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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
23h4a7
|
How instrumental was Pope John Paul II in the dissolution of Communism; in Poland, Europe, and ultimately the Soviet Union?
|
I know that John Paul II's visit to Poland in 1979 is often pointed at as a moment that really coalesced the Solidarity movement and led to the end of Communism in Poland, but I've often heard him brought up as having had a much larger role in the end of Communism throughout Europe and eventually the Soviet Union. How much truth is there to this? Did he have any sort of direct hand in the politics of the time? Or is it just his connection to Poland as the first in a long line of dominoes ending with the fall of the Soviet Union?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23h4a7/how_instrumental_was_pope_john_paul_ii_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgwzbgg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"John Paul II will be canonized tomorrow alongside John XXIII, so your question is well-timed!\n\nMost of the arguments that give credit to John Paul II regarding the fall of communism mirror those found in *A History of the Popes* by John W. O’Malley, S.J. They cite Poland’s ongoing high rate of Catholic devotion despite being a communist country, and that the freedom given to Catholics was leveraged to resist communism overall. Regarding the Apostolic visit, \n\n > For the Communists the visit turned into an unmitigated disaster. For the pope it was an unmitigated triumph. Rapturous, deliriously cheering crowds turned out in massive numbers every place he went—an estimated third of the population of the entire country saw and heard him.\n\n > The visit was one of the most political nonpolitical events in world history. It delivered a hard punch to the solar plexus of an already shaky regime and led to emergence of an independent labor union, “Solidarity,” following the visit—something that until then that was unheard of behind the Iron Curtain and ominous for the regime. By the time John Paul Departed for Rome, the end was nigh for Communism in Poland.\n\n > The pope certainly did not bring down the Berlin Wall, nor did he bring about the collapse of the Communist regimes in Eastern Europe. The system, as we now know, was disintegrating from the inside. Nonetheless, in the great drama of the twilight years of the Cold War, he was a major player, and he strengthened the resistance to the regime of great numbers behind the Iron Curtain who were not Roman Catholics. (Pg 318)\n\nI find that O’Malley overstates his argument in the second paragraph, and redeems his comments in the third. The Catholic Church—especially the papacy—was a staunch opponent of communism for a long time. You can easily trace Catholic thought on the subject from *Rerum Novarum* in 1891 to the official condemnation of communism in 1937 with *Divini Redemptoris*. John Paul II was part of a longstanding tradition of papal opposition to communism. While his nationality and ethnicity gave a new aspect to his words, his actions are better described as being a catalyst rather than causal. For concrete actions against communism, he could be more easily credited with his opposition to liberation theology’s marxist attributes rather than the fall of communism worldwide. \n\nJohn Paul II was certainly an able diplomat and a staunch opponent of communism. I think his actions regarding communism can be overstated by some of his supporters, as he was much more of a catalyst for change rather than forcing that change himself. That being said, he was a charismatic speaker, an intelligent scholar, and an effective diplomat. He used all of his skills to the utmost on a number of fronts, and opposing communism was definitely an important part of his policies.\n\nI hope that answers the question for you. As always, followup questions from OP and others are always encouraged.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3x54rh
|
what pets and animals think when we're on computers/cell phones/reading and other idle activities
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x54rh/eli5_what_pets_and_animals_think_when_were_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy1lmim",
"cy1nvgq",
"cy1rcls"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"nothing, they have no concept of things we do for our entertainment. Any attempt to say that they do is anthropomorphising them too much",
"They don't really have opinions but they can pick up on changes in emotion and changes in your body language fairly well. It isn't totally hidden that we're interacting with our phones so they probably pick up on that too.",
"My dog gives me guilty looks like I'm neglecting her whenever I'm on my phone too long. *Like she's doing right now*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2rb1yp
|
If planets takes years or months to circle around their star, how they are detected by Transit Photometry? Do we need to observe star's brightness for that whole period of planet passing by it, to detect their presence?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2rb1yp/if_planets_takes_years_or_months_to_circle_around/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnekjh5"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Yes, indeed, except it's even worse than that: because a single transit would be very difficult to distinguish from starspots, noise and other errors in measurement, usually at least three transits are required to establish the probable presence of a planet. This is one of the observational effects that explain the heavy bias towards planets close to their stars in the list of currently known exoplanets."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
gl8cf
|
Is there scientific legitimacy behind the claim that antioxidants benefit the human body?
|
I have been seeing phrases advertising the high antioxidant levels of certain foods, especially fruits. Oftentimes these antioxidant-rich products, such as Acai berries, are said to promote weight loss. I'm aware that oxygen is toxic to our cells and that antioxidants should help combat this, but is there actually any scientific standing to this idea? It seems like a primitive idea to me.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gl8cf/is_there_scientific_legitimacy_behind_the_claim/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1odczo",
"c1odyz8"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"There is a GREAT [wiki article](_URL_1_) on the topic.\n\nBTW, you should pay careful attention to the [adverse effects](_URL_0_) as well. The effects aren't all good.\n\nTL;DR: Fruits and veggies produce great results in reducing heart damage and preventing brain disease and there are other big benefits. Vitamin supplements do not have similar effects.",
"I recently read about antioxidant supplements in the book Bad Science. I'll summarize the chapter for you. There were 2 extremely large trials of antioxidants over a decade ago which somehow never entered the public awareness.\n\nThe first one, in Finland, used 30,000 people at high risk of lung cancer. They randomly received beta-carotene, vitamin E, both, or neither. The subjects receiving beta-carotene had more cases of lung cancer and a higher mortality rate. (He didn't say anything about the vitamin E group)\n\nThe second trial used 18,000 people at high risk of lung cancer. Half were given beta-carotene and vitamin A, and half received placebo. This trial was terminated early due to the extremely high mortality rate of the subjects taking antioxidants.\n\nThe latest Cochrane review summed up the results of every antioxidant trial ever (totalling 230,000 people) and showed no benefits and an increased chance of death.\n\nI should just point out that the above trials were based on supplements, and not getting antioxidants from fruit. In general, eating lots of fruit and vegetables is probably good for you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-oxidant#Adverse_effects",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-oxidant#Health_effects"
],
[]
] |
|
2fmzkw
|
Rosetta lander: what happens with it and jets as the comet gets near the sun?
|
Just how forceful are the jets of stuff coming off the comet? Enough to wiggle panels, or dislodge the grapple? Is there a plan for if the comet breaks up? Will the tail interfere with communications?
(as inspired by the picture in _URL_0_ )
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2fmzkw/rosetta_lander_what_happens_with_it_and_jets_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckasaap"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of uncertainty about this. [Philae has been equipped with a harpoon and a hold-down thruster](_URL_0_), so it is expected that at least one of them will work. But it was launched without much knowledge of the comet's composition and soil properties.\n\nInterference with communications is not expected since they calculated this at design time and chose S-band (2-4 GHz), which is not easily attenuated."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/spaceporn/comments/2fkxvw/latest_rosetta_navcam_images_reveal_jets_on/"
] |
[
[
"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=PHILAE"
]
] |
|
64qfg7
|
Why was Adenauer upset with the independence of Austria?
|
He called it "the whole Austrian scandal" and threatened the Austrians with "sending Hitler's remains home to Austria". Why?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/64qfg7/why_was_adenauer_upset_with_the_independence_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dg4iw2f",
"dg4k9k5"
],
"score": [
5,
56
],
"text": [
"Let's start with the second part, the quote reads „Wenn die etwas von uns wollen, schicken wir ihnen die Gebeine Hitlers.“ (Translation: “If they want something from us, we'll send them Hitler's remains.”) while talking about reparations for WWII (source: < _URL_0_;), implying the Austrians were themselves voluntary (how much choice there really was in the Anschluss is another question) part of the Reich, that had waged the war.\n\nOn to the scandal: Here the quote reads „die ganze österreichische Schweinerei“ which I would translate to “the whole Austrian mess” instead of scandal, even though mess is inherently less colourful than Schweinerei (lit. swinishness). He was indeed talking about the Austrian State Treaty, in which Austria had agreed to become a neutral state, which was the reason Adenauer said what he did. Adenauer was extremely afraid of a communistic takeover of Western Europe and feared that the neutral (he even called them neutralized instead of neutral) states would fall under Soviet influence sooner rather than later . The first visit of Adenauer to Moskau was already planned for the summer of 1955, when the Austrian treaty was signed quite unexpectedly and Adenauer at the time expected the Soviets to press for an Austrian-style solution for the reunification of Germany, which he was extremely opposed against (the West German-Soviet relations didn't normalize until the government of Wili Brandt). (sources: < _URL_1_;, < _URL_2_;)",
"Adenauer's rather public snit over the Austrian State Treaty came as a surprise to the Anglo-American foreign policy establishment. Both in public and in private, the German chancellor cast aspersions on the Treaty and its ramifications for Central Europe. Such invective included the famous line that if Austria demanded reparations, German would send them Hitler's ashes- if they could be found- in an urn. In hindsight, such surprise at Adeanuer's actions was unwarranted. The State Treaty touched on a number of hot-button issues within FRG politics as well as undercut Adenauer's own strategy for restoring the FRG's position within Western Europe.\n\nAlthough the Austrian State Treaty was the most successful diplomatic *demarche* of Soviet diplomacy in the post-Stalin period, its success has overshadowed other initiatives sent out after 1953. Soviet diplomats zeroed in on settling the German issue as one of the central planks of a post-Stalin diplomatic order. The initial Soviet feelers on ending the Austrian occupation actually predicated that settlement the German question was a precondition for an Austrian treaty. When Adenauer visited the US in April 1953, that Soviet feelers were aiming at \"German reunification, a State Treaty for Austria, and a peace settlement in Korea and Indochina.\" For his part, Adenauer was skeptical of Soviet intentions and good faith and he told his American hosts that the Soviet feelers were an attempt to torpedo the negotiations for the European Defense Community (EDC) and hamstring the FRG's return to full sovereignty. \n\nAdenauer's skepticism was in line with his earlier experience with Soviet initiatives with regards to Germany. The famous \"Stalin Notes\" of 1952 had held out the prospects of a reunified, neutral Germany, but both Washington and Bonn rejected them as a non-serious ruse to prevent FRG rearmament. Although the Adenauer government had taken a good deal of initiative in rejecting the Soviet offer, Bonn was far from alone in its distrust of Stalin's intent. Washington and London were not very receptive to the Notes ad rejected them with diplomatic niceties. The Adenauer government likely expected a similar united front when rejecting this round of post-Stalin feelers. Internal discussions in Bonn likened Molotov's speeches and other Soviet initiatives as little more than recapitulations of Stalin's earlier attempt to drive a wedge within the Western alliance over Central Europe. Thus it came as a shock to Adenauer when Washington and London were receptive to Soviet offers on Austria. Western allied diplomats simply sidestepped the initial Soviet preconditions for settling the German question first and dove straight into Austrian affairs. This set a dangerous precedent to Adenauer on a number of levels. \n\nFor one thing, the ending of the occupation and a neutral Austria signaled that American popular concerns about defense spending in Europe and the wider Cold War was now impacting actual American foreign policy. There were many signals in the early 1950s that the American public was much less willing or patient to keep large armies overseas, especially after the costly Korean conflict underscored the dangers of overseas commitments. The EDC was only one initiative designed for Europe to \"pay its keep\" in terms of the defense burden. But the EDC inn the 1950s was currently mired over issues of national sovereignty over defense and the question of German rearmament. These issues would eventually kill the EDC in 1954 when France refused to ratify the Treaty because of the issue of German rearmament. The timing of negotiations over Austria thus opened up a potential precedent that the US was going to cut the Gordian knot for European defense and instead of dealing with squabbling Europeans, it would wring a cheap diplomatic solution with the Soviets. \n\nThis possibility, even if remote, was quite frightening for Adenauer and his coalition. The Austrian State Treaty provided for a unified and largely demilitarized Austria. Not only did this create a gap in NATO defenses, weakening the FRG, but it now created the possibility of a united and disarmed Germany in the future. Adenauer's fear was that a naive American foreign policy establishment and public would sell out Germany for an immediate end to its costly occupation and defense commitments. For the deeply anticommunist Adenauer, a disarmed Germany, even if united, would be little different than a Soviet satellite state. Soviet and satellite armies could easily overwhelm or threaten such a weak German state to do its bidding. The favorable terms of the Austrian State Treaty were a ruse according to Adenauer. To his advisors, the Chancellor noted that a peaceful Austria was a diplomatic Potemkin village designed to lull Germans and Western Europeans into believing the same could be applied to Germany. \n\nAdenauer's worst-case scenario thinking on the Austrian *demarche* was likely encouraged by the fact that the key feature of the Austrian State Treaty- neutrality- was at direct odds with his major foreign policy strategies. Adenauer was quite open about his policy of *Westbindung* in which Germany rejected the Prussian grasp for *Weltmacht* and instead constructively engaged Western Europe. German diplomacy of this period stressed that the \"good Germany\" (ie the anticommunist western half) had seen the errors of its ways and was now a responsible member of the global community. The basic goal of the Adenauer government was to be included in major alliance systems and to be treated as a reliable partner. Bonn also maintained a contingency plan of sorts should the America retreat from Europe as a number of CDU-CSU politicians maintained semi-secret contacts with Gaullist France. Applying the same terms of the Austrian State Treaty to Germany would have sabotaged these open and covert plans for the normalization of Germany within the postwar state system. One of the overarching goals of Adenauer's foreign policy was to be *included* in Europe's collective decision-making process and now Austrian developments signaled that Germany was still unique and could become a special zone of Europe quarantined from wider political developments. \n\nThis potential marginalization of the FRG also had domestic ramifications even if negotiations stalled on the German question. The FRG opposition party, the SPD, championed a form of left-nationalism which contended that German division was a tragedy that should have been avoided. While this was becoming a somewhat stale talking point by the mid-1950s, the Austrian State Treaty threatened to breath new life into this issue. The SPD leadership held that German rearmament and other initiatives of the Adenauer government's *Westbindung* were counterproductive for the wider issue of reunification and only antagonized Moscow. The Austrian precedent potentially gave the SPD a chance to make this a major election issue as it could portray the conservative CDU-CSU was stumbling block to German unification through its pursuit of dead-ends like the EDC. Additionally, the prospect of a German form of the Treaty could also energize the German right against Adenauer, because it offered- from Adenauer's perspective- an *ersatz* form of national sovereignty in lieu of the more complicated policies of the Adenauer government. Even without progress on the German question, the Austrian State Treaty's provisions that Austria was a sovereign state and not a German one opened up the possibility that Austria could demand reparations from Germany for its occupation. While the FRG political establishment could stand with parting money and aid to Israel, to extend reparations to Austria was too much. The Israeli aid was controversial enough in some CDU-CSU quarters, but to pay Austria was a step too far since many Germans knew how complicit Austrians were in the *Anschluß* and within the Third Reich. \n\nAdenauer put a lot of the blame for this state of affairs on the Americans. Going into the 1957 Bundestag elections, Adenauer reportedly said to SACEUR chief General Lauris Norstad \"I will win the elections if the Americans make no mistakes.\" The success of the CDU-CSU in the 1957 elections was a testament to Adenauer's political skills, but also reflected the transient nature of the Austrian State Treaty upon the wider Cold War. Eisenhower would defend the Treaty in a 1955 *Le Monde* interview, asserting that the Treaty created a suitable defense framework for Central Europe and not a \"military vacuum.\" Yet, *pace* Eisenhower's defense of the Treaty, there was a growing consensus in American policy circles that the Austrian State Treaty was a one-off affair. The Treaty became an example of \"Finlandization\" for a number of diplomats in the State Department in which the Soviets made minor concessions to gain a larger strategic prize over the long-term. While the \"Austrian scandal\" may have opened up domestic fissures in FRG politics and underscored the limits of Adenauer's power on the world stage, its long-term impact on the German question and the Cold War were ephemeral. \n\n*Sources*\n\nBrady, Steven. *Eisenhower and Adenauer: Alliance Maintenance Under Pressure, 1953-1960*. Lanham, Md: Lexington Books, 2010. \n\nGranieri, Ronald J. *The Ambivalent Alliance: Konrad Adenauer, the CDU/CSU, and the West, 1949-1966*. New York: Berghahn, 2005. \n\nKramer, Mark, and Vít Smetana. *Imposing, Maintaining, and Tearing Open the Iron Curtain: The Cold War and East-Central Europe, 1945-1989*. Lanhem: Lexington Books, 2014. \n\nSteininger, Rolf. *Austria, Germany, and the Cold War: From the Anschluss to the State Treaty 1938-1955*. New York: Berghahn Books, 2008. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.spiegel.de/spiegel/print/d-46273946.html>",
"http://www.gehler.at/mat/sn_0107_1995.pdf>",
"http://derstandard.at/2000015592349/Befreiung-1945-und-nicht-1955>"
],
[]
] |
|
jl73p
|
Why does it seem like house plants need more water than it could possibly get in the wild?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jl73p/why_does_it_seem_like_house_plants_need_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2d14er",
"c2d14fy",
"c2d1hn9",
"c2d1q9y",
"c2d1t2c",
"c2d14er",
"c2d14fy",
"c2d1hn9",
"c2d1q9y",
"c2d1t2c"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"House plant is pretty generic. I would guess that many houseplants are native to humid wet conditions perhaps. That and the fact that water may evaporate due to the indoor temperature.",
"It is totally depends on the plant.... I have a really hardy plant that I sometimes water 2x a week and sometimes once ever 2 weeks, and no matter what it thrives. Heck, I have gone a moth without watering it, and it started to wilt a bit and lost a few leaves.\n\nRealistically, in the wild plants get a lot of water you do not realize, if you are thinking of just rainy days. They get water via morning dew, air humidity that keeps soil moist even if it is not raining, short showers that pass while you are asleep or are indoors during working hours, etc.",
"Would plants in the wild generally have a bigger root system since they are not constrained in pots?",
"* Many houseplants come from humid, tropical areas where it rains frequently\n* In the wild, plants can have wider reaching root systems\n* People want completely healthy looking plants, not half eaten, half diseased plants suffering the ravages of nature ",
"Among the other things mentioned, pots dry out much faster than soil in the ground. Dig a hole a couple of feet deep (not unreasonable for the root system of even a small plant) and you will probably find the soil is at least a little moist to the touch. Pots, on the other hand, evaporate all their water out into the dry house air if you don't keep adding to them, because they are much smaller and not contiguously connected to a water table in any way.",
"House plant is pretty generic. I would guess that many houseplants are native to humid wet conditions perhaps. That and the fact that water may evaporate due to the indoor temperature.",
"It is totally depends on the plant.... I have a really hardy plant that I sometimes water 2x a week and sometimes once ever 2 weeks, and no matter what it thrives. Heck, I have gone a moth without watering it, and it started to wilt a bit and lost a few leaves.\n\nRealistically, in the wild plants get a lot of water you do not realize, if you are thinking of just rainy days. They get water via morning dew, air humidity that keeps soil moist even if it is not raining, short showers that pass while you are asleep or are indoors during working hours, etc.",
"Would plants in the wild generally have a bigger root system since they are not constrained in pots?",
"* Many houseplants come from humid, tropical areas where it rains frequently\n* In the wild, plants can have wider reaching root systems\n* People want completely healthy looking plants, not half eaten, half diseased plants suffering the ravages of nature ",
"Among the other things mentioned, pots dry out much faster than soil in the ground. Dig a hole a couple of feet deep (not unreasonable for the root system of even a small plant) and you will probably find the soil is at least a little moist to the touch. Pots, on the other hand, evaporate all their water out into the dry house air if you don't keep adding to them, because they are much smaller and not contiguously connected to a water table in any way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1bkz11
|
Why did Tiberius have Germanicus recalled from Germania despite his victories?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bkz11/why_did_tiberius_have_germanicus_recalled_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c97q15n"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A very quick and simple answer would be that Tiberius feared the popularity of Germanicus would eclipse his own popularity with Rome's nobility and commoners, which was oftentimes lacking. Roman culture had a hefty dose of hero worship built into it, and a victorious general especially was often idolized by the Roman people to such a great degree that it could be transmuted into tangible political capital. Besides the popularity that a victorious campaign would bring, the wealth and plunder accrued from defeated enemies allowed for victorious commanders to sponsor games and public works that would only increase their popularity with the masses.\n\nTo sum up, Tiberius was insecure and worried, with good reason, that due to his own relative unpopularity, the rising fortunes of Germanicus could pose a dire political threat to Tiberius' rule."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bvfuko
|
When the Soviet Union dissolved, how was the process handled in the UN? In particular, was there a period of time where no one was able to exercise the Soviet/Russian veto on the security council?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bvfuko/when_the_soviet_union_dissolved_how_was_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epuuk9u"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"This question of course taps into larger questions: was Gorbachev’s resignation as Soviet president a regime change? Is the Russian Federation the legal successor to the Soviet Union? Or did the dissolution of the Soviet government mean the extinguishing of a federal state, with the secession and independence of all of its member republics? The reality was a little bit of all of this. \n\nPrevious to the dissolution of the USSR, each Soviet republic bar the Russian Soviet Federative Socialist Republic had its own, small Ministry of Foreign Affairs, that was nevertheless subordinate to the Soviet Ministry of Foreign Affairs. (Note: Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia also maintained governments in exile that possessed the pre-1940 diplomatic properties of the interwar republics, and most Western governments did not recognize *de jure* the annexation of these republics into the USSR). Russia, as in many other structures of the USSR, did not have its own republic-level Ministry until October 1990, when Boris Yeltsin, as State Chairman of the RSFSR, established a Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs, with its own diplomatic service Andrei Kozyrev as Russian Foreign Minister. By the end of 1991, as power shifted to Yeltsin from Gorbachev after the August 1991 coup, the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs effectively absorbed the Soviet Ministry (as happened to other Soviet government institutions at the time), with the Soviet Ministry of External Relations (at that point merged with the Ministry of Trade) placed under Russian authority on December 18, and the Soviet Foreign and Defense Ministries abolished altogether four days later. So even in the space of moving from 1990 to late 1991, the Russian government under Yeltsin acted as first a separate, seceding state, and then as a successor government to Gorbachev’s Soviet one.\n\nOn December 24, 1991, one day before Gorbachev’s resignation as Soviet President, the Soviet Permanent Representative to the UN, Yuli Vorontsov, presented a letter from Boris Yeltsin to the Secretary-General stating that Soviet membership in all UN bodies was to be “continued” by the Russian Federation, which pledged to maintain all treaty and financial obligations agreed to by the Soviet Union. No objections were raised by any UN members, especially on the Security Council. No new credentials were presented (Vorontsov in fact would continue as Permanent Representative to the UN of Russia until 1994), and in Jan 31, 1992 Boris Yeltsin would attend a “summit meeting” of Security Council heads of state.\n\nWas there precedent for such a move? Sort of. In cases of secession and creation of new states from existing UN members, the original member continued its existing UN member status. This principle had been first established in 1947 with the partition of India, where India (already a founding UN member) continued its existing membership, but Pakistan had to apply as a new member (the process was repeated for Bangladesh on its independence in 1971). \n\n Did this situation apply to Russia and the other former Soviet states? The answer is that it’s not totally clear and is something of a legal fudge. The Belavezha Accords (signed by Russia, Belarus and Ukraine on December 8, 1991) formally dissolved the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics. The Alma-Ata Protocol was signed by 11 of the Soviet republics (all except the Baltics and Georgia), which also stated that the Union of Soviet Socialist Republics was dissolved by agreement of its member republics (to be replaced with a Commonwealth of Independent States), but also stated explicitly that by collective agreement Russia was to assume the Soviet seat at the United Nations.\n\nUkraine and Byelorussia had been founding members of the United Nations, having representation in the General Assembly (Churchill and Roosevelt had agreed to this at the Yalta Conference for political reasons, in order to allay fears on Stalin’s part that the then-future United Nations would be dominated by Western powers). The other republics had to apply for new membership, and were accepted on March 2, 1992 (Georgia on July 31, 1992). \n\nRussia therefore was in something of a gray zone in terms of international law – it was one of the signatory republics to the dissolution of the Union government, which they were all subordinate members of, but was also claiming to be the legal successor state of the USSR. It *should* have had to apply for membership as a new state. When Czechoslovakia was dissolved in 1993, the Czech Republic and Slovakia had to reapply as new members. When Yugoslavia dissolved, each successor state had to apply as a new member, even the Federal Republic of Yugoslavia, which claimed to be the legal successor to the Socialist Republic of Yugoslavia (this claim was rejected and it would take years for the old Yugoslavia’s diplomatic obligations and embassies to be disposed of by collective treaty). \n\nSo why did the UN ignore this legal fudge on Russia’s part when it did not in other situations? In short, because treating Russia as *not* a successor to the USSR could have triggered a constitutional crisis in the UN itself. Article 23(1) of the UN Charter explicitly states that there must be five permanent members (and ten rotating members) of the Security Council, and furthermore lists the five permanent members by name as of 1945. Losing one of the named permanent members could threaten the legal basis for the operation of the UN itself – it was far easier to treat the matter as a mere name and regime change for the Soviet seat, even though it was not technically such a thing. The fact that the Russian Federation was assuming all Soviet financial obligations (including Soviet debt) as well as control of the Soviet nuclear arsenal seemed to make this option even more sensible. \n\nIn summary, the transition from Soviet participation in the UN to Russian participation in the UN was smooth to the point that the same ambassador served in that role with the same credentials, and there was no “gap” in membership. This was collectively accepted by the other members of the UN even though it was something of a fudge because treating the situation according to other precedents simply created too many problems, even for the UN itself.\n\nSources:\n\nYehuda Blum. “Russia Takes Over the Soviet Union’s Seat at the United Nations”. * European Journal of International Law*, Volume 3, Issue 2, 1 August 1992\n\nRichard Sakwa. *Russian Politics and Society*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9v6z8u
|
when a website asks you to prove you are not a robot by identifying storefronts/busses/streetlights/etc, how is it determining you are not a robot?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9v6z8u/eli5_when_a_website_asks_you_to_prove_you_are_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e99vst1",
"e99ygk8"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Those tasks are not easy to solve for computers without reasonable effort put into making robust algorithms that probably aren’t worth the time for spammers, etc. \n\nWithout such obstacles, websites receive a lot of automated garbage and fluffed up web traffic ",
"Because the other guys didn’t actually answer your question, the answer is that it’s comparing your box selections against an average of what other users selected. If you select what the majority selected, you’re allowed entry. \n\nRobots randomly picking boxes would never build enough consistency to create a majority. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
f3ta0o
|
why does arms crossed over your chest being perceived as a rejection rather than acceptance? (i find it super comforting. if i’ve crossed my arms, i’m actually enjoying our conversation)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3ta0o/eli5_why_does_arms_crossed_over_your_chest_being/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhkw7vz",
"fhkx22g"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The theory is that you are protecting yourself if you've got your arms crossed. Your arms cover the most vulnerable part of your body, your heart and organs. You are most vulnerable with arms outstretched, exposing this area. \n\nThat's how to tell if a dog trusts you, when it shows you his belly... he is trusting you with his most vulnerable side. \n\nSo its perceived as rejection because you are \"protecting\" that area from the person.",
"The arms are placed as a barrier between you and the other people. It is also a self-comforting action (like a self hug), that can signal you are being uncomfortable with the situation at hand. \n\nBut let's be honest, it's all armchair pseudo psychology crap when used like most tell you on tv or online:\n\nHuman actions are complex and nuanced. You have to look carefully, over an extended period of time, watch reactions to specific stimuli, understand the environment and situation.\n\nOtherwise it's over-generalization, which leads to very, very, VERY wrong assumptions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
acfjsf
|
why does smoke get sucked out the window when you open the front door?
