DVD movies, three of the four being extremely good and one being just \"eh,\" which wrapped up the story the way they wanted.\n\nThe show was picked up again because of the popularity of said movies. It went for two more 26 episode seasons... That is a crapload of episodes! Shows fade away eventually and it stopped bringing the audience it used to.\n\nI'm in hopes of it being picked up again though. I love Futurama.",
"I think part of what turned people off is that it is an adult cartoon popularized at the same time as Family Guy, which the more conservative consider a rather crass and offensive show. However, Futurama was wrongly grouped with FG. For anyone that follows the story line, it is apparent that it has one of the most heartfelt plots with developed relationships. I mean, final season, Fry and Leela, so fucking sweet. ",
"Fox sells advertising, not good feelings. They didn't profit enough so they tried other things.",
"Bender's Big Score explains it pretty well in the [first couple minutes](_URL_0_).\n\nSome executives failed to recognize Futurama's (potential) success and importance and instead compared it to other shows that were running at the time and did better. Not because the other shows were better but because they created better revenue thanks to the common joe watching and eating them up. In the end for most executives it's all about money, not content.",
"I had the chance to ask Matt Groening a similar question back in early 2013 (so it hadn't been cancelled for the second time yet). Here's the ELI5 version of his explanation for the first cancellation.\n\nThe network let Groening pretty much do what he wanted when he created the Simpsons because the cartoon-for-adults thing was new, and the studio wasn't sure how it would work. When he made Futurama, the format was pretty established, so the studio wanted more say. Groening didn't really like this, so he fought with the studio. To punish him (in his view), Fox moved Futurama to a really bad timeslot. (Early evening on Sundays, I think? Basically sports often pre-empted the show). Fewer people watched because of the bad timeslot, and the show was expensive to make, so Fox eventually cancelled the show.\n\nSource: Asked Matt Groening about how Futurama came back during his panel at the UCLA Law Entertainment Law event in 2013.",
"Because Fox is full of idiots, have you seen what they call news?",
"As others have said it is never about quality but more about profit. \n\nIn the case of Futurama, though, Fox executives did not understand the appeal of the show at all and seemed to assume it would be a clone of the Jetsons back when they greenlit production. They talk about it to some extent in the DVD commentaries. The execs at FOX had very little say in the content of the show so they gradually killed its following by shifting its timeslot wildly and routinely changing broadcast dates with almost no warning. It was actually the highest rated FOX pilot in history and one of the top rated shows in its original timeslot, matching The Simpsons with its second episode. The show then abruptly changed timeslots, where it was still one of the highest rated shows on TV. Imo it was a corporate power play similar to what they did to The Critic, which was actually INCREASING in viewers when it was cancelled. \n\nThe comedy central one seemed legitimate, though. Ratings were dropping and costs were still high, meanwhile the episodes didn't seem nearly as tightly written. ",
"[The same way Arrested Development got fucked by FOX](_URL_0_)",
"I will admit to being a hard ass most of the time, but Futurama has moved me to tears repeatedly with episodes like Jurassic Bark and Game of Tones. This show deserves awards.",
"Most people like really dumb shows. It doesn't take a lot of neurons firing to watch DWTS.",
"Just because a shows good doesnt mean people will watch it. \nSame goes for the inverse. Look at big bang that shows awful and has so many viewers and is always on",
"Top comment is wrong. Futurama got killed because the president/CEO of Fox at the time hated the show during its first run and believed different shows and a different format would be a better direction for the network. Additionally, there was some push back from writers when said pres. and other execs tried influencing the show's writing too much. The people in charge didn't like that so that added to its cancellation.\n\nAs for the Comedy Central run: The old writers (or most of them) could not be brought back onto the show because they were involved with other projects after the almost 10 year gap of the show's hiatus. The writing suffered outside of the mini-series format because Comedy Central gave a hard lined budget for Futurama and the writing team was either shrunk and/or good talent could not be secured when the show was brought onto a full season schedule. The show suffered from bad writing and a target audience having aged and moved on and no longer caring about an old cartoon show.\n\nFuturama was an exceptional case in all honesty and did not suffer the typical fate of many critically acclaimed shows that go unwatched. It's all available to read online if anyone's interested, but I'm positive I'm too late in posting and top commentor's misinformation will still win out.",
"It wasn't The Simpsons?",
"Didn't really get to scroll through all the comments, but some people have touched pieces of the answer.\n\nAnswer: Because the Emmys (like the Oscars and the Grammys) aren't a people's choice or popularity contest. Members of the Academy of Television Arts & Sciences cast votes for their favorites. Members are all creatives professionals in the industry. So while this means that Futurama may be loved by the creatives in the industry (who are more the creatives than the executives), it didn't get the type of ratings, or portray the correct viewpoints of the main sponsors on said network.\n\nA lot of networks have established partnerships with certain ad buyers for seasons or shows, Annheiser-Busch being a goliath with lots of ad money to throw around. They may just not like a specific show's tone or audience and not buy on during the Upfronts. Shows like that don't tend to last very long.\n\nRemember, all of those major award shows are held and voted on by their respective academies. So the next time you see something win and you're like \"I have no clue who/what the hell that is even!?\", it's because it's not a people's choice award.",
"Remember that family guy bit when they came back from being cancelled, where Peter announces to the Family they've been cancelled, and they'd only be able to come back if all these shows Fox were introducing got cancelled, then proceeds to list off like 50 new shows that cancelled between Family Guy's Season 3 and Season 4?\n\nYeah, turns out american TV just really likes cancelling things.",
"I liked futurama, but it's not exactly the show you would put on when friends ask to watch something funny (unless you know they're into shows with a similar style of humor such as Archer/Bojack Horseman). It definitely takes a bit of time to get into before you start liking it, and it takes much less time to watch less than an episode and say \"this is stupid.\"",
"Capitalism. Awards are a measure of quality, while ratings are a measure of monetizable popularity. Since money rules, ratings determine a show's fate and awards only matter if they increase popularity. ",
"No correlation between Emmys and ratings.\n\nI am surprised there are so many comments. The answer is that simple.",
"TV shows live or die by ratings. The smarter, better, more niche a show is, the more likely its audience are downloaders and not tune-inners. \n\nHence those audience don't feed the ratings machine. That's why so many smart, high concept ambitious shows get shitcanned after season 2 or 3 but we're on season 800 of Dancing with the Stars. ",
"well to not answer your question...\n\nthese questions are seeming more and more like they are being asked by actual people of that age",
"Awards mean critics like the show.\n\nRatings mean the public watches the show, and that advertisers pay a lot of money.",
"Emmy's =/= viewers. Quality =/= advertising dollars. \n\nAt the end of the day, quality shows get cancelled because enough people aren't watching them, therefore the network can't meet their goal in advertising revenue. \n\nHannibal is a great example. It had universal critical acclaim and was one of the best shows on TV; unfortunately enough people didn't watch it to justify it's existence. \n\nSometimes this comes down to what network a program is on as well. A show like Futurama can have a successful run somewhere like [AS], but fail on Fox. The average viewer of adult cartoons on Fox is looking for something like Family Guy - something more risqué, with teenage humor and plenty of fart jokes. \n\nA show like Hannibal could have been a huge hit on AMC, FX, HBO, or Netflix. It was way too artistic for NBC.\nSadly, they can replace an amazing show like Hannibal with *yet another* procedural Law and Order/CSI-InsertCityHere reitteration and get better ratings. \n\nWe determine this. If we want this to quit happening then we need to demand quality. A good start is by supporting and sharing great programs. \n\nEdit: typo\n",
"People are slow, it took years for us to catch on to hiw brilliant it was but by then it was already cancelled.",
"Because many corporate executives are stupid monkeys who think that they need to stamp their newly acquired authority on everything around them and dismiss and destroy what the corporate executives before them did, in favor of the new and better things the new corporate executive thinks are cool.",
"Being cancelled twice means it got reinstated at least once, as far as I'm aware not many shows come back like that. ^^^Don't ^^^listen ^^^to ^^^me ^^^I'm ^^^hungover",
"One Word. Fox. At least for the first cancellation. They have a terrible track record of killing off great shows.",
"Hello mastercard? I'd like to pay my debts with emmys",
"Revenue(ratings and ad potential) - cost of production. The reason bad shows survive is because they are cheap to make. Futurama wasn't cheap to make.",
"How did you make it through one day of high school and not learn that popularity has no connection with quality.",
"Technically the show has only technically been cancelled 1 time, there was just a long gap between when fox ended it and when Comedy Central decided to create new episodes (signed the contract). I also suspect much of the delay was due to Cartoon Networks contract to rerun the original series for about 5 years.\n\nWhen the show came out in 2009 by Fox it did well at 1st, but as many shows do the formula was not enough to keep that audience for the 3rd season. So Fox did not continue it\n\nLater Cartoon Network picked it up for reruns, due to the following that did watch the reruns, some movies were made (not in theatre but direct to video). This ran until their contract expired in 2008\n\nComedy Central picked it up and wanted to turn the movies into episodes plus more. So they set an agreement with Fox (who still owned the rights) to do new episodes so another 2-3 seasons in all.\n\nAfter those finished they decided to do a season 7, however that did not quite keep the rating needed, and ended up being the last season.\n\nThere has always been a strong cult following, and there may be attempts to revitalize the series\n\n\nAs far as Emmys and other awards, it seems the Awards do not always reflect he popularity overall, and do have a tendency to give awards to niche shows/movies.\n\nFuturama will be around for a while (no new series at this time), however in order to make new episodes a new direction may be needed as the existing story has been run out for the most part.\n\nFamily guy would be a good example of the show that survives multiple cancellations.",
"There's not exactly a strong correlation between quality media and popular media. That's why the argumenta of \"opinions are never wrong\" and \"it's good if people think it's good\" have never been more than childish nonsense you learn in preschool. It's frustrating. It prevents people from realizing they can separate their own biases from their objective evaluations of things. For example, I know Survivor is probably fake and often terribly stupid with only a few redeeming qualities (occasional clever strategic plays, a couple of tense tribal councils a year and some good challenges). It's not a high quality piece of television. But I love it. The vast majority of people seem incapable of doing what I just did. Admitting that something they enjoy isn't good just because they enjoy it. \n\nI know this is tough for some people, but the Big Bang Theory is unoriginal, repetitive, poorly written, simple humor played out by a bunch of mediocre actors and one solid one. That doesn't mean you can't enjoy the show. It doesn't mean it can't be your favorite. It does mean that it isn't a high quality show. \n\nOn the opposite end, Futurama is incredibly smart, well written, clever and often original humor voiced by an incredible cast. You're still allowed to dislike it, as many clearly didn't, which is why it got cancelled despite being good enough to win awards. ",
"It's because people like my wife refuse to watch anything outside of their comfort zone. I had a hard enough time to get her to watch The Shawshank Redemption, let alone Futurama. ",
"Emmys are given for quality work that is impressive from a talent perspective. \n\nAiring a show is based on money, so cancellation is also based on money.",
"Oh sure it was good, but after about the 3rd Emmy everyone was *Groening*.\n\nI'll see myself out.",
"They don't base show cancellations on Emmys. It's based on viewership. That show 30 Rock won every award but could not buy an audience. Remember critics usually have far different taste than the general public. ",
"1. It was smart, and well-written.\n\n2. It bounced around days and times like madness during its entire run.\n\nBoth combined to create a toxic situation in the hearts and souls of a mostly American viewership.",
"To quote another Groening show: \"Too smart for the corndog crowd, too dumb for the bagel bunch.\"",
"Because good things aren't always enjoyed by most... I mean it's like why is pop so ...popular. ",
"Or how you pay for HBO and they cancel Carnivale, Deadwood and John From Cincinnati in the middle of the story. ",
"Oh silly, that's like asking \"why did Firefly get canceled???\" \n\n\n*cough cough Fox cough*",
"Nobody watching critically acclaimed show = no money = no season renewals. That's about as ELI5 as one can make it.",
"The biggest problem was that Fox put it on at 7pm, so it was constantly getting pre-empted by football that would always run late",
"I remember regularly looking forward to a new Futurama on Sunday at 7PM only to have the football/baseball/ANY game run into that timeslot and they wouldn't show it. Fox gave Futurama a terrible time slot and aired it irregularly, then they were shocked when it didn't do well.",
"Please forgive me here, I tread lightly on reddit in this area.. but I know people are going to wax poetic about how america doesn't understand quality or it's all about the benjamins or some kind of crap like that.\n\n***For the record, I love Futurama, I still watch the episodes over and over.***\n\n\nFuturama's 6 emmy's:\n\nOutstanding Voice-Over Performance - 2012\n\nOutstanding Animated Program - 2011\n\nOutstanding Voice-Over Performance - 2011\n\nOutstanding Animated Program (for programming less than one hour) - 2002\n\nOutstanding Individual Achievement In Animation - 2001 \n\nOutstanding Individual Achievement In Animation - 2000 \n\nTwo are for voice over.. this is not a testament to the show, but to a particular person, Maurice LaMarche is an excellent voice actor.\n\nThe others are all in a very limited field of candidates. It is not like 'Best comedy\" or \"Best film\" where there are literally hundreds of potential and worthy candidates. The field was very small and one has to win.\n\nI am not saying this to take away from the achievements, but to put it into perspective. If you had an emmy for the \"best bag of something\" and 10 entrants all presented 10 different bags of different kind of shit, one bag of shit would win. (*this is essentially what happens in the \"best comedy\" category lol*)\n\nAgain, I am NOT saying Futurama was a bag of shit, far from it, I am just saying.. *someone has to win* and Futurama had the \"best episode\" in the years that it won. \n\nAn Emmy means virtually nothing. So that is why it can be cancelled and still win an Emmy. Emmy < > ratings.\n\n",
"Futurama post not in /r/futurama? Yesssssss. Let's get those ratings up! On Netflix!!",
"Because of the morons at the Box network. Torgo's Executive Powder anyone?",
"How is this really a question? This is a one-line answer, truly ELI5 answer:\n\nBecause an award is not money."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://theinfosphere.org/Cancellation_of_Futurama"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rD9i_9Gf2nY&t=48s"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HmGGVARy1OQ"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2yimbh
|
why is the letter the 47 republican senators sent to iran today such a big deal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2yimbh/eli5_why_is_the_letter_the_47_republican_senators/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp9val5",
"cp9vdr6",
"cp9vfdr",
"cp9vplv"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, for one there is the [Logan Act](_URL_0_)\nAnd then again, aren't we all getting a little tired of the Republican's shit?",
"Negotiating with foreign powers is the job of the executive branch (president and Department of State). The Senate is only supposed to ratify foreign treaties.",
"Essentially the Republicans are telling Iran that any nuclear agreement made with the Obama administration will be deemed null and void after the next US election (presumably if the Republicans win a majority).\n\nWhat is so serious is that The Republicans are trying to undermine the government in the most flagrant and nihilistic manner possible. This is unprecedented and in many countries this might have been regarded sedition or even treason.",
"Beyond the comments provided, I'd like to posit that the letter is, in fact, not a big deal. It's rather political posturing. \n\nAs one commenter rightly noted, the Executive Branch is charged with foreign relations. The letter authored by electees of the Legislative Branch is, in diplomatic circles, useless as it does not represent the intent of the Executive Branch's implementation of American strategy. Only the Executive Branch executes American foreign policy. \n\nAnd I write that as a right-leaning pinche Mexi border taco-sucking bitch who also likes sous vide and tempura-crusted-pork-belly-a-la-Corsicana, but despite my poverty-stricken, clueless roots I’m right about the role of the Executive Branch to implement foreign policy. And the idiot Congresscritters who signed onto that letter are all wrong, and dumbass pinche tools of their own K Street betters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Logan_Act"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
fvx8n5
|
how do companies like gm and apple quickly pivot to making new products like masks and ventilators?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fvx8n5/eli5_how_do_companies_like_gm_and_apple_quickly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmkz1q2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think it’s not so much that they switch to manufacturing masks and ventilators, they just have them already and are donating them. At least for apple and other big tech companies, their factories are big clean rooms, so they have plenty of masks already."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5d6nuu
|
what would happen in the usa if someone tore a ligament (such as acl) and didn't have health insurance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5d6nuu/eli5what_would_happen_in_the_usa_if_someone_tore/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da26lbg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"You would have to pay out of pocket. Usually if you don't have insurance, you may be able to negotiate the costs with hospital to lower the amount due. \n\nGenerally, hospitals will charge more for procedures and hospital stays if a patient's insurance company is being billed. Hospitals will never receive the full amount that is billed, so they will increase the reported price of the procedures. If you are paying cash out-of-pocket, they may give you the prorated amount that they would expect to receive from insurance companies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3iuk49
|
why do people who have sex in movies/shows smoke after it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iuk49/eli5_why_do_people_who_have_sex_in_moviesshows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cujqm2t"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"It's TV trope, but based on reality. Back when I was a smoker the most enjoyable cigarettes were after sex, after a good meal, and when drinking."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1q3yb9
|
What is happening in a black hole? Do we have fusion of heavy elements? Could they eventually super nova?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q3yb9/what_is_happening_in_a_black_hole_do_we_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd94861"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"To answer your last question first: no, a black hole cannot supernova. Once matter is inside its event horizon, it's in there for good. It appears, by using quantum physics to study black hole event horizons, that they can emit radiation (called Hawking radiation) which, over time—a very, very long time—can eventually carry away the black hole's energy. So, they don't so much go 'boom' as evaporate.\n\nAs for what happens as something falls into a black hole: one of the most difficult parts of talking about black holes is how careful you have to be about frames of reference. Let's suppose we have a very simple (non-rotating, uncharged) black hole and you jump into it carrying a bit of matter. Now you're wondering if you will see that bit of matter become compressed and undergo nuclear fusion as you and it fall into the black hole. In fact, it will get *stretched*, not compressed—as will you, for that matter. Gravity gets weaker the further you get away from the source, which tends to stretch out nearby objects. Essentially, your feet are falling faster than your head. This is called a \"tidal force\" because it's what causes tides on earth. For a black hole, because the source mass is packed into such a small space, there is a point at which the gravitational force varies *massively* even over small distances. This very powerful tidal force stretches out/rips apart even the strongest objects in a process called spaghettification. The point at which this happens depends on the size of the black hole. For supermassive black holes, it occurs after you have crossed the event horizon. For smaller black holes, spaghettification can happen even before you pass the event horizon.\n\nNow, it's true that at the very end of your journey, relativity says that your bit of matter, along with you, are essentially compressed down a point. But at the point, there isn't really any such thing is matter any more. There are not electrons, protons, or neutrons that are being compressed together. The electron, protons, and neutrons are occupying the same place. The very idea of \"atoms\" doesn't make sense any more at a black hole's singularity, so there is no fusion of atoms together. Really understanding what happens to matter at this point is the realm of quantum gravity, which we don't understand yet. The important take away is the above paragraph: matter gets stretched as it falls towards a black hole's singularity, it doesn't get compressed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1st22j
|
please explain fetal alcohol syndrome (many more-specific questions herein)
|
I am a new teacher in the far north (Alaska), in a village where FAS is supposedly pretty commonplace. I understand some basics of FAS (the mother drinks during pregnancy, child is born with cognitive disabilities), but there's a lot that I don't know, or know how best to deal with. (As much as 35% of the kids at our school receive special education services, and many due to FAS; veteran teachers estimate the "suspected FAS" is much higher, up to about 75%.)
- Is there a huge variance in how FAS can affect people?
- Is there a very broad spectrum of disabilities/disorders that can result?
- Do we still label kids "ADD/ADHD" (and medicate accordingly, when appropriate) if they have FAS and exhibit behaviors/tendencies common to those things?
- Can FAS include physical handicaps (unrelated/not directly related to brain function) or "deformities" (for lack of a better word)?
- Can things that a person suffers from as a result of FAS be passed on from parent to child?
- What happens to the parent(s) of children who are officially "diagnosed" with FAS?
- Are there any good "popular science"-style readings (the more, the better!) about FAS that you might recommend?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1st22j/eli5_please_explain_fetal_alcohol_syndrome_many/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch7k84i",
"ce0yng2",
"ce10yq4",
"ce13icp"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Wow. Four months ago. Still, I think I can add a bit to this, and hope you will see it.\nMy mother has grown up with FAS. I don't expect anyone in her family would admit it, but she has the classical facial features (you are probably acquainted with these now, but if not, google fetal alcohol syndrome features or signs and look at the images). She has the odd ears, and the small head, the flat lip, the little, shifting eyes. She also has always had terrible anger management problems, is possibly bipolar, and, again unadmittedly, shows certain hard-to-define cognitive and emotive deficiencies. As in, she doesn't understand complicated things and shuts off. She is also cold, and simultaneously unable to manage everyday life without high drama over every single thing. \nThat said, she finished high school and worked as a secretary for thirty years. So she did function. She also drank quite a bit. She is now 86.\n \nMy grandmother got pregnant by \"the wrong kind of guy\" in 1926, at the age of 17. Before the shotgun wedding, which took place two months before the birth, the best I can figure is my grandma (a spoiled girl who styled herself a flapper) must have got drunk day after day, possibly attempting to abort. Or else, just being herself. So my mom has classic FAS features and personality, but her siblings don't. \n\nAnyway. Just wanted to say, it is a broad spectrum, and some of those kids will probably do okay despite it. For some it really won't be catastrophic.",
"1 & 2) It is a spectrum disorder ranging from mild to severe impairment, there is a broad and relatively unknown list of disabilities/disorders (by relatively unknown it is undetermined if some disorders children develop could be related to FAS or not when the mother admits to alcohol use during pregnancy). This is a newer thing, drinking in pregnancy is only more recently designated as \"Bad\". \n\n3) Having ADD/ADHD: this is more complex from the perspective of treatment medications are meant to treat symptoms, it is not \"treating\" the ADHD just managing the symptoms of it. Medication with comorbidities ( FAS/ADHD/ADD) is normal. You are more so labeling the symptoms they are presenting which is an acceptable way to convey what is going on with the child. \n\n4) These are primarily related to brain function, poor control physically/ abnormal development due to these delays could cause what you would call \"deformities\". There are a few marked physical characteristics that are usually facial but basically anything related to poor nutrition during pregnancy can cause a host of physical deformities this isn't just due to \"FAS\" this is the combination of poor nutrition resulting in poor fetal development. Lack of folate could cause neural tube defects or other growth issues (body grows unevenly, chest is larger than arms, enlarged kidneys, the list goes on) Physical handicaps could include:\n \"Examples include delay in walking (gross motor skills), difficulty writing or drawing (fine motor skills), clumsiness, balance problems, tremors, difficulty coordinating hands and fingers (dexterity), and poor sucking in babies.\" ~ source: _URL_3_\n\n5) FAS isn't passed from parent to child as in the parent suffered from FAS and now the child will have it inherently. ADHD/ADD and some of the disorders related to FAS are known to be familial, which just means that a child of a parent who has ADHD or ADD is more likely to have a child with ADD/ADHD. \n\n6) Upon birth if suspected, due to lack of prenatal care and other issues with the parents a child might be monitored. CPS may be called later on (the child will be usually delayed on the growth charts) if they don't make improvements. FAS can happen from a range of things, it is not always the parents \"fault\" unplanned pregnancies, dependence, all of these things can't be punished necessarily. Nor should they be, FAS can come from continued alcohol use throughout pregnancy or use during the first trimester. If continued issues arise with the heath of the child and lack of care, obvious neglect then steps might be taken. \n\nGood References:\n_URL_2_ \n_URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n\nI would suggest treating children with FAS as any child with learning disabilities. More than likely different types of teaching styles and stimulation will be necessary to get through to the child. ",
"Different races have different tolerances for alcohol, and this affects FAS. ",
"Read \"The Broken Cord\" by Michael Dorris, if you haven't already. A bit out of date but a good story nonetheless: the condition hasn't changed. The takeaway message that I got was that FAS (as opposed to fetal alcohol EFFECT, FAE, which is less serious and probably your \"suspected FAS\") is not the result of a glass of wine with dinner and shaving a few IQ points off the child. It's more like bottle-of-Popov-a-day, to the point where the kids are often abandoned or taken away due to neglect. ADD/ADHD are things that happen to healthy kids who have a little trouble in school: FAS is a catastrophe.\n\nPassed on: well, it's caused by behavior not genetics: but alcoholism has genetic and cultural precursors which would inherit. And I can't imagine the child in *Broken Cord* having the wit to contracept, or a girl in his condition to stay sober, so it would tend to perpetuate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001909/",
"http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/974016-overview",
"http://www.cdc.gov/NCBDDD/fasd/facts.html",
"http://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/fasd/diagnosis.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1u8mrr
|
what is nsa doing with my information?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1u8mrr/eli5_what_is_nsa_doing_with_my_information/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cefk1tq",
"cefkxdf"
],
"score": [
3,
15
],
"text": [
"It's collecting metadata (data about a conversation, not the conversation itself) into a big database so that, if the need ever arises, they can analyze that data to see who you might have conversed/connected to, or if you yourself were connected to someone.\n\nThat data would be analyzed to extract patterns and see if there are further areas in which to follow up for additional intelligence.\n\nAFAIK most of the data just sits there doing nothing until there's a reason to investigate and see where it goes. ",
"Most likely, absolutely nothing. Your information is sitting on a server somewhere, and will not even be read before it gets deleted, due to there being too much to store. \n\nHowever, this isn't defending the NSA's actions. Let's say a nice middle eastern man moves into the apartment next to you. The NSA has decided to investigate him. They discover he is your neighbor, and now they look at all your data to determine if you contacted him before he came into the country, whether you emailed him at all, whether or not you have any mutual friends or contacts. Such actions are insane breaches of privacy, all because some guy moved in next to you. \n\nThat is why \"I don't have anything to hide, let them snoop\" is a terrible defense of their actions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9ihvkv
|
How prevalent was looting by US troops during WWII?
