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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1qzd1x
|
Tuesday Trivia | Crazy Cartography: Historical Maps!
|
Priiiiimary sources! (Previous primary source themes include [letters](_URL_5_), [newspapers](_URL_8_), [images](_URL_4_), [audio/video](_URL_0_), and [artifacts.](_URL_2_)) Today it’s a lesson in geography. This theme is inspired by /u/Daeres, who, some of you might know, *really* likes to make history-book quality maps, and an anonymouse in the survey who also asked for more maps and geography. (Which come to think might have been Daeres anyway… hmm…)
**Please show us an interesting historical map, and give us a little write-up on what it tells us.** it can be either a map *from* history (like the maps used by Lewis and Clark on their expedition) or a map *of* history (like a modern map showing Marco Polo’s route), both are cool.
And of course, with every primary sources theme comes **Librarian Lynx Roundup,** everyone’s favorite* TT bonus feature:
* [American Memory Project Maps from the Library of Congress](_URL_9_) Includes the Lewis and Clark maps I mentioned as well as lots of interesting American military maps.
* [Maps of Africa to 1900](_URL_1_): Free and heavily-metadated old maps of Africa. You can download them too!
* [Hermon Dunlap Smith Center for the History of Cartography](_URL_6_): fair amount of their holdings are digitized
* [Historic Map Works](_URL_7_) Lovely collection, watermarked though, and focused on home genaologists. (If you’re on a college campus this link won’t work because they want you to use the subscription product.)
* [Old Maps Online](_URL_3_) Instantly recognizes where you are, searches its database of assembled library holdings, and displays historic maps of your area. Neat but slightly terrifying. (May not work for all IP addresses though.)
*only my favorite
**Next week on Tuesday Trivia:** Don’t tell your parents, because next week we’ll be anachronistically offensive: the theme will be about insults and swear words that time forgot!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1qzd1x/tuesday_trivia_crazy_cartography_historical_maps/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdi0l3v",
"cdi0laj",
"cdi1o1q",
"cdi1qgy",
"cdi3zuc",
"cdi40pq",
"cdi5ih0",
"cdi5w1r",
"cdi7ber",
"cdic0mg",
"cdic5te",
"cdid8s1",
"cdie7yr",
"cdiic0b",
"cdiidco",
"cdiqv02"
],
"score": [
38,
23,
16,
14,
10,
6,
6,
8,
7,
2,
9,
7,
4,
2,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"I think I'll take this opportunity to highlight what is generally considered one of the greatest infographics of all time, Charles Minard's [Flow Map of Napoleon's Campaign into Russia.](_URL_0_) Although it is in French, it should be easily decipherable to the viewer in its portrayal of the size of the army as it traveled into, and the out of, Russia.\n\nThe image is simple, but conveys a wealth of information. Beginning with a force of 422,000 men, Minard shows it slowly winnowed down to a force of 100,000 in Moscow, and then the brutal retreat with a mere 10,000 reaching the Niemen river. Rivers and major locations are depicted to provide geographical context, and with the retreat, the corresponding temperature is shown as well (although it is in the Réaumur scale, whatever that is...) to give a sense of the Russian winter.\n\n",
"In the late seventeenth century, there were a few maps produced of the British colonies that oriented them at 90 degrees. The orientation was made with West being the top of the map instead of North, essentially setting them up to reflect what the English would see when they arrived. This [late seventeenth century map of Massachusetts](_URL_0_) is one example. ",
"This is a map of [Nueva Galacia](_URL_1_) in 1540 during the native uprisings which is known as the [Mixtón War](_URL_0_). The Caxcanes and other groups in Jalisco and neighboring areas rose up against Spanish rule and even besieged Guadalajara for a brief moment before being brutally beaten down. The Spanish reaction to this uprising was so severe that they left little to no native Caxcan speakers and the language, a dialect of Uto-Aztecan, is considered dead. This is quite unfortunate because tracing the language would have huge implications in understanding the Uto-Aztecan push into Mesoamerica. When looking at the map (the top is East) each settlement is marked by a building with its name nearby, sometimes abbreviated if there are numerous close settlements. Each building that has a cross at the top does not designate that there is a church, it designates that the population of that settlement had been wiped out and there is no longer anyone living there.\n\nI just did an archaeology survey in the Magdalena Lake Basin in the spring, which you can see on the map as two islands in a lake with a settlement on the shore named Ycatla. Ycatla is now the municipal seat of Etzatlan where I had stayed for five months. The islands are no longer occupied, but turned up a wealth of data and the lake basin is now used primarily for sugar cane cultivation with maize and agave grown on the hillsides.",
"During WW2 British intelligence worked with John Waddington, the then owner of the Waddingtons PLC card and board games company, to turn Monopoly games, chess sets and playing cards in to escape packs for British POWs in German captivity. They printed detailed maps on to silk which could be easily folded up and concealed and they hid compasses within playing counters. \n\nI chose this piece of trivia because it shows how maps can be more noteworthy for their context than their content. These maps were based on standard Bartholomew publishing ones, but are unique because of the way they were produced and used. \n\n_URL_0_",
"As a historian of 19th-century cartography of Africa, I have no shortage of maps of all kinds (see my [posts on diagrams and title deeds and how awful they were on the South Africa Highveld](_URL_0_) especially). But for this purpose, I think George Stow's [1880 map of \"Bantu tribal migrations,\"](_URL_1_) published in 1905 with his *Native Races in South Africa*, probably stands as something worth discussing because it's important in migration studies, ethnography, and to a certain degree environment and ecology. It's bad and wrong, but it does exist. \n\nIts oddity is in the effort to chart particular extant social and identic formations' movement, as though they're ahistorical entities in all manners except for change in locale. The lines between the \"flows\" indicate divergence of \"tribes\" in their present form, so the expression looks phylogenic as it goes down the African continent like a demented cladogram. Groups of people who cross don't lose their distinction, but remain \"their\" color; Stow at least avoided tracing them all the way back to the primeval \"Garden of Eden\" as some of his contemporaries might have. Europeans appear as lines of advance here, not as flows of ethnicity; they effectively pierce the continent or tap around it, like a doctor slicing into a patient or (in Stow's case) a geologist taking samples. His views were simplistic and uninformed but he was a geologist and geographer (FGS, FRGS) operating within the constraints of his time. A lot of these ideas of atavistic social groupings remained intact well into the 20th century, and even when challenged (at least in South Africa) it rarely involved head-on assaults. Today we understand the process as being highly syncretic and dynamic, with radical shifts in lifestyles and the transmission of language and culture (material and habitual). But Stow's map represents an early effort to understand the last great wave of peopling within Africa without upsetting colonial mythology about the continent.\n\n(If I can get my copy on the scanner, I'll get a higher resolution image up on imgur or something.)",
"I find it important to note that as an aid to navigation and travel, often the most useful \"maps\" were not geographical representations, but instead far more subjective descriptions of currents, locations, winds, and the like. Just having charts was only part of the story. The most famous of these approaches to navigation within western sailing tradition would be the [rutters](_URL_2_) used by companies such as the Dutch East India. This knowledge was highly prized, and one of the most significant of them in terms of impact was the 1595 Reysgheschrift by Dutch sailor Jan Huygen van Linschoten. Quoting Wikipedia - \n\n > \"Linschoten publicized the sailing directions to the East Indies that had been assiduously kept secret by the Portuguese for nearly a century. The publication of Lischoten's rutter was an explosive sensation, and launched the race by a myriad of Dutch and English companies for the East Indies in its aftermath.\"\n\n It was published in English in 1598 under the title \"John Huighen van Linschoten, His discours of voyages into ye Easte and West Indies: deuided into foure bookes\" and can be read on Google Books [here](_URL_1_). This highlights the fact that sailing directions, essentially \"maps\" of a single journey, were arguably more important than what might be called a pure map even during the era of exploration and mapping.\n\nThe question of what constitutes a map is a very interesting one and is very much dependent on culture - for example even our convention of creation maps focusing on geographical accuracy is somewhat of a choice motivated by our beliefs regarding what is the most significant \"truth\" about our natural world. There are many cultures describe directions in terms of prevailing winds, with the implication that as the coastline shapes the winds, so too the words referencing \"north\" change to reflect the winds that come from that direction. this could lead to a visual representation of an area that by straightening valleys and coastlines to reflect shared weather conditions actually was more \"accurate\" from a useful/cultural perspective than a modern map.\n\nThere's a lot more work that has been done comparing single-use descriptive maps showing a narrative journey, and comparing the act of creation and interpretation of these maps to the way in which modern maps influence our view of the world. My favourite work on the subject is Tim Ingold's book [\"Lines: a brief history\"](_URL_0_).",
"I definitely think that the coolest map is the [Tabula Peutingeriana.](_URL_0_) I wrote a paper on it a couple years back, so I'll just copy and paste a bit from my intro, if that's okay:\n\n\"This twelfth-century manuscript copy, roughly 34cm tall and almost seven metres wide, depicts the ‘inhabited’ world in rather alarmingly warped form. Though precise dating is impossible, the Peutinger map is generally accepted as a copy of a late-antique Roman original (likely fourth-century AD) which itself contained features traceable as far back as the first century AD (perhaps derived from written itineraries). The map, depicting Europe, Asia, and North Africa, follows a distinct west-to-east flow, tracing roadways, rest-stops, topographical features, and peoples found along the way. The entire continent of Asia, stretching as far east as the Chinese frontier, is remarkably compressed and noticeably less detailed than the more well-known West. Still, the mapmaker clearly took pains to identify whatever features he could, whether exotic or familiar. Thus we find a temple of Augustus nestled among the pirates, *ichthyofagi*, scorpions and elephants.\"\n\nI could stare at this bizarre map for hours, just drinking in the details. Though this incarnation of the map is from the middle ages, I think it really tells us a lot about how the Imperial Romans viewed the world.",
"(Also, don't forget the Perry-Castañeda collection at UT-Austin. [They've got a lot of scanned historic maps](_URL_0_).)",
"[This](_URL_1_) map (sorry about the quality), dated 1646, is a map of the town Malmesbury in Wiltshire. Now, what's interesting about this is obviously the birds eye view, which isn't actually possible to see from any nearby hill: you'd need to be in a plane to take a picture. Despite that, the map is surprisingly accurate. It also gives useful information about how the town has changed: in particular, it was drawn just as the walls were being demolished after the civil war, so it gives us an idea of the town's defences and a helpful starting point for seeing which areas of the walls remain embedded in houses and so on. \n\nHere is another map type: [a TO map](_URL_0_), printed roughly 800 years after its initial drawing by Isidore of Seville. What's interesting about that? Well, to start with it's a representation of some of the first pictures in books: printers wanted to do more complicated things than just text, but had to learn how to first, so transitional pictures like this are ideal. Second, it's very simple, so it reveals some of the things that might have been considered 'most important': intriguingly, the names of Shem, Ham, and Japtheh, Noah's sons in the Old Testament tradition, are written alongside the continent. What other things are worth noticing? Well, East is up instead of North. The map is highly inaccurate and doesn't try to point out any links between the continents, which it could despite its simplicity. It suggests an ocean around the world that doesn't exist in quite the way the map depicts. And it's also potentially not suggesting the world is flat: Isidore said that the world was round, and there was a thought at the time that the equator was impassable because of its heat, so depicting anything below it would be redundant.",
"I really enjoy the aerial views of Towns and Cities in the American Memory Project Maps from the Library of Congress. Twenty Years ago, I bought a book called \"Bird's Eye View\" that described this popular 1865 to 1900 map format. The book shows Bird's Eye views of the large cities of the USA, but the Library of Congress has a much larger selection and includes small towns like Brookville PA. ",
"These maps (split into two images for easier viewing) are very informative and interesting:\n\n[Img 1](_URL_1_)\n\n[Img 2](_URL_0_)\n\nThis is a map of Chinatown, created by the California Board of Supervisors Special Committee on Chinatown. It's neat because it shows just exactly where the different vice operations of the town were.\n\nThe Orangeish-beige colored buildings are non-vice general Chinese occupancy buildings.\n\nPink is gambling houses.\n\nGreen is Chinese prostitution.\n\nYellow is opium dens.\n\nRed is Joss houses.\n\nBlue is White prostitution.\n\nThe spread of the vice operations would have peaked in the first decade of the 20th Century, while this map is from back in 1885. After then, the vice industry would have taken a dive.",
"I want to thank /u/Caffarelli for sharing the link to the UIllinois African map collection. Looking through those maps, I noticed an oddity that occurs in early European maps of West Africa that I would like to share.\n\nIn [These](_URL_1_) [three](_URL_0_) [examples](_URL_2_) there consistently appears a city labeled \"Tocror\" located on the Niger river, east of Timbuktu (in these maps variously labelled as Tombuk, Tombuttou, Tombut, etc).\n\nThis placement of Tocror had me scratching my head. I had heard of the Takrur state. But that was located along the Senegal river, not the Niger , nowhere near where these European cartographers were placing the city of Tocror. Also, Takrur ceased to exist as a kingdom in the 13th century, long before these 18th and 19th century maps were written.\n\nHowever, I have a possible explanation. The Takrur state existed at the same time as the Gao and Ghana states, but Takrur was noteworthy in the Islamic world for being much quicker to embrace Islam than the neighbors in Ghana or Gao (Takrur seems to have become predominately muslim by the 11th century, whereas Mali/Songhai may not have been majority Muslim until the 13th century). \n\nThis claim to fame would be seized upon by medieval Muslim geographers in north africa. However, many of these geographers had never actually traveled to the locations they wrote about, and so Takrur as a geographic term became more generic, so far as *Bilad al-Takrur* (land of Takrur) was sometimes used synonymously with *Bilad as-Sudan* (land of the blacks/ West Africa).\n\nI suspect (but cannot yet prove) that this geographical confusion somehow was passed on to European authors, whose knowledge of the interior of Africa was even more rudimentary than the Muslim authors they (apparently) were copying from. Thus, these authors seem to locate a fictional city far away from the actual location it was (apparently) based upon.\n\nFrom the many equivocations in this post, it should be clear that this is just a pet theory of mine, and very preliminary, and this little mystery warrants further research.",
"[Here are three maps](_URL_2_) that I inherited from my father's National Service days (around 1950) that show a bizarre level of recycling. (I don't think I have flashed them around here before, I think I asked the good people of r/mapporn about them, apologies if this is a repost)\n\nThe first pair are printed on the reverse of each other. On one side is a [1940 German copy of a 1935 British Ordnance Survey map of the UK](_URL_4_). It was printed, as I understand it, for use if Operation Sea Lion had been successful and German soldiers had needed to find their way around the English Midlands. As you can see from [this detail](_URL_0_) it is a direct copy with just the legend and key in German.\n\nWhat I find very unusual is that on the reverse is [a 1945 British copy of a German map of the Gutersloh area](_URL_3_) printed for use by the British occupying forces in Germany. Again [the detail shows](_URL_5_) that the map is in German with an English legend and key. By flipping a German invasion map and reprinting a British invasion map on the other side somebody was having a laugh.\n\nI gather that the British Army at this time had cartography teams with presses that followed close behind the army overprinting local maps at great speed with the most up-to-date military information that they had, supplying the front line and later the occupying forces with maps. (A bit like the iPad type applications that the US army are struggling to make work, last I heard.) [The third map](_URL_1_) is one of these and is included for its more direct historical interest. It shows the border of the Russian Zone where my father patrolled. Note that it shows \"the Demarcation Line between the British and Russian Zones based on Common Usage as at 1 Nov 48 (NOT official)\" e.g. this is the line that we and the Russians had worked out on the ground.",
"[Here's the one-of-a-kind interactive historical map dedicated to Great Patriotic War / WW2's Eastern Front.](_URL_0_) It's an absolute must for anyone interested in this conflict, and contains the entire theatre from 22nd of June 1941 until 9th of May 1945. \n\nI only wish there were more projects like this for other conflicts, as it's absolutely amazing.",
"I have a little website, [ChicagoinMaps,](_URL_0_) that tries to point to all the historic Chicago maps out there on the web.\n\nAnd, shameless plug, I create a lot of urban history maps for academic books.",
"One of my favourite maps is [this](_URL_0_) (large image warning) 1821 map, a \"Chart Of the Inhabited World; Exhibiting the prevailing Religion, form of Government, degree of Civilization & Population of each Country\". It's such an excellent window into the 19th century worldview, from the scale of 'civilization', over the white spaces on the map, to the missionary stations near non-Christian territories. I love how the cross marking Christians in modern-day Ethiopia is the only one where the mapmaker found the need to write \"Corrupt Christianity\" next to it. There can't just be such a thing as Christianity in Africa."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1jcijt/tuesday_trivia_and_were_rolling_primary_source/",
"http://imagesearchnew.library.illinois.edu/cdm/landingpage/collection/africanmaps",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nzepw/tuesday_trivia_arresting_artifacts/",
"http://www.oldmapsonline.org/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gl0rs/tuesday_trivia_worth_1000_words/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1g4bp9/tuesday_trivia_reading_other_peoples_mail/",
"http://www.newberry.org/hermon-dunlap-smith-center-history-cartography",
"http://www.historicmapworks.com/",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hxovw/tuesday_trivia_extra_extra_newspapers_and/",
"http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/gmdhtml/gmdhome.html"
] |
[
[
"http://i.imgur.com/Y09LiQD.png"
],
[
"http://capecodhistory.us/20th/Morse_Payne_files/1677map.jpg"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixt%C3%B3n_Rebellion",
"http://i.imgur.com/gbPvtdZ.jpg"
],
[
"http://www.mapforum.com/04/escape.htm"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1j5l0u/saturday_sources_july_27_2013/cbbswmh",
"http://www.ezakwantu.com/African%20Migration%2003.jpg"
],
[
"http://manoftheword.files.wordpress.com/2013/06/ingold-tim-lines-brief-history.pdf",
"http://books.google.ca/books?id=nRN-HgO3tREC&pg=PP7&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rutter_(nautical\\)"
],
[
"http://peutinger.atlantides.org/map-a/"
],
[
"http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/historical/"
],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/7/70/T_and_O_map_Guntherus_Ziner_1472.jpg/600px-T_and_O_map_Guntherus_Ziner_1472.jpg",
"http://www.athelstanmuseum.org.uk/images/history/Birds_eye_view.jpg"
],
[],
[
"http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/cic/images/brk00003066_16a_k.jpg",
"http://sunsite.berkeley.edu/cic/images/brk00003065_16a_k.jpg"
],
[
"http://imagesearchnew.library.illinois.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/africanmaps/id/2410/rec/2",
"http://imagesearchnew.library.illinois.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/africanmaps/id/2216/rec/3",
"http://imagesearchnew.library.illinois.edu/cdm/singleitem/collection/africanmaps/id/1272/rec/2"
],
[
"http://i.imgur.com/zAgKPh.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/jeNx5h.jpg",
"http://imgur.com/a/LeITK",
"http://i.imgur.com/JzVxxh.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/XsE0mh.jpg",
"http://i.imgur.com/09Dwih.jpg"
],
[
"http://english.pobediteli.ru/flash.html"
],
[
"http://www.chicagoinmaps.com"
],
[
"http://i1.minus.com/ibaRfBUIvs05oe.jpg"
]
] |
|
4lid4o
|
how can people just tell which direction they're going?
|
For instance, sometimes my GPS will tell me to go east on a certain street and I have no idea where that's it. Or someone will say, "Go north, and then head east."
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lid4o/eli5_how_can_people_just_tell_which_direction/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3nj2zy",
"d3nlv8t",
"d3no2mj",
"d3nppsv",
"d3nqujy"
],
"score": [
5,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, there are a few ways. But most importantly, road signs should tell you which direction highways go. Also, it's all about learning how to orient yourself. Use the sun as a guide. It rises in the East and sets in the West. Looking into the sun in the morning? You're headed East. Sun to your left in the evening? You're going North. ",
"A lot of people can look at the sun - or even shadows - and figure out which cardinal direction their pointing.\n\nSailors in olden times actually used stars and star maps to navigate the oceans; primarily as they were the only \"landmark\" when you were out to sea with nothing else to go by.\n\nYet other people know their towns & cities well enough that they can glance at what is around them right now, walk around for a few minutes, and just by virtue of knowing that X shop is (direction) from Y shop, they can get their bearings on that.\n\nWe, however, do not have any kind of natural compass - like some birds might - to naturally detect which direction we're headed. Most of it comes down to experience, knowledge, with a sprinkling of intuition. Which also means, if you practice training yourself how to recognize directions, you too can figure out which ways north/east/south/west are.",
"You generally know a few things that are \"all the way south\" or \"all the way east\" or so on.\n\nFor example, the sun rises in the east and sets in the west. Streets often have \"East\" or \"West\" affixed to their names. In my city, the lake (and the giant-ass tower beside it) are always to the south. \n\nYou use the landmarks you know and extrapolate from there.",
"For myself, I know that the sun rises in the east and sets in the west - looking at where the sun is/thinking of where it rose, I can figure out general directions. I never use them to give others directions, but I think it's fun to figure out which way I'm headed.",
"I use the sun a lot to determine direction and time. \n\nIt rises in the east and sets in the west. All you need to figure is north and south. Then the time can be understood by its distance from the horizon. Great trick to learn, it can help you out in a pinch. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
8dxzrp
|
How crucial was the Army's role is the pacific campaign?
|
After doing some limited research I found out that the Marines weren't the only ones doing all the fierce fighting against the Japanese, but how much of a role did the Army have?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8dxzrp/how_crucial_was_the_armys_role_is_the_pacific/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dxr1e6i"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The bulk of the troops in the Pacific were actually Army, not USMC. By my count 22 Army divisions saw combat in the Pacific: Americal, Philippine, 6th, 7th, 24th, 25th, 27th, 31st, 32nd, 33rd, 37th, 38th, 40th, 41st, 43rd, 77th, 81st, 93rd, 96th, 98th, 11th Airborne, and 1st Cavalry. Several other Army divisions were allocated to the Pacific but didn’t make it to the theater or at least didn’t see any combat in theater. In contrast the Marines only had six divisions (all of which saw combat). \n\nThis rough 3 to 1, army to marines, ratio existed for most of the war. So while a lot of the Army divisions were only arriving in theater in 1944 or 1945, the same was true of the Marine divisions. 5th Marine and 6th Marine only arrived in time to fight on Iwo Jima and Okinawa respectively; although it should be said many of the individual men had fought earlier as members of one of the other Marine divisions. So late formed Army divisions like the 96th saw about as much combat (Leyte and Okinawa) as a late formed Marine division like the 6th Marine (Okinawa). While an early formed army division like the 7th (Attu, Kiska, Kwajalein, Eniwetok, Leyte, Okinawa) saw similar amounts of combat as an early Marine division like the 2nd Marine (Guadalcanal, Tarawa, Saipan, Tinian, Okinawa).\n\nIn practice each battle/campaign tended to have their own blend of forces. Iwo Jima was fought by three Marine divisions with no Army ground units, but with heavy support from US Army Air Force Support. Shortly after, Okinawa was invaded by the remaining three Marine divisions along with four Army divisions. In contrast the Philippines campaign (which was still ongoing during Iwo Jima and Okinawa) was fought with 14 army divisions (although not all 14 at the same time) with no Marine participation. So in early to mid 1945 the major fights were either entirely Marines, entirely Army, or a mix. Most smaller island attacks were combined Marine/Army affairs. Most larger fights like New Guinea or the Philippines were largely or entirely Army operations. \n\nIt should also be pointed out that the Australians generally had several army divisions engaged at most times serving in New Guinea, the Solomons, and later in Borneo. For the Salamaua–Lae campaign for example MacArthur was leading one American division and four Australian divisions. It’s an under-appreciated fact that the “American” forces relied heavily on these Australian units, particularly in 1942 and 1943. So there were at times as many *Australian* soldiers operating under US command as there were US Marines.\n\nSo while the Marines were a vital force in the Pacific war, they were only a small minority of the troops engaged in the fighting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2lfaw9
|
Why is there things like depression that make people constantly sad but no disorders that cause constant euphoria?
|
why can our brain make us constantly sad but not the opposite?
Edit: holy shit this blew up thanks guys
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2lfaw9/why_is_there_things_like_depression_that_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clucl3d",
"clueauv",
"clueqo6",
"clugz91",
"cluiv3k",
"cluivft",
"cluj7gi",
"clujqpo",
"cluju0u",
"clujz31",
"clulgh2",
"cluo4oe",
"clus4hx",
"clut3sg",
"clutwo9"
],
"score": [
151,
300,
537,
39,
13,
16,
6,
4,
65,
2,
1341,
19,
11,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Most forms of depression we know of are associated with the basal expression levels of signal receptors in your brain. Thus, it is a rather consistent over- or under-expression of your capacity to feel \"joy.\" Euphoria, on the other hand, relies on stimulus threshold to unleash a flow of chemical signals that stops until that threshold is breached again. It's all about signalling pathways in both cases, but its just a lot harder to break a Gp signalling pathway than it is to mess up receptor expression.\nExample sources (although they are innumerable...):\n[Associations between depression severity and purinergic receptor P2RX7 gene polymorphisms](_URL_0_)\n[Single nucleotide polymorphisms and mRNA expression for melatonin MT2 receptor in depression](_URL_2_)\nand one for the mania: [From ion pump dysfunctions to abnormalities in signal transduction pathways in bipolar disorder: oaubain rat model for mania](_URL_1_",
"###This thread requires authoritative [sources.](_URL_0_) \n###Speculation, anecdotes and unsourced responses will be removed. \n###Personal medical information and medical advice is always removed. \nFollowup questions are always welcome.",
"While it's not a psychiatric disorder which can come and go such as depression or bipolar mania, people with Angelman syndrome are nearly always happy. _URL_0_",
"Theoretically, given a \"perfectly\" supportive situation, a person with Narcissistic Personality Disorder might feel something approaching a constantly euphoric mood.\n\nBipolar states are largely biologically based, and cyclic. NPD is less genetic, and rather than being reactionary to brain chemistry, reacts to the situation.\n\nA narcissist that was constantly fed statements and experience that affirmed his internal grandiosity would feel that his internal representation was deserved, and thus he was superior, and would have an elevated mood.\n\nAny negative or threatening criticism, however, could trigger anger and/or depression.\n\nSource: [Commonalities and differences in characteristics of persons at risk for narcissism and mania](_URL_0_) ",
"I can't think of a disease that causes this in particular but brain damage can cause very strange things and in one case, [detailed in Oliver Sacks book *The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat*,](_URL_0_) a woman with neurosyphilis had brain damage that caused a suite of symptoms that were on the whole positive including more energy and a general improvement in mood. \n",
"Bipolar disorder or manic-depressive illness, is characterized by periods of elevated mood, consisting of manic highs and depressive lows. \n\nEach person experiences these periods of highs and lows differently but during the mania stage many people can actually have very elevated moods including ~~euphoria~~ abnormal happiness. They can also be very energetic, confident, productive and need very little sleep to function. This could be one of the closest disorders to the answer you are looking for OP.\n\nUnfortunately, this type of manic period isn't always the norm and people can suffer from negatives such as false confidence, irritability and erratic behavior during the mania stage as well. This can result in poor decision making with little regard to the consequences and sometimes even psychosis. \n\nAlternatively, the following depressive episodes, associated with the second half of bipolar disorder, can be very debilitating. So no real great euphoria, OP, but instead, elevated periods of happiness with paralyzing depression as well. Self harm rates are also known to be as high as 30-40% among those with the disorder. This is why this can be such a difficult illness to live with. [source](_URL_0_)",
"\"Mental disorder, any illness with significant psychological or behavioral manifestations that is associated with either a painful or distressing symptom or an impairment in one or more important areas of functioning.\" [(encyclopaedia brittanica)](_URL_0_)\n\nWhen some anomaly is causing you to be happy, it would not be causing you suffering, so it's not a disorder. So it's possibly more of a semantic thing. btw, syphillis and multiple sclerosis also seem to have euphoria as a a possible side effect.",
"Well with bipolar, there's the \"mania\" phase. I knew a women who when she was going through her mania/happy/euphoric stage she would go out clubbing and have lots of casual sex and go spend a lot on her credit card.\n\nSource: Uh I study psychology at the University of Queensland.\nThis guy gave the lecture in particular to the topic: _URL_0_",
"There are a few disorders that can cause constant or long periods of euphoria, _URL_0_ \n\nI think the main reason it doesn't get a lot of press is that going to a doctor & saying \"I've this terrible affliction, I can't stop being happy\" doesn't get much sympathy.",
"I´m gonna go at it from a different angle and make up some words: \"Thymia\" is temperament or mood and \"hyper\" is excessive in some dead language. _URL_0_ Yup... It also links to euthymia wich seems to mean being locked into feeling just a OK, whatever goes on. I haven´t heard of clinicians using this to term when describing clinically significant suffering but I guess it´s just a matter of finding the right context.",
"Academic psychiatrist here. First off, depression doesn't \"make\" people sad. Rather \"depression\" is a description of a person's experience. It is often used to describe the symptom of depression, but there are broader clinical entities such as a \"major depressive episode,\" which have operationalized definitions.\n\nAs for the question of constant euphoria, it certainly exists. Although it doesn't necessarily warrant clinical attention (people don't complain to me of \"wellbeing\"), people with extended periods of mood elevation often also experience periods of dark lows as well as too-high highs. The bipolar spectrum is not well characterized, but many researchers have dedicated their lives to exploring this. Periods of inappropriately elevated mood are described as hypomania (generally still functional) or mania (no longer functional). Without treatment, they can last for days to months at a time. However, some people tend to have a \"hyperthymic temperament\" or \"hyperthymic personality,\" by which we mean that their mood (-thymia) tends to be elevated (hyper) in a chronic fashion. Still others have chronically undulating moods over the course of years, which is described as cyclothymic disorder.\n\nShould also add that \"mixed states\" exist where dysphoria and excessive energy co-occur. These are particularly dangerous and are associated with risk of suicide. The mood here tends to be profoundly irritable.\n\nFor an interesting read, here is a study that explored a broader definition of bipolar spectrum illness in the community: Fassassi S, Vandeleur C, Aubry JM, Castelao E, Preisig M. Prevalence and correlates of DSM-5 bipolar and related disorders and hyperthymic personality in the community. J Affect Disord. 2014 Oct;167:198-205. \n\nTL;DR: Periods of chronic euphoria exist.",
"There is, it's called Mania. It is a state of mind where the individual is in a prolonged state of euphoria at times and impulsivity. This behavior is associated with hyper-sexuality, extreme impulsivity.",
"Nobody has posted this yet, so I'm sure it will get buried, but there is actually a genetic disorder that has a characteristically cheerful demeanor associated with it, it's called [William's Syndrome](_URL_1_). \n\n > a distinctive, \"elfin\" facial appearance, along with a low nasal bridge; an **unusually cheerful demeanor and ease with strangers**; developmental delay coupled with strong language skills; and cardiovascular problems, such as supravalvular aortic stenosis and transient hypercalcaemia.\n\nSome articles to look into for more reading on the subject- \n\nDykens, Elisabeth; Beth Rosner (April 1999). \"Refining Behavioral Phenotypes: Personality—Motivation in Williams and Prader-Willi Syndromes\". American Journal on Mental Retardation 104\n\n_URL_0_\n\nGosch, Angela; Rainer Pankau (1997). \"Personality characteristics and behaviour problems in individuals of different ages with Williams syndrome\". Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology 39 \n\nEinfeld; Tonge, Florio (1997). \"Behavioral and emotional disturbance in individuals with Williams syndrome\". American Journal on Mental Retardation 102 ",
"Have there been comparisons of rates of depression in hunter-gatherer societies?\n\nOne hypothesis is that the reason depression is so common in modern life is that a lot of us are living a little like animals in captivity, unable to do our instinctive behaviors due to lack of habitat, constraints of civilization etc.",
"There are euphoric conditions, but no one goes to treat those most of the time. I recall specifically that Clic and Clac from Cartalk speaking of this. Of course this was a condition diagnosed from German doctors, so maybe the society as a whole is generally more morose?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S0165032713002188",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/journal/10.1111/(ISSN1399-5618)",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com.erl.lib.byu.edu/science/article/pii/S016517811100059X"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/wiki/sources"
],
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome"
],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2849176/"
],
[
"http://www.walnet.org/sos/cupidsdisease.html"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bipolar_disorder"
],
[
"http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/375345/mental-disorder"
],
[
"http://researchers.uq.edu.au/researcher/2"
],
[
"http://www.rightdiagnosis.com/e/euphoria/intro.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperthymic_temperament"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11305686",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Williams_syndrome"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
d4kakr
|
During the Battle of Moscow (1941), the Soviet Union moved a big amount of units from Siberia and the Far East to fight in Moscow. Couldn't it has been a good moment to start a second front in the east by the Japanese Empire?
|
I know that the Battles of Khalkhin Gol (1939) was a complete defeat for the Japanese Empire, and they had a neutrality pact with the Soviet Union signed in 1941, but it seems like a good option.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/d4kakr/during_the_battle_of_moscow_1941_the_soviet_union/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f0e9ynn"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Absolutely not Japan was in no condition to start another war with Russia as it was already moving to strike at the US and European Pacific colonies. By the start of Battle of Moscow, Japan was planning its attack on the US and to wipe out the Pacific Fleet. Japan was by this time starved of resources, the US, UK, and Dutch started an embargo on exports to Japan in 1940. They relied heavily on imports for things like iron, copper, rubber and especially oil, oil from the US made up about 80% of Japan’s import of oil. \n\nThis embargo was due to Japan’s aggressive expansion in China and its annexation of French Indochina. The west was scared that the Japanese would eventually invade into their colonies, so to prevent further expansion they embargoed Japan. The terms were that Japan would pull out of China and French Indochina and stop its aggressive actions. But this would be disastrous for the Japanese. If Japan would pull out, this would let the Chinese regroup and recover from its war with Japan. China would not let the years of rape, pillaging, and murder across their country go unanswered and they would attack the Japanese. \n\nHowever the Japanese could not further its advances in China as it would run out of resources. It needs to ship supplies and men on ships to the mainland, while also ship resources back to the home islands. Alongside of fueling its massive navy and its army the Japanese would use up the rest of its resources in a matter of months and would have no choice but to fall back or be stuck in a hostile China surrounded by Chinese forces. \n\nThe last option was to take the Dutch East Indies and British Malaya and its vast resources that would fuel the Japanese war effort. However the big threat was the US fleet as any attack on these territories would force the US to attack the Japanese. So Japan planned its attack on the Pacific fleet on Pearl Harbor and knock out the fleet. With that Japan had a free hand for now in the Pacific.\n\nNow you might ask what does this have to do with Japan not attacking Russia during the Moscow campaign? Well that’s just it, it’s already planning an invasion of the Dutch Indies and British Malaya, alongside a fleet attack on Pearl Harbor, not to mention its ongoing war in China, it does not have enough troops and resources to be everywhere. If it attacks Russia would it benefit the Japanese? No, it needs resources that Russia does have on the other side of the country. But there was no way Japan could even get 1/4 of the way there. It would also have to pull troops from China and its other fronts to cover a front that wide. So Japan would gain almost nothing from this invasions, have no resources and would still be in its same situation like before but even worse, and holding a wide front in some inhabitable lands. Japan gained nothing and would never go for attacking Russia. That and it already faced Russia in its disastrous border skirmish in Mongolia. \n\nJapan in 1939 started a border conflict with Russia in Mongolia around Khalkin Gil and Lake Khasan. The Japanese army faced down the Red Army and was completely humiliated. In 1941, Japan would sign a neutrality pact with Russia, this was meant so Japan could focus its attention to the south and the US. It shows how outclassed the Japanese Army was compared to an actual army. Japan was prepared to fight the Chinese, other Asian armies and European garrison troops. These troops are usually not well trained, not well equipped, and lack heavy equipment like tanks and heavy artillery. And much of the European troops would be reliant on supplies and reinforcements from the home countries that would have to be shipped by sea. Seas that would be controlled by the Japanese navy that would be the dominant naval power in that area. The Japanese Army while well trained and well equipped were not ready for a well trained European or US army. Any and all supplies needed to be shipped across the ocean to troops in mainland Asia or any of the Pacific islands. This meant every ton counts and having 40-50 ton tanks being shipped across the water was a huge waste, having lighter tanks saved space to ship more of them across, but in doing so cut down on firepower and armor. Or shipping heavier and longer artillery pieces would take up too much space and fewer could be sent to the troops, while lighter guns could be easily shipped and be brought up in sand without sinking. The US also had this problem when designing weapons, but had better designs and infrastructure to support its merchant ships. The Japanese compensated the lack of heavy weapons in their infantry divisions by having more men in them than an average US or German division. I’d like to mention that the Japanese were fighting in Asia and not Central Europe or France, they were prepared to fight here and not prepped up to fight in the open steppes of Russia or the freezing ground of Siberia. \n\nJapan has no desire to attack Russia during the attack on Moscow. While it did have plans to attack Russia if it fell into complete chaos, Russia never collapse, not even at the height of Moscow campaign. Japan knew it was no match for them, and so pursued its own objectives for it’s survival. And even if it did attack Russia, when Russia recovered and was at full strength, it would beat the overstretches and undersupplied Japanese back to Manchuria and push them back to the Home Islands. \n\n\n\nSources: \n\nMawdsley, Evan, et al. The Cambridge History of the Second World War. Cambridge University Press, 2015.\n\n\nDrea, Edward J. In the Service of the Emperor: Essays on the Imperial Japanese Army. University of Nebraska Press, 2003."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1guce5
|
Why do cast iron frying pans turn black?
|
When I bought my pans, they were grey. Within a few months they turned black. I thought that it might be the oil burning within the iron, but the pans are consistently black all over, including the handles.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1guce5/why_do_cast_iron_frying_pans_turn_black/
|
{
"a_id": [
"canz9qu"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"It's mostly from iron oxide (FeO) forming due to reaction with oxygen in air. The oxide is normally a dark grey colour but even a tiny amount of absorbed oil will turn it dark black."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6i37f1
|
why is it so universally accepted that dinosaurs roared? is there any way paleontologist know what kind of sounds that actually would have made?
