Datasets:

Pavithree

/

eli5

like 1

{ "a_id": [ "cnqg23r", "cnqgepm" ], "score": [ 8, 7 ], "text": [ "salt water kills cells. you kill off more bacteria cells than your cells. your body will grow new cells to replace the dead ones. dead bacteria doesn't regrow.", "Several things:\n\n1.) Salt water has more solved ions than the water in your cells and in bacteria. This means that water from the cells \"wants\" to move outwards due to a process called osmosis. This creates a gradient of pressure that pathogens have to overcome\n\n2.) Because of this it can also dehydrate cells, which generally hurts isolated bacteria more than your body cells which can replenish their water from your bloodstream. This doesn't outright kill most bacteria but can slow their reproduction\n\n3.) It is simply a washing effect to remove infectious material. It's not a good idea to keep it constantly wet though.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7dnrhc" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Possibly of interest -\n\n_URL_0_ " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/tetrapod-zoology/2012/11/29/amazing-swimming-proboscis-monkey-part-i/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8dls5g" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Think of normal decimal number systems. 0 through 9. When you get more than 9, you just increment to 10 and keep going until you get to 99, then you just add another 1 in front, etc.\n\nImgur and other sites like _URL_0_, instead of limiting themselves to just numbers will include letters. After 9 comes a, b, c, etc. Then after z comes A, B, C, etc. One you hit Z, the next number becomes 10. After 1Z, you go to 20. After ZZ, you go to 100. Etc, etc.\n\nThis lets them account for really huge numbers of images while still allowing short IDs. In a system like I described, ZZZZ is the equivalent to 916,132,832." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "bit.ly" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coe5kv2", "coe5oxd", "coe6fdl", "coegzw9" ], "score": [ 11, 3, 4, 7 ], "text": [ "There are 2 sources\n\nThe first is the leftover heat from the formation of the planet. As rocks smashed together their gravitational potential energy was converted to heat. This made the planet very hot when forming but this energy would have escaped by now if it were the only source and the interior of the planet wouldn't be near as hot as it is today. \n\nThe second source is the decay of unstable nuclear isotopes. The decay of these isotopes releases energy which keeps the interior of the planet hot to this day. ", " > seemingly come from nothing?\n\nTidal forces aren't the only thing powering our core, but they certainly don't come from nothing. Tidal forces are due to the earth being on a gradient of the Sun's/Moon's gravitational field, thus imbalanced forced cause work to be done on moving parts of the earth, causing heat to be generated. But this isn't coming from nothing, the work done heating the Earth is taken out of the kinetic energy of system.", "The Earth's core is crystallizing (solid inner core is growing at the expense of the outer liquid core)- this releases heat (enthalpy of crystallization)- temperature stays the same as there is a phase change in progress and energy is released into the mantle - driving convection. \n\nAs /u/TwoDogKnight noted there is a lot of leftover heat from the formation of the planet during the conversion from gravitational potential energy to heat- particularly from when the Earth material Differentiated into a silicate mantle and iron core and from Theia (Moon) Impact. Think of the outer core as a large storage cell for this heat. ", "This really depends on the planet:\n\n- Earth & Venus appear to derive the bulk of their internal heat from decay of radioactive isotopes, specifically Uranium, Thorium, and Potassium, though early in their history Aluminum-26 was a very important source for the initial melt of our cores.\n\n- Mars & Mercury have essentially no internal heat at this point - being significantly smaller than Earth and Venus, they have a much larger surface area-to-volume ratio, and lost most of their internal heat early on.\n\n- Jupiter's source of internal heat is its initial heat of formation. As all the hydrogen & helium in its interior is gravitationally compressed, this releases heat. This is eventually radiated away, which causes the planet to compress further, and so on.\n\n- Saturn still has some internal heat of formation similar to Jupiter, but with its lower mass, after 4 billion years this can't provide enough heat compared to what we see radiating away from the planet. Its believed this excess heat is generated by the physical separation of hydrogen from helium - as helium sinks down towards the core, potential energy is liberated and released as heat.\n\n- Uranus appears to have no internal source of heat whatsoever. It is unknown why this is, though some have hypothesized that whatever caused it to flip on its side may have liberated a lot of internal heat very quickly.\n\n- Neptune has an intense source of internal heat - it radiates 3 times as much heat as it receives from the Sun - and no one knows why. This remains one of the great unsolved problems in planetary science." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "car8rig", "car8u5l", "car8v60", "car949k", "carah2j", "carap1q", "cariylf" ], "score": [ 3, 32, 6, 3, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Always wondered. I believe people get more scared by the 1st digit than the second. Even if the prices are 1cent apart.", "The primary usage is to disguise the fact that the item is $50. If you glance at it quickly, you'll notice the $49 first or even the $4x.xx. This allows the consumer to subconsciously think it is cheaper than previously thought.\n\nSecondly, if you are doing price matching online, the results will show yours first (Wal-Mart prices most items on a .88)\n\nAnother notion is that it helps to distinguish the item (not applicable to coupons or other restrictions) without it being too far off from the list price.", "Because as humans are terrible at numbers. Research has proven over and over again that $49.95 sounds a lot cheaper to us than $50, even if it's only five cents off. And \"sounds a lot cheaper\" means \"more likely to buy\".", "It is a marketing thing. $49.95 mentally seems like less than $50.", "As well as it being a marketing device, this was also introduced to ensure that cashiers register every purchase mad in the cash register. Say I wanted to buy an item priced at $50, the cashier could take my money and pocket it without having to register that a sale has taken place. Making the price $49.95 ensures they open the cash register, to take out 5 cents for your change, thus registering a sale, making sure cashiers don't steal from the shop.", "Its called the psychological price model, forgive me if its been mentioned but I didn't see it in a quick scan of the thread. ", "to insult your intelligence." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crzfd5z" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ " > And on a slightly different but related note, do we know how the Roman practice of giving their legions cognomen as well as numbers started? (Legio II Augusta, Legio VI Ferrate, etc.) From the timeline and from common sense I assume it only began once units acquired a more permanent nature in the first century BC\n\nJust as a note, in point of fact the legions didn't really become permanent until after Actium, when Augustus standardized the number of legions and placed then for the first time in permanent posts. The abolition of the property qualification allowed armies to serve for more than a single campaigning season, but since magisterial terms were limited to a year and a magistrate holding imperium had to lay it down (which meant disbanding his troops, among other things) before rejoining the ranks of the senate, in point of fact armies still only lasted a year. Sulla's law allowing propraetors and proconsuls provincial commands (usually for five years) allowed armies to stay in thr field for much longer periods of time, since every promagisterial governor could rely on being given an army. But at the end of the term, when the governor had to lay down his imperium, troops were expected to be disbanded again--we encounter things like Pompey's refusal to disband his troops, or Caesar's troops who fought throughout thr civil wars illegally, but these are notable exceptions to the rule and are very much illegal. It's not until Augustus that legions are not tied to the inpweium of their commander--because of the emperor's ability to command *imperium maius* those legions can be stationed and maintained for decades at a time. Likewise, it's probably not until Augustus that legions begin being given permanent titles--after all, prior to this it wouldn't have made much sense, given that a legion would only hold its title for a short time before being disbanded, and any new legion raised with the same number was a different legion entirely. There are a few exceptions to that, such as Caesar's Tenth Legion (although I somewhat doubt that their title was made official until much later), but generally it stands\n\nUnfortunately I don't think I can really help with your actual question, although we do have knowledge of contingents being named. You've mentioned things like the Immortals (they're not actually called that in Persian though), but of course we know that Alexander had named contingents of a kind, in the form of formations like the silver shields. The are, though, as you have said, somewhat special outfits, however, and that's not really what you're asking about. Battalions of the Phalanx were considered separate formations as well, and were, unlike many of his contingents (like the Thessalians, or most of his light troops), were not ethnically unique, but I'm not sure whether they had individual names--I doubt it, I've only ever seen them referred to by their commanders' names " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d925oph" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Your question is very broad, maybe try to mention some people you wish to know about to get responses since there are plenty of ways and circumstances women gainer power. The only only one you name is Cleopatra but you do not seem to wish any further info on her rule." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chue6ij" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[This thread should probably answer most of your questions](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1iztzd/how_accurately_do_movies_such_as_master_and/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1e4h03" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Every trade has it's tricks. If they had enough opening in the woods they could have just walked a rope to the other side and pulled it up between the trees. From there depending on the weight of the line you either pull an attachment cable or just the line itself. If the tree growth is to thick they might have tried with a rope gun to launch the rope to the other side. I'm sure there are ways that would still be more economical than a helicopter that others will list." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e5dc0qi" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Various gasses in the air are able to hold onto small amounts of energy (heat) and even though their weight is small, it is still enough for most gasses to keep them relatively grounded. As you go higher and away from the density of gasses, the air becomes thinner and there are less gas molecules retaining heat energy to give to you. You’re closer to the sun, sure, but not much closer at all in big scheme of things. I don’t know the math but if you climb a mountain you’re like maybe .000000001% closer or something, if that makes any sense why it wouldn’t get much hotter. \n\nAgain, space is a vacuum which means that there aren’t any chemical elements in the air to retain this heat energy, so you don’t get any absorption and the space remains untouched." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c48by4d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "No.\n\nFirst of all, you should realize, that expansion of the universe is not the same as movement in space. When we observe some galaxy redshifted, it does not mean, that it is running away from us in the usual sense of this expression. It means, that although our galaxy and that distant galaxy sit at the same local coordinates, the distance between them is increasing, because the formula with which you calculate the distance from coordinates (metric) depends on time. Cosmological redshift is actually related to decrease of energy density in a volume - if you have one photon in one meter cubed, and one meter cubed is bigger today than it was yesterday, then you have less energy in a given volume locally (sounds confusing, I know) and the photon frequency compensates for this energy loss.\n\nHowever, locally the light always moves with speed c, so there is always relation between distance (any kind of [distance](_URL_0_)) and light travel time. When we say, that the expansion is accelerating, we mean, that for objects that are further away, therfore it took more time for light to travel from them to us, this redshift effect is stronger... or in other words, if you assume, that you redshift any photon by a given amount in a given time, then this amount must have been smaller in past (in time when light started to travel from objects further away) than at present.\n\nDefinitions of distances and times in cosmology is quite complicated and iteresting topic on it's own." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distance_measures_%28cosmology%29" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d85cv8e" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Exercising without stretching is like jumping out of a closed window, its possible but chances are its gonna hurt" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c3kyzur", "c3l27c6" ], "score": [ 13, 12 ], "text": [ "Here's a good place to start to answer these questions: [_URL_1_](_URL_1_). For example, here are the effects for [a 100-km rock going 11 km/s crashing into 10 km depth of water](_URL_0_).", "As long as its denser than water, its size and speed are essentially irrelevant. You could drop a pebble out of a rowboat and it would hit the ocean floor.\n\nWhile this may sound pedantic, my point is that your question may not be specific enough." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/cgi-bin/crater.cgi?dist=1000&distanceUnits=1&diam=100000&diameterUnits=1&pdens=&pdens_select=3000&vel=11&velocityUnits=1&theta=90&tdens=1000&wdepth=10000&wdepthUnits=1", "http://impact.ese.ic.ac.uk/ImpactEffects/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dajq249" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "David Glantz's Stalingrad trilogy is about the most well-researched and comprehensive tome I've seen on the subject." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ehvjy8q", "ehvuu5t", "ehvz2z2" ], "score": [ 17, 7, 9 ], "text": [ "Well, interestingly, many people associate the advent of firearms in Japan with the Meiji Restoration in the 1860s and modernization to European standards because that has this really stark contrast in the popular imagination of feudal samurai, these guys wielding katanas and wearing the fierce looking [men-yoroi](_URL_1_), leading the Japanese equivalent of the charge of the light bridge against lines of imperial soldiers wielding rifled firearms and wearing european style uniforms, but it's not when guns first appeared or had widespread use in Japan. Firearms emerged in a big way at the end of the Sengoku era, starting in the mid 1500s and exploding in use, particularly under Oda Nobunaga who famously *loved* guns. It only (sort of) fell out of use in the Edo era under the Tokugawas, although guns were still manufactured in Japan, because it was just an exceptionally peaceful era, what conflict happened was small scale and local. The gun resurged as part of the modernization of Japan under the Meiji Restoration's military reforms and modernization which gave us those really stark contrasts many assume were the first times guns were used in Japan.\n\nThere is a whole class of firearms called Tanegashima, the matchlock harquebuses the Japanese developed from Portuguese and (later) Dutch imports. Their name indicates their origin: Tanegashima is one of the only islands the Japanese allowed foreign trade to enter, it was specifically reserved for Portuguese traders (it's similar to how the Japanese called much of western science \"Rangaku\" (蘭学) - Dutch studies - because it came through the Dutch port in Dejima). If you google image search Tanegashima, you'll alternately get images of beautifully crafted matchlocks, and also just maps and photos of the island.\n\nThe Japanese adopted the firearm toward the end of the Sengoku in the middle of the 16th century. For those unfamiliar, the Sengoku was a period of incredible, endless warfare in Japan starting from the 15th century after the power of the Shogunate was broken in the Onin war, and only ending when a new Shogunate formed under Tokugawa Ieyasu whose military supremacy was unchallengeable. The country fractured into smaller feudal states and their clients in almost endless war with each other over two centuries. It was in this period that most depictions of the itinerant samurai warrior emerge, as previously most samurai were aristocratic and tightly tied to a lord/daimyo and his land, but in this period many peasants became de facto samurai, because that's just kind of how war works (those same warriors at the end of the Sengoku would evolve into the bureaucrats, poets, and artists of the peaceful Edo period as the Bakufu).