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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
3efeq2
|
Do we track all activity in space? Would we notice if alien life puts a satellite between our satellites?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3efeq2/do_we_track_all_activity_in_space_would_we_notice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctefs8m",
"ctefxdu"
],
"score": [
6,
7
],
"text": [
"Unlikely. We've [lost satellites](_URL_0_) and won't be able to recover them until we work out where they are and can direct a transmission at them specifically.\n\nThat suggests we don't have full view of the sky so an alien satellite would likely go unnoticed. (Unless military radar is better, which it likely is, but then we are making guesses at how much better it is)",
"Everything in low earth orbit above 5cm in diameter is tracked. Further out, at the distance of a geostationary orbit, all things above a meter are tracked. We are also tracking smaller objects than these. It is possible for a satellite to be hidden if it were made similar to stealth jets in the way that they reflect minimal radar waves, which are what is used to track them with."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Cometary_Explorer#Reboot_effort"
],
[]
] |
||
513dzc
|
when and why did natural things that everyone does like peeing become a private thing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/513dzc/eli5when_and_why_did_natural_things_that_everyone/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d78ztzh",
"d78zurm"
],
"score": [
2,
153
],
"text": [
"When close knit civilization started. It's unsanitary and can breed a myriad of different deadly diseases. It's better to do it away from people. Through doing it away from people, it became \"private\" due to a cultural tradition type thing.",
"I am not sure your premise is true. The smell of pee is offensive to us. So even in hunter gatherer times people probably didn't pee in the same spot they lived. \n\nMoreover when peeing or shitting most animals are vulnerable and they prefer some sort of privacy. I would imagine the same sort of instinct works in humans too. \n\nFinally the evolutionary/social construct that made us wear some form of clothing probably inhibits playing with our dicks like water pistols. \n\nThe reason for using so many maybe and probably is because there is very little that is left of human cultural/social evolution on record. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1r8evg
|
How did World War II impact the experiences of African Americans?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r8evg/how_did_world_war_ii_impact_the_experiences_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdmgb7f"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It impacted the lives of African Americans on multiple levels. Most historians put the emphasis on the military involvement of the black population: overture in officialdom, acceptance of A-A in the Air Corps, change of rules in the selective service, ability to showcase A-A's value in combat, etc. Ultimately, WWII lead to the desegregation of the armed forces.\n\nUnfortunately, historians tend to limit their scope of study to this aspect of the special conjuncture of the period, therefore missing a great part of the whole picture. WWII greatly impacted the political, juridical and economical life of A-A.\n\nAt the time, there was what is often being call a Second Great Migration. Sometimes, historians refer to this migration as simply the second large wave of a general trend that started during WWI (The ''First'' Great Migration). Whatever you want to call it, the fact remains that, mostly looking for jobs, people from the South-East moved Westward and Northward in great numbers. Among the migrants, a majority, obviously, was white, but proportionately, blacks moved out of the South at a higher rate. This migration was directly linked to the War Economy and played a major role in changing the everyday life of millions of A-A (even among those who didn't move). This migration was also marked by and exodus from rural lands towards urban dwellings. \n\nThis reality greatly improved the electoral power of the black population for several reasons - some more obvious than others.\n\nIt also enabled blacks to politicize themselves. A-A Activism sky-rocketed during the period (contrarily to what some historians say): civil rights organizations were born between 1939 and 1945; nationwide campaign were set in place by such organizations, old and new, and by A-A newspapers, reaching unprecedented popularity; the NAACP grew ten-fold during the war, with nearly 500,000 members at the end of the war; etc.\n\nTo be brief, WWII provided an opportunity of political empowerment for A-A. Black leaders were conscious of this opportunity and put forth measures and strategies to seize it. However, this is not consensual among historians. Quite the contrary, many believed that the period was characterized by slow political progress for A-A. In my opinion, this is mostly due to the fact that while the Executive branch was mostly liberal during WWII, Congress was not. Indeed, few laws were enacted to give A-A any form of political rights, but political power is obviously not limited to actual political rights.\n\nEconomically, the gap between whites and blacks was narrowed (but clearly not eliminated) during the Second World War. Education and alphabetization of blacks also progressed due to WWII. Imprisonment of blacks went down. Unemployment was not that much of an issue at the beginning of the war, but job insecurity and lower salaries were. Blacks especially despised the ''last hired; first fired'' reality. The war helped to elevate salaries and somewhat strengthened their job security (then again, several reasons; one of them being that black leadership worked alongside unions) - which was two main a-a preoccupations. Urbanization of the black population also contributed to a change in their economic life (as well as their political life-especially by providing them electoral leverage...). Etc.\n\nThere were several landmark court-rulings during WWII. The Supreme Court's decision in Smith v. Allwright (1944) necessarily comes to mind - as it discredited White Primaries in Texas (and elsewhere in the South by extension). Several equal pay suits were won in State courts. A relatively liberal Supreme court was set in place. By gaining members, the NAACP was more apt to defend more cases in court...\n\nI'm currently procrastinating, so I'll end it there. If you want more info on the subject, feel free to ask. I'll provide you with some insightful readings, but be warned that this is not a consensual period/topic for historians (like most periods and most topics) and that most scholars tend to diminish, erroneously (in my opinion), the importance of WWII for the Civil Rights Movement. I took much of the information I have on the subject from my personal research. I am currently writing my master's thesis on the subject.\n\nThat means that I'm procrastinating by writing on the actual subject I should be writing on... for real. Anyway, if you want more info on a specific point, I'll be glad to provide."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
tmxu4
|
what happens when they say Einstein equations "break down"?
|
I have been reading a lot of books on astrophysics. In those books people say when u combine general relativity with string theory or something along those lines the equations "break down". My question is what does that mean in Layman's terms and the real math that goes with it.
bonus question: I really want to be some kind of theoretical physicist but what would i have to do to become one?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/tmxu4/what_happens_when_they_say_einstein_equations/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4nzldv"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The [Einstein Field Equation](_URL_0_) takes a description of energy (including mass) and tells you how to describe the curvature of spacetime around that energy. ***But***, when we want to put in the description of energy for a quantum particle, we can't find an appropriate way to do it. You can approximately imagine this simply that since you need a mass's *position* and *momentum* simultaneously for GR, and Quantum mechanics can't let us know these things simultaneously for quantum particles. (more specifically, for macroscopic objects the precision to which you need to know these are much smaller than the objects themselves). I wrote up more about it here: _URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Einstein_field_equation",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l3hjc/would_it_be_possible_or_perhaps_even_likely_that/c2pi6kk"
]
] |
|
5m0vac
|
How common were misspellings or grammatical errors in old (Greek, Roman, Midieval Europe, etc) texts?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5m0vac/how_common_were_misspellings_or_grammatical/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbzzu1z"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"I have been learning how to do paleographical work on Latin Medieval manuscripts since August. If we are taking Ciceronian Latin as the standard, every Medieval manuscript I have looked at so far has diverged from that standard in spelling and grammar. \n\nIn many cases, the scribe seems simply to have made mistakes. In other cases, the spelling of a word, or its grammatical use, changed throughout the centuries, so in those cases, \"correct\" or \"incorrect\" is not really the right word-it is simply different from Classical Latin. \n\nThe issue is complicated because in most of these manuscripts, many words are abbreviated, and in some other places, the handwriting is unclear. So sometimes what words are actually there, and their spelling, comes down to the Paleographer's interpretation. When the words in a manuscript are unclear, one's inclination will be to use correct grammar and spelling when filling in the gaps. But was that the spelling and grammar which the scribe intended? That's not an easy question to answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7660jz
|
how does does drum sheet music work with all the different types of percussion in a drum kit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7660jz/eli5_how_does_does_drum_sheet_music_work_with_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dobkcgu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are some standard conventions, like in a 5-line staff, the lowest space is the bass drum, two spaces above that is the snare, and cymbals are written above the staff with an 'x' instead of a circle.\n\nHere's a blog that explains those basics:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHowever, there are many exceptions to this, and also there are tons of sounds you can get from a drum kit that don't have a standard notation. It's pretty typical to have the sheet music just make up a symbol to use for that sound and describe what to do the first time in words.\n\nHowever, the other important thing to understand is that music for a drum kit in rock, jazz, broadway, etc. (unlike classical percussion) is usually more of a sketch than an exact notation.\n\nThe drummer is expected to know how to do a lot of different beats, and they're given a lot of latitude to be creative in their exact interpretation.\n\nFor example, in a lot of big-band and broadway music, you may have 23 bars that are just blank with slashes for 4 beats, the word \"heavy swing\", then the 24th bar might just say \"fill\" with a note on the 4th beat - indicating that the drummer should play something creative that \"sets up\" the 4th beat for the whole band to hit.\n\nHere's an example of that:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nOne way I'd describe it is that the sheet music just gives you the fundamental pattern, highlights the beats that should be accented, and then it's up to the drummer to make up the rest.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://takelessons.com/blog/how-to-read-drum-sheet-music",
"http://fileserver.freehandmusic.netdna-cdn.com/preview/530x4/wilson/wpawp827dms.png"
]
] |
||
bpz9d8
|
why do mobile devices perform better when wifi takes over cellular but not the other way around?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bpz9d8/eli5_why_do_mobile_devices_perform_better_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"enz91a8"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The trigger when you go from wifi to cell is because the wifi signal is so bad. The trigger from going cell to WiFi is because wifi exists, assuming it's always better. One is intentional. The other is a failure to connect. So of course it's bad when you have to fail over."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
tisoe
|
why foods general taste better cooked on low heat and slowly rather than high heat and quickly
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tisoe/eli5_why_foods_general_taste_better_cooked_on_low/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4n0fg9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[Alton Brown explains it pretty well in this episode](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HZ2Uj_3v6Dw"
]
] |
||
kzh28
|
Vaccine conspiracy theories and hard science.
|
I am girding my loins to bring up vaccination with my non-vaccinating in-laws (their daughter is unvaccinated at 5). I previously posted [this](_URL_0_) hoping to get some other thoughts on vaccines in general. **Note:** They do not believe the autism/vaccine link and are generally evidence based, educated people. They have a four part objection to vaccines:
1. Vaccines are unnecessary with a healthy immune system
2. Vaccines are harmful to a healthy immune system
3. Vaccines are in and of themselves dangerous and part of a conspiracy by the medical establishment to make a profit
4. Vaccines will eventually cause the downfall of man because they are not a 'natural' immune response and humans will eventually not be able to cope with viruses.
Can AskScience help me refute these claims? I understand that viruses don't have the same risk of becoming vaccine resistant with overuse as antibiotics, but I don't understand quite why. I also have a hard time swallowing the whole conspiracy theory thing. I know that there have been some nefarious doings, but it seems to me that this level of nefariousness would have been noticed by now.
I am bringing this up because we have a child who is too young to be vaccinated against some viruses and want to be sure she is protected.
Thanks for any insight into the above!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kzh28/vaccine_conspiracy_theories_and_hard_science/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2oiktu",
"c2oilbq",
"c2oin1e",
"c2oip2r",
"c2ois1u",
"c2oj6ie",
"c2ojdoa",
"c2ol723",
"c2onjk7",
"c2oowd0",
"c2oiktu",
"c2oilbq",
"c2oin1e",
"c2oip2r",
"c2ois1u",
"c2oj6ie",
"c2ojdoa",
"c2ol723",
"c2onjk7",
"c2oowd0"
],
"score": [
6,
6,
63,
14,
4,
7,
6,
4,
3,
2,
6,
6,
63,
14,
4,
7,
6,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Ask them if they would like their kid to get polio, oh, wait, they can't, because vaccines have ELIMINATED it.",
"1) This is partly true for some diseases; however, the alternative is to actually get the disease the vaccine is for. A child can become immune to pertussis either by receiving a vaccine or undergoing a horrific pertussis infection.\n\nThis is not true for incurable diseases (polio, HPV). This is also not true for those with weaker immune systems (such as your daughter). Your in-laws are putting your daughter at risk of a fatal infection by allowing their child to be a potential disease vector.\n\n2/3/4 are a bit more on the conspiracy end. It is very hard to reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing I could suggest is to ask them if they would rather go back 100 years to a time when humans were being ravaged by smallpox and polio.",
"I will need evidence on you telling that they are \"evidence based\" people, because none of your four point tenets will ever find any evidence from any decently qualified scientist in that field.\n\n > 1. Vaccines are unnecessary with a healthy immune system\n\nI'd rather not swear but I wish I could. This is not true. Vaccines are unnecessary if you don't mind a good fraction of people dying because of diseases. Vaccines are unnecessary if the only goal is to make sure humanity persists; no disease can generally wipe out a species, but it does not say anything about how many individuals of the species can get wiped out in the process of diseases trying so. If they are truly \"educated\" people, go and ask them to read about something called Smallpox. \n\n\n > 2. Vaccines are harmful to a healthy immune system\n\nVaccines are *not* harmful to your healthy immune system any more than driving a car is bad to your car. If by asking whether its going to cause slight problems, of course its going to. But thats nothing more than our immune systems are designed to cope with. Vaccination is nothing more than giving our system a headsup on how these pathogens look like. That is all. \n\n > 3. Vaccines are in and of themselves dangerous and part of a conspiracy by the medical establishment to make a profit\n\nI don't see a need to explain this because you yourself say that its a conspiracy theory. \n\n > 4. Vaccines will eventually cause the downfall of man because they are not a 'natural' immune response and humans will eventually not be able to cope with viruses. \n\nIt might cause the downfall of people who don't believe in it. I'd not be so depressed about it if it was not for the fact that people who refuse vaccination also end up affecting lives of others (because for eg. babies cant be vaccinated for a few months and morons who don't get vaccinated can give them these diseases in those periods). \n\nI'm all in for people who don't want to get vaccinated to exercise their freedom. But since they don't want to believe the doctors in these things, they should probably also never visit a doctor for anything; I mean come on everything might be a conspiracy for all they know! And they should probably not be allowed any public healthcare measures either. But if they want to argue mindlessly about stuff like this that doesn't even make sense to any rational person who knows stuff, I don't know what to do. ",
" > Vaccines are unnecessary with a healthy immune system\n\nUntrue. I recently saw a cluster of measles infections at a hospital I worked at. Other cases have been reported in the last 12 months. Here are some articles\n\n > In USA during the 1980s, the number of measles cases was low but a big increase occurred in 1989 with almost 18 000 cases reported. Lack of a second dose of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine could have decreased the level of immunity among the school-age population, among whom most of the cases were reported. Subsequently, two rounds of vaccination were recommended. At the end of 2000, thanks to vaccination, the ongoing transmission of endemic measles was declared eliminated in the USA. However, this year from January 1 to May 20, 118 cases were reported in the USA. 46% of the cases were imported, most from countries in the WHO European region.\n\nQuote from _URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_4_ (this one is actually reports of healthy, immunized physicians catching measles from their patients!)\n\n > Vaccines are harmful to a healthy immune system\n\nThere's no evidence of this.\n\n > Vaccines are in and of themselves dangerous and part of a conspiracy by the medical establishment to make a profit\n\n_URL_0_ Results from a survey on the financial situation of vaccines in primary care settings. 11% of respondents said that due to financial pressures, \"their practice had seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children in the previous year.\"\n\n > Vaccines will eventually cause the downfall of man because they are not a 'natural' immune response and humans will eventually not be able to cope with viruses. \n\nVaccines use the natural immune response. That's why they are so effective, because our immune systems are absolutely incredible. If someone has a defective immune system, it doesn't matter if they get infected 'naturally' or are immunized, they are not going to build immunity.\n\nIf they want to make genetic arguments about humans getting 'weaker' due to medical treatments, then they should take the initiative by not seeking medical care for any illnesses, including dental work. Until then, they shouldn't put their child at risk.",
"You all are rad. Thanks for so much thoughtful information. I feel slightly more prepared for what is likely to devolve into an unsatisfying discussion. If I convince them I will update you all! \nI am about to look up any clusters of measles outbreaks in their area as I am headed that way. I don't really know what to do because I need to visit an elderly family member and can't really say that the kid needs to stay away from us while we are there. Though perhaps that might convince them if nothing else will!",
"There is a grain of truth to the second point (and the first half of the third point) that shouldn't be outright dismissed.\n\nSome of the more dangerous vaccines are unnecessary for individuals who aren't at risk for the particularly disease being vaccinated against. For example, smallpox has been eliminated in the wild (through successful vaccination programs), so there is little reason to get vaccinated against it, unless your job demands it (e.g., you work in a lab trying to detect biological warfare; medical doctor). The 1970s smallpox vaccine had a serious reaction rate of roughly 1 in 1000, and fatality rate of 1 in a million, so in the absence of a clear threat it doesn't make sense to distribute widely any more. Similarly, the [rabies vaccine](_URL_0_) (for humans) is only given to animal workers (e.g., veterinarians) as for most of us post-exposure rabies prophalaxis will work, while it makes sense to vaccinate your pet as your pet won't tell you he was playing with a rabid raccoon (while most humans would stay away from wild animals and be able to tell you if an animal bit you -- with the exception of bats in a room while you are sleeping). In contrast the diseases currently being vaccinated against often are fatal, and the vaccines have very low rates of significant reactions (much lower than smallpox). People using actual data have weighed the data and see a clear benefit of vaccination.\n\nHowever, people outside of the medical profession are not in the best position to analyze these claims. Every individual who opts out of vaccination doesn't just increase their risk of getting a serious but preventable disease (e.g., whooping cough), but also spreading it to more people (some of whom were vaccinated; but for whatever reason their immune system couldn't fight it off). If a small percentage of the population decided to opt out of vaccines, there's no doubt smallpox would still be out there killing millions of people a year as the community lost its herd immunity. \n\nThis whole I'm smarter than the medical establishment type thinking in terms of infectious diseases puts everyone you interact with at risk.",
"Layman here, and if the scientific argument fails, you could always try the economic argument. Health insurance pays for healthy people to get vaccinated. Vaccines cost money. Hospitalizations for adverse reactions to vaccines cost money. But they know that paying for the Measles vaccine is cheaper than paying to treat someone sick with the Measles.\n\nIf it didn't make economic sense, they wouldn't do it.",
"I think it might be useful to have some idea of the history of smallpox and the smallpox vaccination in your back pocket. Smallpox is a truly horrific disease. Most people are unaware of the history of it and would be scandalized to hear just how terrible it was, especially before we discovered rudimentary methods of protecting ourselves against it (first inoculation and then vaccination). Smallpox blows #1 out of the water. Amazingly, all the arguments levied against the modern vaccines were used against the smallpox vaccine. History proved them all wrong.",
"Everybody covered pretty much everything I was going to say, but I just wanted to say that this is pretty much my BIGGEST pet peeve or annoyance or whathaveyou. People who are anti-vaccine are usually just not educated on the subject or don't have enough understanding as to why vaccination is important. One of the main issues I have is that they think they are only 'affecting' (won't say harming) their kids but by not administering vaccines to your kid, herd immunity gets weaker and people are more likely to get sick.",
"It sounds like they do not understand the mechanism by which vaccines work. I think they may be confusing vaccines with antibiotics, which are completely different. Honestly, you should just show them a medical textbook that explains it. Preferably one with diagrams. \n\nAlso, I'd like to add that pharmacies do sometimes sell vaccines at ridiculous markups. This is purely anecdotal, but Walgreens once tried to charge me nearly $1000 for a hepatitis vaccine, but I was able to get it directly from a distributor for around $50. When I told the doctor, he was shocked. ",
"Ask them if they would like their kid to get polio, oh, wait, they can't, because vaccines have ELIMINATED it.",
"1) This is partly true for some diseases; however, the alternative is to actually get the disease the vaccine is for. A child can become immune to pertussis either by receiving a vaccine or undergoing a horrific pertussis infection.\n\nThis is not true for incurable diseases (polio, HPV). This is also not true for those with weaker immune systems (such as your daughter). Your in-laws are putting your daughter at risk of a fatal infection by allowing their child to be a potential disease vector.\n\n2/3/4 are a bit more on the conspiracy end. It is very hard to reason someone out of a belief that they didn't reason themselves into. The only thing I could suggest is to ask them if they would rather go back 100 years to a time when humans were being ravaged by smallpox and polio.",
"I will need evidence on you telling that they are \"evidence based\" people, because none of your four point tenets will ever find any evidence from any decently qualified scientist in that field.\n\n > 1. Vaccines are unnecessary with a healthy immune system\n\nI'd rather not swear but I wish I could. This is not true. Vaccines are unnecessary if you don't mind a good fraction of people dying because of diseases. Vaccines are unnecessary if the only goal is to make sure humanity persists; no disease can generally wipe out a species, but it does not say anything about how many individuals of the species can get wiped out in the process of diseases trying so. If they are truly \"educated\" people, go and ask them to read about something called Smallpox. \n\n\n > 2. Vaccines are harmful to a healthy immune system\n\nVaccines are *not* harmful to your healthy immune system any more than driving a car is bad to your car. If by asking whether its going to cause slight problems, of course its going to. But thats nothing more than our immune systems are designed to cope with. Vaccination is nothing more than giving our system a headsup on how these pathogens look like. That is all. \n\n > 3. Vaccines are in and of themselves dangerous and part of a conspiracy by the medical establishment to make a profit\n\nI don't see a need to explain this because you yourself say that its a conspiracy theory. \n\n > 4. Vaccines will eventually cause the downfall of man because they are not a 'natural' immune response and humans will eventually not be able to cope with viruses. \n\nIt might cause the downfall of people who don't believe in it. I'd not be so depressed about it if it was not for the fact that people who refuse vaccination also end up affecting lives of others (because for eg. babies cant be vaccinated for a few months and morons who don't get vaccinated can give them these diseases in those periods). \n\nI'm all in for people who don't want to get vaccinated to exercise their freedom. But since they don't want to believe the doctors in these things, they should probably also never visit a doctor for anything; I mean come on everything might be a conspiracy for all they know! And they should probably not be allowed any public healthcare measures either. But if they want to argue mindlessly about stuff like this that doesn't even make sense to any rational person who knows stuff, I don't know what to do. ",
" > Vaccines are unnecessary with a healthy immune system\n\nUntrue. I recently saw a cluster of measles infections at a hospital I worked at. Other cases have been reported in the last 12 months. Here are some articles\n\n > In USA during the 1980s, the number of measles cases was low but a big increase occurred in 1989 with almost 18 000 cases reported. Lack of a second dose of measles, mumps, and rubella (MMR) vaccine could have decreased the level of immunity among the school-age population, among whom most of the cases were reported. Subsequently, two rounds of vaccination were recommended. At the end of 2000, thanks to vaccination, the ongoing transmission of endemic measles was declared eliminated in the USA. However, this year from January 1 to May 20, 118 cases were reported in the USA. 46% of the cases were imported, most from countries in the WHO European region.\n\nQuote from _URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_3_\n\n_URL_4_ (this one is actually reports of healthy, immunized physicians catching measles from their patients!)\n\n > Vaccines are harmful to a healthy immune system\n\nThere's no evidence of this.\n\n > Vaccines are in and of themselves dangerous and part of a conspiracy by the medical establishment to make a profit\n\n_URL_0_ Results from a survey on the financial situation of vaccines in primary care settings. 11% of respondents said that due to financial pressures, \"their practice had seriously considered whether to stop providing all vaccines to privately insured children in the previous year.\"\n\n > Vaccines will eventually cause the downfall of man because they are not a 'natural' immune response and humans will eventually not be able to cope with viruses. \n\nVaccines use the natural immune response. That's why they are so effective, because our immune systems are absolutely incredible. If someone has a defective immune system, it doesn't matter if they get infected 'naturally' or are immunized, they are not going to build immunity.\n\nIf they want to make genetic arguments about humans getting 'weaker' due to medical treatments, then they should take the initiative by not seeking medical care for any illnesses, including dental work. Until then, they shouldn't put their child at risk.",
"You all are rad. Thanks for so much thoughtful information. I feel slightly more prepared for what is likely to devolve into an unsatisfying discussion. If I convince them I will update you all! \nI am about to look up any clusters of measles outbreaks in their area as I am headed that way. I don't really know what to do because I need to visit an elderly family member and can't really say that the kid needs to stay away from us while we are there. Though perhaps that might convince them if nothing else will!",
"There is a grain of truth to the second point (and the first half of the third point) that shouldn't be outright dismissed.\n\nSome of the more dangerous vaccines are unnecessary for individuals who aren't at risk for the particularly disease being vaccinated against. For example, smallpox has been eliminated in the wild (through successful vaccination programs), so there is little reason to get vaccinated against it, unless your job demands it (e.g., you work in a lab trying to detect biological warfare; medical doctor). The 1970s smallpox vaccine had a serious reaction rate of roughly 1 in 1000, and fatality rate of 1 in a million, so in the absence of a clear threat it doesn't make sense to distribute widely any more. Similarly, the [rabies vaccine](_URL_0_) (for humans) is only given to animal workers (e.g., veterinarians) as for most of us post-exposure rabies prophalaxis will work, while it makes sense to vaccinate your pet as your pet won't tell you he was playing with a rabid raccoon (while most humans would stay away from wild animals and be able to tell you if an animal bit you -- with the exception of bats in a room while you are sleeping). In contrast the diseases currently being vaccinated against often are fatal, and the vaccines have very low rates of significant reactions (much lower than smallpox). People using actual data have weighed the data and see a clear benefit of vaccination.\n\nHowever, people outside of the medical profession are not in the best position to analyze these claims. Every individual who opts out of vaccination doesn't just increase their risk of getting a serious but preventable disease (e.g., whooping cough), but also spreading it to more people (some of whom were vaccinated; but for whatever reason their immune system couldn't fight it off). If a small percentage of the population decided to opt out of vaccines, there's no doubt smallpox would still be out there killing millions of people a year as the community lost its herd immunity. \n\nThis whole I'm smarter than the medical establishment type thinking in terms of infectious diseases puts everyone you interact with at risk.",
"Layman here, and if the scientific argument fails, you could always try the economic argument. Health insurance pays for healthy people to get vaccinated. Vaccines cost money. Hospitalizations for adverse reactions to vaccines cost money. But they know that paying for the Measles vaccine is cheaper than paying to treat someone sick with the Measles.\n\nIf it didn't make economic sense, they wouldn't do it.",
"I think it might be useful to have some idea of the history of smallpox and the smallpox vaccination in your back pocket. Smallpox is a truly horrific disease. Most people are unaware of the history of it and would be scandalized to hear just how terrible it was, especially before we discovered rudimentary methods of protecting ourselves against it (first inoculation and then vaccination). Smallpox blows #1 out of the water. Amazingly, all the arguments levied against the modern vaccines were used against the smallpox vaccine. History proved them all wrong.",
"Everybody covered pretty much everything I was going to say, but I just wanted to say that this is pretty much my BIGGEST pet peeve or annoyance or whathaveyou. People who are anti-vaccine are usually just not educated on the subject or don't have enough understanding as to why vaccination is important. One of the main issues I have is that they think they are only 'affecting' (won't say harming) their kids but by not administering vaccines to your kid, herd immunity gets weaker and people are more likely to get sick.",
"It sounds like they do not understand the mechanism by which vaccines work. I think they may be confusing vaccines with antibiotics, which are completely different. Honestly, you should just show them a medical textbook that explains it. Preferably one with diagrams. \n\nAlso, I'd like to add that pharmacies do sometimes sell vaccines at ridiculous markups. This is purely anecdotal, but Walgreens once tried to charge me nearly $1000 for a hepatitis vaccine, but I was able to get it directly from a distributor for around $50. When I told the doctor, he was shocked. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/TrueReddit/comments/hi5va/new_study_nations_requiring_the_most_vaccines/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948578",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21881549",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21700236",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21677008",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666213"
],
[],
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_groups/veterinarians/staff.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19948578",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21881549",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21700236",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21677008",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21666213"
],
[],
[
"http://www.cdc.gov/rabies/specific_groups/veterinarians/staff.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8kgtuz
|
when trying to delete a file, why can't your pc tell you what programs it's open in?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8kgtuz/eli5_when_trying_to_delete_a_file_why_cant_your/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz7jruk",
"dz7rpxs",
"dz7te5f"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because nobody designed the file management interface to do that.\n\nSeriously; it should be dead simple to do. When you attempt to delete a file, the OS checks to see if the locked bit is set. However, the OS also keeps track of what files each open application has file handles for; it just doesn't take the time to walk through that list of open filehandles for each running application to identify the culprit.\n\nOn OS X, you can do this yourself from the terminal using the command \"lsof\" (LiSt Open Files). Windows and Linux have similar features.",
"You can tell which programs are using which files in Linux. The lsof command. So it depends on the operating system to have that capability.",
"Download Lock Hunter for Windows. It adds a right-click context menu item to all files so you can see what process is locking it and then unlock it or kill the offending process."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
35dyed
|
If up quarks and down quarks create protons and neutrons, which make atoms, which make elements, what do other quarks end up making?