|
I'm literally asking for my dinosaur obsessed 5 year old, so I'm actually looking for someone to explain it to me like I'm five.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6i37f1/eli5_why_is_it_so_universally_accepted_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj35kj2",
"dj35lna",
"dj35qsx",
"dj39egi",
"dj3exnn",
"dj3fv53",
"dj3ihq7",
"dj3muvt"
],
"score": [
5,
201,
14,
7,
2,
6,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"In many cases paleontologists can make an educated guess based on the structure of the bones in the larynx. But most likely, many dinosaurs didn't roar. Many of the bird-like ones probably made noises more reminiscent of chirps or whoops. One way that scientists make these educated guesses is by comparing the fossilized structures of dinosaurs to those of living reptiles (and birds). It is logical to think that if dinosaurs and living reptiles have similarly-shaped larynges (voice boxes) they might make similar noises. You make an adjustment for the increased size in dinosaurs, and boom, sometimes you have a roar. Other times you don't. Again, these are just educated guesses (hypotheses). \n\nThis type of deductive reasoning has been used to generate other hypotheses about dinosaurs that have later been proven true. For example, paleontologists hypothesized long ago that bird-like dinosaurs had bird-like behaviors like building nests and incubating their eggs. Then, in the 90's (?) several fossils of bird-like dinosaurs were discovered in China and a few of them actually showed the adult females sitting on top of their unhatched eggs in the nest. \n\nScience for the win.",
"Paleontologists can use the features, shapes, and dimensions of the nasal cavities and other parts of the skull to determine what kinds of sounds dinosaurs might be able to make. In recent decades, we have found mummified dinosaurs with enough fossilized soft tissue to help with this kind of investigation.\n\nIn the case of cartoons and fairly non-scientific videos, the sounds we hear might be exaggerated in some ways, or even just made up. But more scientifically-grounded shows often do a good job of making sounds match what the scientists think they should be.\n\nLike all science, paleontology is constantly refining its knowledge, so new fossils will no doubt come to light in the future which will continue to improve our understanding of dinosaur sounds. \n\nI'm not a paleontologist, but I love dinosaurs, and have been following the research for most of my 60-odd years. \n\nEdit: A good way to demonstrate this to a 5 year old might be to get a tin whistle, recorder, or kazoo, and show them how covering different holes and blowing into the instrument will make different sounds.",
"Many traits of dinosaurs (skin/feather color, behaviors, noises, etc.) obviously cannot be directly observed from fossils. As an alternative, paleontologists infer these traits by looking at those same things in the closest descendants of these dinosaurs: birds. By observing behaviors of a relatively large bird (say, an ostrich), paleontologists can get as solid of a guess about how a dinosaur sounds as they possibly can. If you've ever heard a large bird, they can actually make very deep and monster-like vocalizations.\n\nAs for if/when a dinosaur roars, that is less clear. Obviously these noises would serve to communicate to others, but I doubt a T-Rex would ever roar just before charging (why would it blow any element of surprise it had with a lengthy scream)",
"The simplest answer is that dinosaurs are large reptiles. And large reptiles can actually roar.\n\nHere is a video of a crocodile growling.\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd another one\n_URL_1_\n\nFun fact, alligator/crocodile roars/growls were actually used for the dinosaur roars in Jurassic Park.",
"Just like the shwing sound that swords make when drawn in films, it has no basis in reality but film makers and the likes always put it in because the idea of the sound is so ingrained into our minds it wouldn't sound right without it. That and it just sounds cool. ",
"Large animal, it makes for good drama in movies if it roars.\n\nAs for how they sounded, various simulations has been made based on skull shapes and so on, but the results are kund of inconclusive (without the lips and tongue, it's hard to get a real simulation), but, while roars probably was part of their sound range, various toots, whoops and whistles probably also where.\n\nOne must also remember that \"dinosaurs\" is a very wide description, spanning over extremely diverse species and an extremely long time. So, for all we know, some may have roared, some may have whistled and some may have communicated through farting and tapdancing.",
"It's not, at least not in the sense we normally hear. Dinosaur roars are usually 100% based on what sounds good in the movies. The famous Jurrassic park roar was a combination of baby elephant trumpet, alligator gurgle, and tiger snarl. It's got nothing whatsoever to do with what dinosaurs might have sounded like.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nMost dinosaur noises in the movies are similarly totally made up to sound good.\n\nHowever, we do expect that many dinosaurs would have made some sort of noise. Alligators and crocodiles make noise. Birds make noise. Dinosaurs are kind of \"in between\" the two on the family tree of life. And certain specific dinosaurs, most notably hadrosaurs, had bone structures that were clearly intended to produce loud calls. \n\n_URL_2_\n\nSo your dinosaurs may well have made noise, but it might not be what you are expecting.\n\nPersonally I like to picture the T rex posing on a hill-top, waving it's tiny arms frantically as a display, and making a call quite like the [majestic cry of the bald eagle](_URL_0_)",
"I laugh when I go out to my chickens with a treat and they come running and \"screaming\" at me. I think of the dinosaurs."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y6HBHWzxL0Y",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qf18Mol9K88"
],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlq2kcYQcLc",
"https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/the-animals-hiding-in-a-t-rexs-roar/",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/how-parasaurolophus-set-the-mood-94657740/"
],
[]
] |
|
8r72of
|
Did industrialization and urbanization see an increase in mental illness?
|
Have any studies shown if there is a correlation between rates of depression, anxiety, suicide, and the progress of the industrial revolution? Are there any other trends? I recognize mental illness is likely just more openly discussed today but I was curious if there is a connection outside of that.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8r72of/did_industrialization_and_urbanization_see_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e0p2cig"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Hi OP, while this question might get answered here, it sounds more like the domain of /r/AskSocialScience or /r/AskPsychology . You might consider x-posting to one of them. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
178vat
|
As a segment of the population, did European nobility in the Medieval, Early Modern and Modern eras die disproportionately in war?
|
I know that the whole point of nobility were that they were supposed to be the trained warriors in the Medieval era, and in the early modern and modern eras, they often became officers, but I'm wondering whether this transferred into more of them dying in war relative to non-nobles.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/178vat/as_a_segment_of_the_population_did_european/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c83e5wi",
"c83iroq"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Yes, at least in many instances. I know that David Cannadine has demonstrated that WWI took a disproportionate human toll on the British aristocracy. I know his purpose in relating that is to make the point that even as late as 1914 the aristocracy were still committed to a warrior class ideal and that this ideal's existence had usually meant the aristocracy died disproportionately in war. At this very moment while I slack off at work I can't provide precise citation of statistical proof of this for earlier wars, but maybe I'll be able to add something on that later.",
"I am no historian, but I was reading numerous articles on the war of the roses (here: _URL_0_) and it said one of the prevalent features of the war was the great death toll inflicted on the nobility, a departure from the ransoming of nobility that was largely the norm in warfare in Britain at the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.wars-of-the-roses.com/index.htm"
]
] |
|
3u8os1
|
Was Marxism So Rampant In Academia Back During Much Of The Cold War?
|
In my Political Science class, my professor (whom is pretty conservative) said that back during the 50's - 80's, much of academia had a pro-Marxist bias and therefore tried to hide many of the failures of the Soviet Union and many of the other communist states. While I know that most of Academia tends to be left leaning, is there any truth to this claim?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3u8os1/was_marxism_so_rampant_in_academia_back_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxcz8cj",
"cxd0gq7"
],
"score": [
18,
9
],
"text": [
" Note- continental European academia has different intellectual traditions and specific contexts, so will be kept out of the discussion.\n\nAssuming the OP is giving an accurate picture of the poly sci prof's position the characterization that Marxism was \"rampant\" in the Anglo-American academy is both inaccurate and a gross oversimplification of the actual Marxism that was present inside the ivory tower.\n\nFirstly, there is an enormous problem of periodization of the 1950s-1980s because between the 1950s and mid-1960s, the climate of universities was incredibly hostile both to Marxism and the Soviet Union. In the US, the climate of McCarthyism led to both loyalty oaths and the purging of faculty with perceived pro-Soviet biases. Furthermore, there was significant pressure from within the university faculty themselves to conform to the American side of the Cold War. For example, Armin Rappaport's appointment to Berkeley was held up because the chair of the department was concerned that he might \"have some of the ultra left wing tendencies so common to the New York Jewish intelligentsia,\" and would only countenance accepting Rappaport into the faculty after he had given his word that he was not an opponent of American foreign policy. Nor was the administration of universities open to Marxist perspectives in this period. When in 1964, Berkley's history department unanimously invited the CPUSA member and academic Herbert Aptheker to address a graduate colloquium the administration denied funding for his appearance and refused him to speak on campus, forcing the history department to have him speak off campus with funds out of pocket. \n\nIt is not a coincidence that this early period of the Cold War saw the formation of some of the most virulently anti-communist interpretations of Soviet history and society. Not only did Hannah Arendt's notions of totalitarianism (i.e. that Communism and Fascism were largely indistinguishable tyrannies) find wide spread currency within the academy but so to did other anti-Soviet paradigms find fertile soil. Richard Pipes's 1954 book *The Formation of the Soviet Union: Communism and Nationalism* argued that the Soviet Union was a stalking horse for Great Russian hegemony and that instead of liberating the various nationalities, the Soviet state acted as a \"prison of the peoples\" for non-Russians. This interpretation, which dovetailed with ideas that the USSR was as expansionist and exclusionary as its tsarist predecessor, gained a lot of traction in academia and was one of the dominant interpretations in the west on the Soviet nationalities problem almost through the end of the Cold War. Nor was such anti-communism the sole preserve of the right. Left-leaning faculty could hew to the Cold War liberalism as exemplified by Arthur Schlessinger, jr. Cold War liberalism did not take a knee-jerk hostility to communism, but did champion initiatives to ensure that the Third World would remain favorable to free market capitalism. Overall, there was a consensus inside the academy in this period, with the exception of a few outliers, that containment of the USSR was necessary and that the Cold War was a zero-sum game; the Soviets' loss meant America's gain and vice-versa. \n\nMarxist-influenced thought did not make much of a comeback in the academy until the advent of the New Left in the late 1960s, but it was often a form of Marxism that was not immediately recognizable compared to its forebears of the interwar period. In the field of history, some of the pioneering work done in the UK by the Communist Party Historians Group who pioneered an examination of history \"from below' in the 1950s. The New Left could be myopic about the USSR's development and tended to take a pro-Soviet line in the Cold War. The Polish emigre Leszek Kolakowski famously engaged in [a dialogue](_URL_0_) with E. P. Thompson where he perceptively argued that the New Left presented. \"whatever bad happens within the \"capitalist system\" is by definition the product of capitalism; whatever bad happens in \"the socialist system\" is by the same definition the product of the same capitalism.\" Despite these tendencies to explain away the faults of the Soviets as highlighted by Kolakowski, the Soviet Union clearly lacked the allure that it had enjoyed in the interwar period as a mythical worker's paradise. \n\nThe part of the Communist world that did enchant the New Left was that of East Asia and the various revolutionaries in the Third World. This spilled over into scholarship in the 1970s in the aftermath of the Vietnam War where both China and North Korea seemed to offer a proper developmental model for the rest of the Third World that would be an alternative both to Western free market capitalism and an seemingly ossified Soviet Union. Theda Skocpol's monumental *States and Social Revolutions* which examined the French, Russian, and Chinese Revolutions took the Maoist line of \"walking on two legs,” at face value, and argued that the PRC had achieved a balanced development of both the countryside and the urban areas with a strong emphasis upon responsible leadership at local levels, emphasis upon medium and light industry, and novel techniques to prevent urban over-crowding by taking measures to send educated urban-dwellers in the 1960s into the countryside. Somewhat more embarrassingly, some in the New Left championed the DPRK's *Juche* movement as a way to fuse nationalism with socialist development and treated the emerging cult of personality around Kim il-Sung as an aberration caused by the Korean War and tensions with the ROK. While there certainly was some cause for these rosy assessments, the economic growth of the DPRK was rather strong in this period and Park Chung-hee's authoritarian government had entered into a pretty nasty period of domestic repression in the 1970s, this rather blinkered view of the East Asian communist states had a marked tendency to ignore the repression and flaws of these polities. In the 1980s, R. J. R. Kirkby’s *Urbanization in China: town and country in a developing economy* repudiated his earlier work that suggested, like Skocpol, that China had a balanced economy and contended that “our own Western susceptibility to agrarian utopian and oriental fantasy” had produced a highly skewed view of Chinese economic development during this decade. Even Eric Selbin, whose earlier work on the Maoist Yenan Way contended that Maoism had managed to shape the countryside into a potent anti-imperialist weapon, has cautiously backed away from his earlier enthusiasm for this process and called such sanguine sentiments a reflection of \"a more hopeful epoch,\" of world history. \n\nBut not all the Marxist thought produced during the 1960s ended up in a Maoist cul-de-sac. in the field of history, scholars like David Blackbourn, Eric Foner, and Donald Worster produced incredibly valuable studies in the early 1980s that are still highly influential. The Marxist (or more accurately, Marxist-inspired) arguments they present are quite sophisticated and do not talk about crude stages or other dross that would characterize an ideologically-driven version of history. \n\nAs for the issue of minimizing the faults of the USSR, the most prominent group in the 1970s that argued for Soviet success in the 1970s was the so-called Team-B of various anti-Communist intellectuals and government officials. Lead by Pipes and other anti-communists, Team B contended that the Soviet planned economy was far more successful than the CIA's more realistic assessments on Soviet strategic capabilities. While Team-B did not deny the reality of Soviet repression, they argued that such political repression was irrelevant to Soviet strength and power projection. This alarmist view of Soviet power, which tended to take Soviet claims of growth and face value and even exaggerate them, created a *de facto* erasure of Soviet repression by assuming that the average Soviet citizen had been cowed by terror and the state to obey. The reality of the USSR was quite different and Team B helped to blind many public intellectuals to the growing apathy and dysfunction of the Soviet system. Unlike the New Left or other left-wing intellectuals in the academy, these neo-conservatives had far greater access to political power, especially with the election of Ronald Reagan. ",
"Are you in the United States? If so, your professor's statement seems a little odd, given that several hundred professors between 1948 and 1954 were fired, or had their academic careers derailed, either because of their affiliations with the Communist party or because they failed to cooperate with the House Un-American Activities Committee.\n\nIn 1948, the University of Washington launched proceedings against six professors suspected of communist affiliations, leading to the dismissal of three of them in 1949. The same year, the Board of Regents of the University of California imposed a requirement that all University employees sign an oath affirming loyalty to the state constitution, and also a denial of membership or belief in organizations advocating overthrow of the United States government - which included communists of various stripes. Several UC employees were fired because their unwillingness to take the oath, and others had difficulty advancing in their careers. Other states, like New York, followed suit in various ways.\n\nAside from the damage done to careers, some have argued that McCarthyism fostered an intellectual chill in academic circles that made researchers less likely to pursue controversial topics or adopt perspectives that might taint them as reds.\n\nCertainly, this chill had dissipated by the 1960s with the rise of the New Left - spearheaded by academics who were often decidedly socialist/Marxist in their orientation - but I think it's very misleading to hold that Marxism was in the mainstream of academic thinking in the 1950s.\n\nFor more on McCarthyism in academia, see the work of Ellen Schrecker: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://socialistregister.com/index.php/srv/article/view/5323/2224#.VlYOGb-zpoM"
],
[
"http://www.lib.berkeley.edu/uchistory/archives_exhibits/loyaltyoath/symposium/schrecker.html"
]
] |
|
kalmp
|
If living bodies are constantly emitting heat, are they losing minute amounts of mass?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/kalmp/if_living_bodies_are_constantly_emitting_heat_are/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2ircvq",
"c2ircvq"
],
"score": [
10,
10
],
"text": [
"Even if you assume that all of the energy is coming from converting matter into energy (a la E = m * c^2 ), it'd be a really, really small amount. Assuming a basal metabolic rate of 100 W, that yields\n\n100 / (2.998 * 10^8 )^2 = 1.11265006 * 10^-15 kilograms every second. At that rate, you'd lose about 2.8 milligrams of mass over the course of an 80 year life.",
"Even if you assume that all of the energy is coming from converting matter into energy (a la E = m * c^2 ), it'd be a really, really small amount. Assuming a basal metabolic rate of 100 W, that yields\n\n100 / (2.998 * 10^8 )^2 = 1.11265006 * 10^-15 kilograms every second. At that rate, you'd lose about 2.8 milligrams of mass over the course of an 80 year life."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
po4v6
|
Why did we evolve two kidneys?
|
We only have 1 liver, heart, pancreas etc... so why did we evolve two kidneys? If it is a redundancy thing, then why don't we have two of other essential organs?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/po4v6/why_did_we_evolve_two_kidneys/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3qynxm",
"c3r11k1",
"c3r1g2h",
"c3r2z8a"
],
"score": [
91,
36,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"This question is misleading because the question of \"Why did we evolve X\" is quite different from \"What is the advantage of X\"? The question of why we evolved something is answered in all cases by \"because of mutation.\" We gain adaptive and maladaptive genotypes (which manifest as phenotypes like two kidneys) as a result of mutation.\n\nWhy a mutation is successful is an entirely separate discussion; sometimes we 'evolve' things which are neither useful or harmful and they are carried simply by accident of being linked with other beneficial mutations, or having no effect on our reproductive success.\n\nCertainly responses can include the (dis)advantage of one versus two kidneys, but it is hard to say conclusively that the reason we *kept* two kidneys after evolving them is because that person was more likely to breed; it could be that he was simply stronger than his cohorts and killed them all, passing on the double-kidney mutation by sheer accident. And his children, perhaps now benefiting from the increased life expectancy of having the double kidneys had a longer lifespan to breed. Or any other of millions of possible enumerations.\n\nThe point of this pedantry is to to note that asking the question of \"Why did we evolve X\" is dangerous, as it seems to imply a designed evolution - e.g. we evolved this because it was beneficial. Some phenotypic variation demonstrably increases reproductive success, but oftentimes the mutation is ineffective enough at a breeding level to have no actual effect on reproductive success.",
"Contrary to the other remarks the development of two kidneys is actually very easy to explain. It all comes down to embryology. \n\nYou might be surprised to know that most of our peripheral organs, appendages, and other things that are awesome come in twos. For example, the heart (via fusion), the vascular system (some exceptions because it is quite complex), the lungs (also complex), the arms, the legs, the muscles in all those appendages, the brains (and eyes via fusion), the ears, the nose, the tonsils, the thyroids (and parathyroids), the thymus, the kidneys, the sexual organs (via fusion for some parts), the ureters and the bladder (via fusion) are all formed bilaterally (two's). I'm sure I left some out. The solo organs are less frequent. The stomach, the pancreas (arguably), the spleen, the liver and the rest of the GI tract are all solo. But you might say compared to real life anatomy this explains nothing. Well then I say you do not know enough about how these things develop. \n\nThese solo structures are all midline to begin with. Early life sees a fetus with two midline cylindrical structures which pretty much determine the rest of life. For simplicity's sake, one is the GI and one is the neuro system (please take pity on my over-simplification). These structures release signalling molecules which diffuse in the normal fashion. As such there are regions of overlap, i.e. that is midline (symmetrically over both) and 2 bilateral areas. The stomach, the pancreas, the liver, and the spleen all become midline structures **that rotate later in life**. These therefore don't appear midline for you or me. The bilateral areas become the paired organs which in some cases can fuse and others stay separate. \n\nAs an aside, it is interesting to note that in some diseases or benign mutations that the kidneys are fused, called a horse-shoe kidney. To **speculate** on evolution, had the fusion conferred some kind of benefit we might have all been born with a single fused kidney.\n\nFinally there are exceptions to my explanation. For example the lung is a midline structure which is bilaterally formed. \n\n**tl;dr** This is not a question of evolution but rather what bricks were the human body laid upon. We are the constructs of a process which favored two simultaneous processes: One midline and one bilateral process.\n\n\n\n ",
"The kidneys, limbs, gonads, eyes, etc are paired because of bilateral symmetry: structures whose progenitors occur lateral to the midline are paired in the early embryo. We started out completely symmetrical- as an elongated \"disk-like\" shape that folded on itself to make a sort of tube. Some midline structures start at the midline, and some are/will be formed by the fusion of a bilateral pair of organs. Regardless, the bottom line is that at this stage we are basically symmetrical.\n\nLaterality is determined by specific transcription factors and begins to develop later on, occurring in a few different ways. 1) The lateral shifting and folding of originally midline structures. 2) Regression of one \"partner\" from some initially paired structures-- for example, embryos have two aortae and two vena cavae, while we only have the left ones remaining. 3) Other organs form a little later, coming from from existing structures and then become asymmetrically placed. \n\nFor example: The heart and gut formed from a tube was created as a result of the folding of the embryonic disc, tubes that ran along the center of the embryo and later looped. The brain formed from the neural tube, another very early midline structure. There was never another heart or gut or brain there since they were central structures. The liver and pancreas were later buds off this early gut tube and as later individual events, didn't happen in duplicate.\n\nWhy did we retain two kidneys and not lose one in development? Well, regression of the second kidney would be less advantageous than keeping both and having a spare. Why the partners to the great vessels regressed, I don't know, but I suppose having duplicate aortae/vena cavae was not particularly advantageous.\n\nCAVEAT: It's been a little while since I took embryology, so any experts are free to correct anything that's misleading.",
"As one commentator here already noted, the question of \"Why did we evolve X\" is quite different from \"What is the advantage of X\". \n\nWhile many people have already offered great answers to the second question, I'd like to try answering the question in the literal sense.\n\nThe genetic reason why there is so much symmetry of parts in biology is that many genetic mutations result in a duplication of sequences or parts thereof. Redundancy does not only exist at organ level, but also far, far below that. Not only have we two of each chromosome - most genes can be found not only at one but at several places in the genome, not all of them active. \nBecause many copies lie dormant, they can accumulate mutations because they aren't target of correction-processes.\n\nThis high level of redundancy is a recipe for evolutionary success, because it often enough results in great conditions for adaptivity. \nAt the same time, there is always a balance. Carrying dormant genes around with us offers only a tiny advantage, but it comes at no cost at all - so the redundancy pays off no matter how small the advantage is. Having a second heart, however does not pay off, because the energy cost of maintaining a second heart is much higher than its advantage in the unlikely case of one of them failing. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2fya37
|
What causes electrons to move (and also eventually slow) in a current?
|
I know that they interact with electric fields of conductors, but what gives them the initial push? And how do they eventually stop?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2fya37/what_causes_electrons_to_move_and_also_eventually/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cke4wec",
"cke75t0"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"At a finite temperature, free electrons are always moving due to pure thermal motion. This doesn't give rise to any current because the electrons are moving in random directions, and their net motion cancels to zero.\n\nWhen an electric field exists across the material, it creates regions of high and low electric potential. The electrons move in the direction that minimizes their potential energy. This is known as the Coulomb force and causes electrons to accelerate. Since there is now a net direction of electron flow, the current is now positive.\n\nWhen the current is zero, this either means that no charge exists (which is trivial) or that every part of the conductor/resistor is at the same electric potential. The electrons now have no preferred direction, so the net current is zero but the electrons don't actually stop moving. They still have thermal motion.",
"There's a nice paper on this [by the authors of M & I undergrad physics text.](_URL_0_)\n\nElectric currents within circuits are driven by \"static electricity,\" by surface charges and electrostatic fields.\n\nWhen a switch is closed, the imbalance of surface charges will redistribute across the metal wires at about the speed of light. Once the charges stop sloshing around, the static e-fields from surface charges then applies a constant Gauss-law force to the movable electrons within the wire. The electrons then slowly move through the wires (electric currents are sloooowww, go google Drift Velocity of electrons in metal.)\n\nElectrons stopping? In the classical physics analogy, a group of electrons inside a metal will have very little inertia, and also experiences enormous friction. If no e-fields are causing a current, or if the e-fields are suddenly removed, the current comes to a halt within tiny fractions of a microsecond. This time can be greatly increased by including a large inductance in the circuit (a hunk of iron with a long wire wrapped around.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.matterandinteractions.org/Content/Articles/circuit.pdf"
]
] |
|
969t38
|
how can something like beer, a liquid, make you more thirsty?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/969t38/eli5_how_can_something_like_beer_a_liquid_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3ytfql",
"e3yym2s"
],
"score": [
14,
8
],
"text": [
"Just because it's a liquid doesn't mean it'll provide you with water.\n\nDrink a bottle of mercury or antifreeze...... actually don't.\n\nBeer is a solution of alcohol and water. While it initially provides you with water, the alcohol triggers your system to use it's water store to flush out the processed alcohol toxin, leaving you with less water than you drank in the beer.",
"Alcohol screws with a hormone called ADH (anti diuretic hormone) which, oddly enough is responsible for stopping your kidneys from removing all of the water from your body and pissing it out. Normally you need like 100ish mL/hr to stay hydrated but with poor ADH it can go up. At the same time, you now have, say 100mL of actual alcohol in you 2-5L of total blood volume screwing with the soluability of all the stuff disolved in the blood. \n\nOn top of that alcohol sticks to the sensory protiens responsible for detecting if you are dehydrated in the aortic arch and kidneys, causing them to send incorrect signals to the brain. \n\nTldr: Alcohol messis with ADH signalling the kidneys to rapidly expell water. Your body senses low water and signals you to drink more. This has little benefit due to the aforementioned kidney floodgates being open. Other stuff also doesnt work as well but ADH is the big one"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
55maew
|
Did East Berliners dig tunnels to bypass the Berlin Wall during the Cold War?
|
If so, was there an extensive network of tunnels? How did the Soviets prevent Germans from simply digging tunnels from under their homes to West Berlin?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/55maew/did_east_berliners_dig_tunnels_to_bypass_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8c3103"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Yes, they did. Before I dive deeper let me just clarify that it was not the Soviets who were responsible for securing the border of East Germany, but the Ministry of National Defense of the GDR. In fact the so called \"Grenztruppen\" (border troops) were an independent branch within the military of East Germany.\n\nThe German [Wikipedia](_URL_0_) has a (non-exhaustive) list of known tunnels. As you can see most of these were built between 1961 and 1964 and were collaborations of people in the East wanting to get out and loosely organized groups of so called \"Fluchthelfer\" (escape helpers) in the West (the latter usually dug the tunnels). As you can see from the fifth column there were several individuals who helped build more than one tunnel. They were indeed semi-professionals at what they were doing and some of them financed themselves through secret funds from the West German government and sometimes by selling film rights. So called \"Tunnel 57\" (57 for the numbers of refugees escaping through it), for example, was built this way. \n\nHow did the East German government react? For one, the Ministry for State Security (Stasi) was directing considerable resources to subvert these groups on both sides of the wall. Aforementioned \"Tunnel 57\" was discovered one night after it started operating on October 3rd 1964 (what a coincidence!), when a confidential informant gave notice to the Stasi. Other measures consisted in declaring the immediate area close to the border to be restricted and demolishing buildings adjacent to West Berlin (this was also done to realize the final version of the wall in 1975 which required at least 30m of cleared depth). For illustration compare the famous Bernauer Str. in [1961](_URL_1_)\nand [1980](_URL_2_). The facades of the houses in that street were the actual border to West Berlin and on August 13th 1961 people could simply jump out of the window to flee. Other counter measures included installing listening devices to detect tunneling projects and the Stasi building their own tunnels along the border, expecting to intersect and discover existing or planned tunnels used by refugees.\n\nTL;DR: Yes, there were tunnels, but there was no extensive network as such, but isolated attempts which were usually quickly discovered. With further development of the wall and an increasingly pervasive state security apparatus it became more and more difficult to build these tunnels.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_Fluchttunnel_in_Berlin_w%C3%A4hrend_der_deutschen_Teilung",
"http://www.berlinermaueronline.de/xgraphics/fotos/berlinermauer-60er/19611210bernauer.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/7/78/MauerBernauerStr1.jpg"
]
] |
|
53tejz
|
why does a hard boiled egg leave me feeling full much sooner than eating a srambled or fried egg?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/53tejz/eli5why_does_a_hard_boiled_egg_leave_me_feeling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7w2403"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"It has a lot to do with the fact that more of the egg protein gets denatured when frying as opposed to boiling. Remember, your body has a lower tolerance for protein than fat, so will more quickly fill up on it. This is why people on high-protein diets can eat less and still feel full. The higher temps also break down some of the nutrients, that you don't lose while boiling."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
g57sh
|
Books on Time
|
First, my sincerest apologies if there is a thread on this already, I couldn't find one. (I looked I promise!)
In a perfect world I would go back to school for physics and actually learn the math behind this stuff (which would probably answer most of my questions), but alas I am unable to do so. For now I will have to settle for reading as many books as I can.
I finished reading 'A Brief History of Time' by Stephen Hawking and 'The Grand Design' by Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow and just started reading 'Hyperspace' by Michio Kaku. I think I need to stop reading 'Hyperspace' though. I really do not have a good understanding of the concept of space-time and how time works.
I can, for the most part, repeat back to you stuff I read but I do not understand it. I understand that because time and space are interwoven how gravity slows time down. That actually does make sense. I know that the idea of space-time comes from Einstein.
What I don't understand is how they went from "Gravity actually works like this" to "well that obviously means that space and time are woven together". I also don't understand why time slows down as you approach the speed of light. For that matter, I also don't understand how they went from "the speed of light is constant for every observer" to "well that obviously means that the speed of light is a universal speed limit". In my mind that doesn't logically follow. I also don't understand how a wormhole might put you at a different point on a timeline - I get that you could be on the opposite ends of the universe, but at different point on in time? Weeeeeird....
I better stop and get to my question, because really there's lots of stuff regarding time I don't understand. Can somebody recommend me a book or two that gets a little more in depth regarding time specifically and how it works? I think before I go any further in my reading I need to address this problem first.
tl;dr - Can somebody recommend me some books about the concept of space-time and time and how it passes?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/g57sh/books_on_time/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1l03wi",
"c1l19ka"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of questions here. Maybe you should check out \"Relativity simply explained\" by Martin Gardner.\n\nEinstein's original paper was just a theory of electricity for when the electrical sources are moving. It was Minkowski who made the connection with a four dimensional geometry of space+time.\n\nYou can use special relativity to calculate the speed of an object under a constant force as a function of time. It follows a hyperbolic tangent. That means that in order for it to reach the speed of light, it must accelerate for an infinite amount of time.",
"Instead of reading a book you could read reddit! For example, your questions regarding the speed of light have been discussed at length by askscience's very own robotrollcall [on](_URL_0_)... [several](_URL_2_)...[occassions](_URL_3_). [one more](_URL_1_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/elzku/the_ultimate_speed_limit/c1959om",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/dj3ja/does_time_have_a_normal_speed/c10km6m",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/Physics/comments/ea710/big_bang_preceded_by_another_universe/c16rtn6",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ehel6/im_having_trouble_with_the_curvature_of_spacetime/c185h7l"
]
] |
|
95xwpw
|
If you were a human floating towards the sun, at what distance from the sun would you feel an Earth-like temperature?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/95xwpw/if_you_were_a_human_floating_towards_the_sun_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3wch6n",
"e3wdbfm",
"e3wdysa",
"e3wecro",
"e3wekob",
"e3wh3c3",
"e3woff1",
"e3wp97z",
"e3wr4uq",
"e3wuht0",
"e3x5403"
],
"score": [
4765,
218,
58,
30,
18,
16,
12,
5186,
4,
7,
6
],
"text": [
"The unsatisfying answer is \"it depends.\" Here on Earth, the temperature you experience is largely determined by the ambient temperature of the matter (air) around you. But in space, you would be in near vacuum. The random particles around you might have some temperature, but there simply won't be enough of them to transfer a meaningful amount of energy to or from you. \n\nInstead, your temperature will be determined by radiation: how much sunlight are you absorbing, and how much infrared are you radiating away from yourself. When the magnitude of both of these are equal, that will be your equilibrium temperature. These will be determined by your albedo (e.g. what color are you wearing), your geometry (e.g. how fat are you), how well heat is conducted within your body, and how much heat are you generating yourself. In other words, it's complicated. But, to give you some idea, an astronaut in a normal space suit in Earth orbit can't spend much time in direct sunlight without getting cooked.",
"Over at [NASA](_URL_0_), they mention that the\n\n > temperature of the orbiting Space Station's Sun-facing side would soar to 250 degrees F (121 C),\n\nso I guess if you have a clear view of the sun, you'd need to be further away than the Earth is.\n\nI also [found this](_URL_1_), which states\n\n > At the Earth's distance from the sun, a space thermometer with roughly half its surface is absorbing sunlightwould register 45 degrees Fahrenheit.",
"So temperature doesn't quite work the same way in space that it does on Earth because space is a vacuum with few particles floating around bumping into things, transferring energy that we feel as a temperature.\n\nWhen people design spacecraft they actually have to account for temperature differences between parts that are illuminated and parts that are shaded, because parts in shadow get quite cold. So if you were floating toward the sun, at some point the front of you would be at Earth temperature, but the back of you would still be ~ interplanetary space temperature, depending on how good your body tissue is at conducting heat.",
"The energy density of photons can be converted to temperature using E = 4/c sigma T\\^4, where c is speed of light and sigma is the Stephan-Boltzmann constant.\n\nFor T = 300 K (about room temperature) this is about 6e-6 J/m\\^3\n\nThe total energy released by the sun per second is 3.8\\*10\\^26 J/s\n\nso at a distance of R from the sun, the energy per square meter is:\n\n3.8\\*10\\^26/4pi R\\^2\n\nTo go from radiant flux to energy density we divide by c (3\\*10\\^8 m/s) \\~= 1e17/R\\^2 J/m\\^3\n\n6 R\\^2 = 1e23 gives R = 1.29\\*10\\^11 meters, or 0.86 AU. This is not surprisingly close to the distance of the Earth from the Sun (1 AU). We are hotter than our distance would suggest due to greenhouse effects.",
"Since there would not be a medium to hold temperature (i.e air or moisture) the only way heat could be transferred would be via radiation. \n\nEven at the distance that Earth is from the sun, the radiation is so intense that you could possibly get burns and the radiation might cause irreversible effects – probably killing you. This would all happen while you would be frozen due to the surrounding vacuum.\n\nImagine it being like this: if you were facing the sun, the radiation would burn your retinas and cook your face, while your ass would probably be frozen solid. \n\nThe solution would be to spin around like a shawarma at a rate that would guarantee an equal distribution of radiation. However, you would still just freeze from the surrounding vacuum. ",
"There is nowhere a naked human would feel at equilibrium because human tissue is a poor conductor of heat. One side would be scorched, and the other would freeze. You're dead any distance from the sun, not even considering the effects of intense radiation of vacuum on the person.",
"I presume you mean, \"when would it feel like it's 72 degrees and comfortable like it is in my apartment?\" Well, the answer is never.\n\nSpace is rather like standing next to a campfire on a cold, windless night. A lone heat source and a ton of cold. Even that analogy doesn't reckon with the vast emptiness of space.\n\nThe radiation from the sun is not ambient because you're not standing in this soupy mix of oxygen and nitrogen we call air which actually serves both to disperse and conserve the radiant heat. You're in vacuum in space and it's not the vacuum you had fun with that one time in middle school.\n\nNow if there were a line of indestructible rectal thermometers from Uranus to the Sun, what stretch of thermometers would have Earth-like (I'm presuming surface, not core, unless you ate Indian) temperatures? I don't know. I'm not that smart or I'm too lazy to figure it out.",
"tl;dr: If you're near Earth's orbit, you're already way too close. You'd need to drift outward quite a bit.\n \nOn Earth, if you leave something lying in the sun indefinitely, it will heat up until the heat it loses to the surrounding air (and the ground) is balanced with the heat it absorbs from the sun. In space, it works the same way, except that without air, the only way for an object to lose heat is by radiation (infrared, at normal body temperatures).\n\nIf we want to keep our body temperature roughly constant, the heat we radiate needs to balance out the heat we absorb from the sun plus the heat generated by our own metabolism.\n\nI found [a page estimating our own power output as 100W](_URL_0_). Let's say we are a perfect blackbody radiator with a surface area of 2m^2 and our skin were to be 307K - we're in \"spherical cow\" territory here, but this should be the right order of magnitude.\n\nThe power our skin radiates is then given by the [Stefan-Boltzman law](_URL_1_) as 5.67e-8 Wm^(-2)K^(-4), or 5.67e-8 * 2 * 307^4 W = about 1000W. (So the good news is, we're losing more heat than we produce on our own, even without air-cooling. Without the sun, we'd freeze instead of overheating.)\n\nSo how much sun do we need? This one is a bit more complicated, because it depends on how we're oriented. The bigger our cross-section facing the sun, the more we absorb.\n\nThe [total power output of the sun is 3.828e26 W](_URL_2_). To get around 1000W of that, we need to capture 1 part in 3.828e23. So if we present a cross-section of about 1m^2, then our distance should be the radius of a sphere with a surface area of 3.828e23 m^2.\n\nResult: 1.75e11 meters, or about 9.7 light minutes. To give you a picture, Earth's and Mars's orbits are about 8.3 and 12.5 light minutes from the sun on average, so we'd have to go (very, very roughly) a third of the way from Earth to Mars orbit to feel comfortable.\n\n(Not double-checked; it's entirely possible there's a massive error in the above calculation, on top of all the ballpark guessing.)\n\nEdit: Mind you, the ballpark guessing already introduces some *wild* inaccuracy. If we drop the cross section to 0.5m^2, suddenly we're closer to 6.9 light minutes. And we're not perfect blackbody radiators, anyway.",
"Without the protection of the earth's atmosphere the sun would cook you on one side and the vacuum of space would freeze you solid on the other. You would have to float away from the sun to reach a temp that would be habitable. Either way if you are doing this in the vacuum of space, you are hosed !",
"You can't unfortunately, not in your whole body atleast. Since there is no radiation protection in space, the part if you facing the sun when outside the ozon layer would scorch in about 230c and the part that isn't in the sun would be about -250c",
"Genuinely asking for follow-up:\n\nWouldn't it just get hotter the closer you get? Like on Earth you are already experiencing \"Earth temperature.\" The closer you get the hotter it will get because the sun's rays have to travel less distance, and you get closer to the radiant heat.\n\nWould this not generally be the case?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://science.nasa.gov/science-news/science-at-nasa/2001/ast21mar\\_1/",
"https://www.space.com/14719-spacekids-temperature-outer-space.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.physlink.com/education/askexperts/ae420.cfm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stefan%E2%80%93Boltzmann_law",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Solar_luminosity"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2zzjlc
|
Why can't we achieve the equivalent of a quantum computer simply by creating transistors with more than two states?
|
Hey guys, maybe this is a stupid question but it's been bugging me.
Part of why quantum computing is exciting that qbits can exist in more than two states, whereas a bit is limited to two. So why can't we just build a computer out of regular transistors that have been modified to exist in multiple states (e.g., 0, 1, 2, 3) and thereby get the same effect as a quantum computer?