|
In Band of Brothers there is a scene where a officer is putting looted goods into a shipping box to be sent back to the US. How common was this sort of thing? What were the legalities of people taking property they 'found' and sending it home? How often did it happen? What were the policies towards this behavior?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9ihvkv/how_prevalent_was_looting_by_us_troops_during_wwii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6jrbpo",
"e6jzngz"
],
"score": [
2019,
105
],
"text": [
"Looting by the US military during World War II fell into several categories, which can broadly be grouped as the 'legal' and 'illegal', even if lines might have blurred at times. First and foremost it can be said that the War Department maintained an official policy, laid out and periodically refined by a series of Circulars released during the war and subsequent occupation, which defined what was not allowed to be taken, but also what was considered fair game, and even further, with the latter, actively facilitated the acquisition and transportation home of those items for the troops.\n\n**Policy**\n\nThe policy with regards to war trophies gave troops a fair amount of latitude as long as they followed the key limitations, which can broadly be said to be those which required following the Geneva Convention, and military necessities. With regards to the former, this mainly related to the possessions of POWs, with the policy being that \"*all personal effects and objects of person use - except arms, horses, military equipment, and military papers - shall remain in the possession of prisoners of war, as well as metal helmets and gas masks [until in a place where no longer needed for protection*\". Any money was supposed to be accounted for, with the POW provided a receipt, and no identification documents, medals, insignia, etc. were allowed to be taken from those captured, or from the dead. These *could* be bartered for or bought, however, which was considered lawful, and similarly if found on the battlefield, such items were also fair game. \n\nThe general rule to be followed on the battlefield was that \"*under no circumstances may war trophies include any item which in itself is evidence of disrespectful treatment of the enemy dead\"*. As for the restrictions of military necessity, explosives were prohibited, as were *\"Items of which the value as trophies [...] is outweighed by their usefulness in the service or for research or for training [...] or their value as critical scrap material\".* Military property, it in theory all became property of the US government (or whichever power had defeated the enemy in that region), and as long as the value was negligible, there was no harm in allowing soldiers to requisition it themselves. The best 'finds' were military depots, where almost everything was essentially considered fair game: \"a looter's heaven\" was what war correspondent termed the German military supply center at Cherbourg, which provided a rich haul in both food and goods, and no soldiers owning them to complicate possession either. In an effort to dissuade looting, Gen. Bradley promised every soldier involved in the operation would be given two bottles of wine and three more of liquor, but it has by no means entirely effective in earning the patience of the troops.\n\n**Realities**\n\nTo be sure, none of the restrictions or inducements were necessarily a deterrent. Such as with the recollection of Robert Russell, of the 84th Infantry, who remembered veterans cutting the fingers off dead Germans to remove stuck rings, or Eugene Sledge who told of 'harvesting gold teeth' from the dead Japanese, and the routine checking of packs and pockets for anything interesting to take home. Soldiers would often violate these rules, and there was very little that could be done unless caught in the act, little proof one way or the other that, say, a medal hadn't been bought from a POW. Even if caught rifling through pockets, it was easy to claim one was searching for intelligence material, an allowable goal which in reality did at times bear fruit. And of course beyond that it was not like officers - who were tasked with enforcing both the 'letter and the spirit', weren't partaking at times as well. Frank Miller, of the 36th Infantry Division, recalled coming into competition with his own captain over a camera (German Leicas were a very premium prize) that was discovered while rifling through the body of a dead German officer. \n\nMany officers, whether they partook or not, were willing to turn a blind eye to anything not overly egregious, believing \"that hat the soldiers were entitled to a tangible share in the victory.\" And for those who did partake it was much easier to get away with the less scrupulous looting. Officers were more likely than soldiers to be the ones sending home fancy items such as china or silverware, pilfered from the fine mansions in which they were billeted during the war and later the occupation. Although most officers were not in the ranks of such looters, those who did yield to temptation were, in the words of Raymond Gantter, \"the most ruthless, avaricious looters of all\" due to their position and unprecedented access.\n\nEven civilians - friend or foe - were not necessarily safe, especially if abandoned, but once in Germany, the less restrained GIs were hardly deterred by someone being home. In his journal from the war, Charles Lindbergh observed that \"our soldiers have learned that if they walk up to a German house with rifle over shoulder and demand cameras and field glasses, they are quite likely to get some\". In any case though, no wine cellar in the path of the Allies - whether Tunisia, France, or Germany - was safe if stumbled upon, and such finds also represented one of the more favored type of looting, especially for combat soldiers. \n\nOn the move, with no real place to stash items, unable to carry much extra with them, and wary of what might happen to themselves if captured with German good on their person to boot (a fear they knew well given how *they* treated German prisoners found with American items on their person), food and drink was a much better 'find' in the field than something large and bulky, and could generally be justified as 'foraging', or by leaving the unwanted C/K-rations in their place as a hardly-equal recompense for the fresh eggs or meat. Although correspondents such as Homer Bigart put a positive spin on this, relating to readers that \"the country seems rich in melons and vegetables, and the farmers eagerly share their bread and wine\", this was hardly always the case in reality. \n\nDon Loth, of the 12th Armored, recalled how looting was more 'redistribution' as heavy items (French or German) would be picked up in one locale, only to be dumped by the wayside at the next. During the advance through Europe, it was the men to the rear, less burdened by those limitations, who would hold onto their souvenirs, and for the combat soldiers, it was only once they moved to occupation duty that they had more opportunity to hold onto what they had found. In the 506th PIR, for instance, the Regimental HQ had the apparent motto of \"You shoot 'em, We loot 'em\". For the basic grunts at the front lines, small but flashy items were at a premium during the war, as a *Heer* belt-buckle or some fancy jewelry, for instance, was much easier to hold onto than a Mauser. Recalling an accordion that he had found, Jack Sacco related its quick demise in the combat zone:\n\n > We were walking through the streets toward the city center, weighed down with our spoils, when I felt the wind of a bullet as it flew inches past my head. I instinctively fell to the ground face first. The accordion made a loud groaning sound as it landed heavily on top of me. [...]\n\n > As far as we could figure, the woman [sniper] had gotten off two shots before being killed. The first had narrowly missed my head, and the second had mortally wounded the accordion.\n\nAs mentioned before, civilian houses which were chosen to provide billeting or command posts for officers were often the worst hit in terms of looting, those officers who did choose to loot having less oversight over their pilfering than enlisted men, and more opportunity to hold onto their loot, with access to jeeps and trucks. They were also happy to 'take those bulky items off your hands' when they knew a GI was too overloaded, such as a fine double-barreled shotgun that Raymond Gantter ruefully remembered losing to an officer who he initially through was offering too simply hold on to it for him, while Ralph Bennett recalled an incident at Berchtesgaden in the final days of the war:\n\n > On the way down we came across a dining set all marked with an eagle sitting on a swastika between the initials “A – H.” I picked up the solid silver service and was on my way back to Göring’s house when we were stopped by a major in a command car who asked, “What have you got there, sergeant?” I told him it was a souvenir but he snapped back, “Nope, that’s loot; you know the rules – hand it over!” As Spence and I were sheepishly walking away another officer, a colonel, approached the major and did exactly the same thing. RHIP: Rank Has Its Privileges. No doubt about it.\n\n**Prevention and Punishment**\n\nThe Army did *try* to prevent looting of civilians, especially in liberated territory such as France or the Netherlands, where the Americans were supposed to be coming in as saviors. Although at least in liberated territory serious violations of civilian property were rare and practiced by a very small minority, such acts were still enough to give the impression to many French of Belgians that Americans were uncouth conquerors themselves. \n\nI/IV",
"In 2017 a major Dutch newspaper [Trouw](_URL_0_) published the results of research they had done in the Dutch National Archives about looting by allied forces in The Netherlands. \nOff course the Allies, as our liberators, were welcomed as heroes and any possible wrong doings on their side were disregarded and not spoken about for the most part (with exception of larger “mishaps” such as the accidental bombing of Nijmegen for example). So much so that in the definitive historical work on The Netherlands during the war (written by Lou de Jong: The Kingdom of the Netherlands during world war II) which has 14 volumes, the looting by allied forces gets one whole page of attention. This continues to this day.\nSo the results of Trouws inquiry were rather a surprise for most people here.\nTurns out a not insignificant number of notaries (mayors etc) complained to the allied forces (American forces mainly If I’m not mistaken) about looting by allied forces. Mainly those occupying the southern half of the Netherlands after the failing of Market Garden.\nFor example at a gathering of 17 mayors in Nijmegen in 1945 8 reported that allied forces had “taken off” with the local treasury. There were also reports of unnecessary destruction of property, for example by troops exercising with flame throwers.\nOf course a lot of looting was done by the local populace (so much so that it carried a death sentence at the time) but a lot of the looting seemed to have happened in the exclusion-zones near the front were only millitairy personnel was allowed to enter. \nIt also mentions that the head of the Dutch millitairy Command General Kruls wrote a letter to the (civil) minister of War De Booy on 12 march where in he tels him that he (Kruls) has complained to Churchill about the looting en destruction by allied troops in The Netherlands and that he has asked Churchill to intervene. \n\nA long article about this appeared in the Trouw news paper on 29 april 2017 [here](_URL_0_/home/een-zwarte-pagina-in-de-bevrijding-van-nederland~ad14f795/) (dutch)\nRegrettably there doesn’t seem to be an English translation of the article.\n\nAlso mentioned is a trail of three Canadian soldiers for looting just after the war but I’ve not been able to find anything about that. \n\nSorry for only being able to include Dutch language sources (and for any spelling mistakes of course!)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.trouw.nl",
"https://www.trouw.nl/home/een-zwarte-pagina-in-de-bevrijding-van-nederland~ad14f795/"
]
] |
|
4e8r2j
|
how and why we feel the emotion, "boredom" whenever we aren't doing anything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4e8r2j/eli5_how_and_why_we_feel_the_emotion_boredom/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1y1kiz",
"d1y1r6l",
"d1y1zl6"
],
"score": [
27,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Well I dunno about you but if I'm not on ADHD meds I feel bored damn near constantly. Like painful, unbearable boredom.\n\nSo... in light of that, I'm going to go out on a limb and say when you're sitting around doing nothing your brain is most likely not got a lot of dopamine action going on? And since most brains aren't too keen on that sort of situation, they'll likely try to bring this issue to your attention by telling you you're bored, which would seem to be brain-speak for \"there ain't enough dopamine in here, do something about it\". You feel a powerful urge to find something to do. If you succeed in finding something you gain a nice dopamine rush and boredom abates. If you don't succeed boredom continues until you find a way to fix the problem.\n\nOr if you've got bad enough ADHD you just run around like a lunatic trying desperately to find anything in the world that'll make the ants-in-your-skin mind-numbing boredom stop but nothing'll work for long because lol your brain is broken.",
"There may have been people who didn't feel boredom but the people who did feel boredom would have had an evolutionary advantage in that they would have been more likely to be out being productive, inventing new tools and alike. As a result they would be more likely to live longer healthier lives, their offspring would be more likely to survive and reproduce in greater numbers than people who were just happy to sit around and do nothing.",
"Probably because Blue Bell can't seem to get their act together. How long can it take to get Moo-lennium crunch into my local Kroger? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
242bxr
|
What is the value of Monte Carlo method? Doesn't it just return the expected set of results and variance?
|
What is the value of Monte Carlo method?
Using a simple example of a coin toss: I can expect 1/2 chance of landing on either side, with a Gaussian distribution. Running a Monte Carlo simulation with say, 10^9 coin tosses won't get me valuable results. It'll return my initial setup.
Why is Monte Carlo exempt from "garbage in, garbage out"? How can this be used to gain insight?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/242bxr/what_is_the_value_of_monte_carlo_method_doesnt_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch2x13o",
"ch2x7ho",
"ch2xhve",
"ch2z2pi",
"ch30oke"
],
"score": [
5,
16,
4,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"It's useful for simulating more complex scenarios. For example, I've been working on a muon telescope recently. The muon flux is a fairly well known quantity, as is the angular distribution or muons. However, since the telescope was built using rectangular scintillator paddles, and calculating a solid angle made up of rectangles is *extremely* difficult to do exactly (approximations do work, but aren't ideal), and since we were further interesting in the path length the muons took through a gas tube (cylindrical, to make things even more interesting) in the middle of the telescope, a Monte Carlo simulation told us everything without bothering with some incredibly complicated geometrical calculations.\n\nBasically, it's useful when you want to perform virtual experiments, and know certain probability distributions (or want to determine what distribution matches an experimental result), but the analytical solution would be non-trivial or even impossible to calculate. ",
"The point is using it to calculate something you don't know. \n\nSay you throw an dart at a random point within a square. Inside the square you've inscribed a circle. 'Hits' are counted within the circle, misses outside it. Geometrically, the ratio of hits to throws will approach π. \n\nSo you can determine pi that way. You can even do it as an algorithm (Matlab code):\n\n > hit=miss=0;\n\n > for i=1:100000\n\n > x = rand(); y = rand();\n\n > if x\\*x + y\\*y < 1\n\n > hit++;\n\n > else\n\n > miss++;\n\n > end\n\n > end\n\n > pi = 4*hit/(hit+miss) # The factor 4 enters here as we're only testing one quadrant of the circle\n\nWhich gives about 3 digits for that number of iterations, and isn't terribly useful in practice as there are more efficient ways of calculating π. But that's not the point, the point is that you can calculate it that way, only knowing the Pythagorean theorem and random numbers. Since you know the statistics here, you _know_ the expectation value will be π/4 - _and that's the point_. You're setting up your method in such a way that the statistical expectation value is the number you're looking for, rather than what you already know. \n\n",
"I'll give an example of a time when Monte Carlo simulation is the best way forward:\n\nProblem: If a football (soccer) team draws every game in its league what are the chances of finishing above a certain position? (For example: what are the odds of a team drawing all their games, but still advancing past the group stage of the World Cup, or avoiding relegation from the Premier League?)\n\nThis is not a simple problem to solve analytically. (Or at least, I haven't found a way to solve it analytically.) One thing that makes the problem hard is that teams get 1 point for a draw, but 3 for a win so matches don't give out a fixed number of points.\n\nFor simple situations it is possible to work out all the possibilities. So far example: for a single round-robin with four teams (e.g. a FIFA World Cup group) there are 27 possibilities. In general there are:\n\n3^(RN(N-1)/2)+R-NR matches, where R is the number of rounds and N is the number of teams. That gets big with N very fast. With 27 it's possible to evaluate all of them to get the odds. (There are 3 outcomes where a team who draws all their matches finishes in the top 2, hence 3/27 = 1/9 chance for it to happen in the World Cup.\n\nBut for the Premier League (double round-robin, 20 teams) there are almost 1.5 x 10^163 possible outcomes! That is far too many to count.\n\nHowever, many of these will be similar to each other. As such, I can calculate just a small number of these - perhaps 1 million - chosen at random and assume that this is a representative sample of the whole. This means I can work out the odds of finishing 17th or better while drawing every match. (If anyone wants the results... I need to debug it first.)",
"I think the other answers are fairly complete descriptions, but I just wanted to directly address the question in the headline.\n\nYes, Monte Carlo pretty much just returns the Expectation and Variance/stdev, and other statistical quantities. The value of Monte Carlo is, sometimes it's the easiest way of obtaining those values. \n\nSolving equations can be difficult. Some equations don't have analytic solutions. For example, integrating the Gaussian Bell-Curve over finite ranges has no closed-form solution. And integrating the Gaussian shows up in many, many situations (see: Central Limit Theorem). As it so happens, if all you need is a good-enough numerical answer, running a simulation a billion times can be less work than trying to calculate the 'real' answer.\n\nThere are caveats, though. Some answers are more amenable to Monte Carlo than others. Discontinuous or unstable equations in particular tend to have significant local behavior that may or may not be sampled sufficiently, if not done correctly.",
"if you already know all the properties of your system, why are you running tests?\n\nyou run MC simulations, etc., to measure the properties of the system - probabilities of different outcomes, dimensions of variance, etc. just because you can formulate a model of a system doesn't mean you know everything about it.\n\ncoin toss examples are for the purposes of teaching, illumination, to demonstrate how e.g. a MC sim can show you something that you know to be true - therefore if you use it in a case where you don't know what's true...."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
c1b99f
|
the differences and processes of rom and ram
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c1b99f/eli5_the_differences_and_processes_of_rom_and_ram/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erc13hs"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Rom - read only memory. The chip is programmed once, usually by using a writing voltage that is high enough to “burn” the bits in. \n\nRam - random access memory. You can read and write to it. Writing doesn’t burn bits in, each bit is just basically a capacitor that temporarily stores a charge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9pcvff
|
why do car commercial disclaimers at the end always play so fast that you can't even understand what they're saying?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9pcvff/eli5_why_do_car_commercial_disclaimers_at_the_end/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e80r0x2"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Because the company is legally obliged to include the message but doesn't want to spend ad time that they pay for on legal requirement that doesn't help woth the sales. So they keep it as fast and short as possible. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2iu2y5
|
Historical use of a "gun-blade"?
|
My uncle used to have a pair of these short swords, whose handle was a grip and trigger with the barrel running parallel to the blade. They looked old and he didn't care if they were authentic or not due to the aesthetic, however I'm wondering, have these ever been a thing? They looked to me as if they were late 18th early 19th century weapons, sort of something a pirate would carry.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2iu2y5/historical_use_of_a_gunblade/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl5kt56",
"cl5l16w",
"cl5nd2o",
"cl5w0n8"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Can you post a pic, or find a pic of something similar to refer to?",
"[it's been asked before](_URL_0_) but wasn't answered in a lot of detail, you might find more info with the term \"Pistol Sword\"",
"In 1838, the US Navy commissioned 150 [Elgin \"Cutlass\" Pistols](_URL_0_) for the South Sea Expedition. More info [here](_URL_1_)\n\nIf your uncle had 2 of those, they would be quite valuable.",
"They did exist but never really became popular because gun knives/swords are not efficient at being either a gun or a knife/sword. As a gun the blade adds extra weight in the wrong places which make it unwieldy and less accurate. As a knife/sword the same problem comes out where there is extra weight in the wrong places and depending if you have a pistol like handle or not this will cause even more problems since it would feel awkward and doesn't allow you to make quick wrist movements to maneuver the sword (which is what most people need when they're blocking or changing direction of the blade). In short people found that it was infinitely more effective to just carry a pistol and sword rather than have a device that tried to merge the two. Pirates would not have used something like this since it's a highly customized/specialty weapon that would take a gun/blacksmith to make and they pretty much used whatever common weapons they could get their hands on. Even if they did have access to them they probably would not have used them for the above mentioned reasons. \n\nEdit: The closest most successful adaptation to a gun blade are bayoneted rifles/muskets since they could be used like a spear in close quarters combat. While a bayoneted rifle/musket was inferior to an actual spear (again because of the weight distribution) it was decent enough for the job that needed to be done. As a gun the blade part was small and lightweight so it didn't alter the weight distribution of the gun very much and it was much easier to compensate for this with a rifle compared to a pistol. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1wd7fx/were_gunblades_ever_a_thing/"
],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/OFRa1kT.jpg",
"http://firearmshistory.blogspot.com/2010/12/combined-firearms-daggers.html"
],
[]
] |
|
oqfjm
|
Why are some pharmaceuticals bounded to an hydrochloride and some to an hydrobromide?
|
Dextromethorphan is typically solubilized with HBr while morphine is often made into a salt with HCl.
Why not always HCl? Is there such a difference between the solubilities?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oqfjm/why_are_some_pharmaceuticals_bounded_to_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3j7p9h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There is a difference in how well the crystals form. Larger ions like larger counter-ions, typically, to make stable crystals. When making the drug you want stable crystals to recover the most product cleanly at the end of the manufacturing process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5i9bgn
|
During the Medieval period, how often were nobility/knights/etc captured in battle?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5i9bgn/during_the_medieval_period_how_often_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db6p93k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not op, follow.up questions:\n\nHow are the nobles/knights/etc generally treated when they were captured?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
48ratj
|
radio waves allegedly detected coming from another galaxy. how long ago are they likely to be from?
|
So I already looked up this part: radio waves travel at the speed of light.
If the waves are traveling at light's speed, does that mean that they are from a time that is how ever many light years away they are (divide by the speed of light, already in the formula)?
So does this mean that if they are coming from a civilization, that civilization existed that many years ago?
Or are these radio waves somehow contemporaneous with us?
And why does ELI5 sometimes disappear from reddit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/48ratj/eli5radio_waves_allegedly_detected_coming_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0lupa9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Radio astronomer checking in:\n\nYes, radio waves travel at the speed of light (radio waves ARE light, just lower energy than visible light), so the travel time is equal to the distance in light-years. Radio waves from a galaxy 10 million lightyears away will take 10 million years to get to us, or conversely we are now observing radio waves (and other light) created 10 million years ago in that galaxy.\n\nRadio waves from galaxies has been picked up for decades: it's completely natural (or rather, if there is any artificial radio emission, it's much much weaker than the natural emission). There's a couple of different physical processes that produce natural radio emission, so we can use measurements of radio emission in galaxies to understand what kind of physics goes on in those galaxies. For example, I work on studying magnetic fields in interstellar space by measuring radio emission that's been created/influenced by magnetic fields in our Galaxy or other nearby galaxies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1244rk
|
marginal cost
|
I have the definition as: increase or decrease in costs as a result of one more or one less unit of output. But how exactly does this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1244rk/eli5_marginal_cost/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6rzoib"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are some business costs that don't depend on how productive you are. Even if you produce absolutely nothing this year, you still have to pay for building space and air conditioning and stuff.\n\nBut there are some costs that *do* depend on how productive you are. For instance, if you're building shovels, you need a certain amount of wood and steel per shovel you make. If you make more shovels you buy more, and if you make fewer shovels you buy less.\n\nMarginal costs are that second kind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ngmb8
|
How do we know for certain that we have found every single naturally occurring element?
|
Just wondering, is it possible there could be undiscovered elements on other planets or in the core of the Earth perhaps?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ngmb8/how_do_we_know_for_certain_that_we_have_found/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccifn0u",
"ccigfet"
],
"score": [
4,
16
],
"text": [
"When an element is called natural, this only means that it was identified in nature rather than created in a laboratory. However, there is nothing special about natural elements, it's entirely conceivable that there may be other elements on Earth, just in such small quantities that they were never detected.\n\nCurrently 118 elements are known, of which 98 occur naturally on Earth, the rest having been synthesized artificially. However, it almost certain that nuclei of even the \"synthetic\" elements have been produced in some supernova. ",
"Each element is identified by the number of protons in its nucleus. As protons don't occur in fractions you can determine that you have found all the elements in a series by looking for gaps. Since we have a fairly long continuous list of elements from 1 out to around 118 we know we have found all of those elements, some naturally occurring, others produced in nuclear reactions either in a lab, or in a naturally occurring nuclear reaction.\n\nOut of the 118 known elements the naturally occurring elements are the ones that have a sufficiently long life time that significant quantities remain after the millions of years since the nova and other stellar phenomenon produced the atoms that eventually were drawn together by gravity to form the earth.\n\nSo isotopes with half lives of less than ~~hundreds of thousands~~ tens or hundreds of millions of years are not found to be naturally occurring unless they are a product of a slower decay that is still occurring.\n\nDue to this it is improbably that there are undiscovered elements on the earth or other planets.\n\nAreas of space that have recently had super novas, currently have black holes or other exotic stellar events could have elements that have not been discovered, but the problem would be to capture, study, and identify the elements.\n\nThere is predicted, but not yet observed, to be an island of stability (_URL_0_) in the super-heavy elements that could be discovered some where in the universe, or in a terrestrial lab. Although keep in mind stable in this context can mean an atom would survive no more than a few thousandth of a second after its creation from another nuclear process.\n\n\nedit: Note that the age of the Earth is 4.5 Billion years, not the hundreds of millions I was thinking when I wrote my above sentences, so the half life of a radioactive element that is to be found on the earth needs to be higher than I had given before. For example Potassium-40 has a half life of 1.248x10^9 years and Uranium-235 has 7.038x10^8 years are both found terrestrially."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Island_of_stability"
]
] |
|
1bu89i
|
Did the big bang occur in all directions? I often hear that we can only see 13.?? billion light years before we can't see anymore, but isn't there technically another 13.?? billion light years worth of material beyond the initial bang, just in the other direction?
