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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1zuq53
|
How fast are molecules actually moving?
|
Assuming you could get all the air molecules in an area to simultaneously go the same direction, would I feel a gust? How many m/s is an oxygen molecule at 20 degrees Celsius actually moving?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zuq53/how_fast_are_molecules_actually_moving/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfx7ahy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Gas molecules at a given temperature move at a certain distribution of speeds: the so-called [Maxwell-Boltzmann distribution](_URL_1_). It depends on the temperature of the gas and the molecular mass, so the molecules lighter gasses like Helium will move faster than heavier molecules at the same temperature.\n\nOxygen's speed distribution can be found in [this chart](_URL_0_): each curve is marked in degrees Celsius. Lucky for you, the green curve is exactly what you're asking for: at 20 C, the average molecule is moving at around 400 m/s (900 mph, 1440 km/h)!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/3/36/Maxwell-Boltzmann_distribution_1.png",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maxwell%E2%80%93Boltzmann_distribution"
]
] |
|
6gsgzp
|
can us states enter into agreements without the federal government being involved?
|
I saw a Reddit post by someone who moved to California and said he didn't care about people in Red States anymore. He said they can keep their 'terrible policies' and that he thinks states should focus on themselves instead of trying to 'force' policies on states that don't want them.
I know it may be hard to fund many entitlement programs or progressive policies within a single state, but is it possible to Blue States to band together and form some sort of multi-state entitlement agency. Are states allowed to make these kinds of treaties, or is this only possible through the federal government?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gsgzp/eli5_can_us_states_enter_into_agreements_without/
|
{
"a_id": [
"disoc91"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"States can make agreements with each other, and they do it all the time. They are usually called \"compacts\" and deal with many different topics, like sharing of law enforcement information, water rights, lotteries, and other things.\n\nTwo or more states can certainly make agreements with each other to do things that they are already entitled to do. But they can't do things that are reserved for the federal government, like printing money, border control, or establishing tariffs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1mklxr
|
Why were the Romans so fearful of forests?
|
While on a Wikipedia foray I came across articles about the [Hercynian Silva] (_URL_0_) and the [Silva Ciminia](_URL_1_). It seems the early Romans had a particularly strong set of superstitions about these dense, trackless forests. Could someone please expand on this topic? Are we talking the typical human fear of the dark woods or was the Roman aversion for some reason stronger? Do we know what mythologies and superstitions they held about the areas (and any other forests in their vicinity)? Are any of their cautionary tales rooted in earlier historical events?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mklxr/why_were_the_romans_so_fearful_of_forests/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cca3nxj",
"cca4et5",
"ccadhyh",
"ccafu28"
],
"score": [
215,
10,
30,
6
],
"text": [
"Forests and such were really 'no man's land' areas for Romans. Brigands and bandits could shelter themselves in relative impunity - where the forest began \"demarcated the limits of Roman authority\", and past that point it was every man for himself.\n\nFurther, \"along with partisan tactics, bandits also used the cloak of darkness “to exploit the common fear, deliberately disguising themselves as ghosts in order to add to the terror of their sudden nightly incursions.”\" (pp79, quoting from 'Brent D. Shaw, “The Bandit,” in The Romans, ed. Andrea Giardina (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1993, pp328.').\n\n\nFrom ['Roman Banditry: Scorning Senatorial Skullduggery in Sallust' By Brady B. Lonergran, Penn History Review, Vol.18:1 (2010)pp77](_URL_0_)",
"probably related: What impact did the events that took place in the Teutoburg forest affect this mentality? Was the 'superstition' more prominent prior to or after the event?",
"One common theme for ancient man was \"choas vs. order\" in the world they lived in. Man believed he was on a planet filled with disorder and things that were out to get him and rarely understood why things were the way they were at the time. One could argue the origin or religion due to this aspect of human history but that is neither here or there.\n\nSince the early days of man one common and critical challenge ancients faced was protecting themselves from one another and from the percieved \"dangerous\" and \"mysterious\" things people witnessed but could not yet explain. Because of technology, lack of basic education, lack of reading and writing by most of the populations, and the rural lifestyles of those days - the ancients viewed tracts of untouched natural land as risky, scary, and mysterious environments where creatures and mythical stories took place. They were places that were filled with uncertainty in a scary and (mostly) ignorant world to realities of nature.\n\nOne Roman, Pliny the Elder, wrote a series of books compiled called [\"The Natural Histories\"](_URL_0_) and in this set of documents we can see some very apt examples to explain and show what Romans thought and how they percieved of the natural world. One could argue that the mere creation of the \"Natural Histories\" tells us that the people of old had an attentive focus to that of the world around them and that nature was an important focus of ancient man.\n\nIn his opening Pliny describes the \"history of the world\" and sets up his readers for the subject and the topics he will be presenting. Pliny exemplifies in his opening books how man sees and wants the world ordered and non-chaotic, opposite of how it is naturally:\n\n > That the World thus framed in a continued circuit, with unspeakable swiftness turneth round in the space of four – and – twenty hours, the ordinary rising and setting of the sun leaves no room to doubt (motion of the world). Pg 32, Book II.\n\nYou can see Pliny describing to the reader what we know, which is that of order, consistency, and prediction. Pliny understands the idea of 24 hours in a day and explains that there is \"no doubt\" this is how the \"motion of the world\" happens. This exemplifies, in part, how the ancients - and in particular the Romans - would have valued man-made order versus natural made chaos.\n\nBut, to further exemplify this we'll go ahead and look at how Pliny describes foreign places, ones that have been shrouded in more mystery and unknown factors than what the Romans would have known about closer to their own homelands. Pliny writes on the \"wonderful forms of different nations\":\n\n > In the vicinity also of those who dwell in the northern re- gions, and not far from the spot from which the north wind arises, and the place which is called its cave,5 and is known by the name of Geskleithron, the Arimaspi are said to exist, whom I have previously mentioned,6 a nation remarkable for having but one eye, and that placed in the middle of the forehead. This race is said to carry on a perpetual warfare with the Griffins, a kind of monster, with wings, as they are commonly7 represented, for the gold which they dig out of the mines, and which these wild beasts retain and keep watch over with a singular degree of cupidity, while the Arimaspi are equally desirous to get possession of it.8 Many authors have stated to this effect, among the most illustrious of whom are Herodotus and Aristeas of Proconnesus.\n\nPliny here gives us a sort of impression on how Romans and ancients viewed places not really close or knowledgeable to them. It was viewed sometimes as fantasic areas and creatures and people who lived there; people who had \"one-eye\" and fought with mythical winged creatures called \"Griffins\". Although this isn't directly a \"forrest\" as in the way you originally questioned, but over arching theme is mainly a contrast of perspective and cultural values of known and unknown areas. Forests were largely \"unknown\" and ultimately created more mystery and fear to the ancients when they were more focused on trying to create order and explanation for the world around them.\n",
"Aside from the human threat European forests were quite wild at that time. If an unprepared or sleeping traveler encounters the wild bulls, boars, wolves, or bears of this era -- it could easilly result in injury or death."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hercynian_Forest",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ciminian_Forest"
] |
[
[
"http://repository.upenn.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1045&context=phr"
],
[],
[
"http://archive.org/stream/plinysnaturalhis00plinrich#page/n37/mode/2up"
],
[]
] |
|
5f2z5c
|
how do tails on animals help their balance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5f2z5c/eli5_how_do_tails_on_animals_help_their_balance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dah23y4",
"dah24bc",
"dah24qp"
],
"score": [
3,
23,
2
],
"text": [
"You know how sometimes when you're trying to maintain balance you put your arms out, maybe try to put one arm farther to balance in that direction? \n\nSame deal. It's just an extra limb that helps counterbalance. ",
"Stand on one foot and keep your arms at your sides. How hard is it to balance?\n\nNow stick your arms out. How easy is it to balance now?\n\nIf you had a tail to stick out too, can you see why this might help you balance?\n\nIt allows finer control over your center of balance.",
"I think it's similar to seeing a tightrope walker hold a bar or how people stick their arms straight out to the side when trying to walk a straight line. It helps balance their center of gravity. I could be wrong though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b6w1ze
|
Is it ammonium or ammonia that's part of the nitrogen cycle? Or both?
|
I'm trying to understand the nitrogen cycle and there is one thing that keeps confusing me about biological nitrogen fixation, nitrification and ammonification. Some sources talk about ammonium (NH4) and some about ammonia (NH3) when referring to the same thing, and I don't know which to believe, since even the trustworthy ones seem to have contradictory information. Are both involved in different stages of the cycle or how does it work?
For example, the following quote from [this](_URL_0_) page (pdf) by RSC:
> Bacteria that possess the enzyme nitrogenase can convert gaseous nitrogen into ammonia.
The bacterium Rhizobium forms a symbiotic relationship with leguminous plants. The
bacterium stimulates the growth of root nodules. Here colonies of the bacterium obtain
carbohydrate from the host plant. They use this in respiration to release energy and make ATP
and reduced NAD to make ammonium ions from nitrogen gas in the soil.
First they mention ammonia, then at the end it's suddenly ammonium. How did we get there and what am I missing?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/b6w1ze/is_it_ammonium_or_ammonia_thats_part_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejniwqp",
"ejnj99t"
],
"score": [
16,
9
],
"text": [
"Ammonia becomes ammonium as soon as it is dissolved in water--it steals a hydrogen from the water molecules since it's a weak base.\n\nSince almost all life takes place in an aqueous solution, the bacteria might produce NH3 but it's going to snaffle up that H from the water pretty quickly, either within the bacterial cytoplasm or just outside.\n\nEDIT: as the other commenter explained, whether it becomes NH4 in solution depends on the pH. If the pH is above 9 or so, there's going to be more NH3 than NH4.",
"Both ammonium and ammonia are involved in the nitrogen cycle, which is just the oxidation and subsequent reduction of nitrogen. When reducing atmospheric nitrogen, using nitrogenase, the end result is either ammonia or ammonium (NH3 or NH4+, respectively). Whichever form the reduced nitrogen takes is really dependent on thr pH of the environment. Molecules have something called a pKa, this is the pH at which an acid will give up a hydrogen and take on the form of its conjugate base. NH4+ is the acid and NH3 is the conjugate base. If the pH is lower than its pKa (acidic conditions), NH4+ will be the dominant state. If the pH is higher than its pKa (basic conditions), then NH3 will be the dominant state.\n\nTo sum it up, the difference between NH4+ and NH3 is really not that important for the nitrogen cycle, since the difference is a proton transfer. Although, that is not to say that NH4+ and NH3 are chemically identical, just the more important differences in the cycle are between the other forms of nitrogen being oxidized and reduced for energy sources and electron acceptors, respectively. The fact that N2 is reduced at all is a huge evolutionary feat and the complete denitrification of NO3 to N2 is another facinating part of thr cycle.\n\nHope this helped."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.rsc.org/learn-chemistry/resource/download/res00000880/cmp00001056/pdf"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2039aj
|
Why does evolution take so long?
|
What is it that stops species from evolving within a few generations as opposed to the time it usually takes which is millions of years?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2039aj/why_does_evolution_take_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfzuark"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It can take a long time because:\n\n* it takes a generation for changes to happen, and often many generations for a trait to become prevalent in the population\n* the changes are tiny and you need a large number of them to accumulate before we think of something as being a different species\n* sometimes the changes don't provide any real benefit or drawback, so there's no reason for them to become more or less prevalent in the population"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1wirkx
|
justin trudeau's expelling of all 32 liberal senators today
|
I don't follow politics really, but as a Canadian I am curious as to the significance behind this move.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wirkx/eli5_justin_trudeaus_expelling_of_all_32_liberal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf2izwg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"In Canadian politics, the parliament is composed of two groups, the House of Commons and the Senate, both of which must agree before a new law can be passed.\n\nMembers of the house are the people we elected to represent us, but the members of the Senate are chosen by the Queen's representative (known as the Governor General) on recommendation by the Prime Minister. Once one becomes a senator they basically stay a senator until either they resign or they reach the age of 75. New senators are generally only chosen when one of them needs to be replaced.\n\nBecause the current Prime Minister gets to effectively pick any replacement Senators, they can choose people that will continue to act in favor the party, even if the Prime Minister loses the next election. As a result up until recently senators were usually high-ranking members of cabinets or the party that currently held the majority.\n\nThis is creating some contention on the Canadian political landscape as most Canadians don't like the idea that the senators weren't actually elected by the people of Canada.\n\nIn recent years the conservatives have held elections for senators in some provinces and the senators which won the elections were the ones that were recommended to the Governor General.\n\nThe Liberal party is trying to appeal to voters by distancing themselves from senators that they put in place long ago when the liberals had a majority government. And in essence they've told their senators that they should make their own decisions and not follow the Liberal party line.\n\nSo on one hand it is probably a good thing that senators are encouraged to make up their own mind; The whole reason the Senate exists was supposedly to give \"a sober second look\" at any legislation being created in the house.\n\nThat said, we're talking about senators who were usually fairly high up in the Liberal party to begin with, and generally held liberal opinions on all issues. The fact that they are now arm's-length from the Liberal party probably wouldn't change their decision-making. Nor does it change the fact that they weren't actually elected by the Canadian people.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2r3avk
|
Were Conquistadores really mitaken for Gods?
|
If so, are there other examples of the same kind of thing happening in other continents (North America, Oceania)? If it was the only time such thing happened, what were the key factors that made it possible? Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2r3avk/were_conquistadores_really_mitaken_for_gods/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnc5ojh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"These two previous posts cover your question\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2p78a3/ive_heard_that_cort%C3%A9s_arrived_in_america_on_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rgsfl/is_there_any_truth_to_the_commonly_cited_fact/"
]
] |
|
iziai
|
Why can't we determine protein conformation from its amino acid sequence?
|
I know that a protein's amino acid sequence determines its general shape (barring things such as ligand-binding, phosphorylation, etc). Knowing which areas are positive, negative, hydrophobic/philic, should (theoretically) allow one to figure out its general shape.
I know this is something of a holy grail, as it would have all sorts of medicinal / biochemical applications. So there's a huge incentive to figure this out.
So what barriers do we still have to overcome to be able to predict protein shape from its AA sequence?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/iziai/why_cant_we_determine_protein_conformation_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c27zfxq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"1) Computational complexity. Solving structures de novo requires tabulating a huge number of interactions and their net energies.\n\n2) It's not like there have not been huge strides. Take for example, this competition called CASP. _URL_1_\n\n3) Interestingly, the opposite-- making any functional protein from a blueprint-- is also a holy grail. David Baker's lab does both. Check this out. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GzATbET3g54",
"http://predictioncenter.org/"
]
] |
|
2cx46z
|
What were the tactics and success rates for boarding actions in the Age of Sail?
|
Was it rare for defenders to repel boarders effectively? Did tactics exist other than a melee for attack/defence during boarding?
Is there any evidence of a ship on the losing side of a gunnery battle managing to achieve victory through boarding?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2cx46z/what_were_the_tactics_and_success_rates_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjk71ll"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Boarding was very common partially because the crew of the victorious ship would be allowed to keep profits gained from taking an enemy ship. So there was an obvious advantage to not battering an enemy merchantman more than you had to. Boarding could be a very bloody pursuit, but theres far less damage done to the ship and cargo. \n\nAlso, not only must you capture a ship, but you must also get it back to a friendly port. The more you batter a ship the harder this will be. \n\nPlus, gunpowder is expensive and cannons are very large, heavy, and difficult to use. Navies would only provide Captains with a small amount of powder to use for practice and training their crews. A five hundred pound cannon violently shooting back across a heaving and rolling deck is very likely to hurt one of the people working the gun if they're not used to it. Drafting sailors also meant that many navy crews weren't really experienced fighters, even if they were sailors by trade (and many weren't).\n\nAlthough Captains who were well off financially could buy powder at their own expense and use it for training, and many did. \n\nProbably the most famous act of boarding in the face of overwhelming odds is when the British *Speedy*, of 14 guns, under Thomas Cochrane ran afoul the Spanish frigate *El Gamo* of 32 guns. \n\nTo put this into further perspective, *Speedy* fired a broadside weight of metal of about 27 pounds, while *El Gamo* fired 190 pounds. Cochrane's crew also only amounted to 54 men, while *El Gamo* held 319. \n\nRealizing he was pretty well boned, Cochrane boarded *El Gamo*. In the opening few minutes of the battle the Spanish captain was killed, adding to the confusion and someone tore the colors down off of *El Gamo*'s mast making most the crew think that the ship had surrendered. \n\nThis is probably the most famous case of a successful boarding action, but of course its the exception rather than the rule. \n\nThere was also The Battle of Cape St. Vincent, when after an hour of exchanging fire, Horatio Nelson boarded *San Nicolas* (Spanish, 80 guns) from his battered *Captain* (British, 74 guns) and then, after taking *San Nicolas*, continued on to board *San Josef* (Spanish, 112 guns) and taking that too. \n\nAs you can see he basically captured a ship and used it as a bridge to capture another ship.\n\nBut once again, these stories go on to be famous because they are exceptions to the norm. \n\nBoarding was in reality of course very risky for a lot of obvious reasons, for example it would be very bad to have most of your hands lined up to board the enemy ship, only to have the enemy ship open fire with a broadside of grapeshot (hundreds, or even thousands of little iron balls depending on the size of the gun, which are loaded in lieu of a traditional cannon ball). \n\nRegardless though, boarding was very common. Although its also important to mention that if a ship has less guns, than its also got less men (although privateers would often hold much larger crews than navy ships since they sailed purely for profit and were even less reluctant to spend money on gunpowder and to batter their prizes than navy ships). \n\nThis means that boarding wasn't really a viable alternative to ships that were out gunned. \n\nLinks to the above mentioned actions:\n\n_URL_1_.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_of_6_May_1801",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cape_St_Vincent_%281797%29#3:00_p.m"
]
] |
|
acb64w
|
does saving a digital file (like a pdf) to an object (like a hard drive) change the mass of the object it’s saved to?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/acb64w/eli5_does_saving_a_digital_file_like_a_pdf_to_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed6l3sh",
"ed6s6ba"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nIt is simply the moving of magnetic switches from the \"Off\" position to the \"on\" position, and vice versa. There is no mass change. ",
"Yes, but it a very, very, very small amount. Energy is needed to create those bits and energy has a mass equivalence. [This page](_URL_0_) estimates the mass of one bit to be **at least** 3.61x10^-38 kg for a computer at 150F/66C. That number is not dependent on the technology used to store it. The mass will be higher for practical systems because they are inefficient. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://scottkurowski.com/massbit/index.htm"
]
] |
||
1j6ss1
|
why are people boycotting florida for the "stand your ground" law when it wasn't even used in the trayvon martin case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1j6ss1/eli5_why_are_people_boycotting_florida_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbbnvdw",
"cbbnxfb"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"There's this notion that, by eliminating a person's duty to retreat from a life-threatening situation (effectively what the law does), the law encourages violent confrontation.",
"I did not know there was a boycott until my employer asked us all to avoid FL businesses and not to travel there on company money. Very strange as we have several contacts I don't want to lose. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1e4i0x
|
How does one particle "know" the charge of another through photon exchange?
|
Particle A exchanges a photon with particle B. Maybe if they are oppositely charged, the exchange causes them to move a little closer together. What is it about the photon itself that "tells" one particle to move either toward or away from the other?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1e4i0x/how_does_one_particle_know_the_charge_of_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9wqp35",
"c9wro87"
],
"score": [
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Forces don't really work by particles shooting force carriers at each other. So it's definitely not as if two charged particles interact because they're shooting lasers at each other! Virtual particles that we say mediate forces are like ripples in the underlying *electromagnetic field*. It's the field which tells charged particles where to move and how, depending on their charge. The field contains all that information. The virtual photons are what we use to describe the various physical processes that make up this interaction, but they're really more of a mathematical tool than physical particles (hence the name virtual!).\n\nThere's a [great blog post](_URL_0_) by Matt Strassler clearing this up.",
"Don't think of the photon as a particle, think of it as a fluctuation of the electromagnetic field. The fluctuations propagate through the field and \"tell\" each particle what to do."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://profmattstrassler.com/articles-and-posts/particle-physics-basics/virtual-particles-what-are-they/"
],
[]
] |
|
3r266p
|
Why were there so many Germanic peoples in Europe (Classical Antiquity)
|
The Germanic peoples were originally from Scandinavia, and during the Classical Antiquity period - although not quite the Roman empire - their tribes were numerous and formidable all across Europe. You have the Goths who went as far as Anatolia (and then I believe they went even further - conquering Rome and Iberia, but I think that has more to do with the fall of the Roman Empire more than my question), the Franks in Gaul, the Angles and the Saxons in Britannia, and of course the Germans (Suebi? Marcomanni?) in Germania. Most striking to me is the fact that Germania is named after peoples that did not even originate from western-central Europe, but after Scandinavian migrants.
More puzzling to me is the fact that (to my knowledge) Scandinavia has a relatively harsh climate and poor soil, at least in comparison to continental Europe. My understanding is that soil fertility/agricultural strength would be a pretty good indicator of a civilization's population density, development, and perhaps war prowess. Powerful ancient civilizations that arose out of the Indus Valley, Yellow River, and the Nile Valley went on to subjugate other peoples and conquer lands.
However, in the case of the Germanic peoples the pattern seems to be reversed. How and why were the presumably less prosperous Scandinavian Germans able to triumph over the indigenous population of Germania? What happened to the indigenous populations? Why was the migration pattern not the other way around - it seems counter-intuitive that the Germanic peoples migrated through Finland, Sweden/Norway, and Denmark only to come back down to continental Europe. Why did they migrate so often?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3r266p/why_were_there_so_many_germanic_peoples_in_europe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0f0cwb",
"cwkbd10"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Hello friend. \n\nI see this an old thread, but what the heck. \n\nA thing to note is that a lot of tribes claiming to originate from Scandinavia probably had little idea. Their history was written down when they did not live in Scandinavia but had established kingdoms elsewhere. There seemed to be a tendency for Goths, Burgundians, Franks and what not to all claim to be from Scandinavia because it was a good story and gave them a sort of identity. But the truth is there is no way so many powerful tribes could be from Jutland, Sweden and Norway. Recent science suggest Goths were from Poland for instance. I will look in my notes and come up with some litterature that can back up my claims and PM it to you. Its very interesting indeed. \nJutland has good soil! Sweden nay (except the south) and Norway nay. \n\nThe Kelts and Etruskan lived in \"middle\" Europe and was most likely forced out or assimilated, why you have remains in the outskirts such as Ireland. In Bretagne aswell some old folks still speak the celtic tounge. Aye. ",
"To my knowledge they didn't originate in all of Scandinavia but the region of Denmark and Northern Germany. From there they moved on to the North, South and East.\nAnd they moved for the very reason you mentioned: to get to more fertile lands.\n\nAlso in the time before Germanic people settled in main Europe it was quite sparsely populated, especially the Northern and Eastern regions. They wouldn't have to wage war all the time on their way south."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7wfpvh
|
how does skill-based matchmaking work in multiplayer video games?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7wfpvh/eli5_how_does_skillbased_matchmaking_work_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtzz4z8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The algorithm can vary from game to game. One that I'm familiar with is he [Glicko](_URL_0_) system which assigns players values which go up or down depending on the rating of the other players and the outcome of the game. If you are the underdog and win, you gain more points than if you rated higher than your opponent before the match. But likewise lose more if you were ranked higher but end up losing. Games with team play will have algorithms to generate an overall team rating and another algorithm how to add or subtract points from individuals after the match.\n\nOf course, just having a rating is one thing, if you are playing a team game, matchmaking itself needs another algorithm to try to generate teams of equal skill. If you don't have enough players in the player base or there are simply not many players at your skill level, the matchmaking system may start pulling players further from the team average over time just to fill out the team."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glicko_rating_system"
]
] |
||
1dkgg9
|
How did people get vitamins 5000 years ago?
|
As it is recommended to eat fruit and such every day. What were the hunters doing in countries very much north in the winter when fruit was not available. Did they all get scurvy? Just used C vitamin as an example there are probably more vitamins and nutrients and such.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dkgg9/how_did_people_get_vitamins_5000_years_ago/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9r60u2"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"First, let's be sure we all know what vitamins are. They are just molecules your body needs but cannot produce, and thus need to be consumed from the world around you. They aren't medicine or anything complicated that like. \n\nAscorbic acid, aka Vitamin C, exists in many foods. We tend to think of it as only being in citrus foods, since those are such concentrated sources of them, but they are present in huge numbers of edible plants, and also in most animals (because most animals can synthesize it themselves). \n\nSo you don't need to eat oranges to avoid scurvy — you just need to eat a lot of different things on a regular basis. Most people at all times (the present perhaps excepted) eat a wide-enough variety of foods to get some of the vitamins. In some cases, in periods of extreme famine or hardship, there was then (as now) chronic deficiencies in vitamins. But if you have a varied diet, it's not such a big deal. That being said, the population booms we associate with the last three or four centuries were enabled, in part, by the development of crops that provided not only large caloric intakes, but also were good sources of vitamins. Potatoes, for example, provide a wide range of vitamins, and famously allowed for the development of quite large populations in Europe and Asia after it was brought over from the New World.\n\nWhy do we make such a big deal about it? In part because of the context of sailing, which is what people always talk about regarding scurvy, because for long-haul voyages the diets became extremely restricted (hardtack and pork). In situations where you are eating only one or two things, you'll run into these issues, but that isn't normally how people subsist. Ironically, this is often the situation today with hyper-processed foods, which are often just variously-transformed versions of single staples (like corn), and suddenly we have to worry about getting enough vitamins, despite living in a land of apparent abundance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1vutqs
|
Could someone explain to me the argument that World War II started earlier than 1939?
