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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
630npe
|
Most smartphone chargers are rated at 5V, will it make a difference if I use a 10V charger with half the current, since the power output is the same?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/630npe/most_smartphone_chargers_are_rated_at_5v_will_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfqiaf8",
"dfqises"
],
"score": [
16,
7
],
"text": [
"When one device supplies power to another, then the maximum voltage that can be provided is determined by the device receiving power, and the maximum current that can be provided is determined by the device supplying power.\n\nIf you exceed voltage tolerance of the device receiving power you will blow it up, unless it has built-in over-voltage protection. And even then, the over-voltage protection is not going to be infinite, so if you exceed the rated voltage of the over-voltage protection in the receiving device, you will blow it up.\n\nIf you exceed current capacity of the device supplying power, you will blow it up, unless it has built-in over-current protection. And even then, the over-current protection is not going to be infinite, so if you exceed the rated current of the over-current protection in the supplying device, you will blow it up.\n\nIn short: yes, it will make a difference. Either it won't work (if the device you are charging has over-voltage protection that goes beyond 10V) or you will blow up the device you are charging.",
"Yes, it will make a big difference. If you plug a 10V power supply into a phone's charging port, you'll probably destroy the phone.\n\nFor one thing, voltage is a measurement of (to oversimplify a bit) the strength of the electric field, or the \"pressure\" that is pushing electrons through a circuit. The amount of current depends on both the applied voltage and the resistance of the load. If you increase the voltage applied to a circuit, you'll generally get *more* current flowing, not less. \n\n(The current rating on a power supply is the maximum current that it can *safely* supply. If you try to connect a power supply to a load that draws too much current, the supply may not be able to maintain its desired output voltage, or it might be damaged by the excessive current.)\n\nNow, if you were dealing with a simple load like a resistor, the behavior would be simple: using [Ohm's law](_URL_0_) we can calculate that 2x the voltage = 2x the current = 4x the total power, as long as the power supply can't keep up. But something like a phone's battery charging circuit is much more complex.\n\nRechargeable batteries have specific operating voltages, determined by the battery's internal electrochemistry. For a typical lithium-ion battery, this might vary between 3.0V and 4.2V depending on the state of charge, and exceeding this range in either direction can destroy the battery. So the charging circuitry is designed to efficiently step the 5V input down to a lower voltage, to charge the battery at a safe rate.\n\nIt would certainly be possible to design a switching voltage regulator that could operate on either 5V or 10V. However, it's very unlikely that a typical phone is designed this way. A correctly-operating USB power supply will always provide 5V (within certain tolerances). Electronic design is all about tradeoffs, and a charging circuit that could tolerate higher voltages would probably be more complex, physically larger, and less efficient -- for no benefit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ohm%27s_law"
]
] |
||
5zo7t2
|
how many sentences can we form in the english language?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zo7t2/eli5_how_many_sentences_can_we_form_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dezojog",
"dezrjj8"
],
"score": [
2,
8
],
"text": [
"No. There is no strict limit to how long a sentence can be. As such there are an infinite number of possible sentences, and we obviously can't use that many. Note that most of these are pointless sentences and won't be used.",
"You can use the same word more than once. There are actually an infinite number of possible sentences. For example, you could say \"My favorite number is one\", \"My favorite number is two\", etc. There's an infinite amount of numbers, so you can build an infinite number of sentences by following that format.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3occu4
|
Are galaxies that are moving faster than light due to cosmic expansion going backwards in time?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3occu4/are_galaxies_that_are_moving_faster_than_light/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvw47d7",
"cvw8jra"
],
"score": [
10,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm going to deduce that the spirit of the question is something like \"does this qualify as FTL travel, and if so, doesn't that mean these galaxies can travel through time?\" This is a good question!\n\nThe restriction that things cannot travel faster than the speed of light is a *local* one. That is, locally (essentially \"near me\"; see [here](_URL_0_) for a discussion of what locality means), nothing with mass can be traveling faster than the speed of light. This restriction is also a global one in the special case that the universe is flat and static (flat in the Euclidean sense, and static in the sense that the geometry does not change in time). Such a spacetime is geometrically described by the [Minkowski metric](_URL_3_), which is the spacetime of special relativity.\n\nOur universe locally looks like Minkowski spacetime, which is why things cannot locally appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light. However, the *global* geometry of our universe appears to be described by the [FLRW metric](_URL_2_). Such a metric is not static. It is not necessarily spatially flat either, [though based on the various evidence, our universe appears to be spatially flat](_URL_1_). Thus, over large scales, the local restrictions do not apply because of the global geometry and global behavior of the universe. As such, from the reference frame of Earth, distant galaxies can appear to be traveling faster than the speed of light. This doesn't violate any local physics however, because those galaxies are locally behaving in a causal way.\n\nI hope this helps!",
"Slightly less technical response: the real restriction is on *information* propagating faster than light. So if I can send a message from point A to point B faster than light can travel, then there's the possibility to wreak real havoc with cause and effect. But the expansion of the Universe can't be used to send information. Everything recedes from everything else. You can't use a distant galaxy to communicate a faster-than-light signal, because you'd first have to get the message to that galaxy, and that you can only do at speeds below the speed of light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Principle_of_locality",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedmann%E2%80%93Lema%C3%AEtre%E2%80%93Robertson%E2%80%93Walker_metric",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minkowski_space"
],
[]
] |
||
aa06xa
|
how does water "climb up" certain materials, like paper?
|
We had a little water leak from the washer’s drain. Next to the washer is a stack of toilet paper. I noticed that not only the bottom of the pack got water in it, but also the second stack above it, like the water was somehow traveling up?
What’s the scientific explanation behind it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aa06xa/eli5_how_does_water_climb_up_certain_materials/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecnx0sp",
"ecnzazb"
],
"score": [
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Capillary attraction. Have you ever looked at the edge of water in a half full glass? Where it meets the glass the surface goes upwards a little. That's because the water \"wets\" the glass surface, it tries to have a very shallow angle of contact. In a narrow tube, that wetting and the attraction that water molecules have for each other (surface tension) pulls the water a little way up the inside, higher than it would be if just gravity was affecting it. The narrower the tube, the higher it rises.\n\nPaper is just the same, it has a very water-compatible chemical nature (hydrophilic) and the water pulls itself up in the narrow gaps between the fibres.",
"Water properties - cohesion (water molecules adhere/come together) & adhesion (water molecule adheres to a different surface material) create the capillary effect which allows the water molecules to pull each other upward essentially."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3450yf
|
why are super-rich, non european people world buying european football teams?
|
Many French football teams are owned by rich arabs. Chelsea is owned by a Russian. Rome and Bologna in Italy were recently bought by two americans. Inter is owned by a guy from Indonesia. Now the Chinese want to buy Milan.
How does that make sense? What's the logic in owning a football team of another country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3450yf/eli5_why_are_superrich_non_european_people_world/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqrayrq",
"cqrbl5o",
"cqrdjr8"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Usually ego and fame. There's only a limited number of clubs, which sets a pretty high barrier to entry. Sure it's costly, but it's a toy for them, and one that can bring them media coverage and fame by hoisting the trophy. ",
"They are exclusive and expensive toys. You must understand that in Europe, football is considered to be more important than religion, so owning Chelsea is basically godlike ego-inflating.",
"Club teams like that aren't tied to a specific country. It's not like the England National Team where it is made up by Englishmen playing for England. You are buying a team made up of players of all nationalities, playing other teams from around the country and the world. It can be an investment (thinking the team will improve in value/bring in money from merch and tickets and tv deals), or a hobby (you like the team/sport/league so you own a team to be a part of it.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
bbxtv7
|
The void of Australian 20th century history?
|
I have been trying to find a book or similar devoted to Australian 20th century history. While there seem to be sources for specific events, I haven't been able to locate any broad overviews of the century.
While covering a recent century of a nation's history could be too large and undertaking and perhaps too recent to be considered in its entirety; it seems like historical reporting and analysis of 20th century Australia is virtually nonexistent except for events that have international connections, such as world wars. Certainly the vast majority of Australian history books focus on the colonial era.
Are there any books or podcasts people can refer me to that cover 20th century history, including any that provide a good overview as a starting point to learn more?
If anyone has any experiences or insights relating to the dearth (or otherwise) of 20th century Australian history in books, school lessons, etc. I would also be interested in hearing your comments.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bbxtv7/the_void_of_australian_20th_century_history/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekmi3k5",
"ekmmq2h",
"ekmodi3",
"ekuaqeu"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a good question and one I am happy to make a recommendation for.\n\nStuart MacIntyre's *A Concise History of Australia* is the best starting point to be honest. It's not just 20th century history, it alos covers pre-European contact, the establishment of the penal colonies, transition to colonies and the road to Federation but third edition covers Australian history all the way up to Prime Minister Kevin Rudd's Apology to Australia's indigenous population in 2008 so despite its conciseness, it covers a very large period of time and its only about 370 pages long.\n\nI studied under MacIntyre two years ago and he is viewed as one of Australia's greatest historians. He also helped shape the national history curriculum for schools. As historians go, he does tend to lean more to the left in regards to focus but that's not that surprising in Australian history due to the significance of the Australian labour movement in the shaping of the country.\n\nAustralian history is fraught with revisionism unfortunately thanks to the ongoing *History Wars*, a term used to describe the combative discourse between those historians that downplay the impact of European settlement in Australia and those who actively pursue examinations of European settlement and its impact on indigenous Australians. It has become a political football in a lot of ways with politicians accusing historians that publish works critical of European settlement as attempting to shame Australians into feeling guilty for their country's past. It's something to be aware of when exploring Australian history and also a very in depth topic in itself. There is a very detailed Wikipedia article dedicatyed to the *History Wars.*",
"Pretty niche but if you're interested in Australian art history from the 1930s onwards and how indigenous art came to be regarded as fine art suitable for galleries as opposed to collective curiosities in museums you may enjoy: How Aborigines Invented the Idea of Contemporary Art: writings on Aboriginal contemporary art by Ian McLean",
"*A History of Australia* by Mark Peel and Christina Twomey. They are somewhat left leaning, and cover all of Australia's history, from Indigenous pre-history to 2010. They also talk about social movements like unions and feminism, political shakeups, famous art and fashion of the period, giving fairly good snapshots of change throughout the decades. I use this all the time, and seems exactly what you're looking for. \n\n\nAnother book you might like, if you're after something more comprehensive, more conservative and by someone more renowned would be *The Story of Australia's People: The Rise and Rise of A New Australia*. It covers from the 1850s to the present day, the second in a 2-part series. Geoffrey Blainey is one of Australia's most respected historians, if a little conservative, and I read the first (*The Rise and Fall of Ancient Australia*) and found it thick as, comprehensive. \n\n\nI've not read this one, since my interests lie in Indigenous and colonial studies; also, as a West Aussie, he kinda neglects everywhere not on the east coast somewhat, and as a leftie, I disagreed with some of his observations. Maybe once I'm rich I'll fork out money to hear him rubbish all I hold dear (like Whitlam or Keating). \n\n\nYou could also try reading the histories of specific cities and states - these tend to focus on modern events, like companies, politicians, waves of immigration. For example, *Land of Vision and Mirage* by Geoffrey Bolton, a respected WA historian, is about WA and spends the first four chapters talking about the 1800s, but is largely geared towards exploring WAs constant boom-bust cycle and relationship with mining. It spends no time at all talking about the Indigenous or the common man, nearly always looking at powerful elites and capitalist ventures, so I didn't like it. \n\n\nYou might have to order these kind of books online, as most bookshops don't stock anything except military history or convicts.",
"I also recommend McIntyre's *Concise History Of Australia* for your purposes.\n\nAdditionally, it's also a little older (from the 80s/90s), but there's a five volume series called *The Oxford History of Australia*, which has two volumes dedicated to the 20th century: *1901-1942: The Succeeding Age* by Stuart McIntyre again, and *1942-1995: The Middle Way* by Geoffrey Bolton (the hardback edition, released earlier, only goes to 1988). I do agree with the implied idea in those books that the second half of the 20th century in Australia was a very different time to the first half, with the Australia that basically instituted a 'White Australia Policy' almost immediately after Federation in 1901 then ending up becoming - after World War II - a country that attempted to welcome immigrants with non-Northern European cultural backgrounds (for this particular part of Australia's 20th century story, *Migrant Hands In A Distant Land* by Jock Collins is the classic). In terms of 20th century Australia political history, perhaps you'll get a sense of the broad swathe of things by the edited collection of briefish autobiographies of *Australian Prime Ministers* (edited by Michelle Grattan), while Paul Kelly's *The End Of Certainty* portrays well the end of the protectionist consensus across the 1980s and 1990s, and the uptake by both major parties of 'globalisation'; the Australian dollar being floated on the global market, and the gradual removal of tariffs to protect Australian industries, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5sngta
|
how/why does an object's mass change due to velocity?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5sngta/eli5_howwhy_does_an_objects_mass_change_due_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddggkjq",
"ddgil3n",
"ddgp2fz"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"The observed mass of an object travelling close to the speed of light increases because it's momentum, and therefore it's energy increase, and relativity tells us that energy and mass are equivalent (E = mc^2 is the famous, simplified version of that relationship). However we don't normally talk about that in terms of mass, preferring instead to talk in terms of the total and kinetic energies. We leave mass to refer the object's rest mass, the mass it experiences in its rest frame, which is always the same.",
"When the laws of special relativity were discovered, one of the predictions that the theory made was that objects would get more and more difficult to accelerate as the velocity increased.\n\nNewton's 2nd law says that F= mass * acceleration. So, in the early days after special relativity was discovered, people said that if the same amount of force was producing less and less acceleration, that mass must be increasing. At the same time, mass = energy * c^2 - and you are adding kinetic energy so mass is increasing. So everything makes sense.\n\nThe problem is that this causes a lot of confusion. The \"apparent\" mass just doesn't seem to be useful for much. And, it's much simpler if we just accept that Newton's 2nd law is a useful \"rule of thumb\" which is accurate enough to be useful at low velocities, but is inaccurate at high velocities. And if we want accurate calculations at high velocities we need to use the Lorentz equations.\n\nSo, these days, physicists tend say that mass doesn't change (usually calling it the \"rest mass\"), but instead use more complicated equations for acceleration and momentum, rather than sticking with the old Newton equations. ",
"Mass does not change. Here is [an excellent scholarly article on the subject](_URL_0_ ). It says:\n\n > The “famous formula E=mc^2 ” and the concept of “relativistic mass” increasing with velocity, which follows from it, are historical artifacts, contradicting the basic symmetry of Einstein’s Special Relativity, the symmetry of 4-dimensional space-time. The relation discovered by Einstein is not E=mc^2 , but E0=mc^2 , where E0 is the energy of a free body at rest introduced by Einstein in 1905. The source of the longevity of the “famous formula” is the irresponsible attitude of relativity theory experts to the task of explaining it to the non-experts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ph/0602037.pdf"
]
] |
||
21i3xx
|
why aren't mercenaries protected equally under the geneva convention?
|
According to the Protocol Additional to the G*eneva Conventions of 12 August 1949, and relating to the Protection of Victims of International Armed Conflicts (Protocol I), 8 June 1977,* it states that **a mercenary shall not have the right to be a combatant or a prisoner of war**. Why is that? Why aren't mercenaries treated equally?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/21i3xx/eli5_why_arent_mercenaries_protected_equally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgd7xsd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Because they will fight for either side, whomever pays them the most."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
82lagl
|
Did England have an elective monarchy in the 18th century?
|
Did England have an elective monarchy in the 18th century?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/82lagl/did_england_have_an_elective_monarchy_in_the_18th/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvb3tnw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Terminology note: England on its own didn't have a monarchy after the Treaty of Union with Scotland in 1707. It was the Kingdom of Great Britain.\n\nI believe the usual definition of \"elective monarchy\" is that, for each vacancy, some body votes and elects a successor. In that sense, no, Great Britain did not have an elective monarchy.\n\nIt's true that Convention Parliaments called William and Mary to the throne (one each in England and Scotland). It's also true that the English parliament passed a statute called the Act of Settlement of 1701, which (as amended) has controlled the succession ever since. It's true that the current Parliament, and a lot of Parliaments since then, could pass and have passed laws changing the succession.\n\nNevertheless, succession to the throne since William III and Mary II has been automatic on the death (or death for succession purposes of Edward VIII) of the predecessor. No vote of any sort takes place. The first meeting, that of the Privy Council, simply proclaims the new sovereign, and so with all further acts.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1noi8h
|
as for countries like n. korea who's citizens are dying from famine, why can't we just send them food? is it because it wouldn't ever actually get to the hungry civilians?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1noi8h/eli5_as_for_countries_like_n_korea_whos_citizens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cckh3wx",
"ccknrp7"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Plenty of NGOs and larger countries do send quite a bit of food, but you're right in that not much of it actually gets to the people that need it",
"I remember in the most recent famine (and I use famine like I would describe a Saharian summer as a \"drought\") the N.K gov. actually rejected international help.\nAlso, I dont think we can just send food to everyone. I mean, we probably could if we wanted to spend the money on it. But we dont."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8l7dsd
|
in lawsuits and other court cases that involve money, why do courts bother ordering people to pay massive sums of money that the defendants obviously don’t have and that the plaintiff will most likely never see?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8l7dsd/eli5_in_lawsuits_and_other_court_cases_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzdesln"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yarr! Yer not alone in askin', and kind strangers have explained:\n\n1. [ELI5: When someone sues someone for a large sum of money (let's say 5 million dollars), and the person being sued doesn't have that money, who pays out the claim? ](_URL_1_) ^(_19 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: how do non wealthy people who get sued for millions or billions able to pay all of that money?? ](_URL_3_) ^(_4 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: when a lawsuit awards millions of dollars, why do the plaintiff and lawyer only end up with hundreds of thousands? ](_URL_4_) ^(_7 comments_)\n1. [If someone sues a broke person for $1 million in damages, what happens? ](_URL_2_) ^(_27 comments_)\n1. [ELI5: How can someone be awarded millions of dollars in civil suits? (Punitive and compensatory damages for injury lawsuits for example). How do they quantify the damages? Where does this money come from? ](_URL_0_) ^(_3 comments_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r1iqo/eli5_how_can_someone_be_awarded_millions_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oeyig/eli5_when_someone_sues_someone_for_a_large_sum_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/NoStupidQuestions/comments/4jramb/if_someone_sues_a_broke_person_for_1_million_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dd8sd/eli5_how_do_non_wealthy_people_who_get_sued_for/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zvvea/eli5_when_a_lawsuit_awards_millions_of_dollars/"
]
] |
|
1fy2uq
|
the physical difference between cd, dvd and blueray. how can they look identical but their capacities vary vastly?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fy2uq/eli5_the_physical_difference_between_cd_dvd_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caex7eg"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The markings that lasers read on CDs and DVDs are kind of like text printed on a page. Blu-ray discs just have smaller markings - just how you can fit more text on a page if you use a smaller font."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9zts4r
|
why does water make things slippery, but licking my finger helps me pull out a cigarette or turn a page?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zts4r/eli5_why_does_water_make_things_slippery_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eabyrp1",
"eabyt4c",
"eacioz5"
],
"score": [
10,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Water also has a trait called adhesion, which makes it clingy. This is why you can shake your hands really hard after washing them and they'll still be wet. Water sticks to paper and to your finger, *voilà!* cigarette.",
"It has to do with the amount of water. In small quantities, water is actually sticky. That's what gives it surface tension. But in larger amounts, the water can separate two surfaces. The water sits between them and reduces friction, allowing them to slide past each other.\n\nYour finger would have only a small amount of water on it, so it would be slightly sticky. Just enough to grab something small.",
"You know how when you sweat or go for a swim, your clothes are hard to take off? But when you get water on your wood or tile floor, it's slippery? It's because the water reacts differently with the substance. Water clings to your skin to a certain extent, and water also soaks through your paper and sticks to it too now. Thusly the page is easily turned. However, when there's a pool of water on the floor, the water doesn't just seep into the tile, does it? This means that the water just sticks to you and you go sliding along. It's about absorbency."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
12page
|
Are we actually living within 10 dimensions?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12page/are_we_actually_living_within_10_dimensions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6x0ks8"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"That video that you're referring to is utter hogwash, but there are some beyond-standard-physics theories that require ten spatial dimensions. A lot of research goes into reconciling that with the fact that only three are apparent. As for experimental evidence, there are models that predict different results depending on the dimensionality, such as a breakdown of Newton's law at small lengths, or a different spectrum of particle creation from high energy collisions. So far all of these searches have (not surprisingly) turned up negative."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2au9ig
|
how are the location and depth of an earthquake's epicenter calculated?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2au9ig/eli5_how_are_the_location_and_depth_of_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciytssn",
"ciyu07v"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You can calculate the location by comparing what time seismographs in different places recorded the earthquake. Since the vibrations take time to travel through the ground, if you know when they reached various places you can use that information to triangulate where they started. I don't know about depth, though.",
"Seismographs give you information on how strong and far apart the sound waves are. Using data from several different seismographs, you can narrow down where the epicenter was.\n\nNote the epicenter always refers to the earth's surface. It is the point directly above where the quake occurred."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ry6ir
|
How did Latin mottos as a feature on coats of arms get started?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ry6ir/how_did_latin_mottos_as_a_feature_on_coats_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cds52z4",
"cdsalgd"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"I'll not speculate as to the beginnings of latin mottos, but you might find one of the reasons for their continued use interesting. Canada uses many latin mottos for government organizations as a way of avoiding perceived favouritism between English and French. Perhaps there is historical precedent for that outside of Canada. ",
"Mottos are thought to have started as war cries. The knight, when leading his people to defend their village or castle would rally them with a war cry, which might be the family name or a battle command (\"forward!\" or \"hold hard!\" etc).\n\nLater, as tournaments became popular, these war cries would be used as cheers by the supporters of a tournament knight (much like the cheers at modern sporting occaisons).\n\nAs mottos became common and uniquely associated with an aristocratic lineage, they were often incorporated in heraldry, and displayed on coats of arms.\n\nDuring the 16th century, books were written in Italy on how to compose a good motto for yourself and your family. It was thought that the motto should be connected with the shield or family name in a way that was neither too obvious nor too obscure.\n\nMany heraldic mottos are in languages other than latin. Latin was common, however, as it was the formal and universal language of the aristocracy, and particularly good if you wanted your cheers to be understood at international tournaments.\n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.modaruniversity.org/motto.htm"
]
] |
||
1xiwd5
|
Historians, what is the best way for a non-professional with limited resources to conserve/handle old pictures and documents?
|
Talking mainly about old black-and white pictures that I do not own the negatives for, or old letters that already have fragile and yellowing paper. Nor sure this is the right subreddit, but I'm sure some of you must deal with old documents?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1xiwd5/historians_what_is_the_best_way_for_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfbqd73"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"You can try /r/Archivists, or me, for I am here as well. \n\n1. How old are the documents? \n\n2. How many are there? (Roughly) \n\n3. How much money are you willing to spend? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6yo428
|
Apparently chess was popular in the soviet union. was it ever "altered" to be less of a symbol of feudalism and hierarchy?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6yo428/apparently_chess_was_popular_in_the_soviet_union/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmp63qe"
],
"score": [
244
],
"text": [
"The short answer is the game was not changed, but the players were.\n\nThe popularity of chess in the Russian Empire surged with Mikhail Chigorin (1850-1908), who challenged ~~Emanuel Lasker~~ William Steinitz for the World Championship in 1889 and 1892, losing both matches. During this time, there was really only match play in the Russian Empire (no tournaments). This changed in 1899, when the first All-Russian Master's Tournament was organized (Chigorin won). These championships still occur almost annually, though the name and format has changed a few times to reflect government changes.\n\nChigorin's success inspired other players, like Akiva Rubinstein and later Alexander Alekhine. These two players would go on to win several Russian championships, and Alekhine would go on to be world champion for many years. Related to your question, chess during this time was practiced primarily by the aristocracy. Alekhine's father, for example, was the governor of a region and member of the Duma. Chess tournaments were sponsored by wealthy patrons, like Tsar Nicolas II, who paid for the prize pool of the famous 1914 St. Petersburg tournament.\n\nThe Russian Revolution changed this dynamic, as it largely abolished the aristocracy. However, Lenin was an amateur chess player and fan of the game. He tasked Nikolai Krylenko with developing chess in the RSFSR (later USSR, kinda). Krylenko established \"shock brigades\" to bring chess to the masses, by sponsoring tournaments in factories, chess leagues in cities, inter-city tournaments, etc. Later, this became formally organized by the State Committee for Physical Culture and Sport. This committee decided which players attended which tournaments, which players received stipends to support their development, which players would be tasked with coaching, etc.\n\nThe player profile also changed. The central committee favored the promotion of working class players of pure Russian (non-Jewish) roots, like Vasily Smyslov. The rules of chess (including the names of the pieces) were not changed by the Russian Revolution, but the context was. One fine example of this transformation can be seen in the Anichkov Palace in St. Petersburg. The residence of many nobles, including a young Tsar Nicholas II, the palace was converted into a Young Pioneer's Palace, housing after school clubs like chess. Many of the USSR's strongest players literally learned chess in a former Tsar's (Alexander III) study.\n\nThe best book on this topic is *Soviet Chess 1917-1991*, by Andy Soltis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
brjix3
|
is it really only calories in, calories out (caloric deficit/surplus) that determines weight gain/loss? or hormones can overpower this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/brjix3/eli5_is_it_really_only_calories_in_calories_out/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eoefvww",
"eoeg7jj",
"eoehaao"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Calories in- Calories out is a simple answer to a complicated issue. Yes it is true, but there are so many variables that affect how you store and burn energy that muddy the water. I may need to eat 1500 calories a day and an hour of strenuous activity to have a deficit, but you may be able to eat 2000 calories with the same amount of exercise to have a similar deficit. Hormones, metabolism, types of calories you consume, complex carbohydrates, and a number of other variables determine how you lose weight.",
"No amount of hormones can break the law of conservation of energy. If you are using more calories than you are eating you *will* lose weight. End of story. \n\nWhat hormones can do is mess with your appetite so you are abnormally hungry or it might slow down your metabolism. Or the opposite, as you mentioned.",
"I just sent through gastric sleeve surgery which means I struggle to eat more than a cup of food at a sitting. I also take a large amount of vitamins including various B vitamins to boost my metabolism. A calorie loss will cause you to lose weight, but as soon as you do your metabolism will slow down causing the weight loss to slow. It's definitely not as simple as calories in calories out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
26ewn1
|
if bottled water is really just tap water, how can companies get away with marketing it as coming from mountain springs or glaciers or whatever?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ewn1/eli5_if_bottled_water_is_really_just_tap_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chqdi4z",
"chqdj2g",
"chqe7bo"
],
"score": [
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"They can't, that's false advertising. If it's filtered tap water it usually says so on the bottle. If it is spring water, it will say it is spring water. Not to say exceptions don't exist.",
"Well, you'll notice that companies that bottle their water from municipal tap water sources do not say that they sourced their water from springs or glaciers. That would be illegal. They usually call their water \"drinking water\" or \"purified water\". If a company claims that their water is spring water, it must be transported from an actual spring.",
"Its clearly labeled as to the source. they put mountains and streams on the label and you make the connection to pure mountain streams\n\nthat if you actually drank straight from the river, you get dysentery. cuz ya know bears poop in it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
b7895w
|
why can’t you bring meat across international borders?
|
Ok background I’ve been watching the show border wars and I can’t understand why you can’t bring meat into the U.S and I’m sure other counties as well might have similar policies but they say it’s to protect agricultural and livestock but how would it affect livestock or agricultural?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b7895w/eli5_why_cant_you_bring_meat_across_international/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejpx28u"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"It's to stop certain diseases/parasites/insects/etc from being carried into regions where they typically aren't found.\n\nDifferent countries have different requirements for proving the food is safe, and it's simplest for them to just ban the transport across borders."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jg2ki
|
Does street light affect plant growth?
|
Does the light from a street lamp have any effect on the growth of a plant exposed to it?
Considering that street lights are turned on automatically after it gets dark it's understandable that a tree directly under a street lamp is exposed to about twice as much light (almost 24h) compared to a tree that isn't exposed to the light.
If one were to compare the growth and shedding of a sample of leaves on two trees of the same specie and age, one which is exposed to street light and another which isn't; would there be any differences in terms of plant growth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jg2ki/does_street_light_affect_plant_growth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bslcg",
"c2bt4q0",
"c2btqro",
"c2bslcg",
"c2bt4q0",
"c2btqro"
],
"score": [
14,
4,
5,
14,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"I did a similar experiment in the 6th grade. We planted several plants in pots and left them in different locations. The four groups were: \n - Sunlight only \n - Artificial light only \n - Sunlight + artificial (your streetlight scenario) \n - no light\n\nThe sunlight + artificial light grew the same as the sunlight only plant - that is to say that the artificial light had no effect.\n\nThe plant with no light grew an extremely long stem, but never developed leaves - it kept growing taller in an attempt to emerge from the soil. This is the same thing that the plant with artificial light only did, although the plant with no light grew shorter.",
"The light output from street lights is negligable compared to that of the sun. So in terms of energy capture the plant is not affected. \n\nHowever, plants depend on light for more than energy. Light intensity, number of hours per day lit (photoperiod), and spectral composition are all used by plants as regulatory cues. Perhaps most likely to be affected is flowering time, but the set of possible consequences is really quite large.\n\nSince any of these responses to steetlights would be a consequence of a 'false' signal, they would most likely be maladaptive, and the plant will more likely suffer than benefit. However, I expect any actual effects are so minor as to dim into insignifigance, especially when compared to all the other human-caused changes affecting the plant.",
"You've got a great question, and a good experimental set up to test it, but you missed one key assumption. Is the light from that street light the same as the light from the sun? It is not. The wavelengths of light emitted from the street light are barely a fraction of the various wavelengths that come from the sun. So then why do some people have grow lamps inside for their plants? Because there are bulbs that are manufactured that can emit enough, and the right types of, light that allow plants to grow.",
"I did a similar experiment in the 6th grade. We planted several plants in pots and left them in different locations. The four groups were: \n - Sunlight only \n - Artificial light only \n - Sunlight + artificial (your streetlight scenario) \n - no light\n\nThe sunlight + artificial light grew the same as the sunlight only plant - that is to say that the artificial light had no effect.\n\nThe plant with no light grew an extremely long stem, but never developed leaves - it kept growing taller in an attempt to emerge from the soil. This is the same thing that the plant with artificial light only did, although the plant with no light grew shorter.",
"The light output from street lights is negligable compared to that of the sun. So in terms of energy capture the plant is not affected. \n\nHowever, plants depend on light for more than energy. Light intensity, number of hours per day lit (photoperiod), and spectral composition are all used by plants as regulatory cues. Perhaps most likely to be affected is flowering time, but the set of possible consequences is really quite large.\n\nSince any of these responses to steetlights would be a consequence of a 'false' signal, they would most likely be maladaptive, and the plant will more likely suffer than benefit. However, I expect any actual effects are so minor as to dim into insignifigance, especially when compared to all the other human-caused changes affecting the plant.",
"You've got a great question, and a good experimental set up to test it, but you missed one key assumption. Is the light from that street light the same as the light from the sun? It is not. The wavelengths of light emitted from the street light are barely a fraction of the various wavelengths that come from the sun. So then why do some people have grow lamps inside for their plants? Because there are bulbs that are manufactured that can emit enough, and the right types of, light that allow plants to grow."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1716js
|
Why did the Tokugawa persecute the Christian population in Japan?
