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 |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
2dlglq
|
Is being uncomfortably hot or cold a form of pain?
|
When we are hot or cold do we experience pain? I'm sure obviously if we're boiling in hot water or are freezing to death we are but what about the lower feelings of hot and cold?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2dlglq/is_being_uncomfortably_hot_or_cold_a_form_of_pain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjqpczk",
"cjqsgs3"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"I can only help with part of your question. Hopefully someone else here can clarify the rest.\n\nYour skin contains nerves that act as receptors for various sensations, such as pain, temperature, pressure, vibration, and proprioception.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe nerves in your skin connect all the way back to certain parts of your brain that will interpret these sensations. Both pain and temperature sensations are carried by a specific pathway called the spinothalamic tract:\n\n_URL_1_\n\nThe nerves in your skin are different from each other not only by the different senses they respond to, but by how fast they transmit the sensory signal back to your brain, and how sensitive they are to certain stimuli.\n\n_URL_3_\n\nFrom the chart, you can see that a specific sensory nerve called an A delta nerve carries both fast pain and temperature, but a different kind of sensory nerve called a C fiber carries slow pain. My best guess (hopefully someone else here can clarify) is that with minor temperature differences, only the nerves that are specifically designed to sense fast pain and temperature will be sensitive enough to detect the the temperature difference and send a signal back to your brain. Slow pain fibers might only be able to sense pain if the temperature difference is great enough to stimulate that nerve, or if a high temperature difference causes injury, which then triggers the slow pain sensation.\n\n\n\nFun game to play regarding skin receptors:\n\nYour lips and your fingertips have the best two-point discrimination in your entire body, meaning that if you gently press 2 toothpicks just 2-3 millimeters apart on those parts, a person can tell the difference between the two points with their eyes closed because 2 different nerves are being stimulated.\n\nThe nerve cells on your back, however, are spaced much farther apart and are \"responsible\" for feeling a larger piece of skin, so if you press 2 toothpicks onto a person's back up to 6-7 centimeters apart, they will only sense one toothpick, because only one nerve is being stimulated. Once you get farther apart, the neighboring nerve is stimulated, and then you can recognize that there are actually 2 toothpicks.\n\n_URL_2_",
"\"pain\" is simply \"hyper-stimulation\" of the nerve, for some reason.\n\nBeing tickled can be considered a form of pain, even though you laugh *at first* most people are soon *begging* for the 'tickler' to stahp!\n\n Pain is our body's way of making our brain 'pay attention to' what *might be* a serious problem which needs treating quickly\n\n Some pains you *know* are becoz you are hungry or tired from a workout, so getting back to your question; The short answer is YES!\n\n As being either too hot or too cold *might be* injurious, our bodies try to 'warn us' *before* the damage occurs\n\n Try putting your hand in ice for 45+ seconds, and I'll bet you won't tell me it's \"feels cold\", you'll most likely tell me \"it HURTS, it's almost a burning pain! \n\nThis is very common with \"neuropathic pain\" of which I suffered a *lot* for about 15yrs. I used to call it \"noise\" because it had no 'reason'\n\nIt was *extremely unreasonable* pain for many years, like distorted screams coming from my arms and legs\n\n In fact, it felf *exactly like* when you arm 'falls asleep' and then as it 'wakes up' you have those *crazy* sensations for 30 seconds or so?\n\nThat was my *whole body* 'felt', 24/7, well, when I was awake, for over 6 years! \n\n The *only* time it stopped was when I was asleep. Even HUGE amounts of narcotics and everything else did little to 'soften the noise' ... that just took time, and for many years I couldn't feel *anything BUT Pain* in my hands and feet, it was FUBAR!\n\n\n\n Would not recommend -100/10"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.mhhe.com/biosci/genbio/enger/student/olc/art_quizzes/genbiomedia/0675.jpg",
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oas7yemSG5g",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-point_discrimination#mediaviewer/File:Lawrence_1960_8.11.png",
"http://www.fvmace.org/FVMA%2082nd%20Annual%20Conference/Proceedings/LOCAL%20AND%20REGIONAL%20ANALGESIC%20TECHNIQUES_clip_image006.png"
],
[]
] |
|
2lpn0o
|
“Zoning out” that can occur where you’ve read text, but you weren’t paying attention – state of inattentiveness called something? Is there a certain brain process that occurs?
|
“Zoning out” that can occur where you’ve read text, but you weren’t paying attention – state of inattentiveness called something? Is there a certain brain process that occurs?
There’s the “zoning out” that can occur where you’ve read text, but you weren’t paying attention.
I think that someone mentioned online that this state of inattentiveness can happen more frequently when you come across content that is harder for your brain to process.
A part of your brain shuts off?
Thanks.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2lpn0o/zoning_out_that_can_occur_where_youve_read_text/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clx6pjq",
"clx8hol",
"clxc2qe",
"clxc43o"
],
"score": [
65,
10,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"The term used in the literature is \"mind wandering.\" Here's my comment on this from a past post:\n\n > This occurs due to a failure to maintain executive control over automatic thoughts. When you're engaged in a task that requires your continuous attention, you are still engaging in mental processes that are separate from this task (associated with the default mode network of the brain). So this network is continuously generating the content of your \"thought tangent.\" To maintain focus on the task at hand, you need to exert executive control over this automatically cued content ([McVay & Kane, 2010](_URL_1_)).\n\n > For example, people with high working-memory capacities show greater executive control, and therefore report less frequent \"thought tangents\" during an attention-demanding task ([Kane et al., 2007](_URL_0_)).\n\n > Also, if you have a lot of significant life concerns, and a book you're reading will cue these concerns (e.g., reading a book about death after your mother died), then you will be more likely to \"go off on a thought tangent.\" This is akin to rumination, which involves passively and perseveratively thinking about a past event (see Susan Nolen-Hoeksema's work for more information).\n\nI'm not quite up to date with more recent work on mind wandering, although you can look up folks like MJ Kane and JC McVay for more information.",
"Well, I'll try, but I promise I'll be a little naive here. Alertness and arousal typically has to do with neuromodulatory input from the brainstem (just a wild guess but I assume zoning out is general like this), but you asked about tough tasks and thats more fun so I'll talk more in that direction.\n\n1.) Local sleep in the brain does indeed occur. Areas of the brain which are particularly active during waking will 'sleep harder' during subsequent sleep, and its been shown that different areas of cortex, and suggested that even areas as small as a cortical column (submillimeter area) can be the 'unit' of sleep. So basically, part of your brain can be asleep while part is awake. Rabbits who were visually inattentive/non-alert showed activity in restricted cortical areas consistent with sleep (Forgot the paper, Vyazovskiy et al. nature paper I reckon, I can find it if you want to see it). This suggests when you're non alert, part of your brain might be asleep.\n\n2.) Some networks in the frontal cortex control allocation of attentional resources to cognitively demanding tasks. For instance, the 'salience network' (frontoinsular cortex and anterior cingulate cortex) connects to areas like the posterior parietal cortex and dorsolateral prefrontal which make up the so called 'central executive network' the idea is that during problem solving or high order cognition, the salience network allocates attentional/working memory resources to these other networks to permit 'thinkin hard.' This connectivity is weaker in children than adults, and is associated with poorer task performance in children. (Supekar and Menon, PLoS computational biology 2012 v8).",
"As someone who has always been curious about this myself (particularly, how is it that my head can be so jam-packed with nonsense for 23:55 of every day, but for the 5 minutes when I'm eating a bowl of cereal, I'm totally blank), I really hope there is an answer to this question.\n\nAlso, great post - I wasn't paying attention at first and then realized just how brilliant it was. Bravo!",
" > For example, people with high working-memory capacities show greater executive control, and therefore report less frequent \"thought tangents\" during an attention-demanding task (Kane et al., 2007[2]).\n\n---\n\n > the idea is that during problem solving or high order cognition, the salience network allocates attentional/working memory resources to these other networks to permit 'thinkin hard.' \n\n > This connectivity is weaker in children than adults, and is associated with poorer task performance in children. (Supekar and Menon, PLoS computational biology 2012 v8).\n\n**Eye regressions and backtracking for semantic and syntactic errors?**\n\nI came across one possibly relevant paper to the \"attention-demanding task\" part with a quick online search: \n\nBraze D, Shankweiler D, Ni W, Palumbo LC (January 2002). \"Readers' eye movements distinguish anomalies of form and content\". J Psycholinguist Res 31 (1): 25–44. PMC 2850050. PMID 11924838.\n\n_URL_1_\n\n > Pursuing this possibility, the present study compares the eye-movement patterns of subjects as they read (for meaning) sentences containing anomalies of verbal morpho-syntax, and anomalies that depend on the relationship between sentence meaning and real-world probabilities (we refer to these as pragmatic anomalies), and non-anomalous sentences.\n\nI think it’s syntax versus semantics.\n\n > **grammatically defective**\n\n > The cats won’t usually eating (eat) the food.\n\n > The shirt is surely wrinkle unless it is washed in warm water.\t\n > \n > **pragmatically odd** \n\n > The cats won’t usually bake (eat) the food\n\n > The bus will surely wrinkle unless it is washed in warm water\n\n(examples from Braze, D., Shankweiler, D. P., & Tabor, W. (2004). Individual Differences in Processing Anomalies of Form and Content. Poster presented at the 17th CUNY Conference on Human Sentence Processing. College Park, MD. _URL_0_)\n\n > Syntactic anomaly generated many regressions initially, with rapid return to baseline.\n\n > Pragmatic anomaly resulted in lengthened reading times, followed by a gradual increase in regressions that reached a maximum at the end of the sentence.\n\nPragmatic increased reading times more than syntactic errors.\n\nThey talk about the eye regression landing sites.\n\n > For syntactic anomalies the incidence of regressions was immediately elevated at the point of anomaly and just beyond, thereafter returning to the baseline.\n\n > In contrast, frequency of regressions for pragmatic anomalies increased progressively from the point of anomaly to the end of the sentence.\n\nI think that means that if you’re eyes are going to regress left for a syntax error, it’s going to happen right away at that error.\n\nFor semantic errors, as you get further away, you’re more likely to backtrack.\n\n > So, not only do pragmatic anomalies provoke more regressions from the sentence-final region, but those regressions land, on average, much closer to the beginning of the sentence than do regressions for either controls or syntactic anomalies.\n\n > These differences in landing sites give additional evidence that the parser uses pragmatic and syntactic information differently to guide re-reading.\n\nSo for semantic errors, if you made it all the way to the end of a sentence, you’re more likely to go back.\n\nIf you do go back, you’re more likely to land closer to the beginning of a sentence than when you regress in a syntactic error and anomaly.\n\n**Thoughts: pragmatic anomalies = difficult-to-read material?**\n\nSo for pragmatic anomalies, it takes longer to read, and you regress further back.\n\nI’d like some more examples, but I personally found that to be the case.\n\nWhether it’s pragmatic anomalies, or difficult-to-read material, I think that either could induce a similar confused state.\n\nPragmatic errors seem to be more confusing than syntactic ones.\n\nTherefore, naturally elevating the difficulty, and thus, the confusion, might cause more regressions that make users backtrack to the beginning.\n\n**Future experiments: additional factors to manipulate: grammar, length, skill, new material**\n\nI think that if there are or will be experiments, additional factors that could create more challenging material, and thus a possibly more confused state could be:\n\nGrammatically correct, but lengthy sentences\n\nThere could be sentences with multiple qualifiers, prepositions, classes, etc.\n\nReading skill of the user\n\nPeople can have very different reading comprehension abilities.\n\nThere’s also crystallized intelligence (previously stored knowledge), and fluid intelligence (ability to think in novel situations).\n\nNew material\n\nFresh material with concepts that a user doesn’t already know can be harder to read.\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.323.3307&rep=rep1&type=pdf",
"http://libres.uncg.edu/ir/uncg/f/M_Kane_DoesMind_2010.pdf"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.haskins.yale.edu/staff/braze/braze-cuny2004-2up.pdf",
"http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11924838"
]
] |
|
4vtj6d
|
what's going on inside those box things on laptop chargers?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4vtj6d/eli5_whats_going_on_inside_those_box_things_on/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d618u32",
"d6193j0",
"d61k7tk",
"d61qvzc"
],
"score": [
4,
26,
18,
2
],
"text": [
"Those \"box things\" are known as bricks and they are essentially used to convert the AC current to DC current. \n\nDC current is more expensive to transport than AC current hence you get AC at homes and the brick converts it to DC for the battery to get charged.",
"**edit - disregard my comment and read what the actual engineers have to say in the replies**\n\nPower (electricity) from the nearby power plant comes down the wires to your house or apartment and it's alternating its direction of travel 60 times every second (60 hertz). This is necessary to send electricity across many miles of wire (so we don't need a power plant in every neighborhood). \n\nThe little box in the middle of your power cord contains a circuit called a transformer which converts the AC (alternating current) power to DC (direct current) by means of sending the electricity through copper wire wrapped around a magnet, which transfers the energy into a single direction (magically).",
"Ok - there's some rather misleading answers here.\n\nModern laptop chargers are not, in essence, transformers. Yes, they contain components which act as transformers, but they're not controlling the electricity in the way a plain transformer would.\n\nInstead, they're what's called Switch Mode Power Supplies.\n\nIn simple terms, the incoming AC is converted by a bridge rectifier to DC. This is then used to charge a capacitor to the required output voltage, then switched off. As the laptop draws power the capacitor's voltage droops, so the switch is turned on again until it reaches the right voltage, then it's switched off again. This happens thousands of times a second.\n\nThe *reason* this is done is that a transformer gets hot because the current is flowing through a coil (it's more complicated than that, but this is ELI5) and is controlled by *partly* turning on a transistor, which creates a lot of heat. In a Switch Mode supply the switching elements are either hard on, or hard off, which wastes a lot less power, so creates a lot less heat.",
"Along with what erichthinks said, it also serves as a surge protector, and will often damage itself and render the power cord useless instead of frying the whole computer. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1wbmm9
|
why can't nuclear power plants use their own generated power for cooling?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1wbmm9/eli5_why_cant_nuclear_power_plants_use_their_own/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf0k56q",
"cf0k6ug",
"cf0lmr5"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
8
],
"text": [
"I think what the OP is referring to is why nuclear electric plants have a secondary electrical supply to power cooling systems. They need to have a secondary power source in case something goes wrong with the nuke system, so at least there will be reserve power to run the cooling pumps and prevent a melt-down. This was one of the problems in the Fukishima disaster. After the tsunami, the nuke power systems went off-line and the secondary diesel generators kicked in to run the cooling. Unfortunately, the diesel engines also got incapacitated by the flooding.",
"They do. They also have backup generators in case something goes wrong - it's easier to keep cooling the reactor than to shut it down.",
"Nuclear engineer here.\n\nThey can, and they do. When a nuclear power plant is online, it actually supplies all its own power. The main generator has taps that feed back into the plant's auxiliary power system.\n\nHowever, when the reactor has to scram, or when the power grid has an instability, they usually cannot, and here are some of the reasons/issues why:\n\nFirst up, after a reactor scram, there is insufficient decay heat to drive the generator. So if the reactor has to scram for any reason, you lose the ability to power your own equipment. After a scram, the plant's electrical system will perform an automatic fast transfer from the generator to the plant's reserve transformers to draw in grid power.\n\nNow second up, what about when the plant loses electrical power from the grid? The answer is, a plant CAN power itself and stay online, IF it was designed that way. So for example, during the 2003 Northeast blackout in the US, the blackout was so severe it stretched into parts of Canada. The Canadian CANDU reactors have what is called \"total load reject capability\". In plain terms, this means if the power grid goes away, the plant and its systems are designed to automatically downshift the reactor to < 50% power, automatically vent excess steam, disconnect from the failed power grid, and continue powering itself. This scenario, a load reject without scram, is a challenging one to design for, and even though all the CANDU plants have this function and tested it, only about 1/2 managed to survive that blackout. The rest had some other system perturbation that produced a reactor scram, leading them to shut down. \n\nSo the next question one would ask, is why don't US plants, or most plants have this functionality? And there are several challenges. You can design for this scenario, but it requires taking penalties to the plant's operating limits and installing more equipment and more expensive equipment from the start. If the reactor downshift does not occur properly, or if one of your systems designed to handle the excess steam fails, you put a large shock on the reactor, so you have to take penalties to your core thermal limits. You also need a generator and a turbine that can handle low load conditions (most large nuclear plant turbine/generator sets are unstable if they can't put out enough power and will vibrate themselves). Low-load capable turbine/generators are usually less efficient. Most plants have been moving to new/modern turbine designs like the mono block rotors, which do not like being at load electrical outputs for more than a few hours. After 2-4 hours my plant's mono-block turbine will start to vibrate excessively and we have to trip it. If my plant was capable of running itself with no power grid, that means we would be fundamentally limited to 2-4 hours without the grid. \n\nThe next challenge is load reject capability. A \"Load Reject\", is when the grid stops accepting electrical power. This is the equivalent of pedaling your bike up the hill and the chain snaps, and you lose balance and fall over, except you are dealing with dozens of tons of rapidly rotating metal. It is hard to design for. You also have issues on the reactor side. At the time the offsite power grid goes away, the reactor is producing 14 million pounds of steam per hour (for a large 1000MW plant). When the power grid goes away, the turbine isn't capable of accepting that much steam. The plant needs a place to put all this excess steam while it attempts to rapidly reduce reactor power, otherwise there will be a massive pressure shockwave that will challenge the reactor's safety. One way to do this is to signifacntly oversizes the plant condenser, then they can route ALL of the reactor steam there. This is not typical, plants usually only size their condenser to handle 15-35% pure reactor steam. Typically condensers are sized with the idea that the turbine is going to to remove most of the energy from reactor steam. So this is usually a limitation. \n\nIf your condenser is not large enough, some alternative options for PWRs include dumping steam out to the atmosphere. You can only do this for a short time though, because the plant would be venting off clean extremely pure water, and there is a limited supply of that on site under normal conditions. For BWRs, you can dump steam in the pressure suppression pool, but only for about 10 seconds, and it requires special analysis, core penalties, and a license modification to do. In both plant types an automatic partial scram would need to occur to drop power low enough so that the plant can remain online, and if the power grid doesn't come back in time this could cause xenon/fission product/conditioning limits being violated which would require the plant to still shut down. Some overseas PWR/BWR plants DO have oversized condensers, partial scrams, turbine/generators designed for low load, based on my talks with operators from those plants, the reactor typically only stays online 30-50% of the time.\n\nOn top of this all, with a shutdown reactor, you only have to deal with < 1% of reactor heat (Decay heat). Emergency core cooling system is extremely reliable and can deal with this easily/readily. Many operators, including myself, if I was in a situation where I lost the offsite grid, would be reducing reactor power to get the core shutdown so I would have less heat to deal with if/when another plant failure occurred. \n\nThere's one last piece I didnt mention. In the US, every nuclear plant operating license requires the offsite power grid. With the offsite grid lost, there are requirements to have the plant shut down in 12 hours or less.\n\ntl;dr During normal operation nuclear plants power themselves. After a scram they cant (because the core is shutdown). After a loss of power grid, it is very hard and expensive to design a plant to survive that without a reactor scram, and even if you do, you'll probably have a scram 50% of the time anyways or you'll have to come off in 2-4 hours because of other limitations."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ve3ax
|
Is sound the power or amplitude of pressure waves?
|
From my limited understanding of acoustics sounds are the results of deviations in the local pressure.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2ve3ax/is_sound_the_power_or_amplitude_of_pressure_waves/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cogxjqg"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I'm not too sure what you mean by power, but when looking at sound waves, the amplitude determines the volume, and the wavelength the pitch. Tiny imperfections in the shape of the wave are what gives it tone and timbre; the reason we all don't sound exactly the same when singing the same note. We hear the sound because the vibrations in the air cause our eardrum to vibrate with the same parameters as the waves that were in the air. These vibrations cause movement in a fluid in the inner ear, which move tiny hair like structures on the walls of the fluid containing chamber (the cochlea). These hairs turn the vibrations into an electrical signal which is then sent to the brain.\n\nHopefully this answers your question :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
69rkrv
|
Aide-de-camps vs. Adjutants during the American Civil War?
|
What exactly was the difference between these two positions? I've tried researching the subject and got lost due to military jargon.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/69rkrv/aidedecamps_vs_adjutants_during_the_american/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dh8vde3"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"From the wartime *Army Officer's Pocket Companion*:\n\n > The bureau duties of adjutant-generals and assistants are: publishing orders in writing; making up written instructions and transmitting them; reception of reports and returns; disposing of them; forming tables, showing the state and position of corps; regulating details of service; corresponding with the administrative departments relative to the wants of troops; the methodical arrangement and care of the records and papers of the office.\n\n > The active duties of adjutant-generals consist in establishing camps; visiting guards and outposts; mustering and inspecting troops; inspecting guards and detachments; forming parades and lines of battle; the conduct and control of deserters and prisoners; making reconnoissances(sic); and in general, discharging such other active duties as may be assigned them.\n\nFor aides-de-camp:\n\n > These are ex-officio assistant adjutant-generals (Act March 2, 1821). They are confidential officers selected by general officers to assist them in their military duties. A lieutenant-general appoints not exceeding four in time of war, and two in peace, with the rank of lieutenant-colonel. A major-general appoints two, and a brigadier-general one. The act of August 5, 1861 enacts that \"during the existing insurrection,\" the president may appoint aides-de-camp at will, with the rank of captains, majors, lieutenant-colonels, or colonels, upon the recommendation of the lieutenant-general, or of a major general commanding an army in the field. These appointments to be recalled whenever the president thinks proper.\n\n > Aides-de-camp are attached to the person of the general, and receive orders only from him. Their functions are difficult and delicate. Often enjoying the full confidence of the general, they are employed in representing him, in writing orders, in carrying them in person if necessary, in communicating them verbally upon battle-fields and fields of manoeuvre(sic). It is important that aides-de-camp should know well the positions of troops, routes, posts, quarters of generals, composition of columns, and orders of corps; facility in the use of the pen should be joined with exactness of expression; upon fields of battle they watch the movements of the enemy; not only grand manoeuvres(sic) but special tactics should be familiar to them. It is necessary that their knowledge be sufficiently comprehensive to understand the object and purpose of all orders, and also to judge, in the varying circumstances of a battle-field, whether it is not necessary to modify an order when carried in person, or if there be time to return for new instructions.\n\nSo let's unpack this a bit. Both adjutants and aides-de-camp assist their commanding officer with administrative and communicative tasks. The first distinction is that, while adjutants existed at the regimental level, only generals had aides-de-camp. The second distinction is that the adjutant is an ordinary post, somewhat analogous to the chief-of-staff in the 20th century. The aide-de-camp is a temporary, at-will appointment, and the officer in question is much more attached to the person of the general, functioning as a sort of private secretary-cum-emissary on his chief's behalf."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
126o06
|
did the life style of gatherer tribes changed much between the attainment of Behavioral modernity and the agricultural revolution/first contact with agricultural societies?
|
for example if I were to visit New England in 8000 BC, and then New England in 1008BC would I see any substantial changes in life style or technology?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/126o06/did_the_life_style_of_gatherer_tribes_changed/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6sm036"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"'Behavioral modernity' is about 50 KYA, agriculture starts around 10 KYA in the Near East, and about 5 KYA in North-Western Europe. In between, there's the major innovations of the bow-and-arrow and the domestication of the dog, probably at least before 15 KYA because these things were known in the Americas, first colonised by this time, as well. There's also the end of the last glacial, marking the boundary between the Paleolithic and the Mesolithic, with major impacts in lifestyle as well, such as the dominance of microlithic technology (very small flint flakes) during the mesolithic, and a shift away from dominantly big-game hunting towards a broad spectrum economy, which uses all kinds of environmental resources, such as small game and fish."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3pmqj9
|
Do black holes ever die?
|
And if so, why and how?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3pmqj9/do_black_holes_ever_die/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw7kxky",
"cw7ojj3",
"cw7pch9",
"cw7y8t2"
],
"score": [
97,
1629,
28,
10
],
"text": [
"Black holes emit thermal radiation as per the Hawking effect. This temperature is absolutely minuscule for astronomical BHs. In the very, very distant future, the exponential expansion of the Universe driven by dark energy will have separated black holes from all other forms of matter, and will have redshifted the cosmic microwave background to a temperature lower than the Hawking temperature of the black holes. Since heat spontaneously moves from the hotter thing to the colder, black holes will put out energy and therefore very slowly lose mass. The BH can therefore evaporate completely.\n\nNote that smaller black holes are hotter (T ~ 1/M) so if there were indeed small enough BHs they could also be evaporating right now. Such BH could in fact be dying right now and emit a specific signature. BHs of this size cannot be produced by astrophysical processes and must thus be primordial, as in created in the early Universe. There are ongoing experiments search for the death whistle of primordial black holes, but none have been found.",
"Ok. I'm seeing a lot of answers that are just missing the point so I'll say this straight.\n\nYes, Black Holes and Hawking Radiation are both Hypothetical. But per those hypotheses...\n\nA black hole while being a region of the universe that no \"thing\" can escape from, Emits radiation on it's own at a temperature that is lower the larger the black hole gets (for stellar mass black holes, the predicted temperature is much lower than that of the cosmic background, so are unobservable). So , when black holes stop accreting matter and light, they slowly lose mass to hawking radiation, slowly increasing the mass loss rate as the size shrinks.\n\nThus a black hole will evaporate in a finite amount of time. This time is much longer than the age of the universe for astronomical black holes (stellar mass and larger), but for smaller ones that (which we have even less proof for) would emit a measurable amount of radiation.\n\n[This](_URL_0_) should get you up to speed on black holes (except for the hawking radiation bits)",
"We have never seen a Black hole die. \n\nSome people think that when a Black hole eventually reaches complete singularity (the point in which all of its mass occupies the same exact point in space time), it will \"Bounce back\" and transform into a white hole- simultaneously expelling all matter and energy within the black hole. It would be potentially a big bang level event - and we have yet to see one happen. \n\ni think its possible a universe existed pre-Big bang, and the big bang was a result of that universe having completely collapsed into a singularity, and reached maximum entropy, and then \"Bounced back\" into a massive white hole- giving us the big bang. ",
"Hawking Radiation will make small black holes smaller. The larger ones are picking up more mass from accretion and just from the light and heat reaching them from everywhere. Hawking radiation is a very low leak, like evaporation from a sealed glass jar, everyone knows that it happens, just not much.\n\nThere's some notion that black holes may naturally rebound at some point. That could be in the 10^78 to 10^81 years frame. \n\nThere is this notion of imaginary time that Hawkings suggests. I'm not sure how it works but it may provide some light on what's going on with the timelike lines were spacelike lines which intersect the hole horizon. Inside time is still proceeding or may be in some context. Their 2/1000ths of a second to bounce back and splay out a white hole may be an awful long time for us. While its doubtful that this is an accurate or even ballpark rendition of what may occur there are likely few people in the black-hole field that have firmly given up on black-holes ever altering their behavior at any time in the future."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vNaEBbFbvcY"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
26j36t
|
why do scientists assume an alien species would use the same math system as us.
|
Like I hear stuff about our space crafts showing prime numbers on them incase they ran into an alien species and other stuff I'm too lazy to look up.
