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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1ddwgc
|
Did the ancient Greeks argue over which of the gods was best, or did they have respect for them all?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ddwgc/did_the_ancient_greeks_argue_over_which_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9pixbn"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Not exactly *argue* as such. It was more a matter of -- how shall I put it? -- regional support for different sports teams, while still adhering to federated rules.\n\nEvery region, city, and village had its own assortment of \"favourite\" gods who had cult-sites and were worshipped there. In any given spot the standard pan-Hellenic gods would receive due respect, but they'd only be the centre of attention if they had a major cult-site. So for example Argos identified particularly strongly with Hera, Athens with Athena, Delphi with Apollo, Olympia with Zeus, Elis with Hades, and so on. But they'd all give the core Olympians their due.\n\nThere's [a whole bunch of threads on Greek religion in the FAQ](_URL_0_) if you want to find out more."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/antiquity#wiki_religion_in_ancient_greece_and_ancient_rome"
]
] |
||
38y9if
|
What caused the distinct split between the uses of pop/soda/coke in the US between different regions?
|
Looking at [this map](_URL_0_), what caused the popularity of the use of soda on the coasts and that one spot in Missouri, Coke in the south, and pop in the midwest and rockies?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/38y9if/what_caused_the_distinct_split_between_the_uses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crzbasn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Answering what caused the split is what I want to do here, and that's why I'm commenting, but first I think I probably need to get into the origins of these words a little bit.\n\n\"Coke\" is just a case of metonymy where a specific brand of an item becomes the go-to word for all of that item even if made by another brand. It's the same thing behind a lot of Americans calling facial tissues \"[Kleenex](_URL_0_)\" or your mom calling your XBox a Ninendo.\n\n\"Soda\" is a shortened form of \"soda water\" which referred to a carbonated mineral water, the \"soda\" part representing the mineral sodium bicarbonate.\n\n\"Pop\" is a reference to the sound of the cork coming out of the bottle. \n\nQuoting here from the Online Etymology Dictionary, because it sums it up well enough that I don't think it needs re-writing:\n\n > The meaning [of 'soda' as] \"carbonated water\" is first recorded 1834, a shortening of soda water (1802) \"water into which carbonic acid has been forced under pressure.\" \"It rarely contains soda in any form; but the name originally applied when sodium carbonate was contained in it has been retained\" [Century Dictionary, 1902]. Since 19c. typically flavored and sweetened with syrups. First record of soda pop is from 1863, and the most frequent modern use of the word is as a shortening of this or other terms for \"flavored, sweetened soda water.\n\n---\n\nOk so now to the actual question: What caused the split.\n\nWhat happens in these cases where you find very strong correlations to regions and vocabulary is that there's a certain cultural influence at play. You see a clear split between the South and the rest of the country, with the south using \"coke\", and then if you look as \"soda\" vs \"pop\" in areas where there's a clear distinction, what you see is that areas in the St. Louis area are saying \"pop\" running up along the I-55 corridor almost all the way to Chicago, as well as the coast of Wisconsin and then California and New England. Each of these areas are essentially cultural regions.\n\nYou may have heard the term \"shibboleth\"or maybe not. In case you haven't, a shibboleth is a word or phrase that, based on how someone says it, the other people around immediately are able to identify whether they are from that area or not. This exists in a great many languages. Often it's neutral; they're just from somewhere else. But historically this has also been used to specifically target or marginalise outsiders.\n\nSo by \"cultural regions\" above, what I mean is that in these areas there are certain things tying their language use together, and where the sort of community cohesion that supports things like shibboleths can occur. One major factor behind this cohesion on the scales you see here has to do with things like broadcast media, as well as simple social influence. On the media side of things, historically you'd have local broadcast areas based on these urban centres for things like radio and television, and through this one term or another would catch on and spread until it eliminated the others. If you grow up and the media is calling it soda, that's the word you're going to be learning for it.\n\nFor more general social influence, people tend to move around within a city or region or interact with others from that city or region more so than with people from far away, and for those coming from elsewhere, there's significant pressure to accommodate to the local vocabulary. You can see some of these urban centres quite clearly on the map, even beyond just St Louis and Milwaukee. Indianapolis, for example, is a clear red spot in Indiana. Why Indianapolis has this tendency toward \"Coke\" I couldn't say, but that's clearly what's happening in the urban area and the surrounding counties which are getting their local media from the city.\n\nState lines also come up in some cases; You can make out Oklahoma as being distinct from Texas to the south in about half the counties for which there is data.\n\nThe point is that very little of the clusters and shapes you're seeing are random. There are a couple odd spots, like the bright green area in New Mexico which is basically a state forest and surely doesn't have many people to have been asked how they refer to a soft drink, but generally these follow along cultural regions and patterns of human movement and the corresponding cultural influence. Of course while regions/cities/neigbourhoods/countries are not uniform in how they use language, they do have a significant impact in the overall picture of language diversity. You will find exceptions, which is why there's a lot of in-between colours on your map, but the trends are still pretty apparent.\n\nHope that helps. Let me know if anything I wrote was unclear."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/OS8j2Jf.png"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kleenex"
]
] |
|
4g5tni
|
The Oberth Effect (domonstrated in KSP) - Where does the energy come from?
|
We are demonstrating and explaining 'The Oberth Effect' and the extra efficiencies you can gain from doing some of your burns at the highest possible velocity.
_URL_0_
It may seem that the rocket is getting energy for free, which would violate conservation of energy laws. Where does the energy come from? Why does the same amount of velocity increase give you more kinetic energy at higher relative velocities?
Would love feedback!
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4g5tni/the_oberth_effect_domonstrated_in_ksp_where_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2ewo56",
"d2fc92h"
],
"score": [
4,
8
],
"text": [
"It comes from the reaction mass. If you're not moving, then the reaction mass gets kinetic energy. If you're moving faster than you can shoot out the reaction mass, you're slowing it down so it loses energy. Since kinetic energy is proportional to the square of speed, the faster you're going the more a certain loss of speed makes the reaction mass lose energy.",
"In addition to what /u/DCarrier said, the Oberth effect can be understood in terms of what happens to the fuel after you eject it.\n\nAssuming you are in orbit around some central body (such as a planet) the fuel will remain gravitationally bound to that object. Depending on the speed after ejection, it might remain in orbit or it might fall down into the planet (or it could be blown away by solar wind). But whatever happens to it later, it is effectively part of the planet system now as far as our spaceship is concerned.\n\nBy burning that fuel deeper in the gravity well the ejected fuel has less potential energy. By burning closer to the planet you are taking energy away from the planet/ejected fuel system and giving to your spaceship."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://youtu.be/FSG33hAtc4c"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
b2g8fq
|
do fat people have more skin or is it just stretched?
|
What I mean by this is does their skin just stretch to acomodate the extra fat or does their body produce more skin cells?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b2g8fq/eli5_do_fat_people_have_more_skin_or_is_it_just/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eisgpvr",
"eish2ss",
"eisyltz"
],
"score": [
8,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Both. Where the skin stretches, more skin will grow to alleviate the stress on the skin. \n\nThink in the same way as when we grow from a kid to an adult. \n",
"Follow up question: do they grow more hair follicles or do they spread further apart?",
"They should offer to remove excess skin for free then store it for skin grafts for burn victims or something.\nSeems a waste\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2lh249
|
u.s. what does this switch in power in the senate mean for america, what can we expect to see in the next two years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lh249/eli5_us_what_does_this_switch_in_power_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cluoczq"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The Democrats retain filibuster and veto power, so it's not like the Republicans can just ram things through.\n\nI just find it really disheartening that the republicans have been rewarded by a strategy of hateful attacks, political brinkmanship, and fear mongering from the latest news (how absurd is it that republicans got points for Ebola?).\n\nMore than anything, I expect a lot of business as usual and positioning for '16. It's not clear to me if the republicans will continue their attacks on Obama, or will try to pass enough meaningful legislation / compromises and find some charismatic leadership to take credit for the Obama recovery in '16.\n\nThe Clinton - Gingrich combo was productive after some spats, and before they amped up the Clinton witch hunt right before the election."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1rurw3
|
How far back goes science fiction, or rather the idea of future technological breakthroughs playing a significant role in art?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1rurw3/how_far_back_goes_science_fiction_or_rather_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdr78nu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"there's a section on scifi in the FAQ*; I don't recall offhand whether there are answers focused on tech breakthroughs, but it'll get you started on the background:\n\n[What was science fiction like in the past? How did ancient people imagine the future?](_URL_3_)\n\nactually, I recall there being other posts asking about concepts such as weightlessness in space and so on, so there may be a few threads to add to the FAQ. Speaking of, you might be interested in [Konstantin Tsiolkovsky](_URL_1_), a Russian astronautic theorist who wrote novels as a way to popularize the idea of space travel. He was also the technical adviser on a scifi film, *Cosmic Voyage* ([article 1](_URL_0_), [article 2](_URL_2_)). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://sensesofcinema.com/2007/cteq/cosmic-voyage/",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konstantin_Tsiolkovsky",
"http://www.austinfilm.org/page.aspx?pid=680",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/dailylife#wiki_what_was_science_fiction_like_in_the_past.3F_how_did_ancient_people_imagine_the_future.3F"
]
] |
||
61oqi1
|
Are there any fusion reactions using plain hydrogen?
|
I've looked around and found ones using the isotopes deuterium and tritium and even a helium isotope helium 3. However all of those would require a refining process to isolate those isotopes from the much more abundant regular versions of those elements.
Is there a fusion reaction that uses just plain hydrogen?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/61oqi1/are_there_any_fusion_reactions_using_plain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfg7mkc",
"dfgjaxs",
"dfgn8tx",
"dfgr58c",
"dfho7x0"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
5,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Sure, you can fuse anything with anything. Although only certain fusion reactions are exothermic, and only certain exothermic fusion reactions actually release a decent amount of energy. DD and DT are ideal for power generation.",
"Yes, the Sun is powered by hydrogen fusion. It's actually a chain of reactions starting with hydrogen nuclei (protons) fusing to deuterium, then helium-3, then beryllium-6, which decays into helium-4 + two protons.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nProton fusion is a much more difficult reaction to use for artificial fusion however than DD or DT, so we probably won't use it in power plants.",
"The other posters are right about the Sun running on H-1 (aka 'normal,' neutron-free hydrogen) fusion, but nobody on Earth has tried to build a H-1 fusion reactor because the reaction can't be made to work with any amount of hydrogen smaller than the mass of a star. This is because of some pretty cool particle physics, specifically, that H-1 fusion works via the [weak interaction](_URL_1_) while D-T or Helium-3 fusion, by virtue of the fact that these isotopes have neutrons, can couple via the [strong interaction](_URL_2_). \n\nFirst, some background. Fusion only occurs when the nuclei of two atoms are pushed close enough together for the attractive nuclear forces to overcome the *very* strongly repulsive electric forces that are trying to keep the two positive nuclei apart.\n\nThere are two nuclear forces - strong and weak. As the names imply, the strong interaction is stronger than the weak one, meaning that the nuclei have to be much, much closer in H-1 fusion for the weak force to overcome the electric repulsion between protons than the deuterium and tritium nuclei need to be for the strong force to overcome the electric force. To get nuclei 'close together,' we need to heat the deuterium-tritium plasma up to very high temperatures ( > 1 million K) for the strong force to overcome the electric force. The temperatures required for H-H fusion would be unimaginably higher, and we're already having a [tough enough time confining 1 million degree plasma](_URL_0_).\n\nTL;DR: It's a *lot* easier to fuse deuterium than hydrogen.",
"Ya gotta have neutrons, neutrons can be absorbed by the nucleus much easier than protons, that's why they use tritium. The secret of nuclear power is in the neutron emission and absorption. Too many neutrons make an atom unstable, which forces radioactive decay, and in turn releases energy.",
"The fusion that's happening **right now** in our sun is a reaction that fuses two hydrogens H*_1_* into a helium-2 nucleus, He*_2_* . However, the problem is He*_2_* is *extremely* unstable and usually decays right back into a pair of protons.\n\nOccasionally, however, instead of decaying back into H^+ + H^+ , the He*_2_* nucleus will decay through positron emission, via the reaction:\n\n > He*_2_* -- > H*_2_* + e^+ + v*_e_*\n\n...where H*_2_* is deuterium, e^+ is a positron, and v*_e_* is an electron neutrino. This reaction is the beginning of the [proton-proton chain](_URL_2_), which is the dominant form of hydrogen fusion in our star, and most other stars of roughly the same mass. Essentially the proton decays into a neutron, a positron (to conserve charge) and an electron neutrino (to conserve [lepton number](_URL_1_)). Strictly speaking it is not proton decay. That refers to [something else](_URL_0_).\n\nAfter that, a single deuterium can fuse with a proton to form He*_3_* , or with another deuterium to form He*_4_* . Both are stable, though He*_3_* less so, and can fuse with another He*_3_* via this reaction:\n\n > He*_3_* + He*_3_* -- > He*_4_* + 2 H*_1_* + energy\n\nAt that point the circle is now complete, and you've assembled He*_4_* out of just hydrogen.\n\nOf course, your question was whether or not you could fuse hydrogen without deuterium or tritium, and mostly the answer is \"no\". At least, the answer is \"not very well\". The top reaction is very rare because it's moderated by the weak force, dramatically weaker than the strong force which encourages proton emission instead. (Surprise, surprise: The \"strong force\" is **stronger** than the \"weak force\". Dem's a college kid we got there!) So strictly speaking yes, you can start with just H*_1_* and end up with He*_4_*, but it's a long circuitous route, and you stop off at H*_2_* along the way."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thermonuclear_fusion",
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weak_interaction",
"https://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strong_interaction"
],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton_decay",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lepton_number",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proton%E2%80%93proton_chain_reaction#The_P-P_I_branch"
]
] |
|
1dujhu
|
Why does ingesting certain poisons (such as alcohol) create sensations that many consider pleasant?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dujhu/why_does_ingesting_certain_poisons_such_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9u3bni"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's all in your neurotransmitter receptors. Recreational drugs are technically poisons, but this is what they do to produce a high. They just act on different receptors."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7yv55h
|
Why were the Assyrians so opposed to abortion?
|
The laws of the Hebrew Bible are, by today's standards, brutal, bigoted, homophobic, and misogynistic. But they sound like downright hippies [compared to the Assyrians](_URL_0_). For example:
> A53 If a woman aborts her own unborn child, and she has been charged and convicted, she is to be impaled and not buried. If she died during the abortion, she is (still) to be impaled and not buried. If some woman hid her when had the abortion, and did not report it to the king…
Assyrians seem not to be terribly concerned with unborn life, per se, because men causing miscarriages is just a fine they have to pay that varies based on social status. Women doing the same with their own bodies is something that earns a painful, shameful public death and display.
That was not a fun society for women of any social status to be in, but what's going on here? Why was that a concern for Assyrians at all?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7yv55h/why_were_the_assyrians_so_opposed_to_abortion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dukcace",
"dukexu4"
],
"score": [
5,
62
],
"text": [
"Here’s an additional question: what is the oldest known historical reference of abortion or abortifacients? ",
"Firstly, there's an argument that what you're seeing are not legal codes but literary devices. The reasoning behind this is that we have law codes (such as Hammurabi) but we also have actual law documents - and where we can tie the law code with the actual document, it's clear they're not following the law code when it comes to rendering judgement. So Hammurabi says 'if X, then Y' but when we read the actual documents, we see 'X, then Z'. So these sets of rules are not necessarily followed, there's another system at work in the real world. Other times, law codes are simply part of a scholastic tradition - we don't actually use them, but they're useful for practicing copying things out -kind of thing, so there might be the option that this law code was never put into practice. This set of Middle Assyrian Laws (MAL) is understood to be only representative of a much larger, and older corpus of work, so it could quite happily fall into this category. In fact, this tablet (A) is the best preserved of only 14 tablets.\n\nMoving on to what scholars say, there's not that much to be honest. The major legal scholars such as Roth or Lafont don't comment on what is going on in any great detail except detailing the different categories. The only main commentator on what might be going on is Elizabeth Tetlow in her 3 volume series on women and the law in ancient societies. Her take is that abortion is a public offence against the state, and that abortion is an act against innocent blood. The state would suffer as a result of the shedding of innocent blood (the community suffers as a result of one person's wrongs - this is quite common across the ANE - see the example of [Achan](_URL_4_) in the Hebrew Bible. This is why her body would not be buried but left out, in case it polluted the earth, plus the added bonus of it being a form of humiliation. This is perhaps a better reasoning than a straightforward *ius talionis* approach would in this particular instance but she's a bit short on footnotes. Others suggest this is where foetuses start receiving the weight of personhood, so you are legally killing a person, but I suspect this might be a little agenda-driven.\n\n > because men causing miscarriages is just a fine they have to pay that varies based on social status.\n\nWell:\n\n > [§ 21. If a man strikes a daughter-of-a-man and thereby causes her to abort her fetus, and they\nprove the charges against him and find him guilty: he shall pay 9,000 shekels of lead, they\nshall strike him 50 blows with rods, he shall perform the king’s service for one full month](_URL_0_)\n\n9000 shekels in any time period is a hell of a lot, so this isn't small potatoes (72kg if my calculations are right), and the additional punishments are not light either.\n\nPlus you've got *ius talionis* in the preceeding law(s) to A53:\n\n > If a man struck a harlot and caused her to miscarry, he is to be struck with the same number and type of blows: in this way he will pay on the principle of a life for a life.\n\nThat's a death by beating. \n\nFun reading:\n\n* Diamond, A. S., Primitive Law, Past and Present (Psychology Press, 2004)\n\n* Lafont, Sophie, Femmes, droit et justice dans l’Antiquité orientale. Contribution à l’étude du droit pénal au Proche-Orient ancien \n\n* Finkelstein, J. J., ‘The Ox That Gored’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 71 (1981), 1–89 _URL_2_\n \n* Goetze, Albrecht, review of Review of Die Serie ana ittišu, by B. Landsberger, Journal of the American Oriental Society, 59 (1939), 265–71 _URL_3_\n \n* Jackson, Bernard S., Essays in Jewish and Comparative Legal History (Brill Archive, 1975)\n \n* Malul, Meir, The Comparative Method in Ancient Near Eastern and Biblical Legal Studies (Butzon & Bercker, 1990)\n\n* Paul, Shalom M., Studies in the Book of the Covenant in the Light of Cuneiform and Biblical Law (Brill Archive, 1970)\n \n* Smith, Morton, ‘EAST MEDITERRANEAN LAW CODES OF THE EARLY IRON AGE’, 1995, 84–92 _URL_1_\n \n* Watson, Alan, Legal Transplants: An Approach to Comparative Law (University Press of Virginia, 1974)\n \n* Westbrook, Raymond, ‘BIBLICAL AND CUNEIFORM LAW CODES’, Revue Biblique (1946-), 92 (1985), 247–64\n \n* ———, Studies in Biblical and Cuneiform Law (J. Gabalda, 1988)\n \n* Yaron, Reuven, The Laws of Eshnunna (BRILL, 1988)\n \n* Greengus, Samuel, Laws in the Bible and in Early Rabbinic Collections: The Legal Legacy of the Ancient Near East (Wipf and Stock Publishers, 2011)\n \n* Tetlow, Elisabeth Meier, Women, Crime and Punishment in Ancient Law and Society: Volume 1: The Ancient Near East (A & C Black, 2004)\n \n* Westbrook, Raymond, and Gary M. Beckman, A History of Ancient Near Eastern Law (Brill, 2003)\n \n* Matthews, Victor H., Bernard M. Levinson, and Tikva Frymer-Kensky, Gender and Law in the Hebrew Bible and the Ancient Near East (A & C Black, 2004)\n \n* Carrick, Paul, Medical Ethics in the Ancient World (Georgetown University Press, 2001)\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANElaws/midAssyrLaws.html"
] |
[
[],
[
"http://jewishchristianlit.com/Texts/ANElaws/midAssyrLaws.html",
"https://doi.org/10.1163/9789004295872_008",
"https://doi.org/10.2307/1006346",
"https://doi.org/10.2307/594069",
"https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Joshua+7%3A1"
]
] |
|
4ccb9l
|
why does salsa get more spicy/hot when heated?
|
I usually add salsa when making cheese toasties (Bread, salsa + ham/cabanossi and cheese) why does it get more spicy when in the toaster, or oven.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ccb9l/eli5_why_does_salsa_get_more_spicyhot_when_heated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1gw7ly"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"So Capsaicin activates certain receptors that are sensitive to heat and therefore creates a 'burning' sensation in your mouth. Since these receptors are already activated when you're eating spicy foods, you become extra sensitive to temperature increases, which is the receptor's primary purpose. Your brain has been tricked, in a way, into a false positive inflammatory sensation, so an actual potential inflammatory source (the heat of the salsa) triggers overdrive for receptors that were already activated."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6a3cjl
|
why do you need to intake more carbs and fats to burn off the fat you already have?
|
I've recently started bearing down on my weight lifting, but now I'm also hitting the elliptical to burn off my fat. I hear its very hard to gain muscle while shedding fat since you could also lose muscle. So I've started taking in more protein for the muscle growth/retention, but so many physical trainers say you also need to take in more carbs and fats, which makes no sense to me since that's exactly what I'm trying to burn off. Can someone explain to me how this works?? Thank you.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6a3cjl/eli5_why_do_you_need_to_intake_more_carbs_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhbgidm",
"dhbrj1l"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"I worked as a physical trainer for a couple years after I got out of the military.\n\nCan you build muscle while losing fat? Outside of anabolic steroid use the answer is pretty much a no (you can but on a smaller scale, it's much more efficient to work on losing weight while retaining muscle than to work on losing fat while gaining muscle).\n\nTo do that you just need to keep your protein high. My personal thoughts are 1.5 grams per pound of body weight while eating an overall caloric deficit will get you great results.\n\nSpread it between 6-7 meals\n\nDrink 1 gallon of water a day, more if you're a big dude (220+). At my biggest and leanest I was 255 pounds at 6'3 and ~12% body fat, not super lean but I had visible abs. I was drinking over 1.5 gallons of water a day and eating ~6,000 calories.\n\nI have no idea why they are telling you that you should eat more carbs and fats while trying to lose weight. Eating some is good...I personally run a macro split of ~50% protein ~35% carbs and ~15% fat + fish oil.\n\nThe standard is 40/40/20.\n\nGood luck to you mate. Keep running and keep lifting. ",
"It takes nothing to burn fat. Your trainer was likely just advising you to try and maintain a balanced diet, or to up your calorie intake to make up for increased physical activity. Speaking strictly about burning fat, and nothing else, there is nothing extra you need to consume."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1dr1dn
|
why is medical knowledge not part of the standard educational curriculum?
|
Health seems like the most important factor in human wellbeing. Whatever else you have going for you, if you don't have your health, you're finished.
So why isn't healthcare part of the standard educational curriculum?
Not just as disease treatment, but disease prevention, and just teaching people to be in such a way that they tend not to get sick, seems like the first thing we should teach people after reading and writing.
Particularly nowadays, since it's easy to spread knowledge and educational videos to everyone, why not add medical stuff to the curriculum so we have a healthy, knowledgeable society?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1dr1dn/eli5_why_is_medical_knowledge_not_part_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9t0i8k",
"c9t0sls",
"c9t11pf",
"c9t13ef"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It was part of the curriculum for me. Health class was a requirement. ",
"Next you will want to teach them about budgets, savings, diets, exercise and sex. It is hard enough to get them to learn the basics like greek gods, cursive and algebra I am not sure we can squeeze in your pet projects. Sorry.",
"You mean health class? ",
"What, you mean slip in something that's actually useful. Good God bee_hawk, how dare you having future generations have a better idea about how to take care of themselves."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
46aq7a
|
How did the Danes communicate with the English during the Norman conquest of England?
|
I'd like to clear out that I don't know much about this war and my knowledge comes from Vikings/The Last Kingdom/Ck2.
During the Medieval Ages the global language was Latin, but as far as I know the Danes were very apart from the rest of Europe and had no knowledge of Latin. Am I wrong here? Did they communicate through Latin, did the Danes teach a prisoner to act as a translator, what was the deal?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/46aq7a/how_did_the_danes_communicate_with_the_english/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d03n3si"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"To clear up some confusion:\n\nNormans were of norse descent, but had lived in Normandy for generations, they spoke a dialect of French. \n\nThe people living in England, spoke Old English (Anglo-Saxon) or heavily norse-influenced Old English. \n\nThe Norse of the Vikings were to a certain degree mutually intelligible with each other. \n\nThe Norman French was something completely different. \n\n\"No one\" except priests spoke Latin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ow855
|
if lightbulbs flicker from on to off very quickly, half the time on and half the time off, how come we humans see the light as on and not off?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ow855/eli5if_lightbulbs_flicker_from_on_to_off_very/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccw91mf",
"ccw92qw",
"ccwa0eb",
"ccwaupc",
"ccwc87b"
],
"score": [
6,
9,
2,
16,
3
],
"text": [
"The human brain tends to blur fast action. Sort of like how a video is actually 30 individual frames per second, but we interpret it as a smooth motion. Plus, lightbulbs tend to stay hot/lit for that fraction of a second before cooling off/going dark. Sometimes I can see LED lights \"flicker\" because their ON/OFF action is so abrupt.",
"The light bulb need time to stop glowing. But before it goes ot there already is electricity again heating it up.",
"If you turn your head quickly you see everything in blur, it's the same thing with refresh rates and such",
"Persistance of vision because your eyes sense light not the lack of it.",
"It's not half. For incandescent lights, the filaments are literally white-hot. The zero voltage time is very short, and they don't have time to cool off. CFL and LED would be similar, except electronics, etc. would keep the bulb on. Even if it *were* off 60 times per second, the slow response time of human vision would average it out to a dimmer light. Old TV sets had a 'raster scan' at about 30 times per second, and one seldom noticed the flicker. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
hak0l
|
Dear AskScience, What Is The Most Scientifically Effective Way To Give Grant Money To Medical Research?
|
Long story short, I happen to be in charge of putting together the policies and procedures for a charity dedicated to funding hard scientific research on the etiology (and eventually a cure for) Fibromyalgia and it's associated co-morbidities.
In wondering about the best way to set up a system to reward grant applications that are most likely to advance the field in meaningful ways, I thought hey, let's ask the guys who do research and apply for research grants!
