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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3ijin5
|
how is it that certain koi and other pond fish are so expensive?
|
Obviously healthier and bigger fish will be worth more, but what separates a $50 Koi from a $5000 Koi? Aren't they just pets?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ijin5/eli5_how_is_it_that_certain_koi_and_other_pond/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuh0rs2"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The same difference between a $50 dog and a $5,000 dog. Pedigree, in addition the expensive Koi have been bred for specific patterns and colors. Its not like a breeder is just netting random fish out of a pond and assigning arbitrary prices. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4j69ko
|
what makes some sounds scary/ominous while others happy/uplifting?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4j69ko/eli5_what_makes_some_sounds_scaryominous_while/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d342eqg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Consonance and Dissonance!\n\nSounds are waves. Sometimes, those waves stack up into nice sounds because all the waves run on frequencies that go together well. This is consonance. Sometimes, those waves will be running in different ways, not really lining up you see, and that makes the frequencies sound like they want to \"resolve\", or rest. This is dissonance.\n\nThere are lots and lots of chords, which are stacks of notes (three notes being a triad, for example) which run the gamut for this effect. \n\n[Tritone](_URL_0_)\n\n[Tonality](_URL_1_)\n\n[Consonance and Dissonance](_URL_2_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritone",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tonality",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Consonance_and_dissonance"
]
] |
||
1r3ebj
|
what does it mean for a song to be in major/minor key?
|
And if you could explain what something like "in the key of C" means too, go ahead.
I think I have some idea, but it'd be nice of you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r3ebj/eli5_what_does_it_mean_for_a_song_to_be_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdj6dxv",
"cdjakwe",
"cdjare1"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"There are 12 notes in western music (any higher or lower and the same notes repeat again, an octave higher or lower). If you played them all in a row, it would sound like a pretty boring linear progression. But if you only play 7 of them in selected intervals, you have a common western scale. A major scale hits these notes (marked by x) out of the 12: \nx-x-xx-x-x-x \n \nHere's a melodic minor scale: \nx-xx-x-xx-x- \n\nAs you can see, in some places, the notes played are right next to each other, and in other places, they skip over a note. The kind of scale (major, melodic minor, harmonic minor, pentatonic and others) is determined by what that pattern is. \n\nYou can start each pattern on any note. If you play the major pattern starting on the note C, you're playing a C major scale.",
"Just noting that the \"happy\" and \"sad\" feel others have described is something that's completely conditioned, not innate in the music.\n\nThere are happy songs in minor keys and sad songs in major keys, e.g. Bon Jovi \"Living on a Prayer\" is arguably in E-minor. ",
"\"In the key of C\" means, in the key of C major. The C major scale is defined as the notes C,D,E,F,G,A,B in that order. Other major scales have the same intervals between notes, but just starting at a different point.\n\nChords in the key of a scale means that the chords are made of notes from that scale, in this case:\n\nC-E-G\nD-F-A\nE-G-B\nF-A-C\nG-B-D\nA-C-E\nB-D-F\n\nThese chords are called \"C\", \"D\" etc. - the name of a chord is taken from the name of its root note. Some of them are major chords and some are minor chords - it depends on the interval between the notes.\n\nAs always in music, these chords can be 'decorated', for example G-B-D-F is common (this is called a \"seventh chord\" when the next note in the sequence is tacked on the end).\n\nSaying that a song is \"in a key\" means that the song primarily uses chords from that key, and further, its underlying structure follows the basic progression (C - > F - > G in this case).\n\nWithout going into too much detail, songs will play on this theme a lot, but it can always be found underneath. (In fact we could even say that C - > F - > G is a variation on C - > G which is the most elementary progression - a difference of 2:3 in frequency ratios between the notes).\n\nAlso, a song may temporarily change key, or use chords from related keys (i.e. chords where the notes are notes from a different scale). \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6c75w2
|
why is it that when we feel sudden pain (like a sting) our hearing seems to amplify?
|
Sometimes when you're trying to pop a painful zit or get stung or otherwise feel sudden pain, your hearing seems to amplify and get a little distorted. What is happening in our body and why?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6c75w2/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_we_feel_sudden_pain_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhsf2zk"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"My guess, (not an expert) your body says \"hey someones attacking us, focus\" cuz adrenaline. Basically your whole body goes into defence/ready mode because it thinks it's in danger. I wpuldnt be surprised if your eyesight/smell/sense of balance get better immediately after that type of event\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2cb07a
|
where do pharmacies get drugs from?
|
I personally use a CVS pharmacy, so let's use them as the example. The way I imagine it, there's two options for how I get my medications:
1) The corporation that runs the CVS Pharmacy chain contacts, negotiates, and purchases all the different drugs it needs from the pharmaceutical companies. Seems like a lot of overhead, negotiating, and logistics.
2) CVS Pharmacy contracts with a non-zero number of distributing companies that guarantee supply of specific drugs in their catalog due to their negotiated contracts with the pharmaceutical companies. Seems easier but probably a bit more expensive (the middleman's profit)
Am I anywhere on the right track with these thoughts? Can anyone offer any insight into this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cb07a/eli5_where_do_pharmacies_get_drugs_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjdohea",
"cjdqkx7"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Actually the logistics and distribution are handled on the supply side - by the drug manufacturers themselves. Most companies will have some sort of warehouse/distrubution centre where orders from individual pharmacies are procesed and shipped directly (often through UPS/FedEx).\n\nsource: Worked in logistics for a major phamaceutical company",
"I'm a pharmacy tech at, and I do the ordering for, an independent pharmacy. There are wholesalers/suppliers. McKesson, Cardinal, Amerisource, Anda are just a few I can name off the top of my head. \n\nWe place an order every evening for the drugs we need for the next day or to have in stock on the shelves and we get them delivered by an employee of the distributor the next morning (Mon-Fri)\n\nThey can't guarantee a supply, manufacturer backorders happen all the time. I'm sure the distributor makes a nice profit, but they have to keep huge inventories of drugs in stock. Pharmacies don't want to do this because pills on the shelf not getting dispensed is money just tied up there. Pharmacies also don't want to deal with getting the drugs from the various manufacturers (many of which are outside the US).\n\nI haven't worked at a big chain pharmacy, but most of my coworkers have and it's worked the same way. The big chains usually get a better deal on a lot of their drugs because they buy a higher volume. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
8bq8kw
|
if sony and microsoft are always competing for market with their games consoles, why do both consoles always have similar specifications,(why doesnt one company just use a better graphics card to win over the market)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8bq8kw/eli5if_sony_and_microsoft_are_always_competing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dx8q2ak"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Same reason Toyota don't just make mid engine V12 supercar and sell it for peanuts...shits expensive. \n\nThey need to find a balance between power, and being able to sell it cheap enough that enough people purchase it to warrant third-party developers producing titles for the platform."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
33aqto
|
if obesity is medically proven to cause negative health effects, how are parents not charged with child abuse/child endangerment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33aqto/eli5_if_obesity_is_medically_proven_to_cause/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqj3lu4",
"cqj48cn",
"cqj50nw",
"cqj5qvt",
"cqj5w6c",
"cqja3wr"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
24,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Because people are very sensitive about their weight, and about the governments controlling their lives",
"There's also a matter of triaging - the child safety services are overloaded now. And a child getting physically abused, emotionally/mentally destroyed or molested is higher priority then something that is less immediately life and mental stability endangering.",
"Because it's a terrible idea and no politician who wanted to ever be re-elected would push for the Destory Families Because Your Kid Is Fat Act. I'm all for doing things to promote less fat kids (and adults), but what do you think is going to do more damage to a kid: being overweight, or being forcibly removed from their home and placed in the custody of the state?",
"Obesity is a symptom of any of a number of things. Yes there is over eating, under activity, and poor food choices without over eating but there are also genetic conditions, damage to organs, physical disability, and many other issues that can cause obesity. \n\nThe biggest factor in obesity is currently poverty. Lack of time to prepare nutritious home made meals (as nutritious foods tend to take longer to cook), lack of training and skill in making nutritious meals (as nutritious foods tend to take more effort and knowledge to cook), and lack of funds to buy nutritious foods (nutritious foods are more expensive). Arresting people or taking away their children because they are poor is absolutely abhorrent and immoral. \n\nEdit: Also child services are currently overloaded with cases that are of an immediate and more legitimate threat to the safety of children. You are wanting to destroy families and quadruple the load (if not more) an an over-taxed system. That is just foolish. ",
"It would likely end up targeting low income families as many families worry about putting ANY food on the table let alone a macro-nutrient balanced meal. \n\nAlso, the social services system is overwhelmed enough as it is, instead of factoring in lack of resources and knowledge about living a healthy lifestyle to the mix. \n\nThere's got to be a better solution to the growing epidemic of obesity in the western world, than simply tearing fat children from the arms of their mothers.",
"Let me guess, /u/jou13, you're not a parent? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5hwvie
|
why are mice the preferred "testing" subjects in scientific experiments?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5hwvie/eli5_why_are_mice_the_preferred_testing_subjects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"db3k445",
"db3pft7",
"db3qhaw",
"db3qny6",
"db3qvjw",
"db3rz3g"
],
"score": [
55,
142,
17,
4,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"They're similar enough to humans for most testing purposes. And they reproduce so fast that it's very easy to set up pure genetic blood lines according to the specifications the scientist needs.\n\nThat makes lab mice very predictable animals, which in turn is good for reliable testing.",
"They are the right combination of breeding quickly, maturing quickly, being easy to care for, being easy to handle, and being close enough to humans to get meaningful results.\n\nWe might get slightly more analogous results testing with gorillas, but a 400 pound animal that takes 15 years to mature, has one offspring a year, and that can rip you head off isn't worth it.",
"Little fun fact as people already answered the original question. \n\nMice reproduce quickly. But to have them reproduce, you need to keep the female in good shape (aka not risk to test anything on them). Therefore, there has been a bias in numerous studies because the only test subject were males, completely disregarding the differences between male and female! \n\n",
"They are pretty similar to humans. Semi-intelligent and can solve small problems. Also they are small, and easy to take care of. You can have a lab with 200 rats pretty easily. You can't have a lab with 200 monkeys. Also humanitarian concerns are almost non existent with rats. People don't care about them so you can work them and test them endlessly. And most importantly, they're extremely cheap.a fleet of rats couldn't buy you a monkey",
"In addition to the other reasons listed here, rodents and mammals are both [euarchontoglires](_URL_0_), AKA supraprimates. In other words, rodents (rodentia) are the closest living relatives to mammals (mammalia).\n\nThe implication is that the purpose of said experiments is to better our own human circumstances (re: [humanism](_URL_1_)). This means inferences made on rodents are more likely to apply to humans than if we were to experiment on carnivores, marsupials, whales, etc.\n\nAnd we choose mice instead of other rodents for the reasons listed in other comments (quick to reproduce, etc).",
"We started to work with mice because they were available and a decent option. There are more options now so some people are working to breed other research animals. For instance, fruit flies are used in some research fields."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Euarchontoglires",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanism"
],
[]
] |
||
85skwi
|
Did the MI6 support far-right extremists during the Years of Lead in Italy?
|
To expand a bit on my question: Are there any records of the MI6 (and/or other entities, e.g. the CIA or NATO), in connection to their role in this period of civil unrest in Italy?
I'm aware that Western and Soviet governments influencing politics in foreign countries was just business as usual during the Cold War (and beyond).
The reason I ask this is that I noticed the MI6 being listed, on Wikipedia, as a supporter of the right-wing side of the conflict, listed among Italian organizations that are pretty shady, to say the least. But I couldn't find anything online to support this entry on Wikipedia. The entry's annotation is just this relatively obscure information, with no references: "Writer's name 'leaked' to NF". The Guardian. 1990-01-31."
Will appreciate any replies shedding some light on this, and the post-WWII Italian troubles and how the Western powers involved themselves.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/85skwi/did_the_mi6_support_farright_extremists_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvzrvrp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Hi there. I participated in [this discussion](_URL_1_) about Italian Politics in the 1970s which might answer some of your questions. \n\nThere is also [this discussion](_URL_0_) about the alleged, and debunked, accusations of foreign participation in the \"Years of Lead,\" although they mostly focus on American intelligence agencies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6yzkqz/to_what_extent_did_the_united_states_support_the/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6slsf0/where_did_the_years_of_lead_get_their_name_from/"
]
] |
|
a5eboc
|
how did i suddenly develop food allergies at 27 years old.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a5eboc/eli5_how_did_i_suddenly_develop_food_allergies_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eblzfg2",
"ebmbl9s"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"You may not like this, but the answer is: we don't know.\n\nPeople need to become sensitive to an allergen before any allergic reaction can take place, so that means they can't be allergic the very first time they are exposed. Since these people have been exposed numerous times to an allergen without reacting, and they suddenly begin to react allergically, a mystery has been introduced. We know very little about allergies so far and it is a big area of research.",
"Did you have hay fever as a child?\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oral_allergy_syndrome"
]
] |
||
41vtt6
|
why companies likes at & t, sprint, etc don't build more cell phone towers to compete with coverage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/41vtt6/eli5_why_companies_likes_att_sprint_etc_dont/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cz5ivfu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They are constantly building new towers. Technology is improving at such a rate that you have to upgrade all your existing towers every few years. If you have so many towers, it can very difficult to upgrade every single one. They will usually prioritize upgrading their NYC towers so that 5 million customers get better service over constructing new towers or upgrading the old ones in Wyoming that cover 500 customers. They're constantly upgrading towers so not enough time or money to be building many new ones. They don't compete with Verizon on coverage. They compete with them based on cost, deals, speed, etc. which are a lot easier to beat.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9ip6bq
|
why do windshield wipers make the window streaky for the first few strokes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9ip6bq/eli5_why_do_windshield_wipers_make_the_window/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6lepo5"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because there are points on the blade with more pressure on them than others which is why there are streaks. After a few passes the parts with less pressure clean off as well as the parts with more pressure "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
56i350
|
why do people say that exercise is relatively useless for weight loss, compared to diet?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/56i350/eli5_why_do_people_say_that_exercise_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8jfjjg",
"d8jfzn1",
"d8jg4t5",
"d8jg58p",
"d8jn72j"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3,
25,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically,the final outcome is what matters:calories in vs calories out (this more complex with macro and micronutrients to have a balanced diet,though)\nSo,if you eat 5000 calories,but your body only consumes 2000 calories,with exercise included,then,you will get weight.If you lose more that what you get,then,you lose weight.The thing is,to most of us,we cannot be more than 1h/day at the gym,so consuming most of your calories without taking care of the diet usually isnt viable.",
"You'd have to be working out crazy hard to burn 1000+ calories an hour. For me, running for a full hour burns 488 calories. Most people cannot run for 2+ hours a day. A single chocolate bar or glass of drink can represent more than an hour of high-intensity exercise, that's why people say it's more important to focus on diet first.",
"Simple - a grown man can eat a whole pizza easily, I know I can. To burn that many calories you need to cycle for 2 hours. Replace the pizza with steamed veggies (I know) and you have 1000 calories less to worry about.",
"The issue here is that exercise burns a lot fewer calories than people assume it does. Let's say you go out and run a mile in 6 minutes flat. You're an average guy, a little heavy at 200 pounds. How many calories did you just burn? A thousand? 500? Surely enough to burn off that 12 oz. soda you drank earlier, right?\nWell, no. You burned only around 150 calories, which is about half that soda you drank in 5 seconds when you woke up.\n\nBurning calories through exercise is slow, and not very efficient. It's far easier to focus on dieting. *Just don't drink that can of coke in the morning and you save 300+ calories.*\n\nThat *hour or two* of exercise takes a hell of a lot of effort compared to just reducing your intake of calories, and has *more-or-less* the same effect on your total weight loss.",
"As others noted, it's easier to eat less than to exercise more. But another interesting aspect is that the intensity of your exercise makes a difference in how effective it is at burning fat. \n\nLow-intensity exercise uses mostly fat as fuel at the time, but therefore leaves your resting metabolic rate mostly unchanged afterward. \n\nHigh-intensity exercise uses mostly sugar as fuel at the time, but this results in a raised resting metabolic rate afterwards, and in the end burns more fat than low-intensity exercise. \n\nSo although there's plenty to be said for diet, exercise can make a big difference for weight loss, if you're doing the right kind. Of course exercise is also good for your heart so that's not to say that low-intensity exercise is somehow inferior. It just depends on what your goals are. \n\nHere's a succinct explanation of this effect: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articles/fitness/how-exercise-affects-your-metabolism.html"
]
] |
|
jyjsk
|
How do extra chromosomes effect human reproduction? (x-post from askreddit)
|
In particular I am trying to understand if having a chromosomal abnormality will create a baby born sterile. I understand that in the animal kingdom, while a horse can mate with all of Equidae, any offspring will be born sterile (i.e. Mules, Zedonks, etc), at least partially because of the difference in chromosomal involved. Is the same applicable to Humans? Or is the fact that the individual suffering from the abnormality is only 1 generation removed from the general population enough to create mostly normal offspring.
Any links to scientific studies in addition to your input would be appreciated.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jyjsk/how_do_extra_chromosomes_effect_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2g5iu7",
"c2g5iu7"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Not sure if this is what you mean, but it depends on the syndrome.\n\nPeople with down syndrome have an extra \"21\" chromosome and are generally perfectly capable of reproducing. However, some chromosomal abnormalities do cause infertility. Women with Turner Syndrome are missing of have a damaged X-chromosome and are generally sterile. Alternatively, men with Klinefelter code as XXY and have an extra chromosome. This also often leads to infertility.\n\nIf you'd cross a human with an ape, you'd also likely have barren offspring, though as far as we know no such experiments have been confirmed.\n\nDoes that answer your question at all?",
"Not sure if this is what you mean, but it depends on the syndrome.\n\nPeople with down syndrome have an extra \"21\" chromosome and are generally perfectly capable of reproducing. However, some chromosomal abnormalities do cause infertility. Women with Turner Syndrome are missing of have a damaged X-chromosome and are generally sterile. Alternatively, men with Klinefelter code as XXY and have an extra chromosome. This also often leads to infertility.\n\nIf you'd cross a human with an ape, you'd also likely have barren offspring, though as far as we know no such experiments have been confirmed.\n\nDoes that answer your question at all?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ym0by
|
can someone give me a bipartisan description of the iran deal, why obama wants it (using his logic) and why the republicans don't (using their logic)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ym0by/eli5_can_someone_give_me_a_bipartisan_description/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpatwsv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Sure. Obama thinks there is a path to a non-nuclear Iran that does not involve military action. The republicans (and Israel) think there is danger that Iran will get the bomb while Obama is talking, and therefore we should take military action against them immediately. \n\nLike most of American politics these days, congress has gone and fucked it all up by showing how divided the US is. Normally the President is responsible for foreign policy and congress does not get involved. The idea is that the ability of America to communicate with allies would be compromised if they reviled that there were internal divisions. Therefore American should speak with one voice, and that voice belongs to the President. However, this is not the law, it's just the way things generally work (the president has the authority of law to sign treaties, but nothing has been signed here). \n\nSo now congress has effectively communicated this to the outside world. \"Obama can negotiate all he wants, if a Republican is elected next election then it's all void.\" So the world powers all look at that and say, what's the point of talking. Or, even worse, they say \"we better attack (or hurry to finish this bomb) before the American election, or they are going to attack us\". \n\nIt's like parenting. There are 2 parents and the parents may not always agree. However, as far as the children are concerned the parents speak with 1 voice, united. Congress just came out and said \"Don't pay attention to what your father says, he's an asshole and I intend to marry a new man next week anyway. So don't bother to listen to him\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
200gvr
|
how is the network fox able to have a show like cosmos, which endorses evolution and the big bang, when it shows conservative propaganda all day?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/200gvr/eli5_how_is_the_network_fox_able_to_have_a_show/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfymxmc",
"cfymz74",
"cfyn12a",
"cfyo1fm"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The daytime crowd are older and more conservative, the prime time crowd is younger and more progressive.\n\nThey tailor their programming to who they expect to be watching TV at that hour.",
"Don't forget that Nat Geo is showing it too on Mondays!!!",
"There is a difference between Fox and Fox News (although they *occasionally* show FNC programming on network).",
"Conservative =/= young earth creationist."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
zsqwf
|
explain like i'm five "the higgs bison"
|
My dad has been telling me about the higgs boson, but I'm just not understand it. Could some one help me?
**EDIT** its higgs boson sorry I've been spelling it wrong
Some me In-boxed me this link _URL_0_ It kind of help.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/zsqwf/explain_like_im_five_the_higgs_bison/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c67f2y5",
"c67gdov",
"c67v0kn"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First of all you need to know that we don't know why gravity works.\n\nOk, so you know how electricity was this big mysterious force that we couldn't explain? Then we found out a particle, the electron, was the cause.\n\nSo that's kinda what the Higgs is, a gravity particle. It gives matter mass and gravity. Each atom has some Higgs' in it. The Higgs basically have a \"charge\" that attract other Higgs. If you could eliminate/turn off the Higg's in a piece of matter it wouldn't have a mass or any gravity.\n\nThe problem is that people think of mass as a property of matter when it's actually a property of a part of matter.\n\nIt's like a car. Pretend you know nothing about cars and saw one for the first time today. Cars go right? That's just something that cars do. But wait! Look at this! It has an engine that makes it go!\n\nNow replace car with matter, go with mass, and engine with Higgs Boson.",
"The Higgs boson is a particle that interacts with other particles to give them mass. What it means for a particle to have mass in quantum physics is that it has inertia, which means it takes energy to make it speed up and slow down, and incidentally that it's impossible to make it go the speed of light.\n\nThe way to think of it is that the speed of light is the real speed that everything in the universe actually moves at, but the Higgs boson gets in the way. The more mass something has, the more the Higgs boson gets in the way.\n\nThink of it as trying to run through thick a forest to get to the other side. Although you can run really fast between each tree, every time you get near a tree you have to slow down to go around it. If you were bigger, more trees would get in your way because you wouldn't have to be as close to them in order for it to be an obstacle. But if you're smaller, fewer trees will get in your way because you have to get closer to a tree for it to be a problem. If you get small enough, there might even be a path for you through the forest without any trees as obstacles, and you can just run in a straight line without slowing down at all.\n\nThe trees are like the Higgs boson, forcing matter to slow down when it gets near them. The forest is like the Higgs field, which is the wave part of all this, because in quantum physics everything that's a particle is also a wave. You're like a particle with some amount of mass, and the speed you can run between trees is the speed of light, but your average speed you can actually maintain through the forest is your real speed in space. The tiny person or animal that's small enough to be bothered by the tress is a massless particle like a photon, which moves at the speed of light.",
"I'm totally buffaloed, whats a Higgs Bison? ;-) "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rd2G660IsDI"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5lsc5f
|
what causes the feeling of impending doom in a medical context, and why is it regarded as a reliable indicator of a patient's condition?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5lsc5f/eli5_what_causes_the_feeling_of_impending_doom_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dby1s0y",
"dby497a",
"dby7dqu",
"dbydwlf",
"dbydywa",
"dbytfc7"
],
"score": [
6,
10,
2,
9,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It's a feeling of being kind of disconnected and frightened. Woke up during heart surgery, That's what it was like for me. ",
"Do doctors ask if you've had any feelings of impending doom?",
"You know your own body better than a doctor's visual inspection, which is why you should communicate anything wrong. Unless you're a hypochondriac, suddenly feeling depression is a problem. Your gut is telling you something is wrong. ",
"I don't know that I would call it a \"reliable indicator\". It is, however, often a precursor to something serious going on. \n\nThere are also people that have panic attacks all the time and will come to the ER dying from the same feeling of doom 4 times a week. \n\nFor me, this applies more to the older people that generally have no issues and all of sudden being stricken with this feeling and some other suspicious malady. \n\nSource; EMT/ER nurse. ",
"It is one of the symptoms of being given the wrong blood type during a transfusion and some other cardiovascular problems like TheatreLesbian said. \n\nA lot of the conditions are ones that could cause you to die pretty soon, if the body is ever going to feel impending doom that is an appropriate time.",
"I'd second the EMT/ER RN - in younger patients who are clearly anxious without significant pathology it is likely just a panic attack.\n\nI've seen older folks who are quite ill with significant infections / heart failure / pulmonary emboli (blood clots that travel from the legs to the heart) who fairly calmly state \"I think I'm going to die.\" They end up being right a good percentage of the time.\n\nI imagine it's got to do with a release of a significant amount of stress signals, and perhaps the person recognizes that there's no way to avoid what's coming.\n\nI had a feeling of impending doom about three seconds after jumping into an icy pond while camping in the Sierra. The first thought upon entry was \"hey, this isn't so cold\". Then when it caught up with me there was an internal alarm that let me know my life was at risk. I would imagine if you felt that and could not escape the situation then you would know you're done.\n\nMedically speaking I don't think there's any good explanation that you are likely to get, as we are far more interested in treating the patient who says something like that than doing a study on what exactly is making them feel that way.\n\nSource: am doctor"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5bp16n
|
why do people always apologize for formatting on mobile. i usually use mobile and i do it to. what's mobile do to formatting?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5bp16n/eli5_why_do_people_always_apologize_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9q5dcc",
"d9q6tek"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Because you're typing at speed, on a small keyboard. It's more about the errors in the typing, such as random spaces or misspelt words.",
"Some people use mobile clients that display formatting wrong. So unless the writer knows how it should show it is a bit hard to format properly. Especially subreddit specific things like spoiler tags are often broken. \nAlso special characters like \"`\", \"\\\", \"\\^\", \" > \", \"[\" and \"]\" (all of which are used in reddit formatting) can be a bit hard to find on mobile keyboard."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4y3uh8
|
How long did the epoch of recombination last?
|
I get that prior to recombination, the fully ionized plasma made it impossible for photons to travel far without scattering, meaning it was effectively opaque. But as the universe cooled, it allowed atoms to form, and opened the mean free photon path up. But how long did this process take? Everything I've seen makes it seem "sudden" but that is a very relative term when talking about universal time scales. Are we talking seconds? Years? Millennia?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4y3uh8/how_long_did_the_epoch_of_recombination_last/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6kwojx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For a lot of purposes one can treat the recombination epoch as instantaneous, but in fact it happens in a quite long time period (redshift z = ~900-1200). I would recommend to look at this [paper by mukhanov](_URL_0_), where he first of all mentions how the ionisation degree during that time period changes and expliciltly shows what effects this delayed recombination has on CMB obbservables."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/0303072.pdf"
]
] |
|
1phbug
|
what is more hot, a microwave or an oven?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1phbug/what_is_more_hot_a_microwave_or_an_oven/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd2ahnl"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Actually, physically hot? An oven. However, where water is involved, a microwave can make something hot MUCH faster. This is because a microwave doesn't use radiant heat to warm things up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3eyp8r
|
Can Black Holes swallow or absorb one another? A 2nd grader asked me this and I didn't have an answer. (Astronomy question)
|
As the title suggests, I was talking about stars and the like to my 2nd graders and briefly mentioned black holes. One student asked if they could "eat" each other. I wasn't sure how to answer.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3eyp8r/can_black_holes_swallow_or_absorb_one_another_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctjo4p7"
],
"score": [
71
],
"text": [
"Yes, black holes can (and we very strongly suspect DO) merge. When this happens, they should spiral in together by emitting gravitational waves, which are ripples in spacetime that travel at the speed of light. These ripples distort space as they pass by, and some experiments such as [LIGO](_URL_0_) are trying to measure them right now! They are about to turn on an upgraded version of the instrument and could detect these mergers as soon as next year! These waves are predicted by General Relativity, but the mergers are so rare that to have any real chance at detecting them you have to be sensitive to mergers happening far outside of our own Galaxy. \n\nSince these waves stretch space, they look for these waves by setting up lasers, splitting the light into two paths at 90 degrees, and recombining it to look for interference changes as the distance that the light travels changes. These changes are so small that the whole laser tube (over 1 mile long!) is kept in vacuum and many tricks of engineering are applied to keep the noise level down. They are so sensitive that the amount of stretching that they can detect is about as much as the size of an atom compared to the orbit of Saturn! \n\n(One of the LIGO instruments is in Washington, and the other is in Louisiana. The Louisiana one can see on their instruments when log trucks drive down the highway a mile away. I heard a story from one of the scientists at the Washington facility, which is near a government installation, that there are speed bumps at the base to prevent soldiers from driving too quickly. One day they saw a signal that they realized was a jeep on the base, and from the time interval between hitting the speed bumps they could tell the soldiers were going about three times the speed limit on a joy ride.)\n\nSince these are waves, and the frequencies are even mostly in range of human hearing, we can play the merger's gravitational wave signature as a sound. It sounds like [this](_URL_2_), a kind of chirp.\n\nAt the center of every galaxy is a supermassive black hole, and one idea for how they got there is that lots of smaller black holes ate each other and grew until the beasts we see today are left. We don't really understand how they could form as early in the universe as we see them, though! \n\nAlso, when two black holes merge, these waves carry momentum, so the end product black hole [can get kicked](_URL_1_) off at large velocities, even > 1% the speed of light! \n\nSo far, no merging black holes have been directly observed. There is strong indirect evidence that it happens, and the search to observe it is under way!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ligo.org/science/Publication-NINJA2/",
"http://journals.aps.org/prl/abstract/10.1103/PhysRevLett.98.231102",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VFkJ4Qf8yHw"
]
] |
|
11x2hh
|
We all hear about how ancient armies marched for months across huge distances for battle. Truly what was this like and how fast could they march?
|
Pretty self-explanatory, just what would it be like to leave for years on end and how did a leader control both his armies and his people over thousands of miles?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11x2hh/we_all_hear_about_how_ancient_armies_marched_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6qcbqj",
"c6qd2ab",
"c6qfk68",
"c6qsfp3"
],
"score": [
5,
10,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"It all depends on the location and the soldiers involved. As far as I am aware, pre-industrial armies generally could march up to, maybe, twenty miles a day, by land if they really decided to push it. This presumes a lot, though. A supply train of any sort will slow them down, since oxen and horse carts are pretty slow. If they are passing out of less populated areas, a lack of roads makes things hard going. Hell, the weather can too. Rain will turn what roads there are into muck if they aren't paved (One advantage that the Romans had!), and the cold will sap energy from a soldier in quick order.\n\n > how did a leader control both his armies and his people over thousands of miles?\n\nAre you asking how, say, a king could control his country if he was off fighting somewhere?",
"On foot, a well fed soldier could probably keep a good pace of 2 ~ 3 mph in good order in formation. \n\nThis would probably add up to a solid 15 miles per day. 20 miles would be considered pushing it. \n\nAnything above this and it would be considered a forced march, sacrificing men, energy, and supplies for time and strategic positioning, or some sort of response to a desperate situation. \n\nAt maximum speed, a well disciplined formation could keep a steady jog of 4 ~ 5 mph indefinitely for maybe a day. Assuming 14 hours of travel time with zero breaks, this would mean a theoretical maximum of 70 or so miles per day. But it is highly improbable that they would be able to keep this up for anymore than a day, if even that.\n\nBut this would mean completely outpacing their own supply lines and support, as well as many deaths lost to attrition, whether by dehydration or exhaustion. This would also completely drain the troops so it is essentially never done because the resulting damage would defeat most advantages to be had in getting their faster. \n\nThere are sometimes stories about legendary hosts of great armies riding into battle on horse back and being able to cross vast distances, sometimes hundreds or even thousands of miles, at unimaginable speed. While very exciting in stories, in practice it would never happen. \n\nA horse can reach very high speeds but keeping a horse at a gallop will tire it out tremendously, as well as cause damage to its legs and horseshoes, damaging the hoof might have meant putting down the \nhorse. \n\nEven if they were marching independent of infantry, the prescribed speed for cavalry marching was only around 30 ~ 35 miles per day, a significant but not massive gain over men on foot. Anymore and they would begin to tire out and even die from attrition. Those that survive would be too tired for immediate actions. \n\nOne must remember that these horses would carry not only their riders but sometimes also all their equipment, as well as supplies for the rider, attendant, and the horse's own things.\n\n**TL;DR** Marching for long distances was grueling and almost always involved casualties, deaths from attrition. This was due to exhaustion, lack of adequate water or protection from elements (extreme heat or cold), and rampant illness. \n\nAnd when they finally arrived at their destination, they would be mentally worn down by day after day of nothing but marching, not to mention weakened by illness and exhaustion, low on supplies, and fewer in number because of deaths on the way. \n\nMarching to wars far away was the worst thing possible for an army and smart generals would do anything to avoid it. As for how leaders would control their vast armies over vast distances, war meetings would be held and very general overarching goals would be decided upon. \n\nAfter that, it would be passed on to the next level down. The leaders on that level would interpret the orders and act very freely on them when out in the field. Word traveled very slowly and they had a lot of leeway in how they did things. Essentially leaders had almost no direct control save the occasional messenger bearing the authority of a king. \n\nTo truly control things from afar, they would need someone they trust that understands their goals and can be trusted to act accordingly. ",
"[The Light Division](_URL_1_) of the British Army in the Peninsular war was famous for its marching speed, averaging 30 miles per day and marching up to Talavera, some of its battalions [covered 62 miles on foot in twenty-six hours.](_URL_0_)",
"You my friend want to read Xenophon's [Anabasis](_URL_0_)\n\nXenophon was one of the leaders of the Greek army as it escaped on foot from Persia. It addresses all of your questions in detail. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Craufurd",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Light_Division"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabasis_%28Xenophon%29"
]
] |
|
24vfkx
|
If microwaves work by creating vibration in the water molecules of food, why does your plastic or ceramic container come out so hand-burning hot?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24vfkx/if_microwaves_work_by_creating_vibration_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chb2adr",
"chb3bu2"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Water is not the only thing that can be excited into motion by microwaves, the motion being converted into heat.",
"Microwaves aren't as simple as you made it sound. The primary tool of a microwave is the electromagnetic waves oscillating inside of it. The water molecule is a dipole, meaning that charge is unevenly distributed throughout. The electric field produced in the microwave excites the water molecules, and they rub together, generating heat.\n\nHowever, water isn't the only substance that can absorb microwaves. Most of the objects you place inside of the microwave have the capacity to absorb microwaves; otherwise the microwave would be pointless!\n\nMy guess as to why the containers come out extremely hot would be that they have a very low specific heat. Anything with a high specific heat would be cooler than something with a low specific heat, when put in the microwave at the same time. It can also come down to the density of the container itself; less density requires less absorption, and coupled with a low specific heat, you can have one hot container!\n\nTL;DR- spaghetti and soup have very high specific heats\n\nedit-added TL;DR"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
f2685u
|
- why do communications companies make themselves so impossible to get hold of?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f2685u/eli5_why_do_communications_companies_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhale36",
"fhao1ko",
"fhbbph9",
"fhbtp2w",
"fhbw15n"
],
"score": [
14,
35,
3,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because IVR systems get complicated and customers far outweigh the employees. Sometimes it’s easier and sometimes a lot of people may be facing the same issue. \n\nSometimes you can google for backdoor customer service numbers, but I recommend finding the CEO’s email and emailing them with your complaint. Most big companies have an executive response team who will take care of your issues and give you a dedicated number to them for future issues.",
"Customer service is an expense. It doesn't generate any revenue for them and so it's a low priority. The only reason it gets any attention in most companies is because good customer service can prevent a customer from moving to a competetor but in most places communications companies have monopolies or duopolies so there's little risk in loosing a customer due to bad service.\n\nSo they set up the bare minimum number of people to answer questions, they force customers to answer their own questions and set up automated systems with technology that isn't anywhere near maturity with the idea that they can answer enough customer questions to get by and avoid most formal complaints.",
"Because they decided it's more profitable to make you push buttons to talk to a computer rather than to have someone on call 8 hours a day.",
"The number of users for communication device/services is so high and the bugs are so frequent that if it was easy to get in touch with them, they would need to hire basically the entire human race just to answer the phones.",
"Ex call centre analyst here. As in most sectors, call centres want to keep labor costs down. Let's say you're a broadband company. You know that from analysing your call logs that you get roughly 100 calls a day from people whose internet has gone down, that were resolved by resetting the router. Now let's say each of those calls lasted 3 minutes. That's 5 hours of labor a day, or 0.6 of a full time employee. You want to prompt those people to reset their damn router before they even think about picking that phone up, so you make them go through a section on your website that prompts them to try it before it will give you a number. That's just one example, but all companies get called about the simplest things, and that shit is expensive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2hj9iy
|
how much regular household garbage gets recycled if the homeowner doesn't recycle their trash?
|
Wherever trash goes, does it get recycled there? Is there a limit to how much can be thrown away?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hj9iy/eli5_how_much_regular_household_garbage_gets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckt6g86",
"ckt76vw",
"ckteaov"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, it's all gone to the landfill. Some areas now have dirty mixed waste recycling facilities, though, that don't require people to separate recycling and do all of the sorting at the facility.",
"In my area, not only does recycling sorting not happen at all to general garbage after pickup, but there is also a quota of recycling. Once that quota is met for the day, the remaining recycling also goes into the landfill with the general garbage. \n\nIt's not very motivating. ",
"You mean will the city sift through our trash can to find recycleables? I doubt it. The city already gives me 3 cans: trash, recycle, and green (organics). It's up to me to throw things in the correct can. I don't see why the city would need to do extra work. Trash goes to the landfill. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qhxhz
|
why do pictures of screens have that striated star-like pattern?
|
You know what I mean, when you use your phone to take a picture of a TV or computer screen. Why does that pattern invisible to the eye, but so obvious on a photo? I took a photo of a white screen to try to illustrate it for those who aren't sure what I'm talking about. IPhone camera: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qhxhz/eli5why_do_pictures_of_screens_have_that_striated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdcyqa7",
"cdd0dz7",
"cdd0gg6"
],
"score": [
14,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Ultra simple explanation: screens display images with pixels, which are dots arranged in a grid to small see with the naked eye. A camera records an image with a grid of sensors. So you have two grids layered over each other. Where the grids don't line up you get a distortion. If you two pieces of window screen and overlay them you will see the same effect.\n\nWiki link: _URL_0_",
"Moirè patterns also show up when photographing stripped or chequed materials with a digital camera. Just _when_ the moirè will appear depends upon the spacing of the stripes, the resolution of the sensor, and the focal length of the lens. We usually just ask actors not to show up in stripes.\n\nIt's possible to de-moirè an image, but this actually involves blurring the image a bit. ",
"Why don't film cameras (remember those?) show moirè? Because the grains of silver are arranged randomly, rather than in a grid.\n\nCan something be 'arranged' randomly? Hmmmm"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/hc487GA.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
2widko
|
why are even numbers easier to deal with than odd numbers when doing simple math in my head?
|
Adding, subtracting..