|
17th floor, friends smoke in their apartment. with the window open the smoke still mostly floats around the room, but once we open the apartment door, the smoke goes out the window.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/acfjsf/eli5_why_does_smoke_get_sucked_out_the_window/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed7jbm8"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Generally, this is due to permitting a flow of air through the building. With just a window open, the only air flow is in/out of the window...and that isn't going to happen very powerfully, without some sort of fan. With a door open, this allows things like wind to generate flow through the building, and push smoke out the window!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1xhdpf
|
why do i think about horrible things around people i care about?
|
The other day I was around my dad, and I thought about what would happen if I stabbed him. Why is this? I am not mentally ill or anythings and I would NEVER stab him, but why does this happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xhdpf/eli5_why_do_i_think_about_horrible_things_around/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfbebqm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is a technical term for this. As soon as I find the information I will post about it. But it has been addressed by many experts. Just can't remember the term..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
n146u
|
How does smoking preserve food?
|
I cold smoke my own food at home (mostly fish), and go through a process of brining or curing first, which obviousy removes moisture. This is followed by a day or two in a cold smoking environment. Smoking is a preservation technique as well as a flavouring method, so what is it about smoking that helps preserve food?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n146u/how_does_smoking_preserve_food/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c35fsmk",
"c35fsmk"
],
"score": [
8,
8
],
"text": [
"Quoted from Wikipedia:\n\nSmoke is an antimicrobial and antioxidant, but smoke alone is insufficient for preserving food in practice, unless combined with another preservation method. The main problem is the smoke compounds adhere only to the outer surfaces of the food; smoke does not actually penetrate far into meat or fish. In modern times, almost all smoking is carried out for its flavor. Artificial smoke flavoring can be purchased as a liquid to mimic the flavor of smoking, but not its preservative qualities (see also liquid smoke).\n\nIn the past, smoking was a useful preservation tool, in combination with other techniques, most commonly salt-curing or drying. In some cases, particularly in climates without much hot sunshine, smoking was simply an unavoidable side effect of drying over a fire. For some long-smoked foods, the smoking time also served to dry the food. Drying, curing, or other techniques can render the interior of foods inhospitable to bacterial life, while the smoking gives the vulnerable exterior surfaces an extra layer of protection. For oily fish smoking is especially useful, as its antioxidant properties delay surface fat rancidification. (Interior fat is not as exposed to oxygen, which is what causes rancidity.) Some heavily-salted, long-smoked fish can keep without refrigeration for weeks or months. Such heavily-preserved foods usually require a treatment such as boiling in fresh water to make them palatable before eating.\n\n_URL_0_\n\ntl;dr Smoke adheres to the exterior surface of the food and acts as a microbial agent. Must be used in concert with another preservation method that penetrates the surface.",
"Quoted from Wikipedia:\n\nSmoke is an antimicrobial and antioxidant, but smoke alone is insufficient for preserving food in practice, unless combined with another preservation method. The main problem is the smoke compounds adhere only to the outer surfaces of the food; smoke does not actually penetrate far into meat or fish. In modern times, almost all smoking is carried out for its flavor. Artificial smoke flavoring can be purchased as a liquid to mimic the flavor of smoking, but not its preservative qualities (see also liquid smoke).\n\nIn the past, smoking was a useful preservation tool, in combination with other techniques, most commonly salt-curing or drying. In some cases, particularly in climates without much hot sunshine, smoking was simply an unavoidable side effect of drying over a fire. For some long-smoked foods, the smoking time also served to dry the food. Drying, curing, or other techniques can render the interior of foods inhospitable to bacterial life, while the smoking gives the vulnerable exterior surfaces an extra layer of protection. For oily fish smoking is especially useful, as its antioxidant properties delay surface fat rancidification. (Interior fat is not as exposed to oxygen, which is what causes rancidity.) Some heavily-salted, long-smoked fish can keep without refrigeration for weeks or months. Such heavily-preserved foods usually require a treatment such as boiling in fresh water to make them palatable before eating.\n\n_URL_0_\n\ntl;dr Smoke adheres to the exterior surface of the food and acts as a microbial agent. Must be used in concert with another preservation method that penetrates the surface."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_%28cooking%29#Preservation"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Smoking_%28cooking%29#Preservation"
]
] |
|
3cs7ws
|
with the recent news of a sixth mass extinction how would this affect us?
|
If say 100 different species were to go, what affect would this have on humans? (Environmental or social impacts.)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cs7ws/eli5_with_the_recent_news_of_a_sixth_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csym5dd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If all these species are going extinct I really pray that mosquitoes are one of the next species to go"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16nr34
|
Why is that while some apes can walk bipedally, they still walk on all fours?
|
At the zoo I noticed that apes have more hand shaped front "paws", and more foot shaped hind "paws". They can walk on two feet, for short distances as far as I've seen, but still don't. Why is this? You would imagine they would learn to free up they're hands in order to enhance their tool-using capabilities. Also, correct me if any of that was not true, for it was all based on personal observation and very limited research. (hence my coming to r/askscience)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16nr34/why_is_that_while_some_apes_can_walk_bipedally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7xtj01"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The skeletal structure of apes is simply not designed for long term bipedal movement. This is true throughout the skeleton all the way into the skull where the foramen magnum (where the spine meets the skull) is positioned more toward the back of the skull than in humans where the skull sits atop a more vertical spine. The hips are of a vastly different shape than ours. The human pelvis is shorter and broader where the apes are narrower and longer, relatively.\n\nDespite the structural differences many can walk bipedally for short bursts if they choose (I don't do primate behavior, just bones) however this will be tiring, inconvenient and ultimately painful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5v24um
|
Was there a reason American adults stopped dressing so formally in public?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5v24um/was_there_a_reason_american_adults_stopped/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddyuszb",
"ddza0yi",
"ddzit48",
"ddzmqvp"
],
"score": [
320,
387,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"I have a followup question - did WW2 mark a shift in mens casual wear?\n\nI usually don't post unless I have something more substantial to contribute, but I do remember reading a post/article about how men returning from WW2 continued to dress in the fashion that they did overseas. Tshirts, bomber jackets, etc... men brought home trends that took hold in the 50s and are still a major part of men's fashion to this day.\n\nIs there any truth to this compelling idea?",
"Depending upon the exact time-period you're referencing, you may be suffering from an observation bias. Remember that, prior to the advent of roll-film by George Eastman, photography was an expensive and time-consuming process involving artisan work and dangerous chemicals (it involved dangerous chemicals after that too, but could be practically done at an industrial scale by someone other than the photographer). \n\nThe result of this is that, prior to about 1900, snapshots basically didn't exist and, unless a photographer was interested in documenting the lives of the lower and middle classes for some reason, few photographs of them existed at all. Those that did were pretty invariably in their best clothes for the same reason that oil paintings are of people in their best outfits -- you don't go to the expense of hiring a photographer or painter and not dress up for the occasion. Heck, people still dress up for professional portraits today too; things haven't changed that much.\n\nTo that end, I'd challenge your assumption that American adults dressed all that formally in public and suggest that, instead, they were photographed in formal attire. ",
"I've been asked by a mod to repost my comment as a top level post rather than a reply:\n\nA good book to read is Bruce Boyer's True Style. One of his main points he makes is that, prior to the mid-20th century, \"fashion\" came from elites, royalty, etc, but the mid-20th century saw a democratization of fashion. Mostly in \"work wear\" becoming mainstream. Denim jeans, once used by gold rushers, became \"cool\" thanks to the influx of western films and tv shows, the leather jacket and white t shirt became cool because of Marlon Brando and James Dean, etc. While it's still movie icons, and on a level elites, who are setting this standard, the choices of style and fashion came from the bottom up. So blue collar workers and young people, and what they wore, became fashionable for actual elites and it became difficult to look good without embracing these trends. In contrast to previous parts of history, where, say, kings and queens set the standard, which was almost always unobtainable for the lower class. Top down.\n\nMore examples are sweat shirts and hoodies, originally made for workers in cold weather, then made famous in the realm of athletic wear by Rocky. Boots and trench coats, used primarily by soldiers, post-WWII now settling into normal life with some of their old gear. Boots made for construction workers that were built to protect from injury and to last through years of abuse became preferable to younger people who didn't want to wear dress shoes when they went out to make music, protest, etc. As another comment said, the 60s were a time of rapid cultural changes.\n\nBoyer also talks about stuff like \"ivy style\" which was that middle ground between working class and formal elite wear. This was how various groups met in the middle, dressing down so as not to appear too snobby and out of touch (suits and tuxes), but falling into a similar type of \"uniform\" that still projected social class (avoiding worker wear). Lower class young men who aspired to go to ivy league schools and move up in the world could affordably dress in the ivy style to better fit in. Khaki was a common color because of the huge surplus of khaki cotton leftover after WWII. The GI Bill helped countless young men go to college and the ivy style exploded in popularity as that middle ground of clothing/class.\n\nThat's another big part of the book that ties into the \"democratization\" idea, that in the 20th century, people made the choice of what social class that wanted to project. 20th century clothing can make us class chameleons and people from all rungs of the ladder wanted to, and were able to, change.\n\nI strongly recommend Boyer's book, he gets into much more dense detail. The book primarily somewhat of a \"how to\" for menswear, but he weaves the history of every part of contemporary clothing, from shorts to italian influences to the history and function of the \"English country house look.\" The chapters on work wear and ivy style (and how it was uniquely American, east coast, and how it tied into the changing times) are particularly relevant to this topic.\n",
"Until there are responses to this question, here are the ones I got when I asked the /r/AskHistorians, [Did Men REALLY dress as well as portrayed in European and US cinema, '40-'60s? If so, how did this work, what coping mechanisms did they use and how different were mens' clothing budgets/usage compared to today's?](_URL_0_)\n\nThanks again, amazing contributors to AskHistorians! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1k7vs9/did_men_really_dress_as_well_as_portrayed_in/"
]
] |
||
8mknb5
|
why on iphone, when you take pictures it flips them around while on snapchat it keeps them the way you took them? what’s the point of flipping it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mknb5/eli5_why_on_iphone_when_you_take_pictures_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzobb0h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I believe _both_ are showing you a flipped version while you preview the picture. They show you the mirror version because that's the main way most people have looked at themselves in their life — otherwise most people would have a more difficult time arranging themselves for the photo because everything would be \"backwards\".\n\nThe iPhone camera then shows you the un-mirrored version, because that's the actual photo. Snapchat doesn't for some reason, probably because it's temporary and no one cares.\n\ntldr: iPhone camera shows you what the camera actually saw. Snapchat only shows you what you expected to see."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eq6pup
|
why can fnger print scanners and such correctly scan my fingerprint no matter how long ago it was since they copied it but my phone fingerprint scanner struggles if theres a slight bit of dust on my fingers
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eq6pup/eli5_why_can_fnger_print_scanners_and_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"feo9oa2"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The grooves on your fingers remain the same over time, they don't change their positions, so no matter when you first had your finger print entered it will still always work, however dust, ink and other substance can make it look like the grooves stop in certain places and this can fool the system - _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/FB3Tt2ZLyUQ"
]
] |
||
259do0
|
why does warm beer make me sick but cold beer doesn't?
|
American here. Wondering why warm beer upsets my stomach while cold beer does not.
I can enjoy a nice cold beer but if I become occupied and leave it out then take a sip, that same beer will make my stomach feel uneasy.
If I drink warm soda, it doesn't taste as good but it doesn't bother me. I assume the coldness inhibits some of the flavor but when it comes to beer, I don't mind the taste of it.. however, when it's warm, my stomach becomes upset.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/259do0/eli5_why_does_warm_beer_make_me_sick_but_cold/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cheyzmq",
"chf2bey"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Assuming it is not spoiled, and that you have no allergies (as the cold beer not affecting you shows) it is most likely psychological. ",
"because you're likely american and your beer is urine to begin with\n\nwhich\n\nwhen chilled\n\ndoesn't reek nearly as much "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fdyxs8
|
why do some cheap usb cables actually *discharge* the phone? how does that even work, even if the phone shows charging?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fdyxs8/eli5_why_do_some_cheap_usb_cables_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fjkntxh"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"None of them discharge the phones. They're just charging very slow and your phone is running out of battery faster than it's being charged."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2gjwp5
|
How can I see satellites at night?
|
The title. How can I with my bare eyes see satellites fly by at night? Is it the sun's reflection that I see or are the satellites equipped with their own lights?
edit: Ok. I wasn't really clear. I've seen the satellites at night and what I'm asking is how it is POSSIBLE to see them with my bare eyes.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gjwp5/how_can_i_see_satellites_at_night/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckjt4v2",
"ckjtyw8",
"ckjubpr",
"ckjwjsa",
"ckk9f4t"
],
"score": [
2,
71,
30,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"imo it would be the sun's reflection. I am pretty sure there are no lights on the satellites due to... well, why would there be? And that would use power that could be used elsewhere. \n\nI also heard of an app that tracts the satellites and tells you where they are and when you can see them from the ground. idk what that app is but I'm sure there is one out there... ",
"You are seeing reflected light. You'all also notice that the intensity of the light goes cyclically up and down; the rate at which the albedo changes is the rate at which the satellite spins around it's axis.",
"It's all reflected light. They have solar panels which take up a lot of area and if the angle is right, it's like someone is using a mirror to bounce sunlight at you. If you want to know when are where to look for satellites (the Iridium flares are always a great see) you can use\n\n_URL_0_",
"I know this is less an answer as a fun factoid, but [Iridium communication satellites](_URL_1_) will catch the sun on their antennas and cause flares so bright it can be seen during the day. I have [an app](_URL_0_) on my android phone that shows me when and where to look to see the flares\n\nSomeone caught a really cool long exposure photo of one and posted it to reddit, i'll see if i can find it when i have some time.",
"Many people here are claiming that the reflection is off of solar panels on satellites. While that may be true some of the time, it is most unlikely. The majority of visible satellites are actually rocket bodies, left after they deployed their payload. Then, think about this for a second: The panels should be aimed TOWARD the sun. That means that they are essentially parallel to your point of view during the time that they are observable. Reflected sunlight would be reflected back towards the sun, not nearly 90° back down to Earth.\n\nSomeone else listed it, but absolutely visit _URL_0_. It is a FANTASTIC site for knowing exactly when and where to see satellites and Iridium flares. It'll show you the expected brightness of objects, exactly what they are, and so much more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.heavens-above.com"
],
[
"https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.runar.issdetector",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satellite_flare#Iridium_flares"
],
[
"heavens-above.COM"
]
] |
|
475zps
|
do astronauts still experience "weightlessness" out of earth's orbit?
|
I understand that astronauts and cosmonauts experience "weightlessness" in orbit due to essentially being in continuous freefall. But if they were say travelling to Mars, would they still experience that same weightlessness, or would they be able to stand and move around on their ship due to them travelling in a straight line and same speed and not freefalling towards Earth?
edit: for clarification, I am referring to the "microgravity" state when I say weightlessness!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/475zps/eli5_do_astronauts_still_experience/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0ag57b",
"d0ah7re"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes you can think of it that astronauts experience weightlessness in orbit because they are in a freefall, and their sideways speed is so large that they are falling sideways which keeps them from entering the atmosphere (and slowing down).\n\nAstronauts travelling to Mars would be in orbit around the sun, so the same principle would apply (they would also be weightless).\n\nYou said they would be at the same speed, which means no acceleration, but if there was then they would feel the force of their engines, which would feel like gravity.",
"The question is about what they're feeling when astronauts were **not** in orbit - for example, when transiting to Mars. Even though they're not in orbit, they're still on a ballistic trajectory after the engines stop, and so they're still in free fall and feel weightless. \n\nLet's say, for argument's sake, that the ship is pointing away from Earth, but it still feels some of the Earth's gravity: the result is a deceleration of the ship. Because the ship is not resisting this deceleration, the astronauts would not feel anything as it happened: they're still in free fall. If the ship slowed to a stop and started falling back to Earth, they *still* wouldn't feel it. You don't feel weight because of gravity alone, you feel weight when you *resist* gravity. \n\ntl;dr: anything in a \"free fall\" ballistic trajectory, not firing engines or experiencing resistance, is weightless. This is as true of interplanetary motion as it is of orbits. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
s5vza
|
Would a binary star system have to consist of two stars of near equal mass?
|
And do they have to be in the same states (active, brown dwarf) and can one supernova and the system stay in place?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/s5vza/would_a_binary_star_system_have_to_consist_of_two/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4bbyhb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Would a binary star system have to consist of two stars of near equal mass?\n\nNo. Imagine if Jupiter was a little bigger and a small star.\n\n > And do they have to be in the same states (active, brown dwarf)\n\nNope.\n\n > can one supernova and the system stay in place?\n\nThe system will change at least a little bit but the extent will depend on the specific configuration and the type of supernova."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1vdtxf
|
after having their first large-scale success, why don't all musicians produce their own albums?
|
Wouldn't this be like cutting out the middle man? They already have the fan base, it seems they could make substantially more money this way.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vdtxf/eli5_after_having_their_first_largescale_success/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cer8t6x",
"cer8tp3"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Producers also manufacture and distribute the physical (and digital) media that music comes on.\n\nThose resources can be pretty expensive, so it's cheaper (or just easier) to have another company do it for you.",
"Its not easy to do. Much easier to sign a contract and have somebody else deal with the complex stuff so you can focus on your music."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
e8mq1e
|
How much, if any, of Homer’s The Odyssey is actually true?
|
Reading the odyssey in school, curious about if any of it is even the slightest true.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/e8mq1e/how_much_if_any_of_homers_the_odyssey_is_actually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fakz9w1"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Alright I'll try this again with a hopefully more fleshed out answer.\nThe academic world is conflicted on this.\nPrior to Schliemann and Sir Arthur, it wasn't even certain that the cities mentioned by Homer (Mycenae, Sparta, Troy, Knossos, etc.) existed historically. Schliemann is now rather controversial, in part because of [his unwavering belief in a Homeric Troy, and an epic Greek Bronze Age.] (_URL_7_) While it is now generally accepted that Schliemann's site at Hisarlik includes the Homeric Troy, prior to him, Troy wasn't thought of as a true historical place. So that gives you an idea of the historicity of Homer--it's only in the last 150 years that the Iliad and Odyssey have been seriously considered historical and able-to-be-proven. Of the primary Greek heroes in Homer's works, Odysseus is probably the hardest to find archaeological evidence of, simply because he was (assuming he was a historical figure) the king of a small rural island, as opposed to a large [administrative system such as Mycenae] (_URL_1_) (although some folks think that the cities of the Argolid plain were in fact entirely independent entities). \n\nIn fact, there has recently been a debate over whether or not the modern island of Ithaka is even the Ithaka that Homer mentions, or if it was settled and named after Homer's Ithaka later on. \n[The Smithsonian](_URL_6_) provides a nice summary of that theory. However, a Bronze Age administrative center (\"palace\") has been discovered on the modern island of Ithaka, that could perhaps be Odysseus's palace. \n\nTo further complicate things, \"Homer\"'s poetry was recited orally from memory, and it is almost certain that \"Homer,\" if he existed, was not the sole author of the Iliad and Odyssey. So it's kind of like fanfiction or a roleplay based on already-extant myths--it can tell us a lot about the values of people in the 8th-ish century B.C.E., it is not exactly a solid primary source account of the events of the Iliad/Odyssey. [One scholar](_URL_2_) says: \"it has to be acknowledged that Homer\nwas never in fact a stable entity from which a sure base of culture and learning could flow. (In Greek *homerizein*, ‘to Homerize’, after all can mean ‘to\nlie’,\" (pg 325).\n\nIf you have access to JSTOR via your school, [here](_URL_5_) is an article that analyzes the patterns of oral poetry and uses them to discuss the historicity of Homer, and [here](_URL_0_) is a really good article that looks at the Albanian tradition of oral poetry, which includes a Homer-like figure, in order to better understand the concept of Homer. It's a really great introduction to some of the big ideas in oral poetry, if that is something you're interested in.\n\nWith regards to Odysseus himself, there is evidence of Odysseus-age habitation of the Ionian islands, both the [modern Ithaka](_URL_3_) and the [possible-historic-Ithaka on Kefalonia](_URL_8_). But unfortunately, much like the other mythical Greek characters, we cannot prove that they existed. It is possible that Odysseus is an archetype or a combination of a few historical figures (this is what I personally tend to believe). Some people are saying that they've pinned down the date of Odysseus's return based on a solar eclipse and Homer's description of the return, which you can read about [here](_URL_4_). \n\nPersonally, I want Odysseus and his buddies to be real historical figures, but they sort of exist in a quasi-historical limbo, where it cannot be proven if they were \"real\" or not. Of course, these myths are \"real\" in the sense that they've had an influence on society, but that's not what you were asking."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/25115419",
"https://ancient-world-project.nes.lsa.umich.edu/tltc/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/BA_Shelmerdine_2008_Cambridge-Companion-to-the-Aegean-Bronze-Age_Economy-and-Administration-pp.-289-309-split.pdf",
"https://www.academia.edu/5137858/Homer_the_history_of_an_idea",
"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/greece/7962445/Greeks-discover-Odysseus-palace-in-Ithaca-proving-Homers-hero-was-real.html",
"http://www.nbcnews.com/id/25337041/ns/technology_and_science-science/t/odysseus-return-trojan-war-dated/#.XfKHoWRKhPY",
"https://www.jstor.org/stable/642613",
"https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/odysseys-end-the-search-for-ancient-ithaca-112739669/",
"https://sites.psu.edu/heinrichschliemann/controversial-questions-arise/",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=NpxCumOFeBQC&pg=PA138&lpg=PA138&dq=habitation+of+kefalonia&source=bl&ots=O0a6JwDZLB&sig=ACfU3U3_3ftWmT72qI7MjZvPhknoRo536w&hl=en&ppis=_e&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwic-ojF3rDmAhWaBs0KHfIiBVUQ6AEwCXoECAsQAQ#v=onepage&q=habitation%20of%20kefalonia&f=false"
]
] |
|
31l3pe
|
is dying in my sleep actually painless?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/31l3pe/eli5is_dying_in_my_sleep_actually_painless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq2kui2",
"cq2l577"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"We think so. The actual answer is, nobody knows.",
"How would we know? It's not like we can ask someone who actually died how it felt.\n\nIt seems so and there isn't much reason to think it's painful (in most cases, there are always exceptions)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4h1nz0
|
how do animals know how to build stuff.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4h1nz0/eli5_how_do_animals_know_how_to_build_stuff/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2mm7h2"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's just in their DNA. \n\nEven now, science can't fully explain the phenomena we call \"instincts\", even though we can see them in action, and have them ourselves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1l9525
|
why do asians usually have no body hair and arabs have a lot?
|
Im talking about the chinese, koreans etc.