So what are some suggestions on policies/procedures for how best to use a limited pool of money to best effect in ultimately finding a cure for the illness? (And incidentally, how to let researchers in the field know that these grants exist to be applied for) I know the field is endemic with independent profiteering crystal waving nonsense, and plan to build in selection criteria to avoid that sort of thing as best as possible. But when it comes to more (at least apparently) reputable research options, what should be kept in mind when making the selections?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hak0l/dear_askscience_what_is_the_most_scientifically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1twcwd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't have time to give a detailed answer right now, but you might look into some of the ways that the Gates foundation has operated. Their attempts, along with details on successes and failures, have been pretty well documented in the press."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
51xzl6
|
why do travel sites allow you to search their competitors when performing a search?
|
A great number seem to do it. What's the incentive to showing you a lower rate from a competitor you may not have even known existed? There has to be a good reason.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/51xzl6/eli5_why_do_travel_sites_allow_you_to_search/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7fqt3i",
"d7framy"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"A majority of the travel sites are owned by a few large companies. When these sites show their \"competitors\" they're often showing deals from sister sites, so the money still goes to them in the long run. \n\n",
"They figure you're going to shop around anyway. If you order from the competitor *but referred by this site* then this site can get a referral fee, instead of nothing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5tvbxu
|
why do websites push there mobile version when its usually inferior in functionality and usability ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5tvbxu/eli5_why_do_websites_push_there_mobile_version/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddpa7hh",
"ddpbhu4",
"ddpbjsr",
"ddpc1aa",
"ddpdj4v",
"ddpdw0p",
"ddpe0i7",
"ddpgwlz",
"ddpj7h6",
"ddpjc5z",
"ddpw15y",
"ddpwamo",
"ddpwj92",
"ddpwnbu",
"ddpxqdq",
"ddpy5qy",
"ddpymrm"
],
"score": [
2,
333,
39,
6,
19,
6,
6,
127,
4,
2,
17,
3,
10,
13,
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Because it is superior in accessibility and more likely to be shared since people usually tweet or facebook update or whatever while they're on the go, and not while they're just at homing sitting on their computers doing nothing.",
"Load times, cleaner design and the perception is that if you're browsing on a mobile device, you want quick, easy access to the most common parts to that website. Not a complete experience, otherwise you would be on a desktop browser. Whether that is right or wrong varies from person to person but essentially, the website creator / business is just trying to be helpful by scaling back on what they deem unnecessary clutter for mobile browsing. ",
"To add onto points already made: because you pay for data and a well made mobile site uses less of it.",
"Because they allow the website to notify you when there are new updates to the content. This will keep you coming back for more content, and allow them to collect more ad revenue. It also allows for better tracking of what you are doing. It's much easier to track precisely what the use is doing on a native app rather than via the web browser. Also, some apps collect other information from the phone such as a contact list or a list of associated accounts for other apps like Facebook or Twitter.",
"It also encourages brand/site loyalty. For instance, it is easier and faster to use the amazon app than to open a web browser and go to the site. This also means if I want to buy something, but don't care where, I'm more likely to use the amazon app than, say, open the web browser and shop around on walmart or target's website. The same with news sites, etc. It's easier to open a specific app, so people are less likely to stray.\n",
"Because on average 65% of visitors to a website are on mobile, so the mobile version, despite sometimes having less functionality, is much more useable for the majority of visitors. ",
"Because they control the advertising that's pushed out to you through their app, where Google (or whoever is contracted) controls the ads on their websites.",
"Web Dev here. Devs are always trying to make the UX (User Experience) as best as it can be. Sometimes deadlines have to be met and for the most part, mobile traffic has traditionally not been as important. \n\nThis is all changing now as mobile traffic dominates the web. \n\nTL; DR traditionally lack of focus in the mobile area, but this is changing",
"Also websites that are considered mobile friendly or provide a mobile style sheet gain bonus points when it comes to website ranking in the Search Engine ranking process and are therefore more likely to rank higher in the SERP (Search Engine Results Page). So if a website has a half arsed mobile layout it could be either being improved or being used to help them gain a competitive edge in the ranking process in regards to their competitors. \n\nWhen you google a website you see (Mobile friendly) next to some results!\n\n(Along with the other reasons suggested)!",
"Usually, because the people behind the desktop site didn't care enough about making a good mobile site and then suddenly everyone was spending more time on their phones and the companies were caught offguard.\n\nSame reason so many desktop sites look so bad. The companies behind them don't care or don't think anyone else cares.",
"welcome to r/conspiracies \n its because they want you to download the App! Most people have no inclination to download an App when they can view it on their phone browser. companies push the mobile versions(and engineer them to suck) so that you'll eventually give up and get the app. Cause it so much better. Ever hear people talk about that BaconReader app? Same shit.\n\n also, I know this isn't conspiracies....sorry. but I actually do believe this. Maybe not for everyone but definitely Facebook. Their stupid App needs access to everything on your phone...and I refuse to use it. /endrant. woah sorry didn't mean to rant",
"Also wtf are you stopping pinch to zoom, it's the nicest thing about a small screen and we have to put up with stupid websites disabling it.",
"Over 60% (or more) of web traffic comes from mobile visitors. It's important for SEO to reduce bounce rates and increase time-on site. By not having a convenient mobile site will damage overall visibility (even on social pages) because people will leave. If a site \"pushes\" a mobile version then it's an old site and probably limited in great modern features. What people want is a \"responsive web\" structure that fluidly collapses across all browsers, and doesn't require a 2nd mobile design file which is expensive and outdated. ",
"Lot of great answers here and they all point out important aspects of it, but the main reason native apps are pushed is User Engagement. I don't know the whys of it, I suspect it's a psychological thing where you feel like you \"have\" something and so you're more prone to using it, but the data backs it up; if you can get your users to install your app they're more likely to keep coming back and using your product or service which equals more ad revenue or more purchases or more brand recognition or whatever they're going for.\n\nYeah, sometimes a certain product works better as a mobile app (games, super-rich UIs) but the main reason is engagement. There's something about the application showing up in that list that causes people to use it more and this is why companies push for it. It makes them money. They ultimately don't give a flying leap about the user's experience so long as they keep forking over (the two are usually related but not always). I'm not sure why this is since users were more than happy to jump ship years ago and get applications out of their Start Menu and into webapps like email, docs, spreadsheets, and even a lot of games, but that's how it is.",
"I haven't seen this listed yet, so I'll jump in late:\n\nBecause it's a mobile device, which likely means:\n\nA) A smaller screen\nB) A much less precise instrument for pressing links (a.k.a., your fat-ass finger)\n\nThese two things complicate each other. It's obvious that having a smaller screen means less being on a screen at a time (such as menus, links, or the information people actually want to see). Meanwhile, using a finger to press links means most people are less accurate, therefore links need to be bigger...taking up more of that precious screen space. (For instance, all the tiny links at the top of the Reddit Desktop Site, of your favorite subs. For some, such as WTF, my finger covers that, as well as parts of the links to the left or right.)\n\nTo compensate, mobile sites will reduce the number of links available, more out of necessity than anything. Less options = inferior functionality, or in the best instance, harder to find functionality.\n\nTo further complicate the issue...with HTML, there are simply less things someone can do than with their own programing. Such as having the now-familiar set of navigation buttons ever-present on the bottom of the screen that apps can do. Also, with a mobile web-browser, even with disappearing controls, precious screen space is taken up by controls that have nothing to do with the site.\n\nAnd, also, some of the aspects of HTML that designers often use are directed a cursor-control, as opposed to finger control The most obvious of these is what's known as \"Rollover\". When your cursor goes over something, it may highlight, change, or pop something up to tell you your cursor is on it, or to give you more information. There is no equivalent to doing this with a finger...a tap = a click, and even if something highlights when your finger touches it, you aren't going to know because your finger is over it!\n\nA mobile app, while at times less functional and certainly less familiar, will allow developers to create an experience designed for everything mobile has to do, rather than try to force of cursor-based world onto your finger.\n\nThis is one big reason why, pre-2007, you did not see a lot of popular touch-screen computing platforms. It's not like there weren't touch screens available...there were modification systems to turn Macs and Windows machines into touchscreens. But the major reason they did not catch on was that shoehorning a User Interface based on a cursor into a finger is not easy. The most common complaint I heard was that the buttons on Microsoft Word or Adobe Photoshop were too damn tiny. It took one company to say \"F it, we'll build an entire new OS around touch interface\" to help the world open up to the popularity of it.\n\nThis is still a longstanding UI issue, and one that is still being debated today. Microsoft Windows has spent years to create a unified OS that can do both, and particularly the first attempt was panned profusely. Apple continues to maintain separate OS's (Now 4 versions, including TvOS and WatchOS), but has faced difficulty in getting users to learn using all of them. Neither approach is failing, but both have faced significant challenges.\n\nThat last part will be my final point, I promise: The mobile UI experience is constantly changing. First there were no styluses, now there are. Pressure-sensitive screens have given new ways for users to interface with apps, but not all phones have them. Not to mention the controls for voice-interface that are all over the place. There are yearly changes to the mobile environment to try and improve user experience...but that means developers have to be on a fast learning curve to learn how to implement them...and then hope they aren't abandoned and changed. And that's before talking about how to implement the voice control abilities on iOS are different than doing it on Android (not to mention Samsung's separate stuff), doubling or tripling to workload before you even talk about Microsoft's.\n\nIt's a complicated, extraordinarily fast-moving world in Mobile, even for the already quick-changing tech world. Developers are playing catch up constantly, and that means the users are far behind... And there's no easy solution, other than to hope that the UI world finds its groove in the next few years...\n\nOh, rumors say the home button's going away on phones??? Oh boy...guess you're going to have to tighten your grip on the reins of this Mobile OS life for a few more years.\n\nEDIT: Yes, obviously cost was another reason why touchscreens were rare pre-2007, but popularity would drive that...the more you can mass produce, the lower production costs can become. And the demand just wasn't there...and while I can't produce scholastic proof, my experience of being in tech since the 1990's will tell you the lack of satisfaction of touchscreen interfaces helped limit that demand.",
"Don't think I saw anyone mention that in an app they can request more permissions and information from your mobile device, making it easier to identify and track you in order to serve you ads, and for marketing intelligence & research. You may notice apps often ask for way more information than is necessary to do simple things.",
"So pushing a mobile version of a website is different than pushing a mobile app... and that's why the answers are all over the place.\n\nWebsites push a mobile version because the desktop version usually sucks on mobile. A mobile version fits better on smaller screens and doesn't take as long to load. You shouldn't be asked to view the mobile version on your phone, it should just happen when you visit a website.\n\nApps on the other hand are pushed because they have more power. You may forget about a new website you visit, but if you install an app, you'll see it every time you swipe through your homescreen. Other than being on the home-screen, they can send push notifications, they can collect more data, get your location, have in-app purchases, connect to your social media, etc. So apps are more addictive and habit-forming, which means they make more money for companies. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
z56ts
|
1 mL of Neutron Star material (marble size) is about 500 billion Kg (weight of all humans on Earth). In space and vacuum, how would the force of its gravity effect objects around it?
|
I realize that separating this smaller mass from the larger mass of the neutron star may be impossible or cause a violent reaction through energy release, but I'm fantasizing nonetheless.
Any thoughts?
An extension of my question:
What would happen if you brought this mass on the surface of the Earth?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/z56ts/1_ml_of_neutron_star_material_marble_size_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c61jbiy",
"c61lx4q"
],
"score": [
14,
4
],
"text": [
"It's gravity would attract objects of mass towards it. I'm not really sure how else to answer that part of your question; the Newtonian theory of gravity is pretty straightforward.\n\nWhat would happen to your \"marble\" of neutron star on Earth is more interesting, though. It's extreme density is a result of immense pressure that it experiences while in the neutron star. If a small lump of this material could somehow be teleported to the surface of Earth, the removal of the pressure would cause it to expand very rapidly. It would effectively be a massive explosion.",
"An additional question... wouldn't it \"Fluff up\" if separated from the star?\n\nPart of the reason it's that small is the rest of the matter around it adding to the gravity. It's like smashing a bunch of stuff into a box, and then magically making everything but one thing in the middle disappear. It wouldn't stay 'squashed down'. If instantly 'teleported' out of the star, I'd think it would explode wherever it was put."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5xj7ir
|
What was the reasoning behind switching the title from "Sultan" to "King" in Morocco?
|
I know the King of Morocco Mohammad V chose to do this relatively recently, in 1957.
These questions could also extend to other countries in North Africa and the Gulf States.
Was their anything culturally or practically notable about adopting the title King rather than Dey, Bey or Sultan?
Was their internal government reasonings behind this, or did the king himself personally choose this?
Was their a reaction domestically?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5xj7ir/what_was_the_reasoning_behind_switching_the_title/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dej5gu3"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"Traditionally, Muslim leaders avoided the word \"king\" (Malik) and reserved that title for God (it's one of the traditional mystical \"99 names of God\"). However, in the mid-20th century, this began to change. The Hashemites declared themselves Kings of Arabs in 1918 (by 1924, this was reduced to merely being King of the Hejaz), with the Saudis conquering them and taking the title in 1927 (changing it to King of Saudi Arabia in 1932). The first Hashemite King's eldest sons ended up as King of Iraq in 1921 (after failing to become King of Syria in 1920) and Emir of Jordan (after declining to become King of Iraq in favor of his older brother). At independence in 1946, the Emir of Jordan became the King of Jordan. \n\nThe Egyptian Emir was the first to follow the Hashemite lead, declaring himself King of Egypt in 1922 (briefly becoming the King of Egypt and Sudan before losing power). The King of Morocco is another. The process is still going on. In 2002, the Emir of Bahrain became the King of Bahrain. \n\nIn general, the way I've understood it is that Hashemite adopted their title in WW1 as an explicit way to claim suzerainty over all of the Arab people (at least in Arabia, Mesopotamia, and Greater Syria). Think Lawrence of Arabia, and so also think this could also betray some English or at least general European influence, though I haven't read anything explicitly making that case. The rapid collapse of the Ottoman Empire allowed them to do this. Their regional rivals, starting with Egypt, wanted to engage with them on equal terms with equal titles so quickly switched styles as well. Later, other Arab houses also switching creating a sort of new norm that replaced the previous norm of avoid the title \"King\". As for internal reactions to these title changes, I honestly don't know of anything. A few Arab monarchies retain alternative titles. The United Arab Emirates famously (they are unlikely to change soon as their organization is based on the theory that they're seven equal federated states, a title change by one of the Emirates like Abu Dhabi or Dubai could affect that formation). The Sultan of Oman is another holdout, though it's worth noting that Oman is not a Sunni majority state or Sunni ruling house, so other norms may be in play (I unfortunately know little about Oman other than it's rad). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
67tgeo
|
How did Romans reckon time?
|
Did they use hours/minutes/seconds, etc? If not, when did these modern measurements come into usage?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/67tgeo/how_did_romans_reckon_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgt5z3x"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The Roman day was segmented into 24 hours with 12 hours of daylight and 12 hours of darkness. There was particular emphasis placed on the 3rd, 6th, and 9th hours as these divided the sky (and path of the sun) into four distinct segments of daylight. This practice of splitting the day into two twelve hour halves is presumed to have been adopted from the Egyptians. The actual device used for timekeeping was known as an [anaphoric water clock](_URL_0_).\n\nThe sexagesimal (Base 60) time system that we are familiar with, and that was used by the Romans, is though to have arisen from Mesopotamia or Egypt. The prevalence of 12 may have arisen from the ability to count to twelve on hand by pointing to each finger bone with one's thumb. 60 is turn made up of 5 groups of twelve. Bearing all this in mind gives you 60 seconds to a minute, 60 minutes to an hour, and 24 hours to a day (with two twelve hour halves.)\n\n* * *\n\nSources\n\n* Birth, K. K. (2014). The Vindolanda Timepiece: Time and Calendar Reckoning in Roman Britain. Oxford Journal Of Archaeology, 33(4), 395-411. doi:10.1111/ojoa.12044\n\n* Christensen, B. (1998). Time's Pendulum: The Quest to Capture Time - from Sundials to Atomic Clocks. Booklist, (18). 1575.\n\n* Macey, Samuel L. (1989). The Dynamics of Progress: Time, Method, and Measure. Atlanta, Georgia: University of Georgia Press. p. 92. ISBN 978-0-8203-3796-8."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://kotsanas.com/gb/exh.php?exhibit=0204005"
]
] |
|
4ju1kc
|
why do mma fighters peak at an older age than sports like american football, baseball, and hockey?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ju1kc/eli5_why_do_mma_fighters_peak_at_an_older_age/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d39l4n9",
"d39n2s6",
"d39odz4",
"d39ty0j",
"d39v1kg"
],
"score": [
14,
26,
5,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"Note: I'm not an mma expert, just a fan\n\nFrom my observations, experience is very important in mma and any combat sports for that matter. Once you've seen anything that your opponent can throw at you, it becomes easier to react to. If you think about it, mma is simply reacting to what the other fighter is doing. \n\nAnother reason could be that they figure out the most effective training techniques and find the best coaches for themselves. \n\nAlso, don't forget, many UFC fighters only fight about 3 times per year, while players in other sports take heavy hits almost daily, or in baseball, play nearly every single day. ",
"Number of games. An NHL player comes in between 18 and 21 and plays 82 games a season, not counting post season. MLB is 162 games a season. Football is 16/season but is a high impact/high explosiveness sport and doesn't account for different positions. RBs are typically on the downhill by 30. Where multiple QBs have been dominant into their late 30s. Randy Couture had 30 fights. Chuck Liddell 29. It's a measure of attrition. ",
"You should rethink your comparison first. Why compare average pro age to champions age? Compare average mlb /nhl/NFL/nba age to average ufc fighter age. \n\nNot positive as I don't follow ufc but I think your original comparison is flawed. Maybe compare MVP's of those leagues to the UFC champs. Barry bonds won MLB MVP at the age of 40. ",
"I am surprised no one has pointed out how relatively new UFC is. It takes a while to rise through the ranks, and at least with wrestlers many go for the olympics first before going UFC, which could have them start older than other pro sports.",
"Not too many people have been training MMA since they were 6 like the other major sports. That's a lot of hours of training. \n\nYou either have it or you don't by the time you are 18-21. On the flip side, most MMA fighters don't even pick the sport up until they are that age.\n\nThere is also an infinite amount of techniques to learn in MMA. Simply put, no one has mastered all of the techniques. You cannot be an Olympic wrestler, professional boxer/kickboxer, Muay Thai, BJJ, ect. There is simply not enough hours in your life to become that good at everything. Most other sports, you have the vast majority of your technical knowledge by the time you hit the major leagues.\n\nNHL defensemen and goalies, NFL quarterbacks and offensive linemen. Those are some examples in other sports where players need the extra experience since there is just so much to learn. As a result they are in their primes in their early 30's. Running backs, wide receivers, NHL forwards. While of course they are always learning, that knowledge doesn't make up for lost athleticism."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7g9vkj
|
Why wasn’t the Massacre of Srebrenica during the Bosnian war prevented by the UN even though the Dutch soldiers warned them they were being overwhelmed and couldn’t stop the Serbian army of Srpska?
|
I am still having trouble understanding why more wasn’t done to protect the very large population of the Srebrenica Safe Zone and why such a small force was left to defend it and even after the reports of atrocities the UN and NATO did next to nothing to curb the violence of reinforce the Dutch stationed there. Is there a clear answer?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7g9vkj/why_wasnt_the_massacre_of_srebrenica_during_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqi3hbu"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"Discussions of the UN's failure to defend Srebrenica remain hotly contested, and apportioning of blame for the catastrophe are ongoing. I've written a largely narrative discussion this subject in the past [here](_URL_0_) but there's more to be said. While my linked discussion is largely focused on the tactical situation in and around the Srebrenica enclave, your question correctly identifies the fatal flaws in the structure of the defence itself, and you're right to ask the key questions of: Why were the organisers of the UN Protection Force (UNPROFOR) unwilling or unable to take measures between 1993-95 to address the deteriorating strategic and humanitarian situation of the Srebrenica Safe Area?\n\nThe UN failed to prevent the Srebrenica Genocide because of a fundamental lack of political willpower in UN Security Council (UNSC) member states to bear the economic, strategic and human costs of a determined military intervention in Bosnia-Herzegovina. This lack of commitment manifested in the UN's failure to define or enforce a mandate for the Safe Area program, its insistence on pursuing a peace-keeping agenda where there was no peace to be kept, its unwillingness to escalate to military force in increasingly dire strategic and humanitarian circumstances, and, as a consequence of these shortcomings, its failure to sufficiently provision the UNPROFOR Srebenica garrison with the necessary soldiers, materiel and mandate to successfully protect Bosnian Muslim populations in the face of the Republika Srpska's genocidal ambitions. \n\n---\n\n**Safe Areas, Mandates, and Confusion**\n\nThe Srebrenica Safe Area was established in an almighty hurry by UNPROFO in the midst of a strategic and humanitarian crisis in 1993, and from its outset was a poorly defined, critically under-supported and ad-hoc operation.^1 UNPROFOR activities on the ground in Srebrenica during the two year siege were, from this starting point, characterised by a crippling lack of consensus in the UN Security Council and General Assembly as to the extent of the UN mandate. The 2002 NIOD Institute findings into the Dutch involvement in the Srebrenica Safe Area and Genocide poignantly describes the UN's management of the Safe Area program in general, and of Srebrenica specifically, as a process of \"muddling through,\"^2 wherein there never actually was consensus on what the Safe Area was there for, how it should be managed, who should manage it, what the UNPROFOR garrison's mandate should be, how it should be equipped, or who should equip it. At the time of the Srebrenica Safe Area's establishment, there was acknowledgement by the UN Security Council that the Safe Area concept could not function effectively with a lightly equipped peace-keeping force unless both warring parties^A respected the Safe Area mandate and cooperated with its implementation.^3 At the time of the Enclave's establishment in 1993, this hope was not as ridiculous as it might appear in hindsight - the fall of the Enclave had been narrowly avoided by the UN's timely intervention, the Vance-Owen peace process was ongoing, and preliminary attempts by UNPROFOR's Canadian Battalion (CanBat) garrison had achieved moderate success in enforcing a disarmament agreement of ArBiH forces in Srebrenica.^4 \n\n\nThe UNSC acknowledged at the time that, should the strategic situation deteriorate to the point where one or both parties failed to respect the ceasefire, a light garrison (at the time just 170 troops) would be incapable of protecting the Safe Area. UNSC efforts to reinforce or replace CanBat throughout 1993-94 with a \"Heavy\" force - envisaged as ~5,000 soldiers supported by heavy weapons and air support, and capable of deploying overwhelming military force against any BSA attack on the Enclave,^5 failed because nobody was willing to foot the bill. A large scale troop deployment represented a massive escalation in any UNSC member country's political exposure to the Bosnian Wars - such a deployment would also be enormously financial costly and risked combat casualties. There was insufficient strategic coordination or political willpower for such a force to be assembled by small contributions from multiple states. In fact, a dynamic quickly developed in the UNSC wherein those states which advocated a \"Heavy\" military defence of the Safe Area and a liberal mandate for the deployment of force were those states which were making little or no contribution of troops or materiel to UNPROFOR, while the states which actually had boots on the ground and planes in the air favoured a conservative deployment of forces and a tightly controlled mandate for engagement, in order to limit their exposure to escalation and casualties.^6 In this discordant environment, no consensus was reached on how firm the UN's mandate and military presence should be until the aftermath of the July 1995 genocide. In the absence of either a consensus or any state or coalition willing to foot the bill for a \"heavy\" deployment of troops to protect the Enclave, the status quo of a \"light\" deployment of a small body of UNPROFOR infantry with limited materiel support and constricted rules of engagement was maintained even after the Vance-Owen agreement broke down, and subsequently when the ArBiH and BSA ceased to respect either UNPROFOR or the Safe Area mandate. \n\n---\n\n**\"Peace-Keeping\" and Strategic Reality**\n\nAs discussed, the 'Light' deployment of a small peace-keeping force with limited support was understood at the time as being effective only in an environment where both warring parties were prepared to keep the peace, and the UNSC and UNPROFOR failed to respond effectively as the strategic situation worsened from 1993-95. \"The peace,\" such as it existed for a brief period following the establishment of the Srebrenica Safe Area in April 1993, was tenuous at best and rapidly disintegrated into a siege environment which UNPROFOR's initial CanBat garrison was entirely ill-equipped to deal with. UNPROFOR's efforts to ensure ArBiH and BSA forces respected the Safe Area proved futile. \n\nThe BSA had come close in 1993 to seizing the Enclave, and saw maintaining a siege-like environment around Srebrenica as a means of furthering their agenda of ethnic cleansing. Throughout the two year siege, the BSA's objective had not necessarily been the wholesale slaughter of the Enclave's population, but rather its forcible deportation from the envisaged bounds of \"Greater Serbia.\"^6 To this end, BSA forces effectively besieged Srebrenica, perpetrating widespread pillage, rape and murder against civilians in outlying Bosnian-Muslim communities to herd them into the town, engaging in sporadic shelling of the Safe Area, harassing UNPROFOR forces without directly engaging them, and deliberately obstructing humanitarian relief efforts to create an ongoing shortages and a humanitarian crisis in the Enclave.\n\n\nFor its part ArBiH forces within the Safe Area also blatantly disregarded its terms, albeit in a far less organised manner. ArBiH soldiers largely refused to demilitarise pursuant to UNSC Resolution 819 (16-18 April 1993) or the demilitarisation agreement of 8 May, 1993.^7 For the duration of the siege, ArBiH troops launched frequent raids on the countryside surrounding the Safe Area, usually pillaging supplies from surrounding civilian populations to relieve the Enclave's dire humanitarian situation. ArBiH forces committed numerous war-crimes against civilians during the siege including rapes and murders, and frequently skirmished with besieging BSA forces before retreating to the Safe Area and abusing its protective auspices to avoid large-scale retaliation.^8 BSA forces would nonetheless retaliate, most commonly against innocent Bosnian-Muslim civilians in the vicinity of the Safe Area in the manner described above. \n\n\nIn this strategic context, where the ceasefire was being breached on a systemic basis, UNPROFOR's 'Light,' peace-keeping oriented garrison was utterly incapable of enforcing even its severely limited mandate for the defence of the Enclave.^9 UNSC estimates in June 1993 that the effective implementation of the Safe Area concept would ultimately only be possible with the \"Heavy\" strategy and would require 32,000 troops were met with incredulity, and no such forces were forthcoming. Instead, UNSC planners envisaged the continuation of the \"Light\" garrison in Safe Areas including Srebrenica, arguing that military air-power could be used as an enforcement tool in lieu of boots on the ground.^10 While the threat of air-power succeeded in dissuading some BSA aggression around Sarajevo in August 1993, there were clear early warning signs that deployment of air assets in a fast-moving environment would be highly impractical, and that it was a poor substitute for an effective land-based military deterrent. \n\n\nWith the failure of UNSC nations to provide troops or materiel to reinforce the Safe Area throughout 1993 and 1994, UNPROFOR's ability to keep or restore the peace in the vicinity of Srebrenica was non-existent. The replacement of CanBat with Dutchbat in early 1994 bolstered the strength of the Srebrenica UNPROFOR garrison to some ~450 men. However, even at peak capability this force had little realistic hope of providing protection for the tens of thousands of Bosnian Muslims in the Enclave, of disarming the some few-thousands ArBiH forces operating within its bounds, or of opposing the thousands of BSA troops and heavy materiel besieging the enclave. \n\n---\n\n**A.** The warring parties being the ArBiH (Army of Bosnia-Herzegovina, the Bosnian Muslim military) forces sheltering within the Enclave, and the BSA (Bosnian Serb Army, the military of the Republika Srpska) forces besieging it. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xk9ea/is_it_true_the_un_let_the_srebrenica_massacre/"
]
] |
|
1ky5mh
|
If birds have hollow bones, and bone marrow produces red blood cells, how do birds make red blood cells?