\
Even just running through them:
2468 seems easier and more natural than 1357
Why is that?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2widko/eli5_why_are_even_numbers_easier_to_deal_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cor4mwh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\ntldr; \nOdd numbers are asymmetrical and unattractive because we're hard wired from a young age to find even numbers appealing and relate-able."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2014/06/ideas-bank/alex-bellos"
]
] |
|
2erj9n
|
Why do we know so little about the dark ages?
|
Why do we know so little about the dark ages? yet we know lots of things about times long before them? did people just not write things down as much
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2erj9n/why_do_we_know_so_little_about_the_dark_ages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck2c1sg"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A popular question that comes from a rather widespread misconception. Check out our [FAQ section](_URL_0_) on the \"not-so-Dark\" Ages and you'll see we do know an awful lot!\n\n(edited to sound less snobby)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/darkages#wiki_the_.22dark_ages.22"
]
] |
|
n1v1u
|
What causes material in an accretion disc to spiral inwards?
|
Say, in a disc around a white dwarf, why doesn't the material stay in a stable orbit around the central body? Does it have to lose energy somehow to spiral inwards?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/n1v1u/what_causes_material_in_an_accretion_disc_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c35m6ao",
"c35m6ao"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It loses orbital energy to friction as the particles in the disc collide with one another.",
"It loses orbital energy to friction as the particles in the disc collide with one another."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
52iaqp
|
how many languages can a baby learn naturally during the language developmental stage?
|
Most kids learn one, maybe two languages during this stage, but what's to stop someone from learning, say, five or ten languages? How many is too many for them to process? Am genuinely curious about this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/52iaqp/eli5_how_many_languages_can_a_baby_learn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7kk83b",
"d7lcef2"
],
"score": [
27,
4
],
"text": [
"Unfortunately there isn't going to be a concrete answer. Theoretically any child could learn an infinite number of languages, but in order to learn any number of languages, whether 1 or 1,000, it takes immersion in the language. Computers and flash cards can't provide this immersion; it takes human interaction with fluent speakers. It would be difficult to provide this type of environment to say the least. Just imagine the scenarios that would have to take place for a child to be immersed in 5-6 languages. Possible? Oh yes. But, also a very atypical upbringing. \n\nChildren learning multiple languages have been studied and their ability to avoid confusion is something that has fascinated researchers.\n\n",
"Even if he/she learns 5 languages, including two mother tongues, the baby will always have a \"strongest\" language. The strongest language, as I heard, can also depend on which parent is beloved more by the child, but I give you an interesting case: A Czech-Polish couple raises 3 children in a Hungarian town, and all of the children prefer talking rather in Hungarian. The mother sometimes hears the two older one talking in Hungarian among each other (when they think that the parents don't listen), and the baby always shouts \"mom\" in Hungarian even though her mother always speaks in Polish to her."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4l9q0u
|
Did Britons at the time of Roman occupation know where the Romans were coming from? How aware were they about the extent of Europe as a continent, and life outside of the British Isles?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4l9q0u/did_britons_at_the_time_of_roman_occupation_know/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3lo6nh"
],
"score": [
952
],
"text": [
"Short answer: Yes, they even met the Romans.\n\nLong answer:\n\nIn Cunliffe, B. W. and de Jersey's Armorica and Britain: Cross-Channel Relationships in the Late First Millennium BC, it is stated that trade between Britons and European Gauls/Romans took place from the 2nd Century BC onwards. Their primary point of access was from what is now Hengistbury Head, Dorset; Cunliffe makes it clear in his 'Guide to Roman Britain' that this was the major trading centre between Europe and Britain. This is clear from the fact that more amphoras of Italian wine have been found here than in any other British site. The fact that most of these vessels date to before 50 B.C. is explained by how Caesar's invasion was actually bad for business in two ways. Firstly, as Britain and Gaul were major trading partners, Caesar's occupation of Gaul decreased trade. Secondly, after Caesar occupied Brittany and later the British Isles, trade was further diminished. \n\nAs for how aware they were about Europe as a continent, they certainly had knowledge of many different factions. According to Sills in 'Gaulish and Early British Coinage', trade agreements were negotiated by North French tribes in which they patronised British businesses in exchange for British aid in the war against the Romans. Britons also made extensive contact with the Belgic tribes of Northern France, as large numbers of Gallo-Belgic gold coins dating from circa 200 BC to 50 BC were all excavated in Southwest England (Cunliffe). These facts show that Britons did not only trade with Europeans in commodities, but also in diplomacy and currency. \n\nBut how much did they know about **life** (society/culture) outside the Isles? According to Cunliffe - I feel uncomfortable quoting so widely from him, but he really is the ultimate authority on late Iron Age Britain - burial customs in south-east England even changed to better resemble Belgic rituals. Julius Caesar in his Gallic War goes one step further, asserting that the Belgics were a part of the Britons, because they made raids on the Isles and settled there. There are also instances of rich men who were buried in their graves with Roman luxury objects, indicating that Roman culture and aesthetic standards had permeated British society. This is supported by DW Harding in 'The Iron Age in Lowland Britain', in which he lists many archaeological discoveries that suggest prolonged (from before 100 BC) interactions and trade between the Isles and the Continent. For example, gold tarcs in the Belgic style have been dug up in what is now known as Sussex. \n\nThe Britons also fought with some European 'invaders' before the Romans. The Catuvellauni were the 'native Britons'; the Dobunni and even the Iceni were considered mainland (mostly Belgic) invaders. According to Allen, prior to Roman occupation, there was an extensive tribal clash between these factions which ended anywhere around 100 - 80 BC. Nevertheless, not much is known about how everyday Britons *felt* about Belgics/Romans on a personal level, because of the lack of British writers whose works have survived.\n\nIn conclusion, it's clear that Britons had an **extremely complex relationship** with different sorts of Europeans, and that their interactions included trade, rivalry, and diplomacy. Hence, yes, it would be fair to say that they did know 'where the Romans were coming from', and that they knew much about their continental neighbours. There is however no evidence to suggest that the Britons ever led an exploratory mission to Europe, so they may have relied on word-of-mouth knowledge transmitted by traders. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
85rcee
|
what happens to submarines during tsunamis?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/85rcee/eli5_what_happens_to_submarines_during_tsunamis/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvzigmu",
"dvzv0w4",
"dw04739"
],
"score": [
20,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"**TL;DR:** Not much, generally, when they're out to sea. They will get shoved or moved up and down. But that shoving process is usually slow and the sub doesn't bang into anything, so it survives just fine.\n\nA tsunami is a one or more very high-volume waves usually caused by an underground-under-water earthquake. A sudden drop or rise in one part of the sea floor when another part stays at the exact same level causes all of the water directly over the changing part to shift up or down... and when that's cubic MILES of water shifting even just an inch or two, it's a TREMENDOUS amount of energy.\n\nBut it's not an instant and lethal shockwave like you can sometimes see in an in-air explosion [like this youtube clip](_URL_0_). Usually the shifts that cause tidal waves come from miles deep in the rock underground, and the release of energy muted by the rock isn't so explosive as a result, kind of like how a distant thunderclap is a rumble rather than a sharp crack. \n\nSo you get big volumes of water shifting up or down in waves *with a very long time between their crests*, and since the sub's in the middle of the water, it shifts up or down *slowly* with those waves too. \n\nBut that doesn't sound so dangerous. Why do tsunamis destroy so much then?\n\nThat's the result of when this very long wave interacts with land. The water is now actually contacting something besides more water... and that something - the coast - is fixed in place. So the tsunami causes the water to rise slowly, sure... but rise a LOT. And all that rising gets COMPRESSED at the shore and makes a tremendous wave that can really pile up high depending on local terrain underwater. \n\nAnd then all that water it contains causes it to wash everything it contacts back out to sea. And it's that massive washing-in and then washing-out effect that kills so many and destroys so much.\n\nSo if the sub were to be very close to the coast, such as if it were heading into dock, it would get sucked in and out with the rest of the debris you see in all that wrecked-village footage... but subs usually stay far out to ocean where the water is so deep that they don't get washed into any rocks or anything. ",
"I was deployed on a sub during a tsunami. It was a complete non-event. We couldn’t tell it was even happening. ",
"Basically nothing. In the deep ocean, a tsunami is broad and typically 20 to 80 centimeters high. It doesn't pile up into a huge wave until it reaches shallow water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://youtu.be/IlS6535HBNk?t=140"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1pq2bb
|
Can capacitive touch screens determine the shape or pattern of the object interacting with them?
|
If I have a capacitive touch screen and various devices of different shapes like a filled square versus an outline of a square, would the screen touch sensor be able to distinguish the pattern or shape from one another? I do not mean with an iPhone or other commercially available products, I just mean in theory.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1pq2bb/can_capacitive_touch_screens_determine_the_shape/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd50mzo"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. The touchscreen has a regular grid of sensors on the device surface. Each one reports a value that describes the change in the electrical field due to presence of other objects.\n\nThis data is normally decoded to finger touches, but that's just because it is assumed to be generated by fingertips."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7uk0o9
|
why does earth’s magnetic field flip every (roughly) 200.000 years? what are the consequences?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7uk0o9/eli5_why_does_earths_magnetic_field_flip_every/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtl70fj",
"dtl7bny",
"dtl7pqc",
"dtl7rdr",
"dtlabue",
"dtlbu8z",
"dtlfkzp",
"dtlfwdn"
],
"score": [
175,
11,
9,
65,
3,
4,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Science is not sure of the *why*.\n\nOur current studies of liquid convection generated magnetic fields are just scratching the surface, see...\n\n_URL_0_\n\nWe are only sure **that** it happens, and we are sure because it leaves a clear record in mid-ocean lava flows.\n",
"The answer seems to be we really don't know, but there are several hypotheses. From [Wikipedia](_URL_0_):\n\n > Some scientists, such as Richard A. Muller, think that geomagnetic reversals are not spontaneous processes but rather are triggered by external events that directly disrupt the flow in the Earth's core. Proposals include impact events[33][34] or internal events such as the arrival of continental slabs carried down into the mantle by the action of plate tectonics at subduction zones or the initiation of new mantle plumes from the core-mantle boundary.[35] Supporters of this hypothesis hold that any of these events could lead to a large scale disruption of the dynamo, effectively turning off the geomagnetic field. Because the magnetic field is stable in either the present North-South orientation or a reversed orientation, they propose that when the field recovers from such a disruption it spontaneously chooses one state or the other, such that half the recoveries become reversals. However, the proposed mechanism does not appear to work in a quantitative model, and the evidence from stratigraphy for a correlation between reversals and impact events is weak. There is no evidence for a reversal connected with the impact event that caused the Cretaceous–Paleogene extinction event.[36]",
"Might not be applicable but our sun has a highly active field that flips every 11 years. This is thought to have to do with the spinning of the sun twisting the magnetic field, it gets so tangled and eventually flipping could resolve it.",
"Nobody has answered the consequences question, which is what I'm most interested in. I can think of a lot of tech things it will impact, but what about how animals and plants and geology will react? Will the Van Allen belts be messed up? Will the Northern Lights be affected? This kind of event would probably touch on a ton of different hard sciences, so it might need responses from more than just one person.",
"I take it nothing will happen to our navigation systems since most use gps. But compass with be opposite? Correct me if i am wrong.\n",
"ELI5: How do we know that the magnetic field is flipped (roughly) every 200 000 years? ",
"This isn’t true. If you look at magnetic field flips over the course of Earth’s history, the flips occur at random. Sometimes, the magnetic field had the same orientation for tens of millions of years, like in the Mid-Cretaceous. A mechanism for these changes has not been determined. ",
"First, keep in mind that the magnetic field is not perfectly stationary and then suddenly flips. The field is created by circulating molten metal deep in the earth's core. Those circulations are subject to turbulence and eddies, and as such, the magnetic field actually wanders pretty much constantly. For example, the magnetic field North is currently moving westward across Alaska towards Russia at a rate of about 37 miles per year.\n\nFrom what we can tell, it takes up to around 20,000 years for a full flip to occur. This seems instant in the span of geologic time, which is typically hundreds of millions or billions of years. But it's also longer than the entirety of recorded human civilization. That 37 mph wandering of the current pole doesn't significantly impact our instruments or machines at the moment, so we likely have plenty of time to adjust to a flip when and if it starts.\n\nThe other thing to note is that the flip is *super* variable. \"Every 200,000 years\" drastically overstates how reliable it is. [Here is a good diagram](_URL_0_) of how often it happens. You'll notice it's common to have periods of millions of years before a reversal. Sometimes it's much shorter than 200,000 years too! As far as we can tell, there is no pattern, which would match our theory that it's due to random perturbations and turbulence of the flow of liquid metal in the core. It could start tomorrow, or we could be 800,000 years from another reversal.\n\nSo when it happens, will it impact us much? Sure, but the change would likely happen so gradually that we could adapt just fine. The worst part will be in the middle, where the magnetic field gets so weak that a lot more cosmic rays and damaging radiation from the sun would get through to equatorial regions that are currently shielded. But even then, we could probably adjust. Plants and animals certainly seem able to -- these reversals do not correspond with large extinction events in the fossil record -- and they are far less adaptable over short time periods than we are."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://physics.aps.org/story/v19/st3"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geomagnetic_reversal#Hypothesized_triggers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://static1.squarespace.com/static/57c6f3bc725e25f822bf4657/t/57e5425cd2b8572f4232cbec/1474642536151/Geomagnetic_polarity_late_Cenozoic_rot2"
]
] |
||
9qj0ao
|
What did the American Founding Fathers think of Cromwell? Was he an anti-royalist inspiration to them, or were his theocratic motivations too antithetical to their Enlightenment deism for them to admire him?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qj0ao/what_did_the_american_founding_fathers_think_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8a67v0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"As always more can be said, this [answer](_URL_0_) by /u/DarthNetflix tells of varied but mainly positive opinions between the american founding fathers, from Hamilton referring Cromwell as a depsot to \nJefferson and Adams visiting English Civil War battlegrounds of roundhead victories."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4jiwdg/how_was_oliver_cromwell_and_the_commonwealth/d378k0p/"
]
] |
||
1m3qzr
|
Tuesday Trivia | Twists and Turns: Watershed Moments in History
|
[Previous weeks’ Tuesday Trivias.](_URL_0_)
Today’s trivia theme comes to us from /u/DanDierdorf!
History is usually a slow progression of gradual change, be it social change, political change, technological change, or any other change, but every so often, things can just turn on a *dime.* **Please tell us about a single "watershed" event that significantly changed history.** What was the event, who was in it, and most importantly, what was the outcome?
**Next week on Tuesday Trivia:** It’s a potluck! Get out your cookbooks and greasy, flour-covered index cards, we’ll be sharing historical recipes!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1m3qzr/tuesday_trivia_twists_and_turns_watershed_moments/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc5hji5",
"cc5idox",
"cc5irgj",
"cc5j3wb",
"cc5kpky",
"cc5lo4a",
"cc5n6oh",
"cc5sakz",
"cc5x2rk",
"cc603xr",
"cc666ip"
],
"score": [
43,
12,
14,
15,
22,
6,
5,
4,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Normally, when you're shot down in World War Two, you're having a bad day. Add in being shot down in the Pacific far from land and you'd be having a really bad day. Toss in that you were downed in the middle of the opposing fleet and it really couldn't get worse.\n\nBut George H. Gay was witness to an amazing day, despite all of the tragedies that befell him on June 4, 1942. As he lay floating in the Pacific, he had seen his entire squadron shot down. They didn't have fighter cover, and the Japanese fighters had savaged his friends. Moments later, American dive bombers streamed into the area and hit three Japanese carriers within six minutes of each other. \n\nGay, from his front row seat in the middle of the Japanese fleet, got to see a pivotal moment in military history. The Japanese navy that had run unchecked through the Pacific theater had lost a good portion of their striking power and a large percentage of their experienced aviators. Though the Americans lost a carrier in the battle, the loss of four Japanese carriers that day (three that Gay witnessed, and a fourth later) was a crippling blow that the Japanese were never able to recover from. A combination of American intelligence work (breaking Japanese encryption to ascertain where the next attack would come from) alongside measured risk-taking (sending off an uncoordinated strike *now* rather than waiting for a coordinated package *later*) and the skill of American pilots--along with a good bit of luck--turned the tide of the Pacific theater of WWII in a matter of minutes.\n\nAnd there Gay was, bobbing in the water. He was the only survivor from his squadron. It took thirty hours before he was rescued, but he had seen the watershed moment of the Pacific in WWII.",
"Opera tends to disappoint me when it comes to watershed moments. Things happen slowly, artistic change is gradual. One thing that’s often falsely attributed as a watershed moment is Gilbert Duprez and his high-c from the chest, a single, manly, deeply penetrating (yes, it is usually framed in these highly phallic ways) note that stabbed the castrato dead in one fell swoop and single handedly moved the tenor into the starring role (primo uomo) in opera. You’ll see [Duprez’s Wikipedia page](_URL_1_) pegs this BIG MOMENTOUS NOTE as happening in Rossini’s *William Tell* in 1831. This is, all too conveniently, the year the last big castrato, Giambattista Velluti, retired from the stage. Nice and tidy watershed moment, even better that it’s a single note! \n\nBut of course that’s a bit of a fudge. The castrato had been dying out in opera for decades (pretty literally), he was at first replaced with heroic travesti roles for women, not tenors, the heroic tenor came a bit later. You can see operas from the 1820s and 30s more often having mezzo and contralto women as the sexy hero, not tenors, a clear echo of the missing castrato, at the time of *William Tell* the conventional relationship between operatic role and vocal range still pegged the hero notes a bit higher than Duprez’s high-c, epic as it was. Giuditta Pasta made these roles her bread and butter in her early years. \n\nBut the newer opera history tome [*History of Opera* by Abbate and Parker](_URL_2_) (which I just finished) puts forth a more interesting option for the MOMENTOUS MOMENT of this transition, which is the premiere of the opera *Parisina* in 1833. It is a more viable option for a turning point because it has music written in both tenorial styles in Duprez’s role: the soft, florid bel canto tenor of old, along with the big shouty tenor of the new era, and audiences were forced to sit there in their velvet seats and take the Pepsi Challenge. The newspaper reviews of the time were mixed, some listeners were not amused at this new ugliness in opera, others liked the more realistic feeling conveyed by big, loud, angry high notes. \n\nAnd a quick listen to Pavarotti, the biggest tenor of our era, will instantly tell you which artistic taste won out. Perhaps we can’t peg it to a single moment, but sometime in the 1830s the pretty operatic tenor died, and the new, manly tenor was born. \n\n(For more on the last days of the castrato in opera and his legacy as a travesti woman, check out [*Voicing gender: castrati, travesti, and the second woman in early-nineteenth-century Italian opera*](_URL_0_))",
"The Soviet Union had many *turning point moments* throughout its history. In the overall scheme of things one *could* argue the Soviet Union itself was a brief turning point moment in history, having only existing for 74 years total. \n\nHowever one point sticks out in Russian History. The Revolution of 1917 was a long time coming. It started a century earlier when the Decemberists recited \"Constantine and Constitution\" before the Tsar and ended with the abdication of Tsar Nicholas II. The setting up of a Provisional by Democratic government was also a long time coming, and was not really a turning point. No, the turning point came with a radical Socialist who had not even been in Russia during the June Revolution. Vladimir Illyich Ulyanov, or simply Lenin. The turning point was the storming of the Provisional Government and the ousting off other political parties to form the beginnings of the Soviet Union. It was sudden, bloodless, but ultimately the largest left turn in the history of the Soviet Union. The idea that Lenin had of a Revolutionary Guard to usher in Socialism itself was radical and sudden. \n\nWhat came after was quick, as well. Russia backed out of the Great War, and started a war of its own sparking the Russian Civil War. Bathed in that fire, the Soviet Union emerged from the ashes of the Russian Empire. An Empire that was noted for its slow and lumbering nature started the first Communist state, which happened to be the largest nation in the world. It wasn't simply a turning point for Russia, but for the entire 20th century, and the world. ",
"The feudal system really sets moments like this up beautifully. When all that power rests with one man, it's easy for history to flip on a chance. Charles the Bold's death in battle is one I'd nominate. The independent duchy of Burgundy rivalled France in power and, along with England, was threatening the existence of France altogether. Charles was a great man, strong and intelligent by all accounts. All he had to do was not fuck it up. \n\nThen he got himself killed, his lands fractured, and France lost its biggest European rival. Imagine if Benelux was united, plus large parts of France, through history. It certainly would have been different to *our* time line. ",
"In the 8th century BCE, the Neo-Assyrian Empire was at the height of its power. It had conquered most of the ancient Near East. In 722, it defeated the kingdom of Israel and dispersed its people. In 701, the Assyrian king Sennacherib moved to quash a rebellion in the kingdom of Judah, Israel's southern neighbor, conquering and destroying its cities one by one. Finally, he besieged Jerusalem, the capital of the kingdom. Given the strength of the Assyrian war machine, it's likely that Jerusalem would also have been destroyed, but Sennacherib broke the siege and returned to Assyria before that could happen. Likely he had some unrest to deal with back home, but the reasons for his departure are unknown. (The Hebrew Bible provides an account of these events in 2 Kings 18-19; there are also Assyrian inscriptions of Sennacherib that provide an overview of the campaign in Judah.)\n\nThe impact of this event was major: a relatively small city in what was essentially a backwater of the Assyrian Empire (albeit one on an important route between Assyria and Egypt) had just withstood a siege by the most powerful army known up to that point. Jerusalem's ability to withstand this siege led to a theology that Jerusalem (or Zion, as it was also known) was inviolable, that the god Yahweh, housed in the temple in the city, would always protect it. This theology developed over the next century and was preserved in numerous biblical texts that were probably written in this period. Even the Babylonian destruction of the city in 586 BCE couldn't eradicate the idea. ",
"By 44 BCE, Julius Caesar had become the most powerful man in Rome. Named Dictator for life, father of the country and so forth by the senate, in March that year he walked into the forum house for a routine senate meeting. Unbeknowest to him, a conspiracy of angry senators had planned to kill Caesar with their own hands, aping the Tyrannicides of Athens and the father of the Republic, Brutus.\n\nCaesar seated himself in the senate house (on his 'throne', depending on who you ask), and senator Lucius Tillius Cimber stepped forward, apparently to pay his respects and present a petition before the meeting got underway. Instead, he grabbed Caesar - Caesar reportedly cried 'this is violence!' The senators seized the moment and rushed at Caesar with their hidden daggers, stabbing away wildly and mercilessly. The descendant of the great Brutus - Brutus - was among the assassins, though whether Caesar actually said 'and you, my son?' is disputed. Whether 'sic semper tyrannis!' was also shouted triumphantly is also disputed. \n\nIn any case, Caesar's corpse was reportedly abandoned at the feet of Pompey the Great's statue until approximately 3pm in the afternoon. His corpse was cremated in a public funeral, attended by droves of Roman plebs, given his mass popularity. Antony capitalised on his previous bonds with Caesar, and apparently displayed either Caesar's torn and bloody toga or even a wax cast of Caesar's mutilated corpse, whereupon the crowds went mad and began to riot against the now hated 'liberators' (one innocent senator was killed in mistaken identity, according to Suetonius). \n\nThe young Octavian was named as Caesar's main heir and adopted son, inheriting 2/3 of his estate. The remainder was distributed to the Roman people and Caesar's other relatives. In 42 BCE, Caesar was deified, which helpfully made Octavian the lawful son of a god. Octavian and Antony's relations alternated between distrustful alliance and conflict, until Octavian defeated Antony (and Cleopatra) in a civil war ('the final war of the Roman republic') in 32-30 BCE (the great battle of Actium being in 31).\n\nCaesar's death is significant, as it arguably left Rome in a terrible lurch regarding its security and identity. The senate was weakened and despised, and its loved Dictator dead, prompting conflict all over the territory between would-be successors. The aftermath was the Julio-Claudian dynasty of Emperors (for better or worse), though what Caesar's long-term vision was for Rome is unknown. Sulla, who had similarly seized power earlier in the 1st century BCE, had in fact retired early, though reportedly he mocked Sulla as a weakling for abandoning the dictatorship.\n\n > No less arrogant were his public utterances, which Titus Ampius records: that the state was nothing, a mere name without body or form; that Sulla did not know his A. B. C. when he laid down his dictatorship; that men ought now to be more circumspect in addressing him, and to regard his word as law.\n\nDivus Julius, 77.\n\n\nAccording to Suetonius, Augustus later had the statue of Pompey in the forum house moved out of his sight [(pictured)](_URL_0_)",
"Assassinations of many great leaders (Caesar, Lincoln, Kennedy,etc.) jump immediately to mind as does some great acts of war (Pearl Harbor, Waterloo, D-Day, etc). The moment I have in mind involves conflict, but not violence, is not a sudden thunderbolt that was easily recognizable, and indeed is really a two-parter.\n\nFirst, George Washington refuses kingship and rather reluctantly (I still think this is at least somewhat debatable) sets the tone for the American Presidency by only serving two terms and voluntarily stepping down/aside for another leader. \n\nThe second, is the transition from that leader (John Adams) to the leader of the opposition (Thomas Jefferson). This peaceful (physically at least, there was a lot of political rancor at the time) transition of power set the stage for many such transitions in American Government. \n\nJefferson's Presidency had a profound impact on the United States (many of whom were part of his Louisiana Purchase) and the direction it would take over the next 50-60 years. The idea of \"from Sea to shining Sea\" was not something pushed prior to this time period. This early period of the US framed the questions that would dominate it's politics right up to start of WW1 (Slavery, Indian Affairs, Western Expansion, International Affairs, and Economic Development)",
"Well, the Great Jewish Revolt is pretty big in my area of study. There are only a handful of distinct events which can be said to have, in one instant, changed history, and that's one of them. I think the best instantaneous beginning of it was when Eliezer ben Hanania, a priest, not offering the sacrifice for the well-being of the government in the Temple. For some background, there had long been a sacrifice for the well-being of the (non-Jewish) governmental authorities. By not making the offering, he was saying that the Jews no longer were effectively no longer trying to improve their position in the empire. While didn't have much practical effect, it did signal the shift from small-scale unrest to a full-on rebellion. One can only imagine the shock, confusion, excitement, and uncertainty among worshippers when that part of the sacrificial service was skipped. The liturgical relationship of Jews with the local government is a very interesting field, but that's way off-topic.\n\nAlexander II's assassination was significant, too. The assassination was blamed on the Jews, and a very bloody string of pogroms followed, which flared up periodically for the next few decades. These weren't always due to the assassination itself, but the overall wave was. These pogroms led to a massive wave of emigration among Jews to America, and helped stir Zionism in Eastern Europe.",
"While Albania isn't exactly a major player on the world stage, the creation of an independent country should qualify as a significant event.\n\nFour over 4 centuries modern Albania was a key component of the Ottoman Empire. The people were some of the most loyal non-Turkish subjects, and a staggering number of ethnic Albanians rose to the position of Grand Vizier (effectively prime minister); some accounts suggest a quarter of all Ottoman Grand Viziers were Albanian. Unlike the Serbs, Greeks, Croats, Bulgarians and everyone else under Turkish rule, the Albanians were quite happy to remain subjects of the Sultan.\n\nThat all changed in 1878. The previous year the Russians and Turks got into one of their many wars; as was often the case by this point, the Turks lost handily. The ensuing Treaty of San Stefano called for various measures that would give Russia a lot of influence in the Balkans, and notably would divide a lot of Albanian territory amongst various Slavic states.\n\nThe Great Powers of Europe were having none of this, so the 1878 Congress of Berlin was called to resolve the issue. Seeing how all the major powers were going to be there, some Albanian leaders got together and went as well, hoping to convince everyone not to divide up the Albanians and leave them with the Turks. As can be expected, the Europeans were not interested in hearing of the plights of a subjected, non-Christian people, and promptly ignored the Albanians, and large swaths of traditional Albanian territory were given to Montenegro and Serbia.\n\nThis had some unexpected consequences. For the first time in centuries the Albanians united together as a distinct nation. They realised that the Turks were powerless to help them anymore, and with these new Balkans states eager to have the Ottoman removed from the region, it didn't look good for these loyal subjects.\n\nThe concept of Albanian nationalism was effectively born as a result. For the next several decades they worked to united their people and create an Albanian state; at first they wanted to remain within the Empire as an autonomous region, but this soon proved impossible, so they moved for an independent state. Along the way they also happened to create a unified alphabet for their language, using a Latin script (previously Latin, Cyrillic and Arabic had been used, with mixed results).\n\nFinally on November 28, 1912, a leading group of delegates proclaimed Albanian independence, which was confirmed by the Great Powers in the following months. Were it not for their curt dismissal of the Albanians at Berlin in 1878 (Bismarck famously said an \"Albanian nation simply did not and could not exist\"), the Albanians would likely have just been divided up amongst the various states, and have been akin to the Kurds of today: an ethnic group without a homeland.",
"March 12, 1968 was the date Well No. 1 struck oil at Prudhoe Bay, confirming a natural gas well drilled Dec. 26, 1967. That well proved Prudhoe Bay and the rest of Alaska's North Slope was home to the largest oil-producing region outside the Middle East. \n\nThat day wouldn't have come to pass without the events of July 19, 1957. On that date, Richfield Oil Corp. struck oil at Swanson River on the Kenai Peninsula, more than 1,000 miles away from Prudhoe Bay.\n\nWithout Swanson River, Prudhoe Bay never would have happened, and Alaska would not be known for its oil.\n\nIn 1957, Richfield was small as oil companies go. Born in Southern California in 1911 and named after the Richfield Train Depot, the company became a small, vertically integrated independent oil producer by the mid-1950s. It stayed ahead of its larger competitors with an aggressive exploration program that pushed it into far corners of the world.\n\nAlaska was a promising destination. Oil has been in Alaska's historical record since the 19th century, when it was noted in Russian explorations. During the turn-of-the-20th-century gold rushes, investors tried developing various tidewater oil fields, but the primitive technology of the time couldn't pump oil faster than seawater infiltrated the wells.\n\nThe sole exception was Katalla, near the Copper River, where a small oil well and almost bathtub-scale refinery provided Cordova with fuel until the refinery burned down in 1933.\n\nCheap oil from Texas, Oklahoma, and other easier-to-reach sources crowded out any interest in Alaska, though the federal government earmarked promising oil-producing regions on the North Slope as an oil reserve.\n\nDuring World War II, the United States and Canada built an oil pipeline -- to bring oil from Canada to Alaska, specifically the southeast port of Skagway. In the immediate postwar years, test wells were drilled in the North Slope oil reserve, but only two found minor deposits.\n\nBy the 1950s, global oil demand had risen to the point that interest was rising in Alaskan prospects. The Cook Inlet region was targeted by oil speculators, who began filing leases in 1954 after a federal court ruling opened the Kenai National Moose Range (established in 1938) to oil drilling.\n\nRichfield, aggressive in exploration, filed for 70,000 acres of lease area, a small amount compared to competitors like Shell, Standard Oil, and Phillips Petroleum.\n\nNevertheless, it was Richfield who struck first, starting seismic testing in 1955. Two years later, it moved a drilling crew into place. As exploration driller Bill Bishop later stated in a company document: \n\n > \"Forty years ago, South America was making some mighty attractive offers to the oil companies, and Alaska had a long history of dry wells. ARCO (Atlantic Richfield Co.) couldn't give us much to work with, but they sure gave us a big job.\n\n > \"We were way back in the Kenai Moose Range, so we had to be careful about the habitat. We even crossed creeks in special ways, and we couldn't do the kind of seismic testing everybody else was doing back then.\n\n > \"It wasn't easy deciding where to put the test well. We only had 33 seismic readings, and they were all pretty weak. I dug the heel of my boot into the dirt and said 'drill here,' knowing we didn't have much going for us except gut instinct and any luck we'd earned along the way.\"\n\nThat luck and gut instinct paid off. On July 19, 1957, that test well began producing oil. Four days later, Richfield announced the discovery and its stock price jumped 20 points. By October, the well was producing 900 barrels of oil per day.\n\nThis was a huge development. Swanson River was the first successful commercial oil well in Alaska. The Swanson River field, at 250 million barrels, continues to operate today, albeit as a minor part of the state's oil portfolio, but in 1957 it was huge.\n\nDuring 1957, the territory of Alaska recouped $300,000 in lease fees and royalties from oil development. By 1963, that figure had risen to $84 million -- and growing.\n\nThis fiscal boon came at a crucial time for Alaska. One of the principal arguments against Alaska statehood was that Alaska could not support itself financially. The oil industry, atop Alaska's existing timber, mining and fisheries industries, destroyed that argument. \n\nSwanson River spawned other oil and gas development. An enormous gas field off Nikiski began producing in 1959, and the continued developments encouraged other companies to look at Alaska despite failures on the Alaska Peninsula and elsewhere.\n\nIn 1963, Richfield began sending prospectors to the Brooks Range in Alaska's far north. In 1966, Richfield merged with the Atlantic Refining Company to become ARCO.\n\nTwo years later, ARCO drilled a test well at Prudhoe Bay ...",
"20th C and esp. WWII is my area that is least shallow, and the Tizard Mission is certainly a watershed moment in that. Besides showing beyond any doubt of England's alliance and trust in the US, it brought to the US advanced British scientific findings which were to be of enormous impact to the allied war effort. I'll let a better writer describe it:\n\n\"As Bowen knew, the seemingly ordinary solicitor's deed box - for which he was personally responsible - held the power to change the course of the war.\n\nInside lay nothing less than all Britain's military secrets. There were blueprints and circuit diagrams for rockets, explosives, superchargers, gyroscopic gunsights, submarine detection devices, self-sealing fuel tanks, and even the germs of ideas that would lead to the jet engine and the atomic bomb.\"\n_URL_0_\n\nTizard was also instrumental in what's known as the \"MAUD report\" which was instrumental in the creation of the Manhattan Project.\n_URL_2_ \n\nQuite the man, Sir Tizard. \n\nThe other, much more immediately usable device shared by the Tizard Commission was a new development in the cavity magnetron which increased it's power exponentially and made possible a true microwave radar. The cavity magnetron had been independently discovered in Japan, German, Russian, US and England. These early devices were like one stroke lawn mower engines compared to the V-8 engine a couple of English scientists invented, and Tizard brought to the Americans. \nThat device, together with US engineering and manufacturing know how, made VT fuses and other practical, powerful radar devices usable during WWII. It's estimated almost one million devices based on the original British invention were manufactured before the war was over.\nToday, they are found in most kitchens, in your microwave oven.\n\nNice overview: (note, it's a PDF)\n_URL_1_\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=title%3A%22Tuesday+Trivia%22&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/voicing-gender-castrati-travesti-and-the-second-woman-in-early-nineteenth-century-italian-opera/oclc/60603277",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gilbert_Duprez",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/history-of-opera/oclc/783162474"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/12/Jean-L%C3%A9on_G%C3%A9r%C3%B4me_-_The_Death_of_Caesar_-_Walters_37884.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/6331897.stm",
"http://www.cap.ca/wyp/profiles/Redhead-Nov01.PDF",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MAUD_Committee"
]
] |
|
1r4dkk
|
i've seen a lot of people put post-it notes over their webcam. how easy is it for someone to hack our cams? eli5!
