Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "congp09", "congxq0", "conhk95", "conjidj", "conk7uq" ], "score": [ 3, 19, 7, 11, 2 ], "text": [ "Better cultural understanding, less regard for civilian casualties, likely a better human intelligence network in the region. \n\nWestern powers tend to rely a lot on signal intelligence and photographic intelligence, which doesn't work all that well when the targets are immersed in the local populations and not wearing uniforms.", "Most of the time we have no problems finding who we are looking for. the problem is how to deploy troops to go resolve the problem. in a lot of cases we find them in a \"not so internationally friendly way\" so we have to create a story to allow us to engage the mission or wait until we have a story or a reason to be in that area. talking to them in some instances isn't as easy as it would seem because they may have informants within the ranks. Source: Former 96B", "The United States knows where major ISIS locations are but limit the air power campaign to areas where (at least hopefully) there won't be any civilian casualties.", "The US is constantly conducting operations against them, it's just not always in the news. ", "Well, one thing to understand is that Jordan had already been participating in the air campaign against ISIS before their captive pilot was murdered. But up until that point, they were fairly quiet with the details. One of the things that changed is that Jordan became much more vocal about the sorties that they flew.\n\nSo part of the apparent surge in Jordan's air campaign is just that they started *saying* how many missions they were flying and what targets they were hitting. Though I would not be surprised if they also increased the number of missions.\n\nKeep in mind also that they're collaborating closely with the USA, who have the satellites and spy planes that provide a lot of the information about ISIS locations." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ekb02v1" ], "score": [ 140 ], "text": [ "This has been asked a few times before:\n\nlike [here ](_URL_1_) with an answer by /u/Eireika\n\nand [another one](_URL_0_) with a nested comment by /u/Valkine adding the the scene was probably a creative freedom, mixing a historical known ice gift from Saladin elsewhere into the movies setting.\n\ntl;dr: ice could be harvested and transported isolated with hay and sawdust and stored in specialized buildings and pits but conditions of practicality and cost apply." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2bhgyi/ice_for_drinks_in_history/cj5ie4i/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/287ppm/in_kingdom_of_heaven_you_can_see_at_one_point/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7irpxo", "c7isakm", "c7j21bc" ], "score": [ 3, 8, 6 ], "text": [ "I think as a follow up thought, how much does autonomy matter if you don't use it? When it got interesting in Eastern Europe (Prague Spring) things went badly for them as the Soviets brought the hammer down. You could be promised a great deal of autonomy, but in practice the threat of everything coming down on your head meant you had none.", "The Republics had varying degrees of autonomy. Never much. Citizens of the Republics had varying degrees of rights. Thus it was possible for the residents of some Republics to easily visit Moscow, while a citizen of Moscow might have trouble visiting the same Republic.", "When? It was a vastly different situation in 1922, 1935 and 1990. The USSR didn't exist as a single entity till 1922, and the Civil War had multiple theaters in the vast regions of the former Russian Empire. After 1922 and up to the beginning of WW2, there was a massive consolidation and centralization of power in Moscow. The 1922 Treaty of the Creation of USSR included Russia, Ukraine, Belorus and Transcaucasia (Armenia, Georgia, Azerbaijan) and other areas were absorbed later. \n\nThe various representatives of the republics had considerable power and influence in the central government in Moscow, but they couldn't unilaterally set policy (aside from local policy that didn't impact the overall state). The 5 Year Plan was dictated from Moscow and was the policy for the entire nation and all the republics complied. So, while there was definitely influence, there was no sovereignty. This obviously changed in the late 1980s when various movements to separate from the USSR began in every single republic. \n\nHere is an example - Eduard Shevardnadze was the First Secretary of the Georgian Communist Party (head of Georgia). He then became the equivalent of the Foreign Minister of the USSR. After the dissolution of the USSR, he became the Head of State in newly independent Georgia under various titles (eventually the President). \n\nNone of this applies to the satellite state in the Warsaw Pact. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ckba305", "cjl32f9", "cjl339h", "cjl339n", "cjl3tbv", "cjl4d46", "cjl4g0p", "cjl4nvy", "cjl57lj", "cjl5eee", "cjl5hfl", "cjl5tw0", "cjl5xrg", "cjl61rs", "cjl6cb4", "cjl6cpp", "cjl6iud", "cjl6kv6", "cjl6nyg", "cjl73lb", "cjl73zn", "cjl7g2b", "cjl7mbt", "cjl7nlm", "cjl7swy", "cjl85qe", "cjl88hr", "cjl8e0z", "cjl8gog", "cjl8hcu", "cjl8lhm", "cjl8nkz", "cjl8p7w", "cjl8s4y", "cjl8spd", "cjl94f5", "cjla722", "cjlal7n", "cjlamem", "cjlaxbm", "cjlbdkx", "cjlbqci", "cjlbrq7", "cjlbx9x", "cjlc3gf", "cjldjj8", "cjle2qc", "cjle9w3", "cjleh5f", "cjlep09", "cjler2i", "cjletea", "cjlg31w", "cjlglkv", "cjlh5py", "cjlhqw1", "cjlhxdr", "cjli181", "cjlinb4", "cjlj0i4", "cjljq0z", "cjlk9u9", "cjlkd9s", "cjlkjvm", "cjlm08x", "cjlnd5s", "cjlooql" ], "score": [ 2, 209, 5, 40, 13, 4, 26, 2854, 80, 2, 4, 5, 2, 7, 4, 1722, 2, 2, 2, 149, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 5, 3, 2, 2, 11, 8, 3, 3, 4, 6, 2, 2, 2, 2, 3, 3, 4, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 2, 2, 5, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4 ], "text": [ "I love part II of edit #3", "Probably carries over from human social interactions, where hitting someone has a chance of them actually being more cooperative, vs you know hitting a computer, which does not understand violence.", "I'm no scientist, but it is likely because when we were more solitary (not incredibly civilized), anger could be elicited by another human getting the better of us, in which case the desire for a fight and the adrenaline rush that often accompanies it would help us to get back on top. Nowadays it just gets us in jail, but our brains don't know that. ", "Violence has multiple reasons, most are based upon our ancestors. Since all things lead to sex, let's get that one out of the way. Destroying things and being violent in general is a display of sexual ability. This is where the brain goes when we get real real mad - primal. \n\nAlso consider animals and being that we are in fact such you have to realize it is a self defense mechanism. When we reach a certain threshold we no longer can contain ourselves as civilized and retreat to a primal state. When cornered, animals will naturally lash out in an attempt to repel their enemies. Sometimes this destructive nature is an attempt to keep everyone away while you calm down.", "It's the displacement defense mechanism. We take out our frustration on an inferior being/ object that we see as easy-to-defeat.", "If I had to guess its because you feel defeated, so in return violence allows you to feel in control by being able to destroy things. If you ain't outta control, you ain't in control.", "I break things unnecessarily all the time. I recognize it's immature, but it's ALWAYS in solidarity in the confides of my home. If anyone has advice with healthy \"just walk away\" practice, I would love to hear it. It's a wallet breaker, being an idiot and all. ", "Anger management therapist here. People usually get angry in response to feelings of vulnerability and disempowerment. Any situation where someone gets angry, they are also probably feeling something like hurt, insecure, disrespected, invalidated, betrayed, frustrated, threatened, the list goes on. Anger allows you to get some of that power back and direct those negative feelings outward on to someone/something else (e.g. destroying something). This often makes people feel better in the short term, even though there are typically long term consequences of acting aggressively. Also, when I say this can make people feel better, the anger and aggression is sometimes identified as relatively better than sitting with feelings of vulnerability and powerlessness. Emotions are subjective and there are tons of individual differences between people. This is a ELI5 thread. \n\nEdit: Added a couple words to more explicitly address OP's question about destroying objects and to clarify the perceived benefits of aggression versus sitting with powerlessness. \n\n", "Silverback gorillas do the same thing to assert dominance - thrash nearby branches, throw stuff. It's to show their rivals how strong they are. \n\nThe idea is that a sufficiently impressed rival will not even attempt a real confrontation, saving everyone involved the effort of recovery from injuries sustained fighting within the group. That energy then remains available for fighting with other gorilla groups or gathering food.\n\nThat's one reason such a response could have been an evolutionary advantage. I assume we inherited it from (EDIT: Our common ancestors that we share with) the apes. I assume it is also found in other animals.", "From an evolutionary point of view its because lashing out in times of anger was beneficial to our survival. It can be an irrational (though not always) reaction to stress, fear or anger but it makes us more likely to fend off attackers if there are any. ", "I think it's the aspect of releasing anger in a physical form. When I used to self-harm, the main reason was I'd be mad at someone or thing (myself, friends, the world) and I needed to take it out somehow. Not really destroying things like you asked, but some insight. ", "**Anger Destruction:**\n\nIf it's just a moment of anger: Power. Destruction is the easier thing in this universe. Imagine the sheer efforts it would take to have coordinate, build, and staff a fully functional Starship Enterprise. On the other hand, it'd be pretty easy for any idiot to crash the thing into a rock. Destructive outbursts give the illusion of power, and cause you to influence things when you feel you feel completely overrun. Chaos even gives a sense of hope, that if the roll of the dice has betrayed you, maybe you can throw out the dice and cause something entirely novel to occur. It can help give hope to \"mix things up\" when all has turned against you.\n\n**Psychotic resentment destruction:**\n\nOn the other hand, closely tied to bullying, there's pathological rage and destructive tendencies that you see in abusers. That is caused by a resentful personality of extreme arrogance that wishes to engulf and take revenge on basically existing. They want to \"ruin it for everybody\". Lots of times folks confuse the latter for the former and like to \"forgive\" serial killers, war criminals, understand spree killers, sociopaths in high places, as only having been ignorant/angry/misunderstood and throwing a big tantrum. In reality, arrogant/resentful personalities from Hitler to your average abuser are insatiable, and must be given nothing. Nothing. They must be beaten with sticks and shown no sympathy so as to deflect all rancor back upon themselves. They must fall on their own sword, and any naiveté shown will be weaponized against somebody. These types are notorious for knowing what's right and shirking it anyway, and they only do this shit because they can and because you let them. While you let them, they laugh at you. When you stop them, they elongate their face at you and try to get sympathy so you'll look the other way and it'll start again. Ego is their ally, and if they can stroke yours through compliments or sympathy, it's all that much more of an exciting fetish for them to wound you or others by it later. That, or to put you through a trial by fire and prove that you're a big fat \"phony\" and that your good will is just ego. Part of their mission is a righteous crusade against \"phonies\", the other part is the sadistic destruction of \"this cruel world\". These people are extremely cowardly and very easy to rattle, and always delusional on some level of analysis.\n\nThat's the difference between anger destruction and psychotic resentment destruction.", "Imagine a man confronted by another man, or an animal. If he gets angry, his berserk attack might be crazy enough for him to win. Or, walking through a thicket, one might get frustrated and start ripping through plants and bulldozing through. Maybe he would get some scratches, but at least he is through the thicket. Of course, irrational decisions made when angry can lead to negative consequences, but we still have this in us so the good at least balances out the bad.", "Because my fucking bot lane needs a boot up their respective assholes, Jesus Fucking Feeder Christ.", "BECAUSE IT FEELS GOOD GODDAMNIT", "Here's an explanation I learned in an animal behavior course - it's called a redirected attack. Animals do it, just like us. Basically, when we get angry at another person, we have the urge to attack them in some way. But for a variety of reasons (including that attacks are energetically costly and that actual attacks can shatter social bonds) it's actually more adaptive to redirect the attack at some other object. Thus, if I get furious at you, I'll most likely slam my hand on the table or smash something instead of punching you in the jaw and smashing your skull. \n\nGulls have been observed to do this in territorial disputes. Instead of attacking each other, they usually will violently pull grass out of the ground in a manner similar to how they behave if in a physical confrontation.", "Who is we? Thankfully rational thought never escapes me.", "The.\n\nMedulla.\n\nOBLONGATA!\n\n\nseriously: someone pisses us off, we get angry, hurt them/kill them\n\nthey're never inclined, or can't do it again, sets a precedent with other people, don't piss off that guy\n\nbut civilization has developed tolerance, and thus we have a bunch of shitheels we should have weeded out of the human genome hundreds/thousands of years ago running things like government", "A psychologist might be able to answer this in /r/askscience", "Ever seen a Chimpanzee put on a dominance display? Looks exactly like an angry drunk uncle destroying his daughter's 3rd period art class sculpture during a drunken fit about the Chicago Bears longstanding Quarterback issues.", "Not a doctor, but I believe it has something to do with anger triggering our \"fight or flight\" mechanism. Some folks avoid the problem, some tackle it head-on, and some folks beat the shit out of things.", "Testosterone for men = destruction.\n\nEstrogen for women = crying.\n\n\"It's Science\" - Anchorman", "I know I will sound like a weirdo, but there have been times in my life when my anger has been so extreme that I have chewed holes in my skin. Yes, it's been when I feel I have no control or escape from a situation (or person), but I know part of the reason is because I know I can't attack another person (no matter how infuriating they are). That rage has to have an outlet, & it isn't rational or patient. It's called blind rage for a reason. It would be better not to have it at all, but if you do, better to break an object than someone else's face. (And I just try to remove myself from any triggering situations, if possible.) ", "Not everyone does. I certainlybdont and can't ever remember a time where violence or destruction was ever a response of mine to anger. I'm more of a plotter.", "This might just be me, but when I get angry, and see others happy/content it makes me angry. Let's say a vase is just sitting on a table, all smug and happy, without a care in the world. I see that little fucker and I go off the wall. I smash his ass to kingdom come.", "Just a guess, but I'm assuming that when us humans developed our emotions it was a looooong time ago. Caveman days, the only thing you would get mad at was either trying to kill you or steal your girl. No courts or law or loss of material possessions involved, kill or be killed. Or lose your girl. All about survival. At that time breaking stuff and fighting was the appropriate response to rage inducing stimuli. Just a guess.", "I always presumed it was a sort of demonstration of power", "Counselor and trainer for therapeutic crisis management. \n\nA key thing to know is that as we get more emotional (especially anger or fear) our ability to access our more rational brain functions drastically decreases. So a normally none destructive person can lose the rational part that says \"Stop. This isn't helping\" \n\nSo people in the middle of a crisis episode can destroy property for a number of reasons- but it mostly is an expression of psychological pain. Maybe you want someone to help you or you want to show others that you are dangerous and to stay away (safety) or you want to gain control of a situation (autonomy) what drives the meaning is likely whatever need you are trying to meet in that moment. (Usually irrationally)", "It's your medulla oblongata", "It reaffirms one's feeling of efficacy when you've been slighted or feel you've been damaged in some way.", "Bescause anger is meant to make you destroy whatever made you angy (the bird that stole your berries, the rat that bit you, the bush that blocks your way). ", "Aggression has presumably evolved as it has some *survival value*. In our prehistoric past it has been an adaptive way of dealing with frustration. So firstly aggression is linked with a frustration of some sort which may also be linked to some perceived threat or danger. \n\nSecondly, through the process of civilisation we have learnt that we have to hold certain impulses in check. As such innate drives like aggression need to find substitute satisfactions. Expressing them to directly will be counter productive, so they are *displaced* onto other objects in the environment. \n\nThirdly, the withholding of aggression is unpleasurable, it leads to an increase in tension. The building up of this this seeks discharge. Linked to the above, if this can't be expressed directly it will find some *substitute object*. This object may also then symbolically stand in the place of the primary object of the aggressive impulse. \n\nLastly I would add that aggression also usually erupts when our ability to think fluidly and flexibly is compromised. Powerful impulses and affect states like aggression can compromise these higher cognitive functions. This puts us at risk of regression to more primitive modes of thought were meaning and intentions are represented by changes or alterations in the physical world. \n\nSo destroying objects in the environment is the expression of a natural instinctual drive (aggression), it provides a pleasurable release of damned up tension (it feels good), it is directed at a substitute object (via displacement) in order to minimise the consequences of direct expression (i.e. assaulting a person), and it is a more primitive form of thought that places action above words. ", "It is because your natural instinct is to hurt something, your brain keeps you from actually hurting a person, most of the time, and so you let it out on an object. \n\nWhy is your natural reaction to anger wanting to hurt something? Because that is how animals survive, in fact I would say that the only purpose of anger is to aid in our ability to fight, which is in essence an act of destruction.", "Wow Reddit, your information amazes me.", "I've always wondered why people did that. Never had that urge. Always thought it was funny. So you're upset, now you're upset with a broken game system and a broken wall. ", "I took a \"how to deescalate combative patients\" class as a nursing assistant and I remember the instructor saying that if someone is starting to get angry and starts hitting/smashing/throwing things, get out of there quick because that's a primal instinct we have to warn others that we're not afraid to hit them if they test us. That's probably why we feel the need to smash/destroy things when we get angry, it's effective nonverbal communication to tell others around us that we feel threatened and aren't afraid to fight. ", "Displacement: a psycho-social defense mechanism. When feeling angry, powerless, unable to retaliate due to several social reasons, we often look for other outlets to release pent up anger. The boss yells at husband, husband yells at wife, wife yells at son, and son kicks the dog.", "This might be an uncommon explanation from a Buddhist. When we experience an unpleasent feeling arising in our mind, we urgently wish to escape this feeling. Usually we blame an object, person or situation for causing this feeling and our following response is to become angry, harbor the wish to destroy, or become defensive. If we learn to accept the negative feeling we are free to respond in a more passive or patient manner. Angers main wish is to destroy, it has no other purpose.", "About a year ago I observed a car flying by me doing probably 25 over the speed limit (~70 in a 45) so I honked as he zipped by. When I inevitably wound up near him at the next red light (funny how that works), he rolled down his window and screamed profanities for the entire light cycle -- which was one of the longer cycles in my city. Spittle was flying from his mouth and veins were bulging. My wife and I were in shock at how angry he was. I think he may have been on drugs. We just chuckled and shook our head at him and discussed how crazy he was being. Our body language seemed to make him more angry and he spit his gum at my car. As it rolled off the hood I told my wife, \"Damn him, he just spit gum on my 1994 Subaru Legacy luxury wagon!\" \n\nAs the light turned green and we drove off, I couldn't help but think of the poor souls who have been murdered in road rage incidents that started in a similar manner. ", "Because fuck bot Vitaly and his 0.2 reaction time. Seriously Vitaly, shove that Awp up your fucking ass. ", "Take it easy with that \"we\".", "Simply put: it lets one in the midst of frustrating impotence to demonstrate their power to make \"something\" happen.", "Because less than 500 years ago all of our ancestors weren't living in a policed/\"civilized\" world. \n\nIt was more fight or flight. If you can't destroy whatever is going to destroy you, you're done. So in essence, you are a large bit of the result of the best man standing. \n\nAnger is only necessary for the righteous, in these instances. Though, written history is often subject to the hands of the rotten.\n\nRighteous will live on in the shadows.", "YOU'RE A FUCKING INANIMATE OBJECT! ", "Because if I can't have nice things, then NOBODY ELSE CAN HAVE NICE THINGS.", "The most rational and useful situation in which anger arises is when we are threatened by physical harm from another person. Many children, specially boys, are threatened by other children that way. Threats to be punched, have a toy taken, and punched if resisting, being pinched in the arms was used in previous times too. Today it is common for boys to be forced into submission, by being punched in the stomach, punched in the face and holden by the neck in an arm lock. If the child under attack is not overwhelmingly disadvantaged in size or strength, anger can be really useful in motivating strugle and retaliation against the agressor. It is during this period of male childhood that anger is the most appropriate rational and useful emotional response, and this is the emotional developmental context of many male adults of our society.\n\nIn some societies and even many places around developed countries, the physical violence continues well through teenage and young adult years. Anger and associated use of physical violence is still very useful and rational, arguably still determining positive social outcomes resulting in better reproductive successes, promoting better social standing and status, protecting siblings and mates, attracting potential mates.\n\nDuring all prehistory and all through history up to the last century, humans were frequently, repeatedly submited to situations like those of young males. And during all these milenia the most rational and useful emotional response must have been anger to retaliate with physical violence in many, even the majority of situations. The same way, during thse more violent times, both men and women with atuned anger responses to these situations of threat and loss must have had good results, protecting themselves, their siblings and better chances of mating and reproduction.\n\nAs you can see, because of better reproductive chances, people with a propensity to feel anger during situations of loss and threat could reproduce in greater numbers than people that experienced a simple fear and fled or people that simply felt sad and anguished.\n\nThe combination of individual propensity and childhood experiences can triger physical agitation and impulses to physically attack something. This happens when the person feel frustated, when they realize that they lost something or will lose it.\n\nIt can happen when people discover someone betrayed their trust, which threatens their social standing or social life, like a boyfriend that was cheated by his girlfriend, realises that he will never enjoy her company anymore, he won't ever be able to marry her or have children with her, and she may even know threatening secrets about him.\n\nDuring the state of anger, the brain might imediately trigger the physical attack responses that were reinforced during childhood, or by genetic inheritance. This sudden burst of physical activity also contains a target element, as was the case when physical response was useful, there was an aggressor present. But if no aggressor is present, the brain nonetheless targets something. It is a split second decision, but it is enough for the person to avoid attacking someone they love, or that is harmless or not connected to the situation. Usually the person targets an inanimate object, because any innapropriate damages done, he instinctively know, has few risks of damaging his social standing or cause severe responses from others.\n\nThis is why people feel urges to destroy things when they are angry. They are executing the cognitive steps that are important when anger would be useful and rational.", "Because Hulk smash", "I don't feel the urge to destroy things when I'm angry, then again I don't get angry a lot.", "Because. Hulk. Smash.", "When one is angry, one is generating energy. When the anger / energy becomes too great, that one must release it. The one then unleashes this anger / energy towards the easiest target.\n\nIt's the same explanation as the one by /u/MrPaleontologist but couched in different terms.", "Because we were made in the image of god. And that's what he does. ", "For some, I'd say it has to do with control. \n\nMan lost for the 15th time at video game. Man angry because he can't control this outcome. Man smash thing to feel better and in control. \n\nI don't think everyone feels this, and others might have more or less of control on what makes them angry and how angry they get at it.\n\nThen there's the case of \"hurting\" things back. Stubbed your toe on the coffee table. The coffee table isn't a living thing, but kicking it back feels better because you got back at it. You showed that coffee table not to mess with you again!", "I AM GROOT. ", "I mostly punch things that don't break...it does not help my hands but at least I don't break much! ", "If you're a psychopath you do. That shit ain't normal nigga", "In my (unofficial) behavioral model, aggression is the extroverted response to the invalidated excitatory impulse. In my model, inhibition and excitation are defined as the pursuit of consistency vs intensity, respectively, OR the pursuit of security vs new information.\n\nWhen our pursuit of new information is invalidated, such as when we're hunting for food and our prey swipes back, the pursuit of aforementioned prey is threatened. The extroverted response (where our locus of awareness is external OR on our environment) is aggression, OR to fight back. The introverted response (where our locus of awareness is internal OR on the self) is escape, OR the flight response.\n\nConversely, when our pursuit of security is invalidated, such as when our territory is threatened, our understanding of how the \"world works\" is challenged.\n\nThe introverted and extroverted responses to the invalidated pursuit of consistency are, respectively, denial vs offense. Much like the escape response, denial is an introverted response, the locus of awareness is on the self, and both impulses become increasingly ideal as the degree of anxiety increases. \n\nThis is because inhibition and excitation are inverse definitions of each other, and heavily interplay.\n\nThe same pattern can be observed for the offense impulse. Both offense and aggression perceive a subjective loss of control of their external environment, and the extroverted response to invalidated excitation actively aggresses in pursuit of unknown gains, while the extroverted response to invalidated inhibition will aggress in pursuit of maintaining their world view, be it territory, personal security, subjective understanding, etc. Both become increasingly hostile as the degree of anxiety increases. Both seek to regain this subjective loss of control.\n\nIt should be noted that, in my (unofficial) behavioral model, all the responses mentioned above are immediate (and to a degree, unconscious), but also form the basis for retrospective response behavior which defines social behavior, including pleasure and reward oriented impulses. And while the pursuit of new information may form the basis for the pursuit of reward, the pursuit of approval or to validate reward oriented expectations are dependant on social/environmental factors, the responses to which are dependant on an additional scale of subjective awareness. \n\nAs a reassuring side note, in my model creativity is defined as the introverted response to the validated excitatory impulse, and while it is immediate, it translates all the way up the behavioral tree fundamentally influencing social phenomenon like love, humor, and beauty.", "[The Chimp Paradox](_URL_0_) By Prof. Steve Peters explains this nicely. I've had the pleasure of working with him a few times, and he explains the animal-primitive tendencies that we still have in our brain today. It's truly a great read... recommended. ", "While the top comment in this thread seems legit I don't feel like it answered the question for me. When I get really angry I feel an almost overwhelming urge to seriously destroy shit. I've broken a chair before and have very much wanted to break other things but held back (I felt bad about the chair). I am just curious why the feeling is directly about breaking shit. ", "I just curse when I'm angry, a couple mother fuckers and I'm right as rain. Unless you're a proper cunt then it's go fuck yourself city.", "For me its when im angry and I cant control what's making me angry I feel the need to be in control or to feel powerful or I stay frustrated longer. It's not usually in the form of destroying things mostly the gym or hitting the heavy bag but there have been times where it was me punching a wall or a face. I've had my anger management under control for years now though.", "Because those things are stupid and we hate them.", "My friend was mad at his printer for not printing so he swung his leg at it and missed then tried again to make sure he would hit it", "It's just one of those days when you don't wanna wake up.", "I just see a red mist, and I want to break shit, it's like a uncontrollable desire.", "To put forth an alternative theory to the displacement explanation given in most of the other responses; there is a more strategic evolutionary pressure at play here:\n\nFrom a completely rational standpoint, using violence against people who have wronged you is largely pointless; the damage has been done and, unless your goal is to prevent the behavior from happening again, in which case it might be justified, causing harm to your opponent will really change nothing about the situation except that you have wasted energy, lost a potential ally, and possibly been killed or injured because your opponent was actually stronger than you.\n\nSo we avoid unnecessary confrontation by cultivating and spreading reputations. Consider the following parable about primitive humans:\n\n\nCronk: \"So I was thinking we should steal the deer that Grob just killed\"\n\nCraw: \"Nah, man. One of us could die! He would absolutely kill someone who stole his food\"\n\nCronk: \"Really? You've seen him do that?\"\n\nCraw: \"Of course not! No one has been stupid enough to try to steal from him!\"\n\nSo Grob's food is safe simply because he acts in a way which makes his potential rivals believe that he is dangerous regardless of whether he is or not. But Grob has a cousin Bob who is smart enough to know what Grob is doing.\n\nBob: \"So I heard that you were planning to steal Grob's deer?\"\n\nCronk: \"Sure, but we decided that it wasn't worth it. He would probably kill one of us.\"\n\nBob: \"Have you ever *seen* him kill someone who was stealing from him?\"\n\nCronk: \"Well, no. But you've heard the stories about him.\n\nBob: \"Look, I know for a fact that he has never killed someone. Plus, I'm his cousin.\"\n\n*Cronk is still unconvinced*\n\nBob: \"Grob is a smart guy. He is not going to risk getting in a fight and potentially losing or potentially killing a family member just to save a day's worth of food. If we challenge him he will know that he needs to give up and we will get the deer.\"\n\nCronk: \"Sure. I think that makes sense. Let's do it\"\n\n\nSo Cronk, Craw, and Bob go to Grob's camp.\n\n\nBob: \"We're here to take that deer. Sure, it looks delicious but is it really worth fighting over?\"\n\nGrob: \"You stupid motherfucker what the fuck do you think? I'm just going to stand here and let you take my food?\"\n\nBob: \"Sure, why not? It is the reasonable thing to do, right?\"\n\nGrob: \"You see this?\"\n\n*Grob starts destroying things around his own camp*\n\nGrob: \"This is what I do to things *that I like*. Do you unevolved pieces of shit really think that I give two mammoth shits what is a *reasonable* response to the situation?\"\n\nCronk: \"Bob, this guy is crazy.\"\n\nCraw: \"Bob, you're an asshole.\"\n\n*Craw and Cronk leave*\n\n*Bob has no idea why his plan failed but he runs away because Grob is one crazy motherfucker*\n\nGrob lost maybe a few clay pots and a very shiny handaxe but no one ever tries to steal from him again because everyone knows that he goes nuts when people cross him. You can not form a safe strategy against someone like that.\n\nGrob lives happily ever after and has about twenty children because the chicks dig a consistent provider of sustenance. \n\n\nSometimes it is a completely valid strategy to conspicuously show that you are unconcerned for your own well-being because that makes you far more dangerous than someone who is thinking rationally. It is a behavior seen throughout the animal kingdom. The only difference between us and them is that we, as a society, depend on laws and governments to stop things like theft so the instinct is let out on pillows while no one is watching; In places with little or no law enforcement presence (the early American west, crime-prone inner city neighborhoods, areas of South and Central America controlled by drug cartels etc. so-called \"cultures of honor\") you will still see behavior like this regularly to an extent that is is a common trope in media (Tuco from Breaking Bad comes to mind).\n\ntl;dr: The best way to win a game of chicken is to throw your steering wheel out the window while you opponent is watching.\n\nSource: Steven Pinker's The Better Angels of Our Nature; with significant liberties taken with delivery of concepts.\n\n\n\nEdit: Regarding the trope: this is why the *bad* in \"Good Cop, Bad Cop\" works. The criminal can normally assume that they are safe and that they know how cops will behave because they have to do things \"by the books\" but as soon as the bad cop smashes a coffee mug against the wall, they have to rethink that. Good cop: \"I can't control what he is going to do; he cares more about this case than about keeping his job. Just confess and he won't have to start biting off fingers\"", "Same reason we clap or shout when we feel joyful, it's reflex to excerpt excess energy.", "Anger is the fight mechanism of the flight or fight response. During episodes of anger, your body pretty well prepares you to deal with a violent survival situation. The other side of fight or flight is fear, which can be a multitude of different emotions like anxiety, dread, panic, etc.\n\nAnger and fear are the emotional results of a situation that an individual has lost control over. Fear is when we feel we cannot regain control of the situation and must flee and anger is when we feel we *can* gain control of that situation through force. That said, anger is about control.\n\nWhen you're angry and find you *can't* control a situation, all that pent up energy doesn't disappear and most people feel the overwhelming urge to exercise control. Destroying things is a violent display of anger that serves to intimidate. It's also a symptom of your brain lashing out for control. The destiny of that ceramic mug is in your hands and destroying it is an irrational display of your dominion and power, where the original conflict was not in your control.\n\n**tl;dr: It's a display of control, power, and intimidation, in place of dealing with a problem outside of your control.**" ] }

[]