|
Sorry if the question doesn't make sense.. I worded it the best I could. Basically, am I incorrect in thinking the big bang would have occurred in the shape of a balloon rather than a wall? If the shape is more balloon-like, why can we not see past the center?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bu89i/did_the_big_bang_occur_in_all_directions_i_often/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9a5dci",
"c9a5l75",
"c9a5lf3",
"c9a68yg",
"c9ajoy7"
],
"score": [
12,
5,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The misunderstanding here comes from your idea of the \"center\" if the universe.\n\nThere isn't one. Every point in the universe appears to be moving away from every other at the same rate.\n\nThe *observable* universe \" on the other hand is spherical centered on the earth, because light has only had the age of the universe to reach us we can only see the age of the universe in every direction, making a sphere (called a Hubble sphere) \n\nIf you were on any planet in the universe you would only be able to see the age of the universe away from that planet. ",
"This video might help you understand the difference between the observable universe and The Universe. _URL_0_",
"The universe started infinite, then it expanded. Meaning it got from infinite to a \"larger\" infinite.\n\nTherefore, pick any point in this infinite space, and it is going to have a 13 billion year OBSERVABLE universe surrounding it, with the viewer in the center.\n\n",
"I think PrimeLegionnaire hit the nail on the head, but Ill try phrase it differently if it helps at all.\n\nThe big bang occurred when all of space was compressed into a single point. Following from this, it means that the big bang occurred all points in the universe as it is today. \n\nNow, the current thinking in science is that the universe if of a finite age, but infinitely big. The universe is around 13.8 bilion years old by extrapolation from observables such as hubbles constant and other more complicated calculations. What you may refer to when you say we can see 13.?? billion light years, is how far it is to the \"wall\" otherwise known as the [cosmic microwave background](_URL_0_) or CMB. This is just a point in time when the universe was cool enough to form atoms, and thermal radiation was no longer at high enough energies to break up these atoms. This means that light could now freely fly off through the universe, and it also is why we can't see past this point. Thus the CMB though is only as far as WE can see. If we travelled 12 billion years in any direction, though, we would still see the CMB 13.?? billion light years away, exactly the same as we see it here, as the big bang simultaneously happened at that position too. This can then lead to the idea that the universe is infinitely big.\n\nHope I haven't repeated too much of what others have said and that it helps. Please correct me if I have accidentally made some error.",
" > I often hear that we can only see 13.?? billion light years before we can't see anymore.\n\nThis is a common misconception. People hear the universe is ~14 billion years old so they reason that light can only have arrived to us from 14 billion light years away. But this doesn't take into account the expansion of space. It turns out the edge of the observable universe is about 46 billion light years away, where you're seeing objects that are 14 billion years old, and the light never traveled 'faster than the speed of light' to cross that 46 billion light years in only 14 billion years: When the light left those objects, they were only 14 billion light years away. In the time it took the light to get here, space expanded significantly and the light was suitably redshifted (which I believe is just another way of saying the same thing: Space expanded) during its journey.\n\n[Here's another explanation](_URL_0_) if you prefer.\n\n > why can we not see past the center?\n\nYou are always in the center, and can only see out to the 'edge' of the balloon. I notice a lot of people get their thought process wrong here because they think the big bang happened somewhere in space, e.g. that you can point to some coordinate in the universe and say 'that's where the big bang happened', but that's exactly backwards. Space itself was created in the big bang, so no matter where you are, the big bang happened right where you are. So it's not like the big bang happened somewhere and the 'balloon' is expanding out from that point: *Every* point in the universe has its own 'balloon' of observable space expanding out from it which is simply a function of what light has had the time to reach that point."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5NU2t5zlxQQ&feature=youtube_gdata_player"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation"
],
[
"http://www.physicsforums.com/archive/index.php/t-506987.html"
]
] |
|
1if8ky
|
What is the history of the Smith-Mundt act? Why did congress pass a law banning domestic audiences from hearing material intended for foreign audiences?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1if8ky/what_is_the_history_of_the_smithmundt_act_why_did/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb3wqcr",
"cb45j2p"
],
"score": [
9,
3
],
"text": [
"If you are at an institution with free access to legal databases, you can get greater depth from the legislative records cited below, but here is what I could dig up from free sources:\n\nThe initial 1948 law provides that:\n > [USIA publications] shall not be disseminated within the United States, its territories, or possessions, but, on request, shall be available in the English language at the agency, at all reasonable times following its release as information abroad, for examination only by representatives of the United States press associations, newspapers, magazines, radio systems, and stations, and by research students and scholars, and, on request, shall be made available for examination only to members of Congress.\n\nThe prohibition was strengthened in 1972, and here is what the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit has to say about the amendment:\n\n > Particularly enlightening are the circumstances surrounding the 1972 amendment which first made the domestic distribution ban explicit. A member of the United States Senate had requested and obtained a USIA film which he intended to broadcast to his constituents. In direct response to the proposed broadcast, the Congress amended the Act to prohibit dissemination and distribution generally and to restrict its own members' access to USIA materials to \"examination only.\"\n\n[*Essential Information v. USIA*, 134 F.3d 1165, 1167 (D.C. Cir. 1998)](_URL_1_) (citing Senate Report 92-754 and 1972 House Report No. 1145).\n\nThe prohibition was also strengthened in 1985, and here is what the amendment sponsor Sen. Edward Zorinsky said at the time:\n\n > By law, the USIA cannot engage in domestic propaganda. This distinguishes us, as a free society, from the Soviet Union where domestic propaganda is a principal government activity. ... The American taxpayer certainly does not need or want his tax dollars used to support U.S. Government propaganda directed at him or her. Our amendment insures that this will not occur.\n\n[*Gartner v. US Information Agency*, 726 F. Supp. 1183, 1186 n.2 (S.D. Iowa 1989)](_URL_0_) (quoting 131 Cong. Rec. 14945 (June 7, 1985)).\n",
"Immediately after World War II there was a stark redefinition of left and right. Leftists promoted the notions carried from The New Deal, esp. that the government was obligated to provide economic opportunity and security. This conception of freedom was titled as the 'freedom from want' in Roosevelt's 1941 speech on 'The Four Freedoms' directly preceding U.S. involvement in WWII. The new right at this moment came to be defined, or at least heavily influenced, by the ideas of thinkers like Austrian economist Friedrich Hayek. They promoted free enterprise as an essential liberty and opposed Marxism and state planning.\n\nThe Office of Wartime Information, the domestic propaganda institution of the United States, was purportedly filled with leftists, and congress was dominated by conservatives. Political conflict inevitably ensued, ending with the elimination of the OWI. One could think of it as one of the first lobs in the McCarthyist witch hunts which followed World War II.\n\n > Such publications aroused the ire of conservatives. Freedom of speech and religion were fine, one New Yorker complained, but freedom from want and fear were \"New Deal Freedoms,\" not \"American Freedoms,\" since they encouraged individuals to become dependent on the government. ... Soon afterward [a mutiny of leftist writers against executives in the OWI], concerned that the OWI was devoting as much time to promoting New Deal social programs as the war effort, Congress eliminated most of the funding for its domestic activities.\n\n > The OWI's fate was symbolic of the general trend of wartime politics. Dominated by a conservative alliance of Republicans and southern Democrats, Congress left intact core New Deal programs like Social Security, but eliminated agencies though to be controlled by leftists, including the Civilian Conservation Corps, the National Youth Administration, and the Works Progress Administration. \n\n*The Story of American Freedom*, Eric Foner. p229\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=10884445047014370387",
"http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=14052676309006831774"
],
[]
] |
||
eji1hh
|
What is the status of Fredrick Jackson Turner's Frontier Thesis among historians today? Is it still used as an explanation of broader aspects of US historical trends, or closer to something that illuminates how Americans in the early 20th century thought about their own past?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eji1hh/what_is_the_status_of_fredrick_jackson_turners/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcy7464"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"After ninety-five years (or so) of two camps - the Turnerians and the anti-Turnerians - bashing one another, there was something of a collective sigh of relief when the controversy around the Turner Thesis was set aside. Even though it was largely unresolved. The situation was so desperate that one didn't even write the word \"frontier\" for a number of years for fear of being shown the door: the term had been used like a secret password among Turner supports to indicate one's allegiance, all the while attracting the ire of the \"anti\" camp.\n\nThere are two things to consider, as the dust has settled, about what Turner was saying. Both are macro models, and like all things macro, large models tend to fail when considering at least some specifics. That doesn't mean that macro models are bad. They can be useful in considering the large view of things. Similarly, just because some specifics challenge the validity of the macro model doesn't mean it is not useful as a construct.\n\nSo to the two things: the first was the Turnerian idea of successive phases of the development of the Frontier: Native Americans, trapper, sod busters, farmers/towns, etc.; the second is the idea that the North American frontier was a pressure valve that allowed democracy and American capitalism to thrive. The idea behind the latter was that as long as free land and Western opportunities were available on the frontier, Eastern inner city problems with wealth disparities could be resolved by having at least some of the poor moving West. Once the \"Frontier\" was closed in the early 1890s, the pressure value stopped functioning, and the resulting American experience shifted.\n\nThe first idea is rather mechanical. It's not a bad way to describe what happened from western Pennsylvania to eastern Nebraska and South Dakota - and that covers a lot, so it shouldn't be automatically dismissed as invalid. On the other hand, it fits less well with the Far West: California and the Intermountain Mining West was settled with far different patterns - often with nearly instantaneous urbanity (and typically west to east). So the mechanical idea of the frontier needs to be recognized as a model that can be useful, but with limitations.\n\nThe second idea is less mechanical and much larger in its scope, and it is, consequently, something that is more difficult to evaluate. I'm not sure how it was treated outside of Western studies - it would be great to hear someone address that. Oddly, this second aspect of Turner's Thesis had more relevance for the Atlantic coast (where the pressure valve had its effect) than it did for the American West (the source of the pressure valve), and yet, the debate that occurred was largely in Western historiography where it has been largely set aside there.\n\nWe need someone well versed in American economic history to tell us how Turner has been viewed since he was set aside my the late 1980s in Western studies. So what I have given you is more context than answer. Now we wait for someone to answer your question with the proper authority!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
934hfj
|
What was the casualty rate for battles between hoplites in ancient Greece?
|
I would assume that the answer would vary depending on when and where the fight took place, and who was participating. But in general how bloody an affair was war in the Hellenic world.
My limited understanding on the matter is that battles were largerly a test of strength: with both sides lining up, singing war songs and then clashing against one another. And that the aim was to break the opposing side's fornation, rather than to skewer them with your spear.
But once the formation broke, was that it? Or would would a more chaotic melee ensue?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/934hfj/what_was_the_casualty_rate_for_battles_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3asven"
],
"score": [
44
],
"text": [
"Back in the 80s, Peter Krentz gathered all known casualty figures from Classical Greek sources in order to establish a rough average.^1 He concluded that in battles of Greek against Greek, the winner suffered about 5% casualties, the loser about 14%. These numbers are very frequently cited in scholarship. They seem perfectly straightforward, but it's not really so obvious what they actually mean.\n\nFirst, it's misleading to think of these percentages as a ballpark figure for the losses in every battle. We can only reckon casualty figures against army totals in a handful of battles. Both numbers are based on a data set of fewer than 20 entries, many of which derive from late and uncertain evidence. From these, too, Krentz has had to filter out battles against Persians and Carthaginians, for which the non-Greek casualty rate given in the sources is usually incredibly high; these data points massively distorted the average. That doesn't leave many points on the chart. Any outliers are going to have a major impact on the overall picture. For example, at the battle of Spartolos in 429 BC, the Athenians lost as many as 40% of their men to Chalkidian cavalry. You can imagine how much this pulls on an average that could elsewhere be as low as 3%. It is no solution to ignore outliers, since we don't actually have enough data points to know whether we are assessing the \"normal\" casualty rate accurately, or whether what we regard as outliers actually represent a whole range of engagements. Instead of simply citing the 5% and 14% rates, then, it would be more honest to say (as Krentz does) that casualties typically lay somewhere in a broad range of 3-10% for the victors and 10-20% for the defeated.\n\nSecond, scholars have not been able to agree over whether these numbers are high or low. There's a whole school of thought invested in the belief that the total casualties suffered in hoplite battles was modest, and that hoplite warfare was specifically intended to reduce the human and economic cost of war. V.D. Hanson argues that numbers like these had almost no demographic effect, and that the primacy of pitched battle in the Greek way of war prevented further casualties among non-combatants.^2 Against this, John Dayton compared the known Greek casualty figures to those from Early Modern Europe to conclude that 5%/14% is actually quite high; armies that operated in a tactically similar way might come away with just 1-3% losses in 18th-century Europe.^3 In other words, Greek hoplite battles should probably be regarded as pretty bloody. Modern scholarship has also contextualised open battle as only one form of violence within Greek warfare, with many others targeting the population at large.\n\nThird, as Krentz himself already noted, Greek communities would have taken even 5% casualties as a heavy blow. Their armies consisted of all male citizens in arms, and every man who died would leave a hole in a group of friends, an empty seat in the Council, a farm untended, a household driven to destitution. Modern military casualties are absorbed by a professional military, and the loss affects only a few of us in wider society. The Greeks did not have the luxury of detaching themselves from the horrors of war. Even a few losses were a personal tragedy to a significant number of the population, and this could sometimes be leveraged to achieve political ends, as during the trial of the Athenian generals after the victory at Arginousai in 406 BC, when the bereaved turned up in mourning garb and swayed the vote of the Assembly. Heavy losses could result in major disruption. According to Herodotos, when 6000 Argives were slaughtered at the battle of Sepeia in 494 BC, the Argive slaves rebelled and seized control of the city (6.83.1).\n\nGiven this context, we should assume that Greek generals' priority was to keep their men alive as best they could. They were not likely to try anything risky that might go catastrophically wrong. Most of the tactics they used were tried and tested, and didn't ask much of their amateur levies. Fernando Echeverría has argued that their entire tactical system was defined by the overriding need to protect the citizen body, which was more important even than winning battles.^4\n\nThis, coupled with hoplites' total lack of training, is the main reason why we have an impression of Classical Greek battle as a pretty simple and straightforward business. Large, somewhat-organised masses of armoured men would run at each other, stabbing and shoving, hoping the other side would break first. This kind of fighting was certainly intense, especially for those in the front ranks, who 'faced the spears', as the Greeks put it (Xenophon, *Symposion* 2.13), and who could be maimed or killed any second. But we should probably not imagine it as a collective shoving match in which the enemy was physically driven from the field. References to pushing in combat are more likely to refer either to individual warriors or to the metaphorical 'push'.^5 Actual combat will have been more tentative, with lines breaking apart and rejoining, individual men psyching themselves up for another duel, and everybody generally trying really hard not to die. Losses would not have been very steep on either side. At most, this would be where the winning side incurred its 3-5% casualties - a significant share of the front rank, to be sure, but nothing like the devastating attrition you see in movies. Indeed, some battles were decided before they had really begun, when one side broke before contact, and the two hoplite formations never met.\n\nBut the battle didn't end there. Older scholars used to insist that the Greeks - who were, as you'll remember, trying to reduce the toll of war - wouldn't pursue the enemy once they started running. However, more recent work shows that this is blatantly false. The Greeks gleefully chased and slaughtered their enemies once they had stopped resisting, and in this phase of battle the casualty rate skyrocketed. It wasn't just the hoplites trying to chase their beaten enemies in heavy armour; at this point light infantry and cavalry would swoop in, scatter the enemy, herd groups into traps, ride them down, tear them up with missiles, and keep the killing going as long as they could. Our sources frequently mention that the pursuit went on until nightfall. This was when the fighting was at its most chaotic, and death was all around. According to Plato, veteran generals saw little use in fighting skill during the main engagement, but thought it invaluable when battle turned into pursuit:\n\n > [hoplite training] will be of some use in actual battle, when it comes to fighting in line with a number of other men; but its greatest advantage will be felt when the ranks are broken, and you find you must fight man to man, either in pursuing someone who is trying to beat off your attack, or in retreating yourself and beating off the attack of another. \n\n-- Pl. *Laches* 182a-b\n\nThe delight felt by the Greeks when their enemies ran - and I do mean delight; Xenophon once refers to the pursuit as one of the 'pleasures' of war (*Hieron* 2.15) - shows that the clumsy, awkward encounter of poorly trained hoplite masses wasn't the ultimate goal of having a battle. The goal was to break the enemy, so that they could be pursued and killed with impunity. For the same reason every Greek citizen army fought to keep its men alive, they also fought to annihilate their enemies: every fatality directly impacted the enemy community, and enough death could destablise their whole state. There was a great deal to be gained from battle if the enemy casualty rate could be made as high as possible.^6\n\nWe see the effect of the pursuit clearly reflected in the death toll of hoplite battles. At Syracuse in 415 BC, the Athenians defeated their enemies, but the Syracusan cavalry prevented them from pursuing; as a result, losses were slight on both sides (50 Athenians and about 260 Syracusans had fallen - perhaps 1% vs 2.5% respectively). At Delion in 424 BC, however, the Athenians were pursued by the Boiotian horsemen until darkness fell, and lost nearly 1000 men (some 14% of their army). At the Nemea in 394 BC, the Spartans are said to have butchered 2800 of their opponents in flight; at Kynoskephalai in 364 BC, Thessalian cavalry massacred over 3000 of the men of Alexander of Pherai. I already noted the 6000 Argives killed at Sepeia; they were not killed in the battle against the Spartans, but afterwards, when they fled into a sacred grove that the Spartan king Kleomenes proceeded to set on fire. One source claims that at the Tearless Battle of 368 BC, the Spartans killed as many as 10,000 men without losing even one of their own. Such losses would have cut swathes through the citizen body of the states involved. It is not surprising that Argos, 15 years after the defeat at Sepeia, pleaded that it had no choice but to stay neutral in the war against Persia, because it had no grown men.\n\n\n---\n\n**Notes**\n\n1. Krentz, 'Casualties in hoplite battles', *GRBS* 26.1 (1985), 13-20.\n1. Hanson repeats this point throughout his body of work, but see for example *The Other Greeks* (1995) 307-311.\n2. Dayton, *The Athletes of War* (2005) 81-102.\n4. Echeverría Rey, 'Taktikê technê', *Ancient Society* 41 (2011), 45-82.\n5. I covered this in more detail [here](_URL_0_).\n6. Konijnendijk, *Classical Greek Tactics* (2018), 188-205."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/48pumt/did_the_people_in_the_front_lines_of_ancient/d0ly1na/"
]
] |
|
6sz4ln
|
- why does water bead up where i wrote on a dirty car, and why does it take so long to disappear?
|
Today, I wrote "Hail Satan" on my mother's car that is covered in dust. She promptly sprayed it with the hose to clean it off, but nervously joked that it really was Satan immediately after the water beaded up and spelled it out again. She tried scrubbing it and spraying it, but it kept coming back (after about 4 cycles of that, it finally disappeared). Why did the water bead up there, and why did it take so long to disappear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sz4ln/eli5_why_does_water_bead_up_where_i_wrote_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlgoi5e",
"dlgoleu"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Oil from your skin and the fact that dust is abrasive when you write with your finger on dust it scratches the paint/ clear coat.",
"This is due to a phenomenon called surface tension. The most economical position for matter to be in is that with the least surface tension. For an amount of water, this is a bead. The surface of a car is coated in tiny particles, dust, pollen, smog etc, and these particles interact with the water, to spread the water out. Think about dropping a drop of water onto a paper towel. It instantly spreads out, because paper is made of cellulose and the -OH groups attract the water just like dirt on a car. If you wash and wax a car, you remove these particles that attract water and the water beads up, because the greatest interaction with the water is to itself, so surface tension is light and it forms a ball. Now when you take a dirty car and write \"Hail Satan\" on it, you remove enough of these particles that were once evenly distributed on the car hood, so that there are not enough of them to grab the water in the path of your finger. The water beads up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7mglm5
|
why does produce from farmer’s markets cost more than organic produce from a grocery store if the middlemen are removed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7mglm5/eli5_why_does_produce_from_farmers_markets_cost/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drtqxb6",
"drtrlfn",
"drtscs3"
],
"score": [
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"In countries like the USA (where labor is costly), farmer's market stands are not cost-efficient. You have a whole person or two, putting in 4-6 hours of work, just to sell a couple of hundred dollars worth of produce.",
"Produce from a real farmer's market is likely from a small, local farm. A lot of the organic produce at grocery stores [still comes from giant corporate factory farms](_URL_1_) just like the conventional produce, they just follow the USDA organic regulations. \n\nHowever you should still check that the farmer's market is a certified producer-only market. Otherwise it may actually just be [the same produce as the grocery store](_URL_0_) (bought from the same wholesalers) with a higher markup at a kitschy stand.",
"basic laws of economices 101 - supply vs demand...local producers at a farmers market are not selling truck loads of produce, they are selling bushel loads wchich costs more per volume..so you are getting fresh local produce and helping them make a few bucks (they have to rent that space too!)...so buying from a farmers market really has nothing to do with organics nor price - you are helping out a neighbor.... "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.tampabay.com/projects/2016/food/farm-to-fable/farmers-markets/",
"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/science-sushi/httpblogsscientificamericancomscience-sushi20110718mythbusting-101-organic-farming-conventional-agriculture/"
],
[]
] |
||
1apyj0
|
As previously stated, Soldiers from ancient times were lean and fit, what were gladiators like?
|
As i understand ancient armies were lean and lightly muscled mainly to do with the fact that they were continuously on the march or making fortifications. What i want to know is what were the gladiators like? People trained for shows of short and brutal combat? were they heavily muscled and brutally strong or were they similar to soldiers of the times?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1apyj0/as_previously_stated_soldiers_from_ancient_times/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8zo0tw",
"c8zos27"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm working on finding the source at the moment but, as far as I remember, gladiators were actually kind of flabby.\n\n[Edit]\n\nThe Archaeological Institute of America has an article [here](_URL_0_) that covers the research from the Austrian Archaeological Institute's study of gladiator remains.\n\n > Compared to the average inhabitant of Ephesus, gladiators ate more plants and very little animal protein. The vegetarian diet had nothing to do with poverty or animal rights. Gladiators, it seems, were fat. Consuming a lot of simple carbohydrates, such as barley, and legumes, like beans, was designed for survival in the arena. Packing in the carbs also packed on the pounds. \"Gladiators needed subcutaneous fat,\" Grossschmidt explains. \"A fat cushion protects you from cut wounds and shields nerves and blood vessels in a fight.\" Not only would a lean gladiator have been dead meat, he would have made for a bad show. Surface wounds \"look more spectacular,\" says Grossschmidt. \"If I get wounded but just in the fatty layer, I can fight on,\" he adds. \"It doesn't hurt much, and it looks great for the spectators.\"",
"You may be interested in these previous threads:\n\n* [Were spartans, gladiators and other warriors muscular as they are portrayed in movies?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [In terms of physique, would real gladiators have been more similar to Andy Whitfield of TV's 'Spartacus' or to Russell Crowe of the film 'Gladiator'?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [After watching Spartacus for a while, a question about the training for Gladiators vs the Roman Soldier](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Would a gladiator beat a trained soldier in combat?](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://archive.archaeology.org/0811/abstracts/gladiator.html"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12uazu/in_terms_of_physique_would_real_gladiators_have/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/179vp0/would_a_gladiator_beat_a_trained_soldier_in_combat/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19krma/after_watching_spartacus_for_a_while_a_question/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14f8ui/were_spartans_gladiators_and_other_warriors/"
]
] |
|
9l08g1
|
How did early humans switch from hunter-gatherer to agriculture?
|
I can't imagine that they simply decided one day that "fuck all this running around, we're just going to eat what's growing around here".
They must have needed some time to develop agricultural practices, identify and develop worthwhile crops. But all that would have required them to regularly revisit the same spots to care for their "experiments"...
Is there an indication that they started with perennial plants like fruit trees or berry bushes and then expanded to annual crops?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9l08g1/how_did_early_humans_switch_from_huntergatherer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e74xefn",
"e752ppc",
"e7599ca"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I actually studied this quite a bit in undergrad. The first thing to remember is that it varies by region. There are many independent origins of agriculture around the world and not all of them happened the same way. However, there are many common themes, and a major one is that it's typically not very deliberate.\n\nTo use the classic Fertile Crescent as an example, the development of agriculture in this region was precipitated by a major climate shift. Where previously the seasons had been relatively mild, winters were suddenly considerably wetter and summers were much, much hotter and drier. This contributed to a rise in the dominance of annual plants, species that live out their entire life cycle within one year, as young members of perennial species had difficulty surviving through the summers. Many of these annual species would come to dominate the early agricultural diet, grains being chief among them.\n\nPrior to true agriculture came simple cultivation. Groups of hunter-gatherers would not plant seeds and tend them throughout the growing season, but they would return to specific wild patches and make efforts to increase the natural yield. This differential attention paid to certain wild populations based on their usefulness to humans created artificial selective pressure, driving the evolution of the various features that characterize plant domestication (and a similar principle was at work in animal domestication as well, which predated plant domestication in many areas). So they weren't really experimenting so much as returning to the best spots over and over again, gradually learning how to increase wild yield. Intentional seeding was not one of the early stages.\n\nOver time, this just intensified. The harsh weather limited summer foraging in much of the region, encouraging storage of surplus from the milder seasons. Because storage requires a storage location, this was likely a major driver of the increase in sedentism during this period.",
"One thing to remember is that it's pretty unlikely that the limiting factor was realizing the basic life cycle of plants. Hunter gatherers are extremely observant and informed on the cycle of life in the area where they live...it's basically their profession and the way they make their living. Humans (who were by this point equivalent to modern humans in basically every way) have spotted something as obvious as new plants growing from seeds produced by other plants. \n\nAgriculture showed up in a number of different places independently that we know of, and there's still debate over the reasons. One hypothesis I heard when taking a class on the topic was a sort of population density pumping due to climate change. Population density seems to be important at any rate, and cycles of good climate and aridity could have increased population and then concentrated it around fertile areas, raising local density. \n\nAnyway, (drawing from the class I took again) the reason why density seems to be important, regardless of how it was produced, is that at low densities there's really no point to initiating agriculture. Agriculture is time consuming and hard work and it's just easier to pick and hunt what grows wild...but that simply can't support a high population density. It forces you to start cultivating and guarding food sources to make sure there will be enough for you in the future. It wouldn't have been a single leap to full on agriculture probably, preagricultural cultivation practices are also possible. \n\nMost of the earliest crops known are annuals, they respond to domestication much more quickly and the lifecycle offers faster feedback (and faster food) to growers. It's worth noting that wild grains were consumed in these regions prior to agriculture...we don't see modern hunter-gatherers eating grains much but that's because the agriculturalists took all the good grain-growing land. ",
"There’s been a lot of good answers here, but I’ll just add that not all groups of humans adopted agriculture in a linear fashion. Instead you had a complex interplay of migrations. Early farmers in many respects had a lower quality of life and a poorer diet than their hunter gatherer peers(the diet was so poor in vitamin D for example that it many northern hemisphere populations developed white skin to absorb it from the sun instead). However, one key advantage that agricultural societies had was a higher population density due to a higher carrying capacity. \n\nBasically it worked like this, in certain regions like the Fertile Crescent agriculture developed, then the population began to grow and population density increased to the point where it exceeded carrying capacity. This led to overpopulation and conflict, which caused outward migrations of farming groups into areas populated by hunter gatherers. Because the population density of agricultural societies was higher they simply just absorbed those hunter gatherer societies over time due to sheer numbers. In addition to this, farming societies put a lot of ecological pressure on the local environment which made it even harder for hunter gatherer populations to make ends meet. Things like diseases may have also played a role as well since more densely populated areas would see diseases spread more rapidly, and most importantly domestication of animals put us in contact with tons of new diseases for which hunter gatherers had no immunity. \n\nAnd of course there were social pressures as well. Sedentary living involves claiming land to the exclusion of others. All the old hunting grounds turned into farm fields, this further reducing the number of people who can successfully live the hunter gatherer lifestyle.\n\nDarwinian natural selection is a game of numbers. Farming did not improve people’s lives considerably and leaving the hunter gatherer lifestyle in many ways was a downgrade. However, due to the higher population carrying capacity of agricultural societies, as well as other factors, they simply drowned out hunter gatherers over time to the point where they became relic populations and eventually disappeared forever. By the beginning of recorded history true hunter gatherers only existed in remote regions far removed from any farmers. \n\nSo basically we shouldn’t look at the spread of agriculture as an event of adoption but as an event of displacement. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
58yqjf
|
whаt nutrіеnts dоеs саrtіlаgе nееd?