|
I'm not asking for a tutorial (although I would be interested to see one). I'm more curious if this is something that people actually do, or just an over reaction by some.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1r4dkk/ive_seen_a_lot_of_people_put_postit_notes_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdjguic",
"cdjmcr7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It is fairly easy. I had a customer's conference service turn it on without asking. There was a school district in Pennsylvania USA that was famously caught spying on kids using them. \n\n_URL_0_",
"Will the green light on my MacBook light up if the webcam is being hacked?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robbins_v._Lower_Merion_School_District"
],
[]
] |
|
67u62k
|
why are houses in suburbs numbered in such a peculiar way?
|
i.e. houses may go 1187, 1189, 1195, etc without any seemingly noticeable pattern.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/67u62k/eli5_why_are_houses_in_suburbs_numbered_in_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgtg621"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Generally, odd-numbered houses are on one side of the street, and even on another.\n\nMost places have a system where the \"hundred/thousands\" places is related to how far away from some central or otherwise predefined point; for example, around here Main Avenue is the dividing line between South and North -- the address with the number '1' is the closest to Main Avenue on both sides, \"100\" is the first house on the next block, 200 is the first house on the next, etc.. 1187 would usually mean it is eleven blocks away from that central point.\n\nWhen you get to the end of a block, the numbering starts over, so they might go from 127 to 201 -- and let's say the cross-street doesn't actually go through at that point in the street system, but to keep the numbering consistent (you don't want to keep counting 100-addresses until you reach third street where they start over at 300) the numbers will \"reset\" to the next hundred-block structure in the middle of the two-block-long-block; my grandparents lived at 405, which was 1/3rd of the way down a street that stretched from 3rd street to 6th street (which was actually called Broadway, but fit into as the \"600 block\" in the street structure).\n\nWhen a subdivision is platted, it is divided into lots -- those lots don't have addresses, but it's possible that a house takes up multiple lots, so they skip a number in case someday that house is torn down and two houses are build on those same lots, so the address will skip from 1109 to 1113, because someday there might be an 1111 and they don't want to do 1109-1/2 (those kinds of addresses are usually used for apartments above businesses). \n\nAlso, subdivisions tend to have weird, curvy streets -- so, for example, let's say the street is a loop and turns back on itself. Since the numbering scheme means that the \"11xx\" addresses are 11 blocks from Main Avenue, that means both ends of the street loop are that same distance, so 1101, 1105, 1109, 1113 are at one end of the loop and 1103, 1107, 1111 are at the other end. Yes, it's annoying and confusing, particularly for pizza drivers (which I experienced during the few months I did that job), but once you learn the quirks -- for example, in Fargo a street called \"South Terrace\" is in North Fargo -- it's easy to figure out.\n\nTL/DR: there are systems, and generally addresses count upwards by, a \"hundreds\" step for each block, based on distance from a reference point, but the way houses and streets are actually built can throw it off a bit, so sometimes there's a little variation in the actual numbering process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
w13xu
|
Air Conditioning Question
|
My home has 3 levels. The bottom 2 are air-conditioned via central air.
My third floor is not tied into the central air.
On the third floor, I have a window air conditioner.
Question: Which is the more effective/efficient cooling? Open door to third floor allowing circulation of "house" air, or Keep door closed to create "sealed" environment for third floor window air conditioner?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w13xu/air_conditioning_question/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c59bg1x"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I would close the door. \n\nUnless you have a box fan or some such actively moving cool air from the house below up to the 3rd floor, warm air will want to pool in that upper level.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3yzkh0
|
Why did the Netherlands's Jewish population have such a high percentage killed in the Holocaust?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3yzkh0/why_did_the_netherlandss_jewish_population_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyi6hvh"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"There were a three main reasons: \n\n1) The Dutch have a system where all people need to register themselves at their local council, stating the address where they are living. In Dutch, this is called the *Bevolkingsregister*. At the time of the German occupation, one was required to give many details to the Bevolkingsregister -- one of which was which religion one belonged to. This made it very easy for the occupying German forces to round up the Jewish population or any other 'undesirables'. \n\n2) We must not forget the large amount of informers which there were. Informers would get food and/or money for turning in people in hiding. As the occupation went on, food became more and more hard to find. It has been suspected that the Frank family was turned in by such informants, but this has never been proven. \n\n3) The occupying German forces introduced an I.D. card (before and since, there has not been an I.D. card in the Netherlands). A few got caught with fake papers, as mistakes were made in forgeries. The *Grüne Polizei* (Green Police, named for the uniform they wore) would regularly ask for I.D. papers. \n\nReferences:\n\n\"Leven in bezet Nederland\" by W. ten Have (ISBN 9789000344741)\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_registry"
]
] |
||
twghj
|
how to catch up/develop a well informed opinion on world news and politics?
|
I am 21 years old and have very little knowledge of what is going on in the world as well as politics. I would like to develop a well informed opinion.
Are there any especially good subreddits for this?
I might try reading the New York Times but I'm sure you guys have great suggestions for me!
Thanks!
tldr; I know shit bout what be goin on. Help a brotha out
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/twghj/how_to_catch_updevelop_a_well_informed_opinion_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4qazmn",
"c4qb242",
"c4qdn3m",
"c4qfmvo"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Personally, I like Christian Science Monitor (even though I'm an atheist. They do good reporting) and The Economist. The BBC is also good for factual stories on world events.",
"Not sure this is exactly the right subreddit to ask this question, but I would advise the most important thing is to read from a *variety* of sources. There are a number of places I personally get my news from, but you should also be aware of their political bent. \n\nThe New York Times for an example, is great and all for US politics. It's very liberal, but a lot of world events gets plopped into \"World Briefing\" and don't get full articles. \n\nThe Wall Street Journal has a conversative bent. They're similarly awesome and reputable to the NYT. \n\nThe Economist is a great weekly British magazine. You can get a lot of non-US world news exposure there. Their articles are more obviously opinionated (they tend to be center-rightish and have this intense hate for Cristina Kirchner), but they're very well-written. \n\nSlate and The Nation are both really leftist. Everything's an opinion piece. ",
"[The Atlantic](_URL_0_) is (in my opinion) very sophisticated yet unbiased. Especially the regular columnists.",
"Seconding what's already been said. Variety is key. \n\n- Christian Science Monitor has good international reporting, mainly because they still have bureaus where most other US newspapers have downsized (or so I've heard). \n- I try to read both The Guardian and The Times of London to get a varied British perspective (Guardian on the left and Times on the right). BBC is good for getting quick headlines, but doesn't quite match up depth-wise. \n- Al-Jazeera catches flak from the Middle East for being anti-Arab and from the U.S. for being anti-American, but their coverage of the Arab Spring was better than anywhere else, so I read it pretty regularly.\n- Finally, if you're interested in military/defense and politics, [Small Wars Journal's daily Roundup] (_URL_0_) is a great source for quick headlines from a variety of sources."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theatlantic.com"
],
[
"http://smallwarsjournal.com/blog/recent"
]
] |
|
3cxi8d
|
what is happening between julian assange and ecuador?
|
As an ecuadorian, I have no idea of what is happening with this whole Assange thing and why it's poping in the news almost weekly. Every time they just show an "update", but never explain the whole thing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cxi8d/eli5_what_is_happening_between_julian_assange_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cszuuaw",
"ct0nja7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think there's all that much going on. The story is that, Julian Assange is wanted by several governments, including England, and his English passport has been revoked so he cannot leave the country. He was granted Asylum by Ecuador, and is now living inside the Ecuador embassy in London. ",
"Not much is happening. Julian Assange is still living in the Ecuadorian embassy in London. He was granted asylum about two and a half years ago by the Ecuadorian government to protect him against potential prosecution in the US. However, he's currently not wanted by the US, nor is he charged with anything there.\n\nNormally when you get asylum, you then go the country giving it, but in this case that's impossible since Assange is also involved in another legal process, where he's wanted by the UK for having broken bail, and for executing an extradition.\n\nThere's no progress being made concerning these legal problems he's in, so there's really no end in sight. In about five years, the grounds for the extradition will reach their statute of limitations, but the bail jumping will still be in effect.\n\nIt's possible that the police just gives up at one point, or that a new Ecuadorian government doesn't find the situation quite as beneficial, but other than that, it might be long wait."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
18984h
|
The bow is better than the musket - why did Napoleon not use archers?
|
Bows seem to have many advantages over muskets. An archer can fire more than 12 arrows per minute - it takes way longer to reloaded a musket. Archers don't need to fire in a straight line, so they can fire over other lines of archers/friendly soldiers or walls.
I heard bows were abandoned because riflemen could be trained way quicker than archers, and because muskets are better at penetrating armor. But in the 1700s and 1800s, many armies would consist out of unarmored riflemen. And if you don't need to penetrate armor, you don't need archers that can use warbows with a [draw weight](_URL_4_) of 200 pound. Bows with a weight of 50 pound are strong enough to kill a bear, and anyone can be taught to use a 50-pound-bow within weeks. Wouldn't archers stay relevant until [rifles replaced muskets](_URL_5_)?
**Images**
[Riflemen formation: only a few can shoot](_URL_0_)
[You could add way more archers](_URL_3_)
[Warning: Blood!](_URL_1_)
[Bow and gun can cooperate](_URL_2_)
[Archers at the back can fire too!](_URL_6_)
I haven't heard any stories about archers during the 1700s or 1800s, yet they do not seem to be inefficient. Did any (Western) army use archers in that period? If they didn't, why not? Wouldn't formations like those in the images function relatively well?
And in what battles did archers meet riflemen, either working together or fighting each other?
This question has been bothering me for a long time, I hope somebody can help!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18984h/the_bow_is_better_than_the_musket_why_did/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8cque6",
"c8crgcr",
"c8crmwa",
"c8csxf8",
"c8csyet",
"c8ctkei",
"c8cuqt2",
"c8cwqwj",
"c8cy2fi",
"c8czx65",
"c8d26j0"
],
"score": [
29,
185,
25,
10,
2,
34,
7,
6,
14,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Very simply archer need much more training that musketeers, two examples of this would be English longbow men and mongol horse archers who would have both begun training from childhood to build up the strength to use war bows. In comparison a musketeer could be trained in weeks. 'As a member of the French infantry, an individual could expect two to three weeks of basic training' 2008 Richard Podruchny",
"The bow *isn't* better than the musket. people often exaggerate its effectiveness by looking at it in a purely abstracted sense, but in the muddy, gory details the musket is superior. Some reasons:\n\n1. You say an archer can shoot twelve arrows a minute, but for how long, and aside from one every five second being *way* too fast, how long can they keep that up? This is not an issue for a musket.\n\n2. Weather: the rain will ruin a bow as surely as it will a musket, and wind affects it a great deal more.\n\n3. I have no idea where you are getting that information about how powerful bows are. A fifty pound bow cannot bring down a bear, and virtually everything you read, especially about English longbows, is highly exaggerated. A musket shot has far more range and penetrative power than an archer.\n\n4. Morale: this can't be overstated. Gunshots are *scary*.\n\nThe training factor is often exaggerated. Archer don't need to be able to hit a bird's eye at one hundred paces, they need to volley fore, and musketeers need to have a deep understanding of a fairly technical bit of equipment. And yes, Western armies with guns frequently met those without, and Western armies tended to win.",
"as a related question: when was the last time that european armies fielded archers and crossbows in battle?",
"You haven't yet mentioned range. The muskets had ranges greater than the ~60 yards effective range of a 50# bow. Soldiers were expected to hit targets with a musket regularly at 80 yards. When the British eventually adopted the Baker rifle, it had a range of at least 100 yards. A twenty-yard difference might not sound like much, but that means several more precious seconds before a charge reaches you.\n\n",
"I've made a couple of comments elsewhere, but on a more general point: it may seem that bows are obviously anachronistic. However at the time of the 1911 Encyclopaedia Brittanica, the question of sabre or lance as the premier cavalry weapon was still the subject of vigourous debate. In fact stabbing spears are still used by every major army: a bayonet is a simple device to convert a rifle into a spear. Given this, it is quite reasonable to ask why archery did not have a role in Napoleonic warfare.",
"Others have mentioned important factors: the shorter training time for muskets, the psychological aspect of deafening gun volleys. But the ultimate factor is simple: **armies equipped with firearms consistently defeated those without them.** \n\nIn the crucible of Sengoku warfare, those warlords who united Japan all effectively fielded the arquebus. Some battles, such as Oda Nobunaga's smashing victory at Nagashino, are understood to have been decided by his clever use of muskets and terrain. When the Japanese invaded Korea in the late 1500s, one of their major advantages over the Korean and Chinese defenders was superior European-derived musketry. Certainly, nothing succeeds like success.",
"If you have an adequate supply of steel, wood, lead, sulfur, saltpeter and charcoal as well as skilled craftsmen, you can produce any number of muskets or rifles and ammunition. \nTo make bows, you can't just chop down any tree and start carving. IIRC, getting enough yew staves for longbows was a major problem for England during the 100years war. Other woods are suitable for bows as well, but you still have to find and preen shoots and branches that are just right.\n\nMaking ammunition for muskets and rifles is a process that can be mechanized for the most part. Making arrows not so much.",
"LTC (Ret) Dave Grossman had a very interesting theory about this in his book \"On Combat\" where he addresses the psychological impact that gunfire has on the psyche of your enemy. \n\nWhile bows may (or may not) have been more accurate for a period of time compared to early muskets, the explosion that accompanied a musket volley would have been terrifying for soldiers on earlier battlefields. Even if your side had superior numbers, the psychological effect of hearing those blasts would have been unnerving. Arrows might whistle, but are nothing compared to a gun blast. \n\nTaking into consideration the military tradition of chants, shouting and other various battle cries found in various cultures over thousands of years, it would make sense that early commanders would capitalize on the noise advantage to give their troops an edge. Both weapons are capable of lethal effects, but only a musket would also scare an enemy off the field.\n\nWhile I'm sure there were additional factors that influenced the decision of military commanders, I do believe that LTC Grossman's assessment of muskets having the \"psychological advantage\" to bows did play a role. I know that one thing I experienced during my tour that has me personally convinced of the power of an unanticipated LOUD noise is the VBIED that went off and threw my FOB into disarray although, thankfully, there had been no casualties. Noise can really throw you for a loop in a combat zone.",
"Total War isn't a valid source, no matter how much fun it may be ;)",
"Have you considered that by Napoleonic times, the bow was such an outdated weapon that it would have been much harder to raise an army using bows than just to use the musket-armed troops you already have?\n\nGunpowder initially was used because of its power to destroy fortifications and pierce armour. By the time fortifications had changed to resist cannon and men had stopped wearing much armour (which was well into the 17th century) the musket was entrenched as part of armies (even as early as the start of the 16th century it had been part of the basic Spanish tactical unit, the Tercio). On top of this, it simply is easier and faster to train musketeers. Army sizes increased massively during the 16th century from tens of thousands to hundreds of thousands, and the pressure to raise forces was constant. You could of course hand some untrained peasants some bows and teach them to shoot quite quickly too, but not to the level of proficiency necessary to be effective in battle. And well-trained bowmen might be able to outshoot musketeers. But firearms struck the best balance between ease of training and battlefield effectiveness, and we can tell that because *that's what the people making the decisions at the time decided to do*.\n\nBy the time of Napoleon, there was simply no reason to go back to using bows. Firstly, everyone had grown accustomed to using muskets. Battlefield tactics, logistics, training, the entire European military system was based around the musket. There simply wasn't the capacity to raise bow-armed troops; nobody could make enough bows and arrows, there was nobody to train men in how to use them, and there was no precedent for how they should be used on the battlefield alongside cannon and musketeers. Thanks to the bayonet, there was no need for specialised melee troops by that point; so there would be nobody to protect the archers from cavalry, and expecting every archer to carry a pike with him would be an additional logistic strain. Originally, archers were drawn from those who hunted as part of their daily life, but by the 19th century society was far more urbanised, and far fewer people were involved in the production of food, not to mention that those who did hunt used firearms; so there was no civilian base of archers to draw upon. Nowadays, it would probably be possible to arrange for bows to be mass produced, and find some instructors to train recruits, and create an overarching doctrine to define how the bow would be used in combat. But in the 1800s, they didn't have mass production, or the ability to easily find bow specialists, or the ability to quickly adopt new weapons and inform every member of the army of the change. Even if they did, there was simply no reason not to use the weaponry and tactics which they already had.",
" > The bow is better than the musket - why did Napoleon not use archers?\n\nBecause Napoleon wasn't stupid. Medieval Europe had already learnt one very strong lesson: Your army has a better chance of winning if it is easy to supply. \n\nIt is relatively difficult to supply a large quantity of Bowmen. \n\n* Arrows are much harder to make\n* Arrows are comparatively bulky\n\nOn the other hand: \n\n* Powder and ball are comparably easy to make in mass\n* Powder and shot are comparably easy to transport\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/pr6XYUQ.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/aFT7iS4.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/XWTbagW.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/CyXi9JU.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bow_and_arrow#Parts_of_the_bow",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muskets#Obsolescence_and_replacement_by_the_rifle",
"http://i.imgur.com/rabLD4r.jpg"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1zwank
|
How did the Rothschilds protect their money?
|
I'm interested more in the financial aspect of it. I know there was a dad and his 5 sons, and they opened offices in several financial centers in Europe. I read the Wiki, and I would like more details about this part:
> the new kind of international bank created by the Rothschilds was impervious to local attacks. Their assets were held in financial instruments, circulating through the world as stocks, bonds and debts. Changes made by the Rothschilds allowed them to insulate their property from local violence: "Henceforth their real wealth was beyond the reach of the mob, almost beyond the reach of greedy monarchs."
What are the changes that the Rothschilds made?
Thank you.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1zwank/how_did_the_rothschilds_protect_their_money/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfxtfpa"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"The quote explains it. Wealth was not kept as precious metal in a building. It was transferred into bonds, debts, and stocks. People can steal gold. They cannot steal money someone else owes you. I don't know much about the Rotchschilds, but I can make a parallel to Thomas Willing, a colonial financier and first president of America's first central bank. In the colonial days, when people would lend money, their debt was kept on books. If Fred loaned Tom one thousand dollars, or specie, aka precious metal, Fred would have a record on his book that someone owes him 1k. When debt is stored this way, it cannot be transferred or made into liquid currency. People like Thomas Willing and other astute financiers would store the debt as a note. When Tom would borrow that $1000, he'd get a receipt and the receipt could be traded so the lender could be paid back by anybody who had the receipt or the amount of gold it was worth. This circulation of debt receipts created some of the first \"modern\" currencies. In addition, governments would do business with banks via bonds, which is basically a debt from the government to a private party or institution. I'm far from an expert on financial history, but suspect this shift from gold/silver based wealth storage to debt notes and stock shares is what that wiki quote describes. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4s8c75
|
During the Roman Empire, what was the status of the amphora? Might one be proudly displayed during a formal meal, a bit like showing off an expensive bottle of wine today; or might a secondary vessel be used to present the wine to guests and the amphora be on par with an empty Coke bottle?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4s8c75/during_the_roman_empire_what_was_the_status_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d57e54r"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"There were different types of amphorae. There were transport type amphora, of rough ceramic, that carried wine (or fish sauce or whatever) in the bellies of ships. These would be sold by the wine merchant in town, either a whole amphora or some measure of it. Your house would buy the wine and store it in a similar, but probably smaller vessel. The transport amphora (often identified by their \"Dressel\" number, after the guy who established their typology) were [shaped strangely](_URL_0_) and would not stand up on their own in, say, a Roman dining room -- they were designed to be stacked in racks in the ship. For serving and display, you would use a smaller and nicer type, perhaps a nice [red slip serving pitcher](_URL_2_) or, if you were rich enough, a [gilt silver](_URL_1_) specimen! Unfortunately, a lot of the nice Roman serving ware was silver like this, meaning meaning hardly any of it survives. Just about the only way we find these kinds of vessels are from shipwrecks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://exhibits.museogalileo.it/images/vin/oggetti_944/VI.7_ph.PioFoglia%20Anfora%20Villa%20Corsini%20ex%20sequestro%20G.M_944.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/7b/Roman_-_Amphora_with_Bacchic_Scenes_-_Walters_57708_-_Left.jpg",
"http://d0cdn.artquid.com/art/0/78/20112.979092492.1.575.jpg"
]
] |
||
2gktar
|
how does conception happen during a period?
|
Key word: conception. Not specifically sex.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gktar/eli5_how_does_conception_happen_during_a_period/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckk10ho"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It rarely does, but...sperm can live a long time (many days) up in there and some people can have very short cycles. But...to be clear, if you think of conception as the moment the sperm enters the egg (technical definition) then it really can't happen because there would be no uterine lining in which to embed and it would get flushed out. But...if the sex happens during the period, the sperm can survive in the fallopian tubes and then the egg can make it way down and the uterine lining can be forming a new nest just in time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ursh0
|
why are tattos permanent?
|
Shouldn't they go away when the skin cells die and rub off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ursh0/eli5_why_are_tattos_permanent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxh99dl"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"LIke someone said watch _URL_0_\n\nBasically the ink has large metal clusters within the dye. Lots of the dye gets \"washed away\" by your skin cells but the metal chunks stay behind because they are so big. That's why tattoos fade but never really go away."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kxLoycj4pJY"
]
] |
|
79th02
|
What are mammalian bones composed of?
|
I was having a discussion and the topic of bone composition came up. After doing many Google searches I found multiple sources saying bones are mostly made of minerals, namely calcium and phosphate.
Yet I also found multiple sources saying bones are mostly collagen. I'm leaning toward the former, but are there any experts on the topic who can tell me why I'm getting contradicting messages, and how much collagen is in bone relative to calcium and phosphate?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/79th02/what_are_mammalian_bones_composed_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp4yexs",
"dp4ykok",
"dp5fwcc"
],
"score": [
2,
10,
3
],
"text": [
"It depends on which bone and the location within the bone, if you are just looking for a general composition [this link](_URL_1_) is pretty good.\n\n[This is the general structure of bone.](_URL_0_) \n\nCompact bone tends to be more mineral rich making it harder and spongy bone has a lot more of a mix with collagen and has a better blood supply.\n\nMarrow is where a lot of blood and mesenchymal stem cells are located. I personally work on cartilage and that consists of mostly collagen and proteoglycans with cells dotted in producing a spongey/gel like matrix.",
"Bone is a complex living tissue that is constantly undergoing remodeling based on the loads it is placed under (see: Wolff's Law). Osteocytes are the main cells that compose bone tissue. These osteocytes can be classified into osteoblasts (bone builders/mineralizers) and osteoclasts (bone destroyers/demineralizers). The cells create an extracellular matrix of collagen, which forms the framework of the bone. This framework is then mineralized by the cells with calcium phosphate. \n\nBy dry weight, bone is composed of 60-70% minerals, 10-20% proteins/collagen, and 10% living cells. The remainder is water. \n\nBone formation is remodeling is a complex process, but I'm on mobile so I can't do a great job explaining it. I'll be on later if you have further questions. ",
"Yeah this is a bit confusing. Bone is about 60% minerals, (i.e. calcium and phosphate) and the rest is extracellular matrix proteins. Most of those matrix proteins are collagen, so some ~35% of the bone itself. Collagen makes up the \"scaffolding\" of your bones, which is then essentially filled with dense mineral crystals of calcium and phosphate.\n\nTL;DR) Bone is 60% minerals and 40% matrix proteins. Of the matrix proteins, 90% is collagen.\n\n_URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://cdn.thinglink.me/api/image/788987161796935682/1240/10/scaletowidth",
"https://image.slidesharecdn.com/pushkarsseminarbonephysiology-130708115734-phpapp01/95/bone-physiology-28-638.jpg?cb=1373284789"
],
[],
[
"https://depts.washington.edu/bonebio/ASBMRed/matrix.html"
]
] |
|
kjo19
|
why can i stuff my face and remain slightly underweight, but some people struggle not to become overweight who diet?
|
Is this metabolism, or what?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kjo19/eli5_why_can_i_stuff_my_face_and_remain_slightly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2kti8i",
"c2kv03p",
"c2kti8i",
"c2kv03p"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"A related question I've been wondering is why don't I feel a desire to eat but my stomach would be hungry? I do eat, but I just don't care much for eating. I find it boring. I have trouble getting enough calories in my diet probably b/c of this.",
"This is a very interesting documentary that I think will answer your question for you..\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"A related question I've been wondering is why don't I feel a desire to eat but my stomach would be hungry? I do eat, but I just don't care much for eating. I find it boring. I have trouble getting enough calories in my diet probably b/c of this.",
"This is a very interesting documentary that I think will answer your question for you..\n\n_URL_0_\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-are-thin-people-not-fat/"
],
[],
[
"http://topdocumentaryfilms.com/why-are-thin-people-not-fat/"
]
] |
|
18kru2
|
Would it be possible to create a food that has everything a human body needs to sustain itself and where all of the food is absorbed so no waste is produced?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/18kru2/would_it_be_possible_to_create_a_food_that_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8fnmyc",
"c8fnqo2"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"See [these past threads](_URL_0_).\n\nThe short answer is no. Feces does not consist entirely of food you cannot digest. It is a form of elimination where metabolic products and unwanted molecules from normal cellular activity can be cleared from the body.",
"On a related note I thought I'd share if you wanted to eat only one food and survive without any other sustenance you Would have to drink breast milk. It's got everything you need. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/search?q=no+waste&restrict_sr=on"
],
[]
] |
||
c174d0
|
what is the difference between ark, mig, tig, and oxy acetylene welding. (?strengh, speed, efficiency?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c174d0/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_ark_mig_tig/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erbbihy"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Hello there! \n\nI want to start off by apologising for how long this post is; I didn’t want to oversimplify it too much. \n\nBoth MIG (metal inert gas) and TIG (tungsten inert has) are forms of arc welding. TIG may also be referred to as GTAW (gas tungsten arc welding) and MIG as GMAW (has metal arc welding). Typically when I hear arc welding, I think about SMAW (shielded metal arc welding) or stick welding, which is one of the most common welding processes. However, I have also seen FCAW (flux corded arc welding) referred to as arc welding. All of these processes have a few things in common however; they all use heat generated through electrical resistance and all utilise some form of atmospheric shielding. \n\nMIG and FCAW work almost the exact same, as both utilise a wire feed mechanise that feeds the consumable wire electrode into the weld pool. However, MIG uses an external shielding gas, which is typically either carbon dioxide (CO2) or argon (Ar), which is dispersed through a nozzle over the weld pool. FCAW, however, doesn’t use an external shielding gas. Instead, it uses a hollow wire which inside contains what’s called flux, which burns and creates a shielding atmosphere for the weld pool. Both of these processes are fairly quick to use and easy to learn. However, they cannot weld aluminium and cannot weld very thick metal. My FCAW machine can only weld up to 3/16” metal, however, I surmise there are other, more powerful machines that can weld thicker materials. \n\nTIG welding is a little bit different than GMAW, as unlike these two processes, TIG uses a non-consumable electrode that is made out of tungsten and mostly uses Argon as a shielding gas. This makes TIG a very precise process; it can be used to weld needles together. The TIG process is more difficult than GMAW as the welder not only has to direct the arc, but they also have to manually feed in the filler rod by hand into the weld pool. However, as a result of the precision this process has, it will produce the best looking welds out of all of the processes. The most important aspect of TIG is that it can be used to weld aluminium, and to my knowledge is the best method for welding aluminium. This process isn’t very fast to do, and is difficult to learn. \n\nSMAW was the first arc welding process to be used. SMAW or stick works by having a clamp, which holds a long thick wire, which is why it is called stick welding. This electrode is coated in flux, which makes this process gas free. What the welder does with this process is strike the arc like a match, and pull the electrode across the joint or whatever is being welded. While pulling the electrode, the welder also pushes the electrode down, as it’s consumed during the process. This can made the process difficult to learn, however it is one of the most versatile processes. SMAW can be quick and efficient as its basically a strike and go process. \n\nOxy/Acetylene or Oxy-fuel welding is the only process here that doesn’t use electricity. Instead, acetylene and pure oxygen are combined and burnt to produce heat and a protective flame envelope. With this process, the welder also has to feed the filler rod by hand. However, Oxy-fuel is a much slower process since you have to wait for the metal to heat up and melt. This makes this process the slowest out of all of the aforementioned processes. That being said, this is the most portable process since it doesn’t require an electric current. \n\nI wanted to wait until the end to touch on the actual strength of all of these processes. Assuming you’re making good, correct welds, all of these processes can produce strong welds. This means that the only real limitation will be the thickness of the metal itself. Because of this, i would say that SMAW is probably the strongest process since it can weld the thickest metal out of all of the other processes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7fxysk
|
Is there any evidence to suggest that any of the Native-American tribes had intentions to explore or travel beyond America?
|
As above in the title, did any of the Native American tribes make any attempt to explore beyond their territory or did they strictly stay within it? For example, did the Iroquois make any effort to go down into South America or to the west?
