Datasets:

0x70DA

/

eli5-modified

like 0

[ "_URL_0_ (4 am - 9am)\n\nRead #3, in Texas the water loss to evaporation is rediculous" ]

[ "Odds basically tell you that if the exact same situation were to occur an infinite number of times, what portion of those times would lead to that specific result.\n\ne.g. If you have the Ace of Hearts, King of Hearts, Queen of Hearts and Jack of Hearts in your hand and 48 shuffled cards in front of you, there is a 1 in 48 chance you will end up with a 10 of hearts for a Royal Flush. There is no way of guessing which card will come up next, but if you shuffled that deck drew a card (made note of which card it was, replaced it and repeat) millions of times, you would get the Royal Flush 1/48 of the time.\n\nA pro would make that bet if it pays better than 48 times their money. They will only win 1/48 of the time, but if they get the chance to make that bet many many times in their lives, the rare win will make up for the cost of the losses.", "If you roll a dice there is a 1/6 chance it will land on any of the given faces even though the act of rolling will produce a \"random\" result you can still predict that statistically being that it has 6 faces it should have an equal chance of dropping on the 1 vs the rest.\n\nThe same goes for poker in that there are only so many possible card combos that you can calculate the chances of you getting a royal flush vs a Pair." ]

[ "Okay, so no Ken Jennings. How about Arthur Chu?\n\nFrom [this](_URL_0_) article:\n\n > Literally the first thing I did when I got the call was to ask myself, “Do I feel ready?” And the answer is, “Hell no, I don’t feel ready.” Thankfully, we live in the electronic age. So without having to use too much ingenuity or creativity, I just typed “Jeopardy! strategy” and “Jeopardy! studying” into Google, and lo and behold…\n\n > Jeopardy! has been around for 30 years. All of the advice about how to study for Jeopardy! and how to play Jeopardy! has already been written. There’s a community online, called the J-board, of past Jeopardy! contestants and fans who just talk about this all the time. So I absorbed a lot of strategies from the greats. One of them was Roger Craig, who won a couple years ago and who broke the one-day total winnings record. He’s brilliant. He is a computer scientist, and he actually combed through an archive of past Jeopardy! games using an algorithm that scrapes all the clues out and figured out what the most common categories were, what the most common high-value categories were. Then he compared it to his own performance using flashcards to tell him where his most important weak spots were. \n\n > Jeopardy! feels like it can be anything, but most of the really random clues come in the first round. The higher-value clues in Double Jeopardy are much more limited. They’re much more about traditional academic knowledge, things that a gentleman and a scholar is supposed to know, like history, geography, literature. And Final Jeopardy is often really focused on Americana. They love state capitals, state nicknames, U.S. presidential facts. \n\n > You can’t possibly learn everything you need to know to get a perfect score, but to greatly increase your chance of winning, there are a few finite sets of knowledge that you actually can memorize. You can memorize what all the state capitals and all the world capitals are. You can find a list of all the official state nicknames and memorize those. And once you’ve done that, because those things come up over and over again, you’ve given yourself a big advantage. \n\n > There’s a program that Roger Craig recommended, that I ended up using as well, called Anki. It’s a free program, and it uses what they call space repetition, which is an algorithm that keeps track of how well you do on flashcards and focuses on giving you the flashcards that give you the most trouble at regular intervals. So you boost your knowledge where you need help the most. I’m not a computer scientist, so unlike Roger Craig, I didn’t have a super scientific way of judging what I needed to know. I just looked at his comments. “Oh, you need to know about Nobel Prize-winning literature writers. You need to know about U.S. presidential facts.” And then I just put together a little study guide and committed to it. I started doing that every night instead of going out with friends or acknowledging my wife." ]

[ "The mechanism for inhaling is using your diaphragm to basically pull down, creating negative pressure in your lungs. When you inhale deeply to cause your abdomen to protrude, you relax your abdominal muscles and your diaphragm pushes down slightly on your abdominal organs, mostly your intestines, causing your abdomen to stick out.\nEdit: accuracy" ]

[ "_URL_0_ \nIt's called an accelerometer. This guy breaks it dowwn." ]

[ "Like, in your house? Or the whole thing?\n\nIn your house, just unplug the cable between the router and the modem. \n\nThe Internet as a whole is so resilient (it was intended to survive nuclear strikes) that it would be extraordinarily difficult. Global thermonuclear war might do it." ]

[ "Assange made a website that exposed private and sensitive information about important people and events, in particular the government, and they got angry.", "Well it all started with Wikileaks. Wikileaks is simply a site where classified information is uploaded. Of course, this is not really anything new, News papers have done this for a long time (well, share it, not upload). But Wikileaks manage to do this in a way big way. They have communication between diplomats, secret deals, and some disturbing shots of USA soldiers attacking civilians.\n\nThe USA didn't like this on bit. They thought it was helping terrorists, and breaking the law (in some mysterious way. I believe the logic is that some of the documents they published put the lives of American soldiers at risk, and they are therefor a terrorist organization). So they started thinking of ways of shutting it down.\n\nSo the went to VISA, Mastercard and most other payment providers and said: don't give them any more money. So they closed all their accounts, and stopped all new donations. Wikileaks is fighting back, and have recently won a few court cases so they might soon get some money again.\n\nThe other things is that the USA want Assange, as he started the whole thing. The problem is that he is in England. And England won't send anyone anywhere where they might risk life in jail or a death sentence. Which he might very well get in the USA.\n\nAround this time two ex-girlfriends of Assange surfaces in Sweden. They start talking about how Assange raped them, while they were in a relationship. Now, Sweden want Assange to try him for rape. Rape won't give him life in prison in Sweden, so England can send him there. \n\nAssange fears that he will be sent from Sweden to the USA. Which would be bad for him. One of the documents Wikileaks published was conversations between Sweden and USA, where USA basically ordered Sweden to shut down the piratebay." ]

[ "It's basically a magic potion with nothing in it. The idea is that you take a bit of something that causes the symptoms you want (say, some caffeine to make a sleeping pill, because caffeine causes you to stay awake), add it to water, do a magical ritual involving shaking the thing in certain directions a specific number of times. Then you take a tiny bit of the solution you've made, and put that into another container of water, and repeat the ritual. Now you have a tenth or a hundredth the caffeine you had the last time around. Do this a bunch of times until the solution has diluted all the stuff out of it completely, and you have nothing but shaken water remaining. Now you have a homeopathic medication.\n\nThe reason that people make fun of it is that it's so utterly absurd. A lot of people seem to be under the mistaken impression that it's some form of herbal medicine or something. It isn't. It's a form of ritual magic that in the end gives you a potion consisting of no medicinal ingredients whatsoever.", "A lot of confusion about homeopathy comes from the difference between its actual definition and its assumed, informal definition.\n\nThe actual definition of homeopathy is, as others said here, the idea that you can super-dilute a disease into water to create a cure. It's completely absurd, and is mocked because... well, it should be.\n\nThere's a colloquial misunderstanding, though, that \"homeopathy\" is a catch-all term for any \"natural\" or \"alternative\" remedy. This is where the confusion comes in. Some natural remedies are effective. The better ones are eventually adapted into actual remedies (\"Alternative medicine that has been proven to work is called medicine\"). But those are not homeopathy.", "Homeopathy started several hundred years ago, when medicine was pretty awful. At the time, it often produced better results than traditional medicine, because it did no harm, unlike things like leeches and mercury. However, medicine has gotten better since then, while homeopathy just appeals to the sort of people who believe that water has memory." ]

[ "By default, after you die, everything will go to your legal next of kin. That person (or persons) is defined in this order, and if you don't have a living member of each group, it passes to the next one down:\n\nSpouse\nChildren\nParents\nSiblings\n\nI believe that next comes grandkids, then grandparents, but don't quote me on that.\n\nSo if you don't have a spouse, but you have 3 kids and 2 parents living, your property would be split between your kids by default. And they'd inherit debts and things as well.\n\nA will exists to change these defaults. Say you have a spouse, but you still want to make sure that certain things go to your kids, your will would enumerate \"Hey, my kids get this, this and this, and my spouse gets whatever I didn't list.\"" ]

[ "Weight gain is dependent on calories in and calories burned. It doesn't matter where you're getting those calories from, if you burn them all through activity and lifestyle, then you're not going to put on weight. Olympic Swimmer Michael Phelps ate somewhere around 2000 Calories for breakfast (remember watching a documentary - his breakfast had eggs, bacon, sausages, waffles with syrup, etc).\n\nMy only concern about your diet would be that your lack of fruits and vegetables could mean you're risking various vitamin deficiencies such as Vitamin C, A, B12, K, etc. Not to mention you might not be getting that much fibre and depending on what exactly it is you eat, your cholesterol level could suffer.", "If your caloric intake is below or matches your expenditure, you will not gain weight, regardless of the quality of the food you eat. You could be having problems like hypertension or high cholesterol and you wouldn't see any symptoms for decades. And nutritionally, the younger you are, the more your body can adapt to a less-than-ideal diet. I ate like that when I was in my 20s with very little visible effect. As I got older, I noticed that my energy levels and concentration were slowly diminishing, but improved vastly with improved eating habits. \n\nOr you might be one of those people who can eat whatever you want and not gain weight.", "You need your fibers, vitamins and minerals. I think you are ingesting those without your knowledge. For example bread is packed with fibers and minerals, but most people just consider them as carbs. Maybe you could give some more detailed info on your diet.\n\nEdit: Weight is only a matter of caloric intake vs calories burnt. Fats, carbs or protein, doesn't matter. Your body has to obey the laws of physics.", "Fats are essential to body function. Cholesterol, for example, helps keep cellular membranes intact and not falling apart. You dont need alot, as your body creates most of it, but you still need a small amount. So eating zero fats is not really good for you.", "Sounds like you answered your own question: it's working fine. Diet is so individual-specific that it's hard to give specific advice. The multivitamin is good." ]

[ "Diminishing returns.\n\nThe first time you jump on a trampoline, the only real force pushing you upward is coming from your legs.\n\nOn the next bounce, the trampoline converts a bunch of your downward momentum into upward momentum and helps push you back up into the air. If you push off again with your legs as that's happening, you will go even higher than you did the first time.\n\nThat means on the next bounce, you have even more downward momentum that the trampoline will convert into upward momentum for you (because you're falling from a higher distance and picking up more speed on the way down).\n\nThis works the first few times, but eventually you hit a point where you're already being pushed up into the air so quickly each time, your legs can't really do anything significant to help." ]

[ "Yes, a calorie is a calorie, source is largely irrelevant, but that doesn't necessarily mean your body will react the same way. The input isn't different, but the output can be. \n\nA simplistic analogy might be to consider getting punched with a certain measure of force (say 5 newtons). If you got punched like this in a boxing match, or in a tense situation on the street, it might neither surprise you much, nor would it hurt. If however, your mother or significant other hit you with the same level of force, you might end up massively more shocked, noticing it far more etc. In the same way whilst the force (calories) of an input will always be the same, the way your body reacts to the input will vary depending on its local environment - is it currently undergoing severe starvation, do you have a metabolic disease, are you middle aged etc. The local environment your body finds itself in can influence how it reacts to a calorie. This can be influenced by, amongst other things, the food you eat. So calories from fizzy drinks, whilst theoretically the same as other calories, might be treated differently by the body than a calorie from a piece of fruit, because of knock on effects from consuming a fizzy drink. The calories themselves aren't different but the method of administration can alter the reaction your body has to it. There are probably additional effects (albeit not particularly large) depending on things such as whether you have just exercised, how easily digestible the food is, current energy/glucose levels etc, or even your own personal biological quirks that influence how your body operates. Most of this stuff is relatively small scale though, and not worth worrying about at an individual level.\n\n_URL_0_", "A calorie is a physical measure of energy - specifically, the amount of energy needed to heat one metric mililitre of water by one degree Celsius. Energy in food intake is also measured in this way, though the terms kilocalorie and calorie are often used interchangably, which can cause confusion. \n\nBut yes, no matter where it comes from, one calorie always represents the exact same amount of energy. However, a difference you *can* make is that some foods will allow the energy that is within them to be absorbed more efficiently or more quickly, which can lead to varying results.\n\n(Edit courtesy of Neo6874: One calorie heats one millilitre by one degree Celsius. One kilocalorie heats one litre by one degree Celsius.)", "Not really bit sort of.\n\nCalories are a measure of the potential energy in food. Humans can extract that energy much more efficiently from some foods than for others so there's also matter of the bioavailability of those calories. \n\nSimple sugars dissolved in water are the easiest to digest and you will extract almost all of that energy. \n\nUnprocessed foods with complex carbon molecules, ie complex carbohydrates, fats and proteins are harder to digest. It takes more energy to process them and in some cases we can't extract the energy at all, such as with cellulose.\n\nThere is a lab study showing that simply puffing up rat food with air increases weight gain in rats but I don't have the link right now. \n\nThat said, this is a second order effect. If your looking to gain or lose weight your first dietary priority should be calorie counting, next is macronutrient ratios and calorie availability is something you should only bother with once you have a handle on the other two.", "Yes. A calorie is just a way of measuring energy. 1 calorie= the amount of energy needed to raise water 1 degree Celsius. Edit: One metric millilitre of water, that is. \n\nA calorie has nothing to do with the nutritional content of the food at hand.", "A calorie is a calorie, *but* just because something has 100 calories doesn't mean your body absorbs/uses all those calories.", "Pretty much. For example if a male has a total daily expenditure of 2500 calories and he eats 2500 calories of sweets he will stay the same weight. But health comes into the equation because you want to ensure you are eating enough protein (for maintaining/growing muscle) and carbohydrates. If you are 2500 calories of sweets daily you would be deficient in a lot of vitamins etc and may lose muscle mass", "In terms of the amount of energy they give you, yes, but in other ways no. Plain sugar is digested very quickly, so you'll get hungry again more quickly than if you ate the same number of calories of protein. Also, you need to eat protein and fat to survive, but not carbohydrates.", "> ELI5: Are calories just calories? Is it the same if you get a calorie from a fizzy drink or a piece of fruit or a slice of potato or a bit of cheese?\n\nA calorie is a calorie, but calories are strictly about the amount of energy in food, not the nutritional content of the food.\n\nYou've probably heard of \"vitamins\" and micro-nutrients like vitamin A (which is found in many vegetables) and vitamin C (found commonly in citrus, e.g. oranges). Other micro-nutrients include things like iron, iodine, magnesium, and so on.\n\nIf you get 2000 calories from just drinking soda, then your body will ingest the same amount of \"energy\" as it would from 2000 calories of cheese or potatoes or meat or other foods. But if you drink nothing but soda, you'll likely develop numerous nutrient deficiencies, which can lead to other medical problems. For example, some people develop night blindness due to vitamin A deficiency, and many micro-nutrient deficiencies can lead to a weakened immune system, causing you to get sick more easily.\n\nBeyond that, all foods fit into several different macro-nutrient groups, which you've probably heard of: carbohydrates (aka \"carbs\"), protein, and fat. The body metabolizes these differently. For example, the body will use protein to repair tissue damage and build muscle. 500 calories worth of chicken and 500 calories worth of bread might be the same amount of \"energy,\" but your body is going to process and metabolize them in different ways.", "I don't usually eat a lot, and when I drink beer I can easily consume 2000 calories in beer alone but not be that hungry for any food. The problem along with nutrition if I were to do this on a daily basis, is the irregularity in which your shits come in. That's why old people are recommended high fiber, so they don't just poop out a string bean or popcorn poop and their digestive system is happy." ]

[ "You could phone bank, donate to his campaign, that sort of thing.\n\nThe question you should be asking yourself is why you want Gary Johnson in the debates. His economic policies are frankly terrible. He thinks that socialized medicine is a bad thing, when it's been proven to be the superior system in every measure except 5 year cancer survival rate. He's courted anti-vaxxers, a movement I would like to point out quite literally kills children.\n\nSure, it would be nice to have alternate voices on the campaign trail. But I would prefer to have sane ones rather than crazy ones.", "If you are polled on who you would vote for in the presidential election, say \"Gary Johnson.\"\n\nOnce he has 15% or more of polled people giving his name, he can be included in the debates." ]

[ "The portion everyone's worried about basically states that if someone is accused or suspected of being a terrorist the US government can detain (lock up) them indefinitely regardless of whether or not they are an American citizen. This is a big deal because, in addition to reminding everyone of the Red Scare in the 50s, it is a direct violation of the bill of rights, specifically the fourth amendment. \n\n > Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.\nThe right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized. --Wikipedia\n\nBasically without a warrant, they cannot arrest you unless they see you committing the crime. This would remove that protection without modifying the constitution. In any sane environment it would immediately be thrown out by the Supreme Court as a violation of the constitution, but that its gotten this far to being passed is extremely worrying in and of itself.\n\nTL;DR: If the government doesn't like what you are saying/doing (OWS) they can 'suspect' you of terrorism, or of planning terrorism, or having vague ties to terrorism, and detain you indefinitely behind bars.\n\nOr at least that's my understanding.\n\nEdit: Personally the distinction in the past few years that the constitution only protects American citizens and that for anyone else we can even ignore the Geneva convention if we feel like it is just as, if not more worrisome. Who the hell thinks like that. I don't care if he's British he's still human.", "There are two bits of it people object to. IANAL, but here's what they say:\n\nSection 1031 is the main problem. It does not appear to cover US citizens- it says:\n > (e) AUTHORITIES\n\n > .—Nothing in this section shall be construed to affect existing law or authorities, relating to the detention of United States citizens, lawful resident aliens of the United States or any other persons who are captured or arrested in the United States. \n\n\nThe bill addresses two specific groups of people\n > (1) A person who planned, authorized, com-\nmitted, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on \nSeptember 11, 2001, or harbored those responsible for \nthose attacks. \n\n > (2) A person who was a part of or substantially \nsupported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces \nthat are engaged in hostilities against the United \nStates or its coalition partners, including any person \nwho has committed a belligerent act or has directly \nsupported such hostilities in aid of such enemy forces. \n\n\nAnd nobody else.\n\nSection 1032 talks more about the specifics of implementing the NDAA. It has a disclaimer like 1031, saying\n\n > (1) UNITED STATES CITIZENS\n\n > .—The requirement \nto detain a person in military custody under this sec-\ntion does not extend to citizens of the United States. \n\n > (2) L\nAWFUL RESIDENT ALIENS\n\n > .—The require-\nment to detain a person in military custody under \nthis section does not extend to a lawful resident alien \nof the United States on the basis of conduct taking \n422 \nplace within the United States, except to the extent \npermitted by the Constitution of the United States. \n\n*However*, it also says \n\n > (4) WAIVER FOR NATIONAL SECURITY\n\n > .—The Sec-\nretary of Defense may, in consultation with the Sec-\nretary of State and the Director of National Intel-\nligence, waive the requirement of paragraph (1) if the \nSecretary submits to Congress a certification in writ-\ning that such a waiver is in the national security in-\nterests of the United States. \n\nWhich would appear to mean that the secretary of defence can ignore the explicit exclusion of US citizens if they choose to do so. That means that it's now legally possible for the US government to arrest and detain without trial anyone for the crimes mentioned.", "I'm sorry that this isn't answering the question but I need some help as well. I've heard that the indefinite detention does AND does not apply to U.S. citizens. Can someone just give a clear cut answer to this? Yes or no, with supporting sources, please?" ]

[ "I used to work for costumer service and we do this to make it an unpleasant experience for the costumer so that they never call again.\nIt's the same concept as those In-mail rebates that tend to be annoying to complete.\nThat's why I ended up quitting. I didn't like the whole idea of treating the customers bad.", "the initial information your provide to the automatic service (IVR) is generally used to direct you to the correct department. then the agent asks for your details to satisfy the requirements of data protection regulations\n\nhowever, many companies just use the first automatic part to delay things a bit so they can manipulate stats. average waiting time, for example, may be calculated from after when the automatic part is done. \n\nso, you may spend say 5 mins doing the auto shit, then another 5 mins in a queue, but the company will claim all calls are answered within 5 minutes when, in reality, it's 10 mins before you speak with someone\n\nalso, when the call is charged per minute, it's an easy way for the company to increase their revenues by increasing call length \n\nfinally, it's worth bearing in mind that when you call a company, you probably are not even speaking with someone who works for that company, but rather and agent who works for an outsourcer. outsourcers pay minimum wage with vague promises of bonuses that they will generally go out of their way to not pay.", "Former call center rep here. I can't speak for all call center systems, but in my particular case I was working at an outsourced call center. Our client, a cell phone service provider, used both outsourced call centers and in-house call centers. If the customer got an in-house center, their information that they had entered popped up on the rep's screen automatically. If they got us instead, that information wasn't delivered to us and we had to ask the customer for it all over again.", "Currently working in a call center (for a Canadian ISP). As a customer, please remember that customer service agent have no power whatsoever in changing that system which make you wait on the phone or ask you to choose between tons of options. If a customer call and ask why he always have to go through all kinds of options before talking to an human, all I can answer is that it's the way the system is done. As a simple agent, I can't do anything about it so, even if you are angry, it won't change anything. The real people who could make a real change to that system aren't the agents on the phone, you won't be able to contact them directly. The best phone system I've seen (meaning it was a bit less annoying) is with my bank account support system. You simply have to say, in a few words, what you want and the speech recognition system do the rest of the job, transferring you to the right place.\n\nAlso, doing technical support, we may have to ask you simple question like \"can you check to see if there's visible damage on the phone cable?\", you may be tempted to answer \"yeah I already know there's no damage, no need to ask that stupid question\". Problem is, you may already know your cables are perfectly good but, for us on the other end, we don't know yet, we have to check it no matters how convinced you seem to be. Also, your computer is not owned by the ISP so we don't officially have to support it, just be gentle and we may give you a few advises. If you are angry and are yelling at us because your computer is not working or is filled with malwares, we'll just ask you if there's our company logo on it and then we'll end the call.\n\nSame goes for pricing, I do technical support because it's where I'm good at and I'd hate to work as a sale representative, if you ask me why your bill is so high, I'll just transfer you to billing department.", "This might just get buried but I train customer service agents, and based on experience, here's why:\n\nThe first set asked by the IVR can do two things: either 1) send you to the right department depending on your account number of social security, and 2) pull up your account automatically once an agent answers your call, making it more efficient without the agent needing to search for your information again.\n\nThe second set asked by the agent is to make sure that you are indeed the person who owns the account (asking you stuff about yourself, personal information, and getting your voice over the recording). Similar experiences, a wife can just type in the husband's account number and social security in the IVR, but when the agent picks up her call, she is not given authority to access the account as she is not the account owner. An IVR cannot detect this, thus the need for an agent.\n\nPeople get annoyed because most of the time because it's usually the account owner calling in to get information or to ask for help, and they don't see why it's important to ask for his information twice. But what they don't see is that sometimes 3rd party people do try and access their accounts, checking for information or trying to withdraw money without their consent, and this method prevents it.\n\nEDIT: Added more detail" ]

