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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
8zad9w
|
why do objects kept in the pockets of trousers often make a white-ish outline in the material?
|
Frequently when I have worn tight or tailored bottoms, I find that my thighs have many of these marks from where a phone or keys have put pressure in the material. They're easy to rub out, but it always surprises how even in very black bottoms the marks are always very white?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8zad9w/eli5_why_do_objects_kept_in_the_pockets_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e2hr03j"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The hard object in your pocket creates raised areas in the fabric, and they do not give way when you brush up against an object. When you move around, you are constantly brushing up next to stationary objects, and your pants being soft, just move out of the way. But the hard items in your pockets can't move, causing the fabric above them to be pressed hard against the stationary object. Since the corners of those objects are the most prominent features, they will have the greatest amount of contact.\n\nThe result is that material from the stationary object can be transferred to your pants in those locations. Material like dust, chalky particles, and lint can all be wiped away fairly easily. However, over an extended time wearing those pants with the same objects in the same pockets, you will find that the fabric will begin to wear thin, and the dye in the fabric will fade. This can result in permanent lines, and holes may develop at sharp corners.\n\nMy older pairs of pants have visible outlines for my phone and wallet, especially those ones I wore while working."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
wn9j9
|
why should i switch from rgb to cmyk?
|
I'm an amateur graphic designer and all too often I'm told that I should produce my work in CMYK rather than RGB. However, RGB colours look far brighter and cleaner to me.
In fact, ELI5 - what the fuck is the difference between CMYK and RGB, not to mention Pantone and all that other stuff. Is it all to do with printing?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/wn9j9/eli5_why_should_i_switch_from_rgb_to_cmyk/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5erpve",
"c5es45l",
"c5eu58j",
"c5eud5y",
"c5eydnn",
"c5f1fse",
"c5f4k19",
"c5f88n7"
],
"score": [
11,
10,
6,
6,
2,
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Computer screens use [red, green, and blue lights](_URL_1_) in varying combinations/intensities to display colors, whereas printers use cyan, magenta, yellow, and black (\"K\"). By creating something in CMYK mode, you ensure your colors are more accurately represented when printed. If you never print anything, RGB mode is all you need.\n\nI don't know much about Pantone, aside from the fact that they make [these nifty things](_URL_0_)...",
"Use RGB for screens, CMYK for print. \n\nIf you send an RGB file to the printer he will either make the conversion himself with uncertain results or refuse to do it altogether. The reason for that is that he needs to separate your picture into four layers, one for each color, and print them separately, including black. In RGB there is no layer for black since it only means a non lit pixel on your screen.\n\nPantones are pre-mixed colors and require yet another layer. The problem with CMYK is that each printer might have his press calibrated slightly differently, or maybe his ink is older, or whatever can happen. Which means you can't be 100% certain that your work will be consistently colored. \n\nFor most people it's not a problem, the differences are often minute. But imagine you are Pepsi and you print material by the million all the time on every continent. You want your logo to be same blue every time and not greenish on some cans and purple-ish on some boxes. So you pick a pantone instead of a cmyk value for your blue, it is one color instead of a mix of 4 and every logo will look the same.\n\nThey are also very practical for effects impossible on screen, like metallic finishs. When you see something printed in gold or silver they used a pantone (or equivalent).",
"I have more practical knowledge, than theoretical, but here it is:\n\nCMYK takes away colours from white light of a piece of paper, while RGB adds colours to the darkness of a screen. If your work stays on computers (websites, icons ect) then use RGB. If you are trying to print something, then use CMYK + Pantone.\n\nTranslation between RGB and CMYK is not exact, so even if something looks perfect on a computer screen it may look like shit on a piece of paper. \n\nCMYK have some other issues with paint mixing (just like RGB will look different on different screens). You may get a beautiful shade of green with one brand of CMYK paints, but it'll look too pale with other brand. That's where pantone comes in. \n\nPantone is a catalogue of colours that have precise ingredients, so they'll always look the same. It's important if you have some sort of symbol that needs to look perfect everywhere. There is also no paint mixing, so you don't have to use that much of it. \n\nAlso, industrial printers (offset printers) don't use dots like normal ones, but plates. For CMYK you need 4 plates, but if your design has only 2 colours, then you may wish to convert them to pantone, so they'll need to use only 2 plates.\n\nTL;DR Basically CMYK is when you want to paint/print a picture, while pantone is when you want to have either exact colour of something or make simple graphic and save on paint/plates.",
"Well, heres the deal. The way images are made up on screen is with little dots of light that blink alot really fast, so fast that the image appears not to be blinking at all! Those lights are all made of Red, Green, and Blue. This is called **Additive color.** Basically the more you add the brighter it gets! If you go to your design program of choice, try adding RGB all the way to the top. Notice the more you add, the brighter it gets. Pretty neat right? So thats RGB, its pretty good for on screen work, meaning art that lives on your computer, television, ipad, etc. Its really just tons of little blinking lights, that are told what to do by the computer. They blink fast enough to trick your eye into thinking its an actual image. \n\nOK cool, but what does this have to do with CMYK? Well a lot and a little actually. CMYK is standard for printing. Why CMYK? Well its just worked out that way over a long history of time that I cant explain to a 5 year old right now, so sorry sonny just imagine a lot of smart people decided that was best, but the way it works is pretty similar in concept. You aren't seeing an actual image, you are seeing a lot of tiny dots printed over eachother to make blends. Go find a magazine and a magnifying glass and take a look up close. Go on, I'll wait...oh whats that, you don't have either because its 2012 and print is dead? Right forgot about that, ok so heres what you will see: [CMYK dots](_URL_0_)\nPretty neat, i think. It works the same way, with the the little dots, that tricks your eye into thinking its something its not. Its really just dots. This is called **Subtractive Color.** Basically, the more you put in there, the darker it gets. You can try this same experiment as the RGB in your graphic program of choice now. Slide up CMYK all the way, slider by slider. See, it gets darker. Huh...so what does this all mean?\n\nIt means to make an image on screen and to make an image on paper are 2 very very different processes. One is shining lights, the other is reflecting light. You need to convert your images, because they won't print right, and the color will be off. Now you asked why RGB is brighter? Because it is a color model designed around blinking lights. It's almost impossible to accurately show what CMYK images look like printed on screen. There are some companies out there that offer solutions to help make it more accurate on screen, but that only helps so much. To get an accurate image for print, you need to take test proofs on paper similar to how its going to be reproduced.(like if you are sending to a magazine, the same paper they have, or newspaper, etc) So it all depends on final output. Are you printing your image or does it live on a screen? \n\n* If its on screen, use RGB. \n* If its on paper, CMYK. \n\nLastly, when designing or color correcting for print, I highly recommend working the CMYK color model, because there are colors that RGB can make, that CMYK cannot. It's not impossible to print colors outside of CMYKs range, but its really tricky and expensive in most situations. \n\nSource: I'm an art director and designer for 6+years with a BFA in graphic design from a pretty decent art school.",
"Tdlr: printers use cmyk, use cmyk to get a printers best potential. Screens use rgb, use rgb to get the best potential of a screen.",
"Hey kiddo!\n\nSo there are these things called *primary colours*. They can be mixed together in different combinations to make almost every other colour! In preschool you learned that the primary colours for inks and paints are red, blue, and yellow... that's *almost* right, but you can get more colours if you switch blue out for cyan (which is a greeny-blue) and red out for magenta (which is close to pink).\n\nSo that's what the CMY in CMYK stands for: **Cyan Magenta Yellow**. If you add all three of these colours together, you get black! Since ink is expensive and making black from scratch wastes a lot of ink, printers usually include separate black ink as well, which is where the K comes from. It stands for \"**Key**\", but that doesn't really matter.\n\nAnyways, there's another set of primary colours that are used for light. CMYK is for when you're making art on paper, but if you use *lights* it's RGB! That stands for **Red, Green, Blue**, and if you had three flashlights with these colours you could make almost any colour by shining them on a wall together at different brightnesses. If you mix them all full-blast, you get white! That's how colours on your TV are made, with little flashlights called \"pixels\".\n\nNow for you really smart 5-year olds, think of *white* as pure light, and *black* as no light. **RGB are called additive colours**, since when they mix together they *add up* to be brighter and eventually make white . **CMYK are called subtractive colours**, since whenever you add a new one to the mix it *subtracts brightness* until it makes black.\n\nAlso, since you're five, I apologize for the years of annoyance that you are now destined for as your teacher tells you that the primary colours are red, blue, and yellow.",
" > I'm an amateur graphic designer and all too often I'm told that I should produce my work in CMYK rather than RGB. However, RGB colours look far brighter and cleaner to me.\n\nWell, yes, RGB looks brighter and cleaner, and there's a reason for that: CMYK is designed for printers, and printers aren't as bright or clean as computer screens. So what's happening in this case (probably) is that when you \"use CMYK\" you're instructing your computer not to use the whole range of color that your monitor can produce, but instead to try and approximate the color range of your printer using [color profiles](_URL_1_) for your printer and screen. The colors look less bright, but the point is that they will look close(r) to what your printer can print. If what you're trying to do is print your designs, it's no use to have them look really awesome and bright on screen if the printer won't be able to do the same!\n\nBut in any case, correct rule isn't to use CMYK always. Rather, the correct rule is to use whatever will match your output most closely. If you're designing a website, which will be read by people with computer monitors, then you want to use an [sRGB](_URL_0_) profile. If you're printing, then you want to use a profile for your printer. If you're doing both, then you want to use both—you may want to tune the output for the screen and the printer separately!\n\nAnother way of making the point: what matters is *making the output look as best as it can on each output device*; you choose what color spaces and profiles you use, and when you use each of them, based on that.",
"I'm about to save you a whole lot of confusion when it comes to learning color management. It seriously took me years of on'n'off study to nail this down, and it's absolutely shocking how many ostensibly authoritative sources out there are utter crap.\n\nThere are four basic concepts to color management:\n\n- color mode\n- color space\n- bit depth\n- color profile\n\nOften, these terms are used interchangeably because everyone \"knows what they mean\". In fact, the constant swapping of terms has led to a situation where no one ever knows what anyone else is talking about.\n\n**Color mode** defines how colors are represented numerically by defining the \"primaries\" as well as how the primaries interact. The primaries for a color mode are often colors, such as CMYK and RGB (cyan, magenta, yellow, black, and red, green, blue, respectively). This is not always the case, however. The primaries of the HSB color mode are hue, saturation, and brightness, not specific colors at all.\n\nAlso, how these primaries interact. RGB primaries are additive, and sum to white. CMYK primaries are subtractive, and sum to black.\n\nA **color space** describes the extremes of each primary for a particular color mode. This is why color spaces typically have the color mode embedded in their name, such as sRGB or Adobe RGB.\n\n**Bit depth** determines number of levels that can be represented for each color component between the extremes defined by the color space. Let's say you're working with sRGB color space, an 8 bit per channel (bpc) sRGB has 256 possible values for each primary. A 16bpc sRGB image has the same extremes, but more than 65000 shades of each of red, green, and blue to choose from. Higher bit depth gives smoother color transitions when using a gradient.\n\nA **color profile** defines a custom color space and a maximum bit depth for a specific device.\u0001 A “device” is anything that inputs or outputs color: a \u0002monitor, printer, projector, camera, scanner, etc.\n\nOften you'll hear people use color space and color profile interchangeably because a profile is a type of color space, it's just a color space for a particular device. That means when you need to specify a profile, you can stick in any color space as a placeholder. For example, when you go to print an image, that printer needs a profile specific to the combination of ink and paper you're using or it's not going to get the colors right.\n\nHowever, when you're editing the image on your monitor, you probably don't want to save the image with the color profile for your monitor because you might send it off to someone else that views it on a different monitor. Converting the image a bunch of times isn't good either because you start to get significant rounding errors, and one monitor might have a very limited range so if you do the conversion for it you lose a bunch of the colors actually present in the image. Instead, color managed applications leave the image alone and translate the color by loading the monitor profile in hardware.\n\nAnyway, hopefully this answers your question. Whether or not you realize it, whenever you print your image is getting converted to CMYK. This conversion is either being handled by you and you're controlling how it happens, or you're sending the image off to the printer as RGB and the printer driver is converting it invisibly and you don't have control of it.\n\nHaving said that, there are also printers out there that don't use ink, they use RGB lasers and expose photographic paper. In this case, whatever you had the print driver, it will convert to an RGB image because that's what the hardware needs. Hardware that allows you to use an additive color model typically can achieve a much wider gamut than CMYK devices because photographic papers are better at handling color than modern inks."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://farm1.staticflickr.com/136/349613923_f836eb6248_z.jpg",
"http://farm3.staticflickr.com/2412/2143377598_387fe6a50c_z.jpg?zz=1"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://atlas.nrcan.gc.ca/site/english/learningresources/carto_corner/cmyk.gif"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SRGB",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ICC_profile"
],
[]
] |
|
5peo3m
|
how do ticket-less rallies like the women's march calculate attendance?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5peo3m/eli5_how_do_ticketless_rallies_like_the_womens/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcql182",
"dcql1t2"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"We know about how many people fill up each area from previous inaugurations. We also can calculate the metro trips too for some ",
"Although the task of determining how many people attend something as large as say, a political rally or a protest may seem like a daunting, almost impossible undertaking to do with any accuracy, with some basic information, it's actually not that difficult to get reasonably accurate results.\n\nThe most well-known method of estimating the size of a given crowd is simply called \"The Jacobs' Method\" as an ode to its inventor, Herbert Jacobs. Jacobs spent a few decades working for the Milwaukee Journal before retiring into teaching journalism at the University of California, Berkeley in the 1960s. He thought up his very simple crowd size estimate method after observing numerous Vietnam War protests outside of his office window.\n\nJacobs noticed that the area the students stood on had a repeating grid-like pattern, meaning he could very easily count how many students occupied a certain amount of space by counting how many students on average seemed to be able to stand inside a section of the grid. By doing this, he soon noticed some patterns.\n\nFor example, Jacobs found that in the most densely packed crowds, each person took up approximately 2.5 square feet. We should note that this is the absolute upper limit of a how dense a crowd can safely get, as in, you simply couldn't fit more people into a crowd this dense without someone being trampled or worse, which is probably why most, including some scholarly articles on the subject we read, simply refer to it as \"mosh-pit density\". In a dense, but more manageable crowd, Jacobs observed that participants had a comparably more roomy 4.5 square feet whilst those in a \"light\" crowd had a positively breezy 10 square feet to themselves.\n\nIn any event, once he had the approximate average number of students in each grid, he could then easily calculate the number of grids in an area occupied at a given density, and quite quickly come up with a very good estimate of how many people were in a given crowd. Thus, the now Gold Standard, and remarkably simple, \"Jacobs' Method\" was born.\n\nThis may sound like an overly simple solution but the truth is, it's strikingly accurate when done by non-biased observers, and modern technology has only made it easier. For instance, tools like Google Earth have made learning the exact size and area of a location, as well as dividing an area into grids, an almost trivial feat for just about anyone. And thanks to ubiquitous media coverage, any large gathering of people is going to have video or photographic footage (if not just scanning the Tweetosphere for people in the crowd who may have gotten a good shot and posted it online). So breaking things down from there is relatively trivial. Of course, one could get really fancy and take a photo of an entire crowd and use a bit of custom designed image processing software to programmatically count the people in a crowd for a more exact number, but the extra level of accuracy here over the properly executed Jacobs' Method isn't really typically that much, nor all that necessary.\n\nOf course, when giving estimations, sometimes the news media or the organisers of an event do like to fudge the numbers a bit. Perhaps the most famous example is that of the Million Man March- a mass gathering of African Americans (mostly men) that took place in 1995. As you can probably guess from the name of the march, event organisers afterwards were very insistent that at least a million men had attended, with estimates going as high as two million. However, the National Parks Service disagreed and offered up a much lower, but still extremely significant figure of around 400,000 individuals. But when something is called the Million Man March, 400,000 seems a bit of a letdown, even though it's logically very much not; getting 400,000 people (about 1.2% of all African Americans in the United States at the time) to show up at such an event in Washington DC is really quite a feat.\n\nNevertheless, the NPS's estimate incensed a key player behind the march, Louis Farrakhan, so much so that he threatened to sue the NPS. As a direct result of the brouhaha that followed, the NPS is now banned by congress from estimating the size of crowds in Washington, at least publicly. As they noted, if the President asks them for how big a crowd was, they're happy to crunch the numbers given footage of the crowd. They just aren't technically supposed to use tax payer dollars in this way anymore, so wouldn't share that information with the media who, of course, could quite easily come up with their own estimates.\n\nSo how many people actually attended the Million Man March? While an exact figure is impossible to discern, most researchers are in agreement that the original estimation of the NPS is pretty accurate. For example, in 2004 a pair of researchers, Clark McPhail and John D. McCarthy, worked out that in the location of the gathering there would have been space for a maximum of 1,048,206 people assuming that every inch of the crowd was as densely packed as safely possible at 2.5 square feet per person. In the end, from the pictures available of the gathering, they determined that the NPS's estimate of about 400,000 was quite accurate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
9qdhre
|
Can you recommend a book on the history of western fashion (approximately 20th century)?
|
I looked online, but honestly I can't really figure out what is a good source on certain subjects anymore. I am looking for a scholarly, in-depth history of western fashion. I checked the reading list and the only fashion book I saw was African fashion. Thank you very much!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9qdhre/can_you_recommend_a_book_on_the_history_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e88s1hm"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I could have sworn that I put in a fashion section, but maybe I just suggested someone else paste my own list in. Anyway, I do have a [booklist in my profile](_URL_0_), though it does not have much in the way of description.\n\nHere is the problem, though - \"scholarly and in-depth\" generally don't go along with something as broad as an overview. If you want to read an overview of any period of time in fashion, in the sense of \"when and how styles changed\", you ideally want Phyllis Tortora and Keith Eubank's *Survey of Historic Costume*, which is the textbook in use by most, if not all, fashion history courses. For a more scholarly work, I'd need to know what topic you're looking for within that timeframe."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/profiles/mimicofmodes#wiki_suggested_books_and_articles"
]
] |
|
y9y6i
|
Gaius Marius and the Roman Republic
|
I was playing the classic Rome Total War and got inspired, so:
Did Gaius Marius military reforms lead to the end of the Roman Republic?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/y9y6i/gaius_marius_and_the_roman_republic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c5tnttv",
"c5tp04z"
],
"score": [
2,
10
],
"text": [
"That is a popular view, but I take a somewhat different view. Loyalty to the generals did not happen by accident. It came about because the Senate was generally bad about paying the troops what they were due. Had the senate kept its promises consistently, things might have gone very differently.",
"I'll refer to \"The Making of a Roman Army\" by Lawrence Keppie on this :\n\n\"Of all the reforms attributed to Marius, the opening of the ranks to the capite censi (the head count; the slice of Roman society without much property) has\nattracted most attention, and the unanimous disapproval of ancient writers. It has been\nheld by many in modern times, following the denunciations or asides of hostile ancient\nauthorities, that Marius’ action paved the way for the lawless, greedy soldiery whose\nactivities were thought to have contributed largely to the disgrace and fall of the Republic\na few generations later.\n\n**However, it can be pointed out at once that Marius was not the first to enrol the capite\ncensi; at times of extreme crisis in the past the Senate had impressed them for service, for\nexample, after Cannae.** Moreover, and more important, **Marius was merely carrying one\nstage further a process visible throughout the second century, by which the prescribed\nproperty qualification for service was eroded and became less meaningful.** The Servian\nConstitution, as reported by Livy, had ordained a minimum property qualification of\n11,000 asses for service in the legions; scholars have judged that this bar was in force at\nthe time of the Second Punic War. However, Polybius reports that the qualification for\nservice was 400 Greek drachmae ( = 4000 asses); we have seen that he wrote about 160.\nFinally Cicero, in a treatise whose dramatic date is 129, sets the minimum at 1500 asses.3\nThis last reduction could be ascribed to Gaius Gracchus in 123–122, whom we know to\nhave legislated that the state should be responsible for equipping the soldier fighting in its\ndefence. These successive reductions in the property minimum reflect a falling away in\nthe number of small or middling proprietors who traditionally provided the bulk of the\nlegions’ manpower. Already it would seem that by the time of Gaius Gracchus the\nqualification had dropped below the level at which the soldier could afford to provide all\nhis own gear. A further reduction below the figure of 1500 asses (or the complete\nabolition of the property qualification) could have been expected within the next\ngeneration.\n\n **Noticeably the sources do not say that Marius swept away the qualification (a\nfrequent assertion by modern scholars), or changed the law on eligibility, but merely that\nhe appealed to the capite censi for volunteers, whom he could equip from state funds\nunder the Gracchan legislation.** It could be argued therefore that there continued to be in\nlaw a property-limit below which the citizen could not be forcibly conscripted. On the\nother hand, nothing more is heard after Marius of any restrictions on the liability for\nservice, and it must be likely that the financial qualification was quietly dropped, either in\n107, or in the run-up to the northern war of 102–101\n\n**It must be stressed above all that Marius’ activities did not lead to any thorough\noverhaul or reform of the conditions of military service**. As far as we can establish, the\nsix-year norm, and the 16-year maximum, continued to operate. The compulsory\nenlistment of citizens continued during the first century BC, down to the time of Caesar\nand beyond. Yet it is probably true to say that the balance shifted further towards the\nnear-professional army. Marius himself may well have seen the enrolment of the capite\ncensi in 107 as a one-off action, to obtain at short notice the reinforcements which he\ncould see were vital towards a speedy conclusion of the Jugurthine War. Certainly from\nMarius’ time onwards we begin to find the aims and loyalties of the army and the state,\nhitherto largely the same, yawning apart, with the soldiery starting to identify with the\nfortunes of their commander, and giving higher priority to their personal advancement\nand eventual enrichment. But the process was gradual, and it is not at all clear that\nunbiased Roman observers of the first century would necessarily have regarded Marius\nand the events of 107 as particularly significant in the long-term.\nOne particular consequence of the Marian ‘reform’ of army service has been seen in\nthe consequent offers of land which we find made to the soldiers as a reward for military\nservice in the first century. It is true that veterans of Marius’ African campaign were\ngiven land there in 103 (some may indeed have never returned, or intended to return, to\nItaly), and measures for the settlement of veterans of the northern wars were being\ncanvassed, and probably brought to fruition, in 100. Presumably the land went to those\nwho by their service with Marius now completed the legal minimum of service, rather\nthan to all-comers. **However, there is no indication (and indeed evidence to the contrary)\nthat land or a cash gratuity became a regular feature of military service in the following\ncentury. The Senate was openly hostile to such rewards, whenever suggested, and most\ngenerals felt disinclined to press for special treatment.** It was only under the stress of civil\nwar conditions that land plots and cash gratuities were regularly offered,\nand obtained. \""
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
6luigk
|
why does a weird wavy patter appear if a small chequered pattern moves across a screen?
|
*Pattern
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6luigk/eli5_why_does_a_weird_wavy_patter_appear_if_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"djwnx2s"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"As always, there's [a relevant xkcd](_URL_0_) for that!\n\nWhat you're seeing is a [moiré pattern](_URL_1_), which happens when a repeating pattern (lines, dots, a grid, etc) is more fine than the sensor/resolution of whatever is photographing or displaying it. Think of aliasing in videogames, where an angled line has to be represented with square pixels and can end up looking blocky and \"jaggy\" as a result. Moiré patterns are similar in that the camera or screen just can't capture every detail of the pattern and so some of the pixels end up shifting around to try to approximate it as best it can."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://xkcd.com/1814/",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moir%C3%A9_pattern"
]
] |
|
ffst65
|
how does thermal imaging work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ffst65/eli5how_does_thermal_imaging_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fk0brv8",
"fk0cgbf",
"fk0e8ea",
"fk0soff",
"fk0wdzo",
"fk10xkd",
"fk12odj",
"fk1u2in",
"fk1vjh5"
],
"score": [
2,
664,
35,
6,
2,
6,
13,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"You build a camera that can see the color of light just slightly lower than red on the spectrum.\n\nThen show the intensity of this light as a color scale. White for a lot of intensity, black for none.",
"Heat sources emit electromagnetic radiation with a frequency respecting to their temperature. The visible spectrum of EM radiation ranges from red to violet. The sun's surface is about 5000 Kelvin hot and our eyes happen to see this light. Infrared means that the frequency of the EM radiation coming from an object is below the visible specrum due to lower temperature than the sun, anyway it can still be detected and it's frequency measured pretty accurately.\n\nBut How do we get a picture we CAN see?\n\nLike digital cameras have light sensitive chips that render visible light directly to true red- green- and blue information in their memory, we can build a chip that detects light of lower frequency and renders it to any other colour and intensity value in real time.\n\nIt's just a microchip doing real time calculus, mapping the gathered frequency and intensity information to another color map we can display and see.",
"To summarise in a genuinely simple ELI5-way: all objects with any heat at all emit infrared waves. Thermal imaging simply uses sensors/cameras that \"see\" infrared instead of visible light, and converts it to light we can see.\n\nTechnically speaking, humans even emit visible light. It's just such a ridiculously tiny amount that you can't tell.",
"Electromagnetic radiation is a wave-like physical phenomenon that takes different names depending of its frequency, i.e. how fast the wave oscillates. \n\nThe radiation our eyes can detect we call it visible light. But radio waves, microwaves, x-rays, gamma rays, infrared and ultraviolet are all 'flavours' electromagnetic radiation of different ranges of frequency.\n\nEvery object emits spontaneously radiation, most intensely on a certain frequency that grows as the temperature grows.\n\nThat's why heated metal starts to glow read: at a certain point our eyes can pick up its 'thermal' radiation. \n\nEvery room temperature object emits in a range of radiation called infrared that our eyes can't see. It's just 'before' the red color, that's the first we can see. \n\nIf you build a detector, exactly like those of a regular camera, but tuned on the infrared instead of visible light, you can obtain a thermal picture. \n\nThen you convert it on a scale of visible colors on screen to make our human mind understand.",
"Most heat is transmitted as infrared light. Infrared light isn't visible to human eyes. It's relatively easy with modern technology though to make a sensor that can detect it. Attach that sensor to a computer and tell the computer to display the different levels of heat as different colors and boom: thermal imaging.\n\nBonus science: the discovery of IR is one of my favorite science stories. If you were to guess when IR was discovered what year would you think? Whatever your guess I bet it was a lot later than the answer: 1800. William Herschel discovered it by accident with a thermometer.\n\nHe had set up a prism to refract sunlight onto a table. He put thermometers down in each of different colored bands on the table because he wanted to see if there was a difference in the colors of light. He also wanted a control temperature for the ambient room temperature so he had an additional thermometer on the table just past the red light on the end. When he checked his readings he discovered that there was indeed temperature differences between the various colors. That was interesting, but what was especially surprising was that his \"control\" thermometer had the highest temperature reading of all. That initially made no sense, but with some additional expiramentation he determined that there most be an additional band of non-visible light beyond the red that carried a lot of heat energy. He called it infrared for \"below red\".\n\nImagine that. A guy discovered an invisible part of the electromagnetic spectrum by *accident* using a *thermometer.*",
"Actual ELI5:\n\nWhen things get hot, they let out tiny invisible waves,\n\nThese waves are captured by a special lens\n\nThe waves then hit a tiny special component, and the material gets hotter\n\nWhen it heats up, its electrical resistance changes\n\nEach tiny special component corresponds to a pixel on the display\n\nThe pixel just shows a unique colour for each resistance (/temperature)\n\nPut many pixels together, and you have a colourful picture of resistance/temperature values in the form of colour",
" \n\nThe analog value from the pixels detectors are converted to digital values, usually already in the chip. These digital values are going thought some calculation to correct for difference sensitivities in the pixels to get consistent values. So that a specific digital value always corresponds to the same temperature regardless of differences in pixels detectors. After this each value is mapped into palette that converts it to RGB that is displayed. The palette are usually selectable by the user. In addition to this there might also be some math converting the values to temperature if it is what you want. The detectors can be of different types. Very common today is bolometric detector elements. Each element are heated by the received radiation. And the change in resistance caused by this heating are measured. All this is made in real time. \n\n\n ( from somebody developing IR cameras at FLIR for 25 years )",
"A microbolometer is used for most thermal cameras. This is a fancy name for an array of a large number of temperature sensors.\n\nInfrared radiation is emitted by hot objects. This causes the individual pixels in the microbolometer to warm up. The change in temperature is measured by an electronic circuit, in much the same fashion as a digital image sensor measures the change. This is displayed using a defined thermal \"palette\" - hotter colours usually appearing brighter or more yellow/red.\n\nBecause the wavelength of the infrared light is much longer (8 to 13 micrometers compared to 450 to 700 nanometers - about twenty times larger) it is necessary to have much larger sensor pixels than an ordinary camera. The sensors also need to be kept apart from each other, so that they can produce an accurate image without the adjacent sensors causing too much interference. This means that thermal cameras generally have a low resolution. Most are under 160 x 120 pixels - which is about 400x less pixels than a smartphone camera (19.2Kpixels vs 8Mpixels). \n\nSome microbolometer sensors have cooling to reduce their sensitivity to changes in the environment. Other sensors use a shutter, which is made of metal, so its temperature can be measured easily by a separate sensor. This provides a calibration factor. The shutter needs to be put in front of the sensor periodically to measure the reference temperature and compensate for errors in the sensor. If you have heard a thermal imaging camera \"click\" and have the image update pause, this is because it is calibrating. More advanced thermal cameras have a continuously rotating shutter that means the image doesn't get updated. \n\nOther technologies are used for thermal imaging (old cameras often used vidicon tubes optimised for thermal applications) but microbolometers are how the majority of thermal imaging cameras function.\n\nFun bonus fact: Because thermal imaging cameras are valuable in military operations, they are restricted to 9 Hz refresh rate (9 frames per second) for consumer applications. This is ostensibly intended to stop people using them for combat operations. \n\nAdditional bonus fun fact: FLIR makes the most thermal imaging sensors and holds a patent on a thermal imager with more than 14 thermal imaging sensors in a row. To work around this patent, a competitor, Raytheon, deliberately disables every 13th thermal imaging pixel on their thermal imaging array. The missing pixels are replaced with estimates from the adjacent area. Patents like these shouldn't be granted, but it goes to show why when writing a patent application, you should consider how it will be worked around.",
"Step1: Thermal emission. Everything everywhere is constantly emitting photons based on its temperature. The energy distribution of the photons depends on the temperature of the object, but the sheer number of photons depends on the emissivity of the object as well. Things that conduct heat easier have a higher emissivity, so if you have a warm piece of metal and a hot piece of wood, simple cameras that only count photons in a small range could see them as the same temperature. That being said, most cameras operate this way because temperature emissivity separation is hard to do and relative emissivity is typically what you actually want. \n\nStep 1.5: The air is in the way. It both absorbs some of the photons from the object and emits some of its own that you will detect. There's no way around this, but if you know how much air is in the way you can estimate how far off your measurements are. It's not really a step as you basically just do nothing. \n\nStep 2: Reception on the focal plane. Different materials are sensitive to different ranges of photons. Silicon is great for the visible spectrum and near infra red. If you keep going lower in energy (with something like geranium) you start to get to the level where you detect photons emitted by objects around you just due to their temperature/emissivity. As the detectors on the focal plane receive photons they kick off electrons and build up charge. \n\nStep 3: Digitization and processing. The charge on each pixel of the array is read. This is the digital count value. There is some read noise associated with this process, but modern tech is pretty good at keeping it very small. The camera now uses its calibrated look up table to go from digital counts to temperature. If your camera performs temperature emissivity separation, it does that here. Most thermal cameras however just assume everything has the same emissivity and give the temperature that a black body (something that doesn't reflect and only emits based on its temperature) would be to give that number of digital counts.\n\nStep 4. Display. We've decided that the red- blue scale is a good way to convey temperature information to people, so we color the pixels for display between red and blue based on the calculated temperature and show it to a person."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
29qhwr
|
We know that there's a superior speed limit in the universe, the speed of light. Is there an inferior speed limit?
|
An obvious answer would be "staying in place". If you don't move, then obviously, you're at the slowest speed possible. But the small things of which you're made still move between them, and the smaller things like atoms are moving. Also, you're moving through space.