Edit: I'm talking about the Yellow race, not all asians as Arabs are also considered Asians.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1l9525/eli5why_do_asians_usually_have_no_body_hair_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbwy3hr",
"cbwy65l",
"cbwye76",
"cbwz2jy",
"cbx0gxt",
"cbx0kdv",
"cbx0nvn",
"cbx1ce8",
"cbx1sih",
"cbx36ry",
"cbx6v98",
"cbx7gvs",
"cbxbgb6",
"cbxdckm",
"cbxm24z"
],
"score": [
976,
51,
361,
21,
5,
6,
6,
543,
6,
2,
2,
7,
3,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Some anthropologists believe that Mongoloids (Chinese, Japanese, Pacific Islanders, Eskimos, etc) evolved to have less hair to keep clean while wearing heavy clothes and furs during the ice age. Having less hair allowed them to be clean for longer periods of time without bathing. The cleaner you are, the more likely you'll get to have sex. It's an evolutionary benefit of paedomorphism. \n\nEdit: I'm not claiming this is true, I'm just saying that's what some anthropologists believe. I remembered reading or hearing about it somewhere and found this in Wikipedia.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nWhich sources this:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nA few people object to the term Mongoloid, because it can be used in a derogatory way. But the term is still in use in an anthropological sense to describe peoples that migrated through Siberia and eventually became East Asian, Southeast Asian, Pacific Islander, Native American, etc. I apologize for using that term, but I really don't know of a more PC term that is equivalent. ",
"This is quite a mystery, but there are a few theories. \n\nFirst of all, in a sandy environment, Hairs are good to protect the skin, also, sand increases friction on your skin, hairs decreases it: When you got no hairs on your skin, put sand on it and rub it, it will start to hurt pretty soon. With hairs, the sand gets trapped in it, and it won't hurt that much. So this is why people from deserts are hairy.\n\nWhy asians don't have body hair is harder, one theory is the water-ape-theory: Some scientist believe, that mankind lived quiet a while in water or at least a good amount of their time in it. In Water, there is no fur needed, as you can see when looking at dolphins or other aquatic mammals (god, i nearly have to check my Dictionary for every single word...). So it might be, that our ancestors lost their body hair, and arabian people regained it because of living in a sandy environment.\n\nAnother possibility to lose body hair is a really cold envirenment: Body hair attracts water particles, which start to freeze and therefore start cooling this bodypart.\n\n*Edit*\nYou might consider that the climatic zones changed during man's history, and that ascendants of asian people lived in a much colder environment than today. Also, not only asians have little body hair, the indigenous people of America don't have any body hair at all (which is explained due to they are descendants of asian people, coming to america over the bering-bridge during the ice age)\n\n*edit the second*\nPlease note that english isn't my native tongue, which is why i got huge problems turning my arguments into proper and reasonable language. ",
"You are looking for a reason but that is the cool thing about genetics. \n\nSometimes there is no reason! Some people who had less body hair had lots of sex and their kids did the same thing and their genetics became the dominant set in a somewhat isolated subset of humans.\n\n\n**Reasons?** Everything everyone says in this regard is a total guess.",
"A theory (which to my knowledge seems to be purely speculative) suggests that body hair protects humans from blood-sucking parasites by letting us detect them faster, and reducing the risk of contracting diseases. Since these parasites are very abundant in the tropics, peoples of these regions evolved to retain their bodily hair follicles. Hence Arabs, Indians, etc. have more hair.",
"I read (I think it was in the book \"The Hand\" but I'm not 100% certain), that they believed that the Neanderthals (who were in Europe, mostly) interbred with the Cro-magnon (who some consider to be modern humans). As Neanderthals didn't live in Asian, this didn't occur here. Thus, the hairy-ness comes from hairy Neanderthals.\n\nAlso, Neanderthals were hairy because when they were around and where they were around, it was very, very, gold.\n\nRandom: while writing this, I learned that they are \"cro-magnon\" not \"cro-magnum.\" I'm sure I sounded terribly stupid in anthropology class.",
"Purely speculative but...\n\nSoutheast Asia is a hot and humid climate, and a result of that is that nightime temperatures are not much cooler than daytime temperatures. Body hair is therefore a bad thing throughout the summer months.\n\nThe middle east is a hot and dry climate, and with less moisture in the air to retain heat, the temperature drops significantly over night. So, even over the summer, body hair is beneficial over night. \n\nEdit: Also, in humid climates evaporative cooling through sweating is less effective. Hair also hinders the process, so having very little hair is an advantage. In dry climates, sweating is more effective, so body temp can be regulated effectively enough even with some extra body hair, which is of benefit during the winter and cold nights.",
"if you want to know why from the genetic point of view, probably because their genes promote hair growth in a different way. If you want to know why their genes promote hair growth in a different way, it could be either that\n\n1. something in the environment selected hairy people over non-hairy (or viceversa), or\n2. something in the environment selected some characteristic which is not amount of hair, but it's related in its biology to the amount of hair (e.g. being resistent to an illness due to a gene that, in addition to giving you resistance to the illness, it also promotes indirectly hair growth), or\n3. by chance, through genetic drift of a group of people who started hairy and became the predominant ones just by accident, it could have been the other way around.\n\ngenetic drift and selection are two components of variation in a population. sometimes they cancel out, sometimes they don't. The difference is that genetic drift variation eventually loses on the long run, and it's less and less important as the size of the population increases.\n",
"Basically, many of the distinguishing features of East-Asian people have recently been linked to a single gene mutation. These include: smaller boobs, less hair, more sweat and tighter/larger eye-lids.\n\nIt is believed that the reason this new gene variation succeeded was because it makes you sweat more, so you have better heat regulation.\n\nWhether this helped you survive until sexual maturity, (and therefore pass on the gene), or made you more sexually attractive, (maybe ancient Oriental folk liked a sweaty betty), is left up to your own speculation.\n\nSource: _URL_1_\n\nTherefore, speculation about why East Asian people look the way they do is largely inaccurate as it seems to be all linked to the survival and prosperity of a single gene/allele. Therefore there may be no environmental 'reason' why they have narrower eyes, it is merely a side effect of an otherwise useful gene.\n\nEDIT 1: When I say 'less hair', it is actually thicker hair but more sparse. \nAlso, here is a better link: _URL_0_\n\nEDIT 2: After lurking for years, this is the second thing I ever posted on reddit, so I feel like a boss right now. Thank you for the mild validation.\n\nEdit 3: It makes me feel powerful to add edits. Also I am 25, British, and my girlfriend of 6 years is Filipino, in case that is relevant to anyone :)\n\nEdit 4: To the OP /u/h04 I trust that you mean no harm and are simply seeking knowledge about a sensitive subject, but I strongly recommend you never say \"The Yellow Race\" again. Also, the very nature of you question is somewhat racist in its structure. Comparing \"Arabs\" to \"Asians\" is making 2 single statements about over 2 billion people. There is great genetic diversity in these groups and no one thing can be accurately said about either.",
"The EDAR mutation was identified as a possible cause to east Asian hair characteristics. There was a cell paper on this a few months ago where they put this mutation in mice and simulated some of these changes. The functions of this gene is not entirely clear, but it affects hair thickness, breastfeeding duct density in females, teeth shape. This is just the tip of the iceberg but it might be as important as lactase persistence in Indo-Europeans in conferring some survival advantage during recent human evolution.\n_URL_0_",
"I believe it is due to natural selection. Hotter areas benefits from body hair- the notion that hair makes u hotter is wrong, it protects you from direct sun exposure and you sweat which cools your temperature down. Thus Africans, middle easterns have more body hair than people in cold areas. of course this has been changing slowly due to traveling, technology where you do not need to depend on body hair to cool you down!, clothing , racial mixing etc..",
"TIL that hair on men is like boobs to women. Those who have alot want less those who have less want more. ",
"Also, for your information, Arab is the wrong term to use in this case, the geographical term \"Middle Eastern\" would suit better as afghans, persians, pakis, indians (etc.) aren't arabs.",
"A lot of phenotypical variation in modern humans is credited to the [Founder Effect](_URL_0_). I'm very suspect of explanations that try to draw on environmental reasons. Genetic mutation is so random, the Founder Effect provides a much more reasonable and appropriately random analyses of the phenomenon of genetic variation in humans.",
"I remember reading that some races have less hair than others primarily due to how early they adopted clothing to deal with temperate climates. Peoples that have long lived in climates that required clothing for warmth have been losing their body hair for more generations.\n\nAs the Asian peoples you mentioned migrated into Asia from the middle east, they had to contend with Himalayan cold fronts and higher latitudes which required them to adopt clothing very early in order to survive.\n\nThe people of the middle east didn't require clothing until desertification due to climate change altered the once Mediterranean climate of the fertile crescent into the much harsher environment it is today. That's why people from Mediterranean countries are often some of the hairiest, the lack of dramatic temperature variations meant that they never needed clothes. \n\nAfricans are the exception here because they never needed clothing yet still lost most of their body hair. In their case, they lost their body hair as a means to more effectively cool themselves in the extreme and relentless heat of their environment.\n\n",
"Is this really how you people talk to 5 year olds? \n\nArab here, and while technically Asian, I think I get the distinction you're trying to make. \n\nWhile I can't speak for my continental cousins, I can confirm I'm hairy. Including my poop hole, which I can only assume is to keep out the sand. \n\nI also have big bushy, almost Eugene Levyish eyebrows. If I scowl a bit, they shade my eyes from the sun. That's why my people are always looking so pissed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.co.id/books/about/Prehistoric_Mongoloid_dispersal.html?id=9SQSAQAAIAAJ&redir_esc=y",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongoloid#Features"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg21729055.200-sweat-mutation-may-have-helped-us-colonise-asia.html#.Uh4cMtWzKpg",
"http://forwhattheywereweare.wordpress.com/2013/02/16/genetic-origin-of-east-asian-thicker-hair-denser-sweat-glands/"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/23415220/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://reddit.com"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2foke9
|
why do we shit in clean drinkable water?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2foke9/eli5_why_do_we_shit_in_clean_drinkable_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckb79mz",
"ckb7b29",
"ckb809e",
"ckb826y",
"ckb89se",
"ckbdhzm",
"ckbdneg"
],
"score": [
135,
8,
8,
22,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because the water will be recycled and the cost of implementing two different plumbing systems would be extremely high.",
"deepduck's right. the cost of having two piping systems, one for sanitized, another for non sanitized doesn't make it worth it. because water is so cheap.\n\nof course...california might rethink that",
"In addition to what other people have pointed out (you don't want to pump two separate plumbing systems through your house, one sanitized, the other not), there are products on the market designed to reduce waste this way. For example, you can buy toilets with sinks mounted on top, or you can pipe your sink into your toilet tank so that you're flushing with the same water you used to wash your hands. ",
"Some people don't. Grey water is in use in some countries. \nWater left over from dishes or washing machines.",
"I've thought about ocean-front areas maybe using a saltwater plumbing system for their sewage, but again, it'd be really expensive to build a whole second set of pipes.\n\nIf you're concerned about water conservation, try flushing less. Remember, \"if it's yellow, let it mellow. If it's brown, flush it down.\" No reason to flush if it's just pee in there, you're gonna be back in an hour to pee in it again, and that's two flushes where just one would have sufficed. Also, whenever possible, pee into grass or bushes or what not. That's zero flushes, baby. ",
"All the water you've ever drank has been drank and pissed out countless times by other organisms, and fish have had sex in it.",
"wait.. toilet water is drinkable?? :s"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9ncg0f
|
how to not become homeless
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ncg0f/eli5_how_to_not_become_homeless/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7l7okf",
"e7l7u4h",
"e7l7vuq",
"e7l7zcu",
"e7l7zm5"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Get a job, if you can't drive, walk or use public transportation. Find a cheap apartment you can afford with your income (personal finance sub can help with figuring out budgets). Then when you have that situated find some transportation. Doesn't have to be nice, just a car, then get a license. Then look around for better-paying jobs now that you have transportation. ",
"**Post Secondary education:** This does not need to be university. It could be an apprenticeship, specialized training, whatever. Just something that lets you stand out from the other 1, 000, 000 people looking for the same job. \n\n**Acquire gainful employment:** Get a job that allows you to support yourself. This should be full time and it should be secure. Bonus points if you like what you do.\n\n**Set a budget and stick to it:** Live within your means. If you make 1500/month you should not be spending 1000 on living expenses. Check /r/personfinance for more info on that. \n\n**Work hard. Be smart.**",
"This can apply to any situation from work, to love, to homelessness, look for a mentor. Find someone who has achieved what you're looking for and then ask then how they did it. Not everyone is receptive to being a mentor so don't get discouraged if they don't want to help you, just move on to the next person. In order for people on the internet to give you advice they're going to need to know a lot more about you as everyone's situation is unique. ",
"Make sure you have an income greater than your expenses, pay your bills first and don't fall down the rabbit hole of taking loans. Simple as that! ",
"Get a job that pays $12/hr or more. Literally any job. If you're not a felon, can piss clean on a drug test, and present yourself as clean & willing to work you shouldn't have too hard of a time. \n\nIf you're not living in a very urban area you're going to need to learn how to drive. For that lean on friends and family then go take the test. Uber/beg rides until you get your first couple of paychecks to purchase a car with credit or cash. \n\nIf you want to think long-term, consider picking up a trade in a union. They will pay for your training and get you up to $25/hr pretty quickly. Within 4-5 years you'll have real skills and the freedom to start your own business if you so choose. \n\nAlternatively, consider the Military. They've been taking teens who don't know what to do with their lives since the beginning of time. You'll acquire skills, leave with real world experience, and have the option for paid college education. \n\nFrom there, you're an adult. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
18h22x
|
why don't police departments all over the united states just up the prerequisites, the salaries, and the training to become a cop.
|
Redditors are always bitching about thugs, idiots, and criminals in the police departments that don't know what they're doing and sometimes take very rash actions that is shown by the media.
Although I do agree that some police officers, LEOs, sheriffs etc. are just legitimately dumb and bad employees (they're in every field of work), they're a dime a dozen in a batch of reasonable cops. So, to pick out the bad apples early on before giving them a badge, why not just up the requirements and benefits of being a police officer and working for the civil service.
Like having an Associates or Bachelor's degree before applying, add 10k-20k to the average annual salary, and having a physical fitness test to keep them in shape instead of letting themselves go. (overweight cops)
I'm just throwing ideas out there, but why not do this? Or, how come it doesn't happen?
**IMPORTANT: NO ANTI-COP CIRCLEJERK PLEASE! LET'S ACT LIKE MATURE ADULTS HERE AND NOT LIKE THE CHILDREN IN PLACES LIKE** /r/Bad_Cop_No_Donut !!!
**EDIT 1:** Forgot to put "?" in title, SUE ME!
**EDIT 2:** Smart people could still be just as bad, thanks /u/sandshadedutchman.
**EDIT 3:** If you have you're own solution, we'd love to hear your ideas!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18h22x/eli5_why_dont_police_departments_all_over_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8eqoxi",
"c8et8fo",
"c8ew40n",
"c8ex553"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're talking about raising the bar to become a police officer. That won't help. You can never raise the bar high enough to prevent all bad apples (in part because some bad apples will be extremely proficient and intelligent, and because some bad apples started off as good apples).\n\nWhat you have to do is be able to quickly *react* to problems. Today, in too many cases, that reaction amounts to a coverup or a slap on the wrist. Stronger and more forceful reactions to problems would decrease their frequency.\n\nWhat police organizations need is (a) videotaping of everything, and (b) independent civilian oversight boards that have complete authority to discipline officers and investigate all departmental records (email, video, etc). ",
"It's not the bad apples, it's the culture. ",
"The answer is that essentially providing someone with the power a cop has to destroy and save lives with what are essentially arbitrary decisions you automatically introduce a level of corruption. It isn't that they are necessarily bad but they see these things day in and out an encounter with a law enforcement officer may be a big event in your life but to him it's just another day. Decisions he makes may have major impact on your life are just one of a hundred similar decisions that they make in a single shift. They hero sometimes in reality sometimes just within the context of their own story. There is no good answer to this problem when you give someone the power to ruin people's lives they will and when they can use that power to do good they sometimes will. Ultimately they are human.",
"Increasing standards won't work for a very simple reason. Being in law enforcement means holding a postion of power. It's the POWER that attracts a lot (but not all) of people to join. It's the people that are power hungry that push the line and cross boundaries because well, they have hte shiney badge and can do what they want. \n\nThese people can be very congenial if they want. They can change personas as the flip of a coin. So it may look like they are there to \"serve and protect\" but in all actuality, it's simply the power that they are after. (cross post a question in /r/psychology about power and control in different areas for a deeper insight into it)\n\n\nThe money is more difficult to make happen because well, taxes and politics are a bitch. The lack of pay for putting your life in danger isn't much incentive to be an honest cop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
18h28a
|
[Biology]Why did the majority of animals evolve with two holes for excrement, one located on genitalia?
|
I was thinking about this, it doesn't seem to make sense that genitalia have a secondary function as waste pipe, considering that from an evolutionary standpoint they already have one of the most important roles in the body.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18h28a/biologywhy_did_the_majority_of_animals_evolve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8es9jm",
"c8etsi6",
"c8ew8ue",
"c8eybw3",
"c8eytnm",
"c8ezx60",
"c8f0180",
"c8f0mvd",
"c8f18yp",
"c8f1ynh",
"c8f2e9g"
],
"score": [
12,
13,
471,
3,
11,
18,
9,
3,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"One thing to think about is that if you think of the body as a 3d structure your GI tract is an external surface, kinda like a tube when you are on the inside you are still touching the surface, the plastic, or whatever, is between the \"inside\" and outside is the real inside... so anyways food taken in is excreted we can think, for the purpose of example that taht waste never made it into your body..\n\nnow urine, waste filtered from the spaces inside your body, your blood, that cannot be filtered by the GI.\n\n ",
"Changes in reproductive tendencies in mammals has led to this. The primitive condition is to have a cloaca, this is observed in birds, monotremes, and some primitive fish. Placental mammals on the other hand have a more derived condition in which the holes have essentially separated. This has much to do with vaginal evolution. The cloaca acts much better in the production of egg laying species. The anus has always been separated, however the reproductive system is still intact with renal system. I would say it is not a secondary function as a \"waste pipe\", but rather a secondary function for mating. You urinate far more frequently. [Here is a nice diagram](_URL_0_) with a blog entry that seems to be accurate, but it is a blog. ",
"1) Lots of things in biology don't 'make sense' - evolution doesn't work that way, it simply selects for traits that facilitate successful reproduction; there is no design component.\n\n2) Keep in mind that urinary 'waste' and gastrointestinal 'waste' are two fairly distinct entities.\n\nStool is mostly just the undigested portions of whatever you ate, with some added biliary secretions and gut bacteria added in. Think of it as 'waste' in the sense that some of what you're eating is 'wasted', rather than getting digested.\n\nUrinary 'waste', on the other hand, is the result of a very complex filtration/reabsorption/secretion system. Urinary solutes include many metabolic byproducts, as well as electrolytes to maintain body homeostasis. Urinary regulation is also a key component of body water content control, as its variable range in concentration can help the body conserve water when needed and excrete water when there is excess. Think of urinary 'waste' as more like 'toxic waste' - something the body is actively trying to remove. (This is a grossly oversimplified view of the kidney - look [here](_URL_3_) for more info.)\n\n3) From a embryologic perspective, the [genitourinary system](_URL_1_) develops from the [same set of precursor structures](_URL_5_), which explains how they remain linked in adulthood. The gastrointestinal system is derived from a separate [set of structures](_URL_0_), and is thus separate from the GU system.\n\n4) I'll also add a note of caution against many explanations that are basically '[just-so stories](_URL_2_)' that inevitably pop up in these sorts of posts. We've gotten fairly good at explaining the 'how' for these types of questions, but the 'why' is often largely speculative. Too often, the answer is simply that a) some trait emerged randomly and b) was selected for due to some advantage it conveyed and c) persisted to today. If there's any hard evidence pointing to a 'why' for this question, great. But don't simply think that it 'makes sense' that we evolved this way, and [thus it must be so](_URL_4_).\n\n5) As others have mentioned, many animals have [cloacas](_URL_6_).",
"Maybe I could rephrase the question: why *didn't* we evolve our reproductive system to be far removed physically from our excretory systems? The drawbacks to having them so close together are obvious, with no obvious benefits other than not needing additional holes.",
"Keep in mind that needing additional holes is itself a major drawback to any potential mutation.",
"The majority of animal phyla aren't actually arranged in this way. For example, some animals don't even have a complete alimentary canal and rely solely on diffusion to get rid of wastes (e.g. some members of platyhelminthes). Nematodes also do waste disposal via diffusion.",
"It's been thoroughly explained but I feel the need to hop on and tell you that the phrasing of the question seems like you're implying, at least from my perspective, that the animals developed this independently of each other, whereas instead they stem from the same ancestor who had this layout and the system hasn't had sufficient pressures put on it to alter drastically, so has been kept in the fanning branches of the genetic line.",
"They didn't. The majority of animals only have two openings - one in, one out. Only a minority of higher animals have two openings for excretion.",
"Not sure if this has been mentioned yet, but control f didn't find it so:\n\nMammals tend to have this feature. You will know that compared to most other animals, mammals rely heavily on scent. This adaptation allows the ability to mark territory and leave behind a chemical scent marking which is a very distinct advantage to a group of animals that rely on scent.\n\nCompare this to say birds, who rely on song and colours to attract attention and communicate with other animals. Unlike small mammals, birds have the ability to fly away from a vast majority of their potential predators, so can more easily afford to stand out in this way.",
"I've thought about this as well. And the reasoning I came up with was that your piss 'flushed the pipes' so to speak. Although, that doesn't really add up for people with vaginas.",
"To answer this question we need to trace things up to the organs that connect to these two holes. I would say that biochemistry and the ph levels as well as secondary functions of urine cannot really coexist with solid waste. I was about to explain dozens of contradictory situations for the two to exist in the same place, but then I realized I need to start work in 15 minutes so I will just list one. \nIf it was one hole it would constantly leak slushy putrid excitement and we would have had no time to evolve as we had to constantly wipe our ass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://scienceblogs.com/pharyngula/2007/01/14/evolution-of-the-mammalian-vag/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gastrointestinal_tract#Embryology",
"http://ars.els-cdn.com/content/image/1-s2.0-S1556858X07000114-gr1.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-so_story",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nephron",
"http://www.smbc-comics.com/comics/20130112.gif",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Development_of_the_urinary_and_reproductive_organs",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloaca"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6kl663
|
So, learning about the colonization of America, we learned that tomatoes are native to the Americas, what was European cuisine like before tomatoes? Why did they become as popular as they are now?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6kl663/so_learning_about_the_colonization_of_america_we/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djn4jdq",
"djn6onp",
"djna0iu"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
8
],
"text": [
"You will likely get a better answer in /r/askfoodhistorians.\n\nEdit: Link updated.",
"Piggyback question: What was Indian cuisine like before chilli peppers?",
"There's always room for discussion, but perhaps these previous topics found through the search function will answer your inquiry.\n\n* [How did the Tomato come to be such an integral part of Italian cuisine?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [Italian cooking before the introduction of the tomato](_URL_4_)\n\n* [What was Italian food like in the 14th and 15th Centuries?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [What was Roman/Early Middle Ages food like in Italy?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [What were some Old World cuisines like before the Columbian Exchange?](_URL_0_)\n\n* [When did \"traditional Italian\" cuisine start and what made it happen? The Roman food is almost nothing like it.](_URL_5_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11kijb/what_were_some_old_world_cuisines_like_before_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/zlzal/what_was_romanearly_middle_ages_food_like_in_italy/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2r4ghl/what_was_italian_food_like_in_the_14th_and_15th/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2fcqkd/how_did_the_tomato_come_to_be_such_an_integral/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hpn9a/italian_cooking_before_the_introduction_of_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bmd2y/when_did_traditional_italian_cuisine_start_and/"
]
] |
||
xb5w1
|
the complete process of home brewing beer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xb5w1/eli5_the_complete_process_of_home_brewing_beer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5kuo6f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"First, you boil grains (wheat, barley, oat, whatever the specific beer calls for) and hops, as well as whatever spices you might be adding. You boil this for a while to get the starches and sugars out of the grains and into the liquid (this is food for the yeast that will produce alcohol). When you're done boiling it, you strain and cool the mixture until it is warm but not hot, and add yeast. Then you transfer this mix from the pot to a sterile fermentation chamber (normally a carbouy with a one-way air valve) and you'll let that ferment for a while (couple days to a week) while the yeast convert those sugars to alcohol. Then depending on the beer you may either siphon that into a secondary fermentation chamber (typically a glass carbouy with a valve) for a few weeks, or will skip straight to bottling. When bottling, you siphon the beer off the top of the fermentation chamber without disturbing the sediment at the base, then cap the bottles. You may add additional yeast at this point in order to carbonate the beer in the bottle (i.e. to make it fizzy). Then you let it sit in the bottles in a cool area for a few more weeks until it's ready to drink.\n\nThen you drink it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ch0ty
|
how is it possible that canned/pouched tuna can have an expiration date of 2017, yet still be safe/healthy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ch0ty/eli5_how_is_it_possible_that_cannedpouched_tuna/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjfdsqa"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The tuna is sealed and pasteurized, if not sterilized. If there's nothing in there to grow and produce toxins it could presumably last forever. Sometines the consume by or sell by date isn't so much about safety as it is about food quality. The taste, color,or texture may degrade over the years, but if the can is properly sealed and sterilized, it'll be perfectly safe to eat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
qm7ws
|
having to turn your head and cough during a physical?
|
What is the doctor actually looking for in your Testicles when he asks you to turn your head and cough?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qm7ws/eli5_having_to_turn_your_head_and_cough_during_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3yohor",
"c3yqdb9"
],
"score": [
29,
3
],
"text": [
"The doctor is checking for a hernia (usually an inguinal hernia) which is when a part of your belly pokes through where it shouldn't.\n\nCoughing can make it more noticeable. Turning your head prevents you from coughing on the doctor.",
"Apparently the \"turn your head\" part of it is just so that you don't cough on your doctor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
54bvsg
|
why do we get tired when doing something boring/repetitive ?
|
By tired I mean that we feel sleepy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54bvsg/eli5_why_do_we_get_tired_when_doing_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d81u5tu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Maybe the lack of stimulation lets sleepiness set in. Rather than thinking of it as making you sleepy, think of is as not making stimulating you or making you alert"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
196ws2
|
if china is communist, and the u.s. is very anti-communist, why does the u.s. withhold a good relation with them. how is it different than say, cuban communism?
|
Enlighten me guys.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/196ws2/eli5_if_china_is_communist_and_the_us_is_very/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8lbpps",
"c8leoej",
"c8lnd4x"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because blocking trade and travel with China would destroy our economy. Cuba is economically insignificant in comparison.\n\nThey're not really completely \"communist\" anymore though. They're progressing on their own towards more capitalist ideas.",
"Cuba was very much so an ally of the USSR (that's the name for Russia back when they were communists) back during the Cold War (that was the period between the end of War World II and the fall of the USSR). China, however, was very independent of the USSR and didn't always agree or go along with what the USSR. So because they weren't tied to our main rival during the Cold War, relations with China were better than with Cuba.",
"China isn't communist (totalitarian, perhaps), and the US isn't really anti-Communist (in the McCarthyist mode of anti-Communism)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2xdtcr
|
Why are the Medieval Balkans so unstudied? Does anyone know good sources for this region?
|
Recently I got into a discussion with my Longsword Fencing instructor about arms and armor around the Agincourt period, 1415.
The discussion went from the construction of bascinets to the use of Klappvisors by the "German" areas. But when I asked "What were they using in Hungary and the rest of the Balkans at this time?"
We had a really hard time finding archeological or contemporary representation of these items.
If any of you know of a good book or source discussing South Eastern Europe during the Medieval Period that would be greatly appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2xdtcr/why_are_the_medieval_balkans_so_unstudied_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cozd6ur",
"cozsot8",
"cozu4nz",
"cozy4pf"
],
"score": [
29,
3,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The books of Dr. John V. A. Fine are a few resources that I've found discussing the Balkans around this time period. The second book might be closer to what you are looking for.\n\n[The Early Medieval Balkans](_URL_0_)\n\n[The Late Medieval Balkans](_URL_1_)\n\nDr. Florin Curta also studies that area and time period, but his work seems to be a bit earlier than you were looking for.\n\n[Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages, 500–1250](_URL_2_)",
"I recently read [Realm of the Black Mountain](_URL_0_), which is a history of Montenegro by Elizabeth Roberts. ",
"Dmitri Obolensky's \"The Byzantine Commonwealth\" is a good discussion of relations between Byzantium and the Balkans in the period, though it branches out to Russia and the Caucasus too.",
"I know this isn't what you want to hear, but the biggest issue is that most of the sources you are looking for are in their native languages. All these countries have had a thriving industry, particularly in the last century, of histories focused on their own culture. We can pretty much pinpoint the collapse of Ottoman control in Southeastern Europe as a nice starting point to look for relevant texts.\n\nMy suggestion for finding information so particular is to reach out to museums and academics in these countries directly. There's a good chance you will find some people that speak English, and they can help direct you to relevant sources or even give you the TL:DR of the sources available in their native tongue but not English."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.press.umich.edu/8108/early_medieval_balkans",
"http://www.press.umich.edu/7807/late_medieval_balkans",
"http://www.cambridge.org/as/academic/subjects/history/european-history-450-1000/southeastern-europe-middle-ages-5001250"
],
[
"http://m.bookdepository.com/book/9781850658689?redirected=true&v=A75X6&selectCurrency=AUD&gclid=COm0xb-ahMQCFVaUvQodVJEAUQ"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
tyzmv
|
5.1 sound within headphones.
|
Hey guys. Can someone explain how 5.1 sound work within headphones? How can there be two components (left and right ear) yet there are an odd number of 'speakers'?