\n\nThe most famous example of this fluidity is actually the final reunification of Japan under the Shogunate, which happened basically in stages over 3 families: Oda Nobunaga, who did much of the foundational work for reunification, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, who by hook and crook came into control of the Oda clan after Nobunaga's assassination, and finally Tokugawa Ieyasu, who kind of picked up the pieces after Hideyoshi failed to cement his dynasty. Nobunaga and Ieyasu were the scions of powerful clans, but Hideyoshi was a peasant - his biography doesn't even give him a surname before he just started receiving/taking them as part of distinguishing himself as a competent soldier, negotiator, and general under Nobunaga.\n\nOda Nobunaga was a big fan of tanegashima and used them extensively in his reunification. Much of his armies were peasants/conscripts (ashigaru), as one might guess from Hideyoshi's humble background and rise to prominence, and many were armed with tanegashima, in contrast to the professional/aristocratic samurai. By the time Hideyoshi invaded Korea in the 1580s/90s using the armies he and Nobunaga had built, it had tens of thousands of arquebusiers in a force of 160,000, an exceptional growth in use when the first arquebus to arrive in Japan was only 50 years earlier in 1543. Guns continued to be manufactured in Japan in the Edo period even though the country was closed to foreign trade, they were just pitifully outdated by the 19th century. While the gun fell out of favor in such a peaceful era, in contrast, the bow developed a ceremonial purpose by becoming integrated as a meditative practice in Zen buddhism via Kyudou ( 弓道 ) - the way/path/dao of the bow. So under the bakufu/Shogunate's government, the bow found a place of cultural relevance even in a time of peace, but the tanegashima never quite found a niche in the cultural museum after its time of high prominence at the end of the Sengoku.\n\nNoel Perrin wrote an interesting book on this, [Giving up the Gun: Japan's Reversion to the Sword](_URL_0_), which, while it has problems, includes a lot of information. Other sources:\n\n[Tanegashima: the arrival of Europe in Japan](_URL_2_), some of my old textbooks whose names I can't remember.\n\nEDIT: as /u/ParallelPain pointed out, I misquoted the number of arquebusiers sent to Korea. It was a significant portion but the total force was 160,000.", "u/Khenghis_Ghan has already given a lot of background about the widespread adoption of firearms (the matchlock arquebus/musket) in Japan, so I won't repeat any of that.\n\nJapan did have earlier exposure to gun (Chinese guns), but made little use of them. The introduction of the Portuguese-style arquebus, usually dated 1543, resulted in the widespread use of guns (see Brown (1948) for an overview of pre-1543 guns in Japan). The Battle of Nagashino (1575) is often described as the first major battle where guns were decisive; approximately 10% of Oda Nobunaga's force (the winners) were equipped with arquebuses. So, we have about 30 years from the introduction of this type of gun to it playing a key role on the battlefield. Not counting pre-1543 guns, this is a rapid process. The speed at which these guns spread and were used in increasing numbers on the battlefield resulted from a combination of factors:\n\n1. The Portuguese-style arquebus was a mature and effective design.\n\n2. Japanese metallurgy and metal-working was sufficiently advanced so that such guns could be made quickly and cheaply, and of good quality.\n\n3. It was a period of very active warfare in Japan, with regional warlords contending for greater power, or attempting to survive in the face of neighbours with growing power. Warfare was characterised by increasing size of armies, and greater dependence on infantry. A weapon which (a) offered much better armour penetration than the bow, and (b) required less training for effective use than the bow (not needing the physical development required by high draw weight war bows), and could be obtained in large numbers sufficiently cheaply was attractive.\n\nBy the time of Hideyoshi's invasion of Korea in 1592, the gun was not only important on the battlefield, but also dominant. However, the bow didn't disappear from the battlefield; in at least some of the regional contingents that went to Korea, the number of archers was about the same as the number of gunners. Experience in Korea led to an even bigger emphasis on guns, with requests from the Japanese forces from Korea like:\n\n > Prepare guns and ammunition. We have absolutely no use for spears. It is vital that you arrange somehow to obtain a number of guns. You should see to it that those persons being deployed [to Korea] understand this situation. The arrangements for guns should receive your closest attention.\n\n(quoted in Stavros (2013)). Even after the ascendance of the Tokugawa shogunate at the Battle of Sekigahara (1600) and their crushing of their major remaining opponents at the Siege of Osaka (1614 and 1615), writers such as Miyamoto Musashi consider the bow to still be usable on the battlefield In his *Book of Five Rings*, he compared the bow and the gun:\n\n > The bow is tactically strong at the commencement of battle, especially battles on a moor, as it is possible to shoot quickly from among the spearmen. However, it is unsatisfactory in sieges, or when the enemy is more than forty yards away. For this reason there are nowadays few traditional schools of archery. There is little use nowadays for this kind of skill. \n\n > From inside fortifications, the gun has no equal among weapons. It is the supreme weapon on the field before the ranks clash, but once swords are crossed the gun becomes useless. \n\n > One of the virtues of the bow is that you can see the arrows in flight and correct your aim accordingly, whereas gunshot cannot be seen. You must appreciate the importance of this.\n\nIf major warfare between powerful warlords had continued, it's likely that the bow would have completely disappeared from the battlefield. However, with unification of Japan, and the stable Tokugawa government maintaining peace, further military development largely stopped, and the bow was still present in small numbers (the gun - the matchlock arquebus - was still the dominant battlefield weapon) in the mid-19th century when encounters with the West (Perry's fleet, and all that) convinced that Japanese that modernisation of their armed forces was necessary.\n\nReferences:\n\nBrown, Delmer M. “The Impact of Firearms on Japanese Warfare, 1543-98.” *The Far Eastern Quarterly*, vol. 7, no. 3, 1948, pp. 236–253. JSTOR, _URL_0_ doi:10.2307/2048846\n\nMiyamoto Musashi (c. 1645), *Go Rin No Sho* (*Book Of Five Rings*). The quote is from the Victor Harris translation.\n\nMatthew Stavros (2013) Military Revolution in Early Modern Japan, *Japanese Studies*, 33:3, 243-261, DOI: \n10.1080/10371397.2013.831733", "A few other members have done a fantastic job answering the question so far, but as I was well into typing my response to the OPs question, I will post regardless to provide some additional context. Apologies for any overlap. \n\nTo start, I will lay out an overview to go over the general overviews of the topic, before diving in more deeply. Firearms replaced bows in Japan during the mid 1500s to 1600, when at this point it was evident that the former had supplanted the latter. In 1543, Japan was introduced to western style firearms. Throughout the preceding decades (leading up to 1600) adoption and implementation of firearms was gradual and inconsistent. Many different factors (such as location, relationship to bakufu or Portuguese, etc) means that certain areas of the country had more availability and understanding of the weapon. Coupled with this, if we consider the temperment of the daimyō of a domain regarding the implementation of firearms, it was not a meteoric revolution that immediately changed the whole face of battlefields in Japan. Firearms did surpass bows in use, but it was a gradual and inconsistent process.\\[2\\] Now to dive a bit deeper let's look at a short narrative of events surrounding firearms in Japan leading up to 1600.\n\n# History of Firearms in Japan\n\nAs I stated earlier, European firearms were introduced to Japan by the Portuguese in 1543, but this was not the first time Japan had seen (or used) firearms as a whole. The Chinese for some time had their own version of firearms. These were brought to Japan through the Kyūkyū Kingdom (modern day Okinawa) about 80 years before the Portuguese introduced western firearms. A version of these primitive firearms which were introduced via Ryūkyū were are three metal tubed weapon which was called *hiya*, fire arrows. Archeological records, dairies, and military account all indicate that hiyas were brought, and used throughout the different regions of Japan. While they were there, they did not see widespread use in the slightest. (\\[3\\] pg. 146) In 1543, 3 Portuguese merchants happened to land in Japan when the Chinese ship they were on was blown off course due to a storm. (\\[1\\] pg. 203) They landed on a small island 44 miles to the southeast of Kyūshū, called Tanegashima. The firearms (teppōs) were demonstrated to the residents of Tanegashima, and the Portuguese eventually gave 3 of their guns away. 2 of the firearms were given to Tanegashima Tokitada, who was the local lord, and a third was bought by a monk of the Negoro-ji temple. From this event, teppōs would spread throughout Japan. (\\[4\\]pg. 143-144)\n\nThe monk returned to the firearms back to Negoro-ji temple in central Japan. Their the monks used the metal forgery they had ties with to start producing teppōs. The gunsmiths created enough firearms to arm a unit of 300 teppō shū (firearm wielding marksmen) in 1570. (\\[3\\]pg. 124). In Tanegashima, Portuguese merchant ships arrived two years after the initial contact in 1543, and a trade relationship was established. (\\[1\\] pg. 264) Tanegashima brought teppōs to the Ashikaga shoguns, along with recipes for gunpowder. The Ashikaga shoguns would proceed to give out teppōs and the gunpowder recipes to lords who would support them. Japanese gunsmiths did not take long to become proficient in the production of teppōs. Along with the aforementioned forges in Tanegashima and Negoro-ji, forgres producing firearms popped up throughout Japan, such as in Sakai. (\\[4\\]pg. 156) \nNow moving forward onto the adoption and implementation of firearms on Japanese battlefields. Much has been made as to the now semi-mythical relationship between Oda Nobunaga and firearms (which has been challenged to a degree, such as with the reconstruction and push against more traditional understandings of the Battle of Nagashino in 1575), but some of the earliest successful use of firearms were by the previously mentioned force of 300 teppō armed monks of Negoro-ji. Thomas Conlan discusses in *Instruments of Change* when he states:\n\n > *“In spite of Negoroji’s proficiency in using and producing these weapons (firearms), their role in disseminating firearms has been ignored. Standard narratives of Japan’s sixteenth-century history portray regional “lords” or daimyō as being the most cognizant of the power of these new weapons and most able to use them effectively. Oda Nobunaga, the first of the “three unifiers” of Japan, has been characterized as a military genius whose concentrated use of firepower allowed him to “revolutionize” warfare, crush his most potent rival, the Takeda of Kai province, and consolidate power from 1570 until his assassination in 1583. The priests of Negoroji realized the importance of these new weapons earlier than any daimyō. In contrast to Nobunaga, who hastily assembled a squad of gunners for the battle of Nagashino, they fielded a formidable squad of gunners through mastery of production and training. And when Nobunaga dispatched his brother to attack Negoroji, his army suffered a convincing defeat. Unlike the “epochal” encounter at Nagashino, this battle has been consigned to oblivion, largely because Nobunaga’s successor, Toyotomi Hideyoshi, incinerated most of the temple complex in 1585.” (\\[3\\]pg. 124)* \n\nThis is an important passage to highlight for several reasons. One it highlights the flaws in the more popular narrative surrounding the adoption of firearms in Japan. This usually is something along the lines of ‘guns were brought to Japan in 1540s, were not widely used until Nobunaga came along, and he saw the advantage in firearms and was able to seize control of Japan because of it, and as a result other warlords saw the advantage of firearms’. In actuality, the spread of firearms was very inconsistent, from both a time and location perspective. Warriors of Kyūshū and western Japan saw a larger influx of firearms early on as opposed to the warriors of eastern Japan. (\\[4\\] pg. 179) Even within regions, to which degree and how quickly proper firearm usage was implemented varies between Japan. If we look at three major samurai houses of the east, the Uesugi, Takeda of Kai, and Hōjō, this condition is apparent. The Uesugi leveraged their close relation with the Muromachi bakufu to acquire teppōs and gunpowder recipes. The Uesugi worked on methods of organizing gunners to fire in groups, which provided them an advantage earlier than their counterparts. Mobilization reports indicate that the Hōjō were slow in figuring out how to properly implement firearms in their military structure, and that it was not until around 1587 that they were able to reach a 1:1 ratio between bows and firearms. The Uesugi were much faster in this regard, and as Conlan notes in *Weapons and Fighting Techniques of the Samurai* that Uesugi Kenshin was able to have significant success vs the Hōjō in a campaign in 1560-61. Prior to this campaign in 1559 he had received a recipe for gunpowder from Kyōtō. To what extent this affected the campaign could be debated, but it is worth considering. The Takeda of Kai were relatively slow in implementing firearms as well. Documents from 1562 indicate that the Takeda planned organize their troops in units of 45 soldiers, with only 1 of them being a gunner (comparatively, there would be 5 archers). (\\[4\\]pg.165) These three warrior houses give a good example on how varied the implementation and use of firearms were even within a given region. Different groups took varying amount of time to properly implement firearms. Eventually daimyō were able to integrate teppō gunners into their military structure to a degree that in 1600, for the most part, firearms had surpassed bows in usage in Japan. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://books.google.com/books?id=4Ete0zPAnjwC&pg=PP1#v=onepage&q&f=true", "https://www.google.com/search?q=men-yoroi&rlz=1C1CHBF_enUS786US786&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiklOz-jOzgAhWSnp4KHT3dDGkQ_AUIDigB&biw=1517&bih=730", "https://books.google.com/books?id=6WQnNqhDNhAC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=true" ], [ "www.jstor.org/stable/2048846" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwrxvor", "cwrxxdc" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Just like someone with a broken arm in a cast, the unused arm gets weaker while the other arm has to do more work. \n\nWhen someone goes blind for example, the part of the brain used for sight essentially goes unused, while the person struggles to use their other senses to compensate.\n\nThese other senses become stronger as a result, and often the parts of the brain used for these senses will grow into the unused area. This is called brain plasticity. \n\n\"Fight or flight\" is merely heightened senses due to hormonal responses in the body. Scare the rabbit, its body goes all \"eye of the tiger\" because of chemicals.\n\nTL;DR: Different brain parts grow over those left unused by the disability. Fight or flight is caused by chemical responses.\n\nEDIT: Added some things.\n\nSources: I also have a degree in psychology. _URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_", "Brains are like city real estate, nothing sits vacant for long. So when a sense goes down that brain area associate with it goes down however the other areas that are still processing hook into that site for more grunt.\r\rFor a shorter but more terminology correct explanation, neuroplasticity means the brain is dynamic." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.brainfacts.org/about-neuroscience/ask-an-expert/articles/2012/what-is-brain-plasticity", "http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/superpowers-for-the-blind-and-deaf/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2qcv6z", "d2qdcxx", "d2qhy4p" ], "score": [ 2, 18, 5 ], "text": [ "As far as I know, deflation can occur if there are negative interest rates or if there is a liquidity trap. \n\nHowever, you'd probably get a better answer from /r/Economics or /r/AskSocialScience. ", "It's certainly possible, but it's something most countries really want to avoid.