So, how slow, or how close can you get to being *completely* still. Can molecules ever really be at a rest? If molecules aren't moving, what about atoms. Can the electrons ever stop "spinning*. What about quarks? Is this what absolute zero means?
Also, could we ever have a point in space which doesn't move at all. But since movement is relative to an observer, would that mean that if something is truly not moving in any aspect, then nothing in the universe is moving either? Is this what will happen because of entropy?
**Bonus question #1:** Can matter still exist without energy?
**Bonus question #2:** Is the universe currently accelerating/decelerating/constant in its expansion?
**Bonus question #3:** If the universe were decelerating in its expansion, would it at some point reach stillness (stop expanding). Once this happened, wouldn't it be logical that the universe would start to shrink because of gravity?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/29qhwr/we_know_that_theres_a_superior_speed_limit_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cinidc1",
"cinj84a"
],
"score": [
22,
2
],
"text": [
"Motion is relative. You can always construct a perfectly consistent picture of the Universe (called a reference frame) in which you're at rest, or a particular given atom is at rest, and so on. In other words, complete rest is whatever you define it to be; there's no way to distinguish motion with a constant velocity from pure rest.\n\nBQ1: Remember that matter is stuff, and energy is a quantity that any bit of stuff has. Energy isn't, as sci-fi movies and new age self-help books like to claim, some form of stuff as well. It's a *property* of matter. Can you have matter with zero energy? Not really. You have energy by moving, as well as an innate \"rest energy\" even when you're not moving (that's mc^(2)).\n\nBQ2: The expansion is accelerating.\n\nBQ3: If the Universe were decelerating (and until 1998 we thought it was, since gravity should pull everything together), then a big crunch collapse would be a possibility. But it wouldn't *have* to happen. The Universe could also decelerate, but at a slower and slower rate, so that the expansion rate slows down and slows down but never quite hits zero and turns around to contraction. This is a lot like launching a rocket at escape velocity (and turning the boosters off). It would always slow down due to the Earth's gravitational pull, but it would never slow down so much that it turned around and fell back down; it would just asymptotically approach zero speed.",
"Read [this article](_URL_0_) and you'll probably understand the topic about speed, relativity and time much better. \n\nBy the way, electrons aren't spinning. If they would, they would lose energy and that would mean they had to fall in the core. This question actually lead from classical physics to quantum mechanics. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fjwkh/why_exactly_can_nothing_go_faster_than_the_speed/"
]
] |
|
5fzxou
|
In the history of mankind, is it likely that two people have had the same fingerprints?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5fzxou/in_the_history_of_mankind_is_it_likely_that_two/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daornan",
"daowjqf"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"There have been people who have shared 15+ minutiae on a single finger. Unfortunately we didn't find this out until following a terrorist attack in Spain, where an Algerian? man bombed a rail station?, and fingerprints found on a detonator matched an American lawyer. However, there are 100s of minutiae on each fingerprint, ten fingers, and exponential ways that fingerprints can be arranged. Hypothetically, it is possible, but highly, highly unlikely thus far in history.",
"Order of magnitude estimate: \n\nApproximately 107 billion people have lived, or approximately 2^37. This means we could uniquely identify each person who has ever lived with a 37 bit number, or (approximately) a 6x6 grid of black or white pixels. \n\nWhat is the probability of collision, that is at least one pair of people having the same fingerprint(s), as a function of the entropy of fingerprint(s)? This is similar to the [birthday paradox](_URL_0_). The easier approach is to find the probability that no two people share fingerprints. \n\nIf N is the number of possible fingerprints, and K is the number of people, the probability of no collisions is [N choose K] * k! / n^k. This expression is difficult to evaluate for large numbers, but the number of people k needed to have a collision with 50% probability scales asymptotically as k~sqrt(n), implying that at 74 bits of entropy we'd have about a 50% change of at least one collision.\n\nIf we wanted to be really sure, say 99.5% sure that no two people have the same fingerprints, we'd need about 80 bits of entropy, or approximately a 9x9 grid of black or white pixels. \n\nI'm unable to locate information on the entropy of fingerprints, but it seems like the amount of information needed to store all prints is much much larger than ~80 bits. On the other hand, it seems plausible to me that a single print could be stored in fewer than 80 bits, meaning that collisions of individual prints are possible. \n\n\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Birthday_problem"
]
] |
||
2e0q69
|
If you throw the water out of a glass, in space, would the water move or remain in the glass?
|
Like the action of throwing water out of a glass but in space? Causing an argument over dinner and need an answer!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2e0q69/if_you_throw_the_water_out_of_a_glass_in_space/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjv60u6"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"If your throw was very weak, surface tension may be strong enough to keep the water in the glass, but a reasonable amount of acceleration would probably be enough to overcome surface tension and allow the water to freely flow from the glass. You would probably cause one or a few large globs of water to come out of the glass and start floating around. Surface tension is very strong and would ensure that the water does not fragment into many small droplets (which are less favorable than one large droplet because they require a higher surface area). There are [many good youtube videos](_URL_0_) showing how water behaves in space."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=water+in+space"
]
] |
|
8jtrz9
|
how many people lived in the city of Carthage in 150BC(IE right before the last punic war)?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8jtrz9/how_many_people_lived_in_the_city_of_carthage_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dz2m4x1"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Followup question how many people were there in Rome at this time?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
abfw81
|
why are burmese buddhists so violent?
|
Of the 3 major schools of Buddhism, all abhor and denounce violence. Of course, there are always exceptions, but generally, that refers to individuals.
In Myanmar(also known as Burma), there is systematic brutality carried out by the Buddhist majority government against the Rohingya minority. Many watchdog groups have already begun using the word "genocide" in regards to this particular situation.
Why are the Burmese Buddhists so violent? And why target the Rohingya with such animosity? This is the only major news of 2018 that I could never understand. Please explain like I'm five.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/abfw81/eli5_why_are_burmese_buddhists_so_violent/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eczz7hk",
"ed00x7x",
"ed020bm"
],
"score": [
28,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"They’re so violent because they’re human.\n\nIn Myanmar/Burma, the Buddhists are the entrenched conservatives. The Rohinga are the foreign interlopers to them that won’t let things be done the good and proper way. When social pressure and non-violent pressure didn’t get them to conform, those in power turned to violence.\n\nThe fact that they claim to be Buddhist is beside the fact.\n\nThe same type of people have caused violence to visible minority ideology groups that threaten their power base under the guise of pretty much every ideology out there.",
"Because Rohingya Islamic aggression towards Rakhine Buddhists has been going on for a very long time. How long? Since the aftermath of WW2. The Rohingya appealed to Pakistan to annex their territory, but Pakistan did not do so. Subsequently, many muslims fought in a separatist rebellion, and this rebellion stretched all the way to the 1990s, with terrorist groups later splitting off and growing (with reported help from countries like Saudi Arabia and Pakistan - worth noting that ARSA's leader grew up in Saudi Arabia, amongst its leadership is a committee of Rohingya immigrants in Saudi Arabia, and the group follows Islamic traditions, where recruits swear oaths to the Quran, address their leader as emir, and ARSA asks for fatwas from foreign Muslim clerics). \n \nIn the 1980s-1990s, the Rohingya Solidarity Organisation was the main group that attacked Burmese authorities. In October 2016, Harakah al-Yaqin, another terrorist group, attacked Burmese border posts, killing policemen, and another attack in November of 2016. Also, 24 August 2017, where the same group (now re-named Arakan Rohingya Salvation Army or ARSA) attacked police and army posts, resulting in 71 deaths. This was supposedly to drive out the Buddhists in order to create an \"independent\" Rohingya Muslim state/region. The next day, ARSA attacked the Hindus in the Kha Maung Seik village cluster, killing not just men, but Hindu women and children as well (in total 99). The men were separated from the women; the 56 men were executed first; then the women were raped, and they and their children killed. The declared aim of the ARSA militants was the ethnic cleansing of North Arakan of all but Muslim inhabitants.\n \nIn Rohingya-majority towns, there have been attempts by the Rohingya to subject all people, including the Buddhists, to Islamic Shar'ia law in the past, too. These attempts had to be stopped by the government.",
"It is the same reason as why Hindus have been lynching Mulsims in India for trading and eating cows. The religion itself is of not that much relevance as nearly all religions are religions of peace, the probably is people will go to extreme lengths to protect what they think is the correct path/religion. What is present is two groups that have different views, some of which may be offensive to the other group for a reason that does not seem that important to an outsider. If you add factors such as population sizes of each group, economic hardship, spiritual orientation of the countries leaders, eventually one group may end up in a bad situation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1hvl3v
|
Why doesn't a course of antibiotics for a urinary tract infection kill off all the good bacteria in my digestive system?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1hvl3v/why_doesnt_a_course_of_antibiotics_for_a_urinary/
|
{
"a_id": [
"caycjb2",
"cayd8vj"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"There are several reasons. Firstly, different antibiotics target different bacterial systems (eg protein synthesis, cell wall formation etc) and differences in these systems between bacteria make some bacteria susceptible to treatment and some not. These bacteria would survive, continue to divide and perhaps develop and pass on (through horizontal mechanisms) resistance to other bacterial species in the flora. Finally, and I think this is quite cool (excitement aaaah), it is thought that bacteria can seek refuge in particular regions such as the appendix and survive this way.",
"I forgot to mention that that's not to say that it can't happen. If all the \"good\" bacteria are killed off this can lead to really \"nasty\" bacteria taking over as there is little to limit them after this. \n\nAs an aside, if you're interested: Cystic fibrosis patients are mainly infected with Pseudomonas aeruginosa in the lung but are also infected with an abundance of other bacteria. Antibiotic treatment can disturb the balance of the bacterial populations and harm diversity. There is a bit of debate about this but it is thought that reduced diversity correlates with progressive lung disease whilst clinical stability correlates with greater diversity. So again, it is up for debate whether long term antibiotic therapy is a good thing for those with cystic fibrosis."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
ij0f0
|
Anyone out there an expert in opiate pharmacology and physiology?
|
I am attempting to research the process that causes sugar cravings from opioid medications. Specifically, Methadone induces significant cravings for sugar and as a result causes a large amount of weight gain. many people on methadone say that these sugar cravings are so intense as to be irresistable. This is true of methadone both used for addiction and for pain management, so it isn't an addiction based problem.
But, this effect isn't limited to methadone, it is observed in every opioid based medication. I myself am on fentanyl patches and have noticed a significant change in my food cravings, eating a lot more ice cream than I ever have in the past.
So what is the source of these cravings? I know methadone has been shown to change the levels of Glucocorticoids, specifically corticosterone in mice, but I don't know if that would lead to increased insulin production and sugar cravings through hypoglycemia. It could be another process like activation of the reward/motivation pathway in the "limbic system" of the Basal ganglia, or due to decreased release of cortisol or norepinephrine. I can't find a single study on this particular phenomenon, at least not directly addressing the question.
So does anyone know how the psychopharmacological impact of opioid drugs leads to cravings for sugar? And, a tangentially related question, what would be a way to reduce these sugar cravings and prevent weight gain and health problems? Is there any medication, vitamin or herbal supplement or mineral that would satisfy the craving for sugar but not increase blood glucose levels and weight gain?
So many thanks for any answers to this question.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ij0f0/anyone_out_there_an_expert_in_opiate_pharmacology/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2455qn",
"c245e55",
"c245m3g"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
7
],
"text": [
" > It could be another process like activation of the reward/motivation pathway in the \"limbic system\" of the Basal ganglia, or due to decreased release of cortisol or norepinephrine. I can't find a single study on this particular phenomenon, at least not directly addressing the question.\n\nThis was my first thought, and there is a good bit of research on this, though not that directly answers your question. Sugar cravings have been shown to be associated with activation of mu opiate receptors to release dopamine, and opiate blockers have been shown to *reduce* sugar cravings. Sugar also acts on those mu opiate receptors, and when you're already stimulating them with the opiate, your body is likely just craving more, and knows that it can get the same \"high\" from adding refined sugar to the diet. In someone already using fentanyl patches (likely for pain?) my guess is this advice won't work, but I'd recommend exercise or other natural ways to stimulate the reward circuitry to reduce sugar cravings. There are morphine blockers, but that would defeat the purpose of the opiate in the first place.\n",
"I'm not an opiate sort of guy, but I'll see if if I can help.\n\n[This abstract](_URL_0_) describes the effects of naloxone on glucose and insulin levels in dogs.\n\n[This abstract](_URL_1_) on opiate receptor blockade might be useful too. \n\nIf nothing else, both papers will have a very nice trail of references from the intro and discussion sections. I couldn't find free versions of either, though. So you either need to keep looking ([GoogleScholar](_URL_1_) is excellent for this), or consult a librarian.\n\n.\n\n > Is there any medication, vitamin or herbal supplement or mineral that would satisfy the craving for sugar but not increase blood glucose levels and weight gain?\n\nGenerally, no.\n\nTo anyone reading: This is not medical advice, always consult with your doctor when altering your diet. One could try switching to one of the non-caloric sugar substitutes. If you're trying to lose weight, making a food diary will help. ...so, keep a log of everything you eat and drink for one week, then switch from e.g. regular to diet soda, and see if this helps.\n\n.\n\nP.S. on Brain_Doc82 saying \"Sugar also acts on those mu opiate receptors [...]\"\n\nDon't read this too literally. While quite plausible that sugar is causing an activity change in neurons laden with mu receptors, I know of no evidence of glucose directly binding to opiate receptors.",
"I am. And I think I can answer your question, the other two guys have skimmed over one vital aspect of opioid pharmacology(not trying to be a jerk or anything, I'm guessing this came off as though I'm a dick), and there is a very good reason as to why methadone specifically seems to cause this more than other opiates. Some opiates can, and will bind to other kinds of opioid receptors other than just the mu receptor. The main reason you become hungry for foods that provide a reward(taste really sweet, stuff you enjoy anyway, just maybe not to the same degree) DOES have to do with the mu receptor in that you're getting more reward out of something already rewarding(being on an opiate, be it for pain or recreation you are going to feel rewarded using the drug) but the biggest reason has to do with kappa-type 3 opioid receptor(also known as the nociceptin receptor) which actually increases appetite. Methadone binds to MU, Delta, and Kappa opioid receptors as well as having, if very mild, some NDMA antagonistic properties. \n\n\nAlso, some people on medications for chronic pain notice they gain weight more rapidly than before, and there is a reason for that too--they are chronic pain patients, they're using the drugs to treat pain, naturally they don't exercise that often or that well(which can be one of the root causes of their pain, specifically lower back pain).\n\nWith regards to medications you could take to prevent this from happening, well only things that inhibit your appetite would really be effective e.g. ritalin. However, they aren't made for this indication and its really not a very good idea really, it would work, most likely that is, but I wouldn't really be willing to prescribe a stimulant this way(I'm not the kind of doctor who treats ADD/ADHD either).\n\n\nkeep in mind this isn't medical advice.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://ajpendo.physiology.org/content/250/3/E236.short",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0024320582905392"
],
[]
] |
|
c5z493
|
when a large company is broken up via anti-trust litigation, how is it decided who owns the new, smaller companies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c5z493/eli5_when_a_large_company_is_broken_up_via/
|
{
"a_id": [
"es50hg4"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The same people who owned the larger company get an equal percentage of each of the smaller companies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ago51
|
if the countries debt is so massive ($17.075 trillion?) why don't the gov't just go all out and spend even more? the amount of debt doesn't seem to matter
|
Invest in things like clean energy and such, it seems that amount of debt will never be "paid", so why worry about it?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ago51/eli5_if_the_countries_debt_is_so_massive_17075/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ciuwl7y"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It doesn't seem to matter but it does. Technically the U.S. has a great credit score when it comes to paying off its loans. Our total debt is massive, but in the past the US has always paid off what it owes. If the US were to spend without check, it is more and more probable that they would in fact NOT be able to pay back the debt.\n\nEvery year when you hear about the debt ceiling, this is the government deciding whether to raise the amount that the US is allowed to be in debt, or to default on our loans. (Meaning we say we can't pay them off). If the US were to default, baaaad things would happen, and the results would be pretty catastrophic. Will the US actually be ever able to pay off its debt? Debatable. Someone with more economics knowledge than me can probably explain better but thats the main idea"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
rbxb1
|
Can someone with a neuro-biology background tell me if this research is bunk or not?
|
My question is about this link:
_URL_0_
The link is an analysis of this paper:
_URL_1_
What I was curious about is the comparison he makes between these apparant 'fractal' levels in a brain exposed to psilocybin and those states observed in a person experianced in meditation.
If you think this is more than quackiness, do you know of anymore research along these lines?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/rbxb1/can_someone_with_a_neurobiology_background_tell/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c44k8ii",
"c44kdbx"
],
"score": [
2,
4
],
"text": [
"The only way someone can tell you if the research is legit or not is if they try to recreate parts of the experiment themselves... But since it has been peer reviewed and published I would venture to say that it has some merit... it would be more easy to confirm if I could access the full journal article. ",
"The Carhart-Harris research paper looks perfectly legit.\n\nThe interspersed commentary by Stuart Hameroff (great Scott! is he still at it?) is pure speculative fantasy."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.quantumconsciousness.org/upsidedown.htm",
"pnas.org/content/early/2012/01/17/1119598109.abstract"
] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ud3ot
|
if we managed to somehow go beyond the edge of the expanding universe in a space ship, what would we find?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ud3ot/eli5_if_we_managed_to_somehow_go_beyond_the_edge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxdtmpr",
"cxdu5hx",
"cxduy4u",
"cxdwvgd",
"cxe2syv",
"cxe30oo",
"cxe5ezc",
"cxe6iy5",
"cxe808b"
],
"score": [
19,
2,
61,
8,
29,
2,
2,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"If the universe is finite then the answer to that question is very simple and this is why the Universe is so interesting: We do not know.",
"This has always interested me too. They say the universe is always expanding but what is it expanding in too?",
"it doesn't have edges; relativistic cosmology describes a universe that curves in on itself, it's just like asking what would happen if you drove your car far enough to go beyond the horizon. The best way to picture the \"expansion\" is like a balloon being blown up; draw two points on the surface of the balloon and they keep getting further apart.",
"1. A greater multiverse. Would we be able to perceive it, who knows? Maybe it's made up of matter and vibrations we can sense, maybe not. Also, touching a boundary on our universe may annihilate it, causing another big bang or crush. \n\n2. You become the edge by expanding the universe. You are a part of the universe and therefore contain the \"edge\" of the universe if you pass prior boundaries.\n\n3. The universe is curved. You never reach the edge but continue on endlessly. Where do you end up? Who knows. The universe may be cyclic and you could run into the big bang again, a big crush, or never see anything ever again.\n\n4. Dickbutt. Upon reaching the edge of the universe, you may in fact find Dickbutt, because we all have no clue what may lie there. Right after the big bang, the universe traveled faster than the speed of light so: we may never be able to observe anything resembling an edge until we develop faster-than-light travel, a better understanding of the science regarding the same, or gain a more concrete understanding of universal physics. ",
"I posted this 5 years ago in r/physics. My daughter (5 at the time), said \"Oh, dad.. I know... past the edge of the Universe is everything that hasn't happened yet.\"",
"I wonder if people are overthinking things, what if the universe is just a little cloud of dust in an infinite void.",
"The real answer to this is: Nobody knows. There is no science that predicts what is \"outside\" of \"everything that exists\". Anyone claiming otherwise is full of shit, and you would be better served asking this question on /r/askscience, to receive a similar answer to what I just gave you.",
" > If we managed to **somehow** go beyond the edge of the expanding universe in a space ship [...]\n\nHere's the problem with your question. That \"somehow\" bit, if we unpack it, means something like the following:\n\n* Our theories of physics say that it's impossible for us to travel fast enough to reach past the edge of the expanding universe.\n* But for the sake of argument, let's assume our theories of physics are false.\n\nCan you see the problem now? You're asking us to *make a scientific prediction*, but *without using our scientific theories*. No can do.",
"There is nothing beyond the universe, not even empty space. The big bang was not only the creation of matter and energy, it created space and time as well. The expansion of the universe is really the expansion of space. If you ask what space is expanding into, the answer is nothing - the expansion is just creating more space. \n\nIf this doesn't make sense it's because nothing in the world that formed our evolution is anything like this at a human scale. It is counter to our everyday experiences. The survival traits we evolved didn't need to deal with things on the scale of the universe so we have to really stretch our thought processes to wrap our heads around it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
5erkj5
|
Does the heat produced by combustion engines have an effect on Earth's temperature?
|
Over Thanksgiving dinner my father and I were discussing climate change and the topic of heat generation came up. His argument is that since fossil fuels are essentially stored thermal energy, burning them is releasing that energy.
A quick calculation says that all the cars in America produce enough heat each year to raise Lake Michigan's temperature by one degree Fahrenheit. So that energy has to go somewhere.
I think he's missing something since we only hear about the effects of the chemical waste of engines and not the thermal waste.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5erkj5/does_the_heat_produced_by_combustion_engines_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"daf2a4d",
"daf2ewq"
],
"score": [
2,
21
],
"text": [
"The \"chemical waste\" also leads to heating, and much greater heating than that produced by the heat from internal combustion engines. Also, a lot of the energy from fossils fuels goes into move the cars.\n\nThe greenhouse gases, water, carbon dioxide and methane (from livestock), act as a 'blanket' for the earth, trapping in large amounts of thermal energy given off by the earth's surface/ atmosphere. The blanketing effect doesn't care where this thermal energy comes from. So if we were to reduce the waste thermal energy of cars, we'd still have that giant ball of fire constantly throwing energy at us and heating the surface. Greenhouse gases would still have a large source of thermal energy to trap.",
"Just made a quick calculation. [The world's yearly energy consumption is 104,426 TWh](_URL_0_). That's 375\\*10^18 J.\n\nJust 60 minutes of sunlight on Earth deliver 624*10^18 J (oversimplified Earth as a flat disc of 6371 km radius facing the Sun perpendicularly, solar power is 1360 W/m^(2)).\n\nSo, really, even if heat from engines does warm the environment up it's not by any significant amount. The real issue is trapping energy from sunlight and that happens because of greenhouse gases.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_energy_consumption"
]
] |
|
10qplq
|
How do up and down quark decays produce W bosons?
|
If beta minus and plus decay is thought of as an up or down quark decaying into the other version with the production of a W plus or minus boson, how is this process allowable given how much more massive the W boson is? Is it even a true decay process in that sense or is it something else entirely?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10qplq/how_do_up_and_down_quark_decays_produce_w_bosons/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ftc8d"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The *W* bosons created in this process are examples of *virtual particles*. They are able to exist for a brief period of time, despite what you would expect from energy/momentum/mass properties of the physical particles, thanks to the uncertainty principle, but for the same reason, they cannot emerge as part of a final, physical state.\n\nA short reddit post won't do the ideas justice. Let me instead point you to [Gordon Kane's piece](_URL_1_) in *Scientific American*.\n\nIf you want something more elaborate, check out [what John Baez](_URL_0_) wrote on the topic."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Quantum/virtual_particles.html",
"http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=are-virtual-particles-rea"
]
] |
|
40mjv0
|
There is a bird inside a large cargo plane. Does the plane weigh less if the bird flies inside the plane?
|
This question was asked [here](_URL_0_) and the popular answer is that the downward pressure from the bird's wing would push against the floor of the plane and have the same effect as if the bird were standing on the floor. I argue that this pressure would mostly dissipate before reaching the floor and have minimal effect, and that the lift created by the bird's wing would nullify any effect it had on the weight of the plane.
Any thoughts on this?