[ "http://i44.photobucket.com/albums/f46/westeyes/putin-deal.gif" ]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/product/009193558X/ref=as_li_tl?ie=UTF8&camp=1634&creative=19450&creativeASIN=009193558X&linkCode=as2&tag=filmfliks-21&linkId=JX25WYYC5MIUTLFR" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc66jx2", "cc66qf3", "cc6eo9x", "cc6ga2j", "cc6gbba", "cc6h9oi", "cc6jwfk" ], "score": [ 2, 18, 3, 22, 7, 7, 8 ], "text": [ "No love for the War of 1812?", "I REJECT YOUR SUGGESTED HISTORICAL EVENTS AND SUBSTITUTE MY OWN. \n\n**September 17, 1787: Copyright clause was added to the Constitution.** \n\nThe clause is so very small: \n\n > The Congress shall have power to [...] promote the progress of science and useful arts, by securing for limited times to authors and inventors the exclusive right to their respective writings and discoveries [...]\n\nAnd yet it has had so many far reaching effects on our arts and literature, or patent system, on every day at work for me in the archives, and near and dear to most of us, on the process of doing academic research. And its smallness has also made it ripe for lots and lots of interpretation that keeps lots of lawyers busy with things like interpreting Fair Use. (And my dad works in patent law, so thank you copyright clause for round-about paying my college tuition and allowing me to type this today!) \n\n****\n\nAnd as nobody posted Week in History last week, doing to too many exciting AMAs going on, I’m going to sneak in one I wanted to post for that week: \n\n**September 4, 1720: [*Angelica*](_URL_0_) premiered, Farinelli and Metastasio met** \n\nThis was Pietro Metastasio’s first public performance of his poetry in music, AND it was also the first public singing performance for a young castrato named Carlo Broschi. And not only was the performance a great success, those two immediately got along like a house on fire! A little bitty “Happy 293rd Anniversary” to mark the start of [a very special relationship of some sort between two of the most important men in of the baroque period.](_URL_1_) ", "Wow, TIL that smallpox is a completely eradicated disease. Thanks for the list!", "On 11 September 1973, the Chilean coup d'état left democratically elected socialist President Salvador Allende dead, a military junta headed by General Augusto Pinochet in power, and thousands of Allende supporters, including famed *nueva canción* singer Víctor Jara, rounded up, tortured, and murdered.\n\nThe coup was a long time in the coming, and was orchestrated by the Chilean right, the CIA, the U.S. Department of State, and various multinational corporations, including copper mining companies like Anaconda, Kennecott, and Cerro Grande, and, perhaps most significantly, the ITT Corporation, a communications giant. The ITT Corporation cut Henry Kissinger a blank check, to be used to destabilize Allende, though it's unknown how much Kissinger took from them.\n\nSalvador Allende had stood for election several times before his victory in 1970, and was President of the Senate at the time of his election to the presidency. Allende headed the leftist *Unidad Popular* coalition. The two other political groups of note were the National Party and the Christian Democrats. Immediately after Allende's election, the CIA attempted a two-pronged plan to block him from assuming power. Phase I entailed bribing and threatening Chilean congressmen to get them to block Allende's election, while Phase II entailed CIA agents impersonating Department of Defense officials and threatening the Chilean military with a complete cutting-off of aid if they didn't violently stop Allende. Both plans failed, and Allende assumed office as planned.\n\nSalvador Allende's presidency was characterized by the nationalization of key industries, the collectivization of factories directly by workers, the expansion of labor rights, and the building of programs meant to radically decrease poverty and inequality. It was also characterized by a series of economic crises, provoked by U.S. President Nixon's program of trying to make the Chilean economy \"scream\" and an opposition trucker strike (funded by the ITT Corporation and the CIA). As Allende ran into more and more roadblocks, workers began collectivizing factories themselves. As the military acted independently, it went around harassing and repressing these factory workers.\n\nThe serious economic crises were meant to disillusion the Chilean people with Salvador Allende and the UP. However, the 1973 parliamentary elections showed a marked increase for the UP, from Allende's 36.63% of the Presidential vote in 1970 (in a three-way race) to 43.7% of the vote in the Chamber of Deputies, to the 29.2% of the Christian Democrats and the 21.7% of the National Party. The UP, as a coalition, consisted of several parties, most significantly the Socialist Party and Communist Party, under Allende's banner. The U.S. Department of State saw this as critical, warning that the UP would likely win the next presidential election as well; evidence that Allende needed to be stopped immediately.\n\nWhen the coup came, on 11 September 1973, the Chilean military began to shell the Presidential Palace. Allende was called upon to surrender, but he refused to do so. He ordered others to leave, and then gave his final speech, under fire, in which he remained defiant. His now famous ending, \"Long live Chile! Long live the people! Long live the workers!\" was the last the people would ever hear from their President. Allende was killed by a shot to the head in controversial circumstances. The official account (of the coup perpetrators) was that he shot himself in the head with an AK-47 he had been given by Fidel Castro. Many dispute this, saying that he was murdered, but the position of the current government of Chile is that he shot himself. In either case, he can be said to have been killed by the coup, I would say, as if he killed himself, it was only to avoid torture and murder at the hands of the military.\n\nThe coup enjoyed the support of the leaders of the National Party and the Christian Democrats, as well as their delegates and senators, though it was certainly not within any representative's electoral mandate to overthrow the democratically elected president. The coup, from its first moments, was accompanied by rounding up Allende supporters. Many were taken to the National Stadium, as well as other football stadiums and various military institutions, where they were imprisoned, beaten, tortured, and murdered in their thousands. Among these was Víctor Jara, Chile's most famous musician and noted Allende supporter, who sang for his fellow prisoners, even after his hands were broken, until he was tortured to death. What followed was a regime of complete repression of all socialists, communists, and other dissidents. Despite the initial support of the coup by the political elite, Pinochet dissolved the political parties and ruled as dictator.\n\nPinochet was eventually removed from office by national plebiscite, and a few years later ceased to be the head of the military. He took shelter in Britain, which protected him from international prosecution for crimes against humanity. While electoral democracy has returned to Chile, the scars certainly remain for many people, including PTSD for survivors of the torture and those who lived in fear of it every day for years. Much of the legacy of the coup remains unresolved, and the Chilean government prefers not to speak of it. The victory of the coup and dictatorship can be seen in the fact that the socialist movement in Chile was effectively destroyed, and remains smaller and in more disarray today, after so many years of repression.\n\n**Suggested Reading**\n\n* Harmer, Tanya. *Allende’s Chile & the Inter-American Cold War*. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 2011.\n\n* Qureshi, Lubna. *Nixon, Kissinger, and Allende: U.S. Involvement in the 1973 Coup in Chile*. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2009. \n\n* [National Security Archive - Documents](_URL_0_) (Hit \"Latin America\")\n\n* [The Kissinger Cables](_URL_1_) (Search \"Chile\", \"Allende\", or \"Pinochet\")", " > 1541: Conquistadora Inés de Suárez leads a Pyrrhic defense of Santiago, Chile against indigenous forces led by Michimalonco (who, in turn, attempted to liberate several captive chiefs held by the Spanish). \n\nDuring the attack her role was of mending wounds, bringing water, giving support to the defenders. But when all hope was lost, she thought that their only way to win was killing the captive chiefs and trowing their heads to the attackers to cause panic. This was rejected by most of the men, that seeing the hopeleness of the situation thought that keeping the chiefs alive was the only way to survive. \nShe went with her plan anyways, went to the house where the chiefs were imprisoned, and told the guards that they needed to kill the seven chiefs. One of the guards out of fear of the situation asked her, \"how shall I kill them?\" She said \"This way\" and grabbed her sword and beheaded the first one. She then proceeded to behead the other six with her own hands, and then told the guards that since they haven't done anything the least that they can do is to take the corpses out to the square so the attackers could see them.\n", "September 16th, 1810. Mexico declares its independence. But not from Spain, but France! Priests Miguel Hidalgo y Costilla and José María Morelos, along with a crowd of farmers and citizens, somehow said something that made everyone rise up against the Spaniards. I am being intentionally vague because this period (and much of Mexican history) is full of nationalistic myths and all that stuff. All that is known is that he was the one who started the movement.\n\nIt took 11 years and 11 days to achieve independence. A lot happened in that period. Hidalgo died, and Morelos took the lead from there, moving towards independence from *Spain*, not France, anymore.\n\nHow did Hidalgo die, you ask? Well, this war was full of plot twists. Spies, battles lost and won. Anyway, he was captured as he was on his way to the USA to buy weapons, thanks to a spy which told royalist forces about it. He was shot in Chihuahua, and beheaded. His head was taken to Guanajuato, and exhibited in public at the *Alhóndiga de Granaditas*, place of an important battle in the beginning stage of the war, in which the Mexican (then just creoles or mestizos, as Mexico did not exist!) people took the fort from the royalist forces after a siege.\n\nAfter his death, Morelos took over, but he was captured and killed in 1814. After this, other experienced military leaders, like Vicente Guerrero, continued the fight against the royalist forces. One of the royalist generals was Agustín de Iturbide, who fought against Guerrero for years, but decided to join him in 1920, after political troubles in Spain concerning Felipe VII and the Constitution of Cádiz.\n\nThis new army, called *Ejército Trigarante* (this means, loosely translated, \"Army of the three guarantees\") promised three things: the Roman Catholic religion ad the only one to be tolerated; independence from Spain; and union between the factions fighting for it. Afterwards, Agustín de Iturbide crowned himself \"Emperor of Mexico\" but he didn't last long, as he was exiled, and Guadalupe Victoria took charge as the first president of the Mexican Republic.\n\nThis is a huge day for Mexicans, more than 5 de mayo, which is not really celebrated AT ALL down here, and people drink a lot of tequila, and gather round in the city centers, in front of the municipal palace, where they recreate Hidalgo's disputed \"Grito de Dolores\", with the mayor (or Governor, or President, depending if it's a capital or not) leading the celebration.\n\nAlso, I get the day off for school!", "**Sept. 11**\n\n• In 1865, Wilford B. Hoggatt, who became the sixth Governor of the District of Alaska, was born in Indiana.\n\n• In 1958, poet Robert W. Service died in Monte Carlo at the age of 85.\n\n• In 1979, a patrol plane used by Rangers at the Wrangell-St. Elias National Monument was destroyed by fire. Arson was suspected.\n\n**Sept. 12**\n\n• In 1882, construction started on the first building on the campus of the Sheldon Jackson School in Sitka.\n\n• In 1900, a storm in Nome caused a million dollars in property losses along the waterfront.\n\n• In 1940, artist Sydney Laurence announced he was going to die. After a shave, haircut, and a negotiation of a painting deal, he admitted himself to the Anchorage Hospital and fulfilled his prediction.\n\n• In 1969, Valdez celebrated as the Alaska Maru arrived with the first shipment of trans-Alaska oil pipeline from Japan.\n\n**Sept. 13**\n\n• In 1905, fire destroyed 43 business buildings in Nome.\n\n• In 1906, the steamer Oregon wrecked at Cape Hinchenbrook, at the entrance to Prince William Sound; all 121 aboard were saved.\n\n• In 1913, concrete is poured for the first story of Juneau's first city hall. The Alaska Office Building now sits at that location.\n\n• In 1955, in a special election, Alaskans sent 55 delegates to a Constitutional Convention.\n\n• In 1979, Anchorage's teacher strike ended after a week when an acceptable negotiation plan was agreed to and signed by Judge Victor Carlson.\n\n**Sept. 14**\n\n• In 1834, Alfred P. Swineford, Alaska's second governor, was born in Ohio.\n\n• In 1871, a 32-ship whaling fleet from New England was abandoned at Wainwright Inlet when ice cut it off from open water. The 1,200 crew members used whale boats to reach safety at Icy Cape on the Chukchi Sea coast. No lives were lost.\n\n• In 1884, Alaska's first governor, John Kinkead, appointed by President Chester Arthur, arrived in Sitka to take up his duties. \n\n• The first meeting of the presbytery of Alaska was held in Wrangell.\n\n**Sept. 15**\n\n In 1885, Alfred P. Swineford took office as the second governor of the District of Alaska.\n\n• In 1913, Cordova residents formed the Alaska Good Roads Club with the goal of promoting a road from Fairbanks to Chitna.\n\n• In 1959, Everett Benson was convicted in Spokane, Wash. on five counts of grand larceny in connection with the financing of an Alaska mine venture.\n\n• In 1959, the Bureau of Land Management paid Alaska nearly $4.4 million as the state's share of oil and gas lease revenue on public lands in Alaska.\n\n• In 1986, the 5 billionth barrel of oil to travel down the trans-Alaska pipeline arrived in Valdez.\n\n**Sept. 16**\n\n• In 1901, Professor Leonard, the aeronaut, performed acrobatic feats on a horizontal bar suspended from a large balloon over the Bering Sea near Nome.\n\n• In 1925, the Southeast Alaska Fair opened in the Arctic Brotherhood Hall in Juneau.\n\n• In 1947, bidding was opened by the U.S. Forest Service on 1.5 billion cubic feet of timber in the Ketchikan area. This was part of a plan to establish five or six large paper mills in Alaska.\n\n• In 1974, the U.S. Army provided Kodiak with three emergency generators to give the Kodiak Electric Association a chance to repair broken equipment.\n\n**Sept. 17**\n\n• In 1868, the Alaska Commercial Company was incorporated in San Francisco, Calif.\n\n• In 1873, Thomas Riggs, Governor of the Territory of Alaska from 1918 to 1921, was born.\n\n• In 1934, fire swept through Nome, nearly destroying the town.\n\n• In 1946, a $6 million contract was signed to reconstruct the Alaska Railroad facilities in Seward that were damaged by the Good Friday earthquake. It was the largest single earthquake reconstruction contract." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://archive.org/details/langelicaserena00metagoog", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1hhv5p/tuesday_trivia_historys_greatest_bromances_and/caunf7s" ], [], [ "http://www.gwu.edu/~nsarchiv/NSAEBB/index.html", "http://search.wikileaks.org/plusd/" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c29mnnh", "c29mnnh" ], "score": [ 4, 4 ], "text": [ "First some vocabulary: if you have a collection of things in it, we call the number of things the \"cardinality\" of the collection.\n\nThis is fine if you only have finitely many things; the cardinality is just whatever number you have. But what if you have an infinite number of things? It turns out that infinity isn't a really well defined idea; there are different \"sizes\" of infinity. The smallest of these, we call Aleph-null. What is it? It's the infinity that you can count. If you can take all of your infinite things and mark them \"first, second, third\" and so on, then we say you have \"countably many\" of them and that the cardinality of your set is Aleph-null. For a first example, the counting numbers themselves. For a second example, the *even* counting numbers; call 2 the first, 4 the second, and so on. If you continue numbering them this way then eventually every even counting number would be given a position. Thus, even though there are \"more\" counting numbers than even counting numbers (twice as many, the evens and the odds), they are both sets with cardinality Aleph-null; this is one of the very weird things about infinity—if you have an infinite number of something and take away some, even an infinite amount, you might still have an infinite number left over.\n\nIt turns out that some collections (like the collection of all real numbers, which includes things like pi and the square root of 2) are *bigger* than Aleph-null; if you assigned every counting number to one of them—said \"this is the first, this is the second\" and so on, so that given any counting number you could identify the number in that position—there would still be some that you missed. In fact, there would be more of them without numbers assigned to them than there were *with* numbers assigned to them. The set has cardinality *greater* than Aleph-null.", "First some vocabulary: if you have a collection of things in it, we call the number of things the \"cardinality\" of the collection.\n\nThis is fine if you only have finitely many things; the cardinality is just whatever number you have. But what if you have an infinite number of things? It turns out that infinity isn't a really well defined idea; there are different \"sizes\" of infinity. The smallest of these, we call Aleph-null. What is it? It's the infinity that you can count. If you can take all of your infinite things and mark them \"first, second, third\" and so on, then we say you have \"countably many\" of them and that the cardinality of your set is Aleph-null. For a first example, the counting numbers themselves. For a second example, the *even* counting numbers; call 2 the first, 4 the second, and so on. If you continue numbering them this way then eventually every even counting number would be given a position. Thus, even though there are \"more\" counting numbers than even counting numbers (twice as many, the evens and the odds), they are both sets with cardinality Aleph-null; this is one of the very weird things about infinity—if you have an infinite number of something and take away some, even an infinite amount, you might still have an infinite number left over.\n\nIt turns out that some collections (like the collection of all real numbers, which includes things like pi and the square root of 2) are *bigger* than Aleph-null; if you assigned every counting number to one of them—said \"this is the first, this is the second\" and so on, so that given any counting number you could identify the number in that position—there would still be some that you missed. In fact, there would be more of them without numbers assigned to them than there were *with* numbers assigned to them. The set has cardinality *greater* than Aleph-null." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/math/comments/j6tuh/can_someone_explain_alephnull_to_someone_who_no/" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2zk43m" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Basically, it's because old light bulbs sucked. America was quite a ways ahead of the rest of the world when it came to early electricity and was about to make good lightbulbs that ran at 120 volts. If it was upped to 240 (which is easier to transmit long distances), they would burn out pretty quickly.\n\nBy the time Europe got into building their electrical infrastructure, 240 volt bulbs were good enough that they could just use straight 240v. But by this time, America already had the standard of 120.\n\nSauce: _URL_0_\n\n\\* Japan is the only other country (edit: that I could think of at the time of original typing) that uses 120v electricity, but I don't know the story behind that." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.straightdope.com/columns/read/1033/how-come-the-u-s-uses-120-volt-electricity-not-240-like-the-rest-of-the-world" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dujg7a9" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "So, basically, it depends on what you mean by \"associate.\"\n\nThe Kingdom of England was never considered part of the Kingdom of France or subordinate to it. English kings and property owners were not bound to the king of France under any kind of \"feudal\" ties. The Anglo-Norman, Angevin, and Plantagenet kings of England, however, were also major landowners *within* the Kingdom of France. Obviously William the Conqueror was the duke of Normandy, but his descendants acquired a vast swathe of western France through inheritance and marriage, becoming also the dukes of Aquitaine and Gascony and the counts of Anjou, Maine, Nantes, and Poitiers. The English kings (theoretically) owed fealty to the French kings for their French lands, but in practice a state resembling the Cold War prevailed throughout much of the second half of the 12th centuries. \n\nOn the lower level, during the 11th-12th centuries, almost all major English landowners were of Norman, Breton, Flemish, or French origin and owned property on both sides of the channel. Because they were subjects of both kings, they theoretically owed loyalty and service to both kings; in practice, these great men were out for their own ends and were more than willing to manipulate, quarrel with, scheme against, and sell out their kings when the situation called for it.\n\nThe English kings lost most of their French possessions in the first two decades of the 13th century. Following the death of Richard I, the French invaded and seized Normandy and Aquitaine. Anglo-Norman lords were faced with a choice: abandon their French property and keep their English, or the opposite. At the conclusion of the war, the English crown was left only with Gascony and a bit of Poitou, and the permanent connection to Normandy was severed. However, the English aristocracy would continue to speak Anglo-Norman (a dialect of old French) for at least another century." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9q4xn4" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Mikhail Kalinin certainly was something of an odd-duck in the Stalinist state apparatus. Despite the massive cult of personality surrounding the General Secretary, Kalinin was nominally the head of the Soviet state. His Old Bolshevik background was also atypical by the late 1930s as some of the more prominent veterans of the RSDLP died during the Purges. But in this regard Kalinin was not alone; Kagonovich, Voroshilov, and Mikoyan were also Old Bolsheviks and survived the Purges. These men were a part of what the historians Stephen Wheatcraft and Sheila Fitzpatrick have termed \"Team Stalin,\" a circle of Bolshevik veterans and managers that cut their teeth in the Lenin period and managed to ensconce themselves into Stalin's decision-making process. Rather than act as a tyrant, Stalin often preferred pushing a consensus among informal meetings in his offices and then delegating to his team to carry out the consensus he had forced. Although the Stalinist decision-making process was capricious and missteps could be fatal, it was not that much different from the type of collective leadership of the Lenin era where Lenin as the first among equals would bend decisions towards his own ends. Kalinin owed his survival both to the dynamics of Stalin's executive system and the role he played inside of it.\n\nFor the Team, Kalinin was a source of both stability and consensus-building among Stalin's servitors. Although Kalinin, like Voroshilov, had toyed with Bukharin's plan to oust Stalin as General Secretary in, both men backed out at the last minute. Since this abortive maneuverings in the mid-1920s, Kalinin became less active in internal political debates and his peasant-background meant he often dispensed folky wisdom in meetings rather than hard policy. Kalinin's own advanced age and sociability helped further endear him to members of the Team as a force that brought much needed social lubrication to a tense and informal situation. Kalinin emerged as something of a village peasant elder in these meetings, giving his assent (in practice meaningless in light of Stalin's power) that managed impart a homespun quality to these decisions. \n\nBut beyond the internal politics of the Team, Kalinin was also useful for the wider project of Soviet power. Not only did his titular head of the Soviet state deflect charges of an individualistic dictatorship, albeit imperfectly, but his age and peasant ways was a popular form of politics in the 1930s. After Stalin, Kalinin received the greatest volume of personal petitions from Soviet citizens. His persona as the \"all-union peasant elder\", carefully cultivated by both Kalinin and the Soviet state, meant that a good number of the peasantry saw him as a friendly voice in the corridors of Soviet power. This popularity was obviously of great utility for Stalin as it gave sanction to his various collectivization initiatives since the state's \"first peasant\" agreed with them. Additionally, Kalinin's role as the titular head of state allowed him to act in a ceremonial position for dignitaries in Moscow when Stalin was unable to meet with them His affability and age lent lent a degree of dignity to the Kremlin and Supreme Soviet, and masked the increasing cult of personality that Kalinin rubber-stamped. \n\nThis does not mean that Kalinin operated without any fear of Stalin in the 1930s. He had earned a public rebuke from the dictator during collectivization and the *Holodomor* for being too close to the peasantry in 1930. More dangerously, Beria had Kalinin's wife, Ekaterina Lorberg, arrested in the fall of 1938 on charges of anti-Soviet activity and received a 15 year Gulag sentence. Lorberg's arrest was likely a fishing expedition on Beria's part to gain ammunition against Kalinin, but Loberg had little in the way of a formal relationship with her husband. The couple had lived apart for years and whatever material Beria obtained remained in his files. \n\nKalinin remained as titular head of state through the Second World War. His age and eventual blindness further restricted his activities in this period, and it became obvious to many that he was nowhere near the levers of power. While he may have posed a threat to Stalin early on in the dictatorship, such a threat had rapidly decreased with Kalinin's own infirmities and level-headed recognition of Stalin's ascendancy. Other Old Bolsheviks like Bukharin were not so old as Kalinin and were thus were a threat that Stalin needed to eliminate or neutralize. \n\n*Sources*\n\nFitzpatrick, Sheila. *On Stalin's Team: The Years of Living Dangerously in Soviet Politics*. Princeton : Princeton University Press, 2015. \n\nGetty, J. Arch, and Oleg V. Naumov. *The Road to Terror: Stalin and the Self-Destruction of the Bolsheviks, 1932-1939*. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press, 1999. \n\nKhlevniuk, O. V., and Nora Seligman Favorov. *Master of the house: Stalin and his inner circle*. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2009. \n\nWheatcroft, Stephen G. \"From Team-Stalin to degenerate tyranny.\" In *The Nature of Stalin’s Dictatorship*, pp. 79-107. Palgrave Macmillan UK, 2004." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caybk1v", "cayey0u" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "No. It is my understanding that 'Phytoestrogens' are called that due to structural similarity to estrogen, but there is no evidence that they act similarly to hormones in animals. ", "Soy and phytoestrogens won't lower testosterone, but they do disrupt estrogen receptor activity. Males have estrogen receptors too, not just women, and side effects of higher estrogen levels in males can include gynecomastia.\n\nMore information here: _URL_0_\n\nTL;DR: avoiding soy due to phytoestrogens may be pragmatic, but not because it lowers testosterone, rather it's the effects on estrogen.\n\n[edit] Just wanted to add that the effects of soy consumption are generally overblown. Only individuals who are predisposed to gynecomastia or other complications need to be concerned, and even then only at rather large soy intakes consistently over time." ] }

[]

[ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytoestrogens" ]

[ [], [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwgrf3f", "cwgslfu", "cwgyuf4", "cwgz0x2", "cwh1bkj", "cwh3pbq", "cwh84cg" ], "score": [ 46, 24, 12, 2, 4, 23, 7 ], "text": [ "They are rich, but the wealth has shrunk and divided with each other. No 1 member of the family owns it all anymore.\n\nAs for the hate they often are tied into the conspiracies like the Rockefellers or other wealthy families from the Industrial Revolution. From Illuminati, New World Order, to Reptilian Aliens, the tinfoil hat wearers have pointed to them.", "They are legitimately very rich and fairly influential, but nothing like the Wal-Mart heirs or other very wealthy families.\n\nThe origins of the stories about them come from an anti-Semitic text called \"The Protocols Of Zion\". Believed to be written by a conservative Russian Tsarist loyalists (the Tsars frequently tried to deflect social anger onto Jews instead of themselves), the text claims to be the minutes of the meeting of a Jewish cabal intent on world domination. \n\nDespite being proven to be a forgery, the Protocols are believed authentic by some neo-Nazis and by some conspiracy theorists (two groups that overlap a lot).\n\nNaming the Rothschilds specifically is a way to talk about Jewish bankers without being seen to directly talk about Jewish bankers.\n\nThe Rothschilds are bankers and as a result do some pretty horrible things, but they certainly don't have tentacles in every government or anything like that. Nor do they have any unusual influence among the Jewish community.", "I wish more people in ELi5 would take this seriously:\n\n > ELI5 isn't a guessing game; if you aren't confident in your explanation, please don't speculate.", "Combines, the Rothschilds might be the richest family (depending on how far you want to draw the boundaries of \"family\"), but the wealth is distributed across many hundreds of heirs so you wont have a single household of 5 or so people owning it all.", "[They have 21%](_URL_0_) of a £2.4Billion investment trust they set up. That's quite a lot of money, but it's not Bill Gates rich.\n\nI imagine they have other assets as well though.", "I'll do my best to clarify a great deal about the Rothschild holdings. Yes, the Rothschild Net Worth is real. Conservatively, their Net Worth is in excess of $350 Billion across the entire family. For Comparison Sake, Sir Evelyn Robert Rothschild is worth $20 Billion. Mind you, this valuation is an off the cuff figure, based on a rough value of their land holdings, investments, banking business, bank holdings, non-banking assets such as their Vinyards (Chateau Lafeitt Rothschild and Chateau Mouton Rothschild), ownership of \"Non-Rothschild\" Trust Assets (If I recall, they have invested and have ownership stakes in other \"family\" trusts), their own Concordia BV holdings, and holdings that I haven't listed or considered. \n\nAlthough they are worth a lot of moeny, they do not control nearly all of the world's wealth. That is just a rumor. the reason they are mentioned so much is because it's easy to create conspiracy theories about a family who has known to keep themselves out of the public and values secrecy above all else. Plus, Wealth + Jews + Finance + Money = Instant conspiracy theory. \n\nHope that helps.", "Total family wealth might be $300 to $400 billion, according to _URL_2_\n\nTotal world wealth might be $240 trillion, according to _URL_1_\n\nInteresting article: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.ritcap.com/our-heritage" ], [], [ "http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4311", "http://www.cnbc.com/2013/10/11/global-wealth-hit-241-trillion-but-distribution-skewed.html", "http://www.celebritynetworth.com/articles/entertainment-articles/how-rich-is-the-rothschild-family/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cse7iol", "cse7jc7" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "1. There isn't a way for your laptop to tell exactly how much power is left in the battery. It has to estimate it by measuring how much power the battery is outputting, but that's not always a nice neat line.\n\n2. There isn't any way for your laptop to know how much demand you're going to put on it. A laptop that's playing a high-graphics online game is using much more power than a laptop playing solitaire, and will therefore have much lower battery life.", "Many reasons, one is it's constantly changing because you're constantly doing things on your computer. Opening new tabs, posting, doing anything on your computer uses more power than it just being idle. Videos and games use a lot of power. Everything on your computer will use varying amounts of power to do, so there are thousands of very small details to take into consideration so your computer just does it's best with the current information at hand.\n\nAlso, if it's a brand new battery it can take a while to adjust to calculate more accurate, and that only lasts so long because older batteries tend to be inaccurate too as they wear down. There are too many factors for a single extremely accurate answer, but that's some of the factors." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dalo359" ], "score": [ 46 ], "text": [ "At the third Council of Tours, the priests were ordered to preach in vulgar Latin, as the common folk could no longer understand formal Latin. This was in 813 CE. While it may still have been Latin in name, this language would likely have been significantly different from the VL at the fall of the Western Roman Empire.\n\nVulgar Latin, particularly in outlying regions of the former Roman Empire tended to be influenced by the local languages, as is usual. For instance, the formal Latin *equus* for horse was replaced by *caballus*, a word originating in the Gaulish tongue.\n\nThe other major factor that would have changed in the intervening centuries between the fall of the Western Roman Empire and the Council of Tours is pronunciation. Old French in particular was guilty of significant vowel breaking - where a monopthong is broken into a dipthong or further e.g. the Latin short /e/ in *mel*, became /ie/ *miel*, or honey. Of the original dozen or so vowel sounds found in Latin, all were changed.\n\nMost significantly, vulgar Latin, and subsequently Old French placed more emphasis on stressed syllables, which tended to shift pronunciation and resulted in the now standard dropping of final letters when pronouncing French words. This shift lowered the morpheme:word ratio of OF/VL due to the end-conjugation of many Latin words. This meant that OF/VL relied significantly more on context that did formal Latin.\n\nFrom all this we have a date of certainty (813 CE), but indications exist that the loss of mutual intelligibility could have occurred significantly earlier, as language undergoes speciation in much the same way that living organisms do, on a continuum.\n\nEDIT: You might consider posting this same question over in /r/linguistics for a more in-depth response." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvdlslr", "cvdlvjj" ], "score": [ 27, 5 ], "text": [ "The scientific laws are generally just observations, not theories. The law of gravity doesnt explain gravity, it just describes it - whereas the theory of general relativity provides a model for how gravity works within the bounds of spacetime", "Theories and laws are very different things. Laws are not \"above\" theories.\n\nThere are lots of different ways of explaining this, but here's one: a law is a mathematical statement that will always hold true in defined conditions, whereas a theory is a synthesis of a large number of observations which explains why something is the way it is.\n\nSo the \"law of gravity\" is F=(G*M*m)/r^2. A theory of gravity would be general relativity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ezxe2pa", "ezxq6q7" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Unlike gases, plasmas are made up of atoms in which some or all of the electrons have been stripped away, leaving positively charged nuclei, called ions, roam freely.", "Solid, gas, and liquid are taught as the states of matter simply because those are the only states of matter that you're ever likely to experience. Plasma is sometimes included because it's easy to demonstrate (e.g. neon lights) and it fits easily into the same continuum as solid - > liquid - > gas. \n\nThere are *dozens* more states of matter, but they're either so esoteric that they're difficult to explain in a basic science class, or so exotic that most people will never encounter them, or both." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c90ewvn", "c90fb65" ], "score": [ 19, 22 ], "text": [ "From what I understand, quantum computers aren't really comparable to existing computers. They aren't a billion times faster than our existing computers, I believe they may even be slower at making traditional calculations.\n\nThe reason quantum computers are special is because they can do specific kinds of calculations extremely well. They trivialize certain types of computation (such as decryption) that our existing computers have a really hard time with. \n\nSo to answer your question, probably an insane amount of time because they aren't especially fast.", "Quantum computers aren't magical. They cannot perform arbitrary computations faster than classical computers can. They can solve *certain* problems faster (for example, [brute-force search](_URL_0_)). You might have gotten the wrong impression from pop science articles that claim that quantum computers somehow perform billions of simultaneous computations, etc., which is very misleading." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grover's_algorithm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dga73sp" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I'm not sure that your assumption is entirely correct (remember, the impact when hitting someone will come from in front): older books I've read, like Oman, tend to believe this, state that the development of the stirrup essentially lead to feudalism, and put a lot more significance on pictures like [this](_URL_0_) one from the Psalter of St Gall, with his stirrups and couched lance, than they probably deserve (for one thing, he's only transporting the lance). That idea is disputed now (and by the 'experimental archeology' types, fwtw) but I'll mainly just point out how pre-stirrup people depicted lance use (mostly visually, which of course has its problems, such as artists not usually being warriors). The most common pose by far is an overarm blow, which is also shown on the [Bayeux tapestry](_URL_9_) alongside couched lances. There's a certain amount of ambiguity in the tapestry, as it also shows spears being [thrown](_URL_8_), so it's not certain which is being represented, but there are [other](_URL_3_) works where the pose is clearly meant to depict an impact with the enemy. This pose is very old, and can be seen all the way back to [Assyrian](_URL_5_) art. The other common pose is underarm, with the hand at about the hip, as seen in the well-known [Alexander mosaic](_URL_2_) ([here](_URL_1_)'s a pot showing the same thing).\n\nThere was also a kind of very large lance used in antiquity, originating in the steppes before spreading to Persia, and then Europe. It was called the kontos by the Greeks ('oar' or 'barge-pole'), and it was used like one, two-handed, as seen in [this](_URL_4_) relief. This sounds rather precarious, however [Persian](_URL_7_) art [shows](_URL_10_) quite considerable impacts, which are backed up by written sources, such as Plutarch's [claim](_URL_6_) that the Parthian spear often had the impetus to pierce two men at once.\n\nFinally, the (probably) 4th century novel 'Aethiopica' by Heliodorus describes the heavily armoured Persian cavalry attaching their lances directly to the horse, so that they only have to aim it, with the impact taken by their horse. Given that this is the only place this idea shows up, I don't find it particularly plausible." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/1076-3.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/da/Thracian_cavalrymen_vs_an_armored_Greek_food_soldier_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg/1280px-Thracian_cavalrymen_vs_an_armored_Greek_food_soldier_-_Getty_Villa_Collection.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c3/Battle_of_Issus_mosaic_-_Museo_Archeologico_Nazionale_-_Naples_BW.jpg", "http://manuscriptminiatures.com/media/manuscriptminiatures.com/original/921-25.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/a/a6/Knight-Iran.JPG", "https://i1.wp.com/members.ancient-origins.net/sites/default/files/Iron-Army.jpg?w=525&ssl=1", "http://www.perseus.tufts.edu/hopper/text?doc=Perseus%3Atext%3A2008.01.0038%3Achapter%3D27%3Asection%3D2", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/81/Tabriz_Sasanian_Plate_2.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/95/BayeuxTapestryScene51b.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/14/BayeuxTapestryScene52b.jpg", "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/45/Ardachir_relief_Firuzabad_1.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctgsl2e", "ctgso4d", "ctgsv3q" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "If all that was said was \"Congress makes laws; President enforces laws; Judges interpret laws,\" then maybe. But the President has the explicit power in the Constitution to pardon people. You might think that invades the province of the judiciary, but it's granted authority so no one has a real issue with it.", "I thought the emphasis wasn't on separation but rather checks and balances so that each branch will help ensure the other ones do their job", "It's built on checks and balances, not separation. Each branch can limit the other branches so no one branch is all powerful. \n\nCongress passes laws. The President can veto but Congress can override. The Supreme Court can overturn laws passed by Congress. See how everyone can check (or limit) the other branches? \n\nPardons are one of the checks the Executive branch has over the courts. A perfectly legal law passed by Congress and upheld by the Court can still be nullified in some cases by the President. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct1b4i0", "ct1b4pu", "ct1b79t", "ct1bctl" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "All of the above. After paying out expenses. And stockholders fees. And bonuses to management. They will invest in research and development. Donate to causes, mainly for tax write-off. Funnel money into politics through lobbyists, for power and control. They will buy smaller business, and newer technology and inventions so they can do hold the patents and collect money on that. Invest in upgrading and expanding properties that they own. And invest in accounts that will earn them money, and while they search for new acquisitions.", "They could use a bank to store their money but most publicly listed companies( they are on the stock exchange) tend to have to answer to their shareholders and thus will invest their excess profits into \"profitable\" investments, pay the interest the owe the bank due to loans and pass the rest along as dividends for their shareholders. ( to keep them happy)\n\nIf they are not publicly listed( not likely a big corporation), then their funds will be free to do as they like based on their board of directors.\n\nMost corporations ( other than financial institutions) will tend to invest their financial resources in other projects( for growth and for profits) instead of letting them sit in a bank( which only provides interest on the principal)", "Well...\n\nIn a publicly held corporation, like the ones you are thinking of when you hear the word \"corporation\", after expenses some is set aside by the board of directors for future investments, expansion and that sort of thing, and the rest of it is sent to the share holders (the owners) in the form of a check. This is called a dividend.\n\nMost publicly traded companies sell 51% of their stock publicly, the minimum required by law, and the rest is owned by various investors, founders, board members, employees if they have stock options set up for them, and that sort of thing.\n\nThe public stock is the stock sold on the stock market.\n\nSo each share holder gets a percentage of the profits based on what percent of the company they own in stock.", "Large corporations will have a full time treasurer (and perhaps an entire treasury department) that manages their cash and non-business assets.\n\nDifferent companies have different philosophies on how to manage their treasuries. Some are very conservative and invest mostly in bank accounts and government bonds (which are safer than bank accounts, because FDIC insurance on bank accounts is limited to $250,000), while others run basically internal hedge funds." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dq6ndyy", "dq6nsj3", "dq6z1w5", "dq6zx8t", "dq708r3", "dq70wwt", "dq71f3z", "dq743jz", "dq75ntb", "dq79auj", "dq7fgsl", "dq7jjbi", "dq7kuq5", "dq7lf13", "dq7lk6f", "dq7ntj7", "dq7rhms", "dq7vlpe", "dq80ys4", "dq810b6", "dq82zj3" ], "score": [ 6973, 228, 21, 3, 120, 4, 14, 3, 8, 3, 22, 3, 3, 2, 2, 2, 4, 6, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sorta.\n\nThe ISP is your mailman. They need to get packages to where they need to go, Reddit for example is sending you a package containing this reply. You pay the mailman monthly for a rate at which they send packages from you and to you. \n\nHTTPS encrypts the package’s contents, however the ISP’s responsibility is still to move the package from A to B, and therefore needs to know what these A and B are. Therefore the postage address cannot be encrypted, and your ISP can track who you are exchanging packages with, be it Reddit or YouTube or Netflix.\n\nSo your ISP can’t actually see what you are viewing on Reddit, YouTube, or Netflix, but they can see which sites you are accessing.", "HTTPS is not a perfect solution. It prevents them from seeing what messages are exchanged but not from seeing who exchanges those messages.\n\nThey can see that you are on reddit but not which subedits you are viewing for example.\n\nThere are additional things they can see. For example some researches a while back for example showed that you could still recognize which movies a person was watching despite them being transmitted via https. The transmission itself was encrypted, but observers could still see the size of the packets transmitted and match those with what they new about the movies in netflix's library.\n\nSo https is good for not having the entire world see your password when you transmit it, but if you don't want your ISP to know that you are visiting _URL_0_ they won't help you at all and in some special cases they might in theory learn much more about your browsing habits than you would want them to.", "It sort of does. Your ISP cannot read HTTPS data you send or receive (for the most part)\n\nBut when you send data, they can see where it's destined for. When you receive data, they can see where it came from. So they can generally tell which websites you visited. But they can't tell what you *did* on those sites.\n\nThere are a couple of ways they can *sometimes* snoop on your HTTPS traffic however.\n\nIf you install one of their certificates, they can potentially act as a man in the middle, reading everything you send and receive. But that requires you to manually install this certificate. It can't be done silently just by visiting a website. Alternatively, if the website has a non-HTTPS landing page, they can potentially manipulate that so that you are never forwarded to the HTTPS version.\n\nBut yeah, assuming your PC isn't compromised, and the *entire* site runs HTTPS, then the ISP can only tell where data packets are going and coming from, not what's in them.", "I was actually looking into this the other day after my internet was slowed the day after I made a huge download. Turns out it was unrelated. However I found some interesting info about how service providers can determine your online activities without actually seeing the queries of your URLs.\n\nFor example, when you're streaming a video, there is a specific bandwidth usage pattern that is easily distinguishable from downloads and stuff. \n\n[Here](_URL_0_) is a diagram representing streaming network traffic pattern.\n\nWhen a video is buffering, it's pre-loading part of the video so that it can be viewed without any hiccups. Normally videos will give around 15 seconds of buffer time. When the video comes too close to the non-buffered part of the video (the rest of the video) the bandwidth will be used once again to buffer the next 15 or so seconds of the video. This results in a choppy, zipper-like bandwidth usage pattern. (See the hyperlinked article for a diagram). \n\nWhile service providers might not necessarily be able to see what you are viewing exactly, by combination of the general address of the website, and the bandwidth pattern. They can usually make a pretty good guess as to what you're up to. And with all the data they are collecting at the same time, it's only becoming easier.