\n\nDeflation incentivizes hoarding money, and widespread hording can crater an economy even faster than rampant inflation.", "Governments can deflate their currency by decreasing the money supply. Simply put, they can dispose of old, worn-out banknotes and not print as many new ones as they destroy (or electronically remove money from circulation). Tightening the money supply usually causes deflation. \n\nThat said, there are quite a few reasons why governments don't want deflation or a tight money supply, including but not limited to the fact that it requires that the government destroy it's own money rather than spend it. \n\ntl;dr It's possible to deflate currency by removing it from circulation but no one ever does. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "duyd0nb" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This topic has been covered a number of times in the past. The short answer is that a large proportion of the senior Saxon nobility, including two of Harold's brothers, was killed at Hastings; a significant number of others fled (including Harold's sons, to Ireland; at least a few went to Byzantium and entered imperial service there); the Normans removed a large number of the remaining Saxon landowners where it seemed safe to do so (meaning predominantly in the south), such that Domesday Book (1086) shows that there were only two remaining large landholders with Saxon names; but that the difficulties of consolidating Norman rule, in what was rather a large kingdom, were great enough for William to leave the northern lords, Edwin of Mercia and Morcar of Northumbria, in place in the immediate post-conquest period even though they had clearly backed Harold in 1066. \n\nWhen Edwin and Morcar subsequently rebelled in 1068 they were pardoned, but when they did so again in 1069, Edwin's earldom was abolished and the land distributed among several Norman nobles. Morcar, on the other hand, was ultimately replaced by another Northumbrian, Waltheof. Waltheof had spent some time at William's court and would have been well known to the new king, but this decision likely indicates that William still had little confidence in his ability to hold the far north without either Saxon help, or by seriously weakening the forces available to him in the south. \n\nIt was only after Waltheof in turn rebelled in 1075 that William installed a Norman Earl of Northumbria, and then only after his infamous Harrying of the North had substantially disrupted and depopulated large swathes of the whole region. His reasons for leaving the large Northumbrian earldom intact, when he had dismembered Mercia, likely had to do with Northumbria's important role as a first line of defence against Scottish incursion, especially in a period where the Scots had the potential to seriously disrupt Norman rule by backing Saxon pretenders.\n\nFor a more detailed discussion see\n\n[What happened to Anglo-Saxon huscarls, land-owners and mercenaries after the Norman conquest?](_URL_3_)\n\nand\n\n[How devastating really was William the Conqueror's Harrying of the North in 1069-70? I've heard it described as anywhere from a wholesale genocide and slaughter to something more mild. What are the sources and evidence?](_URL_1_), both with u/Steelcan909\n\n[Was there an organized exodus of Anglo-Saxons after the Norman Invasion?](_URL_0_) with u/AlanWithTea\n\n[How did a tiny, brand-new nobility manage to subjugate [England] in the first place?](_URL_2_) with u/Viae" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2ojvzl/was_there_an_organized_exodus_of_anglosaxons/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/74atdd/how_devastating_really_was_william_the_conquerors/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1gknjw/norman_england_after_william_the_conqueror_how/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/7s1ld8/what_happened_to_anglosaxon_huscarls_landowners/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cu160b8", "cu18uzo" ], "score": [ 7, 7 ], "text": [ "metacritic attempts to put all reviews on a percent scale---0 to 100. Rotten Tomatoes is just given the number of \"fresh\" reviews---roughly a C+/B or above 75% on a 1 to 100 scale---as opposed to \"rotten\" reviews. \n\nSo, imagine a movie with three reviews: The first reviewer thinks it's the best movie ever (100%), the second and third reviewers think it's good but not great (80%). On rotten tomatoes, that's 100% fresh, on Metacritic, that's only 86%. \n\nThere are only a very few movies where the math will work out differently (like cult hits). ", "Rotten Tomatoes is higher than Metacritic on good movies, and lower than Metacritic on bad movies. As said below,RT's numbers are ratios. For a \"pretty good\" movie that everyone agrees is decent, you're likely to get a 100% on RT, while on MC, you'll get something like a 65 - 70 (the average of critic scores). And for some amiably crappy, low-brow Sandler movie, you'll often see a score in the 30s on Metacritic, but it's often in the 0 - 9 range on Rotten Tomatoes because very few people out and out \"recommend\" that movie. So if you want to know \"how good\" a certain movie is, Metacritic is your best bet. If you simply want to know the percentage of critics who like a movie, RT is better." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c35pacs", "c35quto", "c35pacs", "c35quto" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "You are part of the universe.", "The expansion of space is not the same as movement through space.", "You are part of the universe.", "The expansion of space is not the same as movement through space." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cp5jrus" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's important to note that our bodies aren't completely transparent to x-rays, otherwise we would never see any contrast in the images.\n\nAt a most basic level, x-rays and visible light are the same phenomena except for a difference in energy. Also the probability of an interaction is directly related to the similarity in energy between the photon and the transition energy. If it is far away from the transition energy, there is a very low probability of an interaction occurring.\n\nVisible light is similar in energy to the outer electron transitions of molecules, so that's why visible light is absorbed and scattered strongly, meaning our bodies are opaque to visible light.\n\nX-rays are about 1000 times more energetic than visible light. These energies correspond to inner core electron transitions. For lighter molecules, these x-rays are more energetic than any possible transition, so the probability of interacting is very small. Of course our bodies are mostly hydrogen, oxygen, carbon, so they pass through.\n\nHeavier elements like calcium have inner core electron transitions closer to the x-ray energy and it's more strongly absorbed and scattered. That's why you see the calcium in the bones. Also why heavier elements are opaque to x-rays.\n\nThere are other subtleties such as the density of the material which can help identify the substance and you often see that on baggage screeners at airports." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfb0f8p", "cfb6o0b" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The primary reason was that Zheng He's expeditions basically bankrupted the Ming Court.\n\nEntire forests in Southern China (and part of Vietnam) were leveled to resource the timber needed for the massive ships of Zheng He's fleet. Ship building and maintenance proved to be very costly for China.\n\nOn top of it, Manchurian and Mongol Tribes renewed their raids into Northern China, and the Ming Court struggled to fund their army to repel the invaders.\n", "hi! FYI, there have been a few related posts; check these out for previous responses:\n\n[What were some reasons that China turned inwards and neglected maritime exploration after Admiral Zheng He and his missions.](_URL_0_)\n\n[Why were Zheng He's voyages considered wasteful?](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1a2irc/what_were_some_reasons_that_china_turned_inwards/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1ibdhy/why_were_zheng_hes_voyages_considered_wasteful/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dd7kvi6", "dd7q7hw", "dd7q8nf" ], "score": [ 19, 2, 7 ], "text": [ " > Once scientists understood how nuclear reactions occurred, were nuclear weapons an obvious/straightforward application of nuclear theory?\n\nOnce you realize that neutron-induced fission reactions release neutrons, it becomes immediately clear that there is the potential for some kind of positive feedback causing a nuclear chain reaction.\n\nIt then becomes a question of how many neutrons are emitted on average per fission reaction, and how many does it take to sustain a chain reaction. One has to determine the cross section for further fission reactions at the typical energies of the neutrons released by fission. And one has to understand how neutrons propagate through a macroscopic lump of nuclear material to determine whether or not a given configuration of fissile material can go critical or not.\n\nThe nuclear physics that goes into it is relatively straightforward. It's engineering the bomb that takes some very careful thought.\n\nAs for the history of it, I bet /u/restricteddata will be able to give a more detailed answer.", "Sort of, but it's non-trivial to work things out. For example, the famed scientist Werner Heisenberg came up with a very wonky model for calculating critical mass, as well as very bad models for how to build nuclear reactors. America was enormously lucky to have both the world's most capable industrial economy as well as a stunning collection of the world's most talented physicists. Additionally, while the core theory of atomic bombs is fairly straightforward to work out (barring Heisenberg's slip up, the Japanese and Soviets worked it out during the war however) the engineering to make the bombs is non-trivial. As I pointed out in [another recent post here](_URL_0_) the Manhattan Project was really quite exceptional in its intensity and drive and was able to deal with roadblocks and dead-ends in a way that would have caused any other procurement or R & D program easily years worth of delay.\n\nIndeed, the Soviets began working their bomb project just after WWII ended (it had started during the war but was put mostly on hold due to resource constraints), they also took advantage of extensive research from the Americans acquired via espionage, and even so it took them nearly as long as the Manhattan Project did to produce their first bomb.\n\nPretty much any nation with a 20th century level of industrial/science base could work out how to make nuclear bombs based on only the bare minimal information of nuclear fission theory, though it might take a significant amount of time to do so depending on various circumstances.", "From [Invention and Discovery: Atomic Bombs and Fission](_URL_0_), a superb site about the history **and** physics of nuclear weapons.\n\n**TL;DR** Read about Leo Szilard.\n\n*It would be logical to assume that the discovery of fission preceded the invention of the atomic bomb. It would be normal also to expect that no single individual could really claim to be \"the inventor\", since the possibility sprang naturally from a physical process, and required the efforts of many thousands to bring it into existence. Many descriptions of the origin of atomic bombs can be found that logically and normally say exactly these things.*\n\n*But they are not correct.*\n\n*The idea of \"invention\" does not usually require the physical realization of the invented thing. This fact is clearly recognized by patent law, which does not require a working model in order to award a patent. It is common for inventions to require additional discoveries and developments before the actual thing can be made. In these cases, an invention may fairly have more than one inventor - the originator of the principle idea, and the individual who actually made the first workable model.*\n\n*In the case of the atomic bomb there is clearly one man who is the originator of the idea. He was also the instigator of the project that led ultimately to the successful construction of the atomic bomb, and was a principal investigator in the early R & D both before and after the founding of the atomic bomb project - making a number of the key discoveries himself. By any normal standard this man is the inventor of the atomic bomb.*\n\n*This man is* **Leo Szilard**.\n\n*On September 12, 1932, within seven months of the discovery of the neutron, and more than six years before the discovery of fission, Leo Szilard conceived of the possibility of a controlled release of atomic power through a multiplying neutron chain reaction, and also realized that if such a reaction could be found, then a bomb could be built using it.*" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/5qdd7g/little_boy_v_fat_man_why_were_different_cores_used/dcz7ui8/" ], [ "http://nuclearweaponarchive.org/Usa/Med/Discfiss.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cboft6d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Well, here are some terms you could use....\nneed to stimulate the economy\n...give it a stiff injection of cash\n...you want to see the economy grow\n...but you need to do it slowly\n...not too fast\n...because the economy could get to hot, and no-one like hyper-inflation. \nBut if we use quantitative easing\n...we can stimulate the economy slowly\n....seduce it into moving in the right direction \nand eventually get the yield curve pointing up like it should be. \nYou need to practive safe macro economic policies, and not give off mixed signals.\nBut you can't be a tease to private equity\nyou need to get them to excited about investing.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dn29f3c", "dn5ku57" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Hi, there's lots of room for more answers, but fyi, you can get started here\n\n* [How did classical composers/pianists make money?](_URL_0_) featuring /u/caffarelli among others ", "In the case of, say, singers in the Eighteenth Century, you might have a steady job singing in a church choir. This would give you lodging and food, and possibly (in the best of circumstances) a small stipend.\n\nThe real money was on the operatic circuit. But it was also very high risk: you generally only had contracts for a period of several months, and you never knew where your next paycheck was coming from. Again, contracts provided for food and lodging, and there would be some sort of monetary gain either in the form of an actual stipend or in the form of one-time gifts of some sort of monetary value. And because you were usually entering into the temporary service of a monarch or other noble patron, you also gained a degree of favor that you could use to make requests that way too. In lieu of salaries, some opera companies let the singer host a \"benefit concert,\" the proceeds from which they could keep for themselves (this was an especially popular option in England). \n\nIf you were good/lucky, you'd also have a patron or group of patrons who supported you more long-term. Perhaps they provided you lodging and food on the off-season. In fact, they may have been involved with your musical education from the get-go. Often good students are \"sponsored\" through their education by a noble patron. \n\nOnly the best of the best would be able to pull off a synthesis of both worlds: they could hold permanent positions at some pristigious music-making institution, but would be on leave pretty much the entire time in foreign courts performing there. You would essentially function as a symbol of your home courts wealth and power, who \"loaned you out\" to perform at other places.\n\nWhen you tired of singing, you could possibly transition into an administrative role, becoming an \"impresario\" who hired the singers and the personnel for an operatic season. This is what Farinelli, the greatest operatic star of the eighteenth century did, he retired from the stage to direct music for the Spanish court, singing privately for the king and handling the court opera. And for that service, he effectively was made into nobility. \n\nHopefully in the coming days I can come back with some more specific examples if you require! But for now, here are some sources for what I was saying above:\n\n* Durante, Sergio. 1998. \"The Opera Singer.\" In *Opera Production and its Resources.* Edited by Lorenzo Bianconi and Giorgio Pestelli, 347-417. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n\n* Heartz, Daniel. 2003. *Music in European Capitals: The Galant Style 1720-1780.* New York: Norton.\n\n* Holmes, William C. 1993. *Opera Observed: Views of a Florentine Impresario in the Early Eighteenth-Century.* Chicago: University of Chicago Press.\n\n* Rosselli, John. 1988. “The Castrati as a Professional Group and a Social Phenomenon, 1550-1850.” *Acta Musicologica* 60: 143-79. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1h8plc/how_did_classical_composerspianists_make_money" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccyjixk", "ccyjmiw", "ccykf02", "ccykftn", "ccykg8q", "ccylcsu", "ccylneu", "ccylobq", "ccyloh9", "ccylp16", "ccym2xv", "ccym8ds", "ccym9x9", "ccymcrq", "ccymded", "ccymwtt", "ccyn1rz", "ccyn8lv", "ccyncu0", "ccynh39", "ccynqcm", "ccynr3d", "ccyntbm", "ccynvin", "ccyo01j", "ccyo1c5", "ccyod0f", "ccyomj0", "ccyon31", "ccyopft", "ccyorn7", "ccyp2lz", "ccyp6cg", "ccypavi", "ccypbca", "ccypeyv", "ccypgfm", "ccypmff", "ccypu55", "ccyq19v", "ccyq3re", "ccyq95o", "ccyqcm1", "ccyqeh5", "ccyqfh0", "ccyqs5a", "ccyqtp3", "ccyqw5d", "ccyqx8w", "ccyqzi7", "ccyr1w1", "ccyr2na", "ccyr5y3", "ccyrteo", "ccyrw4t", "ccys0gw", "ccysjsn", "ccysnse", "ccysyqa", "ccysyx4", "ccytr1c", "ccyurbn", "ccyv7x9", "ccz17i0" ], "score": [ 99, 893, 26, 9, 329, 23, 4, 18, 77, 16, 58, 3, 12, 3, 12, 525, 64, 5, 386, 29, 2, 3, 2, 2, 7, 2, 28, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 5, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 6, 2, 2, 3, 3, 5, 8, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Kinda. \n\nThink about dogs as small 4yo children, which have about the same cognitive capabilities. So, a kid understands the excitement of getting on an airplane, knows that after some indeterminate ~~percolate~~ *time* waiting in the small inside space, mostly there's fun after the wait. Sometimes there's a vet, but even ~~goats~~ *that's* usually not too bad and most times he can tell by your mood if after the ride it's more likely the park or the vet. ", "My dog hears \"wanna go for a ride\" and gets super excited, when the door opens she runs straight for the truck and sits and waits. She is quite in the truck until we get about half a mile from either a dog park, beach or friends house and then she start whinning. This happens well before the destination is in sight so she knows from the surrounding landmarks(smells maybe) where we are going. If we are going somewhere else and pass by a favorite location, she watches it pass and you can tell she is confused for a second like \"wait, that was the beach....we are going the wrong way silly human.\"", "For your dog, a car is no different than any machine in your household. Associating your car to good things, like car rides, may lead your dog to think of good stuff whenever he is around your (or anyone else's) car, just like if you associate it with bad stuff (say he doesn't like the sound of the engine, and you constantly mock him with it), it will stay away from it.\n\nSince for any dog a car ride is effectively an olfactive porn, they will understandly get crazy about it, and will want to take the most out of it (sticking their heads out of windows). This can be potentially dangerous, since debris may get on his eye or worse, he could try to jump if he scans anything interesting enough to grasp his attention. \n\nAccording to multiple sources, [and already posted in Reddit](_URL_0_), your dog simply associates the tone of your voice, your body language and the context (smaller dogs are prone to read more your body than your voice in multiple occasions; bigger dogs are more auditive; reason being you're way larger than a small dog, so it will be more aware of your body than a bigger dog, whose difference in size to you may be less proeminent).\n\nEDIT: grammar", "WE'RE GOING ON AN ADVENTURE!", "My dog does, but I'm not sure about yours, he could be dumb as a rock. \n\nNow for more fun... She gets to put her head out the window up to about 15 miles an hour, then it's floor time. If I tell her \"down\" and she does not do it I will \"use the force\" by making a sweeping motion with my hand as I tap on the breaks. Now she knows what's happens when my hand goes up in the car. \n\nTL;DR: My dog thinks I'm a Jedi. ", "My dogs may not know what a car does, but man do they love that thing. All I have to do is open the car door and they both hop right in. They love riding around in the car. Even when it's time to visit the vet, they just hop right in. Maybe they're hoping for the best. Or maybe they're just awesome. \n\nI'm going to go with they're just two awesome little dachshunds. ", "I don't understand why we get in the car or what a car does.", "Yeah, I think so. I know my dogs recognize my car when I drive by my backyard because they'll perk up, look at it for a second like \"oh shit, is that my owner?\" and then when I get closer they're like \"FUCK YEAH IT IS!\" and sprint inside to meet me. ", "Dogs probably think we are sitting there just as bewildered as they are. That we sit in the metal thing and it moves towards fun places, all the while the human is staring out the front window in sheer disbelief.", "Seems odd as an ELI5, being all conjecture. ", "You can't say the word \"bye\" or \"bye bye\" around my pug. He goes nuts.\n\nMy pug Rambo goes beyond his understanding of car rides:\nI made the mistake of showing him \"puppies\" on YouTube ( specifically, this: _URL_0_ ). I used my iPhone for this, so now, every time he hears the word \"puppies\" or sees me pick up my phone, he thinks we are watching this video. If I leave my phone on the arm of my chair, he will knock it to the floor and lay with his nose/chin on it, waiting for the video to come on.\n\nMy 6 year old son also sat down and watched Blues Clues with him on Netflix. The TV could be off and he could be asleep in the back room, but if you do your best \"Bah Bah Bow\" sound that Blue does on the show, he will come bolting out of the bedroom, jump on the footstool, and stare at the TV.\n\n**EDIT:** The pug in the video is not my dog, that is the video my pug loves to watch. I will try to get a video of his reactions and post when I can.", "To a certain extent. \n\nMy sister's dog recognizes her car; when my sister is pulling up to her house, he will get very excited, but when another car pulls up, he gets worried and often starts barking and growling. He knows that when he's taken into a car, it's going to move and take him somewhere else. When in the car, he will get excited if he recognizes that he's being taken somewhere he likes but starts crying and shaking if it's near the vet.\n\nHe also cries when he's in the car if he's not sitting on the driver's lap, regardless of who's driving. It is a very odd thing and I have no idea why. I doubt he understands that the driver is the controlling the vehicle but I can't say for certain why he wants to sit there. Perhaps he is so used to sitting on the driver's lap when there's only one person in a car that he feels that particular spot is \"his seat\"?", "My boxer definitely understands something about cars and their motions. He will get into the car at home with no problem. We take a walk from a park to a coffee shop frequently and we have to drive by the coffee shop to reach the park. When we get close to the cafe, he jumps up and starts getting anxious about getting out because he's excited. When we're done, I have to physically pick him up and put him in the car at the park because he knows that he's going home once he gets in that car. He will just sit outside the car door and stare at me like he's begging for just one more lap around the neighborhood. \nSomething else he's picked up on is how turning works. He often stands up in the passenger seat, but if I turn on my turn signal, he will lay down or lean himself against the back of the seat because he knows he's going to get thrown around of he doesn't brace himself. ", "Mine is smart enough not to jump out the window when we are moving and is always excited when I tell him it's time to take a ride. He knows \"his seat\" and not to get into mine and will just stare out the window wagging furiously the whole time. One would have to assume they get the general idea. He knows like three blocks before we get to the drive thru because I take him through everytime and they give him a treat, so they must have some basic concept of what is going on. I mean he starts walking in circles on his seat and looking out my window instead of his everytime. I would think that means they get the idea, maybe not all the specifics. ", "When I take my dog outside, she'll go up to the car, rear up and hit the door with her front paws. If I don't react, she comes over to me, then goes back to the car door and does it again. \n\nOf course, whenever she knows what she wants, she'll get my attention if she doesn't already have, make eye contact and then look at what she wants... or in the case of the car door she'll touch it. \n\nIt is pretty cool, but it would be even cooler if it worked in reverse when I want something for her, but nope, she's just a selfish little bitch!", "Not sure about your car but stray dogs in Russia use the subway to get around. So it appears that they understand the concept on some level. \n\n\nedit: _URL_0_\n\n**\nEDIT: THANKS FOR THE GOLD, KIND STRANGER !!.** ", "I feel like a dog watching a person drive a car must be similar to people watching Doctor Who pilot the Tardis. He's obviously doing a bunch of stuff to make sure he gets when/where he wants to be but you don't really understand the connection even though it's second nature to him.", "My dogs ride in secured crates, and all but one happily jump in and go wherever. The one was in a major car accident with me (in a crate!) and still acts like a little kid not wanting to go to bed when I ask him to get in the car... \"hold on, I have to pee on this one last thing, oh, and this one last thing over here\" all while avoiding getting in. Poor baby.\n\nedit: my dogs go to do fun things every weekend, so yes, they know the car is awesome.", "I believe a dog not only understands what a car does, but it understands somebody has to be in a particular seat to make it work. That's why he always jumps into the driver's seat when alone in the car, so he can leave me behind and go to the post office.", "These dogs in New Zealand are learning to drive actual cars.\n_URL_0_\n\nWith enough biscuits, your dog can understand too. ", "Probably to the same extent that an actual five year old human.", "my mum's dog is pretty smart, he loves me to bits and comes to stay at my house sometimes, she lives 6 miles away from me, if he's in the car and she drives past my house he cries if she doesn't stop. so he recognizes where he is with no prompting. i think that's pretty smart.\n\nedit because he doesn't howl he cries", "Yes. \n\nDogs are about as smart as a 6 year old. ", "I vaguely remember a theory saying dogs think they control the car. ", "I always had a funny thought that dogs would see a car as a magic device that makes the earth spin under it's wheels.", "My dog Piper loves the car rides, and she recognizes the Starbucks drive thru. The possibility of puppy whip is very exciting to her.", "I always wonder what they think about elevators. From their perspective it would be like a Stargate. ", "In the same way most people don't have a clue about the actual workings of the engines, you understand the actions you take surrounding it and the outcome.\n\nYour dog is the same - it knows what to do and how to interact with the car, and knows the outcome (arrive somewhere else and see other places on the way).", "The short answer is: maybe.\n\nPeople have worked for quite a long time under the assumption that we're the most intelligent being on the planet, and there's a long history of anecdotal evidence to suggest that's true (which, in reality, that much anecdotal evidence becomes just \"evidence\"). But we haven't actually studied the intelligence of animals in an incredibly in-depth manner, or rather, we've only started doing so in the past few decades. People like Temple Grandin done some observation, and I'm sure there are many studies going on right now (and have gone on, like those that categorized the language of prairie dogs), but we don't rightly now the intelligence level, or mode, of animals, beyond bits here and there and the push toward understanding, mainly because we don't have a highly effective means of communicating with them.\n\nDogs are an interesting case, as well, as we've selectively bred such a panoply of possible dogs that the effects of that have meant different things for different breeds; there are a number of different examples already posted!", "I think my dogs kind of know what the car does. They know to go to the car anytime I say car ride and they know it takes them places. One of my dogs actually checks out my car at the beginning of his walks when I get home to check and see if anything is in there (or at least in think that's why he looks in the windows) he's very protective. ", "Yes they do, as demonstrated by the fact that stray dogs in Moscow have learned to use the subway there to get to where they are going. \n\n[Here's an article](_URL_1_) about how these dogs use the subway to get to where they're going. And [here's another article](_URL_0_) about these \"commuter dogs.\"", "There are stray dogs that use buses and trains in regular schedule, so at least some dogs are smart enough. _URL_0_", "Dogs learn to associate people, things, and places with certain feelings. They know their owners pet them and give them treats, they know the dog park is typically full of dogs and fun things to smell, and they know the car can sometimes result in transportation to a super fun time and sometimes to the vet. Whatever they learn to associate the car *with* determines how they view the car and what they expect.\n\nThat said, dogs are incapable of understanding that you are controlling the vehicle. The fact that you're sitting in a different seat and holding a wheel provides an animal no indication that you're in control of your direction or rate of travel. They have no means of correlating your mechanical motion with the motion of the vehicle. \n\nAs far as your dog is concerned, the car is a magical mystery box that you both climb into and get swept off on adventures.", "I don't remember where I read the article but I remember reading about wild dogs in russia that had integrated the subway system into their lives, using it just like regular passengers so they must have some awareness of how transportation works.", "I often wonder if my dog understands that it's me driving the car with an intended purpose, or if it's just some large machine both if us are sitting in and it takes us to whatever destination it has programmed in for that day", "I often wonder if my dog realizes that it's actually me driving the car with a purpose, or if it's just a large machine that both of us sit in and it takes us wherever it's programmed to for the day", "If I start driving slowly all of the sudden for about a half-mile and then stop and put the car in park... the combination of those factors and noises alerts my dog that \"we are at the park!!!\" So she stands up, and starts moving towards my car door, waiting for me to pop it open, so she can hop out and do her rounds of poop and pee.", "ITT: Literally no scientific studies at all, just a shit-ton of pet owners. I would take anything you read here with a grain of salt.\n\nMy own two cents: Just because a dog gets excited in the car doesn't mean that they understand what's going on. I would say that they understand that a car takes you from place A to place B, but I would not say that they understand where they're going. They're just excited because they know they're going somewhere.", "Oh yeah, my dog understands \"Wanna go for a ride?!?\" and gets super excited! Runs for the car, starts howling and wagging her tail and everything. She understands when we are even *a couple miles away from home*, because she uses visual cues.\n\nBy far the most amazing/interesting thing she does in the car, though, is that she *freaking recognizes a stop-sign and/or stoplight, and braces for a stop before I even start to slow down.