Here's and example:
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tyzmv/eli5_51_sound_within_headphones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4qxeul",
"c4qxkku",
"c4r2flz"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Each ear has 3 speakers. Center, front and back. They are placed to simulate sound coming to your ear from those places.\n\nThere are headphones that simulate 3D with only 2 spakers, but the ones you posted have \"real surround\", so they have all those small speakers inside.",
"I am sure I saw a Doctor Karl tweet about this recently - but I may be misremembering.\n\nPicture a big, empty, echoless room with you in the centre. At random positions in the room every 15 seconds, someone plays a bird noise sample. \n\nThe way your ears reflect the sound makes you hear it slightly differently if it comes from front or back (I am not aware of the specifics at all) and the two ears hear it differently (probably more so than just different volumes) depending on the side it comes from as well.\n\nWhen your brain processes whatever reaches your ears, it takes the position information \"out\" of the sound so you just hear the bird (ie it sounds the same front/back/left/right) but know where the sound is coming from.\n\n5.1 headphones essentially process the outgoing audio from the device so it arrives in your ears sounding like it would if it actually came from that direction and bounced off your ears into your head. instead of being beamed straight in from the headphones.\n\nPotentially ninja-edit : This is the 2-speaker type, not those referred to by knudow below",
"You only have two ears, why would you need 5 speakers?\n\nYou determine direction normally by comparing the volume of the sound on each ear. You only have two volumes to compare, so there only needs to be two speakers whose volume is designed to simulate a certain direction. This isn't as possible with normal speakers because then they'll be further away, complicating things. Headphones are designed at a very specific distance.\n\nOnly advantage a normal 5.1 setup would have is that you can move your head, which does help with determining direction, particularly separating things in front and things in back. If you had 3 speakers in each headphone, you wouldn't get this anyway, so it would just be more expensive (though easier to engineer as you don't need to figure out the simulation as above)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Zalman-ZM-RS6F-surround-sound-headphones/dp/B0001OYMFO"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2dvxzh
|
how do the site owners of popular forums like stackoverflow make money if posting is free and no ads?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dvxzh/eli5_how_do_the_site_owners_of_popular_forums/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjtkyz1",
"cjtkzhm",
"cjtuf2v"
],
"score": [
10,
22,
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nStack overflow CEO discussing how they monetize",
"They sell statistics about their user base. This is how all free services generate money. You are not the customer, you are the product.",
"They do sell ads. They also charge for job listings\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.businessinsider.com/exclusive-qa-quora-may-be-turning-down-billion-dollar-offers-but-its-still-losing-to-this-guy-2011-2"
],
[],
[
"http://stackexchange.com/mediakit"
]
] |
||
7sxllq
|
Why do drugs "wear off" and require a re-dose to achieve the original effect?
|
I guess it partially boils down to half life? What affects a chemical's half life related to human ingestion?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7sxllq/why_do_drugs_wear_off_and_require_a_redose_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dt8k4rk",
"dtdbmyo"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The requirement of a change in dose can be from a few things, depending on the drug. Some drugs will cause in increase in activity or production of the enzymes that break them down. Others will cause a change in the cellular receptors that they interact with, thus causing a diminished response. This will then require an increase in dose to cause the same therapeutic effect. This can be observed with tolerance to drugs.",
"Drugs are constantly broken down generally in the liver or get metabolized. There is a certain amount of drug needed in the body for it to constantly do what it needs to do. So before the drug gets lower than that threshold we administer more of it to keep it higher than that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
c10cup
|
other than ownership, what are the differences between an apartment and a condo?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c10cup/eli5_other_than_ownership_what_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"er9h17r",
"er9hndo",
"er9rwcu",
"er9xppb"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Ownership is really the only real difference. That said, in a condo building, there’s usually some kind of owners’ association where the residents as a whole are members and pay dues and the association has the responsibility of taking care of the outside of the building and sometimes minor internal repairs.",
"Ownership, but it has many side effects. The landlord that owns the building has control of a lot of things, unless you're in a city like New York with lots of tenant protection laws. The condo owners usually have a more democratic management approach for the association that handles common facilities.",
"Living may be similar, but the responsibilities of a condo are more like a house. There can be disagreements over who is responsible for items. This is where a well managed condo has a \"matrix of duties\" that applies. Condos have bylaws that can limit resident behavior. Apartments have rent that can be raised at will unless controlled. Condos have association fees and special assessments. An apartment is a \"turn key\" operation while a condo can take some involvement to keep things running properly.",
"This is the main difference — an apartment is rented from a single landlord who owns the building and all units in it as well as all common areas. A condo is individually owned residential units with a homeowners association that owns the common areas.\n\nI guess the biggest difference then would be that a property manager for apartments works for the landlord, while the property manager for a condo works for the residents."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
46vlt1
|
if all humans disappear from the earth, how long would it take for a nuclear power plant to go chernobyl?
|
Can you also explain why/the process behind it. Also assuming it was completely untouched, not hit by a tsunami like Fukushima.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46vlt1/eli5_if_all_humans_disappear_from_the_earth_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0855ii",
"d085cbr",
"d085ls0",
"d085qz9"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"I suggest you read some more about [Chernobyl](_URL_0_) since nuclear plants don't really explode by themselves. ",
"Mostly they will not. it took active decisions to generate the Chernobyl disaster. There was also another less publicised nuclear disaster in the Soviet Union before that.\n\n",
"Nuclear engineer here. \n\nIf all onsite and offsite power is lost, emergency generators fail, and steam powered cooling systems fail, you can expect core melting in 1-3 hours and containment rupture/release in about a day for all non passive safety plants. \n\nPassive safety plants can survive about a week under the same conditions. \n\nThese are worst case scenarios of course. More likely would be a few days to a week or two. ",
"1- this sub is for asking and explaining concepts, not for asking questions.\n\n2- for futurology related questions, /r/futurology is the most adequate sub.\n\n3- the answer is never, power plants aren't that dangerous, when the containment systems stop working, the biggest damage possible would be a few animals in the surroundings with cancer or mutation (supposing they never move twenty metres away from the installations)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chernobyl_disaster"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
25nqhh
|
What events led to the outbreak of the 1967 Six Day War, and how did both sides make their decisions leading up to Israel's strike on Egypt?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25nqhh/what_events_led_to_the_outbreak_of_the_1967_six/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chj0jty",
"chl7xmz"
],
"score": [
49,
2
],
"text": [
"This is going to be long. And when I say long, I mean **really** long. So I'll put a tl;dr right up at the top, for readers. This will be 8 posts (7 will be very text-heavy), so don't expect a short response!\n\nIn document form: _URL_0_\n\n**tl;dr: Water crises, fedayeen border flare-ups, false intelligence reports, fears of nuclear weaponry introduction, defense pacts, mobilizations, UN peacekeeping force expulsions, and back-and-forth raids/border clashes all contributed to the war and the decisions made in leading to the Six Day War (as well as history like the Suez Crisis, of course, but I don't go that far back).**\n\nAs I said, I cannot explain them all, so I'll explain mostly the events of 1964-1967 as contributors, and describe how they contributed. I won't go as far back as the Suez Crisis really. You'll see what I mean as I go. Without further ado, let's begin!\n\n**The Water Crisis**\n\nNo, I'm not referring to the water passage of the Straits of Tiran, or the Gulf of Aqaba. I'm talking about water for irrigation, drinking, crops, etc. The Middle East has perpetually suffered from crises related to water, some of which plague it today. Moshe Shemesh has an article on this that I feel is very important in explaining the prelude to the war, which I'll explain now.\n\nWhile not directly responsible for the war by most accounts, the struggles over water led to deteriorations in the relations between Israel and the Arab states, which had already been strained, to say the least. The Arab world viewed the Jordan river as a key element in the overall Palestinian problem and Arab-Israeli conflict. It flows through what was a demilitarized zone (until the Six Day War) west of Israel's border with Syria, then flows down through the Sea of Galilee before forming the border between Israel and Jordan and the border between the West Bank and Jordan, ending at the Dead Sea. Until 1956, only fourteen percent of the river was used for irrigation. Due to Israeli attempts to divert the river to their advantage in 1953, there was a big hub-bub about the way to best divide it up, which I won't go too in-depth to. However, we pick up that story in January 1964, when the First Arab Summit came to three key conclusions:\n\n1) An \"Authority\" would be set up to exploit the waters of the river and its tributaries. Dr. Ahmad Salim, the chairman of the \"Authority\" estimated that the cost would be roughly 70 million pounds for the plan he detailed, and that it would take 8-12 years to complete.\n\n2) A Joint Arab Command would be set up as soon as possible to coordinate the Arab armies, and defend their diversion of the river. All Arab states would be obligated to help, and 154 million pounds would be set aside for arms procurements by Lebanon, Jordan, and Syria. In September of 1965, the Arab Defense Council ratified the Joint Arab Command's strategy for defending the river.\n\n3) The representative of the PLO to the Arab League (Ahmad al-Shuqayri, also chairman of the PLO as elected in May) would keep contacting member states of the Arab League and working with Palestinians on the plan to liberate \"the national homeland\" and make it a Palestinian state.\n\nBasically, this whole plan was a response to Israel's attempt to divert the river themselves. The Arab states set up military defenses for this plan, and tried to avoid a war, but didn't want to lose out on water resources. However, they were unable to do this, mainly because they feared Israel's air superiority at the time, and found at the Third Arab Summit (September 1965) that the Arab leaders were in a dilemma; they wanted to keep trying to divert the river, but apparently couldn't pull it off over Israel's tactics.\n\nEgypt's leader, Gamal Abdel Nasser, formulated a new plan to handle this problem. His plan, based on two stages, handled the diversion in the first stage and \"the liberation of Filastin\" in the second. The first stage was to strengthen the Arab armies to ensure they could defend their actions, especially in Jordan, Syria, and Lebanon. The JAC commander said this would take roughly 3 years, being completed around late 1967 or early 1968. 150 million Egyptian pounds were earmarked for the task. The first stage also called for concentrating Saudi, Iraqi, and Syrian troops in Jordan and Lebanon in preparation for any attack (the plan also placed all troops on alert), and planned to immediately begin the technical aspect of diverting the river. Nasser hoped this stage would deter Israel, and prevent border struggles, while allowing diversion of the river.\n\nThe second stage, on the other hand, decided that the final objective was to \"liberate Filastin from Zionist imperialism\", and the JAC commander was told to draw up plans to destroy Israel. The plan was ratified at the Third Arab Summit, where 200 million pounds were budgeted to shore up the Syrian, Jordanian, and Lebanese armies so they could easily change from defensive to offensive positions after the first stage.\n\nLebanon, however, dawdled in implementing its part of the plan. They were criticized heavily for it by the Egyptians, but feared implementing the plan. They said they were ready to do so, but had not received the order from the JAC, among other things (they were really stalling because they didn't want to make the \"Filastin Question\" a bone of contention between their Christian and Muslim populations). It was only in March of 1965 (roughly 6 months after the Second Arab Summit had also resolved to start the diversions) that Lebanon began its plans. Lebanon once again dawdled around May of 1965, asking Nasser to cancel the plan for the diversion because of fear over Israel's response. Israel had made strikes against the diversion operations in March and May of 1965, leading Lebanon to fear further retaliation, and Nasser allowed it saying that \"If the Arab states cannot face Israeli attacks then we have no [choice] but to postpone diversion of Jordan's tributaries until our military preparations are completed.\" Even still, Lebanon continued work until it called a halt on July 4, 1965, due to Israeli overflights/strikes, and intense U.S/French pressure. They blamed budgetary restrictions, and backed off.\n\nSyria had even more trouble implementing the plan. On November 13, 1964, in a disputed border area, Syrians fired on Israeli bulldozers. Roughly a week earlier, November 3, Syrians had opened fire on an IDF patrol in the same area. The IDF responded with fire, including tank shelling (which missed by 700-800 meters). This escalated until the Israeli Air Force (IAF) intervened, in an event that was different...mainly because Israeli air forces had never entered deep into Syrian territory for daily security needs as they did then to silence the artillery (until November 13, 1964, this was unheard of since the 1950s). The Syrians, undeterred, continued their diversion attempts.\n\nHowever, the next IDF action on March 17, 1965, changed that plan up a bit. An Israeli tractor driver was killed in escalating fire between the two sides, which peaked on March 16, and he'd been killed by artillery fire. The IDF had prepared a battle plan for this occasion already, and implemented it on March 17. The plan was to use any border attack as an excuse for tanks to fire on the diversion equipment being used close to the border, since tanks wouldn't have to cross the border to fire back. The air force was not used in the plan, though it was placed on alert in case of artillery fire. The idea was that a patrol would be fired on, as the Syrians had been doing since February, and that did happen on March 17. The Syrians failed to react to the tank fire (from 2000+ meters away, tanks fired and hit the diversion equipment, since they'd upgraded their tanks after the November failures), and the Syrians halted their work in the area as a result. The diversion operations were ceased until March 31, when they cleared 500 meters of the river, then removed all equipment. On April 15, they started again, and Israel decided they would provoke another attack to stop the diversion operations. They sent a patrol out, but the Syrians refrained from firing, so the Israelis opened fire. Despite the 5000-5800 meter range, in the ensuing firefight the tanks managed to take out three bulldozers among other equipment, and the Syrians didn't respond out of fear of the IAF. On May 22, Syria ceased operations again, and moved to another area. They worked there until July 15, before moving yet again, to an area 10km from the border. The Syrians figured the Israelis wouldn't attack, since they'd have to call in the air force to do it. On August 12, they began plowing work. When observers claimed the Syrians were pointing their weapons at Israeli forces, the Israelis opened fire (no air force used) and destroyed two bulldozers and three tanks. After this, the Arab diversion plan was effectively dead, though small amounts of work continued. On July 12, 1966, an Israeli security vehicle hit a mine, and two soldiers and a civilian were killed. These mines, among other sabotage attacks, were the work of Fatah, which was an organization the Syrians were supporting in border incursions (I'll talk about them later). This time, an attack on Syria was approved, using the air force as well. For the first time in aerial warfare, a Mirage shot down a MiG-21, and the Israelis destroyed Syrian equipment with great success.\n\nJordan, by the way, had implemented only the portions of the plan that Israel had presented in its own division plans (Israel's proposal, called the Johnston Plan, was rejected by the Arabs). Jordan therefore avoided any real issues over water at this stage.\n\nAs you can imagine, this was pretty significant. Tensions flared, water became a huge issue, relations deteriorated, and military buildups were encouraged. Now, let's look at other border issues.",
"I'd recommend reading [Six Days of War by Michael Oren](_URL_0_). I'm sure someone will chime in about Oren's bias. He's the Israeli ambassador to the US from 2009 to late 2013 and if you check out his [wikipedia article you can see some of the very valid reasons for those fears/accusations/solid evidence of bias.](_URL_1_)\n\nHowever, in his defense he is some what upfront in admitting his bias and he does point out that b/c Syria, Egypt, Jordan, Iraq, et al are closed societies it is much harder to obtain sources from their governments.\n\nAnd of the three or four books aimed at a general audience about the war I think it's been the most readable and had more access to some of the Egyptian sources than the others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scribd.com/doc/224419773/The-Outbreak-of-the-Six-Day-War"
],
[
"http://www.powells.com/biblio/7-9780345461926-6",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Oren#Ambassadorship"
]
] |
||
3w7zi2
|
plane emergency landings
|
I have seen movies and TV shows where the plane must land on a road since there are no nearby airfields (see: leverage for one such example) and the interstate was apparently built to handle aircraft if needed. My question is: can you explain the logistics in landing like this? How do you not hit any cars? How do you move the plane after you landed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3w7zi2/eli5_plane_emergency_landings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxu1sx5",
"cxu5kln",
"cxuct4u"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You don't. You crash land and hope the cars move out of the way.\n\nYou don't. A plane that emergency lands on a highway doesn't take off again. FAA regulations forbids flying until a thorough mechanical review is performed. The plane is dismantled and trucked off to a hangar.",
"The German autobahn was designed to serve as improvised airfields during WW2, but I do not believe they were frequently used for this purpose.\n\nAnd like those above have pointed out, emergency landings on highways is typically only attempted in the event of engine failure in small aircraft. Yet, it always should be a last resort. If you can't make it to an airport, you should always attempt to go for an open field first.",
"In Sweden we have a lot of highways that doubles as \"Spare airfields\" for use in time of war.\nSo if you when you drive in Sweden you might suddenly find yourself driving on a wide and straight road, then you are on an airfield.\nLike this:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://goo.gl/maps/ynGSFPQm35K2"
]
] |
|
wgulr
|
how are toll roads legal? i thought that taxes payed for roads?
|
Question in the title plus a bonus: can you get a ticket for using the fast pass or pike pass lane without having the pass?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wgulr/how_are_toll_roads_legal_i_thought_that_taxes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5d7bon",
"c5d7fd0",
"c5d7gj4",
"c5d812d",
"c5db0r3"
],
"score": [
24,
78,
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Different roads are funded by different taxes and different governments. Some roads are paid for by the cities, others by the states, and some by the federal government. The roads are paid for using various methods, and some states choose to use tolls on the roads as a way for paying for the construction and maintenance. Generally, you'll find that there is a way to get to a destination without tolls, unless there's a bridge or tunnel with a toll (in which case you'd need to swim to avoid it). You'll see tolls on certain big highways, but not on local roads, so you have a choice as to which you can use.\n\nYou absolutely can be ticketed for going through a toll plaza without paying it, and the ticket will be for quite a bit more than the toll would have been. This is what's called punitive - an additional penalty designed to discourage you from doing something. If you went through a $3 toll without paying, and once every ten times a police officer caught and ticketed you for $3, you'd have no incentive to pay the toll, because your choice is between paying $3, or paying nothing with a small chance to pay $3. Rather, the officer will likely ticket you for $50, which far exceeds the cost of the toll, but it makes the option to go through the toll without paying less appealing. The higher penalty you are risking discourages you from attempting it.",
"You pay a premium on certain frequently used roads/bridges/tunnels in order to supplement the general taxes. This keeps people who use the road more (though not entirely) financially responsible for contributing to upkeep. As opposed to raising taxes on everyone all the time. \n\nLY5?\n\nEvery person in your neighborhood has access to dial-up Internet because they live there. If people want faster Internet, they can pay a \"boost fee\" for a speed boost. This speed boost makes things faster, but maintenance on the boosters costs a lot of money. The internet company uses the \"boost fee\" to make the boost lines all better without making everyone in the neighborhoods pay for all the repairs. \n\n\n",
"Added: I know in NH they will bill you and charge you the toll plus an additional $5 - I know from experience. Also, if you go to a manned toll in NH and plead ignorance, they give you a \"bill\" right at the booth for the toll plus $1.50 and an envelope by which to mail it. ",
"Many toll roads are privatized, and thus aren't paid for by your taxes. Not all, but some.",
"Taxes pay for basic services. The gov't can charge *fees* for extra services, like entering a state park or ordering a copy of your birth certificate. Tool roads are just another service that has a fee.\n\nAnd yes, you can totally get a ticket for stealing a service without paying the required fee."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ns0oh
|
why referring a pakistani 'paki' is a racial abuse?
|
Aussie, Brit, Indian, African is all okay but 'paki' is so wrong. Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ns0oh/eli5_why_referring_a_pakistani_paki_is_a_racial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3bgzx0",
"c3bh06p",
"c3bh0l1",
"c3bh0vl",
"c3bi37u",
"c3bidoh",
"c3bini4",
"c3bj9fc",
"c3bjcm9",
"c3bjepl",
"c3bkcho",
"c3bgzx0",
"c3bh06p",
"c3bh0l1",
"c3bh0vl",
"c3bi37u",
"c3bidoh",
"c3bini4",
"c3bj9fc",
"c3bjcm9",
"c3bjepl",
"c3bkcho"
],
"score": [
17,
39,
7,
41,
4,
7,
6,
3,
2,
2,
3,
17,
39,
7,
41,
4,
7,
6,
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"because its meant in a derogatory way. If i said AMERIKA in that retarded voice, you might take offence, but i'm just saying your countries name right?",
"Same reason why \"Jap\" is a racial slur. If a word is used often enough to degrade people, it starts implying the derogatory attitudes it was used to express.",
"I wasn't aware it was, my Pakistani friend refers to her friends as Paki often.",
"Slurs of any kind become wrong because of they way they are used. Once the word has been used in a hateful or derogatory manner enough times, the word itself can be used to imply hateful and derogatory things without them having to be explicitly mentioned. This makes the word itself offensive, and thus bad. Often, once it becomes taboo, the offensiveness creates a feedback cycle, making it worse and worse to use. \n\nIn case you're a literal 5 year old: If you call someone a name in a mean way long enough, that name will remind them of the mean things that go along with it, and so they might have their feelings hurt if you call them that. ",
"Because you have \"KKK\" in your username.",
"You'll find that in the UK it is often used in a derogatory way to people of South Asian descent, not just pakistani's alone. I got called 'Paki' plenty growing up in the UK, but now i detest it. I do tell my friends to stop, because it's equivalent to what henry82 was saying. ",
"Because perfectly fine words devolve into slurs by their usage. \nIt is quite common when it comes to various mental handicaps as well. \n\nYou will likely find a politically correct race going on in order to find a new, fancy, non-offensive word for people with a mental handicap, but people fail to realize that even if we start calling people \"Reality-perceptionally gifted\", it will take the average fifth grader about a week to manage to make the term sound offensive.",
"The N word developed from 'black' in romance languages (originally Niger in Latin). \n\nKnowing this and/or explaining this doesn't make it ok to use. Ask yourself why and you'll have your answer.",
"It's not in Australia. Bizarre, but true. However, it is in the UK.\n\nThe \"come on Aussie, come on, come on\" World Series Cricket ads used the word \"Pakis\" and no-one thought anything strange about it, least of all the pakis.\n",
"I went to an CL tie between english and turkish clubs. The fans were singing \"I rather be a paki than a turk\" in unison. That made it pretty clear to me both were used to degrade them.",
"It is all about usage.\n\nFor example, \"moron\" used to be valid scientific term, referring to people with IQ's in the 50-70 range. Once it became a popularly used insult, the terminology shifted to \"retarded\", which itself is being phased out for the same reason.\n",
"because its meant in a derogatory way. If i said AMERIKA in that retarded voice, you might take offence, but i'm just saying your countries name right?",
"Same reason why \"Jap\" is a racial slur. If a word is used often enough to degrade people, it starts implying the derogatory attitudes it was used to express.",
"I wasn't aware it was, my Pakistani friend refers to her friends as Paki often.",
"Slurs of any kind become wrong because of they way they are used. Once the word has been used in a hateful or derogatory manner enough times, the word itself can be used to imply hateful and derogatory things without them having to be explicitly mentioned. This makes the word itself offensive, and thus bad. Often, once it becomes taboo, the offensiveness creates a feedback cycle, making it worse and worse to use. \n\nIn case you're a literal 5 year old: If you call someone a name in a mean way long enough, that name will remind them of the mean things that go along with it, and so they might have their feelings hurt if you call them that. ",
"Because you have \"KKK\" in your username.",
"You'll find that in the UK it is often used in a derogatory way to people of South Asian descent, not just pakistani's alone. I got called 'Paki' plenty growing up in the UK, but now i detest it. I do tell my friends to stop, because it's equivalent to what henry82 was saying. ",
"Because perfectly fine words devolve into slurs by their usage. \nIt is quite common when it comes to various mental handicaps as well. \n\nYou will likely find a politically correct race going on in order to find a new, fancy, non-offensive word for people with a mental handicap, but people fail to realize that even if we start calling people \"Reality-perceptionally gifted\", it will take the average fifth grader about a week to manage to make the term sound offensive.",
"The N word developed from 'black' in romance languages (originally Niger in Latin). \n\nKnowing this and/or explaining this doesn't make it ok to use. Ask yourself why and you'll have your answer.",
"It's not in Australia. Bizarre, but true. However, it is in the UK.\n\nThe \"come on Aussie, come on, come on\" World Series Cricket ads used the word \"Pakis\" and no-one thought anything strange about it, least of all the pakis.\n",
"I went to an CL tie between english and turkish clubs. The fans were singing \"I rather be a paki than a turk\" in unison. That made it pretty clear to me both were used to degrade them.",
"It is all about usage.\n\nFor example, \"moron\" used to be valid scientific term, referring to people with IQ's in the 50-70 range. Once it became a popularly used insult, the terminology shifted to \"retarded\", which itself is being phased out for the same reason.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
f62i4c
|
How did mathematicians do things that today requires calculus? For instance, how can you find the formula for the volume of a sphere without integrals?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f62i4c/how_did_mathematicians_do_things_that_today/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fi681uq",
"fi2z509",
"fi430id"
],
"score": [
4,
46,
8
],
"text": [
"Archimedes developed early calculus techniques to prove some of his work. He imagined slicing shapes into infinitely thin slices and then balancing these slices on a lever. This is notably seen in his [The Method of Mechanical Theorems](_URL_0_).",
"Convolutedly but smartly. Here's a classic calculus free derivation of the volume of a sphere: _URL_0_",
"Well, depending on how far you want to go back, the easiest way to find the volume of any arbitrary body is to just throw it in a container of water and measure the change in water level, and deduce the volume from there.\n\nThat said, there's a reason calculus was invented- people came across problems that needed it. I'd say people simply didn't need calculus back then, or atleast had ways to get around without it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Method_of_Mechanical_Theorems"
],
[
"http://mathcentral.uregina.ca/QQ/database/QQ.09.01/rahul1.html"
],
[]
] |
||
df01nd
|
What does Kublai Khan think of his grandfather, Genghis Khan?
|
I meant to say would and not does, sorry
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/df01nd/what_does_kublai_khan_think_of_his_grandfather/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f31r9u2"
],
"score": [
833
],
"text": [
"Good heavens, looks like the mods removed quite a mess on here. Hopefully, I can provide you some assistance.\n\nChinggis Khan (the Mongolian pronunciation of Genghis), despite his rather negative portrayal in most western literature from the 13th century to present, has quite a different reputation among the Mongols and many inner Asian peoples, dating right back to his final years. By the time of his death in August 1227, Chinggis Khan had brought the Mongol tribes from near total disunity, to near total domination of much of Asia. To quote Timothy May:\n\n\"Chinggis Khan may have died a man, but he entered the spirit world as a powerful demi-god... he not only unified Mongolia, but also rendered all potential enemies impotent. He avenged the massacre at Otrar, the death of Yesugei, the insult to Ambaghai - he was an avatar of vengeance, a god of war, and a creator hero who brought writing and stability to the Mongols. His *sulde*, a part of his soul or genius, took residence in the tuq or standard of the Mongols and offered protection to the ruler and to the Mongols in general. As a result, his words were sacred and became *bileg*, or 'wisdom', and proper behaviour for Mongols (*yosun*); the words, deeds and wisdom of Chinggis Khan became analogous to the *sunna* of the Prophet Muhammad in Islam. Since Chinggis Khan had decreed his son Ogodei his heir, this could not be disputed.\" (May, *the Mongol Empire*, 2018, pg. 70-71).\n\n & #x200B;\n\nIt is hard to overstate Chinggis Khan's image among the Mongols following his death. He was not just an ideal ruler, he was *the* ideal ruler, the bar by which nearly every would-be Khan, warlord and conqueror between the Caspian Sea and China would be compared to for the next six centuries. So strong was his legacy that it kept cousins living across the span of the Eurasian landmass working towards a common goal for decades. A unique combination of personal charisma, political, organizational and military skill, an utterly indomitable character and excellent timing lead him to unify and forge the tribes under his command into Asia's fiercest weapon.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nChinggis' shadow hung over all of his successors, who had to try to live up to him Chinggis was being mythologized before he was even dead: how could any man compare to that? Kublai had met Chinggis when he was a boy -there exists an anecdote of Chinggis rubbing animal fat on to the fingers of Kublai and his older brother Mongke after their first hunt- but was quite young when Chinggis died (Kublai was born in 1215, Chinggis died in 1227). Chinggis had many, many grandchildren, and Kublai would have been but one among them. Kublai never knew Chinggis as anything other than a immense, heroic figure, an impossible standard to live up to. That wasn't so much as issue for Kublai for the first half of his life, as there was little chance of him ever becoming Great Khan, and under the guidance of his mother Sorqaqtani Beki, took an interest in Chinese culture and took little for military roles. But when the position of Qa'an was taken by his brother Mongke in 1251 (the Toluid Revolution), Kublai was thrust into leading campaigns against the Kingdom of Dali in modern Yunnan, and then against the Song Dynasty of southern China, before ultimately becoming Qa'an after Mongke's death in 1259. \n\nFor control of this position, Kublai fought his brother Ariq Boke in a four year civil war, the first in the Empire's history. Even by then Kublai was associated with Chinese culture by more conservative Mongols, with Ariq the standard bearer of 'traditional values.' This would be an issue which haunted Kublai over the rest of his long life, and that of his successors in the Yuan Dynasty. While Kublai ultimately defeated Ariq Boke and was proclaimed Great Khan in 1264, his election was never fully recognized by the other newly emerging Khanates. Kublai is the most famous Qa'an after Chinggis, but his reign oversaw the fragmentation of the Mongol Empire into independent Khanates and difficulties portraying himself as an Emperor of China to his Chinese subjects, and as a Great Khan to his Mongol followers and the military, never fully succeeding as either. He completed the conquest of China begun by Chinggis in 1211, (1209 if we want to count the Tangut campaigns!) but his continued foreign ventures -Japan, Vietnam, Burma, Indonesia- were all failures, and he saw rebellion in Mongolia and Central Asia, his cousins Qaidu and Nayan (and others) forming barriers to Kublai's influence outside of China, even threatening the original Mongol capital of Karakorum at times. \n\nAs Kublai's life drew to a close, he was predeceased by his closest confident, his beloved wife Chabi, his chosen heir Jingim, most of his friends and skilled advisers from earlier in his life. His final years were marked by isolation and removing himself from political affairs, depressed, suffering from gout, obesity and alcoholism. Military defeats, political corruption, economic trouble and the irreversible fragmentation of the empire haunted him. The specter of Chinggis Khan's success, I feel, must have weighed him down above all. Compared to the accolades the Mongols laid upon Chinggis, I believe Kublai must have come to see himself as a failure in comparison to his illustrious grandfather. Of course, Kublai made no such public statement: it would be today like an American politician saying they though George Washington wasn't all that great. In general, little of Kublai's personal thoughts come down to us. Chinggis Khan's final years saw the utter defeat of Khwarezm and the Tangut, laying the groundwork for further expansion: while Kublai saw the Mongols pushed back and the empire fall apart.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor this reason, Kublai almost certainly held Chinggis Khan in the highest regard. Certainly, he put many a posthumous title and ceremony upon his honoured grandfather and his loyal compatriots. He ordered portraits and historical works to celebrate him, and publicly showed nothing but devotion and respect. Yet, he could very well have come to hate the comparisons to him. Chinggis was an ideal Kublai could never live up to, and try as he might, the same glory only eluded him. Had he died in 1280, we might have spoken on his successes and his what his potential could have been had he lived longer: dying in 1294 as he did, we can only imagine how Kublai suffered a sense of the empire slipping from out of his grasp, and how it was his own fault. \n\n & #x200B;\n\n Sources:\n\nTimothy May, *the Mongol Empire* (2018)\n\nMorris Rossabi, *Khubilai Khan: His Life and Times* (1988). Still the most concise, readable and detailed single biography on Kublai, though it is obviously missing newer historiography."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5bebpd
|
physiologically... what happens when someone opens your eyelids when you're asleep?
|
when we were young, i would open my brother's eyelids when he's asleep (that's fucked yes i know)... what happens? if anything at all? does the brain register anything? or is it just dumb and cruel to do that to your brother?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bebpd/eli5_physiologically_what_happens_when_someone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9nvhit"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
" > what happens? if anything at all? does the brain register anything?\n\nThe retina doesn't stop working when you close your eyes, it is just that the eyelids block most of the incoming light. When you sleep the part of your brain that interprets light goes mostly dormant and ignores the signals from the retina. Unless of course they are strong enough which is why shining a bright light in your face will wake you when asleep.\n\nOpening someone's eyes while they are asleep exposes them to potential damage and also removes the barrier of the lids to incoming light. Assuming they aren't awoken by the light and nothing damages the eye (including drying out) they should be fine. The brain doesn't really care if the retina is sending almost no signal because the interior of the eyelids is dark or the room is dark."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
oti6r
|
Cancer and Aging
|
From my limited understanding of cancer. It is caused by cells growing out of control. Is it not plausible that the cure to cancer and the cure for aging are very similiar?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/oti6r/cancer_and_aging/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3jx5sn"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I would say the opposite is true - since cancer incidence increases with increasing age, anything that makes us live longer is *more likely* to increase cancer rates.\n\nConsider the enzyme telomerase. You may be familiar with the relationship between telomeres (\"caps\" on the end of DNA that are degraded over time) and aging. Telomerase is an enzyme that builds these caps back up, allowing for a cell to divide as many times as it wants without aging. Some researchers think that telomerase may hold the key to stopping the process of aging. However, cancer geneticists noticed that, in most cancers, telomerase has been *activated*, allowing the tumor cells to reproduce without end. In other words, if we were to activate telomerase in all of our cells in an attempt to stop them from aging, they would all be one step closer to developing into cancer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
25g608
|
Internal struggles in Czechoslovakia 1960-1980?
|
I'm working on my finals in history and chose the topic in the title.