|
Do people who believe it started earlier than 1939 believe it had begun with early conflicts in Asia? Or that it began with pre-ww2 german expansion? Or even earlier?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vutqs/could_someone_explain_to_me_the_argument_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cew0c2n"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"You reference 1939, I am assuming, because that is when Germany invaded Poland (September 1st) and subsequently France and the Britain declared war on Germany (September 3rd). Why are these four countries, in Europe, the start of the world war? What makes these countries and aggressions more significant than what was happening in the pacific? \n\n\n\n\nJapan invaded Manchuria in 1931, why would that not be the start? Japan had a full invasion of China in 1937 starting (unless you consider the start in 1931) the second Sino-Japanese war. Should this be considered separate from WWII until the US declares war on Japan on December 8th 1941 (or December 7th with the attack on Pearl Harbor)? Or would it not be considered a part of WWII until Germany declares war on the US on December 11th connecting the European and Pacific aggressive confrontations? I say aggressive confrontations because there was support for China from many foreign countries including Germany (Germany was supporting China against Japan prior to 1938), the Soviet Union, France, and the US but in terms of loans, military technology, supply chain, and more. \n\nThere could even be arguments on which day is the end of WWII, VE day or VJ day? \n\nI am not a historian, but you did not ask for what the historically agreed upon start of WWII was (which likely doesn't exist and is debated). I only gave you some potential actions that could be reasonably argued as the start of WWII. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
45ay01
|
are programming languages all in english?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/45ay01/eli5_are_programming_languages_all_in_english/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czwg8d3",
"czwg9em",
"czwgcrp"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there's a language called [Brainfuck] (_URL_0_), which bears no relation to any human or animal language ... and a variation of that called Ook! in which all commands are Ook! and variations thereof. ",
"They're kind of in English. Programming languages normally only have a small set of keywords though. Those keywords are in English, but since there's only a few of them and they have specific meanings it wouldn't be difficult to learn what they do without knowing English. I mean English speakers still have to learn what a \"for\" loop is, even though they know what the word \"for\" means.\n\nThat said, I think it's expected that programmers in most of the world should know English. It's technically possible to use a programming language without any prior English ability. But not knowing English would severely limit your ability to work with commonly used APIs, because the names of functions will almost certainly be in English only.",
"[Not all programming languages are in English](_URL_0_). However, most are, and all the commonly used ones are.\n\nI can't comment with authority on how non native speakers manage because I am a native English speaker. I have worked with many people who are not native speakers, though - but they've all spoken fluent English. I can only imagine it would be difficult to use a programming language in a language in which you aren't reasonably fluent... but English is so prevalent throughout the developed world that it's rarely a problem."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brainfuck"
],
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-English-based_programming_languages"
]
] |
||
8373wv
|
How fierce was the fight over water and electricity becoming utilities
|
Considering how the current even with the internet is playing out I am wondering how the market for other things we now consider utilities went.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8373wv/how_fierce_was_the_fight_over_water_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvgu9zb",
"dvjfnqm"
],
"score": [
453,
3
],
"text": [
"Whoa, something I can actually comment on. My knowledge here is limited to Washington State where I researched it heavily, specifically with public utilities. I've also seen how some of the legal battles over *how* utilities may behave has played out and can comment on that.\n\ntl;dr: The fight was pretty severe, at least in Washington State. After being slowed down by the great depression and WWII, it took almost 18 years before even legally-authorized public utilities could take the actions the public voted for them to take.\n\nIn Washington State, the public put pressure on the legislators to enact a public utility law [starting in 1929,](_URL_4_) and the law (Now RCW 54) took effect in 1931.\n\nAt that time, electric utilities were very powerful. They had monopolies over the production and distribution of electricity due to the massive infrastructure costs involved. The motivation for the law was that infrastructure progress had reached the point where cities and towns had reliable electricity, and rural people could visit and SEE the results of this progress, but they had no access to this itself. They wanted it, but the power companies weren't willing to bring it to them for a reasonable cost.\n\nTaking a quick break here to give some background on utility infrastructure costs in general... Wiring up a community for power for the first time is an extremely expensive proposition, particularly if that area has a very low population density. For reference, using today's numbers, each power pole costs approximately $1,500 dollars, and can span about 300 feet; The power poles' costs must be amortized over about 30-50 years. Then there's the substation infrastructure - a 20-megawatt substation can serve about 20,000 homes, but costs between $10 and 30 million dollars to build, or $500 - $1,500 per home, with a 30-40 year lifespan. A residential transformer may cost about $5-10k and can serve ~3-5 homes, but *only if those homes are close*, with a 20-30 year lifespan. Then there's the costs of stringing all the wire (the wire itself is relatively negligible cost, thankfully) and the maintenance over the lifespan of the equipment.\n\nSo if a new neighborhood of 10 homes, 5 miles from a substation, wanted to have new electricity service(using today's dollars), it will take 88 power poles, ~3 transformers, and about $7,500 of substation capacity. Per home that cost works out to $15,450, and that amount must be recouped within the 30 year lifespan of the equipment to avoid the utility losing money. That's $43 dollars of raw costs per month before *any electricity is delivered at all*, with zero profit, and not counting the billing overhead of adding new customers or the regular maintenance overhead of those facilities over that 30 year period, and not counting the production infrastructure like dams or power plants. These costs would have been proportionately higher 90 years ago when the mass production and cost-effective designs were not known for the infrastructure.\n\nI write all this to show one thing: It isn't very difficult to see WHY utilities weren't jumping at delivering power to rural areas. The investment risk/reward was pretty terrible. Now getting back to the history.\n\nBy 1930 when this bill passed, the utilities had already built a lot of electricity infrastructure. They had built several dams, which have a ~50-70-year return on investment horizon, and the combination of that and the other infrastructure was what gave them the monopoly. What the public utility bill did was it allowed counties to form public utilities on their own. And those public utilities had the power of eminent domain. They could literally condemn and seize the infrastructure the energy companies had been building since ~1905, much of which had come nowhere near reaching a return on investment. And in some cases, they might not even have to pay for it! You can imagine that the energy companies would fight hard against such a thing, and you would be correct. If some parts of this process sound like they were borderline unethical against the utilities, you would also [accurately capture the mixed feelings](_URL_0_) that both the public as well as members of the public utilities' leadership had towards the process.\n\nThe fighting mostly played out in the courts. It took several years for the public utilities to form and get organized themselves. Most of them began to form in 1933-1938, but they did not own anything. They had to sue through the courts to get the infrastructure. In order to pay for the lawsuits and any purchases of infrastructure that the courts ordered they had to come up with the money up front themselves, or else take on bonds. Since public utilities were by no means guaranteed to be successful at this point, these bonds were hard to come by. The energy companies on the other hand were well funded, organized, and motivated. There were several attempts at passing changes to the laws that would either make the process easier for public utilities, or would provide more protection/defenses for energy companies; I believe all of these ultimately failed, but some of them just barely.\n\nIt took until the end of WWII until the dominoes began to fall against the energy companies. I'm going from memory here but I think the energy companies began to lose the first dams in about 1943 or 1944, and after 1946 they started to fall like dominoes. Most of the dams, naturally, were built in remote locations with a suitable landscape and river - exactly the type of rural area that was likely to form a PUD in order to get electricity to their farms. Each lawsuit referenced and built upon the previous ones, speeding up the process. By 1948-1952, the energy companies had basically given up and accepted that they were going to lose almost every single dam they had built, and they just did the best they could to convince the judge to give them a fair price through eminent domain; They lost a massive amount of money through it all. Soon after this came the aging electrical infrastructure through the same process, and finally public utilities could begin to serve their communities in the late 1940s and early 1950s, though they still had to build THAT infrastructure.\n\nOther states went through a very different process to get their utilities into a regulated form; Washington was a young state at this point, as Olympia wasn't even formed until 1859, and other states had much more well developed regulations on utilities; Washington State didn't even HAVE railroads until 1883 to need to begin forming utility regulations for. In many cases the end result was not public utilities on county lines but rather the electric companies were bound by a state-run utility commission board, who had the final say on electricity rates & policies in their state.\n\nJumping from WA to NC, some large companies attempted to skirt these regulations and continue earning massive profits anyway. In the 1920's, Alcoa formed a public utility called [Nantahala Power & Light Company as a subsidiary.](_URL_2_) Acting as a utility, which was regulated by the NC Utility Commission, they were authorized to actually build dams to produce huge amounts of power. They actually [got federal funding to help with this as a utility.](_URL_3_)\n\nBut Alcoa is not an altruistic non-profit. Alcoa was/is a large aluminum smelting company. For those who don't know, Aluminum smelting is a complex process - First the mined raw input bauxite (Aluminum oxide) must be superheated to a few thousand degrees, and THEN the raw aluminum is retrieved by electrolysis - Passing monstrous amounts of electricity through the superheated liquid. So much power that aluminum plants make multi-decade contracts with dams and other major power plants before they decide to build their plant there. Or they just buy the public utility themselves, it seems.\n\nAs they owned the utility company, they could set their rates however they liked so long as the utility commission allowed it. And so they created distinctions only they could qualify for and sold themselves electricity at half the cost of other industrial customers. This resulted in [a landmark lawsuit in 1952/53](_URL_5_) between Mead Corporation, a paper mill, and Nantahala. The utility commission agreed with the way Alcoa had structured the rules, but to anyone else it was pretty clear what was going on.\n\nThe NC supreme court did something rarely done and overruled the utility commission - The rate was discriminatory and could not be allowed. Nantahala must treat Alcoa the same as any other large industrial customers. This wasn't even the last time they tried this - in [1984/5 they tried to use the source of the energy](_URL_1_) as a way to give themselves a preferential rate, and lost there too. 3 years after losing that one they finally sold Nantahala.\n\nSummary: The fight was pretty severe and played out over decades. This was of course after the \"utility regulation\" fight over railroads and telegraph routes had played out; Electricity and water distribution piggy-backed onto those utility laws at first.",
"If anyone is interested, I could go into the specific example of Quebec during the Quiet Revolution in the 1960s', the nationalization of water and electricity being a major part of that change. Not sure if it is too niche or not for this question though, as it is tied up with the development of Quebec Nationalism and the modernization of Quebec."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://archiveswest.orbiscascade.org/ark:/80444/xv80343",
"https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/supreme-court/1985/227a83-0.html",
"https://www.wcu.edu/mhc/exhibits/NPL/CompanyTimeline.htm",
"https://www.citizen-times.com/story/news/2016/01/10/visiting-our-past-earliest-wnc-dams-built-alcoa/78524454/",
"http://www.wpuda.org/pud-history",
"https://law.justia.com/cases/north-carolina/supreme-court/1953/24-0-10.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1rdmxg
|
why so many characters in children's films have dead parents.
|
Particularly in Disney Channel movies. I have seen a lot of these since my daughter came along and when we watch a new one we seem to always have the 'I'm sensing a dead parent' moment. It's the mom in the majority of films but dead dads do happen to.
Why is this employed so often?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1rdmxg/eli5_why_so_many_characters_in_childrens_films/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdm663l"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Simplifies the family dynamic. One parent, one relationship to address in the film.\n\nOr it's used as a defining moment in the character's life: lion King, Bambi, Snow White. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2vo3vw
|
why isn't every moisturizer/lotion "for sensitive skin"?
|
It seems to me that it would be beneficial for both consumer and company if peoples faces didn't explode upon application of the "regular" kind.
Is the sensitive lotion less effective? Is the regular lotion otherwise superior in any way?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vo3vw/eli5_why_isnt_every_moisturizerlotion_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cojdzsx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sensitive skin moisturise tends to be made with different ingredients, some of which can be more expensive than those used in regular moisturisers. \n\nAdditionally, one many products sensitive skin is code word for dry skin. Something that can work well on dry skin can make regular skin excessively oily. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
kf0be
|
If we colonized a new planet, what is the minimum
number of men and women we'd need to avoid
eventual problems with inbreeding?
|
I was reading that article recently about the sperm donor who actually father over hundreds of children, and the potential impact that may have on inadvertent inbreeding. That got me wondering the question in the title. I realize there's room for error here, but what is the absolute minimum that would be workable?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kf0be/if_we_colonized_a_new_planet_what_is_the_minimum/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2jrthg",
"c2jrthg"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Asked recently on /r/askscience here: \n\n[How many people would you need to self-sufficiently populate a planet without inbreeding being a problem?](_URL_2_)\n\nPitciarn islands makes a nice case study in humans. Pitcairn Islands were [settled by 6 men and 11 women](_URL_1_); and the majority of inhabitants are their descendants.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Genetics on Pitcairn ... \"Inbreeding in this instance ... although extremely close, has not led to degeneracy as it is usually supposed to do. Inbreeding in a stock which has latent defects will naturally intensify those traits. I can't say that race mixture in this case has been harmful. . . . The people are superior physically and are also a hardworking, intelligent lot. In psychology and behavior they are predominantly British.\"\n",
"Asked recently on /r/askscience here: \n\n[How many people would you need to self-sufficiently populate a planet without inbreeding being a problem?](_URL_2_)\n\nPitciarn islands makes a nice case study in humans. Pitcairn Islands were [settled by 6 men and 11 women](_URL_1_); and the majority of inhabitants are their descendants.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n > Genetics on Pitcairn ... \"Inbreeding in this instance ... although extremely close, has not led to degeneracy as it is usually supposed to do. Inbreeding in a stock which has latent defects will naturally intensify those traits. I can't say that race mixture in this case has been harmful. . . . The people are superior physically and are also a hardworking, intelligent lot. In psychology and behavior they are predominantly British.\"\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,883297,00.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands",
"http://vi.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ieva9/how_many_people_would_you_need_to/"
],
[
"http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,883297,00.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pitcairn_Islands",
"http://vi.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ieva9/how_many_people_would_you_need_to/"
]
] |
|
f06htg
|
What percentage of the Red Army during WW2 were Russian? What ethnic groups or nationalities served in the Red Army at that time?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f06htg/what_percentage_of_the_red_army_during_ww2_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fgrvs6e"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I was able to track down a very interesting report written by the RAND corporation called \"Managing the Ethnic Factor in the Russian and Soviet Armed Forces: An Historical Overview\" by Susan L. Curran and Dmitry Ponomareff (July, 1982). \n\nAccording to the report, the Red Army was only 64% ethnically \"Russian\" in 1943, a figure which decreased to 58% by 1944. The second largest ethnic group represented were Ukranians at around 11-12% in 1943, and 22% by 1944. Here is an imgur link to a table which I found on page 29 of the above mentioned report: [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\nAs you can see, this table provides a very thorough breakdown of the ethnic composition of the Red Army during the last few years of the war. The primary source used for these particular figures is a Russian one: \"Artem'ev, A. P., *Bratskii boevoi soiuz narodov SSSR v Velikoi Otechestvennoi voine \"Mysl,\" Moscow, 1975*. \n\nHope this helps to answer your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://imgur.com/z9Byly3"
]
] |
|
6bmz00
|
how can two games look so different on the same console?
|
I played Dark Souls I and II, and I couldn't help but notice how much more beautiful II looked on the exact same Xbox that I played the first one on. How does this kind of change happen despite me never upgrading my hardware?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6bmz00/eli5_how_can_two_games_look_so_different_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhny9dp",
"dhnz574",
"dhnzsrk"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
9
],
"text": [
"Because your console isn't the only thing that can be improved upon. \n\nThe development team itself, over the years, gains experience, gets better at creating more complex art, they learn how to better utilize the console, They might have a bigger art budget than last time around, the industry as a whole improves their methods, They might be targeting higher-end machines than before, and so on and so forth. ",
"They got better at programming simply. Your Xbox can do more than what the first game showed and the second proves that. The studio may have gotten a bigger budget and more experience thus they could cough out a more technologically advanced game. \n\n\nGood example is GTA SA and half life 2. Both came out same year. Yet half life has much better graphics",
"Here's an analogy: A pencil is a tool you can create pictures with. It is limited, for example you are not able to produce colours with it. (This would be what the console is just not capable to do). But within the things you are able to do, there is a huge spectrum. You can create simple stick-figures. But the more you master the tool, the more complex and detailed things you will be able to draw.\n\nA console is just another medium that has to be mastered. (Look at some PS1 or NES games. Compare Super Mario Bros. 1 to SMB3. Same console, one early and one late game. Developers just learned a lot in these years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2j77dv
|
Determination of Plank's constant?
|
How was the value of planks constant originally determined?? I've read that Milikan got the value using the slope of stopping potential versus incident frequency for photoelectric current, and got the same value that was determined by Plank in a different context. How did Plank determined it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2j77dv/determination_of_planks_constant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl920xk",
"cl94cvb"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Planck originally determined the numerical value of the constant by applying his recently discovered radiation law which correctly predicted the emission from a black-body object—in it, the radiation law presumes that a \"quantum\" of action must exist for the whole thing to work (and avoid the ultraviolet catastrophe).\n\nSo, he back calculated it, he had real data on black body behavior and physical law that predicted it, he only needed to \"wiggle\" the constant until it matched nature and the data he had. I can't read German, but here [take a look for yourself](_URL_0_) in his 1900 paper on the subject—on the very last page he calculates the value of the constant in ergs\\*sec.",
"There's a really awesome experiment that you can do at home to approximate Planck's constant. Buy a handful of LEDs of known wavelength in a variety of colors. Set up a circuit to measure the turn-on voltage of the LEDs - the point where they're just *barely* producing visible light, if you're looking straight into it. \n \nUsing the voltage that you recorded as 'E', throw this and the known wavelength into E = h x frequency, and you'll be able to loosely work out Planck's constant (in eV*s)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.physik.uni-augsburg.de/annalen/history/historic-papers/1901_309_553-563.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
5upa9s
|
why, in the uk, student loans are seen as a bad thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5upa9s/eli5_why_in_the_uk_student_loans_are_seen_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddvt3uw",
"ddvtju9"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"I think the reason is that we seem to have regressed. In other words we've gone from free tuition 20 or so years ago to £9000 a year. \n\nCouple this with the possibility that more than 50% of students may never pay back their loans, thereby leading to a loss to the taxpayer (when the measure was meant to save money), and the fact that many more students are being sent to uni to do degrees which will not boost their earning potential in any major way, and it doesn't seem to me that you have a decent system. ",
"The main reason as to why student loans are found to be so hostile is because of what they replaced. \n\nThey replaced student grants on the maintenance side, meaning that instead of having to pay it back, it wasn't to be paid off at all. \n\nTuition fee loans are good as it allows many with lower incomes to go to university, but the hostilities to this is simply because it has risen from £3000 a year to £9000 a year, with seemingly little value for money. Before that, no tuition fees whatsoever. \n\nWhilst the current scheme isn't bad, what it has replaced was far more reasonable. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2mupee
|
If E=MC^2, does heating an object increase its mass? What about combining two magnets?
|
Two new subatomic particles were found that have the same composition but different masses because one has an up spin instead of a down spin. How can the particles state affect it's mass? This got me thinking about E=MC^2.
Would fastening two magnets together increase the weight of the combined object beyond its individual components?
Does adding heat energy increase an objects mass?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2mupee/if_emc2_does_heating_an_object_increase_its_mass/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm7vi8c",
"cm7xrgx",
"cm819ue"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Heat an object does increase it's mass, but you need more than E=mc^2 to explain that, you need the full energy equation: \n\nE^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^(2))^2\n\nEssentially, the kinetic energy of the atoms gets dumped into the mass term essentially because how the dot products of 4-vectors are treated.",
" > Two new subatomic particles were found that have the same composition but different masses because one has an up spin instead of a down spin. How can the particles state affect it's mass? This got me thinking about E=MC2.\n\nThose particles are in an excited state, so they have more rest energy than their stable counterparts (rest energy is the energy a system has in the center of momentum frame, i.e. when it's not moving). Rest energy and mass are related by E*_rest_*=mc^2 .\n\n > Would fastening two magnets together increase the weight of the combined object beyond its individual components?\n\nIf you are trying to join them by the same poles, then yes. You have to add energy to the system to bring the two separated magnets together, and that energy increases the invariant mass of the system. If you join them by the opposite poles, then the system loses mass when the magnets collide (and it's dissipated in the form of heat/sound).\n\n > Does adding heat energy increase an objects mass?\n\nYes, it increases the average kinetic energy of the molecules in the center of momentum frame, which means the object's mass increases.",
"Converting energy to mass, and mass to energy is not the same as just adding energy. If I throw a concrete brick into a fire, the fire doesn't use the brick as fuel, which would be adding mass to energy. And the same principle goes here. Mass and energy are *equivalent* under certain circumstances but not *identical.*\n\nThe full energy equation, like AskAChemicalEngineer said, would sum the 4-vectors of every single quanta of the heated object.\n\n > How can the particles state affect it's mass?\n\nAccording to the CERN write up, the fact that its three quarks are aligned as opposed to two aligned and one antialigned is the reason why it's heavier. But I don't know enough about quarks or QCD to make sense of that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
chhoys
|
what is the difference between capital gains and dividends?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/chhoys/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_capital_gains/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eut7zq3"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Capital gains are when an investor sells a stock for a profit. \n\nDividends are typically when the corporation has made so much money that they would like to reward the investors. So the company gives them cash every three months or so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
x62tu
|
in honor of the olympics, how do you judge gymnastics?
|
I swear, when I watch the Olympics, I dont understand what the judges are looking for. Looks like some gymnasts land with a post-bounce and you hear the announcers say, "Oh, she'll be deducted for that." And then other times if they land with a quick, perky bounce the announcers flip out because it was an amazing landing. I don't understand what to look for in the movements for the different gymnastics events.
Can someone give me an overall gist of what the judges take off points for in the floor routine, parallel bars (is that one?), uneven bars, rings, vault, balance beam, etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/x62tu/eli5_in_honor_of_the_olympics_how_do_you_judge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5mgcqk",
"c5jhvp4",
"c5jzags"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Former gymnast here:\n\n* Form: Strait legs(unless the skill is a bent legged skill), pointed toes, legs together.\n* Control: Pauses, stops between skills, loss of balance, falling.\n* Sticking landings: number of steps, size of steps, landing low, landing far off to one side.\n* Skill Requirements: Routines must have certain numbers and types of elements. Some examples would be a forward flip, backward flip, twist, strength move, dance move.\n\nEach of those mistakes has a certain range of points the judge can deduct. Your score is then calculated using your execution points which 10 added to your difficulty points which can range based on the difficult of your skills usually hovers around 4-6 in olympic competition and then the mistakes are deducted from that. So i did a routine with 4 points difficulty but made 2 points worth of mistakes it would be 10 + 4 - 2",
"Each gymnasts routine is given a difficulty score before they participate. The more difficult the routine or stunt, the higher the difficulty score. They are then judged on their execution of that routine or stunt and the two scores are combined.\n\nPoints are awarded based on execution. When they land, the idea is that they should not have to take a step, showing great balance. If a competitor takes a large step or a long jump after landing, they will be deducted points. Points are also taken off for lack of execution, slips and falls, improper body position, or other mistakes.",
"To add to what sixthmillipede said: The reason you hear different things about the landings is that the announcers are compensating for difficulty. For example, ANY bounce can be a deduction. If the dismount is particularly difficult, they might say it was amazing because considering how hard a move it was, landing it with only a small bounce is very very impressive. \n\nMy dad used to be a judge for gymnastics, so if you have any more questions feel free to ask. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1f9plb
|
roth ira accounts
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1f9plb/eli5_roth_ira_accounts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca85krj",
"ca85z4a"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Is this a question, or a rant? Roth IRAs don't pay 0-1%, they are invested in mutual funds and indexes just like a 401k / traditional IRA and typically have a modest return - higher than interest rates for a typical savings account or a CD. The difference is you are taxed on the cash before it goes into the Roth IRA, so you dont pay taxes when it comes out. You still can't take it out until you are at least of retirement age, however, without paying additional penalties.",
"I don't see any question here, I see a rant. if you have a specific question feel free to repost without the rant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
axm11r
|
- salt is supposed to be dehydrating, but electrolytes are salt too, and good for hydration? how does this work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/axm11r/eli5_salt_is_supposed_to_be_dehydrating_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehudflh",
"ehudv3x",
"ehuh00a",
"ehuhlxe"
],
"score": [
2,
11,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Salt is an essential electrolyte, but if you overdo it, your body needs to flush it out, leaving you dehydrated. ",
"The salt in your body needs to be at a certain concentration for the nerves and some other things to function properly. Now if you eat a lot of salty food, the kidneys will remove the salt through urine, which is why salt is dehydrating.\n\nBut sweat is also salty, so if you're sweating a lot, you're losing salt. This isn't really a big problem under normal circumstances, since there's a lot of water and salt in your body. But if you're doing intense, long exercise such as running a marathon, you're going to lose dangerous amounts of salt. That's why sports drinks contain electrolytes.\n\nFor regular, routine workout, this isn't necessary. You can drink plain water and replenish salt through food afterwards.",
"Wherever salt goes, water follows. If you're taking salt in, there is a retention of water in your system. If your body detects you have too much salt, the body will excrete it and the water will also follow.",
"A very simplified answer:\n\nThere's two main things salt (and not just NaCl) is used for in the body; maintaining water balance through osmosis and enabling messages to be sent across cell membranes.\n\nThe body maintains water balance by controlling the amount of salt in various places in the body, by pumping in or pumping out salt, which affects the rate at which water molecules (who are too small to be hindered by cell membranes) move and where they move to. This is osmosis, and occurs everywhere in nature. In summary, if there is more salt in a place, then water will tend to go to the salty place, to dilute it. This will occur until the concentration of salt is the same in both, the place the water came from and where the water goes to.\n\nIn your body, there are various different areas where salt is kept, to maintain the myriad processes going on. when you eat a lot of salt, however, there is all of a sudden a huge increase in the concentration in your digestive tract. Water from your bloodstream goes to dilute this. so, the amount of water in your digestive tract goes up, even if you haven't actually been drinking any water. This is why people sometimes feel bloated after a salty meal.\n\nAll this water comes from the bloodstream, which, all of a sudden has too little water. To balance this, your organs start shedding water molecules into your blood. in other words, your blood and organs get dehydrated, because your body is trying to rehydrate your digestive tract. If additional water isnt introduced, this can get dangerous. As people have mentioned, your kidneys will redress this balance, but this take time.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nOn the other hand, a base level of salt is required because of their ionic character. On a cellular level, messages get around your body essentially by small electrical impulses. To carry these impulses you need charged molecules. Salts are made up of these. For example, NaCl - table salt is actually Na+ and Cl-. they help to transport messages across cell membranes, which in turn helps the cells do their jobs. Cell membranes are where the vast majority of a cells reactions take place. If you dont have enough salt (for example because you've eaten too little of it, or sweated too much of it) , these messages dont get sent, and the cells cant do their jobs.\n\n & #x200B;"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1j9n4q
|
While on a march, how many hours of sleep did soldiers get per day? How many hours were they marching per day?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j9n4q/while_on_a_march_how_many_hours_of_sleep_did/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbchos2"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Which soldiers? When? In Desert Storm or Waterloo?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4cakvc
|
How can water be heavier than the respective elements that make it up?
|
So I understand basically that electrolysis of water splits water into its base elements of Hydrogen and Oxygen, but how can combining them create something that is heavier than the sum of it's parts? How can both Hydrogen and Oxygen be lighter than water if they make up water?