I know some of my starting assumptions must be off, but I don't know which ones.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2zzjlc/why_cant_we_achieve_the_equivalent_of_a_quantum/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpotj9e"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There is a big difference between an object that can exist in multiple states and an object that can exist in a superposition of states. A classical bit (0 or 1) or trit (0, 1 or 2) can still only exist in 2 (or 3) states. Its in the state 0, 1 or 2. A qbit exists in a superposition a|0 > + b|1 > , where \"a\" and \"b\" are complex numbers whose magnitude square sums to 1. The information capacity of a qbit is huge, potentially infinite (sort of). The other place a quantum computer gets its power though, is that qbits can work together in ways that classical bits can't. When you go from 1 bit to 2 bits, you essentially double the amount of information you can store. With qbits, you not only store information in the qbits themselves, but in the correlations between the qbits. This increases the \"space\" you have available to do the computations in exponentially with the number of qbits you have access to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
696bf7
|
why is it preferable to have illegally obtained evidence thrown out of court as opposed to keeping it and prosecuting the one who obtained it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/696bf7/eli5_why_is_it_preferable_to_have_illegally/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh43xne",
"dh47677",
"dh47xhd",
"dh48j6a",
"dh49x43",
"dh4ajfo",
"dh4anrt",
"dh4b21f",
"dh4b779",
"dh4bm0v",
"dh4bpjf",
"dh4by9n",
"dh4c0r8",
"dh4cuqd",
"dh4d29n",
"dh4db7c",
"dh4dchu",
"dh4dctu",
"dh4dwa3",
"dh4ecsl",
"dh4eup6",
"dh4fhvf",
"dh4g5wo",
"dh4gefj",
"dh4gtxk",
"dh4i5c1",
"dh4ickn",
"dh4jmel",
"dh4jr7m",
"dh4jwiu",
"dh4ky8d",
"dh4n0ao",
"dh4osm4",
"dh4rxgg"
],
"score": [
3701,
273,
610,
59,
7,
4,
3,
29,
8,
2,
10,
4,
3,
2,
18,
2,
3,
11,
11,
2,
5,
10,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"The Supreme Court discusses this rationale in every exclusionary case. \n\nThe first thing to keep in mind is that the Constitution does not require an exclusionary rule. But for the 4th Amendment to have any value it must have some remedy or mechanism of enforcement. \n\nSuing the officials for an illegal search is always an option. But the cards are stacked against the defendant, who is probably already busy defending himself in a criminal trial. Further, agents of the state are a big target to take on for a private individual. If private citizens are left with the sole burden of enforcing an important Constitutional right, that right may effectively disappear. \n\nThe alternative, and the one the Court considered most likely to deter illegal searches, is to cut off the reward. An illegal search practice = inadmissible. \n\nBUT, since the Constitution does not require the exclusionary rule, and since it more often than not lets a guilty person go when applied, the rule is only to be applied when the deterrent effect outweighs the cost to society. \n\nTherefore, in a case where, for example, an officer made a legitimate mistake of law, or a clerical error prompted him to act in a way that turned out illegal, the exclusionary rule has little deterrent effect and the evidence should be admitted. \n\n",
"Because it can create the issue of law enforcement basically going \"eh, it's worth it\", deciding that a conviction is worth the fines or whatever penalties come from ignoring proper procedure to obtain evidence if it's going to be valid. Especially since law enforcement has a hard time getting prosecuted to begin with. It's there to ensure that due process is adhered to.\n\n It's the same rationale as shady companies doing something that would still be profitable even after they get hit by a fine.",
"If the evidence was obtained illegally, there's good cause to suspect that it's been tampered with otherwise, or processed incorrectly, or perhaps not even valid evidence to the crime in the first place.\n\nAnother way to look at it is that if the officer was willing to break the law to get the evidence, who's to say they weren't willing to break the law and fake the evidence? This all follows from the idea that it's better to let a guilty person walk free than to put an innocent person in jail - and if you disagree with that, imagine if you're the innocent person. No, really, think it through, for a few hours.",
"/u/law180 provides a good answer. Another factor to consider, assuming you are not talking about a civil remedy is that the very law enforcement officials who just violated the Constitution would then be responsible for prosecuting themselves. So under your question Officer Adam decides to do an illegal search because he's really really sure that criminal Bob has heroin in his house. Officer Adam finds heroin and takes the evidence to prosecuter Charlene. Charlene is now expected to file charges against both Officer Adam and criminal Bob, because both of them broke the law? As a practical matter prosecutor Charlene is unlikely to vigorously pursue charges against officer Adam, and even if she did neither judge Denise nor the jury members Ed, Elmer, Elizabeth, Ellen, and so on would probably convict him.\n\n Meaning that in the absence of the exclusionary rule there is nothing to prevent the government from willfully violating constitutional rights. And Rights are meaningless if they don't apply to everyone, but there's just no way a jury is going to convict a police officer for violating a child rapists' rights if corners are cut to obtain a conviction. Because of that we must suffer the bad of letting criminals go in order to preserve the greater good of rights that have meaning, because the next time a corner is cut it might not be for someone as \"obviously bad\" as a child rapist but is instead someone who for example says bad things about the president online. Do we want the world to be one heading down that slippery slope? it is a hard rule, but it keeps our police at least marginally honest.",
"Arguably, prosecuting law enforcement for illegal searches doesn't actually protect the defendant's constitutional rights. It may deter illegal searches, but for that individual who was still subject to illegal search, their rights have been violated and they will suffer the consequences at trial. The exclusionary rule also has exceptions, including inevitable discovery--by a preponderance of the evidence, the state can show the evidence would have inevitably been discovered in the course of normal, legal police work, so admitting the evidence is putting the defendant in the same position he would have been with a legal search.\n\nFunctionally, at least based on my observations in court, the exclusionary rule is a bigger deal on Law & Order than it is in real life cases. It just doesn't get applied all that often, and it's rarely excluding make-or-break key evidence.",
"All the explanations here have to do with very practical implications of why illegally obtained evidence shouldn't be used against the state. \n\nSome comentators argue that the court shouldn't allow illegally obtained evidence because that offends the dignity of the court. In essence, the argument goes: if a court is itself willingly allowing the law to be broken in furtherance of its aims, then what gives the court the moral authority to judge others? \n\nThis might sound a little theoretical and abstract in relation to e.g. illegal searches, but another type of illegally obtained evidence is torture. It might be more relatable if you think of it this way: if we are ourselves engaging in torture, then what gives us the right to judge other people for their wrongdoing? ",
"Yes. It does lead to guilty people going free. That's the point! The burden is on the state, not the accused. The idea in principal that the state isn't getting any easy material to work with means that if they do their job, you pretty well did it.\n\nThere's also inadmissible facts and evidence. Like that you got dinged for stealing car stereos 5 years ago and you're a tow truck driver with a slim Jim to get into cars when you're on trial again for stealing stereos. Same idea - you think a jury would ever acquit a guy with who used to do something illegal and has a legitimate reason to have tools that you'd need to commit that crime again?\n\n",
"Others have touched on the rationale, but something to add- when you're thinking of illegally obtained evidence, you're probably thinking of police completely (and intentionally) disregarding the Constitution, but that is certainly not always the case when evidence is excluded. For example, an officer may legitimately believe there is probable cause to search a vehicle, but a judge later determines that under the circumstances, probable cause was lacking. Should we have officers live in constant fear of prosecution if a judge later disagrees with them regarding probable cause? A lot of legitimate searches would go unexecuted if that were the case. It's better to just have the evidence excluded at trial so police don't have an incentive to commit illegal searches, but also aren't gun shy about performing legal ones. ",
"[Fruit of the poisonous tree](_URL_0_)\n\nFruit of the poisonous tree is a legal metaphor in the United States used to describe evidence that is obtained illegally. The logic of the terminology is that if the source (the \"tree\") of the evidence or evidence itself is tainted, then anything gained (the \"fruit\") from it is tainted as well.",
"Also I vould also add that the exclusionary rule is applied overwhelmingly in drug cases. Because drug prosecutions are frequently triggered by pretext searches with no previous investigation or suspicion. You'll rarely find it applied when there has been a previous investigation because police can just get a warrant, so not common in murder trials and such.",
"The Bill of Rights is not so much a list of rights the citizens have, but a **list of rights that the state (people in government) cannot violate.** I.E. The Bill of Right's primary purpose isn't to ensure that criminals are prosecuted; it's to protect people from the state's power.\n\nThe entire criminal justice process is set up to make the state go through hoops if it wants to infringe upon a person's rights. \n\nWhen the state infringes on those rights without going through those hoops, it violates the accused person's rights. I.E. It does exactly what the Constitution prohibits. \n\nSo, when people in government violate the constitutional protections afforded to a person under, say, the Fourth Amendment, by gathering evidence illegally, they cannot then later use that evidence, or the evidence that resulted from their violation, to convict the individual. This protects everyone from the overwhelming power of the state, even if it allows someone who acted illegally to go free, because keeping the government from becoming too powerful is the law's primary purpose.\n\n**Edit.** As another example, the First Amendment protects free speech. But this isn't a right to be free from all consequences of speech. It's a prohibition that says the government cannot limit what you say. Again, the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights aren't a list of things you can do without any consequence, **it's a list of things the government cannot do.**",
"That is, however, the French rule (keeping the evidence, penalizing the police officer who obtained it). Different systems deal with this issue differently.",
"In short: this is a case where two wrongs do not make a right.\n\nIf we lived in a perfect system, then sure, criminals should be punished, regardless of how evidence was obtained.\n\nBut the fact that cops would need to literally be breaking the laws themselves in order to do so, as they are usually the ones providing evidence, makes this untenable.\n\nBeing allowed to use coercion, or theft, or torture, or other illegal means to obtain evidence is not something I wish to ever see become precedent.\n\nSure, doing so might get more guilty people put in jail, but I don't believe for a second that the innocent would be safe from allowing this sort of thing.\n\nWe live in the USA at least with a concept of \"innocent until proven guilty\" because it is better to let a guilty man occasionally walk free than to jail the innocent. This applies here especially well.",
"I don't really know, but to avoid framing?",
"Just a note that *inadmissible* evidence is not synonymous with *illegally obtained* evidence. Things like police reports are generally inadmissible on hearsay grounds--not because they were illegally obtained. Also, the collection of certain evidence may have been \"legal\" at the time (i.e., the police had a valid warrant) but the grounds for the warrant are subsequently challenged successfully. \n\nI know OP is asking about \"illegally obtained\" evidence but just wanted to provide some legal context. ",
"You're assuming that the defendent is guilty when you say that the exclusionary rule is an illegal act keeping out illegal act. Yes we want guilty people to be prosecuted accordingly but we also want the state to have to prove it and we want the state to prove it within the confines of the constitution. If that can't be done then we don't want the guilty person to be prosecuted. It absolutely has to work that way because it's the only way that the 4th amendment has any value.\n\nIt's also why we allow that same previously excluded evidence to be included if it is later legally obtained. If there is a way to prove the person is guilty while respecting the constitution then we want the person to be prosecuted.",
"Coming from a different jurisdiction from the US, the way we see it, it's better for a guilty person to walk free rather than an innocent person to be convicted. \nTowards this, strict rules are set to ensure from Investigation to arrest to prosecution to sentencing, the rights of the individual as enshrined in the Constitution are guarded vehemently \n \nTL:DR it should be hard for the government to convict someone because the entire process involves violating the person's constitutional and other rights enshrined in international treaties. \nSo if they're gonna do it, they should be damn sure about it ",
"A lot of good thoughts but I've yet to see the real answer. It all comes down to two concepts: tyranny, and the importance of precedent. In western culture, and specifically law in the US, the accepted philosophy is that it's better 100 guilty men should walk rather than 1 innocent man pay. We place a premium on liberty and think it should be defended at every point. What the public at large tends to have a hard time with is \"situational\" justice and that events within the justice system do NOT exist within a vacuum. Essentially, making an exception to the standard of evidence even just once for the sake of apparent immediate justice actually threatens justice as a whole, because it permanently erodes the standard put in place to begin with. At the core of our justice system is a series of fail safes that prevent power (via Wealth, status, political affiliation) from tipping scales. In a court of law, all are to be equal. To bypass a standard just once is detrimental. \n\nTL;DR The cost of a guilty person getting away with a crime for the sake of maintaining standards in law is far less than he cost of compromising standards for the sake of \"situational\" justice that actually threaten justice as a whole. ",
"This isn't true for all countries. In Sweden, we have \"Fri bevisprövning\" (ruffly \"free consideration of evidence\"). Any proof can be put forth in court, even if obtained illegally. There is no such thing as \"throwing out evidence\" just for the sake of not taking them into consideration.\n\nIf there is a crime committed when obtaining the evidence, that's a separate case that can be tried. Say you're a burglar who finds child porn in the computer you stole. The owner of the computer will be prosecuted for possession of child porn and the burglar will be prosecuted for burglary.",
"It's interesting to note that this is more true in the USA than most other countries. Generally in England, all evidence is admissible as long as it's relevant and reliable. \"Traditionally, English judges have been prepared\nto eat the fruit, however poisonous the tree\"\n\nIllegally obtaining it would be treated with as a separate (and serious) matter, but throwing it out is generally considered to be detrimental to the case at hand.",
"If the illegally obtained evidence was admissable, a lot of renegade cops would break the law to get evidence and take the slap on the wrist that came with it. They'd end up violating a lot of innocent people's rights on their way to justice. \n\nAlso, it'd likely be a slippery slope. If you relax standards and let cops obtain evidence legally, it probably wouldn't be long before they started tampering with evidence or completely fabricating evidence against people they think are guilty.",
"Most of the answers here seem to be focused on the United States, but for those interested, illegally obtained evidence can be submitted in several jurisdictions.\n\nIn the UK for example, illegally obtained evidence only need be excluded where it would preclude the notion of a fair trial (s78(1) Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984). This allows the judge to assess the evidence before the trial begins, and provides him with the ability to exclude illegally obtained evidence on consideration of a fair trial.\n\nMore recently, UK courts have held that illegal actions by state agents such as the police may invalidate the prosecution of an individual. Specifically, in cases of entrapment, courts have held that undercover police officers entrapping individuals can constitute an abuse of process, allowing the judge to declare a stay of proceedings, see R v Loosely [2001]. I believe the UK approach is similar to the approach taken in Canada.\n\nOn your second point, UK courts haven't shown particular interest in prosecuting individual officers for illegal searches or obtaining evidence illegally as English courts generally pay due deference to the police in their efforts in fighting crime. UK courts seem to recognise that undercover operations and slightly off-the-books practices are becoming increasingly important in combatting terrorism and organised crime, and as long as there is process which prevents the prosecution of defendants where there has been an abuse of process, courts are happy to let the police take the initiative on counter-crime tactics (mostly).\n",
"Real ELI5: If you knew your teacher still had to give you full credit for your homework even if they knew you cheated, there would be no real reason not to cheat. When there is no reason not to cheat, a lot of people will and we would have no way of knowing who actually gets the grade they deserve. Also, the students with more resources would be able to cheat more easily and the kids with less resources would not be able to keep up.",
"To add to the Zeitgeist here, Radiolab did a fascinating episode on what's colloquially known as \"The Buried Bodies Case\", a kind of landmark litigation on the subject. Here's a link: _URL_0_",
"allowing illegally obtained evidence encourages illegally obtaining evidence\n\nits literally that simple",
"Evidence is not proof. Illegally obtained material can be used selectively to reinforce a narrative that isn't necessarily true. To protect the rights of citizens, there are rules in place intended to make the prosecution of a crime as fair as possible to the accused, the victim, and the system. The primary principle is innocence until guilt is proven.\n\nIf police cherry pick evidence from someone's life with no restriction, they could craft whatever story they wanted to tell, without regard for the truth. \n\nPolice in the US are incentivized to produce convictions. Without the rules of evidence, the right to remain silent, and the right to an attorney, many more innocent people would be imprisoned.\n\nA similar quandary is the issue of asset forfeiture, wherein the assets of citizens are seized and declared \"guilty,\" under suspicion of being involved in a crime. Assets so seized are often never returned to citizens, despite charges being dropped, never even filed, or innocence bring proven in court.\n\nThe technicality that only people are protected, and not property, fully shows the need to protect citizens from the police. \n\nNumerous cases are working their way through the US court system, whittling away at asset forfeiture. State, local, and federal law enforcement have seized more than 15 billion USD over the last ten years. A significant portion of those assets belonged to citizens who were never convicted.\n\nThere are rules because people are shitty, badge or no badge.",
"This used to bug me when I worked in Digital Forensics. In UK court, if an analyst put forward evidence - Bearing in mind, the primary role of the analyst is to extract the data and give it to the officer in charge of the case - they are classed as a professional witness (Not expert). So the defense usually start trying to attack the analyst directly, questioning qualifications, attitude, spelling errors - You name it. 1 thing wrong, they pounce on it, and try to make out that the evidence you provided cannot be relied upon because you are shit at your job, and therefore needs to be not considered. \nIt's like... But the guy has a selfie on his phone, geotagged inside the property he was arrested in, holding the actual bag that was seized from him and is also in evidence.... \n\n'Sorry, the analyst must have extracted it wrong, needs to be done again' \n\nUsually its to buy more time, but it always made me think of your question. \nIf I broke into a property and stole the CCTV box which had incriminating footage on it, and handed it to the police - Technically, they could have it thrown out of court - even though it actually shows the truth of what actually happened. \nI doubt it would ever be that extreme, and the judge would just allow it, but still - Fucking technicalities!",
"A TRUE ELI5 from a law clerk in the US with no speculation or pseudo-jurisprudence or legal philosophy debate (may need to get an attorney to tweak the points):\n\nSo first part, yes. It's designed to discourage illegal searches. Your second part, \"obvious guilty people go free\"...\n\nNot your job or any LEO's job to determine. That's the jury's job. \n\nThere's a reason it's called \"fruit from a poisonous tree\". So if you plant the seed of said poisonous tree in a jury's mind (illegally obtained evidence), they're going to eat the fruit (consider the evidence). \n\nIf the evidence was obtained illegally, that cannot come in (def will file motions, prosecution files rebuttal motions, judge considers and weighs whether it comes in or not, etc). It's the judges job to determine if evidence was illegally obtained. Not yours or the jury's.\n\nTl;dr: judge does his job to determine if evidence was obtained illegally. If yes, jury's job to convict (or acquit) without illegal evidence (remember, everyone's presumed innocent until proven guilty). Reason being; discourage illegal searches.",
"Imagine you are a kid and you did something bad, let's say you took a selfie on your phone of you doing it.\n\nNow let's say you are being accused of it, and they illegally take your phone and show the proof of what you did.\n\nNow ask yourself, would you rather get in trouble along with the person who took the phone or would you rather let them slide and cause said evidence to no longer be used in the case?",
"Because an illegal search is a violation of someone's civil rights. It is an especially egregious abuse of government power, to search your home or person without probable cause (and there are tons of exceptions to the 4th amendment, most of which are BS in my opinion), so the response should be proportional to the infringement.\n\nIn an ideal world we'd keep illegal evidence in and punish police officers who execute illegal searches, but the internal culture of police departments would mean simple slaps on the wrist, and illegal searches would become the new norm. I think of it as a necessary evil to deter police from overstepping their authority. To get the guy convicted, they necessarily have to do it by the book, or the criminal will get off scot-free.\n",
"Because our founders believed it is better for 4 guilty men go free than 1 innocent man be falsely convicted ",
"Sometime criminal defense attorney here. Two immediate justifications come to mind.\n\nFirst, the thing about illegally-obtained evidence is that many of the things that might make evidence illegal *also* call into question the *truthfulness* of the evidence. The most obvious example would be coerced confessions. Yes, we don't like coerced confessions because there's something fundamentally unfair about them, to say nothing about the distinct unpleasantness of the \"coercion\" involved. But more than that, it's pretty well-established that pretty much anybody will confess to pretty much anything if you tie them to a chair and lay into them with a hammer. Or whatever. Well, very much the same is true for a lot of other issues too, to a greater or lesser extent. The protections we have about the collection of evidence not only protect privacy interests, but also protect the integrity of the evidence-collection process. If nothing else, the cops broke *those* rules, how do we know they didn't break *other* rules in the process?\n\nSecond, and the most common justification offered for the \"exclusionary rule,\" as it's called, is that if it weren't out there as a remedy, prosecutors and law enforcement would have no incentive whatsoever to respect the law when investigating crimes. If *everything they get* can be used in court, then they'll do *anything they* can to get incriminating evidence. So even if this particular defendant really is guilty, if we let him be convicted on the basis of illegally-obtained evidence, what possible incentive is there for the cops to not just railroad some innocent schmuck the next time? Or to run roughshod over every constitutional protection about searches and seizures? Pretty much nothing, that's what. And even if there can ultimately be civil remedies on the back end, they're hardly adequate for the victim. ",
"The evidence is considered \"tainted\" at that point and cannot properly be used as proof of guilt. Keep in mind that not all evidence is \"proof\" -- in fact, most cases are built on several pieces of evidence.\n\nAs an example: say a bank is robbed in your area, one that you frequent. The robber just closely enough resembles you in height and build (wearing a mask, so no face, but the hair matches yours), and the cops already have reasons to want you jailed. So they gather legal evidence -- fingerprints at the scene, images from video, etc -- that at least puts you at the bank, even though it's largely circumstantial as you are a frequent visitor any way. However, they still lack enough information to really get a conviction.\n\nSo, they break into your house without a warrant and seize your computer. From that, they determine A) your alibi is not as airtight as you claim -- it looks like you could have been at the scene of the crime -- and B) they find you owe more money than you admitted to, giving them ability to claim you had motive. You actually have a good response to each of those -- the first one, you were somewhere you'd rather not admit to in court because family will be present, and the second one, you're actually expecting to pay off in the next several months, so to you it's not a big deal but to a jury, the number looks large.\n\nUnder the present system, you would most likely not be convicted, as those last two pieces would be dropped due to being illegally obtained and the rest of the evidence would not convince a jury. If you're guilty, that's unfortunate as it means you get away with the crime (no double jeopardy). But if you're innocent, the cops won't be able to get you thrown in jail just because they \"think\" you belong there.\n\nIf we sought alternative responses to illegally obtained information -- where the penalties were different, but the evidence were admissible -- there are plenty of cops who would gladly risk those penalties in order to get someone convicted that they *think* should be. In your case, if you're guilty, sure, they got their target. But if you're innocent, you've been effectively framed just because the cops *wanted* you to be convicted.\n\nKeep also in mind that police are not there to convict criminals -- they're to gather evidence and arrest those suspected of a crime. And most illegally obtained evidence has as its root cause police officer(s) that is \"convicting\" the suspect before the trial in their mind.",
"Short answer, prosecuting someone for illegally obtaining evidence is totally separate from the rights of the person accused of the original crime. Has nothing to do with each other. \n\nIf I am accused of a crime, the law says I have to be convicted, in a fair trial, according to the rules. \n\nIf someone uses evidence that they obtained in a way in which they are not allowed to obtain that evidence, then it cannot be used against me. Regardless of what happens to the person who got the evidence, the simple fact is, if I get convicted with that evidence, I didn't get a fair trial. \n\nUnderstand, \"illegally obtained\" doesn't mean the person getting the evidence committed a crime. It means they violated MY rights as a defendant. \n\nEX: Tom kills a guy. Tom is on trial. Bob robs a house, finds a video of Tom killing people and gives it to the police. Bob did something illegal, but that's not what \"illegally obtained\" evidence means. That video CAN be used in court. \n\nAs opposed to:\n\nTom kills a guy. The police go search Tom's house and find the murder weapon. The police did not get a search warrant. The police did not get legal authorization to violate Tom's 4th amendment rights. That IS illegally obtained evidence. If they used it, they wouldn't be giving Tom a fair trial. \n\n > but doesn't this lead to obviously guilty people going free?\n\nYes. Yes it does. We're ok with that. The legal system is designed with the idea that, our legal system would rather make convictions so strict the maybe some guilty people go free, than make the rules so lax that maybe some innocent people get wrongly convicted or otherwise abused. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fruit_of_the_poisonous_tree"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.radiolab.org/story/the_buried_bodies_case"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
yepm7
|
Is there any scientific basis behind the concept of "detoxing"?
|
My friend has become a huge proponent of detoxing. You've probably met someone like this. She puts all these additives in her drinks, claiming that she's experienced a whole host of beneficial effects, from her skin clearing up to gaining more energy, etc. I guess I could believe that some chemicals from processed food might remain stored in your body, but to be honest it all sounds like some hokey BS to me. Is there any truth in the idea that some "natural ingredients" (one that I remember her talking about is dandelion juice) will flush these toxins from your body? And if they do, will you experience any palpable health benefits?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/yepm7/is_there_any_scientific_basis_behind_the_concept/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5uve41",
"c5uwstg"
],
"score": [
7,
2
],
"text": [
"No.\n\nThe human body is quite capable of removing most toxins itself and none of these products have been shown to have any real effect in removing \"toxins.\"",
"In addition to what klawy wrote, the things that _do_ stick around (bioaccumulate) do so precisely because they're chemically tightly-bound to stuff like your fatty tissues or bone. There are no known substances that'll just wander into these tissues and somehow pick up the metal, and then somehow make it out of your body.\n\nThe few things they do have (chelating agents) to get rid of heavy metals in the case of _acute_ poisoning (as in \"a lot at once\"), work because they bind to the stuff while it's still circulating around, _before_ it's bound to your fat (or wherever). That's also a quite dangerous treatment, as they remove lots of minerals you need as well. Hence why it's only useful and effective for acute poisoning cases, and then of course only when administered by proper medical professionals in a proper setting and so on.\n\nStuff that accumulates in your body faster than it can be excreted, is as a rule toxic. Not only do we not put such compounds in food, they're often banned from most uses in general. (besides heavy metals, PCBs and DDT are examples of such substances)\n\nSo yes, it's bogus.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
7y9ikc
|
When did Mexico become a majority Spanish-speaking country (as opposed to the various indigenous languages). I thought I'd read somewhere that in the 1820s, when independence was achieved, ~50% of the country still primarily spoke an Indian language
|
Are there any stats on this? I'd also be interested in any similar information on other Latin American countries.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7y9ikc/when_did_mexico_become_a_majority_spanishspeaking/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dugnq6o"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The following is sourced from Nicholas Ostler's *Empires of the Word: A Language History of the World.*\n\nWhen the Spanish conquered the territory we today (and many of its pre-conquest inhabitants) call Mexico, its people spoke a wide range of languages. Most common was Nahuatl, the Aztec language, which Ostler argues is \"at best an effective lingua franca of a multinational and multilingual empire: the empire included areas where the indigenous population **to this day** speak Zapotec, Mixtec, Tarascan, Otomí, Huastec and Totonac languages, none of them related to one another or to Nahuatl\" (355, emphasis added). The Aztecs themselves had not tried to eradicate the spoken languages of their new subjects (though they may have had a policy of burning their written books \"to erase memories of a pre-Aztec past\"), but rather \"ensured that the subject peoples provided a corps of *nauatlato*, 'interpreters', to ensure effective transmission of the rulers' wishes\" (354-5). \n\nThe Spanish were divided about the best linguistic policy for their new empire. A number of prominent churchmen adopted a policy of trying \"to reach the inhabitants in their own languages,\" or at the very least to reach them in Nahuatl, also referred to as \"the Mexican language.\" The Spanish crown, in contrast, ordered the instruction of its new subjects in Spanish in a June 7, 1550 proclamation: \n\n > As one of the main things that we desire for the good of this land is the salvation and instruction and conversion to our Holy Catholic Faith of its natives, and that also they should adopt our policy and good customs; and so, treating of the means which could be upheld to this end, it is apparent that one of them and the most principal would be to give the order that these peoples may be taught our Castilian language, for with this knowledge, they could be more easily taught the matters of the Holy Gospel and gain all the rest which is suitable for their manner of life. (366)\n\n\"There was,\" Ostler notes, \"immediate resistance from the churchmen called to act on it\" (366) Among the chiefest arguments was a practical one: it would be far more difficult to teach the \"Indians\" Castilian Spanish when there was a much better option available in Nahuatl. Representative of the religious arguments made is this 1550 letter from Friar Rodrigo de la Cruz to Emperor Charles V:\n\n > Your Majesty has ordered that these Indians should learn the language of Castile. That can never be, unless it were something vaguely and badly learnt: we see a Portuguese, where the language of Castile and Portugal is almost the same, spend thirty years in Castile, and never learn it. Then are these people to learn it, when their language is so foreign to ours, with exquisite manners of speaking? It seems to me that Your Majesty should order all the Indians learn the Mexican language, for in every village today there are many Indians who know it and learn it easily, and a very great number who confess in that language. It is an extremely elegant language, as elegant as any in the world. **A grammar and dictionary of it have been written, and many parts of the Holy Scriptures have been translated into it; and collections of sermons have been made, and some friars are very great linguists in it.** (364, emphasis added)\n\nAside from these arguments, some noted a vested interest in the Church's arguments. \"Maintenance of contact through (*Nahuatl*) or other less accessible languages meant that the priests remained the sole effective channel between the pure-blood Indians... and the rest of the world.\" That said, \"there is no evidence that the Church deliberately restrict access to Spanish.\" It was offered in all their schools. \"It simply failed to catch on among Indians, largely isolated as they were in remote settlements, or in segregated communities (*reducciones*) with few non-bilingual Spaniards to talk to\" (366-7).\n\nThe Church won the initial fight, and for two centuries the status quo persisted: \"Spanish in the cities, and increasingly in *[mestizo](_URL_0_)* society; but elsewhere the *lenguas generales* were in use, and failing that other indigenous languages\" (367. *Lenguas generales* refers to Nahuatl and other widely used lingua francas such as Quechua in the former Incan Empire). Many of the smaller languages disappeared, but \"in Mexico, Peru and Paraguay the *lenguas generales* flourished, in speech and in writing\" (367). In Mexico, this was particularly the case, with Nahuatl used not only for daily use and liturgy but for poetry, literature, history and even formal administrative and legal purposes (368). In some places, Ostler notes, \"the Spanish spread the *lenguas generales* beyond the range of the pre-Columbian empires that had created them... Nahuatl spread down into Guatemala, which had hitherto been a preserve of Mayan speakers\" (372). \n\nThis lasted until the mid-18th Century, when — with the newfound backing of the Archbishop of Mexico — King Carlos III issued a 1770 degree urging \"the extinction of the different languages used in the said domains, and the sole use of Castilian\" (374). This was spottily enforced at first, and a 1782 follow-up ordering funding of Castilian instruction had similarly modest effects. But overall the linguistic picture on the ground changed with the new priority from the colonial rulers:\n\n > All official support for education in the indigenous languages came to be withdrawn; professorial chairs in the universities were discontinued; books written in them ceased to be published. Courts in Mexico ceased to entertain pleas written in Nahuatl. (374)\n\nAs a result, Spanish spread in use almost \"by default\": \"Indians' use of their own languages was simply wished away, as Spanish authorities increasingly addressed them in Spanish, willy-nilly\" (374). \n\nOstler doesn't provide any specific estimates on the percentage of Mexican citizens who spoke Spanish around the time of independence in 1821. He does note that 55 percent of Mexico's 6.7 million inhabitants in 1810 were \"pure-blood Indians\" who he implies — but does not say explicitly — largely spoke indigenous languages, while 45 percent were \"Spaniards or *mestizos* presumably speaking Spanish\" (376). \n\nIndependence in the 19th Century accelerated these trends, as the independence leaders were the Spanish-speaking elites who \"offered everyone an undifferentiated citizenship based on a common language, Spanish\" and who saw indigenous languages as \"sources of division, rather than of a unity alien to Spain\" (375). He quotes one 1916 writer arguing that \"the solution to the 'Indian problem' lay in... incorporating them, blending the two together, in short creating a coherent and homogenous national race unified in both language and culture'\" (375).\n\n > Paradoxically, in Mexico this view is characterized as '*indigenismo*'; it values indigenous language and culture, but only the two major prestige groupings Nahuatl and Maya, and only as a kind of national credential of past cultural glory. (375-6)\n\nBy 1995, 88 percent of Mexicans were first-language Spanish speakers (376). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mestizo"
]
] |
|
1jn7y9
|
if someone goes to jail for something that later becomes legal, are they then released?
|
For example if someone in Nevada went to jail for weed, were they released when weed became legal there?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1jn7y9/eli5_if_someone_goes_to_jail_for_something_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbgc345",
"cbgc3ee",
"cbgc4o9",
"cbgcboh",
"cbgfogd",
"cbggzai"
],
"score": [
61,
31,
2,
5,
2,
12
],
"text": [
"Nothing, they still broke the law. If the law goes into affect retroactively, which is incredibly rare, they may be freed. ",
"If it was a crime when you did the act you will serve the remainder of your sentence regardless of future developments. ",
"Depends on the country but I believe that you would be able to apply to the courts to be released however realistically anything that is insignificant enough to have the law changed you wouldn't be sent to jail and anything large enough to send somebody to jail they punish you for multiple charges so you can't get out on some technically or good behaviour. ",
"As others have said generally they aren't released. It depends on the crime. After prohibition there were certain amnesties but the changing of the law does not overturn the conviction. In Europe retroactive legislation is actually illegal but I think the UK may ignore that, as they do.",
"When the state of Victoria, Australia legalised weed for medical use a retroactive clause was put in place.",
"Not automatically.\n\nWhen you commit a crime, you aren't just doing something society considers harmful, you are violating civil order. You are place your wants over the rules of your society has collectively agreed to follow, and that in itself is inherently harmful.\n\nPractically speaking, law enforcement may decide it isn't worthwhile to pursue your case anymore...both Washington and Colorado decided to drop a lot of pending marijuana possession charges when legalization measures passed last fall. There were not required to do so, but figured it wasn't a good way to spend limited resources.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
xap71
|
the community aspect of reddit
|
If you hadn't guessed, I'm new here, and, while I've certainly figured out how to find and rate content on Reddit, its social aspects continue to confuse me.
For instance, what the hell is a cake day? Could someone explain karma/karma whoring? Am I supposed to upvote/downvote every post I read, or just the ones that stand out? What does Reddit gold do? What actions can I take to lend credibility and positive rep to my account?
And, yes, I know all of this information is fairly easy to find around the site/ rest of the interwebs. I'm asking here because I'd rather hear it from an experienced member of the community. Cheers!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/xap71/eli5_the_community_aspect_of_reddit/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5kou90",
"c5kowvh"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"* Cake day = Reddit birthday. Every 12 months since you signed up, you get a cake next to your name for 24hr.\n* Karma = number of upvotes you've received minus number of downvotes. Link karma + comment karma are separate. Self-posts (text, not links) don't receive karma.\n* Up to you. I just upvote the ones that stand out.\n* Not much. One day it might.\n* Post interesting links, make insightful, helpful / funny comments.\n\nPS: Welcome. :)",
"Cake day is the anniversary of the day you created your account. The developers added a feature that puts a little cake symbol next to your name on your cake day. People have started to use that as a way to encourage others to upvote an otherwise mediocre post (pet pics, often) as a way of \"cashing in\" their cake day.\n\nYou don't have to vote for anything, but up/down votes are the only thing that makes the flow of content interesting. It seems like most people only vote on things that stand out either positively or negatively. It's important to keep in mind the reddicuette. Votes aren't slays a matter of opinion. Upvotes are for items that add something or are on topic. Downvotes are for things that are not adding anything new, are off topic for a sub, or are spammy/trolling/incorrect. Just because you disagree with something doesn't mean it's a downvote. Actually, I upvote well written opinions counter to my own all the time.\n\nReddit gold is a \"bonus mode\" you get for essentially donating money to reddit. You get some extra features that haven't rolled out to everyone else yet, and access to a silly subreddit. I've been redditing for years, never had it, probably never will.\n\nYour credibility is not your karma score. Write thoughtful (or hilarious) comments, submit fresh links, and people will take notice (or not). If you do something good/bad, keep in mind that everything you've posted or commented on is visible to everyone, so people can and will check your track record."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
5yt8tx
|
How much dietary iron could a person eat before setting off a metal detector?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5yt8tx/how_much_dietary_iron_could_a_person_eat_before/
|
{
"a_id": [
"despg9g"
],
"score": [
42
],
"text": [
"No amount of dietary iron will set off a metal detector. Metal detectors operate through induction, and respond to electrically conductive materials. Dietary iron is ionic, and has completely different properties. You could wheel a few cases of iron pills through a metal detector and it wouldn't go off because they're not metallic. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
7mx8s2
|
Why is the speed of light expressed as 'c'?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7mx8s2/why_is_the_speed_of_light_expressed_as_c/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drxfrkg",
"dryy8hu"
],
"score": [
59,
5
],
"text": [
"It was once a common letter to use for the speed or velocity of various things, from Latin *celeritas*, \"speed\". Enough of the founding papers on relativity used it for the invariant speed that it's become rare to see it used in any other sense.",
"[\"c\" is short for \"celeritas\", Latin for \"speed.\"](_URL_0_) \"c\" is also used for the speed of sound.\n\nOne very good reason not to use \"v\" is that the speed of light is not a velocity. [A velocity is a vector quantity, having a direction and a magnitude.](_URL_1_) The speed of light does not have a direction in general, so it is a speed, not a velocity."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/SpeedOfLight/c.html",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Velocity"
]
] |
||
7i22ef
|
how are the stars always in the same spot in the sky?
|
So if the earth is always spinning and rotating how come the stars have always been in the same spot.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7i22ef/eli5_how_are_the_stars_always_in_the_same_spot_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqvigj5",
"dqviyrz",
"dqvml27"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"If you stand in one place and turn around 360 degrees, the position of the world changes from your perspective, but all buildings, cities, countries, continents, etc. remain in exactly the same position.\n\nSame concept applies to the stars. They're always in the same spot relative to everything else.\n\nThe stars are so distant that even though the Earth (and our solar system as a whole) is moving through space, the effect on our \"view\" of the stars is negligible. ",
"First, stars are really, really far away. So from our perspective it looks like they're in the same place every night...\n\nBut that's not true. Over thousands of years, stars *do* change position even from our perspective. They have in the past and will in the future. It's just that these time scales are *vastly* longer than our lifespans. ",
"The stars spin in the sky. But only because we move. If you have a time lapse picture of the night sky, you can see the stars \"move\" (because the earth is turning). \n\nYou can also see the stars change positions in the sky...over the course of hundreds of thousands and millions of years. You don't see any changes from day to day because the distance they move is minuscule compared to the distance the stars are from you. Think of it like this: if you see a person 10 feet in front of you move 30 feet to the left, it's a huge move. You have to significantly rotate your body (or move your eyes) to see their new position. If you see someone that is a mile away from you move 30 feet to the left, it looks like they hardly moved at all. \n\nAlpha Centauri, the closest star system to earth, is 25.67 trillion miles away. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
12jlje
|
i would love to learn about the most common (say 5-10) logical argument fallacies, but most explanations are too difficult
|
I keep having people use terms like "straw man" or "red herring" to counter in arguments, and then they just ignore my point. It's really difficult to not know the language and have my reasoning dismissed. I tried looking up on a couple of websites, but I found the language so thick and formal I wasn't able to wrap my head around it. Would some awesome cool philosopher out there maybe list the most common ones with their common names and maybe a quick explanation of how it is used with an example? Or if there is a web resource out there that is more dummy friendly, I'd love to hear about that too! Thanks in advance!