|
My understanding was that they did not like the missionaries that arrived from Europe's method of converting citizens but this doesn't seem correct.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1716js/why_did_the_tokugawa_persecute_the_christian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c81aob1",
"c81nime"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"It had to do in part with the [Treaty of Tordesillas](_URL_0_) and the threat the foreign governments posed to the emerging stability of the Japanese state. I'm headed off or I would give you a more detailed answer, but we did have a similar discussion [here](_URL_1_) that will be relevant for you. There are also some reference links in that thread.",
"If I'm not mistaken, Christianity was spread throughout the island unevenly. Notice people keep getting martyred in Nagasaki and that region. The execution of Christians, again IIRC, was part of the Japanese state making and state centralization process. Initially, they were supported because they could be used against the already entrenched religious parties. The Christians were also supported by specific local rulers (daimyo) and such at various times and opposed by the central state pretty consistently. There was also Dutch intrigue at the court, trying to convince the powers that be that the Catholic missionaries were Portuguese and Spanish fifth columns. The mostly Portuguese Jesuits tried to convert the daimyos and elites and the mostly Spanish mendicant orders tried to convert the commoners and anyone who would listen. Anyway, to answer [your question about the population's feelings](_URL_1_) since the social position of Christianity varied throughout the Japan, and the attitude of the local people to the varies level of state authorities, there's probably no one single \"general opinion\". \n\nBack to state centralization, many daimyos converted and that gave them access to European weapons. At this time, Toyotomi Hideyoshi was trying to unify Japan. He's the guy who started crucifying Christians, etc. He was worried about daimyo's armed by the Christians (Jesuits) and the commoners with \"divided loyalties\" (the mendicant orders) and all of that, especially with the rumors that these are precursors to more formal European rule. After Toyotomi came the Tokugawa shogunate, who pretty much had the same problems with Christians and even more clear unification goals. The fight against the Christians became a unifier in the Tokugawa period, in that it united them with the Buddhist clergy (well, united is probably too strong a word), and they then organized that all people must be affiliated with a Buddhist temple. The wikipedia article on [Kirishitan](_URL_0_) is actually pretty good, and I'd recommend it (though I'm not a Japan specialist). I was going to recommend this novel anyways, but Wikipedia says:\n\n > Drawn from the oral histories of Japanese Catholic communities, Shusaku Endo's acclaimed novel *Silence* provides detailed accounts of the persecution of Christian communities and the suppression of the Church.\n\nObviously, it's a novel, but it's good.\n\nTl;dr the persecution of the Christians must be seen as part of Japanese state-making and state centralization. The centralizers were really worried about the missionaries and Christians being fifth columnists (they knew what had happened/was happening in the Philippines/Manilla for instance)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Tordesillas",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/14gotb/how_was_the_voc_able_to_get_a_trade_relationship/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kirishitan",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1716js/why_did_the_tokugawa_persecute_the_christian/c81g8ua"
]
] |
|
6hmt3d
|
how casinos can refuse to pay a jackpot, claiming the machine is broken, but not pay back everyone who played and lost?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6hmt3d/eli5_how_casinos_can_refuse_to_pay_a_jackpot/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dizgx2r",
"dizi3im",
"dizjpsx",
"dizl0q4",
"dizl0s9",
"dizl8yk",
"dizlkq7",
"dizmp4i",
"dizmvb5",
"dizmyz7",
"diznu5y",
"dizofc8",
"dizoj5s",
"dizoq18",
"dizp7kg",
"dizpk15",
"dizpv1b",
"dizq8if",
"dizqdnl",
"dizqxhd",
"dizr31q",
"dizt9un",
"diztk81",
"dizu046",
"dizu6ur",
"dizugjb",
"dizulg3",
"dizv7az",
"dizv857",
"dizvk07",
"dizvxed",
"dizw2ke",
"dizw557",
"dizwgls",
"dizwhhu",
"dizwmcz",
"dizwtwl",
"dizwxda",
"dizxk1o",
"dizxnew",
"dizxu8m",
"dizy9ec",
"dizyc2f",
"dizyd4x",
"dizyop6",
"dizyvwh",
"dizywug",
"dizz3tq",
"dizzenq",
"dizzy17",
"dj00fw9",
"dj00li5",
"dj00pr5",
"dj01d0u",
"dj01fua",
"dj020gu",
"dj021aq",
"dj02ct7",
"dj02zcg",
"dj032f8",
"dj0362h",
"dj03coa",
"dj03f7j",
"dj06qsc",
"dj079wk",
"dj07taz",
"dj08crl"
],
"score": [
1230,
36142,
498,
21,
181,
909,
7,
59,
2,
16,
3,
37,
28,
3,
2,
2,
7,
3,
17,
8,
31,
2,
5,
4,
2,
2,
12,
3,
2,
33,
3,
2,
29,
2,
3,
5,
2,
2,
2,
4,
3,
2,
2,
66,
19,
2,
2,
3,
3,
4,
5,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"They do have to pay anyone who lost on a broken machine. And they can't just claim a machine is broken, it actually has to be broken. The state runs a gaming commision that audits machines and is in charge of things like broken machine issues.\n\nIf a machine is broken, all transactions on that machine are void, wins and losses.",
"Software developer here,\n\nI wrote software for these one-armed bandits for ~5 years. Detecting a fault in the machine isn't too hard, I suppose, though I never had to do it. If the machine is a \"participation\" game, then some of the winnings of each game are paid out to the manufacturer, because just making and selling machines isn't profitable enough to stay in business. The catch is the manufacturer pays out the jackpots, not the casino. So the casino doesn't give a shit if you hit 10 jackpots in a row, and neither do the commissioners, for them, they're just doing their job.\n\nWhen a jackpot is hit, the whole bank of machines are roped off and kept under guard. A poor (EDIT:) sonofabitch engineer or two are dragged out of bed in the middle of the night, or pulled out of their children's birthday party, whatever, and they're stuffed into a plane with all sorts of gear and shit. They will systematically diagnose, test, and dismantle that machine down to the rivets to make sure it wasn't tampered with or flawed. It's the company's responsibility to prove the win was false if they want to save their cash.\n\nBut even the manufacturer plans for payouts, it's all part of the budget. My employer designed the math behind their games so one of their participation games, in the entire market, like a Wide Area Progressive, would hit every 6 months. We had one WAP hit twice in one month just after release once, the execs puckered up so tight they shit diamonds to cover the bills that day.",
"The law isn't written to be fair, it is written to be just. A lot of people equate these terms, but they aren't actually the same.\n\nA fair system would be the one you just described, where if a machine is faulty, all transactions should be considered void and reimbursed.\n\nA just system means everyone has the same legal rights and responsibilities. The just system can have a rule like \"if you think a transaction was faulty, the onus is on the person who wishes reimbursement (or the refusal of payment). Any party that wishes to seek these measures must go and prove the transaction was faulty.\" Here, the law applies the same to everyone. It is just that the casino has the impetus to test the machine in the case of a huge payout, and you do not have the impetus every time you lose ten cents. If a person would go back to that casino and show evidence that they played 100 dollars on those machines after the casino has proven it was faulty, they would be reimbursed. \n\nTL;DR: You have to seek reimbursement to be reimbursed. Everyone has to, and the casino does when it refuses a jackpot. \n",
"Not the case in the news story I'm sure, but one reason they check is that it may have been tampered with. There may be no way of knowing if the manufacturer was responsible for the error or if a gambler intentionally broke it.",
"If you're talking about something like these:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_2_\n\nor (more recently): _URL_1_\n\nAs someone else pointed out, those values are just below (if you're counting in cents) the size of an integer. It's more likely that the machines were using unsigned integers, mistakenly allowed a person to go below $0, then when the person tried to cash out instead of showing -$2, [integer overflow](_URL_3_) occurred and the machine mistakenly displayed that a huge amount was due.\n\nSo the error likely arose with allowing the person to play for $2 more than they should have, in which case that player already got something for free. And everyone else who played didn't get to play for free, but their play was probably fine, so the casino doesn't reimburse anyone.",
"I assume you are referring to the $43M ticket from the other day. \n\nOne aspect is the nature of the error. That $43M ticket could never have happened under normal operation. The maximum payout for that machine was $10k. So, a factor of 4,000 smaller than the erroneous ticket. That makes it clear it is an error. A single spin not winning is a pretty normal state of affairs. It may well be in error, but it would be very difficult to prove either way. \n\nThen, we put all sorts of checks into those machines. When it attempted to issue the ticket the server will (most likely) have replied that it couldn't issue a ticket that large. At that point the machine has a balance it can't pay out and will go into alarm. At that point the machine will have been rebooted.\n\nAlso against that girl is the fact the only photo is of her collecting her \"winnings\". Why take a selfie of the boring ticket print screen rather than the jackpot screen itself? Seems to me like the error occurred well after the game ended, she hit collect *then* something went wrong. \n\nWe do our best to make sure that nothing goes wrong with the machines, but errors do slip through. The logic for us is that it is better to fail in favour of the machine. People who are down money will complain and tell us. Then we can check the logs for the exact time they won, see what went wrong and how much they are owed. It may take longer but it can be put right. If we fail in favour of the player then odds are they will never tell us, or worse they will attempt to repeat the circumstances for free money. It could be months before we even find out something is wrong. This leads into what /u/mredding said - if the machine has been actively tampered with, why the hell would a casino feel obligated to pay out? Fail in favour of the machine and check the logs later. ",
"There's a disclaimer on the machine and at least..all of the machines I've ever come across in Vegas. It says that the casino is not responsible for any malfunction so basically if you play a machine that malfunctions and takes your money they are not obligated reimburse you. What that lady who is suing doesn't realize is that this also means if it malfunctions with a jackpot that it wasn't meant to they can refuse it. This is the simplest way to put it",
"A malfunction does not mean 'broken'. \n\nIf you can prove that you met a winning condition (I.e. A valid poker hand, a winning combination of symbols, etc.) you are entitled to the listed payout for that condition, as long as you achieve said condition through normal operation of the machine. Meaning, you didn't cheat. \n\nIf, by malfunction, you receive a winning condition, you may be entitled to the listed payout of said condition, but no more, regardless if the machine erroneously shows a higher amount.\n\nIf by malfunction, the machine awards you a payout, without a winning condition, you are not entitled to any amount. Which is the case of the story that is on the front page.",
"assuming you refer to the 43 or something million jackpot case that recently happened.\n\nthe machine wasn't completely broken. and normally you'd never notice that it's broken. it's just that if very specific criteria in the code are met, it acts faulty because of something it can't handle. it might have handled hundreds of games correctly before, and it might work without problem in the games afterwards, but it that one specific instance it was broken.",
"Hey!\nAre you from the Warlizard gaming forum!?",
"Every slot machine I've seen in North America has a little sign somewhere that says \"malfunction voids all pays and plays\"",
"[Finding A Video Poker Bug Made These Guys Rich—then Vegas Made Them Pay_](_URL_0_) is an excellent _Wired_ magazine article that I highly recommend.",
"I saw a comment earlier today explaining how it could have been a one-off error due to the specific sequence it landed on, let me see if i can find it. It was a software dev saying something about if the internal math resulted in a negative integer but the software doesn't accept negative integers it would have rounded back around to the max integer possible. So the machine is only \"broken\" if you get a very specific sequence that triggers this event \n\nEdit: [found it](_URL_0_) \n > The reported price ($42,949,672.76) when expressed in cents, is exactly $0.20 (20 cents) less than 2^32 - 1, the maximum value of a regular 32-bit integer variable.\n\n > It's likely that the software ended up with a value of -$0.20 (-20 cents), but because it used unsigned integers (= no negative values), it wrapped back around to the maximum value.\n\n > edit (16:10 CEST, 10:10 EST): In response to some of the comments this post has been edited somewhat. Some comments state correctly that integers can't be used to hold decimal values. However, the machine likely expresses the amounts in cents in its internal calculations, so it can use integers for all calculations and only convert back to dollars when output is needed. \n\n ",
"ELI5 how people can sue for a payout when a machine was clearly broken?\n\nAnswer for both: people are willing to do anything for money.\n",
"My co-worker lost 500 dollar on a table he was playing at, and then he won 1500, they didn't pay him the 1,500 because he wasn't supposed to be playing there. :-/",
"From what I've seen all the slots have a disclaimer that malfunction voids any payouts sooo...",
"Because it's bs, slots all have paytables and any avid slotter (i.e addict) will know whats the max you can win. If im playing my usual slots, max wins are normally 500x up to several thousand. And when your playing jackpot games, progressive or not...you will see what the max you can win is.\n\nIf im playing my favourite slot and it says I've won about 5000 times what's possible it's clearly a fault/display error. If you win an amount massively different to the max win why should you get it? Machines malfunction, your bet will either be void of you will receive what was intended.",
"As others have said, in the particular case that you're referring to they'll have to prove that it was a technical error and that the sum offered was never one of the real prizes. ",
"You know how your computer can crash, or display obviously incorrect information? So can modern slot machines. I'm guessing this was posted in response to seeing the woman denied $42 million dollars; She was just printing out her remaining balance of $2 when there was an error which set the value at a negative, which (because computers are weird) showed up as an extremely high value.\n\nSo, it's not like she won and they refuse to pay out. She never actually won $42 million on the game.",
"As stated in a gold post. I've always hated modern machines, they're coded. The odds are predetermined by a machine, the major jackpot has delays so it can't happen twice in a row, and the small winning you get \"randomly\" are less that what's paid in overtime. Literally it's throwing money away. \n\nWhat baffles is the most is watching people dump money I to these machines constantly. \n\nI went gambling once just to say I did it.. I walked in with $40. Entertained myself for a few hours.. Saved my winnings and by the end I won just enough to buy dinner when I was done. \n\nMeanwhile I've had aunt's spend THOUSANDS on these machines... Literally giving it away. ",
"So what malfunction usually means is this.\n\nLets say you are playing a slot machine and four \"7\" is the jack pot ex \"7777\"\n\nIf you hit \"7777\" you get the jack pot.\n\nWhen a machine malfunctions it means that you spin and you do NOT get four 7's you get anything else like \"1234\" but the machine for some reason malfunctions and pays you a jack pot....\n\nYou didn't really get the jackpot , you got 1234....it was an error that it paid jackpot out. So when you hear this happens its NOT that the person spun , got \"7777\" and a jackpot paid out and the casino stepped in and said \"sorry it was a malfunction\"\n\nYou spin, you get 5589 but for some reason the machine spits out a jackpot prize.\n\nOn the flip side if you spin and get '7777' and get no jackpot you absolutely can force the casino to pay you the jackpot.\n\n\nOr it may mean somehow it did the math incorrectly due to a box. All slot machines have pay tables , like in my above example lets say the jackpot pays 1000X or something like that.\n\nLets say you bet 5 cents but for some reason instead of paying out $500 it paid you out $50,000. Again the rules right on the machine say jackpot pays you 1000X your bet...if the machine pays you 100000X your bet its a malfunction.\n\nA common misconception about these cases is people think you hit the jack pot 7777, it pays you out the 1000X like it rules sate, then the casino comes in and says its broken. That does not happen its one of the following.\n\n\n\n1. your spin didn't really hit the jackpot \"example you got 1234\" but the machine tries to pay it out\n\n\n2. you hit the winning combination but for some reason the machine tries to pay you out more than the rules on the machine state ex Jack pot pays 1000:1 but for some reason you the system wants to pay you 100000:1 on a jackpot",
"I concur on the machines I've seen, at least in the Indian casinos around here they all state on the machine \"malfunction voids all pays and plays\". That should mean anything payed to it, anything it has payed, and the plays on it when it malfunctioned, so they need to either return what a person put in it or return their balance to what it was prior to the play that malfunctioned. ",
"If you're talking about the WTF post I saw earlier with the lady that hit the 41 million jackpot or whatever...the story explains that the TOS for the machine explains that the max payout was like $60k. Nowhere near the amount displayed so it was an obvious display error. \n\n\nDoesn't exactly answer your question but apparently there's a terms of service you agree to before you play the machine. I don't gamble so I didn't know but there's TOS for everything else so I'm not surprised.",
"Software engineer here:\n\nThe \"dinner instead of 42m\" was legitimately a computer error. The max payout on that machine was $6500. \n\nIt's not true that the machine is broken for everyone at once. Computers make errors too, that's what crashes are caused by sometimes, and this can -literally- happen because of cosmic radiation. These usually are 1-bit errors in volatile memory (RAM) that do not get corrected. You need ECC RAM for that, which is way more expensive.\n\nHere is an epic talk of a guy who registered almost all bitflips of google's \"gstatic\" domain. _URL_0_ \nGoogles servers make those errors too. He was able to read searches and even replace the logo.",
"Was this person's slot machine a progressive win machine or just a regular machine with a max winnings? I seem to remember that when you put your money and play, there is an agreement that you can win the max amount that machine can give regardless if it says you won more. ",
"State gaming regulations can specify that anything displayed on the screen is not to be trusted, only the amounts specified in the machine's log are used. Afaik, an actual glitch in a machine that affected payout had not occured a single time during the year I worked on them. Plenty of intoxicated customers had tried to claim such - but it's not difficult to review footage from a camera aimed at the machine and compare that information to whatever is displayed in the machine's history.",
"Saw the top comment about tearing down machines, and that's true, but only for large payouts. I work in a small casino (Oklahoma) and every game has a sticker on it that says MALFUNCTION VOIDS ALL PAYS AND PLAYS. \n\nIts a liability thing. Something going wrong I can't fix, I will prevent anyone from playing it. You won something, good for you. You didn't win, have a good day. You want some free money because I shut down \"your\" machine, i said good day! If you think there should have been a legit payout, and I agree with you that its a possibility, then we fill out some forms and wait a few days for the investigation. \n\nIf you ask me to flip \"the switch\" and make it win, I will smile, I will chuckle a bit, and I will imagine you being mauled by a bear.",
"I was playing a video slot machine in Vegas when it broke down. It was entering the \"bonus round\" when it froze on me. I had put in $10, won $20. We agreed that $75 was fair for the bonus round. I wasn't mad. ",
"paytables. you can access paytables on every slot machine and it tells you all payout scenarios. if payout exceeds stated paytables on machine then more than likely it is machine error or software glitch and property will not pay out. ",
"I design slot machine math.\n\nThe game in the picture looks like a Spielo AKA Gtech game.\n\nIf you look at the screen it say cashout, meaning she pressed the cash out button and the screen told her it was cashing out 42 million dollars. The machine absolutely did not tell her she won a mystery prize, that is a lie.\n\nShe did not win that amount of money, it was an error. Casinos and game designers do not pay for errors, they simply void play. That error doesn't negate all the previous play because the games odds are baked in to return around 86 to 96 percent of the total put into the machine.\n\nThose games don't have any prize totaling anywhere near 43million dollars, even progressives. With her bet of $1.35 there is no prize inside the game pay tables that could ever produce more than a $2,000 win. Let's say she was betting on a community progressive game that max on those is 20 to 30K...but she wasn't max betting, snd she wasn't even award the pay on a spin.\n\nIt was a total error, and she should have fought for the max prize on the machine instead of the 42 million.\n\nIf it happened to me, I would know better, and tell the casino if they don't want years of bad press, to pay me the max win on the machine and let's call it a day. If they chose not to, I would drag their ass through the mud by going on a press rampage like this lady..\n\nBut, at the end of the day, she did not win 42 million",
"It seemed like just a display error. She got paid what she won. Either way, these things are rigged and people are just throwing thier money away. She should have accepted the steak dinner. ",
"I plead guilty \"irrelevant comment\". What should a fit punishment be? Should l be hung upside down and get 30 bamboo slashes on my naked body? Would that please you? ",
"Interestingly, it was broken in a very specific way that probably wouldn't have made any legit winners show as losing.\n\nBasically, the women somehow ended up with a negative balance of about $0.20, but it won't allow that, so it wrapped around the other side.\n\nThe payout number was in 32 bit form.\n\n2^32 = 4294967296\n\nFormatted to money, that's $42,949,672.96\n\nShe \"won\" $42,949,672.76\n\nCrazy coincidence, right? It's $0.20 difference. Nope, it wrapped around. When the balance got to 0, but went down another cent, it went to 42,949,672.95, and then kept going until it was 42,949,672.96 - 0.20 = 42,949,672.76\n\nSo for the error to work against someone, they'd have to win more than $42,949,672.96 and it would loop back around to a very small amount. However, the machine was only setup to do max payouts of $6,500 so no one would have gotten anywhere close to that max number.\n\nSo all those machines are probably going to get worked on to fix this issue, and casino's might even pull all of them just because of the screw up, but it's not as simple as \"broken\" and \"not-broken\"\n\nIt's not like it was mechanically messed up or something.\n\nAs far as the law goes, real life is kind of like Monopoly, in that, if you don't notice someone land on your space, they don't have to pay you. If you have no idea you were cheated out of a win, you're not going to pursue them legally and casinos certainly aren't going to tell you that you should sue them.\n\nI wonder if I could get someone from the Warlizard Gaming Forums to chime in with a brief summary of the above.",
"Note: what I am about to say is following UK legislation. Depending on where the Casino is based, the Casino will have to abide to different set of rules.\n\nSlot machines in UK casinos have a set of stickers/disclaimers printed on them, one of which refers to this very specific situation.\n\n\"Malfunctions void all pays and plays'. I suppose the next natural step is for the casino/manufacturer of the Slot Machine to prove that it was in fact a malfunction. \n\nEdit for sources: I have 10 years experience in the casino industry, and a very good insight in various pieces of legislation about gambling and casinos.",
"If its broken its broken. A machine broken says \"pay 1,000,000$\" while the max payout is 5,000$. How would that casino be entitled to pay the person 1,000,000$? At the same time.. they may not HAVE to pay the person for a faulty machine but they SHOULD give some type of compensation or risk losing customers over bad publicity.\n",
"Are you that guy from the Warlizard forums?",
"To win jackpot you need:\n\n**7 - 7 - 7**\n\nYou get:\n\n **BAR - $ - < BLANK > **\n\nThe machine knows what was displayed, the cameras see what was displayed, it is proven to be a mistake.\n\nNow, if the screen actually displayed **7 - 7 - 7**, I don't know if that could be proven as easily.",
"Well I do work in casino and fault happen a lot and we generally give money to costumers when theh don't get paid due to fault. But I'm guessing you're asking because of the 42m case. It was simply mashine displaying random amount as payout and it clearly says that let's say in that case was 4 symbols and it does state on mashine what you get for that. It even states on mashine whats the max payout mashine can make. ",
"The simple answer is that the law protects them.\n\nIf a game has truly malfunctioned, which is easily proven, then the regulations protect both the manufacturer, property and regulatory body. In most cases these days, its a memory leak, or its a bad value which results in something such as 42 million or 21 million, which are all the limits for many data types. Each game has a predefined set of pays which are not only shown on the help screens but also through documentation and source code provided to the casino and regulatory body prior to the machine/game being installed and available for play.\n\nSome of the documentation that is provided are called \"pays and returns\" sheets, or PAR sheets. An example of one is available [here](_URL_0_) -- This is an example from Wizard of Odds, which is an excellent site btw.\n\nIf a prize is awarded outside of these values that is not a progressive prize (variable prize with a base value that increments based upon given events) then it is a pretty safe assumption that a malfunction has occurred. \n\nWhen progressive prizes are involved, more work is required, but it is easily proven.\n\nSlot machines are thoroughly tested and tightly regulated. \n\nThere's not a huge elaborate scheme going on between the government, casino and game manufacturer to scam the average patron. They have no reason to -- the games are all in favor of the house already, legally. Why do they want to scam when they are guaranteed to receive at least 1% of each cent wagered based on law ?",
"The event that spurned this question was from a woman who claimed she won a 43million dollar jackpot. The display said \"Printing cash ticket $42,949,672.76\" but the ticket printed out and showed earnings of only $2.25. Knowing programming, the displayed amount was actually an error code. When you drop the currency format, you get 4294967276 which converts to 0xFFFFFFEC in Hexidecimal. The machine's display, instead of putting $2.25 in the dollar amount, actually showed the error code with the currency format for the number. On top of that, the machine she was using had a max payout of $6,500 dollars. In this case, it was clearly a programming error that displayed an error code in currency format instead of what she actually won that was correctly shown on the ticket that was printed out. When she saw 2.25 on the ticket, she took a selfie with the display and then was offered a steak dinner and $2.25 in cash because of the error. She is now sueing for that amount and that is why this story has resurfaced.",
"The machines at my casino say \"malfunction voids all pays\" in tiny letters at the top of the machine. That's what all the machines in Montana say. ",
" unsigned int x = -20; // pay back 20 cents in credit\n printf(\"credit = %u cents\", x);\n\nCredit = 4294967276 cents\n\n4294967276 cents = $42,949,672.76 USD",
"I never knew how addictive these machines are until I read an article about how Soccer Club house in Singapore can earn up to 36 million dollars a year through slot machines ! I'm not talking about some fancy club house here. It's just a room in a neighborhood shopping center that are frequent by retirees losing their retirement funds. ",
"A few years ago, my brother came home for the holidays. We went to MGM casino after a night of partying in Detroit. He won a jackpot at a Roulette machine, but it didn't payout the $1,000 or so he won. I stayed by the machine as he went to complain. They said they couldn't do anything and said we were lying. \n\nThe only reason we were there is because we were waiting to get picked up as e took an Uber there the day before. As you can probably agree with, he was pissed off, and I was confused since there are hundreds of cameras lined all over.\n\nWe finally called the police, one of which we knew worked at the DPD from high school. They came and the money was given after they wanted to check the eye in the sky. I thought they'd need a warrant or something, but the panic caused by two police officers showing up made them eat their bullshit and pay my brother what he won.\n\nIt sounds unbelievable, but I hate casinos, so this is imprinted in my brain.",
"Nevada gaming agent here - everything can be verified through manufacturer slot par sheets and system software. Part of what I do is make sure the system is correctly calculating the payouts based on how the machine is set up. It's obvious to tell the machines that are malfunctioning and giving payouts vs. people who lost. But trust me, we hear about all of it and have to look into it as well. Casinos can't just refuse large payouts because they claim the machine is messed up, everything needs to be verified. If it's large enough, we get involved too. ",
"I work at a small casino in Indiana. On all of our machines there is a sticker or sign somewhere saying \"all wins void if malfunction\".\n\n Everytime a jackpot is hit an attendant and a security officer will go and get the information, in the mean time surveillance watches the tape to verify it was an honest win. (A lot of people who owe child support etc. Will win and then have someone switch and act like their friend was the one who won. Which is against the law here). Majority of the time though, it's an honest win. \n\nThe only time I can think of when a game malfunctioned was our craps table. It was automatic and the dice date in a bubble and the bottom shook to roll the dice. Well the machine quit shaking which allowed the dice to stay on the same thing each time. Some people were smart and didn't bet a lot, because there is a limit before an attendant will have to come to pay you. After someone decided to bet big, surveillance found out about it. \n\nIn the end we had lost around $50,000 because it was going on for hours. Our gaming commission did an investigation, and I know they prosecuted all of the ones they could identify.\n\n\nTL;DR\n\nMachine broke, everyone who played it knowing it was broke was prosecuted.",
"It's written into the machine's user agreement. It specifically states how much you're entitled to win on a jackpot spin. So in cases where the machine might claim you've won millions of dollars if the user agreement disagrees you're basically shit out of luck. ",
"Ahh but how do you know if an error occurred giving you no payout when you should have won a jackpot?\n\nSo by this logic they should refund anyone who played if an error was found that could affect the probability of winning.\n\nFat chance though.",
"The casino isnt paying, because she didnt win anything and the machine was broken.\n\n1. Woman plays the machine\n\n2. Doesnt win anything\n\n3. Has $2 credit remaining\n\n4. Decides to cash out and go home\n\n5. Stops playing\n\n6. Hits the \"cash out\" button\n\n7. Machine prints correct receipt of $2 correctly on the receipt\n\n8. Machine displays incorrect 47 million number on screen\n\nIts not a win.\n",
"hey silly. Corporations are created to exploit human needs, hopes, and dreams for profit. You can't fault them for being good at it, they have rights, you know ;-)",
"Slot attendant here:\n\ntldr: all malfunctions void pays and plays\n\nLong answer: we absolutely have the capability of finding who played the game and when within reason (I think our casino keeps records up to two weeks back) but to be completely honest, it's a waste of time and energy to track down the sweet little old lady who put $5 in a week and a half ago. The issue is that the game software malfunctioned and the manufacturer is going to be footing the bill not the casino. We deal with people all day every day who have issues like this but on a much smaller scale. Tickets fail to print, jackpots not logging in our system, reel tilts, bill jams, etc. the big difference between those issues and this issue is the amount. And if the manufacturer can prove (which they can) game failure, then that lady isn't getting jack. I hope this helps answer the question some.",
"Most machines have little tags on them that say something like \"Malfunction voids payout.\" where I worked. It's posted and you chose to still participate..therefor they don't have to pay. I'm sure each state my have differing gaming laws and regulations. This was at a state run / policed casino in Louisiana.",
"This is exactly what happen to me. Went to visit a friend in Florida and we hopped into the car and drove to those river boat casinos in Mississippi. Was playing for a while when the machine started ding ding dinging as in I won something. Waited a few minutes and when no one came to assist me I went looking for what I had to do next. Employees come over and then proceed to tell me the machine malfunctioned????? Not my problem you owe me, tells me nope its your problem your playing a defective machine and walks away. WTF, I wasn't much of a gambler in fact this was my first playing the one armed bandits. Cured me of ever thinking about going to a casino ever again.",
"From someone that just came back from vegas and didn't see a single person win on slots now I know why.",
"I know my dad hit a jackpot and the machine was broken, but instead of the ~$1,000 the machine said he won, the casino told him he actually won ~$20,000 and they gave it to him. ",
"I know in some states like oklahoma machines pay out based off bingo patterns and they say so on the machines. Ive seen 777 or douvle double double not pay out anything because the bingo patter didn't hit the reels just happened to land on that. ",
"The real ELI5 Answer for a 5 year old. \n\nLife is not fair. Sometimes people lie to you, sometimes people cheat, and even if you thought you understand the rules, people with power / adults sometimes change the rules.\n\n* And if the kid is older than 5, lets say the age of 9 (though some kids the age of 7 is mature enough in some 7 year olds.) Casinos are not in the business of fairness, they are in two businesses, making money, and selling you a product which is the idea of fun via chance. Well a completely fair system of perfect chance and perfect fairness is not what makes them money, aka you confused the product and why the buyer wants to buy the product with why the seller sells the product. Well the seller only cares about the seller and not the buyer in reality.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\nThere is a great Louis CK bit about this from the TV show Louie about when (dad messed up) and gave the last desert treat to one daughter, when he has two daughters in the house. Here is the article and then the link to the youtube video.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nNote you can also make good arguments that Louis CK screwed up here, and while the life lesson is a good lesson he needs to tell the story later, and deal with the immediate issue, dealing it with the wrong time teaches the kid the wrong lesson for all they are feeling is FEELING at that moment and not the logic. But wait for them to calm down, look them into the eye, and explain the greater life truth and suddenly they get it, they will incorporate the life lesson in their life, but they will also see Dad as special / magical / wizard / sage like, but betray that trust via doing it in the wrong order and they (aka the 5 year old) see dad as the villain.",
"On one hand I don't have a problem with the casino saying \"Oops, it's an error, no biscuit\", but it pisses me off that it's ok that at the same time they're allowed to keep all of the proceeds from a machine that faulted.\n",
"Basically a casino can blatantly prove how the machine malfunctioned for the win. The problem is, a consumer most the time won't know when the machine failed and cost them Money as they'd most likely just assume they'd lost anyways. If a machine mass malfunctioned and instead of taking .05 of your balance but took 50,000 instead, it'd be more noticeable to prove a malfunction. ",
"Well I know a weird trick too win jackpots at casinos but you need to spend 25 years in the blackodge to do it... \n\n\nBut going back to reality you could be the one one to \"break it real good\" and after you win they turn it off or put ab out of order sign on it saying you broke it and then refuse to give you the jackpots but instead give you how much you put in back.... ",
"Slot technician here...\"malfunctions void all pays and play\" you'll find that posted on all the slot machines in canada anyways. That pretty much let's them do whatever they want when the machine has a hiccup...and they do happen",
"Casino employee here for ten years. I've never come across a machine that hit a jackpot and is declared broken. Ever. The only way a casino can NOT pay you out , is of you self exclude yourself (ban yourself) and you hit a jackpot that requires I'd. That money is then donated to a local charity. Our slot technicians are always roaming to fix any paper jams or malfunctions within minutes so you can get back to playing as soon as possible. I think you are meaning a pub or bar slot machine . It clearly states in all bars or on the machine, \"machine voids pay on any or all malfunctions \" . I believe because most bars have little to no security monitoring the Patrons . Some people kick and smash machines, or try to connect any sort of digital software will put the machine straight to \"malfuntion mode\" . I'm not a software developer but I can tell you from lots of experience I've never worked at a casino where a machine malfunctions and the patron does not get paid. Has it happened before?probably , I think Vegas and one in Ottawa happened . ",
"If the only part broken is the payout amount, then no, they don't have to. Second, they don't necessarily have records of everyone who played.\n\nShould they and the servicing company (and possibly the manufacturer) be liable for a penalty, yes. How much, not sure, but an equal ratio between the two or three parties.",
"lol! easy, how do people think they are entitled to something when it's clearly not a reality? Do you scream sexual assault when a man tells you his name is Hugh Mongus?",
"It's not a black and white \"broken.\" The machine printed out the $43m ticket because of a rounding error. This is a very rare and specific occurrence. I can't suggest a solution unless I see the actual code however. This \"malfunction\" doesn't affect play unless a very specific value is hit, causing said error. It has to do with powers of 2, specifically an overflow error at 2^32\nSource: \nP\nI'm a programmer",
"Totally agree with you. Most people ignore tje obvious scam played on those who lost. \n\nIts a little off subject but I think related, when referees go to the monitor for some but not all close calls. Some sports rely on the team or player to request it but when the ref just picks the calls they check? It always rubs me. \n\nOk. One more. Just a pet peeve. The football officials spot the first down ball and the chain crew lines up the marker o the the ball by \"eyeballing it\". Then if the ball is close to a first down they bring tje chains out. This is no more accurate than the eyeball method, since thats what they started with. If the starting point is a judgement call then the ending point should be too. Skip the charade.",
"They generate a constant report of what's happening. All the ones I've seen said error right before the jackpot. Thus they can see when exactly it malfunctioned. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.rawstory.com/2016/10/this-woman-hit-a-42-9-million-jackpot-but-the-casino-refuses-to-pay/",
"http://www.theroot.com/ny-woman-thinks-she-won-42-900-000-at-slots-but-casin-1790857541",
"http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/chi-iowa-casino-error-20150424-story.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Integer_overflow"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.wired.com/2014/10/cheating-video-poker/"
],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/news/comments/6hlwwt/us_woman_sues_casino_that_offered_dinner_instead/dizc004"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/ZPbyDSvGasw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://wizardofodds.com/pdf/vamos-lv-par-sheet.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.good.is/articles/louis-ck-not-fair"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
rjxtc
|
Do we have any clue what body system came about first?
|
I don't think that in evolution would have created multiple systems (Digestive, Endocrine, Immune/Lymphatic, Integumentary, Muscular, Nervous, Reproductive, Respiratory, Skeletal and Urinary) at a time so do we know which one would have evolved first?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rjxtc/do_we_have_any_clue_what_body_system_came_about/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c46f5u3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's sort of a complicated question, since many different types of tissues that fulfill these individual roles have evolved separately in the course of natural history. Like do you mean a muscular system *like our's* or just any system that makes an organism move?\n\nBroadly though, I would say that digestive systems were the first of these to evolve. This is would be very near the beginning of multicellularity; basically a bag of cells with one or two holes for intake of nutrients and disposal of waste.\n\nUnless of course you extend respiration to include cellular respiration, in which case this certainly predates everything else. i don't get the feeling you mean it in that sense though."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
79gjxm
|
Put a phone in a cup; you get amplification, why? Isn't it just as likely that the redirected/reflected sound will be out of phase?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/79gjxm/put_a_phone_in_a_cup_you_get_amplification_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp26ya2",
"dp2ehrs"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It’s because you’re directing the sound better. Your phone kind of just throws waves out in all directions. By directing the sound waves you’re increasing the intensity of them. If you stand directly behind the cup instead it will sound super quiet",
"Technically, this isn't amplification, because it's only louder when pointed at you. \n\nYes, some of the sound waves will be dampened due to destructive interference, but just as many will be amplified by constructive interference. The reason it sounds louder is that the cup reflects the waves toward you. A much higher percentage of the total waves reach your ear. Normally much of this sound would be directed away from you, causing the sound to seem quieter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1znaia
|
the 5th ammendment. as a non-american, i don't understand how pleading the 5th doesn't directly translate to "i'm guilty".