\n\nEdit: replaced link to article to simply just a link to the diagram", "I want to point out that my isp actually will perform man in the middle attacks to send copyright notices. I was torrenting one night and my browser wouldnt connect to https reddit. After a few seconds i got redirected to a 'copyright violations are bad, click here to restore your internet' page. Realistically, i should be able to charge them under the CFAA for that. I couldnt believe they would stoop to MITM for copyright.....", "They know the IP address you’re sending/receiving information from, not the content. Quite literally just like properly addressed mail through the post office.", "How does this change on a vpn? ", "This is the best link I have ever seen. \n_URL_0_\n\nBasically, when you send information, like others have said, it gets put into a package, like a box. As the box goes from device to device, each device can add a box and put a sticker label on it. Some devices open the outer box package to read the label on inner boxes. Kinda like how you can recognize a home depot box, these labels and boxes are recognizable. And because it's all electronic, it's easy to build a software that can open and read those quickly and do all sorts of analytics. The very inside package might not get opened, but there's a lot of info you can gather to make very educated and statistically proven guesses in the worst case scenario, and when you compare it directly to other known packages from non encrypted sessions, it becomes a matching game. ", "They can see the volume. If you go to Pornhub for example and watch a video, you are going to pull down data from the video yeah it is encrypted, yeah it is streaming. If the video is exactly 14,586,304 bytes how many possible videos on the site are exactly 14,586,304 bytes? Even streaming wise with enough sample data you can peg what they are streaming. Go to a download site, same thing. I can't tell what you downloaded but I can see how much you downloaded. How many possible files on the site match the size? The ads are a different connection and unless a website has a substantial random amount of data on each page, it's easy to gauge what you are looking at. You can never get 100% but you can say \"Out of 6 million videos there is a 98% chance he watch video A, 87% chance it was Video B, and 76% chance it was video C.", "I've always thought of the post card anology. In http You exchange information with a web site in post cards. Everyone who handles your post card can read it. \n\nWith https it's like using an envelope. They still know the address but not the content. \n\nThe main thing to remember is that the website address is still visible. ~~So even if your communication is encrypted going to _URL_0_ tell the ISP a lot~~ with https only _URL_1_ is visible thanks to /u/ChoilSport for pointing that out", "Your ISP doesn't know what you ordered from Amazon, just that you got a package from Amazon. This becomes an issue when you order a package from _URL_0_, and there is little doubt as to what you're ordering. ", "If someone moves your data for you, they get to read it. It's the same issue with Tor. No outsider can read it, but it is possible for outsiders, if they're creative enough, to become insiders.\n\nThere's a small scene in Mr. Robot that talks about this briefly. I think it's actually in the pilot.", "They can’t see inside the HTTP session, but can inspect the entire TCP/IP packet. So, they don’t even know the host name in the HTTP header (_URL_0_), but they can see the source and destination IP addresses. The mailman analogy works.", "Even if it's encrypted, they can still see the type of traffic (like P2P) and the amount downloaded/ uploaded. ", "In order to actually GET to the website, you need it's IP address. \nIn order to do this, you send out requests for the exact IP address in DNS queries. These go over the line unencrypted by default. \n\nYou can watch them pass by with Wireshark.", "Assuming you do some homework first and make an effort to ask a well-informed question, you could also try /r/networking. There are plenty of ISP network techs and others with in-depth knowledge there who can tell you exactly in which ways your ISP can track your every move online. \n\nOf course, most of those methods would be illegal under net neutrality rules.", "So my friend who owns my ISP knows what kind of porn I watch?", "Related: On March 28, 2017 congress passed legislation (bill: H. Res 230) that legally allows your ISP to track, store and sell your internet surfing history to ANYBODY who pays them money. This legislation was also passed basically \"under the radar\" just like they are trying to do with Net Neutrality. The bill was passed because 50 Republicans voted for it. On average a Republican received $368,648 from the telecom industry during their careers [_URL_0_].", "I work at an ISP and we can’t really see what you’re doing. We can see where packets are being sent, what time they’re being sent and who sent them, but that’s it. ", "Generally speaking, they cant see what the contents are, just where you're going and who is sending traffic to you.\n\nHowever, there's a somewhat new tech, where basically \n(putting this in very simple terms, no one jump on my shit)\n your secure connection is formed with the ISP instead of the site you're going to, who reads it, and then forms a separate secure connection with where you're going, and forwards it under that connection. Generally speaking, this is something that's done for internal traffic to/from a private network...like say the navy's internal network. Usually this causes you to get a notification from your browser saying that the connection is insecure because these sorts of things are checked for, which is one of the reasons it's important to pay attention to if you have a valid, secure connection.\n\nobviously, as far as I'm aware, this isn't standard practice. at least not yet...\n\ni think I explained that correctly :p ", "Traditional http has no encryption, this means that as it passes through intermediary devices such as your ISP's router, the contents of everything can be intercepted or modified. \n\nTo protect the confidentiality and integrity of web traffic, most modern websites use HTTPS which is traditional http wrapped with encryption. HTTPS traffic is opaque as it travels through routers, but there is still some info the ISP can see. \n\nWhen you request a website, you use a protocol known as DNS. This works like a phone directory and is needed to translate the domain name (e.g. _URL_0_) into an internet address (e.g. 151.101.65.140). These DNS queries are sent unencrypted and therefore run the risk of both eavesdropping and tampering. \n\nLastly, even with HTTPS itself, there are ways of breaking it, without getting overly technical, it's to do with something known as certificate authorities. Some employees and school networks have software that 'fakes' an https connection but really intercepts it midway through.\n\nAlso, in addition to looking at the contents of your data, your isp still has to route your traffic, so by virtue of that, they will need to know the destination addresses of all your traffic so they can route it. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "wws.comcast-sucks.com" ], [], [ "https://imgur.com/gallery/UMcZf" ], [], [], [], [ "https://www.eff.org/pages/tor-and-https" ], [], [ "https:reddit.com/r/Am_I_Pregnant", "reddit.com" ], [ "diaperfetishaccessories.com" ], [], [ "reddit.com" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2017/03/vote-correlation-internet-privacy-res/" ], [], [], [ "reddit.com" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7u7a7k", "d7u7o40", "d7u7qri" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "An Australian here, they have, at the very least, provided a degree of stability for our head of state. The last Republican push here wanted the parliament, not the people, to select the head of state in a future republic - frightening.\n\nMy view - I'm completely ambivalent about them as people, they are intrinsically no better or worse than anyone else. I favour the system remaining in place here because the cost to change something that isn't broken is outrageous, all the Royal < insert thing here > (i.e. RCMP becoming CMP) would have to go, just the change in letterheads and signage alone would run to hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars and not advance our society one iota.", "This is going to be mostly an opinionated thread; but there are three possible explanations:\n\n1) They aren't- Taking this from the \"Ask British people\" threads that pop up, attitudes from even the Brits range from 'they suck' to 'who cares'. \n\n2) They're figureheads for a strong nation- A lot of people respect Heads of States: they're your nations public face for the world. The Queen may not have a whole lot of actual power but she represents a nation that was once arguably the strongest in the world.\n\nAnd this next caveat is important: Britain has been replaced in the \"Evil Empire\" light by Russia and the U.S. Enough time has passed since they were the predominant superpower that people still respect them for their might but forget a lot of the bad they did in that span of time. \n\n3) It's romantic- Not in a bad way; but a lot of us grow up on fantasy stories about Knights and Kings and Queens. A lot of movies even use England as backdrop for these stories so there's a positive correlation there. \n\nAgain, your mileage may vary in this thread and each individual person will have a different answer, but I hope that clears some things up. ", "Well, the king is a costly institution of the nations finances. It costs a lot to have a royal house.\n\nWhile the royal family has a high upkeep, it's not the people per see that cost a lot.\n\nThe cost is more about being an ambassador of the nation, a gentle face to send out in the world to promote friendship, peace and industrial contracts.\n\nIf it was some random guy who just went to school and proves to the right elected official that he was good at talking to people, it would be a lot of difference compared to if it's a random guy who proved to the elected official that he is good at talking to people who also happen to be the grandson of someone who is mentioned hundreds of times in the history books. The royal family has a stronger bond to their nation than any other official. They are descendants of the Guy who *formed* the nation centuries ago, so they must be important.\n\nIt's a mind trick, no matter if you like it or not, that works pretty well. \n\nI'm the first to admit that the royal family is a costly beast, and that is usually why the royal families are questioned domestically; they get paid a lot. And I really mean *a lot* without doing what people consider to be a real job. But the truth is that someone has to do what they do, how they do it is one of the good ways to do it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d14m66t" ], "score": [ 66 ], "text": [ "tldr, ex-President is involved in a giant corruption investigation and was just appointed the Chief of Staff by the current President in an attempt to shield him from prosecutions (in Brazil, ministers are to be judged by the Supreme Court, which comprise mostly of people picked by the acting party), thus the huge protests\n\nEdit: fixed stuff in brackets" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dqa58n0" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "Some polymers have an affinity for each other and mix well. Polycarbonate, some styrene copolymers, and PET Mix well. This is driven by the chemical structure. Think that some are more polar, water like and others are less polar or oil like. \n\n\nHowever most polymers by themselves are typically not mixable. When mixed they form a blend that has poor adhesion and thus poor strength. it only takes a small amount of incompatible polymer in a mixture to make the material useless. Which is why it is important to have clean recycle streams. \n\nThe outcome of a good mixture is to get desirable properties of both materials in a single material. For example high temp stiffness with rubber impact resistance. \n\nTo make them mixable the two polymers are typically reacted to together to form a copolymer that acts as a soap allowing them to mix. ABS ( LEGO plastic) is a mixture of polybutadiene (rubber) and Styrene-acrylonitrile copolymers. The rubber provides break resistance while the styrene copolymers provide stiffness. \n\nSuper tough nylon ( weed whacker string) is a mixture of nylon with ethylene-propylene rubbers that contain an acid group that reacts with the nylon’s amino group to form the copolymer. \n\nThere is a whole industry that tries to figure this out. \n\n\n\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dej5l4m", "dej6ts9", "dej6tyo", "dej6w1x" ], "score": [ 2, 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Gravity is stronger. It is stronger because it is inexorable. There is both positive and negative electric and magnetic fields that can cancel each other out. There is no way to cancel gravity. The proof is black holes. There is no electromagnetic equivalent.", "The nuclear strong force is the strongest of the four fundamental forces. This is the force that holds quarks together inside protons and neutrons, and protons and neutrons together inside atomic nuclei. However, it has an extremely small range, and drops off to almost non existent levels over only the distance of a single proton. \n\nIn terms of *why* it's stronger, there's no fundamental physical reason for this that we're aware of. The strengths of the four forces are just physical constants of this Universe, and could quite easily have been different. It's just the way the proverbial cookie crumbled in the case of our Universe. ", "There are four fundamental forces in [the standard model of particles](_URL_0_): \n\n* Gravity\n\n* Electromagnetism\n\n* the Weak nuclear force \n\n* the Strong nuclear force\n\nThe strong nuclear force is responsible for holding protons and neutrons together in atomic nuclei against the electromagnetic repulsion of the protons. \nAt the right scales, the strong force is much stronger than electromagnetic repulsion. This is a good thing, because atomic nuclei wouldn't be stable otherwise. \n\nHowever, outside the nucleus the strong nuclear force declines ~~exponentially~~ rapidly with distance, which is why we don't notice it directly in our everyday lives. ", "The only fundamental force stronger than the electromagnetic is the strong nuclear force. It's the attraction between nucleons (protons and neutrons). It needs be stronger because nuclei need to be held together (if electromagnetic was stronger, the protons would repel each other and the nucleus would just \"fly apart\"). This is also there are increasingly more neutrons than protons as you go along the periodic table. However, the range of the strong nuclear force is only as large as the nucleus of an atom, whereas the electromagnetic force has an infinite range." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_Model" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "czndocm", "cznrypv" ], "score": [ 16, 3 ], "text": [ "Essentially the same as with any superheated material breaking out of containment. The reactor and surrounding structure might be damaged or destroyed. The amount of damage will depend on the size of the reactor and the materials used. Depending on the type of fusion taking place, there may be free neutrons flying around that can be a source of radioactivity, but these neutrons won't travel far.\n\nOnce the containment is breached, the fusion plasma will lose its energy and pressure extremely rapidly. And with temperature and pressure falling, the fusion reaction will stop. Unlike many fission reactors, a fusion reactor will not have a chain reaction taking place.", "Not much, actually. There is so little hydrogen fuel in the reactor, its essentially a moderate vacuum chamber, compared to atmospheric pressure. If you put a hole in the side of the chamber, air will rush in, cool and dilute the hot plasma, and quench any reactions going on within milliseconds. The net result will be something like a scaled up version of breaking a neon bulb." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0ykhfh", "e0ykimc" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "They learn it. From age 0 on you throw stuff around and observe the physics of the world. That is why people who don't throw things (like balls) as a kid suck at throwing and aiming. So it is not an instinct, it is more of a skill.", "It's actually not instinct, it is learned. If you look at little children trying to throw things, they're terrible. But we learn through repetition. Think how many times as person has thrown something (especially an athletic person!) by the age of, say, 16." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dszp4bt" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I partly answered your question [here](_URL_0_), although admittedly that answer focuses mostly on England in the period. Nonetheless, the answer isn't *radically* different in that early medieval political aspirations hinged on *Romanitas* less as an immediate continuation of Rome, but as a valid successor through the continuation of the facets of Rome which had been worthy of admiration.\n\nIt was well known that Rome had failed and there was no way for Charlemagne to claim that he was simply the *next* Roman Emperor, but there was tremendous prestige in resurrecting Rome, reforging the empire and being the *new* Roman Emperor. It's worth mentioning, of course, that Charlemagne crowning himself as Emperor was not taken well by the Byzantines, who had been maintaining the Roman Empire perfectly well all this time without him, thank you very much." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/72f794/in_the_tv_show_vikings_both_common_and_noble/dnim2vu" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fazm7c5", "fazn9zg", "fazsqht", "fb08tsl" ], "score": [ 7, 22, 3, 6 ], "text": [ "Most of the relevant microorganisms aren't killed by the cold; if they were, food could be sealed in plastic, frozen, then allowed to thaw and it wouldn't rot until opened. They're simply alive but much, much less active. That being said, there are other reasons foods go bad. Some chemicals, including vitamins, break down over time even without microorganisms.", "Even though it is frozen that doesn't mean that the food is static. The food will slowly dehydrate and with that it loses its taste and becomes inedible. The cells in the food also get damaged after long period of being frozen, which cause it to lose flavour", "Air is extremely dry in the freezer. Your food will eventually mummify. Also oxygen in the atmosphere will cause the fats and oils to become rancid.", "Freezing food does not actually prevent food from expiring. It’s more like it slows it waaaaay down. Prolonging the inevitable, so to speak. \nAs the temperature lowers, the food goes bad slower. But it never STOPS going bad." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cs0hw1p" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "You may have noticed George Bush lied to the American people to get the US involved in a stupid and un-winnable war with no exit strategy. As a result the most powerful army in the world destroyed the most powerful army in the Arab world. He left them with no resources and no ability to govern themselves and then we pulled out making them likely to be invaded and controlled by a terror state. Another amazing plan courtesy of incredibly stupid US foreign policy. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c53m71x", "c53mc82", "c53pelp" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The form of chlorine which is dangers is [chlorine gas, (Cl2)](_URL_0_) which has very different properties from the [chloride ion. (Cl-)](_URL_1_)\n\n", "The nuclei don't matter in chemistry. Only the structure of the electrons. \n\nSodium and chloride ions have totally different electronic structures than neutral sodium and chlorine atoms, and subsequently behave totally differently.", "Those properties of the neutral atoms (explosions and such) are dependent on the electronic structures, specifically how full the outer electron shells are. In sodium, the outer electron shell can hold 2 electrons but only has 1. In order get to only full shells, sodium can either gain one electron or get rid of one. \nWhen in contact with water, sodium has the ability to get rid of that extra electron. The electron leaves sodium and reacts with the water to produce oxygen, hydrogen and energy. Hydrogen is flammable, so the energy causes it to catch fire. \nElemental chlorine on the other hand wants one more electron, so its reactivity is based on that. \nThe ions have already reached their lowest energy states by getting to full electron shells, therefore they don't have the same high energy processes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chlorine", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chloride" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dil90lu", "dil97wm", "dilhuth", "dilm456", "dilvvxl", "dilvyqj", "dilwuwg", "dilww1s", "dilx51j", "dilxifu", "dilxulm", "dilxz2b", "dilynwu", "dilyxmo", "dilzc10", "dilzk9l", "dilzlv7", "dim0c45", "dim0pg2", "dim10l1", "dim1i1j", "dim1lev", "dim1uia", "dim29om", "dim32mn", "dim3871", "dim3op3", "dim4a0m", "dim4a9m" ], "score": [ 475, 9048, 386, 99, 115, 277, 4, 2, 2, 8, 8, 6, 7, 59, 2, 887, 7, 17, 4, 2, 2, 10, 2, 3, 2, 2, 50, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The Jewish religion was based around the idea of sacrifice: if you did something wrong, you had to pay for it. You would take a sacrifice to the temple -- depending on how much you had and what you had done wrong, this might be some grain, or perhaps a couple of birds, or something bigger like a lamb or an ox. The idea was that you had to make amends.\n\nIf the sacrifice you brought was a live animal, it was slaughtered. In those days, people believed that the life of an animal was contained in its blood (not surprising, given that if you bleed a lot you can die), so it was the blood that somehow made everything work and got you forgiveness from God.\n\nSacrifices were made on other occasions, too. One of the most important was the festival of Passover, when Jews would slaughter and eat lambs. This goes back to the story of the Exodus, when the Israelites escaped slavery in Egypt: according to the legend, God sent the Angel of Death to kill all the Egyptians' first-born sons, but the Israelites smeared the blood of slaughted lambs on their doorposts so the angel would spare them.\n\nFast-forward to the time of Jesus. According to the Bible, he said some nasty things about the religious authorities, saying that they were exploiting ordinary people. He suggested that there was no need to make sacrifices: God would forgive you anyway. The religious authorities didn't like that, so plotted to have him killed. Of the four Gospels, two of them say he died the day after the Passover, and one (John) says he died at the very moment the Passover lambs were being slaughtered. \n\nA bit later, St. Paul joined the movement Jesus had started, and developed a theory about Jesus's death and why it was necessary. Blood, he said, was necessary for the forgiveness of sins. Jesus was the ultimate sacrifice: as he was \"the son of God\" (however you interpret that phrase), his blood was enough to grant forgiveness for us all. There was no need to bring any sacrifices to the temple, and no need to convert to Judaism.\n\nIt seems a bit weird to us now, but that's because we're not used to a sacrificial cult. It was really St Paul's attempt to give Jesus's death some kind of symbolic meaning.", "ELI5:\n\nImagine you're in a courtroom, and you're guilty of a crime. You owe an exorbitant fine, and you can't pay it.\n\nThen a man comes along and offers to pay it for you. This is the only man with enough money to pay that fine, and he pays it in your place, satisfying the legal requirement.\n\nThat's what Jesus did.\n\nEvery human who sins is guilty, and (according to the bible), deserves death. One of us cannot take on the death sentence for another, as we all have our own death sentence. In other words, I can't die for your sins because I have to die for mine.\n\nJesus is the only human who never sinned, being God in human flesh. Since He had no sin, he could take the place of others. He willingly was tortured and killed, and God placed our sins on Him. His physical death paid the 'fine' for us, freeing us from court and from everlasting death.\n\nJesus was a perfect scapegoat, without any spot or blemish, and by accepting him and respecting his wishes for what he did, we are saved by his payment.\n\nTL;DR A perfect man died, so that he could pay for the sins of imperfect men. Read Romans 1-6 for the full explanation, as well as how to take advantage of the payment.\n\n***\n\nEdit: I am glad to see the interest, and thanks for the gold and the discussion! A lot of questions that people have are legitimate, and I'm glad to see that some other people helped out while I was sleeping. Since this is the very simple ELI5 version, I left a lot of the details and the whys out of my explanation.\n\nSince the thread is locked, feel free to PM me or one of the others in this thread. I promise, I will respond with civility, and no question is a bad one.\n\nSecond edit: I've read the comments, and oh I wish I could respond! Circumcision, God's motives, justice, scapegoats, the possibility of being saved without Jesus, Spiritual death vs. Physical, etc. I'd be happy to answer any questions I can! And hopefully in as simple of terms as I can.", "To those arguing that it did not change life on Earth, I propose that it did, at least culturally speaking. Christianity is one of the top two religions in the world. An individual may not believe in the tenets of a particular religion (or even if there is or is not a God), but you can't deny the fact that it changed the world culturally. ", "Basically his death works in this order/logic:\n\n\nStep 0 - The original sin was the act of eating the forbidden fruit from the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Since Adam and Eve ate the fruit, they corrupted their blood, and hence their bloodline is corrupted by the 'sin' too. \n\nStep 1 - All children of Adam and Eve are sinners. No exceptions. (Biblical explanation for the original sin/crime is the eating of the forbidden fruit of knowledge of good and evil.)\n\n\nStep 2 - By Biblical principles, the only way to atone for sin is with an actual pure blood sacrifice that was not tainted by the specific sin. \n\n\nStep 3 - Animal blood sacrifices are temporary, and it's not a long-term solution. \n\n\nStep 4 - A long-term blood sacrifice that works has to be one of a pure human/being/god from the same bloodline, who is undefiled by the original sin (eating the forbidden fruit). \n\n\nStep 5 - Hence Jesus's blood works, for all humans. (Jesus is from Adam and Eve's bloodline, by Mary.)\n\n__Note -1:__The bible does not mention how women gave birth prior to eating the fruit, or how reproduction happened prior to that. Jesus's virgin birth may have something to do with that. \n\nStep 6 - So you have to tell God that Jesus is your stand-in; Christians call it 'accepting Jesus as your saviour'. \n\n\nStep 7 - If you owe someone your life, your life becomes their property, hence the 'lord' part. \n\nStep 8 - Worship is originally the act of talking to and beseeching ancestors and ancient heroes for good will, good fortune, blessings, etc. Given step 7, step 8 is natural. \n\n\n__Basic Explanation -__ Christians believe earth is currently 'lorded' over by Satan, and that humans a.k.a. children of Adam and Eve are not from earth to begin with, but have been exiled here. \nSo, the point of the sacrifice is to cancel out the exile. As long as they sacrifice goats on earth, they get to have God's favour and protection. But returning back home, to heaven, will require a proper pure blood sacrifice, from the same gene pool.\n\n__Note -2__ :The term 'sin' may not mean what we think it means; the defiling of a bloodline, and the need for a blood sacrifice of the same bloodline that is not 'corrupted' by the 'sin' to be released to purify the bloodline, coupled with Jesus's later statements indicating one has to 'eat his body and drink his blood', the phrase 'washed by the blood of Jesus', through symbolism seem to indicate either a pagan ritual, or an actual 'bloodline-altering' process via blood. Alternatively, this could be a cannibal cult's grooming rituals. \n\n__Old Story To Explain The Need For The Blood Sacrifice In The First Place:__\n\nGod made everything and everyone, including man and angels, and Satan who was originally an angel responsible for the sunrise and sunset. Then Satan decided he was not cool with man; but God was partial to humans over angels. (Later texts say he was not cool with some other angels as well. There is also a mention of pride resulting in his downfall; just the mention.The actual act that resulted in his banishment is not described anywhere in current biblical texts.) So Satan was banished from heaven. (It's called the fall; angels are referred to as stars, mildly interesting.)He was able to go anywhere but heaven. (There were exceptions and he was allowed to meet with God in heaven.)\n\nHeaven had two special trees, among the regular ones; the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. Humans were/are not allowed to eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil. \n\nAnd the penalty for disobeying God, by eating the forbidden fruit of the tree of knowledge of good and evil, is a pure blood sacrifice, from the same bloodline.\n\nBy an unknown method, Satan came to heaven, where Adam and Eve were, (no further explanation is provided), he made Eve eat a fruit forbidden by God. And thusly since Adam is her mate, he also eats the fruit. Both are temporarily banished to earth until a pure blood sacrifice is available to pay the price for disobedience. In the meantime, the goat sacrifices stay as a symbol/gesture of the coming pure blood sacrifice. (Like interest payments until the main big principal sum is paid.)\n\nThere is a possibility it was not about disobedience, but about that specific tree. Humankind is not atoning for many sins, but for the one 'original' sin of eating the forbidden fruit (of the knowledge of good and evil). \n\nChristians argue that the eating as well as the act of disobedience count as the original sin. Other interesting biblical documentations include that eating the fruit resulted in painful reproduction, painfully harsh farming pursuits, and the food pyramid/chain. Basically all forms of reproduction and progeny creation were affected. [Weird coincidence - we share up to 99.9% of our genome with a weirdly large total count of species on this planet.]\n\n(It is possible that the original story involved the fruit giving mankind and other species destructable bodies, as death was one of the side effects.)\n\nI hope this explains most of it. \n\n__Further Notes:__\nThe council of Nicea, among other religious councils, as well as cases of multiple errors in memory on the parts of early historians who used word of mouth to pass on the story, may have altered text from the first five books as well, so there is that to consider. Otherwise, this religion has the concept of a virgin sacrifice, for either a solar eclipse, or if the fruit is symbolic of death, then more death may bring people back to life or hold off new deaths. It does follow some pagan rituals from other ancient religions, given that pure sacrifices are necessary to appease the God's set conditions. \n\nIt is also possible that the forbidden fruit had a part to play in the birth of Cain and Seth, and Abel (Adam and Eve's three children) did not leave children behind; if one were to consider information scientifically, given that the humans from a long time back may not have understood what the 'forbidden fruit' was or may have used the phrase to refer to something else entirely, and the term is just a symbolic name. And another noteworthy point is that some theologians argue that the fruit may have given man theoretical and working knowledge of good AND evil. So maybe the 'forbidden fruit' granted something. \n\n\nAnother piece of information mentioned, is the presence of a 'spirit people', humans without souls, who Cain supposedly mates with. [Current Christian theology holds that humans have bodies, souls and spirits, with the soul being what has functional use of the knowledge of good and evil.]\n\n__TL;DR:__(1) As far as Christian Biblical texts go, Earth is an exile ground for mankind, whose real home is heaven. Earth is like a prison/quarantine. So bummer, Earth. (2)Jesus is a pure bloodline sacrifice from Adam and Eve's gene pool, and that kind of a sacrifice appeased God into letting humans get back to heaven after they die, I.e. minus their bodies that hold corrupted blood. Their blood was corrupted by eating a forbidden fruit. (3) There might be a weird Faustian deal running between God and Satan concerning mankind. Not sure why. \n\n__Edit:__\n\nPlease do not downvote just because you don't like facts, or because you are Christian. (That's petty, and it doesn't chance facts.) \n\n\nThis is a creation tale from around the same time as the Sumerian and early Aztec (and mesoamerican) religions, as well as Japanese ones. So animal and human sacrifices, gods that seem like actual aliens conducting weird-ass science experiments, and a habit to personify light and darkness, solar eclipses, and death is to be expected. They believed during those times that death was an evil god, and that sacrifices were needed to ward off death. These were *chinese whispers* from over 6000~8000+ years before their civilisations that were passed on by word of mouth. There may have been much bigger story with more information. \n\nWe need to take the timeline into account.\n\n", "While all Christians agree that the sacrifice of Christ saves us from sin and death, we don't agree on *how* that happens. There are several [theories of atonement](_URL_0_) on exactly how this works. The good news is, you don't have to understand how something works in order to experience its efficacy (after all, I don't know how my car works but it still gets me where I am going). The evidence that it *does* work is in the resurrection of Christ. The resurrection is how we know that his death was, in fact, special and works to save people from sin and death. EDIT: I say this as Christian, which means that I believe that the resurrection happened. If you are not a Christian, you would clearly have a different point of view on this.", "So these answers aren't the whole story as far as I can tell. There are different \"atonement theories\" that answer this question in different ways. I'm sure someone is going to tell me no, there's only one way, but I feel like regardless of your personal beliefs OP deserves to know there are many ways to think about this:\n\n1. The one I saw most in this thread, (substitutiary atonement) - humans are bad, Jesus is good, we deserve to die, Jesus takes our place and we're forgiven. \n2. \"Moral Exemplar\" - Jesus teaches us how to be the best people we can be by being a moral example. Why did he have to die? To show us how our sinful society naturally kills the innocent. He makes the earth better by the example he sets. \n3. \"Christus Victor\" - In the grand battle between God and evil, evil holds humans as slaves. Jesus steps in and by dying and rising defeats evil and opens eternal life.\n4. Eastern Christians have complex beliefs about how God became human (Jesus) to sanctify every stage of human life. He had to die because death is a part of life. ", "The change was the concept of immortality. That death is not the end. The immortal Creator becoming mortal man to suffer death and live again is a demonstration of the immortality of love. There is no greater love than laying down one's life for another person.\n\nThe Gospel of John indicates Jesus did not come into the world to condemn. Only to teach love and free humanity of the fear of death. If you cannot accept this knowledge then your only condemnation is to fear that this life is all there is. \nThis is how I as a Christian see this and I don't believe anyone is going to hell. Hell is for the living who grieve the permanent loss of their own life and the lives of loved ones.\nJesus taught the greatest commandment is to love.\n", "Same way sacrificing sheep or goats was used to atone for sins. But Jesus was basically a super goat since he was perfect and god-made-flesh.", "Here's a video (that I think is great) that explains the concepts of sacrifice and atonement in the Bible (specifically the Old Testament) that helps explain what Jesus did: _URL_0_\n\nIt also answers the question of why Christians don't perform animal sacrifice when the ancient Israelites did (which was something I had wondered for a long time).", "“So Christ has now become the High Priest over all the good things that have come. He has entered that greater, more perfect Tabernacle in heaven, which was not made by human hands and is not part of this created world. With his own blood—not the blood of goats and calves—he entered the Most Holy Place once for all time and secured our redemption forever. Under the old system, the blood of goats and bulls and the ashes of a heifer could cleanse people’s bodies from ceremonial impurity. Just think how much more the blood of Christ will purify our consciences from sinful deeds so that we can worship the living God. For by the power of the eternal Spirit, Christ offered himself to God as a perfect sacrifice for our sins. That is why he is the one who mediates a new covenant between God and people, so that all who are called can receive the eternal inheritance God has promised them. For Christ died to set them free from the penalty of the sins they had committed under that first covenant. Now when someone leaves a will, it is necessary to prove that the person who made it is dead. The will goes into effect only after the person’s death. While the person who made it is still alive, the will cannot be put into effect. That is why even the first covenant was put into effect with the blood of an animal. For after Moses had read each of God’s commandments to all the people, he took the blood of calves and goats, along with water, and sprinkled both the book of God’s law and all the people, using hyssop branches and scarlet wool. Then he said, “This blood confirms the covenant God has made with you.” And in the same way, he sprinkled blood on the Tabernacle and on everything used for worship. In fact, according to the law of Moses, nearly everything was purified with blood. For without the shedding of blood, there is no forgiveness. That is why the Tabernacle and everything in it, which were copies of things in heaven, had to be purified by the blood of animals. But the real things in heaven had to be purified with far better sacrifices than the blood of animals. For Christ did not enter into a holy place made with human hands, which was only a copy of the true one in heaven. He entered into heaven itself to appear now before God on our behalf. And he did not enter heaven to offer himself again and again, like the high priest here on earth who enters the Most Holy Place year after year with the blood of an animal. If that had been necessary, Christ would have had to die again and again, ever since the world began. But now, once for all time, he has appeared at the end of the age to remove sin by his own death as a sacrifice. And just as each person is destined to die once and after that comes judgment, so also Christ was offered once for all time as a sacrifice to take away the sins of many people. He will come again, not to deal with our sins, but to bring salvation to all who are eagerly waiting for him.”\n‭‭Hebrews‬ ‭9:11-28‬ ‭\n\nRight now I'm studying the book of Hebrews and you said you want a biblical explanation of why Jesus had to come and die for us and why it matters. I don't mean to just answer you by saying go read the Bible but the book of Hebrews lays everything out so well and plainly and as studied and long time believer it is still impacting my faith as I am going through it again!", "God's plan is for his children (us) to live on earth, learning and improving through mortal experience, and then to return to him with perfect resurrected bodies.\n\nHowever, two barriers stand in the way. (1) While on earth everyone sins, making us unclean. No unclean thing can dwell in the presence of God and God can not look upon sin with the least degree of allowance. This adheres to the eternal principle of Justice. Sin has unavoidable consequences. (2) All humans have mortal bodies that are subject to death, preventing us from returning to God.\n\nTo overcome these two barriers Jesus Christ offered himself as a sacrifice, in what Christians call the Atonement. He alone had the ability to perform this Atonement because he was the literal Son of God and he lived a sinless life. Through his Atonement he paid the price for all of mankind sins, satisfying the demands of Justice. Additionally, the final stage of the Atonement was his resurrection, which broke the bands of death for all of God's children, meaning that at a future day, all of God's children will be resurrected and recieve a perfect immortal body. Resurrection is a free gift for everyone. However, only those who accept and follow Christ will recieve a forgiveness of their sins, and these are they who shall return to live with God.", "From the beginning of the Bible, in the book of Genesis, and throughout the entire Old Testament, there were prophecies about someone who would come and save men from evil. Basically, it all started when Adam, the first man who God created, decided to sin against God by doing something that was explicitly forbidden, in his case, eating from a fruit tree in the Garden of Eden after he was told not to eat from it. From that point on, mankind has been cursed with a sinful nature, or in other words, the constant temptation to do bad things instead of good things. Because of how holy God is, there were rules upon rules of different sacrifices that had to be made in order for God's people, the Israelites, to be able to stand in God's presence. Even then, the Israelites failed time and time again to do as God had commanded, even to the point of worshiping other gods and forsaking the one true God. God even allowed their main city, Jerusalem, to be completely captured and for all of the Jews, which is another name for the Israelites, to be sent away for many, many years. \n\n2,000 years ago, Jesus came to fulfill the prophecies that would save mankind from the sinful nature. Just as the Israelites had to follow strict rules for making sacrifices to be in God's presence, Jesus also had to meet the criteria to fulfill the prophecies - most importantly, that he live a sinless life and die by hanging on the cross. By living a sinless life, he also left an example for us to follow in how we should live our own lives, which he summed up in two sentences - \"love the Lord your God with all your heart\" and \"love your neighbor as yourself\". When he died on the cross, God made him the judge of all mankind. Jesus said that anyone who believes in him will receive mercy and forgiveness for their sins, and anyone who rejects him will face the wrath of God for their sins. \n\nJesus's death changes life on Earth because each person who follows Jesus must repent of his or her sins, which means that he or she admits the wrong things that have been done and tries to do right things from then on. Because Christians try to do good and not evil, there is a lot less evil in the world. More importantly, Jesus changed what happens to us in eternity. Just as the Israelites had to sacrifice animals to be able to live in God's presence, the savior of mankind had to die in order for mankind to enter into heaven. There was no other way. Even Jesus asked, before going to the cross, \"God, if there is another way, then please don't make me do this. But it's not up to me, if it is Your will, then I will do it.