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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2u87oi
|
why can certain entities charge a "convenience fee" for paying by credit card when credit card company policy is that the price cannot be more when paying by credit card
|
title
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2u87oi/eli5_why_can_certain_entities_charge_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co60m2n"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Straight up: these entities are violating their contracts with their merchant services provider. There is a maximum fee of $1/transaction that merchants are allowed to charge for Debit transactions, but credit must be the amount of the sale. I don't believe minimum transaction amounts are allowed either. Unfortunately, though, it's not easy to impose penalties on these merchants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
a9wq67
|
when someone rubs their fingers together rather forcefully for a while, why does black residue start to appear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a9wq67/eli5_when_someone_rubs_their_fingers_together/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ecn4ioh",
"ecn4si0"
],
"score": [
10,
26
],
"text": [
"It are dead skins cells, plus salty sweat.\n\nIt's the (now dead) skin cells which have been rubbed off and rolled into small balls, which all clumped together and are visible because of the collective size.\n\n",
"The friction causes your epithelial cells to slough off and the oils combined with sweat and dust and whatever else you might have on your finger (or in the grooves of) accumulate into the dirty looking matter you're asking about.\n\nIf in the shower, you can also do this on your body. Some places (like the behind the ankle) are easier than others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1yv2ms
|
Is there anything considered "cutting edge" in history right now?
|
Are there things people are researching/talking about now that historians weren't talking about before? Are there ideas/discoveries theories that could change our understanding of the past?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1yv2ms/is_there_anything_considered_cutting_edge_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfo4wsi",
"cfo53xy",
"cfo57b2",
"cfo5cd7",
"cfo5oqf",
"cfo66nc",
"cfo6hch",
"cfo7glv",
"cfo7qiv",
"cfobuj9",
"cfoc2h2",
"cfodve8",
"cfofbll",
"cfogdsc",
"cfoijy4"
],
"score": [
616,
136,
11,
22,
278,
11,
27,
91,
52,
7,
47,
15,
3,
6,
10
],
"text": [
"What this made me think of was using satellites to map old Egyptian pyramids hidden under the sand. In the last decade we've discovered so much we never knew existed by using lasers to \"see\" what lies beneath. I imagine this will be used everywhere and open up so much about our history.",
"You may be interested in our \"[What's New in History](_URL_0_)\" weekly feature threads.",
"Is it possible OP meant cutting edge in terms of Theory? Such as how Marxism might have been viewed in the 19th century.",
"I'm not a historian, but interested in the subject. Some of the most interesting, cutting-edge work I've seen from my scientific vantage, is all the work on both genetic and linguistic phylogenies that are coming into alignment. It just seems like a lot of very new kinds of data are coming in that can help settle some old disputes, reveal new things we weren't aware of before, and ignite simmering debates that haven't come to the surface yet.",
"As someone going through a teaching credential program at the moment, from my perspective there is. I suppose it's nothing new what-so ever for academics, but the training high-school teachers currently receive, at least here in California, seems radically different that what I gather from my high school teachers about a decade ago. \n\nFor one, we're actually encouraged to teach more theory and methodology. This means that kids learn historiography, current practices, and most importantly, the short-shortsightedness of taking the narrative learned from their one text-book and one history teacher as a factual and complete account of events. Students are expected to craft arguments based on their own analysis of primary and secondary sources as they take a personal role in crafting their own interpretations. Coupled with common core standards, history classes are currently morphing to tackle general critical-thinking skill development. \n\nNew approaches towards narratives also arise. There's a stress on \"new\" world history that attempts to strip current methods of teaching from Westernized perspectives that have fled academia decades ago yet still persists in secondary schools. We're encouraged to teach this historiographic shift. Overall, the focus of world history is actually more global. Unlike text-book chapters in which students randomly jump from one location and time, there's more focus on the persistent interactions between cultures in Afroeurasia and the Americas through all of history, with an even larger focus on global interaction after the Columbian exchange. \n\nOverall, students get exposed to academic history. They learn historiography, periodization, causality, and other aspects of what actual historians do. Anyways, I realize this isn't a historical frontier like the one you seek, but as any field, there's much we still don't know. I do think that they way people learn history however, makes an enormous impact on the present. The better one understand the position they were born into, the more agency they possess in altering that inherited circumstance. ",
"Using computers to analyse large amounts of data, here's a phdcomics video that explains it quite a bit better than I can\n_URL_0_",
"Considering the shift from (the theoretical and philosophical underpinnings of) Rankean historicism to more relativist and constructivist mode of historical thought took at least 100 years, and some of the vestiges of Rankean thought are still everpresent among historians - one must be aware that \"cutting edge\" is a relative concept in history.\n\nFor example, *narrativism* is still at the forefront of the philosophy of history, and it has been since the seventies and early eighties when philosophers of history like Mink, White and Ankersmit started thinking of history in terms of fictional(ized) narratives. Recently (that is: since the mid-naughties) some philosophers of history have been turning towards *historical experience* as a different mode of understanding the past. Dutch philosophers of history like Eelco Runia and (again) Frank Ankersmit are examples of this \"cutting edge\" school of thought.\n\nAt least from my surroundings, I see historians become more interested in methodology. Which is good. Too many historians still believe in *Scissor and Paste* history. E.g. that if the \"primary source\" says something, it must be true. Because it's a \"primary source\".",
"Oh my god, YES! The ways in which historians view the past has been consistently evolving for the last few decades at least. Historians have been re-examining the way we view such concepts as race, gender, imperialism, power, language, class, and many others over the past few decades (often referred to in aggregate as the \"cultural turn\"). One of my personal favorites is the rise of transnationalism as a field of historical study (it started perhaps a decade ago but is really picking up steam in the past few years). Transnationalism tries to complicate, but not disregard, the idea of the nation-state as a primary driver of history. This means that simply stating that there is an \"American\" history that is fully self-contained within the US and can be explained fully without looking beyond US borders, is incorrect and oversimplified. I'm not sure whether that will sound obvious to anyone here but in the writing of history, you'd be surprised how much the nation-state as a \"vehicle\" moving history forward has dominated both scholarly and public understandings of history. Transnationalism seeks to get into the various spaces which exist between nations while also connecting them. This involves networks of commerce, ideas, culture, people, and so on. One example is a fascinating study about how the California Gold Rush (typically viewed as a solely \"American\" event) completely transformed society in Panama.\n\nThere are also interesting innovations going on in antebellum American history, such as increasing focus on the Border States of Kentucky, Missouri, Virginia/West Virginia, Maryland, and Delaware (named for the Border States of the Civil War). Throughout historical study there is an increasingly acknowledgement of what are called Borderlands, referring to geographic locations where people and cultures meet and mix. It's hard to say, for example, that Kentucky has nothing in common with Illinois or Indiana just because one's a southern state and the other's a northern state. Whereas previous studies have always talked about the North and South as a binary, I'm very excited to see how this new Borderlands research into these states (as well as, say, Tennessee or Ohio) complicates ideas of sectionalism and regional divides in antebellum history, especially since the regions in question fought a major war over their differences. I have no idea if the research will go this way, but if these studies lead to the establishment of a 3rd Borderlands region which existed between North and South, that would be extremely exciting for historians.\n\nThese are just examples. I'm sure any historian on this thread could name major innovations in research and interpretation for their respective fields, not to mention overarching methodologies like the rise of Digital Humanities.",
"Underwater archaeology.\n\nDon't ask why it has taken so long, but considering humans like to live along shore lines and that water levels have risen since the last ice age, many of our earliest settlements are underwater just waiting to be discovered. \n\nOh, and Gobeleki Tepe. ",
"As a history student at one of the US's top research universities, cutting edge history right now often is trying to take newer methodologies useful for the discipline and apply them to older problems to shed new light on them. For instance, de Vries' *The Industrious Revolution* takes a look at an old problem (how did industrialization begin? and why?) and uses methodologies of economic theory and socialization theory combined with a classic sensitivity for old methods (primary sourcing, historical narrative, etc.).\n\nThe trendy rejection of either frameworks as a whole (think deconstructionism) has been largely banished, at least where I am. The common argument you'll hear is that all useful history is essentially counter-factual, in that you're constructing causal relationships. If you say x caused y, or was important in causing y, you're essentially saying that without x y would not have happened, or might not have happened, respectively. Most historians have accepted it as the cost of doing business so to speak, and have moved on to using useful methods pioneered in the 60's through 90's in a classic historical framework.\n\nOf course new scientific advancements are also very cool as well. Historians are trying to move from being stodgy dudes with lots of books to people that can reach out to many different areas and bring in their respective methods. A good historian now doesn't just know several languages and research methodologies, but can communicate and utilize information from many other disciplines. ",
"Even though it's been around for 100+ years I think of archaeology as a young discipline. The archaeological record is huge and infinitely detailed, but also maddeningly patchy. There are only a few parts of the world that have been truly explored in depth, and even in those places there's always new types of data to collect and new ways to wring more information out of it. Trying to tackle that you have a relatively small, poorly funded discipline that hasn't really cracked how to make sense of their data yet (although definitely *not* through lack of trying). So there's always lots of new stuff on the horizon. Here's a very incomplete list, heavily biased towards my own interests and the limits of my knowledge:\n\n* **Hunter-gatherer complexity**\n\n Part of the received of received wisdom in archaeology is that human beings spent most of our history living very simple lives hunting and gathering, until things started to get interesting in the last 10,000 years with the invention of farming. That's not exactly *wrong* – think of it more like \"Newtonian prehistory\" – but we keep finding more and more evidence of unexpected levels of complexity just before the invention of farming which is forcing us to reassess the timeline. It's widely accepted now that the evolution of social complexity was a much more-drawn out process than we thought, and has a much thornier relationship with food production technology. So now it's a race to an explanation for that.\n\n* **Big prehistoric sites**\n\n Another part of that received wisdom is that prehistoric \"village\" settlements were a limited to a certain size, until they became \"cities\", which were a different type of settlement that could grow much bigger. There have always large sites that have been exceptions to this rule, but what's new is that we're a) becoming aware of sites that are *really* stretching this rule, in terms of their size and age; and b) connecting the dots and realising there are too many sites like this around the world to be dismissed as exceptions. You can't hand wave them as \"proto-cities\" because apart from their size, they don't have any of the features of cities, and many of them are thousands of years older than any *bona fide* cities appear in the same region. They're something different, and we don't understand how they work.\n\n* **Archaeology of the ex-USSR**\n\n This isn't really \"new\" – Soviet archaeologists did fantastic work – but the archaeology of the ex-USSR has only recently been opened up to the rest of the world. There are a few pioneers from the West that have been working there since 1991 (and before), but for the most part it took a while to break down the institutional and language barriers. Early agricultural cultures in Eastern Europe, the prehistory of the steppe, urban civilisations in Central Asia, classical archaeology on the Black Sea and medieval archaeology in European Russia are all a lot more accessible now and are wide open for fresh perspectives. (As a side note, I think Soviet/ex-Soviet archaeological theory could contribute a lot to scholarship in the West, so it'd be great to also see ideas flowing in the other direction too, but alas it hasn't happened).\n\n* **Chinese archaeology**\n\n Similarly, China has a rich and well-studied archaeological record but it's only starting to become well known in the West. Apart from being a fascinating prehistory in and of itself, China is a great point of comparison for west Eurasia – a lot of developments in the west occurred independently in the east, so there's a lot of promise there for comparing the parallels and the differences and testing comparative models.\n\n* **Amazonian prehistory**\n\n As discussed elsewhere in this thread, new methods like LIDAR, geoarchaeology and spatial modelling has recently allowed us to penetrate the prehistory of the Amazon – which for obvious reasons is not the easiest region to study using traditional, ground-based archaeological methods. Contrary to its image as a sparsely populated, pristine wilderness, we know now that the Amazon has a long prehistory and was thickly populated with towns, villages, roads and monuments. This feeds into a broader new appreciation by archaeologists and historians that the Americas were very, very different before 1492.\n\n* **Ancient DNA**\n\n We can now reliably extract DNA from ancient animal and human bones and sequence their whole genome. The amount of new information there is enormous. We can use it to talk about human evolution where before we only had fossils. We can use it to talk about plant an animal domestication where before we only had seeds and bones. We can use it to talk about prehistoric population movements where before we only had pots.\n\nI'm going to leave it there because I'm out of time and this is excessively long, but there's tons more things on the cutting edge I could talk about. Archaeology is a great field to be in right now.",
"As PhD student in literature, one thing I haven't seen mentioned yet that is a SUPER interesting and brand-spanking-new discipline is \"Publication History\". This is the academic study of how books were disseminated and who they were read by, with little focus on the actual content of the text itself. These scholars dig through archival sources to find out the readership levels and demographics for various texts, how the texts were printed and what materials were used, and how books were shipped/sold to others.\n\nI did some work along these lines during my MA, when I took a graduate class that analyzed early 18th century Subscription Lists. Due to the cost of mass-printing a book at the time, authors would go out and solicit people to pay for the book in advance by selling them on the concept/content before it was published. Once it was published, they'd include a \"subscription list\" at the front of the book that listed the names of people who purchased books in advance and how many copies they ordered. It was exactly like the Kickstarter website that people have flaunted as being so revolutionary to content creation, and it was fascinating to try and find out about the lives of people who ordered a particular book and speculate on their reasons for getting it.\n\nPublication history is really good at imposing a little bit of historical context on literary studies, such as revealing that a lot of key Western intellectual texts had an *extremely* limited readership at their time of publication, as well as digging up whole new genres and histories that we might otherwise have forgotten about. A good friend of mine right now is becoming a really notable academic expert on the history of Canadian comic books by focusing on publication histories, and is receiving all sorts of government funding and job offers as a result. It's a really cool discipline and i'm excited to see where it goes!",
"I'm not a historian, but I'm working on some projects that utilize computational methodologies. You can find some projects here: [_URL_0_] I wrote an essay for a digital humanities course evaluating methods of digitizing large copora of newsprint. The project I examined in detail was an interdisciplinary effort to track reception of Lincoln's assassination and other important historical events by area. The project did so in Texas, and provided an interactive map and chunks of text from those areas and newspapers. The goal of the project was to provide a kind of bottom-up approach to studying events. It was really cool, and also helped create a corpus of text that was otherwise sitting in storage. ",
"If the original poster of this question wasn't talking about theory, I would say that the cutting edge of history is fighting it out on the front lines - archives. Special collections, government archives, and other repositories are a kind of front lines for history studies and for things previously not known before. While it might be boring at times, occasionally you might find collections of items to help establish new arguments that alter our understanding of the past, or you might find lost documents such as Haiti's declaration of independence. \n \nAs for theory and the like, from the perspective of someone engaged in studying historical piracy, in particular the late seventeenth century and early eighteenth century, there appears to be a new wave of historians coming. These new contenders are actively \"kicking the tires\" and \"looking for cracks in the old foundations\" of pirate history. They are finding quite a bit of concerning issues too. We are realizing that even scholarly historians have fallen prey to romanticism and included myth as fact in their work just because it's what has been done before, sounds good, or just lazy work. Overall, this work is taking to task the \"radical pirate\" school of thought with pirate history that has it's primary start in the 1980s. The ideas that pirates of this era had crews with high levels of democracy, equality among race/gender, and were purposely rebelling against the capitalist system are receiving great reform. To say the least, re-examination of old evidence and finding new evidence is showing that pirate crews were not as democratic as previously thought, race was not equal on plenty of occasions in pirate crew, women pirates is so episodic that the two known examples in that era are the exceptions that it demonstrate how the maritime world (especially pirates) was a masculine domain, and that the political aspirations of pirates is far more complex than being pre-19th century Marxists. ",
"Pornography! And the study of it! There's only a few people in my field, and most of the research started in the late 80's and really got going in the late 90s. Only started establishing itself in the past few years. I believe there's a journal in the works."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/search?q=wednesday+what%27s+new&restrict_sr=on&sort=new&t=all"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1628"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://dhcommons.org/projects"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
cj6ztp
|
How do (we think) type-II semiconductors work?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/cj6ztp/how_do_we_think_typeii_semiconductors_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"evclzh2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I think this is a typo: Type-II **super**conductors?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1vwxdn
|
how do companies that sell domains create them, if i decided i wanted to do there job how would i do it?
|
Like if I want to create a website I must buy a domain from a company that gets them how? Was confused by this.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1vwxdn/eli5_how_do_companies_that_sell_domains_create/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cewmngl",
"cewn2cp",
"cewpyjb"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"From my understanding of domains, domain registration companies like Go daddy technically don't create a website domain for you. You submit a domain name, and if someone else isn't using it, they license that domain to you for a certain amount of time, then when that period runs out, it either expires, or you pay to renew it. So if someone has a domain that you want, you can buy it directly from them, or if they are not using it, just wait until it expires, then register it for yourself.",
"Technically the companies that you are \"buying\" the domain name from are not selling it to you. You are paying them to register the name for you with a governing body. These companies; like godaddy, name cheap, whatever are accredited by either the generic top-level domain registry (gTLD) or a county code top-level domain registry (ccTLD). If you wanted to get in on this, you'd have to get accredited by one or both of these agencies.",
"A group called ICANN (the Internet Corporation for Assigned Names and Numbers) maintains servers all over the globe that tell computers where to look for a .com domain, or a .de domain, or a .us domain, or a .mil domain. Each of those top-level domains has a different *registrar*. The registrar is the organization in control of all the domains under that top-level domain, or TLD. I believe VeriSign controls .com and .net, so when you visit _URL_0_ or _URL_1_, your request (if we ignore all the caching and higher-level things in place) goes through ICANN's \"root servers\" to VeriSign's servers down to a high-level registrar like GoDaddy or NameCheap's servers, and this is where the actual information for the domain is stored - what IP to access for this domain, e-mail information, etc.\n\nICANN rarely adds new gTLDs (generic TLDs like .com, .net, .gov). Your best bet is to found an independent country, wait for international recognition, and then apply for a ccTLD, or country-code TLD, like .us, .me, .tk, or .es. ICANN has actually been looking at proprietary TLDs for awhile now, I am not sure what the application process is like but I'm sure it's not cheap. In the near future you might see TLDs like .apple, .fb, .goog, .nikon, .twttr, and .tumblr floating around.\n\nOf course, you could just apply to VeriSign and ask their permission to sell .com and .net domains. I believe the application fee is $2000, and you pay VeriSign a large portion of every domain fee collected. ICANN takes a smaller cut from each sale, a fraction of a dollar if I recall. Then you just need to get licensing for all of the over 100 gTLDs and ccTLDs out there, and you're 10% of the way to becoming a successful high-level registrar. :)\n\nMost new high-level registrars actually *resell* their domains from a company named eNom. NameCheap started out like this, I believe they are independent now however. Because eNom already has certification for most of the world's TLDs, you can sell their domains under your own name, for a fee of course. So the flow of money goes from the consumer - > you - > eNom, or other reseller - > VeriSign, or other TLD registrar - > ICANN, with everybody taking a cut of the pie along the way.\n\nSome TLDs out there offer free registration under them. I believe that the island of Tokelau (.tk) used to do (still does?) this, and there's an initiative to create a .free domain for, namely, free domains. I'm not sure what Tokelau's incentive is for doing this, I believe that they make significant amounts of ad revenue by parking ads on domains. dot.free is an initiative for Internet equality, but if ICANN's disturbing thirst for profit is any indication of what's to come, they probably will not succeed.\n\nTL:DR; Venture capital.\n\nI haven't been in the domain business for a few years and I'm sure that things have changed a lot. I will do my best to answer any questions you have, although I've never been especially talented at talking to children."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"reddit.com",
"comcast.net"
]
] |
|
12oirz
|
How far can a human being theoretically travel in a lifetime?
|
Assuming we have a spaceship with enough energy to accelerate at the maximum acceleration a human can withstand for half the journey and decelerate the other half.
How far can you travel in 10 years? 50? 100?
Also, is this kind of spaceship theoretically impossible?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12oirz/how_far_can_a_human_being_theoretically_travel_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6wv9gd"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"See: _URL_0_\n\nIt is reckoned that the top achievable velocity for soft fleshy things is about 0.5 c. Above that the diffuse interstellar medium made up mostly of hydrogen will create too much of a radiation problem for the flesh, or even hardened electronics, to handle.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scirp.org/journal/PaperInformation.aspx?paperID=23913"
]
] |
|
eit3vw
|
why does a person feel more pain during a lethal injection execution than an animal being "put to sleep"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eit3vw/eli5_why_does_a_person_feel_more_pain_during_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fctca05"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Because drug manufacturers don't want their drugs associated with executions, so they won't sell the drugs used on animals to the state for that purpose. The state has to scrounge up whatever lethal drugs it can that will do the job, and it's usually not the one that are least unpleasant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1bnccn
|
formal and informal fallacies
|
What exactly are they, and can your provide examples of fallacious arguments of both varieties?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bnccn/eli5_formal_and_informal_fallacies/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c988hf0",
"c988jzl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A formal fallacy is an argument where the given information doesn't support the conclusion that is made. An informal fallacy occurs when there is a flaw in the reasoning, but not necessarily with the logic.\n\n\nExamples:\n\nFormal Fallacy:\n\n > If a computer turns on, then it is working.\n > \n > \n > The computer is working.\n > \n > \n > The computer turns on.\n\n(The problem with this argument is that some computers will not work, but still turn on. It assumes that the premise is always true. This fallacy is called Affirming the Consequent.)\n\n\nInformal Fallacy:\n\n > Carbon Dioxide is a gas.\n > \n > \n > Carbon Dioxide is a solid.\n > \n > \n > All gasses are solids.\n\n\n(This is called a hasty generalization, and is a problem with the reasoning, not the logic.)",
"A formal fallacy is always wrong because of a flaw in the structure of the logic. An example is something like: \n1. If Jack is in San Francisco, then Jack is in California \n2. Jack is in California \n3 Therefore Jack is in San Francisco\n\nThis is fallacious. Being in California is a necessary condition for being in San Fran. That is, if you are in SF, you *must* be in California. But being in San Francisco is not a necessary condition for being in California. It is possible to be in California without being in San Francisco. It may be *incidentally* true, but you can't prove that someone is in SF just because they're in CA. \n\nAn informal fallacy is when your arguments fail to support your conclusion, usually because of a flaw in reasoning. As in \"It is a crime to cut someone open, and surgeons cut people open, therefore all surgeons are criminals.\" \n\nIf both statements are true (\"it is a crime to cut someone \" and \"surgeons cut people\"), then the conclusion should be true as well, but the person creating that argument has failed to take into consideration that there could be times when it is OK to cut someone open. The argument itself is fallacious, despite being technically valid.\n\nThere are many, many different kinds of of informal fallacies, and they can come up in various circumstances."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ahzbhj
|
why, at airport security screenings, do electronics need to be put in a separate tray? can't scanners see through a bag/luggage?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ahzbhj/eli5_why_at_airport_security_screenings_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eejmhqt",
"eejphcr",
"eejs0l0",
"eejwuuu",
"eejxnn6",
"eejy9l3",
"eejzcdy",
"eek2lp0",
"eek4367",
"eek9fbe",
"eekknrm"
],
"score": [
260,
97,
2774,
659,
153,
33,
2,
338,
19,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"They can, but when you have a lot of wires and circuitry all densely packed together things can be hard to see. Remember that the scanner only shows a two-dimensional image of a three-dimensional bag.\n\nSo, they have you pull out the electronics and lay them in a single layer in one of the bins so they are easier to see on the scan.",
"Security theater. It doesn't make it any easier to spot a bomb, but it makes people feel like something is being done.\n\nSince the explosion of TSA regulation following 9/11, more terrorist attacks have been stopped on the plane than in the airport, because vigilant civilians see something off. \n\nThe logic of making you remove large electronics is that if you put your bag through and they still see large electronics you might be hiding something. Unfortunately, most TSA employees wouldn't be able to tell the difference between a MacBook and a bomb made to look like a MacBook, so it doesn't matter. In the end, it just makes people feel like they're safer.",
"Large batteries and metal bodies of your laptop/tablets block x-rays, making it hard/impossible to see other things in the bag.",
"I recall there was a short time after 9/11 when TSA rules required you to turn on your laptop to prove it was a real working device. So obviously that led to a \"laptops separate\" rule. Even when TSA stopped that particular requirement, they kept the \"laptops separate\" rules, probably for the reasons mentioned elsewhere in this thread (i.e., better scanner visibility, security theater).",
"Several reasons.\n\n1. Batteries are so dense that they blow out the contrast in the images.\n\nImagine you're in an unlit room with a window to a bright scene outside. If you try to take a picture of the scene outside, most of the room will come out dim. Try to take a picture of the furniture in the room, and the scene outside will be washed out. The same thing happens when they X-ray your bag. They can see pretty well inside your luggage but if there's a battery in there -- especially if it takes up a big chunk of the image -- they won't see much else as the system adjusts the exposure. And they really do want to see the details of the battery, too.\n\nYes, there are ways to address this without making me people use separate bins, some intersection of improved technology and better training, both of which cost money.\n\n2. There have long been suggestions terrorists intend to smuggle explosives onto an airplane by shaping the explosives to fit in a laptop battery compartment. So they're going to get extra scrutiny.\n\n3. It's still a lot of security theater. Somebody says We should scan laptops separately, and everybody says Ooh yeah, that's clever. Nobody wants to be the one suggesting it's unnecessary because What If?\n\n4. Horseshit VIP treatment. Get Global Entry or PreCheck or whatever and you can often leave your shoes on and your laptop in your bag. Like terrorists can't exploit that? But the TSA and airports and airlines love having this two tier system. It's literally in their financial interest to make it a hassle to get through security and on to a plane unless you pony up for business class or get their credit card or pay the Feds for the privilege.\n\n",
"Lots of incorrect answers here. Laptops have a certain CT scan profile (e.g. small or no organic profile) and when you put other objects on top of a laptop, that profile becomes mixed and you can't determine if it's the laptop that has organic material or the object on top.",
"Worked as TSA post summer 9/11 in Canada. You can see through them on x-rat but it does make it harder to spot other things due to the complexity of the system board and other components. Typically when I fly I put all electronics in a separate bin.",
"I am a manager for the TSA equivalent in another country. I can shed some light on this for you. The main reason they make you put your laptop or any other large electronic device (cpap machines, gaming consoles, etc) into a separate bin is because of the way the X ray machines work. They take a top down and side on image of your bag. The screening officers are trained to look for IED components by doing things like tracing wires to their source or finding timers attached to organic masses. So if you have a laptop with a book or a sandwich sitting next to it in your bag it can potentially look suspicious. \n\nThe other reason someone already mentioned here is X ray shielding. It is quite common for people to try and hide drugs etc behind dense metal objects like a battery or hard drive. That is also why you are sometimes required to turn on your device to prove it works.",
"I recently flew from Amsterdam airport & they told me I didn't need to remove my laptop, etc from my ruck sack. \n\nEvery other airport has me remove my laptop.\n\nJust finished 4 week work trip & my rucksack was packed full of wires, laptop, electronics and random garbage. They didn't even look inside.\n\nDo they have more advanced scanners or is the whole thing a waste of time in the first place?",
"Almost every policy at the airport security is to make you feel like it's more secure than it actually is",
"it's because the authoritarian police state the USA is slipping into requires you to do any mundane tasks you're told immediately otherwise you're a terrorist "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
apl18m
|
Did the colonisation of Congo by Leopold II benefit the congo in the post-colonial period in terms of infrastructure?
|
I was reading a thread in /r/Belgium on the UN advising the state to apologise for its colonial past earlier on and various posters were discussing the extent of the massacre/genocide in congo, whether it was even a genocide and the usual nonsense that goes with negationism.
Now, what I noticed in the thread is various people saying we should remember the bad things Belgium did in Congo, but we should also not brush over or distort the good.
Now, since 'good' and 'bad' are ethical/moral concepts, I realise that it's unfair to ask a historian to take a stance on this as such, but various redditors were also discussing whether the net effect of colonialism was of any benefit to Congo despite intentions.
[thread in question here](_URL_0_)
Now, since neither of the two sides claims to be a historian and my expertise lies more in medieval history than Colonial and post-colonial africa I'm not remotely qualified to argue properly.
So, I have a few questions for you today:
What is the consensus view on the extent of the genocide in congo and can it be called a genocide?
Is the Belgian government responsible for atrocities since decolonisation?
Was infrastructure in congo built for the benefit of locals at all?
Did this supposedly well developed infrastructure (hospitals, roads, canals, schools, churches) benefit the congolese at all in a post-colonial era compared to its neighbours?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/apl18m/did_the_colonisation_of_congo_by_leopold_ii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eg9ooj7"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"I wrote a fairly lengthy paper on the Congo following decolonization recently, but obviously I’m not flaired so I’m not sure if this will be accepted. \n\nAnyway, I believe most scholars are of the consensus that what occurred in the Congo under Leopoldo was assuredly a genocide. Although maybe not done for traditional reasons, killing several million Congolese puts it under that category. \n\nSince decolonization, the Congo has been an absolute mess. My area of focus is 1960’s Congo, and I can state pretty confidently that Belgium played a heavy role in keeping the Congo in perpetual chaos and weakening whatever bureaucracy may have arisen. The first prime minister, Patrice lumumba, was a pan-Africanist, and sought to bring some sense of “Africanization” to the Congo. However, he was also a bit of a socialist, and the west (notable the Belgians and the USA) were wary of whatever relations he may wish to foster with the soviets. The Belgians sought to undermine his authority by advocating for the secession of Katanga, a mineral rich province on the southern fringe of the Congo, supporting general tshombe. In effect, this was also a move to ensure that union miniere, a Belgian mining company, would not have its property seized by the Congolese government. The Belgians wanted these mines open. \n\nLumumba was quickly “deposed” and assassinated in Katanga in January of 1961, by the CIA/Belgians, depending on your source. This action, the assassination of a democratically elected prime minister that had ambitions of unifying the Congo into a coherent, semi-centralized state, lead to the next decade of turmoil, after which mobutu would rise to power. \n\nThe infrastructure in the Congo was solely for the purpose of resource extraction, as is the case in almost every other post-colonial state. The ports on the Atlantic (or I guess just the one) we’re connected by rail to either rubber plantations in the north and center of the country or to mines in the south and east. There was no infrastructure dedicated to inter-city commerce. Granted, the cities in the Congo do mostly sit on the banks of the Congo river, but there were no attempts by the Belgians to integrate different parts of the Congo. \n\nI can’t really speak too much on the last question, as the only other states I’ve looked at are Tanzania and Zimbabwe. The Congo is not a great country, geographic-wise, to build an economy in. It essentially sits in a massive basin, and the lifeline of the country, the Congo River, has two massive rapids that prevent going to far up or down river, and effectively isolate the country from the Atlantic Ocean. \n\nIf anyone reads this and knows more than I do and could correct me, I would really appreciate that! But I think for this most part this a pretty succinct answer. If you would like more details, I’d be willing to go further in detail when I get off work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/belgium/comments/apian8/un_experts_advise_belgian_government_to_apologise/eg8ir5e/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
5xzdfv
|
why do some meats need to be thoroughly cooked (e.g. chicken) and others can be cooked to varying degrees (e.g. beef) or not at all (e.g. fish)?
|
In the context of food safety, that is.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5xzdfv/eli5_why_do_some_meats_need_to_be_thoroughly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dem1aww",
"dem1mu9"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Risk vs reward basically - if chicken tasted great while served medium rare, we would wager that up against the chance of getting a salmonella infection.\n\nDuring times of serious outbreaks in cattle disease, certain parts, or temporary cooking measures are implemented. \n\nFish, don't really normally have these issues - but they do carry worms, that will die if you freeze them first. So we do that. ",
"Some bacteria can live in chicken (salmonella) that is not found in raw red meat. That's why you have to cook chicken thoroughly.\n\nFish and seafood have the [anisakis](_URL_0_) parasite, raw fish must be frozen on site at certain very low temperatures (double of your freezer at home) for the parasite to die. If it hasn't been treated this way, cook the fish, please. Ever heard of anyone allergic to fish or seafood? This is the reason. Think twice before eating the next herring. If it hasn't been frozen... \n\nFish sold for raw consumption must be labeled that way. Otherwise, don't take the chance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anisakis"
]
] |
|
o2zr2
|
Is LASIK reasonably safe?
|
I was researching LASIK for my fiancee and I notice mixed messages on the various internet sources.
On one hand, doctors and manufacturers [**claim extremely high success**](_URL_2_) rates, yet on the other hand I see [**warnings from the FDA**](_URL_0_), and a [**petition filed**](_URL_3_) for the recall of LASIK devices by the former FDA Chief of Ophthalmic Surgical Devices - and the [**FDA's interim response** (pdf)](_URL_1_).
What is the real scientific consensus? Is the risk really negligible for properly screened LASIK patients? Is there an unknown long-term risk?