Edit: [I've created a diagram of a simple experiment](_URL_1_) I believe could test this problem, unfortunately I don't have the resources to do this myself. You can build the enclosure out of a lightweight but airtight material with one transparent face. Pilot the drone as high as possible within the enclosure to try to eliminate any ground effect. I'm almost 100% certain that the counterweight will drop as soon as the drone is near the top, if not before.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/40mjv0/there_is_a_bird_inside_a_large_cargo_plane_does/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cyvbmgv",
"cyvdj30",
"cyvjaz5",
"cyvq3vl",
"cyvxd09"
],
"score": [
260,
16,
11,
19,
12
],
"text": [
"The original answer to this question is of course correct.\n\nYou are wrong to assume that the \"downward pressure\" (or better said downward momentum of air) *dissipates* before reaching the floor. In fact it *disperses*. That means the momentum transferred by the wings onto few air molecules is then spread by molecular collisions to many more molecules. Each molecule carries a much smaller downward momentum, but the much larger number of molecules carrying some imposed downward momentum is much larger. Therefore the net downward momentum is equal and preserved when being transferred to the floor.\n\nConservation of momentum is one of the most fundamental laws of classical mechanics, therefore its sum always has to cancel in a closed system.\n\nThe situation is slightly different when the airplane has an open cargo latch. In this some of the downward momentum can \"escape\" the plane before being transferred to the floor. Therefore, the plane would weigh somewhere in between the empty plane and the plane with sitting bird, depending on the size/geometry of the opening.\n\n**edit:** \nI see that you have edited your question to include your experiment after I wrote my comment. Again, your expectation is wrong and the counterweight will certainly keep the balance leveled because the weight of the airtight can will stay the same. You would see a quick fluctuation when the drone accelerated upwards, but it will return to balance once the \"cruising altitude\" is reached and the drone maintains a level flight.\n\n**edit 2:** \nI wrote an explanation further down [here](_URL_0_) which might explain the problem of your expectation. Since it might get buried let me quote myself:\n\n > Also, air does not have to show a net flow in order to carry momentum from one place to another. This is the reason why waves can transport momentum without net transport of matter over large distances.\nIf you compare a hovercraft (floating on its ground effect cushion) and a helicopter (hovering at its ceiling altitude) the difference should be more clear. Both can hold their altitude by imposing downward momentum onto the air. In both cases the momentum has to be finally transferred to the ground. The difference, however, lies in the \"fate\" of kinetic energy (i.e. a net downward flux of air). While the hovercraft will generate this flux, leading to compression of air on the ground and local force acting on the ground (resulting in increased air pressure directly below its cushion) the air flow generated by the helicopter is dispersed and the kinetic energy of the air has dissipated before it reaches the ground. Nevertheless, the momentum is still transferred onto the ground, but now in a near infinite area. Therefore no net pressure increase could be measured on the ground below the helicopter.",
"Understanding [ground effect](_URL_0_) might be the quickest way for you to get a feel for what is going on.\n\nThe pressure from the bird is distributed, so if the cabin is closed then the weight will be the plane plus the bird (under normal positive loading). Any low pressure above the birds wing is offset by increased pressure underneath, which spread out to the air underneath eventually, and eventually the cabin floor.\n\nYou can also consider that, while negligible in the scheme of an entire plane, an airliner is also having to accelerate and decelerate the air inside it. It is moving everything within it forward with thrust and up with lift. These weights and forces don't ever magically go away.\n\nEdit: ground effect may make this easier to grasp because it highlights how there is intense pressure under the wings. Normally this pressure spreads out so much that it is not noticeable on the ground, but if you put wings into a space where the pressure can't distribute then you can more easily notice the effects.",
"its the same as if you have flies in a jar. the jar weighs the same no matter if the flies are flying or not. the force of their wings push on the air which pushes down on the bottom of the jar so the weight is the same all the time.",
"If we are to believe the plane would weigh less, then we could also conceive of a sealed container that weighs less than a bird. And, upon watching the bird take flight, witness the whole container float into the air.\n\nWhat if we replace the volume of the plane with water and the bird with a catfish. Will it weigh less regardless of where the fish is or how it's moving?",
"Imagine a tank of water in the plane sitting on some weighing scales. There is a fake bird in there pumping out water downwards in pulses to keep it from falling to the bottom of the tank.\n\nThe scales will always read the same regardless of whether the fake bird is keeping itself off the floor of the tank or resting on the bottom of the tank.\n\nThe real plane is no different. Air is just like water, except much less dense.\n\nWe tend to think of air as empty space though due to the way we interact with it day to day."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/40lxtn/eli5_there_is_a_bird_inside_a_large_cargo_plane/",
"http://i.imgur.com/46JOcoV.png"
] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/40mjv0/there_is_a_bird_inside_a_large_cargo_plane_does/cywgh10"
],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ground_effect_%28aerodynamics%29"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1x3847
|
Before the system broke down, how effective was enforcement of the parole system in the American Civil War?
|
As far as I can tell, the American Civil War was one of the last major wars where prisoners could reasonably expect to be paroled shortly following their capture (although I've read of limited uses as late as World War II). For instance, I've been reading about the Gettysburg Campaign, and during Stuarts raiding in late June, he captures a wagon train, and paroles the prisoners that same day.
So anyways, parole was basically a promise not to rejoin the fight. Make that promise, and you can go on your way. But I know that this promise wasn't always kept, since I've read explicit references to various men who were paroled and returned to their units immediately. I know that there were exchanges of names to end parole, but did this actually account for *all* returnees?
So what I'm wondering is, how frequent was this reneging on parole? Did no one abide by it, or was it generally respected?
If you did rejoin, and were captured again, assuming you weren't a notable officer, what were the chances it would be discovered you had not respected the promise of parole, given the lack of modern computer databases?
If you were found out, what fate awaited you? Imprisonment? Execution? Or just a "comon', actually go home this time" as they parole you a second time?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1x3847/before_the_system_broke_down_how_effective_was/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf84d5r"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"I'm still looking to find a complete answer, but I came across this fact that I didn't know before I started researching. Apparently there was a scale of which soldiers could be exchanged. For example, a General was worth more than one private in a one for one swap. I think of it like a deck of cards in that you aren't going trade an Ace of Spades for a two of clubs. Because of this,there were weights assigned to each rank/grade.\n\nThe following was pulled from the Dix-Hill Cartel of 1862 which goverened how prisoners were exchanged and the terms of their parole. A common practice was for men to be paroled and once they were exchanged they would be able to rejoin their units. [Source](_URL_0_)\n\nA general commanding in chief or an admiral shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or for sixty privates or common seamen.\n\nA flag officer or major-general shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or for forty privates or common seamen.\n\nA commodore carrying a broad pennant or a brigadier-general shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or twenty privates or common seamen.\n\nA captain in the Navy or a colonel shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or for fifteen privates or common seamen.\n\nA lieutenant-colonel or a commander in the Navy shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or for ten privates or common seamen.\n\nA lieutenant-commander or a major shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or eight privates or common seamen.\n\nA lieutenant or a master in the Navy or a captain in the Army or marines shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or six privates or common seamen.\n\nMasters' mates in the Navy or lieutenants and ensigns in the Army shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or four privates or command seamen.\n\nMidshipmen, warrant officers in the Navy, masters of merchant vessels and commanders of privateers shall be exchanged for officers of equal rank, or three privates or common seamen.\n\nSecond captains, lieutenants or mates of merchant vessels or privateers and all petty officers in the Navy and all non-commissioned officers in the Army or marines shall be severally exchanged for persons of equal rank, or for two privates or common seamen, and private soldiers or common seamen shall be exchanged for each other, man for man.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.civilwarhome.com/prisonerexchangecartel.htm"
]
] |
|
aw42l3
|
the need to pee and proximety to the toilet?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aw42l3/eli5_the_need_to_pee_and_proximety_to_the_toilet/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehjr8wq"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"It has to do with \"Pavlovs Dog\", basically we're so used to or \"conditioned\" to associate the toilet with urinating."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
dam4td
|
how do political polling places find people to use for their data?
|
For example, I’ve been a registered voter for years and I haven’t once been contacted to participate in any particular political poll. I’m curious how the pollsters decide who to ask or if it is based on sign-ups instead?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dam4td/eli5_how_do_political_polling_places_find_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1rpqla",
"f1s49bv",
"f1s4jgx",
"f1vge17"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is a very valid question. Obviously they didn't do a great job of this in 2016.\n\nThere are different methods, from talking to people in the street \"randomly\" (that would depend on what part of town you're in, and time of day, etc). letters to houses and hope people answer randomly. The best method is by calling on the phone, but now with caller ID and lack of landlines, that is not as reliable as it once was. I know I don't answer anything that doesn't identify the caller, and I usually skip calls that are labelled as survey because in my experience the \"survey\" is instead going to be asking stupid things like internet access preferences, obviously on behalf of a particular vendor, not on a topic like national policy preferences. And sometimes people answer based on what they would do if they actually show up to vote on election day, but they never actually vote.\n\nOn actual election day, pollsters will stand outside certain voting sites and ask people who are leaving who they voted for, this is usually pretty accurate.",
"To add to the other answers here: polls are expensive, and pollsters generally try to ask no more than the number of people they need to get a reasonable margin of error (usually 1 or 2 percentage points). This number depends on their assumptions and how they choose the sample, but it's usually not going to be any more than 1,000 people. The necessary sample need not be proportional to the size of the population you're trying to measure, and in this case it's very small relative to the population of the US ( about 0.0003%). That means that they could conduct many, many polls but never call you personally. This is especially true if you live in a place where the outcome of the election is not much in doubt.",
"There are generally two types of surveys. Registered voters are the people that make up the voter rolls. So if a polling firm wants a universe of potential voters, they simply pull from the registered voter list and randomly contact them to conduct their survey. Who is a registered voter and where they live is public information, so at some point most political campaigns or polling firms pulls this info. Of course, not all registered voters vote, so each pollster prepares their own \"special sauce\" of what they call \"likely voters\", and they are those that are obviously registered but then have a propensity to vote in that particular campaign cycle, like a primary or general election, or municipal cycle election. From their they will target those voters, still from the registered voter list, to develop a more accurate sample. If you aren't likely to vote in an any given election, they won't contact you.\n\nAdditionally, in the last presidential election cycle, most pollsters used the traditional random sample method of polling. Every time they polled, they went to the voter rolls and pulled a new random sample of voters. They were mostly all wrong. Those pollsters that actually accurately predicted the results of the election initially picked their random sample of voters, but then every time they wanted to poll again, they contacted the same voters to see who had changed their opinions. This was found to be more accurate, at least in that cycle.\n\nSo, in short, they pull the data from the registered voter list from the respective board of elections. If they want more accurate data, they do more analysis on the registered voter lists to pull those that will actually vote in that given cycle. How they do this depends on the polling firm, making some polling firm more accurate than others.",
"I live in Canada and we have a Federal election coming up in the next month. I also do surveys, polls, focus groups, etc. online for beer money and have noticed lately that a lot of surveys and polls are dealing with political issues (who will you vote for, what policies do you like most, what politicians do you like / dislike). I've also seen some poll results in the media that closely match the questions I've answered online so I'm betting that is how many of these polls find people."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
7y9wxz
|
what is a viral vector?
|
I read Dan Brown's Inferno and was wondering what this is. How does it work? How is it different from a regular virus?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7y9wxz/eli5_what_is_a_viral_vector/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duep1xd",
"duep7tb"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"a viral vector is how a virus transmits. Viral means it duplicates and passes from person-person thing to thing, vector is just a direction, colloquially equivalent to \"way\".\n\nSo airborne viruses use air as a viral vector, things like aides use bodily fluids. Malaria uses Mosquitos as a viral vector.\n\nSo not different from a regular virus, just how that virus goes from person to person.",
"A vector, terms of biology, is an organism that transmits something from one place to another. In the case of a viral vector, a virus is being used to transmit genetic elements or the production of some biologically-relevant component between cells or organisms.\n\nOne example of a viral vector would be a non-harmful virus (only a small fraction of viruses cause harm during infection), which has been genetically modified to deliver DNA encoding a protein that a person otherwise lacked."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
est3a6
|
why is assaulting a cop more serious than assaulting anyone else?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/est3a6/eli5_why_is_assaulting_a_cop_more_serious_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffbxtoi",
"ffbxw0g",
"ffbzh1y"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Part of the reason is that police carry weapons. It may also have something to do with Police represent the law, and an assault on a police officer is therefore an assault on the law (older thinking?). That is just speculation though.",
"I don't have a good answer but don't ever spit at an officer either! I did grand jury once and we had several instances where someone spit on a police officer and that was a felony.",
"Probably to help discourage people from resisting arrest. If you've been caught for petty larceny, is it really worth trying to run away and punch a cop in the process? No, that would carry a much harsher sentence then what you were originally caught for, its not worth it"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1w4vdu
|
How did the first person with a contagious disease get infected with it?
|
For instance, Syphilis. How did the first person with syphilis get it? Or any other contagious disease. Where do these diseases come from? Is it just evolution or what? If it was evolution, is there a graphic of an evolution tree I could look at? I've seen them for mammals, and I think one for diseases would be interesting. Sorry of this is a really basic question, but thank you for your time!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1w4vdu/how_did_the_first_person_with_a_contagious/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceyqqos",
"ceytvsh"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"infectious diseases evolve just like any other creature, and by doing so they also enable themselves to explore new places to live and be successful.\n\nIf the disease stays on one host, there is not really a patient zero, since evolution is a highly parallel and complex and many times rather continuous process. What we can check is if we find the first *record* of a certain form of a disease. Chances are high though that what is described is actually an existing and well known disease that just evolved a tiny bit to manage to spread to a different part of the body.\n\nHowever sometimes a disease manages to evolve in a way that it's able to infect a new species. Then it is somewhat possible to trace the spreading of the disease on the new hosts back to where it initially started (an area, a city, sometimes even a single person, the patient zero).\n\nI won't go into the evolution tree because I'd be speculating, but I am very sure such a thing exists.",
"Infectious diseases (Bacteria, viruses, fungi) will first come into contact with humans by people entering a new environment, or from them coming into contact with animals. Diseases that originate from animals are called zoonotic diseases. This is how HIV is thought to have originated for example, mutating from SIV, a virus that infects primates. Many diseases can occur by people coming into contact with microorganisms that already occur in the environment, Legionella for example. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
4x227u
|
Why was Sufi Islam particularly strong in Ottoman Empire when compared to other places?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4x227u/why_was_sufi_islam_particularly_strong_in_ottoman/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d6bsvcs"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"What makes you think that it was? Sufism was incredibly popular long before the rise of the Ottomans. It was and is extensively practiced, for example, in the Indian subcontinent and in South East Asia. Sufism was embraced by the Ottomans but I'm not sure I would describe it as being quantifiably stronger than in other places. I'm certainly not familiar with any data to suggest that it may have been. It was embraced by the state, but that was certainly true elsewhere as well."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4swimn
|
how do celebrities get social media handles with their names? do companies like twitter or instagram assist celebs in getting a marketable handle?
|
E.G., Zayn Malik getting the handle "Zayn" on Instagram or "ZaynMalik" on Twitter. Do these people have to make a settlement with whoever has the handle they want?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4swimn/eli5_how_do_celebrities_get_social_media_handles/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5cqkq9",
"d5cqldy"
],
"score": [
4,
2
],
"text": [
"Pretty much. They just message who ever owns one of those handles and just offers them money.",
"As it is, yes. \n\nPeople who deliberately do this are called \"squatters,\" and while not looked highly upon, companies will still give big cash to the owners for control if it's a particularly short and/or memorable name for the business. \n\nI do vaguely remember a way to kick people off of domain names through the official committee, but at that point you'd be better off hiring a lawyer instead of ELI5.\n\nFor stuff like social media handles though, it's pretty much impossible to \"force\" someone off a handle."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
o2zmu
|
So, I was dumping out an old bottle of generic dayquil, and found two clear crystals, can you explain what I found?
|
They kinda look like salt or an actual crystal _URL_0_
**edit**
I'm eating it....it was sugar...
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/o2zmu/so_i_was_dumping_out_an_old_bottle_of_generic/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3e0hqi"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Could you give me a sense for how big they are? It'd also help to get a picture from another angle, possibly in some lighting with a little less glare.\n\nThe generic answer is: I don't know, and its difficult to tell without some analytical tests.\n\nI can be more specific than that, though. Dayquil and its ilk, whether or not its the generic kind, have relatively few ingredients and it should be pretty easy to figure out whats what in this case. You're right, though, these are definitely crystals. I just pulled a bottle of generic dayquil out of my own cabinet, here is my ingredient list:\n\nAcetaminophen, Dextromethorphan HBr, Phenylephrine HCl, butylated hydroxyanisole, edetate disodium, FD & C yellow #6, flavors, glycerin, monobasic sodium phosphate, polyethylene glycol, propylene glycol, purified water, saccharin sodium, sucrose, xanthan gum\n\nI immediately rule out edetate disodium or EDTA (abundance), the dyes (color), flavors (abundance), glycerin (melting point), polyethylene glycol (doesn't make crystals that nice), propylene glycol (melting point), water (melting point), and xanthan gum (poor crystallizer). Those I'm sure of. I'm also going to rule out butylated hydroxyanisole since its pretty soft and would leave a residue on your hand and I'm guessing you would've mentioned that. \n\nI'm also going to rule out dextromethorphan and phenylephrine because of abundance, there's only about 200 mg of each of those in the bottle total, which wouldn't have made crystals large enough for you to notice. \n\nThat leaves us with: Acetaminophen, sodium phosphate, saccharin and sucrose (table sugar). \n\nI'm betting against acetaminophen. Its extremely soluble in the amounts its present in the bottle and there really isn't alot of it. I'm also betting against sodium phosphate. Its difficult to get firm numbers, but I'm betting there isn't enough of it in the bottle. Between saccharin and sucrose, I'm picking sucrose (table sugar) because of the shape of the crystals. Saccharin seems to avoid the rhombic type crystals in the pictures you showed."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://i.imgur.com/zPyCv.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
23r5dc
|
If I increase the Frequency of a sound wave will it travel further over a distance?
|
If I emit a note it will decrease in intensity over distance, but if I emit a not with a higher frequency of the same intensity will it's intensity be any louder over the same distance because of the higher amount of energy in it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/23r5dc/if_i_increase_the_frequency_of_a_sound_wave_will/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cgzuedu"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If I understand you correctly, you are asking whether the rate at which the intensity/loudness of a wound wave decays over a finite distance depends on its frequency? If so, the answer is yes. If so, the answer is yes. The simplest model for this attenuation (weakening) of the wave in a fluid such as air is called [Stokes' Law](_URL_0_) and it states that the amplitude of a plane wave will decay exponentially as e^-a , where a is the attenuation factor. This factor a in turn is proportional the square of the frequency of the wave. This suggests that high frequency waves decay much faster than low frequency waves. This is for instance why the low frequency sounds whales produce can carry over such long distances in the ocean."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stokes%27_law_of_sound_attenuation"
]
] |
|
6ub0zq
|
What's the difference between the Holocaust and the Shoah?
|
Both seems to designate the same event (for instance English wikipedia redirect to the same page, about the genocide, when you don't go through the disambiguation pages) and the preference for one or the other seems a national one (for instance the French wikipedia the main page Shoah is for the genocide and the main page for _holocauste_ describes the [sacrifice](_URL_0_) meaning).
Is there nuances or connotations in the choice between those two words?
(Auxiliary question: wikipedia URLs using `)` seem garbled, is there a way to fix them?)
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6ub0zq/whats_the_difference_between_the_holocaust_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dlrdptl"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Shoah is a Hebrew word, which means \"disaster.\" Holocaust is an English word derived from Greek, and as you pointed out, it means a sacrifice that's entirely consumed by fire (as opposed to other sacrifices, where only part is burned up and the rest is eaten), so it came to mean a total massacre. They refer to the same event. Because \"Shoah\" is the word that Jews designated for themselves, some historians use it too, as part of letting oppressed peoples define their own history, similar to how historians increasingly use native words when writing about native Americans, instead of the words chosen by colonists. "
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holocaust_(sacrifice)"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
3igu38
|
Did anyone from past eras produce writings solely for the purpose of future historians to study?
|
To explain in further detail - do we have any examples of writings (books, memoirs, stories, archives, etc.) that were made, kept, or produced solely for the purpose of future historians to study and help them understand a particular event, place, people, etc.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3igu38/did_anyone_from_past_eras_produce_writings_solely/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cugf2me"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Many people do keep diaries for the purpose of reading them later and remembering/keeping a record of past events. They can be valuable for historians, especially if the diarist is unusual for their place/time in keeping a diary. Martha Ballard is kind of a canonical example of this -- she was an 18th-century midwife in Maine who kept a diary, which would form the basis [for this book](_URL_0_). Now, Ballard was certainly unusual in being a literate woman during her time period who also kept a diary, so there's a great deal of argument over how representative her particular experiences were -- the book was something we read in my historiography class in grad school as it stimulated discussion of those questions. \n\nMoving to more typical diarists, the example from my field that comes to mind is Samuel Pepys, who kept a diary for 1660-1669. Pepys' diary is extensive and wanders quite a bit, but there are certainly indications in it that he realized that he was writing for posterity. He was involved in naval administration, and also lived through a tumultuous time in English history, and there are definitely descriptions of large events (the fire of London, the Great Plague) that seem written with an eye toward posterity; but he also records mundane events like the time he woke up in the morning and personal events like his pursuit (today we'd call it sexual assault) of servants. There diary has been published in multiple [editions](_URL_2_), including one that has portions of it [you can read online](_URL_1_). "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://books.google.com/books?id=m17DJG3FHYMC",
"https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Diary_of_Samuel_Pepys",
"https://books.google.com/books/about/The_Diary_of_Samuel_Pepys.html?id=9MwLAAAAYAAJ"
]
] |
|
jtvxe
|
We've seen pictures of Stellar Nurseries, huge nebulae created by the death of a star. How can the mass of a single star create a nebula that goes on to create many new stars and accompanying planets?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jtvxe/weve_seen_pictures_of_stellar_nurseries_huge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2f2qp7",
"c2f3fvr",
"c2f5v3h",
"c2f2qp7",
"c2f3fvr",
"c2f5v3h"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you might be confusing stellar nurseries, like the [Orion Nebula](_URL_1_), which is a huge cloud that had a mass thousands of times the mass of our Sun before any stars formed in it, with planetary nebulae, like the [Ring Nebula](_URL_0_) which are the expelled layers of old/dying stars. Planetary nebulae do not go on to create new stars, at least not without the contribution of other stars/clouds.",
"TakeTwo is correct, but to kind of go back to your question about how a star can create so much stuff. Just think about the size and density of a star compared to a planet. Use our solar system as an example, we have an incredibly small-average size star, yet it is incredibly large compared to the planets, and extremely more dense.",
"From what I understand, shockwaves from supernovas can be a catalyst to the collapse of interstellar molecular clouds. In this case, the dying star isn't providing the mass for the new stars, but it is triggering their creation.",
"I think you might be confusing stellar nurseries, like the [Orion Nebula](_URL_1_), which is a huge cloud that had a mass thousands of times the mass of our Sun before any stars formed in it, with planetary nebulae, like the [Ring Nebula](_URL_0_) which are the expelled layers of old/dying stars. Planetary nebulae do not go on to create new stars, at least not without the contribution of other stars/clouds.",
"TakeTwo is correct, but to kind of go back to your question about how a star can create so much stuff. Just think about the size and density of a star compared to a planet. Use our solar system as an example, we have an incredibly small-average size star, yet it is incredibly large compared to the planets, and extremely more dense.",
"From what I understand, shockwaves from supernovas can be a catalyst to the collapse of interstellar molecular clouds. In this case, the dying star isn't providing the mass for the new stars, but it is triggering their creation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Ring_Nebula_Hubble.jpg",
"http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/162283main_image_feature_693_ys_4.jpg"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.daviddarling.info/images/Ring_Nebula_Hubble.jpg",
"http://www.nasa.gov/images/content/162283main_image_feature_693_ys_4.jpg"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2eh84l
|
why is zoe quinn being defended?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2eh84l/eli5_why_is_zoe_quinn_being_defended/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjzgg60",
"cjzgu17",
"cjzjok9"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"The are uninformed and they try to fight misogony, thinking that the only side of the story is her getting harassed on the internet. Just lack of resaserch on their part.",
"She is a person in a creative field open to commentary by the internet. There are thousands of people in the U.S. alone who work in various forms of media that deal with mean comments and threats against their person. The true professional looks at this feedback and compares it to the quality of their product. The maker of any piece of media knows if it is of high quality within the bounds of their resources. The issue is that her game, \"Depression Quest\", is a sub-par, text-based game that was greenlit on Steam and given high critical praise by writers she was tied to romantically. And instead of dealing with the criticism of her product and conduct like a professional she claimed the victim card and demanded that any negative word about her be silenced. The white-knight syndrome of the \"enlightened male\" kicked in and we now have this cluster fuck.",
" > Don't post just to express an opinion or argue a point of view.\n\nThis post is better suited for /r/changemyview and so it's been removed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
3x39r1
|
how is it that for two months california has had a methane leak and it won't be fixed until spring?
|
Saw a post about this yesterday. The leak is huge and it's constantly spilling and will continue for months.
How/Why isn't anyone stopping it immediately?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3x39r1/eli5_how_is_it_that_for_two_months_california_has/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cy13b5m",
"cy13j5l",
"cy14uza",
"cy18ph7",
"cy1akh7",
"cy1ju5t",
"cy1ktsx",
"cy1ll0h",
"cy1mcf1",
"cy1n7jn",
"cy1o9xr",
"cy1oh25",
"cy1swkg",
"cy1twm0",
"cy1vs3o",
"cy211hz"
],
"score": [
2043,
24,
13,
57,
483,
16,
2,
21,
2,
9,
44,
20,
13,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"In order to fix the leak, workers have to drill 8500 feet down into the earth, find the underground well, and pump it full of concrete. This process will take months, and can't realistically be sped up.\n\nEDIT: For a more detailed answer, see u/WalterLSU below.\n\nEDIT 2: More info with pictures:\n\n_URL_0_",
"I work in oil and gas at a large plant so I'll answer you what it PROBABLY is, though without knowing the details it honestly could be anything. First of all, shuting off machines cost industry HUGE money, in chemical processing plants like those used to refine and process oil and gas, if one machine goes down, often times an entire segment of the plant that goes down, every thing that feeds into that machine has to stop, everything that machine feeds into has to stop. If you only have 3 concurrent units running, that means that if 1 critical component goes down, 1/3rd of our plant goes down, 1/3rd of our production is down, you make 1/3rd less oil and make 1/3rd less money until that machine is back up. If fixing that methane leak involves taking something critical offline (probably true) then they will do their best to wait until that area of the plant enters a PLANNED outage so they can get a lot of their scheduled maintenance done at the same time that the plant is out anyway, they still lose money, but they get a lot done during that time. In the mean time they likely pay a daily fine for the leak, but that fine is far less than the revenue they would lose if part of the plant was down (for us, each 1/3rd of the plant is responsible for about $5 million dollars of revenue per day, if one is down they are losing 5 million per day, so you can imagine that the fines are a pittance in comparison. ",
"What would happen if we ignited it? Serious question haha. ",
"As a petroleum engineer, I can comment. I can't find all of the details, but they need to drill a relief well to intercept the original well and plug it off with cement. \n\nThey can't flare I believe because the leak is uncontrolled and flaring could be dangerous. A fire would not travel down into the reservoir. \n\nThey likely can't rig up on the problem well itself to run cement because of the leak. Flammability around big machines. \n\nThey should be able to reach 8500 feet in ~10 days but intercepting a small diameter pipe could slow that down significantly. I don't have direct experience with that portion. Then there's the plugging operation to pump cement down the relief well and into the problem well. At each step there's engineering and regulatory work needed that also can take time. In sure there's plenty of parties involved that can add a lot of red tape. \n\n",
"Permanently preventing a gas influx at a low depth is a challenging procedure. Conventional well control involves having a hydrostatic pressure greater than the pressure of the gas. This is typically done by controlling the liquid's weight, more weight = more pressure. Gas's hydrostatic pressure gradient is quite low; think of air pressure difference between Denver and Los Angeles (1 mile of vertical height) is the equivalent pressure of 5 feet of water. \n \nA typical gas well, are designed like telescope, larger shorter (in depth) outer pipes and smaller longer (in depth) inner pipes are cemented together. There is likely a leak between the deeper inner pipe to the more shallow outer pipe. So a high pressure is occurring at a low depth, which cannot be matched from a weighted hydrostatic fluid. \n\nDrilling a \"relief well\" is no easy task. Drillers are attempting to drill a 8000 foot well and hit a 7 inch pipe. Imagine standing on the top of a 30 story building, while holding a 300 foot piece of spaghetti trying to hit a Cherri-O on the sidewalk. So drillers need to go slower than normal to be sure not to go off course. Determining where the drill bit is at needs to occur more often. Also I believe they are restricted to working only day light hours, normal drilling operations are around the clock. At 8000' the hydrostatic pressure will overcome the gas pressure, which would allow a better chance for the cement to 'set up' properly. \n \nTurning everything 'off' doesn't work like you'd want. With well integrity concerns, the gas might find a new way out, by means of breaking different parts of the well/ground, if it's constricted at the surface, which would only complicate the problem. Solving the problem properly at 8000' is more important than a temporary minor mitigation. \n\nLuckily the gas well is isolated, about a mile from people. Even so, natural gas and the gas that gives natural gas it's unpleasant odor, are not harmful. ",
"Californians are exotherms (ie: cold blooded). They stop working when temperatures drop below 60^o F.",
"why dont they just drop a nuke on it? the nuclear fission will burn off any gas and seal the hole. ",
"We have a methane leak?",
"Because people are ignorant to methane. They don't care that it is worse for the climate that CO2, or that we produce a shit-load of it :P \n\nPeople just think methane smells bad, and that's what it does. No harm no foul. ",
"Grew up in Porter Ranch, and still have family there. SoCal Gas and Sempra Energy have operated for 30 to 40 years in Porter Ranch with zero accountability. Local and state politicians have been and are more concerned about contributions and re-election than actual safety (otherwise Sempra's normal operations before the gas leak, which involved Sempra releasing tons of methane regularly into the air) would have been curtailed or stopped. Environmental companies are ineffective in preventing a catastrophe like this, and more geared towards capitalizing on donor sources, media attention, and compromising with big polluters, than dismantling the industries that cause such disasters. Finally, the justice system is a self-serving, corrupt, and wasteful mess (example, BP's spill, largest oil spill in history, resulted in a MISDEMEANOR, and closer to home, the Exide battery recycling plant took decades to close down, and the structured deal protected the shareholders more than anyone else.\nAlso, SoCal Gas covered up the enormity of this industrial disaster, and are only acting because the residents of Porter Ranch (and local grassroots SavePorterRanch) have been holding community meeting and rallies, which are finally getting media attention.\nFinally, natural gas is invisible. If this was more cinematic, like lava flow or a hurricane, it would have received national media attention immediately.\n",
"[Why don't they just nuke it?] (_URL_0_) ",
"What people are having physiological reactions to is called mercaptan. Which is added to the natural gas so people can smell a leak (methane is odorless).\n\nMethane is lighter than air and most of it is rising in the atmosphere, while mercaptan is a heavier molecule and is highly odorous (on order of 1 ppb).\n\nThe leak is over a mile from residential neighborhoods. The question that should be asked is why a residential neighborhood was allowed to be developed by local government close to the largest natural gas storage facility west of Mississippi...",
"This sucks, I live in the area. They are relocating 2500 families for 6+ months. It's affected my business so I know it's hurting a lot of businesses along with the families of course.\n\nWe've already lost out on just over $1k of monthly income due to this and the number is increasing.",
" > Uncontrolled build-up of methane in the atmosphere is naturally checked by methane's reaction with hydroxyl radicals formed from singlet oxygen atoms and with water vapor. It has a net lifetime of about 10 years, and is primarily removed by conversion to carbon dioxide and water.",
"I live in Porter ranch and it's gotten so bad a young girl was in the ICU. Some residents' pets have gotten sick as well. Sadly, SoCal gas doesn't put much effort into trying to solve this issue. The rumor was they tried to cover the smell by using some kind of odor-neutralizer, which failed. Now, mind you, this is in the end of the valley on top of hills and mountains. There are homes practically right by it, very close, actually. So I hope it gets fixed asap but the most we can do is to file a complaint and have the gas company pay for our hotel fees. Several residents weren't getting covered for this at first, so they moved out with their own money. It sucks because generally, this is a nice neighborhood. Average income is highest in the valley and all of LA right after Beverly Hills and has really nice people here. But it's definitely not worth living in this nice neighborhood when shit like this happens.",
"California is desperately trying to show the world how environmentally friendly they are and that's why they've fucked shit up once again. It is taking a while to fix things because they aren't used to solving problems, only talking about or causing them. They're basically the west coast version of Florida with more nonsense"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.wired.com/2015/12/massive-gas-leak-california/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/4iB9QYaSVEo"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1fu633
|
When and why did English orthography stop using Þ (thorn) and ð (eth)?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1fu633/when_and_why_did_english_orthography_stop_using_þ/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cadtyl8",
"cadv3ct",
"cae6vc0"
],
"score": [
104,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"As far as thorn goes, early English printing presses used imported type that didn't include thorn. Printers would either use \"th\" or use a y as a thorn, which wasn't too much of a stretch (a handwritten thorn looked like a y). Sort of like how typewriters would use the same character for lowercase \"L\" and \"1\". \n\nThat's how we got \"ye\" for \"the\" in old books (I've never seen it after the seventeenth century) and modern pretentious signage (\"ye olde coffee shoppe\"); the y is really a thorn, and it was pronounced \"the\", not \"yee\". \n\nSo really, we still use thorn, but only on pretentious signs, and we mispronounce it as a \"y.\"",
"Old English doesn't actually distinguish between Thorn and Eth. While at one time Þ represented th as in threat, and ð/Ð represented th as in the, there was really no reason to use both as they represented the same sound. \n\nSource _URL_0_ jump down to the pronunciation section. ",
"We also lost the Wynn from Old English. [Wikipedia page](_URL_0_)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.omniglot.com/writing/oldenglish.htm"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wynn"
]
] |
||
bjbh6h
|
Why does beta plus (β+) decay happen in proton-proton chain reactions; why don't the two protons just form helium instead of deuterium?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bjbh6h/why_does_beta_plus_β_decay_happen_in_protonproton/
|
{
"a_id": [
"em702el"
],
"score": [
802
],
"text": [
"Helium-2 is unbound, so it decays on extremely short timescales. The only way to combine two protons into a bound system is to rely on the weak force to change one of the protons into a neutron, producing a deuteron.\n\nThis is not a beta decay, it's a nuclear reaction which involves the weak force. That's why the probability of it occurring is so small, and why it forms a bottleneck for the entire pp-chain."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2ki93r
|
Has anyone ever become a Saint in their lifetime?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ki93r/has_anyone_ever_become_a_saint_in_their_lifetime/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cllli9l"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"I don't believe that has ever happened. An integral part of being declared a saint (canonized) in the Catholic Church is that the person is declared to be in Heaven, so that precludes still being alive on Earth. The Dominican priest (and professor) who inspired my username asserted that the Church waits for the subject to be \"safely dead\" before beginning the canonization process. He was joking, but only to an extent. Having the subjects story be complete is important, so that you would avoid a saint denying God's existence or the like in the twilight of their life.\n\nNone of this is to say that the Church always had a set procedure in place. The modern procedures were revised in 1983, and before that in 1917 and 1914. Before that you have to basically go back to the 16th century. Before *that* things were...looser. This laxity was problematic, leading to the canonization of some people that may not have existed. A number of people who had been declared saints that had dubious historicity were removed from the calendar of saints by the Catholic Church a number of years ago, but did not have their saintly status changed. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
258lzc
|
when a body decays, where do those white maggots(?) suddenly come from?