But how do they know they don't count in sets of 7 instead of 10. I figured the only reason we did that cause we have 10 fingers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/26j36t/eli5why_do_scientists_assume_an_alien_species/
|
{
"a_id": [
"chrib5a",
"chrib7n",
"chribih",
"chricrg",
"chrig8s",
"chrimej",
"chrj6p5",
"chrjj25"
],
"score": [
21,
4,
4,
5,
3,
49,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"If the aliens cant figure out different bases chances are they dont even know how to get to space or how to reply to any message we can send.",
"we do, but there are lots of number systems using different bases. if there ever were an alien species who were asking themselves the same question, the most logical conclusion is to use base 2 - the smallest base you can use for numbers. and thats what our binary system is.",
"Even if they count in sets of 7 (\"base 7\"), the prime numbers would still be the same. In much the same way that morse code and the roman alphabet can both be used to express English words -- they look different but represent the same thing.\n\nMathematics is universal -- even though the Babylonians used base 60, and we use base 10, and computers use base 2, the universal truths remain constant.",
"They don't assume that. But it can be reasonably assumed that any aliens capable of space flight are capable of understanding multiple base numbering systems, and understanding prime numbers in any of them just like we can.",
"Math is often used as the universal language. An alien race would presumably have similar math system despite the likely possibility of different symbols and/or using a different base (i.e. a base8 number system). \n\nThink of it like this. if you show a toddler 3 oranges, they might think it is another number (they likely make up) and if they're not taught our system they could associate three with the symbol 5. That doesn't change the fact that there are, what we call, 3 oranges. Math is just a bunch of related systems that are invariably linked and universal ",
"An alien species very well may use base 7. Even other human civilizations have used different bases: the Babylonians used base 60, iirc.\n\nPrime numbers are still prime regardless of what base you write it in. When we write, for example, 7 in binary, it's 111, but that doesn't change any of the properties of the number. It's just a different way of writing it.\n\nWhen we try to communicate with aliens, we use things that are symbolic, since it's assumed that they won't know what \"7\" means (ie they won't recognize the shape). Something like ||||||| is universal, though, we know it's seven lines. So, if I wrote || ||| ||||| ||||||| ||||||||||| ||||||||||||| (2, 3, 5, 7, 11, 13) or whatever, it would communicate to anyone who received the message that someone intelligent is sending it, since there's a clear and recognizable pattern.\n\nThey might use base 7, in which case they'd write the message in their own number system as 2, 3, 5, 10, 14, 16, but that's fine: that's just how they write the first six prime numbers. 10 in base seven is not ten, it's seven, and seven is a prime number. In base 7, 10/2 = 3.333333 or so, which is 3.5 in base ten.",
"There's only one mathematics. Anything we discover could be explained to aliens, or vice versa. The trouble is finding a common language – we would undoubtedly have very different notations.\n\nBut something as simple as a list of prime numbers should be quite easy to communicate. A trivial unary encoding should be [hard to miss](_URL_0_). Prime numbers are a critical concept in basic arithmetic, and any plausible formulation of the counting numbers should include them.",
"Every civilization or alien species would have there own code of doing things math wise. However the outcome would be the same and the process similar. You can't mess with the laws of the universe. Everyone just has there own system of coming to the same answer."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ok-Oz7huWFw"
],
[]
] |
|
29fikz
|
how did popcorn become a standard movie "meal"?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/29fikz/eli5how_did_popcorn_become_a_standard_movie_meal/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cikf4mq",
"cikf7pq",
"cikf9ek",
"cikg68r",
"cikgc8y",
"cikh15o",
"cikkquj",
"cikky4i",
"cikl0fv",
"cikl5mg",
"ciklwvd",
"cikms32",
"cikmzpu",
"cikn0m1",
"cikn2hp",
"ciknwej",
"ciko3pt",
"ciko7pc",
"ciko8ry",
"cikobih",
"cikog4h",
"cikoxyd",
"cikp6b9",
"cikpa8m",
"cikq8ce",
"cikqolc",
"cikr9xv",
"cikrb1k",
"ciks4bf",
"ciksdkk",
"ciksh9f",
"ciku3fj",
"cikum8u",
"cikvdxp",
"cikwnil",
"cikz06l",
"cil09oj",
"cil0jwz",
"cil0xlx"
],
"score": [
21,
1979,
89,
10,
128,
11,
8,
15,
3,
26,
4,
2,
18,
4,
4,
24,
6,
2,
2,
2,
5,
13,
3,
5,
2,
2,
7,
2,
3,
2,
7,
3,
6,
2,
3,
4,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"People figured out they could sell it at a 2000% profit margin. ",
"Popcorn was originally sold by street peddlers. Oftentimes businesses rented popcorn carts to poor / homeless people to sell popcorn on sidewalks around the city, in exchange for a cut of the day's take. Unpopped popcorn isn't heavy or bulky, and cooking it requires simple equipment and little skill or effort. Thus it's not surprising that popcorn would be a popular food in this role.\n\nMovie theaters had to cut prices during the Great Depression because their customers didn't have as much money. Meanwhile they noticed that popcorn carts seemed to appear outside at many theaters, because people liked to sneak it into theaters. At the time, eating was forbidden because movies were viewed as an upper-class cultural experience -- eating at the movies would be like eating at a classical music concert.\n\nSo theaters decided that they needed re-brand themselves to be more attractive to lower- and middle-class customers by cutting prices and allowing food, then making up for the lost revenue by selling popcorn themselves instead of letting the street vendors get all the money.\n",
"Back in the early days of the \"motion picture\" Movie theater owners needed a way to draw people in to see movies. \n\nEspecially during the depression, when money and inflation was both unstable and gouged, things like Coffee and chocolate were hard to purchase and come by.\n\nPopcorn as it were, was easy and readily available, cheap to transport, and until you cooked it took up a small amount of space. [$0.05 as claimed by _URL_1_](_URL_0_) per bag was not uncommon during the depression age.\n\nBecause at the time, popcorn kernels could be purchased for the low price of $0.10/lb or $10 per 100 pound batch, movie theatre owners looking to boost their bottom line in a time when Movies had just begun showing \"Talkies\" and even the rich and famous were enduring the hardships of the depression; Popcorn became a quick staple.\n\nAnd then as all things went, Popcorn became a mainstay at theatre front counters, becoming the dual service Movie and a snack bar combination that we know them to be today.\n\nThere are several articles written that help show the history of popcorn and most agree: Popcorn saved Hollywood as we know it today.\n\n\n[The Science of History and Popcorn - How popcorn saved the movies](_URL_2_)\n\n[Why do we eat Popcorn at the Movies?](_URL_3_) - This one actually explains that at one point, During the Silent Movie era, popcorn was explicitly banned because of its noisy sound while chewing.",
"It's cheap, can be eaten in the dark, and doesn't make a lot of noise when eaten.",
"Interesting Note: Before popcorn, one of the more popular in-theater foods was 'Egg Mimosas,' or Deviled Eggs. ",
"This is quite an interesting article on the subject from [_URL_0_](_URL_1_).\n\n*“Movie theaters wanted nothing to do with popcorn,” Smith says, “because they were trying to duplicate what was done in real theaters. They had beautiful carpets and rugs and didn’t want popcorn being ground into it.” Movie theaters were trying to appeal to a highbrow clientele, and didn’t want to deal with the distracting trash of concessions–or the distracting noise that snacking during a film would create.*\n\n*When films added sound in 1927, the movie theater industry opened itself up to a much wider clientele, since literacy was no longer required to attend films (the titles used early silent films restricted their audience). By 1930, attendance to movie theaters had reached 90 million per week. Such a huge patronage created larger possibilities for profits–especially since the sound pictures now muffled snacks–but movie theater owners were still hesitant to bring snacks inside of their theaters.*",
"I highly recommend watching [Filmmaker IQ's video](_URL_0_) on the topic",
"There's a gas station near where I live that sells popcorn in tubes that holds as much as a large popcorn at any theatre. It's a lot tastier, and about 2$. I always sneak a tube in and some mountain dew. You can hide a lot of junk food in a woman's purse.",
"why is this a ELI5? ",
"The more important question is when are they going to start selling kettle corn in theaters?",
"and popcorn doesn't make as much noise when you eat it. :)",
"peoples choice for being easy to eat finger food in a dark room. even easier than sandwiches. Popcorn was banned in many theaters at first cause it made a mess on the floors. until they decided to charge a lot for it and sell it.",
"I discovered why popcorn is the best movie food. It required zero concentration to eat. \n \nWe made the mistake of ordering a whole bunch of food in a gold class cinema, it was the Bourne Supremacy. I remember nothing about that movie because all my concentration went to trying to eat tapas style food in the dark. Never again, now only popcorn.",
"[I asked this a while back :D ](_URL_0_)",
"The moment they figured out that you could buy a portion for 1.5 cents and sell it for $8 fecking dollars\n",
"Just wondering why you chose the word \"meal\" over \"snack\"?",
"I don't like the creamed corn a the movies, its to crunchy ",
"1) Popcorn smells like butter, so once you start selling it in a crowded area, more and more people want to buy it because it smells tasty.\n\n2) Butter popcorn is actually a *really* messy snack. Your hands get all oily when you eat and you can't do anything! For example, you can't really eat butter popcorn while reading a book or studying, because you're going to get butter on all the paper. But during a movie? You don't need to use your hands for anything, doesn't matter if they are all buttery, you're just sitting there for 2 hours!",
"having frequented theatres in asia, i really miss the variety that was available there.",
"You know what I'd prefer instead of popcorn? \n\nCrab legs.",
"because it is cheep to make and there is a big profit margin ",
"Pop corn was cheap as fuck during the war times. It became a staple food back then. \n\n\nSpeaking solely for the United States: Although popcorn carts had become a common sight at fairs and other outdoor events in the late 19th Century, they were not typically seen in Cinemas of the time. It was considered too low-brow for the fancy new movie palaces because of its association with circuses and burlesque entertainments.\nThen comes the Great Depression. At 5 to 10 cents per bag, popcorn became a rare affordable luxury and its popularity helped movie theatre owners keep their businesses afloat. By the beginning of WW2, popcorn machines were ubiquitous at movie houses and the experience of munching popcorn in front of the silver screen had spread to almost every town in the US.\nAfter the United States' entrance into WW2, sugar was tightly rationed. This made candy at the movies become scarce and expensive. Popcorn became more or less the only game in town for affordable movie snacks until the war's end.\nSales began to decline as television sets became more affordable and movie attendance slumped in the 1950's. But thanks to some clever marketing campaigns and the increasing use of microwave ovens in the home, popcorn became a popular snack in American households in the late 20th Century.",
"Theater concessions started out with hard-boiled eggs, but that became cumbersome and popcorn had more of an aroma and also worked well with selling sodas.",
"Murwillumbah Cinema in NSW Australia makes pizza to order, and you eat it while watching the movie. \n\nFront seats are giant bean bags.",
"In the UK, Ice Cream was sold in Cinemas, however during WWII to ration milk, Popcorn was introduced by following Americas change. \n\nIts a shame that Popcorn/Ice Cream whatever is so extortionate now that it's the reason I never go anymore. ",
"All other things aside popcorn is astoundingly cheap to make and is also conveniently salty which sells drinks. However it started it's a standard because it's a licence to print money.",
"Is this really ELI5 worthy? Were you expecting a scientific explanation?",
"Ever since i can't watch a movie at the cinema without a bucket full of it. ",
"I own a popper from the 1930s. The manual that came with it explained side walk marketing.\n",
"Eating something like popcorn might actually make you immune to cinema advertising, there is a study. Quite interesting. \n_URL_0_",
"Fun fact: Kemmons Wilson, founder of Holiday Inn, had a popcorn stand as his first business.....outside the movie theatre. Until they bought his machine and moved it inside.\n\nThe more you know!",
"I heard a weird story from an older guy once many years ago...\n\nHe said that eating a lot of corn made you laugh...so they started selling popcorn in the movie theaters when a comedy was playing to loosen up the audience. Also, this guy said, that is the reason a lame joke is called corny.\n\nThat doesn't sound right to me, but I thought I'd share anyway...",
"the word you're looking for is \"snack\"",
"I did an animation to explain that once that aired on the food network! The episode is: _URL_0_ \n\nI haven't seen it since it aired!",
"The same way diamonds became necessary for engagements: People keep telling you over and over and over.",
"When movie theaters realized they could sell 5 cents worth of popcorn for 6 dollars. It's the highest profit margin food in the history of man. ",
"Because I'm not strong enough to punch my dick through a plate of spaghetti.",
"It is inexpensive and easy to make. Plus it's served heavily salted and buttered, which makes customers thirsty and encourages them to buy drinks. ",
"Popcorn culturally was an event food in the 1800s. It was exotic and American at the same time. One would buy it at fairs and expositions. With the advent of movies, popcorn naturally made its way in as they were new and felt much like an event. Then the depression hit and a person could cheaply fill their stomach as they also got their minds off of their own lives for a day. This created a strong cultural association with movies and popcorn in the 1900s. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.oscars.org/features/movie-munchies/popcorn-origin.html",
"Oscar.com",
"http://filmmakeriq.com/lessons/the-science-and-history-of-popcorn-the-snack-that-saved-the-movies/",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-do-we-eat-popcorn-at-the-movies-475063/?no-ist"
],
[],
[],
[
"Smithsonian.com",
"http://www.smithsonianmag.com/arts-culture/why-do-we-eat-popcorn-at-the-movies-475063/?no-ist"
],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qA1XfVDXoMc"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22bdf8/eli5_when_did_popcorn_become_a_movie_food_and_why/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.theguardian.com/science/2013/oct/13/eating-popcorn-cinema-advertisers"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.foodnetwork.com/shows/the-secret-life-of/1-series/secret-life-of-popcorn.html"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
560804
|
how is it that disposable lighters have lighter fluid inside and it comes out as gas?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/560804/eli5_how_is_it_that_disposable_lighters_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8f5pja",
"d8f5qom",
"d8f6ist",
"d8f788h",
"d8f7mrm",
"d8fnuog",
"d8ftvbt"
],
"score": [
3,
43,
3,
4,
5,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"When it is compressed it turns to a liquid, the valve lets the fluid out slowly so turn back to a gas when it's uncompressed. ",
"The gas inside the lighter is under fairly high pressure which keeps it in a liquid state until it gets released. I wouldn't recommend trying it, but when I was younger we use to scare people by throwing cheap lighters on the ground behind them. The plastic cracks, pressure is release, loud pop ensues.",
"It isn't lighter fluid. It's butane, a gas under high pressure. Lighter fluid is a flammable liquid used in flint and wick lighters like Zippos.",
"Every liquid has a vapor pressure. This is because although the average temperature of a liquid might be room temperature, there are some molecules of it that are moving very fast and some that are moving very slowly. The fast ones have enough kinetic energy to overcome the attractive forces of the other molecules around it and escape them to enter the vapor phase. The vapor pressure of a liquid depends only on the temperature of the system; it goes up as temperature goes up. The vapor and liquid are also constantly trying to achieve equilibrium. If some vapor is removed from the system, some liquid will vaporize to replace it. This is why puddles evaporate but water in a bottle stays there; as more liquid becomes gas, the pressure of the atmosphere is basically unchanged by the puddle so liquid just keeps evaporating and trying to build up that vapor pressure to reach equilibrium but never gets there.\n\n \n\n \nIn a lighter, the system is sealed so the vapor and the liquid are in equilibrium. When you press the button on the lighter, it opens and some of the vapor comes out. When you let go, it is closed again but now has less vapor. This means more liquid will vaporize to replace it until the pressure exerted by the vapor is back to what it should be at that temperature. ",
"Butane's boiling point is right around 0 degrees C so it doesn't take much pressure at room temperature for it to become a liquid. That's why a relatively flimsy plastic capsule can keep it from bursting, unlike CO2 or Nitrogen which have far lower boiling points and need sturdier steel cylinders to make them safe for transport/use.",
"Made the mistake of leaving a couple of new bic lighters in my car. It was a broiling hot sunny day and they cooked in that car for 8+ hours. When I got into the car it smelled like butane and both lighters self discharged.",
"The temperature at which a gas becomes a liquid will depend on pressure. The higher the pressure the higher the boiling point. The butane in the lighter is under pressure and so it is a liquid at room temperature. When you open the valve to release the butane it has a greater pressure than the air around it and so it is forced out, the pressure drops and it becomes a gas. \n\nThe empty area above the butane tank is not a vacuum though and there is butane gas in there as well from evaporation. \n\nThis loss of pressure also removes heat from the tank and if you let too much gas flow out it will lower the temperature of the butane and it will get cold. \n\nIt's the same reason why duster cans get cold when you spray them too long. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
n9ubn
|
megaupload
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/n9ubn/eli5_megaupload/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c37eyd6",
"c37eyd6"
],
"score": [
17,
17
],
"text": [
"Megaupload is a file hosting service, meaning everyone and their dog can use it to upload files to be hosted on the internet, where anyone can download them. This is a legitimate service, even if it is abused by people loading copyright infringing material onto the service, like pirated software, ripped CDs, or bootleg movies.\n\nOne of the few good parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the safe harbor provision. This means that Megaupload isn't liable for what is uploaded to it as long as they take copyright infringing material down when they are notified about it. The thing about these notifications is that they are a legal document, stating this is definitely infringing content under penalty of law. Whoever uploaded the material can file a counter-claim saying it isn't infringing and can take copyright holder to court, if necessary, to get the material put back online. \n\nCopyright holders have been repeatedly caught abusing the takedown process using automated tools. So if I rename a perfectly legal Linux distribution as \"MIB_3_camrip_h264.zip\", the movie studio may falsely take down the file thinking it's a bootleg movie. They also have been lobbying to get the service outlawed. Much like a firearms manufacturer, it's what the users do with the end product that matters.\n\nSome very well known musical artists use Megaupload and similar file hosts as a means of distributing special tracks directly to their fans. They worked together on a YouTube music video which came to Megaupload's defense. [Which Universal Music Group then had blocked on copyright grounds.](_URL_0_) \n\nThanks to the Streisand effect, the whole situation blew up in the music industry's face.",
"Megaupload is a file hosting service, meaning everyone and their dog can use it to upload files to be hosted on the internet, where anyone can download them. This is a legitimate service, even if it is abused by people loading copyright infringing material onto the service, like pirated software, ripped CDs, or bootleg movies.\n\nOne of the few good parts of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is the safe harbor provision. This means that Megaupload isn't liable for what is uploaded to it as long as they take copyright infringing material down when they are notified about it. The thing about these notifications is that they are a legal document, stating this is definitely infringing content under penalty of law. Whoever uploaded the material can file a counter-claim saying it isn't infringing and can take copyright holder to court, if necessary, to get the material put back online. \n\nCopyright holders have been repeatedly caught abusing the takedown process using automated tools. So if I rename a perfectly legal Linux distribution as \"MIB_3_camrip_h264.zip\", the movie studio may falsely take down the file thinking it's a bootleg movie. They also have been lobbying to get the service outlawed. Much like a firearms manufacturer, it's what the users do with the end product that matters.\n\nSome very well known musical artists use Megaupload and similar file hosts as a means of distributing special tracks directly to their fans. They worked together on a YouTube music video which came to Megaupload's defense. [Which Universal Music Group then had blocked on copyright grounds.](_URL_0_) \n\nThanks to the Streisand effect, the whole situation blew up in the music industry's face."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/universal-music-issues-questionable-takedown-megaupload-video-that-featured-their-artists.shtml"
],
[
"http://www.techdirt.com/articles/20111209/14234917026/universal-music-issues-questionable-takedown-megaupload-video-that-featured-their-artists.shtml"
]
] |
||
1h1fki
|
why has the supreme court declared section 4 of the voting rights act unconstitutional?
|
I have read section 4 and I'm not sure what part makes it unconstitutional? I haven't read a good break down of it yet either so, ELI5.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1h1fki/eli5_why_has_the_supreme_court_declared_section_4/
|
{
"a_id": [
"capvnqe",
"capwccp",
"capwfs8",
"caqffa8"
],
"score": [
9,
6,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically, it said that certain areas of the country must go through extra steps if they want to change **any** process related to voting. For example, even closing an expensive or infrequently utilized polling place at a local school requires federal approval if you're in a certain area. These were areas that abused minorities in elections enough to cause that bill to be passed in the first place.\n\nThe Supreme Court ruled that the way we figured out who the bad guys were was reasonable 40 years ago, but if we're gonna keep the situation where we keep an eye on some trouble makers congress needs to reevaluate how we decide who to watch most.",
"The voting rights act was necessary at the time but the act itself was not particularly well constructed looking forward. The act lists a large number of municipalities, counties and states which imposed barriers to voting (EG literacy tests) but made the process for getting off the list extremely cumbersome such that nearly every area covered no longer has even the hint of racially based voting problems yet is still included. The justice department have also been extraordinarily reluctant to remove areas from the list even when they have clearly demonstrated they no longer have the same issues too; New Hampshire had to sue the federal government to get its municipalities off the list despite the state having had decades of some of the safest elections in the country.\n\nThe act has also been supplanted by other legislation which entirely negates the problems it was seeking to solve, the federal government has authority to intercede in state & local elections which is did not 50 years ago such that abusive voting practices would result in a federal court overturning elections. Even if a state managed to pass a literacy test requirement today (pretty much not a chance) they would find themselves in a federal court about 5 minutes later, since 1982 all the federal government needs to do to prevent such a practice is simply pass a federal statute barring it.\n\nThe reason why municipalities/counties/states want off the list is because it attaches stigma that may no longer be accurate (they must hate black people, the states not permitted to manage its own elections) and the pre-clearance procedures are both cumbersome and take an extremely long time to traverse. A municipality looking to change the wording on its ballots is looking at a couple of years and hundreds of thousands of dollars in legal fees in order to do so. In many cases this is too expensive to be justifiable so many municipalities are stuck with 50 year old voting procedures which may make elections less safe not more.\n\nIn terms of why SCOTUS overturned this provision now they felt the renewal violated the 10th amendment as the data being used to justify the act was 50 years old, the 10th and 15th amendments clash in this area so in order for a federal statute to be enforceable over the 10th amendment the federal government have to show 15th violations to be both recent and actual. Roberts stated clearly that congress are free to pass another voting rights act with precisely the same requirements as long as the areas listed are included due to recent violations not 50 year old violations that no longer occur.",
"Information is a summary of the opinion released this morning by the U.S. Supreme Court. The opinion can be found on the Supreme Court's [website](_URL_1_) and the case is Shelby County v. Holder. Additional information found on the [New York Times website.](_URL_0_)\n\nSection 4 of the Voting Rights Act (VRA) is what is commonly called the \"coverage formula\" and deals with defining areas or jurisdictions (such as a State or political subdivision) that used a test or device as a precursor to actually voting - which was common in Southern states to prevent African-Americans from voting. This relates to Section 5 which states that within these jurisdictions, voting procedures cannot be changed without first approval in Washington, D.C. - aka \"preclearance\".\n\nThe formula used in Section 4 was originally supposed to expire after five years. However, the VRA has been renewed numerous times but the formula still has NOT changed. Shelby County in Alabama challenged Section 4 & 5 and stated that it was unconstitutional and an injunction to law enforcement in that area.\n\nThe ruling is that the formula used in Section 4 is unconstitutional and can no longer be used to determine which areas need preclearance. It is unconstitutional because of several points: \n\n1. In a previous case, the VRA was noted to contain burdens and had to be justified due to current needs. In 1966, this was needed because of the racial discrimination and thus the formula made sense in areas deemed by Congress to have \"evidence of actual voting discrimination\". The VRA also departs from the basic principles of the Tenth Amendment by requiring states to appeal to the Government for permission to implement laws (regarding voting) that they should otherwise have the power to do. This only applies to the Nine states in the VRA that where deemed by Congress to have been discriminatory. \n\n2. The Government has continued to defend the formula by stating that because Congress first \"identified the jurisdiction to be covered and then came up with the criteria to define them\". Example: Congress identified Shelby County and then based on what was happening there, made the guidelines so Shelby County would always be identified. The argument was that since the formula made sense in 1965, then the formula was still relevant so long as the discrimination then was still in place now.\n\n3. Yet, the formula ignores current political conditions and doesn't account for the advances in discrimination today. Thus, jurisdictions must be singled out by what is happening political now, and not by what happened nearly 50 years ago (yet, the past shouldn't be ignored).\n\nTo sum up: The formula that was put in place in 1965 doesn't account for the political situation of today. Because of that, Section 4 has been ruled unconstitutional and thus removes the effectiveness of Section 5. If Congress so chooses, it may draw up new guidelines using current (2013 and beyond) data, not data from the '60s.",
"A landlord owns several buildings. Some of them are infested with termites, some of them are not. The tenants beg the landlord to spray for termites. The landlord makes a survey of which buildings, floors, rooms, and apartments need spraying for termites, then hires a man to spray for termites.\n\nIt starts to work. The termites begin to recede. The termite man keeps spraying, and slowly but surely, some termites completely disappear from certain problem areas. Some areas still have termites.\n\nEvery week the termite man sprays for termites. \n\nYears pass (let's say 45 years.) But the termite man is still at it. Some sections of the landlord's buildings still have termites, the persistent cusses. Some sections have completely rid themselves of termites. And some sections that didn't have termites before now have termites, but the termite man doesn't spray for them because originally they didn't have a problem, so he never checked to find out if they had termites. He just follows the original schedule.\n\nWhenever he sprays for termites, certain areas of the building are restricted with tents like in Breaking Bad or that Will Eisner book. The restrictions become a habit for the residents of the city. Sometimes they ask the termite man not to spray so they don't have to deal with the restrictions. Maybe they want to use the convention room for something, could you skip spraying. The termite man says \"that's not up to me, i can only stop if the landlord says.\" the residents asks the landlord if they can skip a spray at this time so they can use the normally restricted areas. The landlord then goes down to inspect to make sure it's ok, there's not a big termite problem there. If he approves of the area, he tells the termite man it's ok not to spray this time, they don't need the spraying right now, so the people can use the area and get around the restrictions.\n\nbut if a room or section was not originally put on the list for being sprayed for termites, then nobody has to ask the landlord permission for anything. they can just use it.\n\nSome people think it's stupid to keep spraying for termites using the same schedule based on who needed it years ago. \"Let's do a new assessment of who needs termites.\" \"This area was never sprayed but now has termites\" \"that area hasn't had termites in years but is constantly sprayed\" \"this other area is constantly sprayed and does indeed need the spraying, since the termites are persistent!\"\n\nAll the buildings the landlord owns are America. The termites are racism, or more specifically, the habit of prevent blacks and minority groups from voting by using literacy tests or character references. The landlord is the federal government. The tenants are the counties and people. the termite man is the voting rights act. \n\nThe survey the landlord did to see who needs to be sprayed for termites years ago is section 4b of the voting rights act, and the tents that prevent you from going where you want to are section 5: If you got assessed 45 years ago that you needed spraying by using the former, you get stuck with the latter.\n\nEssentially, the supreme court said you need a new survey, you can't use the one from 1964."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2013/06/26/us/supreme-court-ruling.html?_r=0",
"http://www.supremecourt.gov"
],
[]
] |
|
sspui
|
horizontal drilling: how do they steer?
|
I see [these things](_URL_0_) frequently being used to lay conduit for fiber optics but can not figure out how they have any control over the direction while underground. How does it work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/sspui/eli5_horizontal_drilling_how_do_they_steer/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c4gqq7o"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The answer of \"They don't\" is wrong. Dead wrong. I'm a Directional Driller in the Oil and Gas business with 11 years of experience, so let me see if I can break it down, Mr. Potato head style.\n\nDownhole while drilling in a wellbore, you have two main components. The Mud Motor, and the MWD. Let's explain them.\n\nThe Mud Motor, in big terms, is \"A Positive Displacement Multi-Lobed Motor that works by employing the reverse application of the Rene Moineau pump principle\". Or, in the spirit of ELI5, it's a tool used to drill that when you pump fluid through it, the bit box on the end turns and generates torque. It has an adjustable bend on it so we can turn with it by orienting the tools downhole. In other words, we can steer up, down, left, right, or by rotating the entire drilling string, we can go straight.\n\nRight behind this, we have the MWD, or \"Measurement while drilling\". The most basic form of this has 6 sensors on board. 3 gravity sensors, oriented at X Y and Z axis, and 3 Magnetic Sensors oriented the same way. Using this we can determine the Inclination and Azimuth that the well is travelling, and steer it according to whatever direction and angle the customer we are working for wants.\n\n\n**Edit**\nWow, I'm a really crappy redditor. I just now clicked on the picture. That's a freaking ditch witch. They don't really need to see where they are going, considering they travel very short distances. A good guess is close enough. I'm working with drilling that covers thousands of feet. Right now I'm on a well that we are currently 12,230' deep and drilling ahead at 40' an hour. So, uh....my bad."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://img.directindustry.com/images_di/photo-g/horizontal-directional-drilling-rig-389325.jpg"
] |
[
[]
] |
|
639r2a
|
What impact did the Bahá'í Faith have on Iran during the Islamic Revolution?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/639r2a/what_impact_did_the_baháí_faith_have_on_iran/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj2d4rw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"What do you exactly mean by \"the impact of the Baha'i Faith have on the Iranian Islamic Revolution\"? Are you asking if the Islamic Revolution incorporated some Baha'i doctrine? Or are you asking if the Baha'i Faith contributed to the fall of the Islamic Revolution?\n\n____________________________________________________________________________\n & nbsp;\n\nThe answer to the first part of my question is a big no, the Shia-influenced Iranian Islamic Revolution in 1979 used none of the incorporated doctrines in the Baha'i Faith. The reason for this is because Baha'is are seen as infidels and heretics. In Islam, it is considered a sin and a crime to leave the Islamic faith as Islam is considered by Muslims to be the last legitimate religion and Muhammad as the last prophet of the monotheistic Abrahamic religion. In a letter between Dr. Seyyed Muhammad Golpaygani [Secretary of the Supreme Revolutionary Council] to Head of the Office of Esteemed Leader [Ayatollah Khamenei], Golpaygani gave a list to Khamenei that detailed the \"Baha'i Question\". One of the major policies implemented against Baha'is were their legal and educational status. Golpaygani wrote, \"[Baha'is] can be enrolled in schools provided they have not identified themselves as Baha’is\", \"Deny them employment if they identify themselves as Baha’is,\" and \"Deny them any position of influence, such as in the education sector, etc.\"^1 Even after the Islamic Revolution, negativity towards the Baha'i faith was frowned upon to the point where they are treated as secondary citizens *only if they identify as Baha'is*, other than that, the Islamic State does not care. This vilifying behavior only proves that Ayatollah Khomeini and his Islamic extremism would have, in no circumstance, allowed Baha'i faith to become apart of the Islamic Revolution.\n\nIn addition, many Islamic Clerics and Muslims saw the Baha'is as closely tied within the inner circle of Muhammad Reza Shah Pahlavi, the last Shah of the Pahlavi dynasty in 1979. As the tensions and unrest increased throughout the late 1970s, Islamic forces used this opportunity to stage protests against the Shah and his lavish spendings. Before we get into the 1979 Islamic Revolution, we need to take a step back. In Reza Shah's White Revolution of 1963, the Shah found endorsement in Baha'i teachings on education. Geoffrey Nash pointed out, “When the Shi’ite clergy formulated its demands on the Shah, they included: ‘spread of Bahaism, increasing numbers of Europeans in the administration, contracting of foreign loans…’ as the evils to be fought.”^2 Indeed, Ayatollah Khomeini wrote in the *Islamic Government* that \"centers of evil propaganda run by the churches, the Zionists, and the Baha’is in order to lead our people astray and make them abandon the ordinances and teaching of Islam ... These centers must be destroyed.\"^3 The rhetoric that placed the blame upon the upper-class, Jews and Baha'is - like every other revolution in the past 400 years - spurred action to absolutely demolish their existence. As we can see in the 1979 Islamic Revolution, Baha'is were unwelcomed by the new Islamic Government and the Republic actively sought to reduce and eliminate their influence.\n\n & nbsp;\n\nThe answer to my second question, I kind of answered it in my earlier paragraphs. The Baha’is generally experienced a period of prosperity under the Shah, even though they were never officially recognized in Iran since the founding of the Baha’i sect in the 19th century. Prior to the Islamic Revolution, powerful figures within the Iranian economy were Baha’is; among them was Habib Sabet, builder of the first Pepsi Cola factory in Iran, and a millionaire.^4 Politicians include the Shah’s Prime Minister for twelve years, Abbas Hoveyda, and another Minister, Mansour Rouhani came from families where one or both parents were Baha’is; although the Baha’i faith is determined not by birth, but by the conscious of the individual at the age of maturity.^5 The acceptance of Baha'is into Reza Shah's inner circles was not that surprising. Under the tenets of the Baha’i Faith, Baha’is are to be apolitical, which also reinforced the idea that Baha’is is not a threat to the Shah’s regime. An unsurprising change of attitude would soon engulf the peace of what the Baha’is endured during this time, for even under the Shah, the clergy were the worst enemy of the Baha’is – after the 1979 Iranian Revolution, they were in power.\n\n\n & nbsp;\n\nWorks Cited:\n\n1. The Supreme Revolutionary Cultural Council. [25 Februrary 1991]\nFrom Dr. Seyyed Mohammad Golpayganito Head of the Office of Esteemed Leader\n2. Iran’s Secret Pogrom: The Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Baha’is. Geoffrey Nash. Suffolk. 1982. Pg 49.\n3. Ruhollah Khomeini. Islam and Revolution: Writings and Declaration of Imam Khomeini. Translated by Hamid Algar. Berkeley.\n4. Geoffrey Nash. Iran’s Secret Pogrom: The Conspiracy to Wipe Out the Baha’is. Suffolk. Neville Spearman, 1982. Pg 46. \n5. Ibid. Pg 45.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1wzfn7
|
What form does energy take without matter?
|
I'm struggling to understand how there can be energy without matter as i only know energy in the form of matter. For example electromagnetism and thermodynamics. It is matter with energy. But how can there be pure energy without matter? For example photons and before the big bang?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1wzfn7/what_form_does_energy_take_without_matter/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cf6ti8f",
"cf6tiv4"
],
"score": [
35,
23
],
"text": [
"This question doesn't really make sense. Energy isn't a thing that things are made of. There's no such thing as pure energy. Energy is a quantity that things can have.",
"Energy is not a \"stuff.\" It's a number you can calculate. There are exactly two things that factor into energy, the energy of motion, momentum, and the energy of \"restful existence,\" mass. E^2 = **p**^2 + m^2 (in units where c=1, and **p** is the variable we use for momentum (in normal units E^2 = (**p**c)^2 +(mc^2 )^2 ) ). \n\nA thing can be in motion, but have no mass (like photons/EM radiation), so m=0, E=|**p**|. Or a thing can have mass, and in its \"rest frame\" appear to have no momentum, so E=m. \n\nSo why is this number so useful if it's not a \"stuff?\" Well it turns out, this number will be constant over time for many physical scenarios. \n\nSo what about other stuff like \"potential energy\" and heat and all that? Isn't that a kind of energy? Well, no, not *precisely*. Those things are very useful *approximations* of some more fundamental physics. Instead of referring to the energy of motion of virtual photons in an electric field, it's just easier to treat the electric field as a \"real thing\" and a charged particle in that field as having an \"electric potential energy.\" It's a useful fiction, and science is built on useful fictions."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1171dw
|
what is the problem between greece and germany?
|
I really don't understand the Problem. What kind of money flows where? Why are people burning Nazi flags at a visit of Merkel in Athens?
If someone could put this whole mess in an easy explanation, I would be very thankful.
Edit: Thank you guys for all the answers.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1171dw/what_is_the_problem_between_greece_and_germany/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6jvgim",
"c6jvrjd",
"c6jvsxa",
"c6jvtd6",
"c6jvwm8",
"c6jw7jj",
"c6jwgw6",
"c6jwpgx",
"c6jx683",
"c6jxhdz"
],
"score": [
18,
9,
6,
13,
2,
105,
2,
13,
3,
6
],
"text": [
"Germany don't want to have to pay for the economic issues Greece have as they think Greece has been too irresponsible.",
"It's her first visit to Greece since the EU-crisis. According to the Greeks she's responsible for the heavy savings Greece needs to achieve since the country is near bankruptcy. \n\n",
"Germany is keeping the european economy alive, while greece is piggybacking ",
"Heike's been pretty responsible with her money. Alexandra has not. \n\nHeike is now telling Alexandra what she can and what she can't spend her money on. Being the petulant teenager she is, Alexandra and her family continue to rebel and haven't quite figured out that it's for their own good. \n\nWhilst Heike continues to be annoyed by this behaviour she always like to finish what she started so will continue to bear the burden from Alexandra and family as well as her own family who think Heike should not be spending any more of her own money helping Alexandra.\n\nAlso, Alexandra lied like a hooker on a street corner just so she could get in with the 'cool' gang.",
"Greece has a lot of debt at the moment, more than they seem to be able to pay back. This is bad for many other countries in Europe, because of two things. First, it was their money to begin with. Should Greece not be able to pay back the money, those countries lose it. Second, because Greece is part of the countries that have the Euro, having Greece be in a state where they can't pay back their debt is bad for the Euro.\n\nGermany is a rich country at the moment and can make a lot of decissions about what Greece needs to do in order to pay back their debt (\"austerity\"). They say they have to save a lot of money on a lot of different places. This angers greek people because a) they don't want to be told what to do with their money b) they can't buy things like education, health care, etc with the money any more, hence their live gets less comfortable because of it.",
"LI5: Let's say there's a group of friends that call themselves the \"EU\". One of the kids is named Greece, and he's been spending his allowance like crazy. He spends his money on expensive toys and other things he doesn't need until he's completely broke. Now he can't afford to eat lunch at school.\n\nOne of the requirements for belonging to the \"EU\" is that you help out other friends when they need it. Unfortunately, the friend named Germany is the only one that has enough money that they can let Greece borrow some. Since Greece is in such a tough spot and only Germany can help them out, Germany can set up any rules they want. Germany tells Greece \"we'll lend you the money as long as you stop buying all these toys.\" Greece doesn't like this. They want to borrow Germany's money but don't like the idea of Germany telling them how they must spend it.\n\nLI An Adult: The truth is a bit more complicated. Greece's politicians were the ones who were irresponsible with money, spending it on things they didn't need, stealing it, embezzling it, letting contractors embezzle it, and doing all sorts of other wasteful and corrupt things.\n\nWhat's happening is that the penalties are \"trickling down\" onto the middle and lower class. The Greek politicians and government contractors who are/were corrupt or foolish aren't being punished, but the people who had nothing to do with the corruption are going to have their wages lowered, retirement payments lowered, or even losing their jobs (the cuts the government is making are called austerity measures). Germany's requirements on how to spend the money they're lending don't really affect the politicians because politicians are not chasing after the wasted/stolen/embezzled money, they're just cutting government services. The cuts affect the common man and are being decided by the Greek government, but Greek politicians are deflecting some of the blame onto Germany.\n\nThat's why some Greeks are mad at Germany. But some Greeks are madder at corrupt Greek politicians.",
"Its a financial matter. Germany's economy is doing quite well while Greece's is in trouble. However, both nations keep the same currency (the euro). \n\nThe act that upset some Greek Citizens was a large loan the Germans offered the Greeks. They posed it with a modest interest rate, which given the huge amount of risk one would be taking investing any money in the Greeks right now (ie any loan they could get would come at a much higher interest rate), seemed to the Germans like a gift. \n\nThe Greeks however were upset that they asked for interest on their \"gift\", and claim they are simply being greedy and profiteering off of the Greeks. ",
"Greece lied about their money situation in order to switch to the Euro. Switching to the Euro let them borrow money at the same interest rate as Germany (even though their economy is not nearly as strong as Germany's). Greece went bankrupt because they spend much more than they make. Now Germany is trying to help them get back on track but all the people in Greece are mad at Germany because of all the spending cuts that have to be made to fix everything.\n\nBasically, Greece is a teenager that abused having an emergency credit card",
"The main difference between their economies is corruption. Greece has a massive, bloated public sector based on patronage, and bribery and tax evasion are commonplace. They also lied their way into the EU, and lied about their finances for nearly a decade so they could borrow money and have the economic equivalent of a weekend in Vegas.\n\nGermans don't want to bail out the Greeks anymore than they already have, especially with the Greeks being so unwilling to do anything to fix their underlying problems.\n\nThe Greeks see the Germans as the bad guys for this, because they are now feeling pain and blame the Germans for not stopping it. ",
"Imagine two siblings. Sibling Greece and Sibling Germany have co-signed on two houses -- one for Greece and one for Germany. Germany has been fairly responsible and has been paying for its house while Greece has felt secure in the fact that Germany has co-signed and has gone on a bit of spending spree. Now Greece is in danger of missing payments on the mortgage. Germany is a little pissed since it co-signed on that mortgage and if Greece defaults, Germany's credit will go down and bad things will happen. So Germany has given Greece some money to cover its mortgage payment on the condition Greece cuts its spending. However, Germany is not happy with this and keeps trying to tell Greece what to do about its irresponsibility and Greece is upset that Germany thinks it's not doing enough when Greece has cut out a lot of spending and thinks Germany is being a jerk about the entire thing."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2awckr
|
why is going to the dmv always such a clusterfuck?
|
Why does it take so long to handle any business at the Department of Motor Vehicles? I've been at my local DMV for several hours and I'm still nowhere near being helped. There's probably several hundred people in here waiting for the same shit too. Not even going to describe the parking catastrophe outside.
