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
sequence | selftext_urls
sequence | answers_urls
sequence |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
26hfxz | Why do satellites' orbits degrade? | I was thinking about this and couldn't come up with an answer. I thought possibly dust and debris in space would provide resistance that would slow the satellite.
Alternatively do they degrade at the same rate as planetary orbits do, but their smaller period makes the degradation faster? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/26hfxz/why_do_satellites_orbits_degrade/ | {
"a_id": [
"chr4cmx",
"chr5984"
],
"score": [
7,
6
],
"text": [
"Atmospheric drag is the prime cause of orbital decay for satellites that orbit (comparatively) close to the Earth. The atmosphere does not stop abruptly at the edge of space; it tapers off gradually. There is still enough atmosphere at low orbital altitudes to gradually slow orbiting satellites through drag.\n",
"The thin edges of the atmosphere is the most obvious cause.\n\nBut orbits can still decay without an atmosphere due to the gravity of the planet or moon being heterogeneous, aka, uneven mass distributions. In other words some geology you fly over may be more dense and gravitationally attractive than other parts. This is surprisingly strong in certain situations, which NASA learned the hard way. Apollo 16 sent a satellite around the moon that was supposed to last 1.5 years but crashed after 35 days due to this."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
b8q39l | Were crowns ever altered? | Whenever monarchs wore crowns of rare metals and such, were the crowns ever redesigned or reshaped to fit the next person who took it up?
If so, were such changes frowned upon for potentially damaging the crown just because the new owner could not cope with the minor discomfort when they're expected to rule over all? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/b8q39l/were_crowns_ever_altered/ | {
"a_id": [
"ejzg5pg"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Hi! I have an answer to an earlier question that I think will help you out:\n\n* [What happened if the crown didn't fit?](_URL_0_)\n\nHere's the most relevant bit:\n\n[Some kingdoms did have crowns passed down from monarch to monarch, but rarely with importance attached to individual material crowns.] Crown-wearing was an activity limited to very specific occasions--coronation, wedding, major feast days, knighting ceremonies for the most important young noblemen...or Frederick Barbarossa parading into the church in the Jerusalem he'd negotiated from Saladin, donning the crown as King of Jerusalem basically to anger the pope. \n\nAnd yet it was typical of kings and queens to possess a whole host of crowns, some made specifically for them, some inherited from a parent or relative. If one didn't fit, well, there were plenty more whether that came from--Isabella of France received twelve crowns as gifts on her wedding day alone.\n\nThere was nothing specifically \"royal\" about crowns like these, except when they were in the possession of the monarch. Blanche of Navarre, queen to Philip VI of France very very briefly in the 14th century (he died fast), willed eight crowns to her goddaughters--including one that, her will notes, she lent out to female friends to wear at their own weddings.\n\nAnd, interestingly, there was nothing particularly gendered about individual crowns, either. Philip willed all of his crowns except for one to Blanche; the one he reserved for his son had sentimental value, since Philip had worn it to John's knighting. And Philip's first wife, Jeanne, split her crowns between her son and her daughter.\n\nBut her daughter got all her books."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5yuhxi/what_would_happen_if_the_crown_was_literally_too/det6eb6/"
]
] |
|
l2dir | If the early atmosphere didn't have an ozone layer, how did cyanobacteria survive to produce oxygen? | Tried to fit most of the question in the title. The prevailing theory is (to my knowledge) that cyanobacteria produced most of the oxygen that led to the mass global extinction of organisms that didn't use it, but if there wasn't an ozone layer prior to there being oxygen (and UV light kills things) how did cyanobacteria survive to produce oxygen? It seems like a Catch-22 to me. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/l2dir/if_the_early_atmosphere_didnt_have_an_ozone_layer/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2p8azh",
"c2p8azh"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"UV isn't necessarily completely lethal to cyanaobacteria. Modern day cyanobacteria actually have quite a few defense mechanisms against UV exposure.\n\n[This website lists quite a few mechanisms](_URL_0_)\n\nSome of which are living in communities where even if the top layer is extremely exposed, the layers below will still receive light, but at a much lower UV risk. Another is the production of UV absorbing compounds within the cell. UV will generally slow down the growth of such bacteria, but not necessarily kill them all off.\n\nThis article only talks about UV-B however.\n\nEarly cyanobacteria most likely were most prosperous in jagged geographical areas (such as a rocky shoreline or a canyon) where light would diffuse in, but direct UV exposure would be avoided. Over time as O2 concentrations increased, they were able to propagate in more and more areas successful and multiply quicker. \n\nAlso remember this process took over a billion years. Fossils place the cyanobacteria as being at least 2.8 Billion years old if not more. [The Great Oxygenation](_URL_1_) took more than a billion years to really take off after these creatures came about. It took a mind boggingly long time to develop the oxygen concentrations we see today.",
"UV isn't necessarily completely lethal to cyanaobacteria. Modern day cyanobacteria actually have quite a few defense mechanisms against UV exposure.\n\n[This website lists quite a few mechanisms](_URL_0_)\n\nSome of which are living in communities where even if the top layer is extremely exposed, the layers below will still receive light, but at a much lower UV risk. Another is the production of UV absorbing compounds within the cell. UV will generally slow down the growth of such bacteria, but not necessarily kill them all off.\n\nThis article only talks about UV-B however.\n\nEarly cyanobacteria most likely were most prosperous in jagged geographical areas (such as a rocky shoreline or a canyon) where light would diffuse in, but direct UV exposure would be avoided. Over time as O2 concentrations increased, they were able to propagate in more and more areas successful and multiply quicker. \n\nAlso remember this process took over a billion years. Fossils place the cyanobacteria as being at least 2.8 Billion years old if not more. [The Great Oxygenation](_URL_1_) took more than a billion years to really take off after these creatures came about. It took a mind boggingly long time to develop the oxygen concentrations we see today."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/The_Responses_of_Cyanobacteria_to_UV-B_Irradiation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event"
],
[
"http://microbewiki.kenyon.edu/index.php/The_Responses_of_Cyanobacteria_to_UV-B_Irradiation",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Oxygenation_Event"
]
] |
|
4yb0k3 | Arrows seem to be universal. Is there a time line of who/where invented the bow and arrow first. Or who when? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4yb0k3/arrows_seem_to_be_universal_is_there_a_time_line/ | {
"a_id": [
"d6mmfdo",
"d6mrtqc"
],
"score": [
9,
4
],
"text": [
"This is more of an archaeology question since bows are prehistoric. The oldest bow found is the 'Holmegaard bow' found in a bog in Denmark, dated from 7500BC. This is the earliest proof of a bow, but not the first. It just happened to survive because it was preserved in a bog. Earlier bows would have just rotted away, and the only evidence left behind are stone arrow points which could be from arrows, javelins, darts etc so it starts to become guesswork from there.",
"Hiya, you'll find more info in the FAQ \n\n* FAQ section [Origins and dispersal of bow and arrow technology](_URL_0_) "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/science#wiki_origins_and_dispersal_of_bow_.26amp.3B_arrow_technology"
]
] |
||
z2i22 | how is it that a googlemaps accessed thru a fixed broadband connection (adsl) can find my exact address on a map? | I understand how a 3g network like on a mobile phone can locate me, but I was on google maps on my google nexus tablet (connected via wi-fi) and it found my exact street address? How is this possible unless google has access to my ISP details who have my physical address listed? This also leads to the question, if I have someones ip address, can I find their physical location? This kinda worries me, I always thought fixed services like adsl didnt have their ip address pinned to a physical address. I also have a dynamic ip, not static. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/z2i22/eli5_how_is_it_that_a_googlemaps_accessed_thru_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"c60w4fg",
"c60x99c",
"c60x9sp"
],
"score": [
4,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Your nexus 7 has GPS bro.",
"This is copy/pasted from Google:\n\"Google Maps obtains your location from your web browser, through its Geolocation feature. When you activate the My Location feature, your browser will ask whether you're happy to share your location with Google Maps. If you agree, your browser will attempt to determine your location. This involves analyzing the Wi-Fi access points around you and your computer's IP address, and sending this information to a Google server to then be translated into a location that we can show on the map.\"\n\n\nThe following is how i see it and it might make it either easier to understand, or i might completely screw you over:\n\nThis in terms mean that if you activated the \"My Location\" feature on your browser and someone at some time entered your adresse and set that as \"My Location\" using your wi-fi connection. Then that location is stored by Google and they can use your acceptance of the \"my location\" feature to present you with your exact adress. Due to the data being \"tagged\" by your router, the IP adress doesn't need to be the same everytime.\n\nIf no one has plottet in your exact adress, but you still accept the use of \"My location\" Google can use neighbouring wi-fi signals through which \"Set my location\" has been used to locate your approximate adress. (kinda like when you see mobile-phone \"triangulation\" in movies or investigation TV-shows)\n\nHope that helps..",
"Google collects wifi network location information from people who have both wifi and gps android devices. That way, they know the location of a wifi network for people using devices other than gps. \nThe google street view mapping car used to collect information about wifi networks as it drove. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
3cridi | how did seemingly uneducated individuals such as the wright brothers and john moses browning accomplish such feats of engineering? | Is it related to the time period?
This question applies especially to the wright brothers, since aerospace is such a difficult area of research. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3cridi/eli5_how_did_seemingly_uneducated_individuals/ | {
"a_id": [
"csy9yzs",
"csya3qp"
],
"score": [
12,
11
],
"text": [
"A proper education is just formalizing the process of getting knowledge. Just because they didn't go to school for aerospace engineering doesn't mean they were clueless on the subject matter.\n\nThe levels of details and feats of engineering are completely different between back then and today. Back then they just needed something that can glide and something that gave enough power to keep the craft up without weighing too much. And maybe not kill the pilot. Today aerospace engineering is more concerned about something being able to survive velocities that would tear limbs off human bodies, carry thousands of times more weight, and be able to do so in the most efficient way possible as safely as possible.",
"You have several misconceptions here.\n\nfirst, you are confusing formal education, and learning. Don't. Both had a lifetime of learning, as evidenced by their being successful machinist/engineers and businessmen who took their ideas about bicycles and gear mechanics to design powered but stable and steerable aircraft.\n\n2nd you are confusing what they did with modern aeronautics. By the end of WWI, their ideas about flight had been totally surpassed. Aerospace is not difficult because it is \"air and space dynamics.\" It is difficult because the problems we are trying to solve are much more challenging. Another way to look at it is, the easy stuff has been done. They got in when it was much easier because the question was simpler.\n\nIf, right now, you wanted to answer the same question they did (how to generate an aeronautically stable but still navigable machine) you too could do it with a few years of work and a south knowledge of basic physical and mechanical sciences. Oh, a machine shop, tools, and assistants wouldn't hurt either, but aren't necessary.\n\nI'm not sure what you mean by \"related to the time period.\""
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
6pc6l4 | why is out of school suspension used as a punishment for students when getting out of school for a long period of time is almost generally enjoyed? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6pc6l4/eli5why_is_out_of_school_suspension_used_as_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"dko6o8i",
"dko8ugo",
"dko8wrd",
"dkoaq15",
"dkocv6q",
"dkodpxj",
"dkog79h",
"dkoipsx",
"dkom3aa",
"dkop75f"
],
"score": [
66,
18,
20,
3,
2,
28,
116,
6,
6,
15
],
"text": [
"School suspension puts you behind in classes, separates you from your friends, and can potentially lead to being held back a year. Not to mention you're probably in trouble with your parents, are grounded in some way, etc.\n\nGetting out of school for a long period of time is enjoyable when your friends are also out of school, and when it's not impacting/delaying your education.",
"It's interesting to compare this to being sentenced to prison. Although being suspended might seem like you get more freedom, the same principles apply:\n\n1) Denunciation (declaring your actions were wrong) - the school is making a statement that your actions were wrong and unwanted in that environment by excluding you from the group temporarily. \n\n2) Deterrence (giving you a reason not to repeat your behaviour) - although it seems like you get more freedom, you are actually being denied the privilege of attending school and being part of that environment. When you're in school, you can choose to leave. When you're expelled, you can't choose to come back = less freedom. The school hopes this punishment will wake you up. \n\n3) Separation from society (just like it sounds) - sometimes people are sent to prison because they need to be separated from society to ensure the safety of the members of society. In the same way, some people get expelled from school to decrease their disruption on other students. ",
"It's not so much to punish the student as it is to allow teachers to teach and the rest of the students to participate without disruption from the problem kids. ",
"an out of school suspension is not just a break from school while you're punished. it is often a permanent part of the student's record and can and most likely will be taken into consideration when going on trips, getting on sports teams, receiving accolades and awards, and going to other schools in the future. ",
"In theory, the parents would follow through with additional punishments, so their break from school wouldn't necessarily be a pleasant one.\n\nAlso, suspensions are not just about punishment, they are about removing a disruptive influence from the class room so everyone else can learn.",
"Out of school suspension is sometimes used as a method to make the children's ill behavior the parents problem. If the child is of an age that they cannot stay at home alone, the parent then has to take off of work to stay with the child which makes the parent realize that there is a problem. I do not understand why they kick the high schoolers out of school though. It is not productive for the kid, but it is unfair to the other kids who have to sit in class with this kid. There is no reason that this kid that is acting up should be able to prohibit the good children from learning. If you sorta understand this I can go in more depth if you would like.",
"I have been teaching high school for the past 12 years. Over my career, my particular school has been increasing the number of in school suspensions and decreasing out of school suspensions. While completing a masters in administration I asked the principal why this was. His reply was, out of school suspension in the past was a harsher punishment when it was more common to have 1 stay at home parent. Now students do not view out of school suspensions as the deterrent it once was because (especially common to the group of students) they don't like school and they are home alone. Therefore schools recognized this and now make students complete in school suspensions. This consists of completing a full school day isolated from the student body at the school. If teachers wish to they may send work to the student to complete while serving their suspension. In most cases (for example a substance abuse violation which is an automatic 10 day suspension at my school) the suspension is completed as a combination of in and out of school suspension. A previous post mentioned legal reasons associated with the school distancing its self from negative behavior seem accurate to me. ",
"ELI5: Why is suspension from school a punishment? Isn't that just giving them what they want?\n_URL_0_\n\nFrom yours truly",
"The real answer is because the north american school system is highly flawed and outdated. ",
"I'm a teacher and something I haven't seen mentioned is that out of school suspensions are often used when someone's safety is at risk. At the schools I've taught at, that's the ONLY time they're used.\n\nOut of my students who got suspended last year, it broke down to:\nDrugs? In school suspension. \nCutting class three days in a row? In school suspension \nStealing from a teachers desk? In school suspension \nJumping up and down on a teacher's car in order to damage it? In school suspension. \nTaking a swing at another student? Out of school suspension. \nThreatening to get a gun, shoot me, then blow up the entire school? Out of school suspension. \n\nWhen the student has engaged in physical violence with other students or is threatening to hurt someone, they are removed; not as a punishment, but because if they are on campus it is extremely likely that someone is going to get hurt. Students need time to cool down and teachers/admin need time to instate a plan to prevent to keep the student from once again fighting or whatever and to keep other students from retaliating.\n\nIt also just gives the teacher a break. My very first year teaching, I had one of my freshman threaten to kill me. This was after he took a swing at me and tried to come at me, only to be stopped by another teacher. He was quite serious about it and the school was in an urban environment with frequent gang activity in the neighborhoods my kids lived in.\n\nThere was no way I wanted to see that kid on campus for a very long time. I would not have been able to keep teaching if I had to see him every day, even if he was not in my classroom."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5kbvkj/eli5_why_is_suspension_from_school_a_punishment/"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
2ju40i | st. thomas aquinas's argument from motion | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2ju40i/eli5_st_thomas_aquinass_argument_from_motion/ | {
"a_id": [
"clf32nm",
"clf32rc",
"clf3dco",
"clf62x0"
],
"score": [
3,
2,
2,
3
],
"text": [
"It's the \"first mover\" argument that is still alive today. If things are \"in motion\" and we observe that things that are not in motion must be put in motion by an agent or actor, then if we regress back there must be a something that put the first motion in place. That must be god.",
"I'm assuming you've read the proof, so the gist is thus: In order for something to happen (motion), something must have made it happen. In all of history there existed an original force to make that first something happen. That something was God.\n\nThe proof by itself is flaky as it assumes qualities of a god not proved by the proof, which is why it is one of 5 arguments attempting to close that loophole. I'll leave it for you to decide if it is an overall convincing argument.",
"Aquinas' argument was that, since the universe is in motion, something must have put it in motion (that thing being god). He's not talking so much about literal motion, but existence. The universe exists, so there must have been something outside of existence that created it.",
"the thing about Aquinas is that his philosophy is entirely based on the metaphysics of Aristotle. Basically, the reason he's famous and considered historically important is that he was the first Christian philosopher to use Aristotelian methodology, which had been viewed as too materialistic for a Christian worldview (as opposed to say, Plato, whose ideas such as the Forms, etc. were quite compatible with Christianity/theism in general). The Argument from Motion had basically already been made by Aristotle, altho obviously not from a Christian perspective like Aquinas, idk if you'd call Aristotle a deist or a pantheist, maybe it was even Zeus or Apollo he had in mind, I'm not sure.\n\nis starts with the observation that there is motion in the universe, and that a moving body's motion is generated by contact with another moving body. Aristotle's physics are implicit in this, Aristotle saw motion as simply a transition from Potential to Actual. To explain this dichotomy, Actuality is the natural state of everything, and Potentiality is how things appear to move or change in transitioning to the Actual (eg. Aristotle believed the natural state of all physical bodies was to be at rest, and that all motion was just bodies trying to assume this natural state).\n\nSo motion is just the changing from Potential to Actual, and what's more, something Potential can only make this transition if it's caused by something else in a state of Actuality. The example Aquinas uses to illustrate this is \n\n- fire is Actually hot\n- wood is Potentially hot\n- fire makes wood Actually hot\n\nso bearing in mind that motion or change is Potential - > Actual, which has to be caused by an Actual, Aquinas reasons that nothing can be simultaneously Potential *and* Actual in the same respect (wood can't be Actually hot *and* Potentially hot, it can be Actually hot and Potentially cold). Then logically applying this to motion, nothing can be both Mover and Moved, anything in motion must be put in motion by another. Logically, this regresses infinitely, ie. it extends backwards forever, but Aquinas rejects this infinite regression because it would mean there was no first Mover, in which case there would be no motion at all. He concludes that there must, at the beginning of the causal chain, be something that caused movement without being moved itself, which to him is God.\n\nwhat I personally find interesting and subtle about this cosmology shared by both Aristotle and Aquinas, is that altho they both infer a god because they reject an infinitely regressing causal chain, they don't reject infinite *temporal* regress, ie. they don't believe time had a beginning, in fact, they don't believe that there was a Creation when God created the cosmos. Their God is outside of time, and sort of animates the world and acts as the first cause of motion and causality. This view allows for example, an infinite cycle of universes that can extend forever into the past and future, so long as they are not *causally* connected. The analogy I heard is a blacksmith working with a hammer for long periods, the hammer gets worn out and he replaces it, but the new hammer isn't physically *caused* by the old hammer. And these cycles would be initiated by an initiating force that to Aquinas was God."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
2nt9ly | what would happen to me if i were to drink only salt water? | Not sure if I'd die of dehydration or not. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2nt9ly/eli5_what_would_happen_to_me_if_i_were_to_drink/ | {
"a_id": [
"cmgncy2",
"cmgndck",
"cmgndwu",
"cmgnkkk"
],
"score": [
9,
3,
3,
4
],
"text": [
"You would definitely die. Your body cannot effectively filter the salt out of the saltwater and so your mental state would deteriorate, and you would dehydrate and die.",
"The salt in the water is too much. You get really sick, go delusional and eventually die.",
"You would die of dehydration. The salt would make you urinate out more liquid than you were taking in.\n\nIf you were on, say, a raft in the middle of the ocean or a desert island, exposure to the sun would only make things worse. \n\nIf you've ever heard the quote \"*Water, water, everywhere, but not a drop to drink*\", that's about sailors on a ship surrounded by ocean but out of drinking water. ",
"You would die of dehydration. It happens often when people are lost at sea"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1yjq4c | Book suggestions for learning about the 30 Years War | I'm extremely interested in learning anything from the 1600's - 1700's and more specifically, the 30 Years War. I'm looking for any and all books suggestions that will help me understand this era better. Thanks in advanced for any suggestions! I absolutely love this subreddit. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1yjq4c/book_suggestions_for_learning_about_the_30_years/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfladwh"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Check out [The Thirty Years War: Europe's Tragedy by Peter H. Wilson](_URL_0_) . I'm not a scholar and I'm obviously not flaired, but I read this book two years ago and, though it can be a bit of a slog, I haven't found anything better yet about the subject apart from primary sources. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.amazon.com/The-Thirty-Years-War-Europes/dp/0674062310"
]
] |
|
jez5m | Where does kinetic energy go when mass is
destroyed? | Imagine a lump of radioactive material. Traveling through space. Over time it decays down releasing energy as heat and some of it's mass is destroyed. What happens to the energy associate to that mass as a result of it's velocity?
This problem entered my brain while I was thinking about the pioneer anomaly. For those who aren't aware the space craft is slowing down at a rate higher then expected and the reason why isn't quite clear.
The RTG's that give it power contain some mass of radioactive material. Over time some of that will decay down losing mass. I was going to attempt to work out if the kinetic energy of that mass traveling at the velocity that it has is roughly equal to the energy lost from it's velocity change assuming no mass change. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/jez5m/where_does_kinetic_energy_go_when_mass_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2bjksg",
"c2bjksg"
],
"score": [
3,
3
],
"text": [
"First of all, it's easiest to imagine an object in its center of mass frame. Let's say you have a Carbon 14 nucleus at rest, and it beta decays into Nitrogen 14. Then you'll have the nitrogen nucleus moving one way, an electron moving faster in almost the opposite direction, and a neutrino moving even faster in a direction that doesn't really matter. If you add up the momentum vectors of the three particles, you'll see that it has a net momentum of zero, as it did before the decay. If you calculate the kinetic energy of the entire system, it's nonzero (obviously) but it's equivalent the difference in mass between C14 and the electron and N14 that it spawned. Energy is conserved here as well.\n\nIf you want to know specifically about kinetic energy, imagine an electron and a positron moving towards each other at 86% the speed of light. Each has 511 keV of kinetic energy and 511 keV of rest energy, and when they collide they would end up as two photons, each with an energy of 1022 keV. A photon's energy is entirely kinetic.",
"First of all, it's easiest to imagine an object in its center of mass frame. Let's say you have a Carbon 14 nucleus at rest, and it beta decays into Nitrogen 14. Then you'll have the nitrogen nucleus moving one way, an electron moving faster in almost the opposite direction, and a neutrino moving even faster in a direction that doesn't really matter. If you add up the momentum vectors of the three particles, you'll see that it has a net momentum of zero, as it did before the decay. If you calculate the kinetic energy of the entire system, it's nonzero (obviously) but it's equivalent the difference in mass between C14 and the electron and N14 that it spawned. Energy is conserved here as well.\n\nIf you want to know specifically about kinetic energy, imagine an electron and a positron moving towards each other at 86% the speed of light. Each has 511 keV of kinetic energy and 511 keV of rest energy, and when they collide they would end up as two photons, each with an energy of 1022 keV. A photon's energy is entirely kinetic."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1ex5kc | why is java popular and why did google write android os in java? | Java has large support from companies and Google wrote the Android OS in Java. Why do companies like Java so much and why did Google write android OS in Java?