|
Are there any examples of what, say, strange/charm quarks might create that could be experienced in daily life, if there aren't, how did we come to know of their existence?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/35dyed/if_up_quarks_and_down_quarks_create_protons_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cr3izn1",
"cr3ja9c",
"cr3ti3k"
],
"score": [
62,
8,
10
],
"text": [
"[Here](_URL_1_) and [here](_URL_0_) are lists of baryons and mesons, which are particles made out of 3 and 2 quarks, respectively. Only protons and neutrons are stable (and neutrons are only stable inside atoms), the rest decay. They are discovered in particle accelerators; they are produced when particles collide at high energy, and their existence can be inferred from their decay products.",
"They make up other mesons and baryons which don't exist for very long times before decaying. These are generally made in \"atom smasher\" particle accelerators. It is also hypothesized but not certain that \"strange matter\" exists in the cores of neutron stars.",
"There is a really really cool theory about this actually: The Strange Matter Hypothesis. \nThe theory suggests that based on our calculations hadrons with strange quarks in instead of just up quarks and down quarks are quite a bit more stable and less energetic than protons and neutrons and are the true stable state of matter. What is then suggested is that if strange matter were made, it would convert everything else around it into its lower energy state also: more strange matter. Matter as we know it would cease to exist as a small amount of strange matter converted all the matter around it into more strange matter until protons and neutrons no longer existed on earth and we were all dead. There are two ways in which this process could happen, a large liquid of strange matter converts matter around it into more strange matter via the weak interaction, or, baryons of up, down and strange quarks are made which bump into other hadrons and catalyze them into strange matter also. \nThere were real concerns that this would happen in the Large Hadron Collider which would reach high enough energies to create strange matter. However the calculations that strange matter would be more stable than nucelons were only speculative, and it was thought that if this could happen then it would have already happened in higher-energy collisions that occur in cosmic rays above the Earth daily or in stars which we know aren't made of strange matter and it was said that looking for strange matter in the LHC would be like looking for an ice cube in a volcano: the high energies in the LHC would cause any strange matter to break apart anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_mesons",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_baryons"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
3j5jr2
|
Can sound be trapped?
|
Title says it all.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3j5jr2/can_sound_be_trapped/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cumhjpj",
"cumjx34",
"cun5dkq",
"cun7fmp"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Sound is a physical wave i.e. it moves and then causes things to vibrate.\nSound therefore could conceivably be trapped in an echo chamber type thing however it wouldnt last long as everytime it bounces off the walls of the chamber it loses energy.",
"Actually this happens, down in the ocean. There's a band of ocean about 500 meters below the surface, extending another 500 or so meters. In this channel, sound of low enough frequency will be bent up and down as it propagates, trapped in this band of ocean. Energy dissipates very slowly, so in some cases, sound can even circumnavigate the globe before attenuating into nothingness. Very cool stuff.",
"Yes, that is the operating principle behind resonant acoustic cavities such as organ pipes. It would be hard to perfectly trap sound, if that's what you mean, but you could do it. Sound needs matter to propagate. If you place a loudspeaker in follow sphere and then place that sphere in a perfect vacuum, then the sound will be perfectly trapped (to be accurate, there's no such thing as a perfect vacuum, i.e. a volume of space without exactly zero particles - quantum uncertainty does not allow it). The sound would bounce back and forth in the sphere until it is all absorbed and turned into heat.",
"Just suggesting another example of sound being trapped, that is imo incredibly cool. \n\nSound, when moving through materials (i.e. hearing your upstairs neighbor) is also transported through that material as vibration waves of the material -- just like sound in air that we are used to. Scientists have been studying trapping these vibrations for sometime now, a lot of it is in fact done by utilizing light and the momentum that (through energy!) that photons posses. There has been a lot of excellent lay audience writing/videos on this subject, called optomechanics by scientists, but one of my favorites is a PhD comics video\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/pktWhH6m_DM"
]
] |
|
c92i5c
|
If we could poll US Colonials in 1776 what percent would have been in favor of the Declaration of Independence?
|
I have always been curious about the extent of support there was in Colonial America at the Continental Congress. I assume there would be many who wanted independence but no a bloody war, some who would fight, some who were happy to stay part of the UK, and those who did not care one way or the other. How would these groups break down as a percentages of the colonial population?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c92i5c/if_we_could_poll_us_colonials_in_1776_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"estkxrp"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I have seen numbers as Pro-independence, 40-45%, Loyalists, 10-15% and the rest undecided, dithering, and trying to keep out of it. About 200,000 soldiers served in the Continental army, out of a total population of 2.5 million. Once you drop women, elderly , African Americans ( who were usually not free ) and Loyalists, that's a considerable military effort , and it had to have had considerable popular support. But the numbers should be used with caution. First, there was no actual poll of everyone in the Colonies. Second, 1776 was a year of immense change, preceded by another year of immense change. By January of 1776, the Continental Congress was involved in directing a war in Massachusetts and New York. Reconciliationists like John Dickinson of Pennsylvania had not succeeded in their efforts, as the British army broadened its front. When the governor of Virginia offered freedom to all slaves who joined the British army to put down the rebellion, most of the slave-owning Tories of Virginia switched sides, and an alarmed North Carolina sent 400 soldiers to Virginia to help defend against the British. But while the British were widening their war, making a negotiated solution less and less likely, Colonial notions of a quick military solution also vanished, with an American expeditionary army having to give up its siege of Quebec, and Washington's attempt to defend New York ending in disaster.\n\nAt the beginning of 1776, probably most of the colonies would not have voted for independence. Then Thomas Paine published *Common Sense.* It was an immensely popular pamphlet, and is remarkable today for how well it reads- this was a time in which most serious writing contained large words and classical allusions. Paine described the situation of the colonies very simply, offering optimistic views on the success of a republic and the outcome of the war. Paine's writing greatly boosted public support for independence. That, and the broadening war, and British refusal of all attempts at reconciliation by the summer of 1776 swung the Congress towards what they saw was inevitable.\n\nSo, given that constant change in events, how a typical colonist answered likely depended on what month, day, and perhaps hour in 1776 you asked it . After Washington's retreat from Long Island, that support likely fell, and after his victory at Trenton, it likely went up.\n\nJohn Resch and Walter Sargent, eds : *War and Society in the American Revolution*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
otf0x
|
Can you distinguish between the effect antidepressants have on people suffering from depression and other people?
|
Being unaware of what happens neurochemically within a depressed brain, I wonder whether you can distinguish between the effect of antidepressants on depressed individuals and non-depressed individual?
Are there even differences in what happens or is it sufficient to view depression as the outcome of "imbalances" within our brain's chemicals?
If so, is it/could it be a way of diagnosing depression?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/otf0x/can_you_distinguish_between_the_effect/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3jw7sx",
"c3k0p11"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Distinguish how? Behaviorally? I'm not sure what you mean. Anti-depressants are prescribed for a host of things other than depression (e.g., headache, sexual disorders, etc). Btw, there is no evidence of a \"chemical imbalance\" as the cause of depression. That is an old theory that is out of favor.",
"i'm not positive that i agree with brain_doc.\n\nthere are several different types of anti-depressants and, largely, they function to increase either dopamine, or serotonin, or norepinephrine, or some combination. and, they will also be prescribed off label to address other issues based on their side effects (e.g. some decrease sexual interest, and will be prescribed for premature ejaculation). also, their side effect profiles are typically how one would decide how to give what to whom. i.e. someone having difficulty sleeping would be prescribed one that increases somnolence.\n\nand, they most certainly have effects on other people. you can actually precipitate manic episodes in someone that is bipolar by giving them antidepressants, thinking that they are only depressed.\n\ndepression is diagnosed on criteria that are met clinically, not on lab values. e.g. feelings of worthlessness, lack of sleep, not eating, anhedonia (no feeling of enjoyment in doing things one used to enjoy).\n\nthere are also definitely familial components in psychiatric disorders, which does imply that either how the neurochemicals are either made, or received, or their signal interpretation is altered at a molecular level in some people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
37e0ta
|
how do places legally get schedule 1 drugs for clinical trials?
|
Every now and then you see a news article about MDMA or LSD or mushrooms being evaluated for treating depression, PTSD, whatever.
Are all these trials exclusively outside of the US? Do researchers ask the DEA for permission? If so do they then make the drugs themselves or is there a facility that does manufacture schedule 1 drugs for legal clinical trials?
I'm leaving marijuana out of this topic as that's been discussed many times and is in a different political climate to the others on the list.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37e0ta/eli5_how_do_places_legally_get_schedule_1_drugs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crlw3kg"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If the trial have been approved by the FDA, NIH and the DEA (a very expensive and time consuming process). The researchers are entitled to purchase the otherwise illegal drugs from regulated chemical suppliers (e.g. Sigma-Aldrich--pro, your drug is guaranteed pure; con, cocaine costs $10 000 per gram). Although most of the time, these companies do not produce these chemicals from human consumption in clinical trials, most of the drugs are used to calibrate forensic instruments (to identify cocaine, you need to use cocaine to calibrate your spectrometer) or in animal experiments. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2x7oqk
|
why don't boats/submarines/planes have gearboxes?
|
It seems that only cars and motorbikes have gearbox.
Why don't propeller planes/boats and submarines have a Transmission?
Wouldn't it allow better fuel consumption for the same amount of power output?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x7oqk/eli5_why_dont_boatssubmarinesplanes_have_gearboxes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"coxnen1",
"coxq7c9",
"coy58jg"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Boats do have gearboxes. Mainly they have reduction gears that step down the high RPM's of the engine to the lower RPM's that are manageable by the prop in the water. ",
"Just a clarification I'd like to make here, most things do have a gearbox. Even if there's only one gear, there's still a gearbox. I think what you might be asking is more along the lines of \"Why do boats/planes/submarines only have one gear?\"",
"The purpose of a gearbox is to transform engine output to low RPM high power when resistance is high, and high RPM low power when resistance is low.\n\nThe resistance that boats and airplanes experience does not change as much as what a land based vehicle does...they stop and start less often, they don't have steep hills or curves to contend with, and don't have to maintain speed to keep up with traffic. That makes changes to power/RPM less important.\n\nIn addition, they often have other mechanisms that server much the same purpose. Some airplanes, for example, have variable pitch propellers, that can alter power/speed performance without changing engine RPM."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
qhvge
|
is there anyway to "clean" a body of still water
|
I have a strong fondness for a local pseudo-river unfortunately it looks like sewer water its not filled with trash just algae and the other things that come with being still. its man-made and is filled with ducks and has a few turtles. is there any way to make it a little clearer without harming the animals? doesnt need to be plausible for a citizen im more just curious
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/qhvge/is_there_anyway_to_clean_a_body_of_still_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3xq1ji"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"sounds like a good use for a bubbler/aerator."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
146kua
|
Is aerobraking feasible?
|
Yes, it's from a science fiction book, but I was reading Red Mars by Kim Stanley Robinson, and they describe a way of slowing down a spaceship via aerobraking, basically bringing the spaceship in a trajectory that will have it skim the atmosphere of a planet and then hop back out, slowing down the spacecraft and using substantially less fuel than by slowing down the ship with rocket boosters, is this actually possible? Because it sounds really cool.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/146kua/is_aerobraking_feasible/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7ab2v7"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Absolutely.\n\nEvery entry vehicle that has ever made it to the surface of a planet that has an atmosphere has used aerobraking. That's obviously not what you mean, though. Even some planetary orbiters have used aerobraking to get into orbit. See, for instance, the [Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter](_URL_0_), which used aerobraking to get into its final orbit.\n\nThe thing with aerobraking right now is that we're not quite comfortable with our understanding of the atmospheres of other planets to bet the capture of a spacecraft on aerobraking. If Mars' atmosphere, for instance, was slightly more dense than we expected, the probe might have too much drag and enter into a too-low orbit, or worse, disintegrate and fall to the surface. If it's slightly less dense, the probe would wind up leaving Mars at a slightly lower velocity than it arrived with, but still a higher velocity than the escape velocity.\n\nSo aerobraking on Mars is generally limited to lowering the orbit of an already-captured probe. This is pretty safe. The aerobraking takes months to accomplish and is done by just barely skimming the upper reaches of the atmosphere. Because of the vagaries of orbital mechanics, this ensures that only the apoareion (highest point in an orbit of Mars) is lowered, while the periareion (lowest point in an orbit of Mars) is virtually unchanged. This allows a highly elliptical, high energy orbit to be lowered to a nearly-circular, low Mars orbit in a matter of months.\n\nIt's not quite as sexy as an Arthur C. Clarke depiction of aerobraking through the atmosphere of Jupiter, but it still saves propellant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_Reconnaissance_Orbiter"
]
] |
|
bgmgpc
|
how can alcoholic drinks claim to have only 3 carbs at 170 calories per serving but zero grams of fat or protein?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bgmgpc/eli5_how_can_alcoholic_drinks_claim_to_have_only/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elly75o",
"ellz86l"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"12 calories is from the carbs. The other 158 is from the alcohol, which has 7 cal per gram iirc.",
"Alcohol has calories, 7 calories per gram. A 12 oz beer that is 5% ABV contains about 14 grams of alcohol which is about 100 calories. So that 170 calorie drink that has 3 grams of carbs (12 calories) should have about 22.5 grams of alcohol to get the remaining calories."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1z6iz2
|
Why do we use RGB displays instead of RGY?
|
Just curious! I've also heard some things about RGBW displays too!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1z6iz2/why_do_we_use_rgb_displays_instead_of_rgy/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfr1d2w",
"cfr6rrc",
"cfr9w4s",
"cfrady2"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Displays use additive color schemes while pigments use subtractive color. The cone cells in the eye are sensitive to colored light and the three cones peak in sensitivity around R, G and B wavelengths. Thus it makes sense for a display to use RGB to produce the range of colors. [CIE colorspace](_URL_0_) is used to see what colors your display makes. As you can see R, G, and B each occupy a corner of the color space. If you have light emitting elements of those colors, the colors you can reproduce are the colors bound the triangle defined by your R, G, and B colors. \n\nNewer model displays are sometimes RGBY. As you can see in the CIE colorspace, yellow colors are towards the right middle and are difficult to accurately reproduce without missing a lot of the green-blues on the other side. By adding a yellow diode, new displays can produce any color within the quadrilateral defined by the four light emitting elements.",
"RGB displays are superior to RGY because they can display a wider range of colors. RGY displays are incapable of displaying blue or white, for example.\n\nInexpensive LED displays use RGY, because blue LEDs are more expensive to produce.",
"R+G=Y. The yellow pixel would be redundant and without a blue subpixel you couldn't make any color with blue component (blue, cyan, magenta, white, etc).\n\nIf you meant to say RGBY (like those Sharp TV's have) I'd just say it's redundant. Case in point: the commercial advertising the RGBY TV's makes a point to show a lot of yellow things. Said commercial looks just fine with bright yellow on your RGB TV. Kinda defeats the point that way.",
"Thanks for all the replies! Its pretty clear I have a huge misunderstanding of how rgb displays work. \n\nTo clarify:\nRgb is additive? \n\nIf we have a dark background, (black screen that we're lighting up) then this makes more sense.\n\nAs opposed to a subtractive mix of colors like the ones we use in printer ink? \n(White background we're adding ink onto)\n\nEdit: I'll have to read more after work. Thanks again! \n\nIf any one wants to drop anything about oled that's cool too. Definitely curious about that too."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CIE_1931_color_space"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ekmh9
|
why can one not text or export a slow motion video from an iphone 5/6, and have it stay in slow motion?
|
When you text/export a slow motion video from a newer iPhone it changed the speed from the original slow motion 120fps/240fps to normal speed.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ekmh9/eli5_why_can_one_not_text_or_export_a_slow_motion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctftnoy"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The iPhone saves the video as a normal video with a separate file telling the device which part of it should be slowed-down (because you can still change the slowing down or remove it, it's not fixed in the video itself). For some reason, when exporting the video to other devices, Apple hasn't made it so that it converts it to a single file with the slowing down in it.. this does happen when uploading it to Youtube or some other app. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7e80vg
|
why is queen elizabeth also the queen of many independent sovereign nations (former colonies) ?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7e80vg/eli5_why_is_queen_elizabeth_also_the_queen_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dq33y9a",
"dq33ytm",
"dq394sp"
],
"score": [
15,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Because those countries have so far not decided to become republics. They are known as the Commonwealth Realms (note that is different from simply being a member of the Commonwealth of Nations).\n\nMany of Britain's colonies did not violently break away from the British Empire. It was a gradual transfer of power until the point they were independent countries. So there was no big overhaul of their constitutions post-independence, nor was there much anger towards Britain, hence they retained the monarchy.\n\nMany former colonies have become republics. And a few current Commonwealth Realms have stated their intent to become republics at some point in the future (Barbados and Jamaica I think). As they are independent countries, they are free to do that and the UK cannot stop them (nor would it want to).",
"Because they chose to have her as their head of state. All countries that have her as the Head of State are called Commonwealth realms, which means they are members of the Commonwealth of Nations that have Queen Elizabeth II as the monarch. They're all sovereign nations that voluntarily choose to recognize her as head of state and maintain ties to the UK.",
"She takes the part of a symbolic head of state.\n\nIn the US the president is an actual head of state with powers over military and policy. In many other countries (most of Europe) a president is just there to represent the country with little or no actual powers. Countries are run by prime ministers chosen by parliaments, elected by the people.\n\nSome of the former British Empire nations chose to not bother with presidents at all and just go with the Queen."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4se2f7
|
Did the German peasants truly have theological reasons for their revolt? Did Luther support the Princes for theological or political reasons?
|
To what degree do historians believe the peasants truly had religious motivations? How has thought on this changed (historiography)?