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1znaia/eli5_the_5th_ammendment_as_a_nonamerican_i_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfv5emf",
"cfv5h7t",
"cfv5nu6",
"cfv5ojw",
"cfv5vfa",
"cfv68dj",
"cfv6wof",
"cfv7zua",
"cfva1vv",
"cfvaayq",
"cfvanrq",
"cfvb4o8",
"cfvcee0",
"cfvdbkw",
"cfvfsbd",
"cfvghsw",
"cfvgwal",
"cfvh6ro",
"cfvhfim",
"cfvhguu",
"cfvhkdn",
"cfvhn2q",
"cfvhod1",
"cfvhz8w",
"cfvi5os",
"cfvidpi",
"cfvil5q",
"cfvisoo",
"cfvj4tb",
"cfvj5sr",
"cfvj8f1",
"cfvkk3f",
"cfvkkfn",
"cfvkl2z",
"cfvkscw",
"cfvkw5s",
"cfvkxp9",
"cfvle9j",
"cfvlh6k",
"cfvlke6",
"cfvmkv9",
"cfvmtvi",
"cfvn7dg",
"cfvng2c",
"cfvngzc",
"cfvnsy7",
"cfvo5u4",
"cfvoo6g",
"cfvp9rp",
"cfvpb8h",
"cfvpmtg",
"cfvprxb",
"cfvpzch",
"cfvq0e0",
"cfvq8zt",
"cfvqz5b",
"cfvr17h",
"cfvroza",
"cfvrpp1",
"cfvryna",
"cfvs4k0",
"cfvsejb",
"cfvsman",
"cfvsuuv",
"cfvswpb",
"cfvtfhr",
"cfvttyh",
"cfvugzw",
"cfvv1rs",
"cfvvy8w",
"cfvwqy5",
"cfw7t03",
"cfw7ze7",
"cfwbhhy"
],
"score": [
124,
1787,
28,
32,
6,
333,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2,
20,
3,
6,
2,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
3,
6,
5,
24,
2,
5,
4,
4,
2,
88,
3,
2,
4,
5,
3,
2,
2,
4,
3,
4,
3,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
2,
5,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Pleading the 5th is a fundamental right that prevents the authorities from torturing a confession out of you, or similar behavior. If you don't want to testify then you are not required to do so, and it cannot be held against you. There are plenty of legitimate reasons you might not want to testify including being a nervous and imprecise speaker.",
"Protection against self-incrimination is inherent in our notion of due process. What good is a jury trial if you can just compel people to confess? Sure, you could always lie under oath, but we don't want people's only recourse against self-incrimination to be the commission of *another* crime (perjury). The 5th Amendment offers an escape hatch between these two things. It makes sure the prosecution carries its burden of actually marshalling evidence and proving a case, without requiring the defendant to lie under oath to avoid punishment.\n\nEdit: Because (I thought) OP was originally asking about the 5th amendment right against self-incrimination specifically, I didn't address a defendant's right to remain silent more generally. A defendant in a criminal interrogation/trial can refuse to talk altogether. Yes, this serves to protect against self-incrimination, but it also serves to protect innocent suspects/defendants from saying *anything* that could later be used against them. Police interrogations can be *long* and incredibly coercive. Likewise, testifying in open court can be incredibly nerve-wracking. How many of us in those types of situation would slip up and say something that wasn't quite correct? Or which sounded particularly bad, even though it might be innocuous? And there are *countless* ways a seasoned prosecutor can make innocence look like guilt on cross-examination.\n\nProsecutor: \"You knew Victor Victim, didn't you?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Yes.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did you know him well?\"\n\nDefendant: \"I...I guess so.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did you like him?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Not particularly.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"Did he have sexual relations with your wife the week before he was murdered?\"\n\nDefendant: \"He...he did.\"\n\nProsecutor: \"How did that make you feel?\"\n\nDefendant: \"Like shit, okay? What do you want from me?\"\n\nHere, the defendant hasn't admitted to anything criminal, and has (presumably) answered truthfully. Things got emotional, sure, but who is immune to that? Even though he's said nothing incriminating or morally objectionable, the prosecutor has pulled an incredibly damning motive out of him. Hearing this evidence on examination of the *defendant* is incredibly prejudicial. \n\nSo at a minimum, the 5th amendment right to silence protects the accused from being used as an instrument of his own destruction. If a defendant doesn't want to be subjected to this, we make the prosecutor put the defendant's motive forward with other evidence.",
"It might not help you in the eyes of the jury if you plead the fifth, no.\n\nThe reason we have that right is because someone who is innocent might have done something suspicious, and so they should have a right to not disclose that if they don't want to. For example, if my roommate got murdered and I was a suspect, I might want to plead the fifth if they ask whether I was at home the night she got killed. I didn't do it, but the jury might say \"well he was there so he probably killed her\" and convict me anyway.\n\nThe jury or judge or whoever is not supposed to take the fact that I refused to comment into consideration. In other words, they're not allowed to say \"well he refused to say where he was so he probably killed her.\" I'm not saying that it doesn't happen (in fact I'm sure that it does), but they aren't *supposed* to.\n\nAlso, even if I am guilty, it's the prosecutor's job to prove it, not mine. If there isn't enough evidence to prove that I'm guilty *regardless* of my testimony, I don't belong in jail. I mean, I do, but they shouldn't be allowed to throw me in if they can't prove it.",
"In American law you must be found guilty by evidence that will be used in court to persuade the jury to your guilt. By not providing help by remaining silent, you are making it harder for the law to bring evidence to court. The prosecutor can't say \"the accused refused to answer the question and therefor is guilty\". The prosecutor must provide evidence to prove that you are guilty.",
"Dutch law has something similar wich states that a suspect/defendant doesn't have to cooperate with the prosecution.\n\nSo he's not obliged to give testimony or hand over information that could incriminate him (further).\n\nIn the Netherlands it's quite legal for the defendant to lie about everything.",
"Let's say Joe is accused of murdering Bob. Joe knows he didn't do it because he was busy having sex with Carl's wife at the time Bob was murdered. Since Joe's a married man, he doesn't want to bring this up.\n\nThe prosecution can't use \"Joe won't tell us where he was at the time of the murder so he must be the murderer\" as their argument. They're required to provide hard evidence that Joe did it.\n",
"another thing to remember is that there are often more than one trial involving a single incident. for example me and my BFF go to rob a a store, and he kills somebody. there will be 2 murder trials, i can plead the 5th at his trial so that testimony can't later be used against me at my own trial.",
"The thing is that the court system cannot prosecute someone without conclusive evidence against that person's case. Therefore, if you plead the 5th, you provide no evidence for or against your case. Ergo, no conclusions can be reached in your case.",
"You should also note that if you \"plead the fifth,\" that **can** be used against you in a civil trial.\n\nYears ago, I defended a college student in the civil trial that resulted from a bar fight he was in. He was also facing criminal charges. If, for example, in the criminal proceeding, he refused to answer the question \"Who threw the first punch?\" because it may incriminate him, a civil jury could presume that he refused to answer because he threw the first punch. This sometimes resulted in him getting conflicting legal advice from the criminal lawyer and from myself.",
"One of the reasons that it doesn't directly translate to \"I'm guilty\" is because it's your right against self-incrimination. At best, you're saying that you don't want to talk about something because it would incriminate you for another crime. Remember that what you say to the police can be used against you, but it can't be used FOR you. For example, if I smoked pot and had a friend who was murdered on the same night, I could plead the fifth because of the pot smoking instead of me murdering a friend.",
"Along the same vein, what would happen if I were asked to take the stand (not necessarily in my own defense, but for any reason), and I say no to the oath they recite when they try to swear me in? Is that punishable, or is it my right to refuse to be sworn in and answer questions? ",
"Here is the definitive version of the 5th amendment:\n\n_URL_1_ \n\n_URL_0_\n\n.\n\nPlease view this so that you can really understand, from a legal professor and a police officer.",
"everyone in here is talking about popular use, not the point of the law.\n\nthe law arose because some guy called king the king of england, implicated guilt of one of his former friends for not signing a document to give an alliby to the king of england. the \"friend\" was found guilty and killed.\n\nthe US didn't want a corruption of judicial authority so they said very explicitly that not wanting to say something can not be held as criminal/culpable. they didn't exactly fix the conflict of interests part, but they did the inadmission of guilt isn't guilt part. which is why you can plead not-guilty.\n\n > so how does it not translate to guilt?\n\nby not having anything to do with guilt? you can say you did a crime, or you didn't do it. beyond actual statements, not saying is implicitly and arbitrarily saying you did not do the crime. and so the prosecution must follow it up.\n\nyou simply can't be forced to incriminate yourself. you can't be tortured into confession. you can't be extorted to confess to a different tort. you can't be reasonably forced to lie in court, any lie you give will be by your choice because you are allowed to give no further explanation.\n\nyou are right that it means you are guilty, but of what and to whom? is the person who would be offended by whatever behavior you don't want to admit to engaging in, a legitimate court. or is it a thing which is legal but would put you reasonably at fear for your life or livelihood?\n\nfor example, premarital sex is legal. but could cause very bad repurcussions for some people to admit. thus their alibi takes them out of the frying pan and into the fire. \n\nthe law is there to keep people from taking 'justice' into their own hands. it reduces vigilanteism, by reducing the capcity for a court having a public trial to find innocent a defendant, only for the public to lynch the person.",
"Quite simple: You have a constitutional right against self-incrimination. If you couldn't assert that right by \"pleading the 5th,\" then the 5th amendment would be useless. You would always be implicating yourself. It should be noted that this protection doesn't apply in some other type of proceedings. If you plead the 5th in a federal administrative hearing, the judge can draw a \"negative inference\" and use the 5th as evidence that you are hiding something.\n\nThe 4th amendment has a similar conundrum. Generally, you need probable cause and a warrant to search something. If somebody comes to my house and tells me that they want to search it, and I say no, my refusal does not \"add in\" to their probable cause. If it did, then the 4th amendment would be largely defeated. ",
"Also keep in mind that it's not just about denying guilt- It's also about protecting someone in the case where they don't understand the questioning or perhaps they feel like they might be walking into a trap, especially based on circumstantial evidence in front of a jury. It can be pretty easy for a prosecutor to set you up to look guilty just based on their line of questioning. A good way out is to invoke the 5th and confer with your legal counsel.",
"This is a misunderstood concept.\n\nIt doesn't matter if people think you're guilty. A judge, in an American court, will not convict you of a crime if sufficient evidence of guilt isn't presented. Juries are instructed to behave in the same way. The 5th amendment simply prevents the state from requiring you to present evidence against yourself. Exercising the 5th amendment might seem suspicious, but suspicion isn't enough to convict.",
"You have a right against self-incrimination. So if I ask you a question, the answer of which could incriminate, you have the right to refuse to answer. You haven't said yes or no, you've refused to answer the question.\n\nExample: If I were to ask you is your favorite color red, and you say I plead the 5th, what inferences if any could I possibly draw about your favorite color?\n\nMore practical example: Pursuant to a traffic stop the standard first question an officer will ask you is \"do you know why I stopped you?\" This is a trick, the officer is trying to get you to incriminate yourself. You do not have to answer this question, the appropriate response is \"No officer, why did you stop me?\"",
"Well just because you choose not to answer a question because it may/might/could be used against you (that's what lawyers do after all) is not an admission of guilt. They are non sequiturs. If some one asks me if I robbed a bank and I don't answer (for whatever reasons I choose), it doesn't mean I did rob the bank. They have to prove I did it, I don't/can't prove I didn't. This shows up in US Miranda rights too where you have \"the right to remain silent\", which you should ALWAYS do. There is literally NOTHING you can ever say that will ever help your situation be it a parking ticket or a murder rap. The cops and lawyers can and will use even the most innocent of statements against you in a thousands ways you've never even thought of. It's a TRAP!!!!! Instead, it's best to stfu and call your lawyer. ",
"An important consideration: even if you do read it as \"I'm guilty,\" you don't know what they're guilty *of.* If you are accused of robbing a store, they might ask you \"what were you doing the night of the robbery?\"\n\nMaybe you really *didn't* rob the store... because you were busy buying drugs from your dealer across town. You are refusing to incriminate yourself by saying what you *were* doing that night, but that doesn't mean you did what they said you did.",
"The defendant doesn't actually have to testify at trial, so invoking the right against self-incrimination happens very little in practice. You're right that it does make the defendant seem guilty, so defense attorneys almost never put a criminal defendant on the stand. In fact, trials in many ways are about showmanship and often a better lawyer can prevail on a weaker case because of that. People like to think fairness of the law is what the Constitution guarantees American citizens, but what the Constitution guarantees is due process, in other words, **you are guaranteed a fair and equal process, not fair and equal application of the law**. \n\ntldr: Yes, \"pleading the Fifth\" in practice makes you seem guilty. \n",
"Have you ever seen this video of [this fast talking lawyer](_URL_0_) explain why you should never talk to the police?\n\nMaybe you've heard the line \"everything you say, can and will be used against you\".\n\nIt's much more likely anything you say will be taken out of context or somehow twsited to work against you. ",
"Look around for discussions and links to YouTube where cops, lawyers, and others explain (to Americans) why you should never talk to the police. (Google \"why you should never talk to the police\", for example.)\n\nBasically, if you are being investigated and you are innocent of the charges, contrary to popular opinion there is pretty much no way your well-intentioned insistence on doing **more** talking can help you. The police have the job not of *finding the truth* like we see on cop shows; they have the job of *closing the case*. Handing over to the prosecutors something they can work with, to secure a conviction or, more likely, a plea deal that the district attorney likes.\n\nSo, any little misspoken word or misremembered detail \"can and will be used against you in a court of law.\" They ask where you were from 8 to midnight on the 21st of April; you tell them you were in Springfield with friends. They ask if you're sure you weren't in Shelbyville (and they know why they are asking you that, but you don't). You say \"I haven't been to Shelbyville in years!\"\n\nLater it comes out that the gas station where you filled up your car on the way to meeting your friends at the bar is actually on the side of the highway that makes it Shelbyville. Honest mistake on your part, absolutely trivial detail, but in court you have now **lied** to police and **concealed** the important **fact** that you were in the same town, around the same time, the crime was committed.\n\n*What else are you not telling us?*\n\nSo, the right to just say nothing can be a critical part of simply not making a situation worse. You're innocent, but they don't know that, and they are trying to find a \"good fit\" in terms of who to charge. They are not exhaustively verifying every element, or keeping the investigation going longer because you aren't a *perfect* fit.",
"Love the law... must reply! \n\nELI5 Version: The 5th amendment protects one from self-incrimination in the most general sense, i.e. a person isn't forced to give evidence against him or herself. Yes, (as is obvious) it protects the guilty from incriminating themselves. It also, however, protects the innocent from providing information which may be *used* as evidence against them in some way. \n\nIf you wish to dedicate ~20 minutes to learning more, watch the first half of this video! The title of the video, \"Don't Talk to the Police,\" is of a parallel subject but the speaker is entertaining and explains well the full implications of the 5th amendment. _URL_0_\n",
"One important point to add -- in the context of the 5th Amendment right not to take the stand in a criminal case against you -- is that a skilled trial attorney can easily make an innocent person look guilty on cross-examination.\n\nEven an innocent defendant-witness is going to be nervous. On cross the prosecutor is dissecting every word the witness says. Most people, when being asked many, many, many questions, quickly and in a high-pressure environment will end up using different words or phrases to describe the same thing in different answers. They'll get confused, think the questioner is asking about something else, answer the wrong question, say the wrong name. A good cross-examiner will make this look like the witness is obviously a liar. The witness gets more nervous, maybe angry, it's only natural. An innocent witness becomes exactly what we think a guilty defendant would act like on the stand.\n\nThis is just one of the reasons why the 5th Amendment is a good idea, and I like to bring it up because it's harder to argue with than the \"it's not fair to make people incriminate themselves\" aspect.",
"Before we can begin: Americans assume everyone else knows we have an adversarial system. As far as I can see, a lot of other countries have a collaborative fact finding system. The judge, the lawyers, magistrates - everyone is a fact finder. Here, we do not collaborate. We fight. And whoever makes their case best, wins - even though the rules say that the prosecutor has the burden to do all the proving. The defense's job is counter the prosecutor's attempt to prove all elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt - by offering evidence, testimony, or merely pointing out that the state is doing a bad job (the last is not a great tactic usually...). There are rules, but we fight dirty. The fifth amendment is necessary to protect people from some dirty tricks and to make sure that the prosecution meets their burden of proving each and every element of an offense beyond a reasonable doubt. \n\n\"Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law.\"\n\nThis means after they frustrate you and you say \"YES I WAS THERE! Yes I thought the diamonds were beautiful! But I didn't steal them!\" They can ask you on the stand, or quote you later as saying \"YES I WAS THERE...the diamonds were beautiful.\" And you can't explain. \"Answer yes or no.\"\n\nAside from that, the accused in the US has no duty to prove his or her case. The burden is on the state/city/government to prove each and every element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If the evidence does not show that, then the government (should) lose. \n\nI've seen so many people who think they \"have nothing to hide\" get completely railroaded - and I'm not even out of law school yet. I've been in the public criminal defense world for all of 8 months and my best advice to everyone is SHUT UP - especially around police. That being said, we put a client on the stand today. This client did great. We have another client who is dirty, smelly, and literally crazy. Will a jury believe anything he says? Can we predict what he'll say? No. Even though I believe he's innocent, there is no way I am counting on people to see past his exterior. A prosecutor could so easily trip this guy up. Pleading the fifth here is an important strategic move - and essential to protecting this guy's right to have the state prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. \n\nProcedurally, like u/TheRockefellers pointed out, the jury is unlikely to see the witness say \"I'm pleading the fifth.\" They are also supposed to be instructed that taking the fifth is absolutely not an admission of guilt. Lots of lawyers test out whether the prospective jury members are likely to believe that pleading the fifth = guilt during voir dire (jury selection). If so, the prospective juror can be dismissed. Further, the prosecutor cannot point out that the defendant did not testify. \n\nThis is a complicated topic, clearly. But, pleading the fifth definitely DOES NOT mean guilty. Any judge or prosecutor worth his or her salt knows this, too. \n\nEdit: clarification. ",
"It's mostly a formality. It basically means that it's not allowable logic to say \"He/she didn't answer this question, therefore he/she is guilty\" (which is the natural conclusion, as you note). It forces prosecutors to find evidence from sources other than the defendant, rather than engaging in a witch hunt where either you confess (and are guilty) or refuse to answer (and are assumed guilty). This may seem weird, but essentially our legal system isn't about determining the **truth**, necessarily; rather, it's about giving everyone an equal chance to **argue** their innocence, while someone else argues their guilt. Think debate team rather than research project.\n\nAs an issue of privacy, it also allows you to avoid answering questions which would incriminate you in a context other than the crime at hand; for example, you won't answer where you were a particular night because you were cheating on your wife, not because you murdered someone.",
"I should like to mention torture as it made the headlines again today. Look up \"hickory shampoo\", it is a euphemism for beating someone with a night-stick. Usually in a police-on-suspect context. It was an (unfortunately) common interrogation technique used against people who were perceived to have weaker civil standing. The fifth amendment, among other things, was meant to be a check against aggressive interrogation. Hand in hand with the right to remain silent. Having served on a jury, I think twelve random strangers do a surprisingly reliable job of judging credibility. Assumptions are made, voiced, and challenged by the members, and at the end of it I think there is little motivation for corruption of justice. Our right to due process is to be cherished. We should be deeply concerned about fifth amendment [violations](_URL_0_) that are tantamount to death warrants. The worst son-of-a-bitch on the planet is entitled to due process under our system of jurisprudence, and we need to make sure we protect that. ",
"I'm seeing a lot of great answers, but no one even really seems to have touched upon why the fifth amendment was important enough to put in the bill of rights yet. From what I understand, forced confessions were fairly common until the late 18th century, right around the time the US was officially founded as an independent country. If the law of the land was that you cannot be forced to testify against yourself, by extension you also disallowed suspects to be tortured into a false confession.\n\nBut, yeah, most of the answers here are absolutely right.",
"I'll just quote Cardinal Richlieu: \"Give me six lines written by the hand of the most honest man, and I’ll find something in them to hang him by.\"\n\nEven if you're innocent, if you talk to the cops, you might say something that sounds incriminating. In fact, prosecutors are good at taking anything you say and making you sound guilty - see Cardinal Richlieu.\n\nOr here's an American defense attorney explaining why you should never talk to the police, and take full advantage of your Fifth Amendment rights.\n\n_URL_0_",
"The 5th is actually brilliant. A defendant doesn't have to say a word once arrested. They have a case against you? Prove it. ",
"Basically the thinking of the Founders was this: The State has a tendency to become tyrannical over time. The State has the exclusive right to deprive you of life, liberty, or property. So, those two things combined make the State dangerous. Necessary, but dangerous. What to do?\n\nOne of the protections they provided is the 5th amendment. The State has the right to prosecute me for a crime, but it has the BURDEN of proving my crime itself. I have absolutely no obligation to HELP the State deprive me of my life, liberty, or property. So, if the State is questioning me about something, and something I might say could be USED to make a case against me, I am not obligated to answer, and no court can use my refusal to answer as evidence of a crime being committed.\n\nedit: added an 'N' to tyrannical to satisfy the spelling police.",
"Here is a little example of how the 5th is a helpful tool experienced in my own life.\n\nDoes anyone remember that excedrin recall they had in 2012 because they were accidently bottling percocet in it? Yeah, I had no idea at the time either. Apparently, I got an unlucky batch, and took what I thought to be excedrin for a headache, but was actually some percocet.\n\nI took a piss test the next day and didn't think anything about it. Two months later it came back that I tested positive for a controlled substance, and I was called in to see my company commander who read me my rights. I had absolutely no idea what was going on when they said I failed a drug test (which means I was going to get kicked out of the army, and lose all of my benefits and GI bill for college).\n\nThey said I could talk to them right then and they would help me figure everything out, or I could say nothing and talk to a lawyer. I still didn't know what was going on, so I refused to talk.\n\nTo cut out the fat from the story, I got a lawyer, figured out what specifically I tested hot for, did some research, and found out that my batch of excedrin was recalled for containing percocet, the drug i tested positive for.\n\nThis ended up saving me from getting kicked out of the army. Had I told my company commander I didn't take any drugs etc when they were asking me, I would have been fucked. I did take drugs, I just thought they were something else.\n\nAnyways, I contribute my not getting kicked out of the army due to the fact that I didn't say a goddam thing to my company commander. Fifth amendment, fuck ya!",
"I think the general idea of protection against self-incrimination has been spoken about but I wanted to mention a lot of the other aspects of the fifth amendment and what \"pleading the fifth\" means. To do this I wanted to give a basic summary of where the \"Miranda warning\" comes from.\n\n* [**In general**] The fifth amendment is juxtaposed between article 3 (right to a trial by jury) the 6th (right to an attorney) and 14th amendment (due process and incorporation doctrine) which give it the force of law to apply the \"Miranda warning\" to every situation dealing with the police or other officer of the law. The Miranda warning comes from a famous court case, \"Miranda V. Arizona\" where the supreme court ruled 5-4 about the right for a person to remain silent and for that silence not to be held against them in a court of law.\n\n* [Artical 3] Now, law in the United States is adversarial law, which is different than other countries courts of law. In the United States there are always two parties who are arguing in front of an impartial third party, the judge. This is why you always see court cases like \"The People vs Larry Flint\" and the like, because there is one person representing \"The People\" and another representing \"Larry Flint\". This is an understood aspect of Due Process in the states. A person is always granted an attorney to represent them unless they sign away this right.\n\n* [Artical 5] There is also the right against \"self incrimination\". This directly related to our nations stance against torture. You can read more about it at length in [Brown Vs Mississippi](_URL_1_) but basically it states that a persons right to deny self incrimination is basically a persons right to not be tortured and if they are tortured none of this evidence may be used in court against them.\n\n* [Article 6 and Article 5's due process] Our constitutional rights cannot be taken away from us, and the only way for a court to proceed without going through the adversarial form of law I mentioned before is for someone to sign away their right to do so. But it is incredibly arguable whether or not someone can be said to have signed away their rights if they never knew about their rights. That's like your older brother not telling you about your Christmas present and when you find out about it he says \"Well you didn't want it so I just took it.\" I mean come on, I totally wanted that laptop! I would have taken it if I knew about it, jeeze! \n\n* [Article 14 or Incorporation Doctrine] Now the judgement in Miranda stemmed from a knowledge that police interrogations are often times incredibly coercive with officers leaving out little tidbits about constitutional rights granted to citizens of the United States. These rights cannot be taken away from citizens by any officer of the law where the united states has de facto control (Read recent case law [Hamdi v. Rumsfeld](_URL_0_) I believe) which includes overseas military bases and the like. \n\nSo, \n\n1) if we didn't have protection against self incrimination it's possible that torture or coersion could be used to get confessions.\n\n2) If someone isn't told about a constitutional right they cant be said to have given it up, so they must always be told about them in a Miranda warning.\n\n3) If a confession is gathered with coercive tactics or without a lawyer then there was never an adversarial courtroom with an unbiased third party that is outlined in Article 3.\n\nTL;DR\n\nTo protect due process, our right not to be tortured and our right to council everyone is granted the right to remain silent until they speak with a lawyer and for a lawyer to be present at all interrogations. ",
"No one says \"I plead the fifth\" to a jury in his or her own trial. That's something you say when you're compelled to give testimony like to congress, a legislature, a grand jury or a trial against someone else. \n\nAt your own trial it functions more as a right not to have to testify against yourself. So the prosecution cannot call the defendant as a witness. \n\nThe fifth amendment also does a lot more that protect you against compelled self incrimination. It's kind of a big one. ",
"Cop here with a Bachelor's and Master's degree in Criminal Justice. I'm assuming you are referring to someone being asked in court as opposed to someone who was just arrested. Essentially it comes to the \"burden of proof\" our system uses. If you are arrested, charged, and on trial for a crime it is up to the prosecution to prove your guilt, not the defense to prove your innocence. If the prosecutor fails to provide sufficient evidence to prove that you are guilty you can offer no defense and be found not guilty. How does this relate to the 5th ammendment? By refusing to answer you are not providing any evidence. Does it make a person assume the person is guilty? Sure. However, our system relies on evidence, not assumptions. \n\nFun fact. You must VERBALLY ENVOKE your 5th ammendment rights during questioning by law enforcement (I'm referring to being recently arrested, not during trial) or your silence when asked a question can be used to imply guilt. See the Supreme Court ruling in Salinas v Texas for full explanation.",
"Juries are not allowed to assume not testifying means you're guilty, but it's common knowledge that they almost always do. One of the most famous American criminal defense lawyers, Edward Bennett Williams, always made his clients testify because he knew juries would assume silence = guilt. It's a very understandable human conclusion.\n\nBut you should have the right to refuse to self-incriminate. The government should bear the entirety of the burden of proving guilt and, as a lawyer, I assure you it's not hard to make people misspeak. Being on the stand is fucking terrifying and you could be perfectly innocent yet incriminate yourself. There are dozens and dozens of cases and studies proving this.",
"I would highlight two things.\n\nFirst, when you talk to the police about a crime they suspect you for, even if you didn't commit it, you might lead them to suspect you of *other* crimes that you might not have committed either. That could lead to you getting prosecuted for something else, even though you committed no crime and cooperated fully with the police.\n\nSecond, an innocent person can tell true things to the police that would make them look pretty bad in the eyes of the police or a jury. For example, suppose you had a loud argument with your housemate before going out of town for the long weekend to your mother's house. When you come back, your housemate has been murdered, and because somebody in your building heard you two arguing, the police are investigating you as a suspect. You tell the police that you were out of town that weekend, and that your mother can testify to that. But unknown to you, the police have interviewed a new tenant in your building who believes (incorrectly!) that he saw you during the weekend. Now the prosecutor can use that neighbor's testimony to argue in front of a jury that you lied to the police.\n\nI adapted this second example from [this video](_URL_0_), which I would recommend you watch.",
"You may accidentally reveal information that could be presented in a way that incriminates you. That is just one way the fifth can be used to protect yourself even if innocent. Essentially the fifth helps to secure a fair trial.",
"Unlike other countries, in the US you are innocent til proven guilty. If one is accused of a crime, it is up to the state to prove your guilt FIRST and for you to then offer explanation, reason, etc. as to your innocence. Taking the Fifth basically translates into, \"I'm not saying ANYTHING because some bit of information can be taken by the prosecutor and placed into a context that may or may not be actual proof of guilt, but is presented in such a way that one might assume guilt. You are accusing me of a crime? Fine. Prove it....I'm not saying a single word that might help you. \n\nAlso, it is important to understand the difference of being found innocent, and not guilty. Being found guilty bears a certain level of proof, evidence, etc. If that cannot be show, then the person is found not guilty. It does not mean the party didn't commit the crime....it just means the state did not prove its case with evidence, etc. that you did.",
"It's like checking in poker. Just because you check doesn't necessarily mean you have a shit hand. ",
"It's also a bit different than what I think OP is envisioning. I think the OP is envisioning the prosecution calling the defendant to the stand, and, upon the first question, the defendant say \"I plead the 5th.\" The way this actually works is that the defendant is just never called up to the stand to testify.\n\nIf you're an innocent defendant, why would you not want to go up to tell your story? Because once you do that, the prosecution gets the right to cross examine you and present incriminating evidence. For example, if someone was on trial for the murder of their wife, and found out two weeks prior that his wife had been cheating on him, that evidence could be introduced, and the jury could infer from that evidence what they will. \n\nThe \"I plead the 5th\" thing comes up in other circumstances. Where one person is called to testify in a trial where they are not the defendant, but his testimony would incriminate him in a crime. Or where individuals are called to testify before a Congressional committee, and the testimony the committee attempts to elicit could incriminate them in a crime. ",
"Short version, it has a few intended purposes:\n\n* If you think the person is trying to trap you by having you say things that make you *sound* guilty, when you actually aren't. (For example: \"So you do own a hat just like this guy's hat, but can't prove where you got it?\")\n\n* Without it, their first question for every crime would be \"did you do it?\". If you say no and are later proven guilty, they could also charge you with lying under oath, which is a felony. (Since you said you didn't do it, but the court proved that you did, which means you lied.) This would make everyone have a strong incentive to plead guilty to small crimes even if they are innocent, to avoid the risk of a felony charge.\n\n* It prevents the courts from being used to uncover private, embarrasing, or dangerous information. Without it, a lawyer could ask me \"What are your computer passwords\" or \"tell me the names of everyone involved in undercover work against the mob\" and I would be required to answer.",
"Simple.\n\nYou are innocent until proven guilty. The burden to show proof is on prosecution. You are not required to testify against yourself. They have to prove without a reasonable doubt that you did thing.\n\nPleading the 5th amendment is 100000% NOT a showing that you're guilty of something. EVERYONE should plead the 5th EVERY TIME. You don't need to prove ANYTHING.",
"Very well put: In the UK silence can be used against you... Do you see how insanely powerful that is? I, the state, accuse you of any crime I wish, you are silent on the matter, therefore you're innocent? How is that logical? \n\nIt isn't. The US system has evolved from that exceptionally backwards and illogical system to putting the burden COMPLETELY on the state to prove my guilt. If the state cannot do so, I am free to leave. This is a critical check on the power of the state. \n\nThe right to remain silent (our rights that are protected by, not created by, the 5th Amendment) is a check on the power of the government meaning that it must prove my guilt or leave me alone. \n\nRemember: the American system was built upon a foundation of exceptionally important principles which were, and are, antithetical to old-world thinking. One of which is that it is better to let a guilty man go free than to infringe the rights of an innocent one. \n\nA guilty man run amok may injure the rights of a few people; a state run amok ___will___ injure the rights of the whole country. ",
"_URL_0_ watch and learn. don't talk to the police",
"I've had a cop read me my rights. I Decided to tell him what actually happened after the fact. Changed what I said in the report and still took me to jail. Basically because cops are pieces if shit and can lie, break the law, coerce admission, and interrogate you ( with no food or sleep) for up to 24 hours. It's basically a simple way to protect yourself from falsely admitting a crime. Check out The Manhattan 5 documentary on Netflix if you want a little better understanding. ",
"Under our criminal justice system, a defendant is innocent until proven guilty. This isn't just an expression; it literally means that the government (the state), has the complete burden to prove that a defendant is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. With this comes our right to due process and protection against self-incrimination. Being innocent (not necessarily literally innocent, but innocent under the law, until proven otherwise), you have the complete right to remain silent and not say anything that may incriminate you, because of the fact that the burden is entirely on the state. By assuming that a defendant is only silent because he is guilty, it shifts the burden onto the defendant to have to prove his innocence, which goes against our notions of what is fair and just. ",
"Fucking Raymond Tusk",
"Consider this example, one day you were doing something illegal like growing drugs, robbing a home, performing a scam on someone...The cops want to arrest you but have no basis.\n\nSuddenly, you happen to be a possible suspect in a murder case. Now, you know for a fact you weren't at the scene of the murder because you were busy doing something illegal. Do you tell us the illegal act you were doing and get arrested, just to avoid a murder charge you are not guilty of? \n\nNo, because A. You are not guilty of the other crime, no reason to hurt yourself to avoid getting punished for it. and B. You may in fact incriminate yourself by admitting to something illegal, making the jury find you even more guilty.\n\nSo, you plead the fifth. Now it's on the prosecution's shoulders to PROVE you did something, rather than for you to prove your innocence. And why is it like that? Because you are just one man, and the prosecution is the government, they have the means and the power to go after you...you don't need to help them do it though.",
"Fun fact: people in court don't \"plead the 5th.\" That happens in TV and movies, but not so much in real life. \n\nEveryone on that stand in court knows exactly what s/he is saying beforehand, and so does his/her attorneys.",
"There are lots of great comments in this thread, but I want to offer a slightly more straightforward explanation:\n\nIn an informal context, pleading the fifth basically *does* translate to saying \"I'm guilty.\" (For example, if a politician invokes the fifth during an investigation, it would be very hard for him to get re-elected, regardless of the outcome of the investigation, precisely because the public will interpret it as saying \"I'm guilty.\")\n\n*HOWEVER!*\n\nIn a formal context, it also translates to *\"But you have to prove it.\"*\n\nThe fact of the matter is that any form of eyewitness testimony is really, really shitty. People's memories are awful, they're easily biased, even in terms of how a question is asked, the list goes on and on. \n\n(For example: a [study was done](_URL_0_), in which participants were shown a video of a car crash. Some participants were asked \"How fast were the cars going when they hit each other?\" while others were asked, \"How fast were the cars going when they smashed into each others?\" They were later asked \"Did you see any broken glass?\" People in the *smash*-group were much more likely to say \"Yes.\" The catch? There wasn't any broken glass in the video at all.)\n\nThe ramification here is that if the prosecution has such a weak case that they'd only be able to find the defendant guilty if s/he were compelled to explicitly confess their guilt, then they don't have a good enough case and the defendant should not be found guilty. The Fifth Amendment is another tool we have that is designed to ensure that innocent people aren't wrongly found guilty. It forces the prosecution to actually do its job.\n\nGenerally speaking: if someone pleads the Fifth, then any competent prosecution should be able to muster enough objective evidence to warrant a conviction. (Usually, not always.) It's important for everyone that the prosecution actually does the legwork to find the defendant guilty. Otherwise, there's no paper trail, there's no accountability, there's no attempt at objectivity.\n\n",
"So what exactly do you tell the officer when getting pulled over for an infraction say, speeding when they ask if you knew how fast you were going? Say the limit, you don't know, or remain silent with a nod?",
"The reason , despite popular belief, is you cannot be forced to testify against yourself.\n\nMeaning, that if you are on trial for a crime they cannot force you to speak, in your defense or otherwise.\n\nThe reason why is because the burden of proof is not on you, but your accusers. \n\nThey must have enough evidence to believe they can get a conviction to charge you with a crime.\n\n If it were necessary to force you to speak, then they don't believe they have enough evidence on their own and you are wrongfully charged.\n\nYou can't charge someone with a crime on the pretext that you can force them to testify and hopefully get them to say something incriminating.\n\n\n\n\n",
"Simple: Not claiming that you're innocent is not the same as claiming that you're guilty. It's the prosecution's job to find and show to the court evidence of your guilt. It's not your job, as the defendant, to help them in any way. If you feel that speaking might help the prosecution, you don't have to speak.",
"The fifth prevents you from being forced to speak then having your perchance poorly worded statement, innocent as it may have been, used to incriminate you.",
"This video [Don't talk to the police]( _URL_0_) sums it up pretty nicely. ",
"Have you been watching House of Cards? ;)",
"This isn't an american thing. Any legal system worth it's salt will have something similar.",
"Sometimes people who aren't guilty still want to respect their privacy and not explain where they were or what they were doing, or their spouse. In many cases it is from being guilty, but in many others it comes from them having an excuse which is embarrassing or illegal, or shameful. For example back in the day someone might plead the 5th if the cops wanted to know where they were and they were with their gay lover. Back in the day being gay could get you killed, beaten, or treated differently, so it might be better to be thought as straight and guilty than gay and innocent. It can also be used as a tool in court. Needless to say, one has many reasons to plead the 5th despite being innocent or guilty. Anyone who \"assumes\" the person is guilty is doing the system a disservice, as jurors are supposed to operate off of facts (evidence.) So pleading the 5th is lack of evidence, not guilt. Otherwise please see unknown, unknowns. \n_URL_0_",
"It's always possible the prosecution can build a case on circumstantial evidence, and use your testimony as part of that circumstantial evidence. The right to remain silent during it all puts the burden of TOTAL proof on the prosecution, where it should be. If you were forced to testify, the prosecution could use a tactic of asking you things that make you look bad, or make you uncomfortable, but are not relevant to the case. Like asking you if you got a BJ from Monica Lewinsky while trying to build a case about a land deal.",