\"", "Jesus allegedly performed miracles to improve people's lives on Earth. Jesus' greatest miracle and His purpose in coming to earth was to suffer a torturous and humiliating death in the place of mankind whom He loved. In doing this the apostles believed Jesus saved mankind from damnation, which is supposedly a perfect dystopian afterlife which was the fate of all mankind who did not recognize Jesus' divinity and receive His teachings.\n\nThis is all fantastic embellishment by the apostles, theologians, and the Church. The real fact here is that there was a real man named Jesus who believed so much in the potential goodness of people, and so thoroughly identified with both the humility of men and the excellence of good will that he transcended the most extreme hardship and inspired billions of people to believe, too.\n\nA caveat: I'm an atheist with a great appreciation for Jesus. I think it's a distraction and an insult to associate the supernatural and the imaginary with the legacy of one of History's finest, most loving humans, whether he pretended at magical powers or not.", "Hey everyone.\n\nGreat question.\n\nThe questions is asking according to the Bible, and I do not see to many responses answering in that form.\n\nThere are multiple texts which seem to indicate different reasons why Jesus had to die to save humanity. But to answer the question, we must first discuss what we needed saved from. The answer can be found in Genesis 3 where Adam and Eve disobey God. This event is teased out by St. Athanasius in his book \"On the Incarnation\" where he shows that in Genesis, God said if you eat of this tree, you will surely die. \n\nI would add this to the top comment. The top comment focuses on \"forensic\" righteousness. Or a righteousness viewed in light of the law/ a legal decree of God. This Biblical position, which complements a forensic righteousness, is called recapitulation. Humanity was under the headship of Adam, the fallen man. \n\nRomans 5:12-21 discusses this, along with any passage that talks of humanity now being under Christ. in summary, Romans says, \" For if because of one man's trespass, death reigned through that one man, much more will those who receive the abundance of grace and the free gift of righteousness reign in life through the one man Jesus Christ. Therefore as one trespass led to condemnation for all men, so one act of righteousness leads to justification and life for all men. For as by one man's disobedience the many were made sinners, so by the one man's obedience the many will be made righteous.\" (quoting vs 17-29).\n\nThese views are not exclusive. I hold to both a forensic and recapitulation view. \n\nAnother view which I do not see represented here and has a lot of biblical traction is the idea of Ransom. If you have ever read/watched the Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe by C. S. Lewis, then you saw a ransom theory. That God had to \"buy\" us back from the devil who owns us. This is close to the forensic view, but puts more of an weigh on the cosmic battle between God and the Devil. Biblically, Jesus says it in Mark 10: 45 \"the son of man has come to give his life as a ransom for many.\"\n\nI gotta run, but hope this is helpful! Lots of great reasons. Sorry I was not able to address the change on earth aspect or the why did he have to die. Each of these perspectives would nuance the reason differently, but all are pretty cool!", "My understanding is that basically, access to Heaven was not possible and Jesus' death, resurrection, and ascension into Heaven was necessary to make that possible. \n\nSo, everyone from before Jesus' birth who weren't exactly damned but still descended into death, or hell, needed to be able to hear the word of God. Jesus' death and subsequent three days among the dead made it possible for that to happen. (_URL_2_) It also was a sacrifice to pay for the sins of others as other comments in here have said. (_URL_0_)\n\nThe Resurrection then gets humanity back into God's grace. (_URL_3_) Finally, the Ascension to His throne, establishing His kingdom for all of humanity, opens the gates of heaven for all to enter. (_URL_1_)", "If you are interested in an ELI30, graduate-level answer, you could do worse than to check out the writings of Rene Girard, especially *Violence and the Sacred*, and *Things Hidden Since the Foundation of the World*. \n\nIn his later life he became somewhat of a catholic apologist, although a kind of heretical one, which succeeded in pissing off a lot of people. But he started his career with a fairly scientific/analytical approach towards trying to understand why some myths \"took\", while others did not. I.e., why did thousands or millions of people fight and die for this or that idea, and not for this other one. \n\nAt the core of his theories is a hypothesis that human societies require an enemy and scapegoat, and periodic sacrifice. I.e., that human organizations are held together by unification against external threat, and by someone to blame for whatever is wrong. He presents no small amount of evidence in support of this theory, from all kinds of primitive and early-historical societies, and ties it into his larger theories of mimetic desire, which gets a lot more complicated. \n\nSkipping over a lot of stuff, Girard theorized that the Christ-myth was unique in making the scapegoat/enemy also the deity, and thereby *exposing* the mechanism of outward enemy as unifying force, and allowing for new, more sophisticated social structures that did not require opposition, conquest, or war against external tribes, cultures, or supernatural forces. \n\nTo grossly over-simplify, Girard saw \"primitive\" religions as those which imagined vengeful, jealous, capricious gods, who demanded subservience and sacrifice, like a supernatural \"boss\" or \"big man\". Judaism, uniquely among ancient religions, in his view, had a deity which required not just prescriptive behaviors and sacrifices, but also recognized nuances of intention and desires. The Jewish God not only forbade taking another man's wife, he forbade even thinking about or desiring it. \n\nIn Gerard's system, societies always need a sacrificial scapegoat. If they cannot find an external one, they will find an internal one. This mechanism enforces tribalism and small networks. The theory is that the Christ-myth exposes the need to scapegoat, and provides a universal scapegoat, and negates the need for constant supply of new sacrificial victims, by making the deity himself the universal victim. \n\nWe all killed God, we are all the enemy of God, and yet he forgives us, and dies for us whenever we sin. The barbarian at the gates is ourselves, and we cannot defeat the enemy except by being better. ", "Because for some reason God decided to punish a finite crime with an infinite punishment, so the only person who could pay the debt of the sinner would be God himself. So he made himself into a human and killed himself. The Bible is some whacky stuff. ", "Atonement theology permeates Christianity pretty thoroughly, but Celtic Christianity has questioned this. They find the idea that a little baby is born sinful to be contrary to the notion that we are created in the image of God, which they take to mean that we all have some of God's nature within us. We then cover this up over time, or we nurture it and let it grow.\n\nCeltic Christians descended from the school of the apostle John, but the majority of the Christian church is connected more to the apostle Peter - in the 5th century, I believe it was, the school of Peter won out and became predominant, There was actually a public debate that lasted days, IIRC. As I understand it, the view of the school of John would say that God forgives us because God loves us. To say that there needed to be a sacrifice to allow this would not make sense to a Celtic Christian. Jesus died because his love was so great that he would not stop loving the unloveable, and this was a threat to those who want to define who is loveable and who is not.\n\nIMHO, this is worth looking into for those interested. When I first encountered this, I considered that there has been a 1500 year long error about the fundamental nature of God's love.", "This is a tough ELI5, because it's a complicated answer, but let me try.\n\nGod is perfect, and we are not. Just like darkness cannot exist in the presence of a light source, our broken nature cannot exist in the presence of a perfect God. Our brokenness results in death.\n\nThat's the bad news. The good news is that God loves us and doesn't want us to be separated from him. In the Old Testament, this grace was shown through the sacrifice of animals. Animals are innocent, and it's cruel to kill an innocent animal, right? That was the harsh reminder for us humans that breaking our promise with God (to walk in what He has for us) results in death. But killing animals doesn't really solve anything...\n\nFast forward a bunch of years. There's still this looming problem of unpayable debt, because we're still messing up, and we should still be eternally separated from God (death). God decides to deal with it once and for all. So, instead of using innocent animals, He comes himself as an innocent man - the only one there ever was and ever will be. Our promise to God was broken, and instead of us paying it, He came and by dying, said, \"It's okay, I've got this. Know how bad your situation is. Look at the death it causes, but I will experience it so you don't have to. Just turn to *me* now and stop doing things *your* way.\" This death covers all screw-ups past, present, and future because he is **perfect**.\n\nHe had to die because the Bible says that the wages of sin is death. Literally, when we mess up, that screw-up pays us with death. God fixes that by gifting us eternal life. It changes life on Earth because now we can walk in *that* truth. No more atoning for our mistakes every time and wallowing that we aren't doing enough good things. Now, we just submit to God, ask Him to be in charge of our lives because we *can't* do it on our own. He has already paid the price meant for us so we don't have to work for it, just submit to it! It's so good!\n\nI hope that helps!!", "In the beginning when god created man he created him with an immortal body and placed him in paradise, and made him king of his domain. Man was without corruption or sin. But man was corrupted by vanity, and this first sin is known as original sin for which the consequence of was suffering and death. This sin separated man from god, because no corruption can be in the presence of god. But god had the foresight to see the fall of man even before he created them, and had a plan for the salvation of man. This is why he made them male and female so that a man and woman could procreate in marriage and remain holy before god, and god gave to man the Law, which was the path to righteousness, If a man followed the law he could be spared from eternal punishment, but this did not allow man to be saved (he could not enjoy the full presence of god upon death because nothing unholy can be in the presence of god). Much like the debtors prisons of old, if one can not pay the debt of sin then one has to remain in prison until another can pay for him. The only one who could pay the debt of man was god. So god became man and suffered and died. Like Adam he was tempted by the devil (a sin of vanity) but remained uncorrupted. So then, when he willingly laid down his life and died, he satisfied the debt for man, because he owed nothing but he accepted the punishment that all mankind has to suffer. A mans death alone can't pay the debt of sin but Jesus' death does, so while we still have to die it doesn't mean we have to be separated from god for eternity. Now, Jesus' death satisfies the debt of sin that first corrupted man which led to death. However, each man is still subjected to temptation and can choose corruption (sin) over holiness, so can incur personal debt for which he has to pay for. It is for this reason that man must still die. So god, through Jesus establish from the Law the sacraments (this is how Jesus fulfills the Law), from which man can receive sanctification and return to holiness any time he needs to in order to die like Jesus, free of sin so that he can enjoy the full presence of god upon death.", "It doesn't make sense to me. Jesus symbolically took on all the sin of mankind, died for and went to hell for a few days. Jesus, god & the holy spirit are one though so his godhood, power and immortality were never in doubt. Making his death meaningless because he lost nothing. The details depend on what denomination of Christianity you prefer though.", "Anselm's \"Why God became Man\"\n\n1. Human beings owe everything to God, even in a \"perfect state\"\n\n2. Human beings sin, causing a need to make reparations with God.\n\n3. Because human beings already owe everything to God, they are incapable of saving themselves.\n\n4. However, if a man came along who was perfect and sinless and offered Himself up as a sacrifice, that could work...\n\n5. so long as that man is also God, being infinite and capable of atoning for the sins of all mankind. Man needs to be saved by a man, and that man must also be God.\n\nVery simplified...", "A lot of responses so far are predicating on original sin, unpayable debts, etc.\n\nI was always taught a much simpler story, which I think passes the smell test a lot more easily.\n\nJesus's death did not exactly save humanity, but rather allowed for individuals to be saved. Up until his death, all souls were plunged into eternal darkness (hell) where they suffered pure torment (satan). But Jesus was the first to effectively resist this torment, likely due to his being a godman and all. He meditated in darkness for 3 days and found peace within it, thereby shattering the hitherto unbreakable torment that all other human souls had found.\n\nThe peace that he found within, and the consequent shattering of this old reality, actually woke him back up from death. And he was able to remember this revelation, and in his remaining time, he preached evermoreso of salvation from the dark torment. From that point on, souls were able to escape the darkness, given that they had sufficient moral strength to do so. This is also the foundation of free will, but that is another mystery.\n\nTL;DR: Jesus broke through the darkness and allowed future souls to follow in his way.\n\nEdit: Lol, I just made up mumbo jumbo and used big words out of context, and apparently my comment fit right in.", "Its got its problems, but forensic justification is the easiest. Jesus is both God and man. By sinning, humans had rejected God, but in their state of disfigurement, they could not fix things with God. Only He could restore the relationship, as he was fully God. But the penalty of sin still needed to be paid. So God took on flesh so that he could pay that penalty.\n", "Johnny cheated on his homework, and the teacher was going to paddle him (or since they don't paddle in schools anymore, he was going to get detention). Straight laced Billy tells the teacher, \"Paddle (or detain) me instead.\" As long as Johnny agrees to the deal, Billy takes the punishment for him, and Johnny has a clean slate.\n\nJohnny is us; Billy is Jesus.", "In the Old Testament there was the Everlasting Covenant where heavenly bonds held all of the creation together. This was established in the Old Testament in the time of Abraham. Abraham tithed to the high priest Melchizedek, a title for the King of Peace. The Davidic King tradition saw the high priest operate in the temple as a Melchizedek priest. One day of the year, on the Day of Atonement, the high priest would enter the Holy of Holies. The Holy of Holies was the innermost room of the temple and symbolized heaven. He wore the name of the Lord on his forehead; he acted \"as\" the Lord. On that day, the high priest offered an atoning sacrifice not only for him but for all of Israel. This was to atone for sin and transgression that sullied the creation. He was anointed and declared to be begotten of God. He emerged from the Holy of Holies. The sins of the world were piled upon the scapegoat which was run out into the wilderness. Sin was purged, the bonds of creation were renewed, the Everlasting Covenant restored.\n\nJesus was declared to be the Davidic King. One of his titles was Prince of Peace. Another title was the Only Begotten Son of God. The Book of Hebrews spells out the meaning of his sacrifice was that he did not act \"as\" the Lord, the Melchizedek High Priest, he \"was\" the Lord, the Melchizedek High Priest. His actions are eternal and everlasting. His sacrifice, death, and resurrection were explicitly placed in the temple tradition of the Day of Atonement.\n\nWhy did he die? The fall of Adam and Eve resulted in their dismissal from the presence of God in the Garden of Eden. They were sent out to the fallen (aka mortal) world where they would die. Not only them, but all life. Jesus died and then overcame that death by ascending to heaven and being resurrected. He was made glorious like God the Father. This is what is meant by him being the Only Begotten. To beget is to make one like yourself from your loins. His death is important because we, mankind, die. The promise is that we will be joint-heirs with Christ. That he died and rose shows that we, too, can rise after our inevitable death.\n\nOther traditions differ on the point of Jesus's death. Islam teaches that Jesus ascended to heaven and that he will return, but it also teaches that he did not die. It is heresy to say Jesus was the Only Begotten Son. Jesus does not have power over death which is an ultimate power, the power to overcome the fallen, mortal state of creation. Jesus is a prophet in Islam, not the Lord.", "This is how I talk about it. (I'm a Lutheran pastor.) \n\nThe basic problem of creation, and particularly for rational creatures (only humans, as far as I know) is that we have a broken relationship with our creator. Rather than trusting God who creates and establishes us and desires to give us every good gift (what we call \"faith\"), we see God as an enemy and insist on establishing and making a way ourselves (what we call \"sin\"). There are lots of ways that people do this, but generally it comes down to establishing some set of laws/rules for people to follow and insisting that those who follow them are good/successful/saved and those who don't are evil/failures/damned. These rules vary widely (ten commandments, sharia, making money, thinking freely, follow your bliss, to name just a few examples) but the basic theme is that we use some standard to determine who's in and out and to establish ourselves as good/righteous before God or a higher power or society or even ourselves. \n\nIn order to break this broken relationship of sin, God the creator came to us in a form we could relate to directly, a man named Jesus. This man, God in the flesh, taught that the law wasn't there to be used by us to elevate ourselves at our own expense, but instead was meant to show us what real love of God and our neighbors looked like and to convince us of our unworthiness and inability to do it on our own. Jesus forgave all sorts of people who were clearly sinners, and this made people who thought they were righteous angry. Finally, we humans couldn't take it anymore, for this God-man was destroying our way to (supposedly) prove ourselves to be good and right before God, so we rejected him and tried to silence this God in the flesh, killing him and putting him in a tomb and even sealing the tomb with a stone. This murder of God is the worst sin possible, and even today our natural tendency of insisting on justifying ourselves at the expense of others reveal us to be guilty of it. \n\nIf that's where the story ended, then it would be a tragic story of our rejection of a loving God who gave himself into our hands so that we could know God as our loving creator. But it doesn't end there, because even our worst sin and best attempts at keeping a saving God away from us weren't successful. Even the humiliating execution of death on a cross and burial in a sealed tomb weren't enough to keep this God at bay, and three days later Jesus was raised from the dead and returned. This is the key moment now, for if he had returned to avenge himself of our sin, it would be death and damnation for us. Instead he comes not with vengeance, but forgiveness. He comes to his betrayers, his murderers, even me and you and says \"I forgive you, you are mine.\" He has taken the very worst we can throw at him, every sin and humiliation we could put him through, and still he insists on forgiveness rather than vengeance. \n\nWhen you trust in this promise that Jesus makes to you: \"I forgive you.\" then you now relate to God your creator in faith, and your sin is overcome. On the other hand, when you refuse to trust this promise and instead insist on earning your own forgiveness, or rejecting the notion that you need forgiveness altogether, then you remain in the condition of sin, relating to God as an enemy. \n\nRegardless of your response, the promise remains here for you, and God will keep speaking it to you through different people and different ways so that you can trust it and hold it close and let yourself be defined by it. This trust doesn't seem like much from the outside, but it changes absolutely everything when you live in it. \n\nTl;dr: Jesus is God's love letter to you. His death shows how far he'll go to be with you whom he loves. His resurrection shows that not even death will separate you from the God who loves you. ", "The problem with Christianity is their belief in original sin. That you will carry the sin for someone elses bad deeds. They have to make wild stories to get out of this logical fallacy. Hence dying on the cross to forgive sins of other people. ", "I've thought of it this way - being a history nerd -. \n\nThere is a king who is absolutely perfect and just and wise. He rules his land with a righteous hand. Even so several of the noble lords decide to rebel and create an allegiance with an enemy king, because they don't really like the rules in their kingdom and the other king promises to let them do whatever they want. \n\nThe good king of course finds out about their plot and while they all deserve to die, the king decides to forgive them and makes them repent and pay a fine. \n\nA year later the nobles are again rebelling because they want more power. Again they are allowed to repent and pay a fine. The king is forgiving indeed. \nHowever, this keeps happening. The rebels won't stop rebelling and the king simply can't have such disloyal subjects in his inner circle. His most trusted must be perfect and honest and righteous like him. \n\nThe only way this can be solved is by the rebels being beheaded for their disloyalty. However, the king loves his subjects despite their failures abs he wants to keep them out of the clutches of his enemy king. Because the Good king knows that he will treat them badly. But he also recognizes that they will continue to rebel after they pay their fine. The time for soft measures is over and per the laws treachery is answered with beheading...\n\nNow the king has a son. This Prince is also perfect, has always lived a perfect life next to his father the king and in his good nature he has pity on the rebels who have clearly lost their way.\n\nThe king says with a heavy heart : the rebels must be beheaded in atonement. The Prince offers to die for them, his life for that of his subject. This seems completely unexpected and outlandish, but the Prince is serious and The king decides to accept this bargain because now a blameless and completely selfless person is offering to die for the rebellious nobels. \n\nThe prince goes down to the scaffolding and gets beheaded publicly. \n\nThe king with tears in his eyes says, all you who will accept the sacrifice my son has made for you, you will be allowed to reside in my kingdom. All you have to do is accept the gift the prince offered. If you do not accept his sacrifice you must leave this land and you will be banished from my kingdom. \n\nAnd so the nobels who accept the Prince as their savior were allowed to stay. Even as they continued to make mistakes, they were able to look to the scaffolding were their prince was killed for them and their hearts softened. Slowly they started to desire to repair their relationship with the king, and they were allowed back into his inner circle. \n\n\n\n\n\nOK.. Not a perfect representation but I feel like it sort-of gets the point across. Hope that helps. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atonement_in_Christianity" ], [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G_OlRWGLdnw" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1O.HTM", "http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1T.HTM", "http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1R.HTM", "http://www.vatican.va/archive/ENG0015/__P1S.HTM" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chm0ihu" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Saliva has a lot of proteins in it, proteins can increase surface tension and lead to stronger bubbles like the lipids in soap." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eudaueb", "eudcb6q", "eudd2vi", "euddvty", "eudhcf8", "eudhuaz", "eudyuot" ], "score": [ 162, 60, 10, 6, 8, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Cattle were domesticated from the wild aurochs. As time went on, the aurochs were hunted, saw their available habitat shrink greatly, and contracted diseases from domesticated cattle. The last one died in the 17th century.", "There are 4 species of wild cattle still existing. ( Subfamily Bovinea Subtribe Bovina) \n\nGaur,\nKouprey,\nWild Yak,\nBanteng (does have a domestic version called the Bali)\n\nThere are also herds of feral cattle through out the world. That is formerly domesticated cattle that have reverted to wild status. \n\nBison are a related species (subtribe bison bison bison) and do create fertile offspring when crossed with Bovinea (see beefalo)\n\nCape Bison have a huge wild population", "I don’t know how much this fits into your question or interest, but there is a group of cattle in Northumberland that is “wild” and hasn’t changed genetically since the medieval period. _URL_0_", "On a side note, are there any wild chickens?", "Animals need certain traits to be able to be domesticated. They need to be relatively docile, (not aggressive or violent, like Zebras, surprisingly) they need to be able to eat things that we don't like to eat, like grass, hay, scraps and bones for dogs, etc, and they need to be useful in a relatively short period of time, so we can breed the next generation and pick traits as well as put them to work or eat them in a short amount of time. Elephants, for example, can be tamed and can be very useful, but they take 15 years to reach maturity (not to mention are highly intelligent and miserable in captivity). There are a few other behavioral needs, but these are the big, big ones. There is some more info here: _URL_0_\n\nOnce we have domesticated large species, the wild versions of the same species have less value to us. They compete with our livestock for space and food, are generally more aggressive and pose some risk of harm if approached, and still represent a source of food for hunting purposes. As others have said, disease partly contributed, but a wild cow to most humans is either a cow that has yet to be caught and be introduced to their herd, or is a steak waiting to be caught if the disposition is disagreeable to domesticating. \n\nWith domestication of livestock humans became so much more successful, and we competed against a dwindling number of wild versions of our domesticated livestock for the same space and food. I would put my money on the domesticated animals there every day of the week. This didn't happen with cats because house cats, and even domesticated dogs, don't compete with the space requirements and from the same food sources as wolves and the Big Cats, even though their diets demand similar make-up, a housecat just isn't competition for a tiger, nor is a dog eating scraps around a man-made fire much competition to wolves hunting a moose. This is why some animals have species that domesticated well and can still exist in the wild. Additionally, we recognize some of the other intrinsic values of those predators: they are major linchpins in the food chain and they are beautiful creatures we like to admire for their own majesty. \n\nThere are probably other things I haven't mentioned, but this hopefully was another angle you hadn't seen yet!", "When climbing the Grand Tetons one year, we camped the night before in an elk reserved. Awakened in the night by a small herd of feral, badass cattle (about a dozen). ‘Oh, Look. Cows. Cute.’ Guide told us those ‘cute’ cows would kick our asses if we got too close. They were snorting and pawing the ground - all the while staring at us. Who knew?", "Wow! Thanks guys! This has been very informative! I was driving past a dairy farm with the classic black and white cows hanging out eating, and thought of how crazy it would be if they were not captive. And how I've never seen this particular type of cattle without human supervision before." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chillingham_cattle" ], [], [ "https://www.livescience.com/33870-domesticated-animals-criteria.html" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2zevxz", "c2zevxz" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Work - When a **force** moves an **object**, **energy is transferred** and **work is done**. Work is measured in Joules. Whenever something moves, something else is providing some sort of **effort** to move it. The thing providing the effort needs some sort of **energy** (food, fuel, electricity etc.). It then does work by moving the object, and in doing so transfers the energy it receives as fuel into other forms. The formula for working out work is *work done = force x distance*.\n\nPower - Power is the **rate** of doing work, i.e. how much per second. A powerful machine doesn't necessarily exert a strong force (it usually does though), a powerful machine is one which transfers a lot of energy in a short space of time. It is measured in Watts, which are 1 J/s. So, for example, if a bunch of hooligans drag a tractor tyre 5m over the ground in 10 seconds, and they pull with a force of 340 Newtons. You would do 340 x 5, or force x distance. This works out at them having done 1700J of **work**. Now, since it took them 10 seconds, we do1700/10, which gives 170 Watts, which is how much **power** they had.\n\nEnergy - energy can be defined as (according to Wikipedia) \" the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems\".\n\nI hope this helps. Not quite ELI5, more like ELI15, sorry 'bout that. ", "Work - When a **force** moves an **object**, **energy is transferred** and **work is done**. Work is measured in Joules. Whenever something moves, something else is providing some sort of **effort** to move it. The thing providing the effort needs some sort of **energy** (food, fuel, electricity etc.). It then does work by moving the object, and in doing so transfers the energy it receives as fuel into other forms. The formula for working out work is *work done = force x distance*.\n\nPower - Power is the **rate** of doing work, i.e. how much per second. A powerful machine doesn't necessarily exert a strong force (it usually does though), a powerful machine is one which transfers a lot of energy in a short space of time. It is measured in Watts, which are 1 J/s. So, for example, if a bunch of hooligans drag a tractor tyre 5m over the ground in 10 seconds, and they pull with a force of 340 Newtons. You would do 340 x 5, or force x distance. This works out at them having done 1700J of **work**. Now, since it took them 10 seconds, we do1700/10, which gives 170 Watts, which is how much **power** they had.\n\nEnergy - energy can be defined as (according to Wikipedia) \" the ability a physical system has to do work on other physical systems\".\n\nI hope this helps. Not quite ELI5, more like ELI15, sorry 'bout that. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dftjy8j", "dftkoat", "dftkqxi", "dftl8sf", "dftlhls", "dftlqkg", "dftlrnl", "dftlvpq", "dftmun9", "dftmvrp", "dftodcy", "dftp481", "dfts1z5", "dftsbwm", "dftsp5o", "dftswgt", "dfttkmc", "dfttp00", "dftts9i", "dftwu2f", "dftx5kd", "dftxgwy", "dftxhen", "dftxmkk", "dftxrba", "dftz3px", "dftzpii", "dfu35qy", "dfu37yp", "dfu5jrp", "dfu6b5e", "dfu869q", "dfu8qo8", "dfu9hwo", "dfuc62z", "dfucold", "dfufld9", "dfuhjhn", "dfui2gl", "dfuj10s", "dfuj5yy", "dfukj67", "dfuwigr" ], "score": [ 2718, 41, 2081, 978, 70, 43, 196, 148, 43, 52, 94, 9, 37, 79, 262, 32, 11, 14, 41, 4, 4, 25, 2, 5, 21, 16, 10, 5, 20, 19, 6, 2, 3, 2, 3, 15, 11, 2, 4, 13, 4, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Black footed ferrets from the US and Canada were declared extinct in 1979 due to farmers poisoning prairie dogs, their food supply. Lo and behold, a farmer's dog brought home a dead one 2 years later and they became endangered instead!", "I read a few years back about the Lord Howe walking stick. \n\nHere's the article: _URL_0_\n\nEdit: I didn't notice that the link I provided was also mentioned in an earlier comment. The other name for this insect is the Tree Lobster. ", "Yes, this happens quite often, although you will hear more news about animals like tigers since they are more popular. There is also the issue of deciding when to declare an animal extinct. Many birds are elusive and haven't been sighted in years. From a quick search here are some animals thought to be extinct but rediscovered:\n\n* Yangtze River dolphin _URL_0_\n\n* \"Tree lobster\" _URL_2_\n\n* imperial woodpecker _URL_1_\n\n", "Not necessarily a 'rebound' but just a cryptic species.\n\n[Coelacanths](_URL_0_) were thought to be extinct since the Cretaceous period. They're a really cool ancient lobe-finned fish species and are relatives to the ancestors of land animals (tetrapods). We had fossils, drawings, all these things, based on the notion that they were an extinct species of fish.\n\nThen in 1938 a South African fisherman caught one!\n\nNow we have been able to find them in the wild; here is a cool [video](_URL_1_)", "[*Metasequoia glyptostroboides* (Dawn Redwood)](_URL_0_) was only known by fossils until a stand was discovered in the 1800s in China. \n\nThen there's the [coelacanth](_URL_1_) which is probably the most famous example.", "The ivory billed woodpecker, thought extinct in the 1940's. Industrial deforestation destroyed the native habitat. \nIt was spotted in Arkansas decades later, in different habitat. \n\n_URL_0_\n\nAlso: Sufjan Stevens gets too little credit as a songwriter and performer. ", "There are many examples of this type of rediscovery, called a [Lazarus taxon](_URL_1_). One of the most famous examples was the [coelacanth](_URL_0_), which was thought to have gone extinct 65 million years ago until one was caught off the coast of South Africa in 1938.", "It has happened to a few species of trout right here in america very recently. The greenback cutthroat trout, the state fish of colorado, was thought to be extinct for 20 years until it was rediscovered in 1957. It has now been stocked into varioud backcountry streams and lakes and is no longer in immediate danger of extinction.\n\nSimilar story with the lahontan cutthroat trout from Utah. People were so certain that it was extinct that they began to stock their old waterways with nonnative cutthroats. It was also rediscovered in some tiny backcountry stream and has only just recently been restocked into various waterways.", "I live in New Zealand and there was something similar with one of our native flightless birds, the Takahe. \n\nI don't know if it was ever declared extinct or just assumed, but they found a few and now they're just endangered. :) ", "My coworker was just telling me about the New Guinea wild dog that was just recently confirmed in the wild after having thought to be extinct.\n\nHere's a messy link, sorry I'm on mobile: _URL_0_", "Yes! It has happened with even a common pet gecko now: correlophus ciliatus, or the crested gecko. It is endemic to New Caledonia, an island off the coast of Australia, and was discovered in 1866. Shortly after its discovery it was assumed extinct in the late 1800's; however, after a hurricane in 1994 they were rediscovered on the southern Isle of Pines. It was (is?) part of the Lazarus taxon and they are one of the most commonly kept pet lizards today. \n\nEDIT I am neither a biologist nor a herpetologist and can only speak to what I do know. Crested geckos are currently under evaluation by the IUCN and may either be declared threatened or nearing extinction due to both habitat loss and predation by introduced species. Upon their rediscovery in 1994, 200 specimens were collected by Allen Repashy, Frank Fast, and Philippe De Vosjoli and bred in USA. A few other related species (correlophus sarasinorum and mniarogekko chahoua) were also collected. All three of these species have been irresponsibly bred without tracking lineage and now any chain pet store has crested geckos. Any reptile expo will have hybrids of crested gecko x c. sarasinorum or m. chahoua. \n\nWork with their genetics is not being done. I am sure they are inbred to hell and back, but deleterious effects are rarely seen (with the exception of polydactyly, but again - their genetics are not being studied and thus polydactyly cannot be chalked up to being inbred). \n\nI am very curious about what the future for this species holds. They are not being bred and released into the wild; as far as I know, conservation efforts are not being made. They are bred for the pet trade. Time will only tell. ", "Back in the 70s some fishermen in the indian ocean discovered that coelecanths, a species of lungfish thought to be extinct for millions of years(we have fossilized versions of them) were still hanging out near the bottom of the sea. A living fossil!\nEdit: As u/HappinyOnSteroids pointed out, coelecanths are related to lungfish, but not a subspecies. ", "I've been reading a book called The Search for Lost Frogs. Loads of the worlds herpetologists banded together and went looking for a list of frogs that haven't been seen in over 50 years and had been declared extinct. They found seven of the hundred they were looking for. The story of the Hula Painted Frog was one of the best stories I've ever read and totaly astonishing that it still exists. \n \nFrogs are though more likely that mammals to be rediscovered. They live in tricky places sometimes, they hide, they won't trigger camera traps so you have to view them firsthand - often at night and also people probably have seen them but not known they were anything special - frogs aren't well known amongst the general public. ", "I'm going to address your edit because no-one else has so far:\n\nFirstly, most of these cases aren't the result of a species 'rebounding' so much as being rediscovered, either by chance or by extensive searching. The population is probably still tiny. The question then becomes how to help it to recover and prevent it actually becoming extinct. In that case, yes eliminating the original threats is a vital first step. Unfortunately that step is not always easy - for example, the [Ivory-billed woodpecker](_URL_0_) is probably extinct, primarily due to habitat destruction. It's prefered habitat is old forest (as it depends on dead trees for food and nesting). As such, it is very difficult to simply recreate habitat - mature woodland takes literally hundreds of years to develop.\n\nIn many cases, we would want to carry out further interventions to help speed up the population's recovery, as well as insuring against disasters. This often means captive breeding programmes, as well as translocations to create new populations in other places. One good example of this is the [Mauritius kestrel](_URL_8_) which was brought back from the brink of only 4 individuals in 1974. However, many other species have benefitted from similar programmes (e.g. [these](_URL_2_) run by ZSL).\n\nIn terms of biological implications, the most obvious one is the risk posed by loss of genetic diversity, especially if a once large population rapidly dropped to a very low one and remained low for several generations. An example of this is the [Chatham ISland Black Robin](_URL_3_) (paywall - [this](_URL_5_) page has fewer details but is free) which has recovered from a single breeding pair. Unfortunately, there is strong evidence for genetic problems which resulted in eggs not successfully hatching due to poor parental behaviour. In this case, there's not much that can be done other than intensive care for the species and hope that evolution acts in time. In other cases, isolated populations with low genetic diversity can have their diversity boosted by introducing individuals from other, more diverse populations - an example of this is the [Florida panther](_URL_4_).\n\nThere can also be more subtle effects. In particular, many species interact with the rest of their ecosystem. If a population becomes so small as to be functionally extinct (i.e. too few individuals to impact the ecosystem) then the ecosystem can change in such a way to become less suitable. A hypothetical example would be an insect that feeds on and pollinates a specific plant. If the insect population declines, then the plant no longer gets pollinated and also declines. Then, it becomes difficult for the insect to recover as it no longer has any food. There are many examples of [ecosystem engineers](_URL_7_) which this could apply to. A real example (albeit in a slightly different context) was the [introduction of giant tortoises](_URL_1_) to Ile aux Aigrettes to replace the native species of giant tortoise which had become extinct.\n\nOn a completely different vein, rediscovery of an extinct species can have important legal considerations. Many countries have legislation to protect rare and endangered species, but this doesn't apply to extinct species. If it is confirmed that a species is, in fact, not extinct, then suddenly all those laws become applicable. [This recent rediscovery](_URL_6_) of a night parrot mentions that mining development is likely to be restricted as a result.", "Evolutionary biologist here. Don't see many people responding to the second part, so I'll give it a go: \n > \"What are the biological implications when a species that we thought was extinct, rebounds it's population? Is it just limited to things like focusing on changing what caused their extinction in the first place, like eradicating the rats in the 'tree lobster' article?\" \n\nThere are many potential side-effects of drastically decreasing population sizes to the point of near extinction, and none of them are very encouraging. The most common/pertinent are the implications from a **population bottleneck** (genetic drift). Essentially, when population sizes are reduced drastically, the genetic diversity that was found in the species before-hand is eliminated, leaving only a small fraction of what there was before. This can lead to a bevy of mishaps, some of the more notable being increased species vulnerability to disease, and random deleterious mutations spreading through the population more easily.\n\nCurrently, cheetahs are exhibiting severe side-effects from repeated population bottlenecks; their genetic diversity is so low that skin grafts from one animal to a separate one are not rejected by the recipient. You can find lots of interesting information about cheetah genetic diversity. Also, there was a thread not too long ago in which a similar question was asked about the last remaining Wooly Mammoth populations on earth. The link to that thread (in which I gave a similar answer) is [here](_URL_0_).