Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 16

{ "a_id": [ "dwdk3en" ], "score": [ 17 ], "text": [ "here's an answer from another thread that answers your question\n\n_URL_0_\n\ncredits to /u/gplnd" ] }

[]

[ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2iGxre5G3_k" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/1kkm29/how_can_the_hate_between_hutus_and_tutsis_be/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cos2q4v", "cos7zgv" ], "score": [ 27, 8 ], "text": [ "First: a loss of population from pre-war levels is a very different thing than direct counts of casualties. The Holy Roman Empire's population was roughly two-thirds in 1650 of what it was in 1615 (although some regions suffered much more directly), but much of the population loss were simply refugees, loss of territory, and other forms of expatriation.\n\nOf the many who did die, only a relatively small fraction would have died directly from battlefield causes. In the case of the Thirty Years' War, constant disruption to agriculture and commerce resulted in many deaths from famine and disease. This scenario *also* results in a population much less willing to procreate, and substantially increases infant and childhood mortality rates (and maternal mortality, for that matter).\n\nArmies in the pre-modern world were often effectively swarms of locust: even ostensibly friendly armies, like the Lutheran Swedes in Protestant Brandenburg, would inflict grievous harm on whatever region they passed through. Simply supplying these armies could absorb a large quantity of the available food and essentials, before we even talk about looting and pillaging (or incidents like the Sack of Magdeburg, where a victorious army slaughtered ~20,000 townspeople in a single day).\n\nIn short, battlefield deaths in the Thirty Years' War were only a portion of the overall deaths resulting from the war. I expect something similar for the Paraguayan War.\n\nMy main sources are Peter Wilson's recent *Europe's Tragedy: the Thirty Years War* alongside Geoffrey Parker's significantly older *Thirty Years' War*.", "It's important to note that the Paraguayan population didn't decrease overall by 90%; that was the impact to the population of fighting age males. Franciso Solano Lopez's policies essentially conscripted every possible male in Paraguay over the course of the war as the situation grew more and more desperate. There was also the massive displacement of refugees described by u/Aethelric as men fled or even joined the Triple Alliance forces to avoid conscription into certain death in Lopez's army (which, by the end of the war, included many young boys and old men)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e29t6hq" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "Microwaves specialize in heating up moisture specifically. The heated up moisture just tends to steam and diffuse making crunchy things less crunchy and more damp(soggy).\n\nFeel free to fact check." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdzuenm" ], "score": [ 9 ], "text": [ "So you can contrive to have a situation where it might occur. Stars can be lost from a host galaxy via a few different means. (Mergers, Supernovae, Scattering off hard binaries, etc. Generally anything that can throw stars into different orbits.)\n\nIf you have a very tight solar system, say a star and a hot jupiter, it wouldn't be impossible for them to stay together. Solar systems like ours I don't see staying together. (Sure, the size of the solar system is small compared to the other scales in the system, but there are a lot of possible torques on the system. (Its also quite late, otherwise I would do the calculation for fun.))\n\nSo yes, its not impossible in theory. But like with a lot of things, its not overly likely. And those you would have would be systems that are tightly bound." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cts9dlp" ], "score": [ 13 ], "text": [ "The threats on the battlefield of 1,000 AD weren't really much different to those of 100 AD; spears and arrows for the most part, with slingshot, battleaxes and swords also being fairly common. Lorica Segmentata offered adequate protection against all of those, so in that sense it was as good as ever.\n\nHowever, Lorica Segmentata *always* had issues competing with chainmail. Even at the height of it's popularity, many romans seem to have favoured chainmail. It's advantages were that it was well suited to mass-production and might have offered superior protection from blunt trauma (although apparently it did worse than mail against dacian falxes). It's downsides were that it was difficult to maintain, generally fit quite badly, had gaps at the armpits and didn't cover the legs at all. \n\nFor the feudal nobles of the early medieval period it would have been distinctly inferior to mail; they didn't mass-produce their armour and often fought on horseback where protection from spears stabbing up into the armpit or sword slashes to their legs was pretty important." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dz4nfyf", "dz4nuc4", "dz4raku", "dz4sxcz", "dz4t37w", "dz4v0eg" ], "score": [ 85, 9, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ " A restricted traffic **lane** reserved at peak travel times or longer for the exclusive use of vehicles with a driver and one or more passengers, often used as an incentive to share cars and reduce congestion/pollution, as they should lead to faster travel times. ", "Carpool lanes are lanes designated for authorized buses, emergency vehicles, motorcycles, and vehicles carrying two or more passengers. It is designed as an incentive for people to carpool, therefore reducing the number of vehicles on the highway/freeway at any given time. They are also called HOV (High Occupancy Vehicle) lanes. Some states also open them up to people willing to pay a fee so that they can use the carpool lanes without having to have any passengers with them... Think of this as being able to pay a fee to jump ahead of people in a queue. In Minnesota we have MNpass which is one of these programs. I hope my explanation clears some things up for you! Have a wonderful day!!", "It’s also abbreviated as the “HOV” lane (High-occupancy vehicles). In many jurisdictions (states/counties), there are exempt vehicles that are not required to follow the 2+ occupants rule such as charter buses, motorcycles, emergency and law enforcement vehicles.\n\nThese rules vary by jurisdiction as well. During rush hour on weekdays in various states such as Washington D.C, Virginia, the HOV lane is restricted to vehicles with 3+ occupants. \n\nIn other states, they’ve created a “Good-2-Go” pass where individuals can put a sensor on the inside of their windshield and allow it to be scanned throughout the use of an HOV lane, it’ll charge them and allow them to use the lane. The charges where I live (Washington, not Washington D.C.) vary from $.50 cents to $12.00, I’ve never seen it go above that but I’m not sure if there is a limit to what they can charge. The prices are listed on HOV signs throughout the day though. ", "Some people think there are too many cars on the road. This is called \"traffic\" and so many cars can make it difficult to drive fast. The have a special lane for people who are sharing their cars, so that they can drive faster because they left one car at home. You would think that opening this lane to everyone would work even better, but because most people won't pull to the right when driving slowly, you would be wrong. ", "The HOV lane is great for people driving in a car carrying 2 or more people because you can bypass all the single-rider drivers. This is very helpful during rush hours when majority of people on the road are commuters getting home from work and you’re just trying to go somewhere with your family ", "Cars with pools in them have to go slower so they don't spill all the water out of them. [Here](_URL_0_) is a picture of one to give you an idea." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [ "https://autowise.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/07/21.-Mini-Cooper-Pool-Limo.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cevltch" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Ladybugs are toxic (or something like that) to most predators, as indicated by their flashy colors. They know that predators know not to eat them, so they have no need to run away. Flies, on the other hand, rely on their mobility to escape from predators, so they need to be jumpy. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ciy24st", "ciy2ceu", "ciy3gbg", "ciy8l7y", "ciyatg6", "ciyc3x1", "ciyhttb", "ciyj972", "ciyq3ey" ], "score": [ 14, 165, 2, 25, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Water can do two things:\n\n- If the device is powered on, short circuits can wreak havoc. The less pure the water, the worse off you'll be (pure water is a very poor conductor).\n\n- If the device is unpowered, water can still cause corrosion and deposit minerals on the circuit boards. The longer it's exposed to moisture, the more corrosion to sensitive components that can occur.", "Different components react differently to water. Most ICs, for example, will dry just fine, but may end up with residual water stuck underneath the chip, unable to dry. \n\nCapacitors can corrode from the inside out, and transistors do weird things when exposed to water, but immediate drying and cleansing with alcohol will usually prevent that. \n\nNow, the unfixable stuff.\n\nLCD screens are toast in water if water gets between the digitizer and the glass. Also, rechargeable batteries often use alkali or alkaline elements (think lithium ion batteries, among others) that are highly reactive to water. If exposed, very VERY small amounts of water can get into the battery and destroy it, either slowly or immediately. \n\nOther than that, water with any kind of mineral content can short circuit boards and/or leave deposits that hinder the board's ability to function, and can even cause heat build up. Dropping a phone into distilled water, however, won't do much, except cause a physical mess inside the device. The components themselves would be fine for the most part (except the battery and screen.)", "If there was an initial short circuit, that may have irreparably fried some of the components in the first place - and no amount of drying will fix a fried circuit.\n\nFor example, a particular component may only be able to withstand anywhere from 1-2 amps. If a short circuit suddenly feeds 5 amps into that component, it could actually destroy the component by overheating it and causing it to melt, which destroys the circuit.", "Think of electronics like a big freeway system. Where the freeways themselves are the electronic circuits. The electrons that travel on these circuits would be the cars. Now Imagine that you NEED to take a certain highway to get to a certain destination. When you add water, you now change the path(s) that those electrons can take, most times to disastrous effect. Just because an electronic device is turned off does not mean that there aren't electrons(cars) that want to go places they shouldn't under normal conditions. This is why water is bad in a very simplified way.\n", "I fixed a Macbook Pro yesterday that someone spilled a smoothie near, and it entered the back of the computer. The green corrosion is what needed to be cleaned, along with the other side of the board. Because the smoothie had a high concentration of sugar/syrup I ended up having to use warm distilled water to dissolve and clean the board, with rubbing alcohol used before and after the water (along with letting it sit infront of a fan and blasts of compressed air for the ICs) The computer came back to full functionality. \n_URL_0_", "I'll get this opportunity and ask something related.\n\nAlcohol has similar liquid properties with water, and I've seen (since I'm a car guy) that when water gets into the engine, aside from pulling the spark plugs off, people throw alcohol in, which dries a lot more easier than water, to replace residual water and dry properly. \n\nNow, to the question. If something electronic falls in the water, putting it in alcohol the same exact time (without batteries of course), would that be enough to move the residual water, and help the device dry better and faster?", "Electronics designer here.\n\nFun fact: Most mass produced electronics are washed in a water-based bath during manufacture in order to remove residue (flux) from the soldering (assembly) process. Some parts are not \"washable,\" and those get installed after the circuit board has gone through the cleaning process.\n\nAs far as what happens when you dunk electronics in water -- as mentioned, distilled water is a dielectric (you can find videos on youtube of people running desktop motherboards in a tank of distilled water). In any other kind of water, tap water included, you run the risk of connecting together parts of the circuit that are supposed to stay separated (creating a short). This can give components electrical loads and stresses that are beyond their design limits and cause permanent damage.", "Pure distilled water won't actually hurt electronics. It is the dissolved minerals and such that cause problems. These buggers are conductive and can cause short circuits and the like. ", "Ever seen an old building with a green metal roof? Well, that roof was probably originally copper, that has been oxidized when exposed to water and oxygen. \n\nNow think about delicate integrated circuits made of similar conductive materials (copper, gold, silver)\n\nIs electricity going to flow better through a clean, shiny copper connection, or a connection coated in a greenish oxidized material?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://imgur.com/wEsSAlz" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cptelo2", "cptenhq", "cpteq6b" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 3 ], "text": [ "The US has a history of federalism and local control. It's much bigger and more diverse than Japan or the UK, so it's harder to get everyone to agree. \n\nCommon Core was an attempt at standardized education, and it met major backlash pretty much across the board.", "South Africa has standardised education and it *sucks*. Just because something is the right plan in one context doesn't mean it's right for all contexts.", "States rights. \n\nLocal control should only be given to the federal government when absolutely necessary. That is because the farther you are removed from the local level the less you are able to effectively or efficiently deal with the needs of things. There is even evidence that having it State run is too far removed. Very few countries are as large (physically or by population) or as diverse (economically, ethnically, etc) as the US and you cannot really compare how we run things to how they run things and get a accurate picture of what is going on. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fl8k2k9", "fl8nctp", "fl6n4qc", "fl7cqz5" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 1220, 215 ], "text": [ "My favorite simplification of OLED was in an article I read a few years back. It explained it as OLED being lab created fireflies, they turn on and off. Full HD tv's still have a glow when the screen is black but OLED's are true black, it looks like the tv shut off. I am not up to speed on AMOLED or Super AMOLED but usually these improvements just mean more color, brighter color, and more energy efficient. Hope this helps.", "To combine the current top 2 responses into a complete story. ELI15 in parentheses:\n\nA LED is a tiny, bright, light. (A material which emits light when a current is passed through it.)\n\nAn OLED is a LED made out of \"plastic\". (Synthetic organics not too different from the hard part of wood, lignin).\n\nAn AMOLED is an OLED with some additional electronics built in. (For power efficiency and responsiveness.)\n\nA Super AMOLED is Samsung's name for their cutting-edge AMOLEDs.", "Short answer: It's complicated.\n\nOLED is display technology that involves the use of pixels made of organic material.\n\nAMOLED display technology combines the properties of OLED technology with a pixel-modulating matrix and thin-film transistors, essentially providing a transistor and capacitor to each pixel in the display. This makes AMOLED displays more expensive but also more flexible and energy efficient, able to provide more vivid picture quality and render faster motion response. \n\nSuper AMOLED is a marketing term created by Samsung for an AMOLED display with an integrated digitizer. It is a more advanced version of AMOLED and it integrates touch-sensors and the actual screen in a single layer. Samsung claims it provides a 20% brighter screen, 20% lower power consumption and 80% less sunlight reflection.\n\nEdit: Added the information that Super AMOLED is marketing term.", "Okay so think of it like this.\n\n > There's a class with few children in it. Here, each child is an OLED(Organic Light Emitting Diode) and the class is an OLED display.\n\n > All the children are given an activity to do. Maybe to draw their favourite animal.\n\n > Suppose there is a separate teacher for each child helping them draw, it's called \"Active Matrix\", the AM in AMOLED.\n\n > If there's a teacher for a group of students, it's \"Passive Matrix\"\n\nSuper AMOLED is similar to AMOLED, just a bit more advanced.\n\nHope this analogy helps." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cqgs9ma", "cqgsyja" ], "score": [ 7, 2 ], "text": [ "Males are marking their territory...the higher they pee, the less likely someone can pee over it. My Labrador used to also poop on top of boulders to mark his territory.", "Not all male dogs pee with one leg up. My male dog squats. \nFunny thing is, it's a bit different from a female dog squat." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cc2gwz0", "cc2hfgx", "cc2m2nl" ], "score": [ 5, 32, 4 ], "text": [ "Amazon and Google both have good alternatives to Paypal. Chase Bank lets me send money to other Chase customers electronically, but I don't know if it works with businesses. If you see a web-site that only accepts Paypal, you should e-mail the webmaster, express your concerns, and request they offer other forms of payment.", "They would have the same fraud issues as PayPal and be just as hated.\n", "Can we get an eli5 explanation of why PP is so 'evil'?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "corgovg", "corgzvf", "corlyt1" ], "score": [ 2, 20, 5 ], "text": [ "Resonance. Audio equipment (and most physical objects) will have special vibration frequencies that are amplified much more than others. Normally, even if the microphone picks up the speaker sound, the feedback decays away like an echo because it’s not at a resonant frequency or the feedback is ‘out of phase’. But if a sound (including random noise) occurs at a resonant frequency and is ‘in-phase’ then the output exactly matches the input and a ‘positive feedback loop’ occurs: these frequencies keep growing each time they pass through the system, until they saturate the equipment at its limits. You can notch out these frequencies, and then only non-resonant/out-of-phase frequencies remain and the audible ‘feedback effect’ doesn’t occur. (Also: as you probably know, moving things around also reduces the changes of feedback occurring, for simple reasons like preventing the microphones from picking up the sounds or because the resonant frequencies are out of phase, but since resonance can change with variations like temperature, accidents still happen.)", "There are 2 things happening here. In a feedback loop, the microphone is picking up some of the amplified sound (because it \"hears\" it from the speaker) and sends it back around. This is why it gets very loud, very fast. The high-pitched squeal happens for a different reason. If the microphone and the speaker are at a certain distance and orientation with each other, such that the sound coming out of the speaker hits the microphone at a certain point in time, certain parts of the sound are amplified slightly differently. Microphones, amplifiers and speakers are not perfect...they work better with some frequencies better than others. If the alignment is such that a certain \"high sound\" gets amplified better than the other sounds, this results in the squeal you hear. \n\nThis looping happens very fast, which is why the sound starts a fairly low volume and pitch, then gets very loud and high pitched. \n\nIf all microphones, amplifiers and speakers (and room acoustics!) were perfect, this would not happen.\n\nFor you techies: One trick that used to be used before modern DSPs (digital signal processors) was to place 2 microphones at every performer. One mic was actually used by the performer, while a second mic was a few inches away, but connect 180 degrees out-of-phase (\"reverse the wires\"). The performer's mic would capture both the performer's voice AND whatever else (instruments, crowd, etc) was near by. The second mic had the same, but no vocal. Since it was 180 out of phase, you could add this to the other mic (with a special amp...) and almost perfectly cancel out everything but the vocal. A pain in the ass to set up, but you could get some great sound that way.\n\nEdit: Added some cool microphone info\n", "~~The pitch is determined by the length of time it takes for the sound to make a lap from the microphone, through the mixer, processors and amplifiers, come out of the speaker, and reach the microphone again. If you take and lengthen that time, say, by moving the mic and speaker farther away, but such that the mic still hears the speaker, then the pitch will lower. Move it closer and it will rise.~~\n\n~~The pitch itself will be the inverse of a multiple of that round-trip time, so, for instance, if it takes 1/20,000 of a second to make the trip, the whistle might happen at 20 kHz, 10 kHz, 6.67 kHz, 5 kHz, 4 kHz, etc. Which one depends on other factors that might affect the resonance.~~\n\nWhen you do have a feedback problem, you can do various things to weaken or break the loop, from the acoustic step of making sure the mic doesn't hear the speaker (this is the ideal solution), to using an equalizer to \"notch out\" the frequency range where the feedback is happening, to adding a delay so that it ends up being an echo instead of a whine, to (my new-found favourite) using a pitch-shifter to bend the pitch upward or downward just a couple of cents.\n\nEdit: /u/bandaged pointed out some errors in my understanding." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5ncari" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I'm surprised to hear that yellow teeth are healthy. Normally, one would think discoloration signifies rot or oral disease. Do you have a source for that fact?\n\nAs a layman, I would speculate that white teeth are considered a sign of good hygiene, and logically so. A person that cares about keeping his teeth white cares about his health, which is a good thing. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e5e81kt", "e5e8f47" ], "score": [ 16, 5 ], "text": [ "Simple: science does not say the universe requires an intelligent observer. One may or may come into existence at some point.", "I'm not exactly sure of the scope of your question. We, humans, are intelligent observers, and we've observed enough evidence within the universe to posit the theory of Big Bang cosmology. So in that way, they do coexist.\n\n \nIf you're asking whether or not the Big Bang needed to be observed, there's no scientific reason to think so. Plenty of things in this universe happen without a conscious observer - it's the \"if a tree falls in the forest\" problem, on a grander scale. Science does not require an observer for something to exist, it only requires an observer for us to actually study and define those things which exist. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv5yrko", "cv5z5zp", "cv62ae9" ], "score": [ 110, 2, 22 ], "text": [ "There are several breeds of domestic dogs that were developed in North America. Some are breeds are still around, while others are extinct.