* \n\nShe legitimately scares me with her combination of intelligence and laziness. ", "My dog has no idea what a car is. He just sees the car as something that he gets into before getting out at the destination. So when I take my dog to the vet he just think the car is the first step of the vet, like he has to get in the car in order to get out at the vet. If we go somewhere different, he just forgets about the vet and a new idea replaces it. Not giving him the benefit of the doubt haha.", "If a dog is allowed to do the things that they have been bred to do they are much smarter than the average teenager. My father developed a retirement ranch on which he kept 100+- cow/calf with a border collie for help. It took me three years to figure she knew more about puttin cows where they needed to be and helping her do it her way....", "My dog loves going in the car, we don't always go some where like the dog park but she likes hanging out the window sniffing the air. or just sitting with her head in my lap getting pet. It's one of our bonding things I guess. I take her everywhere when it's not like I'll be inside forever or it's too hot. She knows the keys, and she knows 'wanna go for a ride' and she knows which car is mine and the sound of it unlocking (her eyes about pop out of her head and she starts running around my car)\n\nI felt very bad the other day, I was getting ready for work and took her out for a walk and while I was at it, decided to put my bag in the car. She got super excited about me opening the car door (didn't try to jump in since I told her to stay), and stuff, then I close it and keep walking and she just stood next to my car, looking at me, then it, then back to me like 'but... car ride...?' poor baby lol", "Seems like an odd question. Why wouldn't a dog understand a car? I would expect that dogs have more intuitive sense of space and movement than a little kid does since they have more \"animal instincts\". They can feel that it's moving, and they can look out the window and see that it's moving, they presumably see the car from the outside as it is moving, what's to not understand?", "My dog knows what the deal is when I grab my keys and the leash. He goes right to the drivers side door an waits before I've even locked the door behind us. He'll figure it out about halfway there whether we are going to the park, for a bath or to the vet and act accordingly. ", "Now you mention it, riding in a car must be weird for a dog. Imagine you follow your owner into a box, which owner then completely seals. Owner sits down, the box starts to rumble and then takes off at a speed faster than you could ever run. Next, you see that you're hurtling along with a load of other similar boxes, and there are more boxes coming at you head on. Admittedly a dog might not recognise the potential for disaster (i.e. collision with other boxes) but it still seems kind of weird to imagine. Anyway, the box stops, the doors open, you and Owner get out and all you can think about is running off and finding somewhere to take a shit.", "Some dogs can drive:\n_URL_0_\n", "Our beagle get's very excited when we say \"wanna go to grandma's\" (my mom's house) but doesn't know how close we are. He get's really excited everytime we stop though (lights, traffic, etc..) so he does at least understand that when the car stops it MIGHT be time to get out.", "I believe they do understand. I own two sighthounds, who are very independently thinking and pretty smart, which gives me an interesting perspective on figuring out what they're thinking. \n\nThey enjoy going in the car, as many others have said, and usually sleep until the car slows down or stops somewhere. They are not obsessed with the car, and they usually go for a ride somewhere once a day (I don't have a fenced in yard). \n\nOnce, one of my dogs ran down the road to try to follow my boyfriend after he left our house, so she does seem to understand that when he gets in the car, that's what's happening. She does not try to chase cars otherwise, and when she was young she was TERRIBLY attached to us. \n\nI think if I took the dogs out in the car, dropped them off somewhere, they would understand how to get home. \n\nThat being said, I'm not sure there's any way for them to understand that the human in the driver's seat is operating the car. I do have another interesting anecdote on this subject however; I once got in a car accident when my dog was sitting in the front seat. (We were all fine but it was clearly a bit traumatizing for everyone). For a very long time after that, she would not sit in the front seat if I was driving, but she would sit in the front seat if my boyfriend was. \n\nWhen she stated being comfortable sitting in the front with me again, she would only move to the front seat when I was on the highway. If I had to hit my brakes for anything, she would get in the back seat. \n\nSo, take that as you will. ", "I used to live at an intersection that was the home turf of a small pack of dogs.\n\nOne day, I saw a dog that wasn't a part of the pack walk up to the intersection. The pack ran the other dog off the street and onto the sidewalk. They let the dog go by without any more trouble.\n\nI think that dogs see cars as the \"top dogs,\" and they were trying to make the \"top dogs\" happy by keeping the streets clear.\n\nWhen they're in a car, they are top dog. Everyone moves out of their way.", "One of the things we know about dogs is they most certainly don't understand the world in the same way we do.\n\nA dog is most similar to Patient HM. HM could not remember anything that wasn't in the moment.\n\nSo famously a nurse playing a prank on him starts by telling him a joke. It's a dirty one and he laughs.\n\nShe comes in the next day and tells the exact same joke, he once again laughs.\n\nShe does this every single day for a week and eventually when he would see her in the door he would burst into laughing.\n\nWhen asked why he was laughing he had no idea. He didn't understand why he laughed, he just felt like laughing.\n\nSo when you tell your dog \"wanna go for a ride\" it's very similar in tone probably to \"wanna go for a walk\" or \"walk\" or \"pee pee poo poo\" or whatever thing you say to your dog. So the dog doesn't really understand what this means. He acts happily without really understanding why it is he is happy. You confirm this by getting his leash and he immediately associates any activity on that leash with being happy.\n\nNew research shows that animals do in fact have emotions. We know they feel stuff. But one thing we know solidly, dogs do not understand anything. They live in the moment.", "Cognition researcher here! The truth is we don't know. Why? Because we can't ask them! Or at least, they can't answer in eglish. Dogs can be trained to know to go to the car, just like you can train them to kennel up. However, you could do some tests by doing expectation violation experiments. If your dog were to learn to expect the car ride to end at the beach, the park, or the vet, you could then see if and how they react a) when the ride ends at an alternate location and b) if they react differently to various locations before arrival. You'd have to train the expectation by creating an association between the name of the location and the location itself first. As far as I know this hasn't been tested, but you may want to look up the canine cognition lab at duke to see. They may even be interested in taking on such a study if you email them. I'm on my lunch break so I can't look into it right now.\n\n\nEdit: also Google \"expectation violation\" to find similar studies in other species :)", "They understand. My mom and brother were walking our dogs once and decided that they had gone a bit too far and asked me to pick them up (the lazy dogs had said \"fuck this\" and sat down and refused to go any farther). When I rolled up in the car, the dogs immediately ran to the doors and started whining. As soon as we opened the doors, they jumped inside. I think they get that the car takes them places.", "My parent's dog understands that we have personal cars. She ran away 4 years ago during a storm and was missing for three weeks. When she was found she was guarding a silver truck (exactly like my dads) and wouldn't let the owner get near it. ", "Dogs actually drive the cars don't you know _URL_0_", "Mine knows he wants to go for a ride, but once he's in there he paces around, whines, and barks. It's all about the destination, not the journey for him.", "My dog HATES riding in the car. But before My BF and I moved in together I would say \"want to go see Nikko?\" (my BF's Husky) and Trunks (my rotty) would get sooo excited and make a break for the car. She loved that guy. He passed away a couple weeks ago :( ", "ITT: No answers, only personal stories.", "My wife and I think the dogs believe it's some kind of magical adventure box. ", "Does the dog know we drive the car? Or does it think we get in this mystery machine and it takes us somewhere, sometimes nice like the park, sometimes not so nice like the vet. Like it's an adventure every time!", "Our dog loves going for car rides, and gets very excited when we get close to a destination that he likes. He also panics when we go on gravel. He is a rescue dog and we know he was taken to the humane society by his old family, which is on a gravel road, so he associates gravel roads with being abandoned. Or he just hates when his chariot get dusty, not sure which.", "As I'm typing this my dog is licking my ear, later she will lick her bum and wag her tail. ", "What is the diff. Between a shrimp and a prawn", "As a dog person, I love seeing posts about dogs and dog owners going to the top of my page on this here phone.\n\nI miss my boxer dogs.", "My dog seems to think when I leave the house that I've left forever. Every time.\n\nOHMYGODYOU'REBACKYOU'REBACKICAN'TBELIEVEIT\n\n...Dude. I went to the mailbox." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://mentalfloss.com/article/30456/why-do-dogs-stick-their-heads-out-car-windows" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eyPgO6ATfcY" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.lifewithdogs.tv/2013/04/stray-russian-dogs-commute-to-work-by-subway/" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAK0J8Uhzk" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.newyorker.com/online/blogs/culture/2013/07/moscows-metro-dogs.html", "http://abcnews.go.com/International/Technology/stray-dogs-master-complex-moscow-subway-system/story?id=10145833" ], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AHSHeMjY9J8" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BWAK0J8Uhzk" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-20614593" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpsk29e", "cpskb2j", "cpskzq3", "cpso08r", "cpsp7kb", "cpss82c", "cpss8zd", "cptbspd", "cptbw3p" ], "score": [ 212, 21, 1272, 6, 27, 5, 13, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Listen up everyone. We've already have 8 comments which had been deleted for breaking our rules. Unless you can answer this question in-depth and be prepared to answer follow-up questions (and source requests), please **refrain** from writing. We're not interested in your personal opinion or personal anecdotes. For more information, [please read our rules](_URL_1_) or [get in touch with us directly through mod-mail.](_URL_0_)", "I'd also like to know why they turned out so different, what'd we do differently in Korea?", "Well, a number of reasons. Perhaps the most notable, besides the loss/tie difference that you pointed to, is that they were sold as similar wars but were in fact very different. Korea, while unpopular, was nowhere near as catastrophic from a PR point of view as Vietnam. ~~South Korea was a legitimate state, and as such it made sense and was more understandable for the US to intervene on behalf of an endangered ally. The situation in Vietnam was totally different.~~ (Sorry about that, I don't have the sources with me to back that up, so I'll retract it, and I don't know enough about South Korea to answer off the top of my head. My reasoning was based on Diem's ultimately dying in a coup during the war, while See stayed in power afterwards, so I guess stability would be my one word answer.) It seems, at first, exactly like you described, \"to protect democratic factions in the country against Communist ones,\" or protect the South from the North like in Korea. That's the one sentence, official answer, and the one that you're most likely to get from any simple history of the subject. However, the situation in Vietnam was totally different from that sort of ideal. In reality, there was no democratic South Vietnam. It was established after the Geneva Conference of 1954 (which followed Vietnam's war of independence from France) as a temporary state in preparation for national elections in 1956.\n\nHo Chi Minh, the leader of North Vietnam, was extremely popular, representing both nationalism and successful resistance to a much more powerful foreign occupier, which is something of a recurring theme in Vietnamese history. He was a brutal autocrat, to be sure, frequently killing political opponents, by the thousands if need be. That said, he was not the agent of some larger Communist conspiracy. He played the Soviets for military support during both wars, but did not answer to them, and was a revolutionary nationalist who happened to be Communist rather than a revolutionary Communist seeking to cause the fall of Southeast Asia.\n\nIn the leadup to 1956, it was clear that Ho was going to sweep the elections. He was much more popular than his Southern counterpart, Ngo Dinh Diem, who was also autocratic and led an extremely corrupt South Vietnamese (SVN) government, without popular support. By all accounts, South Vietnam should have ended in 1956, with the country unifying after Ho's inevitable victory in the national elections. However, Diep did not partake in the elections, ensuring the prolongation of the SVN state, which thereafter existed almost solely because of US aid.\n\nThe question of whether the US should have intervened is an extremely loaded one, but it boils down to a set of assumptions that policy makers had. First, those in charge assumed that Ho was part of a larger Communist plot and that he thus had to be stopped to halt Soviet expansion. Now, the theory of monolithic Communism, which was also key to the domino theory of one country's fall engendering a worldwide collapse of free societies into Communist control, was demonstrably false (Here, I was pointing mainly to Tito being independent and the emergent Sino-Soviet split, which while it was later than the earliest military advisers, still was a political reality at during escalation), and many policymakers knew that. There was no real international agenda, and different countries, whether the USSR, China, Yugoslavia, or Vietnam, had their own take on how to govern and their own priorities.\n\nSecond, policymakers assumed that SVN was a viable, independent and preexisting state, which was untrue. It was corrupt, lacked popular support, and should by all rights have disappeared after the 1956 elections. The continued to funnel money and supplies into the government long after they knew that none of it was being put to good use (this appears in both Appy and the Pentagon Papers. Appy says that SVN citizens were well aware of and hated the governmental corruption, and specifically that \"Diem's popular support was thin, his military largely inept, his government riddled with corruption.\" The Pentagon papers also fully acknowledge Diem's unpopularity and inefficiency).\n\nLastly, Americans assumed that the Vietnam situation would affect their place in international politics as a whole. The whole doctrine of \"credibility\" led policymakers to think that a fall of SVN to Communism would lead the USSR and the world in general to lose respect and fear for the US, which singlehandedly explains why the war dragged on as long as it did. No one wanted to be the first American president to lose a war, and so they supported the stalemate in the hopes of kicking the can further down the road.\n\nNow, to fully answer your question, basically the war was fought on false premises **AND** the American public found out about it. Journalists became more critical of American presence as they found out more about the situation. In addition, the publication of the Pentagon Papers, a collection of classified documents concerning American involvement in Vietnam, turned more Americans against the war, and led to an increasingly popular sentiment that this war was being fought for thoroughly wrong reasons, was costing thousands of American lives, was being fought wrong, and that Americans had no real stake in the outcome. Combine all that, and you get the least popular conflict in American history. However, this history is being forgotten at an alarming rate, with ~~support for the Vietnam War increasing~~ the number of Americans who think intervention was a mistake decreasing later and later after the war's end (this was a statistic that I saw, must have simply misremembered it, thanks).\n\nNow, I'm only a college student, and so this likely isn't a perfect answer. I would like to keep contributing to this sub, so feedback is welcome and appreciated.\n\nIn terms of sources, this is primarily in James Patterson's *Grand Expectations, The United States: 1945-1975* which is a solid general history of recent America, and Christian Appy's *Patriots: The Vietnam War Remembered from All Sides* which is a fascinating collection of firsthand accounts from people involved with the war, which I cannot recommend highly enough. If you're interested, I would also look into the Pentagon Papers themselves, which, once you're more acquainted with the history behind them, provide a fascinating insight into what happened, and what went wrong.\n\n**TL;DR:** War fought for wrong reasons, Americans find out about it.\n\n**EDIT:** Sweet Jesus this blew up, some great comments below, so listen to those smarter people first. I'll try to fix what I can, though there is some stuff that I don't have answers for. ", "TL:DR Vietnam is tainted by the people involved, the administrations most remembered for fighting it are Nixon and Johnson. Johnson was said to have lost the war and Nixon to have continued the war in spite of the obvious.\n\nIn 1965 when ground troops were introduced and up until the Tet Offensive of 1968 most Americans believed the US to be \"winning the war\". Body counts were included in news reports to show the numbers as clearly a win in the American column. American had air superiority and could report massive tons of bombs being dropped on Northern targets. In effect there was a wow effect to all of this which was dashed when the entire south was attacked by an enemy that had been tagged as \"losing\" recently before the attacks in January of 1968. Walter Cronkite calling the war a futile effort struck a chord with the American people. \n\nThe other half of the war was managed by Nixon and Kissinger who pulled troops out slowly even as support continued to evaporate in opinion polls and as events such as Kent State and My Lai played out across the public sphere. Kissinger and Nixon approved targets personally, and could be held responsible for mistakes such as the Christmas bombings in 1972 in which many civilians were killed. Basically the argument can be made and has been made that Kissinger and Nixon fought for a peace that Americans could stomach for 4 more years only to get more people killed (Vietnamese civilians and US personnel) for a war that was considered that it would not be won. \n\nIn conclusion I think Americans that lived through the war and wrote about it after were influenced by the characters of the people who prosecuted the heaviest involvement from 1965 to 1972. The semi live coverage of the war on the nightly news combined with more color journalism provided people with a colorful backdrop and in depth coverage of characters including Robert MacNamara, Henry Kissinger, and General Westmoreland outside the presidency led to an easier to identify cast of personal villains than Korea.