Did Luther side with the Princes for political or theological reasons? How have historians differed on this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4se2f7/did_the_german_peasants_truly_have_theological/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d58rcaw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"/u/sunagainstgold needs to GET IN on this question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
lel01
|
Why do some people experience clinical depression when other people don't? (plus more questions inside)
|
After seeing [this](_URL_0_), it got me wondering: what is the cause or combination of causes which lead to clinical depression instead of a temporary downturn? Are people prone to clinical depression from a pre-existing deficiency in their endocrine or neural systems? Or is there some semi-permanent biochemical change that can arise from normal reactions to stress or tragedy (and what would that be)? Sometimes depression can be cured without treatment- how? It's not like the immune system can attack it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lel01/why_do_some_people_experience_clinical_depression/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2s2q82",
"c2s2was",
"c2s2q82",
"c2s2was"
],
"score": [
3,
5,
3,
5
],
"text": [
" > Are people prone to clinical depression from a pre-existing deficiency in their endocrine or neural systems? \n \nStudies on twins separated at birth suggest that genetic factors (presumably involving the nervous system) do play a significant role in risk of depression. _URL_1_ \n \nExact genes responsible are quite difficult to pin down, as common single nucleotide variants are not significant predictors of risk _URL_0_ and the newer work on copy number variants hasn't come up with anything too exciting yet. \n \n",
"Depression is heavily intertwined with stress, specifically your stress \"resilience\". How people deal with stress is part biological and part learned coping skills. Stress is damaging, some consider it to cause a micro-inflammatory event in the brain (more specifically, the hippocampus) if it turns into chronic stress. \n\nSomething is happening in most depressed people that this chronic stress state cannot be undone without intervention. This is why unchecked depression generally just spirals deeper and deeper. Certain people can definitely get out of it on their own through their own coping mechanisms, but if it truly is major depressive disorder...this is often very difficult. \n\nOne of the major theories of depression is the \"neurotrophic hypothesis\", which states that chronic stress overwhelms your normal levels of neurotrophic support. This is your neuroplasticity, heavily tied with neurogenesis. \n\nTo tie into this, there is a lot of current research that neurogenesis is heavily linked to how stress is \"buffered\" ([source](_URL_0_)). \n\nYour chicken or the egg question is still unanswered. We don't know if depressed patients have less neurogenesis from the start (less ability to adapt) or more severe stress reactions (stress causing way too severe of a reaction that overwhelms neuroplasticity).\n\nLet me know if I need to clarify things, it's a bit much.",
" > Are people prone to clinical depression from a pre-existing deficiency in their endocrine or neural systems? \n \nStudies on twins separated at birth suggest that genetic factors (presumably involving the nervous system) do play a significant role in risk of depression. _URL_1_ \n \nExact genes responsible are quite difficult to pin down, as common single nucleotide variants are not significant predictors of risk _URL_0_ and the newer work on copy number variants hasn't come up with anything too exciting yet. \n \n",
"Depression is heavily intertwined with stress, specifically your stress \"resilience\". How people deal with stress is part biological and part learned coping skills. Stress is damaging, some consider it to cause a micro-inflammatory event in the brain (more specifically, the hippocampus) if it turns into chronic stress. \n\nSomething is happening in most depressed people that this chronic stress state cannot be undone without intervention. This is why unchecked depression generally just spirals deeper and deeper. Certain people can definitely get out of it on their own through their own coping mechanisms, but if it truly is major depressive disorder...this is often very difficult. \n\nOne of the major theories of depression is the \"neurotrophic hypothesis\", which states that chronic stress overwhelms your normal levels of neurotrophic support. This is your neuroplasticity, heavily tied with neurogenesis. \n\nTo tie into this, there is a lot of current research that neurogenesis is heavily linked to how stress is \"buffered\" ([source](_URL_0_)). \n\nYour chicken or the egg question is still unanswered. We don't know if depressed patients have less neurogenesis from the start (less ability to adapt) or more severe stress reactions (stress causing way too severe of a reaction that overwhelms neuroplasticity).\n\nLet me know if I need to clarify things, it's a bit much."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/pics/comments/le56v/some_people_just_dont_get_it/"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2888856/",
"http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/10/1552"
],
[
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/abs/nature10287.html"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2888856/",
"http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/abstract/157/10/1552"
],
[
"http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v476/n7361/abs/nature10287.html"
]
] |
|
9vgmdy
|
why do airlines have ashtrays in the toilets when you can’t smoke ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9vgmdy/eli5_why_do_airlines_have_ashtrays_in_the_toilets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9c0n2d",
"e9c0puw",
"e9c0x47",
"e9c3zx9",
"e9c9xuz",
"e9cf329",
"e9cfkn0",
"e9cfuks",
"e9cggzb",
"e9cgsec",
"e9ch3n5",
"e9ci3oo",
"e9cig0k",
"e9cj9wz",
"e9cjspz",
"e9ck1j9",
"e9cqxdb",
"e9d0vfs",
"e9d3nqf",
"e9d486j",
"e9deov5",
"e9dhu76"
],
"score": [
65,
11,
4,
4247,
353,
335,
213,
60,
22,
41,
5,
10,
12,
4,
13,
11990,
4,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"because people are going to smoke there, whether or not they are allowed too. So put an ashtray so they don't put the butt somewhere stupid. like the garbage can ",
"The explanations I've heard are that it's there in case someone does smoke, there's a place to put it. And because it wasn't that much trouble to just keep making it that way. ",
"Another reason ive heard is that some planes arent new new so a lot of the time the ashtrays are there as a leftover from when smoking WAS allowed in the plane. As well as i think designers just go, eh well its there and its too annoying to remove it so we'll keep it there",
"As someone who works for an aircraft lav company, I can explain it. \n\nJust because smoking on an aircraft is not allowed doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Also, those planes fly all over the world, and some countries are not as forceful about smoking bans as others. \n\nSecond, the lavatory has an ashtray because a butt thrown into the toilet may not be extinguished. An aircraft toilet uses very little water to rinse. It flushes through vacuum pressure between the fuselage and the outside air. Also, the bowl is made of plastic. it's not going to burn, but it's not COMPLETELY fireproof. \n\nThird, and most important, someone smoking in the lav killed 23 people in 1983. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nSince then, aircraft lavs have smoke detectors, oxygen masks, automatic fire extinguishers in the waste bins, and fire containment engineered waste bins. \n\nGood thing, too, because there are still idiots out there. \n\n_URL_0_",
"The best way I’ve heard it explained is, “just because it’s not allowed doesn’t mean people don’t need somewhere to put it out when they do.”",
"I used to think it was cause plane toilet doors were really old but that doesn’t make a lot of sense so, I asked a flight crew member one time, she told me it’s there by law. In case a person DOES ignore the law, cabin crew need an approved container to put a cigarette in. I imagine it has to do with aircraft safety but also insurance. \n\nAs others have mentioned, flushing, and waste baskets aren’t built for the purpose of taking potentially hot ash. You’d have to be a special kind of idiot to put a cigarette butt in a bin full of paper towels but, there’s a lot of very special people out there.. and for some nicotine addicts, a 12+ hour flight is just too much.. ",
"We have ashtrays in the cockpit too. The aircraft are made for a global market and not every country has the same regulations.",
"The other responses here are correct in principle: there were several aircraft fires and accidents attributed to cigarette butt disposal in aircraft waste bins. Even after smoking was prohibited, the FAA and airlines acknowledged that some passengers, despite regulations, would continue to smoke in the lavatories. The ash trays are installed to enable the illegal smokers to dispose of their cigarette without endangering the aircraft by disposing the butt in a bin full of flammable of paper towels.\n\nLegally, the ash trays are required on all US-certified aircraft via Airworthiness Directive 74-08-09. Airworthiness Directives are Federal Law, and compliance is legally mandated without any allowed deviations.\n\n74-08-09 is applicable to all *\"...transport category airplanes, certificated in any category, that have one or more lavatories equipped with paper or linen waste receptacles. These lavatories may be on various airplanes...\"* (i.e. it's applicable to basically every commercial airliner).\n\nThe AD was issued to rectify an unsafe condition, as stated in the AD: *\"This revision to the AD (...) address fires occurring in lavatories caused by, among other things, the improper disposal of smoking materials in lavatory waste receptacles. This revision to the AD would continue to prevent possible fires that could result from smoking materials being dropped into lavatory paper or linen waste receptacles. \"*\n\nParagraph (i) of the AD specifically addresses the ash trays on lavatory doors: *\"Within 180 days after August 6, 1974 (...), or before the accumulation of any time in service on a new production aircraft: (...) Install a self-contained, removable ashtray on or near the entry side of each lavatory door. One ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory door served.\"*",
"Why are there amnesty bins at airports? People don't always do the right thing, but giving them a way out of trouble that mitigates the fallout of their mistake is often preferable to spending the resources prosecuting every violation. It also helps prevent people from doing even worse things to try and cover up the first mistake.\n\nThe ashtray is an amnesty bin for your cigarette. ",
"The same reason Denny’s has locks in their doors...because even though they’re not supposed to be needed, sometimes they are. ",
"In case someone does have a smoke, they need somewhere safe to put it out. It's a safety thing.",
"People seem to forget, but I could smoke on airplanes as late as the year 2000. I did a random Google search for 'most successful commercial aircrafts' and [this link](_URL_0_) popped up. The latest aircraft on the top 3 listed aircrafts (the 777) came into active service in 1995.\n\n\nWhile smoking may have been banned in Europe and North America by that time, that might not have been the case in the Middle East for example, where th biggest airlines of the last 2 decades have originated (Emirates, Etihad, Qatar).\n\n\nAlso, airplanes are complicated machines. The approval for making a commercially successful aircraft takes a long time, and I'm sure goes through a lot of scrutiny. The ashtrays on the seats and airplanes; maybe it's about getting approvals for new designs of seats and doors and bathrooms that perhaps might not have ashtrays in them? And perhaps the aircraft manufacturers thought it's just easier to keep those ashtrays rather than go through the lengthy process of redesigning some things and getting those redesigns reapporved by different agencies?",
"Here's the American law mandating them (note: the EU and Australia, among other places, have adopted this law verbatim):\n\n_URL_0_\n\nShort version:\n\nFire in planes bad.\n\nIdiots smoke in planes anyway.\n\nHarm minimization.",
"Unfortunately, there are people among us who just know better than everyone else. I'm sure you know of a few yourself.\n\nThose people simply know that smoking inside a lavatory is just fine, and nothing will happen to them.\n\nPeople who know better generally make bad decisions under stress. For example stress caused by smoke alarm going off and flight attendant trying to gain entry to the lavatory.\n\nProviding a flame-proof, familiarly shaped place to ditch the lit evidence, is infinitely better than counting on people who know better not to throw the lit cigarette into a place where you would not want a lit cigarette to be present. Such as the trash bin full of paper towels next to the sink.\n\n",
"If committing a crime is illegal, why do we have jails?",
"Quoting this fantastic comment posted by /u/pixel_of_moral_decay in [this thread a few weeks ago](_URL_0_)\n\n > The ashtray is actually one of my favorite engineering bits on an airplane.\n\n > The design parameters for aviation all center around one thing: redundancy. If something fails, you don't want it to cause a problem. That's why planes are designed to be able to fly if an engine fails (ETOPS), there's secondary hydraulics (you'll lose functionality, but not enough to crash), there's secondary everything. Landing gear doesn't deploy? It can drop with gravity. Electrical goes out? Ram Air Turbine (RAT)! Every thing critical to flight and safety has an alternative. You're effectively flying a plane inside a plane, but don't realize it.\n\n > The ashtray follows that engineering mantra perfectly. The primary method of avoiding fire is to not have cigarettes and open flames in the cabin. The secondary method is to not have flammable materials in the cabin when possible and things like an ashtray, so if someone does light up, there's less of a risk of them causing a fire (like dropping it in the trash with all the tissues). There's also smoke detectors for early detection and fire extinguishers.\n\n > Even something as mundane as a no smoking policy is engineered with the thinking \"what if our primary defense doesn't work?\"\n\n > Brilliant when you think about it. Even the smallest detail like that is thought about, and the solution is simplistic, which is the best kind of solution for an engineering problem when safety is involved.\n\n > That's why an airline can't take off without an ashtray in the lavatory. They will actually delay a flight over it. It's a redundancy and another thing to make flying safer.\n\n",
"Simple question, simple answer:\n\nIt's a requirement by the FAA.\n\nSource: I'm an Aerospace Engineer.",
"The ashtrays are required by regulations to be there. In particular, 14 CFR 25.853(g) reads:\n\n > Regardless of whether smoking is allowed in any other part of the airplane, lavatories must have self-contained, removable ashtrays located conspicuously on or near the entry side of each lavatory door, except that one ashtray may serve more than one lavatory door if the ashtray can be seen readily from the cabin side of each lavatory served.\n\nIn a less \"it's that way because we said it has to be\" response, it's because people are assumed to break the rules and smoke anyways, and they need somewhere safe to put the butt. The toilet is dangerous as all hell, and the garbage can cause a fire. So, ashtrays.",
"Same reason that most city’s have needle exchange, they want people to be safe even if it’s illegal if people are going to smoke they don’t want it to you know.... burn the whole plane down ",
"I'm no expert. But I heard somewhere that they are left in because if some idiot decides to light up, where are you going to stub it out? ",
"Even when smoking was still permitted on planes, it wasn't allowed in the toilet. The smoke alarm in there is really sensitive. And during stewardess training we always had toilet fires to put out. Not good if you have any issues with claustrophobia. The smoke mask alone is really restrictive and you are then in a tiny toilet trying to find the fire. ",
"Airline pilot chiming in.\n\nSo there are some planes still in operation today from the days when it *was* permissible to smoke, but not many.\n\nUsually the reason is to prevent a fire. Weird right? We all know you can't smoke on airplanes, but there's always some fuckwit out there who will light up despite knowing the rules, and the ruling authorities and manufacturers would rather those people have a safe place to dispose of their cigarette butts rather than throwing them in the trash and causing a fire. \n\nAt least that's what I heard from a captain, who was told by another captain, who heard it from a flight attendant, who got that information from her grandmother, etc.\n\nShit, we even have ashtrays in the cockpit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/may/25/man-started-fire-plane-toilet-sentence-doubled-john-cox",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Canada_Flight_797"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://wonderfulengineering.com/top-10-commercial-airliners/"
],
[
"http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgad.nsf/0/4f81f7ed5a921083862579ac005b367e/$FILE/74-08-09%20R3.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://old.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/9ntph5/flight_attendants_what_are_some_things_we_as/e7p66ni/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5b4wwl
|
why are american pro sports championship parades held on weekdays instead of weekends?
|
It seems like the weekend after a championship win would be the best time for the city to hold a parade since there would be much less commuter traffic to contend with. It would also make it easier for out-of-town fans to visit, thus increasing tourism revenue.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5b4wwl/eli5_why_are_american_pro_sports_championship/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9lr7tb",
"d9lrvax"
],
"score": [
2,
16
],
"text": [
"It's really what day the championship game falls on. Usually the parade is the following day or day after. Basically a welcome back party for the organization. Kind of like when armies would march back home after a campaign victory. ",
"A few reasons: it keeps crowds down some, it means mass transit is running on full schedule, and it means not paying special overtime pay for city workers, police, etc. Chicago was only considering Friday or Monday for Cubs' parade -- no talk of a weekend parade."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4c9g5r
|
why do planes have different seatbelts to e.g. cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4c9g5r/eli5_why_do_planes_have_different_seatbelts_to_eg/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1g605s",
"d1g6a3k",
"d1g9vsx",
"d1g9xxg",
"d1gdfsx",
"d1gg9bi",
"d1gj9lm",
"d1gx07i"
],
"score": [
193,
32,
18,
7,
4,
17,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Aircraft seatbelts are designed to hold you down in the seat as turbulence is the biggest danger as the aircraft can drop suddenly. Car seatbelts are designed to hold you back into the seat with your upper body as the biggest danger is a frontal impact (to which a car is predominantly designed for, and which an aircraft isn't).",
"Aircraft seatbelts are designed primarily to stop you bouncing about during turbulence. They're not really meant for anything more severe than that, because lets face it, if anything occurs on an aircraft that's more severe than even heavy turbulence, the likelihood is that a seatbelt will make no difference to anything. Also, as /u/Gavinso has said, brace position would be difficult with a three-point seatbelt. \n\nA car's seatbelt on the other hand is designed with the expectation that you might hit something pretty solid at pretty high speed, so it is built to work with the other safety features in the car to ensure you have the best possible chance of riding it out. ",
"The overlap on the Venn diagram of \"aircraft crashes where a three-point belt would keep you alive where a two-point wouldn't\" vs. \"Aircraft crashes where any kind of belt will save you at all\" is small enough that the expense isn't justified.",
"What about the difference in how they latch?",
"I was flying (transatlantic) with *United* this week, and I was surprised to see that business and first passenger have a shoulder strap (like a car) on their seatbelt. Moreover first and business class passenger can get some *rear-facing* seat (which are proven to increase survival rate in case of crash). The *plebean* travelling Economy and Economy *plus* (which I am) don't get fancy seatbelt and rear-facing seat, I assume that the company think their life is less valuable than the one from more expensive classes, or more likely that the economy seat are so small that there is not enough space to put fancy seatbelt. \n",
"Uh, guys? Everyone with an explanation that's all about 'holding you down' versus 'hold you back' into the seat???\n\n**They are made the way they are because that's what seatbelts looked like in the 40's, 50's and 60's when they became commonplace and then mandated on aircraft.**\n\nThey are approved, they are known quantities and they don't need to change to new car-like ones that have hidden latches and release mechanisms that might be difficult to operate in an emergency.\n\nGeez.\n\n",
"The seat is arguably the weakest parts of the aircraft. Flimsy to put it exactly. Whereas car seats are much stronger and designed to hold the occupant in place in the seat during a single axis collision (which the typical car accident is a single axis collision). Aircraft unfortunately almost always experience multi-axis collisions unless you are in a dive or hit something head on. In which case a shoulder harness will do you no good anyway. Plain speak (or should I say plane speak?): The aircraft passenger seat belt will keep your ass strapped into the seat as the plane crumples around you and the seat itself collapses crushing whatever is underneath it in a higher dynamic force impact. Seats have gotten a bit stronger but not much. In fact, most of the improvements have been in the form of stronger seat rails that are fastened directly to the strongest structure of the aircraft so that when a crash does occur and the seat crumples beneath you and obliterates your legs and and lower back you stay with the aircraft and ride it out rather than being thrown from the aircraft still strapped into your seat and still obliterated.",
"If the plane \"dolphins\", and you're without a seat-belt, you'll bounce around inside the fuselage like a peeled grape inside a Pringles can, but instead of going \"clink clank bonk clunk\", you'll go \"splat splat splat splat\", and leave greasy, bloody spots at every impact point. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
vdi6k
|
from my mother: eli5 what the difference is between downloading and installing.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vdi6k/from_my_mother_eli5_what_the_difference_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c53ivfg",
"c53ivz7",
"c53iwnr",
"c53iwsk",
"c53iz46",
"c53j239"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
9,
3,
2,
11
],
"text": [
"Downloading is essentially copying files onto your computer from the internet, and installing is essentially your computer learning how to run a program.",
"Downloading is like buying or getting-for-free a product in the store.\n\nInstalling is like taking it out of the package\n\n(and running the program is like using the product)",
"OK you should be able to explain this to her yourself but consider this analogy, buying a new TV.\n\nDownloading:\nIt's like going to the store(going to website); buying, receiving free or stealing; and bringing it back home (downloading).\n\nNow it lays around doing nothing, taking up space. You need to do certain things to make it work.\n\nInstalling:\nPut it up on the wall, plugging in cables etc etc.\n\nNow it can be used!\n",
"Downloading is actually acquiring a program, piece by piece.\n\nInstalling is putting those pieces in the right place so they can be used.\n\n\nThink about it like a jigsaw puzzle. Downloading is taking all the pieces out of the box. Installing is putting them together.",
"Downloading is when you get a build-it-yourself model car as a present.\n\nInstalling is putting that model car together so you can run around the living room going \"vroom vroom\" and then you run into the nightstand and break a glass and your mom yells at you BUT WHATEVER I'M A NASCAR DRIVER",
"Downloading a program is like buying groceries.\n\nInstalling it is like cooking them.\n\nRunning it is like eating the meal (except you can eat this meal over and over again, so the analogy falls on its face a bit there!)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
m9xpc
|
How does the body know to form a callus?
|
How does the body, or specifically the skin, know to form a callus instead of just regular skin? Example: I wear a new pair of shoes that doen't quite fit right and get a blister. The blister heals and a callus forms. I burn myself on a hot pan fresh from the oven and a blister forms, heals, but no callus.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/m9xpc/how_does_the_body_know_to_form_a_callus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2zatvi",
"c2zcsqf",
"c2zdeyl",
"c2zatvi",
"c2zcsqf",
"c2zdeyl"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Not a doctor or anything, but a biology senior here. \n\nSkin cells differentiate into cells that produce keratin (keratinocytes), the protein that makes up hair, nails, and calluses, upon receiving pressure. This is the reason for your palms being more rough (more keratinized) than the tops of your hands etc. ",
"*Parroting my Girlfriend, who is studying life science, Her nor i are experts, but i asked her this yesterday and this was her answer*\n\nWhen you burn yourself, depending on the severity, you're causing the top layer or two of skin to cauterize. This skin simply dies and falls off gradually, while new skin cells replace it. When you get a callus it means you pressured that area and caused the bottom layer of cells that \"grows\" the new cells to start producing Keratin filled cells instead of normal skin cells.\n\nNow, I'm in computing and maths and physics not biology, so she dumbed it down a lot for me. She probably left out a lot of important things. But i hope it'll help you get started until an expert comes in",
"Callus is formed from repetitive irritation. \n\nWhen damage is dealt to the skin several different things can occur:\nIf you burn yourself-the immune system will respond to clean up dead cell and begin repair which is why you get a blister full of pus(dead cells, macrophages, neutrophils etc).\n\nWhen repeated irritation occurs the tissue will try to adapt to this constant irritation. Your skin has a tough keratin layer which is now thickened due to the adaptation and thus you have a callus. \n\nSuch reactions (repeated damaged whether caused by frictional irritation or other forms such as sun) on the skin is mostly normal but can result in various disease states such as Actinic Keratosis or Seborrheic Keratosis.",
"Not a doctor or anything, but a biology senior here. \n\nSkin cells differentiate into cells that produce keratin (keratinocytes), the protein that makes up hair, nails, and calluses, upon receiving pressure. This is the reason for your palms being more rough (more keratinized) than the tops of your hands etc. ",
"*Parroting my Girlfriend, who is studying life science, Her nor i are experts, but i asked her this yesterday and this was her answer*\n\nWhen you burn yourself, depending on the severity, you're causing the top layer or two of skin to cauterize. This skin simply dies and falls off gradually, while new skin cells replace it. When you get a callus it means you pressured that area and caused the bottom layer of cells that \"grows\" the new cells to start producing Keratin filled cells instead of normal skin cells.\n\nNow, I'm in computing and maths and physics not biology, so she dumbed it down a lot for me. She probably left out a lot of important things. But i hope it'll help you get started until an expert comes in",
"Callus is formed from repetitive irritation. \n\nWhen damage is dealt to the skin several different things can occur:\nIf you burn yourself-the immune system will respond to clean up dead cell and begin repair which is why you get a blister full of pus(dead cells, macrophages, neutrophils etc).\n\nWhen repeated irritation occurs the tissue will try to adapt to this constant irritation. Your skin has a tough keratin layer which is now thickened due to the adaptation and thus you have a callus. \n\nSuch reactions (repeated damaged whether caused by frictional irritation or other forms such as sun) on the skin is mostly normal but can result in various disease states such as Actinic Keratosis or Seborrheic Keratosis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2996pz
|
[Physics] If you drop a ball from 100 feet in the air, and throw a second ball up 100 feet...will they travel down at the same speed?
|
So pretend you have a ball 100 feet in the air. Let's say you have another ball that's on the ground and you launch it up exactly 100 feet. If you drop the ball that was suspended in air at the same exact time that other ball starts traveling down, do they fall at the same speed? Will the momentum from the second ball that was launched slow it down on the way down?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2996pz/physics_if_you_drop_a_ball_from_100_feet_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciin5h0",
"ciinlvc",
"ciiom13"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"The two balls will behave exactly identically, and if you were to blind an experimenter who could take perfect measurements until the moment they started falling, the experimenter would not be able to differentiate them in any way.",
"Momentum does not work the way you seem to be imagining. An accelerating object will have different momentums at two different points in time as momentum equals mass times velocity. \n\nWhen you throw the ball into the air, it has an initial velocity upwards and acceleration downwards. When it's velocity reaches zero, it's momentum at that moment is also zero, and it is identical to the ball you are dropping. The ball does not \"remember\" being thrown up, just as the second ball does not \"remember being picked up and brought to the height of 100 ft. ",
" > Will the momentum from the second ball that was launched slow it down on the way down? \n\nmomentum is just an objects *current* velocity x mass.. I'm struggling to think of an analogy as this is kinda odd, but:\n\nIf you start with a 1 and add 4, that resulting 5 is not separate from any other 5. There's no memory of the 1 or the 4 that will affect future calculations with that 5\n\nat the thrown balls apex, it would be still, there's no memory of the initial throw.. so for the descent it would be identical to the just dropped ball."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
kcfsj
|
the california deficit, why is the state in such a deep hole???
|
How did this end up happening?? Is the state spending it on useless things??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/kcfsj/eli5_the_california_deficit_why_is_the_state_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2j6tb1",
"c2j7k75",
"c2j6tb1",
"c2j7k75"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, from what I understand, there are two major operators that have driven California into the ground more quickly than other states.\n\n1) They make it easy for everyone in California vote on things directly, rather than letting the people in the capital do it.\n\nThis is fine for lots of things, but when it comes to money lots of people don't think about how much money they have in the bank before they make decisions. So, they usually vote to spend more money, without ever voting to save more money. Since it's really hard for the people in the capital to undo the things that the people voted on, after a while, the bank account looks pretty empty.\n\n2) The people in the capital needed 2/3 of congress to vote yes to the state budget, instead of 1/2 like most other states.\n\nThat doesn't sound like a big deal, but Congress is split into two groups that haven't been getting along very well lately. Neither of them are much bigger than the other, so while one group might have more than 1/2 of the people, neither party ever has 2/3's. As a result, whenever it's time for Congress to decide how to spend money, both sides yell and scream a lot, and the bigger group has to promise to spend on what the little group wants as well as what it wants. Anytime saving money is brought up, people get angry and go home without doing anything.",
"During the 1990's and 2000's, California experienced a huge boom, particularly in technology and real estate. Tax revenues went up, and they had tons of money.\n\nUnfortunately, they spent that money like the boom would never end. They spent a lot of it on state employees, hiring new ones, higher salaries and better pensions. When the boom ended, in the early 2000's, tax revenues went way down, and they were spending more than they were taking in. And the state employees didn't want to give any money back, and since they were politically powerful, they didn't have to.\n\nSince most of the budget is state employee pensions and salaries, the couldn't cut enough to make up the difference, so they tried raising taxes. But California already had some of the highest state taxes in the country...businesses started to leave, people lost their jobs, and so higher taxes didn't bring in enough money. And the people who still had jobs got very angry about tax hikes.\n\nSo this year they are looking to spend $100 billion, but only taking in $75 billion. Raising taxes is very unpopular, and hasn't worked before. Cutting spending can be done without cutting wages or benefits for state employees, who are politically powerful. \n\nThere is no obvious solution, and since the state might go bankrupt, they are having a hard time even borrowing money. They have to make some tough decisions, or the problem will get work, and they will go bankrupt.",
"Well, from what I understand, there are two major operators that have driven California into the ground more quickly than other states.\n\n1) They make it easy for everyone in California vote on things directly, rather than letting the people in the capital do it.\n\nThis is fine for lots of things, but when it comes to money lots of people don't think about how much money they have in the bank before they make decisions. So, they usually vote to spend more money, without ever voting to save more money. Since it's really hard for the people in the capital to undo the things that the people voted on, after a while, the bank account looks pretty empty.\n\n2) The people in the capital needed 2/3 of congress to vote yes to the state budget, instead of 1/2 like most other states.\n\nThat doesn't sound like a big deal, but Congress is split into two groups that haven't been getting along very well lately. Neither of them are much bigger than the other, so while one group might have more than 1/2 of the people, neither party ever has 2/3's. As a result, whenever it's time for Congress to decide how to spend money, both sides yell and scream a lot, and the bigger group has to promise to spend on what the little group wants as well as what it wants. Anytime saving money is brought up, people get angry and go home without doing anything.",
"During the 1990's and 2000's, California experienced a huge boom, particularly in technology and real estate. Tax revenues went up, and they had tons of money.\n\nUnfortunately, they spent that money like the boom would never end. They spent a lot of it on state employees, hiring new ones, higher salaries and better pensions. When the boom ended, in the early 2000's, tax revenues went way down, and they were spending more than they were taking in. And the state employees didn't want to give any money back, and since they were politically powerful, they didn't have to.\n\nSince most of the budget is state employee pensions and salaries, the couldn't cut enough to make up the difference, so they tried raising taxes. But California already had some of the highest state taxes in the country...businesses started to leave, people lost their jobs, and so higher taxes didn't bring in enough money. And the people who still had jobs got very angry about tax hikes.\n\nSo this year they are looking to spend $100 billion, but only taking in $75 billion. Raising taxes is very unpopular, and hasn't worked before. Cutting spending can be done without cutting wages or benefits for state employees, who are politically powerful. \n\nThere is no obvious solution, and since the state might go bankrupt, they are having a hard time even borrowing money. They have to make some tough decisions, or the problem will get work, and they will go bankrupt."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1y1yvo
|
Why do humans and most other animals have a soft "underbelly?" Why doesn't our rib cage protect our digestive organs as well?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1y1yvo/why_do_humans_and_most_other_animals_have_a_soft/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfgp922",
"cfgp9eb",
"cfgpb8j",
"cfgq6vw",
"cfgr6cy",
"cfgt9oa",
"cfgu7mu",
"cfhc7tu"
],
"score": [
90,
335,
17,
8,
2,
5,
48,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the evolutionary conditions that would produce such morphology didn't happen, or didn't pan out.\n\nThat may sound a little vapid but there's just no good way to answer most \"why\" questions when it comes to evolution and biology. It's an undirected process. There is no \"goal\". Mutation, heredity, and competition more or less produce the diversity we see in living things.",
"The rib cage isn't just for protection. The rib cage's most important purpose is to inflate and deflate the lungs. The muscles between the ribs help them to expand and retract which brings air into and pushes the air out of the lungs. The diaphragm, which attaches to the inferior border of the rib cage, also helps this purpose. There is no functional need for ribs below the diaphragm.",
"Ultimately, what you are asking is a question of mechanical physics, and to which degree both the underlying physics of the problem of protecting a life form and giving it motive abilities interacts with evolutionary pressures.\n\nI might whimsically re-ask you question as \"why did evolution not give humans the same form as the teenage mutant ninja turtles? Would that not be better?\"\n\nThe answers to such questions are not always obvious. This is because certain evolutionary pathways have subtle costs associated with them that can make a life form non-viable, either in the niche they originated in, or perhaps even overall. \n\nConsider. At what cost would the extra weight of the shell come? Disregarding what would need to be an entirely different child-bearing cycle, would it have made us slow? Would our speed and ability to use tools not have in some way suffered?\n\nIn a variety of questions like this, and their implied answers, will lurk your answer.\n",
"The rib cage is important for protection, muscle attachment, and respiration which makes it ubiquitous among many living creatures. Most animals already have strong abdominal muscles superficial to abdominal organs that provide enough protection so a ventral bone structure was not required for that region. However, some animals have evolved protection for the abdominal cavity, such as crocodiles, called a gastralium, that does protect the belly. wikipedia \"gastralium\" for more information.\n\nEdit: tried to add a link and failed. Haven't learned to reddit yet.",
"In addition to previous comments: \n1) For mammals there would not be room for the fetus to grow in the womb, so you will need to have this protection only for males, which is a more complicated evolutionary scenario.\n2) it would inhibit the space available to store fat, which might be an issue for some species.\n3) I think that the most vulnerable area of mammals is the throat, which can be attested by observing where predators attack first, so it would make sense that before evolution would \"come up\" with belly protection we'll see mammals with better throat protection.\n\nAt some point in the future it would be possible that some creatures would evolve a better belly protection, but considering the aforementioned arguments it is not surprising that this has not happened yet.\nEdit: typo\n",
"Just of note, having ossified ventral ribs (that extend the entire length of the trunk in bony fishes and between pectoral and pelvic girdles in tetrapods) is a plesiomorphic characteristic for osteichthyans. And a lot of tetrapods have evolved bony armor to protect their soft underbelly (e.g., the plastron of turtles, and ventral armor of aetosaurs, and countless other extinct tetrapods). Somewhere along the synapsid lineage, ventral ossifications did not develop, likely due to change in respiration and locomotion. I cannot speak for lissamphibians but I know the lineage is characterized in reduction of the skeleton overall.",
"During pregnancy, females need their organs to displace out of the way of the fetus. As it stands, even though there is room for the abdomen to swell to accommodate the fetus, pregnancy still poses a significant [health risk](_URL_0_) for women. If there were no room for the fetus to develop at all, babies would have to be born smaller/less developed and therefore less capable of surviving and/or the mother would have an increased risk of health complications or death. And if a certain design is required for women, that design would (to a certain extent) have to show up in men as well.",
"Having no ribs at the lumbar vertebrae is a synapomorphy(new trait) of mammals, if you look at the skeleton of a [lizard](_URL_2_) you can see that it has ribs all the way to the sacrum. The reason mammals evolved to not have lumbar ribs is due to the up-right posture where the limbs are positioned ventral to the body instead of sprawled out like the reptiles. This allows for mammals to run with a [dorsal-ventral undulation](_URL_0_) as opposed to the [side-to-side locomotion](_URL_1_) of reptiles. You can see from the videos that having lumbar ribs would greatly impede movement in mammals."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.mom365.com/pregnancy/posts/2012/jun/~/media/b13e436bae6d4a83a2f7ad4d567ed1a2.ashx"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDvtxdzQlAU",
"http://www.wgrz.com/video/1845548540001/1/Robot-Researchers-Learn-Lessons-of-Lizard-Locomotion",
"http://www.savalli.us/BIO370/Anatomy/AnatomyImages/SkinkSkeletonLabel.jpg"
]
] |
||
qyu5a
|
how do internet browsers (ie, firefox, chrome, netscape :p) make money/profit?