|
I'm sure there's a simple answer to this but I've been wondering it for years.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ky5mh/if_birds_have_hollow_bones_and_bone_marrow/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbtu9x1",
"cbtub3a",
"cbtwmh8",
"cbty975",
"cbtyz0r",
"cbtzo7p",
"cbu1049",
"cbu2hue",
"cbu2olb",
"cbu3wl6",
"cbu5wy8",
"cbu6zhf",
"cbu9eou"
],
"score": [
672,
2,
73,
13,
14,
6,
6,
4,
3,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Birds have bone marrow it just doesn't intersperse through the central region of bones like in humans. Avian bones aren't hollow in the sense that they're like straws with absolutely nothing inside them. There are networks of structural fibers that help give their bones strength. Bone marrow is likewise interspersed and around the hollow cavities in a bird's bones. \n\n",
"Birds make blood cells in a separate organ, called the Bursa of Fabricius.\n_URL_0_",
"The short answer is that they do have bone marrow, just not in every bone. Birds bones are delightfully complicated things. \n\nNot every bone in a bird's skeleton is hollow. Most of their bones do develop cavities that lesson weight, and are connected to the respiratory system. These are called pneumatic bones. Most of the bird's long bones will be pneumaticized. \n\nOther bones, however, are more solid than pneumaticized, and are more often fused together (like the keel and pelvic girdle). These bones contain marrow which produces red blood cells, and some white blood cells. \n\nThe combination of the two kinds of bones helps provide balance for the bird's flight. More pneumatic bones help keep weight down, while the heavier fused bones provided rigidity for flight. ",
"Fun fact as well; birds have nucleated RBCs.",
"As has been said by the people with much more knowledge than myself, bird bones aren't hollow like a straw the way most people think. They have marrow and fibers throughout the bone. Some bones have marrow, some are not, some aren't hollow at all. What is meant by bird bones being hollow is actually that they look like [this](_URL_0_). ",
"You might be interested in a similar question I posted a while ago about [how species without bone marrow \\(such as sharks\\) produce blood](_URL_0_). Apparently red blood cells are also produced in the spleen.",
"Do dinosaurs have similar \"hollow\" bones?",
"Check out the photo below. You can see the marrow in the cross section of a bird bone.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Emily on the TheBrainScoop YouTube Channel does an outstanding job of answering this exact question. Search YouTube for \"Ask Emily #4\" \n_URL_0_ ",
"Although the general question has been answered well in other posts, I wanted to mention a flaw in your basic assumption: bone marrow isn't even the only site of hematopoesis (production of red blood cells, otherwise known as a erythrocytes) in the HUMAN body! (at least not in development) \n\nEmbryos produce blood cells in the yolk sac, hematopoesis moves to blood then thymus and liver during the majority of fetal development, and bone marrow takes over just before birth and in the early days of life.\n\nSee: _URL_0_\n",
"Falconer here: Weird fact, birds have red blood cells with nuclei. It makes there blood look really different and cool under a microscope. Birds fight-or-flight mechanism is also different, it is as if my birds have two gears. In one mode they are rather docile, and if they shift (usually around prey) they can move faster than you can comprehend. Accipiters like Coppers Haws, Goshawks, etc. have reaction times that simply amaze me. If they are keyed up you simply could not get anything past them if it is within range. Snagging prey with a closing speed of over a hundred miles per hour is no big deal. While falcons move at much higher speeds, a well timed juke can evade them. Not so with accipiters. They will chase quail at full speed through dense forrest. It is simply mind-boggling ",
"Birds bones aren't hollow, they just aren't as dense with marrow as ours are. [You can see here](_URL_0_) how their bones are simply structured differently than mammalian bones. This structure gives the bones rigidity while allowing them to remain very light.",
"I just learned a cool fact about birds and their bones (sorry, not blood cell related):\rA pneumatic bone is one that has air in it and which is connected to the respiratory system (think of the human sinuses in the skull). Birds have hollow, air-filled bones and are a completely pneumatic animal, meaning their respiratory system is connected to their skeletal system!\rDon't know if you will find that as interesting as I did but I thought I'd share :)\r\rSource: my vet school anatomy teacher "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bursa_of_Fabricius"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencepartners.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/crosssec.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1am9am/how_do_boneless_animals_have_blood/"
],
[],
[
"http://partnersah.vet.cornell.edu/avian-atlas/sites/agilestaging.library.cornell.edu.avian-atlas/files/avian_atlas_assets/43_bone_marrow%20x750.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QMwFZkzJDU8"
],
[
"http://img.medscape.com/fullsize/migrated/472/097/cc472097.fig1.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencepartners.info/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/crosssec.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
32fnk9
|
Why does human can get a headache during a hot day?
|
And why does when we get a massive headache, we can feel our head(or brain..I don't know) pulsing?
Shouldn't the headache pain comes from blood capillaries around our skull?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/32fnk9/why_does_human_can_get_a_headache_during_a_hot_day/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqb9k0p"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Such headaches are actually caused by fluid-filled spaces in the brain called ventricles. On a hot day, we lose a lot of fluids as sweat and, as such, these ventricles can suffer from water loss. Baroreceptors in the ventricles detect the change in pressure and the brain registers this change as pain. This is also why when you do not drink enough water and suffer from dehydration, you also get a headache."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1nt8gg
|
why was the european union created?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1nt8gg/eli5_why_was_the_european_union_created/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cclubkj",
"cclvgrr",
"cclwtt5"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"ostensibly to prevent another war",
"Also, food-security. During the world wars food would be a scarce resource. The EU subsidizes farmers in the EU so they can compete with cheap food from outside the EU which was made with a lower wage for the workers.",
"This could probably be more accurately answered on [/r/askhistorians](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askhistorians"
]
] |
||
abps76
|
augmented reality/virtual reality
|
How does Augmented Reality (or AR) work? Is it any different from how Virtual Reality (VR) works? What are the main differences?
& #x200B;
NOTE: I (vaguely) know WHAT AR and VR are, I just don' know how they operate or what separates the two.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abps76/eli5_augmented_realityvirtual_reality/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ed28295"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Virtual reality is looking into a computer generated world you interact with your digital avatar. So technologies like oculus rift, vive, samsung gearVR, Haptic gloves, Omni VR treadmill, etc.\nAugmented reality is basically adding digital objects to our current real world. This can be superimposed onto physical objects in our world. For example, you have a floor then we can spawn virtual objects on it like a chair. Another example is using the Hololens to play minecraft on a table and seeing the whole minecraft world. \nThe challenges of augmented reality is it has to work in various environments and settings. So usually it needs a point of reference to get to started"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2f38kg
|
how come when the internet is really slow it makes websites look like they're from 1997?
|
Sometimes when my internet is taking a really long time to load, websites (like Netflix for example) don't load any images and instead just load some words on a white background? It looks like the internet went back in time.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2f38kg/eli5_how_come_when_the_internet_is_really_slow_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck5hc7t",
"ck5j3a7"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"this happens because the style sheet for that page hasn't loaded, yet. the style sheet contains all the information on a web page's look and layout. if your browser hasn't downloaded the style sheet yet, it doesn't know what the background color should be, or the text color, or how to position text and images on the page, and so everything you see is basically how the browser renders a page by default, when there's no style information.",
"It's not like a 1997 website.\n\nWebsites are composed by two things, html which is the body of the page and the style sheet aka css which is the style of the Web page then the website can have scripts to make it interactive with the user.\n\nWhen the page \"looks like a 1997 website\" the css is not loaded.\n\nYou can see the html and css by pressing ctrl + u if you are on chrome."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6nh0ug
|
why are insects so annoyingly good at avoiding my swat attempts?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nh0ug/eli5_why_are_insects_so_annoyingly_good_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dk9dots",
"dk9ed63",
"dk9gsg9"
],
"score": [
16,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The species & offspring whose nervous systems didn't emphasize maneuverability and fast reflexes were swatted into extinction long ago.",
"Flys for example perceive time slower than humans because of their visual system. They also escape backwards when swatted.",
"They actually aren't. What they're good at is escaping as you hit them. The impact doesnt hurt at all if they're in the air, and then they just fly out of the way.\n\nYou can test this yourself easily. Just get your hand wet and try to grab an insect out of the air.You'll be surprised how often you succeed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2hz5fz
|
Is there any any evidence for Homo Sapiens and Neanderthals living in mixed communities? What about other hominids?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hz5fz/is_there_any_any_evidence_for_homo_sapiens_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckxcqth"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"As such evidence doesn't deal with written history you'll likely get better and more thorough answers at /r/AskAnthropology\n\nGood luck!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1g1584
|
Was there anyone who served in both WWII and Vietnam (and I'm assuming Korea as well) who has written about both experiences?
|
I remember in MASH Col. Potter was in both WWII and Korea.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g1584/was_there_anyone_who_served_in_both_wwii_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cafxoav",
"cag240q"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I personally knew Col. Charlie Forbes, a man who served in WW2 and Korea and wrote about his experiences. Unfortunately, [the book is only written in French](_URL_0_).\n\nThe man painted beautifully, played the violin with incredible skill, and took his heart medication with a shot of whisky every day until he died.",
"Robin Olds was a fighter pilot in WWII and Vietnam (he did not serve in combat in Korea). The book \"Fighter Pilot\" may qualify as being written by him, as it was his memiors and interviews with him that were compiled by his daughter and another author. Robin is listed as an author, and his tone permeates the book.\n\nOlds flew the P-38, the P-51, and the F-4. For a triple ace pilot who later became a general, Olds remained able to laugh at himself and his mistakes. His recollections of fighter combat are vivid, and alternately compelling and hilarious. I highly recommend the book as a good read and pretty darned good history. Its bias is obvious but benign in my opinion, and the details are excellent.\n\nOh, and the man's mustache was legendary! There is a good picture in his wikipedia article.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.renaud-bray.com/Livres_Produit.aspx?id=1118835&def=Charly+Forbes%2C+le+dernier+des+fantassins%2CMORGAN%2C+JEAN-LOUIS%2C9782894854846"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robin_Olds"
]
] |
|
4ig21k
|
why do doors close much easier if the window in the same room is open?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4ig21k/eli5_why_do_doors_close_much_easier_if_the_window/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2xr9st",
"d2xrekv"
],
"score": [
53,
3
],
"text": [
"Because the room is full of air. If the windows are all closed, you're pushing against the air, and a subsequent increase in pressure. If the windows are open, the air has room to flow. \n\nImagine the room was full of pudding instead. What's easier, to pack all the pudding tighter, or to push some of the pudding out the opposite wall?",
"Ah yeah that makes perfect sense! Love the pudding model haha thanks!\n\nHowever what explains the feeling of the door *forcefully* pulling away from me like it *wants* to be closed?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
b98vbi
|
- i just read the titan, one of saturn's moons literally has massive quantities of hydrocarbons (methane, ethane) so wouldn't that help prove the theory of abiogenic petroleum origins or confirm that life does or once existed on titan of the origins of its hydrocarbons are "fossil fuels"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b98vbi/eli5_i_just_read_the_titan_one_of_saturns_moons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ek30hc7",
"ek31i3s"
],
"score": [
3,
10
],
"text": [
"* I meant to say \"that life does or once existed on Titan and are the sources of its\" fossil fuels\"? ",
"No. Just because something is made in a biological process on Earth doesn't mean that's the only way for it to exist. Life is just series of complex chemical reactions. These same reactions can take place without life. Petroleum on Earth is a huge and varied mixture of both simple and complex hydrocarbons and organic material. Extraterrestrial hydrocarbons are relatively simple and have no organic material. A methane molecule is just a carbon atom with 4 hydrogen atoms attached. Hydrogen is the most abundant element in the universe and carbon is the 6th most abundant. There's nothing special about 2 extremely common elements forming simple molecules.\n\nThere's very little (and I'm being generous here) evidence for the abiogenic oil hypothesis, and quite a lot of evidence against it. As for life on Titan. the presence of extraterrestrial hydrocarbons is intriguing, but we have to take into account the specific hydrocarbons we're talking about and where they're found. In the case of Titan, the presence of large amounts of simple hydrocarbons doesn't suggests life based on everything else we know about Titan (although we can't rule it out for sure either). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2zja7k
|
What awareness did Egyptians in the first century BC have of the northern Mediterranean?
|
Would Cleopatra have heard news of the Roman conquest of Gaul? Would earlier Hellenic kings have been aware of anything north of the Alps and west of Dalmatia?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2zja7k/what_awareness_did_egyptians_in_the_first_century/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpk76ch"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Plenty of awareness, the Ptolemids were from the northern Mediterranean, they were Macedonians. The feuding between the successor states included plenty of northern Mediterranean states--the Ptolemids were allied with the Lysimachids and fought with the Antigonids for control over the Aegean. Depending on the period the Ptolemids controlled islands and cities way up in Ionia and the north Aegean. \n\nEven if we limit this to the northwestern part of the Mediterranean, as far as you can get from Egypt without leaving the Mediterranean, the Ptolemids still had plenty of knowledge about that part of the world. The Ptolemids and their administrators were some of the best-educated people in the history of the world up until that point, and the trade-links and communications with the rest of the world from Alexandria were remarkable. *Everything* went through Alexandria--the reason the Library became so well-known was in part because there was a royal ordnance in Alexandria that all books passing through the port had to be copied by royal scribes. And Alexandria was the largest shipping center in the world--the conclusion is obvious. \n\nTo answer the precise questions you asked here, the answer to both of them is a resounding \"yes.\" Cleopatra was only ten years old at the end of Caesar's consulship, but she undoubtedly knew about the Gallic War--it was the largest war being fought at the time, and Caesar's accomplishments were truly phenomenal, he was talked about throughout Roman society. Even if somehow Cleopatra didn't find out about them while they were going on, she did later in life--I mean, she lived in Rome for some time. She was living there when Caesar was murdered. The Macedonians, Seleucids, and Ptolemies were all very active in the political dramas during the period of the Punic Wars. I mean, the Carthaginians traded for tin in Britain, and the Ptolemies were neither exactly unknown to the Carthaginians nor particularly poor sailors (having the largest and most powerful navy in the eastern Mediterranean would certainly help). So that should give us some indication of the extent of their connections with the Mediterranean, which was hardly so foreign as Britain.\n\nNow, there *is* another side to the question. The rulers *undoubtedly* had *extensive* contact with all parts of the Mediterranean throughout the period of Ptolemid rule. It's patently absurd to suggest otherwise. But what about the ordinary people? After all, the Greek elite was a relatively thin veneer--outside of Alexandria and a few other Greek cities most people were the same as those living under the Pharaohs and had fairly similar lives. Certainly they knew that the western Mediterranean existed, but it's hard to say how much they knew. The priesthoods must have, they were literate after all. And Egyptian contact with the western Mediterranean began quite early--at Kadesh, Ramesses' personal bodyguard was composed of Sardinians (according to Breasted--I think there's some conjecture about whether they may have been from Lydia) and some of the Sea Peoples are thought to have been from Sardinia or even further west."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ql2mz
|
Given that the torture device known as the "iron maiden" is basically fictional, why and how did it get so swiftly accepted as being an actual thing?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ql2mz/given_that_the_torture_device_known_as_the_iron/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cddyzjb"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"There's a real device called a \"[Schandmantel](_URL_1_)\" (translation something like \"Shame coat\") \n\nWhen Johann Philipp Siebenkees wrote about the Fehm courts ([also talked about in this subreddit](_URL_2_)) in 1793 he somehow misinterpreted a schandmantel as having nails in it because one existed that had nails added to it later (don't know why.) And one was exhibited at the beginning of the 19th Century.\n\nThat's one reason.\n\nThe second is that he may have thought that the vehmic courts used them, perhaps because [of the Apega](_URL_0_) in antiquity.. which is sort of similar. So the idea was around before Siebenkees' time.\n\nIn any case Schandmantel were real, but then pieced together from other pieces found and misinterpreted as a lethal sentence (which, while schandmantel were used as punishment, wasn't lethal) In the original exemplar in Nurnberg bayonettes from Napoleanic times were used in a added to a much older schandmantel. It just took some time to figure out the goof. By then the iron maiden had made its way into popular consciousness and literature. And several \"replicas\" existed in museums."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apega_of_Nabis",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schandmantel",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1q1eha/can_someone_please_elaborate_on_the_vehmic_courts/"
]
] |
||
1vbq5f
|
When did life in Italy stop being recognizably 'Roman'
|
Or in Spain/France/Africa for that matter
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1vbq5f/when_did_life_in_italy_stop_being_recognizably/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceqrdze",
"ceqzjwv"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"You would have to pick a specific time and place which you see as the quintessence of *romanitas* before anyone could give you a straight answer. Every single citizen of the territory controlled by Rome from 700 BCE into the 9th century and those in territory controlled by Byzantium until 1453 could and *would* consider themselves \"Romans\". \n\nSo, that's a lot of different things which are recognizably Roman, some of which Italy never was.\n\nNative Italian speakers stopped being able to understand spoken Latin without study some time after 1200, if that is any help.",
"/u/telkanuru's comment is especially relevant when you consider that what we consider Roman (pagan high imperial) is not what a lot of medieval europeans considered roman (christian late imperial).\n\nA lot of the medieval renaissances (like the Carolingian and the Macedonian) had this explicitly in mind (the idea of the christian roman empire) as to what they were \"renewing\". It's only once the Italian 15th century renaissance kicked off that people started viewing Roman the pagan way we do now. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3yhwkr
|
why do fingerprints not get ruined at crime scenes by outside sources?
|
Just watched a crime movie and this question came to me; Why is it that when detectives wear rubber gloves at a crime scene (around the fingerprints of the perpetrator) that the fingerprints are never ruined by the interaction? What things make prints unusable? How can simply wiping down a surface erase all evidence of prints in the first place?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3yhwkr/eli5_why_do_fingerprints_not_get_ruined_at_crime/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cydlxvu",
"cydmlx0",
"cydtasj"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I took a biotech class where we learned how to fingerprint. The print is ussually the residue from oil on your skin. When you wipe it, it smears the oil smudge which makes the tiny ridges unrecognizable or it just cleans it off entirely. To find them, you use dust that sticks to the oil, and then you can capture the print with tape or any kind of adhesive. In movies the prints are often found and taken way more easily than they actually would be. And you need to be careful with them, because they can easy to ruin.\n\nThe gloves keep the investigators prints from getting on the crime scene.",
"u/aldy127 gave a good answer, but the essence of the answer is that that fingerprints are easily ruined, even if you are wearing gloves. Gloves, if you're being careful, help to reduce the possibility of damage and also prevent contamination with foreign DNA, BBQ sauce that may be traced to a specific eatery, etc., etc.\n\nIf you want an example of how wiping down a surface can ruin prints try this. Eat some potato chips, then put your fingers on your phone screen. You'll see oily prints on the screen, and if you tilt it this way and that you'll find that in some angles the prints are really clear. Now take a paper towel, a bit of toilet paper, your sleeve, or even the side of your hand, wipe the surface, and look again. You'll see that the prints are either completely gone, or so smeared that they are pretty much unrecognizable.\n\nThink of prints as an oil painting that hasn't dried yet. It doesn't take much to ruin the painting, just as it doesn't take much to ruin the prints.",
"Police officer here. Can attest that fingerprints are quite often difficult to obtain on a crime scene. I have, in the past, obtained prints that led to persons of interest that later led to arrests and convictions. That number of convictions is CONSIDERABLY lower than the number of times I've dusted for prints. The most frequent problem I run into ( followed closely by partial prints, smudges, and prints on porous surfaces which basically absorbs the oil in a fingerprint ), is that the surfaces a suspect touch is usually a surface that the homeowner or other persons touch regularly. I may dust a large jar used as a change drawer and I get 80 partial prints, a bunch of lap over prints and a few solitary prints. I can't send 100 prints to the lab, so I have to pick the best 3-5 prints and collect them and hope they aren't the homeowners. Quite often it comes back from the lab as \" no match \" or \" print submitted was of too poor quality to process \" or more rarely it comes back to the victim or homeowner. Objects that suspects touch also are object the homeowner or victim touch everyday such as door handles, drawer handles, change jars, a vehicles gear shift or door handle, etc etc. \n\nI know of an officer collecting prints on scene who sent one to the lab. It came back as him. Lol. He accidentally touched something bare handed, later dusted and seen a perfect print, collected it and sent it off only to come to him. We still give him crap to this day. \n\nIn closing, prints are more often than not unrecoverable. Rarely they are perfect and come back to a suspect. \n\nIf your using shows like NCIS, law and order or such to learn more about fingerprints please look elsewhere. Those shows have been a nightmare for me to work with. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6gldk0
|
how do they remove large dead animals at zoos and aquariums?
|
Recently at SeaWorld one of their orcas died, and I was wondering how do they remove the dead animal and what do they do with the body
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gldk0/eli5_how_do_they_remove_large_dead_animals_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dir78m0",
"dir7rol",
"dira5l7",
"dirai04",
"diratyv",
"dirblco",
"dircj6i",
"dircpda",
"dird9i7",
"dirhu1q",
"dirqdfh",
"dirrf50",
"dis42lc",
"disekg7"
],
"score": [
111,
92,
157,
690,
13,
27,
41,
16,
10,
13,
3,
11,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Can't speak for seaworld, but Marineland in Niagara Falls used to bury their animals, including orcas and belugas in mass pit graves. They were ordered by the government to stop a few years ago though\n\n[source](_URL_0_) ",
"They ~~autopsy~~ necropsy it, save samples for research or education, then cremation. They don't blow them up and let the homeless steal the meat, like some other idiot posted.",
"I've worked at a couple of zoos now where larger mammals (rhino, elephant) have died. In both situations a necropsy was performed first - they're almost always performed for any zoo animal. Afterwards, chainsaws and a whole lot of manpower are used to cut up the animal into movable pieces and transport them for disposal. Depending on the kind of enclosure, cranes or other kinds of moving equipment may also be used. \nFor smaller (but still large) animals, like alpaca or kangaroo, they're usually hauled onto a tarp, carried by a team and loaded onto a van. These are typically cremated or properly disposed of depending on city ordinance. ",
"I work for a Marine Science Centre, so I can't speak for Zoos, but whenever a large marine mammal passes away we either haul them out using fork lifts or cranes. Usually we'll notice a deterioration in their physical health months or even up to a year beforehand, and so would move them to a separate \"quarantine\" pool to give them proper treatment or end-of-life care, and this pool can facilitate their removal when/if they pass.\n\nOnce removed they're taken to a local animal sciences facility (any of a few local universities) where they undergo a necropsy (autopsy for animals). Samples are taken and tested to determine cause of death (whenever possible) and usually these samples are also preserved for further/future scientific study. \n\nDepending on the animal and the permits aquired, certain samples like skin and bones can even be re-used for educational, public programs to teach folks about the life in our oceans! Surprisingly few public actually realize or are knowledgeable of the diversity of life beyond our beaches and ports.\n\nEdit: formatting/spelling \n\nEdit 2: I appear to have recieved gold on one of my comments here. Just wanted to say if you, dear Redditor, so wish to gild, please instead consider donating to a local (or favorite) AZA (Association of Zoos and Aquariums) or CAZA (same as AZA but Canadian) accredited Marine Centre or Zoo.\n\nNot all of us are evil and for profit or entertainment. Sometimes (as per the federal government) an animal is unfortunately deemed unreleasable and without facilities to house them they would otherwise be euthanized.\n\nAnd they can help further scientific research into their species and hopefully continue to preserve their species in the wild. Thanks!",
"Depends on the zoo or aquarium. They almost always do a necropsy on the animal. Depending on the size, they'll offer the body to local zoological lab/museums or natural history museums for their collections and research if they have a way to prep it(I worked in a museum prep lab). Otherwise they'll either bury it or incinerate it.",
"An uncle of mine was illiterate from birth complications. In the 80's and 90's he worked for the city as a heavy equipment operator and when an exotic animal died at the zoo, they told him to take a backhoe and make it disappear. There are quite a few exotic animals buried somewhere on city land.... but that's probably not protocol anymore.",
"We had a zoo vet in our zoo and aquarium science class in college talk about a press conference he did early in his career after a giraffe died. The word chainsaw was used and he no longer talks to the press. ",
"Have you ever been to BBQ night at the zoo?",
"My ex-gf worked as an animal keeper at Disney's Animal Kingdom for a few years. When that orca passed away at seaworld I asked her that exact same question. And we went in depth about what would happen if another large animal like a giraffe passed away as well.\n\nI cannot say that this information is fact, but I would assume that she had absolutely no reason to lie to me.\n\nBasically what she said was, they will chop the animal up into manageable pieces and haul it out. I believe this is usually done in the dead of night behind closed doors.\n\nIn this day in age, with helicopters, drones, and high levels of activism, an orca would be very tough to do that with. In a very interesting coincidence, \"construction\" was planned and begun slightly prior to the orca's passing. Which meant that tarps, etc were put up to keep the general public (or helicopters and drones) from seeing what would have been done in and around that tank.\n\nAnother redditor commented that an animal would be sent out for testing/autopsy. In places like Disney or seaworld, these animals already undergo routine medical exams, so that wouldn't be necessary. They already know the health and issues that an animal might be experiencing.",
"Sometimes they will allow their predators to eat animals who have died of natural causes. I saw a deer placed in a cougar exhibit once with a sign explaining this. Not exactly a large animal, but a clever idea if done safely.\n\nI wanna see a dead beluga in the polar bear exhibit!",
"I do contract work in an animal biofuel facility and we sometimes get giraffes and other large animals from the bigger city zoos. Mostly it's just cows and livestock but there have been zebras and giraffes too. ",
"I remember a number of years ago (probably like 20) there was a story where a zoo fed one of the dead Giraffes to their lions. I remember because stupid people got all upset about it. ",
"I saw a video just below this post of someone detonating c4 in a video game and thought it was related to this topic for a good ten seconds. Beached whale style baby. Lol",
"Have you ever had a hot dog at the zoo?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.ca/amp/s/www.thestar.com/amp/news/canada/2013/01/14/marineland_ordered_to_stop_burying_animals_onsite.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2cyvbk
|
if the usa strongly believes in the right to bear arms as well as strongly disbelieving in socialism, why do you bother with a publicly-funded police force and not a system based on vigilantism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2cyvbk/eli5_if_the_usa_strongly_believes_in_the_right_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjke1qk",
"cjke4qk",
"cjkejf3"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Because people are not perfect/always abide by law.\n\nWhat will people do to gangs?\n\nIt just won't work.",
"A police force does not automatically mean socialism.\n\nMany people in the US believe the job of the state is to prevent others from being able to take away your rights, and that that is the only legitimate function of the state. In fact, I'm not sure anyone aside from the most crazy people think there should be no police force at all.",
"I'm an American citizen and I hope I can answer your question.\n\nWhen the US drafted its Declaration of Independence in 1776, it claimed that all men are entitled to certain inalienable rights, and that among these are *life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.*\n\nLater, as the constitution was being drafted, the founding fathers of the US government often clashed with each other on how best to preserve these rights while still creating a government that could uphold order and the rule of law. One group of people (called *Federalists*) were more for the idea of a strong federal government. An opposing group (called *anti-Federalists*) were against a strong federal government, and wanted power and liberties reserved for the individual or state.\n\nIn the end, these two sides made a compromise that resulted in the birth of the US Constitution. While it is a federal system of government (with a national government as well as state governments), anti-Federalists were able to have 10 amendments added to the constitution which are known as the *Bill of Rights.* These amendments say there are certain individual freedoms that are not to be infringed upon by the government, such as freedom of speech, religion, right to due process, etc. One of these amendments, the 2nd, reserves the right of a citizen to bear arms.\n\nAs the country developed and rose to power over the next 2 centuries, we see an aversion to socialism when compared to many other industrialized nations, meaning that the government was more hands-off with the economy. Still, the rule of law was and is greatly respected in the U.S. Violent crime in particular is taken very seriously because it is one of the easiest ways to infringe upon other citizens' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Remember this? These are the liberties the founding fathers declared are unalienable!\n\nTo summarize my response and give a direct answer, **TL;DR vigilantism is not a functioning system of criminal justice, and will lead to chaos unless men are angels, *which they are not.* Americans have the right to bear arms, not to hunt down criminals, but as a means to protect themselves and their liberties. As the Federalists and indeed many anti-Federalists believed, taxes are needed to fund government authority whose purpose is to preserve, protect, and defend the constitution, which in turn protects citizens' life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.**\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
24hz2i
|
Does healing from injuries (bruises,cuts, ect.) "burn" calories?
|
Does the act of healing from an injury use a significant amount of energy? Would eating more help you heal faster?