Edit; Wow, this has been really eye opening to how little I understand chemistry. Thanks everyone that replied and I'll definitely be trying to learn more.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4cakvc/how_can_water_be_heavier_than_the_respective/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1gg24u",
"d1ggtqh",
"d1gii59",
"d1gkul2",
"d1ha2wh"
],
"score": [
15,
30,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Oxygen has a molecular weight of 16. Hydrogen has a molecular weight of 1. Water is H2O, so 2 H, and 1 O. 16 + 2x1 = 18. The molecular weight of water is the sum of the weights of its constituent parts. What's the problem here? ",
"Water actually weighs very slightly less than its constituent parts. Bound states are lower energy than unbounded states and this is manifested as a slight defect in mass. This is why you must put energy into the system to break it apart.",
"They are the same mass. If you were to carefully weigh all the hydrogen and oxygen that came from electrolysis of 18 grams of water, you would get 2 grams of hydrogen and 16 of oxygen. U/bearsnchairs is correct on it being very slightly more as the gas, but you would need super accurate balances to measure the change.",
"Water vapor is much less dense than oxygen at the same temperature and pressure.\n\n*Liquid* water is much denser than hydrogen or oxygen gas, but that's because it's a liquid and there's a lot less space between the molecules. Liquid oxygen is denser than water.",
"I get the question as, \"Why are Hydrogen and Oxygen gas so much more dense as water?\". \n\nThat is a relatively deep question. Why are molecules denser than their components? For water it is several things. Water at room temperature and pressure forms globules of something like eight to 30 molecules attached by polar bonds. The water is attached by hydrogen bonds. They are the constituent matter of the fluid we associate as water. Water as a polar molecule is quite a bit different from its non-polar constituents of O2 and H2.\n\nThe question might be rephrased again as \"why does water form a liquid at room temperature while its components are gases?\" Water is a polar molecular. Its mass lowers its speed for its temperature. Polar bonds and hydrogen bonds help it form a liquid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2odzyx
|
why do metals used for medical purposes ( like screws or plates used to hold bones together) not set off metal detectors? what's stopping a terrorist from making a gun out of that metal and bringing it on a plane?
|
Title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2odzyx/eli5_why_do_metals_used_for_medical_purposes_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmm8gle"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes it does. People with metal implants sometimes carry documentation of same to show to the security people, and they may be subject to additional screening as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
uw45c
|
When swinging a baseball bat, tennis racquet, golf club, etc. why is "follow through" so crucial?
|
Once that spit-second of contact has been made with the ball, why should any further motion (or lack thereof) make any difference at all?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uw45c/when_swinging_a_baseball_bat_tennis_racquet_golf/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4z2ukz",
"c4z2y9m",
"c4z3bin",
"c4z4dz0",
"c4z4oac",
"c4z4ute",
"c4z6neu"
],
"score": [
13,
18,
11,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Nothing you do after contact can affect the ball, but it's an easy way for people to modify the motions _prior_ to (and while) hitting the ball.",
"At the risk of sounding like a layman, I would tend to think that if you don't follow through and decide to stop at the point of impact, your body is going to start working to reduce your motion before you actually end up hitting the ball.\n\nThus, energy that could have gone into the ball is being squandered on an unnecessary and early stop. ",
"This is the same concept as \"running through\" first base, but running the bases happens over a larger distance so you can see it better. If you were to stop exactly on the base, you'd have to either start slowing down a few feet before first base, or risk injury by stopping in as short a distance as possible (mentioned by D_I_S_D).",
"Simple answer: Momentum.",
"As a tennis player i can tell that the motion that follows the contact is to ensure that the strike is well controlled because the longer the ball gets pushed by the racquet the better control you have over the force of the strike and the movement of the ball.\nStill in tennis you might observe some volley shots that stop the movement of the arm much earlier in order to do shorter and faster shots.",
"Actually, not all players learn this way. I was watching a softball tournament in which one team was taught to simply impact the ball correctly because the follow through is not important. This method seems to work quite effectively as well.",
"In any \"impact\" event, the transfer of energy is not instantaneous, even though it may feel like it. In reality, hitting a golf ball or baseball causes a huge amount of deflection to both the ball and the club or bat. If you do not follow through, many of the brief elastic deflections that occur will manifest their return to \"normal\" shape as lost energy that gets transferred from the impacting ball and club, back through you to your feet and to the ground. In other words, follow through helps to increase the effeciency of the impact event keeping as elastic (conserved energy) as possible, instead of pseudo-plastic where all of the kinetic energy you put into swinging gets pulled back out at your feet when you try to slow down and stabilize yourself after the impact. \n\nFailure to follow through will most often result in slower outbound balls than you would otherwise be capable of hitting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1tu4f3
|
Why did cricket become popular in some former British colonies (India, Pakistan, West Indies, Australia etc) but not others (Nigeria, Ghana, Egypt, USA, etc)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tu4f3/why_did_cricket_become_popular_in_some_former/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cebk4y0",
"cebl9kp"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"there have been several threads that discuss the popularity of cricket in various regions. check these out for previous responses\n\n[Why and how did football (soccer) skip India?](_URL_6_)\n\n[How did cricket get so popular in India](_URL_4_)\n\n[Why is soccer the sport of the world instead of, say, cricket, or baseball?](_URL_2_)\n\n[Sports historians: Ifs there a specific reason Cricket is not more popular in America?](_URL_1_)\n\n[Why isn't Soccer the most popular sport in the former 'white' dominions of the British Empire?](_URL_3_)\n\n[Why did cricket not catch on in Canada like it did in the rest of the former British Colonies?](_URL_0_)\n\n[Canadian sports](_URL_5_)",
"Perhaps its worth noting that in all test-playing nations, British influence remained very strong from the mid 1800s to WWI... With most of the first games being played in the mid 1800s...\n\nCricket was widely played by around the 1600's, but cricket as we would recognise today really began to be codified and played in the 1700s, and the [Laws of Cricket](_URL_1_) come from this time - first around 1720-30s, then truly codified around the 1770s... This is also when the [MCC](_URL_0_) and Lords stem from...\n\nYou might think this to a degree rules out the US, as British influence limited when cricket was really beginning to become popular, however it was played - the first international cricket game was between [Canada and the US](_URL_2_) in the 1850s... \n\nThe West Indies also toured US and Canada in the 1880s... However after this, it appears it was overtaken by other sports... The US also an associate member of the ICC, and came very close to making the T20 World Cup...\n\nThis is really when cricket starts to take off elsewhere, with an Aboriginal team from Australia touring England, and then the Ashes series in 1877...\n\nIn terms of Egypt, I Was under the impression that it was quite a different colony to the cricket playing ones, in many ways a protectorate, and with differing degrees of self-rule, and perhaps not the same interactions as other colonies... British influence was not as strong here as the other colonies...\n\nAs for Nigeria and Ghana I have no idea about British colonial or military presence..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o9uga/why_did_cricket_not_catch_on_in_canada_like_it/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1sjvzf/sports_historians_ifs_there_a_specific_reason/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1mmphe/why_is_soccer_the_sport_of_the_world_instead_of/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yzglf/why_isnt_soccer_the_most_popular_sport_in_the/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16z2zj/how_did_cricket_get_so_popular_in_india/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gfi76/canadian_sports/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1lis3f/why_and_how_did_football_soccer_skip_india/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marylebone_Cricket_Club",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_of_cricket",
"http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/141170.html"
]
] |
||
1pqqdv
|
what is the link between genes, chromosomes, dna, meisos and meitosis please?
|
I can't understand the concept of meiosis and mitosis, and how they link to dna, genes and chromosomes? Can someone please help 'draw' the connection for me? I'm an avid programmer, horrible biologist :( I don't even know if there is a link between these, I just read a lot of different information from each sources that seem to contradict (or so it seems) each other.
Thanks in advance
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1pqqdv/eli5_what_is_the_link_between_genes_chromosomes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd50mp2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Going from smallest to biggest: \n1. Genes are sections of DNA with specific instructions. \n2. DNA is the sum of the genetic material in each chromosome (all the instructions for that Chromosome). \n3. Chromosomes are the individual collections of DNA that tell your body how to behave, what to look like, etc. \n4. Cells are either haploid or diploid. Almost every cell in your body is a diploid cell. This means it has 46 chromosomes. Sperm and egg cells are called haploid cells, which means they have half that number, or 23 chromosomes. \n\nNow as for mitosis and meiosis. Mitosis is the process by which a haploid cell doubles its contents and then divides into two equal cells. Think of a copy machine. At the beginning you have one cell. At the end you have two cells that are identical. \n\nMeiosis is the process by which haploid cells (egg and sperm) are developed. With meiosis, the cell actually divides twice: the first time into two diploid cells with 46 chromosomes each, and then each of these two cells divides again into haploid cells (23 chromosomes each). This is how a sperm cell (haploid with 23 chromosomes) can combine with an egg cell (haploid with 23 chromosomes) and form a diploid gamete (46 chromosomes: a genetically distinct organism). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3mfl12
|
How were internal injuries handled before modern medicine?
|
We have two of many organs for the purpose of still being able to survive if one went down. If you punctured a lung or lost a kidney, sure, you would have an extra functioning organ, but I feel like you couldn't just stay alive for long with the side effects of a ruined organ sitting inside of you.
Also, what about organs you can live without? Like a ruptured appendix? Did you just deal with the pain until you died? And broken bones. Did people use casts?
Askhistorians gave me no information.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3mfl12/how_were_internal_injuries_handled_before_modern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvemayp",
"cvff13h",
"cvfgp25"
],
"score": [
8,
6,
6
],
"text": [
"If you don't get an answer here, you can try /r/askhistorians or /r/historyofscience",
"4th year med student who just applied for internal medicine (but by no means a historian).\n\nThe easy way to answer these questions is that people would die, either on their own or on the operating table. Appendicitis leading to a perforated appendix would lead to septic shock and death (and it still will if not treated appropriately). There are recently studies looking at the efficacy of using only antibiotics to treat uncomplicated appendicitis but I'm not sure if there is conclusive evidence yet. We call the appendix a \"vestigial oran\" because it was initially thought to serve no purpose in Homo sapiens but we now think it may be involved in producing some of the normal flora (bacteria) in the gut.\n\nYou're right that we have many paired organs. There's no easy way to answer your questions unfortunately. For example, a punctured lung (\"pneumothorax) has many etiologies - spontaneous, blunt trauma, penetrating trauma, people with COPD or Marfans Syndrome. If someone has a tension pneumothorax it is a medical emergency and if needle decompression isn't performed, the person will go into shock and die. Less emergent types like a spontaneous PTX can be watched closely without treatment.\n\nThe kidneys are also paired. If you remove one, the remaining kidney initially works at 50% and can increase it's ability to about 75% - never getting back to 100% that you get from having two. Again, \"lost\" can mean different things. Is the kidney lost because it was infected (pyelonephritis), cancer, chronic hypertension (high BP), renal artery stenosis, IV contrast, toxins.. the list goes on and on. The majority of what I listed will damage both kidneys. In today's world, if someone has terrible renal function, they can be placed on dialysis (hemodialysis or continuous ambulatory peritoneal dialysis) allowing for essentially external kidneys. Again, there are relatively few causes of losing a kidney back in the day..and if you did it was probably from infection and the person would die. If surgery was attempted, most people died.\n\nBroken bones were splinted way back in the day of Hippocrates - I'm going into internal medicine so I don't know much about orthopedics. Here's the history of casts - _URL_0_\n\nHope that helps a little.\n",
"Disclaimer: I am a medical student. I can't speak authoritatively on history, but I can give some context for the medicine.\n\nAs today, the approach to treating an injury would differ by organ, and depend on the mechanism of damage.\n\nFor your example of a burst appendix: appendix ruptures are usually caused by appendicitis, secondary to infection of the appendix. This means that when the appendix bursts, it releases its infectious contents into the peritoneal cavity, leading to widespread infection, then sepsis, then death. Before antibiotics and the advent of modern surgical techniques to clean out the peritoneal cavity, there wasn't really any way of cleaning out a person's abdominal cavity, so the patients probably just died of systemic infection.\n\nKidney infarction (death due to inadequate blood supply): before modern anticoagulant therapies and angioplasty techniques to reopen vessels, the damaged part of the organ would simply die. Thankfully, for most of the solid organs of the body, pathologic cell death usually takes the form of [coagulative necrosis](_URL_1_). This is a good thing because even though the cells in the area are now dead, the tissue still retains its previous general architecture. The infarcted kidney tissue will still look like kidney tissue, just without the signs of life (such as functioning nuclei) ([example of coagulative necrosis secondary to a renal infarct](_URL_0_)). Note that the surrounding kidney tissue is still fully functional. Likely, in the absence of the ability to restore blood flow with modern techniques, there would be little that could be done that would significantly change the outcome for the patient.\n\nAs for your concerns that one couldn't live with such an injury long-term, the body has ways of dealing with the damage. Chronic inflammatory processes would lead to the formation of a fibrous scar to replace the dead tissue. In the absence of some secondary infectious process taking hold, the patient would simply live out their life with 1.8 kidneys instead of 2.\n\nPunctured lung: this one's a bit more dangerous. Yes you have two lungs. Yes, you can live with just one (although you would probably experience performance limitations). However, a *punctured* lung is serious business. You see, the pressure in the thoracic cavity outside the lung is normally lower than the pressure within the lung itself (this prevents the pressure from collapsing your lungs). Each breath you take involves moving your diaphragm down, to further lower the pressure in the thoracic cavity for inspiration. When you puncture a lung, you open up a hole between the lung and the thoracic cavity, and the air gets sucked into the relative vacuum of your thoracic cavity. Thus, with each breath, more and more air moves from the punctured lung into the surrounding space.\n\nAll this accumulating air raises the pressure of the thoracic cavity, compressing your one functional lung (the compression also bends the great vessels of the thorax, impairing blood circulation returning to the heart). So breathing gets harder and harder with each breath, until you can't breathe anymore. This is called a tension pneumothorax, and it is a serious medical emergency. Without treatment, the patient suffocates. This is where someone with more historical knowledge should step in. I do not know when in history we figured out that the way to save them was to puncture their chest with a hollow needle (to let the air in their thoracic cavity escape, allowing their uninjured lung to reinflate).\n\nEdited"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orthopedic_cast"
],
[
"http://library.med.utah.edu/WebPath/CINJHTML/CINJ015.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coagulative_necrosis"
]
] |
|
1v9ad5
|
why can't i decalare my own properties as independent and make my own country?
|
Isn't this exactly what the founding fathers did? A small bunch of people decided to write and lay down a law that affected everyone in America at that time (even if you didn't agree with it, you are now part of it and is required to follow the laws they wrote).
Likewise, can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?
EDIT: Holy crap I didn't expect this to explode into the front page. Thanks for all the answers, I wish to further discuss how to start your own country, but I'll find the appropriate subreddit for that.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v9ad5/eli5why_cant_i_decalare_my_own_properties_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cepyrvc",
"cepyszm",
"cepywfp",
"cepyx3k",
"cepyyyc",
"cepz02n",
"cepz78d",
"cepzaum",
"ceq16z0",
"ceq1ln5",
"ceq1ore",
"ceq29db",
"ceq2khj",
"ceq2pjg",
"ceq2ps3",
"ceq2snf",
"ceq2spx",
"ceq2w8c",
"ceq2xt1",
"ceq33dv",
"ceq34ep",
"ceq350u",
"ceq36kb",
"ceq3cdo",
"ceq3ivg",
"ceq3mdb",
"ceq3qv7",
"ceq3rl4",
"ceq3yyz",
"ceq3z4s",
"ceq40cd",
"ceq440z",
"ceq468q",
"ceq49tx",
"ceq4bb8",
"ceq4c28",
"ceq4l9z",
"ceq57jf",
"ceq5gaq",
"ceq5r9s",
"ceq6224",
"ceq66yr",
"ceq6bgh",
"ceq6km8",
"ceq6mgf",
"ceq6nn8",
"ceq6pmz",
"ceq6qpo",
"ceq6vyq",
"ceq8gae",
"ceq9hm5",
"ceq9jjf",
"ceq9sh8",
"ceq9z53",
"ceq9ze3",
"ceqac01",
"ceqapj6",
"ceqbicg",
"ceqbo25",
"ceqboq2",
"ceqbpwe",
"ceqbq55",
"ceqbydi",
"ceqc1mq",
"ceqcaw4",
"ceqftjj",
"ceqi9fm",
"ceqj3kq",
"ceqj8uc",
"ceqjom8",
"ceqk9x9",
"ceqkbbz",
"ceqkv88",
"ceqlip3",
"ceqm7iu",
"ceqpkxn",
"ceqqphs",
"ceqsvce"
],
"score": [
23,
333,
77,
11,
3,
3,
1255,
3,
8,
34,
647,
22,
2,
2,
13,
218,
17,
2,
3,
4,
4,
2,
20,
3,
5,
2,
2,
13,
23,
6,
24,
3,
2,
2,
5,
4,
3,
9,
2,
2,
4,
2,
5,
5,
2,
2,
5,
2,
4,
12,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yeah, but do you remember what happened when the colonies tried to declare their independence?",
" > can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?\n\nThe American colonists won a revolutionary war against Britain. Will you and your friends win a war against America? My guess is no.",
"You can \"claim\" whatever you want, but you are going to have to defend yourself from the person you took the land from, who probably isn't going to be too happy about it.",
"You have to realize that you do not actually own your property, the government does. If you owned it you would not have to pay an annual rental on the property in the form of realestate tax. You would also not need to pay the government for the mineral/ water rights on your own land.",
"You are allowed to renounce your citizenship. However, you won't be allowed to live in that you country you were from, since geographic nations control immigration and emigration to the areas within the border of their country. If you can find land that is unclaimed by any nation, territory, person, or organization of some kind you can declare yourself an independent nation. Once you are able to achieve some recognition, in an international body of some kind such as the United Nations you will have achieved it. Good luck!",
"No. For one simple reason that your land is only yours because the U.S. government recognizes it to be.",
"Go ahead and stop paying your property taxes and everything else. When the government attempts to seize your property defend it with your army. Then declare your property an independent state. Then write laws on your property and enforce them. Then have other states recognize your sovereignty. \n\nIn essence, in order to be considered a state you need:\n\n**PHYSICAL SPACE**\n\n*Territory: The land you have\n\n*Population: People that live there\n\n**GOVERNMENT**\n\n*Internal sovereignty/Legitimacy/Physical Control: Population must obey your laws and you must enforce them. \n\n*External sovereignty/Legitimacy: Other states must recognize your state as such and you must be recognized by the world (Golden Rule: You have this if the UN recognizes your state as legitimate). \n",
"[Who say you can't?](_URL_0_)",
"you can. there are a number of micronations in and around the US.",
"I know this is an unpopular point to make, but...\n\nyou're probably going to need some legal documents, and for that you'll have to spell properly. Luckily, legal documents seem to follow no grammar rules, so you're clear there.",
"in Texas v White (1896) the Supreme Court ruled that the Constitution does not allow for secession, but a state could theoretically secede from the Union again via consent from the other states or via armed revolution.\n\nI mean, you could form your own country if you really wanted to but it's not going to do anything. Key West briefly seceded from the United States in 1982 as a form of protest and to drum up press because their issues were being ignored by the government. They declared war on the United States, surrendered a minute later, then applied for a billion dollars in foreign aid.",
"See the[ Montevideo Convention on the Rights and Duties of Nation States 1933](_URL_0_) to understand generally what a nation state is. Most pseudo-states like Nagorno-Karabakh etc fail on the 'international recognition' part. \n\n",
"As you would essentially be stealing property from your country you will need an army to back you up.\n\nBut if you succeed in defending your property until they stop attacking and let you be then it is yours ... until they try to take it back.",
"Socorro, New Mexico got some mileage out of this concept back in the 1950s. Here is a short article from the [*El Defensor Chieftain*](_URL_0_]). Long live the Free State of Socorro!",
"_URL_0_\n\nIt takes a bit of watching to get to your exact point, but I find the videos very interesting with easily understood explanations.",
"A guy in Australia did exactly that in the 70s: _URL_0_\n\nEssentially, he was unhappy with the wheat production quotas at the time, so he refused to continue paying taxes and set up his own \"Principality\". After many years of disputes, the Australian government now considers him a non-resident of Australia for tax purposes, and leave the residents of the Principality alone mostly.\n\nThey have set up a whole government, including a mint, postal service, visa system, and mostly hilariously, a navy (the Principality is land-locked).\n\nEdit: grammar.",
"[Someone has done this!](_URL_0_)\n\nThe truth is sovereignty is a really vaporous idea. There are lots of countries that claim to be sovereign, that other countries don't agree with (Taiwan/Chinese Taipei for example).\n\nAlso, what about things like micro nations. If push came to shove, how Sovereign is the Vatican really? What about places like Liechtenstein?\n\nIn the series, Danny Wallace looks at a lot of these places, and explores what it means to be a country.\n\n\nSo ultimately, the reality is, you can declare your properties to be whatever you want. You can also declare other peoples properties to be yours if you want. That doesn't mean that other people will agree with you, and likely the police will arrest you. If you managed a force strong enough to resist the police, then maybe the army would make you do something. If you managed a force strong enough to resist the army, then maybe they would acknowledge you as sovereign.",
"Well, you can if you are ready to start a war with your former country.\n\nI hear war is expensive though, so you may lose money in the long run.",
"Basically it is not practical. But you could go \"off grid\", and form your own society. Like the Amish, Huderites, etc.",
"I believe David Koresh and the Branch Davidians did just that, and we all saw how that ended. ",
"There was a guy who sort of did this in the uk.\n_URL_0_\nBasically took over an offshore fort off the British coast and declared his own country. He kind of got away with it, probably as it wasn't really worth the effort of taking back off him.",
"It has been tried on a fort island off the UK see the wiki here \n_URL_0_\nIts about being recognised and so on that is the hard part, also you will be amazed at what you will need from the country you are trying to remove yourself from which you would no longer be entitled to otherwise etc.\n",
"You can claim any piece of land and it will be yours if you can defend it against anyone who tries to take it from you or rule over you. It's as simple as that.\n\nIf this land happens to be the whitehouse or your property in a city, you will need to kill a lot of cops and soldiers who come for you to be able to hold onto the land but likely you don't have the ability to do that so you will not be able to successfully claim the land.",
"Look up what happened at Waco.. They weren't trying to be a country but I'm pretty sure the government would respond similarly.",
"If you can't enforce your own laws in your 'country', and can't prevent some else from enforcing theirs, then you don't have sovereignty, which is the definition of what a country/state has.\n\nThis also comes from recognition by other states and the UN.",
"Might makes right is the motto of national politics.",
"If I ever win a lottery I am going to buy an island somewhere in the pacific and declare myself sovereign. I will then attack other millionare and billionare with wooden swords and such until they agreed to join my growing empire. Add a few mercenaries and a few more \"attacks\" and I would have myself a country. We would boycott spending our billions until the UN recognized us as such.",
"I feel like a lot of people are being condescending toward OP's question. He's asking about a hypothetical situation. Its not like he's actually going to declare his lawn a new country. So to all you nationalists out there, calm the fuck down and answer the question without being a dick",
"You can.\n\nThere is nothing stopping you doing that.\n\nBehind all the pieces of funny coloured fabric, behind all the wise and incomprahensible pieces of paper vesting authority and law, behind all the grand speeches is one thing and one thing alone.\n\nThe willingness to use deadly force to assert your claim.\n\nThis is what power has and always will boil down to. How willing is your 'new nation' to kill to assert your claim.",
"[Here you go](_URL_0_) (with illustrations!)",
" > \"In essence almost every national boundary simply represents the place where two opposing tribes fought each other until both sides were too exhausted to carry on fighting.\"\n\n**Robert Anton Wilson**",
"Simpsons did it!",
"There are actually several different theories on what constitues a [sovereign state](_URL_0_). The declarative theory suggests that it is possible to have a sovereign state even if it is not recognized by other states, though the benefit of this may be questionable. This might be possible if you are not looking to trade with anyone and your geographical location is remote enough that the central government of the state already claiming the place doesn't really notice or at least bother you. So while such of an unrecognized state might not be a state according to international law (de jure), it might be a state in all other regards (de facto). An example might be [Transnistria](_URL_1_), a state which is probably in all maps marked as part of Moldovia but which is more or less independent or the very least self-governing.\n\nThen there's the classical example of the [Order of Malta](_URL_2_): The old chivalry order, while no longer holding any territory since Napoleon booted them out of Malta little over two hundred years ago, is still considered a sovereign international entity and thus possibly a kind of a nonterritorial state (well, it has two embassies and three other properties which enjoy extraterritoriality, including the grand master's apartment in Rome). It holds a similar status in the UN as the Vatican and Palestine. It issues its own passports (which, unlike Sealand's, are recognized) and has diplomatic relations with several sovereign territorial states, in most of which it has an embassy. (Since it holds no territory, it hosts no embassies itself, though many ambassadors to the Holy See/Vatican are also ambassadors to the Order of Malta.)",
" > Likewise, can't I and a bunch of my friends declare independence on a small farm land we own and make our own laws?\n\nBecause [Ruby Ridge](_URL_0_).",
"OK. Here is the answer... the civil war fairly corrected the notion that you have any right to declare yourself independent of the US government. So, it is not as though this hasn't been tried before and failed.\n\nIn Texas V White 1869, Supreme Court Chief Justice Salmon P. Chase ruled that an entire state, no matter their reasoning or ability to care for themselves has no right to remove itself from the union, and should they do so, they would violate the constitutional premise of 'perpetual union'. \n\nMore recently, Supreme Court Justice Anton Scalia has written that 'no right to secede' exists.\n\nIn other words, the reason why you can't is because the action of doing so - for real and in purpose, would require under our understanding, a declaration of war against the United States government, and that is a war where you and your friends will get their ass kicked.",
"you certainly can. and you'll remain independent until someone kills you and takes it from you. you have sovereignty so long as you can keep any armies from taking it from you.",
"Oh, you're in for a serious treat if you haven't seen this TV series:\n\n[How to start your own country](_URL_0_)\n\nIt's about a man's quest to found his own country. The first episode starts off with an invasion of Eel Pie Island in the Thames (which the police are not too happy about!) and ends up with speaking to Princes, UN officials and the army. It's absolutely hilarious and actually informative. If you watch the series through to the end, you will probably be singing his national anthem with him.",
"There is quite literally no such thing as \"property ownership\". The people who \"occupy\" a space do so by having a military force large enough to stay in that space. This could easily be extended to virtually everything else too. ",
"I encourage you to watch the Family Guy episode 'Petoria'",
"You don't own your real property, you own an interest in that property such as a [Fee Simple](_URL_0_)",
"Republic of Dave!!!! Not the Monarchy of Tom!",
"The top answer is wrong.\n\nBasically, it is saying in order to have a country you require:\n\n* Land\n* People\n* Violence\n* Recognition from other violent, land & people owning organizations\n\nSo this is called Macro economics. Macro econ is focused on how governments work, or how they don't work depending on how you look at it. From that point of view, this is true. But you have to really understand the history of how this works first as well as the definition of a government.\n\nYou might ask, well where did the first government come from? Wasn't there are time before \"the state\"? Yes, there was. Modern government that America is familiar with goes back all the to ancient Greece, we call modern government \"The West\", typically. \n\nBut government systems go far further back than that. We can trace this system all the way back to a violent beginning in our hunter gatherer days. You could consider tribal hierarchies to be a system of government (e.g. alpha male uses physical force to control a group of people) but we are interested in macro economics. So we want to look at one group exerting control over another group using force or coercion.\n\nThere were two types of early humans. Nomads were people who followed the herds, ate high protein diets. They had weapons and their livelihood depended on the quality of those weapons and knowing how to use them. Their existence was very physical. Farmers were the second type. They did not have the benefit of high protein diets. Their tools were for plowing fields - not necessarily fighting (although many weapons from the Orient are based on farm tools and became ingrained in the culture after peasant uprisings).\n\nAt some point these two types of people met. Nomads realized they could kill the farmers and take their food and women. Happy days. Soon, however, some of these nomadic tribes realized that it was dangerous raiding villages, dragging off supplies and women and after you did it once it took a very long time for that village to recover, if at all. \n\nSo from one of the darkest periods in human history one of the evillest inventions were born - tithes. It was much easier to send a couple of the boys to ride in to the village and demand a small portion of supplies & women from the town. In fact, we won't even sell it as \"Give us this and we won't kill you\" it was sold as \"Give us this and we will protect you from other people like us.\"\n\nThus taxes, and government, were born. \n\nThis is the heart of macro economics. The entire goal of what Keynes finally described was a system designed to keep one class of people in charge of another. \n\nMicroeconomics is completely different. It is focused on the individual. Microeconomics says that the individual is the highest authority, owns their own body and is responsible for their own actions. Micro/macro are kind of like oil and water in this sense. In a society where microeconomics is the central focus (I.e. early America) the individual has power over the government, or at least government has no power that any single individual cannot have. If it is not my right to steal from you how can I give any organization the right to steal from you, therefore how can tithes or taxes exists any way other than through voluntary participation?\n\nSo top post is correct in a macro economic sense. If you want the warlords (regardless of their ties, pantsuits and whatever legislation they push to \"save the children\" that's what they all are) to recognize you are a sovereign country you need to have a big enough stick that you can fight back. The \"Social Contract\" everyone refers to is basically that. Simply by being born in a geographical area these warlords \"own\" you or a portion of you labor or possessions and you have no say in it.\n\nIf any other organization in the world tried to get you to sign that contract - if it were ever actually written, not a single human being on the planet would. Could you imagine Google, or Apple saying \"Hey sign this and your children's children's children forever and all time owe us a portion of your income. We'll give you some nice perks and you can pick our CEO and some board members but ultimately we run the show.\" Fuck that. And people like Google and Apple more than the federal government.\n\nIn a micro economic sense you are sovereign by default and free to cast your own allegiances where ever you wish. No one can own you because you are the only mind controlling your body. You are not bound by things like The Constitution because you did not sign it and no one else can speak for you - certainly not some body of men hundreds of years ago.\n\nSo I guess there you have it. The natural order of things is that you are free, you are your own sovereign entity. \"Anarchy is all around us.\" Nature gives you that. In the thousands of years humans have existed the one thing we've successfully done is created an entire mythology of economic thought (macro) and somehow convinced the majority of the population that without our rulers society would crumble. When, in fact, the opposite is quite true. \n\nAll progress experienced by human beings has been in spite of, not because of, government and power structures.",