Is there a reason behind the piss poor service at a snail's pace at any DMV you ever go to?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2awckr/eli5_why_is_going_to_the_dmv_always_such_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cizerfs",
"cizfim9"
],
"score": [
8,
2
],
"text": [
"They don't have enough staff, the staff they do have works slow and it's a government agency so they have no incentive to work faster or harder because they'd have to rape a baby in front of the President to lose their job.",
"In Michigan we have a Secretary of State. They used to be slow. Understaffed, low motivation. It's all changed. I haven't had any problems with SoS for years. Always fast and efficient now. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
467t92
|
why is it harder to concentrate when you're sick or in pain, e.g. when you have a cold or a headache?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/467t92/eli5_why_is_it_harder_to_concentrate_when_youre/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d0329ye"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"For the same reason it's hard to concentrate when it's noisy or there's a bright light in your face: Your brain is distracted by all the other stimuli it's being exposed to (in this case, the stimulus of feeling like shit)."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1v12yo
|
how does somebody like aaron swartz face 50 years prison for hacking, but people on trial for murder only face 15-25 years?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1v12yo/eli5_how_does_somebody_like_aaron_swartz_face_50/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cennqmb",
"cenohrm",
"cenp1ra",
"cenpsy8",
"cenrfhh",
"cenud7v",
"cenupxm",
"cenuuky",
"cenv2mm",
"cenvega",
"cenvjo3",
"cenvw34",
"cenwnr7",
"cenwrs4",
"cenxgok",
"cenxlxz",
"cenxrl0",
"ceny3yy",
"cenyst3",
"cenywp6",
"cenz645",
"cenzp6i",
"ceo05g0",
"ceo0poq",
"ceo0xfz",
"ceo1d1y",
"ceo5nc8",
"ceo6ijh",
"ceo8f6c",
"ceo8wck",
"ceofcnp"
],
"score": [
1769,
184,
4,
23,
10,
3,
64,
3,
5,
30,
5,
2,
2,
8,
14,
2,
2,
4,
6,
3,
2,
8,
12,
4,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"If you kill somebody, it's just one crime : murder.\n\nIf you hack a bunch of computers, you're facing a criminal charge for each system you hack each time you hack it. It's the same as robbing five banks at gunpoint. \n\nA dozen crimes with two two year sentences can potentially have a longer penalty than a single ten year sentence.that doesn't mean you always get the max time in prison. They might not be able to prove every crime. They might give less time for some of them. You might be able to \"stack\" sentences.\n\nHe was highly unlikely to actually be sentenced to and require d to serve the max time in prison. Saying \"50 years\" just gets attention so journalists will use that number. \n\n**edit**: By comparing hacking to robbing a bank, I wasn't trying to establish any sort of equivalency between the two crimes, simply saying that you're breaking a bunch of different laws when you hack a computer and redistribute the data.\n\nI'm also not saying he's guilty or making any judgement about whether the laws, charges or the behaviors of anyone involved are ethically sound. I was just writing a simplified explanation as to how he was facing \"50 years\". It's an /r/ELI5 post, not part of an in-depth discussion in /r/politics - please keep that in mind.",
"When the media reports what sentencing the accused is facing, they just add up the maximum for all charges. This is very rarely based in reality. But the writers in the media aren't well versed in federal sentencing guidelines, so they take the lazy route. \n\nI'm a little rusty on Aaron's case, but iirc, it was more likely he was facing about 2 years, and he was offered a plea deal for something like 6 months. \n\nRemember, prosecutors _hate_ going to trial. They'd much rather get the defendant to plea out, as it's less work for them, better use of tax payer money, and so on. ಠ_ಠ\n\nEdit: defendant. Not dependent. :P\n\nEdit2: fixed some redundant repetition that was superfluously needless. ",
"Multiple counts and seeking the maximum possible penalty. ",
"As other people have mentioned it is smaller sentences for multiple counts adding up.\n\nAlso, legislators and prosecutors are notoriously bad at understanding technology. A lot of the laws are written and enforced in such a way that a single action results in multiple counts. It is like a bank robber being charged individually for every dollar they stole.",
"Also, in the US there's have to be some mitigating circumstances for only 15-25 years for murder. Like lack of premeditation, like a bar fight that got out of control or a drug deal gone bad, not a Ted Bundy type murder. or else the result of a plea bargain- Bundy was offered the chance to plea for three consecutive 25 year sentences (for the three murders he was charged with) with no parole.",
"Justice does not compare crimes like that. Justice does not consider if murder is worse than hacking. Justice is blind.\n\n_URL_0_",
"To say it even simpler: Aaron Swartz had multiple criminal charges against him and \"could face\" X years per charge. \n\nSomeone who murders a person and commits no other crime is facing one charge. \n\nI saw one defendant who had committed welfare fraud for about 10 years and filed fake tax returns for about 20 years; she was facing several hundred years in prison time. I don't know the outcome of the case (probably a plea bargain, but I only saw her arraignment). ",
"Because the people making the laws do not understand the very thing they are regulating. Also, \"hacking\" got wrapped up in the whole terrorism thing back in the beginning of 2000, so punishment was made far more extreme.",
"When the media reports something like \"Suspect faces X amount of time\", they're usually taking the maximum punishment permitted by whatever criminal statute(s) the suspect is charged with. For example, the maximum punishment for money laundering, at the federal level, is 25 years. Statutes are voted in by Congress, so the punishment is whatever they can get passed. \n\nOf course, sentencing judges don't typically use the maximum punishment, but this changes when dealing with heinous crimes, repeat offenders, or when the judge is corrupt. For example, the founder of the White Panther Party was given ten years for giving somebody a joint (the maximum punishment for distribution of marijuana).\n\nTL;DR: It depends on the criminal statute, and statutes are written by rich dudes in power\n\n ",
"I wish to add to this discussion. Many people raise extremely good points, but they seem to be missing something: In the USA computer crime laws are governed by something called the Computer Fraud and Abuse Act of 1986. As you can imagine, this act is old and outdated and does not fully cover or seem to understand computer crime as a whole. This, in addition to the incomplete understanding of computer crime from a laymans point of view (and even judges and attorneys) leads to persecution and an act that can be twisted to cover any sort of computer \"crime\" even though the act is only supposed to apply to \"protected\" computers.\n\nThe intentionally vague interpretation of this law allows people (like the attorneys who persecuted Aaron) to go after computer \"criminals\" in such a manner that allows them to obtain extremely long sentences even compared to actual crimes such as rape and murder. \n\nMost, if not all, tech industry people seek to push for a reform of such laws so new, up-to-date laws will be created that accurately protect people and correctly punish actual offenders. \n\nFor more reading:\n\n_URL_0_\n",
"The squeaky wheel gets the unnecessarily long jail sentence. Exposing corruption and incompetence is punishable by revenge.",
"There are \"crimes\" that could threaten the dominion of the state, which are taken seriously.\n\nThere is a lot of other stuff they pay lip service to, or make a show of, to keep the human capital docile, which is much less of a priority.\n\nThere is nothing more important than the preservation/expansion of power to the state. The slaves killing each other is almost irrelevant, except that it's another point to sell the slaves on why government is needed.",
"What? I hear people getting life for a single murder...",
"You're talking about two separate things as if they were the same, I don't believe Mr Swartz actually made it to being convicted, and so you're talking about *POTENTIAL* of 50 years, the *POTENTIAL* of murder is life, so if you're going to make a comparison of maximum potential sentences, at least do it right.\n\n~~You didn't even make your title factually accurate, it was a potential maximum of 35 years, not 50~~\n\nEdit: the above is incorrect, a fellow Redditor has told me 9 counts were added to the original bringing the potential maximum up to 50 years. I have no wish to be guilty of inaccuracies so have amended my post.",
"Aaron would have done 1-2 years at most. Probably none. So i'm not sure what the point of this topic is? Many murderers \"face\" 100+ years according to sentencing guidelines. ",
"Ken White over at Popehat has a few really good posts on federal sentencing that are pretty easy to understand:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_",
"For an actual real answer, 2 reasons. First he faced multiple counts (before his death I think it would have been 13 felony counts). And second, the Federal government took over the case, as opposed to local state government. In addition, the 50 years was if he was to \"serve his sentences consecutively\" rather than \"concurrently\" (which means he would only be in prison for the length of his longest sentence). People facing murder charges usually only have 1 charge and it's the State that's charging them. ",
"Lots of political answers here. The short and sweet answer is he was facing a total of about 13 charges, not one. The combined total for all the charges had a maximum penalty of over 50 years.\n\nSo you're comparing the potential sentencing for 13 charges to the potential sentencing for one charge.\n\nNot saying right or wrong. Personally I feel the situation was poorly handled by everyone involved.",
"Bernie Maddoff is spending life in prison without parole and he never killed anybody.",
"Murder = 1 person dead.\nHacking a hospital (or derail a train etc...) = possible many deaths.\n\nA lot of crimes can fall into that latter category and get you in big fuckin trouble.\n\nsimilar kind of skew for architects and engineers. if you fuck up a whole building can fall, if a doctor fucks up just one person dies (usually).\n\nEdit: or a better example is the night club owner who locks the emergency exit and has a fire. 200 people die. so if hes caught before this happens...well you can get in big trouble because the potential is so big.",
"Lets not forget the 6 month plea deal he refused. ",
"This submission has been linked to in 1 subreddit (at the time of comment generation):\n\n* /r/circlebroke2: [Possibly the most loaded ELI5 question yet. Christ this is getting ridiculous.](/r/circlebroke2/comments/1v28jv/possibly_the_most_loaded_eli5_question_yet_christ/)\n\n----\nThis comment was posted by a bot, see /r/Meta_Bot for more info.",
"He wouldn't have gotten 50 years. He'd probably have gotten 2 years. Steven Watt, aka the Unix Terrorist who was the second in ranks for the TJX hacks that took the company for hundreds of millions.. ya, he got 2 years. Even the main capo Soupnazi got only 20 years. Aaron Swartz killed himself for literally nothing, especially since it was his first tangle with the law. He was a coward and an idiot.",
"Because he was indicted for at least 11 separate violations (I believe the final total was more like 13). If you murder multiple people, you can be charged with multiple counts. Same with other crimes. Also, murder can easily get you life, not just \"15-25 years\".\n\nI'm sure you can do the math as to how much each violation was \"worth\". Ignore the people talking about affecting \"higher ups\". They have no fucking clue of what they're talking about. Especially since he was offered a six month plea deal.",
"I assume you're willfully ignoring the people who face life/death penalty for murder?\n\nHe faced 50 years but at the time of his suicide he had a deal down to a massive fraction of that, which is how cases like that usually go.\n\nHis original deal was like, less than a year, HE chose to reject it so they went to trial, that's how justice works. He faced 50 years because he was foolish.",
"\"Facing X years\" is an almost entirely meaningless statement. It's the result of lazy, sensationalist reporting and has little to do with how much one can reasonably expect to spend in prison if found guilty. \n\nIf you're charged with several related felonies you might be \"facing\" 50 years, but even if found guilty of all of them you will rarely be sentenced to serve them consecutively so adding them together is bogus. Also, sentencing guidelines have formulas that can reduce the maximum sentence quite a bit. It's not a simple matter of charge X always equals Y years in prison.",
"One thing that's getting lost is that people on trial for murder do NOT \"only face 15-25 years.\"\n\nThe Federal maximum for murder ranges between life in prison to the death penalty. Now, some aren't given the maximum sentence, just as Swartz was offered a plea bargain for 6 months, which he rejected. But the suggestion that people on trial for murder face less than 50 years in prison, even for a single count of murder, is factually inaccurate.\n\nSource: _URL_0_\n\n",
"Because we've stripped down what murder is so much.\n\nNow, you can plead insanity, buy your way out and be a \"good boy\" in prison and take time off.\n\nIt's just bullshit. I understand hacking is usually multiple crimes but I one dies. Hard to compare.",
"Laws aren't made as a wholesale set. They're made piecemeal and in (somewhat) disregard for each other.",
"It's called \"Beckerian Punishment.\"\n\nBasically, the idea is that committing a crime entails paying a \"price\" of sorts, i.e. the punishment for the crime. So, hacking (or whatever Aaron Swartz did) entails 50 years of prison while murder entails, say, 20 years. \n\nBUT this ignores the probability of being caught. So, let's say that you commit a crime that entails 20 years in jail and you have a 10% chance of getting caught. Your EXPECTED price of committing the crime is therefore 2 years in jail (10% of 20 years).\n\nWhat this means is that, even if something is comparatively petty, if it's difficult to detect, it makes sense to raise the punishment. In this way, despite a low probability of detection, the expected price will still be high enough to deter the crime. If something is relatively easy to detect, then we a lower severity of punishment makes sense (remember, it's the expected price that matters, not the price if caught).\n\nBUT, all of this only matters if they actually enforce the full punishment when they do catch someone. So, it may seem harsh, but it's the way that we, as a society, prevent the crimes that would have otherwise happened.\n\nSource, should you want to read more: _URL_0_",
"Removing a lot of low effort one-line replies here. If you're making some huge generality about the nature of the government, elaborate with specifics or your comment may be removed."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lady_Justice#Blindfold"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Fraud_and_Abuse_Act"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.popehat.com/2013/03/26/cloudy-with-a-chance-of-shitty-journalism/",
"http://www.popehat.com/2013/02/05/crime-whale-sushi-sentence-eleventy-million-years/"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_punishments_for_murder_in_the_United_States#Federal"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.ww.uni-magdeburg.de/bizecon/material/becker.1968.pdf"
],
[]
] |
||
2883wt
|
why do some people think it's bad to drink bottled water after it has been opened and sitting out for a few hours?
|
I've always heard about this, but never knew why. I hope this isn't too vague of a question. I just want to find out if it's bad for me or not and why.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2883wt/eli5_why_do_some_people_think_its_bad_to_drink/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ci8c2cm",
"ci8c7u8",
"ci8cp00",
"ci8cw41",
"ci8lmt5"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"It might be due to whatever can come into the water (dust, bacteria, etc.) if it's exposed.",
"There was a myth that plastic bottles, when left in the sun/heated, would release cancer things into the water. While this is completely not true, the myth has persisted and probably is the source of what you've experienced. Bottled water is totally safe, even after being opened/sitting out. I wouldn't microwave it, though.",
"You probably don't want to drink tap water that's been sitting in a glass for a week, since the bacteria it has has been able to replicate several times. The same thing happens with bottled water, once the seal has been broken.\n\nEDIT: This usually takes days, not hours.",
"It isn't bad for you. Pure water left out in a clean container will be fine for ages and ages. Sure there are bacteria and stuff in it, but nothing your body can't handle. \n\nAs long as something hasn't died in your water, you should be fine. Bacteria can't form massive colonies in water alone. \n\nBesides, before being in a bottle or a cup, the water was sitting for days in an aquifer, the water tank in your house, some storage container somewhere long after it was filtered. ",
"One possible explication is that as the temperature of a solvent (water) increases so does its ability to dissolve a solute. Plastic how ever have very low solubility. It is likely that as the temperature increase in the bottle the polymers (molecules of plastics) begins to degrade through the breakage of hydrogen, disulfide or maybe even covalent bonds and further devolved in the bottle. But that's speculation "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
4hudrw
|
what is dynamic braking as why is it always prohibited?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4hudrw/eli5_what_is_dynamic_braking_as_why_is_it_always/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d2sdlia",
"d2seuj3",
"d2sox51",
"d2sqf6i"
],
"score": [
3,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"When you slow down, you create friction within your brakes. Dynamic Braking is a system that allows you to use your engine to brake for you. So when you release the gas, the engine works to slow you down, rather than just speeding you up \nIt's usually prohibited because it's very loud",
"I think what you mean is compression braking as used on large trucks\n_URL_0_\n\nWhich is different (and much noisier than using engine braking by selecting a lower gear. \nColloquially this is called \"Jake Braking\". A Jake Brake is a trademark of Jacobs brand compression brakes. If you see a sign that says \"No Jake Braking\" they want to hear about it so they can protect their trademark. \n",
"Confusion here about what you mean. Dynamic braking refers to something completely different than compression braking or engine braking.\n\nCompression braking (or engine braking, or jake braking) all rely on the fact that engines have a compression cycle. If you short the engine fuel, it will normally stop running - not enough energy to get through the compression part of the cycle. If you do this while going downhill, the engine will effectively act like a brake. Less wear and tear, and risk of overheating brakes than using the actual brakes.\n\nYour car does this - you will have noticed that when you let off the gas while the car is in gear, the car doesn't really \"coast\" - it actively slows down. Put the car in neutral to compare - it won't slow down as quickly (automatic transmissions dampen the effect significantly).\n\nDynamic braking is using an electric motor to brake. Used heavily on trains, but also on electric cars - with very different post-motor/generator action. Trains will put the diesel into idle and put the motor into a resistance mode - operating like a generator (and thus sucking energy out of the train system) - the energy is generally dissipated with large resistor sets in the engine. (Not practical to put enough batteries on board to store the energy, apparently). Electric cars/motorcycles store as much of the energy as possible back into their battery sets. This is a key part of why electric vehicles are more efficient in cities - they are recovering a lot of their expended energy at the next stoplight.\n\nI have never heard of dynamic breaking being prohibited. Compression braking is often prohibited if people are near the road where it would be used - it's very loud.",
"The 'what' has been covered, but the why hasn't been. It's not always prohibited, but it's always prohibited in the areas/neighbourhoods you see those signs. For the most part, they're illegal in any urban/residential area. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compression_release_engine_brake"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
1eb7e3
|
when i microwave a dry muffin, it get's moist (and tasty). where did the water come from?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eb7e3/eli5_when_i_microwave_a_dry_muffin_it_gets_moist/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9yim0e",
"c9ylibn",
"c9ylmcu",
"c9yo7dt",
"c9ypdup",
"c9ypu9g",
"c9yqg0l",
"c9yr1nf",
"c9ys03i",
"c9yt8o9",
"c9z24nc",
"c9z3yd7"
],
"score": [
375,
66,
108,
3,
900,
2,
26,
2,
2,
14,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"A microwave works by heating up water molecules in the small atmosphere of the microwave door with a certain form of radiation. There is moisture in the air around and inside the muffin. The heated water molecules then get hotter and hotter turning into steam throughout the muffin delivering a moist delicious muffin.",
"Best thing to understand is that it is moisture that makes the muffin stale, not dryness. The moisture crystallizes the starch and makes it hard. Keeping your breads dry keeps them fresh longer.",
"I have a related question:\n\nWhy can I put something stale like a loaf of bread, or a pizza slice in the microwave, and it gets soft and pliable...but if I wait 5 minutes it goes right back to rock hard/stale and crap?",
"Apart from vaporizing whatever moisture is there, heating will also melt sugars which will make the whole thing seem softer for a little while until the sugars harden again.\n\nI do exactly that with Chips Ahoy cookies. If you microwave them and get them warm enough they will get soft and chewy for a short time before they harden again.",
"This is not *guess like you're five* idiots. If you don't know the answer just don't comment.",
"Because microwaves are incredibly efficient at boiling water. So efficient, in fact, that a good deal of the water molecules in your food get to a certain temperature called their **boiling point**. \n\nThis means that the molecules will actually turn into steam, not liquid water. (This also adds some clarity on the [earlier comment](_URL_0_) about starches. The heat causes these to assume a faster speed (higher temperature). The food is no longer full of crystalized molecules (solid and hard) like they were in the fridge.\n\nUnfortunately, after an amount of time (depending upon the room temperature and the type of food), the water and other gasses evaporate from the muffin/pizza/whatever, leaving it dry and devoid of moisture, and rock hard.\n\n\nThis is most discernible with Bagel Bites.",
"Some faulty speculation mixed in with not-so-ELI5 explanations so I'll give this a shot.\n\nLike u/poogy said, the way that your stale muffin seems to be dry before microwaving and moist afterward is actually backwards if we think that adding water makes something wet and taking it away makes it dry! This is because of the way that water molecules interact with the protein molecules in your muffin. The short answer is that your stale muffin isn't really dry, it's just rigid, and your \"moist\" muffin isn't really wet so much as it's smooshy.\n\nI know it's easy to think of water as always being wet, but the \"wetness\" of water is really a result of the way that millions of little water molecules interact with one another. Think of it this way. If you have a whole bunch of marbles that slip and slide all over one another, collectively they act like a liquid even though individually they are solid balls. Put them in a bucket and the collection of marbles will take the shape of that bucket. Pour them into a different bucket and they take on a new shape! And you can smoosh your hand into the bucket and even reach all the way to the bottom!\n\nIf all the marbles were locked into place, like if we super-glued them all together in some definite shape, they wouldn't act like this. They would act more like a rigid solid. This is what happens when water freezes. It goes from \"wet\" and liquidy to rigidly solid. \n\nBut freezing isn't the only way to make something go from liquidy to rigid. There are also processes called \"chemical reactions\" that rearrange the way that tiny molecules are organized, and sometimes these \"chemical reactions\" reorganize something and change how smooshy or rigid it is.\n\nYour muffin, and any bread, really, contains lots of molecules called proteins. These protein molecules are still really tiny, but they are way bigger than water molecules. They are really long, and sometimes get all tangled up with one another to make a tangle, kind of like when your hair gets all tangled and knotty. This can be kind of squishy, but kind of rigid, and good muffin and bread bakers work hard to get the right balance of squishy and rigid so that the muffins and breads \"feel\" good when you put them in your mouth. \n\nWhen a muffin gets stale, water molecules in the air interact with the proteins and cause them to rearrange into a more rigid network of proteins and water molecules. So, even though there is more water in your muffin, it seems \"dry\" because it's not so smooshy anymore. Weird, right? \n\nMicrowaving your stale muffin rearranges the network again, by adding energy that kicks the water molecules out and lets the proteins be smooshy again. So even though the muffin is losing water, it seems \"moist!\" \n\nAfter a little while, the muffin will go stale again, when it absorbs more water molecules from the air. \n\nOne way to stop this from happening is to add stuff called preservatives to the muffin when it is first baked. These preservatives stop the proteins from reacting with water in the air and going stale. But lots of people think that muffins made without preservatives are better than ones with preservatives, so they prefer to just eat their muffins before they go stale (or reheat them in the microwave or oven just before eating them). \n ",
"Microwave ovens work on the \"wet band\" of the electromagnetic spectrum, meaning their vibration resonates with water thus exciting localized water clusters into moisture expanding as steam.",
"The carbohydrates in baked goods have a high affinity for water to a limited extent, but any loose moisture evaporates over time. Heating the food causes the previously bound water to be released, which then forms droplets that make your food feel more moist.",
"Copied from the first google result:\n\nBread is mostly flour and water. Flour comprises a small amount of protein (gluten, which is responsible for the bread's elasticity or chewiness) and a large amount of starch (specifically two molecules called amylose and amylopectin).\n\nThe process involved in bread baking - in massively oversimplified terms - accomplishes two things:\n\nDevelopment of additional gluten; and\nGelatinization of the starch.\n\nThe latter - starch gelatinization - is the important part in the context of this question. In order for the starch to gelatinize, it needs to be completely dissolved in water and then heated, which breaks up its original crystalline structure. This process cannot be reversed... except, it sort of can.\n\nGelatinized starch undergoes another process called retrogradation. At lower temperatures, these starch molecules will actually start to realign themselves back into their original crystalline structure or something similar, and during the process they will force out water. That is why refrigerated bread often appears to have a soggy exterior, and frozen bread may develop a layer of frost on the top.\n\nThis process doesn't happen on a large scale, but it is enough to make the bread go stale.\n\nBut remember that bread is mostly water. When you heat it again, as in the microwave, you are significantly improving the solubility of these reformed crystalline molecules, which causes them to dissolve again. Essentially you are re-hydrating the dehydrated (stale) bread with its own water.\n\nAs you've noticed, the taste isn't great. You can't change the fact that the bread has lost water, and a non-trivial amount of great protein and other flavour in the process. The reheated bread is kind of limp and soggy and fragile because the protein (gluten) is what was holding it together. But it's softer.\n\nIf you've got very stale bread, another trick you can use is to wrap it in a cloth dampened with hot water for a few minutes, or use a paper towel and microwave the whole thing for a short time. That will do a lot more to hydrate the retrograded starches instead of relying on whatever water is left in the super stale bread.",
"Jesus Titty-Fucking Christ, OP, where did you learn how apostrophes work - MySpace?\n",
"Because the microwave heats up the water molecules in the muffin, making it steamy aka moist, as you described. Same thing happens with dry bread. A dry muffin is not 100% dry muffin or else it would be crumbling. If it is intact, there are water molecules in it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1eb7e3/eli5_when_i_microwave_a_dry_muffin_it_gets_moist/c9ylibn"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ofwwd
|
why does pubic hair only grow to a certain length
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ofwwd/eli5_why_does_pubic_hair_only_grow_to_a_certain/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmmr8hc"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"When it gets to a certain length it just falls out. It doesn't stop growing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
4it8nv
|
why did commanders throughout history fight in the front lines?
|
Wouldn't that make it easier for the enemy to kill them? I know boosting morale is important but how could you ever risk your leader?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4it8nv/eli5_why_did_commanders_throughout_history_fight/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d30xo2y",
"d30xup8",
"d30z5l7",
"d311679"
],
"score": [
8,
3,
28,
2
],
"text": [
"It depends what you mean by \"front lines.\" A commander or king probably wouldn't lead the charge into the enemy's forces because it's an undue risk to their own life.\n\nThat said, for most of human history it wasn't very feasible for commanders to be very far from the front lines because communications technology was primitive/non-existent. You have to stay near the action in order to execute your next move.",
"It made sense from a management perspective. When small armies met on the field of battle, it was relatively easy for a single general or emperor to \"manage\" the fight. Leading from the front at critical moments could be seen and inspire your troops (e.g. Braveheart or Henry V).\n\nBeyond this, many were not only battle-thirsty, but had a tremendous amount of arrogance. A lot of great leaders are considered so great because of their commitment to remaining a hands-on warrior.",
"Because they were often the the most effective fighting force in the field of battle. Your typical commander was a noble, which meant:\n\n* they had ample food and medical care as a child, making them bigger and stronger than most men\n* they were trained in sword and horse almost from birth\n* they had the best equipment money could buy\n* they were surrounded by similarly well equipped and well trained bodyguards\n\nSo the commander didn't just lead the battle, they often served as shock troops who could turn the tide of the battle.",
"In addition to what others have said, being on the \"front lines\" wasn't as dangerous as it may seem. Most of the casualties in ancient/medieval battles tended to occur during or after a retreat. When the line broke and everyone started running, it was very easy to chase them down and kill them. As long as the soldiers were disciplined and maintained formation, they had a high chance of surviving (unless totally overwhelmed). So the commander being at the front and helping maintain order made sense. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1p8zhu
|
Does the number of other groceries in my fridge affect how long it will take for a room temperature pitcher of water to cool down?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1p8zhu/does_the_number_of_other_groceries_in_my_fridge/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cd01pct"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"The less space for air in your fridge means less heat transfer every time you open the fridge door. This means that a full fridge (containing already-chilled groceries) has a head start when you first place the pitcher in, while an empty fridge needs to spend extra energy cooling the air down again.\n\nThat said, assuming the starting conditions were somehow identical (as in, you teleported the pitcher without opening the door), then the extra air would aid in cooling, as it can circulate the heat away from the pitcher better."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
5fmaas
|
How do camouflaging animals know what colour/texture to mimic?
|
[deleted]
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5fmaas/how_do_camouflaging_animals_know_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dallzyb",
"dalmuzx"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Short answer: they don't. All they know is that they didn't get eaten.\n\nGenetic mutations that affect an animal's colour or texture are relatively common. Having fur or feathers a different colour, or a different length, or patterns of stripes or dots; all of these can happen with a single genetic change. Any population of camouflaging animals will vary between individual animals in the effectiveness of their camouflage. The animals that by chance happen to have the most effective camouflage, are the ones that don't get seen by predators and eaten. These animals survive, reproduce, and pass on their genes for effective camouflage. Repeat.",
"Most of the things that animals do that seem clever are, in fact, not. The animal simply does it, and it happens to work.\n\nThis is especially true of camouflage, which is a very excellent example of how evolution works. The animal develops the pattern or camouflage naturally, and because it happens to work, that particular species will survive in greater numbers than others."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
50hec0
|
Are hot places windier?
|
If air moves towards low pressure and causes winds, and low pressure is caused by hot air. Are hotter places windier?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/50hec0/are_hot_places_windier/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d74tgcr",
"d74x5jq"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Well, from a general standpoint, some of the fastest winds are found in the northern and southern poles, where polar extratropical storms rage. It may depend on certain factors other than temperature, but just because hotter air often contributes to low pressure doesn't mean hot places everywhere are windy.",
"You need temperature differences. So a hot region must be relatively near a cooler region. Either laterally or vertically separate. The hot air expands away toward the cooler regions. The flow gets further modified by Coriolis effects. That is how hurricanes and tornadoes get started. \n\n_URL_0_"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://nationalgeographic.org/encyclopedia/coriolis-effect/"
]
] |
|
2fhg5x
|
from a business standpoint, in terms of monitary gain, how does the history channel profit from running 18 hours a day of pawn stars?
|
To elaborate, and this is understanding the show makes money. But socially, the pendulum must swing, correct? It's gotten so far from anything resembling education or history in general that it's difficult to watch
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2fhg5x/eli5_from_a_business_standpoint_in_terms_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ck9a4do"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Discovery Channel, TLC, The History Channel, they started out as niche channels...inexpensive programming aimed at a specific audience it was easier to target ads for.\n\nThen came *Mythbusters*, a big hit that appealed to a broader audience. Soon all the networks wanted to try to reach a wider range of viewers, and but instead of making clever shows within their niche, like *Mythbusters*, the just made dumbers shows that grew to have little to do with their niches.\n\n*American Chopper*, for example, started out as a interesting show about building things, but turned into a contrived soap opera. The concept of *Pawn Stars* is sound, there is a good deal of history in many of those items, but they went with character based buffoonery. \n\nAnd unfortunately, that's what is getting the ratings...for now. My hope is more cable networks, like USA and TNT, are going to get into the game, and outcompete the niche channels, sending them back to their original ways."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4uwoue
|
In the HBO show Rome, the two lowborn characters generally drink wine, was wine the drink of choice among commoners? Would there not be a less expensive option?
|
I was discussing wines association with the aristocracy with my wife, which lead to it's association with classical antiquity but then I remembered that Lucius Verinus and Pullo were always drinking wine despite being relatively poor.