Edit: Before the Europeans arrived in North America
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7fxysk/is_there_any_evidence_to_suggest_that_any_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqf57bq"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Hi,\n\nJohn Herrington is Chickasaw and flew into *space* in 2002. Can you please specify a particular era you're interested in?\n\nThanks!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
99bprm
|
why do some letters have a completely different character when written in uppercase (a/a, r/r, e/e, etc), whereas others simply have a larger version of themselves (s/s, p/p, w/w, etc)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/99bprm/eli5_why_do_some_letters_have_a_completely/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4mesph",
"e4mgsr3",
"e4mho7h",
"e4mihaz",
"e4mirn3",
"e4mj28m",
"e4mk47x",
"e4mkqhh",
"e4mlmhy",
"e4mng8n",
"e4ms2ym",
"e4mygj6",
"e4nlwqq"
],
"score": [
522,
2968,
31,
2,
14979,
7,
19,
2,
2,
18,
3516,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"~~Well first of all:~~\nA little bonus information: \nWe are using upper- and lowercase to make reading easier since the 9th century AD. \n\nRegarding your question: look at the Roman Cursive. The Latin alphabet is inspired by it. But why looks r so different than R until today? For efficiency reasons. Let’s take the word ride. Imagine you have to write the word ride over and and over again with a feather. Once you get used to it... it’s okay. Now write Ride Ride Ride. The R takes way longer than the r. \n\nTL;DR:\n\nEfficiency ",
"TL; DR\n\nAt first it was only cursive for paper and big uppercase for sculptures/incisions. Lowercase was created when printing was invented, since printing cursive was impossible but uppercase and lowercase letters still needed to exist. Therefore changes were mode for clarity, as an r done like an R probably would've not looked right\n\nThe names uppercase and lowercase exist because the stamps for those respective letters were stored on the upper case or on the lower case",
"Some letters have lower cases that were developed by scribes to make writing in a formal book hand more efficient.\n\nOthers Like \"W/w\" are relatively recent i.e. don't exist in the older alphabets and Never had to go through a scribe and we're predominantly printed or only written in cursive so we're never subject to the same change.\n\nEdit: to clarify , a lot of today's lower case letters are actually old Uncial capital letters and most capitals are Roman .",
"Disclaimer: this is my understanding from a quick read through the wiki on this topic.\n\nSo a long time ago, there were the Ancient Greeks and later on the Romans. They had a special way of writing that was different than all European styles of the time. They were different because they had capitals! They were used at the beginning of sentences and nouns. \n\nAt first they were just big versions of themselves, but some people liked to be fancy and made special letters that were big. They could do this because until the 18th century, the rules for capitals weren't very strict yet. The difference just kinda stuck ever since!\n\nExtra credit fun fact: originally the letters were called majuscule and minuscule letters. But then the printing press was invented and the big letters were kept in the case on top and the little letters were kept on the bottom. So now we call them upper case and lower case!\n\nTldr for main article. Long ago Greeks invented capitals. Some people got fancy and it stuck ever since.",
"First of all, let's talk about the words 'uppercase' and 'lowercase'. These words come from the early history of printing, when a person called a *typesetter* would assemble each page of a book letter by letter. Each letter was a profile on a piece of lead, called a *sort*. The sorts were kept in boxes called [*typecases*](_URL_7_), which had compartments for each letter. There would be a typecase for each *font* (also called a *fount*), which was a *typeface* at a specific size, at a specific weight (bold, medium, *etc.*), in a specific shape (upright, italic, *etc.*). A typeface is what we nowadays call a font on computers. There were actually two typecases for each font, and they were kept one on top of the other. The one on top was called the *upper case*, and contained the 'majuscule' letters; the one on the bottom was called the *lower case*, and contained the 'minuscule' letters. So the proper names for 'uppercase' and 'lowercase' are 'majuscule' and 'minuscule', respectively.\n\nNow, on to your actual question.\n\nLetters are just simple drawings that have phonetic meanings. (In other words, the symbols represent sounds.) The nature of the symbols is affected by the thing the symbols are written on. For example, one of the earliest writing symbols we have is [cuneiform](_URL_6_), which was written by making marks with a stylus in a piece of clay. The shape of cuneiform marks is strongly determined by the shape of the stylus.\n\nThis is important, because the majuscules and minuscules were originally two forms of the Latin alphabet that were used for writing on different materials, and the same thing applies to the Greek alphabet.\n\nMajuscule letters were originally *inscriptional*, which means they were carved into stone. The Roman emperor Trajan had his military victories depicted on a carved stone column called [Trajan's column](_URL_0_); at the base of this column is some writing, in the style of [Roman square capitals](_URL_4_): this style is common on Roman monuments, but Trajan's column is one of the best known examples. These letters were designed by a scribe painting them on to the stone with a brush; a stonemason would then carve out the painted areas. The motion of the brush created little flairs at the beginning at end of each brush stroke; these flairs are now known as *serifs*.\n\nHowever, Romans writing out documents would use [Roman cursive](_URL_1_). Roman cursive, like all cursive writing forms, is basically a bunch of shortcuts in writing the 'proper' letters.\n\nAfter the fall of the Western Roman Empire, Roman culture continued to hold considerable sway amongst the barbarians. The same writing styles were preserved, until the Carolingian Renaissance under Charlemagne (Charles the Great) in the Frankish Empire (now France) in the 800s. Charlemagne was a great believer in literacy, and despite never learning to read himself, ordered the creation of a single style of handwriting to be used across his empire, to prevent documents from being misinterpreted. The end result was a pairing of these two writing styles into the majuscule and minuscule letters of a unified alphabet. The minuscule letters, being easier to write quickly, were use normally, but the majuscule letters, with their grand and elegant forms, were used for proper nouns and emphasis. Over the succeeding thousand years, different nations would slowly adapt these letter forms and the relationships between them to their needs: the Italians developed the [Humanist minuscule](_URL_2_), which later became the italic script; the Germanic peoples developed the [blackletter](_URL_3_) scripts; the Irish developed the [insular script](_URL_5_). This development continues today, with hundreds of typefaces released each year by type designers.",
"The German sharp s officially has majuscle form since 2017, after repeated calls for over 100 years.\n\nẞ --uppercase\nß --lowercase\n\nUseful for surnames printed in all capital letters (e.g. in passports) to disambiguate between variations, where a substitution with SS doesn't help.\nE.g. Rössler vs. Rößler\n\nAnd also where the substitution with SS has a wrong pronunciation (e.g. Straße =street), or leads to utter confusion.\nE.g.\nMasse =mass, weight, bulk\nMaße =measures, metrics, dimensions\n\nI wonder how this is done in Switzerland, where the ß has been rigorously replaced by SS decades ago.\nDid that affect surnames or location names as well?\n",
"Big letters are called *majescule*. Small letters are called *minescule*. \n\nBig letters are easy to read and pretty to look at, but slow and hard to write using a dip pen or a brush. In the old days, this made running governments and businesses difficult. So quicker and easier writing form were developed, usually by government administrators and book publishers. \n\nThe first was called the [*Old Roman Cursive*](_URL_6_). It was a majescule script that was developed from the familiar [*Roman Square Capitals*](_URL_5_) that were commonly used on big stone monuments. \n\nBut while the Roman cursive was fast, it was ugly. Things written in it tended to be hard to read. So over time, different governments developed better and prettier systems. One of the most popular, that people like even today, was called the [*Uncial*](_URL_1_). It was used in a lot of places, but it was [especially well-done by monks in Ireland](_URL_4_), so a lot of people today think of it as ‘Irish writing’. \n\nThe uncial developed into the half-uncial, for speed and clarity. This gave us the basic form of modern lower-case letters, but they weren’t truly formalized and widely spread until the time of Charlemagne. Among many other advances, he standardized the handwriting used by administrators throughout his Empire, with the [*Carolingian miniscule*](_URL_0_). Those letter shapes should all be familiar. \n\nAfter awhile, scribes got bored with this and started developing the spiky [*Gothic*](_URL_3_) and [*Batard*](_URL_2_) hands that were popular in the Middle Ages. Eventually, people got sick of those, and during the Renaissance, the Italians brought back the Carolingian miniscule, and modified it a little into the *Italic* , just in time to be adopted by the first printers. With the result being that we still use it today. ",
"Without looking at the top answer I would suspect it has something to do with how easy it is to write. If you look at your examples, all the small letters that were changed can be written without removing the pen from the paper and so can all the small ones that weren't changed. A small E for instance, if you had to reprint the bible by hand would become annoying very quickly and prone to error.",
"I actually noticed this when I was learning calligraphy. There is a script called unical used primarily in the 4th-8th century, and a lot of the letters show an in between of our modern day capital and small letters.\n\n[Here's my crappy rendition with a ballpoint pen.](_URL_0_)",
"ELI5 Version of Top Answer (u/Shmiggles):\n\nLong ago, we used to have two ways of writing letters, one that was simple and another that is like cursive.\n\nWell some other guy decided to combine these two ways, and kept the more complicated to put in front of important stuff because it looked good (Proper Nouns, etc.) Eventually the world decided we liked it this way and have basically kept it and turned the simple one into lowercase, and the fancy one into uppercase.",
"Because it's a shortcut, a simplified system created by scribes who had to write a lot by hand. So these scribes (some of them were monks) discovered that instead of raising the pen from the paper over and over again to write a new, separated letter, it was easier and faster to keep a continuous line that flows tying one letter to the next. \n\n\nThis system, called cursive, works great for some of the Latin letters, but not for most of them which had to be adapted. This is why A, B, E F, G, H, I, L, M, N, Q, R and sometimes S look very different in cursive from their uppercase versions.\n\n\nThis cursive system was later adapted by printers as the lowercase fonts.\n\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_1_)\n",
"But all the letters - Greek and Roman - have a previous form in Hebrew and other shemitic languages. If you look up those letters frequently you find the original cuneiform / quadratic/ Hebrew letters. Like in G you find the Hebrew ג. Which comes from the pictogram called Camel ( originally gimel). It is just allongated with a half circle. The minuscule version g also does contain the original but differently. \nI think that in many other letters the relation between the ancestral and descendant letters / numbers is many times obvious. \nA and א (alef meaning a hero among others) and 'a' have some common lines. Number 1.\nB is a double ב ( bet meaning house ) and you find the same form in ' b'. Number 2\nThen comes G ( later switched to locate C).number 3.\nD and d all di have the form of ד dalet meaning door. The number 4.\nH and h is found as ה called hay.\n\nI will stop here. But this history is part of the answer.\n\n",
"I believe it has to do with some capital letters containing too much detail when shrunk down, which on a printing press would cause smudging. \nThink R vs r. If youve evee read printed papers smudging is a big problem in reading them\nSo they adopted cleaner version of cursive letters, which got their shape from scribes (often monks) not wanting to lift their hand off the paper when they write. The cursive letters contain less detail and were easier to read"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trajan%27s_Column",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_cursive",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Humanist_minuscule",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_square_capitals",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insular_script",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cuneiform#/media/File:Early_writing_tablet_recording_the_allocation_of_beer.jpg",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typesetting#/media/File:Metal_movable_type.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carolingian_minuscule",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncial_script",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bastarda",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackletter",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Book_of_Kells",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_square_capitals",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Old_Roman_cursive"
],
[],
[
"https://i.imgur.com/oScqv6u.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0\\*MFO50X8qweD9ELta.png",
"https://cdn-images-1.medium.com/max/1600/0*MFO50X8qweD9ELta.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1qyub4
|
why are army and navy salutes done with opposite palm positions?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qyub4/eli5why_are_army_and_navy_salutes_done_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdhvk65",
"cdhvuw7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Whose?\n\nThe US standards for saluting are all the same.\n\nSome people just do it funny.",
"This was explained to me many years ago as going back to the days of rigged ships. Tar was used on-board for sealing, it got onto everything including ropes used for the rigging and then onto the palms of the hands of the sailors, they saluted palm inwards to hide the tar."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ryjbe
|
Would it have been possible for the free market alone to stop Standard Oil?
|
I hear a lot of people say that capitalism will always correct the market in time, since it's all based on supply and demand. But was Standard Oil in the late 1800s too large, rich, and powerful to ever fall? From what I know of the subject, it was borderline impossible for other oil companies to compete at all.
So, would Standard Oil have ever fallen if not for government intervention and anti-trust laws?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ryjbe/would_it_have_been_possible_for_the_free_market/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c49q74l"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"No large companies can succeed without significant government intervention in its favor, and Standard Oil is no exception. Government intervention - namely subsidies and clever uses of state-to-state differences in tax codes - allowed Standard Oil to get big, and it would be unfair to ask for the free market to bring it down when no free market existed in the first place in its rise.\n\nBut I'd say now we can imagine the advent of Arabian oil in large amounts, without Americans buying into it, might have provided a serious competitor for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9ec3ap
|
How did we discover the concept of shell burning in stars?
|
I'm interested in learning about the experiments or the discoveries needed to aid the development of this theory. Also if this information was found before or after Chandrasekhar limit was theorized.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9ec3ap/how_did_we_discover_the_concept_of_shell_burning/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e5sz39b"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's more a model assumption than an actual discovery.\n\nWe see heavy elements in the remnants of supernovea and we know that mostly Hydrogen and Helium are the elements they start out with. So you have to get the heavies via some internal processes.\nWhat exactly is going on inside is down to our knowledge of fusion process and the conditions present inside stars. If you run the numbers you come up with the shell model.\n\nSo bit of inference from what we observe combined with some math."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
jtpyo
|
general relativity. li5.
|
Please. I watch all these shows and they talk like it's commonly understood. They always talk about a bowling ball on a sheet or some shit, but that only covers the X and Y axis and a little of the Z axis. Help?!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jtpyo/general_relativity_li5/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2f1e8c",
"c2f1e8c"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I explained this [here](_URL_0_) previously, but on a different question.\n\nEdit: The rubber sheet analogy is probably overused, but what it's saying is that space is kind of like a three dimensional version of the rubber sheet, and that things with mass distort it in similar ways. But then you just ask why gravity distorts space in the first place, and you haven't really learned anything.",
"I explained this [here](_URL_0_) previously, but on a different question.\n\nEdit: The rubber sheet analogy is probably overused, but what it's saying is that space is kind of like a three dimensional version of the rubber sheet, and that things with mass distort it in similar ways. But then you just ask why gravity distorts space in the first place, and you haven't really learned anything."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j44uq/how_does_time_dilation_work_why_should_you_age/c28zi9k?context=3"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j44uq/how_does_time_dilation_work_why_should_you_age/c28zi9k?context=3"
]
] |
|
80majp
|
how are psychiatric medications developed, if their mechanisms of action is often unknown?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/80majp/eli5_how_are_psychiatric_medications_developed_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duwkvbf",
"duwlhkf",
"duwnge1",
"duwnn8h",
"duwoe6r",
"duwpd11"
],
"score": [
62,
11,
15,
10,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of the time they are discovered by accident. In other words they don’t usually intend to create psychiatric medicine, but find that certain other drugs just so happen to have beneficial effects for mental health. ",
"I have ADHD, so this is anecdotal, but I've heard that the way that stimulants were found helpful in ADHD is that \"disturbed\" boys were given a stimulant just to see what happened. I don't think that it was in a malicious way, though. They saw that these children were functional after taking a stimulant. \n*takes Vyvanse* ",
"Tbh we don't really understand how Lithium works but it really does work. We know a lot though. We don't know enough not by a long way however. \n\nAs a psychiatry trainee I do wish we had better insight into the neurology of mental illness. This is what should hopefully better inform which drugs treat specific illnesses. But our knowledge is definitely progressing very rapidly.",
"Initially, as you know, it started with coincidences. People who had psychiatric problems were given drugs that calmed them down, and eventually it was found that these drugs were also treating their psychiatric problems. Since then, discovery has led by finding molecules with similar structure, but recently we have been using something called high throughput processing. What this entails is having thousands of micro wells in a plate, each one of which has a few cells in it. We add chemicals to these cells that we know their effects (ex. Cause decrease in anxiett) and monitor how they work at the molecular level. We then look for similar molecular events when we add a random chemical to a micro well. This is kind of abstract so I'll give you an example. Imagine if an anxiety drug worked by increasing glucose intake into a cell. If we wanted to find a drug with similar properties, we would monitor the glucose uptake of cells in the wells we have. This is really a neat process, because you can test thousands of random drug candidates a day through this approach, all you have to do is add the drug to a micro well.",
"Take the first gen antihistamine atarax for example. It was developed to treat itching and histamine over production (allergies)\n\nPeople would come to the ER very anxious with acute allergy symptoms, and while the drug was not very effective for its intended indication, it seemed to cam them. Now it’s prescribed for anxiety",
"Only slightly related to your question, but, as a whole, psychiatric medications are terribly ineffective by modern medical standards. The APA (American Psychiatric Association) claims that psychiatric medication work about 50% of the time. Considering their obvious vested interest, this is likely an exaggerated figure and actual efficacy is likely somewhere between 30%-45%, which is only marginally better than placebo results (usually around 30%). So, to say that psychiatric medications are a loose science is a bit of an understatement. Psychiatry as a field is in a bit of a limbo and I am interested to see where the field goes in the next decade or so. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6qgh09
|
what happens if you're caught with fake bills?
|
I work as a cashier and we always check $50/$100 bills and such but I was wondering what happens if I actually do catch one. I assume the money is confiscated. But is it fair to the person who might be unaware that their bill was fake and in such way gets shorted of money or is it reimbursed? How would one even prove they were unaware? Or how could it be traced back to the source of whoever printed it? It is 5am right now and I cant sleep and this popped into my head and I am just curious, not scheming.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6qgh09/eli5_what_happens_if_youre_caught_with_fake_bills/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkx36yu",
"dkx3ij8",
"dkx4scc",
"dkxj4ak",
"dkxk9v2",
"dky9ea0"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
7,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you had a fake bill and you went the bank (i use bank as its more official than a store) to deposit it and say you have 5x $100 bills and 1 is a fake. Then you loose that $100 ad they just tell you its a fake. Your loss. But thats probably the end of it as the secret servicr (i think its them responsible for money, lets say *feds*) are not going to come after you they will assume you didnt know.\n\nNow if you go in and all 5 are fakes the feds might come ask you where you got it from and try and trace it. You still loose the $500 you don't get anything back. The real problem is if you keep trying to deposit or pay in fakes they might come knocking with a warrant.",
"When I was in high school my friends little brothers made a bunch of fake money and took it to the bank and tried to get real money for it. They all got arrested and weren't allowed to touch computers outside of school until the fr aduated high school.",
"I am in loss prevention. Or was. Currently out. Anyway..\n\nThe bank calls the store and says 'You had a $100 counterfeit bill on whatever date, and we have confiscated it.\" Then usually the store calls me, and I go watch all of the cash transactions and try and find who did it. 100% of the time its a dude, late 20s to mid 30s, ball cap, sunglasses. No way to know who he is, and we never see him again. \n",
"Whoever is left holding the bag is out that money.\n\nIf you sold a bike to me, and I paid you in what turned out to be fake bills, I still owe you the money for the bike. In turn, if I can find the person who gave me the fake bills, I can get my money back. But unless it can be traced back to the original counterfeiters, someone is going to be out of luck.\n\nIt is not fair, but it is pretty much the same as if someone gave you a bad check. Unless you can find them, you are out a bike.\n\n > How would one even prove they were unaware? \n\nYou don't have to. The state has to prove you were aware.",
"I was working a register at a Software Etc. in Santa Monica during the Christmas mayhem one year, and I closed the store. While counting the drawers I found a totally bogus $100 bill. Ink was dry, the red and blue hairs were photocopied, and, well, it was totally bogus. I didn't know what to do, so I put the bill in the deposit envelope and just kinda felt like, \"Well, what the heck.\" \nMy guess is the bank was just as busy and frazzled as we were at that time of year, and, well, there were no repercussions at all.\n",
"I also work as a retail cashier. Usually when someone has a counterfeit bill they don't know it is and ended up with it after it being used multiple times. \nI would ask your supervisor on your stores specific policies. \nIf you encounter this, contact your supervisor. \nOne time a gentleman came through my coworkers line, and his $50 bill looked suspicious after testing it with the marker. Our store had to contact the police who came in and looked at it, then they brought it to a bank and the bank was able to confirm that the $50 bill was authentic. I felt bad for the guy and I'm glad everything was okay. \nAgain, I highly encourage you to find out the policy of your store. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6odwjb
|
How does the snake digestive system work; do they have one stomach or is their whole body a stomach?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6odwjb/how_does_the_snake_digestive_system_work_do_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkhb7mj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"When i owned larger snakes, i fed them mice or rats. Most the time the poop would be a little lump with fur. There is a flap near the end where they deficate from. You can also see the rat's body as it goes down the snake. The snake constricted to move it further down. \nHere's more in to it. _URL_0_\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reptilesmagazine.com/Kid-Corner/Beyond-Beginners/Snake-Anatomy-Gastrointestinal/"
]
] |
|
2h65ze
|
why modern stock markets still have a physical trading floor
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2h65ze/eli5_why_modern_stock_markets_still_have_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckpu982",
"ckpu9lo",
"ckpvlal",
"ckpvm3k",
"ckq50j0"
],
"score": [
14,
126,
8,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"very large trades of massive volumes of shares still often need to be negotiated in person. that is the primary reason.\n\nalso, it is kind of like a stage that represents the market trading and in this day of cable news programs, it is where many of these programs film to keep audiences entertained. \n\n*edit: yeah the top comment isn't exactly correct. here are some more information (although a little more specific to the nyse) about the floor:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nfrom wikipedia: _URL_2_\n\nread the section on floor trading... \n\n_URL_0_",
"The trading floor really is only a glorified television studio at this point. While a very small amount of trading is done \"in person\" on the floor, pretty much all of it is computer based. It wouldn't make for good TV if the reporter was standing in front of a server farm talking about why the market was up or down that day. \n \nEdit: [Here's a brief history of the rise in computer trading.](_URL_1_) \n \nEdit 2: [A good _URL_0_ article discussing why there are still floor traders.](_URL_2_)",
"What are all those people yelling and freaking out about? It seems crazy that any legit transactions are done that way.",
"**Side question if ya'll don't mind**, how are stocks sold these days? From movies like Boiler Room or Wolf of Wall Street it's basically \"hitting the phones\", is that the case today? Or has it gone mostly electronic? Or is it 50/50?",
"It's called \"Open Outcry\".\n\nThe LME still operates a similar system with tiered ring members. There are professionally trained individuals who supervise outcry trading to make sure nothing underhand goes on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.nyse.com/data/transactions-statistics-data-library",
"http://www1.nyse.com/pdfs/floor%20brokers.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_outcry"
],
[
"Marketplace.org",
"http://www.investopedia.com/financial-edge/0511/the-death-of-the-trading-floor.aspx",
"http://www.marketplace.org/topics/business/ive-always-wondered/why-do-they-still-have-floor-traders-nyse"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1e340e
|
The concept of 'Classics', the health of the discipline, and 'Classicist' versus 'Ancient Historian'
|
This question is going to need a little bit of elaboration for it to make sense.
In addition, I am principally looking for responses from Classicists, ancient historians, and other specialists working in/around these periods and cultures.
At the very tail end of my MA in ancient history, my Near East tutor took us out for coffee in a London park. The group of us mostly talked about the future, and what working in academia is actually like. But one thing she said really stuck out (disclaimer, she did like to make slightly big statements like this); '*Classics is dead*'. Further elaborating, she gave two main reasons; the first is that in her opinion the only area of Classics covering genuine new ground is Reception Studies (the study of how 'Classics' is received); the second is that nobody who has grown up in the past generation has the instinctive command of Greek and Latin that people did sixty years ago.
I can't really disagree with that second statement at all, because it absolutely runs with my personal experience. The number of fluent ancient Greek and Latin translators is dropping rapidly, particularly as a number of universities no longer require you to learn either language as part of a Classics degree in an attempt to make it a more accessible subject. This is not entirely unlinked to the fact that Classics is fighting for its life in UK higher education; my own university's Classics department was nearly axed, and it is not the only one that has been targeted in these past two years. This is obviously only one country, but the UK has traditionally contributed heavily to Classics and to the group of disciplines that are connected to it.
But then we come to the other issue I'm concerned about. Classics, at its broadest, can be quite inclusive; it can include periods ranging from the Mycenaean era to Late Antiquity, and combine ancient history with philosophy, literature, archaeology and philology to name but a few. But this is frequently not the case; the Hellenistic era is *still* a dirty word to many Classics departments, and is often not taught at all. Most often, you find that the common topics are Archaic and Classical Greece, Alexander the Great, Late Republican Rome, and the Julio-Claudian dynasty of Roman Empires. These are not inherently wrong things to study. But it is very telling that many disciplines are divided between those who identify as 'classicist' or 'classical' and those who do not. It is clear that many find the label and indeed the *notion* of Classics to be restrictive.
And we must also turn to the elephant in the room; the name itself. 'Classics'. It is bound up in many notions of cultural superiority- you call something a classic because it is timeless, a perfect example. The idea that Greece and Rome are the Classical civilizations seems to be not only decades but generations behind our historiographical development. Not only are these two cultures usually singled out, but particular eras of the cultures are singled out as being the 'Classical' eras. A number of disciplines have reinvented their periodisation in the wake of updated methodology or new understandings, and yet we still have the 'Classical Period/Era' in Greek history, lying between the 5th and 4th century (traditionally between the Persian Wars and Alexander the Great's death).