|
I just watched a video (Thanks r/WTF) where a dead pig decays. After some time you see white little things eating away from the inside.
Where do they suddenly come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/258lzc/eli5_when_a_body_decays_where_do_those_white/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cheqn6h",
"cheqnc2",
"cheqte4",
"cherk6n"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Flies are really good at detecting rotting meat, land on the meat to eat and breed and lay eggs, then the eggs hatch into maggots. Flies are tiny and quick so you won't really see them on a timelapse video.",
"Flies. Flies lay eggs, those eggs hatch, and fly larva is what we refer to as \"maggots.\"",
"Well this one is wrapped up",
"In the past there was actually a theory of spontaneous generation because they didn't know maggots morphed into flies etc. Look it up, it's pretty interesting."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3c4u8e
|
why is the world not on a universal time? in other words why is it not "13:00 pm" all around the world - some would come to see it as daytime afternoon, others late afternoon, and yet others early morning.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3c4u8e/eli5_why_is_the_world_not_on_a_universal_time_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"css8k8z",
"css9h3b"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"The military uses this for large scale operations, in their use of \"Zulu Time\".\n\n\"Zulu\" time is that which you might know as \"GMT\" (Greenwich Mean Time). Our natural concept of time is linked to the rotation of the earth and we define the length of the day as the 24 hours it takes the earth to spin once on its axis.\n\nAs time pieces became more accurate and communication became global, there needed to be a point from which all other world times were based. Since Great Britain was the world's foremost maritime power when the concept of latitude and longitude came to be, the starting point for designating longitude was the \"prime meridian\" which is zero degrees and runs through the Royal Greenwich Observatory, in Greenwich, England, southeast of central London.\n\n As a result, when the concept of time zones was introduced, the \"starting\" point for calculating the different time zones was/is at the Royal Greenwich Observatory. When it is noon at the observatory, it is five hours earlier (under Standard Time) in Washington, D.C.; six hours earlier in Chicago; seven hours earlier in Denver; and, eight hours earlier in Los Angeles.\n\nUnfortunately the Earth does not rotate at exactly a constant rate. Due to various scientific reasons and increased accuracy in measuring the earth's rotation, a new timescale, called Coordinated Universal Time (UTC), has been adopted and replaces the term GMT.",
"Because, in day to day use, for most people, it's far easier this way.\n\n12pm means the same to everybody around the world (language barriers notwithstanding). It's noon, midday. It's the time when the sun is at its highest point. It's about the time where people have lunch.\n\nIf I travel outside of my time zone, I am able to immediately relate to the time, no matter where it is that I go. If somebody wants to meet me at 4pm it clicks instinctively that it's nearing the end of the day, that I might be having dinner with this person, that it might start getting dark while we do whatever we're doing.\n\nIt's easier to preserve the *meaning* of a time than it is to standardise its occurrence.\n\nContrast this with the time of year, which is standard around the world. When somebody relates coldness to January or droughts to August, that clashes with my understanding of those seasons. It's not drastic - I can easily understand what they mean - but it takes a second to create that logical reasoning, as opposed to an instinctive understanding. It's not much, but it's an inconvenience."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
19ia5l
|
Is there actual evidence that the ancient Irish sucked their kings' nipples to display fealty?
|
I apologize for the somewhat salacious title, but Stephen Fry on QI made the claim that ancient Irish people could suck their kings' nipples to demonstrate their loyalty, and if someone challenging the king's right to rule lost a certain contest, he would have his nipples cut off to symbolize his inability to rule. I found [this article](_URL_0_) from Archaeology magazine, and it seems like nothing more than idle scholarly speculation based on two bog mummies that were missing their nipples.
* Is there actual evidence that nipple-severing was a widespread practice?
* And is there *any evidence at all* that nipple-sucking was used to demonstrate fealty?
EDIT: [Here's the bit from *QI*](_URL_1_) if you're interested.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/19ia5l/is_there_actual_evidence_that_the_ancient_irish/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8odi8v"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Thank you for posting this as it's a really good question. I'm by no means an expert on Irish (especially early-Irish) history so I would wait until somebody else gives you a definitive answer on this. As the article you link to suggests, it does appear that sucking nipples was a means to pledge loyalty in pre-Christian Ireland. Saint Patrick mentions in his *Confessio* that when he fled Ireland, he was offered passage on a boat by some sailors, although he refused to suck their nipples. Interestingly, Patrick considers this to be a barbarian custom and that he refused \"for fear of God.\"\n\n[Here is the relevant translation of the text](_URL_0_). This translation here prefers the term \"breast\", but I think it's clear that the general idea was that this symbolised submission and loyalty to another. I can't read Latin unfortunately, but somebody else could shed more light on whether this is an accurate translation. \n\nWhen this practice died out is something that I can't answer I'm afraid. Nor can I answer your question about nipple severing any better than the article you linked does. I hope my little contribution helps anyway."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://archive.archaeology.org/1005/bogbodies/clonycavan_croghan.html",
"http://youtu.be/sweQ3KkD6HY?t=17m"
] |
[
[
"http://www.ccel.org/ccel/patrick/confession.v.html"
]
] |
|
cdwowv
|
Resources to learn about US colonization/imperialism in Latin America
|
I would appreciate if someone could point me towards a good resource(s) that detail the impact of US exploitation of Latin American countries. In particular how it affected the general populace.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cdwowv/resources_to_learn_about_us/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etwsnta",
"ety6d8q"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \n\nHow to Hide an Empire is a pretty good source for American influences in Latin America, there is some focus on the Pacific islands and the Philippines but that is also pretty closely tied to Latin America in terms of Spanish influence",
"There's a couple that I can recommend.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor some references regarding the wider context of the imperial period, see *The Age of Empire: 1875-1914* and *The Age of Extremes: The Short Twentieth Century, 1914-1991* by Eric Hobsbawm. I'd like to point out that Hobsbawm has a left-leaning point of view, he's often regarded as a marxist. However, I recommend his works due to, in my opinion, his great contributions to historiography.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor a more moderate, perhaps less ideologically charged viewpoint, see Jay Sexton's *The Monroe Doctrine: Empire and Nation in Nineteenth-Century America.* It also focuses more on what you're interested in. Even though the Monroe Doctrine appeared as a reaction in opposition of European colonialism, it rapidly devolved into what, in both political science and international relations we call America's Backyard, the economically driven idea that the US was to be the protector of Latin American newly independent countries. Why economically driven? Sexton explains that the anti-imperialist sentiment that supposedly motivated Monroe to propose his doctrine, was primarily motivated by the necessity of the US to be able to trade and establish comercial relations with Latin American countries, without the influence of the mercantilist dogma the Spanish followed.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nFor a more native view, I recommend two works by Walter Mignolo, an Argentine semiologist and historian who focuses on colonialism in Latin America. In both *Local Histories/Global Designs: Coloniality. Subaltern Knowledges* and *Border Thinking* and *Coloniality at Large. The Western Hemisphere in the Colonial Horizon of Modernity,* he explores the huge impact that America's Backyard ideas had in the construction and development of economic and cultural systems in Latin America's early States, as well as the continuing effects this had in their more contemporary history.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nAnother very interesting view of the cultural impact of the Monroe Doctrine and America's Backyard had (together with the Prussian education system), comes from Brazilian sociologist Boaventura de Sousa Santos, who, among many essays and books about colonialism and neocolonialism, wrote *Epistemologies of the South*, in which he explains how deeply European and American imperialism influenced the production of knowledge and culture in Latin America."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://us.macmillan.com/books/9780374172145"
],
[]
] |
|
92jmbc
|
Why doesn't carbon monoxide turn into carbon dioxide when additional oxygen becomes present?
|
Or does it? It seems to me that when CO comes out of the tailpipe of a car that it would immediately turn into CO2. If it doesn't do this, why? If it does, why does leaving a car running in your garage kill you so fast? Is it just using up all the oxygen faster than it can be replenished from outside the garage?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/92jmbc/why_doesnt_carbon_monoxide_turn_into_carbon/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e36hg3o",
"e36j2qi"
],
"score": [
2,
34
],
"text": [
"Once it's out in the atmosphere yes some of it may oxidise to CO2 but a lot will remain as CO and cause low-level pollution and in turn health problems. So a catalytic converter is used to speed up the rate at which the CO oxidises to CO2 whilst it's still in the hot exhaust gases.",
"Imagine you're skateboarding down a road that goes downhill into a valley, uphill a bit, then downhill into a second deeper valley. Ordinarily you'd go all the way to the bottom, but if for some reason you got stopped in the first valley, you'd be stuck there: you'd need a push to get over that second hill and get to the bottom.\n\nIn this analogy, unburned fuel is the top of the first hill, carbon monoxide CO is the first valley, and carbon dioxide CO2 is the second, lower valley. The height of the hill represents the amount of chemical energy remaining in the molecule. If there's not enough oxygen to complete combustion, you get \"stuck\" at carbon monoxide. To continue to carbon dioxide, you need to add energy to the molecule to \"push it over the hill\". Heat up a mix of CO and O, and it will burn to form CO2. CO was actually used as a fuel gas in the old days, but it's so toxic we don't do that anymore.\n\nBut maybe you don't have to climb that second hill. Maybe there's a road that goes *around* it instead! This is what a catalytic converter does: it provides an alternate chemical path for CO- > CO2 combustion that requires less energy input. In the atmosphere, a molecule called the \"hydroxyl radical\" (OH) also naturally helps to convert CO into CO2 without added heat, but there's very little OH in the atmosphere so this process is pretty slow (months)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
56gpkn
|
Why does cellular regeneration degrade as an organism ages?
|
Bonus question:
Why do cold-blooded creatures tend to have longer lifespans than warm-blooded creatures?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/56gpkn/why_does_cellular_regeneration_degrade_as_an/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8jfztr",
"d8jqnky"
],
"score": [
28,
8
],
"text": [
"This was recently discussed in the comments section on a post about an anti-aging substance found on Easter Island. I'll do my best to repeat what I learned. \n\nDNA has empty sections reserved for errors when replicating. Each time DNA is replicated these lengths, called telomeres, get shorter. For most cells, replication can only occur 52 times (called the Hayflick somethingorother) because the telomeres become shorter and shorter until there is no more room for errors. At this point the cell, if it tried to replicate this DNA strand, would simply be creating a cancerous cell. All the normal errors would be likely expressed in genes, rather than in telomeres. \n\nTake this answer with a block of salt. This is purely from memory, and the experience of someone who works with computers, not biology. ",
"Well first off I should mention that aging is an pretty complicated and not easy to sum up very quickly. The simplest answer I believe I can give has to do with adult stem cells. \n\nBasically most tissues in your body contain small niches for adult stem cells specific to that tissue. These cells have to ability to either divide and make more stem cells or convert themselves into various cell types native to said tissue. This helps various organs maintain a population of relatively new and healthy cells, despite the various stresses life through at it.\n\nHowever, as we age a number of regulatory processes (this is where things get incredibly complicated) basically break down. Telomeres, senescence, and lots of processes necessary to maintain epigenetic and genetic homeostasis do their best to keep your cells functioning and dividing properly. Eventually though something goes wrong, usually a multitude of things, and these processes become less efficient. Ultimately you end up with adult stem cells dividing at different rates and producing cells that aren't great at performing their intended function.\n\nFor example grey or white hair is due to failed adult stem cells in the hair follicle. Normally they should be differentiating into melanin producing cells but when they stop the resulting hair is left colorless. I think it's also important to mention that, while the breakdown of these various processes occurs in most if not all tissues, how it happens varies between different tissue types.\n\nAnyways, that's probably the best explanation I can provide. If you want to really understand more there is plenty of into online about adult stem cells and aging. It's all pretty interesting and will likely ruin any dreams of immortality you may have had."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
coqey5
|
the whole jeffrey epstein situation
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/coqey5/eli5_the_whole_jeffrey_epstein_situation/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ewkjxse"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"So he was charged with sexual trafficking of minors and was awaiting trial in jail. Two weeks ago he was found in his cell unconscious with neck injuries, he was placed on suicide watch and released a few days later. Today he was found dead, reported hanging himself. Those are the facts. \n\n\nWhat's odd is he was taken off the suicide watch at all. He should have stayed on it and there are even doubts about it being a suicide. So that leaves us to ask why would he be taken off suicide watch? \n\nIt is all strange we will see what happens as more facts come out. As of now the US attorney general has ordered an investigation into the matter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
tvz1t
|
[meta] what if i told you that you could get the most out of [eli5] if you brought an already correct answer to a question that interests you, but you just need someone to *explain* it to you.
|
**IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER** (I know people are misunderstanding the post because of my clumsy title): I am only suggesting a way to get the most out of the subreddit. a thing YSK.
When you bring an already correct answer it makes it much easier to figure out what level of understanding you are seeking It also helps to make sure you are getting the answer to a question that you had *intended* to ask and not just the question as you phrased it.
**EDIT:** I like the suggestion of not downvoting correct responses. In order to effectively explain a concept to someone else you need two things.
(1) Correct answers to begin with.
(2) Great explanations of those correct answers.
So I would not initially up vote a correct answer, but if it leads to a great explanation, then I would go back and up vote the parent to make sure the pair, a correct answer and a great explanation, rise to the top.
**EDIT 2:** Imagine you are reading a textbook or assignment on say mitosis and the material you are supposed to be learning is hard to understand. Instead of just posting "What is mitosis" you post "can someone help me with this explanation of mitosis?" You will be more able to get an explanation you understand that covers the material you are supposed to be reading about.
Again, I am only suggesting a way to get the most out of the subreddit. a thing YSK.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/tvz1t/meta_what_if_i_told_you_that_you_could_get_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4q6vgs",
"c4q75i2",
"c4q7bwa",
"c4q7h3r",
"c4q7khd",
"c4q7tuo",
"c4q7u6i",
"c4q7v8h",
"c4q82nq",
"c4q8g2j",
"c4q8kh8",
"c4q9gss",
"c4qaars",
"c4qf6vq",
"c4qf8mh"
],
"score": [
106,
24,
5,
2,
3,
3,
7,
2,
12,
3,
2,
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Another suggestion, stop down voting correct answers that are hard for you to understand, even hard for anyone to understand. Save your down votes for \"bad explanations\" of correct answers or \"incorrect answers\". \n\nThis subreddit should be about up voting great explanations of correct answers, and downvoting correct answers stands in the way of that. Leave the correct answers alone and just ask questions about them, eventually it can lead to a great explanation of a correct answer to an interesting POST. Up vote that response. ",
"I also think that OP should state what level of understanding they already have. I see questions all the time that are just \"Help I don't get *this topic* help please\". I could write you a six page paper on the topic if necessary, or I could give you a short paragraph explaining it, depending on your current understanding and how in-depth you need the answer to be. If OP asks a question from a school class, they should state if they're in an AP, Honors, or standard class.",
"I disagree... a lot of times entire concepts are too large or complicated to be boiled down to even a high-level answer. For example, \"how did WWI start?\" is an question with no high-level answer that could fit into a copy/paste. It would basically be an entire wikipedia page. This policy would only discourage people from asking questions.\n\nI do agree with another response, that posters should indicate what their current level of understanding is so that answers can better be tailored to them. It's frustrating to attempt to write an answer for an actual 5-year-old when it turns out they have a high school graduate's level of understanding.",
"Would that be something you might be interested in?",
"That's what I do pretty much any time I come to ELI5. Have some upvotes.",
"This is what I've been arguing for for a while. Ask here if there's already an answer to your question but you simply can't understand it.",
"I cannot understand what it is you're getting at with this post. \"Bring an already correct answer\"???\n\nI want to understand...but can't.",
"Do you believe my being stronger or faster has anything to do with my muscles in *this* place? \n\nYou think that's *air* you're breathing right now?",
"I feel like this WAS one of the coolest subreddits I've ever seen. There are some real smart motherfuckers that answer questions here, but I feel like the substance of the questions reflects laziness rather than misunderstanding. Like they want an answer that is personally rendered to them instead of reading a few articles on Wikipedia, realize they still don't understand it, then rephrase their question to something more specific. I'm probably ranting, but I really don't want to see such a cool subreddit getting \"dummied down\" (kind of ironic, huh).",
"[META] Can we stop with the goddamn meta posts and posts about what the subreddit should be used for? Then maybe the subreddit would see some actual use for questions.",
"As a five year old, I'm having trouble understanding the title of your post. Could you perhaps put it in the form of a Laurence Fishburne image?",
"Apparently most of the users of this sub ARE actually 5 years old. It seems every other day you guys have top posts that are just trying to figure out how to use the sub right. ",
"I think a big problem with this reddit is that while the rules suggest citing sources, it's rarely done, and so the answers are entirely unreliable. imo the rules for citing sources in this sub should be as strict as r/askcience... \n\nSome teacher came in here with questions from her third grade class, and just said Thanks! and accepted all answers posted and presumably shared them with her class, which seemed kind of ridiculous to me. ",
"I almost needed an ELI5 post for this ELI5 post about ELI5 posts. Where's Xzibit when you need him?",
"Newbie question here that seems fairly out of place, but if we're discussing ways to get the most our of this subreddit..... Is it appropriate to post an answer?\n\nI tend to make pretty good analogies when I'm in school, explained for someone who doesn't get it (maybe not five, but someone with barely the basics) so they're not really You Should Know material, can I post things like \"Molecular Bonding Explained like you're Five\" with my analogy in the details section?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1b8qjt
|
Did the United States government ever consider allying with the Axis powers in WWII?
|
I have heard that there was actually a lot of nazi sympathy in the US - they weren't seen as "evil" right away, at least not by everyone. Was there ever any serious diplomatic consideration about allying with the Axis? Obviously this would have involved betraying key allies, but I am just curious.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1b8qjt/did_the_united_states_government_ever_consider/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c94n7le",
"c94naot",
"c94nhnw",
"c94npv4",
"c94qtih",
"c94vpod",
"c950b6w"
],
"score": [
546,
94,
16,
12,
5,
8,
3
],
"text": [
"No chance as long as Roosevelt was president. No real chance even without him, for that matter. There were some \"pro-Axis\" men in congress, but their numbers were small. The pro-Axis faction was more focused on keeping America out than on getting them in on Germany's side. They tended to focus on the \"warmongering\" of Churchill and on promoting isolationism.\n\nAlso, remember that long before the USA officially joined the war, they were involved in arming Britain and otherwise supporting the Allies.",
"No. While there were SOME Nazi sympathizers, some of whom were very prominent like Charles Lindbergh, even their goal was to keep the US out of the war. No one ever seriously considered that the US would join the Axis. \n\nConsider the fact that the president at the time had been president before Hitler ever came to power, and was such a staunch ally of Britain that he tired to drag the US into the war in Europe before Pearl. \n\nAlso keep in mind that it can be said that WWII is an extension of WWI, as the main combatants were the same (in Europe) and WWII would not have happened without the Treaty of Versailles. WWI was far too recent in the memories of Americans for a remilitarized Germany to be anything other than a threat. In addition, in the Pacific, Japan had butted up against our 'sphere of influence,' were clearly competitors, and that the main impetus for the attack on Pearl Harbor was an American embargo on oil shipments to Japan.\n\nWWII, for the US, was essentially America fighting it's own greatest enemy at the same time as the greatest enemy of it's Allies.\n\nEdit: Impetus! Thanks to GringoDeMaio.",
"It wasn't just a matter of sympathies, or \"good guys\" vs \"bad guys\". It was also a national security issue. It wasn't in the interests of the US for one nation to dominate/control all of Europe, which is what would have happened had Nazi Germany won the war. ",
"Are you thinking of organizations like the [German American Bund](_URL_0_)? These groups never pulled close to enough support to suggest entering the war on the Axis side.\n\nNo, there was really no significant support for Axis among those with political power. The real question regarding the war was whether the US should stay neutral or join the Allies. Though some [businessmen](_URL_1_) supported the Japanese expansion which is probably the closest the Axis got to any kind of endorsement by anyone with much clout in the US.\n\nYou might be aware of this and it might have prompted your question, but the Central Powers of WWI drew far more sympathies from the United States and were not immediately seen as \"evil\" by most people. Public sentiment for much of the beginning of the war was to remain neutral, but there were large groups on both sides which pledged their support for either the Central Powers or the Triple Entente. However, the US, by and large, had far greater commercial interests invested in Great Britain and the constant harrasment of American shipping continually polarized Americans to the British causing American entry into the War against the Central Powers.\n\n",
"The question as I understand it is whether the government CONSIDERED allying with the Axis powers, not whether it was ultimately politically feasible. And the answer to that question is yes:\n\n > Chomsky: The state department in 1937, I think, described Hitler as a moderate, standing between extremes of right and left. Sumner Welles, Roosevelt's main adviser, came back from the Munich Conference in '38, saying \"Real Hope. We can really work with Hitler. He's kind of a good guy,\" and again, American investment shot up in Germany. The business classes liked him. It was even more so in England.\n\nChomsky is not a historian and obviously for such an extreme notion a better citation would be, well, better, but I'm not ready to dismiss a quotation from the world's most renowned living intellectual because I can't verify it through Google. \n\nIf I remember correctly, prior to Hitler's declaration of war there were quite a few powerful businessmen in the United States, including Prescott Bush, that considered Hitler to be an asset. \n\nWhat ultimately dragged the US into WW2 beyond the lend-lease act was the Japanese attack which was followed by Hitler's declaration of war on the U.S., so I don't think at that point it was an option.",
" > I have heard that there was actually a lot of nazi sympathy in the US - they weren't seen as \"evil\" right away, at least not by everyone.\n\nAmericans in the 1930s were long used to the existence of European dictators the way we today are used to African or South American dictators. Beyond the obvious example of Soviet Russia, for example, much of Europe had various strongmen, despots, and other non-democratic governments in charge: Horthy in Hungary, Dollfuss and Schuschnigg in Austria, and Pildulski's \"Sanation\" in Poland being three examples. The fascist Mussolini had similarly ruled Italy since the early 1920s, and the authoritarian Franco ruled Spain from 1938. In this light, Hitler did not necessarily stand out when he became Chancellor in 1933; if anything, he was behind many contemporaries, especially Mussolini and Stalin, and had even taken power through democratic means.\n\nNazi Germany distinguished itself through 1) an intensive militarization, 2) gradual conquests of nearby territories, and 3) a fierce hatred, expressed in word and deed, of Jews, Gypsies, and other undesirables. (Mussolini did 1 and 2 (Ethiopia and Libya), but not 3.) These things occurred over several years, however.\n\n > Was there ever any serious diplomatic consideration about allying with the Axis?\n\nNo, and such a thing would have been very unpopular. [A Roper poll of Americans in the summer of 1940](_URL_0_) found that:\n\n* 67% thought an Axis victory in Europe would endanger the United States.\n* 71% favored mandatory military training for all young men.\n* 88% favored \"arming to the teeth\" if the Axis won the war.\n",
"In the book \"FDR and the New Deal\" Leuchtenburg briefly mentions some poles taken at the time that show 93% popular support for the allied cause in the mid-1930s. I think that pretty definitively answers your question, yes?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_American_Bund",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foreign_relations_of_the_Axis_powers#United_States"
],
[],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=xz8EAAAAMBAJ&lpg=PA20&pg=PA20#v=onepage&q&f=false"
],
[]
] |
|
1tq100
|
why does david cameron want mandatory porn filters for uk internet users?
|
I just dont get it. Why, when he is facing the potential breakup of his country with Scotland's referendum, why is David Cameron's biggest idea blocking internet porn? What does he stand to gain? What does he not understand about how these filters work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1tq100/eli5_why_does_david_cameron_want_mandatory_porn/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ceac2o2"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Information control. Australia's government tried to same thing a couple of years ago but it failed. Turned out that porn was just going to be the first step and then after that it was going to be everything the government didn't like. Whoever controls the information has the power. The idea is to get their foot in the door by saying it's about porn, specifically child porn (which it won't do anything to stop since you don't just find that with random searches) and then after that you just quietly expand it to cover everything else. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7zchm5
|
Is there any evidence of trench warfare in the Civil War before Petersburg?
|
Petersburg is, I think, famous as serving as a forerunner to WWI like trench warfare in 1864. But I was wondering if there is any evidence for trench warfare earlier in the war than this.