Was wine the main available drink? Or hippocras? Did Rome at the time not produce beer or other cheaper drinks, or was wine just cheaper and easier to make at the time.
Thanks in advance.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4uwoue/in_the_hbo_show_rome_the_two_lowborn_characters/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5tmlnr"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Other than mead, which was often more expensive (and hard to make) and not especially popular, Italians in the Roman world drank pretty much exclusively wine, as far as alcohol went. Distillation was unknown in antiquity, and while beer has existed since earliest antiquity it was extremely uncommon in the Roman world, to the point that the beer-drinking habits of Germans and Egyptians were an object of some ridicule. Fruit wines, especially date wine, were known to the Romans, but the ubiquity of grape wine throughout all levels of society cannot be understated--the three most important crops of the ancient Mediterranean were grain, olives, and grapes, which were used to make wine and rarely as food themselves. By late antiquity and even the Principate beer was making substantial inroads among the poor, but a common substitute for good wine (other than, you know, just buying shittier stuff) was from a very early date *posca*, which was made by mixing nearly-soured must with water. However, to quote the New Pauly, \"The everyday beverage and primary beverage of all classes, age groups and sexes was undoubtedly water\"--the idea that the poor might be forced to consume alcohol over water is, at least for the Romans, absurd, given the great lengths to which magistrates would go to provide the best water"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2dj52t
|
what is the police command and accountability structure in the us?
|
Reading about the Ferguson events got me curious about the way the US police system is organized. Since I'm from Europe, I only have a very broad idea of the way it works, and the [wikipedia article](_URL_0_) lists a number of different agencies and institutions.
I know that the FBI works independently from the others and gets involved in inter-state crimes. What is the hierarchy of the other agencies, though? E.g., do locally elected Sheriffs need to answer to higher-ranking officers in county or state or do they have free reign?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2dj52t/eli5_what_is_the_police_command_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjpys1h",
"cjq5upb"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"US citizen here, St. Louis area, but with no law enforcement experience. As far as I can tell, different executive entities cover their jurisdiction, and usually only step into a lower level if asked or needed. For instance, in Ferguson, they would have the local police department, a county sheriff's department, a state trooper presence, the state National Guard, and now the FBI you mentioned. Each \"lower\" group is expected to function by itself, and to ask for help when their resources (time, manpower, impartiality) don't let them.\n\nHope this helps!",
"Responding because /u/JohnBobJoe's answer is incorrect and confusing. He is using politically charged words like \"police state\" (analogous to the Nazi Schutzstaffel) in his answer, so I don't think it's a neutral and informed answer. He's also using his post to talk about irrelevant things like the NSA scandal and saying the President of the United States is in charge of the police.\n\nLet me try to clarify and give you a real answer; I will start with our political system. The United States is a federal presidential constitutional republic (by way of contrast, Germany is a federal parliamentary constitutional republic). The \"federal\" part of our names you should be familiar with: there is a federal/central government (the \"United States Federal Government\" or the \"US Government\" and the German Government [not sure if there is a word for the German central government]). The central has control over the entire country/state. The US is also divided into further states (Länder), 50 in our case.\n\nThis is where it gets both easier and harder to explain. Unlike [Germany] (_URL_0_), the United States has only two main divisions: the US Government and each of the 50 States. Our system is a system of dual sovereignty: both the federal Government and each State is sovereign. This is similar to the Länder, but I believe our States have \"more\" sovereignty than a Länd. \n\nBecause of our history, the 13 British Colonies rebelled against England and banded together to form the USA. We are the *United* **States** of America: therefore, it is more accurate to say that the 50 States make up America, and not that America has 50 states. \n\nOkay. So I have explained that we have dual sovereignty. What does this mean? The US Government is the ultimate sovereign, but *only in the duties that the Constitution gives it.* Our Federal government is known as a federal government of \"limited powers.\" Our Constitution only allowed our Federal government certain powers; anything not listed is given back to the States.\n\nSo the Federal government and each State creates its own police forces. The Federal government has the Secret Service, the US Marshals, the FBI, etc. \n\nNow, when we are talking a US State, we have to understand that only the US Government and the State government possess sovereignty: the inherent right to exist and the right to independent government. Everything within a State exists because the State allows it to exist: every city and county (equivalent to Landkreise probably) was created by the State government. However, after they are created, the State government rarely interferes with the workings of an individual county or city by issuing \"orders\" to them. They can do things like withhold money to them, but rarely do they do anything drastic, even though it is within the right of the State to dissolve a town.\n\nNow, because each of the 50 States is sovereign, it's very hard to say *exactly* how it works within each State, because each State can create a different kind of police. Most states have a State police. I believe this would be equivalent to the Landespolizei. Some states have police at the county level. Some cities have their own police. Other cities do not have their own police, and are policed by a county-level police. Some very small areas are policed by the State police. Each of these police forces independent of one another and controlled by different entities (the State, the county's government, the city government).\n\nTo your specific question, then, most of the time, yes, a sheriff of a county only answers to his county government. He has no direct responsibility to any officer in any other county or the State government. However, in situations where there is a crisis or controversy, they often allow a different authority to investigate. And if the State really does want to exercise its power, they can task the State police or other State authorities to take over investigations (remember, only the State is sovereign, so they can do this). But it's important to remember that although it is an authority of greater power, the local police never \"report\" or \"take orders\" from the a different department. \n\nThe FBI or other Federal government agency can take over an investigation from any State only if it comes within their scope (remember, the Federal government's power is limited). \n\nI hope that makes sense. \n\n[Edit] To your question somewhere else, in a police scandal, it would be limited to the particular force, because politicians of another level have no direct involvement. In your example about the LAPD or NYPD, if it is really serious, there are probably federal law violations. In that case, the Federal government (usually the Department of Justice, or essentially our Interior Ministry) would step in, usually by suing the police department. This is what happened with the LAPD. The LAPD entered into a consent decree with the DoJ (Interior Ministry), basically allowing itself to be monitored by the Federal government. In this case, however, note that the Federal government did not have the power to directly assume control, it had to go through the courts and argue that the LAPD violated laws. At the end of the day, the LAPD had to agree to be monitored, and the Federal government *still* didn't assume direct control of the department, it only monitored / put into place procedures. \n\n[Edit 2] I think after all of this text wall, I should give a summary. The summary is that in America, we have very \"loose\" political structures. We favor less centralized government and attempt to push down government to a low a level as possible. Regarding police, we do have forces that are of a higher authority than local police, but they are separate police forces. There does exist some ability to control another police force, like take over an investigation or arrest police officers for violations of the law or sue the police force in court, but they almost never have the right to directly take over another police force."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law_enforcement_in_the_United_States"
] |
[
[],
[
"https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/3/3b/Administrative_divisions_of_Germany.svg/1024px-Administrative_divisions_of_Germany.svg.png"
]
] |
|
a4ek9l
|
During WW2, how did the US and Canada ship people and war supplies across the Atlantic without the boats being sunk by the Germans.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/a4ek9l/during_ww2_how_did_the_us_and_canada_ship_people/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ebhpg5o"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"The full answer to this question is *massive.* Historians have written books inn the subject and still not covered everything.\n\nTo give you a brief explanation, the Allied strategy in the Battle of the Atlantic had four prongs: intelligence, the convoy system, air cover, and hunter-killer groups.\n\nA major source of intelligence was \"Ultra,\" decryptions of encoded and enciphered messages sent by German land-based HQs and by individual submarines at sea. In May 1941, the British were able to capture a German trawler and the U-Boat U-110. This gave the British information on naval code settings, an intact Enigma cipher machine and its settings (the key to deciphering Enigma messages), as well as materials for a secondary cipher system. For 5 months, the British were able to \"read the German's mail.\" Although the messages were several days old by the time they could be deciphered, they were still very valuable. Allied commanders could route convoys around German U-boats. \n\nIn February 1942, the Germans a new rotor was added to their naval Enigma machines, making their ciphers much harder to break. Allied codebreakers were largely stumped until October 1942, when British destroyer HMS *Petard* captured the code books of U-559. Two of *Petard's* men died to get the books, trapped when the submarine suddenly sank as they searched it. In June 1944, Captain Daniel Gallery became the first American to bag German secrets. U-505 was captured, along with it's Enigma machine and codes. In order to keep the secret of its capture from leaking out, the surviving Germans were kept isolated from the Red Cross and other POWs.\n\nThe second, even more important source of intelligence was High Frequency Direction Finding, also known as HF/DF or \"huff duff.\" Land-based (and eventually ship-based) radio receivers were used to to triangulate radio emissions from German U-Boats. German shore commanders heavily micromanaged their U-Boats at sea and demanded a steady stream of information. This gave the British plenty of chances to locate U-boats. These could be avoided, or hunted down.\n\nThe convoy system used in WWII was a further refinement of the system the British used on a large scale in 1917-1918. Convoy escorts patrolled around a large group of transport ships, tankers, and other merchantmen. Initially these escorts were destroyers, but as time went on, navies developed more specialised escorts like the US Navy's destroyer escorts and the Royal Navy's sloops and frigates. These vessels were smaller and cheaper than destroyers, so they could be made in far greater numbers.\n\nThese escorts made use of a variety of specialised sensors and weapons. Underwater microphones known as hyrdophones (passive sonar) and British-developed Asdic (active sonar), enabled sub-hunters to find submerged U-boats. Radar could find surfaced U-boats. This foiled a preferred tactic of U-boat wolfpacks early in the war. A large group of submarines (usually 2-5) would exploit their superior speed (17 knots, compared to 10-12 knots for the convoy) to attack the convoy from multiple directions on the surface at night. With radar, Allied escorts could spot surfaced submarines and stop them.\n\nEscorts also had specialised weapons for hunting U-boats like depth charges and the Hedgehog and Squid mortars. These latter weapons fired mortar bombs at a point in the water. If a Hedgehog mortar hit a U-boat, it would explode. Initially developed by the Royal Navy, Hedgehog was later fitted to US Navy, US Coast Guard, and Royal Canadian Navy escorts.\n\nInterestingly enough, the United States' involvement in WWII predates Pearl Harbor. From August 1941, the US Navy escorted convoys all the way out to Iceland. One destroyer, the *Kearny,* was torpedoed and badly damaged. Another, the *Reuben James,* was sunk with the loss of 100 men. In September 1940, the US also gave the British 50 old destroyers as part of the Destroyers for Bases agreement.\n\nThe third Allied asset was airpower. US Navy patrol aircraft and aircraft from RAF Coastal Command scoured the waters of the North Atlantic. If these aircraft spotted a U-Boat, they would dive and attack the surfaced U-Boat with rockets, bombs, or depth charges. The diesel-powered German U-Boats had to surface to recharge their batteries, so they were critically vulnerable to air attack while on the surface. Innovations like aerial radar and the Leigh Light (which paired radar with a powerful searchlight to illuminate U-Boats for night air attack) made aircraft even more dangerous predators. By 1944 and 1945, German U-Boats were forced to use a snorkel to recharge their batteries while still underwater. However, snorkels and periscopes could be seen by late-war Allied radar, so this was hardly a guarantee of safety.\n\nInitially, the mid-Atlantic could not be reached by medium-ranged aircraft like the British Short Sunderland or the American PBY Catalina. This gave U-Boats an area (the \"Mid-Atlantic Gap\") where they could operate without fear of air attacks. By 1943-1944, the introduction of very long-ranged American-made Consolidated Liberator, enabled the US Navy and RAF to close this gap.\n\nConvoys also brought along their own air cover. The Battle of the Atlantic was an air battle as well as a sea battle. German bombers attacked convoys and the notorious FW 200 Condor was used to sniff out convoys for the U-Boat wolfpacks to kill. As a stopgap, some merchantmen were fitted as CAM (catapult aircraft merchant ship). They could fire an obsolete Hurricane fighter off the end of the ship. The fighter could then shoot down the intruding Condor. Without anywhere to land, the pilot had to ditch and take his chances. CAM Hurricanes shot down nine German planes for the loss of just one pilot. Pilot Officer J.B. Kendall died after bailing out.\n\nEventually, a better solution was devised. Merchant ships were converted into small escort carriers with proper flight decks. These escort carriers could provide air defense for the convoys and send out planes to hunt U-Boats.\n\nEscort carriers formed the nucleus of the Royal Navy and US Navy's hunter-killer groups. These groups consisted of 1-2 escort carriers and several surface escorts. Carrier planes would locate and attack U-Boats. Then, the surface warships could close in and finish off the submarine. Since they didn't have to worry about escorting a convoy, hunter-killer groups could be relentless in their pursuit of submarines and see the hunt through to the finish.\n\nAs for the Royal Canadian Navy contribution, the RCN's main mission during the war was escort work. By war's end, the RCN had 270 ocean escort warships, making it the third-largest navy in the world after the United States and Britain. Canadian ships sank or helped sink 31 German submarines.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
a84dn7
|
how does meat left at room temperature spoil so quickly? more importantly, where do these harmful bacteria exist before they get in the meat? are they just hanging around in the air waiting for something to infect?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/a84dn7/eli5_how_does_meat_left_at_room_temperature_spoil/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ec7ucxz",
"ec7uip9",
"ec7up56",
"ec7wzhr",
"ec8ilci",
"ec9hpci"
],
"score": [
3,
6,
3,
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A few hang around in the air. Many more are on things. Your hands, cutlery, plates, chopping boards etc. ",
"Often they are already on the meat, likely transfered there at some point during the process from slaughtered animal to your house. However, it takes time for them to reproduce and become a larger problem. ",
"Depends on what it is, but generally, it's hanging around on the processing equipment, it lives on your skin, it lives on the skin or the animal, it lives in tap water, etc. In general, the handling transfers some to the meat, and it starts growing when it warms up.\n\nMolds are just floating around in the air, so depending on how clean it is, that can get there first and molds can take over first.",
"All meat has bacteria on it. Want to know why you can't order a hamburger medium rare? It's ground beef. All of the surface bacteria gets ground too, meaning it's inside and out. Thats why burgers are cooked more thoroughly than, say, a steak. \n\nA steak only has surface bacteria, so you only have to sear the outside of the steak and leave the middle less/un-cooked. Yes, you can eat a raw steak as long as you sear the outside at a high enough temperature. ",
" > **how does meat left at room temperature spoil so quickly?** \n\nRoom temperature is a very common temperature so bacteria have evolved to thrive at that temp. Meat has a good amount of water in it which bacteria like. \n\n & #x200B;",
"Yup so as everyone has said there is inherently bacteria on every piece of meat. To explain why it spoils quicker at room temperature, you can use an analogy.\n\nThink of warm blooded animals such as snakes. When it is cold, they are less active and more likely to be stationary. They become more active when its hits because they are warmed up.\n\nThis is similar to bacteria. Bacterial replication is dependent on enzymes and other factors. Enzymes in this instance are like minions from despicable Me that perform various tasks necessary for the bacteria to be able to split into two identical cells, this is called binary fission. When you have meat in the freezer, all of these enzymes don’t really wanna move and they do everything in slow motion because they’re cold. When you turn the heat up, everyone and their family comes out to party, hence more bacteria, food poisoning etc."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1cu7pc
|
how did "chips" in the uk get to be known as "french fries" in the states?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1cu7pc/eli5how_did_chips_in_the_uk_get_to_be_known_as/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c9k0gyb",
"c9k0hsg"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"Frying strips of potato originated in neither countries, it's likely that both countries adopted the recipe independently thus named them independently. \n\nThomas Jefferson wrote in 1802 of \"potatoes served in the French manner\"; while Charles Dickens wrote in in 1859: \"Husky chips of potatoes, fried with some reluctant drops of oil\".",
"Well, part of the answer is in the anti-french sentiment that England has exhibited over the past thousand years. \n\nI know Thomas Jefferson is credited with introducing them in America around 1800. They were known as \"potatoes fried in the french style\", as recorded in a manuscript of his. They were considered a very high-class food, and not a quick snack.\n\nOur modern concept of french fries (in the US) comes from WW2. American soldiers sorta re-discovered them in Belgium, but they called them \"French\" because most Belgians spoke French.\n\nI guess the answer is that deep fried potatoes had existed in the UK for a long time, but Americans have only known about them for about 50 years or so.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2ie4or
|
can i make a citizen's arrest on a police officer?
|
I would like this question to answer on duty police. Would this become a felony for assaulting a police officer? I would assume that making a citizen's arrest on an off duty officer would be the same a citizen's arrest on a non-officer. Please don't give me any crap about common sense, I'm looking for legal answers and theory. Any person could tell you not to try to arrest a police officer.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ie4or/eli5can_i_make_a_citizens_arrest_on_a_police/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl1cx2p",
"cl1d0vu",
"cl1d2qp",
"cl1dmqt",
"cl1kpyc"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
4,
11,
2
],
"text": [
"Police officers aren't above the law, they just enforce it. So yes (but I imagine it'd be harder to prove it was justified).",
"It depends.\n\nIf they are doing something that could in any way be conceived as them doing their job, then you could be charged.\n\nIf they went nuts and just started shooting people, then no, you're probably better off trying to make the arrest, even better off by calling the police.",
"you can try. however, the police officer (as with any other citizen you try to arrest) will just walk away from you. \n\nunless you use force to detain them. \n\ntrying to use force on a police officer is....unwise at the very least. using hand force is assault. using gun is assault with deadly weapon. \n\na regular citizen does not have the power under the law to use assault on another individual unless acting within the laws referring to self defense. a sworn police officer does have that power (in addition to security guards and other personnel authorized by the state)\n\nsuppose you were able to detain the officer. you would be facing charges of assault and arrested by another officer. regardless of whether or not the offending officer was doing something illegal. \n\n\nso yes, you can. but you need both the force, body armor, and a damn good lawyer to survive",
"I'm a cop.\n\nAs a police officer, I only have a few special powers over a regular citizen when I am on duty. \n\n1) arrest for crimes not committed in my presence upon probable cause.\n\n2) serve arrest warrants\n\n3) detain people to conduct investigations upon reasonable suspicion.\n\nI also have a few extra administrative powers such as access to various databases, the ability to book people into jail, the ability to request arrest warrants, etc.\n\nAs you can see, none of the above powers allow me to break the law. So if you see a cop steal something, sexually assault someone, etc you can technically perform a citizens arrest. However, I would be very very ***VERY*** careful about attempting to interfere with police if they are using force that **you** deem to be excessive. You probably do not know the whole picture and you probably do not know police use of force policy. If you interfere and the police were acting within their rights, you will be arrested for assaulting a peace officer. The best thing to do is to film the encounter at a respectful distance and attempt to film either badge numbers or vehicle numbers or license plates.\n\nEdit: I also get to drive very fast with lights and sirens. Pretty much the coolest part of the job. ",
"It depends on the state.\n\nWhere I am, a citizen can detain another person if they committed a felony and can use the same amount of force as a law enforcement officer can when doing so.\n\nHowever, the person making the arrest has NO protection from civil lawsuits.\n\nIn theory, a citizen has the right to enforce any law, as long as they meet the legal requirements necessary to do so and files charges appropriately. It wasn't until the advent of modern, ultra-large police forces that police made most of the arrests for crimes."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1qsmuy
|
Eggs are a big investment for birds, so why do chickens lay unfertilized eggs? Why don't they 'hold on' to that investment until it's fertilized?
|
Come to think of it, don't humans do the same thing every month?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1qsmuy/eggs_are_a_big_investment_for_birds_so_why_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cdg544c",
"cdg5fvz",
"cdg5smd",
"cdg66ev"
],
"score": [
15,
30,
227,
211
],
"text": [
"Evolution is a lazy force, and it almost never gets things done at peak efficiency. \n\nSince the chance of laying an unfertilized egg in the wild is pretty low, there's no reason to not make an egg whenever it's the appropriate egg-laying time. ",
"Think of an egg as an encapsulated menstrual cycle. Human females have one a month and no one expects them to 'hold on' to that investment until it's fertilized. Chickens have been selectively bred to have a menstrual cycle once a day. It gets encapsulated and delivered to your breakfast plate thanks to encouraged evolution. ",
"Veterinarian perspective here: we have bred this into chickens, AND eye laying rate is related to nutritional intake. So, we're selecting for the layingest of layers, and feeding them the perfectly formulated feed for maximum production. The average layer hen is actually VERY skinny, because all of their resources are going toward eggs. If they can't keep up with the production, their production levels usually go way down before their health does.",
"For chickens, the main reason is because humans have bred them to lay large numbers of eggs whether or not fertilization occurs. Many egg laying reptiles and birds will occasionally lay unfertilized eggs. The unfertilized egg has to be produced regardless, so it will be available to _be_ fertilized. Sometimes these eggs get reabsorbed if they are not fertilized, sometimes they are just laid whether or not they are fertilized. \n\nYou may ask \"why not just absorb all unfertilized eggs\" but remember that this carries some risk.. a mechanism to do this could accidentally absorb _fertilized_ eggs, which in some cases may be worse than passing the rare (in the wild) unfertilized egg. After all, passing an unfertilized egg just costs some energy, absorbing a fertilized one directly reduces your reproduction rate."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
34zs6j
|
Historically speaking, what do the "Freemasons" have to do with "masonry"?
|
This has always irked me. Did the order of Freemasons evolve from some sort of stoneworking guild, or what? The modern organization doesn't seem to have anything to do with stoneworking or construction or anything related. So how did this happen?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/34zs6j/historically_speaking_what_do_the_freemasons_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqzo8l4"
],
"score": [
19
],
"text": [
"Quite frankly, The connection between practicing medieval stone masons and the modern Masonic fraternity isn't well documented. The best documented link between the fraternity and practicing stone masons can be traced to Scotland during the rule of James VI when his master of works William Schaw established what became the modern lodge system around 1598. Schaw reorganized the existing craft masons in Scotland into a lodge system that was directly under his oversight and established the apprentice/fellowcraft/master mason system that modern Freemasons still use, as well as the codification of ritual and systemic record keeping that prefigures the system lodges use today.\n\nThere are older examples of organizations focused around craft masonry, but they don't really have the obvious connections to Freemasonry that the Scottish lodge system does. I won't have access to the book until I get home later, but if you have other questions, I'll be happy to try to answer them.\n\nSource: The Origins of Freemasonry - Scotland's Century, 1590 - 1710 by David Stevenson"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
7mg0c5
|
If keratin is “waterproof” why does it take so long for hair to dry?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/7mg0c5/if_keratin_is_waterproof_why_does_it_take_so_long/
|
{
"a_id": [
"drtt35d",
"drufct7"
],
"score": [
59,
9
],
"text": [
"Water gets trapped between the hairs. There's a large surface area.\n\nEver washed the nylon hair of a My Little Pony in the bath as a child (or a sad adult). Clearly nylon is waterproof, and their tails take a while to dry.",
"Waterproof usually means impermeable. Water is sitting on the outside of the hair not soaking into the core. A bundle of hairs has a huge surface area and the water's surface tension binds to the hair and itself. Tupperware is waterproof too but can stay wet on the outside for a long time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
2m131c
|
the us involvement in middle east wars "for oil" theory
|
Now, I take it as sacrosanct fact that the US pretty much has a business/oil/military-industrial complex interest in war making.
But, to be honest (and this is somewhat embarrassing) besides weapons makers and politicians/military getting a cut from war expenditures, I do not see how this seemingly unending meddling in Middle Eastern affairs is economically productive from the oil standpoint.
How is the US, as an oil importer, profiting from the war? Aren't the Saudis their exporter allies in this regard? Don't they continue to import from Venezuela (despite ideological tensions and posturing)?
How is war turning into cheaper oil for Us consumers or better profits for US oil companies?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2m131c/eli5_the_us_involvement_in_middle_east_wars_for/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clzzxau",
"cm048mm",
"cm05hn7",
"cm087ni"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"A common misconception is that the US wants to import oil. In reality the US has enough oil reserves to last for a hundred years. It is therefore more likely that they want control of the oil. \n\nCompanies also have an interest in lobbying the US government to give them access (by using force) to middle east oil.\n\n > It might be tempting to argue that the escalating involvement of the United States and its history of militarism and military engagement in the Gulf region have provided a kind of security for the region. After all, oil has continued to flow, the network of oil producers has remained the same, and thus the primary interests of the United States in the region have been served. But three decades of war belie this argument. War is not tantamount to security, stability, or peace. Even in the periods between wars in the region the violence carried out by regimes against their own subjects makes clear that peace is not always peaceful. The cost has been high for the United States and especially for people who live in the Middle East. In thirty years of war, hundreds of thousands have died excruciating and violent deaths. Poverty, environmental disaster, torture, and wretched living conditions haunt the lives of many in Iraq, Iran, and elsewhere in the region. \n\n > the United States appears set to continue along a familiar path. Having crafted a set of relationships with oil and unstable oil producers and having linked the fate of those relationships to American national security virtually ensures that while the United States is wrapping up the most recent oil war, its military and political strategists are already preparing for the next one.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nTLDR: The oil must flow.",
"I'm not sure about the true reasons for the War in Iraq, but oil is a strategic resource. Modern economies and militaries live and die by their access to it, therefore we have an interest in securing our access to it and controlling our enemies'. ",
"They're doing a good job of it, isis is selling oil as low as $20 a barrel lol. I don't actually support this theory.",
"I've never seen convincing evidence that the war in Iraq was a \"war for oil\". Saddam Hussein was perfectly willing to work with American oil companies - that's how he funded his regime."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://jah.oxfordjournals.org/content/99/1/208.full"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6hxw9l
|
Is there a point where further miniaturization of transistors will no longer be possible and we will hit a stopping point for computers getting more powerful?
|
Would we just have to go wider at that point or is this something quantum computing would address?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6hxw9l/is_there_a_point_where_further_miniaturization_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj292y5"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Yes, there certainly is and is one of the main modern-day problems. The thing is we won't eventually reach a limit, we *are* at the limit right now. I believe it is IBM that has already delayed a promissed 10nm transistor for a couple of years already. That's about 30 **atoms**. You can't get smaller than that, or two things happen: the electric potential it uses for working would be too much for the small chain of atoms to resist and it would break; quantum effects appear at that scale and you are no longer able to control the electrons because they can quantum tunnel through your transistors. \n\nIn the last conferences some major companies (IBM, Intel, AMD...) had about this subject they agreed further reducing of the size was no longer possible, so they should turn their efforts into other options. There is currently many people working and money invested on this matter. \n\nSome proposals include transistors that work with a single molecule. The problem is that, so far, they only work with too low electric currents. Quantum computing (which works with 3 state qubits, instead of 2 state bits) is the most promising path nowadays. Some nanodevices have been proposed that could work with even more than 3 states. But all of these are very limited at the moment."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
da5ygb
|
how do fire extinguishers work?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/da5ygb/eli5_how_do_fire_extinguishers_work/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f1nf8n5",
"f1nfaoo",
"f1no67j"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Depends on the type of extinguisher.\n\nFire needs three things to work - heat, fuel and oxygen. Since fuel can't really be altered, you can stop a fire by either reducing the heat or removing the oxygen. _Most_ fire extinguishers go for the latter - they spray out an non flammable foam that suffocates the fire.",
"It depends on the type, but in general, they use compressed CO2 as a propellant for an extinguishing agent that is expelled through the nozzel.\n\nThese extinguishing agents include special powder that disrupts the flame, liquid foam that smothers the fuel and thus starves it of oxygen, water that mainly tries to drop the temperature of the fuel below the flashpoint, and pure-CO2 that displaces the oxygen necessary for the fuel to burn.",
"You've got a few major types of fire extinguishers which are meant for different classes of fire\n\nA - Meant for wood/paper fires. These generally just contain water and a gas to pressurize it. The water is good at absorbing the heat that the fire needs to keep going\n\nA/B - Meant for liquid fires but will also work on wood. These generally have a foam which smothers the fire and keeps fresh oxygen from getting to it.\n\nB/C - These are generally dry powder like Sodium Bicarbonate(baking soda), and similar to A/B smothers the fire, but lacks the ability to remove the heat necessary to put out a traditional wood fire\n\nB - CO2 fire extinguishers. They're only good for dealing with fires that don't have a lot of residual heat and can't restart themselves so they're only suited for burning liquids. They get rid of all the oxygen and smother the fire, but don't leave a mess like B/C fire extinguishers\n\nK - These are your kitchen fire extinguishers, they spray a wet chemical mix that will sit on top of an oil/grease fire to smother it. They're not water based as water would sink in the oil and cause the burning oil to splatter around making the fire worse!\n\nD - These are special dry powder extinguishers for metal fires. A lot of metal fires get even bigger if you spray anything wet on them so they have to use dry powder and its not even consistent for all metals. If you encounter a metal fire, just run!\n\n\nFire types\n\nA - Wood/Paper fires\n\nB - Flammable liquids\n\nC - Electrical\n\nD - Metal (just run!)\n\nK - Oils and fats"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
57m1aq
|
How did the Samurai die out or become less important in Japan?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/57m1aq/how_did_the_samurai_die_out_or_become_less/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d8tet3s"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There was a long period of internal peace in Japan from about the 17th century onward, the Tokugawa shogunate period. During this time Samurai largely transitioned into being bureaucrats, rulers, courtiers, etc. After Japan was forced to end its relative isolation in the mid 19th century Japan began to modernize, intentionally and rapidly. The \"feudal\" organization of its military was abandoned in favor of a more western style military with primarily conscripted members. With the Meiji restoration the government substantially eliminated the special rights and privileges of the samurai, taking away their positions of power in the military, taking away their sources of income (government stipends), taking away their right to wear a sword in public, and taking away their rights to get away with actions that would be a crime for others (such as killing a commoner).\n\nThere was, naturally, some backlash by the samurai against these changes to the country and to their financial well being and positions of extreme privilege, which came to a head in the Satsuma Rebellion in 1877. Samurai led forces faced off against western style industrialized armed forces, and were crushed utterly and rapidly. The Samurai could no longer go against the tide of change and soon after there was an end to formalized class differences in Japan."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
ev16zu
|
What resources existed in Ancient Egypt that made it so desirable for Greece, Rome, etc. to conquer?
|
It seems to me somewhat as though Alexander diverted significantly from a path into Southwest Asia into Northeast Africa, and as far as I can tell he wasn't provoked by the Egyptians into war or anything; he chose to attack them.
And while Augustus conquered Egypt as a part of defeating his rival Marcus Antonius and becoming emperor, he then declared it a part of _his_ personal territory, not Rome's.
Both of these suggest to me an intent to conquer Egypt, which I would assume is to acquire the resources contained in the land.
But what resources are these? I've tried looking online, but all I find are the resources of _modern_ Egypt, such as oil and gas (largely undiscovered and useless to the ancient world), or else basic claims about Ancient Egypt's resources being the fertile Nile and copper.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/ev16zu/what_resources_existed_in_ancient_egypt_that_made/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ffstb16"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Two things: Ancient Egypt was... ancient. Even in the Archaic and Classical Greek Periods, long before building the Colossus of Rhodes or the Mausoleum of Halicarnassus, the Pyramids had already stood for THOUSANDS of years. There was a sense, in the Mediterranean World, that Egypt was the eldest of all civilizations and that its ancestry should be respected and its cultural heritage incorporated in your own. Egypt was also one of the first world empires of the ancient world, culturally and economically dominating most of the Mediterannean in its heyday. Its God Kings were legendary. Not just the Greeks and Romans, but earlier the Assyrian, Babylonian, and Persian monarchs contended for supremacy in the Levant and laid successive claim to Egypt's ancient bones. By the time the Greeks, and later, the Romans, were ready to lay claim to massive empires, Egypt's cultural heritage was incredibly revered, and both Alexander the Great and Augustus took pains to be recognized as true pharaohs so that they could claim some portion of that reverence for themselves. (Later Roman Emperors did not need to do this. By Augustus' death the Roman Empire had already become a titanic force in the region with a legacy that rivaled, and would eventually surpass, Ancient Egypt's.)\n\nSecondly, Egypt was probably the greatest source of independent wealth in the Mediterranean. If you remove trade routes from consideration then it definitely was, because Egypt, almost alone out of all other regions in the Mediterranean/Levant prior to the Roman Climate Optimum, reliably produced far more food than it needed. In a world still dominated by subsistence farming, the exportable food that Egypt produced was pure money. The Egyptians could sell their excess grain at high prices. Every major power in the region sought to dominate Egypt so that they could control this massive source of wealth. Augustus, who famously suffered constant money troubles until his defeat of Antony, converted Egypt into a personal posession both so that he could directly administer it (taking its vast wealth for the Imperial coffers, a boon which allowed him to finally balance his income and expenditures while simultaneously maintaining 22 legions and a host of auxiliary troops), and to deny any possible powerful rival from his own class access to that wealth themselves. He famously banned all members of the Senatorial class from travelling there except by his permission, a restriction that lasted long into the Imperial period."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1ns3ww
|
Have there been any famous combat soldiers within the past hundred years who were known to be retarded or otherwise mentally disabled?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ns3ww/have_there_been_any_famous_combat_soldiers_within/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cclhj4t"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"Mental disability is a very, very, very broad spectrum. Do you want to narrow it down somewhat?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
54y0ma
|
how are broken ribs mended without surgery?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/54y0ma/eli5_how_are_broken_ribs_mended_without_surgery/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d85wioj"
],
"score": [
11
],
"text": [
"They don't tend to wander so the torso is just bandaged to stay mostly straight and the two ends will naturally heal together. Most of the time a rib is broken but the break is just a crack which remains set already."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
f1f5sy
|
Why do neutrons embrittle material?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/f1f5sy/why_do_neutrons_embrittle_material/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fh77qvq"
],
"score": [
13
],
"text": [
"Good question! The short answer is that it damages the crystal structure of metals/ceramics/whatever, causing more errors in the crystal structure, which allow cracks to form more easiy and it breaks.\n\nThe long answer is that it's the same process as \"cold working.\" When you bend a paperclip back and forth, it becomes brittle and breaks. As you bend it, you create crystal structure errors called \"dislocations.\" Those dislocations make it a but harder to move more dislocations (it becomes stiffer) but they can also start cracks forming (brittle) and fracture is around the corner. \n\n(The reason dislocations make it harder to move additional dislocations is that they can create strain fields that push planes around, or they get caught in grain boundaries)\n\nNeutrons literally bump into atoms and knock them out of place. They can create vacancies, dislocations, interstitials, and all sorts of craziness. Enough stuff gets out of place, cracks form, and the material fails."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2i8ru5
|
The economics of slavery in America
|
It was suggested that I post my questions here. This was the original post:
_URL_0_
Although I appreciated all the comments, it did not really answer my questions regarding the economics surrounding slavery in America. Needless to say, we can all agree that slavery was terrible. There is no need to reiterate this fact. I think it is interesting to study the economic factors involved.