|
For repairing itself
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/58yqjf/eli5_whаt_nutrіеnts_dоеs_саrtіlаgе_nееd/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d94guuk",
"d94m55j"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The non-essential amino acids proline and glycine are building blocks for cartilage. Your body can synthesize them, but dietary intake from gelatinous meats will likely aid in your body's ability to heal. A study was done which used radioactive dye on gelatin, which was then fed to rats with damaged connective tissue. Imaging showed that the ingested gelatin was sent to the site of the damaged tissue.",
"Cartilage is made out of mostly proteins (collagen and proteoglycan) by cells called chondrocytes.\n\nWhile I don't know a ton about the biochemical process by which it forms these proteins, like all other cells it needs at least two things to synthesize proteins: energy in the form of ATP (which it gets by metabolizing glucose and other molecules that we get in food) and raw materials in the form of amino acids (from digesting proteins or our body's own synthesis)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2pzf0t
|
if orangutans share approximately 97% dna with humans, why do they look so different than humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2pzf0t/eli5_if_orangutans_share_approximately_97_dna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1di0y",
"cn1dnu6"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The other 3%.\n\nAnd really, they don't look all that different from us. Sure, if you had 100 humans and one orangutan in a room, the orangutan would stand out; but if you had 1000 animals of all types, the orangutan and the human would look practically identical. Squid, cockroaches, snakes, and hummingbirds are all much more different from humans than orangutans are.",
"We have ***a lot*** of DNA. We have somewhere between 20,000 and 25,000 protein coding sequences which is still 1.5 percent of the total genome, and the entire genome is over 3 billion base pair long(the sequence of adenine, guanine, thymine, and cytosine)!! From human to human, the variation is only roughly .1 percent-ish, and look how different we are. Also, percent similarity is fairly dubious. Things like chromosome length, surrounding genes, methylation, etc are all things that influence what a DNA sequence actually does. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
z09e2
|
How different was the culture and language of the Scottish Highlands from that of the Lowlands?
|
I remember reading that most lowland Scots didn't even speak Gaelic, and that many of the Aristocracy were of Anglo-Norman stock. Is this true?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/z09e2/how_different_was_the_culture_and_language_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c60epxu",
"c60fbz5"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"When?\n\nScotti is the Latin name for the Irish, (or, alternatively, northern Irish) who frequently raided Britain. (Gael comes from Welsh Gwydel which is raider, iirc, akin to Viking meaning pirate or something along those lines)\n\nThe Gaels of the north of Ireland set up a kingdom that spread across Antrim and the west of Scotland basically. Over time, Vikings arrived into the islands of Scotland, as well as invading England, Ireland and Scotland in general.\n\nEventually Gaelic culture proved predominant in Pictish areas too, and the Vikings of the islands adopted it too, becoming the Hiberno-Norse. (Who would bequeath Irish culture the gallóglaigh or gallowglasses.)\n\nAfter that, it was a long slow decline. \n\nLowlanders speak a different dialect/language that's very close to English anyway. (Lollans?) So that allowed them be culturally closer to the English than to the Gaelic. ",
"Certainly many of the aristocracy were of Norman stock, for example Robert the Bruce's family name came from the Norman/French de Brus/Bruys. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
662wro
|
$ vs. ¢
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/662wro/eli5_vs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgf4yac"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To avoid ambiguity, although it isn't always the case that the main currency symbol goes in front. In many languages, it goes at the end regardless.\n\nHaving it in front is useful for two purposes, however. Firstly, it helps prevent people from adding digits to the front of the number (for example, turning 23.50$ into 523.50$; note that the decimal points prevents people from just adding to the *end* of the number, as well) and secondly, when reading, it provides context for the number before it appears, so a reader can immediately recognize that it is a currency amount that is about to appear. This is especially useful in English because we say \"$1.25\" as \"a dollar twenty-five\" or \"one twenty-five\" rather than \"one point two five dollars\".\n\nBut, as I said, some languages *do* have the currency symbol appear *after* the number, instead. One potential reason for this is when making a ledger. You can put the item first, then the price right-aligned, ending with the currency symbol. That way, all the currency symbols (and the decimal points) line up on the page, no matter how many digits are used for each line on the ledger."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8ptq1a
|
[Astronomy] Is there a correlation between galaxy age and the amount of dark matter in it?
|
Have we figured out any way of predicting how much dark matter is in a galaxy, for example, the age of the galaxy, or how much visible matter there is in it?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8ptq1a/astronomy_is_there_a_correlation_between_galaxy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0gmlu1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"the part of the galaxy that contains dark matter is called the \"dark matter halo\" and contains the majority of the mass in a standard galaxy. it is really hard to accurately weigh a galaxy and determine the amount of dark matter in it, although for the ones we have weighed, it seems like there is usually more dark matter than normal matter. although, there are galaxies with potentially [no dark matter](_URL_0_) or [99.99% dark matter](_URL_1_). these outliers are so rare to find that no correlations can really be made to age/size/location/etc.. \n\ndark matter has definitely been a huge factor in galaxy formation from the beginning though. when galaxies were first forming in the universe, the overall temperature was still too hot for normal matter to have been forming galaxies, so there must have been substantial dark matter structure present already. \n\nso i don't think we have enough data to make any correlations between dark matter percentage and age, but in general we know that there has definitely always been dark matter in galaxies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/dark-matter-goes-missing-in-oddball-galaxy",
"https://www.space.com/33850-weird-galaxy-is-mostly-dark-matter.html"
]
] |
|
1094s1
|
what should i be looking for when i'm reading nutrition facts?
|
What's considered healthy? Which fats do I not want? How much is too much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1094s1/eli5_what_should_i_be_looking_for_when_im_reading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6bfojz",
"c6bfsau",
"c6bfvnf",
"c6bgp8l",
"c6bkfwc"
],
"score": [
34,
11,
2,
29,
4
],
"text": [
"The most important fact you need to know: **Serving size** \nAnd also the \"Number of Servings\"",
"The actual nutritional content depends on what you want to focus on. \nFor example, if you want to prevent high blood pressure, then you need something with low sodium content. The lower the percentage, the better.\n\nSpeaking of percentages, they're usually based on a 2000-calorie diet.\nIf something says \"Sodium - 17%\", it means that if you consume 2000 calories in day, 17% of your sodium intake of the day comes from one serving of this product. \n\nRegarding fats, you don't want ANY Trans Fat. Trans Fats = BAD!! Nowadays a lot of companies have realized this and don't have any trans fat in their food. The good fats are polyunsaturated fats and monounsaturated fats. Saturated fats are not good (but its hard to find food without saturated fats). ",
"Try to avoid any trans fats. The trans fats should be listed at 0 grams.",
"If you want to eat healthy, you need to jettison the idea that food is healthy or not healthy.\n\nYour body needs things to survive. It needs some amount of calories, fat, carbohydrates, vitamins, protein, et cetera. \n\nHow much you need depends on your fitness and health goal(s), your particular body type and your activity level. If you get too much, you might gain weight or become sick, and if you get too little you'll lose weight or get sick. \n\nWhat you do is figure out the amount of each of those things that you need. You then read the nutrition label to determine how much of each of those things you get from that food, and whether it fits into your nurtritional needs or not.\n\nIf, say, you've only had 300 calories today, you could have a 1500 calorie piece of cake and be under a 2000-calorie daily goal. If you've already had 1000 calories, today, though, the cake will put you over.\n\nIt's not a question of whether the food is 'healthy'. It's a question of whether the food fits your nutritional needs at this time.",
"The important things to go to:\n\nServing size - you have to know the amount of food we're talking about. Alot of times one bottle of soda for instance will say in this 20 ounce bottle is 2 serving sizes then give you the information for just one serving size. Of course you're going to finish the bottle in one sitting, so make sure to double the numbers.\n\nNext: calories. Calories are directly related to weight. Muscle is heavier than fat, yes. But a low calorie diet will help you lose fat and thus shed weight. You want about 1600 calories in a day. For your metabolism to continually be stimulated try to divvy these up into 200-400 calorie small snack/meals. But I don't have time for that personally. \n\nAfter that, I like to look at the sugar content. One teaspoon has about 4.2 grams of sugar. So if that soda has 44 grams of sugar, imagine eating 10 teaspoons of sugar, just right then and there because that's what you're doing.\n\nSometimes I look at fat. I know fat and carbs are important to some people but most of the things I get don't have that high fat content. The gov recommends that you get 65g of fat so keep that in mind.\n\nAnd finally I look at protein, sodium and whatever vitamins it might have. Sometimes they artificially put in vitamins so it'll have 10%. That's meh. If it has 25% or even 50% that's a really good source of that vitamin. I'm on a high sodium diet so it's important to me to get the saltiest. And protein, you want to try to get 50g a day, it builds muscle. \n\n**TL;DR:** What you look at is largely based on your specific needs. But everyone should keep an eye on their serving size, caloric intake, fat and sugar. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
153ygr
|
Is there a correlation between exposure to cold weather and getting viral/bacterial infections?
|
I understand that when it's colder, people are more likely to stay indoors, which allows for better transmission of pathogens. However, does actually being cold facilitate the infection process?
PS: my parents insist that the culprit is cold weather whenever I develop symptoms matching a bacterial or viral infection (coughing, fever, etc..). Are they correct, or just confusing the infection with the cold?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/153ygr/is_there_a_correlation_between_exposure_to_cold/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7j2ru4",
"c7j2saa",
"c7j2yvm",
"c7j3bpf",
"c7j9smv"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"AFAIK, it's purely based on being indoors and easing the spread of germs. If the logic were that it were related to the cold, then equatorial countries would never get ill because they don't have winter (those countries get sick during the rainy season).\n\nThat being said, there is a link between immune function and temperature, in that certain immune mediators are more effective when the body temperature is high (Which is why we run fever when sick, to better fight off pathogens). However, this doesn't work in relation to weather because even though it is cold outside, our body temperature does not drop appreciably. ",
"For viruses(common cold), the temperature does not matter (for the most part). \n\nBacteria usually grow better in the warm. If I recall correctly, the optimal temperature for infectious bacteria is usually right around body temperature.",
"There is a correlation between cold weather and getting sicker, but it's not directly causal. Getting cold doesn't make you more prone to getting an infection except in extreme cases like frostbite or hypothermia. \n\nIt *may* have something to do with more people being indoors more often, getting out the cold weather clothing, stress, turning on heaters, etc....but I don't know of any studies that have ever identified any one of those as a significant culprit.\n\n",
"Also, the search bar on the right-hand side of the screen.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_4_\n\n_URL_6_\n\n",
"you can read all the other links, but based on what I have learned in medical school there isn't a direct causal relation, its more indirect. \n\nCold is a stressor to the body. Stress(mental, emotional, physical) of any kind causes cortisol to be released. Cortisol inhibits IL-2[interleukin 2], which is needed to activate T cells and eventually B-cells. So no, cold does not directly increase your risk of getting a bacterial or viral infection(assume you are in the cold but bundled up), but cold weather can increase cortisol release(say you go into 10 degree weather with only a sweater) which will diminish your immune response. \n\n\"It[cortisol] downregulates the Interleukin-2 receptor (IL-2R) on \"Helper\" (CD4+) T-cells. This results in the inability of Interleukin-2 to upregulate the Th2 (Humoral) immune response and results in a Th1 (Cellular) immune dominance. This results in a decrease in B-cell antibody production. \""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lt953/why_does_being_in_the_cold_cause_you_to_be_sick/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jf3tb/can_being_wet_and_cold_for_prolonged_periods_lead/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kjx10/does_being_cold_cause_cold/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ubp7d/does_cold_weather_really_increase_the_chance_of/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/q4ki8/does_opening_a_window_during_wintertime_make_you/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xe82i/how_much_are_coldness_and_sickness_related/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jqs91/if_being_cold_does_not_lead_to_colds_then_why_do/"
],
[]
] |
|
b4100l
|
why/how does the gas released by freshly cut onions clear the nose and sinuses when ill?
|
Some clarification: In my family when we have a cold or a more severe illness involving a blocked or runny nose or pain in the ear canal, we cut up a big onion, roll it up in a thin linen cloth and hang it around our neck with the use of a safety-pin. The onion needs to be refreshed every 8-12 hours for the effect to last.
It works wonders, but I can't explain it.
\*Sidenote: You barely notice the smell when wearing it since you grow accustomed to it, but the entire house will smell of onion, which is not as enjoyable for anyone else walking around. But it works wonders, so we accept the smell (don't go out into public wearing the onion though, have mercy on the world).
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b4100l/eli5_whyhow_does_the_gas_released_by_freshly_cut/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej4mere"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This \"gas\" (actually a volatile liquid) is called syn-propanethial-S-oxide. It is an irritant that affects the mucous membranes and tear glands to secrete a lot of liquid. This liquid washes out any hardened snot that might be stuck to your mucous membranes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4o8ck8
|
Does alpha decay lead to an ion being made as the atom has lost two protons and so now has two more electrons than protons?
|
I know it forms a new elements but is this element an ion. Thanks
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4o8ck8/does_alpha_decay_lead_to_an_ion_being_made_as_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4ajxkf",
"d4bg2ku"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Yes conservation of charge means that the resulting atom will be in a -2 charge state. Generally this state is not stable and the atom will interact quickly with local chemistry in some way to lose that charge. Some smaller atoms may even emit one of the electrons directly without requiring a reaction with local compounds. \n\nSo yes, but it then quickly becomes a regular atom with a normal charge. ",
"Alpha decay > Beta decay > Gamma decay.\n\nIn this diagram I've made the three most well known forms of radioactive decay are present. Towards the left we have increasing ionizing energy. That is to say what you said is true /u/Stratmoose. The imbalances caused by the interactions from the alpha, and beta particles causes ionization. \n\nConversely, Gamma radation has very poor ionization energy. Now let's consult why.\n\nGamma > Beta > Alpha\n\nIn this diagram, the penetrating power increases as you move to the left. Notice anything? The higher intrinsic energy the radiated particle has, the less likely it is to ionize with whatever it makes contact with. That's why we use Gamma rays in medical treatments; Beta and Alpha decay are somewhat less dangerous than gamma rays outside of the body, but when inside ionize so much stuff and can't leave the human body that it makes a massive mess and causes radiation sickness (something we don't really have an answer to. but that's not what you asked). While gamma rays pass peacefully through only hurting very small molecules.\n\nThis leads us to conclude the following general solution to your answer.\n\nThe higher the energy of the radiated particle, the less likely it is to ionize, and the more likely it is to penetrate. \n\nBecause Alpha particles ( 2 protons, and 2 neutrons) have a positive nature and a very small free shell, they are likely to use their high ionizing potential to quickly and effectively ionize and create new ions. Just as you thought. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3yx6c7
|
Are there any examples of slavery supporters in the American South who changed their mind and rejected slavery (either before or after the Civil War)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yx6c7/are_there_any_examples_of_slavery_supporters_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyhds2l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I have no doubt there will be a great deal of examples that people more familiar with american politics then myself can state but one example would be Rebecca Fleton a georgian feminist who is mostly known for being the first female senator (albeit only for one day as a publicity stunt when she filled her late husband's position and then turned it to over to the senator elect).\n\nHer and her husband owned slaves up until the end of the civil war and she remained until the end of her days an unapolegetic racist who spoke out for lynching and against rights for blacks, who she viewed as savage threats to white woman.\n\nHowever she did in her later life and in her memoirs in particular, turned against slavery as an institution and admitted it was a mistake not because of the treatment of the slaves but because she thought it corrupted the souls of the white slave owners. In particular she viewed the greatest sins of slavery to be children fathered on slaves by slave owners and then condemned to slavery by their own parent and that it was that sin against god which the south were punished for by the civil war.\n\nSo she is a case of a slave owner who later rejected slavery while never rejecting the idea of black inferiorty."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6j4voh
|
Has a submarine ever sunk another submarine, in any war, ever?
|
Edit: forgot to ask, what defenses were subs given against other subs? Did subs even encounter other subs often enough for this to be a problem?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6j4voh/has_a_submarine_ever_sunk_another_submarine_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djbmrww",
"djc4chl"
],
"score": [
47,
2
],
"text": [
"More than a few times. In the Pacific theater, USN submarines sank the Japanese Ro-45 (although this claim is disputed), I-28, I-29, I-73, I-168, and I-183 as well as the *Monsun-Gruppe*'s [U-537](_URL_5_) and [U-183](_URL_8_). _URL_6_ 's [Sensuikan! page](_URL_4_) has the tabular record of movement (TROM) for each of these submarines that gives details for each sinking. British submarines managed to sink, or claim to have sunk, some 31 U-boats in both World Wars, as [seen in this list](_URL_11_). They also sank the Japanese [I-34](_URL_0_) and the Italian submarines *Michele Bianchi*, *Acciaio*, and *Pietro Micca*. The WWI submarine [U-7](_URL_2_) has the dubious distinction of being sunk by another U-boat in a case of friendly fire, but was topped by the WWII boats USS *Tang* and USS *Tullibee* which sank themselves after torpedo malfunctions caused them to circle back and sank both boats. The Japanese I-176 sank [USS *Corvina*](_URL_9_), which was the only US boat sunk by a Japanese submarine and her loss was fictionalized in the book *Run Silent, Run Deep* (still one of the best sub novel titles). _URL_7_ has a [list](_URL_3_) of Allied warships sunk by German submarines, including several Allied submarines like [HMS *Spearfish*](_URL_1_). \n\nThere were other incidents with minor navies either sinking submarines or themselves being sunk. With one exception, all of these sinkings occurred when the submarine was on the surface. WWI and II submarines were not true submarines, but rather submersibles. They spent most of their time on the surface of the ocean cruising along on their diesel or conventional engines. They used used batteries while underwater which not only could propel the submarine at slower speeds than diesels, but also had a limited running time. Submarines' defenses against attack by other submarines was much like any other threat: dive or somehow get out of the area. \n\nThe one known exception to these surface attacks is U-864, which was a Type IX U-boat used as a cargo submarine for Japan. Using ULTRA decripts, the British were able to place [HMS *Venturer*](_URL_10_) in a position to intercept. The British sub picked up the German boat on its hydrophones and tracked it in the hopes that she would surface. When she did not, *Venturer* fired a spread of eight torpedoes in a shotgun-type blast based on estimates from her hydrophone data as to where U-864 would be. One of these torpedoes managed to hit its target, and she sank to the bottom with her crew and cargo, including [considerable amounts of mercury](_URL_12_). To sink a submarine underwater during WWII required a lot of elements to work together ranging from good passive sonar work, intelligence locating the sub's position, as well as a great deal of luck. It was only in the postwar period that submarines gained the upgraded sonar suites and torpedoes that would allow them to hunt down this quarry. ",
"Going to focus on:\n > what defenses were subs given against other subs?\n\nI haven't figured out how I want to go about this, so it's likely just going to ramble and bounce around. Most of the defenses a submarine has is how the ship is built and used, however there are some active defenses they can use.\n\nEarly torpedoes weren't guided and just shot straight out or at an angle using a gyro (but still straight running), so they had to be aimed pretty carefully. This provided some defense for the submarine being attacked because the attacker had to have a good firing solution to hit to begin with. As kieslowskifan provided an example for, one method used to make hitting with torpedos more reliable was firing a spread of shots helping to ensure a hit. \n\nAcoustic torpedoes were later developed which either actively or passively hunt for targets. Passive methods involve the torpedo just listening and then seeking the source of the sound [pg. 36](_URL_5_). These torpedos are effective against surface targets that make a lot of noise, but the primary defense a submarine has against these is silence. Silence is one of a submarine's biggest defenses to this day; you can't shoot a target that you don't know is there or can't find. I can't speak for early submarines, but more modern submarines (still older than 20 years though) operate at a noise level that passive acoustic devices would not detect unless the crew was really going against protocol. Silent running is the bread and butter of submarine operations and large amounts of research is dedicated to it. Crew behavior, [sound isolation of equipment](_URL_1_), ship design including the screw, exterior coatings, etc. all contribute to this. \n\nActive methods involve the torpedo sending out sonar signals and then reacting to the received feedback [pg. 38](_URL_5_). Later advancements include even crazier stuff that I won't go into to try and keep it historical. Defenses to these are similar to defenses that planes might employ against missiles. [Expendable countermeasures](_URL_0_) that make noise, create bubbles, and use jammers can be launched by the submarine to [\"confuse and defeat the threat\"](_URL_3_). These previous links are to suppliers of modern systems, but they are just more advanced versions of older types of countermeasures needed to defeat more advanced torpedos. \n \nTorpedoes and the firing process make noise, and operators can tell when they have been fired which allows for the defending submarine to take evasive actions [pg. 4](_URL_4_) like diving, changing depth, changing course, or even attempting to outrun it. Obviously this was easier when torpedos couldn't track, but are still part of the defensive package a submarine would use today. Diving deeper allows a submarine to run faster without [cavitating](_URL_2_) the screw (this causes noise) which means there is a better chance of survival. Evasive maneuvers can also help confuse the torpedo when combined with countermeasures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.combinedfleet.com/I-34.htm",
"http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/ships/442.html",
"http://www.uboat.net/wwi/boats/index.html?boat=7",
"http://uboat.net/allies/merchants/warships.html?sort_by=type",
"http://www.combinedfleet.com/sensuikan.htm",
"http://uboat.net/boats/u537.htm",
"Combinedfleet.com",
"U-boat.net",
"http://uboat.net/boats/u183.htm",
"http://www.oneternalpatrol.com/uss-corvina-226-loss.html",
"http://uboat.net/allies/warships/ship/3585.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:U-boats_sunk_by_British_submarines",
"http://www.spiegel.de/international/toxic-u-boat-underwater-coffin-for-nazi-submarine-a-455652.html"
],
[
"https://www.thyssenkrupp-marinesystems.com/en/tcm.html",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=qVgqT0M4iv0C&pg=PT338&dq=sound+isolation+mount&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwixzOi5ltbUAhUX4WMKHU9RAaYQ6AEINjAE#v=onepage&q=sound%20isolation%20mount&f=false",
"https://www.iims.org.uk/introduction-propeller-cavitation/",
"https://www.ultra-electronics.com/brochure/Underwater_warfare/index.html",
"http://calhoun.nps.edu/bitstream/handle/10945/32934/00Jun_Armo.pdf?sequence=1",
"https://www.history.navy.mil/museums/keyport/html/part1.htm"
]
] |
|
a6cqs1
|
If graphene is a single layer of carbon atoms, how would it conduct electricity?
|
Essentially asking the mechanics of how graphene conducts electricity. Is it possible to make a super durable/malleable wire/“tape” that can conduct electricity for a cheap price?Any research papers I can dive into too?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a6cqs1/if_graphene_is_a_single_layer_of_carbon_atoms_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebu89d8",
"ebxi207"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It’s graphene’s structure that makes it conducive. A given carbon atom shares sigma-bonds with 3 other carbon atoms in the same layer, and pi-bonds with the adjacent layers. This pi-bond (actually pi-band) enables free electron movement, and hence electronic properties (namely conductivity). \n\nWhen you get down to a single layer, the pi-bond is broken but still a surface of free electrons exists so conductivity still persists. The problem though is a surface of free electrons is difficult to maintain in a regular environment due to oxidation. As such, it has been difficult to keep testing single layer graphene. \n\nGetting to a single layer is also quite tricky, commonly achieved in the lab by using sticky tape to peel off each layer at a time until you’re left with a single layer. \n\nHaven’t read the paper but this might be a good start:\n\n_URL_0_",
"It would be possible to create such a tape, but graphene would be a rather bad choice for it. Graphene may be a very strong material, but it still is only 1 atom thick so it is very easy to damage. You can bend it quite well without damaging but it won't be very reliable. Also, the electrical resistance will be high, at least a kOhm for a few cm tape if you have 1 monolayer graphene, unless your tape is square-shaped. Last problem is that graphene is expensive to produce at the moment, especially if you want good quality.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThere's already conducting polymers so those would most likely be more suitable for this purpose. To add structure to graphene you would need a polymer support or something similar either way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.researchgate.net/publication/303896294_A_Review_on_the_Properties_and_Applications_of_Graphene"
],
[]
] |
|
1ir9r3
|
can anyone recommend me some eli5-like books on finance/money?