"In America the law is a joke. Its not there to protect the good, or help the innocent, its a weapon. You can kind of consider it a sort of dueling weapon, and the court room is combat to the death. It doesnt matter who is right, or wrong, but who can twist the law to suit thier needs and get a judge/jury to agree to it. EXAMPLE:OJ SIMPSON.\n\nWhen you are brought into contact with one of the highly trained \"legal gladiators\" that you will encounter in the system (police officers, prosecuters, detectives questioning you, judges, etc) you are allowed to admit that you have no idea what the fuck your doing by pleading the 5th, and request someone come champion your best interests in this legal contest. You then summon a lawyer to your side to sort thru the HOLYWTFBBQ legal storm that just got dropped in your lap.\n\nIn court you can also plead the 5th, which is a nice way to say \"Fuck you, prove it\" without getting yourself thrown in jail for contempt.\n\nIn conclusion, \"pleading the 5th\" doesnt neccesarily mean Im guilty, it could mean Im refusing to speak until I have a legal translator and advisor present (lawyer) or Im not going to admit anything and now the burden of proof lies on the accuser.\n\nPROTIP: For the record, whenever your speaking to any \"legal gladiator\" in America, for any reason whatsoever, you should plead the 5th and request a lawyer. NEVER, EVER, EVER answer any questions or admit anything. EVER. NO MATTER WHAT THEY SAY. Its your right to have your own \"legal gladiator\" in your own corner to defend you. Without one, your fucked.\n\n\n\nWhatever your offense is, if you get caught, you need a lawyer to navigate the giant maze of laws and lawyer-speak that you will be overwhelmed with as a commoner unninitiated into the crazy world that is a court room.",
"You can only make your situation worse by talking, never better. Do you think the cop is going to let you go if you deny guilt? That doesn't mean anything, most criminals deny guilt. Talking can't make it better. It can however make it worse. E.g. a cop says you're arrested for murder, five minutes later you say \"I didn't kill anyone!\", but cop has forgotten he mentioned it was about murder, and now you're on record for knowing it's about murder without anyone having told you, clearly a sign of guilt! It can and will be used against you.\n\nIn short, the fifth is there to protect you from digging your own grave, whether guilty or innocent.",
"The 5th allows defendants to refuse to testify if their testimony would make them ***look*** guilty. Something as innocuous as being in the same part of town (as opposed to bring in another country) would tend to prove guilt regardless of whether the defendant was actually involved.",
"The text of the Ammendment includes several protections for people accused of crimes, including such things as the double jeopardy rule, the due process requirement, etc:\n\n\"No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.\"\n\nI'm assuming based on how you asked your question that it's the \"nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself\" piece you're interested in.\n\nThe distinction is fairly simple. Saying \"I'm guilty\" is a confession - it's something that can be used in court to prove your guilt if you later say you're not.\n\nClaiming your Fifth Ammendment rights can NOT be used in court to in any way imply your guilt.\n\nAlso, as others below have said, it prevents the prosecution from forcing you to testify in your own trial, which means they can't force you to say things that would make it sound like you're guilty.",
"Its to protect yourself from self incrimination. Most countries actually have a law like this. In Canada it involves actually saying you can't testify due to it incriminating yourself, rather than just pleasing the 5th.\n\nFor example: if you're robbing a store and you witness a murder. You would plead the 5th to avoid telling the jury that you were doing something illegal. This example is an extreme though. ",
"I'm not sure if this has already been said but during the Second Red Scare (late 40's-early 50's) many federal employees were dismissed as being \"5th amendment Communists.\" The logic behind this was, as your question implies, that if answering questions related to your potential 'communist' activity would incriminate you, then you must be guilty. This is what led to the persecution of several Hollywood executives. There were, however, numerous other reasons why people pleaded the fifth when accused of communism. Many, for example, did it out of protest. Others still did it not because it would incriminate themselves, but because it would incriminate others. This was just off the top of my head so I apologize for any errors. For more see \"Nightmare in Red: The McCarthy Era in Perspective\" by Richard Fried.",
"The first 1:40 of [this clip from Star Trek: The Next Generation](_URL_1_) discusses the issue. The basic idea is that there are MANY reasons why a person would not want to discuss something in public. Some are for reasons of guilt. Others are related to [embarrassment or pride](_URL_0_).\n\nThere is a more fundamental reason, though. A justice system must make an early choice: what do we think about a person before we know the facts? Do we think he's probably guilty, or do we think he's probably innocent? Most ancient societies started out thinking people were guilty, and then the person had to prove that it wasn't true. That's HARD. Can you PROVE you didn't rob a liquor store on January 18th, 2011? Can you provide us with any witnesses who would swear that you were somewhere else that night? Can you give us receipts from purchases you made at that time? Can you demonstrate that it didn't happen? Imagine if that's how our courts operated -- being suspected meant you would be found guilty most of the time, whether you did it or not, simply because proving that you DIDN'T is so hard.\n\nBecause of bad experiences with this structure for justice, America went a different direction. We start off assuming everybody is innocent, and then the government has to PROVE that the accused is guilty. Punishments for crimes are often very unpleasant, so our founding fathers believed it was better to let 100 guilty people go free than to let ONE innocent person suffer for crimes they didn't commit. People complain all the time about guilty people going free, and they say that our justice system has failed because of it. They're wrong -- that's exactly what our justice system was DESIGNED to do. Every court makes mistakes once in awhile; we wanted to make sure that almost all of those mistakes were \"guilty people not punished\" instead of \"innocent people punished.\"",
"I am probably late to the party but please watch this video it will explain in general why you should never talk to cops, and that is in any country and any circumstance.\n\n[link](_URL_0_)\n\nIt is a lecture by a law proffessor, and is actually quite funny.",
"Here's the thing: the jury does not see you plead the fifth amendment. In fact, if you have to plead the fifth during a jury trial, my understanding is that usually the trial will get thrown out.\n\n\nThis is called a mistrial.\n\n\nThe American judicial system is like a science for the uncovering of facts through the testimony of witnesses. What this means is that people will testify, but if they are going to testify something that is just designed to be scary to the jury, or make the jury cry, or make the jury happy, but doesn't have anything to do with the facts, then the judge will most likely have a closed debate (I think called a \"Sidebar\") where the lawyers can argue.\n\nThis is the key to American law: the lawyers argue. Each gets to pick a side and stick to it. So, if you have to plead the fifth, and have a good lawyer, that lawyer will argue with the judge and the other side so that the jury never sees you \"plead the fifth.\"",
"It's the same as when a police officer doesn't have a warrant to search you. In the States at least, you often don't open up your bag or house for random police officers. Not because you're guilty, but because you don't want to be incriminated for something that you a) didn't know was illegal/incriminating (similar clothes to a murderer) or b) something you didn't know you had, like a stoner friend leaving a baggy of weed at your house.\n\nIf our rights to privacy weren't in place, the police would search every house on a whim, whether we were guilty or not. The 5th Amendment gives Americans the chance to not give away information, just like we wouldn't give away the right to search our house.",
"America's criminal justice system is based on the concept of innocent until proven guilty. So in a criminal case, the burden is on the prosecution to prove you are guilty. It is not the defendant's burden to prove he is innocent. The 5th amendment stems from this concept and allows for the concept to actually be applied in the real world. Defendants exercise their right to remain silent and prosecutors try to satisfy the burden of guilt.\n\nIt does seem very suspicious when a criminal defendant pleads the 5th, but it is a constitutional right and the Supreme Court has interpreted that to mean that there can be no adverse conclusion drawn from the exercise of that right.\n\nHow is this applied in court? (i'm in NY so these are from NY rules of evidence.)\n\nFirst off, it only applies to criminal cases, or cases that would lead to penalty or forfeiture. So if there is no threat of prosecution, or penalty or forfeiture (for example, because you were granted full immunity), you cannot invoke the 5th amendment.\n\nSecondly, it only applies to \"testimonial\" evidence. Testimonial evidence reveal's a person's subjective knowledge or thought process, whereas non-testimonial evidence would be like fingerprinting, photographing, appearing. So you cannot invoke the 5th amendment to attempt to prevent your fingerprint from being recorded, even though the fingerprint may incriminate you more than any statements (besides \"I did it!\") ever could.\n\nNow, to the participants of a case; \n\nThe jury - The jury or the trier of fact may not draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's refusal to testify.\n\nThe prosecutor - The prosecutor may not comment before the jury regarding defendant’s failure to testify in an attempt to invoke an unfavorable inference (the prosecutor may comment in summation, on the witness-defendant’s opportunity to tailor his testimony to fit into the other evidence).\n\nThe Judge - The Constitution requires a trial judge to give a \"no inference charge\" if the accused requests it. Basically, a no-inference charge tells the jury that they may not draw an unfavorable inference from the defendant's refusal to testify. It is reversible error if trial judge refuses to give the no-inference charge where the accused has requested it.\n\n\nRemember, the 5th amendment deals with self-incrimination so these are the rules in criminal court. The privilege against self-incrimination can be invoked in a civil case that involves penalty or forfeiture, or that would lead to prosecution if incriminating statements were made. However, a major difference in a civil case is that an unfavorable inference may be drawn against a party from the exercise of the privilege against self-incrimination, without any regard to the reason for the silence.",
"however interesting this discussion is, you all seem to forget racial-bias in the US legal / justice system. How do you deal with that while pleading the 5th? ",
"Invoking the 5th amendment in basic terms allows to you lawfully avoid criminalizing yourself. You don't necessarily have to be guilty to not want to speak. The way the law works is that the opposite side (persecutor) will try to use whatever possible to win on their side of the case. It is often prudent to withhold giving any information unless absolutely necessary, and give it carefully at that. It's basically a basic human right that essentially allows you to prevent giving your opponents weapons, in the legal sense.",
"The 5th doesn't only apply to the crime the police are talking to you about.\nIf the police are conducting a murder investigation, and they arrest you for say, parking tickets you got out the front of the murder site.\nThey'll ask what you were doing there.\n\nIf you were buying drugs and admit to it, They'll arrest you.\nIf you lie to defend yourself, they'll get you for lying to them, as well as the drug thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=08fZQWjDVKE",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/29/world/obamas-leadership-in-war-on-al-qaeda.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0"
],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hamdi_v._Rumsfeld",
"http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/297/278/case.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=i8z7NC5sgik"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.holah.co.uk/study/loftus/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&feature=youtube_gdata_player"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_w5JqQLqqTc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://slowrobot.com/i/35544",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FQ9SUbEPrhk"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wXkI4t7nuc&index=13&list=FL4UcV6no5gSApTVssh40PBw"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3cjn7w
|
what does a camera do differently when taking a panoramic picture?
|
What is my camera doing differently when it takes a panoramic picture vs. a regular picture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cjn7w/eli5_what_does_a_camera_do_differently_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csw4j85",
"csw5fte"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends on the camera, but mostly nothing except stitch together the photos. Some cameras have ways to assist with making a better panorama",
"The camera uses software that takes multiple images and attempts to make them look like one image. It has to do a lot of math and manipulation to pull this off."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4b8efc
|
why is anarchy and communism treated both as extreme left ideas?
|
I am studying the Redscare / intolerance from US history
Simply, the extreme left has a greater involement of the government, in everyday life and distribution of wealth. And anarchy which Is the complete opposite of that; placed in the same extreme left band?
Example : _URL_0_
Why?
Edit: Thanks for the responses, I the link I provided wasn't literally my confusion, it was just an example.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4b8efc/eli5_why_is_anarchy_and_communism_treated_both_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d16xe4j",
"d16y81k",
"d1706zx",
"d172f1d",
"d1732zr"
],
"score": [
14,
5,
11,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Left wants to create a \"Fairer and more equal\" world. Most people on the left want to use the government to do this while Anarchists believe that a government creates a group of people that are more powerful than others and so is counter to the goals of the left. ",
"The ultimate goal of communism is the creation of the stateless society, basically the same as anarchy, the question lies in how to achieve that state, and how far to go with it in terms of the final impact on people's lives. \n\nMy brief refresher through the wikipedia pages seems to show that Anarchist theory centers around how anarchist society would operate and what personal responsibilities would be, while Communist theory tends to include how to get from a capitalist society to an anarchist society. The differing schools of communist thought appear to deal with how much force to use in making this happen, hence the greater involvement of government in \"guiding\" society in to this future structure.\n\nNeedless to say, this is a simplistic observation, and ",
"While there are politically right leaning anarchist ideologies (certain types of libertarianism, anarcho-capitalism etc) a greater and more vocal majority of anarchists subscribed to the more communal forms of anarchism, particularly in the time period you're talking about. While anarchism ultimate goal is the abolition of the state to be replaced with direct democracy and mutual aid, the methods to achieve that for many streams of anarchist thought overlaps with state centered leftist philosophies. Socialism, communism and many leftist forms of anarchism all include ideas about organizing the working class, direct democracies and more egalitarian ways of living. As such, they tended to organize together, though infighting was pretty common. Additionally, as u/specializedinfo stated, the end game of communism was to create a stateless society, this just got coopted by the Lenins and Maos of the world. \n\nLastly, anarchists are often thrown in with the left because people just don't really know where to put them due to the nature of how we classify political ideologies. The left-right method isn't really all that functional, but that's just what most people are taught and so they use it. A method of categorizing political ideals that includes an x and a y axis (left-right and state centered-stateless) reveals a lot more about ideological leanings. An anarcho-syndicalist and a libertarian will often have much more in common than an anarcho-syndicalist and a leninist-marxist. Check out the political compass (_URL_0_) for more info on a more complete categorization of political ideologies. \n\nedit: Just clicked the link you provided. That scale has a pretty obvious bias towards American style republics and is just a ridiculous scale that even the most sloppy political scientist would have thrown into the garbage. The scale from freedom to slavery at the extremes is just stupid and completely unrelated to political ideologies (the US was neither fascist nor an anarchist state when it had institutional slavery.) Additionally, while German and Italian fascism varied in form to some degrees, they come from the same ideology and to claim that Nazism and Fascism are separate entities is incorrect. That scale was made by someone with very little to no understanding of the ideologies listed.",
"If you start from the premise that \"human nature\" is essentially capitalistic then the idea that anarchism and communism are similar seems really weird. \n\nMost anarchists start from the premise that capitalism is basically artificial and requires a huge of state sponsored violence to exist. Anarchists believe that if you got rid of the state then anything like modern capitalism would be basically impossible. Their conception of a society without a state would (broadly speaking) socialist.",
"There are several flavors of anarchy, some of collective and left to the left, some of libertarian and lean to the right. It is not accurate to character it as left or right...in many ways, it is where left and right become so extreme they are the same thing.\n\nAnarchy and leftist ideas are often lumped together because they both call for revolution. They both attract a lot of the same people, those who are unhappy and marginalized by the current social and political structure, and favor radical change...often without regard for the specifics of that change. They communist, the anarchist, and the nihilist might all throw rocks for the same reason, even though it is in the name of different philosophies."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://sepetjian.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/left_right_political_spectrum_011.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"www.politicalcompass.org"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
a2y1l5
|
the u.s. yield curve just inverted.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a2y1l5/eli5_the_us_yield_curve_just_inverted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb28twd"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There’s a link within an article to another one explaining what yield curves are and why the flattening is important: \n\nThe Yield Curve Is Flatter! Remind Me Why I Care _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-12-11/the-yield-curve-is-flatter-remind-me-why-i-care-quicktake-q-a"
]
] |
||
6f2rgd
|
how do railroads work? are they just like freeways for trains? could i buy a train and drive it anywhere i want?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6f2rgd/eli5_how_do_railroads_work_are_they_just_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dieyh39",
"dieyhsa",
"dieyxae"
],
"score": [
5,
3,
20
],
"text": [
"Railroads in the united states are all privately owned. Engines and railcars are all owned by the railroad companies. You can rent whatever to use, but you still must follow the rules of the company who owns the track. There are very specific rules for when, how and weight limits for and given length of track. Only one train can use a track at a time for example. You will see colored lights every so often signaling the conductor much like a traffic light would for a car. Check with your local railroad for more specifics. I know for most of the railroads, you need an engineers license to drive an engine. ",
" In America, the railways own the track and a certain distance on either side (for instance 15' from center of track). \n\nSo no, you would have to sell the idea to the owner of track before using it. \n\nFun fact, there's a contracted lease for every single power line and road crossing that exists. ",
"Nope. Either you own the tracks, or you negotiate the right to use it with the owner (\"trackage rights.\") Most railroads in the U.S. are privately owned by companies like Norfolk Southern or Union Pacific. \n\nAmtrak is a peculiar case: It's a for-profit corporation, but partially government funded. Outside of the Boston-Washington corridor, it mostly uses privately-owned tracks from other companies, meaning Amtrak trains often have to wait for more-profitable freight trains.\n\nIn many countries, the rail network is fully government-owned, like the SNCF in France. I don't know the exact legal framework, but I'm confident they don't allow people to use them without asking."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6rnlu0
|
How much did Egyptian scholars contribute to modern Egyptology
|
I'd like to repost this old question of mine that didn't get any answer, hoping someone knowledgeable would spot it :)
It seems to me that the field of Egyptology is dominated by North American and European scholars. Do Egyptians/Arab scholars contribute significantly to the field? Are the two communities segregated or an exchange of research does occur? How given the difference in language? And finally did the Egyptian ministry of culture try to influence the Egyptologists demographics by giving equal or privileged access to Egyptian scholars?
I can also extend my question to other near easter archeologies.
Edit: followed /u/Iphikrates' advice
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rnlu0/how_much_did_egyptian_scholars_contribute_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl6dulp",
"dl6mer6"
],
"score": [
3,
13
],
"text": [
"Hi!\n\nJust wanted to let you know that while we encourage people to get in touch with flairs who might answer their questions, and bring the relevant threads to their attention, we prefer that you do this by sending them a PM. The public ping puts them on the spot, and if they don't answer (either because the question is out of their area of expertise, or they don't have the time, or because they have other priorities) it makes them look like they failed. We are all volunteers here, and we should always avoid giving the impression that we're putting people to work.\n\nI hope you'll bear this in mind for the future. Thanks!",
"The degree to which a country should carry out its own historical research is an issue that a lot of Middle Eastern countries have grappled with, and the situation varies from one to the next. Turkey, for example, requires all foreign excavations to have a Turkish co-director. \n\nTo begin with a historical perspective, there have been many Egyptian Egyptologists who contributed immensely to the field. Selim Hassan is arguably the most notable of the earliest Egyptian Egyptologists. Born in 1886, he became an assistant keeper in the Egyptian Museum before moving to Paris to study at the Ecole Pratique des Hautes Etudes. Upon his return to Egypt, he was hired as the first Egyptian Egyptologist at Cairo University. Hassan also served in the Egyptian Antiquities Service. He became particularly well-known for his excavations in the mastaba fields of Giza and Saqqara. He excavated there for over a decade, exploring the Sphinx, a temple of Amenhotep II, the Unas causeway, and the valley temple of Khentkaus. Later in life Hassan participated in the salvage excavations in Nubia prior to the construction of the Aswan High Dam.\n\nAmong the other early Egyptian scholars were Labib Habachi and Ahmed Fakhry, both of whom graduated from Cairo University in 1928. Fakhry went on to study under Kurt Sethe in Berlin, one of the most prominent philologists of the time, and under T.E. Peet at Liverpool. He served in the Antiquities Service under Selim Hassan at Giza for a time before moving to other posts throughout Egypt. He is best known for his work in the desert oases in the 1940s, his survey of Wadi el-Hudi, and his excavations at Dahshur in the 1950s. Like Fahkry, Habachi joined the Antiquities Service and worked all over Egypt for over 30 years. Habachi is especially remembered for his work at Elephantine and in Nubia, particularly the Heqaib sanctuary at Elephantine.\n\nAlexander Badawy, a slightly later contemporary, received his PhD in 1942. He taught in Cairo and Alexandria before moving to the US. Badaway's educational background was rather unusual, as he was trained in engineering and architecture as well as Egyptology. This shaped his interests; his *A History of Egyptian Architecture* remains an important reference work, and he spent much of his time recording the plans and wall decorations of private tombs at Giza. Like Habachi and Fakhry, Badawy participated in the salvage excavations in Nubia, working primarily at the fortress of Askut. \n\nTurning to the more recent era of Egyptology, Zahi Hawass is of course a rather famous Egyptian Egyptologist. Hawass was trained at the University of Pennsylvania and later served as Minister of Antiquities. I will not comment on current or recent views of Hawass, but he has certainly been a strong proponent for the protection of Egyptian cultural heritage and has brought awareness of ancient Egypt to a wide swath of people. \n\nThe Ministry of State of Antiquities is run by Egyptians, as is the Egyptian Museum in Cairo. The latter is a welcome change from the Boulaq museum run by Mariette and the French in the 1800s. Egyptology is taught at several universities in Egypt, including Cairo University, Alexandria University, and the American University in Cairo. Many excavations in Egypt are run by Egyptian archaeologists, and virtually any excavation in Egypt will have at least a couple of Egyptian participants. There is growing collaboration between American/European and Egyptian scholars, and over 500 Egyptian Egyptologists attended the International Congress of Egyptologists in 2000. There are many conferences held in Egypt as well, such as the recent Tutankhamun conference in Cairo that drew speakers from across the world. Additionally, there are several foreign institutes in Egypt that foster collaboration between Egypt and foreign missions, such as the American Research Center in Egypt, the Egypt Exploration Society (UK), the Institut Français d'Archéologie Orientale (France), the Deutsches Archäologisches Institut (Germany), etc. \n\n > Do Egyptians/Arab scholars contribute significantly to the field? Are the two communities segregated or an exchange of research does occur? How given the difference in language?\n\nYes, Egyptian scholars certainly contribute to the field, and one of my first Egyptology professors was Egyptian. In fact, a wide variety of scholars from countries outside the US and Europe contribute to Egyptology, including scholars from Japan, Israel, South Africa, New Zealand, Australia, Uruguay, and others. A job posting just went out yesterday for an Egyptology position in China. \n\nThat said...English, French, and German have long dominated Egyptology, and most Egyptological scholarship is still published in these three languages. Egyptologists are expected to master all three languages in addition to the various stages and scripts of ancient Egyptian. Unfortunately, many Egyptologists do not learn Arabic in college or graduate school, leaving them poorly equipped for reading Arabic publications. If Egyptian Egyptologists hope to have their work read outside Egypt, they typically must publish in English or another European language like French or Italian. Cross-pollination of research remains more common in archaeology than philology, due to the reliance on Egyptian workers on excavations and the presence of Egyptian archaeologists on excavation staffs. Nicole Hansen, a PhD graduate of the University of Chicago who has done ethnoarchaeological research in Egypt, wrote about this cultural divide in \"Arabic and Its Role in Egyptology and Egyptian Archaeology\" (*Archaeologies* 2008 4.1: 171-174). \n\n > And finally did the Egyptian ministry of culture try to influence the Egyptologists demographics by giving equal or privileged access to Egyptian scholars?\n\nSort of. The Egyptian government prohibited new concessions in Upper Egypt to foreign missions for 13 years until the moratorium was lifted a couple of years ago. The Delta has received much less archaeological attention than Upper Egypt, hence the justification for the ban. \n\n**Sources and further reading:**\n\n*Wonderful Things: A History of Egyptology* (3 volumes) by Jason Thompson is a recent and excellent history of Egyptology. Other historiographical works include John A. Wilson's *Signs and Wonders Upon Pharaoh: A History of American Egyptology*, Thomas Schneider's edited volume *Egyptology from the First World War to the Third Reich: Ideology, Scholarship, and Individual Biographies* (caveat: significant parts are in German), and Okasha El-Daly's *Egyptology: The Missing Millennium: Ancient Egypt in Medieval Arabic Writings*. For Labib Habachi, there is now a great biography by Jill Kamil, *Labib Habachi: The Life and legacy of an Egyptologist*. For an overview of Egyptology as it stands today, see *Egyptology at the Dawn of the Twenty-first Century* and *Egyptology Today* edited by Richard Wilkinson.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2hzdtm
|
What was the "Net Worth" of Roman Emperors?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hzdtm/what_was_the_net_worth_of_roman_emperors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckxrvjm",
"ckxwvu1"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"This is going to be a very broad generalization, sorry I can't give any more specific info at the moment. Also this is more on the early empire as i'm not really sure in regards to the later empire. Roman Emperors (or their family) weren't seen to \"own\" the empire the same way medieval monarchs did. A Roman Emperor was the guy who simply ran the empire, although this title of office was hereditary(but not always). The Emperor simply owned the lands and property from his family. These were given to them by their Fathers, the emperors (biological or adopted). When the previous emperor died they would give out their estates to their family in their will. The Office of Emperor was just another thing that they more or less owned and they bequeathed it to the person/son they thought would do the best job. Even though they owned the office they didn't own all of the property of the State. ",
"I can't give you specific numbers, but I can tell you that when Augustus had conquered Egypt he was rich enough to pretty much personally underwrite the financing of every change he made to the empire (of which there were many).\n\nI can also highlight a few specific sections of his Res Gestae Divi Augusti (roughly 'the deeds of the divine revered one'). Whilst one of the earliest examples of PR, the figures might be able to give you some kind of an idea of how much Augustus, the first emperor, was worth.\n\n > **15** I paid to the Roman plebs, HS 300 per man from my father's will and in my own name gave HS 400 from the spoils of war when I was consul for the fifth time (29 B.C.E.); furthermore I again paid out a public gift of HS 400 per man, in my tenth consulate (24 B.C.E.), from my own patrimony; and, when consul for the eleventh time (23 B.C.E.), twelve doles of grain personally bought were measured out; and in my twelfth year of tribunician power (12-11 B.C.E.) I gave HS 400 per man for the third time. And these public gifts of mine never reached fewer than 250,000 men. In my eighteenth year of tribunician power, as consul for the twelfth time (5 B.C.E.), I gave to 320,000 plebs of the city HS 240 per man. And, when consul the fifth time (29 B.C.E.), I gave from my war-spoils to colonies of my soldiers each HS 1000 per man; about 120,000 men i the colonies received this triumphal public gift. Consul for the thirteenth time (2 B.C.E.), I gave HS 240 to the plebs who then received the public grain; they were a few more than 200,000. \n\n > **16** I paid the towns money for the fields which I had assigned to soldiers in my fourth consulate (30 B.C.E.) and then when Marcus Crassus and Gnaeus Lentulus Augur were consuls (14 B.C.E.); the sum was about HS 600,000,000 which I paid out for Italian estates, and about HS 260,000,000 which I paid for provincial fields. I was first and alone who did this among all who founded military colonies in Italy or the provinces according to the memory of my age. And afterwards, when Tiberius Nero and Gnaeus Piso were consuls (7 B.C.E.), and likewise when Gaius Antistius and Decius Laelius were consuls (6 B.C.E.), and when Gaius Calvisius and Lucius Passienus were consuls (4 B.C.E.), and when Lucius Lentulus and Marcus Messalla were consuls (3 B.C.E.), and when Lucius Caninius and Quintus Fabricius were consuls (2 B.C.E.) , I paid out rewards in cash to the soldiers whom I had led into their towns when their service was completed, and in this venture I spent about HS 400,000,000. \n\n > **17** Four times I helped the senatorial treasury with my money, so that I offered HS 150,000,000 to those who were in charge of the treasury. And when Marcus Lepidus and Luciu Arruntius were consuls (6 A.C.E.), I offered HS 170,000,000 from my patrimony to the military treasury, which was founded by my advice and from which rewards were given to soldiers who had served twenty or more times. \n\n > **18** From that year when Gnaeus and Publius Lentulus were consuls (18 Bc), when the taxes fell short, I gave out contributions of grain and money from my granary and patrimony, sometimes to 100,000 men, sometimes to many more. \n\n > Written after Augustus' death:\n\n > **1** All the expenditures which he gave either into the treasury or to the Roman plebs or to discharged soldiers: HS 2,400,000,000. \n\n_URL_0_ Here's the link for the translation of the Res Gestae I used."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://classics.mit.edu/Augustus/deeds.html"
]
] |
||
62qo29
|
why do we have an almost irresistable urge to place our hands on our hips when we are extremely winded?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/62qo29/eli5_why_do_we_have_an_almost_irresistable_urge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfokceu",
"dfolpth"
],
"score": [
5,
14
],
"text": [
"Rib cage expand. At least that's what I've always been told via sports. But it's April fools so nothing is real. ",
"The actual urge is to sit down, elbows on thighs and bent forward. It's called tripoding and assists with respiration by decreasing effort by providing a mechanical advantage. Hands on hips achieve a lesser but similarly enticing advantage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
7815d0
|
Did Martin Luther only become rabidly antisemitic later in life? If so, what prompted it?
|
I've read that he was far friendlier to Jews earlier in his carreer. What happened to cause him to compose such charming tracts as "On the Jews and their Lies"? Did it coincide with his more radical departure from the Church in the early 1520s (I think?)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7815d0/did_martin_luther_only_become_rabidly_antisemitic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"doqtyj8"
],
"score": [
253
],
"text": [
"Martin Luther the writer was popular. *Super* popular. From 1520-26 alone, Hans-Joachim Köhler has estimated that \"*conservatively*\" there were **6.6 million** copies of pamphlets and longer texts by Luther avalanching off German printing presses. Luther's words, in short, were everywhere.\n\nAnd these words included, in 1523, the pamphlet [*Das Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sey*](_URL_0_), in which Luther asserts that Jews are the true relatives of Christ: \"they are blood friends, fathers, and brothers of our Lord.\" Christians, meanwhile, can only be \"foreigners\" and \"brothers-in-law.\" In the context of late medieval hatred of Jews, contemporaries perceived this as a bold and courageous statement. The late Middle Ages into the early modern era, recent scholarship has demonstrated, witnessed the creation of anti-*Semitism* out of anti-*Judaism*--that is, a change from hatred rooted in Jewish religion to a racialized, biological hatred of Jews as a people. Notably, Christians were believing more and more that even Jews' conversion to Christianity could not truly \"take\"--if they weren't already doing so just for show, they would inevitably slide back into Judaism; they couldn't help it. In this passage, on the other hand, Luther follows up a strident belief and desire for the conversion of individual Jews to Christianity with the thundering statement that Jews are blood brothers and Gentiles are foreigners to Christ himself.\n\nBut already in Luther's lifetime, people were making a critical interpretative mistake when reading his texts that continues to dog the man today: they failed to consider his remarks in the immediate context and purpose of the particular text he was writing. I don't want to say \"more so than others,\" because to a historian everyone's words only make sense in context, but the issue is particularly pertinent for Luther because of how public and highly charged his writing was already treated as in his own time. You can find in Luther's writing from around 1530 beautiful words of support for women as part of the priesthood of all believers and \"your sons *and daughters* will prophesy\" from the prophet Joel; you will also find him railing against women daring to speak in public, not least about religion. The difference is that in the first, Luther is attacking the Catholic concept of a sacral priesthood; the second, evangelical women and their husbands need to learn proper Christian behavior.\n\nAnd so in *Das Jesus Christus ein geborner Jude sey*, it's absolutely vital to understand this is (1) Luther defending himself against accusations from his opponents that he has denied Mary's virginity even to the point of saying Joseph was Jesus' biological father (2) Luther *evangelizing to Jews*. No, really. To Luther, in this treatise, the newfound freedom of the Gospel from the clutches of Roman idolatry is also a brilliant new beginning for *Jews*: they can convert truly to Christianity, real Christianity, now. Their earlier failure to convert was because of the heretical trappings built up by the medieval Church.\n\nUnfortunately, Luther's contemporaries--Christians and Jews alike--got stuck on the *positive* notes expressed here (Jews are Christ's blood-brothers; Christians should \"deal with Jews in a friendly way\") and missed that the whole point was *so Jews can become Christians because that's right and Judaism is wrong.*\n\nSo in 1536, when then-Duke of [Electoral] Saxony Johann Friedrich declared a sweeping expulsion of all Jews from his territory (standard practice cascading across Europe), Jews and their Christian practical-allies saw Luther as a powerful ally. Wolfgang Capito, the key Straßburg reformer, put well-known and brilliant Jewish leader Josel von Rosheim in touch with Luther to ask for intercession with the prince. The hope and expectation on both men's parts, and obviously the community the one represented, was absolutely that Luther would want to help.\n\nBut Luther said no.\n\nCapito's angle in levying the request, as a scholar of the Hebrew language (for Christian purposes, of course), was the contributions of Jews to local intellectual life and scholarship. In this time period, Christian willingness to not kick Jews out always, always, always depends on how Christians benefit. What Capito failed to recognize was that for Luther, the scales of \"Christian benefit\" had tipped into the negative from his famous 1523 polemic.\n\nLuther's earlier \"friendliness,\" remember, hinged on his belief that with the shackles of popery cast off Christianity, Jews would turn towards the light of the Gospel. Throughout his life, he continued to full-heartedly accept Jewish converts to Christianity when he was convinced they were sincere about it. But what Luther's theological-biographer Heiko Oberman has called the apocalyptic \"Darkness at Noon\" had set in by the 1530s with the maturation of evangelical reform--in particular, realization of its limits. The early exultation of the success of *das wort gottes* over the land ossified into either recognition or reconstruction of pockets of Catholic resistance, lack of Christians' knowledge of basic tenets of the faith, perceived failures of local preaching and education. The entire Reformation proceeded under the purview of imminent Armageddon. For Luther, the threat only grew stronger over the course of his life and the unarguable--to everyone else--*success* of the movement he launched.\n\nThis affected his recommendations on how to deal with Jews for two reasons. First, the hope that Jews would convert to Christianity simply because of evangelical reform had dimmed and died. Completely. Second, the late medieval mythology of Jews as the \"forerunners of Antichrist\" occupied a more prominent place in Luther's apocalypticism, as did the Turks creeping closer to Vienna. One pattern that scholars have pointed out is that Luther's apocalyptic polemic shifted its *primary* focus from the pope/Rome to peasants to Jews over the course of his life. That is, the intensity of his opprobrium darkened and lightened, while never vanishing. For Luther passing through the 1530s into the 40s, yes, his rhetoric against Jews reaches feverishness.\n\nTo be clear, though, we are talking about Luther's views on how to treat Jews in the immediate present. By 1536, and spiraling further from there, Luther saw Jews as largely a *failed* mission ground. They had not converted; current Jews threatened Christians' own belief. As Oberman argues, Luther's actual views of Jews--his understanding of Jews and Judaism in light of Christian theology and 16th century society--had not changed. But with developing societal circumstances, his views of *how to deal with Jews* sure had. And devastatingly:\n\n > Firstly, that their synagogues or schools should be burned down, and what will not burn should be razed adn covered with earth, that no man will ever see a stone or cinder of it again...\n\n > Next, that their houses should be broken and destroyed in the same way...They can be put under a roof or stable, like the gypsies. [*you read that right* -sun]\n\n > Third, that all their prayer books and Talmuds, in which such idolatrous lies, curses, and blasphemies are taught, should be taken from them...\n\n > Fourth, that their rabbis should be forbidden, at risk of life and limb, to teach from now on...\n\n > Fifth...they have no reason to be in the country.\n\n > Sixth...all their cash and fortunes in silver and gold should be taken from them and put in safekeeping.\n\n > Seventh, that young, strong Jewish men and women should be given flail, axe, hoe, spade, distaff, spindle, and be left to earn their bread by their sweat...\n\n > For as all can see, God's wrath over them is so great that gentle mercy will only make them worse and worse, and harsh treatment little better. So away with them at all costs.\n\nMedieval and early modern rhetoric in religion and politics often seems sharp enough to cut skin on its own, it's true. But it's impossible to deny that what Luther prescribes in *Von den Jüden und iren Lügen* (1543) \"can be safely termed a pogrom\", as Oberman carefully puts it. (\"Safely termed\"--yeah, he's aware.)\n\nWhat's still evident amidst the abhorrent virulence and violence, which make no mistake would be mobilized in support of *actual* violence for centuries to come, is Luther's underlying belief in the hope of Jewish conversion to Christianity--and the crushing of that hope:\n\n > We must exercise harsh mercy with fear and trembling, in the hope that we could save some from the flames and embers [of hell]. We must not avenge ourselves.\n\nThis is worn out, worn down, but always firey Luther's apocalypticism taking over. The failure of Jews to convert is to him a sign of the devil's triumph over the earth. Luther impresses Christians to serve as God's agents against the Jews as the devil's, for the protection of Christians and in hopes of saving one, two, any Jews at all through fear and trembling if friendliness would not work. Even the 1544 Wittenberg Hymnal had a hymn reminding Christians that Christ's crucifixion was the result of *Gentile sin and depravity* that Christ wanted to redeem out of love--not the fault of Jews. \"The guilt is ours,\" runs the hymn, about the Passion. Unfortunately, when it came to stoking the metaphorical and literal fires of anti-Semitism, the guilt is also that of Luther and his interpreters."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://archive.org/stream/werkekritischege11luthuoft#page/314/mode/2up"
]
] |
|
26d16c
|
moore's law suggests that technology will continue to improve itself exponentially, on and on into the singularity. peak oil theory suggests that we will run out of gas fairly shortly. the endpoints of both trajectories are slated to occur within our lifetimes. how is this going to play out?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26d16c/eli5_moores_law_suggests_that_technology_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chpvpkg",
"chpvr6z",
"chpvrsf",
"chpw9w6",
"chpwpxw"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's the future, no one knows. And no one can try and answer without violating ELI5's rule against speculation.",
"Moore's law is set to die in the next 10 years without some radical breakthrough. ",
"Moore's law doesn't say technology will improve exponentially, it states that the number of transistors on the same size silicon wafer will double every 18 months or so which has more or less held true since the 60s. And it has an upper limit that no one has proven to break yet. Doesn't apply directly to medical science or to things like quantum computing, new materials for transistors like Graphene or GaN transistors, etc. just look at battery technology and antibiotics, they aren't growing exponentially and can't keep up with demand. ",
"I suspect that a flu outbreak will significantly reduce the human population and inadvertently correct climate change. ",
"Robot hobos begging for spare oil."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ouzrz
|
What happens, psychologically, when we look at ourselves in the mirror? (x-post from askreddit, no answer there)
|
People look at themselves in the mirror (especially in the eyes) when getting psyched up for public speaking, or when we are sad and crying, etc.