Now I managed to find more or less reliable sources stating that there was a clear difference between the industrialisation between czech and slovak lands. But everything else I'm finding is always history of CZ & SK vs UDSSR.
Can anyone here point me in the right direction? Or were the internal problems all small enough to be overshadowed by the Soviets?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25g608/internal_struggles_in_czechoslovakia_19601980/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chgveg1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was a marked difference between the industrial bohemia and more rural slovakia. But not many issues between Czechs and Slovaks. I'm just curious where you got that idea?\n\nSoviet issues put the rest to shame. That time period includes the Prague Spring and the subsequent invasion from all their socialist neighbors, which overshadows pretty much everything else."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
gjnhz
|
How close are we to getting rid of the aging of skin or at least the appearance of aging?
|
Can a laser be made to get deep enough and remove a lot of skin to reveal newer, better-looking skin? Or is that "newer skin" damaged (DNA damage I guess?) to where it will just look old also?
**The reason I ask is**, I saw a program on TV about a girl that got an infectious, flesh-eating disease of the skin (I think it was Mystery Diagnosis) and it ate away almost all of her skin.
She said that her doctor said that she will have "baby skin" and look 30 years younger than her age for the rest of her life.
Could that principle be safely introduced into some sort of therapy?
I doubt millions of people would be flocking to have 98% of their skin removed but just curious.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gjnhz/how_close_are_we_to_getting_rid_of_the_aging_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1o1ypr",
"c1o2sqb",
"c1o6tyi"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of the visible signs of aging (wrinkles, sagging skin, etc) are a result of elastin and collagen slowly breaking down, and a steadily decreasing efficiency of replacing them. Elastin is what's responsible for the stretchiness of your skin, unsurprisingly. Some people have a lot of it and are able to do all sorts of crazy things with their skin. Collagen is the underlying support structure for a great many systems in the human body, almost like the glue that holds things together.",
"Take a look at [this](_URL_0_)\n\nThis describes some of the causes of the lack of collagen. Collagen formation is partially controlled by the hypothalamus (like a lot of body functions) which is part of the midbrain. This [wiki article](_URL_1_) describes the effects of cortisol creation which can negatively affect the elasticity of the skin by blocking the formation of collagen.\n\nWhat I am getting at with all of this is that by controlling the amount of cortisol in the body (drugs, vitamins, meditation, etc) and decreasing cell damage, you can reduce the effects of aging on your skin yourself.\n\nIt will only be a matter of time before we have a drug to control these that is over the counter but drug companies and cosmetic companies\nhave very little interest in creating it. It's not a great business model.",
"One of the important building blocks of collagen is Ascorbic acid, aka vitamin C.\r\n\r\nHumans and some other primates, have lost the ability to create our own ascorbic acid internally due to a mutation so we must ingest it.\r\n\r\nWe know that we die from the lack of it (scurvy), but preventing scurvy is simply the bare minimum ammount we need to survive. Alot of anti-aging and longevity regimes include megadosing vitamin C (well above recommended intake) for its antioxidant properties as well as collagen production and maintenance.\r\n\r\nI'm sure its up for debate though. But take your vitamin C!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Collagen#Synthetic_pathogenesis",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cortisol#Effects"
],
[]
] |
|
1pupnb
|
why is there always(what i think is) an unrealistic amount of downvotes on great reddit submissions?
|
When you look at the top posts to reddit you see a huge amount of upvotes(for example the top post today has 22841 upvotes so far) as the post is funny, interesting etc. However, it also has 19105 downvotes. This strikes me as ridiculous and I have a hard time believing that that many people felt the need to downvote. I realize that people are going to have varying opinions on things and that not everyone will find the same things funny but the posts in question do not take some sort of controversial stance on anything so there's not a whole lot of room for dislike or disagreement.
TL;DR What's goin on a'tal?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pupnb/eli5_why_is_there_alwayswhat_i_think_is_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd68uxr"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Reddit has a vote-fuzzing algorithm that adds fake upvotes and downvotes (keeping the overall score stable), so that people who run bot networks for automatically upvoting/downvoting content can't tell if their bots are working or not."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9ac08q
|
How much longer will the Hubble Space Telescope remain operational?
|
How much longer will the Hubble Space Telescope likely remain operational given it was launched in 1990 and was last serviced in 2009,9 years ago?
& #x200B;
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ac08q/how_much_longer_will_the_hubble_space_telescope/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4uk16q",
"e4v0q86"
],
"score": [
463,
413
],
"text": [
"As long as NASA finds a way to use it. They are expecting that it will fall back to Earth [between 2030 and 2040](_URL_1_). It could fail due to other issues before, of course. [BFR](_URL_0_) could potentially bring it back in one piece with an acceptable cost.",
"A good resource is [this Hubble Status presentation PDF from 2017.](_URL_1_)\n\nThe HST's most vulnerable component is its gyroscopes, which are used for precisely pointing the telescope. It needs three gyroscopes for normal operations, and it has six on-board for redundancy. [The second gyro of those six failed in April of this year.](_URL_3_) Once two more fail, it will start to affect operations. Operations can continue in a more limited capacity all the way down to one gyro (which would get Hubble very solidly into the 2030s, where its orbit would become the limiting factor). But the question once we reach sub-three-gyro operations (estimated at ~2023) will be if a limited Hubble is worth $100M a year, which is what it costs to run.\n\nRight now, it is \\*very\\* worth it.\n\nAnd as you can see from [that PDF I linked](_URL_1_), folks are working hard to develop innovative plans that keep all these instruments going, all so it can keep being worth the upkeep as we go forward into this uncharted territory.\n\n------------------\n\n\\* Edit for clarity: It's important to note that these gyroscopes are not like the [control moment gyros](_URL_2_) that the ISS uses the momentum of to rotate. The Hubble gyroscopes just help you know which way you're pointing. For a complete picture of how Hubble points itself and knows where it's pointing, check out [this page](_URL_0_) (the magnetic momentum dumping is pretty cool)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BFR_(rocket\\)",
"http://www.cbsnews.com/network/news/space/home/spacenews/files/1ae7cac0d167055e41e1f0da7b0ac6a3-588.html"
],
[
"https://www.nasa.gov/content/goddard/hubble-space-telescope-pointing-control-system",
"http://www.stsci.edu/hst/proposing/panel/Cycle25-HST-status.pdf",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Control_moment_gyroscope",
"https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddard/2018/hubble-spacecraft-update"
]
] |
|
5ng49l
|
Can tectonic plates "heal" or can they be broken into smaller plates, or have they always been the same?
|
Is there any mechanism that would allow all of the edges of a plate to reform with its neighbor plates?
Is there any mechanism that could cause one to fracture into more plates?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ng49l/can_tectonic_plates_heal_or_can_they_be_broken/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcc1ov6"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The size and shape of tectonic plates change over time and yes plates can be spilt, joined, or completely consumed. My suspicion is that your question is more focused on the [continental](_URL_9_) bits of tectonic plates, which we'll get to, but the [oceanic](_URL_7_) portions of tectonic plates undergo the most change. Oceanic crust is produced essentially continuously (albeit at a slow rate) at [mid-ocean ridges](_URL_4_) and consumed at [subduction zones](_URL_1_).\n\nPlates can be split apart by the formation of a [rift](_URL_2_), essentially a portion of a plate begins to extend, and thin and if enough extension and thinning occurs then new crust begins to form (decompression melting of the aesthenosphere, upper portion of the mantle, forming basaltic/oceanic crust) at which point, this becomes a new mid-ocean rift and effectively separates the formerly continuous plate. The [East African Rift](_URL_5_) is a good example of one of these rifts that is in the process of splitting a tectonic plate.\n\nContinental portions of plates can be joined through collision and mountain building. This creates what we call a [suture](_URL_6_) between two formerly distinct plates or micro-plates. While active collision is occurring, the two plates will continue to move semi-independently of each other and thus we tend to consider them as two separate plates still (e.g. in the Himalayas, the Indian plate and Eurasian plate have collided and there is a suture that separates them, however the Indian and Eurasian plates still are moving with respect to each other so we still consider them two separate plates). Long after mountain building has ceased, the docked portions of plates will largely begin to behave as one. For example, if you look at the North American plate, in detail it is made up of a series of [terranes](_URL_3_) that were joined together during various mountain building events a long time ago (mostly [1-2 billion years ago](_URL_8_)). Now, they are recognizably distinct 'terranes' within a single plate (i.e. their geology tells us that they were at one time distinct portions of different plates that have been joined through mountain building events, but now they mostly behave as a single coherent plate, the North American plate).\n\nAs an aside, sutures and rifts often (but not always) occur in similar places at different times, i.e. the former site of a rift that expanded to form a new ocean basin later becomes a suture when that ocean basin is closed first by subudction and then eventually collision between two continents and mountain building. This cycle of opening and closing of ocean basins is called the [wilson cycle](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://csmres.jmu.edu/geollab/Fichter/Wilson/Wilson.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subduction",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rift",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algoman_orogeny#/media/File:North_American_provinces_and_orogens.PNG",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mid-ocean_ridge",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/East_African_Rift",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suture_\\(geology\\)",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oceanic_crust",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algoman_orogeny",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Continental_crust"
]
] |
|
33ybcp
|
why do people with blond hair look like their hair is dark or black at the base by scalp, but the rest of it is blonde? why doesn't that dark hair grow and make their hair dark?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33ybcp/eli5_why_do_people_with_blond_hair_look_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqpn3jq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's usually either dye or sun related. Since your hair is dead, it can't increase melanin production to absorb light better, and the sun will kill off the melanin that's there. The roots are new hair and haven't been as affected by the light, so they'll lighten as they grow out, but the natural color is the root. Also, like mentioned, it's hard to get there if you lighten your hair chemically without damaging the skin of the scalp. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
38donw
|
why does music conservatories/academia put so much emphasis on jazz and classical music?
|
Been to graduation concerts since Monday, and 19 of 20 have been either pure Jazz/Fusion or a Mix of old and new Classical music. One student did play some more rock-ish instrumental stuff, but that's about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/38donw/eli5_why_does_music_conservatoriesacademia_put_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cru9dcx",
"cruascq",
"crubz86",
"cructy4",
"crueida",
"cruggr7",
"cruhmsw",
"cruhp87",
"crumax8",
"cruo0yx",
"cruoy4r",
"crup83t",
"cruqv66"
],
"score": [
13,
3,
24,
2,
64,
10,
8,
3,
2,
7,
136,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"I don't know much about music but a friend once explained to me that jazz is very heavily based in scales and music theory, thus jazz is very challenging and interesting to play...anybody wanna add to that?",
"Just look at the sheet music. Pop/Rock are usually pretty basic song structures. Classical and Jazz have crazier timings, usually more complex parts. ",
"You're essentially asking why does Art School have so much emphasis on Leonardo, Donatello, Van Gogh, Andy Warhol Impressionism, etc etc.\n\nThe reason rock n rollers aren't particularly cared for in the Academic circle is because it's easy. The chord structures, the solos, everything is extremely simple in general terms.\n\nThere's certainly an element of snootiness to it, but there's only so many things you can say about 1-4-5 chords. \n\nI guess my other question is, what do you expect them to focus on?\n\n",
"Jazz and classical lend themselves well to academic study because they're intrinsically linked. They're the types of music that are written to be studied. They're musicians' music. There's not much to be gained from studying a I-IV-V pop rock song.\n\nOr they're just wankers.",
"Comparing rock and classical music is kind of like comparing simple arithmetic to really, really abstract math. Like, math so high above simple arithmetic that most of it is written in these arcane eldritch symbols whose ancient meanings have been forgotten by all but a wise, ancient few, and so abstract that it doesn't even have *numbers.*\n\nWhat I'm saying is, rock is mostly made up of simple chords. It's structure is relatively simple -- even if there are a bunch of notes that come really fast after one another, it's still usually really simple to break it down into its component chords. Which, I'm pretty sure, is actually *why* it's so catchy.\n\nClassical music (and jazz, for that matter) are *complicated.* Their structure is way more complicated than rock -- if you try to break it down, you'll see that you *can't,* not in the same way as with rock. In classical music, the chords that form the backbone of rock flow into one another, forming not so much a backbone as a friggin meta-melody. Sometimes, the chords themselves are strange, alien things, making sense only in the context of the piece. It's like the composition is a giant fucking web of music, that you're attempting to navigate by playing it.\n\nClassical music demonstrates concepts whose complexity is actually larger than what can fit into rock. Like, rock is too small.",
"Like others have said - jazz & classical are advanced and complex enough to warrant studying at such institutions to get truly good at.\n\nRock and pop etc, not so much.\n\nThat said, learning classical is often what allows rock musicians to truly stand out. They can take the complex stuff from classic and subtly infuse it into rock to make something that truly stands out.\n\nTake [Yngwie Malmsteen](_URL_0_) for instance. Generally regarded as one of the best guitarists out there. He had a fascination with classic and practiced it immensely before eventually applying it to the rock genre.",
"a fairly simple explanation - Pop, rock,country, punk, Funk, R & B, metal, etc. have one thing in common and that is is designed to have a primarily emotional appeal. It isn't a hard and fast rule, but a generalization. I play jazz and have a formal education in jazz, but initially I came up playing in club bands, self taught.\n\nA factor that is overlooked in this discussion is the quality of music from the 30's to the late 50's - Gershwin, Porter, Loesser, Nestico, etc. - guys who brought great melodies and progressions to popular music via broadway, big bands, and sheet music. Open the Real Book and see how much of the material there is from that era and styles. Not jazz, but wonderful songs written by musical geniuses. ",
"Because Jazz and Classical are they hardest kinds of music to compose and/or play. It takes a real genius to compose a timeless work of classical or Jazz. \n\nAs a musician, I can say without a doubt, it is way easier to write a rock, metal, funk, pop, bluegrass or etc. song than a classical or jazz song.",
"Musician here...the simplistic way I can put this is most modern music is based around counting to 4: 1 2 3 4. Where as jazz and classical can still be based around the simple count to 4, but now you have to count say: 1 and a two and a 3 e and 4. Further subdividing the time creating more complex rythmes. Listen to a song by katy perry and count 1 2 3 4 and see how often any beat or rythme strays from thay count. Now listen to any jazz or classical piece and try to count out the rythme with all the complex time subdivisions. ",
" \n\n\nPro drummer, composer, producer w degree in jazz who works in many genres here. \n\nNot sure anyone has mentioned this HUGE element of jazz yet - improvisation. It takes a certain level of mastery of an instrument where you can freely improvise and have a VOICE, and have your ears developed and sensibility to a point as to listen and create as a group, in the moment. This is pretty huge and a big distinction from other forms of music. If you can get to a certain level of jazz, both technique and concept, many many other forms of music that's stem from jazz (most American music) come much easier. So to help answer your question - jazz is an incredible foundation to set someone off to be a pro musician of any kind. \n\n\n",
"Lots of misinformation here, so as a graduate of one of the rarer non-classical, non-jazz programs in the country I'll throw in. \n\nIt has nothing to do with complexity or ease, and everything to do with a clear canon of \"accepted\" works, a pre-existing curriculum model, a wealth of experienced professionals who are able to work well in an academic environment, and a clear program goal. Jazz and classical have these; pop does not. Starting a pop program means designing a program basically from scratch and finding professionals who can translate their work experience to an academic setting, while most classical and jazz musicians have already been through conservatory programs and absorbed their knowledge *within* a pre-existing system. \n\nJust try designing a curriculum and it becomes clear why few pop programs exist. Design a classical curriculum, well shit, you've got hundreds of years of tradition: copy, paste, now your college has a conservatory. For pop, it's different - here, let's ask the relevant curriculum questions: \n\nWhich genres would you cover? Where would you draw the line between genres? Would you emphasize studio engineering, and to what degree? How would MIDI programming fit in? Most classical programs know they can safely leave out Graupner and Salieri, but can a pop program afford to leave out Fleetwood Mac and Crowded House? Being a multi-instrumentalist is a big part of being a pop musician - should everyone be a proficient drummer AND bassist? Do they need to operate Digital Audio Workstations? How much time will you require them to spend in the music studio? Classical players have symphony rep classes and jazz musicians have big band - what similarly large ensemble will the pop players be able to take part in? \n\nWhat textbooks would you use? You'd need textbooks that cover dubstep's use of the flat 3 as a dominant, surely, and an explanation of modality in west coast hip hop - what book will cover that? You'll have to make one. And what will you use to analyze orchestrations? Most of those orchestrations were recorded once and then thrown out - are you ready to notate for yourself all 100+ instruments in that Owl City song? Even notated stuff (like The Beatles works) tends to be notated by ear and is frequently inaccurate (and expensive to reproduce). \n\nWhat's your canon? Major classical rep covering most of the major styles basically boils down to fewer than thirty composers; more if you get past the 1950s. Jazz draws on a known body of work (the Great American Songbook) and again relies on the output of around ~20 major artists and their ensembles, usually playing in a few big-tent styles. With pop music, you're usually dealing with many more people with much less output, and an outrageous amount of diversity in that field; just hitting rock and r & b from 1950-1990 in any meaningful way would be an enormous undertaking. \n\n*[edit: I wrote this in another comment and thought it would be relevant here:]\n\n > In many ways, what makes something teachable in a conservatory is its simplicity. This is why harmony gets so much more focus in theory curriculum than melodic construction: it's easier to explain and analyze advanced harmony than advanced rhythms. Classical music is all notated: I don't need to transcribe anything or do any analysis on my own to teach how Beethoven composed and orchestrated a piece, because there's already an enormous body of analysis and every part is diligently notated. If I want to teach a class on how to orchestrate like Elvis Costello and The Attractions I'm going to have to start from scratch, which sucks since the bass and voice are in fast, intricate counterpoint - never mind the drum set (several percussion instruments played concurrently) and the almost-unreproducable organ tones.\n\n > For a trained musician, teaching the best classical music in detail is easier than teaching the best pop music. When I started teaching I basically had to design half my curriculum from scratch.\n\nMoreover, you're dealing with a market that often doesn't feel they need formal training. The amount of rock guitarists who think they need to go to school is going to be way lower than the amount of oboists who feel they need schooling. How will you get the parents to pay for the program? Classical conservatories have been around for hundreds of years; why should daddy cosign the loan to study Pop Music when Paul McCartney didn't need a degree? \n\nAlso, you need totally different sets of skills for different jobs. The skillset for jazz musicians is pretty clear, as is the skillset for symphony players or contemporary chamber ensembles. But what does it mean to be a player of popular music? A session player in Nashville has a totally different set of guidelines than a metal guitarist in New York. And how will you get it taken seriously? Sure, that Miley Cyrus song has some interesting modal transformations and awesome melodic instability, especially compared to bland early Classical music - but try telling the department chair that you're spending a semester on John Mayer, Miley Cyrus, and ABBA. \n\nAnyway: There already exist programs for film music, commercial music, and pop music (Berklee being the clear front-runner). They're all over the Northeast, Nashville, and SoCal. There are also contemporary music programs within more traditional conservatories, like the Studio Production/Composition major at SUNY Purchase, from which Regina Spektor and Dan Romer graduated. Most of these have their own curriculums tailored to specific genres, or are broad catch-all programs. They're very rarely operated in the same buildings as classical programs, and when they are the classical staff has very little regard for them, even if they both suck just as hard at one another's specialties. \n\nFinally, to debunk a few of the WILD misconceptions I'm seeing around here: \n\n > Classical and Jazz music is inexplicably complex!\n\nReally? Most jazz tunes are 32-bar AABA songs, in sections of 8 bars each. They start with the \"head\" and then progress through different solos. Harmonically, they're usually a tour through the circle of fifths with some cool substitutions. Alright, that covers jazz harmony up until modal jazz and Coltrane changes. For classical, you spend several decades dealing with clear forms, usually also organized into even-numbered and symmetrical phrase lengths, again using lots of circle-of-fifths motion and some substitutions. This'll cover most major works written in the Classical period, and a bunch in the Romantic period. \n\n > Sure, top 40 is dumb, but Death Metal—\n\nLet me just stop you right there, metalhead. Top 40 Pop music has plenty of stuff to interest academics and aspiring players alike. Whether you're dealing with the novel orchestrations of Brian Wilson, the harmonic complexity of Steely Dan, the tight melodic construction of ABBA, the modality of hip-hop, or the production technique of Miley Cyrus, there's plenty worth studying. Certainly most of it is more interesting than half the stuff you'll hear from Haydn. Hell, there are more metric modulations in the work of boy band B4-4 than there are in the works of most classical composers pre-20th century. \n\n > But classical music after Schoenberg is wildly complex! And free jazz! And—\n\nYeah, but most jazz programs give very little overall attention to post-bebop jazz, and most classical performance programs gloss over the 20th century, at least until undergrad. By and large the focus is on learning music that doesn't require a calculator, or a matrix, or vast theoretical knowledge. \n\n**TLDR: Pop music programs do exist, but they are rare because of lower demand, fewer ties with academia, fewer academic resources (pre-existing curriculum, accurately-notated works, extensive theoretical analyses and textbooks), and a much broader and more recently created body of work.**\n\nEdit: a lot. ",
"It's simply because classical music is established, so people know how to study it. It's like with literature, you will study the classics. Contemporary novels are just as creative but they haven't entered the realm of established \"classics\" yet, and it's the same with contemporary music.",
"They've been around a lot longer than popular music and are institutionalized at this point. All other forms of western music stem from classical or jazz. They are the root of most contemporary forms of music, so the idea for most music institutions is to go to the source."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yngwie_Malmsteen"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
17zdu3
|
Why are we "carbon" based life, not Hydrogen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/17zdu3/why_are_we_carbon_based_life_not_hydrogen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8a75p2"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's all about organic chemistry. Carbon makes four bonds, which gives rise to an amazing versatility in organic chemistry. In fact, if you wanted a non-carbon based life form, you'd have a better shot at guessing something just directly below carbon on the periodic table, because it's more about carbon's specific behavior than the abundance of say....hydrogen. However, hydrogen does play a big role in our physiology. I'm sure there is a better, more in-depth way to explain this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bsw4l0
|
During fission/chain reactions, how do atoms absorb neutrons??
|
How do neutrons "Go past" the electron cloud and into the main nucleus itself?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bsw4l0/during_fissionchain_reactions_how_do_atoms_absorb/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eorb1sw",
"eou1l44"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"The neutrons have no charge, so they don’t really care at all about the electrons. The primary way that neutrons interact with matter is by interacting with *nuclei*, except when they’re moving extremely slowly, and magnetic dipole interactions become important.",
"Neutrons have no charge. They have a magnetic dipole moment but it is roughly 1000x weaker that that of electrons. So they don't really interact with electrons except slightly and at very low velocity. They don't have a problem passing right through the \"cloud\" of electrons around the nucleus.\n\nNeutrons interact with the nucleus via the strong force, but this has a very short range of action, about 3 femtometers. The average separation between nucleons is about 0.7 fm. So in the case of uranium the neutron needs to approach within about 1.5x the radius of the nucleus to be absorbed or \"gobbled up\" by the strong force (the uranium nucleus being about 15 fm in diameter.)\n\nHowever this attraction, over the short range, is extremely powerful. In the case of fissile isotopes like U-235 or Pu-239, the attraction adds enough energy to the nucleus to cause it to wobble and deform and quickly fission around 81% of the time.\n\nThis is why the absorption cross section increases as the velocity of neutrons goes down. Slower traveling neurons spend more time in the vicinity of the neutron and thus are more likely to be absorbed. It's therefore a useful activity to surround fuel with materials which scatter and slow down the speed of neutrons, but will rarely absorb them outright. This is done with elements with light nuclei, such as carbon-14 or deuterium containing water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2teeky
|
why is ocean water so hard to process to make it drinkingn water?
|
I've seen new inventions like Bill Gates poop water, and still wondering, why if most of our planet is non-drinkable water, hasn't there been a way to purfiy it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2teeky/eli5_why_is_ocean_water_so_hard_to_process_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cny8wy4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's hard to get salt out of something it has dissolved into, without it costing you so much energy it becomes pointless from a cost perspective. You can do it, but only up to a point, which is why a lot of island nations don't have drinkable tap water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
vhwz9
|
Is the physiological effect of an orgasm the same whether it's self induced (from masturbation) or achieved with the help of a partner?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vhwz9/is_the_physiological_effect_of_an_orgasm_the_same/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c54sf0a",
"c554tls"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I remember being taught a long time ago that oxytocin is released during sex. I'm curious to know if it happens during masturbation. \nFrom what I recall, oxytocin helps with emotional bonding, but in the absence of a partner I don't know what the effect would be. Someone please explain. ",
"I am almost absolutely sure I've read a peer reviewed study that said semen volume is higher during sex than during masturbation. For some reason I can't find it right now. \n\nIf this is correct, then it stands to reason that there is some form of physiological difference. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1hukkp
|
Why were the Romans unable to conquer inland Arabia?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hukkp/why_were_the_romans_unable_to_conquer_inland/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cay2uc0"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"They could have conquered inland Arabia. They didn't want to or need to do so. \n\nThere was nothing of value in Arabia until oil. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
11dkj7
|
If our moon had oceans, would the waves be significantly larger due to Earth's size and the lesser gravity?
|
Assuming said oceans weren't frozen.