|
I don't really know anything about financial terms like pensions, credit, equity, assets, trusts, etc...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ir9r3/can_anyone_recommend_me_some_eli5like_books_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb7ay7r"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The dummies books are great, they have them on financing and all of those topics you talked about and they'll walk you through how to do those things. \n\nSource: success in several investments from reading those books"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
651vuo
|
If deleted data can be retrieved, why can't we have our things in deleted state and keep much more space on hard drive disks ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/651vuo/if_deleted_data_can_be_retrieved_why_cant_we_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg71e59",
"dg747to",
"dg79u34",
"dg7qbn5"
],
"score": [
7,
32,
7,
16
],
"text": [
"This would not work because there is a limit to the space that exists on a hard drive. Data can only be retrieved from a hard drive before it has been overwritten.\n\nWhat you're suggesting is like doing this: Fill up a glass of water. pour the water out. fill the glass up again. Interpret the result of these three actions as two glasses of water inside one glass.",
"I think the thing that is confusing you is *what does it mean to be deleted*. When you delete most files on your computer, the OS simply marks those locations as \"deleted\". This means that future writes to disk might write to those locations. If you manage to \"undelete\" the content before one of these writes occurs then you will be okay, but there is no guarantee. The reason why \"deleting\" data in this way opens up space is because the deleted locations are now legal places for you to write more data. Keeping your data in this deleted state puts it at risk for being overwritten.",
"When simply deleting the files, the file's address in the memory is wiped from the database; the system does no longer know where that file is, although it still exists. Retrieving that file is simply manually finding it. Eventually it will be overwritten by other files and can no longer be retrieved. Like the other guy said, you can't have 2 (or 1.5, or 1.000001) TB of data in a 1 TB drive.\n\nFormatting, otoh, is wiping the files themselves, so they cannot be retrieved.",
"It's like a warehouse where you have a bunch of boxes filled with stuff and then a \"master ledger\" that says where each box is and what is in each box and which boxes are free. The \"master ledger\" is called the File Allocation Table (FAT). Say you want to \"delete\"/\"get rid of\" the box at Row 3, Pallet 12 whose contents are labeled in the master ledger as \"Totally_Not_Pornography\". If you hit the delete button what the computer will ACTUALLY do, is just go to the master ledger and change the entry to say \"There's nothing at Row 3, Pallet 12. It's available, if you want to put something there you might find some old stuff, just chuck it\". What it won't do, is actually go to Row 3, Pallet 12 and throw the box out. This is because doing this is slow and people hate waiting for computers to do stuff. This means that until some new data is assigned to Row 3, Pallet 12, the box of totally not porn is STILL THERE. And you could find it if you ignore the ledger and just check each box manually.\n\nIf you truly want to delete something in a computer, such that it is unrecoverable, it needs to first FOLLOW the address in the FAT and go through all the data and flip each bit randomly AND THEN, remove the entry from the FAT. If you do that, it's gone for good. There are special programs that do that, but for regular use the OS doesn't bother, it just changes the FAT and the data itself will then be overwritten when new data is assigned to the same memory block.\n\nSo you see, you can't actually get more space out of it, all that is meant is that because only the FAT is changed, the data is still recoverable UNTIL something new actually gets written there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6paa6l
|
Each 10m underwater adds roughly 1atm in pressure. Does that change with liquids other than water? Would it be different in planets other than Earth?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6paa6l/each_10m_underwater_adds_roughly_1atm_in_pressure/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkobw47",
"dkoe88d"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, that is specific to the density of water (d), the strength of gravity on the Earth (g). The pressure is g times d time the height of the column h, so if the density is twice that of water, only 5 meters would be required, and if the gravity were half as strong then 20 meters would be required.",
"That's a useful rule of thumb scuba divers often use.\n\nThe hydrostatic pressure in a liquid is directly proportional to depth. \n\nSpecifically, \n\nPressure = density * gravitational acceleration * depth. \n\nSo, in a liquid more dense than water pressure would increase more quickly with depth.\n\nConsider a something like a tall vertical steel pipe or a large graduated cylinder. It makes an intuitive sense that in a cylinder, the pressure at any point inside it would be equal the weight of all the liquid above that point.\n\nSo, for a more dense liquid like mercury, the pressure would be much greater because of the much greater weight of all the liquid above.\n\nIt turns out however that this is true regardless of the shape of the container, only depth matters when it comes to pressure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2eyhce
|
when i'm on a cell phone, and i can hear the other person crystal clear, but they say the quality is so bad on their end that they can hardly understand me, what's going on?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eyhce/eli5_when_im_on_a_cell_phone_and_i_can_hear_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck46nri",
"ck46q9u",
"ck4af3s",
"ck4anae",
"ck4bw7a",
"ck4c3ir",
"ck4cp6b",
"ck4d9dq",
"ck4db8b",
"ck4h611",
"ck4ht7n",
"ck4k57m",
"ck4k5ec",
"ck4kecn",
"ck4ki3g",
"ck4kj7z",
"ck4kk99",
"ck4kkar",
"ck4kn7u",
"ck4l0n5",
"ck4lhai",
"ck4lwvv",
"ck4mhik",
"ck4mle4",
"ck4mq5b",
"ck4nbhj",
"ck4nc49",
"ck4ndqx",
"ck4oaeu",
"ck4p8ek",
"ck4rcws",
"ck4s01i"
],
"score": [
1260,
364,
3,
5,
239,
5,
2,
2,
7,
3,
5,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
5,
2,
2,
3,
14,
2,
3,
3,
3,
6,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Cell towers have more power than a phone, so \"tower to phone\" is more reliable than \"phone to tower\". For example, if you are close to your tower and the other person is far away from their tower, they can hear you fine, but their return signal may have trouble reaching the tower.",
"Cellular uplink and downlink work on two fairly widely spaced radio frequencies. It's very possible that there is RF interference on only one of the frequencies, causing uplink or downlink specific interference. ",
"Do you have your finger over the microphone hole? I was doing that when I got my new S3.",
"Something I finally know.\n\nThere are a couple of reason but the most common one and the one we are still trying to figure out is multi link (im going to come back and correct this I dont remember the name off the top of my head). What basically happens is the your phone sends out a signal, but it sends it out in all direction and the signal bounces all over the place. When the signals bounce they will take different paths before the get to the tower. Since they took different paths some paths are going to longer than others. The signal arrives at different times and at different parts of the signal and sometimes they cancel each other out. This is also the reason why you can have full signal, walk a couple of feet and have no signal.\n\nHope this helps. I'm drunk.",
"Ok, here it goes. Apologize for the length but see if this makes sense. Spent years in finance and engineering in Top 5 cell company. Much of this is simplified per ELI5 - can expand on a particular area if requested.\n\nYour cellphone company has competitively bought the right (from the FCC) to use radio frequencies (RF) in a certain metro or rural area. There are only a limited amount available for cell phone companies to buy. More frequencies cost millions but each pair of frequencies can carry the voices of 16 / 32 / 64 conversations depending upon the technology choices (read - trade offs) they have made in engineering and how much they want to spend on an area (read - potential revenue = investment) - and nowadays how much priority they have given delivering data to a smart phone (internet streams) over delivering your traditional voice call. With technology this differentiation between voice and data is fading but still there right now.\n\nA cellphone network looks just like a huge bee's honeycomb covering your state. Rural areas the cells are huge - covering miles - while in the city they are small (even as small as a block) - in order to carry more customers. Keep in mind, the larger the cell the more work your phone has to do to reach it - battery life (read - customer experience) counts. \n\nA tower in the center of one of the hexagons (one \"cell\" on honeycomb) will have three pairs of mouths (transmit) and ears (receive) - each one covering 120 degrees of the circle (360 degrees divided by 3) This enables me to use three different groups of RF signals and only having to invest in one tower. Building towers is expensive - sometimes we would do them at night on a Friday so neighborhoods would have difficulty stopping us via gov't entities. The large boxes at the bottom of the tower are full of hot equipment that must be continually air conditioned. As a network I want to minimize the investment in building the network (towers, air conditioners, generators or batteries) and will therefore make one tower into three with this 120 degree coverage splits. Now, trying not get complex but I cannot use the same RF in the cell next to me - I have to skip one honeycomb cell so the signals don't conflict. It is this reuse of my frequencies and the number of conversations I want to carry that dictates everything.\n\nImagine New York City - they literally have cell phone towers that cover a block or building (meaning low power) so that they can skip a block and then use the same frequencies all over again. Remember - this is about capacity and what they call blocking. Meaning - if try to place a call and it takes awhile - that is blocking - the system cannot find a free pair of RF for you to use and is waiting for someone to hang up. Lots of small cells equals lots of frequency reuse and lots of capacity - but also means lots of bucks. \n\nNext tower you see - take a look and see if you can spot the three sides of the tower at the top. Usually pairs of antennas. Often a tower will have multiple sets on it - the cell company that owns the tower (at the top) and others competitors that rent space on the tower (usually lower down.) Won't go into frequency strategy in this post - but know that just like an AM/FM radio the frequencies are different between the carriers and don't conflict with each other in a direct way. The lower down (renter) signal will not travel as far but that may be ok as the rental user may just be seeking to fill in a gap - in a valley or area with lots of buildings. Hospitals were always the worst - nearly impossible to get a signal inside with the shielding from X-ray / MRI equipment etc. Radio frequencies cover an area a little bit like swiss cheese - there are little holes everywhere where the signal gets lower (you see it as less bars on your phone - if carrier & handset maker are being truthful). With a strong signal your phone is doing less work - better battery life. With a weak signal - your phone is pumping out the power - less battery life. \n\nOK - now to the question - why is the quality different?\n\n There is a building somewhere (perhaps multiple) called Master Control (sounds like TRON). All calls go to this building (super fast) and either leave and enter the old Bell system to go to someones wired home or business (or other cell carrier). If you are calling mobile to mobile within the same carrier - it won't leave the building (if same city) and go right back out to the towers. Here is why this is important - the cell tower is minding its own business - sending out (talking) a greeting to any cell phone in the area. It does this on a control channel that is super strong. Every cell phone is always talking to three cell towers (if possible) via the control tower - your phone is constantly checking to see which of the three signals is strongest. Often you are moving so it moving between towers as well. Even if you are not talking but the phone is on - it is using this control channel to simply know where you are in the event someone calls the system with your number - it will know how to find you. This control channel also has a 140 character empty space (way way simplifying here) which is where text message move. This is why a text will go through (robust control channel) even when a phone call will not (no frequencies available.) If you are ever in trouble and limited time or battery to communicate - use text messaging to increase the odds of communication.\n\nNow the Master control is connected to all of the towers in an area via fiber (buried) or microwave dishes on towers (little salad bowls pointed sideways) connected via line of site to another microwave dish on another tower. When you dial the phone it is using the control channel to see if there is a pair of RF available for your use. If there is then it reserves those for you. Once it completes the other end of the call - as in someone answers - then it opens up those RF channels for talking and listening at the same time (called full duplex). Now if you are moving - then Master control is looking at all three towers to see which signal is getting stronger (the one you are moving towards) and is getting ready via the control channel to reserve another set of frequencies and hand you off between towers - give you to the next one. These are the occasional clicks you might here during your conversation. Now during a conversation the handset manufacturer put a chip inside your phone to smash your voice down to the minimum quality in order to help the carrier put as many people on a set of frequencies as possible (remember the 16 / 32/ 64) the more you compress the crappier it sounds. \n\nTo answer the question very directly - you may be on a non congested well engineered cell that is not forcing your phone to compress aggressively. While the recipient of your call is on a crappy cell with too many people on it. You hear fine but the other person is getting something awful. Now if that other person just moves around a little they may actually be moved to another cell and get an entirely better quality.\n\nTo add complexity - sometimes the carriers are in negotiations at their HQ about carrying each others data or voice in exchange for coverage in another city somewhere. Sometimes the engineers take it personally and raise the signal levels so high that it obliterates the other carriers signal - (kind of like a giant air horn going - forces the phone and system to do so much error correction (work to try and find your signal) that your voice on the other end sounds like you are talking underwater. Not that this ever happens :)\n\n",
"I call this phenomenon \"Every phone call I've ever had on TMobile.\" Data is pretty good, but voice is just terrible, even in spots on their map where it's supposed to work. ",
"There are essentially two signals at hand here. There's the signal you send - which the other person receives, and there's the signal the other person sends - which you receive. Your signal might be extremely weak and obfuscated, but enough to pass the reliability checks, they then only hear parts of what's spoken by you. Their signal might be extremely strong, then you then hear all of what's spoken by them.\n\nIn the end this is rolled up into one signal while on the towers, but for explanation purposes explaining two signals is better.\n\ne: for clarity there are two signals here, those being - you to the tower, and them to the tower. When on the tower traveling over the network to the tower sending it to whichever phone, it's essentially one transmission.",
"Your microphone might be gummed up. Check your phone specifications to find the microphone and see if its got stuff in it. I've had to clean my microphone hole a couple times now.",
"Other than cell signal strength, the other factors are the phone hardware itself and the bandwidth available, which ties in with signal strength somewhat. If your phone has a crappy microphone, crappy noise cancellation software/hardware, or crappy speakers and earpiece, these will all effect sound quality. \n\nIf you are in a 2G only area like the boonies or some almost dead zone, even with a strong 2G signal, you will only get 2G speeds and bandwidth. Since your audio conversation is purely a digital signal, with low bandwidth/speed the audio will be very compressed and low quality, making it sound hollow/garbled/electronic/monotone. People use to review cellphones by judging how close to landline quality the voice call was. Nowadays, they far surpass any traditional landline in call clarity, because the higher bandwidth/speed networks allow for higher quality and less compressed audio with higher bitrates, unless you are in a 2G zone of course. Fast smartphones can also deal with compressed audio of higher complexity that yields higher quality with a lower bitrate. \n\nI can cause a significant drop in audio quality on my phone if I go to network settings and drop it down from LTE to 2G/GSM only (people do this to save battery). Everyone I talk to sounds like muffled crap. Then I switch it back to LTE and it is very clear and distinct.",
"Do you have a phone with a flip over cover? If so don't cover the back of your phone with your case when you are talking on it. It blocks the noise cancellation mic, plus it can create a channel for the audio from your voice to travel up to the noise cancellation mic, thus subtracting your voice from the signal making you sound very muffled to the person on the other side.",
"I scanned the responses, but didn't see anything that holistically addressed your question.\n\nI think the ELI5 answer is there are *a lot* of asymmetries in the link. (i.e. the paths to and from the phones can be very different.)\n\nAs /u/haemaker mentioned, the uplink and downlink transmission powers are different, which can very understandably make it where you can hear someone, but they can't hear you (or, on their link, they can hear you, but you can't hear them).\n\nAt a hardware level there can also be asymmetries (e.g. your microphone isn't working, or your phone's cell chip works better for rx than tx).\n\n/u/Rideyourownride's post was a bit too long for an ELI5, but (s)he mentioned a couple good points: the link provisioning or compression levels are asymmetric (e.g. the choices your carrier makes given the available resources breaks the connection -- often because the uplink and downlink use different frequencies).\n\nAs /u/alliefm the cabling can make a difference. Nowadays most stuff is digital (though even then cabling *still* certainly makes a difference), but essentially the paths the voice data takes can be different (on a network level it can literally take *very* different paths, e.g. being routed through Austin vs. Memphis).\n\nMore advanced MIMO technologies can also asymmetrically affect links, as it means that multiple people can be sending/receiving simultaneously, and who you are paired with (or other factors) can also assymetrically affect link quality...\n\nSo, tl;dr is that the \"uplink\" and \"downlink\" aren't \"reciprocal\", and shit on every level can asymmetrically affect the quality of that link.",
"Give it up bro, she's just not into you. :)",
"Your thumb is over the microphone.",
"They don't like you and manufactured a reason to end the call quickly.",
"That person may not want to speak with you. I've used \"bad line\" on my probation officer many times.",
"They don't want to talk to you.",
"This person has no interest in talking with you and is giving you this creative excuse ",
"Yeah, a really simple explanation is that you're not talking into your phone properly. I spend a lot of time talking to people on their mobiles and I'm continually saying to them \"I can't hear you, can you please talk into your phone\" and they readjust and say \"sorry, is that better?\" and it usually is. \n\nFor some reason people tend to think that mobiles work like microphones and that if you're talking somewhere within it's environs then it broadcasts you. Not so. You have to talk into the mouthpiece precisely if you want the other party to hear you.",
"They're lying. They don't want to be on the phone. \n",
"Lots of technical explanations here on cell towers and signals. But I have also found another reason for this that is surprisingly common. The microphone on one of the phones is bad or partially busted, so the other person hears very poor voice. ",
"You annoy them, and they want to get off the phone",
" They are lying to you trying to get off the phone. Shut up already. ",
"There is also the option that there is dust clogging up your little microphone hole on your phone! If people are constantly telling you that you sound like your down a tunnel this is probably what is happening!!",
"Its because they dont like you and want to get off the phone with you :/",
"they are trying to get you off the phone",
"It depends on the scenario. \n\n1. Are you calling mobile to mobile in the same city served by the same switch? i.e. Verizon to Verizon. If so call quality mostly depends on the RF conditions and the equipment servicing the call.\n\n2. For all the remaining scenarios (mobile to land, Verizon mobile to Sprint mobile) your call will likely go over T1 trunks. These T1 trunks are generally run through 1 or more other Telecom companies before getting to the other end. For example a Verizon mobile calls a Sprint mobile. The call goes to the Verizon cell tower. From there it goes to the Switch which routes it over a T1 trunk through a Telecom (Charter, CenturyLink, etc) to the Sprint switch which sends to their cell tower and then over the air to the Sprint mobile. In this case the call quality depends on the RF conditions on the Verizon side, the quality of the T1 lines and the noise environment around the between Verizon and Sprint and finally the RF conditions on the Sprint side.\n\n\nAs you can see the second scenario has a lot more points where noise can be introduced.",
"The tower's signal is getting to your phone just fine. Your signal from the phone isn't hitting the tower.\n\nSee, the biggest problem with cell phones isn't how well you get the tower; but it's the other way. Compared to the tower; your phone is pumping out about as much power as a hamster wheel. It's such a small sliver of signal that it gets lost, easily; on the way to the tower. The towers have special antennas designed to make this work. \n\nSo, your phone sees the towers almost all the time. It's the towers that can't see your phone. You can hear someone fine because the tower puts out a lot of power. Your phone doesn't, so the transmission gets garbled.\n\nEveryone else gave the stupid answers I've ever heard. You people have no clue how your technology works.",
"OP, they just aren't that into you.",
"I'm a cell phone refurbisher and I can tell you with certainty the answer. We used to have to give some testers a voice recorder with voice commands on it to test mics... Because of heavy mouth breathing. The wind from you nose or mouth is causing the mics noise reduction to cut in and out. Try using a headset with a mic that dangles away from your windy face holes.\n \nI guarantee this is the only accurate answer.",
"Your microphone might be blocked. ",
"They don't want to talk to you. ",
"This is an important question that has been bugging me for far too long."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6rynyk
|
Did the UK ever come close to any serious food shortages in WWII?
|
From what I know, meat and its by-products wete the heaviest rationed food items, but was rationing as necessary as they made it seem during the war? And did things improve as the war went on?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rynyk/did_the_uk_ever_come_close_to_any_serious_food/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl97g2s",
"dl9a67o"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Not really.\n\nThe Germans had a target of sinking ~300,000 tons of shipping each month in order to starve Britain, and overwhelm British/Allied ship production.\n\nIn the first 27 months of the war, Germany only hit that target 4 times. After that, when America joined the war and added their own production to the mix, they had to try and sink 700,000 tons, which they only did once for the rest of the war. \n\nOnly ~10% of convoys were ever attacked, so most got through without incident. \n\nRationing was definitely needed however, as whilst Britain could maintain enough food coming in to match rationing figures, it couldnt support the amount that had been coming in pre-war (especially given that trade from France and the European continent wasn't exactly booming). Pre-war was around 55 million tons of food, during the war was around 12 million. More focus was put on growing within the UK, so don't take those figures as the only food the UK had.\n\nAfter 1943, the war started turning against the Germans, and with the breaking of Enigma, the Germans were often only able to sink a tenth of their shipping target. Despite this, the horifically poor state of the economy after the war as well as the costs of rebuiling, meant that rationing continued into the 1950's for some items. We didn't have much foreign currency left to but foreign food with, and years of shifting our economy to war production left a period of time when all that had to be shifted back to making things that the post-war era needed, before we could get the economy going properly again.",
"I can only be certain about the two first years of the war but no, Breat Britain was never critically close to a serious food shortage, even though they had begun rationing by 1940. This does not mean that there were no threat of food shortage. The problem for the government was that more than 70% of all food in Britain was important. This was no problem in peacetime, but Britain needed their ships for imports of steel, oil and other neccesary war materials. Therefor, it was of great importance that Great Britain improved their agriculture and food production. The problem was that Britain had chosen to focis on finished goods wich was valuable and they exported. This lead to a decline in agriculture, and this was not eaily reversed. Luckily for Britain a series of steps was taken to improve production in case of war. Among these were the reconstitution of the \"Country Agriculture Commities\", a new \"Agriculture Act\" was passed and the Minister of Agriculture began stockpiling of phosphates, oil seeds, cereal fields and even tractors. They were also investing in plowing more land and increasing mechanization of the farms, among other things. One advantage Britain had, was that the british prefferd mutton among meats. This was advantagous because sheep grazed on grass and they did not consume food that could be used feeding humans, in contrast to pigs who used the same foodstuffs as humans do. In addition the british produced alot of their meat themself, almost 50%. Admittably they still imported a lot of feedsuffs for ather animals. So in the end, Great Britain was very dependent on foreign imports and the biggest threat for the britsh was the german submarines. Admiral Dönitz was well aware of this and he reckoned that german submarines had to sink 500 000 tonnes of shipping each month within a year, and Great Britain would starve to death. In the beginning of the war the german submarines did sink over 350 000 tonnes a month, but this was not enough to see britain starve and britain had more than enough ships. There were multiple reasons why the U-boats never managed to sink enough merchant ships. The two most important was the lack of u-boats and the introduction of the convoy system. The first was a result of Hitler and the german navy high command, especially Admiral Raeder, Comander in chief of the Oberkommando der Marine, preffered the construction of a surface fleet, the Plan Z. In the eyes of Dönitz, who was the commanding germanys U-boats this was a complete waste of resources. in his eyes the Kriegsmarines goal should be to cut Britain from it's all important trade not winning a decisive victory. The Plan Z was scrapped when the war began, but by then it was all to late. By now the german had to few submarines to do the vital difference and they never managed to prodce enough U-boats to catch up. Although Germany tried to improve their U-boat production, this was hampered by Göring who was in charge of alocating resources. Göring was no fan of the fleet, and did not give enough resources to the construction of more U-boats. \nThe introduction of the convoy system was also very important in diminishing the effectivness of the german U-boats. The convoys were a large number of ships sailing together. This alowed for better protection, safety in numbers. In addition they sailed with destroyer escorts and escorts of other vessels. This made it a lot harder for submarines to sink british shipping. \n\nAlso, there are more than one reason to begin rationing. In addition to begin rationing when you are low on food, it is also sensible to start when you expect to be low on food in the future or have a varying supply of food, such as imports. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
20keib
|
what does the chipset on a motherboard do and how does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20keib/eli5_what_does_the_chipset_on_a_motherboard_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg43kau",
"cg449cc"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It manages communications between the CPU and the RAM and peripheral boards.",
"It lets the \"brain\" of the motherboard - the central processing unit or CPU - talk to all the other components of the motherboard like the memory, peripherals (disk, monitor, keyboard) etc. \n\nIf the CPU is the brain of the computer then the chipset is the rest of the central nervous system. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3aclf8
|
do animals feel growth pain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aclf8/eli5_do_animals_feel_growth_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csbga8l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[They do](_URL_0_), if they have rapid enough growth like larger dogs. Since most of our pets don't have such rapid growth (cat, birds, fish), presumably they don't feel any pain. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.labbies.com/dysplasa.htm"
]
] |
||
26mtlv
|
Why didn't Jordan tried to invade Israel in the 1973 war?
|
Jordan had the biggest border with Israel at the time and could capture Jerusalem in matter of hours because most Israeli troops were busy repelling attacks from the Syrians and Egyptians. so why didn't they took the bait and attacked?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26mtlv/why_didnt_jordan_tried_to_invade_israel_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chsm1cr"
],
"score": [
53
],
"text": [
"It was, at least in part, because the Jordanians had cooperated greatly with the Israelis under Hussein around this time.\n\nJordan had always been hesitant to attack Israel. In fact, during the 1967 War, the Israelis believed that the fire coming from Jordan initially was just meant to show solidarity; not to inspire further conflict. It was only when it didn't stop that the Israelis realized the Jordanians were going to get involved, but even then it appeared to be more reluctant and forced than anything else; the defense pact signed with Egypt on May 30 and the fear of being ostracized likely contributed.\n\nEven ignoring this, Jordan also suffered from struggles with the Palestinians to a large degree. One of the largest takers of Palestinian refugees, it was constantly plagued by fedayeen who operated within its borders and outside its control to attack Israel, and it feared retaliation throughout the leadup to the 1967 war as well. This conflict, as well as the conflict between the Palestinians and Hashemites (because the Jordanians wanted Palestine for themselves, not a separate state) only lent to the internal divisions that may have led Jordan to sit it out. There are even numerous instances of attacks by the Jordanians on the Palestinian refugee camps in retaliation for fedayeen operations, and many arrests as well.\n\nEven so, much of the cause for Jordan's failure to join is attributed to the results of the 1967 War. Morris puts it this way:\n\n > Having been badly scorched (and deceived by Egypt) in 1967, Hussein was unwilling to plunge into a second adventure. Moreover, Jordan's relations with Egypt and Syria were badly strained: Cairo had severed diplomatic ties with Amman in March 1972; Damascus had done so in 1971. But the preparations for war required a smoothing of ruffled feathers, so in September 1973 Egypt and Syria initiated a last-minute restoration of relations with Amman.\n\nThe deception referred to is likely the deception by Egypt in saying that it was winning after Israel's first strike, which emboldened Hussein to act and attack.\n\nEven so, the Jordanians didn't entirely \"sit this one out\". They may not have directly engaged in the fighting nearly as much, but they contributed to the cause. When Egypt sent out a request for weaponry, financial support, and staff, the Jordanians sent two armored brigades, with 170 tanks and 100 armored personnel carriers. Saudi Arabia sent a battalion of paratroops and a battalion of rumored personnel carriers and moved several brigades of infantry and a number of tanks to Jordan, though these did not participate in the fighting. Part of the problem was that a date for the war was not told to the contributors, so many of the resources didn't reach in time. The Jordanian forces did participate, but only in token amount, which I'll explain a little later.\n\nJordan, though, was playing a sort of double game. Because of Jordan's strained relations with the other Arab states, Hussein (who had met secretly with Golda Meir 8 times since she took office in 1969, 4 years prior or so) flew to Israel to meet with her again on September 25, 1973. He remarked that the Syrians had placed their troops in offensive formations, and also implied that Egypt would join, though it's not clear if Meir understood it because of how he phrased it. However, it's not apparent he knew about the date, merely that there would likely be war. He had arranged to have his son meet with the Agricultural Minister in Israel on October 7th (the day after the war began) to discuss exploiting Dead Sea minerals together: a sign of both cooperation and his ignorance of the date of impending attack.\n\nNow, to explain the token contribution, some new facts have come to light. As one historian wrote in [this article](_URL_0_):\n\n > For example, on October 10, 1973, four days after the war started, Jordanian Crown Prince Hassan proposed to U.S. Secretary of State Kissinger that King Hussein would update the Israelis on the deployment of his forces and their exact location - and guarantee that Jordan had no intention of having the Jordanian forces meet the Israeli forces. The king personally informed the U.S. ambassador in Amman that the participation of Jordanian soldiers in the war was just part of the facade presented to other Arab countries.\n\nAnother example is found in the article as well, according to the historian:\n\n > Kissinger asked the Israeli ambassador in Washington, Simcha Dinitz, to keep Israel from attacking the Jordanian unit, explaining the Jordanians would not participate in the fighting and would only be stationed on the battle front. Dinitz told Kissinger Israel official refuses but that unofficially, the unit will not be attacked.\n\nEssentially the Jordanians had a tacit understanding, largely due to U.S pressure and mutual benefit after the thrashing the Jordanians received in 1967 (and their relatively cool relations with the other Arab states) that they would not participate and would stay as neutral as possible without losing face.\n\nHopefully that paints the picture for you well!\n\nSources:\n\nSmith, Charles D. Palestine and the Arab-Israeli Conflict. New York: St. Martin's, 1988. Print.\n\nOren, Michael B. Six Days of War: June 1967 and the Making of the Modern Middle East. Oxford: Oxford UP, 2002. Print.\n\nMorris, Benny. Righteous Victims: A History of the Zionist-Arab Conflict, 1881-2001. New York: Knopf, 2001. Print."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.haaretz.com/news/diplomacy-defense/.premium-1.546843"
]
] |
|
r0kqb
|
How visually accurate are deep space telescopic images?
|
My friend recently posted [this](_URL_0_) image with the caption "can't believe this isn't Photoshop!" However, I remember reading that most images received by deep space telescopes aren't visually accurate, and are based off of color coding the light of emissions for different atoms. For instance, the Hubble's photograph of [the Pillars of Creation](_URL_1_) is "constructed from three separate images taken in the light of emission from different types of atoms. Red shows emission from singly-ionized sulfur atoms. Green shows emission from hydrogen. Blue shows light emitted by doubly- ionized oxygen atoms."