A few sources have suggested that a slave may have cost around $1200 around 1860. In today's terms, this would have been around $30,000. Put in perspective, a slave may have cost as much as a good car. Being relatively expensive, it seems that this industry spawned a related financial industry dedicated to loans (mortgages) on slaves. Much like a house, an individual slave was used as security (or collateral) on these loans. All this makes logical sense, but I still have a few gaps in understanding:
* Were the slave owners really so wealthy that they could kill something worth the cost of a modern car for no good reason? Even most modern wealthy people don't go around destroying $30,000 cars for fun.
* Using slaves as security to back loans seems like very unwise collateral. A simple farming accident could render the security completely worthless. Present banks loan money on real security such as land and buildings which are obviously far more secure than a human life. Why would a bank in the 1800s even consider such a risky form of security?
* In the event of a default, were the foreclosures or repos on slaves? Would the bank come and take the slaves if payments were not made on the mortgages?
* After the abolition of slavery, I assume that the value of the security dropped to zero. Were there massive defaults? Did it bankrupt many once rich and powerful families and companies? Or, did the banks and financial institution simply write off the losses now that their collateral was worthless?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2i8ru5/the_economics_of_slavery_in_america/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cl06kps",
"cl07a3t"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
" > we can all agree that slavery was terrible \n\nUnfortunately, not everyone does agree. There are a fair number of Americans who consider the Confederacy to be \"their team\" and defend every aspect of it. Some push their line via reddit. So redditors have become a bit cautious in their replies about slavery. \n\nAs for your questions, the comparison between a slave and a car is only apt in its narrow scope: cost. Comparing the destruction of a slave and a car doesn't work unless the car is [Christine]( _URL_0_ ). Ultimately, slave owners killed slaves because they were afraid. I think you know of the [Haitian Slave Revolt]( _URL_1_ ) of 1791, and the many smaller revolts in the Caribbean and the US? How much profit would you forgo to prevent _that_? \n\nBanks still take human lives as security today. What do you think happens to a college loan if the borrower dies? Credit card debt? The higher death rate among slaves than modern citizens was factored into interest rates. Even the most murderous slave owner wouldn't kill enough of his slaves on average to make it a bad investment. \n\nYes, slaves could be repossessed, and yes, emancipation did destroy many fortunes in the South. ",
" > Were the slave owners really so wealthy that they could kill something worth the cost of a modern car for no good reason? Even most modern wealthy people don't go around destroying $30,000 cars for fun.\n\nNow, this analogy is going to offend some, but bear with me. Imagine you are a farmer who suddenly discovered that one of your livestock has a deadly and contagious disease. Are you going to try to nurse that animal back to health? Not likely. The not insignificant loss of a single animal is still better than losing a whole herd. Now, if you're a slave owner in 1850 Georgia, sure, a slave is very expensive to replace. But if killing that slave is going to serve a purpose, such as cowing the other slaves into obedience, you do it. This also assumes we are talking about rational actors here. You also have to consider that people are not always perfectly rational. How often do we see even the very wealthy make poor decisions with their property? Here's a simple but effective example: _URL_0_\n\n > Using slaves as security to back loans seems like very unwise collateral. A simple farming accident could render the security completely worthless. Present banks loan money on real security such as land and buildings which are obviously far more secure than a human life. Why would a bank in the 1800s even consider such a risky form of security?\n\nThis may surprise you, but even today you can get loans on the backing of basically nothing. Have you ever been to a payday loan store before? They are giving you a loan whose only backing is a **paystub**. Think about that for a moment. Now, go back to 1800s America where the banking sector was much less refined and much riskier. Why would a bank loan that money? Because they thought they could make money on it.\n\n > After the abolition of slavery, I assume that the value of the security dropped to zero. Were there massive defaults? Did it bankrupt many once rich and powerful families and companies? Or, did the banks and financial institution simply write off the losses now that their collateral was worthless?\n\nMost of the banks servicing these loans would be local, and suffice to say, the entire economy of the South was in severe trouble after the war. The defaults on the slaves pale in comparison to Sherman's despoiling of Georgia, let alone the currency crisis in the South, the destruction of infrastructure, etc. Basically, what I'm saying is that it was a big problem, but in general much of the South saw its economy essentially destroyed. Banking failures from slave debts were only one cause."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2i5sqb/eli5_if_slaves_in_america_were_so_expensive_why/"
] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christine_(novel\\)",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Haitian_Revolution"
],
[
"https://www.google.ca/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&rlz=1C1ASUC_enCA586CA586&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=wrecked+lamborghini&tbm=vid"
]
] |
|
9oaen5
|
what's the science and psychology behind superhuman strength? e.g. mothers lifting cars to save children etc.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9oaen5/eli5_whats_the_science_and_psychology_behind/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7soxm3",
"e7sugfl",
"e7sy6r0",
"e7tl53r"
],
"score": [
2,
9,
8,
2
],
"text": [
"There is no science that really backs it. What little science that has been done pretty much shows there may be a very slight increase as fear or adrenaline ramps up, but as it gets higher productivity breaks down fairly fast. There are anecdotes of people lifting cars to save other peoples lives. But those are highly unscientific and don't account for many things. Like how you don't need to remove the full weight of something to help someone slide out from under it.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThink of it this way, if you could suddenly and massively increase strength just by being afraid or getting an adrenaline rush(or taking a drug that would simulate these effects), then such a tactic would be used by professional body builders and athletes to compete at the highest levels. But they don't. In fact they train very hard to remain as calm as possible, because the negative affects of adrenaline on coordination, and focus are pretty well documented.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_)\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_1_](_URL_1_)",
"Most of all these answers are wrong. The simple fact is that **\"hysterical strength\" is a myth.** There are no solidly documented cases of it ever happening. Not a single video. Not a single demonstration. It's because it doesn't happen, and there is no mechanism for it to happen.\n\nThere is no \"hidden strength\" in people. This is 100% a myth. Most people are capable of recruiting 80-90% of their motor units for a specific movement at any given time. There is not any more magic strength you can access to allow you to lift cars.\n\nNo, adrenaline does not give you a strength multiplier. If that were the case, then my patients in the hospital that get epi for anaphylaxis would be Hulk-ing out and destroying shit. There would also be videos of Russian dudes taking shots of epi and deadlifting 3,000 lbs.\n\nThese stories come from faulty reporting. A hiker gets his arm pinned by a rock in a canyon. The rock weighs 800 lbs. He is able to wedge himself against a wall, and push against the stone, so that he can slightly roll it to one side, just enough to free his arm. He tells reporters that he \"rolled the rock over a bit.\" The new reports tell the public that he \"moved the rock, and his adrenaline was pumping.\" The public thinks he actually **lifted** the rock.\n\nThe only hysterical strength that exists is people getting psyched up and maybe exerting 5-10% more force than they could under typical circumstances. It's not soccer moms lifting cars. This idea that the brain inhibits people from accessing a true, hidden potential that allows you to lift cars and all manner of other feats is a commonly touted myth, and there is no such mechanism.",
"It isn't true. No cases with actual evidence i.e. videos have ever been reported. For example \"lifting\" a car, usually refers to removing as much of the weight from the suspension as someone can, usually providing an inch or two of extra movement space. If you are strong enough you can move a car sideways into a parking spot using this same method, as you could find on a cursory youtube search. \n\nAs mentioned in another comment, if people could exert these sorts of forces the cars would start crumpling due to the force being exerted over a tiny surface area.",
"So-called \"hysterical strength\" can refer to two phenomena, one of which is mythological and one of which is very real.\n\nThe idea that altered mental status can dramatically increase your raw strength is a myth. If you could double your raw lifting power by being sufficiently upset, then every single Olympic athlete would have to get upset every single time they compete. Obviously this doesn't work in real life.\n\nOn the other hand, the idea that altered mental status makes people more dangerous in a fight is 100% true. Someone who is psychotic or intoxicated can often beat up much fitter and better-trained individuals. That's not because they are magically stronger, it's because they can ignore pain, pepper spray, tazers, and attack without caring about self-preservation."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2439523/",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1195705"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
9olytz
|
Why do small stars live much longer than big stars?
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9olytz/why_do_small_stars_live_much_longer_than_big_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e7vep9s",
"e7vgnoj",
"e7vjaqc",
"e7vls16"
],
"score": [
39,
16,
9,
2
],
"text": [
"Bigger stars have more mass → more gravity → higher internal pressure → hotter → burn faster.\n\nMore precisely, [the lifetime of a star on the main sequence scales roughly as M^(-2.5)](_URL_0_)\n\nYes, bigger stars have more fuel, but they burn through it much faster.",
"Fusion is driven by the weight of material above the core pushing down and driving up the pressure and temperature. The rate of fusion, as it turns out, is *very* sensitive to the temperature, particularly at higher masses than the Sun where different nuclear processes start to dominate. So a star with twice as much mass as the Sun burns through that material much more than twice as quickly. Stars with 10 times the mass of the Sun, even though you might expect them to live 10 times as long as the Sun, instead only live for a few *million* years instead of even the Sun's 10 billion year lifespan. \n\nSmaller stars use their fuel so sparingly that none of the lowest mass stars have died yet. The universe hasn't been around long enough for them to use up what little fuel they have.",
"In addition to what was already stated here, small stars also enjoy the advantage of convection. There is little enough gravitational pressure in a red dwarf that the newly fused & heated helium can rise from the core, making room for cooler hydrogen from above to sink down, replenishing the core's fuel. The red dwarf can burn nearly all of the hydrogen in the star. Larger stars stratify the fusion products at the core boundary and lack convection currents. Ergo, they can only use the relatively small percentage of the star's hydrogen that is within or adjacent to the core as fuel. ",
"Correct me if I’m wrong.\n\nSmall stars (class M red dwarves) have convection that spreads their matter all about quite evenly, so even though there isn’t as much hydrogen as a big star, it’s consumed very slowly. Instead of helium building up stagnantly in the core, it spreads about and mixes with the available hydrogen.\n\nBig stars (class O especially) just build up an onion of layers of different elements in their cores that don’t really mix around much. Then the core uses up all available hydrogen extremely rapidly and can’t access the outer hydrogen or and other fusible elements, so the star collapses and dies and blows up."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://astronomy.swin.edu.au/cosmos/M/Main+Sequence+Lifetime"
],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6brd1y
|
Historians sometimes talk about World War II as a continuation of World War I. How similarly was the infantry equipped between the two wars?
|
This question is not referring to the weaponry of the infantry which I understand to be a fair bit different. I am referring to the rest of the equipment such as knives and knapsacks. For the sake of focus please assume the equipment from the end of World War I.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6brd1y/historians_sometimes_talk_about_world_war_ii_as_a/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dhp3yhf"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The standard U.S. infantry equipment used during the majority of World War II owes much to developments that occurred before, during, and after World War I.\n\n* The [M1928 haversack and pack carrier](_URL_11_) was a near-exact copy of the [M1910](_URL_16_), which was not really a very good design to begin with; [it couldn't be worn without belts that had eyelets, needed to be folded out flat to pack it, and if it was packed or tied incorrectly, the contents would fall out](_URL_30_). The M1928 haversack was replaced beginning in 1943 by the [\"jungle\"](_URL_0_) or [field (also known as the \"M1943\") pack](_URL_20_), and then in late 1944 and early 1945 by the [M1944](_URL_15_) combat and cargo pack.\n\n* The unwieldy [M1910 T-handle entrenching tool](_URL_26_) was replaced in 1943 by the smaller, folding [M1943](_URL_33_) that also contained a pick, making the [M1910 pick-mattock](_URL_31_) partially irrelevant.\n\n* The [M1923 dismounted cartridge belt](_URL_18_) was an improved version of the [M1910 dismounted cartridge belt](_URL_10_), featuring a simpler buckle and size adjustment system. Both belts had ten pouches for rifle ammunition. The [M1910 mounted cartridge belt](_URL_17_) had four pockets for pistol ammunition and four for rifle ammunition. The [M1923 mounted cartridge belt](_URL_13_) had nine pockets for rifle ammunition; the front left pouch was blank, and had eyelets to attach a regular [M1910](_URL_28_) or [M1942](_URL_24_) two-pocket pistol magazine pouch. The mounted versions of the M1910 and M1923 cartridge belts were intended for issue to cavalry troops, but they also found favor with men armed with both a pistol and a rifle.\n\n* The [M1905 bayonet](_URL_14_) was a 16-inch bayonet with a 4-inch wooden handle designed for use with the M1903 Springfield rifle. Post-World War I, many bayonets were cut down to 10 inches for use with the new M1 Garand rifle; these bayonets were designated [M1905E1](_URL_7_). An \"economy\" bayonet with a 10-inch blade and plastic handle designated the [M1942](_URL_6_) replaced the M1905E1.\n\n* The [M1917 helmet](_URL_32_) was replaced by the [M1](_URL_4_) by the middle of 1942, which better protected the sides of the head and the back of the neck\n\n* Several new pieces of clothing were developed immediately before World War II to replace the [World War I-era choke-collar uniform with puttees](_URL_19_). There was the [M1937 wool shirt](_URL_8_) and [trousers](_URL_23_), the [M1938 dismounted leggings](_URL_3_), and the [M1941 field jacket](_URL_1_). A completely new uniform set made of light herringbone twill fabric and originally intended for work use was also developed. Keep in mind that many \"M-\" designations have been invented postwar for ease of identification by collectors and historians, and were not actually used during the period, the items being identified only by alphabetized supply catalog names.\n\n* The [M1937 cartridge belt](_URL_12_) replaced the myriad of different belts for the Browning Automatic Rifle which were used during World War I;\n\n * [Gunner's belt](_URL_27_): four pockets for BAR ammunition, one pocket for pistol ammunition, and a \"cup\" into which the butt of the BAR could be fitted to stabilize it during \"marching fire\"\n\n * [Assistant gunner's belt](_URL_25_): Four pockets for BAR ammunition and four pockets for rifle ammunition\n\n * [A bandolier](_URL_2_) capable of holding six magazines, meant to be worn in pairs across the chest\n\nIt had six pockets, with room enough to carry 12 magazines; many gunners only carried about eight magazines due to the weight, and filled the other two pockets with oil flasks and gun maintenance tools.\n\n* In 1943, the U.S. Army began a program to develop clothing that was more suited to cold weather than the thin prewar M1941 jacket combined with leggings that were hard to lace properly and allowed water to seep into the pant legs and shoes. What resulted was the M1943 uniform, consisting of a [jacket](_URL_29_), [trousers](_URL_21_), and [boots](_URL_9_). The jacket and trousers could be layered with a pile liner to provide better protection against wet or cold, and the shin-high two-buckle boots eliminated the use of leggings.\n\n* [A \"grenade vest\" inspired by a British piece of equipment](_URL_5_) was retired. [During World War I, each U.S. Army infantry platoon had a squad (or \"section\") whose job it was to throw grenades](_URL_22_).\n\n**Sources:**\n\n* Rottman, Gordon L. *U.S. Army Combat Equipments 1910-1988*. London; Osprey Publishing, 1988.\n\n* Rottman, Gordon L. *World War II U.S. Army Combat Equipments*. Oxford; Osprey Publishing, 2016."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://imgur.com/a/Kd8od",
"http://imgur.com/a/nLktn",
"http://imgur.com/a/jeN04",
"http://imgur.com/a/49MMS",
"http://imgur.com/a/WBpqB",
"http://imgur.com/a/datnX",
"http://imgur.com/a/LjywU",
"http://imgur.com/a/GBrlb",
"http://imgur.com/a/6Ulch",
"http://imgur.com/a/02gb8",
"http://imgur.com/a/hY0xH",
"http://imgur.com/a/Cgdv5",
"http://imgur.com/a/0t5Sy",
"http://imgur.com/a/gdFO2",
"http://imgur.com/a/6U29r",
"http://imgur.com/a/DAIFa",
"http://imgur.com/a/jrQWC",
"http://imgur.com/a/ySQNC",
"http://imgur.com/a/7nrOF",
"http://imgur.com/a/xKSp8",
"http://imgur.com/a/eDmen",
"http://imgur.com/a/Kxcti",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/60ayfi/what_were_the_squadsection_level_organization_and/",
"http://imgur.com/a/316uE",
"http://imgur.com/a/xXt80",
"http://imgur.com/a/JrvoT",
"http://imgur.com/a/CeJmN",
"http://imgur.com/a/YLJSL",
"http://imgur.com/a/oPD7k",
"http://imgur.com/a/iFVFp",
"http://www.hardscrabblefarm.com/ww2/m1928pack.htm",
"http://imgur.com/a/fDsHb",
"http://imgur.com/a/IlDWs",
"http://imgur.com/a/h0USG"
]
] |
|
61s7qk
|
why do people hold each other at gunpoint standoffs for so long? if a bullet travels literally faster than sound a human should have no chance to react, so it would be just whoever fires first right?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/61s7qk/eli5_why_do_people_hold_each_other_at_gunpoint/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dfgtiwt",
"dfgtm8y"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Most people when put in an instant state of shock, such as being shot, have many of the muscles in their body contract. Therefore there is a very high probability that they will shoot you after being shot in such a scenario as a reaction to being shot. So most of the time everyone is shot and dies, or is at least injured in a scenario where the standoff is broken by one guy shooting. ",
"They might not want to actually kill someone. \nUnless you sever their spinal cord or hit them in the head, they're not going down immediately. The whole thing in the movies where people fall down from being shot once or twice doesn't happen in real life. Your body goes into overdrive to keep you on your feet, even more so if you have the adrenaline rushing through you from being in a standoff. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
||
189fwd
|
How is it possible for scientists to predict the properties of the products of a chemical reaction, if they've never dealt with those specific products before?
|
Sorry if that's confusingly worded. I read occasionally that 'such and such molecule discovered in the lab! scientists had long theorized this exact freaking thing existed...' but how do they know if they've never done it?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/189fwd/how_is_it_possible_for_scientists_to_predict_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c8ctcpp"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"The simple answer to the general question, \"How do we theorize the existence of phenomena before they are observed?\" is that we have constructed mathematical models of how the universe behaves based on other observations. We can plug other numbers into these models to make predictions about how as yet unobserved events will transpire. We then produce this event, and observe what happens. If our predicted outcome transpires, then the model based on other observations has been supported. If the outcome is not predicted, there's a chance our model is not accurately describing how the universe works.\n\nIn the case of these theorized molecules, we have a pretty good understanding of how atoms interact with each other. We can use this understanding to say that it should be possible for a certain set of atoms to arrange themselves in a certain manner. It's not unlike the blueprint for a building. Until it was built, nobody had ever observed the Eiffel Tower. Based on what we knew about iron and lattice towers, someone said, \"We can totally build this tower.\" Producing a molecule nobody's ever seen before but whose existence should be possible is the same way, they just need different equipment to build the structure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
msm19
|
Need to understand 'Hedonistic Dissonance'
|
After playing Meme Invaders while waiting for a reply from r/psychology, I humbly submit this request again [X-Post from r/psychology].
Have been procrastinating by trying to decipher my compulsion to procrastinate. Came across the term Hedonistic dissonance on wikipedia. Request any succint literature, studies or your opinion on this theory. Appreciate you helping me trying to procrastinate. Thank you!
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/msm19/need_to_understand_hedonistic_dissonance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c33iyxt",
"c33iyxt"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Sorry, to be clear, are you not understanding the term itself or are you looking for interesting research on it?",
"Sorry, to be clear, are you not understanding the term itself or are you looking for interesting research on it?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
edvi7i
|
What did the followers of the historical Buddha believe of him and his teachings at the time of his death, and how, when, and why did this develop into the view of him as an eternal transcendent super-being centuries later?
|
I'd also be interested in other 'mahayana' developments beyond the sort of 'low Buddhaology to high Buddhaoloy', and any external influences on this, such as say Hellenism . I understand that this is a massive question, and I'd be happy to get a good answer about any aspect of it.
Thanks a lot.
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/edvi7i/what_did_the_followers_of_the_historical_buddha/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fbqc2le"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Questions like \"did the Buddha believe....?\" and \"Did the Buddha's earliest followers believe....\" are always hard to answer because of the fog of time through a long period of oral transmission of the original teachings. A subset of the Buddhist cannon can be categorized as \"Early Buddhist Texts\" (EBTs) [1] but even then the best we can say is that these texts represent the generalized beliefs of the Buddhist community for the first few decades or even first few hundreds years of its existence.\n\nSo what did the early Buddhist community think of the Buddha? Its safe to say they viewed him as a human that had obtained the ultimate state of human potential and someone who also exhibited \"magical powers\" both before and after his enlightenment. \n\n\"Magical Powers\" is not a perfect term, but viewed from our perspective of scientific understanding that fairly accuratelyn describes the situation. According to EBTs the Buddha was cable of performing feats that violate the scientific laws of nature. \n\nThere is a story from EBT literature illustrates both a supernatural occurrence and what the early Buddhist community saw as the Buddha's own view of himself [2]:\n\n > A Brahmin named Doṇa is walking along the road when he spots a set of footprints with imprints of wheels perfectly formed with hubs, rims, and a thousand spokes. “How wonderful (acchariyaṃ), how marvelous (abbhutaṃ),” Doṇa exclaims, “These cannot be the footprints of a human being!” Just then, Doṇa sees the Buddha sitting beside the road, and notices the wheel marks upon the soles of his feet. He approaches and inquires, “Are you a god (deva)?” “No,” the Buddha replies. Doṇa then asks, “Are you a fairy (gandhabba)?”2 “No,” the Buddha responds again. Doṇa asks, “Are you a tree-spirit (yakkha)?” 3 Yet again, the Buddha answers negatively. Doṇa is running out of possibilities. “Are you a human being?” No again is the reply. So Doṇa finally asks, “What are you?” The Buddha replies, “I am a Buddha.” \n\nJumping forward in time to Mahayana literature, there is definitely a pattern of seeing not just the historical Buddha but all Buddhas as somewhat \"god like\" like in quality.\n\nProbably the Buddhist concepts that best illustrate this are \"Dharmakāya\" and \"Saṃbhogakāya\". The general idea is that Buddha's have three bodies.\n\n- Nirmāṇakāya: The physical manifestations of Buddhas on earth\n- Saṃbhogakāya: Manifestation of Buddhas in heavenly celestrial realms in which they preside over\n- Dharmakāya: Essentially this the central source of timeless Buddha existence in which buddhas form out of and merge back into. Some people would be upset at me for saying this but from a western perspective you could almost call it \"God\".\n\nThe Three bodies of the Buddha along with the concept of the Bodhisattva (someone who is enlightened but chooses to be reborn until all beings are saved) are the philosophical basis upon which a pantheon of \"god-like\" beings are created and which can be used as targets for religious worship.\n\nWhy did these ideas and related pantheon develop? The answer in my mind is that the belief in supernatural beings who can be worshiped in order to improve material conditions on earth and to help an individual after death is a natural human inclination. You see it in every culture. In a culture that is largely Buddhist, it is inevitable that a pantheon of Buddhist beings would develop to fulfill existing patterns of behavior and expectations.\n\nIs there Hellenistic influence in the development of Mahayana concepts and pantheons?\n\nOn one hand, the Indian Vedas and vedic worship were already existing templates of pantheon worship in south asia that predates western contact by a millennia. On the other hand, many Mahayana concepts seem to have developed in the Gandhara region in what is now Afghanistan. This area was heavily influenced by Hellenistic culture since the time of Alexander the Great's military conquests. Hellenistic influence on Buddhist material culture is immense. For example, the style and even existence of sculptural depictions of the Buddha and various Bodhisattva's are the result of Hellenistic influence [3]. \n\nCertainly the patterns of pantheon worship could have influenced Mahayana Buddhism but personally I think Christianity also played a part in specific Bodhisattva worship traditions. For example, Pure Land Buddhism involves the belief in and worship of a Bodhisattva in order to be reborn into a heaven-like celestial realm after death. Clearly this could have influenced by ideas found in Christianity. Also, many people have noticed the similarities between the Bodhisattva Guanyin (Kuan Yin) and the Virgin Mary [4].\n\nReferences:\n\n- [1] - \"The Authenticity of the Early Buddhist Texts\". \nBhikkhu Sujato & Bhikkhu Brahmali - _URL_1_\n- [2] - \"Miracles and Superhuman Powers in South Asian Buddhist Literature\". David V. Fiordalis - _URL_0_ \n- [3] \"Religions of the Silk Road: Premodern Patterns of Globalization\". Richard Foltz\n- [4] \"The Bodhisattva Guanyin and the Virgin Mary\". Maria Reis-Habito"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.academia.edu/1368127/Miracles_and_superhuman_powers_in_South_Asian_Buddhist_literature",
"https://ocbs.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/09/authenticity.pdf"
]
] |
|
cc5yoh
|
what causes animals to die of old age?
|
Like why would an otherwise healthy being just die all the sudden? Is death of “natural causes” an actual thing or is it a catchall term for more specific things that just tend to happen as animals get older?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/cc5yoh/eli5_what_causes_animals_to_die_of_old_age/
|
{
"a_id": [
"etkq193",
"etlabcr",
"etliy76"
],
"score": [
66,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"The cells in your body are constantly replicating themselves and then dying off. Your hair and nails are made of these dead cells (and that's why your hair and nails grow).\n\nHowever, every time a cell replicates, it's not exactly perfect. There's a piece of the cell that acts almost like a timer. Every time the cell replicates, that timer piece gets a tiny, tiny bit shorter.\n\nHave you ever photocopied something? You know that the photocopy isn't quite the same? There's always a slight be a degradation.\n\nWell, that's what happens with a cell. So eventually, the degradation becomes so bad that the cell can't perform it's function correctly. That's why we get symptoms of old age as well.\n\nThen eventually, the replicated cells just start to fail and that eventually leads to death.",
"Deaths of \"old age\" or \"natural causes\" are indeed catch-all terms. What a media report might describe as a \"death of old age\" could be a stroke, flu, pneumonia, or another disease which isn't considered to be unusual among elderly people. \n\nAlso, elderly people commonly have a variety of health problems which can make determining the precise cause of death difficult, and so these terms would be used instead.",
"Some animals, like the lobster, can live forever, but die when the strain of molting become too great. \n\nFor other animal, it's not the old age itself that kills: it's the problems that old age brings. Getting old mean accumulating small problems in our body, even in our cells, which replicate less and less well. So eventually, one of these problem become serious enough, and that's it."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zbmn2
|
why can women have an abortion but the father be forced to play child support
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zbmn2/eli5_why_can_women_have_an_abortion_but_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cphfi8x",
"cphfony",
"cphfpu4",
"cphg48x",
"cphg6dh",
"cphgg0q"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
2,
17,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"This very problem is a concern that is only just now getting the attention it deserves. There are a growing number of cases where men are fighting for the rights to their child and to keep a female from being able to abort. \n\nThe justification heard the most is the drastic impact it has on a woman's body should give her more say. \n\nThe other side of the camp says that it takes two top create a baby and a father should have equal rights to accept or deny a child that a woman does. ",
"I've seen this question before.\n\nIt all boils down to which personal right the courts have decided is more important. In this case its the woman's right to autonomy of her own body. The guy has no say in what the lady chooses to do after copulation. ",
"The father also has options.... like giving up his parental rights. If that were to happen, he would no longer be financially responsible. ",
"The moment a man clumsily drops his load inside a woman, he forfeits his right to abandon any children that messy load might produce. \n\nThe moment a woman lets a man drop his load inside her, she *also* forfeits her right to abandon any children that messy load might produce.\n\n***However...***\n\nBetween the the time said messy load was dropped, and the time any associated children come blasting out of her, the woman *maintains autonomy over her body*. \n\nShe is exactly as responsible for the care of any children she may have, but she is afforded the right to control her own body in the mean time. \n\nI hope that makes sense.\n\nThe base act of ejaculating inside a woman precludes any question of whether or not you wanted a baby or should be responsible for a baby, because *that is exactly what ejaculating inside a woman is designed to give you.*\n\n*Edit - thems spellin*",
"I think the reason is to protect the mother and child should the man initially welcome the pregnancy, then-- as has been known to happen-- decide he doesn't want the responsibility or any relationship with the mom, after it's too late to abort it. \n\nThat said, there should be some cut-off point (like the fourth month?) where either party can back out without financial consequence other than perhaps the medical expenses. If the woman decides to go through with the pregnancy despite his written objection to the court at this point, it's her baby (so to speak,) and he's off the hook for child support. And yes, she has to inform him of the pregnancy before that, too.",
"Anything else would mean\n\nA: Women would be dragged kicking and screaming into abortion clinics, or\n\nB: Men can father as many children as they like without any consequences"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
f9zgpb
|
Why didn't the medievals eat their pie crusts?
|
I understand that back then the pies were often free standing and used as cooking vessels rather than as part of the meal itself.
But why was this the case? Did it have to do with pastry crust being considered unfit for all but the poor whom they gave it to as a charity like their soup tranchers?
Did non-destitute medievals ever eat pastry?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f9zgpb/why_didnt_the_medievals_eat_their_pie_crusts/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fiw7lw7"
],
"score": [
28
],
"text": [
"Hi, pre 17th century English food history buff here. I've baked a lot of pastries based on the historical recipes.\n\n\nWe can learn a lot from the ingredients used in pastry recipes.\n\nFor example, here is one of the oldest English coffin (pastry baking dish) recipe I've seen is this one:\n\n\"thenne take blank suger & ayroun & flour & make a past with a rollere\"\nFourme of Curye, Daniel Myers, transcription. Manchester: John Rylands University Library, English MS 7, 1390\n\nWhen I made this one it was tender and almost cookie like. It was also, for the 14th century, a bit pricey. So the first question is: would you bake something expensive, and tasty, and then throw it away? But one recipe pribes nothing. Plus, with recipes from royal kitchens the \"why throw away good food\" question has multiple answers. \n\nMoving a lot later history and, more importantly, to a cookery book written for gentry rather than nobility. \n\n\"To make fine paste. Take faire flower and wheat, & the yolkes of egges with sweet Butter, melted, mixing all these together with your hands, til it be brought dowe paste, & then make your coffins whether it be for pyes or tartes, then you may put Saffron and suger if you will have it a sweet paste, hauing respect to the true seasoning some vse to put to their paste Beefe or Mutton broth, and some Creame.\"\n\nThomas Dawson, The Second part of the good Hus-wiues Jewell (London, 1597), 16.\n\nHere we have options put forward for a very expensive pastry. This is very much a pastry to be eaten. \n\nThe coffins were generally baked in the same place as bread (Fourme of Curye) and so blackening or scorching aren't usually a concern. \n\nSo, to sum up, we know that by the 16th century at least the gentry class, and we can assume those of lower classes than that, were eating the pastry.\n\n\nNow, to push it back a little, here are some 15th century recipes.\n\nHarleian MS. 279 (1420):\n\n.iv. Chawettys Fryidde\nTake & make fayre past of flowre & water, Sugre, & Safroun, & Salt\n.xiiij. Pety Pernollys.\nTake fayre Floure, Safroun, Sugre, & Salt, & make þer-of past\n.xx. Pety Pernauntes.—Take fayre Flowre, Sugre, Safroun, an Salt, & make þer-offe fayre past & fayre cofynges;\n\nHarleian MS. 4016 (1450):\n\nPety pernantes.\nTake faire floure, Sugur, Saffron̄, and salt, and make paast þer-of; then̄ make small Coffyns\nChewettes\nTake and make faire paste of floure, water, saffron̄, and salt; And make rownde cofyns þere-of\n\nEssentially the 15th century coffin is made of:\n\nflour\n\nwater\n\nsugar\n\nsafron\n\nsalt\n\nThough some recipes omit the sugar they never omit the saffron or salt. Water doesn’t show up in all of the recipes but as egg is never mentioned in these recipes it must be present in all of them or there would be no way of binding it.\n\n\nSo again, were looking at recipes for pastry with the taste of the pastry in mind.\n\nNow this isn't to say that everyone ate the pastry crust. But I think we can say that at least those not of the highest class did, and they cared about what their pastry tastes like."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2bl4hk
|
why does my phone show no reception but when i call someone it appears?
|
My phone constantly shows "no signal" in the corner but when I try to make a phonecall my reception magically appears and the call connects. Although the call connects, text messages do not send. How is this possible?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2bl4hk/eli5_why_does_my_phone_show_no_reception_but_when/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cj6daop"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"There are a bunch of possible reasons\n\n- The software in your phone is badly programmed.\n\n- The measuring mechanism that tells the phone how many bars to display for signal strength is not calibrated to match how much signal strength you actually need to make a call. It's kind of like if you have a ruler where every inch is incorrectly marked and is really only two-thirds of an inch long; that ruler isn't going to properly inform you of what a measured distance is.\n\n- You hold your phone at one angle to see the bars, and then a different angle when calling. The different angle lines up its internal antenna better with the nearest cell tower, increasing your phone's signal strength because the antenna's length goes \"through\" the signal rather than faces it flat on, and gives it more ability to both get a good read on that signal and broadcast your own. \n\nAlso, text messages use a different network than cell calls do, and it can be more or less sensitive to low signals. This is why many phone plans have different \"voice\" and \"data\" charges - they use different mechanics and infrastructure - and why text works differently than voice. Many phones have a symbol like 1xRTT, 3G, 4G and so on - that's the data network, and the voice network is separate. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
1yi62g
|
Is it possible to conclude that gun ownership rates reduce crime when crime rates can be affected by a variety of different things?
|
I do not want this to turn into a gun rights/control debate. That's not what I'm asking about.