\n\nAmong those that are still popular pets today you can find huskies and Malamute and their relatives, which have Old World counterparts in the Eurasian Arctic as well. Chihuahuas trace their origins to the other end of the continent in Mesoamerica, as does the Xolo (aka the Mexican Hairless Dog, although there are variants with hair).\n\nAnother breed that's still around, but is rarely seen as a pet, is the Carolina Dog. These dogs resemble dingos, as a lot of dogs will after being feral for many generations. They were rediscovered relatively recently in the 1970s and we're not sure how long they've been around. Dogs like them show up in pre-Columbian art, but they were pets back then or if they were already feral is unknown. \n\nMany of the most famous extinct breeds are from the northwestern part of North America. For example, there are the [Hare Indian Dog](_URL_0_), the [Tahltan Bear Dog](_URL_2_), and most famously, the [Salish Wool Dog](_URL_4_). The first two were bred for different styles of hunting, while the wool dogs, as their name suggests, were breed for wool.\n\n**Sources**\n\n* [Pre-Columbian origins of Native American dog breeds, with only limited replacement by European dogs, confirmed by mtDNA analysis](_URL_1_)\n* [Dogs of the American Aborigines](_URL_3_)", "A handful still exist but it's difficult to know for sure if they're pre-columbian. [The Canadian Eskimo Dog](_URL_0_) is an example. They're a northern working dog that has probably existed with the Inuit as long as the Inuit have been in the north. Lack of written records makes it hard to know if the modern breed is the same as the one that existed 4000 years ago. They're threatened by extinction due to disease and no longer being as useful in the day of the snowmobile.", "The Native Americans of the North did indeed keep dogs, but they were not specifically of any breed as we would understand it. They were what's called a landrace, which means that they all looked similar enough that they could be considered one 'type' of dog, but the common traits that they shared were the result of a more natural selection process than intentional breeding.\n\nTo begin with, since these dogs would likely have been semi-feral camp dogs, fed on scraps and left to roam around near the settlement, traits such as friendliness (friendlier dogs get more food, attention, etc.) would have been useful to them, along with traits that enabled them to better survive in their native environment, since they would likely be spending most, if not all, of their time exposed to the elements.\n\nOne thing to note, which I shall only go into briefly, is that genes for certain character traits can go hand in hand with [physical characteristics](_URL_4_), which explains how a landrace might come about of dogs that all looked pretty similar - since the traits that made them successful among humans could also make them look a specific way.\n\n People subsequently realised that they could use dogs to perform certain tasks and no doubt began to pair two good dogs, who seemed to perform the tasks well, together to create more good dogs. This does not constitute an effort to create a 'breed' as we understand it today, but no doubt helped propagate the beneficial traits through the canine population.\n\nA good example of this is that before the Spanish Conquest, there were no native wild horses in North or South America. Before they had horses, plains tribes utilised dogs to carry their belongings and pull the tipi poles and coverings when they were on the move. (Interestingly, for this reason the introduction of horses meant that the tipi poles could be longer and heavier, which meant the tipi design became bigger). Thus dogs with traits that benefitted them in these areas (strength, endurance, good temper) were preferred and kept around (i.e. not killed), and passed on the beneficial genes.\n\nThis resulted, over a long period of time, in a homogenised 'breed' of dog developing without any real conscious effort to create one.\n\nThese dogs still exist, though have now become a standardised breed - called American Indian Dog or [Carolina dog](_URL_1_).\n\nOriginally you would probably have found that native dogs would have varied depending on locality. All the dogs from one settlement or area would probably have looked very similar, as they were all interbreeding, but the dogs from another tribe or from other parts of the country would have had a slightly different set of traits that better suited their particular climate and the lifestyle of the tribe to which they belonged. A good example of this is dogs bred by the Inuits ([Malamute](_URL_2_), [Canadian Eskimo dog] (_URL_0_)). They had to be able to perform well in cold weather, as well as pull sleds. So they are very strong, energetic, long legged and thick furred) The Canadian Eskimo dog was also used for hunting seals and other arctic game. They were not considered pets, nor as part of the natural world - they were tools to assist survival.\n\nExamples of native dogs from South America are the [Peruvian Hairless Dog](_URL_5_) and the [Xoloitzcuintle](_URL_3_). It is theorised that their hairlessness was a spontaneous mutation of the American Indian dog that allowed them to better cope with the tropical conditions. As well as hunting, these dogs were often raised for meat.\n\nAfter the Europeans arrived, they brought dogs of their own, which would no doubt have interbred with the local dogs and added a bit of variation to the gene pool. But the native dogs, which had over many generations become perfectly adapted to their locality, did not die out. They excelled in the tasks they were put to. The Europeans saw the advantage of malamutes, etc. over european dogs when it came to pulling sleds in the snow and made good use of them. And Native Americans often traded good hunting/sled dogs for other tools. It is possible that european dogs brought european dog diseases, but I can't imagine it would be something that was well documented.\n\nI hope this answers your question. Sorry it's a bit long... brevity does not come naturally to me." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/ba/Hareindiandog.jpg", "http://rspb.royalsocietypublishing.org/content/280/1766/20131142.full", "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/d/da/Tahltan_Bear_Dog_sketch2.jpg", "http://books.google.com/books?id=CscyAQAAMAAJ", "http://barkpost-assets.s3.amazonaws.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/04/Salish-Wool-Dog.jpg" ], [ "http://www.arctic.uoguelph.ca/cpl/Traditional/traditional/qimmiq.htm" ], [ "http://www.breedia.com/uploads/dogs/canadian-eskimo-dog/photos/canadian-eskimo-dog-a7478830-d84e-4fd1-9953-62aadda8238e.jpg", "http://www.carolinadogs.com/Images/breed_c2.gif", "http://d21vu35cjx7sd4.cloudfront.net/dims3/MMAH/thumbnail/590x420/quality/90/?url=http%3A%2F%2Fs3.amazonaws.com%2Fassets.prod.vetstreet.com%2F3c%2F112000bf3611e18fa8005056ad4734%2Ffile%2Falaskan%20malamute%20crop.jpg", "http://xoloaus.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/10/img_46521.jpg", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dmitry_Konstantinovich_Belyaev#Belyaev.E2.80.99s_fox_experiment", "http://previews.123rf.com/images/introventure/introventure0708/introventure070800143/1373671-Peruvian-Hairless-Dog-Stock-Photo.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cclb1k2", "cco7j67" ], "score": [ 4, 3 ], "text": [ "If you look at oil, it produces about [5.6 million BTU per barrel](_URL_2_) when burned. There are about 3.5e10 barrels in a cubic mile, and we know that globally [we consume about 3 cubic miles of oil _equivalent](_URL_1_) each year, so that's about 10.5e10 barrels, producing about 5.9e17 BTU, or about 6.2e20 joules. The amount of energy the Sun radiates to the Earth is about [1e25 joules per year](_URL_0_), or about 2,000 times as much energy from the Sun as from all the waste heat in the world.", "Yes, people have looked into this.\n\nThe effect can be quite significant on local scales, but on larger temporal and spatial scales the effect is quite small relative to the increased warming due to GHGs ([Flanner, 2009](_URL_0_); [Zevenhoven and Beyene, 2011](_URL_1_)). \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.ocean.washington.edu/courses/envir215/energynumbers.pdf", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil", "http://www.physics.uci.edu/~silverma/units.html" ], [ "http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2008GL036465/abstract", "http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0360544210005694" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e8zf2tz" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "It's well attested to that raiders and settlers from Scandinavia had a substantial impact on Irish society. In some instances we can still be point to this influence in contemporary Ireland.\n\nFirst, a brief history of Viking contact with Ireland. The first recorded reference is from 795, when it was reported that they raided a monastery on Rathlin Island (just three years after the famous raid at Lindisfarne, England). At this time Irish craftwork was among the most prized in Europe, so plundering these largely undefended monastic settlements (centres of wealth in rural Ireland) must have been extremely rewarding for the raiders.\n\nFor the following few decades the Norsemen continued to perform hit-and-run raids on Ireland, until around 840, when it was reported that Viking raiders were wintering in Ireland. Around 900 the Norse warriors were beginning to settle permanently on the island. Throughout the 10th century their influence were constant features of the many Irish kingdoms’ warring, often acting as mercenaries for the Gaelic kings, if not in their own right. Their influence as political actors began to falter from around the end of the 9th century (famously at the Battle of Tara (980) and the Battle of Clontarf (1014)). Like what would happen to later Anglo-Norman settlers, the Norse settlers largely became Gaelicized, becoming integrated into Irish society, likely within just a few generations of settlement.\n\n1. **Urbanisation**\n\nAlthough this is hotly contested in early medieval Irish historiography, the Vikings are largely credited with bringing urban settlement to Ireland. Likely some proto-urban settlement existed, known by historians as the “monastic town”, but by our own definition of town (or even that of a medieval German or French person) this argument does not hold water, and they were still largely agrarian. From the early 10th century the Vikings established settlements that remain to this today Ireland’s primary urban centres – Dublin, Wexford, Waterford, Cork, and Limerick all being set up by Norse settlers during this period.\n\n2) **Language**\n\nModern Irish is still littered with words and phrases that can clearly be recognised as coming from Norse. A few examples: Gaelic words for garden (gairdín), shoe (bróg), river (abhainn), boat (bád), and market (margad) all suggest Norse origin. This also provides another insight into what influence these settlers might have had on Irish society – likely concepts such as ‘a garden’ (as in an enclosed area) or ‘a market’ where not words which were needed by the Gaelic Irish before the Norse brought them.\n\n3) **Place-names**\n\nAnother linguistic insight into Norse influence on Irish society can be drawn from place-names. For many towns or settlements, the only evidence historians have for Norse influence is the name. For example, Leixlip, Co. Kildare is drawn from ‘lax hlaup’, Old Norse for ‘salmon leap’. A town such as Wicklow also likely has Viking influence, as the ‘wick’ comes from the same Norse word that the ‘vik’ in Viking does, referring to a bay or inlet. It’s the same root that English towns, such as Norwich, come from.\n\n4) **Craftwork**\n\nAlthough I know not so much about this, the archaeological evidence suggests a merging of Norse and Irish styles of craftwork.\n\n5) **Trade network**\n\nThe Vikings established a trading network that extends across an enormous portion of Eurasia, and even into Africa and North America. Viking trade set Ireland among this network and fixed the island into an international commercial world. One of the most incredible examples of this is an 8th century coin from Iraq being found during an excavation of a small Hiberno-Norse settlement in the south-east of Ireland.\n\n & #x200B;\n\nThis list is by no means exhaustive. If anyone has any questions I will certainly elaborate on the evidence for what I’ve said. Some historians I would recommend for you check out if you would like to find out more would be Howard Clarke, John Bradley, and Colman Etchingham.\n\n & #x200B;\n\n[_URL_0_](_URL_0_) This website should also provide some interesting information if you're interested in the urban aspect of Viking influence." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.ria.ie/towns-viking-origin" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpv1xo4" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "You have a certain number of fouls before you hit bonus. Teams under this are considered as having fouls to give. A bonus allows one free throw and if you make it, you get another one, regardless of the foul (non shooting fouls), and a double bonus allows 2 whether you make the first one or not.\n\n[Source](_URL_0_)\n\nEdit: not every foul is allowed - cannot do an offensive foul. Also a regular bonus, you have to make the first shot to get the second, and if not, that's the only free throw. Each team is allowed 6 per half, at 7, bonus is started. At the 10th foul, it's a double bonus.\n\nSorry for all the edits, I'm actually learning this as I'm typing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_%28basketball%29" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgcrke4", "cgcu6x1", "cgcyn3s", "cgcyujr", "cgd0h1q" ], "score": [ 33, 19, 5, 8, 4 ], "text": [ "Without answering your question precisely, I'd like to point out that being the first city doesn't always make it important. For example, Jamestown, though the first English colony in America, no longer even exists even though it was the capital for 80 or so years. \n\nTerrain and resources make a larger impact on the success of a colony. Oil was also found in Los Angeles leading a a growth boom in the 19th century. Sand Diego appears to have suffered population-wise as well when it was part of Mexico, not sure if that's because of political reasons, but it happened.\n\nI'll link these two sources which corroborate what I say, but I'm not saying I'm wrong. I found them after a quick Google search so I hope they're decent.\n\n[Oil in LA,](_URL_1_) and [decline in San Diego.](_URL_0_)", "\"City\" is a very generous term prior to 1849 for San Diego, Los Angeles, Yerba Buena (aka San Francisco) or any other community in what is now California. They were communities based around Spanish missions, but hardly cities. Under Spanish and Mexican rule, Alta California was a rural backwater carved into large \"Ranchos\", whose landowners sought to pattern themselves after Spain's landed gentry.\n\nAfter the US won control of California in 1848, there was the famous discovery of gold in Northern California, leading to the Gold Rush and the extremely rapid growth of San Francisco. Southern California was far away from the gold fields and saw limited growth, while San Francisco, with its massive natural bay and huge influx of immigrants, was the catalyst for California statehood.\n\nIn 1876 the Central Pacific railroad was built to connect Northern California with Southern California. Los Angeles, as opposed to San Diego, was chosen as the southern terminus of the railroad, and this gave Los Angeles a head start over San Diego in terms of growth. The discovery of oil in Los Angeles in 1892 led to more financial wealth for the city, and by that time the ball was rolling for Los Angeles to eventually become a major city.\n\nSan Diego, on the other hand, was left out of most of these developments. Largely agricultural and rural, it wasn't until World War II that San Diego experienced major, sustained growth. San Diego became a major Naval base for the war against Japan, and is to this day the largest US Navy base in the Pacific. During the war and in the decades after, it was a major defense manufacturing city, and grew to be the second largest city in California, after Los Angeles.\n\nFor sources, this is basically what every 4th grader in California learns. For more depth and understanding, I would look to something like Kevin Starr's California: A History", "Los Angeles had the oil boom and then Hollywood and then everything. (In the early 1920s perhaps 1/4 of the world's oil was coming from areas around LA.) San Francisco had the gold rush and shipping (the bay is one of the best natural bays in the world). Both had the central valley agricultural boom as well. Los Angeles additionally benefits from a very large area of fairly flat land which is perfect for development.\n\nSan Diego may have been founded earlier but development requires impetus. For SF and LA there were enormously strong early development cycles in the mid 19th and early 20th centuries which caused the cities to grow large enough to where they could fuel their own growth. San Diego didn't have the same advantages to the same degree so it grew slower.", "I took a seminar on the history of Los Angeles that included an examination of its success relative to San Diego and San Francisco. L.A.'s overshadowing of San Diego rests on a number of factors. First, the fight over the terminus of the intercontinental railroad, and which towns in California received regular service; L.A. won this battle. Next, the two cities battled over becoming the port destination for import and export; L.A. won this battle, as well. Finally, when William Mulholland stole the water rights from Owen Valley and diverted it to L.A., the lushness it brought to the nearby California valleys made the city more attractive than arid San Diego. \n \nSources: \nAvila, Eric. Popular Culture in the Age of White Flight : Fear and Fantasy in Suburban Los Angeles. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2006. \n \nMacGirr, Lisa. Suburban Warriors : The Origins of the New American Right. Princeton [u.a.]: Princeton Univ. Press, 2001. \n \nNicolaides, Becky. My Blue Heaven : Life and Politics in the Working-Class Suburbs of Los Angeles, 1920-1965. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 2002. \n \nScott, Allen. The City : Los Angeles and Urban Theory at the End of the Twentieth Century. Berkeley (Calif.): University of California press, 1998.", "San Francisco has a better harbor and was near the Gold Rush. \n\nLos Angeles has oil and was easier to build a railroad to from the East. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.city-data.com/us-cities/The-West/San-Diego-History.html", "http://clui.org/page/urban-crude-oil-fields-los-angeles-basin" ], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc8h3j0" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "It's an attempt to heal wounds that still ache. What you are referring to is benign, but repetition compulsion drives people to get into therapy for harmful relationship patterns. \n \n_URL_0_\n \n " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.shambhala.com/when-the-past-is-present.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0gx4t1", "d0gxnpz" ], "score": [ 5, 4 ], "text": [ "Not a complete answer, but it's something: \n\nBingham Canyon Mine, located near Salt Lake City, is the world's deepest man-made open pit excavation. The mine is 2.75 miles (4,5km) across and 0.75 mile (1,2km) deep. Since mining operations started in 1906, Bingham Canyon Mine has been the granddaddy of all copper mines. When you're talking about the actual size of the mine, Bingham Canyon is simply the largest copper mine in the USA. If the mine was a stadium, it could seat nine million people. \n\n_URL_0_", "An open pit mine that reaches the upper mantle is highly improbable. This is due to the fact that the crust of the earth is very deep (about 50km). Currently, the deepest open-pit mine is about 1km deep. Moreover, it is highly unlikely that the mineral resource is abundant enough for the mining to be fruitful at that depth. Remember, the deeper you go, the more expensive the mining gets." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.losapos.com/openpitmines" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck2t5v2", "ck2vhzf", "ck2vq1k" ], "score": [ 15, 3, 38 ], "text": [ "I recommend you go to his own autobiography to look at how his belief in universal human rights evolved over time, after being raised in two cultures that were perfectly happy with a rigid ethnic hierarchy. It turns out neither Gandhi, nor any of my own Catholic saints were born fully adult and fully mature.\n\nExamples - He first became politically active and well-known while working as a lawyer in (British) South Africa. His early campaigns focused on bringing upper caste Indians to something like parity with the English. He burned little of his scarce political capital on native Africans or lower caste \"coolies,\" at first. This evolution was only hinted at in the movie.\n\nCritics may also go after his difficult relationship with his son Harilal Gandhi. It is above my paygrade to speculate on whose fault it was that his life unraveled as it did, but others may not hold back.\n\nHe also spends many pages of his autobiography discussing some medical quackery that he experimented with - not so much a moral failing, but fodder for pundits and cranks on the internet. He tried many fad diets with varied results. Any comments related to sex also clearly are coming from someone outside of Victorian British Western culture, so again more fodder for critics and cranks.", "Related question: how come the movie gave such a negative depiction of Mohammed Ali Jinnah, despite relatively positive views from academic historians?", "The problem here is that there is a vast disjuncture between Gandhi the historical figures versus the popular mythology that has built around him. The 1982 biopic is a reflection of this latter aspect of Gandhi's image. The film presents Gandhi and his world in starkly Manichean of light versus dark. Note that Kingsley's performance (almost universally praised among critics) is one that highlights Gandhi's stoic and moral gravitas and thus accentuates this duality. Many of the other historical characters in the film shrink compared to him.\n\nThe reality is that the historical Gandhi inhabited a highly complex political world in which often belies reducing it to simple terms like good vs. evil or justice vs. injustice. That Gandhi inhabited and operated in such a world is not even an open secret, but the strength of his mythologized public image means that the act of uncovering the historical record carries far more weight to them than less valorized historical figures. For example, there have been recent publications of Nixon audio tapes that highlight his various racial, sexual, and political prejudices, often expressed in language the mods here would require a NSFW tag for, yet these revelations are somehow not as alarming as Gandhi using a formal greeting of \"dear Friend\" in a letter to Hitler (which the critic in the OP's first link finds appalling). \n\nJewaharlal Nehru actually advised ~~David~~ Richard Attenborough not to deify Gandhi, as \"that is what we have done in India and he was to great a man to be deified.\" Although Attenborough claimed to follow Nehru's advice, *Gandhi* has fallen into the trap of many biopics by oversimplifying its subject and the context of the times. \n\n*Source*\n\nCarnes, Mark C. *Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies*. New York: H. Holt, 1995. " ] }

[]