Personally, I dislike Java because of the wordy syntax, the lack of operator over loading, concurrency is needlessly hard, and functions are not first order. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1ex5kc/eli5_why_is_java_popular_and_why_did_google_write/ | {
"a_id": [
"ca4mvls",
"ca4t5cw",
"ca4tn88"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
" > why did Google write android OS in Java?\n\nIt was written mostly in C, but also in C++, and some in other languages including Java. Only about 10% was written in Java.\n\n\n\n",
"Java initially gained traction by being write-once-run-anywhere. It was the best-maintained language offering that.\n\nAdditionally, Java is great for object-oriented design and very easy to write a good program in compared to C or Fortran.\n\nThere are good open source development platforms, I strongly believe that Eclipse had a major role in the huge popularity of Java.\n\nFinally, competitors in that space, like C#, were platform specific.",
"I won't comment on why Java is popular. I don't know (and by this I don't mean to say it shouldn't have been, I literally just mean I don't know).\n\nAs for Android: Java code has the distinct advantage that it isn't written specifically for any one processor architecture. Like Android, the choice of going with Java/Dalvik for apps (even many parts of the system are simply 'apps') allowed Google to switch to another platform such as x86 with *relative* ease from the perspective of apps and developers. Although I don't know if the above has ever been said on-the-record by an Android insider, it stands to reason to me that this is the reasoning behind the decision. The extreme modularity of the Android operating system further reinforces this idea.\n\nOne small piece of evidence is the fact that C#.net was seen as the primary competitor inside Google w.r.t. what language Android apps would be in (keep in mind that Android development wasn't started inside Google though, they bought Android Inc. in 2005 iirc). In July 2011, in the midst of an Oracle lawsuit, an e-mail containing statements by Andy Rubin himself became public. The following is an [excerpt](_URL_0_) from it.\n\n > \"If Sun doesn't want to work with us, we have two options: 1) Abandon our work and adopt MSFT CLR VM and C# language - or - 2) Do Java anyway and defend our decision, perhaps making enemies along the way\"\n\n(Darnit, I hope you appreciate this comment, because you have no idea how hard it is to find that quote when your primary search terms are 'Android' and '.net'. Every page on the internet contains 'net' and everything's Android nowadays.)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://www.fosspatents.com/2011/07/judge-orders-overhaul-of-oracles.html"
]
] |
|
2c71l3 | what is that purplish gunk i spit out when i use the "crest" mouthwash? | Is it supposed to be the bacteria it kills or is it reacting with some enzyme in my saliva? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2c71l3/eli5_what_is_that_purplish_gunk_i_spit_out_when_i/ | {
"a_id": [
"cjcnjfn",
"cjcp8o8"
],
"score": [
2,
3
],
"text": [
"Agreed I always wanted to know this.\n\nWe are talking about the non-alcohol mouth wash.\n\nWhen you spit it out it has like protein chains gunked together ",
"You're talking about the Pro-Health stuff, right? The gunk you see is because that mouthwash is alcohol-free. Alcohol in traditional mouthwashes like Listerine is used to dissolve flavor oils and keep them mixed together. Without alcohol, this stuff separates. \n\nSource: _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2008/04/24/the-mouthwash-debate.html"
]
] |
|
ltd82 | Why does a fully gestated human baby seem so much less developed and lack the motor skills than the full term babies of other species? | There may be a very obvious answer, but it seems to go against logic and my understanding of evolution. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ltd82/why_does_a_fully_gestated_human_baby_seem_so_much/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2vg1ms",
"c2vg3s3",
"c2vg6ha",
"c2vggtt",
"c2vghdu",
"c2vgme0",
"c2vjq59",
"c2vg1ms",
"c2vg3s3",
"c2vg6ha",
"c2vggtt",
"c2vghdu",
"c2vgme0",
"c2vjq59"
],
"score": [
13,
150,
28,
8,
3,
5,
2,
13,
150,
28,
8,
3,
5,
2
],
"text": [
"It has to do with the fact that human heads are much larger in proportion to the mother's hips than other species, so the baby has to be born before its brain is fully developed in order to fit through the birth canal.",
"It has to do with how the brain develops. If human babies were born at the equivalently developed time of other animals (particularly apes), it would be approximately 2-3 months later and they would have significantly larger heads. Obviously, this poses a problem for birthing. So human babies are born so helpless because a more developed human brain would be unable to pass through the female pelvic opening. During the first few months/years of a human's development, we develop cognitive skills significantly faster than any other species, but do not necessarily develop motor skills as fast.\n\nHere is an [article](_URL_0_) on it that compares humans to other primates in terms of increased encephalization. ",
"You are comparing altricial vs precocial reproductive/developmental strategies. With respect to evolutionary adaptiveness, both have their costs and benefits, and these costs and benefits are variable from species to species. Some species are under selective pressure to reproduce precocial young that do not require much (if any) parental care. Other species, under different selective pressure, have evolved an altricial strategy. \n\nFor instance, different species of birds, under different selective pressures, exhibit different reproductive strategies. Precocial species tend to have a larger brain at birth, but a smaller brain at adulthood when compared to altricial species, who tend to have a smaller brain at birth, and a larger brain at adulthood. Precocial species tend to rely heavily on innate behaviour throughout their lives and do not have the same capacity for learned behaviour later in life. In contrast, altricial species are born with underdeveloped brains, and are relatively helpless at a young age; but as their brain develops and grows, they have a greater capacity to gain novel learned behavior and have a greater degree of behavioral plasticity.\n\n",
"This seems relevant:\n_URL_0_",
"Compared to other animals, human heads are bigger, and pelvic openings smaller (smaller leads to more efficient bipedal walking).",
"Another reason is that as humans evolved to be apex predators (through greater intelligence, social structure, tool use, etc), we lost the selection pressure to have better developed motor skills at birth.\n\nConsider predator vs prey animals in the wild. Neither the brain size of a lion nor the brain size of a gazelle limits the newborn animal's passage through the birth canal. Yet baby gazelles are born running because if they weren't, there wouldn't be many baby gazelles growing up into adult gazelles. Baby lions don't need to develop their motor skills as quickly because as apex predators, they are relatively well protected and taken care of in their earliest days.",
"I've sent an email to Dr. Mark Sloan to join the reddit community and this thread. He is a respected pediatrician and professor and recently wrote a book on this topic:\n\n_URL_0_",
"It has to do with the fact that human heads are much larger in proportion to the mother's hips than other species, so the baby has to be born before its brain is fully developed in order to fit through the birth canal.",
"It has to do with how the brain develops. If human babies were born at the equivalently developed time of other animals (particularly apes), it would be approximately 2-3 months later and they would have significantly larger heads. Obviously, this poses a problem for birthing. So human babies are born so helpless because a more developed human brain would be unable to pass through the female pelvic opening. During the first few months/years of a human's development, we develop cognitive skills significantly faster than any other species, but do not necessarily develop motor skills as fast.\n\nHere is an [article](_URL_0_) on it that compares humans to other primates in terms of increased encephalization. ",
"You are comparing altricial vs precocial reproductive/developmental strategies. With respect to evolutionary adaptiveness, both have their costs and benefits, and these costs and benefits are variable from species to species. Some species are under selective pressure to reproduce precocial young that do not require much (if any) parental care. Other species, under different selective pressure, have evolved an altricial strategy. \n\nFor instance, different species of birds, under different selective pressures, exhibit different reproductive strategies. Precocial species tend to have a larger brain at birth, but a smaller brain at adulthood when compared to altricial species, who tend to have a smaller brain at birth, and a larger brain at adulthood. Precocial species tend to rely heavily on innate behaviour throughout their lives and do not have the same capacity for learned behaviour later in life. In contrast, altricial species are born with underdeveloped brains, and are relatively helpless at a young age; but as their brain develops and grows, they have a greater capacity to gain novel learned behavior and have a greater degree of behavioral plasticity.\n\n",
"This seems relevant:\n_URL_0_",
"Compared to other animals, human heads are bigger, and pelvic openings smaller (smaller leads to more efficient bipedal walking).",
"Another reason is that as humans evolved to be apex predators (through greater intelligence, social structure, tool use, etc), we lost the selection pressure to have better developed motor skills at birth.\n\nConsider predator vs prey animals in the wild. Neither the brain size of a lion nor the brain size of a gazelle limits the newborn animal's passage through the birth canal. Yet baby gazelles are born running because if they weren't, there wouldn't be many baby gazelles growing up into adult gazelles. Baby lions don't need to develop their motor skills as quickly because as apex predators, they are relatively well protected and taken care of in their earliest days.",
"I've sent an email to Dr. Mark Sloan to join the reddit community and this thread. He is a respected pediatrician and professor and recently wrote a book on this topic:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248407002035"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.marksloanmd.com/books.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0047248407002035"
],
[],
[
"http://www.ted.com/talks/alison_gopnik_what_do_babies_think.html"
],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.marksloanmd.com/books.html"
]
] |
|
33qn0q | Why do Native Americans use English translations of their surnames instead of their indigenous languages? When and how did this custom start? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/33qn0q/why_do_native_americans_use_english_translations/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqo74nf",
"cqo9n4s"
],
"score": [
9,
7
],
"text": [
"Piggyback question: why is *Tiger* such a popular name for the Miccosukee (and maybe the larger Seminole Nation)? There are no tigers in Florida, and panthers are exceedingly rare. ",
"During the boarding school era, students were banned from using their native language and given new names. Not sure if that's the whole story as to the English surnames, or not, though. \n\nAs an aside, many Native Americans in the northern part of the US Midwest have French last names.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Indian_boarding_schools"
]
] |
||
5jkdg4 | Was Tsar Nicholas II responsible for his own downfall? | I've posted about a similar topic before and you're all really helpful, so I figured I'd ask your opinion of this.
Can he be seen as responsible for his own downfall, or can we attribute this to other factors, eg the cunning of the Bolsheviks or social conditions that existed in Russia before he became Tsar?
Also, do you know of any historians who argue that he was responsible for his own downfall? I can't seem to find any :( | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5jkdg4/was_tsar_nicholas_ii_responsible_for_his_own/ | {
"a_id": [
"dbh40rs"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"I actually had this question, in a slightly different form, on my Russian History final. The question there was: Did the Romanovs, Rasputin or historical forces lead to the collapse of the Tsarist regime. I will try to answer this as best as I can remember from that test (would be awesome if I had kept the test booklet...) Essentially what I stated was that not one single aspect led to the downfall of Nicholas II and the entire Tsarist regime, but if Nicholas wasn't Tsar, no revolution in 1917. Revolution eventually if no change, but not in 1917. So in that Regard, yes.\n\nNicholas certainly was no help to himself, abandoning St. Petersburg for the front lines (when he was told that was a terrible idea), allowing Rasputin to saddle up next to the Royal family and exert influence on policy thus alienating the Court, and simply not adjusting to the needs of the country. His reign saw the disastrous loss in the Russo-Japanese War, Bloody Sunday and the 1905 Revolt. On paper concessions were made such as the 1906 Constitution, but they were bandaids holding together everything. \n\nThere were long term issues that were never fixed, just crushed and buried. The Decembrist Revolt in 1825 practically marks the beginning of the fall of the Romanovs. That was followed by the January Uprising. Alexander II abolished the reforms he instituted under pressure, and Alexandrer III's reign all led to simmering problems between the people and the Government, but not nearly enough on their own to turn the tides. Two attempts at stirring up revolts failed. \n\nThat's all I can really remember (with some help from Senior Google), but like I said, Nicholas is truly only repsonsible for his own failures. That they compounded against other problems and led to revolution is another detailed manner. Lenin himself was cunning and led to his Bolsheviks taking over the Menshoviks and the Petrograd Soviet that stepped in during the February Revolution when Nicholas and Alexi (the heir) abdicated. So another point to remember, is that it didn't go Tsar-Bolsheviks/Soviet, there was a Civil War that was fought between February and October in between. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1jwnlu | How does aging work? Did people age the same way 100 or 1000 years ago? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1jwnlu/how_does_aging_work_did_people_age_the_same_way/ | {
"a_id": [
"cbj0sdb"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Aging was pretty much the same 100 and 1000 years ago. It's not exactly true that people didn't live as long hundreds of years ago. What's true is that the life expectancy was lower, but that was mainly due to much higher rates of death during infancy and childhood, and the lack of medicine to prevent people from dying from certain diseases. Someone in their 40s or 50s wouldn't have been thought of as elderly back then, and they would have looked pretty much the same."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
r9nf0 | why do women run differently compared to men? | Things like hands moving differently. Does the female anatomy significantly have different balance compared to men? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/r9nf0/why_do_women_run_differently_compared_to_men/ | {
"a_id": [
"c445k8b",
"c446417"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Different pelvis & bone structure ",
"Walking or running with wide-set legs causes the body to rotate more as each leg is thrust forward (see [the way geese waddle](_URL_2_) for an example). \n\nYou may have noticed that women have a tendency to sway their hips as they walk. Each step forces the pelvis to rotate. For balance and upper body steadiness, the upper torso rotates in the opposite direction to counteract it. Additionally, when the body's weight is balanced mostly on one leg, the hip dips downward on the opposite side because it is not supported as well (seen with both [standing](_URL_3_) and [walking](_URL_0_)). \n\nThese factors come together to create the [feminine sway](_URL_1_) we're all familiar with, and they also causes [the arms and shoulders to swing more](_URL_4_) to counterbalance that sway. Men have the same physical properties in their gait; it's just less pronounced because their legs aren't spaced as far apart."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://image.shutterstock.com/display_pic_with_logo/257323/257323,1255377677,181/stock-photo-full-length-walking-woman-red-skirt-38800855.jpg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5syLUGKwUiM",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vxKvChqvCBo&feature=related",
"http://static2.bigstockphoto.com/thumbs/2/0/1/large2/1022368.jpg",
"http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MgTDkOHLjq4"
]
] |
|
4lhdfb | how do interest work in a savings bank account? | I'm embarrassed to say that I still don't quite get the principles of interest rates at all. I do know that the higher it is, the more the amount increases especially if you have loans and credit. In a bank savings account, how does interest work? I've received cents or sometimes a dollar deposited to my account.
I guess I'm still confused as to why interest exists and why banks give them. And do banks just give back to your account at a random time? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4lhdfb/eli5_how_do_interest_work_in_a_savings_bank/ | {
"a_id": [
"d3nb3sv",
"d3nb3tk",
"d3ndvvb"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Basically when you deposit money into a bank, the bank uses it to fuel their investments. The bank makes their money off of their investments. Since they are using your money to make their money, they give you a bit of the profits. But on savings accounts it is generally very low",
"How often and how much is going to be dependent on the bank and the account at the bank- it will all be specified in the terms you signed when you opened the account. \n\nYou'll typically see it listed like \"0.9% compounded monthly, 0.903% APY\". What that means is that you get 0.9% divided by 12 every month (so 0.007% of your balance every month). But you also get interest on the interest in subsequent months, so the actual interest is slightly more than the interest rate- that's the Annual Percentage Yield, or APY. \n\n\nAs for why banks do it, it's to encourage you to leave your money with them. While they have your money, they can loan it out to other people, at far higher rates than the interest they're paying you. That's how the bank makes their money. But they can only lend money if they have money to lend out, which is why they need you to open an account for your savings.",
"They should teach stuff like this in high school. Life skills should be a core subject. Taxes, bank accounts, investments, retirement, paying bills, common policies of financial institutions, etc. I had a brief introduction to this in my health class, but it should be way more in depth."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
9txrki | What is stopping islands from eroding away? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/9txrki/what_is_stopping_islands_from_eroding_away/ | {
"a_id": [
"e901kkh",
"e904ntj",
"e908rrw",
"e908swo"
],
"score": [
137,
25,
5,
3
],
"text": [
"Nothing. They do erode away. Here's one that went missing (i.e. eroded away) recently: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_) \n\nAtolls are formed by erosion of the island: [_URL_0_](_URL_2_) \n\nOf course, like all geological phenomena, it is a relatively slow process. There are other processes that create more islands (volcanic eruptions, for example). ",
"Afaik nothing is stopping them from eroding. They are. Some faster than others, depending on their composition, environment, vegetation, and inhabitants. New ones pop up from volcanoes, seismic thrusting, sediment shifting, coral growth, etc. \n\n",
"Look between Hawaii and midway Island on google maps. there is a string on non-islands that eroded away as the pacific plate moved away for the hotspot that creates volcanoes on the big island of Hawaii.\n\n_URL_0_\n\n\n\n",
"They do erode. A really cool visualization of this is all the little islands from Alaska down to Hawaii. The further north you go the older the islands. So starting at the big island of Hawaii and going north every island will be smaller than the one to the south of it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/supp\\_coral04a.html",
"https://www.cnn.com/travel/article/japan-island-disappears-scli-intl/index.html",
"https://oceanservice.noaa.gov/education/kits/corals/media/supp_coral04a.html"
],
[],
[
"https://www.google.com/maps/place/Hawaii/@23.7987852,-170.5708023,814661m/data=!3m1!1e3!4m5!3m4!1s0x7bffdb064f79e005:0x4b7782d274cc8628!8m2!3d19.8967662!4d-155.5827818?hl=en"
],
[]
] |
||
5zpg3n | we were just taught how to calculate huge powers like 10^5 raised to the power 10^5 raised to the power something else. why do we need such numbers? | The question said that as the numbers are too huge we have to provide its modulo with 10^9+7. We used Chinese remainder theorem and Fermat's little theorem and whatnot. So my question is are such Numbers needed in real life or are we just calculating these because we can? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5zpg3n/eli5_we_were_just_taught_how_to_calculate_huge/ | {
"a_id": [
"dezybvy",
"dezygjc",
"df039h4"
],
"score": [
2,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Huge numbers are needed to describe reality and do calculations about reality. For example, the mass of the Earth is around 6 x 10^24 kilograms. (Yes, doing physics means going Metric.) It's not just physics, either: in January 2016 the US National Debt stood at about $18.96 trillion. What's a \"trillion\"? Unless you associate that with a number, it's meaningless, and the number is so huge that you need to use power notation: a $trillion is $10^12, meaning the debt was about $18,900,000,000,000.",
"Not a super mathy guy but I had this explained to me once as well. Normal everyday people don't really use large numbers. But large numbers *are* used in Astronomy, Cosmology, Biology, computer science and various other fields. Especially in Astronomy, the scale of some objects in the universe is so mind-breakingly big we need the large numbers to make sense of it. Or with computers the speed can be so great that it's either write it out as 10^^15 or a huge string. Another way of looking at it is in the example of a Googol 10^^100 which when written out is 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.",
"Knowing the basics of math is part of general education. You might not have any particular use for that ever, but it's still thought valuable that everyone has some grasp of what math is all about and what types of problems it deals with.\n\nThat being said, you can rather easily generalize some helpful tools from this knowledge, like for mental arithmetic or programming tasks. Multiplication and powers in general are required to read scientific number notation, and that tremendosly helps in assessing fringe probabilities like odds of winning lottery."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
2zog8e | what makes hot springs naturally hot? | A couple of friends and I were talking about camping at Harrison Hot Springs (BC, Canada) and this question popped in my head. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2zog8e/eli5_what_makes_hot_springs_naturally_hot/ | {
"a_id": [
"cpkth4q"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Geothermal heating. Generally from a nearby source of magma heating the rocks. That's why Yellowstone has such a huge number of Geysers and hot springs, a good portion of the park sits atop a SuperVolcano.\n\n\nEDIT: The Harrison Hot Springs in particular are situated on/near a tectonic border in a region called the Ring of Fire."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
vyec5 | Would a spherical magnet placed in the center of a hollow metal sphere stay in place? Details inside | A thought I was wondering about. Suppose I took a spherical magnet about the size of a marble and placed it in a hollow iron sphere the size of a basketball. Some other conditions.