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1yi62g/is_it_possible_to_conclude_that_gun_ownership/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cflmwe6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"\"Conclude\" is a very strong word to use in a situation like this, but yes, it is possible to gather strong evidence in one direction or another depending on how you luck out with circumstances.\n\nBecause this isn't the kind of situation where you can neatly divide communities into experimental and control groups, you have two basic approaches for analyzing statistical data to support a hypothesis like the one you stated: (1) Find a natural experiment; or (2) manage control variables. Likely, you would do a combination of both of them.\n\nA natural experiment is a fortuitous situation where something you are interested in changes, while nearly everything else remains the same. A good example might be the weather over North America on September 12-13, 2001. The weather is the classic example of something that is caused by lots of things that are hard to untangle, so it is very difficult in a given situation to say what effect something like air traffic is having on it. But because of what happened that week, researchers got this brief window to look at and can say \"here is what happens when we have all of these other parameters for the day as inputs without *any* aircraft in the sky save a few fighters\". When it comes to gun ownership rate effects, you might try to look for a place in which ownership rates suddenly went way up or way down without much of anything else changing.\n\nControl variables are a little more complicated to explain, and it helps if you understand the basics of statistical regression. But basically, you confront the problem of there being multiple causes toward an outcome by trying to figure out roughly how big those other causes are and then subtracting them. \n\nSo let's say you want to figure out whether a bank is racially discriminating in its loan practices. This could be hard to prove, even if the rate of black applicants approved is lower than for white applicants, since there are so many reasons you might get turned down for a loan: income, credit history, collateral, education, type of employment, family circumstances, health, whatever. But what you do is build a big database of all the characteristics of everyone who applied for a loan and the outcome for each. And you'll clearly see that, say, for every $1,000 more of income someone had, their chances of being approved went up by an average of X percent. And maybe those who held hourly jobs were Y percent less likely to be approved than those who had monthly salary jobs. And so on. Taking all the information you have, you then build an expression that can guess whether someone will be approved or not that gets as many answers \"correct\" as it can when checked against the original data. The key is this: does adding the racial factor to the model make it a significantly better predictor of whether someone is approved or not? In other words, if you have a person with all the same income, education, housing, etc characteristics, and the only factor you change is race, does the predicted % chance of approval in your model change substantially? If it does, you may well have found important evidence suggesting racial discrimination.\n\nNote that there are pitfalls in this process, though. Sometimes variables tend to track together, such as being a racial minority and being low income, and it can be difficult, even using sophisticated techniques, to attribute the right amount of predictive power to one factor or another. And sometimes you have a huge amount of data about the situation, maybe involving a relatively small number of subjects, and you throw the kitchen sink into your model, and it comes out as being *really* good at predicting the right answer when you plug each one of your subjects back in to test it. But it can just end up being that you knew this one set of data so well that you could pick out little things that don't matter much on average in the real world but that tip your model off about what the right answer is. For example, maybe your bank loan dataset included the color of the applicants' shoes, and one applicant had orange shoes and got approved (even though she otherwise didn't look like a great loan candidate on average), though of course the approval had nothing to do with her shoes. One term in your model may, then, end up being that wearing orange shoes is a sure-fire way to get approved, and your model will look good because it always guesses that woman's outcome correctly (even though it otherwise would have guessed wrong if you didn't have the shoe thing in your data). This mistake is sometimes called \"modeling your data rather than modeling the world\". And it's a problem that has to be confronted when you're looking at a snapshot of crime rates in lots of communities that have lots of idiosyncratic pieces of data available about them, including gun ownership rates, that may or may not have much of anything to do with crime.\n\nFor these and other reasons, data modeling for the kind of complex situation you're raising does get done, and it gets done well, but it is frequently open to debate and legitimate criticism. There are interesting natural experiments involving countries where gun laws became very strict and ownership rates declined. But they are constrained by the fact that lots of other things changed over the same time period as well: the economy, public spending, drug use, immigration, religion, whatever. And there is a lot of good data out there about the characteristics of US communities and their rates of crime. But these are constrained by the fact that communities are so segregated -- by race, income, culture, even politics -- that you don't get a whole lot of examples of \"these communities are just like these other communities except for guns.\" And that means that isolating the gun ownership variable is quite tricky. You need a lot of data in order to even try to do it. And that often means using datasets that contain quite a few years of information. And then you're dealing with trying to isolate and subtract large-scale trends that were affecting everyone. And so on. \n\nIt's why social scientists get paid ~~the big bucks~~ enough for late night pizza deliveries to the office."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
4p69b5
|
what are the tiny specks/hairs that can sometimes be seen when closing one's eyes?
|
Is this just dust on the surface of our eye? Why can we see these if our eyes are closed?
EDIT: I'm referring to tiny specks or hairs that can be "seen" floating. Not specks of light.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4p69b5/eli5_what_are_the_tiny_speckshairs_that_can/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d4icpbp",
"d4ivs4t"
],
"score": [
4,
4
],
"text": [
"If you mean the specks of light you can sometimes see when you close your eyes (particularly when pressing or rubbing the eyes), it's called phosphene and is basically the result of the brain being tricked into thinking it's seeing light due to the applied preassure to the cells of the eyes. ",
" *\"Oh, squiggly line in my eye fluid.*\n\n*I see you lurking there on the periphery of my vision.*\n\n*But when I try to look at you, you scurry away.*\n\n*Are you shy, squiggly line?*\n\n*Why only when I ignore you, do you return to the center of my eye?*\n\n*Oh, squiggly line, it's alright...*\n\n*you are forgiven.\"*\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
9s5ijb
|
why is processed meat cheaper than non-processed meat?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/9s5ijb/eli5_why_is_processed_meat_cheaper_than/
|
{
"a_id": [
"e8m7mwd",
"e8m7pcb",
"e8m7qde",
"e8mbe05",
"e8mhqii",
"e8mmcao"
],
"score": [
18,
13,
3,
4,
6,
2
],
"text": [
"They can use all the garbage bits. Remainders and the like. All the meat that's left when you take all the good cuts out.",
"Processed meat is cheaper because it is often made from scrap pieces that would otherwise be thrown away. It is also preserved with various chemicals and that means it is safe to eat longer so more likely to be sold rather than thrown away. ",
"It is possible to use more meat parts, those that might not be acceptable in their native state. More chemicals can be mixed in to extend marketable shelf life. Objectionable tastes and odors can be subdued.",
"It depends on what process you are talking about. Livestock for slaughter is cheap. Then as they get slaughtered and butchered they get more expensive. The more cuts is being done the more expensive the meat. So for example deboned steak or strimmled pork is more expensive then its unprocessed parts. However when you get to sausages and other minced meats they can use the cheapest offcuts they have. The stuff people do not want to buy in the shops. But once they minces it people will buy it. So the processing costs money but as they use the cheapest meat it is still among the cheapest meat you can find. They can also add other ingredients then meat which can be cheaper. At which point they can make it cheaper then what they started out with. For example people have a hard time noticing it if you add salt water to their meat until they actually try cooking it.",
"Bacon is never cheaper than pork belly. Pate is never cheaper than the pork it's made from. SOME processed meat is cheaper because it uses the vast amount of trimmings that would otherwise be waste (or hamburger) and mechanically separated meat, the last bits clinging to the bones.",
"Processed meat is not actually cheaper than the meat it is made from. The reason processed meat looks cheaper is because you are not making a fair comparison. For example, sausages are made from 1) meat that doesn't sell that well because it is either less popular or lower in quality and 2) trimmed scraps from the better meat that were not sellable because they were scraps. If you were to go seek out the parts that are used to make that processed meat, you would find they are cheaper. Pork sausage is often made from shoulder, I rarely see sausage for less than $2.50/lb, and its generally more, but I see shoulder for $1/lb multiple times a year and $2 pretty much all the time. I am quite certain that you would find this is true for most if not all processed meat."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2hmfgt
|
Did Michail Kalaschnikow develop the AK-47 on his own or did he just lead a development team?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2hmfgt/did_michail_kalaschnikow_develop_the_ak47_on_his/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cku8ew8"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"According to C.J Chivers' The Gun (which is a history of the AK and its impact essentially) it was a bit of both. Kalashnikov certainly had some important input on the design but other members of his design team contibuted/refined some of the AK-47's more notable features (I forgot who is thought to have done what but I could dig it if you really want?).\n\nAnother element was the procurement process that resulted in the AK being adopted meant that Kalashnikov and other contributing design bureaus were basically expected to borrow from each other. So there was a first phase of demonstrations, and all groups were sent back to further refine their designs. Since the state's objective was to get the best design rather than to protect intellectual property, it was perfectly understood that designers could/should take the best ideas from each other in their subsequent design.\n\nSemi-related is the probable foreign influences on the AK's design. Kalashnikov is noted to have access to an arsenal with examples of a whole bunch of foreign weapons. As I recall the Garand rifle was noted as a lesser known influence on the AK's design. Hugo Schmeisser, a German gun designer who worked on the Wehrmacht's own assault rifles, was captured and put to work by the Soviets. Exactly how much of a contibution Schmeisser and the StG-44 had to the AK is a bit hard to pinpoint. For example the AK does resemble the StG, but their internals are not that similar. Chivers leaves it undetermined but other authors seem to have been happy to place Schmeisser at the heart of the AK's development."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
60i3kg
|
does oxidation make oxygen disappear?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/60i3kg/eli5_does_oxidation_make_oxygen_disappear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"df6jvrj"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Yes and no. In oxidation oxygen reacts with the metal. The oxygen would bond with the metal. So yes in the end you would have less gaseous oxygen, but none of the oxygen atoms would actually disappear. Oxygen only would change the for it is in."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
1er7sg
|
Questions for a Hundred Years War History Project
|
Can knighthood be revoked? And if so, for what? What were the prayers before and after meals? If a knight were to be denied execution, how could he earn his life back? Would tea be served at the King's dinner? How would a knight be addressed by the royals? What does a condemned knight need to do to regain his freedom after he has had his knighthood revoked? What are the consequences for killing someone during a jousting tournament?
I would greatly appreciate answers that are sourced.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1er7sg/questions_for_a_hundred_years_war_history_project/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca31yyt"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"From [the rules](_URL_0_):\n\n > **Is this the right place for your question?**\n\n > Questions should be about what did happen, not what could have happened. Questions of that type should be posted in /r/HistoricalWhatIf.\n\n > **Homework**\n\n > Our users aren't here to do your homework for you, but they might be willing to help. Remember: AskHistorians helps those who help themselves. Don't just give us your essay/assignment topic and ask us for ideas. Do some research of your own, then come to us with questions about what you've learned. This is explained further in this [META] thread.\n\n > You can also consider asking the helpful people at /r/HomeworkHelp.\n\nA quick Google allowed me to find the answers to a couple of your questions very quickly. Help yourself - put some leg work in :)"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules"
]
] |
|
2w48n7
|
why are a large number of video games, particularly role-playing games, set in medieval setting?
|
History is full of different time periods, such as ancient civilization, the age of exploration, the revolutionary period, the wild west, etc.
Why are the middle ages the setting for a disproportionate number of video games?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2w48n7/eli5_why_are_a_large_number_of_video_games/
|
{
"a_id": [
"conftoq",
"cong810",
"conij80"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"People tend to go with what they're familiar with, and what they grew up with. The earliest popular roleplaying games were tabletops like Dungeons & Dragons, with a smaller percentage set in space and on alien planets. So, when game designers started exploring electronic RPGs, these two settings were what they started with.\n\nLater down the line, the next generation of gamers are old enough to make games of their own. Instead of doing something in a completely different setting, they make games in the worlds they grew up with. They've spent their whole lives playing these medieval (and sometimes space) games, asking \"What would it be like if it were more like this...?\"\n\nTL;DR: Medieval settings started at the top, so it's what everyone is already the most familiar with. It's the safest setting to present to publishers, and it's the kind of world that these designers grew up in.",
"I think it's more accurate to say the games are set in worlds based off of a general folklore universe of Western Europe. Most of the folklore doesn’t rely heavily on any time-specific characteristics of the societies where it comes from (such as two-handed swords and plate armor vs. axes and chain hauberks), but it was still clearly developed before significant advances in technologies such as gunpowder or electricity. Therefore, to stick with the folklore, you have to have a pre-industrial setting.\n\nOther than tech being in a pre-industrial world, there’s not much that makes the games “medieval.” Technology advanced a fair amount in medieval times, but most people are not familiar with a lot of those advances because they don’t know much about medieval military fighting. For example, fancy renaissance plate armor wasn’t available in most places in 1000 CE, yet it appears in almost every medieval game. For another example, your typical “medieval inn” didn’t exist like they do in RPGs – those are more based on coaching houses from around the 1600 and 1700s. And the political and social aspects are all invented for the fantasy world, so of course those don’t line up with medieval history or medieval thinking.\n\nI would assume we use Western European folklore because the US, where most of the RPGs I’m familiar with are made, was founded by Western Europeans. For Japan, they just jumped on the medieval train later. The other posters saying videogame RPGs were based off of D & D are correct, but that doesn’t explain why D & D or similar RPGs went with a medieval setting instead of a colonial American setting or something else.\n\nThe tl;dr of all that is the games are really a mish-mash of pre-industrial tropes and aren’t specifically medieval. The technology and life was so different back then, though, that we just sort of classify everything that’s pre-gunpowder and pre-electricity as “medieval.”\n\nEdit: Check out r/askhistorians and search for \"medieval\" or \"fantasy\" or other similar terms (or check their FAQ - it's well-organized). There is a lot of information about how the real medieval world differs from fantasy worlds we often see in RPGs.",
"It's much easier (and makes more sense for some reason) to have magic exist in a medieval world rather than a modern one.\n\nNot to mention the fact that it's easier to become immersed in a place you've never been to, like medieval times than somewhere you could reference and find errors"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
5q63v2
|
how exactly is recycling good for the environment when it almost always requires a source of fuel to break down and re-purpose the materials(in turn creating more air pollution and also requires the excavation of more fossil fuel)?
|
[deleted]
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5q63v2/eli5_how_exactly_is_recycling_good_for_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dcwluyp",
"dcwm14y",
"dcwm2ok",
"dcwmuyi",
"dcwnl1l"
],
"score": [
6,
2,
3,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It is less harmful than excavating new material deposits, by far. It's also the fact that if you just throw it out, it has to go to a landfill, which uses up land and can take hundreds of years to even start to decay (if it ever really does - look at the Pacific Garbage Patch).\n\nIn order of benefit to the environment, Reduce > Reuse > Recycle.\n\nReducing means you need less to begin with, and thus don't even add any pollution from the start.\n\nReusing something means you only need to create pollution once - when it's first made.\n\nRecycling means you create pollution more than once, but it's less than if you just went out and bought more unrecycled material to begin with.",
"It depends on the material in question. For some materials, the cost, both financial and environmental, for producing a new product entirely from raw materials vs recycling is much higher. To start from scratch, you have extract the raw material (time+money+pollution), transport it to be processed (more time+money+pollution) and then you can begin turning it into something. With recycling, you basically skip those first two steps. You do have to transport the recycled good from the collection point to the processing facility, but that's often a much shorter distance than going from wherever the raw material came out of the ground to wherever the finished product is produced.",
" > the only logical explanation must be is that it is less harmful to recycle than it is to excavate new raw material deposits and manufacture them(but of course it's still harmful to an extent).\n\nThis is exactly the case.\n\nFor as much energy as it takes to recycle metal, glass, plastics, and asphalt, it's a fraction of the energy it takes to extract those base materials from ore/crude/etc. Paper is arguable whether it's energy or cost effective - for any paper saying it's effective, there's another that says it's not. What I can say is A) we're not cutting down the rain forests to make paper (they do so for agriculture, and tend to burn the wood on the land), and B) you can only recycle paper so many times before the fibers break down to the point they're no longer usable.\n\n > It's kind of depressing if that's the case.\n\nWhy so? Did you think we'd get a net zero or net gain from recycling? How did you come to conclude that's one possible explanation? Recycling is a good thing because we don't have to consume the resources and produce the pollution necessary to extract and process ore, and that should be celebrated.",
"Compare strip-mining a pristine forest for aluminum versus recycling a ton of cans.\n\nLots of energy is used to recycle, true. Lots of energy is used to refine and process raw material as well. A ton of recycled aluminium or plastic is one ton less being extracted from the ground which is often dirty and destructive, not to mention *limited*.",
"edit-added more refs.\n\nRecycling is not necessarily better for the environment than not recycling. In many cases, recycling is far worse for the environment than not recycling. However, there is a massive recycling industry that makes it's money by convincing people that recycling is better for the environment than alternatives. Take a look at the use of ultra efficient incinerators in northern Europe and the massive PR battle against them by recycling companies( waste to energy plant info- _URL_3_ and the pro-recycling lobby groups that work against them _URL_0_ )\n\nRemember, recycling centers are often private businesses (heavily subsidized by the taxpayer) that benefit from convincing people to recycle so that they can sell the product of recycling for a profit. Consider this, if you recycle a plastic bottle in rural kentucky, chances are it will end up getting shipped to China to be turned back into plastic. If you happen to leave a bit of food in the bottom of your bottle, the Chinese can't turn it back into plastic since it is dirty, so it just gets buried in a landfill in China (_URL_1_). Clearly shipping trash to China is energy intensive and is usually omitted from arguments for recycling. \n\nAlso, recycling is expensive. No one wants seems to ever think about opportunity cost with environmental efforts. Maybe instead of building a massive recycling plant and twice as many garbage trucks (one for garbage one for recycling), we instead could get a better environmental benefit from some other activity. Preservation of the Amazon rain forest from slash and burn comes to mind as an alternative.\n\nHere is a recent cost benefit analysis showing that recycling is worse than incinerating even with a large cost to C02 included: _URL_2_\n\nTLDR: Recycling is greenwashing"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.no-burn.org/",
"https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-02-18/chinas-green-fence-cleaning-americas-dirty-recycling",
"https://www.econstor.eu/bitstream/10419/145346/1/16039.pdf",
"http://www.cewep.eu/m_1073"
]
] |
|
3hge3b
|
if big pharmaceutical companies make all these negative effect drugs, they can obviously make ones with excellent side affects. is there any types of medicines that are like this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3hge3b/eli5if_big_pharmaceutical_companies_make_all/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cu73u6v",
"cu73wc3",
"cu743pa",
"cu744zc"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I think you have a very distorted view of pharmaceutical companies. The vast majority of drugs have side effects less bad than the disease they treat, especially when you consider that most treated diseases can cause death, and that these pills cause death only vanishingly rarely, if at all.\n\nIt is absolutely true that certain cancer treatments can sometimes cause horrible side effects and not do anything helpful, but that isn't due to malice on the part of Big Pharma. Chemotherapy drugs are basically poisons which we hope kill the cancer faster than they kill us, but sometimes due to genetic factors we don't fully understand yet they don't work on certain people. That's all.",
"Viagra is an example of good side effects. It was originally created as a blood pressure medication. It had the side effect of giving you boners and now almost nobody takes it for blood pressure reasons.",
"Truly, there is no such thing as \"side effects.\" There are only effects. If you have a decongestant that makes you sleepy, it's side effects are \"may cause drowsiness.\" The same drug could be marketed as a sleep aid but now the side effects are \"may cause dry mouth.\"\n\nPropecia was initially used to treat prostates but some people noticed a side effect or hair growth. Whether this was a positive or negative depended on whether you were bald and wanted to grow hair again.\n\nSo you just have to look at the total effects (not side effects) of a pill and decide whether or not its worth it. Good or bad depends on the person.",
" > i know that when you take certain medications the side affects are worse than the actual thing you may be taking the meds for\n\nThat's not true at all. There may be detrimental side effects, but if they were *worse* than the actual illness, then people simply wouldn't take the medication in the first place.\n\nAnd it's not like pharmaceutical companies say, \"Hey, let's make something that has negative side effects.\" The human body is *incredibly complex*, and pretty much all drugs are essentially just throwing a chemical at the entire body and hoping that it fixes the problem. Sometimes it doesn't, and sometimes it does. And when it does, they have no control over what the side effects are, because that's just how your body responds to that specific chemical. \n\nWe simply don't have the ability to make drugs have specific lists of effects. We just try to find chemicals that cause the body to respond in a way that is mostly positive, but we can't force human biology to do precisely what we want most of the time."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
4tnzqm
|
if all wavelengths of light travel at the same speed, what causes them to rainbow after exiting a glass prism?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4tnzqm/eli5_if_all_wavelengths_of_light_travel_at_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"d5it848",
"d5iteup",
"d5j8lhg"
],
"score": [
12,
4,
5
],
"text": [
"A prism causes light to refract, which is described by the *refractive index* of the material. The refractive index is different for different waves of light, so that rays of different wave-lengths get refracted at different angles. White light, made up of many wave-lengths, is split up by the refraction and each colored ray will be cast in a slightly different place from the others. That's what produces the spectrum.",
"In materials like glass different wavelengths travel at different speeds.\n\nAll materials have this property ([dispersion](_URL_0_)) to some extent. \n High quality lenses are designed to cancel it out, at least over the frequencies of interest.\n\n\nRelated fact: light only travels at *c* in a vacuum. So you could also say that transparent materials slow down different wavelengths by different amounts. (Typically blue is slowed more than red.)\n",
"The light thingies move the same speed through empty space. But when they pass through some stuff they all move at different speeds.\n\n\nThey all run the same speed through a field, but when they jump in the river they all swim different. The current will push the slowest guy farther down river than the next guy, and so on.\n\n\nWhat's neat is that our atmosphere is like a giant Pink Floyd thingie! It makes the suns white light into stupid yellow, it's also why things really far away look a little more blue than they do up close!\n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispersion_\\(optics\\)"
],
[]
] |
||
2qbvxw
|
How Frequent were Wolf attacks on Humans in Medieval and Early Modern Europe?
|
In the modern day and age it is generally agreed that wolves don't attack humans very often. However, I have heard and been taught that one of the major contributing factors to the rise of werewolf myths and general wolf fear in Europe was frequent wolf attacks during the Medieval and Early Modern period. I am as curious as to the discrepancy.
Thanks for your time
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2qbvxw/how_frequent_were_wolf_attacks_on_humans_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cn4sq59"
],
"score": [
29
],
"text": [
"You're right: There have been thousands of recorded instances from the medieval and early modern periods, with the Beast(s) of Gévaudan being the most prominent example. A decent hypothesis on the decline, especially in light of your observation that this kind of activity began to fall in frequency and cultural significance in the early modern period, is the impact of modernity itself - particularly with the rapid urbanization that accompanied it. One could also attribute lessened frequency with the increased deprivation of wolves' natural habitat and their population decline in turn. Simply put, modernity drove people from where they would have the opportunity to interact with wolves, while wolves themselves declined in population. A fascinating read on American perspectives toward wolves is Valerie M. Fogleman, American Attitudes Towards Wolves: A History of Misperception, 13 Env. Rev. 63-94 (Spring 1989), where the author describes in detail how Americans moved from despising wolves for their violent potential (but more accurately for their competition with human food supply) toward an outright extermination campaign based less on that sort of need than on irrational hatred and fear, supported by myth."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
2c0rs1
|
Can someone explain what makes brown dwarfs "stars?" How can a celestial body with a temperature between 225-260 K be classified as a star?
|
I recently watched a video of the "10 weirdest things in space" and it was kinda silly, but the #1 was a "frozen star," WISE 0855–0714. How can something so cold be considered a star? Since it has a mass below 13 Jupiters it can't fuse deuterium (according to the IAU), so what makes it a star? What makes it a brown dwarf and not just a super gas giant? Why classify it as a star at all?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2c0rs1/can_someone_explain_what_makes_brown_dwarfs_stars/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cjaxq6o",
"cjaybb2",
"cjb2sl4"
],
"score": [
2,
7,
2
],
"text": [
"Well some brown dwarfs can sustain some types of fusion, but not the standard Hydrogen-1 (proton-chain) fusion. But the lower end of the Brown dwarf v. gas giant planet range seems to be an open question, as far as I'm aware.",
" > The distinction between hydrogen-fusing stars and\r\nbrown dwarfs is well defined. But what distinguishes brown\r\ndwarfs from planets, given their similar sizes and atmospheric properties? Astronomers vigorously debating that semantic question fall mainly in two camps. One advocates a\r\ndefinition based on formation—a brown dwarf condenses\r\nout of giant molecular clouds, whereas a planet forms via\r\ncore accretion in a circumstellar debris disk. The other focuses on interior physics: A brown dwarf must be heavier\r\nthan the mass threshold for core fusion of any element,\r\nroughly 13 Jupiter masses, or 0.012 M\u0002.\n\n_URL_0_",
"It's not a star at all, and neither are brown dwarves. However, it's not the temperature that's the problem here. Rather, it was never able to fuse hydrogen in its core at any point in its life, becuase it wasn't massive enough. Significant gravity-induced core hydrogen* fusion at some point is what makes something a star. White dwarves, for example, are stars which have exhausted their fuel and blown off their outer layers. They no longer fuse and produce energy, so most of them will just keep cooling off forever, and will eventually have similar temperatures to this WISE object.\n\n*The general definition of a brown dwarf that I favor is something which is able to fuse deuterium at some point, but is not massive enough to become a star. Deuterium is an isotope of hydrogen, but \"hydrogen\" in an astronomical context always means hydrogen-1. As noted by the other comments, this definition of a brown dwarf is in some dispute, but both definitions produce similar classes of objects. Neither include stars."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://astro.berkeley.edu/~gmarcy/astro160/papers/brown_dwarfs_failed_stars.pdf"
],
[]
] |
|
dzolh2
|
how does skin hold in moisture?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/dzolh2/eli5_how_does_skin_hold_in_moisture/
|
{
"a_id": [
"f8ab5yw"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Your skin has several layers which serve multiple purposes. Remember that your skin is an organ so keeing that in mind it has a specialized goal , one of which is retaining a level amount of moisture it does this through tiny pores and epithelial tissue wich are basically tiny spongy tissues"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
3p1kxk
|
every time people breathe, why don't they naturally take in the maximum lung capacity, which would be more efficient?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3p1kxk/eli5_every_time_people_breathe_why_dont_they/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cw2crlo",
"cw2e6v2",
"cw2h6cu"
],
"score": [
14,
9,
3
],
"text": [
"What makes you think it's more efficient? ",
"Actually, it has to do with differences in the matching of air flow and blood flow to different areas of your lung, called ventilation and perfusion, respectively. Your lungs are filled from the bottom up with air and blood, so taking in a maximal breath ventilates the top of your lung fields, which are not perfused well. This leads to wasted air space relative to the bottom parts. Your body naturally breathes using only the most efficient lung fields, namely the bottom third.",
"The majority of the respiratory system is what's known as \"dead space\" where oxygen-co2 gas exchange doesn't occur. The only part of the lungs that take any significant part are the alveoli which are very thin and gas permeable. They don't require a very deep breath to inflate. The rest of the respiratory system mainly serves to warm, moisten and filter the air you inhale."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
bl0tb9
|
why do formula 1 cars look the way they do?
|
F1 cars are known as the "ultimate racing cars". i wonder why, the further up on the racing leagues you go, cars don't look anything like traditional cars at all, and especially why they all look the same at that.
i understand the details of aerodynamic wings etc are changed over the years, but why are all of the cars looking mostly alike? do the rules state that F1 cars have to look exactly like that? if so, why? when/where did this design originate? if i build a car that is faster than an F1 car, but looks like a dump truck, could i race in an F1 tournament?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bl0tb9/eli5_why_do_formula_1_cars_look_the_way_they_do/
|
{
"a_id": [
"emkrncl",
"emks7ps",
"emkss13"
],
"score": [
2,
4,
2
],
"text": [
"F1 and other racing leagues have a lot of rules to ensure safety and competitiveness. That tends to lead to the cars eventually all being very similar as there is rarely more than one general body-form that is competitive within the rules.",
"F1 cars are super light as they are as bare bones as possible, they are largely shaped the way they are to provide optimal downforce/weight ratio allowing for more grip and stability.\n\nFun fact, for certain turns F1 cars need to go faster (thereby increasing downforce) rather than slower to avoid crashing from lack of grip.",
"F1 was all about an open wheel, open cockpit racing series. No you cannot make a dump truck and race with them because there are very strict and tight rules that restrict the way an f1 car can look. Firstly the size of the car cannot exceed and preceed a certain length width and height and all the aerodynamically elements cannot exceed a certain length and width.\n\nThis goes for the front wing, rear wing and sides of the cars and all the aero bits attached to the car. Cars would be much faster if the wheels were covered and the cockpit was closed. That's why the front wing was introduced and gave teams a major leap in performance because air was directed above and away from the wheels so no air is giving the car unnecessary drag. These front wings also give a large amount of downforce which helps the car corner at very high speeds and adds to the fact that its the ultimate racing series. Formula 1 cars aren't very fast in a straight line, they top out at about 330-360kmh whereas the koenigsegg agera rs, the fastest production car makes it to something like 450 kmh.( I don't know the actual figures so I'm pulling this number out of my ass. But I do know it's above 400kmh and their new car would get up to 500kmh which hasn't been released. So an average was taken.)\n\nThe rear wing, along with the front wing, is also a major part of the sheer downforce the formula 1 car has. The rear wing being behind the rear wheels and the front wing being infront of the front wheels are the most efficient ways to make use of the downforce generated by these cars. These front and rear wings are also regulated by what size they can be.\n\nThe low nature of the car is to help lower the centre of mass as low as possible to prevent the car sliding around. The very little space between the road and the car is so that there is little as possible air to come underneath the car and lift the car giving it an up force and reduces how well the car sticks to the ground. Airplanes have lots of space between the wheels and the wings so that there's a large amount of air to be used to lift the plane up.\n\nThe shape of the back part of an air f1 car is like that to direct as much air to the rear wings as possible and gives the car even more downforce. The key thing here for the formula 1 car is downforce so they can go as fast as possible around corners. Other racing series do not come close to this.\n\nThe front is a cone shape because it's just more aerodynamical that way and it's more practical for air to enter the sidepods and cool the engine and electrical components in the back. All the aerodynamical bits on the side of the car help direct air along the body of the car away from the rear wheels and again prevent drag."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
ew1tp3
|
How does the electric field in the salt bridge of an electrochemical cell work?