[ "http://www.writework.com/essay/accurate-film-gandhi-accounting-mahatma-gandhi-s-life-ragh", "http://www.theguardian.com/film/2009/oct/14/gandhi-reel-history", "http://www.thecrimson.com/article/1983/3/7/the-truth-about-gandhi-pbtbhe-movie/" ]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cyojzc7" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Nazi Germany did not pay reparations during WWII. Reparations had been suspended for one year by the Hoover Moratorium in 1930, and were suspended indefinitely at the Lausanne Conference in 1932. When WWII ended, the allies assessed a value equivalent to 16 Billion dollars, that Germany was to pay to complete the reparations payments for WWI, and these were finished being paid in 2012. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fj08j5k" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "u/terminus-trantor and u/qed1 worked on a similar question just a few days ago:\n\n[Was North always on the top of maps?](_URL_0_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/f7htqh/was_north_always_on_the_top_of_maps/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ci8bv5v", "ci8gf6j" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "I used to work at [Dundurn Castle](_URL_0_) (it's not really a castle).\n\nIn the side hall, where we had visitors wait for the next tour, hung a print depicting a 19th century ice harvest.\n\nIt showed horse teams on the ice and groups of men using long saws (like a traditional lumberjack saw, but with a handle only on one side), cutting large blocks of ice which were then lifted with massive pincers onto the waiting drays.\n\nThe \"Castle\" had an ice pit. Of course it was no longer in use (the harbour doesn't regularly freeze solid enough anymore even for ice skating much less ice harvest), but we were taught to describe to the visitors how these ice blocks would be lowered into the pit and covered with sawdust. Apparently they would last throughout the summer. I can well believe it as it was always very cool in the hallway outside - even without a deep pit filled with ice. \n\nEdit; I'm very curious about whether First Nations in Canada harvested ice - really hoping someone can answer this question.", "I've never heard of ice harvest taking place on the Great Lakes themselves. Ice from ponds would be a much better business proposition. Ponds and small lakes freeze much sooner in the season than the Great Lakes, they are [safer to work on](_URL_0_), and you can access them from all sides.\n\nI suspect that the ice from ponds would be better quality. Along the shores of the Great Lakes, the waves and wind keep more air to be included. The still water of a smaller lake would trap less air, and give you a clearer product.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dundurn_Castle" ], [ "http://www.cnn.com/2009/US/02/07/Ohio.stuck.on.ice/index.html?eref=ib_us" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dx1g6c3" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Men assigned originally to airborne divisions of the U.S. Army trained for a much longer period than those assigned as loss replacements overseas. The first standardized training program for airborne divisions took effect on 4 November 1942. The divisional training program was to take 37 weeks, discounting any additional training that may have been taken to teach concepts learned from overseas, training in special courses such as cooperation with troop carrier groups, or participation in corps or army maneuvers. The 82nd and 101st Airborne Divisions, created on 15 August 1942, were scheduled to begin their sixth week of unit training on 9 November 1942 when presented with the new program.\n\nTraining Type|Length\n:--|:--\nIndividual Training|13 weeks\nUnit Training|13 weeks\nCombined Training|11 weeks\n\n**Individual Training**\n\n > During the 13 weeks of individual training all troops will be hardened physically and mentally to withstand modern combat requirements. All individuals will be conditioned to withstand extreme fatigue, loss of sleep, limited rations, and existence in the field with only the equipment that can be carried by parachute, glider, or transport aircraft. An indication of individual proficiency and a basis of test is considered the ability to make a continuous foot march of twenty-five (25) miles in eight (8) hours, a five (5) mile march in one (1) hour and a nine (9) mile march in two (2) hours, with full equipment.\n\n > Men will be mentally and physically conditioned for battlefield environment by obstacle courses that overtax endurance as well as muscular and mental reactions, by passage of wire obstacles so situated as to permit overhead fire, by a night fighting course with sound only as an indication of danger, and a street fighting course with booby traps and sudden appearing targets. Live ammunition will be employed in all three tests.\n\n**Unit Training**\n\n > By the end of the 9th week of unit training infantry battalions will be able to function efficiently, by day or night, independently or reinforced.\n\n > Field Artillery training will, in general, follow \"Unit Training Program for Field Artillery (Modified for Airborne Field Artillery)\". Stress will be placed on decentralization within batteries to the end that self-contained gun sections will be capable of delivering prompt fire, using both direct and indirect laying with hastily computed firing data in the early stages of any action. Trainlng will also include the operation of batterles, battalions, and division artillery as units in order that the artillery can be capable of massing its fire.\n\n > The unit training phase of infantry battalions will include tactical exercises in which the battalion is supported by a battery of field artillery.\n\n > Division engineers will be trained primarily in engineer combat duties. See inclosure a. (Clearance and repair of airdromes or landing strips will be performed by aviation engineers.)\n\n > Medical units will be trained for normal functions in ground operations and also will be trained in evacuation by air.\n\n > Quartermaster units will be trained in all phases of ground and aerial supply, to include local defense of supply installations.\n\n > Ordnance units will be trained to repair standard ordnance and known enemy weapons and vehicles.\n\n > Antiaircraft elements: (See Inclosure No. 2)\n\n > Signal units will be trained to operate all communications equipment issued to the division emphasizing the capability of all personnel to operate all equipment.\n\n > All units will be prepared to either enter combat immediately on landing or to move promptly by marching against an objective.\n\n > During unit training, combat firing exercises, emphasizing infiltration tactics, rapid advance, and continuous fire support will be planned to conclude each phase.\n\n > Battalion tactical exercises, whenever possible, will include training in air-ground liaison, proper and prompt requests for air support, and air to ground recognition training for aerial supply.\n\n > Unit training will be concluded by tactical exercises including separate glider and parachute regiments, artillery and engineer battalions, and divisional special units (company).\n\n**Combined Training**\n\n > Regimental combat team and divisional tactical exercises will be held during this period. Tactical situations which require the complete staff planning of an airborne attack will be the background of each problem, but the paramount importance of the ground operation will be impressed on staffs and troops. All problems to be solved will envision, or will actually require, the presence of appropriate troop carrier and air support units.\n\nMen could only be assigned to the parachute troops at their own request. On 25 May 1942, the Secretary of War directed that infantry replacement training centers each provide 105 men per week to the Airborne Command who were medically qualified for parachute training. The standards prescribed were very strict;\n\n > Qualifications set forth were those standardized as a result of innumerable medical reports and examinations. The volunteer must be alert, active, supple, with firm muscles and sound limbs, capable of development into an aggressive individual fighter, with great endurance. Age requirements were: Majors not over forty years of age; captains and lieutenants, not over thirty-two; and enlisted men, eighteen to thirty-two, inclusive. Medium weight was desired, maximum not to exceed 185 pounds; height, not to exceed seventy-two inches; vision, maximum visual acuity of twenty-forty, each eye; blood pressure, persistent systolic pressure of 140MM, or persistent diastolic pressure about 100MM to disqualify. Also on the disqualification list were recent venereal disease, evidence of highly nervous system, lack of normal mobility in every joint, poor or unequally developed musculature, poor coordination, lack of at least average athletic ability, history of painful arches, recurrent knee and ankle injuries, recent fractures, old fractures with deformity, pain or limitation of motion, recurrent dislocations, recent severe illness, operation, or chronic disease.\n\nMen could be accepted at any time from arrival at a replacement training center to the completion of 13 weeks of individual training. On 10 June 1942, the weekly quota for volunteers from each replacement training center was revised upward to 125; this quota could be exceeded each week, under the provision that a replacement training center would provide less than 500 candidates each month. On 15 June 1942, men were only to be accepted after they had completed at least 8 weeks of individual training. In early 1943, the Airborne Command began to gear up to train larger numbers of loss replacements as the first airborne units entered combat. Men thus assigned to the Parachute School at Fort Benning or, after 9 April 1942, Fort Bragg, completed 13 (later 14, and then 17) weeks of individual and specialty training with an emphasis on placement in a parachute unit, and an additional 5-week course ensuring that the recruits had completed the training regimen to the best of their ability, had qualified on their assigned weapon(s), had completed a transition firing and battle indoctrination course, and had completed a squad tactical jump. If recruits were not called for shipment in a prompt manner, an additional 4-week small-unit tactics course was to be taught; when interrupted by a call for shipment, men were to be taken from the training unit farthest along in these activities.\n\n**Source:**\n\nEllis, John T. *The Army Ground Forces: The Airborne Command and Center, Study No. 25*. Washington: Historical Section, Army Ground Forces, 1946." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "csvndlw", "csvyh9k" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "I've always heard that a kink is something you enjoy while a fetish is something you have to have in order to get off.", "Fetish: \"a form of sexual desire in which gratification is linked to an abnormal degree to a particular object, item of clothing, part of the body, etc.\"\n\nKinky: \"involving or given to unusual sexual behavior.\"\n\nSo a fetish is where you *need* something to get off, and a kink is where something *helps* you get off." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d64h9u0", "d64hb6r", "d64hc6t", "d64hqpz" ], "score": [ 2, 4, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "the songs are made in a pattern. they end the song with the same notes as the start of it. or it will have a hard stop that is able to restart the song fluidly. basically, think of it like a repeating sound, tick tock, tick tock, tick tock. you can end and restart that pattern anytime. now think of the song as a very long tick tock sound. the songs are just designed to loop like that.", "Most music is repetitive to some extent (verses following a certain melody, then maybe a chorus, then perhaps start over at the melody for verses). Very seldom does music, especially in modern compositions, progress with no pattern.\n\nSo the soundtrack will consist of one clip of music--could be 5 seconds, could be 30 seconds, could be several minutes, whatever. And it will be set on a loop that doesn't so much say \"loop these two points\" but rather, \"when the music clip is over, play the clip again,\" so it instantly starts back. The music is composed with no hard or obvious ending, so the effect is that it's just continuing on with the melody it started with and playing forever, but technically it is starting the sound clip over.", "The person composing the music does that manually, most likely. A truly seamless transition means that the end and the beginning are similar and fit together.\n\nThere's not much magic to it, you just arrange the instruments at both ends to match up.", "Background pieces in particular usually don't have a strong melody carrying through it but rather many smaller, light melodies that fade in and out naturally. Thus when transitioning to another song, it can fade out the current one and bring in the new one with little notice. If there is a stronger melody in the piece, it's usually at the beginning of the piece before toning down since it's less likely to transition again immediately." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ch3u0se", "ch3x4kg", "ch458v4" ], "score": [ 4, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Dentists generally use lidocaine these days, not novocaine. It's a much safer anaesthetic all around.\n\nIt's not injected into the bloodstream, it's a topical anaesthetic. The most common use is something called a 'nerve block,' where the lidocaine is injected into the nerve in the jaw and disrupts that nerve's ability to route signals.\n\nIt's also injected directly into the area which is being worked on when the work being done is very small and doesn't require a nerve block.", "It's usually lidocaine now, and it's because it's injected along with epinephrine (adrenaline) which causes the blood vessels around the site to constrict.\n\nIf you inject lidocaine alone, the anesthesia usually dissipates much faster (~20 minutes versus a couple hours) and spread over a slightly wider area\n\n2% lidocaine and 2% epinephrine in water would be a typical injection, along with some preservatives", "I'll add on to this if I can: \n\nWhy do some drugs require the doctor to find a vein while a vaccination just requires me to be stuck in my general shoulder/arm area?" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "di5ex70" ], "score": [ 31 ], "text": [ "This is a good question, but I want to start by clearing up a couple of things. Firstly, some definitions: 'Canaan' is usually used to refer to the area from the Eastern Mediterranean coast to the hill country that's farther inland, and often comes with an implied sense of 'not Israel and Judah'. I'll use it here to mean everything in between Egypt and the Hittites.^1 The only significant collection of contemporary texts we have for this area are from the city state of Ugarit (now Ras Shamra, in the north-west of modern-day Syria). There are some inscriptions from the various Phoenician cities and a couple from the kingdom of Damascus, but evidence is very, very scarce. \n\nSecondly, the conquest of Canaan as described in the Bible has practically no evidence to support it and is probably a complete invention.^2 Major problems with the biblical account were first raised when the archaeological record from a large number of sites around the area didn't seem to add up to what we had been expecting to find: contemporary destruction layers in the Late Bronze Age (around 1100 BCE or so, when the story is set), and an abrupt change in artefact styles (pottery, architecture, jewellery) and cultural practice (burial style, traces of rituals, diet). None of these were there, and in fact what we did find was continuity between Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age. In other words, the native population probably wasn't replaced with two million or so Israelites coming from Egypt.\n\nThirdly, Jericho is actually one of our most important case studies when it comes to understanding the history of Israel in Canaan. The really big excavation of the city (focusing on Neolithic and Early Bronze Age Jericho, but including a broad survey of the entire chronology of the site) conducted by Kathleen Kenyon in the 1950s found some pretty remarkable things.^3 To summarise, she discovered that the city had had significant fortifications in the Middle Bronze Age (roughly up to 1550 BCE), but that these had been destroyed completely during that time. Of course, this is much too early for anything remotely related to a political entity 'Israel'^4 to be relevant; even the most conservative scholars date the reign of David^5 to the late-11th or early-10th century BCE. Jericho was only a minor settlement during the Late Bronze Age and Early Iron Age, and was even mostly abandoned for several centuries during this period. It wasn't until the 9th century BCE that Jericho was properly rebuilt.\n\nNow, to actually get to your question: who ruled Jericho before it was destroyed? Whoever it was, they didn't really leave us much to work with. According Kenyon's interpretation of the evidence, Jericho became a city of some importance - and perhaps with some degree of independence - like many other major Middle Bronze Age sites (including Ugarit) in the first half of the second millennium BCE. Their cemetery was extensive, and the elaborate nature of the burials there suggests that the rulers of the city were relatively well-off. We know from Egyptian scarabs found at the site that they traded with the Egyptians. Kenyon didn't find much in terms of religious worship, but geographically speaking it is likely that they shared the general Canaanite pantheon with the other cities in the region (Ba'al-Hadad, El, Anath, and Astarte being their most important deities). \n\nI am not aware of the city being mentioned in any extra-biblical texts (neither from Egypt nor from Mesopotamia), but I am happy to be corrected if anyone else has an example.\n\nI hope this helps! Please let me know if I can expand on or clarify anything!\n\n-----------\n\n^1 Scholars are usually pretty inaccurate with the term, so depending on preference some will include or exclude the Phoenician city states; some even only use 'Canaan' to refer exclusively to the area that would become the territory of the kingdoms of Judah and Israel.\n\n^2 see Davies, *In Search of 'Ancient Israel'*; Finkelstein and Silberman, *The Bible Unearthed*; also Dever, *What did the biblical authors know and when did they know it?* (a little outdated now, but still a good, neutral survey).\n\n^3 See Kenyon, *Excavations at Jericho*, several volumes spanning the periods 1954-1958 and 1960-1983.\n\n^4 The Merneptah Stele, dating to the 13th century BCE, refers to something resembling Israel, but it should be seen as a name for the area rather than a political entity.\n\n^5 David's historicity is a can of worms I really don't want to open here, but even assuming he existed and ruled over a united kingdom he's a good four centuries too late." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cehtusd" ], "score": [ 14 ], "text": [ "The population of Berlin at the end of the war was disproportionately comprised of Women and children, with most of the men fighting in the army, or being drafted into the Volkssturm at the last minute. Most of the violence directed to Berliners was looting and rape. Rape was endemic at the time, with girls as young as 12 up to women in their seventies. There were instances of women being killed as a consequence of sexual violence. Some historians argue that the Soviet treatment of Germans in 1945 was a direct retaliation for the Nazis actions in Stalingrad.\n\nAlthough there were murders by the Soviets, they were not common. most deaths at the time were a result of starvation and disease, with Typhus being most prevalent. Males who were proved to have NSDAP associations were more likely to be sent east as prisoners of War than murdered.\n\nSources:\nBerlin - Anthony Beevor\nWoman in Berlin - Anonymous\nGermany 1945 - Richard Bessel" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e9ow0e6" ], "score": [ 84 ], "text": [ "Not to discourage further responses, but u/aonoreishou answered a similar question [here](_URL_0_)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9p31qg/historians_write_that_emperor_hirohitos_jeweled/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cqb3gyf", "cqb3k3u" ], "score": [ 7, 13 ], "text": [ "Most of this is taken from Christopher Hill's God's Englishman: Oliver Cromwell and the English Revolution. \n\nAs Hill points out, the New Model Army was a progression of ideas that had started in the Dutch Republic 'fifty or sixty years earlier'. Essential Hill argues that the essence of the revolution in the military was partly due to its reliance on 'the free way as against the formal' or the idea that free men fighting for a cause they believed in 'could get the better of mere professionals simply by superior morale and discipline'. Cromwell had raised troops (later called Ironsides) of 'picked men, well drilled, well equipped, well horsed, well paid'. Instead of using the traditional tactics of the day, displayed with aplomb by his Royalist adversary Prince Rupert of the Rhine, which used horse as a kind of mobile infantry, Cromwell instead used his disciplined troops as a 'battering ram'. \n\nWhile Rupert opted for one devastating mass charge, that would \"lose cohesion in a search for plunder and destroying enemy stragglers: 'a rabble of gentility', Monck called the royalist cavalry. As Clarendon put it...whereas Cromwell's troops, if they prevailed, or thought they were beaten and presently routed, rallied again and stood in good order till they received new orders\".\n\nAt Marston Moor, it was the repeated charges of Cromwell's horse that turned the battle from defeat to victory. So discipline and well drilled troops were an obvious factor in success, not just for the Ironsides, but for the New Model too. Hill goes on to state that the New Model's 'organization, commissariat and ordnance were normally far superior to those of the enemy. Their lieutenants were organization men... In addition to its better discipline and morale, the New Model Army had behind it better business methods, better supplies, better artillery.\n\nIt also should be noted that Cromwell and Sir Thomas Fairfax 'rarely engaged unless they enjoyed superiority in numbers. At Naseby this superiority was nearly two to one'.", "Three main reasons, money, money, and yet more money. There were other reasons as well.\nParliament controlled not only the most prosperous and most populous parts of Britain at the start of the Civil War, which meant that their war chest was far bigger than the king's (more, and more prosperous people who were able to pay taxes), but they also controlled all of the major manufacturing centres, such as Norwich, Hull and London, which also contained nearly all of the armaments manufacturers, and, near London, at Enfield, was the only large scale gunpowder factory. As it was a Royal monopoly, it was very nearly the sole source of gunpowder in Britain. They controlled very nearly all of the big cities, thus being able to tax the trade thereof, the Navy and most of Britain's merchant fleet. Thus international trade was secure, with plenty of profitable trade to tax, and also able to pretty much prevent the king's army from easily getting supplies from abroad, even which Henrietta Maria pawning the Crown Jewels! \nParliament could, therefore, afford to equip and feed, and often pay their men, whilst the king was forced to rely on promissary notes, loans and forced loans, plunder, and demanding \"protection money\" from towns, called \"levying contributions\", and whose men were often months if not years in arrears of pay." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "f6yx0r5" ], "score": [ 37 ], "text": [ "Neurobiology student.\n\nOk, so the first thing I thought reading this question was \"Nah, I don't think so\", but I still looked to be sure. Well apparently yeah, you can have some receptors, called B-adrenergic receptors, lose their sensibility if constantly exposed to a drug that activate them. And one drug tha activate B-adrenergic receptor is adrenaline. \n\nHowever, they only mentioned that this desensitization happened with pharmacological drugs and they don't really mention adrenaline. So my guess is that in theory it could be possible but ultimately not happening.