What does this mean? Are these atoms emitting light beyond the visible spectrum, and do satellites "color code" them to make these images visible and more visually informative to astronomers? Would the above images and other "magnificent" pictures from deep space be so visually appealing to the naked eye?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/r0kqb/how_visually_accurate_are_deep_space_telescopic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41y2kf"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I want to begin by saying that that image is most definitely not a real image. It's an artist's conception.\n\nTo the naked eye, nebulae look gray. You might seen hints of faint color here and there, but it's mostly just gray. Telescopes use long exposure times and various filters to get their pictures. The light may or may not be in the visible spectrum, depending on the telescope. The light may be in the visible spectrum, but might colored differently so as to bring out various details."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.universetoday.com/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/228144main_red-dwarf-flare-full.jpg",
"http://hubblesite.org/newscenter/archive/releases/1995/44/image/a/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
22cr8c
|
What is a soviet? How were they selected?
|
Lenin and the Bolsheviks had "All power to the soviets!" as a slogan. What the heck is that, who got to decide their composition, and how did they "unify?"
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22cr8c/what_is_a_soviet_how_were_they_selected/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cglmr1i"
],
"score": [
25
],
"text": [
"The soviets themselves were Councils, think of them as political units. You can find a brief essay by Soviet Historian Lewis Siegelbaum on them here: _URL_2_\n\n(It's an excellent site for Soviet History in general, as a side note)\n\nFirst it is important to remember that there were two Revolutions in 1917. In February, the Tsar was overthrown and replaced by the Provisional Government. It was in February that the Soviets also began to organize as a mode of democratic (at least in rhetoric, more on this in a minute) mode of rule. So, in the aftermath of February there were competing forms of government.\n\nBy the time October came around, after the July Days and other unrest and dissatisfaction with the rule of the Provisional Government, the Soviets represented an alternative for popular rule. So when Lenin said \"All Power to the Soviets!\" in July 1917, it was the a challenge to the Provisional Government by calling for a formal transfer of power to the (socialist dominated) Soviets. Although the soviets were city based, it is worth realizing that delegates and members from organizations like trade unions were involved - things that we don't normally associate with political positions per se. They did have basically democratic ideas - elections, representatives, delegates, and so forth. \n\nAfter the Revolution, a formal structure was established that went from local on up the All-Russian Congress. It was not nearly so easy in reality, particularly in light of the fact that although this structure was established in 1918, the Russian Civil War continued on for several more years - and contained the political chaos you'd expect from such an event.\n\nMore on that here: _URL_3_\n\nLenin wrote:\n\n > Democracy is the rule of the majority. As long as the will of the majority was not clear, as long as it was possible to make it out to be unclear, at least with a grain of plausibility, the people were offered a counter-revolutionary bourgeois government disguised as \"democratic.\" But this delay could not last long. During the several months that have passed since February 27 the will of the majority of the workers and peasants, of the overwhelming majority of the country’s population, has become clear in more than a general sense. Their will has found expression in mass organisations—the Soviet’s of Workers’, Soldiers’ and Peasants’ Deputies.\n\n(_URL_0_)\n\nThe Soviet Union as a name is a little less descriptive than the full name - in russian Сою́з Сове́тских Социалисти́ческих Респу́блик (Soyuz Sovetskikh Sotsialisticheskikh Respublik) the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The idea being to unify the soviets which had been established across Russia as a single socialist/communist government. Indeed, the second and third All-Russian Congress of Soviets happened within days and then months of October respectively.\n\nFrom the Third All-Russian Congress of Soviets: _URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.marxists.org/archive/lenin/works/1917/jul/18.htm",
"http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/images/Large/1917/aih528.jpg",
"http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917formsoviets&Year=1917",
"http://soviethistory.macalester.edu/index.php?page=subject&SubjectID=1917soviets&Year=1917&navi=byYear"
]
] |
|
4r3bak
|
can you increase the speed of sound by using different gasses?
|
Is there a gas that moves quicker than Co2, or is the movement of gases by pressure waves a constant force?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r3bak/eli5can_you_increase_the_speed_of_sound_by_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4xy8hl"
],
"score": [
23
],
"text": [
"The speed of sound is increased if the density of the gas is lower. For example, in helium, the speed of sound is 1007m/s at atmospheric pressure and 20°C, almost three times as much as in air. In a heavy gas like xenon, it's only 178 m/s.\n\nThat is because the less dense gas is easier to push, while the force created by the pressure doesn't change.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
lgn93
|
If someone jumped off a cliff as high as the golden gate bridge into a large lake that had a surfactant (soap I guess) poured onto it, would they survive?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lgn93/if_someone_jumped_off_a_cliff_as_high_as_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2sj2cp",
"c2sj407",
"c2sjrpe",
"c2sliu4",
"c2sljtn",
"c2slt8p",
"c2sm1ci",
"c2sndo7",
"c2snvli",
"c2sj2cp",
"c2sj407",
"c2sjrpe",
"c2sliu4",
"c2sljtn",
"c2slt8p",
"c2sm1ci",
"c2sndo7",
"c2snvli"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
24,
2,
3,
21,
2,
2,
3,
5,
6,
24,
2,
3,
21,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Is the distance from the the very top of the highest point on the structure, or the surface of the road? There have been people that have attempted suicide and survived off of the road surface. ",
"The surfactant would have no effect.",
"Hi, grad student in physics here, I have no experience with surfactants or fluids or how they interact, but i think an elementary analysis using newton's laws will work here.\n\nConsider the moment right before you actually hit the water, you're going at some presumably really fast speed. Then, you hit the water. Now, two objects don't exist in the same space at the same time, so therefore, the water has to move to allow you to flow into it. Say the water is, for the most part still. Well then if you're going to go into the water (and you are, thats what happens!) then your body needs to move the water out of the way.\n\nSince your body needs to move the water out of the way, which is still, your body will need to accelerate the fluid particles by applying a force to them. What will supply this force? Your face, presumably. And that will hurt, because newton's second law tells me the water particles are all going to push back on your face, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.\n\nNow, the more viscous a fluid is, the harder those particles want to stick together, and by falling into the water, you're increasing the distance between certain particles (mostly in the shallow layers, i believe). So the harder the fluid wants to stick together, the harder the force your face has to apply, and consequently, the harder the water will push back on your face.\n\nAnd that force will be interpreted by your body, most likely, as pain, and perhaps death.\n\nIf anyone knows a decent amount of hydrodynamics, why don't you let me know if this take on it works?\n\nEDITED Wording, humor.\n\nEDIT 2 Also, i sort of ignored the idea of a surfactant all together, but my understanding of them is that they specifically lower surface tension. That admittedly could have a significant effect given some fluids, but water's surface tension is fairly weak when compared to a falling human being, i think. So the surfactant won't have much effect, because it is the viscosity/density of the fluid that will determine the force your body will apply to the water to move the water out of the way.\n\n",
"If an object of mass m=70 kg \n\nis dropped from height\nh=67.1 m, \n\nthen the velocity just before impact is\nv=36.265134771568135 m/s. \n\nThe kinetic energy just before impact is equal to\nK.E.=46030.60000000001J.\n\nBut this alone does not permit us to calculate the force of impact!\n\nIf in addition, we know that the distance traveled after impact is\nd= 10m, then the impact force may be calculated using the work-energy principle to be\nAverage impact force = F =4603.06N.\n\n4603.06 N = 1034.8090506016756 Lbs.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n\nI'm no scientist, but falling at 9m/sec from that high up...there's no way soap is going to be a safety net--not even close.\n\nI was told once by a science teacher that the best way to fall into water to save your life is at a 45 degree angle, obviously, feet impacting first. Even then, you'd have to fall perfectly so you don't face plant after initial impact.\n\nEDIT: over exaggerating the M traveled after impact.",
"There was an [episode](_URL_0_) of mythbusters that tested a similar experiment:\n\n > A high fall over water can be survived by throwing a hammer ahead of oneself to break the surface tension. Busted. Dropping Buster with an internal accelerometer from a crane led to difficulty because the dummy continually lost parts on each control impact. Eventually, they managed consistent drops (mostly just below 300 g), finding that the hammer reduced the impact slightly, but the 150-foot (46 m) fall would still be lethal. ",
"In my EMT class we discussed the potential injuries one would sustain from falling great distances, such as from bridges. We discussed the Golden Gate at great length due to its proximity. Turns out, death doesn't always occur due to impact. Most often the bodies recovered have telescoping fractures and ruptured organs from the force of impact. What will kill you is either the cold or getting stuck in the mud at the bottom of the bay and not being able to pull your self free because you have destroyed your legs. ",
"I think the best way to look at this is best case senario.\n\nAssume no surface tension, no water viscosity, just a pure finite time momentum transfer.\n\nList of assumptions: The person weighs 170 lb, is 5'8\". They are traveling at a terminal velocity of 308 ft/s in a vertical orientation. Their body is model as the shape of a cylinder and the same density as water at 70 F. I also assume a head first impact, just for the sake of making sure the person dies. The mass of the water displaced over the short time frame (1/1000 of a second) is assumed to be carried with the person.\n\nMy solution is going to be the average acceleration over the first 1/1000 of a second after the moment of impact. The volume of water displaced in 1/1000 of a sec at 308 ft/s with a face area of 1.7 ft^2 is 9.22 lb. Using m1*v1=(m1+m2)*v2 with m1 being the weight of the person, v1 being the terminal velocity, m2 being the water displace and v2 being the velocity of the person after 1/1000 of a sec. v2 equates to 292.2 ft/s, or a change in velocity of 15.8 ft/s in 1/1000 of a second. That equates to an average deceleration of 15,800 ft/s^3. This is the equivalent of about 491 g's.\n\nConclusion:\n\nMy assumptions on body shape and water displacement aren't accurate, but still give an approximate solution. \n\nAlso that mofo is dead.\n\n ",
"its not the surface tension that matters\n\nit's the fact you're moving really fast and to maintain the same speed (decelerate slowly) you have to displace a lot of water in a very short amount of time\n\n",
"[Interesting article](_URL_0_) on people who have jumped off of the Golden Gate bridge and survived.",
"Is the distance from the the very top of the highest point on the structure, or the surface of the road? There have been people that have attempted suicide and survived off of the road surface. ",
"The surfactant would have no effect.",
"Hi, grad student in physics here, I have no experience with surfactants or fluids or how they interact, but i think an elementary analysis using newton's laws will work here.\n\nConsider the moment right before you actually hit the water, you're going at some presumably really fast speed. Then, you hit the water. Now, two objects don't exist in the same space at the same time, so therefore, the water has to move to allow you to flow into it. Say the water is, for the most part still. Well then if you're going to go into the water (and you are, thats what happens!) then your body needs to move the water out of the way.\n\nSince your body needs to move the water out of the way, which is still, your body will need to accelerate the fluid particles by applying a force to them. What will supply this force? Your face, presumably. And that will hurt, because newton's second law tells me the water particles are all going to push back on your face, equal in magnitude and opposite in direction.\n\nNow, the more viscous a fluid is, the harder those particles want to stick together, and by falling into the water, you're increasing the distance between certain particles (mostly in the shallow layers, i believe). So the harder the fluid wants to stick together, the harder the force your face has to apply, and consequently, the harder the water will push back on your face.\n\nAnd that force will be interpreted by your body, most likely, as pain, and perhaps death.\n\nIf anyone knows a decent amount of hydrodynamics, why don't you let me know if this take on it works?\n\nEDITED Wording, humor.\n\nEDIT 2 Also, i sort of ignored the idea of a surfactant all together, but my understanding of them is that they specifically lower surface tension. That admittedly could have a significant effect given some fluids, but water's surface tension is fairly weak when compared to a falling human being, i think. So the surfactant won't have much effect, because it is the viscosity/density of the fluid that will determine the force your body will apply to the water to move the water out of the way.\n\n",
"If an object of mass m=70 kg \n\nis dropped from height\nh=67.1 m, \n\nthen the velocity just before impact is\nv=36.265134771568135 m/s. \n\nThe kinetic energy just before impact is equal to\nK.E.=46030.60000000001J.\n\nBut this alone does not permit us to calculate the force of impact!\n\nIf in addition, we know that the distance traveled after impact is\nd= 10m, then the impact force may be calculated using the work-energy principle to be\nAverage impact force = F =4603.06N.\n\n4603.06 N = 1034.8090506016756 Lbs.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n_URL_1_\n\nI'm no scientist, but falling at 9m/sec from that high up...there's no way soap is going to be a safety net--not even close.\n\nI was told once by a science teacher that the best way to fall into water to save your life is at a 45 degree angle, obviously, feet impacting first. Even then, you'd have to fall perfectly so you don't face plant after initial impact.\n\nEDIT: over exaggerating the M traveled after impact.",
"There was an [episode](_URL_0_) of mythbusters that tested a similar experiment:\n\n > A high fall over water can be survived by throwing a hammer ahead of oneself to break the surface tension. Busted. Dropping Buster with an internal accelerometer from a crane led to difficulty because the dummy continually lost parts on each control impact. Eventually, they managed consistent drops (mostly just below 300 g), finding that the hammer reduced the impact slightly, but the 150-foot (46 m) fall would still be lethal. ",
"In my EMT class we discussed the potential injuries one would sustain from falling great distances, such as from bridges. We discussed the Golden Gate at great length due to its proximity. Turns out, death doesn't always occur due to impact. Most often the bodies recovered have telescoping fractures and ruptured organs from the force of impact. What will kill you is either the cold or getting stuck in the mud at the bottom of the bay and not being able to pull your self free because you have destroyed your legs. ",
"I think the best way to look at this is best case senario.\n\nAssume no surface tension, no water viscosity, just a pure finite time momentum transfer.\n\nList of assumptions: The person weighs 170 lb, is 5'8\". They are traveling at a terminal velocity of 308 ft/s in a vertical orientation. Their body is model as the shape of a cylinder and the same density as water at 70 F. I also assume a head first impact, just for the sake of making sure the person dies. The mass of the water displaced over the short time frame (1/1000 of a second) is assumed to be carried with the person.\n\nMy solution is going to be the average acceleration over the first 1/1000 of a second after the moment of impact. The volume of water displaced in 1/1000 of a sec at 308 ft/s with a face area of 1.7 ft^2 is 9.22 lb. Using m1*v1=(m1+m2)*v2 with m1 being the weight of the person, v1 being the terminal velocity, m2 being the water displace and v2 being the velocity of the person after 1/1000 of a sec. v2 equates to 292.2 ft/s, or a change in velocity of 15.8 ft/s in 1/1000 of a second. That equates to an average deceleration of 15,800 ft/s^3. This is the equivalent of about 491 g's.\n\nConclusion:\n\nMy assumptions on body shape and water displacement aren't accurate, but still give an approximate solution. \n\nAlso that mofo is dead.\n\n ",
"its not the surface tension that matters\n\nit's the fact you're moving really fast and to maintain the same speed (decelerate slowly) you have to displace a lot of water in a very short amount of time\n\n",
"[Interesting article](_URL_0_) on people who have jumped off of the Golden Gate bridge and survived."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html",
"http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/lbs"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2003_season\\)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013fa_fact"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/flobi.html",
"http://www.convertunits.com/from/newtons/to/lbs"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MythBusters_(2003_season\\)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newyorker.com/archive/2003/10/13/031013fa_fact"
]
] |
||
mrbxn
|
Can someone explain how those giant single celled organisms on the seafloor are possible?
|
My biology teacher told me that there is an upper limit to cell size because of surface area/volume scaling. Also, what about the membrane(s)? My understanding of plasma membranes is that they have more or less the consistency of a soap bubble. I am assuming that there is a cell wall of some sort to compensate for this, but how is such a massive cell membrane kept stable? Also, can a single nucleus synthesize all the mrna and other things necessary for a cell of such size?
I have so many questions about this, I hope that someone who knows about these creatures can come explain them!
Edit: For clarification, I am asking about organisms such as [Xenophyophores](_URL_0_) which are single celled and roughly the size of an apple.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mrbxn/can_someone_explain_how_those_giant_single_celled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c338h6l",
"c338qzt",
"c3398gc",
"c33d5g1",
"c33dgmq",
"c338h6l",
"c338qzt",
"c3398gc",
"c33d5g1",
"c33dgmq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
28,
3,
2,
3,
2,
28,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You will need to be more specific than **\"those\"** giant single celled organisms. What organism are you referring to?",
"Well, they appear to have a huge amount of surface area due to their filaments, so that may be what lets them live as such huge single-celled organisms.",
"The membranes are folded and the protozoa are thin, so the cross sectional of the cell would not contain a large amount of fluid. Plus, the entire structure is multi-nucleated.\n\nThat solves a number of problems right there.\n\nI would also imagine the membrane contains a different composition of lipids than a normal plasma membrane - to make it more rigid and stable, but that's pure speculation.\n\nPretty cool stuff.",
"Multinucleated cells have fascinated me for quite some time. In your search for this answer you should look at two animal examples. First, our muscle cells are huge multinucleated cells. They use long networks of endoplasmic reticulum to transport long distances. Another equally interesting example is the drosophila embryo. It makes on giant cell with over 6,000 nuclei before it splits and begins differentiating. \n",
"Slime molds are similarly multinucleate organisms with a \"single\" cell wall:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"You will need to be more specific than **\"those\"** giant single celled organisms. What organism are you referring to?",
"Well, they appear to have a huge amount of surface area due to their filaments, so that may be what lets them live as such huge single-celled organisms.",
"The membranes are folded and the protozoa are thin, so the cross sectional of the cell would not contain a large amount of fluid. Plus, the entire structure is multi-nucleated.\n\nThat solves a number of problems right there.\n\nI would also imagine the membrane contains a different composition of lipids than a normal plasma membrane - to make it more rigid and stable, but that's pure speculation.\n\nPretty cool stuff.",
"Multinucleated cells have fascinated me for quite some time. In your search for this answer you should look at two animal examples. First, our muscle cells are huge multinucleated cells. They use long networks of endoplasmic reticulum to transport long distances. Another equally interesting example is the drosophila embryo. It makes on giant cell with over 6,000 nuclei before it splits and begins differentiating. \n",
"Slime molds are similarly multinucleate organisms with a \"single\" cell wall:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xenophyophore"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slime_mold"
]
] |
|
1cg4sw
|
According to wikipedia "Current generations of nuclear submarines never need to be refueled throughout their 25-year lifespans"
|
How much of that is true? The citation doesn't mention anything about 25 years lifespan: _URL_0_
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cg4sw/according_to_wikipedia_current_generations_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9g60jr",
"c9g7jvb",
"c9g8c6y",
"c9gcgz3"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
13,
7
],
"text": [
"The article says it won't need refuelling in the submarine's service lifetime, for which 25 years is a typical figure. In general, nuclear reactors don't have to be refuelled very often due to the enormous energy density of nuclear fuel compared to chemical - this is one of the principal attractions of nuclear power.",
"Follow up question, how does a nuclear submarine work? I'm under the impression that nuclear fission heats water into steam which spins a turbin. Is this even close to how they work?",
"Naval nuclear reactors use uranium that is enriched to much greater levels than what civilian commercial reactors or research reactors use. U235 levels typically vary between 20% and +95% (weapons-grade, for some subs). This greatly increases energy density of the fuel rods and allows a full lifetime without refueling, reduces the necessary reactor size and simplify operations and maintainance (refueling is a complicated and lengthy process because the reactor has to be shut down, which is not as simple as turning a key, fission products remain hot for a long time because of radioactive decay, see Fukushima and why it's still an on-going crisis.)",
"Nuclear reactors use the term reactivity to explain how reactive (obvious) the core is.\n\nReactivity is directly releated to the k value where k=1 is the threshold of a self sustaining reaction.\n\nThese subs have whats called **large excess reactivity**, which means that the fuel by itself is very very supercritical. This means that there's a LOT of fuel in a very tight geometric condition. This is done by enriching the sub's uranium to weapons grade levels (95%+) as compared to 5% for a commercial plant.\n\nSo with all this uranium, how do they control it?\n\nThe reactors employ \"**burnable poisons**\" which are elements which add large amounts of **negative reactivity**. As the reactor makes neutrons it burns fuel, and it burns poisons. These two can burn at the same rate, and therefore stay running without refueling for a very long time.\n\nKeep in mind that much of this is through speculation because the sub reactor's designs are top secret still to this day."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.naval-technology.com/projects/astute/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1baxy4
|
why progress bars always hang on 99/100%
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1baxy4/eli5_why_progress_bars_always_hang_on_99100/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c957skp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Progress bar values are basically made up by the developer. For some things they work pretty good. If you are downloading a 100MB file and have finished downloading 70MB then saying you are 70% done is pretty easy. For things like installing a game, where you have a huge number of files of different sizes it gets a little trickier, and for some things you can't really know ahead of time how long individual parts of the process will take, so you are really just guessing. This is why you will get stuck on a random number like 37% for a while, the instantly jump to 52%.\n\nNow in all cases though, developers will often have some sort of main execution section and when they finish that they are \"pretty much done\". So they set the progress bar to 99% or 100% and then they \"just do some cleanup\". Where cleanup are some usually small tasks they need to complete to really be finished with everything. Sometimes the developer simply underestimates exactly how much stuff they need to get done with (just this one more little thing, then I'll be done...) or he has to wait on the OS for something that takes some time he didn't account for. If they were expecting the main work to take a significant amount of time, then maybe this cleanup really is 1% of the total time, but if the main work gets done fast it appears to lag here. There is also a \"watch pot doesn't boil\" effect since you are just waiting for that final %.\n\nTL;DR Because the percents are made up by programmers, and programmers are bad at estimating how long things will take"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5vz2mk
|
Why didn't Italy find Oil in Libya while it was an Italian colony.
|
I imagine it would have been useful in World War II.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5vz2mk/why_didnt_italy_find_oil_in_libya_while_it_was_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de692y0"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There were some isolated discoveries during the 1920s that hinted at the possibility of oil deposits in the colony. Wells sometimes produced commercially-negligable amounts of petroleum and natural gas. An Italian geological expedition led by the explorer and geologist Ardito Desio did discover oil in the late 1930s. Despite these discoveries, there was next to no exploitation of Libya's petroleum deposits while Italy controlled the region. This was not due to lack of foresight on the part of the Italians, but a constellation of interlocking factors that prevented the region's reserves from being exploited until over a decade into the postwar era.\n\nOne of the factors inhibiting oil exploration was political. The Italian occupation of Libya prioritized its development as a settler colony for modern agriculture. This meant there was greater pressure to find and exploit aquifers rather than drill for oil. Italian colonization also prompted a fierce Libyan resistance movement and pacification campaign that reached a peak during the 1920s. The violence in the region put a damper on major geological expeditions into the interior until the 1930s. While the Italian colonial government was receptive to exploring the region for oil in the 1920s, this was not its main priority. Any thought of petroleum deposits in this period were largely hypothetical and not worth devoting scarce resources towards their exploitation. \n\nThe lateness of the geological expeditions points to another factor limiting the Italians: knowledge. The Italians only made progress on making detailed geological surveys of the interior of the country after the pacification of the Libyan population. This meant that it was only in the mid-1930s that geographers had some inkling of which regions would possibly have petroleum deposits in them. Adding to these problems, petroleum deposits in Libya require deep drilling. The state-owned oil company, AGIP, had far less experience in exploration and deep-drilling than more-established rivals like Shell or Standard Oil. Moreover, most of AGIP's activities in the Italian sphere of influence were focused more on Albania than Libya. \n\nNonetheless, Desio was able to persuade the AGIP to conduct a two-year reconnaissance campaign in the Libyan desert after his discovery of oil in 1938. Desio correctly predicted that the Sirte basin was he ideal spot for finding petroleum. Yet, AGIP's campaign failed for a number of reasons. Inexperience with deep drilling and exploration meant that the reconnaissance campaign was slow-moving. Harsh desert conditions also ensured that AGIP's machinery also broke down. The outbreak of the war further curtailed operations and this exploratory expedition was cut short. \n\nKnowledge of these vast petroleum reserves would likely have made little to no difference to the course of the Second World War. Oil exploration and exploitation is time-consuming and highly technical work. The postwar Libyan oil drilling, even with Italian data, only began exploratory drilling in 1956 and it was not until the early 1960s that the region began producing oil in massive quantities. Companies like Shell or Standard Oil had far more experience than the prewar AGIP and it still took a better part of a decade to bear fruit. Even assuming that the Italians had magically intuited the correct location for Libyan oil deposits and exploited them earlier, it would have been less of a boon than it would appear at first. Not only would the Italian state have to pour more resources into AGIP, but also the country's refining capacity and tankerage. Libyan oil would still have to be shipped back to Italy, which was problematic given the Royal Navy's categorical superiority over the Regia Marina. An indigenous source of oil might have made the Italian navy more aggressive in the earlier part of the war, but it would not have rectified the serious problems in command, lack of coordination with the air force, and technical problems of its ships that hamstrung the navy in its engagements with the British. DAK might have had more sources of gasoline for its tanks in the theater, but Rommel's general indifference to logistical matters would have meant there simply would have been more jerry-cans of gasoline in DAK supply depots that were not finding their way to the front. \n\nThere really is not much to fault the Italians for in their failure to find and develop Libyan oil fields. The colonial and central government did not simply ignore evidence of oil but instead did sponsor judicious geological explorations. It did not help matters that Libya's future oil fields were in areas that needed to first be pacified. This presented a very brief window for discovery, exploration, and then exploitation. The Italians managed to pass the first hurdle, but failed never quite reached the last two. In the end, the Italians needed both proper equipment and especially time to turn the colony into an oil exporter, and these were two items that were in short supply in 1938. \n\n*Sources*\n\nHallett, Don. *Petroleum Geology of Libya*. Amsterdam, Netherlands : Elsevier, 2016. \n\nSimons, G. L. *Libya: The Struggle for Survival*. Basingstoke: Macmillan, 1996. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wn2fu
|
About how far away are we from self-powered electronic devices that have batteries that don't need to be recharged?
|
I'm talking about, for instance, a cell phone with a battery that lasts as long as the expected lifespan of the cell phone itself, without needing a charge. rupert1920 hits it on the head with the automatic quartz mechanism; maybe it's not a battery. Could it be in this lifetime that we'll be able to purchase phones, alarm clocks, etc, without having to ever plug it in?