|
Obviously they do make money, I just can't work out how. There's no 'Pro' paid versions. Is there some sort of subtle advertising system I've never noticed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qyu5a/eli5_how_do_internet_browsers_ie_firefox_chrome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c41kczq",
"c41m9n6",
"c41mfh0",
"c41mhxa",
"c41najb"
],
"score": [
153,
6,
9,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"They don't, at least not directly in most cases.\n\nInternet Explorer and Safari are \"part\" of their respective operating systems, there's no reason for them to be monetized. Safari is available for Windows freely as part of Apple's \"halo effect\" strategy - i.e. see how cool and easy to use this is, now go buy a Mac. IE used to be vice versa but MS abandoned that.\n\nChrome is part of Google's overall package of free \"give us every detail about your life so we can advertise to you\" tools. In other words, Google doesn't care about your money, they make their dough off advertisers and giving you a nice browser guarantees you'll surf and see those ads.\n\nNetscape.... Really? Best I can tell Netscape no longer exists as a browser. They were bought by AOL several years ago who were in turn bought by Time Warner... A series of hilariously retrospectively bad decisions. If we rewind and think back to the earlier days of the Internet, Netscape actually was sold for money. Remember in the mid 90s the Internet and the web browser were not typical parts of the computer experience, you actually had to go to a physical brick and mortar store and buy a copy of Netscape in a box on a disk. Fast forward past that and for a few years they sold a pro version and gave away a free version. Then after being bought by AOL they became part of a package that cost money anyway.\n\nFirefox is a unique example, none of the above apply... Instead its just simply that they aren't out to make money. Mozilla is a non profit seeking to drive open source tech and freedom of information. It's right on the home page when you go to download it.\n\nI'll expand on your examples a bit too: Opera is probably the biggest browser you didn't mention, and they have an interesting strategy - they sell their browser on an enterprise level. Meaning that when a company wants to build a browser into their product, like say the Nintendo DSi, they pay to license the Opera browser.\n\nThere are more browsers out there, some that actually do have a cost, but most mix and match with the above.\n\nEdit for the nitpickers: This is a ELI5 answer, not a comprehensive quarterly earnings report for the Wall Street Journal. My intent was to provide the OP a summary of the money making strategies used by these companies outside of the obvious direct sales model. Additionally, I did inadvertently omit revenues from search engines, but keep in mind that while various figures quoted are impressive for us poor plebeian users, they are minor parts of the income in most cases for these large corporations.\n\nEdit 2: [Avenger_v3 linked to an AMA with a Mozilla developer](_URL_0_) who explains the bulk of their revenue does come from search engine sharing.",
"See that little search box in the top right of your browser?\n\nEvery time you use it, the search engine pays the browser maker.\n\nSee the homepage and suggested links that also came with the free browser?\n\nAdvertisement for those sites.",
"The top post is essentially missing the point.\n\nBrowsers make money through advertising.\n\nGoogle pay Firefox money for every search and a percentage for clickthroughs on the custom google search on the default Firefox homepage.\n\nChrome ensures that google search remains default.Bit also saves paying another browser maker money.\n\nSafari and IE are requisite offers from the two major OS vendors. (Note that Safari's rendering engine is open source, and based on the KDE one).\n\nOpera is closed source and frankly I don't know where they make money from, maybe advertisers, maybe paid support.\n\nBut, in general, the browsers make money from search engine advertising.",
"Opera has a unique revenue generating model: \n_URL_1_ \n_URL_0_ \n_URL_2_",
"[Mozilla developer about Mozilla revenue in IAmA](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/qyu5a/eli5_how_do_internet_browsers_ie_firefox_chrome/c41najb"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://my.opera.com/chooseopera/blog/2011/01/03/how-does-opera-make-money-aka-our-most-asked-question-ever",
"http://www.opera.com/company/investors/faq/#faq3",
"http://www.opera.com/press/faq/?list#opera7"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/oonrg/iama_member_of_the_mozilla_webdev_team_ama/c3iu4a4"
]
] |
|
yp0xa
|
no child left behind and race to the top
|
What are the criticisms? Benefits?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/yp0xa/eli5_no_child_left_behind_and_race_to_the_top/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5xjn43"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"NCLB was a Bush43 era law enacted to improve the educational system. \n\nThe idea was that the education system wasn't doing very well (pretty accurate) and we needed to do something about it (good idea) and we needed some way to measure our success (good idea but easy to go off the rails as you will see).\n\nThere were a lot of changes in the law, but the one people think of is that it placed a huge emphasis on standardized testing. The idea was that everyone takes the same test so we have a way to compare students in different school districts. The problem with that is the standardized test is not that good at determining whether a student learned the material or not. A lot of times this meant schools started teaching 'to the test', focusing on material that was easily testable, like dates in history, instead of material that was useful, like the why and how of history.\n\nThe other problem was there was financial incentives to schools. If your students do well, your school gets a bonus. If your school does badly, your funding gets cut. Because the best way to increase student scores is to lower the funding for teachers and supplies for those students. \n\nThere also wasn't adjustments for schools that were in the rich suburbs versus the poor urban areas. It's not surprising that the rich schools with few problems did better than the poor schools that dealt with drug problems and gang violence on a daily basis.\n\nSo, NCLB was an attempt to fix educational problems, maybe good in theory but bad in practice.\n\nObama had his own educational initiative, and that is RTTT. Here the idea was the Federal government would tell states \"Alright, each of you submit proposals to improve your schools in any way you think is best. Then there will be a round of funding for the best ideas. Then each state implements the ideas that work for them. The states that improve the most get more funding.\"\n\nThe trick to this is, states that but effort into finding ways to improve their schools for the RTTT money are not going to throw that away afterwards. They are still likely to implement those reforms even if they didn't get money. And the second round did the same thing - if a state improves their schools, they aren't going to get rid of those improvements just because they didn't win a prize. So RTTT was much more cost-effective.\n\nLong story short, they are both there to improve education. NCLB was a stick. RTTT was a carrot. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
difncp
|
What kind of battle tactics did the Huns use against the Romans during their wars?
|
Recently I've become somewhat interested in the Huns. Reading a bit online I was able to learn some about how they fought the Romans during the decline of the empire, however I can't really find many specifics so, that's basically my question. What kind of tactics did the Huns use? Outside of just "they were fast" what kind of grand strategy did they use? How did these things help to defeat the Roman armies? And finally, a more specific question: I've read that Hunnic mounted archers helped them tremendously, however they were unable to pierce the heavier armor of Roman troops. How did the Huns overcome this obstacle in battle?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/difncp/what_kind_of_battle_tactics_did_the_huns_use/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f3wmf6c"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Hey there, not necessarily my area of expertise, but I'll take a shot at it (no pun intended). One of the key problems with studying the Huns style of warfare is that it's not very well recorded. All our records of the Huns, as far as I know, come almost exclusively from their enemies, such as Jordanes and Marcellinus, which often leads to over-exaggerations, inaccuracies, and plain old fashioned bias in accounts. It also means that there's not an excessive amount of focus devoted to the actual warcraft of the Huns. We know some hallmarks of their strategy: Lots of horse archers (almost to the point of exclusively horse archers), divided into regiments/warbands along familial lines, operating in a single battle line at a distance focusing primarily on hit-and-run and feigned retreat into ambush tactics. In practice, the Huns would attempt to disrupt enemy formations with arrow fire and maneuver, drawing them out into a more unruly group, then move into to close down on the disparate forces once they were overextended and vulnerable. The following is more speculation my part, but I would imagine this was the stage where the majority of the killing was actually done. The arrow fire at a distance was not so much meant to wholly slaughter the enemy as it was meant to force them out of rigid formation, tire them out, demoralize them, and generally make them break, at which point the Huns could move in and just clean up. That would generally be in line with Marcellinus' description of their tactics and probably answers your question regarding the fact that their arrows were supposedly not able to reliably pierce Roman infantry armor. They didn't need to consistently pierce, because the actual killing came in the form of saber-work after the enemy was broken and/or overextended.\n\nAs far as grand strategy (i.e. outside the tactical level), the Huns under Atilla were more about bluff, maneuver, and raiding then they were about actually engaging in pitched battles with Rome. With their ability to move quickly, Atilla was able to choose his battles readily, and really engaged with the Romans only when it was absolutely necessary to do so. If his aims could be reached through threats and belligerence, then that was a far better outcome. If raiding and harrowing achieved his aims, that was also usually preferred to actual engagement. Atilla's campaign in Italy, for example, was essentially just raiding and occasionally skirmishing with Roman forces, trying to pin them back into a position from which he could coerce them into giving in to his demands. As such, the Huns were very happy to engage in sieges to extort what they wanted (or just take it, they were surprisingly good at sieges it seems). Additionally, Atilla made significant use of local forces to bolster his own armies, especially in terms of infantry for pitched battles. The Huns rarely entered into a pitched battle alone, they almost always brought local auxiliaries to fight on their behalf. At the Catalaunian Plains, pretty much the most iconic pitched battle of Atilla's career, the Huns fought alongside numerous local tribes, including the Franks, Thuringians, Burgundians, and Amals (who would eventually become the Ostrogoths). In that particular case, these allies were left to hold the flanks, freeing up Atilla's trusted Hun troops to engage with the center of the enemy line. Again though, at the Catalaunian Plains, we see a demonstration of why the Huns were hesitant to engage in pitched battle, because their raiding/retreating tactics seemingly fail and they were not able to go toe to toe with heavy infantry and/or heavy cavalry formations in order to take the crucial objective of the ridge.\n\nSo, in summary, the grand strategy of Atilla the Hun was:\n\nA. Selective engagements, taking full advantage of superior mobility, preferring raids and sieges to pitched battles with Roman forces. They struggled in pitched battles and Atilla was seemingly aware of that.\n\nB. Use of threat and performative violence to force agreements and/or coerce enemies into meeting his demands. After you wholesale slaughter a couple of towns that didn't surrender to your demands, it turns out people are a lot more likely to give you what you want.\n\nC. Incorporating local allies to multiply force and fulfill roles the Huns typically did not perform well in, namely as infantry and heavy cavalry.\n\nSources\n\nThe World of the Huns: Studies in Their History and Culture - Otto J. Maenchen-Helfen\n\nThe Roman History Ammianus Marcellinus - Ammianus Marcellinus\n\nThe Huns and the End of the Roman Empire in Western Europe - Peter Heather"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1sftl4
|
how were brochures, posters, magazines and ads edited before inexpensive pc's, digital photography and photoshop?
|
ELI5: How were brochures, posters, magazines and ads edited before inexpensive PC's, Digital Photography and Photoshop?
I wonder how they did it, and so effectively as well.
Nowadays you just take an image of the middle-aged female model eating cereal, you use that special close-up lense, transfer it to the PC, drag it to PS, free-transform the image, make it bigger, make a red background, choose and download a font, add nice little text, perhaps do something with it on Illustrator, and finally put in the original vectors logo and you got yourself the next cereal box for the next 6 years.
Same for the car brochures, billboards, etc.
So Reddit, how were these things done before?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sftl4/eli5_how_were_brochures_posters_magazines_and_ads/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdx6llk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"[Here you go.](_URL_1_)\n\n[And here is a picture of some classified advertising being pasted-up to produce a page.](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://west-sacramento.blogspot.com/2009/06/news-ledger-since-1964.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paste_up"
]
] |
|
b0w3sc
|
how do things you ingest (pills, specific foods like fish, etc) make their way up to the brain?
|
Fish is "brain food" and some pills help solve headaches. But how exactly do they enter the bloodstream? Isn't it all gastric acid before the digestive process actually begins?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b0w3sc/eli5_how_do_things_you_ingest_pills_specific/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eihls51"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your stomach acid breaks down the food you eat. The broken down food next goes to the intestines. The intestines absorb nutrients from broken down food. The microscopic nutrients pass through microscopic channels in the intestines to enter the blood stream. The blood carries the nutrients all through the body. Some of these nutrients can pass through the blood brain barrier. If they make it past, they can be distributed to the brain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
98h71g
|
Has any nation ever overcome/reformed its own corrupt government through peaceful means?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98h71g/has_any_nation_ever_overcomereformed_its_own/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4g13gu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This submission has been removed because it involves current events. To keep from discussion of politics, we have a [20-year rule](_URL_2_) here. You may want to try /r/ask_politics or another current-events focused sub. For further explanation of this rule, feel free to consult [this Rules Roundtable](_URL_1_).\n\nSorry, we don't allow [\"example seeking\" questions](_URL_3_). It's not that your question was bad; it's that these kinds of questions tend to produce threads that are collections of disjointed, partial, inadequate responses. If you have a question about a specific historical event, period, or person, feel free to rewrite your question and submit it again. If you don't want to rewrite it, you might try submitting it to /r/history, /r/askhistory, or /r/tellmeafact. \n\nFor further explanation of the rule, feel free to consult [this META thread](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3nub87/rules_change_throughout_history_rule_is_replaced/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/45wqkl/rules_roundtable_5_the_current_eventsmodern/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_current_events",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22example_seeking.22_questions"
]
] |
||
47iqvj
|
why does putting a mug of water in the microwave keep bread from getting soggy when heated?
|
Edit: For everybody asking about microwaving frozen bread I was meaning like a biscuit or a roll, not slices of sandwich bread.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/47iqvj/eli5_why_does_putting_a_mug_of_water_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0d7vhg",
"d0d7wq9",
"d0d8m0c",
"d0d9cb0",
"d0d9vko",
"d0da428",
"d0dasfk",
"d0dbrxl",
"d0dbvy2",
"d0dctls",
"d0de866",
"d0defup",
"d0dfha7",
"d0dglnh",
"d0dhov3",
"d0djj5h",
"d0dmy84",
"d0dnqgx",
"d0dohrx",
"d0dor1q",
"d0dpv8p",
"d0drfyh",
"d0ds99q",
"d0dvlc9",
"d0e05c4",
"d0e061q",
"d0e1ugp",
"d0e2zgf",
"d0e4ou5",
"d0e8z3r",
"d0ea7q7",
"d0eb8m2"
],
"score": [
2776,
22,
93,
36,
3,
448,
9,
4,
2,
50,
3,
192,
5,
16,
3,
17,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
12,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
7,
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The water acts as a 'dummy load' when you have it in the microwave with bread. So it reduces the amount of energy going to the bread. Think of it in terms of cranking down an energy knob. The higher the energy the faster it heats up which means it gets soggy. If you have less energy and cook it slowly and evenly it won't get soggy.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n\n**Edit: Some additional details. Happy to see all the interest in this.**\n\nIt's assumed the bread is frozen.\n**Why is the bread frozen?** *It stays fresher longer. Good for when you're living by yourself and don't go through food as fast. As a poor graduate student who knows the struggle lol.*\n\n**Can I lower the power for the same effect?** *Yes, basically it will do the same thing. Lowering the amount of energy reduces the amount of 'work' used to heat the bread. You'll have a lower temperature and this will allow for the heat to dissipate evenly throughout the bread.*\n\n**Wait a minute, what happens if I heat room temperature bread?** *If you heat it the moisture from the bread will be released and moisten the bread. If you do this with water that water will be 'added' to the atmosphere in the microwave and may condense to make the bread wet on the outside. Of course if you heat it long enough it will dry out or burn.*\n\n**Edit 2: Why does bread get soggy?** *At room temperature for example the bread is saturated with moisture, kind of like a damp sponge that has been sitting out for a couple hours. If you heat it up it softens the pores of the material and you get that 'soggyness'. When heating frozen bread at high temperatures it can be concentrated in certain areas and the heat may not be able to spread out. If you lower that temperature the heat can spread out and let the vapor escape.*\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\n*I worked in a bioenergy lab for a year with some people who studied pyrolysis with domestic and industrial microwaves. We had a metal 'mixer' to mix up the wood pellets or other biomass. We used water as a dummy load so that the microwaves would not be reflected back and damage the magnetron.*",
"never had bread get soggy. I only usually do a slice or two for max 5 seconds though. I'm guessing that the water is there to absorb some of the energy so the bread gets less and keeps it from overheating the water that's in the bread causing it to steam into each of its little air bubbles and breaking them down?",
"John Green actually tried doing that on his Mental_Floss channel, in his \"Life Hacks Debunked\" video. He put a glass of water in with a slice of pizza and the pizza (if memory serves) came out even soggier than it normally would. If anyone else has tried it, does it work with only certain types of bread?",
"I find that microwaving any kind of bread makes it tough and chewy.\n\nI put pizza in a covered frying pan on the stove. It heats it up while maintaining the crispiness of the crust.",
"If your bread is chewy and hard, you've microwaved it too long.\n\nDon't bother reducing power for bread, unless you are heating a full loaf. The magnetron doesn't have a variable power output. It just gets turned on for the percentage of time you request, during each minute it runs. Ex. 30% = on 20 seconds, off 40 seconds. Good for defrosting meats, and preventing fluid heavy foods from boiling over.\n\nThe most I do is 30 seconds for a frozen roll, to make it nice and steamy to accept a butter pad willingly. At 40 seconds it will start getting chewy. Nuke bread sparingly.",
"People microwave bread?",
"Use the defrost setting. Works great on frozen items. Wrap bread/bagel/roll or whatever in a paper towel and set for 1 min on defrost. Flipping it over after 30 seconds works best. Remove from MW and wrap in foil and put in toaster oven for ten min on 250 degrees. Comes out bakery fresh!",
"As a followup question, why are you heating bread in a microwave?\n\ni.e. is it in a casserole (and the water matters less) or are you just putting a loaf of bread in there to warm for some disgusting reason?",
"I tried this. The premise of the question is wrong. The bread does become steamed and soggy when you take it outside.\n\nI suggest that people try this at home before answering the question.",
"TIL: Put a cup of water in the microwave with your bread/sandwich to keep the bread from getting soggy.",
"You talkin' about a science oven? ",
"This is a thing?! ...all the flour burritos I've microwaved...all the soggy. \n\nMy god",
"Microwaves work by exciting water molecules to boiling. This works because pretty much every piece of food is going to have some water in it. \n\nThe result is that whereas your food may seem soggy on the outside after microwaving, it's actually dried out as the water was boiled out of it. \n\nIf you microwave a bread roll, for example, you'll probably find the outside covered in condensation, but the center hard as a rock.\n\nPutting water in the microwave can work by saturating the air with water vapor. Just like when it's hot and humid out, and your sweat won't evaporate, if the air in the microwave is too humid, the water in your food may not evaporate.\n\nThis can keep too much water from leaving your food. It's not always effective, however.",
"Bigger question, why are you guys microwaving bread?\n",
"So I've had this argument with two of my roommates. They say that when they put a mug of water in the microwave for a minute with let's say leftover rice or chicken that it helps steam it a bit and makes it less dry. I don't believe it. Anyone have any input on whether or not this makes sense?",
"And this is why I also have a toaster oven. Reheating any moist food is just so damn good and quick. Left over pizza taste just like the day I ordered it.",
"I clearly didn't know this. Does it work with pizza too? ",
"I did not know you could do this and have staunchly avoided microwaving bread my whole life. Thank you. You have liberated me.",
"heating the bread causes it to dry out because the heat causes water to vaporize and the mug is an extra source of vapour to counteract that. or at least, that's how i understand it.",
"How do I reheat my burger? ",
"What kind of barbarian would microwave bread?",
"How did I get a helpful LPT in ELI5?",
"Learned this trick from a french baker who used to make crispy croissants by placing a bowl of water in fire brick oven. Moisture and starch chemistry at different temperature plays an important role in making glutenous bread soft inside and crusty on outside.\n\nThere are two kinds of starch, short clumpy ones (amylose, 70% of bread starch) and long brachy ones (amylopectin, 30%). The short clumpy ones absorb moisture and melt at about 100ºC and dry inside the porous bread making it firm, the long branchy ones 'unwind and stretch' and make it fluffier — this is what probably happens in microwave. More discussion [here](_URL_2_).\n\nSimilar but extended process happens when bread is baked the first time. At 82ºC the surface of bread soaks up a lot of moisture and explodes into gooey gel which dries out to become a hard shell. At 135ºC sugars caramelize giving out fresh bread smell and the taste of crust. Between 140-200ºC, sugars and amino acids react to give the dark brown color ([Malliard](_URL_1_) reaction). More details [here](_URL_0_).",
"I've always used like a slightly wet papertowel over my pizza when I warm it up... never knew mug of water with bread was a thing.",
"Would this work for Pizza then? I hate reheating pizza in the microwave.",
"Why not just turn the power down on your microwave?",
"Wait... Does this work for pizza...?",
"Why am I reading about this in ELI5 and not Life Pro Tips?",
"Can someone ELI5 this question for me? How does bread get wetter when you microwave? Am I the only one who tries to keep their bread from drying out in the microwave?",
"Microwaves target water molecules and heat them up. The water turn to vapor and is absorbed by the bread. ",
"People microwave bread? ",
"who even does this....?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/browbeat/2012/11/19/why_does_steam_make_bread_light_and_crusty_it_slows_down_the_cooking_process.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maillard_reaction",
"http://blogs.oregonstate.edu/deliciousnessw09/2010/02/24/bread-firming-its-a-chemistry-thing/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
50lvkc
|
Why do multiples of 9, always come back to 9 when their digits are added together?
|
Sorry I could have probably worded the title better.
I remember my second grade teacher taught me this but never explained why she just said it was a a magic number lol.
Example:
9*2=18, 1+8=9
9*3=27, 2+7=9
9*4=36, 3+6=9
etc, etc, etc.....,
Of course there are many interesting recurrences with small number and wen we learned our multiplication tables as kids, but this trend seems to stay the same even as the number you multiply by 9 increase. Even with random numbers in the tens and hundreds similar pattern.
Example
9*53=477, 4+7+7=18, 1+8=9
9*87=783, 7+8+3=18, 1+8=9
9*681=6129, 6+1+2+9=18, 1+8=9
9*217=1953, 1+9+5+3=18, 1+8=9
Now I've only used positive integers, haven't even looked into negatives, nor decimals, nor any other parameters so to speak. Are there any exceptions doing this with positive integers? And why does this work? This is a smart sub and I'm sure the answer is simple but I've just always been curious about it. I'll try a few more larger random numbers with greater number of digits.
9*876,257=7,886,313 :
7+8+8+6+3+1+3=36, 3+6=9
One more even larger number
9*12,345,678=111,111,102 :
1+1+1+1+1+1+1+0+2=9
Are there any other weird happenstances like this? if so please elaborate...