"Peter Griffin tried this. It didn't work out so well. ",
"You actually CAN do that, or, more accurately, you can try to. Every nation is different, but you would have to declare secession from the country that claims your new \"country\" in some fashion. Most nations will not be very eager to give up their own land. You have a much better chance on an island or on a boundary of your country, not smack-dab in the middle of it.\n\nIt's possible (I don't know any specific examples) that you could claim some rock below 60 degrees south latitude in the middle of southern ocean (I'm just using that as an example of a very small island that is in the middle of nowhere) that is currently acknowledged to be a territory of a very poor or faraway nation, and they might just say, \"Ahhhh... Screw it! Let the guy have it!\" That would be the easiest scenario -- and is probably pure fantasy.\n\nThe second best-case scenario would be to be uber-rich with a entire gang of high-powered attorneys that can make a good case about it being in the big nation's interest to let you run your little kingdom.\n\nThe third best-case scenario would be to make a good case before the world at large, the international community, that you are in a better position to run your chosen empire than your current nation is. That is gonna be one tough nut to crack.\n\nThe fourth scenario would be to make an ethnic claim that the only way your \"people\" can live in peace is to have their own nation. Actually, this has been done a few times in the past 100 years or so, but those places are usually not separate countries, they are \"autonomous regions.\" That's kind of like the big nation saying, \"You guys can do your own thing here in this area, but you're still part of our nation. We're not the boss of you, but... we are the boss of you.\"\n\nThe fifth scenario would be wresting your little fiefdom from the big nation by force. I'd actually like to see that shit happen one day.",
"Did you recall that the founding fathers fought a war about this?",
"By the way, one of the original intents of the U.S. Constitution was to make it so that government would never get all up in your face enough that you would ever feel like leaving the country. \n\nThe mere fact that you want to do this means either you are nuts, or our country is nuts.\n\nI'm assuming you live in the U.S.",
"Actually, I don't think there would be any need for violence at all. The US would simply set up border fences around your property and let you stew. No food in or out, no trade or commerce, and I think you might get a little antsy when your sewer connection got cut off. If you do have enough land for a septic then at least you could shit in peace in your sovereign land of Anonistan.",
"Countries are not founded and maintained by international law. Countries are founded and maintained by force of arms.\n\nYou may do whatever you like on your land when you have the ability to keep all the various agencies of the US government off it. Until you can do that it's US territory and you are expected to follow US laws.\n\n",
"So technically a top-secret society of high ranking American army officials could seize army equipment, claim everything as theirs, then use the weapons and such to fight of a retaliation, no? ",
"You can get an ELI5 version by watching the Family Guy episode in which Peter founds Petoria",
"Here's from an international law perspective:\nOnly three categories of people apply to a 'right of independence': \n- colonial regime\n- military occupation\n- Racist minority regime\n\nIn casu, you and your friends cannot be condsidered as colonized or subject to a military or racist minority regime.\n\nThis rules out the right for self-determination.\n\nWhat about secession? International law does not recognize a general right of secession. However, it can be a fact of how some States come into existence (e.g.: Belgium 1830, Bangladesh 1971, Eritrea 1993 or Montenegro in 2006). 2 conditions need be fulfilled.\n(1) Is it a state? (Population, territory, government, (and recognition)). \n(2) Has it come into existence in a lawful manner? How did you do it? If this happened contra international law, other States are obliged to not recognize you as a country. (e.g. if you claim your land in a violent way)\n\nFrom an international law point of view, it is possible surely. However, the US government will most likely consider this an unlawful situation which prohibits other countries from recognizing you, which in turn greatly diminish your legitimacy and power. \nThus, gaining independence is as much a legal question as it is a political. See also the situation of Kosovo: some consider it a country, others do not. It depends...",
"Go ahead if you feel like you could take on the US armed forces.",
"You can. Lets assume you do. You meet all the requirements to become a sovereign state. Well, guess who you just stole land from. Guess who won't be happy about that. Don't worry though, we will send you a housewarming gift of \"freedom\".",
"You can try. The U.S. just wouldn't recognize you and your land as your own entity.",
"You can, it just wouldn't be recognized by any \"other\" country. A country is just a made up geographical area wherein a group of people with guns have declared ownership of the land, resources and people who live there. You could certainly declare your backyard to be the sovereign state of Solarhamsterland and begin enforcing your rule but the men with guns that previously owned the land would eventually be by to reclaim their property once they noticed you weren't paying any taxes. A country is a line drawn on a map and backed up by men willing to kill anyone who disputes their right to it. If you can wall of New Jersey and repel the ensuing armed invasion then you can have your own country. All you have to worry about then is all the people who will want to kill you and take your place.",
"If you live in the United States, then the United States owns your property. Here is a really easy acid test: Stop paying your taxes and see what happens and who enforces the happens. As a citizen, you have rights though (and hopefully keep these rights for a long time) and a contract called the Deed. If you discover gold in your garden, there may be limits on what you can do (unless you have mineral rights). The airspace is also regulated by the FAA and local ordinances that will determine if you can put up huge antennas or wind turbines, etc. Then there is more regulation whether you can have a business on that land. If you have a home owners association, they will sue you if you don't comply with their rules (contract based). The only real way to create and sustain your own country starting from nothing would require Political or Military action, winning the hearts and minds of a People's who make you dictator, or blowing up hearts and minds to secure and defend a plot of land (old school). We have an agreement with our government, We Pay Taxes < > Gov. Defends Our Property from Invaders",
"Because you're the High King of Skyrim.",
"Of course you can. \n\nJust be prepared, like the founding fathers, to spend 6 years in the freezing cold, thousands of deaths, significant economic disruption, to make it stick. (Or not, as the Confederate States found out).\n\nThe Americans won because fighting the revolution was incredibly unpopular in England. They'd just finished fighting a series of wars with France in the last few decades, the colonies were not much of a financial resource - they had trouble raising troops and resorted to hiring Hessian mercenaries to fight the war. When France helped the Americans at Yorktown, that was the last straw. The English gave up and gave in.\n\nSimilarly, Taiwan got away with declaring independence because mainland China did not have the navy to take on the USA. Tibet... not so lucky; wrong palce, no friends. Bangladesh was too far from (West) Pakistan and had India as a friend, so they got to declare independence. \n\nSo, you need a good army, and friends willing to rcognize you and back you up. \n\nThere's the added complication, that one of the main tenets of the United Nations is that national boundaries are inviolable. One basic cause of the Second World War was the issue of national boundaries. Germany and France fought over Alsace-Lorraine for a century, where Germans and French mixed in different villages. Germany then demanded they annex Austria, also a country of German peoples. They demanded and got parts of Czeckoslovakia with German inhabitants, then took over the whole country. then they wanted parts of Poland...\n\nThe UN has agreed that unless all parties agree, or blatantly violate human rights, their members will not allow boundary changes. After all, everyone is vulnerable; the USA had the Civil War, Russia has an array of southern territories that want to become independent islamic states, England has Scotland and Northern ireland, Canada has Quebec (and Quebec has the northern Indian territories) that want indepencdence, the Kurds want to hive off parts of Iran, Iraq, turkey, and Syria... There's no end to the demand for independence and other border changes; and history has shown, once you start down that road you have nothing but trouble. So the UN in principle is against border changes and separation, and most countries live in glass houses when it comes to encouraging their opponents' territory to separate. \n\nSo you can try, but unless you can hold off the police and the US army, you'll just end up another Waco.",
"Nice try Peter Griffin",
"Because there is an oppression by the majority of the minority.",
"The paradox is this: you need a government for property to exist-or we are dealing with might makes right. If I claimed to own an iceberg floating in international waters, who cares, my claim is meaningless without courts, police, records offices, AND INTERNATIONAL TREATIES. Moreover, you need the government to be nearly universally accepted. If the US government told the world I owned an iceberg, the rest of the world would say this violates international law and our citizens are under no obligation to respect the right. If a government I made up, told the world I owned an iceberg no one would listen. Since you rely on government for the claim, government can and does place limits on the right: the most basic of which is you are not allowed to leave the government. \n\nEnd Result: You don't have an absolute ownership right to your property (this does exist anywhere in the world). You have the closest thing, in the English Common Law tradition known as a \"fee simple.\" Basically, you have a right to sell the property to anyone you wish, unlike the earlier more restrictive rights where the property had to follow noble succession rules.You also hold a vast array of other property rights that have been added on over the years but not complete dominion to do whatever you wish. \n\nIn return for the government creating the right to own land, and protected your land from the rest of the world, you must follow government rules and restrictions. \n",
"I shall call it: Petoria\n\n",
"You sure can. you just need to be able to properly defend it against the US Army when it comes to claim its land back. Keep us posted on how it works out!",
"Because the country you live in has decided that he, with its armed forces, police and tax system, is the ruler and will enforce it.",
"Answer: because you do not have a big enough army or other similar deterrent against being annexed by your bigger neighbors.",
"You can do whateve you want you just have to have the weapons to back your actions.",
"Every country gained its title through one method. Force. ",
"As defined in the [Montevideo Convention](_URL_0_), a state requires\n\n- a permanent population\n- a defined territory\n- government\n- capacity to enter into relations with the other states.\n\nSpecifically this last point will turn out to be problematic, as it implies recognition by other states (e.g. the question whether or not Palestine is a legitimate state in international law).",
"it happened in Australia... _URL_0_ (basically: angry farmer got angry with government. Government wrote a letter referring to him as 'Administrator of the Hutt River Province' which the farmer took as the government acknowledging his farm as being an independent Principality)\n",
"Because as a single person you have very little power/authority to make others recognize your claim. \n\nNow, you could band together with other likeminded people to try to enforce your claim (heads up, this will probably involve guns), but then you've just created another government, and you'd have to ask yourself if it would really make difference.\n\nAn example of why it would be pointless: if you're of the tax protest type, and you want to create a new \"libertarian\" nation, that's fine, but then the US could just put up large tariffs if you want to \"trade\" or do business with the rest of us, since you'd technically be exporting, and removing money from our economy. Paying a tariff is no different than paying tax, and so you're back where you started.",
"Yes and no. You can start a new country, but it won't be recognized by the larger ones. Therefore your rules will mean nothing.",
"There have been a few instances of people or corporations trying to establish new nations on sandbars and almost islands in international waters on the high seas. Mostly to set up a tax haven and money laundry with a banking system.\n\nLack of an adequate navy put the kibosh to those guys pretty fast.\n\nBetween nations it is the law of the jungle, with the strong preying on the weak. Read your history and ask why the USA and most other countries maintain armed forces. Mostly to make the takeover more expensive than its worth, so negotiations do take place.",
"You can, its just that nobody will recognize your country. Anddddd the local police will probably arrest you. Countries can be formed, but recognizing them is an entirely different matter.\n\nMuch like how Taiwan is a country, but it isn't a country because they don't have a seat in the United Nations and nations do not recognise it as a separate territory from China. Nor does the Vatican City. And a bunch of other countries.\n\nCGP Grey covers this a little bit.\n\n_URL_0_",
"I read somewhere about a guy in America who did just that. He never fucked with anyone, and he doesn't allow access into his house without a passport. He hasn't payed taxes in like 10 years and for some reason the government doesn't bother him about it. If I find the link I'll share it.",
"You can. Just be prepared to defend your newfound sovereignty against the United States Military. ",
"Because you cannot spell.",
"Do you have a flag?\nNo flag no country.",
"Because there is no such word as decalare."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Micronation"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Montevideo_Convention"
],
[],
[
"http://www.dchieftain.com/2013/10/17/the-free-state-of-socorro-mdash-60-years-of-mischief"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syujTp5m5Vk"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Sealand"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.wikihow.com/Start-Your-Own-Country"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sovereign_state",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transnistria",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_malta"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ruby_Ridge"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=syujTp5m5Vk"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fee_simple"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/20th_century/intam03.asp"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principality_of_Hutt_River"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4AivEQmfPpk&feature=c4-overview-vl&list=PLqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
k1v0l
|
Why can't I picture things in my mind? And, is it something that can be seen while imaging the brain?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/k1v0l/why_cant_i_picture_things_in_my_mind_and_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2gvt03",
"c2gw683",
"c2gw9pa",
"c2gw9t7",
"c2gwc1u",
"c2gwcra",
"c2gwj6z",
"c2gwuro",
"c2gx1kh",
"c2gx2ut",
"c2gx4ze",
"c2gx5bc",
"c2gxaa8",
"c2gxusp",
"c2gvt03",
"c2gw683",
"c2gw9pa",
"c2gw9t7",
"c2gwc1u",
"c2gwcra",
"c2gwj6z",
"c2gwuro",
"c2gx1kh",
"c2gx2ut",
"c2gx4ze",
"c2gx5bc",
"c2gxaa8",
"c2gxusp"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
10,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I agree 100%. I have never been able to \"picture\" things in my head. Like you, I base my recollections on sounds or descriptions, I have a terrible memory and people have never believed me when I have tried to describe it. I have Narcolepsy and have often wondered if this could be connected. \n\nI will be watching this with great interest!",
"I think that the ability to image runs on a spectrum like most other skills, with some people quite good at it, others not so much, and a few percent on either fringe. I work with clients who have difficulty with describing things, with reading comprehension, or with their writing, whose difficulty is in part due to a weak ability to create mental images. There are language therapy programs that target this skill, the most well known being \"Visualizing and Verbalizing\" published by Lindamood-Bell. In my experience, it is something that can be learned to some degree. I'm not sure how well understood this is in cognitive science or neuroscience, but at a clinical level in speech language pathology it is well known enough to have treatments.\n\nOn a related note, part of dyslexia could be said to be a problem with auditory mental images, or the ability to \"think in sounds\" or hear things in the \"mind's ear.\" In my work with people who have trouble with reading and spelling, much time is devoted to improving the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds of speech in the mind's ear, and hold on to those sounds in auditory short term memory.",
"Do you feel like it affects your appreciation of image based art? or the ability to create it? It seems like both visual memory, and the ability to construct a mental model of a potential image are essential, but maybe you approach it differently?\n\nSorry for the prodding, but your mind is an alien thing to me, and fascinating.",
"Sooo, you don't have nightmares where you're attacked by crazy zombie dogs and then you fall off a skyscraper?",
"Hi! I have a question: You say that you remember things by description, e.g. \"carrots are orange.\" Do you know what orange looks like when you're not actively looking at an orange object? Or do you just remember the word 'orange', which you associate with a particular set of objects including pumpkins, oranges, etc.?",
"I unfortunately have no information for you but seeing as how \"not being able to picture things\" is not something I've even considered contemplating I'd like to ask you a few questions, if you wouldnt mind.\n\nWhat is your age?\n\nHow do/did you perform in each of the basic school subjects? (mathematics, english, history, art)\n\nCan you solve spatial puzzles? [\\(like this\\)](_URL_0_)\n\nRelative to most people, how well would you say you remember things like dates or written passages?\n\nCould you draw a carrot on a piece of paper without having one in front of you?\n\nThank you.",
"Warning: anecdotal, layman\n\nI have the same issue many other people have here - I don't hold images in my mind very well, and I tend to associate with concepts rather than images. \n\nI experiment with LSD as a kid, and I can say that while under the influence not only could I completely visualize anything I could think of in explicit detail, but I could hold it there and \"manipulate\" it in my head. I always found very strange given I was never able to do it normally.",
"I've wondered about this, too. I do not see pictures or objects in my mind. \n\nI guess I must be able to see things in some part of my mind because I can recognize many people and pets, places, etc., when I come across them again. \n\nI do have trouble recognizing people outside of the setting where I'm used to seeing them, but I meet with about a thousand different customers a year. I think that it is almost impossible to remember that many faces. I can remember what we talked about the last time we met (usually I see customers once per year), I recognize their buildings and offices, just their faces are a challenge.\n\nI just don't literally see things in my mind.\n\nData: I did very well in school, cannot draw well, am often VERY frustrated by my inability to make any kind of art*, and have a very high IQ. \n\n\n*I've managed to convince myself that the spreadsheets I create as part of my job are a kind of art. I want to make pretty things, though.",
"I have a similar problem. No matter how hard I try, I can not produce images in my mind. The weird thing is, I could when I was younger (very well I might add). I could even create little movies in my head, it didn't have to be just static images. I don't know exactly when or why this happened, but it definitely did. I used to be able to close my eyes and think \"tree\", and I'd be able to see a tree in great detail my mind, now I just get an odd sensation of confusion and swirly colors/light, and my eyes physically go into involuntary REM.\n\nMy imagination isn't completely broken though. I can't visualize things if I think about visualizing them, but I can if I'm not concentrating on it. What I mean by that is, if I tell myself to visualize a tree, and try to look at it in my mind, I can't do it.. I get a blurry mess if anything. But if I'm just thinking about things and not forcing imagery in my mind, I can visualize them. Like right now I can test this.. as I am typing this sentence, I'm thinking about a pine tree, and I'm able to visualize it just fine, but as soon as I stop typing and focus on my thought, I completely lose it. I can't see what I'm visualizing if I'm concentrating on visualizing it.\n\nI'm still able to draw as well as I could when I was younger. If I were to close my eyes and try to \"draw\" something in my head, it wouldn't work, but if I put a pencil to paper and start moving it around, my brain guides me where to go with it and I'm able to sort of see what I draw as I concentrate on the drawing itself. Same goes for photography.. I can set up a scene in my head only if I'm thinking about the scene, if I concentrate on preparing the image in my head, I draw a blank. Another good example is if I read a book. I can follow the story, and form a mental image of what's going on and what the characters look like to me.. but if I were to shut my eyes and play out the story in my head, or visualize one of the characters I've designed based on the text, it doesn't work.\n\nAnd yes, one horribly unfortunate side effect of this, is that I can't visualize porn when I'm.. *ahem*.. doing the business. That sure as hell worked fine when I was younger.\n\nIf I had to pin a reason onto this, I'd say it might have to do with my life being emotionally chaotic. Stress/depression/anxiety.. all ongoing problems for a number of years. Maybe it's just that so much is constantly on my mind, that it's blocking me from controlling it when I need to.. or maybe just kind of overloaded with thoughts.",
"Can you picture colors? Shapes? When you read a book, can you not get any sense of what's going on in a visual way? If the book mentions a castle, for example, doesn't your mind call forth a generic representation of a castle? ",
"My dad had a brain tumor in his occipital lobe when he was a teenager, causing intense-ass hallucinations and all kinds of craziness. After having it removed, he completely lost his ability to visualize, similar to the way you describe it. His thinking relies entirely on information, from his descriptions. He's gone into very deep detail, of which I am not fully able to replicate, but it sounds like whatever the cause, you have the same issue with it that he does. His short term memory is abysmal, too.\n\nI can visualize myself, but it seems like most people around me can do it much better...I'm awful at art and anything that requires \"moving\" objects in my mind. Seeing one of your replies, I can't do magic eyes either, and my artistic ability is stuck at drawing cartoony faces and nothing else. Do your parents have any trouble with it? IANAScientist, but it seems to run in the family for me, although I didn't have a brain tumor like my father!",
"Hmm, I hadn't realized that such a thing was possible since I can do it. Darn that typical psyche fallacy. But a quick Google of \"cannot visualize things\" seems to show that [quite](_URL_1_) a few [people](_URL_0_) have the same kind of mind as you do. \n\nQuestion: When you try to recall something, do you remember it in words (as you said, 'carrots are ~6\" long, orange and conical shaped') or just have a feeling of what it is (a general sense of carrotiness)? \n\nThis makes me wonder about those studies where they use fMRI to try to communicate with people they suspect might have Locked-In Syndrome. If they ask people to imagine playing a game of tennis, maybe some patients can't respond because they can't visualize it...",
"Your description is odd and hinging on medical advice. I can't help you besides it sounds like a very, very warped version of agnosia. So, it's not that.\n\n\nBut on a more important note: that's not how brain imaging works. No technology can \"see inside\" your head. Things like this don't \"show up\", contrary to what Dr. House would like you to think.\n\nMRI measures the magnetic properties of junk in your noggan. For structure, it's fat. fMRI captures blood flow. PET/SPECT capture glucose consumption (fMRI does, too, technically speaking). MEG/EEG capture overall magnetic and electric field changes and are mostly useful for *when* something happens, not *where*, and never *how*.\n\nIf you believe there is something wrong or truly unique about how you \"visualize\" things, first see a (medical) doctor of the psych or neuro variety. If they can determine that yes, something is up, they will probably find someone who is researching the topic to send you to.\n\n\n**EDIT**: This entire thread is full of nonsense.",
"I find this very interesting. When I was a kid I could visualize things too well. Sometimes I would think of an object and view it from all sides in my mind, but then it would start spinning and I wouldn't be able to stop thinking of how it looks from every angle. It was frustrating to me. Interesting to see how people's minds all work differently, I didn't realize.",
"I agree 100%. I have never been able to \"picture\" things in my head. Like you, I base my recollections on sounds or descriptions, I have a terrible memory and people have never believed me when I have tried to describe it. I have Narcolepsy and have often wondered if this could be connected. \n\nI will be watching this with great interest!",
"I think that the ability to image runs on a spectrum like most other skills, with some people quite good at it, others not so much, and a few percent on either fringe. I work with clients who have difficulty with describing things, with reading comprehension, or with their writing, whose difficulty is in part due to a weak ability to create mental images. There are language therapy programs that target this skill, the most well known being \"Visualizing and Verbalizing\" published by Lindamood-Bell. In my experience, it is something that can be learned to some degree. I'm not sure how well understood this is in cognitive science or neuroscience, but at a clinical level in speech language pathology it is well known enough to have treatments.\n\nOn a related note, part of dyslexia could be said to be a problem with auditory mental images, or the ability to \"think in sounds\" or hear things in the \"mind's ear.\" In my work with people who have trouble with reading and spelling, much time is devoted to improving the ability to hear and manipulate the sounds of speech in the mind's ear, and hold on to those sounds in auditory short term memory.",
"Do you feel like it affects your appreciation of image based art? or the ability to create it? It seems like both visual memory, and the ability to construct a mental model of a potential image are essential, but maybe you approach it differently?\n\nSorry for the prodding, but your mind is an alien thing to me, and fascinating.",
"Sooo, you don't have nightmares where you're attacked by crazy zombie dogs and then you fall off a skyscraper?",
"Hi! I have a question: You say that you remember things by description, e.g. \"carrots are orange.\" Do you know what orange looks like when you're not actively looking at an orange object? Or do you just remember the word 'orange', which you associate with a particular set of objects including pumpkins, oranges, etc.?",
"I unfortunately have no information for you but seeing as how \"not being able to picture things\" is not something I've even considered contemplating I'd like to ask you a few questions, if you wouldnt mind.\n\nWhat is your age?\n\nHow do/did you perform in each of the basic school subjects? (mathematics, english, history, art)\n\nCan you solve spatial puzzles? [\\(like this\\)](_URL_0_)\n\nRelative to most people, how well would you say you remember things like dates or written passages?\n\nCould you draw a carrot on a piece of paper without having one in front of you?\n\nThank you.",
"Warning: anecdotal, layman\n\nI have the same issue many other people have here - I don't hold images in my mind very well, and I tend to associate with concepts rather than images. \n\nI experiment with LSD as a kid, and I can say that while under the influence not only could I completely visualize anything I could think of in explicit detail, but I could hold it there and \"manipulate\" it in my head. I always found very strange given I was never able to do it normally.",
"I've wondered about this, too. I do not see pictures or objects in my mind. \n\nI guess I must be able to see things in some part of my mind because I can recognize many people and pets, places, etc., when I come across them again. \n\nI do have trouble recognizing people outside of the setting where I'm used to seeing them, but I meet with about a thousand different customers a year. I think that it is almost impossible to remember that many faces. I can remember what we talked about the last time we met (usually I see customers once per year), I recognize their buildings and offices, just their faces are a challenge.\n\nI just don't literally see things in my mind.\n\nData: I did very well in school, cannot draw well, am often VERY frustrated by my inability to make any kind of art*, and have a very high IQ. \n\n\n*I've managed to convince myself that the spreadsheets I create as part of my job are a kind of art. I want to make pretty things, though.",
"I have a similar problem. No matter how hard I try, I can not produce images in my mind. The weird thing is, I could when I was younger (very well I might add). I could even create little movies in my head, it didn't have to be just static images. I don't know exactly when or why this happened, but it definitely did. I used to be able to close my eyes and think \"tree\", and I'd be able to see a tree in great detail my mind, now I just get an odd sensation of confusion and swirly colors/light, and my eyes physically go into involuntary REM.\n\nMy imagination isn't completely broken though. I can't visualize things if I think about visualizing them, but I can if I'm not concentrating on it. What I mean by that is, if I tell myself to visualize a tree, and try to look at it in my mind, I can't do it.. I get a blurry mess if anything. But if I'm just thinking about things and not forcing imagery in my mind, I can visualize them. Like right now I can test this.. as I am typing this sentence, I'm thinking about a pine tree, and I'm able to visualize it just fine, but as soon as I stop typing and focus on my thought, I completely lose it. I can't see what I'm visualizing if I'm concentrating on visualizing it.\n\nI'm still able to draw as well as I could when I was younger. If I were to close my eyes and try to \"draw\" something in my head, it wouldn't work, but if I put a pencil to paper and start moving it around, my brain guides me where to go with it and I'm able to sort of see what I draw as I concentrate on the drawing itself. Same goes for photography.. I can set up a scene in my head only if I'm thinking about the scene, if I concentrate on preparing the image in my head, I draw a blank. Another good example is if I read a book. I can follow the story, and form a mental image of what's going on and what the characters look like to me.. but if I were to shut my eyes and play out the story in my head, or visualize one of the characters I've designed based on the text, it doesn't work.\n\nAnd yes, one horribly unfortunate side effect of this, is that I can't visualize porn when I'm.. *ahem*.. doing the business. That sure as hell worked fine when I was younger.\n\nIf I had to pin a reason onto this, I'd say it might have to do with my life being emotionally chaotic. Stress/depression/anxiety.. all ongoing problems for a number of years. Maybe it's just that so much is constantly on my mind, that it's blocking me from controlling it when I need to.. or maybe just kind of overloaded with thoughts.",
"Can you picture colors? Shapes? When you read a book, can you not get any sense of what's going on in a visual way? If the book mentions a castle, for example, doesn't your mind call forth a generic representation of a castle? ",
"My dad had a brain tumor in his occipital lobe when he was a teenager, causing intense-ass hallucinations and all kinds of craziness. After having it removed, he completely lost his ability to visualize, similar to the way you describe it. His thinking relies entirely on information, from his descriptions. He's gone into very deep detail, of which I am not fully able to replicate, but it sounds like whatever the cause, you have the same issue with it that he does. His short term memory is abysmal, too.\n\nI can visualize myself, but it seems like most people around me can do it much better...I'm awful at art and anything that requires \"moving\" objects in my mind. Seeing one of your replies, I can't do magic eyes either, and my artistic ability is stuck at drawing cartoony faces and nothing else. Do your parents have any trouble with it? IANAScientist, but it seems to run in the family for me, although I didn't have a brain tumor like my father!",
"Hmm, I hadn't realized that such a thing was possible since I can do it. Darn that typical psyche fallacy. But a quick Google of \"cannot visualize things\" seems to show that [quite](_URL_1_) a few [people](_URL_0_) have the same kind of mind as you do. \n\nQuestion: When you try to recall something, do you remember it in words (as you said, 'carrots are ~6\" long, orange and conical shaped') or just have a feeling of what it is (a general sense of carrotiness)? \n\nThis makes me wonder about those studies where they use fMRI to try to communicate with people they suspect might have Locked-In Syndrome. If they ask people to imagine playing a game of tennis, maybe some patients can't respond because they can't visualize it...",
"Your description is odd and hinging on medical advice. I can't help you besides it sounds like a very, very warped version of agnosia. So, it's not that.\n\n\nBut on a more important note: that's not how brain imaging works. No technology can \"see inside\" your head. Things like this don't \"show up\", contrary to what Dr. House would like you to think.\n\nMRI measures the magnetic properties of junk in your noggan. For structure, it's fat. fMRI captures blood flow. PET/SPECT capture glucose consumption (fMRI does, too, technically speaking). MEG/EEG capture overall magnetic and electric field changes and are mostly useful for *when* something happens, not *where*, and never *how*.\n\nIf you believe there is something wrong or truly unique about how you \"visualize\" things, first see a (medical) doctor of the psych or neuro variety. If they can determine that yes, something is up, they will probably find someone who is researching the topic to send you to.\n\n\n**EDIT**: This entire thread is full of nonsense.",
"I find this very interesting. When I was a kid I could visualize things too well. Sometimes I would think of an object and view it from all sides in my mind, but then it would start spinning and I wouldn't be able to stop thinking of how it looks from every angle. It was frustrating to me. Interesting to see how people's minds all work differently, I didn't realize."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.psychometric-success.com/aptitude-tests/spatial-ability-tests-solid-shapes.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.proteacher.net/discussions/showthread.php?t=29625",
"http://dfan.org/visual.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.psychometric-success.com/aptitude-tests/spatial-ability-tests-solid-shapes.htm"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.proteacher.net/discussions/showthread.php?t=29625",
"http://dfan.org/visual.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
3ov2z5
|
Why is helium used as an RCS gas?
|
If I'm correct RCS works on the impulse principle P=m⋅v.