\n\nWhich is logic since adrenaline is essential for the bodily function, is not constantly secreted and and have a very short half life so it's degraded very quickly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c54def8", "c54i0bp" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "Probably not. If the founders like Washington were motivated by self interest, then he would have become king when they offered it to him.", "First off, I don't know of a single historical work written that long ago that still holds up on its own today. The entire profession has been reformed and then reformed again since. Of course books like his can still be influential, but you can't look at single works, let alone works that old, and then proclaim \"Aha! Now I get it!\"\n\nNext, it's a good rule of thumb is that there isn't a single explanation of cause for much of anything in history. We are, after all, talking about the history of humans and humans are complex animals. However, books will often argue, like Beard, for fairly singular causes for events such as the forming of the Constitution. This isn't wholly bad, as convincing others of, say, an economic argument requires a lot of evidence. Beard, like so many historians, needed to hammer home the idea that economics (or whatever) were an important element and that cannot be ignored. Beard probably wasn't trying to write the last word of the Constitution, ceasing all further study into the matter, and you shouldn't take it as such. I doubt very many historians actually believe that they can singularly explain historical events and eras with arguments that conveniently align with their career choices, but arguing forcefully gets the attention of employers, publishers, and grant committees. \n\nI'm sorry this doesn't fully answer your question, and I can only offer sparse insights on the Consitution itself (not my direct expertise). I can say, of course, that economics played a large but not singular role in the framing of the document, and that a number of other factors entered the Founders' mindset. These included but probably aren't limited to foreign policy/internationalism, slavery (economy but not purely so), internal cohesion (keeping the interests of small states aligned with big states), Enlightenment values, and methods of government. Anyone with better knowledge feel free to correct me.\n\nTo get all the details, it'll probably end up being best to head to the library, and the biggest name I can recommend is of course Gordon Wood. But as a bit of an exercise I'd also like to recommend David Hendrickson's *Peace Pact*, which delves very nicely into the internationalism of the Founding and the Constitution. Like Beard, Hendrickson's book is hardly the last word or gives a full understanding of the Founding, but it demonstrates quite nicely how the Founders could be internationally minded in their plans for the country, taking into account far more than the domestic factors people usually think of when describing the writing of the Constitution. It would make for a great read." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "coas8af", "coasfbe", "coasua9" ], "score": [ 8, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Because every electrical current causes warmth due to resistance. ", "The processor works by sending a lot of electrical signals back and froth. Which creates heat, there is no way around that.\n\nYou can of course reduce the heat by reducing the power, but that also reduces the speed at which you can run it. For example a phone processor doesn't get as hot, but it's also much slower.", "At quantify a little bit of what people are saying. I've heard that processors can have around 50 amps going through them. Considering that power lost through resistance is P = I^2 R, and that R is a function of a few variables, but importantly, is inversely proportional to radius of the wire it's travelling through, so the smaller the wire, the larger the resistance. So a large current and small radius both combine to produce large power loss. That generates heat. Heat increases resistance also, so without cooling, you would get a run away effect until something failed. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dboxqp5", "dboxtvn", "dboy4mk" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 2 ], "text": [ " > Considering most people at that time and prior loved in mud huts\n\nHA!\n\nHumans had already been farming for 9,500 years, living in cities for most of that, China had been a sprawling empire for 4,500 years, Rome had risen and fallen. \n\nJust because we hadn't built a steam engine yet didn't mean we weren't causing change to the environment on a massive scale, and had been for ages. And one of the biggest ways was with our stomachs - it's likely that human hunting played a major role in the disappearance of all the megafauna species in the new world, starting perhaps 10- to 20,000 years ago.", "Why do you think humans were living in mud huts in the 1500s? Have you seen any of the ruins of the Romans, Egyptians, Mayans, or the Qin dynasty? All of those are thousands of years old and things are still standing. ", "If you look at the actual [study](_URL_0_), what it says is that humans have been drastically increasing the extinction rate since 1500 and it's become even worse in the last 100 years. In other words, from 1500 - 1900 it was bad and from 1900 - present it's become really, really bad (about 3 times as many species went extinct between that 1900 and 2016 than between 1500 and 1900. That's about 12 times as much per 100 years).\n\nThe study doesn't say why 1500 was chosen as the cutoff point, but it emphasizes that it is measuring the impact of modern human activity on extinction events. I would speculate that 1500 was chosen because most historians consider sometime around 1500 to be the start of \"modern history\" since that's when we started having large scale travel across the globe and because 1500 is a nice, round number.\n\nHuman activity in 1500 still caused extinctions because humans hunted some animals to extinction and others had their habitats destroyed. Humans may not have had cars or plastics back then, but they knew how to deforest large areas of land for agriculture and had few qualms about hunting anything edible.\n\nHere's the relevant quote from the study:\n\n > Our results indicate that modern vertebrate extinctions that occurred since 1500 and 1900 AD would have taken several millennia to occur if the background rate had prevailed. The total number of vertebrate species that went extinct in the last century would have taken about 800 to 10,000 years to disappear under the background rate of 2 E/MSY (Fig. 2). The particularly high losses in the last several decades accentuate the increasing severity of the modern extinction crisis." ] }

[]

[ "http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/06/150623-sixth-extinction-kolbert-animals-conservation-science-world/" ]

[ [], [], [ "http://advances.sciencemag.org/content/1/5/e1400253.full" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmo0xks" ], "score": [ 35 ], "text": [ "Enforcing the policy through a subjective test allowed it to be expanded to exclude politically undesirable people. \n\nThe Immigration Restriction Act (1901) required immigrants to be able to \"write out at dictation and sign in the presence of the officer, a passage of 50 words in length in a European language directed by the officer\". Since the language could be chosen by the officer anyone who couldn't speak all European languages could be excluded.\n\nThe most notably example of this is Ego Erwin Kisch who was a multilingual Czech communist. He passed the test in a number of languages until immigration officials managed to find an officer who could speak Sottish Gaelic. Kisch then failed and was convicted of being an illegal immigrant. Although that was overturned on appeal.\n\n[Original text of the act](_URL_0_)\n\nSource: McNamara, T. (2009) \"The spectre of the dictation test: language testing for immigration and citizenship in Australia\". In Extra, Guus, Massimiliano Spotti, and Piet Van Avermaet, eds. *Language testing, migration and citizenship: Cross-national perspectives on integration regimes*. London: Continuum: 224-241." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.foundingdocs.gov.au/item-did-16.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cua6w0n" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Often times in parliamentary systems of government the prime minister or other head of government must have elections every set number of years, just like in the US system, but they also allow for them to call for elections at a time of their choosing prior to the normal time between elections. This is very useful for when some major national decision needs to occur, and the ruling party thinks they are at an advantage concerning that decision. The election somewhat becomes a national referendum on that issue, with the people voting to put people into government that agree with them about that issue. So if the US system had snap elections maybe Obama would have called one early on in the health care debate, or Bush might have called one before the wars in Afghanistan or Iraq. The purpose would be to present an position on how the government would move forward, in contrast to the opposition party, and let the people support that ideal by voting enough people for the controlling party to push forward their agenda." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cv170bl" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "My answer won't fully describe your question, but one of the main reasons dictators weren't allowed to rise *immediatley*, and for the 40 or so years after the fall of Hitler, is the fact that Germany was split into two. The eastern half was controlled by the USSR, and the west was controlled by the western allies. The USSR implemented their own leaders, and the western allies kept a large hold on their own sectors. This would have meant leaders would have been kept under control to a large extent. \n\nNot sure if you already knew this. But there we go! Someone correct me if I'm speaking out of my ass. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cieeuaw", "cieiujy", "ciej4no" ], "score": [ 17, 11, 6 ], "text": [ "I think your professor's language is a bit harsh, but he is trying to emphasize a point.\n\nNew Zealand (along with Canada, Australia, and a few other countries) didn't achieve independence in an abrupt manner in the same way India and the USA did. These countries made a gradual shift towards self-governance.\n\nThe biggest changes occurred after Britain passed the Statute of Westminster in 1931. Some countries (like Canada) then took responsibility for passing their own laws, and managing their external affairs. Some countries (like New Zealand) we're required to specifically adopt the statute, which New Zealand did not do until 1947.\n\nSo, it's not like New Zealand got \"kicked out\" in in 1931 (or 1947), but the message from mother England was clear. The large (even NZ), established dominions were ready to take the next step towards self-governance. By 1947, colony divestment was in full swing. As JBC mentions, Queen Elizabeth II is still the head of state.\n", "It was not really forced out, but we did not really elect to leave either. The issue was that, prior to 1950, NZ had two houses of parliament - the Legislative Council (the upper house) and the House of Representatives (lower house). However, the upper house was effectively useless - its members were not elected, but instead were appointed by the Governor-General on the recommendation of the Prime-Minister. Since the GG tried to stay out of politics entirely, the LC evolved into nothing more than a rubber stamp for the PM - he chose it's members and they just signed off on Bills that got through the lower house.\n\nAs this was wasteful, the NZ government decided to abolish the LC. BUT it had been established by the New Zealand Constitution Act 1852 - an Act of the *British* Parliament. Since the NZ government could not override an Act of the British Parliament (or, rather, there was uncertainty if it could or not) Parliament took the \"easy\" option of first adopting the Treaty of Westminster, *then* abolishing the LC. \n\nBecoming independent from the UK was a side effect of adopting the ToW - it wasn't that we *wanted* independence, but in order to do what we wanted to we (possibly) needed it. \n\nSource: *Constitutional and Administrative Law in New Zealand* by P. Joseph", "It wasn't really a situation of being \"forced\" out of the Empire, rather there was no particular drive or desire to take advantage of the Statute of Westminster.\n\nNew Zealand wasn't so much against the idea as that it felt no particular need to adopt the Statute of Westminster. New Zealand's constitutional history is really one of an odd sense of laziness and contentment with the status quo until something doesn't work - if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Partially the reason why we still have an unwritten constitution. \n\nNew Zealand wasn't the only Dominion in the situation - the Statute only automatically applied to Canada, the Irish Free State and South Africa. [The section concerning the other Dominions](_URL_0_)\nAustralia adopted it in 1942 and Newfoundland never did so." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Geo5/22-23/4/section/10" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbw9gv4" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Because it is foreign and mysterious and aesthetically pleasing. \n\nA kanji looks cool and invites people to wonder about the meaning. This mystery implies that the owner has important secrets. Plus, if the viewer doesn't know the kanji then you can lie about what it means depending on your mood." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyw1dtp" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Hot water acts as a vasodilator. It also irritates inflamed tissue if it's too hot, which your shower undoubtedly was if you're anything like me. So the shower increased blood flow to the inflamed area, and further irritated the damaged tissue." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dntxvli", "dnty18a" ], "score": [ 3, 11 ], "text": [ "stenographers use a [stenotype](_URL_0_) a shorthand typewriter that uses [22 chording keys](_URL_0_#/media/File:Stenkeys.gif) to allow very rapid documentation with minimal finger movement. Stenographers type at least 180wpm with some reaching as high as 375wpm thanks to this more efficient system. ", "my mum does this for australian state parliament - \nthere's a button for every vowel and a button for most of the important consonants - stenographers create their own shorthand dictionary over time and there's shortcuts for every word they have to use. mum's been at it for about two - three years now and she's at about 150wpm, it takes a long time to get down!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stenotype#/media/File:Stenkeys.gif" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dd7480m", "dd74bvj", "dd74dj2", "dd75jni", "dd7aplu" ], "score": [ 24, 6, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "So, the first and foremost thing to understand about Fox is that it's a large organization with a lot of channels. And, like almost all large organizations, it really only cares about one thing. Money.\n\nFox News Channel (which came into existence fairly late in Fox's life) has discovered a niche where they can make money showing conservative talking points. The regular Fox channels have discovered a niche where they can make money showing the Simpsons.\n\nFox has no political or moral ideology other than \"please watch commercials in between shows so we make money\"", "Fox News is the largely partisan, biased organization. Fox itself is a media company. And the one thing companies like better than adherence to partisan ideologies is money. \n\nSimpsons and Family Guy make money. In fact, Fox cancelled Family Guy when it *stopped* making money, and brought it back when AS proved it still *could* make money. \n\nAnd don't fool yourself - if there wasn't an enormous, near insatiable market for partisan media crap, Fox News would drop the act in a heartbeat. They do it because there's a market for it.", "Fox News and Fox entertainment are two entities and are not always aligned politically. The Simpsons, to name one example, sometimes mocks Fox News specifically. ", "Fox network aired Cosmos: A Spacetime Odyssey, with Neal DeGrasse Tyson on both Fox Network and National Geographic Channel.\n\n_URL_0_\n\nThey sold commercials. This is what they do.", "Fox doesn't have an overriding political ideology anymore than any other large multinational company does. Their ideology is to make money for the stockholders." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c2kvasa", "c2kvasa" ], "score": [ 5, 5 ], "text": [ "The percentage you are thinking of is 35% for income wages over $379,151. Those who are making over $1 Million per year aren't likely to be making it from wages, the are making it from capital gains (read investment or Wall St.). Taxes on this kind of income can be much lower, and can be made even lower still for those who can afford a tax attorney. What Obama proposes is to close this disparity, ending loop holes and and broadening the definition of \"income\" to make sure the rich have to pay.\n\n[2011 US Income Tax Brackets](_URL_0_)\n\n[US Capital Gains Taxes](_URL_1_)", "The percentage you are thinking of is 35% for income wages over $379,151. Those who are making over $1 Million per year aren't likely to be making it from wages, the are making it from capital gains (read investment or Wall St.). Taxes on this kind of income can be much lower, and can be made even lower still for those who can afford a tax attorney. What Obama proposes is to close this disparity, ending loop holes and and broadening the definition of \"income\" to make sure the rich have to pay.\n\n[2011 US Income Tax Brackets](_URL_0_)\n\n[US Capital Gains Taxes](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Capital_gains" ], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Year_2011_income_brackets_and_tax_rates", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Capital_gains" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5vqzps", "c5vr0s9" ], "score": [ 39, 268 ], "text": [ "From [Wikipedia](_URL_0_)\n\n > Food is no longer broken down at this stage of digestion. The colon absorbs vitamins which are created by the colonic bacteria - such as vitamin K (especially important as the daily ingestion of vitamin K is not normally enough to maintain adequate blood coagulation), vitamin B12, thiamine and riboflavin. It also compacts faeces, and stores fecal matter in the rectum until it can be discharged via the anus in defecation.\n\nSo yes, your large intestine does absorb vitamins and water, but once it compacts and is stored in the rectum, you gain nothing more from it except the urge to defecate.", "Its called [encopresis] (_URL_0_). By the time you have conscious control, its more water being absorbed than anything else. If you refuse to poo, it gets harder and bigger so the next time you poo it hurts. Then, if you are a three year old, you repeat the process ad infinitum and drive me crazy. Don't do this. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Large_intestine" ], [ "http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/encopresis/DS00885" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d0fcr0p" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I can't answer if it's sticky, but you don't have to be sticky to be viscous. Just as one example gear oil is quite viscous without being sticky, it's especially thick when cold and since it's a lubricant is the definition of not sticky." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2rg3di" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Venetian masks outside of carnival (which only lasted for the month before Lent) and theater/masquerade were not so much a thing in the Renaissance; according to James Johnson in *Venice Incognito: Masks in the Serene Republic*, the practice began among the male and female nobility in the late seventeenth century and soon spread to all ranks of society, lasting until the Venetian Republic fell to Napoleon in 1797. Foreign visitors to Venice expected the city to be full of masked revelers and assassins, but found a whole lot of ordinary shoppers and bystanders that happened to be wearing a covering on their faces. While carnival masks gave the wearers a freedom to act outside of social norms - women could associate with anyone, since they were unrecognizable, and male crossdressers (*gnaghe*) could walk around freely - everyday masks had a very different context.\n\nAs the wealthy returned from their estates outside the city in October and the theatrical and social season began, masks reappeared in the piazzas of Venice, most people wearing the combination of the *tabàro*, a long black cloak; *baùta*, a black hood; and *larva*, a white mask that flared out at the bottom to allow for talking and eating. The *larva* was usually held on by being tucked under a cocked hat that sat low on the head, but while men always wore such headgear, women did not; when the latter were bareheaded or in another sort of hat or a plain cloak, they tended to wear a black *morèta* mask, which was instead held to the face with a tab or button they kept between their lips. After Lent, the theaters closed again and masks were less prevalent, but when they opened again in the late spring for Ascension, the masks reappeared (though worn with the *baùta* pulled down to mitigate the heat and humidity). The church tried to regulate on what days and at what times masks could be worn, but by 1720 they were normalized as a part of everyday dress during the proper season.\n\nSome did, of course, use the natural advantage of the *larva*: hired thugs, prostitutes at the theater, and booksellers with obscene material wore masks on a regular basis to protect their identities while doing illegal things. Others wore masks out of less pressing necessity, but still to remain incognito, like men running private messages and the city's surveillance agents. However, there was another end of the spectrum, where the mask was worn as an indication of formality and respect. Members of the nobility would dress in *larve* when attending the introductions of new ambassadors or greeting foreign royalty traveling incognito in their own masks, when a new doge was elected or the doge's children were married, for particular religious or historical commemorative ceremonies.\n\nThe habit of masking was believed to have led to rising crime rates early in the eighteenth century, and could lead to all kinds of comedies of errors - but it was entrenched in Venetian custom and normally was seen as completely unremarkable.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c86aldk", "c86u2uv" ], "score": [ 9, 2 ], "text": [ "Yes, alcohol can vaporize. This fact is utilized in [distillation](_URL_1_) to separate alcohol from solution. You can see from this [phase diagram](_URL_0_) that the boiling point of a water/ethanol solution is lower than that of water alone. However, distillation relies on constant heat source - vaporization is an endothermic process, meaning the solution cools down when alcohol vaporizes. A cup of coffee is unlikely to _completely_ vaporize alcohol such that none remains (well, that's how an Irish coffee can still be made).", "Wasn't it Alton Brown (the famous 'food-scientist') that once said that once you add for instance a glass of wine to a dish while preparing it, it's almost impossible to cook it all off before the dish is ready? I believe he said it would take at least 3-4 hours, depending on how much was added.\n\nSo the answer is: Some of the alcohol might evaporate, but unless you keep adding heat for a significant period of time, not all of it will evaporate." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/1/1e/Vapor-Liquid_Equilibrium_Mixture_of_Ethanol_and_Water.png", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distillation" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e26tgkn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "The goal is to reduce the amount of trash; period. Single-use, disposable, common items are a total waste of resources and fill up dumps. Straws are especially heinous because they generally serve no real purpose. Unless you're physically disabled in some way, just drink from the cup.\n\nYou also need to realize that a landfill is not a solution to the trash problem. It's just putting all the problems in the same place and putting a carpet over them. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cipocdt", "cipsv5s" ], "score": [ 3, 4 ], "text": [ "Per your example, glass, there are solvents that will dissolve it. What makes it more resistant than most materials is it's crystal structure, which is in a lower energy state than most compounds. In order to be converted into another compound, the overall energy (via entropy and thermodynamics) must be lower than the original compound. If it isn't favored by a lower energy state, it will react at a much lower rate. ", "While the chemical bonds in glass are slightly polar, the bonds that hold the atoms together are quite strong and also form a very large interconnected network. It's as if the whole piece of glass were one molecule.\n\nIt's not possible to dissolve it simply by surrounding it with solvent molecules. You'd need a solvent that is strong enough to nibble away at the silicon-oxygen bonds that make up silica. On top of this, you are essentially constrained by the fact that these chemical reactions must take place at the surface of the glass." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eirfdgw", "eirffrg", "eirh9sb", "eirhicm", "eirk7og" ], "score": [ 34, 4, 3, 4, 72 ], "text": [ "The biggest reason: if you could put it to completely dark, how could you ever turn it back up since the control is on the screen itself?", "How would you get higher brightness again, after turning it to 0 making your screen completely dark? ", "The light sources behind your screen only turn on over a certain minimum current is going through them and so the screen can't be dimmed arbitrarily.\n\nBasically, you would try to dim the screen and at some point it would just turn off.", "Sometimes people don't think of the obvious! Relax, folks!\n\nThat said, yes. The most likely reason is to keep the controls visible since all controls are on screen. Theoretically, the only time one would need the screen completely dark would be if they were turning the phone off.\n\nFurther, the LCD screens on phones aren't designed to reflect the light that hits them in a diffuse pattern (randomly scattered, like from a frosted light bulb or light bouncing off skin) and instead tends to bounce reflectively from the surface glass. \n\nSince the light is mostly absorbed by the dark panels the liquid crystal material is stored in (the black stuff that oozes from a shattered screen), and reflected by the smooth glass screen, while also being polarized on it's trip into and out of the glass, the amount of visible light that escapes the phone in even the brightest light can appear black. Even if some of the image shows, there is usually a reflection on the screen obscuring some of the image.\n\nIn short, phones are simply not designed to be used with front lighting, so the backlight must be kept on at least a little bit to ensure the screen and its controls are all visible.", "Designer: Hey! Let's make it so the user can turn the brightness all the way down!\n\nBoss: Great idea. Are you volunteering to go sit your ass down in that chair, put on the headset, and spend the next 5 years fielding nothing but support calls from angry customers?\n\nDesigner: But we'll have obvious ways to reset the brightness. They'll be intuitive, they'll be spelled out in the user manual, and we'll put it at the top of the FAQ on our website.\n\nBoss: Go spend an hour in support right now. See what questions our users are already asking.\n\n[an hour later...]\n\nDesigner: Holy fucking shitsnacks. Never mind." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "c2qcpoi", "c2qcqeo", "c2qcvrl", "c2qcx72", "c2qd7oj", "c2qdgag", "c2qdonv", "c2qe1gx", "c2qe8kn", "c2qeb7w", "c2qeixq", "c2qfu69", "c2qcpoi", "c2qcqeo", "c2qcvrl", "c2qcx72", "c2qd7oj", "c2qdgag", "c2qdonv", "c2qe1gx", "c2qe8kn", "c2qeb7w", "c2qeixq", "c2qfu69" ], "score": [ 136, 9, 63, 23, 9, 8, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2, 136, 9, 63, 23, 9, 8, 2, 3, 3, 2, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "well, it's not that increasing carbon dioxide levels will destroy all life. If it spikes too quickly, it may cause a mass extinction of sorts. But life will still persist, and evolve into something different. \n\nThe threat is that we will turn the earth into an environment where we can't survive. It's a threat to humanity, not the earth.", "I'm cleaning up an unventilated room that had a dry ice spill in it that wasn't cleaned up. Come on over and you can feel what 20x feels like - you are uncomfortable in about 15-20 seconds - gaping for air after about a minute. \n\nAir was tested to be about 20.1% oxygen, 0.9% carbon dioxide from outside the room at 20.8% O2 and 0.038% CO2.", "A couple of things:\n\n1. 500 million years ago, the sun was dimmer than it is today. Raising CO2 to the same level would make Earth hotter than it was then.\n\n2. 500 million years ago, we didn't have billions of people living within a few meters of sea level, and billions more depending on an already strained food and water supply which depends on the climate.\n\nYes, the climate has changed greatly over the last few billion years, and yes, life on Earth (at least some of it) survived each time. Some life will almost certainly survive this time too, no matter what we do. But the consequences to us of a relatively rapid shift in the climate are, to put it mildly, extremely inconvenient.", "There is no threat to life by anything humans can do. Bacteria and their viruses can survive in the harshest environments on the planet so DNA will find a way to replicate. Even if humans decided to actively try and sterilize the Earth I doubt we would succeed. \n\nThe danger arises from humans causing so much change in the environment that we ourselves can no longer live or more likely, entire ecosystems collapse leading to famine and disease. ", "One topic that people have seemed to mention is that increasing the amount 20x won't mean that it increases the absorbance by 20x. Since we are saturated (From a spectral absorbance perspective) the increase in absorbance goes as the square root of the increase. ", "The first question seems to have been answered. \n\nAs to the second one, the \"small\" human contribution to Greenhouse gases: Natural CO2 emissions and uptake by the oceans, forests and so on was more or less in equilibrium before we came along. Changes to that equilibrium (the spikes you mentioned) were usually caused by large spikes in temperature (cf. interglacials), which happen every 40000 years or so because of the procession of our planet in its orbital plane.\n\nHumans managed to distort this natural equilibrium by (i) releasing enormous amounts of fossil fuel into the atmosphere, and (ii) destroying carbon sinks, like forests. We have thus managed to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from a relatively stable amount from 280 ppm in pre-industrial levels to 390 ppm in just over 100 years.", "Firstly, life on our planet 500 million years ago was different than life today. The current increasing rate of change in global atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in the records we have, though. I’m not in the business of predicting the future of systems as complex as the entire planet, but I think if anyone is being intellectually honest they will say that really, the impact of increased CO2 on the system in its current state and at current rates aren't completely known. Just because the level of impact is unknown is not a good reason to be confident they won’t be of high impact. \n\nI guess essentially the problem you’re asking seems to be more about risk assessment than science. Even if the likelihood of an event is slim, if it has a high negative impact, it’s still worth avoiding.\n\n[I made a simplified risk assessment chart to help with this thought exercise](_URL_0_).\n\nEven if the impact and likelihood of an event are unknown, quadrant A2 is still bad. Basically, it comes down to the fact that we’d prefer to have low impact (row 1), even if it turns out to be a high risk (column B). Since the impact is unknown, but the likelihood is 100% (the measurement of CO2 isn’t in question), we will just have to wait and see if we fall into quadrant B2 or B1.", "You do realize that the planet's not going to give a shit. It's a rock, it has no feelings.\n\nThe whole point is to save our species. So, regardless of whether global warming and greenhouse gases and environmental changes are actually human-created problems or natural, we're going to have to stop them to survive.", "Because vegetation and life were significantly different then. If there is a mass extinction event that greatly changes our ecosystem, the earth will survive... but humans probably won't.", "We should be worried because we built our cities next to oceans that exist when there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, because vast numbers of humans -- hundreds of millions, maybe billions -- will need to migrate inland, because our economic centers and international shipping centers will be destroy, etc. etc. Global warming is someone we should be worried about not because it's a threat to the plants and the animals, but because it's a threat to humanity and to human civilization.", "Asteroids struck the earth all throughout its history. Why would we worry about that if its happened before?", "[Reposting]\n\n\\- St. Louis during a period of a high-CO2 atmosphere - _URL_1_ -\n\n\\- St. Louis now - _URL_0_ -", "well, it's not that increasing carbon dioxide levels will destroy all life. If it spikes too quickly, it may cause a mass extinction of sorts. But life will still persist, and evolve into something different. \n\nThe threat is that we will turn the earth into an environment where we can't survive. It's a threat to humanity, not the earth.", "I'm cleaning up an unventilated room that had a dry ice spill in it that wasn't cleaned up. Come on over and you can feel what 20x feels like - you are uncomfortable in about 15-20 seconds - gaping for air after about a minute. \n\nAir was tested to be about 20.1% oxygen, 0.9% carbon dioxide from outside the room at 20.8% O2 and 0.038% CO2.", "A couple of things:\n\n1. 500 million years ago, the sun was dimmer than it is today. Raising CO2 to the same level would make Earth hotter than it was then.\n\n2. 500 million years ago, we didn't have billions of people living within a few meters of sea level, and billions more depending on an already strained food and water supply which depends on the climate.\n\nYes, the climate has changed greatly over the last few billion years, and yes, life on Earth (at least some of it) survived each time. Some life will almost certainly survive this time too, no matter what we do. But the consequences to us of a relatively rapid shift in the climate are, to put it mildly, extremely inconvenient.", "There is no threat to life by anything humans can do. Bacteria and their viruses can survive in the harshest environments on the planet so DNA will find a way to replicate. Even if humans decided to actively try and sterilize the Earth I doubt we would succeed. \n\nThe danger arises from humans causing so much change in the environment that we ourselves can no longer live or more likely, entire ecosystems collapse leading to famine and disease. ", "One topic that people have seemed to mention is that increasing the amount 20x won't mean that it increases the absorbance by 20x. Since we are saturated (From a spectral absorbance perspective) the increase in absorbance goes as the square root of the increase. ", "The first question seems to have been answered. \n\nAs to the second one, the \"small\" human contribution to Greenhouse gases: Natural CO2 emissions and uptake by the oceans, forests and so on was more or less in equilibrium before we came along. Changes to that equilibrium (the spikes you mentioned) were usually caused by large spikes in temperature (cf. interglacials), which happen every 40000 years or so because of the procession of our planet in its orbital plane.\n\nHumans managed to distort this natural equilibrium by (i) releasing enormous amounts of fossil fuel into the atmosphere, and (ii) destroying carbon sinks, like forests. We have thus managed to increase the CO2 concentration in the atmosphere from a relatively stable amount from 280 ppm in pre-industrial levels to 390 ppm in just over 100 years.", "Firstly, life on our planet 500 million years ago was different than life today. The current increasing rate of change in global atmospheric CO2 is unprecedented in the records we have, though. I’m not in the business of predicting the future of systems as complex as the entire planet, but I think if anyone is being intellectually honest they will say that really, the impact of increased CO2 on the system in its current state and at current rates aren't completely known. Just because the level of impact is unknown is not a good reason to be confident they won’t be of high impact. \n\nI guess essentially the problem you’re asking seems to be more about risk assessment than science. Even if the likelihood of an event is slim, if it has a high negative impact, it’s still worth avoiding.\n\n[I made a simplified risk assessment chart to help with this thought exercise](_URL_0_).\n\nEven if the impact and likelihood of an event are unknown, quadrant A2 is still bad. Basically, it comes down to the fact that we’d prefer to have low impact (row 1), even if it turns out to be a high risk (column B). Since the impact is unknown, but the likelihood is 100% (the measurement of CO2 isn’t in question), we will just have to wait and see if we fall into quadrant B2 or B1.", "You do realize that the planet's not going to give a shit. It's a rock, it has no feelings.\n\nThe whole point is to save our species. So, regardless of whether global warming and greenhouse gases and environmental changes are actually human-created problems or natural, we're going to have to stop them to survive.", "Because vegetation and life were significantly different then. If there is a mass extinction event that greatly changes our ecosystem, the earth will survive... but humans probably won't.", "We should be worried because we built our cities next to oceans that exist when there is less CO2 in the atmosphere, because vast numbers of humans -- hundreds of millions, maybe billions -- will need to migrate inland, because our economic centers and international shipping centers will be destroy, etc. etc. Global warming is someone we should be worried about not because it's a threat to the plants and the animals, but because it's a threat to humanity and to human civilization.", "Asteroids struck the earth all throughout its history. Why would we worry about that if its happened before?", "[Reposting]\n\n\\- St. Louis during a period of a high-CO2 atmosphere - _URL_1_ -\n\n\\- St. Louis now - _URL_0_ -" ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon_dioxide#In_the_Earth.27s_atmosphere" ]

[ [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://f.cl.ly/items/47391L210P3j3514110h/quadrants.png" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://i.tfster.com/cache/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/St_Louis_Missouri_skyline_over_arch.jpg", "http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/carboniferous-swamp_Wallpaper_ds26j.jpg" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://f.cl.ly/items/47391L210P3j3514110h/quadrants.png" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://i.tfster.com/cache/upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/42/St_Louis_Missouri_skyline_over_arch.jpg", "http://www.scenicreflections.com/files/carboniferous-swamp_Wallpaper_ds26j.jpg" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx1wj85" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "All fetuses begin as female.\n\nTo put it simply, the penis is technically an enlarged clitoris, and the clitoris could arguably be considered a small penis.\n\nWithout the clitoris, there would be no penis." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d1k6sxz" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Your headphones are speakers, and speakers sometimes pick up on nearby radio transmissions. \n\nYou're cell phone has a transmitter which transmits radio waves to a cell tower. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ch95dx9", "ch95t5k", "ch968kn", "ch9c6pd" ], "score": [ 3, 9, 4, 4 ], "text": [ "They are private organizations, and the US has the strongest freedom of speech laws in the world.", "I'm from Europe, and if you think that the European media are free of bias, you're very much mistaken. Quite simply, there is no such thing as a medium that is not biased, because all human beings are, by nature, biased.\n\nThe trouble is that as soon as you start making laws about what news media may or may not report, you introduce the possibility of government censorship, and that is never a good thing. You *can* make laws preventing people from spreading deliberate lies, but you *can't* make laws forcing people to be neutral -- because who decides what's \"neutral\" and what isn't?\n\nIt may be more noticeable in the US than in most European countries, but that's all it is -- more noticeable. But compare, for example, the BBC, ITN and Channel 4 News in the UK. The differences are subtle, but they're there; look to see, for example, whether they say \"government cutbacks\" or \"government savings\".\n\nSo we have lots of different news organisations, each with their own set of biases. You should get your news from multiple sources, and then make up your own mind. Watch CNN and also watch Fox News, then apply your own common sense and experiences and come to your conclusion.", "\nIn the US, there are no laws that prohibit holding or communicating a biased opinion. \n\nIn fact, [the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution](_URL_1_) explicitly prohibits the *opposite*: \"Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.\"\n\nOver time, US courts have defined [exceptions to the freedom of speech](_URL_0_), in particular where the speech poses a danger or harm. For example, threats of violence are not protected by the First Amendment, nor is child pornography, nor is defamation. \n\nHowever, *political speech* is *clearly* protected, because it was the motivation for the First Amendment. Specifically, it was in part a reaction to English law during the time of Colonial American that made criticizing the government a crime. ", "Because America prefers to let everyone air their own bias rather than only allowing one state approved bias. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_free_speech_exceptions", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cawgdjr", "cawh98z", "cawh9io", "cawijpx", "cawjikp", "cawmguo" ], "score": [ 20, 10, 4, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Probably because videos take a relatively large amount of storage space compared to photos, and they would take very long periods of time to transmit. Seeing as how there's no real added value to a video versus a picture when nothing is moving, there's not a great reason to do it other than \"because we can\".\n\n\"Because we can\" isn't a sufficient argument when arguing for the millions of dollars in technology required to perform such a function.", "\"true\" uncompressed video has a data rate of 2.970 Gbit/s. It will take a lot of power to process and transmit this amount of data. Power that a probe or a rover simply doesn't have. Curiosity is the biggest rovers we ever set down on an other planet and it has a power budget of just 2.5 kWh per day. That's barely enough power to run a high end PC for 10 hours. NASA rather use this limited power and radio bandwidth to power the rovers wheels, science equipment and to transmit telemetry and science data rather than wasting it on HD video. ", "It depends on how you define \"true video\". Many crewed missions will transmit standard NTSC video, or now even the occasional HD video. It takes a lot of bandwidth and storage. (new horizons, launched 2006 to Pluto has 4gb onboard storage. ", "There isn't a lot of activity in space that can be captured in a unique way in space using video on satellites. The only things that can move relatively fast from a camera angle are people and our instruments which is why we were happy to take HD video of Chris Hatfield doing everyday things and a tribute to Space Oddity. Our rovers can also move fast relative to their camera angle, but sending a payload to space is pretty expensive, sending a self managing payload in the form of a rover is even more expensive and is kind of pushing on our technological capabilities anyway.", "\"Videos\" have been taking in the sense that time lapse photos have been taken like Voyager leaving Earth, or [approaching Jupiter](_URL_0_). One of the MER(Spirit or Opportunity, can't remember which) took video of a dust devil. Descending to Mars, Curiosity took video of the descent.\n\nThe reason they don't take 1080p 30 frames per second video is because that's a waste of storage space and bandwidth. 10 Seconds of video, at that quality, is 300 pictures. That would take many hours to send back to earth when they could be sending still pictures or scientific data. There's also very little to see. Not much happens on mars, so why take video?", "* Deploying or using anything in space is prohibitively expensive. So you have to be able to justify every aspect of your instrument in insane detail to multiple agencies. If you can do the science without nice video, no dice. \n* Qualifying stuff for use in space takes a long time. In many cases, technology you may be used to using on Earth for the last ten years is only just making its way into space. \n\nThat said: \n\n* _URL_1_\n* _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://cdn.physorg.com/newman/gfx/news/2012/voyager1isle.gif" ], [ "http://www.urthecast.com/", "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fJgeoHBQpFQ" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ca33hyj", "ca34kxb", "ca34tbx", "ca3c668", "ca3dkrt", "ca3ekzn", "ca3jka6" ], "score": [ 185, 32, 175, 6, 2, 2, 8 ], "text": [ "I can't give a full answer but Imperial Japan was very strict on censorship. I'm pretty sure Mein Kampf was banned. Foreign influence, especially western influence was considered a bad thing. And at the same time Nazi Germany was at war with The USSR, Japan maintained a non aggression pact. This hurt Germany because it allowed for the USSR to move troops off the Manchukuo border to the very important Eastern Front against the Nazis. Moreover the allies had dominance over the oceans in the latter parts of the war making supply exchange difficult if not impossible (sometimes submarines were used to move diplomats, although Im not sure how often). And there were information exchanges on weapons, military supplies, although this was also limited. But for the most part it was just a written alliance and not much else (to my knowledge).\n\nSource: BA in history. \n\nEdit: spelling", "From what I remember from my Japanese history course, the Japanese did like Germany for its militaristic stance but viewed their temporary alliance with Russia as a \"betrayal\" due to the previous Russo-Japanese War. \n\nThey also gave asylum to Jews because, as my history teacher put it, they admired their \"Chosen People\" view.