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/50lvkc/why_do_multiples_of_9_always_come_back_to_9_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d754kmb",
"d755k71",
"d757kbv",
"d75abhg",
"d75cvhr"
],
"score": [
156,
2,
10,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"To see why this works, we first have to start with how a number, when written down, is constructed.\n\nTake the number 123. This notation means: 1 * 100 + 2 * 10 + 3 * 1. To deconstruct a number in this way, you take a digit and multiply it by the power of 10 appropriate for the position of that digit within the number.\n\nNow we make a brief detour through the realms of divisibility and remainders. Note that we only work with integers, so no decimals or funny stuff behind the period. When we divide something like 52 / 9, we can fit 9 a total of 5 times and are left with a remainder of 7. So we can write:\n\n52 / 9 = 5\n\nbut also\n\n52 % 9 = 7\n\nThe %-sign is often used for the function that gives you the remainder in a certain division. This function is called the modulo function. If a number fully divides another number, the remainder will be zero:\n\n18 % 9 = 0 (this says: The remainder when dividing 18 by 9 is 0)\n\nNow, the modulo function has some nice properties. One of which is that it is distributive with addition and multiplication. What does this mean? It means that if we have an expression like (a + b) % c (or: the remainder of (a + b) when divided by c), then that's the same as a % c + b % c (or: the remainder of a when divided by c plus the remainder of b when divided by c). The same holds when you replace the addition-operation by multiplicaiton.\n\nNow, lets put the pieces together. First we look at the remainder of a few numbers when divided by 9:\n\n1 % 9 = 1\n\n10 % 9 = 1 (10 divided by 9 is 1 with remainder 1)\n\n100 % 9 = 1 (100 divided by 9 is 11 with remainder 1)\n\n1000 % 9 = 1 (1000 divided by 9 is 111 with remainder 1)\n\nNotice a pattern?\n\nIf we have a number of the form abcd, then from the first section we know that this can be written as:\n\na * 1000 + b * 100 + c * 10 + d * 1\n\nSo if we want to see what the remainder of this number is when divided by 9, we can use the properties of the modulo function:\n\nabcd % 9 = (a * 1000 + b * 100 + c * 10 + d * 1) % 9 = (a * 1000) % 9 + (b * 100) % 9 + (c * 10) % 9 + (d * 1) % 9\n\nEach term can be rewritten as:\n\n(a % 9) * (1000 % 9)\n\nSince we know that a power of 10 has remainder 1 when divided by 9, these factors drop out and we're left with:\n\n(a % 9) + (b % 9) + (c % 9) + (d % 9)\n\nOnce again applying the distributivity of the modulo function:\n\n(a + b + c + d) % 9\n\nSo the final conclusion is that the remainder of a number when divided by 9 is equal to the remainder of the sum of the digits of the number when divided by 9. More specifically, if a number is fully divisible by 9 (so remainder 0), then the sum of its digits is too.\n\nIn some cases, the sum of the digits will be a number consisting of multiple digits. In that case, you can reapply the same reasoning to the sum of the digits of the sum of the digits. And repeat this process until you end up with a one digit number that is divisible by 9. And which one digit numbers are divisible by 9? Just one, 9 itself.\n\nSo a general conclusion is that if a number is divisble by 9, then the repeated summing of its digits in this way will always end up with a 9. And, to check if a number is divisible by 9, you can add up its digits and check if that value is divisible by 9. If that value is still to big to quickly check, you can repeat the process.\n\nNote: There is a similar property when dividing by 3: A number is divisible by 3 if and only if the sum of its digits are divisible by 3. The proof of this statement follows the same reasoning as for division by 9.\n\nFinally, homework for the interested reader: There's a similar, but slightly more involved trick to determine whether a number is divisible by 11. Find it and prove it :-)",
"Written as a formula:\n\n9x = 10x - x \n\nBut we have to separate the tens column from the ones column, so we rewrite it \n\n(10x - 10) + (10 - x) \n\nThen we simplify while keeping the tens and ones groupings (shown in brackets)\n\n[10(x - 1)] + [10 - x]\n\nThen we need to drop the zero on the tens column, to use it as a single digit to add to the ones column. So we divide by ten in the tens column, leaving\n\n[X - 1] + [10 - x] \n\nAdding both columns together\n\nx - 1 + 10 - x \n\n10 - 1 + x - x\n\n9 + 0\n\n9\n\nI only checked this with single digits, but it seems like it should hold true for higher numbers too, although some modifications may be necessary.\n",
"A proof by induction:\n\nEvery time you add 9 to a number whose digits already add up to a multiple of 9 (say, 9, for example!), then you do one of two things:\n\nIf the number ends in a 0, that 0 changes to a 9, and all other digits stay the same.\n\nOtherwise, the last digit goes down by 1 and the next digit goes up by 1 (because you're effectly adding 10 and subtracting 1), so you haven't changed the total of the digits at all and so the sum remains the same.\n\nIf that next digit is already a 9, it will go \"up\" to 0 and the *next* next digit will go up by 1 instead.\n\nSo every addition either:\n\n1. adds 9 to the last digit, or:\n2. subtracts 1 from the last digit, subtracts 9 from 0 or more middle digits, and adds 1 to the last digit. The add/subtract of 1 cancel each other out, and the subtractions of 9 keep the sum divisible by 9.",
"9 is always about to trigger a carry when anything is added to it in a decimal digit system. After the carry the higher value digit has gone up by one and the same digit has gone down one which sums to 0. The only time it doesn't trigger a carry is from 0 to 9 which still pre.\n\nThe same would happen for 7 in octal and 1 for binary and in general for 1 less the base number of the digit system.",
"It's because the number 9 is exactly 1 less than our base of 10 so that when you add 9 to something you will always end up increasing the second least significant number by 1 and decreasing the least significant number by 1. These two operations cancel out when adding the numbers together (The only exemption is when the least significant number is 0 in which case the new least significant number is 9) Try it with any other base and you'll find that the the same is true for them as well. I.e the number 4 has the same properties in base 5.\n\nIt also works for decimal values since they are just integers with the decimal point moved to another position. So 9000, 90, 0.9, 0.009 etc all have these properties."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tqczh
|
if genders are equal than why are women's live valued over men's lives in disasters?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tqczh/eli5_if_genders_are_equal_than_why_are_womens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8atx7",
"cx8axpe",
"cx8bez7",
"cx8bwy7",
"cx8cp7q",
"cx8dq4d",
"cx8drbv",
"cx8dyrr",
"cx8evzf"
],
"score": [
50,
10,
7,
12,
3,
6,
9,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Its not that they value them more, it comes from an old instinctual code. It's been that way for centuries in almost every culture. What some researchers believe is the idea of progression of the species. Children propagate the species. Women propagate the species. If you have only one man, he can impregnate up to 14 women within a week, but once a woman is pregnant there's no getting more pregnant. So it's better for a man to die for the sake of a woman so that the species can progress.",
"Because of procreation.\n\nIts the same reason hunters aren't allowed to kill females of some species. You only need 1 male per many, many females in order to preserve the species. \n\nAs such us learning to protect our women and children was very favorable by evolution. Putting women and children first preserved humans through years of evolution. Later we turned it into a social thing.",
"Children are the priority and women are their caretakers.\n\nWomen are also less likely to be active terrorists and are more vulnerable than men in these situations. Some of the reasons are cultural, like being seen as property, and some are biological (think brute force).\n\nThe Titanic incident cannot be compared to any refugee situation. Different times, different circumstances. ",
"Because genders are not equal. \n\nNow the Syrian refugees are a bad example. 0% of the refugees coming over the Mediterranean are from Syria or Iraq and barely 20% that come through Turkey are form there... and how many of those are really legitimate? Also, about 90% of all the people coming through from Turkey are men and the remaining 10% split between women and children. \n\nNow lets get to the core of the issue, why are womens' lives valued more than men? \nThis is for a variety of reasons. They cannot fight against men. Take 100 women and 100 men from the random population, and women will lose in any physical competition 100% of the time. Men are more aggressive, more powerful and far more capable of physical violence then women. Because it's men who do the fighting almost all of the time, their lives are expendable. Men and women are not the same ,biology purposed us for somewhat different specifications. Unlike feminist theory, there is no patriarchy that kept women down. Women don't want to go and stride through shit and rain and cold to hunt 100k years ago. Just like they don't want to stride through shit and tunnels and cannals to do the sewage work. Just like they don't want to break their backs and bones doing construction work. Which is why there are so few women in those jobs. Men don't want to have to do those jobs, but they do because they have to. Once we have robots that can do that, believe you me, there will be few men who will be working those jobs, mostly as supervisors and specialized work. \n\nAnyway, biologically, men and women ended up behaving in the ways I described above, men being more outgoing, risk-taking and capable to put themselves in danger or harms way or even be miserable because that's what you needed to keep the species going. Women who would behave in the same way, because they wouldn't have the muscle or the testosterone and the endurance of men, would die out, so such women would no longer propagate their genes. The women who stayed chill, did non-lethal jobs, propagate their genes. The men who survived the danger and took big risks for big rewards, propagated their genes. \n\nHowever today, unless we are at war, the reality is that until we can make perfectly healthy and normal babies in incubators, women are more precious then men because they can reproduce. Now they can't reproduce by themselves, they need a man ,but as someone said, a man can reproduce with a lot more women at one point and impregnate them where as women have a \"down-time\" until they can reproduce again. Granted, that's not great for genetic diversity which is why all societies that became civilized went for monotony... but that's a different point all together. \n\nAnyway, as a man, you don't matter biologically. Nobody cares. The only way people will make them care that you're a man is if you achieve something as a man. Otherwise, you're nothing. Women have intrisic value just for existing, men get value by doing something. Get used to it, stop complaining and stop believing in the fantasy that women and men are the same. We aren't equal or the same, and that's ok. We're different because we're supposed to complement one another, not compete against one another. \n",
"I think that children's lives are valued higher in such situations because they haven't had the chance to live their lives yet, while the older people have had the chance to experience life already.\n\nI think that women's lives are valued higher in such situations because men have a drive to protect women from harm, and are willing to make the ultimate sacrifice to protect women and those too young to have had much life experience. And also because of the idea that men can deal with going down with the ship because they are more hardy in general and, much like in a war, they sacrifice their lives to protect the lives of others.\n\nThere may be some biological/instinctual level to it for continuing the species, but I think most of the reason for it is out of culture and virtue.",
"The same situation can be seen as \"men being expendable\" and \"heroic men making sacrifices for their loved ones.\" In making that sacrifice, men are still seen as the hero, saving the women and children who are helpless. Not saying it's right, just that the perspective can be changed for whatever agenda one is pushing.\n\nIt had always seemed to me that the \"save the women and children\" attitude was because A. women, like children, are seen as weak and can't protect themselves, and therefore are in need of protecting by the men that were in charge of them B. historically, men fight wars and lead governments, so women and children were more likely to be innocent civilians.\n\nUltimately, my life as a woman is worth just as much as the next man, child, whatever, but these are still strong and complicated social narratives and can be interpreted different ways, just like all parts of life.",
"It's not that they're less valuable -- but there is an assumption that men are more able to take care of themselves, more able to survive without help. Survival is valued equally, but the assumption is that women and children are more in need of help in order to survive equally.",
"Semantics. Genders are not equal in the literal sense of the word: for two things to be equal they must have only like qualities, and cannot exhibit differences. To actually and definitively consider genders equal you would have to be unable to differentiate, or purely deny the ability, which is typically as ignorant as segregation.\n\nSocially, and semantically, I believe that people misuse *'equal'* when they mean *'fair'*. To be treated equally, either everyone would receive a chance, or no one would, it is very black or white and is based not on differing circumstances, but on objective facts. Equality says: if you have a freedom, either everyone should have that freedom, or no one should, regardless of if they even want it or not. Equality does not adhere to subjective nature, or circumstance, it is purely an objective deduction of like qualities.\n\nFairness is being allowed to deduce objective information by adhering to differentiating circumstances and understandings. It's the freedom to take any number of understandings (people) and compromise them until there is only one understanding that everyone ultimately can agree with. It's not black or white like equality, because fairness allows us to change facts based on the needs of the immediate circumstance.\n\nTL;DR: words are confusing\n\nedit: spelling\n",
"I think this is mostly emotional manipulation. Some people are concerned about security implications regarding the refugees, which is understandable because no amount of background checking is going to predict who will or won't become violent once arriving in a Western country. When this is the topic, people understandably get a mental image of 20-30 year old single men. Talking about women and children is a way to disrupt that mental image without actually addressing the underlying arguments."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2l43uk
|
How do cold blooded animals like fish live in the Arctic/Antarctic?
|
How do their biological processes continue at sufficient rates?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2l43uk/how_do_cold_blooded_animals_like_fish_live_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clrjs94",
"clsb701"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The method of adaptation varies between species. In the most extreme regions of the poles, marine organisms are known to harbour antifreeze materials/proteins to keep themselves from being frozen over. But apart from a few species of sharks which have gone large to reduce the surface/volume ratio, most cold-blooded animals in the poles do not really have to raise their body temperatures. Many simply have enzymes (and other proteins) that are fairly active at nearly 0'C. (This in turn means they won't survive when the sea temperature rises.) But most of all, a lot of antarctic fish are very, very slow due to the slow biological processes. Some can swim only a couple of metres a minute even when they try.\n\n",
"In biological nature, there are always several solutions to the same problem. As /u/iamaxd already pointed out, some organisms have certain enzymes that can work at low temperatures. I would like to enrich the answer.\n\nFirst, remember that the water on the poles isn't as cold as the surface. This is due to the high salinity levels, which cast down water's freezing point. [Here's](_URL_0_) a graph that shows this, as you can see, **higher concentrations of salt** (the right end of the graph) **require a lower temperature** (the lower end of the graph) to freeze. Also, the ice layer isolates the water from the cold polar winds, maintaining this difference in temperatures.\n\nNext, besides proteins that can work at low temperatures, cell membranes of aquatic polar organisms have a different composition. [Cell membranes](_URL_2_) are fluid structures made of lipids, carbohydrates and proteins. The lipids are mostly phospholipids, which are made of a phosphorous group and a fatty acid. The key is in the fatty acid. Look at [this image](_URL_1_), saturated fatty acids are those with all their free bonds filled with hydrogen, unsaturated fatty acids have double-bonds between carbons, thus this ones contain less hydrogen. Saturated fatty acids have a linear structure and are very easy to pack together, but unsaturated fatty acids are harder to pack together because the double bond changes the structure of the fatty acid, creating an angle.\n\nYou may have heard that fishes are rich in *omega-3, omega-6 and omega-9* oils. This \"omega\" names, are related with the position of the double-bond inside the fatty acid tail. This type of fatty acid is related with the fluidness of the cell membrane (more packed membranes are less fluid and viceversa), the fish have a high concentration of unsaturated fatty acids, like omega-3, 6 and 9. The low temperatures of the poles would freeze your cell membranes because we have a low concentration of unsaturated acids, but polar organisms are adapted to this.\n\n**TL,DR:** besides a certain protein composition, cell membranes of polar organisms have a different lipid cell membrane composition, which is rich in unsaturated fatty acids."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/79/Saltwater_freezing_point.jpg",
"http://www.nutripro.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Saturated-Fatty-Acids.gif",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Cell_membrane_detailed_diagram_en.svg/2000px-Cell_membrane_detailed_diagram_en.svg.png"
]
] |
|
bjdj1x
|
how does nasa prevent asteroids from hitting the earth?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bjdj1x/eli5_how_does_nasa_prevent_asteroids_from_hitting/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em7bj67",
"em7bzaj",
"em7c8fw"
],
"score": [
26,
3,
9
],
"text": [
"They don't. Currently we have no systems to stop something that's big enough to be a threat, and everything else doesn't really matter or can't be spotted in time.",
"Uh. Hate to break it to you but as of right now the answer to that question is above NASA's paygrade",
"It doesn't. No nation or space agency has any ability to deflect asteroids or comets. There are some methods currently being explored, but they're years or decades away from being usable, and they rely on us detecting the asteroid or comet years or decades before impact. The best we can do now is to monitor and track known objects that could pose a collision risk in the future."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1j8k23
|
How difficult is it to damage or kill microorganisms mechanically? If I strike an anvil with a hammer, do I leave a briefly sterile surface behind?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1j8k23/how_difficult_is_it_to_damage_or_kill/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbc71t7",
"cbc7feu",
"cbc8124"
],
"score": [
4,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"You can kill some cells with mechanical forces, but you won't create a sterile field by doing it. \n\nIn tissue culture, you'll lose thousands (##,000) of cells every time you harvest a flask, just from the mechanical stresses of pouring or pipetting the culture media containing the cells. For reference, a 175cm^2 flask can easily contain a single layer of 5-10 million (##,000,000) cells. If you centrifuge this amount down, the pellet formed will be about the size of your fingertip. The few thousand you lose mechanically are negligible.\n\nIf you want to clean a surface, a spray bottle of 70% ethanol is great. If you need to be REALLY sure, some dilute bleach will kill basically anything. :)",
"Simply put, no. Basically surfaces are not smooth enough to physically crush bacteria. In fact, bacteria can actually squeeze themselves into spaces that are only a fraction of their normal width. [Here](_URL_0_) is a video taken at a Harvard lab that was growing *E. coli* under the microscope in time lapse. The bacteria were supposed to grow within the horizontal channels, however, what ended up happening was the bacteria were squeezing out of the channels into a tiny space between he glass coverslip and the solid support. The result was bacterial \"pancakes\" that continued to grow. There is a more detailed explanation in the video description.\n\nThat all said, there are surfaces that are able to mechanically kill bacteria. [Here](_URL_1_) is a link to a recent publication about it. Basically, cicada (insect) wings have nano structures on them that are able to tear bacterial membranes apart simply by contacting them. The link contains a video illustrating this phenomenon.",
"According to the ICAL team at Montana State University you can literally stab bacteria multiple times with an Atomic Force Microscope (AFM) tip and they remain viable. (skip to pg12 \"3.3 Investigation of mechanical properties of living Salmonella\" for the stabby bit)\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jdpB8xF_yOw",
"http://www.nature.com/news/insect-wings-shred-bacteria-to-pieces-1.12533"
],
[
"http://cdn.intechopen.com/pdfs/26471/InTech-Immunoimmobilization_of_living_salmonella_for_fundamental_studies_and_biosensor_applications.pdf"
]
] |
||
301a3x
|
Did the Western Allies in WW2 pre-D-Day ever consider sending troops directly to the Eastern Front? If not, why?
|
I've heard a lot about the huge amount of material support that made its way to the USSR from the USA and Britain through Arkhangelsk, Vladivostok, etc. My question is, with Stalin strongly desiring more direct involvement from the British and Americans in fighting the Germans, why couldn't actual troops be sent as well?
Were they just letting the Soviets "tire themselves out", so to speak?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/301a3x/did_the_western_allies_in_ww2_predday_ever/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpo7693"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You're correct in that Stalin did desire a more direct involvement from the Western Allies prior to the D-Day landings, but the involvement he sought (aside from material support) from the Western Allies wasn't troops to be deployed alongside Soviet forces in the east, but the creation of a second front in Europe against the Germans.\n\nStalin and his emissaries were constantly pushing for the Western Allies to open a second front against the Germans in order to relieve the pressure being placed upon the Soviet Union at the Eastern Front. The landings in North Africa, and later Italy were not as favourably received by Stalin, as he felt these weren't nearly as effective as a front in Western Europe would be in helping to relieve the pressure being placed upon the Soviet Union. Though it is certainly arguable that these actions did help to relieve the pressure facing the Soviets. \n\nThough the idea that the West was attempting to let the Soviets and Germans tire themselves out before opening a second front in Western Europe isn't by any means an unheard of theory or idea, the majority of contemporary histories I've read (as well as primary sources from major Allied Commands) seem to indicate that the Western Allies, mainly the Americans, were attempting to build their forces levels of experience and organization up, as well as chipping away at the mantle of the Nazi Empire, before initiating an invasion of Western Europe VIA a cross channel invasion. \n\nWhile some plans were floated early on in the war (see Operation Sledgehammer) by American planners, the British were very insistent that a cross channel invasion in 1942 was deemed to fail, and that the first steps against fighting Nazi Germany should take place within the Mediterranean theater while both the American and UK Militaries gained enough strength and momentum to conduct the Normandy landings in 1944 with a higher probability of success. \n\nSources:\n\n[*The Guns at Last Light: The War in Western Europe 1944-1945* by Rick Atkinson](_URL_1_)\n\n[*An Army at Dawn : the War in North Africa, 1942-1943* by Rick Atkinson](_URL_0_)\n\n[*Inferno : The World at War, 1939-1945* by Max Hastings](_URL_2_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/army-at-dawn-the-war-in-north-africa-1942-1943/oclc/49383747&referer=brief_results",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/guns-at-last-light-the-war-in-western-europe-1944-1945/oclc/864085868",
"http://www.worldcat.org/title/inferno-the-world-at-war-1939-1945/oclc/707235871&referer=brief_results"
]
] |
|
3aswan
|
when i lay down and stare at my wall sometimes and everything in the room seems to look very far away until i look around again, what's happening?
|
Usually happens at night when I lay down to go to bed and the room is dark, but not very often. It's also sometimes followed by strange changes in senses like everything feeling prickly, like needles. Hope I'm not the only one!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3aswan/eli5_when_i_lay_down_and_stare_at_my_wall/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csfrimc",
"csfysee"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"your not the only one i know what your saying but i lack proper explanation. To me it happens often if i'm either concentrating on a single object or on solely myself and my guess is the shaped focus stops me from focusing on the spatial reasoning of my surroundings and since they aren't right next to me they are just in the distance somewhere. as for the prickling sensation for me its just a focus on the sensory information my body is feeling",
"Yes I think I've experienced a similar thing. Not sure if this is what you're feeling, but when I was younger Id be trying to go to sleep, my eyes closed it would seem like i was focusing in on something only to all of a sudden be zoomed out to some sort of floating external view. It was an extremely uncomfortable sensation for me also with a pins and needlesque feeling all over. It acted like a recurring nightmare except i wasn't asleep. Hasn't happened in years though I suspect it might have something to do with Vertigo? Never found out what caused it.\n\nIt kind of feels like you're spinning out, or falling through your bed, with mutual exclusivity"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1y33er
|
Are mammals also reptiles?
|
In the same way that humans are still apes and birds are still dinosaurs?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1y33er/are_mammals_also_reptiles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfh0se1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The classic perception of a \"reptile\" is neither taxonomically nor evolutionarily valid (ideally these would be the same thing!). Reptiles were basically defined by what they're *not*: they were animals that lay hard-shelled eggs that [aren't mammals or birds](_URL_2_). \n\nThe term \"reptile\" was generally used to classify those cold, scaly animals into a group, but that completely ignores how they're all actually related. Crocs are far more closely related to birds than any other reptile. Non-mammalian [synapsids](_URL_3_) have been referred to as \"mammal-like reptiles\" even though they're more closely related to mammals than other reptiles. If you wanted to include everything classically referred to as a reptile in a monophyletic group, you'd just have a group with [every amniote](_URL_0_). So the group you're defining that includes mammals would be Amniota.\n\nModern taxonomic groups must be made up of a common ancestor and all of that ancestor's descendents (and is referred to as \"monophyletic\"). The division of groups using anything other than monophlyly is arbitrary. It removes the context of evolutionary relationships. \n\nThere has been an effort to [re-cast a monophyletic group as \"Reptilia\"](_URL_1_) that is basically the same as the pre-existing group [Sauropsida](_URL_4_). Both Sauropsida and this definition of Reptilia include all amniotes except those more closely related to mammals. That means mammal-like reptiles are excluded and birds are included. So it turns out that mammals aren't reptiles...but birds are. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amniote",
"http://sysbio.oxfordjournals.org/content/53/5/815.full",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Traditional_Reptilia.jpg",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mammal-like_reptiles",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sauropsida"
]
] |
|
267h6n
|
what would happen if we genetically engineered/modified humans?
|
Would there be a breed of superhumans? Or would it be a total disaster?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/267h6n/eli5_what_would_happen_if_we_genetically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chode9x",
"chodi2y",
"chodv73",
"choe4so",
"choeh39"
],
"score": [
12,
9,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are only ethical reasons for us to get over. It will not be long until we can perfect the technology. But, we will need to test and breed humans to verify the results. \n\nFor some reason, this is considered wrong. (not sarcasm)",
"Gattaca is your answer, OP. Awesome movie where eugenics is the norm and where normal individuals are basically the trash of society.",
"Well, designer babies for a start. \nAnd at the moment we still could only modify an embryo - to eradicate a genetic disease you would have to change the mutant DNA causing that illness in every cell in our bodies. \nInterestingly though, experiments with mice have shown that giving telomerase, an enzyme which protects our DNA and the decline in activity of which is part of the reason why we age, could reverse the aging process and increase our lifespans dramatically..",
"It's happening in medicine just now: _URL_0_",
"I'll wrap you in a sheeeeeeet. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.cfgenetherapy.org.uk/aboutus.html"
],
[]
] |
|
3x63l1
|
How do modern historians judge how accurate ancient histories are?