[ "The water in the lake came from somewhere. Most lakes are fed by rivers and streams, or were originally parts of a river network as is the case with [oxbow lakes.](_URL_0_)\n\nA lake that was completely isolated from any other sources of water would eventually see evolutionary divergence if it had unique stressors, but there aren't many, if any, lakes like that, at least aboveground.\n\nAlso a lot of lake and river fisheries are stocked by humans. Like, you'll find largemouth bass in a lot of fisheries around the world, it's especially popular in Japan, but largemouth bass are only native to North America. They were artificially introduced to fisheries elsewhere.", "there are also lots of similar niches that are filled within a lake, I would suggest reading about the cichlids in the lakes in Africa. many of these lakes were populated by a single type of fish and similar natural pressures allowed species to develop in each lake to fill the niches. they are genetically diverse from lake to lake but phenotypically really similar. \n\nalso, land ecosystems don't necessarily have entirely different species. we often see animals with similar \"tools\" to fill environmental niches. natural selection is not able to create generic diversity, rather it works with the diversity that is already present in a population. however, it often causes traits to appear in animals that, although they appear different, give an animal the same ability in a certain environment. cacti are found in deserts all over the world even though they haven't necessarily descended from the same original species.", "1. People introduce fish that they want to catch into the lake, so that they can go fishing. This is how you get \"classic\" species in vastly different locations.\n\n2. In many places, lakes form and disappear relatively quickly on a geological timescale -- it happens quickly enough that you don't see obvious divergence.\n\n3. Fish are sufficiently foreign that they pretty much look the same. There isn't the same \"obvious\" variety like there is in land animals.", "- [Lake Baikal](_URL_3_)\n- [Lake Tanganyika](_URL_3_) (contains cichlids mentioned in /u/meerkatmanor897 reply)\n- [New River](_URL_3_\n\nAll these have endemic species.", "ELI5: This happens, but evolution is really slow and lakes change (relatively) quickly, therefore usually there is access to other large bodies of water on an evolutionary time scale even if there isn't now.", "Aquatic Biologist here:\n\nThere is actually loads of variation in fish between different bodies of water. There are several reasons this isn't apparent to people, though.\n\nFirst, to the untrained eye most fish look like just fish. And fish that you don't fish for are rarely seen by the public. So differences may not be noticed. This is do For example there are hundreds of fish in the southeastern USA that are not found out west. There are about a hundred species of [darters](_URL_5_) in the Eastern USA (many confined to a handful of streams), and maybe 1 or 2 found in Utah. And that's leaving aside differences between continents (Eg: darters in North America, Loaches in Asia, Mormyrids in Africa, Cichlids in the south, Salmonids up north). \n\n\nSecond, the fish we go fishing for in freshwater are widespread due to human intervention. There are carp, trout, largemouth bass and bluegill all over the damn place because people introduce them into every last body of water they come across. In Utah you'd find Rainbow Trout (introduced by people from the Pacific Coast), Bluegill and Bass (Introduced from the East) and Carp (from Asia).\n\n\nThird, there's a bit more connectivity between lakes and rivers than is commonly believed, when you look across long timespans. For example, many fish species are widespread across the entire eastern USA, because over geologic time rivers wander and floods disperse species from watershed to watershed. Take Utah for example. You think all those rivers and lakes should be distinct because they are isolated in a dry environment. But during the last Ice Age [lake Bonneville](_URL_4_) covered the entire northwestern portion of the state and was connected via river outflow to Washington through Idaho.", "??? It is the case.\n\nMost fish that are found freshwater around the world are farmed fish that were introduced there for farming or they are invasive species.\n\n_URL_7_\n\nThe Distribution and Habitat of Cichlids is a good example of how fish spread to fresh water places naturally. There is a large isolated lake in Africa that is all cichlids, just like there is a lake that is all jellyfish.\n\n_URL_6_", "I have a pond on my property that is spring fed. It has no other source in or out. It has never been stocked but it is teeming with fish. I don't know this to be a fact but it's my understanding that birds flying overhead and landing in it have brought eggs with them on their feet or mouths from a meal. Over the years more and more fish spawn but the species of fish are determined by the birds who eat fish and land on the pond. Like I said I have no idea if this is right it's just how it was explained to me. Would be cool if a biologist could chime in and tell me if I'm dead wrong or not." ]

[ "people either start a tab or they pay up front. it's part of a bartender's job to make sure they get paid for their goods/services. i'm sure some bars and bartenders will allow regulars to get away without paying upfront in certain scenarios, but that really depends on the business and employees.", "When you order a drink, you either open a tab (usually they keep your card) and give them your name each time you order, or you pay with each drink. If you opened a tab, you have to come back to the bar before leaving if you want your card back, or if they don't keep your card they just charge you at the end of the night if you don't close out and add a tip, but that's less common.", "Typically, likes others have said, you open a tab with your credit card. Then when ordering, you tell them your last name and they charge it to that account and then you close it out before you leave. There's no way a bartender could remember names like that in a packed place.", "Typically these clubs are only hiring the cream of the crop bartenders who can keep track of this many customers. Your local barkeep can't but these are the Top Guns of the bartender world." ]

[ "In programming operator overloading is when you take a simple mathematical or logical operator like + or ! and define what that means. It's generally only applied to user-defined types/classes/objects, as the definition of these operators tends to be predefined for numbers etc.\n\nImagine you have an object X, only you the programmer can define what it means to add two X objects together. X might represent a list of objects in which case the result would be an X representing the concatenation of both lists. X might represent a mathematical vector, so the result would be an X representing a vector that's the result of adding the two argument vectors together. \n\nThe best example for this is C++'s [std::string](_URL_1_) which has an operator+ that takes two strings and returns the string representing the concatenation of the two arguments. \n\nSome languages (again using C++ as an example) have conversion operators as well, such as [operator bool on std::shared_ptr](_URL_0_) which defines how to convert a shared_ptr to a boolean for use with (for example) `if(!myptr){}` or `if(myptr){}` expressions, but otherwise works in a similar way.\n\nDifferent operators take different numbers of arguments, e.g. ! is a unary operator, takes 1 argument, + / - * are all binary operators and take two, and so on.\n\nEdit: ! is a unary operator not a binary. I knew what I meant ;-)", "I take it you mean in programming?\n\nYou can override the operator such as +, ||, == etc to perform differently. For example if you wanted to add two objects together that have multiple properties, say a Vector which has an x and y property, overriding the + operator will allow you to add x and y to the x and y of another object without having to manually access x and y and perform the operation over multiple statements." ]

[ "In fashion, womens' fashions in particular, people want to believe they are thinner than they actually are, and if you get north of a size 6, which is still quit thin, you are often looked down upon for being too fat. Some designers don't even make their clothes in the higher sizes.\n\nTo make consumers feel better and buy more, some brands cheat a little bit on the size, so what is labelled as a size 6 is closer to a size 8. Other brands, to maintain more exclusivity and to ensure only the thinnest people wear their clothes, cheat the other direction, so a size 6 is more of a size 4.\n\n > How do I properly size clothes online that aren't in vanity sizing?\n\n* measure yourself and go by inches rather than size\n* check the return policy...a retailer with more friendly online return policy is going to be more confident in their sizing\n* be honest with yourself...vanity sizing works because people want to insist they are a smaller size than the actually are\n* shop brands with a strong online presence, and be extra careful going through a reseller or a department store that is just carrying the brand\n* read reviews...sizing is one of the first topics people will mention" ]

[ "Human nature to belong and conform to social groups, empathy, and natural fear of exclusion.\n\nIt's kind of instinctual, that's why the weak minded are susceptible to group mentality. Case in point: Reddit." ]

[ "They blink, the fly flies off, goes about two feet, pulls a u-turn and goes back to the eye. \nThey can get rid of them, but they can't keep them away. \n \nReally, the ancestor to the domestic horse wouldn't have had this problem because they didn't live in stables. \nIt's the domestic horse's enclosure that attracts the flies, gives them a breeding ground, and traps the horse so it can't get away. \n \nIt wouldn't be a problem if they didn't live in the environment we put them in." ]

[ "It's not that colour-blind people can't see red or green. They can see them both fine; they just can't tell them apart." ]

[ "As I understand it\nIn a workout with decent intensity(a lot of weight being moved/force being generated) your body releases testosterone and a pulse of growth hormone. After about an hour this pulse gives way to stress hormones like cortisol. During this time you deplete nutrients from the muscles, stress your bones, and usually slightly damage the muscle fibers. All these stimuli lead to your body adapting those systems to tolerate the strain you put on them. So in the days following the workout, your bones would get denser, muscles would be replenished(for most people, about 48-60 hours after a session is a period of supercompensation in terms of stored muscle energy, the optimal time to lift again) and if you are eating in caloric excess OR you are a beginner, the muscles would grow slightly. I say caloric excess or beginner because at those times your body adapts very quickly to stresses. You will be incredibly sore, but as a novice you might be able to add 30 pounds to your maximum squat in 3 sessions. When just starting out, your body is panicking trying to adjust, so it pulls energy from your fat stores to supply the important tissues, the muscles Also soreness/physical pain is not a sign of an effective workout." ]

[ "Down to -5 no major differences, except you can loose heat rapidly if you stop moving, layering your clothing is important to manage your heat/sweat.\n\n-5 to -20 your get an iron taste in your throat/mouth when breathing heavily, otherwise same as above.\n\nBelow -20 breathing becomes painful, your nose can freeze, your sweat freezes before evaporating. Layering changes from important to critical as these are the templates where sweating can lead to death." ]

[ "Credit to /u/noposters for this answer: What people don't realize about Dane Cook is that he was on a mega run before Harmful if Swallowed blew up. Even before his comedy central half hour, he was the highest paid comedian touring colleges at that time (not the highest paid in general, but he swooped in when Sandler stopped doing colleges and took those gigs at Sandler's rate). Once his albums blew up, he played MSG, etc. he tried to make the transition into film. His films flopped, and simultaneously both his parents died and it was discovered that his brother/business manager had stolen 50million dollars from him (never recovered). With all those things coming together, he took a bunch of time off. When he came back, tastes had changed and he no longer had the traction he'd had years earlier. He tried to make some comeback appearances but wound up generating controversy by trashing the audience at one of his shows at the Laugh Factory (TJ Miller and others brutalized him on twitter for his behavior). Since then he's appeared here and there in LA and done some voiceover work, but for the most part he keeps a low profile. He's also alienated a lot of people in the NY comedy community for playing up his relationship with Patrice O'Neal in interviews when the two were, in fact, not close" ]

[ "Gonna get a little technical: \n \nThe movie has a digital equivalence of around 8192x2968 (assuming a 4K equivalence for regular 4-perf 35mm). I don't know of any theater that has a projector above 4K, many are even at 2K (2048x1080, almost the same as regular 1920x1080, as most movies are 2K). \n \nSo, seeing it in a theater with 4K projection is the next best thing (at basically 50% the \"resolution\"). \n \nMovies like Interstellar, The Dark Knight, Star Wars Ep VII (only one scene though), etc. are even bigger because they are 70mm IMAX, which is around 11800x8192. I saw both Interstellar and Star Wars Ep VII in this format and it what great, Interstellar took the cake though in terms of how amazing it was visually/immersively.", "Are you asking how any theater can get the visual effect of a 70mm movie? The method is: show 70mm film on a 70mm projector.\n\nAre you asking how they can get the same image quality without using the necessary equipment? Why should that be possible?" ]

[ "John Calvin was a theologian who was part of the reformation. His theology became known as Calvinism. \n\nBasically Calvinism is boiled down to the TULIP beliefs. \n\n* T - Total Depravity - All parts of man are affected by sin\n* U - Unconditional Election - We are saved by Christ without any conditions. We do not earn it, it is completely a gift.\n* L - Limited Atonement - Jesus died on the cross only for those who follow Him. His atonement for sins was not for everyone.\n* I - Irresistible Grace - If God wants you to follow Him you can't resist the call.\n* P - Perseverance of the Saints -Once saved always saved. You can't lose your salvation.\n\nNot every Calvinist agrees with all 5 points. In fact, some say Calvin didn't believe in all of them (the term TULIP was made up after he died) but these are the basic theological points.\n\n**tl;dr - There are two main camps of Christian theology. Men are in control and choose to follow God (Arminianism) and God is in control and chooses who follows Him (Calvinism).**" ]

[ "I think you have to manually adjust it every time the month changes, but not sure, sure someone will correct me." ]

[ "Biorhythms. Your body has cycles: breathing, heartbeat, blinking, even which nostril you use. Your wakefulness/tiredness is also cyclic.", "As you get more tired you're body tries harder and harder to send you to sleep. You will then reach an 'optimal' state of tiredness where you will probably be able to sleep within 30 mins. \nHowever, if you stay awake past this point your body thinks there is something wrong for you to still be awake, e.g. You're in danger. \nAs a consequence and survival mechanism it gets rid of the drowsiness by releasing adrenaline to increase alertness as well as other mechanisms to make you alert.\nThis state of temporary alertness can't be maintained for long and you still need to sleep eventually so you become tired again.\nThe cycle can repeat but not for too long, maybe around a day or 2 at most.", "I don't feel it in waves when I get tired. Is this a thing?", "I'm also curios why is that when you're fighting drowsiness. It also comes in waves to a point when your head just fall and you lose control when you give in" ]

[ "These are called afterimages and their existence is covered by something called Opponent Process Theory.\n\nBasically, you have 3 types of cells in your eye that detect color. They are called cones. One cone is sensitive to the wavelength of light we associate with \"red\", another to \"green\", and another to \"blue\" light. I put the color names in quotes because you must understand that COLOR DOES NOT EXIST IN THE OUTSIDE WORLD, YOUR BRAIN MAKES IT. This is itself is mindblowing but I promise it is true. \n\nAnyway, the cells get tired after looking at the same thing for too long (both the cones I mentioned and other cells further into your brain). They are a bit like a rubber band that gets stretched out the more it sees a certain color, and the more it stretches the more it really really wants to snap back. Stretching makes you see one color (say, red), while snapping back makes you see another color (green). \n\nThe deeper cells in your brain are arranged in 3 opponent pairs: red-green, blue-yellow, and black-white. So, the more of you see of red, the more the opposite wants to come out. Same with the other colors. \n\n(Neurologically, this occurs because one color is produced by the cells getting excited and building up a particular chemical that tells your brain to produce red. This is an anabolic, or constructive, process. The opposite color is produced by the cells getting inhibited and the chemical being destroyed, which is a catabolic or destructive process. Again, it all works because these chemicals instruct your brain to produce the color image - your brain makes the actual color experience not the world).", "Your eye sensors tire after a short while viewing a static image. In this example they're giving you a fixed point to focus on so that the image stays positioned in the same place on your retina. Notice how her lips are green in the negative. Staring at that wears our your green sensor there. Then, when you switch to look at white (which contains red, green and blue) your eye's red sensors work but the green, temporarily, do not. So you see red lips." ]

[ "Most on screen passwords are hidden in-case you have any shoulder surfers(people watching you type over your shoulder). WiFi passwords give you the option to either hide or show, in my opinion as WiFi passwords are normally longer than other account passwords they can be hard to make sure your typing correctly without seeing it", "With WiFi, the typical case is that everyone in the room/floor/building/campus has the password, and people in the next room/floor/building/campus don't. If someone is able to see the password on the screen, they're obviously in the same room/floor/building/campus, and therefore they were supposed to have the password anyway.\n\nOf course, that's not always true - and for the times when it's no true, there's usually an option to hide the password on-screen.", "When I enter a WPA passphrase, usually I'm looking at a printed version of it, or someone has just told it to me aloud. So anyone who could shoulder-surf it off my screen could have just read it as well or overheard it." ]

[ "60 is easy to divide cleanly in multiple ways, and a number based on 60, such as the number of degrees in a circle, can be divided yet more ways. 60 can be divided by 1,2,3,4,5,6,10,12,15,20,30 and itself. This provides many easy-to-reckon, useful fractions. In the days before pocket calculators, slide rules, Napier's Bones, etc. this made life simpler." ]

[ "Worries about engineered foods aside, a lot of people have a huge problem with Monsanto's business model...\n\nThey use patent law to force farmers to buy seed from them every year. The farmers do not own the seeds that are created by the plants they are growing - Monsanto has the *patent* on the seed DNA. So they can't just buy seed one time and then create their own seeds from then on, as you might believe would be common sense. They even go so far as to sue farmers that *accidentally* grow Monsanto plants; from seeds blown over from a neighbor's field, for example. Monsanto charges a lot for the seed. They are definitely pushing the extremes of patent law to make as much money as possible.\n\nNow, having said that, Monsanto invented some pretty cool seed. It creates its own pesticide, for example. So, by using it, you save money on spraying your crops. That's certainly worth something. People just disagree on how Monsanto should be compensated for what they've done. Obviously, a large corporation like Monsanto would like to squeeze as much money as possible from whoever they can. They aren't trying to work out a \"fair deal\" for what they've accomplished - they're just trying to maximize profit.\n\nIt's easy for people to envision a future (maybe not so distant) where corporations own the rights to everything we grow (through DNA patents) and charge a lot to farmers (and ultimately consumers) for licenses to grow crops.", "I don't think this has much to do with genetically modified seeds. It has to do with their business model. For example, they sued one farmer because he was in the business of \"recycling\" Monsanto seeds. For a fee, he would go to your farm and collect all of the seeds from previous years that haven't sprouted. He would then hand the seeds to you so you can use them again. He wasn't trying to copy or reverse engineer them. \n\nMonsanto has enough money to rule the world, and yet, they put this little guy in crippling debt. It's these business practices that Monsanto is infamous for. \n\nMonsanto knows that some of their seeds will be \"duds,\" and they love it. They WANT some of your seeds to fail. As soon as you pay them for their seeds, they wouldn't care if you died.\n\nMaybe it's a little biased of me, but that's the way that I see it." ]