|
If an electrochemical cell is hooked up to a resistor, then there is current travelling from one cell to the other and an electric field points in this direction. But, since the electric field is conservative (ignoring the circuit's negligible self-inductance), the electric field across the salt bridge should point in the same direction. But, current across the salt bridge points against this supposed direction of the electric field, not with it as in the resistor: why is this? I get that the salt bridge exists to prevent accumulation of charge in the cells, but I can't wrap my head around how it can defy the electric field to do this.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ew1tp3/how_does_the_electric_field_in_the_salt_bridge_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fg21l6v"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Let me explain with this [example cell](_URL_0_).\n\nIt is true that the field points to the left in the lamp, and to the right in the salt bridge (with the anions/electrons moving in the opposite directions since they are negatively charged). But that does not mean there are circular field lines.\n\nThis is obviously a vast oversimplification, but it will give you the right idea. If you forget about the complexities of water and electrolyte for the moment, you can imagine the following field line. It starts from the surface of a copper ion in the electrolyte in the right half of the cell, passes from there into the copper metal, through the lamp from right to left, into the zinc, into the electrolyte on the left half, through the salt bridge from left to right, and finally terminates on the surface of a sulfate ion. It is not a circle, because it starts at a cation and ends at an anion.\n\nYou might ask why the field line takes such a circuitous path when it could simply go directly from the copper ion to the sulfate. Of course, the vast majority of field lines between those two ions would take the simple, direct path. It is only a very few that take the \"long route.\" But those that do take the long route can only do it in one direction, because there is a potential difference across the lamp, and a potential difference across the salt bridge."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galvanic_cell#/media/File:Galvanic_cell_with_no_cation_flow.png"
]
] |
|
334me0
|
why do we accept plastic surgery in entertainment, but not steroids in organized professional athletics when it's essentially entertainment?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/334me0/eli5_why_do_we_accept_plastic_surgery_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cqhgp4u",
"cqhgrxo",
"cqhgsmq",
"cqhsfsc",
"cqhta76",
"cqhu6ab",
"cqhvx24",
"cqi59fj"
],
"score": [
181,
2,
37,
6,
26,
12,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"In a word... Gambling. No one bets on the outcome of a movie. Steroids are an unknown variable which affect the outcome of a game. ",
"Performance enhancing drugs would change the sport to drastically, and are usually harmful. A lot of records in baseball, for example, are from people who didn't use the drugs, people who do you use the drug can't be fairly compared to these people. Steroids have harsh side effect, where plastic surgery isn't as risky. \n\nA similar question has been posed about runway/fashion models. The argument is that showing extremely (unhealthy) models causes a lot of harm to models and people who emulate them. This has caused France to ban such models. ",
"Two big things. Sports are a competition, entertainment not so much. Also, a lot of sports fans are very much traditionalists. With those in mind, a lot of people view steroids as cheating, and doing a disservice to the natural talents of players in years past.",
"Plastic surgery doesn't make you a better actor",
"A lot of people still have no idea how rampant the use of steroids and similar drugs is in sports AND entertainment.\n\nDo you seriously think these hyper physical hyper competitive athletes don't use every advantage they reasonably can get away with? \n\nCompare Christian Bale in The Machinst and Batman Begins; this took 6 months. While I can't categorically say it would be impossible naturally, it isn't silly to think there was some chemical assistance. \n\nFeel as you want about the issue, but be aware that the use is fairly widespread as is. And there is no serious chance of it decreasing, only increasing.",
"I think a good example of this can be found in competitive swimming. Of you remember back to 2008 and 2009 (more likely 2008 for non swimmer) fullbody stood began haggling a guide impact on the spey due to the use of buoyant materials like polyurethane, which resulted in basically every world record falling. Then in 2009, suits were made entirely from polyurethane, which lopped even more time off of already impossibly fast world records. Suddenly big names like michael phelps took a stance against these suits, as they detracted from the sports competitive value, with crazy expensive suits giving a huge boost to swimmers who feel within a certain body type. Long story short, suits got banned and now there are a handful of world records that aren't likely to fall for good 2 knows how long. \nWatch the 200m freestyle from the Beijing Olympics where phelps absolutely destroys the competition, to 2009 whee he gets his ass handed to him by someone who was essentially a no name wearing a far superior suit. \nInb4 check your spelling this was a lot of shit to wright on a phone in a college union over dinner",
"That is a question a lot of professionals ask themselves. Performance enhancement drugs only work if you have natural talent in the first place. Why is it different than cyclists that train at altitude or sleep in hyperbaric chambers?\n\nAlso, records are irrelevant when it comes to this. Sports have new rules, better equipment, more specific training and so on. For example, Pelé scored a shitload of goals yet at his time off-side did not exist.",
"Because being a great actor isn't neccessarily how you look. Most people actually have to be able to act. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
7cpt9p
|
[Book Request] About Soviet nuclear strategy and nuclear accidents during the Cold War.
|
I just finished reading Eric Schlosser's Command and Control, which did an awesome job outlining the history of the United States' nuclear arsenal, nuclear accidents, and assumptions the US had about their Soviet counterparts. I was wondering if there is any good companion to this book that could give similar information from the soviet side (in particular, Soviet nuclear strategic decision making and what they thought was happening in the US). Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7cpt9p/book_request_about_soviet_nuclear_strategy_and/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dprq9kb"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"While it remains on my \"To Read\" list, so I cannot personally recommend it per se, [Plutopia: Nuclear Families, Atomic Cities, and the Great Soviet and American Plutonium Disasters](_URL_0_) by Kate Brown came highly recommended to me from my History of the Soviet Union professor in college."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.amazon.com/Plutopia-Families-American-Plutonium-Disasters/dp/0190233109/"
]
] |
|
6iwc0j
|
credit reports
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6iwc0j/eli5_credit_reports/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dj9lfrx",
"dj9li4v",
"dj9lk5i",
"dj9lsky",
"dj9lyr4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A credit report is a list of all accounts you have and the monthly reporting from those account isuers that you've paid/are in good standing, etc. A credit score is calculated from that data by looking at the following aspects of your credit: length of credit history/avg. account age, number of accounts, utilization rate on credit lines (what % of credit card limit is used, ie. $1000 balance w/ $5000 limit is 20%), late payments, derogatory comments, different types of credit accounts, number of hard credit pulls (the kind done actually applying for loan/credit). The exact levels of how each are calculated and the weight of each is the propriety secret of the credit bureaus who sell the credit scores. But to elevate your score, you want to have a low utilization rate, make all your payments on time, etc. and over time your score will climb. \n\nIt can be sort of a catch-22 with establishing credit early on... often credit cards will issue cards with low limits, like $500 or even ones with a deposit required. Store credit cards are also often issued with lower requirements... always pay on time and pay in full. Diversity of loans helps, so when you have a mix of credit cards, car loans, mortgage, etc. it helps your score when they're all in good standing.\n\nThe score matters if you want to buy a car or house, or open other lines of credit... it affects whether you can get the loan or not, and what interest rate you'll pay. Somebody with a 800 credit score might get 0% financing on a new car for 5 years, while somebody with 600 will only be offered a loan with 15% interest rate.",
"So the thing that most people don't understand is that a credit report isn't for you, it's for lending institutions to see if they should lend you money. There are a lot of factors for your credit score; and in the US, three companies run their own reports: Equifax, Experian, and TransUnion. Because we are relying more and more on credit, the government has come in and put regulation on the field. But here's hopefully some very basic answers to your questions:\n\n > What helps it? What hurts it? \n\nYour credit grows by 1) having open lines of credit aka loans or credit cards and 2) paying back the money loaned to you in a timely manner. If you miss payments, or are late, it hurts your credit. \n\n > How does one bring their score up if it's really low? \n\nIt's a long process, but again, paying your loans and credit cards on time is the best way to do this.\n\n > How does anyone get started when they have no credit and therefore no credit?\n\nThere are a couple ways. For loans, you can get a cosigner, someone who will back you up. You're responsible for payments, but if you don't pay, then your cosigner is on the hook. If you have limited or no credit, you can find someone who is more established, and it will help you out.\n\nFor credit cards, there are often cards specially designed for those with bad or no credit. These cards have low spending limits and higher interest, but simply having one open and using it for small purchases builds up credit. These cards may also require a cosigner. \n\n > Does it really even matter if your credit sucks?\n\nYou don't need credit, but it is helpful. Chances are you're not going to have 30k in cash to buy a car, or 200k to buy a house. If you need the money, then loans and credit are often the easiest, safest and most direct ways to get it. \n\n",
"Having no credit history doesn't make your credit score low, you just don't have a credit score. You will have trouble getting a mortgage if you don't have any credit history, but it can be done through an alternate credit check such as showing that you have been paying bills regularly and not been late. ",
" > What helps it? \n\nPayment history, credit utilization, length of credit history, credit types, and new credit requests/inquiries in that order. \n\nBeing late on payments is the number one factor, and is a strong predictor of eventual default. \n\nHaving available credit is the number two factor (that means a sudden emergency is less likely to trip factor number one). \n\nLength of credit history is the number three factor. Would you rather loan money to someone who has paid everyone back on time for 20 years or someone who has paid everyone back on time for one year? \n\nThose three are 80% of your score. Types of credit (people with experience repaying mortgages, auto loans, and credit cards are better able to judge their ability to repay new debt than people who've only ever had a credit card. Finally, one of the first signs of trouble is people looking for new sources of credit or requesting credit several times over a relatively long period of time. \n\n > What hurts it? \n\nThe opposite of the above. Paying bills late, borrowing more of your available credit, closing long running accounts, seeking new credit. Some key tricky ones include closing unused credit lines (since they increase utilization) and mean a long active account is no longer active. \n\n > How does one bring their score up if it's really low? \n\nDepending on how poor it is, typically by getting a more expensive loan (usually the only option available) and paying it back on time. Some lenders will loan to higher risks with a co-signer (note that it's largely unwise to be the cosigner for many loans).\n\n > Why does having no credit make it low? \n\nBecause new borrowers are riskier than established good borrowers. \n\n > How does anyone get started when they have no credit and therefore no credit? \n\nThere are often certain types of lenders who loan money to higher risk borrowers, though they often have higher rates than lenders to lower risk borrowers. You could try applying for a credit card. They may make low limit cards available to new borrowers. \n\n > Does it really even matter if your credit sucks?\n\nOnly if you want to borrow money. Note that ownership of housing can be quite difficult (it's not impossible but it's not easy either) to accomplish without borrowed money.",
"Paying loans and having a good history of not pulling out too many too fast is how you keep a good credit score. Having a small amount of credit cards and loans makes you look a lot more trustworthy to lenders than someone who has 8 credit cards maxed out asking for a car loan.\n\nInquiring about getting loans also briefly harms it, so it isn't wise to go to multiple banks asking for loans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2lpwrt
|
what happened to myanmar(burma) throughout the 20th century after british rule? how did it go from an emerging nation to one of the most isolated countries in asia?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2lpwrt/eli5_what_happened_to_myanmarburma_throughout_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"clx1z2s"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Essentially the military seized power, formed a junta and viciously suppressed democracy, leading to diplomatic isolation and trade embargoes.\n\nThey have also engaged in long-running and extremely violent repression of minorities, most notably the Karen, Kachin and Shan peoples although there are many others amongst the 135 ethnic groups in Burma/Myanmar who have also come into conflict with the central government.\n\nFinally they have also engaged in border wars with China, whilst also providing a safe haven for the (now no longer actively fighting) remnants of the Nationalist Chinese following their defeat by Mao-Tse-Dung, meaning that China - who are usually OK with ignoring international approbation and Human rights abuses - weren't ready to help them either.\n\nRecently, however, the regime has allowed more democratic voices to be raised and made efforts to repair bridges with many countries. This has allowed them to update their military somewhat (a useful weathervane for observing international relations) and led to renewed diplomatic ties. As a great deal of the motivation behind such efforts has been to improve the economic situation and stimulate tourism whilst at the same time events such as the repression of the Rohingya people have been taking place, some doubt must remain in people's minds as to the junta's motives and sincerity.\n\nEdit: pressed save too early, came back and finished"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2x2x7s
|
how to "dry wipe" and why it's preferred in your country than using a bidet.
|
Five seems to be the perfect age to learn this skill.
Anyway, I live in a country where using a bidet or using a bucket + hands is more preferred than using toilet paper when it comes to cleaning the butt.
I always feel uncomfortable every time I use toilet paper. I also seem to use a lot of toilet paper in the process. Furthermore, after dry wiping, I always feel uncomfortable, as my ass still feels dry and dirty.
How do I efficiently wipe my backside? And why does your country prefer it rather than using a bidet?
Thanks.
This is a legit problem.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2x2x7s/eli5_how_to_dry_wipe_and_why_its_preferred_in/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cowezv9",
"cowf85v",
"cowfge6",
"cowhgz7"
],
"score": [
11,
4,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Whatever method you grew up with will always feel better and like it gets you cleaner.\n\nYou just wipe until there's not poop on the paper anymore, then you give it one more for good luck and you're all done.",
" > I also seem to use a lot of toilet paper in the process.\n\nYou are not alone. I grew up in a place with only toilet paper and I know I use way too much, but any less just doesn't feel right and I feel dirty, for lack of another term.\n\nI would love to use a bidet just twice in my life. I know the first time will be awkward and uncomfortable since I'm not used to it, but the second time seems like it would be quite enjoyable. ^Obligatory ^that's ^what ^she ^said",
"... What do non-dry wipe nations do for pooping at work?\n\nAnyways as a non-bidet owner I've found the perfect solution is to poop right before your morning shower and hop in to the shower for your morning cleanse. ",
"Well if you're in a public place, institution, or business with cheap, thin, grainy paper, you're in for a bad day.\n\nAt home with more expensive, soft, quilted, 2-ply toilet paper, much better. Tear off two sheets and fold for a thick, soft, 4 ply sheet. Wipe. Repeat. Might only need a non-folded 2ply to finish the job. Scrub hands.\n\nFlushable wet wipes are great to have on hand when you need extra help or it's a hot day and you have a swampy butt.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
awugbi
|
Why France and Britain supported Qing in the Taiping rebellion?
|
AskHistorians
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/awugbi/why_france_and_britain_supported_qing_in_the/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ehrq0kk"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"The decision of France and Britain to join the Taiping War is one of those somewhat out-of-the-blue affairs of the Late Qing period that really requires a bit of digging into. Sadly, I'm not aware of much work done on the French decision to go to war, at least in English, so this answer will focus primarily on the British decision to intervene in favour of the Qing.\n\nThe most recent narrative history of the Taiping period aimed at a popular audience, Stephen R. Platt's *Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom* (2012), tackles this issue, and argues that the decision behind Britain's intervention was a two-stage process. Firstly, the outbreak of the American Civil War in 1861 caused an economic crisis for the British government, as the disintegration of their two major markets – China and the USA – threatened to grind their trade to a halt. As such, Britain needed to act fast and restore one of these markets, and opted to intervene in China. This, however, only explains why Britain intervened. Why on behalf of the Qing? Platt's position is that it was due to poor judgement on the part of particular individuals – the chief Taiping diplomat, Hong Rengan, didn't understand the British as much as he thought he did, and the chief British representative at Shanghai, Frederick Bruce, obstinately refused to give the Taiping the time of day. I agree halfway, in that I do think that the global angle regarding British exports makes sense (the disruption to the cotton and textile trade in China was also a factor in the escalation of the Opium War in 1840-42), but I think Platt gives the Qing too little credit, lets the Taiping too far off the hook, and understates the degree to which pro-Qing British officials were the norm rather than the exception.\n\nFirst off, if we look at Qing policy vis-a-vis the Taiping, we find that the Imperial government did exceptionally well in courting and exploiting foreign support, whilst the Taiping never really managed to do the same. In the wake of the 1861 Xinyou palace coup against the regents of the five year-old Tongzhi Emperor, the late Xianfeng Emperor's brother, Yixin, who had in 1860 signed the Convention of Peking with Britain, France and Russia, established a formal foreign ministry, the Zongli Yamen, which was able to give some consistency to Qing foreign policy direction and a regular point of contact for foreign powers seeking to liaise with the Imperial government in Beijing. It is true that the Zongli Yamen was always a somewhat informal arrangement, being a small subordinate agency (only under the terms of the Boxer Protocol was a proper ministry for foreign affairs established), but at least it was a regular institution that provided a reliable channel of communication. By contrast, there was never any sort of official Taiping agency responsible for foreign affairs. At most there was Hong Rengan, who had personal connections to the Protestant missionary community and was the point of contact for foreign dignitaries, but after his ignominious removal from responsibility for Western affairs in 1861 – the same year the Qing established a formal office – there was simply no person, let alone institution, who could be pointed to as having ultimate responsibility for foreign relations. Everything was now handled through whomever was in command of whichever garrison or army Westerners were dealing with – usually Li Xiucheng, the 'Loyal King', who apart from a brief interlude in 1861 was mainly occupied with fighting the war in southern Jiangsu near Shanghai. And, if your consul at Shanghai's main point of contact with the rebels is a general whose main goal is to occupy Shanghai and its environs, your relations with them are hardly going to be on the friendliest of terms.\n\nIt's not like it had to end that way, either, but the Taiping just kept failing to capitalise on their early advantage of foreign contacts. In 1853 and 1854, the Taiping capital at Nanjing was approached four times by foreign powers – twice by Britain, once by France and once by the USA – interested in a potential partnership, but on all four occasions opted for a haughty, dismissive approach, and so no further formal contact was made until Taiping troops appeared outside the gates of Shanghai in 1860. Throughout this interim missionaries, mercenaries and merchants continued to travel up to Nanjing, but we simply never hear of them being approached to establish more formal relations with the foreign powers. Hell, we don't even see much evidence of their being efficiently used! The Taiping aren't known to have, for example, offered to purchase the smugglers' steamers for use against Imperial water forces, or integrated foreign mercenaries into their regular formations as training instructors and officers, or concentrated their imported weaponry in particular formations, or even simply setting up regular channels of communication through the missionaries. Where all the kinks in Qing-Western relations were being ironed out, the Taiping became complacent in their existing arrangements.\n\nYet Western policy towards the Taiping played a result as well, and it can hardly be considered to have been the result of a few bad eggs. Under the terms of the 1858 Treaty of Tientsin, Nanjing was to become a treaty port open to Western trade. This was despite the fact that Nanjing was at the time still the Taiping capital. I think Platt is perhaps wrong to pinpoint a reversal in British attitudes to the period of 1860-2, as to be frank Western authorities appear to have largely been sceptical of the Taiping from the start. The question should really be more one of Western policy towards the Qing – how they went from broadly hostile to assisting them against a common enemy. The cynical answer would be that issue of trade: the West had just obtained a series of favourable concessions from the Qing in 1858 and 1860, and were not about to give them up in favour of a rebel state that was not bound by the same deals and would likely offer more resistance to invasion. The more generous interpretation would be that the Qing were simply better at projecting an image of stability than the Taiping – the Qing regency was largely competent, the Taiping seemed to have a leadership change every couple of months; the Qing were making progress and the Taiping were in retreat, with the front line on the Yangzte creeping closer and closer to Nanjing by the day. It is perhaps no coincidence that missionary reports from Nanjing took a much more critical turn after the Qing took Anqing in late 1861 (at this stage having already courted Western help by successfully demanding that foreign merchant ships stop selling grain there during the siege) and began to threaten Nanjing proper. As such the Qing appeared to be the winning side and thus the more sensible side to support. And the Qing did much to exploit this image. By appealing simultaneously to the British and French, the Qing were able to encourage competition between the two states, and thus make the most of their contribution to the war effort, enticing each to provide ever more officers, ships and weapons to support the Qing in the hopes that they would receive more favour than their competitor. \n\nAlthough I do adore Platt's book to death in many ways, I don't think his argument regarding the Western motives for war infallible, though I do agree with his explanation of the process. Whilst I would agree that outright military intervention was the result of the situation on the ground and not some grand strategic vision, it is quite clear that pro-Taiping sentiment among the British officials in China had always been a distinctly minority one, at least among those of significant status (the only vocally pro-Taiping official I know of to have had a major consular role before the war's end, Thomas Taylor Meadows, had completed his term at Shanghai by the time Li Xiucheng had arrived), and that British pretensions of 'neutrality' appear largely to have been in service of their version of the status quo, the definition of which could be warped at will in its favour. On the other hand, although I do not believe that it was just unfortunate coincidence that British officials were predominantly anti-Taiping, I would still agree with Platt that it was mainly through such officials that what had been neutrality became war. Only Frederick Bruce had the authority in 1860 and '62 to order British troops in Shanghai to open fire on the approaching Taiping, in the former case having ignored letters from their commanders that affirmed that Western property was to remain unharmed. Only Admiral James Hope had the means in May 1862 to issue an ultimatum to the Taiping garrison at Ningbo. Whilst British hostility towards the Taiping was never in doubt, it could still only play out through the involvement of those individual agents.\n\n**A word on Bibliography:**\n\nEssentially all the information I used can in fact be found in Platt's *Autumn in the Heavenly Kingdom*, but a more complete account of the four diplomatic missions to Nanjing can be found in Jonathan Spence's *God's Chinese Son* (1996). For missionary reports on the Taiping see eds. Prescott Clarke and J.S. Gregory, *Western Reports on the Taiping* (1982). Platt's argument about individual consular and military officials appears largely inherited from Gregory's *Great Britain and the Taipings* (1969), which also argues that it was low-level officials rather than central policy that led to war. Teng Ssu-Yu's *The Taiping Rebellion and the Western Powers: A Comprehensive Survey* (1971) is somewhat misnamed and actually has little to say that cannot be found in other publications such as Gregory's."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
eokca7
|
how do you make money from a currency that's depreciating by exchanging currency.
|
I was watching a show, spice and Wolf if anyone has seen it understands. Where they use old style silver and gold to make currency. Now the scenario is one country is subtlety decreasing how much silver they put into the coin, so they're currency is becoming weaker, but no one has noticed yet, but in the end the main character ends up making a lot of money by trading in one currency for another? Which I didn't really understand.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eokca7/eli5_how_do_you_make_money_from_a_currency_thats/
|
{
"a_id": [
"fedaavs"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"If he's trading new for old, he'd be trading it for face value but gaining money in raw silver. \n\nWhen nobody notices he can do it easily, but once they realize old currency will technically be worth more because of the silver content.\n\nSince your character has been stockpiling these coins he can now sell them for more than he originally got them for and profit."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
11e2xk
|
if energy is neither created nor destroyed, what happens when light is pulled into a black hole?
|
I know that black holes are really dense, and that their density is so great it can pull in light, making it black... but what happens to all this energy when it is pulled into the black hole?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/11e2xk/if_energy_is_neither_created_nor_destroyed_what/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ln46w",
"c6ln53k",
"c6lnzg0",
"c6lug2a"
],
"score": [
16,
129,
44,
2
],
"text": [
"It sits in the black hole.",
"The energy increases the mass of the black hole, via E=mc^(2). A photon of visible light (at a wavelength of 555 nm), would increase the mass of the black hole by about 4×10^(-33) grams.",
"A black hole doesn't actually destroy light (energy) or matter. It just compresses energy and matter down into a single point we call a singularity. In fact black holes even release some radiation back by blasting out gamma rays and such.\n\nIt's a bit misleading to call a black hole a \"hole\" because black holes don't lead anywhere. It's not like when you take the plug out of the bathtub and the water goes away.",
"Here's sort of the central part that most people who don't nerd out about physics don't understand.\n\n1. Gravity has energy. For example, if you drop a big rock out of a plane, when it hits the ground, it will exert energy on it (a.k.a. shit will get all fucked up.) Think of the ability to fuck shit up as energy.\n\n2. Note that everything doesn't have lots of gravity! You don't have gravity, but somehow the Earth does. And the sun--well, that mofo's got so much gravity, that the sheer force of it creates nuclear reactions in its core. If you were strong enough, you could push two rocks together to create a nuclear fusion reaction! But you're not... and you never will be.\n\n3. What makes the sun so special? Why do it and the planets get to have gravity, but you don't? Is it because they are floating spheres? Not quite. It's because the sun has mass (defined: stuff). The more stuff (mass) you have, the more gravity you have. \n\nTo connect it all together... there is a clear relationship here. More stuff = more gravity = more energy. Therefore, mass is a form of energy in its own right! \n\nIn this situation of the lightbulb, it's mass is contributing to the great big ball of energy that is the black hole (in fact, black holes are formed when stars with an especially ridiculous amount of mass die). If the lightbulb is somehow magical and continuously emitting light, its photons (particles of light energy (just like mass is particles of gravitational energy)) will also be sucked in and contribute to the black hole's energy.\n\nGood job asshole. You just made the black hole EVEN MORE POWERFUL. Now it will surely destroy us all."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1f8pbc
|
Museum curators of askhistorians, how did you get your job?
|
I've always been fascinated with human flight and I'd like to get a job restoring airplanes. What training/ subjects should I study in addition to a B.A in History?
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1f8pbc/museum_curators_of_askhistorians_how_did_you_get/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ca7x790",
"ca7yuel",
"ca80est",
"ca80gga"
],
"score": [
8,
4,
5,
4
],
"text": [
"I can't speak to restoring airplanes, but I am an exhibit developer, and I would say that what you study is not anywhere as near important as where you intern and how you can network. (**edit** to add: This makes it sound like I meant you don't need a degree, but you really do, I just meant don't just sign up for some museum studies grad program and plan on finding a job.) Many museum administrators I've met don't even want people that have their M.S. in museum studies, but people that are knowledgable, creative and flexible and bring new ideas and skill sets to the museum world. I got my job directly because of the fellowship I got right out of school. It's a hard world to break into! You really need to have the passion for it. \n\n*Another edit*: Ditto to the folks below that say conservation is what you want to study if you want to work with objects. It kind of blows my mind to see what the conservators are working on on a daily basis and the specialized skills they have cultivated. Just, like I said, make sure you are graduating with some solid work under your belt and a real knowledge of the people and work to be done in your field. I'd say that *just* wanting to restore airplanes is going to be way too specific to find a job, unless you find a job in some aviation museum that doesn't have the budget to contract it's stuff out, or a firm that specializes just in that (and is hiring), neither of which is a likely possibility.\n\n",
"Curators are researchers who would be doing academic work on the airplanes. If you want to restore the airplanes, think about restoration/conservation work. They are two distinct career paths. ",
"I'm an assistant curator at an art gallery. I have a B.A (Hons) in Art History and am working on a Masters. My degree was vital, but my interning experience was what really got me into the field - I interned in 2 different galleries during uni and did a work placement at a third. Even for an entry level position, practical experience is pretty much essential.\n\n\nBut ditto /u/RedPotato that curating and restoring/conservation are two very different fields. To work as a conservator, you need a specialist degree, which is generally a Masters. ",
"Forget the history degree. Find a community college that offers an aviation mechanic certification, or join the air force if they can guarantee you training in aviation mechanics (There may be regulations allowing them to assign you however they want, regardless of pre-enlistment promises, so be REALLY careful if you go this route). Volunteer at a local aviation museum and let them know your career goals. They won't let you work on planes right away, but you'll get to hang out with the guys who do work on planes, and eventually they'll let you do some work. \n\nI've volunteered for a local rail heritage foundation for several years. It took almost a year before they let me ride in the cab, and another year before they let me drive it for a couple of miles, but it was THE COOLEST THING EVER - and it had nothing to do with my degrees."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
hfns6
|
Why do we genetically engineer E. Coli instead of other bacteria?
|
Is it just easier to grow and modify compared to other bacterium?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hfns6/why_do_we_genetically_engineer_e_coli_instead_of/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c1v2ko3",
"c1v49jd",
"c1wa515"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I don't have too much experience with biochemical techniques, but E. coli is pretty easy to grow (the protocol I learned required about 10 hrs of growth), and therefore a good host to do your protein expression. However, I do know other labs who used insect cells, which are even more hardy, but they take longer (multiple days).",
"E.coli is widely used because it is well known and easy to grow, as others already pointed out. But it is not alone. There are A LOT of other bacteria equally easy to work with and both Bacillus subtilis and Lactococcus lactis are fairly common model systems.\n\nNow, one reason why people tend to stick to E.coli is partly out of tradition and the knowledge that has brought us about it. There is a sequenced genome of more than one strain available which makes working with it much easier. A huge number of established protocols exist so you don't have to put time and effort into figuring out every step of your experiments. As jhawk1729 pointed out there are several modified strains suited for different purposes (assays, protein production...) as well. Yet another point is that results done in the same model system can more easily be compared with each other, basically, the less varying features the better.",
"1. Super easy and inexpensive to culture.\n2. Very fast growing.\n3. Because of 1 and 2, all the tools were developed first in *E. coli*.\n\nThe tools don't always transfer to other organisms. For example, if you want high/medium/low expression, you might make a plasmid and choose different 'origins of replication' on that plasmid, which only work in *E. coli*. Then, if you want inducible expression, you'd use the Lac operon, which is recognized by the *E. coli* Lac repressor. Or they use T7 promoters to transcribe the gene, which you can only get in *E. coli* T7/DE3 lysogens. Or the use of selectable antibiotic resistance markers that are specific for gram-negative bacteria (like AmpR). You couldn't just put these things in Gram-positive mycobacteria.\n\nIf you wanted to work in other bacteria, you could certainly do that, but you'd have to develop all the tools from scratch. *E. coli* is used mostly because all these tools have been developed through the years."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
6dfcsu
|
how is it that i'm occasionally able to hear sounds miles off in the distance (e.g. trains, motorways) as if they were up close?
|
I live about three or four miles away from a railway line. I very seldom hear anything, but very occasionally (and usually in the morning) I'll hear a heavy freight train clacking down the tracks as if it's right outside my window. What causes this?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6dfcsu/eli5_how_is_it_that_im_occasionally_able_to_hear/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di29ldc"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The time of day is relevant. \n\nSound is a pressure wave, think of it like a ripple in a lake. The source of the sound is the rock being thrown into the lake, and the ripples are the sound waves. They spread outward and get weaker the further out they go. \n\nThe air during the day has a fair bit of movement in it. Mostly wind, which is driven by the heat from the Sun, hot air coming up from the ground, again from the Sun, animals, birds, etc etc. \n\nAt night, once the air cools, it becomes a lot more still, because those constant air movements being driven by the heat from the sun aren't there. \n\nThis is why if you go outside at one in the morning, generally outside seems a lot quieter, and the smallest sound seems very loud.\n\nThe early morning, before the sun properly rises is the coldest time of night normally, so everything will be the most still it's going to get. Once the Sun comes up and starts pumping heat into things, the air will get moving again. \n\nBack to the thought on the lake. If you imagine a mirror smooth lake, and someone wayy out throws a rock into the water. You'll be able to see the ripples go out for a really long way, right up until they have no power left in them almost. \n\nContrast that to a lake that has boats going back and forth, the wind going across it creating small surface ripples and waves, and so on. That rock will barely make a dent in it. \n\nThis is the same thing. At night, still air, sound carries a *lot* further than during the day, when the air has a lot more turbulence in it. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
3trl8g
|
why do people fight to prohibit publicly funded research into gun violence*, despite funding research into tobacco, food safety, etc? (see comments)
|
If the NRA is right that guns don't kill people, but people kill people, then why did they lobby against proving them right? (*My understanding is that the stipulation in the Dickey Amendment was added by the NRA lobby, and that yes, technically you can research it, but you cannot take action on that research... so there has been none... am I mislead, or is this actually true?)
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3trl8g/eli5_why_do_people_fight_to_prohibit_publicly/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cx8ly2b",
"cx8pplw"
],
"score": [
16,
3
],
"text": [
"The problem is that the Executive branch and Justice Department wanted the Centers for Disease Control to try to make a criminal justice issue a health issue.\n\nThe FBI already maintains and provides extensive data about gun violence ages, races, genders, circumstances and weapons used, which is publicly available.\n\nThe reason the research has been blocked is because the CDC doesn't have anything to contribute to the issue which won't be used as a political tool. Their job isn't to empower political agendas, but to try and understand diseases and afflictions.",
"Because it doesn't belong in the lens of epidemiology. Guns are not a pathogen. The mission of the CDC is the study of disease. Treating crime involving firearms as if it were a public health issue is fundamentally deceptive."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
bvkw4z
|
Why is the Florida Coast Darkened?
|
Hi, native Floridian here and new to this page.
I was on Google Maps earlier and noticed that the gulf coast between Eastpoint and Homosasa is all blacked-out or much darker than the rest of the coastline. Is this from environmental disaster, deep water, or something else? It just seems so odd that just this one section is wildly darker than the rest.
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/bvkw4z/why_is_the_florida_coast_darkened/
|
{
"a_id": [
"epqptji"
],
"score": [
16
],
"text": [
"Don't trust google maps for things like this. Their images are taken from satellites, but its a massive mosaic stitched together from thousands of individual images, taken at different times, all in the hopes of capturing cloudless days.\n\nIts likely that area looks different simply because the lighting conditions were a bit different when that particular image was taken compared to the surrounding area."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
6dm98g
|
Is there a significant correlation between general body size and anus size?
|
I know that some body features are correlated with others to some amount (eg foot size and height).
I was wondering if any research into correlations with the anus has been done.