Edit: Clarification
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/wn2fu/about_how_far_away_are_we_from_selfpowered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5eqfzt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A battery, by definition, converts chemical energy to electrical energy. This means that, unless chemicals are replaced, or energy is put back into the system, a battery _will_ run out.\n\nYou'll find that there are [some designs](_URL_0_) out there that already take advantage of the natural body movement to recharge the watch battery. [Solar powered watches](_URL_1_) are pretty old designs as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Seiko_Kinetic_watches",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar-powered_watch"
]
] |
|
1uouqm
|
Looking for quotes on American Revolution! Can't quite remember
|
So I read Zinn's *A People's History* quite a while back (I know his book is polarizing here), but I am trying to recall some quotes he cites and I can't find them in the book this time around. I recall him referencing a least once a figure of the revolution essentially warning against 'tyranny' of the majority or even specifically regarding property. I'm really wracking my brain to halfway reproduce the quote. I believe it was one of the Adam's and it might have been in reference in the revolution being taken to far by the lower class and the fears surrounding upper class property.
I'm very sorry this was all so vague but I am having trouble locating my whits tonight... but I know this is a fairly popular quote!
Thanks everyone!
Edit: I also just thought of another quote that I'm sure everyone interested in American History is familiar with. The previous quote in question (now identified) and the following seem to go together in my mind often, when I can remember..
"Landholders ought to have a share in the government, to support these invaluable interests, and to balance and check the other. They ought to be so constituted as to protect the minority of the opulent against the majority. The senate, therefore, ought to be this body; and to answer these purposes, they ought to have permanency and stability."-James Madison
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uouqm/looking_for_quotes_on_american_revolution_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cek9daj",
"cek9hrz",
"cek9is5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Try /r/tipofmytongue also",
"Perhaps one of these two?\n\n\"Nevertheless, to the persecution and tyranny of his cruel ministry we will not tamely submit -- appealing to Heaven for the justice of our cause, we determine to die or be free.\" Joseph Warren\n\n\n\"These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their county; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny like hell is not easily conquered yet we have this consolation with us, the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly; it is dearness only that gives everything its value.\" Thomas Paine\n\nNeither of them are an Adams, I know, but they're the only quotes directly addressing tyranny I can remember. Hopefully this helps!\n\n",
"Is this what you are thinking of? \n\"There is, then, no possible way of defending the minority ... from the tyranny of the majority, but by giving the former a negative on [a veto over governmental decisions and actions proposed by] the latter.\"\n\nJohn Adams, A DEFENSE OF THE CONSTITUTIONS OF GOVERNMENT OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA (1787-1788)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1bpchr
|
Are sunsets local or global?
|
When I watch a beautiful sunset (or sunrise), I wonder whether folks in the next time zone will see a similar display or something completely different. So how local is a sunset? Will it evolve and change over the course of latitude? Or is it similar across the globe based on some higher altitude atmospheric phenomena?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1bpchr/are_sunsets_local_or_global/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c98su35",
"c98v6ty"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Sunrises and Sunsets do vary by where you are on the globe. To start off we can look into why sunsets and sunrises can be red. The blue sky is due to a phenomenon called Rayleigh Scattering. This is were light from the sun is scattered by gases in the atmosphere. These gases preferentially scatter blue light, which is where we get blue skies. During sunrise and sunset, [sunlight has to travel through more of the atmosphere as can be seen here](_URL_0_). This means that there is more scattering so most if not all of the blue light is scattered and does not reach the viewer so only light of longer wavelengths reach you. The density of the atmosphere between you and the sun at sunrise and sunset can affect how much scattering there is, so large scale weather patterns (High and Low pressure systems) can affect the color of the sky for you, but might not affect someone in another time zone. \n\nLatitude can affect the sunrise and sunset due to the angle that the sun hits the earth at your location. This can change the direction of the sunrise and sunset as well as the amount of scattering a ray of sunlight might go through before reaching you. ",
"Side note: Here is something that blows my mind. When there is a [lunar eclipse](_URL_1_), the moon becomes orange because it is receiving light from many, if not most or all, of the sunrises and sunsets on earth that are currently underway.\n\nIf you were to stand on the moon during a lunar eclipse and look at earth, it would look something like [this](_URL_0_). *Note that this image may be a little misleading and inaccurate*, but it's the bottom-right image that I think is worth looking at. It won't always look like a uniform orange ring around the earth; it only will from your vantage point if the center of the earth is passing directly in front of the center of the sun. But if you are lucky enough to take a trip to the moon while the earth and the sun align themselves perfectly with your line of sight, you should see an orange ring like that all the way around the earth... and you are therefore looking at every sunset and sunrise that is currently happening on earth!\n\nIt's fun to see this different perspective... that there is a constant orange ring of sunrises and sunsets around the whole world, but we just rotate through them. The slight visual variations of your local sunrises and sunsets will be unique to you... for the reasons that mherr77m mentioned... plus the amount of dust particles, and the amount, type, and locations of clouds which either get in the way, or let some direct sunlight get underneath them (those are the most beautiful)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://photonicswiki.org/images/2/21/Rayleigh_scatter.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Lunar_eclipse_optics.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lunar_eclipse"
]
] |
|
3iax2q
|
why don't we have solar powered phones?
|
A phone that runs on energy from the sun the way solar powered calculators do. No solar powered phone chargers, an emergency phone that never needs a phone charger and runs purely on solar power.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3iax2q/eli5_why_dont_we_have_solar_powered_phones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuetvnz"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Solar panels don't generate nearly enough power. Solar powered calculators only take a tiny amount of power compared to a phone."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aufozc
|
How different were languages between different Native American tribes? If you could bring together an East coast and West coast tribe, would they be able to mostly understand one another?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aufozc/how_different_were_languages_between_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh874qx"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"The short answer is no.\n\nThere are dozens of major language families throughout the Americas. [Algic](_URL_0_) is the only one found on both the east and west coast of North America, and even the handful of small Algic languages in the west have been isolated from their east coast counterparts for thousands of years and would not be mutually intelligible. \n\nIn the Eastern Woodlands alone (mostly the US east of the Mississippi), there are four major language families. Algic is represented by the various Algonquian languages like Ojibwe, Shawnee, Powhatan, and Wôpanâak. Iroquoian languages are represented by Cherokee, Seneca, Mohawk, Wendat, etc. Siouan languages are represented by Catawba and a few others formerly located in Appalachia and the Ohio Valley. Muskogean languages are represented by Creek, Chickasaw, Choctaw, etc. Then we get to the various language isolates like Tunica, Calusa, Timucua, Natchez, and Yuchi that don't have obvious ties to other languages in the area (though some linguists have tried to link Tunica and Calusa together, Yuchi with the the Siouan languages, and Natchez with the Muskogean languages with limited plausibility).\n\nBetween each language family there's no hope of mutual intelligibility, except for the occasional loan word that hops from one language to another. It'd be like English and Arabic speakers trying to communicate. Even within each family, it's often like English and Spanish speakers trying to communicate. A few languages though are more closely related - Spanish and Portuguese than Spanish and English. Seneca and Cayuga, for example, are very closely related, as are Choctaw and Chickasaw."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algic_languages#/media/File:Algic_langs.png"
]
] |
||
6bh372
|
why do we use implants for breast enlargement instead of something biological like stomache fat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bh372/eli5_why_do_we_use_implants_for_breast/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhmi2lp",
"dhmif3u",
"dhmmzrk",
"dhmwvx3"
],
"score": [
41,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Fat is a living tissue. Transplants of living tissue are more expensive and have higher risk of complications. Implants are biologically inert and relatively easy to implant.",
"Might also have to do with the structure of the breast and how the added fat is stored, stomach/thigh fat is used in Brazilian butt lifts (makes bum bigger) so obviously fat transplants can work ",
"This actually is a thing, but you have to use large amounts of fat as not all of it \"takes\" and has arguably more complication potential than implants (though it also produces ~~better~~ more natural looking results than implants). The Wikipedia page for \"Breast Augmentation\" (won't link because I'm not going to go there on this work computer...) has a rather large section devoted to the method you should check out.",
"This is a thing, relicating the fat and 'sculpting' the area youre taking fat from with liposuction, they then sterilize the fat, and reinject it but into the breasts this time. The only issue is that a lot of the time the fat will be reabsorbed and the procedure has to be re-done. No gangreen or completely disgusting affects unless its done improperly/with insterile equipment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1gbcgw
|
i want to understand important nutrient information.
|
I'm overweight, I don't want to be. Aside from calories, I don't know what cholesterol, carbohydrates, etc. are and what roles they play in maintaining health.
I have focusing issues, so reading up on this stuff through wikipedia has yielded nothing of value. Simplified answers seem to be my only choice.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gbcgw/eli5_i_want_to_understand_important_nutrient/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caik7st"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Carbohydrates are sweet and starchy things, examples are: sugar, flour, bread, rice, corn, etc.\n\nFats are oils and greases. If it makes your fingers a little greasy when you touch it, it's probably got a LOT of fat in it.\n\nFor weight loss, it's pretty simple. All you want to do is emphasize green vegetables and lean meats, and de-emphasize fats and carbohydrates. I don't mean cut them out completely, just try to limit them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
12gb7c
|
how did the uk nhs system work, what did the recent reform bill do to the system and what are the reasons for it?
|
I'm struggling to understand - I hear a lot about 'privatising' but can't really see how it works - why is competition good in healthcare sector? Pros & cons? And if it is really as bad as everyone says it is, why did the government implement it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12gb7c/eli5_how_did_the_uk_nhs_system_work_what_did_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6utdvh",
"c6utjir",
"c6utp8n",
"c6utu4y",
"c6uwk14",
"c6v0sf1"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
21,
10,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There are some [great articles about the NHS reforms](_URL_2_) at the British Medical Journal's website.\n\n > And if it is really as bad as everyone says it is, why did the government implement it?\n\nMany [politicians](_URL_3_) and [peers](_URL_1_) held shares in private healthcare companies before pushing through the privatisation of up to [49%](_URL_0_) of the NHS.",
" > why is competition good in healthcare sector?\n\nEssentialy it's not, but we have lots of people who give lots of money to the people who run our country and then by chance the people who run our country decided that they have the same beliefs as the people who gave them the money.\n\n > And if it is really as bad as everyone says it is, why did the government implement it?\n\nBecause when they stop running the country they can now go and get very nice comfortable jobs which pay them millions of pounds per year in the companies which all their friends who run the healthcare companies own.\n\nAlso, it's worth noting that the changes aren't UK wide. I live in Scotland, and the people running things here decided that reform sounded like a bad idea, and so haven't undergone the reforms that have taken place in England. This means that the nature of the NHS in England and Scotland has diverged to a very large degree.",
"Okay. Lots of questions and I think I can answer them all relatively simply, at least I'll have a crack and see how I do. If I'm not clear, please ask me again.\n\n > How did the UK NHS system work?\n\nJust to be clear, the bill hasn't come in yet, so I'll answer this for right now. Right now the government gives £105 billion to ten primary care trusts (80%) and to some other strategic trusts (20%). Managers in these trusts then allocate the money to different hospitals, GP surgeries and other services based on local requirements and incentives. \n\n > What will the recent reform bill do to the system?\n\nIt will change the way it works so that small groups of GPs (local doctors 'on the front line') will have a budget for their area and use that to commission services from hospitals and service providers on behalf of their patients. It will also allow for more charities and companies to purchase areas of the NHS and run them for profit. \n\n > What are the reasons for it?\n\nDepends who you ask. There's a big push for austerity and cutting out all those managers should save some money, but then all the doctors commissioning the services will need managers because they're all full time doctors. Privatising some areas and incentivising them better may make them for efficient. The Conservative government likes the idea of localism. So if one area if very well off and the main problem is cancer and another is not well off and the main problem is drugs, they don't want a detriment to the well off people. \n\n > Why did the government implement it?\n\nThe reasons I've given above.\n\n > Why is competition a good thing? \n\nIn theory a government body hasn't the same incentives as a private company does. If an NHS trust is losing money (which most are at the moment) a private company would find that unacceptable, whereas the NHS trusts might just ask for more grants. The idea is a private company would increase efficiency and create innovation. Whether you believe that opinion is well grounded is up to to you. It also creates less liability for the government and it takes some heat of them. If private sector workers strike it's not as bad as if public sector ones do. \n\nI hope that makes sense and isn't too longwinded. \n\nedit; I accidentally a word",
"A good chunk of the Conservative party are largely opposed to the NHS and would prefer an American-style insurance system, though most won't say that openly 'cos it'd be political suicide. Instead they're trying to do it gradually by pushing through these reforms which get private sector firms into the system, as well as making the government-run portion less efficient to make the private sector look like a better alternative.",
" > ELI5: How did the UK NHS system work\n\nThere is no UK NHS. There are two, \"England and Wales\" and Scotland. Both run separately. Scotland decided it didn't want the reforms.",
"A pro and a con, both opinions:\n\nThe NHS is a bit of a dinosaur. It's been around for a long time without significant change to structure and management, despite a great deal of change in medicine and the population of the UK during that time. The argument has been made (including by some strongly in favour of the NHS) that reforms are a foot in the door on the way to significant changes to the bureaucracy of the NHS. Essentially, it's a way for the government to gain some control against a cabal of senior NHS staff, some of whom have their own agenda for keeping things the same. The NHS could run more efficiently and cheaply if it was restructured completely, and this is the beginning of a path towards that. \n\nOn the other hand, it can be said that the NHS, though not without it's flaws, is run for the people. A business will always be run for profit. Side effects of profit motive include showing preferential treatment to richer members of society, and perhaps more dangerously, acting to please the patients, rather than acting for their best interests. This could include an excess of unnecessary prescriptions, and the pandering to the potential dangerous whims of clients in an age of dodgy 'Web MD' diagnoses. There are many who are afraid that opening the door to reform is the beginning of the end of free healthcare for all, and will usher in an era of exclusion that plays into the hands of big pharmaceutical companies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2012/jan/19/health-bill-private-patients",
"http://socialinvestigations.blogspot.co.uk/2012/02/nhs-privatisation-compilation-of.html",
"http://journals.bmj.com/site/nhsreforms/index.xhtml",
"http://theglobalawakening.wordpress.com/2012/09/17/mps-financial-links-to-companies-involved-in-private-healthcare/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6y6ey2
|
how do physicists "solve" equations?
|
I was watching Interstellar the other day and Michael Caine's character is tasked to "solve gravity." The work was a huge equation on a bunch of blackboards. They talked about running iterations and that it only has to work once. What does that mean, how does one solve those science equations like E= mc^2 ? Thanks.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6y6ey2/eli5_how_do_physicists_solve_equations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dml0fn0",
"dml119w"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Solving an equation is where you know the equation in one form, and want to rewrite it to another form, so it's easier to calculate the value of one of it's variables.\n\nIn your example of E = mc^2, say you know the energy E and the speed of light c, but want to know what the mass m is. You can rewrite that equation to E/c^2 = m. You have now 'solved the equation for m'.\n\nI'm not sure of how this fits into the context of the math in the movie - given that Hollywood is known to take liberties with scientific terminology - but that's what solving an equation means.",
"It depends on the equation. Note that it is also important to *derive* an equation, that is to come up with one that accurately models or predicts something. The equation you posted is trivial to solve. Take a mass value and multiply it by the speed of light twice. But deriving it, coming up with it, was more difficult.\n\nMany equations in physics are not so simple. Many are a type of \"differential equation\". These equations equate the rates of change of a function, constants and variables with each other. For example, you can model an oscillating spring. Its length is proportional to its acceleration, the velocity's rate of change over time. This is a differential equation. An early physics student would be tasked with finding a function that outputs a position at a given time. The equation was derived by Newton, Newton's second law. It can then have values substituted in for different situations, like a spring, and be solved.\n\nThe equation for gravity was derived by Einstein. It is a very complicted differential equation known as a field equation. It contains tensors which are a compact way of writing lots of information. It's basically a set of equations combined into one equation of tensors. It is very hard to solve. After Einstein derived it people began to try to solve it in different scenarios. The wierd affects gravity has on time is found in those solutions. The description of a black hole is found in a solution with particular values.\n\nNote that there are two ways of solving equations like this. Analytically and numerically. An analytic solution is an exact solution written down relativley simply. You can plug the solution into the equation and get an exact equality. But not all equations can be solved analytically. Some we dont know if an analytic solution exists, others have been shown that an analytic solution certainly doesn't exist. When this happens we can turn to a numeric solution. A numeric solution gives an approximate answer. Something like, the solution is bigger than 1 but less than 2. These numeric solutions usually get more accurate with more calculations being done. This is when we turn to computers. They can calculate very fast and hone in on a very accurate approximation. From bigger than 1 but less than 2 down to 1.4999999 plus or minus a small bit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5ycfrv
|
Sound of a Baroque Era Classical Pieces sound then then versus now?
|
Good evening and thank you for your time in advance!
I was reading up on Piano tuning recently, and I came across this:
_URL_0_
In it, it says that in the Baroque Era, A = 415 Hz and A# = 440 Hz. Today, A = 440 Hz, which to me says that all instruments were pitched up by about a half step. To me, the logcial conclusion to this is that Baroque Era pieces would have to be transposed up by a half stop in order to be faithfully recreated. However, to my knowledge this is not done.
I know that transposing does change the sound of a piece. So my question is, why do we not compensate for tuning such as this for classical pieces?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ycfrv/sound_of_a_baroque_era_classical_pieces_sound/
|
{
"a_id": [
"deppmjw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's not that simple.\n\nSee, there was [no consensus on a pitch reference](_URL_1_) to the level of precision we discuss these days. There was [eight foot pitch](_URL_0_) and people used whistles and so on to have pitch references, but there was no standard. We start to see that kind of thing in the second half (last decades?) of the 19th century, I think. \n\nTo make matters worse, it's not like they had the same notes we have now. See, there were other tuning systems, and those yielded intervals slightly different from the ones we consider normal these days. There plenty of those discussed between the 16th and the 19th century. Did everybody tuned the same back then? No. Several alternatives were discussed in treatises and manuals, but how people tuned those would be a different situation.\n\nWoodwind instruments were made in one piece for a while (during the so called Middle ages and the Renaissance). That means you could not adjust pitch like you can with the modern versions made in several parts.\n\nIs all hope lost if we want to listen to the sounds of yore? Not completely. It's very common for early music specialists to not tune their instruments to A4 = 440 Hz and very common to have keyboard instruments in something other than equal temperament.\n\n > why do we not compensate for tuning such as this for classical pieces?\n\nDepends on who we are talking about. There was a revolution in the 20th century to try to do things the way they were done in the past, it came to be known as Historically Informed Performance (HIP). Not everybody was into that at first, but it has REALLY permeated the music world. However, there is still a difference between mainstream performance and HIP."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A440_(pitch_standard)"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eight-foot_pitch",
"http://www.dolmetsch.com/musictheory27.htm#chartofpitch"
]
] |
|
dhognl
|
why do nuclear explosions take the form of a shroom?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dhognl/eli5_why_do_nuclear_explosions_take_the_form_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3p7ba8",
"f3p7k11",
"f3p7yko"
],
"score": [
9,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"It's because of the air rise up. The center of the explosion is really hot, so the air expanses and it become lighter than the cold air above, so it starts rising. Then it drags the cold air around the explosion inside. \nWhen the hot air gets higher, it starts to get cold, it stops rising and spread out like a mushroom while the base is dragged in and up by the cold air.",
"Yes. But it's not just nuclear, any sufficiently big explosion is going to look like that. But aside from nuclear that's just volcanic explosions or explosions of whole munition warehouses. \n\nExplosions start out as a sphere of hot gas, the effect of the rest of the atmosphere moving back in shapes the smoke and debris into mushroom - the original sphere moves up forming the cap because it's hot, air rushing in from all sides shapes the stem, the ring is formed by the vortex from the updraft along the stem.",
"Yes, they do look like that (you can find lots of videos of nuclear tests on YouTube) and it's not just nuclear explosions - volcanic eruptions and large conventional bombs can also produce a mushroom cloud.\n\nThe shape forms because the explosion heats the air, and hot air rises, drawing the smoke upwards. But the rising air column is slowed down by friction with the cooler air around it, so as the air rises it starts to curl back on itself, forming a mushroom shaped cloud."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1o12kv
|
Historically, why did England dominate Ireland and not the other way around?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o12kv/historically_why_did_england_dominate_ireland_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccnxuaa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I'm in a History of Ireland course right now, and we've already gone over a lot of the answer for this. England started \"dominating\" Ireland with the Norman Invasion. The problem with calling it a domination is that an Irish king, MacMurrough, appealed to Henry II for help with problems he was having in Ireland. He promised Henry land for anybody that helped him. Therefore, it wasn't an English domination as much as it was being asked to come in. Once they were there, the Normans were arguably the top military force in Europe at the time against Irish warriors who were still supposedly throwing sticks and stones at them. After the Normans entrenched themselves in Ireland, they simply never left and enacted policies to their own benefit since the Irish couldn't stop them. The Statutes of Kilkenny is a great example of this. These Statutes decreed that the Irish couldn't speak their native language, dress in their native dress, etc. When the Tudors came along with Henry VII, Ireland was in the position of being a buffer for England in its wars against Spain. England couldn't afford to let Ireland go because then Spain might have used the island to launch attacks onto England. So it basically comes down to the English being invited in by an Irishman, and never leaving once they found that it was beneficial to their own interests."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1ex4rb
|
difference between several types of transistors?
|
What is the difference between MOSFET; PMOS, NMOS and BJT's?