[ "The biggest difference between i5 and i7 processors is the number of concurrent threads they can handle. i7 processors are equipped with hyperthreading, which is a technology that allows a single processor core to do almost as much work as two separate cores.\n\nImagine a single processor core is like a chef. Both the current generation i5 and i7 processors have 6 chefs. The chef receives a set of ingredients and a recipe, and lays it all out on the table. This table is like a processor's cache - it's the memory that the processor has to work with.\n\nThe chef then prepares the meals, and puts them back on the table. Now, the chef has to wait for the waiters to clean up the table and bring new ingredients. The chef busts out his phone and takes a break while this happens.\n\nHyperthreading is like giving the chef 2 tables. Now, while the chef is cooking one set of meals from table A, the staff can clear table B and bring new ingredients. Once table A is complete, table B is ready for cooking. The chef can now switch back and forth between the two tables and have almost no down time.\n\nOne of the other big differences is the size of the table - that is, the size of the cache. i7's generally have larger cache sizes than i5's do, which can help them do more work in the same amount of time.\n\nEdit: Just realized that I didn't really help you make a decision. :)\n\nHaving more cores is only useful in certain situations. When the work can be 'parallelized,' - that is, divided up such that the result from one chunk of work doesn't depend on the result of the previous chunk of work - then being able to handle more concurrent threads is a very good thing. \n\nFor example, if you're building a house, you need to pour the foundation before you can set up framing, and you need to set up framing before you can run electrical and plumbing lines, and you need to set up electrical and plumbing before you can put up drywall, etc. It's not possible to split a task like that up into several chunks and do them all simultaneously.\n\nIf you're building 20 houses, you can pour all 20 foundations at once, set up all 20 frames at once, etc. The result of building part of one house doesn't depend on the construction of other houses.\n\nTo a CPU, gaming is often like building a house. The calculations for one moment in the game will influence subsequent moments in the game, so it's not possible to divide the work up among several processor cores.\n\nVideo editing, on the other hand is highly parallelizable. Rendering frame #25 doesn't usually depend on the results of rendering frame #20, so software can divide that work up and distribute it across the processing cores.\n\nTL:DR; Gaming doesn't usually benefit as much from multiple processing cores. Results will definitely vary from game to game though. Video editing often does benefit from more processing cores, so you can reduce rendering time significantly by using an i7 instead of an i5.", "Quick shout out to /r/PCMasterRace and /r/buildapc. The daily simple questions thread in the former might be a big help to you going forward.\n\nNow, onto your question.\n\nGenerally speaking, the difference between i5s and i7s (in the desktop realm, laptops are different) is the number of threads. This basically means how many tasks the processor can do at one time.\n\nYou can picture it like pieces of paper. In the i5 scenario, each piece of paper can only be used for one thing at a time. So, if you want to doodle, an entire piece of paper has to be dedicated to doodling. In the i7 scenario, each piece of paper can be used for two things at a time. So, if you want to doodle *and* take notes, your piece of paper can handle that.\n\nThe slight catch here is that software has to be programmed in a certain way to take advantage of multi-thread technology. Most modern programs do this, but some still don't which could lead to a situation where you have a piece of paper that can handle both doodling and note taking, but the program (person) using the paper is like \"no, this paper is for note taking only.\"\n\nPS for CPUs: AMD also makes processors that you may wish to look into. They generally have lower single core speed (smaller paper), but more cores and threads (more papers overall). Their current line is called \"Ryzen.\"\n\nBonus: GPUs (graphics cards) are basically processors (and RAM) specifically designed for visual calculations and outputs. Feel free to ask more. :)", "ELI5 is not really the right place to get the help you are looking for, u/bendvis gave a great answer to i5/i7 but that does not answer the questions you don't know to ask yet. To add some answers about the rest of the system, you really want to educate yourself before rushing out to buy that shiny i7 and 1080ti, you should check out r/buildapc. \n \nYou say you want to build for gaming and video production. What kind of gaming? Is it match 3 clickers or you trying to play ArmA? The hardware you choose depends on the task. What sort of videos are you producing? Gaming youtube stuff or you rendering output from a high end camera? You will want different hardware if you are streaming vs local recording. What sort of budget are you working with? All these questions are asked and answered all the time at r/buildapc. Welcome to PC, it is not supposed to be easy because that is no fun.", "You want to do video production? You need the i7. The hyperthreading is going to be incredibly helpful.\n\nAlso, shit tons of RAM. No lie, go for 32 gigs of ram.\n\nGaming on the other hand......\n\nhere is the low down on gaming. First off, the graphics card does most of the work... like say, 8/10's of the work. As a result the CPU isn't nearly as important. i5's are perfect for game machines.\n\nWhere you get in trouble with a gaming machine, and where an i7 comes in handy is if you decide to game while you are doing something else like rendering. 'oh it is gonna take me an hour to do the mkv. Lets fire up Doom!'.\n\nUntil you get like me... 'lets decrypt 2 blu rays, render a MKV, play something from PLEX AND play Doom at the same time!'. i7 and ram makes that doable." ]

[ "When the water hits your taste buds, they are stimulated a little. The problem is they have been overloaded with sugar and acid, thus they are temporarily unable to *report* sugar and acid at that moment. Therefore they report the only thing left: alkaline (bitter) taste.\n\nAdd that to the fact that most water has dissolved minerals in it that make it ever-so-slightly alkaline." ]

[ "Gasoline should keep indefinitely if stored properly.\n\nHowever, stabilisers can be useful if fuel is stored incorrectly, for example, in partially full tanks of small equipment. The larger tanks in modern cars are carefully designed to protect fuel from air and evaporation.\n\nGasoline molecules can evaporate if the tank is not securely closed - a stabiliser won't do anything for that.\n\nGasoline molecules can oxidise by exposure to oxygen - a fuel stabiliser can contain an anti-oxidant to absorb the oxygen, and neutralise the free radicals accelerate the oxidation reaction.\n\nGasoline may contain traces of metal from manufacture/processing or from metal storage tanks. Certain metals can act as catalysts and cause the gasoline molecules to polymerise into sludge. Metal deactivator additives can absorb and neutralise the catalytic effect of metal contamination.\n\nGasoline may contain large quantities of ethanol to meet biofuel targets by governments. If stored open to the air, the ethanol can absorb water from the air, and this can cause the water/ethanol mix to separate from the gasoline. By adding a different alcohol (methanol or isopropanol), the water/alcohol mix doesn't separate as easily.\n\nAll these problems can be avoided if gasoline is stored in a tightly sealed plastic tank with only the minimum amount of air for an expansion space, as high quality gasolines will come with metal deactivators already added to neutralised contamination at the refinery." ]

[ "They are called floaters. Mostly they are the shadows cast by bits of the inside of your eye that have broken off and are floating around in the vitreous humor, or eyeball fluid, in your eye.\n\n_URL_0_" ]

[ "Like you're five? Because the grownups who make the drug (Sanofi) showed the grownups who regulate the drug (the Food and Drug Administration) that the drug is safe enough to take without needing the advice from a doctor. The drug itself does the same thing only now you don't need a prescription from the doctor. People get easier access the the medicine, the drug company gets to sell a lot more drugs, and pharmacies make more money because they're selling more OTC items.\n\nFor more see _URL_0_", "There are different phases of testing. First drugs are tested on bacteria or yeast, then on mice, then perhaps on humans, and if the drug is safe for many years and seems to not be able to be abused, then the company and FDA may want to market it without a prescription.", "Also, OTC does not equal safe for ALL groups of people. Certain medications (cold medicines, etc) are not good for those with various conditions like high blood pressure. Always check the drug facts on the box or bottle for information regarding individuals who should not take a given drug. When in doubt, ask the pharmacist if the drug is suitable. Pharmacists do a lot more than put pills in bottles.", "5 year olds don't have an attention span. In short:\n\n- Drug needs to be on the market for a long time (material time)\n- Drug needs to have wide access (material extent)\n- Drugs need to be well tolerated (low side effects)\n- Drug need to be self administered (Think of how stupid Uncle Joe is. He needs to be able to use this, too)\n- Drug needs to be able to be self-managed (When to start/stop taking a drug)\n\n\nOnce the above are met, a prescription drug that already has marketing approval can apply for what's called a Monograph, or what you see on almost any drug product (What the drug is, what it's used for, for the side effects are, and how it's used). \n\nIf a drug is found to be Safe and Effective, it can get OTC status.\n\nMore [here](_URL_1_)." ]

[ "**NOT ELI5**\n\nThe car's driveshaft also powers a *speedometer cable*, which spins a magnet around at the same speed inside the *speed cup*. This magnet rotates continually in an equal direction. This spinning creates a fluctuating magnetic field. The laws of electromagnetism dictate that a current must therefore flow inside this cup. This current causes the speed cup to also rotate. It attempts to catch up with the speed of the magnet. a *hairspring* stops this, so it only rotates a little. This small motion moves the dial on the speedometer a little. The stronger the current, the faster the cup rotates, the further the speedometer's dial moves.\n\n & nbsp;\n\n**ELI5**\n\nThe driveshaft powers a speedometer cable, which leads to a magnet rotating inside a cup. A current is generated, and the cup tries to rotate also. A spring limits this, moving the dial. More current = more speed = dial moves further.", "Old style speedometers, speed was registered inside of the transmission with a gear that was sized based upon the gearing of the vehicle, this gets related by a small spinning cable to the back of the speedometer where a small magnet rotates creating a current that causes the needle to be moved up and down based upon the speed of the magnet.\n\nModern speedometers use a electronic sensor in the transmission that transfers and electrical signal to the speedometer which causes the needle to move up and down.\n\nOne important note that over time, the sensor in the new system and the gear and magnet in the old can go wrong and slowly cause the wrong speed to be displayed\n\nAs well I believe the faster you are going with a mechanical speedometer the less accurate it becomes.\n\n\nThis can explain it in more detail. \n_URL_0_", "They calculate it based on how fast the wheels are turning - at their hub, not at the pavement. All of that data comes back and is calculated as some number of revolutions per (duration, second, probably) and it calculates it then to mph or kph.\n\nThis is why when you get a larger/smaller diameter wheel, you need to recalibrate the system or it will give an inaccurate reading. A 30\" diameter tire has a very different circumference than a 35\" tire." ]

[ "In most western democracies you can't arrest someone just because the government doesn't like their political views (there are some exceptions to this rule but in general it holds). You have to be able to prove that they have committed some kind of crime in order to arrest them. \n\nAlmost by definition someone who has joined up with Da'esh/IS will have \"fallen\"off the radar\" of western security forces. They'll know they joined up but it will be much harder to prove that they actually fought against western interests, which would be necessary to instigate a charge of treason or similar.\n\nSo the best we can do is have the security services \"watch\" them very closely, and if they look like they're about to commit any kind of crime then they can be pulled in." ]

[ "The Earth is molten beyond the crust, so we wouldn't get any further than that.", "It is pretty hot in there, but I will observe your hypothetical. \n\nFirst off, the opposite side of the Earth is awesome, they have awesome food and some really nice people! \n\nBut back to the original question. Did you ever see a picture of the moon? Or even Mars? Does that look pleasant? \n\nThe Earth is an awesome machine. It is an electromagnetic field generator. Do you have a small electric motor? Take it out and look at it. \n_URL_2_\n\nOk! So just like the electric motor there is the conversion of an electric field into physical motion. We have an iron core, just like a motor. We also have a layer of liquid in between the iron core and the outside. Now we need metal on the outside. The buttloads of iron will do fine. \n\nNow if you spin a motor without a charge it produces a current. It will burn out your diodes but the Earth doesn't have fancy circuitry. So the Earth looks just like a generator. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nCoincidentally the materials are all in the right place. heavy metals in the center spinning at a constant rate. Some pissed off liquid in between. And semiconductors on the outside, with trees and mountains to slow it all down. \n\nThus creating a different speed of rotation between the Earth's core and the outer crust. Making it a giant generator. \n\nElectrons, those little jerks go from one side of the planet to the other. From one pole to the other pole. Constantly! Think I'm wrong? Ask any compass. \n\nSo the Earth is a massive generator that is actually creating a force field around our planet. This foce field allows us to have nice things like comfortable temperatures and to keep oxygen around. We even get protected from some pretty big asteroids on a regular basis. It's pretty cool. Just look at the poor moon, it doesn't have the three layers and magnetic field, so it get's pelted with all sorts of asteroids. No trees up there.\n\nHere is what your super space shield looks like.\n\n_URL_1_\n\nSo if you find a way to drill to the center of the Earth it means you will not only expose us to unlimited amount of stuff in space, but the entire atmosphere might just decide to get up and leave. Not to mention, any force exerted on the Earth's core changes the Earth's rotational inertia, and so we either freeze to death or get lit up by the sun. So do not do it." ]

[ "\"Ennui\" (pronounced \"on-we\") is a pretty close fit. Also, it's French and they're very good at feeling empty and dissatisfied inside. \n\n\nennui: 1. a feeling of utter weariness and discontent resulting from satiety or lack of interest; boredom:" ]

[ "Your conscious brain loves it, but your subconscious brain realizes that alcohol is inherently bad for the body, and causes you to shudder. It's a subconscious survival mechanism that you're overriding with your conscious brain." ]

[ "The cone cells that detect color aren't very good at low light or motion detection.\n\nSince motion detection is more important at the periphery than color (does it really matter what color that sabre toothed tiger is?) we evolved to pack mostly rods and few cones in the corners.\n\nYour brain remembers what colors things are and will attempt to color in the peripheral vision so you don't usually notice that it's basically grayscale.", "We have two kinds of light receptors in our eyes: rods and cones. Rods are more sensitive to black and white; cones are more sensitive to colors and have a higher ability to focus. \n\nCones are more concentrated in the centers of our eyes, while rods are more prevalent toward the edges of our eyes." ]

[ "Your bladder only sends the \"time to pee\" message to your brain when it reaches a certain level of fullness. So the amount you pee out doesn't just represent the glass of water you just drank, but all of the water you have drank since the last time you peed plus the water your body needed to dissolve the waste products it excretes in urine (urea, creatine and some other compounds).", "Urine isn't just made of water. Your kidneys constantly filter out a lot of salts and wastes from your blood which all contribute to urine." ]

[ "Proteins!\n\n\nThere are *many, many* proteins in your body that have a specific job of keeping your DNA tangled/condensed the perfect amount. There are topoisomerases, a family of proteins, that specifically twist/untwist your DNA to introduce/remove \"supercoils\" (like what would happn when you twist an elastic band) to condense it or expand it. There are some proteins like histones to which the DNA will almost always be attached. The histones kind of serve as a backbone for the DNA; a place for the DNA to organize itself.\n\n\nOf course, this is just the very basic level of proteins. There are many more proteins and ways to organize DNA. It's always proteins!" ]

[ "Because there are hot and cooler spots due to the way the microwaves reflect around inside the oven. Rotating the food attempts to distribute the heat in the food more evenly." ]