\n\nEdit: Ok, just to clarify, I'm a student and these are what I'm remembering from a class I took a semester ago. I'm by no means an expert. Cancercures, during the Meiji Period (1868-1912), they did send people around the world to learn about other cultures and governments (this was after a long period of enforced international isolation). The Iwakura Mission is the most famous of these.", "Allies in a loose sense. There was some limited sharing of technology between Germany and Japan- the J8M was directly based on Germany's ME 163 rocket fighter for example- but really the two were so geographically and logistically isolated from each other that they were only allies in a vague sense. \n\nIt'd probably be a different story if the Germans had managed to seize the Suez Canal and / or cut the Soviets off from the Black Sea, but for the most part it was just lip service because they were fighting the same enemies and had similar systems of government. Culturally the two were nothing alike beyond a vague, \"We're better than everyone else.\" ", "I do believe I've read somewhere here in /r/askhistorians that the japanese had race-classes as well. They viewed themselves and europeans as superior to the rest of Asia, and were very welcoming to eg. jews fleeing from Europe, despite their alliance with Germany.\n\n(Japan doesn't have a history of discrimination against jews, and considering that european/US jews are about the most well educated ethnicity its not a huge surprise that they were welcoming)", "I\"m currently reading [Cry Havoc:How the Arms Race Drove the World to War](_URL_0_). Two things the book mentions that is relevant to your question are that both countries were felt they got a raw deal from the League of Nations and he other thing was Japan had sent a lot of people to Germany as part of it's effort to modernize. So a lot of Japans educated middle class or bureaucratic class either had studied in Germany or learned from people who had studied in Germany.\n\nIn the late 20's/ early 30's Japan hoped to make an alliance with Britain to restrain the US's attempts to increase its influence in the Pacific. Britain wasn't sympathetic but they were worried about the growth of the US navy so it's not that unreasonable of an expectation. There was even some sympathy on Britain's part b/c the Japanese made a strong defense of Shanghai, which had a large foreign presence that included a lot of Brits.\n\nSo, I'd say it wasn't their first choice, but it made a lot of sense to ally with Germany. \n\nedit: some grammar crap", "Ian Kershaw mentions that Hitler admired the Japanese and their racial beliefs. The Japanese were against race mixing which Hitler admired as it meant the Japanese were proud of their race and didn't want to mix with others. Hitler, as we're probably all aware, was against race mixing.", "Although I am loathe to make this a top level answer because it does not directly answer the question at hand, I do believe the following point is necessary to keep in mind whenever we find ourselves discussing Nazi policy, priorities and/or attitudes.\n\nRace was not the only factor in determining where one would have been placed in society according to statements made by many leaders and enacted in some ways into the laws and even the sentencing guidelines after they, quite legally may I remind you, came to power. \n\nThe term I want to bring to light is **Volksgemeinschaft** a rough translation of which is \"people's community\". While Jews were excluded from the community with few exceptions even native Germans possessing the most \"Aryan\" of traits could be excluded as well for a wide variety of reasons ranging from criminal conviction, to disability, to being seen as a profiteer or lazy. While the term was not invented by or well-defined by the Nazis its complexity and lack of clear definition is something we should keep in mind when discussing the community and society which they sought to build.\n\nIf you are able to access academic journals I would recommend the work of Marynel Ryan on the topic along with the books of Claudia Koonz and Milton Mayer." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/1enoa7/a_collection_of_photos_documenting_a_hitler_youth/" ]

[ [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.powells.com/biblio/1-9780465032297-0" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "du2ucjm" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "Not to discourage other answers, but you might find these previous posts to be helpful:\n\n* [What was the back up plan if d-day failed?](_URL_1_) feat. /u/KroipyBill\n\n* [Was there a \"Plan B\" if D Day failed? Or was it simply going \"All in\"?](_URL_0_) feat. /u/Rittermeister\n\nThey're both older answers, but the general consensus seems to be that no, there was no real backup plan in place. Hopefully someone can come into the comments and expand on this a bit. Hope that helps!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2mxsn5/was_there_a_plan_b_if_d_day_failed_or_was_it/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/2em57g/what_was_the_back_up_plan_if_dday_failed/ck131m0/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d7lolb1", "d7lpzxj", "d7oofyg" ], "score": [ 10, 5, 2 ], "text": [ " > I've always heard that as an object approaches the speed of light, the energy required to further approach that limit increases asymptotically to infinity.\n\nThis is correct. There is no upper bound.\n\nThe kinetic energy of a particle with mass m and speed v is:\n\nK = [1/sqrt(1 - (v/c)^(2)) - 1]mc^(2).\n\nI've plotted it [here](_URL_0_) in units where c = 1 and m = 1.", "/u/RobusEtCeleritas has correctly answered the question regarding kinetic energy. Since you also asked about potential energy: There is no upper limit either. Given a conservative force F, potential energy V is defined by F = -∇V. \n\nThat means that you are free to add an arbitrary large constant C to the potential energy (V' = V + C) and it remains a valid potential, as the constant drops out in the differentiation (-∇V' = -∇(V+C) = -∇V = F). Thus there cannot be a functional limit on potential energy.\n\n", "It may help to remember that Kinetic Energy is not a thing that you can walk over and measure with a device. Since velocity is dependent on your reference frame, so is kinetic energy. So an object could have two different amounts of KE depending on how I set my system up" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=plot+y+%3D+1%2Fsqrt(1-x%5E2\\)+-+1,+x%3D0..1,+y%3D0..10" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ems081p" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A great deal of the process of doing history - or \"doing\" any of the humanities - is the combination of distinct experiences and backgrounds in ways that yield unique perspective. You might find fertile ground by considering nineteenth-century British fixation on everything medieval - architecture, art, etc.This might serve to combine things that attract you, but it may also allow you to wield your experience in ways that yield insights that others might find of interest.\n\nJust a thought. Best of luck to you." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdmfldp", "cdmfx0w" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Wires are a common analogy for neurons, the main cells of your brain (and the rest of your nervous system.) It's a fair comparison: neurons are long and thin, rapidly conduct electricity to carry signals, and even have a coating of insulation.\n\nNeurons communicate with other neurons at points called synapses, where they almost but don't quite touch. Instead, one neuron sends chemicals called neurotransmitters to the next neuron; different chemicals make the next neuron more or less likely to keep the signal going.\n\nWhereas most body cells divide to make more of themselves, neurons mostly only come from neural stem cells. By adulthood, your brain has (almost) all the cells it will ever have. As a result, you can't rely solely on making new neurons to make new memories, learn new things, change your emotions, and such.\n\nSynapses, on the other hand, can be made or eliminated (and strengthened or weakened) throughout your entire life. This process of changing the connections between brain cells is what \"rewiring\" broadly describes. In that sense, rewiring happens anytime you learn anything, make a new memory, or even use an old memory; it happens every minute of the day. People commonly use \"rewiring\" to mean something more like \"changing my patterns of thinking or behavior in the long term,\" which is obviously a little harder than making a new memory, but still very much possible. We'd have given up on cognitive-behavioral therapy a long time ago if it weren't.\n\nBig picture: Given that you have maybe one hundred billion neurons, each with thousands of synapses, the total number of connections is likely in the hundreds of trillions. This helps give an idea of how the brain, which resembles a three-pound blob of fatty Jello, can be responsible for everything you've ever felt, learned, or experienced.", "\"Neurons that fire together wire together.\" If you have a memory that brings to distressed feelings, every time you take yourself through the memory, those feelings will be even more strongly associated with the memory, even if your memory becomes faulty. The worst part of this type of memory is the association with out of control emotions that may escalate too quickly so you feel physically bad as well. \n\nAnyway, what you can do in this case is to break the memory into parts, like movie clips, and in between clips, imagine a moment that is strongly positive: like locking eyes with a loved one or your puppy, so you get a little oxytocin. Then play the next step back, rinse, repeat. Do it a few times and the memory won't play all the way through anymore so easily, nor will those negative emotions escalate like they did before." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c9k4ruu" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Ahh it's 2:35 AM but I love this topic so I'm going to give it a shot. \n\nShort answer: YES we think something is going on. \n\nI like the maps you linked, but I would like you to look at [this world map](_URL_1_) and this [map of the major tectonic plates](_URL_3_), bear in mind they are not aligned (i.e. North America is in the centre of one map, and the right hand side of the other)\n\nDo you see the Indian, and Australian plate? We don't usually differentiate them, but there has been a theory that the Indo-Australian plate has been ripping apart slowly for millions of years. [This map](_URL_5_) shows the plate itself a little better. Basically, the bottom half is being pushed into the relatively soft Pacific Plate in the south, and causing the Himalayan Orogeny (mountain building) in the north (i.e. being pushed into hard rock). This is causing the southern end of the plate to move faster than the northern half creating a shear zone in the centre approximately 500km off the western coast of Sumatra. \n\nThere have been lots of articles talking about why we think this, so I'm going to let them do the talking [ABS Science](_URL_4_), [Voice of America News (never heard of the source but article checks out)](_URL_0_), and one of the latest and most definitive [paper in Nature](_URL_2_).\n\nThis shearing is causing earthquakes around all the plate boundaries, but it is not any unexpected or cataclysmic geological event. Geologists know what's going on, have a fairly good idea of why it's happening, but there isn't anything we can do to stop it- but there are things we can do to minimize the risks associated with it. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.voanews.com/content/scientists-say-indo-australian-plate-splitting-in-two/1517953.html", "http://www.lib.utexas.edu/maps/world_maps/time_95.jpg", "http://www.nature.com/news/unusual-indian-ocean-earthquakes-hint-at-tectonic-breakup-1.11487", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Plates_tect2_en.svg", "http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2012/09/27/3599041.htm", "http://victoriastaffordapsychicinvestigation.files.wordpress.com/2012/05/earthquake-predictions-pacific-plate-nazca-plate-indo-australian-plate-phillipine-plate-carribean-plate-euraisan-plate-fiji-plate-caroline-plate.gif" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dbkwpbl", "dbl4li8" ], "score": [ 6, 3 ], "text": [ "Someone who loans you money, usually with a very high interest rate, knowing that you won't be able to pay the money back. They then privately hound you for the money either threatening you or stealing your assets to repay the debt.", "A loan with a bank is backed by collateral, your good credit, and laws that will compel you to pay the money back. Such banks are regulated by the government, and have to follow certain rules.\n\nA loan with a loan shark is backed by the threat of violence, and as an illegal enterprise, ignores the law.\n\nPeople deal with loan sharks only after the banks refuse them. They are typically more desperate and less financially stable, and often want the money to do something illegal with it. That allows the loan shark to charge very high interest, and requires a very real threat of violence if they want to motivate their high risk borrower to pay them back.\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccj09ka", "ccj09nm" ], "score": [ 2, 3 ], "text": [ "the reasons to have a c section are usually because of something wrong with the way the birth will take place that has nothing to do with the preparedness of the baby for life, or its 'darwinistic fitness'...c section babies show no higher rate of birth defect or cognitive problems than a regular birth, so they are just as strong mentally and physically. A child's inability to escape the imbilical cord wrapped around his/her neck has nothing to do with mental function for example", "I don't think so. In the past, c-sections were used even if they weren't even necessary. It was a money maker. I do believe their are midwives who are trained in breach deliveries, also. \n\nOf course, without c-sections, there would be a higher mortality rate, but I really can't believe it could be linked to mental health...\n\nNow, our society and the many issues we face, that's another story. \n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9fwqeg" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "The elevation actually doesn't have anything to do with it being extreme. It's the giant mountain ranges to the west that block all the rainfall and its geographic location in an area of few clouds, a somewhat southern lattitude, and lots of sunshine that make it a hot, baked desert. Lots of death valley is 86 M and higher, and it's just as hot there as it is on the valley floor. \n\nThe high mountains make what is called a 'rain shadow' effect - any moisture falls on the mountains, which are at 14,0000 feet on one range (the Sierra Nevada) and then another 14,000 foot range (White Mountains) after another valley. They pretty much take almost all the rain out of the clouds by the time they get over death valley. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cbc1u9u", "cbcdlto" ], "score": [ 2, 4 ], "text": [ "Could you be more specific or do you mean all thing all the time?", "It's actually called chronostasis, and it involves your brain filling in the time before the event and thus making the event seem to happen after you perceive it. There is a lag between when you something happens and when your perceive it, but your brain tells you that things are happening simultaneously.\n\n\n\nEDIT: Link for more info\n\n_URL_0_\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.researchgate.net/post/Do_you_have_an_explanation_for_human-perceived_chronostasis" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9cpv08", "d9cpw6d", "d9cqhlb", "d9cqsza", "d9cr4wk", "d9crbef", "d9crbrt" ], "score": [ 57, 20, 14, 4, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The more distilled something is, the less the hangover hurts.\n\nThe more sugar there is, the more the hangover hurts.\n\nBasically, the closer you get to pure alcohol, the less you will hurt the next day.", "Sugar content. You'll get a less severe hangover with alcohols that have less sugar like vodka as compared to rum or wine. Not an expert tho", "It's all about how your body reacts to the \"digested\" parts. Red wine has some unique parts that breaks down into a poison that might cause hangover. White wine doesn't have it so you can experience less hangover with white wine compared to red wine if you are susceptible to that particular poison. \n\nSame with brown liquids vs vodka etc. If you have trouble with hangovers stay away from whisky, cognac etc. and try more pure stuff etc. Then you don't get the double effect from alcohol and some other poison that your body breaks it down into. It's not a cure, alcohol by itself causes hangover in most people. \n\nEssentially, it's not just the alcohol, but other poisons too that are created from digesting different kinds of drink. ", "The severity correlates to the \"purity\" of the fermented/distilled product. If it's a clean fermentation/distillation, there are less undesirable compounds that can react to give you a raging hangover. Acetaldehyde is one compound that alcohol is turned into inside your body, which is fine at small levels, but can cause a wicked hangover at high levels. You also have to take into consideration the overall % of alcohol in one serving, the level of carbonation the the beverage has (this effects how fast you get drunk), your rate of peeing all of those excess fluids out, and a slew of other potential reasons. Just remember, stay hydrated. It works wonders.", "Hangovers in my personal experience are mainly based on a lack of good quality sleep. If you inebriate yourself and get to bed before 12 and sleep until 0800 then you will muddle your way through the day. In contrast if you drink till 0200 and wake at 0800 you will feel like death. Try drinking a bottle of water before sleep and your hangover affect will further be mitigated. ", "Also the higher amount of sugar in the drink can make the hangover more likely. This is why people get worse hangovers with wine and tequila.", "The amount of tannins in the alcohol has a direct correlation to the symptoms and severity of the hangover. A pure alcohol like gin or vodka will result in a lesser hangover in comparison to something like port or brandy. Back in Victorian age England mothers would park their babies in prams outside pubs to catch the sun, and drink gin inside the public house. This is because gin is a pure alcohol that lacks congeners, meaning it doesn't have a strong metabolised sweaty smell along with hangover, unlike beer or whiskey. Obviously alcoholism is the same regardless. If you want to practice alcoholism when in a workplace stick with drinks like gin or vodka. It will take longer to be discovered and the hangover will be lesser." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "crcaaee" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Blades take a small amount of force and concentrate it on a small area, which causes a large amount of pressure to break the surface. Then, the blade acts like a wedge, directing downward force outwards to drive the two halves apart." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgoqqtf", "cgot2cd", "cgot7yj", "cgot8we", "cgotoaz", "cgotvie", "cgotw7d", "cgotxh7", "cgou99m", "cgoufim", "cgoufsw", "cgounif", "cgous2k", "cgov21b", "cgovawk", "cgovh1z", "cgovogm", "cgovyt3", "cgow5es", "cgowtse", "cgox3r4", "cgox6qi", "cgoxh0q", "cgoxlcl", "cgoxupv", "cgoxwgv", "cgoy47z", "cgoyhir", "cgoyjn5", "cgoyxoe", "cgoyyvs", "cgoz53b", "cgozo9l", "cgozvl4", "cgozwkc", "cgp07dk", "cgp0blp", "cgp0cpk", "cgp0j6b", "cgp0jrs", "cgp0kxy", "cgp0n6f", "cgp0nik", "cgp0u6s", "cgp1gz5", "cgp27pa", "cgp2hcc", "cgp2nq2", "cgp2otn", "cgp3nzz", "cgp3rm4", "cgp4510", "cgp4co8", "cgp4cth", "cgp5cjx", "cgp5mmq", "cgp5pdl", "cgp6bnp", "cgp6r1k", "cgp6rmg", "cgp6ukz", "cgpabds", "cgpakxf", "cgpand7", "cgpavyw", "cgpazt8", "cgpbne6", "cgpbxr6", "ch2dxld" ], "score": [ 2386, 4, 8, 9, 3, 272, 2, 858, 23, 2, 3, 37, 57, 13, 28, 2, 5, 2, 5, 7, 2, 30, 2, 16, 6, 2, 5, 5, 10, 2, 2, 14, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 2, 4, 5, 3, 2, 7, 2, 2, 3, 3, 369, 2, 2, 3, 2, 9, 10, 2, 3, 3, 7, 2, 2, 7, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 2, 5 ], "text": [ "We actually can do some pretty cool things in water. We get oil from miles below a surface that is miles below the waves, we explore at tremendous depths, and we lay cables that stretch the length of the oceans. \n\nIt's true that there's still a lot left to do, and we certainly could do a lot more. But the reason we seem to be behind compared to space has less to do with pressure than with light (or electromagnetic waves more generally). \n\nThe reason we know so much about space is that we can see really far, and what we see contains a lot of information in the form of light spectrums, positions, speeds, etc... Also, most of the things we look at are really big, and stand out clearly from the background. \n\nWater, on the other hand, blocks all of that. It scatters light, scatters heat, and makes info gathering a much more personal and in your face endeavour. ", "We really do not know much about the universe. We have examined a few square kilometers of the moon, and about the same amount of mars. We have seen a few square meters of Venus. Not much at all.\n\nMost of what we know about the universe is because the universe is clear, so all we have to do is look. We can only see through a few tens of meters of water. Beyond that you need sonar. Or the equivalent of space suits for underwater - scuba gear, diving suits or submarines.\n\nA space suit or space craft only needs to withstand pressures of 1/2 of an atmosphere, in tension - keeping a livable atmosphere within. Go down 5 meters, and you will have an extra 1/2 atmosphere or pressure pushing in. And holding a pressure in is way easier than keeping one out.\n\nSo examining the universe is hard, so we haven't done all that much of it. Examining the deep ocean is even harder, and we have done quite a lot of that.", "Shits complicated, not like landing a man on the moon. ", "The Infinite Monkey Cage has a pretty great podcast on this. [Here's the link.](_URL_0_)", "It's not lucrative and there's not a ton of government funding like there was with the space race. Even if you do find something, it's probably not 'sexy' because people will just sorta shrug and talk about how Jacques Cousteau totally discovered way cooler stuff with way less money.", "Finally my chance to shine! I'm studying mechanical engineering right now with the full intention to try to go into the ocean exploration field, and I can say that the engineering challenges of withstanding the immense pressures, as well as lack of funding for ocean science exploration compared to space exploration is a huge disparity. However, James Cameron was able to go down to the bottom of the Mariana Trench 2 years ago, which was the first notably serious progress for the field in a long time, but the main future for the field is in Autonomous Underwater Vehicles (aka AUVs) and Remote Operated Vehicles (ROVs) which is what I've been working with and hope to do for a living! With global warming eventually causing our oceans to rise and our land based non renewable resources being strained, it's only a matter of time before the other 71% of the Earth becomes even more crucial to explore! Hopefully my enthusiasm has helped a bit!\n\nAlso another thing: Materials/mechanisms for withstanding these pressures have barely been developed. Compared to space (someone else commented with those pressure details) the material/boundary layer properties you need for the deep ocean is ridiculous. I believe a visual I was told once was at the bottom of the Marianas trench for every square inch, you'd be balancing a land rover car on it.