Perhaps a more concrete question would be "Would it be possible to make a prediction of body type (height, weight, gender) based on the radius of fecal matter?"
|
askscience
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/6dm98g/is_there_a_significant_correlation_between/
|
{
"a_id": [
"di57pj9"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Didn't think I'd be answering something like that today.\nFor the title question, I don't think there is no.\nAnd for the prediction question - almost definitely not.\n\nThe anus is made of soft tissue, which doesn't always scale with size. Of course, small people will have a smaller liver because there's less room, but I doubt that's the case with ani.\n\nSame goes for the penis/vagina. Most have roughly the same size, regardless of body size, wouldn't be very practical otherwise.\n\nAnother factor would probably be that the canalis analis is made up of musculature - so the size of the hole varies all the time, even in the same person. When you don't have to defecate, your anus musculature constricts, making the hole 0, otherwise you'd be leaky. When it's time to defecate, it relaxes, widening. I'd imagine everyone widens to about the same size. \n\nAs for studies, these are the only I could find that comes close to touching on the subject. Don't get your hopes up.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n_URL_1_\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThe first one actually states that they found no correlation between BMI, although they make no mention of height, and BMI is an awful measure."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27505121",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1389654",
"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2288793/"
]
] |
|
20v761
|
what is happening under the hood my car that makes it "go" when i press the gas pedal?
|
Sorry if that's confusing. I'm basically looking for a simple explanation of how an automobile works. How does putting gas in the gas tank, turning the ignition and pressing the accelerate pedal make the car actually "go" forward, in an explanation for someone who knows nothing about cars?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/20v761/eli5_what_is_happening_under_the_hood_my_car_that/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cg71o0b",
"cg72n64"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Basically controlled explosions. Each car had a certain amount of cylinders ( v6 v8 4 banger etc) that's what people mean when they say that. In each cylinder their is a piston connected to a shaft (crank shaft). Fuel and air are mixed into the cylinder and ignited by a spark plug. The explosion forces the piston downwards and turns the shaft. The shaft is connected to the Transmission which is connect to the wheels. Now this happens thousands of times in a few seconds. There is more too it but that is the basics...",
"The acceleration pedal opens air vents to allow more air to come into the engine. The computer calculates the air flow rate and injects the right amount of fuel vapor for the optimum fuel-air ratio. This then goes into the cylinders where it is compressed and ignited. The explosion pushes against the postion which spins the crankshaft. This is where the transmission takes over to put power to the wheels. "
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
audphf
|
how do astronomers calculate distance through redshift?
|
So Hubbles Law. I get that observing light from distant stars seen though a spectroscopy can detect a redshift (or blueshift) to indicate if an object is moving towards or away from us. What I cant seem to wrap my head around is how an astronomer can say “the redshift indicates the star is X lightyears away”. What calculations are used and how can we be sure they are accurate?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/audphf/eli5_how_do_astronomers_calculate_distance/
|
{
"a_id": [
"eh7h5q3",
"eh7hzlk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Redshift does not directly indicate the distance but only the relative velocity. Basically, you can calculate what light a star should be sending, based on its mass and you know what you received. The difference in the wavelength is, what the object traveled during the frequency relative to you.\n\nI believe you can model the position using an universe-expansion simulation, but I'm no expert so I wouldn't bet on it.",
"It works on the assumption that the entire universe is expanding evenly. This means that the further an object is from you, the faster it's moving away. And proportionally so.\n\nAll you need to do is look at the spectrum of light coming from a distant object, determine how far the colors are shifted towards the red, and this tells you how fast the object is moving away. This is a pretty exact science.\n\nAfter that, if you assume that speed moving away from you is proportional to distance, you can get the distance from that."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
3ut5ke
|
how did whaling work in the age of sail? why couldn't the whales easily escape?
|
It seems like the whalers could only see where the whale is if it was close to the surface. Whales are pretty smart - why couldn't they just dive and swim in a random direction?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ut5ke/eli5_how_did_whaling_work_in_the_age_of_sail_why/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cxhllur",
"cxhrkkz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"Whales were much more numerous, for starters. Spotting a whale wasn't a rare occurrence. They traveled in great huge pods and were unafraid of men, so it was easier to harpoon one than you might imagine. Later, whaling ships worked together and trapped whales in harbors.",
"Well the short of it is that boats are hard to sink, if undamaged and displace enough water. If you harpoon a whale, get it bleeding and your ropes, anchoring, and buoyancy devices are strong and purpose built for whaling, then the whale is unable to break free or drive.\n\nThe Whale will attempt dive, escape and begin swimming erratically. When it surfaces for air it is attacked with spears and harpoons, increasing the bleeding. Eventually the whale will become weak from exertion and excessive blood loss, and succumb to its wounds. A big part of why it worked so well was shooting the whale with harpoons attached to buoy's. Using buoyancy to your advantage was huge, it prevented the whale from diving despite the great lengths it went to. \n\nAll and all it was a very messy, painful and cruel way to kill a creature, particularly such an intelligent one. But whale oil and fat was absurdly valuable, and can you think of another way to kill them reliably?"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
1kx7ws
|
What were an antebellum Southern slaveholder's most costly investments in his slave "stock?" What kind of agricultural realities made this investment viable?
|
I've been thinking about slavery as an economic system, and how slaves were often considered pretty large investments for a farmer/ plantation owner. So what made up the bulk of this price? Upfront costs? Shelter? Food? I know some slaves kept their own gardens on what little time they had, but I don't remember where I learned that. Also, what were planting cycles like (for cotton in particular, but any slave-cultivated crops interest me as well) that made such huge amounts of labor required year-round as to make owning one's labor a viable choice? It's my first time here, so I'm sorry for any vagaries. Thanks!
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kx7ws/what_were_an_antebellum_southern_slaveholders/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbttb61",
"cbtynwl"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Slaves were a large investment. The average price of a prime male field hand 20 years old in the decade 1840-1850 was $950 (in 1850 $). (Source: Alfred H. Conrad, John R. Meyer, “The Economics of Slavery in the Ante Bellum South”, The Journal of Political Economy, Volume 66 Issue 2 (April 1958)) Female slaves about $100 less.\n\nThat's something like $175,000 - $200,000 in today’s money. (My estimate, based on estimates from Samuel H. Williamson and Louis P. Cain, “Measuring Slavery in 2011”, _URL_0_ )\n\nThe price of slaves was much higher than the price of land. The price of farmland ranged from $6/acre for poor upland pine lands to $ 37/ acre for cleared Mississippi alluvium.\n\nYou could buy 25 prime acres or 1 prime field hand for the same money. \n\nCotton plantations seemed to have had 1 field hand for every 15 to 35 acres. The average cotton plantation, however was not entirely prime bottom land. Given that most land was not prime bottom land Conrad and Meyer estimate that $180 -$600 was invested in land for every field hand. Average estimated at $450 per hand. \n \nInvestment in tools and livestock was less than $100 per hand. So, the average plantation had $550 invested in land livestock and tools for every $900 invested in slaves. \n\n(Note: This is rough, real economics are more complicated. There were two different plantation systems actually working in parallel, the South Western System, where slaves raised cotton, and the South Eastern system where slaves raised other crops, but economically importantly raised slaves, the surplus of which went to the South West to raise cotton.)\n\nThe cost of maintaining a prime field hand is estimated at $21/year. Cotton yield averaged about 4 bales per prime field hand per year. A bale of cotton weighs about 500 lbs, and the average price of cotton to the plantation averaged about 7-8 cents a pound. So, the output of one field hand was worth about $150/ year, minus costs of $ 21/ year gives net of $129/year as a return on invested capital of $1450.\n\nConrad and Meyer calculate (going into more detail than my simplification) that this system was profitable, giving plantation owners a return of about 8% per year, which was comparable to returns on capital available from other investments. \n\nThe overall system, however does seem to rely for some of its returns on expanding plantation acreage so expanding demand for slaves. Not sure if it would have been as economically feasible if expansion stopped (as proposed in Abraham Lincolns election platform).\n\nI don’t know enough about the details of cotton farming to know why a full time workforce was necessary. Perhaps others can expand.\n",
"I thought it might be interesting to compare slave economics to free market economics in 1850. \n\nHere are some wages from the North (where there was no competition from slaves) at the time. A farm laborer in the Midwest was paid $15/month, or $180/year in 1850 (Source: Trends in the American Economy in the Nineteenth Century, The Conference on Research in Income and Wealth, Volume Publisher: Princeton University Press, 1960)\n\nWomen textile workers in Massachusetts average wage was 44 cents a day, or $137/year @ 6 days /week. So, to compare to slave labor, we should deduct the $21/year it cost to maintain a slave, indicating that if plantation owners had had to pay wages to free labor at the same rates as in the North, they would have had to pay $116 to $159 per year. \n\nIf we take the $159, paying this to produce $ 150 /year worth of cotton would not have been profitable. If they had been able to attract workers at $137/year, (equivalent to $116 after deducting costs of keeping a slave, The planter would have made $34 per worker / year, but, of course, his capital employed would have been less at only $450 / worker. \n\nIt appears that the planter’s returns would not have been as high with free labor as with slave labor, still it is surprising how close the comparison is once you take account of not having to pay $900 per slave.\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.measuringworth.com/slavery.php"
],
[]
] |
|
10p8cm
|
why is dog "man's best friend?"
|
My dog means the world to me and every dog-owner I know feels the same way. Even people without dogs love to pet and play with them. What is it about dogs that makes us as humans so compatible with them?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/10p8cm/eli5_why_is_dog_mans_best_friend/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c6ffl6u"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Dogs were really the first animal that man domesticated. Before cattle and other animals for food and work, we domesticated the wolf to be hunting partners! Since we've been selecting which wolves we like best for their depositions for such an extended period of time (maybe 80,000 years? (check)) they are by far more loyal and helpful than most other animals we have domesticated :) hope this helps!"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
|
16kfp9
|
How does the current pollution levels in Beijing compare to the height of pollution in London during the Industrial Revolution?
|
In reference to [this article](_URL_0_) currently on the front page.
|
AskHistorians
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16kfp9/how_does_the_current_pollution_levels_in_beijing/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c7wyrrx",
"c7x1335",
"c7x3th9",
"c7x647i",
"c7x7xq1"
],
"score": [
8,
23,
7,
36,
14
],
"text": [
"I can't find any actual numbers on pollution in London during the 1800s. I don't think that we took measurements at that point. The current levels in Beijing, however, are much higher than the US considers safe. Reports put carbon dioxide in the atmosphere in Beijing between 400 and 800 ppm, which is a major health hazard. Cities during the Industrial Revolution in western Europe were certainly unhealthy places to be, and London is famous for being covered in smog, but I don't think that it was quite as high as the levels we're talking about in Beijing right now. ",
"What is making the Great Smog of London in 1952 so similar to what is happening in northern China is the unusual extended cold air inversion, that is traping the pollution at low levels. The wind has stoped blowing too, leading to an extended period of calm weather that is not blowing the pollution away. London and Beijing are both located in flat terrain, and these extended periods of calm weather seldom happen. \n\nPittsburgh PA is located in three steep and narrow river valleys, with a dense concentration of iron and steel factories. Cold air inversions were a common occurance, and they trapped the pollution in the valleys. ",
"The current index used to measure Smog in the United States ranges from 0 - 500. Zero would be an unaffected meadow somewhere in an idealized pristine mountain forest. 500 is considered to be about where London was during the peak of Industrialization. New York City, for comparison, is around ~40 - 60. China, today, ranked 750 on the scale. Meaning that the smog and pollution (to some degree expounded by natural weather effects) is several degrees worse than what a worker would've experienced in the London \"Pea Soup\" with exacerbated symptoms of exhaustion, irritation, inflammation, and other substantive health issues.",
"I think it's interesting that this thread has diverged from the OP's question about industrial revolution London to 1950s London, and for good reason -- it's a good example of how sources that are better in one area might cause us to change our approach to answering a question to focus on the more documented era.\n\nThe specific problem is one of comparison -- it's difficult for us to make a direct comparison between IR London and 2013 Beijing because of measurement; there is simply very little scientific measurement of pollution in the 18th and 19th century. That's not to say that there is NO measurement, but that it's spotty and rare and largely incommensurable with present-day measurements. Really, beyond temperature and weather, our quantification of the air is only a half-century old, and the indices that we use to compare air quality between regions and times is younger than that.\n\nBut, that is not to say that we can't DESCRIBE London's air in the Industrial Revolution. What you're going to want is Chapter 4 through 6 of Peter Brimblecombe's *The Big Smoke*, recently reissued! \n\n_URL_1_\n\nHe writes at the beginning of chapter 4, \"The high level of air pollutants in the atmosphere of London began to alter the lives of its inhabitants in quite subtle ways . . .walking in the streets of London in the early 18th century was not a pleasurable experience. One stood a good chance of being doused in a soot-laden shower of rain or engulfed by an obnoxious mist. In addition to this inconvenient aspect of the urban atmosphere, the streets were dirty with the sootfall.\"\n\nThis demonstrates that we can certainly get a narrative description of industrial London to compare, along with other ways to make inductive descriptions of air quality -- estimating tonnes of coal burned with certain sulfur levels.\n\nBrimblecombe is not only a historian, he's actually an accomplished scientist and air pollution engineer. His history is based on some really clever analyses, like this, an estimate of sulfur content for London air from 1500-1900:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nI know that people have tried to make contemporary comparisons with his findings from that study, but every time I try to read them my head breaks as the science is beyond me.\n\nWell, this is rather a long post already, I'll leave things here but check back if I think of anything else.",
"/u/stupidnickname finally found an article that actually gives estimates of air pollution in Victorian London. He said\n\n > Brimblecombe is not only a historian, he's actually an accomplished scientist and air pollution engineer. His history is based on some really clever analyses, like this, an estimate of sulfur content for London air from 1500-1900:\n\n > _URL_3_\n\n > I know that people have tried to make contemporary comparisons with his findings from that study, but every time I try to read them my head breaks as the science is beyond me.\n\nActually, this isn't so bad, mathwise. You can kind of figure it out just by looking at the charts and tables. Table 1 is the the multiplier effect of living in an urban area. Let's focus on particulates and SO2 (sulfur dioxide), because I know we have contemporary data for those in roughly contemporary Beijing. He just says that SO2 is about 5 to 40 times more prevalent in urban areas than rural areas, and particulate concentration is about 10 times higher. Table 2 estimates winter SO2 levels in Epping Forest, a rural area, in terms of SO2 micrograms per cubic meter of air. This would give us a very, very rough estimate of the air quality in London, but we don't know the correct multiplier. Fig. 1 and 2 just show that fogs and thunderstorms (two meteorological events associated with air pollution) go up 1700-1900, especially in the period 1850-1900. Fig 3 is London coal imports, this is important data because he's later going to use the data to estimate sulfur released into the air burning this coal (he knows the rough sulfur contents of coal from different periods). Fig 4. just shows how fast London is growing. The diameter of the city's built up area is about 4km in 1600, and about 40km in 1900. The city grew a lot. \n\nFigure 5. is the important one. Here's an [imgur link](_URL_2_) for those who don't have access to the paper. As we has been said on a lot of other comments on this thread, measurement was a problem because no one had a way to measure concentrations of SO2 before the 1950's. This guy is smart, he knows how much coal there is brought into London (fig 3) and how much sulfur is in the coal at periods (pg 1160). Knowing how long it stays in the air after burning, etc., he can estimate, on average, how much sulfur dioxide is in the atmosphere around London. Notice on the chart that SO2 peaks around 1900. Just eyeballing the chart, let's say the mean (average) for 1800-1900 is between 150-200 μg/m^3 (if that \"μg/m^3\" looks scary to anyone, don't worry about this, just think of it as \"units\"). He says on page 1162 that modern industrial cities want a mean of less than 80 μg/m^3. Victorian London is more than double that.\n\nOne interesting thing he notes is that it's not really burning less coal that makes a difference, but spreading it out more is what improved air quality (that's why London's diameter [fig 4] was important).\n\nAnyway, in [another comment](_URL_0_), I stated that in 1989 Beijing had 102 μg/m^3 and in 1995 it had 119 μg/m^3 that I found in other scientific articles. [This webpage](_URL_4_) indicates that the *goal* was a daily mean of 125 μg/m^3 for the 2008 Olympics, and everyone says that Beijing was especially clean around the Olympics. So let's extrapolate that and say between 1980-present Beijing has averages between 100-150 μg SO2/m^3 of air. I would be surprised if the last five years or so somehow averaged above 150 if it averaged 119 in 1995 and the goal for 2008 was officially 125. Let's say they missed their goal by a lot and, and estimate that SO2 was 135 μg/m^3 in 2008, and have really said \"fuck it\" since then and pollution has increased at roughly the same rate it increased at in the early 90's. A linear estimate of the six-year increase would be 119-102=17. 135+17=152. Let's say the weather conditions this year have been particularly bad and just throw in an extra 5. 157. That's, give or take, my very, very rough high estimate for the average (again average not peak) SO2 level this year. Remember, that the decade averages between 1800-1900 London are *consistently* between 150-200 μg/m^3. Lots of asterisks: London's numbers are based on an estimate found using a model of that rlies on consumption; they're not an observed numbers. I had to estimate more recent numbers for Beijing, but I think I erred on the side of overestimating rather than underestimating pollution. \n\nHowever, the tl;dr of it all is that I would estimate **Over the past few years, Beijing probably has, *on average*, BETTER air quality (in terms of sulfur dioxide) than London did between 1800-1900. The average for this year, if it's particularly high, will probably be a mild to normal year in Victorian London.** Moving from averages to extremes, this is a bad spell Beijing is going through right now, yes, but in London the great smog of 1952 discussed in other comments was not an isolated case. [Table 1, on page 6 of this paper](_URL_1_) lists **five** major smogs of London between 1873-1892, which are probably roughly comparable to what's happening in Beijing right now. **Victorian London had very bad air pollution, probably worse than or at least equal to Beijing's**.\n\nEdit: Gosh I hope someone sees this."
]
}
|
[] |
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/worldnews/comments/16k539/in_chinas_capital_theyre_calling_it_the/"
] |
[
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698177900919",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=bTKGdPwzYCwC"
],
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/16kfp9/how_does_the_current_pollution_levels_in_beijing/c7wzxk3",
"http://cgirs.ucsc.edu/conferences/smokeandmirrors/p%5D%5Boyt453fnv87tcm/kjvre097%5D%5B.hcf%3Bl/papers/brimblecombe_paper.pdf",
"http://imgur.com/kJNcH",
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0004698177900919",
"http://www.significancemagazine.org/details/webexclusive/2099439/Beijing-and-London-air-quality-and-the-Olympics.html"
]
] |
|
3d5zh7
|
What is the coldest temperature you can drink something without harm?
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3d5zh7/what_is_the_coldest_temperature_you_can_drink/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ct28fbx"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"It depends what you are drinking. Honestly, most substances that would stay liquid at temperatures below -30C are probably going to be dangerous to consume at any temperature. There have been specious cases of people who have died drinking super-cooled beer that was liquid at time of drinking and then froze shortly after consumption while it was still in their esophagus."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
||
2o9hg5
|
why do i love sleeping so damn much?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2o9hg5/eli5_why_do_i_love_sleeping_so_damn_much/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cmkzqn4",
"cml0soz"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"It's possible that you're not sleeping enough, or that you're experiencing low-quality sleep.\n\nNormal stages of sleep: _URL_0_\n\nIf any of these stages are interrupted in any way, you may wake up feeling listless or physically fatigued. In the worst case, you may wake up completely (but temporarily) disoriented and unable to reason or negotiate your surroundings.",
"You probably love eating too, or anything you have to do to survive. Its an evolutionary trait that keeps you doing things that are in your own self interest. We know that after ~10-20 days without sleep, you will actually die, but we still don't have the greatest understanding of why we actually need it. As long as your body says, \"hey bro, I'm gonna make you tired cuz its sleepy time so we don't die,\" and you say \"fuck yeah bro, I love sleep,\" then I think you are doing it right."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://www.webmd.com/sleep-disorders/guide/sleep-101"
],
[]
] |
||
6oha7a
|
why do some english professions have variations for both genders such as "actor/actress" but most don't?
|
Actor/Actress; Steward/Stewardess
Doctor; Nurse; Teacher; Driver; etc.
I tried looking up origins for doctor and actor but both come from latin.
Does it have to do something with the fact that females weren't, for instance, doctors in past?
|
explainlikeimfive
|
https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6oha7a/eli5_why_do_some_english_professions_have/
|
{
"a_id": [
"dkhc1ma",
"dkhfhft",
"dkhsmx0"
],
"score": [
2,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"A lot of it depends on when it opened up to allow women (or men) to work the job. But this is not a hard set rule as there are few hard set rules in language. \n\nActing opened up to women in the 1600s. Women were not allowed to commonly be doctors till the late 1800s or early 1900s though you did have a few earlier than that who were actually referred to as Doctresses depending on who was talking about them. \n\nNursing is the opposite of Doctors. Men were generally not allowed to be nurses till the late 1800s and there is still a negative attitude toward it even into modernity. \n\nFor Stewards and Stewardesses you have an odd mix of things. They are an invention of the modern era as they work on airplanes, but they are modeled after the servers who attended Nobles/Aristocrats in Europe during important meals and banquets. These relatively high status servers were in use well into 1600s if not earlier so had the gender distinctions. These kinds of Stewards mostly fell out of use by WWII as the world wars destroyed much of Europe's traditional society structures. The remnant is standard society is the low class variant of a server at an inn and later a restaurant which we call Waiter and Waitress. But Airlines wanting to seem higher class when they started went with the higher class servant name structure. ",
"The \"-ess\" in \"actress\" and \"stewardess\" comes from French, as does the related \"-ette\" (as in \"usherette\"), while \"-trix\" (as in \"executrix\") comes from Latin -- although that one has mostly fallen out of use except in \"dominatrix\".\n\nMostly, it was words of French or Latin origin that had these endings for the feminine version, but this practice is now falling out of favour in our more egalitarian times. There used to be far more of them: [\"doctoress\" was listed in the 1913 edition of Webster's Dictionary](_URL_0_), for example.\n\nWords of Germanic origin tended not to have feminine version: the \"-er\" ending was simply added to an activity or a thing to denote a person who did that activity or made that thing, whether male or female.\n\n\"Stewardess\" is an exception. The word \"steward\" is Germanic, and is about 1,000 years old. The word \"stewardess\" isn't recorded until the 17th century: for some reason, it was felt necessary to stick a French ending onto a Germanic word, creating something of a Frankenstein's monster. This actually happened quite a lot, but the practice died out and many of the \"Frankenstein's monster\" creations disappeared, although some survive.",
"Just thought I'd point out that \"actress\" is falling into disuse more and more. Both male and female actors are often called the single noun these days."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[
"http://www.websters1913.com/words/Doctoress"
],
[]
] |
|
1krztv
|
lebanon and hezbollah? pakistan and taliban? how these political situations work and how they came to be like this? (other examples?)
|
Hi there,
my deepest apologies if this indeed turned out to be a repost, I looked through the search bar for ELI5 explanations to both of these situations however I could not find answers to either of them.
So basically I am curious as to how the Lebanese and Pakistani governments are able to co-exist with groups such as Hezbollah and the Taliban living in the country amongst them. Is this what would be considered a power-sharing agreement? I understand that Lebanon underwent a civil war in the 1980s however I was born in 1991 so my idea of middle east policy is biased towards 9/11 and the war on terror. I have done lots of research into the conflicts of the 60s 70s and 80s but have never managed to figure out how both of these supposed militant groups came to be so prominent in these two countries?
Thanks for the help in answering my questions and if this was indeed a repost, a link to either one the explanations would be great!
Sincerely,
A curious American.
Cheers!
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1krztv/eli5_lebanon_and_hezbollah_pakistan_and_taliban/
|
{
"a_id": [
"cbs0uas",
"cbs45bc"
],
"score": [
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Lets start off with Lebanon, because I *know* how that works.\n\nHezbollah is a political party in Lebanon. Lebanon has a parliamentary system that isn't like the American one. They literally do share some portion of the power in the country - but in a \"power sharing\" sort of way that you would think about between State-and-Federal, but in a power sharing sort of way the same way that Republicans and Democrats do (it's a bit more nuanced than that, because the systems operate differently.. but the gist will hold). Since this ELI5 isn't about how parliamentary systems work I'll refer you [here](_URL_1_) (to wikipedia) for a general overview and [here](_URL_0_) (again, to wikipedia) for an overview of Lebanon's Parliament specifically.\n\nTo get into a bit of Hezbollah's history - they're pretty much an extension of Iranian will. They're largely funded by Iran, especially for their paramilitary branch (whose training comes directly from the Revolutionary Guard originally, and may still).\n\nWell, I forgot about that, sorry. They're more than *just* a political party. They also have a paramilitary branch. This is the branch typically called the \"terrorists.\" Hezbollah itself started off as a group of adherents to Ayatollah Khomeini (yes I had to look up how to spell that), trained by the Revolutionary Guard, in Lebanon, with the permission of the Lebanese government during the Invasion of Lebanon by Israel (which was in response to multiple terrorist attacks, each side naturally disagrees whether those were sufficient justification for invading a sovereign nation). \n\nAfter this, they grew extensively. They went form a minor paramilitary organization to a real organization with some international presence and a lot of national (Lebanese) influence. They are currently participating in the Syrian Civil war and have ~10% of the seats in the Lebanese Parliament. \n\nThere's some dispute whether one of the more violent factions (Islamic Jihad Organization) is a \"Front\" for Hezbollah or a splinter group. The former would mean that Hezbollah actually controls it, the latter would mean that they're a group who split and while originally part of the group is now separate...\n\n\n... Give me a while and we'll talk about Pakistan and the Taliban - their situation is *far* different, and I've got some things to do at the moment. ",
"Lets go one by one...\n\nLebanon and Hezbollah, \n\nIn the from 1979 there was a civil war in lebanon between Maronite Christian, Sunni and Shiite factions, The thing is that the PLO which was also fighting a war of attrition against Israel had its HQ in Lebanon at the time, Israel saw the political tension in Lebanon and the looming civil war and sported the Maronite Christian Lebanese front and the Sunni SLA, Israel thought that if they won they could turn Lebanon in to an ally against Syria, Israel got heavily involved and in 1985 with the support of Iran some Shiite groups with economical, logistical and technical support from Iran established Hezbollah to fight against the SLA and Israel advances in Lebanese territory, Israel managed to complete 1 of its 2 goals, the PLO was forced out of Lebanon and was forced to relocate to Tunisia meaning it no longer had direct access or a direct land border with Israel for direct assaults and attacks,\n\nWhen the civil war in Lebanon ended and there was a UN observation force to maintain political stability, all foreign powers were to leave Lebanon and all paramilitary groups were to disarm, Only 3 parties violated this accord, Israel by keeping a buffer zone in south Lebanon, Hezbollah which claimed it needed its weapons to expel Israel from that buffer zone and the SLA which was the main military power in that buffer zone backed by Israel. \n\nThe thing is that under Heud Barak in 2000 Israel retreated from Lebanon, This lead to the SLA being disbanded, Some people thought that This would allow Hezbollah to put down its arms and integrate in to the Lebanese political system, but they didnt, The major controlling current on Hezbollah is Iranian, And Iran uses them to apply military and political pressure on Israel, Unfil cant do anything against them because they are a peace keeping force, and Hezbollah has put the emphasis on Liberating \"Palestine\" and the Sheba farms area which is actually Syrian. \n\nMost of the Lebanese hate Hezbollah because they see them as a Iranian pupped that fucked the now quasi stable Lebanon, But they have a strong following among the Shiite community and the poor because they also provide social services in many poor Muslim communities, they are also seen as one of the few military organizations that managed to stand up to Israel and win (if you call that winning...)\n\nPakistan and the Taliban is another story... \n\nBetween Pakistan and Afghanistan there is a area which is mostly ruled tribal leaders, The civil administration there is fairly weak while civil militias are quite strong. \n\nNow we have to go back to 1980´s and the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan, Since the US could not directly involve itself in a direct confrontation against the Soviet union because it might end up with nuclear weapon deployment, and that's bad for everyone. \n\nSo the CIA started a program where they would grab this religious civil militias, give them money and weapons and help them declare a Islamic Jihad (Muslim holy war) against the Soviet troops in Afghanistan, Long story short they turned a few religious hicks with rifles in to a organized resistance army, When they managed to kick the Soviet union out Afghanistan they were \"holy shit... we just beat a superpower\".\n\nThey were divided in to 2 main groups, The Taliban (means \"the students\") which stayed in Afghanistan and fought to bring strict Islamic law to all its territory and the Mujahedin (the warriors) which was basically an Islamic traveling cir... army to fight for islamic causes around the world, this would later develop in to Al Queda when the Saudi and Kuwaiti Royal families reject their offer to fight against Saddam Hussein during the first gulf war in favor of accepting help from the American \"christian crusaders\" which in their opinion did not respect Islam and should not be on Saudi soil. \n\nTL;DR : both are complex topics which are hard to explain but I´ll try to shorten it.\n\nHezbollah : Iranian backed Shiite militia which originated in the Lebanese civil war to counter the Israeli intervention in favor of the Sunni and Christian forces, Remained active as a Iranian proxy against Israel. \n\nTaliban : A bunch of Tribal hard line Islamic hicks empowered by the US logistical intervention in building up the Afghan resistance to Soviet military forces in the 1980´s, Remains active in their insistence to impose strict Islamic rule in Afghanistan and fight external pressure. \n\n"
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliament_of_Lebanon",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parliamentary_system"
],
[]
] |
|
lpxdi
|
body temperature
|
I was thinking, why do we need and have a body temperature? And why is it subject to just being 98.6? Why couldn't we have something higher or lower? This just popped into my head one day and I couldn't help but wonder about it.
|
explainlikeimfive
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lpxdi/eli5_body_temperature/
|
{
"a_id": [
"c2unwub",
"c2unwub"
],
"score": [
5,
5
],
"text": [
"The specific temperature naturally evolved this way.\n\nThe higher the temperature, the faster we can move/the faster we can burn calories to do tasks/the better we can fight infections/the more energy we have.\n\nAt the same time, keeping a higher temperature also requires much more energy present... meaning that we have to eat 3 meals a day just to keep up. This was difficult to do when we were still evolving. We essentially have to eat almost constantly to replenish our energy reserves. When food was hard to come by, this became a problem.\n\nSo, while hotter is usually better, during evolution, those who were too cold were slow and ended up dead. Those who were too hot starved to death because they couldn't find enough food to replenish the calories burned. Those who were just right, around 98.6 degrees, survived to make more babies.\n\ntl;dr, hotter = better performance but more caloric usage. 98.6 is the natural balance for humans.",
"The specific temperature naturally evolved this way.\n\nThe higher the temperature, the faster we can move/the faster we can burn calories to do tasks/the better we can fight infections/the more energy we have.\n\nAt the same time, keeping a higher temperature also requires much more energy present... meaning that we have to eat 3 meals a day just to keep up. This was difficult to do when we were still evolving. We essentially have to eat almost constantly to replenish our energy reserves. When food was hard to come by, this became a problem.\n\nSo, while hotter is usually better, during evolution, those who were too cold were slow and ended up dead. Those who were too hot starved to death because they couldn't find enough food to replenish the calories burned. Those who were just right, around 98.6 degrees, survived to make more babies.\n\ntl;dr, hotter = better performance but more caloric usage. 98.6 is the natural balance for humans."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[],
[]
] |
|
2glwbe
|
Is there a relation between the economic status or education of a person and how strong their accent is?
|
I am talking about native speakers, because foreign people whom had to learn english as second language is more common that their english is accented, but even between them there are many who learn english so well with neutral or very low accent.
I've noticed in most cases the people that have the strongest accents are gang people with low education (sorry if its or sounds discriminatory)
On the other hand, people with neutral or very low accent have more academic background, or higher social status.
I know is not always the case, but certainly is most of the times.
It has to do something with discipline or temper? Since studying requires discipline?
If not the case, what is the reason for some people to have stronger accent than others when they come from the same place?
Thank you!
edit: spelling
|
askscience
|
http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2glwbe/is_there_a_relation_between_the_economic_status/
|
{
"a_id": [
"ckkezjd"
],
"score": [
14
],
"text": [
"What's actually happening isn't that one group has an accent and the other doesn't; it's that both groups have an accent, but one of those is elevated as a \"normal\" dialect.\n\nSocial separation/isolation leads to linguistic separation. For your primary language, you acquire your language by imitating the speech of others. If two groups of people start off speaking the same language, but don't associate with each other very much, their dialects will tend to diverge over time because they don't get \"anchored\" to each other by repeated contact. In a vacuum, these are all just co-equal dialects, nothing to mark one as \"no accent\" and the other as \"accent.\"\n\nLike it or not, the United States tends to striate itself by racial and economic boundaries. As a result, these economic groups develop different dialects. And because white people with money are the primary consumers and producers of media, news, and entertainment (and the primary target of advertising), the dialect of white people with money becomes the \"standard\" or \"default\" dialect. \n\ntl;dr it's not that educated people don't have an accent, it's that their accent is accepted as normal.\n\nFor your questions about discipline or temper, consider this: Do people who talk like a white person with money have to put in effort to talk that way? I speak that way by default, and I sure as shit didn't. It's how my parents spoke, so it's how I spoke. There's a few points of fine grammar I had to teach myself consciously, but 95% of talking like a white person is because my parents and schoolmates' parents talked like white people because they were white. Some people with different dialectal backgrounds do have to study in order to speak this way, and that takes self-discipline, but some of us acquire it by our surroundings.\n\nBonus Round: Code-switching. People who 'cross boundaries' and deal with multiple dialectal groups when growing up will become fluent in both dialects. This is actually pretty dang close to being bilingual. These people tend to switch back and forth between 'high' and 'low' accents, often times without conscious thought, depending on who they're talking to."
]
}
|
[] |
[] |
[
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.