1. No outside gravity and the inside of the steel sphere is a vacuum.
2. The iron sphere and magnet are made of consistent material, so there is no variation caused by chemical impurity.
3. Both the magnet and steel sphere are perfect spheres
Would the spherical magnet stay forever in place in the middle of the iron sphere, or would there be some sort of other factor that could push the magnet to one part of the sphere? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/vyec5/would_a_spherical_magnet_placed_in_the_center_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"c58onme"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Not an expert by any stretch, but I see one major issue with this scenario. What shape is the magnetic field of a spherical magnet? Is it possible to magnetize the small sphere so that one of the poles is at the center of the sphere and the other pole radiates in all directions? If so it seems that if all forces were balanced it would stay put in the center."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3l584h | why are there always sales just before the financial year ends? | Above ^
Any feedback is greatly appreciated. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3l584h/eli5_why_are_there_always_sales_just_before_the/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv3akaa",
"cv3jyo1"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Because many people in the company have performance targets or even bonuses tied to revenue (or profit, or new customers, etc) in the fiscal year. So if the big day is approaching and they need a little bump to earn a bonus, then it's sale time.\n\nOf course there is also the situation where its just being used as a marketing ploy. Their announced sale may have zero connection to their internal reporting or bonus structure.",
"In ye olden days of business, stores would keep a ledger of their sales. Until they turned a profit, all sales were written down in red ink. Around the fourth quarter of the year when the Holidays were fast approaching, they'd start to turn a profit and write their numbers down in black ink. Hence the terms \"have red in my ledger\" and \"Black Friday\". Many stores around this time are trying to do three things:\n\n1) Get as far into the black as possible to cover bonuses, sales targets, surplus capital etc.\n\n2) Get rid of excess and/or outdated stock quickly and cheaply, to make way for new products.\n\n3) Land new customers who otherwise haven't or wouldn't typically shop at said retailer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3plqsi | since i'm not a nielsen family, does pirating a show basically have the same effect as watching it on live tv? | From my understanding, ratings are only calculated from people who have Nielsen stuff. So the ratings aren't impacted by my watching it live. Is watching it live then the same as pirating it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3plqsi/eli5_since_im_not_a_nielsen_family_does_pirating/ | {
"a_id": [
"cw7dqdr",
"cw7eevo"
],
"score": [
5,
2
],
"text": [
"With respect to TV ratings, if you're not participating in any special Nielsen Families (or related) program, then pirating would be effectively the same as watching the TV program live via antenna or via a passive cable/satellite tuner (e.g. using the QAM tuner built into your TV). \n\nThere are, however, cable/satellite TV set-top boxes that can technically report back to the television service provider what channels you are watching. Whether your television service provider actually collects this information and/or shares it with other parties (e.g. Nielsen) for measuring ratings, that's a whole different story (one I don't actually have the answer to)... \n\nBut certainly in terms of passive tuners (which basically just listen into one-way over-the-air / cable broadcasts), then there is no way they are collecting information about your viewership of the program and thus pirating would not affect the ratings.",
"If you're not a Nielson family nothing you do has anything to do with ratings. You can watch it on television or pirate to your hearts content, but neither has any bearing on whether or not the show will succeed."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
5dlf8e | how is uk's new surveillance law different from what data retention laws in the eu already allow the government to do? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5dlf8e/eli5_how_is_uks_new_surveillance_law_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"da5n4we"
],
"score": [
4
],
"text": [
"A lot of it is basically legalising what GCHQ have been doing illegally for years - hacking devices and bulk collection of data. There are supposed safeguards againts misuse of these powers, but most people think they aren't enough and it'll essentially be a free-for-all.\n\n > The law forces UK internet providers to store browsing histories -- including domains visited -- for one year, in case of police investigations.\n\nThis is the new part. It will cost millions (some say billions) for all the ISPs to implement this. Just imagine how much data there is to store. It's not just browsing histories either; it's phone records and emails too. Each time you visit a web site, send an email or make a phone call the details of where you have gone, who you emailed or who you called has to be stored for a year. This data has to be searchable and available to many different authorities (police and many others) to access at the ISP's expense.\n\nThe benefits of this are, to put it optimistically, theoretical. The opportunity for abuse is massive, not just by people who will legally have access to this data, but also by hackers. Data breaches are so common it is only a matter of time before someone nefarious has your browsing, email and phone records."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
1zmcbn | hiv/aids and why can't we kill it. | I've been reading up on it but I don't seem to understand. Why can't we kill it. Why can't our immune system protect us from it? What about if we put two pipes in someone and had one suck out all the infected blood and another pipe injecting new, clean blood. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1zmcbn/eli5_hivaids_and_why_cant_we_kill_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfuwpn4",
"cfuwunx",
"cfuxi31",
"cfv0d69",
"cfv1d25"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
4,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"HIV is whats known as a retrovirus. Meaning every time it divides within you, it changes its receptors on the outer shell. When white blood cells produce antibodies for the original virus it has already changed. Because of this, there are many strains of the virus and vaccines are only able to protect you from one strain of a virus. Making it impossible to make a vaccine for. \n\nAs for your idea, there is something like that where they take out a persons blood and filter it through a membrane called dialysis. But HIV doesn't just live in blood, it lives in most bodily fluids (except saliva IIRC) so you would have to replace all bodily fluids if that was even possible. \n\nTL;DR Virus constantly changing; no cure. ",
"HIV is a virus. A virus is a very simple structure consists of nothing more than RNA/DNA and a protein coat (bacteria in contrast is a complete cell). Since the structure is so simple, there's less things you can \"break\" to make it fatal for the virus. In addition viruses use the host's cells to replicate, so it's very hard to damage the virus without damaging the host cells. \n\nUsually the only drug you can take for virus is antiviral drugs, which inhibits the development of viruses but does not completely eliminate them. They are very hard and expensive to develop because you essentially have to try everything and maybe you can find one chemical that can do the job. ",
"HIV has a nasty trick going for it -- it infects our immune cells. This means that the immune response is pretty much the same thing as the HIV dinner bell.\n\nAs a result, attempts to flush it using the natural system just aren't as effective as they should be. Once HIV has a foothold, the immune system is destroyed, leaving it to rampage unabated. Like most viruses, HIV is also prone to rapid mutation, which has resulted in numerous strains -- this complicates treatment efforts as some strains will resist the standard course of anti-retrovirals.\n\nThe other problem with viruses is that they are very hard to cure. They can stay dormant in cells indefinitely: it is believed that a rather substantial portion of our genome is viral material that got stuck at some point in the distant evolutionary past. As a result, while you can get the viral load down to a level where you're no longer infectious and no longer detectably ill, there is no guarantee that the virus isn't simply waiting it out somewhere.",
"HIV is a retrovirus. Retroviruses keep their genetic information is stored as RNA which is then translated to DNA by reverse transcriptase when the virus infects the host cell. This conveys more survivability to the virus because reverse transcriptase is extremely error-prone compared to an enzyme like DNA polymerase. So the whole time HIV is infecting someone it's building up tons of mutations, some of which are bound to give resistance to a therapy.",
"While we can't cure it today, you have to keep in mind that a big disease like HIV/AIDS comes around every so often and we generally end up finding a cure. The 1800s had tuberculosis which is easily cured today (unless it's a multiresistant strain) and we've made a lot of progress on HIV medication. \n\nHIV was considered a death sentence at the start of the 90s, but the people that get treatment today can expect to live as long as any other person. Regarding vaccines I'm not one for jumping on the conspiracy bandwagon, but the price of HIV medication ranges from 2000-5000$ monthly and the pharmaceutical industry has been known for extremely hideous business practices. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1moouc | are there any negative health consequences as a result of all the invisible waves (wifi, radio, x-ray ect.) that we are constantly exposed to? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1moouc/eli5_are_there_any_negative_health_consequences/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccb6e1q",
"ccb84qo",
"ccbesz2"
],
"score": [
4,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"X-rays are very rare to occur naturally, and the ones you get at the doctor are designed to be as low a dosage as possible.\n\nAs far as the long wavelengths like radio and infrared, it's precisely because they're longer that they do less damage. Regular colored light would do more damage to health than radio waves.",
"sometimes. it depends on the wavelength (and your dose- how much and for how long). most radiation- invisible waves- doesnt have significant impacts on your body. microwaves, for example, are fine in pretty much any dose you're likely to ever get. \nsome waves, like x-rays and ultraviolet, can directly damage your DNA. our bodies have ways of correcting for damaged DNA, which works most of the time. If the corrective processes fail, though, you can end up with cancer. this happens a lot more often if you already have a genetic condition that makes it more likely for you to get cancer, like a mutation in your DNA damage correction system.\nmedical imaging, air travel (being up in the plane more than TSA's shenanigans) and tanning are most people's major sources of the ones that can hurt you. \nhaving said that, it's still pretty unlikely you'd get cancer from environmental radiation, even if you break three bones a year and fly a lot.",
"Figure: [electromagnetic spectrum](_URL_0_).\n\nYou have to distinguish different kinds of radiation. Low-energy, or \"non-ionizing\", radiation is perfectly harmless except under very specific conditions. High-energy \"ionizing\" radiation has the potential to cause damage to our cells.\n\nRadio waves, microwaves, infrared waves, and visible light are all non-ionizing. The radio waves emitted by your cellular phone and wireless router are less energetic than the visible light waves emitted by a lamp. This radiation is regulated by the FCC to keep things orderly and ensure that these useful frequencies are not drowned out by interference from poorly made or irresponsibly used devices.\n\nOn the other hand, X-rays, gamma rays, and some ultraviolet light are ionizing radiation, and this is hazardous. This is the reason why we wear sunscreen at the beach and why we don't use X-ray machines to size our shoes anymore.\n\nWe are exposed to a certain amount of ionizing radiation from sunlight, from radioactive elements in rocks (and other things such as bananas), and from the effects of nuclear testing. This exposure is generally too low to be worth worrying about, except of course for sunlight, which is powerful enough to significantly raise your risk of skin cancer if you are careless. We are also exposed to additional radiation from medical scanners, from flying high in the atmosphere, and (rarely) from incidents involving radioactive materials. In extreme cases, these sources can have a significant effect on your risk for cancer. In *super-extreme* cases, acute radiation exposure can sicken or kill you, but unless you're working directly with highly radioactive materials, you don't need to worry about that."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/c/cf/EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg/500px-EM_Spectrum_Properties_edit.svg.png"
]
] |
||
2rnjco | What prevents clouds from freezing solid falling as a solid chunk of ice? | Is there something that prevents the water molecules in clouds from bonding? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2rnjco/what_prevents_clouds_from_freezing_solid_falling/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnhjpfo"
],
"score": [
100
],
"text": [
"A cloud is made up of liquid water droplets. A cloud forms when air is heated by the sun. As it rises, it slowly cools it reaches the saturation point and water condenses, forming a cloud. As long as the cloud and the air that its made of is warmer than the outside air around it, it floats! No there is nothing that prevents the water molecules from bonding, they bond with particulate and chemicals in the air constantly. The vast majority of clouds you see contain droplets and/or crystals that are too small to have any appreciable fall velocity, even when \"bonded\". So the particles continue to float with the surrounding air.\n\nUpward vertical motions, or updrafts, in the atmosphere also contribute to the floating appearance of clouds by offsetting the small fall velocities of their constituent particles. Clouds generally form, survive and grow in air that is moving upward. Rising air expands as the pressure on it decreases, and that expansion into thinner, high-altitude air causes cooling. Enough cooling eventually makes water vapor condense, which contributes to the survival and growth of the clouds. Stratiform clouds (those producing steady rain) typically form in an environment with widespread but weak upward motion (say, a few cm/s); convective clouds (those causing showers and thunderstorms) are associated with updrafts that exceed a few meters per second. In both cases, though, the atmospheric ascent is sufficient to negate the small fall velocities of cloud particles.\n\nAnother way to illustrate the relative lightness of clouds is to compare the total mass of a cloud to the mass of the air in which it resides. Consider a hypothetical but typical small cloud at an altitude of 10,000 feet, comprising one cubic kilometer and having a liquid water content of 1.0 gram per cubic meter. The total mass of the cloud particles is about 1 million kilograms, which is roughly equivalent to the weight of 500 automobiles. But the total mass of the air in that same cubic kilometer is about 1 billion kilograms--1,000 times heavier than the liquid!\n\nSo, even though typical clouds do contain a lot of water, this water is spread out for miles in the form of tiny water droplets or crystals, which are so small that the effect of gravity on them is negligible. Thus, from our vantage on the ground, clouds seem to float in the sky."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
1a5k98 | Is there an evolutional or functional difference between octopus intelligence and vertebrate intelligence? | Layman's thoughts: Octopus have evolved very differently from intelligent mammals. And all highly intelligent vertebrates I could think of are also highly social. So I wondered how different (if at all) invertebrate and specifically Octupus intelligence is from other forms of highly intelligent life. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1a5k98/is_there_an_evolutional_or_functional_difference/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8uhnbu",
"c8ut6fx"
],
"score": [
10,
7
],
"text": [
"Is there a difference in their intelligence? Not really, they have \"intelligence\" suited to their surrounding. They can't get much smarter than they are now (they can't really evolve in intelligence) as their blood-delivery is done via (I believe) copper, rather than the human's iron. This limits, physically, the amount of blood that can be supplied to the organism's brain and limits the size and function of it. Being one of the first \"deciders\" in evolution, it cannot revert to another metal.",
"Some of the most recent work on cephalopod intelligence has been done by Jennifer Mather and her associates. I have one of her most recent manuscripts titled \"Foraging and cognitive competence in octopuses\" which is about your question of comparing vertebrate intelligence with cephalopod intelligence. However, I don't think this article has been published, I only have it because she sent it to me in personal communication, so I don't think I can give you an exact reference. It should be easy to look her up though, and take a look at some of her other work that has been published. \n\nBasically, vertebrate intelligence has developed mostly in a social context because there is strength in groups and cooperation. Octopuses on the other hand are transported by sea currents when they are born, and they end up on shores which have very varying characteristics. So octopuses need their intelligence to be able to adapt to whatever type of beach they arrive at after being slushed around by ocean currents. Their intelligence is a result of fitness due to adaptation to a wide range of environments, whereas vertebrate intelligence is a result of fitness due to adaptation to a wide range of social environments. \n\nPersonally, I think it is very interesting to compare octopus intelligence with autism. They are focused on things, rather than being focused on other individuals (which social humans are to a great degree). Maybe that will help you understand the difference."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
69jona | how do bathroom mirrors always get those little spots on them even if you literally never touch the mirror? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/69jona/eli5_how_do_bathroom_mirrors_always_get_those/ | {
"a_id": [
"dh74evh",
"dh74g7s"
],
"score": [
6,
3
],
"text": [
"probably splashes from you brushing your teeth and washing your face and not wiping the mirror afterwards.",
"Do you brush your teeth in front of the mirror?\n\nYou probably do, and like most people, you probably spatter tiny amount of toothpaste mixed with saliva from your toothbrush. Sometimes the motion of the brushing install in enough to flick a dot onto the mirror; sometimes it's the spitting into the sink, or backsplash from rinsing your brush. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1yts0v | When did water replace beer as the staple drink? | I read that Beer/Cider/Wine was drunk as water to poor in quality to be drunk in middle ages. But by the 19th century water was clearly a large part of the diet again (as seen from the amount of people infected by cholera in water pumps). When did this shift back to beer to water occur? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1yts0v/when_did_water_replace_beer_as_the_staple_drink/ | {
"a_id": [
"cfnrg32"
],
"score": [
17
],
"text": [
" > I read that Beer/Cider/Wine was drunk as water to poor in quality to be drunk in middle ages.\n\nThis is frequently found in books (especially general readership books) but this can not be substantiated with primary sources and fails many logic tests.\n\nThe main point to consider is that poor water quality is a problem when you have high population density in an area without an adequate sewer system and no infrastructure to bring in fresh water. For starters, in the middle ages there were very few high population density areas in western Europe. Until the 18th century it was a world that was by far almost exclusively rural and agrarian. People built small villages and homesteads in areas where they had easy access to fresh clean water and eventually this was even easier with the advent of artesian wells. Lack of clean water was just not an issue faced by people prior to widespread urbanization.\n\nBut even in the biggest cities that did exist, you might be surprised at how sophisticated water delivery systems were in the middle ages. London had the \"great conduit\" for example. It seems that the poorest of the poor would have had to drink river water but they were a minority in a minority. Clean water was simply not an issue for the average person living in the middle ages.\n\n > But by the 19th century water was clearly a large part of the diet again (as seen from the amount of people infected by cholera in water pumps). When did this shift back to beer to water occur?\n\nThere was never a shift. 19th century London had the cholera outbreak because population density was finally outstripping their ability to have clean water. \n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
22r6m1 | how does applying a foreign substance to a baseball (e.g. pine tar, vaseline, crisco) give the pitcher a competitive advantage over the hitter? why is it worth the risk? | This question stems from tonight's Red Sox-Yankees game where it appeared Yankees pitcher Michael Pineda appeared to have some kind of a substance on his pitching hand.
Jury's not out yet on whether or not he broke any rules, I don't really have a stake in the matter either way, I just want someone to explain to me the controversy like I still wet the bed, so... ELI5 | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/22r6m1/eli5how_does_applying_a_foreign_substance_to_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgpl164"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"If air is moving differently over one side of a moving object than the other, the object will get pushed sideways. It's the same principle that lets planes generate lift. \n\nIn baseball, the spin of the ball and the interaction of the laces with the air generates these effects, and makes the ball break. If you put something on the ball, you can cause the ball to break much, much harder without much effort. \n\nIf you've ever seen [Wiffle Ball](_URL_0_) pitchers, you've seen an example. A Wiffle ball is intentionally designed to have these drastic effects."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5_rslXAXE6Y"
]
] |
|
1mnq1o | Why does light not refract INSIDE different mediums? | For example: light refracts as it passes in and out of water, but why doesn't it bend while inside that medium, especially when said water might be turbulent on the inside? Or what if a crystal had some kind of imperfection within it? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1mnq1o/why_does_light_not_refract_inside_different/ | {
"a_id": [
"ccaxmse",
"ccb0eeh"
],
"score": [
12,
6
],
"text": [
"Light refracts when there is a change in refractive index between mediums. Light does indeed refract within a medium because no real life medium is perfect in uniformity. Refractive indexes can change ever so slightly within different mediums. So if there were imperfections, the light would refract accordingly, but not nearly as much as say going from air to water. So in essence, light does refract within mediums, but is mostly unnoticeable. \n\nThis should help you out more: _URL_0_",
"You can watch light \"bending\" in the air on a hot day: rising hot air causes local refractive index changes, and you'll see lights in the distance flicker."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractive_index#Complex_index_of_refraction_and_absorption"
],
[]
] |
|
3ziyg1 | why do us american citizens have so little powers in controversial laws passed by congress? (i.e. gun control, raising of congressmen wages, etc.) | It seems as though we have a little say in many laws which are, in a sense, very powerful. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3ziyg1/eli5_why_do_us_american_citizens_have_so_little/ | {
"a_id": [
"cymj48q",
"cymjdfz",
"cymjpve"
],
"score": [
7,
3,
2
],
"text": [
"USA is more of a republic, not a democracy. We vote for (hopefully qualified) professionals to learn about laws, discuss, debate, and vote on our behalf. We essentially elect them to become educated on all of the important subjects so we don't end up with Joe Blow setting international policy.",
"Every American citizen as a very small amount of power, because they are one voice among millions. The way they become powerful is by finding people who agree with them, and banding together to vote for senators/representatives to go argue on their behalf in the Senate and House of Representatives. When you hear about senators and representatives voting on these important issues, those are *your* votes being cast. If you don't like the way they're representing you, it's your duty to write to them, or to vote for someone who more closely agrees with your opinions.",
"They have all the power. Every congressman was elected by American citizens.\n\nThey make those decisions because that is what we elect them to do. They work for us.\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
15afet | When was the arrow invented? As in a line/shape to indicate direction, not the weapon. | What was the first culture that drew arrows or anything similar to indicate a certain direction? Does it predate civilization? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/15afet/when_was_the_arrow_invented_as_in_a_lineshape_to/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7kqc84",
"c7kr4qr"
],
"score": [
6,
10
],
"text": [
"Cool question, I hope it gets answered. I just wanted to pop in real quick and say that no, the Romans in Pompeii did not carve penises into the street to point the way towards the brothels. I know that someone will mention that because someone *always* does, but it just isn't true.",
"I admit that this is all conjecture based on my experience as an art student who specialized in print-making and typography, and years of experience in archery. I don't have much proof for this specific question other than knowledge of older representations of arrows indicating direction or attention (like bullet points)\n\nIf you look at old arrow symbols, they're [fletched](_URL_4_) like the projectile. If you look at old [flint-headed arrows](_URL_5_), you'll see that they more closely resemble the arrow symbol than [modern practice arrows](_URL_3_), which is what most people think of when they think of arrows today. A lot of hunting arrows still keep the [original shape](_URL_0_), simply because there are many advantages to having barbs on them. Over time, moveable type foundries started eliminating the fletching for simplicity's sake, and everything else followed their lead. If you look around, some modern [arrows](_URL_6_) [keep](_URL_1_) [the](_URL_2_) [fletching](_URL_7_). \n\nArrows go in one direction. Humans have been raised with this knowledge for many thousands of years. It's just a natural way to indicate direction or attention.\n\n**tl;dr** they look like the projectile, which has an obvious direction of travel, thus \"pointing\" to whatever needs to be indicated.\n\n**edit** added more info and references to ¶2"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.outdoorbasecamp.com/new/wp-content/uploads/2010/07/shutterstock_26232631.jpg",
"http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/rtimages/rtimages1011/rtimages101100033/8297149-a-rusty-old-retro-arrow-sign-with-the-text-gas-and-oil.jpg",
"http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/jkunnen/jkunnen0707/jkunnen070700010/1282185-receiving-sign-with-arrow-on-an-old-red-barn-wall.jpg",
"http://us.123rf.com/400wm/400/400/abhbah05/abhbah051207/abhbah05120700048/14373882-isolated-crossbow-arrows-with-broadhead-and-practice-arrowheads.jpg",
"http://www.icsm.gov.au/mapping/images/arrow_old.jpg",
"http://www.beyond2000bc.co.uk/images/!arrow1.jpg",
"http://stock-image.mediafocus.com/images/previews/dining-room-arrow-directional-weathered-sign-vg1128153.jpg",
"http://media.giantbomb.com/uploads/1/17166/1083965-pizzarrow_large.jpg"
]
] |
|
f7rb8q | Why were moors originally depicted as black by Europeans? | It seems when you read stuff from the 16th century to mid 17th century, the moors are usually depicted as black. For instance, in the play ‘[The English Moor’](_URL_3_) written in 1640, there’s a scene where a female character dresses as a moor to disguise herself.
> She actually stays in his house, in disguise: Quicksands dresses her up as a [Moorish](_URL_1_) servant, with [blackface](_URL_4_) make-up and a veil. When she complains about the "black painting", asking "Would you blot out / Heaven's workmanship?" he counters "Has heaven no part in Aegypt? [Pray thee](_URL_2_) tell me, / Is not an Ethiopes face his workmanship / As well as the fairst Ladies?"
Of course, there’s also Othello who is often referred to as being a black moor.
However, by the time Robinson Crusoe was published in 1719, the moors are no longer described as black. Throughout Robinson Crusoe there’s a distinction made between ‘negroes’ and moors. Daniel Defoe never describes the people he refers to as moors as being black when his character is enslaved in Morocco. It’s only when his character sails to West Africa, he then gives a description of black people. And by the 19th century, the moors are firmly considered North African/Arab Muslims and not black in historical books like [Moors in Spain](_URL_0_) (published in 1886). The historical book only mentions black people once in its account of moors in Spain and that’s only to say the sultan’s black guards were hated.
> Popular feeling ran very high, not only against the Sultan, because he would not wear sackcloth and ashes or pretend to be an ascetic, but against his large body-guard of "Mutes," so called because, being negroes and the like, they could not speak Arabic.
So why were moors originally depicted as black in the 16th and 17th century? And why did this change in the 18th century?
______________________________________________
Some people are saying that this is because all non-white skin was considered black. This is not true. When people in England said black in the 16th or 17th century, they very much meant black. The numerous travel accounts from the 17th century show this. For instance, Edward terry travelled to India in 1616 and gave a description of the people in India.
> Now for the complexion of this people, they are all of them of a sad tawny or olive-colour; their hair black as a raven, very harsh, but not curl’d. They like not a man or woman that is very white or fair, because that (as they say) is the colour of lepers, common amongst them. - Race in early modern England by Jonathan Burton
In the 1640s, a Puritan gives a description of a black prostitute in London. He goes on to say that she wore a blonde wig (faire Hayre), but it would have done her better to try and and change her black skin then she might at least be brown (ware).