I am just wondering if there is a connection we make with ourselves, almost like we are two people and one is encouraging, consoling the "looking glass" version of ourselves?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ouzrz/what_happens_psychologically_when_we_look_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3kh67h"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"That's a good question and there are far too many variables to give a clear answer. Humans are programmed to recognise faces, with the eyes intrinsically being the centre of attention. Psychology has traditionally learnt the most about our brain functions by studying malfunctions. For evidence of this, look up 'Pareidolia', it is essentially our brain's programming misfiring by attempting to see human faces where there are none. Conversely, there is a disorder called 'Prosopagnosia' whereby sufferers are completely unable to recognise faces.\n\nFacial expressions are hugely important for communication and there are 6 identified 'universal emotions' that people can identify cross-culturally: happiness, sadness, disgust, fear, surprise and anger. As a side note, people on the autism spectrum generally have trouble identifying these facial cues and that is why they can come off as emotionally distant. For the most part though, empathy allows us to respond to the feelings of others. If we notice someone looks sad we can then know to help cheer them up and likewise you feel happier when everyone around you is smiling. Looking at yourself in the mirror works along the same lines as this.\n\nI know my response was kind of vague but I hope it wasn't entirely irrelevant to your question."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2bvquh
|
which point would lightning most likely strike: the taller point or the more favorable material?
|
Let's say I'm standing by a tall tree or house, and holding a fishing rod or something of the sort (something metal). Which object would lightning strike? Can lightning make "calculations" and decide that there is metal further down than the closer point, which is made of something like wood or plastic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bvquh/eli5_which_point_would_lightning_most_likely/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj9damk",
"cj9fgwv"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"It takes the path of least resistance, always.\n\nBeing closer reduces resistance. Being made out of a better material reduces resistance.\n\nIf you look at a [very slowed-down movie of a lightning strike](_URL_0_), you'll see it \"probes\" out with a bunch of feelers before it selects the \"final\" path. Whichever one hits first gets the full jolt.",
"lightning isnt just one strike, it's many of them and it also progresses through a tree pattern before establishing contact with the ground\n\n1/ the tree progression, looking for fractures until it hits ground\n\n2/ the many strikes on the line that was established\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://gfycat.com/CloudyConsciousBellfrog"
],
[]
] |
|
3pahs3
|
why is it so hard to capture rain on camera?
|
I remember watching a DVD extra on one of the Harry Potter movies and the director said that it was pouring the whole time they were shooting one of the scenes but you couldn't tell because it didn't show in the recording. Is this a universal thing? Why does it happen?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3pahs3/eli5_why_is_it_so_hard_to_capture_rain_on_camera/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw4lkq4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because water is translucent, rain is small, and the camera is not focused on it so it is this diffuse, small, translucent stuff that the camera doesn't have the definition to pick up. FYI: Akira Kurosawa, who primarily shot in black and white, usually dyed water with black dye in order to make it visible on screen. When dyed black, it was no longer translucent."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1gesnm
|
An thoughts on an article published in the J. Org. Sys. titled, "A long-term toxicology study on pigs fed a combined genetically modified (GM) soy and GM maize diet."?
|
[Here](_URL_0_) is the full article.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gesnm/an_thoughts_on_an_article_published_in_the_j_org/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cajjizp",
"cajkclk",
"cajks4p"
],
"score": [
7,
12,
3
],
"text": [
"This [xkcd comic](_URL_0_) is the first thing that comes to mind. Compare enough parameters and you are bound to find statistically significant correlation by sheer coincidence.",
"Complete bollocks. Published in a questionable journal with horrible statistics and a clear anti-GMO agenda. Here are some good, in-depth, debunkings of the 'study':\n\n* _URL_2_\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_0_",
"It seemed odd that acutally the 2 groups had equal total numbers of stomach problems (if you dont break the data down by severe moderate etc). In fact the non-GM fed animals had much higher rates of Moderate and Mild stomach inflammation than the GM fed animals. The same is true of females. Furthermore the GM fed animals had higher rates of NO stomach inflammation compared to non-GM animals. Which is odd.\n\nThe distribution of the data, makes it seem like they broke up the catagories in such a way to create significant data. As in they had no significant data with all the cases, but then fiddled with catagories until they got something significant and could report it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.organic-systems.org/journal/81/8106.pdf"
] |
[
[
"http://xkcd.com/882/"
],
[
"http://scienceblogs.com/denialism/2013/06/12/pollan-and-bittman-the-morano-and-milloy-of-gmo-anti-science/",
"http://weedcontrolfreaks.com/2013/06/gmo-pig/",
"http://www.marklynas.org/2013/06/gmo-pigs-study-more-junk-science/"
],
[]
] |
|
2hs76i
|
what's supercharge, turbo, cold air intake, ect.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hs76i/eli5whats_supercharge_turbo_cold_air_intake_ect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckvi3uo"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"All different\n\nSupercharger - A (normally belt powered) air compressor in the intake of an internal combustion engine. Allows for a richer air/fuel mix in the combustion chamber to produce more power\n\nTurbo - similar to a supercharger, but power by exhaust gasses. Generally produces more power (because it is not robbing the engine to compress air), but at a slower rate (the engine must be revved up to produce enough exhaust pressure to compress the incoming air)\n\nCold air intake - An air intake system that is insulated and/or islotaed from the engine compartment temperatures ( a lot of so-called cold air intakes are not, they are just a straighter pipe than stock)\n\nect. - uknown"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
37h1j3
|
How did the French become such a rival to the point of a qasr-war with Americans when they where allies only a few years earlier during the revolution?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/37h1j3/how_did_the_french_become_such_a_rival_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crms04v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The biggest change that occurred in this time was the French Revolution. France became the ally of the US in 1778 (shortly after the battle of Saratoga) and the quasi-war took place during the Adams administration (1797-1801) while the French Revolution began in 1789, and the French monarchy fell in 1793. The French allied with the US while under the rule of King Louis XVI, mostly in an attempt at vengeance towards Great Britain (an absolute monarchy normally would have no incentive to support a republic that would threaten monarchies worldwide). France, specifically Louis XVI's uncle Louis XV, lost the Seven Years War to Britain and was looking for rectification. However, the alliance resulted in millions of French francs being spent on the war, bankrupting France. This war, coupled with existing debt from the Seven Years war and other reckless expenditures of the monarchy was a large reason for revolution and, naturally, once the revolution succeeded the new government had a bit of animosity toward the US. In addition to this, the Federalist government of Adams preferred Britain and signed treaties with them (Jay Treaty), but not France. This gave favored trade relations to Britain and angered the French. This all bubbled over when the US refused to pay debts it owed to France from the war, leading to the XYZ affair, when three French diplomats stated to the US government that they would restore relations with the US provided they pay a significant bribe. This pretty much turned the public's opinion of France hostile, thus spawning the phrase at the time \"millions for defense, not one cent for tribute!\" (suggesting that the people would rather spend millions on ships and armies than pay a cent to the French diplomats). \n_URL_0_ _URL_1_\nEDIT: added more detail."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jay_Treaty",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causes_of_the_French_Revolution#Economics_and_finances"
]
] |
||
3jfgxk
|
how is a "massless" particle possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3jfgxk/eli5_how_is_a_massless_particle_possible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuosrt0"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Mass is no different from any other fundamental property. Just like there are particles with zero charge such as neutrons or zero spin such as the Higgs boson (maybe), there can be particles with zero mass."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
587a64
|
How is a particle's spin measured?
|
I get how charged particles can be measured magnetically, but what about neutral ones?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/587a64/how_is_a_particles_spin_measured/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8y5rds",
"d8yirn3"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"One way is to pass them through a region with a non-uniform magnetic field. The magnetic dipole moment due to the spin will interact with this field and deflect the particle. \n\nThis is what Stern and Gerlach did originally to experiment with spin. See the [Stern-Gerlach experiment](_URL_0_).",
"Good question. Let's focus on neutrons first. Spin quantifies angular momentum. Intuitively it seems like a neutral particle with angular momentum but no net charge won't have a magnetic moment. But... the neutron is not a fundamental particle. It is made of charged quarks, which each have their own magnetic moments that add together. This gives rise to a total magnetic moment for the neutron that is about 1/3 the magnitude of the proton magnetic moment. It also means you can measure the neutron's spin using a Stern Gerlach experiment, as they did [here](_URL_0_).\n\nNow let's think about fundamental particles like a photon. Here your intuition is correct that there is no magnetic moment. But we can still detect the angular momentum of the photon when it interacts with other particles. The particles don't even need to be that small. In [this paper](_URL_1_) the authors describe using linearly polarized optical tweezers to apply torque to an optically anisotropic particle. Because angular momentum is conserved, that means that the transmitted light becomes slightly circularly polarized and measuring the relative intensity of left and right circular polarizations tells you how much torque was applied to the trapped particle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stern–Gerlach_experiment"
],
[
"http://journals.aps.org/pr/abstract/10.1103/PhysRev.96.1546",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2965466/"
]
] |
|
76bxed
|
What was the strategic value of North Africa in WW2? Was it just about controlling access to Italy?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/76bxed/what_was_the_strategic_value_of_north_africa_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dod0cuu",
"dod0tjc",
"dodyso6"
],
"score": [
300,
32,
2
],
"text": [
"North Africa had a great amount of value in terms of naval strategy. Axis control of the North African coast, combined with Italy (and especially Sicily), denied the Allies the quickest path for shipping from Europe to India and the eastern Pacific. Allied control of Egypt, meanwhile, allowed them to contest Axis control of the Mediterranean, and deny them access to Italy's East African colonies. Control of the remaining North African coast would allow them to gain air superiority over Italy, and eventually invade. Control of Libya, one of Italy's most important colonies, was important to Mussolini's imperial ambitions. Capturing North Africa could also dissuade minor nations - Spain, Iraq, Turkey and nations in the Balkans - from joining the war on the opposing side, or encourage them to enter the war on the friendly side.\n\nBefore Italy's entry to the war in June 1940, the Mediterranean represented one of the most important routes for British merchant shipping. The Suez Canal provided a quick, easy route to the oil of the Persian Gulf, the rubber and tin of Malaysia or the rice, tea and manganese of India. It also provided a way to quickly reinforce Britain's eastern colonies should Japan threaten to act. With the Mediterranean protected at the western end by Gibraltar, and at the eastern end by the RN's base at Alexandria, it was free from raiders and submarines. Italy's entry to the war changed this almost instantly. Aircraft, ships and submarines from bases on the Italian mainland or in Libya made traversing the route far too dangerous for all but the most heavily escorted convoys. The shipping was forced onto the route round the Cape of Good Hope and through the Atlantic. This route was considerably longer than the route through the Mediterranean, increasing demands on shipping. It was also, especially for the Atlantic portion, much more exposed to threats from U-boats or surface raiders. A British capture of Libya would deny the Italians the ability to threaten ships passing close to the Italian coastline. It would also give the British bases from which to cover their shipping through the crucial central portion of the voyage. As such, Allied control of North Africa would allow them to resume sending shipping through the Mediterranean, making it a key strategic goal. Equally, an Axis capture of the Suez Canal would deny this possibility for good. Italian control of Suez would also allow them to access their colonies in East Africa. Eritrea, Ethiopia and parts of Somalia were all Italian colonies. They had no land connection to the rest of the Italian colonial empire, and were reliant on shipping through Suez. Capturing Suez would return this lifeline to them.\n\nBritain's main naval bases in the Mediterranean were Gibraltar, Malta and Alexandria. Of these, Alexandria was the only one that could effectively be used by the Mediterranean Fleet; Malta was too easily threatened by aircraft from Sicily, just 60 km away, while Gibraltar was small, threatened by the possible entry of Spain into the war, and needed for ships operating in the Atlantic. As a result, the two other bases were only used by comparatively minor forces. Alexandria, meanwhile, became the base for the Fleet, from which it carried out attacks against the Italian mainland and against Italian shipping. It was strong enough that the Italian Navy could not reliably defeat it in a naval battle. By capturing Egypt, and thus neutralising the Mediterranean Fleet, the Italians could remove this threat to their interests. Equally, however, the British wished to see Mediterranean Fleet continue its operations, and so needed to defend Alexandria. Extending their ability to base aircraft and ships further forwards through the capture of Libya would allow them to make more effective attacks against Italy, its shipping, and Axis-held territory in the Mediterranean.\n\nOne of Mussolini's biggest ambitions for Italy was to turn the Mediterranean into 'Mare Nostrum' (Latin for \"Our Sea). His vision was for the sea to become an Italian lake, surrounded almost completely by Italian territory, or by states friendly to Italy. As such, throwing the British out of Egypt was an important step in this. Not only would it, as outlined above, prevent the Royal Navy from interfering, it would open up access to the Levant, furthering Italian colonial interests. There was also the hope that, by demonstrating Axis military might, it might help swing fence-sitting nations, like Spain or Turkey, behind the Axis powers. For the Allies, taking Libya, jewel of the Italian colonial empire, would prove a major dent to Italian prestige. It would boost morale at home, as it would represent a victory in a war, that, until 1942, did not seem to be going well to most civilians. It would, equally, have an effect on neutral nations, hopefully swinging them away from the Axis and towards the Allies.",
"There are several reasons the North Africa was strategically important. \nFirst, airbases and ports along the North African Coast provided bases for whichever power controlled them. Control of these areas would decide which power would control the Mediterranean. The British used bases in North Africa, particularly Tunisia and Libya, to bomb Italy in 1943, while the Italian navy viewed its ports in Libya as a staging area for wider conquest in the Mediterranean.\n\nNorth Africa also provided an Axis invasion route into Egypt, from which the Suez Canal could be seized. This would cripple British shipping and undermine the Empire’s supply systems and links to its other colonial possessions. Taking Egypt also provided an invasion route into Syria and the oil fields in Iraq. It would also link together Italian Libya and Ethiopian armies.\n\nFinally, North Africa was one of the few arenas where the British land forces could fight Axis armies and hope to inflict defeat. While fighting Germany in Europe in the early war led to British defeats (in Norway, France, and Greece) the length of the Axis supply lines made Blitzkrieg impractical and meant that the British army had some hope of victory.",
"To add on the question:\nWhat battleplans existed for the eventuality of success in North Africa?\n\n\nWhat was then the next step? Caucasus? What about south of Egypt? Iran? \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
wyq1r
|
how the laws of supply and demand work when the supply is effectively infinite (eg. digital content bought online)?
|
When supply is infinite (like on the iTunes store, for example), how do the laws of supply and demand apply? I would think that with an infinite supply, the price would always be zero, but this is obviously not the case. So how do the laws of economics work in this case?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wyq1r/eli5_how_the_laws_of_supply_and_demand_work_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5hmzmg",
"c5hnb2w",
"c5hqymx"
],
"score": [
7,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"The price on music doesn't drop to zero because iTunes have to pay for having the music in their store. So at most iTunes would sell the music for this price.\n\nFor the price to drop to zero, you are assuming a perfectly free market with no transfer cost and perfect knowledge (you know the price in all places and there is no cost to switching to something else).\n\nBut because of copyright music is not a free market. Apple can't just go to somebody else and buy the some song (they can buy another song, but then you would be annoyed at getting some other song than the one you brought) because only one person (or company) has the right to that song.",
"I think you misunderstand the law of supply and demand.\n\nThe law of supply and demand applies to goods or services sold in a free marketplace. The price of a good tends to equate to the price of **what the market will bear**.\n\nWhat does this mean?\n\nWell, there are two sides in a market. Buyers and sellers. There is demand, driven by buyers, and there is supply, provided by sellers.\n\nIn the case of online music, the supply of legal digital music is offering music at a very low price (either ad supported like spotify, or through itunes at 99 cents a song). There is no one offering \"free\" (legal) music, so there is definitely no infinite supply in this case.\n\nIf something were in infinite supply, and there was none-zero demand, it would unlikely that there would be anyone \"selling\" such a thing because there would be no profit in it.\n\nEdit: on top of that, digital music is NOT free. There is the cost of running the thousands of servers for itunes. The cost of developing the software. The cost of paying for the distribution rights to the software. The cost that the record companies get for each song. Even though it costs \"zero\" to copy a file, it costs a significant amount of money to run the service and setup the infrastructure. Also, there is the free market motive to provide the service in the first place: profit.",
"Most of this falls under what is termed \"zero marginal cost\". The concept of \"marginal cost\" is basically, \"now that we've made 100 of these things, how much does it cost to make the 101st?\" The cost of making one more copy of a thing, after you've already made many copies before, is called the \"marginal cost.\"\n\nWith digital content, making another copy is so close to free that it's not even worth worrying about it. This is why people say that there is \"zero marginal cost\" - there's almost no cost to make a copy of the original. So your costs of production are basically:\n\nA) The cost to create the original thing. E.g. for a song you're paying people to write the lyrics, rent a studio, play the instruments, record and mix it, etc. This is why the supply is not infinite. It still takes time and effort (and money) to make the original.\n\nB) Fixed costs. These are costs you have to incur no matter how many copies you sell. With iTunes this would be like the cost of the servers, the cost of renting the internet connection and data center space for the server, the salary of the sysadmin who takes care of the server, etc.\n\nFor certain things, the above two costs combined may be **much** less than the cost of doing things the traditional way. iTunes is a great example. To distribute music the traditional way, you have to make actual vinyl records, cassette tapes or CD discs. Which usually means making them in China or somewhere else far away in huge batches (big upfront investment) and then having them shipped by cargo boat (slow as hell) and then finally arranging for trucks to drive them to every record store in America. It's slow and risky, because if the ten million CDs you made aren't a hit, you spent all this time and money getting them to stores and now they're not selling. You lose money. Even if it is a hit, you might have made too many copies and end up not selling them all, or too few and end up not making money that you could have made.\n\nOr, the non-traditional way: People just go to a website and pay for whatever they want right there and download it. You make their copy for them, on the fly, for zero marginal cost. In addition to being a lot more convenient, this gives people much faster access to a wider variety of media because you (the supplier) don't have to take a big upfront hit for the cost of producing a material thing (vinyl, cassette or disc) that holds the music. So you can sell not just music but also podcasts and downloadable movies and etc. And, again, the distribution costs are much lower.\n\nThis business model works well for things that are easily digitized and converted into a file on a computer. In other words, things that are basically information. But for other things, it's not nearly so good. For instance, it's hard to download pizza. For things that absolutely have to be made of real matter, internet distribution is no good, and we're stuck doing things the old fashioned way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3y5egn
|
how can the un work if countries like the us and russia can just veto any proposal that does not serve their own interests?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3y5egn/eli5_how_can_the_un_work_if_countries_like_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyaow4h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on what you think the UN \"working\" is. It's *not* designed to be a single world government. The UN isn't in charge; in fact, General Assembly resolutions (which are the resolutions all UN members have a vote on, and which can't be vetoed) are not binding. Rather, the UN's main job is to help countries cooperate and to facilitate diplomacy between countries. The UN means a small island nation in the Pacific can much more easily work with fifty other countries scattered around the world.\n\nThe only thing that's subject to veto in the UN are substantive Security Council resolutions. Not coincidentally, they're also the only thing binding on all members (the International Court of Justice's decision in an actual lawsuit is also binding, but only on the parties to the case and a member state can choose not to be sued in the ICJ against its will). UNSC resolutions are to preserve international peace and security; the resolutions are generally intended to be backed with military force.\n\nCountries are not actually equal. The permanent members are strong enough militarily that anything binding on them can't actually be practically enforced without a war. If there's going to be a war with Russia, the UN isn't going to be any help. At the high end of the scale, the permanent members can in fact do what they want unless other actual countries with powerful armies say otherwise. By recognizing this, it means a UNSC resolution that *does* pass is much more likely to actually be effective. Without veto power, the UNSC would pass more resolutions, but those resolutions would be nearly irrelevant. (This leaves out that without the veto power, there wouldn't *be* a UN -- the P5 wouldn't have joined without it)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
esaqzr
|
If dark matter does not interact with normal matter at all, but does interact with gravity, does that mean there are "blobs" of dark matter at the center of stars and planets?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/esaqzr/if_dark_matter_does_not_interact_with_normal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ff8z4is",
"ff914uc",
"ff91jus",
"ff962ax",
"ff96gfc"
],
"score": [
76,
2512,
207,
36,
14
],
"text": [
" We tend to think it's more like galaxies and galactic clusters form along dark matter lines. And dark matter does interact with normal matter. It interacts gravitationally.\n\nWe still have absolutely no idea what dark matter is. At the time, we absolutely know that it's there. It's akin to seeing leaves blowing in the wind, but not yet understanding what molecules are or what air is made of.",
"Probably not. \nFor dark matter to be sitting in a clump at the center of a plaent or a star not only would it need to fall in, but it would then have to slow down.\n\nGravity is nearly perfectly restorative, meaning that all the gravitational potential energy is converted to kinetic energy. This means the dark matter would fall straight through the planet, never interacting, then pass out the other side. \n\nThe dark matter, being unable to interact via em or the strong force has no way to get rid of this kinetic energy, so never slows down enough to remain bound to any system smaller than a galaxy.",
"Well, sort of.\n\nDark matter should indeed tend to be a little denser at massive bodies such as stars. However, it would only be *very, very* slightly denser because it interacts so weakly with regular matter (and with itself), there is no possibility for \"accretion\" because nothing will slow it down when it reaches the center of a massive body. If it comes in towards a massive body with almost any momentum at all, it will pass right through the body and then leave the body with roughly the same momentum. It will do this over and over again, with its kinetic energy being exchanged for gravitational potential energy and then vice versa again, with nothing to damp these oscillations and no way to permanently lose that kinetic energy because there is no \"friction\" to slow it down and keep it there near the center of the star. Ordinary matter only accretes into stars because it interacts electromagnetically, so it all \"bumps into\" itself at a star, slowing it down, converting the kinetic energy into thermal energy.\n\nSo, only the very slowest of dark matter particles should accumulate inside stars and other massive bodies. And perhaps, if dark matter does interact very, very rarely and weakly, there *might* be a very slight friction helping dark matter to accrete a little bit. But it can only be a very small amount. We're talking like, the density of dark matter within a star would only be on the order of 1% denser than its density in interstellar space. Not enough to make any significant difference on the scale of solar system dynamics. It is only relevant for galaxies and larger structures like galaxy groups.\n\nHope that helps!",
"I don't know why no one else has brought up the fact that, depending on the particle, this is entirely possible and has been explored theoretically, including by at least one person I know personally.\n\nYes dark matter doesn't interact electromagnetically, however direct collisions with the nucleus of an atom can occur so long as the candidate particle interacts via the weak force. This is the basis of many dark matter detectors, collisions with atomic nuclei release energy as a photon and this can be detected if you're particularly clever (and guess the correct particle mass). Admittedly, the only claimed detections of such particles that I know of were from the DAMA NaI detectors at LNGS and these are highly controversial.\n\nI did some theoretical work for a similar project called SABRE, and as part of it attended a workshop in which this exact possibility was discussed with regards to the sun. I can't recall how it worked, this was several years ago now, but there was the possibility of using this to detect dark matter. It should be noted that even with high densities, due to the vast space between nuclei, these collisions are very rare, and the accretion is going to be slow. For something like the sun, we have relative velocities ranging from ~200-700m/s iirc so it's going to take a fair bit to slow down a particle enough to become trapped within a body like the sun.\n\nIt's very early in the morning down under, but when I hear back from my friend who worked on this I'll update this post.\n\nEdit: friend got back to me, for 10GeV WIMPs capture rate is on the order of 1.8 tons per second from hydrogen, and around 6 tons per second from collisions with helium. Though I'd take those numbers with a grain of salt, they're very rough.\n\nEdit: [Here](_URL_0_) is a paper which examined this.",
"I'mma ask what's probably a dumb question...\n\nSo gravity is functionally the deformation or space-time, and there are lots of demonstrations of the effect using 2D planes and weights.\n\nWouldn't that scale to us being 3D objects in 4+D space and dark matter might be an external deformation in space-time and not strictly in our 3D plane?\n\nIt reminds me of non-miscible fluids where it reaches a stable layer and spreads, which would probably look both like dark matter in how it pools and with the continuing expansion."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://arxiv.org/abs/1906.11674"
],
[]
] |
||
40jtk2
|
why does the game show jeopardy require the answer in the form of a question when the game show is clearly concerned about the factual knowledge?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40jtk2/eli5_why_does_the_game_show_jeopardy_require_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyup6d1",
"cyup8kp",
"cyup9ng",
"cyupceo"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's just a gimmick. When Jeopardy first started, trivia/quiz game shows were extremely popular, and you needed a cool gimmick to set your show apart from the rest of the pack. Remembering to answer in the form of a question is part of the challenge.",
"There was a series of cheating scandals in game shows in the 50s, where one contestant had the answer ahead of time. As a result, question and answer game shows on TV pretty much died out. Jeopardy is the reverse of that- just give everyone the answers and then it's a fair game! It's not really any different, of course, but it was a clever enough pitch to viewers that it's stuck around for 50 years, long after most people have forgotten the scandals.",
"It requires different knowledge to receive details and give the subject.\n\nMost trivia shows work the opposite way. So it sets it apart and provides some variety.",
"It dates back to the quiz show scandals that had rocked the game show world previously (the shows had been picking charismatic winners by feeding favorable candidates the answers). This was a big enough scandal that TV executives were subject to Congressional hearings and very embarrassing. Jeopardy was the first attempt to do a trivia game show after those scandals. To help separate Jeopardy from those scandals, the producers used the format to pitch the show as giving everyone the answers, but the contestants must give us the questions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
80ecb6
|
How likely is the story of the 'Lost Cosmonauts'?
|
I've seen many people debunk the Italian radio transmissions from the 50's but exactly how plausible is the idea that cosmonauts before Gagarin died in orbit and that the USSR covered it up?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/80ecb6/how_likely_is_the_story_of_the_lost_cosmonauts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duv9en3"
],
"score": [
44
],
"text": [
" The Smithsonian Air and Space Museum has an interesting [article](_URL_0_) on the subject.\n\nThe long and short of it is: it's not that likely. The Soviet Space program used \"Ivan Ivanovich\" dummies before sending live cosmonauts into space, and the recovery of these dummies after reentry is most likely the ultimate source for the legend of Lost Cosmonauts. Apparently the workings of the space program were so secretive that recovery teams didn't know they were recovering dummies until they figured it out for themselves, so any bystanders would see recovery teams rushing to a capsule and pulling a lifeless body in a cosmonaut suit out. \n\nThe rumors gathered force, and grew more and more elaborate (and macabre) over time. The rumors were even repeated by members of the US Congress and by a columnist in the Washington Post up until the 1980s. Once glasnost happened in the late 80s, official records were opened up and the Lost Cosmonauts were proven to just be a legend (although there was evidence that the Soviet space program *did* cover up fatal accidents that occurred from fires and explosions on the ground).\n\nAnother aspect of the Ivan Ivanovich dummy tests that is interesting is that apparently the Soviet space program needed to play recordings from the space craft to ground control in order to make sure that the microphones and radio transmissions systems worked properly. They went out of their way to pick recordings that would *not* be considered from live cosmonauts (choir music and borscht recipes) in order to make sure anyone eavesdropping wouldn't think manned satellites were already in space. Apparently that part might have backfired.\n\nOne last irony to point out is that the Soviet space program was so cloaked in secrecy and rumor, that once Yagarin and Titov were sent into space, many people actually believed that *this* was a hoax, until President Kennedy confirmed that these were successful Soviet manned missions.\n\nSource:\n\n*Ivan Ivanovich and the Persistent Lost Cosmonaut Theory*. Smithsonian Air & Space Museum, 2017"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://airandspace.si.edu/stories/editorial/lost-cosmonaut-conspiracy"
]
] |
|
1efzzg
|
If the sun shines where I am for 14 hours, does that mean it will only shine for 10 hours on the other side of the planet?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1efzzg/if_the_sun_shines_where_i_am_for_14_hours_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9zuyv8",
"ca005ax"
],
"score": [
5,
22
],
"text": [
"Yes, that's correct.\n\nI even checked with real locations that are on the opposite sides of the planet, New Zealand and Spain.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's because the sun always covers 50% of earth's surface so opposite sides always add up to roughly* 24h.",
"If it shines for 14 hours where you are, it shines for 14 hours everywhere else at the same latitude, in the same hemisphere. I.e., if you go exactly East, or exactly West, you'll encounter places where it shines the same amount of hours.\n\nHowever, in the other hemisphere (Southern, if you're in the Northern one), anywhere at the same latitude like you (just Southern instead of Northern), it will only shine 10 hours.\n\nThese things depend on the latitude.\n\nOf course, the amount of hours changes from day to day, on a yearly cycle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=31",
"http://www.timeanddate.com/worldclock/astronomy.html?n=22"
],
[]
] |
||
a306mc
|
when having trouble sleeping, is there any benefit to laying in bed with your eyes closed or you might as well get up?
|
It seems like your body is still resting without being actually asleep, so does that count for anything?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a306mc/eli5_when_having_trouble_sleeping_is_there_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb2bvyi",
"eb2bwmv",
"eb3j6n3"
],
"score": [
34,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"If your mind is fighting you: get up and do something relaxing. Have some tea, read something, or listen to relaxing music.\n\nWhat you should NOT do is watch TV, play with your phone, or get on your computer.\nThe light tells your brain to wake up. (There's more to that, but, I'll keep it brief). Don't shower either. It sounds like a good idea, but, whenever I (personally) do it it signals my mind that it's time to be active.\n\nThe bed is for 2 things. Sex and sleep. Don't use the phone, watch TV, or do puzzles. When you lay down your body needs to know, and be trained to know, that it's time to shut down.\n\n*Posted at 4:37am PST, whilst I am laying in bed skimming through my Reddit app.",
"Yes, resting in a darkened room is better than getting up and doing things, as you are resting and might still get some rest by dozing/napping. Personally though, I would say that if you're being kept up by anxiety it might be better to do something that calms you down for a bit before attempting sleep again.",
"No. The benefits of sleep are in the sleeping parts, the multitude of processes that happen throughout your body in the various stages of sleep, such as sorting out your memories, repairing muscle damage, and flushing the gunk that accumulates in your brain. You can't really replicate this outside of sleep.\n\nIt's best to associate your bed with restful sleep. Laying in bed awake tends to make people frustrated and angry, and that's a hard cycle to break once it sets in. It's not uncommon for people to start dreading bedtime before they even get to the bed part: \"Ugh, I'm just going to lay there anyways. What's the point?\" To state the obvious, these emotional states inhibit sleep rather than promote sleep, so it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.\n\nMost sleep folks recommend that you get out of bed if you haven't fallen asleep in about 30 minutes. Do something quiet, like read, until you feel tired, and then go back to bed. If you lay awake and hit the 30 minute mark again, get up again. It may mean that you have shit sleep for a few days, but this system does work for many people. If you continue to have poor sleep, it's a good idea to talk to your doctor. A few nights of shit sleep isn't going to harm you, but poor sleep for months or years at a time does a lot of damage."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2g3c1u
|
At what point in history did battlefield tactics transition from those during Napoleon's time to those of WWI?
|
Someone in /r/totalwar had the idea of a TW game going up until 1900, and while I was pretty sure warfare in the late 19th century wouldn't support a TW game, I couldn't put the reasoning into words because I honestly didn't know. During WWI, battles were mainly fights between large numbers of infantry attempting to outflank each other or simply outgun each other with the support of massive amounts of artillery. During the Napoleonic Wars set-piece battles were still fought where generals threw their armies at each other and attempted to win tactical advantages over their enemies utilizing the strengths of their army composition. First off, am I correct in that identification of differences between the styles of tactical warfare or am I completely wrong in my thinking and are there other things that set the wars apart in that aspect, and as to the original question: when were battles more like the former than the latter?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2g3c1u/at_what_point_in_history_did_battlefield_tactics/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckf9tm1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\nTons of info here."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2furc1/how_was_warfare_conducted_between_18361914/"
]
] |
|
3pdesp
|
How many black people have been hung/lynched in the United States?
|
I am trying to determine how many black people in total have been hung until death throughout the entirety of US history.