EDIT: What a display of kindness! Thanks to everyone for more information than I could have ever hoped for. I I will be going over all this info for some time. See you in the debate circuit!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/12jlje/i_would_love_to_learn_about_the_most_common_say/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6vlelz",
"c6vlnzt",
"c6vmifz",
"c6vmrvv",
"c6vq72z",
"c6vqizz",
"c6vr8qg",
"c6vrix4",
"c6vrqrz",
"c6vtfdt"
],
"score": [
3,
26,
2,
197,
3,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Nice, simple and descriptive explanations for fallacies [here](_URL_0_).",
"Here is a list of fallacies: _URL_0_\n\nI will try to describe the common ones in easier terms.\n\nStraw Man: When you take your opponents argument and use only the parts of it that help you.\n\nExtreme Example: We should put people with knives in jail if they attack somebody.\nStraw man counter: Putting people in jail for having knives is unlawful.\n\nRed Herring: Diverting the attention off the main issue using irrelevant arguments. \n\nExtreme Example: Literally anything about taxes\nRed herring counter: America needs to protect interests in other countries.\n\nFalse Dichotomy: Saying there's two options when there's really more.\nExample: You can either eat the gummy bear on the ground or be a pussy forever.\n\nPost hoc ergo propter hoc: Taking things that aren't relevant to each other and trying to make them relevant to each other.\nExample: I wore a blue sweater today. There was a car crash four streets down. Therefore, me wearing a blue sweater caused the car crash.\n\nSlippery Slope: Trying to connect two points on a long list of assumptions.\n\nExample: If I get more homework at night I won't get as much sleep and therefore I won't do as well on tests and I will become less motivated in school and if I'm less motivated I will start to flunk classes and if I flunk classes than I will drop out of school and if I drop out of school I'll join a gang and if I join a gang I'll probably do something illegal and if I do something illegal than I'll probably get caught and if I get caught I'll have to go to jail. Therefore more homework=going to jail.\n\nGambler's Fallacy: the incorrect belief that separate, independent events can affect the likelihood of another random event.\n\nExample: If a coin flip lands on heads 10 times in a row, the belief that it is \"due to land on tails\" is incorrect.\n\nAd hominem: attacking the person not the argument.\n\nExample: Romney's tax plans will not work because he's a bad person.\n\nOR\n\nHitler likes dogs. Hitler is a bad person. Therefore dogs can't be liked.\n\nOR\n\nWe can't take the words of a mentally insane person seriously because they're mentally insane. (AKA, it doesn't matter who said it, you have to take it at face value)\n\nLoaded Question: Asking a question that assumes something that may not be true.\n\nExample: Do your parents know you had sex with a transvestite midget?\n\nNo true Scotsman: Exculding people in a group that don't help your argument.\n\nExample: Christians are all good people.\n\n\"What about Christians that rape people?\"\n\nThey aren't REAL Christians - No true Scotsman\n\n\nOne of my favorites (but you'll never see it)\n\nPathetic Fallacy: Portraying inanimate things as animate.\n\nExample: We shouldn't cut down trees because it makes the trees sad.\n\n\nTu quoque: The proponent (person who argues for) of an argument doesn't act accordingly to their argument.\n\nExample: That rich guy says that getting rid of tax deductions will help the economy, yet he sits there and enjoys tax deductions. Therefore he is wrong.\n\nOR\n\nA person who smokes tells you that you shouldn't smoke and smoking is bad for you. But he smokes, so therefore smoking is good for you and he is wrong.\n\n\nThats all I got for now.",
"This is as close to an ELI5 as I can find: (powerpoint file) _URL_0_",
"**Straw man** - Claiming the other person has said (or means) something they didn't, and then arguing against that thing and claiming the other person is wrong because you've just shown how stupid the thing they never said is \"I think wood is the best building material\" \"You claim to be thinking, but maybe you're just reacting. There's a bunch of science that says people don't really think, they just react to stuff. You're just reacting. So you're wrong.\" (Thinking has nothing to do with if wood is good for building with).\n\n**Ad hominem** - \"I think it's better to build with cement than wood, because cement doesn't get dry rot.\" \"Oh yeah? Well you're wrong about that because you're a big poopy head!\" (Claiming that the other person is wrong because they are a terrible person, and ignoring their argument.)\n\n**Appeal to authority** - \"You're wrong about cement being better than wood, my dad the astrophysicist said so. He's a smart guy, he'd know\" (The reason it's a fallacy is that even though astrophysicists are indeed smart, there is no reason why one would know anything about building. If your dad was a contractor, it might be different).\n\n**Red Herring** - \"You have not provided proof of your daddy's IQ. You're wrong!\" (problem here is that it doesn't matter how smart your dad is. It only matters if he might actually have expertise in construction).\n\n**Argument from ignorance** - \"No one can prove that it's better to build with cement instead of wood. So wood is better.\" (problem - not being able to prove it does not mean the other option is automatically right).\n\n**Moving the goalposts** - \"Just because wood gets dry rot is no reason to not build with bricks.\" (There was a good reason not to build with wood, but instead of admitting the other person has a point, you claim to have been arguing about something else entirely).\n\n**Cherry picking** - It's true that wood gets dry rot, but you didn't mention that cement can get water damaged. You've ignored the thing that doesn't support building with cement.\n\n**Appeal to emotion** - \"Trees are wonderful. The Lorax loves trees. If you love trees, you would never cut them down to build with. Cement is better!\" (how you feel about trees has nothing to do with how strong a building made out of them will be).\n\n**Slippery slope** - \"If you build with cement, you have to dig up rocks to make it. If you keep digging up rocks, you'll eventually reach China (or America, if you're in China). Then people on the other side of the world will fall through. They'd be illegal immigrants. That would be horrible!\" (Just because the first thing is true (digging up rocks) there is no reason why all the other things would happen).\n\n\n\n",
"As a side note, [knowing about biases can HURT you](_URL_0_)! If you're gonna learn about these, don't just know them: understand them.",
"If you are losing an argument, and you KNOW you are right, they are using a logical fallacy.",
"As an aside, once you learn these logical fallacies, don't be the person who counters every argument with the simple naming of a fallacy, without explaining how you see it to be an example of one. \n\n\nTo me, a post saying simply - \"This is a straw man\" - is no more convincing than the logical fallacy itself, and makes you look like some 15 year old who just learned about logical fallacies for the first time.",
" > I keep having people use terms like \"straw man\" or \"red herring\" to counter in arguments, and then they just ignore my point.\n\nThey're using a logical fallacy against you. No explanations? But slapping on a derogatory label? Do they seem to be hoping that it sways the audience against you, but without having to support their assertion? That's Ad Hominem.\n\nBefore learning the fallacies, we all need to realize what fallacies really are. They're dishonesty. They're twisted ploys used by skilled liars whose goal is to sway an audience. (The goal in debate is not persuasion. Leave that for politicians. The goal is to find out which side is actually right.)\n\n[Feynman on the need for extreme bend-over-backwards honesty](_URL_0_)\n",
"Here's a great example of using the \"appeal to emotions\" rather then enganging on the other persons premise. [The vice presidential debate in 88](_URL_0_)\n",
"Here's a couple:\n\nA \"straw man\" argument is where you misrepresent the opposing argument to make it look ridiculous or to prove a point without actually refuting what was actually said. Example (from Wikipedia): Person A says \"Sunny days are good\" and person B responds \"If all days were sunny, we'd never have rain, and without rain, we'd have famine and death.\". In this case, person B is using a straw man argument to make person A look worse. Person A never said that every day should be sunny, and didn't even mention rainy days, but person B is misrepresenting person A's argument. Now person A has to defend himself instead of being able to actually make an argument. \n\nThe Genetic Fallacy is one where someone instantly disregards an argument solely because of the source. An easy example is if someone posted a news article on Reddit from Fox news. Many people would look at the source, see that it's Fox, and instantly think that the the story is a lie without even considering the actual content of the story. \n\nThe \"Slippery Slope\" argument is one that gets used a lot. It suggests that if an action is taken, it will lead to more drastic consequences that will get out of control. An example might be someone arguing against gay marriage, saying that if we redefine marriage to also include two people of the same gender, soon people will be allowed to marry their pets. That argument is ridiculous, since allowing gay marriage doesn't mean that the next step will be pet marriages.\n\n\"False dichotomy\" is when you set up a choice with only two options, when there could be more. It's a \"if you're not with me, you're against me\" kind of thing. Since that's not a great definition, I'll give you an example: \"\"If you want better public schools, you have to raise taxes. If you don't want to raise taxes, you can't have better schools.\" This is ignoring the option of spending your tax money more wisely. It's saying that the only choices are having good schools and higher taxes or lower taxes and bad schools, when in reality, you could have good schools and lower taxes if you're more efficient at allocating the funds correcting.\n\nAnd my favorite, the \"Gambler's Fallacy\". This is the wrongful assumption that past events influence future events. A gambler might have lost 20 games of blackjack in a row, and figure that because he's lost so many, he's \"due\" for a win soon. Probability doesn't work like that, the outcomes are independent of past outcomes. \n\nThere are a whole ton more, these are just a couple of them. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies"
],
[
"http://advancedeld.wikispaces.com/file/view/Logical+Fallacies+Know+Book.ppt"
],
[],
[
"http://lesswrong.com/lw/he/knowing_about_biases_can_hurt_people/"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://calteches.library.caltech.edu/3043/1/CargoCult.pdf"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uWXRNySMW4s"
],
[]
] |
|
e1qyxu
|
Why is lithium the best element to use for batteries?
|
Like what molecular properties make it the best? Or are there other elements or compounds that are just not being used?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/e1qyxu/why_is_lithium_the_best_element_to_use_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8s8y1r",
"f8sa5hu",
"f90w21j"
],
"score": [
5,
17,
2
],
"text": [
"How good metals are for batteries depends on how easily they give away electrons, and lithium is the one that gives away electrons the easiest. Note however that you also need something to recieve these electrons, for this purpose metals like gold, silver, and copper are the best. TL, DR: lithium gives away electrons the easiest.",
"This may be a shorter answer than you wanted but in summary: you want a very light, highly reactive metal. The Most reactive metals are at the very left of the periodic table. The lightest ones are at the very top. Lithium is the top-left-most metal. The only lighter elements are hydrogen and helium. And the only more reactive metals available in reasonable quantities are the 3 or 4 metals below it. The lightest of them, Sodium, is already 3 times the atomic weight of lithium and is only marginally more reactive than lithium.\n\nNow this is a bit of a simplification since the physics and chemistry of novel experimental and theoretical solutions is really complicated. But for the relatively basic way that batteries work now, by shuffling ions between cathodes and anodes, Lithium looks like an ideal choice.",
"Lithium is superior for battery applications because not only does it easily give up an electron, the ion is also small enough that it can easily intercalate and move within a layered material such as Li_x Co O_2 . Potassium, rubidium, and cesium are too large and heavy for this. There are labs experimenting with sodium batteries, they have much lower raw materials cost but also poorer performance."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
22nm77
|
Was Champagne or Beer historically carbonated ? If you went back in time, what would these taste like ?
|
Just curious as I can't seem to find a single source on this, did egyptians have 'carbonated drinks ' ? I hope this doesn't sound as stupid as it felt writing it ...
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/22nm77/was_champagne_or_beer_historically_carbonated_if/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgq90w1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Carbon dioxide production is a byproduct of the yeast that ferments sugar to alcohol. Soft drinks are carbonated by adding CO2 under pressure, but for an alcoholic drink it's enough that it's fermented in a closed container. The in-bottle fermentation that gives champagne its carbonation is what set it apart from other wines, historically (although today 'sparkling wine' is the general term and 'champagne' only refers to those that come from that region of France. Beers could continue to ferment in their barrels, since they didn't filter out the yeast as much then. \n\nSpring water is sometimes carbonated as well, in those cases from dissolving carbonate from rocks underground where there's high pressure, the same pressure that eventually pushes the water up to the surface, but artificially carbonated water and soft drinks are 19th century inventions.\n\nWinemaking is very simple (it's essentially just old grape juice) and - in its essentials - has largely stayed the same, apart from improvements in quality. But those were very large improvements (and it's not one continuous tradition of winemaking around the world). Wine tasted very bad in the old days, one of the main reasons being that they couldn't store it well, and so it got vinegary. So they often added things to make it more palatable, etc. So if you go back to biblical times, their wine is very very different from what we have now. If you go back 500 years, the difference is not so great though. \n\nBeer is more complicated, as it's made from grain that must be malted before it can be fermented, and they're normally flavored with hops if not other things as well. There are more different kinds of beers than wines, although on the other hand, in modern times beer production has achieved levels of consistency that doesn't exist for wines, and did not exist in the past. You can rest assured that next year's Carlsberg will taste indistinguishable from this year's. That's not true of wine, nor of beer that's produced with more traditional methods (in which case it's really the batch and not year that matters). \n\nThere are beers on the market that could represent many places and eras, but if I were to mention one, unflavored [lambics](_URL_0_) are perhaps the most 'primitive' tasting beers. These are beers made without any specific yeasts, just whichever wild yeasts and bacteria happen to get into the containers. It's a bit of an aquired taste, to say the least (and there's a reason most of them are flavored). They still have hops added though, making it a step or two up from the most primitive possible kind of beer. But it'll take you back to the middle ages at least.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambic"
]
] |
|
316ofx
|
why do advertisers & marketing people believe it's a good strategy to make ads that are deliberately annoying, and to run them several times in a row during a commercial break?
|
Do they really believe that annoying someone is a useful goal, in that they will therefore remember the brand better? Do they have any actual psychological research that proves this? Regardless of the fact that many will outright refuse to consider their company at all once they've been annoyed? Doesn't the rise and widespread adoption of ad-blocking software disprove that hypothesis?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/316ofx/eli5_why_do_advertisers_marketing_people_believe/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpyt3a7",
"cpyt477",
"cpywk28",
"cpyx17p"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"We are all familiar with those ads on television that just scream at us to switch them off. They are just so excruciating that you can’t bear to watch them. Afterwards you ask, why did a company make such a downright irritating ad? What possible benefit can accrue to them from actively irritating their potential customers? Then the answer comes to you. You can remember the product precisely because the ad was so horrible. The old dictum that \"No publicity is bad publicity\" has just operated in front of your eyes. The ad that you hated so much has given, the company that sponsored it, that most valuable of all benefits to be derived from advertising; brand recognition. You might cringe when you think of the advertisement. But you will remember the name of the product. Job done for the advertiser.",
"Not defending annoying ads, but there's plenty of basic research on how people learn that supports the practices you asked about. An ad is trying to \"teach\" you something (and by teach I mean make you remember something). To teach somebody you must first get their *attention* (lots of research to support this). Annoyance is one way to get someone's attention (\"squeaky wheel gets the grease\"). Similarly, basic research has shown that repetition is a way to commit something to long-term memory. Therefore, there are basic psych findings that support doing that. Bottom line: If you can easily ignore an ad, the ad doesn't have your attention and therefore you won't get its message. Annoying ads can get your attention and therefore might get a message to you. (The fact that you posted this ELI5 shows that some ads have successfully annoyed you and influenced your behavior somewhat.)",
"I would say it works just by putting the product in your head. Ever heard of head on? Apply directly to the forehead. ",
"It's all about making people aware of something and trying to get them to remember it, even if you have bad feelings about it (because of the annoying commercial).\n\nThe bad feelings will likely fade long before the memory of the product.\n\nFor example, lets say the commercial is for the [Deion Sanders Hotdog Express](_URL_0_). \n\nYou see it over and over again, to the point where you turn it off and complain about how much you hate it. \n\nThree years later, you move into your own apartment for the first time, and are looking for a new way to cook hotdogs. There may be 100 different appliances for cooking hotdogs, but the one you remember, the only one you even know exists, is the Hotdog Express. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zZyGaVNihK0"
]
] |
|
bwicyf
|
Did America have any POW Camps in the continental US during the Second World War (besides Japanese Internment Camps)? If so, what were conditions like? What did prisoners think of them? Are there any surviving diary entries or interviews from former inmates?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/bwicyf/did_america_have_any_pow_camps_in_the_continental/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epz13ey"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes. The United States housed several hundred thousand POWs in the US during the war, which I've written about [here](_URL_0_). Happy to help with any follow-ups you might have, and I'd also highly recommend *We Were Each Other's Prisoners* by Lewis H. Carlson, which I mentioned in one of the follow-ups, as it is an oral history collection which includes over 100 accounts from both sides about the POW experience."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7crw89/what_were_american_pow_camps_like/dps6bjv/"
]
] |
||
3f24fi
|
Is there a book that retells U.S. History in an unbiased, completely truthful way?
|
I have a garbage public school education regarding "U.S. History." I want to learn more about the truths of our country's history in an unbiased way. Preferably in a somewhat brief book--no more than 300 pages.
I am sure there are loads of information regarding this topic, but I want a brief, concise, all-encompassing piece of non-fiction, historical literature that retells our nation's history from the discovery of North America to the 21st century.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3f24fi/is_there_a_book_that_retells_us_history_in_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctkkmks"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I don't think that you will be able to get what you're looking for in less than 300 pages. That book would fall into pitfalls similar to the pitfalls of textbooks; they can't cover everything or give in depth coverage to the most important parts without cutting some peoples, places, and events. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ren5a
|
Why were taxes in America so high in the 40s/50s/60s?
|
I was just watching the first episode of Mad Men Season 3 and there was mention of taxation in the 70-90% bracket. It seems so backwards, especially considering they were so anti-Communism. So why was there such high taxation? We're the voters ok with this? When did this start to change?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ren5a/why_were_taxes_in_america_so_high_in_the_40s50s60s/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdmpy0l"
],
"score": [
46
],
"text": [
"First, taxes do not equal communism. One can support all sorts of left-wing ideas and not be a communist; in fact, you can be virulently *anti*-communist. There is no transitive property in public policy, as useful a propaganda tool as that idea may be. There are many examples of groups within the post-war American liberal coalition fracturing over the issue of Communism, such as the Congress of Industrial Organizations and, more specifically, the United Auto Workers. To look more politically, the Democratic Party split three ways in 1948, first over the issue of race, leading to Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats, and second (among many reasons) over the issue of how the United States should deal with communism and the Soviet Union, leading to Henry Wallace and the Progressive Party. \n\nSecond, American public policy changed drastically during World War II. There are several ways to pay for a war, which includes borrowing money, raising taxes, and printing money. During WWII, the U.S. government preferred the first two options, relying on significant hikes in marginal tax rates and borrowing money from the American public through War Bonds. Remember also that there are multiple types of taxes, not just the income tax they talk about in \"Mad Men\" (my favorite show, by the way). Corporate taxes also went up during the war, both as a method of funding and as an attempt to prevent profiteering. Many of these taxes remained in place in some form or another after the war in an attempt to bring down the debt the Government had incurred. To another degree, these taxes were also used to fund the expanded programs of the post-New Deal state, though signature programs like Social Security often had their own dedicated taxes outside of the standard income tax.\n\nAdditionally, it is important to bear in mind the difference between the marginal tax rate (and to know what marginal rates mean) and the effective tax rate. Basically, though someone's income may have put them in a bracket where part of their income was taxed at above 90 percent, through various deductions and loopholes, as well as the fact that marginal rates by definition only apply to part of one's income, the effective total rates were much lower than the highest marginal rate was. It is even more important to know that there were **many** more income brackets as far as personal income taxes were concerned. For example, in 2013, there were seven tax brackets; in 1944, there were **twenty four**. Additionally, the vast majority of these tax brackets were well above the median income; incomes in the highest brackets were also very rare. In 1947 (this is as early as Census info goes), median income was approximately $3000. This would put the median family in the *second* tax bracket, again, out of ***twenty four***, the marginal rate of which was 22 percent. The *vast* majority of Americans were not affected by the tax rates which the elite class, which \"Mad Men\" for the most part portrays, paid.\n\nNow, there was always resistance to this type of policy from a traditional, conservative movement within the Republican Party which opposed such taxes and programs on principle, though would begrudgingly accept them to do things like pay off war debt. This faction of the Republican Party, however, was out of power for most of the mid-20th century. For a good history of the changing nature of American political coalitions, [see these two comments here](_URL_0_). The key was that conservatives also favored decreases in spending. New ideas in economics, however, namely E. Cary Brown's concept of a full employment budget, led to a push to cut taxes from the left. There is very bad trend of polemic history which calls John F. Kennedy conservative, for example, because he cut taxes. Kennedy did indeed pass the largest tax cut in decades, but the motivation was to fix what he called a \"growth deficit\" (IIRC, I can pull out an econ history notebook if I really have to) by stimulating consumer demand while maintaining levels of government spending. I think it was Paul Samuelson who Kennedy sent to Congress to plead that taxes be cut without commensurate cuts in spending. This type of demand side, Keynesian tax cut, however, focused on the lowest brackets and not only kept a large number of brackets, but kept rates within the top ones at high levels. \n\nIf you really want me to talk about the way Reagan type conservatives cut taxes with supply side justifications (though Reagan's rhetoric, if not policy, often echoed demand side reasoning), I will consider it. That period of time is the genesis of modern attitudes about taxes as well as the drastically reduced number of brackets. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1nolzz/why_was_there_such_a_huge_shift_in_the_core/cckrkh5"
]
] |
|
4m6wsx
|
the difference between a dual-core 1400 mhz and a quad-core 1400 mhz mobile phone processor.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4m6wsx/eli5_the_difference_between_a_dualcore_1400_mhz/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3t0826",
"d3t0979",
"d3t3ozz",
"d3teom6",
"d3ugxlz"
],
"score": [
21,
7,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think what your asking what's the purpose of multicore processors. The 1400 MHz is clock speed which is the max frequency at which transitors can switch. The higher the frequency, the faster the processing for a single core. \nThe purpose of cores is to split up tasks. With most applications on a phone or tablet, they do single threading, which is using just one core. Multithreading tasks use multiple cores meaning the task is split up so that certain processes can be done simultaneously. All cores will have a max of the clock speed, 1400 MHz.\n\nThat's the basic difference. However there are a bunch of subtle difference like how certain processors do single threading and multithreading, gate size, psuedocore vs real cores, caching, integrated graphics, etc which can be more critical information about the processors performance that number of cores and clock speed.",
"To my understanding, a dual core 1400 MHz processor will have 2 units of processors each clocking 1400 MHz, whereas a quad-core processor will have 4 such units",
"Each core is an engine, a dual-core has two engines that can run processes simultaneously. A quad-core has 4 engines that can run processes simultaneously.",
"Think of a processor as a little office that you hand problems on paper, and there is a little man inside that solves the problem and hands you the answer.\n\nThe man can handle multiple problems at once, but he can only work on one problem at any given moment.\n\nNow imagine the same office, but you have four little men inside it. each man can work on a different problem, so you can have four times as many problems solved in the same amount of time, but each man can still only solve the individual problem he has at his own pace.\n\nBasically, having more cores lets you have more things running at once without slowing down, because some things can be worked on simultaneously.",
"Alright, I see a couple decent explanations, but I'll put in mine, which I find helps people understand pretty well.\n\nThe 1400 MHz is just the speed of the processor, basically how fast the transistors switch every second, in this case 1400 million times a second.\n\nThe cores is what I'm here to explain.\n\nYears ago, computers just had a single core. They had to do every instruction in sequence. So, say you're running a browser, office suite, and winamp because it's so long ago you're on WinXP. Your single core CPU has to handle all that in turn, it can't do any parallel actions.\n\nABCABCABC = 9 cycles, each letter being a cycle. Everything gets 3 cycles.\n\nThat's how it would handle what is getting done. A being your browser, B your office suite, and C being your 2000s songs. Sad thing about doing it this way, while it's fine for single tasks, it gets very slow depending on how many tasks you have. Each program takes away time from the other programs to get its stuff done. We eventually went to dual core CPUs, which pretty much doubled how many things we could run before slow down, insane performance gains.\n\nSo with the better CPU, you also start running Minesweeper and Solitaire.\n\nD = Minesweeper, E = Solitaire.\n\nACEBDACE\n\nBDACEBDA\n\n9 cycles, B, C, E, D get 3 cycles, A gets 4.\n\nSame amount of time taken, 9 cycles for everything getting three cycles minimum, but you have much more running. Nowadays, ever since WinXP, dualcore has been pretty much the minimum. And we keep running more crap, we will need more. Very soon quadcore will be the minimum, even on phones.\n\nSo, your new high end Windows XP machine just got an upgrade to FOUR CORES! Amazing, who knew technology could go so far in the early 2000s. Now with this new stuff, you also add in a couple more things.\n\nF = Photoshop, G = Team Fortress (the original mod)\n\nAEBFCG\n\nBFCGDA\n\nCGDAEB\n\nDAEBFC\n\n6 cycles (less time! :D), everything but A, B, C gets 3 cycles, A B and C get 4 cycles.\n\nAs you can see, quad core runs even faster thanks to paralleling the actions each program does. But, the difference isn't as drastic as from single core to dual core, the difference dissipates as you keep adding cores. Nowadays, the most a consumer product will have is 8, and that's generally pretty expensive. For most people, 4 cores is enough. Depending on the use case, dual core is still acceptable, like for phones, raspberry pis, and single core is even still acceptable for single purpose machines like coffee makers and refrigerators.\n\nSo, if you're looking at buying a phone between them, judge cost difference, judge how much stuff you leave running on it and decide on that. If you leave a lot running at any given time, like 5 or 10+ programs constantly, or very stressful programs like games, the extra cores might be nice for performance, however if you don't or the quad core model is like $400 more, maybe look at a different model."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6o2u74
|
Need help finding a word
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6o2u74/need_help_finding_a_word/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dke874o"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I think you mean \"Anschluss\", which was the annexation of Austria on 12 of march 1938 by Nazi Germany"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3e9wt8
|
Why was Jesus of Nazareth crucified?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3e9wt8/why_was_jesus_of_nazareth_crucified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ctd1qmi"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Echoing the answer provided by /u/brojangles, most scholars agree that the most likely charge was that he was being hailed as \"King of the Jews.\" Interestingly, in his most recent book, [How Jesus Became God: The Exaltation of a Jewish Preacher from Galilee](_URL_0_), New Testament Scholar Bart Ehrman sheds a little more detailed light on his (and many other) scholarly opinions on why Jesus was crucified. Here is a great quote from his book:\n\n > ...when the authorities arrested Jesus and handed him over to Pontius Pilate, the consistent report is that the charge leveled against him at his trial was that he called himself the king of the Jews. If Jesus never preached in public that he was the future king, but this was the charge that was leveled against him at his trial, how did outsiders come to know of it? **The simplest answer is that this is what Judas betrayed.** \n\n > Judas was one of the insiders to whom Jesus disclosed his vision of the future. Judas and the eleven others would all be rulers in the future kingdom. And Jesus would be the king. For some reason— we’ll never know why— Judas became a turncoat and betrayed both the cause and his master. **He told the Jewish authorities what Jesus was actually teaching in private, and it was all they needed. They had him arrested and turned him over to the governor. Here was someone who was declaring himself to be king.** [Page 121-122]\n\nOf course being King did no refer to being king on this earthly realm. As most Christian scholars believe, Jesus was an Apocalyptic Rabbi (like John the Baptist and many other of their time) who preached that the end of the world was near, and it was of this next world that Jesus most likely preached that he would be king. \n\nIt's also worth noting is that Pilate had a history of dealing with sedition in very harsh measures. In one of Josephus' writings (Antiquities 18.3.2), he writes about how Pilate had no problems putting an end to insurrectionists with violence and hostility. He was known as a governor whom had little respect for Jewish customs and religion and did not value the lives of the people whom he ruled over. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.amazon.com/How-Jesus-Became-God-Exaltation/dp/0061778192/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1435944758&sr=8-1&keywords=how+did+jesus+become+god"
]
] |
||
1eiajx
|
When you lose fat in your body, are you breathing out the carbons or are do you urinate the carbons?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1eiajx/when_you_lose_fat_in_your_body_are_you_breathing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca0i558"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"You breathe out the carbons. \n\nFat breaks down into ketone bodies like actylacetate and beta-hydroxybutarate, which is transported to our cells and made into acetyl-CoA, which then enters the TCA cycle, producing CO2, which is then transported to your lungs.\n\nNitrogen waste products (urea) from protein catabolism is excreted by urine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3gvvel
|
I read that the reason alcohol became popular in Europe was because they didn't have clean water. But alcohol dehydrates you. How would this have helped?
|
I'm not sure if this should be under ask science or ask historians, but uh, yeah, this confused me. You can't hydrate yourself with alcohol, it's just going to dehydrate you. So how would this have helped?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3gvvel/i_read_that_the_reason_alcohol_became_popular_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu1xndm",
"cu1zx0t"
],
"score": [
12,
7
],
"text": [
"it's badhistory. \n\n_URL_1_\n\nwe will see if this causes /u/eternkerri to hulk smash \n\nand here is the wiki section which debunks this\n\n_URL_0_",
"Just to address your second comment, alcohol on it's own may be dehydrating, but diluted in beer or wine the water being ingested more than makes up for the effect. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/health#wiki_drinking_water",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2z8d4f/you_often_here_anecdotal_that_alcohol_was_so/?ref=search_posts"
],
[]
] |
|
1czmtp
|
the physical characteristics of the planets in our solar system
|
I actually have a 5 year old I nanny for who asked me this. I promised him the next time I see him to have an explanation.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1czmtp/eli5the_physical_characteristics_of_the_planets/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9lhoj9"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"In order from the sun:\n\n* **Mercury** - The smallest planet, no atmosphere, made of rock, very hot days, very cold nights. \n\n* [**Venus**](_URL_1_) - Slightly smaller than Earth, made of rock, has an acidic and thick atmosphere, hot because the greenhouse gases trap the heat.\n\n* [**Earth**](_URL_4_) - Largest rock planet, only one to have liquid water & amp;amp; life (as far as we know!).\n\n* [**Mars**](_URL_2_) - Red rock planet, is red because of the iron oxide (rust) in the ground, about half the size of Earth.\n\n* **Jupiter** - The largest planet, 320 time heavier than Earth, made of gas (Hydrogen and Helium), is famous for its perpetual storm called the [Great Red Spot](_URL_0_) which is itself more than double the size of Earth! Has many rocky moons, the most interesting of which (in my opinion) is Europa, which probably has a liquid ocean underneath its Ice surface.\n\n* **Saturn** - the second largest \"gas giant\", famous for its [huge rings](_URL_3_) which are made of chunks of Ice that range from microscopic to meters across. We've actually landed on one of saturns many moons, [Titan](_URL_5_).\n\n* **Uranus** - Another gas giant, odd because it is 'on its side.' Its poles face the sun unlike every other planet where the equator does.\n\n* **Neptune** - the smallest gas giant, and the most distant (30 times further from the sun than Earth) and coldest planet (-200 C).\n\nThese are the 8 'major' planets. There are in fact another 5 'Dwarf Planets' which ~~aren't round~~ are smaller and exist in asteroid belts. These are (from the sun):\n**Ceres** (Between Mars and Jupiter) and **Pluto**, **Haumea**, **Makemake** and **Eris** (all beyond Neptune). Of these Pluto is the most famous but Eris is actually the biggest, which is why Pluto used to be a major planet but was downgraded. All the dwarf planets have no atmosphere, are very cold, ~~aren't round~~ and are made of rock."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://web.phys.tue.nl/fileadmin/tn/de_faculteit/capaciteitsgroepen/Fluids/WDY/Vortex/intro/REDSPOT.GIF",
"http://brian.hoover.net.au/blog/wp-content/uploads/2010/08/venus1.jpg",
"http://dilemmaxdotnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/01/nasa-mars-curiosity-panoramic-view-from-rocknest-position.jpg",
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/96/Saturn_eclipse_exaggerated.jpg",
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-6nJlSmHSzFA/T3kPcf-wgrI/AAAAAAAAAOM/yybLNzlpahk/s1600/The_ocean_by_xipx.jpg",
"http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_s3YvJJZ34I8/TPrzke9469I/AAAAAAAAAgA/KHOzrhq_F-E/s1600/PIA08115_n.jpg"
]
] |
|
7h3pn6
|
How much of impact did the Knights actually had?
|
What was the consequences of the raiding to the ottomans? How much of the berber raiding did they stop?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7h3pn6/how_much_of_impact_did_the_knights_actually_had/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dqnxkkv"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I'm really not sure what you're asking about. Could you explain a bit? What knights, where, and when?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2hq40u
|
Did Cold War politics ever play a role in the Northern Irish conflict?
|
Did the USSR or other communist/socialist organizations internationally fund the IRA or instigate unrest in Northern Ireland? Did socialism/capitalism play an important role in the narratives of the conflict? I know there was a class element to the discourses but did that ever tie in to geopolitics?
Any sources anyone could recommend on the question would be appreciated!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hq40u/did_cold_war_politics_ever_play_a_role_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckv2cyt",
"ckv36l9"
],
"score": [
11,
3
],
"text": [
"The Cold War was really just a side point to the Troubles(As the Irish call it). The only time there was any real direct involvement was when the Soviet Union supplied arms to the Official IRA through the KGB starting in 1972 - a KGB operation known as Operation SPLASH. The Communist Party of Ireland, which was Marxist-Leninist and within the Soviet sphere, acted as an intermediate. The whole thing was authorized by Yuri Andropov, who at the time was head of the KGB, not the President or General Secretary.\n\nThis relationship developed far enough that the OIRA eventually even established links with North Korea and Czechoslovakia in regards to acquiring arms and even military training. \n\nThe Soviets chose the Officials due to their Marxist tendencies, and they were much more pliable to manipulation - in the words of O'Riordan(Leader of the CPI) in regards to the IRA, \"they unfailingly accept our advice”, though we can't really know if he was a reliable commentator. \n\nIn terms of the narrative of the conflict, class warfare and Communist/Socialist politics was definitely something that was a theme of the conflict. One of the leading Provisional IRA commanders, Brendan Hughes, was an ardent Socialist and believed he was fighting for a Socialist Republic, and you'll note that all the Republican parties in the North have a left-leaning tendency(For example, Sinn Féin, the political wing of the PIRA, was an advocate of Democratic Socialism), though the non-violent SDLP is less radical in this regard. \n\nIn regards to it tying into geopolitics as a motive - not really, no. The various derivatives of IRA throughout its existence aligned with virtually anybody that would support their cause, from the Germans in World War I, to the Soviets in the 20's, then to the Nazis during World War II, and so on. \n\nGeopolitics as a factor only came into it insofar as aligning with those that opposed the British Empire/United Kingdom. It is undoubtedly the case that many members of all sections of the IRA during the Troubles had radically leftist tendencies, and should the conflict have swung in their favour, the geopolitical position of a Socialist Ireland could've been very pro-Moscow, but that wasn't really a part of the conversation, nor was it ever really seen as spreading the Socialist international revolution, but there were very strong tones of class struggle against what was seen to be a Protestant, Unionist Elite class. \n\nThe weapons themselves were of generally non-Soviet origin in order for there to be plausible deniability, and were used for a myriad of different things - including against other Republican paramilitaries such as the Provisional IRA or the Irish National Liberation Army(Which was also a very far left group). \n\nIn terms of sources, they're actually somewhat difficult to dig up. Most of what I just said there is from memory from my brief readings on the subject, but there has been leaked intelligence from Russia in the 90's that pretty much outlined the KGB's actions in Northern Ireland and the IRA's relationship with the Communist sphere.\n\nOperation SPLASH and other related interactions with the Republican Paramilitaries during The Troubles is outlined in *The Sword and the Shield: The Mitrokhin Archive and the Secret History of the KGB*, a book written by Christopher Andrew(Co-Authored by Vasili Mitrokhin, who was a senior archivist for the Soviet Union foreign intelligence service). ",
"Just to expand on the geopolitics segment of your question would the arms shipments and semtex that Colonel Gaddafi provided the Provisional IRA be of interest or are you solely interested in the funding by the USSR and other communist organisations? "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2duq2o
|
how come child prodigies usually have adhd?
|
Notably [Michael Kearney](_URL_0_), who graduated college at the age of 10 and taught college at the age of 17
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2duq2o/eli5_how_come_child_prodigies_usually_have_adhd/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjt9dgx",
"cjt9pz5",
"cjt9r8y"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"ADHD isn't the same in everyone, it's also misdiagnosed. ",
"I'm willing to bet that most of these child prodigies don't actually have legit adhd, its just that they get bored with simplistic shit more quickly than most kids. But God help everyone nearby when they find something that they actually find interesting, like quantum physics or something. ",
"ADD/ADHD is one of the most rampantly misdiagnosed things ever. It's common for kids to have fleeting interests/not have the same level of intense concentration as adults. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Kearney"
] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2j4poi
|
Being Columbus day, this article detailing how awful Christopher Columbus was has been making the rounds on social media. How accurate is it?
|
_URL_0_
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2j4poi/being_columbus_day_this_article_detailing_how/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl8dgdd"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"[There is a very popular thread](_URL_0_) from a year back on this very topic which I am sure you will find interesting."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://theoatmeal.com/comics/columbus_day"
] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1o3uek/the_oatmeal_just_released_this_post_about/"
]
] |
|
3bcqhs
|
if the sentinelese people have been isolated for the past 60k years is it possible that they have become their own sub species or have their own unique evolutionary adaptations?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bcqhs/eli5_if_the_sentinelese_people_have_been_isolated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cskzbjr"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They could very well be slightly adapted, but 60,000 years is not enough for major physical changes. definitely very distinct culture and religion, but probably very similar in a physical sense."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
82n2cb
|
how much does fitness potential decrease with age?
|
For example, if someone was a great runner as a kid, would they be able to reach that point again when they are, say, 18?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82n2cb/eli5_how_much_does_fitness_potential_decrease/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvbc0sy"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Medically I read somewhere it declines by 10% each decade. Most people are never actually fit, or if they ever were they stop putting in the same work the older they get. Also, they don't eat a proper diet to sustain. Proper diet is a huge part of the body being healthy."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16nag5
|
It is possible to charge iPhones with either 1 amp or 2 amp chargers. They come with 1 amp chargers. Will using a 2 amp charger damage battery life?
|
I ask, because I cannot find any information elsewhere online about this specific question.
I believe the iPad charger is an example of a 2amp charger. Sometimes they're called "fast chargers". Sometimes, cigarette-lighter-socket USB ports have one charging port labeled "iPhone" and one labeled "iPad". If that is the case, the iPhone port will be 1amp and the iPad port will be 2amps.
When charging using the 2amp chargers, the iPhone will charge super fast, and will feel warm. I think I've read on Apple's website that using the iPad charger with the iPhone is supported and not a problem. Could you confirm this to be true, and give some fairly basic explanation?