This is not really intended as a rant, but the introduction to talking points. And my specific questions are these;
**1. How healthy do you think Classics is as a discipline?**
**2. Do you identify as a Classicist? If not, why not?**
**3. Should Classics keep that particular name?**
If you have any other responses to what I've brought up, or would like to question part of it, please feel free.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e340e/the_concept_of_classics_the_health_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9wc0hg",
"c9wd8hj",
"c9wd951",
"c9wdhnk",
"c9weorr",
"c9wf07i"
],
"score": [
14,
10,
6,
8,
7,
7
],
"text": [
"Right, this ought to be fun. All this is from the perspective of Roman and ancient Mediterranean legal history, including Greek law, which I sadly probably will never be able to read (\"Graeca non leguntur\").\n\n1) Mostly dead. A lot of fascinating and advanced research is still going on in specialized institutes which is being pushed forward by the outgoing generation of 45+ year old scholars who are the final group of individuals educated in the real tradition of classical education. As you correctly note, the basic working material of Classics is no longer being taught. In my group of 5 legal history students - the final group which was taught at the University of Hamburg prior to the specialism being shut down entirely - I was the only one who knew Latin competently, and that was not due to the education system but to my own mother, who studied - drumroll - Classics in the 1960s, i.e. when standards still existed.\n\nIn other words, the faculties - even in Germany - are shutting down, the experts are dying out, there is no generational reinforcement on the way because the professorships and resources are no longer available. As a result, when the current batch of tenured experts is gone, acta fabula est.\n\n2) Yes, absolutely. I was raised in the tradition of the classics by my mother, I have a huge Loeb library (although this makes me, by the standards of the preceding generation, a total amateur) and I try to actually work with the living, breathing legacy of the Roman Empire, i.e. its laws, on a more or less day-to-day basis.\n\n3) I can't speak to the name as in Germany it is called \"Altphilologie\", i.e. \"ancient philology\". Perhaps the Anglosphere should adopt a similar descriptor.",
"Im speaking from a Dutch background, with an MA in history, but have done a major part of my studies in ancient history.\n\n < warning, generalizations, based on my knowledge of the Dutch situation, incoming > \n\nThe way i see it, a Classicist is someone primarily trained in a language, and probably closer to a linguist than a historian. While masters of their studied language, their narrow focus on texts and words causes them to lack the historians tact for context and the wider history the text belonged to. A lack of the study of the philosophy of history is also notable here.\n\nAn ancient historian is first and foremost a historian, trained in history, with hopefully the skills to read at least one language. Although it isnt unusual to be one and fully rely on translated sources, which causes problems because they are unable to verify the sources themselves. \n\nHere in the Netherlands some universities offer BA's and MA's in 'Oudheidkunde' (i guess Ancient Studies is the best translation, or Altertumswissenschaft in German), which combines history, classics and archaeology (a science often forgotten by both historians and classicists). It teaches at least one language (latin, greek, but also Assyrian or Babylonian, depending on the university) and makes sure the student becomes familiar both with historiography and the philosophy of history. This i think is a step in the right direction, but it suffers from a too spread out program and too few years. The curriculum should really be expanded from 4 to at least 6 years to give all subjects the attention they deserve.\n\nAnd then there is archaeology, which seems unable to deal with anything text related, but can offer huge amounts of knowledge to both historians and classicists, but seems undervalued by both.\n\nWhile the increased specialisations have helped to bring a wealth of new information to the surface, it is causing major issues in the latest generation of scholars. They are suffering from a shorter education period (while before the 80s it took 6-7 years to complete an education, before even starting a Phd, it is now 4-5 years), causing gaps in their knowledge (the lack of language training in historians, the lack of history training in Classicists). So the newest generation is actually less knowledgable, less trained and less capable of looking past their own specialization. \n\nAnother huge problem is the lack of knowledge of latin and greek in new students of history. The fact that you can graduate in ancient history and not be at least competent in Latin or another language is proof of that (and also a consequence of the shortening of the curriculum). This is actually not the fault of the universities, but the fault of high school latin/greek education. Even though im not a Classicist, my girlfriend is (finished a 5 year degree in Latin language and culture), so i've become way more familiar with the problems of educating of latin in high schools than i ever thought i would be. \n\nStandards have been gradually lowered because apparently students suddenly became dumb and stupid since the start of the 90's. However, the biggest issue here in the Netherlands is that Latin (and Greek as well) are instructed completely wrong. Students (as i have done myself) start out reading texts that are fabricated by the writers of the text book and translated from Dutch to Latin. While people used to learn Latin by reading actual Latin texts, they now read sentences which follow Dutch grammar and word order, but use Latin words. This fails to teach you the needed skills and sensibilities to really learn the language. There is also a huge focus on learning all kinds of grammar rules which are more exceptions than standard rules, while important things like learning words and actually reading the texts get pushed to the background. This in turn causes students to get turned off from studying latin, finding it a chore and boring. And the people who do push through all six years of high school arrive at a level that is insufficient to even pass the exams. Recently the ministry of education was talking about skipping the translation part of the final exams. \n\nIm friends with a retired Latin high school teacher who is currently working on his own method for teaching Latin, because he was frustrated by the current available methods. He has tried parts of his method on 11-12 year old children for a year. The worst (best) thing about it? After 26 weeks(!) those kids had a better grasp of Latin than high school kids had after 4 years of current Latin education.\n\nAnyway, the whole point of the long story above is that no, i do not believe that Classics/Ancient History is an healthy discipline. I see a few big problems:\n\n- At the high school level the educational system is failing to produce the quality of education necessary, causing less interest in ancient languages and thus drops in the number of students\n- With falling number of students the studie of classics and history have to defend themselves why they should be subsidized by the general public\n- This is something, at least in the Netherlands, that they seem unable to do. Or, if they are able, they cannot come up with anything more but \"it has value in itself\". While i do agree with that statement, the sad fact is that in current days, were everything is measured in profit and money, that answer is not good enough anymore. \n- The fact that almost all knowledge they generate sit behind paywalls and is only published in peer-reviewed journals, aimed at other scholars, is partly to blame for this. If the general public has no idea what you do, why should you expect them to pay you to keep doing it? \n- Im not familiar with the UK or US situation, but most scholars here have an obligation to get a minimum number of articles published each year, or they can face a termination of their contract. Books written for the general public do not count for this number, only peer-reviewed journals do. So there isnt any incentive for scholars to actually make their results known to the general public.",
"1) Contrary to your really rather grim assessment, Classics is pretty much still alive and kicking here in Britain! Yes, there have been pretty severe budget cuts (as far as 100% at one point!), the fact that loads of people, classicist and non-classicist alike, rallied to \"save Classics\" in the Unis that were hit hardest - and were successful! - is enough of an indication that that is the case. In recent years, there has been loads of effort made to make Classics popular, and the payoff has been pretty great, with people like Prof. Mary Beard and Bettany Hughes becoming household names, and the Iris project, created to make Classics more accessible.\n\n Although in academia the general trend was towards the stereotypical shabby old man, the amount of new blood in the field has really done wonders for the field! That said, I would very much like to see Late Antiquity be available as more than an option for postgrads here, but that assertion about Hellenism is not the case - next year I will be doing three modules on the Hellenistic Age (I'll be taking eight modules for my finals), and was actually told to give up a fourth because I was neglecting Rome!\n\nAs for the idea that the lack of \"instinctive grasp of Latin and Greek\" indicates its obsolescence - well, in the 19th century, some gentlemen could compose Greek hexameter poetry off the cuff. The fact that most people can't immediately grasp some difficult Latin or Greek anymore is not exactly a cause for concern, so long as most classicists have enough understanding to decipher a passage after a few tries.\n\nIn short, what was considered a pretty dry and upper-class field of study is becoming a lot more accessible of late to people from all walks of life, *despite* the cuts.\n\n2) Yes I am a Classicist, and I have identified as such since I was 15!\n\n3) ***Yes.*** Let us call a spade a spade. Sure, I'd like it if people didn't assume I did Shakespeare or Dickens, but I hardly think calling it \"Ancient Studies\" or \"Greco-Roman Studies\" would exactly solve the problem of inaccessibility or obsolescence you're trying to address.",
"My first post kind of rambled and got off topic, so here is another go:\n\n1. Probably still more healthy than it should be.\n\n2. No, I think of the Classics as a literary discipline, whereas I study classical archaeology. Still, I am stuck in that framework.\n\n3. Maybe not, but it is hard to get worked up about it when \"Near Eastern\" studies institutions still use variations of \"Oriental\".\n\nI think that, by and large, the classics is an archaic survival that remains only thanks to sentimentality and fading cultural prestige. Which is not to say it should be burned and scattered to the winds--I think there is some intrinsic value in such survivals, and moreover classical civilizations studies invites the sort of comprehensive, multidisciplinary approach that the departmental structure provides.\n\nOn the other hand, the structure can be somewhat harmful on an individual level. From talking to people in \"peripheral\" interests like Iron Age Etruria or Achaemenid Anatolia--or Hellenistic Bactria?--being shunted into Classics is frustrating and unhelpful. Which is not to say that Classics is unique in having a gap between departmental requirements and personal interest, but most disciplines weren't founded in the Renaissance.\n\nBut this all might be a way for me to justify not wanting to learn that miserable Balkan tongue.",
"I think classicists should choose a side; either the material/anthropological focus or the textual/historical focus. The first makes you a classical archaeologist, the second an ancient historian. If you stick to the old ways, thinking your discipline is somehow 'different', you end up being either irrelevant or hopelessly backwards. No field can exist in isolation.",
"I guess the first thing is to repeat what you say: that it's totally different in different countries. I've got some experience with the UK and North American systems, and know a little bit about the German system, and each of them is a totally different situation from that in my own country: the answers to your three questions would change depending on where I lived.\n\nI think it makes sense to tackle your questions in reverse.\n\n**3. Should Classics keep that particular name?** There are certainly powerful reasons to change it, but the reasons for keeping it are pretty important too. On the one hand, the term reeks of patriarchal archaism. A term like *Altertumswissenschaft* just wouldn't work, though: people doing critical theory and reception studies are not doing *Wissenschaft*. \"Greek and Roman studies\" might make sense, but that would build the barriers against other ancient cultures even higher than they are now.\n\nAnother factor is that, in the UK in particular, ancient historians are understandably quite hostile to the term: in the wave of consolidating departments into schools that spread over the UK in the last couple of decades, many ancient historians and \"classicists\" were mad as hell at being cooped up with one another. In some cases I believe the ancient historians managed to escape this fate by going with history instead, only to be foiled later on when history got merged with classics. (Some held on longer: Galway managed to keep separate departments of Ancient History, Greek, and Latin until very recently -- but I see they've gone into the melting pot too now.)\n\nPart of the problem is that for \"classicists\", as opposed to ancient history people, there isn't really unifying theme to what keeps *them* together either. Does it make sense to put linguists and philologists together with literary theorists and reception studies people? Maybe or maybe not: but I think the grouping makes no more sense than grouping literature with history.\n\nBut resentment doesn't exist everywhere. I gather from Tiako's comment that it does exist to some extent in America. But I believe that language/literature people and history people are happy to be grouped together at many North American institutions. Certainly in my own country (which is a very small pond) there's no friction between linguists, art historians, and historians. (We don't really have theorists!) It makes sense to have a single name for the entire field.\n\nThere is however a *benefit* to the name \"classics\": it may be nauseatingly patriarchal, but it *does* pull in students enormously effectively. It's a tremendously effective marketing scam. No university department would be wise to switch away from it, because it would cost them in student numbers -- and student numbers are *everything*.\n\n**2. Do you identify as a Classicist? If not, why not?** Within my own country, yes, for reasons mentioned above. But internationally I don't think I would -- even though I'm pretty close to the archetype of a \"classicist\". If I had a tenured position I might, but as things stand I'm effectively an \"independent researcher\", and that means I get to ignore the dictates of university bureaucrats. I'm one of those people who *minds* being grouped with literary theory and reception studies. I have nothing against people who do reception studies, but their work and my work have absolutely no relevance to one another: we've got absolutely nothing in common. I *do* however collaborate regularly with ancient historians. Theory is well and good when indulged in strict moderation, and I have dabbled, but I've got much more in common with the historians. So the categories don't fit very well. On Reddit I usually identify as a \"philologist\", but that's not really satisfactory either: I only study a few set ancient languages. It's always a relief when I'm talking to someone who speaks German, because then I can say that I'm an *Altphilologist*, and everything's nice and clear.\n\n**1. How healthy do you think Classics is as a discipline?**\n\nIn the UK it is indeed tottering a bit, but that's because of the wills of the bureaucrats deciding what is worthy of being studied and what isn't. It's a phase. It's a highly uncomfortable phase, and it may last as much as another twenty years, but this too will pass. Australia is suffering from this too, thanks to their habitual worship of everything the UK did ten years ago and is already regretting. In N. America there's a huge variation, but I get the strong impression that, even if it's floundering in many areas, it's flourishing in others. I'm not worried about student interest dying out; it's really only the bureaucrats we need to worry about.\n\nYou mention that new classicists don't have an instinctive command of the languages the way they did two generations ago. That's true, but it has no impact on ancient history, art history, literary criticism, theory, or reception studies. Philology and textual criticism are really the only affected areas! -- along with, to a very limited extent, literary criticism.\n\nBut even in those areas it's certainly not fatal. Yes, we do need papyrologists and epigraphers, and yes we need a slow but steady supply of new critical editions of ancient texts. It's easy to get pessimistic about these, but if you think about it, textual criticism in these areas has *always* been the province of a very, very small group of scholars. We don't need every school to be producing textual critics: the trickling supply that we've got is actually enough. Some types of texts are more complex (papyri, fragments) and need more focus, but there are still enough people capable of doing this while keeping up a slow ooze of editions of simpler texts. It's true that the production of essential source material like this is steadily moving away from the UK in favour of Germany and Italy, but from a global perspective I don't think there's a problem.\n\nYou might imagine that it's more of a problem that it's the same old authors being re-edited and re-edited over and over again -- do we actually need new editions of the tragedians, Homer, or Roman love poets? But in fact we've been getting cool editions of some really exciting things like John Malalas, John of Antioch, Crates of Mallos, Antimachus, the Odyssey scholia, and the like -- not to mention the extraordinarily ambitious New Jacoby.\n\n**Final notes.** Your tutor said, \"Classics is dead.\" Well, if she was thinking of textual criticism and the like, I point her towards the New Jacoby. That subset of classics is exactly as healthy as it's always been, I think. And if the New Jacoby is being put together by a huge team of people instead of just one man (Jacoby), how is that a bad thing?\n\nOn her point about reception studies being the only flourishing area of classics, I might actually hesitantly agree with that -- *in the UK.* But really it's *only* in the UK that reception studies has taken off. In the rest of the world, it gets hardly any mindshare. It used to baffle me when I looked at UK job advertisements and saw reception studies being mentioned over and over again, because *no one else is doing that*.\n\nAnd as to the name \"classics\": yes, it's got its downsides. But I think your tutor would be the last person who'd want to shut off the study of non-Greco-Roman civilisations of the ancient world -- and that's exactly what a title like \"Greek and Roman studies\" would do. Would \"ancient Mediterranean studies\" be better? Maybe, but you'd still have to say bye-bye to Bactria, Roman Britain, Helvetia... I think \"classics\" is going to stick for this reason, and because of its power to put bums on seats (as Mary Beard would say).\n\nOn a related note, were you aware that the American Philological Association is going to be changing its name?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
54kbqu
|
Can anybody date this map based on the states around Germany?
|
Sorry for the quality of the image. I've noticed that Danzig and Oppeln look to be somehow stateless, if that helps.
_URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54kbqu/can_anybody_date_this_map_based_on_the_states/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d82jqnh"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"It looks like post-Versailles Europe (1920-39), when Danzig was a free city. Oppeln is a little more interesting since it held a plebiscite in 1921 as to whether or not become part of Poland or Germany. It ended up going with Germany, but there had already been a conflict going on in Upper Silesia between the German and Polish populations, culminating in the Battle of Annaberg in May 1921. To my thinking, this would place the map pretty shortly after Versailles, when the situation in Oppeln was still fluid."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://imgur.com/c1N6z9d"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
8eqc2t
|
How and why did the Chinese campaign “The Great Leap Forward” fail?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8eqc2t/how_and_why_did_the_chinese_campaign_the_great/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxxa30v"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Check out [this ](_URL_0_) thread on a similar question from a few hours ago. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8ej8gv/can_mao_be_blamed_for_the_disaster_that_was_the/?st=JGEIQQ0H&sh=fdc3b2c5"
]
] |
|
5j9li1
|
why do people fill empty space between words with "uhh" and "umm" instead of silence?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5j9li1/eli5_why_do_people_fill_empty_space_between_words/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbeene2",
"dbek3tm",
"dbekujo",
"dbep9fm",
"dbep9yw",
"dbept4t",
"dbeq1qe",
"dbeq2yg",
"dbeqkap",
"dberb8b",
"dbes403"
],
"score": [
363,
3,
19,
62,
143,
18,
21,
9,
17,
5,
14
],
"text": [
"To let you (the listener) know that they are still talking. In a polite conversation, when one person is silent that is usually seen as permission for the other person to talk. If I stop talking to think of a word, you might take that to mean that I am through talking. If I keep making noise, you know that I am still talking. \n\n",
"It's also a good indicator of growing up trying to compete with one's siblings for their parents' attention. If you stop speaking, the other child immediately gets the floor.",
"To continue talking. It just feels weird with a void in the middle. It's also because we have to think in between words to understand ourselves.\nIt's kind of like typing. We type a little, stop, then think about it. Then we type a little, stop, then think about it.",
"For my father, the term was \"see??\". This guy walked in, see? And he looked around, see? I've heard than in gangster movies from the 1930s and 40s, but it wasn't just gangsters - that was the vernacular of the time. I've heard other people my dad's age do the same (not recently - my dad was born in 1909.)",
"To stop people from interrupting. In West Africa, it's common for folks in positions of power to stutter to achieve the same effect. Sort of an odd cross-cultural thing: some chieftain stuttering through a speech is perceived as charismatic and articulate, whereas a Westerner might perceive him as nervous and submissive for the stutter.\nSource: lived with a West African chieftain for a year.",
"It's called \"filler words.\" As your brain is trying to find the next words to use, you add these to keep the conversation going. ",
"They're called verbal pauses. People use them, most times unconsciously, to assess where they are in a though or to provide themselves additional time to think. You can practice these out of use by slowing down your speaking pace or learning to be comfortable with silent pauses. ",
"I don't really say uhh and umm, and people always hive me shit about long pauses between words as I'm talking/thinking out loud.",
"Toastmasters and other public speaking groups use similar approaches... mostly a matter of pacing your speech, though, so you don't leave empty space.\n\nThe funny part is what sound we use... in American English usage it's Schwa (uhm), while in French it's usually \"angle y\" (to make this sound shape your lips like \"oo\" but your tongue like \"ee.\" In Hebrew it seems to be \"ehm.\"",
"I'm silent when I can't think of something and I usually get chastised for not answering them or trailing off and leaving them hanging when I'm just thinking. \"All you had to do was tell me, don't get upset when I get upset.\" \"I didn't even know what to tell you.\"",
"In my Speech class in college, every time a person delivering a speech said \"um\" or the like the professor would drop a rock into an empty metal coffee can.\n\nIt was funny to watch others endure that but damned horrific when it was happening to you..."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1t092g
|
why aren't movies pirated using cinema files on the day of release?
|
It just seems weird to me. Wouldn't it be easy to just copy the file/film that gets delivered to the cinema somehow, and then distribute it illegally at full quality?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t092g/eli5_why_arent_movies_pirated_using_cinema_files/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce30f9u",
"ce33a5m"
],
"score": [
4,
6
],
"text": [
"Its probably because those files are kept under the watchful eyes of the cinema security and those responsible for making sure the files don't get into the wrong hands. Even if you were an employee of the cinema and you had access to it, you would need to bring in some sort of media to transfer the files, a huge storage device (these are super high resolution films - not your everyday .avi files) and some sneaky ninja moves. If you were caught and reported by anyone the repercussions could be huge as you will most likely be singlehandedly responsible for the pirating of that movie. I'm not saying you couldn't do it, as I've wondered this before. Its just risky and you would need the right tools for the job - and most importantly inside accomplices to help you smuggle them in/out. ",
"Snagged this right from [a Wikipedia article](_URL_0_):\n\n > Movies are supplied to the theatre as a digital file called a \"Digital Cinema Package\"(DCP).[19] For a typical feature film this file will be anywhere between 90 and 300GB of data (roughly two to six times the information of a Blu-ray disc) and may arrive as a physical delivery on a conventional computer hard-drive or via satellite or fibre-optic broadband.[20] Currently (Dec 2013) physical deliveries are most common and have become the industry standard. Trailer's arrive on a separate hard-drive and range between 200 and 400MB in size.\n\n > Regardless of how the DCP arrives it first needs to be copied onto the internal hard-drives of the server, usually via a USB port, a process known as \"ingesting\". DCPs can be, and in the case of **feature films almost always are, encrypted**. The necessary decryption keys are supplied separately, usually as email attachments and then \"ingested\" via USB. Keys are time limited and will expire after the end of the period for which the title has been booked. **They are also locked to the hardware (server and projector) that is to screen the film**, so if the theatre wishes to move the title to another screen or extend the run a new key must be obtained from the distributor.\n\nI **bolded** what I thought were the important bits."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_cinema"
]
] |
|
46imj3
|
why are the drugs that bind to specific receptors have such variability based on their specific chemical make-up?
|
I'm making the assumption that for a particular human, there's a set number of receptors (opiate, serotonin, dopamine, canabinoid, etc.) and that a single molecule of the drug can bind to a single receptor. (If these assumptions are wrong, please explain).
How can there be such a variability in dose to achieve the same effect? For example, [here's](_URL_0_) a chart that shows 180mg of codeine is equivalent of 1 microgram of carfentanil. Assuming that the weight of a codeine molecule doesn't differ by a factor of 180,000 from the weight of a carfentanil molecule, how are the two equivalent despite such a different dosage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/46imj3/eli5_why_are_the_drugs_that_bind_to_specific/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d05n1mm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I don't mean to be rude, but the other posts are half-baked. The answer you're looking for is actually pretty straightforward. There are two factors you need to consider: (1) agonist [efficacy](_URL_1_) and (2) agonist [binding affinity](_URL_0_). The former is a measure of the magnitude of the physiologic response the agonist induces through action at the receptor site. The latter is a measure of how tightly the agonist binds to the receptor site.\n\nEfficacy and affinity are, for the most part, independent properties for a given agonist at a given receptor. Higher affinity does not imply higher efficacy, and vice versa. With regard to the drugs you mentioned, carfentanil exhibits greater *efficacy* at the mu-opiate receptor than codeine. However, codeine actually has greater *affinity* for the mu receptor than carfentanil.\n\nEdit: Disregard my last sentence, I was mistaken. I just looked up the values. Carfentanil exhibits both higher efficacy and affinity than codeine at the mu-opiate receptor."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equianalgesic#Opioid-Equivalency_Chart"
] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ligand_%28biochemistry%29#Receptor.2Fligand_binding_affinity",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intrinsic_activity"
]
] |
|
2udups
|
What was the highest rank in Nazi Germany that was acquitted of war crimes?
|
Obviously we know that people like Goebbels and Goering were found guilty due to their ranks in the government and by extension, their degrees of responsibility that ultimately cause the deaths of millions.
To try and be clearer, how high of a rank could I get with minimum risk (not no risk) of being charged with war crimes later?
Because I read a few articles here and there of some lucky few, despite having high power, got away scot-free or with minimal penalties.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2udups/what_was_the_highest_rank_in_nazi_germany_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co7nfwz"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The question is impossible to answer really. By and large people were indicted for the specific things that they did, not \"war crimes\". The original high ranking defendants were charged with \"count 3\" of \"war crimes\". (_URL_0_) but even then there was much specificity in the testimony.\n\nBut, to answer your question, Karl Doenitz, the head of the Nazi State, was acquitted (rightfully, in my opinion) of \"war crimes\".\n\nHe was found guilty of \"crimes against peace\" for waging unrestricted submarine warfare, which is BS in my opinion, and also found guilty of count 1 \"the common plan or conspiracy\" which was utterly absurd considering he was a nobody prior to the outbreak of war."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/imt/count3.asp"
]
] |
|
8w2wal
|
please help me understand cloud storage such as googledrive
|
I'd like to free up a bunch of disk space on my PC but still have access to the files, I'm not sure if cloud storage is the answer.
I don't really understand it -I'm not very good with technology at all.
Could I upload a bunch of files onto google drive and then delete those files off my PC and have access to them from a cloud? would that free up space or would it just create another copy or something. Is it's purpose just to share access to files while still having a hard copy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8w2wal/eli5please_help_me_understand_cloud_storage_such/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1s949j",
"e1s9508",
"e1s97so",
"e1s9bch",
"e1s9hia",
"e1sc86y"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
2,
8,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Imagine cloud storage as a flash drive that you can access from anywhere, without the risk of damage/loss to the drive itself.. Do with it what you please. If you want to store a few larger files and delete the local copies, you can.",
"Yes, you could delete those files off of your machine completely and Google Drive will store them.\n\nYou could also have a special folder on your machine where anything you save there will be automatically copied to your Google Drive. Many people do this to back up important documents.",
"\"Cloud storage\" in this context just means the data is stored on a server somewhere out in the world that you can connect to via the internet, instead of on your hard drive sitting in front of you on your computer.\n\nThis allows you to access the data from anywhere with an internet connection (instead of just on your computer hard drive).",
"The \"Cloud\" is really just a nickname for remote server storage. Right now, you have the file on your hard drive on your computer. When you \"upload it to the cloud\", you're just making a copy of that file on someone else's computer (in this case, Google's, and it's not a desktop computer but a massive server farm).\n\nYes, you can upload your files to Google's service and then delete them from your hard drive and still have access to the files and free up space on your computer. The two big risks here are that someone gains access to your Google account and subsequently whatever information you have stored there (not necessarily too likely, especially if you have a good password and use two factor authentication) and the service you choose goes out of business (also not very likely in the case of Google).\n\nAlso, you can view the documents through Google's service, and you can edit *some* of the documents online (if they are text documents or spreadsheets, for instance), but you can't edit/modify all types of files. That means that if you want to edit photographs you will have to download them to your computer again to do so, since Google doesn't have online photo editing (or if it does, it's very basic).\n",
"Thank you guys for the explanation, very helpful!",
"Imagine your computer to be a large cabinet, and all of your files to be paper documents. Whether they're spreadhseets, notes, letters, pitctures... it doesn't matter. When you want to look at some picture, you take it out of the cabinet, and look at it. When you're done with it, you put it back. \nAfter a while, your cabinet starts to get pretty full (or you fear a fire may start, and you lose all of your stuff), so you ask a buddy of yours, who you know has a lot of cabinets to put stuff in, if you can store some of your stuff at his place. Let's call this guy G. Oogle. Now, you don't want to drive all the way to Oogle's place every time you want add or remove some files, so you set up a system where you fax him the stuff you want stored, and he faxes you the stuff you want. \nThis works pretty well, and Oogle is a kind man, so he offers the same services to other people as well. He's got a lot of space to put it all, so why not. He may even build a couple more cabinets. Of course, Oogle isn't dumb. He knows that it's possible that he may accidentally throw a file in the trash that people still need. Or there could be a fire, or a cabinet could collapse, making all files in it unreadable (I admit, it isn't a perfect analogy, but I hope it works). So he buys another home, in some other location. And maybe a third, and a fourth. And then he basically does the same with those other houses as he does with you. And for each file in his cabinets, he'll ask one or two other houses he owns to put it in their cabinets as well. Similarly, if they get a document, they ask other houses to store it as well. \nNow he can lose an entire house, and he'll still have all of the documents needed. Nonetheless, it can be possible that through some fluke, all files get destroyed, but Mr. Oogle is always very careful to minimize this chance. \nAnother fun thing, is that because Mr. Oogle has the file in multiple locations, he can also ask those to help him out if he's getting a lot of requests at his original house. If he has 5 fax machines, then he can only send 5 files at once. So if you want to look at that cute picture of your dog, but you're the 6th to call, you'll have to wait until one of the lines is open. But if Mr. Oogle calls his pals, and tells them \"Yo, I've got someone waiting for that cute picture of their dog. Can you handle that, I'm kind of busy here.\", they can help you out, and you don't have to wait (as long). \n\nI hope the analogy made sense, but I'll give a short recap here. You can store your files locally, but because you want a backup, or you just want to make more space on your computer, you decide to upload some of it to \"the cloud\". This means that you're basically asking someone else (in this case Google) to store it for you. Of course, Google also has backups and redundancies, in case a server (read: computer) fails, or if an entire server farm (building of servers) gets destroyed. There's also a bunch of other stuff going on, that I briefly touched, so that you can get your files pretty quickly. One of those is load-balancing, where Google distributes incoming traffic from all over to other servers, so that you can get your files without too much hassle. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
jvf8c
|
surge protectors
|
why are they so important? what is a power strip missing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jvf8c/eli5_surge_protectors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ffjen",
"c2ffjen"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You mean whats the difference between a power strip and a surge protector? Basically, there is a \"switch\" in a surge protector that is controlled by high amounts of power. During normal operation, the switch is off. When there is a surge of power, the switch turns on and provides a different path for the flow of power. Instead of keeping the same path to your electronics, it switches on and provides a path to ground so the surge just gets dissipated into the earth.\n\nFor those beyond 5 years old:\nIt's called a zener diode or transorb.",
"You mean whats the difference between a power strip and a surge protector? Basically, there is a \"switch\" in a surge protector that is controlled by high amounts of power. During normal operation, the switch is off. When there is a surge of power, the switch turns on and provides a different path for the flow of power. Instead of keeping the same path to your electronics, it switches on and provides a path to ground so the surge just gets dissipated into the earth.\n\nFor those beyond 5 years old:\nIt's called a zener diode or transorb."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
86it3s
|
Why did Eastern armies prefer curved swords over the straight swords of their western counterparts?
|
Edit: For clarification I was thinking of Europe compared to middle east.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/86it3s/why_did_eastern_armies_prefer_curved_swords_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dw5kjrx"
],
"score": [
2780
],
"text": [
"Part of this is just perception. When we think of Western armies with swords, we think of ancient and medieval armies with straight swords, and when we think of Eastern armies, we think of post-medieval armies with curved swords. But it isn't an Eastern vs Western division; it's mostly an early vs late division. Ancient and early medieval swords were mostly straight, with the early curved sabre appearing in Central Asia in about the 7th century, and spreading east, west, and south from there. The curved sword became the common military sword in China during the Song Dynasty, in Persia in about the 15th century, in Eastern Europe in about the 16th century, Central Europe in the 17th century, and Western Europe in the 18th century.\n\n* If we compare ancient armies in the East and the West, we find both using straight swords.\n\n* If we compare early Medieval armies in the East and the West, we find both using straight swords.\n\n* If we compare late Medieval armies/early modern armies, we find that curved swords are more common in the East than the West. Both curved and straight swords were in use in both East and West, but an Eastern sword would be more likely to be curved.\n\n* From the 18th century onwards, curved swords are common in both East and West.\n\nOne origin for the East/West curved/straight view is Medieval art depicting the Crusades. With both sides wearing similar armour, the artist often used different weapons to distinguish the two sides. For example, the artist might show the Saracen army using maces, or European falchions. In reality, both sides were usually using double-edged straight swords.\n\nThe best single book covering the development and spread of the curved sword is Iaroslav Lebedynsky, *De l'épée scythe au sabre mongol: Les armes blanches des nomades de la steppe IXe siècle avant J-C - XIXe siècle après J-C*, Editions Errance, 2008 [in French]."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cmtp28
|
why do steering wheels automatically recenter themselves if you stop holding them during a turn?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cmtp28/eli5_why_do_steering_wheels_automatically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ew4punj"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's actually caused by the caster angle of the front wheels. When you turn the car is actually lifted a bit higher due to the geometry of the steering system. When you release the wheel, the weight of the car wants to force the wheel back to straight. This is also helped along by something called trail. The point of contact of the tire to the road is behind the axis on which the wheel itself turns. This means that as the car is moving, the wheel is being pulled straight by the motion of the car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
13zgu0
|
What is the oldest known state to have existed?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/13zgu0/what_is_the_oldest_known_state_to_have_existed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c78ia9b",
"c78ic8s",
"c78ki5q"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's a problematic question. How would you define a \"state\"? Is it a political entity with only one government wielding the power/commanding the armed forces? Is it an entity tied to an area, to a people, to an ideal? Definitions of \"country\", \"nation\" and \"state\" abound, so if you want an answer to your question you'll first have to get your definition straight.",
"I would argue that Ethiopia is the oldest country with a generally recognized formation around 980-800 BCE. [Musschrott](/u/musschrott) makes a good ponit though, the definition of \"state\" is problematic to say the least, in the case of Ethiopia, it was originally called D'mt. ",
"China is certainly one of the oldest states that's still in existence - it was unified in 221BC and the Chinese imperial court received diplomats from ancient Rome.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1gynoy
|
although sodium increases your blood pressure, potassium can apparently 'lower' your blood pressure. what is going on there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1gynoy/elif_although_sodium_increases_your_blood/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cap4ifm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"To understand this it's going to get a little complicated, so let's start...\n\nLets start with sodium and how it increases your blood pressure. Osmotic pressure explains why water will move from an area of high concentration to an area of lower concentration. Osmosis is constantly attempting to even out the number of solutes (like sodium) and the amount of water. This force exists throughout out your body and a majority of the osmotic pressure is exerted by sodium.\n\nThe more sodium you eat the more will exist in your blood vessels. The kidneys are very efficient at filtering out sodium and excess water, however, even with a slightly increased sodium level in your blood stream chronically, more water is retained in your vascular system and your blood pressure increases. This causes damage to the cell wall, causing arterial stenosis (hardening), and the cycle continues until your hypertension kills you.\n\nPotassium isn't as nearly a strong solute, and most of the potassium in your body is inside your cells or \"intracellular\". Potassium is crucial for humans as it's the main cation that creates our membrane potential. A membrane potential allows for a negative charge to exist inside your cells, it typically sits at -40 - 60mv in most of your cells, slightly more negative in cardiac cells. \n\nBrief lesson on depolarization. You have huge amounts of sodium on the outside of your cell and huge amounts of potassium inside your cell. When the cell gets stimulated (by a nerve, or outside stimuli), sodium channels open, sodium rushes into the cell and potassium channels open, while potassium rushes out of the cell. This changes the voltage of the membrane and creates an \"action potential\" or a nerve impulse. This is how your body communicates with itself, telling muscles to contract, glands to secrete, and every function in your body.\n\nThis potential is reset by a sodium-potassium ATPase pump, it exchanges 3 sodium ions from the inside for 2 potassium ions from the outside of the cell, and forces the negative voltage. This all has a point I promise!\n\nWhen you eat more potassium there is an increased in the potassium ions outside the cell. This results in more (+) charged ions outside the cell than inside the cell as both sodium and potassium are cations. This produces a more negative charge inside your cell. This increased negative charge or \"hyperpolarization\" makes it more difficult for the cell to \"fire\" and create a nerve impulse. The muscles in your blood vessels are very sensitive to potassium levels and as a result slightly relax as they are having a harder time getting the impulse to squeeze. This results in a slight ( < 10mmhg) but studied and proven decrease in BP.\n\nSorry, I know that was long and wasn't ELI5, but it is a complex answer for a complex question.\n\nedit: added information"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a4ipp7
|
What causes the routing of major veins and arteries to be essentially the same from person to person?
|
It always seemed to my mathematical mind that there would be some natural variation from person to person, but the more I read, the more it seems it's highly uniform.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/a4ipp7/what_causes_the_routing_of_major_veins_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebfwpmv",
"ebg16qr",
"ebgaz2n"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The formation of blood vessels in early embryonic development is just as tightly controlled as the formation of any other organ system. Unless you lack one of the important factors - in which case you will have major pathologies or the embryo dies in an early stage - these control mechanisms are highly conserved for all vertebrates and therefore between individual humans as well. \n\nSee [this review paper](_URL_0_) for a more in-depth molecular biology look at those mechanisms. ",
"There is definitely variations in the path of blood vessels. Anatomy books give many examples of this. One consequential example is the coronary arteries of the heart. 70% of people are right-dominant, meaning the right branch supplies the septum, while 10% av left-dominant, meaning the left branch (circumflex) supplies the septum.\n\nEven the aorta (the largest artery) has some variation with regard to branches. Sometimes both carotid arteries branch off from the aorta, sometimes neither. Sometimes the vertebral arteries branch off from the aorta.\n\nBlood vessels consist of endothelial cells. When new vessels are formed (angiogenesis), the outermost layer of endothelial cells guide the way. They are called \"tip cells\". Tip cells respond to chemotactic signals like growth factors in the environment. They move using filopodia (feet-like projections).",
"The veins and arteries are organized into a hierarchy with the largest (e.g., the aorta, the jugular) at the top and the smallest (capillaries) at the bottom. Only the very top levels of this hierarchy is mostly the same from person to person, and even then you get some variations like BobSeger1945 describes. \n\nSurgeons often study the prevalence of different variations in circulatory topology like Figs. 2 and 3 in [this article](_URL_4_), Figs. 1-4 in [this one](_URL_0_), or [this illustration](_URL_2_). (The [Circle of Willis](_URL_3_), discussed in the second article, is particularly important for neurosurgeons.) Here is an example of how these variations are typically discussed taken from the Wikipedia page on the [pulmonary vein](_URL_1_):\n\n > Occasionally the three lobar veins on the right side remain separate, and not infrequently the two left lobar veins end by a common opening into the left atrium. Therefore, the number of pulmonary veins opening into the left atrium can vary between three and five in the healthy population.\n\n > The two left lobar veins may be united as a single pulmonary vein in about 25% of people; the two right veins may be united in about 3%.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.cb.11.110195.000445"
],
[],
[
"http://www.jpma.org.pk/full_article_text.php?article_id=8551",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulmonary_vein#Variation",
"https://www.anatomyatlases.org/AnatomicVariants/Cardiovascular/Images0400/0478.shtml",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_Willis",
"https://peerj.com/articles/1726/"
]
] |
|
4uvn7n
|
Can someone identify if these two American Civil War uniforms are from different sides?
|
_URL_0_
This comes up in Google when I search "brother against brother" and I wanted to confirm that one of these was a union soldier and one a confederate.
The obvious answer tells me that the guy on the left is Union because of his blue coat, and right is confederate because of the grey, but when I google "Confederate uniform" a lot of blue uniforms looking identical to the guy on the left appear.