[ "Child support is partially based on income. It is also partially based on the number of children and their age, the cost of basic living expenses and school in that general area, and whether or not any special needs are present. Which sometimes leads to a very high ratio, but that is also something that can happen when both parents live with their children; not all jobs pay a wage that covers a child's reasonable expenses. That doesn't mean those expenses don't occur though.", "It is because it makes the payments easy to calculate. Calculating how much a child actually needs would be a burden on the courts as people brought in expert witnesses and evidence every single time. It would vary over time and you'd have to change court ordered withholding every few years. Basing it on salary is easier for everyone. In Texas, there is kind of a cap unless you can prove special needs.", "This unfortunately is the result of one or both parties involved NOT being grown ass adults regarding the best interests of their kid(s).... And thus, bureaucracy is the only mediator remaining. Sprinkle in time + continued stupidity and you get this \"system\" (relative from state to state) that becomes the rule and not the exception. \n\nIf adults would just act accordingly and make choices based on merit and understanding instead of malice and contempt, I believe this would not be such a problem.", "The children are the first priority and the state doesn't want the children to suffer a change in circumstance just because of a divorce. If they were rich because of the parent that left they should not suddenly struggle, if the supporting parent still has that income. A friend pays 5600 a month on a salary of 160k with child support and alimony combined. 3600 is temporary alimony. Spouse earns 48k. In this case, unfortunately, the needs of the child (and upkeep of 'standard of living accustomed to') may have been exploited in court as an excuse to support the spending habits of the spouse.", "I'm an attorney in Texas, but there are too many non-replies for me to think this will be seen... So, it'll be kept short and I shall expand if this comment gets visability.\n\n1. The ultimate standard is the need to the child with past income levels dictating what the child needs... A child who is attending private school should continue. A child who goes skiing every winter, and summer camp every summer continues. A child that lives in a nice house, eats out with their parents every day, and a new toy every day is suppose to continue that lifestyle.\n\n2. The income percentages are a base line, they are where you start but if you want to prove in court that those levels are not correct one can do that... That said, dropping 30-50k on a full divorce trial is not crazy numbers. Most people just do not have that. So, the economy class solution is to just not fight over this and get the standard percentage.", "Because the system is fucked.\n\nChicago Blackhawks player Duncan Keith had his settlement, and as a successful sports star, makes a lot of money. His support to his ex wife is like $16k... a month. The cost of having a child before college is around 250k, 300k MAX, from 0-18 years. \n\nShe's getting 200k. A year. Almost enough to support a new child every year, for the next 18 years.\n\nEdit: changed some things with updated facts", "It's your kid and you're obligated to support it in the same manner as if you had custody. I make a ton of money, and my daughter gets expensive private school, lives in an awesome apartment with pool, etc. I shouldn't be able to save money on her by leaving my wife.", "Out of curiosity, everyone here seems to agree the various systems are wrong. Does anyone have an eloquent solution that a real legislature could pass as a law that would universally solve the issues for everyone?", "A very good reason that child support is the way it is is that in the past, if a young man knocked up a young woman out of wedlock, it was designed to support her as well. Think of it like a shotgun wedding. Back then a young woman would find it extremely difficult to find a husband with a kid. She would be left supporting herself and the kid for the rest of her life. Well, if you're not going to marry her...\n\nOf course in our modern world its unnecessary and even detrimental to men and our society. But it was a very valid reason at one point.\n\nIt is my opinion, and most of you would not agree, that there should be no mandatory child support anymore. In a world where a woman can unilaterally decide whether or not she will have a child even after she is pregnant, or even if she will care for it after it is born, it is unethical to hold someone to a decision he has no say in. If a woman doesn't have to have a child even if she's pregnant, or doesnt have to raise a child when she has one, why should a man?", "Or vis versa. My best friend (female) makes 100 a year on an executive track to pay her ex husband and his new wife (who refuse to finish a college degree or job with benefits between them) half of her monthly income. Between that, mortgage, and her student loans she's basically broke. It's absurd, but don't make it sexist too.", "In Australia the calculation starts with a basic minimum amount for living that both parents are entitled to, and then a ratio based both on care % and income, so that care % and money equal out overall. If the person with the greater care percentage also has a greater income above the minimal survival income rate, the child support rate owed is less. If otherwise, the rate is directly proportionate to income.\n\nThe idea is explained in the calculations that they don't want the child to be at an economic disadvantage when in either parent's care, so the lower % care parent has to be economically stable, but the main custodial parent also needs assistance when it's available. The other idea in all this is that hypothetically, the ceiling on the amount of money that could benefit a child's development is so high that it can be ignored, so once the first idea is honoured, it only scales with income. The more income, the better for society, statistically speaking.\n\nSource: I used to pay my ex child support, and now I have my son living with me, I receive no child support because I have a job and my ex doesn't. I know the US is different but I still think you could probably remove the gendered assumptions in your OP there, especially for all the single dads out there who never get recognition. My apartment sure as fuck isn't free; I never had to work 60 hours to support my son from afar, but could probably use that 60 hours worth of pay now that I do it on my own.", "The idea that a child should continue to live the same lifestyle as before a divorce is ridiculous. It is not founded in reality. Everyone suffers financially from a divorce. You take one pool of money, be it the income of one or both spouses and then have to divide it into thirds: one third each for new homes for each parent and the other third goes to supporting the divorce industry of lawyers, two sets of clothes, books, toys, etc. To act like the predivorce money covers the family in the same way is irresponsible of the courts. And child should feel the effect of it so they don't live in a fantasy world, just as they would if the parents were still married and suffered a financial setback.", "The custodial parent should have to account for how the money received was spent. If they don't use it, they lose it. I think of the thousands of dollar in \"child support\" my own mother drank away. It's disgusting.", "Brutal topic I know all too well. I really feel for the stories I've read here. It will get better, and no matter what our kids are worth it. I'm a remarried dad, we have 50/50 legal but I have residential custody, and have him 75% of the time or more, we offered to pay all of his concrete expenses w childcare and health insurance, she and court agreed, and we feel very satisfied. The system with which they figure things out is unrealistic and I believe cause more problems than it solves. Nothing used to bother me more than to send 700 a month to find out she was being evicted or losing her car, or didn't pay bills, it was pathetic. If your taking this much money from people you should come up with a way to ensure its spent on its purpose. Good luck everyone.", "Many men can't. It drives some to suicide and others to poverty. \n\nWhy do you think marriage rates are declining? Changes in social dynamics over the past 50 years combined with laws like this play a huge role.", "I was told by a clerk in the Child Support System that the reason it's 20% of your pay is because they expect you to not only provide the support, but provide enough of it that the Child can effectively live the same lifestyle they would be living if you were still in the home. \nSo if Mom is a server at a restaurant and Dad is a CEO, little Susie is supposed to be living the life of a CEO's daughter, not that of a server's daughter. (I am not looking down on anyone's job, I only said server because that's what I do.)", "It's not fair. It's not based on what is in the child's best interest. The mission of child support enforcement is to get as much money as possible. Period. If that ruins the father financially, then so be it. If it means incarceration for inability to pay, then tough shit. CSE doesn't count that as a loss because the judgement is still there even if the father is in jail. The fact that the child will suffer financially and emotionally by the father being in jail doesn't mean shit to CSE. Don't believe me? Check out their mission statement: \n\n_URL_0_", "Child support is determined, 99% of the time, by a straightforward calculator. Often this takes into account cost of living. There are a lot of indirect expenses. An extra room, a premium to be in a good school district, etc. Child support is also the right of the child. So even if I wanted to, I can't legally absolve my ex of support, because it's not mine to turn down.\n\nRe: the comments here about courts favouring mothers - maybe in some areas, but generally, that's not the case. It's often sour grapes. Any family lawyer will tell you that.", "I make 9.50$ I don't have a license or car I brig home roughly 650 before child support every 2 weeks and after I bring hone 300 I have to survive off 600 a month I can't afford to save ever barely afforded presents this year life is gonna suck for another 12 years", "I'm currently in a situation that has almost made me not see the point in living anymore.\n\nI was married for 8 and a half years to a woman that was extremely unfaithful, I knew this from the beginning since she was married when I met her...The biggest sign. But when you're young dumb full of cum and on a mission, you ignore the obvious.\n\nEver since a kid I wanted to raise kids, some people have goals to be astronauts etc., not me. I wanted to raise kids with a life better than I had.\n\nI ended up having 3 beautiful kids in this relationship I constantly tried to make work for them. She couldn't handle being alone with the kids and insisted I be a stay at home dad, I had no issue with this since I loved raising muh babies. I was the primary guardian for my lil ones almost the entire marriage. I even helped raise her two younger brothers from the ages of 13-17 and 16-18 because my wifes mother could not handle them anymore in her own words. The 13 year old was failing all his classes, stealing credit cards, etc. He comes to live with me becomes a straight A student and is a good kid. The 16 year old graduates and goes to college. Meanwhile I'm raising 4 kids at this point at the age of 22. No problem, I love children!\n\nFew years down the line she runs away with my kids to a different state, of course I move there and she begs me to come back I do. Maybe 15 minutes away from where her mom lives. Ok. Her mom visits maybe once a year? Meanwhile my family drives halfway across the country to see the babies, flys my kids back home so they can enjoy them as well. They are great kids extremely healthy etc.\n\nI'm completely illiterate when it comes to do with anything court related and my ex is taking full advantage of it. She files for divorce I let it default because we wrote out terms and had them notified thinking they were the terms we agreed upon. NOPE. She gets full custody of my kids she barely raised even though I spent day in and day out changing diapers, raising them with good morals etc. Now I have to pay to see my kids along with child support even though I've never had any kind of altercations around my kids ever. She's court ordered to let them call whenever they want and vice versa. A span of 4 months go by without a word me sending emails begging to just let them call because I can't afford visitation without a word. I finally get on my feet enough to afford to pay someone for visitation and it costs the same as the child support so I'm forced to either pay it and not see my kids or pay for visitation. After telling the visitation lady about the scenario she says she's alienating you from the kids.\n\nIt's put me under tremendous stress, I'm so depressed to the point now where I don't even function correctly anymore, I've lost nearly 50 lbs, recently lost my job so there goes visits, but wait I can at least talk to my kids, nope. She cuts off phone calls again, fathers day and my birthday on the same day and I hear nothing. Finally get to talk to them and the first question they ask is \"dad why haven't you been calling.\" It's christmas and the only thing that would make me happier is to be able to say merry christmas to them, nope. This is the cruelest joke I've ever been in. I can no longer afford anything and it feels like i'm withering away. I'm to the point now, do I even want my kids to see me like this.\n\nNow I can possibly go to jail for not paying child support on top of it, it's debilitating.", "It's based on maintaining the same lifestyle the child was experiencing while with both parents.", "I'm a father in Texas. My ex lost custody of all three of her children due to drug addiction and abuse. CPS gave my son to me on two different occasions and his mom came and kidnapped him. I received zero assistance from anyone. I was told by CPS that if she hurt my son I would be held liable and prosecuted but I couldn't physically remove him from her because she was the mother. I paid child support the entire time I had him. My ex received disability and SSI payments for my son while I had him and I was paying for daycare and child support. The last time I got a text from her saying that I needed to come to a different city and pick him up or CPS was taking him (she moved against court order but I had to hire a private attorney to enforce it and I didn't have the money ). When I picked him up the place they were staying had no working sewage and my son had lice. The state of Texas has offered only hurdles for me even though my ex has screwed up repeatedly. I just found out recently that my ex filed a complaint and now my sons medicaid is being terminated and I will have to pay $1000+ a month for his doctor visits and medication because she decided that if she wasn't getting all of the money then no one would get it. I was told I would have to hire a private attorney to get his benefits back even though she only had to file a verbal complaint to end everything. Texas favors the mother. End of discussion.", "What a child 'needs' is subjective. Sure we can all agree on clothes and food. But what about things like music lessons? Organized sports? A personal computer? Obviously a child can survive without them, but these are things a parent should provide, if they can afford it. A child's needs increase when you have more money to pay for them, so child support should increase too", "What gets me is people having to pay support when there is 50/50 custody... Like why?", "Well, this is my story. When I was 32 I dated a recently divorced woman with two kids for two months. She lied about using birth control, I did not use a condom every time, it was my mistake. Five weeks into our dating relationship she started talking about wanting a kid with me and that threw up red flags and I cut things off with her. Two months after that she is with another guy. She calls me out of the blue and tells me she is pregnant, wanted to get back together. After doing the maths it was determined that it was my child most likely and she stated that she was not sexual active with the other guy. I supported her emotionally through the pregnancy, after baby was born he did the parental testing and I am bio dad. She ended up getting an apartment right next door to me and I supported her and my child for the first two years but we were not in a relationship but I was single for the first year while she was dating someone else. \n\nShe did not accept child support from the father of her other two kids and he was also in jail for domestic abuse and stalking awhile she was pregnant. She turned down child support from me as well when offered through the state because she deemed it unfair to expect me to pay child support when her ex husband did not. \n\nThe mom was on state healthcare at the time and it covered the pre-natal and hospital costs for the complications at birth which ended up having a mild form of cerebral palsy. Mother later confided that she became depressed and abused alcohol and chain smoked while pregnant in hopes that she would miscarry.\n\n My son needed a lot of therapy, medication management, and surgery and was accepted into Shriners and had a lot of care provided at no cost. Mom ended up going completely on welfare by not working so that she could take care of baby. I worked full time, lived next door to mom and baby, and provided financial support when needed/asked to cover medical and basic needs.\n\nThree years later after my son was born the State filed for child support on behalf of the mom to recoup costs for mom being on welfare. I was ordered to pay $400/month and from day one of final support order I was in arrears of three years of backdated child support from time of my sons birth amounting to $20K. Since I was automatically over the limit of 10K they took my passport and suspended my drivers license and wages were automatically garnished. My child support + arrears is 60% of my gross paycheck before taxes. At the time of the calculation I was making $13/hour full time at 40 hours as the Resident Care Coordinator at an assisted living facility and was a CNA.\n\nI was making around $2K a month at the time of the calculation and they take about $750 off the top before state and federal taxes. After Insurance and Taxes my 2K gross turns into about $900 net. They also take all of my federal and state tax returns. \n\nI was able to get my drivers license back by applying for a hardship as my employment requires driving.\n\nI now work about 60+ hours a week between two jobs just to make up the offset of income due to child support and arrears which is easy for me to do since I work in the behavioral/mental health Adult Foster Care system as a Resident Manager/Certified Substitute Caregiver and my shifts are either 16 hour or 24 hour shifts. I have three day weekends though, which is nice.\n\nWhen it's all said and done, mom only gets a couple hundred of month out of the $700/month I pay. She is not hurting all though - she gets around $15K a year from taxes for three kids and she gets SSD for my son while also working part time and living with her fiance for the past five years in his house who makes a decent paycheck as well.\n\nMom and I are still friends and on good terms - I see my kid every week and while she longer lives next door to me we both have moved and live about 15 mins from each other. My kid is pretty awesome, he is very high functioning although he will forever be at a age 7 on a cogitative level otherwise he has a pretty normal life. Physical defects are not visible, he has internal problems with partial paralysis affecting muscle control on the left side of his body and a seizure disorder but you would not know it from looking at him - he runs, jumps, plays hard, tumbles around, rides bikes, thrown balls. etc. With finer motor skills he has more of an issue like with writing or painting.", "I'm someone who works for an agency having to do with child support. Obviously this is a throwaway. First, a child deserves two parent incomes and to live the lifestyle their actual parent can provide. If you were still together and had the kid, you'd want the best life for your kid, right? Why should that be different because you chose to bring a kid into the world and you're no longer together? If you make $100k and she makes 30k and you have a kid, obviously you're going to be paying child support if a kid enters the picture. This is no surprise. \n\nBased on these posts, I'm sorry reddit's other seems half sucks, but the truth is you choose him or her. Was she into being manipulative when you first got together? Was he a shady person to begin with? Was he/she a one night stand? Did he/she get money under the table and now you can't get monet from him/her for child support? Then you KNEW what you were getting into. \n\nI know most of you believe that support isnt being used correctly, but the fact is that most dads are deadbeats and don't pay (when we know they can afford it) and the moms are whiners. Dude, You can pay to go on vacation, but not child support? He's supposed to help support your kid lady, not pay your entire rent. Child is NOT going away. You will pay it forever unless your child or custodial party dies. Having another kid with the same or multiple woman is just going to get you deeper into debt. \n\nIf you have any doubts about having a kid or having one with your partner, don't do it! You know how the system works and even if you're one of the good guys who wants to help out your child by paying the custodial party directly, you can still end up and be stuck in a system that caters mostly to deadbeats. I understand that people get upset when their license is taken away and they can't work, but for a lot of cases, no money would have been paid otherwise. Go to court and get an attorney if you really can't make ends meet. The attorney may be costly in the short term, but will help in the long run. Even if you can't afford an attorney, represent yourself and bring all the information requested. \n\nBe prepared that once you bring a kid into this world, your relationship may not work out and you will owe a lot of money! Actually, by even bringing a kid into this world, you will still owe a lot of money. Kids are expensive. Period. \n\n And if you're not married (the kid is automatically yours if conceived during marriage)don't sign anything saying you're the father until you have a DNA test. I've seen fathers devastated 5 years after when they find out little Billy isn't theirs and they still have to pay child support. You signed a legal document saying you were the father. I didn't make you sign. If you aren't married, get a DNA test done just to be sure he's really yours. I don't care I'd she yells or screams. She probably will yell about something else, too, anyway. I've had women come to me and name 5 possible fathers and we have to rule them out one by one. \n\nAlways - for goodness sake - use a condom if you don't want a kid! Thats your life savings right there.", "If you marry a shitty person, or you are a shitty person who truly wrecked someone, managing child support payments is not a problem. Almost all mothers will work with a father on hard times, if only to keep their own children from hating them. is the system broken? Of course. It's just horrible, but it's not the system fucking you, it's the person on the other side. If you marry a terrible person, or you are terrible to your spouse you will have a bad time. I have seen good divorces and bad divorces, and it really comes down to if there was a bad person in the marriage. \n\nSo my advice is, don't have a kid with someone unless you are married to them. Do whatever it takes not to have that kid until you are married. Next make sure this is a good and decent person. Not just good and decent to you, but is good and decent when no one else would know if they weren't. Someone who is good to another even when they would never see them again anyways. When in a fight, cuts the middle and negotiates. Is willing to lose to save a relationship. Next be that decent person too. So even if, things don't work out, you'll always be able to come to an equitable arrangement. If you don't do this, if you marry the hot girl/guy who is entertaining and takes advantage of others, is not considerate when no one is paying attention, just don't be surprised when they turn on you and abuse you.\n\nTl;dr The system can be abused, but it usually works. Where you see it breaking down is when people are abusing it because they are a shitty person", "A long time ago I had a guy who worked for me in a warehouse. He took home about $400 a week. Before he worked for me he had his own BBQ place bringing home about $800 a week. His child support was $370. He worked 40 hours a week for $30. Really nice guy too. White guy from West Virginia, Muslim just a salt of the earth kinda guy. Was thrown in jail cause he couldn't keep up on his child support. How is he suppose to live on $30 a week. Tried for two years to get child support reduced.", "Reading through this thread adds on to how important finding the right person is. Personality and character trumps good looks all the way", "Why dont women pay child support? If the kids are older they should work too", "So I have a question. How would it work when the dad has 2 children from 2 different women? Wondering bc I am about to divorce my husband bc he has knocked up some other gal. He is trying to convince me to stay married so that he isn't paying 2 child supports. I am planning on divorcing him but at the same time don't want to screw him over for child support.", "Part of the reason they go by percentage is for wealthy living families. If my kids, for example, are 15 and in the best private school in the country and used to living a certain lifestyle than the $1500 a month that would support a normal child might not support this example child. \n\nThat being said the whole system is fucked from the experiences of those around me.", "Why can't fathers decide to whether or not to keep the child? If they don't want it, then they pay for the abortion. If they don't want it, but the mother does, why should the father be force to pay? It was the mother's decision to keep it so it should be her responsibility if the father is more than willing to pay for the abortion.", "Seems that no one here is actually answering the question.\n\nIt's based off of income because the idea is that the child should maintain the lifestyle it had before the separation of the parents. At least, that's in the US. I can't give any insight into other countries child support laws.", "I need to get knocked up. This paying more in taxes and not getting an extra income sucks.\n\n\n\nTotally kidding", "There are several reasons why it is based on the parent's income rather than the child's needs. I think the first important reason is that support is a floor. That is, it is the minimum needed to keep a child fed, clothed, housed, etc. The court cannot order parents to go above and beyond, because then it would be veering off into the realm of defining how parents should parent on a day to day basis. This is absolutely unconstitutional. So the courts have to balance competing interests within this constitutional framework that respects a parent's rights.\n\n\nMore directly, if child support is based solely on the child's needs, then what is the standard of determining what is a \"need\" and what is not? This dovetails nicely with the above, but it is slightly different. For example, you will end up with the paying parent saying, \"She doesn't need new clothes, what she's got is perfectly good.\", just so they don't have to pay more. The receiving parent might retaliate by signing the kid up for ballet and violin and swimming just to make the paying parent cough up more money (people actually do stoop this low in family law, btw). Result: cue endless litigation.\n\n\nAs well, income based support provides predictability. This is similar to the above, and courts love predictability. So do most people. Because the amount that a child needs can fluctuate based on many different factors (age, health, activities), setting support relative to the child's \"needs\" would create unpredictability. That isn't great for either parent. The paying parent will continually see requests for more, and more, and more, while the other parent would have the ability to manipulate those amounts as they please. And people do try; I've seen it.\n\n\nAnother factor is that, at least in Washington, support can only be modified in one of two ways. One is a substantial change in circumstances, which would be something like losing your job. The other circumstance would be by right once every two years. So here, you would be asking the court to look at the paying parent's income and adjust child support accordingly. So if the paying parent has gotten a couple of nice raises (say a $5,000 raise and then a $2,500 raise) over the last two years, that can be accounted for. What this does is it prevents people from clogging the courts with petty requests for adjustments.\n\n\nIf on the other hand, it was based on the amount that a child needs per month, you would see many more of these petty requests. For example, let's say the paying parent goes out and buys a new car. The receiving parent sees them pull up in their sweet new 'Vette, and then decides the kid needs a bunch of new things - and that the paying parent should pay for it. It's pretty easy to see how this can get out of hand. And if you think that people aren't this silly, well, go work in family law for a few years.\n\n\nSomething else worth considering is that many of the child's potential needs are usually sorted via other clauses in the order of child support. Here, it is standard to allocate certain expenses (medical, educational) in proportion to each parent's income. So if little Jenny gets in a horrible accident and racks up $30,000 in medical expenses, the paying parent (if they make say, $55,000 out of $100,000 combined between the two parents) would be required to pay 55% of the balance after insurance kicks in. The receiving parent would pay 45%. Similarly, the parents can also agree to share costs above and beyond medical and education. They might agree, for example, to split the cost of putting little Tommy in youth sports, or to split the cost of summer camp. So parents can consider what a child needs, and factor that into their final order. If it is a litigated expense, like little Tommy has *always* participated in AYSO, but now one parent suddenly doesn't want to pay, then the court will step in and require them to pay their proportionate share.\n\n\nTLDR: The court orders are going to be formally set based on what you can actually pay. Courts can't reach into families and tell parents how to be parents, only that they have a floor beneath which they cannot go. This protects both parties from abuse and retaliation, and promotes judicial economy. At the same time, people aren't precluded from coming up with their own method of accounting for things that go above and beyond basic necessities, education, and medical.\n\nSource: am family law paralegal, will be family law attorney from January 15 on.", "Something I'd really like to see happen with child support is that the money goes into an escrow account which only releases funds when both parents agree on a purchase for the child. Once the child reaches 16, they get added to the escrow account and get a say on how their money is spent. If the kid thinks his parents are abusing *his* money, he can say no to the withdrawals. At 18 the parents are removed from the account and it becomes available to the child directly.\n\nThe absent parent has assurance that their monetary support is being used for the kid and not being abused by the other parent. School books, food, clothes, field trips, summer camp, gas money, Disneyland... anything that *both* parents agree on is fair game.\n If the supported parent thinks the the supporting parent is being stingy on what they are releasing for the account then they can complain and have the account audited. If the supported parent doesn't use all the money each month then it simply builds up in the account for a rainy day to eventually be released to the kid for whatever they want to use in the future. Car, college, ect. \n\nedit: additionally, the kid gets an opportunity to learn some personal finance when they added to the escrow account and have a say in how their money is spent.", "So, let me get this straight.\n\nTwo people meet, they both have completed their education etc. and both earn exactly $50,000 a year each.\n\nThey save the exact same amount of money every month and they spend the exact same amount a month. They get married and use their savings, totaling 50% of each persons savings, and buy a house.\n\nThey then have two kids together.\n\nNone of the above has changed, wage is identical, saving and spending identical etc., now they get divorced.\n\nMan applies for joint custody of Children, woman gets full custody. Why?\n\nMan then has to pay 50% of his income to ex-wife to support children.\n\nWoman remains in the home as she is with the children, but he is still liable for 50% of the debt owed on the house.\n\nSo with all things being equal, in a divorce, he loses his kids, his home - even though he's still 50% liable for it's expense, he now operates on 25% of the marital income to try and find somewhere else to live whilst still paying for the original house, and she operates on 75% of the original income and is only responsible for 50% of the cost of the home she now owns.\n\nHow is this legal?", "It is a dated system. Back when it was first introduced, most households relied on a single income, and divorces were really quite rare (usually granted for serious problems only). The idea was that one member of a couple would sacrifice their career to stay at home and raise the children, the other would earn the money. Ideally, the money earned would be split among the members of the household (so typically a decent sum was given to the stay-at-home parent, for the purpose of taking care of the children). Based on that notion, a recipient of child support gets a \"split\" of the payees wages, to simulate the wages that would have been allocated to the children's expenses. \n\nAs for the second part of your post, people getting free apartments and pulling in bulk money for no real purpose is the result of the model being so dated. Often a divorcee will find a new partner and double dip. It is also far more common for households to be dual income these days, so the concept is really silly now (given both parents can now pursue a career AND still raise their children).", "To give you another end of the spectrum, my ex-husband refuses to work, and lives off his girlfriend. He calls his addiction to drugs a \"disability\" (un-certified, no sdi payments, and no jobs in the last 3 years). He pays no child support despite having two children, one of them severely deaf. I work 60 hours a week raising and paying for 100% - including $1500 hearing aides, speech therapy, ASL classes, and a special school. There are severe stories on both sides of the fence. There are shitty people out there who just know how to work the system, and dont have the morals to stop themselves.", "Either party should have to prove what the Child Support is going to, like some will get the child support and it goes to what they want and not enough to the child. \n\nOr as soon as child support is paid, it should be transferred in to food and items fund, where you only get what you need depending on the children's age. Clothing, Food, Toys ect. Not talking about Donations of reused items, Like give them a voucher for like Wal Mart that can not be transferred in to cash.", "I suspect that a lot of the stories you've been hearing are just that - stories. I work for a payroll company and see exactly what people are paying. To say that the majority or even a measurable minority of custodial parents are living it up on child support is pretty laughable. Unless you consider $17/week \"living it up.\" That doesn't even buy school lunch! Father of The Year right there.", "To add to the reasons of everyone else I have to say child support is not only indemnifying but also punitive in nature. The country prospers when families are nuclear and stick together. Child support is a means of giving incentive to families to stick together.", "Shit like this, in addition to being the only gender not protected from genital mutilation at birth. This is why MRA and The Red Pill are desperately needed and why feminists are evil scumbags for directly creating and supporting this state of affairs.", "Double standard: Women have an absolute say in aborting or not a baby, while men are absolutely never given the option not to acknowledge and \"provide\" for the kid.", "Child support payments is the most fucked up law ever. I fucking rage when i read some of these comments.", "I'm late to the party and this will never see the light of day but I'll write it anyway to make myself feel better.\n\nThe answer to OP's question is that we have an antiquated bullshit system based on a time when it was assumed that the mans job was to make money and the woman's job was to raise the kids. I filed for divorce in 2012 because my wife was cheating on me and wouldn't stop doing it or lying about it despite me catching her red handed and dragging her to marriage therapy for months. I gave up and filed for divorce.\n\nWe had a one year old girl and was (still am) an excellent father. My lawyer and the mediator both told me, essentially, that despite the circumstances of the divorce that unless I could prove my wife was criminally negligent (drug addict or physically abusive, basically) that she would get primary custody if she wanted it and I would pay child support. My lawyer went as far as to jokingly refer to this as \"the penis penalty\" of divorce.\n\nAt multiple lawyers urgings and advisement that a fight in court would just cost me more money with the same ultimate outcome, I caved and agreed to \"joint custody with mother as primary\" in mediation. Despite having my daughter essentially 50% of the time I pay child support to my ex as is I was a deadbeat dad. In a sense, I pay twice to support my daughter - all her expenses at my house and all at her moms house (and then some, I pay $1800/month due to what I make). My ex owns a house and a condo. She has a good job that pays plenty. I try not to think about how unfair the situation is but its hard sometimes.\n\nPeople talk about how the world is stacked against women all the time and I get it - I've seen some of it in my career and I empathize for sure. But in the realm of family law it's disgusting how men - good men and good fathers - get shafted and fucked over by unscrupulous women and the laws & judges that perpetuate and even encourage the behavior.", "I got custody of my 2 daughters after 7 years of complete and utter bullshit in MA. They were meal tickets to my ex who used them as pawns to make her life as cushy as possible. She even filed a false diability claim on behalf of our younger daughter (who legitimately has a pysical disability) and she pocketed the money for 7 years.\n\nThe only thing I did that saved me was that I didn't pay through the state. I paid her directly and it kept me with some power. At the time I told her if she went through the department of revenue, I'd fall off the map and she'd never get a dime. I wouldn't have, but it worked and gave me some leverage.\n\nI got my girls every weekend, every school break and all summer. It allowed my ex the time she wanted to get her floozy merit badges and allowed me to bond with my girls. They finally just decided they didn't want to go back. I got lucky....\n\nMassachusetts is a brutal place for Dad's rights, I know countess dudes that lost everything to crazy ex's. I paid 490 a week for 7 years and never missed a payment. My kids saw none of it. I bought back to school clothes and supplies, phones, etc... I had no issue with supporting my kids, I just wish that there was some mandatory accounting oversight to ensure the children benefited from the support. \n\nBooze, hair and nails shouldn't be allowed. I now have a support order against her of which h she made the first payment of 20 bucks a month, per child and then hasn't made a payment since. She says she has no income and is awaiting a disability claim and is living with her boyfriend who pays for everything. Unreal...\n\nOn a good note, my oldest is a junior in college and my youngest is applying to schools as a HS Senior now. It took a while to get them pointed down range, but they were worth all the pain. The system is just broken. Very very broken.", "My husband was ordered to pay $1,200 a month for his 2 kids plus health insurance. Part of his expense was child care while the mom (custodial parent) \"looked for a job\". If the custodial parent is a student, working, or \"looking for a job\" and needs child care to do so, it comes out of the non-custodial parents pocket.\n\nWell, at the time they went to court, she had the kids (not of elementary school age at the time) set up in a private Montessori daycare program that her GRANDMA paid for as a freebie gift. She printed off a couple emails as proof of seeking employment. After court, the kids were out of the school within 2 months. Friends and grandparents watched them. Then she stayed home to do school online and he still had to pay.\n\nThe screwed up part is, when you have to move because you can't afford anything and have to live in a lesser environment and maybe not enough bedrooms, how does that not affect the kids? And financially, if you get a 2nd job or a higher paying job, they can take you back to get money out of those checks too.\n\nI've seen the games. I've seen the way she reaps in the benefit. It's lose lose for him, and she's also always in contempt of visitation, since she only views him as a child support check, always withholding the children intentionally. You can't do that, whether the dad pays or doesn't pay!\n\nChild support is only half the battle. Enforcing visitation, communication, and trying to not let the other parents spite dictate... is the other half.", "Some things to remember are that every state has different rules. For example in Texas, it's a flat 20% for the first kid and an additional percentage for every kid thereafter. NJ has a sliding scale where they look at each parents individual income over the last 3 years and compare that to a chart that is based on those numbers that shows what a child, with parents who make that amount of money, will cost to raise per week. The non custodial parent (99.99% of the time that's the father) pays half of that rate. \n\nOverall it's not TOO BAD. Where it really gets out of hand is when you realize the non custodial parent, the one paying thousands of dollars per year, can't claim that as an expenditure on income tax. Also, the custodial parent, one receiving the money, dosent have to claim that as income. \n\nIn many states the custodial parent is afforded many low cost and free legal advice and consultation as well, they are guided how to apply for COLA increases as well as how to petition the court to make the non custodial parent pay for daycare, medical expenses and even after school and extra curricular activities that you would assume would be covered under the base child support. \n\nIt's not only a broken system, it's also terribly biased against the non custodial parent (again 99% of the time that's the father). \n\nSource- I paid child support in NJ and TX. When my ordeal began, I was making 2200/ a month gross. Out of that I paid $800 a month in child support.", "The premise used to justify it is \"maintaining a lifestyle.\" \nReally, most times, its so the mother doesn't hafta buy fewer things with money thats no thers. \nBUT, there are some legit reasons this stays alive. \nIf the child is in private school, tutoring, medical bills- the same amount of money needs to go to that regardless of marital status. \nAlso, continueing bills, like car loans, mortgages, and etc. \nThe system gets real ugly at anything in the middle, like selling off and splitting assets (and often times, both people have seen enough of that in a divorce), so, they go this route to make custofy-winners not lose cars, homes, etc that would affect the childrens lives. \nThe big problem is, these reasons really only look good on paper. In practicality, it's INCREDIBLY abusable (cause it's literally free money), favors the mother (and sadly, gender has no actual tie to care-giving ability or goodness of character), and doesn't account for extenuating circumstances. \nIt's an old, archaic system. \nAnd fixing it really requires looking at cost of living more accurately.... \nwhiiiiich points us at things like minimum wage..... \nwhiiiiich puts us right in the political quagmire of not accomplishing a damn thing.", "Child support is something that should be paid, but the way it is implemented now in the US is pretty broken and highly in favor of the wife. I have heard similar if not worse stories in Canada and the UK as well so I assume it is a broken western system. \n\nOn the flip side, Japan (where I live now) is pretty fucked and broken in the complete opposite manner. There is no such thing as joint custody and the father typically goes on to his next phase in life with zero contact or support... Which is the norm and there is no taboo about it for the husband. Child support can be ordered in court but there is no enforcement... Likewise if the father wants to see his children, the mother doesn't not have to commit to the time he is given. So Japan has this label for being a child abduction black hole as if the mom doesn't want you seeing the kids, she can take measures to make sure you don't. But on the flip side, if she wanted to claim unpaid child support, the courts wouldn't have much power to do anything...", "I had a conversation with my boss about this once. He mentioned that he actively discourages the president of the company from giving him raises. Mainly because although his ex wife has remarried, and makes as much as he does, because she has primary custody, he's been saddled with a hefty payment. Because it's calculated pre tax, and the more he makes the more he has to pay, and because of his tax bracket, if he got a raise, he'd effectively just end up giving that additional money to his ex wife, or losing a little money because of the higher payment and higher taxes.\n\nHis kids are already extremely well off financially because his ex wife has remarried and because of his payments, he could get the raise and smile because he's giving his kids and even better life, but his words were \"they don't really need a second jet ski at their cottage, they really don't need my raise\"\n\nThe system is so broken is encourages the spouse making payments to get paid under the table illegal, or to not try to make more because they'll just get fucked a little harder.", "My 2€. It's a shitty situation for both party's, but it's a solution that scales.\nIf you have a dead-beat partner that isn't \"willing\" to provide financial support, then in a majority of cases they aren't willing to provide any overall positive support. Therefore the child is better off in the custody of the parent / guardian that will do what what's best for that child, and provide the best quality of life - no matter the sacrifice.\n\nOther side of the spectrum the child's quality of life argument still holds up. We are products of our environment, and that environment can drastically differ according to wealth. Analogy of some animals raised in captivity cannot survive in the wild can also be applied to humans and expectations of silver spoons.\n\nI'll end my drunken rant with everything in life should be solved on case by case basis, but the overall blanket protection provided by child support laws makes sense to me in helping more humans than it hurts. Only a shrinking handful of laws I could same the same...", "Middle GA checking in. Was paying 265 a month and that was my part. She was also required to come up with 265. I covered insurance. Problem is, she didn't let me have her. I only got her for a few hours on holidays and whenever she wanted to have a Saturday to herself. So I took her to court for visitation, chil d support went up on both sides, her part? 305. Mine? 655 and that's with insurance. The really fucked up part is she also put down my child needs child care and had money added to the amount owed every month. My daughter doesn't go to daycare but because she said it, she got more money. No proof required.Two months after getting the increase, baby mama buys a new car. Fun. I pay 66% of our daughters needs but due to the fact she lives with her, I can't claim her on taxes. Sorry for not really answering the question, just needed to rant.", "I feel for all of the dads on here. The laws certainly do not favor you in Colorado. We pay my husband's ex $2,400 a month alimony for life and $1,600 a month child support for two girls. The child support doesn't even bother me, although I guess what does bother me is instead of saving for their future with the $1,600 portion, she spends on hair extensions and plastic surgery. Fathers get absolutely no say in how these women spend the child support either and I think that's absurd! I think Congress and the Judicial system are pretty backwards and corrupt though so I doubt much will change.", "@OP: To maintain the lifestyle they're accustomed to, as best possible. A family that makes $1,200/month is used to a very different lifestyle than a family making $12,000/month, and the entire goal of the process is to protect the children -- and their lifestyle they've grown accustomed to -- as best as possible.\n\nBut ITT: Deadbeat dads. \n\nIf you ever need to see how gullible people are on the internet, just visit these kind of threads. Nobody tells the total and complete truth about their fuckups, and yet this thread is littered with plenty of deadbeat fathers hoisting themselves up high on that cross.", "I got a buddy we call last chance lance. He is over half a million backed up on child support, he said they give him 50 bucks a day for jail time but he would have to do about 19 years to even it out. Kicker is he raised the child alone and the mother skipped town. She is 30 now. The system sucks for fathers without lawyer money.", "I'm trying to figure out how the system doesn't encourage women to have kids by multiple men.\n\n\nIf she has 1 or 2 kids with the same guy, he can only give the same 20%. But 2 dads? She gets 20% from one and 20% from the other. \n\n\nI just don't see how responsibility or encouragement to maintain a family unit is promoted.", "I'm 32. Own a company. Not married nor will I ever be. Never want kids. Make $300k. For Christmas I bought myself a watch, a laptop, a new set of golf clubs and am taking a trip. I also pay as little as taxes that keeps me out of prison. Life is good", "I think The receiving parent should be required to submit receipts for what the money is used for. My brother's ex-wife spent hers in rent for a house beyond her means but my neice never had clothes that fit her or enough food. But by god her mom had a \"fancy\" house.", "My mother had custody of me until I was 7. I'm not sure if my dad had to pay her. When my dad remarried, he and his wife got custody of me and all my mom had to pay was 50% of the bills directly related to me (school, doctor, etc).", "I have a friend who is a dentist. When he divorced he was ordered to pay his bat shit crazy wife $795 per kid (two) per month plus $4500 in spousal support for life. It was egregious. \n\nHe offered her a settlement. She accepted. It saved him $250k.", "As a very short answer to this, child support is supposed to satisfy the needs of a child at a certain standard of living. Thus children of wealthy parents will receive more to maintain that standard of lifestyle, than would children of parents with lesser means.", "My boyfriend has been paying tens of thousands of dollars for his 2 daughters for the past 10 years and hasn't seen them in 7. And he's pretty sure their mom isn't spending that cash on them, since they always ask him (via phone) for money.", "One more reason to never marry. The facts are that the woman spends most of this money in herself" ]