Thanks, all!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/16nag5/it_is_possible_to_charge_iphones_with_either_1/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7xkonq",
"c7xkvl9"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's fine, but also causes issues.\n\nUSB has a standard of 5 Watts, 5 Volts at 1 Amps.\n\nA 2 Amp Charger is non-standard and in a lot of cases will void your warranty if you admitted to using one that is.\n\nWith iPhone and iPad it may be different with their policy on the matter.\n\nTo find out why people have these polcies is pretty simple; you are harming your battery.\n\nA battery is not designed to last forever(Though we couldn't design one to last forever anyway) but are designed to retain at least 80% of their capacity after X charges. How fast you are charging it, factors into that. More amperage, means more heat. A 10 Watt iPad Charger uses twice the energy and amperage, these causes heat, expansion, contraction, extra wear on the cells etc.\n\nThat being said, 10 Watt charger for an iPhone or any phone really isn't going to cause many issues other then replacing your battery quicker.\n\nThink of it like this. You design your battery to recharge and retain 80% of it's capacity after 1,000 full discharges. Someone using a 10 Watt charger may fail at 600-800 full discharges. So they'll need a new battery much quicker.\n\nThis isn't a inherient problem with the battery or charger, but electricity. The wires in those batteries are supposed to handle 5 Watts, 5 Volts, 1 Amp safely, without to much heat left off. If you design a battery to handle the higher amperage, and those batteries were used you really wouldn't have those issues as much.\n\nNow there are some real dangers about altering a charger.\n\nAs an example, I altered a charger to deliver around 25 Watts.\n\nI now have a Samsung Note which is charcoal.",
"Most mobile phones these days will have what's called a PMIC (power management integrated circuit) to regulate the supply of power to the device, as well as control battery charging.\n\nThe current rating of a charger determines the *maximum* current that the charger can supply. The PMIC is smart enough to draw as much current as it wants, up to a safe limit that the battery supports (that the vendor, in your case, Apple, has determined), and it won't try to draw any more. It's also smart enough to draw only 0.5 A from a computer USB port, for example, since that's as much as the USB 2.0 standard allows, and will also draw less and less current (trickle charge) as the battery approaches 100%.\n\nYour phone might feel warm while it's charging with a higher current, but rest assured, it knows what it's doing. Most large manufacturers test their products extensively, and (especially if you're using an official iPad charger on an iPhone) you're using the device within safe limits.\n\nGive your phone a higher voltage (a few volts over 5 volts for the iPhone), though, and you might fry your phone immediately."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33of15
|
What does brain activity look like for people with ADHD?
|
I'm more specially interested in the variant: ADHD-PH and the effects of brain activity in learning and executive function.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/33of15/what_does_brain_activity_look_like_for_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqmyy2q"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Around a year ago, there was a research done about this. Using resting-state functional magnetic resonance imaging(rfMRI),researchers have uncovered disrupted connections between different brain areas in children and adolescents with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder.\n\nThe team found that the boys with ADHD had altered structure and function in certain areas of the brain, such as the orbitofrontal cortex - an area involved in strategic planning. Such alterations were also found in the globus pallidus. This brain area plays a part in executive inhibitory control - the ability to control inappropriate behaviors or responses.\n\nYou can reach the article here:\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/276150.php"
]
] |
|
j08mz
|
What else do electrons interact with besides protons?
|
I know that electrons are attracted to protons, and together they form matter. But, from my understanding, matter makes up a very teeny tiny percentage of space. I'm curious to know if electrons have a wide variety of interactions with other things, and we only know about matter because that's the only interaction that actually produces large clumps of stuff. In other words, do electrons exhibit this really great range of behaviors, and the fact that it also takes part in making matter is just a small part in all of that?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/j08mz/what_else_do_electrons_interact_with_besides/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c282nop"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Well technically, the electrons don't interact with the protons directly. Electrons interact with *photons* (electromagnetism) that then interact with protons. Electrons also interact with W^+/- and Z^0 bosons in particle decays. While it seems like a bit of pedantry, it's really the key to your question. Because whatever else photons and W and Z bosons couple too are all of the things electrons can interact with.\n\nOutside of forces *per se* it's also important to note that energy of any kind carries a space-time curvature with it, and that gives rise to gravitational effects (though on a single-electron basis, this is largely negligible). Electrons are also fermions, so they obey Pauli exclusion principle and thus can't have more than one electron in the same state."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3hym88
|
Did the Chinese Communists introduce simplified Chinese characters as a way to eradicate traditional Chinese culture and make it impossible to read older literature?
|
I recently heard this in a Youtube video and would like to learn more about the reasons for the introduction of simplified Chinese characters. Is the following true?
The People's Republic of China simplified the Chinese writing system in the 1950s, allegedly to make it easier to learn for the mostly illiterate population, but actually with more Orwellian intentions: Elements from traditional characters were removed or replaced by simplified versions. In this process, a lot of original meaning of the characters was lost, including traditional Chinese values represented in those removed parts.
Also, formerly illiterate citizens of China who were thought the simplified characters could no only read texts written with simplified characters and therefore could not texts written before the introduction of them, i.e. text which might contain ideas not in line with the Communist Party of China, text containing the "4 Olds" the communists sought to eradicate: Old Customs, Old Culture, Old Habits, and Old Ideas.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3hym88/did_the_chinese_communists_introduce_simplified/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cubtrbm",
"cubtypf",
"cubzs1i",
"cucq87m",
"cucrefj"
],
"score": [
115,
66,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"For most of China's history in the 20th century, its literacy rate was ridiculously low, [and hovered around 20% in 1950.](_URL_6_) In addition, many Chinese intellectuals at the time blamed the complexity of traditional Chinese for holding the country's progress back. As a result, numerous proposals were were written to address the problem from 1911 to the mid 1950s, which included:\n\n* [Replacing Chinese with Esperanto](_URL_3_)\n* [Replacing Chinese characters](_URL_1_) with some form of latin-based romanization such as [*hanyu pinyin*](_URL_5_)\n* Simplifying Chinese characters\n\nEventually, [simplifying characters](_URL_0_) won out, but the Communists were not the first ones to do it- the Kuomintang (Nationalist) government had actually tried to introduce 324 simplified characters as part of a wider spelling reform planned to begin in 1936, but this probably didn't happen because of the [war](_URL_2_) that broke out the year after that. After the People's Republic was founded in 1949, character simplification was introduced in three rounds: first in 1956, then in 1964, and finally, a third round in 1977 that was retracted in 1986 due to unpopular demand. \n\nIn conclusion, character simplification did not have any other meaning than increasing literacy- the first two rounds of simplification on the mainland (which are still used today) were completed two whole years before the 'Four Olds' came into existance, and has been attempted long before the Communists came to power. And the program appears to have worked- China's literacy rate [is around 95% now](_URL_4_). Finally, it should be noted that most Chinese characters remained untouched or slightly modified during simplification, and remained recognizable in the context they were written in. [](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: some spelling",
"No, first of all it should be noted that the issue of simplified vs traditional Chinese is a controversial issue within certain communities and is linked to identity politics. This makes Youtube videos unreliable as a source for this. \n\nSecond of all simplified Chinese was not just a Communist program, discussions on simplifying the language existed pre-1949 within the Nationalist government as well and non-Communist scholars in China had advocated simplifying the language to increase literacy rates for decades before 1949. The idea for the rejection of traditional script for simplified language came about in the early 20th century, especially after the May Fourth movement when the Chinese intelligentsia did believe that old Confucian traditions cannot take precedence over the need to modernize the country.\n\nFinally it should be noted that the PRC is not the only place in which simplified characters are used. Singapore uses simplified characters, as does the large Chinese population in Malaysia, both of those places started using simplified characters more or less independently.",
"In comparison, isn't it true that classic texts are difficult to read regardless of spelling/writing reforms? I have trouble reading the handwritten Declaration and Constitution, and I'm literate in my own language. I would expect that modern Greeks have trouble with their classic texts, modern Russians to have trouble with centuries old Russian texts, and so on. Is this not the case?",
"Would you mind add the link of that video you watched on YouTube?",
"A lot of people in mainland China can still read traditional Chinese, and read traditional Chinese literature and historical text, in case anyone is wondering. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Simplified_Chinese_characters#Before_1949",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanization_of_Chinese#Hanyu_Pinyin",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Sino-Japanese_War",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=FMgEX5x6F34C&pg=PA95&lpg=PA95&dq=esperanto+replacing+chinese&source=bl&ots=PFvD0YUbpf&sig=8wLq30WfuBDqCFmKjaWBgwE5lFg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0CB4Q6AEwAGoVChMIg-WR4_S8xwIVwR4eCh0MXAzg#v=onepage&q=esperanto%20replacing%20chinese&f=false",
"https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2103.html#136",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinyin",
"http://www.nytimes.com/2001/02/12/news/12iht-rchina.t.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
x749e
|
A Reading List for the History of Iraq(excluding the last 30 years if possible)
|
Perhaps this is the wrong place, but does anyone have any recommendations of books relating to Iraq, especially from the 19th century up until the 1950's. Thanks so much for your contributions.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/x749e/a_reading_list_for_the_history_of_iraqexcluding/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5jrouh",
"c5jvgnl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"\"Kingmakers: The Invention of the Modern Middle East\" by Karl Meyer looks at how the French and British reorganized the Middle East after the demise of the Ottoman Empire. \"Desert Queen: The Extraordinary Life of Gertrude Bell\" by Janet Wallach looks more closely at Iraq than \"Kingmakers\" does. ",
"Check out \"When Baghdad Ruled the Muslim World.\"\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.amazon.com/When-Baghdad-Ruled-Muslim-World/dp/0306814803/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1343334889&sr=8-1&keywords=baghdad"
]
] |
|
3byucc
|
Does history as a discipline have goals? Does it "make progress" (e.g., as in physics, medicine)?
|
I'm entirely unfamiliar with contemporary historical research and how it works. So I'm curious about how historians view "progress" in their discipline. Certainly it's not like curing cancer or discovering alien life. Or is it? What constitutes progress for historians? What goals (if any) drive the discipline?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3byucc/does_history_as_a_discipline_have_goals_does_it/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csrijgb"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"This is a pretty subjective question, so keep that in mind. \n\nI would say a great many historians see a certain progress in history as a discipline. Historical methodology has made great strides in the last 200 years. We have a greater appreciation for how to properly critique sources; history is no longer (in the Western tradition) simply a series of dates related to political events and wars, but rather encompass the poor, women, and racial minorities; history is no longer simply a tool for the state to legitimize itself and its interests, etc. \n\nHistorians also have access to a great deal of resources that would have been unimagined. The work of archaeologists can now help give us an idea of how many people were living in a given area at specific periods of time, for example. The advances in DNA tests and carbon dating have rocked previous estimates for the age of numerous civilizations, as well as their genetic ancestry.\n\nThings are a great deal easier for us than they were for historians just a decade or two ago. We can scan documents and review them, at home, at our leisure. We can download books whose copyright has ended, fresh off the internet in a nice PDF.\n\nThere are still major problems. One of them is simply defining what history is, what it should and can be used for, etc. Another is that there does not seem to be any sort of unified historiographical theory. There are a great many approaches, but we seem no closer to consensus than in times long passed. In fact one of the really big schools, Marxism, has largely collapsed after the fall of the USSR.\n\nIf you were to ask me what the purpose of history was, I would say it is to define where we came from and why things are the way that they are, so as to help individuals and communities understand the true context of the realities they face (as well as aid them in defining their identities), and finally help humanity project where we want to be in the future. History will always be an attractive target for interested parties to manipulate people's view of themselves so as to be better controlled. Governments do this, private interests do this, even revolutionaries do this. The role of the historian, the historian's real responsibility, is to try to give the closest reflection of the past as s/he is capable and to try to remain above petty politics. We are the Watchers on the Wall, the Shield that guards the Memories of Men."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
lfyi3
|
How are HIV positive individuals "reinfected" by other positive individuals?
|
It came up in a class discussion today. Positive individuals are encouraged to use protection even with other positives. Why? How do they get it twice? Can this happen if one or both are being treated? Does this happen often? How do we know?
Thanks!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/lfyi3/how_are_hiv_positive_individuals_reinfected_by/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2sd282",
"c2sd282"
],
"score": [
9,
9
],
"text": [
"One of the hallmarks of HIV is an extremely high mutation rate; even if you have one strain, it's very easy to get a second strain which may be more drug-resistant, more fast-acting, or otherwise worse than the strain you currently have.",
"One of the hallmarks of HIV is an extremely high mutation rate; even if you have one strain, it's very easy to get a second strain which may be more drug-resistant, more fast-acting, or otherwise worse than the strain you currently have."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
33ww1q
|
why are scams so common as ads on webpages?
|
Most of us are smart enough to know that "clicking here" wont get you that new flashy cell phone or free product, instead just take all your card information, put you on some useless subscription or something, and suck your checking account for as much as they can until you wise up and go through the ugly process of getting out of it all (or something unfortunate like that). It would seem that this way of doing business is horribly bad for the consumer (victim); How can this stuff be as common as it is? Almost every website I go on has an ad trying to trick me into something. You would think this kind of stuff would be unacceptable, illegal even. But i'm sure there's a good explanation for its acceptance in today's internet, help me out here.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/33ww1q/eli5_why_are_scams_so_common_as_ads_on_webpages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqp4mv0"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Well my common sense says money, i.e Ads provide money if you can advertise anything then why not and small websites will have more scams. These scammer's make enough money to pay the little amounts of fee to advertise and the people who rent servers out to smaller websites don't care where money is coming from as long as they make money so they get a lot more scammers then legit ads. That's why big sites don't have scamming ad's now you may ask about facebook that's based from your cookies sometimes you get ads on facebook that are scams but if you look closely it says underneath ads not by facebook that generally means you have a malware of some sort.\n\nI am not sure if this is the main reason though there may be other reasons to this problem."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
f7yd71
|
why do successful transplants fail
|
If someone has a successful lung/ kidney transplant, they are expected to fail after 5-10 years even if they take care of their bodies.
Why? Is there anything that can be done to increase this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f7yd71/eli5_why_do_successful_transplants_fail/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fijhdf5",
"figx8gy",
"figy56y",
"figy8i5",
"figz9fk",
"figzew2",
"fih9t11"
],
"score": [
2,
5,
3,
10,
3,
3,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm going to go a bit beyond 5 years old here, but I think you may appreciate it. \n\nOur organs are made of cells, but it's important for our cells to communicate with each other but also self identify as being part of a larger whole, because otherwise our bodies immune system will destroy any \"foreign\" cell. To communicate between cells (and therefore organs) we have tiny little signaling \"antennae\" called glycoproteins and glycolipids and these have their own unique fingerprint for everyone. \n\nSo the surgery could go right, but the organ could still be rejected by the recipients immune system targeting a \"foreign\" group of cells.",
"There are SO many variables. For those that have experienced the process, it’s amazing that they happen at all. \nBut, since your asking, the transplant centres can have almost 100% control over the receiver, insuring that they are as healthy as possible. \nAt the other end, there is zero control over the donor. If a person dies and donates, there is no way of knowing a comprehensive medical background. The organs have a “shelf life” and are harvested quickly. The organ is then assigned to a receiver based on rudimentary marching of sine variables. The receiver begins prep to get the organ and while the organ is in transit, it is tested further. If a problem such as disease is detected but is deemed still treatable once in the host, the host is made aware and has final say if they want want the risk. So, they fail because there will always be holes in the system. \nThat’s a nutshell for you.",
"Your body knows (most of the time) what is you and what is not. It tries to defend you from things in you that are not you. Transplants are a constant fight between you and the part you want to be a new part of you. But it is a fight you cannot win in the long run.",
" > Why?\n\nBecause the body is very effective at identifying and attacking foreign objects, organisms, viral agents and other intruders. The only reason transplants are successful in the first place is the discovery of powerful immunosuppressive pharmaceuticals, drugs that cause the immune system to stop working.\n\nHowever, over time the body will still reject the organ even from a relative. Perhaps monozygotic/single egg twins wouldn't have this problem since their DNA is or is almost identical, but I don't know enough about that to make any statement.\n\n > Is there anything that can be done to increase this?\n\nThere is significant research going on into extracting stem cells from the patients themselves and growing organs in a laboratory. This could potentially make the organs as functional as the 'original'.\n\nIn case you don't know, stem cells are a sort of *cell factory* that can divide almost indefinitely - and will adapt to their surroundings to produce the appropriate type of structures. Thus, they can be 'convinced' to make organs that are in near all respects identical to the individual they're extracted from.",
"You are on life long immunosuppresion so that your body doesnt take out your new organ because it doesnt look like the other cells in your body.\n\nMoreoever, because they suppress your immune system you are more prone to dying of infections that normal people can handle.",
"The biggest problem with an organ transplant in the immune system reaction to the organ. Your immune system will identify the new organ as a foreign object and will attack it causing rejection which will destroy the organ.\n\nNow, rejection can be avoided by immunosuppressions medications : They lower the activity of the immune system and thus it will attack less the transplanted organ.\n\nProblem tho is that you can't completely prevent the immune system from attacking the transplant, even with good medication. And immunosupressors can induce long term complications on other organs and increase the overall risk of getting cancer. So usually after a few years, the transplant will start to get rejected.\n\nHowever, everyone is different and some people are luckier than others. While a heart transplant give you an average life expectancy of 9 years, some people have managed to live with a transplanted heart for more than 25 years.",
"In addition to what everyone else has said, sometimes the disease which necessitated the transplant in the first place reoccurs and affects new the organ also."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4khzsg
|
Were King David or other Biblical characters real, historical, verifiable people, or were they mostly legendary figures?
|
Now, obviously, many characters in the early parts of the Bible are just legendary. I'm not asking about Adam and Eve here. What I'm asking about are those who were later, such as those in the time of Jesus. Specifically however, King David. I have seen claims of descent from King David. Are these at all founded in fact? And at what point in Torah/Bible can we start accepting at least the truth of some of these people's very existence, if not the entire story? (For example, while King David could have existed, he probably was closer to a village chieftain than a king of a vast kingdom as the Torah describes.)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4khzsg/were_king_david_or_other_biblical_characters_real/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d3fcqwg"
],
"score": [
58
],
"text": [
"Somewhere in-between. In most ancient civilizations (Egypt, China, etc), as time goes forward we have more and more confidence that people were real. The earliest characters are allegorical/legendary, and later people were recorded in their own time. Ancient Israelite civilization is the same way.\n\nIt's interesting that you focused on David. From Biblical chronologies, he lived around the 11th century BCE. We don't have much of *anything* written from that period. However, we do get references to King David in the form \"the House of David\" (*b[.y].t.d.w.d.*, which would be vocalized and pronounced in Modern Hebrew as *bayit David*) as the ruling dynasty in Judah (the Southern Kingdom; the name Israel refers to the Northern Kingdom and the United Kingdom that Saul, David, and Solomon ruled over) as early as the 9th century BCE. There's one possible reference to the House of David in the c. 840 BCE [Mesha Stele](_URL_2_) and a pretty definite reference in the c. 800 BCE [Tel Dan Stele](_URL_3_).\n\nThis \"house of (dynastic founder)\" is a common way to refer to ruling families and at times even the states they control. For instance, the Ottomans were known in Turkish as the *Osmanlı* after their founder, Osman (Osman is the Turkish version of the Quranic name Uthman). Indeed, in the Mesha stele, there's a clear reference to Israel (the Northern Kingdom) being led by \"the House of Omri\", after one of the leaders of Israel mentioned in the Bible, [King Omri](_URL_1_).\n\nIt's *possible* that David could be a mythic founder unconnected with history and invented at some point in the intervening one hundred to hundred years before his supposed life and his appearance in the historical record (it's worth mentioning that neither of these are Israelite sources--Mesha is Moabite and Tel Dan is in Aramaic, probably left by the King of Damascus); however, I don't think it's particularly likely. I think the case that David was real is much more compelling than the vague possibility that he wasn't (there's nothing to suggest he was a mythic figure so doubters argue for the possibility of his being legendary, not that there's some clear mismatch between sources that suggests he was legendary). However, the degree to which the David recorded in the Hebrew Bible matches the historical David is impossible to judge, given the paucity of sources. \n\nBut yes, there's fairly good (all things considering) archeological and other evidence for David and many of the later Biblical leaders (particularly from the 9th and 8th centuries BCE onward). There's pretty meager evidence outside the Hebrew Bible for leaders before David. The best evidence we have is perhaps for a historical Moses and a historical Aaron based on much, much later priests who claimed descent from one of the two o them (see Friedman's *Who Wrote the Bible*) but it's nothing like the evidence we have for David. Earlier people and events (especially the conquest of Israel as told in the book of Joshua) in the Hebrew Bible tend not to fit into contemporary secular historical understandings. David may well be the earliest fairly well attested specific Israelite in the historical record. Wikipedia has a fairly good \"[List of artifacts in biblical archaeology](_URL_0_)\", though keep in mind that most of these artifacts are valuable because they preserve some written record of the period."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_artifacts_in_biblical_archaeology",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omri",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesha_Stele",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tel_Dan_Stele"
]
] |
|
12gsum
|
Question about nuclear missiles and asteroids
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/12gsum/question_about_nuclear_missiles_and_asteroids/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6uwtwj",
"c6v0jjm",
"c6v29uj"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Well, it would be possible, but we would have to hit it when its still quite far, otherwise, we would just have a large number of smaller radioactive asteroids hitting the earth, now, give a minute, there was an interesting video about this, ill link it.\nOk here it is _URL_0_ it pretty much sums up everything about hitting asteroids with nuclear weapons.",
"I think the \"gravity tug\" idea is the current favorite, especially for \"rubble pile\" type asteroids. I had some difficulty finding a relevant study, but Phil Plait talks about it a little in [this interview](_URL_0_).\n\nedit: Found a study by Edward Lu in Nature : _URL_1_",
"Breaking up asteroids is not the best idea, since it's unpredictable. And could still lead to most of the mass of the asteroid impacting the Earth anyway.\n\nRather, if you don't have enough time to use a more subtle method of diverting an asteroid (decades) then you can use nukes as a means of propulsion. The trick is you explode the nuclear warhead at some distance above the surface of the asteroid. In space there will be very little blast from the explosion due to the lack of atmosphere, instead the nuclear warhead will be like an extremely bright x-ray light bulb which will bathe the surface of the asteroid with a high intensity of \"soft\" (comparatively lower frequency) x-rays. This energy will be absorbed in the upper few centimeters of the asteroid's surface and will deposit more than enough energy to vaporize the rock and regolith, this is called ablation. The vaporized rock will only have one direction to go (it can't penetrate deeper into the asteroid, it has to fly away from the surface), this generates thrust on the asteroid. Overall it's very similar to nuclear pulse propulsion (project Orion) except that instead of a pusher plate the body of the asteroid itself is used.\n\nSince nuclear warheads can release an enormous amount of energy (4.2 petajoules per megaton) this turns out to be a way to generate an incredible amount of thrust. With a string of explosives you can continue the process and generate even more thrust."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcwZsZztDdc"
],
[
"http://calitreview.com/1714",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16281025"
],
[]
] |
||
441wi9
|
Was Richard III a disliked king during his reign or is his repuptation mostly fabricated by Tudor writers?
|
since there was a ongoing civil war in England there must have been much public oponents to his reign. but how was he seen by his followers and the subjects that hadn't declared their direct support to his reign?
and was there much public outcry of how tyranical he was from any side while he was still the king?
How much did the "murder" of the princes in the tower contribute to his death at bosworth fields. meaning that did that event in any manner help lord Stanley to take the side of Henry Tudor?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/441wi9/was_richard_iii_a_disliked_king_during_his_reign/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czn4i7l"
],
"score": [
18
],
"text": [
"The Tudors definitely smeared him. But at the same time in the 20th century there has been a little too much in the other way. I thoroughly approve of the reevaluation of him. But sometimes people are a little too quick to credit him. Things like deposing his own nephew are excused as realpolitik today but that was absolutely not looked upon well in most of England at the time. \n\nWe only have a few things to go by if we want to completely divorce ourselves from post-Bosworth work: \n\nMost significantly, Richard III faced a rebellion by former Yorkists in 1483 led by the Duke of Buckingham and it gained a substantial following. The fact that they were Yorkists is crucial, of course, because he is a Yorkist. This was not just aftershocks of the War of the Roses, it was his own party. The original goal of this was to place Edward V back on the throne. Only when the rumor that he was dead got around did they decide on Henry Tudor. Now facing a rebellion doesn't mean much (Henry Tudor had to put down rebellions too) but it certainly doesn't suggest overwhelming popularity either. And the base of the rebellion was fairly large, which is a significant point. There was definitely still unrest in the kingdom which had been mostly at rest under Edward IV's second reign. \n\nHis principle advisers, Catesby, Ratcliffe and Lovell, were widely detested. There were such widespread rumors about him (that he poisoned his wife, that he had people murdered) that he had to demand that anyone who uttered them be arrested. This is not a good sign. All kings have rumors but it suggests these were either widespread or particularly troubling that he actually had to address them and demand the gossipers be arrested. \n\nOn the other hand, he was widely beloved in the North, where he spent most of his career. And he was remembered for being a smart and fair lawgiver well after his death. He was without a doubt an able commander, personally brave, and very intelligent (and say what you will about that wicked Tudor propagandist William Shakespeare I think all of those qualities shine in his Richard III and I often wonder if for all of the OTT villainy and propaganda in the play there wasn't more than a kernel of truth in this charismatic, intelligent, and funny character). I think he was probably a very good king in many ways. In many ways he was truly the last Plantagenet. He was capable of tremendous self-serving wickedness but also had a serious mind to justice and fair law giving (which was true of Henry II, John, Edward I). \n\nWhether he murdered his nephews has become kind of a huge distraction in the discussion of Richard III, in my opinion. Of course, it's significant and goes toward his character. But the fact is he had no more legal right to the throne than Henry VII. The evidence of the princes not being rightful heirs because Edward IV married someone else was flimsy, at best. And didn't arise until well after Edward had died. He was a usurper. At least Henry VII took his crown in battle and married Edward's daughter. And, while they absolutely smeared him thoroughly, the Tudors didn't have to do much to make that unpalatable. Young Edward V retained loyalty and sympathy. Then again, Henry IV was a usurper. Edward IV, his own brother, was a usurper. It is worse to do that to a child but it's hardly an unforgivable sin in the English monarchy. \n\nI'm completely laying off of the murder of the princes issue. It's become too much of a hotbed. And I think it's absolutely impossible to know the truth or even what people thought was the truth. It's been too smeared with the later Tudor accounts. As I said above, I think it's something of a distraction anyway. Taking their throne was the crucial thing. \n\nSources: The Winter King by Thomas Penn (on Henry VII but goes into much of this); War of the Roses Dan Jones; War of the Roses Alison Weir (I know, I know but it's very accessible). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
baw4qg
|
if we pointed a radio telescope at earth from space, what would we see?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/baw4qg/eli5_if_we_pointed_a_radio_telescope_at_earth/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ekefxie"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"It depends on what frequency you choose. Unless you stay in the [Water Hole](_URL_0_ ) you only see an opaque ball. There is also a narrow optical band where you can sometimes see some of the surface, but that's not a radio telescope.\n\nIn the Water Hole (between 1.42 and 1.67 GHz), you don't see much unless something happens to be pointed at you having just passed some satellite. Then you'd see highly structured data, in a short burst before the planetary rotation sweeps the signal off you. It would be an indicator of technology, but it wouldn't tell you much in that short burst, without any context. Just enough that you'd mark the place \"inhabited\" on your species' star charts and go someplace else with your interstellar spaceship."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Water_hole_\\(radio\\)"
]
] |
||
1bdzlh
|
Japan historians: What would Japanese soldiers have on their person in WWII?
|
*First off, I've just read the new rule change (first-time poster) and I realize this is a WWII question. However, the question pertains more to Japanese culture than the war itself, so I'd like to ask it here, if I may.*
I am a student filmmaker, and am currently researching for an art director position on a short film. The film is about a Japanese soldier who crashes his plane on an island during WWII, lives there past the end of the war, and is brought to the Philippines in the 1990s without knowing the war has ended. As the art director, I am responsible for props, costuming, and general information regarding the cultural specifics of the film's plot.
With that being said, what would a Japanese fighter pilot in WWII have on their person while in flight? Would they have identification cards, a parachute, a safety kit, or any personal belongings? What would their uniform look like? Would they have any weapons (sword/katana, gun, knife, ect.) that would survive the crash? Anything else of interest I should know about?
And on a related note, did the Japanese have anything resembling a locket in the 1930s? A locket (with a photo of the main character's wife inside) is a major plot point in our film, but I'm not sure such a thing existed in that part of the world- did Japan have something similar?
Thank you, and happy Easter!
**EDIT:** Thank you for the great answers so far. Just in case my director decides to change his mind, what if our main character was another type of soldier? Did Japan have Navy- or Army-type soldiers who could've ended up in this situation? If so, what equipment would they have carried?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1bdzlh/japan_historians_what_would_japanese_soldiers/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c962px9",
"c965spz"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"THey would have wore in flight the following \n\n: a flight helmet either a Type 2 soft or type 3 with hard earphones \n\nflight googles clear made of glass later anti fog and heated were experimented with.\n\nA muffler and flight suite \n\nA float vest \n\nGloves some were even heated \n\nyes they did wear parachutes with harness \n\nHey also wore flight insignia and carried a flight computer \n\nJapanese pilots were captured carrying handguns, daggers and yes even Katana swords \n\nhere is a a standard avaitor _URL_0_\n\nI am not sure if they had something like a locket. I do know that the Japanese military held itself in high regard in terms of duty and honor to the emperor and were fierce fighters who believed in death before defeat that is why one would fight many years after being separated from his unit.",
"I'm nowhere near a Japanese historian, but this book might be worth a gander: HEITAI: Uniforms, Equipment and Personal Items of the Japanese Soldier, 1931-1945 by Agustin Saiz. It's a bit pricey new, but there are a few libraries out there that carry it, and you could probably borrow a copy via ILL for just a few bucks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.1999.co.jp/itbig04/10049003a.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
30fbsa
|
doesn't my "right to refuse service for any reason" make bills like indiana's "religious protection act" redundant or unnecessary?
|
I have worked in the grocery business for over a decade now, an we have always had "We have the right to refuse service for any reason" plaques plastered on every check stand. I have exercised this right many times.
Now while I disagree with refusing service in mass against a whole group of people, I fail to see how that is illegal considering its "my" business or "my" property. It just seems like a bad business practice.
I mean, I remember Denny's getting horrible news attention in the late 90's over using their right to refuse service on Africans Americans; it was dumb, and they got shamed into undoing it, but I don't recall any legal complications. I could be Wong though.
Tl;Dr: doesn't the right to refuse service make bills like Indiana's unnecessary?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30fbsa/eli5_doesnt_my_right_to_refuse_service_for_any/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cprvwzj",
"cprvz5z"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Much like a plaque that says \"we have the right to shoot you in the face for any reason\" those don't really carry any legal weight. Also, race, gender, and in some states sexuality, are considered protected classes which means \"for any reason\" doesn't apply so even though as a business owner you have the right to for example fire someone for any reason, \"any reason\" does not include those things.",
"No, because a sign in a shop carries zero force of law, besides it's not even true a shop can't refuse to serve protected classes (federally that means race, religion, sex,etc). If posting a sign meant they could, the civil rights act wouldn't mean very much (Southern diners could post that sign and remain whites only in practice)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
20gder
|
What was the siege of Vicksburg like for the civilian population of the city?
|
What was day-to-day life like for civilians during the siege? I read that the Union launched more than 22,000 shells during the siege...what effect did this have on the city's morale and what kind of damage did this shelling cause?
Bonus Question: What was Northern and Southern public reaction like to the extensive shelling of the city (I reckon I can gather what the Confederate public reaction was, but was the shelling of Vicksburg seen as particularly egregious)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/20gder/what_was_the_siege_of_vicksburg_like_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg3a2a3"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"As might be expected, life for civilians was not particularly pleasant. Some lived in caves along the bluffs to escape the constant, terrifying, shells. However, the bombardment did little damage to property and few civilians were killed or wounded. The bombardment certainly took its toll on morale, but slowly in conjunction with the realization no one was coming to help the city.\n\n\nBut the worst hardship was caused by lack of food and water. Grant methodically stripped the area of excess food and cut off Vicksburg's routes of supply. Civilians were forced to eat horses, mules, dogs, and according to one popular antidote birds, same as the soldiers. The army had its own problems, so civilians were largely on their own. People horded food and shopkeepers were accused of profiteering. Scurvy was also a problem. When the Union finally took over the city, they shared their rations will the starving residents.\n\n\nI can't offer any direct evidence to your bonus question, only say I personally have not seen any Northern denouncements of the treatment of Vicksburg."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5y6c2f
|
why does sound changes pitch when moving away?
|
Just noticed in car's engine that drove really fast that it's pitch lowers even though it's constant.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5y6c2f/eli5_why_does_sound_changes_pitch_when_moving_away/
|
{
"a_id": [
"denj2tx",
"denj5c2",
"denj8ss"
],
"score": [
2,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"The Doppler effect (red or blue-shifting with light) is when when a moving object is emmiting a wave, the waves do not change their speed depending on what side they were emmitted from, and so are squished together on one side, and spread appart on the other. Here's an animation. _URL_0_:",
"Doppler effect.\n\nThink of sound as being invisible waves emitting from the source. Imagine an engine sitting still 100 yards away. It emits 1 wave per second. This is the \"normal\" sound.\n\nWhen the engine is traveling towards you, it is still emitting 1 wave per second, but between each emitted wave it is getting closer to you, so you end up getting hit by 1 wave every 0.8 seconds. This makes the pitch of the sounds higher in our ears.\n\nBut as soon as the engine passes you, the engine is still emitting 1 wave per second, but between each wave it's getting further from you, so each wave hits you every 1.2 seconds. This makes the pitch of the sound lower in our ears.",
"Pitch is just another word for the frequency of the sound. Frequency is simply how frequently something occurs. In the case of sound, it's how many sound waves reach your ear in a given period of time. At around 261 waves per second is the musical note Middle C. So if you had an instrument playing middle C you would be detecting those 261 waves every second. Now what happens if you start to move that instrument away from you at high speeds? Well the instrument is still releasing 261 waves per second, but because the distance between the instrument and your ear is increasing the instrument is just a bit further away between each of the waves than it was from the one before. Because it's further away it takes slightly longer for that wave to hit your ear, and as such you aren't getting all 261 waves every second anymore. So things moving away from you will have an apparent lower pitch than things stationary, or things moving towards you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.google.com/search?q=animation+of+the+doppler+effect&espv=2&biw=1671&bih=916&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwibquPooMbSAhVE3mMKHaWVAlMQ_AUIBygC#imgrc=94sjveRyCTg4fM"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
mzif7
|
Why was there only one abiogensis on Earth and why isn't it happening today?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/mzif7/why_was_there_only_one_abiogensis_on_earth_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c353s85",
"c353tjs",
"c353s85",
"c353tjs"
],
"score": [
5,
5,
5,
5
],
"text": [
"Who says it isn't?",
"Because of how quickly life sprung up after it was possible for it to on Earth, it's safe (though unscientific) to assume that this has happened multiple times since.\n\nHowever, any new life that develops would find itself thrown into a world full of life forms that have had hundreds of millions to (nowadays) billions of years to evolve and compete against one another. New life forms wouldn't stand a chance. Combine that with the fact that abiogenesis *is* probably pretty rare, and it's no surprise we don't observe it.\n\nHowever, we do only have one data point for the evolution of life, so it's hard to make any solid conclusions on something like this.",
"Who says it isn't?",
"Because of how quickly life sprung up after it was possible for it to on Earth, it's safe (though unscientific) to assume that this has happened multiple times since.\n\nHowever, any new life that develops would find itself thrown into a world full of life forms that have had hundreds of millions to (nowadays) billions of years to evolve and compete against one another. New life forms wouldn't stand a chance. Combine that with the fact that abiogenesis *is* probably pretty rare, and it's no surprise we don't observe it.\n\nHowever, we do only have one data point for the evolution of life, so it's hard to make any solid conclusions on something like this."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
36qhnw
|
what's the point of having nerve endings in our teeth, when all it can do is hurt for the rest of your life, as they won't heal themselves or grow back if they get a cavity
|
Cool, gold! I'll use it for evil.
**I'm using this space to voice the most popular argument's I've read:**
The main arguments seems to be:
1) **If teeth didn't have nerve endings, we could hurt ourselves by trying to eat rocks or bone and not realizing how hard they are, and end up with broken teeth.**
If this ever was such a big problem, I wonder, why didn't our teeth evolve to repair themselves the way everything else from our skin to our bones do? Instead of having us live out the rest of our days in a constant state of agony.
I'm sure this horrible pain would make it harder to function and doing things like hunting or having sex would be out of the question.