\n\n*EDIT:*\nBecause I don't think I fully got to the heart of what OP was asking. As far as management issues are concerned (I have also worked and continue to work in the field of conservation genetics) typically a particular species has an increased amount of funding allocated to studying its ecology and reproductive habits (if it's one of the lucky ones to receive funding). From that point on, the species is listed as vulnerable/threatened in some way and active management is taken to ensure the survival of that species. For example, if it's found out that a particular invasive competitor is very detrimental to the persistence of a species, we go out of our way to ensure that is less of a problem (if possible). Once the species reaches what is deemed an acceptable and 'stable' population size (or if the money runs out), it is usually still monitored, albeit less frequently, for many years after to assess the success of the strategies employed. Also I work mostly with plants in this area so it may be different for you animal people.\n", "There have been thylacine sightings? Why have I not been informed?! Me and my girl consider ourselves the foremost expert on extinct oceanic fauna. \n\n\n\nPlease, would someone tell me more about these 'sightings'? \n\n\n\nI need to book some flights. ", "_URL_0_\n\nThe Ivory billed woodpecker is a weird one. It was thought to be completely extinct. Now some university and wildlife researchers say they've spotted them. However no undisputed evidence exist. \n\nA concern is that the remaining population might effectively be \"the living dead\" in that there are so few that they can't possibly breed to ever recover their numbers and they'll completely die off. ", "In addition to what others have already said, there are certain species dubbed \"Lazarus taxa,\" which were thought to be extinct, but were found to actually still be alive. This is usually due to a species being cryptic, elusive, or very hard to detect. Lazarus taxa can refer to fossil records (e.g. the coelacanth, already mentioned in this thread), or ecological accounts of species (e.g. Bermuda petrel, thought to have went extinct 300 years ago and then rediscovered in 1951).\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThere is a pretty big list in the wiki article, interesting read.", "I can tell you I'm personally seeing this happen in New England. Growing up it was *rare* to see a hawk or any other bird of prey.\n\nWithin the past 3-5 years I have seen a crazy boom of these big birds. Falcons, hawks, eagles...in NEW ENGLAND. I see them every single day without fail. Multiple times a week I see a Falcon perched on the light poles watching traffic in the highway (apparently something they are known to do). Its awesome to see this sort of rebound for these species. \n\nI'm pretty sure I see eagles on a daily basis, that or hawks, its hard to tell sometimes.\n\nsome sources:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nAnd that's it because I can't find any articles on hawks or falcons without being bombarded with sports team news.\n\n", "It happens somewhat frequently actually as the \"extinct\" classification doesn't actually mean 0 of the animal left. It means there are extremely low numbers of known species usually around 100 or so. A few species that were classified as extinct have re-emerged usually with the help of human intervention to get passed even being endangered ", "Follow up question: Would a species dipping in number of individuals to near-extinction (previously considered extinct) levels not be devastating to its genetic diversity? If so, how would this affect its chances for a complete comeback?", "Not a huge rebound, but I was rewatching Planet Earth last night. In the first episode (premiered 2006), they mention the Amur Leopard, in eastern Russia. At the time, there were only 40 known surviving leopard in the wild. \n\nAs of 2016, there's now 57 known, wild leopard. \n\nStill very, very endangered -- but that's nearly 50% resurgence! \n\nEdit: leopard not tiger. ", "The [ivory-billed woodpecker](_URL_0_) was once thought to be extinct, but since then there have been alleged sightings (though no concrete confirmation they're still around). Beautiful painting [here](_URL_1_) by the late Larry Chandler.", "The coelacanth was thought to be dead since the Cretaceous period before being spotted off the coast of Africa in 1938. The Indonesian variety of the species was also thought to be extinct before being rediscovered in 1987", "[The Bermuda Petrel](_URL_0_), a.k.a. cahow was thought to be extinct for 330 years until 18 nesting pairs were discovered clinging to survival on a rock off the coast of Bermuda in 1960. Through conservation efforts, that population has been increased to 115 nesting pairs.\n\nEdit:I don't know of any other \"Lazarus species\" that have had an absence as long as the cahow. Most are thought extinct from fossil records (coelacanth) or have been recent disappearances followed by rediscoveries (tree lobster). The Cahow is unique in that it was right there where it should be in very close proximity to people and nobody noticed for 330 years.", "Interestingly enough, I took a trip to Cairns Australia a couple years back for study abroad... One night out I had snapped a photo of what looked like a dog at first but after editing the shot with some brightness and b & w, it looks more like a cat. \n\nDoes anyone know what kind of large wild cats are present in or around that area? I'll post the picture when I'm home from work, however it looks a bit different from the Tasmanian Tiger considering it's coat resembles more of a leopard. \n\nEDIT: here's a link of the picture \n\n_URL_0_\n\n\nLet me know your thoughts! I'm curious. \n\n", "I had one living in our backyard about 2 years ago. I even called the local conservation office and they didn't seem to care. We verified that it was indeed a black footed ferret. I'm sure that they just did not believe us. We live in an urban setting and I was feeding an outside cat at the time. I think it was eating the cat food but it stayed around for several months. We saw it quite often.\n", "This will be a bit off the topic of rebounding species and it's biological implications, however this brinhs up more of a philosophical implication. There's a film, currently avaliable on Netflix, called \"The Hunter\". It's about finding the tasmanian tiger and deals with more philosophical and social impacts of its possible existence and the ideas of an once thought to be extinct species possibly being alive. ", "Even in Australia it's happened. [Night Parrots](_URL_0_) were believed to have become extinct, but they've been sighted (and photographed) in recent times. There's now quite a bit of conservation work going on with them.", "There is no possibility of the Tasmanian Tiger making a comeback in the wild. It's gone. As in, absolutely, verifiably gone. Tasmania is tiny. In the last thirty years, we've logged over half the existing forest from the island. Forest was the primary habitat of the tiger. In all those years of logging, of workers being in the forest exactly where the tiger lived, destroying its habitat, we never found a single tiger, or a carcass, nor any trace of a tiger. They are gone. There have been no photographs, no evidence, no video (despite the proliferation of smartphones), and no sound recordings. If there were tigers there, we would have seen one by now. It is inconceivable that they could avoid us for that long. The only logical conclusion is that they are extinct. ", "New Guinea Highland Wild Dogs have just recently been found when they were thought to be extinct for 50 years, with a viable population.\n \n_URL_0_", "This has been the case for a few birds in New Zealand. The storm petrel was thought to me extinct for 150 years. I heard this radio podcast the other day. [catching birds with flashlights ](_URL_0_) ", "Here's one that might be interesting to you. The (native) Irish red squirrel was being pushed out due to a mass influx of Grey squirrel (from the bastard British, don'tchaknow:-)) The Grey squirrel is a larger animal, better at one-on-ones with the poor ould red lad. So anyway, those red squirrels were on the way out, evolutionarily speaking. Lo and behold some bright spark decided we didn't have enough (once thriving) pinemartins in Ireland, so they reintroduced them to the countryside. Well this gave the little red squirrel his fighting chance. You see, the pinemartins favourite snack is squirrel and he'll catch the easiest one, naturally. But those big grey bastard squirrels aren't as nimble, so they're being caught in greater numbers than the red guys. Apparently the red squirrel can climb out onto branches that the pinemartin can't go on, but the grey squirrel can't, resulting in him being caught! But anyway, where was I?", "Coelacanths were supposed to have died out with the dinosaurs, but were found off the Comoros in the 1930's-ish. They hailed from the Devonian Period. \n\nThe Ivory Billed Woodpecker has been seen in the marshlands of Mississippi and Louisiana. allegedly. It looks tonnes like the Pileated Woodpecker, though so it might be misidentification :(\n", "A species that made a rebound from extinction that I haven't seen posted is the Bermuda petrel which was thought extinct for 330 years until eighteen nesting pairs were discovered in 1951 and it is now the national bird of Bermuda.", "yup several times.\n\nMy favorites.\n\nPithovirus - thought dead for 30,000 years - found in an ice core was merely asleep. No effect too primitive. It now spends it's days in labs with humans infecting amoebas with them. \n\nCoelacanth - thought dead for 66 million years - rare fish - Human disturbance of area to look for them is the main effect. \n\nWollemi Pine - thought dead for 200 million years - found in an isolated valley in Australia. revived through human intervention. Effect? new garden tree for warm regions and a valley is now under Australian military protection.\n\nSpecial mention\n\nAncient Yeast cells - Dormant for 45 million years entombed in Amber - used to make beer.", "[At some point, humans were reduced to a small number (speculated to be from 40-1000 individuals), which is one reason why human beings cannot inbreed much without causing serious problems.](_URL_0_)", "The Patriots football team...Ok in all seriousness I would say the Californian Condor. They are not out of the woods yet, but they went from being declared extinct in the wild in 1987 with 27 birds in captivity to now having a population of over 400 birds. I think they'll have a healthy population before the end of the century, since DDT is no longer used.", "Sorry if this (and it probably has) been posted before, but mountain lions have recently been caught on a few trail cams in Tennessee. There have also been eyewitness sightings in North Carolina. The catamount has been thought to have been extinct for decades.", "Bit late to the party, and it's not an animal species but the [Wollemi Pine](_URL_0_) is a good example of finding a species thought to be extinct. \n\nIt was only known from Fossil records and thought to be extinct for nearly 200 million years, until 1994, when a National Park ranger was out hiking and managed to come across some.", "Tasmanian tigers are gone, the only sightings are of wild dogs mis identified. There are sampled kept but we won't ever see another one again. Humans are like a virus, every continent they settled the animal population decreases. ", "The [Nene](_URL_0_ is a goose native to Hawaii that was flourishing in the late 1700s but went down to a total population of 30 by 1952 due to some floods and introduction of predators. The main concern was that even if they could bring the population back up, there would be hardly any variation (aka lots of inbreeding). Somehow scientists brought the population back up into the thousands and they're doing ok now. My biology teacher showed us a good documentary on the Nene, but I can't find it.", "Anatolian leopard (aka Pars) thought to be extinct since 70s. However since 2000 there have been sighting and studies proved there are at least some living in leopards in the wild. Only leopards in Anatolia.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.yahoo.com/amphtml/tech/extinct-creature-sightings-piling-australia-130041464.html", "https://www.jcu.edu.au/news/releases/2017/march/fnq-search-for-the-tasmanian-tiger" ]

[ [], [ "http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years" ], [ "http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=14599250", "http://www.npr.org/2011/12/23/144190097/searching-for-a-ghost-bird", "http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/02/24/147367644/six-legged-giant-finds-secret-hideaway-hides-for-80-years" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth#Discovery", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4jl_txxYQEA" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metasequoia_glyptostroboides", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth" ], [ "https://web.prx.org/pieces/5182" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coelacanth", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon" ], [], [], [ "https://www.google.com/amp/relay.nationalgeographic.com/proxy/distribution/public/amp/2017/03/new-guinea-dogs-found-extinct-pictures-animals" ], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker", "http://www.livescience.com/13957-giant-tortoises-ebony-trees-introduction-extinction.html", "https://www.zsl.org/conservation-initiatives/conservation-breeding", "https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22229640-700-killing-with-kindness-conservations-cautionary-tale/", "http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050818/full/news050815-7.html", "http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/22704831/0", "https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2017/mar/23/night-parrot-sighting-confirmed-in-western-australia-for-first-time-in-100-years", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ecosystem_engineer", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mauritius_kestrel" ], [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/science/comments/5xa3ly/dna_clues_to_why_woolly_mammoth_died_out_the_last/" ], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_taxon" ], [ "http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/story/news/2016/06/10/bald-eagles-thrive-new-england/85652054/" ], [], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ivory-billed_woodpecker", "http://i.imgur.com/W4rT6RC.jpg" ], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bermuda_petrel" ], [ "http://imgur.com/7Cn0C9v" ], [], [], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Night_parrot" ], [], [ "http://www.sciencealert.com/the-world-s-rarest-and-most-ancient-dog-has-just-been-re-discovered-in-the-wild" ], [ "http://www.radionz.co.nz/national/programmes/ourchangingworld/audio/201839112/rediscovered-the-new-zealand-storm-petrel" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.npr.org/sections/krulwich/2012/10/22/163397584/how-human-beings-almost-vanished-from-earth-in-70-000-b-c" ], [], [], [ "http://www.wollemipine.com/faq.php" ], [], [ "https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nene_(bird)" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anatolian_leopard" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqyse1s" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Changes must not be faster than the speed of light, but existing fields are not changes. Gravity for example is traveling at the speed of light. By your thought, the sun shouldn't be capable to pull on earth, because it is so far away. But actually, the gravitational field already exists and we are moving in it, so there is no contradiction. \n\nIf the sun's mass was to disappear all of a sudden, the information would then propagate through space at the speed of light and reach us about 8 minutes later. The earth would be shot into space, because there is no force holding us at our place. \n\nAnd it is the same for light. Truely, information can only travel at the speed of light. But the thing is, we don't see things in realtime but i a distorted way because of that. That doesn't matter much though, because the actual change is so insignificant even over galactic scales that we can't really tell a difference. \n\nThe stars in our galaxy are moving at about 250 km/s. If you have two reference star at two opposite points of the milky way (100,000 ly diameter) their actual position would differ only about 3 lightyears from their seen position, or a tiny fraction of a degree not even visible to the unaided eye. The appearance is maintained by \"too insignificant changes\". \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c35h534", "c35h534" ], "score": [ 14, 14 ], "text": [ "First off, let's understand why food or drink spoils. in our world, there are microscopic living things everywhere. We call them *microbes*. Bacteria and molds are the kind we're usually worried about when it comes to food, because they're usually what make it spoil. They eat the food and grow in it. We can't eat the food after that happens too much, because eating too much of those microbes will make us sick.\n\nThis is why we put food in the fridge. When it's colder, most microbes grow much more slowly. So it takes a lot longer for whatever microbes are in there to grow enough to make us sick.\n\nAnother way to make food last longer before it spoils is *pasteurization*. The way you pasteurize something is by heating it up to a certain temperature, keeping it at that temperature for a certain amount of time, and then cooling it back down. The idea here is that the heat kills off some of the microbes. Note that I didn't say it kills *all* of them -- this isn't the same thing as sterilization -- but it kills enough of them that it makes a difference.\n\nAnd, by the way, remember that pasteurization doesn't matter as much after the food has been opened, because then other microbes get in it. That's why you can keep food in its container in the fridge for, say, three weeks, but then you have to finish it within one week after you open it.\n\nAlright. Now, the thing is, there are different ways to pasteurize. You can use a higher temperature for less time, or a lower temperature for a longer time. Depending on how you do it, you can kill more or less of the microbes. The tradeoff is how much work it is to do it and how much it changes how the food tastes or looks, since heat changes proteins and vitamins and sugars and stuff.\n\nMost milk in the United States is pasteurized using a technique called *high temperature short time pasteurization*, or HTST. The milk is held at about 160 degrees for about 30 seconds. This is pretty good -- after that, the milk will last a few weeks in a fridge before it starts to spoil.\n\nIn Europe, though, most milk is pasteurized using a technique called *ultra-high temperature pasteurization*, or UHT. It gets way hotter -- 280 degrees -- but it only keeps the milk that hot for just 2 seconds. UHT kills so many microbes that you can keep the milk unrefrigerated for many months.\n\nThe tradeoff is that the taste and smell and mouthfeel, and even the vitamin content, of UHT milk isn't quite as good as HTST milk. Neither is as good as fresh unpasteurized milk though.\n\nAnd, of course, you could kill all the microbes by actually boiling the milk instead of just pasteurizing it, which would make it last a super-long time, but boiling changes milk's proteins so much that it could curdle.", "First off, let's understand why food or drink spoils. in our world, there are microscopic living things everywhere. We call them *microbes*. Bacteria and molds are the kind we're usually worried about when it comes to food, because they're usually what make it spoil. They eat the food and grow in it. We can't eat the food after that happens too much, because eating too much of those microbes will make us sick.\n\nThis is why we put food in the fridge. When it's colder, most microbes grow much more slowly. So it takes a lot longer for whatever microbes are in there to grow enough to make us sick.\n\nAnother way to make food last longer before it spoils is *pasteurization*. The way you pasteurize something is by heating it up to a certain temperature, keeping it at that temperature for a certain amount of time, and then cooling it back down. The idea here is that the heat kills off some of the microbes. Note that I didn't say it kills *all* of them -- this isn't the same thing as sterilization -- but it kills enough of them that it makes a difference.\n\nAnd, by the way, remember that pasteurization doesn't matter as much after the food has been opened, because then other microbes get in it. That's why you can keep food in its container in the fridge for, say, three weeks, but then you have to finish it within one week after you open it.\n\nAlright. Now, the thing is, there are different ways to pasteurize. You can use a higher temperature for less time, or a lower temperature for a longer time. Depending on how you do it, you can kill more or less of the microbes. The tradeoff is how much work it is to do it and how much it changes how the food tastes or looks, since heat changes proteins and vitamins and sugars and stuff.\n\nMost milk in the United States is pasteurized using a technique called *high temperature short time pasteurization*, or HTST. The milk is held at about 160 degrees for about 30 seconds. This is pretty good -- after that, the milk will last a few weeks in a fridge before it starts to spoil.\n\nIn Europe, though, most milk is pasteurized using a technique called *ultra-high temperature pasteurization*, or UHT. It gets way hotter -- 280 degrees -- but it only keeps the milk that hot for just 2 seconds. UHT kills so many microbes that you can keep the milk unrefrigerated for many months.\n\nThe tradeoff is that the taste and smell and mouthfeel, and even the vitamin content, of UHT milk isn't quite as good as HTST milk. Neither is as good as fresh unpasteurized milk though.\n\nAnd, of course, you could kill all the microbes by actually boiling the milk instead of just pasteurizing it, which would make it last a super-long time, but boiling changes milk's proteins so much that it could curdle." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "etnfphx", "eugadci" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because of their ability to withstand desiccation (removal of moisture) insects can recover from extreme temperature events. Including being submerged in liquid helium. \n\nFrom a cursory look, it appears +/- 55 C is the general range of temperatures.\n\nReferences/further reading: [Cold](_URL_1_) and [Hot](_URL_0_).", "Are there insects living in cold climates? Yes, although they may not expose themselves to the coldest extremes of those places in space or time. For example, the [Antarctic midge](_URL_1_) - the largest fully terrestrial animal in Antarctica - lives in some pretty cold places, but it can't actually survive above ground during the coldest part of winter: instead it burrows underground to escape the worst cold. But it can still survive *temporary* freezing down to -10° C (14° F). That's not anywhere near the record, though. Surviving -20 °C (-4° F) is pretty common for the butterflies I work with (in Sweden). There's at least one beetle species in Alaska that can survive down to -70° C (-94° F). ([Source here](_URL_0_)).\n\nMind you, that's assuming the insect in question is in the right stage of its life cycle - specifically, in its winter resting state, when cold defenses are cranked up and nothing much at all happens in the body. In polar climates, most actual biological activity - eating, mating, growing - occurs during the brief summer. Winter is for hiding somewhere and sleeping. There are a few insects, such as [snow fleas](_URL_3_), that will actively forage on top of the snow - but temperatures in that microhabitat will be closer to the freezing point (0° C / 32° F), so nothing very extreme. (Still impressive, though!)\n\nDo insects favor hotter climates? Well, to a certain extent it's a question of local adaptation. Certainly most of the insect species you find in polar regions wouldn't thrive if you moved them to the equator. (Conversely, some tropical species are so adapted to warmth that they can't survive at all at temperatures colder than 17° C / 62° F.) But it's true that there are way more species of insects near the equator (there are more species of *everything* near the equator). As was pointed out by another commenter, around 50° C (122° F) appears to be the maximum that any insect can tolerate for much time - but that's also pretty close to how hot it (currently!) gets anywhere. Even the hottest places on Earth (e.g. Death Valley) have insects living there.\n\nIt's not an even game, though. Even though polar species are better adapted to cold and tropical species are better adapted to warmth, tropical species live closer to their upper tolerance maxima than species closer to the poles. That is, it's already *almost as hot* in the tropics as the average species that live there can handle. The weird consequence of this is that even though the biggest changes in temperature we expect from global warming are near the poles, the biggest threat to insects may be at the equator - because even a small change in temperature there may knock out species that are already living near the limits of what they can deal with. [Here's a paper discussing this idea](_URL_2_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/chapters/chapter_21.shtml", "http://entnemdept.ufl.edu/walker/ufbir/chapters/chapter_04.shtml" ], [ "https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0300962982902663?via%3Dihub", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belgica_antarctica", "https://www.pnas.org/content/105/18/6668", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boreus_hyemalis" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d2qu1ah", "d2qu8qn", "d2quesz", "d2quhhl" ], "score": [ 19, 5, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "The theory is that these people's findings have (or used to have) a direct impact on tax collection, so the people should have a say in who gets the job to prevent abuse of power.\n\n > Electing a coroner is a holdover from British Common Law, where the coroner’s job was to determine how and when people had died in order to collect taxes.\n\n[source](_URL_0_)", "A coroner in particular makes important judgments that have dramatic legal consequences (i.e. Was this person murdered and therefore there should be a legal investigation? Or this person has been missing for five years, should we presume them dead and distribute their assets?). So in a culture that believes in direct democracy and that judges should be welected representatives of the people, it makes sense to extend that to coroners.\n\nThis is similarly true for surveyors as they make official determinations concerning property and city boundaries etc.\n\nA recorder I'm less sure about... that seems far more procedural but I suppose the consequences of their decisions are far reaching.", "Very few countries have this system. The US is the only one that springs to mind. Yes, indeed, these posts should be filled by suitably qualified people. This does not mean that electing them is necessarily bad.\n\nIt's largely because in bygone days, with poor communications, it worked. Now, it's established and no one is interested in changing things.\n\n", "\"Jacksonian\" democracy is famous for electing everyone even the dog catcher. The theory being anyone could hold most any political office. Take the public money, and move on for another newcomer. \n\nThe counter argument is that every job requires a special knowledge which has to be acquired by experience or training." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.northcountrypublicradio.org/news/story/23129/20131031/why-do-we-elect-a-coroner-anyway" ], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnez6d5" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "That's like saying \"why can't we solve engineering problems with engineering?\"\n\nIt's one thing to spot and identify a problem, but a whole different thing to find ways to understand it, solve it, get the tools you need at the precision you need.\n\nFor all things medical you also need extensive studies to rule out (or reign in) side effects, find ways to make treatments somewhat affordable and easy to administer and so on.\n\nScience / knowledge isn't the end of problem solving. It's the start." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cme42st", "cme5in7", "cme6a18", "cme8f3k", "cme94oo", "cmecc9b" ], "score": [ 19, 13, 2, 2, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "They use big long radio waves that can go through almost anything. That has the drawback that that frequency has a lot of minor interference and distortion on it. ", "Police officer here. The simple answer is that you get used to it. You talk on the radio so much, you learn what words sound like through distortion. It's almost like a second language.", "To make the channels use less bandwith, so more channels can be fit in a given spectrum, and therefore more users.", "Depending on the system it usually isn't \"fuzzy.\" Ours sometimes have a digital distortion but never fuzzy.\n\nThe reason why the scanners/apps have distortions like static is likely due to their distance, how/with what they're monitoring, what their scan settings are, etc.", "i cant understand one thing when that radio goes off. it sounds gibberish but the officer will reply back with a copy that or something...i guess takes getting used to. i would sit there and ask them to repeat it 10 times lol", "In Europe we all use the tetra digital based radios. My radio is crystal clear, can be used as a phone and is totally encrypted so cannot be intercepted." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cz6xoeh" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Unfortunately there isn't a lot of source material on bear hunting as a lot of our late medieval 'hunting manuals' were produced in England...when the bear had been long extinct. However, the very famous 14th c hunting manual by [Gaston Fébus](_URL_0_), the [*Livre de chasse*](_URL_3_), features a chapter on hunting bear. In fact, Gaston is said to have died of stroke while washing his hands of bear blood; this would be a classic example of how we can't take the words of medieval writers about aristocracy at face value - they are always burnishing the image of the subject. As the count of Foix Gaston would have hunted in the Pyrenees where bears have roamed even until recently (and there is in fact a protest by farmers now against the planned re-introduction of bears). I don't know if his book has been translated to English - I've only seen editions of the various manuscript images with summaries.\n\nGenerally speaking, large animals were harried by horseback riders and hounds and driven into places that could be controlled: pits and traps. Hunters were on horseback and on foot, using weapons at a distance: bows and spears. It seems aristocrats were less interested in demonstrating strength than an ability to outwit their prey, whether bear, stag or wolf.\n\nIf you want to write about medieval hunting, try to find these two books:\n\n* [John Cummins, The Art of Medieval Hunting: The Hound and the Hawk (Castle Books, 2003)](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Richard Almond, Medieval Hunting (The History Press, 2011)](_URL_1_)\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gaston_III,_Count_of_Foix", "https://books.google.com/books?id=c007AwAAQBAJ&amp;printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false", "https://books.google.com/books?id=qkDYxipafCkC", "http://library.nd.edu/medieval/facsimiles/daylife/chasse.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cplxxn1", "cpm0ts1", "cpm1mu5", "cpm4100" ], "score": [ 131, 11, 5, 10 ], "text": [ "not as much oil secreted by the face as the top of the head", "Also in any good beard grooming kit a beard oil is recommended, so not only does it not get greasy, but to take care of it you oil it up.", "I remember reading an article about how head hair and facial hair evolved differently. Hence why you can have a red beard and brown hair. Dunno if thats a factor but it might be.", "Why does mine get so greasy?" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dbtsvao", "dbtt0yv" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "She was not THAT great of a fighter, just a dominant one in a growing sport (Women's MMA). As it got bigger, the fighters got better. And she took a long break and had just not improved in the time.", "After she knocked out Beth, she thought she was a world class striker as well as a world class judo specialist. \n\nAlso, Edmund Tarverdyan is a horrible coach. I'm really surprised Rousey didn't try and clinch ASAP considering that everyone knew Amanda's bread and butter is her striking. I'd have thought that they'd have learned after her fight with Holly. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "drel9ru", "drenp3r" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Climate changes how people live, which affects decisions made and indirectly affects violence. I seriously doubt you will find any evidence that heat directly affects the mind. The research has long shown that it is a indirect relationship. I have never heard of a direct correlation with weather affecting the mind in my studies. Source: Masters in Human Relations (not claiming expert, just these type studies were read and written about during my studies)", "Not so much the cause of violence, as it is that cold weather keeps people from wandering the streets looking for trouble." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjop03t", "cjp65xz", "cjpaf06" ], "score": [ 3, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "The discussion about no preferred reference frames is in the context of special relativity, which only considers unaccelerated motion. A rotation is always an accelerated motion, i.e. you need a centripetal force to \"bend\" the path of an object. This force makes different reference frames different.\n\nNote that you could still make the change of reference frame if you wanted to. People made quite accurate models with the sun revolving around the earth, they only became hugely complicated when all the other planets had to be taken into account as well.\n\nAlso note that our solar system is revolving at incredible speeds around the center of the Milky Way. We don't notice this in everyday life, because you can also picture this as that we are in a free fall in the gravitational potential of the Milky Way: Einstein's equivalence principle.", "This is known as [Mach's Principle](_URL_0_), and it was a primary motivation for the theory of General Relativity. Roughly speaking, acceleration happens in relation to all the other mass in the universe. ", "Interesting note: while the circumstances make it much harder both to experimentally distinguish such motion and to define what \"rotation\" should mean, orbiting motion due to gravitation is different from no motion in the absence of gravitation for a rigid body, which will experience different amounts of gravitational attraction at its near and far ends relative to the attractor (resulting in very small tidal forces)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mach%27s_principle" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "caxzib1" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "There's a youtube video on this by an a channel called \"The Hungry Beast\" or something similar, try looking it up.\n\nI'm in China atm and it's blocked for me, =/\n\n_URL_0_ - Someone linked it in another thread" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://vimeo.com/25118844" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7uidlj", "d7uim7z", "d7uj2js", "d7uk1tk", "d7umuxi", "d7untsn", "d7uod20", "d7uouqy", "d7upqz6", "d7ur0eg", "d7ur82f", "d7usl69", "d7uuuym", "d7v1puy", "d7v7jju", "d7v945z", "d7v9xpj", "d7va9vk", "d7vq1vr" ], "score": [ 14, 11, 4152, 908, 2, 15, 2, 2, 9, 63, 49, 13, 7, 2, 2, 2, 3, 7, 3 ], "text": [ "SSDs are composed of multiple flash chips, which are produced in sizes power of two. Why? These chips come with a number of pins called an address bus, naturally allowing for 2^N different addresses. When combining chips to form a bigger chip, you'd prefer it if these address busses combined to form one contiguous adress space (without holes, addresses you aren't allowed to use)\n\nFor harddisks, this simply doesn't matter.\n\nEDIT: Oh, right, you mentioned 240 and 480. That would be due to extra backup space needed for when parts of chips fail, as extra buffer to move things around, or for wear levelling.", "It's called \"Over-Provisioning\". SSD technology limits the number of times each storage \"unit\" can be written to. So if some \"unit\" has already too much writes the drive can use this over-provisioned space to compensate. It's actually more on-the-fly but that is the general idea.\n", "tl;dr: Marketing, false advertising, GB as used by computer geek vs GB as used by rest of the world, and hidden reserve to make the drive run faster and have a safety buffer in case of failure. Also, lost track of what sub I was in and made this not very ELI5. Sorry.\n\nInternal computer memory (RAM or Random Access Memory) is built and accessed in multiples and powers of two (binary). You still buy computer memory sticks in capacities like 512 MB or 2 GB. These aren't really \"real\" mega- and giga-bytes because in the old days computer people borrowed some metric terms like kilo that meant exactly 1000 and used them as a shorthand to refer to 1024. Even today, some operating systems and programs (and programmers) still use the \"wrong\" 1024 value when calculating both computer memory and storage.\n\nWhen computer hard disk drives were invented, they weren't electronic structures built on powers of two, so the marketing people used the \"correct\" multiples of 1000 when talking about storage capacity (decimal). If nothing else, it makes the capacity look slightly bigger, and marketing always likes bigger. Marketing also really likes round numbers. So hard disk drives are advertised in terms like 250 GB or 2 TB.\n\nSolid state drives are internally more structured like computer memory (built in binary) than mechanical hard disks (measured in decimal for convenience). A 240 GB SSD probably has a \"raw\" storage capacity more like 256x1024x1024x1024 bytes (and 8x that many bits). So why not call it 256 GB (using the old binary method) or even 275 GB (using the newer decimal method) SSD? Again, marketing people like round numbers. Also, the buying public (as opposed to just computer geeks) has figured out that hard drives never seem to have the full storage capacity that is advertised. With old mechanical disks, this was mostly due to the binary/decimal measuring difference. With SSDs, it's mostly due to something called over-provisioning. So, the marketing people pick a smaller round number that more or less reasonably reflects the actual usable space.\n\nOver-provisioning is when some of the SSD storage capacity is marked as off limits right from the get go. Your 256 GB SSD has 16 GB set aside for future use, leaving 240. If the SSD internal control electronics notices that sector 18 (for example) is developing a fault, it will copy the information to a new sector in the 16 GB. Old sector 18 will be permanently disabled. The new sector 18 will be marked as in use. The SSD's total amount of storage, as reported to the end user, remains the same at 240. A 480 GB SSD is probably a 512 GB SSD with 32 GB of over-provisioning. \n\nI just did a quick search on Amazon and I see 240 GB, 250 GB, 256 GB, and 275 GB SSDs from different manufacturers which I'm pretty sure all have the same amount of actual storage, so it's not like the marketing people are consistent.\n\nedit: some numbers formatting", "Okay, so so far, none of these are really ELI5. Here's the easiest I can do.\n\nThink of a piece of paper with 256 lines or 512 lines (imagine it's double the paper), etc. Pieces of paper here always have 256 lines, 512 lines, etc (power of 2s). Always. \n\nSo you can buy sheets of paper with 256 lines, 512 lines, etc. Except your question is, why is it being sold as 250 lines, 500 lines, or 240 lines, 480 lines?\n\nComputer memory is exactly the same, replacing \"lines\" with \"GB\". Hard drives have 256 GB, 512 GB, etc. So, you would THINK hard drives would be sold as 256, 512, 1024. But they aren't. Why?\n\nSo why 240, 250, etc instead of 256? The answer is a cross between functionality and marketing. Let's say I have 256GB. \n\n1) **HDDs and 250**: This is still a piece of paper with 256 lines / a drive with 256 GB. But, the marketing is done either by or for people who aren't particularly tech-savvy: 250 is a nice round number and 256 is not. \"250 lines on this piece of paper!\" vs \"256 lines on this piece of paper!\". 250 sounds nicer. So 256 has become 250, 512 has become 500, etc (see [this](_URL_0_)).\n\n2) **SSDs and 240**: There's still 256 lines of paper here - 256GB of room. But here, the SSD itself saves some of the room for itself. So maybe out of those 256 lines, there are actually only 240 lines on the paper that you're allowed to use here; the other 16 are extra lines (in case you're writing something and it goes over the last line - it has to go somewhere, so we write the overflow on line 241), or backup lines (oops, let's say you just tore the paper or spilled ink on line 194, let's copy everything on line 194 over to line 242), or just lines to make an index - so maybe lines 243-247 are taken up to say, \"She has the grocery list on line 210\". And then the remaining 247-256 are more overflow/backup/index lines. So while there technically ARE 256 GB, you as a user can only use 240 of them. So, it's sold as 240. (And again, it's probably more like 243.24 but 240 is a \"prettier\" number).\n\nAlso, I think u/troycheek has the best ELImaybe20 so far. So, for a more technical version of everything I just said, read theirs next :).\n\n*edit* u/TupperwareMagic has an excellent elaboration on the difference between SSD and HDD as a reply to mine below.\n\n*edit in* - it's power of 2s, and that's where the 256, 512, 1024, etc, come from.\n\n**edit:** If you don't like my answer, that's your right, but please stop telling me so. I'm getting all these messages that basically say \"your answer sucks\" with no corrections (any corrections I get, I edit in). What does that accomplish? Should I apologise that everyone's brain works differently? I explained it in a way that I would understand if I didn't know it, and if it doesn't jive with you, just go upvote a different reply. Like, you know, the voting system is supposed to work. There are a lot of great answers here (I even recommended one in my OP...). Please just upvote someone else if you don't like mine.", "Am I the only person who's bought both a 250 and 500GB SSD marketed as that exact value?", "I think most answers (including this one?) are incorrect.\n\n**You can make HDDs and SSDs almost any number you want. SSDs more closely follow binary numbers though.**\n\nHDDs are segmented portions of a physical disc that vary in size. So you can make it almost any number you want.\n\nSSDs are segmented groups of *binary* memory. It can also, consequently, be segmented groups of binary numbers -- which is often the 256, 512 that you are used to. The sum of these segmented groups could be 500 or any number you want.\n\n*My answer intentionally ignores SSD error correcting, binary to 16 bit addressing, etc. I'm keeping it ELI5*\n\n*Fun fact: A circular hard disc stores just as much information on the inner rings as it does on the outer rings -- or at least that's how it used to work. The little segments just get much tinier.