|
Taking Livy as an example, are historians using Livy as a jumping off point because there are no other primary sources, or is it more a case of looking at archaeological findings and trying to create a narrative independent of Livy?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3x63l1/how_do_modern_historians_judge_how_accurate/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy20vuu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This is a very difficult question to answer, but I will do my best to keep it succinct. There are a few ways in which modern historians test the veracity of their ancient sources:\n\n1. Comparing one source to another. While, as you astutely mentioned, there are not always correspondences between sources. However, if there are, it is always helpful to try and glean as much as possible from whatever sources are available. Although, this can pose a myriad of problems. What to do if it seems that Demosthenes is contradicting Thucydides, for example? \n\nOne will need to determine a few things to try and reach a conclusion:\n\nA. Any biases of the authors\nB. Chronological distance from events\nC. The ancient historians' own sources\n\nThese are just three of many helpful paths to determine which author is speaking the truth.\n\n2. What to do if you want to verify Livy, but there are not corresponding sources? Now, this gets a bit tricky.\n\n1. As you said, archaeology can be helpful for us here. If Livy tells us that town X was destroyed by the Romans on Y date, we can attempt to locate the ancient site and search for ruins. This is a useful way of corroborating ancient sources.\n\n2. Another very important method is using inscriptions. This is a whole sub-discipline unto itself called epigraphy. We find hundreds if not thousands of new inscriptions from the Romans world every year. Now, the vast majority of them are banal, but some are quite fascinating. Some may even come to corroborate or invalidate an ancient historians' claim.\n\n3. You may not like this answer, but sometimes a modern historian must use his gut. Unfortunately, a paucity of sources means we have to rely on our scholarly intuition and good judgment. Some scholars tend to be rather pessimistic about the ancient historians, while others tend towards the optimistic. I have yet to really formulate my own thoughts on he topic, but I will leave you with a piece of advice that one of the greatest Roman historians of our generation once told me: \"We, historians of the ancient world, have so few sources, but many of us spend most of our time trying to explain them away.\" \n\nP.S. this is not meant to be an exhaustive account of every way modern historians try to prove the veracity of their sources, but rather a concise recounting of some of the more prominent methods. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
eh77lx
|
What's the history of American Sign Language? How did come about and how was it standardised?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/eh77lx/whats_the_history_of_american_sign_language_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fcw283s"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"There are a lot of misconceptions about sign language in general. Let's clear some of the big ones up before we jump in.\n\n* Sign language is different all over the world. While there are families and relationships between sign languages, pretty much every country has its own sign language, and some have more than one. Just like spoken languages, signed languages have regionalisms and dialects.\n* Signed languages are natural languages. Nobody invented any one sign language, they all developed naturally, the same way spoken languages do, and for the same reasons.\n\nNow, about the history of American Sign Language.\n\nThe first permanent school for deaf children in the United States was opened in 1817 in Connecticut. Its first teacher was Laurent Clerc, a deaf man from France, whose native language was French Sign Language (known as LSF). The school started with seven students, and Clerc taught in a combination of gesture and LSF, along with written English.^[1](_URL_2_)\n\nWe might all be using LSF today, except that when Clerc came to Connecticut, there were already multiple regional sign languages in use. The best known of these is Martha's Vineyard Sign Language, which was used in the 17th-19th centuries while there was a high population of hereditary deafness on the island.^[2](_URL_0_) Because transportation was fairly limited during the 17th and 18th centuries, most people on Martha's Vineyard stayed there for most of their lives; the high rates of intermarriage perpetuated the high deaf population for decades. As transportation improved, though, deaf students from MV began attending the school in Connecticut, bringing their own sign language and intermingling it with the LSF already in use there. (For more on Martha's Vineyard, see *Everyone Here Spoke Sign Language* by Nora Groce.)\n\nAdditional linguistic contributions came from Maine, as Sandy River Valley Sign Language was used there and brought to Connecticut, and from Henniker Sign Language, used in New Hampshire. Even students who had not been in a signing community previously contributed to the linguistic makeup of ASL, as they used \"home signs\" at school. No one language could be said to be dominant in these early years of the language; students used whatever signs they knew, and as long as they could make themselves understood, they retained those signs. If another student had a more clear sign to represent a concept, the student would adopt that sign. (See Susan Goldin-Meadow, *The Resilience of Language*.)\n\nEventually, all this language sharing grew into American Sign Language. Although Clerc originally used LSF, along with his students, he transitioned to ASL as it developed. Some of his early students were adults themselves, and they took the new language with them as they became teachers at schools across the country. Clerc also traveled across the United States, and his teachings became the foundation for over 20 schools during the 19th century.^[3](_URL_1_)\n\nToday, ASL and LSF have only about 50% lexical similarity. As ASL has evolved, so has LSF. Bonnal-Vergès (2006) notes that LSF today is more complex than it was around the time of Clerc. Although I have seen videos of ASL from the 1910s and I can understand them just fine, I have not seen historical videos of LSF to determine when the divergence became significant.\n\nA final note: while I have heard that Native American signed languages may also have had influence on the early years of ASL, I have no citation for this. It does not seem to be referenced in Jeffrey Davis's *Hand Talk: Sign Language Among American Indian Nations* which is one of the chief references on Native American signed languages. I have not read enough of Melanie McKay-Cody's work to know if it is mentioned there, but I cannot speak authoritatively on the subject as I am not well versed enough in Native American signed languages."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.theatlantic.com/health/archive/2015/09/marthas-vineyard-sign-language-asl/407191/",
"https://web.archive.org/web/20080528181023/http://library.gallaudet.edu/pdf/Retirement.pdf",
"https://www3.gallaudet.edu/clerc-center/info-to-go/deaf-education/200-years-of-deaf-education.html"
]
] |
||
1489b3
|
why does electricity appear blue?
|
Or, at least it looks blue to me. Why would it have any color? Isn't it just a stream of electrons?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1489b3/why_does_electricity_appear_blue/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7aqa87",
"c7aqcae",
"c7aqe0e",
"c7aqf82",
"c7aunba",
"c7ay5wa"
],
"score": [
8,
113,
21,
3,
12,
4
],
"text": [
"As the electricity arcs through the air it heats up the air molecules. As the air heats up it starts glowing. The particular color it glows in this instance is blue.",
"It's actually excited molecules in the air. It's the color of excited nitrogen and oxygen. The wikipedia article is called [Ionized-air Glow](_URL_0_)",
"Because you're not seeing electricity, you're seeing the plasma that is created by the breakdown of the air across what is known as an [Electric arc](_URL_0_). The hotter something is, the more blue-white it is, and the cooler it is, the more red-orange it is. \n\nIf you have enough energy moving through a small enough area with enough gas (air is used a lot), you can form a plasma arc that can burn through steel plates. I use a machine that does exactly this. It sort of scares me a little =D\n\n",
"Wow, I never thought about it that way. Thanks for the responses everyone. ",
" > Isn't it just a stream of electrons?\n\nTechnically, you never see atoms; you see EM waves bouncing off their electron shells. Everything you've ever seen is electrons.",
"What you see is radiation caused by the ionization of molecules.\n\nThat means that electricity isn't always \"blue\". It can be a lot of colors. However, in the atmosphere we are breathing the ionized molecules emit blue light.\n\nWhy that is: Imagine electricity to be tiny transparent balls. And air is composed of little people who all hold tiny balls, too, but their balls have all kinds of different colors. But the air-people don't like to share and hide those balls from you out of sight and you need a lot of power to pry it out of their hands.\n\nNow, however, when you throw your tiny electricity-balls directly at them hard enough you can get those guys to let go of their colored balls. And what you see is exactly the color of the balls you have kicked out of their hands.\n\nAnd depending where you are the people have different colors for their balls. In our atmosphere there are the Oxygen and Nitrogen people. They have blue-colored ones. \n\nIf you would go to the [Sodium-Vapor](_URL_1_) people then that color would be yellow.\n\nIf you would go to the [Mercury-Vapor](_URL_0_) people then that color would be turquoise.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ionized-air_glow"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electric_arc"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mercury-vapor_lamp",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium-vapor_lamp"
]
] |
|
3z2afz
|
Why did Turkey not take all of Cyprus?
|
Compared to Cyprus, Turkey is FAR stronger and it can easily spam reinforcements to the island. Despite this, the Turks only managed to occupy a third of the Island (North Cyprus), why is this? Did they not want to advance further? Was there too much international pressure? Was the Turkish advance too costly in terms of lives?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3z2afz/why_did_turkey_not_take_all_of_cyprus/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyio4a0"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Here is a past post on the topic:\n\n* [*Why did Turkey invade Cyprus?*](_URL_0_) \n^(24 Apr 2014 | 3 comments) \n^(/u/tayaravaknin gives a few reasons for Turkey taking only 1/3 of Cyprus, with a longer comment further up providing an overview of the broader Turkish invasion of Cyprus.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23vzsb/why_did_turkey_invade_cyprus/ch1ls95"
]
] |
|
1xhu8s
|
why are there so many white men/asian women couples?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xhu8s/eli5_why_are_there_so_many_white_menasian_women/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfbgxs4"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Pairings between Asian women and Caucasian men are twice as common as matches between Caucasian women and Asian men, a gap that has often been attributed to the hypersexualization of Asian women and the emasculation of Asian men in US pop culture. The nuances and repercussions of that discussion extend farther than the way in which Caucasians view Asians, with many Asian Americans citing those same stereotypes as having shaped their own sexual preferences and the confidence in which they pursue or don't pursue partners of other races.\n\n--ChinaNews Daily\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://usa.chinadaily.com.cn/us/2013-06/29/content_16685433.htm"
]
] |
||
3q1oaz
|
Is a cat's field of view the same as ours, or is it more ovular as opposed to circular because of their pupils?
|
Cats pupil shape is very different from ours. I was wondering if that made things look different to them as opposed to us. Related question, is our FOV circular? It is actually really hard to tell what mine is haha.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3q1oaz/is_a_cats_field_of_view_the_same_as_ours_or_is_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cwbblds",
"cwbilm1",
"cwbzkxs"
],
"score": [
2304,
10,
6
],
"text": [
"There are important differences between the vision of cats and humans, however these are not due to the field of vision, which is fairly similar for us and cats, extending out to 180^(o) and 200^(o) respectively. Instead, the shape has more to do with how blurry objects look when you move out of focus either vertically or horizontally. These differences are actually quite important, which is why mammals have there different types of pupils: circular [(as in humans)](_URL_4_), horizontally elongated [(as for sheep)](_URL_3_) or vertically elongated [(as for cats)](_URL_1_). What is interesting, is that the shape of the pupil appears to be closely linked to the biological role of the species in question (e.g. prey vs predator), as studied [in this recent paper](_URL_2_). \n\nIt turns out that predators often have vertically elongated slits, while species that tend to end up as prey (e.g. sheep) usually have horizontally elongated slits. The reason for this difference is that each shape has certain advantages, which suit certain species better than others. One key advantage of a horizontal pupil is that it allows the eye to collect more light in a direction parallel to the ground. As a result, it becomes easier to make out horizontal contours (outlines) and to maintain a panoramic view in a horizontal plane. I think it's easy to see how the ability to easily scan the surrounding horizontal region is useful for animals for whom the biggest threat is becoming a snack for a predator sneaking up on them.\n\nIn contrast, for predators a vertically elongated pupil presents more advantages. First of all, the elongated shape makes it easier to dramatically vary the total area of the pupil (by a factor of 100 in cats), which makes it possible both to see (and hunt) during they day, but also to then open up the pupil during the night and have dramatically improved night vision. Secondly, a vertical slit allows for better depth perception along a vertical axis based on out-of-focus blurring. To get a sense for what this means, take a look [at this picture](_URL_0_) taken using a camera with a vertical slit. Notice how the picture becomes blurrier faster as you move up and down then when you look laterally. These visual cues aid depth perception, which allows ambush predators to more accurately assess the distance to the prey they are stalking. ",
"In a lens system, apertures are placed close to the nodal point so they don't vignette. If you want to shape the visual field, the aperture must be moved further in front or behind of the point where all the rays cross. Humans and cats have their irises deep enough that they have little effect on the shape of the visual field. \n\n",
"[The 'Sight' section of the Wikipedia article on cat senses gives a quick answer answer your question about the field of view.](_URL_2_) Cats have a 200° field of view, which is slightly wider than a humans 180° field of view, but they have less binocular coverage, which means more of what they see is only visible with one eye.\n\nThe field of view isn't related to the shape of the pupil, but the shape of the cornea and lens. The pupil is an aperture, which primarily effects the [depth of field](_URL_0_) and the amount of light exposed to the retina. As a pupil closes it lets in less light, making it easier to see in sun light, but much more difficult at night, and decreases the [circle of cofusion](_URL_4_), which is the area that an out-of-focus point is spread across, making out of focus objects less blurry. As the pupil opens, the opposite happens: it is easier to see at night and more difficult in sunlight, and out of focus objects are less clear. The Moken people in Thailand teach their children to make their pupils as small as they can while swimming, [to reduce the blur while swimming under water](_URL_3_). Cats also purposefully control the size of their pupils, [expending them when striking](_URL_1_), limiting their focus to a small plane, but letting much more light onto their retina.\n\nThe circle of confusion any aperture creates, including the pupil itself, is shaped like the aperture, so the shape of bright, but out of focus, points of light would be the most visible difference between the image a house cat views and the image a human views. [You can create images with a custom shaped circle of confusion, by cutting an aperture into a mask and placing it over any lens with a large, completely open aperture.] Doing this with a cat pupil shaped slit would give you a cat's point of view."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/xtFz0Lo.png",
"http://orig07.deviantart.net/d9e2/f/2007/045/a/2/1500_px_cat_eye_by_hoschie_stock.jpg",
"http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/7/e1500391",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/d7/Eye_Coburger_Fuchsschaf.jpg",
"http://www.humintell.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/her_light_blue_eye-t2.jpg"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depth_of_field",
"https://youtu.be/t5h292U_nZM",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cat_senses#Sight",
"http://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/67377639715",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circle_of_confusion"
]
] |
|
1obnfr
|
How do trees know when to shed their leaves in the fall, and begin re growing them in the spring? How does this process work?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1obnfr/how_do_trees_know_when_to_shed_their_leaves_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccqlg7d",
"ccqvz99"
],
"score": [
6,
4
],
"text": [
"The trees or any plants that lose leaves or petals are categorized as deciduous. \nPlants are living organisms, and like humans they have hormones, which in plants are referred to as, phytohormones. Hormones are technically chemical messengers, they transfer signals from one cell to another. Those signals have to do with development of the organisms, such as formation of the roots, stems, leaves, and fruits on a plant; and that is a very general idea of what hormones are for.\n\nAuxins are type hormones that regulate growth in plants (they are not the sole type of hormones responsible for the growth). During fall the leaves start to produce less auxins and abscission layer forms between the petiole and stem, causing the leaf to fall. So, basically, the high production of auxins keep the leaf attached to the stem.\n\nTrees do keep a track of time. When the night time gets longer during fall the trees know that it is time to start dropping the leaves, even if the weather is still warm. When the spring comes the nights get shorter and so the trees start to bloom. Some other plants \"keep track\" of cold days and blooms when it gets warmer. \n\nSo basically blame the growth hormones and their activity for leaf abscission and formation. ",
"I feel like the other answer missed the point. The question is not how do the leaves fall off, but how do the trees know when to tell the leaves to fall off.\n\nI must confess that my knowledge of plant biology is limited, but what I do know is that there are pigments called phytochrome and cryptochrome that detect light. Specifically, when phytochrome is in its ground state (Pr) (think of this as its default or \"off\" state), it preferentially absorbs red light. When it absorbs red photon(s), it undergoes a rapid conformational change and now preferentially absorbs far-red (i.e. infrared) light (this state is known as Pfr), so you get the reaction Pr- > Pfr. Pfr appears to have some sort of regulatory role, perhaps as a signaling molecule, and it modulates gene expression. I'm not familiar with cryptochrome, but I assume it something similar.\n\nFor most flowering plants, the critical factor is not the amount of daylight, but the length of night that they are exposed to. Therefore, as the length of night increases in fall, there is less Pfr produced in a day, so overall gene expression is different than when the nights are short. This altered gene expression leads to the series of events that cause the leaves to shed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3cp3d2
|
Why did food become rarer and more expensive during world war 1 in Britain?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3cp3d2/why_did_food_become_rarer_and_more_expensive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csxn5fz"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"One major reason was that the German navy began to operate a campaign against shipping to Britain. This used both surface raiders, including converted merchant ships, and submarines. Cruisers operated in 1914, mainly in the Indian Ocean and Pacific. Three converted merchant ships, the *Mowe*, *Seeadler* and *Wolf*, operated in 1915-1917. Destroyers made several raids against Allied shipping off Holland and Belgium, including a raid on the straits of Dover. \n\nSubmarines operated against shipping from 1914, with the first British ship, the SS Giltra, being sunk on the 20th October. For the most part, these followed the restrictive Prize Rules, which required the submarine to warn its target, and to place the crew in a position of safety. Despite this, they were incredibly successful - the RN had very few workable countermeasures. By the end of 1915, 1.1 million tons of merchant shipping had been sunk, mainly by U-boats. There was a bit of a lull in submarine activity throughout 1916, as they were operating in support of the German fleet in the North Sea. Even then, 1.2 million tons of merchant shipping were sunk in 1916. They came back with a vengeance in 1917, aided by the decision to move to unrestricted submarine warfare, where submarines were not governed by Prize Rules. In April 1917 alone, just over half a million tons of shipping were sunk. While the introduction of the convoy system in May 1917 did cut down on the number of sinkings, the number of U-boats committed, and the difficulty of sinking them, meant that sinkings were still in the region of 200,000 tons/month through to the end of the war. By the end of the war, a total of 2,479 ships, with a g.r.t. of 7.8 million tons, had been sunk. The German campaign also engaged the British fishing fleet, with 675 fishing vessels being sunk over the course of the war.\n\nAs Britain could not produce enough to feed its whole population, it needed to import foodstuffs. As the UK is an island nation, this has to be shipped in from elsewhere. When the Merchant Navy has taken such heavy losses, the amount of food entering the country sees a commensurate reduction. This makes food rarer, and more expensive. This is also seen in the Second World War, where the Germans attempted a similar submarine blockade of the British Isles.\n\nSource:\n\n*History of the Great War - The Merchant Navy*, Archibald Hurd, John Murray, 1924"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2wit3z
|
What consumes more energy in the long run: A water heater set to very hot, or one set to a lower temperature?
|
This is an ongoing playful argument my dad and I have. I've threatened to put a amp-meter on the water heater to settle things once and for all.
Say you like your showers a certain temperature. To reach that perfect temperature, you have to mix in a certain amount of cold water at the shower faucet. If your water heater is set very hot, it takes more cold water, and you therefore use less heated water water from the water heater.
I argue that a very hot water heater allows you to use less hot water, and the heater ultimately has less water to heat, saving money. It takes a lot less energy to heat the water in the tank back to its target temperature if you have only depleted a third or half of the water in the tank.
My dad argues that even though my way requires the heater to heat less water, it doesn't mater. He thinks running the water heater a little cooler ultimately saves money, because it takes less energy to keep the tank at the target temperature during idle times, even if it has to heat more water.
I can see both arguments. Yes, it takes more energy to keep a hotter water tank, but the things are so well insulated, i think it would be a negligible amount.
So what is it? What uses less energy? Having to heat MORE water to a LESS HOT target temperature, or heating LESS water by keeping a HOTTER tank? I realize this is a huge oversimplification and does not take in to account other appliances that pull hot water like washing machines and dishwashers, but I'd assume modern dishwashers and washing machines have temperature sensors and mix cold water in too, just like you would at the shower faucet. So, for the purposes of this argument, let's assume all appliances in the house are modern, and the water heater is well-insulated and efficient.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2wit3z/what_consumes_more_energy_in_the_long_run_a_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cortcr5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"My opinion (unfounded) would be that keeping the water heater itself hotter requires more energy, it would use less energy if it is kept cooler. \n\nI'm thinking of it this way:\n\nRunning your air conditioner 24/7 at 60 degrees is more expensive than running it 24/7 at 75 degrees, proven every year in California. \n\nEven with all that insulation, energy loss is inevitable. Even the best insulation will lose heat -- your coffee cup in the thermo5000 mug with three levels of solid foam insulation will still cool in 6 hours, max.\n\nEdited. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
484bul
|
Do high O2 generating genetically modified (or not) trees exist?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/484bul/do_high_o2_generating_genetically_modified_or_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0i0w8z"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Sort of. When you ask this question what you're really asking is can we increase the *rate* of photosynthesis. The answer is yes. There are transgenic tobacco plants that have had their productivity increased in such a way. Most research it seems currently is focused on modifying trees to sequester more carbon in root systems and such instead, though. The process in engineering plants for increased photosynthesis is currently focused on replacing the plant's RuBisCO gene with 2 gene homologs found in cyanobacteria. These homologs are more efficient at fixing the carbon, and as such increases the rate of photosynthesis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
6zfu21
|
what will happen many years down the road when inflation makes it so that buying small things like a pack of gum requires ridiculously high amounts of money?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6zfu21/eli5_what_will_happen_many_years_down_the_road/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmuvneq",
"dmuvq02",
"dmuvq0q",
"dmuw357"
],
"score": [
7,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"First, we'll stop using cents. The dollar will be the smallest unit of currency. Then later on, we'll just re-denominate when things get ridiculous (\"one New Dollar is worth 10/100/1000 Old Dollars\")",
"The world will continue on like it always has, no big deal. If you mean what will happen to coins, some will be dropped. Might seem odd but many countries have dropped their penny and some their nickel.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"The mere fact that prices increase at a modest rate year over year is relatively unimportant if incomes keep pace (which they more than have).\n\nWhether I make $1 an hour and a product costs 5 cents or I make $20 an hour and a product costs $1 doesn't really matter.",
"Two things.\n\nFirst, the problem with Zimbabwe or Weimar Germany wasn't just that it required a huge nominal quantity of currency to buy anything, but that this inflation happened *very, very quickly*. Who cares if it costs $1 trillion to buy a gallon of milk if it only costs $995 billion the year before? It's when it costs $1 trillion today and only $1 billion last year that you have problems. \"Normal\" inflation and *hyper*-inflation are very different in terms of their economic effects.\n\nSecond, turning specifically to the question of what the result would be of abysmally-low real-world values for units of currency after a very expended period of *normal* inflation. . . . I'm not sure anybody knows. Hasn't really happened yet. Or, to the extent that it has, the answer is \"Basically nothing.\" After all, something that cost $0.25 in 1913 would probably cost more than $6.00 today. That's a twenty-four-fold increase over a little more than a century. Which is about the difference between the $4-5 for which one can buy a gallon of milk today and the $100 you've suggested as an unreasonably-high nominal price. So if it takes another century for inflation to get there, I'm not sure anyone will care overly much.\n\nThe question is whether it's realistic to think there will be no major discontinuities--historical or economic--over the next century that would make such a comparison impossible. That's what happens to currencies most of the time. The British have been using currency called \"pounds\" for centuries, but there have been several major changes over time such that a \"pound\" today really isn't the same thing as a \"pound\" in AD 1700. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.google.ca/amp/gizmodo.com/the-u-s-killed-the-half-penny-when-it-was-worth-what-a-1639266183/amp"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1opyz9
|
did people in history "know" what year they were in?
|
For example, did people in 450 AD know that they were in the year 450 AD? When did the current standard year system start?
Obvious items to note -
-I understand that people before Christ (BC) couldnt have know what year they were in.
-Each civilization had their own calendar so not all of them know the present calendar that is utilized.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1opyz9/eli5_did_people_in_history_know_what_year_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccudruc",
"ccudxus",
"ccue0o7",
"ccufdns"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, people knew what year they were in. They just called it something else. \n\nFor example, the Hebrew calendar is currently on 5774. ",
"The Julian calendar was introduced by it's namesake, Julius Caesar, in 46AD. \nThe calendar had 12 months and added one day to February every four years, making the average year 365.25 days. Now, the tropical year is a few minutes shorter than that, meaning that the calendar gained a few days every four centuries. \n\nThis was all fixed when the current Gregorian calendar was put into place in 1582. \n\nWe tend to think of people back then like us, which in many cases is correct in regards to attitude and behavioral nature, but not with \"history\". People back then were *very* poorly read if they knew how to read at all, which was rare, but even then, they didn't have a concept of history in the same sense we do. \n\nThere was no available catalogue of historical occurrences and timelines other than what was passed through word-of-mouth proberbs, traditions and and common storytelling. \n\nThey knew whatever time they were in compared to whatever calendar they followed at the time, but people had no context to know exactly what time they were in in the sense that we do. \n\n",
"The gregorian calendar (where BC/AD comes from) didn't exist until 1582, so for your specific example the answer is no. More generally it was different for different people. Some had calendars based on some major historic event (real or mythical), such as the founding of the empire, or the \"beginning of the world\". Others used a relative year system, such as \"the 12th year of the reign of King Robert\" or \"The 6th year since the Great Plague\".",
"People in AD 450 did not call it 450. At that time the Julian calendar was being used in some of those parts of the world that had been part of the Roman Empire. This calendar had almost the same years and months as we have now but the years were counted from the other prominent events.\n\nIn AD 530 years were being counted from the start of the reign of the emperor Diocletian, in what we now call AD 284. A monk named Dionysius Exiguus proposed that years should instead be counted from the birth of Christ, which he worked out to have been 530 years ago (although it is generally agreed now that he got it wrong by a few years). This system spread through Europe and most of the world over the next few centuries, in fact the process is ongoing as some countries and organisations officially use other dates. Various adjustments were also made over the years and will continue to be made.\n\nThere is a lot more that could be said on this wide subject, you could start [here](_URL_0_), in particular part 6 and 8."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.obliquity.com/calendar/index.html"
]
] |
|
3ixohy
|
p and s waves in earthquakes
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ixohy/eli5_p_and_s_waves_in_earthquakes/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuklpfx"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think, this is best explained with an [image](_URL_0_). In that image, the blue arrow indicates the direction in which the wave is travelling.\n\nBut to put it in words: \nP waves shake the ground on the axis on which they travel. So, if the P wave is moving north, then the ground is shaking to the North and South. \n\nS waves instead shake the ground in a right angle to the direction in which they are going. So, if the S wave is moving north, then the ground is shaking to the East and West."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://alabamaquake.com/Images/PS%20Wave%20Picture.jpg"
]
] |
|
1lqclg
|
What percentage of our total body volume is given over to the circulatory system?
|
Given that every cell needs access to oxygen and nutrients via the circulatory system, how much of us is blood vessels, plasma and blood? are interstitial spaces counted as a part of that as well?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lqclg/what_percentage_of_our_total_body_volume_is_given/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc1znu5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"circulatory system includes the heart.\n\nThis question is more suited for asksciencediscussion as the answer depends on multiple factors. The volume of blood in adults will be like ~ 5 litres."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
enlck7
|
how do cpap machines work? how exactly do they benefit you to get more sleep at night?
|
Continuous positive airway pressure is what the acronym means. How do all the components work together to produce more sleep for the user?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/enlck7/eli5_how_do_cpap_machines_work_how_exactly_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fe0yhu7"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"When you sleep, the muscles that keep your airway open relaxes, sometimes causing your airway to collapse. The machine has a sensor in it. The sensor monitors airflow when you exhale. If it's too low, it indicates some sort of blockage (such as your airway collapsing). The CPAP machine will then force air into your airway, essentially like blowing up a balloon, with the intent to prevent your brain from jolting you awake to restore 'normal' breathing. I recently did a sleep study as a precautionary measure, and thankfully I don't need a CPAP machine myself."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4qh57h
|
What happened to bullets used by planes in dogfights in WWI/II? Are there any instances of falling bullets killing someone on the ground?
|
I don't know if my question makes sense. But basically, planes shot bullets at each other. A lot of them probably missed. Gravity brings those bullets to the ground... was there any damage/casualties from these falling bullets?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4qh57h/what_happened_to_bullets_used_by_planes_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4teo5w"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Not to discourage further discussion, but this has been answered before [here](_URL_0_) by /u/The_Alaskan and [many](_URL_1_) other times on this subreddit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1e85yv/during_the_air_battles_over_western_europe_in/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/211nhd/i_imagine_dogfighting_between_two_planes_would/cg8uz5k"
]
] |
|
2sh87h
|
what is the difference between nitrites and nitrates in the nitrogen cycle?
|
I want to understand how these keep my fish tank healthy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2sh87h/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_nitrites_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnpgkn3"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"fish breathe out and poo out ammonia NH3. NH3 in concentration prevents the fish gills from exchanging O2 and CO2. \n\nthere's a bacteria that's literally EVERYWHERE that eats NH3 and expels out nitrites NO2. NO2 is slightly less dangerous to fish but still isn't healthy in concentration.\n\nthere's another bacteria that's also everywhere that eats NO2 and expels out NO3. NO3 is basically harmless to fish except in extreme concentrations. Plants uptake NO3 as main source of natural fertilizer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3z11sj
|
why a lot of americans become so passionate/aggressive about whether they are democrats or republicans.