Sorry if this is a dumb question, just wondering.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24hz2i/does_healing_from_injuries_bruisescuts_ect_burn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch7rdxa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, it does burn calories. Unless the injuries are VERY severe, it won't be a noticeable amount. For example, the calories burnt from healing a broken leg are probably less than the calories you would burn through walking/running/exercising with that leg.\n\nIn some cases, severe burns for example, caloric requirements can get quite high"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4fvgiy
|
why do medical people check for pupil dialation?
|
especially after an accident or the person was knocked out/injured from an accident?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4fvgiy/eli5_why_do_medical_people_check_for_pupil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2cazd8",
"d2cb0mx",
"d2cdxop"
],
"score": [
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
" A lack of pupil dilation is one of the potential symptoms of a bad concussion, and it's one of the easiest and quickest checks that can be done in the field.\n\nThere's a lot more symptoms, but it not happening tends to be a bad sign.",
"Dilation can be a sign of being under the effects of various potent drugs such as marijuana and opiates; this is important to know because it affects how they treat you. \n\nUnresponsive eyes is also an indicator of concussion, so they're often checking for that. ",
"I work for an ophthalmologist as a technician so I get asked this quite often. In general medical settings (ER, urgent care, etc.) checking for pupil dilation is part of the most basic evaluation for neurological (i.e. brain) health. Dilated pupils can indicate several things, most of which need emergent attention (concussion, hemorrhage, stroke, etc.) to prevent brain damage. This is especially helpful when patients are unconscious and cannot describe their symptoms. Dilated pupils can also indicate activated sympathetic nervous system (the patient is in \"fight or flight\" mode) which can potentially explain increased heart rate or indicate drug use. Another aspect of pupils that we look for is how quickly they adjust to light sources. If a pupil is slow to shrink when exposed to light or even \nfixed/unchanging, that can also be a concern. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qfp5d
|
why does reddit have 85,901,746 active users (last months stats) but the most upvoted thread only has 21k upvotes?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qfp5d/eli5_why_does_reddit_have_85901746_active_users/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdccb3c",
"cdcd4qa"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Simplest explanation? Not everyone participates in up or down voting. Also downvotes offset the upvote counter.\n\nI may read or see like 10 threads before I upvote one",
"There are a few reasons:\n\n(1) Active users probably means independent IP addresses that accessed the site, which is going to be a lot more than the number of people who actually vote. The default subs with the most users like /r/pics and /r/funny still have less than 5,000,000 subscribers, so it's safe to assume there are 5-6 million *registered* users (i.e., the ones who are capable of voting), but still a large portion of those are throwaways. Even among those that are primary accounts for users who actively use reddit (say 1-2 million), the vast majority still aren't going to see most threads out there (even highly ranked ones), and even if they do they aren't going to vote on most threads they see.\n\n(2) Downvotes offset upvotes, and it's hard to get everyone to agree on something.\n\n(3) Reddit automatically downvotes top posts after awhile to move them back down the list so that others can see the front page."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
3k552c
|
if half of all usd in the world suddenly vanished evenly, would the usd then be valued at double its current value? why or why not?
|
Edit: Sorry, I should have clarified. I was wondering about this as a hypothetical scenario. It would include all electronic money and all paper money. I would also like to assume that we would not just "reset" things to the original value. Assume a permament halving of the amount of USD in circulation, and a halving of the amount of USD printed by the US Treasury in a given year.
All things with a dollar value would still be set to the same numbers (at least, as of the time of the halving). E.g. If the minimum wage is $8/hour, it would initially remain at $8/hour, and so on and so forth.
To put it more broadly, if there was suddenly less USD in circulation, then without Government Interference, would the value of the USD raise by an amount corresponding to the difference in quantity of the USD? Or any other currency for that matter.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3k552c/eli5_if_half_of_all_usd_in_the_world_suddenly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuuvlsp"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well, when you say that, what do you mean? Do you mean that half the *paper* money in the world vanished? Or is *everything* that has a dollar price attached it (real estate, stock, bonds, a, suddenly revalued to 50% its original cost? Which definition of the ['money supply'](_URL_0_) are we using here when we say half of all dollars are gone? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_supply#United_States"
]
] |
|
33kzcs
|
Is the term "flapper", as used to describe vibrant young women from the 20s, derogatory?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33kzcs/is_the_term_flapper_as_used_to_describe_vibrant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqm0atn",
"cqm1orq",
"cqm3jqe",
"cqm4qsp"
],
"score": [
64,
99,
5,
34
],
"text": [
"Are you asking whether the term when it was originally coined was derogatory, or whether it was derogatory at some point during its existence, or whether it is derogatory now, or some combination of these?\n\nYou may also have some luck posting this to /r/etymology.",
"according to the oed, the term had been in use in the late 1800s as slang for a teen girl who kept her hair down (which would subsequently flap as she moved). the word must have been reappropriated in the twenties (when long hair wasn't in vogue). not sure where you arrived at 'flap your trap', I would have guessed it had to do with the dresses. the Wikipedia page has got a write up on the etymology that might be of interest.\n\nhere's the full definition from the oed:\n > A girl in her late teens, orig. one with her hair down in a pigtail; a young woman, esp. with an implication of flightiness or lack of decorum.slang or colloq.\n\nthe last bit might support your thought that it wasn't exactly a compliment coming from a man.",
"Simply, yes. According to the OED, the etymology of a \"flap\" traces back to 1631, with an attribution to Fernando de Rojas' \"The Spanish Bawd\" and means a woman or girl with a light or loose character. \n\nThe use comes into slang in 1889 as \"young girls trained to vice\" apparently most often used in Northumbria, England. \n\nIt must be noted, that while derogatory, it was like also somewhat reclaimed as women embraced newfound freedoms post-WWI and many point to it as the beginning of feminism. However, flappers were often at odds with older suffragettes, who viewed their perceived \"flightyness\" as detrimental to their cause. ",
"Yes and no.\n\nAll etymological origins of \"flapper\" are disputed ([\"[F]lapper: a young partridge just able to fly, also applied in joke to a girl of the bread-and-butter age'](_URL_0_) (1888) suggests the most likely one to me), but [from the first decade of the 20th century](_URL_1_) it was being used to mean the category of young women/girls who were not yet \"out\" and courtable and therefore could not dress as women (long skirts, hair done completely up, and so on) but were rather developed, so would look odd in a girl's outfit - a 14 or 15 year old, maybe going up to 17. This was not derogatory at all - it was often used in [fashion magazines](_URL_3_) and advertisements just as a description of what age is meant to wear certain clothes.\n\nBy 1914, there are more [derogatory references](_URL_4_), though, that take the meaning away from the age group as a whole and tie it specifically to *rich* girls of that age who are spoiled and think too highly of themselves. During or after WWI, the age aspect kind of slid away - maybe because the girls who had previously been labeled flappers were getting older? - and it branched out to have several related meanings: fashionable girls, frank girls, girls who were happy to make out, etc. Some people defined the word as inherently derogatory, and others celebrated flappers as [the next step towards equality](_URL_2_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=q3gKAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA179#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=NvrNAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA713#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=LltNAAAAYAAJ&q=flapper&dq=flapper&hl=en&sa=X&ei=svB1T7-aEuXi0QGlhbXNDQ&ved=0CFAQ6AEwAw",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=he9DAQAAIAAJ&pg=RA1-PA100#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=byXnAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA148"
]
] |
||
w9c4t
|
Why is the earth's core molten, and other objects in the solar system with similar size can be more or less geologically dead?
|
Is the heat inside the earth fueled by something or is it just a matter of time until there won't be any volcanic activity or continental drift? Will the earth cool down?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/w9c4t/why_is_the_earths_core_molten_and_other_objects/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5be3qz"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The majority of the heat comes from the settling and differentiation processes. Imagine the heat generated when an asteroid impacts the surface. This same effect (gravitational potential energy converted to thermal energy) is significant on bodies the size of earth as the iron and siderophile elements sink to the core. Furthermore, a lot of the heat down there is retained from formation when the Earth accreted from billions upon billions of impacts of smaller objects. \n\nFurther heat is added through radioactive decay - particularly of Uranium, Thorium and Potassium which are present in the mantle in large quantities (although small concentions. However, the mantle is so vast that the total heat input is still very signficant).\n\nQuite a good article here looking at relative numbers: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-is-the-earths-core-so"
]
] |
|
2i0d1q
|
why do we find it easier to climb stairs than walk on an angle? surely we didn't evolve for stairs.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i0d1q/eli5_why_do_we_find_it_easier_to_climb_stairs/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckxmodx",
"ckxpj7o"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"When you walk at an angle, your ankles have to do a lot of work. With stairs, you are still walking \"flat\" but lifting your legs higher. Ask Honda Robot engineers, it takes a lot of muscles just to walk at all, and you activate more while on an incline than \"flat\" ",
"We didnt evolve to fit stairs, we made stairs to fit us best. Just like how we made beds, eating utensils, chairs, etc. to fit us. We couldnt evolve to something in a matter of a few hundred/thousand years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2xsd1c
|
why is braille not just bumped out letters of the alphabet?
|
I'm pretty sure it's just because it would take up too much space, but am not sure.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2xsd1c/eli5_why_is_braille_not_just_bumped_out_letters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cp2wuum",
"cp2xa0b",
"cp2xqeq",
"cp2xunq",
"cp2z0zh",
"cp2z1cq",
"cp2zblx",
"cp2zfsz",
"cp2zqf5",
"cp30ynk",
"cp319i5",
"cp31sko",
"cp322hr",
"cp333iy",
"cp333li",
"cp34efd",
"cp34f4s",
"cp34k2m",
"cp34n26",
"cp360qw",
"cp36n4o",
"cp36p03",
"cp36rar",
"cp36xo6",
"cp37bmj",
"cp38b9y",
"cp395k4",
"cp396tn",
"cp39ebr",
"cp39fu8",
"cp39ml3",
"cp39wz8",
"cp3a9jf",
"cp3br03",
"cp3bs91",
"cp3ccxl",
"cp3d0fj",
"cp3dyor",
"cp3e85r",
"cp3en1d",
"cp3eomj",
"cp3fj5z",
"cp3fmmn",
"cp3fnhg",
"cp3h8fq",
"cp3ignv",
"cp3j2us",
"cp3jieh",
"cp3lbr6",
"cp3nrzk",
"cp3ob32",
"cp3p0e4",
"cp3q71d",
"cp3tovn",
"cp3v661",
"cp3wjfd",
"cp3xf09",
"cp3yfke",
"cp3yys8",
"cp427pf",
"cqn0pcx"
],
"score": [
398,
43,
4198,
13,
282,
1007,
5,
4,
12,
6,
29,
2,
21,
2,
19,
8,
3,
4,
36,
2,
3,
21,
3,
5,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
68,
12,
13,
8,
5,
7,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
6,
8,
2,
3,
7,
3,
3,
3,
2,
26,
3,
3,
2,
3,
4,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It would be hard to tell between some letters. \n\nI and l for example. \n\nO and Q\n\nj and i \n\n\n\n",
"Raised letters would have to be much larger than a fingertip. In addition, embossed dots are easier to recognize than the lines and curves of roman characters.\n\n_URL_0_",
"That was the old system, before braille. \n\nBraille was specifically designed because the old system was near impossible to read for blind people. The similarities between letters like G Q O C were a massive annoyance, and placed a limit on how fast you could actually read. \n\nIn contrast, the easily distinguished individual dots were a huge improvement. ",
"I would assume braiile is easier to read for someone who's never seen letters before. It's probably because a lot of words in the english language (and others) are not phonetic. Also like others have said, some letters would be hard to distinguish from each other C Q O for example.",
"How do blind people know where braille is? Some signs on walls seem like they're placed to comply with a regulation, not because a blind person would ever be able to find them.",
"Because most of them would feel the same. In my Neuroanatomy class we were shown this [diagramm.](_URL_0_)´\n\nA test person was asked to feel a bumped out letter size 1cm x 1cm and guess which letter it was. Stuff like B and D or Q and O feel almost the same.",
"Does anybody know the logic/system behind Braille?",
"Try reading this sentence by visually tracing every line, across the top of the T, down the length of the T, then the entirety of every. other. line. of every. single. letter.\n\nAdd to that you also have to check the empty space because it may have lines as well. \n\nReading would take forever.",
"Originally that was the case, but it was a shitty system that was difficult to read (couldn't just scan letters with a single finger) and books were impossibly big and expensive. Because the inventor Louis Braille was blind he came up with a system that worked for him.",
"Related, [this is a very good book](_URL_0_) about computing that happens to cover the history of the braille system in some detail. If you click on the \"look inside\" preview bit, and go to Chapter 3, most of the information relevant to your question is covered in these preview pages.",
"Because the only ones that makes it easier for are people who aren't blind. What does an A mean to someone who has never seen it? Half our letters would feel almost the same. There is no reason our alphabet should be a basis for that one. Simplicity in the reading is the only important thing. ",
"Maybe it wasn't so much \"readability\" or \"feelability\" but that the machinery required to produce uniform bumps on a page would be a lot simpler than one that produced raised letters.",
"Braille used an already existing method of \"blind communication\", which was used during times of war to silently pass messages around. For example soldiers being held capture in a dark room. They would use paper to \"imprint\" codes into the paper and pass it to their comrades. That way they were able to communicate in the dark.\n\nSauce: \"The Code\" (its a book about the origin of computers and how other forms of codes, other than program codes, have already existed years before... just like the Braille code or the Morse code)\n\nOh btw. contrary to what most people think: Braille was not born blind, he got blind through an accident while playing with rusty tools from his dad.\n\nAlso here is the wikipedia to the \"night writing\" code that was used in the military: _URL_0_",
"Remember that Braille was not only designed for reading but also writing.",
"There is another system called 'Moon'. I only became aware of this since I started working at a special school for disabled children which includes visually impaired. Moon is used in the signage around the school. It is derived from latin alphabet and is meant to be way easier to learn. Here is the wiki page: _URL_0_",
"So this is how you all talk to five-year olds, just chastise them for something you think is obvious, when they haven't be exposed to the world like you have? \"Why are you so stupid? Why would you think that's how it works when it's not?\" Just explain like he's five.",
"Here's my question: Why is there Braille on the fold-down change table in the men's room at my local movie theatre? Are there a lot of blind fathers going to movies by themselves with their infants?",
"It's much easier to feel the bumps underneath your fingers than the actual letter. It was originally but people were having trouble \"reading\" it with their fingers.",
"Hi. I'm almost completely blind and can read braille. The main reason is because of subtle letter differences, like L and I or q and g.",
"I'm just sitting here reading all the Braille comments with my Pokémon Emerald Braille Chart :)",
"If you can read braille and then run your hand along a rough surface like a brick wall... does it come out in your brain as jibberish?",
"Why is there Braille on Drive up ATM's?",
"It's too time consuming and expensive to produce. Modern creole is a much simpler system which is 1. easier to read and 2. cheaper to produce so both sides win. I bet the readers couldn't see that coming. ",
"Didn't see someone else mention this but I remember it from a documentary we watched on Louis Braille in elementary school. In addition to the length of time spent tracing out all the letters when reading, Braille made it so that making books for the blind was a lot cheaper and faster. The old system for writing books in involved fastening metal bumps to the pages, and the result of this was that a book that was maybe 100 pages in plain text would end up being hundreds of pages in 'old braille'. There were very few books available for blind people as a result. The Braille system Louis developed allowed books to be condensed and as a result were cheaper to produce in addition to being quicker to read.",
"Related: How do blind people know there's braille in public places like bathroom signs, exits, etc.? Do they just feel around until they \"read\" something?",
"I wonder how many people that can see are able to read braille just by looking at it and or touching it. ",
"I've always seriously wondered why the have Braille on drive up ATMs.",
"Basically tactile lettering had to be ridiculously huge for readability. With braille, the letters don't have to be as big, allowing for braille printed novels",
"My question about Braille is how the fuck do blind people find the sign that has tiny little bumps on the wall?",
"Touch is a much lower resolution input than normal sight. It would be impossible to read the average book-size print outset like braille. So sticking to the sighted alphabet you'd be forced to make each letter very large. The braille alphabet is designed to be compact, easily distinguished by touch, and read by swiping the finger left to right.",
"Blind person here. When a letter is \"bumped out\" on a page, you need to trace your finger around the letter in order to determine what it is.\n\nBraille is designed to be felt, and each character can be read in a swipe.\n\nFurthermore, Braille has contractions. These are combinations of letters like \"er\" and \"ion\". These make reading much faster, and obviously aren't present in visually-read alphabets.",
"Super simple visual version? Get a sheet of paper and write 0, O, Q how easily do you think your fingertips could detect the differences?\n\nNow write a \"p\" and turn the paper upside down. That \"p\" is now a \"d\". Similarly the same issues pop up with a good chunk of letters/numbers. ",
"Why don't we make our current alphabet just look like the braille equivalent? ",
"Question: how do blind people find the brail on walls in public buildings and places",
"Can you imagine having to distinguish between: i,I,l,1",
"I've always wondered why the Braille alphabet wasn't the same as the Morse Code alphabet.",
"Try spotting the differences with your eyes between the capital \"I\" and the lower-cased \"l\".\n\nNow try it blindfolded. ",
"At the time it was invented, raised print books had to be made entirely by hand, which made them very expensive. Braille could be made on a press very easily, so the books were cheap and plentiful.",
"I do not read Braille although I have tried. In my own strange mind I feel as if the dots are strategically placed to mock the shape of the letter. I know it sounds crazy but this is my opinion.\n\nOn another similar note many people who are born blind and grow up learning Braille do not know the shape of letters, unless they have been exposed to those shapes. With advances in technology; typewriters, computers, keyboards and now tablets and smartphones; some do not know how to write.",
"Also- why is there Braille on drive-up ATM machines? ",
"A...R...I...l....O...Q...U...V...B...D...N...M... to name but a few.",
"Because I3 and B are a bitch to tell apart. I've tried the old system when we had an class where we were all blind folded for the day and had to learn what difficulties being blind entails. H, K, and R were damn near impossible to tell apart.",
"These letters used to exist in older books, but they were expensive and often times it was difficult to distinguish between letters. So somebody named Louis Braille created a simpler, and more distinguishable alphabet for the blind, now known as braille. \n\nTo specifically answer your question, its because it was hard to dell the difference between, lets say, Q, O, and D, so they made braille.",
"Forget that. My question is, why doesn't the order of the letters make sense? The dots should correlate binary or other number system.",
"It takes way to much space, harder to remember sentences/word that you just red, certain letter look to much alike.",
"Braille is its own language, for the blind and hard-of-seeing, just as sign language is not \"interpreted\" English, or any other language. Sign language is its own language, with its own cultural idioms, jokes, colloquialisms, contractions, grammar and nuance--just as braille is as well. I think the common confusion is thinking of these languages as translations, instead of their own independent communication system (no different than, say, Russian or French, or Swahili, etc...)",
"The story of the guy who invented Braille, Louis Braille, is really interesting. ",
"Embossed letters would be just like raised lined drawings (still used today for very simple images/diagrams) but following each outline in order to read a sentence takes way too long to be practical. Plus we took advantage of the spatial resolution of skin (two point touch discrimination) to make Braille efficient space-wise on paper.",
"Yes, numbers are similar to touch. What's missing is the other reason: it's easier to print. Trying to get letters to bulge out of a piece of paper for a book is far more difficult than poking holes in it.",
"Because the sense of touch works very differently from the sense of sight.\n\nMaking bumps in the shapes of standard letters *was* tried, in many different approaches, and it just didn't work very well. People had trouble telling the difference between similar letters, and 'reading' this sort of text was very slow. The brilliance of the braille system was precisely the realization that text for blind people *didn't* need to look like standard letters, and that its shape should be optimized for touch rather than sight.\n\nEDIT: Sight, not smell. Dunno why I typed that.",
"Braille user here, lets see how much I can answer without being too techincal.\n\nBasically, /u/SamMcgeesAshes/ they tried it once. it was cost-prohibitative to translate books (the blind school Braille himself went to had only three books done that way) and it took too long to read, because each letter had to be traced.\n\nBraille, as we know it now, is a 6-dot (2x3) system, however a 9-dot (3x3) was proposed by some General whose name I forgot who wanted to communicate with his soldiers in the dark, but 9 dots are hard to read with just one finger. The basic principle of Braille is that every character should be read with one touch, which also rules out the \"actual letter\" approach even with modern laser-cutting, 3D-printing technology, because to be legible to fast touch (when you're reading Braille, it is already slower than sighted people, speed matters) the letter itself would have to be twice the size of a Braille cell, and then you'd need to pan over it with your fingers.\n\n(explanation: b and p, 6 and 9, a & e, u & n, sometimes v & y; they blend together if written too small.)\n\nAlso, 6 dots are a lot eaiser to produce by hand. Back before Braille \"typewriters\" were around, people used a special frame and stylus to hand-poke dots in paper (I tried it, it takes long!) Carving out lettters...too much time.\n\nTL;DR: They tried it, it didn't work -- dots are more effecient to produce and to read.\n\nHope that helps, but do tell me if I skpped anything!\n\nADDENDUM: I also thought it prudent to mention that Braille pretty-much thrives on contractions; we have contractions from the ridiculous like shorthand for 'ea' and 'be', to things like 'able' (though that's phased out recently). 'also' is abbreviated \"al', and 'understand' can be done shorted to the shorthand for \"under\" + \"st\" + \"and\". \n\nHowever, Braille is fairly awful for all other things, and we can't use things like a11y as the syntax is too hard. \nAt least its \"something\" \n",
"Is braille its own language, as in, it stands apart from any other existing language like mandarin, french or english.\n\nOr is it a pure translation of english.\n\nso, e.g. Say a native english speaking blind person, went to france.\n\nWould the braille for say. \"bonjour\" read the letters, B.O.N.J.O.U.R. or would it read the meaning of \"good afternoon\" in braille?",
"What would comic sans look like in braille?",
"Related, and please explain if there is a real reason: why is it that toll booths on roads (at least the ones in New Jersey) also have the toll instructions in Braille? Is a blind person going to drive up?",
"Bumped out letters???? EMBOSSED BRO!!!!",
"Letters are awesome if your eyeballs are on.. \nWith a glance we can blow through a whole sentence based on common recognizable pattern configurations (letter- > word- > sentence- > **message**)\n\n & nbsp;\n\nIf you're blind, what the hell is the point of a *visual* cue such as a letter?\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\nBlind or sighted, every reader only desires to receive the **- > message**..\n\nThe abc alphabet was designed for fast *visual* output. Braille said 'yea, fuck this' and brilliantly rewrote the alphabet for fast *tactile* output.. \n\n & nbsp;\n\nLouis Braille hacked reading so it worked better for him..\n----\n___\n\n`technical details`\n\nOnce braille is learned, **64** letters/characters can be communicated in only 6 dots (arranged in a vertical 2x3 pattern I'm only guessing was designed to match the dimensions of the input (finger, nose, we'll stop there)) Braille has been developed so efficiently that all 64 patterns have meaning.. There's a pattern indicating a new sentence, a pattern indicating the next character is capitalized.. punctuation etc.. No emojis tho as far as I'm aware.\n\n\nAdditionally, similar to morse code, the most common letters (vowels and the letters worth the least amount of point in scrabble) are given a much simpler pattern for faster input.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n\\**Credit on the technical section to a really cool book called 'Code' by Petzold*",
"What I want to know is why in hell is there Braille at my local bank drive-thru ATM?",
"the dots are a lot more unique and distinguished than letters are.\n\nAlso braille is standardised, unlike fonts which may be different for each publisher.",
"There was something many years ago referred to as the War of the Dots. Braille didn't just become braille very quickly. There were other systems, including bumped out letters. There was also New York Point, Boston Line Type, Moon, and Braille. Basically it made it very difficult for public libraries and other institutions to make braille available to people who needed it because it was expensive and time consuming to produce, let alone produce multiple different codes for the same book. People fought over what system was best. Braille eventually won out at the code agreed upon to use, but up until recently, it still varied from country to country. A few years ago the United States FINALLY adopted the UEB, the Unified English Braille Code, (many other English speaking countries had already adopted this code). This makes it so that books and documents can be shared between most English speaking countries without decoding errors resulting from differences in how we write braille. ",
"There exists an alternative to Braille, [Moon type](_URL_0_), which is easier to learn for people who lose their sight in adulthood. Its embossed characters are based on simplified letters of the alphabet.",
"Funnily enough this was also recently answered in Daredevil on Netflix!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.nationalbraille.org"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/duJXtFc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/Code-Language-Computer-Hardware-Software/dp/0735611319"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_writing"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_type"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moon_type"
],
[]
] |
|
29ckx2
|
why is 'good night' strictly used as a closing statement, as opposed to an opening?