\n\nSources: Probably being overly influenced by the 6 hour mini series Vietnam in HD I just finished last week, my recent trips to the Life Magazine Photo exhibition at the War Remnants Museum in Saigon, Robert MacNamara's 'In retrospect', CBS News Vietnam War documentaries, 'Dear America: Letters home from Vietnam', the section detailing the Paris Peace Negotiations in Kissinger's \"Diplomacy\", the Vietnam War with Walter Cronkite. ", "I think your question makes the assumption that Korean war was popular. If you look at the polls [here](_URL_0_) you can see that at least at those points in time in 1951 and 1952 it was actually unpopular. Even on a similar level to Vietnam. I know those are just single data points but just trying to question the underlying assumption.", "Most of the best points have already been brought up, but one more:\n\nCalling the Korean War a \"tie\" is a bit misleading. The North, which invaded first, held nearly the entire peninsula at one point in the war. When hostilities ceased, the the boundaries were back to where they started. That's not really a \"tie\" — because in terms of territory, the North Koreans' advance was completely halted. They gained nothing, as opposed to gaining everything. My point, in short, is that the difference in \"victory level\" between Korea and Vietnam was very big.\n", "As far as I can tell, the Korean War came at a time when people were a bit war weary after WW2 and did not really want anything to do with the Korean War. It was not a spectacular war like Vietnam with helicopter combat and the suchlike, but more a form of trench warfare that stalemated fairly quickly around the 38th parallel. To me, it is a highly interesting war, but I think to the majority of Americans, it was not. Also, it was not shrouded in secrecy and dirty dealings like Vietnam. It was a genuine war very early on in the Cold War (Russia did not even have a nuke when it started), unlike Vietnam which was after the chaotic events of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Moreover, the social climate was different. The 1950s were a time of prosperity and generally, people were happy. The 1960s saw the rise of the peace movements and Civil Rights movements. People were challenging the government in multiple ways and when the shady dealings around the start of the war and the operations into Cambodia and Laos came to light, it caught on with the American public.\n\nSources: Max Hastings, 'The Korean War' and Anthony Salmon 'To The Last Round'. I will add the sources for my knowledge on Vietnam in a minute, but 'We Ain't What We Ought To Be' by Stephen Tuck covers the correlation between the Civil Rights movement and the protests against Vietnam quite nicely.", "A lot of people also forget that America was not the sole combatant in Korea. The forces defending South Korea were UN soldiers comprised of 15 nations, the majority were Americans and the UN soldiers were led by MacArthur. It wasn't \"America vs. the Commies\" similar to Vietnam, a large portion of the world saw the invasion of South Korea as morally wrong, legitimatizing the conflict. As others already said, media coverage was not as comprehensive in Korea as it was in Vietnam either. I'm not a historian or published by any means, but I spent a few months writing [this paper](_URL_1_) (sorry for pastebin, don't know where else I should put it, if anyone actually cares to read it I'd just copy it and paste it into a word processor) \n\n[Source](_URL_0_) for statements made about Korea", "The Korean War was a conventional war in the sense that there were clear objectives, an obvious opponent, and a moral sense of right in the US' and UN's actions to aid the South Koreans when the North Koreans invaded with the aid of the USSR and Communist China. People could track the war's progress daily on a map. They knew exactly who they were fighting, more so when the Chinese entered the fray in late 1950. Combined with the attitude of the day against Communists, as far as the population is concerned, we won the war by securing South Korea's independence.\n\nFast forward to the Vietnam War and we barely have any of that. The sense of right in our actions was still there, but the flame that drove the hatred in the '50s was starting to sputter and die out. We had ambiguous objectives since it was decided not to invade North Vietnam proper to prevent a repeat of Chinese intervention that occured during the Korean War meaning there was no front line that the population could track on a map. To make it even worse, for the most part of the conflict, just as we see today in the Middle East, it was both hard to track down the opposing force as well as to identify him from friendly South Koreans. As the war dragged on for nearly two decades, the troops on the ground became demoralized, the attitude at home soured, and the politicians realized that supporting the war was political suicide. Men were dying, yet the war was dragging on with, it seemed, no end.\n\nOn top of that, the Korean War was overshadowed by the immense fighting of the Second World War and the dragging fight that was the Vietnam War and the hatred that spawned for it. The Korean War was essentially forgotten in the minds of the average American." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_answers" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.gallup.com/poll/19924/War-Through-Partisan-Lenses.aspx" ], [], [], [ "https://history.state.gov/milestones/1945-1952/korean-war-2", "http://pastebin.com/vnGwSKHq" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c34vedu", "c34vedu" ], "score": [ 6, 6 ], "text": [ "If you had a vessel that could be sealed and would not allow any exchange of material between the internal and external environments, and didn't absorb or react with any of whatever molecules that produced the scent, then the only thing that would limit how long the scent remained would be the rate of decay of the scent molecules.\n\nIts highly improbably, if not impossible, that any complex, scent-producing molecule would last forever, and I am not a physicist or chemist, so I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the decay rates of individual elements, but it is highly likely that with the right containment vessel, you could keep a smell stored in it for a very, very long time.", "If you had a vessel that could be sealed and would not allow any exchange of material between the internal and external environments, and didn't absorb or react with any of whatever molecules that produced the scent, then the only thing that would limit how long the scent remained would be the rate of decay of the scent molecules.\n\nIts highly improbably, if not impossible, that any complex, scent-producing molecule would last forever, and I am not a physicist or chemist, so I don't have a whole lot of knowledge about the decay rates of individual elements, but it is highly likely that with the right containment vessel, you could keep a smell stored in it for a very, very long time." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjp70zh" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "Yes, this is called gravitational lensing. In reality though we don't use black holes, we use galaxies. [Here](_URL_0_) is an extreme example, where light from the background galaxy is almost bent in a circle by the foreground galaxy. Even though it looks distorted, the galaxy is magnified by the gravitational lens. This can be used to get better views of really distant galaxies." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravitational_lens#mediaviewer/File:A_Horseshoe_Einstein_Ring_from_Hubble.JPG" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cijni59" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "I think you are getting confused about chronology, as the system changed over time.\n\n**Herod** the Great\n\nRules as a client-king after he overthrow Antigonus in 37 BC. Basically Rome employed client-states a great deal, particularly in the East, for a number of reasons. Firstly, people tended to be less rebellious if part of their political structure and national identity was left in tact. Secondly, it removed some of the administrative burden from Rome. Thirdly, it sometimes functioned to provide a buffer against other border states, i.e. the Parthians.\n\nMake no mistake though, being a client-kingdom was very much a dependent existence. The crown was received from Rome, and answered to Rome. Herod had to show political capability and personal allegience to his Roman patron(s). Particularly he had to move quickly to switch support from Mark Antony to Augustus when the latter came to power.\n\nHerod died in 4 BC, and his kingdom was carved up into three pieces. \n\n**Herod Archelaus**\n\nOne of Herod's sons, Archelaus, took over from Herod as *ethnarch* of Judea (as well as Samaria and Idumia). Josephus writes about him in *Antiquitis* 17.8.4 and following, as well as *Wars* 2.1. \n\nHis title had to be granted by Augustus, and while it's not entirely clear, opposition to him may be some of the reason he did not carry the title king. overall he was not well liked or very competent, especially with a reputation for cruelty and flagrant violation of Mosaic law. So in AD 6 the Romans *deposed* and exiled him. \n\nIt's at this point that Judea turned into a Roman province. It was ruled by Prefects until AD 41, and then procurators from AD 44 onwards. Not all of these are known by name. Technically it was neither a senatorial nor imperial province, but a kind of special administrative region, dependent upon Syria, that is why it's prefects tended to be *equites*, rather than senators.\n\nIt's in this period that **Pilate** reigns as Prefect, from AD 26-36. \n\nBetween AD 41-44 Judea was again a kingdom, as Claudius made Herod Agrippa to be King of hte Jews, this was part of Claudius' more widespread policy to elevate procurators to governorship. Things get a little messy from the AD 60s onwards, with the revolt, the presence of a Roman legate; from 135 onwards the area was reorganized, and the province of *Syria Palaestina* emerges." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch412mp" ], "score": [ 67 ], "text": [ "In a letter to Tacitus written years after the event, Pliny the Younger described how his uncle, Pliny the Elder, was killed during the eruption of Vesuvius. Pliny the Elder was in command of the Roman navy stationed in the Bay of Naples. When he saw the plume of smoke and ash rising from the mountain across the bay, he initially sent for a single ship, but when he was informed of the scale of the volcanic eruption, he mobilized the entire Roman fleet and sailed to Stabiae, a seaside town a few miles from Pompeii.\n\nOnce there, he connected with another Roman naval commander, whose ships were unable to sail out of the harbor due to unfavorable winds. While they ventured down to the shore (with ash and pumice falling heavily around them) to see if any approach to Pompeii was possible, Pliny was apparently overcome and collapsed. Some have theorized that he was killed by noxious gases (Pliny the Younger assumed he suffocated in the ash cloud), but it's not entirely clear what the specific cause of death was.^1\n\nAs for that specific rescue operation, it appears to have been unsuccessful. I'm not clear on whether or not any additional operations were mobilized --Emperor Titus organized an extensive relief program, but that was aimed more at recovery than it was a rescue operation.^2\n\n1. [Pliny the Younger, *Letters* 6.16](_URL_0_)\n2. [Cassius Dio, *Roman History* 66.22](_URL_1_)\n\nEDIT: I can't speak to how long it took the specific details of the catastrophe to reach Rome, but the sources report that ash fell on cities across Italy (including the capital) and even reached as far away as Alexandria, in Egypt. So people knew something was going on, but not necessarily that it was coming from Vesuvius." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://faculty.cua.edu/pennington/pompeii/plinyletters.htm", "http://penelope.uchicago.edu/Thayer/E/Roman/Texts/Cassius_Dio/66*.html#22" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dgit8dh" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "A recent trend in web design has been what's called \"responsive\" web design. It used to be that you could assume someone viewing your page was using a desktop computer with a certain minimum screen resolution you could optimize your layout for. When smartphones and tablets became popular you started to see \"full versions\" and \"mobile versions\" of the same site, each optimized for different screen resolutions. That works fine but it's twice the work to build and maintain two versions of every page. The answer to that problem has been responsive design where you build the page once with built in rules on how to lay the page out based on the device's screen resolution. The end result is you build a page that works as well as possible in both mobile and desktop views which usually means padding out content with a lot of white space on both sides when viewed on higher resolution desktop screens." ] }

[]

[ "http://image.prntscr.com/image/3d77af93b5b64b0a881d331ff4e21cd8.png" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfe5kfc", "cfe69wx" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Here is a nice explanation: _URL_0_", "An object in motion tends to stay in motion unless acted on by an equal and opposite force. \n\nIn short, every point on your bicycle wheels will keep going in the same direction it is going unless something stops it. If these points were unattached, they would go flying off like a pinwheel. Since they are attached, with spokes, rubber, rims etc, they continue to move in a circle. Centrifugal force.\n\nThis creates a plane right down the center of the two wheels and the body. Unless an opposite force acts to make them move to the left or right, they will continue to move in the same direction on that plane. Go fast enough and you can ride without hands or feet. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.theaggie.org/2013/09/26/no-hands/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpn6tcr", "cpn70rw", "cpn92ju" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The IRS doesn't make it difficult. It's congress that passes these bills. They have very precise wording to avoid people exploiting unintended loopholes.", "A lot of times the explanations on the IRS site can be legalese, often because they are trying harder to avoid making a mistake with very complicated laws then they are to be clear and understandable.\n\nThat said, the actual IRS organization will often bend over backward to help clarify issues. You can try [calling](_URL_1_), although I don't know how busy that telephone line will be this time of year. \n\nEDIT: good luck.\n\nEDIT: another list of free IRS assistance, although not sure if any is for business specifically _URL_0_", "You're free to go learn all thee 75,000 pages of the tax code, because the government doesn't know which parts apply to your business. Spomeomne might be able to figure it out......like an accountant" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.irs.gov/uac/Free-Tax-Help-Available-From-the-IRS-1", "http://www.irs.gov/uac/Telephone-Assistance" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3gtef3" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "It acts as camouflage against the sky when seen from the ground. In WW2 we preferred green and brown on top to provide camouflage against the ground when seen from above, but now anything that's likely to see you from above is likely to fire a missile at you without ever seeing you, so camouflage won't help." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg01708", "cg01k9w", "cg01o8p" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Snorting drugs puts it into your blood stream quicker. Makes you feel it instantly. Eating makes it take a little bit. If you notice people snorting pain meds it is to feel it quocker", "Your nose contains mucus membranes, through which substances can be absorbed faster than through your digestive tract. Generally speaking, the fastest absorption will be through injection into the bloodstream, second fastest is inhalation, third is mucus membranes, and last is digestion.", "Some substances have a greater water solubility than others which makes it easily dissolvable in our internal fluids. When these substances get dissolved and absorbed into our blood stream is when we feel their peak effects. Cocaine has a high solubility and thus when administered in quick ways like injection or snorting it can be felt strongly and quickly. Other drugs need to be digested and absorbed gradually but ppl find ways to administer drugs all kinds of ways" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e4sieza" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Most large companies aren't privately owned. They are publicly traded corporations. The major stockholders can't \"take the money and run\" because the money is in their ownership of the business. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8hl1qu" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Almost certainly not. This comes from something Pliny the Elder wrote, in 60 BC, not the 2nd century AD:“The same Cornelius Nepos, when speaking of the northern circumnavigation, tells us that Q. Metellus Celer, the colleague of L. Afranius in the consulship, but then a proconsul in Gaul, had a present made to him by the king of the Suevi, of certain Indians, who sailing from India for the purpose of commerce, had been driven by tempests into Germany.” Somehow, someone with the historical contortionism of Gavin Menzies twisted this single paragraph into saying that these two Indians were in fact Native Americans. Never mind that there is not a single word in that paragraph suggesting such a thing, there is no way a Native American could have crossed the Atlantic at that time period." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dhxb60c", "dhxck67", "dhxd35k", "dhxdybx", "dhxqwr9" ], "score": [ 10, 3, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "This is a bit like magic trick and when all the moving parts and behind the scenes preparation are revealed the result is clear, magic evaporates, and, in this case, follows from the uniqueness of the complex function f(z) satisfying f'(z) = f(z) and f(0) = 1 but that fact is often obscured by our intuition regarding exponents.\n\n*Start with some background* \n\nRecall that 3^4 is 3 multiplied by itself 4 times. With suitable mental gymnastics, e^pi is e multiplied by itself pi times and we accept that e & lt; e^2 & lt; e^3 & lt; e^pi & lt; e^4\n\nAll of that intuition fails when we first encounter e^(i). \n\nMaybe we start telling ourselves... I don't know what e^i is but my intuition is telling me that e^i & lt; e^2i & lt; e^3i & lt; e^i\\*pi & lt; e^(4i), and, as it turns out, nothing could be further from the truth... imaginary exponents do not work the same on real numbers as real exponents, not in terms of thinking about 3^4 is 3 multiplied by itself 4 times.\n\nImaginary exponents, in order to make mathematical sense, have to be thought of differently and there are many ways to do this but one of the quickest ways to get the desired result is to appeal to basic calculus.\n\nIn calculus, one of the defining properties of the real valued function f(x) = e^x is that it is equal to its own derivative. That is, e^x is the unique real valued function f(x) satisfying f'(x) = f(x) and f(0) = 1. That derivative equation and one value, f(0) = 1, is enough to uniquely define e^(x). \n\nFrom that particular definition (there are many ways to define e and e^(x), this is but one way) you can build up all the familiar properties of exponents and eventually see how our intuition with e^(pi), e^(3), e^(4), and even 3^(4) are all connected. All of that intuition can be recovered from *the unique real valued function f(x) satisfying f'(x) = f(x) and f(0) = 1*.\n\nWell, it turns out you can do all that calculus stuff with complex numbers and that there is a unique complex function f(z) satisfying f'(z) = f(z) and f(0) = 1. And for the sake of familiar notation we call that function f(z) = e^(z). \n\nIt turns out that whenever *z* is real, then everything we know about the real function e^x is exactly true for e^z and that is where our intuition starts to betray us... we begin to think of complex and imaginary exponents a little too much like we think of real exponents and we might even start to think e^(i) & lt; e^(2i) & lt; e^(3i) & lt; e^i\\*pi & lt; e^(4i). It cannot be further from the truth because with complex numbers we cannot expect to order the numbers like we do real numbers. \n\nSo, in order to make sense of e^i\\*pi + 1 = 0 we really should get a sense of e^(z) for complex numbers *z* and one place that comes from is by accepting (really by proving) that e^z is the unique complex function e^(z) = f(z) satisfying f'(z) = f(z) and f(0) = 1. \n\n*Now for the reveal*\n\nWrite the complex number z = y + i\\*x where y and x are real then notice that the complex valued function g(z) = e^(y)[cos(x) + i\\*sin(x)] satisfies the very same conditions for e^z = f(z), that is, satisfying g'(z) = g(z) and g(0) = 1. This means that g(z) = f(z) and therefore e^z = e^(y)[cos(x) + i\\*sin(x)] where z = y + i\\*x.\n\nNext, setting y=0 we get g(i\\*x) = e^i\\*x = cos(x) + i\\*sin(x) and letting x = pi we get the seemingly magical statement e^i\\*pi + 1 = 0.\n\nSo, it turns out that the astounding formula e^i\\*pi + 1 = 0 really is a near immediate result following from the crucial fact of the uniqueness of the complex function f(z) satisfying f'(z) = f(z) and f(0) = 1 what seems like magic is really the result of powerful machinery and lots of work, not unlike stage magic.", "It would help if you gave us some sense of where you're starting from. Do you know how e is defined? Are you familiar with complex numbers? DeMoivre's theorem? When I'm teaching I need to know who my audience is and what level they're at.", "It works because multiplication of complex numbers includes the concept of rotation. \n\nSo let's start with that idea. If you rotate something by one turn it will be the same thing. One turn is symbolized by 2*π if you're counting radians. \"The same thing\" is symbolized by 1 in multiplication. \n\nIf you rotate something by a half turn, it takes two rotations to get where you start. This can be symbolized by -1.\n\n- x - > -x\n- -x - > x\n\nBoth times you're multiplying by -1\n\nReal numbers exist on a line. So you only have two directions that exist and we'd be done. But with complexity numbers let's do a quarter turn.\n\n- x\n- x\\*i\n- -x\n- x*i\n\nNotice how multiplying by i does half of what mutiplying by -1 does. This is a square root thing. \n\n- x\n- x\\*sqrt(2)\n- 2\\*x\n\nNow let's look at -1/2 + sqrt(3)/2\\*i. It does something like this as well. You may need some paper to follow the algebra.\n\n- x\n- (-1/2 + sqrt(3)/2\\*i) \\* x\n- (-1/2 + sqrt(3)/2\\*i)^2 \\* x\n - 1/4\\*(-1 + sqrt(3)\\*i)^2 \\* x\n - 1/4\\*(1 - 2\\*sqrt(3)\\*i - 3) \\* x\n - (-1/2 - sqrt(3)/2\\*i) \\* x\n- (-1/2 - sqrt(3)/2\\*i) * (-1/2 + sqrt(3)/2\\*i) \\* x\n - 1/4\\*((-1)^2 - (sqrt(3)\\*i)^(2)) \\* x\n - 1/4 \\* (1 + 3) \\* x\n - x\n\nThree multiplications, so that's a third of a turn each.\n\nOne whole turn: 2\\*pi or 1. One half turn: pi or -1. One third turn: 2/3\\*pi or (-1/2 + sqrt(3)\\*i). One quarter turn: pi/2 or i. ... *Any* fraction of a turn is possible.\n\nThe exponent function should relate rotation by adding (angles) to rotation by multiplication (complex roots of one). Since real numbers represent exponential growth or decay, imaginary numbers represent angles of rotation.\n\n- e^(2 pi i) = 1\n- e^(pi i) = -1\n- e^(1/2 pi i) = i\n- e^(a i) = cos(a) + sin(a)\\*i [define these functions to accept radians]\n\nUnfortunately, the *proof* of this will have to wait for a calculus or complex analysis course. ", "Euler's formula is a direct result of the [Taylor series](_URL_0_) of the functions e^(x), sin(x) and cos(x).\n\nWithout going into what the Taylor series is exactly and how we can calculate it, I'll just tell you that these are the Taylor series of these three functions:\n\n* e^x = 1 + x + x^(2)/2! + x^(3)/3! + ...\n\n* sin(x) = x - x^(3)/3! + x^(5)/5! - x^(7)/7! + x^(9)/9! + ...\n\n* cos(x) = 1 - x^(2)/2! + x^(4)/4! - x^(6)/6! + x^(8)/8! + ...\n\nYou can see there's somewhat of a resemblance between the terms of e^x with odd powers with the terms of sin(x), and the terms of e^x with even powers with the terms of cos(x).\n\nSo now an interesting question is: what is e^(i*x) (where i is the imaginary number, i.e. i^2 = -1)? Using the Taylor expansion, we get:\n\ne^(ix) = 1 + ix + (ix)^(2)/2! + (ix)^(3)/3! + (ix)^(4)/4! + ... = 1 + ix - x^(2)/2! - ix^(3)/3! + x^(4)/4! + ix^(5)/5! - x^(6)/6! + ...\n\nNow if we look at just the terms of e^(ix) with even powers, we get 1 - x^(2)/2! + x^(4)/4! + ... which is exactly sin(x). Similarly, If we look at the rest of the terms, we get ix - ix^(3)/3! + ix^(5)/5! - ix^(7)/7! + ... which is exactly i\\*cos(x).\n\nSo what we get is Euler's Formula: e^(ix) = sin(x) + i\\*cos(x).\n\nNow just substitute pi for x, and you get e^(i*pi) = sin(pi) + i\\*cos(pi) = -1 + i\\*0 = -1.", "If you want a *very* brief intuitive explanation, I'll say two things:\n\n--multiplying by an imaginary number is like rotation\n\n--raising e to a power is like continuous growth.\n\nI don't expect those two sentences to explain *everything*. But I think it's a half-decent summary.\n\nTo understand the above statements in more detail, you could explore the following:\n\n_URL_0_\n\n_URL_1_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taylor_series" ], [ "https://betterexplained.com/articles/a-visual-intuitive-guide-to-imaginary-numbers/", "https://betterexplained.com/articles/intuitive-understanding-of-eulers-formula/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "er2itu3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You should be ok (though I can't say for certain). Gram staining is staining for peptidoglycan, which is present in high levels in gram positive bacteria cell walls and less so in gram-negative. Insects don't have cell walls, so I would think that the only place a gram stain might light up is in something like chitin (which makes up the hard exoskeleton of insects), which is a polymer acetylglucosamine. Cell walls in bacteria are made up of a polymer acetylglucosamine and acetylmuramic acid, which is somewhat similar. However, the lactic acid on acetylmuramic acid really messes with the way the superstructure forms so it looks and behaves very different.\n\nMy guess would be that high levels of chitin in your sample might create a false positive. I would test is scientifically with a positive and negative control." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckf7wie", "ckf83ng" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sweden has won more by most counts. /u/vonadler did a good summary of all the wars fought between Swedem and Denmark in [this](_URL_0_) thread. ", "I'll copy my old post and add victories and draws.\n\nIt depends a bit on wether or not you count the various fighting within the Kalmar Union as Dano-Swedish wars or not. \n\nI'll count Sweden as existing from the crowning of Knut Eriksson (Erikska) as King 1173. This is the first time we can confirm properly that someone was King over Östergötland, Västergötland and Svealand at the same time, and the three Kingdoms did not splinter afterwards.\n\nI'll do a list and a conservative and a generous estimate.\n\n**1205-1210:** The Danes support Sverker Karlsson (Sverkerska) in his fight with Erik Knutsson (Erikska) over the Swedish throne. Sources indicate Danish troops were directly involved in the Battle of Gestilren 1210, so I'll count this as one for the generous estimate. The Danish-supported side lost, so I'll count this for Sweden.\n\n**1360-1361:** The Danish King Valdemar Atterdag captures Skåne, Halland and Blekinge (purchased by Sweden earlier) and Gotland (mostly an independent Peasants' Republic, but nominally belonging to the Swedish crown). This will count for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Danes clearly won here, as Valdemar occupied a lot of terrain.\n\n**1389-1398:** King Albrekt of Sweden and his supporters are defeated by the forces of the nobility and Queen Margareta of Denmark and Norway and the Kalmar Union comes into existance. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Danish-supported forces won here, so I'll count this one for Denmark.\n\n**1434-1436:** A revolt led by Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson leads to the first estates parliament in Sweden to declare King Erik of Denmark, Norway and Sweden deposed as King of Sweden. I'll count this as one for the generous count as it is a revolt within the Kalmar Union. The rebellion ousted the Danish King, so I'll count this one for Sweden.\n\n**1448-1450:** As King Kristoffer dies suddenlly, the estates parliament elect the Swedish prominent nobleman Karl Knutsson (Bonde) King of Sweden. Both he and King Kristian I of Denmark are elected King of Norway by their respective supporters and war breaks out over Norway. Karl Knutsson (Bonde) quickly loses, but it is a real war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Swedish side lost the quest for the Norwegian throne, so I'll count this one for Denmark.\n\n**1452-1457:** War between King Karl Knutsson (Bonde) and King Kristian of Denmark (with a cease fire 1453-1455). In the end, Karl Knutsson (Bonde) is deposed and Kristian is elected King of Sweden too. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. The Danish side won this one.\n\n**1463-1471:** Since King Karl Knutsson (Bonde) had returned as King, new fighting broke out as King Kristian tried to enforce his claims to the Swedish throne. Karl Knutsson (Bonde) died 1470, but his supporters rallied around Sten Gustavsson (sture) and decisively defeated the Danish army at Brunkeberg (nowadays inside Stockholm 1471). I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This one is a Swedish victory.\n\n**1501-1520:** Sten Gustavsson (Sture), having been deposed by Swedish supporters of the Kalmar Union 1497 returns and revolts against King Hans of Denmark. Sten Gustavsson (Sture) assumes control of Sweden again and war continues until Sten Svantesson (Sture) is defeated by King Kristian II of Denmark at the Battle of Bogesund 1520. Sten Svantesson (Sture) is murdered and King Kristian II orchestrates [Stockholm's bloodbath](_URL_0_). I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This is a Danish victory.\n\n**1521-1523:** Gustav Eriksson (Wasa) leads a rising against King Kristian II and finally ends the Kalmar Union. As part of the fighting happens when Gustav Eriksson (Wasa) has been elected King of Sweden, I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. A Swedish victory. From here you can say that Sweden exists as a nation-state.\n\n**1534-1536:** Sweden intervenes in the Counts' feud in Denmark to ensure that King Kristian II can not regain the throne in Denmark. As it is an intervention in a civll war, I'll only count this for the generous estimate. While the intervention keeps Denmark from meddling in Swedish affairs, it does not gain Sweden anything from the fighting, so this is a draw.\n\n**1563-1570:** The Nordic Seven Years' War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. This one is mostly a draw as no territory was exchanged. Sweden had to pay 150 000 thalers to gain Älvsborg back, but the Danish King had to abstain his claim on the Swedish throne. I'll count it as a draw.\n\n**1611-1613:** The Kalmar War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory was exchanged, but Sweden had to pay a monstrous war indemnity to gain Älvsborg back (again) of 1 000 000 thalers, so I'll count this as a Danish victory. \n\n**1643-1645:** Torstensson's War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Sweden gainst territory, so it is a Swedish victory.\n\n**1657-1658:** Karl X Gustav's War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Sweden gainst huge amounts of territory, so I'll count it as a Swedish victory.\n\n**1658-1660:** Karl X Gustav's second War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. Denmark regains some of the territory lost in the previous war, so I'll count it as a Danish victory.\n\n**1675-1679:** The Scanian War between Denmark and Sweden. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged, so I will count this as a draw.\n\n**1700:** First Danish participation in the Great Nordic War. A very short war, where Swedish forces land outside Copenhagen and force Denmark to leave the anti-Swedish alliance. As it is short, and Denmark took part in the Great Nordic War later as well, I'll only count this for the generous estimate. No territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1709-1719:** Second Danish participation in the Great Nordic War. Full on war. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1788-1790:** The teather war. Sweden attack Russia, and Denmark honours its alliance with Russia and declares war. There's little actual warfare between Sweden and Denmark, though. I'll only count this for the generous estimate. Very little warfare and no territory exchanged, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1808-1809:** The Danish war. Denmark, allied with Russia, which prodded by Napoleon attacks Sweden to force it into the continental system, declares war on Sweden. The fighting is limited, as the Danish forces in Norway lack supplies due to a blockade by the Royal Navy and the Danish, Spanish and French forces in Denmark cannot get across the Sound to invade Sweden. However, Sweden attempts to invade Norway but is turned back. I'll count this one for both the generous and the conservative estimate. No territory exchanged as part of this, so I'll call it a draw.