*", "ELI5 why people repost other people's questions from a month ago word for word to harvest karma. \n\nI'd really like to know. What do you people plan to do with that karma? Is it worth something on some hidden black market? Can you buy guns and drugs with reddit karma like bitcoin? ", "I don't want to make my own thread, but could anyone give me a basic explanation of flash-storage? I bought a new macbook and originally wanted their older model because it came with SSD and the new ones only offered flash storage, which I had never heard of. The sales rep told me it was comparable to ssd technology in that it had no spinning/mechanical parts, and the increased speed benefit of having a ssd would apply to it. Is that the basic gist?", "SSD (solid state drives) and HDD (hard disk drives) hold information. We measure quantity of data in Gigabytes (GB) when we have lots of data.\n\nNow, the reason why some numbers like 240, 480, or 250 and 500 are really popular is because lots of people think those numbers are easier to remember than complicated numbers like 256 or 512 (these are numbers that engineers like because they are special numbers that are called powers of 2).\n\nThere are grown ups (we call them marketers) who like to use these easier numbers to convince other grown ups (we like to call them general consumers) to buy these drives.\n\nIt's a bit like buying a \"2 cup\" measuring cup to measure the water when we cook. If you look at a measuring cup, you can see that it holds more than the 2 cups. But we don't expect it to hold more than 2 cups. This is different from a measuring spoon, when a \"1 cup\" spoon will hold exactly 1 cup.\n\nNow, the difference between the \"rated capacity\" (that's what we call the pretend limit of how much we can store) and \"actual capacity\" (the actual amount that the drive can really hold if you use every bit of its space) is used as an emergency super secret storage compartment (reallocation blocks).\n\nHow does that work? Hmm, think of it this way:\n\nWhen you write words on a piece of paper, and then erase it, and write on it some more, and erase it, and write again, and erase it again, you eventually make a hole in the paper. Sometimes, you might make a hole in the middle of a sentence that's already on the paper. What do you do? Well, you write the word that was going to be where the hole is on a different spot on the paper -- usually at the edge of the paper that you normally don't use. And then you draw arrows to connect the word into the spot where the hole is, so that you know where the missing word is when you get to that hole.\n\nSometimes, the paper already comes with holes in the paper when you bring it home from the store. That's because it's cheaper to make things not perfect, even though we like perfect things. As long as there's not a lot of holes, drives use this arrow trick (it's called block remapping) so that you still get to use the drive (err, paper?) as long as you don't have too many holes. \n\nSometimes, the holes are in really important places -- when that happens, they throw it away.", "TIL ELI5 can't handle computer stuffs. \n\nSSDs are built with blocks of two. It's cheaper to leave it this way. \n\nHDDs are more flexible in their construction since it's not separate blocks inside.\n\nBoth are generally made up numbers that don't always mean the same thing. Each manufacture names them slightly different. \n\n______\n\nWas that so hard? I mean they're *five years old for christs sake*. \"Mommy? What's over provizizizinging?\"", "The SSD may be 256 or 512 internally, but they reserve space for the wear leveling pool. Flash can only be rewritten a limited number of times, around 10-100 thousand. The size difference is especially dramatic if you notice that 240 GB is only 224 GiB, so you only get 7/8ths of the total space.\n\nWhen you rewrite a block on the SSD, it actually writes to a new block from the pool (there's likely many small pools, but we'll pretend there's one), and erases/returns the old block to the pool. So you can keep rewriting the same address and get a different block every time, so it can survive millions of rewrites instead of just tens of thousands. If you could fill the whole SSD, the pool would get too small and blocks would burn out quickly from over-reuse, so that last 1/8th or so is reserved.", "not true. It's almost arbitrary now.\n\nFor example, samsung 850 evo ssds come in 250 and 500 while samsung 850 pro ssds come in 256 and 512.", "Why? Because HDD vendors decided to redefine the size of a GB in the 90's to make more money.", "HDD : \"Let's call it 250 because it sounds cooler.\"\n\nSSD: \"We need some space because we need to do some math and need a place to store those numbers, so let's take a part of SSD and use it to store those numbers. As the SSDs get bigger, we'll need to store more numbers, so we'll have to take more space away.\"", "The extra space is used for Over Provisioning. \nThis means a 240GB or 200GB is actually a 256GB drive but because of the nature of FLASH storage and wear the cells degrade. To keep the drive useful a percentage of its available storage is reserved so when it starts going bad the bad cells are disabled for use and a spare get activated. This is managed by the controller on the SSD and the FIRMWARE. \n", "Because they can. \n \nWhy should they sell them all in the same size? It's harder for many to calculate the price per GB. Actually this is very unknown in the USA. \nIn many cases people buy the more expensive item in a store because it looks cheaper. And it doesn't matter if it's some flour or if it's a hard drive. \n", "\"Powers of two\" is kind of missing the point, which is that SSD sizes *are not powers of two.* But some sectors (individual storage cells) naturally develop faults in SSDs as they're used, unlike HDDs. The solution to this is that, when the drive notices that a sector has gone bad, it will update an internal list of where all its storage is to indicate a different area. What different area? Well, an area that wasn't in use to begin with, and that's the \"missing\" storage compared to a power of two.", "the TL;DR version:\nmarketing. \n\na HDD that is 250gb, VS a SSD that is 240gb:\nboth have the SAME actual disk space inside, but the SSD hides some away to use whenever a area goes bad it can replace it with some of the hidden section.\n\nBOTH are probably 256gb, but for marketing having rounded numbers sells better.\n\nthen there is the bad math between bits and bytes and stuff, where one measures as 1000, the other as 1024... but they try to market them as the same.", "240GB is a very close measure of the NET hard drive capacity you can use in SSDs. 250GB for HDD is basically a fictitious same NET hard drive capacity, only erroneously or falsely up-marked in capacity on the label by the manufacturer for marketing purposes. \n\nBoth hard drives have 256 GB in total theoretical space. \n\nAs what top-comment \"troycheek\" remarked: the missing 10-16 GB in space is reserved for buffer space or disk faults. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://petapixel.com/2012/10/10/why-hard-drives-and-memory-cards-have-less-space-than-advertised/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7crnzp", "c7crqgr", "c7cshwd", "c7ctafq", "c7cv57m", "c7d1be8" ], "score": [ 24, 17, 5, 6, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "The ‘duck face’ started back when MySpace was still thriving, around the year of 2005. The face is also attributed to the ‘MySpace pics’ tren, which I think are now called ‘selfies’. Usually teenagers would set their profile picture to something they took in the bathroom mirror, or with their arm extended in front of them. The ‘duck face’ is similar to the ‘fish pout’ lip design that a lot of celebrities have, one of the more noted ones being [Angelina Jolie](_URL_0_). Girls thought this was cute, or cool, and tried to replicate it. Instead it usually comes off looking a little silly, as opposed to the cute/sexy effect they’re going for.\n\nIt’s basically the result of people trying to ‘fit in’ to trends. Not a lot of people realize that people like Angelina Jolie and Lindsay Lohan are made up to look the way they do. It became a thing because young women were trying to emulate something they thought was stylish, unaware of how the people they got it from actually made themselves look that way.\n", "They're trying to attract ducks so they can kill them and cook them for dinner.", "I like to think it started from Zoolander:\n_URL_0_", "Makes your face look slightly thinner, and thus more sexy so long as you aren't immediately put off by it. Also, it's more risk-free (esp. when drunk) than just acting happy if you want a uniform/reliable \"good look\" in your photos.", "Because they think they are making [\"kissyfaces\"](_URL_0_).", "In addition to everything everyone else has said, it also accentuates girls' cheekbones, which is supposed to be sexy." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.truthbehindmysmile.co.uk/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Angelina1.jpg" ], [], [ "http://i.imgur.com/6pdQe.jpg" ], [], [ "http://www.thisismarilyn.com/artwork/cynthia235-2010021751930-capt-original.jpg" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6hugdn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "[We used to think of cardiomyocytes as nondividing and persistent cells](_URL_0_):\n\n > For nearly a century, the general belief has been that the heart is a terminally differentiated post-mitotic organ in which the number of cardiomyocytes is established at birth with these cells persisting throughout the lifespan of the organ and organism. [...] Cardiomyocytes were deemed to live and function for nearly 100 years, or longer. Although unstated, the inevitable implication was that cardiomyocytes were judged to be immortal and to be killed only by pathologic processes occurring during the course of individuals’ lifespan.\n\nBut now that view is changing in light of new research:\n\n > A recent study, based on retrospective [14C] birth dating of cardiac cells, has suggested that ~1% and ~0.45% replacement of myocytes occurs annually in the adult human heart at 25 and 75 years of age, respectively. [...] In contrast to the [14C] study in which only 12 pathologic hearts were examined, we have analyzed 74 normal human hearts from 19 to 104 years of age and documented that myocyte turnover in the female heart occurs at a rate of 10%, 14%, and 40% per year at 20, 60 and 100 years of age, respectively.85 Corresponding values in the male heart are 7%, 12%, and 32% per year, demonstrating that cardiomyogenesis involves a large and progressively increasing number of cells with aging. From 20 to 100 years of age, the myocyte compartment is replaced 15 times in women and 11 times in men.\n\nTL;DR: Yes, cardiac muscle cells die, and get replaced by progenitor cells and cardiac stem cells. However, that replacement potential is limited, which is why cardiac disease such as myocardial infarctions have such severe consequences." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3299091/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c6djy05", "c6djzjn", "c6dk38u", "c6dk5et", "c6dk6o3", "c6dk75w", "c6dkfsq", "c6dklmp", "c6dlrfo", "c6dlrzy", "c6dm1id", "c6dmx0o", "c6dnany", "c6dosts" ], "score": [ 24, 10, 4, 396, 3, 254, 27, 53, 3, 9, 4, 50, 10, 2 ], "text": [ "I don't think they were heavily toned, ripped dudes. But like in the case of the Spartans, those guys trained from a young age to be warriors. I'm sure you build some serious muscle mass with that.\n\nIn the middle ages there were different kinds of soldiers. If you're talking fully suited knight on a warhorse. Consider the fact that the suit of armor quite heavy and holding yourself on a galloping hose probably isn't too easy. Then there's a nicely forged broadsword you gotta wield, yank it out of guys' chests, then lift it up and strike again. That takes a lot of strength. So I'm sure they had some serious muscle. But again, not ripped, but pretty huge...", "You can get pretty ripped with a good diet and bodyweight exercises. I'm no historian so I can't say whether they did push ups or lifted weights or things like that. But it's possible to get pretty big. Although I'd be surprised if they got anywhere near body-builder status. That's just.....unnatural. *shudder*", "I would tend to think that they aren't going to look exactly like your typical gym rat since bodybuilders do a lot of ultra-specific stuff to get the ripped look they have. Having said that, what these guys did was pretty brutal and taxing so they where likely in good shape, but good *functional* shape which does not look the same as what a bodybuilder looks like in most cases. ", "They were indeed strong, but not with the sort of big bulky muscles Ahnold and his ilk have. Big muscles are developed through short movements such as lifting weights, which would have been seen as quite strange for a soldier of the past. Warriors had to be able to march for long distances bearing their combat load and then some, and still be able to fight at the end of the day. That sort of activity makes a body strong, but not with huge bulging muscles. Think of the difference between football and futbol players. The former can perform powerful actions, but typically over a shorter time span, while the latter can run around a field for 90 minutes straight. Both are powerful in their own right, but the wiry guy with the endurance is a closer somatotype to historical warriors.\n\nThe Greeks, since you mention the Spartans, have helpfully provided us with many examples of their warriors' body shape in the form of [statues](_URL_0_) and [muscle cuirasses](_URL_2_). As you can see in those examples, Grecian warriors were muscular, yet quite lean. \n\nThe Crusaders would have likely been primarily of the same body type, though I'm sure certain nobles and wealthy folk that were able to afford horses and didn't spend all of their free time fighting and training would be exceptions. Forensic analysis of medieval remains like [this poor chap here](_URL_3_) tells us that medieval knights were indeed quite strong. However, effigies like [these](_URL_1_), and there's hundreds more just like them, show us that the average knight was equally as lean as his ancient counterparts. ", "_URL_0_ and _URL_1_", "For the most part, many of China's ancient warriors were peasants. Of course, standing armies did exist, and there were professional soldiers, but that grew over time, and in ancient times farmers and the like would have made up much of the army.\n\nNow then, many of these peasants would have been malnourished, and would have lived very difficult lives. But if you work all day, every day, cultivating the land, you end up being pretty strong, even if their muscles don't bulge out like they would after a serious workout.\n\nThe professional soldiers would spend much of their lives training, and would likely have a good physique as a result.\n\n(I know you didn't ask about China, but... hey! More knowledge.)", "Not a historian, but calisthenics enthusiast here.\n\nThey wouldn't be *bodybuilder* big, but that's because bodybuilders use an assortment of isolation exercises to condition very specific muscle groups to hypertrophy (the science word for making muscles visibly bigger). This is why Arnold looks like Arnold; he makes (made) a living by working out muscles in a very specific, regimented manner to make as many muscles as possible *appear* as large as possible. So many isolation exercises are required that the ancient Spartans (or any other ancient warriors) would not have thought/not have the equipment/the will to work for appearance. This brings forth the second point that's important to make regarding ancient fitness vs. modern fitness:\n\n**SIZE =/= STRENGTH**\n\nConsider that, in ancient times, man did not have wide access to barbells, dumbells, etc., let alone modern fitness machines. They would have had to use the only real practical form of exercise known back then; calisthenics (i.e.: bodyweight training). Calisthenics, which relies on leveraging the body's weight to produce resistance, requires no equipment whatsoever. Unless an actual historian can prove me otherwise (in which case, please ignore the proceeding, as I am absolutely *not* a historical authority), it stands to reason that ancient warriors must have practiced this kind of training to improve their strength. Thus, even though they might *look* puny compared to Arnold, functionally speaking, they'd be much *stronger*.\n\nConsider the physical appearance of a *powerlifter* versus a *bodybuilder* (Mark Ripptoe vs. Arnold, sorry for lack of image links, I'm really tired, but a quick Google search should prove my point). You would think that Arnold could best Ripptoe in terms of pure strength, but you'd be wrong. Arnold has geared his body to *look* nice, rather than for pure strength. Ripptoe has developed his physique *as an indirect consequence of*, and not as a *direct result of*, working for real-world strength. This is the attitude the ancient warriors had, ''why would I work to *look* nice, while I could work towards getting better at functionally defending [era's nation here]?''\n\nWhich brings me back to the conclusion of this little tirade: assuming a lack of specialty equipment, the common warrior, regardless of era, should look like a gymnast, as they work nearly solely with their bodyweight for resistance, thus producing said look, appearance-wise. ", "[Weight training is old](_URL_1_). Touring old castles and museums you see weight training gear.\n\nStanding armies tended to be smaller than they are now, but the soldiers would train (as they do now). \n\nWhile modern training techniques are almost certainly more efficient than medieval/ancient regimes, there was considerable incentive to have stronger soldiers. \n\nStronger soldiers can walk with heavier loads, wear heavier armour, wield heavier weapons, throw and shoot dangerous weapons further and more accurately. Where soldiering has some prestige or privilege, there would be a tendency for tall, muscular men to be chosen. \n\nBasic training often consisted of drill wielding heavy weapons and armour, and marching wearing armour, carrying weapons, and carrying the equivalent of up to ten days of food (not modern dried food; heavy old food). Soldiers have always been required to do labour (building impromptu fortifications, shifting heavy weapons, etc.). The work of soldiering, in a serious army, would resemble heavy labour. \n\nMost men will get quite muscular if they work hard for a few hours every day. Some will get ripped. \n\nAll up, you could expect pre-modern soldiers in a standing army to be taller than average, and quite muscular. Some will be really quite ripped. This will be much more the case for elite units. \n\nSource: Lots of reading, but [this](_URL_0_) more recently than anything else.", "There was a similar discussion here: _URL_0_", "As a lot of of folks here have already pointed out, training for war tends to favor stamina and overall fitness over pure bulk, which bodybuilders shoot for. Even if a knight of the crusades traveled on horseback, and bore heavy arms and armor, his physique would tend towards toned rather than bulky musculature. \n\nConsider: riding on horseback for many miles a day is easier than marching on foot for that distance (if that distance is even possible on foot), but still requires an enormous amount of cardiovascular stamina. In addition, as many bodybuilders can tell you, lifting a lighter weight for many repetitions builds tone; heavier weight at fewer repetitions builds bulk. Medieval armor and weaponry is not quite as heavy as many people imagine: the combat armor and guns that infantry carry today is often heavier than ancient weaponry. Battles could last for hours, and would require many lifts, swings, etc. of shield and sword (or axe, or mace, or whichever you prefer.) Ditto for fighting in phalanxes, as the Spartans did.\n\n**However.** I am not a professional historian, merely a hobbyist, but I believe that if you are looking for stereotypically bulky/buff warriors, you can find examples. More specifically, Welsh/English longbowmen needed incredible upper body strength; some estimates put the draw strength of a warbow at upwards of 120 pounds (estimates of draw strength are still [controversial](_URL_0_)). The practice of \"bending\" rather than \"drawing\" such bows also means that the entire upper body would have to be quite strong, including the muscles of the chest and back, which are often especially favored by modern amateur bodybuilders (professionals don't skip leg day!). Even so, there would be no reason to isolate specific muscles, as bodybuilders do, so it is debatable how \"ripped\" such soldiers would be, even if they were quite broad, so to speak. Hope this helps!", "People who are very muscular spend all their time working to get those particular muscles, in particular areas of their body for show, not for practical usage.\n\nWarriors spent all their time practicing how to fight and kill people. They most likely had toned muscles, good physiques, stamina and perhaps a totally righteous set of abs, yo, but that was a side-effect of training, rather than the end result.", "When I was excavating a Roman-age Danish sacrificed army, all bones were very solid, with very pronounced muscle attachment, some even with extra bone growth around the biceps tendon attachment on the humerus. This would suggest that these guys, at least, would have been quite Arnoldesque. This is confirmed with warrior burials in Denmark, which also show much more muscular physiques than the average person from the same period.", "If you take a look art ancient statues they seemed in pretty good shape. Idealised, perhaps, but an ideal that wasn't just invented from whole cloth. And if you take a look at a statue like the [**Boxer of Quirinal**](_URL_0_), which has cauliflower ears, scars and blood that demonstrate a serious effort at realism, then it suggests that professionals could be quite well-muscled.\n\n", "I remember seeing an article somewhere related to Spartacus:Blood And Sand that talked about how actual gladiators would've likely had a decent layer of fat due to the type of food they would've had access to (mostly grain/bread/etc) and that the layer of fat would actually serve good purpose in keeping them alive as a slice through fat isn't nearly as bad as a slide right into your organs." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.flickr.com/photos/baparis/2091921703/", "http://www.essential-architecture.com/DAVINCI/4detail_of_ten_knights.jpg", "http://www.metmuseum.org/toah/works-of-art/1992.180.3a", "http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/5687262/Skeleton-reveals-violent-life-and-death-of-medieval-knight.html" ], [ "http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2004/09/040902090552.htm", "http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-457506/Myth-debunked-Our-medieval-ancestors-just-tall-says-new-study.html" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/A-History-Warfare-John-Keegan/dp/0679730826", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Weight_training#history_of_weight_training" ], [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/yqqw9/how_fit_was_the_average_spartan_soldier/" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/English_longbow#Draw_weights" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boxer_of_Quirinal" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coqakwu", "coqaqpz", "coqd6sd" ], "score": [ 5, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Sales tax influences the poor people more.\n\nAn item worth $100 is 10% month's salary of a person earning $1,000/month; it is 1% of someone earning $10,000.\n\nRaising the price by $1 (however that is done, in this case a 1% sales tax), and the added cost is 1% of the former, but only 0.1% of the latter person.\n\nAn income tax of 1% otoh would cost both that 1% of their income; that is $1 for the former, and $10 for the latter. That is what is usually considered \"taxed the same rate\".", "He's a jackass, sales tax impacts lower income brackets more. Think of it. Like this. Say you make 12 dollars an hour, after tax you take home 10 dollars (simple numbers to make this easy). So if there is something you want that costs 100$,it would take 10 hours of work to pay for it, but if they add another 10$ in sales tax, you have to work an extra hour to get it. But someone who makes 100$ an hour after tax, that additional 10$ sales tax isn't going to bother him, because that is just another 6min of work. Sorry for formatting, I'm on mobile. ", "Lower groups because a sales tax is a tax on money you spend.\n\nLower income groups have to spend a higher percentage of their income than higher income people so sales taxes would impact them more." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cotz0w6", "couhpry" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "They were taught, brainwashed, in to believing that the soviets were sub-human savages. Barbarians. They put out a lot of propaganda about Russian soldiers raping and pillaging and ignoring laws in order to improve the moral while fighting them.\nBut it worked so well that many of them genuinely believed it. Maybe they were right in some cases, too. They thought they'd be tortured and executed by the Soviets immediately. ", "Well in addition to any brainwashing there is the simple fact that Germany slashed and burned their way into Russia. Tens of millions had died and many homes and cities were destroyed. Germans feared reprisal for their own conquests and actions. The allies on the other hand, led primarily by America and Britain hadn't faced the same level of destruction " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck60i7b", "ck60kzl", "ck6128r", "ck61z4w", "ck63w6q" ], "score": [ 5, 2, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "I type reasonably fast, frequently my misspellings are when I am thinking of the right word but I type a homonym or I start to type one word like pay and then swap what I want to say to use paid mid-word and just add the typical past tens suffix. \n\nEdit: I've been a fast reader for several decades and read mostly from context so I'm terrible at proof reading. ", "As for how some people get through school and presumably live full and happy lives without ever learning how to properly spell... or form a coherent sentence.. or use proper punctuation... I have no freaking idea.\n\nHowever, specifically regarding the prevalence of misspellings on the Internet, it seems to me that as keyboards have made it easier and quicker to type, they have likewise made it easier and quicker for us to typo (for instance, imagine accidentally misspelling a word that you *know how to spell*. You can't do it on paper!) ^^Well ^^I ^^guess ^^you ^^could ^^but ^^it ^^would ^^be ^^silly ^^and ^^embarrassing , and the speed with which they work means we don't have time to watch over our words as we write them, leading to more and grosser misspellings going unnoticed or disregarded.", "I'm not actually thinking in letters as I type this. I, and to my knowledge most people, think verbally. that is, to my own experience, I am dictating this in my head. some other process then translates the result into written words. \n\nas with all human thought, the process operates heuristically. it wants rule to follow and execute. \"paid\" is really weird. i mean \"I *paid* to go to the park where I *stayed* all day and *played*\" clearly it's the odd man out. so our little stenographer goofs up.\n\nmost of the stuff you see on the web has also been through spell check. \"payed\" happens to also be a word. this is the same reason why \"your/you're\" and \"there/their/they're\" get messed up. it's also why most gaming chat is borderline incomprehensible to the uninitiated.", "I'm one of the worst people for doing this, I've been medically diagnosed with dyslexia in grade 3, even had to look up the word (diagnosed) even for this comment, I find it very hard and frustrating to try and remember the correct spelling of commonly used words. Not that this really answers your question but that's my two cents on it. or should I say my too cents ;) ", "Some people do have genuine issues, such as dyslexia, that make consistent, correct spelling much more difficult. \n\nFor those who do not have such issues, it could just as easily be carelessness or laziness as a lack of education. It could also simply be a matter of people wanting to get their idea typed out as quickly as possible. \n\n > Even if it were the fault of the Internet, wouldn't spell-check reinforce correct spelling? \n\nI would argue that spellcheckers and/or predictive text make correct spelling LESS likely in some cases, as people come to rely on them. In particular, someone who accustomed to relying on a checker as a crutch will likely have problems when using an interface that does not have a spellchecker available. \n\nAlso, as the saying goes, \"a spellchecker is never enough.\" The checker doesn't do you much good when it comes to the matter of words that people commonly confuse -- some of the more common/egregious issues that I have seen people screw up, both online and offline, are with words such as there/their/they're, its/it's, breath/breathe, loose/lose, and lightning/lightening (the former is a bolt of electricity; the latter is not). All of those examples would be considered \"correct\" by a spellchecker that does not take grammar into account." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c58mkls", "c58o8hg", "c58od9n" ], "score": [ 23, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Because if they did it would have measureable effects that we can observe. We know, for example, that the gravitational constant varies by less than a few parts per trillion yearly. [link](_URL_0_)", "BLO got downvoted pretty hard for this, but in a certain sense he's right. We can put limits on our understanding, as iorgfeflkd pointed out. If they differed by more than a certain amount, our instruments would be able to detect this. As our instruments get better and better, we continue to find that the fundamental constants are constant. (And theoretically, we have good reason to suspect that constants are, in fact, constant.)\n\n", "Just as an example, α, the [fine-structure constant](_URL_0_), which has been puzzling theoretical physicists for quite some time for completely separate reasons, may not really be constant at all. As you can see in the section on that linked Wikipedia article, [*Is the fine-structure constant really constant?*](_URL_0_#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant.3F), the answer to your question is we don't really know. Reading through the section, you can see that numerous experiments have been done through the years, but none are particularly conclusive.\n\nSo for now, we assume constants are constant, unless proved otherwise." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/9509090.pdf" ], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fine-structure_constant#Is_the_fine-structure_constant_actually_constant.3F" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck9vmff", "ck9vope", "ck9vov5", "ck9vprd", "ck9vsbc", "ck9wpaj", "ck9yblk", "cka3jrk", "cka5z3u", "cka7zei", "cka8fnd", "cka9uyh" ], "score": [ 2, 18, 3, 7, 2, 3, 4, 2, 2, 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "large force and velocity", "The bullet moves very fast, and though it only leaves a small hole, the shockwave disrupts and destroys a lot of tissue.\n\nLook at the various films where people shoot melons. These melons explode in all directions. Imagine flesh being subjected to those forces.", "Kinetic energy. The impact can stop your heart. some bullets produce shrapnel or mushroom out to a larger size. You die from internal bleeding because you cannot stop it like a cut on your skin. ", "Because of a few things, depending on where they were shot.\n\nIf they were shot in the head, they die instantly because there are no more signals to send to the heart to beat, to the lungs to breathe, or any other part to do anything else. This is instantaneous (most of the time)\n\nIf they are shot in the heart, they don't die instantly, instead they go into shock from the pain and damage and can't move because of such. And lie there until they bleed out and the brain is slowly deprived of oxygen. This can take from a second to a minute, but the person generally isn't conscious for the entire time.\n\nIf they are shot in the gut, they don't die instantly, or even quickly, it's slow. It tears open blood vessels, the stomach, intestines, maybe the liver. And all the bacteria cause an infection, that can leave them in agony for hours, days, sometimes weeks.\n\nIf they are shot almost anywhere else, it's generally not as bad. Shoulders, thighs, etc are pretty bad because of the major blood vessels that run through them, meaning the person can bleed out, but other than that, people can often survive.", "Human bodies aren't designed to have small pieces of metal rocketing through their internal organs, unfortunately. If an essential organ is damaged by a bullet, it will cease to function, either due to blood loss or because it's fucked up beyond repair. Without that essential organ, the others fail one after the next and just like that, you're dead.\n\nTo really explain it like you're five, imagine your body is a train set, which makes your blood the train and your organs the stations. Getting shot is like having a piece of the track taken out.", "People don't die instantly when shot. That's Hollywood, not real life.\n\nHandguns are actually pretty poor at killing people. If you get shot by a handgun and don't receive treatment you'll die, sure, but unless major blood bearing organs are significantly ruptured, cause of death will be from blood loss or sepsis well after the initial gun shot wound.\n\n", "It's all about energy, which is a calculation of mass and speed. A grain of rice will kill the hell out of you if it's traveling fast enough when it hits you. ", "It doesn't take much to bleed out if hit in an artery and no immediate aid is rendered. I've seen someone killed from a .22 caliber round which struck their femoral artery (I am a paramedic).", "First of all, think about the difference between a car crashing into a brick wall and a car being stopped by a large pile of hay. The car stops in both situations, so why is one more harmful to the car?\n\nThe brick wall stops the car much more quickly, so it is experiencing the same amount of stopping force but in a much smaller time frame. Therefore, more force per second.\n\nAlso, think about about a balloon. Why is it easier to to pop it with a small pin than, say, a large block, applying the same amount of force? The balloon is experiencing the same amount of force in a much more concentrated area.\n\nA bullet hits you really fast, and all its force is applied in such a small area, instead of it being spread out over a larger area and a longer time.", "TL;DR Physics is a bitch.", "Kinetic energy.\n\nPut a bullet on a stick, then push it slowly through a body. Unless you happen to pierce a major artery or the heart, the chances of killing the person are slim (BTW, arrows are not NEARLY as lethal as pictured in the movies, and for precisely this reason).\n\nBut bullets have kinetic energy, which is given by KE = 1/2 MV^2, or mass times the velocity squared. So double the velocity, you get four times the energy.\n\nWhen something with that much energy enters the body, it transfers somewhere between a little and all of that energy to the surrounding tissue, and that energy transfer is like a little explosion, and can easily turn your guts into chunky salsa. Blood vessels that are not in the direct path of the bullet can be blown open. Organs get ruptured. It's generally a mess.\n\nAt MUCH higher kinetic energies, things get insane even for teensy objects. On one Space Shuttle mission, one of their windows was hit by a *paint chip* traveling at about 20,000 miles an hour. It left a hole in the window that looked like somebody had shot a glass window with a BB. If that had been a fair-sized steel bolt instead, it would have surely destroyed the shuttle.\n\nCrank your starship up to maximum impulse drive, where you're going a goodly percentage of the speed of light, and a single *dust grain* will hit with the force of a large artillery shell.\n\n", "Well your body is made up of mostly essential things there's not a lot of waste going on there. If you have it chances are most likely you need it so causing damage to these parts can be fatal simple as that. \n\nFor example, your heart pumps blood throughout your body which you need other wise you die. If you get shot in the heart and it stops pumping well your dead. Another example is clearly the brain. You get shot tehre and it stops function then your dead. There are many parts of your body the perform crucial functions and is damaged or destroyed can easily be fatal." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "danetzt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "In short, yes.\n\nRemember, \"Arian\" is two sorts of label used to describe a number of groups in the fourth century. Firstly, it's a label used by Athanasius from the 360s onwards to describe a number of groups that he opposes, and to attempt to *taint* them through guilt by association with Arius, who had already been condemned. \"Arians\" by this measure did not consider themselves \"Arian\".\n\nSecondly, it's a label used by later historians to name a number of these same groupings, but it's largely falling out of disfavour in recent years since it is problematic.\n\nThat said, groups that we call \"Arian\", considered themselves to be \"orthodox\" (though they did not necessarily use that word in the way that we do), and when they held sway they would bring ecclesiastical power to bear on 'orthodox' believers.\n\nI'll give some links to translated creedal documents to illustrate. At the Council of Antioch in 341, mostly composed of non-Nicenes, they swore til they were blue in the face that they were not disciples of Arius. ([First Creed](_URL_2_)). They also describe their faith as in conformity to the \"evangelical and apostolic tradition\", which is the kind of language marker we mean by \"orthodox\" ([Second Creed](_URL_1_)).\n\n[Sirmium 357](_URL_0_) very explicitly speaks *against* using the language of 'essence' to talk about the Father and Son, and is aimed squarely at rendering the Nicene creed and its adherents as unorthodox.\n\nCoupled with these credal statements, councils dominated by non-Nicenes would regularly depose bishops of other theological persuasions, exiling them or otherwise punishing them. This explains, for instance, why Athanasius is continually deposed from Alexandria and goes into exile so often. His case is not isolated.\n\nRemember, 'heresy' is, from a historical perspective, a post-factum description of the losing side. 'Heretics' didn't think they were heretical, but that they were right and the other guys were wrong.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/second-creed-of-sirmium-or-the-blasphemy-of-sirmium/", "http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/second-creed-of-antioch/", "http://www.fourthcentury.com/index.php/first-creed-of-antioch/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cz9rdqt", "cz9s16t", "cza0k2k" ], "score": [ 16, 12, 3 ], "text": [ "They aren't fabrications. \n\nThe Soviet Famine of 32-33 (what you refer to as the Ukrainian Genocide) was an actual famine caused by a massive drought throughout the major wheat production centers in the Ukraine and North Caucuses. The debate lies in whether or not the drought was deliberate or not and the extent to which the Soviet government knew about it/was slow to react. More modern evidence points to poor relations between the Party and the peasants, and a total hatch job by Soviet scientists on actually studying the soil conditions, as central to understanding why the drought occured. Calling it solely a Ukrainian genocide would mean ignoring the affected regions of the North Caucuses, and the general impact on the country as a whole as a result of having much less wheat output. \n\nI know there is a book that some like to cite which claims the famine was made up by Nazi's and Harvard as anti-soviet propaganda, but that argument hold little to no water. As an aside, especially with soviet history, stay far away from one Grover Furr. He isn't an historian, he's a nut who cares more about trying to protect the image of Stalin than actual research.\n\nFurther reading: [jstor link to paper on party-peasant relations](_URL_1_)\n\n[paper on soil conditions and harvest statistics during the famine years](_URL_2_)\n\nThe Chinese Famine that resulted from Mao's Great Leap Forward had similar issues. Local party members lied about how much grain the villages could produce and vastly over estimated the yields. This lead to grain requisition quotas that had devastating effects, as the higher members were unaware of how little was left after taking the amount of grain that was proportional to the amount that had been reported. This was coupled by a large drought. In short, people had less food due to faulty reporting, and not enough water to grow food even to just feed themselves.\n\nFurther reading: [Jstor paper on grain quotas and procurements](_URL_0_)\n\nStalin and the camps. I think you meant to say concentration camps, not consideration camps. I admittedly am not an authority on the GULAG system, but it has been covered here before.", "The Holodomor, the term for the famine in Ukraine, is seen by many as a deliberate attempt by the Soviet regime to kill off the Ukrainians. They were quite adamant about not joining the Soviet Union, and thus it is argued that Stalin (or those close to him) ordered grain to be withheld from the peasants even when famine hit, as a means to punish the Ukrainians for their actions against the Soviet state. There is considerable evidence towards that being true, and like I noted most scholarship seems to support the view, but others do note that droughts were also a factor, and it wasn't just limited to Ukraine. But I tend to lean towards arguing that the Holodomor was, at least in part, a deliberate action (though I'm admittedly biased, as I have Ukrainian ancestry). \n\nAs for the Gulag system, Stalin didn't exactly found it, as a similar system had existed during Tsarist Russia (and Stalin himself had been exiled to Siberia on multiple occasions). Prisoners being internally exiled to Siberia, or elsewhere in the USSR, began almost as soon as the Bolsheviks took control of Russia. But Stalin definitely saw over the greatest numbers of people imprisoned in the camps, numbering in the tens of millions over his time in charge. ", "Mao being responsible for the Famine was somehow affirmed in the \"Resolution on certain questions in the history\nof our party since the founding of the People’s Republic of China\" adopted by the sixth plenary session of th eleventh central committee of the CCP. \n\n\"*More important, it was due to the fact that Comrade Mao Zedong and many leading comrades, both at the centre and in the localities, had become smug about their successes, were impatient for quick results and overestimated the role of man’s subjective will and efforts. After the general line was formulated, the Great Leap Forward and the movement for rural people’s communes were initiated without careful investigation and study and without prior experimentation. .....It was mainly due to the errors of the Great Leap Forward and of the struggle against “Right opportunism” together with a succession of natural calamities and the perfidious scrapping of contracts by the Soviet Government that our economy encountered serious difficulties between 1959 and 1961, which caused serious losses to our country and people.*\"\n\nAnd \"*Likewise, responsibility for the errors committed in the work of this period rested with the same collective leadership. Although Comrade Mao Zedong must be held chiefly responsible, we cannot lay the blame for all those errors on him alone.*\"\n\nSource: _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.jstor.org.libproxy.unh.edu/stable/10.1086/430804?Search=yes&amp;seq=7#page_scan_tab_contents", "http://www.jstor.org/stable/20171073?seq=1#page_scan_tab_contents", "http://www.as.wvu.edu/history/Faculty/Tauger/Tauger,%20Natural%20Disaster%20and%20Human%20Actions.pdf" ], [], [ "https://www.marxists.org/subject/china/documents/cpc/history/01.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdafo8o" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "The major distinction between the three is the concentration of the actual fragrance that is dissolved in alcohol. \n\nEau de toilette, toilet water, has anywhere from 5-15% concentration of the fragrance.\nEau de perfume has anywhere from 10 to 20%.\n\nIt's worth noting, that Parfum du Toilette and Eau du Parfum are usually used synonymously while Parfum du toilette and eau du toilette are distinct from each other.\n\nEau du cologne is kind of a special case. When someone says eau du cologne, they usually just mean a perfume with a concentration between 3 and 8%. \nPerfume mist also has a concentration of 3-8%. \nThe the current distinction between eau du cologne and perfume mist is that cologne is, in English speaking countries, typically for men and perfume is typically for women. \n\nPreviously, in the.. Like.. 18th to 19th century, I think.. Eau du cologne specifically referred to perfume (with 3-8% concentration) that was a blend of citrus fruit notes that also happened to come from Cologne, Germany. Now, Classical Cologne is used to refer to this stuff. \n\nAll of these concentrations are lower than perfume extract, which is usually 15-40%. \nPerfume extract is the stuff that comes in a tiny little bottle that costs like.. 150 dollars. Generally, it's worth the price because you don't use nearly as much to get a scent that's usually stronger while on your skin.\n\nThe previous concentrations, as far as my experience goes, all come in some sort of spray bottle. The only social rules that I'm aware of, specifically in English speaking countries - there could be different ones in other places, are:\n1) perfume extract is not really acceptable as a gift to men.\n2) don't put too much on. Less is more. You can get away with putting on more eau du cologne than you can eau du perfume, since the concentrations are different. \n\n\nDisclaimer: as a previously avid cologne junkie, this is all information that I have been familiar with in the past, is probably still pretty close, and I think I've plagiarized most of it from the Wikipedia article on perfume. So.. Look there if you want to be sure. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d6ii5aw" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "This seems to be a difficult question to answer, in part because Antarctica is difficult to study: fossil records are scarce, as are geological samples. There were apparently many active volcanoes along the Antarctic peninsula during the late cretaceous and early tertiary times, which, combined with the discovery of a [marsupial fossil on Seymour Island](_URL_2_), makes it plausible that there was a connection from South America to Antarctica.\n\nKeep in mind that the date for marsupial divergence is still fairly up in the air (I'm seeing numbers from [125 MYA](_URL_0_) to [65 MYA](_URL_1_)), and that their fossil records are fairly spotty." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.livescience.com/28739-jurassic-period.html", "http://www.nhc.ed.ac.uk/index.php?page=493.168.256", "https://www.britannica.com/place/Gondwana-supercontinent" ]