EDIT: I should clarify that I am in no way requesting medical advice. I am asking the Reddit science community for the scientific long term safety of the procedure on the general public.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o2zr2/is_lasik_reasonably_safe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3e01fs",
"c3e0kbh"
],
"score": [
8,
4
],
"text": [
"As with most surgeries (and it is a surgery), the safety of LASIK depends a lot on the patient.\n\nWith modern femtosecond lasers to make the flap and wavefront-guided computer stippling lasers to shape the cornea, the LASIK procedure itself is basically setting the whole thing up and pressing a button.\n\nThe critical part of LASIK is what happens before then: evaluating the patient. The doctor needs to determine if the patient is a good candidate. There are a lot of factors that go into this, such as corneal thickness, dry eyes, etc.\n\nSo, nobody on here, even the people that know a great deal about LASIK, can comment on how safe it is for YOU. Your doctor can determine how good of a candidate you are and discuss the risks.\n\nThat FDA article you linked to is about misleading patients. Make sure you know what you are getting into. Ask about complication rates and about alternative procedures (PRK is more appropriate for some people).",
"There are some indications that it might increase the risk of floaters (not a big deal) and retinal detachment (big f'ing deal). \n\nHaving suffered a retinal detachment myself (whether that is related to my LASIK or not I have no idea of knowing), I can assure you this is **not** a surgery you want. \n\nDetached retinas are a big deal; blindness is a possible outcome, and if the detachment reaches your yellow spot, your vision will be forever deteriorated even if you get the retina fixed. \n\nAdd to the fact that it's quite possible your vision will keep deteriorating after the LASIK and you might end up needing new prescriptions after a few years anyway.\n\nMy vision is \"back down\" to -1.5 approximately 6 years after my LASIK, so to me, it has been a completely wasted procedure that may or may not have contributed to my retinal detachment. \n\n\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_\n_URL_1_"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/SurgeryandLifeSupport/LASIK/ucm272960.htm",
"http://lasikcomplications.com/FDA_interim_response_LASIK_petition.pdf",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LASIK#LASIK_surgery_results",
"http://lasikcomplications.com/LasikPetition/petition.html"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.lasikcomplications.com/vitreoretinal_damage.htm",
"http://journals.lww.com/retinajournal/Abstract/2000/04000/Rhegmatogenous_Retinal_Detachment_After.3.aspx",
"http://eyes.emedtv.com/lasik/retinal-detachment-with-lasik-eye-surgery.html"
]
] |
|
5tksxt
|
why can you "brick" phones so easily, but not computers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tksxt/eli5_why_can_you_brick_phones_so_easily_but_not/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddnaeg0",
"ddnanb6",
"ddnaww9",
"ddndngl",
"ddnem2m",
"ddneox2",
"ddnexo0",
"ddnf67w",
"ddnf915",
"ddnfft8",
"ddnhe4p",
"ddnhfmz",
"ddnho6i",
"ddni5j3",
"ddniu5w",
"ddnjs84",
"ddnm73k",
"ddnmp2f",
"ddnnt3t",
"ddo0icp",
"ddo0qbl",
"ddo41an",
"ddo60ea"
],
"score": [
5034,
551,
81,
23,
9,
21,
37,
9,
412,
21,
6,
2,
19,
271,
9,
5,
3,
4,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Bricking generally means making completely unusable at the hardware level. The reason that computers rarely get bricked is that we RARELY do any manipulation of the computer at the hardware level. To brick a computer, you would need to break the BIOS (Basic Input/Output System) which pretty much no one non-techy messes with. If you break windows, you can still reinstall windows. If you break the BIOS, you can hose things pretty quickly.\n\nThe other aspect is that even with the BIOS, I can't think of ANYONE who would be messing around with the BIOS without using the official manufacturer's files. Most of the time you're messing with phones, you are doing so with custom firmware/ROM's, which means something made by someone other than the manufacturer. If you're flashing your BIOS, you're almost always going to be doing it with something provided (and quality controlled, tested, etc) by the company who made the product.\n\nSo it comes down to two factors: \n\n1) for computers, you generally don't tinker at such a deep level that you're going to risk bricking it\n\n2) Even if you are messing at that level, you're not doing anything that is not officially approved of by the manufacturer.\n\nThe final aspect is the fact that it's relatively easy to replace a computer (especially a desktop) part. If something in your phone breaks, 90% of us are just going to give up because it's so hard to replace. Most of the stuff that's likely to go bad is also easily replaced/substituted. I fried my sound card on one of my desktops a few months back, and for $10 I just plugged in a new sound card. If I killed the speaker on my phone, I'd say fuck it and just buy a new phone.",
"You actually can brick a computer if you manage to turn it off during a bios update for example. Android has something similiar to computers bios, called OEM bootloader. It is being run before the operating system, just like bios in computer. The thing is, if you want to replace the operating system in your computer, you do not need to replace or do anything at all with your bios. Bios by default allows you to boot from usb or cd/dvd and so you can judt install the OS freely. This is not true for android, most android phones are OEM locked, and their modloader often also disables ability to access recovery mode, which allows you to flash custom OS, just like booting in your computer. Here is the key part, you as an user, have by default full access to your computer as an administrator (you can install whatever program you want, do whatever you want with your pc, you can even overclock your processor), but for your phone you do not have administrator rights , so you are limited to the OS ans settings set to you by the company . To bypass this and gain full control of your phone, you need to do something called rooting a phone. Rooting can be dangerous as it most of the time takes replacing the bootloader. If you fail to replace the bootloader properly, you brick your phone, as it is unable to start even the loading process before OS. This is a hard brick. Soft brick is when the OS you flashed (installed) is broken and the bootloader can not load it, you can still just flash another. \n\n",
"The TL;DR is that messing with your phone happens on a lower level than messing with your computer.\n\nFor context, imagine if you suddenly had to start flashing a custom bios because the manufacturer made it so it could only run their flavor of Windows 10.",
"we live in a consumerist world and that means companies wont work together any more than they have to in order to maintain market dominance.\n\n**Phones can be almost if not entirely \"in house\"**\nphones are designed to be \"good enough\" so that they can be produced as soon, volumed, and cheap as possible =the components are designed to be entirely dependant on each other with very few if any redundancies.\n\n**Computers are less \"in house\"**\ncomputers are typically made by multiple companies often that compete with each other[phones also but to a lower degree] or simply by people like you and me SO because of this in order to keep a product relevant PC parts are by nature designed to be more robust and reliable because the components are designed for a much wider compatibility = less dependant on specific archetectures. Also its simply alot easier to replace components in a PC than in a phone because a PC doesnt need to fit in your pocket.\n\n**tl;dr:** phones sacrifice redundancy for convenience, pcs do the opposite.",
"Even if you \"brick\" a computer you only basically ruin the motherboard. The rest of your computer is perfectly fine, and all you would need to do is replace that component. Phones aren't repairable in that sense. ",
"It really is fairly hard to brick a phone. You still have to make a stupid mistake. But Android phones have 3 partitions they can boot from (fastboot, recovery, and system). Mess up all 3 and you have a brick.\n\nComputers can boot from the CD/USB drive as well as internal, you the only way to brick it is to mess up the BIOS (that screen that flashes before Windows starts booting). Which normal users don't touch. The BIOS is what tells the computer where to look for something to boot, and as others have posted, it is possible to update the BIOS and if you turn it off or somehow try to use an incompatible motherboard's firmware, bad things can happen. But newer motherboards have a recovery BIOS too, so those would be really hard to brick.",
"phones have good reasons to mess around with the hardware code - since they put in stupid things that prevent you from doing things that you want and that the device is capable of, and its pretty much a requirement to fiddle around with the OS\n\ncomputers there just isnt a good reason to. you dont need to do anything to the bios in order to install different OS versions and there are no real benefits that i can think of even as a techy. ive flashed a bios once and it was with software the company provided me. years of tech experience and it only required it once... but ive flashed every phone i had. \n\ni really dont think its that easy to brick a phone. ive never bricked one and every problem i ran into while flashing it was fixable. i think alot of the time its people just getting confused and throwing in the towel rather than them actually bricking it\n",
"Many motherboards have dual BIOS. So even if you screw one up you can boot into the other. \n\nI can understand why Apple doesn't do the same as their all about iron fisted control over THEIR ecosystem but it does make you wonder why premium handsets on Android don't offer such a feature, whats Samsung et al interest in protecting Googles ecosystem?",
"PCs are built with openness in mind. Meaning on a PC you can install different OSs, boot from different media, install different hardware and so on. It's all under the users control and if you screw things up, you just boot from a USB stick or DVD and recover easily. PCs are meant to be tinkered with and handle accidents well. Even for accidents in the mids of a BIOS upgrade many mainboards have ways to recover from that.\n\nPhones, tablets and game consoles are the complete opposite, they are locked down so that the user has little to no control about what is going on. Meaning a lot of tinkering has to happen in areas that the manufacturer didn't intent to be tinkered with or actively tried to prevent tinkering in. This means the tinkerer is walking a minefield and any error might put the device into an unrecoverable state.\n\nAll of this is not an accident, but by design. If manufacturers wanted to, they could make phones as easy to recover as a PC by letting the user boot from SDcard or access the internal flash storage via USB. Case in point, many bricked PSP could be recovered after people found out that booting from the memory card was possible via a modified battery. The feature was there all along, but not documented by Sony to prevent hacking.\n\nAnother issue is that even if the device allows you to recover, you would still need the data to put on the device to recover it. On a PC you have Windows install discs, Linux distributions and all that readily available to reinstall on a blank device. Getting the OS image for your phone might not be that easy.\n\nTo make things further more complicated, the ecosystem around those devices is not standardized and discoverable, which makes it hard to create software that works across different devices. A Linux distribution will work on essentially any PC, but you can't make a Linux distribution that will work as easily on every phone as all the hardware around ARM varies from manufacturer to manufacturer.\n",
"The real answer is that you *could* easily design a phone that was very easy to customize and very difficult to brick just like a computer. The reason this doesn't happen is that the cell network operators (who are the main customer of the phone manufacturers) don't want you customizing your phone. It is intentionally difficult to modify the phone. You must break through the manufacturer security to modify things. Cracking a device to do something it wasn't supposed to inherently comes with risk of breaking it. Computers are in a completely different market where customizability is important, especially to business and government customers. Expect computers for the consumer market to drift towards to difficult to customize end of the spectrum.",
"You can wreck a motherboard pretty easily if you go fundamentally changing the BIOS. I had a BIOS update go bad once. It took about 5 minutes to go from a happy beep telling me that an update was ready to \"shit, that was a $500 mistake.\"\n\n",
"Because you have limited control and access of a phone. On a PC you can easily fix most anything as you have much more control & access.",
"There are only 2 ways a computer can be \"bricked\" :\n\n1. The BIOS can be corrupted\n2. A piece of hardware can fail, whether due to mechanical damage (you slipped with a screwdriver while tinkering) or failure due to wear out/manufacturing defect.\n\nEither way, the fix is the same. For a desktop computer, you just identify the component that broke, order a replacement, and pop it in. The only form of failure that can cause permanent inconvenience is when the hard drive fails and you don't have a backup. If you messed up the BIOS, worst case scenario you can just replace the motherboard.\n\nSome motherboards put the BIOS on a socketed chip you can replace. These days, many motherboards actually have at least 2 copies of the BIOS - some let you switch to the other copy of the BIOS via a jumper, or more commonly these days, there's a bios you cannot alter that will kick in if the main one fails to boot or if you push a recovery button shortly after power on.\n\n",
"As others have mentioned you can brick a motherboard if you try hard enough. When I was a kid, I flashed a BIOS upgrade onto my dads machine, except I accidentally flashed the file for almost the same version (think XXXXX+ vs XXXXX Pro or similar) - and it totally let it flash, and upon rebooting, the machine was dead.\n\nSo I panicked, because like, it's my dads PC right and he's not going to understand what I was trying to do, he's just going to be mad. And I can't afford to buy a device to reflash the chip, nor did I have any idea how to make one, at the time.\n\nBut then I remembered my machine had the exact same motherboard, and took a look and, yay, the chip was removable. So I ask a bunch of random people on IRC if it would be sane/possible to boot my machine, get it all ready to flash the correct firmware, then while the machine is on, pull out the BIOS chip and replace it with the dead one, and flash it from the system that's already booted. This seemed to make sense to me, but they all told me it was stupid and would break the other one. (I've since found out that, obviously, I did not invent this idea, but hey I was really young, when you're young you came up with everything first)\n\nDesperate kids will do anything an adult tells them not too, though, so I did it anyway and it worked. Didn't get hit with a belt that day! : > ",
"How to brick your PC easy..\n\n1] Attempt to flash GPU with bad BIOS code, especially if its graphic card without backup BIOS [there are some that feature double BIOS, but dont worry its possible to brick them too]. Especially dangerous can be \"unlocking\" BIOS that gives either new functionality or tries to unlock unused parts of GPU. That can actually end really nasty way.\n\n2] Any BIOS flash of motherboard can end same way, especially if it contains some unsafe tweaks or wrong default voltage. 2v into vCore = dead CPU.\n\n3] Try to flash anything and get power shortage. Or just turn off PC.\n\n4] Do unsafe badly cooled overclocking.\n\nReality is that you can brick your PC [or parts of it] very easily, if you not careful in what you do. But it applies only to ppl trying OC or flashing stuff. Experienced people usually dont brick em and general public has no idea what I just wrote [so they safe too].\n\nIn some aspects its same, if you flash your cellphone wrong way it dies, if you do same with PC components, they might die too. If you do it in really bad way, you can kill more than just one component.\n\nIMHO, read everything you can before you try anything risky with cellphone or your PC. I think it usually helps.\n\n**TL:DR - You can brick PC same way as cellphones, just most people dont try same things with PC as they do with cellphones, cause they lack knowledge or will to attempt it.**\n\n*Side note: Why you would try to flash BIOS in PC? Well, BIOS upgrades for one. Unlocking full CPU power for another. For example some time ago, you could buy cheap Xeon CPU [Intel server processors] and with simple BIOS flash unlock option to overclock it as easily as mainstream [expensive] CPUs from Intel. Obviously not many knew that, which is reason why I still see those CPUs being very cheap in store.. :D*",
"PC manufacturers don't try to use the BIOS to lock end users out of their machine's functionality.",
"ELI5 ANSWER: For phones installing OS and other tweaks generally write data to flash chips (I THINK THEY ARE ROM) to open up the hardware more, that if corrupted can be very hardhard/IMPOSSIBLE to reprogram (bricked). For pcs hardware is very open and you can pretty much install what you want with no hardware reprogramming. \n\n(FIRST ELI5) ",
"It is actually fairly easy to brick a computer if you're trying to. On a software level it would be tough, but not impossible, you can mod BIOS or some hardware code if you intend to. \n\nOne time me and a girl were building computers in a shed and I explained how the term 'bug' came from bugs literally getting into circuit boards and frying them. Just then a large mosquito-hawk landed on the exposed motherboard and it fried the board and that forced a hard shut down, bricking the computer for all time.",
"Phones are rarely bricked by (power) users though.\n\nWhen things go wrong, you generally just get a *bootlooping* phone, or a phone stuck during boot, which is analogous to a computer that you would need to reinstall an operating system on. Bootlooping/startup hangs are somewhat common, but is not generally a big deal. I'm pretty sure all my phones have had boot hangs at some point or another, or appeared to.\n\nThe familiarity of the term 'bricking' stems mostly from fear of it happening due to the high cost, and the slightly greater chance of it happening to your phone, as you are replacing more software than on your computer if you were to reinstall its operating system.",
"I thought it was easy to brick a computer- you just smash the hard drive with a brick till it stops working...",
"I've bricked so many devices, AMA. My car's OS can even be \"adjusted\" but a friend talked me out of it because bricking my car would be brutal.",
"Well... My last Mac managed to brick itself doing an OS update. Apple told me to buy a new computer. That was when I got into building PCs.... Lol",
"That's were you wrong kiddo.\n\nIt's easy to brick a computer, just delete system 32.\n\nI mean, deleting system 32 makes your PC run faster."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4ddsbw
|
what is the difference between good and bad welding?
|
I saw the recent pictures of what looked like "good" welding, in that it was pretty, and that's about all I took away from it. What does it actually mean for welding to be good vs bad?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ddsbw/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_good_and_bad/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1q0r7q",
"d1q0rm4",
"d1q7x5f",
"d1qbvz0"
],
"score": [
2,
23,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Welds can be bad for a number of reasons. You probably saw a \"tig\" weld, where wire was coiled over itself to make a cool braided look. A bad weld would be made my using too little or too much heat, either causing the metal to scorch and oxidize or the wire to not make a good structural bond.",
"I'm learning this myself as I continue practicing :)\n\nThere's alot that can make a weld good or bad. What makes a weld good isn't necessarily how pretty it is, it's mostly about penetration (among other things). Penetration is basically how good of a job you're doing making sure your welding rod is melting into your work material. You want it melting together, so they become one piece of metal, rather than just molten globs laying on top.\n\nYou can still make very nice looking welds with poor penetration - they'll look great but won't hold together.",
"Good welding doesn't break when put under loads that it was designed for. Bad welding does break.\n\nAn interesting tid bit is that one inch of good weld (manual metal arc weld) should be able to support one tonne hanging from it.",
"Welding can be very basic, joining two similar materials with a simple joint. \n\nOr it can be very difficult, joining two dissimilar metals or working with metals that require specialized training and materials. \n\nGetting a quality weld though tends to be the same for both approaches. The weld needs to penetrate and flow with the surfaces being joined, be free of impurities, the flow itself needs to be regular in spacing and thickness, and the right materials must be used. \n\nHaving even spacing, thickness, and flow is mostly technique. Being free of impurities, proper penetration etc are mostly about materials and practices. \n\nThe more critical the weld is, the less tolerance there is for impurities, stress fractures from unequal heating, weld penetration, flow etc. Some of the most critical welds are done using some machine assistance due to their consistent results weld after weld, for instance robotic welding in manufacturing. \n\nSometimes the weld is ultrasounded or xrayed to determine it's quality. You can imagine a highly critical weld like in an oil pipeline, or the heat exchanger in a nuclear reactor, there is no room for error. \n\nSome of the ways impurities are dealt with are preparing the area with a wire brush or solvent and thorough cleaning. De-mineralizing it, dehydrating it etc. Flux does a lot of this in less critical applications by being so attractive to oxygen and impurities that it sucks them up like a sponge. \n\nMore advanced welding like MIG, TIG, etc use an inert gas to create an envelope around the weld so that oxygen can't penetrate and weaken the weld. You still have to properly utilize technique in order to make sure the inert envelope was well placed, at the right pressure etc. \n\nThere are tons of details about each part of a weld but in general, these are the things that make a weld good or bad. How good or how bad it is will depend on the application, and how critical the weld needs to be. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
skuia
|
Is a human closer (in orders of magnitude) to the size of universe or the size of a muon?
|
Muon may be the wrong subatomic particle, maybe quark?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/skuia/is_a_human_closer_in_orders_of_magnitude_to_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4et44n",
"c4et6jb",
"c4etisb",
"c4ey1oa"
],
"score": [
4,
19,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Woops I accidentally a word.",
"In terms of mass we are closer to the size of a muon, which is 1.88x10^-28 kg ,compared to the mass of the observable universe which is 3x10^52 kg",
"If by size you mean length, a muon is a point particle, i.e. it has no size.",
"Length wise, a Quark is around 10^-15 m across, and the observable universe is around 10^26 m across. So We're closer to Quarks than the Observable Universe.\n\nGoing even more extreme, strings (from String Theory!) are thought to be in the order of 10^-35 m."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1avf8n
|
Did the spread of Buddhism nearly cause an economic collapse in Ancient China?
|
This question does not appear to be in the reddit search tool bar, nor in the FAQ. Google can't seem to help me either.
A little background: I remember very clearly reading in a world history class about the spread of Buddhism into China. The story stuck with me, but ever since then i've not been able to find it again. Asking about the spread of Buddhism into China just links me to Buddhist run websites that offer no substance in what i'm looking for. I'll just repeat what i remember to the best of my memory.
If i am recalling correctly, the spread of Buddhism into China nearly collapsed the economy of China. This was because a Buddhist monk was not allowed to work. They had to receive everything- food, shelter, clothing- by way of donations of others. This was how, in part, you would practice your religion if you were a Buddhist but not a monk. You would give the aforementioned to the monks.
The problem was that too many people realized what a "sweet deal" this was. You got free clothing, food, and shelter; yet you never had to work a day in your life. This caused a surge in the amount of Buddhist monks- to the point that there weren't enough people working the fields. The emperor of China said something like "If there is no one to sew the shirts, all of our backs will go bare" or something. After that, i don't quite recall what happened.
What i want to ask is: Is any of this true? How close or completely far off am i in my recollection? Thanks in advance!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1avf8n/did_the_spread_of_buddhism_nearly_cause_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c913q2s",
"c91afdy"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"What is clearly true: that Buddhists survived off of the charity of others. that buddhists were at many times free from corvee or taxes. And that many went into the buddhist clergy. \nHowever, whomever told you that this was such a significant number that it was economically traumatic is way way off. \nThere were frequent backlashes against buddhism from the elite, particularly the statist and confucian rite traditionalists like [Han Yu](_URL_0_). And it is possible that some statements exist in which these types suggested that buddhism would negatively impact the economy. But, despite their invective, there is no evidence to suggest that buddhism *did* negatively impact the economy at all! Side note - Daoist monks were also given similar freedoms and were often descried in similar ways. ",
"I think you may be misstating the problem. It wasn't really a case of individual work, but of legacy: inheritances and taxation. Think about it this way: there was a similar problem in Europe. Many people left their lands to the church. This took those lands out of the tax rolls. It became a real issue. You've likely heard the story of Henry changing religious direction because he wanted a divorce. But the underlying story had to do with this land issue, and the whole thing led to the Dissolution of the Monasteries:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nA similar thing had already happened centuries before in China, around 845. There was all this stuff about the \"sweet deal\" you write about, but that seems like a cover. The real issue was working land, monasteries, and taxation:\n\n_URL_2_\n\nIt's often worth looking underneath \"social arguments\" for the underlying economic issues, and this is one of those cases. If you're interested, you may wish to glance at this page: \n\n_URL_0_\n\nQuoting from the section on \"Reign 18\":\n\n\"When they brought the sixteen-year-old Emperor Wǔzōng 武宗 (reign 12a-18) to the throne in 840, the eunuchs probably got a lot more than they bargained for. For one thing, he forced Qiú Shìliáng into retirement and dismantled his political machine. In the interest of promoting Confucian orthodoxy, he had the Canon inscribed in stone at the imperial academy. But he also became more and more attracted to Daoism, and especially to elixirs of immortality.\n\nIn 842 he launched an attack upon institutional Buddhism, stimulated in part by his affection for Daoism (and no doubt for various court Daoists) and in part by the fact that his predecessors had allowed a large part — some say about 40% — of the country's land to fall into the hands of untaxable monasteries.\""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Han_Yu"
],
[
"http://anthro.ucsd.edu/~dkjordan/chin/faanfor/TarngPersecutions.html",
"http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk/dissolution_monasteries.htm",
"http://online.sfsu.edu/rone/Buddhism/Buddhism%20in%20China.htm"
]
] |
|
7dldw6
|
i don't understand how it is possible to cool a car engine with air alone. so how does air-cooled engines work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dldw6/eli5_i_dont_understand_how_it_is_possible_to_cool/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpykn66",
"dpylghu",
"dpym0z9",
"dpymumu"
],
"score": [
26,
2,
11,
5
],
"text": [
"There is a lot of air, and the average temperature of the air is suitable for long-term engine operation. It's simply a matter of exchanging the engine heat with enough air. Even liquid cooled engines do this, they use a fluid to move the heat to a radiator and from there into the air. An air cooled engine simply does it directly. It uses fans to circulate a lot of air over an engine structure with fins to provide enough surface area to exchange the heat.",
"Imagine when you blow on a spoon full of soup to cool it. You are pushing air over the hot soup. Each little bit of air takes a small amount of heat away. So when the car is driving fast it has a lot of air blowing against the engine. All of the air carries a little bit of heat away. The colder the air the more heat it can carry away.",
"The main difference you'd see on air cooled engines are [fins](_URL_1_).\n\n\n[Lots](_URL_0_) and [lots](_URL_2_) of fins. \n\nWhat these do is increase the effective surface area of the engine by a *lot*. This is all surface area that's going to heat up when the engine gets hot, and so air going over those fins will far more effectively be able to pull heat away than if the engines were smooth and finless. \n\nOn a motorcycle, they just rely on the forward motion of the bike to send air over those fins and keep the air cool. In cars (like the old VW Beetle) there are ducts and fans that send air over those fins to pull heat away. \n\nThe problem is it's not as controllable. With liquid cooling you pull the heat away from the engine in a medium, in the usual case engine coolant, and then the heat is dumped into a radiator, which can be easily cooled either by movement of the car itself, or with a dedicated cooling fan. Plus water has far more capacity for heat than air. Air cooling once you get beyond a certain point (power level, heat output) stops being effective, which is where liquid cooling comes in. ",
"All engines are cooled with air. Engines with liquid radiators just take the heat from the engine into a liquid then into the air via a radiator.\n\nAir cooled engines just invite that air to blow directly over the metal of the engine. To increase the ability of the (air) fluid to remove heat from the lump of metal, the engine's metal will be finned to create increased surface area for the air to blow over and absorb heat from.\n\nAlso, something I think people don't think about: the car engine will still be really, really hot. It will just be 'cool' enough to not overheat. So yes, the air is 'cooling' the engine--the engine is 'cooler' than it would be otherwise. But you hear 'cool' and think \"cool to the touch\". That's not happening, same as with water-cooled engines."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://autowpaper.com/images/trabant-601-engine-2.jpg",
"http://www.justkampers.com/media/catalog/product/cache/1/image/800x400/565c3eaef733270ddeba43bc3f80484c/J/1/J10469-0_17.jpg",
"https://sc02.alicdn.com/kf/HTB1Rw6vMVXXXXc1XXXXq6xXFXXX5/150cc-motorcycle-engine-for-Honda-CG150-motorcycle.jpg"
],
[]
] |
||
27l3wn
|
why do us schools have such a ridiculously long summer break?
|
As a brit, this has never made any sense to me, our summer break is usually around 6 weeks between late July and early September. It baffles me to think that in the US the break is 2-3 months long! Whats the reason for this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/27l3wn/eli5_why_do_us_schools_have_such_a_ridiculously/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci1ub8i",
"ci1ubac",
"ci1uh28",
"ci1uqv1",
"ci1vrwa",
"ci1vupl",
"ci1vxd0",
"ci1wrif",
"ci1y0x5",
"ci1yafb",
"ci224et"
],
"score": [
34,
9,
3,
14,
4,
3,
2,
28,
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The tradition is in farming/agriculture. Child labor :) ",
"I could be wrong, but I always thought it was a hangover from the time when kids would be helping their parents with the harvest over the summer.",
"Us schools only have to meet a certain amount of school days i think ita about 180 - 200 days required",
"I think UK gets a longer break over Christmas/New Years. In the US, it is about 2 weeks. ",
"Coming from California highschool, summers are from first week of June to last week of August... But here we don't plan for snow days... because it doesn't snow. I believe that is why the summer is longer for my case in particular.",
"We have short winter breaks and no snow days (in California). \n\nIn Korea and I believe in Germany, they have short summer breaks but longer winter breaks (correct me if I'm wrong).",
"Originally, it was to let students help harvest their parents crops during the summer. Now, it would just be to hard to change it.",
"Conversely, why is the British break so short? Do you hate Summer? Do you find your rainy grey Winter so gloriously pleasurable that you absolutely neeeed an extended break during its bleak days?\n\nAlso, universities have (very near) a trimester system, so that students can work for almost 1/3 of a year to earn money during the Summer. It's harder to work full time and earn money while you're in school.",
"So kids can work on the farm to help out, so teens can work summer jobs to save for college or for disposable income. So teachers can work a second job to make a decent living.",
"American schools generally meet for 180 days per year. There are a few holidays and short breaks (Christmas usually two weeks, Spring Break one week, etc.) but nothing really extended. Many schools cut back on holidays during the school year and do not even let off for Easter and Martin Luther King Jr. Day and such (which attracts the ire of some black organizations like the NAACP).\n\nA few posts here will tell you that \"some schools\" in the States have more broken-up vacations and shorter summers, but that is really quite rare. The vast majority of schools employ a long summer vacation.\n\nSome say it's because \"a lot of Americans used to be farmers and they needed their kids' help during the summer\" but that's bullshit because a lot of everyone used to be farmers and even if that's the case we're not all farmers anymore ( < 1% of the population). You'll never find a definitive answer, but I'd like to think that it's part of the culture of sprawling suburbs that we have in the States, in which kids used to be encouraged to go play outside with whoever was around and an extended summer break made use of the weather that best allowed for that. Nowadays kids don't play outside as much but in the recent past it was different.\n\nI know you've got suburbs across the pond but they're not the same; the suburbs in the States are much more sprawling, less dense, with more room to play and explore.\n\nWe also had (and maybe still have, but not really) a long tradition of summer camps like in that movie [Moonrise Kingdom](_URL_1_). Kids would go there and stay for most of the summer and partake in summertime activities. Nowadays most kids don't go to summer camp, possibly because families have less disposable income and because the erosion of the traditional nuclear family unit does not allow for it anymore. It's a cultural vestige. Except for some reason summer camps seem to still be really popular among Jews.\n\nThere is a bit of a push to lengthen the school year and spend more time in the classroom, much of which stems from the fact that American students underperform compared to most of the rest of the first world. But there is also a lot of opposition to that, partially because the kids from the countries who are beating ours spend less time in the classroom than ours do already (quality vs. quantity) and partially because many adults have fond memories of their childhood summer vacations.\n\nTIME published an article a couple years ago detailing the case against summer vacation. You can read it [here](_URL_0_). They claim that the biggest reason to get rid of summer vacation is (quite simply) because having one long, extended vacation makes kids forget much of what they learned the year before and thus necessitates \"catching up,\" which wastes time.\n\nPerhaps TIME is right and the extended vacation is part of the reason American students score lower than many of their European counterparts despite often spending more hours in the classroom. Either way, the long summer vacation is a longstanding fact of American culture and for better or for worse it's hard to envision it being changed any time soon.",
"Just to point out, this is not the length of the summer holiday for the whole UK.\n\nHere in Northern Ireland the kids get the whole of July and August off school, whereas kids in England usually don't finish until halfway through July. \n\nThat's why you book your holiday abroad in early July if you want to avoid English people stealing all the sunbeds. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://content.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,2005863,00.html",
"http://www.summercampculture.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/Screen-shot-2012-01-12-at-7.53.43-PM.png"
],
[]
] |
|
shwzz
|
Why is blasting an earth-ending asteroid into pieces so readily dismissed?
|
I keep seeing television shows about asteroids hitting earth and how we could prevent that. In each show it seems the experts ("experts"?) shit on the idea of blowing the asteroid apart. But why is it that nuking an asteroid into many pieces makes the outcome worse? I understand the claim that instead of one impact there would be many, but wouldn't smaller chunks be more likely to just burn up in the atmosphere and cause little or no harm? Do smaller chunks burn up more easily? And if so then why not just blast leftover chunks big enough to cause harm down to smaller and smaller pieces (I'm sure blasting chunks of asteroid with rockets is no small feat, but let's just pretend it is)?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/shwzz/why_is_blasting_an_earthending_asteroid_into/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4e71qd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"First, not all asteroids are composed of the same material. A primarily rocky asteroid would be affected differently than a primarily metallic asteroid. So you would need to know a lot about the asteroid (density, etc).\n\nSecond would be accuracy - you again need a huge amount of data to determine just where the most effective strike area would be (if there is any).\n\nThird - you have already pointed out - you are making many missiles - and you have no guarantee that they will be small enough to burn up. This means many more than a single strike target.\n\nSo there are a great many variables - most of which you can't influence accurately. \n\nA better approach is to nudge it ever so slightly, far enough out, as to miss the earth. There are many ways this can be done (including with nukes)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ue0s3
|
Why were there so many one-term presidents between Jackson and Lincoln?
|
From the time Andrew Jackson left office in 1837 to when Abraham Lincoln was sworn in in 1861, the United States had a run of eight straight presidents who served a single term or less. Were there any historical factors in the antebellum period that caused this, or was it mostly a coincidence?
*Sidebar question:* If Obama wins re-election (admittedly not something we can assume), four of the five presidents since 1980 will have won re-election. Can we attribute this too to any changes in the political landscape?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ue0s3/why_were_there_so_many_oneterm_presidents_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ut6vx",
"c4uke65",
"c4ul96y",
"c4umh2d",
"c4unnrq"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
7,
7,
4
],
"text": [
"Mainly due to the fact that the presidency as we know it today, i.e. as a determinant of general national politics, was not the same during the 1800s. The jurisprudence and just the generic precedent for most executive powers did not yet exist, the executive branch adhering to a fairly hands off philosophy. \n\nCombine that with a very hands off government in general post Civil War, the Gilded Age patronage systems controlling Congress, and stalled social issues, and you have a government with nothing to do. ",
"Incumbents have more of an advantage than they used to, I think, for various reasons but the changing role of campaign advertising in politics is probably part of it.\n\nAs for your main question, there are probably multiple reasons that can be attributed to the political instability during that time but also recall that two of them died of sickness in their first term.",
" > Were there any historical factors in the antebellum period that caused this, or was it mostly a coincidence?\n\nHard to say conclusively, given how subjective history is. But one contributing factor no doubt was the rise of slavery and expansion of US territory as sources of political tension (the two were intertwined BTW; anyone who tries to understand the question of slavery in the US without considering the question of what to do with newly acquired US territory will not understand why the Civil War happened).\n\nEssentially between Jackson and Lincoln you got a series of presidents who were Whigs or Northerners but ineffectually handled Northern/anti-slavery concerns, culminating in Buchanan's disastrous presidency, where he split his own party by being too dogmatically pro-slavery expansion for even Douglas to stomach.\n\nDuring this period, people hoped each president would finally put to rest the dreaded slavery and territorial issues, but each president in his own turn failed. Near the end of it, people were begging the Supreme Court to sort things out, which culminated in turn in the Dred Scott decision, which hardly helped, and arguably made things much, much worse.\n\nIn short, the reason these presidents were thrown out tended to be because they weren't doing anything to address the impending Civil War (even if no one knew yet that it was impending): sectional conflict grew rather than subsided with each presidency. Eric Foner and Allen Guelzo are fairly representative of the modern mainstream scholarship on the immediate causes of the Civil War, if you're interested in the subject.",
"One way to look at it would be to see why each president individually didn't win a second term:\n\nVan Buren (1837-41): MVB was a Jacksonian Democrat and Jackson's hand-picked successor, thus he was despised by the Whigs, so in 1840, the Whigs did everything they could to prevent another 4 years of a Democrat in the White House. They rallied their supporters and registered thousands of new voters. They selected war hero William Henry Harrison as their nominee. They held rallies and parades and gave out various promotional trinkets. They portrayed MVB as old, wealthy, and out of touch with the common man and turned Dem claims that WHH was too old (saying he was bound for sitting in a log cabin drinking hard cider for the rest of his days) into a promotional tool (WHH was now the candidate of the common man, the log cabin and hard cider candidate). There had also been a depression in the country since 1837 that had worsened in 1840, and this was blamed on MVB's policies. All that combined to keep him from a second term.\n\nWH Harrison (1841): The guy died a month into his term.\n\nTyler (1841-1845): When the Whigs were looking for a VP candidate, they went with a southerner to balance out the ticket (WHH was an Ohioan, Tyler was a Virginian). That was the primary reasoning for Tyler being on the ticket in the first place; he was never supposed to become president. When WHH died, Tyler emphatically took hold of the presidency and at the start went along with what the Whigs wanted him to do. Then, the Whig-controlled Congress tried to pass a national banking act, but Tyler (a former Democrat, uh oh) vetoed it twice. This outraged the Whig Party, and they kicked him out of their ranks. In 1844, Tyler ran briefly as a third-party candidate but eventually dropped out.\n\nPolk (1845-49): I'll let [They Might Be Giants](_URL_0_) sum up why Polk didn't have a second term: \"In four short years, he met his every goal / He seized the whole southwest from Mexico / Made sure the tariffs fell, and made the English sell / The Oregon Territory / He built an independent treasury / Having done all this, he sought no second term.\" Also, he was exhausted by life in office, and he died four months after leaving the presidency, so his health too played a part in his not seeking re-election.\n\nTaylor (1849-50): Another death of a Whig president, this one brought down by cherries and milk. Poor guy.\n\nFillmore (1850-53): In 1852, the Whigs were a party split nearly in the middle by differences of opinion--many of which fell down sectional lines, mirroring what was going on in the country--and Fillmore fell victim to this. Southern Whigs liked him and thought he could win, Northern Whigs hated him and thought he couldn't win, and both thought this because of his support of the Compromise of 1850. The compromise (which had been proposed by southern Whig Henry Clay) included a stronger Fugitive Slave Law and did not include terms that would ban slavery in the territories taken from Mexico during the war. So the 1852 Whig Convention came down to the southerners supporting Fillmore, northerners supporting Winfield Scott, and a tiny section of New Englanders who supported Daniel Webster. Scott won the nomination by a slim margin when some New Englanders switched to his side.\n\nPierce (1853-57): Once again, the president's party didn't renominate him for president, but this time it was the Democrats doing it. The Dems were split into northern and southern factions (sound familiar?) over the issue of slavery. The northerners felt that Pierce wasn't doing enough to stop slavery--namely in the form of supporting the Kansas-Nebraska Act--and that the president was giving in to southern demands, which was odd considering Pierce was from New Hampshire. Their nomination went to Buchanan, who had served as US ambassador to England and didn't overtly upset either side of the party as a Pennsylvanian who was sympathetic to the south.\n\nBuchanan (1857-61): JB said in his inaugural address that he wouldn't be running again, but it's probable he wouldn't have gotten the nomination in the first place. The Democrats exploded into Northern and Southern parties, with the northerners supporting JB's Dem rival Stephen A. Douglas and the southerners supporting VP John C. Breckinridge (a Kentuckian). Would the Southern Dems have supported Buchanan had he wanted to run again? I'd assume not since he was a northerner, but that's just an assumption.\n\nTL;DR: I'd say that, for the most part, no one won a second term because of ideological disagreements within their own parties.\n\nEdit: wording.",
"Short Answer- Because Harrison and Taylor died early leaving extremely incompetent and unpopular Vice Presidents in office( especially Tyler). In addition the only other popular President,Polk, had promised that he would not seek reelection. \n\nEdited to Add that The Fate of Their Country by Michael Holt is a good book if you are interested in reading more about the time period and politics in question. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H9SvJMZs5Rs"
],
[]
] |
|
42iooc
|
how is it that a cop can testify that a suspect said something incriminating to them and it is admissible, but the cop can't testify that the suspect said something exonerating because it would be hearsay?
|
In reference to a recent LifeProTip: _URL_1_
This is the exact moment the lawyer explains this: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42iooc/eli5_how_is_it_that_a_cop_can_testify_that_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czaol15"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It's called an \"admission by a party opponent.\" Basically, the statements of an opposing party in litigation are always admissible and are either an exception to hearsay or not hearsay at all (depending on the jurisdiction). So the prosecution can use the defendant's own statements against him in court (interestingly, the defendant can't use police statements against the government). \n\nThe government wouldn't want to use something \"exonerating\" against the defendant nor are they required to do so. The government could however choose to do so and it would be admissible evidence. For example, I read about a case recently where the defendant called 911 and said he acted in self-defense. The government introduced the 911 call into evidence. That's perfectly fine."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/6wXkI4t7nuc?t=558",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/LifeProTips/comments/42hc3t/lpt_dont_talk_to_the_police/"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
16lxw0
|
why can't canadians watch/stream the same usa shows online?
|
specificially-- whats up with the regions/streaming rights of American tv shows for Canadians. What benefit does the American networks have by not allowing Canadians to watch.
eg) Streaming shows on HBO, CBS, MTV (USA) for Canadians is impossible.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/16lxw0/why_cant_canadians_watchstream_the_same_usa_shows/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7x828v",
"c7x82bh",
"c7x96nd"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
4
],
"text": [
"Distribution rights are owned by different companies/people in different countries. If your country does not allow streaming service for something that a different country does allow it is your distributor who is to blame. ",
"Licencing restrictions by the content providers who still operate under a model that continues to artificially divide the planet into discrete entities. \n\nTry [Proxmate.](_URL_0_).",
"the CRTC requires a certain percentage of Canadian content, and will not allow us to have that broad of a selection as the states (as thats where most of the content is from) as well as the other two answers, it's really a bunch of bulls... reasons."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://proxmate.dave.cx/"
],
[]
] |
|
4iy5nc
|
Why wasn't Prometheus a more worshipped figure in Ancient Greece?
|
In Greek mythology, Prometheus is mostly renowned for two acts of compassion towards humans:
- Stealing fire from Mt. Olympus, and giving it to humans...