\n\n**1814:** The invasion of Norway. At the peace in Kiel 1814, Denmark had to give Norway to Sweden, but the Norwegians themselves tried to declare independence. As it is hard to say that it is a war against Denmark despite the Norwegian army fighting being trained, equipped and officered by the Danes, I'll count this only for the generous estimate. Sweden gains Norway, so I will count this one for Sweden.\n\n1814 was the last war Sweden fought.\n\nThis gives us a total of; \n\nGenerous: 21 wars between Sweden and Denmark.\n\nConservative: 15 wars between Sweden and Denmark.\n\n7 won by Sweden, 7 won by Denmark and 7 draws." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1emc97/is_it_true_that_sweden_and_denmark_is_the_two/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockholm_Bloodbath" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dq7j53g", "dq7jq9e" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Human beings, much like other animals, did evolve the capability of building up fat reserves when food is abundant, and then living off those reserves when food is scarce. The only reason why this system has broken down in the modern world is that most of us now have access to abundant food all the time. We are always preparing for a famine that (so far) never comes.\n\nThe reason why you feel weak when you don't eat, is that your body does need to have some caloric energy available even to access its reserves of stored caloric energy. Everything takes energy. You will find that if you eat just a small amount of nutritious food (not potato chips) you will not feel weak. You can cut back on food drastically and get very good results in terms of weight loss, without having to give up eating entirely. ", "The human body has two sources of energy. Fat burning and sugar burning. Your body prefers to burn sugar and will so long as there is a sufficient supply. If you do not eat any sugars or starches, carbohydrates in general, your body will enter ketosis. This means it's burning fat for fuel. This transition takes a few days but once you've made the transition you will be able to live off your fat reserves much more efficiently, without feeling so drained." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cfxfyot", "cfxgg7i" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "\"fedora felt hats as a fashion accessory, are often mocked online for being worn by men without poor sense of style.\"\n\nshown in\n\n[This picture](_URL_0_)", "as soon as you see someone wearing them, and i mean anyone; then you'll know. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://i2.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/newsfeed/000/519/423/b62.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ezudfdq" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "The Quakers are an interesting community in many ways. As you noted, they're famous for their pacifism. Analyzing the reasons behind why a man or a community fought in a war is a complicated subject, and of course the reasons I'm going to give are general ones, but the answer to your question lays in the Quakers anti-slavery position, and how ultimately they came to believe that fighting for the Union and for emancipation superseded their commitment to pacifism. \n\nJust to give some context, Quakers had engaged in anti-slavery work for a long time. Even before the American Revolution, some Quakers had spoke up against slavery, condemning it as contrary to Christian principles. They would later form the Pennsylvania Anti-Slavery Society, which presented a petition to the first Congress, requesting the abolition of slavery. In general, Quakers firmly believed in the principle of the \"guiding light\" that naturally conducts every person to do the right thing. As such, a slaveholder would eventually come to his senses and realize that slavery was not Christian, and would then emancipate his slaves. For this reason, Quakers supported moderation and Democratic means, such as petitions or sending priests to Southern states to make slaveholders see the error of their ways.\n\nThe Quaker position thus contrasted with the political abolitionism of Salmon P. Chase, or the militant abolitionism of William Lloyd Garrison. In the case of the former, Chase developed a theory that held that slavery in the territories, or even slavery itself, was unconstitutional, and that the government had to ensure freedom wherever it had power (\"Freedom National\"). In the case of the later, slavery was categorized as a monstrous sin that should be eradicated without regard for Constitutional issues. The Quaker view contrasted with Chase's because political abolitionism did not give much emphasis to the moral element, and although this made it more appealing and thus more successful, Quakers always focused on the fact that slavery was *morally* wrong. On the other hand, they agreed with the Garrisonians, since both groups always put morality to the forefront. The problem is that Garrison was very militant in his approach, condemning not only slavery but slaveholders as well. In the Quakers' eyes, slaveholders did not know better; in Garrison's, they were \"man-stealers\" who should be punished for their sins.\n\nA shift within the Quaker community as well as within most pacifist anti-slavery people took place during the 1850's, when outrages such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the Dred Scott decision gave credence to the idea of the Slave Power, a conspiracy to protect and expand slavery. The Fugitive Slave Act is general caused great outrage because it brought slave-catchers to the North, where in many occasions dramatic events took place as abolitionist sought to protect former slaves. One of my favorite stories is that of Reverend Theodore Parker (not a Quaker), who told President Fillmore that he'd rather starve than give up any of his parishioners. The Quakers, known for sheltering fugitives and protecting them through legal action, and for their participation in the Underground Railway, also were forced to choose between their commitment to nonviolence, or their pledge to defend the runaways. They chose the latter. \n\nOn September 11, 1851, a slaveholder approached the little Pennsylvania town of Christiana, where two of his slaves had escaped two years earlier. Armed Black men and White Quakers vowed to resist, and when the slaveholder refused to leave peacefully, shooting broke out. The slaveholder died in this \"Battle of Christiana\", which many Southerners regarded as the natural result of \"fanaticism.\" Vowing to their demands, the government tried to indict the Quakers and their black allies for treason, but the case degenerated into farce and charges were ultimately dropped. The Christiana event, more than anything, shows that when pushed to choose between pacifism and abolition, Quakers often chose the latter. For them, slavery was a sin, and to aid in the capture of a fugitive slave would be to commit a sin themselves. If the Slavocrats used violence to upheld a sin, they were justified in using violence to prevent a sin. \n \nThis turn from pacifism towards action, even violent action, was mirrored by many who felt outraged by the violent acts of the South. Seeing events such as the Fugitive Slave Act or the debacle over Kansas as Southern violence for slavery, former pacifists were now more willing to fight fire with fire. Frederick Douglass, for example, had said that he would not abolish slavery if it cost a single drop of blood. But now he believed that \"The only way to make the fugitive slave law a dead letter is to make half a dozen or more dead kidnappers.\" \n\nQuakers wouldn't take action themselves, of course. They wouldn't do as John Brown did, and organize a raid with the explicit purpose of starting a bloody slave insurrection. But when the hour of truth came and the South seceded, Quakers were imbued by the same spirit of nationalism as the great majority of Northerners. But they also saw the war as an anti-slavery crusade, a necessary war to protect against the violent aims of the rebels, who wished to extent slavery and destroy the Union. If violence was needed to protect the Union, so be it. \n\nAnd so, Quakers overcame their pacifism and enlisted into the Army to fight for the Union. Once in the Army, it seems that the Christian faith of many Quakers was just reinforced by the experience of war. They, and other Christians, acquired a sense of fatalism, believing that God Himself had created the war to purify the nation's sins, and that whether they fell in battle or not was in His hands. \"I know He watches over all,\" said a New Jersey Quaker for example. Others were motivated by comradeship and loyalty to their unit. When faced with the reproach of his wife and sister, and the threats of expulsion from his community, a Quaker soldiers said that he couldn't leave \"the men who stood manfuly by me in the hours of dainger through which I have passed.\" \n\nAbolitionism was a strong motivation for many Quakers. Some came to the conclusion that God had caused the war to end the sin of slavery, and as such fighting was right. A Quaker in the Navy wrote that \"slavery is such a horrible blot on civilization, that I am convinced that the war will exterminate it and its supporters, and that it was brought about for that purpose by God.\" Two Quaker brothers enlisted in the Army, despite the disapproval of their mother, after the Emancipation Proclamation had turned into a war for Liberty. \"Thee knows how I have always felt about war,\" one of them wrote to their mother, \"still I never regret that I am a participant in the struggle . . . [to] advance the cause of universal freedom. . . . Remember, Mother, that while we strike strong telling blows for liberty ... we need not hesitate as to the means employed.\" Even after he fell in battle, the other brother still felt \"glad that I was a soldier and have done my part for the cause of universal liberty.\" Another fighting Quaker condemned the people who stayed home and didn't fight, calling them the \"puny cravens at home, whose fears make them tremble at shadows,\" though he was writing of all people in General, not just his fellow Quakers. \n\nNot all Quakers could overcome their pacifism like this. Many of the members of the communities to which the fighting Quakers I quoted came from, even relatives, condemned them for abandoning pacifism and fighting directly. This is not to say that Quakers turned towards conservatism as a result of the war, not by a long shot. For example, they sent a message to Lincoln asking him “not to allow the present golden opportunity to pass without decreeing the entire abolition of slavery throughout the land.” The Quakers continued to work against slavery. Many were able to overcome their pacifism only after the Emancipation Proclamation made abolition an explicit goal. But before that, as I already mentioned, Quakers enlisted in the Army because they believed that the war could ultimately lead to abolition. \n\nSo, to answer the first part of your question: There were many Quakers who saw the Civil War as another example of Southerners violently asserting a sinful institution, and a large number of Quakers were motivated by patriotism and defense of the Union, since they had come to believe that they were justified in using violence to defend against a sin. Yet, they also realized that slavery could perish as a result of the war, and worked arduously to ensure this. Some believed that God Himself had caused to war to end slavery and punish the nation for its sins. A lot of Quakers were able to overcome their pacifism only when the war's purpose shifted and became a war for liberty as well. However, there still remained many Quakers who clung to pacifism. As for motivation, some Quakers were motivated by religious fervor; others, by comradeship. But as a whole, Quakers remained overwhelmingly anti-slavery, and the war only hardened their convictions and pushed many to forget pacifism and fight directly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgdoprt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I thought about trying to explain all your questions, but no one can explain this better than Eugene Volokh does in his [Religious Exemptions Guide for the Confused](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/03/24/religious-exemptions-a-guide-for-the-confused/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck8xqbh" ], "score": [ 22 ], "text": [ " > Or would the starscape be completely dark except for the closest two galaxies?\n\nPretty much, yes.\n\nThe only stars you can see as individual stars with the naked eye are within a few thousand light years. The Milky Way and Andromeda would be visible as faint patches of light a couple of degrees or so across. They would look like faint white clouds, as the Milky Way and Andromeda do from Earth. You might be able to make out some other smaller galaxies - the Triangulum galaxy is roughly in the same direction as Andromeda - but they won't be as easy to see as the big two.\n\nUnless you're extremely lucky, you likely won't be near any \"rogue\" stars hanging out between galaxies. So the sky will be completely black except for faint patches of light for each galaxy.\n\nIf you're closer to one galaxy than the other, it will just take up more of the sky. But you should still be able to see both galaxies, as you are able to from Earth." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eeakma5", "eeas19l", "eeb11ma", "eebbnt3" ], "score": [ 356, 811, 57, 20 ], "text": [ "Sorry if this seems pedantic, but was there really a drastic shift from monarchy to democracy across the world as a whole after the 1700s? Could any historians assess the accuracy of that claim?\n\nI'm assuming the question refers to the emergence of democracies in France and the United States, but this is still a very small minority of the world's population. Furthermore would a monarchy be viewed as an antonym for democracy? For example, the monarch of the United Kingdom had power, but so did parliament and the democratic system underpinning the contemporary democracy in the UK.\n\nI assume OP will be asked to clarify but if any historians can answer these claims broadly to any extent it would be appreciated. ", "I can only speak for the Classical World - but in that context, it is clear that democracy was unpopular (a) because no civic democracy could resist the power of the large kingdoms that dominated the Mediterranean basin from the time of Alexander onward, (b) because the Roman Empire discouraged democracy on the local level, and (c) because Classical Athens, the famous ancient democracy, had a frankly mixed political track record. \n\nAlexander and his immediate successors actually encouraged \"democracy\" in the Greek cities of their kingdoms; and although this policy was entirely self-serving (they assumed such regimes would be easier to govern), it ensured that many Greek cities at least claimed to be democracies for centuries to come. These cities were, however, almost always either embedded in or allied with large autocratic kingdoms; and their democracy was usually colored by a strong oligarchic element. \n\nThe coming of Rome accelerated the decline of local democracy. The Romans preferred to deal with oligarchic regimes on the model of their own Republic, and actively encouraged the creation of hereditary local councils in the cities they governed. These attitudes continued under the Principate. In his Roman History, Cassius Dio (writing in the early third century CE) has a counselor advise Augustus to suppress democracies wherever he finds them:\n\n\"The affairs of the other cities you should order in this fashion: In the first place, the populace should have no authority in any matter, and should not be allowed to convene in any assembly at all; for nothing good would come out of their deliberations and they would always be stirring up a good deal of turmoil...\" (52.30.2)\n\nGreek and Roman intellectuals, moreover, tended to receive a distinctly negative view of Athenian democracy from the Classical authors they read. In the course of his defense of Flaccus, for example, Cicero describes Athens in the following terms:\n\n\"But all the republics \\[that is, democracies\\] of the Greeks are governed by the rashness of the assembly while sitting. Therefore, to say no more of this Greece, which has long since been overthrown and crushed through the folly of its own counsels; that ancient country, which once flourished with riches, and rower, and glory, fell owing to that one evil, the immoderate liberty and licentiousness of the popular assemblies. When inexperienced men, ignorant and uninstructed in any description of business whatever, took their seats in the theater, then they undertook inexpedient wars; then they appointed seditious men to the government of the republic \\[democracy\\]; then they banished from the city the citizens who had deserved best of the state. These things were constantly taking place in Athens...\" (16-17)\n\nAfter the rise of the Hellenistic kingdoms, in short, democracy could only have a local role; and after the rise of Rome, it had no place at all. \n\n & #x200B;", "Follow-up question:\n\nWas democracy unpopular *per se* (in that, even the \"people\" didn't want it), or was it simply not feasible (in that, the people who wanted it didn't have the power to resist autocratic rulers)?", "Follow up: did protection of property rights have anything to do with the dislike of democracy? Was democracy equally popular between different social classes?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [] ]