Anyone know something about this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4uvn7n/can_someone_identify_if_these_two_american_civil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5teg0h"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"/u/ThisOldHatte is correct: Confederate officer and enlisted. This photo hit the internet as part of the exhibit \"[Photography and the American Civil War\" at the Metropolitan Museum of Art,](_URL_0_) April – Sept 2013.\n\n‘Captain Charles A. and Sergeant John M. Hawkins, Company E, “Tom Cobb Infantry,” Thirty-eighth Regiment, Georgia Volunteer Infantry,’ 1861–62, by an unknown artist. (Photo by Jack Melton/Metropolitan Museum of Art)\n\n---------------------------\n\nEDIT: direct link to museum webpage for highres photo:\n\n > [In this quarter-plate ambrotype, Confederate Captain Charles Hawkins of the Thirty-eighth Regiment, Georgia Volunteer Infantry, on the left, sits for his portrait with his brother John, a sergeant in the same regiment. They address the camera and draw their fighting knives from scabbards](_URL_1_). Charles would die on June 13, 1863, in the Shenandoah Valley during General Robert E. Lee’s second invasion of the North. John, wounded at the Battle of Gaines’s Mill in June 1862, would survive the war, fighting with his company until its surrender at Appomattox.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://lossincivilwar.weebly.com/uploads/5/1/3/0/51303025/1892254_orig.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/listings/2013/photography-and-the-american-civil-war",
"http://www.metmuseum.org/exhibitions/view?exhibitionId=%7b9400f95d-89a4-4920-a05e-46ee3cedc9c0%7d&amp;oid=302545&amp;pkgids=205&amp;pg=1&amp;rpp=10&amp;pos=5&amp;ft=*"
]
] |
|
2v89ll
|
what's bad about internet explorer?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2v89ll/eli5whats_bad_about_internet_explorer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cofb7k1",
"cofboiy",
"cofcnlt",
"cofcyk7",
"cofd0w8",
"cofdj66",
"cofdn3u",
"cofeaqe",
"cofes3k",
"coffv7h",
"cofjzao",
"cofkgt9",
"cofkhxu",
"cofl4zz",
"cofltjt",
"cofm73c",
"cofm883",
"cofmdgt",
"cofn50b",
"cofn9nh",
"cofpp30",
"cofq3as",
"cofqceq",
"cofqfjk",
"cofqmyg",
"cofr0uf",
"cofr1n1",
"cofrife",
"cofrioh",
"cofrldy",
"cofrzpv",
"cofsixe",
"coft4wj",
"coftcwb",
"coftu4w",
"cofuprp",
"cofuu1g",
"cofuvgg",
"cofvbq7",
"cofvdx1",
"cofvsks",
"cofwke7",
"cofwtxn",
"cofwxnu",
"cofwy5t",
"cofx07n",
"cofx5do",
"cofxgut",
"cofxwcr",
"cofykfp",
"cofyn7d",
"cofywi0",
"cog03je",
"cog0ev6",
"cog0u5x",
"cog0zpo",
"cog10kh",
"cog1t8r",
"cog3rkc",
"cog3rwg",
"cog45uh",
"cog4y0c",
"cog552y",
"cog5kny"
],
"score": [
202,
7,
117,
2,
867,
124,
10,
3343,
5,
5,
49,
10,
3,
23,
4,
2,
5,
2,
4,
2,
6,
3,
8,
2,
5,
13,
2,
5,
3,
6,
2,
3,
2,
4,
2,
10,
48,
2,
4,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
3,
2,
2,
32,
2,
3,
2,
8,
2,
3,
14,
3,
4,
2,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"These days? Nothing, really. However, IE has traditionally been the last to the game when it comes to new features (like tabbed browsing), and has always been a bit of a memory hog. It's become somewhat of a meme that IE is for those who don't know any better, but that hasn't really been true for a few years now.",
"It isn't standards compliant. It's gotten better over the years, but it's still way behind its competitors.",
"Web developers typically don't like internet explorer because it is less compliant to standards and slower to adopt new standards than other browsers. So, when you develop a website, you will frequently find yourself making special cases to get it to work correctly in internet explorer. Now, this is not as bad as it once was, but it is still true. Microsoft also has a history of adding proprietary extensions to internet explorer such that you could develop a website that would only work in internet explorer. This is not so much the case any more luckily. At this point, internet explorer has a bad name, so even if all the issues had been resolved, it would still get a bad rep for historical reasons.",
"It used to be extremely slow and take up lots of memory, but for the most part is patched up. Although, when a new browsing featured gets added to Chrome or FireFox, Chrome is usually first, then FireFox, then IE. (Not including browsers that don't have much fame at all.) Sometimes it goes differently, though.",
"This applies more to The Old Days.\n\nImagine building a website is like drawing a picture. You finish your picture and it's beautiful. \n\nThen someone comes along with an old, dusty, bent mirror and holds it up to your picture. \"What an ugly picture!\" they say. \"But your mirror's all bent and dusty!\" you protest. \"Well, EVERYONE uses a mirror like this\", they say. So you have to go and mess up your drawing so it looks OK in the old, bent, dusty mirror.\n\nSource: IE made my life a living heck for a long time.",
"1. Historically horrible HTML5 support\n\n2. Historically horrible JavaScript support\n\n3. Security holes as wide and brightly lit as the Holland Tunnel. \n\nThe brand is so bad the next browser is called Spartan rather than IE12. \n",
"It's a direct line to the core of your operating system. This allows you to be easily hijacked by web browser attacks. \n\nAmong the other reasons posted here this to me is the best reason not to use it.",
"tl;dr; Up until Internet Explorer 9, Internet Explorer (IE) was very much behind modern advances in Web browsing and also required a different way to do things than other browsers. Since IE was installed on every PC, it still was the market leader in browsers so Web Developers had to use more tedious and non standard methods when developing in order to make sure the largest market share could use their Web site. This made their job a lot harder.\n\nSource: Web Developer\n\nThe long winded answer:\n\nInternet Explorer was actually very innovative (_URL_0_) in the early days of the Web. The major players in the Web space were Netscape and Internet Explorer. Netscape developed JavaScript - which is the primary language on the Web used to handle interface interactions and rich Web applications. JavaScript was a proprietary language owned by Netscape (not open source), and therefore in order to compete, Microsoft developed JScript - its own language similar to JavaScript but a different engine. This is important, because proprietary ownership is a big reason IE became what it is/was.\n\nIt was until a year after Internet Explorer 3 that Netscape submitted JavaScript to ECMA International for standardization. At this point IE already had their own version/engine and so did not/could not make the switch without major modification to Internet Explorer's code. This is when JavaScript really became open sourced. \n\nIn 1999 AOL bought Netscape, and Netscape open sourced its browser - becoming the foundation for Mozilla and Firefox, an open source browser. 2 years later, another open source project KHTML was used to form the open source project Webkit, the foundation of Apple's Safari and Google's Chrome. Both Chrome and Safari based their JavaScript engines off the ECMA standard, not IE's implementation. These three new browsers, based off of open source projects and lots of contributing developers, were able to/can move quickly to adapt to the rapid nature of the Web. \n\nBecause IE was proprietary to Microsoft it had 2 problems: 1) only Microsoft developers were working on IE and its JScript engine, 2) IE was important to the operation of Windows. Therefore, the update path for IE was tied directly to the update path of Windows - and operating systems traditionally require longer development cycles than browsers. It is the reason why you can't install IE9 on a Windows XP machine. Windows XP only supports up to IE8. Microsoft didn't see this as a problem at first - for a while IE was the only real player in the browser wars, but as adoption for Firefox, Safari, and Chrome grew, IE lost market share.\n\nSince Microsoft used its own proprietary standards instead of the standards used by the other popular browsers, developers had to start making special exception in their code to support IE users. This led to a lot of frustration from the development community towards IE - and a lot of people rallying against using it.\n\nIE9 tried to correct a lot of the problems of past IE by bringing its standards in line with Web standards. However, the damage to its brand and reputation is significant. Also, IE is still a Microsoft/Windows only product, which makes it difficult to test against if you are writing code on a machine other than windows. There is still a big frustration among developers and IE since many still do have to support IE8, since Windows XP is still in heavy use and their isn't an upgrade path for those users to newer version of IE.\n\nEdit for grammar.",
"There are a set of standards set forth by the W3C (World Wide Web Consortium) in an attempt to make everything the same across all browsers as far as page rendering goes. That way if you bring up a web page in Firefox, Chrome, Opera, whatever.. it will look exactly the same in all of them. Otherwise you would have to essentially create a website for each and every browser.\n\nMicrosoft ignores this. Virtually every site you see out there will be written according to the standards, then it will have exceptions in there. If browser equals IE, do this instead. They follow the basics, then throw out the rest and do their own thing. Aside from all the security holes, horrible performance, etc.. this is the main reason why IE is a shit browser. Why should I develop a website that will work on EVERY SINGLE GOD DAMNED BROWSER, INCLUDING TEXT BASED ONES LIKE LYNX, then create a second one just for IE? ",
"Disregarding any technical aspect that most users would not even notice or care for (standards compliance/resource hoggishness). I find that opening it just now, it takes its sweet old time to start up, and then takes a while to do anything.\n\nEven if everything else was perfect, its lack of responsiveness is one of the main reasons I moved to Chrome. Some people don't notice the sluggishness, and I think that's just fine and they can use whichever browser they please",
"The 10+ versions of IE are just fine. However, many corporations run IE8 because they are stuck on Windows XP. IE8 is the symbol of everything that went wrong with Microsoft. Hostility towards any kind of community standards and proprietary half assed solutions with the sole purpose of vendor lock-in.",
"From a developers point of view you can think about it like this:\n\nYou have two boxes of Lego sets each which when put together will be identical models of the awesome [Lego City Airport](_URL_0_). You follow the instructions and put together the first set and it's of course amazing. Putting together the identical set from the other box should be quick and easy, I mean you just did it.\n\nTearing open the second box you notice the instructions are similar but not quite the same. This is the Lego City Airport: Internet Explorer x-8 edition. Some pages in the instruction booklet have twice as many steps and the pieces are not exactly the same as in set number one. You spend just as much time with these instructions as you did the first and end up with the same thing. Kind of annoying. \n\nNow imagine being forced to do that for every Lego set before being allowed to play with it or show it to your friends.\n\nInternet Explorer is much different today and shouldn't be considered bad at all.",
"It's slightly less visually-pleasing and intuitive than Firefox and Chrome. Ultimately, though, not by much.\n\nBut it's *unfashionable*, which means that voluntarily using it is tantamount to flying a flag proudly indicating your membership in the Nazi party whilst simultaneously shouting through a megaphone the results of your recent test at the Doctor's diagnosing you with advanced mental retardation.\n\nAs I understand.",
"Since this question is asked in the present tense, there is currently nothing \"bad\" about the latest version of Internet Explorer, IE 11.\n\n\nThe \"bad\" aspect of IE is its reputation for historically not keeping up to modern standards. Nowadays, the technical problems of IE are gone but the stigma is still there so that's what's bad.\n\n\nI use IE11 as my main browser for several reasons. \n\n\n1) I prefer the Metro/Modern look to it which complements well with the rest of Windows.\n\n\n2) Battery life. IE is whole lot more efficient than Chrome which eats up battery super fast. Just like how Safari is very efficient on OSX, IE is very efficient on Windows. \n\n\n3) Microsoft specific features such as synched tabs across my Windows devices and touch which MS implements very well on IE for Windows tablets.\n\n\nI suggest to everyone who hasn't used IE for a while to give IE11 a try, you might even notice that it's faster than Chrome :)",
"Short Version: IE has made making websites MUCH harder than it should have been - pretty much since the begining.\n\nMicrosoft has always made IE 'different' which was bad enough but it's also used it to force people to upgrade their OS\n\nWindows 2000 remained (remains?) in many businesses (esp in embedded systems) but the last version of IE it can run is 6 which is ancient (has no concept of HTML5 or modern Javascript, basically)\n\nXP (still used by a lot of businesses AND consumers) is limited to 8 which supports SOME newer features but it's yet another thing to have to test for/support\n\nHaving to test/support 3 different versions of IE (at least) is a lot of effort - wheras you can assume anyone using Firefox/Webkit is on pretty much the same version (or browbeat them into getting it at least)",
"Keep in mind, all these posts regarding \"back in the day\" only really meant a year or two ago. IE has _slowly_ been improving to a point where it's tolerable and that's only from a development standpoint. \n\nI couldn't imagine using it as a web experience. That's just silly.",
"Being the average user, all I know about IE is that it takes forever to load compared to Chrome and Firefox, and it also crashes way more often. IE has worked hard to earn the word \"sucks\" next to its name. ",
"Is the new Spartan browser going to do anything different than Chrome doss now?",
"In an attempt to maintain their desktop OS monopoly Microsoft had a policy of embrace, extend extinguish where they would add proprietary \"features\" to standard technologies to make sure everything worked better on windows. ActiveX is a prime example. \n\nUnfortunately by closely tying the OS (which needs to be secure) to the browser (which needs to play with strangers) vulnerabilities came up and the whole windows ecosystem was worse for wear. \n\nOn the other hand, they did develop [XMLHTTP](_URL_0_) which paved the way for AJAX and web 2.0. \n\nToday IE is a stable and high performance browser. ",
"I accepted a job the other day. Only way to fill out my information online, I needed to use ie, not chrome. Ie still needed here and there. (yes I know there is an ie chrome extension)",
"Horrible interface, slow, susceptible to crapware/toolbars more than other browsers. Historically bad support of newest HTML/CSS",
"Prior to IE 9 Microsoft's philosophy on standards was this: The nice thing about stardards is that anyone can define one. The World Wide Web Consortium (W3C), the main international standards organization for the World Wide Web, decided on one way of doing things and Microsft decided differently. This meant that web developers had to do everything, EVERYTHING at least two differnt ways. Also it was slow as shit compared to everything else. My personal feeling on the modern IE browser is that it's quite nice and it's developer interface is snappy and useful. ",
"Short answer: nothing. Today, there's nothing inherently wrong with IE. It's not \"totally\" standards-compliant, but the other browsers aren't, either (check [CSS3](_URL_0_) and [HTML5](_URL_1_) compliance).\n\nBack in the day, Microsoft tended to be a big, slow-moving company in the business space (where they have a *lot* of customers, and a lot of them use old PCs with old software).\n\nBut they don't really move that slowly anymore. They're pretty agile these days.\n\nIE is not \"bad.\" Most wouldn't call it the *best*, but probably wouldn't hate it if they had to use it.",
"Nothing too bad these days. In fact it's the best browser for my Surface Pro (Chrome opens virtual keyboard any time I click a text box even when my keyboard is attached).\n\nIt used to be terrible.",
"Honestly, it's more of a circlejerk than anything else today. For those who continue to honestly say it's bad are obviously stuck on old versions of IE. The newer versions of IE are superb.\n\nBut yes, prior to this IE was lagging behind the other browsers, especially Chrome and Firefox.",
"ELI5 -- websites are made up of code that tells your browser what to display -- a line of code may be translated differently by different browsers -- Internet Explorer has been slower than other browsers to adopt new ways of translating web site code -- so, a website that may display correctly on other browsers may have bugs or display issues on internet explorer -- this is frustrating for web developers because they essentially have to cater to Internet Explorer's older standards, or develop alternate versions of their sites just for IE -- this is less true today than in the recent past as IE has caught up in certain regards",
"In the past, everything. From what I hear about IE9, it's much better. But i'm sticking with chrome",
"The only thing you can complain about nowadays is the lack of customization. (No extensions coded in Javascript) The browser has fixed all its prior issues with standards compliance and security.",
"Way back it was universally hated as the browser where anything could use its activeX protocols to spam us with popups and malware as well as being buggy and slow. There was also the Microsoft browser monopoly scandal. I never forgave them.\n\nNowadays it's catching up, but it still isn't as widely supported/configurable as the Firefox branches or Chrome.",
"As a web designer, Internet explorer is the worst the of the browsers. It's browser engine interprets Css and html differently and it causes a lot of design issues.\n\nIt also has security flaws ",
"Nobody knows anymore, hardly anyone's been using it over the past 10 years. It was generally slow, not safe (basically, it was part of the operating system, you could not uninstall the whole thing), trying to force its own standards (ActiveX) rather than adjusting to what was generally agreed, late in introducing things which existed in other browsers (e.g. tabs, blocking pop-ups) and forced upon people when they were installing Windows (this was later changed in EU and they offered options). ",
"**Not a whole lot** anymore, it's actually leading the charge in many fields too.\n\nPeople just tend to remember IE as being shit, because it was, for such a long time.",
"Tabs. All other browsers supported Tabbed-Browsing but Micrsoft resisted for a long time (It was introduced in 2006, Opera had it since 2000).",
"It had one horrible version: IE6, which saw a lot of big security issues and then gave rise to alternative browsers. Many people just didn't go back to IE afterwards and steer clear of it.",
"Man, people sure cut IE9 a lot of slack just for not being IE8. \n\nIn IE9 you're still working with no transitions, no CSS gradients, no flexbox, no text-shadow, no 3D transforms, no CSS columns, no SVG filters, no < main > element. Not critical stuff for getting content onto a page, but it's still going to take a pretty and efficient user experience and rough it up a bit.",
"tl;dr version is that microsoft took first place and then got hit by a homing turtle shell.\n\nLong version I typed up and didn't really double check much.\n\nI'm too lazy to look up a time period, so I'll say it's at the most the late nineties, but at the least the early 2000's.\n\n\n#Begun, the Browser War Has#\nSo to start things off, we have two browsers (there are probably others, but these two are the most well known.)\n\nInternet Explorer: Made by Microsoft\n\nNetscape: Eventually bought out and killed off by AOL. Some other stuff happens before, during and after the AOL purchase and now we have firefox (and Seamonkey, for netscape communicator fans) today.\n\nnow... Netscape is really really good. Like They're really really good, like the biggest browser that everyone is using.\n\nMicrosoft, as the story goes, was feeling particularly anti competitive, and decided to couple IE with windows, and offer the browser for free.\n\nThis did two things (at least according to popular browser lore).\n\nIt solidified IE as the goto browser for windows for years.\n\nAnd it caused Netscape and probably other browsers to die off.\n\nNetscape couldn't possibly compete with microsoft, since they're a specialized company that makes and sells a web browser, and their competitor just offered their own product for free, and added it to every computer.\n\n\nProblem is that Microsoft, having won the browser race, decided to stop doing anything with their web browser. They could have kept improving, but for microsoft there was no point, they won.\n\nA few years pass, and while Netscape communicator's Mozilla fork is being forked into firefox at this time frame, IE isn't doing anything.\n\n#This is the part where the tyrant gets beat up by a little guy\n\nIE6 becomes the browser every website has to develop for, and becomes a hated beast because while Firefox has cool features, and Opera (another web browser, made before google chrome) has it's own fanbase IE is basically just existing.\n\nI first got introduced to firefox 1.5 or 3.0 around that time frame, and compared to IE6 firefox was great. It had tabs (Opera probably did too but I dunno), spell check, extensions and themes. Overall it was way cooler then IE ever was.\n\nSo while IE is kinda sucking, people are taking notice of firefox and presumably Opera too.\n\nAnd while IE is just existing, any attempt to move webstandards or do anything remotely cool, has to be done for IE6 too, which means ugly hacks.\n\nEventually IE7 comes out, and while not perfect, both IE7 and IE8 are both attempts to win back some users and get people to move from IE6. \n\n#And This part is where the Little Guy's Best Friend decides to compete too.\n\nbut While Microsoft is still playing catchup with firefox, safari (mac), and to a lesser extent Opera, Google decides to make it's own browser called Google Chrome.\n\nThis has a huge effect on everybody because...\n\n Google is including automatic updates.\n\nRemember how I said IE is still playing catchup? Now google is throwing caution to the wind, and forcing everyone else to support standards faster. Firefox has to rejigger itself for automatic updates (which makes users very very angry at the thought of their extensions being gone) Opera eventually switches over to chromium's codebase, and pretty much everybody and their mother wants to be the browser that offers automatic updates.\n\nFor IE and firefox, forcing the user to auto update will brand you a heretic because you might break their existing code. Firefox's Response is a special Enterprise version, and IE's plan is eventually creating enterprise compatibility modes.\n\nThat said, because of the fact that IE has been the slowest browser to update, Businesses are dependent on using outdated versions of IE, so not only does microsoft not get to show it's \"Cool new features\" but they get bogged down by years of development.\n\nWhich brings us to the last part of the story, the part where IE splits into two browsers. Internet Explorer, and the new one for Windows 10, Spartan. Spartan cuts out the stuff it doesn't need, and leaves that for internet explorer, and is supposed to include things like extensions, a built in pdf reader, and presumably it may not take as long to update.\n\n\n",
"You build a website. You've followed all the web standards to the letter. You test it in Chrome and Firefox, and it looks awesome.\n\nThen you see it on a friend's Windows computer in IE, but it looks awful. Not because you've made a mistake, but because IE implements the standards in the wrong way. So you then have to take your perfect standards-compliant website and start fudging stuff so a large proportion of your users don't think you're an amateur.",
"It still asks you if you want to disable add ons to speed up browsing every fucking time you start it. And if you pick \"don't ask me again\" guess what? Its gonna fucking ask you again. And again. And again. Really all the fucking pop ops are what I hate. No, I don't want you to be my default browser. Still. Its like a clingy ex who won't take a hint. Fuck IE.",
"To make a long story too short: Microsoft had a huge majority of the browser market share, and had no business interest in complying with open web standards (since that would cost time and money, and more importantly, would get rid of one of IE's biggest business advantages: to use certain sites, you *had* to use IE even if you didn't want to). Once projects like Firefox came along and got popular enough to compete with IE's marketshare, IE was incompatible with many of the open standards adopted by the rest of the web. This made a ton of extra work for web developers adding tons of code to get sites to work on IE, and since this was often not done (or done right), IE broke a lot of sites.\n\nNowadays, IE has gotten a *lot* better. It supports a large majority of the HTML5 standard, and has the fastest JavaScript engine out of any of the major browsers. The important thing to remember is that a) competition is a really good thing, and b) for-profit companies *will* misbehave if they're allowed to.",
"When you are writing stuff for the web, there are 2 sides. One is the server side where you have control. The other is the client side, over which you don't have control. That might be any browser on any device under any operating system. \n\nSo when you write the server stuff, you just need to get it to work in the environment it will run in. \n\nWhen you write the client stuff you have to write stuff that could run on all sorts of places you have no control over. The problem here is that different browsers, devices and so on do things slightly differently. Something that works on one browser might not work on another. \n\nSo you start to learn all these quirks and the best tricks to get stuff to work on all of them. It is still a lot of work to do this and test across different devices and so on. For example I used to work in a company that had a big locked cupboard with every model phone you could think of for testing. Imagine testing the whole functionality of a website across dozens of phones.\n\nFor a long time, Internet Explorer was the one that was most different from all the others. It was the worst case in a painful process. The more recent versions are actually really good. Modern browsers are more similar and also there are good technologies that bridge these differences - the most famous being jQuery.\n\nOlder versions of Internet Explorer (especially 6, omg IE6) have tended to stick around though. Many large organisations are very slow to update systems. Some of these companies use browsers that are several versions out of date. Even in cases where none of the customers would really be using a browser like IE6, if the people at head office who are funding the project use IE6 it had better work well in IE6... or IE7, IE8, etc as they upgrade. It's been a few years since I have seen IE6 on a list or required browsers for a project.",
"IE is infamous for a lot of things, but versions 10 and 11 are actually pretty good. IE used the be a major innovator in the browser market, up until 2001 when Microsoft released Internet Explorer 6. It became clear Microsoft apparently won the browser wars against Netscape at that time by bundling IE with Windows, so despite Microsoft not following web standards at the time, IE ruled, because IE was THE standard.\n\nSo Microsoft stopped innovating because they \"won\" the browser wars essentially. And that's where many of the things that makes IE hated came into play. Internet Explorer 6 in the 6 or 7 years it was the most popular web browser was proved really insecure and lacked features that other newer web browsers (*cough cough* Firefox and Opera) had such as tabbed browsing and extensions. Due to this, Microsoft took the first step towards innovation again by releasing IE 7, and IE 8, which still had problems with modern web standard and security problems. It wasn't until IE 10 really that Microsoft finally released a somewhat decure, somewhat standards-compliant browser.\n\nIE 6 is the essentially everything that was wrong about IE. Although essentially an okay web browser in 2001, it lacked web standards, it lacked modern features after 2002, and is one of the least secure applications on the planet. Despite Microsoft trying to improve after that, the damage was done, and IE being a bad browser is still joked and talked about to this day.",
"Because Microsoft used to be the evilest company in the world and despite Google being eviler (seriously they are spying on you) MS still doesn't have good PR agents",
"LPT: No one expects you to use it. Change the settings to clear all history/cache when you close it. Install ad block on it. Use it as your porn engine. You can close it at any time and no one will know. Keeps your Mozilla / Chrome free for everyday use and no need to worry about your browsers history. ",
"I can remember a lot of complaints from web developers. They usually boiled down to this: Microsoft can't conform to internet standards, so a developer would have to build two versions of a website. One that works in any browser that properly implements HTML and related technologies, and one for Internet Explorer, because Explorer can't display the proper version of the website. \n\nI'm not sure if this is still the case, but it has been for years, and as such Microsoft as gained quite the reputation for being unable to build a properly functioning web browser. ",
"The thing about Internet explorer... *Loading...*",
"Major security issues in the past that haunts its reputation to this day. Before IE6, you could write a web script to easily steal somebody's cookies. The fact that ActiveX was enabled by default for so long also made IE more open to attacks. Even recently, it was the first browser to be compromised at Pwn2Own.\n\nSome companies devote an entire QA team to make sure their developers' web pages work properly in IE's proprietary nonsense. I have the luxury of being able to ignore IE users in my development and am grateful for it, because they're like the little kid that won't play nicely with anybody else.",
"It (and it's companty) has a history of showing little respect to standards and playing well with others.\n\nEven if it does so today, it doesn't mean it will continue to do so in the future. The company that makes it is infamous for not playing well with others and breaking standards. Look up [The Halloween Documents](_URL_0_).\n\nThe issue is not just IE. It's a history of domestic abuse and trust issues. Now they're saying \"Please take me back, I've changed\". Now we have options and we don't need the violent rogue any more.\n\nTake the Kerberos drama as a example of other MS notoriety:\n\n1. MIT developed an open security protocol called Kerberos\n2. Made a small extensions to it, effectively breaking interoperability (and breaking interoperability was the theme of the Halloween Documents).\n3. They refused to publish their changes.\n4. After receiving quite a bit of flack in the news, they released the spec for their modifications, but before you could see them, you had to promise that you wouldn't use the specs to implement those features!",
"Nothing really infact Internet Explorer is the best browser out there for downloading Firefox or Chrome.",
"It's propriateriness, quirckiness, and non-standardness. Gives developers headaches, but has lots of security features so large companies love it.",
"I do believe those wanting to defend the use of IE are using it now and there replies will arrive in a few days time when it catches up...",
"ELI5? It's a virus.",
"A lot of the responses here are missing some important things. They're talking primarily about how IE was bad for web developers, because they had to spend a lot of time figuring out how to make their websites render well in IE, since it didn't follow the HTML/CSS standard very well.\n\nThere are a couple of other reasons why, historically, people have been anti-IE.\n\n1) Microsoft was pretty underhanded in pushing IE to be the default browser.\n\n* Many have argued that this was part of the reason Microsoft refused to implement web standards for so long. When developers had to code for IE, and if they wanted to support both IE and Netscape, they had to basically write every page twice. Microsoft didn't follow other people's standards, and they didn't open their own standards, so there was no way around it.\n* Microsoft also bundled IE with Windows, in order to leverage their Windows monopoly to increase adoption of IE.\n* They were also caught doing things such as updating Windows to cause Netscape Navigator to crash more often, in order to give Netscape a reputation for being unstable.\n\n2) Internet Explorer was a good example of Microsoft's total disregard for security in the 90s and early 2000s. For example, when IE was still relatively new, again arguably in order to push IE adoption, they put a bunch of hooks between IE and Windows, that allowed web developers to do super fun handy things that required access to the local OS. Microsoft used a website to push out their own OS updates for many years. They somehow failed to consider, though, that if accessing a web page gives that web developer control over your local OS, this can be exploited by people with malicious intentions. Viruses galore.\n\nSo it's stuff like this that has caused a backlash against Microsoft.",
"There are lots of problems with IE. Some stem from it's popularity.\n\n1. Many Web Apps function only in IE. But the way IE is developed, they typically only function on the version of IE that they were made for. Newer versions of IE break these apps. Generally you can get them to work by using Compatibility mode, but this is something that you have to opt into. You do not have those types of issues with Chrome or Firefox because they do not reinvent the wheel each time they are updated.\n\n2. Questions. Questions. Questions. Which addons do you want to use? Allow this control? Do you really want to download this? Everything about the experience is laborious. They need to do this because they are constantly attacked, but they make no reasonable attempt to find a medium between usability and security. Things like protected mode and Smart Screen filter basically make certain legit websites unusable. Too many warnings and bars to click through. Do you want to see secured and unsecured content?... Chrome and firefox just have these things on in a workable format without user intervention.\n\n3. Bing. Give up. Bring blows. It is only slightly useful for pr0n. But other than that, its complete shit. They make you go through several steps to change the default search provider, and then ask you other questions about suggestions and everything else. People want google. They want to search from the address bar. Every other browser does this. WHY DONT YOU!? WHYYYYYYYYYYY\n\n4. Updates. I have had chrome for 5+ years. It looks largely the same as it did when i started, but it has been updated regularly. IE from 8 to 11 has gone through so many changes, it is difficult to find things. This goes back to the reinvention of the wheel concept. Also, updates as part of windows updates.... you dont even get an option. You come back to your computer one morning and there it is, IE11... too bad your programs will not function on it. Rolling it back is no easy task either, having to uninstall and update that most ley people are loath to do. \n\n5. Management. I have a windows domain. You would think that a product made by M$ would be easy to manage by group policy. YOU WOULD BE WRONG. Simple things like setting the home page, default search provider, browsing history time frame, Temp internet files... all of it cumbersome and ridiculous to manage.\n\nIn conclusion, IE is on every windows machine, making it a HUGE target for malware and viruses. Because of that, the security measures they put in place are very strict, and render the browser useless in some situations. They need to find a solution that still allows for security while maintaining usability. \n\nOr they should just give up and focus on what they do well. Server/workstation OS....",
"I feel like one of the major elements we are missing here is that for a very long time in the early days of the Web, there were two viable browsers: IE and Netscape. Everyone preferred to use Netscape.\n\nHowever, Netscape needed to be licensed if you were going to use it for commercial purposes (at work), so companies decided to be cheap and just stick with the inferior built-in browser. As a result, corporate web tools were developed with IE in mind. Microsoft loved this; they made it easy for developers by providing them with a zillion tools for IE website development.\n\nSo now, when these corporate intranets were developed, the developers were lazy and just decided to use these Microsoft tools that would not work in Netscape - things like ActiveX and Sharepoint.\n\nNow let's talk about how Microsoft insisted that IE was an integral part of their OS, and refused to de-bundle it for a very long time. They were sued by the EU over this. Microsoft's response was to integrate the browser even tighter with the OS, as a post-hoc way to prove their point. So every weakness about the browser now became a weakness of the OS, most notably its very poor security.\n\nFor instance, one effect of this integration was that HTML-formatted e-mails would render within the Outlook mail client exactly as they would in a web browser, scripting included. And if you had Outlook's \"Preview Pane\" enabled, this would happen the instant you simply *clicked* on the e-mail. If the web-formatted e-mail contained VBScript, lucky you - it ran right away, no matter what the function of the script was. And if that VBScript was an attack on your system, well, that's just the price you paid.\n\n**TL;DR** IE is like a shitty old company car. You don't like it, it's constantly getting broken into, but you're forced to use it for years to get your work done and you now resent it.",
"Maybe it doesn't allow the use of the search function?\n\n_URL_5_\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_4_",
"There's not a *ton* wrong with the more recent versions of IE. IE10 is pretty decent. The problem is a lot of companies don't want to upgrade their hardware or software, so you've got people still using IE7 and IE8, which are about a decade old at this point.\n\nExpecting decade-old computer tech to run modern websites and web apps is a major problem. When a web dev builds a site or a feature for a site, first they build it to work in Chrome, Firefox, etc, and then they have to fix everything to work in IE. Sometimes you find a fix for IE that breaks it in other browsers, so you have to find a different fix. It's a process that can take hours, and it's very frustrating. This is why a lot of web developers hate IE.",
"Back before you were born, (I'm assuming you're 5) IE was a really difficult browser to write website for, so it got a bad wrap among the web devs and that spread among the general populace.\n\n\nAlso back before you were born a lot of companies had their sites written so they only work on very old IE's and now they're too cheap to update their Windows and or PC's, this means that those things written above are still an issue.\n\n\nSo everyone now is afraid of giving IE a chance because of the risk of loosing cool points (think a formerly fat/nerdy girl) who has trouble getting dates with guys who knew her when she was fat in college)",
"Mainly that a lot of very useful CSS works in every browser except IE.",
"TIL web developers don't forgive and forget. ",
"Internet Explorer has basically been the gun pointed at the head of the Internet for many, many years.(_URL_0_) Microsoft used it as a weapon against open source, attempting to smother alternatives in unethical ways so that they could maximize their profit, breaking open web standards in an attempt to frustrate developers from coding in the standards of the Internet, and tempting them into using the Microsoft suite of development tools, and as part of their embrace-extend-extinguish strategy.\n\nThat is, until IE 10 came out about 2 years ago. Ever since then, IE has been a pretty decent browser.",
"It's slower than every browser out there except for Safari. Safari is absolutely terrible. It's Apple's dirty little secret.",
"It's much easier to list what's good: you can download Firefox from it. ",
"I fucking. Hate that you open it, start Typing in the address bad or search box and it LOSES FOCUS FOR NO REASON SO YOURE TPYING AWAY FOR NO REASON, just one, as it is loading up. \n\nIt makes me want to CUT A BITCH",
"From a sys admin pov, ACTIVE X CONTROLS ARE THE DEVIL. I mean, the absolute definition of evil. Every vendor supports IE, but none of the active X controls are standardized, and all require different controls to run different things. \n\nOther than that, the address bar losing focus mid type, as it loads, is pretty annoying. MS's insistence that it be used for compatibility with the Sharepoint application, in order to open company files through it, by litterally making the file structure inaccessible through any other browser, is also an issue. \n\nIt it, however, the highest rated browser for downloading things such as Google Chrome and FireFox, so there's that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nczonline.net/blog/2012/08/22/the-innovations-of-internet-explorer/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://lego.brickinstructions.com/lego_instructions/set/10159/City_Airport"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ajax_\\(programming\\)"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://css3test.com/",
"https://html5test.com/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents#Document_X"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/m76vc/why_is_internet_explorer_inferior_to_other/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2khqd6/eli5_why_does_internet_explorer_get_made_fun_of/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/jjbna/eli5_why_is_internet_explorer_the_worst_browser/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/114dg1/eil5_why_shouldnt_someone_use_internet_explorer/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/q2wlo/eli5_why_is_it_considered_so_bad_to_use_internet/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1b91ph/eli5_why_does_everyone_hate_internet_explorer/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.aaron-gray.com/a-brief-history-of-web-browsers/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1ldy6l
|
Why does the pitch of a sine wave decrease when the volume is turned up on a set of speakers?
|
[Try it yourself (pick something around 400hz)](_URL_0_)
OK, not the best title - I understand that the speed of the speaker cone probably maxes out at some point, so increasing the amplitude will have to decrease the frequency a little.