[ "Nothing is a perfect mirror. The material still ends up absorbing some of the light. Eventually it would all get absorbed." ]

[ "As Pandromeda mentioned, Han Solo fired first. Also, he added in a bunch of CG aliens that didn't fit, put back in a deleted scene with Jabba the Hutt that wasn't necessary, added cheesy special effects to the Death Star explosion, added in a fucking song and dance number to Return of the Jedi, replaced the original ending of Jedi and added in Hayden Christiansen. He basically tinkered with it unnecessarily and added in a bunch of crappy looking CG aliens and effects.\n\nedit: cheese=cheesy", "In the original Star Wars, Han Solo fired first and toasted Gredo purely on principle. That was a very important element to his character. In the remastered version Gredo fires first (and somehow misses from just across a table).\n\nThat was an utterly PC act on the part of Lucas.", "All of the other answers are using specific examples that might be confusing to someone who has not seen the movies, when it's really as simple as this: George Lucas decided to use computer special effects to make numerous alterations to the original STAR WARS films, both to improve elements he personally thought were lacking or wrong and to make things more in-line with the prequels that nobody likes. The mere fact that the films were altered from their original presentation irks people, especially because the original versions are not widely available in an acceptable format.", "There's another angle that people don't seem to be mentioning - - movies are a collaborative effort. However much we say that Lucas \"created\" Star Wars or \"made\" the original movies, the truth is that he had an enormous amount of help and input from others into making the final product. In fact, if you do some reading on this, you'll see that Lucas had some pretty awful ideas for the movies, which he was talked out of by his collaborators (in addition to the positive ideas that they contributed). Now, years later, he has total creative control (read: ownership) of the movies and the money to do with them whatever he wants, and he's decided to keep tinkering with them. \n\nIt's also worth noting that since he considers himself the real authority on these movies and his new changes to be for the better, he's not letting the original version out there for release. It's not like he's offering an enhanced or extended version of the original - - he's saying \"this is what the movie is, despite the original being out there for decades without problems.", "In the original Star Wars Han Solo shoots Gredo without even letting Gredo make a move. Han knows that if he refuses to go with Gredo that Gredo will shoot him. Rather than be the noble warrior and allow Gredo to go for his gun first before drawing himself and shooting Han instead draws first and guns down Gredo before Gredo even gets a chance to know what's going on. It sets Han's character as one who lives in the gray. He's neither entirely good or entirely evil. He lives in the grey ground between.\n\nIn the remastered version Han shoots in self defence after Gredo shoots first. It's really poorly done (Han's head slides to the side to dodge since Lucas had no actual footage of it and so it was done with a computer) and totally changes Han's character but for no reason because after that he's back being a rogue again. \n\nHe also added in animals for the Storm Troopers to ride in Star Wars: A New Hope. So they can fly around the galaxy but need to ride animals into battle?", "It turns out that people don't like their childhood memories messed with. More than that, he refused to sell the original versions to fans in new formats that came along. I found that confusing, since when does George miss a chance to make money?", "Let's see. Many of these have already been mentioned so I'll start off with a new one.\n\n* Fart jokes - A lot of the new CGI effects have serious gas problems. They add nothing and frequently suck all the dramatic tension out of scenes. I'm thinking of the arrival at Mos Eisley. Luke has just seen his foster parents burnt to the bone and still smoking. And they are entering a town where the imperials are everywhere. Tension should be high. We start off with a nice new overhead shot if them speeding into town. This is a nice addition. But as Luke drives through town, we see farting pack animals, and their handlers fighting with them. Instead of mounting tension we get a moment of slapstick which completely undermines the moment.\n* Greedo shoots first - This undermines the character of Han. He's not established as cold blooded. This helps undermine the tension of him running away at Yavin. He has to be established as a scoundrel or his potentially scoundrel like behavior later loses it's impact.\n* Quality - A lot of the edits just kind of suck. Han dodging Greedo's shot. Han walking behind Jabba. A lot of the character effects like Jabba. They all look fake. That doesn't help.\n* Missed opportunities - There are a lot of scenes that could have been cleaned up. On the Millennium Falcon, Luke trains against a computer remote. When he turns off the light saber there is a visible cut. That could have been cleaned up. Instead we get crap.\n\nThat said, there are some good parts too. The introduced effects allowed some changes that were improvements. In some scenes they are used to establish some scale that is nice. I'm thinking of places on the Death Star where he edited in some larger open spaces. Make it feel more like a hundred mile wide battle station. Same thing in cloud city, he threw in some windows that opened up the place and made it look more beautiful and spacious, rather than just some claustrophobic corridors on a set.", "You guys are forgetting some of the good ones. Lucas added the word \"noooooo\" to Vader when he throws the emperor down the death tube. The one I am most pissed about was ROTJ. The end was a travesty. Not only putting mister whinny pants in place of David, but completely changing the song at the end. The ewoks were beating the storm troopers helmets to the beat of the music and the new music doesn't line up. There are soooo many things wrong with the remakes.", "1988, George Lucas Speaks to Congress.\n\n\"My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.\n\nI am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.\nThe destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.\n\nA copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.\n\nPeople who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as \"when life begins\" or \"when it should be appropriately terminated,\" but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.\n\nThese current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with \"fresher faces,\" or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new \"original\" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.\n\n**In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be \"replaced\" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society.** Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.\nThere is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.\nI accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.\n\nI accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.\n\nThe public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.\n\nThere are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of \"The Maltese Falcon?\" Why are films cut up and butchered?\nAttention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.\n\nI hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.\"", "They added lots of CGI special effects, they added USELESS scenes. There was one scene where vader screams NOOOO like hayden christensesneseses bitch ass WHY? There was one scene, where in the original Han stumbled into a room with like 6 troopers. They changed it and added 100 more CGI troopers, WHY?? \n\nThey actually added a deleted scene, and pasted a CGI Jabba the hut in. THE FUCK LUCAS? They even changed the scene where when Han is about to be shot by the Alien Greedo so that the Alien shoots first. The WHOLE POINT WAS THAT HAN WAS AN AWESOME BASTARD, NOT THAT HE WAS A LUCKY ONE. \n\nThey changed the emporer to look like the new one, and they changed Anakin to look like the new one. WHY???? WHY??????\n\nThe worst bit though was this piece of utter shit, [Jabbas Palace CGI WHY???](_URL_0_)\n\nAnd that is why George Lucas FUCKED UP!", "I think it all boils down to his immense arrogance in not letting fans enjoy the original trilogy as they were - even better if there were remastered and improved image/sound quality versions.\n\nInstead, he turned his back to the fan-base (now adults with strong opinions) and ignored several decades of fleshing out every single details of the movies. He set out to replace their core nature with artificial political correctness, sub par CGI and character/scene changes that are widley considered shallow and vapid. \n\nAs creator, of course he had the right to change and experiment if he wanted. His \"refinements\" surely have adepts and probably little children would relate to them very well. But not letting others enjoy the originals as they were is so pretentious and egotistical, that he burned away admiration built over decades to become despised over a wide audience.\n\nSome of these changes:\n\n* Overly \"clean\" CGI. The original weathered, battered, real life sets and props gave the movies a credible atmosphere. These are real places/ships/artifacts with history, and have been used over time. CGI replacements make them look whitewashed, overly clean and artificial, diminishing their value in story telling.\n\n* Excessive CGI content. Battles in the original movies had emotional investment - there was tension between a limited number of combatants and you were acquainted with their reasons. Your focus was centered and high. Some changes were made to introduce a myriad of excessive details and actions in scenes, that prove unnecessary as they simply don't add anything to the story.\n\n* Han Solo as the rogue, likeable villain in the originals. His nebulous character is defined by murdering Greedo in Mos Eisley. This is replaced by PC that doesn't even **look** credible.\n\n* Slapstick comedy and situations. The arrival at Mos Eisley was originally tense, as protagonist had gone through trauma and the Empire was a menacing shadow, and watching eye over everyone. After the changes, it was reduced to a series of bodily function and slapstick humor that makes it difficult to take the story seriously. This is also the case with the poorly rendered scene between Jabba and Han Solo -It's the equivalent of having Michael Corleone give Sollozo a slap in the butt when they meet in *the Godfather* - and the awful extended singing scene in Jabba's palace. \n\n* \"Expliciting\" characters emotions. The screaming of Luke as he falls, the screaming of Vader as he attacks the emperor, etc. When a character is fleshed out well, you can predict their reactions and emotions. To exaggerate these response with unnecessary artifacts diminishes the experience.\n\nI could go on ranting. But I think there's noting I've added that hasn't been discussed and ranted before.", "It's one thing to fix little SFX mistakes that were made in the original production, improve some of the lighting, or clarity of picture. Things that were unavoidable due to time / technology. Really, that's all he had to do. Just clean up the picture, make it look awesome, fix some of the little errors, and release it.\n\nHowever, they also decided to add a bunch of extra stuff. Some of it I think was okay. They added in some little details in some of the scenes and locations that are unobtrusive and give a little more atmosphere. I liked that he got rid of some of the static walls in Cloud City and added in windows and lighting from them.\n\nIt's another thing to add a cram in mounds of unnecessary crap in scenes that don't need them (adding a bunch of cartoon-y, distracting bullshit in the background, foreground to Mos Eisley), try to stuff in scenes that add nothing (The song & dance scene in Return. Han and Jabba. \"dur... what do we do about him going behind a formerly human Jabba? Let's awkwardly shift his image upward so he's walked on his tall. huehuehue!\"), and, worst, make little changes to the characters everyone loves (Greedo shooting first, Bobba Fet has a New Zealand accent, just little things that add nothing to do the story). \n\nPeople have dissected these characters and every little choice they've made over the last few decades. And when fans realized that George Lucas, the person fans have idolized for decades, doesn't really understand his own characters (proven in these changes and *especially* the prequel trilogy), they realize that they've been ignoring the writers and directors that actually brought their characters to life and made them real people and heroes. And not just ham-fisted cartoons.\n\nThis is also why, we Ep:1 was announced, the fans were hopeful and scared. They'd seen what had happened with these changes and they *wanted* to like them. But no one really expected an entire movie that looked like someone had vomited the spirit of those changes onto a full-length original film. But then we get Jar-Jar, midichlorians (sp), a Jesus origin story, pointless cameos by C3P0 and R2D2 that fly in the face of logic and continuity, and characters whose motivations are based on how cool a particular action would be on film (and not if it makes any sense in a narrative). Fans realized that that's what these re-release versions were: Lucas was trying his hardest to turn their beloved original trilogy into the same vapid, cartoon-y, in-joke, kid-friendly bullshit the new trilogy became.", "_URL_1_ This is mostly about why the prequels were so awful, but it does touch on the remastered versions and will definitely answer your questions.", "I didn't know people hated the early nineties revisions too. Makes sense, but all I really remember in those was the hover affect for the speeder in A New Hope and the deathstar explosion being bigger.", "Honestly, even just ignoring the context of the extraneous CGI added to some of the scenes, the CGI itself was done *horribly*. It is ugly as sin.", "Now that Disney owns Star Wars, shouldn't we be petitioning them to release the original on Bluray/digital?", "Thanks for the answer, guys!\n\nI'm all for people offering more specific examples though--- this is fascinating.", "Say, when you were about 8 years old, someone told you the best story ever. You loved it. You asked to be told it over and over again. You replayed it with your friends on the playground. You drew pictures of the characters and wanted to be them. You heard two more stories just like them, not long after, and loved them too. These stories, to you, were a huge part of your childhood. A huge part of your formative years, even, silly as that sounds. \nNow leap forward to your mid thirties. A time of self doubt, introspection, apprehension, second guessing. But hey at least there's the reassuring stories you grew up with, right?\nWRONG. At every turn, the very person who told you these strories is now telling you you're remembering them wrong, and that they weren't good enough, and that you can never go back to what you remembered as a kid. YOU CAN'T GO BACK TO WHAT YOU LOVED AS A KID.\nOh! And! He's telling new stories, which is something that 13 year old you would have been over the moon about. Except those stories don't have the same warmth, and heart... and there's a bunch of technical sounding stuff where your faith used to be, and \"eh, trust us\" where there really should be answers, and some grown-up things like politics awkwardly shoved into what used to be a rousing adventure tale.\nSo not only can't you go back to how your beloved stories used to be, you have proof positive you won't get more new ones too.\n\nAt the risk of hyperbole over some silly movies: when the original Star Wars trilogy was altered, with no way to get the true originals ever again, a whole generation of kids were reminded that sometimes being an adult really blows.", "Imagine you like hot chocolate. Its a cold winter day and you curl up on the couch under a blanket with a mug of your favorite brand. Everything is just the way you like it. Just as you take a sip, ready to relax, you realize they added marshmallows. That's okay, you guess, its basically the same. The next time you notice they took out some sugar. Then they add raspberry. Then they take the raspberry out and add coffee. Then they change the coffee. At that point you don't know what you are going to get the next time you want some. Oh, its still hot chocolate, but it isn't the same, and can't provide the warm comfort you wanted on that cold day - its just a distant memory.", "Having only seen Star Wars the first time in 2009, it was glaring seeing what didn't obviously fit.\n\nThe Greedo bit really looks like when Poochie goes back to his home planet, Han just jolts out of the laser blast and they both shot at the same time. \n\nThere are like, fourteen CGI aliens when Obi and Luke are cruising on that speeder thing. One even walks in front of the view of the two of them, while they're having dialogue, and slowly lumbers around for five ish seconds, giving a fantastic glimpse of the mid-quarter of an alien we'd never see again.\n\nAnd then there was the jazz monster in the second one. With the lips and the beatbox and the holy fuck, what the shit am i watching", "What annoyed me more than anything was that annakin was young at the end of the movie why in the hell would he be young and yet obi wan and yoda were still old", "Disney are doing the same shit as well, it recently came out that the Sith (species) homeworld is going to be renamed from the established Korriban to [Moriband](_URL_2_)\n\nJust why?", "Nice try, George. You're not going to release *another* version of the films, even if it is based on public opinion.", "He put digital images of Hayden Christiansen in episode VI and its terrible." ]