Thanks.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7zchm5/is_there_any_evidence_of_trench_warfare_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duq2a1x"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"I would caution against the anachronistic use of the term 'trench warfare' in the American Civil War. The term is typically used to describe the Western Front of WWI, where the numbers, firepower, and dispositions of the combatants allowed the continuous front lines to extend from the Alps to the English channel. This did not happen in the American Civil War; the armies were not large enough to anchor their both their flanks on impassable obstacles, and did not have the firepower to prevent a frontal breakthrough with assurance. The technology of the two wars is very different, and they were fought by very different societies. The social-military conditions of the American Civil War were unique to their time and place, and should be understood on their own terms. \n\nThat said, there is indeed precedent for the use of entrenchments before the siege of Petersburg, really to the earliest days of the war. Really, it'd be easier to list the battles where no entrenchments were used. After the Battle of Bull Run, Joseph E. Johnston entrenched his army before he fell back to his base on the Rapidan Rappahannock river line; this position famously yielded the 'quaker guns' (logs painted to look like cannons) that baffled Union scouts and generals for months. Lee made extensive use of trenches during the Peninsula and Seven Days campaigns as an economy of force measure, allowing him to defend Richmond with minimal forces while he concentrated most of his army for the hammer blow to the north. McClellan was (in)famously trench-happy, establishing very strong positions to cover the slow, methodical advance to the next position, where he could dig in, bring up his heavy guns, and repeat the process. Joe Hooker had designed the Chancellorsville campaign around forcing Lee to attack his entrenched infantry, and Union positions on Cemetery Hill at Gettysburg were well fortified. The Overland campaign leading up to the siege of Petersburg saw field fortifications play a pivotal role in just about every battle. This is a very bumper sticker summary; I can go into more detail if you want.\n\nHowever, like I mentioned above, I would not describe this as trench warfare, and I don't think the use of entrenchments during the American Civil War meaningfully anticipates the developments of the First World War. While the prevailing view is that the increased range of the rifle musket forced troops to seek shelter in the earth to survive, I agree with Earl J. Hess, who has authored a series of books on the use of field fortifications during the Civil War. He strongly denies the claim of increased firepower; the available evidence indicates that engagements largely stayed within the range of smoothbore muskets, and that casualty rates were broadly similar. The necessity of accurate range estimation to hit anything past a hundred yards and the near total lack of marksmanship training for the rank and file severely limited the application of the new weapon. \n\nRather, the America proclivity towards entrenchments arose from a variety of less material causes. In the east, the inability of either army to destroy the other in a battle of annihilation meant they remained in contact much longer than European armies of the same period. Moreover, the prewar education of the engineers, who comprised the best and brightest of the pre war Regular Army, was directed by Dennis Hart Mahan of West Point, who placed great emphasis on the power of field fortifications. Mahan understood that American armies would largely be composed of militia and short service volunteers, whose forbearance under fire and the press of cold steel would be uncertain, and that prepared positions would be useful for stiffening otherwise shaky troops. The inverse of this turned out to be that said shaky troops would become very reluctant to assault field fortifications; by the time of the Overland campaign, 'worn out' regiments could flat out refuse to assault entrenchments, or make only a token effort. \n\nFor the full story, read Earl J. Hess's three volume history of entrenchments in the Civil War.\n\n*Field Armies and Fortifications: The Eastern Campaigns, 1861-1864*\n\n*Trench Warfare under Grant and Lee: Field Fortifications in the Overland Campaign*\n\n*In the Trenches at Petersburg: Field Fortifications and Confederate Defeat*"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9kvxlw
|
Does adding more heat to a pot of boiling water make it cook things faster?
|
I have to win an argument. The idea starts off with somebody boiling a decently large sized pot of water. When small amounts of bubbles start to form and rise is what qualifies as "boiling the water". My question is, if you were to add heat and make it a rapid rolling boil, would that cook food inside of the pot faster than if the boil was less "aggressive"? An example for the food would be noodles that take up most of the space in the pot when added to the water.
The person I'm arguing with says that since water boils at 100° in an ideal circumstance, the water will not (or at least nearly negligibly) cook the food faster.
I think that adding more heat will make more of the water in total hotter (since I assume most of the water isnt actually at its boiling point), which will make the food hotter, which makes the food cook faster (like cooking the noodles in 6 minutes instead of 8).
How does this work?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9kvxlw/does_adding_more_heat_to_a_pot_of_boiling_water/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e72mt45",
"e72orn5",
"e72pgso",
"e73bzj8",
"e78gyku"
],
"score": [
23,
5,
16,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"This is the thing about latent heat. No matter how much heat you give to a pot of water, until all of the water has turned to steam, temperature of that vessel will not cross 100 degrees Celsius (212 F). More heat will boil the water quickly, for the same quantity of water ",
"The only way to do this is with more pressure. There are pressure cookers that can boil water at higher temperate. A lot of things can change the boiling point of water. But most of them require things other than water to be added. \n\nSo yes, what others say, adding more heat does not increase the waters temperate, it only makes it evaporate faster. ",
"Extra heat does not increase the tmperatute above 100 C as explained by others. What could help is that the movement of the water at a rolling boil might increase the heat transfer rate to the food by increasing convective heat transport to the food. ",
"Might an especially rapid boil actually *slow down* cooking compared to a high simmer? \n\nThe goal of cooking is to raise the temperature of submerged food by transferring heat from the water, but do larger and more frequent bubbles of steam slow down the heat transfer to any significant degree?",
"In most cases I would say emphatically yes, but an almost negligible amount. This is because \"boiling water\" in reference to cooking pasta, basically refers an eyeball's glance of some level of vaporization around 100C. If you added pasta @ 99C lets say, and turned off the heat, the water will obviously cool down, cooking slower and proving your point. Now if you kept low heat vs high heat, chances are @ low heat even if the water appears to still be boiling there was a temperature drop, slowing down the cooking slightly, and proving your point. Probably not worth the extra electricity/gas."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
62ui2r
|
Why were the Gracchus Brothers allowed to be People's Tribunes? Weren't they patricians?
|
Hello, I'm trying to get an understanding of the Late Republic's Political system. It is my understanding that the People's Tribunes had to be plebeians. Weren't the Gracchus brothers both patricians? I've got bonus questions as well, how many people made up the Plebeian assembly (those who elected the People's Tribunes)? Could any Plebeian vote towards it? Was it also based on Century? Basically I'm just trying to understand, did Plebeian citizens directly vote on the Tribunes, or were officials selected for an assembly to then vote on the Tribunes?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/62ui2r/why_were_the_gracchus_brothers_allowed_to_be/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfpey4m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"No, the Gracchi were members of the *gens Sempronia*, an old plebeian *nobilis* family. The senatorial class had included plebeians for centuries by the time of the Gracchi, since the resolution of the Conflict of the Orders, and by Caesar's time the patrician order had essentially ceased to exist. The vast majority of senatorial families were plebeian, and you really sort of have to go out of your way to find patricians, they're fairly unusual"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1c726r
|
what it is to default on a debt. what are the consequences?
|
I'm studying the bond market in an econ class, and the definition I was given of a bond is that it is a legal document binding the seller to pay the buyer at a given date and interest rate. That I get. But now, we're discussing how buyers sometimes calculate the expected value of a bond, by including the default risk. My question is: why is this acceptable? Does defaulting mean the bond seller simply can't, and doesn't have to pay the buyer back? Are there no legal consequences for promising to someone on paper to pay them money and then not do so? Does defaulting mean you are absolved from any payment whatsoever? I feel like the logical thing to do when faced with defaulting is to just postpone to the payment until you have the money needed to pay off the bond at its maturity. I just don't understand how defaulting can legally be an option. It just makes the whole thing sound like a game.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1c726r/eli5_what_it_is_to_default_on_a_debt_what_are_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9dnrqm",
"c9dov3u"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Let's forget about bonds for a minute, and think about a personal loan which you might take out from the bank (which is essentially the same thing on a smaller scale).\n\nNo one can force you to repay that loan. If you fail to pay it, though, then your credit rating will suffer. You will have to pay more to borrow in future, or you may find that you simply can't borrow at all. The bank may send bailiffs to your house to recover what they can (or, more likely, sell the debt to someone else who will send bailiffs round). If you are unable to pay, then you have options available to you such as bankruptcy, which is effectively an agreement that you'll pay what you can, and the bank will let you off of the rest.\n\nA bond is exactly like that. If a country fails to pay what's due, then it will find it harder to borrow in future, just the same as you would. You can't just send the bailiffs around - there is no legal way force a country to repay. But it's in the country's interests to pay if possible, if it wants to be able to continue to borrow at a reasonable rate and run its economy effectively.",
"There all kinds of legal consequence to defaulting. If the bond issuer is able, they can be forced to pay, with penalties. The problem is once it comes to defaulting, they have probably reached the point if insolvency, so legal consequences won't mean much."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
26ulna
|
how is the sat scored?
|
I recently took a diagnostic and got a 1720, however I don't get how it was scored. I got a total of 51 wrong and omitted and a 7 on my essay. How did this add up to 1720?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26ulna/eli5how_is_the_sat_scored/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chumyu0",
"chun1jv"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It has been a while since I have taken the SAT and it might have changed more since I have taken it. First there is a raw score. For this score in the multiple choice section, you get a point for each question you get right, zero points for questions that you did not answer and lose 1/4 of a point for every wrong answer. For the essay, two graders will give it a score ranging from a 1 to 6 where 1 is terrible and 6 is fantastic. They will then combine the two scores together. Once all the raw scores are calculated, they will standardize them based on others who have taken the test. So, if your raw score for verbal ends up being at the 50th percentile, you will get a 500 for verbal. If you are in the 99th percentile for verbal, you will get an 800. After adding all the section scores together, there will be the final score\n\nTl:Dr they give you a raw score and then standardize it with others. ",
"I never took the SAT, but I presume it was scored that way because of the curve as recorded in previous years for your diagnostic test scoresheet.\n\nIf it works like I think it does, here is how it would break down:\n\nA 1720 would put you in like the 80th percentile.\n\nBasically you are going to get like one person who gets everything right on the test for every 1000 people that take it. Those people get a 2400, they are in the 99.9th percentile.\n\nYou got 51 wrong. In whatever year your scoresheet is keyed to, those who got 51 wrong scored in the 80th percentile. 79 out of 100 got more than 51 wrong, 19 out of 100 got less than 51 wrong. Because of the curve, 80th percentile is a 1720.\n\nWhat could happen is that as a whole, the people who take the exam for real at the same time you do might score better overall or worse overall than in previous years.\n\n\nBasically, your score is not directly tied to your number of right/wrong answers, but rather your right/wrong answers are compared to everyone else. After you are ascribed a percentile, you are dropped appropriately on the curve, which shows you your number score."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ctoxa
|
How were Americans treated/viewed in Japan (Tokyo specifically) during the Taishō era? (1912-1926)
|
Also were there differences when it came to Americans of distinguished class like the family of the US Ambassador versus an ordinary sailor? Were US students allowed to attend the University of Tokyo? Was there discrimination against fellow Japanese who associated with Americans?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ctoxa/how_were_americans_treatedviewed_in_japan_tokyo/
|
{
"a_id": [
"csz4sly"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
" > Were US students allowed to attend the University of Tokyo?\n\nI don't know if they were allowed earlier, but the first non-Japanese American to graduate from the University of Tokyo was Don Cyril Gorham, who graduated in March 1941. So if there were any American students in the Taisho period, they didn't graduate at least."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
cs94dh
|
Why did the German Army invade Netherlands in World War II, when in World War I, Dutch armed neutrality deterred the Germans?
|
During and before World War I, the Dutch mantained an armed neutrality that would've made it inefficient both in terms of time, and resources to invade, yet in World War II, the Germans invaded through Netherlands, and succeeded, as the Dutch capitulated quickly.
Why did the Germans deem an invasion through Netherlands feasible and worthwile? Would this be related to the pacifist movements during the interwar era, and the lack of preparedness for war in both France, United Kingdoms and Netherlands? Or was it modern developments, such as bombers (the capitulation of Netherlands came right after the bombing of Rotterdam) and modern doctrines?
Thank you, and I hope you have a good day!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cs94dh/why_did_the_german_army_invade_netherlands_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eydil8p"
],
"score": [
15
],
"text": [
"Hello! As a Dutchman this post stood out to me, while I am not an expert on WW2 history, I will explain the history behind the German invasion of the Netherlands as I understand it.\n\n**World War 1**\n\nThe Netherlands maintained an armed neutrality throughout WW1 and declared itself to be neutral at the outbreak of the war, like Belgium. And just like Belgium, the Netherlands was militarily no match for the German Empire. Unlike Belgium however the Netherlands did not border any nations of the Allies, and there would be little military gain for the German Empire had it invaded the Netherlands. Not only would it have enlarged the area that needed to be occupied, it would have driven the newly formed Dutch government in exile to join the Allies, who could then make use of resources from the Dutch colonies in the Americas and Asia. The Netherlands were also an important trading partner for Germany during the war, as the Empire's waters were blockaded by the Royal Navy. Invading the Netherlands in WW1 was thus not seen as something that would be advantageous by the Germans.\n\n**Interbellum**\n\nDuring the 1920s and 1930s the Dutch economy would be hit hard by the Great Depression. Investment in the military effectively came to a standstill until then end of the 1930s. While the military brass of the Netherlands was aware of the aged equipment and the importance of tanks, anti-tank weapons and sub-machine guns, none of these weapons were purchased. Only in the latter half of the 1930s did modernisation begin, and by that time many countries such as the United Kingdom, France and Germany were already busy with their own rearmament programs and could thus not supply new weapons in any great numbers.\n\nWhen the Germans invaded the Netherlands on 10 may 1940, the Dutch soldiers were armed with 45 year old rifles, machine guns dating back to WW1, no tanks, 39 armoured cars, too few mortars and only 52 pieces of post-WW1 artillery. The military had been able to acquire new anti-tank guns and anti-aircraft guns however. The airforce was in a slightly more modern shape, flying a mixture of biplanes and more modern fixed-wing aircraft, but had to deal with unpreparedness and only 70 modern planes in total. When the troops were mobilised in August, not much time was spend training the troops, most soldier spend their time building bunkers and trenches instead of actually gaining military skills.\n\n**World War 2**\n\nThe German plan to invade of the Netherlands was primarily born out of the failures of WW1. The Germans had been unable to defeat France, and this was partially attributed to the fact that the Belgian front had been to narrow in the rear. To solve this, the Dutch province of Zuid-Limburg would have to be invaded to give the Germans more space to manoeuvre. The Netherlands could also serve as a beachhead for the British, which was of course not favorable for Germany. While the Dutch and German armies would have been quite similarly armed in 1914, the Germans now greatly had the upper hand when it came to firepower and mobility. The German soldiers and officers were also more experienced due to fighting in Poland.\n\nWhile the Dutch military put up a good fight and even won a number of battles, such as the Battle for The Hague and the Battle of the Afsluitdijk, they were unable to do much about German air superiority once the small Dutch airforce had been mostly destroyed. After the Bombing of Rotterdam, the Germans threaten to bomb Den Haag, Amsterdam, Utrecht and Haarlem if the Dutch government did not surrender, which it did. By the time the Netherlands capitulated on 15 May, half of the country was already taken by the Germans, and only in the province of Zeeland did fighting between Dutch and German soldiers continue for a little less than two more weeks, with the help of the Belgian, French and British forces."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7zhdcc
|
describe the process of gaining weight. from ingestion to digestion and so on.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7zhdcc/eli5_describe_the_process_of_gaining_weight_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"duo2wsz",
"duo8hnq"
],
"score": [
10,
2
],
"text": [
"When you eat food, your body breaks down the larger nutritious molecules into simple glucose molecules. Glucose is the fuel that your body uses. The body takes a few steps to do this starting with physically grinding up the food with your teeth, then chemical breakdown with your saliva, then further chemical breakdown with stomach acid, and then further breakdown in the small intestine. Each type of nutrient molecule (carbs, fat, protein) is broken down with a different process, but in the end, the molecule is broken up into much smaller glucose molecules, which are absorbed into your blood through the small intestine.\n\nThe glucose molecules travel through the blood to enter individual cells where they are used to perform different functions in the cells. Your body needs a careful balance of glucose in the blood at all times. If glucose levels are low, cells can't function. If glucose levels are high, cells can be damaged. \n\nBecause of this, our body has a way of storing glucose molecules for later use. If the glucose levels get too high, the insulin hormone is released. Insulin pulls glucose out of the blood, and stores it in a molecule called glycogen, which is basically lots of glucose molecules chained together. Glycogen molecules get stored in the liver and muscles. Therefore the levels of glucose in the blood will decrease once insulin is released, thus saving your cells from damage.\n\nIf blood glucose levels get too low, the hormone glucagon is released. It does the opposite of insulin. It breaks off glucose molecules from the chains of glycogen, thus bringing your blood sugar levels back up. Glucagon and insulin keep your blood sugar levels balanced.\n\nSo now how do we get fat? There's only a finite amount of storage space for glycogen molecules. If they are full, then the body will start converting the medium-term storage glycogen molecules into long-term storage fat molecules. The fat molecules get stored in different locations throughout your body (exactly where is largely determined by genetics and gender). If your glycogen levels get low, then your body will convert fat into glycogen. This process takes a while, which is why it's not a good idea for the body to convert fat directly into glucose, and glucose directly into fat.\n\nSo knowing this, what does this tell us about losing weight? We should avoid foods that have lots of glucose molecules. These foods cause our blood sugar to spike, which causes an insulin release, which stores the energy, then causes our blood sugar levels to drop, which causes us to feel hungry again. The glucose molecules don't spend enough time in our blood to be used by our cells before being forced into storage. It's better to eat foods that \"burn\" slower, like long-chain carbohydrates (found in fruits, vegetables, and whole wheat bread), fats, and protein. These molecules shed glucose molecules into the blood slowly, thus they don't trigger an insulin response. This keeps your blood sugar levels more balanced, and keeps you feeling full longer.",
"You might find this interesting as well:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vuIlsN32WaE"
]
] |
||
33y1c4
|
What determines the frame of reference for us to feel acceleration?
|
If there is no "absolute" reference frame for the universe, if I floor the accelerator in a car, what makes feel the acceleration relative to earth rather than the zero acceleration relative to the car? I understand that my own inertia would keep me in place as the car accelerates, but why "in place" relative to the earth? What am I missing?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/33y1c4/what_determines_the_frame_of_reference_for_us_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqq2h85",
"cqq73g5"
],
"score": [
4,
3
],
"text": [
"You would feel the same force on you independent of the earth. If you were flying and accelerating you would feel the same force. It is only created through your inertia that \"presses against the acceleration\". Your inertia will keep you in place for whatever direction and speed you were moving when no force applied to you. A ball that is rolling has the inertia of rolling and would not stop if no force was applied to him.\n\nRead [Newtons laws](_URL_0_) for more basic understanding.",
"The thing is, velocity is relative to a reference frame but acceleration (and *difference* in velocity) is absolute. If you accelerate at 1 m/s/s for ten seconds, your change of velocity is always going to be 10 m/s, no matter what your starting velocity was. In a reference frame where you were initially at rest, your velocity after 10 s will be 10 m/s; in a reference frame where you initially travelled at 10 km/s your final velocity will be 10,01 km/s. (This example disregards relativistic effects but the point stands even if I used full relativistic math.)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newton%27s_laws_of_motion"
],
[]
] |
|
cu632r
|
What weapons were popular with Vikings during raids? Did they ever use siege engines? What kind of armor was commonly worn?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cu632r/what_weapons_were_popular_with_vikings_during/
|
{
"a_id": [
"extzzzk",
"exwyay6"
],
"score": [
7,
5
],
"text": [
" > Did they ever use siege engines? What kind of armour was worn?\n\nI wrote an answer about the phases of Viking raiding activity [here](_URL_0_), but whether for opportunistic profit or as part of a diversion strategy, Viking raiding parties aimed to be as highly mobile as possible. Despite what pop-culture neo-Pagans might want you to think, a successful Viking really wanted to avoid anything resembling a fair fight, or even a fight at all, as much as possible. Strategy was dependent on moving quickly, overwhelming small, local garrisons and slipping away again before a substantial response could be organised; anything that would require siege engines to capture would be far too long a stop, and far too significant a battle for anything short of the massive fleet which hits London in 850. That particular fleet overwhelms the Mercian army, but the Mercians delay the Vikings sufficiently that the West Saxon army is able to reach them and annihilate them. The Anglo-Saxon Chronicle documents a great number of occasions prior to the advent of the *burh* network when raiders hit an area, only to melt away by the time that a response is organised, or that a raiding army is finally caught up with and destroyed by the English.\n\nBroadly speaking, early medieval Scandinavian wargear is similar to that used in England, and we have accounts from sources such as the *Anglo-Saxon Chronicle*, *The Battle of Maldon* and works of contemporary fiction like *Beowulf*. For the majority of individuals, weapons and armour would have been a spear and shield, probably a knife, and at most a helmet. Some individuals would likely have used javellins, and others may have used bows as well. Wealthier individuals may have had chainmail armour and more substantial helmets, and may have also carried swords. Again much of this depends on the period and purpose of the raiding. An opportunistic crew attacking an isolated monastery in the 820s may have only carried spears, shields and axes, whereas a major fleet like that in 850, or raids which were part of the 'Great Army's strategy in the 860s were likely to have been far more organised and, as a result, featured a higher proportion of well armed and armoured individuals.",
"The two oldest Scandinavian law codes which deal with weapons were first written down in the 11th century (although they only survive in a complete form from the 13th), but were most likely oral laws in their original form, dating to the early 10th century. Both are from Norway, but while we have no way of knowing for sure if Danish or Swedish laws from the Viking Age were similar to the Norwegian laws, it's likely they were similar as the weapons and equipment of warriors was pretty consistent across Northern and Western Europe. The laws are as follows:\n\n*Gulating Law*\n\n > Always when there is to be a weapon ting shall the stewards or nobles announce it in the autumn and hold the ting in the spring. All men who are free and have come of age shall attend the ting, or they shall pay 3 øre (‘ears’) in cut silver each. Now the men shall show their weapons as it is said in the law. A man shall have broadaxe or sword, and spear and shield which shall have at least three iron bands across, and the handle fastened with iron nails. Now is paid with 3 øre for each hand weapon (which is missing). Land owners (böndre) shall for each thwart (i.e. for two people) procure two dozen arrows and a bow, and 1 øre is paid for each arrow which is missing, and three øre for the bow.\n\n*Frostating Law*\n\n > A bow shall lie by every thwart, and the two who travel and sit together shall procure and string it, or pay 1 øre and in addition procure the bow itself and two dozen arrows which are shafted or pointed. The landowner (farmer) shall provide these and will be fined half an øre for each arrow which is missing and 6 øre for two dozen arrows. All free men (drengmaðr; free men who did not own their own land) shall own shield and spear and sword or axe. To be valid the axe must be shafted, and the spear must be shafted. If he lacks one of these 3 weapons, then 3 øre are paid, and if he lacks all, then 9 øre are required, and he must travel unprotected by the law until he arms himself.\n\nAs you can see, the basic set of equipment is similar in both laws, although each focuses on specifying specific attributes of different parts of the equipment. The Gulating Law, for instance, is concerned with mandating iron reinforcements for the shields, while the Frostating Law is more concerned with making sure that the spear and axe of each man is actually on a shaft. Both, however, are consistent in that the landowners should provide a bow and at least two dozen arrows for every second man.\n\nThe archaeology confirms that the equipment mandated by the Law Codes was the common set in the Viking Age. Axes, swords and spears are all common grave goods, while long knives similar to the Anglo-Saxon and Frankish seax dropped out of use around the 7th century as they were lengthened into single edged swords. Bows and arrows are far less common in the archaeological record (I'm aware of only 3 complete viking bows, plus fragments from another six), but they also don't survive as well when buried. Even so, almost all self-bows from the period between the 8th and the 11th century are Scandinavian in origin, ritual bog burials from the 1st century CE onwards attest to increasing use of archery and there are enough references to the Vikings using archery by contemporary authors to consider archery an important part of the Viking weapon set.\n\nIt's worth noting that, while the traditional view of the Vikings has them wielding two handed axes, these weren't developed until the 10th century and were never the most popular type of axe. Most men who used an axe as their side arm - and this is likely to be the majority of the landless men and even a good portion of the landowners - would have used their wood axe rather than a purpose made weapon. Most axe heads from graves weigh over 450 grams, and King Håkon Håkonsson complained about this practice in his 1260 preface to the Frostating Laws.\n\nThe question of armour is a thornier one. Neither law code specifies any sort of armour beyond a shield and, to the best of my knowledge, no Anglo-Saxon, Frankish, Byzantine or Islamic source mentions the Vikings wearing any armour other than mail or makes comment on how common it was. Archaeology is less helpful here, again, due to the rarity of armour surviving when buried. There is a substantial portion of mail from the Gjermundbu burial (where the famous viking spectacle helmet was also found), and around 300 rings of varying diameter found at Birka, although these were so scattered we don't know whether they were from mail shirts or mail attached to helmets. Among the highest levels of society, though, it's all but certain that mail was worn, as it was elsewhere in Europe.\n\nIn addition to mail, there is some slight evidence for lamellar armour. All the archaeological examples come from a single site (Birka), where we know that there was a strong Khazar influence and that a portion of the garrison may have come from Central Asia; the lamellar armour is certainly of a Central Asian style. However, while there is strong skepticism of the vikings wearing lamellar armour among some historians, I'm inclined towards accepting it as an uncommon form of protection. Guy Halsall has argued that archaeological evidence from the 6th and 7th century and iconographic evidence from the 9th and 10th centuries suggests that lamellar armour was in use by Frankish warriors, and if it was being used to both the South and the East of Scandinavia, there's a very good chance at some some proportion of Scandinavian warriors would have worn it. Additionally, we hear of a few Scandinavians wearing it in the late 12th century (Gerald of Wale's *The Topography and Conquest of Ireland* and Karl Jónsson's *Sverris saga*), and lamellar armour was found in the 14th century graves at Visby, so Scandinavia most likely has a long history of using the armour.\n\nA third type of armour - textile armour - is often suggested to have existed, but I have serious doubts about the existence of this armour in 8th-11th century Scandinavia. Quite apart from there being no written, archaeological or artistic evidence for it, the arguments for it existing mostly come down to either \"they had it in the 13th century\" or \"who wouldn't want even simple armour?\" The problem with the first argument is that we have no way of knowing how far back we can apply 13th century practices - especially since textile armour only appears in the 12th century for Western Europe - while the problem with the second is that there's plenty of evidence to suggest that people who knew of cheaper forms of armour still preferred to mostly rely on their shield and perhaps a helmet. Whether it was the Celts in the Second Punic War or the militia of Verona in the [12th century](_URL_0_), those who couldn't afford metal armour mostly seem to relied on their shield for protection.\n\nFinally, regarding siege engines, the only time we heard of the Vikings using siege engines is at the Siege of Paris in 845, where the Vikings are described as using \"catapults\" and \"mangonels\". We have no way of knowing whether these were constructed by the Vikings or by Franks they had forced into their service, but given the lack of other references to them using siege engines, it's most likely that they were using forced labour. What other evidence we have (and it is rather small and scattered) points towards the Vikings preferring to lure their opponents out into an open battle or, failing that, to attempt to advance and dig through the earth and timber rampart of whatever fortification they were besieging. Scaling the walls with ladders isn't recorded, but it might also have been an option.\n\n**Recommended Reading**\n\n* *Vikings at War*, by Kim Hjardar and Vegard Vike\n* *The Vikings and Their Enemies*, by Philip Line\n* *Warfare and Society in the Barbarian West*, by Guy Halsall\n* *The Age of the Vikings*, by Anders Winroth"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/cn6cg7/z/ewh90b9"
],
[
"http://warfare.gq/12/Basilica_San_Zeno_porch_lunette-left.htm"
]
] |
||
q974p
|
Why can't surgeons always implant an artificial heart instead of giving a heart transplant?