What I don't understand is how this "jives" with the fact that the signal is still being put out at the same rate by the sound card (in the case of a 100hz wave, one peak every 100th of a second). It seems like this would cause the speakers to get "backed up" (they'd constantly be falling further and further out of phase with the true signal if they're outputting a lower frequency than the source), which is nonsense. Are the speakers providing some sort of feedback that actually lowers the frequency that the sound card is generating?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ldy6l/why_does_the_pitch_of_a_sine_wave_decrease_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbyae1y",
"cbyaqpi"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Simple answer: it doesn't.\n\nYou're right though, you do hear an *apparent* change in pitch, but this is more likely down to your amp and speakers distorting the sine wave as the amplitude increases beyond what they can faithfully reproduce, so what you're hearing is a change in wave *shape* as you clip the top and bottom of the sine curve. The overtones thus introduced affect the *perceived* frequency.",
"This is a perceptual effect. See [here (pdf)](_URL_0_) section 2B and fig 2\n\nWhen the level increases, the perceived pitch decreases for frequencies < 1000 Hz and increases for f > 2000 Hz. This is coherent with your observation.\n\nThe loudspeakers always vibrate at the same frequency. There is no \"max velocity\" or something similar. What can happen though is that some frequencies (high or low frequencies) will be attenuated, this is why you need several loudspeaker, each for a specific frequency band, if you want a high quality reproduction.\n\nNonlinear effects in the loudspeakers (or elsewhere btw) would change the shape of the sound like rwh99999 said, but it will actually add higher frequencies, so this would most likely raise the perceived pitch, not lower it."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.audionotch.com/app/tune/"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://web.mit.edu/hst.723/www/ThemePapers/Pitch/Houtsma95.pdf"
]
] |
|
7ep6x2
|
i thought the internet was a series of interconnected routers and computers that communicate however they want. how does one institution in one state control this communication even for people in other parts of the world?
|
see title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7ep6x2/eli5_i_thought_the_internet_was_a_series_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq6j6v1",
"dq6jf8p"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The internet is mostly run by companies who own infrastructure (like wires and shit). The institution you're talking about (assuming the FCC) gets to decide what these types of companies are allowed to do. Right now they are FORCED by the FCC to treat all traffic equally. We are worried that the FCC will change their mind and no longer force these companies to do this and thus the big greedy companies will do more greedy stuff.\n\nThe reason it effects the world is because the US is big and rich and important so stuff that happens here has consequences elsewhere. That doesn't mean that this decision changes how the law works for everyone. Some countries already have service providers that do exactly what people in the US are worried will happen.",
"Some parts are done by the PC itself others are done by centralized servers. For example the only reason why your computer knows which address to contact when typing in a web address is because it gets the info by tree & subtrees of name-list-server which have to handle a ton of requests all the time. If everyone just broadcasted every message randomly to every computer it would take ages to get information anywhere. \n\nAlso: Your computer can't generate a wireless signal that can can communicate with someone on the other end of the world by itself. All informations go through cables owned & controled by someone or gets sent to a massive antenna and delivered from there.\n\nYes the internet is just a net of nodes and connections but not every node has the same.\n\nYou could probably build a independent local network on a small bases but for creating & maintaining a *worldwide* web (infrastructure) you're reliant on nations/big enterprises...for now.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2tgxfw
|
why does requesting a longer delivery time online increase the costs to deliver?
|
I don't really understand it.
Surely it's a lot more convenient for them to deliver it in a weeks time rather than, say, 1-2 working days? So why do we pay extra for their leisure?
What am I missing here? I am 5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2tgxfw/eli5why_does_requesting_a_longer_delivery_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnyy4zn",
"cnyy64o",
"cnz34lm",
"cnz4sir"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It means they have to hold the package somewhere as opposed to sending it through the normal process. The standard shipping options (next day air, 2 day, ground, ect) are established processes for the shipping company and have a very specific set of steps from pick up to delivery.\n\nWanting it delivered later requires the package to be pulled out of the normal process, held somewhere, and then put back in the process later. This takes times and effort, thus more money. ",
"Most companies work with just in time delivery systems. That means that a products time in the warehouse is minimised as much as possible. And for good reason. While a product is lying in a warehouse somewhere, it isn't making you money, it is actually costing you money. You need to keep it somewhere, after all, and for every package you need to keep in storage, that is one space you can't use for short term storage while you get things in and out. ",
" > Surely it's a lot more convenient for them to deliver it in a weeks time rather than, say, 1-2 working days?\n\nActually, no. \n\nIt is most convenient to deliver it in the timeframe their supply chain was designed to work in. Longer than that, it is requires special handling. \n\nImagine your a paperboy. You get the papers, get on your bike, and ride your route...you have a routine.\n\nIf everyone said, \"it is ok if I don't get my paper until 8pm\", that would be great, it would give you some leeway. But if one guy insisted on getting it after 8pm, that would be a pain in the ass.",
"They have to hold the package, however there is also more pressure on them to deliver on the requested day "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6iz39x
|
How do scientists determine which two elements to use when synthesizing new elements?
|
For example, Oganesson was synthesized using Californium and Calcium (98+20=118). However, another lab using Krypton and Lead (36+82=118) tried and failed to produce Ognesson. My question is, why were those specific elements chosen? I know their atomic numbers have to add to 118, but why not use Iron and Uranium? (92+26=118) Two Praseodymiums? (59+59=118) And why did Krypton and Lead fail, even though their numbers add up? Thanks in advance.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6iz39x/how_do_scientists_determine_which_two_elements_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djai4er"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Different reactions have different probabilities of producing the desired species in the final state. The kinds of reactions they are using are low-energy fusion reactions. The dynamics of these compound nuclear reactions are complicated, but certain pairs of target and projectile work better than others.\n\nIn the case of onganesson, it seems like calcium-48 on a californium target works the best so far.\n\nSynthesizing superheavy elements in this way is a relatively new field. It's not like people have measured the cross sections for all of these potential fusion reactions to superheavy elements, because the superheavies have only just been produced for the first time within the last few decades.\n\nSo they may have to rely on theoretical cross sections, and they're also subject to whatever beams and targets are available at the facility where their experiment runs.\n\nCalcium-48 is a very popular beam for this kind of work, because it's stable and also neutron-rich. In fact people searching for superheavy elements have bought up most of the calcium-48 available for nuclear physics experiments because they love it so much. It's like a commodity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2qyybf
|
where do the suits for playing cards originate from? (hearts, clubs, diamonds, spades)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2qyybf/eli5_where_do_the_suits_for_playing_cards/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnauhgl"
],
"score": [
106
],
"text": [
"The playing cards you're talking about were popularized in Egypt around the 11th century. The cards had for suits: polo sticks, coins, swords, and cups. The cards were hand made, so the symbols on them evolved as the concept of the 52-card deck moved from the Mediterranean to northern and western Europe over the next 300 or so years. \n\nThe Germans conception utilized Leaves, Roses, Bells, and Acorns. French versions used Trifoils, Tiles, Hearts and Pikes. The face cards went from king/viceroy/deputy to king/knight/knave to king/queen/jack. \n\nThe French version of the cards turned out to the most popular, probably because of the French status as a social and political power."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1w2sft
|
In WW2, were there Nazi soldiers who surrendered immediately because they did not support Hitler and were forced to fight?
|
If one did surrender in that way, what would happen to them? Were they still treated as enemy combatants?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1w2sft/in_ww2_were_there_nazi_soldiers_who_surrendered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cey7781",
"cf0edr5"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Nazi was a political party, soldiers who were also party members would be considered part of the ideological hard core group. For purposes of answering your question, can you specify if you mean German soldiers who were members of Hitlers National Socialist German Workers Party, German soldiers who were not Party members but were in the German Army, or soldiers from other nations who were either conscripted to fight for Nazi Germany, volunteered from occupied areas, or allied nations troops who were fighting in German campaigns.",
"Short answer: **Yes**. \n\nSeveral german soldiers deserted to the USSR territory right before Barbarossa has started. In russian there's a word for that - *перебежчик = deserter to another side, \"runner-across\"*\n\nFor example, Obergefreiter Alfred Liskow swam across Bug river on eve of June 21st to warn Red Army about imminent attack - see [1]. He was actively working for Red Army propaganda - broadcasts to germans with calls to surrender, meeting with german POWs and asking them to collaborate. But he got into serious conflict with leadership of ComIntern and accused them in treason. Apparently ComIntern leaders like Manuilsky, Dimitrov and Togliatti had more weight, as\nAlfred has lost the struggle and was in turn accused of treason, found guilty and executed on January 15, 1942. He was acquitted very quickly, in June of 1942 - see [1,2].\n\nErnst Kutschera, a son of german communist, also deserted somewhere in between June 21st 21 PM - 2 AM, June 22nd. His father was later executed in Germany - see [3]. Ernst Kutschera even fought along with soviet border guards against his former comrades:\n\n---\n\nВ очерке Т. Гладкова и В. Томина «Немец который брал Берлин» в котором речь идет о Фрице Шменкеле, Герое Советского Союза, имеются следующие строки: «Так в ночь на 22 июня 1941 года переплыл Западный Буг и сообщил советским пограничникам, что с часу на час начнется вторжение немецких войск, унтер-офицер Альфред Лискоф. В туже ночь на другом участке будующего Восточного фронта на территорию Литовской ССР перебежал еще один военнослужащий вермахта, сын рабочего-коммуниста (впоследствии казненного) Эрнст Кучера. Через два часа в составе бойцов погранзаставы, на которую он пришел, Кучера уже воевал против своих бывших «комрадов».\n\n---\n\nRene Litt - soldier from 2nd company, 459th infantry regiment, 251 infantry division. Surrendered in 1943, right after arrived to frontline - see [4].\n\n\n**Sources**\n\n1. Wolfgang Leonhard Wer war Alfred Liskow, und was hatte er mit Dimitroff zu tun? // Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung. — 2000. — № 278.\n\n2. [Russian - online page about Alfred Liskow, with photo and many details](_URL_0_)\n\n3. Article *Сигары Шееле для «Барона Дризена»*, in book (russian) *Professional secrets of special services, 2001, p. 62*\n\n4. [Rene Litt - protocol of interrogation](_URL_1_). Scans are [posted online](_URL_1_/gallery/)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://drang-nach.livejournal.com/38403.html",
"http://9may.ru/unsecret/m10008730",
"http://9may.ru/unsecret/m10008730/gallery/"
]
] |
|
7gbxzw
|
why is asphalt black? would concrete or another material not work better?
|
Does the asphalt not make the surrounding area hotter?
I have always wondered why we don't use concrete or change the color of asphalt or something else.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gbxzw/eli5_why_is_asphalt_black_would_concrete_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqhz5ku",
"dqhzaan",
"dqhzj1k",
"dqhzrj1",
"dqi6t3r",
"dqia8mm"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
30,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Asphalt is cheap, durable and easily patched. Some cities are starting to paint roads white though, to combat heat islands",
"Asphalt and concrete are completely different substances. This goes well beyond the color.\n\nConcrete is cement + aggregate (rocks). Asphalt is petroleum tar + rocks. They have different costs, difficulty of working with & durability.\n\nAsphalt is much cheaper & easier to lay down.",
"The tradeoff between asphalt and concrete is complicated, and there are lots of reasons to choose one or the other:\n\n* Asphalt is a lot quicker to build. This particularly matters when resurfacing existing roads (as opposed to surfacing newly-built roads), because minimizing the amount of time the road is shut is very important to drivers.\n* Asphalt is a much cheaper material, which is obviously attractive.\n* Concrete has a much longer lifetime than asphalt. It generally will last 40-50 years before replacement, whereas you have to replace asphalt every 10 years or so, and it doesn't require regular patching.\n* Concrete deals with extreme heat and other adverse weather better.\n* Asphalt is easier to repair when minor problems occur. If a chunk of concrete breaks, you need to replace the entire section of road, whereas you can patch small pieces of asphalt.\n* Concrete gives drivers better gas mileage, because it doesn't warp as easily and so cars ride more smoothly on it.\n* Asphalt is safer in adverse weather, because rain and snow can partially seep into the surface, so they don't form a low-traction layer on top as easily.\n* Concrete is made from more environmentally friendly materials (mostly just limestone), whereas asphalt is mostly made from oil.\n* Asphalt is more easily recyclable into more asphalt, since you can melt it down, but it's hard to recycle concrete.\n\nThose considerations are much more important than whether or not the road surface gets a bit hotter due to asphalt being darker than concrete.",
"Almost all asphalt is recycled. On a big project it can be recycled on site. Old asphalt is taken up, heated, remixed, and used again for considerable savings. Concrete has to be taken up in big slabs. It must be broken up to be used as rocks. Asphalt can be a much better choice. It is easy to paint too.",
"Only new asphalt is really black, in a while the gravel inside gets exposed and dust settles on the black tar, so it's almost as grey as concrete. The heat absorption is not a very relevant factor. You can't lay concrete instead of asphalt on most roads because there is to solid foundation, so the concrete would crack as the land changes. You could lay it down in shorter blocks, essentially deciding to have cracks in it already, but it's annoying as hell to drive on and constantly hearing/feeling dunk, dunk, dunk, dunk...",
"Yes, the darker color of asphalt would produce a higher temperature, as it would absorb more energy from sunlight. \n\nThe color of asphalt is dark due to the tar content. I don't think that this can be changed much without altering the properties of the asphalt. \n\nAs stated in other comments, each product has its strengths and weaknesses. \n\nBoth concrete and asphalt can be significantly hotter than the surrounding air because they dry quickly and don't receive much shade. In some cases, their surface temperature may be 50–90°F (27–50°C) warmer than the air temperature. This, of course, will increase local ambient temperature. In large cities, the daytime temperature may be 1.8–5.4°F (1–3°C) warmer than its surroundings. At night, the temperature may be increased as much as 22°F (12°C) than surrounding rural areas. This is called a Heat Island.\n\nThe EPA website provides a wealth of information on this topic.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
td6a0
|
What would the effects be for a person that has had a BMI:50+ body fat throughout their life if it was surgically removed in a short period of time?
|
Assuming you were able to do this to a person, if you took someone that had that much body fat, and were able to remove it in within a few days, to a week, how would this effect the person; also, this person would begin eating/exercise habits to maintain this weight?
* Would the straining he's done through his entire life essentially be one big workout that would ultimately make him extraordinarily strong?
* Would he be at as high of a risk for heart problems?
* After correct diet and exercise, would cholesterol, insulin production, or other issues decrease significantly faster than if he started diet and exercise if he were still morbidly obese?
* Assuming the procedure was safe, would there be any adverse effects after weighing dramatically less so quickly?
Other ideas you have that aren't questioned above would also be interesting to me.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/td6a0/what_would_the_effects_be_for_a_person_that_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4lmg16"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Besides the psychological effect of having a completely new proprioceptive identity (you build your interactions with the physical world depending on your body shape), there very well could be increases in usable strength as there are not pounds of excess tissue, better breathing, more efficient heart pumping. \nInsulin resistance would take time to correct itself and cholesterol is not necessary linked to body mass as much as the habits that cause it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5iuem4
|
Why was it that Ireland played such a large part in Christianizing England and the rest of Continental Europe?
|
[Reading this Wikipedia](_URL_0_) article makes it seem like the Gaelic world, and Ireland in particular, did a lot to spread Christianity to much of Western Europe. My question is why and how. It seems odd to me geographically that a culturally distinct island on the western extremes of Europe would have so much to do with spreading Christianity. Scotland and Ireland are both pretty isolated from the rest of Europe.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5iuem4/why_was_it_that_ireland_played_such_a_large_part/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbbiwf0",
"dbbp4pm"
],
"score": [
10,
26
],
"text": [
"While I can't answer your question directly, you got me interested to look up the history of Christianity in Ireland through the subreddit. I was able to come across [this](_URL_0_) question which helped me understand how the system came to be. \n\nu/depanneur's explains that the Irish political structure enthusiastically took hold of Christianity in an attempt to supplement their decentralized power, while at the same time Christianity in Ireland took on a much more distinct flavour than the more mainland variants. I found reading both the OP (who choose to delete their account) and u/depanneur's helped explain the environment that fostered the early adoption of Christianity in Ireland, and what the Irish were exporting. ",
"This is a big question that has no single answer, but I'll address two factors that I see as critical: (1) charismatic eremitism, i.e. holy men in the woods, and (2) monastic communities, each with their own saintly mascots and a commitment to proving their mascot's worth.\n\nThe importance of hermits is in some ways self evident. Hermits are people who go where no Christians have gone before. In terms of the physical spread of Christianity, it's part of a hermit's job description. In the early medieval world, men seeking an eremitic retreat moved along the highways of their age, which were the big maritime and riverine routes of northern Europe. Once they found an uninhabited spot, they set up camp. But these weren't the isolated spots in the wild that they sometimes pretended them to be—they were major traffic hubs. Columba set up Iona right in the midst of all traffic going between the North and Irish Seas, Fursey occupied an old [Roman fort](_URL_0_) at the center of East Anglia's sea routes, and Cuthbert put himself right in the midst of Northumbria's maritime traffic. These regions went from having a minimal Christian presence to having a distinctly Christian place right at their very center.\n\nWith all the attention that these guys inevitably received, the most charismatic of them (i.e. the ones that we know about; the others were swiftly forgotten, leaving the misleading impression that all Irish-type missionaries were successful) attracted a band of followers. Some, like Fursey, eventually decided to move on, starting the process all over again, but others sunk in their roots and established monastic communities. Many of these guys soon had reputations that were bigger than life, and after their deaths, their communities were most likely to repeat the good stories and forget the bad. Before long, many of them realized that the revered founders of their monasteries had all the best qualities of legendary saints, and ought to be revered as saints as well.\n\nThere's a couple key things that a saint needs. First, a saint needs some sort of record of his or her life. Somebody had to write a book. Second, there needed to be at least one day a year when everybody got together and read that book. Usually, this was done on the anniversary of a saint's death. Third, a saint needed a place to be buried and have his or her relics preserved, and it's got to be nice. No self-respecting saint would allow his or her community to fall into disrepair. This means that the community had to be engaged in constant fundraising. This brings us to number four: a saint's got to have a good reputation. If reading about a saint's life on his or her feast day isn't bringing in enough donors, then the community needed new proofs that their saint hadn't abandoned them. Some wrote new accounts of miracles that had happened in their monasteries, proving that the saint still exercised power. Others 'translated' a saint's relics, which was basically a big parade that usually ended with the saint's bones getting placed in a new and better spot in the church.\n\nIt's important to remember that during all of this cult-of-the-saints kind of work, monks were also doing the duties of pastoral care. This was largely an age before parish priests, and monks seem to have taken care of a lot of the preaching, baptizing, and day-to-day work of spreading the faith. A number of them were also ordained so they could do priestly duties when needed, but this was long before the theology of sacraments was thoroughly hammered out, so there was less of a need for priests. (Burial, marriage, reconciliation, and even regular churchgoing all seem to have been negotiable.) Monks seem to have been able to minister to most people's Christian needs, and people could travel to the monastic church if they needed something particular.\n\nBuilding and maintaining a monastic community didn't just mean attracting big land donations on those rare occasions when a saint's relics were brought out and rummaged through; it also meant drumming up more basic support like a wheel of cheese or an occasional cut of beef. And on very rare occasions, families might even donate a child to the church, perhaps hoping that this might provide the child with a better life than they themselves could provide while at the same time putting themselves in the good graces of God. Monastic pastoral care built up the relationships that made this continued support of manpower and material possible. This was Christianization at work in the countryside.\n\nBut this is how the process of Christianization went from Christian wilderness to monastic landscape. If the key to it is hermits infiltrating non-Christian places, then where did hermits come from? It's easy to imagine that young boys growing up in monasteries and reading about the lives of their saintly founders would soon be inspired to try similar heroic deeds. In fact, we have reports that this is what inspired Guthlac to go out and set himself up on the spot of the future Crowland Abbey, right in the marshes that joined East Anglia, Mercia, and Northumbria together.\n\nBut what about the very first Irish missionaries? That's a bit more of a problem. They might have benefited from certain Irish tendencies toward decentralized power, but it would be hard to identify anything resembling centralized power anywhere in Western Europe during the early age of Irish missionaries in the 600s, so I don't think that made Ireland all that unique. Perhaps as a more pastoral (cow herding) society, they encouraged a Christian spirituality that was a bit more transitory in the landscape. Perhaps also, early Irish hermits should be seen in light of a larger population of elite exiles who populated the early medieval north. Most of these exiles were political, but in the Irish case, some men started self imposing a religious exile as well. And this of course fits in with the broader mobility of medieval populations that scholars today are just beginning to appreciate. So there's lots of possible explanations, and it's definitely an area with a lot of possibilities for further research.\n\n---\n\nI'm not an expert in Ireland, but I've read fairly widely on the Christianization of Europe. For the material above, I've drawn on and would especially recommend:\n\n* Peter Brown, *The Rise of Western Christendom*, 3rd edn. (Oxford: Blackwell, 2013 [1996]).\n\n* Patrick J. Geary, *Furta Sacra: Thefts of Relics in the Central Middle Ages* (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1978).\n\n* Ian Wood, *The Missionary Life: Saints and the Evangelisation of Europe 400–1050* (London: Routledge, 2001)."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hiberno-Scottish_mission"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uyr2u/how_come_ireland_got_christanized_so_early/"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burgh_Castle"
]
] |
|
5dcgj6
|
At what period in the Roman Empire was the Latin that we learn today used?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5dcgj6/at_what_period_in_the_roman_empire_was_the_latin/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da3ip91",
"da3kd0y"
],
"score": [
14,
12
],
"text": [
"It depends, of course, on what you are taught. But almost all major courses teach 'classical Latin' as a default standard, and that standard is a slightly idealised version of Latin that represents literary writing in the middle of the 1st century BC, covering the end of the Republic and the start of the empire. It crystallises around authors such as Cicero, Caesar, Vergil, etc..\n\nThe further you go from this core temporally and in terms of literature, the more variation you can find, but this is the 'version' of classical Latin generally taught today.",
"Latin education today is generally split into two camps. One, led by classicists, favors \"Classical Latin\" and the other, led by the Catholic Church, favors \"Ecclesiastical Latin\" (also commonly known as \"Church Latin\"). Other variants are taught, but Latin learners are almost always taught Classical or Church Latin first. Church Latin used to dominate Latin education, but since the Catholic Church has deemphasized Latin usage, Classical Latin is becoming more popular relatively.\n\nAs for when these were used, Classical Latin starts in the Late Republic. The writings of Varro and (especially) Cicero are often considered to be early seminal works of Latin Literature and they formed an important part of Roman Latin curriculum (the writings of Virgil would gain a similar status a half century later, but his works were poetic). For reference Cicero lived from 106BC to 43BC and the vast majority of his works date from 70BC to his death. It's worth pointing out that Classical Latin was primarily a prestige dialect of the educated and upper class. Meanwhile the spoken language of Roman commoners was \"Vulgar Latin\". Since Classical Latin was a prestige dialect, it is difficult to determine when exactly stopped being used in speech, but literature through the 2nd century AD is generally considered part of Classical Latin. After this point written Latin becomes somewhat inconsistent and seems to be a mixture of Classical and Vulgar Latin with the influence from each varying by author.\n\nChurch Latin was never used in Roman times, but it is not substantially different than Classical Latin due to persistent Classical influences on written Latin. Church Latin's pronunciation was heavily influenced by Medieval Italian whereas Classical Latin as taught today is Linguists and Classicists reconstruction of how Romans pronounced it. Church Latin was also influenced by Vulgar Latin and thus has simpler syntax and the lexicon is a little different."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3rwabr
|
how the heck does google maps know the distance from a to b?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3rwabr/eli5how_the_heck_does_google_maps_know_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwrv3ym"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"(The following is based on general knowledge of path finding algorithms, not on the actual inner workings of Google Maps. Feel free to correct me.)\n\nOne way could be the following. Google saves a list of intersections and crossroads. If a piece of road connects two of such intersections, then Google adds (to some other list) that it is possible to get from the one intersection to the other with x distance, where x is the length of the road (which Google has measured).\n\nThus Google Maps has some internal list of intersections and ways to get from intersection to intersection. This is called a \"weighted graph\", where you have some points, and some connections between points, and these connections have \"weights\" (which correspond in this case to length).\n\nFinding the shortest path between two points is a standard problem in graph theory. There is a good (that is to say, fast) algorithm for doing it, known as [Dijkstra's algorithm](_URL_0_). This is fast enough in practice to compute the shortest route from spot A to spot B on the globe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dijkstra%27s_algorithm"
]
] |
||
15dexu
|
How is a musical scale derived?
|
It is said that music is very closely related to mathematics, and that the relationship between notes in a musical scale is even (in frequency), but how is a series of notes formed to make a scale? Is there a mathematical reason for there to be 8 notes in an octave, or is this simply what was decided in early composing and has stuck?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15dexu/how_is_a_musical_scale_derived/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7liiva",
"c7lildc",
"c7llqwk",
"c7lp2pb"
],
"score": [
3,
7,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There are 6 tones, or 12 semitones, per octave. An octave is a doubling of frequency. The semitone steps are 2^(1/12) sets up in frequency from each other, or an increase in frequency of 5.88%. The arrangement of notes within an octal scale is based on major/minor harmonics. ",
"For the most part the musical scale is a local culturally accepted organization of frequencies. In western music, the diatonic scales (like the major scale) are really common, however in other cultures completely different scales are used. There are some that go beyond an octave and don't have thirds or fifths.\r\rDespite this, certain intervals are more common. The octave is generally doubled frequencies, or 2:1, so that the wavelengths fit into each other. (440hz and 880hz)\r\rMost of the other pleasant intervals simplify down to small whole number ratios. As you can imagine the third and fifth are simple, a sixth more complex, and a tritone/augmented fourth even more complex (sorry, I don't have any numbers memorized for ya!). That's why the pentatonic scale generally sounds good regardless of the notes played; all combinations have a small ratio of frequencies.\r\rThe piano, which is tuned in 12 keys, can't exactly produce these ratios in every key, so they tune it to be slightly out of tune to fit them all close enough.\r\r(I might add that the difference of two frequency is their \"beat frequency\" which is what you hear, for example, when tuning. It has a large effect on the lushness of chords you hear).",
"The ancient greeks used to build their scales by deriving them from a 3:2 frequency ratio, which provided the interval of a 5th (Pythagorean intonation).\n\nSay you start on a some given note like C and start buildling fifths on top of it by the 3:2 ratio. You'll go through the circle of fifths (C, G, D, A, E, B, F#, C#, G#, D#, A#, F) before ending up back at C. This method does cover all the notes in the chromatic scale but by the time you get through the cycle, your new C is nearly a quarter-tone sharp compared with your original C. Because of this, compromises had to be made by biasing certain notes sharp or flat (usually F#) and continuing the 3:2 cycle from there so that you'd return to a pure octave and pure fifths and fourths above the fundamental tone.\n\nIn practice, this meant that the \"wolf note\" (the note that was deliberately detuned to help the rest of the scale) typically had to be avoided since it sounded so badly out of tune. An eight note scale is a good way to avoid that note since it covers fourths, fifths, thirds/sixths, and has some kind of leading tone and an upper neighbor tone to the root - you could put your wolf note somewhere in the chromatic tones and never have to play it. This meant that you could only play in that one key (edit: or a couple of closely related keys depending on which note you detuned), but you could play in any mode of that key and it would still sound good. So the ionian mode (major scale) wasn't necessarily very special compared to dorian or aeolian modes or any of the others.\n\nThis was rather limiting so people devised a number of tuning systems to make all twelve keys playable. \"Well Temperament\" was one such system, and it had the very interesting side effect of making each key sound markedly different from every other key - Bach's *Well-Tempered Klavier* was actually written to demonstrate not only the capabilities of his new keyboard but also to show off the differences between musical keys. Equal Temperament - a logarithmic division of the octave into 12 equal pieces based on the idea that octaves should be exactly a 1:2 ratio - is the system by which most modern keyboards are tuned. This tuning scheme was discussed as far back as the 4th Century but it has the drawback of sounding rather bland in comparison to Well Temperament and other competing systems. By bland I mean that Equal Temperament places everything equally out of tune, and it cannot resonate very well in the overtone series in the same way as Just-, Well-, or Pythagorean/Pure tuning profiles can. On the other hand, in those other systems, you can't play every key in the same way, or sometimes you only play in one key.\n\nFor instruments that have variable tuning, like winds, brass, strings, voice, we tend to adjust our pitch to maximize resonance - meaning, we're listening for destructive beating in the overtones and eliminating those. But when we play with a piano we have to switch to Equal Temperament. If you ever sit behind an orchestra, take a look into the wind section and see if they're using tuners in the performance. If the section lights up like a christmas tree (or a Vegas casino), then it's time to find another orchestra to listen to.\n\nedit: added some stuff, grammar, clarity",
"Every culture and time period has its own version of musical scales, but in general I would say that most musical scales in most cultures are derived from a conflict between two forces: 1) the force of mathematical purity in nature and 2) the bodily desire for musical intonation. This is obviously simplifying the matter, but most people point to [Pythagoras as the father of the mathematically \"purist\" approach.](_URL_1_) He found that plucking a string while stopping it according to whole number ratios produced a set of pitches that began with the most consonant (the octave) and continuing through more complex ratios created more \"dissonant\" pitches. So plucking a 20\" string while stopping it at 10\" created an octave (2:1) while cutting that *half* in half at 5\" (3:2) created a fifth, and so on. [Google the harmonic series for more information on this.](_URL_0_)\n\nThe problem (i.e. beauty) of this, as Shipyaad points out, is that this mathematically pure method eventually leads to a situation where the octaves and important notes are out of tune with the original note. The human body tends to not respond well to out-of-tune sounding octaves (and other notes) and will naturally want to push the note to sound in-tune, especially if multiple notes are playing simultaneously. So an a cappella choir will automatically adjust each note to sound in-tune with the other simultaneous notes. BUT, an instrument that has to be pre-tuned, such as a piano, will \"cheat\" ever so slightly so that certain notes are always a little out-of-tune, so that the overall tuning of the instrument (8 octaves on a piano) can remain in tune.\n\nAs with most things musical, these rules are flexible, especially for monophonic music. Depending on the cultural needs, technology, outside influence, etc. of a given society and time period, these two forces will contribute to the musical scales used in a given culture. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.music.sc.edu/fs/bain/atmi02/hs/index-audio.html",
"http://www.storyofmathematics.com/greek_pythagoras.html"
]
] |
|
ddlkaz
|
in relativity, why is it called space-time as opposed to just space?
|
Isn't time just an abstract notion that humans created in order to help them understand the world. After all, we can only measure time by observing the motion of physical objects. From an outsider looking in to the universe, all they can see is particles and their position. So how exactly can time slow down if time is just a measure of motion and not an actual physical entity? If time is just referring to the slowing down of particles then why isn't it simply just referred to as space?