What to they do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ex4rb/eli5_difference_between_several_types_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca4t7xn"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
" > What is the difference between MOSFET; PMOS, NMOS and BJT's?\n\nFET transistors operate on electrical field, which because you're 5 we're going to just say is the same thing as voltage. Basically, with a MOSFET, it's the *voltage* between \"gate\" and \"drain\" that allows (in the case of N-channel) or chokes off (P-channel) current flowing through the transistor.\n\nBJTs are different than FETs because they act like they're controlled by current, rather than voltage. The amount of current flowing through the \"base\" of a BJT mostly determines the current that ends up going through the main body of the transistor.\n\n > What to they do?\n\nThey allow (or disallow) electrical current to flow. Really, that's it.\n\nNow, there is more than one way to do this allowing/disallowing. But, since you're 5, we won't get into the differences between saturated switching and linear circuit architectures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
19xhbd
|
Was there a central minting authority responsible for standardization of Roman currency?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19xhbd/was_there_a_central_minting_authority_responsible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8s7vx8"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There were several dozen mints located around the Empire in various cities, the first and most important of these was in Rome at the temple of Juno Moneta, she was an aspect of the Goddess Juno who was credited with looking after the funds of the city and its populace. The very words 'mint' and 'money' are believed to derive from her name. \n\nThe size and material make-up of coins was stipulated by Roman Law, a coin with the Imperial/Republic stamp on it would be considered trust worthy, because that represented a promise from the Emperor/Republic that the coin was made with the correct metals. This being in the period when the transition from worth based on metal value and worth based on token value was ongoing. The Emperor/Republic did not have a total monopoly in producing currency, except from some periods when they outlawed gold and silver coins being minted by others but continued to allow them to use baser metals. If that seems odd bear in mind that here in the UK there are alternative legitimate currencies to that issued by the Bank of England, including the Bank of Scotland pound and the Bristol pound.\n\n[Here's](_URL_0_) a coin from 46BC showing Juno Moneta 'miss Money' herself "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.britishmuseum.org/explore/highlights/highlight_objects/cm/s/silver_denarius_juno_moneta.aspx"
]
] |
||
5onq5y
|
why do we have two lungs instead of one large lung?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5onq5y/eli5_why_do_we_have_two_lungs_instead_of_one/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dckpjkj"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Redundancy. \n\nIt's an evolutionary advantage to be able to lose one lung, one hand, one kidney, one teste and still function. The energy needed to run two smaller v one large is basically the same. \n\nYou hear about people with a collapsed lung living. You don't hear about people with two collapsed lungs living. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dc2nh0
|
joint cracking
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dc2nh0/eli5_joint_cracking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f25knom",
"f25l88j",
"f25sdgk"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"While still debateded, but we do know that carbon dioxide bubbles form in the joint cavity fluid, which then as you move your joint, would sometimes collapse.\n\nWhen the bubbles pop, you hear that distinctive pop noise. And bubbles don't form at a moment's notice, it takes time for the bubble to form which is why you can't repeatedly crack.\n\nAs for arthritis, they haven't found a medical connection yet.",
"It's the forming of bubbles by a process called cavitation. Basically you're making the volume of the joint larger, but the amount of gas/fluid/tissue stays the same so the pressure reduces. Because of this, it forms bubbles a little similar to the way soda forms bubbles when you open the cap. Then these bubbles pop making the noise. Unfortunately this doesn't really explain why you can't do it again immediately, as presumably the gases are still in the same area.\n\nCheck out the [wikipedia article](_URL_0_), it has some good explanations.",
"So question to supplement...\n\nWhy having never popped some joints, now starting popping, and now HAVE to pop? Is the initiation of popping the joint a self-driving long-term condition. Or was it just inevitable to need to alleviate the pressure as age continues? \n\n(i.e. I used to not be able to pop my neck. Now, early 30's, I HAVE to pop my neck several times a day to alleviate pressure. Did I bring this on?)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cracking_joints"
],
[]
] |
||
5f3374
|
Hi there, could anybody help identify this WWI revolver?
|
Hi guys, my gran has this gun that has been sitting around in her house for the past 40 years and she's just discovered it recently.
It's from her mothers uncle who fought in WWI, could anyone help identify this? She wants to know if it's fully operational in the state that it is because if it is, she wants to hand it over to the police just in case.
We are in the UK.
Thanks!
_URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5f3374/hi_there_could_anybody_help_identify_this_wwi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daied4l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I am afraid that this is going to be a very difficult one to identify, unless there are some markings on it which do not show in any of your photographs. This appears to be a double-action only revolver, with several strange aspects to it. Generally, it appears relatively crudely made, with poor finish work. This, and the upward-opening loading gate (which is relatively unusual), makes me wonder if it was not a mass-production revolver, but was one built by hand in a small workshop. The fact that the cylinder must be removed to reload would certainly make it far from optimum as a military arm. The checkering on the grips does not look military. I have reviewed all my handgun textbooks, and have not been able to find anything which looks even remotely similar. It certainly is not representative of any European nation's standard arms. I cannot figure out the purpose of the long straight piece on the frame on the right side-- is it some kind of a spring? The bottom line is that this appears to be a non-military weapon, probably of the late 19th century or early 20th century-- I would guess probably 19th century rather than 20th. At that period, small workshops specializing in the production of crude armaments were common in Belgium, the Eibar Region of Spain, and further afield in Afghanistan and Pakistan. It could have been produced almost anywhere. If there are any markings on it, (e.g. inside the grips, under the barrel, or on any of the small pieces), I'd be happy to try to see if I can identify it, but it does not look like anything produced in large quantities-- It could very well have been produced by a single workman with some basic tools. If you could get a chamber cast made and provide the measurements, figuring out the actual cartridge it was made to use might be possible. Unfortunately, your photos do not clearly show any dimensions (i.e. how big it is), or the diameter of the bore, etc., which would be needed to really identify it. It might be a nice keepsake, but I am not too familiar with British firearms laws, so I would recommend that having your local police tell you whether or not it is a prohibited weapon would be a very good idea. As I remember, if it can be used with any available ammunition, it is prohibited in the UK, even if the gun as a whole does not fire safely or consistently. Sorry to not have been of more assistance."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://m.imgur.com/a/s63eP"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
dd20xu
|
how does augmented reality work? looking for more of the technical aspect.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dd20xu/eli5_how_does_augmented_reality_work_looking_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2dqde7"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"By sampling a 3D space in the real world using an array of sampling technologies it simply places digital assets within a virtualized space of matching proportions in a convincing manner creating the illusion the object is physically present.\n\nIt's just showing the user a digital copy of the environment with assets placed within it and.setting the walls and sampled objects from the real world to be transparent allowing you to see the real world behind it through the glass eye peice the digital image is bieng projected onto"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ntaat
|
What was Mexico and Canada's reaction to the American civil war? Were there any foreign volunteers or mercanaires?
|
Also, did Liberia have any position?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ntaat/what_was_mexico_and_canadas_reaction_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmgqsde",
"cmgs324",
"cmgtad9",
"cmhamym",
"cmhoenp"
],
"score": [
120,
626,
19,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mexico was busy fighting France. The Cinco de Mayo holiday originated around the same time, after the Battle of Puebla, and even spread to camps in the states.\n\nCanada was still British. The South begged Britain to join their cause, and they thought that the British would want to break the blockade for access to American cotton. The general feeling in the UK was anti-slavery (they abolished slavery 30+ years before us), and the British had access to other cotton rich areas in Egypt and India, so they didn't need the south. For the most part, Britain stayed out of the conflict, and so did Canada. FWIW, Canada was granted Dominion status only 2 years after the conclusion of the Civil War, thought I'm not sure if the two events were in any way related.\n\nI can't speak to the possibility of mercenaries or foreign volunteers, though I doubt there were any Mexicans, since they were busy fighting their own war.",
"**Yes, and in staggering numbers.**\n\nYou ask about mercenaries, and let me be clear: Neither the United States nor Confederate States went out to hire foreign mercenaries to fight in the American Civil War on a large scale. There are, however, ample instances in which both the U.S. and C.S. hired foreign soldiers and sailors who then fought under their respective flags. There is a distinction.\n\nThe Confederate Navy was perhaps the most notorious force in this regard. Charles M. Robinson's *Shark of the Confederacy: The Story of the CSS Alabama* explains how Confederate Secretary of the Navy Stephen Mallory faced the titanic task of building a navy in a country that had little shipbuilding capacity, few sailors and even fewer naval officers. After President Jefferson Davis rejected Mallory's request to buy ships ready for combat, Mallory switched to raider planning.\n\nThe most famous Confederate raiders were built in Great Britain, and as such the Confederacy faced huge challenges in manning and equipping these new-built ships. Because of neutrality law, these ships had to be armed and crewed in such a way that Britain could not be held responsible. (Indeed, in 1863, the Laird Rams affair brought the United States and Britain closer to war than at any time since the *Trent* Affair.)\n\n~~Gabriel~~ Raphael Semmes, captain of the Confederate raider *Alabama*, built in 1862, was extraordinarily aggressive in recruiting foreign sailors to serve aboard the *Alabama*. \"Their reasons for joining up were varied,\" Joseph McKenna writes in *British Ships in the Confederate Navy*, \"financial gain not the least. Many were in the Naval Reserve, former Royal Navy men who had served during the late Crimean War. They were experienced sailors, battle-hardened, and not content to finish their days aboard some rust-bucket in coastal waters around Britain. They sought adventure, and in the service of the Confederate Navy, they found it.\"\n\nI believe these recruited sailors are the closest thing to what you're asking about.\n\n***\n\nThose sailors were not, however, present in staggering numbers.\n\nIn the armies of the North and South were tens of thousands of men, new immigrants to the United States. Between 1820 and 1860, almost 4 million people immigrated to the United States, and many of them were from Europe, where antislavery sentiment was far stronger than it was in the United States. Of the approximately 2 million soldiers who enlisted for the Union during the war, almost one-third were not born in the United States. These included about 200,000 Germans, 150,000 Irish and 150,000 from British territories. [This article](_URL_6_) by a re-enactor explains things in plain English with some citations, but if you have some questions about the source (as I do — I just prefer its plain-English tone), I'll continue.\n\nThe most famous of the foreign-born units is [the Fighting Irish Brigade, formed under the influence of Thomas F. Meagher](_URL_2_). Altogether, the Irish dominated at least 20 regiments in the Union Army. Their fame somewhat overshadows the participation of other foreign-born units, even though German, Hungarian and others made up a greater percentage of the Union Army.\n\nGermans are of particular note. The failed 1848 revolution in Germany forced many liberal Germans out of Europe and to the United States. They were anti-slavery almost to a man (and woman), participating in the fighting almost from the first day. In May 1861, with a showdown between pro-Southerners and pro-Northerners brewing in St. Louis, [the huge German community was key in keeping St. Louis in the hands of the Union Army and driving the Confederacy into the Missouri wilds](_URL_5_).\n\nU.S. Gen. Franz Sigel, a former German military officer, became famous for issuing orders in German, having them translated into Hungarian for his officers (many of whom had fled that nascent country) and then into English and German again for his soldiers.\n\nMy favorite German of the war, however, is Carl Schurz, who [as Ted Widmer wrote in 2011](_URL_1_), was \"A 19th century Zelig of sorts[.] [H]e had a knack for arriving just as trouble was erupting, and for leaving just as he was about to get caught.\" \n\nSchurz was a 19-year-old student at Bonn University when the 1848 revolution struck. He was an ardent follower of the liberal revolutionaries, and when his teacher, Gottfried Kinkel, was thrown into Spandau prison for his political views, Schurz led a Mission Impossible-style rescue. \"The escape was a sensation and made Schurz the most famous teenager in the world,\" Widmer wrote.\n\nAfter the revolution failed, Schurz spent a few years in England, got married, had kids, and then in 1852 came to America, where he opened the nation's first kindergarten. He joined the Republican Party almost as soon as it got started, and Lincoln rewarded him for his support by [naming him ambassador to Spain — a shocking move, considering he was a revolutionary now in an aristocratic stronghold](_URL_4_).\n\nIn 1862, with the war ranging, Schurz returned to America to fight in the war. He was appointed a brigadier general and would go on to command a division, fighting at the Second Battle of Bull Run, Chancellorsville, Gettysburg and elsewhere. He survived the war, won election to the U.S. Senate and later became Secretary of the Interior under Rutherford B. Hayes. He died in 1906, and in 1917, the U.S. Navy renamed a captured German ship the U.S.S. Carl Schurz.\n\nGermans and Irish weren't the only volunteers. There were participants from every country in Europe, almost. There was [the 55th New York Infantry](_URL_3_), for example. That regiment's original recruits came from French émigrés in New York City. Even by January 1862, six of the regiment's nine companies were predominantly French. As James Johnston wrote in 2012, \"Some of the men were veterans, having served in the French Army in Algeria, the Crimean War and Italy. The rest were a motley international bunch, including German, Irish, Italian and Spanish immigrants, as well as a few Americans.\"\n\n***\n\nThe Confederacy, with fewer immigrants, had fewer foreign fighters within its ranks, but it had them. The 10th Louisiana is one such unit. As Terry Jones [wrote in 2012 of its commander, Col. Eugene Waggaman:](_URL_0_) \n\n > \"Waggaman was a deeply religious and popular officer who commanded a motley crew of soldiers. Most of his men were from New Orleans, and they reflected that city’s cosmopolitan makeup: one company had recruits from 15 foreign countries and another was made up almost entirely of Greeks and Italians. Because many of Waggaman’s men could not speak English, the regiment used French drill commands exclusively. It was motley in other ways as well: the men of the 10th Louisiana were constant camp discipline problems and helped create the notorious reputation of the famed and feared Louisiana Tigers. It would also see its share of hard service: of the regiment’s 845 members, 205 would not survive the Civil War.\"\n\n***\n\nYou'll note that I've used the word \"foreign\" throughout this answer, but after writing all this, I think I have to change my answer. They might have come from countries around the world, but in the end, they fought under two flags. **In the end, they were all Americans.**",
"Can be argued Canada became a country because of the Civil War. I've argued this before, and it's a common one among historians. Copy pasta from earlier posts of mine.\n\n\n > The Union may have attempted to take over Canada to gain more land. The Civil War was one of the main reasons that Canada was allowed to have confederation so easily.\n\n > John A. and the other founding fathers believed that the Civil War in the United States was caused because of the 'excessive power given to the USA under the constitution.' [[Source]](_URL_0_) The St. Albans Raid also helped to fuel the fears of the Union. The St. Albans Raid was confederates based in Canada, launching attacks in Vermont. After the attacks they were arrested, but promptly released by the Montreal Police. [[Source]](_URL_2_) \n\n > Anyway, all of that puts everything in context. During the Civil War the Union had wrote the Annexation Bill of 1866 which called for the annexation of British North America. The reason the Annexation Bill was written was because of the Fenian Raids (Irish Raids into Canada), as well as a common feeling of resentment among the Union population because of the British support for the Confederates during the Civil War. [[Source + Annexation Bill 1866]](_URL_1_) \n\n > The source I have provided a link to above. This was shortly after the Civil War had ended. To me, this shows that this had been a plan that had been considered for a number of years, possibly all throughout the war, as a result to the hostility that the Union had towards Great Britain. The way it has been explained to me, was that if the Confederates had been succesful with the seccession then the Union would move to Annex Canada. The reason the Union would do this is because of Britains active support for the Confederacy all throughout the Civil War.\nIn 1861 The Trent Affair lead to 11,000 British troops being sent to the Canadian border. There was a real fear that the Union was going to try and attack Canada.\n\n\nSo, one can make a fairly legitimate argument showing Canada became 'Canada,' because of the Civil War.\n\nOh, I also don't know about any volunteers (that's not to say there weren't any). Military history is but a faint interest of mine. I was just merely speculating on the political/social impacts of the Civil War.",
"The American Civil War had a particularly insidious result for Mexico. Mexico had just finished up her own civil war (the Reform War) when the US Civil War broke out. \n\nThe some of the Conservative losers of the Reform War fled to Europe where they successfully convinced the French Emperor Napoleon III to invade Mexico and establish a Mexican Empire with a European prince as ruler (Maximilian of the Hapsburg House).\n\nKey to Napoleon III's decision to invade Mexico, was the belief that the US would be too distracted with her Civil War to intervene in the establishment of the Second Mexican Empire.\n\nWith the end of the American Civil War, the US was again in a position to intervene against the French, and this proved one of the reasons for the withdrawal of French troops from Mexico in 1866.\n\nSource: *Napoleon III and His Carnival Empire* by John Bierman",
"Liberia was extended diplomatic recognition by Congress in February 1862. The election of Lincoln and the departure from Congress of most southern Representatives and Senators left the Republicans free to pursue a long standing abolitionist goal of recognition of Liberia (and also Haiti). I'm not familiar with any official stance on the Civil War from Liberia's government itself but I know they had been seeking recognition from the United States since they declared independence in 1848.\n\nEven before the French intervention in Mexico (starting December 8, 1861) Benito Juarez was a firm supporter of the Union though some local officials such as the governor of Nuevo Leon y Coahuila enjoyed warm relations with the Confederates. A big driver of Juarez' support for the Union was a recognition that the interests of the American slaveholding class was the driving force for territorial expansion into Mexico and that Lincoln was an opponent of the US-Mexican War. Juarez even had the Confederate commissioner John Pickett arrested and expelled in 1861. When the French intervened in Mexico they were discreetly supportive of the Confederacy but both the French and Emperor Maximilian abstained from recognition and overt support of the Confederacy. \n\nSources: James Oakes, Freedom National: The Destruction of Slavery in the United States, 1861-1865\n The Struggle for the Recognition of Haiti and Liberia as Independent Republics _URL_0_\nHoward Jones, Blue and Gray Diplomacy: A History of Union and Confederate Foreign Relations\nRobert E. May, Manifest Destiny's Underworld: Filibustering in Antebellum America\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/07/02/brothers-in-arms/",
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/04/26/land-pirate/",
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/12/11/the-fighting-irish-brigade/",
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/01/07/lincolns-french-toast/",
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/06/02/the-wars-of-carl-schurz/",
"http://opinionator.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/05/11/how-st-louis-was-won/",
"http://wesclark.com/jw/foreign_soldiers.html"
],
[
"http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/american-civil-war",
"http://www.collectionscanada.gc.ca/confederation/023001-7102-e.html",
"http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.com/articles/st-albans-raid"
],
[],
[
"https://archive.org/stream/jstor-2713395/2713395_djvu.txt"
]
] |
|
5um071
|
why do elevators decide to wait at the floors they do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5um071/eli5_why_do_elevators_decide_to_wait_at_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddv0lxc",
"ddv1065",
"ddv6ash"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most wait at the floor they are left. But some might be smart as to go back to the ground level so people can get to their workplace quicker and have to wait less to fetch one.",
"The simplest solution is to have elevators wait whereever they were called last. \n\nSome controllers are smart enough that they can be configured to move empty elevators around to prevent having multiple elevators waiting on one floor, and to minimize the wait time on high-demand origin floors. The exact algorithm varies between manufacturer and individual installation\n",
"Elevator algorithms are a common topic in computer science.\n\nThere are different strategies. The simplest is for them to stay on the last floor they delivered to until called. Another is to have a default floor to return to (often the lobby).\n\nAnother possibility is to change the resting floor based on time of day -- in an office building, having the resting floors be higher up makes more sense as most of the traffic will be going down. Or the algorithm can get even more sophisticated, constantly updating its database with deliveries by floor, and by weight, and staging the elevators based on historical trends for time of day and demand for each specific floor.\n\nThe more floors (and elevators) that you have, the more worthwhile a sophisticated algorithm becomes. In a three story building, you can get away with the elevator remaining where it is. In a 50 story building, you'll want a more intelligent system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6z1t2f
|
how do we not notice rubber on the roads if tires slowly wear down on them?
|
Why can't we take our hand, touch the road, and feel rubber? Might be a silly question, but this question got me thinking in the shower this morning.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z1t2f/eli5_how_do_we_not_notice_rubber_on_the_roads_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmrtzh5",
"dmrxrts",
"dms687v"
],
"score": [
10,
24,
2
],
"text": [
"The quantities are super small and it doesnt stick to the road so well. If you put your hand to the road you may feel dust, and that dust is at least partially rubber.\n\nIf it helps you can visualize them more as smaller versions of that residue left over from using an eraser.",
"The tiny grains of rubber leave the road in two ways. \n\n1. They are washed away by rainwater, ending up wherever the drains or ditches near the road lead.\n2. They are carried away by the wind. Buildings right near very major roads often end up with a fine layer of rubber and dirt on them.",
"If you go to a race track you will notice it a lot more, on the daily drive they slowly deteriorate and get washed away by the weather and cleaners."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4bpsmf
|
in every crime show it's a different profession investigating and solving crimes. who actually does it in real life?
|
Like CSI vs SVU
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4bpsmf/eli5_in_every_crime_show_its_a_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1bby6f",
"d1bcqzo"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When crimes are investigated there are different professions involved. \n\nThere are your standard beat cop who is the first to respond. Then there are specialist cops called detectives who are assigned depending on the type of crime. These would be the division that deals with homicides, or in the case of SVU deal with rape and assault. \n\nCSI is dealing with the scientists that collect and process evidence for the police department. ",
"Police detectives.\n\nEvery department will be a little different about how they operate, but detectives are the ones who investigate most serious crimes.\n\nA lot of larger departments will have specific detectives for different crimes. For example; homicide detectives, sex crimes detectives, auto theft detectives, etc.\n\nAlso keep in mind that most of those shows are pure fiction and take a *lot* of liberties in portraying policework.\n\nSource: Am police."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
26gy8k
|
How did people make coffee in the days before electricity?
|
I assumed everyone just used a french press until my grandfather said he had never seen one.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/26gy8k/how_did_people_make_coffee_in_the_days_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chqz00d"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Turkish coffee is made by heating a pot of water, coffee, and usually some sugar and spices until it boils and then quickly removing it from the heat source after it's begun to boil. [Here's a video.](_URL_1_)\n\nThere's also 'cowboy coffee' which is just throwing the grounds into a pot of water and boiling it together, then filtering it out. This method is somewhat common with hikers (less so now because there are portable coffee makers). [Here's another video.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c_YqnZUOFQc",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OOaI8JC1_EE"
]
] |
|
2x8foa
|
When astronomers say something will happen in x amount if time, to something very far away, do they mean when it will actually happen or just when the light it emits gets to us?
|
Here's an example of what I mean, Say there is a star 2 thousand lightyears away and we have predicted that it will die in 1 thousand years. Is that death when it happens or when we will see it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2x8foa/when_astronomers_say_something_will_happen_in_x/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coywcb9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Usually, when talking about future events, astronomers talk about when we will observe that event. So, in your example, in our reference frame, we will observe the star's death 1,000 years from now. However, in the star's reference frame, the event happened 1,000 years ago, and for an observe who is right in the middle between the star and Earth, it is happening right now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3yrnje
|
Mechanics: Mathematically, what is the thought process behind moment of inertia and why is it used in mechanics of materials?
|
I think that a lot of engineers just power through their mechanics of materials class, but this seems to be a concept that underlies everything we do. I can rattle off a few equations off the top of my head, but what is really happening kind of perplexes me. It's just this number we get that helps us to describe how stuff bends or breaks.
For example, for a rectangle its BH^3 /12. I'm going to assume that its a relationship between the base and height of a rectangle, thats fairly obvious because they are the only variables. What integration had to be made to get there though? The wikipedia article doesn't give something I'm really happy with.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3yrnje/mechanics_mathematically_what_is_the_thought/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyghlp8",
"cygxekm"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nThe integral is basically summing up the individual moments of inertia for each differential mass element of the object, treating them as tiny point masses. And the moment for a point mass is mr^2 .",
"The \"moment of inertia\" is like mass, but for rotation: it describes how difficult it is to create angular acceleration by applying torque. In this case the result depends on the axis of rotation and direction of the push, not only on intrinsic features of the object as mass does.\n\nSimplest case: if you have a heavy point mass fixed to an axis with a massless bar of length L and try to push it with a force F perpendicular to the axis (since the components toward and along the axis won't do anything) , you produce a torque of L\\*F. We have F=ma, and a=L\\*alpha, where alpha is the angular acceleration. Therefore your torque produced is mL^(2)alpha. If torque is like force, and angular acceleration is like acceleration, then mL^(2) must be the rotational analogue of mass. It gets its own name: \"moment of inertia\".\n\nTo compute the motion of inertia of some other body you don't need to really do any more physics, just keep applying the same logic: chop the object up into a bunch of tiny cubes that can be treated as point masses, and add them all up to produce the total moment of inertia for the body (around that particular axis for that particular orientation of the body). That's the integral: int(ρ(x,y,z)*r^(2) dxdydz), where r is the distance from that point in the body to the axis.\n\nTo get the full inertia tensor you just drop the assumptions about picking a particular axis, perpendicular forces, etc. and use vector algebra to handle the general case instead. A force applied in one direction doesn't necessarily produce an angular acceleration in that same direction (i.e. they're not merely proportional like F=ma), so in general you need an entire matrix to correctly relate the two."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/mi.html"
],
[]
] |
|
aj3a1z
|
why is stagnant water unsafe to swim in?
|
So I saw a TIL post about a sea that is mostly stagnant, making it very unsafe to swim in (there was a comment about it). Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aj3a1z/eli5_why_is_stagnant_water_unsafe_to_swim_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eescd3x",
"eesdex0"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Bad things grow in stagnant water like bacteria and parasites. If you get into the water, there’s a good chance they’ll get into you...",
"In stagnant water all kinds of interesting biological phenomena are developing. They are also developing in flowing water, but usually much slower. \nThese include algae that you can entangle in, algae that are toxic for humans and amoeba (for example naegleria fowleri) that can cause all kinds of illnesses. \nAdditionally stagnant water collects all kinds of stuff over time (opposed to flowing water where everything is just washed away) that can harm you (like many chemicals). \nStagnant water can also collect minerals over time and build up much higher concentrations than flowing water. This doesn’t sound too bad until you consider, that many minerals (like chalk) can change the pH of water. To test this effect (I do **not** recommend this) you can just put soap on your skin and let it sit there for a few minutes. Soap is alkaline (like chalk dissolved in water) causing skin irritations. \n \nIn the western wold most lakes and ponds are additionally either privately owned or in some kind of protection zone. \nA good rule of thumb is here: do you see any sail-, paddle-, surf- or what-so-ever-Clubs using the water for sports? Then it’s probably safe to swim in there. \n \nDisclaimer: please do not swim in lakes, ponds or any other form of stagnant water. It can be highly dangerous. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1gw5ru
|
how do politions who aren't in power get paid?
|
More looking at the UK here, but I'm happy hearing from any country.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gw5ru/eli5_how_do_politions_who_arent_in_power_get_paid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caog7px",
"caotlxq"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They are paid for public appearances, become paid lobbyists, do work like writing books or editorials in papers, work for political organizations, etc etc. There are a lot of positions in politics that don't necessarily involve public office. \n\nEdit: In the US at least. ",
"In the US, most people that get into national politics have plenty of money when they start. Once you have money, you make money from investments and whatnot - you don't have to actually work to make money.\n\nThat's the difference between the rich & the rest of us."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.