|
What makes it more complicated than just being a pump?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/q974p/why_cant_surgeons_always_implant_an_artificial/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3vqva3"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"The short answer is that the technology just isn't there yet. \n\nThe heart is often called a pump, but its not just a pump. It is two intelligent pumps.\nIt adjusts its stroke volume, its cardiac output, its heart rate, all automatically. If you need more blood, your nervous system can stimulate it to increase the forcefulness of the contraction and the rate of contraction. When you exercise, more blood ends up being returned to the heart, so the heart muscle tissue is able to stretch to fill with more blood, and thus can contract harder. The heart\n\nThe main problems with artificial hearts is regulation of blood pressure and cardiac output based on the needs of the person.\n\nThere are only two artificial hearts that are FDA approved.\nThe SynCardia temporary Total Artificial Heart, which is temporary until a replacement heart can be found.\n\nAnd the AbioCor Replacement Heart. The person that lived the longest with this device only lived a little more than a year.\n\nThere are a few prototypes that are being developed, and we will definitely be seeing some better artificial hearts in the near future.\n\nHere is an article about one such prototype: _URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1857216,00.html"
]
] |
|
ut6um
|
How do glow sticks work?
|
Why do they "crack" and how does that trigger the glow?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ut6um/how_do_glow_sticks_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4ybaue"
],
"score": [
68
],
"text": [
"The glow stick has two main components: a mixture of diphenyl oxalate and various dyes, and a small glass tube filled with hydrogen peroxide. By bending the stick, you break the glass, releasing the hydrogen peroxide. The H2O2 decomposes the diphenyl oxalate, producing 2 phenyl groups and a molecule of peroxyacid ester. The ester then reacts with the dye, which produces carbon dioxide, while exciting the dye to a higher energy level. This energy is released as a photon (light), the color of which depends on what dye is used. \n\n[Wikipedia](_URL_0_) has a more thorough explanation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glow_stick"
]
] |
|
aq5qcc
|
what is being woke and what does it mean to be woke?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/aq5qcc/eli5_what_is_being_woke_and_what_does_it_mean_to/
|
{
"a_id": [
"egdjs42"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Being \"woke\" is slang these days for being \"awakened to the truth\" so to speak. In lamens terms, being aware of global issues that are usually ignored by the ignorant.\nVeganism, global crises, conservation, the meat trade, government conspiracies etc are all things that \"woke\" people stereotypically are concerned about, as opposed to the average population that go on living their daily lives blissfully ignorant.\n\nWoke people tend to do research and look deeper into things that enlightens them to these topics "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
10jzlr
|
Why is the Earth's freshwater supply diminishing?
|
If our potable water is considered a renewable resource, why are we taught to conserve water? Think about it: we use the water, it goes to the sewage cleaning facility, and then back to our water taps. So why is it so suddenly (within the last 10ish years) that there has been a movement to save, save, save water? What's happening to our fresh water?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/10jzlr/why_is_the_earths_freshwater_supply_diminishing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6e46my",
"c6e4bun",
"c6e4inr",
"c6e6vu7",
"c6e8tp9",
"c6eh7ye"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
6,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > it goes to the sewage cleaning facility, and then back to our water taps. \n\nThis isn't quite right, most of our treated sewage does not get sent back to the water supply as it's not fit for drinking and we either drain it into the ocean or use it for irrigation and other non-drinking uses. Most of our drinking water is from rivers, glaciers, wells/springs, rain, etc. When there are droughts, we get less water back into our drinking water sources. ",
"Treated waste water *could* be routed back as input to water purification plants but in general it isn't, due to the \"ick factor\" from the public. It's a bit silly.\n\nHowever, even so that's not a perfect system, some water is used up or evaporates. For example, water used for irrigation of crops doesn't return to the system.\n\nFor the most part the way that freshwater supply is diminishing is from drawing down underground aquifers, although in some cases there are lakes that have been drained (the Aral sea being a particularly notable example), currently it is the source of 30% of all ground water in the US used for irrigation.\n\nFor example, the [Ogallala aquifer](_URL_0_) is being drained at a rate that may make it impractical to recover water from it within as few as 25 years.",
"As others have said - waste water is usually put straight our to sea.\n\nOne of the largest problems is that in large parts of the world, the freshwater supply is not drawn from the recharged water cycle, but from deep aquifers which are not recharged. This fossil water - once gone - will not be replenished.\n\nEven when active aquifers are used, there have been a large number of cases where the water is being extracted faster than it is replenished, leading not only to problems in the future, but the drawing in of saline water which poisons the aquifer.",
"The earth \"produces\" the same amount of freshwater that it always* has, what is changing is the amount of people that want to drink it and use it for bathing, cultivating land, etc.\n\nmore demand + same amount of water = shortages",
"One thing to consider is the energy cost of treating the waste water. With more water wasted, more energy had to be used to treat it so it's clean enough to be put back into nature.",
"In addition to the demand issues, one of the most effective ways to obtain fresh water in many areas is by pumping it from the groundwater, particularly aquifers. However, the water system which feeds into groundwater has a limited bandwidth, and drawing water at too fast a rate can cause sources of groundwater to deplete, which lowers the water table in the area, which dries up wells and causes rivers to change their course, which profoundly affects above-ground water sources and ecosystems."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ogallala_Aquifer"
],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3tvfts
|
whats the difference between honey and syrup?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3tvfts/eli5whats_the_difference_between_honey_and_syrup/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx9jf6m"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Honey is made by bees. Syrup is (at heart) made by plants -- though cooks process the heck out of it before we put it on pancakes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
9l8jeg
|
How do PET scans work? Confused between gamma emitters vs positron emitters.
|
I'm studying medical physics at the moment, and I think it's the idea of positron emission that I can't wrap my head around. How does it work with PET scans? From what I understood:
1. A radiopharmaceutical is injected into the bloodstream (e.g. FDG to be taking in with glucose by body's cells)
2. The FDG is absorbed by the cells and a positron is emitted (a bit confused as to how this happens; does the FDG have to decay first?)
3. Positron + electron annihilate each other = energy in the form of two gamma rays is emitted
4. Gamma rays are detected by the PET scan machine
Is there a difference between positron and gamma emitters? Why is gamma radiation used in PET scans? Isn't it dangerous?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9l8jeg/how_do_pet_scans_work_confused_between_gamma/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e757eud",
"e7585pz",
"e75ohpj",
"e75rlrh"
],
"score": [
7,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Emitting a positron and emitting a gamma ray are two totally different kinds of nuclear decays.\n\nAs the P in PET implies, it’s very important that a positron emitter is used, and not just any gamma emitter.\n\nThat’s because the emitted positron comes to rest somewhere near the place where the decay occurred, and then annihilates with an electron. The annihilation produces two gamma rays of equal energies, **emitted back-to-back**.\n\nDetecting **both** of these correlated gamma rays is what allows you to backtrack their position of origin.\n\nGamma radiation is highly penetrative, so it’s not hard for a 511 keV gamma ray to exit your body without interacting with it. Of course some gamma rays will deposit energy into your body, and the patient will receive some dose of radiation due to the gammas (in addition of whatever radiation is emitted in the beta decay). But despite that, PET scans can be very useful.",
" > The FDG is absorbed by the cells and a positron is emitted (a bit confused as to how this happens; does the FDG have to decay first?)\n\nThe Fluorine-18 in the FDG has to decay. When it decays it emits your positron.\n\n > Positron + electron annihilate each other = energy in the form of two gamma rays is emitted\n\nCorrect. An important thing to remember is that both gamma rays are emitted at exactly the same time and also that they travel in roughly opposite directions to one another.\n\n > Is there a difference between positron and gamma emitters?\n\nYes. A positron is a positively charged electron, it's born and travels a short distance and then annihilates to produce two gamma rays. If you want to get technical other stuff can be created at higher energies, but for medphys you don't need to worry about that.\n\nA gamma emitter just emits gamma rays in random directions. \n\n > Why is gamma radiation used in PET scans? \n\nThe fact that a pair of gamma rays are created in the same spot and travel more-or-less opposite to one another can enable you to back-calculate where the decay occurred based on the time and location of the gamma rays arriving in your detector.\n\n > Isn't it dangerous?\n\nYes, but not that dangerous and typically you're only having a scan done if somethings already wrong with you. So the information you get out of the scan offsets the small risk in having one done.\n\nThe people who routinely produce and administer the FDG have more to worry about.",
"The FDG is a glucose-like molecule where a Fluor atom replaces an oxygen atom. In itself, that wouldn't emit anything. The genius is in replacing that Fluor (normally F-17) with a radioactive isotope created in a cyclotron, F-18. F-18 decays mostly by beta positive emission.\n\nThe sugar-equivalent molecule goes in areas that want sugar - highly metabolic area, including normally highly-metabolic tissues like the brain, but also cancer. The F-18 in the FDG decays by positron emission. The positron travels a mm or so, stops, find a nice electron to settle down with, and annihilates. The Gammas are detected.\n\nWhy not use a gamma-emitter? Well, you could. That's called SPECT (Single photon emission CT) and is typically done with T-99m, though there are other possible gamma emiters. But with single photons, you can't use coincidence to reconstruct where it comes from. The main advantage of using a positron is you create two gammas at exactly the same time. Therefore, by counting the elapsed time between two photons detected in close succession, and knowing the speed of light, you can know exactly where they come from, more or less. SPE-CT is much less precise.\n\nFDG also acts like sugar and seeks out many cancers, which is very useful for us. Tc-99m does not. What Tc-99m does is spread out in the blood, and give a good idea of the vasculature. There's a compound of Tc-99m that attaches to new bone growths and is useful to identify bony metastases though.",
"You are absolutely correct! Everything that people have said so far is also very explanatory, I just wanted to elaborate a bit on the mechanics. PET systems and gamma cameras (as for SPECT) are very similar. However, the big difference comes from how they determine where the decay occurred. \n\nIn PET, you use electronic collimation, where only gammas of a certain energy (511 keV) AND that are detected in coincidence (close enough together to have been from the same event) count. From there, this corresponds to the tomographic line used for reconstruction. PET detectors are also a ring, so they totally surround a person.\n\nIn SPECT, you use mechanical collimation, where only gammas of a certain energy AND that make it through a collimator with a certain geometry are recorded. The collimator geometry is used to make the tomographic line used for reconstruction. Usually there are two gamma cameras placed on opposite sides of the patient that slowly rotate until enough counts are recorded to reconstruct an image. \n\nGamma radiation isn't scary. It should be used with caution, but it can be used as a very effective diagnostic tool. Hope that helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
apmk34
|
What are historically the most peaceful countries?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/apmk34/what_are_historically_the_most_peaceful_countries/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eg9nevi"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Mostly countries who have a lack of natural resources that other countries desire. This includes countries like iceland or as you said new zealand. But there is also the factor that these countries(like the ones listed above) were protected by powerful empires.\n\nThere is also the factor that these countries may be in a very defendable region like switzerland.\n\nTo answer your question simply.\nPortugal\nArmenia(kind of)\nSwitzerland\nSweden\nNorway\n\n\nThere are many others I could list but this is a complicated question.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
9baj0n
|
how does the finance industry benefit society?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9baj0n/eli5_how_does_the_finance_industry_benefit_society/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e51id8r",
"e51ifs4",
"e51il6e"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Depends which part you are talking about. You can get a financial advisor which will help you manage your assets and set you up so you can retire. You can deal with people that forecast costs a business will have to spend so you can plan for it. You can buy stocks and bonds which help 1 party get money for a large project and the other party can earn interest. \n\nFinance basically deals with anything related to money and helping manage those. Managing money is a benefit to society because it let's people be more efficient with what they have. ",
"At the most basic level, it would suck if you couldn't deposit money at a bank and had to keep all your money in a room in your house. One fire or break in and you've lost absolutely everything. And then you couldn't borrow any money to start over because, again, no banks.",
"i cant afford a house now.\n\nbut i could pay for it, in time.\n\nso how about a loan, so i can buy a house, and repay you that loan with some extra.\n\nthis means, if done well, that people can afford property where before they could not.\n\n\ni have a great idea, i could be rich if i had the means. what if someone fronted the money, i could start up a company and introduce a new product for everyone to benefit from.\nthis means, if done well, that anyone with a good idea has a chance to make it happen.\n\n\nof course, this is not how it allways works, but that is the general idea. more homeowners and more ideas develop."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
ah7h8e
|
how does a company go about separating, like with activision blizzard?
|
How do you get both sides to agree to split?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ah7h8e/eli5_how_does_a_company_go_about_separating_like/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eec5oz4",
"eec7iud"
],
"score": [
9,
5
],
"text": [
"I can’t say In activisions case. But my old company simply bought themselves a majority share. This means the company took all of their profits and bought back their own stock. In my old companies case it took around 10 years to complete but with enough capital a company could do it overnight.",
"The technicalities get incredibly complex with the number of legal issues.\n\nUsing your example, Activision Blizzard is one company. There are no \"*both sides*\" to agree and \"*Activision Blizzard*\" is just a name. Blizzard as we knew it is in effect a subsidiary of Activision Blizzard. \n\nNow the term \"*splitting*\" is too wide. I am assuming you mean a complete split of Blizzard as a separate entity. \n\nOne key idea is that shares = 'ownership' in a company. So Activision Blizzard ultimately holds enough shares in Blizzard as a separate company to have a decisive say on how it ought to be run. The specifics get very technical, but the general principle is that many issues relating to the running of a company, such as appointment and removal of directors, are empowered on the shareholders. \n\nHow do companies split? Right now, Activision Blizzard owns a controlling share of Blizzard. If Blizzard were to be 'independent' as its own company, then the Activision Blizzard owned shares in Blizzard would need to go back to 'Blizzard'. This will probably be by selling its shares to whoever wants or will run Blizzard as an independent company etc. so Activision Blizzard no longer has an interest over it. \n\nOf course the laws, rule, and logistics behind it are much more complex than above, but that is the gist. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
fhoi9
|
If the Earth was a smooth, frictionless object (still spinning and revolving around the sun) and if I were to set an equally smooth ball rolling, would it circle the Earth forever?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/fhoi9/if_the_earth_was_a_smooth_frictionless_object/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1g0kqe",
"c1g0wuq"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"I don't think that saying that your ball is \"frictionless\" allows it to overcome wind resistance. So even if touching Earth's surface didn't slow it down, the air around it would.",
"If it were truly frictionless, you wouldn't even need to roll it. Gravity would keep it on the surface, but it would't spin along with the Earth. It would move forever at whatever speed you initially gave it relative to the surface. If you set it down without giving it a push, it would just stay at that point and the surface would rotate beneath it (and your day would be 365 earth days, as the earth went around the sun)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
82f2sa
|
why would a company spend money making offices in a leased spaced. doesn't the landlord "own" and benefit from all of the enhancements?
|
I've never understood why a company would spend money on a rented/leased (maybe there's a difference there) office space that they don't own. Wouldn't it be a better financial decision to purchase a smaller place elsewhere and renovate it so they own all of the improvements? Is there a benefit I'm not aware of?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/82f2sa/eli5_why_would_a_company_spend_money_making/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dv9jg14",
"dv9lxss",
"dv9u8iz"
],
"score": [
9,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"There are two basic issues here. First, the benefits and drawbacks of owning vs leasing and second the issue of \"improvements\" as you put it.\n\nThe pros and cons of buying vs renting/leasing are well understood and have to be decided on a case-by-case basis. Generally leasing is better for cash flow because you can pay month-to-month instead of needing to put down a large down payment up front. Also, with a lease, you aren't tied to the same physical location forever. If you need more space you can easily move without having to find a buyer for your current space.\n\nAs to improvements, I think you have a misunderstanding here. When a company comes in to an empty space and builds rooms, offices, shared spaces, etc. they are doing it to their specific requirements. The next company to use that space would likely have a different set of requirements and so would want a different arrangement of the space. They usually have to tear out what had been built before and redo it. So, in that case, they aren't really \"improving\" the space because it's actually more valuable empty than being pre-built.",
"There are tax and accounting benefits to lease vs own. With a lease, the cost of the rent is an operating expense. With owning, it's a capital expense.\n\nOperating expenses can be written off on the year they occurred. Capital expense has to be depreciated over a period of time. I know you asked about building but let's use an example of a new machine at a factory. If they own it, it has a five year usable life, so according to IRS and gaap? 1/5 of the cost of the purchase can be written off each year. With lease of that same machine, the cost of the lease is operating expenses is a simple annual expense. \n\nBuilding and land have similar rules but the details of how are a bit more complicated, and I don't really know them.\n",
"Leasing allows you to pay for flexibility. Businesses often have needs that change rapidly from year to year, and leasing allows you add or change space more quickly and less expensively. It also lets you start a business more easily, as you avoid loans and big down payments.\n\nAs for the enhancements, who owns what and who pays for what is often negotiated as part of the lease. And just because a landlord owns enhancements doesn't mean they have any value to them. The fixtures for a sandwich shop isn't going to do much good for a pilates studio or a nail salon. The initial build-out is going to be an expense involved with any new tenant."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1aetkc
|
why do conspiracy theorists care if drones patrol our cities?
|
Maybe I'm missing something but, I feel as if the only people who would care are the ones committing crimes.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1aetkc/eli5_why_do_conspiracy_theorists_care_if_drones/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8wqynw",
"c8wuccj"
],
"score": [
8,
3
],
"text": [
"Do you care if the police install cameras in your house, your bedroom, your toilet, or your shower? Why? Unless you're committing a crime who cares?\n\nThe idea is that people like having privacy even if it isn't to commit a crime. I don't think you're a conspiracy theorist if you'd like to have some degree of privacy.",
"There's an old joke that goes:\n\n*\"Knock knock!\"*\n\n*\"Who's there?\"*\n\n*\"Gestapo.\"*\n\nImagine that we're sitting in a room, just you and I and I take out a gun, point it at your head and say \"Well, Sam, the gun's loaded and the safety is off and if the gun is fired, it will blow your head into itty bitty pieces. But don't worry, I'm not going to pull the trigger.\"\n\nDo you want the gun pointed at your head any way? Of course not, that's horrible gun discipline in the first place.\n\nIn any case, previous totalitarian governments and police states have utilized similar \"intelligence gathering\" techniques like, well the Gestapo. They were uniformly used to squash political opposition. You do not want government to have absolute surveillance. YOU need to draw the line because where does the surveillance end?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2mwj4y
|
why does every text to speech synthetic voice pretty much suck?
|
No matter how hard I look for a text to speech software they all have that robotic fake sound. Even Google and Apple with Siri have voices that are clearly fake and robotic. What it's so difficult about the language or the human voice that no program can imitate, are there any advancements in this area?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2mwj4y/eli5why_does_every_text_to_speech_synthetic_voice/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cm87rzm"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"We've been trying to get computers to understand natural languages for 50 years. We still haven't succeeded at that. And until we get that, we're not going to be able to get the cadence right. There's a ton of research in this area- companies like Google and Microsoft are throwing tons of money at it in addition to non-profits and government organizations funding basic research, and some of the greatest minds alive are working to figure it out. They're made a ton of progress in recent years, but it's still not enough.\n\nThe problem is that human languages don't make sense. English grammar can't be defined by a clear set of rules and there are too many exceptions in spelling and pronunciation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
inmms
|
For other planets, how do scientist determine which pole is the North one?
|
Is it in relation to Earth's own northern pole? Solar system wise, how do we decide and agree upon where the "top" of everything (mainly planets) is? Or, is there just something about poles and magnetism that I am just completely missing out on?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/inmms/for_other_planets_how_do_scientist_determine/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c256sqt",
"c256szx",
"c256wt8"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"Just for clarity, the Earth's north and south poles do not align with the magnetic north and south poles. If a planet has a magnetic north and south pole then it is easy to determine which is which by just following the magnetic field. \n\nFor the geographic poles they are determined by convention that the pole lying north of the solar system's plane in reference to Earth's north pole will be the north pole. Some planets (looking at you Uranus) are trouble makers here and they may have special rules.\n\nFor bodies that are outside of the larger 8 planets (dwarf planets, comets, etc...) north is determined by using the right hand rule.",
"_URL_0_\n\nRelevant quotes:\n\nPlanets:\n > The International Astronomical Union (IAU) defines the geographic north pole of a planet or any of its satellites in the solar system as the planetary pole that is in the same celestial hemisphere relative to the invariable plane of the solar system as Earth's North pole.\n\nMinor bodies:\n > In 2009 the responsible IAU Working Group decided to define the poles of dwarf planets, minor planets, their satellites, and comets according to the right-hand rule.[1] To avoid confusion with the \"north\" and \"south\" definitions relative to the invariable plane, \"positive\" is the pole toward which the thumb points when the fingers are curled in its direction of rotation (\"negative\" for the opposite pole). This change was needed because the poles of some asteroids and comets precess rapidly enough for their north and south poles to swap within a few decades using the invariable plane definition.\n\nMagnetic poles:\n > Planetary magnetic poles are defined analogously to the Earth's magnetic poles: they are the locations on the planet's surface at which the planet's magnetic field lines are vertical. The direction of the field determines whether the pole is a magnetic north or south pole, exactly as on Earth. \n\nFor synchronous satellites, you define 4 more poles:\n > In the particular (but frequent) case of synchronous satellites, four more poles can be defined. They are the near, far, leading, and trailing poles. Take Io for example; this moon of Jupiter rotates synchronously, so its orientation with respect to Jupiter stays constant. There will be a single, unmoving point of its surface where Jupiter is at the zenith, exactly overhead — this is the near pole, also called the sub- or pro-Jovian point. At the antipode of this point is the far pole, where Jupiter lies at the nadir; it is also called the anti-Jovian point. There will also be a single unmoving point which is furthest along Io's orbit (best defined as the point most removed from the plane formed by the north-south and near-far axes, on the leading side) —this is the leading pole. At its antipode lies the trailing pole. Io can thus be divided into north and south hemispheres, into pro- and anti-Jovian hemispheres, and into leading and trailing hemispheres. Note that these poles are mean poles because the points are not, strictly speaking, unmoving: there is continuous libration about the mean orientation, because Io's orbit is slightly eccentric and the gravity of the other moons disturbs it regularly.",
"[Here](_URL_0_) is the International Astronomical Union's definition for bodies in the solar system. Perhaps a similar definition could be applied to other bodies not in our solar system, using the galactic plane as a reference (potential problem: I'm not sure if we have accurate measurements of the invariable plane of the galaxy though, so I'm not sure if this could be done)? I really don't know.\n\nI haven't been able to figure out how or if it's done for bodies outside of our solar system, so here's how I would imagine doing it: \n\nPerhaps you could simply define the geographic north pole of a whole star system to be that around which the orbit of the planets is seen to be counter-clockwise (like it is in our solar system), when viewed from \"above\". Then you could simply reapply the IAU's definitions to that star system to identify north and south poles of planetary and smaller bodies."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poles_of_astronomical_bodies"
]
] |
|
155i4k
|
How large would the universe be if there was no empty space between protons, neutrons, and electrons?
|
Would it be the same estimated size as the Big Bang's dense state? What would the density be?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/155i4k/how_large_would_the_universe_be_if_there_was_no/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7jixtj",
"c7jksc8",
"c7jn4le"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"In the primordial, young, small, hot universe, there weren't protons and neutrons at all. Nucleosysnthesis didn't occur until there was enough space to have them around. So the question is sort of ill posed. Expect varying answers.",
"I suppose we could ask what is the combined volume of all matter in the universe.",
"There is no such thing as empty space, just particle/field duality."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5tzvng
|
Is it true that baths and personal hygiene were considered dangerous for your health during the 16th/17th century in Europe?
|
I am currently reading Shogun, a fictional novel by James Clavell that is set in 1600 Japan. In one of the chapters, the main protagonist, an English sea-merchant, is being questioned by his Japanese captures. The Japanese translator states to him, "Lord Toranaga says, it is unbelievable that any human could live without bathing." The Englishman replies, "For instance, in my country, everyone believes baths are dangerous for your health. My grandmother, Granny Jacoba, used to say, 'a bath when you're birthed and another when laid out'll see thee through the Pearly Gates.'"
If this is so, what was the cause of them to believe that bathing or cleaning ones-self was considered harmful to their health? When did this idea start to change?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5tzvng/is_it_true_that_baths_and_personal_hygiene_were/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ddqi4ol",
"ddr8b74",
"ddrhozf"
],
"score": [
563,
20,
3
],
"text": [
"In the mid-1480s, Nuremberg printer Hans Folz published a guide to the various public hot springs and baths he had encountered in his travels, stretching from Germany to the border of Spain. In rhyming verse, so people would remember. In 1638, on the other hand, Francis Bacon advised that it was better for one's health to bathe in the blood of infants than to drink blood out of a young man's arm, but people (except kings, in rumor) tended to object to this, so how about just placing something cold on your chest. While we should not be taking the thoughts of a man named Bacon on the myriad health benefits of animal fat as reflecting common practice, his *Historia vitae et mortis* helps set the terms for the shift in hygiene practices as reflecting changing and solidifying ideas about health and longevity.\n\nIn the later Middle Ages, bathing and cleanliness hovered somewhere between an ideal and a practice for most people. Literature and art reveal a premium on clean hands and clean babies, and religious advice literature often warns its readers away from the ancient ascetic practice of never bathing. On the other hand, English tax records suggest that a substantial portion of the urban poor didn't really have much in the way of changes of clothing, which might explain why friars complained about the stench during church services.\n\nThe noteworthy development in hygiene-health over the later Middle Ages, which as we will see may have had something to do with the 16C changes, was the revival of the (not entirely abandoned) Roman public bathing tradition. For the most part, we are talking about either natural hot springs or constructed steam baths, definitely public, and--crucial--*typically co-ed*. While theologians like Hildegard of Bingen commented that hot springs were heated by the fires of purgatory and were good for spiritual as well as physical health, it is clear that going to the baths was a euphemism for a fun day on the town. Yes, this is going exactly where you think it is.\n\nBy 1500, public baths were developing A Reputation as hot zones of debauchery, especially prostitution, and this was not a good thing. This development had something to do with bathing activities themselves and something to do with changing societal standards. The late 15th-16th century is often painted by scholars as the rise of \"social discipline,\" a concern for outward societal order, propriety, and morality. One of the most visible displays of this is in attitudes towards prostitution. While many medieval cities operated legal brothels as a sort of \"men are gonna do it anyway; might as well protect the virtuous women by discarding others\" attitude, sixteenth-century councillors and churchmen were intent on stamping out the immorality altogether. I stress that this was a slow change, occurring at different times in different places (you can find some public baths operating in Germany on the eve of the Thirty Years War, and Scandinavia clung even more tenaciously to the practice).\n\nSo the first change in the decline of bathing over the sixteenth century relates to public baths and a recalibration of \"public morality.\" One factor that may or may not be related, given the association between public baths and sex, is the spread of syphilis. From the 1490s on, European writers paid A LOT of attention to the French/foreign disease (although, since some of the writers had syphilis themselves, they often sought to emphasize its claimed non-sexual patterns of transmission. Which was definitely how all of them picked it up, definitely). Surely the fear of it was greater than the reality, but that could have provided yet more impetus for leery town councils to close their brothels and baths.\n\nThe third factor, and what we see flourishing in Bacon's writing (there are plenty of other examples; he's just my favorite in basically all things) is the popularization of knowledge (or \"knowledge,\" if you prefer) about health. This is certainly growing over the late Middle Ages, with a small but increasing number of medical treatises published in the vernacular and a proliferating variety of medical practitioners forming guilds in cities. The eventual triumph of the print industry and the vernacular, though, *really* helps spread not just lists of remedies but the underlying theories to more and more people.\n\nWhat Bacon describes, in particular, is the belief that the body can be nourished but also lose nourishment through the skin, not just eating. The goal of bathing, to him, was to keep the good from leaving while still letting in other good things. Montaigne, old school, longed for the days when steam and hot water baths opened up people's pores. Bacon wanted those *sealed off*. He wasn't opposed to bathing, just, the water had to be cold, and it had to be quick. And hey, why use water at all if you could get the same benefits from a cold solid pressed against your skin? *Vitae et mortis* has a whole excursus on the proper method of \"anointing\" oneself before and after the quick dip in cold water, which basically consists of mixing liquid oils with various herbs and spreading it all over your skin. (My forehead is breaking out in sympathy zits.)\n\nWhat *did* concern people was cleanliness of clothes and cleanliness of blankets--and smell. Elisabeth-Charlotte von der Pfalz, Liselotte to her friends and Duchesse d'Orleans at the court of the Sun King, had *everything in the world* to say about the way people smelled, and how they tried to combat it with perfumes, pomades, and...other things:\n\n > The first Dauphin followed his father's example and took unto himself a miserable and smelly creature who was a lady-in-waiting to the old Princesse de Conti...She looked like a pug dog, and was small, with short legs, a round face, a turned-up nose, and a large mouth, filled with rotten teeth, which smelled so badly that one could smell them from the other side of the room...I believe the Dauphin took to tobacco in order not to smell the odor of her teeth.\n\n~~\n\nETA: I just realized I name-dropped three of my five favorite old authors, and my username adds the fourth, so to make the circle complete:\n\n > For this was on Saint Valentines day\n\n > When every brid [bird] cometh there to chese his make\n\n > Of every kinde that men thinke may...\n\n > This noble empresse [the goddess *Natura*], ful of grace\n\n > Bad every fowl to take his owene place\n\n > As they were wont alway, from yeer to yere\n\n > Saint Valentines Day, to stonden there. ([modernized here](_URL_0_))",
"This is really tangental to your original question, more dealing with the depiction of bathing in art than directly with the application and frequency of bathing, /u/-TheLoneRangers-, but because I can't resist sharing naughty historical art, I give you [Boilly's *La Toilette Intime*](_URL_1_), circa 1780s. It depicts a young lady rinsing her bits in a bidet and is just one of an entire genre of soft core pornographic art that was popular in the medieval and early modern periods. \n\nOther examples include [Gabrielle d'Estrées and her sister, the duchesse de Villars](_URL_4_), 1595; and numerous examples of manuscript marginalia from the 14th and 15th centuries (my particular favorite is the [bathhouse illustrations](_URL_3_) that were super popular in Germany in the late-14th-early-15th centuries manuscripts). \n\nThere's also the ever-popular biblical story of [Susanna and the Elders](_URL_2_) and [David spying on Bathsheba](_URL_0_), both of which are given quite a lot of --*ahem*-- attention in art from the 14th-17th centuries in particular.\n\nedit: fixed some weird linkage issues.",
"I have an add on to this, is it true that the countryside peasantry was often cleaner then nobles or city dwellers?\n\nI know that at the time the real aversion was to nudity and bathing itself, and that these societal standards were looser among the lower classes.\n\nI'm also told that during the summer months it was very common for people to duck off to a near by stream for a quick dip, and given that I myself know how good it feels to take a swim after working all week this idea seems very intuitive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.poetryintranslation.com/PITBR/English/Fowls.htm"
],
[
"https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/736x/cb/b2/0b/cbb20b970480e80c3e139f18d448092a.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/ca/Boilly_La_Toilette_intime_ou_la_Rose_effeuill%C3%A9e.jpg",
"https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Susanna_and_the_Elders_\\(1610\\),_Artemisia_Gentileschi.jpg",
"http://m.cdn.blog.hu/tr/trendmano/image/medieval-bath-4_hajmosas.jpg",
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Scuola_di_fontainebleau%2C_presunti_ritratti_di_gabrielle_d%27estr%C3%A9es_sua_sorella_la_duchessa_di_villars%2C_1594_ca._06.jpg"
],
[]
] |
|
5kh4i6
|
why does thinking about our subconscious actions make them manual?
|
For example:
You're breathing right? Now think about breathing.