- Tricking Zeus into making the sacrificial parts of animals the inedible parts, as to provide humans with more food...
Prometheus is eventually punished by Zeus, by being chained to a rock, and having his liver eaten every day by an eagle (a symbol of Zeus).
This left me wondering, despite his obvious contributions to humans in the mythology, why are there no temples made for Prometheus?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4iy5nc/why_wasnt_prometheus_a_more_worshipped_figure_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d328864"
],
"score": [
27
],
"text": [
"Prometheus did in fact have a cult, but it was a fairly minor one. It's wrong to think that since a figure appears as an important character in folklore he is necessarily an important cult-figure, though--Roman Jupiter, for example, is more or less nonexistent in the corpus of Roman folklore as it exists, unlike other gods like Mars, who is often connected to Roman and Italian folk-story through genealogy. Prometheus was apparently not actually all that important in Greek folklore, and his role as known to us appears to largely be an invention of Hesiod, who greatly expanded Prometheus' importance. Henceforth we find Prometheus of some importance in poetry but really relatively little importance in actual folklore and cult practice. In any case, Prometheus had an altar at the Academy, which he shared with Hephaestus and from which the Promethea torch-race began every year--Prometheus is often associated with Hephaestus in cult ritual, and he was considered the patron of the Ceramicus at Athens. His tomb in Locrian Opus was also the site of a cult, as was an alternate location of his tomb at Argos (I think Sicyon also had an alternate site), although according to Pausanias the Argives denied that Prometheus was the fire-bringer, ascribing that role to Phoroneus, the ancestor of the Pelasgians. According to Pausanias again Prometheus had a mystery cult at Thebes, or rather that Prometheus was the founder of the cult when he entrusted the ritual objects to the Thebans. He also apparently had some sort of cult center at Panopeus, at which a statue of Prometheus or Asclepius was kept in a sundried-brick shrine of some kind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4rucj9
|
Why Italy wasn't occupied by the Allies after WWII, compared to Germany/Austria or Japan?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4rucj9/why_italy_wasnt_occupied_by_the_allies_after_wwii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d54gq5p"
],
"score": [
36
],
"text": [
"The short answer is because the Italians themselves had defenestrated Mussolini and the Fascists before fighting alongside the Allies in a civil war to take their country back from Nazi Germany.\n\nThe long answer is that Italy *was* occupied by the Allied forces after World War II, but that it was a much more kind occupation - centered more around recovery - than what had faced Germany and Japan, with a lot of it having to do with the fact that Italy had fought with the Allies as co-belligerents. After Mussolini was arrested under order by Victor Emmanuel III, the Italians were still *de facto* allies of Germany - with assurances given to Hitler by the King that Italy had no intention of leaving the Axis alliance - but that was very shortly concluded with a minor amount of arm wringing by the Allies on new Prime Minister Badoglio which resulted in the **Armistice of Cassibile** on 3 September 1943 in which Italy surrendered to the Allies. The Armistice was announced on 9 September in a very poorly worded message that led to a high level of confusion in which Italian units were left with no orders (many thinking that the war was over), and most importantly no help to resist against the German's who immediately launched a counter attack against imminent Allied invasion.^1 \n\nThe Germans quickly swept in occupying all the way down to Naples - where an insurrection of the people was the only thing that allowed the Allies to gain a toehold.^1 With very short order they liberated Mussolini from jail (the story being that the jailers saluted the German glider troops that came to rescue him), and created the puppet state of the Italian Social Republic (also known as the *Salò Republic*) which claimed the entirety of Italy, but in effect controlled no further south than Rome. Italian soldiers which had surrendered to the Germans were *not* treated well at all, being deported back to Germany for forced labor ^1, while the Italian people under the Salò Republic weren't treated much better by the Germans either (Germany is alleged to have started a Malaria epidemic in the Lazio region for example^2), and destroying countless archives in response to partisan resistance movements. The recognized Italian government (that headed by King Victor Emmanuel III and Prime Minister Pietro Badoglio) had fled south to Brindisi, where they declared war on Germany on 13 October 1943 with the left over units still loyal to the King coming under command of the Allies.^3 Partisan resisters were at times invaluable towards the allied effort in the liberation^2 and in quelling any post-war form of resistance against the soldiers of the Salo Republic^4. The Salò Republic would be capitulated by the Germans on 2 May 1945, shortly before the Germans themselves surrendered. \n\nNow the Italian country was in an interesting situation in dealing with both their invasion and liberation. Allied Military Governments were set up in each of the areas that had been liberated, to be transferred to Italian control once the situation had been stabilized - with most areas being transferred out of AMG control by the end of 1944. With the outlawing of the Fascist party, Italy did undertake a period similar in scope to the German de-nazification while inspectors from the South accessed the remaining soldiers and bureaucracy to the North to understand what they did under the Salò regime (and thus if they were capable of continuing in service to the legitimate government)^4. The British and the Americans, meanwhile, grateful for support during the Italian Campaign forwent *any* reparations during peace settlements^1 and instead rewarded the ravaged country with billions in aid. The crimes of the Fascist regime were in fact seen as just that, crimes of a regime that had been ousted and then actively rebelled against. Benedetto Croce actually played an instrumental role in convincing not just the Italians themselves, but foreign powers that Italy had been just as much of a victim of the Fascists as other countries had^1. The Italian people then took the sword to the monarchy itself, viewing it as having collaborated with the Fascists and leading the country to the current state of ruin that it found itself in^1 (this historiography is much debated, with recent scholarship bringing the idea that the Italian people were passive in disrepute^5) The monarchy was ousted by constitutional referendum on 2 June 1946, to be replaced by the current Italian Republic. \n\nItaly did face the loss of the great majority of it's overseas empire in the **1947 Paris Peace Treaties**, along with much of the territory it had taken during the years of it's active participation as a member of the Axis.^1 Much to the chagrin of Charles De Gaulle and the French, Italy only faced a minor readjustment of it's border with France. The only area that remained under occupation and control of the Allies at this point was Trieste, before it's fate was decided by referendum in 1954.\n\n1. Smith, Denis Mack. *Modern Italy: A Political History.*\n2. Foot, John. *Italy's Divided Memory.*\n3. New York Times - [13 October 1943](_URL_0_)\n4. Paoletti, Ciro. *A Military History of Italy.*\n5. Foot, John. *Modern Italy.*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/learning/general/onthisday/big/1013.html#article"
]
] |
||
2yen6c
|
Why are diesel engines preferred over petrol in heavy towing/moving applications?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2yen6c/why_are_diesel_engines_preferred_over_petrol_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp8v5ia",
"cp98je9"
],
"score": [
26,
2
],
"text": [
"Diesel is preferred for the following:\n\n* Better gas mileage\n* Power (torque) is maximized at a lower RPM setting (compression 17:1 vs. 9:1 for gas) reducing wear & tear on engine. \n* Longevity favors Diesel Engines\n\nI'm sure others will chime in soon; I work on airplanes, haha.",
"Diesels have a constrained powerband, which means that they are pretty efficient only over a particular range of speeds (rpm).\n\nOn the highway at constant speed, or on a tractor or ship, this is ideal. Acceleration is less than wonderful and depends on gearing, but leaving it at an efficient rpm it is gangbusters.\n\nGas engines supply good power across a wider band.\n\nIn some applications, a diesel engine (at a very stable rpm) is used to generate electricity for electric motors that do the driving that can vary rpm very effectively. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ah15b5
|
why is it a bad thing if companies and apps collect my data?
|
It seems like everyone is warning you about apps that collect much data if you use them. But to me the “worst“ thing that could happen is that I get customized ads (which I think is a cool thing). What's the big deal if you ain't got anything to hide?
I'm living in Germany and I'm wondering if this is a typical german problem.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah15b5/eli5_why_is_it_a_bad_thing_if_companies_and_apps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eealceg",
"eealokn",
"eean9hk",
"eeanpo2",
"eeaq0op",
"eeav1k4",
"eeb4egw"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
8,
4,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"If you don't mind your life being prodded and mined for statistical data, being socially engineered or just them knowing every preference you have for everything and anything (and I mean anything), then it is really no big deal. ",
" > What's the big deal if you ain't got anything to hide?\n\nYour phone knows where it is every second of the day. It knows when you're driving, when you're working, when you're sleeping, etc. It knows when you're goofing off instead of working, and if you have a voice assistant turned on it listens to everything that is happening around it all the time.\n\nIf you're fine with a full 24 hour record of your life being sold to anyone who can pay, then it isn't a problem.",
"What do you mean nothing to hide? Could you give me your passwords then? How about all messages you ever sent to anyone? Maybe your photos as well and credit carf number. \n\n\nYou have lots of things to hide. Also you might have seen lots of news about big data leaks. You can't really know if the company actually protects the data well, or anonymize it enough. ",
"One thing that no one has mentioned is that these companies are turning around and selling that information. So not only are they completely invading your privacy, theyre making money for it. Are they giving you a cut? ",
"I can't speak for Germany, but in the United States, we have a right to privacy, and the appropriation and use of personal information is an abuse or outright violation of that right.\n\nYou have a lot more to hide than you give yourself credit for. A couple facts about you might be harmless, but en masse, a detailed profile can put you at real social, legal, or physical harm. History has demonstrated, time and again, that people with this sort of power will ultimately abuse it. People are being harassed for personal, religious, or political beliefs. In some countries, like China, thought crime is a thing. Even in the US, we've had the Red Scare, which wasn't that long ago, where people were brought before government tribunals for their political views. People lose their jobs, get kicked out of school, or ostracized from their societies.\n\nKids these days take revealing pictures of themselves, and leaks happen, or the recipients just dump this stuff on the internet, which never forgets. That's an embarrassment no one wants to be remembered for FOREVER. You want a potential employer searching you and the first thing that comes up is the worst thing about you? There was a recent scandal that a comedian said something a decade ago, and he's being held accountable for it now, like it just happened. This is very common, that digital history does not age, is not forgotten, and forever relevant. You can never move on.\n\nYou have a lot to hide. You can request a copy of everything Google knows about you, and as one US senator said of her request, she found Google knew her \"deepest, darkest secrets.\" Utterly terrifying.\n\nYou are being abused as we speak, and the problem is so systemic it's difficult to even comprehend just how bad it is. You are a product - to many people. People are getting very rich selling you like a head of cattle. There are so many opportunities you've lost out on and you'll never even know. Insurance for you may be higher because they know something about you that you may not know they know; ever do a genetic test? Great, you know something vague about your genealogy, but now someone knows what genetic conditions you're predisposed to that even you don't know. How many jobs have you been declined because of this misappropriation of information? How many benefits have you been denied? Etc...\n\nWhat you can do is get political and assert a right to privacy, a right to not be traced, tracked, aggregated, sold, or found. A right to be forgotten. Demand oversight and consequences. Demand transparency. Demand a cut! If people are going to sell you like a whore, you'd think you deserve a little something for making them richer.\n\nThe other things you can do is opt out of data aggregators, not use \"free\" software that exist purely to extract information, and not use social media - largely regarded as mentally toxic anyway, and exist as data aggregators. You're not even American and our government probably has an astoundingly detailed profile on you because of Facebook alone. Our government is a big consumer of aggregated data about people, since people world-wide use these international services without a single thought.",
"The worst would probably be someone at the company deciding that monetizing data wasn't valuable enough, and they threaten you with releasing your location and/or browser history to the people you regularly interact with unless you subscribe to their new, expensive \"data protection plan\". ",
"One person's data isn't much but when you put everybody's together, then you can get statistics and patterns... That's a big deal. For example: You could predict some future fashion trends and sell that info to the highest bidder. This means only the richest who can buy it will be able to foresee what will sell best and such, makes competition even harder for the smaller compagnies, makes the rich richer.\n\nWe could use it for good things too, but that's not what seems to be happening."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1l0tz6
|
If someone is born with polydactyly (extra fingers) and get the extra finger removed, do they experience phantom limb syndrome?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1l0tz6/if_someone_is_born_with_polydactyly_extra_fingers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbuo53b",
"cbuxbdy"
],
"score": [
7,
7
],
"text": [
"No, they wouldn't. Phantom limb comes after the brain has dedicated a small region of the somatosensory cortex to a corresponding body part, and that happens throughout the course of childhood. Kids can even lose entire limbs, not just digits, and not get phantom limb.",
"Yes, they may. Incredibly, people born without a limb may have phantom limb feelings without ever having had a limb. You can read more about this in Dr. V. S. Ramachandran's Book The Tell-Tale Brain. Basically the primary neurological theory now is that the brain has a map of what the body is like. In most people, the map and the actual body are the same. In a few, they are born with differences. People missing limbs may still have that limb in their map and they'll have phantom limbs. Some have all their limbs but are missing one on their map, and they want that limb amputated because they feel alienated from it--it feels wrong somehow. It's called Body Identity Integrity Disorder.\n\n(edited to correct doctor's name to V.S. Ramachandran)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
if8sy
|
Why does blood turn red when it's oxygen depleted and blue when it's oxygen rich?
|
Just looking for the answer as to why blood turns red when it's oxygen depleted and blue when it is oxygen rich. I'm asking why those two specific colors, rather than any others.
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/if8sy/why_does_blood_turn_red_when_its_oxygen_depleted/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c239ed7",
"c239efr",
"c239hr5",
"c239s1m"
],
"score": [
3,
11,
8,
7
],
"text": [
"Don't you mean red when it's oxygen rich and blue when it's depleted?\n\nI often notice my blood turn blue when it's exposed to the oxygen in the air.",
"Blood is never blue, it's your veins that are blue(ish). [A source](_URL_0_) (not a great one).",
"Blood is never blue, [this is what blood looks like when deoxygenated](_URL_0_).",
"Blood gets it's color from hemoglobin. Hemoglobin is what carries oxygen and when hemoglobin bind oxygen it turns bright red. When hemoglobin is not bound to oxygen it is a darker red (what you are calling blue). This is due to changes in the electron orbitals of hemoglobin causing them to interact with light differently. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://scienceblogs.com/scientificactivist/2008/04/why_are_veins_blue.php"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Bloodbags.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
w85zm
|
How exactly does this work? Anti-gravity magnets in a copper pipe.
|
I'm genuinely confused by this. I thought copper wasn't magnetic? Materials aren't my science but I'm intrigued by this video.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w85zm/how_exactly_does_this_work_antigravity_magnets_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5b3qzg",
"c5b3rr3"
],
"score": [
6,
8
],
"text": [
"Briefly, because the copper is a conductor, the magnet induces an electric field in the copper. This electric field then interacts with the magnet, slowing down the magnet. \n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n",
"Copper is not ferromagnetic, but it is a conductor. When a conductor moves through a magnetic field (or a magnetic field moves around a conductor) such as in a case of a permanent magnet falling down a copper pipe -- [eddy currents are generated.](_URL_0_). The eddy currents create a fairly strong opposing electromagnetic field which slows down the magnet.\n\nIn other words, these eddy currents then extract some of the kinetic energy of magnet (thereby slowing it down) and convert it to small amounts of heat in the conductor (the copper pipe). This also works with aluminum or pretty much any non-ferromagnetic (most likely diamagnetic) conductor\n\nFor those who are not sure what the OP is talking about [here's the video](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://regentsprep.org/Regents/physics/phys08/clenslaw/default.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eddy_current",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nrw-i5Ku0mI"
]
] |
|
3hsa0f
|
Did any of the Crusades help the Byzantine Empire in any way?
|
The first Crusade was done because the Romans wanted help to defeat the Turks. However it seems the Crusaders had their own ideas. Can anyone tell me if there were positive to the Romans in one way or another and how?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hsa0f/did_any_of_the_crusades_help_the_byzantine_empire/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cua6ykb"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The first Crusade actually liberated some cities for the Byzantines so they did gain some land. Originally the Crusaders agreed to give all conquered territory to the Byzantines but after the first couple of cities fell they reneged on that promise (the Byzantines also failed to support the Crusaders with an army that they had promised so both sides are slightly to blame for this). That being said some cities were handed over to the Byzantines. Tha being said, some of the crusaders also had a bad habit of pillaging land they travelled through so some Byzantine territory was weakened by the Crusaders as they passed through (the peasant crusaders were some of the worst offenders of this and they were also largely ineffective against everyone they fought so they generally just hurt the Empire)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2zgzh8
|
How/Why did the eagle become the symbol of Rome
|
as opposed to a wolf which i think would have made more sense
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zgzh8/howwhy_did_the_eagle_become_the_symbol_of_rome/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpitg4i",
"cpj0d1d"
],
"score": [
25,
4
],
"text": [
"The eagle or aquila as it was called in Latin, was actually just one of five animals used to represent Rome as part of their standards. Pliny the Elder mentions five animals being used to represent Rome, the eagle, wolf, boar, minotaur, and the horse. At Gaius Marius' second consulship those present decided that the eagle was to be chosen as the one standard to represent Rome. So while we think of the eagle as their standard, that was more of an empire thing rather than a republic thing. On to your actual question on why it was chosen, was because of the qualities that the eagle was said to have possessed/represented. The eagle is one of the most powerful birds in the world and is at the top of the food chain in many of its habitats therefore it represents dominance, power, courage, bravery, etc. You can get the idea that the Romans wanted to be seen as this awesome army that would never back down from a fight, would always emerge victorious, and would pursue its enemies till the end. In many ways they picked the eagle because they felt that it represented what their culture and military in particular valued. The individual legions became so protective over their standards that a position was designed for the sole purpose of watching over the aquila and carrying it into battle. The aquilifers were under the centurions of a legion but were above the Roman equivalent of a lieutenant (optiones) and received many perks that regular soldiers weren't entitled to such as better meals as well as much higher pay. The aquilas, if lost were to be retrieved at all costs. If an aquila is lost it was equivalent to losing the spirit of a legion and was usually devastating to a legion to see their standard in the hands of an enemy. They would attempt to retrieve a lost aquila at all costs, oftentimes coming back years later such as at Teutoberg Forest to retrieve their lost aquilas. \n\nTL;DR Eagle represents power, courage, and bravery all of which were idolized by the Romans so they adopted it as their standard",
"Did the symbol of the eagle continue on to the Holy Roman Empire and consequently- to Germany?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
11ho0e
|
Is there such a thing as a real-life self-destruct?
|
...Or are they exclusively plot devices in movies and video games? Are there any historical examples of a self-destruct sequence in anything people have ever built, so that when activated the entire thing demolishes itself via explosion, possibly after a certain amount of time for the person activating it to retreat to a safe distance? If not, is there any clue where this concept came from?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/11ho0e/is_there_such_a_thing_as_a_reallife_selfdestruct/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6mjza5",
"c6mlgsg",
"c6mlxc6",
"c6mm37i",
"c6mm39y",
"c6mm4np",
"c6mrhyh"
],
"score": [
18,
5,
5,
10,
3,
4,
6
],
"text": [
"After the Germans signed the Armistice on 11/11/1918 their High Seas Fleet sailed to Scapa Flow where it was interred under the guns of the Royal Navy. When the negotiations of the Treaty of Versailles were finished, the High Seas Fleet was supposed to be broken up and parcelled out to the various Allied powers. However, the sailors of the High Seas fleet scuttled their ships by opening the sea cocks, and letting the water flood their ships. There were no explosions, but by the time the Royal Navy realised what was happening, it was to late. Most of the High Seas Fleet was to far gone to save. ",
"A biological example of this is apoptosis, where a cell kills itself in a way so that no enzymes or bad stuff leaks out.\n\nAs for historical examples of it, Wikipedia has some [here](_URL_0_). But ya scuttling ships, as davratta mentioned, has occurred throughout history.",
"There are such things as safes that destroy their contents if someone tries to tamper with them. (Used to erase sensitive data.) I think that tends to use corrosive materials or a small fire, though, rather than a big kaboom. ",
"The Shuttle booster and external tank were all fitted with self-destruct systems to prevent damage on the ground in the event of an abort. These were used during the Challenger disaster.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso, many light anti-aircraft guns are capable of firing shells with self-destruct fuzes, to prevent them from falling among friendly targets on the ground. E.g.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_",
"It's a simple [google / wikipedia lookup](_URL_0_) which reveals the interesting fact that probably the most famous execution of a designed in self-destruct mechanism being operated was during the Challenger Disaster when the two solid rocket boosters were remotely detonated to fragment them and reduce the danger to the public as they fell.",
"Space launch vehicles usually carry a self-destruct device on board, to prevent an out of control launch device from landing into a populated area. \n\nYou can see one being employed after the Challenger explosion - after the shuttle goes up, the rocket boosters continue to fire until the Ranger Officer pulls the plug on them. \n\n[Video, around 1:30](_URL_0_)",
"Well, there was the Soviet [Dead Hand](_URL_0_), which is sort of like self-destruct for all of humanity.\n\nWhether or not it was actually ever fully operational is uncertain, as is whether or not its existence continued under the new Russian state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-destruct"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Range_safety",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2_cm_Flak_30/38/Flakvierling",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/57_mm_AZP_S-60"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-destruct"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EssKzOj-kME"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dead_Hand_%28nuclear_war%29"
]
] |
|
9bghtr
|
why are car wheels so much smaller than bicycle wheels?
|
Wouldn't car engines more easily push the bigger wheels? Bigger wheels are harder to push, but go faster, right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9bghtr/eli5_why_are_car_wheels_so_much_smaller_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e52vel3",
"e52zqgy",
"e538jin"
],
"score": [
7,
21,
3
],
"text": [
"One relevant note: it's typical on car tires to use (relatively) very wide tires on automobiles compared to tires used on bicycles. Cars typically place a much larger load per tire, and being able to to run low pressures to act as a suspension is beneficial.\n\nIn bicycles, weight and rolling resistance are at a premium, so large diameter wheels with narrow tires are preferred for pavement use.",
"While you are correct that all else being equal, bigger wheels are harder to push but make the vehicle go faster, most vehicles use gearing to have any overall ratio they want (the ratio between the speed of whatever the power source is and the wheels), making that issue obsolete. The main reason why cars generally use smaller wheels is because big wheels take up space that can otherwise be used for passengers or cargo. The disadvantage of small wheels is that they offer a rougher ride, but cars have sophisticated suspension to deal with this. Bicycles have very simple suspension, and sometimes none at all.",
" > Wouldn't car engines more easily push the bigger wheels?\n\nFor gearing, it should be the other way around. A direct-drive bicycle would work best with a wheel around twice as big (see penny-farthings), while car gearing would be best with direct drive with a wheel about a quarter as large.\n\nThis is because the engine rotation speed difference is larger than the speed difference. An experienced bicyclist has an engine speed of around 90 RPM, while a modern car has an engine speed of around 2500 RPM, and so needs a smaller gear, even after accounting for the speed difference. Your car engine spins REALLY fast.\n\nThis is all mostly irrelevant in any vehicle with gearing, which is almost everything nowadays.\n\nAll else being equal, the larger the wheel, the lower the rolling resistance. If you roll a marble over a rough surface it wastes energy bouncing up and down over every little bump, while a bicycle wheel smoothes out small bumps and bounces up and down very little.\n\nHowever, the larger the wheel, the more it or its housing catches the wind, and the higher the wind resistance. This critical in cars, with their high speed. \n\nIn bicycles, the wind resistance of the wheels themselves is more balanced with rolling resistance. For weight reasons, bicycles also have much lower suspension travel, usually the tire and frame and seat flex, and would ride roughly with smaller wheels.\n\nInterestingly, large trucks have much greater weight than cars, and a smaller wind drag increase, and suffer relatively more from rolling resistance than cars. They consequently have larger wheels, like bicycles."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1jw4gd
|
how did they make the first operating system without an o.s to build it on/with?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jw4gd/eli5_how_did_they_make_the_first_operating_system/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbiuvwe",
"cbjbdt9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In the early days of computing, the \"operating system\" (although it wasn't usually called that) was programmed into ROM - Read Only Memory. When the computer was turned on, it would read the instructions in this memory and execute them. There was no way of changing what was in this memory.\n\nSo the first things that looked like operating systems would be hand-written in machine code, then the machine code would be written into the ROM when the ROM chip was made in the factory.\n\nIn fact, we still have a similar process now. Although it can be updated, the BIOS on a modern PC works in a very similar way.",
"The OS is simply the first program that's run when the computer starts. To run a program on a computer, you must prepare your program in some way and then put it somewhere that the startup sequence can find it.\n\nIn a very old computer, the \"prepare your program\" step would consist of encoding your program's instructions on a [punch card](_URL_0_). \"Putting it somewhere\" would consist of physically inserting it into the computer's processor.\n\nIn an old computer, your code might be stored on a floppy disk of one sort or another. When the computer started up, a very simple program encoded on a hardware chip would know to look at the floppy disk and start reading instructions off of it and feeding them to the processor.\n\nIn a modern computer, the operating system is stored on the hard drive, and the motherboard's firmware knows how to find it on the hard drive. As in the previous example, it grabs instructions from the hard drive and starts feeding them to the processor.\n\nNotice how in each of these examples, there's nothing special or privileged about the OS, except that it's the first program that gets loaded. The OS is a special type of program that awards itself authority over what other programs get to run/what they get to do while they're running, and most modern programs will only work if they're running inside an OS. But there's nothing that says the first or outermost program that runs has to be an OS. With a lot of work, you could make a program for a modern computer that just displays a blinking goatse when the computer is turned on, and does nothing else. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Punch_card"
]
] |
||
1nvhhx
|
why is it when windows predicts a time to completion for moving a file it's often off by a magnitude of 10?
|
I've experienced this with a decade of Microsoft OS's. I can't believe they haven't gotten it right yet. I'll move a .mkv video file and it will say 15 seconds remaining for 10 minutes. Or it will say 20 minutes remaining and fly by and finish super-fast.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nvhhx/eli5_why_is_it_when_windows_predicts_a_time_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccmfbgi"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Say a friend asks you to buy 50 lb of food and hands you a shopping list. You go to the supermarket, read the items on the list line by line, and it says:\n\n\n- 1 lb of white rice\n- 1 lb of white rice\n- 1 lb of white rice\n\n\nThen your friend calls you and asks how long you're going to need. So far it has taken you 3 seconds to put 3 lb into your shopping cart, and you know that the total is 50 lb, so you tell him that you'll be done in less than a minute.\n\n\nThen you see the next 3 items on the list:\n\n\n- 1 vanilla bean\n- 1 pack of cilantro\n- 1 oz of pepper\n\n\nSo you call your friend and tell him that it's going to take more like 3 hours, because you'll be wasting a lot of time searching for items that weigh an ounce or less.\n\n\nThis is basically what happens when Windows is transferring files. It may say < 1 minute initially if the first item on the list is one large file, and it may then go up to several hours if the next items on the list are thousands of tiny files scattered around the drive and it has to move the head of the drive to the right location for each one."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
70ydcn
|
why do photographers who take ages like mr mcfadyen to get the perfect shot, don't just use a videocamera?
|
Can't they just cut the shot out afterwards?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/70ydcn/eli5_why_do_photographers_who_take_ages_like_mr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dn6rrcr"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Still photos can be much higher resolution since the camera doesn't have to process 24 FPS or anything. \n\nThe shutter speed is also much more customizable. The lower shutter speed required for video creates motion blur between frames. This can be desired in video but the sharpness of a still frame with a fast shutter wouldn't be there. \n\nPhotographers generally use strobes - this means the lights aren't always on, but rather they just flash on when the photog triggers them. The lights they use are hot and bright - having them on all the time would make the model overheated and uncomfortable. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9jfff7
|
Old Western movies have the “Wanted Dead or Alive” posters for outlaws plastered all over town. Now-a-days, there are rewards for fugitive capture but not kill, for that is now murder. When was the last time the US government actually encouraged people to go out and kill fugitives for a reward?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9jfff7/old_western_movies_have_the_wanted_dead_or_alive/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6r8n1p"
],
"score": [
705
],
"text": [
"This is a question that has come up before, and while definitely more can be said, [this previous thread](_URL_0_) I suspect will be of interest at least as a starting point, especially the comments from /u/amescg ."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xl3bn/when_was_the_last_issuance_of_a_wanted_dead_or/"
]
] |
||
cngd5a
|
how can parrots live so long.
|
The general rule with animals as I understand it is: the bigger the animal the longer the life. And smaller animals which can live long like turtles usually have a slow metabolism/inactive life.
So why is it that some parrots, which are very active animals all things considered, can live for an enormous amount of time? Even outliving their owners many times.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cngd5a/eli5_how_can_parrots_live_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewackae",
"ewap4zn"
],
"score": [
3,
7
],
"text": [
"Arent those sea creatures that can virtually live forever super tiny? I dont really think there is actual causality in the correlation between size and expectancy but hey, im not a specialist.",
"While it's usually the large parrots that have very long lives, birds in general live longer than mammals of similar sizes. There are a few ways birds do this: \nThe simplest to realise is that they can fly away from predators (who often can't fly). \nOn a genetic level, birds have gained a lot of ways to resist the ageing that comes from having a high metabolic process (what creates the energy needed to fly). Cells that resist oxidation (think rechargeable batteries that don't lose their charging and discharging ability as quickly). Regrowing neurons (the brain and spine wires), basically birds are just resilient to the wear and tear that comes with living."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2s64dy
|
Did General George B. McClellan prolong the American Civil War?
|
I've been watching The Civil Wars series created by Ken Burns and produced by PBS in 1990. I’m curious about Major General George B. McClellan, a brief General-in-Chief of the Union Army.
General McClellan was known for being overly cautious and slow to act. Edwin M. Stanton, the United States secretary of war said, ““If he had a million men he would swear the enemy has two million, and then he would sit down in the mud and yell for three.”