[ [ "http://science.sciencemag.org/content/302/5652/1934.full", "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0378111904004548", "http://science.sciencemag.org/content/218/4569/284.long" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccom3o6" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Here's my breakdown of 10 Federalist, which I posted back in the spring, the last time this question was asked on ELI5. I'll get to 51 Federalist in a little while.\n\n**The Situation:** The new constitution has just been written (mostly based on Madison's ideas), and now the states have to ratify it. Each of the Federalist essays is an attempt to work out, from the very basics of human nature up to high political theory, how the new Constitution will make everything better. When you read it, it sounds circuitous and vague, but the point is that the Constitution is great and should be adopted.\n\n**Problem:** The new-born USA is the first really large Republic. The largest past model is Rome, which was tossed by the whims of plebian mob AND had entrenched hereditary aristocracy. All the city-state direct democracies depended on common, local identity of the citizens. Even in 1787, the USA was diverse. So how is this going to work?\n\n**So what's a \"Faction\"?** Faction: a number of citizens who are united by some common impulse of passion or interest *adverse* to the rights of other citizens or to the overall interests of the community. Note Madison included in the definition a harmful aspect – not just an interest group, but one setting out to harm others, either out of malice or self-interest. *Examples:* Theocratic fundamentalists who want to oppress minority religions (anti-Catholic, anti-Quaker, anti-Jewish were all issues in 1787); state-patriots who want to hurt other states for their own gain; economic radicals -- there were no Socialists or Communists in 1787, but there were land reformers who wanted to redistribute property from the rich few who owned most of it (like Madison!).\n\n**Madison's Blind Spot showing, #1:** Madison doesn't mention slavery, but it meets his definition of a majority faction -- the confluence of racism and self-interest against a minority.\n\n**Madison's Approach:**\n1- We could brainwash people to be uniform in their desires and political thinking. Oops, not really possible in 1787.\n2- We could suppress liberties like free speech and voting rights. Bad idea.\n\nSo we're stuck with the *impulse* to form factions. But maybe we can keep factions from getting *power*. Republics make minority factions irrelevant -- they can't win. Note Madison didn't think about log-rolling or vote-trading in legislatures, because those ideas were invented after 1787. \n\nSo *Majority* factions are the real problem – tyranny of the majority. Madison is thinking of the trial of Socrates by the Athenians, the French Revolution under the Committee of Public Safety, etc.\n\n**Federal government to the rescue:** It's harder for a faction to form in a big population spread across an entire continent. Differences should average out, so that in the Federal government, the state-level factions are powerless. The House will be elected frequently -- every two years -- so the representatives will have to actually go out and meet their voters. And the districts are (were in 1787, not anymore) small enough that it's a personal relationship, but not so small that local faction will win elections. And the Congressmen will all be together, away from their constituents for the sessions, so they won't have the mob breathing down their neck and forcing them to vote maliciously.\n\n**Madison's Blind Spot showing, #2:** Madison is talking about elections like \"the people\" will get a voice. Elections in 1787 are by white male property owners only -- guys like Madison. The first Congress had one Representative for every 30,000 people, including slaves, women, and children, and non-voting white men. Maybe 5% could vote -- it's pretty easy for ~1000 rich white guys to find a common ground. Seriously: [South Carolina's first congressional election](_URL_0_) had 3 out of 5 districts with one candidate running unopposed, and only one district had more than 1000 votes cast. In democratic [Pennsylvania](_URL_3_), the top candidate got 8,707 votes. In all of [New York](_URL_2_) about 11,000 votes were cast to pick 5 congressmen. We're talking the size of [Athenian juries](_URL_1_) here -- not a lot of faction-diffusing diversity." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_South_Carolina,_1788", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Athenian_democracy", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_New_York,_1789", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_House_of_Representatives_election_in_Pennsylvania,_1788" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjmntpe" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The US dollar, like most currencies, used to be based on gold. So the government had to have a lot of gold stuck in its vaults to back up its currency.\n\nThis isn't true anymore, but there's no good way to get rid of all that gold. If it were all dumped on the open market, the price would crash." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e3497u5" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "We can identify people without seeing their eyes just fine if we know them well. Haven't you ever recognized someone with their back turned or semi-profile if their hair has partially fallen over their face so you can't see their eyes? Or how about someone asleep? You can't see their eyes then." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ernltf6" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "In the case of a direct listing, the original share holders put up their shares and determine the value themselves (no underwriters involved). It is much cheaper for the company but it is also considered extremely unsafe. There are no protections against the price swinging violently.\n\nThis can lead to your shares not being purchased; low demand = no value and your stock tanks. \n\nDoing an IPO comes with the backing of security. In certain cases, where your product/offerings have an extremely solid future, or an already established market presence, you can do a direct listing and basically pop bottles because your product is the tits." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8qog0k", "c8qxqyc", "c8r5vr7" ], "score": [ 9, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "There are plenty of people/dynasties that claim they \"descend from antiquity\" but there are no 'Western' claims that are accepted by historians and genealogists.\n\nThere are a number of 'Eastern' claims that might one-day be accepted, the oldest of which is Kung Tsui-chang who claims to be the 79th-generation male descendant of Confucius (though, probably with some adoption involved).\n\nThe Japanese imperial family also has a reasonably strong claim, though their surviving records don't go back as far as their claim does.", "Plenty of people can trace their lineage back to the Prophet Muhammad. Of course, there're *plenty* of false claimants to that, but definitely many that can be verified. Genealogy has always been a strong part of Islamic tradition and so we can accurately trace back certain lineages to Muhammad. Tarim, Yemen is said to have the highest concentration of his descendants today. ", "In India, the Pandas (Brahmin Pandit) of Haridwar keep detailed genealogy records going back centuries. These are, of course, for Hindus only.\n\nEach Panda caters to only one caste from one district of the country. The records are written on thick paper, in ink and kept in piles of loosely bound ledgers. \n\nWhen a sheet of paper is damaged, they meticulously copy the information over to a new sheet and reinsert in the same place in the ledger. \n\nUnfortunately, since these records are scattered across different Pandas, and aren't computerized, it's very hard to trace back different genealogies, but this is one of the best places where you might be able to trace a lineage back to antiquity.\n\nThere other locations which keep similar records. Unfortunately none of them appear to have been studied systematically. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dn0b34q", "dn0b34q" ], "score": [ 9, 9 ], "text": [ "The Mormons, especially their leader Joseph Smith, tended to run into legal problems wherever they landed. That makes a consistent narrative hard to compile.\n\nLet's start in upstate New York. As a teen Smith engaged in the profession of using a peep stone to look for buried treasure. He and his band of treasure hunters would hire themselves out to various people to dig for treasure on their land. Smith's role was that of the seer who would tell them where to dig, placate the spirits protecting the treasure, and to offer the excuses when no treasure was found. He was (likely) convicted at least once basically for being a disreputable character during this period. Well, the word \"conviction\" is disputed. But he was taken to court, and paid a fine to the court. The records are spotty. Before leaving New York he escaped from jail at least once, and was brought up on charges related to fraud and sexual misconduct... both of these will reoccur.\n\nIt's around this time he claimed to have found the gold plates. He then published the Book of Mormon as a translation of those plates, and founded what would become the LDS Church. It didn't take long before he was forced to flee to Ohio. Ultimately his \"persecution\" in this period came from three quarters\n\n1. His band of treasure seekers. They took him at his word that he had found gold, and they wanted their cut as had been previously agreed. He came to understandings with a couple of them. But the rest were left in the cold. They resented that and made multiple attempts to steal the gold plates. \n3. His creditors. Smith in the period was a great borrower of money (and other things). He tended to be less good at returning what was lent. He was living and farming on borrowed land, planted with borrowed seed, using a borrowed magical peep stone, to translate his book, which was published with borrowed money. None of these (except the land) was ever returned. And the lenders were getting in some cases murderously impatient. \n2. His family and neighbors. He had a rep as a disreputable character. He was known as a shiftless layabout always working on some get rich quick scheme. He was also known as a no-good rake who was \"ruining\" the local girls. Founding a church was a bridge to far for a lot of them. His father-in-law, the relatives of the Stowe girls, and others first tried to get him in court, and when he skated the charges they were gearing up for a good old fashioned lynching of one type or another. So he skipped town.\n\nAnd... went to Kirtland Ohio. There he met up with a Campbelite preacher, Sydney Rigdon. They became best friends and Kirtland became the church headquarters. Shortly after Missouri became another center of the church, but we'll get to Missouri in a bit. In Ohio Smith started a lot of different projects including an anti-bank (a quasi-legal non-chartered pseudo-bank) after his attempt to charter a real bank was denied by the Ohio authorities. He didn't have enough assets. This was known as the Kirtland Safety Society. Using funds from the anti-bank, Smith and Rigdon engaged in land speculation using other church member's funds to buy and sell land... just in time for the Panic of 1837. This left many church members, and a lot of local non-members, destitute. \n\nA bit before this time his wife found Smith having sex with their maid, Fanny Alger, in their barn. And other rumors of sexual misconduct also swirled. He was beginning to at least think about the doctrine of polygamy, even if he hadn't fully developed it yet. This apparently included some sort of inappropriate conduct with the teen girl Marinda Nancy Johnson and proposed to 12 year old Mary Rollins Lightner. He would later marry both girls. Between the financial problems and the accusations of sexual misconduct tensions rose between the core faithful members, those who split from the church, and their non-Mormon neighbors. Smith was even tarred and feathered, and almost castrated, by a mob led by Marinda Johnson's uncle and at least one brother. So Smith decided it was high time to move to Missouri. The state of Ohio would pursue him legally for the rest of his life, with him regularly dodging process servers and bounty hunters. He was eventually convicted in absentia for fraud. But he never repaid his fine, debts, or served his sentence.\n\nSo we move on to Missouri. This will overlap with the Ohio period for a while. The first Mormon settlers moved into the area in and around Jackson County. Smith had revealed that it was the site of the Garden of Eden, and more importantly would be the location of Jesus Christ's second coming. So the Mormons move in. This caused tension among the existing settlers who were largely slave owners from the South. The Mormons were largely vaguely abolitionist New Englanders. They also were largely buying land with questionable titles, usually on credit, or backed by the Kirtland Safety Society. They also formed a tight-knit community that tended to vote as a block. The Missourians formed their own counter community and voting blocks to counter. Pretty soon tensions boiled over. At one point Smith even raised an army in Ohio of several hundred men and marched to Missouri. A ceasefire agreement of a sort was declared delineating a separation between the Mormons and non-Mormons.\n\nThroughout this period the church in Missouri was being run by members of the Whitmer Family. They considered themselves co-founders of the church. Son-in-Law Oliver Cowdrey was Second Elder of the church and had been the Scribe for the Book of Mormon. They were increasingly unhappy with Smith's increasingly hierarchical organization. They also disapproved of Smith's financial dealings, and his sexual misconduct (as they saw it) and had set themselves up as something of a counter movement within the church. When Smith fled to Missouri he quickly took control of the church there. The Whitmers, Cowdrey, and their supporters were excommunicated and driven from their homes. Rigdon even gave his infamous Salt Sermon declaring a \"war of extermination\" between the faithful and any who would oppose them.\n\nOf course the only place the newly minted excommunicates could go would be to their non-Mormon neighbors. They appealed to the government and the general populous for aid. This ratcheted up tensions a great deal. That fall it spilled over into open violence in what was basically a riot over access to polling booths. The so called Battle of Gallatin was the starting point that saw both sides attacking the outlying settlements of Mormons and Missourians alike. And the Missouri-Mormon war was on. It even had a set piece battle, the Battle of Crooked River, between the militias. The end result was that the Mormon leadership was arrested as the instigators, and agreed that the Mormons would leave the state. Governor Boggs even signed an infamous order known as the Extermination Order to make sure to drive the Mormons from the state.\n\nThe rank and file members spent the winter of 1839-1840 moving to Quincy Illinois (later renamed Nauvoo). The leadership spent the winter in pretty horrid conditions in the ironically named Liberty Jail in Missouri. After a few changes of venue they escaped and followed their fellows to Illinois. From this point on Smith was also on the run from Missouri for treason and murder.\n\n", "The Mormons, especially their leader Joseph Smith, tended to run into legal problems wherever they landed. That makes a consistent narrative hard to compile.\n\nLet's start in upstate New York. As a teen Smith engaged in the profession of using a peep stone to look for buried treasure. He and his band of treasure hunters would hire themselves out to various people to dig for treasure on their land. Smith's role was that of the seer who would tell them where to dig, placate the spirits protecting the treasure, and to offer the excuses when no treasure was found. He was (likely) convicted at least once basically for being a disreputable character during this period. Well, the word \"conviction\" is disputed. But he was taken to court, and paid a fine to the court. The records are spotty. Before leaving New York he escaped from jail at least once, and was brought up on charges related to fraud and sexual misconduct... both of these will reoccur.\n\nIt's around this time he claimed to have found the gold plates. He then published the Book of Mormon as a translation of those plates, and founded what would become the LDS Church. It didn't take long before he was forced to flee to Ohio. Ultimately his \"persecution\" in this period came from three quarters\n\n1. His band of treasure seekers. They took him at his word that he had found gold, and they wanted their cut as had been previously agreed. He came to understandings with a couple of them. But the rest were left in the cold. They resented that and made multiple attempts to steal the gold plates. \n3. His creditors. Smith in the period was a great borrower of money (and other things). He tended to be less good at returning what was lent. He was living and farming on borrowed land, planted with borrowed seed, using a borrowed magical peep stone, to translate his book, which was published with borrowed money. None of these (except the land) was ever returned. And the lenders were getting in some cases murderously impatient. \n2. His family and neighbors. He had a rep as a disreputable character. He was known as a shiftless layabout always working on some get rich quick scheme. He was also known as a no-good rake who was \"ruining\" the local girls. Founding a church was a bridge to far for a lot of them. His father-in-law, the relatives of the Stowe girls, and others first tried to get him in court, and when he skated the charges they were gearing up for a good old fashioned lynching of one type or another. So he skipped town.\n\nAnd... went to Kirtland Ohio. There he met up with a Campbelite preacher, Sydney Rigdon. They became best friends and Kirtland became the church headquarters. Shortly after Missouri became another center of the church, but we'll get to Missouri in a bit. In Ohio Smith started a lot of different projects including an anti-bank (a quasi-legal non-chartered pseudo-bank) after his attempt to charter a real bank was denied by the Ohio authorities. He didn't have enough assets. This was known as the Kirtland Safety Society. Using funds from the anti-bank, Smith and Rigdon engaged in land speculation using other church member's funds to buy and sell land... just in time for the Panic of 1837. This left many church members, and a lot of local non-members, destitute. \n\nA bit before this time his wife found Smith having sex with their maid, Fanny Alger, in their barn. And other rumors of sexual misconduct also swirled. He was beginning to at least think about the doctrine of polygamy, even if he hadn't fully developed it yet. This apparently included some sort of inappropriate conduct with the teen girl Marinda Nancy Johnson and proposed to 12 year old Mary Rollins Lightner. He would later marry both girls. Between the financial problems and the accusations of sexual misconduct tensions rose between the core faithful members, those who split from the church, and their non-Mormon neighbors. Smith was even tarred and feathered, and almost castrated, by a mob led by Marinda Johnson's uncle and at least one brother. So Smith decided it was high time to move to Missouri. The state of Ohio would pursue him legally for the rest of his life, with him regularly dodging process servers and bounty hunters. He was eventually convicted in absentia for fraud. But he never repaid his fine, debts, or served his sentence.\n\nSo we move on to Missouri. This will overlap with the Ohio period for a while. The first Mormon settlers moved into the area in and around Jackson County. Smith had revealed that it was the site of the Garden of Eden, and more importantly would be the location of Jesus Christ's second coming. So the Mormons move in. This caused tension among the existing settlers who were largely slave owners from the South. The Mormons were largely vaguely abolitionist New Englanders. They also were largely buying land with questionable titles, usually on credit, or backed by the Kirtland Safety Society. They also formed a tight-knit community that tended to vote as a block. The Missourians formed their own counter community and voting blocks to counter. Pretty soon tensions boiled over. At one point Smith even raised an army in Ohio of several hundred men and marched to Missouri. A ceasefire agreement of a sort was declared delineating a separation between the Mormons and non-Mormons.\n\nThroughout this period the church in Missouri was being run by members of the Whitmer Family. They considered themselves co-founders of the church. Son-in-Law Oliver Cowdrey was Second Elder of the church and had been the Scribe for the Book of Mormon. They were increasingly unhappy with Smith's increasingly hierarchical organization. They also disapproved of Smith's financial dealings, and his sexual misconduct (as they saw it) and had set themselves up as something of a counter movement within the church. When Smith fled to Missouri he quickly took control of the church there. The Whitmers, Cowdrey, and their supporters were excommunicated and driven from their homes. Rigdon even gave his infamous Salt Sermon declaring a \"war of extermination\" between the faithful and any who would oppose them.\n\nOf course the only place the newly minted excommunicates could go would be to their non-Mormon neighbors. They appealed to the government and the general populous for aid. This ratcheted up tensions a great deal. That fall it spilled over into open violence in what was basically a riot over access to polling booths. The so called Battle of Gallatin was the starting point that saw both sides attacking the outlying settlements of Mormons and Missourians alike. And the Missouri-Mormon war was on. It even had a set piece battle, the Battle of Crooked River, between the militias. The end result was that the Mormon leadership was arrested as the instigators, and agreed that the Mormons would leave the state. Governor Boggs even signed an infamous order known as the Extermination Order to make sure to drive the Mormons from the state.\n\nThe rank and file members spent the winter of 1839-1840 moving to Quincy Illinois (later renamed Nauvoo). The leadership spent the winter in pretty horrid conditions in the ironically named Liberty Jail in Missouri. After a few changes of venue they escaped and followed their fellows to Illinois. From this point on Smith was also on the run from Missouri for treason and murder.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "chy7l45" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Quakers were a persecuted group even back in the UK- they emphasized a more personal, direct relationship with God, unmediated by clergy, which was viewed as blasphemous and a threat to the established power of the Church of England. Because the monarch was the head of the church, denying one's allegiance to the church was akin to disloyalty to the state, and so 'nonconformists' like the Quakers were heavily proscribed.\n\nNow, whereas 17th-century England was a state in which political and religious authority were heavily entwined, the Massachusetts Bay Colony was essentially a theocracy- although it was organized on republican lines, the franchise was limited to freemen, and one of the requirements for being a freeman was being a member of a Puritan church. This, too, was in the days when becoming a church member was a very serious business that involved an interrogation by the pastor to hunt down any hints of heterodoxy. \n\nBecause of the religious dominance of the government, the code of laws was heavily based off of Puritan beliefs. People could be prosecuted for crimes as various as playing dice or breaking the Sabbath (to say nothing of people executed for 'witchcraft'). Christmas and May Day were banned. \n\nBack in England, the Quakers had been persecuted for their beliefs because blasphemy was seen as a threat to the social order. However, in the environment of Puritan New England, blasphemy was not just a religious injunction, but a civil offense. Simply by being within the colony and holding beliefs that were at odds with the established doctrine there, one was actively committing a crime, and it was on this basis that Quakers were banned.\n\nThey took no half measures, either. Any Quakers found on a ship coming into the colony were immediately imprisoned before being banished. There were a number of individuals who persisted in coming into the colony over a period of years in the middle of the 1600s, and four of them were eventually publicly hanged for their beliefs. This was seen as the last straw by the authorities in England, who revoked the ban on Quakers and, not long afterwards, ended the colony's de facto independence by sending over a royal governor to enforce the Crown's laws." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ct8nms3", "ct8u558" ], "score": [ 76, 6 ], "text": [ "So a torrent has seeders (people who have the whole file and are actively sharing it) and leechers (typically people who download more than they upload). The collection of the seeders and leechers is called a swarm. Different torrent sites use a tracker to organise the swarm. The tracker is what detects the number of people seeding and leeching. So when you open a torrent your computer talks to the tracker and tells it which torrent you're after (downloading), or you tell it that you're ready to upload for someone (seeding).", "They run a piece of software called a tracker. When you want to download a file through bit torrent you get a .torrent file or a magnet link that tells your client what tracker(s) to connect to. When you connect to the tracker it provides a list of all the peers it is aware of. Peers periodically report back to the tracker how much of the file they have and what parts of the file they have. When a peer reports they have 100% of the file they are moved from the leecher category to the seeder category. Periodically the tracker removes peers from the list that it hasn't heard from in a certain amount of time.\n\nThe tracker software has an interface through which the statistical information can be queried for use in websites and such." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cztmxkx" ], "score": [ 39 ], "text": [ "The Romans didn't have a _number_ for zero. They definitely had the _concept_ though.\n\nThey just used the word \"nulla\" to mean nothing. Either you had something, or it wasn't worth counting. \n\nRoman numerals are almost useless when doing math. Even simple addition and subtraction is clumsy and slow. I've heard it speculated (but don't have a source) that they did most calculations with abacus-like frames, where the numbers remained abstract, and then wrote down the result of their math in the traditional Roman numerals. That is, the numerals were for records, not arithmetic, making a numeral for \"zero\" even more useless. Why record the transaction if nothing happened? \n\nIn modern systems, zero can be an important placeholder (think \"100\") but practical, day-to-day situations involving a true zero are pretty rare and most of those cases can be covered with nulla or maybe \"free.\" \n\nAs in all things, the Romans were also heavily influenced by Greek thinking and the Greeks liked to debate the \nphilosophical nature of zero (\"how can anything truly be nothing?\"), which again shows that everyone was aware of the concept, just not sure of its utility. \n\nI've never heard anything about the Romans fearing pagan mathematical concepts. Until Constantine and Christianity, Romans wouldn't have even thought of other people as \"pagans.\" Barbarians, certainly, but when you live in a polytheistic culture, pagan doesn't mean much. \n\nP.S. If someone has an example of a Roman source working out a sum, I'd really like to see it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cl0wscd", "cl0zdo7" ], "score": [ 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Discovery and excavation of mass graves in the region has been [going on for years.]( _URL_0_)", "The Srebrenica is a relatively well documented event. I really wish someone with extant expertise in the disintegration of Yugoslavia would pick up your question.\n\nIn the meantime, although not my favorite source, the [Wikipedia entry](_URL_0_) is surprisingly detailed and informative, and might offer a good starting point on the topic.\n\nAnther document you might find useful is:\n\nthe report by [THE COMMISSION FOR INVESTIGATION OF THE EVENTS IN AND AROUND SREBRENICA BETWEEN 10 th AND 19 th JULY 1995 THE EVENTS IN AND AROUND SREBRENICA BETWEEN 10 th AND 19 th JULY 1995 ](_URL_2_);\n\nAnd the [Addendum](_URL_1_)\n\nHowever, the actual admission of genocide is a highly sensitive political issue and there are a horde of denialists.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/05/29/magazine/srebrenica-life-in-the-valley-of-death.html?_r=0" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Srebrenica_massacre", "http://balkanwitness.glypx.com/srebr_final_e.pdf", "http://trial-ch.org/fileadmin/user_upload/documents/trialwatch/Srebrenica_Report2004.pdf" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7alk0w", "c7atfbs" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "You are on the correct trail in researching Milankovitch cycles. The question of does it effect weather is really one of time-scales. The characteristic time scale of Axial precession (wobble) is 26,000 years so any effect on our 'weather' would be on similar time-scales. It is basically impossible for something which varies once every 26,000 years to effect weather which changes on a daily basis. Milankovitch cycles are relevant for climate-changes of 10,000s of years, but not weather.", "Late on the action here, but keep in mind that Milankovitch cycles occur over long time periods. So yes, you likely would not see the effects of a changing cycle in your lifetime. \nAs sverdupian said: recognizing the difference between weather and climate is important here.\n\n\"climate change\" refers to changing weather trends worldwide, over time. \nSure, it is 60 F in Ohio today, and possibly all week. That is certainly strange, but one weather pattern cannot directly be traced to global climate change or a Milankovich cycle. \nex: Superstorm Sandy.\n Global climate change has and will continue to lead to more frequent and intense weather events (like more and larger hurricanes), but that does not necessarily mean that Sandy was caused by climate change. It is likely a result of changing weather patterns, but it is difficult to relate one particular weather event to a large scale process such as climate change, or a huge scale process (that's a technical term ;) ) like Milankovich cycles. \n\nTl;dr \nMore questions than answers is common, but it means you are thinking critically. Also, science is fun, but sometimes it is frustrating." ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earth_wobble#Axial_tilt_.28obliquity.29" ]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ee5f6yf", "ee5fbzb" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Mitch McConnell, is the Senate Majority leader. In the United States, our legislature (the body that writes our laws) is split into two pieces, the House of Representatives and the Senate. For a law to get passed it needs approval (by majority, though arguably by a super majority in the Senate on certain types of laws) of both houses. So at the moment, the Democrats (the US' center left party, although moving more leftward) controls the House of Reps while the Republicans (the US' (very) right wing party) controls the Presidency and the Senate. Since Mitch McConnell in some ways speaks for the bloc of republicans in the senate he wields a lot of power in that institution, effectively being able to block anything the democrats might wants to do in the house (if it requires both halves of congress). Plus, there are certain things that ONLY the senate can do, like approve the appointment judges (see e.g. the intense fights recently over nominations of supreme court judges). So long as senate republicans are disciplined, McConnell can be said to effectively control the Senate. So technically he's not deciding the issues on his own, he's just the face. There are also some people who argue that he is a brilliant political tactician and has done a lot of impressive things by using rules to maneuver in the Senate. I'm personally more skeptical of this, but that's another reason he gets a lot of focus. \nEdit: See below ", "He is the Senate Majority Leader.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe political party that he belongs to, the Republicans, have the majority of the seats in the Senate. According to the Senate's rules (which they get to make up themselves), the majority party gets to vote to elect a leader. That leader is given the power to schedule bills for votes. \n\n & #x200B;\n\nThe senate could vote to change those rules if they wanted, but they typically don't because whoever has the majority of the seats will also have the most votes against changing the rules. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cke4z1m" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "My vote is for \"this is bullshit.\"\n\nBeethoven was well known in his life. After his death, he was pretty much considered the model of what the composer should be and his music became gospel. He was pretty much canonized in the 19th century, and his image is still VERY strong in the world of classical music. His music was used by the nazis for several reasons, it was still a symbol and they tried to use it for their agenda.\n\nHe was an extremely well respected musician, during and after his life people tried to be associated with him. As far as I can tell, this theory is just another example of somebody with an agenda.\n\nBeethoven was apparently nicknamed The Spaniard as a boy. There is a case of description of him as an adult telling us he was \"short in stature, broad in the shoulders, short neck, large head, round nose, dark brown complexion; he always bent forward slightly when he walked.\" He lived at this house people have called Das Schwarzspanierhaus (literally \"house of the Black Spaniards,\" which I think arises comes from some association of this place with some Spanish friars who wore black robes).\n\nThat is what I know that is related to dark-coloured and Spanish. I don't know of solid evidence that could indicate he was black, a moor, or from Spain. The Beethoven Center at San José State University [agrees there is no evidence supporting this](_URL_1_).\n\nDo you want to know about a black musician who lived in Europe during Beethoven's life? [Joseph Antonio Emidy (1775 – 1835)](_URL_0_). \n\nThere's no conspiracy here, this is something we would know for sure. The academic world would have no reason to force the idea of a \"white\" Beethoven, we would just not care now... Classical music made it to a hell of a lot of countries, we (non-Europeans) have assimilated it, it is no longer an exclusively European thing. We wouldn't care to find out he was a black transexual Mexican woman who was formerly a shaman and ended in Europe because of alien experiments. But you can be sure we would be VERY interested in evidence for such a discovery.\n\nA lot has been discussed about Beethoven, probably more than about any other famous musician. I remember reading this theory that \"he wasn't actually that good,\" that his fame was just the product of a bunch of situations... \n\nWhat's next, \"was Beethoven an alien with 2 brains\"? (Like Bach)\n" ] }

[]

[ "http://open.salon.com/blog/ronp01/2009/09/27/the_african_heritage_of_ludwig_van_Beethoven" ]

[ [ "http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/964272", "http://www.sjsu.edu/beethoven/research/faq_beethoven/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ey4g43w", "ey4j59z" ], "score": [ 7, 13 ], "text": [ "Set everything on fire and watch everything burn to ash. You can't start a new fire using those ashes.\n\nEssentially everything in the universe operates on a similar principle. Everything happening happens because energy is being used up. At some point the sun which powers pretty much all life on earth is going to burn out. Once that happens its not like you can refuel the sun at a galactic space station.", "Imagine you put 1000 ants randomly onto a little patch of soil 1 foot square. They're close together, they can work together to achieve things, maybe they'll even establish a new colony. It's thriving with activity.\n\nBut now imagine you can magically grow that square foot of soil at an ever-expanding rate.\n\nAfter an hour it's now 10ft square. The ants can still cross the distance and cooperate, it just takes them longer and uses more energy.\n\nAfter two hours it's a mile square. Maybe some ants are still working together here and there but most just got separated by distance and are wandering around alone.\n\nAfter three hours it's a thousand miles square. Now each ant is so far apart from it's neighbors that they'll likely never meet except in rare circumstances.\n\nAfter four hours it's a million miles square. The possibility that any two ants will ever meet and be able to do work together is vanishingly small.\n\nAfter five hours it's a hundred billion miles square. Each ant couldn't even cross the distance to the next ant if it walked for an entire lifetime.\n\nAfter six hours, all the ants are dead. Each one ran out of energy and just lay down on their separate, lonely, vast islands of isolation and expired.\n\nThe whole scene is still. What was once thriving activity is now completely static and lifeless." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1iqhvw" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Off the top of my head, the simplest example in that image of a mistake that I think would stand up is that it shows a star in the sky that is either very large or pretty close - and the brightness from it would certainly drown out the other stars in the black sky there.\n\nEven the moon photos with their lack of atmosphere have the stars basically invisible as the brightness of the foreground totally overwhelms them.\n\nSome of it seems plausible - the star is quite large or close, so it would be potentially possible to have some liquid water perhaps, the rocks and terrain, meh, why not.\n\nIt does look like the \"camera\" is sitting on a moon orbiting the gas giant. I could be wrong, but I think that if a gas giant was that close to a star, it would be quite warm indeed, which I think would then lead to a much faster moving atmosphere - meaning that the nice cloud bands wouldn't appear, but rather it would be more of a single color or smear at best, but I am happy to stand corrected if that is wrong." ] }

[]