You're also aware of your tongue now.
Oh, you're also blinking manually too.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kh4i6/eli5_why_does_thinking_about_our_subconscious/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dbnzfgx",
"dbo1at6"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"It doesn't. Your breathing isn't manual. You're just aware of it. Being aware of your breathing does not put you in imminent danger of asphyxiation. \n\nPeople who buy into this myth are expecting their breathing to become manual, so they hold their breath and then choose to stop holding their breath...et voila. ",
"Because breathing that is mechanism of muscle tensing and relaxing change the volume of your chest cavity, allowing air to be sucked in or pushed out. Those muscle are skeletal muscle (intercostals and diaphragm muscle), which like any other skeletal muscle you can control voluntarily. \n\nHowever we have ourselves a Respiratory center in our brain stem, that controls our breathing rhythm (ventilation), because I'm explaining like it is 5, thus this center sends down signal to inspiratory muscles and then expiratory muscles after, again and again, in rhythmic speed. The rhythm is set according Chemical sensors in the lungs and some part of the blood vessels -- there's one in our brain-- that send signals to our respiratory center. (forgot where some of the other chemosensors is though, few google search might help you).\n\nIt's like breathing is supposed to be involuntary because you have a part of your brain stem that could control it, however since it's made of skeletal muscle you can override the brain stem control. The brain stem could also makes you feels in the need of air thus you manually increase your breathing as well.\n\nNow being aware of it makes you \"manual breathing\" because you are made aware that you can voluntary control of you breath, your sense around the chest increase because you made your brain aware of your chest, the movement, the skin touching with the clothes your on, the stretching of muscles when breathing), giving you the sense of manual control of your chest, and as well you start holding your breath for no apparent reason instead of continuing to breath normally. Basically, when you are aware, like any most people would do if being aware of something they just stop doing the thing and thinking about it. because you just hold your breath for a few moments, your brain feels you need to compensate for much air, thus it sends signals to increase breathing rhythm, which usually are voluntarily, like after you run and out of breath, the breathing becomes voluntary as ever because you need to get in much more O2 than usual. At certain range of O2 intake is automatic, but when the body need much larger O2 intake, it becomes manual so you can breathe hard and deep and fast."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2ao8tc
|
how come my dog can sleep in crazy positions and not hurt her neck but if i sleep just slightly off my pillow or at an odd position my neck hurts all day.
|
What kind of voodoo allows my boxer to sleep upside down and contorted but I bend my neck the wrong way sleeping and I'm taking pain relievers for the rest of the day.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ao8tc/eli5how_come_my_dog_can_sleep_in_crazy_positions/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cix59bt",
"cix6foi",
"cix7g2m",
"cix7id7",
"cix8o13",
"cix8pn6",
"cix991h",
"cixaxr9",
"cixbjz5",
"cixbz64",
"cixc4fk",
"cixdfaq",
"cixf2bg",
"cixfrm6",
"cixgodl",
"cixha5c",
"cixixva",
"cixkpr7",
"cixl2ea",
"cixlgqy",
"cixnk51",
"cixnoxk",
"cixp3us",
"cixp921",
"cixp9dl",
"cixpk9w",
"cixpn2o",
"cixpyvm",
"cixq2bs",
"cixrfcm",
"cixrsc1",
"cixt115",
"cixvfpy",
"cixvxpc",
"cixw2em",
"cixw9e5",
"cixwz33",
"cixy60i"
],
"score": [
887,
77,
72,
35,
8,
2,
2,
40,
7,
4,
3,
2,
2,
11,
7,
2,
2,
4,
2,
3,
2,
2,
2,
3,
2,
3,
3,
2,
6,
2,
3,
3,
3,
6,
3,
5,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Partially because we evolved to walk upright, that changed the way our spine works in relation to quadrupeds, and means we have a lot less flexibility in our neck than they do. The movement of our head is severely restricted, for this reason our neck muscles are a lot less powerful and developed than those of dogs. The other reason is exercise, dogs are insanely flexible and are constantly bending their bodies in crazy ways. The average modern human just walks upright or sits upright most of the day. \n\nI have 2 labs, male is 3 years old, female is 90 days old. The big guy uses the little girl as a pillow, and she doesn't even mind. She sleeps under the weight of the head of a 60kg dog, no problems. Sometimes she sleeps with her head hanging from the couch. ",
"Because the dog's skeleton and muscles are very different to yours. We have developed down very different evolutionary paths. \n\nIt's also one of the reasons why a dog can lick his balls and you can't. \n\nUnless you give him a biscuit. ",
"Lots of people commenting about our skeletons and whatnot. But have you ever seen a baby fall asleep with it's head in it's own butt? \n\nI think it must also have something to do with our muscles? Aren't modern human adults basically just tightened off elastic bands?\n\nMy yoga doing friends could fall asleep with her foot behind her head. When I try to tie my shoe, I start to cry. ",
"Here is a question: How do you know that your dog's neck doesn't hurt? Maybe your dog's neck does hurt, but because it is a dog, it is simply incapable of communicating it to you. ",
"Your dog isn't a whiny bitch, she keep her complaints for things that matter. Like where's my food, I want out, or get over here bunny.",
"That's probably because of two things. First is because dogs (i too have a boxer) have developed necks appropriate for hunting, which gives them a huge amount of posible ways to move it (look at your dog when it plays with a toy, how it moves it sideways violently) and a grand amount of force (big muscles). The other posible explanation is our posture and how we move, since bipedalism and (word for walking in four paws) make every movement diferent. Sorry for my crappy english.",
"Because we walk upright and evolution hasn't really sorted-out our how that works for our spine yet",
"Walking with an upright carriage and having a proportionallly enormous skull requires some dramatic evolutionary tradeoffs. For example giving birth is much more difficult, spinal injuries are much more common, youre not flexible enough to lick your nuts, your jaw muscles are not strong enough to kill prey, etc etc. The most important thing regarding your question is that your spine and neck are supporting much more weight compressively and are way less flexible, though there is a bit more to it. A dog is just built differently than you. On the other side of the coin, a dog has a fairly difficult time walking upright, cant perform calculus, and pick things up with his paws.\nI went for a long time like a year without sleeping in a bed, and your body seems to be less fussy about things like this when its not used to comfort on a regular basis.",
"Animals tend to ignore pain/wounds that would send most of us crying to a doctor. I've had dogs hurt themselves in pretty gruesome ways (running into fences flat out and losing teeth, getting hit by cars, shredding feet open on broken glass, etc) and completely not care, not even a whimper.\n\nHis neck might hurt just as much, he's just not whining.\n\nSide note:\n\nI had cervical kyphosis after an awesome mountain bike crash that resulted in me landing on the back of my head, upside down, with all my body weight. All the sudden, I would have crippling neck pain if I slept \"wrong\".\n\nAs it turns out, sleeping wrong wasn't the issue, being all out of whack was-sleeping weird just exacerbated it. It might be worth mentioning to a doctor. A stiff neck is one thing, recurring pain requiring pain medication might be something worth checking out.",
"You probably have neck cancer ",
"I don't know about the rest of you, but I can sleep in any position and still feel comfortable in the morning",
"The dog cant complain about it",
"How do you know she doesn't have a crick in her neck? Did she tell you? And if she did... did she also command you to murder the sinners? O^In ^this ^hole ^lives ^the ^Wicked ^King. ^Kill ^for ^my ^Master. ^I ^turn ^children ^into ^Killers.",
"Your dog runs around, rolls around, and is generally physically active repeatedly throughout the day. You are a fatass who spends most of the day in a chair.",
"Your Dog feels it, he just doesn't bitch about it. Suck it up princess.",
"Dogs have very strong necks. They have to support their head in front of their body. Our necks just hold it straight up.",
"Dogs don't have collar bones. They do get sore necks but not as often as we do and usually not just from sleeping wrong.\n",
"It does hurt her but she is not a little bitch.",
"Often times I see my dog sleeping on his side with his head at a 90 degree angle up against the wall....I shudder at the thought of waking up after a night of that.",
"How do you know your dog's neck doesn't hurt?",
"Because you are not a dog",
"Your dog is a lot younger than you are.",
"cause you're a complainer",
"You may have noticed many comments relating to hydration. You also have seen the comments about physical fitness. Finally, I want to highlight the remarks about sleeping position.\nI bet you drink alcohol. Not a lot, not like I'm trying to say you're an alcoholic, but often... A drink with dinner, or maybe a couple before bed.\nThose couple of drinks are causing you to sleep Hard, staying far too long in one position. They are sapping your hydration, causing joint stiffness and drying your connective tissue. The alcohol is causing inflammation of the nerves, and simultaneously rendering your natural pain dampening response ineffective. \nYou try to treat with pain meds, which are barely effective, but they are secretly taxing your liver, causing more inflammation, and further disrupting your natural pain dampening chemistry. It becomes a vicious cycle. \nThe liver, taxed beyond its ability, spend increasing amounts of effort trying to process toxins, during which time it becomes more inflamed and less able to process nutritive factors. The inflammation throughout the body increases. The joints deteriorate rapidly due to inflammation, poor hydration, and lack of proper nutrition from the liver. \nGive up the alcohol and see what happens.",
"Who knows, I sure don't speak dog. ",
"This is a dumb question OP. You should feel bad.",
"How would you know how your dogs neck feels?",
"How the hell do you know your dog doesn't have a sore neck? lol",
"You have a sensitive neck.",
"Because you're not a fucking dog.",
"My god I can't believe this question made it to the front page. ",
"She does she just doesnt bitch about it \nedit: pun punintended",
"How...how do YOU know your dog isn't in pain? When your neck hurts after a bad sleep, it isn't anyways evident on the surface because you just go about your daily business anyway...",
"Like some other people have said, it's an issue of fitness. Fitness is not just cardio, it's also things like stretching, posture and a bunch of other junk. \n\nThere is an emerging field, biomechanics, which is a combination of anatomy and physical therapy research, which is all about how your body is supposed to be used. Chances are that if you have a sore neck, you are not using your body well. Sure there are folks out there who are worse, but because you are riddled with minor problems from poor posture and repetitive stress injuries, you flare those up when you sleep weird.\n\nI know about all this, and am more than capable of avoiding all neck and back pain when I focus on it... but that doesn't mean I never let myself get headaches, or that I don't live with chronically tight shoulders out of laziness.\n\nIf you want more information I could blab on a bit and direct you to some resources.",
"Maybe their necks do hurt after sleeping like that, but they just can't tell you because they can't talk?",
"How do you know the dog's neck doesn't hurt?",
"Same reason they can lick their own balls and we can't. Flexibility.",
"Has your dog ever complained to you of a sore neck?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
956ftm
|
Have there ever been any conflicts between the Republic of Congo and DRC over who gets the name "Congo?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/956ftm/have_there_ever_been_any_conflicts_between_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e3r9q4x"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Supplementary question - what was the origin of the name \"Zaire\" and why was it dropped in favour of the current (confusing) DRC?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3i0eym
|
why do "million" and "millennia" sound the same, but one refers to millions and the other refers to thousands?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3i0eym/eli5_why_do_million_and_millennia_sound_the_same/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cuc64ib"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Both derive from the word 'mille', thousand. But million refers to thousand thousands, whereas millennia refers to thousand years, or 'mille anni'."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
147q0s
|
The spread of Confucianism to Japan and Korea
|
I am currently taking a class related to Asian Traditions, and we are looking at the spread of Confucianism to Japan and Korea and its relationship to gender roles and the control of sexuality. I'm pretty good on the gender part. However, I'm less clear on WHY Confucianism was seen as such an attractive thing to Japan (8th-10th centuries) and Korea (14th-15th centuries).
I'm hoping someone can give me a little high-level information on the "why" of the spread of Confucianism; I've already read a lot about the "how" and "when", so I don't need that so much.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/147q0s/the_spread_of_confucianism_to_japan_and_korea/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7arfsz",
"c7aswyu",
"c7ax5qr"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Since no one has answered, I'll mention that in Vietnam from the 15th century on, the ruling dynasties adopted Confucianism as the core state ideology because 1.) the Vietnamese elite found it appealing to adopt and modify the cultural identity of the Chinese elite and 2.) because the Confucian/Chinese system of governance gave them a state ideology that legitimized state building and centralization, which reduced the influence of non-state local figures, and offered specific prescriptions on how to order the state and conduct governance. For example, the Le dynasty wrote their legal code by copy the Chinese code and making slight alterations. I have no idea if this is the same as in Japan and Korea, but at least it's a starting point.",
"The last Korean Dynasty, Joseon, was found upon the idea of Neo-Confucianism which was born during Southern Song Dynasty China.\n\nThe previous Korean Dynasty, Goryo, adopted primarily Buddhism as its main belief system. However, Near the end of Goryo dynasty, Buddhism has become corrupt. Monks controlled huge amount of lands as people excessively gave away their land, partly due to gain entry into \"heaven\", while others were forced by powerful temples. It eventually destroys Goryo's economy as people volunteered to work at the temple/become monks as it was decent method of living. Number of people who actually produced goods began to decrease, causing havoc.\n\nA New dynasty, Joseon, was born out of this, (1392) lead by Neo-Confucianism scholars. It was a much more progressive belief system at the time. Where Buddhism focused on enlightenment and afterlife, Confucianism focused on human nature and their current lives, and disregarded any Buddhist belief of afterlife and enlightenment. It was followed by land reform and a encouragement towards agriculture based economy. \n\nFounding of the new dynasty under new ideals quickly entered sort of a \"golden age\" for Korea, (King Sejong is still a revered figure during this time) and Neo-Confucianism was deeply rooted by the 15th century as all the intellectuals in Korea has adopted it by then. (There is a struggle between old elites and Neo-scholars throughout the initial half of Joseon period, but that's whole another post)\n\n[source on King Sejong era Confucianism](_URL_0_)\n\nConfucianism did not take as much of a deep root as it did in Korea in Japan. Buddhism has always been at full force in Japan since its introduction in 6th century. Also Japan has its own native belief called Shinto. While Japan has adopted many of philosophies of Confucianism in the system of government (As it was adopted by the \"superior\" Chinese Dynasties at the time), Buddhism remains strong. Many early Confucianism scholars in Japan are actually Buddhist monks. This is a huge contrast to Korea/China where Buddhism declines as Confucianism rose.\n\nPart of problem with Confucianism in Japan (especially after rise of Samurais and Shogunate) is that Confucianism demands loyalty. Japan in history often times have multiple rulers representing the country; Emperor acting as symbolic figure, another ruler with real power (Shogun or Regency of some form) actually rules the country. This creates confusion when demanding loyalty; who should you be loyal to?\n\nHowever, Neo-Confucianism does take some foothold in Japan after their invasion of Korea in 16th century. As the emperor by this time has been completely relegated to symbolic figure and all but forgotten, Shogunate was the effective ruler of Japan. But it never really settled as \"main-stream\" belief as it does in same period Joseon or Ming dynasty. Zen Buddhism remains a strong belief in Japan along side Neo-Confucianism.\n\n [source on Confucianism in Japan](_URL_1_) ",
"Let me ask you few questions. Why is English such a dominate language around the world(e.g. English is a subject on Chinese college entrance exam). Why is American pop culture so popular? Why is U.S. Constitution so widely emulated by newly independent nations?\n\nWas it really because English language is a better language for communication? Was it because American pop culture is more entertaining than the local pop culture? Was it really because U.S. has best form of government?\n\nThe reason why Confucianism spread to Japan and Korea was the same reason why American culture, language, and government are so dominate in 20th and 21th century. People from less advanced nations tend to adopt whole scale everything from more advanced nation. In our age, United States is the more advanced nation that every other countries try to emulate. If we time travel back to 1000 years ago in Asia, that more advanced nation was China. \n\nConfucianism had been state philosophy since the reign of Han Wudi (r. 156–87 BC). Government of China was inseparable from Confucianism for hundreds of year by the time it spread to Korea and Japan. When \"lesser advanced\" countries of Korea and Japan emulated Chinese government and institution, Confucianism was a part of that package. Similar thing happen in our timeline. When newly liberated nations of Iraq and Afghanistan wrote their constitutions they adapted American political philosophy of three branches of government and separation of power. \n\nIn my opinion, Confucianism spread simply because it was believed that it lead would to good government. I don't mean to be critical,but I feel that the plight of women was an insignificant factor in whether to adapt Confucianism. \n\nI agree with you that Confucianism eventually advocate oppression of women. However, we will be suffering from Presentism bias if we use that argument against Confucianism.\nI want to remind you that for the first thousand year that Confucianism was China's guiding political thought, Chinese women have rights. It was only with the rise of Neo-Confucianism that's when thing went from sort of ok to worse. \n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://asiasociety.org/countries/traditions/king-sejong-great",
"http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/japanese-confucian/"
],
[]
] |
|
d9v7pp
|
why can't we put a metallic grille on plane reactors to keep birds from getting to the engine?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d9v7pp/eli5_why_cant_we_put_a_metallic_grille_on_plane/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1lle08",
"f1llh01",
"f1lloyn"
],
"score": [
7,
6,
3
],
"text": [
"We can’t do this because if a bird we’re to hit the grille and damage it, it could cause more damage as the grille will become entangled in the engine.\n\nMost engines only take ~20% of air through the core of the engine, everything else is bypassed and creates thrust",
"There are a few reasons why this is impractical. \n\nIt would cause resistance for air flow. \n\nWould add weight. \n\nIf hitting a bird at high speeds, it would just fail and get sucked into the engine causing more damage than a bird would. \n\nIncreasing the strength to withstand a bird strike would further increase the weight and further reduce air flow. But bits of bird would still get through and sucked into the engine.",
"That seems like the easiest solution, actually. But there's a problem:\n\nMost passenger planes have a cruising speed of ~800km/h. If just about any kind of bird, no matter if it's a goose or a pigeon, hits a metal grille at 800km/h, it will just be shred into pieces that then still get into the engine. Even if you make it very fine, which you can't because it will become too heavy and restrict air flow, bits of bones will still go through and damage Parts in the engine."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1idhit
|
Do we know exactly how strong the Olympians of ancient Greece were compared to the Olympians of today?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1idhit/do_we_know_exactly_how_strong_the_olympians_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cb3t1v8"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"Keep in mind that the Olympics was a ritual rather than a purely athletic event. Ancient Greeks did not generally record the distances, weights, or times of the races and competitors. All that mattered was beating everyone else - lifting more than all the previous people, finishing this race first. Doing better than people did four years ago was also not important. \n\nOne of the few actual recorded results is Phayllos of Kroton's long jump. The long jump sand pit was 50 feet, and he jumped clear across it, some 50 plus feet. Considering the current record is still under 30 feet, this calls into question the accuracy of the recording, whether this is exaggeration and myth, or if it was a multi-jump event. We just don't know. \n\nI think you could safely speculate that Olympians are stronger today than they were in ancient Greek times due to training, nutrition, and dedication to events that just wasn't available at the time. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2pn166
|
Was the M4 Sherman a good or bad tank?
|
My friend insists that the Sherman was a bad tank, simply for the reason that it was incredibly flammable. He says the British called it the "Zippo" or "Ronson", and the Germans called it the "Tommy Cooker". Is there any truth in what he claims, or is it just a myth?
EDIT: I have asked him and he is refferring to the M4 not the other flamethrower tank.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pn166/was_the_m4_sherman_a_good_or_bad_tank/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmyrue8",
"cmz9v0f"
],
"score": [
3,
5
],
"text": [
"As we can see from my flair I'm hardly a tank expert, but if flammability is the only criterion for being a bad tank the M4 was certainly a whole lot better than most of the tanks that one might laud as excellent. The Tiger was know for catching fire even when it hadn't been shot, as was the Panther. The T-34 statistically caught fire more than any other tank in the war, and I believe had proportionally higher cases of fire as well (because of its crappy engine that overheated easily and the silly method of storing ammunition). Indeed, with the introduction of wet stowage the M4 became extremely safe from ammunition fires and explosions",
"So as /u/XenophonTheAthenian said, judging a tank simply on how readily it might burn when knocked out is a pretty narrow metric with which to measure the effectiveness of a tank, and by that metric the Sherman doesn't actually do that poorly. Xenophon already mentioned the problem wasn't unique to the Sherman at all but I figured I would back that up with some actual data, and then I wanted to add some *actual* context to what the Sherman actually was and what it wasn't because I have a feeling that your friend wont simply be convinced just by learning that the Sherman didn't catch fire any more than any other tank did (and less often than some other famous tanks). \n\nSo how often the Sherman was considered to burn really depended on the circumstances in which the data was collected. An American study conducted in France for instance found that 65% of Shermans burned when they were knocked out.^1 While a study of the British 8th and 24th Armor Brigades found that about 56% of there tanks burned when knocked out.^1 Another study found that they burned about 80% of the time. These rates all really depended on the sample of course so you are never going to get a single definitive rate. \n\nThe causes of this was primarily the storage of ammunition. In the early version of the Sherman, which I will refer to as \"small-hatch\" Shermans from now on, all of the ammunition was either stored in the turret (the ready-rack) or in the ammunition racks in the [sponsons](_URL_7_) over the tracks. The problem with that location is that most of the time when tanks were knocked out, it was from hits to the sides which meant that the ammunition racks were quite often directly in the line of fire!\n\nEven so, the Sherman was by no means the only offender in this regard. The Panther stored its ammunition in [literally the same location](_URL_10_), so did the [Panzer IV](_URL_13_), and the [Tiger](_URL_14_). This meant that any time these tanks were hit from the side they were very likely to burn. And according to an allied study the Panzer IV was the worst, burning more than 80% of the time. \n\nThe American's however recognized this as an issue with the Sherman and quickly set about attempting to fix the issue. \n\nThe first thing the US did was to issue an armor applique kit which would be applied in tank depots before being issued to troops in the field. There were four different kits but the one I am referring to can be seen in [this picture](_URL_11_). Each of those armor plates were intended to simply increase the thickness of the hull armor over the ammo racks. Eventually the applique armor, on M4A1s at least, was made part of the actual [hull casting](_URL_0_), but on tanks like the M4, M4A2, M4A3, and M4A4 the applique armor was simply welded on till the production of those tanks ceased.\n\nThe applique armor was never seen as the final solution however, and in December 1943 the second generation of Sherman's, or large-hatch Shermans, began rolling off the production lines. This new generation of Shermans included a number of improvements but perhaps the most obvious change was the the front of the hull which can be seen in this picture of a [small-hatch](_URL_12_) and [large-hatch](_URL_8_) M4A3. The important thing to note however is that on the large hatch Sherman there is no applique armor plates. \n\nThis was one of the major improvements of the large-hatch Shermans, at least as far as fires go anyway. According to studies conducted by the Ordnance Department the best place for the ammunition was on the floor of the tank, and in some reports they specifically refer to this arrangement as the \"Soviet manner\", because this was how ammunition was stored in the T-34. So all the ammunition was moved to the floor in armored containers, and the turret basket was removed to allow access to the containers. Another feature that was added was called Wet Storage. \n\nWet Storage was basically this: all the ammunition boxes which were in the floor were surrounded by a water jacket. The idea was that if the ammunition racks were hit they would be flooded with water and put out any fire. On 75mm armed Shermans the water jacket could hold 38.1 gallons or .366 gallons per round (104 rounds total) and in 76mm armed Shermans 34.5 gallons or .515 gallons per round (71 rounds total).^2\n\nWet Storage worked extremely well, Shermans equipped with it now burned between 10 - 15% of the time as opposed to the 55 - to 80%^3 of the time, making the Sherman by far the safest tank on the battlefield as far as fires went anyway.\n\nAnother thing your friend will probably mention is the Sherman's gas engine, and he will probably cite this as a source of the fires in the Sherman. If he does this, you should point out that *all* German tanks also had gas engines, and ask why didn't their tanks have the same reputations. (Though they really ought to have anyway, they caught on fire just as often). \n\nNow as for the *context* as the first comment here put it. Now I could go on and on but I figure a good way to give you sort of the readers digest version is by addressing most the points I mentioned in [this](_URL_3_) post. So lets do each one in order.\n\n1. American tanks weren't designed to fight other tanks./The Sherman was particularly likely to burn or easy to destroy.\n\nThis simply isn't true, and when the evidence is examined you will see that US forces did quite well. In a study of 87 tank engagements involving involving the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions the US actually destroyed more enemy tanks and equipment then they lost, and in these engagements they were quite often fighting Panthers.^4\n\nIn the first 3 examples in the study, which involved a total of 27 engagements, a total of 155 M4s faced off against 114 Panthers. The US lost 10 M4s while the Germans lost 70 Panthers^4. \n\nAnd the Sherman had been designed from the get go to fight other tanks. In [FM 17-10](_URL_6_) it states explicitly that both medium and light tanks should be used to fight other tanks. In 1942 the Sherman was more than capable of taking on any tank on the battlefield. Its 75mm gun could kill any German tank at the time and with 90mm of armor on the front of the hull (effective) it was mostly impervious to any German tank except at close range. \n\nThis situation remained about the same until mid 44, yes the Panzer 4 was upgunned, but even the 7.5cm KwK L/48 couldnt penetrate the front of the Sherman beyond 1100 meters while the Panzer IV remained vulnerable from about the same distance. \n\nThe Panther did outclass the Sherman, there is no doubt of that, and unlike what that other poster said it even outclassed the late war Sherman, but the Panther had its own issues, and while it did outclass the Sherman one on one, it was not so superior that it couldn't be overcome as the study I mentioned showed. \n\n_URL_1_ took X number of Shermans to kill Panzer IV/V/VI\n\nThis is a very silly claim and there is no basis for it. Keep in mind that the Germans lost more tanks to the US than the US lost to the Germans.\n\nReally, the Sherman was a tank that was comparable to other medium tanks of the era, for instance the T-34. Both tanks were armed and armored in similar ways, and they both served about the same roles in their respective armies. Neither tank was perfect, but they were good enough to do the job that was expected of them and they did them well. \n\nAnyway, I feel that the second part wasn't all the eloquent but I am way past my bed time. If there was anything I did not explain well, let me know and I will clarify, I admit I was sort of pulled in all directions wile trying to put this together.\n\nOh by the way, the Ronson nickname is almost certainly anachronistic. The \"lights first time, every time\" was a slogan that didn't come out until the 50s. Ronson did make flamethrowers for Shermans though and I think that is probably where the name came from. \n\nList of sources:\n\n1. John Buckley, [British Armour in the Normandy Campaign]( _URL_2_)\n\n2. R.P. Hunnicutt, [Sherman: A History of the American Medium Tank](_URL_4_)\n\n3. Steven Zaloga, [Armored Thunderbolt: The U.S. Army Sherman in World War II](_URL_5_)\n\n4. David Hardison, [Data on Tank Engagements involving the 3rd and 4th Armored Divisions](_URL_9_)\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1psc/m4a1_psc12.JPG",
"2.It",
"http://www.amazon.co.uk/British-Armour-Normandy-Campaign-Buckley/dp/0714653233",
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2pn166/was_the_m4_sherman_a_good_or_bad_tank/cmyje9q",
"http://www.amazon.com/Sherman-History-American-Medium-Tank/dp/0891410805",
"http://www.amazon.com/Armored-Thunderbolt-U-S-Sherman-World/dp/0811704246",
"http://www.ibiblio.org/hyperwar/USA/ref/FM/PDFs/FM17-10.PDF",
"http://www.usmilitariaforum.com/uploads//monthly_04_2009/post-3743-1238924587.jpg",
"http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a375w/m4a375w_6.jpg",
"https://books.google.com/books?id=e82PAgAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=gbs_vpt_buy#v=onepage&q&f=false",
"http://s666.photobucket.com/user/thedarkknight_1988/media/TigerIIHull_zpscbdaeb86.jpg.html",
"http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a1psc/m4a1_psc8.JPG",
"http://the.shadock.free.fr/sherman_minutia/manufacturer/m4a3ford/m4a3ford_39.jpg",
"http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y188/stickjock/pz4-10a_zps7af29498.jpg",
"http://qph.is.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-7a3b401ed9edc8c83489fe2de46ee478?convert_to_webp=true"
]
] |
|
vsvsx
|
why are the trees still standing with green when the homes are charred? _url_0_
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/vsvsx/eli5_why_are_the_trees_still_standing_with_green/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c57ble1"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"The level of moisture in living trees is much greater than that of lumber and other building materials."