Is the gravitational pull from earth the same as the the pull from the moon which effects our tides?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/11dkj7/if_our_moon_had_oceans_would_the_waves_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ljml7",
"c6ljn07"
],
"score": [
5,
16
],
"text": [
"Not really. The tides on Earth are a result of the moon's gravitational field, the Sun's gravitational field, and the rotation of the Earth about its axis. Compared to Earth, the moon doesn't rotate. There would be some tides from the Sun's field, but smaller than the tides on Earth. Additionally, the Moon would need an atmosphere or all the water would vaporize due to the absence of pressure.",
"you'd also be assuming that the moon had an atmosphere, water boils in a vacuum.\n\nbut assuming the moon had liquid oceans and all the other conditions to maintain them. it's my understanding that the majority of wave action is caused by the wind, not tidal forces as your question seems to point to.\n\nSo my answer is a solid probably, just because if the moon had an atmosphere and was warm enough to support the liquid oceans it would also have wind to cause waves and with lower gravity waves would be able to be significantly larger before 'breaking' as waves do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8icfl6
|
What makes AC Electricity better?
|
How making electricity change from positive to negative alternatively and continuously makes it a better electricity than DC?
additional:
what really happens when the electricity is negative?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8icfl6/what_makes_ac_electricity_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dyse3su",
"dyssrkp"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"AC can be raised in voltage (and lowered again) via a relatively simple transformer. That is useful for long distance transmission because higher voltage needs less current for the same power. The resistance of wire means that the higher the current, the more power loss there will be. \n\nHigh voltage DC power lines do exist and have some advantages. Their disadvantage is that they need expensive converters to make AC for the end user.\n\nAC can be used to make simple brushless motors. DC motors need brushes or external circuits to drive them.",
"Three things.\n\n1. Electric generators/motors naturally produce/require AC. DC generators and motors require rectifiers and or brushes (rotary switches) to convert AC to DC and then back again.\n\n2. You can use simple transformers to raise and lower the voltage.\n\n3. It's a lot easier to interrupt AC with a mechanical switch than DC. Because DC tends to produce self sustaining arcs. With AC the arc dies each cycle (usually).\n\n > what really happens when the electricity is negative? \n\nElectrons are flowing the other way.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3qhc7m
|
How was Brandenburg under Frederick William I part of both the Holy Roman Empire and Brandenburg-Prussia?
|
To clarify, the territory of Bradenburg was part of the HRE, but Prussia was not. Frederick William (Grandfather of Frederick William I), the Great Elector, helped to unify these territories. How did this situation play out politically and economically?
For example, did Brandenburg have to take certain orders from the Holy Roman Emperor, when Prussia did not? Furthermore, if so, how could Brandenburg-Prussia be unified when the territories are under the authority of different people?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3qhc7m/how_was_brandenburg_under_frederick_william_i/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwfh0q6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The head of the House of Hohenzollern served a dual role as the elector of Brandenburg, and duke (later king in) Prussia for several decades. Essentially, this meant that the Hohenzollern rulers enjoyed more sovereign powers in their Prussian holds than in their Brandenburg ones. This increased control could be attributed to the earlier decline in central authority of the Polish-Lithuanian Empire than the HRE. Brandenburg was not one of the traditional Dukedoms of the HRE, and the Holy Roman Emperor only made concessions to the rulers of Brandenburg as it become less practical to exercise direct control over them.\n\nThis is also the reason why the Hohenzollerns originally become Kings **in** Prussia rather than Kings **of** Prussia. Within the borders of Prussia, they could reign as Kings, but in their Brandenburg holdings they only exercised the traditional powers of an elector, and were subordinate to the Holy Roman Emperor. It was not until Fredrick the Great's victories in the War of Austrian Succession that the Hohenzollerns exercised enough autonomy that Fredrick could declare himself the King of Prussia outright."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
84y9uw
|
Just finished Mary Beard's SPQR. What similar book can I follow this up with to continue with Rome's history?
|
I thought it was a fantastic book and it seems to be held in high regard on this sub here as well. Now, if I'm interested in what happened to the Roman Empire after her book ends (with the decree that every free inhabitant of the empire would become a Roman citizen)? I know at some point it splits into East and West, but it's pretty hazy from there, and I'd be interested in learning more.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/84y9uw/just_finished_mary_beards_spqr_what_similar_book/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvtcra5",
"dvtqfqk"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Others can weigh in, but do check out [our booklist!](/r/AskHistorians/wiki/books/europe#wiki_ancient_rome)",
"The *Constitutio Antoniniana* which granted Roman citizenship to all free inhabitants of the empire was issued in 212 AD and there is quite a lot of Roman history after that. Soon follows the so called “crisis of the 3rd century” between 235 and 284 AD throughout which the empire was shaken by internal as well as external problems. Next comes Late Antiquity, a period which has attracted a lot of scholarly attention in recent decades. It saw some huge changes like Christianity’s rise to dominance or the final partition of the empire into a western and eastern half that you mentioned. And while the western part already disappeared throughout the 5th century the Eastern Roman Empire would survive for a long time further. The rise of the first Islamic caliphate in the 7th century AD cost it much of its territory and caused further transformations. This surviving remnant of the Roman Empire, now centred around Constantinople, is usually called the Byzantine Empire. Its eventful history would continue through the entire Middle Ages until 1453 AD when it was finally conquered by the Ottomans. So all in all there is more than a millennium of further Roman history to cover. \n\n* [Michael Kulikowski, The Triumph of Empire. The Roman World from Hadrian to Constantine (2016)](_URL_3_) might be a good point to start as it begins right in the period you’re already familiar with and leads you through the 3rd century crisis to the beginning of Late Antiquity.\n\n* [Peter Brown, The World of Late Antiquity. AD 150-750 (1989)](_URL_5_) is pretty much the foundational text for the modern scholarship on the named period. Its short, richly illustrated and just all around fantastic.\n\n* [Peter Heather, The Fall of the Roman Empire. A new history of Rome and the Barbarians (2007)](_URL_2_) covers the developments that would lead to the end of the Western Roman Empire.\n\n* [Peter Sarris, Empires of Faith. The Fall of Rome to the Rise of Islam. 500-700 (2011)](_URL_4_) has a larger focus than just Roman history and also concerns itself with the post Roman kingdoms in the west as well as (like the title says) the rise of Islam.\n\n* [Judith Herrin, Byzantium. The surprising life of a Medieval Empire (2009)](_URL_1_) is probably one of the best ways to first familiarise yourself with the huge timespan that is Byzantine history.\n\n* [Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (2006)](_URL_0_) is another excellent introduction to the entirety of Byzantine history.\n\nThere are quite a lot of books that go into further detail about the different periods of Byzantine history but for the start those two general introductions should probably suffice. Of course you can always ask for more. I hope this helps! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Byzantines-Averil-Cameron/dp/0631202625/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521246647&sr=1-1&keywords=cameron+the+byzantines&dpID=51SV9VgdGPL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch",
"https://www.amazon.com/Byzantium-Surprising-Life-Medieval-Empire/dp/0691143692/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521246474&sr=1-1&keywords=byzantium+surprising+life+of+an+empire",
"https://www.amazon.com/Fall-Roman-Empire-History-Barbarians/dp/0195325419/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521245559&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+heather&dpID=51F1B%252BsOmIL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch",
"https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-Empire-Hadrian-Constantine-History/dp/0674659619/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1521245177&sr=8-1&keywords=Michael+Kulikowski%2C+The+Triumph+of+Empire&dpID=51voqQJmW2L&preST=_SY344_BO1,204,203,200_QL70_&dpSrc=srch",
"https://www.amazon.com/Empires-Faith-500-700-History-Medieval/dp/0199261261/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521245423&sr=1-1&keywords=peter+sarris+empires+of+faith&dpID=41urF0vp5pL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch",
"https://www.amazon.com/World-Late-Antiquity-150-750-Civilization/dp/0393958035/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1521245219&sr=1-1&keywords=Peter+Brown%2C+The+World+of+Late+Antiquity&dpID=51lhexsPkyL&preST=_SY291_BO1,204,203,200_QL40_&dpSrc=srch"
]
] |
|
1k06ch
|
lavabit shutting down
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1k06ch/eli5_lavabit_shutting_down/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbk2w7e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Us government said either comply with our domestic spying demands or stop operating. Rather than violate the constitutional rights of Americans, they chose to suspend operations while they try to prove in court the demands are in violation of our constitutional rights to privacy and against illegal search and seizures. We don't know quite exactly what is going on though because apparently the courts have also removed their right to free speech in regards to what the demands were specifically. It's all laws and actions taking place in secret behind closed doors, what I thought would always be tin hat people talk, but sadly it's real now."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
g1vlz3
|
In Pre-Columbian North America, how much contact (if any) did the Mound Building cultures (like Cahokia and the Mississippians) have with Mesoamerican civilizations?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/g1vlz3/in_precolumbian_north_america_how_much_contact_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fnl1xjx"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"So this question is a tricky one, mainly because of a lack of a written record for Cahokia and other related cultures. We can see items being exchanged, but remember that Cahokia and Mississippian communities have prestige goods coming in from across the continent. Prestige goods were sought after for a range of reasons, and thus we can see an equally wide range of types of goods coming into Cahokia. The issue really is how direct was it, did the citizens of Cahokia know these goods were from regions like the fringes of mesoamerica? The trade could have been gradual, communities exchanging and repeating the process all the while goods travel far from the initial exchange. Or perhaps elites at Cahokia sought after goods from the Southwest specifically, or at least knew that those goods were obtained via an intermediary community somewhere along the way. \n\nIt is fair to note that there is little evidence to indicate that people were travelling between the American Bottom and Mesoamerica directly. We don't see individuals from either region in the archaeological record for the other. While lack of evidence is not the same as a solid no, a safe bet is that no one was directly travelling between the regions. But as for trade? That's a whole lot harder to narrow down, even if we did have a written record how well would the average Middle Mississippian have known the people's of Mesoamerica? Look at Samsung products today, many of us own them but how many of us here in the US know much about South Korea beyond it's geographic location? Sure we know they exist, but having trade goods from them really only shows that we like the items they produce without any sort of written record to explain the relationship between the average American and average Korean. You need that record to help build some of the explanations that the archaeological record struggles to do at times."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
xdt5q
|
If pain is a signal sent to our brain telling us that something in/on our body is broken/malfunctioning, is taking a pain-pill to rid ourselves of the discomfort in reality only allowing the injury to worsen and be ignored?
|
By taking pain pills are we allowing more damage to be done to our bodies?
For example, taking pain pills for a sore back and continuing on with work?
This is excluding the pain in such cases of healing and whatnot.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xdt5q/if_pain_is_a_signal_sent_to_our_brain_telling_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5lhpcb",
"c5lhs3p",
"c5lnhlr"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"No, because we have other senses and our own intelligence to verify and acknowledge the injury. We don't just forget it's there when the pill goes down.",
"Well, given that people with congenital analgesia can cause significant damage to themselves, this might be possible, but only under specific circumstances. If you are slapping fentanyl patches on your body that actually block perception of pain, then yeah, you might be able to cause extra damage if you continue to work.\n\nOn the other hand, something like aspirin can actually be beneficial by lowering potentially damaging inflammatory responses. However, given that we have brains and can connect action to pain without actually experiencing that pain directly, and can correctly *stop whatever is causing the pain* when you take the pill, then there are no physiological issues associated with doing so.\n\nBottom line: drug it, just don't be stupid about it.",
"Depends upon the type of injury and the type of pain pills. The answer's going to be different for broken bones compared to menstrual pain, and different depending upon whether you're talking about a COX-2 inhibitor or an opiate pain reliever. What did you have in mind, more specifically?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
d6in0j
|
Do the different types of genetic mutation occur at equal rates?
|
Specifically talking about transition, transversion, addition, and deletion (or more, if there are other types I haven't read about yet).
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/d6in0j/do_the_different_types_of_genetic_mutation_occur/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0vcx7f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I imagine substitution is more common than indel, because the latter produces much worse effects (frameshift mutation). So there should be a strong selection pressure against indels. Transition (A-G or C-T) is much more common than transversion (A-C or G-T).\n\nOverall, the most common mutation is a ribonucleotide insertion. This occurs during replication of the DNA strand, when a ribose-nucleotide is inserted rather than a deoxyribose-nucleotide. This occurs every 600-1000 basepairs.\n\nSpontaneous mutations are also quite common. For example, a guanin can randomly react with an oxygen radical and form an 8-oxoguanine. These mutations are usually quickly repaired.\n\nComplex mutations (like CNV, repeat expansions, transposon insertion) are very rare."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
45n8wc
|
How can you measure something at 1 billion light years away, if it would take at least 2 billion years to measure that distance?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/45n8wc/how_can_you_measure_something_at_1_billion_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czyy4fk"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"You don't measure the distance by sending something back and forth.\n\nThe easiest way is as follows. If you know how big a signal is when it is created and you know how big it is when it arrives, then by how much the signal has decreased you can determine how far the signal has had to travel. This is how the distance to the source was determined in the gravitational wave detection.\n\nThere are other techniques astronomers use in other situations, but I'm guessing your question stems from the gravitational wave detection just announced.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3ub4hr
|
why does my cat want to cuddle then suddenly attack me viciously?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ub4hr/eli5_why_does_my_cat_want_to_cuddle_then_suddenly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxdi7fl"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"He doesn't want to cuddle, he wants warmth, just let him do his thing, then, pat his head, don't over stimulate him. \n\nYou'll want to know your cat well, after the Facebook thing... "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2cccy5
|
How does the Roman legions (let's say, 80-180 AD) military training compare to our modern day "boot camp"?
|
How would a man become the "drill sergeant"? What things would they learn and how was life like in it?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2cccy5/how_does_the_roman_legions_lets_say_80180_ad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cje5gc1",
"cje8hcf",
"cjel82n"
],
"score": [
189,
22,
45
],
"text": [
"I think [this thread](_URL_0_) can answer some of your questions.\n\nEDIT: I'm including a small excerpt from the thread, all credit goes to /u/Celebreth\n\n > Let's go into a bit more detail on the 'training' you could expect as a tiro. The Tirones were drilled for ONE purpose only - very different from today's military. They were drilled with discipline. They learned how to swing their swords and shields (the shield was a ridiculously good weapon too), but their primary lesson was discipline, keeping a level head, and staying in the proper rank and file. They learned to march, build camps, stand in formation, and they exercised quite a bit (something that you DO find in modern boot camp), with everything from rock laden packs to running and making camps, to \"The Post\" - or learning how to use your weapons.\n",
"A great book on this exact time period of the Roman Empire check out _URL_0_!\n\nThe main strength of the Roman army was their discipline in formation. Despite the oft depiction that they only fought with savages, they had little to no advantage in their weapons, neither by design or craftsmanship. \n\nTraining was mostly life long. People would recruit and go through training, but their job was discipline in fighting and they would be posted in strategical points around provinces where they would essentially train all day. Your average troop spent very little time on campaign and would also do police work and construction work when required. Commoners could rise through the ranks to a point but this was generally limited to centurion (Which probably acted somewhat as a drill sergeant to their company/squadron). \n",
"Alrighty, I'm gonna go ahead and take care of that re-write I mentioned here. I'm going to try to take all of the questions in this thread into account while writing this, so if there are any more, just let me know after I finish. If you'd like more detail on the Roman army in general, one good, cheap, extremely accessible and readable source is Adrian Goldsworthy's *The Complete Roman Army*. I'm going to give some background in this post to highlight the evolution of the Roman army as it went; and those changes were rather significant to the \"boot camp\" idea as a whole. I'll go ahead and start where our best documentation of Rome springs into being: the Punic Wars.\n\n---\n\n**THE PUNIC WARS (264 BCE -146 BCE with some intermissions)** - *For further reading on this era, check out Goldsworthy's \"The Fall of Carthage\" and O'Connell's \"The Ghosts of Cannae\". \"The Complete Roman Army\" has some good stuff as well here.* \n\nMany of you reading this know the basic story of the Punic Wars - or at least the second one, where you have Hannibal plowing across the Alps and promptly stomping through back-to-back Roman armies on the Italian peninsula. He was constantly outnumbered, and yet he smashed the Roman armies at Trebia, drowned them in Lake Trasimene, and utterly dominated them at Cannae. He never lost a battle on the Italian peninsula, and the road behind him was scattered with Italian soldiers. A narrative that's also known, albeit a bit less, is that Rome lost significantly more men in the First Punic War than Carthage did, despite winning most of their battles on land and sea - unless bad weather was involved. Even in the Third Punic War, the Romans had an incredibly massive army. That army was also known for its lack of discipline and relatively poor performance. Why?\n\nThe Roman army in this era was one of the most dominant armies in the history of the Republic. Interestingly enough, they're also easily ranked among the best militias in the world. The army was a militia force - even when you get to the 80,000 man army used at Cannae - and it was raised on a yearly basis. The Senate would decide how many men were needed and where. Each of the two *consuls* (chief magistrate - think of them as general-presidents in this context. They were co-commanders-in-chief, but they were expected to actually lead their armies themselves) would be assigned a number of legions depending on Rome's need, and the size of those legions, again, would depend on Rome's need. In a time of relative peace, the legions would number about 4,200 infantry and 300 cavalry each, while when the Republic was in danger (Hannibal), we have records of legions being numbered at about 6,000 infantry each. These legions would be levied from the landholders of Rome. Basically, they were farmers. \n\nThose farmers were expected, when they came of age, to serve proudly in the Roman army when the need required. How long they stayed evolved over the course of the Punic Wars quite drastically - the \"Cannae Legions,\" for example, served longer than any other Romans at that point in history, and I'll get to them in just a bit - but the basic expectation of each man would be that they served 16 campaigns before they were no longer eligible for service. That's basically at least 16 years of warfare, which would suggest that they were far more capable in warfare than most of them were. \n\nThe thing is, though, Romans in this period identified extremely closely with Rome herself, and it was considered an *extremely* high honour to submit to Rome's intense discipline and fight in her honour. Mustering for the army was done on the *Campus Martius* - the Field of Mars - right outside the City, and those were were selected/drafted would go straight into the army. Politicians were in charge of the army as a whole, but there was no real \"boot camp\" that was specified for any legion. Up top, you had your *consul* (or *praetor*, if it was a small operation that only required one legion), and in charge of each *legion*, you had your *military tribunes* (who were also elected officials). So how about the centurions, you ask? Well, you military folks here will have a chuckle at this one. The centurions were elected by the soldiers. While in theory, this would mean that the most experienced men would be officers, experience and ability weren't necessarily the prime qualifications for election. \n\nThat leads straight into why the legions facing Hannibal performed so poorly to begin with. While they had the numbers, and while their commanders were certainly relatively experienced men, the men themselves were, although disciplined, extremely poorly trained. As such, they were unable to execute any maneuvers beyond the basics (manipular formation), and were subsequently extremely predictable. There was little to no unit cohesion, and even the more experienced men had not fought as a *unit* before. That cohesion takes time to build, as Rome later practiced, and, while their discipline (building camps and extremely harsh punishments) kept their men in line, formal training was nonexistent. If a commander wanted to train his men, he could be accused of dallying - an incredibly sharp political attack - or would lose most of his campaign season. Roman magistrates were only supposed to occupy their office for one year, which meant that they just didn't have any *time* to train their men. They had to take what they had and go, counting on their morale, discipline, and numbers to brute force their way through opposition. Scarily, it worked more often than not.\n\nThen again, there were times where it just didn't. When Hannibal barged in on the Italian Peninsula, he had an army of veterans who had fought for most of their lives in Spain. They were the same men who had fought with each other the entire time, and they were extraordinarily experienced in combat. The ones who survived the crossing of the Alps were the hardest core of THAT force. So just starting off, he had an incredibly strong foundation to work with, and that foundation was responsible for the most infamous defeats in Roman history. Even if weather killed more Romans in the First Punic War than Hannibal did in those three battles. The Romans needed a solution, and badly, though they refused to budge on many of their values. After Cannae, there were about 8-12,000 survivors who were able to get out of Hannibal's trap. Those men were promptly sent to Sicily, effectively being exiled, to fight down there. And fight they did, until they were recruited for Scipio's African campaign over a dozen years later. \n\nMagistrates in this time began to be appointed for years past their \"expiration date.\" They were called \"proconsuls\" or \"propraetors\" (effectively the same thing), and were given command in a given province for years at a time. With that expanded time frame, many commanders, such as Scipio Africanus, seized the opportunity to train their men extensively. Starting off, Scipio took command in Spain, where he was able to take over the remnants of his father's army, who had been fighting together for many years previously. Scipio headed over in the early winter, using that time to train his men and plan for his future campaigns. Those few months of training paid off handsomely, as he was able to promptly take New Carthage, giving his troops a huge degree of trust in their young commander. For the next four years, he fought tooth and nail up and down the Spanish peninsula, and that army under his command just became stronger the longer time went on. While they didn't have a conventional \"boot camp,\" they went through a trial by fire, learning their stuff by experience. His centurions were still elected, but he was able to execute incredible maneuvers which caught his opponents completely off guard, and his men were stronger than any other Roman army on the field. \n\nWhen Scipio headed down to Africa, same deal - except that the African legions had been in service even *longer* than the Spanish legions. They were forced to head down to Sicily after they survived Cannae - losing their status as \"green troops\" after that massacre - and they spent the next 12 years fighting up and down the length of the island. Other survivors of lost battles were filtered in to buffer their ranks, and by the time Scipio took control, they were 12,000 of the hardest veterans Rome had ever known, and they wanted revenge on Carthage. \n\nOver time, however, Rome's armies lost their professional sheen. In the next few decades, men became harder and harder to find, and the armies that were mustered essentially rested on the laurels of their forefathers. Defeats followed, and yet the armies continued their downward spiral due to the Romans refusing to learn from Scipio Africanus' policy. Scipio Aemelianus, responsible for the razing of Carthage, came in to command an army which had besieged a disarmed city for 5 years without being able to take it. The army was incredibly undisciplined, demoralized, and lacked all of the positive traits of Africanus' legendary legions.\n\n---\n**Continued in the next post**\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://np.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1d3kk0/what_were_roman_legion_training_camps_like_did/"
],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Grand-Strategy-Roman-Empire/dp/0801821584"
],
[]
] |
|
b429e4
|
what weapons were used in ww1?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b429e4/what_weapons_were_used_in_ww1/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej3qtg9"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"What types of weapons are you referring to? Do you want small arms? Artillery? Ships? Aircraft?\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor a question like this, you'd probably get more of the replies you're looking for over at r/history"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
13urdn
|
Were WWI generals incredibly incompetent, or just a product of their environment?
|
It seems that WWI generals were content to waste tremendous of amounts of resources and human lives for negligible gains. At the same time, I understand that WWI had a huge increase in firepower over previous wars without a corresponding increase in mobility. To what extent are the generals who fought the war responsible for lack of success of both sides and the horrors of trench warfare?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13urdn/were_wwi_generals_incredibly_incompetent_or_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c77dpyt"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The generals in WWI may not have been incompetent, but their tactics lagged far behind their technology. The stereotype of bayonet charges against machine guns and barbed wire definitely happened in the early days of the war, and that trend of tactics not compensating for new tech continued throughout the war. Innovations were constant, and as Wilhelm Balck, a German commander said, \"Bullets quickly write new tactics\". This was still often not enough to prevent massive casualties.One major part of the massive casualties, especially on the Western Front, was lag in communication. The armies in WWI were larger than any previous armies, and the combination of that and the fog of war caused by many of the weapons, made coordinating grand tactics very difficult. This could be disastrous for the soldiers on the front lines. Also, the constant innovation required meant that generals often had to learn by trial and error, which was not pleasant for the soldiers involved in the trial. In regards to the horrors of trench warfare, again, a large part of that is due to technological advances. Weapons such as chlorine gas that had never been used before were impossible to defend against at first. The combination of this and constant artillery fire made trenches brutally dangerous even when neither side was pressing a ground attack. As a whole, WWI generals weren't particularly incompetent, and some were even quite competent. The massive size of armies, advances in combat technology, and forced tactical innovation made it very difficult to prevent massive casualties on all sides.\n\nEdit:Proofreading"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3irphz
|
Why has the Japanese government tolerated the existence of the Yakuza?
|
[Inspired by this article](_URL_0_).
It appears that they have significant power and act out in the open. I would have thought that a rich, Western country wouldn't tolerate such visible and powerful criminal organizations.