\n\nFinal edit for the night after reading more comments: For those questioning how lucrative the field could be, I think this serves as just one example: _URL_1_\nThere's more than just oil out there, but at the same time we need to start worrying about the environmental costs more. Two great TED talks on the ocean exploration subject:\n_URL_0_\n_URL_2_", "because it's like space, but filled with a ton of deadly creatures", "It's pretty deep and there's a lot of pressure down there. Also it's dark. ", "3 Reasons:\n- Pressure\n- Funding\n- Light", "From a microbial stand point, currently we can only successfully grow and culture roughly 1% of the total microbes within the ocean. Without the ability to observe these organisms within a lab setting, it is difficult to determine their true function in the system. ", "The vacuum of space pushes down on you a bit. \nThe depths of the ocean pushes down on you a lot. \n \nSimilar to how a baby standing on you is fine (Space), whilst an elephant standing on you will squash you (The ocean) \n \nSure, you can create a seat for both a baby and an elephant, but its easier to create one that can support the weight of a baby. \n \nThe further down you go, the more elephants get added. \n \nSomething that can support the weight of 50 elephants won't be able to support the weight of 5,000,000 elephants all standing ontop of each other. \n \nTL;DR: The pressure simply gets too extreme the further down you go.", "Here's my hypothesis. It has to do with the cold war. The US, Russia, and their respective allies, all spent vast amounts of money on space in the thought of possibly weaponizing it. Science funding was hand in hand with defense spending, meaning that it was a golden age for astronomers and physicists, while oceanography wasn't considered as vital to the cause. ", "For a number of reasons.\n\n1) Keeping pressure IN a container is one thing. Keeping it OUT is quite another, especially when that pressure is really, REALLY high.\n\n2) Space is a veritable ocean in and of itself, but with a lack of pressure instead of an abundance of it. As a result, heat, light, and other forms of radiation are all over the place. It's easy to deal with most of that stuff too. But the deeper you go into the ocean, the harder it becomes to make use of light to get info.\n\n3) Have you SEEN some of the stuff we found down there?! Nightmare fuel, all of it! The general consensus among scientists when they discover some new monstrosity down there is that we shouldn't go back ourselves and should instead let the kids take care of the investigating. Most of the creatures down there can only be described as \"Ten pounds of nope in a five pound bag.\"", "To be fair we have explored much greater percentage of the ocean than we did of the universe...", "The realities of what we know about space are not quite a conclusive as you may think. Man hasn't stepped foot past the moon yet, and what our astrophysicists really are, by and large, are mathematicians and electromagnetic spectrum specialists that look up.\n\nYou don't know this because (1) sensationalism is big for astronomy because costs are high and returns are, at present, very low. (2) It's complex and interesting, so you only see a very sanitized and simplified version of it designed for laypeople. (3) The stakes are low, so incentives and a sense of urgency isn't there. Think of medical doctors and how much more pessimistic they are about their jobs. That's because they know that they're lightyears away from achieving immortality if they ever can at all, because they're faced with failure and heavy consequences daily; to them it's just a practice. Astrophysicists on the other hand can tend to be more optimistic, [because they don't know what they don't know](_URL_0_) and their margin of error isn't as obvious or important. The universe could be a trillion years old and they could be wrong and never know it, and it might never matter in their lifetimes.\n\nSo astronomy is bound to have a somewhat unrealistic public face. I'd say that oceanic mysteries are more obvious because our contact with the ocean is more direct and palpable, and so we're less innocent about our ignorance thereof.\n\nI think the answer is just perception, not actual achievement. We are so far from understanding the cosmos that we don't even know it. With the ocean, we kind of know how ignorant we might be.", "I thought James Cameron was on this", "There are currently no further military applications.", "It's really deep and we have a lot going up on the surface. \n\n\nAlso, some of these answers would definitely NOT be understood by a 5 year old. ", "Pressure is much harder to work under than in a vacuum. ", "We are piggy-backing off of the oil wells. A lot of deep sea (and surface sea) research is done in conjunction with oil companies that frequently send divers to the bottom and/or have cameras set up to keep an eye on the well head.\n\nThe giant squid that the Japanese found - oil rig camera. Proving rogue waves exist - oil rig alignment lasers. They do all kinds of neat stuff and the science guys take advantage whenever they can.", "Well, there is more \"space\" in the universe then there is water.", " > We overcame obstacles to space travel 50+ years ago \n \nThat's just it, we really didn't. We overcame a limited set of obstacles for *one* type of manned trip to our single satellite, the moon, and the ability to put men in orbit for a while in a resource intensive artificial habitat. \n \nWe can do the same thing underwater too, build undersea habitats in relatively shallow areas and travel around under the water even better than we can in space. \n \n", "Viscosity, density, and depth of water. No light down there. ", "Because, in many ways, putting stuff in the ocean is harder than putting things in outer space. Unique challenges in the ocean include --\n\n1) Saltwater corrosion\n2) Biological fouling\n3) Communication is hard (can't use GPS, radio, etc underwater)\n4) The environment is always operating on you, pushing you around. In space, if you leave something in a location, when you come back, it's still there.\n\nSource: I'm an engineer that designs stuff that goes in the ocean.", "As a % we still know VERY VERY VERY VERY little of space as compared to water. We may have travelled to space but considering the size of the universe vs the area under the oceans, I'd say we know more about the oceans. The reality is that we know very little", "Don't forget that the genesis for much of our success in space was our competition with The Soviet Union. There isn't the same type of military or political competition for the ocean.", "Saying we have overcome the obstacles of space travel is like saying we know everything about the ocean because we took a bath last night. ", "I think it could be a combination of the following reasons:\n\n1) Studying the nature of space tells us a lot more about the origins of our existence than studying the depths of the ocean. \n\n2) Space exploration has NASA. Deep-sea exploration has no dedicated organisation.\n\n3) There is more pressure at the bottom of the ocean, than there is in space; although both environments are fraught with danger for a human. One can go for a spacewalk; one cannot go for a walk at the bottom of the Challenger Deep (deepest part of the ocean at 10,916m or 35,814ft). The tremendous pressure makes it difficult for any human or vessel to navigate at those depths. \n\n4) Studying creatures at these depths is very difficult as they tend to be elusive. It was only 2013 that we were able to observe a giant squid (Architeuthis) in its natural environment. The relative difficulty of studying life at these depths probably won’t drive innovation as much as space exploration will. \n\n5) Making contact with an alien is much more exciting than making contact with a fish. We know there are life forms in the ocean, we do not know if there are life forms in space. \n\n6) The space race of the 1960’s cemented a competitive curiosity about space in the human conscious. It was a great sense of pride for America to win (regardless of what the conspiracy theorists will tell you). The concept of the deep-sea race has never entered popular conscious. \n\n7) There is much more media based on space (Star Wars, Star Trek, Aliens etc.) than there is on the deep sea. This media generates interest, which in turn, generates funding. You can go to space camp; you can’t go to deep-sea camp. \n", "I'll just let Queen and David Bowie answer this. \n\n_URL_0_", "there's a couple issues, and im sure they've been listed 200 times already, but \"oh well.\" \n\nfor 1, pressure. anything with air inside it currently gets crushed like a tin can half way down to the deepest parts of the ocean.\n\n2, we dont really have the time, money, or resources to scrape every square foot of the ocean. its 70% of the world with varying depths, you know.\n\n3, most sea creatures, especially deep sea ones, tend to be scared of us and swim away. we get a picture and then its gone. so research would take forever.\n\n4, theres more to do \"up there\" then on the bottom of the ocean. \n\ntheres way more reasons, and much better explained reasons, but i feel these are probably the most likely.\n", "I don't think you **do** understand water pressure. The deep ocean could crush our biggest tanks like they were paper.", "This is why\n_URL_0_", "Essentially, getting to and exploring space is relatively straightforward. It's empty and as long as the shuttle/probe/ship/whatever is secured it's safe. We can see really far in space and travel in any direction mostly unhindered. The only real challenge is getting off of our planet. \n\nThe ocean has a lot more pressure and a lot more, well, stuff. It's hard to see very far, plus, at the bottom of the ocean, most subs are about as sturdy as tinfoil. ", "You obviously haven't seen this _URL_0_", "Now I'm reliving fond memories of SeaQuest DSV.", "What if you make the cockpit just surrounded by a hollow shell that you could fill with whatever liquid would pressurize evenly", "There's more to learn and gain from space exploration than marine exploration.", "I think you are referring to the common saying that \"we know more about the surface of the Moon than we do about the bottom of the ocean\". That's true from a visual surface mapping perspective. We have photographed the entire surface of the Moon and Mars but we have only photographed a small portion of the sea floor. We've indirectly mapped it, using a combination of [sonar](_URL_0_) and [satellite altimetry](_URL_1_) which uses bumps and valleys on the surface of the ocean that correspond with trenches and sea mounts. Why? Because we can't see it unless we take a manned or unmanned submersible down there. To give you an idea of how little we know about the deep ocean, almost every time they send a submersible to the bottom of the deep ocean that they haven't visited, they find a previously unknown species of animal. ", "Pretty cool [video](_URL_0_) showing some of the effects of underwater pressure on a styrofoam cup.", "It's easier to build a hull capable of withstanding the difference of our atmospheric pressure versus the pressure of a vacuum as opposed to multiple times that deep in the ocean. ", "What top comment said + no money in it (same reason NASA has no money and the only way we can afford to put people on mars is by making it a reality TV show)", "I honestly would rather not know what's down in the deep blue abyss. It's scary just to think what could be down there, and then to know what monsters lurk in it would be a horrifying piece of knowledge.", "We live at *roughly* one atmosphere of pressure. \n\nWhen we go to space, we have to build suits that can stand up to (again, roughly) 0 atmospheres of pressure. The difference between the two is one atmosphere. \n\nBut the bottom of the ocean is very, very, very, very high pressure. At the lowest point, it reaches approximately 1100 atmosphere's of pressure. \n\nSo in a way, you could say that it's *eleven hundred times more difficult* designing a ship to go to the sea floor than it is to design one to go to outer space.\n\n", "Asides from all the scientific points (which are obviously on the button), we should also understand the political aspect. The fact is, tons of money was shoved into space based research during the cold war. It was simply more advantageous from a military perspective (knowing how to launch something into space has probably more crossover to something like an inter-continental missile than exploring the ocean depths would) and a propaganda one (because, again, landing on the moon is just *cooler* than seeing some fish adapted for highly pressurised environments. If the ocean depths were more military advantageous and held common interests more, I am sure you would be asking a similar question, just the other way around.", "Let's be realistic. Funding is a major issue. The research and development of the technology required to reach those depths is quite costly. Without any guaranteed findings, political gain, or profitability in granting money toward this research, there is little to no motivation for the business executives to invest in deep-water ocean exploration technology. The NASA program had it's fair share of political and economic advantages as motivation since the moon is an observable goal to reach for everyone that isn't blind. As for technology for reaching oil, like a previous comment or suggested, the economic motivation to invest is quite clear. In the end, the business executives responsible for granting/investing money in this technology have not heard the compelling, motivational argument benefitting their ultimate responsibility in the company, the company portfolio/stock price/value. That's it.", "on the whole, there is a lot more mysteriousness about space than there is about the ocean. ", "Bro do you even ocean?", "What about rocks? They can manage to survive the pressure at the bottom of the ocean. Can't we use rock technology?", "PRessure and obscurity", "Because Dr. Venture Sr. never made a sealab. He stayed away from the ocean after he lost major tom.", "The mind boggling thing for me is that there were people alive at the time of the moon landing that could have remembered the Wright Brothers' first flight. We went from taking to the air to landing on the moon in one lifetime...66 years apart. 1903 - 1969.\nAnd then miniaturizing communications equipment became paramount and the purpose of all human life...", "Why? Pressure. Did you SEE the thing James Cameron had to dive down in? You can't imagine the levels of pressure that are exerted that deep. Getting down there is one thing, doing anything is a whole other matter.", "I work at Liquid Robotics (_URL_0_) and the ocean is truly the last frontier. It is very expensive from financial and risk perspective to collect ocean data using traditional methods of boats and crews. Using buoys is also somewhat limited, if they are moored (stationary) they will only reveal limited information and are expensive to maintain (some industry statistic show that it can cost up to 4 million USD a day to operate a boat with crew to deploy and retrieve these buoys). If we are interested in exploring the salinity, currents, weather patterns, chlorophyll and any other scientific driven data, that is historically very underfunded with only limited amount of scientist on NOAA and NSF having access to funds. You would be surprised at how much scientific data is actually being collected as a byproduct of oil drilling and oil rig construction. Of course, companies that engage in those developments have no issues funding hydrographic and bathymetry surveys as they all benefit from the billions of dollars that is yielding from the oil. In the next few years you will see a HUGE increase in the data and the quality of data that we are collecting from the worlds ocean through the use of unmanned drones. Drones that are either tasked with collecting surface water data, under water data or act as a gateway between the sensors and satellites / ships. ", "Because ICBMs don't fly through water.", "IMO I think it's because not as many people have an interest in the ocean. We've always been looking at other planets and asking questions such as \"Are aliens real?\" or \"Is it possible to have a civilization somewhere other than earth?\"\n\nSure, *now* people want to explore the ocean, but that was after everyone found out we don't know as much about the ocean as we do space. Before that was a well known fact, everyone still wanted to see space more, therefore that got more focus.", "We haven't been able to create anything that can withstand the water pressure at the deepest parts of the ocean. It would crush anything we have created.\n\nAlso, it's darker than Akon down there.\n\nEdit: we actually have created something that got to the bottom, I stand corrected. Still dark as shit down there, though, and building something better for research down there which could house people to stay down for extended periods of time/record findings I would assume to be way too expensive for anyone to do right now based on the interest (or lack thereof) of what's down there. I'd love if someone with some more knowledge could shed some light on this because that's just my 0.02. If we've been down there before, there's got to be a good reason we haven't done more research down there since then.", "I explained all of this to my younger sister. Her retort \"no , white people are all nosey, if they really wanted to know they would go down there\"\n\nI still facepalm to this day...\n\nWe go back and forth on this subject from time to time. Her latest answer \"why don't they make a submarine out of diamond... (After I explained the issue of pressure)", "Woohoo something I know about! I'm a senior history major who focuses on tech development throughout the 20th-21st centuries, and there are really two answers to this question.\n\n1.) There is a technological component. This has been overcome to some degree in both fields. Think of it this way: beside speed constraints, gravity, radiation and total solitude, the basic things a spacecraft supporting life must do is 1. get up into space and 2. deal with the vacuum of space. We've known how to keep people warm and contain an atmosphere for years. So that's not really special. We've dealt with radiation since the 1800s, and gravity is mostly only an issue on long trips. Basically, we're really good at living in space near earth for short periods of time. We're woefully inefficient at sending objects into orbit, but we do get them up there with brute force. Here's the cool thing about a vacuum: the most vacuous it can be is absolutely nothing. So we only had to build ships that could withstand the negative pressure of absolute nothingness. We've had that technology for years as it often only requires things to simply be sealed really well. If you look at modern spacecraft, they're not thick. They're actually thinner than your average car, but they have MUCH better gaskets. The ocean is a different story. Positive pressure, for all intents and purposes, can grow infinitely (short of creating a black hole of course). Think of it like this: you can only remove so much before there's nothing, but you can add as much as you want and you create more pressure that way. Submarines have to be incredibly thick-hulled. This creates weight limits and propulsion limits. Put simply, subs can only handle as much pressure as they have material to withstand it, and no man-made objects can withstand infinitely intense pressures. We actually have sent people to the deepest point in the ocean, but fewer people have been there than on the moon. \n\n2.) It's a political game. This actually describes the issue much better. We, as a species, can do really cool things when we set our minds to it. The space race happened because we had to compete with one another. Going to the bottom of the ocean never had the funding and research that walking on the moon had. We could explore the ocean much more deeply because we do have the technology, but we don't back it with the funding that we did the space race. Of course, now both fields suffer from a disgusting lack of funding.\n\nTl;Dr: Pressure and politics \n\nP.S. and physicists or engineers who wish to add or correct, please feel free. I don't claim to know the exact science, but I do know the development process.\n ", "It's easier to travel in nothingness than in water.", "To understand presure which is = force/area, imagine a 80d nail....which is about 1/3 of an inch in diameter or about the sice of a pencil....then imagine 700lbs sitting on the nail head...700 lbs is approximately about 70 gallons of water. \nAt 15,000ft deep the pressure exerted on every square inch of a vessel is 6700psi...that's lbs/square inch or 70 gallons of water on 1 nail...easily enough to pierce thick steel.\n", "I feel like that \"the Oceans is a great mistery than space\" is a bit of poetic licence. The physical characteristics of space (i.e. mostly vacuum) allow us to observe things in space at much greater distances than we can through water. Think about it, it's trivial to see Mars from Earth using a simple telescope but you can't see more than a few meters in even the clearest water without extremely powerful sensors.\n\nThat being said, the Oceans, to humanity, is a constant companion. The Ocean floor is littered with debris from our civilization and ever island, bay, inlet, and depth, has been named and charted.\n\nSo basically my answer is that the questions premise is flawed. There is no objective scientific metric to say that the Oceans are less explored, or more misterious, than outer Space.", "It's not actually all *that* mysterious. Environmentalists love to make it sound way bigger and more unknown than it really is. In reality, a great deal of oceanography was done back during the Cold War (a time when knowing how fast you could move ships around and where you could hide submarines was *really important),* and scientists have a pretty good idea of what's what in the ocean these days.\n\nIf you're referring specifically to the difficulty of finding stuff (malaysian airplanes, for instance) in the ocean on short notice, that's mostly because the ocean blocks radio waves and pretty much all other kinds of light quite effectively over long distances. It's easier to see stuff in space because there's nothing between you and the stuff like there is underwater.\n\nGetting into space also presents rather different challenges than getting into the deep ocean regions. In space, pressure is relatively easy to deal with (you just need a balloon that can hold in 10^5 N/m^2 ) but you have to work against a huge gravity well. Underwater, gravity is on your side (anything that's buoyant floats, anything else sinks), but you need a rigid hull that can hold out enormous amounts of external pressure.", "From a microbiology point of view, we are limited in what we know about the ocean because we simply can't grow most of the micro-organisms down there in the lab. Being able to mimic the environment they are naturally found in is crucial, but we have limited means for recreating that environment in a way that will also let us grow the number of cells in the concentration needed for DNA and RNA study.", "We have traveled to the moon a few times, and sent some probes to the planets. We have not in any way, shape or form overcome the obstacles of space travel.", "Because we have a pact with the merpeople", "This is an excellent Ted talk that covers the OP's question.\n_URL_0_\n\nlong story short, no one gives a shit about investing in the ocean, only in space. (which is a shame)", "Bill Nye explains it at the very end of this episode: _URL_0_", "Space is big, but mostly empty. The ocean is big and full of things.", "We have a few programs that research and explore the oceans depths. As kind of a cool note, I'm actually writing this *from* a research vessel with telepresence and ROV capabilities! We're leveraging technologies to make exploration more efficient. Multibeam sonars image the seafloor and ROV's can go down to tremendous depths, and we can even broadcast it live with VSAT's and streaming encoders... But, like most things, it requires money and public interest to get it done.\n\nI think if more people actually understood the ocean and what was down there, we'd spend a lot more effort exploring it.\n\nThe Schmidt Ocean Institute (Google) backs the RV Falkor. Cool boat.\n_URL_3_\n\nBob Ballard (of 'Titanic' and 'Alvin' fame) runs the 'Nautilus'\n_URL_2_\n\nAnd of course, there's my boat the 'Okeanos Explorer'\n_URL_0_\n\n\n**Shameless plug time!