2) **We need to know when our teeth are infected so we can have them pulled**, but I assume pulling teeth is an act unique to humans due to our consciousness. Tooth nerve endings exist in most(all?) mammals, who can't do a darned thing about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/36qhnw/eli5_whats_the_point_of_having_nerve_endings_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crg6lbi",
"crg6xjb",
"crg6xzr",
"crg7g1y",
"crg8y4u",
"crg9fbv",
"crg9jcf",
"crg9kvq",
"crg9lrp",
"crg9m6s",
"crg9v8x",
"crg9xhn",
"crga2s3",
"crgado9",
"crgb9ya",
"crgcruo",
"crgcwr4",
"crgd60e",
"crgdios",
"crgdpqy",
"crgdvn2",
"crgdyox",
"crge4t7",
"crgeh6l",
"crgeo66",
"crgewpl",
"crgewzq",
"crgexhm",
"crgezvf",
"crggdd3",
"crggl86",
"crggvew",
"crghcn1",
"crgisj5",
"crgjp2m",
"crglbdb",
"crgln27",
"crgma6f",
"crgnhyi",
"crgqfba",
"crgqzrm",
"crgrj8l",
"crgrnb1",
"crgtkle",
"crgtpzw",
"crgw7uq",
"crgwmnx",
"crgxqoz",
"crgywxz",
"crgyxdy",
"crgzia2",
"crh1gtj",
"crh3ydg",
"crh5t5v",
"crrmb3z"
],
"score": [
2991,
202,
89,
4,
26,
23,
121,
2,
9,
7,
2,
1484,
16,
3,
8,
2,
2,
2,
5,
5,
15,
2,
2,
2,
3,
3,
6,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
4,
4,
3,
2,
3,
2,
2,
7,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"To let you know if a living thing is living inside of your tooth eating away at your flesh under the tooth.",
"Same reason everything in your body has pain receptors. When there's a cavity, the sterile component inside your teeth is desterilised with mouth and outside bacteria. A cavity is the perfect environment for bacterial growth and further destruction of the teeth and underlying bony structures. This leads to abcesses that can break through the bone into either your brain (and cause meningitis) or farynx (causing infection of larynx and lungs) or eye socket (causing blindness). This doesnt happen to every undertreated tooth cavity of course, but apparently enough to cause evolutionary drift. You can compare this with a diabetic foot. Their nociception(pain receptors) are damaged so they dont feel when there's a small wound somewhere on the foot. They keep putting pressure on it, the wound is lacerated further. It becomes infected, the bone underneath is eaten away and some people use their foot this way. Hope this makes any sense.",
"It might not have a purpose at all, as long as it doesn't get you killed before you have a chance to breed. Evolution is like that, it doesn't have a defined \"goal\". ",
"I don't know. I will say however, my 3 broken teeth are screaming right now. My ear is ringing. Dr appt tomorrow. Time for meds. It'll be nice to have them removed.",
"Well, they do provide the sense of cold or hot. Also, there is some sort of sense of touch/pressure there, if you have a tooth with root canal done, it definitely feels different to the touch than a tooth with pulp. ",
"Evolution does not have an \"ideal design\" - it simply evolves 'random things'.\n\nIf a the creature with the \"random thing\" gains advantage over creatures without the 'random thing' (or at least isn't disadvantaged by it) that creature may pass-it-on when it reproduces and more creatures get it. \n\nAlso, if the \"random thing\" stops being useful due to other changes (such as creatures leaving the oceans/trees/suburbs/stable jobs) it won't disappear unless it's a pretty series disadvantage (gills, flippers, middle-class angst and a sense of personal wellbeing respectively)",
"They are useful to prevent damage done by yourself. Your jaw muscles are insanely strong and if you never had any feeling in your teeth you could probably do some real damage grinding or smacking your teeth together. ",
"I'm guessing that the pain sensing system is closely linked to the other senses.\n\nThis may help differentiate whether you're chewing on something you shouldn't be like bones, stones and other hard objects.",
"Just because we have evolved something doesn't mean there is a \"point\". We have fingernails because something in ancestral lineage had claws but we don't need claw.\n\nThere are some good ideas in this thread, but no one really knows the \"point\". ",
"Cavities are so commonplace today because of easily accessible sugar. For most of our evolutionary history, cavities were not as common or as severe as they are today.\n\nSo they serve the same role as pain receptors anywhere else.",
"In terms of evolution I'd ask in some cases it's better to ask 'why not?' than 'why?'. Is there sufficient selective pressure for avoiding tooth pain? Probably not. So there's probably not much reason why a mutation to lose nerve endings in the teeth would spread. Or on the other hand, there'd be nothing to stop nerve endings in the teeth being carried through by genetic drift. Just a layman's guess though. Similar reason to why some people have functionally useless earlobes, or other vestigial organs. ",
"Nerves found in the teeth serve multiple important purposes. First, and perhaps most importantly for us day-to-day, they allow us to sense things such as heat, cold, and pressure on the teeth. This prevents us from damaging our mouths and teeth by eating the wrong things or exerting too much pressure on the teeth during chewing. In addition, nerves allow us to sense when there is infection of the tooth such as the case of cavities. \n\nEDIT (to clarify the point about why we can sense unrepairable damage): Even though we can't fix significant damage to the tooth, pain prevents us from doing further damage. As I outlined above, sensitivity of the teeth also has some significant advantages. If you lose sensitivity cavities won't hurt but you also lose a lot of the advantages. Therefore, sensitivity will be selected for because individuals who have it are more likely to maintain their oral health which will result in increased survival and reproduction. \n\nEDIT: A lot of people have made good points about the fact that evolution doesn't have a direction (I wasn't even thinking of evolution in my original response!). I'd still argue that it's likely that tooth sensitivity may be under selective pressure but /u/ChideDaJungler probably has the best evolutionary answer as to *why* it arose in the first place.\n\nPerhaps less obviously, these nerves also help regulate the blood flow into the tooth. The majority of the inside of your teeth is *not* nerves but rather something called dental pulp. This is composed of multiple cell types and is important in supporting the cells that help keep your teeth strong (by maintaining a hard layer below the enamel called dentin). \n\n[Source](_URL_0_) for a lot more detailed information about the internal structure of teeth.\n\n**TL;DR:** Teeth are functional for eating etc. without any nerves or living tissue inside. However, they are unable to repair themselves and do not have the same sensitivity as teeth that *do* have a living interior.",
"I can only speak from experience. I lost half a tooth in a pub-related accident. After an expensive process of extirpating the remaining nerve and sticking on a crown, it looks like a normal tooth, but it has no sensation. I can feel my other teeth react when something is hot, cold, has an odd texture. But this tooth is numb and dumb.\n\nIt makes a huge difference not being able to feel what you're biting into. Without the nerves in my other teeth I'd wager that I wouldn't know if I was biting into something hard or soft, hot or cold until it hit my gums, tongue or lip, or a tooth broke.\n\nLike any other receptor in the body the nerves in your teeth serve to provide feedback to your brain. Most of the time it's not that important, but if something is slightly odd you'll know straight away and be able to react. Without those receptors in your teeth, you're slightly less equipped.",
"Well if your teeth can't grow back then surely it would be all the more important to have nerve endings to provide feedback on when the teeth are being damaged?\n\nNerve endings in the pulp of your nerve provide feedback both when under pressure and when exposed to extreme temperatures. Your teeth don't grow back like hamsters or horses, so your brain needs to be signalled if it's grinding your teeth by chewing too hard.\n\nWhilst your teeth cannot be repaired when damaged, they can be remineralised after being exposed to acid (demineralised enamel and dentine is easier to damage). The underlying pulp brings the nutrients that remineralise the enamel and dentine. Without the pulp your teeth would be much more susceptible to damage. The temperature sensing nerve endings provide feedback so you don't damage the pulp by exposing it to extremes of temperature and thus damaging its ability to remineralise your enamel and dentine.\n\nTooth decay is when the whole system has become thoroughly borked and pushed beyond its limits. Your nerve endings are just sending pain signals left, right and centre. It's not useful, but then the system was never \"designed\" to cope high acid / high sugar environments.",
"Well, believe it or not, innervation does help keep the tooth healthy. There's been recent studies that show that teeth actually *can* heal themselves to a very small degree. Furthermore, vascularization of the pulp is required to keep the tooth healthy, and removal of nerves tends to limit the amount that the body maintains vascularization. \n\nHere's the big one though: teeth are piezoelectric. This means that when you bend them even a little bit, they create an electric current. The reason that this is important is that it then triggers the nerve, and lets you know how much pressure you're putting on your teeth. Obviously, if you put too much pressure on your teeth, you're going to break them. Were it not for those nerves, the only gauge you'd have of whether or not you're going to break your tooth is the periodontal membrane, and that doesn't work quite as well.",
"Without the nerve, your teeth wouldnt grow. Whether or not this could be done without a nerve ending is irrelevant because at some point those with these nerve endings succeeded at reproducing. There can always be better ways of things, but that's not how evolution works.",
"Have you ever tried to eat or drink anything after a novocaine shot??? Very awkward.",
"The nerve gives you important pain information to keep you from damaging yourself. Not all types of tooth pain lasts forever, not all pain is associated with cavities. Also, there's 32 teeth in there and knowing that something you did hurt your teeth gives you a better chance of protecting the other 31.",
"I always assumed it was kind of a check valve on our bite pressure, to make sure we knew how hard we were biting on something, or how hard the thing we're biting is, to help us avoid shattering our teeth.",
"Without the nerve, the dentin (an evolutionary advantage) could be frozen or heated to the point of destruction, and you'd not know not to bite down on something hot or cold for too long. We've been cooking food long enough for this to be an advantage.\n\nSource: my ass",
"Masters in Anthropology here.\n\nDental caries (tooth decay) in the archaeological record is extremely common, even in the pre-farming periods. Once farming appears (along with its sticky, cavity promoting carbs and sugar, it really blossoms). It's shockingly common as the cause of death. In a way you were lucky if you lived long enough to be killed by tooth decay, but there is that. There's good evidence to suggest that the reason rotting teeth hurts so much is that failure to do what amounts to drastic work to remove the tooth will almost certainly lead to death. Before you're willing to let Gronk take a rough stone tool to your mouth, you have to be in constant, days-long agony. \n\nThis isn't far-fetched. The archaeological record supports stone age dentistry as being far from artless and uncommon. there have even been mandibles recovered with beeswax plugs placed over the site of an extracted tooth. ",
"Just had a filling corrected from having a \"high point\". The nerve endings on the periodontal ligament has highly sensitive nerve endings to give us the ability to detect how much force we apply with our jaw muscles - without them we would Destroy our teeth and not have any finesse using our mandible. \nTLDR: Blow jobs would be fatal",
"Teeth do actually regenerate. Problem is that it seems grain may have chemical that inhabits tooth regeneration. I remember reading a study on it. They said vitamin b counters this inhibitor though not completely.",
"Well, evolution doesn't really consider the point of stuff. In the long term they only thing it considers is cost VS benefit.\n\nSo what does it cost to have nerves in your teeth? \n\nI don't really know, but I imagine that it's pretty cheap to build and maintain those nerves compared to some of our other systems. \n\nWhat's the disadvantages of having nerves in your teeth?\n\nThe pain from cavities is rather bad but that's about the only disadvantage that I can think of.\n\nWhat's the benefit?\n\nWell, it's easier to bite with the right strength if you've got feeling in your teeth, rather than just the flesh in your mouth. I don't know if sensing the temperature is useful, as 9/10 you're going to put your lips or tongue to whatever you're biting at about the same time.\n\nBut knowing if you have a cavity or not might be useful. Cavities tend to harbor infections and infections will spread if they can. If you know that you have one you might be able to ask a mate to knock the damn tooth out with a stone or something? (please don't do that)\n\n",
"I was actually under the impression we could fix cavities now and repair the tooth by coaxing the tooth to repair itself. \n\n\n_URL_0_",
"I'll assume that, like my 5 year old, you know about & accept evolution.\n\nHaving nerves in the teeth discouraged your ancient homid ancestors from doing things that wrecks their teeth. Having good teeth was pretty important for growth & survival back before we were tool users, so the apes with sensitive teeth reproduced more often.",
"Detecting parasites eating your teeths and mouths, knowing when something is way too hard to be eaten, detecting cold and warm, amplifying vibrations from environment and I'm sure hundred of other \"features\" haha",
"Our diet has changed significantly in the past 15000 years and our lifespans are now much longer. Our teeth evolved with humans eating a low starch diet and not living beyond 40 on average.\n\nStarches (and carbonated beverages/concentrated fruit juices) are actually the major cause of of tooth decay - starches are sticky so dont get washed away from the tooth easily. Once humans figured out how to farm and eat starchy vegetable food they also were able to live longer. So now we have longer lives and a diet that is bad for teeth. ",
"If you like the crunch of chips, or the texture of any food really, you're going to need the nerves in your teeth. People who get dentures can't feel the texture of any of the foods they eat. ",
"when you try to damage your teeth it hurts, this makes you stop.\n\nsounds rather effective and usefull to me.",
"Okay I went over this in bio and these answers are extremely convoluted while there is a very basic explanation. We romanticize evolution when we assume everything is a survival trait. So no, it isn't a result of animals grinding their teeth away and starving. Nerves themselves developed through an evolutionary need to feel pain but they are present all throughout your body.\n\nYou didn't need to evolve a left arm nerve and then a right arm nerve. The entire nerve system evolved simultaneously and ubiquitously to provide a pain response nearly everywhere on your body.\n\nThe discomfort of a decayed tooth isn't enough to kill an animal so we never evolved to remove sections of nerve where they were unnecessary or unpleasant.\n\nThis is the correct answer but I'm late to the party, please upvote for visibility",
"Rotting teeth eventually fall out. It prevents you from chewing food on the vulnerable area until this occurs, protecting you from infection.",
"I think the pulp of the tooth is the way it is for two major reasons. One, it's the source of most major growth of the tooth in the first place. The cells that grow the enamel and dentin originate from the pulp tissue (or the things that closely approximate it during development). Two, the pulp responds to stimulus like wearing and slower decay by placing more dentin from the inside of the tooth to minimize damage/sensitivity to the pulp. That's how people can slowly wear away 1/2 of their tooth by grinding but still feel relatively nothing while still having vital pulp tissue. As you get older your pulp just naturally recedes also. If the pulp was dead or had no nerve endings, it would be very unlikely that could or would happen.",
"something very cool, that i'm surprised nobody here has touched on, is that you can tell how HARD something is by tapping it on your tooth. plastic feels totally different tapping on your teeth than steel.",
"A small amount of damage stay that way if pain tells you to avoid chewing in that area. Also, pain lets you know if you're reaching a breaking point and need to dial back your nomming on a brontosaurus bone (yes, i know).\n\nAlso, teeth do self repair but very, very slowly. In the modern world it looks like teeth only get worse but that's at least in part due to our diet. We eat so many refined foods that even the smallest crack in a tooth quickly becomes a haven for processed sugars that become food for bacteria and quickly become a hole.\n\nA more prehistoric diet would not have promoted tooth decay so quickly and a cracked tooth may have actually healed, at least partially, given enough time.\n\nLastly, pain, as always, is the ultimate way to know \"so don't do dat\" and as such was invaluable to our prehistoric ancestors.",
"You try to eat a rock: It hurts right?\n\nNow, you try eating a rock without nerve endings in your teeth. You break your teeth in the process. \n\nNow you can't chew anything. Those organisms who couldn't feel their teeth passed on without reproducing a *very* long time ago.\n",
"Teeth are formed from the nerves, which is why they are inside the teeth. \n\nSource: my dentist. I asked him the same question ",
"Also, so you can feel chewing, if that makes sense/is worded correctly. I have 2 dental implants side by side and when I first got them it felt really weird to chew on that side. Sort of feels like you're numb but only in those teeth. I could still feel the pressure on the implant from chewing but it didn't feel the same. You get used to it eventually but I'd imagine it's so much worse for people who have partial or full dentures. It's also super annoying to get food stuck in between those nerveless teeth. It's incredible how a teeny piece of food can get lodged in your normal teeth and then instantly it takes over your life and all you can do and think about is picking your teeth to get that seed out. Except with implants/dentures/bridges the food is ALWAYS stuck in your teeth and since you don't have nerve endings you can't really tell which tooth so you're constantly picking your teeth after every meal. Or am I the only one?",
"Essentially so you don't do stupid things like break your teeth off and get infections or burn yourself or freeze yourself. Your body is smarter than you, so it gives you pain as punishment for being stupid.",
"Algesia (aka perception of pain an negative stimuli) is by no means perfect, nor has it evolved to suit our wants. Others have answered your question.\n\nIn addition, there is a subset of pain that is pathologic (disease, aka not useful for us). People can have \"neuropathic\" pain, which is a chronic pain that serves no beneficial purpose. \n\nThere is also \"hyperesthesia\" or pain hypersensitivity, where your pain sensation is heightened after a painful event, such as surgery. This is why pain medications are given pre-op, intra-op, and post-op, as that prevents this hyperesthesia. The pain pathways are incredibly interesting!",
"\"If this ever was such a big problem, I wonder, why didn't our teeth evolve to repair themselves the way everything else from our skin to our bones do?\"\n\nPlease refer to any evolutionary science anywhere to understand why that could never happen.",
"I think one answer to the question 'why didn't our teeth evolve to repair themselves?' is that the kind of tooth damage that could disable or kill you would be more likely to happen in late adulthood, after you'd already produced offspring. \n\nIn evolutionary terms, once you've successfully reproduced, you're surplus to requirements, and any remaining lifespan is a bonus. Certain things which you'd think would be an advantage (like self-healing teeth, or skin that doesn't become fragile with age, or blood vessels that don't get stiff and narrow) is not selected for, because the costs of maintaining an individual's health beyond their peak reproductive years outweigh the benefits (to the species) of having them around for longer. ",
" > Something something evolution\n\nThere you go, kid. I've certainly summed up most of the top comments in this thread.",
"The same answers apply for most types of pain that we can do nothing about:\n\nAll of your body parts were jerry-rigged from the parts of older animals. Your teeth were not designed to function in the most optimal way forever; they were not designed at all. Your back, neck, knees, hips, and nearly everything else will hurt at some point... whether you can do anything about it or not.\n\nAND / OR \n\nYour genes don't give a damn if you are miserable from pain. The selfish little bastards just want you to make copies of them and protect the copies that are out there already. If pain will motivate you to protect their vehicle (yourself) long enough to do that, then that's what they'll use. They never expected you to live much past your 20's anyway.",
"I often wonder why our bodies are so fragile. The genius who decided that we must suffer and wither away is a jerk and a dumbass. But that's just me wondering. ",
" > I'm sure this horrible pain would make it harder to function and doing things like hunting or having sex would be out of the question.\n\nSex is never out of the question. Now, finding a partner to share the sex with....that's another story.",
"It's not completely impossible to reverse cavity damage: _URL_0_\n\nWhile the article directly states that teeth can be rebuilt, it doesn't say anything as to how. \n\nIn any case, I'm sure this only applies to \"miniscule\" to \"small\" amounts of damage. I'm pretty sure that once things start getting to the nerve that it's a lost cause.",
"You have nerve endings so you can tell when you have a poppy seed stuck in your teeth. You don't want a poppy tree growing out of your teeth now, do you?!",
"In response to your question about #1:\n\nThis trait wouldn't evolve because it takes an enormous amount of energy compared to just having nerve endings. Preventing broken teeth saves a lot of energy compared to fixing them, and this energy can be used for other useful things like gathering food and having sex.",
"Because evolution is a bitch. If an adaption does not negatively affect your reproductive fitness, it will probably stick around, even if it's not perfect. Pain in your teeth shouldn't affect your ability to get your swerve on, so it will be passed along to your offspring. I've seen silverback gorillas with teeth rotting out of their skulls still acting as tough as ever and still getting plenty of action from lady gorillas. Remember that evolution can't design anything, natural selection can only select for the traits that are available, and sometimes that means your teef are gonna hurt.",
" > If this ever was such a big problem, I wonder, why didn't our teeth evolve to repair themselves the way everything else from our skin to our bones do? Instead of having us live out the rest of our days in a constant state of agony.\n\nEvolution isn't smart, and is really, really bad at selecting against things that only affect you later in life, past your peak reproductive window.",
"Nerves in teeth resulted in fewer broken teeth. Fewer broken teeth = eat better, live longer = more offspring with nerves in teeth. ",
"Dentist here. There is a nerve in your tooth because that's what God wants. \n\nLonger answer : the nerve helps you to know where your teeth are based on the feedback of your chewing. It also acts as a sensor for hot and cold etc. The body decided that it would be a benefit to have nerves in teeth so it made nerves in teeth. It just didn't plan on you not brushing or eating sour psych kids in chocolate syrup for breakfast. \n\nAs you get older, the nerve chamber gets smaller. This leads to your teeth getting more brittle as they dry out and less sensitive unless you have him disease from not getting regular cleanings. ",
"I'm really late to the scene so this might get lost, but I haven't seen any other responses mention this so I'll go for it. Nerves in the teeth are not only important for helping you apply the right amount of force when biting into something, but they also help with perfect tooth occlusion (making sure your teeth fit together correctly). One of the most distinguishing features of mammals is the presence of cusps on teeth. The cusps of upper and lower teeth fit together in a specific way to allow for more efficient chewing. This is also the reason why mammals don't continuously replace teeth like other mammals.",
"I have a thought. What if they are so since when we put something in our mouth, teeth are more likely to make the first contact instead of gums or the other surface of the mouth.\n\nIn that case, if something is Too HOT, it could simply burn a hole into our skin. But Teeth, could perhaps not be that quickly affected and also, send a signal that this is not something we should be putting in contact with the skin!?\n\nThoughts? Anyone?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://pacificdds2009.com/courses/Q2/human_anatomy2/concise%20oral%20histo/8%20Dental%20Pulp.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/05May/Pages/Lasers-used-to-regenerate-damaged-teeth.aspx"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remineralisation_of_teeth"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9jyde2
|
How many people can one tree sufficiently make oxygen for?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9jyde2/how_many_people_can_one_tree_sufficiently_make/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e6v0zau",
"e6v7kek",
"e6v81kn",
"e6v9lab",
"e6vbdc0",
"e6vbv6z",
"e6vepyy"
],
"score": [
10667,
214,
49,
28,
58,
11,
740
],
"text": [
"The exact number will depend of course on the location, size, species, and maturity of the trees, etc. However, I found one study^(1) where researchers estimated the number of trees needed to offset the average oxygen consumption of a single person in various North American cities. [Here is the full table](_URL_2_), where you can see that in an average city (e.g. Philadelphia) you need about 20 trees to provide enough oxygen for one person.\n\nThat may sound like a lot of trees, but fortunately the oxygen we breathe doesn't need to be produced locally. Forests all over the world continuously pump oxygen that is mixed into the atmosphere and spreads across the globe. Moreover, trees are not even the biggest source of oxygen on Earth. That honor goes to [phytoplankton in our oceans, which collectively are responsible for the majority of the world's oxygen supply](_URL_0_).\n\n1. Nowak, D., et al. Oxygen Production by Urban Trees in the United States. Arboriculture & Urban Forestry 2007. 33(3):220–226. [link](_URL_1_) ",
"This is something I read very recently that gives an estimate on the numbers of trees required per person to sequestrant the CO2 produced. But i think with the estimate of 1 mole of O2 being produced for 1 mole of CO2 consumed, a correlation can be made.\n\n\"World Health Organization has recommended \r\na minimum green space of 9.5 m2\r\n/person) considering the services (oxygen, moderation of \r\nmicro climate) and goods of an urban environment. Estimates indicate that about 6 tons of \r\ncarbon is sequestered by 1 hectare of forests annually and this averages out as the carbon \r\nsequestration of 6 kg/tree/year. Per capita respiratory carbon ranges from 192 to 328 kg/year \r\ndepending on the physiology of humans. Generally, the carbon dissipated through respiration \r\nvaries from 525 to 900 gm/day/person. This means 32 to 55 trees per person in a region is \r\nrequired to exclusively mitigate respiratory CO2.\"\n\nSource: _URL_0_",
"You should see the NASA sat loop of the winter, spring, summer, fall cycle of vegetation dying then growing but instead you see the Co2 levels dramatically rise and by mid summer you se O2 levels dramatically rise.\n\nPretty awesome satellite loop. \n\nEdit: I’ve posted the link three times but I had somebody PM they are not showing up, the links. I’ll try this...\n\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\nCan you all see this???\n\n\nEdit: now I can see the messages people are posting pop up on my phone but as soon as I tap to see they are gone. Something is going on.",
"Oxygen just for human respiration? Or does this include the oxygen required to burn the fuel that we use for energy?\n\nWhen people speak of the economic cost of energy they often forget that money is only involved in paying for the hydrocarbons...the oxygen is assumed to be free.",
"I imagine quite a few, but no where near as many phytoplankton it would take. Luckily there's a great many of those floating about. It's a common misconception that trees are very important for making oxygen, while they do contribute, they produce a smaller portion of the vital exhaust gas.\n\nAs much as 54% of photosynthesis occours on land, but terrestrial plants produce more rigid bodies, which makes them great sinks for carbon, but seaborne flora can happily float along running thier engine at top efficiency.\n\nIt is estimated (from what I have read) that 75% of the annual source of atmospheric oxygen (O2) can be traced back to phytoplankton, the near-surface families of plankton, one of the more vibile of these are algae. They make a lot of algae in both fresh and sea water.\n\nTL,DR: Here's [a link to an article](_URL_0_).",
"I read somewhere that bamboo is the highest oxygen producing plant (around 35% more. It's also my understanding that trees and plants absorb carbon dioxide from the air to grow, meaning fast growing plants like bamboo also sequest and lock up carbon dioxide from our atmosphere.\n\nI have read somewhere people consume about 50ltr per hour of oxygen but I don't know how much the average bamboo plant produces. ",
"I find it's better not to think of oxygen and CO2 as being consumed and produced. Instead, think of carbon as existing either in biomass or in atmosphere.\n\nIf a plant isn't growing (because, say, it has reached its mature size), it turns CO2 to O2 during the day as it photosynthesizes, then turns it back at night as it lives off of stored energy. It isn't making any oxygen.\n\nBut if you cut it down, it would get eaten by a fungus or burned by a fire and all (or most) of its carbon would be converted back into CO2.\n\nWe convert O2 into CO2 at the exact amount that we consume biomass. If I grow a potato (or an edible tree), it converts CO2 into O2 and stores that carbon in a potato. If I eat that potato, I break up that carbon and bind it to O2, and use the energy from that to drill for more fossil fuels.\n\nSo if you had a potato farm, fertilized it with your poop, and only ate those potatoes, you would be carbon-neutral. No trees needed.\n\n---\n\nNow think back to the Carboniferous period. Trees develop lignin, and no microbes have figured out how to eat it yet. So they grow, eventually fall over (because early trees had [weak root systems](_URL_6_)), and then just pile on top of each other. Biomass increases, atmospheric carbon levels fall, and we get giant insects because there's (relatively) more O2.\n\nMany of those trees turn to coal. If microbes hadn't evolved the ability to eat trees, then this would have kept happening until the CO2 levels were so low that plants were competing for it. Instead, fungi started eating trees, CO2 levels rose again, but not as high as they were before -- because many of those trees had turned to coal. So there's this phenomenon where old biomass now has a mineral form.\n\nFungi evolve how to eat tree, CO2 levels rose, and the atmosphere changed significantly and many species went extinct. Including, I imagine, many fungi who had previously thrived on the massive volume of tree-based food available to them.\n\n---\n\nSo flash forward. Now a new organism has evolved a way to take the energy out of that old biomass: coal and oil. It's us. We're tapping into biomass from the Carboniferous and burning it. We can't replace old biomass, so unless we make new biomass at an equal rate, we'll change the temperature. Instead, though, we're also destroying new biomass.\n\nA gallon of gasoline [creates](_URL_0_) 8.8kg (20 lbs) of CO2, with most of that mass coming from atmospheric O2. A kg of tree soaks up 1.6kg of CO2. So you would need to make 5.5kg (12 lbs) of tree per gallon of gasoline you use.\n\nGeneral Sherman, an enormous sequoia in Sequoia National Park, weighs 1.2 million kg, and is the largest tree in the world. In the US, people use a total of 391 million gallons of gasoline per day. So to counterbalance that, we would need to grow 1780 General Shermans *every day*. There are about 8000 giant sequoias in Sequoia National Park, and all of them are smaller than General Sherman. So every week, we would need to grow another one and a half Sequoia National Parks.\n\nIncidentally, General Sherman is 2,300-2,700 years old.\n\nSequoia National Park is [about](_URL_1_) 400,000 acres. We're growing one Sequoia National Park per week. Let's step out of California for a moment, because California has a lot of biomass, especially northern California. Let's step next door to Nevada. To keep up with USA gasoline consumption, you would need to grow one Nevada of Sequoia National Park every 2 years and 2 months.\n\nIn other words, since Obama was first elected (remember that?), you would need to have covered all of Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, and Arizona with Sequoia National Park (without removing the existing biomass) in order to offset human carbon consumption in the US from gasoline alone.\n\nNot counting diesel. Not counting coal. Not counting natural gas. Not counting industrial use. Not counting airline use. Not counting the fuel used to ship goods to the US.\n\n---\n\nI guess what I'm saying here, is that it's not like there's a number of trees at which we'll be all set.\n\n---\n\nEDITS: more sources, and more contiguous states. Here's the maths. Links provided separately because Reddit doesn't like links with parenthesis in it. I also fixed some of the numbers above. They're worse now.\n\nThanks for the gold!\n\n[[[(142.98 billion gallons gasoline/year)x(8887 grams CO2/gallon gasoline)x(1 kg of tree /1.63 kg of CO2)]/(1.2 million kg of tree x 8000 trees/400000 acres)]x(time since noon, Jan 20, 2009)]/(area of Texas + Oklahoma + Arkansas + Arizona) = 0.97\n\nGallons consumed in 2017: _URL_7_ -- I didn't check how gallons/year changed since 2009, so consider this only a commentary on current usage.\n\nCO2 emitted per gallon of gasoline: _URL_0_ -- it's more than 1:1 because the CO2 mass includes the mass of the O2 consumed in burning it.\n\nCO2-to-tree ratio: _URL_3_ -- this one's a weak point in my maths, because it was somebody else's napkin-maths. I'm open to better sources. They were also thinking of oak, not Sequoia.\n\nStats for Sequoia National Park and General Sherman from Wikipedia.\n\nMonster Wolfram Alpha link: _URL_2_\n\n---\n\nOkay, one more edit: there are a lot of non-Sequoia trees in Sequoia National Park. It's about one sequoia per thirty football fields. Typical temperate forest sequesters 5.6kg of carbon per square meter, in both its tree mass and in its soil ([source](_URL_5_) -- that's 59 gigatons/10.4 million square kilometers.) So using that instead, we get:\n\n[(142.98 billion gallons/year)x(8887 grams/gallon)x(12 g C/44 g CO2)]/[5.6 kg/(square meter)]\n\nThat means we need about 1,960 m^2 per *second* of temperate forest growth (that's a FIFA soccer field every four seconds), to keep up with gasoline use.\n\nHow long would that take to cover Texas? Almost exactly as long as it has been since the iPhone was released, in June 2007.\n\n(The fact that these numbers aren't *that* different is a testament to how much carbon General Sherman has sequestered.)\n\n_URL_4_)*(time+since+noon+June+29,+2007)%5D%2F(surface+area+of+texas)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoplankton#Oxygen_production",
"https://www.nrs.fs.fed.us/pubs/jrnl/2007/nrs_2007_nowak_001.pdf",
"https://i.imgur.com/5rKHPCO.png"
],
[
"http://wgbis.ces.iisc.ernet.in/biodiversity/pubs/ETR/ETR75/introduction.html"
],
[
"https://youtu.be/2BWWrJr6TJw",
"https://youtu.be/x1SgmFa0r04"
],
[],
[
"http://earthsky.org/earth/how-much-do-oceans-add-to-worlds-oxygen"
],
[],
[
"https://www.epa.gov/greenvehicles/greenhouse-gas-emissions-typical-passenger-vehicle",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequoia_National_Park",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5B%5B%5B(142.98+billion+gallons%2Fyear)*(8887+grams%2Fgallon)*(1%2F1.63)%5D%2F(1.2+million+kg+*+8000%2F(400000+acres))%5D*(time+since+noon,+Jan+20,+2009)%5D%2F(area+of+Texas+%2B+Oklahoma+%2B+Arkansas+%2B+Arizona)",
"https://www.quora.com/How-many-trees-does-it-take-to-transform-one-ton-of-CO2-into-oxygen-over-the-time-of-one-year-Are-there-any-statistics-for-different-trees-leaf-trees-conifers-or-even-other-plants",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=%5B(%5B(142.98+billion+gallons%2Fyear)*(8887+grams%2Fgallon)*(12%2F44)%5D%2F%5B5.6+kg%2F(square+meter)%5D",
"http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/y1997e/y1997e07.htm",
"https://www.nationalgeographic.com/science/phenomena/2016/01/07/the-fantastically-strange-origin-of-most-coal-on-earth/",
"https://www.eia.gov/tools/faqs/faq.php?id=23&t=10"
]
] |
||
831xjp
|
how do carats for diamonds work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/831xjp/eli5_how_do_carats_for_diamonds_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dvehugm",
"dvehvgg"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Carats are a unit of mass equal to 200mg. Carat comes from carob, a seed used to determine diamond mass.",
"It's just a specialized unit of mass Each carat is .2g. So a 5 carat diamond would be 1 gram. \n\nThere's also a subunit called a point which is 1/100th of a carat or 2mg."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2w1h5q
|
how are laws passed in the us?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w1h5q/eli5_how_are_laws_passed_in_the_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"comqzl7",
"comr2b4",
"comrj6o",
"comteea"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"In the simplest of explanations the congress forms a bill and votes on it if it passes with a majority it goes to the president if he signs it it becomes law. If the president vetoes it, it goes back to congress where they vote again and if it gets a supermajority then it is law. If they can't get a supermajority they change it and try again.",
"Well it starts with an idea. Then you send a lobbyist to a congressman to persuade them to write a bill. If it's unpopular you'll have to pay extra to have him wedge it in a bill that's sure to pass. The bill is pushed through congress and signed into law provided it wasn't filibustered to death in which you will have to repeat the process often with more money. ",
"[Here you go.](_URL_0_) This is how actual 5-year-olds learn this stuff!",
"Boy: Woof! You sure got to climb a lot of steps to get to this Capitol Building here in Washington. But I wonder who that sad little scrap of paper is?\n\nBill: I'm just a bill\nYes, I'm only a bill\nAnd I'm sitting here on Capitol Hill\nWell, it's a long, long journey\nTo the capital city\nIt's a long, long wait\nWhile I'm sitting in committee\nBut I know I'll be a law someday\nAt least I hope and pray that I will\nBut today I am still just a bill\n\nBoy: Gee, Bill, you certainly have a lot of patience and courage\n\nBill: Well I got this far. When I started, I wasn't even a bill, I was just an idea. Some folks back home decided they wanted a law passed, so they called their local Congressman and he said, \"You're right, there ought to be a law.\" Then he sat down and wrote me out and introduced me to Congress. And I became a bill, and I'll remain a bill until they decide to make me a law.\n\nI'm just a bill\nYes, I'm only a bill,\nAnd I got as far as Capitol Hill\nWell, now I'm stuck in committee\nAnd I'll sit here and wait\nWhile a few key Congressmen discuss and debate\nWhether they should let me be a law\nHow I hope and pray that they will\nBut today I am still just a bill\n\nBoy: Listen to those congressmen arguing! Is all that discussion and debate about you?\n\nBill: Yeah, I'm one of the lucky ones. Most bills never even get this far. I hope they decide to report on me favorably, otherwise I may die.\n\nBoy: Die?\n\nBill: Yeah, die in committee. Oh, but it looks like I'm going to live! Now I go to the House of Representatives, and they vote on me.\n\nBoy: If they vote yes, what happens?\n\nBill: Then I go to the Senate and the whole thing starts all over again.\n\nBoy: Oh no!\n\nBill: Oh yes!\n\nI'm just a bill\nYes, I'm only a bill\nAnd if they vote for me on Capitol Hill\nWell, then I'm off to the White House\nWhere I'll wait in a line\nWith a lot of other bills\nFor the president to sign\nAnd if he signs me, then I'll be a law\nHow I hope and pray that he will\nBut today I am still just a bill\n\nBoy: You mean even if the whole Congress says you should be a law, the president can still say no?\n\nBill: Yes, that's called a veto. If the President vetoes me, I have to go back to Congress and they vote on me again, and by that time you're so old . . .\n\nBoy: By that time it's very unlikely that you'll become a law. It's not easy to become a law, is it?\n\nBill: No!\n\nBut how I hope and I pray that I will\nBut today I am still just a bill\n\nCongressman: He signed you, Bill! Now you're a law!\n\nBill: Oh yes!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H-eYBZFEzf8"
],
[]
] |
||
f3pmpb
|
Why do we call the United States "The Union" when referring to the Civil War?
|
Considering it was the side with the legitimate US government, why don't we just call them the United States, like we do when discussing the period before 1860? Did the US refer to itself as the Union as well before the Civil War?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f3pmpb/why_do_we_call_the_united_states_the_union_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fhklrq9"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
" > Why do we call the United States \"The Union\" when referring to the Civil War?\n\nThe \"Union\" was a reference to the \"more perfect union\" referred to in the Preamble of the U.S. Constitution. This phrase was itself a reference back to the less-than-perfect union under the Articles of Confederation, which explicitly defined the union of the states as \"perpetual\". This was the legal basis for the argument the U.S. government was making that secession was illegal (hey!) and would not be recognized as a legitimate act. \"Union\" wasn't just a cutesy nickname, but was literally the Constitutional basis that the U.S. was fighting for.\n\nThe Confederates argued differently, that the Constitution was not perpetually binding, under a legal argument that is usually referred to as \"Compact Theory\". It was a contract, or compact, made not by the people of the United States, but by thirteen states, and any of those parties to the compact could leave at any time. This was a legal theory that had [never had much legal support before the war](_URL_5_), and the federal courts had given every indication would be rejected if tested. So instead of testing it, the Confederates tried to enact their interpretation of the Constitution through a war instead of a lawsuit.\n\nIn Abraham Lincoln's [Inaugural Address](_URL_0_) weeks before the war broke out, he had directly talked about this legal rejection of \"Compact Theory\" and the Constitutional interpretation of the \"Union\" at length. The whole section is worth reading in full for a good summary of the legal argument being made for the perpetual \"Union\" at the time, but I'll just quote the first paragraph of the relevant section here:\n\n > \"I hold that **in contemplation of universal law and of the Constitution the Union of these States is perpetual. Perpetuity is implied, if not expressed, in the fundamental law of all national governments.** It is safe to assert that no government proper ever had a provision in its organic law for its own termination. Continue to execute all the express provisions of our National Constitution, and the Union will endure forever, it being impossible to destroy it except by some action not provided for in the instrument itself....\"\n\nThis echoed James Buchanan's final State of the Union address (actually, [\"Message to Congress\"](_URL_4_) in those days) from a few months earlier, which said in part:\n\n > \"...[I]t has been claimed within the last few years that any State, whenever this shall be its sovereign will and pleasure, may secede from the Union in accordance with the Constitution and without any violation of the constitutional rights of the other members of the Confederacy; that as each became parties to the Union by the vote of its own people assembled in convention, so any one of them may retire from the Union in a similar manner by the vote of such a convention.\n > \n > \"In order to justify secession as a constitutional remedy, it must be on the principle that the Federal Government is a mere voluntary association of States, to be dissolved at pleasure by any one of the contracting parties. If this be so, the Confederacy is a rope of sand, to be penetrated and dissolved by the first adverse wave of public opinion in any of the States...\n > \n > \"**It was intended to be perpetual, and not to be annulled at the pleasure of any one of the contracting parties.** The old Articles of Confederation were entitled \"Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union between the States,\" and by the thirteenth article it is expressly declared that \"the articles of this Confederation shall be inviolably observed by every State, and the Union shall be perpetual.\" The preamble to the Constitution of the United States, having express reference to the Articles of Confederation, recites that it was established \"in order to form a more perfect union.\" And yet it is contended that this \"more perfect union\" does not include the essential attribute of perpetuity.\n > \n > \"But that **the Union was designed to be perpetual** appears conclusively from the nature and extent of the powers conferred by the Constitution on the Federal Government...\"\n\nAnd both these speeches echoed Andrew Jackson's [\"Proclamation Regarding Nullification\"](_URL_3_) during the 1832-33 Nullification Crisis that almost erupted into a civil war between South Carolina and the U.S. then. South Carolina had [passed a law](_URL_2_) declaring secession legal, and secession would be their next step if the U.S. wouldn't allow them to ignore a tariff they didn't like (\"The Tariff of Abominations\"). Jackson's speech during the crisis read in part:\n\n > \"The most important among these objects, that which is placed first in rank, on which all the others rest, is \"to form a more perfect Union.\"..**.I consider, then, the power to annul a law of the United States, assumed by one State, incompatible with the existence of the Union, contradicted expressly by the letter of the Constitution, unauthorized by its spirit, inconsistent with every principle on which it was founded, and destructive of the great object for which it was formed.**\n > \n > \"The States severally have not retained their entire sovereignty. It has been shown that in becoming parts of a nation, not members of a league, they surrendered many of their essential parts of sovereignty...\n > \n > \"The unity of our political character...commenced with its very existence...We were the UNITED STATES under the Confederation, and the name was perpetuated and the Union rendered more perfect by the federal Constitution. In none of these stages did we consider ourselves in any other light than as forming one nation...\"\n\nAnd all of them were really echoing [George Washington's Farewell Address](_URL_1_) in 1796, where he talked about the perpetual Union that he wished to see maintained:\n\n > \"In looking forward to the moment which is intended to terminate the career of my public life, my feelings do not permit me to suspend the deep acknowledgment of that debt of gratitude which I owe to my beloved country for the many honors it has conferred upon me... \n > \n > \"Profoundly penetrated with this idea, I shall carry it with me to my grave, as a strong incitement to unceasing vows that heaven may continue to you the choicest tokens of its beneficence; that **your union and brotherly affection may be perpetual; that the free Constitution, which is the work of your hands, may be sacredly maintained**; that its administration in every department may be stamped with wisdom and virtue; that, in fine, the happiness of the people of these States, under the auspices of liberty, may be made complete by so careful a preservation and so prudent a use of this blessing...\n > \n > \"**To the efficacy and permanency of your Union, a government for the whole is indispensable. No alliance, however strict, between the parts can be an adequate substitute**; they must inevitably experience the infractions and interruptions which all alliances in all times have experienced. Sensible of this momentous truth, you have improved upon your first essay, by the adoption of a constitution of government better calculated than your former for an intimate union, and for the efficacious management of your common concerns. This government, the offspring of our own choice...containing within itself a provision for its own amendment, has a just claim to your confidence and your support. Respect for its authority, compliance with its laws, acquiescence in its measures, are duties enjoined by the fundamental maxims of true liberty. **The basis of our political systems is the right of the people to make and to alter their constitutions of government. But the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all.** The very idea of the power and the right of the people to establish government presupposes the duty of every individual to obey the established government.\"\n\nTo address you other two questions:\n\n > Considering it was the side with the legitimate US government, why don't we just call them the United States, like we do when discussing the period before 1860?\n\nSome people *do* do that, but the logic behind not doing so is that the Confederate government was considered illegitimate. So calling only one side \"the United States\" carried with it the implication that the other side was *not* the U.S., as though it were a legitimately separate country. Then again, calling them the \"Confederacy\" can also be argued to add legitimacy to their claim as the C.S.A.\n\n > Did the US refer to itself as the Union as well before the Civil War?\n\nAs demonstrated above, yes, and there are many more examples besides. In 1901, the former Secretary of State, John W. Foster, [rebutted a claim in the *New York Times*](_URL_6_) that the Civil War had been instrumental in altering the \"United States\" being considered a singular rather than plural noun. In fact, this didn't develop until several decades after the war had ended, and in Foster's study, he determined it was more of a \"grammar nazi\" thing of olden days rather than a result of the war. \"States\" was plural, so earlier presidents and politicians used the plural, so as not to sound unlearned. But they still often wanted to convey ideas of a singular national nature, and when they did, they tended to use the word \"Union\" instead, so they could talk about \"it\" and \"its\" people and ideas. In the late 1880s and after, the vernacular began changing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/lincoln1.asp",
"https://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp",
"https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ordnull.asp",
"https://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/jack01.asp",
"https://millercenter.org/the-presidency/presidential-speeches/december-3-1860-fourth-annual-message",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/c36lvn/does_the_us_constitution_allow_for_states_to/erpcamd/",
"https://www.nytimes.com/1901/05/04/archives/are-or-is-whether-a-plural-or-a-singular-verb-goes-with-the-words.html"
]
] |
|
3ojaym
|
how do suppositories work?