Please feel free to contribute if you only know the total for a specific and location, but in that case please do specify which place and time to which you are referring.
I have already tried searching in the FAQ under 'Racism & Slavery' but found no such question posed.
Thank you historians!
Edit: I understand reported statistics will not be a complete view and so credible estimations of non-reported hangings/lynchings would be equally appreciated.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3pdesp/how_many_black_people_have_been_hunglynched_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw5ezw1",
"cw5og5h"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Whilst this doesn't account for all of US history, a [study](_URL_0_) by the Tuskegee Institute asserted that 3446 black people were lynched from 1882 to 1968. It's important to note that not all lynchings were recorded, and many deaths may well have gone unnoticed. \n\nedit: in response to the edit, it's really quite hard to estimate something so off-the-record like that, as there are no credible sources for each unreported lynching. I'd advise you to perhaps research murder rates during different time periods and then extrapolation? Very rough estimate, I know, but guessing things like that is pretty hard. ",
"A more recent report from the [Equal Justice Institute](_URL_0_) counted \"3959 racial terror lynchings of African Americans in Alabama, Arkansas, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Louisiana, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee, Texas, and Virginia between 1877 and 1950\"\n\n & nbsp;\n\n[Lynching in America: Report Summary](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://law2.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/shipp/lynchingsstate.html"
],
[
"http://www.eji.org/lynchinginamerica",
"http://www.eji.org/files/EJI%20Lynching%20in%20America%20SUMMARY.pdf"
]
] |
|
1y9i71
|
I am living in the 10th century. I have been injured in battle in Ireland,Scandinavia and England, what treatment will I receive in each of these countries?
|
Would the treatment change from country to country? Which country am I most likely to survive injury in?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1y9i71/i_am_living_in_the_10th_century_i_have_been/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfijcq4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Scandinavia is out of my scope, but I can comment on Ireland and England.\n\nThere are very few medical sources for 10th century England and Ireland. This is partially because medical schools are not around quite yet. In both places, though, your best bet for medical care would most likely be a convent or monastery, especially if the battle is taking place in the country where doctors are scarce. I think that the chance of survival would be the same in each country, especially because of the lack of medical education. Monks and nuns had medical knowledge, but it was usually very basic. The essentials were needed to treat each other when they became sick or injured, and so there was usually at least one cleric that had some medical knowledge (see Hildegard von Bingen). That being said, treatment would have been very basic. Cleaning the wound, adding a salve or ointment, and bandaging smaller wounds, and setting or amputating larger wounds. However, clerics were forbidden from spilling blood, so amputation might not be as common. Infection rates, as you can imagine, would be incredibly high, but the use of honey in Ireland and England would have helped. Honey acts as a barrier (at least when applied and bandaged) and it has antibacterial properties to combat infection. There is also a chance that the injured might have access to local empirics that would have utilized similar techniques. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1tlzxd
|
England, Great Britain, the UK....which one can I use?
|
I am a soon to be student teacher of History. I am in the beginning stages of creating some lesson plans for my online portfolio (so I can hopefully get hired right out of school). I have chosen to create lesson plans about the American Revolutionary Era. My question is this: When speaking about the aforementioned era, which form for England can I use? I always see the form British when speaking about the people and not English; are they interchangeable? I understand that UK is more of a modern term so I will not use that, but what about Great Britain? Any insight would be much obliged!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1tlzxd/england_great_britain_the_ukwhich_one_can_i_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce99nxu",
"ce9aoma"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"If you're focusing on the American Revolutionary period, the proper name is the \"[Kingdom of Great Britain](_URL_0_)\". This was its name between the Acts of Union 1707 (when the Kingdom of England merged with the Kingdom of Scotland) and the Acts of Union 1800 when it merged with Ireland and became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. So yeah, \"Kingdom of Great Britain\" officially, or \"Great Britain\" or \"Britain\" or short.",
"I don't know about which name to use, but thought I could help clear some things up.\n\n* Great Britain today is the whole island; including England, Scotland and Wales (and their surrounding islands).\n\n* The United Kingdom is, as you said, a more modern state and includes all of Great Britain along with Northern Ireland.\n\n* England is just one of the countries in both Great Britain and the UK and so is not interchangeable with GB or the UK. I suppose it's slightly similar to using New York state to mean the whole of the US."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Great_Britain"
],
[]
] |
|
34ug2j
|
In a theorized multiverse, how are "universes" separated from one other and can they influence each other?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/34ug2j/in_a_theorized_multiverse_how_are_universes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqy8ri6",
"cqyab8y",
"cqyawte",
"cqyc0nj",
"cqycbhb",
"cqyfqwk"
],
"score": [
111,
44,
8,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Which 'multiverse' are you talking about?\n\nOne view of the multiverse is that the big bang was a point origin of our universe, but there may be other point origins far removed from ours. This is the **Ergodic** multiverse. These universes are separated from each other by immense distances. They can never influence each other.\n\nIn the **Many-Worlds** multiverse theory, the universe branches off every time a quantum effect settles on a random number. (Or possible only certain quantum effects.) This is where you find your parallel universes where anything that could have happened somewhere did happen. They are not really separated from each other; in this theory, all possibilities exist somewhere, but we humans are only able to follow and understand one of time's infinite threads. There may be faint interactions between these universes, and we can speculate that may lead to one possible universe being able to influence another.\n\nThe **Brane** theory leads to a multiverse separated by distance in one of the ten dimensions of space-time, as described by certain quantum string theories. They do influence each other, sharing some gravitational wells and possibly other phenomena -- recently it's been speculated that dark matter is a brane interaction. But these other universes are alien and probably without the same physical laws, so it's not as if you'll see people living there.\n\nAnd then there are theories where all these possibilities (as well as other multiverses, such as the holographic universe) are all true *simultaneously*. When the theory gets that complicated it's impossible to say what can and cannot interact.\n\ntldr; We don't know whether there is a multiverse, or which of several theoretical multiverses may actually exist. Some allow interaction between universes and some don't.",
"I can answer from a physics/mathematics perspective.\n\nOur perspective is limited to 3 dimensional space. In a multiverse philosophy, there is basically a 4th spatial dimension. So imagine that all 3 of our dimensions were squashed flat into 2 dimensions. There would other universes above and below us that are literally parrellel, and at no point touch the plane of our universe.\n\nIn theory these universes could be inches apart. As for how they influence each other, high energy or density areas of the universe could have forces that act in the extra spatial dimension. Kind of like how a magnet can act on a metal without touching it. So things in our universe could effect a nearby parallel universe.\n\nEdit: A different comment pointed out that this is the *Brane* multiverse, and there are also other multiverse philosophies.",
"The simplest answer I can give you is that we just don't know. We may never know. We may never even know if there is a multiverse or not (though there are compelling reasons to suspect that there may be). If a multiverse does exist, we don't know if there is a medium in which our universe and others \"sit\" or if there is simply empty space/spacetime, or if space/spacetime even would exist outside of our universe. As far as how they may influence one another, one of the hypotheses for dark energy is that there is a gravitational influence from other universes in a multiverse, which is causing our universe to expand. \n\nBut lets speculate. For this speculation, we should define our terms clearly. Let's discard the term \"multiverse\" in favor of the term \"universe\" by which we should mean everything that exists. What is classically referred to as our \"universe\" should now mean a \"region of the universe\" instead.\n\nLet's say that we live in a region of the universe that is finite in size but which is expanding exponentially. Let's say that outside of this region is an infinitely large universe that contains our and other discrete regions (this is most peoples' conceptualization of a \"multiverse\"). It could be that space and time exist outside of our region of the universe and that these are similar throughout the universe. It could also mean that other discrete regions of the universe may have lived and gone through heat death in this universe. They expanded exponentially until all their matter was being pulled apart by universal expansion faster than their gravitational influence could bring them together - or even faster than light could travel between matter - or has ended up in a black hole which eventually evaporated due to Hawking Radiation. This essentially leaves a region in thermal equilibrium - it is a dead universe (in fact this may be the norm for the entire universe, with few special exceptions). But in an infinite universe, anything that IS possible WILL happen eventually, including the birth of a region of the universe that gives rise to people who create and use the internet to ask about how \"universes\" might be separated from each other in a \"multiverse.\"",
"There are several different theories that might be referred to as \"multiverse\" theories, and the answer to your question will depend on which one you're talking about. See [here](_URL_0_) for an introduction (although some of the ideas presented there are more mainstream than others). For my money, the most important multiverse theories are as follows.\n\n-- Even in the most standard interpretation of cosmology, there's only a small \"pocket\" of the whole universe that we can ever interact with, by either sending or receiving information (in the form of light, particles, etc) -- so there's a sense in which the _observable_ universe is its own little universe inside a much larger \"multiverse\". In this scenario, different \"universes\" never influence each other, except perhaps before the big bang. In some more speculative scenarios, different pockets might have different values of physical constants.\n\n-- Under some interpretations of quantum mechanics, all different possible outcomes of all measurements ever made somehow \"coexist\". These separate universes don't interact with each other, except insofar as two universes might share part of their history.\n\n-- There are theories such as the [ekpyrotic universe](_URL_1_) in which two different universes are connected by some extra dimension through which light does not travel. These universes _can_ communicate through gravity, though.",
"For a *very* good layman-level read on different version of the multiverse theory, you should check out Brian Greene's [The Hidden Reality](_URL_0_).",
"This isn't really a science question. So far, current science is insufficient to prove or disprove a multiverse so it doesn't make a whole lot of sense to talk about them as if we know anything about them. However, from a mathematical perspective, here's an analogy. Imagine you have two sheets of paper. These will be your universes. These sheets of paper are two dimensional and any moving drawing on one piece of paper would be completely unable to interact with another drawing on the second piece of paper due to their separation within a three dimensional space. Now, this sort of thing might be hard to conceptualize, but if there were multiple universes (which, as you will recall, don't make sense to discuss from a scientific point of view) they could be separated by a fourth spacial dimension, just as your two pieces of paper were separated by a third dimension. We don't really have words to describe four dimensional space since the English language didn't evolve in a time when people thought of such things, so it's hard to discuss. Basically, you have a whole new set of directions that these dimensions could be that you have no way of perceiving. \n\nAs for interaction, I'll go back to the paper. While your two sheets of paper might not start out touching, you can make them touch one another by laying one on top of the other or some other way. This line of intersection will be a sort of boundary between both paper dimensions. Again, none of this makes sense in a science point of view because I am just talking about mathematical objects rather than physical things. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse#Max_Tegmark.27s_four_levels",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hidden_Reality"
],
[]
] |
||
25lns0
|
why can our pupils dilate or shrink within less than a second, but we have to squint to get used to the light after a long period of darkness?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/25lns0/eli5_why_can_our_pupils_dilate_or_shrink_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chiejke",
"chien3a",
"chienol"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"There are two types of receptors within your pupil that process light- rods and cones. Rods process low level light as black and white. Cones process bright light or color. \n\nWhen there is a lot of light, your rods are \"bleached\" and therefore take time to readjust and begin processing low light levels again. You can become conscious of this by noticing that in a dark room at night, you see most things in black and white.\n\nYour pupils dilate to allow as much light in as possible. When you move from a dark place (outside at night, say) into a bright place (maybe your living room), your pupils are wide open. Light pours into your pupil and your sensitive rods start the process of \"bleaching\" again. \n\nTL:DR Your sensitive rods hurt like a sunburn (kinda), until they readjust.",
"It's because your eyes have two major types of cells: rods and cones. Each of these work to help you see better in darkness and light, respectively. When you spend time in the light and then move somewhere darker, it takes a while for your rods to \"warm up\" to allow you to see well. The reverse is true for moving from darkness to light. [Mythbusters did a whole myth revolving around how your eyes adjust if you're a visual learner.](_URL_0_) Your pupils dilate and shrink as a reflex response to the amount of light, while your ability to perceive things in changed light takes a bit longer.",
"The pupillary response can average up 8-10 seconds. You see it move much faster than that, but that's not the fully range of response. It has to \"warm up\" if you will, to really crank it up. I don't think that's it though. The biggest factor is the adaptation of the cones, the non-color receptors that respond permit dark adaptation. A cones cell can detect as few as 6 photons and handle as many at 10,000, but it can't swing from one extreme to the other. It can take a 30 minutes to fully adapt to darkness and up to 5 minutes to fully adapt to light. That, more than anything is what causes the pain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://youtu.be/QAhUkluZiCc?t=8m52s"
],
[]
] |
||
6jvxhi
|
how can we not yet replicate the composition of expensive aged drinks like old whiskey and cognac
|
If it all comes down to chemistry, and there are some burnt oak traces and such... Shouldnt it all be reverse engineerable at this point in time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6jvxhi/eli5how_can_we_not_yet_replicate_the_composition/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djhi1x8",
"djhj2sg",
"djhjzi3",
"djht7pp",
"djhwkep"
],
"score": [
15,
8,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Which would you rather have? An autographed original rookie babe Ruth baseball card? Or a replica? Which would you rather pay more for?\n\nCould some whiskey be made in sped up fashion to replicate an aged 100 year old product? Maybe. Do the type of trees used still exist? Do the types of crops, growing conditions and distillery still exist? Will people pay for a replica? Or is the age, rarity and brand value important?",
"In practice it is possible to speed up the aging process of whiskey but the nuances that are attributed to low oxygen exposure and the \"breathing\" over the barrel over time due to seasonal fluctuations is not able to be exactly replicated. \n\n",
"This reminds me of this little ball that oysters make. Machines can now replicate the process and do it. And it costs nothing. The real thing on the other hand is real jewelry. Which would you rather give to your loved one? Which has the most value?",
"Synthesizing chemicals isn't as simple as arranging the bricks of a very tiny Lego set. Just because we know the molecular formula of a chemical doesn't mean we can produce it in a lab.",
"Aged spirits are not in a static state. They evolve and change composition over time and through exposure to their surroundings. Even once bottled, they continue to subtly change. Once the bottle is open it also changes even further as it interacts with air, some volatile chemicals air out and leave the solution, etc. \n\nFor example, imagine we took ice cream and placed it in a special container which was hermetically sealed, and also completely impervious to heat. We then take that bottle and put it in a blast furnace for 20 hours, take it out and let it cool down. What is in that bottle has the exact same elements in it still. Nothing has been added or left it, but you would not want to drink what's in that bottle because it looks, smells, and tastes nothing like ice cream now. It's a runny sludge that smells like petrol. \n\nSo it's not a matter of knowing the composition of whats in the bottle. It's a matter of being able to precisely re-create it and that's not easy. Even if we had not dropped the ice cream in a blast furnace, if we had just let it melt, then re-froze it, it would still taste nothing like the original because actual ice cream has air whipped into it and very small ice crystals. So even the physical structure counts for flavor. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7eevfa
|
I just saw the BBC documentary, "1945: The Savage Peace". Historiographically, why was the post-war deaths of 12 million ethnic Germans largely ignored in school history texts?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7eevfa/i_just_saw_the_bbc_documentary_1945_the_savage/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq4z3df"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Are you sure 12 million were killed? Do you have any other sources or a link to the documentary? I think you might be confusing the number of German speakers expelled from the east with the number who died."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
b2l2om
|
why are the lanthanides and actinides so weird?
|
It's been a while since high school chemistry, but it's my recollection that the Period Table is organized like it is because elements in the same column have similar properties to each other, largely due to having the same number of valence electrons, which cycles as the atomic number increases.
I also understand that the reason the lanthanides and actinides are located outside of the table is because they have such similar properties that it makes more sense for them to all be in the same two squares. What exactly does that mean, and how is it possible? Do they all have the same numbers of valence electrons? What's so special about these 30 element that causes them to completely violate the expectations, only for the expected behavior to resume at Hf and Rf?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2l2om/eli5_why_are_the_lanthanides_and_actinides_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eitaxsk",
"eitazky"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"The Lanthanides and Actinides are not located outside the table because they're weird; they're put there to make the table easier to read. They properly belong between groups 3 and 4, but that makes the table really wide and narrow; [have a look.](_URL_0_)",
"If I interpret your question correctly, this is due to the fact that the periodic table also arranges the elements due to their electron configuration with accordance to the Aufbau principle.\n\nThese two blocks are located at the bottom because of reasons that include but are not limited to:\nThey house within them a level of electrons that are much farther than usual, they would’ve been located in between the p and d level but it was decided that rather than making another “valley” looking ditch in the table, that they be placed under."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Periodic_table_\\(32_columns,_compact\\)"
],
[]
] |
|
eqi89y
|
How was ancient Grecian pottery made? Can it be made today?
|
I've always wanted to make an art piece that resembles ancient Greek pottery and stays true to form. See here: _URL_0_
How was this made? Do we have the means to make this type of art with today's knowledge and materials?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eqi89y/how_was_ancient_grecian_pottery_made_can_it_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"feyqtyb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"With access to a pottery studio, it would be fairly easy to make something that *looks* like that; however, it might take some effort to find the exact pigments the Greeks used, and it would probably be a hassle to build a pottery wheel like the ones used in ancient Greece. If you want to be authentic without spending lots of money and effort, you would probably use a non-electric wheel, and look for modern clay pigments/glazes that incorporate some of the same pigments the Greeks would have used. [The Met](_URL_0_) has an essay on the techniques that you're asking about."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://d3vjn2zm46gms2.cloudfront.net/blogs/2010/11/27002720/black_figure_amphora_1300.jpg"
] |
[
[
"https://www.metmuseum.org/toah/hd/vase/hd_vase.htm"
]
] |
|
1iy8tn
|
what had caused the interest rates to go up and the housing prices to go down at the burst of the housing bubble? what was the trigger?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iy8tn/what_had_caused_the_interest_rates_to_go_up_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb99r3y"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Banks were giving out lots of lots of subprime mortgages to people who couldn't realistically pay for them. Then, the banks just packaged those mortgages into securities which were sold to investors, so the banks didn't even have to deal with any of the risk. It was a total perverse incentive because the banks were making commission on risky mortgages left and right but then passing their risk onto others.\n\nBecause there was so much mortgage money floating around, housing prices went up rapidly, and developers built lots of houses to satisfy demand. This just wasn't sustainable over the long run. There are only so many potential home owners out there. Sooner or later you reach a point where supply of homes is greater than demand, and housing prices start to drop. The subprime mortgages were okay as long as housing prices keep going up because it was possible to refinance, but once housing prices start to drop it's a problem. People begin to foreclose on houses, and then it's a vicious cycle where as foreclosures increase, housing prices get even lower, and then the whole house of cards collapses."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1du9pi
|
What do the visual stages of a bruise represent internally and biochemically?
|
From the first trauma to deep purple to yellow and then healed, what are the processes happening in the body?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1du9pi/what_do_the_visual_stages_of_a_bruise_represent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9txowp",
"c9txyse"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"\"...The striking colors of a bruise are caused by the phagocytosis and sequential degradation of hemoglobin to biliverdin to bilirubin to hemosiderin, with hemoglobin itself producing a red-blue color, biliverdin producing a green color, bilirubin producing a yellow color, and hemosiderin producing a golden-brown color.[7] As these products are cleared from the area, the bruise disappears. \"\n\n_URL_0_",
"The initial purple color is caused by blood seeping out from broken blood vessels beneath the skin. The following colors that you see (green, yellow, brownish) are caused by the products formed from the breaking down of hemoglobin by phagocytes (cells that digest) in the body- each product corresponds to a specific color. Thus, the color of the bruise has nothing to do with the actual status of repair of the affected tissue."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bruise#Mechanism_of_bruise"
],
[]
] |
|
2jjy0w
|
why does a home loan at 4% end up taking 70% of my monthly mortgage payment?
|
Let's say you take out a $200,000 home mortgage advertised at 4%. You pay a $40,000 (20%) down payment and you are required to carry home owners insurance. Even if you never make a single payment after your down payment and the bank repossesses your home, they still have your $40,000 and a home they can now resell.
4% of $200,000 is $8,000, but it's very clear that you will end up paying much, much more. Why is this allowed. If a person is expected to pay $40,000-$50,000 in interest on a home loan, why are they not forced to advertise it as such?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2jjy0w/eli5_why_does_a_home_loan_at_4_end_up_taking_70/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clcex2m",
"clcf3wf",
"clcf5sz",
"clcfbf5",
"clcfk95",
"clcfv6j",
"clch3iq"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"That's 4% *per year*. So over a 30-year span, it adds up. The interest paid goes down as your principle goes down, but you'll usually still be spending a lot on interest.\n\nEdit: Note that this is how all finances dealing with interest rates work. Savings accounts, credit cards, car loans, student loans, etc all give an interest rate that equates to what percentage of the balance would be paid after one year assuming the balance never changed.",
"They are forced to include:\n\n1. the APR. You are also expected to understand what that is. It's an interest rate.\n\n2. an amortization schedule. this tells you how much you will be paying each month and for how long. this doesn't have to be advertised, but it has to be disclosed to you in a pretty clear fashion before you sign.\n\n",
"The standard way of stating interests rates on ALL loans is x%/year. That 4% is paid every year that the loan is outstanding (depending on the loan it's actually done monthly or bi-weekly).\n\nThis is the standard way of presenting interest rates regardless if we are talking about a credit card, vehicle loan, mortgage or anything that you pay (or revive) interest on.\n\nThe reasoning is that you could repay the loan early and then would pay less interest overall, so that makes it difficult to advertise the total interest paid amount. ",
"It's only that percentage of your monthly payment at the very beginning. At the end, when your outstanding principal is much lower, it will be almost 0% of your payment.",
"Interest accrues daily based on the amount you currently have borrowed (called a *per diem*). This means the beginning of your loan, when your actual balance is the highest, is when you are being charged the most interest (actual dollar wise, not percentage wise). \n\nSince your payment is a set amount, a larger part of that payment is eaten up by interest at the beginning since the interest is an actual higher dollar amount. Since a part of your payment each month goes towards the principal, your actual balance borrowed lowers each month, meaning your interest accruing each day lowers, meaning eventually more of your payment goes towards principal each month instead of interest.\n\nELI5 - 4% Interest on 100k is a lot more than 4% of 20k. If a 1000$ payment was made towards each, more of that 1000$ would go towards interest owed on the 100k debt (since more interest is owed), than would go towards interest on the 20k debt (since less is owed). Any left over amount would reduce the principal owed.",
"Many people end up selling a house before the full term of the loan. Because of this, it's not a bad idea to describe the cost of the loan in terms of cost over time. The interest rate listed for a mortgage is in percentage of the loan balance per year, although there is some math that most people don't understand which translates that to a monthly rate. Since almost all loans are advertized this way, it is a good basis for comparison.\n\nJust in case you don't understand how interest works, there are laws which require that the borrower be presented with certain documents which are intended to clearly describe the payment arrangement, including the total interest which will be paid on the loan should it be paid off according to the standard schedule. People may quibble over how effective these things are, but it is very difficult to get a mortgage without many opportunities to discover how much the mortgage is actualy going to cost.",
"First of all, you are paying 4% per year, and that is how mortgages are advertised, as a yearly rate. This is commonly understood, and if you missed it, that is on you.\n\nSecond, that is just how the math works how. With *any* system of evenly spaced payments over time against an annual interest rate, the first few years, most will go against interest and not principle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3f4gfl
|
What information can be gathered from a properly constructed phylogeny (and what can't easily)?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3f4gfl/what_information_can_be_gathered_from_a_properly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctlah1f",
"ctlgwi0"
],
"score": [
15,
4
],
"text": [
"There are actually a lot of ways to construct a phylogeny and some give more or less information. \n \nThe most basic tree will give you information about divergence in lineages. \n[Here's an example.](_URL_0_) \nIn that tree you can see a lot of information about the evolutionary relationships among the great apes. \nYou can see that the orangs are an outgroup to all of the African great apes. Then within the African apes you can see gorillas are an outgroup to the human/chimp clade. Etc. \n \nSo that tells us that the Asian great apes are outgroup to the rest of us, but it doesn't paint any picture about timing or evolutionary history. \n \n[Here's another example.](_URL_1_) \nIn this example we're looking at the *Catarhini* (old world monkeys and apes) with the *Platarhini* (new world monkeys) as an outgroup. \n \nAnd in this example we're also getting a lot more information. The most important thing is that branch lengths matter in this tree. Meaning that they attempt to describe divergence *time* as well as relationships. And there is a scale at the bottom marked off in millions of years. \nClades are color coded by the circles and the branches are also color coded. \nThe colors on the branches tell us what 'adaptive regime' is present in the clade. So if you look at the top of the image you'll see all of the lime-green lines. And you can see that that is the ancestral trait. Those colors are mapping hand morphology. The lime green branches are a human like hand used for manipulation. And you can see that gorillas share that trait with us. But you can also see that *Pan* and *Pongo* have converged on a different morphology which they use more for locomotion than for manipulating. \nYou can also see that the gibbons (*Hylobatidae*) have a different morphology. \n \nAnd these are just a couple of *basic* trees. \nIt can get a lot more complicated; but you can see that the amount of information you can get from a tree will vary a lot by the tree; and it's really up to the people who constructed the tree. You can put in as much or as little information as you'd like. \n \nEdit: I just realized I left out the interesting reason that I chose those trees. \n \nBecause branch length matters there we can get a little information about the history as well. \nYou'll notice that the gibbons and *Pongo* are older lineages than the African great apes. But they aren't more closely related to each other than one might expect given that they are both Asian. \n \nAs it turns out, the common ancestor to all of the apes was African and it migrated out and settled in Asia sometime between 20 and 30 million years ago. Apes diversified there, which is why the only extant lesser apes are endemic to Asia. \nSometime later, around 15 million years ago, another creature migrated back *into* Africa and that creature eventually gave rise to the African great apes -- including us. \n \nSo the common ancestor to all of the apes was African, but the common ancestor to the great apes was actually Asian. \n \nThat tree actually has a lot of other more subtle information as well. \nPhylogenetics is awesome. ",
"Quite a few things, if you know what to look for.\n\nFirst, it's important to note that a phylogeny is *not* the history of the species or sequences you're considering. To reconstruct the history, you'd need a time machine. It's just a model for understanding their relationship. As the maxim goes, all models are wrong, but some are useful.\n\nAnyway, some examples of things you can use a phylogeny for:\n\n1. Testing the molecular clock hypothesis. If the sequences you're investigating are all more or less equidistant from the root of the tree, that tells you it might be plausible that they've been evolving at a roughly constant rate. Violations of the clock could be for any number of reasons, such as a sequence being under positive or negative selection along some branch.\n\n2. Testing the hypothesis of biased speciation rates. If your phylogeny is massively skewed, so that one side of the tree branches more frequently than the other side, this can indicate that the speciation rate for that lineage is higher, for whatever reason. One common, simple model for phylogenies in which speciation occurs at a constant rate is the Yule model. Topology-dependent statistics such as the Sackin and Colless indices can be useful for testing this model (or others) as a null hypothesis.\n\n3. Gene and species trees can be compared to test for convergent evolution: for a recent example, see [Parker et al. (2013)](_URL_2_), which found evidence for convergent evolution in echolocating mammals (at certain genes, bats and dolphins cluster rather closely).\n\n4. Gene and species trees can also be compared to test hypotheses about how the history of *sequences* differs from the history of *species*. One example of this is incomplete lineage sorting, where coalescent effects become important: due to recombination and short internal branch lengths, gene and species trees can have different topologies. Another example is simple outcrossing. [Churakov et al. (2009)](_URL_4_) failed to find a unifying phylogeny for retroposon insertions in mammals, which suggests that early mammals lived in a state of more or less constant reproductive connectedness as the continents separated. Both of the preceding processes were likely important. A third and more obvious example is horizontal gene transfer.\n\n4. Testing the hypothesis that a particular trait is somehow related to an important evolutionary event. [Alexandrou et al. (2013)](_URL_0_) tried to ascertain whether a whole-genome duplication event in salmon had something to do with the evolution of complex migratory behavior (it probably didn't, but it's not like this is a totally half-baked hypothesis).\n\n6. Related to the above, violations of clock models can be tested. [Lee et al. (2013)](_URL_3_) found that arthropod radiation during the Cambrian can be explained by a slight (five-fold) elevation of the morphological and molecular evolutionary rates.\n\n7. If the phylogeny is of a non-recombining component in a single population (i.e., it's a genealogy), the phylogeny can be an indicator of selection. Genealogies in a neutrally evolving population follow the statistics of the Kingman coalescent, so deviations from these statistics indicate deviations from neutrality, including adherence to an alternate coalescent model like the Bolthausen-Sznitman coalescent––this can arise either from very strong selection at many loci or from skewed offspring number distributions. (This is the subject of a paper I'm working on.) They can also indicate more trivial processes like population expansion. There's a relationship here between genealogies and standard population statistics like Tajima's *D*.\n\nHopefully some of this is useful.\n\nOne thing to be wary about: A well-constructed phylogeny can still be useless for estimating the time of divergence events, provided you don't have a good estimate of the substitution rate along the entire tree (or else some kind of very good fossil calibration). [Graur and Martin's \"Reading the entrails of chickens: molecular timescales of evolution and the illusion of precision\" (2004)](_URL_1_) is a hilarious overview of this problem. Apparently people thought they could use molecular evolution rates inferred from mice and humans to date (e.g.) the divergence of nematodes and arthropods, with very high precision. This is nonsense. Graur compares it to \"trying to decipher Demotic Egyptian with the help of an odometer and the *Oxford English Dictionary*\" and opines that, with the illusory precision such techniques sometimes grant us, \"we might\nultimately be able to tell whether the human–chimpanzee divergence occurred on a Monday or not.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://tolweb.org/Public/treeImages/Hominidae.png?x=196116141",
"http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2015/150714/ncomms8717/images_article/ncomms8717-f3.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1055790313003035",
"http://www.cell.com/trends/genetics/abstract/S0168-9525\\(03\\)00342-1",
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v502/n7470/full/nature12511.html",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24035543",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2675975/"
]
] |
||
2pzptr
|
Why did the Islamic world persecute Zoroastrians so much, yet were influenced so much by Persian culture?
|
I'm talking really only about pre-Partition, and primarily pre-Mongol Invasion.
Islam has always had negative views towards Zoroastrianism. It's strange, because it's a monotheistic religion that influenced Judaism, but Muslims seemed to like Romans much more than Persians. I thought that views towards it would get more favorable throughout history, but I read that it only got worse. Did anyone have positive views towards them?
Despite the persecution of Zoroastrians, so much of Islamic culture came from Persians. Some of the greatest philosophers, like Ibn Sina, Al-Ghazzali, and Al-Biruni, were Persian. Many of the Classical Islamic scientists were Persian. One of the greatest works of Islamic literature (the Shahnameh) is Persian, and uses many things from Pre-Islamic Persia). Some of the greatest Islamic poets, like Hafez and Rumi, are Persian. I read that the Persian dastgah influenced Arabic classical music. Most pre-modern Islamic painting I found is Persian (why does it look so Chinese by the way? Is it because it all is post 13th-century, and has Mongol influence?). Persians even have a colorful, unique theological branch in Islam (Ismailism), though I guess that is not well-received by Arabs.