How does history remember McClellan’s overall contribution to the war effort? Did his reluctance to fight, in some sense, prolong the fighting of the American Civil War?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2s64dy/did_general_george_b_mcclellan_prolong_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnmjpxk",
"cnmqjxa",
"cnn0m0s"
],
"score": [
37,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"Certainly so - he had many opportunities to crush the enemy as Lincoln requested, but his timidness let him down time and time again. I recommend James M. McPherson's *Battle Cry of Freedom* to display his numerous faults as a commander. \n \n For example he had an opportunity to make an assault upon Richmond during the Peninsula Campaign, there would have been a strong fight to be sure, but he had the numbers to take on Confederate Defenses, he simply failed to do so due to characteristic knack for overstating the size of the Confederate forces. \n\n The same applies for the Battle of Antietam, which could have been transformed into a decisive Union Victory, or at least a greater victory than it was, had McClellan been more decisive in assaulting the Confederate positions, the destruction of the Army of Northern Virginia could had been achieved. McClellan did not attack at all on 18th September, allowing Lee to withdraw across the Potomac - out of McClellan's grasp, even though Lee had lost around 30% of his Army, (McClellan had lost around 25%, but had far more men at the time anyway). \n\n So I certainly feel that McClellan prolonged the US Civil War, however, had it not been prolonged Lincoln might not have been pushed towards the Emancipation Proclamation, and the resolution of the war at an early stage would historically have been a negative consequence in the development of the US, if there was no settlement of slavery the issue would continue to divide the US for years after, and the South would likely have remained backwards - so I suppose every cloud has a silver lining, at least in this case. \n\n Source: *Battle Cry for Freedom*\n\n ",
"McClellan's Civil War career went like this:\n\n* 4/61-8/61: Semi-effective command in what would become West Virginia, winning a couple of small battles \n* 11/61: Elevated to general-in-chief\n* 11/61-3/62 Trains the Army of the Potomac and holds in place around DC while Grant wins several major victories in the west; McClellan frustrates Lincoln during this time. They argue over strategy. Lincoln wants an immediate move towards the Rebels at Manassas. McClellan plans an elaborate flanking move aimed at Manassas. Lincoln overrules the so-called \"Urbanna Plan.\" Then the Rebels evacuate Manassas and it is revealed that their fortifications were bolstered by \"Quaker Guns\"--logs painted black. Derision ensues.\n\n > If McClellan is not using the army, I should like to borrow it for a while - A. Lincoln\n\n > By some strange operation of magic I seem to have become the great power in the land…were I to win some small success now I may become Dictator or anything else that might please me—but nothing of that kind would please me—therefore I won’t be dictator. Admirable self-denial! - G. McClellan\n\n* 4/62-6/62: The Peninsula Campaign. McClellan sails his army from Alexandria to the Virginia Peninsula and marches overland towards Richmond. He is slowed down considerably for a variety of reasons--his surveyors misjudged the firmness of the roads and his intelligence officers vastly overestimate the forces opposing him. He fights and wins several lopsided battles and eventually ends up within sight of Richmond, but taking ~90 days to travel 45 miles is not ideal in the Civil War era.\n\n > I am tired of the sickening sight of the battlefield with its mangled corpses & poor suffering wounded… Victory has no charms for me when purchsed at such cost - G. McClellan\n\n* 7/62 - the Seven Days. Lee takes control of the forces around Richmond and attacks McClellan for a week straight, driving him away from the capital. McClellan \"changes his base\" of supplies to the James River, which in the context of the campaign is essentially a retreat. It becomes a Southern joke that when a gun fires and a scared dog runs away, that dog is only \"changing his base.\"\n\n* 8/62-9/62: With McClellan cowed and evacuating the Peninsula, Lee moves north and defeats another Union army at Manassas before invading Maryland. Although he might have been dimly viewed based on his conduct on the Peninsula, McClellan is still the obvious choice to take command of the pursuing forces. McClellan's pursuit is quick and effective, and it is made all the more quick and effective when some Union soldiers find Lee's campaign plans discarded near a Confederate headquarters. McClellan breaks through Lee's blocking force at South Mountain and fights him to a tactical stalemate at Antietam, although the battle represents an operational and strategic victory for the Union. McClellan does doggedly pursue Lee (many people forget about this) but several stubborn Confederate rear-guard actions allow the remnants of Lee's army to escape into Virginia intact.\n\n* 10/62-4/64: After Antietam, Lincoln issues the Preliminary Emancipation Proclamation, which raises some hackles in the Union Army. Being a Democrat, McClellan is also discomfited by the PEP, and tells the soldiers under his command to \"make their feelings known at the ballot box\" or something like that. Soon after, Lincoln removes him from command for the rest of the war. \n\n* 11/64: McClellan is Lincoln's primary opponent in the 1864 election. Although McClellan says that he will not seek peace with the Rebels, it is part of his party's platform for almost the entire election. That seems to be a winning electoral strategy until major Union victories in August, September, and October buoy Lincoln to a landslide re-election.\n\nMy conclusion is that McClellan was not as good a general as Lee or Grant, but he was no worse than any other army commander (McDowell, Pope, Burnside, Hooker (maybe Hooker was better), Meade, Rosecrans, Sherman, Butler, Bragg, Pemberton, either Johnston) that served during the war. \n\nDid he prolong the war? He had a good shot at capturing Richmond in the Peninsula Campaign, but he moved too slowly. That probably would have shortened the war. It would have been very difficult to have destroyed Lee's army after Antietam, and he did mount a solid pursuit, so I don't fault him for that. \n\nThis is, of course, a highly abbreviated history of McClellan. I'm happy to go into more detail on any point.\n\nYou are fortunate in that one of the best historical authors of recent decades, Stephen Sears, is a McClellan-o-phile. I would check out his \"To the Gates of Richmond\" (Peninsula), \"Landscape Turned Red\" (Antietam), or \"The Young Napoleon\" (McClellan biography) for a lot of great material.",
"Others have answered the question well, but I thought I'd mention that even among his contemporaries at the time there were divergent opinions on McClellan. Grant somewhat famously declared that \"McClellan is to me one of the mysteries of the war\", indicating that he didn't know how to feel about the man either.\n\nSource: Battle Cry of Freedom, McPherson"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1hyeua
|
When did our understanding of the Holocaust go from it being a series of individual events to it being viewed as a systemic, highly mechanized system of murder?
|
I recently watched Claude Lanzmann's film on the Holocaust [Shoah](_URL_0_) (which I can't recommend highly enough). The entire film consists of first person interviews with various people who were either victims or witnesses or perpetrators to what happened to the Jews under the Nazis, and it made me wonder; at what point did our understanding of the individual events get "put-together" so to speak, into the idea of the Holocaust?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hyeua/when_did_our_understanding_of_the_holocaust_go/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caz5ztu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Holocaust literally translates from the Greek to \"whole burnt\". [This link](_URL_0_) explains in detail how the term comes about. *The* Holocaust was discerned early on, however the term holocaust has been used throughout history to describe precisely what is: the systematic destruction of people. From the article: \"Such usage strongly influenced the adoption of holocaust as the primary English-language referent to the Nazi slaughter of European Jewry, but the word's connection to the \"Final Solution\" did not firmly take hold for another two decades.\"\n\nNow, why am I talking so much about the *term* and not the understanding of the series of events? Because it was apparent, I would argue. I have never read a source or a first person account of a person aware of the happenings that did not see the Holocaust as a \"systematic, highly mechanized system of murder\", because that was precisely what it was. \n\nShoah is great, and if you did not know, has a meaning: \"By the late 1940s, however, a shift was underway. Holocaust (with either a lowercase or capital H) became a more specific term due to its use in Israeli translations of the word sho'ah. This Hebrew word had been used throughout Jewish history to refer to assaults upon Jews, but by the 1940s it was frequently being applied to the Nazis' murder of the Jews of Europe.\" Again from that source above. \n\nI contest any Jew involved in the Holocaust was aware of what it was, and how you describe it, and historians, ignorant or otherwise, also new of the systematic manslaughter; there is no denying the Holocaust, and humanity was well aware of what Nazism was doing long before it began massacring an innocent race, entirely; sadly we let it, but that's an entirely different topic.\n\nI hope this gets discussion going, and I hope I wasn't too off base. I am a student of history and philosophy, so sadly my opinions and thoughts are just that. \n\nGood luck finding an answer!"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shoah_%28film%29"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ushmm.org/research/library/faq/details.php#02"
]
] |
|
12wvdy
|
Many of the medications used to treat bi-polar disorder were originally intended and are still used in treating epilepsy. Is there some sort of connection between the two?
|
Depakote and Lamictal are two that I know at high doses are used to treat epilepsy. At lower doses, they are used to treat bi-polar disorder.
Why is this so? Are the two disorders somehow related?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12wvdy/many_of_the_medications_used_to_treat_bipolar/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ytqfa"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Maybe. The medications used to treat epilepsy work because they essentially make it harder for a neuron to \"fire\" ([action potential](_URL_0_)). No one truly knows what happens in Bipolar disorder (not hyphenated, btw), but a similar governance of the action potential has been found to reduce episodes of both mania and depression. There are many who hypothesize that Bipolar disorder is therefore a problem with the regulation of neuronal firing or the chemicals that lead to a neuron firing, and there is limited support for this idea (specifically a potassium/calcium regulation issue, which is very similar to some types of epilepsy) however many seemingly obvious hypotheses in psychiatry that have been based on the medications used to treat have turned out to be inaccurate. So, the answer is maybe, but as of right now, we don't know for certain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_potential"
]
] |
|
1i1b90
|
In what way was did Chilean coup d'etat in 1973 affect the Cold War?
|
I guess my question is how significant was it in the grand scheme of things? Did the US achieve their goals with their involvement?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1i1b90/in_what_way_was_did_chilean_coup_detat_in_1973/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb05f3e"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The US did achieve their goal of removing a Socialist government in South America in order to install a more Capitalist and American-friendly (albeit very authoritarian and repressive).\n\n\nThe US government's role in ousting Allende and supporting Pinochet caused severe tension with The USSR at a time when the two countries appeared to be on a path towards greater detente. The USSR and other Warsaw Pact-affiliated countries denounced Pinochet as a puppet of Western Imperialism. Cuba went a step further when Castro pledged support for anti-Pinochet dissidents and even trained guerrilla soldiers to fight against the Chilean Government.\n\nWhile Chile wasn't really a game changer in the Cold War, it was a contentious issue between the two super powers and caused a lot of controversy worldwide. It also inspired a [political protest song by Sting](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MS_bN5ECJTI"
]
] |
|
1bbga8
|
What supplies did the first Australian settlers have when they arrived in Sydney Cove in 1788?
|
As I understand, the first settlement was a penal colony. What supplies did the convicts have available to them when they landed? Also, what percentage were convicts? I assume that at least some were independent settlers.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bbga8/what_supplies_did_the_first_australian_settlers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c95f5wf"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The First Fleet consisted of 11 ships: \n\n* 2 navy ships, for carrying officers and staff;\n\n* 6 convict transport ships;\n\n* 3 supply ships.\n\nLieutenant Philip G. King (later Governor of New South Wales), who travelled on the fleet as part of Governor Phillip’s staff, recorded that the transport and supply ships carried a total of 774 convicts. [private journal] \n\nDeputy Judge Advocate David Collins (later Governor of Van Diemen’s Land) records in his journal, wrote that “of the whole number of all descriptions of persons coming to form the new settlement, only thirty-two had died since their leaving England, among whom were to be included one or two deaths by accidents”. [‘An Account of the English Colony in New South Wales’, 1804] Which was quite an achievement!\n\nHowever, the *exact* number of people who left England, and who arrived in Australia, is not known. Records conflict. [The most definitive list]( _URL_5_) is considered to have been compiled by amateur historian (*huzzah!*) Mollie Gillen, who was later given an honorary doctorate for her work. Her numbers are [summarised here in Wikipedia]( _URL_0_): of the 1,373 people who arrived in Sydney Cove, there were 754 convicts (including 11 babies born on the journey), 269 crewmen, 259 officers and marines – and 54 family members of the marines.\n\nThere were no free settlers, per se, on the First Fleet. The first independent free settlers didn’t arrive until five years later. However, it was expected that many of the seamen and marines would settle down and start farms and make homes, which is why some marines brought their families.\n\nUnfortunately, the marines didn’t make good farmers. As Governor Phillip wrote to the Home Secretary, Lord Sydney, in October 1788:\n\n > Most of the officers have cultivated a little ground, but is merely for their own conveniency, and none more than a single acre. [...] It must, my Lord, be settlers, with the assistance of the convicts, that will put this country in a situation for supporting its inhabitants;\n\nA couple of years later, he wrote:\n\n > I believe, sir, that it will be little less than two years from the granting the lands before those lands will support the cultivators. [...] As I thought the first settlers sent out might require more encouragement than those who might come out hereafter, I proposed in my last despatches giving them a certain number of convicts for two years, and supporting them during that time at the expense of the Crown.\n\nWhich is what happened – the first free settlers who came out in 1793, on the convict transport *Bellona*, were given free passage, were granted free land, and allowed free rations and access to convict labour for two years.\n\nComing back to the supplies the First Fleet brought with them – Lord Sydney, the Home Secretary of Britain, submitted a report to the British government in 1786 about the proposed plans to set up a penal colony in Botany Bay. The report proposed:\n\n > That these ships should take on board as much provisions as they can possibly stow, or at least a sufficient quantity for two years’ consumption; supposing one year to be issued at whole allowance, and the other year’s provisions at half allowance, which will last two years longer, by which time, it is presumed, the colony, with the live stock and grain which may be raised by a common industry on the part of the new settlers, will be fully sufficient for their maintenance and support.\n\nIn other words, it was intended to send enough food to last three years: one year on full rations, two years on half-rations.\n\nI can not find any reliable list of the exact supplies taken by the First Fleet. However, even if there was a list of what was loaded on to the ships in England, that wouldn’t help, as the fleet stopped three times along the way – at Tenerife, Rio de Janeiro, and Cape Town – to take on supplies. Still, a group of amateur historians has compiled [a list of livestock and provisions]( _URL_1_) they believe arrived in Port Jackson. And, according to [this centenary speech in 1889]( _URL_3_), Governor Phillip supposedly reported that the livestock in 1788 consisted of “7 horses, 29 sheep, 74 swine, 6 rabbits, 7 cattle”.\n\nBut, regardless of what was brought... it wasn’t enough. There was famine and rationing within a couple of years.\n\nIn September 1788, Governor Phillip wrote:\n\n > it was now found that very little of the English wheat had vegetated, and a very considerable quantity of barley and many seeds had rotted in the ground [...] All the barley and wheat, likewise, which had been put on board the *Supply* at the Cape [Cape Town] were destroyed by the weevil. The ground was, therefore, necessarily sown a second time with the seed which I had saved for the next year [...] The wheat sent to Norfolk Island had likewise failed, and there did not remain seed to sow one acre.\n\n > The colony not being in a state to support any considerable quantity of live stock, many being under the necessity at present of frequently killing a part of what they have for want of food to support them... \n\n... and went on to ask the Home Secretary to send out a supply ship rather than any more convict transports.\n\nSo, the colony was using its supplies faster than expected: the seeds intended for the second year’s crops were being used in the first year, and livestock was being killed instead of breeding.\n\nTherefore, in October 1788, Governor Phillip sent one of his ships, the *Sirius* to get supplies from Cape Town, which took 7 months. Until the ship returned, food was rationed throughout the colony. Rationing was a common theme for the first few years, as Watkin Tench recorded in his ‘[A Complete Account of the Settlement at Port Jackson]( _URL_4_)’:\n\n > [...] in October [1789] our weekly allowance of provisions, which had hitherto been eight pounds of flour, five pounds of salt pork, three pints of pease, six ounces of butter, was reduced to five pounds five ounces of flour, three pounds five ounces of pork, and two pints of pease.\n\n > In order to lessen the consumption from the public stores, the *Supply* was ordered to touch at Lord Howe Island, in her way from Norfolk Island, to try if turtle could be procured, for the purpose of being publicly served in lieu of salt provisions. But she brought back only three turtles, which were distributed in the garrison.\n\nBy [the beginning of 1790]( _URL_2_),\n\n > We had now been two years in the country, and thirty-two months from England, in which long period no supplies, except what had been procured at the Cape of Good Hope by the ‘Sirius’, had reached us.\n\nIn February 1790, Governor Phillip sent the *Sirius* to China to get more provisions. The ship was wrecked on the outward journey, and never made it to China.\n\nTench says that rations were cut again in April 1790:\n\n > from the 1st of April, the under-mentioned allowance, to every person in the settlement without distinction. \n\n > Four pounds of flour, two pounds and a half of salt pork, and one pound and a half of rice, per week.\n\nIn April, Governor Phillip sent another ship, the *Supply*, to Batavia (modern-day Jakarta) to get more rations. It returned 5 months later.\n\nHowever, in June 1790, the first of the Second Fleet ships arrived in Sydney, as Watkin Tench later wrote:\n\n > At length the clouds of misfortune began to separate and on the evening of the 3rd of June, the joyful cry of “the flag’s up” resounded in every direction.\n\n > I was sitting in my hut, musing on our fate, when a confused clamour in the street drew my attention. I opened my door, and saw several women with children in their arms running to and fro with distracted looks, congratulating each other [...] My next door neighbour, a brother officer, was with me; but we could not speak; we wrung each other by the hand, with eyes and hearts overflowing.\n\nUnfortunately, while the Second Fleet brought more food, it also brought more mouths to feed.\n\nBy 1791, David Collins recorded that:\n\n > although by this addition [to the ration] eight pounds of grain were issued [...] the ration was far from being brought up to the standard established by the Treasury for the colony; five pounds of bad worm-eaten rice making a most inadequate substitute for the same quantity of bad flour. \n\n > [...] in a given quantity of sixty pounds [of issued meat rations] there were no less than forty pounds of bone, and the remainder, which was intended to be eaten, was almost too far advanced in putrefaction for even hunger to get down.\n\nFor four years, from 1788 to 1792, Governor Phillip repeatedly wrote back to Britain asking for more supplies, as well as sending out ships to buy provisions elsewhere. It wasn’t until 1792 that the colony finally overcame starvation and finally began to feed itself.\n\nGovernor Phillip in October 1792: \n\n > It has, sir, been my fate to point out wants from year to year; it has been a duty the severest I have ever experienced. Did those wants only respect myself or a few individuals I should be silent; but here are numbers who bear them badly; nor has the colony suffered more from wanting what we have not received than from the supplies we have received not arriving in time.\n\nThe new colony nearly starved to death.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Fleet#People_of_the_First_Fleet",
"http://home.vicnet.net.au/~firstff/list.htm",
"http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3534/3534-h/3534-h.htm#6",
"http://trove.nla.gov.au/ndp/del/page/1383387?zoomLevel=3",
"http://www.gutenberg.org/files/3534/3534-h/3534-h.htm#5",
"http://trove.nla.gov.au/work/18294231?q&versionId=39804501"
]
] |
|
3odu6i
|
Are there any plants in the world that produce heat as a part of their regular chemical reactions?
|
I understand plants can produce light in some cases, but can any produce heat? This could go for fungi as well.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3odu6i/are_there_any_plants_in_the_world_that_produce/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvwonu4",
"cvwr8q1"
],
"score": [
5,
7
],
"text": [
"Yes. All living organisms produce heat. Here's what's up:\n\nMany (if not all) plants undergo photosynthesis. That's the process of taking gaseous carbon dioxide and liquid water and changing them into sugar using solar energy. This is an endergonic process, used to store energy.\n\nHowever, plants also undergo cellular respiration (in addition to any living creature we know of). This is essentially the complementary process to photosynthesis. It is exergonic, meaning that it gives off energy. In this process, we have sugar as our starting molecule and it spontaneously degrades back into carbon dioxide and water. The energy given off in this process is heat. \n\nI don't know what the net temperature exchange is for plants, but technically they do produce heat simply as a result of undergoing cellular respiration.",
"Although /u/heap-o-sheep answered the question in the literal sense, there are plants that can produce considerable amounts of heat. [Eastern skunk cabbage](_URL_1_), for example, produces enough heat to melt the snow above it in early spring, allowing it to get a head-start on growth compared to other plants. Wikipedia has a [smallish article](_URL_0_) on heat-producing plants."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermogenic_plants",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Symplocarpus_foetidus"
]
] |
|
36zbe3
|
If the Earth had the gravity of the moon, would falling of the top of the Empire State Building kill a human?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/36zbe3/if_the_earth_had_the_gravity_of_the_moon_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crieldn"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"**Short answer:** A faller's impact speed would be about 50 mph in moon gravity, as opposed to 122 mph in earth gravity. This is survivable.\n\n**Long answer:** Moon surface gravity is 1.6 m/s^2 which is about 15% of earth surface gravity, 9.8 m/s^(2).\n\nTaking all other things to be equal (for example assume we're still in ordinary atmospheric pressure), we find that the terminal velocity will decrease, as terminal velocity is proportional to sqrt(surface gravity).\n\nKnowing this, it looks like the [terminal velocity of a falling person would decrease by about 60%.](_URL_3_) Using terminal velocity for a [belly-down skydiver to be 122 mph](_URL_2_), we find a new terminal velocity [of 50 mph.](_URL_1_) \n\nThis should be survivable in the right circumstances. Under normal earth gravity, an impact speed of 50 mph is comparable to a fall of about [9 stories](_URL_0_). Since that calculation doesn't factor in air resistance I'm rounding down, but [the table on page 16](_URL_5_) agrees with my math, and also tells me that quite a few people have survived falls from this height. \n\nOf course, it's not the speed that kills you. I've gone 50 mph before, and I've definitely gone 122 mph before, at least on the interstate, and I've survived. This is because *speed doesn't hurt*, provided you change it gradually enough; it's the acceleration and the accompanying force that does the damage, and that's the problem here. Generally, the faster you are falling, the greater the force that will be exerted on you *by the ground* when you come to an abrupt stop, so spending a long time decelerating will lessen the force you experience. It's the squishyness of your landing pad, together with your impact speed, will determine how survivable the fall is.\n\nThere's a lot of techniques for surviving high falls, which as far as I can tell have a common source in [\"Human survivability of extreme impacts in free-fall\"](_URL_5_) by Richard Snyder. These techniques involve grabbing things on the way down or deliberately hitting ledges to break the fall into smaller less damaging intervals, and aiming for targets that will slow you down. For example, snow is a good pillow to fall on, and trees are a good target - tree limbs, quite literally, 'break the fall' and slow you by about 5-10 mph for each one hit. Depending on the time of year, a pile of freshly plowed snow might offer a good enough pad to land on (relatively) safely in NYC. Otherwise, the faller should hope they're on the south side of the building - despite the fact this is NYC, [I spy one little tree on W 33rd St that could be used to break.](_URL_4_) Of course, more importantly, the faller should hope earth gravity magically decides to become moon gravity for the duration of the fall. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%2850+mph%29^2%2F%28+2*%289.81+m%2Fs^2%29+%29",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%28+Moon+surface+gravity+%2F+earth+surface+gravity%29+*+122+mph",
"http://hypertextbook.com/facts/JianHuang.shtml",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=sqrt%28+Moon+surface+gravity+%2F+earth+surface+gravity%29",
"https://www.google.com/maps/place/Empire+State+Building/@40.748256,-73.986212,3a,75y,161.7h,88.31t/data=!3m4!1e1!3m2!1sDywJmq08kbrGvmn-dp3Zow!2e0!4m2!3m1!1s0x0:0xd134e199a405a163!6m1!1e1",
"http://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1960s/media/am63-15.pdf"
]
] |
||
55nkjl
|
How did upper classes have an 'advantage' when voting during the Roman Republic?
|
I've read about the process of Roman citizens gathering in centuries based on tribes or locations within the city in order to organise how elections were held - but repeatedly I encounter comments about how this voting structure benefited the upper class' choice of candidate over those from lower class centuries.
I don't understand how this worked in practice. Each century takes its own vote, and then the winning candidate in that century translates to a single 'century vote' for that candidate - and the upper classes voted first within those centuries.
This doesn't effectively explain any advantage to me... Surely even with a preferential place in the century position, or century structure, the upper classes would still be too small in number compared to everyone else to be able to significantly sway the decision?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/55nkjl/how_did_upper_classes_have_an_advantage_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8c56ib"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"You're not thinking about this quite right. The *comitia centuriata* did not divide the centuries up evenly. The first centuries had far fewer members than the lower centuries, but still accounted for exactly the same weight at the vote. /u/LegalAction made up a nice little [diagram](_URL_0_) (which I hope he doesn't mind my using) of the distribution of the centuries. The distributions changed over time, but the general trend of more centuries in the first class and the cavalry always remained. As is readily obvious, the first class alone has nearly as many centuries as all the other classes put together, despite being as a class no larger than any of the others, and in fact probably quite a lot smaller. What's not immediately obvious is that the 18 centuries of the cavalry amounted for a ludicrously tiny portion of the population. Take a look at the lowest century, amusingly labelled \"everyone else.\" That's the *capite censi*, and amounts for a huge portion of the population, including nearly the entirety of the urban population. All those people have exactly one vote, compared to the 18 votes of a tiny portion of extremely wealthy individuals and the 90 votes of a likewise small portion of people not significantly less wealthy than the cavalry. In fact, the *capite censi* for all intents and purposes generally *didn't* have a vote at all--Roman electoral practice closed off the ballots once a majority of the centuries was reached, so the *capite censi* and other lower centuries frequently didn't get to vote--this then raises the oft-discussed question of how frequently voters in these lower centuries even bothered showing up to centuriate votes that they knew they had almost no chance of being useful in. \n\nThe *comitia tributa* didn't have the problem of unequal distribution based directly on wealth, but likewise had a similar issue of unequal distribution of votes. There were by the late Republic 35 tribes, each of which had one vote, like the centuries in the centuriate assembly. These were not evenly split up according to population, however--at more than a million inhabitants, hundreds of thousands of whom were citizens, the city of Rome should have, theoretically, dominated a population-based system. Instead, of the 35 tribes fully 31 of them were rural, and only four were urban. The distribution of the tribes also did not necessarily follow where people were living at the time of the vote--the population of the city in particular was quite migratory. Property owners were generally enrolled in the rural tribes due to their landholdings in the country, and generally speaking the members of the rural tribes that were able to come into the city during votes can be expected to be those with property, who could easily afford to be off their land during the journey to the city. Additionally, *all* freedmen were enrolled in the four urban tribes, regardless of location or wealth. There were a few attempts to change this, but they met with serious opposition (Sulpicius died for his attempt, Sulla probably shut down Carbo's legislation attempting the same reform, Gaius Cornelius failed even to allow freedmen to be distributed in the tribes of their patrons in the 60s, and Manilius withdrew his bill in 66 after raising senatorial ire--Asconius also explains a reference in Cicero to a promise that Clodius made during the praetorian elections of 52 to a proposed bill that would distribute freedmen in all the tribes). The distribution of freedmen into only the urban tribes is not insignificant--freedmen made up a seriously big chunk of the population, and if distributed widely across all the tribes were feared to be able to dominate those tribal votes. Their restriction to the urban tribes is therefore decidedly unfair"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/fo9scOx.png"
]
] |
|
1iu7n6
|
what has to be done to a minecraft mod to make it work with a new version of the game?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1iu7n6/eli5_what_has_to_be_done_to_a_minecraft_mod_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb830ad",
"cb83nq4"
],
"score": [
6,
5
],
"text": [
"This may be better suited in /r/minecraft",
"The creators of Minecraft (Mojang) don't officially support modifications to the game, a result of this is that there is no official documentation of how the internals of the game work. Further the game code it's self is obfuscated (names of internals are changed to random characters) as a form of copy protection/intellectual property protection.\n\nBecause mod makers have no documentation they must try and figure out what has changed between different versions, sometimes this is easy when it's a minor update, sometimes it's a huge amount of work (like the last update). \n\nIt's made slightly easier by a project called MCP (Mod Coder Pack) which does a lot of the deobfuscation and provides a framework for people to write and reassemble a modified version of Minecraft. But of course it can take a long time for the MCP guys to update and figure out what's changed.\n\nIf Mojang ever finally produce the API (application programmers interface, an official way to interact with/modify the game) then hopefully mod authors will have to do nothing between updates. Though this depends on the level of functionality which Mojang will expose."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ggmun
|
Question about Hydrogenated Oils / "Trans Fat"
|
Okay, so here's my issue.
I have been lead to believe by nutrition journalists (is that a profession?) that so-called "trans fats" are worse for me than saturated fats. That's the whole idea behind this "trans fat free" labeling thing that has arisen in recent years.
I recently had a conversation with a biologist, who said something to the effect of: "This trans fat craze is nonsense, when you hydrogenate oils, they turn into completely normal saturated fats--there's nothing better or worse about them that comes as a result of having been created artificially".
Now, this flies in the face of what I thought to be the case, based on the non-scientific articles I had read.
The guy was not a nutrition expert. He did research on something that involved dissecting flies.
Is he full of shit, or are a whole lot of journalists? What is the chemical difference between trans fats and normal saturated fats, and can that difference lead to different effects on the body?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ggmun/question_about_hydrogenated_oils_trans_fat/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ndyqf",
"c1ne2n6"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"When you *completely* hydrogenate oil, it turns in to completely normal saturated fat. However, trans-fats are mono- or poly-unsaturated (or, as we're used to seeing on the label, \"partially hydrogenated\" oils). They have different chemical properties than their geometric isomers cis-fats (which are the ones that are in butter and lard), so they don't go rancid as quickly. They also aren't routinely found in human diets. In addition, trans fats have been found to increase bad cholestorol (LDL) and decrease good cholesterol (HDL).\n\nCell membranes need poly-unsaturated fats to do their thing. When you look at the difference between [the fats](_URL_1_), you can see how the difference might inhibit membrane fluidity. Trans fats are effectively \"paralyzed\" in to one conformation. Unsaturated fats can \"wag their tails\" around the double bond.\n\nSo as tasty as some of the delicious crap made with partially hydrogenated fats and oils may be, it's really best to avoid them. \n\nEdit: Here's a nice [video](_URL_0_) that explains the differences between the types of fat.",
"Your biologist friend is wrong. There are 2 types of Carbon-Carbon double bonds: Cis and Trans isomers. A C-C double bond is like a double ended Y lying in a plane, the backbone of the fat chain will run along the double bond from one part of the Y on one side to another part of the other Y on the other side. If the backbone is on the same side of the double bond then that is the \"Cis\" orientation, if it is on opposite sides of the double bond then that is the \"Trans\" orientation. There's a [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) on the phenomenon that might help with diagrams and such-like.\n\nFor completely hydrogenated oils there is no difference between an \"artificially\" created version and a natural version, both will have straight chains of fully hydrogenated carbon atoms. However, in partially hydrogenated oils some of the previously existing triple bonds in a poly-unsaturated fat will have been turned into these double bonds. As it turns out, the mechanisms for chemically creating partially hydrogenated oils will tend to create trans-isomers, because those are in a lower energy state than the cis-isomers. Also as it turns out naturally occurring fats only have cis-isomers when there are double bonds. For a long time this difference was not perceived to be a problem, as it was thought that even a trans-isomer mono-unsaturated fat was likely to be healthier than a fully saturated fat. However, medical research proved that not to be the case, and it turns out that due to the way trans-fats stack differently than natural cis-fats trans-fats are actually less healthy than even fully saturated fats."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TNrMIdzvRww",
"http://www.informaworld.com/ampp/image?path=/713172958/713485754/F0001.png"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cis_and_Trans"
]
] |
|
3fmj1i
|
Do animals pet humans or other animals? Or is petting other animals an exclusively human behavior?
|
Many humans love to pet animals, and some animals seem to love being petted. Are there instances of animals that are intelligent enough to respond in kind by petting humans, in order to reciprocate the feeling of being petted?
When [Koko the gorilla petted her kitten](_URL_0_), was it a learned behavior from observing how humans interact with the kitten?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3fmj1i/do_animals_pet_humans_or_other_animals_or_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctsq6wh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There's a lot of animals that show affection and grooming behavior to other species, including repetitive contact over shoulders/head/back. I'm not aware of any species that spontaneously pet, but I suspect that's because the majority of animals aren't easily equipped to pet. But if you widen the definition to include licking in the same areas, then definitely. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koko_the_gorilla#Koko.27s_pets"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
ege24u
|
Is the generation of fossil fuels inevitable on a planet with life?