Has there never been a push in Japan to crack down on the Yakuza the same way that the U.S. did with the Mafia?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3irphz/why_has_the_japanese_government_tolerated_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuj206r",
"cuj97d6"
],
"score": [
5,
29
],
"text": [
" & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp; & nbsp;Here are past answers & discussions on this and similar topics:\n\n* [The Yakuza's history & role] *[Why did the Yakuza flourish in Japan?](_URL_2_)* \n^({19 Jun 2012 | 2 comments}) \n\n* [The Yakuza's place in legitimate society] *[Were the Yakuza responsible for forest preservation in Japan as a result of their racketeering enterprises?](_URL_0_)* \n^({10 Mar 2015 | 12 comments}) \n\n* [Compares the Yakuza to the Mafia] *[Why was the Japanese government far more tolerant of the Yakuza than the American government of the Mafia?](_URL_1_)* \n^({23 Apr 2014 | 21 comments}) ",
"This is very much an ongoing topic and as such we have to be wary of the 20 year rule to avoid delving into modern day stuff. But a side note, the government notably enacted major crackdowns in 2012 in both national law and police enforcement/surveillance of the major yakuza groups, curtailing many of their open operations and freedoms. There were also major crackdowns several times during the Cold War (notably in the 1970s and again during the 1990s), and of course, heavy crackdowns during the harsh wartime period. \n\nSo let's get down to it. \n\nWhy are the modern Yakuza so apparently tolerated by the Japanese government and people as opposed to other major crime syndicates in the world?\n\n**A major part of it is because of how deeply entrenched the Yakuza have been in both major business and politics in Japan, especially Cold War Politics.** \n\nYakuza money almost goes hand in hand with Japanese politicians and major business in Japan. Corruption has been a serious problem in Japanese politics for a long time, really coming to a head in the 1970s, with the highest profile politician-Yakuza scandal probably being Prime Minister Tanaka Kakuei, who was one of the most influential PMs of Japan's long time ruling party, the Liberal Democratic Party (LDP). \n\nWhile PM Tanaka Kakuei was involved in multiple scandals, prior to the 1970s, the biggest scandal was, of course, his participation in the Lockheed sale scandals. Accepting major bribes of millions of dollars, his participation was heavily linked to the Yakuza. This scandal in particular was one of the major turning points of Japanese public opinion against the deep Yakuza connections that seemingly every politician had. \n\n*But how did this relationship start anyway? REWIND*\n\nThe Yakuza gained a tremendous amount of power in the post-war era, a tumultuous time but also a time with more freedom than wartime Japan. Japan, which was devastated by a terribly effective air campaign, was on the verge of mass starvation directly after the war. And of course, even basic goods could be hard to find, nevermind everything else. The Yakuza profitted handsomely in black market trade, smuggling, drugs, etc. \n\nBut very soon, with the Cold War looming, the Yakuza had a better option than the regular criminal enterprises. With American pressure to crush socialist/communist groups, labor unions, and organizations, as well as suppress anti-establishment publications, academics, protests, etc, government officials soon found the Yakuza more than willing to be hired muscle, though mostly to intimidate rather than actually commit severe violence, like assault or murder.The Yakuza have maintained this strong connection to the right wing, nationalist/ultranationalist groups to the present day. \n\nBecause of their position as political allies against the Communist threat, Yakuza crimes were tolerated in return for their favors and services, along with a healthy helping of bribes. From this relationship going forward, the Yakuza eventually dominated the construction industry, receiving exclusive, lucrative contracts from their government friends, sometimes going home with even more money if they purposely skimped on the job. \n\nWith all this money, many Yakuza groups invested heavily into legitimate businesses, integrating themselves even further with major businesses. It became hard to enter the upper echelons of business and politics without involving yourself with the Yakuza or those who were heavily connected to them. \n\n**As for actual crime, many police and politicians believe that the Yakuza do their part in keeping crime down**. Or at least, that is the unofficial justification. Nearly every politician promises to crack down on Yakuza and general crime. \n\nMany Yakuza groups are organizations that style themselves as legitimate organizations that are steeped in tradition and bound by codes. Most even have their own *mon*, which are the same type of crests that samurai clans often used. \n\nMany of the major Yakuza groups strictly ban selling drugs, \"excessive\" violence toward 'civilians' (those not involved in the underworld), committing burglary, rape, or murder, and other \"severe\" crimes. Independent gangs and criminals, or indeed other Yakuza, that did these things on Yakuza territory were often subject to Yakuza justice. So in a way, some Yakuza acted as intimidating, thuggish-if-you-don't-give-me-what-I-want guardians of their neighborhoods. And Yakuza are famous for aiding communities in times of disaster.\n\nBut it's also important to remember that plenty of Yakuza did do these things. Rules and what activity at what level is totally up to the individual Yakuza groups and as a decentralized organization, it was not unheard of for a Yakuza faction within even the strictest groups to deal on the side in secret. And in lieu of these profitable crimes, Yakuza groups still make their money from very unsavory activities, such as intimidation, protection rackets, illegal gambling, money loaning, money laundering, fraud, prostitution, human trafficking, pyramid schemes, phishing scams, etc. \n\nIn general, it's particularly important that Yakuza groups prefer to deal with their problems using their money or connections, whether in the business or political world. Yakuza tend to avoid using overt acts of violence, and avoid murder whenever possible. \n\nGang wars like in Mexico, the US, China, etc are unheard of and essentially unthinkable in Japan. Any romantic ideas of Yakuza that Japanese people hold would evaporate the moment the scale of violence committed by Yakuza approached even a 10th of the gang violence in these other places. A lot of public acceptance of the Yakuza stems from the fact that they generally don't threaten the lives of people and don't overtly disturb the peace.\n\n**Lastly, Yakuza have been romanticized for decades**\n\nThere are innumerable novels, movies, and publications that romanticize the Yakuza. And it's in a completely different way than other crime organizations are usually glamorized. \n\nIn their most favorable depictions in media, the 'ideal' Yakuza is never ostentatious, humble, loyal, compassionate, and just. They are always compared to the slimier Yakuza characters, who invariably flash lots of money, are greedy, easily bought, attack people needlessly, etc. Comparisons of honorable Yakuza to samurai are a constant thing from both regular citizens as well as the Yakuza themselves. Indeed, many Yakuza justify their collection of protection money by raising comparisons to the fuedal taxes that samurai would levy on those not of the exclusive warrior class. \n\nThis narrative of a modern day samurai combined with belonging to a close knit fraternity of brothers is very appealing to many Japanese people, even if this doesn't match up entirely with how the modern Yakuza acts. \n\nThis about wraps up all the general overview and lays down a lot of ground work. \n\nIf you have any follow up questions, feel free. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.thedailybeast.com/articles/2015/08/28/the-coming-yakuza-war.html"
] |
[
[
"https://redd.it/2ynku9",
"https://redd.it/23rdo1",
"https://redd.it/vahki"
],
[]
] |
|
9j1ys1
|
How did Fascist Italy go from 1933 when they saw Zionism and Jews as potential partners in the middle east to undermine British influence to 1938 when they introduced racial laws against the Jews ? Where those anti-semitic laws popular among the population or they were considered too extreme ?
|
In the specific, Fascists were sympathetic to revisionist Zionism, they were against Social Zionism (AKA the kind of Zionism supported by David Ben-Gurion, the founding father of modern Israel)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9j1ys1/how_did_fascist_italy_go_from_1933_when_they_saw/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6pfve3"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"The largely unpopular Revisionist Zionist movement and the Fascists in Italy had a very short, ill-fated tryst of sorts. It's an interesting and understudied (in my view) connection, as is the effect of the Holocaust on Italian Jews, but that's another story I also think is understudied (or if not, at least not nearly as well-known).\n\nThe tryst began in 1922, with the Revisionist Zionist leader (Vladimir Jabotinsky) being sent by the World Zionist Organization to try and court Mussolini to the Zionist cause. This was not out of some special role for Jabotinsky or Mussolini; Zionist representatives were sent off in various directions to try and woo European leaders, particularly those heading what were considered rising powers like Italy. Jabotinsky, it is worth noting, would eventually leave the WZO over differences of opinion on Zionism, again illustrating that he was not very central in ideology to Zionism on the whole (which is even further reflected in Israel's history, but that too is another story). At any rate, the meeting with Mussolini didn't happen, so Jabotinsky sent a letter, where he tried to explain why Mussolini should support Zionism, and where he acknowledged that Mussolini was opposed to Zionism but should not be. So began a courtship that, as I said, lasted a fairly short time.\n\nMussolini was, as far as I can tell, a believer that the Arabs were natural allies of Italy, and therefore not supportive of Zionism. This shifted by the 1930s, and Zionism was increasingly viewed with favor. Mussolini was foreign minister in 1933, in addition to running Italy, and began to circulate propaganda that supported a Jewish state. This was not because of Jabotinsky. Jabotinsky never managed to actually meet Mussolini, despite his best efforts. By contrast, Mussolini did meet with some of the Labour Zionist leadership (like Chaim Weizmann), who went on to found Israel. Even so, Mussolini remained apparently suspicious of Labour Zionists, and more sympathetic to Revisionist Zionism, because of the Revisionist hostility to Britain. While he met with Labour Zionists, he undertook a policy that favored Revisionists in action, allowing them to study in Italy's Maritime School, though he refused more conventional Zionists.\n\nAll of this was not because Mussolini was \"swayed\" after all by Jabotinsky or anyone else. Instead, it appears to have been a nakedly political calculation. Jabotinsky evidently hoped that he could use Revisionist Zionists against Labour Zionism and against the British, and also felt that it would enhance his international standing to take a stand in the question of Zionism and to meet with Labour Zionist leaders. All of this never dulled his suspicions of Zionists, with his views of \"dual loyalty\" still being quite clear.\n\nThe tryst of sorts, which never resulted in any concrete Italian support and which was more of Mussolini's strategic musing than anything else, ended when Mussolini made the decision to ally with the Nazis. The transition was quickly made, with internal propaganda organs first launching broadsides against the loyalties of Zionist Jews, and seamlessly transitioning from there to attacks on Jews overall. Mussolini appears to have never been forced into this position by the Nazis; it was not a condition of an alliance, for example. However, he appears to have figured that Zionism would not serve him nearly so well as an alliance with the Nazis, and judged that racial laws would help (along with cutting British and French ties) show how seriously he wanted that alliance.\n\nThere were a couple of other reasons why Mussolini met with Weizmann, and not with Jabotinsky. One was that Weizmann was a chemist who had helped Britain's chemical processes during WWI, and was sought-after by Mussolini to help Italy's chemical industries. His development of acetone processes in WWI was crucial to Britain's war industry, by most accounts, and Mussolini sought his friendship. Weizmann had no real interest in this, and made very clear by 1934 that he was keeping his distance from Mussolini and anyone who appeared even the slightest bit sympathetic to the Nazis. Weizmann, one of the Labour Zionist movement's most prominent leaders, said quite clearly in December 1934 that:\n\n > I have never either directly or indirectly offered or mentioned anything to the Italian Government about it [the Palestine mandate] and would certainly not do it, whether our own Government [Britain] is interested or not! There is every reason not to deal with the Italians in a matter of this kind.’\n\nThis is part of why Mussolini's subsequent actions, like those involving allowing the Revisionists to study in Italy, were targeted as they were to favor Revisionism.\n\nAnother reason for the eventual shift towards antisemitism, besides the Nazi alliance, is worth mentioning. The Ethiopian crisis of 1935-36 is mentioned by Vincenzo Pinto in \"Between imago and res: The Revisionist-Zionist Movement's Relationship with Fascist Italy, 1922–1938\" as a particularly formative moment in the relationship. By September 1935, the Revisionists had separated from the World Zionist Organization and started their own, much less popular \"New Zionist Organization\" (NZO). At the time, most Jews of prominence were quite opposed to Italian actions in Ethiopia, and were supportive of sanctions on Italy. Jabotinsky attempted to distinguish the NZO, saying he believed Italy must win, and to highlight the anti-British bent of the NZO. Thus when Jabotinsky met with the head of the Ethiopian office in Italy he was able to get a recommendation sent to Mussolini that Italy should support the Revisionist movement. Despite some softening in his views, Mussolini still would not meet with Jabotinsky, and NZO outreach to Italy continued. However, as opposition to the Italian actions and support among Jews for sanctions grew more cemented, Mussolini found it harder to separate amongst the movements. This, coupled with the Nazi outreach, made it harder and harder to envision supporting the NZO. There was little to be gained from responding to the NZO's courting at this point, and Italy continued to drift in the manner I mentioned above.\n\nI mainly source this from *The Jewish Radical Right* by Eran Kaplan and *The Italians and the Holocaust* by Susan Zuccotti, along with the aforementioned article. Let me know if you have questions!\n\nAlso happy cake day to me I guess? Didn't realize!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
42hgcy
|
why is "if man evolved from monkeys, why are there still monkeys?" not a good argument against evolution?
|
I was raised in a religious cult that has and still does preach against evolution, and while I have woken up from the mind control and now realize that evolution is fact, I still do not fully understand it. I would love some help in this area!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42hgcy/eli5_why_is_if_man_evolved_from_monkeys_why_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czabd58",
"czabdhz",
"czabfa8",
"czabxum"
],
"score": [
3,
13,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Say you want to do a little selective breeding. You take 2 golden retrievers that each have a specific trait you want to breed into a new animal, like unusually coloured fur or whatever.\n\nOnce your dogs breed, they'll have a litter of puppies, some of which will have the differently coloured fur, but most will just be regular golden retrievers. \n\nThat's why there's still monkeys. Because while a small number of monkey offspring slowly became humans, the rest of the baby monkeys didn't change, and are still monkeys.\n\nedit: grammar",
"The one-line response is: \"if Americans descend from Europeans, why are there still Europeans?\"\n\nA little less flippantly: we didn't evolve from *modern* monkeys. We, and modern apes, descended from a common ancestor that was also a primate.",
"We didn't evolve from any monkey species alive today. We evolved from a shared common ancestor with them. At some point in the distant past our branch of the family tree diverged from that branch, perhaps by a geographical separation between two populations. Fast forward to today and each branch has evolved into a different species (or more, as they continue to branch themselves). ",
"Evolution isn't a linear process. Imagine it like this: You have a monkey. That monkey have two baby monkeys. One of the babies is a pretty standard monkey, very similar to the parent. The other baby is a bit more intelligent than the average monkey. \n\nStandard monkey goes on to meet a standard lady monkey, and they have standard monkey babies. Intelligent monkey hooks up with another intelligent lady monkey and has intelligent monkey babies. This happens over and over throughout a bunch of generations until there are loads of ancestors of intelligent monkeys and loads of ancestors of standard monkeys. The intelligent monkeys keep prioritising intelligence when they choose mates, so their children keep getting more intelligent than the standard monkeys until there's such a massive difference that they're not the same species any more.\n\nNow there's 2 things (very broadly speaking) which can happen. If there's a lack of resources (food, habitat, water) then the intelligent monkeys will use their monkey-smarts to dominate access to that resource and the standard monkeys will die out. \n\nBUT if there isn't a shortage of resources, then the monkeys co-exist going down their separate lines, with one group developing increased intelligence as they breed with their intelligent friends, and one group just continuing to be your run of the mill monkey. Or one group may leave and find other/better resources elsewhere. \n\nSo, from the original monkey you (eventually) get two species arising which can still coexist. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
r3x2f
|
how trees know when to start blooming. what does the temperature to do initiate budding?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r3x2f/eli5_how_trees_know_when_to_start_blooming_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c42r800"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"OK, it has nothing to do with the temperature. Plants use light, as it is far more consistent than the temperature, to gauge when they begin blossoming. Basically, plants need an uninterrupted period of darkness of a certain length. You can do an experiment with this by waking up in the middle of the night and shining a bright light on your flowers for five minutes. Certain species will not bloom just from that small interruption.\n\nBasically, every year the length of day and night will be the same on the same day, even though the temperature can vary greatly. Plants using temperature are more likely to blossom to early and die from a frost.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photoperiodism"
]
] |
||
2mldo0
|
What is the current view of the Mongol death tolls in light of the latest archaeological findings?
|
And other sources for data.
I remember reading that Persian archeology for the Mongol Invasions supports lower death tolls than the higher, long believed death tolls.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mldo0/what_is_the_current_view_of_the_mongol_death/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm5w8la"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not familiar with recent Persian archeological findings, but some of the quoted death tolls for Mongol invasions would have required a) that the city had an unrealistically high population for the time period and b) would have deserted the city, when later records indicate the city was still functioning (sometimes because it rebelled again). The archaeology also supports many of the cities in central Asia not being abandoned as a result of mongol attack & occupation.\n\nTo take an example, the massacre at Merv was claimed at 1.3 million people, at time when the largest cities in the world probably had 300,000 people. Yet somehow it revolted again 10 months later (the alleged massacre happened in February 1221, it revolted in November 1221).\n\nFrom John Man, *The Mongol Empire* \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zsys5
|
how do rockets combustion stay lit in space?
|
Even in an environment with no oxygen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zsys5/eli5_how_do_rockets_combustion_stay_lit_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfwnj3t"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Rockets carry both the fuel and the oxygen for combustion. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5ar7aw
|
How popular was the nazi movement in the United States?
|
I feel like this question has probably been asked before, but I cannot find it and perhaps my googling skills need work. Anyway, my question is in the title.
What was their party membership and essentially how prominent was this movement? Was their a notable amount of people sympathetic to the nazis in the years leading up to the war? After the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5ar7aw/how_popular_was_the_nazi_movement_in_the_united/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9jh0vi"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[To borrow from an earlier post I wrote on this subject](_URL_0_):\n\nhe main support in the US for the Nazi party came from the German-American Bund, led by its own little wannabe Furher, Fritz Kuhn, a German born, naturalized citizen, but with some strings pulled by the German Foreign Office itself. With roots in several earlier organizations, \"Friends of the Hitler Movement\" and \"Friends of the New Germany\", it was founded in 1936, and agitated, mainly within the German-American community, for pan-German unity behind the Nazi regime. It never succeeded in gaining much penetration into the 30,000,000 person community, peaking at 8,500 members, although about 20,000 people attended their infamous rally at Madison Square Garden on Feb. 20, 1939. The organization would falter soon after when Kuhn was indicted for embezzling party funds - in large part due to the dogged perseverance of Mayor Fiorello LaGuardia and DA Thomas E. Dewey. He beat some of the charges, but not all, and was sentenced to several years in Sing Sing. Now under the leadership of G. Wilhelm Kunze, the Bund never got back on a solid footing, and when it was officially disbanded on Dec. 9th, 1941, there was barely any organization to be rid of.\n\nSources\n\nBell, Leland V. \"The Failure of Nazism in America: The German American Bund, 1936-1941.\" Political Science Quarterly 85, no. 4 (1970): 585. \n\nEvans, Richard J.. New York, US: The Coming of the Third Reich. Penguin Books, 2005. *General history, part of a trilogy. Best general history of Nazi Germany out there, IMO*\n\nFischer, Klaus P.. Hitler and America. Philadelphia, US: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2011. *Heavily covers US-American relations in the period*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57g329/which_political_party_supported_hitler_and_his/"
]
] |
|
yrx9p
|
how does the nsa 'intercept' domestic communications?
|
Following the [amazing Wired article this past spring](_URL_1_), and [yesterday's NYTimes op-ed](_URL_0_), I've become interested in the NSA supposed domestic spying program. In both pieces, a whistle-blower, William Binney, claims that the NSA is quickly building a database which contains the electronic communications, banking records, etc, of all Americans.
I'm not a technical person. I have very little understanding of networks and communications. However, I've watched enough movies to have a vague understanding of how individual, warranted intercepts are done... The authorities get a warrant, go to an ISP, or telco, show the warrant, and get the information. I'm under the impression that, in order for the NSA to spy on all of our communications, all the time, the logistics would have to be somewhat different...
Can anyone ELI5 a technical method for how the NSA gathers all of this information? In other words, how does it continuously 'intercept' the data of hundreds of millions of people at a time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yrx9p/eli5_how_does_the_nsa_intercept_domestic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5yax5t"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Internet and telephone communications travel from your house (or from your telephone provider) broken up into small packets of digital data. Each little packet contains a header that says where it is from and where it is going. Those packets are all switched and routed through various pieces of equipment on the network to get them closer to their final destination. When they reach the internet proper, they are part of a bundle of millions of similar little packets. \n \nThe NSA has set up posts at numerous places on those networks to receive and make copies of transmissions. All they need to do is to insert devices at major hubs where many paths of a network come together and make a copy of each data packet, sending that copy to the massive data-analysis centers they have set up. (I don't know how they transport all of the data, if it is done on a separate network or using the same ones that they are spying on.) The original data packet is sent on its merry way after the copy is made. \n \nAnyone with physical access to the major \"long haul\" datacommunications cables that carry internet/phone traffic could do this. The big trick isn't making copies of the data, or even in putting the various packets back together again. It is analyzing all of them to separate the interesting stuff out. The amount of data flowing through those network nodes is huge. Trying to use humans to sift through it would be like asking thousands of employees to drink from fire hoses and let someone know when they tasted a drop that seemed odd. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/23/opinion/the-national-security-agencys-domestic-spying-program.html",
"http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/2012/03/ff_nsadatacenter/all/1"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
2hqyq9
|
Why do so many people need vision correction nowadays? From an evolutionary standpoint it makes very little sense to me.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2hqyq9/why_do_so_many_people_need_vision_correction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckv7p2w",
"ckv8nfe",
"ckv9wna",
"ckvg3l4",
"ckvjvvp",
"ckvm46f",
"ckvnfjc",
"ckvvzsf"
],
"score": [
43,
497,
12,
4,
2,
3,
10,
2
],
"text": [
"To simplify things a lil, I'm gonna tackle this from a genetics point of view, even though [it's thought that there are both genetic and environmental factors involved with short sightedness and other problems with vision](_URL_0_). Perhaps someone can elaborate more, but from my understanding, because we are no longer a species that goes out hunting, vision impairment is unlikely to contribute to one's death or poor well being, especially since we have vision correcting tools (glasses). This means that people with glasses have more or less the same opportunity to have offspring. Because there isn't anything to remove them from the gene pool, we now see plenty of people with glasses.",
"normal visual acuity develops through interaction with the environment; changing that environment changes how the eyes develop.\n\nlong story short, people who don't live in urban, modern environments do not tend to develop myopia. there are still random, rare cases of refractive error that are genetically determined or have some other etiology, but most of the people you see wearing glasses would not have needed them if they'd grown up farming or hunting and had never learned to read.\n\nthere are many studies showing this, comparing rural with urban populations, or different ethnic groups; and also showing the developmental mechanisms directly, by raising animals (chicks) in different sorts of refractive environments. basically, if you grow up looking at things up close more than you look at things far away, you will tend to become myopic (near-sighted).\n\n*edit*\n\ni answered this question a while back, here's more detail: _URL_0_\n\n*edit 2*\n\nalso should note that, while there isn't any clear evidence on it, there's most likely a genetic component that helps control *susceptibility* to myopia, so two people could grow up reading lots of books (or etc.), and wind up with very different refractive states.\n\n*edit 3*\n\nlight level is also probably very important, but my reading of the literature says that defocus (from viewing distance) is most important, and the two will be correlated anyways (i.e. hours spent studying etc are spent in lower light levels than hours spent outdoors).",
"Since everyone else so far is addressing the genetic side of things (which is completely valid), I figure that I will mention the environmental factors.\n\nWe have hundreds of studies that discuss the negative effects of eye strain from computers to reading to glare on roads, etc. We are living in times which are simply more stressful on our vision across the board.\n\nI don't have any statistics on eyesight in less developed countries -- that would probably be very illuminating if anyone does.",
"I think you're referring to natural selection rather than evolution and assuming that because having less than perfect vision is a negative, it should have been bred out of the population by now. But natural selection only concerns biological factors that impair the ability to reproduce. If having bad eye sight meant it would be harder to pass on your genetic material then yes that might be the case. But it doesn't have that effect and so this 'defect' remains. As others have mentioned, much of what we see in terms of vision problems is age related.\n\nTL;DR - Men DO make passes at girls who wear glasses.\n",
"Keep in mind that we have better vision than a lot of other animals (e.g. dogs), so our vision probably improved quite a bit due to evolution. At some point, we became so intelligent and capable that we were able to survive and reproduce in high numbers without requiring any better vision. Contrast that with animals that have even better vision than us, like birds. They *need* that better vision so that they can hunt. It's not like they can catch fish with a rod, use weapons to hunt, or set up traps to catch prey.",
"Maybe it's because we are spending too much time indoors?\n\n\n\nMyopia isn’t an infectious disease, but it has reached nearly epidemic proportions in parts of Asia. In Taiwan, for example, the percentage of 7-year-old children suffering from nearsightedness increased from 5.8 percent in 1983 to 21 percent in 2000. An incredible 81 percent of Taiwanese 15-year-olds are myopic. If you think that the consequences of myopia are limited to a lifetime of wearing spectacles—and, let’s be honest, small children look adorable in eyeglasses—you are mistaken. The prevalence of high myopia, an extreme form of the disorder, in Asia has more than doubled since the 1980s, and children who suffer myopia early in life are more likely to progress to high myopia. High myopia is a risk factor for such serious problems as retinal detachment, glaucoma, early-onset cataracts, and blindness.\n\n\n\nResearchers believe they are now closing in on a primary culprit: too much time indoors. In 2008 orthoptics professor Kathryn Rose found that only 3.3 percent of 6- and 7-year-olds of Chinese descent living in Sydney, Australia, suffered myopia, compared with 29.1 percent of those living in Singapore. The usual suspects, reading and time in front of an electronic screen, couldn’t account for the discrepancy. The Australian cohort read a few more books and spent slightly more time in front of the computer, but the Singaporean children watched a little more television. On the whole, the differences were small and probably canceled each other out. The most glaring difference between the groups was that the Australian kids spent 13.75 hours per week outdoors compared with a rather sad 3.05 hours for the children in Singapore.\n\nLinks to the paper below\n\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\n_URL_0_",
"One other question is whether we have any worse sight at all.\n\nMost people who need glasses need them in order to read small print, or to read words on a board at school, or to read signs when driving. These are all pretty modern developments.\n\nUntil more modern times, most of the population was illiterate. So no reading meant that visual acuity wasn't the most important thing. There were more farmers than hunters, and hunters who are farsighted are actually better off. People with very bad uncorrected vision issues were just considered blind. \n\nNow when we're in a world where lens-making is relatively cheap and easy, we can correct vision issues, so we see all the people wearing glasses. We also try harder to determine vision issues early because it impacts our ability to read and learn. The correlation between vision problems and learning problems (due to for instance not being able to read from the board in class) is something we've identified reasonably recently. \n\nI think more people get vision correction nowadays because sharp vision is important to us. 300 years ago if you couldn't read you were normal. Now we have to read text on tiny 4\" screens as well as road signs hundreds of yards away. ",
"There are multiple citations for this, and the Wallman and Winowur (Neuron) in this thread is a good place to start. The explanations given are just slightly off the mark so far. In the animals that have been studied so far (chickens, tree shrews, marmosets, rhesus, human), at the onset of visual experience, the length of the eye is only a rough match to the exact length that would make perfect focus, and everything stated here applies generally to all of them, not only humans. Although several systems compete in the control of growth of the eye, the major early one is defocus induced growth. If the eye gets a high-contrast signal (not just a bright versus dim one), like a black-white edge, that is the best signal to drive retinal cells. That activity (exact mechanism not yet known, but good candidates are there) is the perfect indicator in any species that the eye is the right size, and the activity stops growth. If the eye is the wrong size, there are no high-contrast edges, just a blur, less activity, and the eye responds with continuation of growth (and yes, sometimes that is the wrong guess on evolution's part, called \"runaway myopia\"). When you read a lot in childhood or do other close work, the only part of the retina putting out a lot of activity is the fovea, the very center of gaze, and apparently that is not enough to check growth of the whole eye. There is good evidence that the control of growth within the eye is local (in chickens anyway) -- you can make the right side of an eye myopic by putting on defocusing lenses for just one side, for example.\nSo, in the long view it makes perfect evolutionary sense to use an experience loop to set the optimal length of the eye -- given the close tolerances, presetting it genetically would be quite a challenge. We've just managed to introduce this peculiar developmental situation very recently. And, I don't know if being myopic nowadays has any consequences for survival or reproductive success."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://journals.lww.com/optvissci/Abstract/2010/04000/Hereditary_and_Environmental_Contributions_to.6.aspx"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1w9u2c/before_glasses_were_invented_how_did_people_cope/cf01xck"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/10/myopia_increasing_indoor_light_may_be_impairing_children_s_vision.html",
"http://synapse.princeton.ed/~sam/myopia_lifestyle_schooling_Rose.pdf"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
7c5jp4
|
why do different engines require different viscosity lubricating oils?
|
Why do some engines use 5w-20 as opposed to 10w-20 or 20w-50?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7c5jp4/eli5why_do_different_engines_require_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpnleye",
"dpnlk1o",
"dpnrkbh",
"dpnxs13"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Engines are configured in different ways. Old flathead engines had all their moving parts near the oil pan. Oil didn't need to be pumped too far to get it where it needed to be. Also, clearances were looser in those engines, so a thicker (more viscous) oil was needed to keep the parts from wearing out prematurely. New engines have oiled parts (e.g. camshafts) farther away from the oil pan so the oil has to be easier to pump there. Thinner, less viscous oils work better here. Generally, you'll find newer engines use 5W-30 or 5W-20 (some even use 0W-20) oil where just a decade ago, 10W-30 was commonly used. Advances in engine design and oil formulations have allowed the use of these lighter (runnier) oils. If you tried to run 5W-20 in a 1965 454, it would probably be knocking within a week.\n",
"Components that require fluid for power transmission or lubrication need them to be at a certain viscosity (measured in cP(centipoise)) within a certain temperature range. Different cP ratings have different viscosity at different temperatures and the integrity of the fluid can be affected if it's not being used for the right application. It also changes how well the system performs. Manufacturers determine what is optimal for the system at given operating temperatures. This is why you swap to a different weight of oil for engines in cold conditions. \n\nThis applies to every system requiring lubrication and/or pressure generated via a fluid medium. Its even more critical in hydraulic systems. ",
"Engine are built using \"tolerances\" between parts. those numbers simply means that they define a space between each moving components. Engine Oil is simply filling up the space between those parts to reduce the amount of friction.\n\nThe wider the space , the more viscous oil will be required to keep things from rubbing too much. On the opposite, the tighter space will require a thinner oil to be able to seep thru.\n\nSo when a engine is built , the maker will do some testing to see which oil viscosity is required to enable those hundreds of friction points to be lubricated and stay lubricated.",
"When figuring out what oils an engine (or anything really) is going to require, you have several critical parameters that you must keep in mind. Since you want to keep an engine lubricated, what you're looking for is a protective barrier between large numbers of extremely tightly fit chunks of metal, most of which will be moving very quickly and with a whole lot of power behind them.\n\nFailure to do this properly can quickly lead to the friction in your precisely tuned and meticulously designed wonder of modern technology. This means losing large amounts of the explosion's energy as waste heat (bye bye fuel efficiency), increased wear, or in the worst case loud unhealthy noises as your car's insides rub themselves to a screeching agonizing death. You'll probably sound just like it when you see the repair bill.\n\nMost critical here are the minimum and maximum operating temperatures of the things involved, and the viscosity itself you're looking for within those ranges, which is going to be based in part on the mechanical tolerances, part composition and so on:\n\n A regular engine could be doing 150-170C in there once it's going, and yet you need the bloody thing to start at -30 Monday morning. An oil that was perfect in 40 degree weather is thick molasses for your car in the arctic, and that perfect nuclear-winter polar sauce will be so thin the parts may just scrape it off or hug each-other right through it, with expensive results.\n\nLuckily, we have additives now, though, allowing us a truly broad range of temperatures with the same pint. Synthetic's damn good stuff nowadays.\n\nNow, the reason two engines can need different oils, is because they operate differently and/or have different tolerances (the space between stuff, often measured in thousandths of an inch). A good oil has to be thin enough to properly coat everything even as things expand terribly close, yet viscous enough to keep that slippery cushion going strong when you hit it up for full power. A Diesel motor might be topping 300C in there instead of 165, which could make a good oil for gas just way too thin at high regimes, or the entirely wrong stuff ignite!\n\nEven the additives will change things up; there's anti-corrosion stuff, stuff that adds wear-reducing disulfides to everything you bathe in it and so on.\n\nFinally, just a word of warning: The ratings are split up by category or type of engine: Even if the numbers sometimes seem the same, aircraft engines, gearboxes, transmissions, excavator pistons and your father's old two-stroke mower (actually that one the oil goes in the gas-tank) are NOT the same as your new car. You might get a few miles, but you may be burning years off the thing's life.\n\nTldr: Different motors have different tolerances, different operating temperatures, and no oil is truly universal for all things."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yde3n
|
how these wristbands keep you from getting car sick.
|
When I was little I would get car sick all the time on long trips. Then my dad found [these](_URL_0_) wrist bands and ever since i've never got car sick again.