It seems like a lot of what we think of as Classical Islamic culture comes from Persians, yet Muslims persecuted Zoroastrians. What explains this discrepancy? Did they really influence *all* of the Islamic world, or is it that they remained in their Persian sphere, and we just know a lot about them (which would mean the Sunni/Arab world remained uninfluenced)? Why did Arabs seem to take the backseat in Islamic cultural history to the Persians and Turks?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pzptr/why_did_the_islamic_world_persecute_zoroastrians/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn1vkmy",
"cn2ri93"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
" > Islam has always had negative views towards Zoroastrianism\n\nThis is perhaps too general a statement that leaves no room for understanding the early Islamic period. I just completed the first quarter of an Islamic civ survey required for my MA. This course covered the origins and early Islamic period and I never got the impression that there were inherently negative views of Zoroastrianism within Islam. I have searched through some of the readings required for the course and have posted some excerpts below. I think it is important to remember that Zoroastrians were considered ahl al-Kitab (people of the book) and were granted protection in exchange for the jizyah tax. The Umayyad empire had to deal with the Zoroastrians on a pragmatic level because they were a very large demographic previously under Sassanian control. The initial conquests may have been bloody and violent, but that is not an exceptional sort of occurrence in world-historical terms in which we should single them out as being viewed with hostility. After accepting the new Islamic political order, it seems the Zoroastrians were relatively secure. Richard Bulliet claims (in *Conversion to Islam in the Medieval Period*) that the pressure to convert was gradual and due to the socioeconomic benefit the Zoroastrians would receive as Muslims. \n\n > Whether Zoroastrian communities, found mainly in Iran and\nsouthern Iraq, were incorporated at the outset into the growing Believers' movement in some way is less clear. The dualistic theology\nand fire worship of Zoroastrians must have posed a significant obstacle\nto their inclusion in the Believers' movement at first. Later Muslim chronicles describe the destruction of Zoroastrian fire temples\nat the time of the conquest, but it is not clear how reliable such\nlater reports are. Some Zoroastrian communities, like Jewish and\nChristian ones elsewhere, may have tendered their submission and\nmay have been integrated in some way with the community of Believers. On the other hand, some large provinces of Iran, especially\nin the north, were hardly penetrated by the Believers for a century or\nmore; the Iranian noble families that traditionally controlled these\nareas evidently made terms with the Believers early in the conquest\nera, winning virtually complete autonomy in exchange for remission\nof tribute or tax payments to the amir al-muminin and his governors. Certainly Zoroastrians continued to exist in large numbers in northern and western Iran and elsewhere for centuries after the rise of\nIslam, and indeed, much of the canon of Zoroastrian religious texts\nwas elaborated and written down during the Islamic period. Unfortunately, we have far fewer sources for the history of the Zoroastrian communities than we do for the Christians and Jews of geographical Syria and Egypt. We have almost nothing by way of archaeological exploration of predominantly Zoroastrian communities from the conquest era, and the non-Muslim literary sources that inform us about Zoroastrian communities are also much more limited and, in many cases, of later date. - Fred Donner, *Muhammad and the Believers*\n\nThere is an interesting article I have posted below that addresses Islamic encounters with Zoroastrianism. Here is a simple quote that gives you an idea of how the author approaches the subject. Hope you have access to JSTOR.\n\n > In short, the victory of the Muslim invaders over Zoroastrian Iran was primarily the triumph of a stronger state, with its superior military power, over a weaker one. Yet, there might also be factors of an ideological nature that might have tended to favor the success of Islam. I would suggest that in at least four ways the teachings of Muhammad would have looked more attractive than those of Zoroaster. First, the former was addressed to all peoples regardless of such factors as race, ethnicity, and language. Zoroastrianism, on the other hand, was a \"provincially confined truth.\" - Marietta Stepaniants, [The Encounter of Zoroastrianism with Islam](_URL_0_) ",
"There's a significant amount of misinformation (or, rather, simply a lack of understanding) of this issue in the thread, and I want to correct some of this.\n\nFirst, there is a fundamental issue with an assumption you make within your question itself: that the significant influence of Persian culture on classical Islam should somehow be tied to the Zoroastrian religion itself. The main issue here is that, so far as we know, Zoroastrianism had very much been on the decline by the time of the Islamic conquests in the seventh century. While the Shahenshah and a number of important landed elites remained tied to the faith to various degrees, the average number of adherents of the religion had been steadily on the decline for more than a century, and this is born out by the archaeological record, too: plenty of Zoroastrian fire temples had fallen into disrepair well before the Islamic conquests began. Other aspects of Persian culture were far more important and long lasting, and not bound to the Zoroastrian faith at all - Persian attachment and identity with their land, their myths, their language, and traditions more generally (food, clothing, naming practices, etc) made Persia and the Persian people of the seventh, eighth, and ninth centuries CE extremely resilient. The success of the 'Abbasid Revolution and the influx of Persian bureaucrats into state institutions is what led to a greater spread of \"Persian\" culture with the realm of Islam - Zoroastrianism and its lack of popularity weren't important. \n\n > It's strange, because it's a monotheistic religion that influenced Judaism, but Muslims seemed to like Romans much more than Persians. \n\nTo call Zoroastrianism a monotheistic religion is to mislead, really, and misses a great amount of the nuance of the classical/late antique form of the religion. \n\nI also don't understand why you suggest that \"Muslims seemed to like Romans much more than Persians.\" Why do you think this? \n\nMore generally,the suggestion that the early Arabic sources don't typically treat Zoroastrian's negatively is, overall, fairly true. Islamic law books (dating from the 9th century CE and beyond) often classify the Zoroastrians as \"People of the Book\" and thus capable of keeping their religion in exchange for the payment of tax (jizya). There are lots of concerns about this, and the traditions which provide justification for this classification of Zoroastrians are extremely dubious, however. Andrew Magnusson has recently completed his PhD at UCSB on these issues very specifically, and if these questions continue to interest you, I would keep a look at for the publication of his dissertation (in whatever form that may be) sometime in the future (\"Muslim-Zoroastrian Relations and Religious Violence in Early Islamic Discourse, 600-1100 C.E.\"). \n\nI hope you have found some of this helpful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.jstor.org/stable/1399963"
],
[]
] |
|
1amqkq
|
What caused the Great Vowel Shift?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1amqkq/what_caused_the_great_vowel_shift/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8yunab",
"c8yuqbe",
"c8yvu27",
"c8ywt15"
],
"score": [
14,
8,
18,
19
],
"text": [
"/r/linguistics might help too if no one can answer here. ",
"I think it's hypothesized that it was the influence of the Norman upper-class dropping French in favor of English. But the reality is that vowel shift often don't have an obvious cause. Language change just kinda happens.",
"Most theories either attribute it to a redistribution of populations in the late middle ages due to effect of various plagues, or as an effect of affectation on the part of certain segments of the population (trying to 'ape' more prestigious sounding speech), or a combination of both. It could have been for neither of those reasons, which I would consider unlikely, but who knows. The truth is we aren't conclusively certain.\n\nInterestingly another vowel shift is occurring in the United States right now, the [Northern Cities Vowel Shift](_URL_0_). Maybe researching that a bit more might provide insight into how/why these types of changes occur.",
"Can someone explain better what the great vowel shift was? \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northern_cities_vowel_shift"
],
[]
] |
||
9zg030
|
how do humans know that we've only discovered a fraction of the species on earth? and how is that possible given we're 8 billion strong?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9zg030/eli5_how_do_humans_know_that_weve_only_discovered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ea8vhq0",
"ea8wg31",
"ea967uh"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There's an awful lot of species that are too small to really see, or live at the bottom of the ocean (which is a huge percentage of the surface of the Earth). We've documented the surface pretty well for things big enough to hold in our hand or larger (and even of those, new species pop up quite often), but when you get to figuring out microscopic mites that live on things deep in the jungle, and worms that live in mud three miles below the surface of the ocean, we're probably a long ways away from finding all examples.",
"Can you differentiate between different species of beetle that almost look the same? Can you determine that the one the live in you area is different that the one that live some distance away? Can you do that for any insect?\n\nIf the answer no you have something in common with me and almost all other humans on earth. That is we are nor help in discovered insect . There are ~1.7 million classified plants and animals. The estimation is that 4 million insects are not classified. The problem is that the are hard to differentiate. So most human are no help. \n\nSo what is undiscovered is large animals. There might be some large mammals that live in some remote area that is not discovered but that is a small amount. If there is a new species of large animals the likely reason it that we discovered that two known population of the animal might look the same but the difference of you look closer and the DNA there is enough separation so they are two species. \n\n\nFor mammals the discoveries are small animal that often are nocturnal. Most new rodents as they make up 40% of all mammal species. Bats are 20% of all mammals. So new mammal species are that type of animal that humans are not that exposes or know a lot of.\n\n\nSo it is not strange that most species are not discover as the are small and live in a small area. You need to be a specialist in the field and actively look for them to be able to identify most. There are very few that look for new bugs in rain forests or in other remote areas.\n\nThe same is true for life in the water. We know abut large common fish and common plant but uncommon and small animals and plants are hard to find and to for you to knew that something news,\n\nLook at _URL_0_ for estimated number of undiscovered. species in the world.",
"We keep finding new ones. Hell, the other day we discovered a new kingdom, so something that is not plant , animal, fungus, or bacteria, but is still living."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.currentresults.com/Environment-Facts/Plants-Animals/number-of-undiscovered-species-living-on-earth.php"
],
[]
] |
||
2ocncr
|
What profanities and euphanisms from modern times existed back in the early 1900s and even earlier?
|
I happened upon a song called ['Shave 'Em Dry' by Lucille Bogan](_URL_0_
gkPCmIxv-3k) from 1935. It is an extremely sexually provocative song containing frequent usage the words 'fuck', 'titties', 'grind', 'dick', 'nuts', 'cock', and other common profanities. Here are some examples of the lyrics:
> I got nipples **on my titties** big as the end of my thumb. I got somethin between my legs that'll **make a dead-man come**...
> I would fuck you baby, honey I'd make you cry. Now your nuts hang down like a damn bell sapper, And **your dick stands up** like a steeple, Your goddam ass-hole stands open like a church door, And the crabs walks in like people...
> My back is made of whalebone, **And my cock is made of brass**, And my fuckin' is made for workin' men's two dollars, Great God, round to kiss my ass...
Here we find usage of the word 'dick', 'cock', 'titties'- even using 'come' as an ejaculatory term. I didn't even realize these terminologies and euphemisms existed back then let alone be used so densely in a song. I knew the other 'general' profanities existed back then obviously, but it's just so bizzare hearing them all being so openly and vulgarly used in a 1935 vinyl record song. It seems like society sometimes generalizes older centuries as extremely conservative and non-provocitive, but obviously that's not the case and this is just a taste of how unconservative and provocative people of olden times can be. I've just found this all extremely interesting for some reason.
-----
So really I have two questions:
**1. What profanities and euphanisms from modern times existed back in the early 1900s and even earlier?** Expecially words such as 'dick', 'cock', 'titties', 'grind', and 'come' that you would have no clue were used back then if you weren't told otherwise.
**2. How commonly was swearing used back then in comparison to today?** I'm expecially interested in the pervasiveness of words such as the above-mentioned in people's vocabulary back in the 1900's.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ocncr/what_profanities_and_euphanisms_from_modern_times/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmlveqw",
"cmlydzw",
"cmlyqgn",
"cmmnljw"
],
"score": [
23,
22,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"I can't answer 2., but for 1.\n\n* \"Dick\" was, and is, a nickname for \"Richard\", and as Richard is a common name it was used to mean \"fellow, lad, man\" in the 16th century. The usage of \"dick\" as slang for \"an unpleasant person\" comes from this original meaning of \"dick\" as \"fellow\", and dates back to at least 1665 (\"Dick\" as \"penis\" is originally army slang, from the 1880s):\n > The next **Dick** I pickt up for her was a man of a colour as contrary to the former, as light is to darkness, being swarthy; whose hair was as black as a sloe; middle statur'd, well set, both strong and active, a man so universally tryed, and so fruitfully successful, that there was hardly any female within ten miles gotten with child in hugger-mugger, but he was more than suspected to be Father of all the legitimate.\n\n\n* \"Cock\" as slang for \"penis\" is *very* old, as it's attested in the 1610s. It might come from the Middle English word for \"penis\", \"pillicock.\"\n\n* \"Titties\" was originally a diminutive form of \"teats.\" It dates back from at least 1746:\n > Come, be quite;--be quite, es zey, a grabbling o' wone's **Tetties**.---Es wont ha' ma **Tetties** a grabbled zo ; ner es wont be mullad and foulad.\n(this is Devonshire dialect)\n\nConclusion: Swear words have been around for much longer than we often think. ",
"\"Cunt\" and \"arse\" and \"shit\" are in the Canterbury Tales. \"And he grabbèd hire bī the queynte\" would be the most famous line. ",
"On dates\n\n\"[Bloody](_URL_4_)\" has been a swear word in Britain since the 17th Century.\n\n\"[Shit](_URL_5_)\" has been used to refer to dung and people in a derogatory way since the 16th Century.\n\n\"[Poppycock](_URL_2_)\" is a derivative of a Dutch phrase loosely meaning \"bullshit\" (in the literal sense). It's attested from the 19th Century.\n\n\"[Fuck](_URL_0_)\" has been around since the 16th Century at least and probably earlier.\n\n\"[Cunt](_URL_1_)\" is one of the oldest swearwords in the English language still in common use. The first written reference we have in English is from the 13th Century.\n\n\"[Damn](_URL_3_)\" existed as a swear word from the 14th Century, but in its own right before then.\n\nEuphemisms were used as often as a way to get around censorship in historical times as they are now. Consider the following quote from Shakespeare's Romeo & Juliet:\n\n > ROMEO\n > Why, then is my pump well flowered.\n > \n > MERCUTIO\n > Sure wit, follow me this jest now till thou hast worn out thy pump, that when the single sole of it is worn, the jest may remain, after the wearing solely singular.\n\n\"Pump\" here is used as a euphemism for Romeo's penis. If you have a copy of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet lying around, it's performed well, with the right gestures and emphasis in that. This is just one instance of a great deal of euphemism used by Shakespeare.\n\nIn Chaucer's 14th Century work, the Canterbury Tales he repeatedly uses the word \"quient\" or \"queynte\" as a euphemism for \"cunt\".",
"You might be interested in this [history of English swearwords](_URL_0_) I wrote earlier."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gkPCmIxv-3k"
] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=fuck&allowed_in_frame=0",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=cunt&allowed_in_frame=0",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=poppycock&allowed_in_frame=0",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=damn&allowed_in_frame=0",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=bloody&allowed_in_frame=0",
"http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=shit&allowed_in_frame=0"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/298omb/friday_freeforall_june_27_2014/ciioq5j?context=1"
]
] |
|
fp77ct
|
Can lack of one sense heighten another?
|
I have never been able to smell well but I notice sound very well to the point a lot of things irritate me like the sound of people walking, talking loud and just small noise that makes it hard for me to focus, fall asleep etc. Sometimes it gets to the point where I can get bad anxiety from noises. Can this correlate with each other in anyway? Or could it be something else? I also have very sensitive skin when it comes to touch even holding hands and I’d like to say I’m very observant but this is all brief stuff. Not sure if some of these things could be because of something else but just very curious
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fp77ct/can_lack_of_one_sense_heighten_another/
|
{
"a_id": [
"flk7f4r"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Yes, because the body needs to make up for the loss using the others, up to a certain limit, of course; it's like an increase in efficiency, and can occur in different sectors, if you stop using the hands, you could learn to write and manipulate objects with your foots."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
xxxph
|
Why isn't there much interest about the "sound" of Mars?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xxxph/why_isnt_there_much_interest_about_the_sound_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5qjtkj",
"c5qjung",
"c5qjuq0"
],
"score": [
11,
9,
14
],
"text": [
"There was a microphone on one of the rovers but it never switched on will find out more and post later on phone at moment",
"I know that Curiosity was literally a ton of stuff, but remember that every single bit of weight matters when you're getting something up there, as well as back down. Sound might be cool, but not all that useful when you already have things to measure wind speed and air content and stuff.\n\nAnd you need to be somewhat efficient with the uploads as well. It already takes a good while to get high fidelity picture back. We'd not exactly be able to stream sound without extreme re-engineering.\n\nAlso, I imagine you're right about the swirly desert sounds. Mars has quite a few sand storms running.\n\nEdit: Wrong rover",
"There are several reasons. One is because the atmospheric pressure on Mars is about 0.03% of Earth; there really isn't very much stuff out there to listen to.\n\nBut the main reason is that there was no good reason to carry such an instrument. What could they possibly listen to that would provide useful scientific data? They are not going to be able to listen for the signs of life, they can't listen for geological data or atmospheric composition. They couldn't hope to get much back other than some generic wind sounds."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2g1u0f
|
how did japan overcome the radioactive fall out of two major nuclear bombs?
|
I've always heard terrible things about Nuclear radiation caused by Atom Bombs, but Japan seems to have shrugged off two major Nuclear events.
Perhaps someone could also explain the differences between the Cherynobl radiation leak, and the Nagasaki/Hiroshima incidents.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2g1u0f/eli5_how_did_japan_overcome_the_radioactive_fall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cketr8i",
"cketv8v",
"ckeukj0",
"ckezrn0"
],
"score": [
3,
9,
8,
4
],
"text": [
"A bomb produces much less radiation than - for example - a power plant. The design of the bomb is to totally use up the radioactive material as quickly as possible. So...there isn't all that much, on a relative basis. There is approximately 300 to 400 times more radiation produced in the chernobyl release than in hiroshima.",
"In comparison to what we recognize as nukes today... the ones dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty tiny.\n\nAlso the radioactivity of a bomb is miniscule compared to a reactor meltdown that just spews radiation into the air.\n\n[Hiroshima is the tiny one in the middle of the circle](_URL_0_)",
"In addtion to the reasons already given, the bombs over Hiroshima and Nagasaki were just that, *over* Hiroshima/Nagasaki. The majority of the radiation went into the air and went around the globe where it spread so thin that the effects weren't as drastic. If the bombs exploded on the ground there would have been much more local fallout and radiation damage",
"The atomic bombs in 1945 were air-burst which were designed to minimize the impact on radiation it had on the ground. Most of them went up in the air and spread into other side of he globe. That's why Hiroshima and Nagasaki are still alive today due to that reason.\n\nCherynobl radiation leak is ten times a lot worse because the technology catches up to the point that bombs needed more power, hence more radiation and more energy structure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.energy-net.org/01NUKE/images/bomb-2.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2khwjt
|
how come ups and fedex can operate nationwide with huge profits, but usps hasnt profited in years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2khwjt/eli5_how_come_ups_and_fedex_can_operate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cllgclc",
"cllgpqi",
"cllh7lr",
"cllhzc1",
"clli0mu",
"cllis0k",
"cllmxfh",
"cllosw0",
"cllqv4b",
"cllruo5",
"cllu7ec",
"cllwv0b"
],
"score": [
21,
63,
9,
104,
10,
14,
10,
3,
5,
2,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"USPS is legally required not to compete with other package carriers, and is required to engage in unprofitable operations like delivering letters at the cost of a stamp.\n\nAlternatively, FedEx and UPS do not have these same restrictions, and can charge what they want for their services.",
"Private carriers can refuse service. They don't have to deliver packages to East Nowhere, Alaska if they don't feel like it. They can charge as much as they want. There is no service you can get from a commercial carrier for less than a dollar.\n\nThe USPS is obligated to go pretty much everywhere in the US to deliver. They cannot adjust their rates at will. They have to deliver letters that private carriers would refuse.\n\nThe USPS also has a huge pension obligation that Congress has saddled them with that the private carriers do not.\n\n",
"The problem with the USPS is that they are required to charge lower prices, and a few years ago they were required to have funds set aside to cover the retirement funds of all active and retire employees as though they were retiring tomorrow instead of slowly growing the funds to meet the actual retirement load. ",
"Congress has mandated \"retiree health benefit prefunding\" specifically for the Post Office using a rule much more stringent than any one else in the US has to meet. If not for this requirement, the Post Office would be running a profit. \n\n > Operationally speaking, the **USPS nets profits every year. The financial problem it faces now comes from a 2006 Congressional mandate that requires the agency to “pre-pay” into a fund that covers health care costs for future retired employees.** Under the mandate, the USPS is required to make an annual $5.5 billion payment over ten years, through 2016. These “prepayments” are largely responsible for the USPS’s financial losses over the past four years and the threat of shutdown that looms ahead – take the retirement fund out of the equation, and the postal service would have actually netted $1 billion in profits over this period.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n > But what has been lost in the political debate over the Post Office is why it is losing this money. Major media coverage points to the rise of email or Internet services and the inefficiency of the post model as the major culprits. While these factors may cause some fiscal pain, almost all of the postal service’s losses over the last four years can be traced back to a single, artificial restriction forced onto the Post Office by the Republican-led Congress in 2006.\n\n > At the very end of that year, **Congress passed the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006** (PAEA). Under PAEA, **USPS was forced to “prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in an astonishing ten-year time span”..., something “that no other government or private corporation is required to do.”**\n\n > **[I]f PAEA was never enacted, USPS would actually be facing a $1.5 billion surplus today.**\n\n_URL_1_.\n\n \n\n > The most immediate financial burden facing the \nPostal Service does not result from providing first-class service to the public or delivering \nthe mail on Saturdays, but rather from a 2006 congressional mandate ordering USPS to \npre-fund decades of future retiree healthcare benefits.\n\n > Pre-funding retiree healthcare is rare. USPS is the only enterprise in America that is \nrequired by law to pre-fund future retiree healthcare benefits. ... only about one-third of \nFortune 1000 companies who offer retiree healthcare benefits pre-fund. \n\n_URL_2_\n\n\n\n",
"Additionally. USPS does operate at profit. Problem is congress mandated pension prefunding. It means USPS has to put retirement money into it's account for postmen that haven't retired yet. ",
"Fun fact time: The USPS is FedEx's largest customer (for long hauling mail in bulk) and FedEx and UPS are the USPS's largest customers (for last mile delivery).\n\n*spelling",
"The USPS has an operational profit, this means that the amount of money they make is enough to cover their operation costs (employee salary, heating the offices, putting gas in the trucks, etc.), but they have to fund their pension in an utterly ridiculous way, according to a 2006 law the USPS must prefund its future health care benefit payments to retirees for the next 75 years in a ten-year time span. This is a more intense level of prefunding than any private corporation or government agency is subject to. This means that the USPS has to put away enough money to pay the health care benefits from employee pensions for the next *75 years* by 2016, which is costing them well over *$5 billion* a year.",
"simple:lawmakers are FORCING the post office to fail so the \"private\" companies can take their business.\n\nremember USP and FedEx DO NOT deliver to ALL locations and even they use the post office do deliver to those. \n\nUSE the USPO whenever possible and FUICK USP and FED-EX! ",
"The USPS makes a profit. However, the way they are forced, by law, to make additional expenditures into the retirement funds of it's employees. This is the only federal entity that has to do this, and the payments are very high, for the FUTURE retirees. This causes them to run in the red on paper when in reality if they were held to the same standard as any other federal agency they would be making a profit.\n\nWhy? Congress, Congress passes these laws, and then Congress turns around and acts super shocked that they had the exact effect they knew they would. It is a non-issue that the Republicans mainly can latch onto and make a big deal out of, like the funding of NPR.",
"Possibly conspiratorial. But I truly believe that they wanted the USPS to fail. It's the only place where you can mail something and is illegal to search without a warrant. \n\nOr am I mistaken with my facts? \n\n",
"UPS and FedEx are for-profit companies which choose product lines and services that they think will be profitable. USPS provides the services set forth in their government mandate.\n\nIt couldn't be much simpler than that. Ignore the hyperventilating conspiracy theorists.",
"I dunno, I'll take publicly funded fire departments over the private businesses they replaced, for one. The point often is that the free market option is often to simply not serve some markets. There's probably not a business case to be made for delivering an individual letter from rural Idaho to a congressional office in D.C. for less than $.50, but knowing that such a thing is an option enables people to communicate in useful ways. \n\nBut, in point of fact, the USPS is being made to publicly struggle because it serves a narrative purpose in republican politics, not because odd any underlying problems with its performance as either a business or a public service."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/wnet/need-to-know/five-things/the-u-s-postal-service/11433/",
"http://thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/09/28/330524/postal-non-crisis-post-office-save-itself",
"http://deliveringforamerica.com/resources/PreFundingFactSheet_final.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ryk9e
|
What was the culture of pre-Sengoku Japan like?
|
My knowledge of Japanese history only covers a bit of military history throughout Japan - and I'm curious! What about the earlier period? Did they glorify warfare, or were there famous books and artistic works? Was there a defining book on warfare? What about love and more "womanly arts?"
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ryk9e/what_was_the_culture_of_presengoku_japan_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cds98ey"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Ok, this is going to be a bit of a long answer...\n\nThe Heian period (794-1185) was the last of the 'classical' eras in Japan. There was no Shogun, only an Imperial court. It is well known for its arts and culture (unfortunately, only the noble class was written about. There is not a lot of information regarding the peasants).\n\nAt this point, a lot of the culture was still based around Chinese culture. It was during this time that Buddhism, and to a lesser extent Taoist ideas, reached their height. \n\nNow to the meat and potatoes. Though there were some military conflicts during this time, it was not until the end of the period that large-scale military conquest took place. Heian (平安) actually means peaceful in Japanese. Because there was a lack of warfare, much time was devoted to the arts, including poetry, music, and painting. One of the best sources for life inside of the imperial court is the *Genji Monogatari*. It is one of the first serial novels ever written. It details the life of the fictional Genji Hikaru, an imperial prince, and his many love affairs.\n\nThe work was written by Murasaki Shikibu (978-1014) a lady in waiting to Empress Shoushi (who herself was a bit controversial, but that is a story for another day...). Shikibu herself was very interesting. She knew how to read and write Kanji (a rarity for women at the time.). Shikibu was actually a nickname. Her real name is not know n for certain, but it could have been Fujiwara Takako (more on the Fujiwara in a bit). She wrote the book as entertainment for her Empress and the other ladies in waiting, but it became immensely popular, and is now considered *the* classic of Japanese history. Though Genji was a fictional character, we get the best look at Japanese courtly life of the time through him. \n\nNow, on the the actual work. The story follows the life of Genji, an imperial prince and son of the emperor (though not the heir). He is very handsome, and can win over women very easily. Genji lost his mother when he was young, and had feelings for his stepmother, who looked remarkably like his departed mother. He had a series of lovers, some who never pan out, some who leave in a fit of jealousy, some who die tragically, all met through secret nighttime visits.\n\nAre you connecting the dots? It was one of the worlds first romance novels! But even though it is the equivalent of a (superbly well written and historically important) dime store novel, it tells us a lot about the fashion and culture at the time. Women tended to have floor length hair, and many layered kimonos. These kimonos would often describe a feeling though the use of complementary colors and patterns. Women would also have small, painted on eyebrows and blackened teeth. Imagine that smile! People would play music on the koto, and would often respond with poetry and references to Chinese Classics. \n\nAll in all, the *Genji* is one of the best known! and most highly regarded primary source of the time. It is taught in schools here in Japan like Shakespeare is taught in the west.\n\nThis is getting long, time for part 2!\n\nEdit for my bad spelling"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4o45ny
|
What do we know about the motivations of Empress Dowager Cixi during the late 19th century and the Hundred Days of reforms?
|
Professor Kenneth Baum had a series called "The Fall and Rise of China" in which he portrayed Cixi as a hardline reactionary. I stopped listening when he assigned to her that most classic of disruptable acts, the poisoning of close family members. It seemed too connected t tropes.
However, another professor I had the pleasure of working with gave a relatively similar opinion of Cixi, indicating that she was indeed opposed to many reforms on principle and political issue.
A brief perusal of the Wikipedia article on Cixi gives a somewhat more revisionist take.
I'm interested in hearing what the respected folks of AskHistorions have to say on Cixi and her motivations during the waning days of the Qing. If you do not have adequate information, I'm willing to accept sources that I can do further reading on (send me a PM.)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4o45ny/what_do_we_know_about_the_motivations_of_empress/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d49k42y"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I had quite an interesting debate with another poster [about this very topic](_URL_0_) a few weeks ago. Hopefully it may answer some of your questions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4i1lai/why_did_japan_modernize_and_progress_toward_an/"
]
] |
|
9tisg7
|
why long stays in low gravity impairs vision
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9tisg7/eli5_why_long_stays_in_low_gravity_impairs_vision/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8wkcuj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I believe it has something to do with the lack of or lesser gravity effecting the pressure of fluids in the eye. Because the human eye evolved at earths gravity, it is used to that pressure. But when you let the gravity pressure off, fluids in your eye can sorta float around more and cause damage. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
22oiqn
|
why does taking a small amount of melatonin work better than taking a large amount?
|
Why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22oiqn/eli5_why_does_taking_a_small_amount_of_melatonin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgov6gh",
"cgozors"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Taking melatonin works by replicating the natural release of melatonin in your system at sunset. You could get the same response by dimming all your lights and switching to redder light an hour before bed, but who wants to do that?\n\nIf you take a small dose, you trick the brain into thinking that the sun has set, and it is time to sleep.\n\nIf you take a large dose, the melatonin levels are outside the normal levels, and the brain doesn't know what to do with it.",
"When I take a 5mg pill, I not only pass out soon thereafter, I also feel ridiculously tired for the entirety of the following day."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2v852f
|
why are serial killers so difficult to catch?
|
I have been watching a few documentaries on serial killers (notably John Wayne Gacy and Ted Bundy) and they manage to kill dozens of people without attracting the attention of law enforcement for years, if ever. It seems like solving crimes of that amount would be top priority amongst criminal investigations.
In case anyone was wondering: _URL_0_
_URL_1_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v852f/eli5_why_are_serial_killers_so_difficult_to_catch/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cof9w0a",
"cof9z8q",
"cof9zwg",
"cofa9on",
"cofag69"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
18,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, by definition, serial killers are good at killing people without getting caught. If they weren't skilled at avoiding capture and leaving behind little/no evidence that could identify them easily, they wouldn't have been able to kill so many people before being apprehended, right?",
"Various reasons. Many of the most famous serial killers target people that the police won't necessarily \"focus on\" (Jeffrey Dahmer...), they also dispose of the bodies in remote places (Gary Ridgway, Ed Gein...), they are fairly respected in their community (Gacy)...\n\nNo serial killer fits all these criteria, but sometimes one is enough. Jeffrey Dahmer killed for years because his targets were homosexuals and therefore the police didn't give much of a damn.",
"Most murderers kill people they know. If one spouse dies it was more like than not the other spouse that did it. It's just a matter of finding proof. \n\nSerial killers are known for being quite anonymous in their killings. So even if you find evidence like dna or fingerprints you still have to find who they belong to. \n\nThey also kill people that don't attract much attention like prostitutes and homeless. (but not always) ",
"Because \"serial killers\" who are bad at covering their tracks get caught while they're still just regular \"killers\".",
"The reality is that if there's no obvious motive or connection between the murderer and the murdered there's not much of a chance the police will catch them. So if your family member or spouse is murdered and you find yourself questioned a lot you might want to get a lawyer even if you're innocent. \n\nA lot of serial killers also stay on the move, killing in different states, counties and localities so a serial killer is never actually identified just individual unsolved murders spread across several unconnected police departments. Henry Lee Lucas is the notable example in this case. \n\nAnd of course if a serial killer is murdering whores, run aways, and drifters there's not much motivating police forces to put a lot of manpower into the cases. Which is a sad statement about where we're at as a culture. \n\nI was listening to the Horror Etc podcast and they were discussing real life Canadian serial killers and one of them sat in on a Q & A with an expert in the field. He asked the expert to estimate the number of active but undetected serial killers in North America and he put it at over 100. If I have the time I'll listen to the podcast again and post the source for that. \n\nEdit: Here's the link to the Canadian serial killers episode. Its pretty interesting because there's such little focus on our polite little neighbors (neighbours?) to the north's blood lust. _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ted_Bundy",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Wayne_Gacy"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.horroretc.com/2014/12/30/episode-370-canadian-serial-killers/"
]
] |
|
57zr7v
|
Why is stagnant water unsafe while flowing water is considered safer? What causes the microbes to flourish in stagnant ponds?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/57zr7v/why_is_stagnant_water_unsafe_while_flowing_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8wgwwd",
"d8whb6o"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Flowing water will carry away mist microbial life with it. Stagnant water means that the microbes will continue to grow their population and release metabolites into the water, and in general develop a more complex microbiome.",
"Similar to above, the water stagnating doesn't allow for microbes to move away from that place when they multiply so the concentration of harmful bacteria grows exponentially. However, when the water is flowing the microbes are moved away from the area you are getting the water from, so the probability of getting a huge dose of say E. coli is reduced. Stagnting water is also generally warm, so it is the perfect breeding ground for microbes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1ldjnb
|
how can any country or coalition expect to challenge the united states and its allies in total war?
|
Even with Russia and China both having nuclear weapons, the level of technology and number of foreign military bases the United States controls seem insurmountable by any coalition of nations. With people talking about a Syrian strike being a catalyst for World War 3, how can any country or coalition actually expect to fight and win a war against the United States and its allies?