The energy required to lift an amount of gas is E≈m⋅g⋅h, and the volume to store it V=m⋅R⋅t/p/M.
To me it seems like you could use any gas as long as it doesn't pose any engineering challenges (corrosion, diffusion, flammability, embrittlement of tank...). Why do we use expensive helium?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3ov2z5/why_is_helium_used_as_an_rcs_gas/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw0rhrc"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"What you are missing is that the exhaust gas velocity depends on the gas molecular mass M. You can calculate it using [this equation](_URL_0_) of the exhaust gas velocity in chocked flow. Basically the lighter the gas the faster it can go and the more efficient with you mass you are. However for a given tank (ie a given V and P) the mass of gas you carry is proportional to the molecular weight. So for a given system the total impulse is proportional to the square root of the molecular mass.\n\nCold gas thruster are inherently low ISP so you won't do high dV maneuvers with them. Moreover their mass is relatively low compared to the spacecraft mass. So the important metric in this case is total impulse.\n\nThis means that helium is actually pretty bad as a cold gaz thruster. Nitrogen (N2) is used a lot more since it will give you approximately 2.6 times more total impulse. \n\nSorry I don't have the time for a lengthy answer right now, I hope I didn't write anything stupid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/De_Laval_nozzle#Exhaust_gas_velocity"
]
] |
|
41twz8
|
Was/Is the role of the "little boats" during operation Dynamo (the evacuation from Dunkirk) overstated?
|
With the increase in news about Nolan's next film "Dunkirk" I got thinking about the place of Dynamo in the British national consciousness and the narrative of WW2.
The "little boats" obviously are a major part of the story and many town quays and docks in the southern UK have plaques commemorating how many boats left to help and some of the vessels themselves still taking part in remembrance events, so my question is this:
Do we know how useful the informal help of non-military vessels was during the evacuation?
If so, how useful were they at actually helping in the evacuation or was their benefit (if any) more of a psychological/political one in the building of the "Dunkirk Spirit" narrative?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/41twz8/wasis_the_role_of_the_little_boats_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz58map",
"cz59nqn"
],
"score": [
7,
39
],
"text": [
"The popular view of the evacuation from Dunkirk is one of the RN and the \"little ships\" rescuing the BEF from the beaches. Although the RN were heavily involved, the bulk of the vessels used in the evacuation were conventional merchant vessels of all types, cargo ships, ferries and fishing vessels of all types were involved. The larger ships used the docks and then the moles at Dunkirk, then when these were destroyed by bombing, ships' boats collected the men from the open beaches north of the town, and ferried them to the larger vessels. The \"little ships\" were then collected to help in this process of ferrying the men to the larger ships. They were, of course, very important in the morale boosting story post evacuation.\nThe annoying thing (obviously I'm biased) I've found about every single screen/film portrayal of Dunkirk is the ignoring of the role of the civilians in the Merchant Navy in the evacuation! I hope that this new version won't be the same.",
"It really depends on how you define the 'Little Ships'. If you take the loosest possible definition, i.e. every non-naval/military ship involved, then they were hugely useful. If you focus down to just the small boats, ignoring the larger passenger vessels, then their role becomes rather less defined. On the 30th of May, the RN's estimate of troops transported by the various types of ship had the RN's destroyers carrying 17,000 people, large Merchant Navy transports and hospital ships evacuating 9500, and the remaining ships (including RN drifters, minesweepers and trawlers, as well as the smaller civilian craft) carrying a total of 15,000 men. However, it should be noted that this followed an attempt to cut down on the numbers of destroyers involved in the evacuation. \n\nThe majority of the troops evacuated from Dunkirk boarded ships at Dunkirk harbour, rather than being evacuated over the beaches. Nearly 340,000 troops were evacuated from the Dunkirk pocket, with just under 100,000 coming over the beaches. A large part of this is down to the sizes of the ships directly evacuating troops. At Dunkirk harbour, the largest ships could come alongside the moles, and be loaded directly, allowing more troops to be packed aboard. However, as Dunkirk harbour came under artillery fire and air attack, smaller craft, including those which came over informally, became more useful, ferrying troops out to ships outside the harbour. The majority of ships travelling from Dunkirk Harbour were destroyers, naval transports and large civilian ships. \n\nOn the beaches, the troops typically boarded the smaller boats, the lifeboats and pleasure craft, which shuttled them out to the larger ships which had to wait offshore. This was a slower process than loading troops directly, and typically the receiving ships took fewer men aboard. The typical 'Little Ship' would only make a single trip to Dunkirk, due to damage sustained by the heavy fire. In addition a large portion of the inshore work was done by motor launches and small craft carried by the RN ships offshore.Despite this, the ~100,000 troops who came off the beaches would likely have passed through one of the 'Little Ships'. Some craft were singled out for their efficacy in this work. The lifeboats of the RNLI were cited as some of the most useful small craft available, equalling the RN's own landing craft. The London Fire Brigade fireboat *Massey Shaw* was named as one of the most effective civilian ships, with her volunteer crew making four trips to the beaches and back.\n\nOne of the most important informal contributions came from 40 Dutch coasters, called Skoots in the official narrative. While these craft were too big to beach easily, they were greatly useful for ferrying troops between the beaches and ships lying offshore. They would also occasionally return to the UK, either when there weren't enough ships to transfer to, when they needed replenishment, or when evacuation over the beaches ceased temporarily. Some of these ships evacuated more than 1000 men, making them a substantial part of the evacuation over the beaches.\n\nSources:\n\n*The War in France and Flanders*, Major L. F. Ellis, HMSO, 1954\n\n*The Evacuation of the Allied Armies from Dunkirk and Neighbouring Beaches*, Vice Admiral Bertram Ramsay, 1940, published in the Supplement to the London Gazette, 17th July 1947"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7fuoh8
|
why can’t two phone numbers calling each other be connected instead of being prompted with a busy line? is this something that could be fixed easily?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fuoh8/eli5_why_cant_two_phone_numbers_calling_each/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqehmkk",
"dqehpe6",
"dqeuzbh",
"dqfc160"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When you dial a number on your phone, it goes \"off the hook\". That is, it's no longer able to receive calls, because dialing a number is the same as being in the middle of a call.\n\nThis can't be fixed easily, because it's rooted in the basics of how the telephone system works. However, if you have call waiting (where you can see that someone is calling even when you're in the middle of a call), you'll be able to see that the person you're calling is calling you, and switch over to that call.",
"Also this problem, I think it's happened to me maybe twice in my life and both when much younger before cell phone years, is not really a problem.",
"It probably could be fixed, but it would be expensive because it would add extra computational requirements in the phone company's equipment, and it is expensive in terms of time that you're making someone wait until the far end finishes dialing.\n\nWith a traditional landline phone, when you pick up the phone to dial you literally establish an electric circuit with the phone switch at the telephone company's central office. 30 or so years ago your dialing would interface with an electro-mechanical system that would create an electric circuit between your phone and the receiving phone, and simultaneous dialing would be an intractable problem. \n\nNow, the telephone company uses digital switches and dialing a phone number is pretty much the same as typing in a URL: The switch creates a virtual circuit that sends your voice traffic as VOIP packets to the far end's switch, that then converts them to the analog signal that landline phones can convert to sound. In this system, the switch at one side contacts the switch at the far side and asks if the receiving phone is available to take a call. You could add logic that pauses the connection if the far side phone is still dialing to see if they're dialing the same number, but the problem is, how long do you wait? How long to you hold someone up before giving them feedback while the far side might be calling? Because if you wait too long, they'll likely assume something went wrong and hang up. \n\nCell phones are similar to the latter case, except that there is no actual electrical circuit to the switch, everything is a virtual session.",
"Apart from all the technical issues, what about the commercial ones: who would pay for the call?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
hxb6h
|
If the earth had no oxygen what types of respiration would occur?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hxb6h/if_the_earth_had_no_oxygen_what_types_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1z6p3m",
"c1z6thf",
"c1z8buj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Once upon a time, there was no significant levels of oxygen in the atmosphere. It was mostly carbon dioxide.\n\nFor a long time, the primary method of respiration for life was [anaerobic](_URL_0_). Eventually, this algae soup managed to replace most of the carbon dioxide in the air with poisonous waste oxygen gas. The changeover almost caused the extinction of all life.\n\nFortunately, a few organisms adapted to aerobic respiration and began the reverse process of consuming oxygen and expelling carbon dioxide. And so today we see life forms that use oxygen to breathe, and some that still use carbon dioxide.",
"_URL_0_\n\nlook at the chart on the last page. here is how to use that chart:\n\npick any two half-reactions from the list. the difference between the E0 values on the right hand side of the chart shows you how much energy we can extract if we use those two half-reactions. don't worry about the chemistry, it would take quite a bit of time to explain, but basically, you use the half-reaction on the bottom to store energy, and the half-reaction on top to release it.\n\nfor example, humans use the half-reaction at the top to release energy, and the one that is second to last to store it (although plants do that for us!).\n\nalternative forms of respiration could use any other two of the half-reactions. the difference between their E0 values tells you how much energy they can get if they utilize that form of respiration. humans use just about the best combination, because we have oxygen. if we didn't, we could use any of the half-reactions below that, but we would get less energy.\n\nedit: more comprehensive table here:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nas you can see, some of the best combinations involve metal ions, and those are hard to come by, as opposed to something like oxygen which is a gas and CO2 which is also a gas, but organic life could have used any combination, for example, there are organisms that use sulfur or nitrate instead of the \"top\" reaction while still using the same bottom reaction (second to last one on the list). this yields much less energy (look at the differences), but it doesn't need oxygen.",
"The truth is, the earth at one point HAS had no oxygen before! It wasn't until [the great oxygenation event](_URL_1_) 2.4 billion years ago that there was any oxygen to respire!\n\nBefore this time there were plants that consumed CO2 and water to make sugar, excreting oxygen in the process. This process of photosynthesis is what we owe our modern atmosphere to! Living alongside these photosynthesizers were anaerobic bacteria. Before the photosynthesizers exploded and poisoned the atmosphere with oxygen, the planet's oceans were full of anaerobic life. Many of these were probably [obligate anaerobes](_URL_0_). They did not need oxygen to survive and instead respired using what materials they could find, mostly sulfides. H2S was a popular choice 3 billion years ago, somewhat ironic that the gas that they breathe is EXTREMELY toxic to humans and the oxygen we breathe is very toxic to them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anaerobic_respiration"
],
[
"http://mit.edu/7.01x/7.014/study/handouts/Redox-Handout.pdf",
"http://www.jesuitnola.org/upload/clark/refs/red_pot.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obligate_anaerobe",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event"
]
] |
||
nue0y
|
Why did only vertebrates evolve an adaptive immune system?
|
Just wondering. I haven't gotten a good answer out of text books or google. From what I hear, it is because the adaptive system fights off viruses much better than the innate system, and this aids those with an adaptive system, but it seems like plenty of invertebrates have run ins with viruses. Is there some sort of other defense they have?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nue0y/why_did_only_vertebrates_evolve_an_adaptive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3c0ybg",
"c3c1pfm",
"c3c0ybg",
"c3c1pfm"
],
"score": [
31,
10,
31,
10
],
"text": [
"Actually there are [several new lines of evidence](_URL_0_) that specific (aka adaptive) immunity exists in invertebrates. It is just very different from what has evolved in vertebrate lineages. For obvious reasons vertebrate immune systems have been widely studied, and when biologists looked for similar adaptive systems in invertebrates, they simply were not found. It seems, however, that this is just because invertebrates are using a different toolkit to face the challenge.",
"It's a complicated question for sure, but I think it comes down to several points:\n\n1) Would an adaptive immune system be, well, adaptive for non-vertebrates?\n\nMany non-vertebrates tend to have a live fast, die young life history. This is a generalisation, but my point is that it wouldn't necessarily make sense for something like butterflies to have a complex immune system that incorporates, for instance, a memory immune response.\n\n2) Many non-vertebrates probably do have complex adaptations for immunity\n\nThere's a guy in my department who works on sea urchin immunity, and one of the things that came out of the genome sequence was that there is massive gene duplication and specialisation of various pattern recognition receptors like TLRs, NLRs, etc., on the scale of say 200 versus our own 10 TLRs. I skimmed the article someone posted down below, and it's definitely true that we've only just scratched the surface of non-vertebrate immunity, which is unsurprising given the heavy vertebrate bias of biology. I mean, it was only a couple years ago that there was convincing evidence that jawless vertebrates (e.g. lampreys and hagfish) also have an adaptive immune system. We're always going to learn something new.\n\n3) Examples of non-vertebrate antiviral defenses:\n\n* RNAi-- for instance in *C. elegans*, RNA-directed RNA polymerases can create double stranded RNAs from foreign RNA, which feeds into the RNAi processing system and gets systemically disseminated.\n* Cell intrinsic defenses-- e.g. PKR activation and inhibition of translation, apoptosis, etc.\n* Complement, especially the \"alternative\" pathway-- sea urchins, which are echinoderms and hence a sister clade to chordates, have complement genes. I don't know if there's evidence that it can function in antiviral defence, but there isn't any reason it cannot.\n* probably more examples I haven't thought of as I'm quickly typing this.",
"Actually there are [several new lines of evidence](_URL_0_) that specific (aka adaptive) immunity exists in invertebrates. It is just very different from what has evolved in vertebrate lineages. For obvious reasons vertebrate immune systems have been widely studied, and when biologists looked for similar adaptive systems in invertebrates, they simply were not found. It seems, however, that this is just because invertebrates are using a different toolkit to face the challenge.",
"It's a complicated question for sure, but I think it comes down to several points:\n\n1) Would an adaptive immune system be, well, adaptive for non-vertebrates?\n\nMany non-vertebrates tend to have a live fast, die young life history. This is a generalisation, but my point is that it wouldn't necessarily make sense for something like butterflies to have a complex immune system that incorporates, for instance, a memory immune response.\n\n2) Many non-vertebrates probably do have complex adaptations for immunity\n\nThere's a guy in my department who works on sea urchin immunity, and one of the things that came out of the genome sequence was that there is massive gene duplication and specialisation of various pattern recognition receptors like TLRs, NLRs, etc., on the scale of say 200 versus our own 10 TLRs. I skimmed the article someone posted down below, and it's definitely true that we've only just scratched the surface of non-vertebrate immunity, which is unsurprising given the heavy vertebrate bias of biology. I mean, it was only a couple years ago that there was convincing evidence that jawless vertebrates (e.g. lampreys and hagfish) also have an adaptive immune system. We're always going to learn something new.\n\n3) Examples of non-vertebrate antiviral defenses:\n\n* RNAi-- for instance in *C. elegans*, RNA-directed RNA polymerases can create double stranded RNAs from foreign RNA, which feeds into the RNAi processing system and gets systemically disseminated.\n* Cell intrinsic defenses-- e.g. PKR activation and inhibition of translation, apoptosis, etc.\n* Complement, especially the \"alternative\" pathway-- sea urchins, which are echinoderms and hence a sister clade to chordates, have complement genes. I don't know if there's evidence that it can function in antiviral defence, but there isn't any reason it cannot.\n* probably more examples I haven't thought of as I'm quickly typing this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.jimmunol.org/content/179/11/7209.full"
],
[],
[
"http://www.jimmunol.org/content/179/11/7209.full"
],
[]
] |
|
1zyv7n
|
How did the Ottomans come up with a map as accurate as this?
|
World Map, 1803: _URL_0_
source: /r/mapporn
You gotta admit, that's accurate for 19th century cartography
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zyv7n/how_did_the_ottomans_come_up_with_a_map_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfy7ufz",
"cfy860m",
"cfydrao",
"cfykbr8"
],
"score": [
25,
46,
28,
5
],
"text": [
"Now I don't know how old this map really is. But important to note, is that the Orroman Empire lasted until 1922. So depending on when it was made it becomes less and less surprising.\n\n[This map](_URL_0_) is from 1630 by Henricus Hondius, which is very amazing. And also shows how little of Australia was mapped back then.\n\nEDIT: My bad... missed the fact that you had written the year.\n\nAnyhow it was most likely based on other maps. As the map form 1630 is already accurate it isn't that amazing that this one almost 200 years later is even more accurate.",
"I'm no map expert but it seems to use the same country outlines as [this map](_URL_0_) from 1787. (It may even be the same map — the similarities are pretty exact in every respect; in which case it is just a translation of a British map.) Browsing other maps from [this source](_URL_1_) makes it appear to me, anyway, that this is pretty standard practice for late-18th/early-19th century map making. Which is not too surprising since this is three centuries after the dawn of the age of exploration.",
"It is copied from a British atlas. This map is the world map from the [Cedid Atlas Tercümesi](_URL_1_), published in 1803. It is an adaptation of the *General Atlas* by British cartographer William Faden. More info about it [here](_URL_0_). The Wikipedia page about it has a ton of links to other webpages, articles, and papers about it.\n\nPS, the MapPorn page, with tons of comments, is [here](_URL_2_).",
"The Ottomans had a pretty impressive cartographic tradition that went back centuries before this map. Ibrahim Müteferrika in particular was a cartographer of note. [Check out this example by him from 1728](_URL_0_)\n\nAlso, keep in mind the Ottomans were building on a tradition of Muslim geography that went back centuries which itself stood on the shoulders of the ancient Greeks and Indians. Having such a deep understanding of what the world looked like was not unusual for them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/rAVFDod.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b5/Nova_totius_Terrarum_Orbis_geographica_ac_hydrographica_tabula_%28Hendrik_Hondius%29_balanced.jpg"
],
[
"http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/item_viewer.php?CISOROOT=/maps&CISOPTR=23&CISOBOX=1&REC=1",
"http://content.lib.washington.edu/cdm4/results.php?CISOOP1=all&CISOBOX1=&CISOFIELD1=area&CISOOP2=exact&CISOBOX2=World&CISOFIELD2=area&CISOOP3=any&CISOBOX3=&CISOFIELD3=altern&CISOOP4=none&CISOBOX4=&CISOFIELD4=kk&CISOROOT=/maps"
],
[
"http://www.brown.edu/Facilities/John_Carter_Brown_Library/I%20found%20it%20JCB/apr11.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cedid_Atlas",
"http://np.reddit.com/r/MapPorn/comments/1rnlb1/ottoman_map_of_the_world_1803_1600x1067/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Map_of_the_Indian_Ocean_and_the_China_Sea_was_engraved_in_1728_by_Ibrahim_M%C3%BCteferrika.jpg"
]
] |
|
1hi6i6
|
can we create life from inorganic material? if so, how?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hi6i6/eli5_can_we_create_life_from_inorganic_material/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cauk0nu",
"caukboq",
"caukiqi",
"caulmmr"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In principle? Almost certainly.\n\nBut we don't know how yet.",
"We have an ingredient list, but we are still lacking certain steps in the recipe.",
"This was the closest I've seen and it was published years ago: _URL_0_",
"Well...\n\nYes and no. I would say that it all depends on your definition of \"life.\"\n\nIn the future, we will certainly have robots around us. Will they be \"alive\"? One again, it depends on your definition. For example, lets say life requires extracting energy from one source into another source that can be used by the thing doing the conversion. With this definition, car engines are \"alive.\"\n\nSo, lets add the addition to having to be able to think. Well, robots and computers can think thanks to programing, so they are alive at that point.\n\nLet's say that they have to self replicate too. Well, we have robots that can build things, it just a matter of time before they can build themselves.\n\nSay in a hundred years we design a robot that has a metabolic system (a power plant that can be recharged by means of \"consuming food\"), a system of learning, thought and emotions, and the ability to build another just like it, would this robot be \"alive?\" Why is it not alive?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mnn.com/green-tech/research-innovations/stories/scientist-creates-lifelike-cells-out-of-metal#"
],
[]
] |
||
yac14
|
what i should do to learn code for developing games?
|
I'm really interested in learning code and i've been tooling around a little bit with javascript and watching video tutorials online. However I am curious as to what steps i should take for seriously pursuing this as a career avenue. I'm still undecided for a major and I was already leaning towards mathematics, so would it be too difficult to make this my major? Should I make this my major or should I learn it in my spare time as a hobby? If i should go down the hobbyist avenue what are the best ways to learn about code? Any and all input is welcome, so thank you in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yac14/eli5_what_i_should_do_to_learn_code_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tqw8q",
"c5tr15y",
"c5tt8gd",
"c5ttgqc",
"c5u3i53"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Teaching yourself is the best way, but can be very frustrating. Majoring in computer science is not a bad idea, but you *will not* learn how to make video games in this major, but rather the theory and ideas underlying computers. \n\nFor starting out, I would strongly recommend [processing](_URL_0_). It is a language designed to allow people without much experience develop interactive visual applications. And it's built on java (it's really just a set of self contained java libraries), so when you get a bit more experienced you can easily transition into writing java programs. Processing also allows you to write games for the web, and for android devices.\n\nThe processing website has some examples and tutorials that can get you started. ",
"What do you mean by make 'this' your major? Computer science? Because computer science =/= making games, it's a large academic discipline on its own.\n\nI don't know what your major choice deadline is or anything, but I'd recommend playing with learning to code in your spare time. See how it goes, and whether you enjoy it. If you have the choice, take some computer science classes and see how they go, but most of computer science is *not* about learning to make games.\n\nAs for actually learning, 10 different people will have 20 different strong opinions about what language to use, where to learn, and so on. I personally recommend learning python - the [/r/learnpython](/r/learnpython) subreddit has some great links in the sidebar and is a generally a good source of help. I recommend python because it's syntactically simple and easy to understand, but a fully fledged language. It's also extremely popular and well supported, so there are good libraries with good documentation and help for anything you might want to do - including simple games to learn with. And finally, it's not a cut down language in any way, so the concepts you learn will translate easily to (say) C++ later - I'd generally say that if you can't easily transition from python to a lower level language, you'd never have managed to learn the lower level language in the first place.\n\nHowever, this is just an opinion. Other people say many other things, such as simply recommending to dive into C to immediately get an understanding of how lower level code *really* works. The main thing is, just do it! Choose something and get going, there are tons of tutorials out there. And once you have a basic grasp, pick a project like making a simple game and go for it - you learn best by asking questions about things you don't know.",
"go to /r/learnprogramming. \n",
"Not to be a dick but this really isn't the right subreddit for your question. ELI5 is more for explaining concepts or events, like the Watergate Scandal or gravity. \n\nYou should ask in /r/programming maybe?",
"Former game developer here.\n\nI don't recommend video game programs at most colleges. I've reviewed a couple for some schools, and told them they were shit. They rolled them out anyway. These degree programs are for suckers. \n\nBut, if your resume came on my desk and read DigiPen, I'd give you a shot. If it read Full Sail, I'd consider it. Otherwise, as a developer, I want to see a Comp Sci BS or MA.\n\nSolid principles are important, and depending on the studio, they can teach you the rest. Mills don't have the time, though. More on mills later. If you're heavy on the math, good for you. That will look attractive for writing shaders, optimizing algorithms, or writing physics - especially if you know some physics.\n\nLinear Algebra, Quaternions, Trig, and Calculus. Get to knowing it.\n\nSpecialize. If you want to do physics, learn some physics. Otherwise, you'll land in the world of Gameplay Engineer.\n\nThe predominant languages out there are C# on the Microsoft platform, C/C++ everywhere, especially since there's a long legacy of investment in it, Javascript, Flash, and, increasingly HTML5 and newer standards for browser games, and then your choice of scripting languages. Lua and ECMAScript are popular. I think the Unreal Engine and others have their own proprietary scripts, Python...\n\nIt depends on what you want to do. The field is open for you to specialize, and studios are going to do things different ways, depending on their workflow.\n\nWork on a demo reel. If you're really mathy, prove some algorithms, show some charts, and explain why it's cool. Apply some lighting equations and render an image. If you're a physics guy, make a ball bounce around inside a box or something. AI? Show me some AI algorithms in action. I don't care if it's colored boxes in 2D, I don't care if there's audio or not.\n\nShow me a game. It doesn't have to be pretty. You're not an artist. It has to be functional. If you have a box that shoots boxes at boxes, you got a game.\n\nBut polish helps, if you can afford it.\n\nSo you know, lots of studios are mills, and just crank out shit. Shitty cell phone games or some shit commodity title for Desperate Housewives (no, really). Or titles tied to some movie IP, which never sell well, and are more valuable as part of a marketing strategy.\n\nIf you're brilliant, and you shop around, you can actually get moving at a serious career making a real difference in the industry. If you're mediocre, you get the slow route of making a few shit titles for shit pay, sleeping under your desk because you crunch for 8 months. Then you bounce around companies for a few years until you're 10 years out of college, finally making something that you know won't be forgotten in 6 months, and on par with that brilliant college graduate that just got hired...\n\nDon't try to be a designer. That's a rock star job that's all ego, flooded with everyone else who wants to design, and their egos, and pays some of the lowest salary."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://processing.org/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3sqj3k
|
how do songs get popular?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sqj3k/eli5_how_do_songs_get_popular/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwzkg2y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is generally multiple 'levels' of popularity, there is local popularity and then higher levels until it reaches 'mainstream'. Unless it's a popular and current artist many songs start out as small time bands getting their song on the radio or the more popular internet.\n\nCurrent artists will have huge advertising campaigns for their individual songs, singles or albums, Just look turn on a tv or a radio and you'll be bombarded by adverts for songs, we don't notice this much now because we have grown used to it.\n\nI hope this helps to answer your question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5im3f9
|
how come it is so much easier to sing with accurate pitch in a whispery way than at a normal volume?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5im3f9/eli5_how_come_it_is_so_much_easier_to_sing_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db9duba",
"db9jrd4"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"First, I think you're referring to SOME pitches, not all, and especially high pitches (and the \"whispery way\" would be what we call \"falsetto\").\nWhen you sing in your comfort zone, you can perfectly sing a pitch without too much effort.\n\nProblems arise when you're hitting pitches outside of that zone, especially in the high register. You need vocal support (= air) to sustain those pitches, and as soon as you start lacking that vocal support, the pitch goes flat.\n\nFalsetto makes you use the rear of you throat/mouth, and the immediate effect is that you don't feel like you're straining your voice. Falsetto makes high pitches easy to sing, but try to sing low notes in falsetto and you may revert to \"normal\" voice (= be unable to maintain your falsetto).\n\nSo, in short : falsetto offers you the same ease of use for high pitches that full voice offers you in your normal range, which is why you find it easier to sing those high pitches in falsetto.\n\nShould you want to sing them in full voice, you would need to have a broader vocal range (=experience) and much more vocal support (= great breathing technique) to sustain them perfectly and longer.\n",
"I can answer this from my wife who learned this while doing her doctorate in music. Most people who have trouble matching pitch do so because they hear the overtones too much and can't accurately hear themselves. Basically, every sung pitch contains the main frequency (fundamental) and a series of higher frequencies called overtones that define the timbre (sound characteristics) of the tone. Low notes and note sung with a full voice contain stronger overtones in the middle of our hearing range and can confuse some ears. Higher notes have their overtones farther up in our hearing range so they're less distracting. Breathy or whispery singing is Probably just higher up with less diaphragm support, so higher = easier to hear, and less vibration of the vocal chords = more focus on the fundamental and has weaker overtones, so it's easier to hear yourself. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
6ynxqz
|
Would the lifestyle of a Roman emperor be comfortable and pleasant to a modern person?