> In the first Night’s Search in particular, Mill provides misogynistic and racist descriptions of the prostitutes whose presence he allegedly monitors and polices. The forty-eighth section, for instance, is a portrait of ‘a black impudent Slut that wore a dressing of faire hayre on her head’. ‘But couldst thou change thy skin’, he mocks in malicious tones, ‘then thou might’st passe / For current ware, though thou art nasty trash. Most of these depraved women, he is gratified to report, end up incarcerated in Bridewell. - Nightwalking by Matthew Beaumont
So yes, it seems people very much could distinguish between black skin and other skin colours like Brown, which they sometimes referred to as Tawny or olive colour or even ware. | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7rb8q/why_were_moors_originally_depicted_as_black_by/ | {
"a_id": [
"fij82o0",
"fika5da",
"fig5xz1"
],
"score": [
16,
32,
178
],
"text": [
"Not exactly what you're looking for since 16th-17th century western/central european literature is well outside my area of expertise, however I have written an answer that describes the composition of the 8th century force that conquered some territory and laid the groundwork for the development of al-Andalus. You can find that answer [here](_URL_1_).\n\nIn reference to some of what I've written in that post I would like to point out a few things. Firstly, as I've said before - \"moors\" isn't really the best term for a modern person to use. It's a vague term that christians used to lump all sorts of different people from different places and eras in together. I think if you're talking about Islamic Iberia it's best to just refer to the people there collectively as \"Andalusis\" if that's who you mean. \n\nIt's more specific and identifiable who you're referring to and doesn't have the awkwardness of terms like \"moors\" and \"saracens\". It's also a term that can be inclusive of Christians and Jews, many of whom were important figures in the administration and academia of al-Andalus. If you mean a more specific group, then you can refer to them specifically: \"Andalusi christians\" or \"iberian christians\", \"Andalusi berbers\" etc. This all brings me to my next point, one that really is important for a question like what you're asking here.\n\nSo, secondly: Who is it exactly that you're asking about? Which people in al-Andalus are you asking about? There's a reason why \"moors\" isn't really an accepted term. One of those reasons is that it's never really clear who the author is actually talking about, and sometimes it isn't even clear what period they're describing. People like to imagine that those living in Islamic Iberia were all just arab muslims, but that's far from the case. In fact, most weren't, not even most muslims. They were diverse. So when we hear \"moor\", we have to wonder - who do they mean? And from what era? Time is important because the ethnic composition varies drastically between 8th century Gibraltar and 13th century Valencia.\n\nAre they talking about Andalusi christians descended from Hispano-Romans in Iberia? or perhaps Visigothic Andalusi christians? Are they talking about Visigothic Andalusi Muslims like Ibn al-Qūṭiyya? Are they talking about Mizrahi jewish immigrants from places like Baghdad? Are they talking about local Andalusi Sephardim instead? Or perhaps Arab migrants to al-Andalus? Or even local Arabs? Are they talking about Berbers, descended from the original conquering force in the 8th century? Or perhaps Berber migrants from Ifriqiya? As Ruggles notes, al-Andalus even in the late years of the 15th century was still known for an unusually high level of diversity for the time, something still remarked on by the common usage of the term 'convivencia', a term [Ruggles](_URL_0_) says is used to describe the richness of artistic styles produced by that diversity.\n\nAnd when you examine descriptions of prominent Andalusis - for example, via Ibn Hazm we have descriptions that show almost all of the Umayyad caliphs as being primarily blonde haired and commonly blue-eyed, as Christian women from the north were commonly the fathers of those caliphs. Abdul Rahman III's mother, for instance, is now generally thought to have been either Frankish or Basque. The point here is that al-Andalus wasn't remotely as uniform ethnically as the later western & central european literary sources might give you the impression of being. \n\nSo I can't really answer your specific question, I can just give a bit of detail on the diversity and ethnic makeup of al-Andalus. At this point, I would suggest that, given how the historiography of al-Andalus has developed and changed over time, that perhaps many of these playwrights and authors simply weren't well informed on the cultural and ethnic makeup of al-Andalus. Equally possible is that accuracy just wasn't their concern.",
" > Judge Ford stared at the table, at Theo\nTheodorakis’ hand. A calloused hand, a healed cut, the shiny\nslash of a burn on the deep bronze skin. She lowered her hands\nto her lap. His Greek skin was darker than her “black” skin.\n\n > \n\n > *-Ellen Raskin, 'The Westing Game'*\n\nWhat we think of as classifying people by skin color has, of course, little to do with actual skin color. This was true in the European (and Near Eastern, and West African) Middle Ages; this was true in the early modern era; this is true today. \n\nWhat has changed, however, is the criteria for dividing people into groups to which to apply an ideology of skin color. Factors like religion, geographic origin/ancestry, and social status--especially enslavement--rise and fall in importance in calculations of \"black\" and \"white.\"\n\nI've talked before on AH about how black/brown and white in medieval Europe operated *in general* under the conveniently linked ideas of climate and religion. That is, the further south, the darker the skin color. Medieval Arab writers also repeat this theory, stressing the 'whites' to the north as well as the 'blacks' to the south. (They actually use the term 'blacks' as a noun).\n\nIn the medieval Christian European view, unlike the Muslim North African-Near Eastern one, there was Christian Europe in the north, Muslim Africa to the south, and eventually pagan Tartar Asia to the east. The simplification of \"Muslims\" and \"south\", along with the trans-cultural tendency to equate darkness with bad things, generally resulted in Muslims/Saracens= > Moors being associated with dark skin.\n\nThere is definite weirdness here, though--and a prime example actually comes up in your quotes: Ethiopia. Hildegard of Bingen in the 12th century uses \"Ethiopian\" as a substitute for \"dark skin\"; in the 15th century, with Ethiopian Orthodox Christians in residence in Rome and attending Church councils, they're sometimes depicted in art as white-skinned with red hair. And \"Europe\" and \"Ethiopia\" are even mixed up (the words) in some copies of popular texts!\n\nBut even that example demonstrates how religion and geographic origin of ancestor kind of swam around each other in determining *ideological* skin color, moving from the medieval period into the early modern era.\n\nOver the course of the 17th century, however, religion changed and decline in importance (but definitely did not vanish), and social status rose in prominence. What happened here can basically be summed up as: slavery.\n\nThis wasn't new. In medieval Iberia, maurus/moro was more associated with enslavement than Saracen/sarraceni (also linked to whether Castilians or Aragonese were writing the text) and Turk also less so. But it doesn't seem to have been that big a deal, as your examples show.\n\nIt's a complicated process that wraps its tendrils around Native Americans and conversion (or lack thereof) to Christianity as well. But scholars have shown that, in general, ideas of \"enslaved\" and \"black\" built up each other in 17th century British North America. Social status--enslavement or free--became the metric for determining what it mean to be black.\n\nThe *really* interesting thing to me--mostly because I learned this literally 36 hours ago (nearly to the minute)--is that this development followed some centuries later on a development that had occurred among medieval Arabic writers and West African elites. Regardless of similarities or differences in skin color, \"black\" was associated (though not always) with enslaved members of the population.\n\nThe answer can be summed up as \"It's Complicated,\" I suppose, with lots of flexibility and fuzziness and steps forward and backward. I also need to read more about the Ottoman Empire and see how changing European perceptions of it might play a role. But this is at least a messy version of filling in your question.\n\nMy apologies for the delay in answering.",
"While there's always more to be said, this previous [answer](_URL_0_) by /u/sunagainstgold is a good start."
]
} | [] | [
"https://www.gutenberg.org/files/37223/37223-h/37223-h.htm",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moors",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pray_thee",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_English_Moor",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackface"
] | [
[
"https://s3.amazonaws.com/academia.edu.documents/39579948/Ruggles.Mothers_of_Hybrid_Dynasty.JMEMS.pdf?response-content-disposition=inline%3B%20filename%3DMothers_of_a_Hybrid_Dynasty_Race_Genealo.pdf&X-Amz-Algorithm=AWS4-HMAC-SHA256&X-Amz-Credential=AKIAIWOWYYGZ2Y53UL3A%2F20200223%2Fus-east-1%2Fs3%2Faws4_request&X-Amz-Date=20200223T052325Z&X-Amz-Expires=3600&X-Amz-SignedHeaders=host&X-Amz-Signature=0c0c6edaab3bd7de8299aa61b8efeca8508424c67cfe3ec20a31f2dc12633f42",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/53uhvi/how_different_were_the_peoples_of_northern_spain/?st=jvaxy1g9&sh=d383e2ee"
],
[],
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9gj27c/why_are_moors_often_depicted_as_black_in_european/e64myut/"
]
] |
|
5xx5t6 | How did Chicago grow as it did? | First time asking in /r/askhistorians. Sorry if this has already been answered before/has an obvious answer.
Cities like New York City, Singapore, and Shanghai are significantly economically successful due to it's coastal ports and accessibility to the global trade market, while cities like Seoul, Beijing, and Moscow were successful due to the nature of their governments and their statuses as capitals.
However, Chicago is smack-dab in the middle of America, and its only international trading partner is Canada. I understand its history where the railroad system during the industrial revolution made Chicago grow, but wasn't that essentially just domestic trading within the US only? If that were true, why weren't the other railroad hubs in America as successful as Chicago was in growth? To my understanding, America during the industrial era wasn't as dominant as she is today, so why was an inland domestic trade hub able to get so large, even compared to other inland trade hubs? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5xx5t6/how_did_chicago_grow_as_it_did/ | {
"a_id": [
"denjibm",
"denmmvk"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"Meat, meat, and meat.\n\nFirst, don't overlook Lake Michigan. The Great Lakes were crucial to the development of the region - shipping iron ore from Minnesota to Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania to be smelted into steel using coke from Pennsylvania and West Virginia to be built into cars in Ohio and Detroit. While Chicago didn't participate in this particular industry, they did participate in the meat industry.\n\nIn the 19th century, ranchers spread out across the western states, from Texas through the Dakotas, west. The livestock that they raised couldn't be processed out there - with no refrigeration, animals had to be processed closer to the consumers in the East. Chicago became the gateway. Cattle would be driven to railheads and then shipped to the Union Stockyards in Chicago where they were then sold off and sent further east. With advances in technology, mainly refrigeration and transportation, Chicago became home to the first industrial production scale meat packing facilities from Armour and Swift, some of the largest producers of meat to this day.\n\nFurther, during the Civil War, the Union bought massive amounts of meat to feed the soldiers and the Confederacy blockaded the Mississippi River, effectively shutting off transportation in the west and forcing everyone to use the railroads through... Chicago!\n\nSo, the location on the Great Lakes, being a railroad hub, the Confederacy blockade of the Mississippi, the Union demand for meat, and the investments of meat barons like Armour and Swift is what laid the foundation for Chicago to become the city it is today.",
"Chicago was perhaps the world's best example of an *entrepôt.* That is, a place where things have to be shifted from one mode of transport to another. Since you're moving the stuff around anyway, it's a good place to set up a factory or processing plant to add value to the stuff before reshipping it.\n\nThe city's situation is at the southernmost point that the Great Lakes reach into the North American continent, and a short portage let *voyageurs* move across into the Mississippi River system to reach most of the rest of the continent. French explorers saw that a short canal would make that possible for bigger vessels, and the city's early history was connected with building that canal. Now goods from around the Great Lakes—and after the 1825 construction of the Erie Canal, from the East Coast—could move into the interior rivers, while agricultural products from the Mississippi Valley could move eastward.\n\nThe same year the canal opened, 1848, the first railroad also came to Chicago, and several more followed by 1855, including important continental ones from Michigan and from southern Illinois. Now this entrepôt had four types of transport converging on it. Not just passing through, but meeting, with cargo needing to be moved from one mode to another.\n\nBesides the situation as an entrepôt, William Cronon in *Nature's Metropolis* points out how Chicago is situated at the boundaries of various North American ecologies. The great North Woods of Michigan and Wisconsin on one side; the vast agriculture-suited plains on the other side. Wood from the north can be turned into windows and door frames and furniture in Chicago and shipped to the treeless prairies, while grain and livestock from the prairies is turned into packaged food in Chicago that can be sent east to the big cities. The iron ore of Minnesota lies just to the west; the coal of southern Illinois and limestone of the Ohio Valley to the southeast. So Chicago and adjacent Northwest Indiana became the world's primary steel producer.\n\nThe trade infrastructure of this economic activity lingered long after the original trade faded. So Chicago is still a globally important warehousing and distribution hub even in the air age; still an important center of machine tools and highly skilled manufacturing when consumer manufacturing has shifted to other countries. The advertising and marketing and business support services that first aided the city's 19th century businesses remain at the heart of a highly diversified economy today. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
4gl4il | why do we feel motivated after we are upset or angry? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4gl4il/eli5_why_do_we_feel_motivated_after_we_are_upset/ | {
"a_id": [
"d2ihvhw"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Depends on where the motivation comes from. Sounds like it's from a place of retribution or to prove someone wrong. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
6okc5t | how does applying sunscreen regularly really help you age gracefully, considering that your skin cells constantly die and get replaced by new cells? | [deleted] | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6okc5t/eli5_how_does_applying_sunscreen_regularly_really/ | {
"a_id": [
"dki0udk"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Because UVA rays damage the collagen layer below your skin, which acts as a sort of \"support structure\". This causes your skin to wrinkle and take on a \"leathery\" appearance."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
bbax1b | why do high end sports cars have scissor doors? is it just for aesthetics or is there a practical reason? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/bbax1b/eli5_why_do_high_end_sports_cars_have_scissor/ | {
"a_id": [
"ekhj164",
"ekhy117"
],
"score": [
11,
4
],
"text": [
"Typical high end sports car are much wider than regular car due to increased performance and the scissor door in high end sports car allow their owner to exit the vehicle easily even parked in between cars. By having the door opening up instead of traditionally outward, the owner would gain a lot more opening to get out of the car vs having to squeeze between the car and the door to not dent the other car.",
"One of the first modern cars to have doors that didn't open from the front or back was the Mercedes gullwing, and it had upwards-opening doors for structural reasons. A door represents a big hole in the structure, which means a weak point in the lower part of the chassis; high-performance cars generally want a stiff chassis that doesn't flex during cornering, so to reduce the impact of the door on that crucial structural part they moved the door up. Today, we've largely figured out ways around that so many modern supercars will have fairly traditional doors, but it's still a valid way to give yourself a little extra room to fit structural components so you see that the serious cars still have it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2gtqjc | why companies choose advertising, sponsorships, expensive promotions, and blanket mailing over offering cheaper better service | I really don't understand why I get a 4 pages letter on glossy paper every couple of weeks from my ISP asking if I wanna sign up for a landline.
I get ton of mail addressed to "Occupant" from other ISPs and these are just examples from one industry.
On the other hand, I have to pay $80 for cell phone and $65 for internet and I'm not happy with either service.
Meanwhile, phone companies are the biggest sponsors of everything.
Switching to banks, let me tell you about a promotion from this bank where they'll give up to $400 if you sign up with few services. But there's literally nothing stopping you from closing your account after 2 months (and getting the money) but if you stay with them, the account fees are just too high. It doesn't take a Math prof to find that out. I really don't get it. If you say: no-fee accounts, won't people like that better. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2gtqjc/eli5_why_companies_choose_advertising/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckmff5i"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Guess which one is more effective at making them money? **The one they are doing**."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3kg05b | why are tote-bag apples cheaper than bulk apples? | I wanted apples for a pie, but they're about $1.99-$2.99lb to buy in bulk at my local grocery store. If I buy the smaller ones in tote bags, they are anywhere from $0.99-$1.50lb. Why is that? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3kg05b/eli5_why_are_totebag_apples_cheaper_than_bulk/ | {
"a_id": [
"cux3i30",
"cux3neo"
],
"score": [
4,
5
],
"text": [
"Because stocking bulk apples is more expensive, as people will only buy the most perfect-looking ones and the rest will spoil and need to be thrown out. \n\nThat isn't to say that bagged apples are lower-quality - they just might have some visual imperfections.",
"Less labor, less materials, guaranteed purchase amount. That's probably the main 3.\nWhat kind of tote? How would you suppose it arrives? If it's actually bulk apples that the workers put in on site from the same batch as the bulk tables, that leaves us with purchasing amounts. Stores make money when you buy more. They'll want you to buy more than you would otherwise.\nIs it pre-packaged sealed bags? I stock those.\nWorking the bagged apples is a breeze and I'd reason that it's less hassle for those who handled it before me."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
1dcdau | Why when I get an itchy throat, does my inner ear itch as well? | Whenever there is an itch in the back of my throat, there is also a discomforting itch in the inside of my ear. What causes them to itch in conjunction with eachother? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1dcdau/why_when_i_get_an_itchy_throat_does_my_inner_ear/ | {
"a_id": [
"c9p7950"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"They're quite closely connected \n\n_URL_0_ "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eustachian_tube"
]
] |
|
3d34e1 | hiring a lawyer | What does the process look like? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3d34e1/eli5_hiring_a_lawyer/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct1cuzk"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"You'll have to focus your question a little, there are hundreds of specialties in law.\n\nContract law, criminal law, family law, intellectual property law, estate law, property law, etc.\n\nAnd there are lawyers who specialize in certain things, like a trial. lawyer."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
hhyxw | 2 questions for the geneticists | Could FISH be considered optical mapping and could whole genome shotgun be considered massively parallel sequencing? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/hhyxw/2_questions_for_the_geneticists/ | {
"a_id": [
"c1vjs89",
"c1vnhle"
],
"score": [
3,
2
],
"text": [
"I think FISH *could* be considered optical mapping, though in general optical mapping is just done with a chromosomal stain and smashed chromosomes. I wouldn't consider old-school shotgun sequencing to be massively parallel sequencing though. I think the term is used more for the current Illumina, 454, and SOLID systems.\n\nRelevant credentials: Sequenced 40 genomes. ",
"So everyone else knows what's going on here:\n\n* FISH stands for **F**luorescent **I**n **S**itu **H**ybridization, a method for marking a specific stretch of DNA with a complementary stretch of nucleotides tagged with a glowing molecule (both together are called a probe). This allows you to see a particular sequence of DNA in a fixed (dead) cell with a microscope. Thus the OP's \"optical mapping\" question, because this technique allows you to SEE where particular stretches of DNA are. \n\nI'm not qualified to talk about shotgun sequencing and massively parallel sequencing, maybe someone else can chime in. \n\nadditional info- \n\n-*in situ* basically means \"in the situation,\" and it's considered an intermediate between *in vivo* (a living sample) and *in vitro* (in a test tube). It's the equivalent of studying a picture of a person instead of a video. \n\n-Nucleotides are the building blocks of DNA and RNA, just as amino acids are the building blocks of proteins. \n\n-Hybridization is the term when two complementary strands of nucleic acids join together through hydrogen bonding. So Fluorescent In Situ Hybridization means glowing thing attaching in the situation by sticking two strands of nucleic acids together. FISH. \n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
3bqlpe | why does airconditioning in my car consume gas but the headlights/radio does not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bqlpe/eli5_why_does_airconditioning_in_my_car_consume/ | {
"a_id": [
"csojsx5",
"csojtd3",
"csok9vd",
"csovq0y"
],
"score": [
8,
2,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"The headlights and radio do consume gas (or if the engine is off they drain the battery, which is then recharged by burning gas later). They use a lot less than running the air con though, just because air con uses more energy.",
"If your car is running, then your headlights and radio are also consuming gas (indirectly) via the alternator. If your car is off then they're running off the car's battery.",
"Most cars have an auxiliary belt/ drive belt that powers accessories. Accessories include power steering and air conditioning.\nYou may have noticed when your car isn't running the engine, your AC doesn't work. \nThis is because the pulley connected to the AC is free running all the time from the belt and not actually turning anything.\nWhen you turn on the AC, you'll hear a click and the pulley mechanically connects the AC pump shaft to the pulley (You may have a momentary judder as power from the belt starts to turn over the AC).\nThis power used doesn't come for free though. The engine is now having to keep the AC turning while doing everything else and that's why it uses fuel.\nThe headlights and radio work off the battery. Using them does drain the battery faster but you regain all that by driving around and recharging from the alternator that is constantly connected to the drive belt (the same one that can power the AC).",
"The headlights and radio run off electrical power and can therefore run when your engine is off. This obviously won't use gas. The AC is mechanically driven by a belt connected to your engine. If some of the power your engine produces is taken up by it, it has to use more gas to produce the same amount of power as with the AC off. People telling you your radio and headlights use gas don't really know what they're talking about. Don't believe me? Run your tank dry and see if they still work."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
1a13nv | Why do we call it 'ancient Rome' and not ancient Italy? | Hello. I am new to Reddit and have a question.
Why do we refer to 'ancient Rome' and not 'ancient Italy'? Why therefore is it 'ancient Greece' and not 'ancient Athens'?