[ "your body makes heat. this warms the air around your skin. the blanket holds that air close to you." ]

[ "All of these are software programs.\n\nComputer virus - the typical attribute here in a software program that makes it behave somewhat like a biological virus, is its ability to copy and replicate itself by \"infecting\" other software programs - i.e it attaches itself to these programs, either by infecting them as they are running in the memory of the computer or by accessing the disk and changing the file. When these infected programs are used, or copied to another computer, that computer becomes infected too. It also means, if you delete the virus or reboot the computer, running any of the infected programs will run the virus again and mean your computer is still infected.\n\nComputer viruses tend to spread and infect via replication. As anti-virus programs appeared that could detect computer viruses, programmers added the ability for these programs to mutate as well - i.e to change their code in subtle ways that wouldn't change their function but would make code that looked for a specific pattern fail to spot them. In some way this is similar to the way viruses mutate to avoid an immune system - albeit it's more about the word \"virus\" being descriptive rather than actual parallels between the 2.\n\nA trojan horse - the attribute here, is that it's a program that looks like it performs a specific function - maybe a game or something - but which hides inside it a program that performs another function (usually a malicious one) - the analogy here is, of course, with the [trojan horse legend](_URL_0_) about people hiding inside a \"gift\" in order to enter and destroy a city.\n\nA computer worm differs from a virus in that it doesn't infect another program, but it operates as a standalone program. It does copy itself, replicate and spread by exploiting security weaknesses usually via a network. You can picture this as a program running on your computer, which detects other computers connected to yours, so it \"moves\" over the network, via whatever security holes exist, until it's running on the other computers...and it continues like that traversing across the network looking for machines to infect.\n\nIt's worth noting that although bugs or issues with any of the above methods of infecting a computer may cause computers to crash or other faults and usually take resources, it's not the above actions, from which viruses, worms and trojans get their name, that are necessarily the motives of whoever creates them (Although earlier examples often did nothing more than copy and infect as exercises in curiosity)\n\nMore typically, there is another piece of the software, called the 'payload' which is designed to actually do something malicious, like steal your passwords or sink your nuclear submarine. Payload coming from flight or launch vehicle terminology." ]

[ "Jeb Bush is considered (generally) the primary establishment candidate, which means he's expected to have significant political clout with the republican party. Alternatively, he's also a Bush, which means he's entangled in a lot of familial controversy, 'Bush Dynasty' 'Can George Bush's brother win after his unpopularity?' sort of stuff.\n\nBoth attract interest, which the media wants in order to get paid.", "Because other \"non popular\" candidates aren't the son/brother of two former presidents. He was widely considered the guaranteed republican nominee before the race really started, so it is fairly newsworthy that someone with his name recognition has dropped so far, so early, especially considering who he is losing to." ]

[ "Shi'ites think that leadership in Islam should be hereditary, and that Imams more or less represent the authority of the founder through his bloodline.\n\nSunnis think that leadership in Islam should be by some sort of democratic process, and you don't need to be a descendant of the founder to hold authority.\n\nIt started out that way when the movement had to decide on how to continue after the death of its founder. Pretty soon, through in-fighting and because that is the way things go in a closely knit community, everybody and his uncle also had an opinion that would be forced upon the community.\n\nThere is a Wikipedia article that goes into the various branches of islam in more detail:\n\n_URL_0_", "I recently learned about this, so take this high school history with a grain of salt.\n\nSunn'i- followers of Abu Bakr, had a lot of Hadith (oral traditions), no shrines, no traditions of martyrdom, and they believe that one day messiah will come for the first time. 90% of Islam\n\nShi'a- followers of Ali, not a lot of oral traditions, traditions of martyrdom, shrines, and the belief that messiah came and will return. 10% of Islam.", "Pardon the simplification but it's similar to the various Christian denominations. You only need to look at those to see that 'we're all Christian, can't we all just get along'\nCenturies of squabbling over very minor semantics and details that only those on the inside really care a great deal about. \n\n\nLord knows (excuse the pun) how many people have died because people couldn't agree who was Gods rep on earth; the king or the pope.. Or whether the holy trinity is one or three different beings.. Or who should be able to read from the bible directly instead of relying on intermediaries.\n\n It's unfortunate that people across time get so hung up on the details, but such is the nature of religion.", "OP if you are interested there is a PBS documentary called [Once Upon a Time in Iran](_URL_1_) that gives insight about the Shiite ideology of Iran. They follow some pilgrims travelling from Iran to Karbala (in Iraq) and touches on Iran's recent history; the Revolution, Iran-Iraq War, and the cuurent relationship between Iran and the West. The documentary was released in 2007 at a time when relations were at an all time low and is basically saying why seeking a war with Iran is a bad idea. But, I think it gives people insight into Twelver Shiism, which is almost 10% of the muslim population.", "Shia Sunni same religion - both believe in monotheism version of Islam. No real difference other than a few customs which also differ in the 4 branches of Sunnism. \nThe real difference is political over who should have ruled after the departure of Prophet Muhammad. \nShia means the party. Sunni means traditions/traditional. \nALL POLITICS VIEW NO BIG RELIGIOUS DIFFERENCE IN SHORT!", "Also Sunni's believe the universe was created in 6 days... Shi'ite's believe it was 7 :/" ]

[ "It depends on the context, but I'll stick to your examples. People didn't view still photographs on photographic film. They needed to be printed on photographic paper. Slides are an exception, but they didn't get popular until later. \n\nMotion picture film is negative and printed onto another piece of film to make a positive for viewing via a projector. Many people view magnified motion picture film, but most people never view still photo negatives. \n\nThis is may not be the etymology, but it makes sense, and that's what your looking for." ]

[ "This is a difficult question, America is insanely vast. A Republican in New York is going to be much different from a republican in Texas. A democrat in California will be different from a democrat in Michigan. Any person that wants to run for major office with a likable chance of winning usually has to run under one of these two parties, recent example: Bernie Sanders. \n\nThe idea is Republican is generally more conservative, pushing for no economic regulation but social restrictions. Democrats are generally more Liberal pushing for zero social regulation but economic and business restrictions.", "Republicans: Man is the best decider for himself. Society will be much more efficient if it is every man to himself within reason. So the smaller the govt the better, the less control the govt has the more freedom individual man enjoys. The govt is only there to enforce laws so we dont go full anarchy. Republicans also believe in traditionalism; men should be men; women should be women, everyone has a fixed role in society.\n\nDemocrats: The govt is the parent of its citizen children. As such govt needs to be big, and stuffed with taxes so it can take care of its citizens. No fixed societal roles, people can be whatever they want, do whatever they want (within reason). People's needs are fulfilled by govt back institutions; IE Dept of Education, Welfare Dept, Dept of Health, Dept of Security, etc.", "The simplest I could put it is: \n\nDemocrats: Government should make adjustments to the distribution of wealth and services for the well-being of the majority. \n\nRepublicans: Government should do only what is necessary to encourage a fair playing field so individuals can create their own well-being." ]

[ "For American football games they know within one or two how many breaks there will be. On between possessions they will radio down and stop lay during the break a \"TV timeout\" and a dude in a bright colored red or yellow jacket will come out and stand with the ref until it is time to resume play.", "They know roughly how many breaks there will be, and live events aren't ever actually broadcasted \"live\", there is always a few seconds to a few minutes delay both for purposes of censoring, postprocessing, and for inserting of advertisements." ]

[ "Many infections grow best at particularly precise temperatures. Your body raises your temperature as a defense mechanism, slowing down the reproduction of the infectious agent and giving your own defenses a chance to 'catch up'. At the same time it enhances the ability of some of your body's defenders to move around more actively in their war.", "I see this question A LOT here, but I know Reddit's search function doesn't work that well so it's fine.\n\nu/stuthulhu already explained that the substances/cells that protect our body against intruders do their best job in an environment with a higher temperature. A part of your brain controls the body temperature by setting a preferrable body temperature and compare it to the actual body temperature. When the body temperature is higher than the setpoint, you'll feel hot and the body will set processes in motion in order to lose heat (more blood to the skin and sweating). When the body temperature is lower than the setpoint, you'll feel cold and you start to shiver because you need to generate heat in order to reach that setpoint.\nIn the case of fever, the setpoint increases and as a result, you'll feel cold while your body temperature is much warmer than normal. It's a good sign when a sick person is sweating, because it means that the setpoint has returned to the normal temperature." ]

[ "The almond flavour you taste in almond paste, marzipan and so forth comes from an aromatic called benzaldehyde. This is found in *bitter* almonds, which also have a fairly hefty amount of cyanide; the latter is removed during the extraction of the benzaldehyde.\n\nThe almonds you eat in nut form are *sweet* almonds, which contain a much lower level of benzaldehyde, and, luckily enough, cyanide as well.\n\nBenzaldehyde is also present in apricots, cherries, and peaches, which is why they all have similar taste profiles." ]

[ "Human's primary form of adaptation is the use of technology. So we have adapted to the cold by inventing insulated shelter, controlling fire, and making clothing.", "We grew intelligent enough to skin other warmer animals and wear their hides over our own.", "For the same reason we can't fly like a bird. The compromises necessary to adapt to freezing temperatures cost in other areas so much that they are not evolutionary advantages. Cold, like flying, is something humans handle through their giant brains, social cooperation, and most excellent technology. It's a feature.", "In addition to what others have said, our species originates in Africa which is generally pretty hot. We haven't been in cold areas for very long so we haven't adapted much to deal with it." ]

[ "I used to get that feeling a lot when I first started taking my daily pills. Turns out I wasn't getting the pill \"stuck\" in my throat exactly, but I was not swallowing them with enough water. \n\nWhen someone swallows pills without proper salivation or lubricant the object can \"scrape\" itself on the back of your throat, leaving you with that heavy and sometimes painful feeling that doesn't go away for a while. It may feel like it's lodged in there, which could be possible, but it's most likely just pain from the pills contact. \n\nLong story short, always drink water before and with pills.", "I get pills stuck in my esophagus a lot. Could that be what you're experiencing? It kinda feels like what you're describing imo.", "I don't know if this is it, but I always assumed it was an \"afterfeeling\" of the pill going down. Similar to if you pinch or flick yourself, you \"feel\" it for a while.", "[Globus hystericus](_URL_0_)? You might have acid reflux. \n\nELI5: Your throat may be inflamed from stomach acid. You are feeling its sensitivity when you swallow." ]

[ "Reddit isn't publicly traded (there hasn't been an IPO yet), so speculation can't inflate the value of the company like Twitter or Tesla.\n\nA company is basically worth how much people are willing to pay for shares of it, but you can't buy shares in Reddit yet.\n\nIt's also not profitable, yet, which doesn't help.", "Well, for one, twitter allows people to monetize content they create using ads from which twitter gets a cut. Reddit doesn't. You can have a billion unique users on your site, but if they're not doing anything that's making you money, it doesn't matter from the perspective of the market value of your site." ]

[ "There's a bit of a misconception about the wage gap. For jobs in the exact same role with the exact same responsibilities, the wages are about the same. However, men tend to be more likely to be promoted to higher-paying positions. Women are also more likely than men to take extended time off or work part time while raising a family, meaning their careers are held back during that time.", "I read the reason women today get paid less isn't because of gender discrimination, it's because women are less likely to give up other benefits, such as vacation time, and they're more likely to accept or seek part time work instead of fulltime. But when you take those facts out and just look at numbers, you get \"women make less than their colleagues\"\n\nI don't know how true that is, but it sounds plausible to me.", "Isn't the wage gap mostly a myth? Most women tend to not take dangerous jobs and are more likely to work part time because they want to start families. I work at a hospital, the ceo is very highly paid woman and everyone is paid equally for same work. If this was really true you would see companies with a mostly female workforce and less payroll overhead. But as far as I know that doesn't really exist. \n\nNote: there are always exceptions to everything." ]

[ "Eye make-up is often used to extenuate the size, shape or colour of someone's eyes.\n\n\nYour eyes can give away a huge amount about your current state - revealing indicators about your health, your energy levels, your age, your state of mind etc.\n\n\nA good application of eye make-up could take tired, old eyes and transform them into bright, youthful eyes with energy. The difference is enormous visually because so much of human contact is face-to-face and the eyes are the focal point of the face.", "The whiter the whites of a person's eyes, the healthier they are (in general). Mascara creates an optical illusion that a person's whites of their eyes are whiter than reality." ]

[ "Industrial electric motors are meant to be run nearly 24/7 at higher loads and don't have to be portable, so size isn't usually a factor as much as keeping them cool, so they're built to shed excess heat better, and more surface are = more heat that can be transferred away.\n\non the other hand for cars, weight and size are bigger factors, and the motors in them will never be run full power all the time, so more effort is put into them to keep them smaller. Heat dissipation isn't as much of a problem either in a car as you can use the cars air flow to help keep things cool, whereas industrial motors don't usually sit in well ventilated areas.", "* they are designed to run 24/7\n* space is less of a premium in a factory\n* weight is much less of a design consideration\n* heating is less of a problem\n* they don't have to be designed to run on batteries" ]

[ "people use their eyes to communicate their level of comfort/aggression/submission with one another. shades will remove this information and allow others to fill in the blanks. for example, you might be avoiding eye contact, but because of your sunglasses this does not register with people and you seem undeservingly \"cool\"" ]

[ "You may be better off in one of the tech subreddits (like /r/techsupport or /r/networking).\n\nHowever, I have done this before with a Linksys router. Find out if one of the popular 3rd party firmwares (like [DD-WRT](_URL_0_) or [Tomato](_URL_1_)) will work on your router. Then find a guide online to help you set it up as a repeater.\n\nMake sure you read all instructions carefully, because you can brick your router if you are not careful when updating the firmware." ]

[ "Fresh vs. Frozen - was it alive this morning? \n\nThe Chef's reputation and experience - you're buying his car! \n\nThe ambience isn't free, if you're having sushi at a Chinese buffet, it's mostly fake crab and Thai illegal immigrants doing the work. \n\nThe exact kind of fish! You're not going to find supermarket fish at the Sushi-is-us hole in the wall. If you want the whole range of selection, you need the real Sushi Bar.", "Related issue is that the terms sushi grade or sashimi grade are a little misleading. They **do not** relate to the freshness of the fish. It just means the fish has been frozen below a specified temperatures for a certain duration to kill parasites." ]

[ "Large road projects usually exist to keep the existing road network running, or to improve its relation to the rest of the city. Bridges need to be retrofitted, underpasses capped, tarmac replaced. They may be big projects, but they're really necessary to keep the system functioning like it is.\n\nA major public transportation network is an entirely new investment. If you don't do it, you don't it--there's no downside other than that you don't have the network. A comparable project would be the construction of an entirely new highway link (or in some cities, the removal of major highways), which is rare and nowadays often put to voters as well. Of note is that many major highway projects were initiated in a time when referendums for transportation were not as common.", "It all depends on funding. If it's a locally-funded project, the voters will probably have to approve one or more bond issues to pay for the construction. Highway construction is often largely paid for with federal funds and it's the FHWA that has to be sold on the idea, rather than the local residents." ]

[ "Bluetooth is designed to be short-range very low-power for small portable equipment. Part of the power-savings of Bluetooth come from diminished bandwidth (just as much as the weaker signal). One could speed up Bluetooth to Wi-Fi speeds, but then it would defeat the purpose of BT's major design feature.\n\nIf you're looking for something that works like plunging a cable between devices but has Wi-Fi speeds, you might like wireless USB: _URL_0_", "They can, but it's complicated. Original Wi-Fi (the 802.11 specification) is just as slow as Bluetooth 2.0 (the most basic standard). They both operate in the same 2.4GHz frequency band and use similar frequency hopping algorithms. \n\nWith the 802.11a specification IEEE changed the game by moving the frequency band to 5GHz (increasing bitrate) and improving their modulation algorithms. This had the effect of dramatically increasing power consumption and hardware costs, a move Bluetooth couldn't take. At the same time, the 802.11b standard was released which moved the 802.11a improvements to the 2.4GHz spectrum for less speed. It was after this (and the subsequent 802.11g standard) that Bluetooth began to simply incorporate the Wi-Fi standards into their own, resulting in the 3.0 HS specification. This spec simply allowed people to shove a Wi-Fi radio onto Bluetooth chips and have the protocol be able to use them when necessary, bringing the theoretical throughput up to a WiFi-comparable 24Mb/S. \n\nAll subsequent Wi-Fi standards have used higher frequencies with larger bandwidths, which have detrimental effects on battery life. Bluetooth devices are also required to operate at ranges of over 100m in very noisy environments while maintaining that power consumption, features Wi-Fi trades off to achieve high throughput.\n\nBluetooth is a very good protocol for the market it hits. Very few people need to transfer files larger than a few MB regularly and not optimizing for that unusual case has huge benefits for reliability and power consumption. The simplicity also allows it to encapsulate very different data models within a single protocol that can serve everything from keyboards to headphones to car keys. This has enormous manufacturing cost benefits since similar hardware can be used to make completely different devices, increasing economies of scale.", "Because it was designed that way on purpose. It's intended to be low power and short range specifically because WiFi is usually overkill for devices that need to be low power and short range." ]

[ "The ISS orbits beneath the protective shield created by the earth's magnetism. The bulk of the solar wind is deflected away from earth by the earth's magnetic field.", "Because the ISS isn't that far out at all, at a measily 400KM from the surface of the earth, the ISS is still far within the magnetic fields the earth creates.\n\nNote: 400KM is LESS than the distance between London and Paris.\n\nThe main issue astronauts deal with is the lack of a Ozone/ Atmosphere - not a lack of the earths electro-magnetic field." ]