|
And in addition, why isn't it normal to end a morning/afternoon conversation with good morning/afternoon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29ckx2/eli5_why_is_good_night_strictly_used_as_a_closing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cijlsxh"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"because people go to bed at night"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
37qldm
|
if people look back on prohibition as a mistake, why is drug criminalisation still seen as the way forward for many?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/37qldm/eli5if_people_look_back_on_prohibition_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"croz210",
"crozrap"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"hate. at this point these numbers are exaggerated severely by the shit voter turn out for young people and liberals",
"People in people see drugs as a bad thing. No politician wants to come out saying they want more of a bad thing. The knee jerk reaction to a bad thing is to try and ban it, regardless of the big picture."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
1wwsc9
|
If molecular movement dictates temperature, why aren't all solids really cold?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1wwsc9/if_molecular_movement_dictates_temperature_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6666q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Molecular movement doesn't dictate temperature. Rigorously, all forms of energy in a system (or at least those which aren't isolated from the rest) contribute to the temperature. That includes the kinetic energy of the atoms and molecules (further subdivided into translational, vibrational and rotational motion), but also other things like the state of the electrons.\n\nFor an _ideal_ gas, the temperature is proportional to the average kinetic energy of the gas particles. But that's a derived result, temperature isn't _defined_ that way. (although there are many posts here to witness that many people have been taught this) \n\nIt just happens, though, that at ordinary temperatures (up to around where things get glowing-hot), virtually all the thermal energy is stored up in the movement of the atoms, which is why they often say that thermal energy is the kinetic energy of the atoms/molecules.\n\nAnyway, in the case of the atoms in a solid, they obviously don't have any translational or rotational motion, so the thermal energy is (almost) all bound up in the _vibrational_ motions of the atoms. Bound atoms really behave more like they were held together with a spring rather than the rigid sticks used in the models you see in chemistry class. In fact, it's very common to model their vibrations as if it was an ideal spring. (AKA a 'harmonic oscillator' model)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
15p32z
|
How fast could a car drive in a vacuum (such as on the moon)?
|
My understanding of the maximum speed of a car is the point at which air resistance (and internal friction) cancels whatever maximum acceleration due to torque the engine can exert. But in a vacuum such as on the moon, wouldn't the car be able to accelerate almost indefinitely?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/15p32z/how_fast_could_a_car_drive_in_a_vacuum_such_as_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7oim73",
"c7ojg1n",
"c7olq08"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Technically 0 mph. The car runs off of combustion which requires O2. If you're dealing with an electrical car you can calculate a theoretical maximum by calculating the amount of potential energy in the fuel (we will call it PE (fuel)), and then setting that equal to the kinetic energy of the car after the fuel is spent. Then solving for V. IT will depend on the mass of the car.\n\nso PE (Fuel) = 1/2 M v^2 - > \n\n v= sqrt((2 x PE (Fuel))/M)\n\nEdit: This solution ignores the mass of the fuel after it is spent. If the fuel has weight that is significant compared to the mass of the car the answer is a tad more complicated.",
"the drag on a typical car is about half air resistance but changes with speed.\n\nThis page has a graph for the tesla roadster which separates out the drag components.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n",
"Yes, a car could theoretically accelerate until it ran out of gearing (ie red line in its top gear). A car could not accelerate to the speed of light if that's what you're wondering. Why? Because a car propels itself via the good ole wheel. Once that wheel hits a surface you get friction which will try to slow you down.\n\nA 400hp rocket, given infinite fuel, could accelerate to some crazy speeds because there's nothing to slow it down. But a car in a vacuum would have a top speed depending on the friction of the surface and the power of the car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.teslamotors.com/goelectric/efficiency"
],
[]
] |
|
22d1y3
|
Why does air inside of a traveling car get 'vacuumed' out of an open window?
|
I noticed while traveling on the interstate that an open window will suck air out of the car, but when the car is standing still, it's unaffected. What goes on that creates this vacuum (if this is the right terminology), and is this the same thing that occurs in a plane if it's flying and the door is open? In movies it's sometimes depicted as something that would cause passengers and cargo to be sucked outside the plane. Thanks!
EDIT: Nobody will read this but I appreciate everyone's answers. :)
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/22d1y3/why_does_air_inside_of_a_traveling_car_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cglo0sn"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"Bernoulli's law states that a fluid's pressure is proportional to its velocity (there's more to that equation but I simplified it)\n\nWhen you are in a moving car, say at 60 mph, the air is moving at 60 mph relative to your car (assuming it is not a windy day)\n\nThis means that the velocity of the air relative to your car goes up the faster you go, and the pressure drops the faster you go.\n\nAir likes to move from high pressure to low pressure to even things out, and so the air in your car, since it is standing still relative to your car, likes to move to a lower pressure area.\n\nThe aerodynamics of your car plays into this as well, since the air that your car moves through has to get out of the way of your car, and speed up due to the vacuum effect of your car to fill the slipstream it creates. This makes the air move faster around the top, sides, and bottom of the car."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
c2lhuy
|
how do plants grow from a tiny seed using just water and sunlight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c2lhuy/eli5_how_do_plants_grow_from_a_tiny_seed_using/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erkwjtd",
"erkyxk8"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Almost no plants work that way. It's water + sunlight + nutrients from the soil. The water is a solvent, making it easier to move chemicals around, the sunlight provides energy to drive reactions against their chemistry, but the soil provides the chemicals.",
"Usually, the seed provides enough nutrients for the (baby) plant to develop a small root system and the first couple leaves.\n\nOnce that's accomplished, the main mechanism for growth is [photosynthesis](_URL_0_). 6 water molecules + 6 carbon dioxide molecules - > 1 sugar molecule + 6 Oxygen (released).\n\nThe sugar is then assembled into chains to form [cellulose](_URL_1_), which is the main \"fiber\" / body of the plant as it grows."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photosynthesis",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cellulose"
]
] |
||
2vsrdg
|
what would happen if every animal and human being on earth pissed into the ocean at the same time?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2vsrdg/eli5_what_would_happen_if_every_animal_and_human/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cokl9xb"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"There would be urine in the ocean.\n\nWhat kind of information are you looking to have explained?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bveqj5
|
the difference between the conservative and labour parties. (for people well versed in uk politics)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bveqj5/eli5_the_difference_between_the_conservative_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epot37l"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"More or less the same as any centre left and centre right party in mainstream politics around the developed world.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe Conservatives are relatively more pro big business, lower tax rates and corporation taxes, less regulations on the economy, resist expansion of the welfare state and social provisions + pro austerity measures, want less nationalisation of the economy (eg. oppose nationalising the railways, have privatised certain components of the NHS), etc. Socially they are slightly more traditional ie. take harder stances on things like drug laws and opposed gay marriage moreso than Labour. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nLabour are essentially the reverse of everything mentioned."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5kjwte
|
Why did the battle of Crete go so bad for the German paratroopers?
|
The battle of Crete is known for being so disasterous for German paratroopers that Hitler never committed to another major airborne attack, why did the battle go so bad for them?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5kjwte/why_did_the_battle_of_crete_go_so_bad_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbok9xi"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"There were several reasons why the German paratroopers took heavy casualties on Crete. These combined failures of German doctrine and planning with Allied successes. \n\nThe primary reason why the German paratroopers suffered heavy casualties was the inadequacy of German parachute doctrine. The German doctrine focused on low altitude drops. This decreased the risk to the paratroopers from ground fire. However, the troops could not carry their rifles with them, and they were instead dropped in canisters, along with the unit's heavy weapons. Until the weapons were retrieved, the parachutists were armed with pistols, knives and grenades alone. If the troops were dropped into an area clear of Allied troops, then this was only a slight disadvantage. However, on Crete, this occurrence was rare. German drop-zones frequently coincided with Allied positions, and were often threatened by counterattacks. The German parachute had a single riser, attached to the back - this removed the parachutist's control of the descent, preventing them moving towards a canister while in the air. This meant that troops armed solely with pistols were facing well armed and equipped troops. In the area around Maleme, German weapons containers were captured by the New Zealand troops present, further increasing the disadvantage. \n\nA second reason, and one that compounded the first, was the failure of German aerial reconnaissance to determine Allied positions. The ANZAC troops had dug in well-camouflaged positions around Maleme and Rethymno - at the latter, only a single ANZAC position was sighted in the days leading up to the attack, and the location of the position would be changed as a result. Similarly, 14th Infantry Brigade had dug in well around Heraklion, and had further obfuscated its position by preventing its troops and AA guns firing on German aircraft. These meant that German bombing raids hit the wrong targets, reducing Allied casualties and morale losses. It also meant that the drop zones chosen for the paratroopers were easily taken under fire from the Allied positions. The 3rd Battalion, Sturm Regiment, dropping south of Maleme, landed in an area defended by the 23rd and 21st New Zealand Battalions. Similarly, 2nd Battalion, 3rd Parachute Regiment, landed on the 18th and 19th NZ Battalion. The paratroopers were easy targets during their descent - the commander of 23rd NZ shot five from his HQ, while his adjutant reportedly shot two without even standing up from his desk. At Heraklion, where the British AA guns had survived the preparatory air raids, the German troop carriers were easy targets. Over Heraklion, fifteen Ju-52s were shot down in a two hour period. The surviving troops mainly came down in and around the positions of the Black Watch, where they were easily crushed. This action, combined with the fighting around Rethymno resulted in the near destruction of the 2nd Parachute Regiment. On the 21st May, German reinforcements were dropped onto the positions of the 28th (Maori) Battalion, losing nearly 2/3rds of their force. \n\nAdding to German discomfort on the initial drops was that Cretan terrain was poor for a parachute assault. It was mostly rocky, wooded hills. Towards the sea, it flattened and cleared, but remained rocky. These had several disadvantages for parachutists. Landing on rocks brought a high risk of injury, with many spraining ankles or breaking bones. Trees and telephone poles snagged parachutes. With the German parachute design, it was difficult for a parachutist so trapped to free himself, and they became easy targets. Those landing on the clear terrain around the coast were freed from this risk. However, they suffered heavy casualties, due to a lack of cover. In some cases, the terrain itself could be deadly. Around Rethymno, several aircraft, put off by heavy AA fire, dropped their troops over the sea. These troops, weighted down by both their equipment and their parachutes, soon drowned. According to Beevor, about a dozen parachutists landed in a cane-break, where they would be impaled on bamboos.\n\nOn the Allied side, several well-conducted counterattacks prevented the German parachutists from organising and consolidating their positions, as well as causing heavy positions. At Rethymno, a strong German force was dropped around an olive oil factory at Stavromenos, a few miles down the coast. From there, they moved to capture Hill A, which threatened the ANZAC position around Rethymno Airfield. The local commander, Lt Colonel Ian Campbell, launched an immediate counterattack, checking the German advance. The next morning, having scrounged up as many reinforcements and stragglers as possible, he launched a full-scale counterattack on Hill A. This routed the German paratroopers, who withdrew to the olive oil factory, where they dug in. To the west, 2/11th ANZAC, under Major Ray Sandover, launched a simultaneous counterattack against German paratroopers that had landed between their positions and the coast. This captured 88 Germans, as well as the commander of the 2nd Parachute Regiment, Colonel Sturm. Along with him, the German operational orders were captured, a vital source of intelligence. At Heraklion, the 2nd Leicesters carried out aggressive patrolling to winkle out any paras that fell into their area of operation. Brigadier Chappel, commanding 14th Infantry Bde, launched an immediate counterattack, supported by the light tanks of 3rd Hussars and two Matildas of the Royal Tank Regiment. According to the the 3rd Hussars's commander in the action, his tank commanders claimed at least 30 paratroopers with their revolvers alone. Chappel's rapid reaction all but wiped out 2nd Battalion 1st Parachute Regiment. However, around Maleme, no such counterattack was carried out, allowing the Germans to consolidate and enlarge their foothold on the airfield.\n\nFinally, one should not neglect the actions of the local populace. Once the attack began, the Cretans armed themselves with a wide mix of weapons to defend their hometowns. These ranged from their knives, through sporting guns, to captured rifles and SMGs. At Alikianou near Canea, roughly 100 civilians, including women and children, fought to protect their village. To the south and west of Heraklion, Cretan civilians went after paratroopers caught in the trees - many had their throats cut. They also harassed German attempts to organise their positions. Once the Germans began their assault on Heraklion, through the Canea gate, civilians and the Cretan gendarmerie formed a significant part of the defence. While this didn't hold for long, the German advance through the city was harassed by Cretan guerillas. \n\nSources:\n\n*Crete: The Battle and the Resistance*, Antony Beevor, Penguin, 1992\n\n*The Lost Battle: Crete 1941*, Callum MacDonald, Pan, 2002\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5h3wqu
|
what exactly is copyright?
|
Don't get me wrong, school systems told me what it is, and Youtube has copyright up the rectum. But I feel like i never truly learned what copyright is, as far as my knowledge goes, Copyright is when you say you didn't make it and if you don't make money off of it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5h3wqu/eli5what_exactly_is_copyright/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dax825p",
"daxkl0h"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Copyright the the right for the original creator to control copies of their work. A work can be a movie, book, art, video game or any other creative work. \n\nLets take a book such as Harry Potter. If you want a copy of that book, you can get one by buying a printed copy of that work, the author has made it available to purchase in that manor. With that copy, you can do almost anything you want with it. Read it, burn it, level your couch. What you can't do with it is make copies of that book. It doesn't matter if you just wanted to sell them or give them to your family for free. You don't have the right to copy. \n\nAnother example is Disney. They own several creations which are movies, several of which you can't buy. They call it \"Putting it in the Disney Vault\" They also have the right to not sell you a copy of their work. Even if you find a legal copy, you can buy that unit, but you still can't make copies of that movie, to sell or give away. You don't have that copy right, Disney does. \n\nThere are exceptions, it's called fair use. It's when you can use someone elses work for the purpose of criticism, review or education. Parody also falls under fair use. ",
"The government wants people to make stuff. \n\nThey even want people to make stuff which isn't really stuff, but more like ideas like a collection of words or a series of sounds. Like books and music. But really it's any idea or expression. \n\nSo they proclaimed that everyone was barred from copying anyone else's ideas for a set period of time unless they had permission, a license that gave them **the right to copy**. Which they sell. \n\nNow, this applies to **EVERYTHING**. Any expression, saying, written text, spoken sound, everything. THIS POST is protected by copyright. YOUR question is protected by copyright. BUT! When I signed up to Reddit, they made me agree to license them and whoever to copy it. As did you. Literally everything on Youtube is copyrighted. By default. \n\nWhen someone DOESN'T have the right to copy your work, but they do it anyway, then that's copyright **infringement**. And you can get sued for that. If you copied more than $10K worth of goods (which is real easy with P2P torrents), then it's a felony in the USA because our copyright system is ancient and archaic and a blight on society. \n\nNow, the only people who can really enforce copyright laws on anyone else are the big name publishers who wheel and deal this stuff as part of their business. So while your post is copyrighted, even if reddit violated whatever agreement you made with them, good luck trying to get the law on your side. In general, this is how most laws work. If you can't afford a lawyer, the laws doesn't work for you.\n\n > Copyright [infringement] is when you say you didn't make it and if you don't make money off of it.\n\nHAHA, no! Whether or not you make any money off of it doesn't change the infringement. But the vast bulk of infringement is so low-key that nobody really bothers to try and enforce the law everywhere and a ton of people get away with it without anyone noticing. Once you start making money off someone else's work though, well... it's more likely they'll notice and want to get paid. In general is is also how most laws work. If you don't have any money to take, the (civil) law can't really hurt you.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
zuzs9
|
If the brain uses 20% of the body's energy, would increased levels of mental activity be an effective way of burning more calories and losing weight?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/zuzs9/if_the_brain_uses_20_of_the_bodys_energy_would/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c67zcvy",
"c67zdk1",
"c68019z",
"c681xr1"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
96,
6
],
"text": [
"No. Your brain uses roughly the same calories whether you are thinking hard or not thinking at all. Plus, it is actually more active while you sleep and I think it is easy to imagine sleep being a poor way to lose weight.\n\nCan't be L from deathnote. :)",
"It would be helpful if you provided a source for that claim. Where did you hear/read/see the 20% figure?",
"A very old paper from Sweden (1987, per Roland et al, Journal of neuroscience 7(8): 2373-2389) adressed this question. \n\nUp until that time it was believed that the energy metabolism of your brain could be measured by the oxygen flow to the brain, because it was assumed that all energy in the brain was produced by oxidative glycolysis (burning glucose in the presence of oxygen). \n\nThese guys from Sweden calculated that mental activity increased the oxygen consumption of the brain by about 20% and the bloodflow by around 10%. \n\nHowever, somewhere in the 80s, functional MRI was developed, and scientists could track the amount of glucose functionally absorbed by the brain. It turned out that the increase in oxygen consumption was much less than the increase in glucose consumption. In other words, much of the glucose in the brain was converted to energy without the use of oxygen, via lactate. Since that time, many people have dedicated their lives to finding the mechanism behind this process. (pubmed: Pierre J. Magistretti) and it turns out that apparently astrocytes in the brain are heavily involved. The jury is still out on the magnitude of this anaerobic (no oxygen) contribution to glucose metabolism in the brain. My personal opinion, based on reading articles and experience, would be that the contribution could be as big as another 10-20 percent.\n\nSo let's do a best case scenario: In case of mental activity you could increase the metabolic rate of your brain by about 40%. Where your brain burns about 400 kcal per day in resting state, you could increase this to 560 kcal per day. \n\nHowever, this is the difference between 24 hours of sleep/rest and 24 hours of activity activity. Which is unrealistic. Also, there is no reason to assume (I have no data on this) that solving a sudoku demands more brain energy than walking through the country and enjoying the scenery. So an increase of 160 kcal per day is very very optimistic, and realistically, mental activity is not a valid way of losing weight. \n\nTL;DR: No, even though the activity of your brain and it's energy consumption increases during mental activity, this increase is not big enough to realistically make you lose weight. \n\n\n",
"There's the claim that chess players go through 6-7000 calories a day thinking (probably popularized by Robert Sapolsky in this [talk](_URL_0_) -- which is awesome, by the way). He's a great and reputable scientist, so he wouldn't say that without reason.\n\nHowever, being skeptical towards the claim, I sought out more information. I dug up one of his books, \"Why Zebras Don't Get Ulcers\", where this is briefly discussed. The claim stems from a 1975 [thesis](_URL_1_), but I've been unable to find the text itself, nor from the shorter version \"Physiological changes during tournament chess\" (Chess Life and Review, 1975). \n\nThe reason they were burning through athlete-levels of calories were *not* (or at least far from exclusively) because of increased energy consumption in the brain, though. According to Sapolsky's notes, the study measured breathing rates, blood pressure, muscle contractions and so on before, during and after major tournaments. They found tripling of breathing rates and muscle contractions, and systolic blood pressure soaring to over 200 -- things that happen in athletes during physical competitions.\n\nSo, according to this, competing in mental activities might make you lose weight, but not directly because of your brain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=hrCVu25wQ5s#t=299s",
"http://books.google.no/books/about/The_Effects_of_Tournament_Chess_Playing.html?id=VxXmtgAACAAJ&redir_esc=y"
]
] |
||
490vau
|
how was the concept of money started? and how does one country have money worth more than the other (ex. the euro and the dollar)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/490vau/eli5_how_was_the_concept_of_money_started_and_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0o6xdu",
"d0o7u2k"
],
"score": [
12,
2
],
"text": [
" > How was the concept of money started?\n\nWell, it's not a thing we have a definitive answer to, but [there are some good theories out there](_URL_0_). \n\nThe argument that anthropologist makes is basically that, when we all lived in small villages, societies functioned on an informal debt based system which was policed by the community. Basically, I lend you some tools so you can harvest the crops on your farm on the understanding that I can call in the favor at some later time. People who cheated on this \"debt\" would be known for it and people wouldn't lend them shit. Given how you really needed help from others when everyone lived in small villages, this threat of being ostracized created a strong incentive to pay back your debt.\n\nMoney didn't really come around until there were somewhat centralized governments that needed to tax its people and pay its armies. For a government, using currency to facilitate these things made a lot of sense and made the whole process a lot easier. Gradually, over many centuries, more and more transactions were conducted with currency (or at least trades were considered in terms of the value of the goods in currency).\n\n > How does one country have money worth more than the other?\n\nWell, it's just supply and demand. If I want to buy things from Europe, I need to get some euros. I find somebody with euros who's willing to trade for some of my dollars and we work out a rate of exchange. The aggregate action of all these people trading dollars for euros and vice versa leads to the exchange rate settling around a certain point, much the same way the price of any other good or service is reached.",
"I'm not really an expert and the top answer is really informative, but if you're interested there was a neat [this American life](_URL_0_) episode about it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Debt:_The_First_5000_Years"
],
[
"http://m.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/423/the-invention-of-money"
]
] |
||
40ivci
|
what is the difference between a mayor and a city manager in the us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40ivci/eli5_what_is_the_difference_between_a_mayor_and_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyuha4q"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A mayor is an elected position, and a city manager is an appointed one.\n\nIn a city manager type setup, the day to day activities are run by the city manager, while the mayor is more ceremonial in nature, presiding over city council sessions, and the like.\n\nIn smaller cities, you're much more likely to find a city manager setup, because mayors *have* to be from the city. If it's a smaller city, there may not be many people who have the experience to run a town. Hiring a city manager means they can hire a qualified person from anywhere and move them to the town."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
8vfqs6
|
how can scotus get rid of roe v wade?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8vfqs6/eli5_how_can_scotus_get_rid_of_roe_v_wade/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e1n1vzb",
"e1n2qxg",
"e1n5zhx",
"e1ndn1y"
],
"score": [
12,
6,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Even Supreme Court rulings are not permanent for all time, another Supreme Court ruling can overturn them and change the legal precedent. Someone could appeal such an issue up to SCOTUS and they could issue another ruling, in theory.",
"The Supreme Court's rulings are generally applications of the Constitution. That is, they get the final say over what the Constitution means. Of course, if they later conclude that they or their predecessors were mistaken in their decision, they can overturn a ruling. They can't just do it for no reason though, a case has to be brought before them in which the relevant Constitutional principle is applicable. In the case of *Roe*, the court decided that the Constitution guarantees a right to privacy, which extends to the right to terminate one's pregnancy without interference. If a future Supreme Court had enough justices who had made it known that they desire the overturning of *Roe v. Wade*, a state might pass a law outlawing abortions, which would be challenged in the courts, and when it got to the Supreme Court, the court could declare that the right to privacy either doesn't exist (it's sort of implied in the 4th and 9th amendments, but nothing is explicit) or that it doesn't apply to ending one's pregnancy, as a fetus should be considered a separate person under the law, and the prevention of homicide is a compelling enough reason to outweigh privacy concerns.",
"The most likely change would be when a case presents itself with updates in technology that were not available when the case was first heard.\n\nIf the reduction in services comes about via the Supreme Court, my money says it will be a church/denominational hospital that refuses to provide the service and is taken to court by the woman/couple. \n\n * The hospital will state that they met the spirit of the law in asking the woman to deliver the baby prematurely, and then keeping it alive in a neonatal unit until it was more fully developed. \n\n * The woman/couple will argue that the law is \"clear\" in that abortion is legal prior to the time in which a fetus is viable as a pre-term baby without exceptional measures [only allowing what naturally happens, with resources that do not depend on technological advancement].\n\n * The court will rule that advances in medical abilities should be used to reduce the number of abortions performed, and that a fetus should be delivered rather than the pregnancy aborted if the clinic or a related hospital could reasonably expect to keep the fetus alive.\n\n\nWhile it is not a sure thing that this WILL happen, my tea leaves say that IF it happens this is the approximate route the change will follow.\n\nThe more likely outcome in the near future will be that the question is punted to the individual states, and that we will see a seismic shift in medical-tourism within the United States as each state tries to tackle the question on their own; and how to best handle insurance/care to out-of-state patients. This will bring on its own mess and may well be the final catalyst that pushes us into either universal or single-payer; or it will bring about mutual-agreement markets so patients can receive care outside of their normal network-approved providers for those care items that are unavailable in their area.\n\nedit: Congress has the power to change the law, but that is very unlikely to happen in the present atmosphere. The Court decides a ruling based on what the law is at the time the incident occurred, not based on what future changes to the law might encompass.",
"A SCOTUS judgment on one case is final, yes. They cannot go back to Roe v. Wade and rule on it again. What might happen is that a new case might get escalated to SCOTUS that challenges a state's restrictions on abortion, and SCOTUS could write a ruling that is the opposite of the Roe v. Wade ruling - \"overruling\" the earlier ruling.\n\nIt doesn't happen very often. [Here's the Wikipedia list](_URL_1_) of SCOTUS cases that were later overruled by other SCOTUS cases. You'll notice most of those links are red links as of this writing, meaning essentially that they are boring cases.\n\nThe reason it's uncommon, and there isn't a rush to overrule all previous cases each time there's a new SCOTUS justice, is a thing in the US and UK called [stare decisis](_URL_0_), where judges are supposed to rule in the way that previous similar cases have been ruled, so that similar facts will end up in similar rulings. After SCOTUS rules on a case, it will decline all future cases that are similar. Until it doesn't. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precedent",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_overruled_United_States_Supreme_Court_decisions"
]
] |
|
fv4fj
|
Why do substances become less effective as you increase usage?
|
For example, why does coffee get less effective the more you drink it? Is there a way to maintain the strong effect of the substance you are consuming other than increasing the amount you consume or use?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fv4fj/why_do_substances_become_less_effective_as_you/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1iujb3"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Using caffeine as an example: \n\n > \"Caffeine is a competitive antagonist at adenosine receptors. Receptor up-regulation during chronic drug treatment has been proposed to be the mechanism of tolerance to the behavioral stimulant effects of caffeine.\"\n\nFrom [this](_URL_0_) article.\n\nIn terms of drug tolerance, this means that the more you drink coffee the more adenosine receptors you have on the postsynaptic neuron. Adenosine binding to its receptor produces the feeling of fatigue: caffeine binds to the receptor but doesn't activate it, allowing essentially for a \"block\" of the tired feeling.\n\nThe more coffee you drink the more receptors you have so the more adenosine can bind to make you feel tired. When you don't drink coffee, there is no way for caffeine to block the tired feeling, and this is compounded by the up-regulation of the receptor. \n\nCan you control this by doing anything in particular? No. Not if you are already tolerant to a substance. Not to my knowledge, anyway. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1846425"
]
] |
|
9y2onp
|
what exactly is the rationale behind taking pain killers for pain? the body is telling you something is wrong right? so by numbing that sense and to keep on using something like a fucked up back or joint pain-free wouldn't it be detrimental?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9y2onp/eli5_what_exactly_is_the_rationale_behind_taking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e9xodjs",
"e9xof5t",
"e9xomkb",
"e9xomnb",
"e9xow4v",
"e9xp2qi"
],
"score": [
28,
7,
4,
3,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Sometimes the body sends pain signals when there isn't anything that can be done to fix something. And sometimes it does it for no reason at all. And taking pain killers to be more comfortable doesn't mean someone is going to ignore the damage. As someone living with chronic pain, sometimes you just need to get through the day. And not be puking in pain every 30 minutes.",
"When I had my teeth removed I took pain pills. At least there I know my body is messed up but the pain won't help me heal faster. At least with the pain pills it made the process better. \nWith certain it can also help you heal faster though I can't tell you the specifics there. ",
"Sometimes pain is a signal from the body that something is wrong and needs to be addressed. Sometimes the pain itself is a malfunction -- migraines, for example, or certain conditions like neuralgia or fibromyalgia, which are conditions in which a nerve or group of nerves send pain signals to the brain for no good reason. In those cases, pain-management is an entirely reasonable and suitable way to address the issue. \n\nIn some cases, like pain associated with an injury, then yes, you're right that painkillers can help exacerbate an issue by encouraging people to use their bodies in ways that might prevent proper healing because they can't feel the pain that would tell them something is wrong. But it doesn't follow that all people who experience chronic, debilitating pain should have to put up with it because it's \"natural.\"",
"Not everyone has the luxury of sitting back in a life of leisure. Most have to work for a living. NSAIDs and other pain reducers can allow life to continue. \n\nAlso, not every pain requires inactivity to heal. Simply reducing the intensity of activity, made tolerable with a pain reducer, is often sufficient. ",
"When my arm got crushed I had to have pain killers to even function. The pain was so intense I couldn't focus on anything. By numbing the pain, I was able to do the exercises my arm required to heal properly. Fortunately, I had a great doctor who made sure I didn't get addicted.",
"The rationale is that we have the medical knowledge to treat pain so why would we ever keep people in pain if we can stop it. Yes, pain tells you that something is wrong, but pain isn't a precision sensation. It's a blunt instrument. If you break your arm and it hurts, you go to the doctor to get a cast put on. Your body doesn't \"know\" that you remedied the situation and that the pain can be \"turned off\". It doesn't \"know\" that we have the medical knowledge to treat things or to manage conditions that cause chronic pain. If someone has chronic pain from arthritis, we can diagnosis it and manage it. Your body doesn't know that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
tvrse
|
Media or books about Sonderweg, and general discussion
|
I'd heard of the idea of Sonderweg before, but only recently the term. I'm not a proponent of or against any aspect of this theory and am willing to learn about it from any approach (obviously an objective, all-encompassing resource would be fantastic).