Thank you. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a13nv/why_do_we_call_it_ancient_rome_and_not_ancient/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8t52tw",
"c8t6gcx",
"c8t9vpl"
],
"score": [
5,
10,
5
],
"text": [
"I'm not an historian but Italy is a nation state which unified fairly recently. For centuries various city-states, kings, emperors, and the church ruled what is now Italy, taking land and power from each other at various times. \n\nAncient Rome as was ruled in Rome whose people conquered lands in the name of Rome. I do not believe they would not consider a town in northwest Italy Rome. ",
"Rome dominated the Italian peninsula in a way Athens never could. It was also unique in that the national identity of a region was tied to a single city. This was due to Rome's practice of granting citizenship to people who may have never seen the city. Since it was politicaly advantageous to be a Roman citizen it was highly sought after.",
"They identified themselves as Romans, that's good enough for me."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
1q2wfg | Quarks in Protons | Okay, keep in mind that I'm a Junior in high school and this is my first reddit post. Okay, I've been reading about quarks and gluons. What does a proton look like if you could shrink down and see it? Do the quarks and gluons come together to form a ball (the proton) somehow? Or does it look like a triangle? (if you could magically see what it looks like at that scale) | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1q2wfg/quarks_in_protons/ | {
"a_id": [
"cd8qy3a",
"cd8tjcu",
"cd8uira",
"cd8xm3i"
],
"score": [
10,
8,
11,
3
],
"text": [
"Ah, well, I hate to plug myself but I've already written an explanation of some aspects of proton structure over [at Physics Stack Exchange](_URL_0_), and whatever I would post here would just be rehashing that, so I'd suggest you just go over and read it first. Then feel free to post followup questions here.\n\nThe gist of it is that a proton is a massively complicated object, because it's made of quantum fields. Just thinking of it as a collection of particles is already quite a simplification. If you do that, then you find that the proton is made of lots of quarks and gluons, and to a lesser extent photons, electrons, etc., but the numbers and properties vary depending on the conditions you subject the proton to. It is spherical, though. (Well actually more like a slightly squashed sphere, because a proton has a bit of angular momentum that makes it not-quite-symmetric.)",
"I think an accurate and digestible answer to this is that, at that level, it's not so much \"coming together like a ball\" or \"coming together like a triangle.\" Think of it instead as dropping three rocks into a lake and observing the ripples that arise immediately afterwards. Sure, there are rough locations where you can make out where the rocks are, but the overall shape of the waves is constantly changing and jumbling around. The whole mess alltogether is the proton, and from far enough away someone can't even tell there were three rocks, it just looks like one big splash to them. That's sort of the phenomenon you run into with particle physics: the closer you look, the bigger mess you get.",
"You've asked a very good question, which will take a lot of description to answer in such a way that you'll be satisfied, but I'll do my best to make it understandable. \n\nSo, as you've mentioned, a proton is \"made up of\" three quarks (2 up and a down) and then are sort of \"glued together\" by a bunch of gluons. All of these come together to make a proton which has some very small, but measurable, size (about [1.5E-18 meters](_URL_2_)). This sort of particle (a particle made up of smaller particles) is called a particle with an \"internal structure.\" \n\nSo far, none of this is too weird. But now for the weird part. All of these particles that make up the proton are believed to have \"no internal structure.\" That is, they aren't made up of anything- and in fact, to our best knowledge, they have no size. Not \"they are really, really small\" but no size at all. Electrons are also like this- believed to be true \"point masses.\" But just because they have no size, doesn't mean they don't \"take up some space\" (in a certain way, this is coming next). \n\nHave you heard of the [Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle](_URL_0_)? If you have, you have likely heard it explained like this: \"The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle states that you cannot accurately measure the position and velocity of a particle at the same time. Thus, the better you know its position, the worse you will be able to measure its velocity.\" This is close to correct, but is actually a slight misstatement. The uncertainty principle is **not** a limitation of our measurement ability- it is a statement about how particles actually are. Really the uncertainty principle says \"a particle does not have a well defined position and well defined velocity at the same time.\" This is often thought of as \"the position of a particle is \"smeared\" or is \"fuzzy\" and while in a way that is true, no matter your level of magnetism, you don't see that \"smeared\" or \"fuzzy\" look. So, what is the point of this discussion? Well- if a quark has size, its size is smaller than its uncertainty is position- thus seeing it would not really be possible. That isn't to say we can't observe one (it leaves trails in particle colliders, for instance, and they still have mass and charge), but we can't actually see one. \n\nOne more thing- while we're talking anyway- that you might find interesting. You can look up the mass of a proton, and find that it is [938 MeV/c](_URL_1_). You can look up the Up and Down quarks, and see that they are [2.2 MeV/c](_URL_3_) and [5 MeV/c](_URL_3_), respectivly. And of course, gluons are massless. Now, you might be wondering \"What is this MeV/c unit of mass?\" Well, MeV stands for \"Mega-electronvolts\" which is just a measurement of energy, and c is the speed of light- so this is a measurement of mass based on the famous Einstein equation E = mc^2 . Now, the next thing you might notice is that the proton is a lot heavier than the particles that make it up (the masses of the up and down quarks only add up to ~10 MeV/c, while the proton has a mass about 10x's that). Where does the rest of the mass come from? Well- the unit of mass we used is our clue- it all comes from the strong nuclear force, mediated by the gluons, binding the quarks together in the proton. \n\nSo all of this is to say- even if you magically could zoom in all the way to see the \"structure\" of the proton, you wouldn't really see much of anything. You could see the proton itself- but there would be no \"fixed shapes\" inside of that proton which were visible, because the proton- which has size- is made up of a bunch of particles that don't. ",
"Take a look at figures 1 and 2 in \n[Impact Parameter Dependent Parton Distributions and Transverse Single Spin Asymmetries](_URL_0_) \nThe nucleon is seen by a (virtual) photon along the z axis incoming in the drawing plane, the bx and by are the quark position coordinates in the plane in fm (10^-15 m), and the variable \"x\" between 0 and 1 tells you how much energy the quark carries, in fraction of the nucleon energy. The first plot is for u quark, with positive charge, the second for d quark, with negative charge. The first thing to notice is that the distributions become more centered as x increases, which is just kinematics : as the quark carries more energy, it becomes the center-of-mass. The most interesting thing is on the right column, when the nucleon is polarized along the horizontal : there appears to be a separation in transverse position of quarks with opposite electric charges. It is \"as if\" they were orbiting along the polarization axis in opposite directions. \n\nThese model consideration have since been confirmed by lattice simulations."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/81190/whats-inside-a-proton/81284#81284"
],
[],
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Uncertainty_principle",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+a+proton",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=size+of+a+proton",
"http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=mass+of+an+up+quark"
],
[
"http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-ph/0209179"
]
] |
|
btiiz2 | why do people sell their things to pawn shops when they can sell it to auctions for a much better price? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/btiiz2/eli5_why_do_people_sell_their_things_to_pawn/ | {
"a_id": [
"eoyc26v"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"You sell to a pawn shop when you need the cash right that second. You are facing eviction or want to keep the power on or need to buy drugs. It's for when you haven't got time for an auction."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3sbqbh | what is a beta? | What is a beta in stocks? Can someone clarify it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3sbqbh/eli5what_is_a_beta/ | {
"a_id": [
"cwvrz40"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Can you be more specific? There are beta fish, beta phases of software, beta personalities/people, there's a letter of the Greek alphabet called beta, etc. which are you worried about?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
4pwlb3 | why does brown rice split open after it is boiled, but white rice doesn't? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/4pwlb3/eli5_why_does_brown_rice_split_open_after_it_is/ | {
"a_id": [
"d4oebhw",
"d4oray3"
],
"score": [
9,
2
],
"text": [
"White rice is just brown rice without the chaff or bran of the grain. The splitting it's this casing splitting open. White rice just doesn't have the casing.",
"What is white rice? Can you grow rice and have it come out looking as fine and as white as white rice? No you can't. \n\nRice is similar to wheat in that it has the outer nutritional bit like bran, and an interior kernel of almost pure carbohydrate. Rice is usually milled and rolled so that only the soft, tasty inner kernel of rice is left over and all of the exterior bran is milled away. This results in a tasty, sticky, but less nutritionally valuable rice, similar to whole wheat vs white flour. \n\nIf whole grain rice is boiled, the outer bran casing breaks open as the carbohydrate laden interior expands from cooking. \n\nYou get a similar result when you roast barley or wheat. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
5ri04g | why do many viruses that can kill you are hard to catch while less harmful ones are easy to catch but don't kill you | For example, HIV is hard to catch (you have to have a blood transfusion, sex with an infected person, etc) and it can kill you, but the common cold virus is easy to catch but usually won't do lasting harm. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/5ri04g/eli5_why_do_many_viruses_that_can_kill_you_are/ | {
"a_id": [
"dd7drlr",
"dd7du35"
],
"score": [
7,
3
],
"text": [
"Because doctors and scientists have focused a great deal of effort making sure that viruses that can kill/debilitate you AND are easy to catch do not spread. This is mostly done through vaccines that provide herd immunity. If most people are immune to the virus, it is much harder for the virus to find suitable targets to start an outbreak.\n\nHowever, the recent surge of anti-vaccine ideas has poked holes in the herd immunity which has caused outbreaks of viruses that should have been preventable.",
"Viruses don't really want to kill you. If you die, all the viruses that are using you as a breeding ground also die.\n\nSo most viruses that are super-deadly are young ones, that haven't had much time to evolve to spread themselves around humanity yet. Ebola, HIV, and such are all very new diseases.\n\nOlder diseases, like the flu or the common cold, are much less lethal, so that the infected person can stay alive and spread the infection to more people."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
eafgmw | would a human being from 5000 years ago look the same as a human being today, considering if it's from the same genus, species, subspecies? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/eafgmw/eli5_would_a_human_being_from_5000_years_ago_look/ | {
"a_id": [
"faqfrys"
],
"score": [
12
],
"text": [
"Anatomically modern humans first appeared about 200,000 years ago. Behaviourally modern humans appeared about 40,000 years ago. Anatomically modern humans are physically the same as us, and as far as we know you'd be hard pressed to tell the difference between a modern human and a caveman from 200,000 BC just by looking at them. A behaviourally modern human has a more fully developed brain, and a human from about 40,000 years ago is just as smart as a modern human, just they didn't know as much as we do now. You could grab a baby from 40,000 BC and put it through a modern school, and the child will perform about on par with modern standards."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
28osof | Are Jungian archetypes similar to the Freudian psychological apparatus? | Are these two theories models of the same thing? It seems that both Jung and Freud was (1) proposing how the psyche worked and (2) theorized that the human psyche was made up of different, sometimes conflicting, parts. So when Freud wrote about the id, ego and superego was he writing about the same concept as Jung when he described his archetypes? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/28osof/are_jungian_archetypes_similar_to_the_freudian/ | {
"a_id": [
"cid06x5"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"I believe Jung was referring to more of a \"collective unconscious\" than an individual one. Meaning these \"archetypes\" are sort of unconscious memories and knowledge passed down from our ancestors - almost like instincts are. Freud was talking more about an individual unconscious in the sense that the ego, id and superego are all our own personal unconscious feelings and thoughts. Hence why we struggle so much (in his opinion) with our desires. Everyone is different and has a different subconscious that \"leads\" these desires. My 2 cents- I could be wrong:)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
3df8v5 | How exactly do we know how fast saturn is turning when it is all just gas? Do all layers of gas giants rotate at the same speed? How can we place a fixed point on a gas giant if its just one big sphere of gas? | Hope I'm getting my question across properly, I was just reading about how an extrasolar solar gas giant was tidally locked with its sun and it got me thinking on how we are even able to indicate which side is which on a gas giant that far away, let alone a sun? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3df8v5/how_exactly_do_we_know_how_fast_saturn_is_turning/ | {
"a_id": [
"ct4klrb",
"ct4uaji"
],
"score": [
131,
12
],
"text": [
"The visible features of Saturn rotate at different rates depending on their latitude (distance from the equator). Astronomers have developed three different systems for measuring the rotational speed of Saturn. System I is for regions around the planet’s equator. The System I rotation speed is 10 hours and 14 minutes. Above and below the Equatorial Belt is called System II. Here the rotation speed is 10 hours and 39 minutes.\n\nSystem III is based on the rotation of Saturn’s magnetic field, and was measured by NASA’s voyager spacecraft. They determined that Saturn’s magnetic field takes 10 hours and 39 minutes to complete a rotation. But here’s a strange mystery. The rotation of the magnetic field was measured again by NASA’s Cassini spacecraft in 2004, and it found that the rotation of the magnetic field had slowed down to 10 hours and 45 minutes. So it appears that the rotation of Saturn can change over time.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nfirst link off google and many more.",
"I guess, as a related question, does the cloud cover on our planet rotate with the same period as the surface? I always assumed the atmosphere lagged a bit behind but I guess I have no basis for that assumption"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.universetoday.com/24164/rotation-of-saturn/"
],
[]
] |
|
3lhf1q | Why aren't there any bacteria which can process food in cold temperatures (quickly)? | I know that refrigeration doesn't completely halt bacterial action, or kill all bacteria - but it does do a pretty decent job at slowing decay. With the prevalence of refrigeration in the modern world, I am somewhat surprised that we haven't seen strains of bacteria that can thrive despite those conditions. Is there some universal about cold temperatures that would prevent bacteria from adapting to it further? | askscience | https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3lhf1q/why_arent_there_any_bacteria_which_can_process/ | {
"a_id": [
"cv6rnd8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"The speed of chemical reactions, including the enzymatic reactions of life, decrease by about a half for every ten degrees C drop in temperature. Cold-adaption usually involves changes to the composition of plasma membranes, so the organisms will always be slow in the cold."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
7yo3df | how is a neuron conneted to so many others? | How can a Neuron be connected to tens of thousands of cells? I understand this on a biological level, but what I want to know is the architectural/spacial organization. How is it possible that all those thousands and thousands of Neurons are individually connected to so many more, and that seemingly effective (short distance, small space)
I hope I made clear what I mean, sorry for the bad grammar. | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/7yo3df/eli5_how_is_a_neuron_conneted_to_so_many_others/ | {
"a_id": [
"dui15c6"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Dendrites and axons. These appendages are what communicate to other cells and other neurons. They can also be very long. Axons can be feet long, giving lots of room for large networks."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
5zcmj4 | Did the Korean War increase the West's interest of Korean culture? Did it lead to more or less exportation of Korean culture? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5zcmj4/did_the_korean_war_increase_the_wests_interest_of/ | {
"a_id": [
"dex4m41",
"dezzcjm"
],
"score": [
6,
2
],
"text": [
"I used to have a really good lesson plan for APUSH on how the Korean War was viewed by Americans in the 1950's, but for the life of me, I can't seem to find the damn thing.\n\nThe long and short of it is that the Korean War is called \"America's forgotten war\" for a [reason](_URL_2_). Returning GIs desperately wanted to forget it - Korea's frigid winters, crushingly humid summers, and ubiquitous ridgelines coupled with the endless stalemates made for a very miserable experience. Most just wanted to pick up their lives where they left off and not dwell on their time in the war.\n\nFurthermore, the Korean War was overall [incredibly unpopular](_URL_1_) with the American people. While public opinion tended to fluctuate with how well the UN forces were doing at the time, it wasn't uncommon to see nearly half of Americans saying that going into Korea was a mistake or that it was going to lead to World War III. [Polls conducted by the Eisenhower administration](_URL_0_) upon Ike assuming office in 1953 were particularly grim: over half of Americans thought the war wasn't worth fighting, and a vast majority just wanted an armistice as soon as possible.\n\nIn short, no to both on your questions. The end result of the Korean War was that Americans wanted nothing to do with Korea and wanted to forget about the place as soon as possible. (This even extended into academia - the study of Korea as an academic field didn't really begin until the 1960s, when Edward W. Wagner, James Palais, and Gari Ledyard more or less founded Korean Studies in the United States.)",
"The Korean War resulted in the exportation of one thing: people. Immigration law was changed in 1952 which removed some racial restrictions and allowed GI's to bring back foreign wives and children. Holt International Children's Services was created in 1955 to help people adopt Korean War orphans, especially bi-racial children of Korean women and US soldiers. [This article from Time](_URL_0_) has some good photos of orphans in the 60's and discusses the Korean government's racial views and plans to remove bi-racial children through adoption.\n\nFurther, while the Korean War ended in 1953, the US has maintained a sizable presence ever since then. From 1955 until 1970, there were between 50 and 70 thousand US soldiers in Korea at any given time. In the 70's, the numbers dropped to around 40k, and in the mid 90's, the numbers dropped to the mid 30's and finally in the mid 2000's to just under 30k. It's important to remember that these soldiers usually spend a year in Korea with the option to extend to a second year, so besides the soldiers who fought in the Korean war, the US military has rotated millions of people through Korea over the years.\n\nClearly with the exportation of people through war brides and orphans, and the rotation of so many US soldiers, there was some exportation of Korean culture. But I think it's all relative. Orphans don't take very much culture with them. Compared to the recent exportation of Korean culture via television dramas, K-Pop, movies, and technology, the amount of cultural exportation following the Korean War was a trickle."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.eisenhower.archives.gov/research/online_documents/korean_war/Public_Opinion_1953_06_02.pdf",
"http://www.gallup.com/poll/7741/gallup-brain-americans-korean-war.aspx",
"http://www.historynet.com/interview-melinda-pash-why-is-korea-the-forgotten-war.htm"
],
[
"http://time.com/3605816/joo-myung-duck-portraits-of-mixed-race-orphans-in-postwar-korea/"
]
] |
||
1uwfnm | As objectively as possible, what was Andrew Jackson's beef with the second national bank, such that dismantling it became such a point of pride for him? | There's obviously a lot of political garbage going on today about the Federal Reserve being the epicenter of evil and what-not, such that I'm not sure who/what to trust in terms of an account of why, exactly, Jackson was so opposed to the central bank of the US. Help me out? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1uwfnm/as_objectively_as_possible_what_was_andrew/ | {
"a_id": [
"cemfpfg"
],
"score": [
34
],
"text": [
" The problem was with the Bank itself. You can't compare this bank to the modern Federal Reserve system, because the US Government controls the modern Fed completely, and the US Government only owned 20% of the Second Bank of the United States. The bank was even more powerful than the current Fed in some ways though. It's directors were able to control the flow of capital throughout the country, and could reward and punish their political friends and enemies as a result. They were also making a huge amount of money off of their investment. From Jackson's POV the Federal Government was enabling a small cabal of super rich citizens to exercise so much influence over the rest of the country the amount of power they had was in and of itself corrupting and undemocratic. Jackson wanted to eliminate the Second National Bank and form a new Federal Bank as part of the Treasury Department.\n\n Here is a link to Jackson's letter to Congress explaining his veto of the renewal of the bank's charter: _URL_0_\n\n This letter is a bit dense for a modern reader, but well worth reading. It is one of the most important documents in American history, close to the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights and Emancipation Proclamation in importance. This was the turning point where the American Government ceased to be the enterprise of the rich and powerful only, and began it's journey to a truly representative democracy of a wide electorate. The Jackson Presidency is a watershed because of his fight to open democracy to the masses, and the fight over the bank charter renewal was where this all played out."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://avalon.law.yale.edu/19th_century/ajveto01.asp"
]
] |
|
1fykvf | Since being nervous raises your heart rate, does it have the same benefits as exercise? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1fykvf/since_being_nervous_raises_your_heart_rate_does/ | {
"a_id": [
"caf31e1"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"While the two activities will both raise your heart rates, there are many other physiological differences between the two activities. When you exercise, your heart rate increases rather gradually, at least at a rate in which your body can withstand (most of the time). Nervousness brings about a very sudden increase in heart rate that also leads to a dramatic increase in heart pressure as a result. While blood pressure also increases during exercise, it is accompanied by hormones and other chemicals released by your body to relax the blood vessels that is not released when you are nervous. This means that when nervous, your heart pumps more blood but the blood vessels are not relaxed and can be detrimental.\n\nThe other thing is, when you exercise it is not only your heart that is getting a work out. Exercising actually involves many organs in your body and so there is another difference between the two.\n\n**TL;DR:** No."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
8fxb3s | how do countries get rid of nuclear warheads when they decide they no longer want/need them? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8fxb3s/eli5_how_do_countries_get_rid_of_nuclear_warheads/ | {
"a_id": [
"dy77ien",
"dy77mnr",
"dy78k1q",
"dy78ojc",
"dy78ypm",
"dy7ao3x",
"dy7b1dn",
"dy7b1q3",
"dy7bpz5",
"dy7cr0p",
"dy7dph2",
"dy7dxwb",
"dy7e8y3",
"dy7hzgq",
"dy7mpay"
],
"score": [
3207,
641,
181,
46,
2,
3,
6366,
162,
2,
14,
2,
24,
6,
2,
4
],
"text": [
"Nukes are essentially just uranium or plutonium surrounded in metal, and that metal is surrounded with TNT (depending on which material you picked earlier). So its very possible to simply disassemble them. You could salvage the materials for other things. I am pretty sure you can still use them for nuclear fission. \n\nEdit: especially = essentially",
"Generally, you would remove the payload and then repurpose the material inside because it’s still nuclear material. If it’s waste, than the gold standard these days is to encase it in glass and then stainless steel and then bury it, however depending on the government getting rid of it the disposal method could go anywhere from putting it in a holding tank to dropping it in the middle of the ocean.",
"It's a pretty straightforward process. The warhead is dismantled and anything reusable is recycled. The non-nuclear components (the casing, electronics...etc) can be recycled. The actual core of uranium and/or plutonium is diluted and can be used as fuel in nuclear reactors. The fusion fuel (in the case of boosted fission or thermonuclear warheads) is disposed of as hazardous waste. Anything that's been irradiated can be stored as nuclear waste.",
"You re-use them - those elements are rare and useful.\n\nNuclear weapon payloads are very highly-refined Plutonium (Pu) or Uranium (U), depending on the design of the weapon. By refined, I mean the specific type (isotope) of that element is there in far larger abundance than in nature - so much that it can chain-react and go nuclear, as designed. A fair bit of efforts goes into separating the useful 'weaponisable' type of each element from the 'useless' (and more common) types.\n\nWhen you're talking power, Uranium reactors run on a far lower concentration of the type (isotope) that's used for weaponry. In this case you have to reduce the concentration of the Uranium-235, usually by mixing it with raw-mined low-concentration 'natural' Uranium, or with already-spent 'depleted' Uranium.\n\nIn contrast, Plutonium reactors use highly-refined fuel, much the same way Plutonium-fuelled nuclear weapons do. In that case you can use the same fuel in each, and it's just a matter of physically changing it to the shape of a fuel rod.\n\nFYI, Uranium is the more common payload... and there is the added step of getting the payload out of the rocket, but that's comparatively trivial.",
"A nuclear or thermonuclear bomb can be dissembled. The electronics are recycled, the chemical explosive is burned or detonated in a safe way. The uranium or plutonium (modern bombs almost exclusively use plutonium) can be used as fuel in civilian nuclear reactors. It could be a decommissioned nuke that is powering your screen right now.",
"The uranium is used for fuel in civilian reactors. \n\n\"During the 20-year Megatons to Megawatts program, as much as 10 percent of the electricity produced in the United States was generated by fuel fabricated using Low enriched uranium from Russian Highly enriched uranium\"\n\n_URL_0_",
"They take them apart and mix the plutonium with a ceramic forming a fuel pellet. These pellets are then shipped to the correct type of nuclear reactor and used as nuclear fuel. \n\nA lot of Soviet and American warheads dismantled due to treaties ended up as fuel in Canadian nuclear reactors as the two powers didn't trust each other.",
"The really explodey bits inside can be separated from the less explodey bits that are needed to make the warhead super explodey in the first place.\n\nThe really explodey bits can then be used in other safer ways, like to charge your iPad! ",
"Lots of recycling and reuse of materials.\n\nThere is another thing they do, which i havnt had much luck researching are nuclear \"melt\" sites.\n\n I dont know much about them but in the early 90s my dad was a tower rat at one such facility. It was a classified location in Germany, and i havnt had much luck digging up more or getting info from him, except that any time their \"alarm\" on site went off, it was shoot first orders under threat of russian contact.",
"Lots of good answers so just to add a little tidbit on the topic\n\n[Project Plowshare](_URL_0_) was a US program that looked into exactly this in the 1960's (named after the bible quote to beat down your swords into plowshares). Since at the time the US and USSR had collective nuclear stockpiles in the 10's of thousands of bombs (remember that only 2 have ever been used in warfare) so they were looking for ways to use them for productive rather than destructive purposes. These include: using nukes to create open-pit mines, manufacturing of high atomic number chemical elements, and removal of the enriched uranium for use in nuclear power.",
"The US basically shelves old missiles for disassembly, the active components are buried in a concrete bunker. We also pay for Russia's missiles to be decommissioned or did at least for awhile. ",
"Give them to Russia in exchange for their agreeing to respect your territorial integri-\n\n\nOh.",
"This doesn't specifically answer your question about nuclear weapons, but on a related note, at the Blue Grass Army Depot in Kentucky, they're almost done completing the Blue Grass Chemical Agent Destruction Pilot Plant. This facility is going to dismantle all of the chemical weapons the US has stored there over the last century. Things like mustard gas, VX and other nerve agents. There's another facility like it in Pueblo, Colorado.\n\nYou can Google both, and find a decent amount of public information on it, including videos on how the process works. My limited understanding is that they send these missiles and canisters through an assembly line with various chemical and heat processes and at the end are left with basically scrap metal and non-potable water.\n\nI did some minor construction work there so we were only given a very basic orientation on what was going on. Again, pretty much all public information. But I remember our instructor telling us that the old alternative for disposing of this stuff was to basically take it to a remote desert or cave or something and just blow it up. ",
"It depends on why you are taking them out of service, but there are really only a couple of options:\n\n1. Down blend the nuclear material. You purposely un-enrich the material or otherwise add other isotopes to the material to make it no longer useful in nuclear weapons. The [Megatons-to-Megawatts](_URL_0_) program did this for excess special nuclear material in the former USSR, turning it into commercial reactor fuel.\n\n2. Recycle the material in your national strategic programs. You might purify the material, add phase modifiers and then manufacture new pits for new nuclear weapons. If your nation operates [naval nuclear propulsion](_URL_3_), highly enriched material is desirable due to its compactness and long life as nuclear fuel. These uses take advantage of the costs you already sank into producing this material in the first place. \n\n3. Recycle the material in your national science organizations. High purity radioactive material is of interest in a wide variety of research and technological applications.\n\n4. Dispose of the material in your national [geologic repository](_URL_1_) or otherwise destroy the material in something like a [fast flux reactor](_URL_2_).\n",