I know they press down on a certain vein on each wrist, but how would that keep me from getting car sick exactly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1yde3n/eli5_how_these_wristbands_keep_you_from_getting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfjhhrw",
"cfjhwd4"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This could very well just be a placebo effect. Basically, mind over matter. The wristband, almost like a safety blanket (a blanket or other generally soft object someone grabs and holds to feel safer) is simply a distraction. The placebo effect is a very useful, proven way to treat real diseases and so long as you believe in it, it works!",
"There have been a few studies into this sort of thing, and they suggest that these devices *don't* work in a physiological sense at all.\n\nRather, they probably just induce a placebo effect, wherein you *believe* you won't get sick, and so... amazingly... you don't.\n\nThe placebo effect can be pretty mind-boggling sometimes, and it's tempting to dismiss it and say \"no no no, this thing *really* does work!\" And yet that's exactly the type of response you'd expect, because - to an individual - it is indistinguishable from 'real' medicine."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-PNX_OD7na6Q/Td1a8mfcENI/AAAAAAAACYU/5kv4E_klTLc/s1600/motion%2Bsickness.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
caodt2
|
why some wild animals need to dance in order to mate?
|
I'm just curious. I never really understood why some wild animals do that.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/caodt2/eli5_why_some_wild_animals_need_to_dance_in_order/
|
{
"a_id": [
"et9zs5f",
"eta0yle"
],
"score": [
7,
9
],
"text": [
"Its just like with people, we need to impress the other gender, as they want the coolest, illest, most chill and dope person to get a child with.",
"Many mating displays are a way of showing off how much extra energy you have to spend. Generally, having good genes means you hunt better and get sick less often; only creatures with strong genes can spend the time and energy doing a mating dance. Thus, by watching to see who does the best mating dance, potential mates can choose the most genetically-strong partner."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
174ot9
|
screen resolutions and aspect ratios
|
Especially when it comes to PC Gaming
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/174ot9/eli5_screen_resolutions_and_aspect_ratios/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c826ca9",
"c826pzl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Resolution is the number of pixels the display is, high and wide. Pixels are the individual colored dots that make up the image: more pixels generally allows for a sharper image.\n\nWithin that context, aspect ratio is the ratio of how wide it is to how high it is. The closer you are to 1:1, the more square you are.\n\n4:3 is commonly called full screen, and 16:9 is commonly called widescreen. The former is more 'square', the latter is more 'rectangular'.\n\n4:3 means that for every 4 horizontal pixels, there are 3 vertical pixels. So the horizontal resolution is always 4/3rds the vertical resolution- 480x320, 640x480, 800x600, 1024x768, 1600x1200, 2048x1536 - all are 4:3 ratios\n\n16:9 has 16 horizontal pixels for every 9 vertical pixels, so you'll see 1600x900 and 1920x1080.\n\nThere are also 16:10 and 5:4, which are less common.\n\nGames vary in how they deal with these resolutions. Some games have a fixed height, so that as you go to wider aspect ratios, you get a wider horizontal field of views. Other games might stretch to fill the screen, which distorts the image (circles become ovals, etc).",
"Think like legos. Some screens are huge, but only made up of a couple big legos. Legos are pixels. Literally, that means \"picture element.\" The 800x600 number means that to make a rectangular picture, your lego screen is 800 bricks long and 600 bricks tall. If you have a screen that's 42 inches (which is measured from one corner to the opposite corner, diagonally) your legos are pretty big. It's not super *clear* but it's *big.* Now, if that same 42 inch screen is 1920x1080, the legos have to be smaller to fit. That means a clearer picture. A modern phone can have the same number of legos (pixels) as a high def TV, it's just that the legos are much smaller, so you have to be closer to see it. But you're usually only a foot or two away from your phone screen, instead of 10-20 feet for your TV. So it works out.\n\nNow, LCD and LED monitors have their legos already laid out. The old tube-style monitors could switch resolutions, but that advantage really isn't worth it in most markets anymore.\n\nAlso, your computer has to *work* to determine which color to paint your legos, and it has to draw a whole new picture for every frame. If you want it to do too many pixels or do them too quickly, your computer won't handle it well. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ev3w8
|
Can any animal see in infrared?
|
I just was told that no known animal can see in infrared. I didn't think it was possible, so I've googled and couldn't find anything reliable as a source.
Snakes can 'see' in infrared, but he doesn't accept that as infrared vision as they are not viewing through their eyes, but through a pit gland. Other animals, such as the goldfish and piranha, have been said to see in infrared, but from shady sources with nothing concrete. I even looked at the mantis shrimp, but it is believed that it doesn't see in infrared also.
Is it true that no animal can see in infrared?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ev3w8/can_any_animal_see_in_infrared/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck3biiv",
"ck3fi90"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"To \"see\" in infrared would require photoreceptors that can absorb IR radiation. Since electron orbitals will never have such low energy as is used by infrared, it is impossible to use canonical eyesight to see infrared waves. Here is an explanation why: _URL_0_",
"There are a few things to consider in this discussion. First of all, what do we mean by \"see\" in infrared? I would assume that you mean something like what happens in the movie Predator, where the subjective experience of a stimulus (in this case heat or infrared) is experienced in a visual manner. Humans can detect heat pretty easily through skin receptors, for example, but we can't see heat because that information doesn't go to the visual processing parts of our brains. Of course, it's impossible to truly know what another animal perceives, but we can make some educated guesses if we have enough information.\n\nIn some ways I might argue that is IS possible (maybe) for some snakes to \"see\" in infrared, depending on how we define these terms. I'll clarify why this might be the case in a second.\n\nFirst of all, tiger_researcher is correct that traditional photoreceptors cannot properly absorb infrared photons, so in that sense animals cannot see in infrared. But, the key word is \"traditional\", because heat receptors of various kind exist in all kinds of animals, but they don't usually relate or connect to the visual processing areas of the brain (and the brain is where perception itself occurs). But, what if heat receptors of some kind could or did connect to the visual cortex of the brain? Would that animal \"see\" in infrared? Probably, and we'll elaborate on this in a second. \n\nI can't comment about mantis shrimps, goldfish, or piranhas, as I don't know much about their biology (although now I'll have to look into it). \n\nI do have experience with snakes though, and some of them do have heat receptors on their heads and faces. These receptors are very different than photoreceptors in your eye. They function in a very different way, so in that sense, both tiger_researcher and the person you were talking to are correct. The heat sensitive pit glands found in snakes are relatively large organs (compared to visual receptors in the eye), which contain numerous heat receptors, and plenty of nerves and blood vessels. The anatomy varies between types of snakes, but these general properties are found in all (or almost all) heat sensitive organs found in snakes. So obviously, these organs detect heat. \n\nBut here's the crazy thing, in all three groups of snakes that use facial heat organs (pit vipers, boas, and pythons) the nerves that relay information from the heat sensitive receptors all go to the optic tectum of the brain... which processes visual stimuli! So snakes MIGHT be able to see heat in some form. Now, it's a little more complicated than that though...\n\nThe optic tectum primarily processes visual stimulus, but does also receive other types of information as well, like auditory and motor info, for example. But, when you look at specific brain cells (neurons), some of them only process visual information, and some only process infrared. However, some neurons only respond to a combined visual and infrared stimulus, while others respond more (but not exclusively) to a combined visual and infrared signal. So the activity in these neurons suggests that the snake might interpret this information in a manner similar to vision. Of course, it's impossible to know the subjective experience of an animal, but these connections do suggest some kind of relationship between the perception of light and heat. That being said, the way the heat pits work also suggest that this sense is \"lower resolution\" than normal vision, although this is improved to some extent by the nervous system itself. \n\nSo like I said, although you can't know exactly how a snake perceives its world, its very interesting to see that both the visual and infrared stimuli are processed by the same part of the brain, and much more importantly, sometimes by the same neurons. Personally, I don't think snakes see heat the same way they do light, but it seems that it might be a loosely similar or related type of perception, perhaps. \n\nFinally, it's quite possible that an animal may evolve \"true\" infrared vision someday, if the environment and mutations and selective pressures were right. The receptor itself probably could not function the same way as a photoreceptor in the eye (where the light directly reacts with the receptor), but having a different type of receptor in the eye could still theoretically work. Snakes for example have heat receptors that work based on warming of ion channels through infrared light. Something like that could evolve one day perhaps, under the right circumstances... Anyway, sorry for the long reply, but it's rather interesting stuff I think :) I wonder if the person you were talking to knows about the shared neurons or not. And now I'm curious about the fish and mantis shrimp you mentioned... Certainly something to think about. :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.breakingbio.org/science-brief-optics-and-waves/"
],
[]
] |
|
25h3xb
|
what exactly would classifying internet service providers as title 2 common carriers do?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25h3xb/eli5_what_exactly_would_classifying_internet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chh3rl4"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"They would then have to allow competing companies the opportunity to make use of their infrastructure. You could purchase cable TV or internet from any entity that chose to lease the lines from the common carrier.\n\nThe common carrier (the current cable company) could continue to offer service, and they would have the right to charge other companies that wanted to use their lines, but the end result would be that you would have only one set of physical cables that theoretically any company could offer service over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
709mdy
|
Was there an ideological "Communist Physics" advanced in countries like the USSR or China?
|
I know that Nazi Germany had a 'German Physics', which rejected certain advances, especially those considered "Jewish Physics", which of course meant a number of fairly important advances such as Einstein and relativity, but was there a similar movement in any Communist countries during the 20th century to reject "Capitalist Physics" and advance an ideological pseudoscience within the field?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/709mdy/was_there_an_ideological_communist_physics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn1gva9",
"dn1gva9"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"First, it is worth noting that the \"Deutsche Physik\" movement was actually mostly a failure. Their major success was briefly harassing Heisenberg and getting one of their people appointed to a professor position as opposed to a better person. After that they sort of fell apart, because the actual Nazi leaders were not all that sold on their argument and realized that having good, world-class physicists was more important for their war aims that prosecuting ideological battles of this sort. One of the major proponents of the movement, Johannes Stark, only very narrowly avoided being sent to a camp because he became a critic of the Nazis (they weren't Nazi enough for him) and had a nice house that a military officer desired. Seriously! (See Mark Walker's _Nazi Science_ for the best discussion of the movement I have seen.) Which is only to say: don't overestimate the centrality of it to the Nazi's ideology or overestimate its success. People often do, because it makes the Nazis seem even more ridiculous than they are, but this is bad history.\n\nBut to your main question — how was ideology in physics handled in other countries? In the USSR there were philosophers who attacked relativity as being \"bourgeois physics\" that went against the doctrine of materialism, because it seemed to imply that \"all was relative\" and \"truths aren't true\" and etc. (It doesn't, really, but this was and still is a popular way to talk about it.) There were other physicists who worked to reformulate relativity in a way that would avoid this kind of attack. Vladimir Fok, for example, insisted that relativity was just a \"theory of gravity\" and removed all potential philosophical content from its discussions, reducing it to just equations. Another physicist, Boris Hessen, attempted to use history as a weapon here, showing that while Einstein himself was certainly bourgeois and of a bourgeois culture, the favored physics of the anti-relativists — Newtonian physics — was no less reflective of its own totally non-socialist context (Newton's 17th century England). Thus, Hessen argued, you can't really say Einstein's work is more bourgeois than Newton's. \n\nIn the end, the thing that gave the physicists \"security\" was not these kind of philosophical arguments, which raged back and forth during the dangerous years of Stalin, but their utility to the state. The Soviet nuclear weapons program in particular gave physicists a practically unprecedented level of \"safety,\" to the point that at least one of them (Sakharov) could later become even a dissident and for a long time be somewhat tolerated. Which is to say, as with the Nazis, the practicality of physics \"won out\" over ideological arguments. On this, see Loren Graham, _Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History_, which discusses both Fok and Hessen I believe.\n\nI know less about physics and ideology in China, but there were cases of it cropping up. Specifically the Chinese rejected the Big Bang, because they viewed it (like many people did at the time, including some scientists in the West) as being essentially religion/creationism wrapped up in scientific language. They preferred a steady-state cosmology (the universe is endlessly old, etc.) that didn't feel like it had a \"beginning.\" The astrophysicist Fang Lizhi came under a sustained campaign against his advocacy of Big Bang cosmology in the 1970s. (As an aside, the entire physics department at the school where Lizhi taught was sent to work in a coal mine during the Cultural Revolution — the issues of ideology and Chinese science go deeper than the _content_ of the science, because during the 1960s university professors were seen as potentially being of a \"rightist\" class that needed \"reeducation\" generally.) On this episode, see James H. Williams, \"Fang Lizhi's Big Bang: A Physicist and the State in China,\" _Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences_ 30, no. 1 (1999), 49-87.\n\nIn all of these cases, it should be made very clear that these opinions were rarely handed down from \"on high.\" That is not generally how state ideology in science works, with a few exceptions (Stalin, for example, sometimes did intervene idiosyncratically in some debates). A better way to think about it is that ideology creates a sort of loose power that permeates everything — it creates a resource that can be seized upon and used to various ends. The Deutsch Physik practitioners, for example, sensed that they could take beliefs they already had, tweak them a little bit, and have them appeal to the Nazi state, and by doing so get ends that they desired (professorships, suppression of opponents, etc.). That worked a bit, until it didn't. The philosophers in the USSR used Soviet ideology as a weapon against all comers (and themselves), part of a sort of literal academic deathmatch where the only way to avoid getting purged was to try and purge others first. \n\nIn the long run, all of the cases of ideological science were only successful against fields that could not prove their utility in some way, and thus make themselves useful to the state. Chemistry in the USSR, for example, did not suffer much — it was obvious that the chemists did important things, and the chemists deliberately emphasized their value in this way to make sure they didn't get wrapped up in ideology. Biology in the USSR, by contrast, couldn't deliver results for Soviet problems (like famines and crop failures), making them especially vulnerable to fast-talking charlatans who could promise fast action (like Lysenko). People who worked on modern physics appeared vulnerable in the 1920s-1930s, but the discovery of nuclear fission in particular gave them quite a bit of \"insulation\" against sustained political attacks on the content of their work.",
"First, it is worth noting that the \"Deutsche Physik\" movement was actually mostly a failure. Their major success was briefly harassing Heisenberg and getting one of their people appointed to a professor position as opposed to a better person. After that they sort of fell apart, because the actual Nazi leaders were not all that sold on their argument and realized that having good, world-class physicists was more important for their war aims that prosecuting ideological battles of this sort. One of the major proponents of the movement, Johannes Stark, only very narrowly avoided being sent to a camp because he became a critic of the Nazis (they weren't Nazi enough for him) and had a nice house that a military officer desired. Seriously! (See Mark Walker's _Nazi Science_ for the best discussion of the movement I have seen.) Which is only to say: don't overestimate the centrality of it to the Nazi's ideology or overestimate its success. People often do, because it makes the Nazis seem even more ridiculous than they are, but this is bad history.\n\nBut to your main question — how was ideology in physics handled in other countries? In the USSR there were philosophers who attacked relativity as being \"bourgeois physics\" that went against the doctrine of materialism, because it seemed to imply that \"all was relative\" and \"truths aren't true\" and etc. (It doesn't, really, but this was and still is a popular way to talk about it.) There were other physicists who worked to reformulate relativity in a way that would avoid this kind of attack. Vladimir Fok, for example, insisted that relativity was just a \"theory of gravity\" and removed all potential philosophical content from its discussions, reducing it to just equations. Another physicist, Boris Hessen, attempted to use history as a weapon here, showing that while Einstein himself was certainly bourgeois and of a bourgeois culture, the favored physics of the anti-relativists — Newtonian physics — was no less reflective of its own totally non-socialist context (Newton's 17th century England). Thus, Hessen argued, you can't really say Einstein's work is more bourgeois than Newton's. \n\nIn the end, the thing that gave the physicists \"security\" was not these kind of philosophical arguments, which raged back and forth during the dangerous years of Stalin, but their utility to the state. The Soviet nuclear weapons program in particular gave physicists a practically unprecedented level of \"safety,\" to the point that at least one of them (Sakharov) could later become even a dissident and for a long time be somewhat tolerated. Which is to say, as with the Nazis, the practicality of physics \"won out\" over ideological arguments. On this, see Loren Graham, _Science in Russia and the Soviet Union: A Short History_, which discusses both Fok and Hessen I believe.\n\nI know less about physics and ideology in China, but there were cases of it cropping up. Specifically the Chinese rejected the Big Bang, because they viewed it (like many people did at the time, including some scientists in the West) as being essentially religion/creationism wrapped up in scientific language. They preferred a steady-state cosmology (the universe is endlessly old, etc.) that didn't feel like it had a \"beginning.\" The astrophysicist Fang Lizhi came under a sustained campaign against his advocacy of Big Bang cosmology in the 1970s. (As an aside, the entire physics department at the school where Lizhi taught was sent to work in a coal mine during the Cultural Revolution — the issues of ideology and Chinese science go deeper than the _content_ of the science, because during the 1960s university professors were seen as potentially being of a \"rightist\" class that needed \"reeducation\" generally.) On this episode, see James H. Williams, \"Fang Lizhi's Big Bang: A Physicist and the State in China,\" _Historical Studies in the Physical and Biological Sciences_ 30, no. 1 (1999), 49-87.\n\nIn all of these cases, it should be made very clear that these opinions were rarely handed down from \"on high.\" That is not generally how state ideology in science works, with a few exceptions (Stalin, for example, sometimes did intervene idiosyncratically in some debates). A better way to think about it is that ideology creates a sort of loose power that permeates everything — it creates a resource that can be seized upon and used to various ends. The Deutsch Physik practitioners, for example, sensed that they could take beliefs they already had, tweak them a little bit, and have them appeal to the Nazi state, and by doing so get ends that they desired (professorships, suppression of opponents, etc.). That worked a bit, until it didn't. The philosophers in the USSR used Soviet ideology as a weapon against all comers (and themselves), part of a sort of literal academic deathmatch where the only way to avoid getting purged was to try and purge others first. \n\nIn the long run, all of the cases of ideological science were only successful against fields that could not prove their utility in some way, and thus make themselves useful to the state. Chemistry in the USSR, for example, did not suffer much — it was obvious that the chemists did important things, and the chemists deliberately emphasized their value in this way to make sure they didn't get wrapped up in ideology. Biology in the USSR, by contrast, couldn't deliver results for Soviet problems (like famines and crop failures), making them especially vulnerable to fast-talking charlatans who could promise fast action (like Lysenko). People who worked on modern physics appeared vulnerable in the 1920s-1930s, but the discovery of nuclear fission in particular gave them quite a bit of \"insulation\" against sustained political attacks on the content of their work."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
16u7ev
|
why mineral water which has travelled through mountains for thousands of years has a use by date?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16u7ev/eli5_why_mineral_water_which_has_travelled/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7zen2h",
"c7zeriz"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"\"You can thank the great state of New Jersey. A 1987 NJ state law required all food products sold there to display an expiration date of two years or less from the date of manufacture. Labeling, separating and shipping batches of expiration-dated water to the Garden State seemed a little inefficient to bottled water producers, so most of them simply started giving every bottle a two-year expiration date, no matter where it was going.\" I Googled it.",
"If you are talking about bottled water, then there a few reasons for an expiry date. Firstly, some states require that all food and drink have an expiry date on it, so that includes water. Secondly, the water does interact with the plastic, so it can become a bit impure. Thirdly, bottled mineral water may not be as pure as they advertise; it might just be tap water. So, the water gets purified just like city water. When water is purified, there is chance that the bacteria is not entirely destroyed, and it can re-surface after a certain amount of time.\n\nIn the end, bottled water is probably still good past it's expiration date. However, there is a chance that it might go bad. To protect itself, the company will put an expiration date on it. Even if it only prevents one person in a million from getting sick, that's one lawsuit they avoid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1kjzvw
|
why can't we just use a machine to take large amounts of c02 out of the atmosphere to slow global warming?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kjzvw/eli5_why_cant_we_just_use_a_machine_to_take_large/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbpplgd",
"cbppmpe",
"cbppmwv",
"cbpq92q"
],
"score": [
3,
17,
6,
5
],
"text": [
"This is actually a proposed solution to the problem--it's called \"carbon sequestration.\" Here's the tricky part: *where do you put it?*\n\nSuggestions include pumping it into underground reservoirs and seeding the ocean with iron in order to promote the growth of algae that will absorb carbon dioxide in their bodies and sink to the seabed when they die. No one has really come up with a viable plan, yet.",
"What exactly do you suppose should power these machines?\n\nMaybe we can power them by burning oil?\n\nThe most efficient machines to take CO² out of the atmosphere are plants and they work on solar energy.",
"What do you think all plant life does, for free? Like everyone else has said, there's too much of it, there's nowhere to put it, and even if we could it'd be too expensive.",
"The atmosphere is made of gas molecules which are, to put it simply, sitting on top of one another. All of matter--especially large clusters like a planet--has gravitational pull.\n\nLets say you had a bowl of marbles. And we're to toss a marble up into the air. Eventually, that marble would fall back down to the bowl. Same with gas molecules on earth. That's why we can't pump it out into space, it would just come back.\n\nBut what if we take it out further than Earth's gravitational pull? Well gas molecules are not densely packed together. It would take a giant mechanism to export large volumes of air off earth. The energy requirements would be astronomical and we already have enough issues trying to launch aerodynamic machines into space.\n\nAnd even if that were possible on a fuel efficient scale, the earth would be losing carbon and oxygen. CO2 is one carbon atom bonded with two oxygen atoms.\n\nThe air pollution problem isn't due to an imbalance of atomic material, it's due to an improper ratio of air pollutants.\n\nEDIT: Oh wow I just realize I read OP's question way too literally. Face palm haha. Oh well I'll just leave this up and laugh at myself later."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1uy6kl
|
What is the difference between the observable universe and the universe.
|
I have also heard that we can't see past the Cosmic Background Radiation does that have something to do with my question
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1uy6kl/what_is_the_difference_between_the_observable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cemuans",
"cemuphb",
"cemv55r"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"The observable universe is, as the name suggests, the part of the universe that we can actually see. The universe itself may be infinite, but we can onlysee a finite part of it. The CMBR is the oldest electromagnetic radiation, because it originates from the time that photons became free to move around, so any light that is older can't be seen, as the photons weren't free to move.",
"There are parts of the Universe so distant that light hasn't had time to reach us. Equivalently, in order for light from these places to have reached us by now, it would have to have started travelling *before* the beginning of the universe. \n\nWe can't quite see light from the very beginning of the Universe because it was all absorbed already. The early universe was so dense that it was opaque. The earliest light be can actually see is the CMB radiation, which was finally allowed to freely stream across empty space once the universe cooled down enough for atoms to exist. So the oldest light we can see is from about 300,000 years after the Big Bang. ",
"The Universe is extremely big (it might even be infinitely big, though that's not really important for our purposes), but it only has a finite age. And light - the fastest thing in the Universe - travels at a finite speed. So light has only been able to travel a finite distance since the Big Bang.\n\nThat's the observable Universe - the patch of Universe, a sphere centered around us, which has had time to communicate with us. Anything beyond that is still part of the Universe, it still exists, but it's beyond what we've had time to see.\n\nAs for the cosmic microwave background, that's the light that was emitted when the Universe first became transparent. Before then, it was opaque - light would just bounce around from atom to atom, never getting anywhere. So we can't physically see past it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cg9gaq
|
why does the tongue on a can of soda always open from the right side?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cg9gaq/eli5_why_does_the_tongue_on_a_can_of_soda_always/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eufipdu",
"eufixdq",
"eufjw4l"
],
"score": [
4,
6,
4
],
"text": [
"If you turn it to the left it opens to the left...maybe cuz most people are right handed it seems as though we always open from the right? i’m not sure I quite understand what you’re asking",
"When you open a can of soda, you're using mechanical pressure to tear the metal of the lid along a pre-stressed seam. This works out best if the point of tearing moves along the seam, instead of trying to tear out the whole thing at once. The lids are manufactured to have a weaker point on the right side, so the tear will start there.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAs for why the right side instead of the left, it's arbitrary. At the same time, it's consistent, because it's cheaper if all the lid forming machines are the same, instead of having some which put the weak point on the left.",
"What happens if you rotate the can by half a turn? Doesn't the soda can now open from the left?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3lzinf
|
why particles have properties.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lzinf/eli5_why_particles_have_properties/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvangjd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"If you refer to fundamental properties, well, just because they have. There's really not any other answer. We don't have any other meaningful answer other than *that's just how nature is*."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1lsh5n
|
If beams of light from the sun are virtually parallel, why aren't sun rays in the sky?
|
For example
_URL_0_
In this image it almost looks as if the sun is suspended directly above the clouds the way the beams of light are projecting in each direction like that.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lsh5n/if_beams_of_light_from_the_sun_are_virtually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc2amet"
],
"score": [
55
],
"text": [
"The rays (called [crepuscular rays](_URL_0_)) **are** parallel. Their appearance of not being parallel is simply a trick of perspective. It's the same concept as how parallel train tracks will look like they converge in the distance if you're standing between them.\n\n**Edit:** [This image from the ISS](_URL_1_) shows that, when you shift your perspective enough, you can see that they are indeed parallel."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/plReS4H"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crepuscular_rays",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Crepuscular_Rays,_India.JPG"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.