[ "http://i.imgur.com/9siUB.jpg" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cffxjpx" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "There is nothing illegal about using your competitor's name in an advertisement. But...you open yourself up to false advertisement claims (not to mention mounds of legal costs) when piss off a competitor. The use of the \"compared to the leading brand\" is often chosen to avoid hassle, but also because you don't want to give increased recognition to a competitor's brand. Typically only underdog brands engage in this strategy since it is perceived as risky for your brand (being a whiny bitch isn't always a good strategy).\n\nTypically suits come up under false advertisement. The affected brand says that the advertisement is misleading or factually inaccurate (e.g. the add suggests that coke will make you get laid more than pepsi but no evidence exists to back that up). Companies make these false claims all the time and they _could be_ regarded as false advertising, but...if you're using a competitor's name you're just that much more likely to get called out on it.\n\nIt _was_ once illegal. it is no longer. still is in some countries.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e0cstl7" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "Expanded [from an earlier answer of mine](_URL_0_)\n\nThe process of coaling was an arduous and backbreaking task in the early twentieth century. This was doubly true for the fleets commanded by Zinovy Rozhestvensky and Dmitry von Fölkersam which had to make a long journey to Asian waters. The journey was a logistical nightmare for a Russian navy that was largely designed to fight in European waters. The inexperience of the fleet, coupled with panic over Japanese sneak attack led to various scares during the travel that the fleet was under attack. But the Russians were able to take advantage of the emerging international maritime law that allowed belligerent warships to coal and take on water in neutral ports. \n\nThe Russian fleet mostly sought shelter in friendly French ports like Dakar, Madagascar, and Camn Ranh Bay. International maritime law allowed for belligerent warships to stay 24 hours in neutral ports for coaling, but the Franco-Russian alliance meant that the French officials often turned a blind eye to the Russians overstaying their limit, much to the chagrin of Japanese diplomats. The Russians also contracted out to private French and German civilian companies for colliers. In the latter case, the Hamburg-Amerika line's colliers further strained Anglo-German relations, and Chancellor von Bülow wanted the company to cancel the contract, but Kaiser Wilhelm II sided with Hamburg-Amerika as it fit into his conception of using German support for Russia as a wedge against the Franco-Russian alliance. In this instance, the French desire to keep the alliance alive and the German desire to undermine it actually both worked in the Russians' favor, making the fleet's voyage possible after the Dogger Bank incident alienated an already cold Britain. \n\nRear Admiral Fölkersam's newly-christened Third Pacific Squadron though had a slightly-shorter trip than the main force as it made the transit via the Canal. One rationale was that Fölkersam's ships were both lighter and unable to carry as much coal as the main battle line under Rozhestvenskii's flag. There was a fear that these smaller ships would hamper the already complicated logistics of the voyage. Moreover, there was also a fear that the heavily-laden battleline might also find itself aground in the narrow waters off Suez because the amount of coal taken aboard had increased their draft. \n\nBut it was more than just practical matters of logistics that underlay the division of the fleet. The same fears that inspired the Dogger Bank incident were still at play and there was a fear that the Japanese could have naval forces in the restricted waters of the Mediterranean. Fölkersam's ships were not only a tad more maneuverable, they were also expendable for the whole fleet. His ships were either older ones or auxiliaries. \n\nThe expendable nature of Third Pacific Squadron also reflected the fear that Britain could prevent the whole enterprise. Rozhestvensky was afraid that the British control over the Canal meant they could use whatever pretext to detain or even seize the battlefleet. The 1888 Convention of Constantinople sanctified the Canal as an international waterway and guaranteed rights of access. But the Convention also had provisions governing the transit of warships and ships of belligerent powers that limited their loiter times in the Canal or coaling at Canal ports. The British, as the *de facto* controlling power of the Canal, had the power to interpret the Convention's provisions. They had already done so during the Spanish-American War when they narrowly interpreted the Convention to minimize the time Spain's warships spent coaling and refitting while making a transit to the Philippines. The Dogger Bank incident certainly did not endear the Russian fleet to the British and there was a fear that the British could interpret the Convention against Russia's interests. Moreover, the Convention was still a relatively untested treaty and it was unclear from Rozhestvensky's perspective whether or not the British would abide by it or if the Egyptian government would alter the rules for coaling. \n\nSo even if Dogger Bank did not alter the Convention, the bad blood the incident created between Britain and Russia had the *potential* for British to use the Convention against Russia. This, coupled with the already severe logistical problems of the fleet, meant that sending Fölkersam's more expendable and lighter ships to transit the Canal was a calculated risk on the part of Rozhestvensky and one that paid off. The Third Pacific Squadron was able to rendezvous with its colliers and then link up with the main force after the Canal transit. The British did not unduly delay or pester Fölkersam's detachment and the transit showed Britain's commitment to the Convention. Unfortunately, the subsequent Japanese triumph at Tsushima negated the herculean effort that had gone into supplying the fleet for its transoceanic voyage. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8556v6/why_did_only_a_portion_of_the_russian_navy_travel/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ej2ik9k", "ej2iojo", "ej2j5qt" ], "score": [ 2, 6, 6 ], "text": [ "Because it is just supposed to alert other officers of the crime so they will arrive. If someone’s life is at stake it is much more important to get the situation under control prior to figuring out the entire situation,", "Because there are multiple officers all trying to talk on the same frequency so it's good to be brief. Also in case someone is listening it isn't immediately obvious what's going on", "Once upon a time, radio was an analog medium. There was static, and the longer the sentence you said, the more likely part of it would be cut up. So, they made the \"ten code\", with the most common messages. It's really called, Association of Public-Safety Communications Officials Project 14 Aural Brevity Code, an awesome example of sarcasm, a code about being brief with a long name.\n\nIt wasn't ever completely uniform, and then radio became digital and you could actually hear what people were saying. There is still communication discipline pressure to keep messages brief, the spectrum assigned is a limited resource, but pirate codes aren't seen as the solution." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cxc603q", "cxccxw5", "cxcgjm0" ], "score": [ 11, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "In this case I believe it is because they have not released the movie to critics so as to avoid leaking plot details. Current rumor is there is some big reveal regarding Luke they don't want to give away in advance.", "I think my other post got removed by the bots, so I'll post it again. The Force Awakens is [PG-13.](_URL_0_) It was announced yesterday.", "Another possibility is that a rating had already been given prior to the release of commercial's yet the commercials were already made. I know often times movies will be made and then shelved for a \"appropriate\" release time.(while this is far from the case of starwars) I cannot recall the name of the movie but i know there was an Eddie Murphy movie created and it what shelved for a length of time in the range of 5 years, before it was released." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://filmratings.com/search.html?filmTitle=star+wars&amp;x=0&amp;y=0" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eauv0kw", "eauvldv", "eauykly", "eav4u0t", "eavway7", "eaw5mcu", "eawcvvj" ], "score": [ 3856, 596, 173, 19, 3, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Rabies causes, amongst other things \"hydrophobia\" which counter to what its name suggests isn't a literal fear of water but more an inability to swallow effectively. Many patients when afflicted by rabies experience laryngospasm, pharyngeal or diaphramatic spasms. The end result is the inability to effectively swallow even your own saliva leading to drooling, spitting, and as it progresses and you become increasingly dehydrated and decreasingly lucid, foam starts to form in your now thick saliva as you attempt to spit.\n\nSource: work in healthcare, also _URL_0_", "Neuro nurse here.\n\nSome people can foam at the mouth during a generalized tonic clonic (aka grand mal or convulsive) seizure because their mouth closes during the seizure which stimulates the salivary glands to produce additional saliva. When the mouth opens again, that extra saliva mixes with air coming in and produces foam. The convulsive component of this seizure can contribute to the production. \n\nIt should be noted that many people do not foam at the mouth during GTC seizures, and there are many seizure types that are not tonic clonic (such as absence), and do not have the potential to cause foaming at the mouth. ", "1. People with rabies can't swallow because the nerves responsible for swallowing are paralized.\n\n2. Rabies causes hypersalivation. This evolved so the virus is more easily spread to a new host by biting or salivating onto a wound etc.\n\nMore saliva in the mouth / pharynx and breathing generates foam. Also the patients will spit the saliva out as they cannot swallow it.", "Foaming at the mouth is a result of thickened saliva secretion. This happens with stimulation of the sympathetic nervous system or in other words, it happens due to the fight or flight adrenaline response. There are other factors at play but that is the gist.", "Former horsewoman here, probably not the answer you seek but another meaning in different circles. For a horse to be foaming at the bit generally means the horse is paying strict attention to the bit and listening to the queues from the reins. Or they have a flavoured bit and are chomping away on that", "Lots of things can cause \"foaming\" at the mouth.\n\nRabies and seizures were already explained pretty well in separate comments, but overdoses can also cause foaming at the mouth, especially when talking about opiates. Stimulants can also cause foaming too. Those are the three most common causes of foaming at the mouth.\n\nIn the case of overdoses, the \"foam\" tends to be pulmonary edema leaking out through the mouth and nose through a currently unknown mechanism. I can't seem to access the full paper, but here's an abstract on the subject ([x](_URL_0_)). ", "Seizures would be excess saliva that the person can't control. I'm interested in the comments in this thread regarding rabies, and wondering why we do not routinely vaccinate humans for an infection with such a high mortality rate...tens and hundreds of dollars for a human vaccine seems ridiculous when we vaccinate pets economically and routinely. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://blogs.nejm.org/now/index.php/paresthesias-and-difficulty-swallowing/2013/01/11/" ], [], [], [], [], [ "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22242632" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3mpzi6" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "So I've heard of arboresence (or tree-ness) considered a convergent phenotype in George McGhee's book \"Convergent Evolution: Limited forms most beautifu\"l. In fact, he argues that arboresence has evolved independently in 9 plant lineages. One example is Ferns which evolved tree-ness in 3 groups throughout history (only one is group is still extant), each with different types of trunks!\n\nThe main reason touted for the convergence of this trait is functional constraint. It just turns out that 'growing upward' is rather important so many lineages will leverage their genetic or morphological resources to achieve that goal. This variety of mechanical mechanisms to realize the trait suggest that the tree form was likely independently selected upon numerous times.\n\nTo answer your question more specifically, it depends on the taxanomic level we're talking about. I think that trees in the Fabacea and Rosaceae might not really be convergence because they share a common tree form. However the tree form of Cycad palms compared to angiosperm trees would be an instance of convergence since they are truly independent and distinct.\n\nEdit: Upon re-reading, I realize some of my language is very teleological. I don't want to ascribe any teleology to these evolutionary processes, I'm just speaking in rhetorical short hand. Please don't crucify me" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f4jby9s" ], "score": [ 16 ], "text": [ "In 1969, both Kris Kristofferson and Johnny Cash were both fairly unusually aligned with the American youth counterculture than the average country musician. Kris Kristofferson's 1970 debut album *Kristofferson* features the track 'Blame It On The Stones', which satirised bourgeois hypocrisy about the counterculture and its drug use: \n\n > Mister Marvin middle class is really in a stew\n\n > Wondering' what the younger generation's coming to\n\n > And the taste of his martini doesn't please his bitter tongue\n\n > Blame it on the Rolling Stones.\n\nKristofferson's tune 'Me And Bobby McGee' was also covered by San Francisco counterculture star Janis Joplin soon before her death in 1970, suggesting at least that his songwriting was attractive to the counterculture (especially after it had moved into a more folk/country mode after the success of The Band around 1968). \n\nJohnny Cash, circa Woodstock, was probably most prominent as the host of *The Johnny Cash Show*, on the ABC network in the US, a variety show; he had relatively recently had some of his biggest success with the live albums recorded at Folsom Prison and then at San Quentin, and as such was perceived as somewhat sympathetic to the counterculture, if not a part of it. On this show, Johnny Cash featured a variety of music along the lines of folk and country, broadly defined, and this included Woodstock performers like Creedence Clearwater Revival, and folkies like Arlo Guthrie and Pete Seeger who had explicitly made anti-Vietnam statements (alongside more classic country artists like Merle Haggard and Marty Robbins, and more showbiz types like Pat Boone and Peggy Lee). The first show featured (counterculture icon) Bob Dylan dueting with Johnny Cash, and Johnny Cash at one point in the run of the show famously performed Kristofferson's 'Sunday Morning Coming Down', prominently not bowdlerising the word 'stoned' for the mainstream audience.\n\nSo both Cash and Kristofferson were very likely comfortable with Woodstock. They also both represent the more progressive side of country music, as both were definitely influences on the 'outlaw country' movement of the 1970s (Waylon Jennings, Willie Nelson, Billy Joe Shaver, etc), which contrasted itself with the Nashville mainstream.\n\nThe Nashville mainstream was less enamoured of the hippies. In the month after Woodstock, Merle Haggard released the single 'Okie From Muskogee', which started with the lyrics:\n\n > We don't smoke marijuana in Muskogee\n\n > We don't take our trips on LSD\n\n > We don't burn our draft cards down on Main Street\n\n > We like livin' right, and bein' free\n\n > We don't make a party out of lovin'\n\n > We like holdin' hands and pitchin' woo\n\n > We don't let our hair grow long and shaggy\n\n > Like the hippies out in San Francisco do\n\n > I'm proud to be an Okie from Muskogee,\n\n > A place where even squares can have a ball\n\n > We still wave Old Glory down at the courthouse,\n\n > And white lightnin's still the biggest thrill of all\n\nThis quickly became a number one on the Billboard country charts, which at that time was strongly based on radio airplay of the singles on country radio stations, suggesting the message of the song was one strongly approved of by country music gatekeepers and the Southern country audience (Haggard himself and his relation to the Nashville mainstream was more complex, as the song was originally meant as satire - or so he claimed later). Johnny Cash also had Haggard on his show playing the song.\n\nBroadly speaking, in the 1968 election, several country music icons endorsed conservative politicians at some level. George Wallace, the Governor of Alabama who ran on a segregationist third-party platform in the 1968 election, won the states of Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi in the hope of being able to negotiate with the eventual winner on implementing very racist policy. Wallace Tammy Wynette sang 'Stand By Your Man' at a George Wallace appearance (and which became an unofficial Wallace anthem) and Hank Snow ('I've Been Everywhere') went on tour with Wallace during his Presidential campaign. Roy Acuff, one of the biggest figures in Nashville, was a prominent supporter of Richard Nixon during the 1968 election. Nixon ran ads on Porter Waggoner's television show during the campaign, warning that a vote for Wallace was a vote for Hubert Humphrey, the (Northern, Establishment) Democratic candidate.\n\nWallace, in 1968, was fond of joking about long-haired hippies as they were protesting him, saying things like: \n\n > That’s alright, that’s alright honey – that’s right sweetie-pie – oh, that’s a he. I thought you were a she\n\nand \n\n > You come up when I get through and I'll autograph your sandals for you. That is, if you got any on . . . You need a good haircut. That's all that's wrong with you. . . There are two four-letter words I bet you folks don't know: 'w-o-r-k' and 's-o-a-p.'\n\nThis is probably a fairly good representation of the attitudes towards the hippie counterculture that was epitomised by Woodstock, amongst the more conservative Nashville country music stars who might have been comfortable with endorsing a George Wallace (unlike Haggard or Cash). After all, in 1972, after Wallace had been seriously injured after being shot, a crowd of 7,000 gathered at 'Wallace's Woodstock' at the Old Plantation Music Park near Highland City in Florida (basically part of George Jones and Tammy Wynette's property) to hold a benefit for Wallace, which featured performances from Jones and Wynette, Ferlin Husky, Del Reeves, and George Wallace Jr." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cri6fcg", "cri6mnx", "cri6tdo", "criaozm" ], "score": [ 43, 10, 7, 2 ], "text": [ "Goodness no! In fact, you'd probably get a prize, if you were able to do something novel up there. We're actively encouraging civilian spaceflight through a number of initiatives, including SpaceX Prizes and general tax breaks for corporations even attempting it.\n\nMind you you'd have to schedule your launch past air traffic control.", "As /u/alexander1701 mentioned, you have to deal with air traffic control. In the United States, that's the Federal Aviation Administration, which will require you to fill out a lot of paperwork about your planned takeoff time and location, trajectory, and re-entry; you may also have to deal with NASA. One of those departments will have to notify other countries' aviation and space departments of your flight so that, for example, you aren't treated as a rogue missile launch and shot down, or initiate an international diplomatic incident. Those would count as ways that other countries would be legally allowed to stop you, if you hadn't enlisted the US government to follow protocol with them on your behalf.", "Follow up question... In the event that someone did launch without consulting the government air traffic control, would said person be shot down after launch or detained upon re-entry?", "In the US, you're required to obtain a launch license from the FAA.\n\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ast/licenses_permits/launch_reentry/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c4be0zh", "c4bhef1", "c4bhf6d" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I'm no psychologist, but preferences for women's body types vary markedly by culture, and even over time within the same culture. That suggests that they aren't all hardwired at least, and that there is a fair amount of conditioning that goes into it, whether it's social reinforcement or whatever. There are probably limits to what conditioning can accomplish, though, as some of it is almost certainly hardwired. There's probably a point where your brain will just give up and say \"I can't fap to this\", so Bea Arthur fetishism might not be as likely to take hold.", "It's been awhile and I'm not an expert but I remember reading a study about Japanese heritage youth in California just after WWII. The Japanese youth grew up to like the guys/girls with the \"California\" look whereas those in Japan tended to be attracted to Japanese. This is a terrible way of putting it but the point is it was confirmed to some degree that upbringing does influence your preferences.\n\nThe question becomes how early this conditioning needs to take place. Additionally can the conditioning be changed late in life? As an amateur I can say that the \"Pray away the gay\" conditioning appears to fail miserably and for evidence I would direct you to r/Iama containing many threads on the subject.\n\nThe study I think would be best would be to subject a willing participate to opposite gender stimulation. See if that increases their association.", "The question the original submission brings to mind is whether the exposure to extreme subject matter truly develops a habit or simply exposes latent desires. Chicken or Egg?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ffz6spi", "ffz6t5i", "ffz70z3" ], "score": [ 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I think people have generally accepted that Kobe was *likely* guilty of adultery and but that it was consensual sex and not rape. Rationale:\n\n1.) Authorities chose not to pursue criminal charges of rape against him\n\n2.) He publicly admitted to adultery but not rape\n\n3.) Civil case against him for rape was settled out of court with neither side admitting guilt or innocence. \n\n4.)(this is probably the biggest thing...) There was not a string of similar allegations from other women or similar shady behavior\n\nI think most people are about 95% sure but there's just no way to know for certain at this point so people will always have doubts.", "People dont talk about sexual assualt or rape because it is an uncomfortable topic that most people simply want to ignore. Regardless of the gender of the victim or the accused. The New Orleans Saints were recently discovered to have helped the Catholic church cover up the multitude of credible child molestation accusations against their priests and are fighting to keep emails that expose that private, but it has not been covered by any major sports media outlet on camera at all. This was not just glossed over, it was buried. They would rather talk about Kareem Hunt getting drunk, Eli Manning's retirement, Kobe Bryant's death and the upcoming Super Bowl than address the fact that an NFL owner supported the molestation of little boys.", "He maintained that it was consensual and apologized publicly for cheating on his wife. The accuser decided not to go through with wanting to testify and it was handled outside of court. \nThe thing is because he admitted to having sex with her but that it was consensual and she dropped it no one is ever going to really know what happened. Also it is not uncommon for people to accuse famous people, especially athletes, of rape for fame or money. This is why a lot of famous people will now have women sign a consent form before anything happens. Kobe's case was one of the catalysts for players to make sure they had these forms signed as well as NDA before anything happened. \nIt is important to listen to people who say they are victims. It is also important to keep in mind that sometimes people lie about being victims." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "enl841q" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "You think the people in charge of our government have a cogent plan they're going to stick to? The Joint Chiefs of Staff probably know the answer to this as well as I do. But we do have some world-class warmongers making some high-level decisions right now" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc79n0h", "cc79xvl" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Gases can be dissolved in liquids.\n\nFormaldehyde exists in equilibrium with methylene glycol when dissolved in water. [The equilibrium constant at standard conditions is on the order of 10^3](_URL_0_), so most of it will become methylene glycol, but not all of it.", "It's a reversible reaction with an equilibrium constant of 10^3. More people are familiar with the term formaldehyde than methylene glycol. So, to avoid confusion among non-chemists, it is often just called \"formaldehyde\". Formalin, for example, is 40% formaldehyde by weight but under equilibrium at RT, the vast majority of it is methylene glycol. \n\n_URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[ "http://www.fda.gov/BiologicsBloodVaccines/SafetyAvailability/VaccineSafety/ucm187810.htm" ]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methanediol" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Formaldehyde" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjhm5l9" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "The issue with this question is that it is completely variant on a subjective viewpoint. Judging whether or not a person as famous as Caesar was \"good\" or \"evil\" is a truly impossible task, not only because of the differences in morality between the ancient era and the modern one, but also because of the different nuances of character that an individual has. Julius Caesar was undoubtedly a great man who left his mark on history. Whether or not \"great\" means \"good\" or \"evil\" is, again, up to individual interpretation. \n\nStarting off that examination, I'll suggest you go ahead and read [this excellent introduction](_URL_1_) to *Life of a Colossus*. Honestly, I recommend you read the whole book, but for our purposes here, the introduction answers your question perfectly, and far better than I can, myself. To know more about Caesar as a person, read the entire book - it's the best biography I've found of the man, and gives an excellent accounting with a neutral viewpoint on the person himself.\n\nThe long story short is that Caesar was as amoral as anyone else has ever been. He wasn't good or evil; he was simultaneously neither and both. He did great things for Rome, for the poor, and when it benefited him. He also was in charge of the hugely destructive Gallic War, which was incredibly popular with the Roman people, who considered it a good thing. The modern eye would consider it less so, with a (probably exaggerated) total of one million people killed and another million enslaved. Again, whether or not the Gallic Wars made Caesar a \"good person\" or \"bad person\" is entirely subjective. For the Romans, he offered civil peace and a pretty good deal for the common people, even if the aristocrats couldn't stand him. To our modern view, he made himself an autocrat in all but name. While he wasn't emperor, he consolidated power and kept people he didn't like from getting anywhere; but his reforms were good ones, and some of them lasted for centuries, despite Caesar's extremely short rule. \n\nHe was ruthless in his own way, but he also offered clemency when it suited him. He offered friendship when he saw it to be beneficial, but he also offered enmity when that was more in his favour. So the answer to your question, I suppose, would be \"both and neither.\" He was a person, and no person is black or white - we're all shades of grey.\n\n[I actually examined a rather similar question to this one a bit ago](_URL_0_); I'll paste what I wrote then in the comments below :)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/21574z/why_when_people_hear_julius_caesar_do_they_think/cg9rpbn", "http://books.google.com/books?id=aSmr_bVR2-kC&amp;lpg=PP1&amp;dq=life%20of%20a%20colossus&amp;pg=PA1#v=onepage&amp;q&amp;f=false" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e650e34" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "[Metabolism](_URL_0_), like every other living creature. \n\nThe two common sources of energy are light and molecular bonds in food matter.\n\nDifferent bacteria have evolved to capitalize on both sources.\n\nThe variations are fascinating.\n\nWood is a sugar molecule with lots of energy, but humans can't unlock it so we call it \"fiber.\"\n\nTermites can't digest it either, but they thrive on it because they harbor bacteria in their guts that CAN digest wood fiber and the bacteria's waste products feed the termite." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microbial_metabolism" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "clxf2xe", "clxgdnz" ], "score": [ 8, 3 ], "text": [ "Dimensionful constants, like the speed of light or Planck's constant, are indeed dependent on the units we choose, and we can set them to 1 in some appropriate unit system (this is commonly done, for example, in quantum field theory or in relativity). But dimensionless constants, like the fine-structure constant, have the same value no matter which units we choose, so these can't be eliminated by choosing a certain unit system.", "Yes, dimensions and corresponding constants are arbitrary and they typically define the scale at which we operate. But if a a neutron is 1.00137841917 times heavier than a proton, it's gonna be like that no matter what numerical value you give for the neutron mass and laws will also scale accordingly, if they are correct, at least.\n\nShould we find that that isn't true, it's typically a sign that a theory is wrong. Unless we're willing to accept that use of mathematics as a tool for description of our world isn't a valid approach." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c1uehs4", "c1uf6x6" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ " > you go from velocity to acceleration by squaring the t in d/t\n\nWell, given a function v(t), you differentiate with respect to time to get a(t). Ok, a perfectly valid function is v(t)=d/t with some constant d, which would mean a velocity that gradually approaches zero, but I doubt this is what you mean by d/t. \n\n > Are humans aware of any of the derivatives beyond just velocity and acceleration? What do they feel like?\n\nThe derivative of acceleration is called [jerk](_URL_0_). So this, multiplied by the mass, is the rate of change of applied force. It's used in various engineering applications, as detailed in the article. \n\n > In partial response to my own first question, I imagine that it would get very hard to distinguish between each derivative. So if there are some that we're not aware of, are THESE the \"tiny dimensions\" that I hear physicists talking about?\n\nNot at all. The \"tiny dimensions\" are something else completely. With regards to the first part of your question, it's true for certain classes of functions that if you take loads and loads of derivatives you'll end up with zero in the end, but this is not true for all functions. For example, you can differentiate e^x as many times as you like and still get e^x. \n\n > Are there any other forces that are equivalent to one of the derivatives, such as with gravity & amp; acceleration?\n\nYep, jerk.\n", "There are further derivatives -- in physics, the third derivative is called *jerk*, and the next three are sometimes jokingly called *snap*, *crackle*, and *pop*. We usually just don't talk about them because they are hard to relate physically. Jerk is the *rate of change of the acceleration*.\n\nThey're not tiny dimensions, either. In mathematics, we often measure the smoothness of a function by the number of derivatives it has." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerk_\\(physics\\)" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cg9n9m6", "cg9n9tn" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "ask the crew at /r/drugnerds. I guarantee you'll get a ton of answers. About half will be unreadable for anyone without an advanced degree in chemistry.", "The most commonly used decongestant is **guafenesin**. It increases the blood flow to your nose. Many opera singers use it daily to clear their sinuses. If you take too much you'll throw up, but it's not deadly. \n**Guafenesin** is also an expectorant, but maybe your medicine uses **pseudoephedrine**. That will make your heart beat a little faster, almost like caffeine or something. \nA lot of cough syrup contains **acetaminophen/paracetamol** (different names, same drug). It's Tylenol, a mild pain reliever, and will also destroy your liver if you take too much or drink with it.\n**Dextromethorphan** is the cough suppresant, and there's no slightly about it, that stuff will *fuck* you up. But not nearly as badly as... \n**Dyphenhydramine**. This is what Benadryl is, and it will make you go full retard for a day. You will lose the ability to form coherent sentences, talk to people that aren't there, and just generally be completely delirious (the drug is actually called a deliriant). \n \nSource: I take cough syrup recreationally (unadvisable), and knowing what you're putting in your body is a necessity.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d8hiwgd" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "800 megahertz communications can interfere with instrument landing systems as well as other navigation systems." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyu6mrq" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Mod mote to OP and potential respondents: just a reminder that this sub *does not permit speculation*, so discussion here will have to exclude the last question (re possible futures) . " ] }

[]

[ "https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Madhhab_Map3.png" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8hfgz7", "c8hi7b6" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "It was bad in the South as the war dragged on. The North was very effective at limiting the South's ability to supply their troops and civilians. PoWs are pretty low on the list when you're rationing.\n\nAndersonville, by far the most notorious Civil War prison, housed nearly 33,000 men at its peak—one of the largest \"cities\" of the Confederacy. Inmates crowded into 26.5 acres (11 hectares) of muddy land, constructing \"shebangs,\" or primitive shelters, from whatever material they could find. Lacking sewer or sanitation facilities, camp inmates turned \"Stockade Creek\" into a massive, disease-ridden latrine. Summer rainstorms would flood the open sewer, spreading filth. Visitors approaching the camp for the first time often retched from the stench. The prison's oppressive conditions claimed 13,000 lives by the war's end.\n\nThat's not to say that the North was much better:\n\nPrisons often engendered conditions more horrible than those on the battlefield. The Union's Fort Delaware was dubbed \"The Fort Delaware Death Pen,\" while Elmira prison in New York saw nearly a 25 percent mortality rate. The South's infamous Camp Sumter, or Andersonville prison, claimed the lives of 29 percent of its inmates.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's a good article.", "There was a POW camp on Belle Isle here in Richmond, VA. The conditions were horrible and disease, starvation, and privation ran rampant. Many froze to death in the open field that served as their home.\n\n_URL_1_\n_URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/07/0701_030701_civilwarprisons.html" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belle_Isle_(Richmond,_Virginia)", "http://www.mdgorman.com/Prisons/belle_isle_prison.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgl9n0b" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Current cosmological/physics theories can trace the universe back rather accurately to about 10^(-12) seconds or so after the big bang. All of our theories before that are speculative to some degree or another, so we can't say anything definitive about the universe at those points (let alone make sense of \"before the big bang\")." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ea30oaz", "ea30pj6", "ea319xl", "ea31eo9" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 4, 3 ], "text": [ "Stockholm Syndrome is when a captive person grows an attachment to their captor. For example, it has been debated that dogs only love their owners because their owners feed and shelter them. \n\nI think children can develop Stockholm Syndrome with/to abusive parents. Depending on their age, they probably do feel like prisoners. ", "Stockholm's syndrome is when kidnaping victim begins to empathize with their captor, and I'm not sure. My gut says yes but its a soft yes.", "Uh, everyone, it's not Stockholm's (plural) it is Stockholm (singular) as it's named after the city in Sweden. \n\nIt is because of a botched bank robbery, in Stockholm, in 1973 where hostages were taken. They somehow brainwashed their captives after holding them for six days, and when released the victims tried to defend their kidnappers.", "Stockholm syndrome was given its name when a group of people were taken hostage during a bank robbery in Stockholm Sweden in the 1970’s. \nIt is a condition that occurs when someone who has been kidnapped, abused or held against their will,start to have feelings of connection, or alliance with the person or people who have taken them, or abused them. It’s a way for the victims to cope with the situation. It often continues on when a person is rescued or let go. \nYes. Children in abusive households can have a form of Stockholm syndrome. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cwvuiek", "cwvujvn" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "To China specifically? No. Owing money to China is no different from the US government owing money to me for money I've lent to it. The US government owes about $1.25 trillion to China and about $6.2 trillion to foreign sources overall. It doesn't really offer China any influence over the US.\n\nCan debt overall effect the US government negatively if it takes out so much debt people lose faith in its ability to pay it back/defaults on a loan? Yeah, totally, because then people won't lend it money as cheaply anymore.", "The federal government issues bonds. A bond is basically a request for other people to loan money to you, except you get to set the terms of the loan. (Of course, the market sets things like the interest rate, because you need people to be buying the bond.) Among other investors, mostly American individuals and institutions, the government of China buys some of these bonds.\n\nWhen the bond becomes due, the government simply issues new bonds to pay the old ones. We've not nearly exhausted our capacity to borrow; as a percentage of GDP, our debt is much less than Japan's, for example, and investors are confident in the stability of the U.S. government. The only downside is the interest on the bonds, which increases the budget deficit, and so leads to more debt. \n\nEventually there will have to be budgetary reform, before the debt becomes unmanageable. That's still a ways away, but reform now is much easier than reform later." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3hs1p4" ], "score": [ 8 ], "text": [ "There is a significant amount of time between the dissolution of the Delian League (404 BC) and the conquest of Greece by Philip II (338 BC). In fact, there was time enough for the Athenians to start a Second Delian League (probably in 378 BC) *and for that League to fall too* (after the Social War of 357-355 BC).\n\nHowever, Athenian decisions certainly did play into Philip II's hand. Firstly, from 368 BC onward, the Athenians waged a costly war to recover the strategic city of Amphipolis in Thrace, which they had lost in 424 BC. They failed to take it, but antagonised the Macedonians in the process, and Philip eventually did conquer the town (and its mines and vast resouces of timber).\n\nSecondly, the Athenian attempt to recover their power in the Aeagen was initially successful, but their continued campaigning against Amphipolis made their new allies feel used for the sake of Athens' interests, leading to the Social War I just mentioned. This war was extremely costly for Athens, and decisively ruined its chances of uniting the Aegean in a new Athenian empire.\n\nThirdly, Athens spent a great deal of resources trying to set up a pro-Athenian government on the island of Euboia, which brought it into conflict with the Thebans through most of the 340s BC. The Thebans themselves were already extremely weakened by the ongoing Third Sacred War (356-346 BC) against Phokis, in which Philip II became more and more involved after he conquered Thessaly.\n\nAll of these wars and alliances are very complex, but the main point is that only major states like Thebes and Athens had the strength to form an alliance capable of stopping Philip, and thanks to their constant warring no one trusted them to have the interests of Greece at heart. Meanwhile, Philip encroached on Central Greek affairs more and more, while also expanding into the Hellespont, which was a direct threat to Athenian interests. In the war that followed, Athens' only major ally was actually Thebes, but their joined army was defeated at Chaironeia in 338 BC, and Philip made the mainland Greek subject to Macedon." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck0wbjm", "ck16k63", "ck18l08" ], "score": [ 67, 24, 5 ], "text": [ "Hundreds of thousands of years is actually quite a short period of time in astronomy. Even very short-lived stars last for millions of years.\n\nThe distance to other galaxies is also much larger than their size. Andromeda, the closest large galaxy to us, is millions of light-years away. We can say many other objects that are *billions* of light-years away. On that scale, we definitely notice that closer galaxies are more evolved than more distant galaxies. But on the scale of an individual galaxy, a hundred thousand years is almost too small to notice.", "One point that others here have missed (or I missed seeing it) is the rotational velocity of a galaxy. In our Milky Way, for instance, it takes about 225 to 250 million years for our solar system to complete an orbit of the galactic core.\n\nThis means that looking at our galaxy edge on (with diameter ~100kly), the far edge would appear to lag the near edge in rotation by only about 0.16 degrees. It does not matter from how far away you are observing.", "Seconding what Astrokiwi said, the difference between the distance to galaxies compared to the size of galaxies is huge. The average distance between galaxies is 1 Megaparsec, and the average radius of a non-dwarf galaxy is around 10 kiloparsecs, so if you're looking at a distant galaxy, the size of the galaxy itself is almost negligible compared to the distance to it.\n\nThat being said, we do see a very slight difference in the light on one side of a rotating galaxy than on another. The light from the side that is rotating toward us has a slight blueshift compared to the overall galaxy, whereas the edge rotating away from us is slightly more redshifted than the average redshift of the galaxy. This is actually one of the ways we can determine the speed of rotation of the galaxy. This gets harder to see, though, as we look at more distant (aka higher redshift) galaxies.\n\nIn short, we don't see much of a difference morphologically between the side of a galaxy closest to us and the other sides of a galaxy, but we do see some slight spectroscopic variations due to the speed of rotation of a galaxy. The time it takes for a galaxy to rotate is very small compared to the amount of time it took for the light that galaxy emitted to get to your eyes." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]