"The UK has begun dismantling some of its warheads, but hasn't come up with a final disposal plan. A 2016 government report laid out three proposals:\n\n1) Convert the plutonium to a stable ceramic and send it for deep disposal (in a repository which hasn't even been planned let alone built);\n2) Convert it to fuel and use it in the UK's own nuclear reactors, or;\n3) Make fuel and sell it abroad.\n\nThe committee couldn't decide which was the safest and most economically feasible route, but did point out the energy security benefits of the second option.\n\nHowever, this doesn't seem very likely because of the ongoing scandal of the UK's reprocessing operations which are costing a fortune even as they are being scaled back.\n\nThe UK was a pioneer in separating plutonium on an industrial scale because its first Magnox reactors used fuel that couldn't be stored for long periods of time after removal from the reactor. Even after the UK stopped extracting plutonium for warheads, Magnox had to be reprocessed - and plutonium recovered - come what may. The result was an enormous pile of plutonium that needed a home.\n\nSo, in the 1970s, a decision was made by British Nuclear Fuels that the UK would recover plutonium by reprocessing spent fuel, not just from UK reactors, but from all over the World. The plutonium would then be mixed with low enriched uranium to make mixed oxide fuel (MOX) which would then be resold. That kind of made sense when uranium was expensive and resources thought to be limited. \n\nBut as it turned out, nuclear power stopped expanding and uranium remained cheap. So the UK is getting out of the reprocessing industry - but we still have a lot of plutonium - not all of it ours. And I mean a lot - at least 140 *tonnes* of civilian plutonium - plus the classified amount of military plutonium used in our nuclear weapons programme (you need 10-15kg for a bomb).\n\nThe MOX plant at Sellafield was completed in 1997, but it was announced in 2011 that it would be closing. Although it had a capacity of 120 tonnes of MOX per year, it had only managed 5 tonnes in the first five years. The shut down of the Japanese nuclear fleet following the disaster at Fukushima, and the ending of Germany's nuclear programme ended two major markets for MOX. Only one of the UK reactors, Sizewell B could accept the fuel - and it would need modification to do so. \n\nSo £1.2 billion down the drain and we still have 140 tonnes of plutonium to deal with. This is all on top of the £150 billion or so that Sellafield will cost to clean up over the next century.\n\nIf you're interested in the awe-inspiring (and slightly terrifying) operation at Sellafield, both routine reprocessing and the clean-up operation; BBC4 made a programme called Britain's Nuclear Secrets: Inside Sellafield - there's a copy here:\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Megatons_to_Megawatts_Program"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Project_Plowshare"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://nnsa.energy.gov/mediaroom/pressreleases/megatonstomegawatts",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deep_geological_repository",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fast-neutron_reactor",
"https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_marine_propulsion"
],
[
"http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x31tfpw"
]
] |
||
xv8ey | Was Hitler's political success a result of his own skill and maneuvering, or simply Germans' desire for any strong leader and unified voice? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/xv8ey/was_hitlers_political_success_a_result_of_his_own/ | {
"a_id": [
"c5pw1tm"
],
"score": [
9
],
"text": [
"Put very succinctly, a little from Column A and a little from Column B. \nOn the phone in class atm, so can't be all that detailed (and I hope someone weighs in with considerably more detail) but suffice to say Hitler was not the only one deeply offended by the punitive measures of Versailles, by the 'threat' of the Jews who conspired to cause economic turmoil, by Marxists who did the same and (to some) the Weimar Republic itself. He was both popular and populist. \n\nHis later political manoeuvrings were artful and a textbook demonstration of how to achieve absolute power and maintain, even grow, popular support. His ability as orator and charismatic leader of course were considerable. \n\nQuestions like this are always going to have infinite shades of grey because really, both criteria are necessary for the result. Could the desires of Germany have forged a strong leader with no political skill? That gets a little too close to \"A Hitler was inevitable\" for my taste. Could a 'politically skilled' individual exact 'progress' in a content society that demanded no radical change? That gets too close to \"Hitler pulled the wool over the eyes of the whole nation\". "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
ag2st3 | the rate at which muscles lose strength and size after halting a consistent exercise program? | Say for example you bench pressed consistently for a year. And your maximum was 300 pounds. After not working out for a month will you still be able to hit the 300 pounds from a month ago? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/ag2st3/eli5_the_rate_at_which_muscles_lose_strength_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ee3rfil",
"ee3s7xi"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Inactivity does not take long to have it's effects on muscles. Regardless of how consistently one has previously worked out, it will only take a few weeks of inactivity for muscle to lose size/power. Muscles require a lot of energy to maintain ",
"You will start losing muscle size (volume) after about 2 weeks of inactivity due to the decrease of glycogen. Strength loss happens after about 3-4 weeks but it's easy to get back on track due to muscle memory."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
39tc8t | how do people determine the artist of a song and the featured artist of a song? | I noticed that most DJ's or rappers are the artists while the chorus singer is only the "featured" artist, why is that? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/39tc8t/eli5_how_do_people_determine_the_artist_of_a_song/ | {
"a_id": [
"cs68wdz"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"If you were making an album and invited me to sing parts of a song on it you'd be the artist and I'd be the featured guest. If it was my album and you came to rap part of a song I'd be the artist and you'd be the feature. It all depends on who is releasing the song as part of their catalog."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
18cptu | When did the elite (or people not under labor) start weight training in order to counter the effects of a more relaxed lifestyle? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/18cptu/when_did_the_elite_or_people_not_under_labor/ | {
"a_id": [
"c8dsp6g",
"c8dtdnt"
],
"score": [
3,
4
],
"text": [
"The elite have pretty much always worked out.\n\nUp to fairly recently, a nobleman was expected to be able to ride, fence, shoot, row or box. An Eaton schoolboy had to play rugby and a samurai's son had to master the bow and the wooden sword. This is because of the nobility's origin and continuing role as a warrior/officer caste in most societies.\n\nBut to answer the question, actual weight training was a small subculture until the 1970s, and not really fashionable in high society unless you were slumming. Very few gentlemen would touch a barbell; it was too much like manual labor, and not considered a proper sport. Only with the growth of physical culture and gyms in the 1980s can weight training have been said to have gained any kind of popularity among the (younger members of the) upper crust.\n\nWeight training even breaking into the middle classes can be traced back to [Eugen Sandow](_URL_1_) who opened the first luxorious \"Institute of Physical Culture\" in the Piccadilly district of London in 1897, which made bodybuilding acceptable to white-collar and even upper middle class workers concerned with their physical well-being.\n\nAn excellent book about the beginnings of weight training as a middle and upper class pastime is [Sandow the Magnificent](_URL_0_) (1994) by David Chapman.\n",
"I'm going to politely disagree with theamazinghanna, who I am sure is in fact amazing. It's true that what we recognize as current weightlifting culture is a creation of the fitness craze of the 1970s. But if we're not talking about weightlifting solely, there was a fitness and health craze in the 1890s, one that many historians ascribe to a reaction against increasing urbanization, the rise of technology, and a growing professionalization of the middle class -- shopkeepers, clerks, and the like. Over several decades, various fads for sport, outdoor exercise, and fitness pursuits that might be appropriate for gentlemen and ladies were popularized; some of these were referred to as the \"polite sports\" and included cycling in the 1890s, boxing and field sports, weightlifting, hiking, swimming, sport or big game hunting, and various others. Your Sandow reference is surely a part of this.\n\nI like the sections of Gail Bederman's book, *Manliness and Civilization* that cover Teddy Roosevelt:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nClifford Putney's *Muscular Christianity: Manhood and Sports in Protestant America, 1880-1920* _URL_2_\n\nBeyond this, I'll say that there's an incredible proliferation of academic sport history right now. Several recent edited volumes have come out -- one from Routledge, the *Companion to Sport History* -- and there's a huge body of work in the *Journal of Sport* and elsewhere. _URL_1_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://books.google.se/books?id=79QappH54EYC&hl=sv&source=gbs_navlinks_s",
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eugen_Sandow"
],
[
"http://books.google.com/books?id=KVtKszMHWbcC",
"http://www.journalofsporthistory.org/",
"http://books.google.com/books?id=tkgpnpfWm2gC"
]
] |
||
6sf5fu | how do films and shows make people appear on fire without causing injury? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6sf5fu/eli5how_do_films_and_shows_make_people_appear_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dlc8nws",
"dlcevnc",
"dlcml3o"
],
"score": [
28,
38,
7
],
"text": [
"Someone watched the latest episode of Games of Thrones, didn't they?\n\nStuntmen do two things to avoid injury when they are on fire.\n\n1. The fuels that are burning generally have a low flame point. They simply don't get as hot as gasoline would so there's not as much danger.\n2. They wear protective clothing that is often covered in protective gel so that they heat doesn't make its way to their skin.",
"If you ever visit one of the Universal Studios parks, they demonstrate this technique as part of their special effects/stunt shows. It's a little surreal watching a guy literally on fire 10 feet in front of you, but they explain a lot of the methods used to make it safe.\n\nBasically, the stuntpeople are wearing as much heavy, fire-resistant clothing as possible for the scene and cover every bit of exposed skin in a protective jelly. They use a fuel with a very low burn point so that they can burn at a temperature that won't hurt them, and they hold their breath during the stunt so that they aren't inhaling any fire. And there's a team of assistants with fire extinguishers on standby, keeping an eye on everything.\n\nOnce all that is covered, a trained stuntperson can handle 10-20 seconds of burning without any ill effects. They'll have a safety signal (like a raised hand or something) that means \"extinguish me RIGHT NOW,\" but otherwise, they'll just do the few seconds of action needed for the scene and be immediately extinguished as soon as the director yells \"cut.\" It's a very realistic effect and is often way cheaper than paying a team of digital artists to render a good-looking flaming person.",
"To add to the other awnsers, here is an interesting video on how they filmed the fire scenes in the most recent game of thrones episode: Attention spoilers for S7E4 (and before) _URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"https://youtu.be/pE2wcBeyNdk?t=10m30s"
]
] |
||
1srn66 | During reconstruction, did Virginia ever claim that it should be allowed to reabsorb West Virginia? Did the succession of West Virginia make it federally legal for regions to succeed from states? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1srn66/during_reconstruction_did_virginia_ever_claim/ | {
"a_id": [
"ce0lvfi",
"ce0lyg1"
],
"score": [
210,
43
],
"text": [
"After the war, Virginia never directly challenged the legitimacy of West Virginia but did dispute whether two counties in particular (i.e. Berkely and Jefferson Counties) belonged to West Virginia. These two were disputed because there were concerns regarding the elections held for secession. When most of the counties seceded, Berkeley and Jefferson did not because they were under rebel military control. They held elections at a later time and approved of secession and joining West Virginia. Virginia challenged their withdrawal based on alleged irregularities in those elections and because by the time that Congress approved the transfer of the counties from Virginia to West Virginia, the war had ended and Virginia had rescinded its permission for the transfer. The Supreme Court found that the counties were part of West Virginia and the issue has not been significantly challenged legally since (it has been challenged among academics).\n\nSource: [Virginia v. West Virginia](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: Fixed a mistake by changing 'Virginia' to 'West Virginia'",
"It is currently legal for regions to secede from a state. The Northeastern counties of Colorado just attempted to secede from Colorado a few months ago.\n\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/78/39/case.html"
],
[
"http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/2013/11/rural-colorado-residents-vote-to-secede-as-metro-areas-shift-more-liberal.html"
]
] |
||
fr42in | why do screens often have odd pixel amounts like 1080 or 1440? why not even number like 1000 or 1400? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/fr42in/eli5_why_do_screens_often_have_odd_pixel_amounts/ | {
"a_id": [
"fltoqfx",
"fltq39y",
"fltyv8g",
"flu3k6t",
"flu5l9w",
"flu7yqa",
"flukn5h"
],
"score": [
267,
41,
27,
6,
8,
4,
2
],
"text": [
" > There are historical reasons:\n > Back in the day, analogue television had limited bandwidth. They used that bandwidth as well as they could and came up with a standard to transmit luminace and chrominance plus audio in that limited bandwidth. Later, when color TV was invented, they had to retrofit more chrominance information into the same bandwidth. The number of lines per second they had to transmit was also constrained by further historical reasons: electricity frequency, which goes back all the way to Tesla, the beginnings of AC, and electric motors. So, NTSC (used in the US) settled for using their 6mhz of bandwidth to transmit a 720x480 image at 29.97FPS. Other standards, PAL and SECAM, for instance, used a higher resolution at a lower framerate (720x576 @25FPS). Again, this was constrained by the fact the US uses 60hz AC, while PAL/SECAM countries (Europe, South America) used 50hz. This where interlaced signals (each frame is actually split in two and transmitted odd / even), that's why framerate is half the electricity frequency.\n > With the advent of digital, this same resolutions where used as a starting point. VGA was based on NTSC (640x480). As LCD screens became the norm, progressive video replaced interlaced, and 480p became the standard. Since video needs to keep its aspect ratio, both width and heigh will grow proportionally.\n > So, 720p is simply 1.5 times 480p, and 1080p is simply 1.5 times 720.\n > 480 * 1.5 = 720 720 * 1.5 = 1080\n\nCREDIT: /u/gnualmafuerte who answered a similar question 6 years ago. I thought it was an interesting question. I had an idea of an answer that was wrong. It is not because of binary or hexadecimal numbers. In the course of fact checking myself I came across this answer which is muy fuerte. He is quoted in full above.",
"Old CRTs in TVs or monitors had displays had a ratio of 4 wide by 3 high. Most numbers for displays come from simple relationships from that. For instance 16:9 in a wide screen TV is 4^2 by 3^2. The original 1987 VGA standard for computer displays was 640x480, as was PAL TV. 1920 by 1080 is 3 times 640 wide in a 16 by 9 aspect ratio.There are only a few occasions where both numbers in those relationships come out to round numbers (800:600 is one)\n\nHere is a graphic of display resolution standards going back to old CGA 320x200 pixels. You can follow the aspect ratio lines to follow the relationships.\n\n_URL_0_",
"Technically they are all even they end in zero I think you mean more like round to the second or third digit",
"Other users have already explained the historical context. On top of that, powers of two work better for computers for various reasons. If you factor all those numbers, you'll see they have a ton of 2 factors. For example, 1920 is 2^7 * 3 * 5.\n\nThis is how we wound up with 320x240 and 640x480. NTSC has 525 lines in the signal, and how many are visible is actually kind of variable, because back in the days of CRT TVs it just depended on exactly how the image was aligned (CRTs don't have nice perfect rectangular screens). 483 was about right. Then when computers started getting into the picture, that got rounded down to 480 (or 240 in progressive / double strike mode). That's how we wound up with a number that has a lot of 2 factors, because it got rounded like that for computers.\n\nSame reason you have 16GB of RAM, not 15GB.",
"There is nothing special about 1000 or 1400. They just look special because we use the base 10 number system.",
" [_URL_0_](_URL_0_) \nThis guys youtube channel is awesome for technical questions about common household technology as well as some geekier niche stuff.",
"My Old Surface Book was 3000x2000 but ya that’s an oddball and other people explained the why in other posts."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vector_Video_Standards2.svg"
],
[],
[],
[],
[
"https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCy0tKL1T7wFoYcxCe0xjN6Q"
],
[]
] |
||
8mp5yo | why are speakers arranged with woofers on the bottom and tweeters on top? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/8mp5yo/eli5_why_are_speakers_arranged_with_woofers_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"dzpaxyk",
"dzpdgw7"
],
"score": [
19,
3
],
"text": [
"Two reasons. First, subs are heavier because they have thicker membrane and bigger coils. The second one I can't explain that well in English, so I'll have to keep it at low-frequency noises tend to be less directional so it's not important to have them at head-height. This is also why tweeters are slightly tipped when they're overhead.",
"Our ears are less sensitive to the direction of bass frequency sound versus higher pitched treble frequency. So the larger woofer speakers position in the room is not quite as important to our enjoyment of the sound. This is for instance why subwoofers are often located to the side without needing as critical a placement. \n\nThe smaller tweeter speakers need to be positioned very accurately though in order to provide realistic sound, and they need to be close to ear level in order for the music to be as clear as possible. By placing the tweeters at the top, they bring the sound up closer to your ears. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
ngtf9 | Can everyone be good at any instrument they like, or do you need to have some degree of talent? | I was wondering. if you practice long hours on an instrument, can you become a professional player, or do you need some degree of talent to get really good. Cause I've seen people who played guitar out done by someone who just picked it up an year ago. | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/ngtf9/can_everyone_be_good_at_any_instrument_they_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"c38yxv3",
"c38yydd",
"c38yxv3",
"c38yydd"
],
"score": [
3,
3,
3,
3
],
"text": [
"Not commenting as my tag - but as someone who plays three instruments.\n\nPractice is the #1 factor to becoming good at anything - however, certain physical traits can also be a factor.\n\nFor example, in playing piano and organ it is an advantage to having longer fingers, rather than shorter fingers.\n\nFor instruments like trumpet, trombone, tuba, french horn, etc - the lips (in conjunction with the valves, slides, etc) are used to create the proper note and octave. Having thicker lips gives an advantage over very thin lips.\n\nAny instrument that is powered by lung air - it is an advantage for the player to have good lung capacity and longevity.",
"You should read this, [Sorry Strivers - Talent Matters](_URL_0_). Bottom line is, you have to have talent and practice to become exceptional. Can you be a professional? Part of that is just having a modicum of skill, who you know, and showing up on time. If that works for you, fine. If you have higher aspirations, get used to disappointment.",
"Not commenting as my tag - but as someone who plays three instruments.\n\nPractice is the #1 factor to becoming good at anything - however, certain physical traits can also be a factor.\n\nFor example, in playing piano and organ it is an advantage to having longer fingers, rather than shorter fingers.\n\nFor instruments like trumpet, trombone, tuba, french horn, etc - the lips (in conjunction with the valves, slides, etc) are used to create the proper note and octave. Having thicker lips gives an advantage over very thin lips.\n\nAny instrument that is powered by lung air - it is an advantage for the player to have good lung capacity and longevity.",
"You should read this, [Sorry Strivers - Talent Matters](_URL_0_). Bottom line is, you have to have talent and practice to become exceptional. Can you be a professional? Part of that is just having a modicum of skill, who you know, and showing up on time. If that works for you, fine. If you have higher aspirations, get used to disappointment."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html"
],
[],
[
"http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/20/opinion/sunday/sorry-strivers-talent-matters.html"
]
] |
|
24nyt8 | Why does the the spicy taste seem to stay around longer than all of the other tastes? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/24nyt8/why_does_the_the_spicy_taste_seem_to_stay_around/ | {
"a_id": [
"ch8zhm4",
"ch8zqc2",
"ch95n15"
],
"score": [
172,
112,
4
],
"text": [
"The hotness of spicy tastes is not sensed using taste buds: it's essentially a burn-like irritation that directly stimulates the nerve fibers. This is an example of [chemesthesis](_URL_0_). Not quite sure why the sensation persists longer, though.",
"Capsaicin, the active component of chili peppers, is non-polar (hydrophobic) so it can't easily be washed away with water or saliva. Milk or other cream products work better because of their fat content. That's why ranch dressing goes so well with buffalo wings.",
"Because it is no taste. It's more like pain. There are only 5 tastes we can taste: sweet sour bitter salty and umami. Spicyness is no taste. It is eg capsaicin causing a burning sensation on your tongue which lasts longer because of your nerves feel like getting burned. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chemesthesis"
],
[],
[]
] |
||
29zl21 | What planets were known to non-Western cultures before modern telescopes, and what names did they give them? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/29zl21/what_planets_were_known_to_nonwestern_cultures/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciq1hxu"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"[This is a nice site](_URL_0_) featuring the possibilities in a wide variety of languages (including Klingon!). In general, people were aware of the planets out to and including Saturn, but not beyond. Words for Uranus, Neptune, and Pluto are based either on the living languages adoption of terms or the names of the gods who lent their names to these planets after discovery.\n\nIn opposition, Uranus is on the limits of visibility for people with extraordinarily good eyesight, but it is so dim and slow moving from the earth point of view that it was not recognized as wandering across the star field until after the invention of the telescope."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://nineplanets.org/days.html"
]
] |
||
3bw5pt | could different races of humans (asian, black, caucasian, hispanic, etc.) be classified as different breeds (such as labradors, retrievers, terriers, etc. for dogs and other animals)? why/why not? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/3bw5pt/eli5_could_different_races_of_humans_asian_black/ | {
"a_id": [
"csq25a8"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Biologically there are no Human Races but one. However the genetical difference between Dog \"races\" is still much bigger then between Human \"races\" so the classification as breeds like with Dogs is just as inappropriate as the classification in races."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
81sxtp | Segregation in Ptolemaic Egypt | Playing Assassin's Creed Origins, I noticed in Faiyum town criers declaring the segregation of the Greek ruling class and the poor Egyptians, who were to be confined to slums. Beyond the typical divide between the wealthy and poor, was there official ethnic segregation at any time under the Ptolemaic dynasty? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/81sxtp/segregation_in_ptolemaic_egypt/ | {
"a_id": [
"dv5dfib"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"NOOOOO!\n\nThis was only thing that bugged me more than the portrayal of Cleopatra. AC:O is amazing but the game's portrayal of social divides in Ptolemaic Egypt along ethnic and racial lines is inaccurate in many ways. For one thing ethnic segregation was never enforced in Egypt because it would just be impossible and impractical, even if we ignore the ways in which divides between Egyptians and Hellenes were cultural rather than ethnic.\n\nI do not have time to type out a full length answer to this but fortunately I have already written a lot of answers to similar questions which you may enjoy:\n\n[Did the Ptolemaic dynasty try to Hellenise or segregate Egypt?](_URL_3_)\n\n[How much did Ptolemaic Egypt resemble modern colonialism? Is there any way it’s helpful to look at the period this way?](_URL_0_)\n\n[What was a typical day in a Ptolemaic-era Egyptian village?](_URL_4_) (focuses on a village in the Faiyum specifically)\n\n[How would an Egyptian in Alexandria at the turn of the millennium have perceived race and skin tone?](_URL_1_)\n\n[Was discrimination based on skin tone present in Ptolemaic Egypt?](_URL_2_)\n\n"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/79l6u4/how_much_did_ptolemaic_egypt_resemble_modern/dp2zlqn/?st=j9elcru8&sh=f4165335",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/69nsex/how_would_an_egyptian_in_alexandria_at_the_turn/?st=jec72wht&sh=21c48492",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7aw4xr/was_there_severe_tension_between_greek_settlers/dpg38t8/",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6raais/did_the_ptolemy_dynasty_really_try_to_hellenize/dl3s121/?utm_content=permalink&utm_medium=front&utm_source=reddit&utm_name=AskHistorians",
"https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6z84h7/what_was_a_typical_day_in_a_ptolemaicera_egyptian/dmxn8kl/?st=jec74j5m&sh=0cb1b9a3"
]
] |
|
lfxv3 | what's so special about minecraft? | I don't get it. I've never played it or know much about it. ELI5 please. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/lfxv3/eli5_whats_so_special_about_minecraft/ | {
"a_id": [
"c2sd45a",
"c2sdbuc",
"c2sedk6",
"c2seei2",
"c2sf10m",
"c2sf585",
"c2sfw9b",
"c2sg2di",
"c2sd45a",
"c2sdbuc",
"c2sedk6",
"c2seei2",
"c2sf10m",
"c2sf585",
"c2sfw9b",
"c2sg2di"
],
"score": [
73,
38,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2,
73,
38,
2,
2,
2,
6,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"It's like legos. End of story.",
"There are three reasons people play, I've found out. Usually people have a favorite of the three reasons.\n\n-Adventure: Some people like seeking out monsters, and are delighted when they find a cave underground, and spelunk with a sword and torches to light their way. They love finding natural beauty (e.g. a lone tree on the peak of a tall hill).\n\n-Crafting: Some people like searching for exotic minerals in the ground, often creating elaborate mine shafts in order to search for the precious diamond. These people also like to farm and bake things like cake with materials they've found.\n\n-Building: Definitely the most popular, some people like creating buildings for the sake of creation. They are the people who construct castles, dream homes, and complicated rail systems. Minecraft is like computer legos, after all.",
"Another huge part of what makes the game attractive that people haven't yet mentioned is that the community feels heavily involved in the game's development. Constant updates, features being implemmented from reddit's r/minecraft subreddit, and having the dev team be active members of the community makes it very exciting. \n\nAlso, legos with baddies. ",
"I get to log in, struggle to gather supplies as if I were Robinson Crusoe, and go spelunking. I get to play with my friends, troll them with elaborate traps involving explosives, and get trolled right back the next day. \n\nSome of my friends prefer to do the interior decorating thing a la making a house in the Sims.\n\nMy favourite thing is to explore worlds, hunting out the hidden strongholds, finding villages, and killing skeletons.\n\nIt's so simplistic, but so...satisfying. I don't know why it's as satisfying as it is.",
"So is it like Garry's Mod for HL2?",
"[ZeroPunctuation's video review](_URL_0_) sums it up well. The gist of it is that rather than just being a sandbox game where you can do anything you like, it has challenges (the need to gather building material and construct tools, monsters that harm you and destroy your creations) that make your finished creations all the more rewarding.\n\nThe multi-player collaborative building aspect is probably another reason for its success.",
"You have a game where you can modify everything you see. Every new scene is new as it is randomly generated.\n\nA lot of games like to focus on telling traditional stories, similar to movies. Other games focus on what defines a game real time interactivity. Minecraft excels at this because it is so simple yet fundamental to the human condition.",
"Shit. that's like asking 'why is lego fun?'",
"It's like legos. End of story.",
"There are three reasons people play, I've found out. Usually people have a favorite of the three reasons.\n\n-Adventure: Some people like seeking out monsters, and are delighted when they find a cave underground, and spelunk with a sword and torches to light their way. They love finding natural beauty (e.g. a lone tree on the peak of a tall hill).\n\n-Crafting: Some people like searching for exotic minerals in the ground, often creating elaborate mine shafts in order to search for the precious diamond. These people also like to farm and bake things like cake with materials they've found.\n\n-Building: Definitely the most popular, some people like creating buildings for the sake of creation. They are the people who construct castles, dream homes, and complicated rail systems. Minecraft is like computer legos, after all.",
"Another huge part of what makes the game attractive that people haven't yet mentioned is that the community feels heavily involved in the game's development. Constant updates, features being implemmented from reddit's r/minecraft subreddit, and having the dev team be active members of the community makes it very exciting. \n\nAlso, legos with baddies. ",
"I get to log in, struggle to gather supplies as if I were Robinson Crusoe, and go spelunking. I get to play with my friends, troll them with elaborate traps involving explosives, and get trolled right back the next day. \n\nSome of my friends prefer to do the interior decorating thing a la making a house in the Sims.\n\nMy favourite thing is to explore worlds, hunting out the hidden strongholds, finding villages, and killing skeletons.\n\nIt's so simplistic, but so...satisfying. I don't know why it's as satisfying as it is.",
"So is it like Garry's Mod for HL2?",
"[ZeroPunctuation's video review](_URL_0_) sums it up well. The gist of it is that rather than just being a sandbox game where you can do anything you like, it has challenges (the need to gather building material and construct tools, monsters that harm you and destroy your creations) that make your finished creations all the more rewarding.\n\nThe multi-player collaborative building aspect is probably another reason for its success.",
"You have a game where you can modify everything you see. Every new scene is new as it is randomly generated.\n\nA lot of games like to focus on telling traditional stories, similar to movies. Other games focus on what defines a game real time interactivity. Minecraft excels at this because it is so simple yet fundamental to the human condition.",
"Shit. that's like asking 'why is lego fun?'"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2680-Minecraft"
],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/zero-punctuation/2680-Minecraft"
],
[],
[]
] |
|
1lut44 | why do some businesses not tell you their prices for services or merchandise up front. | It seems super shady to me and can't figure out why any business wouldn't want to tell you one of the most important pieces of info before dealing with them.