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ldjnb/eli5_how_can_any_country_or_coalition_expect_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cby5gk8",
"cby5myf"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
" > With people talking about a Syrian strike being a catalyst for World War 3\n\n\nThe only people talking about a world war coming from the current kerfuffle in Syria are those with no real grounding in politics or history. ",
"Who says there's anybody seriously expecting to take on the USA right now? Or that this is going to be WWIII for that matter?\n\nThat said as of right now all the countries that might be able to take on the USA excluding Russia and China are members of NATO and therefore have good reason to not attack the USA - being in NATO right now pretty much makes you immune to invasion by virtue of all the allies ready to defend you."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_with_overseas_military_bases"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7ejqeo
|
why do ladders have one or two steps towards the top that you are not supposed to climb?
|
If you are clearly not supposed to use them because they are unsafe, why include them? Seems like a waste of material.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ejqeo/eli5_why_do_ladders_have_one_or_two_steps_towards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq5ew5m",
"dq5fful",
"dq5fs7s",
"dq63n5f"
],
"score": [
44,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"1. They still provide structural integrity in holding the ladder together;\n2. When those steps are flat (as with folding ladders) you can rest tools and materials there.\n3. They still provide support in the sense you can lean forward a bit and have something you can rest your legs, knees, or shins against.\n4. If you got rid of those top two steps then the next two steps would be the top two steps and therefore unsafe to stand on. Repeat until there is no ladder left.",
"The extra steps on top of a ladder, that you aren’t supposed to climb are there for structural integrity and stability. This is so the climber doesn’t fall.",
"The fact that it is not safe is because it is the top step. No matter how tall the ladder is, there has to be a top step, and that step will be unsafe. ",
"I think that you're referencing A frames, but I think it'd be good to mention why you need to be careful on ladders leaning against walls.\n\nAs you climb higher up the ladder you exert a larger force against the friction holding it from sliding out and falling. That is why it is important to have someone holding the ladder at the base as climb up, and not letting go half way, thinking that it's safe because it hasn't slipped yet.\n\nYou can see a demonstration [here from 19:58 to 20:55](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/0NegJkO_ZM4?t=1198"
]
] |
|
18jere
|
what is the strategy of nascar driving? how important is the team? the driver? game plans for specific races?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/18jere/eli5_what_is_the_strategy_of_nascar_driving_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ffhgs",
"c8fghyb",
"c8fgrl6",
"c8fnncc"
],
"score": [
21,
6,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"I'll try to answer this to my best ability. As for strategies, it's really what you plan to do to get to first. Whether you sit in the back and move yourself forward towards the end of the race (Jimmie Johnson) or perhaps, you are a driver who enjoys getting up-front and staying there. Either way, a lot of wrecks occur during a race and the only real strategy is to stay away from them. \n\nAs for the team, they are also very important. First of all, you have the crew chief. This is the guy that will communicate to his driver and explain to him how he is doing on gas mileage, when he should come in to pit, and a lot more. You also have a spotter, who is usually on top of the grandstand press box. The spotter will describe to you your surroundings while passing or in traffic. Essentially, the spotter is your best friend; he is your second pair of eyes on the track.\n\nThe driver himself must be ready to sit in a car and go ~150mph for around three hours. It is very mentally draining and physically, as most drivers will burn hundreds of calories while in the heat of the cockpit in the vehicle. Drivers are the ones who drive the car, obviously, but your team is really what wins you the race. How you perform on pit-road falls on your crew, how you stay out of wrecks relies on your spotter, and your crew chief must ensure that your entire crew stays attentive, together, and most of all, motivated.\n\nAs for the specifics? A stock car can be modified (within NASCAR's standards) to drive in many different ways. This is why teams are given numerous practice sessions to find out what will fit the car and the driver the most. ",
"Gameplanning is extremely important. As it is \"stock\" car racing, there are extremely strict requirements in the setup of the car. Small changes in the aerodynamics or handling of the car effect the way the driver performs, so a ton of time is spent finding exactly the right setup. This is complicated by the fact that the weather can effect it greatly. The temperature of the track makes a large difference in how well the tires grip the track.\n\nThere are also different strategies for different tracks. For a particular example, Talledega is one of the longest tracks, and is one of the fastest. So aerodynamics and drafting play a large role. Usually, the drivers tend to stick together in groups of two to advance to the front. Other tracks that are shorter, like Bristol, focus more on handling and braking.\n\nThe crew chief is usually in charge of planning pit stops during the race, and making sure the car stays within good fuel windows and loses as few positions during pit stops as possible. Crew chiefs can also make decisions to change only two tires instead of four, which is a trade-off to gain many spots on pit lane, but the cars that replaced four tires will usually make up for this on longer green-flag runs as the two unchanged tires start to wear out and hurt speed/performance.\n\nThe pit crew are chiefly responsible for getting the car on and off pit lane as possible. Since pit lane is speed-restricted, tenths of seconds on pit stops can mean the difference in a couple positions once the race goes green again.\n\nOverall, there's a lot of game plan and technical trial and error that takes place before the race (discounting all the work the driver does during the race, which KayakMarket touched on)",
"As to how a car moves up. NASCAR pretty much has cars on a level playing field. They have engineers to extract as much as they can in the confines of the rules but for the most part nobody is going to make a speed demon to run circles around the other cars. So drivers instead have to maneuver around each other and they're constantly doing so. Its like if an entire free way just started trying to get in front of each other, *except now we're tacking on another 100 mph*. And at those speeds, aerodynamics starts to REALLY take hold, little things regular drivers will probably never encounter in their lives suddenly starts affecting everything. The main exploitation of aerodynamics is called \"drafting\" where you can gain speed by going behind another car and use that to move ahead because the air behind a car is dispersed than if you had nothing in front of you (picture being inside a convertible where if you stick your head up above the windshield your hair will fly around everwhere). It gets a bit more technical from here and there are tons of other moves like drafting to the side, people teaming up to draft each other and avoiding a drafter and so on, but if you can imagine how grueling it gets with people trying to get past each other and switching places over and over it becomes clear as to what a fight a race is. ",
"As for specific race game plans, it really depends on the track. Especially today with the rules and restrictions put in place, super speedway races have become little more than a fuel mileage game. Driver ability and car setup has something to do with it, but you don't often see a car dominate a super speedway. At smaller tracks like Martinsville, Richmond, and Bristol, it's about driver ability and car setup way more than mileage. There are enough caution laps in those races to where fuel becomes less of a variable. During these races, the cars may never see more than 100mph, so the key to winning is tire management, suspension setup to get to top speed in a hurry, and avoiding the inevitable wreck that may involve a significant number of vehicles. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
a357bi
|
what causes nuclear bombs to mushroom inside of itself, but not regular explosive bombs?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a357bi/eli5_what_causes_nuclear_bombs_to_mushroom_inside/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eb3fyin",
"eb3g0ml",
"ebao613"
],
"score": [
9,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Conventional weapons - if powerful enough - do create mushroom clouds as well. They're also visible around natural events, like volcanic eruptions.",
"The size of the explosion. Regular explosive bombs will also create mushroom clouds if they are big enough, the MOAB being an example of one that will do this as well.\n\nA mushroom cloud is simply an example of the convection of air. When heated air becomes less dense (enabling things like hot air balloons to work) and so it rises as the more dense cold air is pulled down by gravity. The bomb heats a large amount of air around it so that part rises, pulling up dust and smoke in a column. As the air rises it expands and cools, spreading out and stopping its rising motion.\n\nThe result of this is a mushroom cloud, a column of smoke with a spreading puff of a cloud at the top.",
"Yeah, any sufficiently explosive event will cause the mushroom cloud. Volcanoes, conventional explosions, nuclear ones - its all the same: very hot air going up, and dragging smoke/debris/dust upwards.\n\nIts commonly associated with nuclear weapons, because you seldom see a conventional explosive powerfull enough to generate required yield, in real life. And movies are usually preoccupied with fireballs as far as conventional explosions go.\n\nAlso, some nuclear systems are small enough to not really generate a proper mushroom cloud. For example, the good old tactical M388 Davy Crockett: _URL_1_ was pretty much on par with very large conventional munitions as far as explosion goes, apart from the flash, thermal pulse and intense radiation. It was a variable yield with only 10 to 20 tons of TNT equivalent, in a package weighting 23 kilograms.\n\nOne of differences is, most conventional explosives are usually too small, and nuclear weapons are way larger than what it takes to generate that cloud shape. Scale is different too - movies largely underestimate the size. Cloud from the Hiroshima's little boy went up to the stratosphere. The largest test ever- russian Tzar Bomba - had a mushroom cloud 64 kilometers high, with the head being over 90 kilometers in horizontal diameter, and stem being 40 kilometers wide! source: _URL_0_). What is shown in the movies - is a firecraker, seriously, compared to a real thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tsar_Bomba#Test",
"https://youtu.be/eiM-RzPHyGs?t=225"
]
] |
||
1kuhsz
|
how to get the percentage between two numbers (exact question in text)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1kuhsz/eli5_how_to_get_the_percentage_between_two/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbsq6dw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"ELI5 isn't for math homework, try /r/homeworkhelp or /r/answers. Removing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
68spwr
|
How did Portugal shape the eventual Trans-Atlantic slave trade?
|
I have heard Portugal really made huge technological, societal, economic and political moves that made them ground breakers and drivers of this trade, how is this the case?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/68spwr/how_did_portugal_shape_the_eventual_transatlantic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh1hkx4"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"One of the most important sources for understanding the Trans-Atlantic slave trade is the Slave Trade Database: _URL_0_\n\nA look at the statistics for Portugal/Brazil show that during the slave trade, a full 3,897,000 slave embarked from Africa on ships with a Portugal/Brazilian flag. Over 3,483,000 slave disembarked. This makes Portugal/Brazil the number one country for the transportation of slaves. Number two was Great Britain with and embarkation of 3,092,000 slave and a disembarktion number of 2,604,000 slaves. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.slavevoyages.org/"
]
] |
|
1qzqit
|
Is the incidence of genetically-related disease lower in those who would be considered 'two or more races' as compared to those who would be considered one race?
|
I ask because I remember learning about how cross-breeding between two inbred types of corn created a more durable, disease-resistant type of corn. Can the same be said of humans? I.e., is someone who is, say, half-Chinese half-African more likely to be immune to certain diseases or have greater immunological resistance than those who are mostly one race?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qzqit/is_the_incidence_of_geneticallyrelated_disease/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdi6qrb",
"cdi8nrl",
"cdine0v",
"cdio3cx"
],
"score": [
11,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"1) Race is rather arbitrary, irrelevant, and somewhat silly. There are no hard lines between human \"races\" everything very much exists along a continuum. With some populations (which again will have muddled borders) with higher levels of homogeny (people are more genetically similar) you may see elevated levels of some genetic disease. This is particularly common with founder populations where a small group of people are the genetic ancestors of a large group (example 8 million people in Quebec are largely the progeny of 3,000 people). \n\n2) With respect to immunological diseases the answer may cut more ways. Higher levels of diversity may allow the MHC molecules of the individuals to respond to a higher diversity of antigens. Conversely infectious disease have a tendency to have reduced virulence in the populations they are derived from. Because of this it is possible that some individuals of a mix race background could loose the benefit of this attenuated virulence. With respect to this attenuation I believe that TB is a good example with Africans for example having reduced outcomes when infected with Asian derived TB. ",
"Are you asking whether mixed-descent people are more likely to have genetic disease, or whether they are more immune to certain disease? The answer is different for each.\n\nSurf_Science mentioned founder effects in Quebec, and founder effects are important to your question. For example, it's widely known that Ashekenazi Jewish populations have a higher prevalence of many genetic diseases because their population has alot of carriers for lots of different mutant alleles. So theoretically, if you are of half-ashekenazi jewish descent and half caucasian, you would most likely have less mutant alleles through inheritance than someone who is of full ashekenazi jewish descent and therefore you could say that half jewish half caucasian populations would theoretically have less prevalence of genetic disease than 100% ashekenazi jewish populations (but still more than 100% caucasian populations)\n\nAs far as resistance is concerned, the opposite would be the case. Two examples of alleles that increase resistance to malaria are sickle cell trait (common in africa) and G6PD (common in africa, middle east, and south asia). In this case if you are mixed african-south asian, you're more likely to carry one allele each of two different genes which both give you malaria resistance than someone who is just south-asian, but this increased resistance to malaria would come with the complications that go along with being a carrier for sickle cell. and just FYI having two alleles of G6PD and/or sickle cell is bad (although sickle cell is much worse)\n\nhope this helps!",
"I would say **yes**. The more diverse an organism's background the more likely they are to be heterozygous for a mutation in any given gene or regulatory region. Knowing this and the fact that most genetically inherited diseases, both Mendelian and non-Mendelian (that we know of), are recessive rather than dominant would lead us to the conclusion that more diversity (assuming that is what differentiates between races) decreases one's chance of having those diseases. \n\nThis would be further supported by the many studies showing that out-crossing helps avoid genetic bottlenecks and can help negate a loss of variation in a population (e.g. due to a founder effect).\n\nEDIT: For this question to further define the diversity of having \"different\" races, I would push for a definition where we might say that different haplotypes could be thought of as derived from different races. I agree with *homininet* (below) who suggested we use \"ethnicity\" instead.",
"the question can be separated. First race has to eliminated, rather refer to populations. Next genetically related diseases are not the same as immunity. Lastly hardiness in plants is not the same as immunity. So genetic disease are present much more in specific populations--thalassemia, Tay Sachs, Factor V Leiden, cystic fibrosis--plenty more. Immunity is more complex, there are specific inherited immune diseases (boy in the bubble). But subtleties in immunity is not a hard science."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
qhd30
|
differences between video file types (mp4, avi, mkv, etc)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qhd30/eli5_differences_between_video_file_types_mp4_avi/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3xn2wj",
"c3xn4rw"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"They're basically all the same thing, just written differently.\n\nThink of it like books (sort of) in a different language.\n\nIt's the same story about a bunny being buddies with a bear and all the crazy adventures they go on, but one version of the story is told in English, while another is told in French, and so on.\n\nThere's also a difference in the way the story is told. Some filetypes have no compression of quality, so you get a really detailed file as if Tolkein wrote the bunny and the bear, whereas some filetypes try to tell the most story in as small a filesize as possible, so Dr. Suess writes it instead.\n\nThat's why certain devices can't play certain filetypes, because they're receiving too much or too little of the wrong information in the wrong place.",
"I had the same question; [here's](_URL_0_) a really good basic explanation of video codecs vs. containers (filetypes)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q5vpg/eli5_difference_between_video_formats_and_codecs/c3v3akf"
]
] |
||
2ze2w7
|
why is a photon (light) affected by gravitational fields?
|
photons are mass less particles ,i.e. mass =0
so why would they be affected by the gravitational pull of black holes?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ze2w7/why_is_a_photon_light_affected_by_gravitational/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpiq3pv",
"cpiqk94"
],
"score": [
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Because gravity in its fundamental formulation is an effect related to energy, not to mass. Photons have no mass but they have energy, which we capture using solar panels for examples. \n\nHowever, mass is a form of energy ( E=mc^2 ) and the total energy of an object is \n\nE^total = mc^2 + kinetic energy. \n\nFor most objects we observe (like humans, rocks, planets, stars), mc^2 is way larger than the kinetic energy so gravity is, to a good approximation related to their mass. \n\nWhen you first learn classical mechanics, instructors never talk about the mc^2 part in the energy, because it is constant and classical mechanics only cares about changes in energy, not its absolute value. Gravity however, cares about the absolute value.\n\n\nAn interesting video on the subject is found[ here](_URL_0_).\n",
"As near as we can measure, the photon is truly massless.\n\nWhat mass does is it distorts space-time so that light will follow a curved path.\n\nOne of the most fundamental principles in optics, fermat's principle, (which arises from one of the most fundamental principles in physics) is that light will travel a path between points A and B such that the time of flight between them is a minimum. Normally, the shortest rout between two points is a straight line. However, we've all seen light get bent as it goes into a glass of water - this is because the shortest time of flight when going between two materials means the light gets bent at the interface. \n\nSince mass distorts space, it also distorts the path of least time for a photon to travel. What was a straight line in un-deformed space becomes a curved line in the presence of a massive object. This leads to things like gravitational lensing.\n\nThis type of path is called a geodesic and massive objects tend to warp geodesics in their local vicinity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IM630Z8lho8"
],
[]
] |
|
1ojhdk
|
Why were Tommy Guns so prevalent in the Roaring 20s?
|
And how were gangsters able to get ahold of them so easily? According to [wikipedia](_URL_0_), they were only issued to the Postal Service and Marine Corps, small quantities, whereas the civilian version was expensive as well, creating another difficult barrier of attaining.
These qualities seem to totally contrast with what spurred the AR15's popularity, since the M16 platform has been used by millions of servicemen and is also a fairly affordable civilian weapon.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ojhdk/why_were_tommy_guns_so_prevalent_in_the_roaring/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccsj6de",
"ccszalr"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"They were easy to get a hold of because this was prior to the [National Firearms Act](_URL_0_). As to availability, [Thompson sold it by mail order and in stores](_URL_3_). Price doesn't seem to have been the determining factor. Only the civilian models used the circular drum magazine. The military [M1A1](_URL_1_) only accepted the stick magazine.\n\nDon't forget the [Browning Automatic Rifle](_URL_4_) (BAR). [Bonnie and Clybe](_URL_2_), among others, made use of them. The Thompson used the .45 ACP pistol round while the BAR uses the far more powerful .30-06 rifle round.",
"I don't think they were as ubiquitous as people think. They sold for $175 or $200 with a Cutts Compensator, which was a decent chunk of charge. I'm trying to finds actual production number of civilian guns, but haven't found them yet. They saw some high profile use and became part of the romantic image of the era, but they were never as ubiquitous as Hollywood and legend claims. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tommy_gun#Early_use"
] |
[
[
"http://www.atf.gov/firearms/nfa/index.html",
"http://world.guns.ru/smg/usa/thompson-e.html",
"http://www.thomasroche.com/2012/07/13/clyde-barrow-and-bonnie-parkers-guns/",
"http://www.auto-ordnance.com/ao-thompson-submachine-gun.asp",
"http://world.guns.ru/machine/usa/browning-m191-bar-e.html"
],
[]
] |
|
4cc6sm
|
why did turkey not become a modern international power like france, germany, italy, england, japan, russia and china?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4cc6sm/eli5_why_did_turkey_not_become_a_modern/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1guggb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"For many centuries, Ottoman Empire sat between Europe and Asia. This meant that trade between the two had to pass through them, and they were able to profit from that. European powers, wanting to cut out the middle-man, eventually found routes around Africa that didn't require them to go through the Ottomans. Later, they established their American colonies that brought them even more wealth, while the Ottomans didn't do the same.\n\nThat wealth allowed the Europeans to eventually industrialize and strengthen their economies even more. WWI was the final nail in the coffin. The Ottoman Empire picked the wrong side, and their empire collapsed with the British and the French taking over their Middle Eastern holdings, which would later give them access to the oil that was becoming a valuable commodity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
cf36bv
|
Family genealogy related question
|
So I'm helping my grandfather wade through our family genealogy. According to a ship's roster, two of my ancestors came to New Netherland (New York) in 1638 from England. They had children with them, but the roster doesn't say how many or their names. Family stories that have come down through all these years say that all four of their kids were on the ship with them. We have documentation from an old family Bible, however, that one of them, Ephraim, was born in 1639. So... Did they really have all four kids on the ship? Was Ephraim's birth year in the Bible wrong? Was he born on the ship itself? Did they leave England in 1638 and not arrive in NY until 1639, and maybe Ephraim was born on the ship? Or is it way more probable that the family story about all four kids being on the ship is wrong and Ephraim was born the year after they had arrived in NY? Did ships even sail to the "New World" in late December? Wouldn't that have made it crazy cold and a more difficult voyage? I have tried Google and Ancestry and I just don't know. Any theories on what probably actually happened from those who know colonial history way better than myself? Thanks in advance!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cf36bv/family_genealogy_related_question/
|
{
"a_id": [
"euas2lz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I do a great deal of genealogy, but there is so much to unpack in this question. The main thing about family research is that you must research from the present back to the past and you must go only where the facts lead you and ignore apocryphal stories from family lore. \n\nDon’t let the family Bible be the end all and be all of your research. Depending on where your family settled, it is very possible there are records. For example, Pennsylvania has digitized some township records going back to this period. So has Mass. \n\nYou must be willing to discard all of the premises you’ve heard about your family. You have to star with yourself and go backward, using primary sources like census, etc. to verify your work. Do the direct and other lines since you are trying to track four alleged siblings. \n\nIt is very difficult to dive in to genealogy from the oldest known part of your line. In fact, you should never do that. \n\nSome possible things I can recommend you look for when you get to the point of verifying the ship travel info: \n\n1.) search repositories like the American Antiquarian Society and similar east coast repositories for diaries of the period. Someone on the ship probably kept a diary; perhaps it survived. Check for memoirs of people who came the same year, perhaps they came on the same ship. A birth on a ship is something that might get mentioned in either work. \n\n2.) check indexes of heraldry societies like Colonial Dames when you get to that point. Someone may have already made the connections but you still MUST verify with primary sources. \n\n3.) the Latter Day Saints (Mormons) and their research library, family history centers, and _URL_0_ are excellent resources."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"familysearch.org"
]
] |
|
36js7r
|
Regarding the Holocaust, why didn't Hitler just give the order for all prisoners to be shot immediately?
|
Disclaimer: I in no way support the Holocaust, i'm fairly sure nobody does. I don't like Hitler in any way, just always wondered this...
So the goal of the Holocaust was to get of people who were not of the Aryan, or German race, correct? It seems like they did it quite inefficiently. Couldn't they have just rounded up all the people they wanted dead and shot them on the spot? It seems like they kept people alive? Why is that? Why did anyone even survive?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/36js7r/regarding_the_holocaust_why_didnt_hitler_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crek83i",
"crelbfz"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They were often put to work in the camps, its not like they just sat around. Making clothes or ammunition was common. Many Jews were essentially slave labor, but many of the elderly or those too weak to work were quickly killed.",
"Efficiency seems to be the most accepted answer. While you might look at mass shootings as more efficient, there's really only so much you can do with that method. There actually are plenty of documented mass executions carried out by just shooting people. Prior to the final solution being agreed upon there were whole towns of people rounded up and shot in the beginnings of the Russian campaign. \n\nDeath camps ran like a factory assembly line. You could have a bunch of guards working all day shooting people and dragging the bodies off, but you can't really get through the amount of work needed to be done that way. When you're talking about the sheer numbers of people being killed in some places it just wasn't feasible to keep doing it. \n\nIt's also important to remember that outside of the most hardened Nazi supporters, these people were still capable of sympathy. Having soldiers shoot civilians all day is not good for moral. Having soldiers round up prisoners and load them onto a train separates them from the fate of those people. Even if they know the people are heading toward a death camp, they can remove themselves from blame because they weren't really the ones killing them. \n\nThis degree of separation was an important factor in the gas chambers as well. The people in charge of gassing didn't have to look their victims in the face while they did it. Even if the people in charge of gassing became depressed or decided they couldn't continue in their work, that's only 2 or 3 people at a time. That's much easier to deal with than an entire brigade becoming disillusioned after having to murder 5000 people. \n\nSo to boil it down. Death camps were more efficient than a firing squad because:\n\n1. The partitioning of responsibilities was better for moral.\n\n2. It took fewer men to kill more people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6qy47a
|
the persistence of end-of-the-world claims.
|
Even people that don't believe in religious texts can get swept up in end-of-days panic. In this century alone, we've been through two abruptly canceled Apocalypses (Y2K and 21/12/2012). Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qy47a/eli5_the_persistence_of_endoftheworld_claims/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl0ujy6",
"dl0uvs2",
"dl0wprp"
],
"score": [
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Y2K was not \"abruptly canceled\". It was prevented, through an incredible amount of work. We saw it coming, and we fixed it, with millions of hours of coding and bug-fixing. The cost of all the work to prevent the problem is estimated at over $400 billion in today's money.",
"Since early civilization, people have feared an apocalyptic end to the world. It can be found in countless mythos around the world - just by chance? \n \nIt is human nature to fear the end. It is that fear you also hold for the earth we came from, and all other living things. \n \nSo naturally, we are predispositioned to greatly fear an apocalyptic scenario of any kind, as it means the end of our species - and life is all about resisting death by reproducing. So it is our ultimate nemesis. \n \nIt is the ultimate evil in our existence. Nothing else comes close.",
"Y2K was fixed, as another commenter said. 21/12/2012 was a widespread misunderstanding.\n\n > Is it psychological, something people are simply prone to believe?\n\nYes. But it's not an unfounded fear, either. There is ample evidence that worldwide cataclysmic events take place with alarming regularity. \n\nFor example, if you look at graphs of ice core samples, around 11,000 years ago there are drastic swings in temperature coinciding with deposits in the sedimentary layers that point to asteroid strikes. These kinds of events happen all the time, and if one happened now it would be a wordwide disaster the likes of which we have never seen.\n\nHeading into speculation here, so don't crucify me, but humans have been anatomically modern for about 200,000 years. If we have records of these disasters as recent as 11,000 years ago, it would stand to reason that humans would have an innate fear of these kinds of events above the normal rational fear."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
aq9jit
|
Phoenicians in Herodotus.
|
I am primarily studying Phoenician history and i am puzzled with statements in Herodotus, they don't seem to make much sense.
**Herodotus 7.89**
These Phoenicians formerly dwelt, as they themselves say, by the Red Sea; they crossed from there and now inhabit the seacoast of Syria. This part of Syria as far as Egypt is all called Palestine.
The Red Sea was not connected too the Mediterranean prior to the construction of Canal, is Herodotus claiming they sailed around Africa to the shores of Syria and how many seas are called "red"?
**Herodotus 1.1**
The Persian learned men say that the Phoenicians were the cause of the dispute. These (they say) came to our seas from the sea which is called Red.
What are these disputes, they sail from the Red Sea to where?
**Herodotus 1.4**
Phoenicians came to Argos, **Io** and others were seized and thrown into the ship, which then sailed away for Egypt
Historical context?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/aq9jit/phoenicians_in_herodotus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egep33y"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"I think, based on your translation, that you're using the Perseus version of the text, which is Godley, 1920. So for simplicity's sake I'll use the greek from the same edition as available on Perseus if I need it.\n\nTo understand the context of Herodotus' portrayal of the Phoenicians you'll need a bit of context around the whole thing.\n\n\nHerodotus' histories are pretty wide ranging, with plenty of diversions along the way to talk about things like local customs. In broad strokes, however, its an attempt to document the Persian Wars fought between many of the Greek city states and the Persian Empire in the early 5th century BC.\n\n\nIn some ways, his portrayal of the conflict is one of the Greek states vs the 'other'; the other being a bit of a nebulous concept that can more or less be thought of as non-Greek. He frames the conflict as something of an east vs western/Greek culture, also suggesting at certain points that the root of the ultimate failure of the Persians is in some way due to environmental differences between the Greek and Persian peoples.\n\n\nPart of his account is trying to establish some kind of causality or origin point of this series of conflicts, which is where your quotes come into play. In Herodotus 1.1. the conflict he is referring to are these Persian wars. \n\n\nWhen he refers to Io, we probably shouldn't consider her a historical figure, but more of a mythological one. That is to say, the historicity of these events is highly dubious. In any case, Herodotus considers this a precursor to the later conflict. As you've read, Phoenician traders seized a number of Greek women. In retaliation for the seizure of Io, an unspecified group of Greeks counter-kidnapped Europa, the Phoenician king's daughter (Herodotus 1.2.1). After this, a group of Greeks made their way to Colchis and abducted Medea (Herodotus 1.2.2.) Incidentally this is the same incident that Apollonius of Rhodes depicted in his epic 'Argonautica' (Though in that version, she came willingly rather than being kidnapped).\n\n\nHerodotus then connects this incident with Alexandros, son of Priam (otherwise known as Paris) and his decision to kidnap Helen of Troy, setting off the entire Trojan war. (Herodotus 1.3.1.) Notably, other portrayals of the Trojan war suggest similar thoughts about the 'non Greekness' of the Trojans.\n\n\nIn this way, Herodotus depicts Io as the first in a series of tit for tat actions between Greeks and Eastern civilisations, setting up the Persian wars as another incarnation of this.\n\n\nAs for your first point about the confusion over the Phoenician travel arrangements, the Greek given is \"ἐνθεῦτεν δὲ ὑπερβάντες τῆς Συρίης οἰκέουσι τὸ παρὰ θάλασσαν\" ( I hope the Greek characters show up, if not I'll try and make an edit.) Godley translates this as \"they crossed from there and now inhabit the seacoast of Syria.\" Its a very slight touch too loose a translation for my liking but I don't think it makes any material difference. The relevant part of the Greek is \"ὑπερβάντες\" -crossing over. According to the LSJ lexicon, this verb *can* be used with bodies of water, such as crossing a river. In this case, however, it seems likely that Herodotus is just referring to them crossing over the stretch of land between their original home and the Syrian coast. Indeed the LSJ suggests that Herodotus elsewhere uses this verb with boundaries/landmarks (Hdt.6.108). So ultimately I think it likely that he's just saying that they migrated to Syria by land. \n\n\nI hope this makes sense/helps.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4je6yr
|
How/Why did Desert Storm Happen?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4je6yr/howwhy_did_desert_storm_happen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d35yo3n",
"d36pcu2"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"What exactly do you mean? Do you mean why Iraq invaded Kuwait? Or the US responded the way it did? Or why the air campaign caused such abject destruction among Iraqi forces? \n\nThere have been entire books written on each of these subjects. We're going to need further clarification as to what exactly you want to know before we can answer you",
"Saddam asserted -- whether or not in good faith is disputed -- that Kuwait was a province of Iraq, and therefore its oil belonged to him and not the Kuwaiti royal family. He also presided over political / propaganda / security system reliant upon war mobilization, and no longer had a war against the Iranians to fight. Saddam may have believed -- and whether he did, or should have, is also hotly disputed -- that the US and UK would not intervene once he established new facts on the ground (i.e., a speedy occupation).\n\nThe other half of the picture is why the US and UK wanted to intervene, and why the Soviet Union didn't try to stop that intervention. For the US and UK it mainly comes down to oil and Israel -- a stable political environment, very much including the sacrosanctness of the various royal families, was critical, and the invasion destablized it. Saddam -- gratuitously, it would seem -- deciding to extend his war into one on Israel was an absolute call to arms to the US and UK, Israel's traditionally unshakable allies. The Soviet Union had a a lot of its own problems -- Eastern Europe was lost and Communism was on its last legs at home. Also, Soviet \"near abroad\" geopolitics was MUCH more concerned with the Turks and the Iranians, each of whom was not exactly a fan of Saddam or expansionism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
26mjub
|
Where does all the rubber go?
|
When a tire wears down because of use, it looses about 1/2 inch of rubber off of the tread. This happens to millions of tires each year. So where does this volume of rubber go?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26mjub/where_does_all_the_rubber_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chshg02",
"chsmb27",
"chsww8b"
],
"score": [
84,
27,
4
],
"text": [
"It depends on the size of the rubber particulates coming off the tyre. But first we need to understand how the rubber separates from the main body in the first place. Synthetic rubber (which is what pretty much all tyres are made of nowadays) is made of polymers, which are long string-like molecules mostly comprising hydrogen, carbon and oxygen atoms. The exact composition of the rubber depends on its intended use. When you apply friction to a bunch of closely packed polymers, the combination of induced kinetic and heat energy in the form of shear stress experienced by the molecules on the surface overcomes the binding force holding it together, and the surface molecules break off. This is known as material wear.\n\nNow the size of the clump that separates dictates where it goes. Smaller particulates become airborne and are carried away by the wind (consider smoking tyres when you spin the wheels). Larger ones fall to the ground and are washed away by rain or blown along by wind and passing cars. [You can see extreme examples of large-particulate rubber loss from tyres in motorsport](_URL_0_). \n\nAs a good analogy, next time you use an eraser to rub out pencil, look at how the rubber breaks off as you use it. The same thing happens, more or less, with car tyres.",
"I once had a basement apartment in Boston. All the road rubber went there. Was a serious problem, I eventually fitted my windows with furnace filters to trap it, I couldn't keep up with the cleaning. So, it just falls on the road and blows away. Never get an apartment with road level windows.",
"1. Air, smoke size particulates become smoke.\n\n2. Ground, larger \"chunks\" go to the roadside and become sediment. This is normally picked up by cleaner trucks, or finds it's way into the ecosystem as \"dirt\" by the road.\n\n3. Water, the run-off of smaller sand size particles washes off into drainage ducts and is fed into the water systems of the surrounding areas.\n\nKeep in mind that those millions of tires are spread across a large land mass and seem to have little local impact. The total volume you state is more alarming, especially when global tire use is considered.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://f1.imgci.com/PICTURES/CMS/15500/15530.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
xm70u
|
What evolutionary pressures led to the differences of morphology among different human races?
|
Question inspired by the Olympics. I use the term 'races' out of ignorance of a better way of classifying humans, but it seems as though people of African origin generally seem better suited for track races, people of European origin seem better suited for water sports, and people of East Asian descent seem to be better adapted for sports that require quick response times (like ping-pong and handball). Why are such skills so neatly divided among races? What was the evolutionary pressure behind the adaptation?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/xm70u/what_evolutionary_pressures_led_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5nkg3d",
"c5nkgd4",
"c5nmdvr"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
7
],
"text": [
"People who lived and trained at altitude will automatically have a better physical condition because they have more red bloodcells and thus can absorb more oxygen.\n_URL_0_",
"My guess is that most of these apparent athletic advantages have far more to do with culture than they do with race. If you observe a human behavior, and you cannot think of a reason why it's adaptive, that's oftentimes a good clue that it's not adaptive after all.\n\nConsider: track sports are a big cultural phenomenon among Africans (and, e.g., African-Americans). Not so much in Japan.\n\nAlso consider: countries that perform very well in weightlifting (including former Soviet republics and satellites, some Middle Eastern countries, and now China) often have very efficient feeder programs for recruiting young, genetically gifted athletes and prepping them from day one. The US used to have a good weightlifting program before the sport lost its cultural appeal. If barbell training ever gets big in Africa, I'm sure we'll see plenty of talented African weightlifters. Likewise, if lots of African nations start subsidizing their cities with swimming pools and clubs, maybe we'll see more high-placing African swimmers. Hard to say.\n\nThe preceding also contains another good example: Africans supposedly dominate in sprints, for which explosiveness (the power generated by individual motor units, as well as the ability to recruit motor units very quickly) is important, but they generally don't place high in weightlifting, even though *the same set of physical traits* is required.\n\nI think the evidence is still (mostly) consistent with the old genetic observation by Lewontin, that variation within human groups is much larger than variation between human groups. Whatever variation does exist between human groups is probably not well represented by athletic competitions. Differences there are mostly due to contingent cultural factors, not genetic ones.",
"At least one study compared body types between whites and blacks. They found that blacks tend to have a higher center of gravity, which makes it easier to run fast, but harder to swim fast. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is an article about it. In the article they reference the study."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Altitude_training"
],
[],
[
"http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/science-news/7884135/Centre-of-gravity-theory-for-dominance-of-black-sprinters-and-white-swimmers.html"
]
] |
|
5vwz9l
|
Why are the air intakes of fighter jets so often on the bottom of the plane?
|
Just as an example, the F-16 is like a vacuum cleaner, and will suck up ANYTHING off the ground nearby. That's a problem when rocks, tools, and bolts, get sucked up into the air intake, so I'm wondering why they continue to be below wing level.
As I'm not an aeronautical engineer, the only good reason I can think of so far is to have the cockpit out from in front of the intake. Is there more to it?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5vwz9l/why_are_the_air_intakes_of_fighter_jets_so_often/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de5nq8e",
"de5t0vg",
"de5unmk",
"de6m5bu"
],
"score": [
51,
5,
8,
7
],
"text": [
"For fighters, having the intakes above the wings would create a visual obstruction for the pilots, a definite disadvantage in a dogfight. Generally, the top of the wing is more aerodynamically sensitive than the bottom and stalls are caused by flow separation between the air stream and the top of the wing, so you want to avoid anything that might disrupt the airflow over the top of the wing. Similarly, you don't want anything to disrupt the airflow into the intake itself and, intuitively, it seems like having the canopy bumped out would generate a trickier flow pattern to feed into the engines. You could certainly design around it, but it's easier to stick them under the wing where the nose of the plane can smoothly guide air straight into the intake.\n\nFor reference, the only two aircraft I can think of with intakes above the wing are the stealth fighter (F-117) and stealth bomber (B-2). The fact that they're both stealth leads me to believe the intakes were moved above the wing to reduce the effective cross-section from ground-based radar, but this is speculation on my part.",
"Regarding the issue of debris on the runway, the Russians have a very different design philosophy. On takeoff and landing, most MIGs and Sukhoi block off the main intake funnels and use [secondary intake vents](_URL_0_) on the top of the aircraft, preventing any garbage from being sucked into the engines when on the ground.\n\nThat way, they don't need to have surgically clean airbases, unlike say, countries using american made fighters.",
"For the f-16 specifically, the intake was placed to allow optimal air intake during high angle of attack maneuvers. The f-15 solves this by having variable geometry intake openings. Many fighters alleviate the foreign object problem by using s-shaped intakes that feature a spring loaded door on the curved portion forward of the inlet guide vanes. Rocks and other objects are allowed past the trapdoor when they hit it, preventing them from damaging the engine. The f-16's intake isn't curved enough for that method to work, so we fix that another way- all the maintainers line up on the flight line several times each day and comb it for debris. ",
"Let's talk trade offs! \n\nThe cockpit on modern jet fighters is a bubble, inspired by the P-51. It's not the most aerodynamic design, so why do that? Visibility. Safety during ground operations is key. Suck up your ground crew into your engines and you can't fly again for a long time. Why so in jets? Modern jet engines are powerful enough that the drag of the canopy is just overpowered. Yes, there would be less drag with a lower profile cockpit, but not enough to compensate for the loss of visibility during all other flight envelopes.\n\nIntakes. As you've read from other comments, if they're on top of the aircraft and you attempt to climb quickly, you can starve the intakes of air, stalling your engines. Not fun.\n\nBut wait! What about those big transports? They just hang the bloody engines off the bottoms of the wings. What are they thinking? It turns out it's a fantastic way to build a lighter wing that would otherwise be too flexible. The weight of the engines help counter the wing's tendency to 'reach for the sky' under heavy loads during takeoff and at cruising altitudes.\n\nNeed to go fast? Build short, swept back wings. Need to go slow? Build long wings the stick out perpendicular to the fuselage. Need to do both? Build an F-14 Tomcat with adjustable wings.\n\nNeed to turn sharper and faster than your enemies planes? Build a Zero with no armor for the pilot (lighter weight) and shorter wings (the plane will bank quicker). Need to defeat Zeros in air to air combat with heavier aircraft? Learn to fly in teams until the engineers back home can give you an engine that doesn't notice how heavy your plane is. Grumman called it the Bearcat.\n\nNeed to land in a meadow because your pretty concrete runways were blown to bits on the first day of the war? Build the Harrier with vectored thrusters. It will never go as fast as the same fuselage form factor with a normal engine configuration, but then the normal config will never land in a field.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://i.stack.imgur.com/FAls1.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
b6y7o7
|
why does just thinking about tequila make me want to throw up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b6y7o7/eli5_why_does_just_thinking_about_tequila_make_me/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ejntdol"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Because your brain and your body are deeply connected. Your body once threw up after drinking tequila, and told your brain, “we don’t care for that at all”. So your body is just reminding your brain of that. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.