|
Has overall quality of life gone up so high that being a Roman emperor would feel like poverty, discomfort, and ill health?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6ynxqz/would_the_lifestyle_of_a_roman_emperor_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmoz1cg"
],
"score": [
59
],
"text": [
"While there are some areas such as dental health and travel where the modern world provides absolutely irreplacable benefits, this is really a question for social psychology rather than history. Generally speaking, the psychological impact of poverty tends to be marked more by feelings of stress, powerlessness and what might be thought of as 'social awareness\" (ie, the knowledge that wealth, luxury, etc exists that one is shut out of) and an emperor is not going to worry about making their mortgage payment.\n\nIf you are curious about certain aspects of the daily life of an emperor I would be happy to try to answer, but as stated the question is outside the scope of historical inquiry."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3d2c0k
|
Does every heart beat pump about the same amount of blood, regardless of heart rate?
|
Does the sensation of "heart pounding" (high pulse amplitude which is independent of frequency) reflect real processes, or is it more or less imagined?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3d2c0k/does_every_heart_beat_pump_about_the_same_amount/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct1ey3g",
"ct1ghvx"
],
"score": [
8,
7
],
"text": [
"Stroke volume can increase independently of or simultaneously to increases in heart rate. ",
"I could give you a simple answer of no but this is kinda my jam, so I'm going to take the opportunity to exercise the one thing I know a decent bit about. Any experts out there please feel free to correct me as needed, but keep in mind it can get a little messy when explaining this stuff on a layman level. To answer your question, I feel it's best to explain a few things first. \n\nBest to start with this formula:\nCO=HRxSV\n\nCardiac output(amount of blood pumped per minute, measured in liters/minute) is equal to heart rate (beats/minute) multiplied by stroke volume (mL or L)\nNormal CO about 4-10L/min (depends a lot on someone's size. \n\nStroke Volume (SV) is the amount of blood the heart ejects each beat, typically measured in mL and is affected by three factors:\n\nPreload-the amount and pressure of blood filling the heart (more blood filling the heart usually means more blood pumped out) Only occurs when the heart is at rest, or not beating. \n\nAfterload-the amount of pressure the heart is pumping against (typically affected by tightening/loosening of the arteries) \n\nContractility-the strength of the heart's contraction. \n\nBack to your question, the faster the heart rate, the more blood pumped per minute if the amount pumped each beat is constant. What happens though, if your HR exceeds about 130bpm, is the heart does not have enough time to fill completely between each beat so the amount of blood pumped each time it contracts is less. (This is a part of what's known as Frank-Starlings Law). Conversely, if ones hr is slowed for some reason, the heart will typically compensate by increasing the contractility, or force of contraction, to help maintain a normal cardiac output. \nFor example. Say your heart pumps out 100mL of blood each beat. If your hr is 50bpm your cardiac output would be 5000mL/m. Now if you start jogging and raise your hr to 100, you've increased your CO to 10000mL/min. \n\nIf we stuck with this formula and your hr went to 200bpm, you now have a CO of 20000mL/min or 20L/min, but this doesn't happen. When your hr exceeds about 120, the amount of time your heart is at rest, or not beating, is a lot less and it doesn't have time to adequately fill with blood (less preload). Less preload means less stroke volume which means less cardiac output. Someone with a hr of 200 will probably only be able to pump about 20mL each beat, which with the formula would make your CO 4000mL/min. \n\nWhat you feel when your heart is \"pounding\" I believe is more related to blood pressure, more specifically \"afterload.\" Things that cause vasoconstriction (tightening of the blood vessels) such as stimulant drugs make it so the heart has to contract against a higher pressure gradient to get the blood out. \n\nI hope this is helpful and I didn't go off the rails too much. If you have more specific or different questions, I'd be happy to try and help because I can go on and on and on and on...\n\nEdit: formatting and\ntl;dr-No, reflects a real process\n\nEdit 2-more formatting and Source: am a cardiac surgery recovery/CVICU rn"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bbgl40
|
Are people really more likely to buy something that costs $19.95 vs $20.00?
|
I've always figured that the odd pricing was given to have more people buy the product, since $20 is a more round number than $19. Is this the case? Is there evidence to back it up? Is something else completely different going on here?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bbgl40/are_people_really_more_likely_to_buy_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekkf9r5"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"It really depends. Pricing something at $19 works better than pricing it at $20, but pricing something at $20 and saying it's 20% off regular price does even better. There is a fascinating area of study called behavioral economics which bridges the gap between human psychology and economic theory. Classical economics is all about everyone making rational, self-maximizing decisions, but we have lots of real world examples of humans not doing this. Behavioral economics tries to understand how human actually make financial decisions. Here are some interesting ones that have been studied:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://conversionxl.com/blog/pricing-experiments-you-might-not-know-but-can-learn-from/"
]
] |
|
bdmrpu
|
Why didn't more union soldiers have repeating rifles?
|
I found this on wikipedia. They mentioned issues with the supply chain for ammunition, tactics, and a lack of understanding of the value.
_URL_0_
Can someone please provide more detail? How widely was the repeating rifle used by the union? Did they develop any tactics for them during the war?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bdmrpu/why_didnt_more_union_soldiers_have_repeating/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekzqtaz"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Logistics were generally at the core of the issue. The Civil War saw the Union and Confederacy raise armies larger than the US had ever seen, and as they did so, supply became a bigger concern than the individual effectiveness of an infantryman, and repeating rifles available at the time were significantly more expensive to procure and use.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor some context, it helps to understand the standard weapons of the day. The standard infantry rifled musket was a muzzle-loading rifled weapon that had some major improvements over the Napoleonic-era muskets they're usually compared to. Percussion caps had replaced flintlocks, which simplified the reloading process for soldiers, and the introduction of the Minie ball finally provided a means for rifled muskets to be practically used by line infantry. Troops would generally carry 40 rounds of ammunition, with 60 rounds being a \"heavy\" load that you'd see in situations like a force slated to be at the front line of a major assault on fortifications. The ammunition itself was generally carried in paper cartridges that contained ball and powder, again simplifying the reloading process. With these weapons, you'd still have glacially slow reloading speeds by modern standards (\\~3 round per minute) despite the improvement over older flintlocks, but the rifling would massively increase their effective range compared to smoothbore weapons. Rifled muskets of the time generally had adjustable sights going out to several hundred yards, and the British Pattern 1853 rifled musket had sights that reached out to 1,250 yards. Although engaging at extreme ranges may have been rare, the increased effective range of the rifled musket was an important element of infantry doctrine of the time.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nCompare that to the repeating weapons of the day. Repeating arms were by nature more complicated and expensive to produce. American arsenals at the time were tooled up for mass production of rifled muskets, and even as they expanded during the war they struggled to keep up with demand. The myriad of repeating arms that saw service in the war were private ventures of various arms makers, and often times these manufacturers were struggling to keep up with the comparatively small orders they did receive, let alone a whole army's worth of rifles. The special cartridge ammunition used by rifles like the Spencer complicated things even more, as it production wasn't something that could be done easily by existing ammunition manufacturing facilities. Cartridge cases needed to be pressed from copper or brass, priming material needed to be put in the casing, and powder and bullet would need to be put in the case - something far more intensive than rolling up a bullet and some powder in paper. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nDoctrine then became an issue, as there wasn't yet any established practices for the use of repeating arms. There was a fear of panicked soldiers expending all their ammunition (a very real problem in a war without consistent access to secure railheads) and leaving the army almost defenseless, and reloading became a major concern, as these early breech-loaders generally had very time-consuming reloading processes. Certain repeating carbines also \"suffered\" from lacking certain features that would be necessary for a standard infantry arm - namely, infantry-length barrels (\\~30 inches), the ability to mount bayonets, and a cartridge capable of reaching out reliably to the distances armies expected to engage at. That was a liability for guns like the Henry repeater, which was chambered in a cartridge that had a very short effective range. These issues and concerns would actually outlive muzzle-loading arms - fears over supply being impacted by rapid-firing guns didn't really go away until WW1.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAll these issues aside, we do see repeating arms used in increasing numbers as the war goes on, particularly in the Union. Cavalry forces were more regularly equipped with repeating arms, with Sheridan's troopers in particular standing out in the 1864 campaigns for their heavy use of repeating arms. I can't speak authoritatively as to why cavalry tended to get the weapons first, although cavalry historically has had a legacy of being armed with smaller, lighter weapons with shorter effective ranges, so many of the concerns about the guns themselves listed above weren't as pressing. Infantry units would also occasionally be outfitted with repeating arms, and often they performed spectacularly well. One unit at Chickamauga was armed with Colt Revolving Rifles and managed to hold its ground despite the army nearly collapsing around them, although they did nearly run out of ammunition during the battle. During Grant's Overland campaign in 1864, one unit in the Army of the Potomac also was equipped with some form of repeating arm, making an impression on Confederate troops they faced. However, repeating arms for line infantry were generally nonstandard weapons and thus their procurement would be something done by private initiative, often from a commanding officer."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spencer_repeating_rifle"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
wnji7
|
What exactly is a magnetic pole shift/reversal, and how does it happen/
|
I found many other threads about what the effects would be, whether we would be around to see the next one, etc., but nothing about how that phenomenon actually occurs.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/wnji7/what_exactly_is_a_magnetic_pole_shiftreversal_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5ewznz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The magnetic field is a self-exciting geodynamo. Basically, it's caused by convection in the fluid iron outer core causing the iron to flow through magnetic flux lines. The electromagnetic interaction generates a further electromagnetic field effect. Hence it's 'self exciting' - it causes itself. \n\nHowever, the outer core is a complex shape to try and build convection cells in - it's bigger on the outside than it is in the middle, so ultimately, the convection is only meta-stable. What computer modelling seems to suggest is that when the convection destabilises a new stability system is set up, with the convection cells in different locations, resulting in a reversal of the direction of the magnetic field. Between the two normal and reversed states there appears to be a period of multi-pole magnetism (several North and South poles)\n\nSo, it's a random change triggered by fluid instabilities. Hence there is no pattern to reversals in the geological past; sometimes we've seen periods of rapid ( < 10,000 year) reversals. At others we've seen multi-million year stable periods with no reversals. That said, the poles at the moment do indeed appear to be degrading, and at depth we have a multipole field developing. The South Atlantic Anomaly is also a possible indicator that the field is growin unstable. We're not really sure of the timescale these switches occur on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
33oy0q
|
Did Normans use stirrups using their conquest of England, and was it important?
|
After reading about [stirrup controversy](_URL_0_), I realized that a lot of sources on the internet, as well as the book I'm reading right now (History of England by G.M. Trevelyan) are possibly not up to date to the latest scientific knowledge, so I decided to ask here to clarify it.
Did the success of Norman conquest depend on using cavalry, as opposed to anglo-saxons of the time, who rode on horses, but fought like infantry? This is what the History of England says, but it seems strange that such important technological advancements (stirrups, saddle, the skill of horseback fighting) would spread on one side of the english channel and be absent on the other, especially given the trade between two regions. What should I read about the topic that is up to date and correct?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33oy0q/did_normans_use_stirrups_using_their_conquest_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqn6pe6"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"This image from the Bayeux Tapestry (depicting the Norman conquest of what we now know as England) clearly depicts a Norman horse soldier using stirrups.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://scholar.chem.nyu.edu/tekpages/ironworking.html"
] |
[
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bb/Bayeux_Tapestry_scene57_Harold_death.jpg"
]
] |
|
346qlg
|
Did the mass murder of mentally ill people in Nazi Germany influence rates of mental illness later in the 20th century?
|
Schizophrenia has a hereditary component, for example. I was wondering if the deaths of a large number of mentally ill people in the 1930s led to relatively lower rates of hereditary mental illness in, say, the 1980s.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/346qlg/did_the_mass_murder_of_mentally_ill_people_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqshzvc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I recently saw a documentary on this and with regard to schizophrenic patients specifically, here was the outcome according to that documentary and is backed up by this Pubmed article:\n\n > Postwar studies of the prevalence of schizophrenia in Germany reported low rates, as expected. However, postwar rates of the incidence of schizophrenia in Germany were unexpectedly high. [...] The Nazi genocide of psychiatric patients [...] had no apparent long-term effect on the subsequent incidence of schizophrenia.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\nI do hope these sources are satisfactory, this is my first post here."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2800142/"
]
] |
|
1q44xv
|
How wealthy were the people who crafted weapons & armor in Medieval Europe & the Near East?
|
I've heard that weapons and armor were expensive, and since people generally like to live through wars, I'm guessing demand was high for quality armor & weapons.
Were the people who made armor well-off?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q44xv/how_wealthy_were_the_people_who_crafted_weapons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd950nt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Blacksmiths, as a group, were [artisans](_URL_2_), who, as skilled laborers, were part of the middling class of the [Third Estate](_URL_1_). In a small community, blacksmiths would be expected to make all sorts of products: bits, plows, armor, pitchforks, knives, arrow and spear heads, etc. While he would have a degree more wealth than many farming peasants, his quality of life would not be significantly better than anyone else's in the community.\n\nHowever, a smith in a large community (likely as a master in a guild) had the knowledge, ability and the patronage to specialize in high-quality weapons and armor, he would have been among the higher tiers of the artisans in terms of personal wealth, though likely still below smiths working with precious metals and gems.\n\nThe problem, really, is defining \"well-off\". Besides the wealthy traders of the Hanseatic League and the Northern Italian merchant states, very few members of the third estate could live in a manner we consider \"comfortable\". In an era where wealth was defined by land ownership (which was tied to heredity), a blacksmith would never have been considered \"rich\". The very dirty, labor-intensive, and dangerous nature of his profession kept a blacksmith's quality-of-life low by any standard.\n\nHowever, it *would* be possible for a blacksmith to save enough capital during his lifetime, particularly in trade centers, that an ambitious son could make his inheritance to self-perpetuate, and that, within another generation or two, expand the family into full-fledged wholesale merchants. Many Italian families of note (including [the Medici](_URL_0_)) began in this way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Medici",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_Estate",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artisan"
]
] |
|
6z2pda
|
how tiny candles can bring fragrance to entire room?
|
Also, can a regular candle (unscented) eliminate bad odor in a room?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6z2pda/eli5_how_tiny_candles_can_bring_fragrance_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmrzxm5",
"dms3uma",
"dms45so"
],
"score": [
27,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"The sense of smell is powerful. We can detect something in the air when it's only *one billionth* of the gas present in the room (the rest being mostly plain air).",
"Look up thioacetone (it's basically acetone, or propan-2-one, with the oxygen atom replaced by a sulfur one)l\n. Most sulfur based compounds are easily detected by humans. Why?\n\nThe molecules fit in \"plugs\" unique to said molecules and notify the brain.\n\nWe therefore get lots of variables: number of \"plugs\", concentration of the molecule in the candle, strength of the signal coming from the plug, etc.\n\nIn the case of thioacetone, it's extreme signal strength.",
"Diffusion. If you have a whole lot of molecules moving randomly, it tends to spread out. So the scent given off by the scented candle will fill the room. It's like putting a drop of food coloring in a glass of water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zxr63
|
In "I, Claudius", Livia supposedly found slave girls for Augustus to sleep with. Is this true?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zxr63/in_i_claudius_livia_supposedly_found_slave_girls/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpnc9t0"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"No, it's not true. Augustus did keep mistresses, but Livia would not have provided him with them, even if she seemingly didn't disapprove of them. An accepting image that may just have been for the public eye and not something we can tell for sure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
96osgq
|
If we could time travel back to the different eras of the dinosaurs, would we need a special suit for the climate back then?
|
I am aware we can't time travel... Yet/ever... I'm not asking about that possibility. I am wondering if we did make it back to the different eras; Triassic, Jurassic and Cretaceous. Would we need a special suit to breathe or just be in the atmosphere that existed back then? Or would we be okay to go back in just our normal clothes.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/96osgq/if_we_could_time_travel_back_to_the_different/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e42mt80"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Climate would be different and the exact composition oft the atmosphere would not be the same. For the cretaceous e.g. the oxygen level of the atmosphere would be about ~~three~~ 1.5 times the level of today.\nAll in all I'd guess you would not die walking around there only by the different temperature and atmosphere. So climate should not be much of a problem as long as you can adapt clothwise like today. What I don't know about is if the different bacteria etc. from that time would kill you, because your body is not adapted to them.\n\nEdit: got the oxygen level wrong. Thanks u/Alimbiquated"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
24tkgd
|
Recent Supreme Court decisions have generated a robust amount of media coverage. With this in mind, I have a question for reddit historians.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24tkgd/recent_supreme_court_decisions_have_generated_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chaj8h8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This post has been removed for being [soapboxing and a loaded question](_URL_0_). This really belongs in /r/Ask_Politics."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22soapboxing.22_or_loaded_questions"
]
] |
||
2friry
|
Recurve vs Longbow - how was the longbow able to pierce armor where the short bow wasn't. How did this change warfare?
|
I'm assuming that the arrow weight was the key, but I'm curious if it was that or the fps of the projectile.
The second question is just to make this question be more applicable or interesting to a wider group.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2friry/recurve_vs_longbow_how_was_the_longbow_able_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckc7z68"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"The longbow wasn't exactly able to \"pierce armor,\" especially at longer ranges. While it possible for a longbow volley to cause casualties at every possible range, the sources are pretty clear that longbow arrows did not kill by outright punching through plate armor, but by striking less-protected gaps in the armor, hitting men who had their visors raised, or killing/crippling horses (potentially causing the rider to be injured). The purpose of longbow archery is to disrupt enemy formations and hinder their ability to fight as a unit. This requires large numbers or archers, which brings us to your second point: how the longbow impacted warfare. \n\nThe longbow itself was not the basis of any kind of military revolution. What changed English warfare and allowed for the famous battlefield victories of the Hundred Years War was the gradual development of armies entirely based on contracts of service, which created forces that were quicker to mobilize, better equipped, and better organized than previous recruitment structures. English kings (assuming they had the political support/stability to go to war) could rapidly raise relatively large numbers of troops, many of whom were either professionals or at least semi-professionalized. Many of these soldiers would be longbow archers. It is absolutely vital to understanding English longbow archers in warfare to know that the archers were 1) often mounted, allowing for rapid movement on campaign and 2) actively took part in hand-to-hand combat after the enemy had gotten too close. The longbow was only a part of what made the men who carried them so valuable on the battlefield. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
se5et
|
When I tune my radio, it sounds alright. But the moment I move my hand away, the signal gets worse. Whats going on here?
|
Whenever I my hand is close to (or on top of) the radio, the signal gets better. When I move it away (a foot or more), the signal quality gets very bad
The only thing I can think of is that my hand is shielding the radio signal receiver from some sort of interference. Either that or my body is acting like an antenna of sorts. Either way, it's all speculation.
The radio has one of those old tuning dials (I guess it's an analog input?). If my first question gets answered, is there a quick fix to get the signal to remain as clear as it is when my hand is close to the radio?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/se5et/when_i_tune_my_radio_it_sounds_alright_but_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4da8sa"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"This question just came up a few days ago. Your body acts as one plate of a capacitor with the surroundings/ground forming the other plate. The tuning circuit within the radio sees the capacitance added by your body. Thus when you tune the circuit, you are doing so such that it compensates for this added capacitance. When you move your body away, this extra capacitance is removed and your circuit is no longer on tune."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1dq15a
|
What was the cost of prostitutes throughout the time?
|
Related to the cost of slaves topic, I think it might be interesting to think about the cost of prostitution.
Also, was it usually paid per night/hours or per sex act, how much were they paid for it and were they even paid for it that often, or were they usually sex slaves and the money was only paid to the pimp?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1dq15a/what_was_the_cost_of_prostitutes_throughout_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9srxls"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Much like slaves, the cost of prostitutes depended on a broad range of factors. Fortunately for us, social investigators such as Henry Mayhew attempted to categorize the prostitutes working in Victorian London and recorded some details about their earnings. The full chapter on prostitution is [available here](_URL_1_) and is worth browsing through.\n\nIn one section, it claims that:\n\n > \"It is computed that £8,000,000 are expended annually on this vice in London alone. This is easily proved; some girls obtain from twenty to thirty pounds a week, others more, whilst most of those who frequent theatres, casinos, gin palaces, music halls, etc, receive from ten to twelve pounds. Those of a still lower grade obtain about four or five pounds, some less than one pound, and many not ten shillings.\"\n\nThis doesn't get us any closer to determining how much it cost to procure specific sexual acts. However, it does make the rather obvious point that the cost of keeping a mistress was significantly higher than hiring a streetwalker. In order to hire (or keep) the higher class of prostitute it was certainly necessary to have a large disposable income, or to blow your entire pay packet (always a problem for sailors). Streetwalkers and casual prostitutes fell within a more accessible price range. A source in Mayhew's text claims that:\n > \"They would go home with a man for a shilling, and think themselves well paid, while sixpence was rather an exorbitant amount for the temporary accommodation their vagrant amour would require.\"\n\nIf we translate sixpence (the price of a brief sexual encounter) into present-day currency using [_URL_0_](http://www._URL_0_) (always a tricky thing to do accurately) it comes out somewhere in the region of £27 ($42). I'm not an expert on present-day prostitution, but I think that comes pretty close to today's prices. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"measuringworth.com",
"http://archive.org/stream/londonlabourlond04mayh#page/210/mode/2up",
"http://www.measuringworth.com"
]
] |
|
4fk1gx
|
why are so many houses built in the usa single floor bungalows?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fk1gx/eli5_why_are_so_many_houses_built_in_the_usa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d29h2dx",
"d29hq5d",
"d29htx9"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Cost of land is cheaper so building lots are larger, that and the market demands it in most areas.",
"I know that the second floor of a house is often harder to cool than the first floor. That makes a difference in places like Florida, which have a much higher average temperature than the UK. ",
"Most US houses were built after the development of, first, the electric train or tram, and then, the car, and also of water and power systems. So being a dense village where everything can be walked was no longer important, or sharing walls to save on heating was also no longer important. With plenty of land and also transportation options, it's cheaper to just build one story, and since people have a way to get to these more spread out homes, the cheaper mode of building predominates. In areas with higher land prices, you are more likely to see more packed in homes (although do note that many places only recently became expensive, and will have 100 years worth of housing stock that is more bungalow style). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
lxe3k
|
how online advertising pays for the maintenance of a website like facebook or reddit.
|
Specifically who are these people that decide to place their advertisements on a website and how do they know it will end up beneficial to their company? It is a confusing topic for someone who has no experience in how internet traffic or advertising works.