|
Is the build-up of fossil fuel deposits an inevitable consequence of billions of years of life on a planet? Is it conceivable that life could exist long enough on a more-or-less Earth-like planet to bring about human-like intelligence, and yet for exploitable deposits of coal and petroleum simply not to exist?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ege24u/is_the_generation_of_fossil_fuels_inevitable_on_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fc9iywk"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There are many parts of the world where fossil fuels didn't form because the right conditions didn't exist. For fossil fuels to form you need large amounts of biomatter to be placed in an anoxic (no oxygen) environment, and then buried and placed under great pressure. In most cases when plants and animals die that doesn't happen, and in many places it's never happened. Therefore, although we can only speculate, it seems totally plausible for a planet to never form any fossil fuels, or not enough to be meaningful."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
57m0b4
|
How do drugs which act on serotonin receptors treat disorders of the nervous system?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/57m0b4/how_do_drugs_which_act_on_serotonin_receptors/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8t5mth",
"d8t7z6i",
"d8tc2nj",
"d8te8re",
"d8tfz27",
"d8thr13"
],
"score": [
44,
302,
2,
4,
26,
6
],
"text": [
"This is *really really* generalized. What exactly do you mean when you say \"disorders of the nervous system?\" As in: specific type of disorders (e.g., functional vs viral), part of the nervous system (e.g., peripheral vs central), etc?\n\nEdit: Came back to see how this is being answered, and not surprisingly, most people are answering this as if you mean mental disorders. And if that's what you meant, I refer you to those comments. Of course, with the caveat that it's important to remember that serotonin transporters are not receptors. SSRI's work by blocking *transporters* not **receptors**. However, it is curious to me that you wrote \"disorders of the nervous system\" and not psychiatric disorders. Which makes me wonder: do you *mean* mental disorders, or something else? The serotonin system is quite fascinating and there 15+ different serotonin receptors, which vary in their type (e.g., GPCR vs ligand-gated ion channel), and location (e.g., brain vs gut). ",
"Good question, though the answer isn't entirely well understood. \n\nMany neurological problems (i.e. depression, OCD, general anxiety disorder, etc.) involve low levels of certain types of neurotransmitters, including serotonin. Since SSRIs (Selective Serotonin Reuptake Inhibitors) increase levels of extracellular serotonin (and, thus, increase serotonergic transmission between cells), one might think that simply raising the levels of serotonin has a therapeutic effect. But that doesn't seem to be the case. \n\nUse of SSRIs will cause fairly rapid increases in serotonin levels (think hours-days), yet we don't actually see therapeutic effects for 1-2 months. Why might that be? Well, one idea is that it's not the immediate increase in serotonin that is the key, but rather it's the effect of increased serotonin over longer periods of time that cause actual changes in neuronal connections (a process termed neuroplasticity). As such, it's likely that these neuroplastic effects underlay the drugs' effectiveness. ",
"Some physical illnesses, such as migraine, were linked to people with depression (migraine sufferers are 2-3 times more likely to suffer from the illness).\n\nThis, along with antidepressants treating some symptoms in those who had both, led to antidepressants being used on people who aren't depressed but suffer from those illnesses.\n\n",
"5HT1a receptors in [the raphe nucleus](_URL_1_) act as inhibitory [autoreceptors](_URL_0_) which get downregulated over time when agonized. This is known to produce an anti-depressive effect by increasing serotonin tranmission from the raphe nucleus to the rest of the brain along the serotonin pathways. 5HT2a and 5HT2c antagonism (they play against each other synergistically) are also known to have anti-depressive effects. When you have something like an SSRI it just throws more serotonin at all of the serotonin receptor subtypes. With pure SSRIs you're mostly getting the benefits of downregulation of the inhibitory 5HT1a autoreceptors. It's possible I missed one of the important pathways, but I'd say the ones I outlined are the most important main ones. Sometimes serotonin transmission is altered indirectly using mechanisms you wouldn't expect. For example, a2 receptor antagonization actually increases serotonin transmission from the raphe nucleus, much like the downregulation of 5HT1a autoreceptors did. It gets pretty complicated.\n\nedit\n\nThe other replies to this question are...lacking. ",
"My response will start with simple, and then expand on that.\n\n**Basics**\n\nFirst, let's understand how these disorders happen. I'll take depression as my primary example, because I think it will be useful to sort of follow one disorder to explain a few concepts.\n\nStarting simple: Faulty connections within the brain can produce bad outcomes, one of which can be depression. \n\nI'll give you an image to help explain, and you follow along: Imagine a home with a bunch of lamps. If they're all plugged in, you can turn them on and off as you need. This is like normal brain function. Things run smoothly.\n\nNow imagine a home where only one plugin works. You can get around this, you can take an extension cord to each room and turn on lamps that way, but it's a lot harder and will take longer. This is like depression, with fewer connections firing correctly. It still works, but not quite in an ideal way.\n\nMore complex explanation using some jargon: faulty connections between neurons and neuronal atrophy can cause disorders of the nervous system, including depression. \n\n**Why Serotonin?**\n\nOne of the ways we treat depression is with an SSRI, \"selective serotonin reputake inhibitor.\" The idea behind this is to increase the availability of serotonin.\n\nSo why serotonin for so many of these drugs?\n\nSimple explanation: serotonin is used by the brain to release other chemicals required for the brain to function\n\nWe'll use another image to help understand this. Imagine we're back in that house, and we've got power in every room now! If we want to turn on the lights, we need a light switch, right? And that light switch should turn on the power to a lamp which has a lightbulb. Well imagine that some rooms don't have a light switch. Even though there's power to the room, and a lamp, and a lightbulb, there's no light switch! So it would be hard to light up the whole house.\n\nThis is like serotonin - it's like the lightswitch, with other neurotransmitters (like acetylcholine, dopamine, noradrenaline) being the lamp, the lightbulb, etc. Without the lightswitch, the other things won't work!\n\nComplex explanation using jargon: serotonin is a neurotransmitter that modulates the release of other neurotransmitters, and we treat some nervous system disorders by enhancing the effects of serotonin.\n\n**How SSRIs Work**\n\nSimple: SSRIs help the brain use serotonin\n\nAnother image: We're back in that house. We still want to light it up. Imagine that we have electricity, lamps, lightbulbs, and light switches in every room. EXCEPT the light switches are all on a timer. The lights will stay on for 30 seconds. \n\nIt will be really hard to keep the lights on in every room all the time, right?\n\nAn SSRI is like making the 30second timer into a 30minute timer. It becomes a LOT easier to keep the lights on if they'll stay on for 30 minutes at a time. \n\nWhen serotonin is released, it quickly gets pulled back - creating a short burst of activity. SSRIs slow down the pull back, keeping serotonin available. So it's like making the timer in our house longer :-)\n\nMore complex jargony: SSRIs inhibit reputake of serotonin, thereby extending its effect on receptors in the synaptic cleft and enhancing release of downstream neurotransmitters.\n\n**2 effects of SSRIs**\n\nStarting simple: drugs like SSRIs do 2 big things, they make serotonin work better and they encourage the brain to make more connections.\n\nImage: We're back in our house, and we still want the lights on. We now have electricity to all the rooms, lamps, bulbs in the lamps, and lightswitches. We put in new light switches, so they will stay on when we turn them on. We flip all the switches on and... we blow a fuse! How do we fix that? We need to rewire the house a bit. And we never would have known that if we hadn't gotten all the lights on at once!\n\nThis kind of thing happens in the brain too - SSRIs don't just increase release of chemicals, they also increase signals in the brain that we need more connections. So the brain starts making more connections, too!\n\nJargony complex explanation: SSRIs not only enhance neurotransmitter release by reducing reuptake of serotonin, they also enhance production and release of Brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF) which promotes growth and survival of the neurons required to release and react to all these neurotransmitters.\n\n**Putting it all together**\n\nThanks for sticking with me this far.\n\nSimple explanation: SSRIs make more serotonin available for use in the brain, which makes it easier for the brain to release and use other chemicals. That whole process also makes the brain release a chemical that helps brain cells grow and survive. Because of this, antidepressants actually take 4-6 weeks to really work - growth/regrowth doesn't happen overnight.\n\nImage: If you hire somebody to rewire your house, it won't get done in one day :-) It takes a little while, and the same is true for drugs like SSRIs.\n\nComplex/jargony: SSRIs both enhance neurotransmitter release and synthesis and release of BDNF. They require 4-6 weeks to reach full effect because of this. Additional targets for therapy may be BDNF itself, or other neurotransmitters (Bupropion/wellbutrin is a good example of this, primarily acting on norepinephrine and dopamine and thereby enhancing BDNF).\n\n-------------------\n\nI tried to make each step of explanation follow a pattern. A simple explanation, an image to help us imagine what that explanation means, and then an explanation using jargon. I hope it was helpful.\n",
"Pharmacist here. Most antidepressants work on the basis of the \"imbalance theory\" of depression. It's been widely held, but still not unequivocally proven, that a reduction in neurotransmitters such as serotonin and norepinephrine lead to depression. Antidepressants work by increasing the level of one or both of these neurotransmitters. \n\nCitalopram is probably the most widely used antidepressant and it belongs to the serotonin reuptake inhibitor (SSRI) group. This basically means it prevents serotonin being recycled, meaning more is available at the postsynaptic receptor. \n\nTheory is one thing but the evidence for most antidepressants isn't amazing, especially for mild depression. That said, in the UK and the USA antidepressant prescribing rates are going up yearly. A lot of patients do think of them as a \"magic cure\" and I spend a lot of time telling my patients it isn't going to make their lives amazing overnight. My advice to anyone starting an antidepressant is to have reasonable expectations and always allow at least 4 weeks before deciding it doesn't work. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autoreceptor",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/01/Dopamine_and_serotonin_pathways.png"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
268sky
|
Will an EMP effect electronics that are powered off and have no iron derivatives in them?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/268sky/will_an_emp_effect_electronics_that_are_powered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chowp6l"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes. An electromagnetic pulse would be picked up by any conductor within range. In some cases, like a piece of rebar holding down a parking lot bumper, this doesn't really matter too much; the rebar could care less about having a (comparatively small) current run down it. \n \nElectronics, on the other hand, contain lots of conductors (copper, aluminum, etc.) and a bunch of semiconductors. The EMP will also induce a current there ... but the wires inside an integrated circuit are considerably smaller than a piece of rebar, and they're connected to things that have very small thresholds regarding the amount of current that they can handle. \n \nSo the induced current from the EMP would fry a bunch of ICs and possibly burn out some of the conductive traces, if it was strong enough. It's not really a question of ferromagnetism at all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1gcu3y
|
Why do milk or sugary drinks cause thicker saliva?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1gcu3y/why_do_milk_or_sugary_drinks_cause_thicker_saliva/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caj6ici",
"caj6xcc"
],
"score": [
6,
10
],
"text": [
"At work, so I don't have time to write up a full reply, but I'd say it's a combination of the secretions that form your saliva changing, and residues of the drink left behind in your mouth, combining with saliva and causing the changes. \n\nI know that with milk, it's a mixture of the proteins that give milk it's 'heavy, creamy' mouthfeel by combining with saliva to form a complex that's more viscous than saliva alone.\n\nWith soft drinks, they often add proteins like Pectin, which add 'density' and 'body', and can remain in your mouth to add texture, as well as obvious substances like sugar. \n\nThere are also changes in saliva composition induced when you smell or see food, but I don't have my textbook with me at the moment and can't remember all the details off the top of my head.",
"I conducted a pretty thorough literature review to determine why exactly thicker saliva secretions are related to ingestion of some foods and drinks but not others. Apparently there's a **lot** of research out there on saliva.\n\nI finally hit paydirt with this study: *The influence of beverages on the stimulation and viscoelasticity of saliva: Relationship to mouthfeel?*\n\nMilk was not studied, but acidic drinks like colas and tea, mint gum, and water were compared for their effects on saliva release, character of saliva, and subjective experience of the person salivating.\n\nThe major finding was that acidity of the beverage was one of the primary factors that caused release of copious amounts of hyperviscous (thick) saliva. To quote the study directly:\n\n\"We consider that these effects arise due to the acidity stimulating the secretion of highly elastic saliva from the submandibular/sublingual glands while mechanical action predominately stimulates inelastic saliva from the parotid gland, as discussed extensively by Stokes and Davies (2007). It is anticipated that the stimulation of elastic saliva due to acidic beverages arises as a defence against acid erosion on teeth in order to promote formation of the salivary pellicle.\"\n\nMilk, being slightly acidic, would likely thicken saliva via the same mechanism. \n\nNote that there are other mechanisms with other foods and drink that thicken salivary secretions; among others, the capsaicin receptor triggered by spicy foods springs to mind."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1z8eps
|
would democracy benefit if lobbying and lobbyists were made illegal in the united states?
|
I've always heard that lobbyists are the bane to democracy because of how they sway political decisions with money and/or handouts and I have always wondered if there is anything they do that might be considered beneficial for America as a whole or if I have been mislead.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1z8eps/eli5would_democracy_benefit_if_lobbying_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cfrgink",
"cfrgmg8",
"cfrhf0f",
"cfrim2q",
"cfrj6kp",
"cfrj6rw",
"cfrjgj0",
"cfrjizg",
"cfrjnqo",
"cfrkfd1",
"cfrlkrp"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
27,
14,
19,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The issue isn't lobbyists. The issue is that as you mention, interests with money tend to use financial support for political campaigns as a tool to build support. Government is complicated and the laws they pass have ramifications on a variety of people and interests. I want lobbyists for Banks, unions, and environmentalists to be able to lobby on a particular side. If a law can be passed that will help the financial industry without it hurting anyone else, then there's nothing wrong with the banking lobby advocating for it. The people who work in government often don't have as good of an idea of the impact of what they pass as the groups affected do. It's impractical to expect them to. It's important to here input. The right to petition the government is an important right. Lobbying should exist, but the current system in which financial support of campaigns or future jobs are traded for legislative favors is one that violates the concept of political equality.",
"We have a similar issue in the UK. In fact the Prime Minister (David Cameron) says \"lobbying is the next big scandal waiting to happen\".\n\nFor me, the words \"lobbying\" and \"lobbyist\" are morally neutral. Lobbying isn't always a bad thing but it can be.\n\nThe way I'd frame the argument is that it's bad when money is more important than the voice of the people.\n\nTo take an example, over here we have socialised health care. People in the UK don't have to pay directly for their health care, the money comes from general taxation. There are a few people that don't like that model in the UK but for most people they would much rather that than something like the American system with insurance.\n\nHowever, there's lots of money to be made in healthcare and so private healthcare providers try to sway our government so they can get into our healthcare market. They do this, in part, by making donations to political parties and using personal contacts in government to get their way.\n\nI would say this is an example where big money is overriding the desires of the electorate.\n\nHowever, you could have lobbyists who inform the government of a particular issue and seek government action. Say there's a small country thousands of miles away that has a particular issue they want to make our government aware of, then a lobbyist can get a meeting with government officials and encourage our government to speak out about it.\n\nIt's a difficult subject because I might be in favour of an issue and therefore I think the lobbying is a good thing but someone else may look at the same issue and think it's horrendous that someone can try to sway the government.\n\nSo controversial things such as LGBT rights, religion in public life, abortion... all these could have attached lobby groups and, depending on where your own views lie, you could think the lobbying is scandalous or a very good thing indeed.",
"I've worked for very large companies that do big and bad things and also provide the means to do big and sometimes bad things. Oil companies, weapons makers, utilities, insurance--and I never met anyone that I would call evil. Most of those companies actually talk with their employees about what their lobbying is attempting. So, I know no one is evil and I have seen a transparent agenda--but I still see a corrosive effect because there is no similar mechanism afforded specifically to regular folks. Plus lobbyists are invariably the source when actual corruption happens.",
"ELI5:Monetary Lobbying leverages the voice of the financial stronger group and therefor distorts democracy.",
"The country would be a dictatorship because you would not be allowed to petition congress for an address of your grievances. You would not be able to write, visit, or talk to your congressman about your issues. That's \"lobbying.\"\n\nThe real problem in this country is when relaxed campaign contribution limits combine with professional fundraisers and the incumbent advantage to ensure low turnover. Also, our media fails to report on hard facts and instead prioritizes \"horse race coverage\" of politics rather than properly vetting our candidates",
"I've come to think lately that we might actually need lobbyists. Without them, only the super rich would have the ear of government, the businesses, unions, any group, would have little effective representation, only papers and blogs. The lobbied-for groups as of now are heard as loud as their purses. That's the system. You're obviously disenfranchised if you don't belong to a group and that's the sentiment I hear here. Change the system. ",
"No, democracy would not benefit from outlawing lobbying. Lobbyists actually perform an important function in the democratic system. \n\nLobbyist are experts paid to inform and influence the decisions of lawmakers. Without lobbyists, lawmakers would have less information upon which to base their decisions about what laws to pass. As a rule, more information is better. \n\nOf course, this information comes with the trade-off of pressure to take a particular position. The fix for this problem, somewhat ironically, is more lobbyists. That is, the ideal situation is to have competent lobbyists on both sides of an issue so that lawmakers can get the most information from two (or more) competing sources.",
"ELI5 and then ask a yes or no question. Well played.",
"I work in government. /u/joneSee is absolutely right.\n\nNobody is solely trying to sabotage the US, or the state I work in/you live in, or the town you and I live in. Not on the level that occupy wallstreet makes out. But lobbyists and their respective interest groups aren't what conservatives make them out to be either. In short, they're really just usually passionate or paid individuals that care about one issue. They aren't out to destroy democracy, or institute a fascist empire.\n\nThey're more akin to really biased lawyers. They're trying to make a buck for themselves, and their company. It is the source of corruption, but that is more often initiated by the politician than the lobbyist because the FBI takes that seriously. You'll get ban-hammered for life from that, cuz the media eats that up. \n\nThe problem is really Citizens United. It is amazing how people on both sides hated that. That allows companies to influence people during their race. Once you are in the seat it's very hard to unseat you. But by influencing campaigns you can put in a guy or gal who you never have to pay again, but agrees with you on everything.",
"Actual lobbyist here. A lot of these answers are correct [such a lobbyist answer] but i think there are two things: (1)the real deal is that electeds and staff are so busy working on a lot of different things that it is impossible for them to fully comprehend an issue and the effect of the issue without help from outside sources. And (2) we have relationships with staff and electeds that are the center of our business. Those relationships help us move a clients agenda. That being said, our reputation and success depend on those relationships and the trustworthiness [vomit, i know] of the information or position we present. In other words, if we screw you this time, the next time we need something, we are (1) not going to get an appointment; (2) not get our message across; (3) not lobby; (4) become a shitty lobbyist. So we have to balance not lying about stuff and at the same time, advancing our clients interests, which we are not necessarily always upfront about [that is where we can get screwed down the line]. \n\nOne other thing: We all don't do evil shit all the time. We have a range of issues for clients and most of the time, its sort of mundane, like getting a contract to replace storm drain covers. Not super sexy. Every once in a while, a big issue will come up that is very controversial [i may not even agree with our position] and believe me, the activist community shows up. Sometimes they think they did more for change than the really do, but they balance things out a bit. ",
"Remember the US is not a democracy - A democracy would not work in the US since the time commitment and required education required for governing is too high for most Americans to participate directly in government regardless of lobbing power. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
vehse
|
Could intelligent life that evolved in an aquatic environment develop sophisticated technology?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vehse/could_intelligent_life_that_evolved_in_an_aquatic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c53spo4",
"c53u1tx",
"c53u762",
"c53uwau",
"c53v9iv",
"c53vrb5"
],
"score": [
100,
16,
4,
2,
2,
7
],
"text": [
"I don't think there is an answer to this question that isn't speculation. ",
"Warning: pure speculation follows...\n\nWhy presume that technology requires stone and metal? Certainly we can create a lot of technology using fibers and other soft materials - it's just a matter of changing your thinking from materials that are strong in compression to those that are strong in tension. Given the buoyancy provided by water, this would likely be more useful anyway.\n\nEdit: spolling",
"As a tangent...You don't necessarily need agriculture to develop complex societies. First Nations groups in the Pacific Northwest were able to survive and construct complex societies with a hunter/gatherer lifestyle because resources were just that abundant.",
"This question seems to require speculation to answer. Does anyone know a sub that is more appropriate for this question?",
"Since we're speculating, Larry Niven's Known Space series includes a technically advanced species that lives in oceans under the ice of a moon orbiting a gas giant. \n\nTwo words: Diving suit. They began to create advanced technologies (like metal forging and such) after they began to venture above the ice in what were basically dive bladders, except they were water filled. ",
"While I can't really answer any of this, underwater agriculture is practiced by the Dusky Farmerfish. It weeds a patch of hair algae growing on rock or dead coral, removing any living coral, sponges, or unwanted algae while chasing away herbivorous fish. The fish lives off the algae as needed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bsl0hw
|
if i place both waters into a bucket from where the two oceans meet but don’t mix, why do they mix just fine in the bucket?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bsl0hw/eli5_if_i_place_both_waters_into_a_bucket_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eonzxkf",
"eoo0jni",
"eoo2j06"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"I don't understand the question. Can you rephrase it?",
"Why do you say they don't mix where they meet?",
"The idea of \"two oceans meet but don't mix\" is more or less a myth. Most of the pictures of this you see on the Internet are at rivermouths or headlands, where a sharp contrast between water types is visible ... but it mixes away pretty quickly.\n\nTom Scott did a video on this recently.\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4N4yQB_B4c"
]
] |
||
1kp4td
|
Is every neuron in the body indirectly connected to every other neuron?
|
Or, asked in another way, are there any neurons in the body that are not somehow connected to the central nervous system? Also, is there an estimate of the average degree of separation between two randomly selected neurons?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1kp4td/is_every_neuron_in_the_body_indirectly_connected/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbr8iop"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are nerve cells like Ganglions; Ganglions are collections of nerve cell bodies outside the central nervous system and their nuclei are used for collections of neurons inside. However, these ultimately are used as part of the signals to the central nervous system... so it depends on how loose or tight of a definition you are going for.\n\nAs far as degrees of separation, I don't think it's known, there are estimated over 100 billion neurons in the brain, let alone the rest of the body. \n\nNerves are easier than neurons, we have 214 named nerves that are the core neurological pathways outside of the brain in our body. We could easily calculate the farthest degree of separation here\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4aeaev
|
why do some people have the mindset that only a race that is "in power"/majority can be racist?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aeaev/eli5_why_do_some_people_have_the_mindset_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0zlpkk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This is part of the jargon used in sociology, ethnic studies, in related fields, where it is useful to distinguish between oppression of groups with low social status versus the general concept of racial prejudice. Unfortunately, some people do not understand that language is context-dependent, and try to assert that this special use is the one, true, correct definition because they read it in a textbook.\n\nConveniently for them, this concept also means that people who perceive themselves as being discriminated against do not have to question their own beliefs, which many people find difficult."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2hgghp
|
the black hole mathematical debunk.
|
If black holes don't exist what are those things in the middle of most galaxies and the things that bends light and have insane gravitational pull? Have we just always misunderstood what black holes are or are they really non existent? ELI5 please :)
Also, should I just post this to /r/space?
Edit: _URL_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2hgghp/eli5_the_black_hole_mathematical_debunk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cksfcl5",
"cksfls9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, physicists work with two different sets of theories. Quantum mechanics for the very small, and relativity for the very large. One of the biggest mysteries at the moment is that these two theories are not compatible with each other. Though quantum mechanical laws give very accurate readings for small objects, we get results that do not make sense when using it on large objects.\n\nMy understanding of this announcement is that this physicist pulled rules from both sets of laws simultaneously, which you are not allowed to do. Even if you could, and her finding was valid the announcement that black holes don't exist would be far less interesting to physicists than the fact that she successfully united these laws. It would be rather like announcing that submarines should not be able to work properly because you have disproved gravity.\n",
"The so-called proof is bogus and will not survive the peer review process. There is plenty of physical evidence that black holes exist, *including* many examples of directly-observed gravitational lensing, which is about as close as you can get to actually SEEING one.\n\nHer claim to have resolved the differences between relativity and quantum mechanics is similarly dubious.\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.iflscience.com/physics/physicist-claims-have-proven-mathematically-black-holes-do-not-exist"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
eslkdp
|
if fevers are how our bodies fight infections and over the counter pain meds like tylenol are fever reducers, do they make it take longer to get better?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eslkdp/elif_if_fevers_are_how_our_bodies_fight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffaq64w",
"ffaqn6r",
"ffar7s1",
"ffawnl4",
"ffax8nb",
"ffb7aia"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
9,
9,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. A fever (within reason) is a good thing. Tylenol makes you feel better, a fever helps you get better.",
"Obligatory not a medical professional. But there are two trains of thought; the first is of course treating it with fever reducer because the physiological dangers outweigh any benefit the fever may produce. \n\nThe second is that alternative cooling methods should be used and fevers should be used to run their course.\n\nThe following study actually explains it quite well, though it's some reading:\n\n_URL_0_",
"Once I read a phrase that sums up pretty well why design is not what our body has: the virus can't survive that hot for that long, neither your body can.\n\nFever is basically your body rising the temperature to make an environment that a living being simply can't live in, problem is your body is as much of a living being as the virus, so it's important not to allow it to overheat itself.\n\nFever is just one of the tools that the body has to fight foreign invaders, but as effective as it is, it's also pretty bad at keeping you alive long term, furthermore you feel like shit every time it happens, because your body is not prepared to work at 40°C.\n\nAll in all, it's ultimately a decision but at some point it becomes less than a decision and more of a risk. There are other ways to tackle on the viruses.",
"I believe so. \n\nBut you should keep in mind that our immune system evolved in a context far outside modern society. For example, having too high of a fever can have negative effects, like brain damage. Some factors:\n\n* For ancient humans a little bit of brain damage might not have been a big deal, as they did not have to learn as much abstract stuff, or deal with as complex of a society.\n\n* For modern humans, risks are generally lower. If having a less aggressive immune system now means you have a 5% chance of dying and a 15% chance of needing to go to a hospital when you get a particular illness, for ancient humans that hospital does not exist and the 15% is mostly death. \n\n* For ancient humans there was a bigger incentive to get better faster, because taking a week off of hunter-gathering means you have no food. \n\n* Ancient humans did not have Netflix, so being sick was way boring. \n\nOk, that last one may not be a big factor. But in any case, for modern humans, it is often better to not take a chance and to just spend a couple extra days getting better.",
"Well, there's more than \"normal temperature\" and \"fever.\" It's a continuum, there's mild fevers and dangerous fevers.\n\nA mild fever, 99-101 deg F, you're probably better off to let it run its course as it kills off the invading germs. \n\nA high fever, 103+, could cause all sorts of things including deafness and brain damage. Those fevers you need to bring down. And, since most fevers are from bacterial infections rather than viral, antibiotics are, in general, a good idea.",
"I try to let my kids ‘fight it off’ if the fever is 101 or lower. Above 101 is Tylenol time, and above 103 is a visit to urgent care or the pediatrician, depending on the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4703655/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6u6ale
|
Do larger people have larger organs?
|
I'm an above average male, 6 foot 7 inches and 240ish pounds. Are my internal organs like my liver or heart significantly larger than someone like my s/o who is 5 foot 5 inches and 130 pounds?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6u6ale/do_larger_people_have_larger_organs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlqmwox",
"dlqy2q6",
"dlrakr4"
],
"score": [
21,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes. It all starts with your skeleton. A larger frame needs larger muscles to move it. Larger muscles will need more nourishment. This leads to a larger digestive tract and a circulatory system with more volume. A larger circulatory system has more RBC's which need a larger spleen to filter them, has more fluid which needs larger kidneys to filter it, and carries more oxygen which needs larger lungs to supply it. Of course, all your RBC's are made in your bone marrow, which needs to be larger to make them, which completes the circle.\n\nThat's the logic behind it, but the real reason is simply that your growth hormones act in equal proportions on all of the parts of your body. ",
"Depends on the body composition. Height and weight are not the only estimator of organ sizes. Age and sex are also strong predictors of organ size. For instance the equations for total lung capacity gives around 20% extra volume to males compared to females.\n\nThis is important in thoracic organ transplantation where organ sizes mismatch can result in poorer outcomes. For instance height but not weight is a good indicator of lung sizes whilst heart size is better predicted by both body weight and height in addition to age and gender (body weight affects the total volume of circulation, hence the heart pumps harder).\n\nLikewise, abdominal organs are more related to height and lean body weight than actual body weight since muscle and fat mass affect body weight much more than the size of organs. If you ever seen a CT scan of a morbidly obese person, you often find that the internal organs are no different to most people of the same height.",
"Yes and no. Sometimes people who have gigantism or dwarfism can actually have \"average\" sized organs which can cause health issues because they aren't directly proportionate to how the body needs to use them. But as for someone who doesn't have either of those genetic traits, it seems to vary for your size. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
31lv8u
|
Have other countries ever tried to sanction the United States government for its foreign policy acts?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/31lv8u/have_other_countries_ever_tried_to_sanction_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cq2sjli",
"cq2zqvp"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The Russian boycott of the 1984 Olympics in LA might fit your criteria. The US boycotted the olympics in he USSR because of Russia's invasion of Afghanistan. The USSR responded 4 years later by boycotting the LA OlympicsThe USSR announced its intentions to boycott the 1984 Summer Olympics on May 8, 1984, citing security concerns and stating that \"chauvinistic sentiments and an anti-Soviet hysteria [were] being whipped up in the United States\"",
"Hmm. Not sure what you mean by a \"sanction.\" Do you mean it in the technical sense of \"economic sanctions\" or in the more colloquial sense of \"some sort of monetary damages or response by a party against the United States?\"\n\nThe International Court of Justice has a [judgment against the United States in a suit filed by Nicaragua in that court](_URL_0_). Judgement was entered on June 27, 1986. The judgement was for approximately $370 million U.S. dollars in 1986."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/?sum=367&p1=3&p2=3&case=70&p3=5"
]
] |
||
4km2f0
|
How did scientist succeed to create an acoustic black hole ?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4km2f0/how_did_scientist_succeed_to_create_an_acoustic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3ga7ce"
],
"score": [
30
],
"text": [
"Very good question!\n\nFirst off, there are two very different things that could be referred to as acoustic black holes. The first is called a \"[Sonic Black Hole](_URL_7_),\" and this is made by having a fluid that moves faster than the speed of sound in the medium. The second is actually called an \"[Acoustic Black Hole](_URL_8_),\" and it's made by having a material get thinner and thinner to cause the sound speed to drop to zero. I'll talk about both.\n\nSonic Black Holes are made by having some localized section of a fluid moving faster than that fluid's sound speed. While these don't have any known practical value, they are of definite interest to physicists because of their similarities to gravity black holes. For example, using these black holes, a scientist can experimentally observe [Hawking Radiation](_URL_5_), where sound is spontaneously generated at the event horizon of the black hole.\n\nThe best way to understand how these black holes work is to think of the speed of sound as \"the speed of mechanical information.\" When there's a mechanical disturbance in a fluid or solid, the other parts of the fluid/solid don't know about it until the mechanical wave (the sound wave) reaches them. You can actually see this effect when [dropping a slinky](_URL_0_), because the bottom doesn't fall until the longitudinal wave in the slinky reaches it. (Self plug, I wrote [a lay language article on this exact topic](_URL_6_)). This has a strong analogy with gravity, as gravity is the medium through which gravitational information moves through the universe (at the speed of light). For sound speed, the frame of reference is the fluid itself. If the fluid is moving with respect to the frame of reference, then the sound velocity is the localized sound speed plus the velocity of the fluid.\n\nSo, to create a sonic black hole, you just need to get the fluid in some place to move faster than the speed of sound in that fluid. That way, when sound propagates into that quickly moving fluid, there's no way it can propagate out, because it gets pulled away faster than the wave can move. One of the scientists who experimentally created the effect described it \"...like trying to swim upstream in a river whose current is faster than you.” You can do this with many fluids, but the best gravitational analogs are fluids without effects like turbulence. That means fluids with 0 viscosity, also known as [superfluids](_URL_3_).\n\nThis has actually been [done experimentally](_URL_2_), using superfluid rubidium and a laser. They cooled the rubidium down to superfluid temperatures, then shot a small portion of the fluid with a laser. When the laser hit the fluid, it created a small void, which the rest of the fluid rushed in quickly to fill. While that fluid was moving (at more than 4 times it's local speed of sound), no sound in that fluid could propagate out into the surrounding fluid. In this way, it acted like a blackhole.\n\n\"Acoustic black holes,\" on the other hand, are a different effect that seem to have some practical value. I know quite a bit about them because a former roommate of mine is currently studying them at my institution. Acoustic black holes are made by [creating a region where the local sound speed decreases slowly to zero](_URL_8_). Because [sound refracts and bends towards regions of lower sound speed](_URL_1_), incoming sound energy is \"sucked into\" the acoustic black hole.\n\nThese are actually rather simple to make in a solid, and they're completely passive. All you have to do is make a wedge of the solid material that tapers with the appropriate curve. If you do it right, all of the sound energy that hits the hole will curve in a spiral down into the hole and get lost at the center. Naturally, this has applications for vibration control, because it acts like the ultimate sound trap. So research is being done on[ creating rows of these black holes](_URL_4_) to block all vibrations from getting into or out of some region.\n\nSo, that's about what I know on the topic. If you have any questions about that second type of black hole, I can see if I can get the ear of my friend (he's the author of that last paper I linked). He can certainly give a more complete answer than I can.\n\nHope that answered your question!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wGIZKETKKdw",
"http://www.acs.psu.edu/drussell/Demos/refract/refract.html",
"http://discovermagazine.com/2010/jan-feb/079",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Superfluidity",
"http://proceedings.asmedigitalcollection.asme.org/proceeding.aspx?articleid=2441123",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hawking_radiation",
"http://acousticstoday.org/the-world-through-sound-sound-speed/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonic_black_hole",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0022460X03009490"
]
] |
||
7dhmez
|
how is polyester soft when it's basically plastic?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7dhmez/eli5_how_is_polyester_soft_when_its_basically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dpxwoiq",
"dpxzq16"
],
"score": [
15,
7
],
"text": [
"From my understanding- fiber size. Bending a solid steel cylinder is a lot more difficult than bending a woven steel cable. The fabric might be essentially plastic, but it's a bunch of small plastic threads knit together.",
"Because whether something is soft or not has very little to do with its molecular structure.\n\nStudies have shown that people can feel a difference as small as 13 nanometers (that's 13 x 10^-9 meters), but atoms are way smaller (usually around 30 * 10^-12 meters) than that. In short, molecules are very very small and you can't feel them.\n\nSoftness has a lot more to do with other things, like the material's flexibility and the actual physical shape of the material. Raw cotton is pretty rough, because the cotton strands are thick and tangled, but if you run it through a spinner and draw it out into fine cotton strands, it feels nice and soft. Because the cotton is no longer tangled up on itself, and the shape of the strands has been changed, it feels entirely different from its raw form. Similarly, a block of polyester isn't going to feel soft, but if you took that block and drew it out into very thin strands you've changed almost everything important about it (for feel anyway). The molecule chains that make up the polyester are no longer rigidly attached to the rest of the block (which makes it more flexible), and they are quite a lot thinner than they used to be (which will begin to get closer to that 13 nanometers which is the smallest distance you can actually feel).\n\nDrawing a rigid material into strands doesn't always make it nice and soft, think of steel wool for an example. Even in strand form, steel still has very strong and rigid bonds between atoms that gives it a lot of rigidity. That said, I would also argue that steel wool is considerably softer than a block of steel."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5ln4lt
|
the concept of falsifiability. i just can't understand it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ln4lt/eli5_the_concept_of_falsifiability_i_just_cant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbwwxk4",
"dbwy36y",
"dbx0wb0"
],
"score": [
7,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"You have to be able to prove something is false to be able to prove it's true. \n\nExample A: I say that I can run faster than you. We race. I either beat you, or you beat me in the race. That is falsifiable because you could prove that I cannot run faster than you. \n\nExample B: I say that God is real. There is no way for me to prove that is correct. But, there is no way to prove that I'm incorrect. All we can do is debate, but nobody can prove anything. ",
"Falsifiability is a property of a statement about the world. It was proposed by Karl Popper as a way to tell scientific statements from metaphysical statements. If a statement is falsifiable, it is part of science. If it is not, it is not. That doesn't mean it's wrong or stupid, it just means it's not science. \n\nSo specifically what it means is, if there is no way to tell if a statement is _false_, then it's not part of science. That doesn't mean you have to be able to prove it false, of course — many true things are falsifiable. But it means there must be a way to \"test\" it, and specifically to test it by proving it _wrong_. \n\nLet's go with a concrete example. Here is a statement about the world: \"There is an invisible, undetectable unicorn that keeps the Sun shining.\" If this were true, I would note, the Sun would shine. I look into the sky and lo and behold, the Sun is shining! And lo, I can come up with an experiment: if I shout out, \"unicorn O unicorn, make the Sun shine tomorrow!\", you will see the Sun shine tomorrow.\n\nAh, but what if you _don't_ shout that out? Well the unicorn loves us and the Sun so he'll keep shining anyway, but I think he's probably sad to not hear his name.\n\nGreat, says Popper. That's a statement for why the Sun shines, to be sure. But your only evidence is about proving it _true_. It's not science unless there is something you can do to prove it _false_. In this situation there is no way to disprove the statement — if I call to the unicorn, the Sun shines, if I don't, the Sun shines. This statement cannot really be tested, and the fact that all visible evidence seems to align with the theory does not mean a damned thing, because you can come up with an infinite number of theories that fit the evidence _if_ they are not falsifiable. \n\nAnd so this is why this matters. You can always come up with theories that fit any evidence with exceptions. What matters to Popper are places where you've really put it to the test. So if instead I say, well, my unicorn _requires_ me to sing to it every day... I can test that by not singing to it. \"The Sun only rises because a unicorn gets sun to every day, and wouldn't rise if nobody sang to it\" is a totally falsifiable, and thus scientific, statement. It happens to be testably _wrong_. But that's not what Popper cares about. \n\nLet's take a less silly example: \"large amounts of mass can bend the direction that light travels.\" This was a consequence of what Einstein argued with his General Relativity theory. Pretty cool statement. Is it falsifiable? Yes — you can do experiments (the first involved photographing stars near the Sun during a total solar eclipse) to see if it's true. If the stars are where Einstein predicted they'd be — then the statement is judged a true one. If they aren't, then Einstein is wrong. Either way, it's still falsifiable, so it's science. \n\nPopper developed this approach because at the time a lot of people thought the key distinguishing factor between science and non-science was that they made statements about evidence (\"verificationism\"). Popper saw a lot of things that made statements about evidence that didn't look to him like science. Freudianism was high on his list: Popper thought they were essentially non-falsifiable. Freudians said their model of the mind was correct because their patients got better. If patients didn't get better, it was the patients' fault, or maybe the analyst, but never the model of the mind. The model could never be tested in a way that the Freudians thought would prove it wrong — so to Popper, whatever its value, it wasn't science. \n\nIt is worth noting that this isn't a perfect way to distinguish science from non-science, and the usefulness of falsifiability is considered somewhat limited. There are lots of sub-issues that come up if you pry into it, like, what if it's only _hypothetically_ falsifiable (e.g. it requires all of the energy in the universe to test), or what if it's just not _yet_ falsifiable, and so on. The fact that String Theory is not falsifiable (as of yet, anyway) has led a lot of scientists to declare that falsifiability is only partially useful — you can make of that what you will.",
"Example: I claim that there is always a hitler standing behind you that disappears when observed. \n\nCan you disprove this claim? Well, no, I covered my ass by saying that I'm right and that any time you check, it will disappear. Does this mean that my \"Schrodinger's Hitler\" hypothesis should be taken as fact? No, because there's no condition under which it is false and therefore is not falsifiable. \n\nLet's try again:\n\nI claim that there is a hitler in your bathroom right now.\n\nCan you disprove this claim? Yes, you could check your bathroom for Nazi leaders. If you check your bathroom and find a Führer, then we have evaluated the falsifiable parameter and have therefore established that this claim is true. If there is no hitler, then we reject your hypothesis.\n\nFalsifiability is so important because it allows us to clearly distinguish between what reality looks like when a claim is true and when a claim is false. If you cannot tell any difference, then your claim is ultimately pointless. Say that there really is a hitler behind you at all times that no one can observe. Why does it matter if it doesn't influence the world? How is it any different from the world without a hitler behind you? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
azj47h
|
in movies and tv shows that have fake pop music, where do they get the songs?
|
I'm watching an episode of a crime-of-the-week show that revolves around the murder of a pop star. You hear snippets of her music throughout the episode and it got me thinking.