[ "Not 100% sure if this is the correct answer, but the act of yawning presses against the glands which produce tears. These glands are like a sac, so pressing against these sacs make the tear flow regardless of if you need it or not", "I thought i were just weird. So to yawn, i would go to a private place and afterwards pinch myself to neutralize the urge", "Whenever something on a film (or sometimes even an advert/commercial lol) gets me to tear up I pretend to yawn for the benefit of other people in the room ha", "To yawn, a nerve impulse is triggered to all the muscles. It just so happens that the same nerves also affect the tear glands, triggering them simultaneously.", "I don't know, but you're a wizard casting magic onto me as I just yawned and for sure did tear up too." ]

[ "We weren't around back then. The continents were already in their present form when humans evolved (in Africa, almost certainly).", "Because hominins only evolved 6.3 million years ago, when the continents were pretty much in their current configuration.\n\nAlso, humans only left Africa and travelled to different continents 120 000 to 60 000 years ago, not enough time for major evolutionary differences to accumulate.", "First, to bound this discussion, Pangea was long gone before the first hominids (Humans and our closest relatives / ancestors) evolved on the planet. The continents were pretty much in their current configuration when the first hominids appeared.\n\nOn why we are all human, it is pretty simple that Humans survived and the other species did not. When Humans left Africa they interacted with a fairly large population of Neanderthals in Europe and a small population of Denisovans in Asia. We can't be precisely sure why Humans won out, but they did. Our luck.\n\nWhile yes our Human ancestors didn't have the travel efficiencies we have today, Eurasia and Africa have always remained in some amount of contact and A-B, B-C, C-D propagation would maintain the gene pool. Human settlement on the American continent is very recent in evolutionary timescales.", "Pangea existed 300 million years ago, humans evolved in Africa about 100,000 years ago.", "> Several generations in would be Isolated and there would eventually become another separate species, right?\n\nNope, speciation doesn't need to happen. It usually does given enough time, but it is not required by evolution.\n\nSpeciation is a process. A process that can take thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of years, especially for a species like ours. Species characterized by long life spans, small litters, long generation times, slow to mature, take a long time to fully speciate. \n\nIn order for speciation to come into fruition, there needs to be a barrier to reproduction. This barrier might be external (e.g. different reproductive periods, different mating rituals) or they may be internal (e.g. The penis cannot fit into the vagina, the sperm cannot penetrate the egg, chromosomal or genetic barriers, the fetus cannot come to term, hybrids are sterile).\n\nJust because two populations of the same species live on different continents does not mean that they will speciate. First, there must be a random mutation that produces a reproductive barrier. This random mutation may never happen. This random mutation never happened for early humans living in distant parts of the planet. Humans in the Americas maintained the ability to reproduce with humans living in Africa, or Europe, or Australia. No reproductive barriers arose, and all humans remained part of the same species. Nowadays, humans can move between populations much more easily, to such an extent that it is very unlikely that any given population is isolated enough to have a reproductive barrier selected for.", "The separation of Pangaea happened hundreds of millions of years ago, humans and our predecessors only evolved about 500,000 years ago, give or take. In fact, ape evolution happened so much later that all apes don't live naturally in the Americas. The only primates that live in the Americas naturally are one type of monkey, and then some types of lemurs and tarsiers. All the others, especially the ones closer to humans, like chimps, most monkeys, gorillas, and of course humans, all of these species come from Africa, Europe, and Asia originally, (mostly Africa). Modern humans evolved in Africa about 100,000 years ago and only came to the Americas about 10,000 years ago.\n\nAnd as for why we didn't evolve, it's because speciation (evolution into an entirely new species) doesn't take only a couple generations, it takes thousands of generations. 10,000 years of separation between Europeans and Native Americans is not nearly enough time to evolve into separate species. The only differences that evolved at all are, well, what you see today: differences in skin color and hair color, and minor facial differences. That's it. We're still very much the same species, all living humans are, for probably the past 30,000 years at least, when the last neanderthals died.", "Pangaea was long gone by the time humans hit the scene. The continents looked more or less like they do today, although sea levels were probably lower. The entire world was colonized by people migrating out of East Africa.\n\nThis means that before the advent of high-speed travel, people were very isolated from one another, but it wasn't for long enough for different groups to totally diverge into different species. It is responsible for the traits that differentiate the \"races,\" such as skin color.", "People didn't evolve on all the continents simultaneously. Pangea split up into a bunch of sections. People evolved on one of the section (Africa) and then traveled to all the others over time." ]

[ "The big one that's mentioned is the change that you can't join a class-action against paypal so I'll explain that.\n\nLawsuits are expensive. Even a little suit against your neighbor over cutting down your tree can rack up costs from court fees and time spent arguing the case. In a major court case involving a huge business, this gets even worse with the added time and expense of hiring a lawyer.\n\nGenerally speaking, a large corporation will have more money to throw at the court case than you do and can bog it down until you can't afford the costs anymore. Class action lawsuits are one of the defenses in the law against this. Instead of just representing yourself, you represent a whole group of people (a class) who were wronged by the corporation in the same way you were.\n\nEXAMPLE:\nWidget Works sells you a widget to trim your cat's fur. It sets the cat on fire and you sue for 200$ (cost of widget + damage to cat). Now, you can't afford to sue them and a lawyer won't do it for a cut of the reward. However, upon further research, you find that 10,000 other people had their cat set on fire by widgets. Although a cut of 200$ isn't enough for a lawyer, a cut of $2,000,000 is worth it. By filing a class action lawsuit of for yourself and those 10,000 people, you can actually find a lawyer to represent you." ]

[ "Canadian healthcare is, more or less, single-payer. Basically, you pay a tax to the government and the government insures you.\n\nAmerican healthcare is a big old mess. We have single-payer for some people (Medicare), full-on nationalized healthcare for some (the Veterans' administration, where doctors are government employees), private insurance for many, and no insurance (fuck you and die) for some. \n\nObamacare is actually working--it's fixing some of the worst problems with private insurance and reducing the number of people with no insurance. But our health care system is still a big old mess. Obamacare didn't create the mess, but it does sort of freeze it in place.\n\nIf you want more detail, I created a comic to explain Obamacare here: _URL_0_.", "The 'why (and if) American healthcare isn't working' would very much break the bias rule if I went on a rant about it, so here's just some bare bones differences between the two.\n\nIn Canada we have \"single payer\" healthcare- the government buys all the equipment and employs healthcare workers. This is seen as a good thing because it [lowers the cost of procedures](_URL_1_) by giving one entity (the government) bargaining power (and eliminates the 'hidden costs' your insurance is supposed to haggle down in American health care.) We don't ever have to put money down to get health care- it's not regular insurance, so you never have a doctors visit only covered 80%. (There are certain things not covered, of course.)\n\nSingle-payer would never have passed in the US, so they compromised and used a partially privatised solution. Americans still use private insurance, but the government introduced subsidies to lower the cost of it, and enacted a large amount of reform, including mandating a minimum amount of coverage they have to offer, laws against different pricing based on sex or pre-existing conditions.\n\nThere are a lot of similarities between the two- the ACA tried to take healthcare to a similar place, covering everyone, through market competition (private hospitals and insurance companies) plus subsidies rather than through a government monopoly on it. Now whether or not they've succeeded... Generally everyone on both sides is unhappy about it, but at least more people have some coverage in the mean time.", "Our healthcare system is run like a business. Affordable Care Act or \"Obamacare\" requires citizens to have health insurance, and requires health insurance companies to cover everyone (There is obviously [more to it than](_URL_2_) that, but that will suffice for this ELI5). That is the difference: we still pay for the health insurance and health care." ]

[ "If you're referring to the time gap between Android and iOS releases, the answer is because of Apple.\n\nThings get on the Android market very easily and quickly, because the Android market is cool. Apple has dozens of excessive rules and guidelines that they strictly enforce, so they actually look through the app/code. This takes time, so they usually push the update to Android and iOS at the same time, and Apple takes forever to approve.\n\nedit: of course this doesn't mean that Android doesn't have or enforce guidelines. They just aren't ridiculous like Apple's." ]

[ "conjecture:\n\nEnglish speakers don't watch the shows, so they are not translated.\n\nThe shows are not translated because English speakers do not watch the shows." ]

[ "Cop here. Truly \"bad\" cops don't want to get caught. If they're doing something shady, they're probably hiding it.\n\nA couple other factors:\nPolice departments operate independently from one another. I have nothing to do with the department in the next town over, let alone across County or state lines. \n\nEven within the same department, you'll have your own beat. You'll go most of the day without interacting with your fellow officers. I work in a department with over 1700 sworn officers. I see about 10 of them a day, and only 2 or 3 of them will I actuality go on calls with in my response area.", "I'm quite interested in seeing what people will answer. I've been asking essentially the same question for year, and never have gotten a reasonable answer.\n\nIf the bad cops are just a small percentage, 'a few rotten apples', then why don't good cops (who must therefore make up the vast majority of the police) not do something about them??\n\nNon-answers include:\n-they are afraid of not having backup if they report bad cops. \n Of course, if bad cops are such a small number that really shouldn't matter.\n\n-what can they do?\n Report suspicious behaviour by fellow cops. Arrest fellow cops who break the law. Testify against them.\n\nEtc.", "I suspect that LE fall under a very base, human heuristic that is often referred to as in/out group behavior. (_URL_0_). The idea is that humans have learned through evolution that people in our family, friends, community are more important than strangers. It is a very powerful instinct that can act as a bias in a morally complex situation. While there is no doubt a myriad of factors that contribute to people in a group behaving one way or the other - seeing themselves as a single, unified entity reduces the desire to see one of their own removed under bad circumstances. Speaking for myself I would suspect this plays a very large role in the unspoken community rules within a police force.", "I would say there are two different answers to this. 1. They do get rid of the bad apples. The media hypes up the bad to give you a misrepresentation. If the media started to focus on off limit discussions like black on black crime, you'd find that the police are all saints.\n\nThey do protect their own. This really changes from one police dept to the next. Say you have a chief in one town who hired his knucklehead son. The son is a POS who never should have been a cop. He has 3 dwi and they never made the paper until he hurt someone on the third one. How can a cop do his job without a license? He was protected by his dad. This is a result of the wrong people in power as the other police officers dont want to bring attention to this due to the fact that their jobs might be in jeopardy.\n\nJust like police work, this answer isn't a black and white issue, its all gray.", "I've actually put a lot of thought into this. When you work in such an intense line of duty, you develop a certain fraternal bond with your fellow officers so any accusations against one of them may seem like a threat to all of you. Also, if it becomes common place to throw officers accused of wrongdoing under the bus there becomes a fear that other officers could be wrongly accused and suffer the same treatment.\n\nI agree that bad policing exists and it would do a lot of good if police as individuals or their unions would acknowledge this, but I also respect the factors I mentioned are at play.", "Because the percentage of bad apples is a lot larger than we think and the percentage of contamination by those bad apples is even higher?" ]

[ "There is a very fine balancing act between avoiding government censorship and persecution of political groups on the one hand, and allowing desctructive elements to fester until they become too big to deal with on the other.\n\nIf you give the government powers to imprison people for holding certain political beliefs, how is that fundamentally different from what the Gestapo did? And who gets to say exactly which political opinions are allowed and which are not?\n\nBack in the Germany of the 1930s, the popular belief was that it was the Communists who were the dangerous, subversive elements, and the Nazis promised to deal with them. It was when the Reichstag building burned down -- apparently as part of a Communist plot, although nobody can ever be 100% sure of that -- that the Nazis were able to push through their Enabling Act, a kind of emergency legislation, ostensibly to eliminate this threat to society, but which in fact made it possible to effectively ban all other political parties and dismantle Germany's entire democratic system.\n\nFor obvious reasons, modern Germany is very keen to ensure that extremist political groups can never do such a thing ever again, and so they had to come up with a way to ban such organisations without giving a future government the power to eliminate all opposition in exactly the way the Nazis did.\n\nGermany's approach takes on this form: first, the German constitution contains lots of written guarantees of certain basic human rights. Many clauses are subject to what's called an \"eternity clause\", meaning they can never be repealed or weakened for any reason whatever, and they must be included in any new constitution that succeeds the current one.\n\nThen, there is a ban on any political party that is, in the language of German law, \"antagonistic to the constitution\". That is, if your political movement can be shown to be actively working towards undermining the constitution, it can be banned.\n\nThe bar is set quite high, though. The authorities have to gather a *lot* of evidence, and this often means infiltrating the movement. There was an embarrassing case a couple of years ago, when some agents had infiltrated such a movement so successfully, that they rose up through the ranks and some of them were partly responsible for the very policies that were supposed to be evidence of the party's anti-constitutional aims. (It's difficult to blame the agents -- after all, they really didn't want to break cover.)\n\nThen the constitutional court has to study the evidence, and decide whether or not to withdraw the organisation's status as a political party.\n\nBut even if you ban the organisation, you can't change the minds of the individuals. They will simply regroup, and join or found a new party, taking care to ensure that in public at least, they stay on the right side of the law.\n\nThe real key to this, though, is not the nuclear option of suspending basic rights for certain classes of people. It seems to be education, and here Germany has an advantage. All German schoolchildren are taught about the rise of the Nazis and WW2, and in particular they are all made to visit a concentration camp. The message \"Never again\" is drummed into them from a very early age.", "Simply expressing support would not be sufficient to try someone for treason even back in war times. That would be deeply unpopular, but not treason unless you'd do something *material* in regards to the enemy war effort.\n\nFor example, you can look at organizations like German American Bund or British Union of Fascists. In general, their organized activities were prohibited during the war and leaders were detained for various issues; but the detained people, as a rule, were not tried for treason and the vast majority of their members (tens of thousands of them!) weren't tried for anything ever.", "That is not true. The Nazis in the US (yes we had a Nazis Party) were not tried for treason in the US during WWII simply for holding their beliefs. If that was not sufficient for it during time of war it most assuredly is not now.", "You fight ideas *WITH* ideas. \n\nProviding they are not breaking laws or actually hurting people, public shunning, mockery, ridicule, and shaming, are pretty effective ways to change non violent behavior, attitudes, and beliefs. \n\nThere were some pretty effective social movements based on those principles.", "Nazi Germany does not exists. Nazis were a political party and the US has first amendment rights so you can't do anything to them. As long as they are peaceful that is.\n\nYou may not like or agree with what they say or do but that's why we have the first amendment. You have to accept the good with the bad otherwise not allowing people to express their own views would be a form of fascism", "In the US, the legal standard for treason is very high. Expressing support is not treason, and US explicitly protected by the First Amendment.\n\nI recommend reading the Constitution. It isn't very long.", "I'm assuming some sort of combination of the 1st amendment and not committing any war crimes.", "All these people are quoting free expression.\n\nMe, I think it's good they still exist. They're like a showcase example of a dumb idea, just so we can remember why it's a dumb idea and to never pursue it again.", "If my aunt had balls, she'd be my uncle. \n\n1. We're not at war with Germany anymore\n2. First Amendment protects peoples' rights to be shitheads\n3. Treason is defined as \"*Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason*\" < -- walking around with a swastika flag and tiki torch doesn't count\n4. Allowed.", "If you don't act upon it (or at least within the boundaries of the law) you can believe what you wish. We do live in freedom.", "The American Bund party was the U.S. equivalent of the Nazi party in the 1930s. But by 1941, the House Committee on Un-American Activities were active in denying any Nazi-sympathetic organization the ability to operate freely during World War II.", "Because you cannot say freedom of speech and actions is true while prosecuting someone for saying and believing things that you deem wrong.", "I could try to explain it, but it has already been done in such an excellent way, I dare not ruin it.\n\n\n_URL_0_" ]

[ "Before chemistry was really a thing, everyone thought that graphite was a type of lead, probably because it's so soft.", "There's an important kind of lead ore called galena that looks a lot like graphite, and miners knew all about the lead ore- which often yields silver, too, which is why they cared about it- long before anyone paid any attention to graphite. So graphite is to galena roughly what fool's gold is to real gold, and it had a similar sort of name, black lead, until someone renamed it in the late 1700s." ]

[ "Can you imagine being hit so hard you fly out of your shoes??" ]

[ "They are used as *filler* where the tune requires a note, but the singer doesn't have anything more to say.\n\nAn excellent lyricist will try to adjust the wording so that not too many of these are needed.", "Good filler that can make even the most unintelligible lyrics sound intelligible. [Example](_URL_0_)" ]

[ "I know of a few websites that use servers that are outside of the US, specifically in regions in which they could give fuck-all about US Copyright laws. Think small eastern Euro countries, and the middle east. I personally met someone who ran an operation remotely in Saudi Arabia, from the US, and literally had $25k dropped into his bank account overnight after three or four months of successful operation. It's insanely lucrative if you know and understand basic webdev and some programming.", "Generally they only link to other places that host the content (whether legally or illegally) so they aren't breaking any laws" ]

[ "In many Christian circles, this is the analogy that applies:\n\nImagine a target, with three rings. The center, the bullseye, are the core values. I call them \"primaries\". It's what defines Christianity. Without starting a debate, I'll say that some people disagree on what goes in the middle. These people we'd call heretics (an extreme example would be to say that Christians pray to Allah - obviously wrong religion). \n\nIn the next outer ring, the middle, we have \"secondaries\" - this contains issues like speaking in tongues, eating shellfish/pork, Saturday vs Sunday Sabbath, etc. We can disagree and have discussion on these, but it doesn't make you less Christian. \n\nIn the outermost ring, everything else falls. This would be issues like watching R-rate movies, wearing jewelry made of gold, and non-related topics like playing sports or driving race cars. We use our secondaries and primaries to express our outermost issues.\n\nWe have unity in primaries, liberty in secondaries, and charity in all. \n\nSource: I am a Christian (actually a Messianic Jew)." ]

[ "It breaks the molecules that make the color, and the byproducts don't have any specific color. The atoms are still there, but formed into different molecules." ]

[ "The egg of a donor animal is obtained. The nucleus is sucked out of the egg, and the nucleus from an adult animal that is desired to be cloned is injected. The egg then will either expire or start to divide. If division is allowed to continue, the embryo may be able to be implanted into a host surrogate mother animal, and the clone then gestates as a normal embryo does. Gestation complete, it is born. \n\nTada, clone.\n\nTypically, all the animal parts are the same animal, but not always. An example of a 12 day old experiment with cow egg and human nucleus happened, for example.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt is important to note that this does not guarantee a psychological/mental clone, but a physical one. The experiences of the clone, unless *exactly duplicated in every way to the original*, will mean the clone will wind up with a different personalty traits and/or knowledge (say, one dog can sit on command, while the cloned one won't know that if not taught.)\n\nHope that helps!\n\nEdit: Personality bit.", "You take an egg cel from an animal, put the genetic info from the donor animal in that cell and have it gestate normally.\n\nYou wind up with an animal that's nearly identical to the one who donated the genetic material.\n\nI do say nearly because there are a lot of diffrent things besides genetics that determine what an animal is going to be like. Amongst these are the conditions during gestation, moreover the genetic material donated by the 'mother' so to speak will have changed a little due to imperfectiosn in the cell division process or due to radiation and other environmental factors." ]