This thread can also be used for general discussion about the subject as the search bar only brings up the following two links, which contain very little:
1. _URL_1_
2. _URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tvrse/media_or_books_about_sonderweg_and_general/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4q5m93",
"c4q8or2"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"Do you speak/read German?",
"I'm not sure there's an objective (is any history objective?) or all-encompassing work on the _Sonderweg_, but rather there are series and traditions of scholarship that follow in this vein.\n\nHans Ulrich Weiler has an English-language essay in _Past and Present_ called \"Bismarck's Imperialism 1862–1890\" (1970) that's very much in the vein of _Sonderweg_. Also, you might want to check out some of George Mosse's work, perhaps _The Crisis of German Ideology: Intellectual Origins of the Third Reich_ (1964). Lastly, there's always Daniel Goldhagen's _Hitler's Willing Executioners_ (1996).\n\nOn the side of criticism of the _Sonderweg_, I like David Blackbourn and Geoff Eley's _The Peculiarities of German History_ (1984) and Christopher Browning's _Ordinary Men_ (1992). There's also a lot of good work on the Weimar period that throws a wrench into this analytical framework. My favorite recent work is probably Julia Roos' _Weimar through the Lens of Gender_ (2010), which is about prostitution law reform in 1920s Germany."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/tl0c9/what_are_the_most_prominent_or_interesting/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/DebateHistory/comments/r00n2/did_germany_have_a_special_path_sonderweg_to/"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
v4i7e
|
Magnetic Rings?
|
My fiance had an idea for magnetic wedding bands that are only attracted to each other. Is this possible?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/v4i7e/magnetic_rings/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c519miy",
"c51bnpy"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"There is, but not with current technology.\n\nThe only way that this could *possibly* be done would be NFC/Bluetooth/some other connectivity constantly being transmitting in an attempt to pair with each other. When it's \"mate\" is in range (say 1\") it could turn on an electromagnet. \n\nIn no way do we have the power storage nor micro-technology for this at this time.",
"As long as you do it soon before anyone else does it, they'll basically only be attracted to each other (and any other magnetic metal..)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ajvid
|
When you breath out underwater, why does it come in bubbles and not one long air stream?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ajvid/when_you_breath_out_underwater_why_does_it_come/
|
{
"a_id": [
"civwg7j"
],
"score": [
47
],
"text": [
"Because a sphere is the smallest surface area that pressure can make with a given volume. Same reason the planets are round. As each blob of air is released its buoyancy causes it to rise quickly from its source, resulting in a stream of spheres."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
123heg
|
What was America's biggest missed opportunity?
|
I was reading some history yesterday, and came across the fact that the US. Congress passed up an opportunity to buy a land route to the Sea of Cortes as a part of the Gadsen Purchase. That seems like a pretty monumental oversight, but I have to image there have been others. So, have at it: how was America almost better than it is?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/123heg/what_was_americas_biggest_missed_opportunity/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ruhse",
"c6rvuj5",
"c6rvy08",
"c6rwfke",
"c6rznw2",
"c6s4obb"
],
"score": [
5,
6,
7,
10,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"David Faber makes a strong case in *Munich, 1938: Appeasement and World War II* that American involvement in the negotiations in Europe would have allowed the Western powers to be much more forceful with Hitler possibly averting the annexation of the Czech territories. \n\nIn my own area of interest, probably the failure of the American delegation to arrive at the Congress of Panama in 1826. Much like the League of Nations, the congress only had a chance of success if the United States was involved. The Jacksonians hijacking the proceedings to undermine Clay/Adams was ultimately a pointless exercise, but was significant enough to delay the ambassadors so that one died in route ( he had been delayed so the season for travel was poor) and the other didn't arrive in time (the Panamanian congress had delayed over waiting for the Americans). \n\nI believe this was a great decision but some have said that Monroe's rejection of Jefferson and others proposal's that he push Spain for annexation of Spanish Texas in addition to Florida in favor of Oregon instead. Some have said that this was a mistake, citing the beginnings of the events that led to the Civil war were firmly rooted in the annexation of Texas decades later, and arguing that Texas could have entered the Union much easier in 1819 then 1845. Monroe however had recognized that territorial expansion of the United States had to be to the favor of all parties, as such Florida and Oregon balanced the interests of the US and neither drew much attack. \n\nThe classic example of course is Wilson not bringing any Republicans to the negotiations in Europe. Many have speculated had he done so, that the US would have entered the league of Nations. ",
"The end of the Cold War. America, especially the then dominant conservatives, simply could not comprehend that the first the Warsaw Pact and then the Soviet Union had collapsed.\n\nYears were spent attempting to argue that it was all a trick by communists who would soon whip off the maskerovka and seize the west.\n\n",
"* The Senate's rejection of the [treaty annexing Santo Domingo](_URL_0_) (the Dominican Republic today) in 1869.\n* The failure to obtain more of northern Mexico, or at least Baja California and a coastline for Arizona on the Sea of Cortez, after the Mexican War or through the Gadsden Purchase.\n* Not settling the *Alabama* claims by obtaining British Columbia.",
"In my mind, as a science and technology oriented person, the answer is obvious: the deportation of [Qian Xuesen](_URL_2_) (aka Tsien Hsue-shen or H.S. Tsien). \n\nIt sounds a little unbelievable at times. A brilliant student comes from overseas on a scholarship, earns a masters at MIT and a doctorate at Caltech in one and three years respectively, engages in cutting edge research in rocket and jet engines, [co-founds an institution](_URL_1_) that is still today one of NASA's premier R & D centers, applies for US citizenship, and... we kick him out with no reason whatsoever except our own paranoia (or perhaps more accurately, the paranoia of J. Edgar Hoover's FBI). We treat him so unjustly, decades later he refuses to even visit the United States. After five years of house arrest, he goes back to his home country of China (which had just then become united by the Communists), picks up his old profession as a scientist and researcher, and is today regarded as the father of China's space program. \n\nI'd wager most people here know [the story of how the US captured the German scientists](_URL_0_) responsible for the V-2 program and assimilated them to pioneer its own rocketry and space programs. That we didn't do the same of Qian is, in the words of Dan Kimball, former under secretary of the Navy, \"the stupidest thing this country ever did.\"",
"The War of 1812: Failing to conquer Canada. ",
"So much to pick from. The failure of reconstruction after the Civil War, isolationism after World War I, and, arguably, failure to stand up to the Soviet Union immediately after World War II. Oh, and that little matter of Vietnam.\n\nHowever, I'm going to go with Hoover's attempt to keep the budget balanced at the beginning of the Great Depression, which was exactly the wrong thing to do. Unfortunately, America has not completely learned this lesson, as even FDR attempted to cut the deficit in 1937 and might never have sufficiently stimulated the economy without World War II, while Obama could not pass a sufficient stimulus in 2008 and is now bowing to extreme pressure to cut the deficit when the country is still in recovery."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Annexation_of_Santo_Domingo"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Paperclip",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jet_Propulsion_Laboratory",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Qian_Xuesen"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
c4gfb1
|
how do we know that the middle of the earth is super hot
|
This isn’t a shitpost I swear. I just don’t get it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c4gfb1/eli5_how_do_we_know_that_the_middle_of_the_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erwdzj0",
"erws15d",
"erxe8um"
],
"score": [
11,
13,
2
],
"text": [
"Pressure creates heat. When you make a snowball, the centre is slightly warmer than the outside because it’s under pressure from the weight of all the snow around it.\n\nNow imagine the same effect but thousands of times greater, because the earth is thousands of times bigger and heavier.",
"We know that the center is super hot by several ways. \n\n1. The earths magnetosphere has a unique shape that changes slightly; which is due to the liquid iron in the earth’s core. Iron is only a liquid at extremely high temps.\n\n2. We have dug very deep. The Kola Superdeep Borehole is about 40,000 feet deep and one of the biggest challenges with digging deeper is that it starts to get so hot that the “drill bits” they use start to melt. \n\n3. At the depths of the ocean there are thermal vents which release immensely hot liquids. Clearly the only place the heat can come from is down since the ocean above is literally freezing. \n\n4. Volcanoes. We know that volcanoes store lava deep in the earth and obviously lava is very hot.",
"In addition to the other points made here (apart from pressure which does not come into play), the Earth having a hot interior makes sense in other ways:\n\n• Planetary formation processes necessitate a body growing as large as Earth would be hot, partly from all the collisions to form a planet and partly from the separation of the accreted mass into separate layers of core/mantle/crust, a process which releases heat in itself. \n\n• We know that the Earth contains many radioactive nuclides which decay and produce heat as they do so. This is most important for the mantle and crust where they have been concentrated, they did not form part of the core. Important ones for heat generation today are specific isotopes of potassium, uranium and thorium, though there were other shorter lived ones producing heat in the early Earth too. \n\n• We see evidence for a plate tectonic system on Earth, which would not be possible without the heat engine of the Earth’s interior to drive convection in the mantle. \n\n• We can measure the temperature at various points and depths in the Earth’s crust, and notice that on average temperature increases by about 30° C every km of depth. \n\nIn reality, this last point only holds true for the crust, and if we were to extrapolate the same rate of temperature increase all the way down to the core, it would be many times hotter than the surface of the sun. In fact, it is only about the same temperature as the sun’s surface (which may still sound surprising, but there’s a lot of insulating solid rock between us and the core!). \n\nLimits are placed on the actual temperature at various depths by the known physical state of the Earth as deduced by geophysics (mainly seismology). Seismology shows the mantle to be solid so it must be below it’s melting point; we know what the mantle is made of and so we can perform high pressure experiments on this material and deduce it’s melting point at the appropriate pressure within the Earth. A similar story for the Earth’s core. We can then use thermodynamics to model likely temperatures for these parts of the Earth and get further clues from analysis of occasional [mantle rock brought up by volcanoes](_URL_0_) and analysis of meteorites - many of which represent the cores of planetesimals which have since been smashed apart and found their way to Earth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://blog.nationalgeographic.org/2012/11/12/xenoliths-from-the-mantle-little-green-rocks-from-deep-inside-the-earth/"
]
] |
|
fbqcjy
|
How genetically "similar" are two most genetically different organisms?
|
I suppose I need to clarify a bit.
Let's take humans and e. coli. They are probably not the least similar organisms, but I'd wager my pick is close enough, and human - e.coli most recent common ancestor must be pretty close to LUCA in time.
How actually similar are their genes? Both coli and humans have the same DNA-RNA-Proteins-Lipids machinery. The DNA of both must at least code for the same tRNA, and proteins\complexes like ribosomes or polymerases must also be at least somewhat similar. We both run on ATP so I suppose the enzymes that are involved in the process must be also at least partially similar.
I'm curious as to how exactly similar we are. know that human genome is several orders of magnitude larger than of e.coli, but still. Approximately what percentage of e.coli's genome can be said to have similarities with human's?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fbqcjy/how_genetically_similar_are_two_most_genetically/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fj6v7hx"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As bacteria, *e. coli* are prokaryotes rather than eukaryotes - prokaryotes lack membrane-bound organelles such as nuclei, endoplasmic reticulum, and mitochondria. While you are correct that broadly, *e. coli* has the same genes for synthesis of protein from DNA by polymerase and ribosomes, the lack of organelles means the process has many differences - *E. coli* does not need any machinery to export RNA from the nucleus, for example. \n\nAdditionally, once you are talking about large multicellular eukaryotes like humans, there are many regulatory processes such as RNA splicing that prokaryotes do not perform. We need these additional processes to mediate diverse and tissue-specific functions, and for multicellular development."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3hhtkg
|
Were there terrorist organizations of any sort in ancient times?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hhtkg/were_there_terrorist_organizations_of_any_sort_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu7ko8s",
"cu7lecp",
"cu7nsza",
"cu7zk8u"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
26,
5
],
"text": [
"Would the vikings be considered terrorists? ",
"I'd ask as a follow-up: how are we defining terrorism and is there reason to believe it can be applied as a concept separate from our modern geopolitical climate? ",
"There were the Zealots and Sicarii of Jesus-era Judea who used murder and violence to oppose the Roman rule of Palestine/Judea/Israel. (The Zealots being the inspiration for the modern usage of the word.) I would think that would be considered \"terrorism\" by any standard.",
"Alongside the other comments in this thread, you might find my answers to these questions helpful:\n\n[Is terrorism really so a new a concept? Was there something similar before?](_URL_1_)\n\n[When was the first instance of non-state terrorism?](_URL_0_)\n\nI've backed away somewhat from my comments in the second link which state that we can categorize ancient groups like the Sicarii as terrorist groups, but my answer there is still subscribed to be many historians of terrorism. Nowadays, I agree most with my argument in the first post--that our contemporary conceptions of terrorism are inherently tied to our understandings of the political structures of the modern and post-modern worlds (as opposed to the ancient world), namely the primacy of national and, later, transnational political institutions. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/12tb1u/wednesday_ama_terrorism/c6y0w07",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2n9tmo/is_terrorism_really_so_new_as_a_concept_was_there/"
]
] |
||
8nrecu
|
why do our eyelids not feel the movement of our eyeballs underneath when our eyes are closed?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8nrecu/eli5_eli5_why_do_our_eyelids_not_feel_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dzxpk95",
"dzxpxcy"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"The primary reason the sensation is reduced is that lubrication of the eyeball reduces noticeable friction between the two surfaces, which is why you also don’t feel your knee moving around inside your leg. However, the feeling is definitely still there albeit maybe quite muted for some.",
"My eyelids feel my eyes. Maybe your sense of touch is dulled? Or maybe mine is heightened?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
5kjagq
|
When did the perception that animations (cartoons) are mostly intended for children came about? When animation was in its infancy, did its early pioneers (i.e Walt Disney) intended their work mostly for children or to other people as well?
|
At a time when animation was still in its infancy, did people already think that it was mostly for children when it was still unheard of? Or this was a perception that gradually established itself? And to early pioneers like Walt Disney, to whom did he intend to sell or market his work at the start of their career?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5kjagq/when_did_the_perception_that_animations_cartoons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbomon3",
"dbownyg"
],
"score": [
43,
7
],
"text": [
"Animation became associated with kids once television took off as an entertainment medium. Networks wanted shows that would appeal to kids, and animated cartoons would often fit the bill perfectly. Some of the more business-minded animation producers like Paul Terry (Mighty Mouse amongst other cartoons) saw the profit potential and sold their cartoon catalogues to be broadcast on TV. This trend gave rise to the cultural institution of \"Saturday Morning cartoons\" that would, forever onwards it would seem, be animation's bread and butter in America. I can't go into more detail as I don't have my library in front of me, so I welcome anyone who wants to go into greater depth. \n\nIn answer to your second question, before this time animation was designed for a more general audience. Many early cartoons contain behaviors that are not strictly kid fare (drinking, lecherous behavior, not to mention the copious violence). Many studios even made cartoons to be used as educational films for soldiers during WWII. Disney in particular was more interested in what was possible with animation rather than what would appeal to just children. Look no further than experimental Disney movies like Fantasia or some of the more frightening sequences from Snow White and the Seven Dwarves or Pinocchio. By the mid-1950s, he would adopt a more paternal persona and lean more into the trend of children's programming, largely in an effort to promote Disneyland.",
"I know this is ask historians and this may not be allowed but if anyone is interested my father in law is Richard Reitherman, son of Woolie Reitherman one of Disney's Nine Old Men. Richard is extremely knowledgable about his father's work, intentions, and the inner workings of Disney in its early years. If anyone has questions i can relay them. Again if this sort of thing isnt allowed i can remove this post."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1bsxbo
|
polarizing filters for cameras and sunglasses
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1bsxbo/eli5_polarizing_filters_for_cameras_and_sunglasses/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c99rfzw",
"c99srvw"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm not 100% on the specifics but it does something along the lines of filter all but a certain orientation of light.\n\nFor example if the light is like this: |\n\nAnd the polarising filter has a slot like this: --\n\nIt wont let the light through. They have to be orientated the same way (and physically rotating the filter will have the effect of allowing light though one way and then not the other).\n\n... As far as how they actualy make the filter and how light can have an \"orientation\", to me it's basically witchcraft.",
"Light can be thought of as a wave. Imagine each tiny bit of light as a little sine wave squiggling through the air. Each one will have a direction, perpendicular to the direction it is traveling, which the wave is wiggling in. For example, you can wave up and down, or left and right (or any mixture of these directions).\n\nPolarization is filtering light according to the direction of this wiggle. A polarizing filter only lets light through that is waving in one direction, say up and down for this example. Without getting into the physics, think of the light wave as your hand, palm open, and the polarizer as jail bars. Your hand has to line up to slip through the slot.\n\nBits of light waving left and right will be totally stopped by this filter. Bits at a 45 degree angle are half up and down plus half left and right; only the up and down part will pass through. This effect has nothing to do with color of the light.\n\nEach photon of typical light is waving in a completely random direction. If you do the math, this means that a single polarizing filter will let half of the total light through (a 50% neutral filter). The light leaving the filter is now 100% waving in the up and down direction. If you were to put a second polarizing filter, rotated 90 degrees, it would block *all* of the light; not simply another 50% like a grey filter would.\n\nLight that is not totally random is called 'polarized'. When light bounces off things, it becomes slightly polarized. This depends on the angle of the bounce. Here's a bit of a related example: push your hand towards your desk at an angle, palm down. It will easily 'skip' off the surface. Repeat with your pinky down, it jams up a bit. Do this straight at the desk and the rotation of your hand dosent mater; the shallower the angle, the bigger the difference is.\n\nIn the real world, this is important for glare off water or background light from a blue sky. Both of these sources are very polarized because of this reflection effect; but the light from your subject is not. A polarizing filter will block the glare, but let everything else through. Where as just a grey lens will make everything darker evenly.\n\ntl;dr polarizers can selectively filter glare\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2d2gzg
|
why tv shows like the walking dead can have extreme on screen violence but cannot air swear words?