I know for big movies like A Star Is Born that have full songs, they hire a songwriter. But for smaller budget movies and single TV show episodes where you hear snippets of fake songs to add depth to the plot, do they hire a songwriter as well? Or is there some sort of archive of written but not recorded songs that they can just buy pre made songs from? It seems like that would be cheaper and easier than hiring someone to write the music and lyrics that you'll only hear bits and pieces of.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/azj47h/eli5_in_movies_and_tv_shows_that_have_fake_pop/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ei84tr0",
"ei9cm5w"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Sometimes archived, sometimes a small band doing it free for exposure. Sometimes from a site, there are free royalty-free ones but even a small studio can afford the subscription only ones. \n\nAs an amatuer filmaker, I also have friends that play instruments and they have made music soundtracks for me before.\n\n With older filmakers such as big directors I imagine they also have more popular bands. Either as friends or one of them wanting to branch out into other industries, such as music into media or vice versa.\n\nAn example would be Jim Henson and David Bowie making 1986 Labrinth.\n\nDoes that help at all?",
"Very similar to the stock photos or stock footage used in TV or movies, there are also archives of stock music. Media makers can purchase the rights to use an individual track, or subscribe to the whole library. The musicians and songwriters who supply these archives generally work for a fixed fee, and sign over rights to the music as part of their contract, so the material is cheap to license. Larger TV networks also sometimes create their own in-house archives to cut out the middleman. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2svb0i
|
What is the most realistic documentary/drama/film that you've seen which reflects how medieval people actually looked?
|
I'm not just talking about costume, I'm talking about complexion, teeth, hair.etc
Whenever I watch a medieval drama I'm always a bit put off by how adaptions everyone is perfect. Even the lowliest peasants are well groomed and fresh faced.
I can accept nobility keeping up appearances with perfect hair and attire, or is this another misconception?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2svb0i/what_is_the_most_realistic_documentarydramafilm/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cnt6h8i",
"cnt7cvg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"The film version of *The Name of the Rose*.",
"It's a misconception that people in the Middle Ages walked around dirty all the time. While they did not bathe regularly, washing one's face and hands was a common, daily thing. \n\nTerry Jones' *Medieval Lives* was quite good."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6fo343
|
Today is the 73rd anniversary of D-Day: what was the main factor for Allied victory?
|
Was it the flaws of the Wehrmacht? Was it because the plans of the generals were too successful ? Was it because the numerical advantage of the allies?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6fo343/today_is_the_73rd_anniversary_of_dday_what_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dik4y90"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Logistics and economics.\n\nThe overall GDP of the Allies, with the US in the war, was much greater than of the Axis. Moreover, the Allies knew how to play to their logistical strengths. The US cranked out more tonnage in new merchant ships than, say, the Japanese ever had. The US supplied the Soviets with trucks, railroad equipment, food, and raw materials to help keep their industry humming and to keep Soviet soldiers supplied and fighting. The Soviets undertook great efforts to protect their industry from the invading Germans, relocating entire factories well behind the lines, essentially building up entire cities dedicated to military production.\n\nThe Americans, British, and Soviets also approached manufacturing of military equipment as a balance between production and logistical supply versus capability and quality. The finest gun, aircraft, or tank in the world is of no use if it's not on the battlefield. The most effective gun is always the one in your hand, the one you have bullets for, the one that you are able to fire because you have food in your belly, and so on. There are tons of examples of equipment built to balance these tradeoffs among the allies. The British Sten Gun, a pretty sub-par gun but serviceable enough and *millions* were made during the war. The Soviet T-34, one of the finest tanks of the war in terms of capabilities but also if you looked at the inside it would seem like a prototype, nothing seems properly finished, but tens of thousands were made. Liberty ships. B-24s. Shermans. \"Deuce and a half\" trucks. Good enough equipment built in tremendous quantities delivered to the front lines wins wars. The front lines for American soldiers were half-way across the world in the Pacific and in North Africa or in Europe compared to where stuff was made. But the logistical train was so robust it was able to pump tremendous quantities of materiel across oceans to supply those troops better than Japan and Germany could with shorter supply lines. The Soviets had a slightly easier job of supplying their troops but the importance of the factory to front-line supply chain even there cannot be overstated.\n\nLook at the war in the Pacific as an example. The Allies used submarines and air power to interdict Japanese shipping and smash their logistical supply trains. So much so that the home islands began to run low on everything from gasoline to food near the end of the war. The Japanese didn't attack Allied shipping in the same fashion, nor do so nearly as effectively, leading to a massive logistical imbalance that only became more imbalanced as the war went on. If you can't move the troops, feed the troops, or supply the troops you can't win battles, and you won't win wars.\n\nBoth Japan and Germany used their forces less effectively and used their production capacity less effectively (Germany much more so than Japan). Given that both powers were comparatively resource and land poor at the start of the war, allowing the resource and supply differential to amplify over the course of the war doomed both powers. There may not have been any way for either to realistically win a drawn out engagement given their fundamental disadvantages, but the deepening of those disadvantages allowed the war to run its course at a must faster pace than it might otherwise. Note that by late 1944 the Germans were so low on supplies that one of the key aspects of the German offensive that would become known as the \"Battle of the Bulge\" was to get deep enough behind Allied lines to capture the supplies (fuel, ammunition, etc.) to keep the offensive going."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6qn4it
|
What was the shortest recorded distance between two opposing trenches during WW1?
|
I recently read that during WW1 on the western front the average distance between two opposing trenches was 200-300 meters "...but sometimes much shorter than that." So I was wondering what the shortest recorded distance is.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6qn4it/what_was_the_shortest_recorded_distance_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkymluy"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Multiple Australian historians (from Ekins, Carlyon and even Bean himself) have cited localised areas in the AIF's area of operations (so \"British\" sectors) distances as short as 50-60 yards in some cases. Not a Western Front example but the distance between AIF/British trenches and Turkish at Quinn's Post during the Gallipoli campaign were approximately 15 metres apart - whilst not indicative of any kind of \"shortest no-mans-land ever\" record, it is very indicative that trenches could be and were very proximate in some cases. One of the closest examples I've come across was about 8-12 yards at Zonnebeke. \n\nUltimately the distance between trenches tended to be dictated by the prevailing terrain in which the trenches were located and thus the \"course\" they took, remembering of course that a trench system was not just a single winding ditch but a latticework of trenches and \"saps\" that were both winding in orientation and were dug both roughly parallel and perpendicular to the approximate frontage. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1p0fe5
|
why do some websites only show you the price of an item after you put it in your cart?
|
For instance, on Amazon and MicroCenter, a few TV's have the price listing as "Add to cart to see the price." What is the benefit of this? Wouldn't those websites get more consumers to purchase their product if the discounted price was blatantly listed instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1p0fe5/eli5_why_do_some_websites_only_show_you_the_price/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccxgkyx",
"ccxgma7"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Prices are searchable if they're published. Search engines can't get into your cart.\n\nThis practice typically follows agreements with suppliers that dictate the publication of non-MSRP pricing.",
"They do that to avoid running afoul of manufacturer set minimum prices. Manufacturers of premium goods, generally sell them in expensive retail outlets (with skilled sales staff). If customers go to the store and take lots of staff time to make a decision but buy on a cheaper Amazon the retailers will go broke, and manufacturer will lose the valuable high touch sales staff. \n\nLegally manufacturers in the US aren't allowed to set minimum prices, but they can contractually require retailers not to advertise prices below a minimum amount. Only showing prices in a shopping cart doesn't advertise prices and is a way for stores like Amazon to not violate these agreements. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
lensq
|
Why don't we pull energy from the ionosphere like Tesla suggested?
|
I remember reading about [Tesla's wardenclyffe tower](_URL_0_) some time ago, and how he had this grand plan to build these domes all around the world - to provide the world with free power.
Has anyone explored this energy source since? If not, why?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lensq/why_dont_we_pull_energy_from_the_ionosphere_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2s2bp8",
"c2s2ppe",
"c2s2bp8",
"c2s2ppe"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"AFAIK Tesla built that tower for _transmitting_ power wirelessly. And we do transmit power wirelessly by bouncing it off the ionosphere, in long-wave radio transmissions. \n\nAs explained here (search threads) and other science sites countless times, this is not a practical way to transmit power for actual devices. The concept is very simple (it's _radio_) but it's extremely inefficient and unpractical.\n\nTesla had many high-flying crank ideas ('death rays' and Einstein being wrong, to name a few), and that's made him a hero in certain circles who are more interested in science-fiction than science-reality. And they often vastly exaggerate his real, enduring contributions. (Which were significant, but [put in perspective](_URL_0_). I'd say they were not \"years ahead of their time\" as much as in-step with what many people were working on around 1890)\n",
"Tesla said the tower was for transmitting electrical signals and power. He also claimed to have discovered an energy source of unknown nature. People leap to the conclusion that Wardenclyffe tower somehow involved that energy source. But we have no records of Tesla ever saying this, or ever revealing details of the energy source.",
"AFAIK Tesla built that tower for _transmitting_ power wirelessly. And we do transmit power wirelessly by bouncing it off the ionosphere, in long-wave radio transmissions. \n\nAs explained here (search threads) and other science sites countless times, this is not a practical way to transmit power for actual devices. The concept is very simple (it's _radio_) but it's extremely inefficient and unpractical.\n\nTesla had many high-flying crank ideas ('death rays' and Einstein being wrong, to name a few), and that's made him a hero in certain circles who are more interested in science-fiction than science-reality. And they often vastly exaggerate his real, enduring contributions. (Which were significant, but [put in perspective](_URL_0_). I'd say they were not \"years ahead of their time\" as much as in-step with what many people were working on around 1890)\n",
"Tesla said the tower was for transmitting electrical signals and power. He also claimed to have discovered an energy source of unknown nature. People leap to the conclusion that Wardenclyffe tower somehow involved that energy source. But we have no records of Tesla ever saying this, or ever revealing details of the energy source."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/PQB0x.jpg"
] |
[
[
"http://www.edisontechcenter.org/AC-PowerHistory.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.edisontechcenter.org/AC-PowerHistory.html"
],
[]
] |
|
y9pau
|
Seems like a lot of the pictures coming from the Curiosity Rover are colour corrected. What colour would Mars be to the naked eye?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/y9pau/seems_like_a_lot_of_the_pictures_coming_from_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tm9ib"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The Mars sky would look reddish to the human eye, or at least that's the best approximation. [Due to how digital photography works](_URL_0_), it can actually be pretty difficult to tell sometimes. \n\nThey believe it would be reddish due to the absorption of sunlight in the 0.4-0.6 µm range by dust particles as well as the dominance of photon scattering by dust particles at wavelengths in the order 3 µm. \n\n\n\n**sources:**\n\n[Bell, J. F., III, D. Savransky, and M. J. Wolff \\(2006\\), Chromaticity of the Martian sky as observed by the Mars Exploration Rover Pancam instruments, J. Geophys. Res., 111, E12S05, doi:10.1029/2006JE002687](_URL_1_)\n\nand\n\n[Science 3 December 2004: \nVol. 306 no. 5702 pp. 1753-1756 \nDOI: 10.1126/science.1104474](_URL_2_)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.badastronomy.com/bad/misc/hoagland/mars_colors.html",
"http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2006/2006JE002687.shtml",
"http://www.sciencemag.org/content/306/5702/1753"
]
] |
||
5jxgx2
|
(Biology) How is it someone can be allergic to shrimp but not any other seafood?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5jxgx2/biology_how_is_it_someone_can_be_allergic_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbjyxmp"
],
"score": [
34
],
"text": [
"[Allergies occur when your immune system reacts strongly to an epitope (protein shape) that isn't actually harmful](_URL_0_).\n\nSimilar species contain many proteins that are highly homologous (same sequence, evolutionarily descended from the protein in a common ancestor), these may have shared epitopes in that the protein sequence and folding hasn't been modified much through evolutionary divergence. The shape remains the same, and therefore potential for immune recognition/cross-reactivity is high.\n\nHowever, different species are not the same, and if the allergenic shrimp protein^1 has some uniquely shrimpy elements, it may be a very narrow allergy with no cross-reactivity to other species.\n\n^1 certain proteins have higher allergenic potential, but each immune system is different, and it's very possible for one shrimp-allergic person to be reactive to protein A, while a second shrimp-allergic person is reactive to protein B"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/allergies/allergy-basics/allergy.htm"
]
] |
||
sf22f
|
Could a space vehicle, such as the Shuttle, eliminate its need for a heat shield if it reduced its orbital speed via thrust, and plummeted back to earth via gravitational pull alone?
|
Atmosphere provides the drag to reduce re-entry speed, and I know rocket braking would be highly inefficient, as it requires twice as much rocket fuel, but it would work, right?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/sf22f/could_a_space_vehicle_such_as_the_shuttle/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4di8w2",
"c4djkbx"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Even if it started falling from an altitude of 400 km with zero horizontal speed, it would still be going about 2500 m/s (5500 mph) by the time it reached 100 km, which is quite fast, and would still require some kind of heat shield.",
"It's very possible to re-enter without needing a heat shield, you would just need to continue using your thruster/engine all the way down to stop yourself from falling too quickly and picking up speed. A powered descent like that is of course highly inefficient so isn't done in practice when you can use the atmosphere to slow you down for free instead.\n\nAlso if you used about the same amount of fuel coming down as going up you would end up needing to carry more than double, because you have to use extra fuel to lift the fuel you need to get back down (it works out to about 7x in total)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9g35ez
|
if bleach removes color from fabric/surfaces, how come the sponges i use to scrub with bleach don't end up all faded and splotchy?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9g35ez/eli5_if_bleach_removes_color_from_fabricsurfaces/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e612c4r",
"e6140a9"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Have you been sucking the bleach off the sponge? ",
"Bleach lifts stains out of natural fibres, while synthetics with colour as part of their makeup resist.\n\nTake cotton and polyester for example.\n\nTake a sample of each and drop em in bleach overnight. By morning the cotton will be gone and the bleach untouched.\n\nIt's less to do with design and more to do with chemical resistance. As the cotton breaks down is loses its... cottonness? and returns to cotton, which is what colour? WHITE. Since the fabric is damaged the dye is no longer bonded, which is why bleached purple is pink, bleached blue is pink, bleached green is yellow, etc. It washes out. \n\nAnd I quote\n\"Washing Bleach contains Hypocloric acid, which acts as a very strong oxidizer. It works by oxidizing dye agents in the stains so that they become colorless.\"\nThis affects dyes as well.\n\nTldr: Natural dyed fabrics get eaten by bleach so the colour holding ability fades as well as the dyes and the fabric eventually dissolves; Chemical compounds that just ARE a colour don't get destroyed/aren't affected therefore dont stain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
gnbl7
|
Will we have Caprica style virtual reality in our lifetime?
|
I'm talking about the headset style, fully immersive virtual reality à la Caprica and Virtuality.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/gnbl7/will_we_have_caprica_style_virtual_reality_in_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1ott6q"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I haven't watched Caprica, but I'm assuming that you mean nearly-completely convincing representations of the world generated in real time. This is very difficult to put odds on. I don't work on interfaces, and I don't know a ton about what's happening there, so for this post I'm just going to make the unicorns-and-rainbows assumption that interfaces are completely solved. But, given that: 10 years out, definitely not. 30 years, maybe. Of course, if and when it finally shows up, I'll have to find new things to work on.... \n\nThere are three components to this problem: creating the world, animating the world, and rendering the world. That list is probably in descending order of hardness, and only the rendering problem is anywhere close to being a \"solved\" problem (although even that claim will really annoy some people). Creating the world without hiring improbably large armies of artists is definitely the hardest, since to do that really convincingly requires a lot of common sense and possibly something close to Strong AI -- or at the very least some herculean learning tasks.\n\nWe're also not going to be able to recreate the world in *all* its complexity, so that means we need more perception research to figure out what it is and isn't important to get right. For example, [what kinds of features can you repeat in a crowd before people start to notice](_URL_1_)?\n\nBut there are just so many basic tasks we can't do yet. We can't synthesize convincing motion for a human character walking over broken ground. We are really bad at facial animation. Modeling the interior of a single house in convincing detail -- that's not even something they do for movies (might be convincing for a single shot, but not to a free-roaming viewer). Doug James' students have done some incredible work on synthesizing sounds from physical simulations, but they are still far from convincing. The problem of taking a block of cheese, cutting off a thin slice, and having the slice behave as expected -- without special case modeling -- was, to the best of my knowledge, [only recently solved](_URL_0_). (Top link. And even then the method is quite slow and not terribly high resolution). Interactions between multiple types of physical phenomena are not handled particularly well. I could go on and on and on.\n\nThere are also the things that nobody has looked at in much detail, as far as I can tell, because we don't care enough right now, but in a real recreation of the world we'd want them. Certainly most phenomena that are chemical or electrical at their roots aren't things that we've put a lot of effort into getting perceptually right. What happens when I put water in the microwave? What about aluminum foil? What happens to the stuff I have in the fridge after a week? What if I mix cleaning fluids that I shouldn't? What if I throw a battery in a fire? What smells would you get? Nobody in graphics even thinks about how we would *describe* a smell. (Does *anyone* have a good representation space for smells?)\n\nAnd then of course you'll want haptics, which means we'll have to synthesize the world in much smaller time steps than the ~30 Hz we need for vision -- and audio, so even smaller time steps for some phenomena. And it all has to happen in real time.\n\nSo, yeah, we've got a lot of work to do. It's not so much that there's one Big Problem to be solved, just that there are lots and lots of smaller things we have to get right."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://graphics.ethz.ch/~smartin/publications.html",
"http://gv2.cs.tcd.ie/mcdonner/papers/Siggraph08.pdf"
]
] |
|
23rrrh
|
how do stores constantly get away with false advertising?
|
Example: The smoker friendly in my town has a sign that says something along the lines of "Lowest Priced Cigerettes Allowed by Law", then you go across the street and get a pack of pall malls for 70 cents cheaper. Just wondering how they can get away with that.
Edit: Thanks for the information everyone, and the interesting read /u/ANewMachine615. Also there seems to be a little confusion. I wasnt implying i should get the cigs at the price it cost to manufacture+ tax, just ment its obviously not the cheapest the law allows or the other stores wouldnt sell them cheaper because it would be illegal.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/23rrrh/eli5_how_do_stores_constantly_get_away_with_false/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzxhn0",
"cgzxnyg",
"cgzxo3q",
"cgzxri4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"Well, they get away with it because whatever they are saying is not false.\n\nPerhaps when they say \"cigarettes\" they mean particular brands and Pall Malls isn't one of them. \n\nOr maybe their advert is outdated and the new guy has cut prices.\n\nIts tough to say without diving into it their advertising. But I guarantee its legal.",
"Depends on context. Most \"false advertisement\" comes down to a loose interpretation of what they are saying, or a lack of reading their relevant disclaimer attach to a given claim. ",
"It could be a true statement, perhaps under certain circumstances. But they are allowed to say almost anything they want, unless someone sues them and takes them to court over their \"false\" claims, and they lose the subsequent gruelingly long case, only then may they even possibly need to alter their words, or not, they could just say fuck it and not do it, then need to get taken to court again. ",
"There's a legal concept called \"mere puffery.\" Basically, claims that are unreasonable or clearly just brags are not taken as statements of fact. One of the more famous cases of puffery is *Leonard v. Pepsico*, in which someone tried to redeem 7 million Pepsi Points (purchased for $700,000) for a Harrier jet, as depicted in [this ad](_URL_0_). It was clear that there was no offer to give you a $23 million jet for $700,000, so the claimed offer/advertisement was ruled mere puffery.\n\nHere, it's clear that they're not selling at the lowest price allowed by law, as that price would be sales tax + cigarette tax, no cost of the cigarettes, no overhead, no profit. It's a brag about having good prices, not an absolute statement. Actual price guarantees, like those given by Wal-Mart or Target, have conditions that need to be met to claim the guarantee's benefits. You often have to show them the lower advertised price, within so many days of purchase, ensure that both prices are offered at the same time, etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=ZdackF2H7Qc#t=13"
]
] |
|
a6jxeb
|
Was it common to play dead in Middle Age wars in Europe?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a6jxeb/was_it_common_to_play_dead_in_middle_age_wars_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebwdrgo",
"ebwvrec"
],
"score": [
44,
111
],
"text": [
"As a follow up question, what would happen to you if it was discovered that you were playing dead?",
"It's not impossible, but it would be a poor decision if you wanted to have a good chance of survival. The dead and wounded were not sacrosanct on the medieval battlefield. Soldiers would pick through bodies to loot the dead or find wounded who could be captured and ransomed. Quite often, wounded soldiers would be finished off with a dagger to the throat if they were not identified as important/valuable enough to bother capturing, or in cases of civil war where emotions were running even higher than normal on the battlefield. Even if one could play dead through the entire battle and happened to not be discovered by a victorious enemy (or unscrupulous ally), there would still be a huge amount of risk as local civilians would descend on the battlefield like vultures to pick over the scraps. These locals have just experienced the traumatic and destructive experience of having two armies march around the area and will not be in a mood to be sympathetic to soldiers of either side. Playing dead might leave someone more vulnerable than simply running away, which was the usual option of medieval soldiers when they perceived that the battle was not going in their favor."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2gorhk
|
Would a glass with a textured inside help a carbonated drink last longer before going flat?
|
Watching the bubbles rise in my glass, I wonder if they might take a little longer if they had a firmer purchase on the glass itself.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gorhk/would_a_glass_with_a_textured_inside_help_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckl47dp",
"ckledlq",
"cklgjui"
],
"score": [
320,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Arguably, a textured glass would make your soda go flat faster. The irregular geometry would promote nucleation sites for the CO2 bubbles. To make your drink stay carbonated longer, the smoother the better.\n\nEdit: typos",
"You don't want to keep the bubbles in the liquid, you want to keep the gas in the liquid. By the time you see a bubble, the battle is already lost, the gas has come out of the liquid. You want the bubble to form in your mouth, which is what gives the fizzy sensation.\n\nTo keep your drink carbonated longer keep it cold, don't shake it, and avoid rough surfaces that promote bubble formation.",
"As stated by others, it would likely go flat faster due to nucleation of bubbles. \n\nBut carbonated beverages 'going flat' is the evolution of dissolved gas from the liquid. 'Collecting' evolved bubbles on the glass surface won't stop the evolution of the dissolved gas from the liquid. It will basically just give you bubbles to look at. :) The gas does not tend to readily re-dissolve in the liquid because equilibrium favors the bubble formation (not gas dissolution). The bubbles you see forming are the 'going flat' process nearly finishing (minus evolution to the surroundings). But what we detect as 'not flat' is the gas still dissolved in the liquid which then is evolved as the liquid enters our mouth, and bubbles nucleate on the surfaces of our mouth (lots of irregular surfaces to help that). Any bubble you see in your glass is that amount of 'flatness' you'd notice when you take a drink."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
24aub3
|
On a tactical level, did infantry in feudal Japan (from the ashigaru to the samurai themselves) use battle tactics and formations? If so, what did they do?
|
I'm a fan of the Total War series and I played both Shogun titles, but I remember reading somewhere that samurai would simply charge into battle at their lord's command. This still doesn't address how the generals operated non-samurai units, though.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/24aub3/on_a_tactical_level_did_infantry_in_feudal_japan/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch5g47k"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"They did use formations. At the onset of the Sengoku Jidai, spears replaced mounted archery as the dominant form of fighting on Japanese battlefields. I don't know if you've ever fought with a spear but one on one it's a bit difficult to use at best, so formation fighting was simply better than non formation fighting. Toss in guns recently introduced by the Portuguese and you can see why fighting in formation simply made more sense. Cavalry charges were also fairly new additions to the Japanese battlefield, which made fighting in formation with spears almost necessary to deal with this new tactic, as well as the previously mentioned mounted archery. Spears needed to be able to cover guns. \n\nI can't comment on the samurai charging into battle thing but I have a sneaking suspicion that's another samurai myth, like *Bushido*. \n\nSource: *Japan Emerging* edited by Karl Friday"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f87odq
|
why is it that when one eats quickly, they get a stomachache ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f87odq/eli5_why_is_it_that_when_one_eats_quickly_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fijl9pz"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Your tummy and intestines need time to sort out and process what you're eating. Like on an assembly line, if the speed of the line is too quick for each station to properly assemble or modify the item, the final product has too much or too little of something it may need. So when you eat too fast, you might not have enough digestive saliva or have too much air swallowed with it that it doesn't process properly and irritates your bowels as it travels along the tract."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1jvmqp
|
What is the most complex entity whose central nervous system can be currently simulated by a computer?
|
We can simulate so-called [cortical columns](_URL_0_). What is the most complex entity that we could map and simulate now? The linked article suggests a bumble-bee but has it ever been done?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jvmqp/what_is_the_most_complex_entity_whose_central/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbiqv80",
"cbis96h"
],
"score": [
43,
3
],
"text": [
"The answer really hinges on what you mean by \"simulate\". Let's start with the basics: how does one simulate a single neuron?\n\nThere are mathematical models that have been developed to describe how the average cell body voltage of a neuron changes over time, beginning with the famous [Hodkin-Huxley model](_URL_0_), which earned a Nobel prize. The model includes the cell's ionic conductances, which influence the flow of current and hence the cell body voltage. This model has been very successful in explaining how changes in ionic conductances lead to changes in the firing patterns of neurons.\n\nSeveral simpler and more complex versions of the original Hodgkin-Huxley model have been developed since. However, they all make the same basic assumption: they treat a neuron as a single unit. In other words, they leave out any spatial dynamics. In reality, the whole neuron is not at exactly the same voltage. At any point in time, there may be differences in ionic concentration and voltage between different dendrites and between the cell body and the axon. Different dendrites may even be synapsed to completely different cells.\n\nResearchers have therefore also developed more fine-grained models of neurons. For example, rather than treating a neuron as a single block, they may break it into 20 small connected compartments, each representing a part of the cell. These are more accurate, but they are still a very rough description of the true workings of the cell.\n\nThen there is the modeling of the synapse itself. How does the activity of the presynaptic cell influence the activity of the postsynaptic cell? In principle, one could model the actual release of neurotransmitter molecules from synaptic vesicles and their binding to the post-synaptic receptors. In reality, this would be extremely computationally intensive and is not usually done. Instead, the ionic conductances of the post-synaptic cell are usually varied as some function of the firing rate of the pre-synaptic cell, thereby assuming some consistent relationship between firing rate and neurotransmitter release.\n\nMore complicated still is synaptic plasticity -- [the strength of synapses can change over time in response to their use](_URL_2_). How exactly this is achieved in all cases is still unknown and the biochemical mechanisms can be extremely complex. Models that include these dynamics therefore have to make some simple working assumption for how [long-term potentiation](_URL_1_) occurs.\n\nStill, we are not modeling at the level of genetic regulation of the cell or the functions of specific proteins. Modeling of protein folding encompasses a large field in its own right.\n\nFinally, there is the issue of memory storage and information encoding. There are some good theories, but we still do not know for sure how either of these things are achieved by the brain.\n\nThe question then is: what exactly are you trying to simulate? If you are happy with some coarse-grained approximations, then we have models that do a great job of explaining the bulk behaviors of populations of neurons (e.g., in the cerebral cortex), and models that do a great job of explaining the functions of specific circuits. \n\nHowever, if you want a model that is literally an exact replica of a brain, that behaves identically to that brain, that has the same thoughts and memories and spontaneous behaviors, then in principle you need to go down to the lowest possible scale and literally model the quantum wavefunctions of all constituent particles. That would be a formidable challenge. Even modeling a single neuron in that manner is probably beyond our reach. In that sense, we have not completely simulated the brain of any entity. But as I say, if you are interested in simulating at a less detailed level (e.g., using multi-compartment models of neurons and not caring too much about how synapses work or how long-term potentiation is achieved), then we can model quite large systems, up to and including cortical columns in the mammalian brain. It may well be that we can capture all the salient details of the brain's workings without going all the way down to the quantum mechanical level, but we don't know for sure at this stage.",
"The Blue Brain project is run by a former colleague, Henry \"Don't call me H.M.\" Markram. It notably excludes the vast majority of inputs (like all neuromodulatory and feedback inputs) and outputs to cortical columns, which makes it pretty limited. \n \nThis project may be closer to what you are looking for. \n \n_URL_0_ \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.artificialbrains.com/blue-brain-project"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hodgkin%E2%80%93Huxley_model",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Long-term_potentiation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hebbian_theory"
],
[
"http://www.scholarpedia.org/article/Stomatogastric_ganglion"
]
] |
|
4xqvwm
|
Greek inscriptions
|
There are dozens of collections of ancient Greek inscriptions from stone slabs (stelai), ostraca (potsherds), and pottery. As only an amateur historian knowing only a small amount of ancient Greek, this looks like a secret world of knowledge I never knew existed. But it seems like this world is solely visited by classicists. Probably much of the inscriptions are useful more for spelling and meaning of Greek words, and it makes sense that this is not translated; anyone who studies the spelling of ancient Greek as a scholar doesn't need a translation. But many of these are things like tribute lists or public borrowing, and surely people who don't know ancient Greek might want to read this.
The only translation of any inscriptions into English I have found is "Greek Historical Inscriptions, 404-323 BC" by Rhodes and Osborne. Do any other collections of inscriptions with English translations exist?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4xqvwm/greek_inscriptions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6i5iln"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The standard collections of translated Greek inscriptions from the Archaic and Classical periods are:\n\n* R. Meiggs/D. Lewis, *A Selection of Greek Historical Inscriptions to the End of the Fifth Century BC* (revised ed. 1989)\n\n* C.W. Fornara, *Archaic Times to the End of the Peloponnesian War* (2nd ed. 1997)\n\n* P. Harding, *From the End of the Peloponnesian War to the Battle of Ipsus* (1985)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4dmkf6
|
what is the basis of 'open source' when referring to games, i generally see this comment about older games.
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4dmkf6/eli5_what_is_the_basis_of_open_source_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1sba6m"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Open source refers to the license used for the distribution of the software/game/intellectual-property. Typically open-source means that you can modify and and redistribute the software as long as you retain attribution to former others and also redistribute the source code. The most common licenses (google away!) for this are the GNU license (GPL, couple of variants), the MIT license and apache license, but many many exist: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_free_and_open-source_software_licenses"
]
] |
|
tur3p
|
how a video game fits on a disk when only 15 songs can fit on it
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tur3p/how_a_video_game_fits_on_a_disk_when_only_15/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4pvzsp",
"c4pw0al",
"c4pw1hg",
"c4pw7xc",
"c4pxf8i",
"c4pype4",
"c4q1zon"
],
"score": [
2,
12,
5,
7,
7,
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Can you give a specific example? ",
"The biggest difference, at least with games and CDs today, is that music comes on a different type of disc than games do. The discs that the Wii and Xbox 360 use can hold almost 7 times as much as a music cd! The PS3 uses discs that can hold more than *70* times as much!\n\nAnother difference is how the music is stored on the disc. Most people think about the size of a MP3 file in regards to music. However, when stored on a CD the music is of much higher quality and requires much more space. ",
"Music is usually stored on a 700mb CD format . Most game discs today are DVD, HDDVD, or Blu-ray formats, which each hold a much greater amount of data than CDs.\n\nHowever, it wasn't too long ago that CDs were primarily used to distribute games.\n\n- Game code makes up a small percentage of the disc space, even today.\n\n- Texture and model qualities were far lower than today and so required less space on disc. Many were stored in 256 colour format.\n\n- Sound effects were usually of a lower quality, but can be one of the larger space hogs. Left 4 Dead 2's sound effects take up at least 50% of the entire game size.\n\n- Depending on the game, levels can take either a very small amount of space or a very large one; typical levels in Half-Life were probably approx 2-6Mb each.\n\n- Similarly, music was either lightweight or heavy, depending on if the game used electronic instruments or recorded sounds.\n\n*additional*\n\nThe original Quake, had a limited number of sounds (weapons, monsters, environment), but used up most of its CD space with actual music - you could put the disc into a stereo and play it. Track 1 was the game data which most CD players would skip, but some would play it (sounded awful). The actual game took up maybe 20% or less of the disc.",
"Everyone seems to be assuming you are talking about modern video discs.\n\nI am going on the assumption that you are talking about standard 650mb CDs.\n\nAudio is not put on the disc like data is. Audio is put on like a vinyl record. Track after track in a linear fashion. That is why CDs are rated for size AND audio capacity i.e. 650mb/70min.\n\nIt is as if you are running a mile. The 'Audio Runner' must run at a set pace (otherwise the audio sounds funny see:Alvin and the chipmunks) say 1000ft/min. It isn't written as 0 or 1, it is written as a waveform.\n\nThe 'Data Runner' can go whatever speed he wants. So if he can stop and look at every pebble on the track. Because his information is 0 or 1 it can be in groups, large chunks and even single bits. His pebbles are either 0 or 1.\n\nTL;DR: Games are written as data, audio is written like a record.",
"Music on a retail audio CD is uncompressed and in \"red book\" format written to the CD as PCM audio, similar to a WAV file. These files are many times larger than an MP3 of which around 100 could be fit on a normal data cd.",
"PlayStation 1 games came on CDs. Let's compare the contents of an audio CD to those from a PlayStation 1 game CD.\n\nAn audio CD contains stereo sound encoded as 16-bit, 48kHz PCM. That means for every second of audio there are 48000 pairs of numbers where each number needs 2 bytes. So, 48000x2x2 = 192,000 bytes per second. A 650MB CD can therefore hold 3,529 seconds of stereo audio. Or, about 58.8 minutes.\n\nA PlayStation game contains lots of stuff. Audio, images, movies, code, 3D models, character animations. Here's the documentation for the standard file formats used in PS1 games _URL_2_\n\nThe audio in a PS1 (and PS2) game is usually stored in a special form of ADPCM instead of PCM. I think it compressed the audio about 3.5 to 1. So, a full CD could hold about 3.5 hours of nearly CD quality sound. Individual sound effects don't need to be stereo or CD-quality, so they would usually be stored as mono at 8-22 KHz -which is about 6x smaller. So, a full CD could hold 27 hours of sound effects.\n\nHowever, PS1 games rarely stored their music as full stereo tracks. Instead, they would save space by storing sound effects for individual instruments plus instructions on when to play the instruments. For example, the awesome music of Final Fantasy VII fills 4 audio CDs but is less than a single megabyte on the game CD. You can see it here _URL_0_ and you can play it using this guy's winamp plugin _URL_1_ It took a lot of hard work to make awesome music that fits in less than a megabyte, but FFVII still needed 2 CDs to fit everything else in the game!\n\nLets see how much other stuff I can describe before I need to get going...\n\nPS1 movies were basically a MJPEG, which is basically just a series of JPEG images. Most PS1 games had a screen resolution around 320x224. So, that's how big the JPEGs needed to be at most. The double-speed CD could only read 10K in 1/30th of a second, so a frame from a 30 frame/second movie could only be 10k at most. That would be 37 minutes of movies at most. But, usually the frames were much smaller than 10k each.\n\nPS1 textures were palletized to 8 or 4 bits per pixel. So, a 320*224, 8-bit, full-screen texture would be 72k. A full CD could hold 9,500 full screens of textures. Usually, textures on 3D objects would be more like 128x128 or less (41,600 per CD).\n\n3D models are made of triangles. The 3 corners of each triangle would usually have a position and a texture coordinate. Each corner would fit in 16 bytes space. So, a full CD could easily fit over 10 million triangles.\n\nA 3D character animation is a sequence of joint positions and orientations. A character would typically have less than 32 joints and each joint description could fit in 16 bytes. So, a full CD could easily hold over a million frames of character animations.\n\nThe executable for a PS1 game was typically less than half a meg. The poor, little machine only had 2 megs of RAM! Games would often have to load and unload small parts of that half-meg exe just to keep it from taking up 1/4 of the memory!\n\nOff the top of my head, that's most of the common stuff.",
"Very ELI5:\n\nImagine a book of piano sheet music with 15 songs. It is about 50 pages. This is the audio cd.\n\nOn those 50 pages, you could fit all the rules of a complex board game, together with simplified music and artwork to go with it, possibly in smaller print to fit even more. This is the game disk.\n\nYou can see that for the same amount of disk space, a lot of different things can be done."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hellandheavennet.com/music",
"http://www.neillcorlett.com/psf/",
"http://karmasociety.net/filefrmt.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
5dypa2
|
In terms of a percentage, how much oil is left in the ground compared to how much there was when we first started using it as a fuel?
|
An example of the answer I'm looking for would be something like "50% of Earth's oil remains" or "5% of Earth's oil remains". This number would also include processed oil that has not been consumed yet (i.e. burned away or used in a way that makes it unrecyclable) Is this estimation even possible?