[ "Well, you have rather easy window into this:\n\nTry comparing languages from other places around the Earth. Do they resemble each other?\n\nTurns out, even if you have people who repeatedly talked to each other, shared environment, and their language was born from the same original language, the languages within just the span of hundreds of years diverge greatly.\n\nLanguages sharing roots basically means that the language you speak and language they speak were originally the same language, but both developed in other direction. For example, English is a Germanic language. A long time ago speakers of that Germanic language started living in various places in Europe, and that Germanic language then developed, due to various circumstances, into English, German, Swedish, Norse, etc. Germanic languages belong to wider group of Indo-European languages, which also contains Latin and other Romance languages, like Spanish. Originally these were a single tongue that was just split.\n\nBut there are other language families. Within Europe, Finno-Ugric language group is entirely unrelated to Indo-European languages. Japanese belongs seemingly to the language family of its own, it doesn't seem to share similarities with any other major languages. Africa has languages that for example utilize that clicking sound you can do with your tongue, resulting in massively different kind of language. Etc etc.\n\nBasically, even if you have humans, living on the same continent, that couple hundred or thousand years ago were speaking the same tongue, the language they speak today doesn't necessarily resemble much at all each other.\n\nEven further, if you're curious about English, you know how Shakespeare has his curious style of writing? That style is kinda what defines \"Early Modern English\". But turns out, English just couple hundred years earlier was almost unintelligible to modern speaker, \n\nHere for example is a Bible passage, in English, from 1380's:\n\n > And it was don aftirward, and Jhesu made iorney by citees and castelis, prechinge and euangelysinge þe rewme of God, and twelue wiþ him; and summe wymmen þat weren heelid of wickide spiritis and syknessis, Marie, þat is clepid Mawdeleyn, of whom seuene deuelis wenten out, and Jone, þe wyf of Chuse, procuratour of Eroude, and Susanne, and manye oþere, whiche mynystriden to him of her riches.\\\n\nHere's Lord's Prayer in Old English, from about 1000 years ago:\n\n > Fæder ūre þū þe eart on heofonum,\n\n > Sī þīn nama ġehālgod.\n\n > Tōbecume þīn rīċe,\n\n > ġewurþe þīn willa, on eorðan swā swā on heofonum.\n\n > Ūre ġedæġhwāmlīcan hlāf syle ūs tō dæġ,\n\n > and forġyf ūs ūre gyltas, swā swā wē forġyfað ūrum gyltendum.\n\n > And ne ġelǣd þū ūs on costnunge, ac ālȳs ūs of yfele.\n \n > Sōþlīċe.\n\nThe same read out loud: _URL_0_", "All the responses you've gotten so far are addressing this from a (human) linguistics point of view, which is probably the most scientific approach. That being said, xenobiology is more fun because the entire field is made of speculation and magic.\n\nSo, short answer: probably not.\n\nLong answer: the development of spoken language occurred, like all of human evolution, as a profound coincidence whose selective causes are still not certain. However, most animals - humans included - only accomplish a fraction of their communication through vocalizations, if any at all. Body language is the far more universal means of information transfer.\n\nOutside the animal kingdom, however, chemical secretions dominate almost every other form of life. Cells release chemicals to signal other cells in their population to divide or grow (or to avoid doing so). Plants and fungi communicate their health to their neighbors using airborne compounds. None of these forms of life use sound-based communication to any significant degree.\n\nFurthermore, while no forms of biological life that we know of use it, there is also electronic and radio communication, which humans use - by way of technology - to transmit vast sums of information. A different biosphere could potentially evolve this as a physiological capacity.\n\nEven ignoring the many, many theoretically possible means of information transfer that are supported by physics but did not evolve on Earth, there are clearly a lot of ways for organic beings to talk to each other, and most of them don't involve vibrating some chords in your throat and modulating the resulting noise with your lips and tongue.\n\nThere is also the fact that human language contains universal features because it is a creation of the human brain, and all human brains have certain structural and functional similarities. An alien species that did not evolve abstract reasoning in the mostly relational form we did might have entirely different - or absent - notions of syntax, grammar, and meaning. Even if you could construct a vocabulary out of some alien language composed of pheromones or magnetic pulses, there's no guarantee the resulting translation would be meaningful to you at all.\n\ntl;dr- we have absolutely no idea how similar any hypothetical extraterrestrial life might be to us, but the possibility space is vast, so the likelihood of any human-like language is very slim." ]

[ "issues with the line. there is noise on the line when you call. when you hang up an phone it makes a new connection and this time no issue with the connection. \n\nit can be either the person you call or your phone line causing this issue", "They could also be talking to you on speaker phone, so your friend's phone's microphone picks up your voice that it's creating. Happens to me all the time." ]

[ "The exact details vary from country to country, but basically the Prime Minister (or Chancellor, or similar term in other countries) is the head of *government*, while the President (or, in the case of countries like the UK, which are constitutional monarchies, the Monarch) is head of *state*. The US President combines both roles, but -- if things work the way they're designed to work -- his powers are limited by Congress as part of the system of \"checks and balances\", which also involve the courts in the three branches of government and the separation of powers.\n\nUsually, the PM is the leader of the largest party represented in Parliament -- so one of the elected representatives. He also chairs the Cabinet, which is also usually composed of elected representatives. From an American perspective, this means that much of the Executive branch overlaps with the Legislative branch.\n\nThe PM chairs the Cabinet, which implements laws and also formulates official government policy, so the Prime Minister pretty much sets the agenda. However, most things the PM and Cabinet do is subject to debates and votes in Parliament, which includes the opposition.\n\nThe role of a President is often ceremonial; and in a modern constitutional monarchy, the role of the monarch is also ceremonial. The British monarch, for example, has pretty much no say at all in the political system. In theory, the British Queen could refuse to sign an Act of Parliament into law; in practice, this would provoke a constitutional crisis and probably spell the end of the British monarchy. She does, though, represent Britain internationally, and holds some important posts, such as Head of the Commonwealth of Nations, which is a very useful platform for about 50 countries to discuss issues of mutual interest.\n\nIn a republic, the President might have a few actual powers. This might be emergency powers, such taking charge temporarily if the government collapses. The German President, for example, reviews all legislation he is asked to sign, and can refer it back to Parliament if he believes the proper procedure was not followed, or to the Constitutional Court if he believes it is not compatible with the constitution. The French President has more wide-reaching powers, and is allowed to actually direct government policy if (and only if) the majority of the Assembly sides with him.", "**Similarities between the Aus and US political systems:**\n\nBoth systems have 2 houses of representatives that have to be voted in, one based on population size (e.g., roughly 1 rep per million) and one house based on states (e.g., 4 per state) Nb: these example numbers are bullshit I plucked from thin air. Do not repeat them thinking they are real, they're not even alt facts. \n\nAll legislation must be passed through both houses.\n\nBoth have an independent judiciary. \n\n**Differences:**\n\nThe Prime Minister is the leader of the majority party. The President is semi-directly chosen by the people. \n\n*Major difference right here*\nThe government in Australia is drawn from the representatives selected by the people, *including the Prime Minister*. In the US the President choses who fills the roles of their government, but they can't be from the representatives. This is what people are talking about with the executive branch being separate in the US. Australia merges the executive and legislative. The US have a third group of government bureaucracy that Australia does not. \n\nAustralia's election cycle is less fixed. The PM can call for an early election in certain situations. The US has fixed terms. Other minor differences in election times and how long positions are held for. \n\nThe party's are less partisan in the US (yes, you read that right). From what I've been told (and may be wrong) this is particularly true of Aus. Labor party where voting against the party is basically not allowed. Australia also has more minor parties than the US. \n\n**With respect to the leaders**\n\nUS president is the head of state. Aus PM is not (although for all intents and purposes, they are) the Queen is. \n\nThe President is voted in semi-indirectly via the collegiate system. The PM is not voted in directly. Instead the PM is the leader of the party. \n\nOne of the quirks of being drawn from the party is the PM is responsible for a small electorate seat as well as the nation. The President is only responsible for the nation. \n\nUS has a 2-term/8-year limit. THere's no limit on the Aus PM. \n\nThe President may be impeached by Congress. The Aus PM can be kicked out by their own party or by the Queen. \n\nUS president can veto a law (which can be over-ridden by the upper and lower houses). \n\nBecause the executive branch is separated in the US, the president cannot enter a new law to be passed. He can only work within pre-exiting laws (which is what the executive orders are, they saying how the government intends to act. This is also why half of Trumps will be overturned, they'll be found unlawful). The Aus PM can and does involve themselves in making new laws. \n\nThe PM appoints people to the highest courts. The President appoints people that then need to be approved by congress. \n\nSimilarly for the executive branch. That's the people like Minister of Defence or Foreign Affairs. The PM picks them from the house of representatives and that's it. The President must have them ratified by congress.", "Within the limitations of their own countries I know the prime minister of the U.K. Is more powerful than the president of the USA. The US system has checks and balances installed into every aspect of the us government where as the PM as the leader of the legislature can combine them with their executive powers. In short the US president is more powerful internationally due to the might of the us's economy and military etc, but in terms of getting things done within their own country a Westminster prime minister is more powerful." ]

[ "take it that a human body has 2 sets of genes.\n\nWhen a baby is made, half the genes are from the mother and other half is from the father.\n\nThese genes make proteins which help our body work. However, there are occasionally some errors in the genes which ends up making defective/too much/too little proteins which give rise to diseases. \n\nSome of these diseases require 2 faulty set of genes in order to manifest. So if daddy has a defective gene but mommy contributes a normal set, the disease does not manifest clinically (or is milder).\n\nIf there are many generations of inbreeding, the set of defective genes are kept within the same family tree; there is no new genetic input from a different family and thus the probability of having a child with 2 sets of defective genes increase. This increases the risk of diseases, out of which some may feature a lower IQ/brain malformations.", "Everyone has a few bad genes. Luckily, we have two copies of each gene, and most of the time you need to bad ones to have a problem.\n\nWhen you have kids, both parents bring their bad genes to the table. Since they are likely to be *different* bad genes, their offspring likely won't have any problems.\n\nBut when the parents are related, they are more likely to have the same bad genes, meaning the kids are more likely to get to copies. This can lead to a number of genetic disorders, including those that impact mental development.\n\nThere is some confirmation bias in play, too. inbreeding is more likely to be noted when it results in a problem, and would go unnoticed otherwise.\n\nAlso, having kids with a cousin, or even a sibling isn't that likely to be a problem. It takes multiple generations of inbreeding for genetic problems to become endemic. Societies where that happens tend to be remote and undeveloped. The people might seem \"stupid\" when they are merely different or less educated." ]

[ "If you are having a scary dream your body may start producing Adrenaline, or other hormones that help you deal with stressful situations.\n\n\nEven though you have woken up, those hormones are still active in your system and the heightened sense of awareness sticks around until your hormone levels return to normal." ]

[ "I'm a little confused as to what exactly you want to know. Are you talking about the stages of a romantic relationship, and if so are you asking for \"signals\" or are you asking for general stages, like hand-holding to kissing to sex?" ]

[ "A) You need a large array of solar powers to provide full coverage to the home (large initial cost, requires a lot of surface area, potentially takes away from the visual appeal of the home)\n\nB) until very recently, there hasn't really been any cost-effective battery solution for homes (Tesla Powerwall is helping to change this)\n\nC) Most people who live in developed countries don't have to worry about power outages because they are extremely rare.\n\nIn these countries, it doesn't make sense to install solar panels just as an emergency backup... you would only do the install if your intention was to go off-grid so you don't have to pay a monthly electric utility bill (and/or because you can sell excess electricity back to the grid / power company to potentially earn money).", "You can indeed live off the grid, with no connection to the power company. This does add a fairly significant cost to the upfront price to build the home. In addition, there are maintenance and upkeep ongoing costs.\n\nThe way the current numbers work out it's rarely beneficial from an economic standpoint to cut off all ties to the power grid but some people do it for reasons other than money.", "Costs and technology and maintenance. Solars panels have only recently gotten down to a price level that, in some areas, can make it worthwhile for consumers to own. Batteries, however, are still catching up. Even with the new Tesla Powerwalls, I've seen it calculated that, at best, the cost of storing electricity comes down to $0.12 per kWh. Which is the ideal case, but it will be more. Since the average US consumer pays about $0.11 per kWh, the math doesn't add up. Add in the cost of the solar per kWh, and it probably makes more since for most people to only have the solar panels and sell back the excess electricity back to the grid." ]

[ "The chemistry that keeps us going is based on carbon-chain molecules. \n\nWe do use water for some reactions but most of it is just solvent for molecules to float around and react in. \n\nIt's somewhat like why we say tea is a plant-based beverage even though it's mostly water. The interesting part isn't the water.", "That would be kind of like calling a computer \"metal and fiberglass based\".\n\nThe semiconductor chips that make a computer a computer are a small fraction of its total mass, but they are where the action is. Everything else is there to allow those chips to do their thing." ]

[ "Because that's the top speed you can safely do, assuming ideal conditions (at least that's the premise).\n\nWhen it's raining, snowing, cold or dark, this changes it from being ideal conditions. It's not safe to drive at that speed any more. Worse it is, the slower you need to go, especially if your visibility is impaired.\n\nToo much variation in the weather to set a \"minimum speed\".\n\nNot sure about you are, but here there is a 5% tolerance on our 100kph speed limit - 105 before they'll ping you. (which quite funnily is, in mph, equating to 63mph in a 60)", "The speed limit is the maximum allowable speed. [In areas that low speeds have been identified to be of particular hazard a minimum speed posting is made](_URL_0_) This is not particularly common because it is rare that slower speeds present a significant risk to others if people maintain the rule of slower traffic keeping to the right....or the alternate rule enforced in some states of Left lane for passing only. In any case vehicles traveling far below the speed limit can be cited for impeding the flow of traffic...even if a minimum speed sign is not posted.", "So the highway I commute on is regularly empty at night, and standard speed limits apply so it's a 55mph zone. During my commute I regularly come to a complete stop.\n\nSo the speed range should be 0-55mph right? How is that any better than a speed limit? On smaller roads people regularly have to stop when making left turns to yield to oncoming traffic, that may require traffic behind them to stop, so zero mph needs to be legal on all streets." ]

[ "Simply put, gravity. And distubances in the uniformity of the universe, which caused there to be larger clumps than in other places.\n\nThe universe, at the very beginning, was all energy. But then the universe cooled as it expanded (much like an expansion valve in an airconditioning system makes happen.) \n\nThis cooling caused matter condensation on the order of quarks, leptons, bosons, that sort of thing... and their anti-matter counterparts.\n\nThese annihilated each other. For matter/anti-matter touching does that. Instant energy. Nothing left behind. \n\nBut for whatever reason the anti-matter did not outnumber the matter condensate, and so that's the universe we have today, a matter one.(To an outside observer, it might be the 'anti-matter' universe, for we simply label what we see from our perspective. But that's another discussion.)\n\nAnyway, that caused ripples and disparate distribution in the smoothness of the matter, and because matter has gravity and also an electromagnetic charge to it, this 'clumpiness' caused denser places than others. \n\nThese denser clumps of what later condensated into Hydrogen (H) became big enough to let there be light, as many large and in charge stars came to be born. These stars were also in bigger clumps, and so they became galaxies. Probably, possibly, just irregular globular cluster types rather than any spiral or such, at first.\n\nThen the stars, so heavy, so fast burning and blue, blew the hell up and spewed enriched guts (one of my favorite DeGrasse Tysonisims) and energy shockwaves all over the place, causing further disturbances in the smoothness of the universe. \n\nThese then shoved other clouds of matter, hydrogen laden, to be disturbed, form more stars, repeating the process. Eventually, these clouds of matter also came to have the other elements like silicon, gold, etc, that would allow rocky planets to form about these stars, all due to the over and over cycle of stars blowing up and making more of the heavier elements past Iron (Fe).\n\nAnd further, it caused more clumping of matter, and that into stars, but those stars were already centered around themselves and their clouds, so galaxies. And then galaxies ate/merged with other galaxies. And so on.\n\nBut it all, ALL can be traced back to gravity, energy, electromagnetics, and the lumpiness in the distribution of the matter of the universe. The chaos that begats some semblance of order. \n\nSpeaking of which, I don't find the universe to be very orderly, to be honest. It's about as chaotic as you can get, my opinion.", "This doesn't answer your question (it seems to have been answered quite nicely already anyway) but you should read Bill Bryson's History of Nearly Everything. It's so good/funny/helpful on this subject matter." ]

[ "Ok, im not a big expert but for some reason I'm not seeing most Reddit users as being highly into sports. So basically, just like with every other corporation we have owners (own the team), workers (players), investors (other corporations), and consumer (us). I will break it down as best I can that way. Like all businesses the owners make contracts with the workers. The owners also have a contract that goes over all these small contracts. This contract designates the big things, (percentage of profits, advertising, how long a season is.\n**Owners**- (Again, not certain on % but I am quite close). Before the end of the last big contract owners made about 46-48% of total money from the NFL while players made 54-52. The owners did not like this. They are the bosses. This is their investment. So for this negotiation they said they want a higher percentage. Also, each year we have a 16 game season with 4 preseason games. Another concession is that the owners wanted a 2 game preseason and an 18 game season.\n**Workers**- The players. Obviously like that they make over half. I mean come on, they are the talent. Without the talent, you have no team to keep making you (owner) money. So they aren't to happy that the owners want more. I believe they weren't for or against the season increase.\n**Investors**- These are corporations like Pepsi, or Coke, trying to buy advertising for their company. They want owners to have more money because then the owners might charge less for advertising rights at their stadiums (long shot, not gonna happen). Now the 18 game season, that is what they are interested in. They want this increase. 2 more real games is gold to them. More advertising= more business=more money. Also, corps with deals, such as Pepsi, who sell only their pop during games, make more money. A longer season means more money must be spent to keep their business longer.\n**Consumer**- This is really based on your feelings of football. If you really like it, a longer season is good. Now the profit % could affect us. We attend games. If the owners lose money, they are going to charge more for pretty much everything to make up for it. This is bad. Our only concession here is that if they lose money but get a longer season we might not see a big increase as 2 more regular games means 2 more games with a full set of seats, selling merchandise, food, etc.\nHope this helps. I haven't had a ton of time to see the final results. I just know it ended. If its not answered in the morning I will do some research and get you a final result. Hope this helped.", "One answer can be found in the other thread created here \n\n_URL_0_\n\nAs for the outcome, I haven't found much of a resource on what has been created but a few things like \n\nRookie Wage system has been set up so that draft picks will be paid a certain amount depending on where they were drafted. \n\nI also believe the rights of refusal which is a teams ability to choose three of the teams free agents and match any offer given to them. So for example, if Chad Ochocinco was a restricted free agent looking for a team, and the New England Patriots agreed with Chad that they'd pay him 30 million for 2 years, the Bengals could match the pay and keep Chad despite him wanting to play for the Patriots. \n\nOther outcomes include each team's salary cap for their players being 120 million. (the number might be wrong but that is one gist). \n\nThere are many more but those are the main ones I know of." ]

[ "They can and did. ISO standard units called the SI units. Most everyone doing serious business is using them for most everything and have been for a while, non-SI units are just used in day-to-day stuff because people have preferences and it's generally not worth it to, for example, force Canadians to actually measure their mass in kilograms.", "Aside from Liberia, the USA, and maybe one other country, we're pretty much all metric now.", "Y'all are just proving my point. Everyone agrees on seconds, minutes and hours but there are still some hold outs for other measurements." ]

[ "\"We\" is comprised of tech-savvy desktop/laptop users. Mobile users and most internet users don't use adblock, and their revenue makes it worthwhile.", "Adding to /r/CatboyMac, only SOME OF YOU block ads. And MANY of you skip them. But the part of the population with the most money to spend often doesn't fit within this group.\n\nEven if you do the latter, a well-crafted ad still can accomplish its purpose even if all it does is get a few seconds on YouTube before you kill it.\n\nIt could show a specific symbol, sometimes not even a logo, such as the construction site and fast-talkin' he-man narrator that is associated with most ads for Ford trucks, or it could be a tiny snatch of ba-da-da-DA-daaah music, or the dancing coloured Apple silhouettes, or it could be some celebrity that you see later on the same full-version ad on TV where you don't skip it.\n\nAds often do more than push a specific product. They reinforce a brand, and continuously raise awareness, and if they can do that in even a few seconds (or much better if you watch the whole duration), they're worth the money even if they don't reach a sizeable percentage of the target population.", "Youtube revives [1 billion](_URL_2_) UNIQUE page visits a month.\n\nAdBlock [(The most popular Chrome adblocking app)](_URL_1_) has only 15 million users.\n\nEven if we ASSUME that the rest of the adbock apps on chrome increase this number by 10 million, then multiply this amount by 4 for the different browsers (IE, Firefox, Safari, Google Ultron), then you still have an aggregate 900 million unique Non-AdBlocking Youtube visitors each month. I'm also willing to bet that close to 95% of those viewers use Youtube more than once a month. This is enough traffic to give youtube, at least, a yearly [$5.6 billion in ad revenue](_URL_0_)\n\nEven so, in 2012, adblocking apps across the board only cost google [$887 milion](_URL_3_), while they also managed to generate $50 billion in ad revenue. Clearly, the amount of money lost is not as great as one might expect.\n\nedit: grammer; speling, and muh phrasing." ]

[ "One cat goes into a box, this cat is [Schrödinger's cat](_URL_1_). \n\nTo make a long story short....\n\n > He proposed a scenario with a cat in a sealed box, wherein the cat's life or death depended on the state of a subatomic particle. According to Schrödinger, the Copenhagen interpretation implies that the cat remains both alive and dead (to the universe outside the box) until the box is opened.\n\nThe reason \"the cat's life or death depended on the state of a subatomic particle,\" is because of the [Copenhagen interpretation](_URL_0_) of Quantum Mechanics. Frankly, I can't explain this like you're a 5 year old. It's hard, mathy shit. But a non-explanation is...\n\n > It holds that quantum mechanics does not yield a description of an objective reality but deals only with probabilities... According to the interpretation, the act of measurement causes the set of probabilities to immediately and randomly assume only one of the possible values.\n\nSo, how are these related? The cat in the box only dies when the state of the subatomic particle is known to you. Until then, it's both alive and dead.\n\n\nWhy is this important? Because another theory says every possible outcome happens in one universe or another. This means every time you open the box, the universe \"splits.\" In one universe, the cat dies. In another, the cat lives.\n\nSo if you repeat the experiment a billion times, in *one* universe, you've got an immortal cat. Perhaps that cat's consciousness is, in itself, immortal in its own universe. I mean, living a billion times seems pretty unlikely, right? That's more of a philosophical position than scientific one, though.", "Some people think that when something happens, new versions of reality are made, one for each possible outcome of the thing happening. For example, you flip a coin. In one universe, the coin comes up heads. In another universe it comes up tails. Now say you decide to kill yourself. You get a gun and point it at your head and pull the trigger. In one universe, it goes off and you die. In another, the gun jams and you live. Since the only universe you are alive in is the one where you live, you experience that universe. Therefore, according to you, you do not die. This happens every time you have a chance of dying. According to you, you can never die.", "The game Alan Wake has a video titled [Quantum Suicide](_URL_2_). It's more about quantum immortality and I'm not sure it'll explain anymore but it's pretty cool to watch and make you think." ]