By the way I am aware that time slowing down is necessary for the equations of relativity, but I still do not intuitively understand why that should be so.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ddlkaz/eli5_in_relativity_why_is_it_called_spacetime_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f2kl1lf",
"f2krvyd",
"f2l2ktw"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It's called spacetime because relativity tells us that space and time are not two unrelated concepts. Space and time seperately don't look the same for all observers. What is space for one observer, can be time for another. If you've ever taken classes on relativity, this is exactly what the Lorentz transformations tell you; they transform space into time and vice versa. The takeaway is that space and time are inextricably linked together in relativity.\n\nYou may think about time as a 'human construct', but then you necessarily also have to think the same about space.",
"How we tell time is an abstract construct but time itself is very real. Think about the speed of light. How can light in a vacuum have an absolute maximum amount of distance it can travel in a given amount of time if time isn't a real thing? Whether we measure time in seconds or years is arbitrary, but the limit is there no matter how it's measured.",
"The two concepts are inherently linked: the faster you travel in space, the slower you travel in time.\n\nDraw a two-dimensional graph, X and Y-axis. Start at the origin (0, 0) and begin drawing one-inch lines on it. If you draw the line entirely on the horizontal axis you'll move one inch in the X direction and zero inches in the Y direction; likewise if you draw it entirely along the Y axis you'll move one inch Y and zero inches X. If you draw it at a 45 degree angle, through, you move less than one inch in both directions (specifically you'd move about 0.7 inches in each direction). At a 60 degree angle you'll again move less than one inch in either direction, but now you'll move a little more in one direction than the other. If your velocity remains constant you'll never move more than one inch per move in any direction, but **moving faster in one direction necessarily means moving slower in another direction.**\n\nYou can pretty easily expand this to three dimensions, and this is typically how we think about motion through space. But there's a *fourth* axis in reality, and that's time. If you move at a constant velocity through this four-dimensional axis, then you can see how moving faster in the three axes of space necessarily means moving slower in the time axis.\n\nYou might feel inclined to interject at this point that we *don't* move at a constant velocity: we're always speeding up, slowing down, plopping down for a rest, taking off again. But here's the kicker: **everything in the Universe constantly moves at C through spacetime.** Remember that when you're at rest you're not *really* at rest: you're sitting on the surface of a planet that's spinning, and that planet is orbiting around a star, and that star is orbiting around a galactic center, and that galaxy is moving in relation to other galaxies, and so on. Compared to all of the cosmic movement you experience at any given moment, the change in velocity from whether you're running or standing still is trivial. You're more or less always traveling at about the same percentage of C through space, and thus time seems pretty much constant. If you can dramatically change the percentage of C you're traveling (say, by hopping on a starship that can reach 50% C) then you'll notice some distances in the passage of time relative to things that are still moving at your original speed.\n\nThere's a lot of weirdness that shakes out of this; and I, an amateur, can't even begin to explain them. Something that has zero motion in space is moving at C through time, and I have no idea what that really means. Light in a vacuum, which travels at C, has zero movement in time; no clue what that means. Motion through spacetime is relative to an observer, which makes all of the previous discussion about spinning planets and galaxies contributing to your motion through spacetime kind of... wacky.\n\nDoes all of this seem like bullshit? Absolutely. Can it be experimentally verified? Yes, and has been. One thing I've learned from studying physics: however weird you imagine the Universe to be, your imagination falls short of reality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
y4vmz
|
How long would bodies be preserved on the Moon? If astronauts died there, what would happen to their bodies?
|
Say Buzz Aldrin and that other guy (fun right?) happened to be stranded and ate the cyaniade outside the lunar lander, how would their body decompose? In the suit.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y4vmz/how_long_would_bodies_be_preserved_on_the_moon_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5sds1m",
"c5sdu72",
"c5sf0af",
"c5sfl1m",
"c5skpwk"
],
"score": [
124,
341,
9,
35,
2
],
"text": [
"If I recall correctly, it would be possible for the bacteria within the body to continue living on and facilitate the internal decay of the body whereas the freezing, vacuum-exposed exterior would be preserved. Creepy stuff.",
"The lunar surface temperature at the equator fluctuates between 100 Kelvin and 390 Kelvin (116C). Apollo 11 landed at 0.8° N, 23.5° E. If there were any that bacteria could survive extreme temperatures(??) they might have an opportunity to decompose the bodies. Also cyclic thawing and refreezing would slowly start turning the bodies to slush. Eventually the materials of the suit would become damaged either through metal fatigue, ice crystals forming, or micrometeorites, this would result in a a leak, all the gasses and liquids would evaporate and escape. At which point the freezing thawing cycle would stop.\n\nI have no idea how long it would take for the suit to start leaking, or how far along the freezing/thawing cycle would be.\n\nAfter that point the only things that could further degrade the bodies would be radiation exposure breaking down organic molecules, cyclic heating and cooling from exposure to the sun causing metal fatigue etc on the suit, micrometeorites and ionized lunar dust\n\nWould they still be recognisable as human bodies in 1 million years? I have no idea.",
"This has been asked before in slightly varying scenarios. I think there was a thread from the pre-front-page time with answers coming from panelists, but I can't find it right now. [Here's the most insightful thread I could find.](_URL_0_) ",
"Check out [this thread in r/sciencefaqs](_URL_0_). This question is quite common.",
"I had a question about something like this. A few months ago, I asked about food in the vacuum of space. I specifically asked about a sandwich (just for hypothetical reasons). What would happen to it? How long would it take to decompose? Would it just float until it got caught in something gravitational pull? Basically , what would happen to food that is exposed and just floating in space. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/uif4i/what_would_happen_to_a_cadaver_left_in_space/"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/sciencefaqs/comments/hd4ib/what_happens_to_a_human_body_in_vacuumhow/"
],
[]
] |
|
3oitn7
|
How did Native Americans deal with wildfires?
|
I was listening to a podcast earlier that talked a bit about wildfires and it got me to wondering, how did Native Americans deal with large forest fires? Did they have any means to fight large fires or did they just move away and wait for the fire to burn itself out? Did they take any precautions to minimize their fire risk like clearing away nearby trees from their dwellings? Were there any tribes that were wiped out by large fires? I'm very interested in learning more about the relationship between Native American tribes and large fires.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3oitn7/how_did_native_americans_deal_with_wildfires/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvxoofc",
"cvxq2yd"
],
"score": [
10,
103
],
"text": [
"Tangentially, I remember reading that the Sioux would periodically start fires on the grasslands to keep the grass fresh for the buffalo. Are there other examples of native peoples managing the habitats of their primary animal food sources this way?",
"Well, a big part of the question is that the huge, devastating wildfires we see periodically in the Western U.S. in the present were almost never a danger in the past. Paleoclimatic data (particularly from tree-ring samples) seems to indicate that these really huge wildfires were much rarer in the past than in the present. \n\nA large part of this is a combination of active management of woodlands by Native American groups combined with the modern practice of fire suppression. Fire suppression in the present has resulted in very unhealthy forests with crowding of trees and unrestrained undergrowth. In the past, tree-spacing was much higher (limiting the spread of crown-to-crown fire) and the lower density of trees meant they tended to grow higher. Without branches lower to the ground it is more difficult for wildfires to catch branches on fire, only searing the bark on the exterior of trees rather than burning them to ground. Likewise, periodic smaller wildfires would clear out undergrowth while leaving the trees mostly unharmed (other than scorching the bark). There are several colonial accounts of what forests looked like in the West that indicate you could easily ride a horse or draw a wagon through the forests, where that would be very difficult or impossible in these same forests today because of the overgrowth. \n\nLikewise, human activities would have contributed to reducing damage from wildfires. In particular, communities would scavenge for firewood from the forest floor largely denuding the area around their settlements of the most easily flammable material. There is also been a suggestion that hunting trails and other man-made trails would function as small fire-breaks, further limiting the spread of fires. \n\nFinally, at least among Pueblo people in the Southwest there is plenty of evidence to suggest that they understood the danger potentially posed by wildfires and acted to clear buffers around their settlements, especially of undergrowth like oak scrub. This served other purposes (namely increasing living space and reducing the threat of attacks using dense wooded spaces for ambush), but it also served to protect communities against fire. \n\nTo my knowledge there is no ancestral Puebloan archaeological site destroyed by natural fires. Several have been burned down, either ritually by their inhabitants or potentially in warfare, but never (or extremely rarely) due to wildfire. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1uqxka
|
[seriously] eli5 the war in syria
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1uqxka/seriously_eli5_the_war_in_syria/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cektgoa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are many political groups in Syria. They all were repressed under a dictator, Hafez Al-Assad. Hafez was friendly to the US and Europe, so they didn't mess with him.\n\nWhen he died in 2000, people expected his son Bashar Al-Assad would make changes. He didn't and people got annoyed over time. When the Arab Spring started, Syrians decided \"we too\".\n\nThe problem is, we know the Government is terrible, but the Opposition is filled with many different groups: secular nationalists, socialists, Islamic parties (some of them fundamentalist), and some groups are at war with *both* of the previous factions.\n\nBasically, this happened because Syria still had a dictator."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1t2xa2
|
why do a lot of people say "macs are just better for doing graphical design"?
|
I just don't get it: I am in architecture school with need for higher end systems and have been personally building Windows gaming systems for years and can beat most Mac systems specification-wise, but I still don't get why they are touted as "just better" when it comes to graphic work...
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1t2xa2/eli5_why_do_a_lot_of_people_say_macs_are_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce3s4eo",
"ce3s5vm",
"ce3sw6a",
"ce3uoet",
"ce3v7ip",
"ce3xpxy"
],
"score": [
19,
10,
2,
3,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't think I'm that old. \n\nBack in the late 1990s, I wouldn't work with anything but Apple computers for desktop publishing work and graphic design. Macs at the time were incredibly stable compared to PCs, had gorgeous display, supported a wider variety of fonts out of the box, had more accurate color depiction and seamlessly integrated many desktop and graphic design tools available at the time. Apple also made strategic partnerships with multimedia production companies and cemented themselves as a somewhat industry standard in the field. \n\nApple as a brand is seen as a 'set it and forget it'. This is how I felt and still feel about their products today. It attracted many creative types way back and now because of how simple and non-intrusive the entire system is with the latter being important to a smooth workflow. \n\nOf course today, the divide between mac and pc is rather unimportant. They are both tools and whatever helps you do your work should be the one you use. \n\nI make robots for a living now and I still use a macbook pro I bought in 2005. It's still working well and hasn't been shutdown for a while now. ",
"For graphics it's the industry standard, in an environment where everyone else is using Macs introducing a PC is just difficult, especially when you need help using the one feature that just happens to look slightly different on the PC version.\n\nHow it became the standard probably traces back to when digital graphics were a new thing, not to mention software that wasn't cross platform.\n\nFor a literate user on a modern computer there's nothing \"just better\" about either platform. (fanhate in 3, 2, 1...)",
"I don't remember exactly, but back in the day the printer, mac and adobe were the exact same PPI (Pixels per inch) so what you saw on the screen is what was printed where Microsoft used a different PPI I believe Macs were 75 and Windows was 90+\n\nToday this doesn't really matter. \n\nI went to one design lecture at university.",
"Macs had an graphical user interface as standard before PCs did. As a result of this, a lot of early graphic software was available and stable on Macs.\n\nFrom a hardware perspective, Macs and Windows PCs have been virtually identical since 2005. Graphical user interfaces have been standard for PCs since Windows 95. Most major graphics packages have been fully supported in both environments for over a decade.\n\nThe attitude still persists. Artists tend to be drawn towards Apple's promises of simplicity & stability, as well as the 'elitism' of using Apple hardware.",
"Graphic designer here.\n\nAs someone said below, the idea that Macs are better for graphic design used to be the case in the 80's and 90's, back when Macs were PowerPC-based. They were less prone to crashes and much more stable and user-friendly for designers. Nowadays, there really isn't much of a difference, as it all comes down to personal preference. At work I used a Mac, at home a PC, both with the Adobe CS6 Design suite. I can switch seamlessly between the two, and don't really notice a difference performance-wise.\n\nTL;DR it all comes down to personal preference.",
"That used to be the case in the late 80's and 90's. Macs had graphical user interfaces and quality DTP software (Quark XPress) and made a lot of fans back then. PC's had.. um, DOS. Oh and versions of Windows that were barely useful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
jez0t
|
Since Mars doesn't have a magnetic field, how would this affect our ability to use electricity-based technologies there?
|
Would it make that much of a difference? Would electric motors using magnets still work? I assume things like electric guitars wouldn't function. Do things like the Mars rover need special adaptations? And just in general, do electronics behave differently in space?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jez0t/since_mars_doesnt_have_a_magnetic_field_how_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2bji7t",
"c2bjk4d",
"c2bji7t",
"c2bjk4d"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It would make no noticeable difference on any of those things.",
"Electronics would be more susceptible to solar radiation, but I'm not sure there would be GIC's (Geomagnetically induced currents) on mars like there are on earth without a magnetic field around the planet.. ",
"It would make no noticeable difference on any of those things.",
"Electronics would be more susceptible to solar radiation, but I'm not sure there would be GIC's (Geomagnetically induced currents) on mars like there are on earth without a magnetic field around the planet.. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15amvk
|
if the evidence for the holocaust can stand by itself, why is it illegal to deny the holocaust in several european countries?
|
Countries where holocaust denial is illegal
_URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/15amvk/if_the_evidence_for_the_holocaust_can_stand_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7kq94p",
"c7ksunu",
"c7ku0zt",
"c7kuqya",
"c7kvjzt"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most countries in the world do not have any kind of concept of unlimited free speech. The idea is that certain kinds of speech can be just as mentally harmful as violence is physically harmful, and thus they should be illegal just like violence is.",
"The reason that holocaust deniers are treated differently then other groups that promote bad science or fringe conspiracy theories is that holocaust deniers are closely linked to hate groups and terrorists. The law isn't about controlling a debate, the law is there to stop neo-nazis from repeating the crimes of the past.\n\nTo put in into a ELI5 metaphor, there are some kids in your class who like to pick fights with people. They like to say nasty things about people's moms until the people try and punch them. Since the other kids threw the first punch, they get in trouble. The teacher isn't dumb, though, so she declares moms off-limits.\n\nIt's a way to go after bullies before it turns violent.",
"The \"Freedom of speech is great, BUT...\" attitude in this thread scares me. *takes cover from downvotes*",
"From your responses I think your question can be better phrased: \"If the evidence for the holocaust can stand on its own, what is the justification for banning holocaust denial in European countries?\"\n\nIn other words, you're asking why it is ok to limit someone's freedom of speech if the marketplace of ideas will judge them wrong anyway.\n\nLet's start with a fairly universal notion: even in societies where free speech is highly valued, dangerous speech is limited. If speech would cause a rational person to become violent, for example, it is often limited. In the US we call those \"fighting words\" and treat them differently. \n\nEurope has a history with verifiably false conspiracy theories being used as the lynchpin of extremist political movements that kill millions of people. The Nazis, for example, preached a conspiracy theory known as the false-defeat theory -- that Germany hadn't really lost the first world war militarily but had been stabbed in the back by its Jew-controlled government.\n\nNow, this was bunk and you could PROVE it was bunk in 1930, but that didn't stop the Nazis from saying it, people from beliving it, and Germany from inflicting the consequences upon Europe.\n\nSo today much of Europe regards such politically incendiary lies as dangerous, particularly those that seek to prop up the old parties and ideas of Europe's darkest days. \n\nTL;DR: Because the last time Europe relied on the marketplace of ideas to shout down Nazism we got a genocide and a world war to boot.",
"Wait.. Denying the holocaust is illegal??? Are you freakin kidding me? Or denying the holocaust in school teachings or something illegal? If someone wants to sit at home and not believe the holocaust happened, who's to tell them they can't think that? I can understand it not being okay to print history books denying it and then using said books to teach in a public school but to be outright illegal? That's fucked up. Denying the holocaust is illegal but denying science and evolution and teaching children a sky man made everything and just to ignore physics is okay? Just wow. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_against_Holocaust_denial"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5w44re
|
Why did the Eastern Roman Empire survive during the fifth century, when the Western Empire fell?
|
I'm doing some reading on the Later Roman Empire, and was wondering how one fell yet the other stood, and thrived for
Nearly a thousand years?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5w44re/why_did_the_eastern_roman_empire_survive_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de7jeap",
"de7otfh"
],
"score": [
99,
13
],
"text": [
"This is a vast topic, so whilst I will attempt to cover all the important points, do note that there is always more to say on this question.\n\nFirst of all, we have to note that there were issues beyond any Roman'' control. Michael Kulikowski's recent *Imperial Triumph: The Roman World from Hadrian to Constantine* (2016), for example, pointed out that the acquisition of Caucasian gold mines would prove to be important to the wealth of the eastern empire in the fifth century. This steady source of gold bound together the eastern elite with the structures of imperial government, whereas the western provincial elite had less incentive to be so closely tied to the centre. This, for Kulikowski, partially explains why it was the west that fractured rather than the east when faced with the geopolitical aftershocks of convulsions in the Eurasian steppes. This is only one factor, but it is a useful reminder that we also have to look beyond the fifth-century Mediterranean for explanations, for events beyond the empire had nonetheless contributed to the transformation of the Roman world.\n\nMore traditionally, we can point to the wealth of the more urbanised east, particularly in Egypt and the Levant, neither of which were seriously threatened in the fifth century. The Sassanid Persians, although a geopolitical rival, only engaged in two brief wars with the Eastern Roman Empire (a far cry from the conflict-ridden sixth century), which provided Constantinople with room for manoeuvre when threats emerged elsewhere. The western empire did have its own wealthy provinces, but they were in much greater danger. A crucial cause of its eventual 'fall' is for example frequently identified as the Vandal invasion of North Africa, which took away a safe, dependable tax-base from the western treasury. Little wonder then that imperial forces, both eastern and western, dedicated so much effort to try to take it back, the last attempt as late as 468. \n\nHowever, if I remember a conference paper last year correctly, then North Africa was also subject to mass internal migrations, quite apart from the Vandal invasion - the so-called 'Völkerwanderung', or the Migration Age, has been frequently used only to refer to European migrations, but we need to remember that late antiquity was a time of fluidity and mobility, and that again, events beyond western Europe ought to be taken into account. Who knows, perhaps North Africa was not as stable as it used to be anyway (problems with the Moors were certainly present under Vandal rule), undermining therefore the western empire even when it had control of it. The same convulsions were not visible in the eastern breadbasket province of Egypt and I can only think of the Isaurians in Anatolia as another example of an internal non-Roman group (or at least, were not seen as Romans by the 'proper' Romans) that caused trouble. Even then, the Isaurians were all about placing themselves into positions of power in Constantinople, to gain control of the court, not to bring the whole institution down. The resulting political instability was not helpful, but imperial legitimacy was not seriously threatened.\n\nSpain and Gaul were of course not worthless, but by the fifth century the empire could not rely on them. By then, the western empire was facing powerful organised groups, not disorganised 'barbarians', an ironic result of the empire's violent treatment of its neighbours. The 'barbarians' were not hellbent on the empire's destruction, but instead sought to find a more privileged place for themselves within the imperial structure. This meant the creation of client kingdoms in order to receive gold and offices from the Roman state, the only difference to the past was that they were now placed within imperial provinces, not beyond the (always nebulous) border. Indeed, the most famous of these 'barbarians', Alaric the Goth (who sacked Rome in 410), ought to be seen as a Roman general gone rogue rather than anything else, no different from any other rebellious governor or usurper from this time.\n\nIt is worth expanding on this point, as political fragmentation was more common in the west than in the east. In the eastern empire, there were no rogue generals who carved out a few provinces for themselves or usurpers who succeeded in overthrowing the legitimate emperor (the first successful attempt would be Phocas' coup in 602). The same was not true in the west. Constantine III for instance revolted in 407, ostensibly to protect the Rhine frontier, but in practice created a separate domain for himself, whilst a plague of even shorter-lived rebels also thought that they had a good chance of becoming emperor throughout the fifth century, with one revolt even in North Africa. The same problem can be seen in the fourth century, when the eastern emperor Theodosius I had to attack the west twice to remove its usurpers. Political stability, even through puppet rulers, was seemingly difficult to find in the west, whereas in the east succession was largely peaceful (barring some palace intrigue and political purges in Constantinople of course).\n\nIn these circumstances, it was logical for western provincials to turn to local armies to protect them, as opposed to the distant government in Italy (which sometimes they didn't recognise as the legitimate authority anyway, if the person in charge was an usurper). These local bigwigs were sometimes 'barbarians', but since they had a recognised place in the imperial structure and had Roman titles, it wasn't so unusual for the provincials to do this. Over time, these leaders also took on an administrative role, becoming regional governors in all but name. This was not a dramatic change by any means and, as Kulikowski rightfully pointed out, these 'barbarian' kings continued to behave like client-kings until the 460s, with occasional bouts of tension, warfare, and independence when the political situation changed. Then again, the 'proper' Roman generals were doing the exact same thing, so it's hard to really blame this on the 'barbarians'. In any case, over time it would become more normal for the distant court in Ravenna to be ignored - there was certainly no need for a centralised empire that could not protect you, when you have a Roman general around who could do the same job.\n\nThis I feel is the crux of the matter, that the western empire collapsed not because it faced more invasions, had less wealth, or simply because of luck. Instead, it was because political fragmentation made it acceptable for local Romans to go their own way. The eastern empire on the other hand did not experience this, as the political centre was always based at Constantinople and its authority was not seriously challenged (nor could it be, due to its wealth). People went to the court to seek the favour of the emperor (or his puppet-master), not to make their own emperors on the fringes. Yet in the west we have pretenders popping up everywhere - why go to Italy when you can have a piece of the action closer to home? Throughout this period, Romanness itself was never threatened, so people never had to defend their way of life against someone genuinely trying to turn the world upside down. Instead, political competition was what mattered and it was the consequences of this infighting between the Roman elite, expressed in different ways, that shaped the different political trajectories of east and west.\n\nIt is perhaps a good idea to end by talking about what happened afterwards, which can help us understand the earlier period a little better. This is because well after 476, people in the west continued to recognise imperial suzerainty, even when Constantinople could do very little to interfere with the 'post-Roman' kingdoms. As succinctly summed up in the *New Cambridge Medieval History*:\n\n > The beginning of the century saw Anastasius (491–518) on the imperial throne, ruling an empire that was still thought of as essentially the Roman Empire, coextensive with the world of the Mediterranean, however unrealistic such a view seems to modern historians, who have the benefit of hindsight. Although Anastasius ruled from Constantinople, ‘New Rome’, over what we call the ‘Eastern Empire’, the Western Empire having been carved up into the ‘barbarian kingdoms’, this perspective is ours, not theirs. Through the conferring of titles in the gift of the emperor, and the purchasing of alliances with the wealth of the Empire – wealth that was to dwarf the monetary resources of the West for centuries to come – the barbarian kings could be regarded as client kings, acknowledging the suzerainty of the emperor in New Rome, and indeed the barbarian kings were frequently happy to regard themselves in this light. The discontinuation of the series of emperors in the West, with the deposition of Romulus Augustulus in 476, was regarded by very few contemporaries as a significant event: the notion that East and West should each have its own emperor was barely of a century’s standing, and the reality of barbarian military power in the West, manipulated from Constantinople, continued, unaffected by the loss of an ‘emperor’ based in the West.\n\nThe western empire had disappeared, but the Roman world itself did not fall. Client kings ruled on behalf of the emperor as they had always done. For some, such as the supporters of Theoderic the Great in Italy, they could even imagine their ruler, a patrician and ex-consul who had been educated in Constantinople, as a new emperor of a revived western empire, acclaiming him as a man 'born for the good of the *res publica*', 'propagator of the Roman name', and, most intriguingly of all, as '*semper Augustus*' - 'forever Augustus'. When we say that the Western Roman Empire fell, we therefore have to be very careful about what we mean. What collapsed was the centralised infrastructure that held a diverse range of provinces together. Roman institutions, culture, and people on the other hand did not fall at all.",
"Welcome to the Thunderdome™!! This is pretty much THE question of Late Antiquity, and rest assured, there are no concrete answers, only lots of heated, usually insult-laden debates between tweed-wearing professorial types.\n\nLuckily, /u/shlin28 has already covered the basic groundwork, and instead, I am going to advance an alternate suggestion, which one could probably find somewhere in [Demandt's Famous 210 List of Why The Roman Empire Fell](_URL_0_).\n\nThe survival of the Roman Empire in general was about the utility of the continuation of those in charge in calling themselves Roman. You're often going to hear the Western Roman Empire fell in 476 (or 481 for those who prefer Julius Nepos). You may have also heard that no such empire fell in 476 because the empire kept on going in the east.\n\nWell did you know that the \"western\" imperial office was \"resurrected\" with the crowning of Charlemagne, and continued on until 1806? Or did you know that the \"eastern\" imperial office didn't actually end until 1922, with the abdication of Ottoman Sultan Mehmed VI? He held the title of \"Emperor of Rome\" from Mehmed II \"The Conqueror,\" who himself was descended from Roman imperial blood through the Komnenos family, and claimed the imperial office by right of conquest.\n\nThe answer to both question is, probably not, because we don't really want to recognize the germanic or turkish claims as a continuation of Rome, and because later on, the germans and the turks no longer found it useful to call the empire as \"Roman\" (the germanic leadership because the empire had decentralized into a non-entity, the turkish leadership because they prided the higher title of Islamic caliph, which was acquired later).\n\nSo even though I'm not answering the question the way you might like it to be answered, I wanted to pose this alternate scenario to you to instead have you think like a historian, to ask questions in new and more interesting ways, and to question what all these terms actually mean in your question.\n\ni.e.\n\nWhat is an empire? Who is a Roman? What counts as a fall? Is there really a distinction between east and west?\n\netc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://courses.washington.edu/rome250/gallery/ROME%20250/210%20Reasons.htm"
]
] |
|
cxuazw
|
How significant was allied strategic bombing of Germany in WW2?
|
The Allies started the strategic bombing campaign in 1942. Was it really significant enough to justify the destruction of artifacts such as the only fossils of the spinosaurus. Was it really significant at all?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cxuazw/how_significant_was_allied_strategic_bombing_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eyo3b4r"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"I think it says something about Reddit that its first reaction to the Allied bombing of Germany is to think about some dinosaur bones, and not the 635,000 people that died as a result of it, but I digress.\n\nAdam Tooze, in *The Wages of Destruction: The Making and Breaking of the Nazi Economy* argued that one of the most decisive moments of the war was RAF Bomber Command's attacks on the Ruhr in the spring of 1943. Up to then, the RAF had launched some large raids, including the first thousand-plane raid on Cologne on the night of 30 May 1942. This period included the Cabinet's dehousing paper and the RAF's area bombing directive that committed Bomber Command to attacking German cities in general with the aim of killing, displacing and demoralising the German population, in particular industrial workers. However, until mid-1943 it lacked both the numbers of heavy bombers and the technology to guide them to their targets to have a real impact on the German economy. From 5 March 1943, numbers of bombers, plus electronic guidance systems, allowed it to launch relentless attacks on German industry in the \"Battle of the Ruhr\", which continued for five months with a total of 34,000 tons of bombs dropped, plus daylight harassing raids by light Mosquito bombers. This period included Operation CHASTISE, the famous Dambusters raid on the Moehne and Eder rivers.\n\nTooze remarks that, \"Reading contemporary sources, there can be no doubt that the Battle of the Ruhr marked a turning point in the history of the German war economy, which has been grossly underestimated by post-war accounts.\" The Ruhr was Europe's most important production centre for coking coal and steel, as well as for intermediate components vital for all sectors of the German war economy. The Battle of the Ruhr provoked Albert Speer to to declare the Ruhr a war zone, with the industrial workforce reorganised on paramilitary lines to allow them to be re-deployed at moment's notice from bomb-damaged factories to operational ones. But this was little more than a damage-limitation exercise: steel production fell by 200,000 tons in mid-1943. On top of pre-existing shortages, this gave the entire German economy a shortfall of *400,000 tons* of steel. This in turn required an immediate cut in ammunition production: after more than doubling in 1942, ammunition production in 1943 increased by only 20 per cent. Between July 1943 and March 1944, there was no further increase in monthly aircraft production owing to a critical shortage of intermediate components. Across the whole German armaments industry, from February 1942 to May 1943, it had enjoyed a relatively smooth monthly growth in production of 5.5%. After the Battle of the Ruhr, from May 1943 to February 1944, the average monthly growth rate was *0%*.\n\nThe RAF and USAAF miscalculated, however, in July 1943 when it turned its attention from the Ruhr to the major Elbe river port of Hamburg, incinerating the city in a firestorm that killed forty thousand people (by comparison, no more than twenty-five thousand would die in the bombing of Dresden) and caused nine hundred thousand more to flee. Albert Speer remarked after the war that had the Allies done that to just three or four other major cities, so many people would have fled into the countryside that the Third Reich would probably have collapsed. However, igniting a firestorm required extremely specific atmospheric conditions and the RAF succeeded in causing one more in 1943, in Kassel on 22 October. It was then distracted in trying to repeat the result in Berlin. While Berlin was a major manufacturing centre in its own right and had obvious political and morale significance as a target, the Ruhr was the chokepoint for the German economy: shutting down its coal and steel production, or severing its links to the rest of the country, had the potential to disrupt the entire industrial economy, and the failure by the RAF to press the attacks on the Ruhr was a serious operational error.\n\nIn March 1943 the British and Americans disposed of 1,000 aircraft with a combined bomb weight of 4,000 tons. By February 1944, this had risen to 3,000 bombers, increasing to 5,250 in July 1944, now capable of delivering 20,000 tons of bombs in a single lift. For much of mid 1943 to early 1944, this was committed to Operation Pointblank against the German air industry, aimed at destroying German aircraft production as well as forcing the Luftwaffe into a decisive defensive campaign that would annihilate much of its strength in preparation for the invasion of Europe. From June 1944 it could be turned against German industry as a whole. It had its best effects when it was turned not against German industrial areas (though the sheer devastation inflicted on German cities certainly dented war production), but against transport infrastructure. From September to October, canals, rail yards and bridges into the Ruhr were targeted. In early October one of only fifty ore trains was making it into the Ruhr, and for lack of iron ore, steel production in the Ruhr in January 1945 was down by 66% compared to the previous year. On 11 November 1944, Speer had to report to Hitler that the Ruhr was effectively sealed off from Germany. Coal shortages accounted for production falls of 80% in some factories, while others were forced to close completely. Spring 1945, just before the German surrender, gives the most extreme illustration of the bombing's effect on German industry: dwellers along the Rhine noted that the river was running clean for the first time in generations. There were no factories left in operation to pollute it.\n\nIn summary, even in mid-1943 Allied strategic bombing was capable of doing significant damage to the German war effort, as illustrated by the Battle of the Ruhr. However, it was at its most effective when scarce bomber assets were concentrated, not against factories or manufacturing districts themselves, but against the infrastructure to support manufacturing: losses in coal, steel, and intermediate components production caused massive declines in armaments production at a time when the Reich needed every gun, tank and shell it could lay its hands on. The Battle of the Ruhr coincides with the defeat at Kursk, the Allied invasions of Sicily and Italy, and the clear beginning of Germany fighting on the defensive, leading to its ultimate defeat. However, commanders like Arthur Harris were distracted in attacking German industrial areas with the aim of killing or driving away workers to collapse manufacturing, when they lacked the numbers of bombers to cause the sheer devastation needed in a short amount of time to cause the entire country to suffer a moral collapse. It was only by mid 1944, by which time the Soviets were in the middle of Poland and the British and Americans were ashore in Normandy, that the bomber barons had the numbers of planes to attack not just big cities, but also smaller towns that acted as transport hubs needed to support German industry: Allied bombing strategy actually shifted *away* from prioritising transport targets in November-December 1944, but the sheer number of bombers now committed and weight of bombs dropped was sufficient to bring about near-total collapse. Arguably, though, by this point it didn't matter anymore."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fyfw5
|
Do you think language is an evolutionary continuity?
|
This a question that I (and many others, I gather) have often debated and thought about. I don't have much of a clue about where the consensus lies (if there is one), so I'm wondering what Redditors' opinions are on the topic:
**Is language an evolutionary continuity?** That is, is human language an extension of more primitive methods of communication, which we developed over time as early hominids (and even before this)? The general extension of this view is that animals (mainly primates, but also dolphins and others) essentially have a precursory mode of communication to what humans use today.
**Is language an evolutionary discontinuity?** The alternative view, as held by Noam Chomsky, is that at some point in our evolutionary history, we suddenly developed a unique adaptation (supported by special modifications of the brain), which was developed so recently that no other organism/animal has this.
I am personally an adherent of the evolutionary continuity position of language development. I think that the modes of communication that I've seen in mammals and birds (perhaps in other classes too) are not all that different than the biological communication (i.e. not telecommunication) that humans are capable. Just like an infant has basic communication skills that develop over their lifetime, I think that over the evolutionary development of other animals, we will notice a further development in their communication skills to what we would call "language".
What are your thoughts, Reddit?
Edit: I'm concerned that maybe this question was asked in the wrong subreddit, but it has already received some interesting answers within the first 45 minutes. If this *is* an inappropriate question for this subreddit, I'll be happy to remove it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fyfw5/do_you_think_language_is_an_evolutionary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1jkkes",
"c1jksox",
"c1jmbvl",
"c1jmqfq"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I'm no biologist, but .. Obviously, other animals have vocal forms of communication, and different species have different levels of sophistication in their vocalizations. \n\nYou can always point to grammar and whatnot to make the case that human language is fundamentally different from vocalizations in other animals. But theories that attribute unique attributes to humans have an abysmal track record. Be it believing we're created in god's image, or that we're at the center of the universe, or whatever. And the same goes for theories that have ascribed _biological_ significance to things _we humans_ have considered significant. From racial theories to phrenology. \n\nSo I'm automatically skeptical of any theory that says humans are unique. We have a strong tendency both to attribute large significance to whatever things we can find that distinguish us from animals, and by extension, that those things have equally large biological significance.",
"A discussion of the origin of human language and evolution is not complete without mentioning FOXP2. A [fascinating 2001 paper in Nature](_URL_0_) explained how this gene is 1. seemingly necessary for spoken language and 2. has undergone 2 recent amino acid changes in human evolution, approximately 200,000 years ago, whereas mutations in this gene have otherwise been very rare throughout (1 change since the diversion of mouse and chimpanzee lineage 75 million years ago).",
"* What is meant by *language*? Pattern recognition, symbolic association, precise vocal control, and auditory training? Reading, hearing, speaking, and writing? All those things?\n\n* What were the *first* languages? Latin, Sumatran, or something, right? You're surely not thinking that something even cruder could have appeared before that (let's for the sake of this argument hold this statement to be true).\n\n* If you nabbed newborns from different regions of the world and isolated them for 50 years on an island (let's say they somehow could survive on their own), would they develop a rudimentary form of language? Would it resemble modern languages (modern babies) or a distinctly regional modern languages (babies of different origins, after all) or would it resemble what we assume were the first languages?\n\n* I don't think language can be simplified to a feature that a population can simply evolve. It'd be no different from saying that entertainment is an evolved feature. Language is a product of other features, mostly cognitive. Our brains are highly plastic and that may be why we are able to communicate so fluidly, precisely, and efficiently. I saw an educational video in class last spring about babies. A young baby can recognize chimpanzee faces. They did something to ensure the babies would give distinct reactions to certain chimpanzees faces (association with food/pleasure/pain, perhaps?) and showed that babies were significantly more adept than even marginally older children at recognizing and responding appropriately to these faces. To me, this shows that our brains have been highly plastic for thousands of years and it is only the culture in which we live that determines our intellect. Could a baby from 50,000 years ago survive today with no problems?\n\n* Also, wtf is meant by 'continuity'? WTF is an 'evolutionary continuity'? I understand being creative with words, but that usage is hardly accessible. Continuity in the sense that there has been no unbroken record of a development of language? How could discontinuity even exist? The explanation would still require a continuous evolutionary record (i.e. the allele was highly beneficial in other aspects, so even when only one organism was speaking, the allele was highly successful and thus became popular). I don't think that's the distinction that Noam Chomsky was making, but I'm just saying that because Dr. Chomsky is a smart fella and wouldn't make claims that would cause an evolutionary biologist to cringe.",
"You might want to read Steven Pinker's book called The Language Instinct, he explores this question and uses some of the Chomsky ideas. For example, he shows how deaf people and people who lost hearing develop sign language, also there are quite a lot said about the people who received damage to the part of brain, called Broca's area and therefore suffering from aphasia. Actually, lot of stuff in this book. At first, I thought it would be close to all those paranormal Nazi Occult UFOs books, where the book ends with what it started - an unanswered question, but turned out to be a thorough work. As a linguist myself, I find lot of things mentioned to be quite interested and wish they would tell me about alternative theories during my first year, rather than sticking with one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v418/n6900/abs/nature01025.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.