**Edit: I know this is a complicated topic. I would like more of a sense of the magnitude of the numbers involved. Also how does an advertising agency know which demographics are visiting a site? I understand how facebook could do this but are other sites capable of this too? How? Also, how does an advertiser know how many clicks an add gets?**
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lxe3k/eli5_how_online_advertising_pays_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2wclbs",
"c2wclbs"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"it pays like any advertising pays. company A wants product B to be seen by a certain demographic. A pays agency C to place those ads in that demographic's eyesite. search engine optomization (SEO) algorythmically determines which sites suit best. you click that site, you see the ad, website gets paid.",
"it pays like any advertising pays. company A wants product B to be seen by a certain demographic. A pays agency C to place those ads in that demographic's eyesite. search engine optomization (SEO) algorythmically determines which sites suit best. you click that site, you see the ad, website gets paid."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3cwnzc
|
what is the necessity having to double-press a key fob to get all the car-doors to unlock (as opposed to just pressing once)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cwnzc/eli5what_is_the_necessity_having_to_doublepress_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cszn4hw"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"As a safety feature, the first press unlocks only the driver's door, so that you are not unlocking the doors on the other side to potentially admit a stranger into your car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2bbtki
|
How were medics treated when captured in WW2?
|
Was there an etiquette for engagement with medics in the field? Were medics treated like regular POWs?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bbtki/how_were_medics_treated_when_captured_in_ww2/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj49wuy",
"cj4n2fh"
],
"score": [
5,
4
],
"text": [
"There was a chapter in Stephen Ambrose's [Citizen Soldiers](_URL_0_) where a captured medic ended up working with the German medical unit, and they taught each other different medical techniques. Its important to remember that Allied medical units had access to penecillin, which the Germans didnt have",
"Well normal etiquette when confronted by a marked combat medic is not to shoot them or harass them. But sometimes that was not always the case. The Germans tended to follow the Geneva conventions rules on protected persons. The Fog of war would get in the way, a mortar round into a foxhole does not follow the laws of war, soldiers die in battle and combat medics fell victims. If a medic was captured, well it depends on what uniform they had on. Lets say its a US combat medic, captured in the field. First off the opposing forces would check him for weapons, intelligence... They would know he was the medic because of the red cross he had on his arm and or helmet. they might take his medical supplies and give it to their own medics or they could get the US medic to aid the wounded, on both sides of course. Once the US medic was taken off the front lines, he would be transported to a POW collection point, the Geneva Convention says that the capturing forces must remove POW as quickly and safety from the combat zone, if possible. So there's the US medic with other US/Allied soldiers. He would be treated just like any other POW, sorted out by officer/enlisted, branch of service. Once he arrived at a POW camp, they would be registered/documented and given a job assignment, most likely in the infirmary/sick bay. \nMy papa was a US Medic during WW2, he worked in a POW camp down in Carolina and Georgia, he was an enlisted man and ran the German hospital unit within the POW camp, he was in charge of a team that was staffed by German Doctors and field medics, mainly from the Afrika Korps. here are some good WW2 medic sites if your interested _URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=IUI76I0bjI0C&pg=PT348&lpg=PT348&dq=citizen+soldier+captured+surgeon&source=bl&ots=3f8YUIAbYS&sig=xCnjm87_IPV5rlTzzpgfEfVXFhI&hl=en&sa=X&ei=pB3OU8yMKsve7AaNq4HYBw&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=citizen%20soldier%20captured%20surgeon&f=false"
],
[
"http://www.med-dept.com/articles/identification-of-medical-personnel-vehicles-and-installations/",
"http://www.mtaofnj.org/content/WWII%20Combat%20Medic%20-%20Dave%20Steinert/index.htm#World%20War%20II%20and%20the%20Combat%20Medic"
]
] |
|
3418pd
|
Who was the first man to attach a scope to his rifle? When did snipers with optics start appearing on the battlefield?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3418pd/who_was_the_first_man_to_attach_a_scope_to_his/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqqazeq",
"cqqevbx"
],
"score": [
12,
22
],
"text": [
"The first documented rifle scope was made by Morgan James of Utica, NY; as documented by John Chapman in his 1844 book \"The Improved American Rifle\". That being said improving rifle sights had begun long before hand, and earlier experiments with optical lenses are bound to have taken place. \n \nThe first conflict to see widespread use of telescopic sights, at least to my knowledge, was the American Civil War. But even then it is important to note that the skill and training behind modern snipers is the culmination of centuries of shooting skill and fieldcraft - and the sharpshooters of the Civil War are simply another step in that evolution, and shouldn't be considered snipers in the modern sense.",
"[Berdan's Sharpshooters](_URL_0_) were the first dedicated \"snipers\" as we think of them today; experienced in fieldcraft, precisely-accurized rifles, high standards of marksmanship, and the use of optics mounted to the rifle along the bore axis. Amazingly, they were pretty much disbanded and forgotten about after the Civil War, and the concept had to be re-invented by the British and Germans during the early days of WW1. \n\nBerdan's standards were fairly high for the day; candidates had to know how to shoot, place 10 shots onto a 24\" disc at 200 yards with iron sights, which was no mean feat back then. These guys were used as scouts, to harrass Confederate supply trains and advance guards, and in general just anywhere a few really good riflemen were needed. \n\nGoing back even further, the 60th and 95th Rifle Regiments of the British Army were used to great effect during the Napoleonic wars. Intead of a standard-issue Land-pattern musket, they were armed largely with the Baker Rifle, a shorter and more accurate weapon, much slower to load. These guys were used mainly as skirmishers and picked shots; trained to use cover, work in small teams, and choose targets largely of their own initiative. There were also times they'd be used as a static defense force or in-line with the rest of the army, but were just better shots than everyone else. Most definitely considered an elite unit at the time. \n\nProbably the most famous rank-and-filer of the Rifle regiments was [Tom Plunket](_URL_1_), who managed to kill a French general at 600 yards firing his rifle**on his back, braced with his sling and foot**. He then killed the aide that ran up to the general, proving to his fellow soldiers that it wasn't a freak shot. \n\nThe 95th weren't the first true snipers, per se, but they were one of the first units trained in specialized tactics and marksmanship, and then issued a weapon to capitalize on it. The French had experimented with rifles off and on, and Napoleon thought them slow and wasteful. French skirmishers and light infantry (*voltiguers*) were issued the standard duty musket of the day. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1st_United_States_Sharpshooters",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Plunket"
]
] |
||
1998kc
|
How many movements or societies with communist-like ideals were there before the development of Communism proper?
|
I'm thinking of groups like the Ikko-Ikki or (arguably) the Yellow Turbans; i.e groups that advocate social equality, collective ownership and the like.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1998kc/how_many_movements_or_societies_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8lxtyp",
"c8lxyzm",
"c8lz93c"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
8
],
"text": [
"So, for one, early Christians practiced this. Check out the Acts 2:44-5:\n\n > 44 All who believed were together and had all things in common; 45 they would sell their possessions and goods and distribute the proceeds to all, as any had need. \n\nand Acts 4:32-7\n\n > 32 Now the whole group of those who believed were of one heart and soul, and no one claimed private ownership of any possessions, but everything they owned was held in common. 33 With great power the apostles gave their testimony to the resurrection of the Lord Jesus, and great grace was upon them all. 34 There was not a needy person among them, for as many as owned lands or houses sold them and brought the proceeds of what was sold. 35 They laid it at the apostles’ feet, and it was distributed to each as any had need. 36 There was a Levite, a native of Cyprus, Joseph, to whom the apostles gave the name Barnabas (which means “son of encouragement”). 37 He sold a field that belonged to him, then brought the money, and laid it at the apostles’ feet.\n\nThere have been various attempts to revive this in a variety of forms throughout history. The [mendicant orders](_URL_0_) of Catholic monks, for instance, had very strict limits on the private possessions they were allowed. The most famous, though, to takes Chapters 2, 4, and 5 of Acts very seriously were the Hutterites, an Anabaptist group founded in the 16th century who, to this day, continue to practice the \"Community of Goods\" (Gütergemeinschaft). They've had a fascinating history, moving from German-speaking Moravia, to Transylvania, to Russia, to Western Canada, Montana, and South Dakota ([map of the first half](_URL_1_)). If you're interested in learning about early Hutterite history, the best historical source on their adoption of the Community of Good is James M. Stayer's *The German Peasants' War and Anabaptist Community of Goods* (particularly chapter 7). There are several other more contemporary books as well covering the Hutterites in North America.\n\nFunny note about the Hutterites: they don't use birth control, but are apparently that doesn't slow them down much, to the point that demographers use them (above all other birth-control eschewing groups) as the closest we can get to estimating maximum human fertility.",
"_URL_1_\n\nThe problem of \"commons\" as such really began with the Enclosures in the 16th century, now this might not seem openly communistic but communist philosophy (Marx uses it in relation to capital as a mediating form) is truley concerned with what space we view as being outside of mediation, ultimately the privatisation of previously common land. The Diggers and Leveller's are great examples of movement ultimately repressed for reacting to the social turmoil at the time by emphasising a return to the commons. On a side note i live not far from where on of these areas is and its now mostly private country clubs and private schools \n\nIts often been argued that despite Engels writing alot of his work about the poor in Manchester and Marx writing during his time in London a strong (often Christian) socialist movement emerged throughout the 19th century ultimately ending up with Keir Hardie being elected as MP for the newly formed Labour Party (far from communist now). The TV presenter Andrew Marr once remarked that Marx and Engels were trumped by the book _URL_0_ and in a round about way this separate socialist legacy has often been pointed to as to why Marxism never took off to the same extent as it did on the continent.\n\n\nThere are quite a few generalisations here, but they are done in the interest of not going to far into political theory which isn't appropriate for the subreddit.",
"There were several utopian socialist movements that were popular in early 19th-century Europe. I'd like to point out two of them in particular.\n\nThe first is the \"Owenite\" movement started by the Welsh industrialist [Robert Owen](_URL_0_). Owen sought to create planned communities to better the lives of his textile workers. In his factory in New Lanark, Scotland, he established shorter working hours for employees, subsidized housing, and provided free education for children. Owen's [_An Explanation of the Cause of the Distress Wich Pervades the Civilized Parts of the World and of the Means Whereby it May be Removed_](_URL_9_) (1823) outlines his philosophy, which is a means to react to the perceived negative effects that industrialization had on individuals' lives. Owen and some of his followers also established an Owenite community in [New Harmony, Indiana](_URL_2_), the buildings of which have been preserved and you can still visit them today.\n\nThe second, and certainly the more interesting of the two, is [Charles Fourier](_URL_1_). Unlike Owen, Fourier rejected the industrial revolution altogether, opting instead to create a planned community focusing on mutual concern and cooperation between members. The plan for Fourier's community was called a \"Phalanx,\" based around grand structures he called [_Phalanstères_](_URL_8_) (phalansteries) suited for living, work, and play. There was no commerce in the phalanstery; all jobs were assigned based on 810 personality types which were determined by 12 different passions (thus the ideal number for a Phalanx was 1620 people, one male and one female for each type). Poverty, Fourier believed, was the source of all evil in society, and the Phalanx would eliminate poverty by ensuring that everyone had a basic standard of living. Fourier envisioned the future of the world as covered with millions of phalansteries.\n\nThis is only a very brief summary of Fourier's beliefs, but he goes into much more detail about the rules and requirements for the phalansteries in his writings. Many admirers of Fourier attempted to establish Phalanxes in the United States (the most famous of which was [Utopia, Ohio](_URL_5_)), but none of them succeeded. Admirers of his thinking included [Victor Considérant](_URL_3_), Walter Benjamin, Karl Marx, and Fyodor Dostoevsky.\n\nBoth [Owen's writings](_URL_6_) and [Fourier's writings](_URL_7_) are available for free via _URL_4_."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mendicant_orders",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Hutterite_migrations_in_Europe.png"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poverty,_A_Study_of_Town_Life",
"http://libcom.org/history/1642-1652-diggers-levellers"
],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=dSQ6AAAAcAAJ&printsec=frontcover&dq=robert+owen&hl=en&sa=X&ei=cNAsUbrgEIiZyAGPtIDwAw&ved=0CE8Q6AEwBQ",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=NVz06QDfWaIC&printsec=frontcover&dq=charles+fourier+beecher&hl=en&sa=X&ei=OtEsUYO1FubP2QWg7YAw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA",
"http://maxkade.iupui.edu/newharmony/home.html",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=8uazQpU-RrcC&printsec=frontcover&dq=considerant+french+socialism&hl=en&sa=X&ei=69MsUf-qNsqU2AX9joH4Bw&ved=0CDAQ6AEwAA",
"Marxists.org",
"http://www.roadsideamerica.com/story/11893",
"http://marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/owen/index.htm",
"http://marxists.org/reference/archive/fourier/index.htm",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/6d/Phalanst%C3%A8re.jpg",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=MP_9SAAACAAJ&dq=An+Explanation+of+the+Cause+of+Distress&hl=en&sa=X&ei=ec8sUdyIHYWFyQG95oHQCQ&ved=0CC0Q6AEwAA"
]
] |
|
3od2pw
|
how do we get full colour corrected photos or videos from black and white footage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3od2pw/eli5_how_do_we_get_full_colour_corrected_photos/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvw3kjn",
"cvw9dfg"
],
"score": [
12,
4
],
"text": [
"More or less the same way we get full color pictures from a coloring book. There are *some* context cues, and you can make some educated guesses from the shades, but for the most part it's just guesswork.",
"Reddit has a sub that can show you how it's done. Check it out [here.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/Colorization/"
]
] |
||
2aw1yk
|
What is it about friction that creates photons?
|
For example, how do electrons in a filament or two hands rubbing together spontaneously generate photons? Also, what dictates in which direction these photons are radiated?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2aw1yk/what_is_it_about_friction_that_creates_photons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cizcj01"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Photons are created when electrons drop from a higher state of energy to a lower state. When you create friction, you make heat and energy. This causes electrons to get excited and go to a higher energy level. They'll then drop back down and release a photon. This all happens in an instant.\n\nPhotons radiated in all directions, it's random. Flashlights use mirrors to redirect the light. Lasers use a more complex method to get photons to travel the same direction. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4dsaau
|
What most likely happened to the body of Jesus (Resurrection excluded)
|
I've always wanted to know what the historical concensus and ideas that relate to what happened to the body of Jesus after he died. I've done some studying myself and have come across several ideas:
1: It was buried in the nearby tomb, but the next night was moved to a common grave reserved for criminals (probably the valley of Hinnom)
2: It was stolen by graverobbers looking for parts useful in necromancy.
3: It wasn't buried but rather was fed to dogs and scavenging animals.
So what is the historical concensus regarding what happened to his body with a resurrection not as an option (if it even is an option in historical study)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4dsaau/what_most_likely_happened_to_the_body_of_jesus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1u0a1z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is very little evidence for what happened to people after they had been crucified. However, we do have archaeological evidence of a crucified person's remains being placed in a burial cave, presumably by people who cared for him. If you were not being left to rot as a warning to others (which happened during the third Servile War), you were likely to be buried in an unmarked mass grave, an unmarked single grave or, as with the remains of 'Yochanan', who's bones were uncovered in a cave, buried in a tomb outside the city walls.\n\nThis doesn't actually answer the question about what happened to Jesus' body, although it does make the 3rd option unlikely, especially as there is little to no reason to doubt that he was buried in a burial cave/tomb of some sort, although it would not necessarily be one *only* holding him. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fg18jq
|
how are wooden baseball bats so durable?
|
In the MLB there are 250lb+ men who hit the ball with exit velocities over 100mph and yet the bat doesn't shatter into pieces. I know sometimes the bats do crack, but most of the time they are fine. How?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fg18jq/eli5_how_are_wooden_baseball_bats_so_durable/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fk1spdv",
"fk1ur8w",
"fk3bgws"
],
"score": [
176,
39,
2
],
"text": [
"Hitting the ball with the grain of the wood the correct way. Like how a stack of papers won't bend along the edge, but will bend easily across the sheet.",
"According to this source, a pro baseball player goes through 120 bats per season on average.\n\nThere's only 162 games in a season, so the average bat doesn't last more than two games. That might be due more to optimal performance than durability, but in either case we can conclude that a bat becomes structurally imperfect very quickly in a pro setting.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Also they DO break... more than you might think. In the 2008 season MLB had about 2000 baseball bat breaks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.sluggermuseum.com/about-us/faqs"
],
[]
] |
|
51brcy
|
how does the cassette tape aux cord work?
|
I recently bought a car with a cassette deck, and one of those cassette tapes with an aux cord. I have no clue how it plays my music from my phone.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51brcy/eli5_how_does_the_cassette_tape_aux_cord_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7aqf2e",
"d7aqfwc",
"d7aql0l"
],
"score": [
2,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"A cassette tape has magnetic tape which is where the sound gets recorded. It's read by a magnetic tape head as the tape passes over it (think of the head like the needle of a record player except it's not pointy).\n\nThe cassette with the aux cord doesn't have tape, it has its own head that can mimic the action of the magnetic tape so that the head in a cassette player can \"hear\" what is being pushed onto that tape head.",
"A cassette player is designed to accept cassette tapes, which have a long strip of material containing the information for the songs or other audio on the tape encoded magnetically.\n\nBasically, like magnetic versions of record grooves.\n\nInside the player is a \"read head\" which is a small sensor that reads the magnetic information from the tape as it is moved over the read head. The tape has small gears in it that the tape player drives to move the tape past the read head at a specific speed.\n\nThe read head is like a magnetic version of a record needle; it receives the audio information from the tape and then magnifies that signal through a series of amplifiers, eventually reaching your speakers.\n\nThe adapter you mention, which looks like a cassette tape but has a cord that sticks out to connect to a more modern audio player, has some electronics inside that takes the signal from your audio player and sends it to a small emitter right where the read head is- essentially pretending to be the tape playing across the read head.\n\nThe read head gets the same audio information that it would from a real tape and the player just plays the audio as normal from that point.\n\n",
"Audio cassettes worked by using the magnetic properties of the tape to store a magnetic representation of the audio wave. This magnetic field would then make the playback head of the tape react to recreate the sound as an electrical wave they your speakers can then reproduce as an audio wave. \n\nThe adaptor basically takes the audio output of your phone (an electrical wave) and turns it into a magnetic field similar to what was on a tape that the playback head in your car cassette player can use to then feed music to your speakers. \n\nIt is basically making your cassette player think there is a cassette tape in there. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8jv8hi
|
Was the United States involved in the Malayan emergency? If not, why?
|
I was looking for information on that topic and I can't find any mentions of US involvement. What is the reason of that? It appears to have been quite a significant anti-communist conflict that happened during the Cold War era. Moreover, the insurgents were supported by China and the Soviet Union. Britain helped the US in Korea and Vietnam but the US didn't help Britain in Malaya?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8jv8hi/was_the_united_states_involved_in_the_malayan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz4b01o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Malayan 'Emergency' flared up in the context of British decolonisation. \n\nDuring World War II, the British had secured the co-operation of ethnic Chinese communists who established a resistance in Malaya. Following the war, this group was not prepared to seize power as the British reasserted authority, though at first the British Labour government was sympathetic to the communists. They became very active in Malay politics and unions, and as communists called for the end of the sultans, the Malayan rulers who had operated largely as puppets of the British, then the Japanese. Although seeing them as collaborators and more sympathetic to the communists initially, the native Malays saw the sultans as their protectors against the large and powerful Chinese minority.\n\nIt was Malayan agitation and the souring of relations between Stalin and the West that saw the British bring their support behind Malayan demands for a Malay Federation, essentially a return to the pre-war stituation. This was of course anathema to the communists, as it propped up both the semi-monarchical sultans and the colonial overlords.\n\nThus, having fought with the British, Malayan Chinese lost citizenship rights.\n\nAfter a pan-Asian conference, the insurgency began with the communists using their limited military capacity to strike from the jungle and kill planters and other people who supported the colonial situation.\n\nBy 1951 the British Labour government had fallen and Winston Churchill appointed a competent military man, Gerald Templer, to deal with the insurgency. The lax attitude in Malaya was part of the reason the Japanese captured it so easily, and Templer set about pulling this apart.\n\nThis was around the time the Cold War came out into the open, with socialist anti colonial elements seemingly everywhere: the US could not deal with them all even had she wanted to. It was a time when the US tended to listen to the wisdom of its allies, as well.\n\nA key point was the communist insurgency was weak relative to that in, say, Vietnam. The guerrillas were not usually peasants who farmed by day and fought at night, they were semi-professional fighters, recruited for the task. The British found them relatively easy to turn or bribe. There were never a great number of them, and the British equivalent of the 'strategic hamlet' program worked better.\n\nThe British understood the insurgency had to be defeated politically as much as militarily, and playing down the conflict was a part of this strategy. Of course, an even more important reason was the insurance policies of British companies in Malaya often had clauses suspending the policy in the event of war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
12kht9
|
US elections seem to be billed as "the most important election ever". Which do you think was the ACTUAL most important election?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12kht9/us_elections_seem_to_be_billed_as_the_most/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6vu794",
"c6vuej7",
"c6vuspi",
"c6vw2md",
"c6vx9n4",
"c6vysd2"
],
"score": [
100,
16,
50,
6,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"I think it would be difficult to argue with the election of 1860, the split in the Democrat party denied Douglas a unified ballot ensuring Lincoln won, leading to the Civil War. Runners up would go to the election of 1852 (leading to the breakup of the Whig party) and the election of 1828(rise of Jackson, defeat of American system) although I think certain Whig historians are overly optimistic when it comes to describing the what if Jackson lost scenarios. ",
"My first thought was Irishfafnir's conclusion, but as I reflected on my likely bias and thought about it more, I started thinking... there _is_ no 'most important election.' \n\nThis is of course a non-answer: there are many sensible metrics by which the 'importance' of a presidency can be measured. Turning points like the Civil War; the longevity of the policy established during it (New Deal). Heck if we measure by \"lives affected\" it's naively true that every presidential election is the 'most important' as the population grows:P\n\nBut there's something philosophical about how the election _process_ treats each election equally. The people cast their votes, the states cast their ballots... and the power is transferred or maintained. \n\nThat process has endured more or less unchanged for two centuries now, giving no man or woman special treatment nor any party special favoritism. \n\nElections come and go. The election process stays the same. \n\n---\n\nBut what makes the election of 1860 _interesting_ to me is the question \"Could anyone else have done Lincoln's job?\" The Republican nomination of Lincoln was in many ways a surprise. I try to stay from whatifs, but... what if he hadn't been nominated?\n\nAs much as I think Mitt Romney is a corporate shill (sorry last /r/politics intrusion I swear) I'm not too worried either way; the Presidency generally survives bad presidents because of the sheer inertia of the country; the system, the precedent of presidential behavior. But there's times when the country can't afford a bad president. _Those_ are the important elections. \n\nAnd that's probably the sentiment that leads people to magnify the importance of the current: \"it's happening _right now_, these problems _right now_ can't afford a bad president.\" Present blindness. ",
"Are we limiting this to the United States or anywhere? Anywhere i would say the election of Gaius Julius Caesar to priest of Jupiter (which in turn would get the ball rolling to his rise to power). This would have a lasting impact on the majority of the Western, and the whole world to some extent.\n\nIf U.S only, id go with Irishfafnir's position",
"Since I'm not a historian, I'll pose this as a question – how important was the peaceful transfer of power following the election of 1800? In school, I was taught that this was a turning point in not just American history, but in the history of the world? Is this hyperbole, or at least close to the truth?",
"Though I would not say it was the _most_ important, one very high-stakes election that has not been mentioned was in 1968. Johnson's refusal to run again, followed by the death of Robert Kennedy, left the Democrats in disarray. The party failed to adopt an anti-war policy even as protesters were savagely beaten outside the convention. The ascension of Richard Nixon was the downfall of the New Deal Democrats who had dominated the United States since the 1930s. And Nixon's presidency, as we know, had extraordinary consequences for how people feel about government even to this day. In addition, though little like a modern Republican, Nixon's electoral map looks fairly modern.\n\nArguably the Democrats didn't really recover from losing this election until the advent of Bill Clinton, and the progressive wing of the party _still_ hasn't.",
"I realise that the question is somewhat ambiguously stated, but the US-focus/bias is pretty heavy with some posters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5kr00l
|
what makes a human a human?
|
Or for that matter what makes any species a member of that species is it the number of chromosomes or certain characteristics. For example is a down syndrome person not a human because they have more chromosomes..
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kr00l/eli5_what_makes_a_human_a_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbpwv8q",
"dbpx2ml"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I was always under the impression it was to do with genome composition, but i may be mistaken",
"The truth is, species is a fuzzy inexact concept. It does not have a straightforward description. You'll hear someone say, likely in this very post, \"It depends on if the animals can reproduce together,\" for instance, which is wrong. It's a decent rule of thumb, but it does not define a species. It doesn't work for cases like an entire kingdom that is asexual. It is confusing for cases like ring species, or cases where we call animals that can't reproduce the same species, or cases where we call animals that can reproduce different species.\n\nUltimately, a lot of what makes a species a species, is that when we looked at them, here, after the fact, thousands, millions of years after these animals have diverged from one another, we said 'well these seem pretty similar.'\n\nNow as we go back in with more precise methods, looking at DNA, tracing evolutionary lineages, we're saying \"hey, that guess worked pretty good here\" in some places, and \"wow these aren't really the same thing at all\" in others. Making kind of a steamy pile. So, a human is a human if he/she was born from other humans, and they all seem pretty reasonably humanlike overall to us. So yes, a down syndrome person would be a human."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
26sx4n
|
If you were to travel through the debris of a supernova in a space ship, would it look anything like it does when seen from earth?
|
Could you see the big picture, or would everything be too far away from your vantage point? Kind of like how in the asteroid belt, all the asteroids are actually quite far apart.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26sx4n/if_you_were_to_travel_through_the_debris_of_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chu710c",
"chu96dr"
],
"score": [
8,
5
],
"text": [
"Probably not. If you go through a cloud (in the atmosphere), you'll notice moisture, but you don't really see the cloud as one sees it when standing on the ground.\n\nThe colored gas (what we see) in such nice pictures is actually not very dense. Even the outer layers of a star aren't even that dense. When going through it, however, there's a lot of energy (radiation). It will not at all resemble what we see on earth.\n\nThe solar system is probably located in a supernova nebula. We can't really see it, but we \"live\" in the remnants of a star. ",
"It's also worth mentioning that many space images are from telescopes that are actually imaging in the radio, microwave or infra-red (or UV and x-ray). Which is to say, spectrums of light outside the visible. These images are then usually \"false colored\" to create the beautiful rainbows of colors that they throw on the cover of national geographic. Thus, if you were actually to see it with the naked eye you would NOT see anything, color-wise, like what you've probably seen in magazines.\n\nThat being said, many images from things like Hubble ARE taken in the visible range, it simply depends."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
55joi1
|
how would wells fargo benefit by having a bunch of ghost accounts with no money in them?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/55joi1/eli5_how_would_wells_fargo_benefit_by_having_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8b4enk",
"d8b4iqo",
"d8ba0qb",
"d8bx2ud"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"It didn't. Individual branches and employees did. \n\nIt was a bad metric, the bank decided that it would set targets for new accounts and the like and incentivised hitting the targets. Thing is, the people who are hitting the targets are doing it *just* to hit targets. The poor sod sitting there at the window with corporate breathing down their neck doesn't care if the account will make money, only that it helps reach the target and keep their boss from hounding them. \n\nShitty metrics do this all over the place. For a clear example, look at programming. If you say \"you must write at least 300 lines of code a day\" you're going to get everyone intentionally stretching they code over more lines, you're going to be punishing people who are clearing up old code and making it shorter. You've not improved the productivity of your workforce, they're just trying to meet your arbitrary targets.",
"Staff got bonuses. Wells Fargo itself gained by claiming increased market share. (i.e. if there are 500 million accounts in the US, Wells Fargo can claim to have lets say 100million of them. Pump that up to 200million.....claim to own 2/5 of the market, your share price ROCKETS, and the board of directors + CEO get nice healthy bonuses).\n\nPlus the accounts they created have SMALL fees attached, maybe 10-20 dollars a year. But add that up over 100 million accounts.....even if 90% of the people complain and get the fee back, you're still raking in an extra 200 million dollars a year.\n",
"The problem is that these senior level executives owned WF stock and encouraged investors to buy WF stock based on fraudulent numbers which they knew to be false (the number of additional accounts opened by each existing customer, also known as cross-sales). \n\nSo, the simple story is pretty much this: \n\nStumpf, the CEO, mandated a sales strategy of 8 products per customer, which was arbitrary and unrealistic. Stumpf then became aware that fraud was occurring in meeting this sales mandate, but didn't fix it. WF continued to lead the banking industry in cross-sales (roughly 6 accounts per customer to the industry average of 3). Stumpf used this fact to sell stock to investors. When investors purchased more WF stock, the stock price went up. Stumpf owned WF stock. The bump in the stock price increased the value of Stumpf's stock by $200 M dollars. So, basically, he made $200 M by screwing consumers over and then lying to investors. And politicians, like Warren, are pissed that he thinks he can save face by firing 5,300 employees and returning to business as usual. Instead of being held accountable, he's still CEO and chairman of the board and, until recently, was eligible for a performance bonus. \n",
"There is a marketing strategy that says 80% of your income comes from 20% of your customers. Its called the [Parento Principle](_URL_0_) or the 80-20 Rule, the law of the vital few, and the principle of factor sparsity. And it has become a hot investor issue related to the rationale for cross-selling, data mining, web site cookies, and why venues are now raising fees to limit the audience they serve to a more efficient, smaller, and repeat business clientele. \n\nSo considering the quotas to keep your job, the incentives to place your own self-interest ahead of your customer, and the banking industry corporate culture, misinformation and fraud that lead to the 2008 financial collapse that was never prosecuted, it is not hard to see how this got so out of hand and why NOT fixing the problem was so profitable. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pareto_principle"
]
] |
|
ci8ujt
|
how do baby animals developing in eggs eat/drink with nothing to eat/drink?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ci8ujt/eli5_how_do_baby_animals_developing_in_eggs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ev2hedm",
"ev2ijl9"
],
"score": [
3,
9
],
"text": [
"The yolk is their nutrition.",
"In eggs the baby uses the yolk for nutrients. In placental animals the mother provides nutrition through the umbilical cord."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
xus4m
|
The Library Of Alexandria
|
I have recently read a book called The Alexandria Link By Steve Berry its a good book and worth a read but anyway i was just wondering how much of the stuff said in the book was fact and what was a load of lies?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xus4m/the_library_of_alexandria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5prkiq",
"c5tm6kz"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"Mind telling us what the book said? It's possible that someone in this subreddit is an expert on the Library AND has read that book, but for those who know about the Library and don't know the book, this is an impossible question to answer.",
"Steve Berry always explains what was fiction and what was fact at the end of all his novels....was there something in particular you were wondering about?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bacj07
|
How do we know the physical features of long-extinct invertebrates?
|
I have heard of giant squid and octopus species that are now extinct but I don't understand how we could even know what they were, or what kind of physical features they had if the only bone in their body is/was a beak. Is it just a guess based on the size and shape of a beak alone?? Was there somehow more than just a beak that was visible in fossils??