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3z11sj/eli5_why_a_lot_of_americans_become_so/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyid713",
"cyieqhh"
],
"score": [
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Europe has a long tradition of classism, and the general idea that the government was a bunch of out of touch fuckwits, you're never gonna be one, you're not gonna be rich unless your born rich, and there are the \"nobles\" that run the country, and the commoners, etc. America was founded on the distinct opposite of that entire idea. Regardless, most Americans at the very least feel the same way, or feel precisely that way about the other party they disagree with. ",
"Lots of people in America are like that too. There's a reason that even our biggest elections have voter turnouts of about 50%. \n\nThat said, especially at the national level, the two major political parties offer very different packages. While you do have a lot of people who are roughly in the middle, who pick and choose what they like about each party, a lot of people are also solidly in one camp or the other. If you're a diehard Republican/Democrat, then you're almost certainly going to be morally opposed to the policies of the other party. \n\nAnd of course, the more crazy you are, the louder you tend to be, which means you get more coverage. The people who don't care about politics much at all (which is honestly more than half the country) obviously don't say all that much on the subject, so the only people talking at all are the ones who are really passionate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
11gvgf
|
the difference between american and canadian football?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11gvgf/the_difference_between_american_and_canadian/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6md3o8",
"c6md5pb"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Their respective wikipedia articles are great.\n\nBiggest 3 I can think of?\n- 3 downs in CN, 4 in US\n- 110 yd fields\n- 12 man teams",
"I am assuming you know the basic rules to Football. There are a few main differences between the two. \n\n1. In Canadian football you are only allowed 3 downs to get the ball 10 yards, in American football you are allowed 4\n\n2. The size of the Canadian Football field is 10 yards longer and wider than an american field\n\n3. The Canadian football is much bigger than the american one\n\n4. In Canadian football there is 12 men on the field at one time where as american's generally use 11\n\nEdit look at [this] (_URL_0_) for more information"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_American_and_Canadian_football#Differences"
]
] |
||
7fj7ci
|
why do humans have temperature sensors in our stomach?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7fj7ci/eli5_why_do_humans_have_temperature_sensors_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqc94o9"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Human beings sense the temperature of food with their mouths, not with their stomachs. If you have a sensation of heat in your stomach, what you are sensing is acidity, not temperature. Excess stomach acidity causes a burning sensation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2a2dus
|
Can we use radar to detect asteroids?
|
With the increasing interest in detecting near earth objects, would it be possible to detect them by using ground-based or even space-based radar. I keep hearing how hard it is to detect them with telescopes and it just seems like with the radar technology we have today that it would be much easier to scan the skies with radar instead of optical telescopes.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2a2dus/can_we_use_radar_to_detect_asteroids/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cir4abc",
"circ931"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Radar wouldn't be much use in space, it will spread out and be very weak when it comes back since you are talking about such extreme distances. A standard USN radar array is the [AN/SPS-49](_URL_1_), its got a range of about 500km and an average power draw of 13 kW. Lets say you get 10x the range out of it since you are in space and don't have the signal getting absorbed, that still only gives you 5,000 km, so you can pick up stuff about 1/50th the way to the moon, not great...\n\nPowering it in space would also be very difficult, it needs 13 kW for itself, the ISS only generates 84 kW of power so that would be a significant burden on it, and it would take you years to do even a single sweep of the sky.\n\nNear Earth Objects are a significant threat, and large ones do hit on a fairly regular basis, there were 26 impacts greater than 1 kT between 2000 and 2013, [here](_URL_2_) is a nice little video showing where they all occurred and how we know about them.\n\nJPL has a page about how NASA currently hunts for NEOs, they do it by comparing pictures of the same section of sky and seeing what points of light moved, stars are stationary(relatively) asteroids are not. You can find more information [here](_URL_0_)",
"Radio waves are used to image asteroids. It is actually pretty interesting when you look at the techniques. Even Venus and Mercury have been radar imaged from Earth (using the Arecibo observatory):\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://neo.jpl.nasa.gov/programs/intro.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AN/SPS-49",
"http://www.space.com/25590-asteroid-impacts-earth-day-b612-video.html"
],
[
"http://www.naic.edu/~pradar/radarpage.html"
]
] |
|
13v9m4
|
the advantages and disadvantages of wep, wpa and wpa2
|
Advantages and disadvantages for all three.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13v9m4/eli5_the_advantages_and_disadvantages_of_wep_wpa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c77gym2",
"c77i8x0",
"c77vhnq"
],
"score": [
22,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basicly these are the locks you put on your wifi (wireless internet/network)\nWEP is the oldest lock, this has the advantage that everything knows how to make a key for it (if you know the password). In other words every computer or device that can use WIFI should be able to use WEP. The disadvantage is that its not as secure. Its an old lock an can be more easely broken.\n\nWPA2 is the new secure lock. Not everybody knows how to make a key for it but most do. (In other words any computer that isn't too old should be able to connect to this. The only device I've seen so fat that couldn't was a nintendo DS, the first one. anything older should be fine and older will probably be too) It is generaly accepted that the lock is unbreakable (within a reasonable timespan of more than a couple of years) by brute force. (trying all posibilities)\n\ntl;dr Get WPA2, its more secure and you shouldn't have any compatebility problems. Even if you do you can revert back to WEP but WEP is way easier to hack\n\nSource: I studied IT and now work in IT",
"Do not ever use wep encryption on your home network. It can be easily hacked in about 5 minutes by capturing packets coming across your network, or by generating them. If your running wep and someone wants on your network, they'll get on. \n\nHowever with wpa/wpa2 if someone manages to get on your network, you should give them a high five and letem use it. Wpa/2 is alot harder to crack, and involves alot more hoops that need to jumped through in order to make the crack work. Often times its not worth the trouble to an average hacker to crack wpa unless they really don't like you or really want in. \n\n",
"The only disadvantage I can think of is my DS doesn't connect to WPA or WPA2 :/ First world problems"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3ux4mh
|
how can certain breeds of animal have an inherent behavioural trait?
|
For example, how can all Labradors have similar behavioural traits? I understand that physical traits can be selected for, but how can behaviour traits be selected for? Can the same logic be applied for humans?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ux4mh/eli5_how_can_certain_breeds_of_animal_have_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxii8q9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"People tended to select dogs for breeding based on both physical and behavioral traits. A pit bull's perfectly powerful musculature isn't much use if it can't be taught to attack. (I think the way I phrased that should avoid the nature vs. nurture pit bull debate.) An overly aggressive dachshund won't be able to defend itself if it's always getting into fights and probably won't live very long.\n\nThere's a hypothesis that this has already happened in humans and is the reason behind civilization and society. Humans with anti-social traits are less likely to be attractive mates and are generally (but obviously not always) selected out of the gene pool. Those who could cooperate with their neighbors had a better chance of survival, and therefore a better chance at reproductive success."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7si52e
|
What was the money collected by the Tea tax that sparked the Boston Tea Party supposed to be spent for?
|
I've read that in one way the tax was just there to show the colonists that Parliament could do what they pleased. But there must have been some earmark, as it were, for spending what was collected. At one time I found that the revenue was to pay benefits to retired military personnel who had served protecting the colonists, but I've never been able to confirm this.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7si52e/what_was_the_money_collected_by_the_tea_tax_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dt50pxm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The British Empire ran into a ton of debt after the Seven Years' War (about 130 million pounds, which was the most any country has ever been in debt for up to that time in history) and one of the ways to pay back some of the debt, the Parliament decided, was by fully enforcing taxes the Americans were allowed to not pay during the time of Salutary Neglect and by establishing new taxes as well.\n\nI've written about the strain that these new taxes created between the American colonists and the British Parliament before, [so I'll just leave the link here](_URL_1_) or read a more detailed description in the source I've left below.\n\nWhat's really interesting about the Tea Tax is that it was meant to be a compromise at first. The Townshend duties were established by the British Parliament in 1767, taxing the American colonies on several goods like paper, lead, glass, and tea. By 1770 these were so unpopular in the colonies that all of them had been repealed, except for the tax on tea. That compromise calmed tensions down for a few years.\n\nBut then came the British East India Company and the Tea Act in 1773. The British Parliament basically gave the East India Co. a monopoly over the American market in order to provide it with revenue (the Company was in deep financial trouble at this point). Now, the tea that it supplied would stay as the cheapest tea on the market, so it's not like the British were increasing prices at the same time they were granting the monopoly. But, the colonists were used to Dutch tea and were not happy about the monopoly that the Company received. The Sons of Liberty and their radical supporters became afraid of future taxes and a slippery slope, thinking that maybe for now it's only a monopoly on tea, but in the future the British could establish a monopoly on any good they wanted based on the principle of the Tea Act. In order to make sure that the rest of the colonists were not tempted by the idea of cheap British tea, they decided that the East India Company tea could not touch American shores—ensuring the Boston Tea Party in December of 1773 and other similar confrontations throughout the colonies.\n\nBut that also doesn't mean that the British just wanted to act tyrannically towards the colonists. Many of the taxes that the colonists were refusing to pay have long been collected in Britain already. And the Seven Years' War was partially fought on the North American continent, so the colonies relied on the British military during the war. The mood in Britain was that the Americans were ungrateful for the protection that the British offered to them and were refusing to pay their taxes as British citizens. \n\nGiven that the Parliament was in charge of collecting taxes in Britain, it could not simply give in to the colonists from a political standpoint. Reversing all taxation on the American colonies would be equivalent to giving up the idea that the Parliament could rule over some of its people and giving up the idea that the Parliament was superior to colonial legislatures. If the colonists could refuse to pay taxes imposed on them, couldn't they just refuse to follow any law established by Parliament? What if the merchants in England would start to copy that tactic and begin to hold the Parliament hostage when it came to their taxes? What if everyone in England just began to refuse to pay taxes, saying that if the Americans could, why couldn't they?\n\nSo, in short, that's why the British kept the tea tax as a more or less symbolic tax on the American colonists and how that has led to the Boston Tea Party.\n\n\nSource:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.taxhistory.org/www/website.nsf/Web/THM1756?OpenDocument#1756",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7o5a96/what_was_the_impact_of_the_seven_years_war_on_the/ds7cf2f/"
]
] |
|
3fjqts
|
I have heard recently that Ho Chi Minh was pro American and asked the US for support multiple times? Is there any veracity to these claims?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3fjqts/i_have_heard_recently_that_ho_chi_minh_was_pro/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctpnm8t"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Ho Chi Minh did appeal to the United States for assistance (as did many others), but he was not pro-American any more than it served his goals. Ho was a Stalinist and a nationalist seeking support to prevent the return of France.\n\n\nHe did try to see Woodrow Wilson and other world leaders at the Versailles peace conference in 1919 to appeal for Vietnamese 'self-determination'. But he did not get near them, much less meet them. Wilson never saw his appeal. Ho went on to live in Paris and join the communist party. He then lived in the USSR and trained at the Comintern at the height of the Stalinist purges and 'cult of personality'. It did not put Ho off. He would pen an emotional eulogy for Stain in 1953.\n\n\nHo did work with several OSS agents during WWII, though they did not do so until after the Soviet-German split and Moscow joined the Allied powers. They did not want to contradict Soviet policy. In Sept 1945, Ho did of course cite the American declaration of independence in his declaration of independence -- he also quoted the French declaration of the rights of man. Why? France and the US were the two powers capable of preventing a widening of war in Vietnam. \n\n\nMany historians will also note that he sent a telegram to Truman asking for assistance against France in 1946. They all neglect to mention, or perhaps do not know, that Ho sent the same appeal to Stalin. I'll also note that the image of Ho was and is highly manicured, from the plain suit, the fake tears at official ceremonies, his preference for cheap vietnamese cigarettes (he really like American ones), or his young wife. Just as the communist party disbanded itself in 1945 because of its unpopularity, so too did the DRV want to push this idealized version of Ho at first. That soon changed when the party came into the open, then he was exalted as a communist. He was later powerless, a figure head for the regime in the 1960s taken over by more hardline elements. Ho was relegated to making trips to across the Soviet bloc, to North Korea to visit Kim Il Sung.\n\n\nIn the end, Ho was communist, nationalist, and a strategist. Some American diplomatic historians want to look for lost opportunities and imagine a world where Truman supported Ho and thirty years of horrible war were avoided. There is a reasonable impulse there, the US government did contradict its principles and let Cold War imperatives guide its actions. But when Ho was a communist, as were many others in the Indochinese Communist Party who desired a Marxist state. Ho was dependent for support from many of the hardline ICP members. Moreover, since 1945, a war was already raging in Vietnam, between communist and non-communist Vietnamese fighting for control of the post-colonial state. That civil war had begun in the 1930s in colonial prisons and in southern China among competing Vietnamese revolutionaries. In 1945 it simply came into the open.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1tcb1c
|
how/when are flat roofs feasible when lots of snow is expected? i'm seeing them at a ski resort right now.
|
I typically see in excess of a metre (3.28 ft) of snow buildup and I just noticed due to extremely poor snowfall this year that some of the roofs are flat. How is collapse prevented? Is the snow removed in some way?
Edit: I haven't found any doors so far but maybe I'm blind.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tcb1c/eli5_howwhen_are_flat_roofs_feasible_when_lots_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce6hsuj",
"ce6n4io"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"The roof is built to handle the weight of the (assumed) worst-case snow fall.\n\nEvery roof is engineered assuming some kind of load, usually spelled out in building codes. These can include rain, wind, snow, people walking around, etc. As long as the engineers planned for the snow, and the builders what they were supposed to, the roof is strong enough to hold up the snow indefinitely.",
"I do know that some lightweight buildings (think big box retail) plan on manual snow removal to minimize risk of collapse, but I've only seen that with one company. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1s4m4c
|
Why doesn't tape lose adhesion as it sits in open air?
|
I would think molecules in the air would bond to the tape, covering the entire sticky surface rendering the tape ineffective.
Does this happen?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1s4m4c/why_doesnt_tape_lose_adhesion_as_it_sits_in_open/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdtzo0m"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There's no chemical reaction involved with tape, it is merely an physical attraction caused by [van der Waals forces](_URL_0_). The kinetic energy of gases can overcome these forces."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Van_der_Waals_force"
]
] |
|
30y14v
|
What was the main cause of the Time War, and how did the doctor and so many of the Daleks survive?
|
I couldn't find any sources for this in my research. Perhaps you fine chaps could help.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30y14v/what_was_the_main_cause_of_the_time_war_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpwuv9b"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"You have to remember that cause often precedes effect in a time war, so it may not have a start point. It could have been started by an event caused by it's own effect, or an effect evented by it's own cause, or even a cause effected by it's own event. This makes Time Wars a near impossible event to study in terms of causes and links, and you have to study it entirely in terms of thing that may have happened and ignore any preconceived notions of the linearity of time. \n\nOne of the earliest thing that may or may not have happened was the failed/successful assassination of the entire dalek species, at the beginning of their creation. Apart from that, all the techniques to study such temporal events was lost in the destruction of Gallifrey. \n\nAs for what popped out from the other side, some sketchy sources say that the Doctor sealed off the war and destroyed everything inside it using a powerful weapon known as the moment, but this is only gathered from second hand testimony. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
fuxyjk
|
Why we cant make traditional vaccine for sars-covid 2 ?
|
Why we cant produce traditional vaccine for covid 19 ? By traditional I mean injecting the weak state of virus or dead viruse into the body.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fuxyjk/why_we_cant_make_traditional_vaccine_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fmfbg7g",
"fmfbvd3"
],
"score": [
36,
17
],
"text": [
"We can. We are. We will. But “traditional” vaccines are among the slowest to make and test, so you’re hearing first about the more non-traditional ones that were specifically designed because of their faster development time.",
"Vaccines take a while to produce and test. If they release one that makes people violently ill or kills them then that hurts every other vaccine being done. They can't risk just releasing a whole bunch of untested vaccines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fsni9c
|
What causes viruses to effect certain parts of the body? (I.e what makes a virus a stomach virus vs a respiratory virus?)
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fsni9c/what_causes_viruses_to_effect_certain_parts_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fm2t2zq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It's a concept called tissue tropism. \n\nIn order to affect the body, the virus has to enter the cells. Cells have structures on the outside that the virus can recognize and bind to in order to enter the cell. Cells in different organs have different structures. This allows viruses to only enter the types of cells that have the specific structures they recognize."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2oeo1l
|
why are some laws passed as constitutional amendments and some only as plain, old laws?
|
Such as the 13th Amendment (Slavery Ban) or the 18th Amendment (Prohibition). Can someone explain the federal govt law structure? Acts, Statutes, Laws, Amendments...What's the difference? Does the supreme court judge all of them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2oeo1l/eli5_why_are_some_laws_passed_as_constitutional/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmf36b",
"cmmhv3x"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Amendments to the constitution are much more difficult to undo or erase, so it is like an \"ultra super law\" in that sense.\n\nAct, statute, and law all mean the same thing.\n",
"Any normal law is invalid if the constitution does not allow it. Generally an amendment is needed either to make way for laws that currently are not constitutional, or to curtail laws that currently are constitutional. (eg: the 14th amendment was passed to prevent certain existing laws and policies being used to deny citizenship to former slaves and their children, and the 19th to prevent local laws that denied the vote to women) more rarely, an amendment is made to modify rules set forth for the government in the original articles (such as the 20th which changed when the president takes office and when congress should go in to session, or the 22nd, which set a term limit for the office of president.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
239odk
|
Why don't the most massive stars create a Black Hole at the moment of their own formation, given they contain enough matter to produce one at their death?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/239odk/why_dont_the_most_massive_stars_create_a_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgv506b"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"There's internal outward radiative pressure due to fusion that counterbalances the inwards force due to gravity, this is called [Hydrostatic Equilibrium](_URL_0_). It is this outwards pressure that keeps the star from collapsing into a Black Hole. Once the fuel for fusion runs out then that force gets smaller, gravity dominates and there is core collapse, for more massive stars this leads to a supernova, leaving behind a neutron star or black hole. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hydrostatic_equilibrium"
]
] |
||
15t272
|
Can Neutrons decay into an anti-proton and a positron?
|
I've never heard anything about it and can't find anything on the subject. I know that regularly free floating neutrons decay into protons and electrons, but could they decay into a positron and anti-proton? Changing into an anti-proton and a positron would still conserve both charge and mass. The only law it would seem to disobey is the law of conservation of Baryon number, but I know that that law has been proven to be only approximately conserved. I'm not concerned so much about how likely it is as much as the possibility.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15t272/can_neutrons_decay_into_an_antiproton_and_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7pjq44",
"c7pl005"
],
"score": [
10,
3
],
"text": [
"No. It would violate conservation of [baryon number.](_URL_0_) Protons and neutrons have a positive baryon number, while anti-protons and anti-neutrons have a negative baryon number. \n\nBeta decay, which allows a neutron to turn into a proton by spitting out an electron and an anti-neutrino does conserve baryon number and therefore it is possible (and is the dominant mode of neutron decay). ",
" > The only law it would seem to disobey is the law of conservation of Baryon number, but I know that that law has been proven to be only approximately conserved.\n\nI wouldn't say it is proven; theory predicts it in the early conditions of the universe after the Big Bang, but I don't think violation of baryon number has ever been observed in experiments."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baryon_number"
],
[]
] |
|
but0rg
|
if garbage workers have a holiday off, how do they get all the garbage picked up?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/but0rg/eli5_if_garbage_workers_have_a_holiday_off_how_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eph5r4h",
"eph82di",
"ephhg2x"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"In my area they work overtime the day before or day after. Not sure how it works everywhere though.",
"My township collects our trash twice a week.\n\nSo if the garbagemen are off on Memorial Day, which would have been a trash pickup day ... people will just hang onto their trash another three days until the Thursday pickup.",
"Not everybody at the trash company drives a truck. They can move people off other jobs to handle the extra load."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
j7fe7
|
please, can anyone explain to me what exactly /r/fifthworldproblems is/what it is based off of?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/j7fe7/please_can_anyone_explain_to_me_what_exactly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c29rpf2",
"c29sbyo",
"c29t9hf",
"c29rpf2",
"c29sbyo",
"c29t9hf"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
2,
18,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"First \"world levels\":\n\nFirst world — the nations allied with the US during the Cold War; now usually taken to be synonymous with \"developed\".\n\nSecond world — the nations allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War; this term is largely no longer used, but the \"problems\" subreddit seems to think it should mean a country that's \"not fully developed\".\n\nThird world — the nations that were unaligned during the Cold War; now usually taken to mean \"undeveloped\".\n\nFourth world — nations and peoples that are basically unrecognized by the larger world.\n\nFifth world — sometimes meaning landlocked developing countries, sometimes referring to an aspect of Native American mythology; the subreddit appears to think it means \"world of chaos and madness\".\n\nThe \"n-thworldproblems\" subreddits are dedicated to posts about problems faced by people living in these worlds. In this trend, \"fifthworldproblems\" is a place to post about the sorts of problems encountered by people who live in a world of chaos and madness where the laws of physics are more like impolite suggestions to be disregarded unless absolutely necessary.",
"First of all, fifthworldproblems is a joke subreddit based on firstworldproblems. The idea behind fifthworldproblems is that the \"fifth world\" is like some inaccessible parallel universe; one in which \"My spawn refuses to inherit my reign and become the harbinger of unchosen souls. How will he ever experience the bliss of quintillium hyperconsciousness?\" is a common, or funny, question to pose.",
"In it's simplest sense, it's a sci-fi roleplaying subreddit.",
"First \"world levels\":\n\nFirst world — the nations allied with the US during the Cold War; now usually taken to be synonymous with \"developed\".\n\nSecond world — the nations allied with the Soviet Union during the Cold War; this term is largely no longer used, but the \"problems\" subreddit seems to think it should mean a country that's \"not fully developed\".\n\nThird world — the nations that were unaligned during the Cold War; now usually taken to mean \"undeveloped\".\n\nFourth world — nations and peoples that are basically unrecognized by the larger world.\n\nFifth world — sometimes meaning landlocked developing countries, sometimes referring to an aspect of Native American mythology; the subreddit appears to think it means \"world of chaos and madness\".\n\nThe \"n-thworldproblems\" subreddits are dedicated to posts about problems faced by people living in these worlds. In this trend, \"fifthworldproblems\" is a place to post about the sorts of problems encountered by people who live in a world of chaos and madness where the laws of physics are more like impolite suggestions to be disregarded unless absolutely necessary.",
"First of all, fifthworldproblems is a joke subreddit based on firstworldproblems. The idea behind fifthworldproblems is that the \"fifth world\" is like some inaccessible parallel universe; one in which \"My spawn refuses to inherit my reign and become the harbinger of unchosen souls. How will he ever experience the bliss of quintillium hyperconsciousness?\" is a common, or funny, question to pose.",
"In it's simplest sense, it's a sci-fi roleplaying subreddit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2zy24w
|
Does the color of a material affect it's audio-reflective properties?
|
For instance, if I painted a room with white paint, would it reflect more high frequencies than if I had painted it black? Or are light and sound waves completely independent of one another, and color does not matter?
Thank you.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2zy24w/does_the_color_of_a_material_affect_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpo8p2m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Light and sound waves are completely independent from one another. Light is an electromagnetic wave, which doesn't require any medium to travel, while sound is a compression wave, which does. \n\nIf there *is* any difference in audio reflective properties due to different paint colors, it would be due to the physical properties of the paint and the chemical differences between the two tints. It's not due to light."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16fz9u
|
If eroded enough, could all of the landmass on earth be submerged under one super ocean?
|
There are a couple of ways I'm thinking about this:
1) Essentially, is it possible that given enough time all of the earth's landmass could be eroded so that it would end up underwater, given that there were also no more tectonic activity but the ocean currents and tides continued on forever.
2) Also is it possible that given that tectonic activity did continue to occur, would the world end up with most of it's landmass submerged, with only volcanic islands remaining, dotted around the globes tectonic plate lines?