]
}
|
[
"http://i.imgur.com/s5qGo.jpg"
] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
bhnubv
|
if cameras can take videos with fps equaling single shutter speeds, why do photographers take dedicated still shots instead of video recording everything and later just isolating single frames for “photographs?”
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bhnubv/eli5_if_cameras_can_take_videos_with_fps_equaling/
|
{
"a_id": [
"elu8wt0",
"eluecr0"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"In some cases you can, but when you take a single frame you have more control over the light. When you take a photo you can balance the depth of field, aperture size and iso- getting the right ratio of the three can give you much needed control in certain scenarios. When you record video- most of those settings become automatic so a lot of work might be needed in post production to get the shot you need. \n\nI’m sure with more expensive technology you can do it easier, but basically the needs for photos and video are not the same to produce an image.",
" > If cameras can take videos with fps equaling single shutter speeds, \n\nThat assumption is not correct.\n\nThe shutter speed is the time the sensor is exposed to light not the time to read out the captured information. A simple camera can capture image in 1/1000 of a second but that do not in any way mean that it can take 1000 pictures per second. It take time to read out the images from the sensor so you talk of single digit number of images per second for most camera.\n\nCameras cant take video at a high fram rate in the same resolution as they can capture a still image. It take time to read out the image from the sensor so you have framerate vs resolution limitation for a sensor\n\n4K video is 3840 \\* 2160 that is only 8 mega pixel and 1080P is 2 mega pixel\n\nFor example a Nikon D7500 DSLR with a 20 mega pixel sensor can do 4k video at 30 FPS and 1080p at 60 FPS but at 20 mega pixel it can only do 8 fps and if you put it in continuous mode it will do that.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nA more expensive and complicates setup might be able to capture 20 mega pixel at 30 FPS but than is also can do 4K at higher FPS. \n\nSo filming video at the same resolution as a still image is simply not at cost efficient. Burst more or continus mode is avalible at the camera and they produce images as fast as posslible and that is a common way take pixture"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2gi3uf
|
Which bacteria did mitochondria come from?
|
My professor said it was the Agrobacterium, but for some reason I thought it was a Cyanobacteria.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2gi3uf/which_bacteria_did_mitochondria_come_from/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckjga6t",
"ckjghih"
],
"score": [
14,
7
],
"text": [
"you're close. [cyanobacteria are thought to have given rise to chloroplasts,](_URL_2_) not mitochondria.\n\nBut your professor is probably also wrong. It's still controversial, but [mitochondria are thought to have come from something like Rickettsia](_URL_0_), maybe (s)he meant [alphaproteobacteria?](_URL_1_)",
"Alpha-proteobacteria is the term that comes to my mind. There may be a better resolved genetic map now, but that, I believe, was the closest known sequence match when I reviewed this about 5 years ago."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrion#Origin",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alphaproteobacteria",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloroplast#Cyanobacterial_ancestor"
],
[]
] |
|
4ifeq8
|
Why does buoyancy equal the density of the fluid multiplied by the submerged volume times the gravitational acceleration, g and not the density of the object submerged?
|
When we talk about the Arquimedes principle and buoyancy, why does buoyancy have to do with the weight of displaced fluid rather than the weight of the object submerged? I ask this since the sum of the vertical forces that are applied in an object, in equilibrium, by the fluid in which he's submerged equals the weight of that object which,on another hand, also gives buoyancy...
Sorry, my mother tongue is not english and it makes it rather difficult to explain my doubt, even more since it's about physics.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/4ifeq8/why_does_buoyancy_equal_the_density_of_the_fluid/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2xm23n",
"d2xz9xs",
"d2ym9wd"
],
"score": [
15,
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > why does buoyancy have to do with the weight of displaced fluid rather than the weight of the object submerged?\n\nThe weight of the object is the irrelevant to the buoyant force. The water doesn't \"know\" what the weight of the object is, it just exerts a pressure on it. The total force (which is a sum of all the pressure on the object) is the same for any objects of equal size. A ball of lead will experience the same force on it as a balloon of the same size.\n\n > since the sum of the vertical forces that are applied in an object, in equilibrium, submerged in a fluid equals the weight of that object. Which also gives buoyancy...\n\nNo. The *buoyant force* is *only* the force by the fluid on the submerged object. The *net* sum of the forces (buoyant force pushing up + the weight of the object pointing down) tells you the *motion* of the object -- a lead sphere in water will sink because it is heavier than the water, but an air bubble of the same size will rise because it is lighter than the water, but *they both have the same buoyant force on them.*",
"Imagine putting a thin bag around a volume of water in a still body of water. Since the water's not moving, that means that the total buoyant force of the water pressing on the outside of the bag is exactly enough to counteract the weight of the water inside of the bag.\n\nNow, replace the water inside with something else that has the same shape and size. That won't cause any difference in the force of the surrounding water on the outside of the object, since that only depends on the shape of the object. Therefore, the buoyant force on the object is equal to the weight of a volume of water equal in size to the object.",
"I think you're getting your terms confused. When an object is in the water, there's two basic different forces acting on it. Those are weight and buoyancy. You're imagining that if you put a rubber ball and a rock of the same shape in water, one will float and one will sink. So how can buoyancy be the same? Well, that's because when the rubber ball floats, that means it's buoyancy overcomes it's weight. The weight of the water the ball displaces is heavier than the ball itself, so it floats. The rock, however, is heavier than the water it displaces, so it sinks. However, since buoyancy force is still there, that rock under water now feels lighter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ai4cnu
|
how do large companies send bulk letters?
|
For example, when the bank mails me my statement every month, how do they handle the process of printing the statement, putting it in an envelope and mailing it? Is there an assembly line for outgoing mail? Please help me understand!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ai4cnu/eli5_how_do_large_companies_send_bulk_letters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eekz90y"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I worked at a company where I spent one whole week with just printing letters (I had data from excel worksheet), putting them into envelopes and then bringing them to post office. I had to take one colegue with me, because every day, it was like 60 kilograms of envelopes. \n\nSo it’s mostly repetitive boring work someone has to do for slave-grade paycheck."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4pdk2x
|
how does the sit in that is going on in the house of representatives work?
|
What is the purpose of a sit in and how does it work? Does the house have to do anything in response or can they ignore it until they stop? Please don't comment with your opinions on the sit in, just the way it works. Thanks :)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pdk2x/eli5_how_does_the_sit_in_that_is_going_on_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4k2v6b",
"d4k2xrt",
"d4k8w7e"
],
"score": [
6,
7,
3
],
"text": [
"In the civil rights movement, sit-ins were very popular. Another word for it could be incompetence, but not in a bad way.\nWith these people, they are basically saying that they will not leave the floor until a bill is passed to increase gun control. The house cannot continue with a normal session until they leave, so they will either need to pass a bill, or get nothing done.\nIn the civil rights movement, people would sit in restaurants they weren't allowed in for hours until the servers would \"give in\" to them and serve them food.",
"The House is in recess right now (could be wrong though) so the representatives there are basically sitting in protest and to draw attention to their cause. The House can go ahead and try to put a bill to vote or they could convene in another location if the Speak of the House decides to. That is in the procedural rules I believe",
"The house doesn't technically *have* to do anything.\n\nThe politicians sitting in don't technically have anything to barter with other than public image (which regarding the 2nd and 5/14th amendment, people's opinions are more or less set in stone) and the annoyance level of those wanting it to end. Think of it like a filibuster, but with more than 1 person.\n\nThe people trying to stop the sit in are trying a few things, like cutting cameras to try and cut down on exposure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qi4fn
|
how do polygraphs work.
|
And how to trick them ;)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1qi4fn/eli5_how_do_polygraphs_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdd0dht"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They detect abnormal changes in heartbeat, blood pressure, etc. They prime these machines by asking you simple questions (like, \"what is your name?\") to see how you react when telling the truth. Theoretically there should be physical results when you lie that you have no control over. Problem is that some people may just get nervous when asked certain questions even if they aren't lying. I guess don't feel anything when answering a polygraph? If you don't have an emotional reaction it wouldn't detect any abnormal changes in your heart beat etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
5bc6k4
|
Did the Romans have any racial prejudices that they held, particularly when they conquered other lands with people of darker skin tones? Did this factor into who was or wasn't sold into slavery?
|
I know that the Romans are famous for incorporating conquered peoples into their empire, but when they saw people that didn't look like them, did they have any preconceived judgements?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5bc6k4/did_the_romans_have_any_racial_prejudices_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d9nvknb",
"d9p0o72"
],
"score": [
19,
2
],
"text": [
"Hi, hopefully someone can drop by with an answer particularly wrt slavery, but meanwhile, you may be interested in a few earlier discussions\n\n* FAQ section [Pre-History of \"Race\" and Racism](_URL_5_), particularly the following\n\n * [Racism in the ancient world?](_URL_0_) featuring /u/einhverfr\n\n * [How would I be treated in Ancient Roman as a black man?](_URL_4_) featuring /u/Tiako\n\n* [Is it possible that pope Victor the first was black?](_URL_1_)\n\n* [Did the Greeks and Romans hold any racist views towards their neighbors?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [How racist was the Roman Empire?](_URL_3_)\n",
"It was based on class, not race. At the top of the pyramid were Romans who held the full *citizenship*. If you held the citizenship and observed Roman culture, you were automatically above the freedman and slave classes. It is possible for a black man to obtain the citizenship; he could be the son of freedmen an example (children of freemen were granted full citizenship). In that case, then he would be regarded as higher than say- a Gaulish *socii* (a step beneath full citizenship) -. Also remember that Rome was a multi ethnic Empire so foreigners were not unheard of. Egypt was a Roman province, as well as a wide swath of North Africa. The idea of whether or not you were \"Roman\" was more important."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/17r3o2/racism_in_the_ancient_world/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3irazs/is_it_possible_that_pope_victor_the_first_was/cujfmwy/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3ecyrp/did_the_greeks_and_romans_hold_any_racist_views/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2a5a63/how_racist_was_the_roman_empire/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2izuqc/how_would_i_be_treated_in_ancient_roman_as_a/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/racism_and_slavery#wiki_pre-history_of_.22race.22_and_racism"
],
[]
] |
|
42hl8t
|
what are eyeballs doing when looking at autostereograms (magic eyes) and why can some people not see the hidden image?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/42hl8t/eli5_what_are_eyeballs_doing_when_looking_at/
|
{
"a_id": [
"czadpm0",
"czafhba",
"czalktq"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Typically, your vision is diverging, although some stereograms are designed with a cross-eyed view.\n\nYou are basically tricking your brain into thinking you are looking at something three-dimensional.\n\nWhen you diverge your eyes, you are focusing them at a point *behind* the paper. Normally, this results in whatever picture you are looking at to simply be distorted and look like nothing (you would see a double-image of the picture overlapping itself) except that stereograms are specifically made so that when both of your eyes are focusing at a point behind the picture, the two double-images overlap in such a way to trick your brain. The differences between what your left eye and your right eye are used by your brain to interpret depth, since usually that's what happens when you look at some three-dimensional shape. Try looking at something three dimensional and repeatedly closing your eyes and opening just one eye and then just the other; you will notice you see two slightly different things. Stereographic images create the illusion of depth due to having each eye see something slightly different, but in such a way that the image can be interpreted as three-dimensional instead of just two overlapping images with no depth, which is what you would see if you tried the same with an ordinary painting, for instance - even though your eyes see two different images, the images are just *too* different, and your brain instead interprets that as your eyes focusing improperly which just gets you to look at it normally.\n\nSome people have trouble relaxing their eyes enough to look through the picture in the first place, and others have difficulty maintaining the illusion due to their brains having a tendency to snap them back to the more \"normal\" way of looking at the image, but I don't think there are any people who are actually incapable of ever seeing such images.\n\n",
"I can't see them... but I can't see in 3D either. I had lazy/crossed eyes as a kid and apparently my brain learned to only 'see' out of one eye at a time. Always wondered why I sucked at sports (catching a ball, etc), wasn't until I had my eyes checked years later the dr was like oh yeah you can't process 3D..",
"When they first came out, I could never see them for love or money. I used to get proper angry with people as they would always say 'you're not doing it properly, you need to look past it and cross your eyes a bit'\n\nI gave up. But recently people in work were doing loads of them and someone suggested looking at some object just past it and then looking at the picture. I can now see the pictures."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6ht017
|
How was the Republic of China able to fight off the Japanese between 1937-1945, while also fighting against the Communist Party 1927-1950, and being split between warlords?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6ht017/how_was_the_republic_of_china_able_to_fight_off/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj1lygx"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
"Both the Communists and Warlords were a significant distraction for the Nationalists during the war against the Japanese, however the Nationalists did not fight all three at the same time.\n\nThe Nationalists actively avoided engaging with the Japanese until 1937 (the invasion of Manchuria occurred in 1931), with the intention of focusing their efforts to defeat the Communists. In 1937 a Manchurian warlord - Zhang Xueliang, \"The Young Marshall\" - kidnapped Nationalist leader Chiang Kaishek and forced him to enter into a truce with the Communists, and to form a united front against the Japanese.\n\nAs to the Warlords, the Warlord Period is usually considered to have ended in the late 20s after a Nationalist campaign to unite the country - the Northern Expedition. Parts of China did continue to be under the control of ostensibly allied warlords, over whom the Nationalists could exert limited influence. Quite limited actually, the Communists famously and repeatedly exploited the loose relationship between Nationalists and the Warlords to survive the Long March.\n\nEven during the Sino-Japanese war and despite the truce, Nationalist attention seems to have been divided between the Communists and the Japanese. US General Stillwell frequently expressed frustration that the Nationalists did not appear committed to the war, and that Chiang Kaishek was more interested in preserving his forces for the renewal of hostilities with the Communists.\n\nAs to how they fought, the Nationalists were forced into a conventional war against the Japanese with inferior forces. They were unable to commit the necessary resources to resist the Japanese occupation of large cities, but were able to effectively resist over-extended Japanese forces in China's interior. The Communists in contrast fought a guerrilla war, avoiding pitched battles and occupying territory after Japanese forces had moved on."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ff974
|
What's the status of the conclusions of the Miller-Urey experiment today?
|
A certain subset of apparently learned men have questioned the validity of the discoveries made by the Miller-Urey experiment, and I wanted to ask those of you who may know: What's the modern consensus? Is it... well, to put it bluntly, *legit*? Claims of unfair bias toward amino acid production and other unfortunate "oversights" have been made, but I have no way of evaluating the truth of these claims. I would think that you members of r/AskScience, however, do. So what's the standing of the Miller-Urey experiment in the scientific community today? Thanks for any replies!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ff974/whats_the_status_of_the_conclusions_of_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1fh4em",
"c1fh5rw",
"c1fh99k",
"c1fhdhb"
],
"score": [
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well we're finding evidence of things like [left handed amino acids on asteroids](_URL_0_). IMO, the Miller-Urey experiment is a good *demonstration* that amino acids and organic compounds can be formed by spontaneous means, but the earth need not have done it through lightning and methane and whatnot.",
"The standing is (and I am an astrobiologist who talks about this often) that although a great experiment it was flawed from the beginning. IE the early Earth atmosphere we now know was nothing like what Urey thought. This makes the results not matter. On the other hand as mentioned by shavera it is an experiment in showing that it is possible.",
"While the conditions of the Miller-Urey experiment may have not been appropriate it certainly still demonstrates the ability of amino acids to be formed from base chemicals.\n\nOrganic molecules have since been detected in stellar nebulae which suggests formation is easier that once thought.\n\n_URL_0_",
"So what I'm getting is that these \"learned men\" were right in saying the Miller-Urey experiment has been discredited in regards to showing that life could have formed on Earth in such a way. But on the other hand it's still a valid demonstration of the underlying principle that amino acids can form from basic organic compounds through entirely natural means, as other modern experiments have confirmed. Is this an accurate assessment?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.nasa.gov/topics/solarsystem/features/left_hand_aminoacids.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/05/image-of-the-day-did-life-begin-in-a-bubble-nebula.html"
],
[]
] |
|
1m8dr3
|
At what point did self replicating molecules become what today is known as life?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1m8dr3/at_what_point_did_self_replicating_molecules/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cc73nm8"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not sure I'm understand the question, since I would consider \"self-replicating molecules\" be a definition of \"life\", which would then make your question \"At what point did life become life?\"."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5472ai
|
Why can't the Navier Stokes equations be solved in 3-D?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5472ai/why_cant_the_navier_stokes_equations_be_solved_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d7zj7kk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Simple explanation: this Nonlinear PDE does't have a closed form solution. We approximate in a way that is analogous to Riemann sums in integral calculus which is what is known as CFD. \n\nThe millennium prize has a good write up on why this hasn't been solved. \n\nTrivia: A famous physicist once said that when he died he would get to heaven and ask God why quantum mechanics and why turbulence. He emphatically believed there would be an answer for the former but not the latter. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
184dti
|
I am 23 years old, does my body still have the atoms in it that made up the sperm and egg cell that made me?
|
Maybe I am totally wrong, but I figure that as cells die and are discarded and replaced eventually the body would have to replace enough of the original cells that my body would no longer contain anything that it started with. Is that not the case?
I'm gunna break it down into a few different questions:
1. I am 23 years old, does my body still have the atoms in it that made up the sperm and egg cell that made me?
2. Does my body still have any of the cells that it was made of on the day I was born?
3. If not, what are the longest living cells in my body?
4. Does the body reuse material from dead cells?
5. Is it probable that of all the atoms that currently make up my pinky, none of them that I had when I was born are still there?
Thank you.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/184dti/i_am_23_years_old_does_my_body_still_have_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8bhp8c",
"c8bhz65",
"c8bi26t",
"c8bjr4d",
"c8blnke",
"c8bmhcw",
"c8bmq4y"
],
"score": [
9,
45,
24,
2,
2,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"No, around 98% of the atoms in your body are replaced each year.\n\n- _URL_0_",
"I'm just an undergraduate chemistry student, but I would venture to say that it is very likely that you still have atoms in your body that made up the egg and sperm that you grew from. Here's why:\n\n*Actually how many atoms were in your predecessor cells to begin with?*\nThere are an astounding number of atoms in your body. Like a cubic fuckton. One drop of water, if it weighs 0.05g, is around 1.67x10^21 molecules, which is 5x10^21 atoms (water is made of two hydrogen atoms and one oxygen atom), or 5x10^19 atoms per gram. The egg you came from was probably about 80% water and a human egg weighs about 10ug. If we say that an egg has roughly the same atom density as water, that translates to 5x10^14 \"original\" atoms (or five hundred TRILLION atoms). The sperm cell is the smallest human cell, but it would still probably add billions of atoms to the equation. Although there are no accurate figure as to how many cells there are in the human body, it is estimated to be between ten and a hundred trillion (within two orders of magnitude of the estimated atoms in your original cell). This means that, theoretically, EVERY cell in your body could have at least ONE atom from your original cell. Obviously this is a huge stretch. But the probability that at least one cell in your body now has at least one atom from conception is astronomically high.\n\n*But how can your body maintain atoms if old cells are constantly dying and new cells are constantly forming?*\nAny number of ways.\n\nYour body (and any other organism/chemical process) thrives on efficiency. This means that life has adapted since life began to maximize its ability to recycle energy and matter that is already in the body rather than constantly getting rid of valuable molecules. Cells that die in your body are often dissolved by highly acidic lysosomes into the organic molecules that are your body's building blocks - simple carbohydrates, amino acids, nucleic acids, glycerol, salts, etc. These are, consequently, the same molecules that your body is designed to extract from the food that you eat, so many of them are reabsorbed and used for the creation of new cells. Granted this process isn't 100% efficient, and it probably isn't even close to 100%. But even if you only manage to keep 30% (arbitrary number) of your atoms each year, you will still have around 5000 atoms retained in your body after 23 years (5x10^14 /3^23).\n\nAnother one of the ways your original cell can share atoms is DNA. DNA in every single one of your cells comes from the combined DNA from your original sperm and egg cells. This happens through DNA replication. That means that your second cell has DNA made from materials in your first cell. Your third and fourth cells contain DNA made from materials in your first and second (which came from your first cell) cells.\n\nBasically, atoms are so small and there were so many of them in your first cell that there is a very high probability that you still have some right now. This is the same reason that most scientists believe alien life is extremely likely - the universe is just so damn big that it pretty much has to exist from a probability standpoint. A popular thought experiment for physics class goes something along the lines of, \"How many of the atoms that you breath in with each breath are molecules that Jesus Christ (or Julius Caesar) breathed in his lifetime?\" (you can google this). The answer is something along the lines of 30 to 100 or something if I remember correctly. If you constrain a similar question to only your body, the number is going to be a LOT higher.\n\n**TL;DR - YES!**\nEdit - fixed unit error.",
"On important detail that is overlooked in this thread is that you cannot distinguish 2 atoms of the same type and the same state.\n\nSo basically, if you have say 10 carbon (e.g. C14) atoms in the ground state in the tip of your finger (not even close to the real number but bear with me) and a year later you have a look again and find once more 10 carbon atoms in the ground state you will have no possibility to say if those are the same carbon atoms or not.\n\nWe know that atoms get around by experiments with *slightly* different atoms (usually different isotopes which are chemically identical) and tracking their movement. From that we assume that other atoms do the same (even though we cannot track them) and therefore, statistically speaking, your atoms are exchanged quite a lot. How important this is is debatable as you end up with a body that is basically indistinguishable from a body in which the atoms have not been exchanged.",
"See [yesterday's thread](_URL_0_).\n\nYes, there are atoms in you that you're born with. However, I can only go that far back and still be certain of my answer, as one would require quite the intimate knowledge of embryonic development to answer your question regarding atoms in sperm and egg.",
"To offer some contextto numbers like 10^21, there have been approximately 10^17 seconds since the big bang. ie 10^21 is a very big number indeed.\n\nedit, too many seconds by a factor of 100!",
"As a nuclear engineer who has taken some mechanics courses, I can tell you that while you probabilistically have at least a few of the original atoms, they move. All cells turn over quite quickly, as does water in your system (_URL_0_). Thus the thing that matters the most are the solids, aka bone. However, the atoms in even that are constantly in flux, and none are in the same position as they originally were formed.",
"See _URL_0_\n\nI think this is one of those cases where the philosophical question is much more important than the scientific one. On the one hand, because you are constantly interacting with the environment, you are never identically the same as you were even one nanosecond ago. Does this mean you're something new and different all the time? Technically yes, but clearly this contradicts how we experience and view the world. Therefore, what really matters is the idea of a thing, which remains constant. We conceptualize the world with ideas of things which have no physical reality.\n\nThe question could also be re-packaged as \"if I move a file from one hard-drive to another, is it the same file?\" Technically no, but the information *that we care about* is identical. The same principle stands for any other object, animate or inanimate.\n\nOf course, this is a philosophical answer, so there is no single, objective answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=11893583"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/181ueq/at_an_atomic_level_how_often_in_our_life_time_is/"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biological_half-life"
],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ship_of_theseus"
]
] |
|
nswmh
|
Is developing near or far sightedness something unique to humans, or could other animals conceivably develop poor vision?
|
As humans some of us have great vision but others need corrective lenses. Could other animals like dogs or bears lose the ability to focus over time as well? Or would that have been an evolutionary weakness that has been phased out of nature because it obviously hinders an animals ability to survive? But it continues on in people because we've invented methods to correct it.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/nswmh/is_developing_near_or_far_sightedness_something/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c3bp3fu",
"c3bp3fu"
],
"score": [
6,
6
],
"text": [
"Lots of animals have bad distance vision..they tend to use other senses for sensing far away, or spend most of their time in enclosed spaces. Rhinos are notorious examples, but lots of mammals are this way.\n\nWorth noting that human nearsightedness appears to be largely environment induced, and is uncommon in premodern societies. It's likely we just haven't fully adapted to growing up mostly indoors yet.",
"Lots of animals have bad distance vision..they tend to use other senses for sensing far away, or spend most of their time in enclosed spaces. Rhinos are notorious examples, but lots of mammals are this way.\n\nWorth noting that human nearsightedness appears to be largely environment induced, and is uncommon in premodern societies. It's likely we just haven't fully adapted to growing up mostly indoors yet."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
30il3l
|
the sounds a computer makes when downloading
|
What are those sounds made by computers when we download things and where are they coming from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/30il3l/eli5_the_sounds_a_computer_makes_when_downloading/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cpsr835"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Downloading data is silent. What you're likely hearing is the sound of the hard drive writing the data to disc. For old HDDs (not newer SSDs), the data is stored on magnetic platters and read/written by a read/write head at the end of an articulated arm. The movement of the arm along with the spinning of the platter allows the read/write head to access every location on the platter. Both the arm and the platter make noise when they move, but the arm is by far the noisiest, making a rapid clicking sound as it sweeps back and forth over the platter."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3ddafb
|
why is there such racial tension between australian aboriginals and australians?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ddafb/eli5_why_is_there_such_racial_tension_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct42hcq",
"ct44o6n"
],
"score": [
9,
11
],
"text": [
"After taking the land, killing the bulk of indigenous Australians, forcibly removing their children, systematically destroying their culture, then dragging them into an English style European society which we then excluded them from actually taking part in. They had a few good reasons not too like 'White Australia'.\n\nFLIPSIDE\n\nAfter bringng indigenous Australians into the modern era, giving them a new conservative society, healthcare, education, religion, common language and monetary system, they seem a little ungrateful.\n\nReally though, it's a little different in our younger generations, old school Australia is very racist though.",
"Australian here, the short answer is that it's complicated.\n\nMany Aboriginal people are in lower socioeconomic groups, especially those living in regional Australia. To combat this the government offers many programs and benefits to Aboriginal Australians, which causes a degree of resentment from other Australians, however this occurs in many countries where \"affirmative action\" is in place.\n\nThere are some Aboriginal people who take advantage of the government programs, they tend not to work and drink heavily. This lifestyle is unfortunately often passed down to Aboriginal children. Non-Aboriginal Australians resent that their tax-dollars are going into government programs which fuel this sort of behavior. Note that while some non-Aboriginals also exploit government programs it is generally much easier to do so as an Aboriginal.\n\nFor many older Australians there is tension regarding the portrayal of historical events involving Aboriginals. For example in Australians schools children are taught about the stolen generation where Aboriginal children were forcibly removed from their families to be educated by the state. Some older Australians claim that the parents of the children who were forcibly taken belonged to unfit parents (alcoholic or homeless), and that many Aboriginal parents gave up their children. Of course the truth in the matter is lost to history, so this will remain a source of tension.\n\nOn top of this, due to the events that have occurred, many Australians find it difficult to celebrate and acknowledge the achievements of Australian colonists and pioneers without attracting criticism from Aboriginal groups. In contrast it is often required or expected to acknowledge the Aboriginal history of locations at public gatherings. Again this tension is highest in some regional centres of Australia which have rich histories from both before and after colonisation.\n\nUltimately the vast majority of Australians are opposed to any double standards, due to historical and socioeconomic reasons Aboriginals can attract special status more often than other minorities, which results in particular tension."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.