Edit: I had no idea that (1) there would be so much oil that we consider unrecoverable, and (2) that the true answer was so...unanswerable. Thank you, everyone, for your responses. I will be reading through these comments over the next week or so because frankly there are waaaaay too many!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5dypa2/in_terms_of_a_percentage_how_much_oil_is_left_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"da8bd3y",
"da8bkk7",
"da8cg4u",
"da8d8ap",
"da8e2qs",
"da8eeqr",
"da8ejgh",
"da8ejxz",
"da8fye6",
"da8g87a",
"da8insp",
"da8izzg",
"da8j0oa",
"da8j570",
"da8jie2",
"da8ki8v",
"da8kkus",
"da8krxr",
"da8l0po",
"da8o2q2",
"da8p2vh",
"da8q1pi",
"da8rlz8",
"da8spnz",
"da8tr9m",
"da8uugt",
"da8yz1b",
"da8zoqf",
"da91cmj",
"da92fow",
"da92g12",
"da949tz",
"da94obc",
"da9a7uf",
"da9ikm4"
],
"score": [
3910,
17,
290,
7,
107,
33,
158,
2,
740,
2,
17,
7,
3,
13,
3,
2,
4,
2,
30,
3,
12,
39,
2,
6,
82,
4,
40,
2,
21,
2,
2,
25,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Estimates vary wildly, especially for [how much we've used so far](_URL_1_), but they say we've used up to 1 trillion barrels and have 1.5 trillion left that we think we can get to with current technology. [Here's a video](_URL_0_) with some additional sources in the description.",
"I no longer have the numbers to hand myself, but could you clarify what you are asking for when you say, \"Earth's oil?\" \n\nThere are estimates of the petroleum content of each discovered reservoir, but nobody expects to recover more than a fraction of the oil that is there. And the \"recoverable\" fraction has changed over time. Initially, it was whatever pumped out easily (less than 50%). Then we learned to do tertiary oil recovery and force more out of the central well, by pumping water (with additives) into the ground all around it. Then we learned how to do fracking and get oil that was formerly considered unrecoverable (practically), but that only recovers on the order of 5% of the oil.\n\nAre you asking about the total hydrocarbon content? Or are you interested in how much petroleum we are ever likely to be able to retrieve?",
"The real question is: how much oil (energy) does it take to extract 1 barrel of oil from the ground. \n\nWhen we started extracting oil, we tapped the most-easy-to-extract-and-process sources first. Over the years, the oil has become harder to reach and/or process. For example, the economics of the Athabasca tar sands in Canada are discussed here: _URL_0_\n\nAt some point, all the known, remaining oil deposits will require greater than 1 barrel of oil to produce 1 barrel of oil. At which point, crude oil mining stops. Vast reserves of oil may remain under the ground at this point. \n\nThere's another possible limit to the amount of oil we will use: the environment. My thermodynamics teacher predicted we'll never burn all the oil in the ground because the biosphere would be long-dead before we exhausted the oil supply.\n\nPerhaps the better question is: How much oil will be burn before we switch to alternative energy sources, revert to a pre-industrial economy, or die from environmental collapse?\n",
"It takes energy to extract energy. So aside from \"technology\" changes (which generally tend to lower cost and energy requirements). It's important to review the energy cost to extract energy as you think about \"how much is left\". For example it might be the first 100 barrels costs only 10 barrels of energy to extract, but the second 100 barrels costs 40 barrels to extract. Hence if you look at it in terms of NET energy the first yields 90 while the second yields only 60. Those numbers are made up, but a quick review can find more concrete numbers.",
"10 years ago, the concept of \"peak oil\" was all the rage with assurances that we would run out in only a few years time. I'm sure there's a point where we will finally run out but recent discoveries and advances in alternative energy sources makes it seem like that will be a long way off.",
"So, fun fact: Oil is, in essence, ancient solar energy with a few nasty side effects. We can establish a definitive upper limit on how much oil there is on earth by considering how much solar energy we've been hit with since the origin of photosynthetic life. -- Admittedly, this requires some big assumptions -- (we're not very certain when photosynthesis began, and we are even less certain about the energy output of the sun since then), but if we make those assumptions, we can at least get a rough metric.\n\nCurrent thinking has photosynthesis beginning roughly [3.2 billion years ago](_URL_2_). If we assume the energy output of the sun to have been constant, and equal to today's levels ([84 Terrawatts](_URL_1_)) (generally, we believe it was mostly less in the past, though I have no source for this), we find that, at maximum, about 8.5 million yottajoules are stored in oil reserves.\n\n8.5 million yottajoules / [6.12 gigajoules/barrel](_URL_3_) = 1.4 zettabarrels, or 163.8 zettaliters. For comparison, the earth's volume is about [1 trillion cubic kilometers](_URL_0_) or 1000 zettaliters. So, basically, it's not physically possible for more than 16.38% of the earth's volume to be made of oil.\n\nOf course, I am sure this value far exceeds the actual amount of oil on earth -- for this to be true, there would have to be 118 times the amount of oil on earth as water (the amount of water on earth totals to around [1.3 zettaliters](_URL_4_)), which is pretty ridiculous -- but it at least serves as a fun metric/thinking exercise.\n\nEdit: fixed a link",
"The majority of oil isn't worth extracting.\n\nYes, it is estimable. What you would want to do is estimate the amount of oil in the ground in areas we know well and then extrapolate to basins that aren't explored well. More refinement will look at how much potential source rock is mature.\n\nNow, most oil won't be economical to extract. It could be somewhere remote (arctic, Antarctic) or unexplored (maybe 1/3 of basins are well explored), in small quantities relative to the cost to extract (very common problem for oil companies, they call this a technical discovery), or of poor quality (heavy, full of sulphur-think tar sands). Next, even when you extract oil from a field, most usually remains in the ground--recovery factor of 25%, meaning we get 25% out is common, over 50% is rare.\n\n\nCombining all of these, I would estimate the amount of total oil we've pulled out at around 1% to 5%. Definitely possible to get a better estimate.",
"No one can possibly know. Oil companies look for more oil, when they think finding more oil will pay off. They stop when we have found enough to last many years into the future. Also technology changes so where they might find it changes. \n\nSo, as we begin to run lower, prices go up, alternatives appear, more oil is found, saving methods like LED light bulbs appear, people buy more efficient cars etc. Then prices come down, companies look for deposits less, people are less motivated to conserve etc. \n\nThe resource is not simply physical stuff in the ground, but a combination of stuff and human behavior, and ingenuity. The mixture is constantly changing. A few hundred years ago, oil was not a natural resource at all. It was a terrible slime that ruined good farm land. It was human ingenuity which turned it into a natural resource. \n\n",
" > An example of the answer I'm looking for would be something like \"50% of Earth's oil remains\" or \"5% of Earth's oil remains\".\n\nAlmost all of oil is still in the ground. The vast majority of the oil hasn't even been discovered and most of the oil isn't recoverable with current technology.\n\nWhat we have used up are the accessible lowest hanging fruit. The readily available and accessible cheap oil. Like in east texas, saudi arabia or baku.\n\nJust in terms of shale oil, there are nearly 5 trillion barrels of it. \n\n\"A 2008 estimate set the total world resources of oil shale at 689 gigatons — equivalent to yield of 4.8 trillion barrels (760 billion cubic metres) of shale oil\"\n\n_URL_0_\n\nBut that's just discovered shale oil and most of it 3.7 trillion barrels are in the US. There are tons of other shale oil deposits all around the world that hasn't been discovered or hasn't been assessed. \n\nAdd to that the amount of oil in harsh environments like arctic or antarctica or deep sea regions like south china seas, humanity has only just tap a tiny portion of oil in the world. There is a reason why britain, australia, US, russia, etc haven't abandoned their claim on antarctica. There is shitload of oil there.\n\n\nBut most of the oil is prohibitively expensive or technological difficult to extract currently. We have used up significant amounts of \"easy\" oil. But that's a tiny fraction of overall oil on earth. ",
" > Is this estimation even possible? \n \nProbably not. Oil seeps ***up*** into the reservoir rock where it is found and that's why depth correlates poorly to oil quality. It is thought that oil would be broken down into methane at greater depths but this is not confirmed. We keep finding deeper and larger oil deposits. \n \nAs we go deeper it does get more difficult to extract though.",
"_URL_0_\n\n > The US Geological Survey estimates that the total world conventional oil supply is about 3.0 trillion barrels, of which we have used 710 billion.\n\nHowever that is the optimistic view. That website also has a pessimistic and a middle ground view. \n\nThe middle ground view is there are 2.2 trillion barrels, and we've used 1 trillion to date. \n\nCurrent global demands are about 35 billion barrels a year. ",
"I think the best answer is we don't really know. \n\nThere are lots of estimates, but no way to really say which is better than another. Once upon a time people predicted we'd hit \"peak oil\" in the 70s. Since then the peak oil predictions have always been 0-10 years away. Measuring the amount of oil left in the ground is hard since you can't just put it in a graduated cylinder--especially when you consider all the different types of oil sources (liquid, sand etc). Then if we're talking about what we can actually get to for our own use, we additionally have to consider the extraction methods. Point being: take any numbers you see on this issue with a large grain of salt.",
"I didn't see \"I'm a reservoir engineer\" in the comments. A credible, credentialed person with an opinion is needed. I recommend contacting or looking up SPE (Society of Petroleum Engineers), SPEE (Society of Petroleum Evaluation Engineers), AGA (American Gas Association) and API (American Petroleum Institute). I know these are the \"evil shills\" however they are normally nerdy egg-heads that love this type of discussion and have years of knowledge and experience. I hope this helps, I apologize that I cannot personally provide a simple answer to your question. ",
"I think this is what you are after, assuming I am understanding the data and what you are asking because it depends upon definitions such as proven, recoverable, and technically recoverable. The US Geological Survey from 2000 that looked at *Long Term World Oil Supply*.\n\n* [Here is the graph to illustrate the data and estimations](_URL_2_).\n* Initial Oil reserves are a *hypothetical* 6000 billion barrels.\n* Unrecovered Oil reserves are 3000 billion barrels, so about 50% of the initial hypothetic reserves.\n* Oil production grows at 2% per annum.\n* Oil production will peak at 2037.\n* We won't run out of oil, rather it will become too expensive and we will turn to other sources of energy such as renewables or nuclear.\n* All these are estimates and the numbers are the base case, there are alternative scenarios, for example in [this line graph of oil production](_URL_0_) the peak in production is somewhere between 2030 and 2075 depending upon the *ultimate recovery reserves* (2248 - 3896bbl) and the *estimated growth rate* in oil production (0-3%).\n* Shale oilngas has increased proven reserves in the last decade.\n* Last estimate for World Proven Oil Reserves was actually 4246 billion barrels (EIA 2014)\n* There are all the caveats that others have noted. The methodology of these estimates is a discussion in itself.\n* You can probably find updated estimates on the [USGS website](_URL_3_). Here is the 2012 update, [PDF file](_URL_1_). (Edit: it ~~does~~ doesn't add much, changes to regional numbers).\n\nAnd the ***Bottom Line*** is \n\n > Will the world ever physically run out of crude oil? No, but only because it will eventually become very expensive in absence of lower-cost alternatives. When will worldwide production of conventionally reservoired crude oil peak? That will in part depend on the rate of demand growth, which is subject to reduction via both technological advancements in petroleum product usage such as hybrid-powered automobiles and the substitution of new energy source technologies such as hydrogen-fed fuel cells where the hydrogen is obtained, for example, from natural gas, other hydrogen-rich organic compounds, or electrolysis of water. It will also depend in part on the rate at which technological advancement, operating in concert with world oil market economics, accelerates large-scale development of unconventional sources of crude such as tar sands and very heavy oils. Production from some of the Canadian tar sands and Venezuelan heavy oil deposits is already economic and growing.\n\n > In any event, the world production peak for conventionally reservoired crude is unlikely to be \"right around the corner\" as so many other estimators have been predicting. Our analysis shows that it will be closer to the middle of the 21st century than to its beginning. Given the long lead times required for significant mass-market penetration of new energy technologies, this result in no way justifies complacency about both supply-side and demand-side research and development. (John H. Wood, Gary R. Long, David F. Morehouse)\n\nRef EIA and USGS",
"I learned in high school, about 10 years ago, that in the late 70's scientists were sure that we were very close to running out of oil. It was similar to the global warming debate. I know they have since changed this outlook, but it kind of shows that no one really ever knows. They find new oil every day.",
"If you must have a simplistic answer, it's about 50%. In other words we've used about half the oil we can probably get our hands on.\n\nBut the question is complicated by the implied assumption that there's a set amount of oil accessible to humans. That amount changes by how feasible the methods are. There could be energy reserves that cost too much time and energy to *ever* extract. Humans might invent some new and miraculous way of getting it that doesn't exist today, increasing the amount that's considered useful. But we could also drive down the cost of alternatives which would mean that some of what's considered useful today ends up becoming undesirable.\n\nSo based on what we know and current prices and things, a rough estimate is that we've burned through about half of what's available.\n\nSo what does that mean? Depends on your viewpoint. Some say that since we are now using up the last half, and because the population is growing and demanding more petroleum-based things, we're at the tipping point and oil should start becoming very expensive.\n\nBut there's another view which is that the pace of finding alternatives is quickening, and may be making it such that a lot of what's left will end up being undesirable. \n\nSo oil is either running out, and we should panic, or it's a wasting asset. That's why we've seen the price go crazy between $20 and $150 per barrel in just the last couple of years.\n",
"Peak oil has been claimed at least half a dozen times with all of them being proven wrong. The question is not about how much is left in terms continued utilization, but how expensive processes will become to procure the harder to get oil.",
"I don't know how people are not nervous about this. I am just glad I am living right now as apposed to a few decades from now, I don't see our current infrastructure lasting past a certain point in the near future. People will need to find alternatives pretty soon (in relative terms).",
"The question very specifically asks about what percentage is left. OP want to visualize it as a fuel meter. So why are all top answers filled with answers about how much is left without percentage, irrelevant shit like how technology is changing and consumption is not constant, and how we are not completely sure because not all oil is accessible but still fails to give a current estimate of accessible oil? Like, please give an answer god damn and then explain the accuracy and precision of that answer afterwards. \n\nPlease be like, fuel is at 60% by current estimates but we may find more, and put that in the first sentence. Then put all your bs in the next few paragraphs, thank you.",
"No real answer is the correct answer 50 years ago we was told we would run out in 50 years and told the same 15 years ago.\n\nNew techniques and discoveries plus oil being created naturally under the surface means nobody knows so if somebody give you an exact answer, they are lying. ",
"It's pretty much impossible to accurately answer this question, but the reasons it's pretty much impossible are interesting. Countries can use their oil reserves as collateral for loans like [Mexico](_URL_3_) has done, and OPEC members are awarded a percentage of the OPEC production limit based on their remaining reserves, which led [Saudi Arabia](_URL_0_) to increase its estimates by about 50% in 1989 and since then they have apparently discovered exactly enough new oil to replace what they pump every year, since the estimates haven't changed.\n\nAnother problem with estimating oil reserves is that different countries report different things. Some countries report proven reserves, while other countries report unproven reserves. The main difference between the two is that proven reserves are assumed to be economically recoverable, and unproven reserves may have technological or regulatory issues that keep them from being exploited. \n\nAnother stumbling block is that different types of reserves have different extraction costs, when the price of oil is low, it's not really economically feasible to extract some reserves, like shale oil, which makes up about half of the US's reserves. What this means is that, while the US has larger oil reserves than Saudi Arabia, the Saudis can continue to pump oil at prices too low for most of the US production to be profitable.\n\nAll that said, current estimates (which are not really all that accurate for the reasons above) are that we have around [1.64 trillion barrels](_URL_1_) of oil, and that we have so far used about [944 billion barrels](_URL_2_) of oil. ",
"I'm a reservoir engineer with a major oil company and all I can say definitely is that probably lots is left. The big national oil companies in the middle East are under no constraints to publish how much they have for reserves and continue to increase what they report over time. Additionally, the unconventional oil world continues to grow, meaning things like tight gas, light tight oil, oil sands, instu unconventional oil continue to grow what we once thought was unavailable reserves into commercially viable reserves. \n\nThe problem is this isn't a traditional physics problem where we figure out how much of an element is present on earth, the genisis of oil depends on geological and environmental factors so we just dont know the real total out there. On top of that you have to factor in what is commercial and that changes based on technology and economics. There really can't be a firm answer!\n",
"I'd like to point out that the issue with fossil fuels isn't that we'll run out very soon, but that the cost, both in terms of environmental destruction and what it take to keep extracting to meet demand, will be too high. Renewables and alternative energy, such as nuclear, are really the way forward both economically and in terms of human health.",
"Well, the real answer is that no one knows.\n\nAs technology improves, we can get oil and gas from fields that were thought to be empty. As prospecting improves, we can get oil and gas from deep ( and undersea) fields that no one has prospected.\n\nPeak oil used to be a thing, but as proven reserves keep rising, no one knows how much there actually is.",
"The [Saudi Arabia have the largest reserves on the planet](_URL_0_) and there are **no other** fields even remotely as large. Every new field you hear about is a small fraction as large and not in any way a possible substitute. \n\nFurther a bigger problem is our demand/consumption has grown exponentially since Saudi oil fields were discovered so you'd need substantially larger fields to maintain the status quo of oil consumption **or even economic growth**.\n\nThe Saudis aren't very open about how much they have left (it would alter the balance of power and economic control they current have) BUT there is strong circumstantial evidence that they are on the back-side of the total capacity, with fields like Ghawar being \"passed Peak\".\n\nYou can back into this by merely looking at the proven reserves and the historical extraction rates and integrated the latter since discovery to present and subtracting it from the former. It becomes clear we very much are Post Peak in terms of \"proven reserves\" of Saudi oil. \n\n[Ghawar field](_URL_1_) is the largest in Saudi and pumps 6% of all world oil production. There are NO new oil fields discovered since 1951 that are even 10% as large as Ghawar. Ghawar was a one-time discovery/resource.\n\n* Total Ghawar proven reserves: 71,000 million barrels\n* Total Ghawar proven *and estimated* reserves of 257,000 million barrels (which are partly 'hand-waving' and not based on science)\n* Daily extraction rates: 5 million barrels *per day* or 1,825 barrels per year\n* Crude estimate of total oil used (assuming published extraction data): 65,000 million barrels\n* Remaining reserves based on **proven reserves**: 6,000 million barrels\n* Remaining reserves based on **most optimistic** proven *and* estimated reserves: 87,000 million barrels \n* Time to Peak Oil (50% gone) based on curve-fit of production rates: -11 years or 2005\n* Remaining years to 0% (assuming constant extraction rate): 3 years to 47 years depending on how much faith you have in what Saudis say their reserves are (given they are not an unbiased bystander in the answer)\n* Time to energy EROIE=1 or ROI=0%: far sooner - some estimate within 5-15 years\n* [The Ghawar oil field: How much is left?](_URL_2_)\n\nYou can argue specific dates but it's clear a major problem will arise before 2050 regardless, which isn't very far away. Just a blink of the eye.\n\nReaching \"Peak Oil\" doesn't mean that the oil is gone - post Peak has about 50% is left and there are other fields. However \"running out\" is NOT the problem with Peak Oil and never has been. \n\nThe problem is that **the cost to extract the last 50% is radically more expensive than the first 50% was**. This results in a \"Seneca Effect\" which makes the post-Peak more abrupt and asymmetric to the leading edge. The leading edge is slower than the trailing edge.\n\nThis cost includes both actual economic money costs but also the amount of energy required to extract the product - because you have to operate trucks, pumps, drilling equipment, and ships plus high tech devices to extract the last 50% but the amount of such required is higher and the cost of providing the oil is thus higher which must be included in the oil price.\n\nFracking is an example of that added cost and technology. Fracking requires more energy and money to extract oil than the pre-Peak period where oil literally spewed from the well head under pressure. Today the dregs are thick and diffuse requiring fracking and special extraction fluids to bring the oil up. In fact, the extraction cost at the turn of the 20th century was close to 30:1 barrels of oil to extracted to barrels of oil spent on extraction process. Today that number is closer to 7:1 to 2:1 depending on the oil source. This ratio change translates into a burden cost on everything that depends on oil which is pretty much everything in the economy.\n\nThe energy costs is the deadlier of the two because you can always \"fake\" the costs by inflating or deflating a currency (using Central Bank or Government action). Energy cost can't be faked - it is what it is for your current technology level - only STEM R & D can change that which also costs real money and energy. \n\nBut even then, when people claim \"oh but there's X tons of Kerogen\" this means mostly nothing because what matters is how much energy ROI and how much financial ROI is required to extract those reserves - it means NOTHING if it costs more to extract than you get out: the reserves are effectively and practically zero if these ROIs don't cooperate. It's then cheaper to leave it all in the ground.\n\nAt some point the amount of energy required to extract the oil will be exceed by the amount of energy required to extract and transport it. This is when it takes 1 barrel of oil to extract, refine and deliver one barrel's worth of product to a consumer. \n\nAt that point it's \"game over\" because you can NOT operate any technology at a deficit of energy - trucks, ships and cars can't be run on magical \"not fuel\". You are better off leaving the oil in the ground until you have technology that can extract it more cheaply (but that takes money/profit and energy from oil as well).\n\nBUT the problem becomes more acute **before** energy return reaches 1:1 however. Before that, the added extraction costs burden both the business model of oil itself (see the pain of the oil/gas fracking industry to see this up-close and personal) and entire economies depending on oil (which is all of the economy). \n\nThis is what has killed oil fracking businesses right now - the selling price of oil doesn't cover the costs of extraction and operation. Compound that with funding their business model on Junk Bond debt (which 30-50% annual compounded interest rates payable in mere years) and you have the insolvency you have today.\n\nThis, in turn, is believed by many to have been caused by a drop in demand that was caused by cost burdens incurred of hitting Peak Oil in 2005. This was additive to the Federal Reserves real estate bubble that was created to \"fake it all away\" and led to the collapse of 2008 and all the financial shenanigans since then.\n\nIt's also related to how coal has died - the inefficiency of coal vs. oil vs. natural gas finally matters now and coal is Epic Fail. Coal is inherently more inefficient because you can't implement 2-cycle heat engine energy recovery easily or at all with legacy coal-fired plants. As you enter post-Peak, actual energy efficiency of your use of the oil/coal/gas becomes paramount because the extraction burden eats up your margins for profit and for error.\n\nThe logic behind this is ALL economics is ultimately driven by energy. It is the universal driver as fundamental as population growth and other natural resource growth. So if the cost of oil is increasingly burdened with oil extraction costs, and what people are paid doesn't track that, then the burden of that cost is passed through to every consumer, suppressing demand. \n\nThat burden crowds out all but essential spending, thus causing transportation and other oil-consuming activities (non-transportation like low tech and high tech manufacturing) to be suppressed, thus also dropping demand for both oil specifically (causing the current low oil prices) and dropping demand broadly across the economy. \n\nThe ugly part of the \"essential spending\" has been that essential has equaled \"Blue Urban\" and \"Red Military\" spending ONLY.\n\nThe US economy has been in an effectively in recession for everyone outside major Blue cities since 2008 - there has been no economic recovery for most of America. This is the so-called \"Jobless Recovery\" and it's hit the \"Fly Over States\" the worst. Places of corporate/government/academic elites have largely been spared because of government spending favoring those areas through Quantitative Easing (QE), defense spending and economic/political favors/lobbying quid pro quo.\n\nIt's this dichotomy that also relates to how Trump got elected as well; he was better at speaking to those in economic recession who've been on the debt-side/economic-deprivation of the above unfunded costs used to shore up key urban areas.\n\nNote that Peak Oil is NOT a debated subject among actual petroleum geologists. This is very similar to how actual climate scientists don't debate Global Warming nor do biologists debate evolution. These are facts, not conspiracy theories.",
"The corollary question is, \"it's taken X-years to use the amount of oil we have used, how long will it take us to use the remaining amount?\" --- *isn't this what really matters?*\n\nSee the [rule of 72](_URL_1_) if needed, as reference for this highly entertaining video by Albert Bartlett...\n\n _URL_0_",
"O & G professional here. \nWithout providing you with a 400 page report， anecdotally we have used less than 30% of oil currently recoverable. \n\nMeaning we have somewhere betwee 60 and 90 years left if we discover no new deposits or dont improve recovering techniques. ",
"Not only do we have to account for technology improvements over the years, but we also have to account for the usage of oil in the future. The amount of oil used in cars is very large when compared to how much of that oil is actually used for energy/moving the car - majority of it is expelled as heat. Technological improvements may allow us to reduce heat loss while increasing energy output for oil, and, therefore, improving the efficiency of the resource. This may lead to a decrease in mass oil extraction and usage, but then again, this may further decrease due to more reliable/renewable energy sources entering the foreground.\n\n",
"Geologist Here! Worked for multiple large Petroleum Companies.\nLet me drop some knowledge.\nThe oil market is controlled by OPEC (Organization Petroleum Exporting Countries) and has a set minimum and maximum price before the commodity will crash.\nBetween ~$1-$5 per gallon in USD... Saudi sweet spot $1.90-$2.10\nIf price is too low, production requirements cannot be meet.\nIf price too high, people begin to invest in alternative energy. BAD!\nSo with our current trends, which is still extremely oil dependent +90% worldwide. \nWe have ~40 yrs of uninterrupted supply. If, the OPEC yearly reserve estimates are correct. These have been altered by corrupt politicians in the past, but at the same time oil is a global trade product, companies know how well their wells are pumping.\nIf alternative drilling methods were legal and accepted by populus, this could easily be extend to beyond 200yrs (tar sands/fracking), considering our renewable energy sector continues.\nAviation & Aerospace industry will most likely be last remaining client of petroleum.\n\nAlmost all of this is directly from an interview with Prince Alwaleed. The Warren Buffet of the Middle East.",
"Maybe the question is best asked, 'what percentage of the Earth's combustible, subterranean hydrocarbons remain?' I would say it's greater than 90%. \nCrude oil from conventional wells was the low-hanging fruit. Advances in technology made vast deposits of shale oil available. The biggest challenge in extracting those is political rather than technological. In addition, incredibly huge methane / methane hydrate deposits have yet to be tapped. ",
"An aside: Once the cost of producing oil is greater than its expected return, we will no longer produce oil.\nInstead, we will use a substitute for oil (and/or new technology).\nTherefore we will never actually run out of oil (this is because much of the world's crude oil is simply too costly to access).\nThis is what happened with, for example, whale oil & kerosine.",
"Almost all of the oil is right where it has been for millions of years. The problem is that most of it isn't what you'll hear described as \"recoverable with current technology\". This either means we can't detect where it is closely enough to drill, or it's too expensive to get out of the ground for some reason (too deep, to spread out).\n\nThe notion that oil will \"run out\" someday is a common misconception. That's simply not how resource depletion works. We won't all wake up one day and see on the news that the last drop of oil has been take out of the ground. \n\nWhat will happen is that we will burn through the easier oil at a steady rate and the price of oil/gasoline will rise to account for the increased costs of getting at less accessible deposits. Simultaneously, alternative technologies will continue to improve themselves and become less expensive. More and more people will switch over, until we eventually reach the point where there is no demand for oil at the price it would take to make continued production economical.",
"The exact process by which oil is made is not known. Based on the most recent studies oil is a \"renewable\" resource and as such this question becomes unanswerable. Do research on the \"abiotic\" oil process. Oil is a substance that the earth constantly produces despite the common narrative on this subject.\n\nJCM\nB.A. Geology/\nM.T.S.",
"We didn't know how much it was to begin with, so we'll never know the starting point, the 100%. Besides, even if we knew, there are new discoveries all the time, and oil recovery may be increased by new technology. However, rest assured that a good 75% of the oil, and if you care to include natural gas also, is still underground.",
"Google \" peak oil \" --- the scientists say we have used up approx. 50% of all the oil in the world ( recent discoveries not included ).\n\nIn only 150 years since the invention of a working Internal Combustion Engine we used up half of all the oil.\n\nWith the present rates of acceleration in usage due to the Industrialization of India and China --- the remainder is expected to be gone in 100 years or less.\n\nThat means your children will be riding horses down the freeways.\n\nNot really because they will be driving electric cars.\n\nBut when the oil is gone they expect to see world wide famine because our agriculture is based on petroleum for insecticides and fertilizers and fuel for the giant machines that are unlikely to ever run on batteries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynaOH7OmMcM",
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507072830.htm"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athabasca_oil_sands"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.space.com/17638-how-big-is-earth.html",
"http://zebu.uoregon.edu/disted/ph162/l4.html",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X15005270",
"http://www.investopedia.com/terms/b/barrelofoilequivalent.asp",
"http://water.usgs.gov/edu/earthhowmuch.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oil_shale_reserves"
],
[],
[
"http://letthesunwork.com/challenge/reserves.htm"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/wood/images/figure2.jpg",
"https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2012/3042/fs2012-3042.pdf",
"http://large.stanford.edu/publications/coal/references/wood/images/figure1.jpg",
"http://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/WorldPetroleumAssessment.aspx#3882216-data"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://uk.reuters.com/article/saudi-oil-kemp-idUKL8N19R3LR",
"http://www.ogj.com/articles/print/volume-111/issue-12/special-report-worldwide-report/worldwide-reserves-oil-production-post-modest-rise.html",
"https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/05/090507072830.htm",
"http://www.nytimes.com/1997/03/18/business/mexican-data-suggest-30-overstatement-of-oil-reserves.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.worldlistmania.com/list-of-oil-fields-in-saudi-arabia/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ghawar_Field",
"http://www.gasandoil.com/news/middle_east/40a0dcebddaf985779767e28090a124d"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/DZCm2QQZVYk",
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4kzaoi
|
why do amish think that 17th century had an ideal technology for a pure christian life?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4kzaoi/eli5why_do_amish_think_that_17th_century_had_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3iyl73",
"d3j3xth",
"d3j43yb",
"d3j4b8t",
"d3j4cqy",
"d3j4zlh",
"d3j50uv",
"d3j525b",
"d3j54pf",
"d3j56i3",
"d3j62g9",
"d3j64nd",
"d3j6ank",
"d3j6gh4",
"d3j6zay",
"d3j75il",
"d3j76wd",
"d3j7vrp",
"d3j7xj5",
"d3j8wzg",
"d3j8yez",
"d3j8zf7",
"d3j90ku",
"d3j98rf",
"d3j99pc",
"d3j9b3b",
"d3j9e6f",
"d3jaave"
],
"score": [
1849,
167,
7,
22,
40,
6,
75,
6,
8,
19,
2,
2,
3,
3,
7,
2,
4,
2,
5,
2,
10,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The Amish do not universally shun modern technology, it can vary between groups and communities. There are Amish who drive cars and use voicemail. That being said, they have a tendency to not immediately accept new technology automatically. Rather, to them they place a high value on community, family, and separation from the world at large. And in assigning these values primacy, they deliberate on whether a new piece of technology will be a benefit to them, or detrimental. For instance, a phone may be considered detrimental, because you rely on it instead of meeting and socializing with your neighbors. Electricity might be useful because it allows you more utility with nighttime hours, but being connected to the power grid reduces your separation from the outside. And so on.",
"A major part of Amish doctrine is about separation from the outside world. Along with many other evangelical protestants, they consider the world at large to be corrupt and opposed to God, so they do what they can to be independent from it. The refusal to use technology is part of this - if they owned a car, for example, this would make them highly dependent on the massive global infrastructure (auto manufacturers, gas companies, mechanics, insurance companies, the DMV, and all the rest) for a central part of their life, and the worry is that this would drag them away from their traditional, highly conservative way of life. And to be honest, you have to admit they have a point. Modern technology has completely changed the way we look at and behave in the world, and by shunning (no pun intended) modern technology the Amish have managed to mitigate the changes to traditional lifestyles that modernity has created.",
"Like some others have said, it's really a pretty in depth issue. If you have some time and want to do some reading, check out [The Riddle of Amish Culture](_URL_0_). ",
"Back when I used to work for an archery range, there was a coworker who used to live near an Amish community. He would tell me they would occasionally come in to get their crossbows adjusted. Like these are $300-500 hunting ones you can get from like Cabela's or something. Top of the line. But they would arrive by horse and buggy.",
"My understanding is that they can use the technology out of necessity and not convenience. The decision to use tractors, etc, is made in order to continue to exist in the modern world. A good example would be phones. Phones are necessary to sell their produce and goods. Therefore, it is fine to use a phone for business. On the other hand, if they need to talk to Josiah down the road about a personal matter, they should head over there on foot or buggy and talk to them in person. This may have changed in recent years, but this is how it was explained to me.",
"All I know is that they need to adopt some technology that allows them to make those life changing whoopie pies on a global scale.",
"My father was a Mennonite minister and grew up in an Amish family. He spoke Pennsylvania Dutch before English. I still have a lot of relatives that are Mennonite or Amish. \n\nFirst, the Amish broke away from the Mennonite (originally called Anabaptist) church. Many people think it was the other way around. As someone else eluded to, it was the around the turn of the century that it all went down. There was a lot of new technology being developed (electricity, cars, etc.). What I have always been told is that many thought that technology was too worldly. Mennonites are humble people. They do no believe that earthly possessions (too much wealth) are important. Hence, you see a high degree of giving and volunteering. The Mennonites have adapted to technology as it has evolved. So they may have the Internet, but none of the Tindr stuff. They also are fine with education, college, etc. \n\nThere was an element of the church that thought all of this technological advancement was too worldly and they broke away from the Mennonites. The Amish church is not as formally organized as the Mennonites are. The Mennonites have a national organization _URL_0_ . Here is what they believe _URL_0_what-we-believe/\n\nIt is much more difficult to put an exact label on the Amish. The Amish do not have to my knowledge a formal national organization leading them. At the local level they will have a deacon who is elected locally to lead them and that \"church\" typically decides how much technology to adapt. Then within families there can be variances. Think of it more of a spectrum from stuck in time of 200 years ago, to much of the present day technology and everything in between. It is estimated a 4th to a 3rd of the young adults leave the Amish church permanently, like my father did. For some they are completely ostracized from their family and others (like my dad) it is no big deal. Here is what I found on Wikipedia _URL_1_\n\nI get asked sometimes what it was liking growing up like this, it was a really good way to grow up. As I got older and starting looking around the world, going to college, etc.; I found my own way. I now attend a non-denominational Christian church. My parents are fine with that. \n\n",
"The idea is that much technology after that point removes the self-sufficiency of their communities. These are closed off groups that do not want to rely on the outside world and things like electricity, cars, gasoline, tires, and so on require needing outsiders to survive.",
"I live in Lancaster, PA right in the heart of Amish country. Most of them have cell phones. Usually iPhones. ",
"Gelassenheit is the Amish principal of submission to the will of God. Modern \"conveniences\" are just that: convenient to the individual, but not indicative of pious submission to God.\n\n\nMoreover, the Amish split from Swiss anabaptists *in* the 17th Century and migrated to the US in the early 18th Century. Their *Ordnung* (document prescribing their community rules) also dates from this time. In terms of the technology of *that* era, they were pretty bang up to date.\n\n",