EDIT: Now I understand why some business would do this. I am trying to get something printed and for the same job most sites have their prices listed. It's not a complicated thing. The one site that I did have to email for a quote was the most expensive. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/1lut44/eli5_why_do_some_businesses_not_tell_you_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cc2y1bg",
"cc2y1gp",
"cc2y3vd",
"cc30dpv",
"cc312wm",
"cc31tfr",
"cc3202h",
"cc32leq",
"cc33d39",
"cc34ad3",
"cc36tkz",
"cc3bfb9"
],
"score": [
4,
4,
5,
33,
29,
28,
5,
5,
8,
4,
4,
3
],
"text": [
"They rely on sales tactic more then good prices. Depending on the company they may not even have a price to tell you and the price will be what's agreed on. Many employments works this way.",
"They are trying to force you to shop based on things other than price. They may be trying to differentiate themselves based on quality or style.",
"They do this to get you interested before you find out how much it cost. The more you are convinced you want or need the service or product, the more likely you are to buy it, even if the price turns out to be more than you really want to spend. On the flipside, if you found out the price first, you would be more likely to decide based on that than the way you feel about the product.",
"I do this. For one of my products (I sell medical equipment) customers often jump to \"How much does it cost\". Our equipment creates hard savings for a hospital (versus \"soft savings\", like labor, ease of use, etc).\n\nI dont want to tell them what it costs as it positions the solution incorrectly. I deflect as best possible because I need to do more work to even begin to give them an answer. I need to know a lot about their current process to know what equipment they need as well as other data specific to the hospital to understand what I can forecast as a savings (ie reducing \"loss\" by 90% and overall use by 40%).\n\nAfter I know this I can give them a good idea of cost and savings...but until then just saying \"It will cost you $500k to do this\" sounds awful compared to: Gross Savings, Net Savings, ROI, etc.\n\nTL;DR Complicated Sales are most likely not going to give you a price up front",
"Sometimes they don't tell you the price until they've had a chance to give you their sales presentation, thereby attempting to justify the price.",
"It's not just a sales tactic, it's an overall negotiation tactic, and it's one you should remember and use.\n\nFor example, if you're writing a proposal to do a project, you should put the cost way at the end. If you put the cost at the front, no matter *what* it is, whoever is reading the proposal is framed in a more critical mindset.\n\nIf you put the cost at the end, they judge your work based on its merits, so by the time they see the pricetag they're (hopefully) already convinced that the project should be done.",
"There's a few answers for this based on the various companies I have worked with. This is a tactic used primarily by B2B (business to business) industries:\n\n(1) Complexity. There are some products/services that are impossible to provide a price for until someone actually takes a deeper look at the problem and can provide a tailored solution. \n\n(2) Flexibility. Some companies want to have flexibility in how they price their products/services if they have vastly different types of customers with different abilities/willingness to pay. For example, restaurants have slim profit margins but medical industries typically have high profit margins. Therefore, a restaurant simply cannot pay as much as a company in the medical sector, and if you happen to be a company that offers products or services that are suitable to customers in both of these industries, you will want that flexibility in pricing. That way, if you're forced to reduce the prices you charge restaurants in order to gain market share, you may have the option to recover those losses by selling your products/services at a higher price to new incoming customers in the medical industry.\n\n(3) Market positioning. Companies will often want to position its products and services in a way that de-emphasizes the price and places the emphasis on the features/benefits that they want you to perceive as valuable without any pricing information as context. ",
"On a slight tangent, for things that have on their website \"add to cart for price\" or \"login for price\" this is usually because the manufacturer has an agreement with their dealers to not advertise a product below a certain price. It's called Minimum Advertised Price (MAP), but when a person adds it to their cart, they are actively trying to purchase the item, so they need the price. The idea is to prevent price wars among their dealers.",
"I worked for this small time computer repair shop. The shop repaired phones and game consoles as well. \nIf you quoted a price over the phone or in person,the owner would fire you.\n\nThe scam was to get the equipment checked in and call the customer with a quote on price later. There an initial diag fee on anything we took in. This was to make sure no matter what, the shop made money. Of course, you couldnt get you stuff back unless you paid for the repairs or the diag fee.\nEven if the problem was simply a dirty screen or stuck key, he wouldnt quote. We werent allowed to simply fix a small easy issue at the counter. We had to check it in. \n\nThis guy was a criminal and he took advantage of people's lack of understanding of technology. I quit after 4 weeks. I couldnt live with myself participating in that sham.\n\nHe is still open though. Midwest politics i guess. The worst was sitting at the airport overhearing a random guy talking to his company about this guy and his shady business because he needed a simple keyboard replacement on his bb, which we had on site and would take 2 min to replace, but the owner wanted him to check in, replace the stock with a newer one and charge the guy 2 days bench time and for a new keyboard he wasnt even going to get. Fucking scumbag.",
"For services, the reasoning is simple - the price varies. Even two jobs which look superficially similar could have significant differences in cost. Things like the location, the specific goal, and the initial situation can cause the price to vary by literally several orders of magnitude.\n\nMy entire full-time job is to quote prices for my company. I'm an engineer with several years of experience in the field, and it still takes me hours or days to look at a situation, figure out how to approach it, and determine what it will cost us (and by extension, our customers) to complete the task. I could not be replaced by a price list on our website. I could easily *create* such a price list, but it would have so many variables to account for that it would either confuse the hell out of customers, or would create unreasonable expectations.",
"Usually this is because they don't feel they can compete on price, and that they have a compelling argument for why they don't compete on price.\n\nThis is usually only done when their target audience doesn't know enough about the product they are selling to know that the price isn't why you buy their product.\n\nSo for example let's say you want to buy a red widget because it will work for situations A, B, and C. The general price is $500, but you might not be able to use it more then 5 times.\n\nIf I invent a red widget you can use 20 times, and works for A, B, C, & D situations but it doesn't look any different. Then I might not show you the fact that it costs $1500 up front, I might instead say that it lasts longer, works in more situations, and saves you $50o in the long run because we put more time and energy into making a better product.\n\nWithout the context some shoppers see the two prices and immediately get the cheaper one without asking why it is cheaper. So this tactic tries to head that off.",
"Customer: I want a reservation system on my website, how much?\n\nMe: Ok, what is your website built in?\n\nCustomer: Just tell me the price!\n\nMe: From scratch? With ambiguous specs? $20,000\n\nCustomer: Whoa! I don't have that money. I could barely pay for the wordpress site I have\n\nMe: Ahh wordpress plugin. I will install it and set it up for you. It should take me less than an hour. We bill time in 1 hour blocks. That will be $100\n\n(Clearly I'm making up numbers here)"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
trn77 | Are we the only intelligent life? | I stumbled across an askreddit post about one thing you would want to see become true before you die. One person posted "proof for intelligent life". That made me start to think; is it possible that we are the only intelligent life in the universe because the universe still is pretty "young"?
[The Post.](_URL_0_) | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/trn77/are_we_the_only_intelligent_life/ | {
"a_id": [
"c4p4ind",
"c4p4j4t",
"c4p4rd7"
],
"score": [
7,
2,
2
],
"text": [
"Although young, the universe is also very, very big, and very, very varied. The likelihood of us being the only sentient creatures in the universe is incredibly small, and dare I say it, quite self-centered of us to think so.\n\nIf you are interested in an estimate, the [Drake Equation](_URL_0_), courtesy of Frank Drake, is quite a celebrated set of probabilities put together to guess at the number of intelligent extraterrestrial civilisations alive in the Milky Way today with which we have a chance of communicating. The end result, with the data provided, turns out at around 10. It's quite a heavily criticised equation in some cases, due to its relative simplicity in describing the factors that make up civilisation, but it gives you at least some idea.",
"There is no \"proof\" for other life so far, but given that we've created very basic forms of bacteria-like particles from oils and basic ingredients, we can generally say that given a big enough number of planets and a long enough time frame, there is no reason for life not to have evolved somewhere else. \n\nHumans on the other hand are not exactly intelligent. We have higher cognitive functions than most animals, but in every task that we think we're good at there are animals that can do them much better, like monkeys and matching shapes from memory or bees doing traveling salesman algorithm, etc. Humans have a very long way to go in terms of increasing our cognitive functions and if possible changing the way our brains work! This last part is more speculation than science though.",
"The answer to whether its possible we're the only intelligence life is ofcourse yes, for the simple fact that we havent found any other intelligent life yet. Though given all our knowledge about life and the universe, that possibility seems small. \n\nThe question if we could be alone because the universe is young is somewhat separate. In theory, yes, possibly, but very unlikely, since life was able to form no more than 3-6 billion years after the BB (i.e. time for stars to create heavy elements), and that we are 7-10 B years late to the _URL_0_ other words, the universe may be young compared to its theoretical age (which may be infinite too), but its mind bogingly old compared to the civilization or even lifes evolution scales. Also the rest of the universe is currently at the same age so the odds that we are the first to develop intelligence are really small. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskReddit/comments/tr7q5/what_is_the_one_thing_you_want_to_see_become/"
] | [
[
"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drake_equation#The_equation"
],
[],
[
"party.In"
]
] |
|
1ib28m | What nation, instead of having been defeated in a war, might be more powerful today if it were victorious? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ib28m/what_nation_instead_of_having_been_defeated_in_a/ | {
"a_id": [
"cb2qewq",
"cb2qj3f"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"I have a feeling most countries, had they won the war they actually lost, would be stronger than they are today. For example, had Germany won WWI, there would've been no need for Nazi Germany. Had Germany won WWII, then that means Britain, the US, the Soviet Union and most of Europe would've lost too. There are a lot of what ifs in questions like this",
"This question belongs in /r/HistoricalWhatIf"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
i4ozw | Does environmental temperature have any effect on how quickly a fire spreads? | I just heard a news story about the Arizona wildfires, and the outside temperature of 90 degrees was mentioned as a factor in making them harder to fight, along with the rough terrain and abundant fuel.
All else being equal, is it significantly harder from a chemical perspective to fight a fire in 90 degree weather than, say, at 70 degrees? Or does that have more to do with the exhaustion of the firefighters? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/i4ozw/does_environmental_temperature_have_any_effect_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"c20vm8h"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Yes, but moreso because Arizona is very dry when it's 90 degrees out. A muggy jungle at 100% humidity wouldn't burn any faster at 90 degrees, although it would be pretty unpleasant for firefighters nonetheless."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
166vdu | Why do things diffuse? | So there's the simple answer of diffusion gradients etc. etc. etc., but it suddenly occurred to me why this actually happens, what causes things to not just stay separate where diffusion could occur, particularly through a membrane? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/166vdu/why_do_things_diffuse/ | {
"a_id": [
"c7tauvj",
"c7tdmyh"
],
"score": [
2,
5
],
"text": [
"Because ~~closed~~ isolated systems tend to increase their entropy - a more diffuse system has higher entropy.\n\nEdit: Fixed.",
"Molecular motion is random, and any given particle has (approximately) equal chance of heading at _any_ direction. If you set up a barrier, where there are more particles of one type on one side than another (for sample, salt concentration), you'll find that there are more particles moving in one direction than the other across that membrane, simply due to chance - there are, after all, more particles in one side than another. As a result, there is net movement of particles in one direction, which we observe macroscopically as diffusion.\n\nThe statistical explanation is that there are more microstates for the macrostate of \"evenly mixed\" than there are for a concentration gradient. This translates into the second law of thermodynamics, which states that entropy of an isolated system must increase."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
d1ap3l | how come when you practice something for so long in one session, you start to get worse at it? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/d1ap3l/eli5_how_come_when_you_practice_something_for_so/ | {
"a_id": [
"ezjvrv8",
"ezjvurm"
],
"score": [
45,
12
],
"text": [
"In a word, fatigue. You get tired both mentally and physically (even if you don’t immediately feel so) which hinders performance.",
"I don't know any scientific terms for this, but as you practice one thing, you begin to get frustrated when you don't make as much progress as you want. When you get frustrated you get flustered and you don't take as much care or think about your actions enough. It's also possible that you think *too* much about what you're doing and you overcompensate and screw up. It's *also* possible that you've become so familiar with whatever you're practicing that you make mistakes on the simple things that you no longer think about."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2n3kqt | how a "turbo" charger for a cell phone works and why it is better or worse than usb 3.0 | With a slew of new devices coming into the market, some manufacturers are offering "turbo" chargers. Isn't USB 3.0 supposed to be better? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2n3kqt/eli5_how_a_turbo_charger_for_a_cell_phone_works/ | {
"a_id": [
"cma4wq1"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Okay, because the other answers are making a mistake, I'm making my answer with it fixed:\n\nUSB limits the amperage, which is basically the \"amount\" of electrons that goes through. More of them make it charge faster, but because USB wasn't made to charge things; instead, it was made to transmit information; it limits these things as not to fry devices.\n\nThose 'turbo chargers' prevent the amperage from being limited, instead raising it to a level that charges faster while not frying your device."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
33o3u1 | What shape is a photon? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/33o3u1/what_shape_is_a_photon/ | {
"a_id": [
"cqmyz2j"
],
"score": [
10
],
"text": [
"Strictly speaking, it's a point without any physical size, as are all elementary particles. But realistically, all excitations of fields aren't \"real\" particles, they only behave as such in certain processes.\n\nIf you, for whatever reason, absolutely need to give it a non-trivial shape, a sphere with size of roughly its wavelength would probably be a not-completely-wrong approximation."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
52ukou | What was the Ancient Greek name for the Delian League? And did they have a symbol, or banner they flew? | What was the Ancient Greek name for the Delian League? And did they have a symbol, or banner they flew? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/52ukou/what_was_the_ancient_greek_name_for_the_delian/ | {
"a_id": [
"d7ngz19"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"There was no name for the group, at least not as preserved in the sources. \"Delian League\" is a modern terminology based on the fact that Delos was the de facto headquarters of the alliance. Thucydides (1.97) essentially calls it a *hegemonia* and distinguishes that term from what the group would become later -- an *arche* (what we usually term \"Empire\"). In the beginning it was a collection of willing and autonomous allies with a common goal: the continued fight against the Persians. The Spartan Pausanias had been slated to be leader, but his overbearing behavior got him ousted and the Athenians were asked to \"lead\" instead. We don't know exactly what this means, and though we know that the group met in a congress, we don't how exactly decisions were made in the early period. Eventually, of course, the Athenians would come to call all the shots, though we need not but a lot of stock in [Aristotle](Ath. Pol. 12.2.2), which accuses the Athenians of tyrannical behavior from the very beginning. No source mentions any symbol or the like for the group.\n\nA great place to read about the Athenian Empire is:\n\nMorris, I. 2009. \"The Greater Athenian State,\" in *The Dynamics of Ancient Empires,* I. Morris and W. Scheidel, eds., 99-177."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
c483fx | why is liquid nitrogen cold and is it possible to make it warm? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/c483fx/eli5_why_is_liquid_nitrogen_cold_and_is_it/ | {
"a_id": [
"ervatj2"
],
"score": [
3
],
"text": [
"Let's take water as an example here for a moment.\n\nWater is a liquid at room temperature, but if you heat it up it becomes a gas that we call steam. If you make water cold it becomes a solid which we call ice.\n\nThese changes in state occur because of temperature.\n\nNitrogen gas undergoes the same changes in state as water, but at different temperatures. At room temperature Nitrogen is a gas but in order to make it a liquid you have to cool it down... a lot. You have to get Nitrogen down to -196 celcius for it to become a liquid. That's why liquid nitrogen is cold, if it warms up it becomes a gas."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
od2k9 | the three branches of government. | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/od2k9/the_three_branches_of_government/ | {
"a_id": [
"c3ga6ni"
],
"score": [
7
],
"text": [
"Alright my little 5 year old.\n\nYour kindergarten class is run by a teacher, right? Set sets all the rules for your class, is the one who makes sure the rules are followed, and judges the situation in which the rules are applied.\n\nYour teacher is an authoritarian (though benevolent) dictator, who has the sole authority of government to: make, enforce, and judge the law.\n\nOur founding fathers wanted your kindergarten to me more democratic, and needed to split the oppressive power over government up, so they created three separate, but equal, bodies of government, to carry out the functions of a government.\n\nKindergarten congress: These are a group of your fellow students elected by your class to represent your interests. They, and only they, actually write, vote, and pass the rules for your class. They also get to doll out the money for your classroom budget.\n\nKindergarten president: Your teacher, who in this case is elected by the class, separate from congress, is vested with the power and duty to make sure the rules passed by the congress are enforced. The teacher also is supposed to protect you from outside class room interference by foreign class rooms. \n\nKindergarten court: These little tykes have the power/duty to judge cases of those accused of breaking the rules passed by congress and enforced by the president. They aren't elected, but appointed by the president and ok'ed by congress. These judges are arranged into levels, with the lowest handling most of the cases of who broke the naptime rules, and the higher judges deciding whether the nap time rules even are ok with the class room constitution.\n\nEach of these branches has a different slice of the 'power pie' and also has checks on the other branches.\n\nThe President can veto laws congress attempts to pass (veto mean refuse to allow the bill to become a law), he also chooses the judges in the courts.\n\nCongress can override a presidential veto with a super majority (2/3 of of congress must agree to override a veto). Congress also has to ok (with majority vote) all the major appointments of the President. Congress also gets to set the budget for the other branches. They control the money. Congress can also impeach and remove either judges or the President (with a super majority vote).\n\nThe courts (in american federal law at least) have lifetime appointments, meaning they are 'above the political fray' and free to make reasoned judgments, though they can in cases of misconduct be removed by super majority votes. The highest court in kindergarten, the supreme toddler court, gets to invalidate laws they don't think fit with the kindergarten constitution your classroom's founder drafted. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2a1xqj | how do some people have perfect pitch and others are tone deaf? | Some people can tell when a pitch is sharp/flat or what note it is. What separates these people from people who are tone deaf? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2a1xqj/eli5how_do_some_people_have_perfect_pitch_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"ciqolqa"
],
"score": [
2
],
"text": [
"Inside your ear, there is a structure called the cochlea that houses specialized hairs that detect sound. Each hair is tuned like a tuning fork for a specific pitch or frequency of sound. Therefore, the hair only vibrates when it \"hears\" or is stimulated with that frequency of sound.\n\nOur bodies are all unique. Some people may have better arrangements of sensing hairs in the cochlea that allow them to differentiate different pitches, allowing them to have perfect pitch. Other people may have the nerve cells connected to the hairs wired differently so may or may not hear the differences.\n\nAnother aspect of having perfect pitch is training. Having musical training will increase your ability of differentiating pitches. However, a person will be fundamentally limited by the physical structures in their ears and the connections to their brain."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
|
f3ytyj | why do drug addicts bend syringe needles? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/f3ytyj/eli5_why_do_drug_addicts_bend_syringe_needles/ | {
"a_id": [
"fhmlw1p",
"fhn1bz2",
"fhnc10k",
"fhnd0xb",
"fhndhmb",
"fhnigen"
],
"score": [
9117,
120,
37,
4626,
533,
1265
],
"text": [
"So that they don't get reused. No one wants dirty needles in circulation, so they destroy them.",
"It happens over time from reusing a syringe too often. It can bend when you cook it up and press the needle down in to the container you used. I know this from personal experience in fact I have a bunch of bent needles right now",
"Lots of different answers, but from my experience, users tend to use the same needles for multiple injections, causing the needle to dull. Eventually the dull needle will bend before it can penetrate the skin, and that is when the user will toss the needle",
"I am an active drug user and have used a needle for well a lot of drugs that can be dissolved in water. We bend them so others don’t use them, some of us have abscesses, hep c, god forbid HIV, the bent one symbolizes someone who is very sick....",
"When they are directly done using they immediately bend the needle so no one gets poked by it if they were to accidentally stumble upon it, or, so that no one can reuse it if they know they might have a disease. \nThe reason it gets left behind is because after getting high they usually wander off because staying in the same spot that they got high makes them feel unsafe. \n\nOnly reason I know any of this is because I live near PDX and watch plenty of addicts do exactly this. You’re lucky your addicts bend their needles. Ours either cap them or discard them.",
"The better question is, why doesn't anyone develop a syringe that you can dispose within itself? Just pop the needle back inside, twist a cap or something to make it unusable."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[],
[],
[]
] |
||
6nhis0 | how do we know how much to chew? | explainlikeimfive | https://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/6nhis0/eli5_how_do_we_know_how_much_to_chew/ | {
"a_id": [
"dk9pe6y",
"dka866x"
],
"score": [
23,
3
],
"text": [
"You don't start out knowing. You learn around the age of 2 and as your throat grows you learn to gradually take in as much as you can swallow. Some people don't learn and eat very slowly.\n\n2 year olds put more than they can swallow into their mouths all the time. They tend to spit it out when they realize it's too much. Or they choke and die.",
"Swallowing happens in stages, only the first step (chewing) is under voluntary control. Once the food has been chewed up into an acceptably sized bolus, your tongue pulls it to the back of your mouth and the reflexive processes take over. Your brain has an extremely large area of real estate dedicated to controlling the tongue, and to a lesser extent the muscles of the mouth, throat and lips. When you're a young toddler, the nerve pathways between the brain and the mouth begin to develop and strengthen, and your tongue \"learns\" how to control, transport and propel food in an orderly fashion. It happens around the time that you begin to control your vocalizations and produce purposeful sounds and words. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[]
] |
||
2zaofs | Can I achieve zero speed? What would happen to time? | I see a lot about reaching close to the speed of light and how that would affect time relative to people stationary on the ground. But people on the ground are still traveling around the Sun which is also travelling around the galaxy.