Thanks in advance for any answers.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bacj07/how_do_we_know_the_physical_features_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekchfho"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are some fossil sites which preserve soft tissues, typically via very fine grained sediments like mud or silt which rapidly buried the organism(s) in a low oxygen environment. \n\nAs you can imagine though, preservation of soft tissue is a lot rarer than of shells and other hard parts. So the fossil record of the molluscs without much in the way of hard parts can be quite patchy. There are definitely large gaps in the fossil record for squid and octopus ancestors, and there are things like the subset of gastropods which don’t have shells (often called sea slugs) which don’t really have a fossil record at all. \n\nThe older fossil sites which have whole ecosystems with soft tissues preserved hint at oceans which were rich in life that we don’t really have any other windows into. Most famously this is exemplified in the Cambrian fauna of the [Burgess Shale](_URL_1_) though there are two other really important Cambrian fossil sites in China too, one of them having only just been published about this year. The Cambrian fauna shown at the Burgess Shale was originally thought to be exclusive to that locality, a sort of strange experiment of evolution that was a dead end, but the other localities suggest many of the animals were widespread enough that they were probably everywhere, we just don’t normally find them. \n\n[This article](_URL_0_) claims to be about the best fossil octopus ever found. It describes how we can start to overcome some of the challenges in describing their anatomy with 3D scanning technology. The article mentions that particular fossil was imaged in 3D using a synchrotron, which is a sort of particle accelerator - the facilities for these machines are about the size of a whole housing estate (I guess that octopus fossil really was rare enough to get the special treatment). There are other lower resolution methods for 3D imagining, namely CT scanning which is the same principle as medical CT scans, just a whole bunch of x-rays taken as consecutive slices through the target and then stitched together. Those machines can actually fit in a normal lab. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/see-the-best-fossil-octopus-ever-found/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgess_Shale"
]
] |
|
8n925g
|
what framework allows some countries to demand that other countries denuclearize?
|
I searched for this but didn’t come up with anything. What framework or international law or treaty or whatever allows some countries to demand that other countries dismantle their nuclear arsenals? How does it get decided who gets to have them and who doesn’t?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8n925g/eli5_what_framework_allows_some_countries_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dztnwxm",
"dzto03x",
"dztod1o",
"dztok9s"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The primary 'official' framework I believe would be the [NPT](_URL_0_). However, that being said, I think a significant aspect here is a de facto 'might makes right' presence put forward by powerful nations. ",
"The nuclear non-proliferation treaty that basically everyone but India, Pakistan, and Israel signed. \n\nThe original 5 nuclear powers (US, UK, Russia, China, and France) agree to help other countries develop civil nuclear programs (i.e. nuclear power plants) in exchange for them vowing not to develop a nuclear weapon. Both North Korea and Iran are party to this agreement.",
"Most nations of the world has signed the Nuclear Non\\-Proliferation Treaty \\(NPT\\) that bans nations from developing nuclear weapons \\(unless they already possessed nuclear weapons at the time of the treaty\\). It also gives signatory states the right to pursue civilian nuclear energy programs. Iran is a member of the NPT, while North Korea is not. Even though North Korea technically has a legal right to develop nuclear arms, most of the world thinks this would be really dangerous, so there's been a bunch of UN security council resolutions \\(the only legally binding UN resolutions\\) authorizing sanctions against North Korea. \n\nIt's ultimately a question of power who gets to keep their nukes, a tiny state like North Korea is unlikely to survive the outside response to going nuclear, while you couldn't force China to give up its nukes. It is widely recognized that the more nations have nukes, the more likely a nuclear war will become \\(with the potential of escalating to a global nuclear war with dire consequences\\) so nations generally accept that the nuclear powers get to keep theirs in exchange for stopping the spread of nuclear arms. ",
"Countries are \"allowed\" to do whatever they want. So if my country wants to demand the US dismantle it's nukes they can just do it, they're \"allowed to\" to do it because they can do whatever they want without asking for permission first. Like all countries can.\n\nThe actual question is, why would you listen to my demands? Why not just go \"lol, no\".\n\nThe only reason you'd listen to me is if I threaten to do something that you wouldn't like. For example, if I say \"I'm going to convince everyone to stop trading with you if you don't do what I want\" then that is a big deal, and could convince you to do what I demand. Or if I say \"I've rolled a tank into your palace and I'm pointing it at you\", you might agree to do what I want.\n\nThat's all there is, people will cite the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty, but all that is, is a document where a bunch of countries agree to behave a certain way. But nothing forces them to do that. It's just if we all agree \"this is how it is, and if someone breaks this, this is the punishment\" and you then break it, it's a lot easier for me to convince other countries to go through with the punishment, because we all agreed on it ahead of time. But maybe they don't agree, and then I have to decide what I do next, maybe it's the tanks?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2p9cet
|
why does emotional pain, feel like physical pain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2p9cet/eli5_why_does_emotional_pain_feel_like_physical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmuid0m"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The same section of our brain processes both kinds, so it's probably just getting wires crossed and thinking they're the same. \nAlternately, it's because emotional pain actually creates a physical reaction from all the stress, and it's the equivalent of your eyes hurting after you cry. \n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/what-causes-chest-pains/"
]
] |
||
dhw7fb
|
Medieval Armor Books
|
Any suggestions for books that thoroughly talk about medieval armor during the middle ages?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/dhw7fb/medieval_armor_books/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3zq8vq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"This is a good question! We have some recommendations in the booklist. I'll just copy them here and expand on them a bit plus add a few.\n\n* Blair, Claude [*European armour, circa 1066 to circa 1700*](_URL_3_) London: Batsford, 1958. The best overview of European armour from 1066-1700, with a particular emphasis on the development of plate armour. It is primarily a descriptive history of armour's form. Though it is 60 years old, it's still the standard general history on the topic, and hasn't been surpassed. This book should be available via interlibrary loan from a public library or academic library or on the shelves in many academic libraries.\n\n* Williams, Alan [*The knight and the blast furnace : a history of the metallurgy of armour in the Middle Ages & the early modern period*](_URL_0_) Leiden ; Boston : Brill, 2003. A detailed metallurgical analysis of hundreds of surviving pieces of plate armour. It also includes historical sketches of the armour industry in different cities, accounts of medieval and early modern steelmaking and a final chapter evaluating the effectiveness of armour. This is hard to get ahold of - my copy was $350 and one of the best purchases I ever made. For getting a loaned copy you'll need academic library access or to go in person to some place like the US Library of Congress.\n\n* Pfaffenbichler, Matthias - [Armourers](_URL_4_) - this is a great one-volume overview of the armour industry. Not much about the armour itself, but a lot about the people who made it.\n\n* Edge and Paddock, [Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight](_URL_2_) - not as thorough as Blair, but easier to get ahold of and with more pictures, this is another decent intro to armour. It's organized in a way that's a bit maddening for reference, but there's a lot of information here.\n\n* LaRocca, Donald [How to Read European Armour](_URL_1_) - this is a different sort of introduction, that gives you an introduction to armour as an object and gives you a guide to looking at it critically in settings like Museums. Includes a lot of great information about what armour -is-, though it isn't really a history of armour per se."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://amzn.to/2ihTZhd",
"https://amzn.to/2IWpGLj",
"https://amzn.to/31jS0gX",
"http://amzn.to/2zRQ7uz",
"https://amzn.to/2VOMCl1"
]
] |
|
23q6sf
|
the difference between the major us tv networks?
|
As an Australian I know very little of the major networks, aside from that Fox is a cesspool for republican agenda. Can someone give me a rundown of each? That would be rad.
Many thanks in advance.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23q6sf/eli5_the_difference_between_the_major_us_tv/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzhqwy",
"cgzj02y"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Wait, are you asking about the major TV networks or the major news networks? Fox the TV station has very little to do with Fox the news network.",
"There are five major over-the-air commercial broadcast networks: ABC, CBS, The CW, Fox, and NBC. Their programming airs on local stations that are affiliated with (but not usually owned by) one of the five networks. National \"prime time\" programming, news, sports, and some daytime shows are provided by the national networks, and the local stations air syndicated shows and produce local newscasts. Three of the networks--ABC, CBS, and NBC--have existed since the early days of television, and have traditionally been known as the \"Big Three.\" Fox was founded in the 1980s as a low-budget network offering only a few hours of programming per week, but today it's mostly the same as the old Big Three in terms of prestige and popularity. The CW is the product of a 2006 merger between The WB and UPN, two small networks founded in the 1990s. Its programming is primarily low-budget and aimed at younger viewers compared to the other networks.\n\nYou mention Fox as a \"cesspool for the Republican agenda.\" What you're thinking of is the Fox News Channel, a cable channel that's separate from the Fox broadcast network. Most Fox broadcast stations air local newscasts, and there's also one talk show on the broadcast network known as Fox News Sunday. Otherwise, the broadcast network will occasionally simulcast the Fox News Channel during coverage of major events."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2r1uyb
|
How did Second World War bomber pilots relieve themselves while on missions?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2r1uyb/how_did_second_world_war_bomber_pilots_relieve/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnc52uz"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The Lancaster bombers had a small chemical toilet, so if they had time during the mission they could go use that. Part of the problem, however, was that they would be in thick clothing (multiple layers) to keep from being cold so it would have taken some time to \"prepare - especially under enemy fire. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
duwspf
|
why must natural gas appliances like water heaters and furnaces be vented outside, but it's safe to use a gas oven inside?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/duwspf/eli5_why_must_natural_gas_appliances_like_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f78syl9",
"f78uxt8",
"f78wnyc"
],
"score": [
3,
14,
3
],
"text": [
"It's only a question of quantity. The exhaust products of burning natural gas aren't dangerous in low concentration.",
"Very different use cases.\n\nAn oven is used in a (typically) better ventilated space (the kitchen) when the user is present for very short periods of time (cooking). This makes it very unlikely that dangerous gas concentrations could build up.\n\nFurnaces and water heaters, in contrast, are used in poorly ventilated spaces (basements, utility closets) when the user is not present (they run as needed automatically) for longer periods of time (they run for as long as required to heat). This makes it much more likely that dangerous gas concentrations can build up, hence the need to have automatic ventilation.",
"Where I am there is also a code requirement for a hood fan that vents outside for all gas ovens."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
aqo3zv
|
taxing the rich alternatives
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aqo3zv/eli5_taxing_the_rich_alternatives/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eghcjlt"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Couldn’t the rich just tax themselves or do things that act like being taxed?\n\nMany rich people give to charity, or start their own charities; this is similar to \"being taxed\" in that they are giving away their money.\n\nHowever, in a democracy taxes are meant to be spent according to the will and needs of the people, as decided by the politicians elected to represent those people. This is different from charitable giving, where the person doing the giving decides where the money will go; having a single person decide where the money will go is more akin to a (benign) dictatorship than a democracy.\n\nWhat's more, humans are pretty selfish creatures. While there are well-publicized exceptions to the rule like Warren Buffet or Bill Gates, most wealthy people are very possessive of their wealth, and even go to lengths like tax havens to *avoid* having their money go towards helping others. Relying on the wealthy to voluntarily give up money to help their fellow citizens is a dead-end street."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5ij1uo
|
What is the lowest and highest pressure with life?
|
What is the lowest and highest pressure with life?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5ij1uo/what_is_the_lowest_and_highest_pressure_with_life/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db8yip1"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"The highest pressure where we **know** there is life is the bottom of the Marianas Trench. It's approximately 11,000m deep and has a pressure of about 1000bar (15750psi)\n\nTardigrades in their dehydrated form have been revived after exposure to vacuum.\n\nA bee hive was found on Mt Everest at 18,000 feet. Himalayan Jumping Spiders live up to about 20,000 feet. Bar-headed geese can fly to 23,000 feet.\n\nThat's about as high as you can go. Above that the cold and dryness make life largely untenable. So, the lowest pressure where anything actually lives is about 400mBar, but it's not just the lack of air that makes it impossible.\n\nSome living things have been found at higher altitudes - mainly diatoms and bacteria - but they've been blown there by the jet stream and don't actually live there."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4rqmzy
|
why do different cable companies have different channel numbers when all it does is confuse those who switch providers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4rqmzy/eli5_why_do_different_cable_companies_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d53bamy",
"d53cvyo",
"d53klcf",
"d53vo6n"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You say that like it is a bad thing, like companies should try to make it easier to switch to their competition.\n\nAlso, not all companies have the same mix of channels to offer. So what should they do, have weird gaps in numbering? 1,16,36,78? How do you think they should coordinate which channels match which numbers and enforce such standards upon each other?\n\nIt is their network and they can arrange the channels how they like.",
"I think there are some deals between the channels and the broadcaster to influence the order. The more you pay the higher you get.",
"How often do people switch providers?\n\nHow often do people keep the same provider for 20 years?\n\n25 years ago, when cable companies were rapidly expanding, nobody bothered making sure that all of the high-numbered cable stations had the same number. There's no point. As they expanded, they tried to keep their numbers the same so that existing customers wouldn't get confused.\n\nYou're looking at a system that's grown organically since the early 80s, not something that was developed from scratch and deployed across the country overnight.",
"Why does it matter?\n\nWhen I had cable, every time we got a new TV we \"programmed\" it. Every channel we saw got a nice low and somewhat logical number."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
kktfw
|
what is the big deal with all of the corn based food products?
|
Why are people freaking out about high fructose corn syrup, corn fed animals, etc? Are there actual health risks, or is this just another media driven overreaction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kktfw/eli5_what_is_the_big_deal_with_all_of_the_corn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2l271q",
"c2l27k1",
"c2l2kco",
"c2l34ig",
"c2l271q",
"c2l27k1",
"c2l2kco",
"c2l34ig"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Corn is a simple carbohydrate... a starch. It is easily converted into glucose and causes insulin spikes and contributes to weight gain since the human body isn't really designed to run on simple sugars. (It's designed to run on protein, complex carbohydrates and fat)",
"The documentary Food, Inc. does a pretty good job at taking a look at the corn industry. It has some bias, but, it's certainly a good place to start.",
"The energy you get from corn comes from the starch in the corn. When you eat corn or corn products, your body turns this starch into glucose. In high-fructose corn syrup, the glucose is already turned into fructose in the manufacturing process. \n\nBoth glucose and fructose are simple sugars that your body can use for energy. \n\nThe problem comes from eating too much of these simple sugars (the \"high-fructose\" part of high-fructose corn syrup should tell you something). Your body makes insulin to digest these sugars and if you're eating corn products, your body requires a lot of insulin to digest them. As your body is flooded with insulin, it becomes more resistant to it and you can eventually become so resistant to insulin that you develop Type-II Diabetes. \n\nBut that's not all. The simple sugars that corn products contain are also very high in energy. If you're not active enough to use all of this energy, then your body will store it as fat until you *do* decide to use it. The fat will build up as your body consumes more energy than it expends and there are many negative health outcomes that come along with that fat. \n\nAs for the corn-fed animals, I haven't heard very much about that and can't give you a good answer. I haven't heard many people get upset about animals like beef being corn-fed, though, as it is usually used to suggest that they're being fed something that resembles real food and not a protein slurry or something. \n\nAlso, I should be clear that there isn't a chemical or something specific to corn itself that's bad for you. Your body needs simple sugars like glucose to help your nervous system run. But it can produce glucose on its own from protein, complex sugars, and fat instead of getting them pre-refined from a soft drink. \n\nHere's a decent [link](_URL_0_) with more info. \n\n**TL;DR No, it's not a media-driven overreaction. There are real health problems that can develop from eating a lot of corn products. High-fructose corn syrup in particular.**",
"[Sugar: The Bitter Truth](_URL_0_)",
"Corn is a simple carbohydrate... a starch. It is easily converted into glucose and causes insulin spikes and contributes to weight gain since the human body isn't really designed to run on simple sugars. (It's designed to run on protein, complex carbohydrates and fat)",
"The documentary Food, Inc. does a pretty good job at taking a look at the corn industry. It has some bias, but, it's certainly a good place to start.",
"The energy you get from corn comes from the starch in the corn. When you eat corn or corn products, your body turns this starch into glucose. In high-fructose corn syrup, the glucose is already turned into fructose in the manufacturing process. \n\nBoth glucose and fructose are simple sugars that your body can use for energy. \n\nThe problem comes from eating too much of these simple sugars (the \"high-fructose\" part of high-fructose corn syrup should tell you something). Your body makes insulin to digest these sugars and if you're eating corn products, your body requires a lot of insulin to digest them. As your body is flooded with insulin, it becomes more resistant to it and you can eventually become so resistant to insulin that you develop Type-II Diabetes. \n\nBut that's not all. The simple sugars that corn products contain are also very high in energy. If you're not active enough to use all of this energy, then your body will store it as fat until you *do* decide to use it. The fat will build up as your body consumes more energy than it expends and there are many negative health outcomes that come along with that fat. \n\nAs for the corn-fed animals, I haven't heard very much about that and can't give you a good answer. I haven't heard many people get upset about animals like beef being corn-fed, though, as it is usually used to suggest that they're being fed something that resembles real food and not a protein slurry or something. \n\nAlso, I should be clear that there isn't a chemical or something specific to corn itself that's bad for you. Your body needs simple sugars like glucose to help your nervous system run. But it can produce glucose on its own from protein, complex sugars, and fat instead of getting them pre-refined from a soft drink. \n\nHere's a decent [link](_URL_0_) with more info. \n\n**TL;DR No, it's not a media-driven overreaction. There are real health problems that can develop from eating a lot of corn products. High-fructose corn syrup in particular.**",
"[Sugar: The Bitter Truth](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/high-fructose-corn-syrup/AN01588"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM"
]
] |
|
53f160
|
[Geology] What could abandoned landfills become after a few hundred million years?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/53f160/geology_what_could_abandoned_landfills_become/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7t8t3z"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Greetings /u/space_tripping,\n\nYour question, while relevant, has already been the object of previous discussion. You will doubtlessly find the answers you seek in the following thread:\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ie3qk/what_will_our_landfills_look_like_in_millions_of/"
]
] |
||
230pc7
|
how do networks like hbo & netflix prevent entire seasons from being leaked but record companies and movies studios can get leaked early?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/230pc7/eli5_how_do_networks_like_hbo_netflix_prevent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgs8no5",
"cgs9cni",
"cgsbzx5"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Because, unlike record and movie companies, HBO and Netflix have complete control over their distribution channels.\n\nRecord companies have to ship CDs to retailers. Movie studios have to send the movies to theaters. Both have to be done sufficiently in advance of the release date so that they are ready for customers.\n\nBut when the new episode of Game of Thrones came on at 9 Eastern yesterday? Sure, maybe you got it though Comcast, but they didn't get an early copy. At 8:59:59 HBO still had the episode locked up and under control.",
"In addition to /u/Teekno's explanation, some record albums are \"leaked\" on purpose by the artists. This happens when they record an album but the record company refuses to release it because they think it won't make enough money.",
"Movies rely on reviews to have big opening days, so they send out early copies to reviewers. Send out enough copies and someone's assistant will leak it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
8u6hie
|
If a mother in ancient Rome couldn't produce enough milk for her baby, what would she do?
|
I assume the answer for upper classes would be to hire a wet nurse. But what if no nurse were available? What did Roman bottle/formula technology look like?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8u6hie/if_a_mother_in_ancient_rome_couldnt_produce/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1ebg8u"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"To begin with, you are very right that upper class families would employ wet nurses, called a *nutrix*. From epigraphic evidence, we have an understanding that families employed not a single *nutrix,* but several. This helped ensure that not only the children of the head of household had proper nutrition, but so too the children of servants in the household. There seems to be an opinion among ancient authors that it would be a good thing for mothers to nurse their own children, but this opinion seems to be born of the fact that the opposite was the norm. Children in a wealthy household, regardless of what end of the social spectrum they were born into, appear to have been nursed though a communal effort of nurses.\n\nThere is, as far as I'm aware, no evidence of anything like formula in the Roman era. To the best of my knowledge it is a marvel of the modern world. That said, there IS documentation that premastication, chewing food for young infants, was common practice. This would be reserved for infants already weened off breast milk, and again, was likely done by *nutrices* / nurses.\n\nBreast feeding was certainly a concern for Romans, as is evidenced by the amount of male authors weighing in on the topic (see especially Plutarch). But this went hand in hand with the idea that high infant mortality rates were something to be accepted. In emergency situations, I am sad to say that there were no safety nets for child nutrition.\n\nEdit: sourced from \"Wet-nursing in Ancient Rome: a study in social relations\" by Kieth R. Bradley, in \"The Family in Ancient Rome\" Rawson, B. 1992"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1zr4vu
|
What gives boogers their gelatinous consistency?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1zr4vu/what_gives_boogers_their_gelatinous_consistency/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfw7zpd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly, it is the same proteins that make all the mucus in your nose and some of the mucus other places so stringy and stretchy. When they are very wet, the mucus stretches out into long strands or sheets, but as the amount of water goes down these proteins clump up more and more (and this tends to increase around any contaminant like a dust particle.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
gdy38
|
Why do we find concentrations of minerals in the ground instead of a more homogeneous mixture?
|
I'm trying to rectify my understanding of stellar element genesis with what I know about planetary formation theory. Here's what I (think I) know:
1. All the metals/elements heavier than iron on the periodic table had to have been formed in supernova type events. This has to do with the hydrostatic equilibrium of stars and the energy released by different fusion reactions.
2. Most theories of planet formation seem related the material that is left over after a star is initially formed clumping together into larger masses.
If this is true, then why do we find areas of Earth's crust which are relatively more abundant in different minerals (gold, silver, copper, aluminum, etc)? This this perceived increase in material only a small fluctuation typical of a random distribution of material?
This idea is also related to how we use radioactive dating to find the age of different strata. How do we know the concentrations of specific materials at different times in Earth's history?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gdy38/why_do_we_find_concentrations_of_minerals_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1mv1b4",
"c1mvbeq",
"c1mvcft",
"c1mvdu5"
],
"score": [
3,
12,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Because it requires less energy for some metals to form a crystal with the same type of atom (or with oxygen) then it does to be strewn randomly.",
"I'm a licensed Geologist/Hydrogeologist in the State of California.\n\nThere's a lot of detail that explains the answer to your question I don't have time to get into, but the short answer is \"It's been a long time\" for the minerals to form. \n\nI can't answer the 'what materials make up a planet' part of the question, but let's start with the assumption that the stuff that made up the planet at least had a similar amount and type of atoms that are present on earth today. The planet is over 4.5 BILLION years old. That's enough time for oceanic plates to be created and subducted several times over. That's enough time for multiple mountain ranges to form and then be eroded down back into the ocean. The earth is constantly infused with energy from the sun, and generates energy internally. \n\nThese two energy sources have acted upon the material of the earth to melt it , chemically alter it, and sort it. This constant change has allowed localized sorting of matter to occur. Most mineral deposits, (like, say sulfide deposits usually mined for copper or iron) are preferential molecular bonding of materials from a melt in a magma chamber. It's the same reason that granite rocks have crystals in it's matrix. The material forms crystals as it cools from a melt - longer/slower cooling = larger crystals. I'm not a specialist in hard rocks, so it's hard for me to say more, but I remember there's a whole study of phases and composition from my igneous petrology classes. ",
"The layered structure of the earth isn't due to the supernova that formed our elements, nor is it due to the clumping process of accretion. The layered structure comes from the process of differentiation, that involves both gravity and alot of chemistry. \n\nAs the earth first began cooling, the heaviest parts of the molten rock began to sink to the core. Lighter mixtures then were relatively more buoyant. As minerals cool near the surface, crystals with the highest melting points crystallize first, and based on the energy gained from crystallization and the local availability of certain elements, crystals grow and consume or exclude various elements during their growth. Once growth of certain ones subsides, and the elemental composition of the melt has changed, as more cooling occurs, a time will come when the temperature is right for another phase to begin to crystallize out of the remaining elements, further consuming or excluding some, until everything is solid. It's quite like a natural zone refining process used in industry actually. And yes, this is an example of spontaneous organization which some like to think violates the second law, but does not. \n\nCoinage metals are different because, like salts in the ocean, they can be etched out by hot sea water under high pressure. Currently there's about 20 g/km^3 of sea water in the oceans. Underneath mountain ranges like the Andes for instance, water gets squeezed deep into the rocks during the tectonic processes that build the mountain. The water can become supersaturated with gold and copper. Eventually the mountain gets pushed up and the metals precipitate out in veins that were once water filled crevices.",
" > Most theories of planet formation seem related the material that is left over after a star is initially formed clumping together into larger masses.\n\nWhen the mass clumps together, the heavier elements sink towards the core, and the lighter stuff floats up. Also, some areas of the crust are more hospitable to certain rocks/minerals than others. \n\n > This idea is also related to how we use radioactive dating to find the age of different strata. How do we know the concentrations of specific materials at different times in Earth's history?\n\nYou date things using the half-life. This is grossly oversimplified, but let's say you start with some radiogenic isotope at time X. At time Y, some of that isotope will have decayed into a different isotope (aka the daughter isotope). By comparing the ratio of parent:daughter at time X and time Y, and the half-life of the parent, you can find the difference between time X and time Y. How do you find the half-life? Let a sample of it sit for a while and see how much it decays, basically. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7vjdwl
|
how does the body adapt to ketosis? what stages are there
|
I am imagining then when switching from carbs to fat and protein as your base diet the body sort of "panics" in a few stages.
Stage 1:
Body's reaction - carb's are low....burn the glycogen...maybe we will get more...we need to get fuel.
Stage 2:
Out of glycogen - body's reaction: Insulin is low!!! glycogen is out!!!....we need something!!!....wait a minute...we got fat, lets burn that.
Stage 3:
Fat "factories" convert from carb to fat factories to burn fuel.
Stage 4:
Fat reserves are being burned more than normal....slow down or plateau...body is too nervous to burn more.
Stage 5:
I keep eating fats....body realizes its okay to burn even more fat since a steady supply is coming in...fat burning continues.
Is this logic of thinking correct? I tried finding awkward yeti comics....or a cartoon atleast....but nothing significant.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vjdwl/eli5_how_does_the_body_adapt_to_ketosis_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtsxkgq"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"That's pretty much it. For the first few weeks you'll feel like crap because your body has to ramp up it's ketone count, and then learn how to actually use ketones! Once that happens, you become keto-adapted and then start to feel much better. Energy becomes abundant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.