"They don't _have_ the specific belief you're asking about, so it's not a very good question. Rather, as people are explaining here, they prefer a simple life, and to keep themselves separate from the outside world. But there's no specific belief about exactly what level of technology is ideal. You'll find that the level of tech they use varies quite a lot. ",
"Just to give a weird perspective on this:\n\nThe Baha'i faith believes that religion is made for a **certain time and place.** \n\nFor example: The Baha'i faith's main theme is unity. It was released in 1800s with conjunction with planes and radio, which can connect people who would have not met otherwise. \n\nSo maybe the Amish are onto something. Religion is tough to interpret already as it is, but adapting it to new technologies? Maybe it's not meant for that. Maybe. ",
"I've always thought that the Amish were the type to live with the land. So... when you get to the point of technology where you aren't providing everything you need for your immediate group, you have become dependent on others. Maybe there's a lot to be said about that, and why they want to keep it that way.\n\nI would assume a lot of pride comes into it, but it's also practical. The amish would have a pollution free world, no overpopulation, and other things I'm sure I'm overlooking.",
"They must be doing something right, it's estimated that by the year 2100, the Amish will makeup 7.5% of the population of the US due to their high birth rates.",
"It's just that 1) the modern fast pace of rapid transportation can take a toll on our inner peace & calmness by disrupting the stability of communities & families with everyone rushing around & coming & going. And 2) artificial lights can interfere with our instinctive connection with the sun's cycle, hence interfering with our connection to nature & the universe which is a grounding influence. And 3) staring at screens for entertainment or pastime or even work can drive a wedge between human interaction. I might be happier if I'd been born Amish. Modern society has taken a toll on my human wellness.",
"Technology gets in the way of interpersonal communication between communities. Going to someone's house and talking to them in person builds a bond that cannot be matched by speaking on the telephone.",
"My parents came from the Amish and they referenced this [bible verse](_URL_0_) as part of the reason why the Amish don't partake in technology (at least in their community, every community is different). ",
"What I dont get is similar along the lines to the question, why is 17th century tech ok, why not 16th century? Why not caveman?",
"There's a lot of really good answers here, but here's my two cents; there's a lot to be said about the whole idle hands make the devil's handiwork. Sure, it's easier to farm if you use a truck to haul stuff, but it also frees you up to do something less meaningful, morally bad, or nothing at all ( which anyone who's spent 36 hours in front of Netflix can attest is almost than just doing something evil).",
"There is an Amish community outside of my city and many of them have trucks for coming into town to get supplies and stuff. They use regular stores and sometimes you will even see them at a restaurant. I think they are more slow to adapt new technology and societal things rather than shunning it altogether.",
"Edit - You can't really explain like you are 5 here, because Amish/Anabaptist theology believes in a \"believers baptism\" where a person must be at a reasonable age of accountability to understand the faith.\n\nI am a Mennonite (our group is Beachy Amish). Yes we do have some technologies and also filtration on the internet (and yes, Reddit sets it off all the time). Yes, we do drive cars and pretty much live modernly except for media (TV, Movies, Video games) Amish are Anabaptists like us. Anabaptists consist of Mennonites, Amish, and Hutterites. \n\nAmish do not shun technology actually, they just VERY slowly embrace it. Anabaptists distinguish very directly a 2 kingdom principle. We see a worldly kingdom, and also a kingdom belonging to Jesus Christ. (my kingdom is not of this world).\n\nWe try to live in a kingdom ruled by Christ. This means that each church makes it's own ordnungs (rules) of how we believe we should live for the kindom of Christ. No churches vote for the worldly kingdom. No churches participate in any government function. We see the world as \"lost\" and evangelize to the world to come to Christ's kingdom. We do pay our taxes however, but do believe the world to be ruled by evil people and principalities. We don't pay social security though and don't accept it. Our community all pitches in and takes care of the elderly's needs. We also have our own in house homeowners and auto insurance (it's WAY cheaper). \n\nSome believe that no electricity keeps you from worldly principles. Yes, most people like dishwashers, but Amish (Old Order & strict horse and buggy) would believe that dishes are a great way for mothers and daughters to spend time together. Put in a dishwasher, and that will ruin those bonding moments. This is generally the thought process. Put in electricity and the next thing you know you'll have TV and games and never see your children again which will break up tight families.... (Again how the Amish would think). \n\nFor us Beachy Amish, we believe in casting off worldly sin and the worldly kingdom. So we generally don't allow TV and movies into the home. So many of them we see distinct sin in the movies and shows. Violence, Blasphemy, bad language, lust, etc. We don't see automobiles as causes of sin, but just a tool (unless somebody is buying a vehicle for prideful purposes). We don't see the internet as bad per se, but treat it like we would a chainsaw (better use it right or it can harm your faith). So it's not really shunning for a \"pure Christian life\" per se, but being very careful. Amish (Old order like Horse & buggy type) would just take things further than we do. We feel we are more practical, but other more liberal Mennonites would see Beachy Amish as taking it too far.... \n\nWe do dress differently. Not in styles or fancy clothes. Men dress typically in slacks and plain shirts. Our women wear cape dresses and headship veils. It really removes a lot of competition between women and men in clothing. We never hear \"oooohh look at what she is wearing\".... or worry about provocative dress in church. For our brotherhood and sisterhood, we don't want competition, but a true relationship as family. There is no jewelry (bible talks about costly array and its avoidance). It's a different life.... Plain and simple but we are really busy!\n\nThe fruits of it do pay off though. (Can we blame media for bad families today?) We pretty much do have functional families. Most people only get married once and stay married. We do have HUGE families... My wife and I are expecting our 6th child and we are pretty much considered \"getting a bit bigger\" in our church. Many have 9 to 13. But there is nothing greater than seeing grandparents show up at events (which are Gigantic) and seeing a SEA of 70 little running bobbing heads swarming the grandparents. \"GRANDPAS is here!!!\" is shouted and it's like watching a school of fish go running.... Grandma & Grandpa both smile with big open arms accepting 10 grandchildren per hug.\n\nIt's a different life. It is an amazing life. It is a rewarding life. The life comes with sacrifice though. We would believe that we sacrifice things in this world, and most importantly, crucify our flesh daily from worldly lusts, greed, and seek the kingdom of God. \n\nNo I don't know about superheros. I see them on billboards. I don't really know what Trump and Hillary are all about, as we don't vote or get involved. I don't really know what worldly music is (we do hear it in stores and such), but I saw a billboard with some young girl named Cyrus and she was not dressed nicely. It looked like she was trying to promote lust. On Reddit here seeing some comments, I really think Jesus will come back soon.... \n\nOur life is different, but we do have a good brotherhood and typically very tight families. We have events all the time and constantly have people over (in fact we are hosting families tonight from church). Our children do have \"real\" childhoods of exploring the woods, fishing, hunting, and sometimes just climbing trees. We just don't want it to be filled with what we'd consider \"fictional and non-practical fake realities laced in sin\" movies and such. So we'll never embrace stuff like that. Things such as Facebook my group is very hesitant as we know it can be used for good but also for pride, stalking, and worthless fights. \n\nBut as for TECHNOLOGY in and of itself, it is not seen as bad for us as Beachy Amish - it's more how it is used. Amish simply see technology as \"the world\" and cast it off UNLESS it can be shown as a need, and not connected to the world. (May have solar panels for small things). \n\nBut anyway, I hope I gave you some insight. Mostly, never think of Anabaptists as the \"same\". It is so greatly varied I can't even begin to explain it. Old Order Amish & Mennonites are the horse & buggy people. Once you get into people who will accept driving, it varies so greatly how the life is.\n\nThe old order Amish would appear 17th century, but they are really not. Look for their milk coolers and solar panels.... But you'll never find their homes grid connected to \"the world\". \n\n\n",
"I live near Amish country in Ohio. While there are some universal beliefs that unite them, most Amish are very different in their respective communities. Their \"off the grid\" style of living is based mostly on the belief that the modern world is too dependent on technology, rather than God. Most of the Amish around here:\n\n* Live close together. A single driveway can lead to several homes on a single property.\n\n* One home serves as a school and all the children attend there during the day.\n\n* Most are very strict communities. No electricity, horse + buggy, etc. Most are farmers.\n\nThese communities, while geographically close, can still be miles apart. It's not like they all live on the same street. Families are known for their trade skills. One specializes in leather, another a blacksmith, etc. We also have Mennonites here...or as we affectionately refer to them: Amish Lite. They look Amish. Married men have the beards and wear suspenders and funny hats, the whole nine yards. But they are much more modern. Farmers have tractors (usually old and outdated), and will often sell fruits and veggies out of parking lots for money. Some even have construction or landscaping companies.",
"They don't. Not specifically. What they believe in is an emphasis on family and local community over being connected \"ethereally\" (my choice of words, there) to the \"world at large\" via any kind of an extended network. So it's not electricity that's wrong, or the use of it; it's literally \"being connected to the electrical grid.\" There is the \"idle hands are the devil's workshop\" belief at play, but some things just can't be managed practically by hand, and they don't take issue with this as long as technological innovation stops prior to becoming simple convenience.\n\nThe New Order Amish take a much more progressive view on this. Many of them use cellphones and laptop computers, but they avoid connection with the outside world and power them via generators. Basically, they can *have* an outside connection, as long as they don't *use it* to connect to the outside. \n\nOld Order refrains from this, but even they use generators for refrigeration in their barns: they sell dairy products to the outside world, and all relevant laws apply to them. ",
"It looks like you've gotten the answer to your question, but there's one other thing I've always found interesting - as I understand it, the Amish place importance on the process of doing something, not just the result. So when you make a quilt or a barn, the act of making it should be satisfying to you just like the end product is.\n\nI think that philosophy plays into the technology question, because tech is about more results with less effort. So while sending a Facebook message to your friend may achieve the same goal of communicating with them that a letter does, you've theoretically lost something in terms of what you get out of the process of writing them a letter.",
"No one is actually answering his question. \n\nWhy are they focused on the 17th century?",
"Not the 17th century per se but the idea that the world (non believers/non amish) are doing new things all the time. They want to be in the works but not of the world so if the cool thing is to drive cars then they want to be separate from that crowd.\n\nSame goes for fashion, their views on using violence, swearing oaths, and yes technology. They aren't patterned after an area in time but a whole thinking process of being different.",
"It's not about technology, it's about simplicity and leading as simple a life as possible. It's about staying disconnected from the 'sinful' world of 'The English' (their word for everyone else not them). The simplicity creates purity for them in their worship of God (and Christ). If they think a piece of technology will help them in that goal, they will adopt it. Thus you'll see Amish with solar power, cell phones, chain saws, etc (those are all things that aren't connected to the world). Source: I live 45 minutes away from a large Amish community.",
"I don't know anything about the Amish, but I know exactly what they were thinking when the first group of them to confront technology noped out of modernity. \n\n\nA lot of the scientific advances made in recent years are amazing and beneficial, particularly in medicine, etc. The thing is, does the rest of it really enrich our lives? Is the life of a typical 2016 twelve year old sincerely 'better' than his counterpart 100 years ago? In some important ways yes (he's less likely to die of all sorts of things) but in other ways, in terms of quality of life, no. It's actually much worse and our neck-deep involvement in technology plays a huge role in that. \n\n\nWhat's great about modern communications: being able to keep in touch with old friends who, a generation ago, would've been mostly lost forever as the winds of change blew us to different places in life... but am I really better off knowing what you had for breakfast? Am I really better off knowing that the guy I played guitar with in high school 23 years ago is getting a divorce and his kid is strung out on heroin? Am I \"better off\" when I get a text reminding me to pick up yogurt when I'm out talking a walk? \n\n\nIn the end, it's all about balance, moderation, but I can totally sympathize with the Luddite impulse that just says \"fuck it all\" and abandons the whole technological show; sure, I'm thankful for that weird looking machine at the doctors office and whatever it does but really, the rest of it can piss off, says a guy on Reddit. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Riddle-Culture-Center-Anabaptist-Studies/dp/080186772X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1464187679&sr=1-1&keywords=the+riddle+of+amish+culture"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://mennoniteusa.org/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amish",
"http://mennoniteusa.org/what-we-believe/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=1+John+2%3A15-17&version=ESV"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5kl2s2
|
why is heart failure such a quick death when suffocation takes so much longer under the exact same circumstances?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kl2s2/eli5_why_is_heart_failure_such_a_quick_death_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dboo3rs",
"dbooi7u"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You're probably thinking of cardiac arrest, not heart failure. Cardiac arrest is when the heart stops pumping blood, heart failure is when the heart can't keep up with the body's oxygen needs.\n\nWhen your heart stops, your brain stops receiving oxygen, and you pass out in less than 30 seconds. \n\nWhen you're suffocating, your body can still draw plenty of oxygen from the air in your lungs to keep you going for several minutes or more.\n\n",
"The blood in your body is still partially oxygenated even after it returns to your heart and lung. Also, you lung still have some oxygenated air in them. So long as your blood continues to circulate, some oxygen is delivery to your body.\n\nBut when your heart stops pumping, your blood no longer circulates. Cells only have access to the whatever oxygen is in the nearby blood and soon become oxygen deprived, even though there is oxygen left in other parts of their blood."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3kqu2i
|
how exactly do you use tumblr
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kqu2i/eli5_how_exactly_do_you_use_tumblr/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuzppey"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
" > we all seen those tumblr posts with funny replies in layers\n\nThose are from the old site layout, they no longer exist. The replies are now in a standard list form.\n\n----\n\nWith Tumblr, you create a user account. Each user can create multiple *blogs* -- although it's most common to just have one blog. For example, you would have _URL_2_.\n\nWhen you're logged into Tumblr, the main page (_URL_1_) will be your 'dashboard'. The dashboard displays seven big buttons at the top, which you use to make your posts. Posts can be text, photos (one or multiple), links, videos, or audio.\n\nPeople will see your posts when they go to _URL_2_. \n\nAnyone who goes to your blog and is signed in will see the \"Follow\" button. Following is like subscribing. On the main dashboard page, below the big post buttons, you will see a list of all posts made by the people you follow, most recent posts first.\n\nAt the bottom of each of those posts, you will see a few button. The heart is 'like'. This just lets the poster know that you liked their post; optionally, people can see a list of all posts you like at _URL_0_.\n\nThe speechbubble is 'reply'. This is a new, optional, feature; not all people have enabled replies on their posts. A reply is basically a Reddit or Facebook comment on a post.\n\nThe two arrows are 'reblog'. Reblogging a post means that it gets copied onto your own blog -- all your followers will see it, but they'll also see who you reblogged it from, they won't think it's something you created. If you've used Twitter, it's basically a retweet.\n\nWhen you reblog a post, you have the option to add your own caption at the bottom. This is what you used to see with those reply-chain things, people reblogging things and adding their own captions.\n\nEach post has a number of 'notes' visible at the bottom. Notes are simply likes + reblogs combined. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"ezprodigy.tumblr.com/liked",
"http://tumblr.com",
"ezprodigy.tumblr.com"
]
] |
||
5ng6er
|
alimony in the us
|
As an Australian this a very backwards system. Why does an ex have to keep paying for them until they get remarried, can't they get a job themselves?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ng6er/eli5_alimony_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcb8js1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Alimony laws *very much* vary from place to place, state to state. Long-term alimony is largely a historical artifact now, apart from celebrity cases. \n\nThe reason behind alimony was that in more traditional marriages, one spouse (usually the woman) often ended up sacrificing their career for the betterment of the relationship. That might mean staying home to be the primary caregiver for children or being a trailing spouse to a primary caregiver who moved to optimize their career. \n\nThis meant that if that couple split, one person had a better career track record and was better able to support themselves than the other; even if the lesser-earning spouse gets a job post-divorce, they are unlikely to earn anywhere near what their spouse can because they don't have a track record of that kind of earning. \n\nAlimony was intended to even up that imbalance, given that it came about *as a result of mutual choices the couple made during the marriage*. \n\nToday, alimony is likely to be much more temporary in nature, lasting only a short amount of time while the lesser-earning spouse finds that job which will support them. Many divorces don't include alimony at all, in fact.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ha1zw
|
college and university in the usa.
|
What's the difference between College and University?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ha1zw/eli5_college_and_university_in_the_usa/
|
{
"a_id": [
"casanpj",
"casao27",
"casap4f",
"casg1d1"
],
"score": [
6,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"They can be used either way in most contexts nowadays. Essentially it comes down to prestige. University sounds more formal, usually denotes more programs, more opportunities, and a more full school environment. College may give off the idea of fewer study programs, smaller numbers of courses available, and just gives off less of a formal air.\n\ntl;dr - Not much of a difference really, just implied differences. \n\nFor a smarter explanation:\n_URL_0_",
"None whatsoever. Most schools will call themselves a college if they're one-purpose (so, a liberal arts-only school will call themselves Schoolname College) while universities typically contain multiple programs. For instance, the uni I attended was formed when a bunch of colleges (a music school, an engineering school, and a liberal arts school) came together to form one unified school. However, a single-purpose school can call itself a university, if it wants to, and a multi-purpose school can continue to call itself a college.\n\nThey can all give out the same types of degrees, all require the same level of prior education, etc.",
"A university is a large institution where the different departments function somewhat independently, and call themselves colleges. You usually have to apply and be accepted to a specific college within a university to major in that subject. At a college, there's more of a sense of diversifying your education, and anyone can take classes in any department. \n\nThat's the norm, but there are exceptions. Sometimes the difference is basically meaningless. ",
"All of these answers are completely wrong. There is a definite difference between a college and a university. A university has graduate degree programs, a college does not. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://grammarist.com/usage/college-university/"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9fzlps
|
what causes enclaves and exclaves to form?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9fzlps/eli5_what_causes_enclaves_and_exclaves_to_form/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edoj16e",
"e60ixd5",
"e60j45r",
"e60vx6h"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" Enclaves may have been created for a variety of historical, political or geographical reasons. Some areas have been left as enclaves by changes in the course of a river.\n\n \nIn the feudal system, the ownership of feudal domains was often transferred or partitioned, either through purchase and sale or through inheritance, and often such domains were or came to be surrounded by other domains.\n\nIn particular, this state of affairs persisted until the 19th century in the Holy Roman Empire, and these domains (principalities etc.) came to have many of the characteristics of sovereign states. ",
"For other readers: enclaves and exclaves are when a part of one country is separated from it, and completely surrounded by a different country. \n\nUsually there's an underlying social or micro-political boundary that the enclave respects. There are as many different stories as there are enclaves, but usually it's because a new border is drawn, and individual towns, lords, or citizens are given the right to decide which side of the border they want their land to be on. Some may decide they've got better social ties to the people across the river than they do to their neighbors.\n\nIt's crazy and complicated, but at least it respects the cultural ties of the people \"on the ground\". If you don't respect cultural demographics, and just draw straight-line borders because they look pretty, you get disasters like the [Sykes-Picot agreement](_URL_0_), which is the cause of a lot of the conflicts in the Middle East today.",
"Do you mean like political exclaves and enclaves of one country in another?\n\nIt's the same reason any other border or boundary forms, and it's different in each case. For example:\n\n- the town of Baarle-Nassau has loads of enclaves and exclaves between Belgium and Holland. That's because those countries in that area formed around the holdings of various dukes. The town contained lots of properties owned by the Duke of Breda and Duke of Brabant. Breda's stuff ended up as Holland and Brabant's stuff as Belgium. \n- Büsingen is an enclave because what is now Switzerland used to be a lose confederation of microstates and city states. Some of these joined Germany (or its predecessors) or Austria and some banded together over time as Switzerland. Schaffhausen and Büsingen both originally joined then-Germany (the Holy Roman Empire) but Schaffhausen was then able to get free and later joined Switzerland. Büsingen wasn't and ended up trapped surrounded by Switzerland by Schaffhausen. Then later when they voted to join Switzerland Germany said no because Switzerland didn't have anything to offer them in compensation.\n- Nakhchivan is an enclave if Azerbaijan between Iran and Armenia. It's the result of Soviet policy and ethnic reasons. The whole area had a mix of Azeris and Armenians separated in part by ethnicity and in part by religion. The Soviet Union had a policy of giving each ethnicity its own country while making them all part of the Soviet Union in order, they hoped, to reduce tension. They neatened up the borders and lumped together all the areas that were \"mostly\" one ethnicity even if the split was often 60-40 or what have you. That resulted in three countries: Armenian SSR, Azerbaijani SSR and Nakhchivan SSR. Then at independence the two bits with an Azeri majority (Nakhchivan and Azerbaijan) joined together. \n- Nahwa is a double enclave, part of the UAE surrounded by Oman surrounded by the UAE. Basically around 70 years ago the tribes of the area, who didn't really have any affiliation with any country, were sounded out to ask if they'd like to join the UAE or Oman. Most of the tribes joined the UAE, but one Omani ambassador was particularly persuasive and persuaded tribes in one small area to join Oman. But then there was one village in the middle of that area where the chiefs had family ties to the UAE and so they went the other way.\n- Kaliningrad used to be a city state Königsberg founded by Teutonic (german) knights who founded a number of trading ports around the Baltic They all became part of Germany as did Poland. After world war 1 the bits in between Königsberg and the rest of Germany were ceded to the new independent state of Poland to give Poland a coastline but Germany got to keep Königsberg as a historically teutonic town. Then after world war 2 the Soviets invaded Königsberg chucked all the Germans out and then asked if they could be allowed to keep it as they wanted a Baltic port and this one was going spare. At the Potsdam treaty the world said yes\n- Campione is a bit of Italy surrounded by Switzerland. When the surrounding area of Ticino voted to leave Italy and join Switzerland this village said \"nah we're good\" and so wasn't included.",
"Under feudalism, a minor noble would swear loyalty to an intermediate one, who would swear loyalty to a major one who would swear loyalty to a royal. Due to conflict or politics, who swore loyalty to whom would change frequently, and two neighboring lords might belong to different barons or even different kings. As feudal kingdoms evolved into nation-states, these often patchwork borders became permanent, resulting in enclaves and exclaves. Many European enclaves were created this way.\n\nIn more modern times, as part of the resolution of a conflict, provinces are given self-determination and are allowed to choose which country to belong to. If you chose one country while your neighbors chose the other, you became an enclave. Many of the enclaves between Indian and Bangladesh resulted from this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sykes%E2%80%93Picot_Agreement"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
4r9qn8
|
how does the body deal with 9,600 calories, 1,260 grams of fat & 54,600 milligrams of sodium at one time? (hot dog contest)
|
[Link](_URL_0_)
Joey Chestnut just ate 70 hot dogs in 10 minutes. Not just the physical part of it, but how would does the body deal with that much food and the nutritionals involved?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4r9qn8/eli5how_does_the_body_deal_with_9600_calories/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4zev3j",
"d4zzih6",
"d50ef5e"
],
"score": [
65,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most likely he pukes much of that back up. If you watch an eating competition, they all run to the port o potty's right after. So you are really getting in say 60 to 100 fl oz (volume measure) of hotdogs which is considerably less. \n\nThe sodium will be dealt with by a hormone cascade coming from the kidneys and I think duodenum if not stomach. The intake of the sodium will be limited. Likewise the protein and carbohydrates can only be digested and broken down for absorption so fast, all else just continues on out the back the next day. \n\nI suggest Joey Chestpain drink lots of water and some miralax to help everything along. RIP his toilet. ",
"This was asked on /r/askscience aswell. [Answer here](_URL_0_)",
"they build up their tolerance beforehand, via supplements or training. they also puke most of it up afterwards, and they usually take long breaks between contests, to let the body regenerate and work through all the nutrients and sodium."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.mercurynews.com/sports/ci_30089167/san-joses-joey-chestnut-makes-hot-dog-eating"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ra09i/joey_chestnut_ate_70_hotdogs_in_10_minute_today/d4zncqg"
],
[]
] |
|
5tx2eo
|
Special Relativity: If an object accelerates at a constant rate, does the progressively increasing time dilation cause an asymptote for the moving objects time?
|
So, I was looking at what would happen as an object accelerated at a constant rate - say, 300 km/s^2. From what it would appear from my math, the object would experience increasing levels of time dilation (from the perspective a stationary observer).
A system of (relatively) stationary observers would watch the clock on this accelerating object, and would record slower and slower increments of time. It looks like this would create an asymptote, or a point in time that the moving object will never reach. So two questions:
1) Is my math correct here? Will this object accelerating at 300 km/s ^2 approach a time that it will never actually reach in my frame?
2) If so, I'm having trouble interpreting the results. In order for the stationary frame to not be "special", the moving object needs to be able to potentially reach any time within its future... but doesn't this mean there is no corresponding X,Y,Z coordinate that this object will exist in when the clock passes the time I've calculated as the limit? Wouldn't this mean that this moving object cannot exist in my universe at that time? Either way, where the heck is it at that time?
It seems like this would create a contradiction....
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5tx2eo/special_relativity_if_an_object_accelerates_at_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddppt6n",
"ddq66f9"
],
"score": [
23,
6
],
"text": [
"The situation you're interested in is worked out [here](_URL_0_). Specifically, see equation 5.",
"man.. I can't even begin to wrap my head around questions like this. \n\nI don't understand time from a physics perspective. Is it not the recorded length of an event relative to another event? Why is it portrayed as like, a physical realm or something. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://aether.lbl.gov/www/classes/p139/homework/eight.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
39lg7t
|
When/how did France acquire its reputation as a nation with an embarrassing military history?
|
Looking at France's military history, it doesn't seem terrible. They had some catastrophic moments certainly (Napoleon's invasion of Russia and the existence of Vichy France come to mind), but those are easily offset by their great moments (their performance in the First World War, their role in the American revolution, and their victories against just about everyone during the First Republic for example).
Where and when did we start to look at France as a military embarrassment?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/39lg7t/whenhow_did_france_acquire_its_reputation_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cs4bhgo",
"cs4oa7y"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Check the FAQs section for more answers.\n\nEssentially it came about as a result of the Fall of France. The Simpsons has Willie the Groundskeeper calling the French \"Cheese Eating Surrender Monkeys\" in c. 1995, so somewhere between 1945 and 1995 the stereotype, a blatantly wrong and horribly simplistic stereotype, came to be.",
"Too add to this. The French Military has a long and respected history. However, Several Major Military conflicts in succession, occurred which created the new stereotypes of the French military being inadequate and in capable. \n\n[Franco-Prussian War](_URL_5_) Proved to be a great embarrassment to the French Military. and the beginning of the the stereotype.\n\n[World War 1](_URL_0_) Only fueled to this, although France fought valiantly, Frances inability to properly adapt to new tactics and uniforms caused a great deal of damage to french military prestige fueling the stereotype of French Military incompetence, Especially compared to the boastfulness of the French Military prior to the war. This was further fueled by the Allies inability to push German Troops out of French Territory.\n\n[World War 2](_URL_0_I) Was probably the greatest French Military disaster which fueled the perception of French incompetence. German Forces taking the totality of France in 6 weeks fueled by the incompetence of Free French Forces. This was capped with the Americans being given the titles of \"Supreme Allied Commander\" and Generally taking over the position as the leading force of the Allies,A title held by the French during world war 1.\n\nAfter the War the French embarked on several military expeditions to reclaim the empire,which proved highly disastrous. The French Government was unable to come to grips with France losing its empire, and the French Military, already stretched to the breaking point, lost battles on almost every continent, capping Frances now dismal military record in the modern era. These include [French Algerian War](_URL_1_),[1st Indo-China war](_URL_2_),and [Suez Crisis](_URL_4_).\n\nThis prolonged sense of military failure lead to the reputation the French Military has today and while there are some French victories from the time period from 1870-present, they were usually in ancillary conflicts. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_I",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algerian_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Indochina_War",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_War_II",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suez_Crisis",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Franco-Prussian_War"
]
] |
|
3ygpnh
|
Why didn't Phillip 1 bring Sparta into the Greek fold?
|
Just left the Field Museums new Greek exhibit and I never knew Phillip didn't conquer Sparta. Why not?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ygpnh/why_didnt_phillip_1_bring_sparta_into_the_greek/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydgnsh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You're thinking of Philip II, Philip I was the third Argead king of Macedon and reigned back in the Archaic Period. There's a number of previous threads on this subject. [Here's one I wrote myself, though there are any others](_URL_0_), although there are many others. But the short version is that Sparta...really wasn't worth the trouble anymore. The Corinthian War and Epaminondas' crushing successes had largely removed the relevance of the Lacedaemonian state. What purpose was there in actively wasting time to attack them, when they submitted to Macedonian hegemony tacitly? The Spartans could provide little to the League of Corinth, and their attempted revolt, instigated, funded, and mainly fought by Persians at Megalopolis was rather underwhelming--Alexander considered it laughable, even. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2twssz/why_did_alexander_the_great_not_conquer_sparta/"
]
] |
|
8zmqs2
|
What happened to the Aral Sea?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/8zmqs2/what_happened_to_the_aral_sea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2k09ux"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"A rapid increase in the amount of water diverted from the two rivers which are the primary sources of water for the Aral Sea (the Amu Dar'ya and Syr Dar'ya) for irrigation purposes starting in 1960 led to a dramatically declining water balance (i.e. a lot less water flowed in than evaporated out). This decrease in inflow has led to the rapid shrinking of the Aral sea. This [review paper](_URL_0_) lays out the basics nicely. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.annualreviews.org/doi/pdf/10.1146/annurev.earth.35.031306.140120"
]
] |
||
cpa0j6
|
at what speed does your eyes move when you look somewhere else.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cpa0j6/eli5_at_what_speed_does_your_eyes_move_when_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewo2tgf",
"ewo6mpe"
],
"score": [
78,
8
],
"text": [
"It depends on where you're looking. More specifically, how far your eye has to move to go from one thing to the other.\n\nThe top angular speed attainable by the eye is about 900 degrees per second--so to look from as far to one side to the other, a distance of about 150 degrees, would take 167 milliseconds. This top speed is attained for movements of 60 degrees or greater. \n\nFor movements of fewer than 60 degrees, top speed is not attained; for example, a 10-degree movement is associated with an angular speed of 300 deg/s, and a 30-degree movement is associated with 500 deg/s.\n\nI know degrees per second isn't really intuitive, but if you were expecting an answer in a 'normal' metric like meters per second or feet per second...that's not really practical, since the eye rotates in place, so the angular metric is more appropriate. 900 deg/s is equal to 150 revolutions per minute (RPM).\n\nEDIT: I don't mean to sound defensive; I just want to explain a little further. I know I could assume the eyeball is a perfect sphere (it isn't), do some rough math, etc. and get a number in units we're more used to, like m/s. But that simply isn't an appropriate metric for this situation, which is why I didn't bother to do so. Similarly, if someone asked me how fast a plane propeller is spinning, I would give my answer in RPM, not m/s, which would make no sense.",
"There's a funny thing, where when your eyes move too quickly. Your brain stops processing the blurry information and just fills in it with a static image.\n\nI forget what it's called. But you can test it by flicking your eyes off and onto a ticking clock. The second hand will seem to take longer than a second to tick. Because your brain replaces the super blurry stuff with the next stable thing it looks at.\n\nIt's really trippy once you get the hang of it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
8e176c
|
During WWII, how did the SS concentration camp guards fair psychologically with the crimes they were committing?
|
[deleted]
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8e176c/during_wwii_how_did_the_ss_concentration_camp/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxs7pft"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"While it does not deal with \"SS concentration camp guards\" but rather reserve police, Browning's _Ordinary Men_ is by far the best work for insight into this that I know of. It is based off a case study of a reserve police batallion tasked with the destruction of Jewish communities in Poland, including summary executions and rounding victims up to be sent to extermination camps. \n\nBe warned that it is a very gruesome read; I found it quite emotionally taxing. It cites some very vivid testimony from the men involved."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
dp98rb
|
how do cats purr? i know why they do it, but for the life of my i can't figure out how my cat makes her entire body vibrate when she's happy.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dp98rb/eli5_how_do_cats_purr_i_know_why_they_do_it_but/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f5tewd5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Basically, when they feel content, happy, scared, or any of the feelings that can cause purring, their brain sends signals to their laryngeal muscles, also known as the Voice Box, and make the muscles vibrate rapidly. Then when the cat breathes in and out, the vibrating muscles make that rhythmic kind of rumbling we hear. And because the lungs take up significant space in the body, and because the air is being vibrated on the way in AND on the way out as the cat inhales and exhales, that vibration kind of echoes through the whole body. \n\n\nLike if you've ever seen slow-motion videos of speakers with paint on them. You see the speaker disk bouncing up and down as it vibrates with sound, and so the paint vibrates and jumps all over the place. The vibrating air passing through the cat's laryngeal muscles kind of has the same effect, except instead of paint vibrating along with the air pulses, it's the cat's body tissues vibrating. Like, not as violently as the paint, but the vibration still passes through the cats body just like it passing through the air. If that makes sense."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.