What if I went out to space, away from the galaxy and nearby ones. where I could have a stationary point in the universe. I was thinking of a lagrangian point in the universe but then again, don't lagrangian points themselves "move" in relation to other objects in the universe?
The only other factor I can think of, if there is a way to be absolutely stationary in the universe is just the effects of the universe expanding around me. Technically, you're still moving right?
In any case, let's say I find that point and sit there. Relatively, the people back home would be travelling faster than me through space. If I return home after decades of being there, everyone would be just a touch older and would come back an old man?
Sort of similar post question [here](_URL_0_). | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2zaofs/can_i_achieve_zero_speed_what_would_happen_to_time/ | {
"a_id": [
"cph84zg",
"cph90b7"
],
"score": [
31,
10
],
"text": [
"The takeaway message people get when reading about relativity is \"weird shit happens when you go really fast,\" but that's not the important lesson. The important lesson is that all rest frames are equivalent, none are privileged. So, in your reference frame, you are sitting on your chair moving at zero velocity, and in another reference frame you are hurtling through space at 99.9999% the speed of light. Both are correct. ",
" > where I could have a stationary point in the universe.\n\n**Any** point, at any speed, can be considered \"stationary,\" As long as you're not accelerating. Doesn't matter where you are or how fast you define yourself to be going.\n\nTo say something is \"stationary\" is completely arbitrary. It depends totally upon your point of view. \n\nNo matter how fast you consider yourself to be moving, the speed of light will always be the same in all directions.\n\nYou can only define velocity, by comparing *at least two* objects with different velocities. You can either define yourself as \"stationary\" or else you could define some other object as stationary and define your self as having a speed. Remember that speed and velocity are only *comparisons*, not intrinsic properties.\n\nWithout something else to compare, it's meaningless both physically or mathematically to say that you have any velocity at all.\n\n > Technically, you're still moving right?\n\nYou're moving when you compare yourself to some other parts of the observable universe, yes."
]
} | [] | [
"http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/2z60f8/when_net_gravitational_force_exerted_on_the/"
] | [
[],
[]
] |
|
2r730r | is uranium glass not radioactive and dangerous to use? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2r730r/eli5_is_uranium_glass_not_radioactive_and/ | {
"a_id": [
"cnd25z8",
"cnd2gme"
],
"score": [
36,
3
],
"text": [
"Is it radioactive? Yes.\n\nIs it dangerous? No.\n\nThe amount of radiation that would be given off by the small amounts of uranium seeded in the glass (remember, glass is basically melted sand, so you just mix some uranium into the sand, melt it down into glass) would be negligible to cause harmful effects. Glass is very stable, so no uranium would be leeched off by water. And even then, you could probably grind up the glass and eat it and still be fairly safe (other than the whole 'you just ate glass' bit).\n\nHumans absorb a decent amount of radiation from background sources, and I mean entirely nature ones - cosmic radiation, radon gas, and naturally-occurring radioisotopes in our food. Heck, the granite countertops in your kitchen probably give off more radiation than the uranium in the glassware, and people prepare food or have kinky kitchen sex upon those.\n\nAlso, this question has been asked about...a dozen times in the past twenty-four hours.",
"_URL_0_\n\nseriously? this is like the 10th thread on uranium today in eli5"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[
"http://imgur.com/pe5yUw4"
]
] |
||
2iw88u | how millionaires and billionaires keep their cash that isn't invested. isn't it dangerous to store all your cash over $250,000 in one bank? | explainlikeimfive | http://www.reddit.com/r/explainlikeimfive/comments/2iw88u/eli5_how_millionaires_and_billionaires_keep_their/ | {
"a_id": [
"cl62nnk"
],
"score": [
6
],
"text": [
"Most millionaires and billionaires keep the majority of their wealth in investments, not cash. It's how they get richer without doing necessarily as much work. What liquid cash they have, they likely keep in multiple banks, not just one. "
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
2ww7o1 | I'm writing a short paper about the debate on geographic determinism. What sources should I read aside from Jared Diamond? | I am vaguely aware of the debate centering around Guns, Germs, and Steel, as it is referenced so often in discussions on this forum. Could anyone help direct me toward the other relevant literature in this debate? I'm sure there are many works criticizing Diamond's work in particular and/or the concept of geographic determinism in itself. I know there are also many other deterministic theories for explaining the rise and fall of civilizations. I remember hearing of one theory which centers around Eurasia's horizontal orientation being a major reason for its greater wealth than North and South America in pre-modern times. I'm sure there's lots of neat stuff like this out there that I could discuss for this short undergrad essay. Thanks! | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ww7o1/im_writing_a_short_paper_about_the_debate_on/ | {
"a_id": [
"counpzl",
"couwem7"
],
"score": [
2,
2
],
"text": [
"hi! you might try skimming this section of the FAQ; there are a few external references mentioned/linked here & there\n\n* [Historians' views of Jared Diamond's \"Guns, Germs, and Steel\"](_URL_0_)",
"You might find \"The Human Web\" by McNeill and McNeill interesting. There's an element of geographic determinism in it, in as much as they consider a growth of networks (trade, communication, migrations, etc.) a key factor. I'm not sure if I'd call it a geographic determinism outright. If it is, than it is mostly through geography making communications more or less difficult. In any case, its scope and topic are close to Diamonds' but I consider it a much better work. So for a paper on a debate, a less extreme determinism, and frankly a much better work, might be useful on a pro side."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/historians_views#wiki_historians.27_views_of_jared_diamond.27s_.22guns.2C_germs.2C_and_steel.22"
],
[]
] |
|
1v2cml | if one were to strike a match on every planet in the solar system, what would the resulting flame look like? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/1v2cml/if_one_were_to_strike_a_match_on_every_planet_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"ceocjkk"
],
"score": [
5
],
"text": [
"Mercury: Nothing. No Oxygen means no fire, and matches do not contain their own oxidizer.\n\nVenus: Doesn't really matter that there is too little ambient oxygen, the match is already destroyed either by the heat breaking down the large organic molecules, sulphuric acid rain, etc...\n\nMars: Similar to Mercury. While Mars does have an atmosphere, it is too thin and it contains too little oxygen for combustion.\n\nJupiter: While there's plenty of atmosphere, seeing as Jupiter is almost all atmosphere, there isn't enough oxygen for combustion.\n\nSaturn:: Pretty much the same as Jupiter.\n\nUranus: Nothing much; while the atmosphere is different from Jupiter and saturn's, it still lacks the oxygen for a flame.\n\nNeptune: Same as Uranus, with the addition of the match has been torn to shreds by the supersonic winds.\n\nIn short, other than on Earth, nothing much."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
3567uc | Where does the brightness difference in saturns ring come from? | I have just been reading about saturn and it's moons on wikipedia.
Then i wanted to make a photomontage with saturns rings when I noticed something
[Cassini Saturn Ring Photo](_URL_1_)
[Same photo with brighness enhanced](_URL_0_)
Apparently, the black is'nt black in these two areas, it's RGB 12,11,9.
And now my question: Why?
Is it just a lensflare or something? | askscience | http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/3567uc/where_does_the_brightness_difference_in_saturns/ | {
"a_id": [
"cr1df6g",
"cr1i9kp",
"cr1k3c8"
],
"score": [
26,
48,
5
],
"text": [
"There are two general factors: ring density and ring composition.\n\nDenser rings will reflect more light since there's more surface area to catch the sunlight. Rings with more reflective materials (say those composed of ice rather than rock) will also reflect more light. So an area with dense ice rings will be much brighter than a sparse area with very dark rocks.",
"It's hard to get your mind around Saturn's rings. They're about 30 feet thick and 175,000 miles wide. Imagine doing a spacewalk on the sunlit side of the rings. Close up they'd look like a huge field of ice and rock stretching to infinity. You could 'stand' on them and see a horizon that was apparently infinite, with Saturn taking up a huge part of the sky, and Titan and Enceladus and Rhea casting shadows on the rings far, far off. No human being has ever seen an infinite horizon.\n\nImagine turning around in your spacesuit and scrabbling your way *into* the ring. You could gently push your way past the chunks of rock and the larger ice boulders, like a ball pit. After just a few minutes you'd come out to the ringside in shadow. It's so weird to have an object on a planetary scale having such a human scale thickness.",
"Wow, that's really interesting. I don't really have an answer for you, but I'm thinking it's probably something to do with the instrument. If you've ever looked through a reflecting telescope before (or looked at hubble images) you'll notice that there are four bright spikes around really bright stars. In reality there's nothing there, but the instrument doesn't capture reality perfectly. The effect comes from interference caused by tiny struts which are holding up the secondary mirror. So it could be that what you're seeing in this image is something similar to that. I'll look into the literature a bit and see if there are any more concrete answers to be found. "
]
} | [] | [
"http://imgur.com/YtqB22i",
"http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturn_%28Planet%29#/media/File:PIA08361_Ring_World.png"
] | [
[],
[],
[]
] |
|
21gbv7 | What did the native English look like? | I know that the people who now live in England are descendants of the Saxons. So what did the native Welsh, Scotts, Picts, etc. look like? Did they look basically the same as other Western Europeans at the time? Would the Saxons have looked radically different to them? | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21gbv7/what_did_the_native_english_look_like/ | {
"a_id": [
"cgcxms0"
],
"score": [
57
],
"text": [
"Your first sentence, though commonly held, is thought to be debunked by genetic evidence. The modern English, Irish, Welsh and Scottish are genetically very similar, almost to the point of being identical. The idea of the Angles, Saxons and Jutes immigrating to Britain in vast numbers and displacing the native Celts* seems to be a myth. The real truth, according to the genetics, seems to be a cultural and military subjugation, more on the lines of the Roman conquest of Britain. The Anglo-Saxon invasion contributed less than 5% of modern English DNA.\n\n*It is worth noting that the Celts were not the original inhabitants of Britain either. There were people in Britain before the Celts came over, though sources disagree to the culture and language of this earlier population (but most likely Iberian/Basque). Again, the Celtic 'invasion' (for want of a better word) resulted in less than 5% of the genetic imprint being changed.\n\nIn fact, genetic studies show there is very little difference between any of the modern Western Europeans; English, Scottish, Welsh, Irish, Belgian, Dutch, Germans, French, Spanish etc, show little genetic difference. The explanation is that groups and tribes continually migrated, invaded and mixed with each other. The idea that Britain was wholly 100% Celtic and different to mainland Europe before the invasion of the Romans seems to be false. The fact that there are very few Celtic placenames in England seems to confirm this - \"Celtic\" England may not have been speaking a Celtic language before the Romans came.\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[
"http://www.sott.net/article/263587-DNA-shows-Irish-people-have-more-complex-origins-than-previously-thought",
"http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/mythsofbritishancestry/"
]
] |
|
2h33my | Who are the Indigenous people of Palestine? | I've looked at the FAQ but I'm still not satisfied with the answer. This question is mostly back in the Ancient times. According to the bible, Israelis were the original inhabitants of the land and even the place Jerusalem is included in the bible but since most of them were expelled, the land has been conquered by different empires and after that Palestinians inhabited quite a large portion of the land. I'm not sure if my information is correct or not but I want an unbiased answer of which group has the right of ownership of the land? I want an answer that related back in Ancient times not during the partition. I hope my question makes sense. | AskHistorians | http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2h33my/who_are_the_indigenous_people_of_palestine/ | {
"a_id": [
"ckp048k",
"ckp38xz",
"ckp83b4",
"ckpayod"
],
"score": [
121,
38,
5,
13
],
"text": [
" > I want an unbiased answer of which group has the right of ownership of the land?\n\nI feel this is your real question, the heart of the matter, and that's something no one in this subreddit can answer. Who can say that people even have the rights to the land? Who's to say the original inhabitants deserve the rights? The question is such a political one, and not historical, that it can't be answered historically.\n\nAs for who the indigenous people are, well, its akin to asking a question like \"are modern Welsh directly descended from the Celts?\" We know that there was in history a state in historical Palestine called Judea, and a large portion of Jews from around the world (Ashkenazi and Sephardi) can be genetically traced back to this area. When the original Judea (or Yehuda, to use the Hebrew) was founded, how the Jews arrived in Palestine, if they were immigrants as the Bible says or indigenous people or both, is a mater of scholarly debate. We also know that the Palestinian Arabs have lived in historic Palestine since the Arab conquests and before.\n\nSo who has the right to the land of historic Palestine, or Israel and Judea, or Canaan? I don't think its for historians, at least in our capacity as historians, to say. Both Jews and Arabs can trace their history on that land since before the concept of nationalism, or the idea that indigenous peoples have a right to self-determine on \"their\" land. So I'm afraid you'll have to answer that political question for yourself.",
" > According to the bible, Israelis were the original inhabitants of the land\n\nUmm... No! According to the Bible, Israelites were not the original inhabitants of the land. In fact, according to the Bible, they were lead onto the \"promised land\" by a prophet and conquered it from the autochthonous peoples before dividing it among its various tribes. These ideas, of course, do not have any basis in genetics (Jews are native Canaanites), history (there was no mention of a conquering nomads from Sinai anywhere outside of the Bible), or even religion (pre-Judaic Yahwism was an offshoot of a typical Canaanite religion of, for example, Phoenicians).\n\nBut, to answer your question - as far as historical times are concerned, original inhabitants of modern-day Israel would be Israelites/Jews. Not that it matters in any real way - historical inhabitants of modern-day England were Celts most closely related to the modern-day Welsh, while historical inhabitants of modern-day Crimea were, first, Iranian tribes, then Greeks.\n\nThere is no such thing as \"right of ownership of the land\" based on its possession thousands of years ago. Vast majority of ancestors of what we know as \"Western Civilisation\" was herding sheep in the modern-day Russian steppe just a few thousand years ago, while Europe was in control of people like modern-day Basques. Should we all just go back to the steppes? :)",
"The question of 'who has the right to own the land' is not properly satisfied by an appeal to history, although it's a common enough mistake. ",
"I'm going to talk about the time period far before what the FAQ covers, just to not step on any toes.\n\nBefore I begin, I'd like to echo the other people answering this question:\n\nAs far as if this has any bearing as to which group somehow right to any part of the Levant, it doesn't. The issue between Palestine and Israel is a modern one, and has very little to do with the people who would be considered indigenous or which one of them arrived there first. That being said...\n\nAs far as the indigenous people of the section of the Levant we know today as Israel/Palestine, that answer appears lost to history. Considering that the earlier people in the region also are the inhabitants of one of the oldest towns, Jericho, I would think that, if you were using the Bible as a completely trustworthy historical source, which you shouldn't with anything, then the question would be settled, and the answer would be the Canaanites, who likely are not the anscestors of the Palestinians. As we progress further back to the first habitation level of Jericho, the type of population changes, and it appears that we won't have an answer to this. However, let's look at some of the earliest records of people that appear to be native to the region. \n\nFor this, we will first have to head North, to modern day Syria and Lebanon. Let's start this discussion around 2500 BCE, as speakign any earlier has been shown moot here. Looking first at the city of Ebla, we have a group of people writing in Sumerian cuneiform, but in Amorite, which is a Semitic language most closely related to Canaanite, Phoenician, and Hebrew. Strictly speaking, I think it may be related to Aramaic. They are living in the northern half of the Levant, and represent the earliest confirmed Semitic speakers after the Akkadians. Some argue, though I am not convinced, that a tablet here is the first reference to Canaan. For our purposes, it doesn't matter, as you'll soon see. At this point, major population centers in the Southern Levant tell us that there is quite a bit of [socio-political integration](_URL_2_), but the identity of the peoples here appear no more than proto-Canaanite. Canaan is a geographic region, and doesn't represent a single people. \n\nThis brings us to the meat of the discussion, the first section in which we have solid written records about the political state of the region. the Late Bronze Age. Important players here are the Hittites and the Egyptians, both at the height of their power, each owning about half of the Levant. [Egypt owned the Southern half.](_URL_3_) During this time, northern and southern Levantine cities prospered. However, it is during this time that we see good distinction between Canaanites and non- Canaanites. The North Levantine city of Ugarit has an impressive number of tablets, and when speaking about Canaan, they speak as though they are separated from it. It is here, then, that we have a distinction. We also have fairly frequent references to the land of Canaan as an important Egyptian owned area in the Amarna letters, alongside a reference in a Hittite treaty with Egypt. This brings us to the end of the Bronze Age, and the reason for much of this confusion. We have a [stele](_URL_1_) of the pharaoh Merneptah. He proclaimed wictory over various groups of people, one of which is the Canaanites; another is the people of Israel. There is much linguistic debate over exactly what the connotation of the way it is written, but unless it is asked for, I will leave it for now. This is, to my knowledge, the first reference to Israelites. \n\nThis reference happened in the context of the Bronze Age collapse ca 1200 BCE, and it is unclear whether the Israelites were a nomadic group, or a settled one in Canaan. In any case, the Bronze Age collapse was a time of great upheaval of peoples, and saw the collapse of every major power in the region. During this time, we also see the first reference to a group called the Pelset. They are mentioned by the Egyptians as well, and are believed to be the first reference to the Philistines. They are supposedly part of the larger group called Sea Peoples who settled in various places along the coast of the Levant and Turkey. During this time, many populations moved throughout the region, and who was where before this comes a bit muddled. It is in the time period just after the collapse that the first widely accepted to be historical part of the Bible takes place. The conquest, while unattested by written records, does fall in line with what we see happen in the Levant during this time. cities fall and population centers move. it is unlikely that the was due completely or in majority to the Israelites, but it would be surprising if they played no part in it. In fact, it is almost certain that they did, because after this point we do have an Israelite kingdom, then two, which are well attested by archaeological and textual evidence. It is at this point that people the would become the Palestinians and the people the Israelis of today call their ancestors were living together for certain. Between 1000-900 BCE.\n\nHowever, if we look at the cultural touchstones of each, they are likely derived from the same or very similar peoples throughout the bronze age, with much intermarriage for much of their history until the diaspora, and evidence suggests that for much of their history, the [Israelites may have been polytheistic](_URL_0_), worshiping the same gods as the other Canaanite groups, perhaps with a later emphasis on Yahweh. The whole thing is rather muddled, but it is worthwhile to understand it."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[],
[
"http://www.michaelsheiser.com/PaleoBabble/Ayn%20Dara%20Parallel%20to%20Solomons%20Temple.pdf",
"http://realhistoryww.com/world_history/ancient/Misc/Merneptah_Stele/Merneptah_Stele.htm",
"http://www.academia.edu/1833095/Rise_and_collapse_in_the_southern_Levant_in_the_Early_Bronze_Age",
"http://i.imgur.com/Rt0P942.jpg?1"
]
] |
|
9cn6ix | The CCP under Mao apparently introduced Traditional Chinese Medicine in its modern form with intent to replace it with 'Western' evidence-based medicine over time, yet TCM remains broadly popular. Did the latter part of the plan just not succeed, or are there other reasons for TCM's resilience? | AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9cn6ix/the_ccp_under_mao_apparently_introduced/ | {
"a_id": [
"e5cj184"
],
"score": [
8
],
"text": [
"follow up: could you elaborate on \"in its modern form\"? what's different between that and the *old* TCM?"
]
} | [] | [] | [
[]
] |
||
54kfb4 | Is there truly no mention of Jesus Christ in Roman writings? | I'm trying to find the historical accuracy of an internet statement. It was a picture of Caesar with the caption along the lines of "In all the known Roman writings, there is no mention of Christianity or of the person Jesus Christ."
| AskHistorians | https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/54kfb4/is_there_truly_no_mention_of_jesus_christ_in/ | {
"a_id": [
"d82keci",
"d82n3kx",
"d840ale",
"d840m0i"
],
"score": [
604,
106,
2,
5
],
"text": [
"False. Jesus is mentioned twice by the historian Josephus.\n\nSpecifically, he says:\n\n > [...] so he assembled the sanhedrin of judges, and brought before them the brother of **Jesus, who was called Christ**, whose name was James, and some others [...]\n\n(Antiquities of the Jews Book 20, Chapter 9, 1)\n\nBefore that he wrote:\n\n > About this time there lived Jesus, a wise man, if indeed one ought to call him a man. For he was one who performed surprising deeds and was a teacher of such people as accept the truth gladly. He won over many Jews and many of the Greeks. He was the Christ. And when, upon the accusation of the principal men among us, Pilate had condemned him to a cross, those who had first come to love him did not cease. He appeared to them spending a third day restored to life, for the prophets of God had foretold these things and a thousand other marvels about him. And the tribe of the Christians, so called after him, has still to this day not disappeared.\n\n(Antiquities of the Jews, Book 18, Chapter 3, 3)\n\nThe second quote is a bit controversial, because historians agree it has been altered, making Josephus' judgement of Jesus more positive than what he had originally written. However, they also agree that the passage definitely mentioned Jesus and that he was executed by Pilate.\n\nFurthermore, Christianity itself is often mentioned in Roman writings. Suetonius tells us that under Nero's reign:\n\n > **Punishment was inflicted on the Christians, a class of men given to a new and mischievous superstition.** He put an end to the diversions of the chariot drivers, who from immunity of long standing claimed the right of ranging at large and amusing themselves by cheating and robbing the people. The pantomimic actors and their partisans were banished from the city.\n\n(The Lives of the Twelve Caesars, 16)\n\nAnd last but not least, we know the Emperor Domitian declared Christianity *religio illicita* (impermissible religion) during his rule, sometime in the 80s AD. And we also have Pliny the Younger's letter dating from 112 AD to Trajan, asking the Emperor for counsel on how to deal with Christians in the province of *Bithynia et Pontus*, of which Pliny was governor.",
"In addition to the mentions by the historian Josephus that were already brought up, Christ and Christianity were also mentioned by the historian Tacitus. \n\n > Consequently, to get rid of the report, Nero fastened the guilt and inflicted the most exquisite tortures on a class hated for their abominations, called Christians by the populace. Christus, from whom the name had its origin, suffered the extreme penalty during the reign of Tiberius at the hands of one of our procurators, Pontius Pilatus, and a most mischievous superstition, thus checked for the moment, again broke out not only in Judaea, the first source of the evil, but even in Rome, where all things hideous and shameful from every part of the world find their centre and become popular. \n\n*Annals*, Book 15",
" > In all the known Roman writings, there is no mention of Christianity\n\nThis is quite an audacious statement considering the many Roman emperors who were Christians!\n\nIn addition to the mentions by Josephus and Tacitus of Jesus, the emperor Marcus Aurelius mentions Christians briefly:\n\n > What a soul that is which is ready, if at any moment it must be separated from the body, and ready either to be extinguished or dispersed or continue to exist; but so that this readiness comes from a man's own judgement, not from mere obstinacy, as with the Christians, but considerately and with dignity and in a way to persuade another, without tragic show.\n\n[Meditations Book Eleven](_URL_0_)",
"I just want to clarify your question, /u/MDDIY. It's more likely that the quote you recall didn't mention Christianity, only Jesus. It's a common trope among certain circles to argue against the existence of Jesus on the basis of a lack of evidence from outsider writers (i.e., non-New Testament). These same groups don't argue that Christianity didn't exist, because there is clear evidence that it did. (The top response in the present thread misunderstands your question slightly. Josephus was not a \"Roman\" in the sense meant by your quote, which means that there are indeed no \"Roman\" writings that mention Jesus.[1])\n\nI would recommend heading over to /r/AcademicBiblical as well, which is jam-packed with scholars of the exact period involved in your question, and they can provide further detail if you're interested.\n\n[1] With the debatable line in Tacitus a *possible* occurrence."
]
} | [] | [] | [
[],
[],
[
"http://classics.mit.edu/Antoninus/meditations.11.eleven.html"
],
[]
] |
Subsets and Splits
No community queries yet
The top public SQL queries from the community will appear here once available.