|
My friend recently linked me an uncensored season finale of S4 of The Walking Dead. I just found it funny how the violence is considered okay not to be censored but sex and swearing is nowhere to be seen in comparison to TWD comic. But HBO for example in Game of Thrones do what they want. Can anybody explain to me why this is?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2d2gzg/eli5_why_tv_shows_like_the_walking_dead_can_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjle9kf",
"cjlgg59",
"cjli3cs",
"cjljn74",
"cjlkgej",
"cjlmhte",
"cjlmmck",
"cjlnar1",
"cjlnw7s",
"cjlnx3d",
"cjlo5ho",
"cjlp9vn",
"cjlsuaj",
"cjlucbe"
],
"score": [
73,
162,
13,
119,
4,
2,
8,
5,
6,
2,
7,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"AMC has a policy of no foul language, and they have sponsors. Sponsors generally do not want to be associated with shows that include bad language, racism, etc, pretty much anything that could offend anyone.\n\nHBO doesn't have to report to any sponsors can do whatever the fuck they want, in fact, they are known for it, and have carved out a niche for an audience who desires that kind of show",
"In America, foul language (and nudity, for that matter) tends to be much more heavily censored than violence is; in other areas (say, Europe), the opposite is often true. E.g., In Germany, graphic violence is more or less taboo.\n\nTo put it another way, there's Kyle's mom from the South Park movie (I'm paraphrasing, here) -- \"Horrific, terrible violence is O-K! Just as long as there are no naughty words!\"\n\nSadly, there are people who really do think this way. E.g., I worked at a game store when San Andreas came out. People were buying it for their 9 year old kids. When we warned them about the content, some parents would say \"never mind, I don't want it.\" Some, on the other hand, would not care. The one that haunts me to this day responded, \"Oh, it's fine! We just turn the volume off so he can't hear any bad words!\"",
"All I know is Rick saying \"they messed with the wrong people\" at the end of the last season should have been an exception for the use of *fuck*\n\nedit: spacebar is what",
"AMC is on cable and as such it is not regulated by the FCC, so they can show as much violence and nudity and have as much swearing as they want. Comedy Central is the same way - that's why they show uncensored movies late at night (more on that later).\n\nHowever, they're still supported by advertisers, and they have to make sure that they don't do anything to cause their advertisers to jump ship. Why the companies/etc. that advertise during *The Walking Dead* are okay with extreme violence/gore but not nudity/swearing is between them and AMC, but that certainly seems to be the case.\n\nInterestingly, *Breaking Bad* had more swearing, but any \"fuck\" was muted on broadcast, and the one instance of female frontal nudity in the pilot was blurred on broadcast. Again, these would have been due to the wishes of the companies paying for commercial time during the show.\n\nNow, back to Comedy Central and their uncensored movie airings. Like I said, they do this late at night. I don't know if you've watched these airings yourself, but if you have, I'm sure you've noticed what kind of commercials are aired during these uncensored broadcasts - things like phone sex chat lines and Girls Gone Wild tapes. These guys don't care what type of content they're advertising with, and Comedy Central doesn't want to sell them ad time during regular hours.\n\nSo yeah, there you go. To simplify it, there are basically 3 levels:\n\n1. Broadcast TV = FCC regulated (ABC, NBC, CBS, FOX, WGN/CW); prevented from heavy violence, nudity/sex and swearing by the FCC; also has advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of\n2. Cable TV = Unregulated (AMC, FX, TNT, USA, Comedy Central), so they could do whatever they want, but they also have advertisers that might pull their support if they're paired with content they disapprove of; content varies from channel to channel and advertising partner to advertising partner\n3. Premium Cable TV = Unregulated with no advertisers (HBO, Showtime, Cinemax, Starz); can do whatever the fuck they want because they have no advertisers to back out; the only thing they have to worry about is viewers cancelling their subscriptions.",
"Swear words were forbidden by the church. They were considered to be blasphemy and that practice still carries itself to this day. Murder and such, the church has no problem with.",
"Because the FCC is dumb as [f***](_URL_0_).\n\nEdit: Spoiler",
"Most likely people wont act on killing each other, but they will swear. \n\nRemember, swearing is the spice of life. If you say it on occasion it can add flavor, but the people who don't know how to cook just over season causing conversations to taste bad.",
"I always thought that there was some \"zombie loophole\" that allowed shows like TWD to have brutal zombie violence, because technically zombies aren't \"humans.\"\n\nNow that I have typed that out, I realize what an incredibly stupid thing that is to think. Reddit, forgive my idiocy!",
" > \"Remember what the MPAA says; Horrific, Deplorable violence is okay, as long as people don't say any naughty words! That's what this war is all about! \"\n\n--Sheila Broflovski",
"Cause you yank cunts and you'r yank cunt kids cant handle it.",
"What did George Carlin say about this? \"I'd rather watch two people fuck each other than kill each other.\"",
"Besides the explanation of how censorship is enforced, there is one more reason, I think. Graphic violence on tv, in movies and in games is actually special effects. It. Is. Not. Real.\n\nWhen there was gruesome violence in something my son and I were watching, we would talk about the make-up and effects that went into the scene. That removed the shock and \"forbidden\" aspects. \n\nAs for language, I also taught him from an early age that there were certain words that would cause trouble if used outside the house. Guess I wanted to make him work harder to shock me than just using swearing.",
"Because words hurt feelings and feelings are more important than anything else in the world. Forever. ",
"In Europe boobs on television okay, violence is bad. In America violence on television is okay, boobs are bad.. I'd rather have boobs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/sites/default/files/imagecache/thumbnail_570x321/2012/12/dale_walking_dead_ptc_gore.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1hkj4f
|
why voyager 1 launched in '77 is 11 billion miles away yet still transmits home... and my android can't get reception in the bathroom?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1hkj4f/eli5_why_voyager_1_launched_in_77_is_11_billion/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cav7hjc",
"cav7i4y",
"cav80ex",
"cav9oom",
"cava85t",
"cavbpai",
"cavbws0",
"cavctn4",
"cavdclt",
"cavdd05",
"cavdmag",
"caveu5b",
"cavfh2k",
"cavfpof",
"cavh3et",
"cavhact",
"cavklut",
"cavkqqc",
"cavkr9z",
"cavlfnu",
"cavrcny",
"cavrige",
"cavtr5q"
],
"score": [
21,
339,
4,
3,
1275,
3,
3,
2,
108,
25,
13,
30,
6,
4,
3,
10,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Voyager 1 is outside, with a clear view of the sky",
"You could get a hell of an antenna if you were willing to pay hundreds of millions of dollars to have it installed in your phone. That's the cost of the entire probe; the antenna would be much less expensive, but [it extends out roughly 2.5 meters](_URL_0_) and [transmits at the rate of 40 bits per second](_URL_1_). Hardly 4G. I'd be surprised if enough data has been transmitted to fill even a single Blu-Ray disc in the entire history of the project.",
"In addition to all the other reasons, there is a lot more between your phone and the tower or even a router than the space probe.",
"First, the radio frequencies are different wavelengths which affect the distance they can travel and also their ability to penetrate materials. Building materials, especially pipes and concrete block radio waves. The radio waves are even blocked by leaves on trees to some extent. You also have to consider the number of people using the network at one time compared to the number of towers and the amount of spectrum available to handle their usage. ",
"There are many reasons. \n \n1. The physical antennas in use. Voyager has a really large dish pointed pretty precisely at Earth. There is a much much larger dish on Earth pointed at Voyager. It is part of the DSN, or Deep Space Network. These dishes act to focus the broadcast signal and to gather more of the received signal. \n \n2. Data rate: The data rate coming from Voyager is very low-rate. This helps because a single piece of information (a symbol, in RF speak) lasts longer, so the receiver has a longer time to collect the signal and to become certain what the value of that symbol is, and\n \n3. No obstructions. The walls of your house, the water contained within your house and within your body, the material in between the phone and the tower all absorb some amount of the energy, weakening the signal. Conversely, the frequency chosen for the communications of Voyager and other satellites was chosen so that the atmosphere wouldn't absorb much of the energy, and there's basically nothing in the way. \n \n Delay: Most of the delay that you experience is due to processing happening at the various nodes of the network. As for Voyager, the majority of the delay is the time it takes light to travel from the edge of the solar system back to the vicinity of the sun, where Earth hangs out. \n \n\nAlso, your carrier sucks. ",
"I hate questions like this, how are the two related at all? \n\n\"We can land a man on the moon, but I still can't get a ball point pen that writes\".\n\nThe answer is because your bathroom wall (and everything else) is not in the way of the dish used to pick up voyager.",
"The dumbed down version in three simple words. \n\nLine Of Sight. ",
"What I want to know: How it hasn't crashed into anything yet? How did we find out the exact location to deploy it and knew there was a straight line of nothing 11 billion miles away?",
"My Android phone gets perfect reception in my bathroom. I suggest you look into getting a new bathroom ASAP as yours is clearly inferior.",
"Connect [this antenna](_URL_0_) to your cell phone and you will have reception any fucking where you want.",
"Most amazing to me is that the power source (nuclear, I believe?) and computers and transmitter and other electronics haven't failed in 36 years. ",
"The Voyager is travelling through space, which is mostly empty. It uses a sort of radio to communicate with earth, just like when your parents turn on that boring NPR radio station in the car. Radio works with mostly the same rules as light, like the visible light that allows us to see stuff. \n\n*turns on a lamp with a shade* \n\nJust like this lamp.\n\nThe light bulb in this lamp is giving off light, and that light travels through space in a straight line between the source, the bulb, and bouces off stuff like the wall and everything else in the room and some of it ends up in our eyes and that's how we see. \n\n*childs head explodes*\n\nJust trust me on this. The important parts are that \n\n* the light always travels in a straight line\n* it usually can't go through stuff but it depends on how thick the stuff is and what it is made from. Radio and visible light go through different stuff with different success, but they all have stuff that reflects it or allows it to pass, it's just not the same stuff for both.\n* light bounces off lots of stuff, just like bouncing a superball\n\nWhen the lamp's light tries to go through the shade, some of it blocked and some of it goes through and some of it is reflected back. We do it on purpose, to keep the light from blinding us.\n\nWhen the Voyager spacecraft sends a radio message back to earth, pretty much the only thing in between us and the craft is our atmosphere, the air we breath and fly through in jets. In the right conditions, the air doesn't block that much radio so we can still 'see' the voyagers radio waves about as well as when it was a lot closer, like a normal satellite that tells our GPS where we are on earth.\n\nYour Android phone is the same as the voyager, but it isn't just getting messages from a radio tower, it is also sending them. And where you are inside the bathroom there is a lot of stuff in between you and the radio tower down the street to block the light your Android is putting out. The walls of the house, the nearby trees, and everything else work like the lamp shape to reduce the amount of light that gets from point A, the tower, to point B, your Android. Plus, in order to work properly, you need both sides sending light back and forth so when the amount of light is reduced, it makes it doubly difficult to make this work.\n\nThere is also interference, because there is a lot of very similar light bouncing around invisibly all the time, and the Android and tower need to be able to pick out just the right message. You've heard interference on the radio, when it gets fuzzy and there is buzzing and weird sounds and it is hard to understand the music or people talking. When the Android and the phone tower are exchanging data, they have their own computer-version of this.\n \nSo that's why. Phones use radio, radio requires line of sight, phone towers aren't always easily visbile from where your phone is and stuff gets in the way and drowns out the signal with interference. Especially while you are in the bathroom.\n\nNow run along and play.\n",
"The funny part being, when I worked for NASA, the women's bathroom had the *best* reception in the entire place.",
"The antenna that receives the signal from Voyager wouldn't fit in your pocket. Or your bathroom.",
"Because we're spending millions of dollars to point our ears specifically at Voyager.\n\nYour phone company is spending millions of dollars to give service to a wide area.",
"I get fine reception in your bathroom. Must be your phone.",
"There are a lot of farts in the bathroom and that interferes with the signal. Also, you shouldn't be using your cell phone in the bathroom to begin with.\n\nHere's why: _URL_0_",
"POWER FLUX DENSITY (PFD) = P x G / 4 x pi x r2\n\nPFD = watts per meter2\nP = 21.3 watts (X-Band transmitter output)\nG = 6.5 x 104 (antenna gain)\nPG = ERP (effective radiated power)\nr = radius or distance from earth\n\n\n[PDF : Reception of Voyager 1](_URL_0_)\n\nDitto, your carrier sucks.\n",
"because Voyager 1 was designed and built by NASA while your Android was designed and built by Chinese consumer electronics clone makers",
"Voyager 1 was built better than your phone. Shocking, right?",
"Because your phone needs to have a constant real-time conversation with the cell tower, and because Voyager is just sending, not really listening (or not waiting for us to respond).\n\nAnd because we know exactly where Voyager is (or should be based on physics), so we can point sensitive antennas in the exact direction. And because Voyager knows where it is, and therefore, where Earth is, it also points directly at us. \n\nAnd because Voyager is far away, we can filter out nearby signals, because instead of one antenna talking to hundreds of phones, like your Android, we only want to talk to one thing.\n\nAnd because instead of hundreds of cellphones all speaking the same language at the same time, there is only one (Well two) Voyagers speaking the Voyager language.\n\nTL;DR: Cellular communication is two-way, noisy, and has to happen quickly. Voyager communication is one-way, distinct, and we don't mind waiting a few days for each message.",
"Have you ever seen a bathroom wall in space? ",
"To elaborate further, funding.\n\nNASA wants to get the best signal possible and will pay for it.\n\nYour cell phone carrier wants to get the worst acceptable signal possible, and pay as little as possible for it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://nssdc.gsfc.nasa.gov/nmc/spacecraftDisplay.do?id=1977-076A",
"http://voyager.jpl.nasa.gov/spacecraft/instruments_hga.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Goldstone_DSN_antenna.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LuiqVmuxico"
],
[
"http://www.uhf-satcom.com/misc/datasheet/dh2va.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2aqvzu
|
why is nsa still allowed to do whatever they want, and how long will it continue?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2aqvzu/eli5_why_is_nsa_still_allowed_to_do_whatever_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cixv89g",
"cixxma9",
"cixxzf2"
],
"score": [
33,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"This is going to be a bit more than ELI5, but stick with me.\n\nIn 1978, the USA set up the US Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court (FISC or FISA Court) to approve sensitive requests for surveillance by federal law enforcement (read: the NSA). Because this court deals with top secret (\"classified\") information, it operates behind closed doors. From 1978 until 2001 the court operated with little to no public attention. \n\nAfter 9/11, the U.S. gov't took measures to combat terrorism, the most famous of which is the USA PATRIOT Act. This changed large parts of the legality of surveillance both within and without the United States of America and many believe gave the NSA unparalleled power. Given the fact the governing body of the NSA (the FISA Court) operates ex-parte (i.e. with just the participation of the judge and government) the NSA was able to do a lot more than the general public knew about.\n\nThe Snowden leaks showed that the NSA was not only keeping the public in the dark, but also members of the US Congress. **That answers the \"why can they do whatever they want\" part; simply, because they legally can.**\n\nAs far as \"how long will it continue\"? This will change if the laws change and the laws will change if the public demands that they do (by voting for privacy-conscious gov't representatives, etc.). Unfortunately, while there is a general \"stink\" in the media about mass-surveillance, no one wants to be the politician that goes actively against the NSA because (god forbid) another attack happens and he will be known as the \"pro-terror\" or \"anti-gov't\" or \"anti-safety\" or \"weak-on-crime\" politician.\n\n(Source: I'm a 5th year PhD student studying Criminology with a focus on Cyber Criminology. The Edward Snowden revelations made me re-write a large chunk of my dissertation.)",
"Who is going to stop them, you can listen to what republicans and Democrats say but in the end they're on the same team with the same agenda. Divide, conquer, control. ",
"While I agree with other posters that the polticians are cowards, another explanation is the long slow judicial process in the US. Take for exampel the USG's no fly list after 9/11. Basically the USG can prevent anyone from flying without any sort of explanation. This year, [a federal judge ruled the process illegal.](_URL_0_). So it only took 12 or so years for the legal process to have its say.\n\nThe USG has been fighting lawsuits about the NSA/FBI (because the FBI is in on this too) survellience laws by saying the plantiff didn't have standing because they couldn't prove they had been surveilled. With the Snowden revelations, specific plantiffs will now be able to sue. But as with the no fly list, it will probably take years to wind through the US court system."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.aclu.org/blog/national-security-technology-and-liberty/no-fly-list-blog"
]
] |
||
8sshh8
|
I had heard about an infamous serial killer from Colombia, and Wikipedia browsing eventually brought me to "serial killers by number of victims". Weirdly, the top four are all from South America. I don't mean to disparage, but is there a particular reason for this, or is it purely a coincidence?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8sshh8/i_had_heard_about_an_infamous_serial_killer_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e122bkt"
],
"score": [
24
],
"text": [
"\nThere's definitely more room for discussion here, and it's far outside my own expertise but you might find this recent discussion interesting (its Colombian focus also leaves out 1 out of the 4 serial killers): Especially this part by u/Yorambo on\n\n[The top 3 serial killers with the most confirmed kill counts were all Colombians, although they were active in different periods. Was there any socioeconomical or cultural explanation to this?](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6yo3hz/the_top_3_serial_killers_with_the_most_confirmed/dmq2mp6/"
]
] |
||
b3k9di
|
if we can’t see atoms, electrons, quarks... how did we knew that matter is composed by those things and what it seemed like ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/b3k9di/eli5_if_we_cant_see_atoms_electrons_quarks_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ej07zkd",
"ej0a3e5",
"ej0gtbl",
"ej0jox0",
"ej0m3gf",
"ej0qffr"
],
"score": [
6,
27,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"We don't. But it doesn't matter. The mathematical models that describe these things allow us to predict observable outcomes that are incredibly accurate. Everything could be a quantum probably field or a vivid hallucination of the mind.\n\nBut until a more accurate model exist to explain what we experience we'll keep using this one.",
"Short answer: Math. Lots of math.\n\nLong answer: We can't see them, but we can detect them. Our eyes (and by extension pretty much all image sensors) are particle detectors, where a photon hits something, energizes an electron, and sets off a chain reaction that results in us being aware of that piece of light. Add up a bunch of those and you can form a picture.\n\nWe've built far, far more sensitive and precise particle detectors. They usually either have that particle hit something to emit photons that a sensor sees or have that particle hit electrons around to generate an electric current.\n\nThere are some things we can tell about a particle when we detect it, depending on how we detect it; sometimes we can tell how fast it was going, sometimes we can tell where it hit, sometimes we can tell how heavy it was (or rather how much energy it had), stuff like that.\n\nNow, how we interpret that data involves a whole lot of math. For instance, we never actually detected a Higgs boson. We did a bunch of math to figure out how to generate one, we did a bunch more math to figure out what we would detect if we did generate one, and then we tried to generate one several million times until we were sure we saw what the math predicted and that it couldn't be from something else entirely. What we actually \"saw\" was a collection of more 'normal' particles that the Higgs boson broke into.\n\nWe actually get very little information about particles out of experiments and real measurements compared to what we get out of theory. The particles we're looking for right now have all been predicted and quite heavily described by our theories, and what we're trying to find is just proof that they exist.\n\n*EDIT:*\n\nTo be clear, I'm not saying that we know everything and we just need to confirm we're right. There are a lot of things our models don't explain right now, and some of our most powerful models fundamentally contradict with each other. It's just that, when we're looking at particles, we usually know *exactly* what we're looking for, otherwise we would never get any useful information.",
"The atomic model developed over time based on results from various experiments. The first model was developed after the discovery of the electron and was very bad. It's often called the plumb pudding model and basically it was that atoms were made of some sort of positively charged blobby substance with electrons embedded within it. \n\nThe first reasonable model came with the discovery of the nucleus by Rutherford in his gold foil experiment. The Rutherford model imagined the atom as something like a solar system, with electrons orbiting like planets. Rutherford continued his experiments in smashing atoms together and was able to show the existence of protons through a series of experiments 6 years later. \n\nAt this point, people started noticing Rutherford getting all the sweet discoveries and so playing with alpha radiation became pretty popular. During one of these experiments someone was able to emit neutrons, but they didn't know it at the time. It wasn't until Chadwick took a second look that we knew what they actually were. \n\nThe scientific value of smashing tiny things together became clear by then and particle accelerators were built to start looking at what else we could find. This lead to a golden age of sorts for discovery of new and crazy particles that behaved different from everything we had seen before. In order to make sense of it all, new theory was developed that ultimately lead to the Standard Model. This helped guide new experiments to try and look for other particles that our fancy math predicted should exist and we found the last one 8 years ago with the discovery of the Higgs Boson.\n\nNow there are plenty of new models that look to build on the success of the Standard Model and make predictions of other particles that may exist. Searching for new particles is tough though. Particle accelerators are kind of like telescopes in that they are useless if you don't know where to point them, and so good theory work is needed to narrow down the possibilities. ",
"You are right, in a way, we indeed don't know if matter is composed of those things. We can't see them like we see a tea spoon on a table.\n\nBut then, why do we say that is the way it is? Well, that's a shorthand to say: if you assume matter is this way, I have this theory here that say LASER is possible, nuclear fission powerplants should produce energy, the sun energy production should be this amount, etc...\n\nNow, people are going to say, yeah, right that's completely convoluted and unrealistic and I will show you how wrong you are. Then they build a crazy particle accelerator to smash atoms together and... it is indeed showing all those expected crazy behaviors.\n\nSo, until somebody find something unexplainable in that theory, we can't really disprove it. But you can build new theories where particles don't exist but you have vibrating strings in 11 dimensions and matter is just the shadow of those strings on a 4 dimension space-time.\n\nPhysics is not the search for what truly is (that's philosophic noise), but for understanding the universe and using it to cheat our ways out of our own limitations.",
"You can shoot really small things (alpha particles, in [Rutherford's gold foil experiment](_URL_0_)) at a piece of matter and notice that most of them go straight through, with a few being deflected off in a particular pattern. That's how we discovered that atoms have a small nucleus in the center, but are mostly empty space apart from that.\n\nIn order to probe the structure of nuclei and subatomic particles, you can do something similar but you have to use even smaller projectiles and shoot them even faster. That's essentially what happens at particle colliders where we discovered some of the smallest subatomic particles), although the forces that scatter protons off each other are very different from the forces that scatter alpha particles off of nuclei.",
"We can't see wind, but we know it exists. We can measure it, know where it is, how it behaves...etc. Just because we can't directly \"see\" particles doesn't mean we can't . measure and detect them with other means."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Geiger%E2%80%93Marsden_experiment"
],
[]
] |
||
7gxifq
|
why are you expected to drive faster than the posted speed limit in the united states?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7gxifq/eli5_why_are_you_expected_to_drive_faster_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqmh9by",
"dqmhc7y",
"dqmjmif"
],
"score": [
16,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Many drivers know that absolute enforcement of speed limits is very difficult and sometimes dangerous, especially if every driver is slightly above the limit, and minor offenses are punishable by a small fine, if not just a verbal warning. \n\nInstrumental tolerance and error is a very easy argument against a small traffic ticket.\n\nBecause of this, they drive slightly faster than the speed limit, as the chances of being stopped just for a minor offense or verbal warning is close to zero.\n\nThe police are primarily looking for those who they suspect may have a secondary offense that can be cited (such as reckless driving of some sort) and major speeders. ",
"Speedometers are not perfect, and neither are drivers. \n\nA cops 80/kph and your cars 80/kph might be a few klicks off, and that can be used in court to get out of tickets. \n\nSo cops tend to give you ~10k wiggle room, so when they nail you at 11k over, you're dead to rights. \n\nBecause people know they have the 10k margin of error, it's more or less expected to be within it. \n\n*Sorry, Canadian, not American, but close enough? ",
"Because we have places to go, the consequences for speeding slightly are slim to none, and because [speed limits are quite outdated and restrictive](_URL_0_). \n\nAlso, driving with the flow of traffic is far safer than going slower than everyone around you, so it's one of the few times where \"because everyone else was doing it\" is a valid reason in terms of safety, if not in terms of the law."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://news.utexas.edu/2015/07/02/roads-are-better-cars-are-safer-raise-the-speed-limit"
]
] |
||
25wjmi
|
How was the volcanic disaster at pompeii interpreted to the roman people? Did they think it was a gods wrath or did they know it was just a volcano explosian?
|
What did they think was the cause of the disaster?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/25wjmi/how_was_the_volcanic_disaster_at_pompeii/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chltlef"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"This might be a starting point at least. \n\nPliny the Younger wrote a letter about the event. His uncle was involved in the rescue effort at Herculaneum, another city destroyed by the same eruption. [Here's a link to a translation of that letter](_URL_3_).\n\nHere's a relevant quote from the translation:\n\"Many besought the aid of the gods, but still more imagined there were no gods left, and that the universe was plunged into eternal darkness for evermore.\"\n\nIf you take it literally it does sound like the wrath of the gods, but it could also just be literary liberty that Pliny took.\n\nAnother thing worth mentioning, although right now my source is Wikipedia, so I can remove this portion if needed, is the origin of the word \"volcano\". Yes, it comes from the Roman god Vulcan, but only second hand. [According to Wikipedia](_URL_1_), the word volcano comes from the Roman island Vulcano, which in turn comes from the god Vulcan. [Vulcano](_URL_1_#Mythology) was in mythology the workshop of Vulcan and the fire and earthquakes was him working. However, this refers specifically to that location, not volcanoes in general. So this volcano was not necessarily associated with Vulcan.[Here's a link to the United States Geological Survey which gives the same information from a better source](_URL_0_)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://vulcan.wr.usgs.gov/LivingWith/PopCulture/mythology.html",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcano",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vulcano#Mythology",
"http://www.u.arizona.edu/~afutrell/404b/web%20rdgs/pliny%20on%20vesuvius.htm"
]
] |
|
1fxt68
|
why i can't use a mechanical pencil on the act/sat.
|
Also, why can't I just work at my own pace instead of starting and stopping?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fxt68/eli5_why_i_cant_use_a_mechanical_pencil_on_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caeu78i",
"caeu8s6"
],
"score": [
33,
20
],
"text": [
"The pencils are restricted to make sure that the machine that grades the tests can read it. It's also possible to hide stuff inside a mechanical pencil, which they want to avoid.\n\nThe sections are timed so that the exam is standardized between students. Each student spends the same amount of time on each section. It also prevents you from spending too much time on the first parts and running out of time on the others.",
"They don't want you to use a mechanical pencil because there's a tiny chance that you've got a mechanical pencil that doesn't use standard lead. Nobody would know until your answer grid scanned as blank. Sure, every mechanical pencil I've ever seen uses the same no.2 lead as regular pencils, but they don't say so on the pencil, so you can't check to be sure.\n\nFor working at your own pace, that partially invalidates the \"standardized\" part of standardized tests. It's not just \"answer as many of these questions correctly as you can in 4 hours\", it's \"perform as well as you can in this carefully controlled environment\". If you take different amounts of time on different sections, it's less clear how your scores relate to others' scores."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
ljk0o
|
How does our perception of sound relate to its volume in decibels?
|
For example, would a sound at 75dB seem half as loud to the listener as one at 150dB?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ljk0o/how_does_our_perception_of_sound_relate_to_its/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2t7a0j",
"c2t7eiu",
"c2ta4nc",
"c2t7a0j",
"c2t7eiu",
"c2ta4nc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"As I recall, it does. That's why decibels are logarithmic, human ears are too. Amplitude actually doubles about once every 3dB. ",
"Also worth mentioning is that the loudness we hear is not only dependent on the amplitude but on the frequency. dBA (A-weighting) is one way of quantitatively emphasizing some frequencies over others.\n\nSee: \n_URL_0_\n\nAlso, TIL that there is a measure specifically of human sound perception (rather than dB which measures the amplitude of vibration). It's called the [Phon](_URL_1_).",
"The decibel scale of sound pressure level is logarithmic, so things get twice as loud with each increase of 10dB.\n\nAs mentioned, hearing thresholds in humans are different for different frequencies, such that sounds with very low or high frequencies will seem quieter to our ears even if they are orders of magnitude louder in fact. Check out [this](_URL_0_) page, especially the graphs showing equal loudness countours.",
"As I recall, it does. That's why decibels are logarithmic, human ears are too. Amplitude actually doubles about once every 3dB. ",
"Also worth mentioning is that the loudness we hear is not only dependent on the amplitude but on the frequency. dBA (A-weighting) is one way of quantitatively emphasizing some frequencies over others.\n\nSee: \n_URL_0_\n\nAlso, TIL that there is a measure specifically of human sound perception (rather than dB which measures the amplitude of vibration). It's called the [Phon](_URL_1_).",
"The decibel scale of sound pressure level is logarithmic, so things get twice as loud with each increase of 10dB.\n\nAs mentioned, hearing thresholds in humans are different for different frequencies, such that sounds with very low or high frequencies will seem quieter to our ears even if they are orders of magnitude louder in fact. Check out [this](_URL_0_) page, especially the graphs showing equal loudness countours."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phon"
],
[
"http://www.feilding.net/sfuad/musi3012-01/html/lectures/007_hearing_II.htm"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A-weighting",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phon"
],
[
"http://www.feilding.net/sfuad/musi3012-01/html/lectures/007_hearing_II.htm"
]
] |
|
1qrpb7
|
if you kept setting off nuclear bombs in the same place would lava eventually erupt ?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qrpb7/eli5_if_you_kept_setting_off_nuclear_bombs_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdfrirg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Infinite? That's an awful lot.\n\nThere are small magma chambers which are close enough to the surface that a single nuclear explosion can expose them. These don't seem to be in the spirit of the question, however.\n\nMagma occurs in great quantity many tens of kilometers below the Earth's surface. If by the 'same place' we are allowed to place each nuclear device lower into the hole we are digging, then we would need to figure out how far nuclear devices can throw rocky rubble.\n\nMy guess is that you would eventually end up with a giant gravel pit and each explosion would throw almost all of its material high up in the pit where it would immediately roll down and re-fill the hole that you continued to dig. Some smallish amount of dust would be thrown high into the atmosphere and perhaps with infinite bombs you would make painstakingly slow progress in this matter.\n\nIf you want molten rock from nuclear explosions, just use them to heat some surface rock."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1fgqr4
|
how did early humans give birth?
|
If they could do it without midwives and doctors and nurses before, why do we need them now?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1fgqr4/eli5_how_did_early_humans_give_birth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caa3khv",
"caa3mxi"
],
"score": [
7,
14
],
"text": [
"because we don't like as many moms and babies dying as happened back then?",
"Midwives have existed since the Egyptians, but modern advances in medicine have made huge advances in preventing maternal & neonatal deaths & complications.\n\n[This report about birth complications before 1935](_URL_0_) states that prior to 1880 when antiseptics were invented, around 85 of every 1000 births resulted in the death of the mother. This number decreased with better medical understanding to around 4/1000 in the 1930s to 0.1/1000 today. Medical assistance has played a huge role in decreasing birth related complications."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3511335"
]
] |
|
3dn7w0
|
why does russia spy and have hostility towards sweden and other nordic countries?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3dn7w0/eli5_why_does_russia_spy_and_have_hostility/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct6rhsx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Sweden, despite it's avowed neutrality, is very firmly tied to West/Central Europe and NATO (they're actually reconsidering joining because of Russian aggression). Russia is showing hostility towards them for the same reasons they are toward most other European countries."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4tyy7h
|
how can a psychiatrist who is diagnosing patients be sure they don't have any mental disorders themselves?
|
Isn't there the possibility there is some underlying condition the psychiatrist has? Do they visit psychologists regularly? The DSM-5 is an extensive book and everyone is bound to find something in it that they could apply to themselves how can they be sure they are diagnosing without any mental bias?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tyy7h/eli5_how_can_a_psychiatrist_who_is_diagnosing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5lfge9",
"d5lgmog",
"d5li0zg",
"d5lnpms",
"d5lv41a",
"d5lw6w9"
],
"score": [
13,
34,
10,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Mental health professionals often do see therapists for something or another. According to [PsychologyToday,](_URL_0_) between 65 and 80 percent of therapists have had therapy at some point.\n\nThey are not required to regularly visit psychologists, but some do.",
"You think of mental illnesses like something special. Don't! A cardiologist can suffer from coronary heart disease and may or may not be able to diagnose himself based on the symptoms he is experiencing. \n\nOnly a minority of psychiatric patients is suffering from a disease that makes self reflection impossible. The majority is aware that they are sick and if they have a medical background they can see the symptoms in themselves and interpret them correctly. ",
"It is quite possible and actually fairly likely that there are many psychiatrists with diagnosable mental disorders, given how common mental disorders are in the population. As someone else said, plenty of cardiologists have heart attacks.\n\nIf you're specifically referring to some kind of mental disorder that affects their judgement, then yes, it's possible. One would hope that a psychiatrist would have enough knowledge about the field to recognize that their depression, bipolar disorder, or what have you was affecting their ability to perform their job. If not, it would be pretty much the same situation as any doctor who starts doing a lousy job. A depressed surgeon isn't going to be doing surgery as well. There's nothing special about being a psychiatrist in terms of this.",
"Vicarious traumatisation is a very real problem for Psychologists. This is mostly regarding when treating individuals whom have suffered at the hands of a specific event(s), which in turn affects the Psychologist's personal life upon hearing them in depth. Because the role naturally requires a lot of empathy, it's quite easy for this bleeding effect to occur. However this can also happen with anxiety and mood disorders, such as depression, too. This is why therapy sessions with other professionals are recommended (and sometimes mandatory), as it's quite easy to miss it on yourself. The stress of the job can also lead to destructive behaviours such as substance misuse which could affect their diagnostic ability.\n\nMore invasive and disruptive forms of mental illness that could affect their judgement would probably leave them unable to practice. The only exception to this would probably be high-functioning (hard-to-tell there's anything wrong with them) personality disorders. They'd be quite good psychologists, and may probably be unaware (although unlikely) of their disorder. Although I doubt they'd care either way.\n\nCase hardening (where a professional is subjected to a particular patients with things in common repeatedly) may impair judgement, as they're not as empathic and can 'burn out'.\n\n",
"I asked my therapist how he deals with all the shit he has to talk about. He specialized in working with victims of sexual abuse and specifically particularly bad sexual abuse. \n \nHe explained that he would check in with a colleague of his about once every 3 months. From what he told me it was pretty common for therapists to have therapists. In some places in Europe you have to undergo a certain number of hours of therapy yourself in order to get a license to practice.",
"Well you can say that about any doctor. If I have paranoid schizophrenia, that would affect my diagnosing skill if I were a urologist, or a podiatrist, or a psychiatrist. Diagnosing mental disorders isn't really all that \"special\"; it's just another type of medical disease."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.psychologytoday.com/articles/199707/why-shrinks-have-problems"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3lzwu1
|
why does youtube have movies posted that then redirect you to another site?
|
many youtube videos claim to have the full movie but youtube has removed it for copyright issues. Then I'm directed to another site that say I have to give credit card information before I can stream it. If youtube has removed the video due to legal issues, then why is the misleading page still there?