3) Finally, if so, would that ever be possible in earth's history or would another natural process like the death of the sun occur long before that?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16fz9u/if_eroded_enough_could_all_of_the_landmass_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7vqwo5"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"1) The volume of the earth's ocean is currently estimated to be **1.3324 x 10^9 km^3** (Charette 2010). The ~~average elevation~~ **total volume** of land above sea level is currently estimated to be **1.26 x 10^8 km^3** (Coble et. al 1987 and McGraw Science & Technology Encyclopedia). Thus, if all tectonic activity were to cease tomorrow and **normal erosion patterns were to continue**, the earth could eventually eventually become completely submerged by water within tens to hundreds of millions of years.\n\n However, since Earth's weather patterns are so largely dependent upon land surfaces, weather patterns would change drastically as the Earth became more submerged and flatter. The normal erosional processes that dictate rates of sediment removal may slow, speed up or cease to exist. Now I am a geologist and not a climatologist, but I believe that since the major driver of atmospheric circulation, which drives weather patterns, is **solar heating**, weather patterns should continue similarly enough to cause enough continuous weathering to eventually erode the continents to nothing. \n\n2) This situation would not occur if tectonic activity persisted in any form similar to today's tectonic system. Volcanism is only one facet of tectonic activity, and as long as tectonic activity continued there would be other forms of tectonic movement along convergent and divergent boundaries that would create landforms other than volcanoes.\n\n3) This situation will likely never occur because Earth's geothermal energy is generated by radioactive decay. General consensus on the fate of the earth seems to be that heat from the sun will eventually evaporate all water on the earth in a billion years due to increase of solar temperatures.\n\nEDIT: Clarification\n\nEDIT2: Changed measurement to the correct term."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1f2iuy
|
Why is it that we need social interaction so much that we get attached to inanimate objects in the absence of it?
|
I was reading some info about this a while back and it came to my mind again after remembering it happens on the "Cast Away" movie with "wilson" as well as games like "portal" and its cube.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1f2iuy/why_is_it_that_we_need_social_interaction_so_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca6e3mu"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Because normal humans are intensely social creatures.\n\nWe originated from creatures a lot like [this](_URL_0_) and basically we're not a whole lot different today. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.eva.mpg.de/pks/images/macaque_gallery/grooming-session.jpg"
]
] |
|
177bxs
|
Are there any famous historical figures who have died from extreme allergic reactions?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/177bxs/are_there_any_famous_historical_figures_who_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8323w9"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Pharaoh Menes (2641 BCE). Reaction to a wasp sting.\n\nBut since Anaphylaxis wasn't identified as such until the early 20th century, it's hard to be certain, and even that reference is questioned. This link should take you straight to a very brief historical discussion:\n\n_URL_0_ \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=q_3T1ZXvP5YC&pg=PA3&lpg=PA3&dq=19th+century+allergic+reaction&source=bl&ots=98C1x_AiMd&sig=tL4kHcQ8bhCwd1998g2gljvQMFM&hl=en&sa=X&ei=iccBUefjI6ex0QHCz4E4&sqi=2&ved=0CHgQ6AEwCQ#v=onepage&q=19th%20century%20allergic%20reaction&f=false"
]
] |
||
4sq6in
|
why do keygens always have 8-bit music playing in the background?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4sq6in/eli5_why_do_keygens_always_have_8bit_music/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5baa7x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"_URL_0_\n\n\nSince this sub will not let me just leave it at that, here's another sentence to fill up some space. And another one. Man it sure is hot out today."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/qoqyu/why_do_keygens_always_have_cheesy_8bit_music/"
]
] |
|
1l9ckk
|
I've heard it said during 12th century, China was the most technologically advanced nation in the world. What happened?
|
Why did they lose out on their technological advantage to the Europeans?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1l9ckk/ive_heard_it_said_during_12th_century_china_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbx9807"
],
"score": [
20
],
"text": [
"This is a pretty broad and complex question. The best answer as a TL;DR might be \"China was less concerned with affairs outside China than the rest of the world was concerned with affairs inside China, and there is a long standing observation that scientific advancement and outward focused trade/government often coincide in history.” \n\nUnfortunately for China, trade and cultural interaction seem to fuel scientific discovery, or at least often occur simultaneously. In the 15th century, as Europeans who lacked luxury goods like pepper and silk looked outward, new technologies and ideas were developed by necessity to enable their pursuit of trade. What’s interesting to note is that there were different periods of openness in China. For example, at the height of the Silk Road the Chinese were actively importing Indian Buddhists to help translate the different scriptures of Indian Buddhism in part because of exposure to Buddhism from [merchants on the silk road](_URL_4_). There was a flurry of technological advancement around the same time, which slowed as China turned inward during the later Tang period and stopped allowing Indian missionaries in an attempt to curb the power of monasteries, which were considered a threat to the emperor's sovereignty.\n\nThe best evidence for China’s attitude toward trade is the oft-cited [letter from the Qianlong Emperor to King George III of Britan]( _URL_6_). The Qianlong emperor explains the tribute system of trade that developed over centuries of imperial rule over vassal states. It also alludes to the fact that China already had everything it needed. Even the scientific developments the Europeans offered, like empiric medicine and chemistry, were pointless, because China already had Chinese medicine, and other scientific advancements around navigation, mechanization, and optics were also useless unless one was interested in trade.\n\nHere’s a bit of background to explain *why* China wasn’t interested in trade.\n\nChina has traditionally had an insular view of the world for two big reasons. There are probably some cultural dimensions to the explanation, but I’m going to focus on geography and government. After the unification of the various states of China that had dominated during the [Warring States period](_URL_2_) the Han empire covered a massive territory with lots of people and lots of resources. The scale of the Han empire encompassed many diverse resources. Trade was no longer really necessary between separate nations because the trade networks that had initially developed pre-Han between separate nations continued as part of 中国, and so trade was more accurately exchange between different prefectures or districts of the same country. China also had many luxury goods like tea and silk. Without external needs and many luxuries domestically provided, there wasn’t much incentive to look outward. \n\nThe second reason for China’s insularity is that, for long and complicated reasons, it’s simplest to say the Chinese continued to identity as one nation after the dissolution of the Han empire, as contrasted with the collapse of the Roman or Persian empires into their previous client states. This created a pattern of dynastic change which maintained the same government institutions like the [imperial examinations]( _URL_3_) and the claim to legitimacy around the [mandate of heaven]( _URL_8_ )(I’m really skimming here, but it’s close enough). That’s important because it means those domestic trade routes were generally pretty stable except in periods of dynastic change, and typically re-established once a new government was in place.\n\nChina did develop trade with neighboring kingdoms after unification, but it wasn't really \"trade\" in the sense of \"we're two people, I have something you want, you have something I want, let's exchange,\" because, as mentioned, China could satisfy most necessities and even luxury demand domestically. What do you give the man who already has everything? Something exclusive. The local kingdoms to the east (Korea) and south (Vietnam, Cambodia, etc.) pledged fealty to China, both in recognition of the scale of China, which is just good policy if you live next to a gorilla, and also for military protection from their neighbors (typically the Japanese or other south asians). The emperor received “gifts” from the ambassadors of vassal kingdoms, these gifts often being artworks from master craftsman in their country, something the emperor couldn’t get domestically. The emperor then gave gifts as favors for his vassal states. This was the [Tributary System]( _URL_0_). The Empire continued this tradition until the dissolution of the imperial system. The Chinese made some efforts to expand trade beyond the client states, most notably the [treasure voyages](_URL_1_) of the Ming dynasty, led by [Zheng He]( _URL_5_). There’s a lot of debate around why the treasure voyages only lasted about 30 years, however, general consensus seems to be that it wasn’t profitable.\n\nIt should be noted that Europeans had already recovered and even advanced a considerable amount of knowledge from Greek, Roman, and Arabic sources by the 12th and 13th century, particularly in engineering. European architects were building the largest structures in the world from the 12th century on- Old St. Paul’s Cathedral was taller than the Pyramid of Giza and was built in 1200. Other European cathedrals were built to similar scales not long after. The Chinese certainly had massive engineering projects around water management in the various irrigation projects like [the Grand Canal](_URL_7_) and the kind of water control in China meant healthier people who survived diseases transmitted through water sources, but European science was already advanced of Chinese contemporaries in some regards by the 12th century, especially in structural engineering.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_Chinese_tributary_system",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treasure_voyages",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warring_states",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Imperial_examination",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silk_Road_transmission_of_Buddhism",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zheng_he",
"http://academic.brooklyn.cuny.edu/core9/phalsall/texts/qianlong.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grand_Canal_of_China",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mandate_of_heaven"
]
] |
|
3u2rk7
|
how can a mother be charged with child abuse for harming her unborn child (e.g. drug usage, alcohol consumption), but abortion does not fall under this category?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3u2rk7/eli5_how_can_a_mother_be_charged_with_child_abuse/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxbcika",
"cxbcv6b",
"cxbda3n"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because we say it doesn't.\n\nI'm not being a smartass, that's literally the reason. We make distinctions and exceptions to laws all the time, and this is no different. ",
"Because drug usage and alcohol consumption while pregnant is harmful to a child, so long as that child eventually GETS BORN. I don't think in-utero alcohol use would make a difference if the embryo was aborted as well.",
"Because abortion means that the mother decides that she's not going to be having a baby. Drinking or doing drugs while harboring a child means that the mother agrees to keep that child but is not giving it a safe environment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wu6vn
|
why chubby women sing better/ have better voice (especially in opera)?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wu6vn/eli5_why_chubby_women_sing_better_have_better/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf5e8zn",
"cf5eb6s",
"cf5gcns",
"cf5mzqr"
],
"score": [
18,
3,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"That's actually a false stereotype. Many of the great divas are quite petite.",
"Several ideas have been put forward, but there's no solid evidence that fat helps. There are plenty of noted opera singers who aren't overweight.",
"In some cases having a larger frame can help with lung capacity, bigger rib cage, more air etc...but it doesn't help much in the long run. Opera requires some pretty serious abdominal toning, so you need to develop the diaphragm muscles to have good breath support. It's not your typical \"ripped abs\" though, when I was studying opera in college, I was obviously overweight...but if you pressed on my diaphragm muscles, they were pretty impressive. \n\nI think a lot of opera singers in the past were overweight because the lifestyle didn't encourage much physical fitness. Also, when the singing is done correctly, you can continue singing well into your elderly years, so you tend to see a lot of singers who look like an average middle aged person pretending to be a young romantic character...there's supposed to be a lot of suspended disbelief in opera! \n\nLately, much like in the popular music world, people are starting to expect more attractive physical appearances and aren't as willing to believe a 300 lb woman is sexy just because her voice is beautiful, and some singers have felt some pressure to slim down. \n\nDeborah Voigt is a good example, she was fired for not fitting into her costume for the role of Ariadne, but was rehired after losing 100 lbs with gastric bypass. Granted, she's now a size 14, which is still considered fat by entertainment standards...so you can draw your own conclusions with that one.\n\nSo as a TL,DR: You can be fat to be a singer, as long as your breathing muscles are toned...but being fat is not a requirement. \n\n\n\n",
"I am a vocalist and I've been training for about 13-14 years in classical music (various conservatories). I'd like to agree with NerdyDasty about the misconception of weight being a factor of how well you can sing.\nI myself weigh about 190lbs but it makes no difference. As you practice, it reinforces your abdominal muscles, you diaphragm, and your vocal chords. Really talented singers can manipulated their vocal chords in specific ways and the more you practice, the stronger you get and the larger your range becomes. \nPreviously (as mentioned before), exercise wasn't as necessary and women who sang opera spent their time practicing, I would assume. Also, eating carbs is good for your voice because of it's bland taste. Foods with spices have an impact of stomach acidity which is bad for the vocal chords. This is why you'll see a lot of singers drinking non-caffeinated beverages and eating bread. \nAlso, in the past the weight you were signified your wealth. Women who were larger (and even men) were glorified for their figured because it was a sign that they were rich. Women with curves use to be very desirable which ties in to why many were singers. \nToday women are always to be skinny and therefore you will rarely see opera singers that fit your original stereotype. However, it has nothing to do with talent as opposed to the influence of media. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9hyhba
|
"Out of all pre-1700 societies, the Ming Dynasty was one of the closest to having their own industrial revolution." How true is this statement?
|
I've heard it said that the Ming Dynasty had the potential to be the kick-off point for the industrial revolution, centuries before it developed in England. What is the accuracy of this?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9hyhba/out_of_all_pre1700_societies_the_ming_dynasty_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6g4bf2"
],
"score": [
60
],
"text": [
"Completely false. Although Ming receives favorable treatment in some traditional histories of China, economic historians today have concluded its its economic policy was nothing short of completely destructive and that it was inferior to both Song and Yuan that preceded it and Qing that replaced it. More importantly, economists have done a lot of work on what it takes to have an industrial revolution, and found that the very specific, and often counter-intuitive, ingredients were nonexistent in Ming.\n\nMing had a disastrous economic policy, especially during the reign of the first two emperors. Almost all trade, overseas and overland with Mongolia and Manchuria, was legally monopolized. After the 15th century, private businesses illegally circumvented the law and began trading with Japan in larger numbers, but overland trade to the North remained government-dominated. The Ming during their early years hyper inflated their paper currency into near worthlessness, creating massive economic disruption. The Ming used a system called Lijia in which commoners could perform duties instead of paying certain taxes, regulated by their communities. Only those with an imperial examination degree were exempt in any community. Most rural landlords did not have this degree, but their wealth and influence allowed them to evade taxes far better than the commoners, as the local bureaucrats would be in charge of what duties were assigned to whom. This resulted in an inefficient tax system which punished small landowners, and over time consolidated the countryside into a series of large states, with the majority of the labor pool being tenants.\n\nAs we can see, Ming policy, especially that of Hongwu and Yongle, was economically self-destructive. However, more importantly, Ming would have lacked the critical ingredients to produce an industrial revolution even if they had done none of the above policies.\n\nIndustrial \"revolution\" is somewhat of a misnomer. Growth rates in Northwestern Europe, the heartland of the industrial revolution, averaged 1-2% over the course of the First and Second industrial revolutions. Austria Hungary's early 20th century growth rate, which barely exceeded 2%, was considered alarmingly fast by contemporaries. Those numbers pale in comparison to growth rates in the developing world, and even parts of the developed world, today. However, the Industrial Revolution was so amazing and awe-inspiring to contemporaries because, prior to the period, real GDP per capita growth throughout history was *zero*. That's right: zero. A Sumerian farmer in 3000 BC was no poorer than an English farmer in 1714, on average. While agricultural techniques did increase, they always corresponded with an increase in population. In other words, growth was slow enough that it could be outpaced by population growth at any time.\n\nThe reasons for this were twofold. First, the level of technology available in agriculture at the time meant that it was most often a labor intensive, not capital intensive process. In other words, a landlord might become richer by buying more land, but would benefit little from investing in a new kind of fertilizer. In the 17th century in the Low Countries, there *was* an agricultural revolution resulting from better technique, but this was due to an increase in knowledge, not capital invested. Second and more importantly, prior to the early 18th century, there was absolutely no way to deposit funds in a bank and expect with certainty to see them back.\n\nEconomists broadly believe that in any modern economy, savings = investment. Nations where more income is saved, such as Singapore and China, grow faster in a near-perfect correlation than in nations where less is saved. However, this equation only holds true if savings actually *do* equate to investment, which, throughout most of human history, they did not.\n\nPrior to 1694, government defaults were near-universal among the states of Europe. Interest rates on government bonds exceeded 10% in the vast majority of recorded loans between banks and governments. Spain, the most powerful empire in the world at the time, notoriously defaulted four times under the reign of a single monarch. In England under the Stuart Dynasty, the government was forced to *oblige* lords to loan to them, the so-called \"forced loans\", which were seen as a tax in all but name.\n\nTwo developments in late 17th century England led that country to create the Bank of England in 1694, the first oversight organization handling state debt. First, England faced the prospect of continental war, given its recent takeover by the Dutch Stadtholder William of Orange, whose country was embroiled in disputes with the Habsburgs and France. A relatively weak country at the time, England needed a way to borrow funds reliably to finance wars. Second, the 1688 Glorious Revolution had decisively ended the crown-parliament dispute in favor of parliament, giving local gentries the power to create the equivalent of an oversight committee for royal finances. Almost all loans had specific revenue earmarked from areas of tax revenue towards their payoff. In the early 18th century, interest rates for government debt in England plummeted from over 15% in some cases to less than 3%. This low interest rate persisted even after the Napoleonic Wars, when Britain's debt to GDP was over 250%, officially making it one of the most indebted nations in history. This low interest rate in spite of a vast increase in borrowing suggests vastly improved credibility in government debt. This benefited the financial sector greatly, as now there existed a *safe investment* with guaranteed returns, vital to the stable operation of any bank. This in itself proliferated other financial ventures - joint stock companies, imperial companies like the South Sea and East India Companies, and industrial ventures, who now found it easier to borrow money at lower rates.\n\nThe 18th century saw the governments of Western Europe attempt to copy the English system, which later historians termed the \"fiscal-military state\". Taxes in Britain during this period were some of the highest of any country worldwide. Some estimates place the share of British GDP going towards the state budget, the effective tax rate, at over 50%-70%. This represents a vast increase in the efficiency of tax collection and financial institutions in that country - the British state had become a veritable revenue-generating machine. Not all the money was raised through pure land taxation - Britain had mastered the art of raising revenue through commerce and overseas trade. A huge section of British revenues came from customs and trade dues, which the state *invested* to increase by backing the East India Company, among other colonial ventures. France was the second most successful at copying this model, creating wide-ranging financial institutions itself, but it ultimately failed to perfectly duplicate. During the Napoleonic Wars, the British interest rate - despite a much smaller economy and population than that of the French Empire - was less than half of France's. Strikingly, effective tax rate during the fiscal-military state period and speed of industrialization **are nearly perfectly correlated**. The industrial \"revolution\" was a **financial revolution** - the first time in history that governments and private banks could mobilize huge amounts of capital to re-invest. This was the first time that economic growth could exceed population growth, where enough money was being invested year over year to exceed the birthrate.\n\nChina was nowhere close to a financial revolution, because it never had to be. While earlier historiography claims that many Chinese dynasties fell due to over-taxation, modern historians have proven the Chinese effective tax rate was almost always under 20%, and in many cases under 10% of GDP. There was a perception among the common people of over-taxation, however, due to exemptions on scholars and the ability for the rich to evade taxes. Thus, the Chinese imperial tax system, throughout almost every dynasty, taxed those who could least afford it, but was entirely inept at collecting taxes from the rich. This problem recurred from the Han Dynasty all the way to Qing, and was never fully solved, because **it was a problem China could afford to have**.\n\nWithout a doubt, comparatively low tax rates in Ming and Qing China made the lives of the average peasant family better there than in Britain during the Fiscal-Military state period. China was the unquestioned superpower of the East, and had no rival. Therefore, reforming taxation to make it more efficient was a largely pointless adventure. There were periods of intense revenue shortfall in China - especially during the beginning of Ming - but these shortfalls were too short-term to respond to with systematic tax reform, as reform's effects would come too late.\n\nIt should be noted that this all does not mean Ming and Qing were bumbling and inept, simply that they had a different reality. Northwest Europe *stumbled* into the industrial revolution. A small England was forced to punch above its weight, and saw its gentry win a struggle for power against the King. Therefore, they created a debt management system, which led to a deficit requiring ever-increased taxes, *earmarked* to pay off specific loans, and financial innovations that created the world's most complicated financial system to date. Not one parliament member in 1694 would have known the oversight institution on royal debt would eventually change the global economy. In order for Ming or Qing to develop financial institutions advanced enough to facilitate industrial growth, China had to borrow immense amounts of money - maybe even in excess of its GDP. There was absolutely no foreseeable reason for either dynasty to do so."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
rtbu1
|
Why do random thoughts occur?
|
I thought of this question as I was working at my desk. I was typing away and out of the nowhere I had a flash back to a restaurant that I visited only once at least 20 years ago in another city about 2 hours away. My work had nothing whatsoever to do with the city, the restaurant, or anything else that would have triggered this memory.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rtbu1/why_do_random_thoughts_occur/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c48jgkm"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Thoughts are related to neurons firing in the brain.\n\nThere are a number of mechanisms that control how and when neurons fire. At a first level, neurons will fire when they are sufficiently stimulated to do so - when enough other neurons have signalled the current neuron. There are mechanisms that excite or inhibit neuron firing as well.\n\nYour senses are an input phase. When you see, hear, taste, touch or smell then this causes a signal which propagates through a series (network) of neurons. Exactly which neurons are excited depends on the initial signal, any other signals that are being processed at the same time and your mind state.\n\nPart of your mind state are a series of pulses/waves of neural activity - part of the excitatory/inhibitory mechanism.\n\nWhat you experience as thoughts are those groups of neurons that have been stimulated above a certain threshold.\n\nNormally there is a clear chain of events that leads to a set of neurons beings sufficiently stimulated. But groups of signals can interfere with each other as they travel through the brain in much the same way waves do producing positive or negative reinforcement (really helpful to know about wave interference affects - lots of good visualisations on t'web).\n\nThis can lead to unexpected peaks (and indeed unexpected troughs) where a set of neurons is stimulated above threshold and becomes a conscious awareness without an obvious sequence of events linking it to other thoughts."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2am5g8
|
why is opening many restaurants in a short amount of time bad?
|
I know many big companies have almost failed because of this, but why is it bad if the restaurants are still doing good business?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2am5g8/eli5why_is_opening_many_restaurants_in_a_short/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciwj2e6",
"ciwkziy"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most restaurants, and businesses generally, will fail within a couple years. You need to be prepared financially for the entire investment to disappear.",
"1) Opening a restaurant (or any small business, really) is highly risky. Just because 1, 2 or 5 locations are profitable doesn't mean 10 are. If you're a small (but growing) business, you probably don't have a ton of resources, so you may be unknowlingly oversaturating the market or being over confident in a specific market. And just one bad location can drag you down.\n\n2) Opening rapid numbers of locations spreads your resources thin. You only have so many workers (builders, staff, experts, managers) and you may have to hire a bunch of new people rapidly--new people who don't know the culture or the business yet. \n\n3) It's a huge money sink. Even if it's wildly successful, starting new locations is a HUGE money drain. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6rd90w
|
How much ancient infrastructure (e.g. roads, walls, walkways) that you know of is still in use today?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6rd90w/how_much_ancient_infrastructure_eg_roads_walls/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dl4597k"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"From what I know there is a Roman bathhouse still is use in Algeria and some of the aqueducts are still being used, like the Aqua Virgo. It is no longer used for drinking water but is still used for fountains. But they have been worked on and maintains which is expected. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1xhd3k
|
why do i get a lower singing register when sick but unable to access the register when well??
|
I am naturally a Tenor I (sometimes I sing counter-tenor). I've never had a strong lower register and wish I had more accessible baritone/bass notes. I joke that I become a bass when I get sick because I can sing low notes at the cost of my high register. Why does this happen and can those lower notes be trained?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1xhd3k/eli5_why_do_i_get_a_lower_singing_register_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfbhanb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mucus in your throat dampens the vocal cords, allowing them to vibrate slower. It's not trainable."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1rlrz2
|
Has any culture ever used sign language as oppose to verbal language as their primary mode of communication?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rlrz2/has_any_culture_ever_used_sign_language_as_oppose/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdolhlj",
"cdomoo8"
],
"score": [
27,
3
],
"text": [
"I can not speak for entire cultures that use sign language as opposed to verbal language, though I would doubt this to exist on a large scale considering how many \"evolutionary resources\" go into verbal language development in humans. Everything from our brains to our mouth, throat, tongue, lips, ears, and larynx is meant to help with verbal language. It would be like asking if there is a culture that doesn't walk on two legs as their main form of movement... while possible, the human body and brain is basically made to naturally walk on two legs easily. But this is mostly speculation on my part.\n\nBut I will say that there has been an interesting group of children in Nicaragua where in the 1970s a school for the deaf was established that only had teachers who were hearing and focused on trying to teach them to read lips rather than use any sign language. What actually developed from this is the children formed their own sign language and the language has evolved and become more refined through the generations of students.\n\nIt is a very interesting example of the development of language and being able to track the development of a language and how the older students who were among the first to use the system had differences in their ability to describe various things such as spatial differences.\n\nHere is a cached version of the article (The non-cached version seems to not work):\n\n[From the Mouths (and Hands) of Babes] (_URL_1_)\n\nThis is another article on the Nicaraguan School and their development of the sign language and how it caused differences in being able to understand the world based on how advanced the language was when the participant was using it:\n\n[Language Promotes False-Belief Understanding: Evidence From the Learners of a New Sign Language] (_URL_0_)",
"I'm not sure if this counts, and please delete if it doesn't. Divers use hand signals for everything. Even when we are on land we will use them. Do a sub group count as a culture? Does this meet the 20 year rule since scuba was invented in 1946?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2884962/",
"http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:I1tigCGVEwUJ:www.cog.jhu.edu/courses/102-F2007/papers/Nicaraguan_sign_lg.pdf+&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us"
],
[]
] |
||
33ccc7
|
What happens when your body encounters a pathogen that it has no antibody for?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/33ccc7/what_happens_when_your_body_encounters_a_pathogen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqjjt0g"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"This happens routinely and is part of the normal immune defence to a pathogen you've never seen before.\n\n1) Pathogen enters the body by whichever route you prefer - let's say you stand on a thorn or something.\n\n2) The pathogen triggers the innate immune system which detects highly invariant molecules which are **never** found within your body such as lipopolysaccaride, a component of bacterial cell walls. \n\n3) The innate immune system kills the pathogen through various methods which I won't explain here\n\n4) Bits of the pathogen are digested by your immune cells and presented on the surface. They then travel from the site of infection to your lymph nodes or spleen. Here they wander about waving their bit of pathogen they have on their cell surface to all the naive T cells present in the lymph nodes. \n\n5) One of the T cells will recognise that bit of pathogen, activate, and clonally expand producing millions of identical T cells specific for that bit of bacterium\n\n6) One of those activated T cells will go and find a B cell also specific for that antigen and activate that B cell. The B cell receptor is a membrane bound antibody and upon activation, the B cell also undergoes clonal expansion, becoming an antibody secreting plasma cell.\n\n7) Antibodies are secreted on a huge scale and clear the pathogen from the system, again by various methods."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
244lqz
|
How and why did nicknames for currencies (e.g. 'buck' for USD and 'quid' for GBP) develop?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/244lqz/how_and_why_did_nicknames_for_currencies_eg_buck/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch3mvtb"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"\"Buck\" as slang for one dollar is of unknown origin though it dates to the mid-19th century. \n\nIt's possible that it comes from the early to mid 18th century in America when buckskins were considered as legal tender in many parts of America.\n\nFor example the trader Conrad Weiser kept a journal of his travels in 1748 as he went and traded with the native populations. At one point he gave a speech and talked about a fellow merchant \"He has been robbed of the value of 300 bucks\", and in another entry his speech is regarding the price of whiskey \"Your Brethren, therefore have order'd that every cask of Whiskey shall be sold to You for 5 Bucks in your Town . . .\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8fze2y
|
what is the difference between rest & soap web services?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fze2y/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_rest_soap_web/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dy7m6vh"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"A SOAP web service has a very structured request and response. Data types, required fields, etc., are all defined in a WSDL that you can consume with your application to automatically build the entire request structure. All of it goes over HTTP POST methods. The entire web service has a single endpoint that covers many methods.\n\nA RESTful web service is a more open concept that uses the raw HTTP data fields in the request to pass parameters. It also uses the HTTP methods (GET, POST, PUT, DELETE) to handle things differently. The URL is also part of your parameters, as that handles part of the function routing. (i.e., _URL_0_ would be expected to do stuff about inventory 12345, but _URL_1_ would be doing stuff about Customer 12345). The URL can also contain mandatory variables, such as those key ID fields."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"example.com/inventory/12345",
"example.com/customer/12345"
]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.