|
Is it like reverse digestion, or is there something I'm missing here?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ojaym/eli5_how_do_suppositories_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cvxrmq8",
"cvxsu3q",
"cvxv7kf",
"cvy4zer"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"Posting here because no one has yet...\n\nI'm pretty sure they get absorbed into your large intestine (just like the way nutrients and water do), by there are mucous (wet) membranes that have absorbing surfaces (villi). ",
"Depends on what exactly you're shoving up your ass.\n\nYou can absorb nutrients and chemicals and drugs through the intestine so it is a good delivery method for some things. Years ago people used to have \"Gallow Parties\" for the name of the wine(or was it champagne?)...in recent years the term was known as \"butt chugging\". I can't fathom doing this at all, but I don't judge.\n\nFor glycerin laxatives, they'll melt(near instant lube) and having something pushed up there will naturally make you want to go. unsure if they have any biochemical reaction.\n\nFor things like Preparation H, it works just like the ointment, it shrinks up capillaries and can help with inflammation and also provide some lubrication and laxative effect.\n\nI'm sure there are numerous other drugs, ointments, and such that there are suppositories for that have different effects, but these are all that I know of or have unfortunate indepth(pun intended) knowledge about.",
"Are you talking about drug suppositories, or suppository laxatives?\n\nThe walls of your colon are permeable to lots of things. A lot of nutrients are absorbed here after your food has been \"processed\" in the stomach and small intestine. \n\nThis processing that goes on in the stomach and small intestine could reduce the efficacy of some drugs. In this case, it's advantageous to coat the drug in something that dissolves slowly in water, and just stick it right into the area where it's absorbed. \nSo, you get a pill and coat it in something like rice paper. Not exactly rice paper, but just a material that dissolves in water. Then you pop it up there and the water in your body dissolves the pill and you begin absorbing whatever was wrapped in there. People have apparently also gotten drunk by doing vodka suppositories, again because the walls of your colon are permeable to lots of things.\n\nUnless, you're talking about a suppository laxative? \nIt's basically just some compounds that absorb water, but generally cannot be easily transferred across the walls of the colon. Over time it draws water from outside the colon into the inside of the colon, which makes you poop. Some artificial sweeteners have this property. Sorbitol, for example is a low calorie sweetener because it can't be easily absorbed by the colon. However, it is a polar molecule and attracts water into the colon. This is why some sugar alcohols in large amounts have laxative effects. ",
"Word of warning in case anyone reads this and is stupid enough to try it: don't try and get ba-dunk-a-drunk with bum rum/a brown-eye mai tai/anal colada/mint poolep or any other type of drink in the stink, because you have a good chance of getting alchohole poisoning. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
cd1mat
|
when you turn down or up the volume on devices with either a wheel or button, what actually happens that allows it to sound quieter or louder?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cd1mat/eli5_when_you_turn_down_or_up_the_volume_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etqtvsz",
"etqum4y",
"etra2er",
"etraa3j",
"etrbona",
"etrgw7s",
"etroreq",
"etrv8sh"
],
"score": [
6685,
3,
38,
15,
137,
359,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A volume knob or wheel is an example of a device called a *potentiometer*, which is a device that adjusts the voltage going down a wire by increasing or decreasing the electrical resistance.\n\nIf the resistance increases (if you turn the volume knob down), then less voltage makes it to the speaker, the cone vibrates less intensely, and the sound is quieter. The opposite is true if you turn the volume up.",
"A system consists of some signal source (tape player, radio etc), usually a preamp, an amplifier and a speaker.\n\nThe volume control sits between the preamp and the amplifier. The preamp produces a signal that is (generally) about 1 volt. The volume control has a long resistor, with a wiper that makes contact with the resistor at some point along its length. The preamp output is connected to one end of the resistor, and the other end is attached to the 0 volts point ('ground'). The wiper is connected to the input of the main amp, which produces a signal with the voltage and power needed to drive the speaker.\n\nWhen the volume is high, the wiper attaches to the resistor right beside the input. So the full 1volt signal appears at the input of the main amp. When the volume is fully down, it the wiper attaches to the resistor right down at the ground point - there's no voltage there, as it is at 0 volts, so the main amp sees no signal and you get nothing out.\n\nAnywhere between that, the wiper contacts the resistor somewhere along it's length, and so the main amp sees somewhere between the full 1v signal and nothing, controlling the volume.",
"Others have talked about potentiometers but OP asked about a \"wheel\" (which is not a knob) and a button. The \"wheel\" is known as an encoder. It's a device that has many different positions. The device tracks which position the wheel was at and which position it has moved to. So it knows which direction the user is turning the wheel. If they turn it clockwise, then the system will send a signal to the amplifier to increase the gain (volume). If the user is turning it counter-clockwise then it will send a signal to lower the gain. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis is what allows the user to continuously turn the wheel in a given direction. A regular knob has a fixed range and will only turn up to a certain point.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAs for buttons, it's the same idea, there is a button for \"up\" and button for \"down\". The system decides to increase the gain or lower the gain simply by which button is pressed. This is why you can have a touch screen with a volume slider . It's all digital information.",
"Nowadays the wheel or buttons generate pulses that control a computer that controls the D/A converter that controls the volume of the signal. To get increased dynamics, there can be one D/A converter for the volume and one (much more high resolution) for the signal, multiplied to get the end result, but it's not a given. Also, the equalizer is completely digital, using digital (calculated) filters.",
"Sound travels through your electronic device as a very small electrical current. Think of this current as “flowing” like water. \n\nWhen the volume knob is all the way up, all of the water is allowed to pass through it, but as you turn the knob down, less and less water is allowed through. The amount of “water” coming through = volume.",
"Depends.\n\nOn purely analog devices audio is just an electric signal. When you adjust the gain you are controlling how much electricity you are letting through, like a water tap.\n\nOn digital devices this is more complicated but, generally speaking, when you press the volume buttons you are also controlling how much electricity is being sent to the speakers although not directly. Some code is interpreting your actions on the volume buttons and then this either results in the digital audio signal having less amplitude, or controlling the analog amplifier, or both.",
"See suggested for answers on analog devices. I just wanted to add that some devices save space and material by digitizing the input from a knob or wheel and converting the command to the audio section of a device.\n\nOn a digital wheel that you can keep spinning even when the volume is at 0 or 100, the input process is a two step assignment loop input, with short polling. Placing a finger on the wheel sets the start value (step 1). Then the direction the finger moves sets the positive or negative value (step 2). That value is sent to the audio \"tap\", telling it to open or close a bit more. The value resets back to zero value of step 1, waiting for another directional input. It repeats that for as long as you're tracing that finger along the track wheel.",
"Sound is sound waves, similar to waves in the water.\n\nThe device creates sound by sending electricity to a speaker. The electricity pushes the speaker inwards or outwards, creating a larger or smaller wave, depending on how much electricity you send through.\n\nTo make it quieter, the device simply sends less electricity. This can be done in multiple ways, e.g. changing the amplification in an amplifier circuit, or just taking the sound wave that it is trying to play, and multiplying it by the volume percentage.\n\nA electronically recorded sound wave consists of a series of numbers. Each number says how much power to send to the speaker at a specific time. The is one number for (typically) every 1/44100th of a second. So if you set the volume to 10%, it simply multiplies each number with 10% (= 0.1) to determine how much power to actually send to the speaker."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
98j0wx
|
I've heard that the current value of diamonds is due to a marketing campaign in the 40s, but when looking at jewelry from the 1800s, diamonds seems incredibly popular. Does this mean that diamond jewelry was considered cheaper and less impressive than pieces with other stones in those days?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/98j0wx/ive_heard_that_the_current_value_of_diamonds_is/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e4gqukb"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"In antiquity, diamonds were extremely rare and extremely valuable. In Pliny the Elder's *Natural History*, book 37, he refers to them in this way:\n\n > The substance that possesses the greatest value, not only among the precious stones, but of all human possessions, is adamas; a mineral which, for a long time, was known to kings only, and to very few of them.\n\n(There's some disputation about what exactly \"adamas\" refers to - it seems to be a range of clear, crystalline stones, including but not limited to diamond.)\n\nAt that time and through the sixteenth century, Europeans and Near Easterners had only one source for them: India, where they were first largely found in deposits in the Penner, Karnool, Godvari, and Makhnadi rivers, and eventually mined. Thought to have been formed by a hardening liquid - how else could they be so pale and clear? - they were prized for their ability to glitter in the light and throw rainbows around the room. They were evaluated roughly the same way that they are now, in terms of color (water), clarity, and size, with an unblemished and uncolored stone being the most valuable. In the European middle ages, there is evidence of diamonds being used in betrothal and marriage rings, contrary to the story that DeBeers entirely invented the idea: why not use the most valuable and indestructible stone to show the strength of your future relationship? Making that symbolism almost explicit, a poem written on the marriage of Constanzo I Sforza and Camilla D’Aragona in 1475 stated, \"Two wills, two hearts, two passions are bonded in marriage by a diamond\". There are extant diamond rings with loving inscriptions, and the 1505 will of Marion Chamber of Bury specifically lists a gold ring set with a diamond and a ruby as a \"maryeng ryng\". (Other rings made in this fashion may therefore also be wedding rings, possibly with the diamond symbolizing the groom and the ruby the bride.) By the seventeenth century, there are even fictional references to diamond rings for marriage in Cervantes and Voltaire.\n\nDiamonds were found in eastern Brazil in 1725, and a relatively short frenzy began as people determined to strike it rich began digging everywhere to get more. Many didn't believe it, because it had been \"known\" for so long that Diamonds Are Found In India - but within a few years, Brazilian mines were shipping a dozen times as much diamond material back to Europe than the Indian mines were producing at that time. The Indian mines were beginning to slow down a lot at this time (although some continued to be operated, and there are some large diamond reserves there still), so finding new sources wasn't just, \"woo hoo, I've got some diamonds!\" but, \"woo hoo, I can control the diamonds!\" - this gave an even greater urgency to the search for the Next Big Find. By the beginning of the next century, Brazil was the leading source, and another boom occurred in the northern part of the country around the 1850s.\n\nThe next boom occurred in South Africa in 1870-1871, along the Orange River; after an initial mistaken pooh-poohing of the area's potential for exploitation by a British investigator, it was proven to yield *a lot* of diamonds. If you are a Frances Hodgson Burnett fan, which is statistically unlikely for this sub's userbase, this is where and roughly when Sara Crewe's father's friend struck it very big by discovering a new, deep vein. In real life, this is where the DeBeers syndicate comes in. A significant amount of diamonds were mined in Australia in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. And after that, Russia - a few stones were found on their own in the nineteenth century, and then larger deposits in rivers, indicating the presence of good veins somewhere, leading up to the Revolution, which sort of put a spanner in the works. It wasn't until after World War II that effective mining of these began, but in the end this region became the second largest source in the world, so well done, lads.\n\nBut we're talking about price and popularity. As early as the first Brazilian diamond boom, there was a recognition that flooding the market was leading to reduced prices. The Portuguese made strong efforts to restrict the flow to other countries in order to keep the floor from dropping out, and it's highly possible that diamonds were being panned for and mined earlier than 1725, and sold in Goa to enter the market as \"Indian diamonds\". And because of these booms, the availability of diamonds did go way up, even if the prices didn't drop so far as to seriously devalue the stones: really large and elaborate diamond jewelry began to be found in royal courts, ballrooms, and opera houses across Europe (eighteenth century queens and their ladies in waiting might have entire stomachers set with diamonds). Diamonds were still highly valued for their own properties, but they were not seen as so excessively more special than rubies, sapphires, and emeralds. Rubies in particular were known to be much rarer and cost as much as diamonds at the time, and late nineteenth century articles on popular jewelry trends in trade magazines, like [this one](_URL_0_) in *The Jewelers' Circular and Horological Review*, 1884, neither put diamonds on a pedestal alone nor consider them cheap and boring.\n\nAs far as I can tell, the Diamond Syndicate did not really start heavily engineering the market until Sir Ernest Oppenheimer became the chairman of De Beers in 1929. Diamond mining had always been extremely exploitative of its workers - the Brazilian and African mines ran on slave labor, or the next thing to it, and we shouldn't be surprised to learn that De Beers was started by Cecil Rhodes - but under Oppenheimer, De Beers and its syndicate began to exploit the market as well, releasing only a trickle of stones to dealers per year, in order to keep the value high. And because they created a stockpile by doing this, they didn't face any problems due to natural shortages or labor strikes, and could continue to do business at exactly the same volume.\n\nIn 1947, the ad copywriter Mary Frances Gerety came up with the line \"a diamond is forever\" for De Beers, now a classic. This has been made out to be part of the invention of the diamond engagement ring, but as mentioned before, the concept is much older. Well, both the concept of a diamond engagement ring, and the symbolism of diamond = forever = our love. *However*. Nineteenth century sources do not show engagement rings as *having* to be set with diamonds the way they are now. *Ward and Lock's Home Book* (1882) says that they can be plain gold, engraved with a word, or set with stones that form a word in acrostic; a story in Peterson's Magazine in 1875 uses a pearl engagement ring. But I would note that the same article in *The Jewelers' Circular and Horological Review* linked above notes that the diamond solitaire is the most popular engagement ring at that time, and a later article in the same volume says that while turquoises and pearls are generally popular, diamonds are \"the rage\" with those who could afford them. The shift to everyone expecting diamonds has as much to do with post-war prosperity and upward aspirations as it does De Beers itself.\n\nSources:\n\n*Diamonds: A Early History of the King of Gems*, by Jack Ogden (Yale University Press, 2018)\n\n*Diamond Deposits: Origin, Exploration, and History of Discovery*, by Edward I. Erlich and W. Dan Hausel (Society for Mining, Metallurgy, and Exploration, 2002)\n\n*The Last Empire: De Beers, Diamonds, and the World*, by Stefan Kanfer (Macmillan, 1995)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=3nIoAAAAYAAJ&dq=diamond%20ruby%20emerald%20sapphire&pg=PA11#v=onepage&q=diamond%20ruby%20emerald%20sapphire&f=false"
]
] |
||
30fygj
|
1917-18, the Germans had 'won' in the East and transferred millions of men west, and they hadn't lost any (or only a little) actual German territory. Considering this, why did they agree to such harsh peace terms? How desperate was the situation for Germany prior to Versailles?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/30fygj/191718_the_germans_had_won_in_the_east_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cps52pl",
"cpsa835",
"cpsfiri",
"cpsh6qn",
"cpsjajf",
"cpsjvj9"
],
"score": [
126,
18,
10,
4,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"***This is my first time commenting on this subreddit, sorry if it doesn't meet all the requirements***\n\nVery desperate indeed. The men from the Eastern front had been used in the Michael Offensive in early 1918. This offensive had been very successful tactically, but failed to capture any strategic objectives and cost the Germans well over a million casualties. By contrast the allies had in fact more men on the Western Front at the end of the offensive than they did at its onset, and overall enjoyed a substantial advantage in resources and manpower over the Germans.\n\nAmericans were arriving in substantial numbers and the Hundred Days Offensive leveraged improved tactics and massive resource advantages to push the Germans out of all the territory gained during Michael and eventually back to the Hindenburg Line. Moral in the German Army was incredibly low. There were reports of regiments returning from the front harassing the men sent to relieve them, calling them \"linebrakers\" (scabs) and accusing them of allowing the war to continue. Men were surrendering en-mass almost daily. There was even a mutiny in the Navy. The fact that the German Army was able to mount an effective defense, even mounting counterattacks at strategic points, is a testament to it's quality. Nevertheless, the Hundred Days Offensive made daily progress, and eventually the German high command came to the inevitable conclusion that the army had come to the end of its ability to prosecute the war. By 1918 Germany had exhausted its manpower reserves, its lines of credit, and its willingness to continue fighting.\n",
"I'm relying on Strachan's History of WWI here: By September of 1917, there were food riots occurring in numerous cities of Northern germany.\n By late October, 1918, the Wilhelmshaven and Kiel Mutinies had occurred. Revolting sailors had joined with socialists of the SPD and formed communes in Kiel and Wilhelmshaven, and it was spreading south rapidly, to Hanover and Hamburg.\n\n So the War Council panicked. They believed that they were dealing with a German Revolution of a scale and severity comparable to the Bolshevik revolution. This mixture of panic and exhaustion is clearly evidenced in Ludendorff's letters and correspondence from the late 1918 period.\n\n The acquiescence occurred because the high command believed that civil war was imminent, and that they needed every resource available to stave off a total Spartakist revolution.\n\n And given the fighting that took place in Berlin, they had a reasonable basis for that belief.\n\n In a sense, Russian communism had won World War One for the Allies, but not in a conventional manner.",
"Outside of a military context, Germany was definitely on her last legs. The British blockade meant that food imports which the country relied on were drastically reduced, and sources on the continent were drying up. Meat and 'bread' (ersatz bread meant that it was tough and mostly made of substitute materials) were in low supply and potatoes were so scarce that turnips were widely used instead (leading to the so-called 'turnip winter' of 1916-1917). \n\nThe limited availability of continental resources for the home front was for a number of reasons. Firstly, supply was prioritised for the army, meaning that most food that was available went to the western front, and even then there wasn't much to go around. Secondly, Germany was also helping to sustain the Austro-Hungarian Empire, where the situation was even worse, and thirdly the grain supplies that were expected from victory in the east (mainly Romania prior to Brest-Litovsk) weren't as plentiful as hoped, and also boats transporting these up the Danube were hijacked on the way to Germany in places like Vienna due to their desperation. \n\nAlso inside Germany, farmers had a far greater incentive to sell the produce they didn't keep for themselves to the black market due to the high prices of foods, so supply from within the country was also highly limited. \n\nMost of the information here comes from Herwig's *The First World War: Germany and Austria-Hungary* and I would definitely recommend it if you want to see these countries' perspectives on the war in greater detail.",
"May I add to these other excellent answers that the Germans lost precisely because of a fairly new phenomenon, total war. This basically meant that even though they were winning battles they still had other problems to deal with, the most troublesome one was the food shortage caused by the British blockade, that was demoralising not only for German civilians, but also the soldiers. After the spring offensive( which contrary to popular opinion was a desperate offensive that had a very slim chance of success) failed, German soldiers deserted, sailors mutinied, and later the population was rebelling, this forced the Germans to surrender and taught them a very important lesson on modern war.\n\nPlus, as many people here have already pointed out, Germany was practically a dictatorship by 1918, so you can guess why the population weren't very satisfied with the situation.\n\nAnother reason why in 1918 the Germans surrendered, although massively overrated, was America entering the war. This made the weary German army's morale collapse, since they suddenly found themselves fighting against not only many more enemies, who although not experienced were still fresh troops on the allies' side.\nThe \"doughboys\" as they were called only arrived in full force in 1918, so when they did get to the front line, roughly numbering one million men, the German soldiers(and the population) understood that the war was over.\n\nTL;DR Although the Germans gained a lot of territory on land, they were being blockaded by the Royal Navy, they were seeing their enemies being reinforced by more fresh troops, their allies were being beaten back or forcced to surrender (the Austrians were losing to the Italians, the Ottomans to the British and the Bulgarians in Macedonia) and were under a dictatorship.\n\n\nSources: Hew Strachan The First World War; David Stevenson 1914-1918.\n\nEdit 1: Added a few things and made a grammar check",
"You have to realize that they planned a huge offensive with all these men, however the offensive was very costly and no real direction. The high command basically said go here and breakthrough the lines with no town or city as an objective. They lost more men during the offensive than any other. They lost almost 600,000 men and were about to draft 18 year olds to fight.\n\nAnd when the British offensive at Amines commenced the Germans already tired were overwhelmed by these new tactics. They broke through German defense and with American forces alieving other sectors where other Allied troops could go the Germans stood no chance against the Allies anymore. The Germans had no choice but submit to anything the Allies wanted or face even worse conditions like occupation by the allies in the heart of Germany. Wilson the U.S. President at the time wanted a fair deal for Germany and didn't wanted to punish them, he wanted peace. The Allies laughed him off and were going to punish them to the max.\n\n",
"The military situation Germany was in by the end of the War has been very well explained by others here. There's one thing I'd like to add, in direct response to your question:\n\n > How desperate was the situation for Germany prior to Versailles?\n\nIf you're asking about the reasons for the armistice Germany agreed to on 11 November, this has been answered. By November 1918, Germany stood alone, against an overwhelming Allied force, with all its allies having already surrendered. Militarily, there was no hope, which is why Germany agreed to an armistice.\n\nThe terms of this armistice were military in nature, such as the removal of all troops from occupied territories, as well as from parts of Germany (west of the Rhine, for example). They were not peace terms at all, nor were they the harsh conditions of the treaty of Versailles.\n\nNegotiations for the peace treaty that would become known as the Treaty of Versailles did not begin until 18 January 1918. The German delegation was only told about the treaty months later, in May. By this time, the armistice had been in place for 6 months. The Rhineland was occupied. The German navy was interned in Scapa Flow. The German army no longer existed as a fighting force.\n\nSo, to answer your question, by the time the German delegation was told the conditions of the peace treaty of Versailles, Germany was in no place whatsoever to offer any kind of resistance. Even so, the German government refused the terms at first (prime minister Scheidemann resigned rather than sign the treaty). But in the end, there was little any German government could do other than accept the terms.\n\nEDIT: For further reading, especially for the time leading up to the armistice, and the time between armistice and Versailles, I would like to recommend something a little different: the memoirs of British journalist and war correspondent Charles Edward Montague (compiled by Oliver Elton) and German artist Käthe Kollwitz (there is an English translation, according to Amazon, I have only read the German version). They are excellent sources for the feeling in Germany between armistice and peace treaty, and cover a lot of other very interesting aspects of this tumultuous time in a firsthand perspective."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6gdxwn
|
why can you use any amount of water to cook pasta but you need a certain amount for grains?
|
When I make pasta I just fill the pot 3/4 full and wait for it boil, put the pasta in and just drain the water after. Why can't I do this with rice or quinoa? Instead I have to measure both the water and the grain. Why can't I just drain the water after??
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6gdxwn/eli5_why_can_you_use_any_amount_of_water_to_cook/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dipk3zf",
"dipoimz"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"The reason being is pasta is processed and just needs to soften with little absorption. Grains on the other hand need to absorb liquid to become soft, but the can only take in so much liquid. This is why it must be precise with grains and not pasta.",
"You can cook rice with excess water and drain it after as well, it's no problem. You might lose a little of the nutrients and vitamins in the process, but it's nothing to worry about.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3xdhzp
|
Why didn't the Republic of Srpska merge with Serbia during the Bosnian Wars?
|
The Republic of Srpska in Bosnia had many close ties -- politically, culturally, and militarily -- with neighboring Serbia. From what I understand, Serb Nationalism was the main, if not sole, force uniting the region. Given this, why didn't the Republic of Srpska simply join Serbia?
Also, what are some good books about the Yugoslav Wars?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3xdhzp/why_didnt_the_republic_of_srpska_merge_with/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy440jx"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because such an act, at least if done unilaterally, would have been flagrantly illegal and would likely have brought about international intervention and huge retribution on Serbia.\n\nFor a start, Republika Srpska never really had any clearly defined territory until the Dayton Agreement, just territory that it controlled. That in itself made a Serbian annexation of it quite difficult.\n\nMore importantly, however, for the idea of expanding Serbia to include parts of Bosnia taken over by Srpska to have any legitimacy at all, *it needed it come from a negotiated solution to what had to been seen as a civil war endogenous to Bosnia*. I can't emphasise this enough. Milosevic, all the way through the Yugoslav Wars, maintained the line that they were civil wars, i.e. that they were conflicts between various Bosnian factions, and as such a negotiated solution was required. If Serbia and Srpska had simply united, then that line collapses - it becomes clearly simply a case of a war of aggression by Serbia against Bosnia; the appropriate 'solution' to this war would now be not a negotiated settlement between the Bosnian government and the Bosnian Serb nationalists, but the complete withdrawal of Serbian forces from Bosnian territory. \n\nTo what extent the war *was* essentially an attack on Bosnia by Serbia (and Croatia, most people forget) or a civil war between ethno-nationalist factions is still a considerable topic of debate in both politics and history, but unilateral union between Srpska and Serbia would have made it clearly the former.\n\nOn top of this, there's the role of sanctions against Serbia too. Milosevic was very keen to present himself as a moderate interested in finding a peaceful solution in Bosnia in order to get the sanctions (which were damaging both the Serbian economy and his popularity) eased or removed.\n\nNow, books about the conflicts. As a starter in terms of the basic chronology and summary of events my main recommendation wouldn't actually be a book, but the BBC documentary series *The Death of Yugoslavia*, which is very well-informed considering it was only made in 1995. Book wise, my best recommendation would probably be Steven Burg and Paul Shoup's *The War in Bosnia-Herzegovina* - while as the name suggests, it primarily focuses on the war in Bosnia, it does emphasise the important interconnected nature of the war in Croatia as well. Valere Gagnon's *The Myth of Ethnic War* is also excellent, though I'd say it requires some familiarity with the conflicts beforehand. As for the other prominent ones, Susan Woodward's *Balkan Tragedy* is worth reading, but with a slight anti-West bias. Sabrina Ramet's *Balkan Babel* has the opposite problem, too anti-Serb to give much complex analysis. Misha Glenny and Ed Vullaimy's books aren't bad, and they speak from close personal experience, but are journalistic rather than historical accounts. Avoid the garbage that comes from Ed Herman on this at all costs. I hear Louis Sell's biography of Milosevic is pretty good, but I haven't read it yet so I'll withold judgement.\n\nAny other questions, please either reply or drop me a message, I'm happy to talk more about this!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1lz433
|
How does a blastocyst determine which end will become the "front" or "back" of the organism?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1lz433/how_does_a_blastocyst_determine_which_end_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc47iy2",
"cc4bnro",
"cc4p31q"
],
"score": [
21,
12,
2
],
"text": [
"grad student working with flies here, I may be wrong with the other animals...\n\nFor most animals (because insects ARE most animals), the front and back axis (anterior posterior axis) is already laid out before the egg is fertilized. In Drosophila, the mother would make RNA molecules and puts these molecules into one side of the egg. Importantly, the maternally deposited RNA will, more or less, stay on that one side where it was deposited. \nHere's an example: The Bicoid RNA, which is responsible for telling the egg which end will be the front, is made by the mother and put into the anterior side of the egg. When the egg is fertilized, it will tell the embryo which side will become the front end of the animal. And if you have a bicoid mutant mother, all her embryos will be missing the head because of the lack of bicoid in those eggs. \n\nA similar case happens in frogs where maternally deposited RNA is in the vegetal pole of the egg (yolk side). \n\nThe situation is quite different in C. elegans (a roundworm), the sperm entry site determines which side is the posterior side. Also in mammals, the extraembryonic tissues (ie. tissue in the embryo that do not contribute to the embryo proper) determines which side is anterior. \n\nTLDR: most animals' unfertilized eggs have the anterior posterior axes already laid out. round worms and mammals do it differently. ",
"After being a long time lurker I have finally made an account to help answer this question!\n\nI'm a grad student working in stem cells / developmental biology / regenerative medicine, and had to try to answer this exact question during my undergraduate for an essay.\n\nThere is a growing amount of evidence that suggests that the polarity (i.e. front end/back end) of an organism is dictated by the point at which the sperm enters the oocyte. Some others also argue that immediately after the first division of the fertilised oocyte, that embryo polarity is dictated, whilst other say the sperm entry point means nothing.\n\nHere's a link to a couple of papers that should provide a bit more insight:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_\n\nMagdelenda Zernicka-Goetz team has done some beautiful work by doing lineage tracing studies from the dividing zygote by performing dye injection and following the fates of these cells. I should be able to get you some of these figure is you're super interested.\n\nPersonally, I'm still not 100% convinced either way yet, but it's a beautifully complicated field of research!\n\nThanks for your question, and thanks for finally making me create an account!",
"Differing species use wildly differing ways of specifying an their anterior (back) axis and posterior (front) axis. As far as we can tell, most animals use a maternal factor, whether mRNA or protein, laid down asymmetrically during egg formation (insects, fish, frogs).\n\nMammals are markedly different. Mammalian zygotes at first appear to develop normally, though with their early cell division not quite synchronizing across the whole embryo. \n\nThen, after the 8-cell stage, the cells contract and compact the whole embryo. The cells divide again to from an outer layer (the trophectoderm) which will allow for implantation into the placenta. A few cells from this outer layer migrate inward and join with the inner cell mass (ICM) to eventually form the actual organism and not purely developmental tissue.\n\nOnly after implantation into the placenta is an anterior posterior axis specified - with the posterior side facing the forming amniotic sac and the mother's bloodstream. This implantation triggers a series of signaling pathways giving cells an orientation and triggering gastrulation.\n\nThe need for flexibility in axis formation makes sense in the context of mammalian development. The zygote starts as a free-floating body until it anchors on the placenta. The implantation process ensures the embryos have a random contact point the the plancenta. \n\nHowever, many events in development depend on a specific interaction between embryonic and maternal structures, so proper orientation relative to the mother is needed for embryonic survival. This requirement for a pluripotent population of cells, each capable of giving rise to every type of tissue in the body, is the reason mammalian stem cell research has such power in the field of molecular and medical biology today.\n\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://genesdev.cshlp.org/content/19/9/1081.full",
"http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/gene.10027/abstract;jsessionid=44369EAF00E48D6A72D538E2DE5C9A32.d03t01"
],
[]
] |
||
3frqp5
|
How far back would we have to go before educated people know more than we do about the history of Rome?
|
When I say history of Rome, it doesn't matter when really but let's pick Sulla's Civil Wars so we are all talking about the same thing.
The idea behind my question is that the people who experienced the Civil Wars probably knew more about them than we did. So did the people ten years later.
In my layman's vision though, it seems that after some time the knowledge faded away. As the years passed, people knew less and less about the events.
Now, with modern archaeology and anthropology, it seems that as the years pass we learn more and more about the past and that we know more than people in an intermediate time period.
I know this question doesn't really have a nice clean answer, but it is something I have though about and I wonder what some experts might have to say about it.
Does humanity's knowledge of events graph out like a U shape? Decreasing as we move away from the event and then increasing once technology improves?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3frqp5/how_far_back_would_we_have_to_go_before_educated/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cts3v92"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Archeology isn't that great when it comes to information about singular events, its strength really lies in uncovering the everyday life. Yes, occasionally archeologists discover inscriptions or battle sites that cast a new light on our perception of events but often very significant events (whose historicity we have no reason to doubt) elude the archeological record altogether. \nSo maybe we have to distinguish different classes of knowledge:\n\nLet's imagine a member of a Roman senatorial family in the 4th century who takes an interest in antiquities (not uncommon during that time as subscriptions from extant texts show) and who has acquired copies of the 7th and 8th decade of Livy (I don't think we have a record of them still being around at that time, the Periochae were made from an abridged version, but the possibility doesn't seem unbelievable either). He would very likely have a better knowledge of the events (what battles were fought? who sided with whom? who betrayed whom? ...) of Sulla's civil wars than we do. \nBut when it comes to the question of how people actually lived during Sulla's times (almost 500 years before our hypothetical reader's present) his knowledge would probably be not that great (maybe some systematic information from e.g. Varro, but mostly random tidbits picked up in this or that author) and his views would often be caught between false extrapolations from his own lifestyle (the surviving 4th/5th century commentaries do frequently underestimate the distance between their world and that of the author they discuss) and romanticizing idealization. These are areas in which by way of modern archeology we might have a clearer view than he does."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
23x8l3
|
How did Baroque, Classical and early Romantic composers become famous without the use of recording?
|
We've all heard of Mozart, Beethoven, Bach, etc. because their fame has lasted through the centuries. More modern composers like Mahler and Stravinsky were recorded and became famous while they were alive because it was fairly easy to be able to listen to them. My question is how come composers like Mozart were such superstars during their times without any ways of hearing them other than in live performances? Surely there couldn't be that many people who could listen to their work live.
Edit: I left out a word.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/23x8l3/how_did_baroque_classical_and_early_romantic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ch1hmhh"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Bach wasn't very famous in his lifetime, actually, his reputation grew over time, partly because his music was used to teach theory (as it still is today), and partly because he was rediscovered and people appreciated him more the second time around. That's part of a different discussion though. As far as fame goes, there are three main ways composers became famous in the 17th and 18th century. The first is through successful live performance, don't downplay this. \n\n Composers like Mozart and Beethoven had their works played by the top ensembles in the largest cities in Europe at a time when symphonies and opera companies were as famous and discussed as modern film and music stars. Beethoven and Mozart were comparable in star power to the biggest stars of today, and a debut of a new composition by them was greeted with the sort of anticipation moderns reserve for a new Steven Spielberg movie or album by Kanye or Jay Z. \n\n The second way composers of that era became famous was through famous patronage. There was a pecking order in the aristocracy, with Dukes trumping Counts and Barons, and Royals trumping lesser Dukes, and Royals of richer and more powerful nations trumping royals of smaller nations. Gaining a major benefactor was in itself cause for notice. These old composers were like modern auto racing teams when it came to sponsorships. Getting a job as court composer for a Holy Roman or Austrian Emperor was the equivalent to being hired to race for the Red Bull or Mercedes Racing team, when a new guy got the job his work was under the magnifying glass. This was one of Bach's failings, he repeatedly auditioned for and failed to get important sponsors. Some of his most famous works are failed audition pieces, like the Brandenburg Concerto's, Bach's try for the position of Court Composer for the Elector of Brandenburg. \n\n The third way, and one moderns never really think of, was through sheet music sales. Before people owned televisions, radios and computers most of them owned a musical instrument and the family band was a way to pass an hour or two in the evening. This is why so many famous composers who are known today mainly for a handful of symphonies wrote dozens or even hundreds of works for solo piano and other instruments: these were the most popular sheet music sellers and once a composer had a decent reputation music shops would stock and recommend their new works to customers. \n\n A top flight patron meant you would have new works debuted in major palaces and concert halls in front of large audiences. You would be talked about in the press and by word of mouth afterward. And once your music started showing up in shops as sheet music people could take home and play themselves (the same as we now do with albums purchased in stores or online) you were pretty much a star. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1cb92c
|
What is the term for when the sea inundates a drainage basin?
|
Sorry for the random question, but I didn't really know what sub to ask in. I'm doing some research for an evolutionary biology paper, and I need to find out what type of environments certain drainage basins looked like at different periods. (Example: the Yangtze river basin 30 M.Y.A - was it under the ocean?). I've been lucky to find a few papers with descriptive words in the title like "history of inundation", but as an ecologist, I'm not sure what terminology I should be using in my search of the literature. Trying to use the timer period (ie. Oligocene) and basin name has been extremely unfruitful.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1cb92c/what_is_the_term_for_when_the_sea_inundates_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9f0hgl"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The word you're looking for is transgression. The opposite is regression.\n\nDeposits left behind by these would be termed transgressive/regressive sequences."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4aobj9
|
is sweden a capitalist or socialist country?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4aobj9/eli5_is_sweden_a_capitalist_or_socialist_country/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d121poe",
"d124nnb",
"d127qpf",
"d128o63",
"d128tdp",
"d12d2hm"
],
"score": [
39,
16,
3,
12,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Sweden is a fundamentally capitalist country. There are, generally, private property rights and the economy is oriented around private individuals making investments with the goal of turning a profit.\n\nOnly about a quarter of Swedish economic activity is comprised of the public (state) sector.",
"They are a SOCIAL democracy in a Capitalist market. Social democrats want more safety nets and more government programs to help people through taxes and stuff. Socialism is the elimination of private property (which is different than personal property) as to also eliminate the exploitation of the worker. If there's no public ownership of the means of production, it's not socialism. \nEdit: a word",
"Capitalist. It has one of the most free market economies in the world (ranked 23 out of 177 countries by the index of economic freedom).",
" > I understand that socialist governments manage the distribution of property, possessions, money etc\n\nthis is not true. You seem to be conflating socialism with communism.\n\nSocialism is essentially deciding that it is the government's job to provide certain services for its population. So, low cost of education, single payer healthcare, etc. In some cases a socialism government might nationalise industries like utilities, public transport etc - because it's felt that capitalism in those cases is not helpful for society (e.g. it's more important that people have clean water and power than it is for people to be able to make a lot of money from the same.)\n\nSweden is a capitalist country, because it encourages private enterprise (you're allowed to start a business and then keep the profits, etc) but also socialist in that it provides certain services for its citizens. \n\nThe basic answer to your question is: Sweden is both capitalist and socialist. The terms are not mutually exclusive",
"There's a tendency to compare socialism and capitalism as a two way toggle switch. This is not the case. Countries can have a balance between to systems of varying degrees.",
"Sweden is a social democracy in a capitalist market. \n\nIt's not really black and white enough to say one or the other. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7kslv9
|
Hitler killed himself on April 30th. The Red Army didn't get to his bunker until May 2nd. Was it possible for him to successfully flee if he tried?
|
As I understand it, the Red Army had surrounded Berlin in late April and Hitler basically admitted defeat around April 22nd when Felix Steiner was unable to counter-attack. That time period seems to suggest a solid week between when Hitler basically gave up and when he killed himself.