Are the movie streaming sites actually legit?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3lzwu1/eli5_why_does_youtube_have_movies_posted_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvarj71"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"They haven't removed the movie, they aren't legit. It's a scam, they're trying to steal your credit card information. Don't give it to them."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2e9w73
|
How does evolving to a low energy state increase the entropy of the universe?
|
Everyone knows things proceed to lower energy states because they are more 'stable'. The second law of thermo states that processes happen in a direction that increases entropy.
How does this explain why 2 opposite charges will move closer together, in a lower energy state? Why does a ball roll down a hill? They are minimizing their potential energy, but how does this increase the entropy of the universe? A ball rolling down a hill has no clear differences in organization/complexity like cracking an egg into a million pieces does, where the differences in entropy are obvious.
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2e9w73/how_does_evolving_to_a_low_energy_state_increase/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjxhg02",
"cjxmo69"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Entropy doesn't inexorably increase superseding anything else. The entropy of thermal systems tends to increase over time. They evolve in such a way that the Helmholtz free energy, the internal energy minus the product of temperature and entropy (U-TS) is minimized. This means that if decreasing the internal energy has a bigger effect than decreasing the entropy, it will evolve that way, particularly if the temperature is low.\n\nFor isolated systems like two opposite charges, the entropy is very insignificant because there are so few components in the system (it becomes important when there are many), and there is effectively no temperature, so internal energy is the only important quantity.\n\nIf, for example, you have two fluids of different density mixing in a gravitational field, you might see them mix or segregate depending on whether entropy or internal energy \"wins.\"",
"The key here is whether the total entropy of the universe increases not just the system. When a system transfers heat to its surroundings, that heat increases the entropy of the surroundings. Lowering a systems energy or enthalpy means a transfer of heat and/or work to the surroundings meaning even if the entropy of the system is not increased the total entropy of the universe is (note that in ideal systems where only work is transferred the entropy change in the universe can be zero, but these processes are by definition reversible).\n\nIorgfeflkd points out that when considering only 2 particles that you must be careful about using statistical properties like entropy and in that sense he is correct, but one could very easily imagine a group of many charged pairs such as hydrogen atoms and ask questions about the distribution of energy levels occupied by the electrons. This is now a problem in which entropy and energy are both relevant and the laws of thermodynamics are obeyed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1r5p04
|
Why did the Soviets not crush the 1989 revolutions, like they did with Hungary 56 and Czechoslovakia 68?
|
Also, what would explain why they didn't touch the WP countries, but put down independence movements in Latvia and Lithuania?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1r5p04/why_did_the_soviets_not_crush_the_1989/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdjx99c"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"First off, they stopped movements within Latvia and Lithuania because they were both Soviet republics and constituent parts of the USSR (this ignores the debate that they, along with Estonia, were illegally annexed in 1940 and were never really part of the USSR; while there is merit to this, the Baltics were for all intents and purposes Soviet republics). That contrasts with the Warsaw Pact states, which were independent.\n\nRegarding why the Red Army didn't get sent in during the 1989 revolutions stems from Mikhail Gorbachev and his policies of glasnost and perestroika. He openly stated that in contrast to Khrushchev and Brezhnev he would not send his soldiers into stop revolutions, preferring to let the individual countries deal with their own issues, and indeed suggesting they follow his model and allow some reform. Once it became apparent the Russians weren't going to do anything, the protests grew even larger, and the various Warsaw Pact countries, who couldn't maintain their power without Soviet backing, were forced to accept reform, which effectively forced them out right away.\n\nThere's a recent book about the 1989 revolutions and its buildup: *Revolution 1989: The Fall of the Soviet Empire* by Victor Sebestyen. It starts with events from about 1970, and each chapter (which are often only about 10 pages or so) details a specific event in all 6 countries (East Germany, Poland, Czechoslovakia, Romania, Bulgaria, Soviet Union)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2uchab
|
why on old buildings they replace "u" with "v" in carved stones?
|
I just walked past the American Mvsevm of Natvral History. What's the deal? Not like they couldn't carve rounded characters.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2uchab/eli5_why_on_old_buildings_they_replace_u_with_v/
|
{
"a_id": [
"co74dyz",
"co74fm6",
"co74o9u",
"co7aucj"
],
"score": [
5,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"In Latin, at some point there was only 24 letters. Later, the J and the U were* created, but prior to that, there was no U.",
"An allograph is a variation of a letter in another context. Uppercase and lowercase letters are allographs. Before the letter U was added to the Latin alphabet, the shape V was an allograph and stood for both the vowel U and the consonant V. It wasn’t until printing standardized letter shapes in the 1600s that the letter U became regularly used, but I couldn't say why the museum used the shape V in their text. Maybe the architect was a history buff.\n\nInteresting Factoid: Many older cities don't have a J Street because, back then, type had yet to be standardized, and I and J were also allographs.\n\nEdit: I forgot this one and my wife reminded me. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade: Indy almost falls to his death because he forgot: \"In Latin Jehovah begins with an \"I\"\".",
"Have you ever tried to carve a \"U\" in stone with a chisel? \n\nNot so flippant an answer as it might seem. Consider the earliest forms of writing and why they evolved as they did. ",
"I always wondered that. I also wonder if a W as called a double U because of that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7vvmmq
|
if there is no sound in space, how is that car broadcasting bowie up there? is it able to be heard if you were near?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7vvmmq/eli5_if_there_is_no_sound_in_space_how_is_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dtvf86j"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Actually were there are molecules there will be sound. If the Tesla passes through a cloud of gas you could in theory hear it, until it passes out of the cloud.\n\nThe music will always be playing (until the power run's out) and if you place your head or for that matter your hand on the car you will feel / hear the music with vibration through the car body.\n\nEither way its a nice gesture to David Bowie."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
73jx9z
|
why are lots of movies released on the same day?
|
I've noticed this a lot recently. For instance, on _URL_0_, it says there are at least 6 movies releasing on Oct. 6. I've also noticed this every few months. Is there like a specific set of dates movies should release on in the movie industry or something?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/73jx9z/eli5_why_are_lots_of_movies_released_on_the_same/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dnqw6g4"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"Box office worker here.\n\nThe answer to this is pretty simple. Ticket sales on weekdays are second to none compared to anything from Friday to Sunday. It's way more profitable to have a movie be released on Thursdays or Fridays so that they can make the most money with the initial hype. It's just ideal, and opening weekends are the biggest way a movie's success is gauged.\n\nAs for why there seems to be a lot on specific days and the releases aren't more spread out, is because specific times of the year are big hotspots for ticket sales. For example, the movie IT was the highest selling movie in any September ever. This is majorly due to the fact that not many big producers would have their movie be released in September. The most popular times of the year are most of summer and anytime near Christmas."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"rottentomatoes.com"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
13puda
|
why are we attracted to coloured lights?
|
I was putting up my *free thinker celebrating the days getting longer again* lights, and wondered why flashing, coloured lights make me feel so happy. (same effect walking into a casino or fair grounds with lots of neon). What are these lights triggering in my brain?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/13puda/eli5_why_are_we_attracted_to_coloured_lights/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c762ptb",
"c763avv",
"c76436j"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm too lazy and in a hurry right now, so I'll throw this in the ring \n\n_URL_0_ . \"Check Specific color meaning\".\n\nIt's not the colored lights that make you happy per se, it's the specific colors you're seeing. Specific colors are triggering the release of specific amounts of different hormones and chemicals to which you body reacts differently.\n\nWhat exactly those colors trigger in your brain and what the chemical process is, is a question for askscience.",
"Why have I never experienced this?",
"Your visual system is highly attuned to movement in general, since moving things are more likely to be potentially dangerous. This doesn't explain positive feelings toward flashing lights, but it does explain why they draw attention.\n\nAs for those positive feelings, well, there's a trick with some animals where if they have trouble recognizing their water dish, you can wrap it in aluminum foil to create stronger reflections. I believe the idea here is that these reflections better simulate the sort of reflections that occur on water under outdoor sunlight. It wouldn't surprise me if attraction to blinking points of light was related to some primitive system for recognizing water."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_psychology"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
4gcez5
|
Would crucifixion usually be done by its ropes or nails?
|
Crucifixion in media is usually depicted done with nails through the wrist and feet, but I understand it was also done with ropes alone. Which would be the usual method for Rome around the late Republic?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4gcez5/would_crucifixion_usually_be_done_by_its_ropes_or/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2gosiq"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"(Writing without notes here, but I can dig up my sources if necessary.)\n\nThere doesn't seem to be any, single well-defined method of crucifixion. At least, so far, no one has unearthed a Roman list of rules and regulations for the procedure.\n\nThe original punishment was for the criminal to have a wooden beam put on his shoulders and his hands and arms tied to it. It was not a death sentence, but rather an uncomfortable and public humiliation, rather like being put in the stocks. The phrase *pone crucem servo* (\"Place the cross on the slave\") exists from this time as the formal reading of the sentence. Crucifixion has always been viewed as shameful. \n\n(Edit: This was *one* original punishment. The practice of nailing people up onto boards or trees goes *way* back. It gets a little confusing because, even in Rome, the term \"crucify\" also applied to simply tying a person to a stake, or even impaling them on a sharpened stake.)\n\nThe punishment could be enforced by either requiring the criminal to go about in public for a certain length of time with the crossbeam tied to him, or the crucified criminal could be hung up on a post in a public place for all to see.\n\nBeing hung up in that position (along with being very painful) results in death by suffocation. To avoid this, the feet could be tied to the post to give the criminal some support, or a wooden seat would be attached.\n\nSo, hanging a person on a cross does not appear to have been originally designed specifically as a death sentence, but since it could be fatal, it eventually became a torturous method of execution. \n\nWhen we in the modern world think of a government-ordered execution, we picture an organized and regulated process (like lethal injection) which is carried out in a specific, surgical manner. Crucifixion doesn't seem to have such a specific method.\n\nAfter the revolt of Spartacus, the Romans crucified thousands of his followers along the road to Capua. One can imagine, in such an assembly-line procedure, that nails might be faster and easier to use than ropes, especially to prevent the victim from working himself loose. Maybe both were used. The basic idea was just to hang the person up there until he died. It didn't matter what you attached him to the cross with.\n\nIf you hang a man on a cross by his arms only, he will die in a relatively short amount of time, minutes to hours. If you support his body, give him a seat to perch on or attach his feet to the upright, he will live longer, sometimes for days. This was no doubt taken into account by those carying out the sentence. Adjusting the position of the victim's feet or giving him a platform to sit on could result in a quicker or slower death. Nails are certainly more painful than ropes and, if the crucifixion is to be a death sentence, you might as well use nails. \nThere was also the procedure known as the *crurifragium*, breaking the legs of a man nailed to a cross, leaving him hanging by only his arms and suffocating him. This is what the Romans would do if the man was still alive after hanging there for a time and the Romans wanted to get it over with. A process which has never ceased to give me the willies when I think about it.\n\nAbout the cross itself. It would almost certainly be in the shape of a capital T. This is because it is the simplest thing to construct. A vertical pole is sunk into the ground, the crossbeam has a mortise carved into it to fit on top of the pole. You tie, or nail, the condemned to the crossbeam and lift him up onto the pole. The height of the thing wouldn't have been more than six or seven feet. Any taller, and it would be too difficult to get the crossbeam up there without a ladder. (Jim Bishop mentions a *crux sublimius*, a very tall pole used for important public executions, but I haven't followed up on that myself.)\n\nThe most famous victim is, of course, Jesus, and there is a wealth of artwork devoted to his crucifixion. The crosses in those paintings are rarely historically accurate. Constructing [a cross](_URL_0_) as depicted in a Renaissance painting would be a needlessly complicated work of carpentry. The images of Jesus carrying a large, complete, cross along the Via Dolorosa are almost certainly incorrect. Again, it's just too complicated a device. The term \"cross\" (*crux*) was always a reference to the crossbeam. It's only in our modern image of \"Christ on the Cross\" that we think of the entire structure as a \"cross.\"\n\nTL;DR \"Ropes or nails?\" We don't know because there wasn't a specific method of crucifixion. In the case of Jesus, it was probably nails."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.anticstore.com/DocBD/commerce/antiquaire/vaghe-stelle-471/objet/27521/AnticStore-Large-Ref-27521_01.jpg"
]
] |
|
3488ie
|
Would the Yellowstone Super Volcano becoming more active affect earthquakes all the way around the world in Nepal or Japan?
|
Could a super-volcano effect the entire globe before it goes off? There was an article about land rising out of the sea in northern Japan. The article drew some connections linking this event to the Nepal Earthquake. If that is true then what effect would a super-volcano becoming more active have on the rest of the tectonic plates? or how would large earthquakes around the globe effect the Yellowstone Super-Volcano?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3488ie/would_the_yellowstone_super_volcano_becoming_more/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqsdps4",
"cqsh27h",
"cquby8v"
],
"score": [
9,
16,
2
],
"text": [
"No, there are very few geological events that could trigger an event any significant distance away, a large meteorite would probably do it. But you would, however, be able to detect the tremors from a supervolcano eruption with seismometers in Japan or Nepal [unless they're in the shadow zone which I am too lazy to check](_URL_0_). ",
"Definitely not.\n\nAny supervolcano is a huge feature within its local area of crust, but the plumbing system is at most about 100 km in diameter, running to the base of the crust from the surface (about 35km in most cases). Even within that volume, most material is largely unaffected by the volcano; the biggest feature (the magma chamber system) is a large, but irregular feature in the upper 15 km or so. Any inflation or deflation of that magma chamber is almost entirely accomodated by vertical motion of the over-riding crust; it's much easier to push 10 km of rock up than it is to try and squeeze rock sideways where there's no space for it to move.\n\nVolcanoes have very limited impact on stress conditions in surrounding areas for this very reason.\n\nLarge earthquakes such as the nepalese one on the other hand are caused by tectonic movements which, by their very nature, force horizontal deformation. As subducting oceanic plates are pulled into the mantle, they apply a horizontal stress to the plate they are interacting with, and that stress can be transferred across thousands of kilometers. Now, when these earthquakes trigger, because of the geometry of effective stress relief there is almost always some kind of vertical component, but the faults tend to occur at about 30 degrees to the applied stress direction, meaning most deformation in these cases is horizontal. The vertical component is very important to consider, however, as if this occurs near the surface in an oceanic setting, it can result in sudden deformation of seafloor, which in turn triggers tsunami; this is exactly what happened a few years ago with the Tohoku earthquake in Japan.\n\nIt should be noted that there is not anything even unusual about the Nepalese earthquake. There is no need to infer some weird triggering mechanism. It's right in the middle of the biggest active mountain building system on the planet. The Indian subcontinent is very literally ramming its way in to Asia. These are exactly the conditions that trigger earthquakes; mountain ranges are built entirely as a result of earthquake activity. It is the deformation caused by earthquakes which lifts mountains.\n\nNone of this has anything to do with volcanoes.\n\nFinally, supervolcanoes are so far down the list of things people should be wasting their time worrying about. I know they make exciting TV (mostly because the TV programs are sensationalist nonsense), but in reality we are almost certainly tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years away from any future supervolcanic activity.",
"In the past, when a devastating earthquake would take place somewhere in the globe, newspapers would put in the same article earthquakes from another part of the globe that usually would not earn a column. Example, \"Devastating earthquake in China, magnitude 7.3 say Americans, 8.2 say Chinese... Also a significant earthquake in Caucasus, no damage reported.\" The two were not connected but you know how news agencies work.\n\nFurther into the past, at least until 1930, earthquakes used to be reported locally: an imaginary example \"New York had an earthquake at 10:51, Baltimore had another earthquake at 10:54, Philadelphia a 3rd earthquake at 10:56\". Noone knew that it was one single earthquake affecting all localities.\n\nThese trends have left their stigma in people's perception of earthquakes news. The truth is that even a giant earthquake like the 2004 Sumatra one cannot affect things further than perhaps 1000 km away. If you have a look into the asperity model, you might see that in fact a giant earthquake with a fault length of 500 km is in fact focused around an asperity of only 50 km diameter, so the 500 km of rupture represent the radius that was affected by the main asperity. Even the giant 2011 Japan earthquake failed to have a noticeable effect beyond its near vicinity, how can one imagine the recent Nepal earthquake with 1/50 of energy release affect things thousands of kilometers away? The only case where an earthquake might have caused noticeable effects worldwide was after the huge [2012 Indian Ocean earthquakes](_URL_0_), but it is only one case and might be a coincidence. This earthquake was on its own 15 times more energetic that the recent Nepal earthquake and due to its nature it was more efficient at radiating energy through the crust rather than towards the interior."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_zone"
],
[],
[
"http://www.usgs.gov/newsroom/article.asp?ID=3408#.VUKiemccSM8"
]
] |
|
43ew19
|
what is going on with youtube and the fine bros?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/43ew19/eli5_what_is_going_on_with_youtube_and_the_fine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czhot11",
"czhpetg"
],
"score": [
18,
7
],
"text": [
"The Fine Bros are attempting to trademark \"reaction\" videos (those videos like \"Kids React!\" or \"Old People React!) therefore giving them the power to file copyright claims against other YouTubers who upload videos in a similar format. This is making people angry because a big channel like The Fine Bros copyrighting content on YouTube harms other users by totally monopolizing a common video technique. It's basically showing how YouTube has become less about uploading and sharing free content, and more about monetization and making money off viewers.",
"Found this video does a great job explaining some of it:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oXJ3FFOXvOQ"
]
] |
||
1be3z9
|
Did the city of Rome have a large immigrant population during the period of the Five Good Emperors?
|
What I am more interested in is if during this period, or really in any period once Rome started expanding past the Italian peninsula, were there neighborhoods in the city that were parallel to what you would see in Los Angels or New York in the 20th century. For instance, was there a, for lack of a better term, Little Parthia, Little Egypt, or Little Greece?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1be3z9/did_the_city_of_rome_have_a_large_immigrant/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c962xeb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"If you mean from outside the empire (like from Germany or Parthia) no, not so far as we can tell. But there was a great deal of neighborhood identification, seen in such things as separate rites and communal rituals. It is difficult to know whether this had any sort of \"foreign\" element or was simply a continuation (and \"Romification\") of Italian rites. But there does seem to have been a large Palmyran community around the Aventine, so I don't think it is out of the question that there were \"ethnic\" neighborhoods."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
ogpea
|
Was there ever a time when there was more than one species of the genus Homo living at one time?
|
From my research, it's seems plausible.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ogpea/was_there_ever_a_time_when_there_was_more_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3h3f96",
"c3h3t06",
"c3h4kgh",
"c3h54gx",
"c3h5ssv"
],
"score": [
22,
17,
2,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"I have a partial answer for you. The big problem with discrete names assigned to a continuous system is you need to set arbitrary boundaries. When you're shown the colors Red and Orange, the naming convention seems reasonable, but if I show you a continuous rainbow spectrum, you'd have trouble defining where Red stops and Orange begins, at least non-arbitrarily.\n\nSo it is the same with naming species. When we have just a couple skulls and skeletal fragments from different eras, it's easy enough to assign a different name to each one, but with the plethora of remains we have now, it can be rather arbitrary. For example, the *technical* answer to your question is \"Yes, at one point a creature that is considered Homo erectus must have given birth to a creature known as Homo spaniens, because they are our ancestors and there are no defined species between us.\" (And if there were a defined species between us, substitute in the new name and repeat). But that is not a helpful answer, and that is not what you were asking.\n\nYour question, rephrased, is \"Was there ever a time when there was a creature related to man, or his direct ancestors, but not related too closely?\" Or alternatively, a late off-shoot to the Human branch that survived for a non-trivial amount of time.\n\nAnd finally, Yes is the answer. **There are a number of examples, the most striking of which are Neanderthals, who lived alongside Homo sapiens for 10,000's of years.**\n",
"Yes: H. Sapiens co-existed with (at least) H. Neanderthalis, H. Denisoviana and H. Florensis.",
"Follow-up question - is there direct evidence that H. Sapiens lived in close geographic proximity with any of the other species?\n\nI know the question of interbreeding is still up for debate, but do we know if they lived within walking distance of each other?",
"Yes. [Wikipedia - Homo](_URL_0_)",
"In addition to the historical examples, there are some (including Jared Diamond (see his book _The Third Chimpanzee_), and Morris Goodman) who want to stick some of the other great apes (chimpanzees, including bonobos) into the genus Homo. Naturally, this is a rather controversial position. Often species this closely related are put in the same genus. But a lot of people really don't like to acknowledge how similar humans are to chimpanzees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homo"
],
[]
] |
|
4i0xb1
|
why does time seem to slow down when i'm studying and passes by really quickly when i'm procrastinating?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4i0xb1/eli5_why_does_time_seem_to_slow_down_when_im/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2u271p"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You pay much more attention to the time when you're studying, probably something like \"only 10 minutes left\" or whatever, you probably don't do that when you procrastinate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
vsz8q
|
International Sports - When did they begin, and were they always just about national pride?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/vsz8q/international_sports_when_did_they_begin_and_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c57evep"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Probably with the ancient Panhellenic Games in Greece. \n\nThe origin of the contemporary concept of \"nation\" is controversial, but it probably dates back to the French Revolution. Before the seventeenth or eighteenth centuries, it is difficult to talk about nationhood. \n\nThe city states shared a common tongue, but they were different states, often at war with each other. The Games (Olympian, Isthmian, Nemean, and Pythian) were held at the Panhellenic Sanctuaries (every two years at Isthmia and Nemea, every four years at Olympia and Delphi), which were neutral territories where the states could compete on equal footing. \n\nThe first Panhellenic Games were the Olympic games in the 8th century BCE"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1q2x3e
|
why is it so much easier/faster for us to boil water than freeze it, considering the freezing point is much closer to room temperature than the boiling point?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1q2x3e/eli5_why_is_it_so_much_easierfaster_for_us_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd8n1jj",
"cd8n3dh",
"cd8n7aq",
"cd8ng3q",
"cd8y021",
"cd94lzc"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
5,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because we usually boil water over a fire, in a kettle, or on a stove, all of which are VERY hot, much hotter than 100C. On the other hand, we freeze water in a freezer, which is usually only a few degrees below 0, around -3",
"To boil it you are adding heat, usually on an element with a high temperature and thus emitting a lot of heat. To freeze it, you have to take the heat out of the water, meaning it has to transfer to the surroundings. The colder the surroundings are, the faster it will transfer but the usual freezer isn't that cold (about -15 to -20C I believe). So the heat energy won't be pulled out that quickly as there isn't much of a temperature difference. A burner is much hotter than the water (anywhere from 200-400C or so) and so will transfer heat much more quickly. Drop a glass of water in liquid nitrogen (almost -200C) and it will freeze way more quickly!",
"Your stove fire is like 2000 degree Fahrenheit, 212 is the temperature that water boils at. So you're heating up water to only about one tenth the hotness of the fire. If you had something that was -2000 degrees, it would freeze water just as fast. ",
"The simplest answer is because there are many uses for heating something quickly, that use relatively little power, such as an oven or the microwave (which heats things a little differently), but far fewer practical uses for super cooling things in the home. \n\nWe could have devices that quickly super cool things in the house, but would you spend $800 (which online I checked, they're $5000-$20000 ) to have an instant ice making appliance when your refrigerator makes all the ice you could ever need. \n\nSo the technology exists, it's just not mass produced because we need to heat things quickly (food, mostly) but very seldom do we need to flash freeze things. \n\nI'm on mobile but here's a link to some instant ice machines. \n\n_URL_0_\n",
"It has to do with the medium used for temperature transfer. I assume you are thinking stove top vs. freezer. On a stove top you have metal in direct contact with the water over a certain area. The metal is an excellent conductor for heat transfer. In a freezer you are relying on air to absorb the water and container heat, and air (being a gas) is not a good conductor of heat.",
"In order for a substance to change from a liquid to a gas, many btus must be added. To heat one pound of water from 211 to 212 degrees takes 1 btu. To go from 212 degree water to 212 degree steam it takes hundreds of btus. Same with freezing. You need to be able to remove 1 btu to go from 33 to 32 degree water, but to go from 32 degree water to 32 degree ice you must remove hundreds of btus. \n\nFire can add thousands of btus a second to a substance, but we currently have no commercially viable process that can take away thousands of btus a second. Heat is the presence of energy and cold is the absence. It is much harder to remove energy from something that it is to add to it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://m.alibaba.com/products/Instant_ice_maker.html"
],
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.