Why didn't he attempt to flee Berlin? If the Red Army didn't get to his bunker until May 2nd, it seems that there would have been ample time for him to attempt escape. Were there no functional aircraft for him to fly out of Berlin? What was his motivation for remaining and eventually killing himself?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7kslv9/hitler_killed_himself_on_april_30th_the_red_army/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dri4rgn"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Mabye there would have been enough time to attempt to flee Berlin but there certainly wasn't a good chance to be sucessfull. Since we will never know for sure what Hitler thought there is not much sense in speculating about it. [u/commiespaceinvader](_URL_0_) wrote an excellent op-ed about questions in the manner of \"What did Hitler thought about....?\".\n\nGerman Historian Joachim Fest writes about the last days of the war and possible reasons for Hitlers suicide in his book 'Inside Hitlers Bunker' (OCLC Number: 52720633). Based on the recollection from Hitlers adjutants Heinz Linge and Otto Günsche, Joachim Fest comes to the conclusion that Hitler was shocked by Mussolinis execution on April 28th and the following abuse of his remains. According to Fest Hitler feared beeing treated in a similar fashion and wanted to avoid capture at all costs.\n\nWhat we know for sure is that one day after Hitlers suicide Martin Bormann (NSDAP Party official close confidant of Hitler) and Ludwig Stumpfegger (Hitlers personal doctor) along with several others tried to escape from the Führerbunker and leave Berlin. Among them also was Hans Baur, Hitlers personal Pilot. They tried to escape on foot but failed and Bormann and Stumpfegger eventually committed suicide in the streets of Berlin. Baur was seriously wounded and became a Soviet PoW. To my knowledge, the only high party offical escaping Berlin from the Führerbunker in May 1945 was Artur Axmann (Leader of the Hitler Youth). He as arrested in December 1945 in the german city Lübeck.\n\nJournalist P. O'Donnell claims Hans Baur offered to help Hitler escape by plane in late April 1945 but Hitler refused (from his book 'The Bunker'. OCLC Number: 1603646). O'Donnell based his book on several interviews with surving occupants of the Führerbunker. However his work remains controversial for several reasons (discussing them would go beyond the constraints of my answer).\n\nIn conclusion i hope i made clear that escaping from the Führerbunker (and the encircled city)in May 1945 was / would have been extremely difficult. There would have been a high risk of being captured and despite all speculation i think its reasonable to assume that Hitler would have tried to avoid that at all cost. Because the Allies had air superiority in Germany and Hans Baur diden't try to escape by plane himself after Hitler was dead i conclude that an escape in the air was not viable option."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4cewq8/on_adolf_hitler_great_man_theory_and_asking/"
]
] |
|
1c4pmq
|
how sweating equals losing weight?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c4pmq/eli5_how_sweating_equals_losing_weight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9czelz",
"c9czj1o",
"c9czjv5",
"c9czml4"
],
"score": [
6,
4,
2,
6
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Your body sweats as a temperature regulation mechanism. Basically, when you exercise your muscles work hard, which makes them heat up. To maintain a good level of body temperature, your body starts to secrete sweat to cool yourself down.",
"You don't lose weight from sweat.\n\nYou lose weight because when you exercise (or even just continue breathing) your body breaks down fat and other resources it has into energy and also carbon dioxide, which you breathe out.\n\n**Most of the weight you lose is breathed out.**",
"Aside from the actual water exiting your body, it's not. It's just correlated; you're sweating because you're working out and working out is what makes you lose weight (probably doesn't apply to sweat just from a warm environment, though).",
"Everyone is accurate here in their responses just want to mention that if you sweat a lot from exercising or from a sauna, you may lose 1 or 2 pounds of water weight, but this is an illusory loss of weight as you'll regain it once you rehydrate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6z5cpy
|
What are the origins of US county boundaries?
|
Certainly (state) size matters, but it doesn't seem to be everything. Why are counties where they are? How much have they changed since states were incorporated?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6z5cpy/what_are_the_origins_of_us_county_boundaries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dmslnw5",
"dn9z39z"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There are currently ~3100 counties and parishes in the US, any sort of comprehensive answer on how they got their boundaries would not just be book length but series length.\n\nFor your chances of getting better answers is there perhaps a particular state or group of counties that caused you to ask the question?",
"Not quite the same, but I saw this question and it does relate to [this answer I wrote about Southern Country Courthouses](_URL_0_) as I touch on size there, so it might be of interest."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/70irz5/why_does_seemingly_every_tiny_county_in_georgia/dn4kwq9/"
]
] |
|
ylh76
|
Is there estimated upper limit for mass of a star before becoming a black hole? Is mass the only determining factor for if a star becomes a black hole or not, or what are the other factors?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ylh76/is_there_estimated_upper_limit_for_mass_of_a_star/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5wojkp",
"c5wq96z",
"c5wqltc"
],
"score": [
20,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"When discussing whether or not a star will become a black hole the only thing considered in most discussions is the mass of the black hole. In fact, the initial mass of a star pretty much determines that star's entire lifetime of evolution. However, there is one major assumption that we use in these discussions: when the star is formed it is formed out of primarily hydrogen, with measurable amounts of helium and all other elements (during formation, not throughout lifetime) are trace. This is a very valid assumption for the stage of universal development we're currently in- however in the future this will not be the case. At that point, the composition of the star will play a role in its development as well. ",
"There are a couple of key numbers, and as Weed_O_Whirler said, practically everything is determined by the star's mass. Depending on a star's mass, it will either expel off some of its mass and leave the rest as a white dwarf (as our Sun will), or - if it's more massive - will explode in a supernova, leaving a remnant behind. If the mass left in that remannt exceeds the [TOV limit](_URL_0_) then generally it will form a black hole. That's the maximum mass a neutron star - the second densest stellar object we know of, next to a black hole - before it can no longer support itself against gravity and collapses to a black hole. The [Chandrasekhar limit](_URL_1_) (mentioned in one or two previous answers) is the analogous limit for white dwarfs (which are a bit less dense than neutron stars), and a white dwarf which exceeds this limit (for example, if some mass is added to it) will collapse either to a neutron star or a black hole.\n\nThe physics behind determining these mass limits is pretty straightforward. All stars, whether a middle-aged star like our Sun or an old neutron star, are supported by an *equilibrium* between the star's gravity pulling inwards and some kind of pressure pushing outwards. A black hole is what happens when the gravitational pull of a star is so strong that no possible pressure can balance it out. The source of that pressure depends on which kind of star you're talking about, but as you increase a star's mass, you increase the strength of that gravitational pull, and eventually it's going to exceed whatever counterforce that pressure provides. The mass where that happens is your limit for collapse.",
"By the way you have worded your question, you seem to be suggesting that once a star has gained enough mass it will, as a result, become a black hole. This is not necessarily incorrect, but it's also not the only way that a black hole can form from a star.\n\nWhen a star becomes a black hole, it does so as a result of undergoing gravitational collapse. Gravitational collapse occurs when the internal pressure of the star can no longer resist its inward pull due to gravity. To illustrate this point: you and I can walk along the surface of the Earth without worrying about falling towards its center because there is a force which is counteracting gravity's pull. Gravity wants to pull us in, something else wants to push us out (namely, the ground beneath our feet). However, if you and I were on a planet which was much more massive (and therefore had much strong gravitational pull) it might be the case that we would be pulled into the very center of the planet and compressed into a small area.\n\nA star performs this same balancing act. It has a gravitational pull which wants to pull its matter inward, and a counteracting pressure that wants to push its matter outward. When a star experiences gravitational collapse, it means that the balance has been so upset that the pull from gravity overtakes the push from pressure, and the matter that makes up the star continues to fall inward until it has been compressed into an extremely small area. \n\nSo how could this occur? One way is the way that you described. A star could take on additional mass, thereby increasing its gravitational pull and pushing it over the threshold into gravitational collapse. Another way that this could occur is if a star runs out of the fuel it needs to perform the nuclear reactions (called stellar nucleosynthesis) that are occurring at its core. When this happens, the temperature of the star decreases and, as a result, the internal pressure also decreases. If you've taken any intro physics classes you've probably seen the ideal gas law PV = nRT which describes this relationship between temperature and pressure.\n\nSo to answer your second question, two important factors in determining whether a star will become a black hole are (1) its pressure and (2) its gravitational pull (which results from its mass).\n\nAn answer to your first question might be trickier (and perhaps someone else can chime in with an answer here), but I don't know enough about stars to comment on it. What you might be interested in, however, is what's called the [Schwarzschild radius](_URL_0_) of an object. Any object which is compressed into a sphere whose radius is its Schwarzschild radius will necessarily become a black hole. Wikipedia mentions some [interesting consequences](_URL_0_#Classification_by_Schwarzschild_radius) which follow from the fact that Schwarzschild radii depend on an object's mass.\n\nFull disclosure: I am not a physicist, so if I have said anything that is incorrect hopefully I will be corrected."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tolman%E2%80%93Oppenheimer%E2%80%93Volkoff_limit",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chandrasekhar_limit"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schwarzschild_radius#Classification_by_Schwarzschild_radius"
]
] |
||
4cbj8s
|
How do objects (or atoms) transfer their temperature to each other?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4cbj8s/how_do_objects_or_atoms_transfer_their/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d1gq48f",
"d1gqh9t",
"d1hd1kk"
],
"score": [
12,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"You could probably answer this question in a few ways, so here is my go.\n\nI like to think of temperature in the frame of statistical mechanics. When you tell me a temperature that means something to me. To me, a temperature is a measure of the average amount of random motion that a collection of particles has. It is the amount of microscopic jiggling back and forth that is going on.\n\nIf you put more energy in, you increase the temperature and things jiggle faster. So if you have two boxes of gas and you tell me that one is hot and the other is cold then I know that the hotter gas has a higher average kinetic energy per atom/molecule than the cooler gas.\n\nThe same is true for solids, a hotter piece of metal has atoms that are jiggling about faster than a cooler piece.\n\nSo what happens when we touch our two collections of gas atoms or our two pieces of metal together. Well we allow collisions to occur between the two groups.\n\nSince one group has, on average, atoms that are jiggling faster then when they collide with an atom of the other group then, again on average, there will be a transfer of energy from the faster one to the slower one. This means that the average kinetic energy of the colder group will increase and the average kinetic energy of the hotter group will decrease.\n\nSince we said that temperature is just a measure of how much kinetic energy there is then we can also say that the temperature of the hotter group has decreased and that of the colder group has increased.\n\nOnce you can see this then a lot of how heat transfer. Imagine we have a piece of metal and we apply some heat to the surface in the form of a flame.\n\nThe flame is hot because it's constituent particles have a lot of random jiggling motion. When these hot particles collide with the surface of the metal they transfer some of this jiggling motion onto the surface atoms of the metal.\n\nThe surface atoms of the metal are connected by atomic bonds (essentially little springs) to interior atoms and those are connected to yet further inside atoms still. Through these bonds the jiggling motion of the outer atoms is passed to the next layer and to the next and so on. This is how heat spreads through a solid.",
"Transfer of kinetic energy in conduction. In fluids you have both kinetic energy transfer and convection which mixes the fluid. And in radiation (like hear from the sun) we have electromagnetic waves being created by one object and then absorbed by another.\n",
"Imagine a pool ball. You hit it it goes at a certain velocity, now it hits a bunch of balls on its way. The balls all start moving, the original ball may still move but not as fast as when you first hit it. It has transferred some of its kinetic energy to the other balls.\n\n\nThat's the primary way that heats get transferred. \n\n(then you have secondary effects like radiations, a heated object will emit electro-magnetic radiation to its neighbors. It will lose some heat as a result and the neighbors if they are colder will gain some heat. If they are the same temperature already then the effect cancels out. It is much slower than the other effect but if you're in outer space then it is the primary mean of transfer).\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
37ze9i
|
When did we learn that sperm was the cause of our lives?
|
When did humans learn that we were a little sperm before birth?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/37ze9i/when_did_we_learn_that_sperm_was_the_cause_of_our/
|
{
"a_id": [
"crr5wqt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"People understood the importance of ejaculate for thousands of years. Of course, people wondered how this amazing stuff worked, and ejaculate was among the first things intensely studied by [Anton Van Leeuwenhoek](_URL_1_), who is credited with inventing the first microscope.\n\nThis led to the discovery of sperm, and a subsequent debate about whether sperm are really the origin of the embryo, rather than the egg. \n\nA nice discussion of the topic is [here](_URL_0_)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://10e.devbio.com/article.php?id=65",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antonie_van_Leeuwenhoek"
]
] |
|
177o62
|
Diluted red wine changes color at a certain concentration. What's happening here?
|
While doing dishes, I noticed that a couple of glasses containing 1/4 teaspoon or so of dark red wine did a nifty color changing trick.
If you slowly fill the cup with water, the red wine dilutes and becomes a barely detectable pink color. At a certain point, it seems somewhere around 6-10oz of water for 1/4 teaspoon of wine, the water rather abruptly takes on a faint blue tint.
I can replicate this at will with clean glasses and clean water, so it can't be contamination from dish detergent or the like.
Is this a trick of chemistry, or light?
**EDIT**: I did a bit more experimenting, and I noticed an interesting detail. I tried it with three different wines, a blush, a cheap blend that is very much brick red in color, and another red wine that's more of a very deep purple/burgundy. Only the burgundy colored wine worked.
I also tried it in a glass from dinner last night that just had the dry residue from some of the burgundy wine left in it, and it worked. This excludes the alcohol from being a potential factor.
~~So I've conjured a hypothesis. I'm thinking that there are tannins or other components that reflect both red, and blue light in red wines, hence the purple appearance of the wine that worked. In the wine that's more brick red color, the blue tannins are less prevalent, hence the more pure red color. Perhaps the agent responsible for the red coloring requires a higher overall concentration than the blue, or is more affected by the water in some other fashion, so once the solution gets to a certain point, the blue color becomes predominant.~~
**EDIT 2: At the suggestion of a couple of friends, I dropped some vinegar in there to see if it's a pH thing, and it is! The vinegar turns the mixture back to pink.** The tap water here must be a base, and at a certain pH, something in the wine turns from red to blue. I can juggle the colors back and forth by adding a little vinegar or baking soda, so I've obviously got a pH indicator here. I'm dying to know what the chemistry behind this is now!
Some Googling suggests that phenols can do this, at least some of them, and red wine is rich in phenols. The color seems to be backwards from phenolphthalein though.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/177o62/diluted_red_wine_changes_color_at_a_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c82zcfe",
"c8335la",
"c8336kc",
"c834w5z"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't know what your chemistry background is, but if the pigments in the wine form a solution that behaves according to the Beer-Lambert law you should see a simple lightening of the color, so it could be a chemical deviation (_URL_0_, or google Beer's Law deviations) of one or more pigments present. ",
"So when you observe this phenomenon, you are adding what type of water? Sink water containing soap, or clean(ish) tap water?",
"You wouldn't be comparing against phenolphthalein - rather, you should be comparing it to [litmus](_URL_0_) - which belongs to the same class of chemicals found in your wine, known as anthrocyanins - which is red in acidic solution and blue in basic solutions.\n\nThe main concept behind a dye as a pH indicator relies on the electronic structure of the protonated and deprotonated states. Organic dyes consist of large, conjugated systems, and the general rule is the larger the system, the larger the wavelength of light it will absorb. A benzene ring generally absorbs in the UV region, and larger rings will push the absorption down to the visible range. The conjugated system will be disrupted, either from being protonated or deprotonated, thus shifting the peak absorption wavelength and producing a colour change.\n\nFor example, in [phenolphthalein](_URL_1_), in acidic solutions (excluding pH < 0) it is colourless. If you examine the structure at those pH, you'll see that the three phenyl rings are separated. However, when deprotonated, you can see a double bond on one of the rings that link to the central carbon, connecting the conjugated systems and shifting the absorption maximum down from UV to blue/violet, leaving the intense pink colour you observe.",
"Red cabbage has an anthocyanin, flavin, that is a terrific pH indicator (which can be the basis for a nifty demonstration for school children). According to my very brief search, grapes have flavin, too, so I might suspect that it (or another anthocyanin) makes it into the wine intact, causing the effect that you saw. \n\nWay to go on noticing that - it's awesome! "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beer%E2%80%93Lambert_law#Deviations_from_Beer-Lambert_Law"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Litmus_paper",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phenolphthalein"
],
[]
] |
|
54tixf
|
What is the current consensus on the Nixon administration's involvement in the Pinochet coup?
|
The CIA back in August declassified (but did not fully unredact) '60s/'70s-era presidential briefings to Nixon, including 9/11/1973 and 9/12/1973 for Chile.
Have the declassified documents revealed anything historians either suspected or did not know, even despite the still redacted portions?
_URL_2_
_URL_0_
_URL_1_
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54tixf/what_is_the_current_consensus_on_the_nixon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8556hx"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"I researched this extensively during my time at university using the declassified documents and came to the conclusion that while the United States desired the removal of Allende and actively worked against his administration, the United States was not directly responsible for the coup that saw Pinochet come to power. Now I say not directly because the CIA was very much responsible for creating the environment that led to the military coup. To explain this, I'll start from the beginning.\n\n\nSalvador Allende first ran for the presidency in 1952, this first attempt was unsuccessful. He ran again in 1958. This attempt met with the same result but with one distinct difference, the United States had taken an interest in the Leftist candidate. Until 1958, the US had not seen Allende as a threat, now the threat of a communist Chile was a possibility. Salvador was gaining popularity and as a result the CIA was directed to begin spoiling operations to prevent Allende from being elected to office. These operations included the funding of the Chile's Christian Democratic Party or the PDC. Thanks largely to CIA support, which amounted to US$ 2.6 million, half of the party's official budget, the PDC was elected to office in the 1964 with Eduardo Frei as President. However, Allende maintained his presidential aspirations and ran for the presidency in 1970. Unlike his previous attempts and despite the efforts of the CIA to prevent it, Allende received the majority of votes and was elected to office on September 4. It is worth noting that the KGB was funding Allende's campaign at the time, contributing to the United States' paranoia that Chile had the potential to become another Cuba. Allende became the first 'socialist to be democratically elected to the position of president, setting a precedent the United States saw as unacceptable according to a [transcript of a conversation](_URL_2_) that took place between Dr Henry Kissinger and Secretary of State William Rogers. Two months after Allende's election, Henry Kissinger, the National Security Advisor to the Nixon Administration, published a memorandum outlining the position the US should take towards Chile.\n\n\nIn Kissinger's own words, the memorandum “considered the question as to what strategy the US should adopt to deal with an Allende Government in Chile.” However, covert operations were already in place to prevent Allende from being voted in by Chile's congress. This came in the form of Track I, the plan by the state department to install Allende's political opponent Jorge Alessandri. A hand written note by CIA director Richard Helms records President Richard Nixon's orders to ensure this. Eleven days after being elected to power by the Chilean people, Nixon ordered the CIA to “save Chile!” and made ten million dollars available for the operation. Nixon also gave the infamous order to “[make the economy scream](_URL_6_),” something the CIA would achieve later in Allende's three-year term as president. The day after Nixon issued this order, Richard Helms held a planning meeting for what would become Project FUBELT, the CIA operation to unseat Allende through a military coup and part of the Track II plan. The minutes of this meeting detail the President's orders from the day before. The [meeting set the groundwork for CIA operations](_URL_7_) against Allende including the possibility of a coup. In truth, the CIA had begun monitoring possible coups in Chile as early as 1968. This included both ill-fated Viaux Plots, one of which saw the Chilean constitutionalist army Commander-in-Chief General Rene Schneider shot and killed. Although the CIA was in contact with Viaux, a declassified Agency report states that the CIA had decided not to support the attempted coups as they had determined that such attempts would fail. However the same document states that the CIA would support a military coup if it had a chance of succeeding. All CIA operations to prevent Allende gaining office failed, [the blame for which fell on Helms and the US Ambassador to Chile Edward Korry](_URL_1_). However, the Track II plan continued in the guise of economic pressure.\n\n\nDespite failing to prevent Allende's election to the presidency, The CIA nor the United States government stopped working against Allende. Henry Kissinger was the architect of the idea of an economic blockade of Chile. As Chile depended largely on the US dollar and US materials for its industries, The United States was able to cut loans, foreign aid, financing and materials, plunging Chile into an economic crisis. President Nixon's order to “make the economy scream” was becoming a reality. In August of 1972, a series of strikes began in Chile. At the head of these actions were the truck drivers. Chile had little in the way of a railway system so the vast majority of goods had to be moved by truck. The stop work action crippled the Chilean economy, stopping the delivery of food and sowing discontent amongst the population. According to a [CIA intelligence bulletin](_URL_4_), the Chilean Department of Investigation had received requests to investigate foreigners living in Chile who were manipulating the strikes. It has since been discovered that the CIA were manipulating the strikes as part of the Track II plan to cripple Chile's economy. The PDC was a strong supporter of the strikes and had been receiving funds from the CIA since Track I was put in place. These funds were passed onto the strikers, prolonging the strikes and bringing the Chilean economy to a halt. Striking truck drivers interviewed by [Time Magazine admitted that money for food came from the CIA](_URL_3_). As a result of the strike, Allende was forced to use the military to bring an end to the strikes, reopen roads and stores whose owners had joined the truckers. This hardline approach was not received well and Allende’s popularity fell as a result. It didn't help that the strikes had affected the planting of crops, causing a decrease of 16 percent in harvest forcing Chile to import more food, adding to the already mounting debt the country had. While the CIA continued to strangle the Chilean economy, the US military continued to provide arms and armament to the Chilean military.\n\n\nDespite a promise from US Ambassador Korry to Allende's predecessor Eduardo Frei in 1970 that “not a nut or bolt would be allowed to reach Chile under Allende,” the US continued to provide assistance to the Chilean military in the form of hardware and training. This has been interpreted as encouragement for the Chilean military to intervene in the government. This interpretation is strengthened by the actions of the Nixon administration in March of 1970. The Chilean military presented a shopping list of weapons and vehicles to the US valued at seven million dollars. This list included recoilless rifles, helicopters, artillery pieces and C-130 Hercules aircraft. Kissinger advised Nixon to offer the requested items to the military on credit as a refusal to supply the weapons could “cause resentment in the Chilean armed forces and sever our tenuous relations with them while there is still a possibility they might act against Allende.” It is clear that the Nixon administration was planning to use the military against Allende. In direct violation of their own policy of strangling Chile's economy, the US increased assistance to the Chilean military from 3,221 million dollars in 1970 to 13,540 million dollars in 1972. Assistance from the US government to the Chilean military was not only in the form of money but in training as well. Joint naval manoeuvres were held annually with the United States Navy and the training of Chilean personnel in the Panama Canal Zone. Figures garnered from the Church report into the CIA's covert operations state that the number of Chilean personnel trained in Panama increased in each consecutive year of Allende's term. It is certain that the cooperation between the US and the Chilean military allowed the CIA to gather intelligence on possible coup plotting as well as approach Chilean officers about the possibility of organising a coup.\n\n\nIt had always been the desire of the Nixon administration to see Allende unseated by a coup since 1970. The US however was unwilling to carry out the coup themselves so set the groundwork for the Chilean military under General Augusto Pinochet to carry out the coup for them. In 1975, the US Senate began an inquiry into CIA operations in Chile to determine whether the US was responsible for the coup in Chile and the death of Salvador Allende. [The inquiry was headed by Senator Frank Church and the findings of the committee were published in what was called the Church report](_URL_0_). The report determined that the United States was not responsible for the 1973 coup. It is clear from a released transcript of a phone conversation between President Nixon and Henry Kissinger that the US did not have a hand in the actual September coup. However it is also made clear by Kissinger's admittance that the US set the groundwork for the coup to take place “[We \\(the United States\\) didn't do it. I mean we helped them. \\(Omitted words\\) created the conditions as great as possible.](_URL_5_)” The conditions that Kissinger alluded to in this conversation were the results of the covert operations the CIA was involved in during Allende's three year term.\n\nContinued below...\n\n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/768527467006996480",
"https://www.cia.gov/library/readingroom/docs/DOC_0005993933.pdf",
"https://twitter.com/ZaidJilani/status/768527118573510656"
] |
[
[
"http://foia.state.gov/Reports/ChurchReport.asp#B.%20Covert%20Action:%201964-1969",
"http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/19730704-1100-Nixon4.pdf",
"http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/19700912-1215-Rogers3.pdf",
"http://foia.state.gov/documents/Pcia2/00000744.pdf",
"http://foia.state.gov/documents/Pcia2/000006f6.pdf",
"http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB255/19730916KP5.pdf",
"http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch26-01.htm",
"http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/NSAEBB8/ch03-01.htm"
]
] |
|
1ms9xb
|
What's the difference between a legless lizard and a snake?
|
They look very similar to me but what is the real difference?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1ms9xb/whats_the_difference_between_a_legless_lizard_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ccc6cmb"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"There are a bunch of differences between the two (skeletal differences, etc.). But one of the most obvious one is the legless lizard can blink (they have \"eye lids\"), while snakes can't (they have a modified scale that covers their eye all the time and have no \"eye lids\"). \n\nEDIT: This is just a general rule, there may be exceptions"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
aezfvx
|
what is the process used to make powdered eggs?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aezfvx/eli5_what_is_the_process_used_to_make_powdered/
|
{
"a_id": [
"edu4yim"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Spray drying is the name of the [process](_URL_0_)\n\nBasically, you splay the liquid (mixed egg in this case) into a fine mist. the mist enters a very hot chamber, causing the moisture to evaporate very quickly, but it doesn't stay long enough to actually cook the material you want to dry. this powder/gas mixture is pushed to a colder area where the powder is collected and the gas is reheated in a cycle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spray_drying"
]
] |
|
26k5nv
|
why do i feel extremely sick when looking at a cell phone or screen while in the car driving on the road?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26k5nv/eli5_why_do_i_feel_extremely_sick_when_looking_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chrsnae"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Your eyes are telling your brain that you are staying still because you are looking at a stationary object. \n\nThe part of your body that keeps track of balance and motion is telling your brain that you are moving because you are in a car.\n\nThese mixed signals cause some people to feel dizzy and nauseous.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nEDIT: this is a really interesting excerpt the Wikipedia page:\n\n > The most common hypothesis for the cause of motion sickness is that it functions as a psychological defense mechanism against neurotoxins.[5] The area postrema in the brain is responsible for inducing vomiting when poisons are detected, and for resolving conflicts between vision and balance. When feeling motion but not seeing it (for example, in a ship with no windows), the inner ear transmits to the brain that it senses motion, but the eyes tell the brain that everything is still. As a result of the discordance, the brain will come to the conclusion that one of them is hallucinating and further conclude that the hallucination is due to poison ingestion. The brain responds by inducing vomiting, to clear the supposed toxin."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_sickness"
]
] |
||
66lbnr
|
things 'randomly' falling over
|
Say that you installed a shelf onto your wall and placed books onto it. About an hour later, you're sitting on the couch, minding your own business, when suddenly a book falls off onto the floor.
Some might say that the book randomly fell off, but is there anything that determined when that book was going to fall off, such as a shift in energy? If so, is there a way to calculate when a poorly-balanced object falls over? Or is it just chance?
I hope I explained this well enough. Thank you in advance for any replies.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/66lbnr/eli5_things_randomly_falling_over/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dgjdw8u",
"dgjfpdy"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"There are different forms of stability. Something like a pencil lying on it's side is stable, there is no lower energy state it can fall to. Metastability would be like a pencil standing on end. It's stable in a local sense in that minute disturbances just make it wobble a bit and settle back. Tip it a bit further and it falls over into the low energy state.\n\nSo it's all a matter of how much your book is tipped and how close it was to the tipping point to start with. There are always little random disturbances happening. Vibrations from people walking about in adjacent rooms, air currents, sound vibrations, temperature changes. Maybe it slides a bit against its neigbour over time under the cumulative effects of these to the point that the next one takes it over the edge. When exactly it fell would be unpredictable, but due to definite physical effects not pure luck.",
"Just to add to the scientific answer on stability, there are a lot of things in your house that can introduce disturbances. The furnace or attic fan kicks on, a gust of wind, people walking around in the house, running water through pipes, these can all cause little vibrations through the floor and walls."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
79a46u
|
why does the water in a glass seem to rise above the edge?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/79a46u/eli5_why_does_the_water_in_a_glass_seem_to_rise/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dp0b21b"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"The 'surface' above water (or any other liquid) is called a meniscus. Water sticks to things, and to itself. When you see water in a cup \"climb\" the edge slightly, that is due to the water 'sticking' to the edge, and bringing more water with it. In many liquids, their sticking together force (cohesion) is stronger than the stick to other things force (adhesion). These liquids do not climb the edges of containers at all.\n\n**Specifically answering you:** When water gets above the edge of the glass slightly, it's cohesion is still stronger than gravity. When you add too much water, gravity becomes strong than its cohesion, and down the outside of the glass it goes.\n\n[phone spelling]"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1sv4op
|
what are the most important coding languages, why were they created, how do they work
|
What are the most important languages for writing code/building programs/games/website. Why were they created and what are the benefits of these languages and in what editors are they written. What I'm basically asking is: Can anyone give me an overview of the world of coding so I know how to approach it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1sv4op/eli5what_are_the_most_important_coding_languages/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ce1mq7n"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"A few of the most important programming languages today:\n\n* assembly/machine language - the language the computer speaks internally, all other languages get translated into this at some level...difficult to program in directly\n* C/C++ - a low level, efficient language that most large applications and operating systems are written in\n* Java - a higher level, more portable language many medium sized and web based applications are written in\n* C# - Microsoft's answer to Java, a less portal language that integrates well into Microsoft's product line\n* SQL - a specialized language for querying databases\n* javascript - only superficially related to java, a language that can be run from within a browser\n* Perl/Python/Ruby/VBscript - scripting languages, good for writing small programs quickly, often less efficient and scalable\n* COBOL - an archaic language popular with business programming, still a lot of it around on legacy systems\n* FORTRAN - an archaic language popular with mathematical and scientific programming, same deal as COBOL\n* Ada - a language designed by a gov't committee and mandated for US gov't projects in the 1990s"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
14ibb1
|
Was anyone else working to describe a theory of gravity at the same time as Newton?
|
Just wondering how long it would have taken to get the same theory if Newton never existed.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/14ibb1/was_anyone_else_working_to_describe_a_theory_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7dar4q",
"c7dbex7"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Goethe disagreed with Newton",
"You can read about some of them here: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mechanical_explanations_of_gravitation"
]
] |
|
5vjtyu
|
most phones these days become slow, laggy and battery inefficient in a short while as compared to older phones. why aren't long-term issues worked upon?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5vjtyu/eli5_most_phones_these_days_become_slow_laggy_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"de2spla"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Even today, you can still buy brand new \"feature phones\" that only do basic cell phone stuff, and they'll have a pretty amazing battery life. However, it would seem that a lot of consumers don't value this over the additional features that a smartphone can offer.\n\nPhones getting slow and laggy is almost always a software problem. Apps get constantly updated, and features that require more resources are often added in these updates. Sometimes the features genuinely require more resources to function, but sometimes new features are also just using the phone's resources less efficiently, because it was faster (aka cheaper) for the app developer to implement a feature that way. \n\nBattery inefficiency is a combination of new app features requiring more power, which causes the phone to consume more energy while they run, and the battery wearing out. A rechargable battery has a limited life span. They can only handle a certain number of charge-discharge cycles. When your phone goes from 100% to 20% every single day, you're using up that battery's charge cycles 5 times faster than if you went from 100% to 20% in 5 days. Combine this with new phones having batteries that aren't easily replacable, and you've got a pretty great planned obsolence scheme going on (but you're already aware of this).\n\nNew smartphones are actually able to function for a week at a time if the software just permits it. With a third party ROM, I've made a Galaxy S3 with a worn battery last 7 days on standby, but this was with almost all background processes disabled or not installed. Not even Google Play Services were installed, which are required for most apps' push notifications, and of course to let you use the Play Store. Often times, phone manufacturers don't bother with implementing good power saving features."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
vwqbr
|
why can't I see the edge of my eye sight?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vwqbr/why_cant_i_see_the_edge_of_my_eye_sight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c58bgue",
"c58bir6"
],
"score": [
2,
13
],
"text": [
"Your brain basically creates an image for you in your extreme peripheral vision",
"The only area in your field of vision that you actually can't see anything is where the optic nerve exits the eye as there are no photo receptors at this point [here's the wikipedia article](_URL_0_).\n\nYour peripheral vision mainly consists of [rods](_URL_2_) (a photo receptor) that are more sensitive than [cones](_URL_1_), which are better for visual acuity (sharpness of vision). This is why you can see things in your periphery, but it is not in focus like the center of your vision. This is also why you can see stars in your peripheral vison that disappear when you focus on them (rods are more sensitive so they require less light for you to perceive something is there).\n\nIf you want to see where the \"edge\" of your periphory is, hold your arms straight out from the shoulder, and move them until you can't see your hands anymore.\n\nEDIT: I'm thinking now you are actually asking why you can't consciously perceive exactly where your peripheral vision ends. The short answer is that your brain combines visual input with a map of your environment. Therefore, you can physically see things in front of you, but you are also aware of the objects that surround you, so your perception of the environment doesn't end with what you can physically see in front of you."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_spot_(vision\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cone_cell",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rod_cell"
]
] |
||
c25mou
|
carnivorous plants
|
How did plants go from gaining nutrients from the ground to being able to produce acids to consume insects and small creatures?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c25mou/eli5_carnivorous_plants/
|
{
"a_id": [
"erht2h9",
"erht3cv",
"erht6yu"
],
"score": [
4,
15,
2
],
"text": [
"Plants need to extract nutrients from the soil, but some soils are pretty pathetic and just don't provide enough to grow reliably.\n\nAt the other end of the Kingdom of life, bugs are vastly numerous and pretty damn dumb. A good number of them get stuck in flowers or harpooned on thorns or trapped in sap out of sheer stupidity. The plant doesn't do this on purpose, it's an accident. But, plants that are exceptionally treacherous start to accumulate a good number of dead bugs - and their nutrients.\n\nSo these plants find it easier to survive in the bad soils. This starts to produce a selective pressure for the plants to move into worse soil away from other competitors and get really good at accidentally slaying insects.\n\nAfter many generations of this, it's not an accident anymore. The plants with the most devious traps and spines have found a way to live in terrible sandy soils far from other faster growing plants by intentionally killing insects for supplemental nutrition.",
"Most carnivorous plants evolved their adaptations as way of gaining more nitrogen or phosphorus than what the soil would provide. They often occur in wetland areas where the water will constantly wash away any nutrition that would normally be in the soil. Nepenthes (Tropical Pitcher Plants) do not prefer to eat small mammals. They only catch them when the mouse, shrew, or occasional monkey try to fish out the insects and get stuck in the pitcher (which is filled with digestive fluid, that drowns the poor animal). Almost every other species of carnivorous plant is specialized in catching small insects. Some carnivorous species (mostly nepenthes) have even adapted themselves to producing a laxative in their nectar to cause bats and shrews to \"feed\" them as they eat the nectar. These plants are called \"crapivores\". If you or anyone else has any questions, I'll respond for the next few hours. I grow \\~65 different species of carnivorous plants. \n\n\nBONUS FACT :: Venus Flytraps are misnamed. They commonly eat spiders as their main prey item in outdoor environments due to how close to the ground they grow, and only occasionally catch flies. They should be known as Venus Spidertraps.",
"Pitcher plants are thought to have evolved from plants that have inwardly curved leaves to catch water. Insect could drown in the puddles of water, and many plants can absorb the nutrients through their leaves from those decomposing insects. Evolution then kicks in and those with the best ability to capture insects survive, especially in the nutrient poor soils that most carnivorous plants live in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
dsa1dy
|
why does appetite for food seem to lessen with old age?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dsa1dy/eli5_why_does_appetite_for_food_seem_to_lessen/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f6o70so",
"f6ofvox"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Your taste buds reduce and shrink with age. Therefore as you age, food will lose its flavor. If you have to eat, you would want to eat less volume of bland things if you have the option.\n\nAlso, seniors would have a lifetime of accumulated dental issues. If they have missing teeth or ill-fitting dentures, eating can be a annoying or even painful process.",
"One explanation would be is that old folks, on average, move around less than younger people. Many have some kind of disability or disorder that restricts their mobility. Since they don’t move around as much, they don’t expend as much energy, and so they don’t need to eat as many calories to balance it out."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
4gcpkd
|
why have most consumer products come down in price against inflation?
|
This question was inspired by this [chart](_URL_0_) [Original Source](_URL_1_). Essentially I'm wondering, how in a world of scarcity do some products manage to get cheaper against inflation while others have skyrocketed in cost.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gcpkd/eli5_why_have_most_consumer_products_come_down_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2gdpbp"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Assuming you live in the US, the recent strength of the dollar has made importing products cheaper. Retailers then reduce the price in stores to drive up sales."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.slate.com/content/dam/slate/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/01/why_poverty_is_still_miserable_cheap_consumer_goods_don_t_improve_your_long/nyt_cost_graph.png.CROP.promovar-mediumlarge.png",
"http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2014/05/01/why_poverty_is_still_miserable_cheap_consumer_goods_don_t_improve_your_long.html"
] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.