**\nSo, we're streaming live every day from the ocean floor (Gulf of Mexico) until April 30th, 2014.\n_URL_0_media/exstream/exstream_04.html\nHow's that for a timely answer to your question... :)\n\nSource: I am an engineer aboard the Okeanos Explorer, \"America's Ship for Ocean Exploration.\"\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y2x_z5T2lec" ], [], [ "http://tedxtalks.ted.com/video/How-the-oceans-can-clean-them-2", "http://rareearthinvestingnews.com/9349-underwater-rare-earth-deep-sea-china-japan-ocean-floor-geophysics-discovery.html", "http://www.ted.com/talks/graham_hawkes_flies_through_the_ocean" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://youtu.be/Gpn8MANhdLU" ], [], [], [ "http://newswatch.nationalgeographic.com/files/2013/06/OceansSpace-corrected.jpg" ], [], [ "http://www.buzzfeed.com/erinchack/why-no-one-should-mess-with-the-ocean" ], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multibeam_echosounder", "http://www.ngdc.noaa.gov/mgg/bathymetry/predicted/explore.HTML" ], [ "http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=6c1_1193322766" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "www.liquidr.com" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.ted.com/talks/robert_ballard_on_exploring_the_oceans" ], [ "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FyWhWn4Um6g" ], [], [ "http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/", "http://oceanexplorer.noaa.gov/okeanos/media/exstream/exstream_04.html", "http://www.nautiluslive.org/", "http://www.schmidtocean.org/story/show/47" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cnuhrre", "cnuhsco", "cnuhzgt", "cnuhzol", "cnui8v1", "cnuijbd" ], "score": [ 3, 2, 8, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "To wipe them out, we(the USA/US public) would need to realize that wars have a ton of civilian causalities. We didn't win WW2 by only killing soldiers, we flattened entire cities of those who opposed us. People are not ok with that anymore. Think about the outrage that people would have over us treating the towns that ISIS is in the same way we treated Tokyo, or the way the UK treated Dresden. ", "They don't like western powers messing with their way of life. It'd be real easy to wipe out a whole region of people. But it doesn't gain you any popularity points if you kill 1,000,000 civilians to eliminate 1,000 ISIS militants", "ISIS drops the mic and said \"Hey, we're setting up a Muslim only state. Ya know all that stuff in the Qur'an? **We're doing it**. Right here, right now. Come act on your religious devotion and help us setup.\" Remember that scene in LOTR where they light the beacons? It's like that.\n \n Muslims everywhere are like \"oh shit really!? Finally? This only happens like once every 10,000 years. We like the sound of that. The promised Golden Age can only come from the creation of an Islamic State\". Turns out though, ISIS is brutal and unforgiving in their tactics yet they are still influencing groups of Muslims all around the world. The Muslim community is now polarized between people who think ISIS is batshit and the people who think ISIS is doing a good thing. \n\n I'd assume your professor is looking at their influence rather than their physical threat. Right now they are small, but they could grow exponentially. ISIS flags are popping up everywhere (Greece, Belgium, the continent of Europe in its entirety, hell there was an isis flag posted near the white house), and even though another group claimed responsibility for the France attacks, one of the shooters still claimed on video that he supported ISIS. \n\n It's especially volatile now that the West is looking at their expansion and all the horrible shit that comes with it; crucifying/beheading kids/suicide bombings/mass murder/slavery and saying they will stop it. ISIS + ISIS supporting Muslims hear it as \"That Islamic State? **We're gonna stop it from happening**.\" Meanwhile other Muslims are like \"Wait what!? You can't do that! We just started this thing. Golden Age and what not!\" and the ISIS Muslims are saying \"SEE! SEE they are trying to stop us! Help!\"\n\n\n\nI think...?\n", "ISIS is a non-centralised, loosely-allied network of Islamic extremists who believe that the entire earth needs to be ruled by them, and that everyone should follow their particular sect of Islam. \n\nThe reason they are a threat is because they are utter sociopaths. They kidnap people and kill them for propaganda. They kill anyone who doesn't do what they say. They get recruits from disillusioned and ignorant kids who want to help fight whoever it is ISIS is fighting, not understanding that they've set themselves up to be used / raped / ransomed / executed for propaganda purposes.\n\nWhy can't the US wipe them out? The US has laws, and abides by international laws, that prevent them from entering sovereign countries without their permission or declaring war on the sovereign country. Second, these large superpowers have difficulty in fighting wars where the other side does not wear a uniform and has no fixed assets or supply lines to destroy; ISIS participants are indistinguishable from civilians unless actually holding a weapon and pointing it.\n\nThey, and Boko Haram, and other homicidal psychopaths, are global threats because homicidal psychopaths are always a threat. They don't want to live in the modern world, they want to burn it down, even if it kills them too. ", "ISIS is one the more successful of a large number of Sunni militant groups that sprang up amidst the Iraqi and Syrian Civil wars, laying a claim to a large area of Eastern Syria/Western Iraq and expanding rapidly into the power vacuum. They were just another insurgent group fighting the Assad Regime until last year, when they decided to focus their attention on Iraq instead, and the (largely Shi'a) army decided it wasn't going to lay down it's soldiers to fight them off, especially in largely-Sunni Western Iraq. They've become notorious for their brutality.\n\nI'm not really sure why your professor considers them in particular such a major threat. The middle east has been full of these groups for decades - they spring up, expand into chaos where nobody can mount an opposition, and then either bed down or collapse or get kicked out by someone more organised.\n\nAs for 'why can't the US wipe them out':\n\n* ISIS largely exists as a result of US military intervention in Iraq, which triggered the Iraqi Civil War\n* The Philippines, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan have soundly proven that the US, for all it's strength, can't squash insurgencies as effectively as it would like to\n* Libya, another recent site of US military intervention, has collapsed into civil war\n* There's little political support for *yet another war* in the Middle East\n\nEssentially, this 'why can't a superpower come in and just solve the problem with huge application of military force' kind of thinking is why ISIS exists in the first place, and why they have been so successful.", "I'm just some random asshole, but ISIS isn't centralized. Going toe to toe when they try to fight conventially to take over or hold land isn't difficult. It is difficult to root out everyone involved in ISIS in multiple countries- al qaeda has been targeted for more than a decade and is still around. The fear is that 'anyone' could be ISIS and they aren't afraid to target civilians. I personally don't think they are that scary unless you happen to be in one of the countries they have control over.\n" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dbxofi6", "dc0ssdy" ], "score": [ 2145, 10 ], "text": [ "Awesome question. The classic answer can be found in Richard Hofstadter's 1963 book, *Anti-Intellectualism in American Life*. Hofstadter, who went on to win the 1964 Pulitzer Prize for non-fiction for the book, wrote:\n\n > \"Anti-intellectualism . . . is founded in the democratic institutions and the egalitarian sentiments of this country.\"\n\nFor Hofstadter, who traces anti-intellectualism to broadsheets levied against some of the first American presidential candidates, the roots go to the classic American debate between who governs best. Is it the mob, the vast majority of Americans who have little interest or knowledge in a topic, or is it a smaller and traditionally less representative group of people who have more experience and education on a topic?\n\nAs Woodrow Wilson said in 1912: \"What I fear is a government of experts. God forbid that in a democratic country we should resign the task and give the government over to experts. What are we for if we are to be scientifically taken care of by a small number of gentlemen who are the only men who understand the job?\"\n\nHofstadter is still quoted frequently on this topic, but there are a lot of things he missed discussing, as Nicholas Lemann points out [in a wonderful 50th anniversary retrospective review](_URL_0_).\n\nHofstadter (and plenty of people today) think of anti-intellectualism as solely the domain of the political right. But Hofstadter missed people like Donald Kagan, Robert Bork, Jeane Kirkpatrick and Allan Bloom, who wrote *The Closing of the American Mind.*\n\nHe also tended to describe business as anti-intellectual, when we know that today, business is one of the most intellectual-friendly branches of American society. America today hosts designers and inventors, innovators and trend-makers, rather than industrialists and manufacturers as it did in 1963, when Hofstadter was writing.\n\nHe also missed the rise of the Civil Rights movement for women and minorities in the United States.\n\nThat's getting a little off track, however. The bottom line is that there is (and has been) a constant push-pull between appeals to the \"mob\" and the \"elite\" in American society.\n\nIn *Empire of Liberty: A History of the Early Republic,* Gordon Wood contends that the first 30 years of the United States resulted in a switch from the desires of the nation's founders ─ who were the elite of the nation ─ to the will of the middling people, those involved in commerce and enterprise.\n\nThe founders of the United States had envisioned a Congress and President who were already wealthy and thus immune from corruption. The thought went that they would be self-sacrificing and put aside their businesses to serve the national good for a period, then return to their own interests afterward. \n\nJoyce Appleby and Wood contend that the middle classes, who enriched themselves through industry and enterprise, developed a belief that the self-made man was the ideal politician, not someone who had been born wealthy, was educated, and thus theoretically could be trusted to make a decision without being swayed by public opinion.\n\nAnd so we have a push and pull, dating back to the roots of the United States.\n\nHofstadter also makes the case that evangelical Protestantism in the United States, particularly in the South, strongly contributed to anti-intellectualism in the latter half of the 19th century and the 20th century. Mark Noll's *The Scandal of the Evangelical Mind* is a more in-depth analysis of this aspect.\n\nNoll has done some excellent work on American religious history (I highly recommend his *The Civil War as a Theological Crisis*) and he explains that a lot of the American evangelical anti-intellectualism can be traced back to the development of a \"literalist\" interpretation of the Bible as a response to the anti-slavery movement of the 19th century. Before the 19th century, and particularly before the French Revolution, churches and religious organizations tended to be pro-science if they were anything. \n\nIn the United States, this began to change as the arguments about slavery intensified. As Noll points out, the Civil War caused many churches to fission into southern and northern branches, based upon their beliefs in slavery. Northern churches tended to favor an interpretation-based view of the Bible, while Southern churches stuck with a much more literal interpretation of the Bible. Forex, since the Bible refers to slavery and the proper treatment of slaves, it must be appropriate to have slavery in the United States, they argued.\n\nThis literalist philosophy was later applied to things as varied as racial segregation, abortion, and global warming. Because of its reliance upon scripture as the absolute (literally Gospel) truth, anything that took a different viewpoint was seen in a dim light.", "I'm sure this is going to be removed, as it breaks most of the rules of this sub, but the discussion going on here is absolutely, hands down, one of the best that I have seen in over two years of /r/askhistorians. The sheer amount of information being presented gives me hours of reading aside from the present discussion, and seeing this question addressed from so many different points of view is so rare and wonderful at this point in time, I just don't know what to do with myself! THANK YOU ALL for the time and effort you have put into this thread. I just hope someone sees this besides me." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.cjr.org/second_read/richard_hofstadter_tea_party.php" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cb9cp0j" ], "score": [ 22 ], "text": [ "He's not in the standard passenger area. He is in a hotel at the airport and in some back/employee type areas of the airport. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cr5ozed", "cr5p2vq", "cr5p4wg", "cr5pmc5" ], "score": [ 15, 2, 16, 4 ], "text": [ " > basically the same set of skills and the same amount of schooling\n\nNo. Paramedics usually only take 2 years of school out of highschool. Nurses (Specifically RNs.... you may have meant other types of nurses which would get similar pay to paramedics) have full 4 year degrees and way more medical knowledge than a paramedic.\n\nI also wouldn't call the skill sets similar. A nurse probably couldn't do an Paramedics job (well maybe after theyd worked as an ER nurse for a bit) and theres no way a paramedic could do a nurses job. They arent all that similar.\n\nEdit: Fixed paramedic vs emt. Also yes you can become an RN via a 2 year route but thats becoming rarer.", "There are different kinds of nurses. You are very much mistaken if you believe RNs/BSNs and EMTs require the same education and skill set.", "(As someone who is a paramedic, knows more than a few people that did the jump up to RN) Nurses have a lot more A & P and clinical knowledge than paramedics. Also relevant is the relative youth of EMS as a field. There are still people working who were around for when EMT and paramedic training became a standardized thing. Nurses have been doing there thing for a lot longer, so of course it's a more established career path.", "Come to the UK where paramedic now must go to university for 2/3 years and complete 2500 hours of training hours to join the governing body known as the Health and care professions council (HCPC) \n\nThe pay for a nurses and paramedics starts at £21,692 rising to the top pay grade which is £28,180 with years worked. There is progression available for both Nurses and Paramedics into specialist roles. \n\nHowever this is where the divide happens between Nursing and Paramedics as in hospitals there are a lot more specialist roles leading to higher paying positions whilst still maintaining patient contact. Paramedics on the other hand have a smaller selection of specialist roles and of course management roles, but with the management roles comes loss of patient contact which is what most paramedics are in the job for. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "e8wgs4g", "e8whhja", "e8wic1g", "e8ww7bo" ], "score": [ 32, 97, 6, 11 ], "text": [ "It is possible. It's called \"aspiration.\" What happens then is that fluid can sit and pool in your lungs. Which isnt good for your lungs. Pneumonia can happen or other respiratory dysfunctions. This is actually common in (older) adults that has lost some ability to swallow properly. This is why you will see some people on thickened liquids and pureed food to be able to eat. It's easier to swallow properly. Food can also go into your lungs as well. Aspiration in general can prove to be fatal. If I recall correctly, it's why you want to watch drowning victims for \"dry drowning.\" They inhaled fluid into their lungs and that's what killed them. ", "to add something with less detail and specifically about drinking water: if it's a small amount (such as a gulp while drinking), you'd normally have your cough reflex kick in and drive that water out. I'll persist as long as there's still enough water irritating down there, which can lead to instead of just one or two coughs, coughing fits.\n\nif you actually swallow a lot, well, it's pretty much what the other being said, you end up with aspiration (which can be water, any other fluid, sometimes even stomach contents which is very dirty and lead to aspiration pneumonia). \n\nEdit: I'm a nurse :/", "Aspiration pneumonia, caused by inhaling food/drink, is actually the way that Alzheimer's disease eventually kills you. Your brain unravels to the point where you are unable to swallow, and eventually you aspirate, or inhale some food, and it winds up in your lungs, where it doesn't belong, causing an infection. ", "My 3yo just went through this last weekend. She's in a \"gargling everything\" phase. Gargled water while laughing, some went into her lungs while the rest was in her mouth/throat and a few things happened: Her body reflexively tried to cough/exhale to get it out of her lungs. But since there was also still fluid in her mouth and throat, she also had a reflexive swallow. This essentially paralyzed her, holding everything in place because the force up and force down reflexes were both activated. Heimlich didn't work, my husband ended up jamming a finger as far down her throat as possible while one of our older kids called 911. It broke the reflex traffic jam, she coughed quite a bit and of course we all cried. \n\nWe could still hear wetness in her lungs when she coughed, so we went to the ER to be safe. Thankfully it was only a tiny amount still down there and we were advised to watch closely for signs of low oxygen or pneumonia. It's been just under a week and she's ok, so we seem to be all clear." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "dwas20b", "dwax1hu", "dwba62t" ], "score": [ 10, 30, 3 ], "text": [ "From what I understand from my microbiology class it would depend. It depends mainly on what species of bacteria is in that chicken. If the species of salmonella is able to infect the fly and cause a disease then yes the fly would be sick, but if the species of salmonella present is not adapted to attack the digestive tract of the fly then it would be as if nothing is happened to it. These adaptations would include ways to disturb the physiology and ways to counteract the inmune system. \nBeyond the species there is also the strain which is one of the reasons some people get infected with the same specie yet get more severe symptoms of the same disease. \n \nTL:DR it depends of the specie of the salmonella \n \nEdit: spelling ", "One reason insects react so differently to many toxins is because their digestive tract is alkaline in contrast to the acidic environment of the vertebrate intestines. A different pH may render some toxins less harmful and others more so. A common \"food contaminant\" for insects is *Bacillus thuringiensis*, a species of bacteria which lives in the soil (and on leaves) and basically produces a crystalline toxin that can only be dissolved in the alkaline digestive tract of insects. However, it's non-toxic to humans because the crystals pass our digestive system undissolved. This is why *B. thuringiensis* is sprayed on crops to prevent damage caused by larvae.\n TL;DR: Their digestive system makes insects vulnerable to different bacterial toxins. Yes, they can suffer from certain food poisonings.", "Yes, but often from different factors than the ones that affect humans.\n\nSalmonella is unusual \"food poisoning\" where bacteria actually *infect* the victim. Most cases of food poisoning are from toxins contained in bacteria or left behind when they die. That's why fully cooking rotten meat, for example, doesn't make it safe to eat, even though the cooking process would kill whatever bacteria might be present.\n\nA notable example is the botulism toxin which can kill, and did so often before improvements in food preservation/canning. \n\nIf affects a particular neurotransmitter used for transmitting signals between nerves. It affects the nerves humans use for muscle control causing paralysis. But other types of nerves are unaffected. Obviously an insect may have different nerves than that specific type in the human body, and likely wouldn't be affected. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e6g32fi" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Math, lots and lots of complex math.\n\nYou know its orbit, you know our orbit. Provide the right amount of thrust in the right direction." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cmdfu9z", "cmdg4rg" ], "score": [ 5, 3 ], "text": [ "They could be listening to music from an audio player which can't connect to the car stereo (for example if the car doesn't have an aux input).\n\nOr they could just be using their headphones to talk to someone on the phone.\n\nAnd where I'm from it's very illegal.", "I think in most cases they are just using the earbuds as an earpiece for their phones. A lot of earbuds these days have microphones somewhere on the cable so you can use them as a hands-free set." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d5uv14g" ], "score": [ 12 ], "text": [ "The only media available for the recording of classical music in 18th century was print, of course, and that business is essentially the same now, with a few minor changes. The printing of music parallels the printing of words, with the earliest examples being carved on wooden plates, then engraved on metal plates, which eventually changed to movable music type, and has now moved to digital. Then it would have been printed, arranged into a book, and sold to the public in music shops. The first publishers began to appear in the 18th century in the major German cities, and by the late 18th century they were also in the United States. They would often look for exclusive rights from a composer for European distribution, but Beethoven was known to have sold the \"exclusive\" rights to a single work to several competing publishers. He did the same thing with commissions and world premieres as well, but that's a different story for another time.\n\nEventually an orchestral works would make it around the continent and be performed by the local orchestras, which could be of varying quality. Some people might live too far away to go to a concert, and in any case there might only be a single performance, or at best a handful of performances. In order for more people to learn and enjoy a work, orchestral pieces were often reduced to a piano version, which were the bread-and-butter of publishers, along with solo piano works and chamber works which could be performed at home. Sometimes these reductions were arranged by the composer, but often they were done by someone else. Liszt famously transcribed all of Beethoven's Symphonies, with the Ninth Symphony requiring two pianos. These transcriptions/ reductions are still popular today. \n\nMusic was as popular with people then as it is now, so it was a major industry, and the concept of copyright went hand in hand with the printing of music. The first major copyright law was the Statute of Anne in 1709, which made the printing of music exclusive to the original publisher for 14 years, which was later amended to 21 years. This is important because while a publisher might have the exclusive rights for a while, eventually they would lose exclusivity and any publishing house could then print and sell that music (public domain). As the fame of composers grew throughout the 19th century, this was a huge windfall for publishers who could print the best-selling works of composers like Beethoven and Mozart without having to pay out royalties, making them very profitable. Today the exclusive term of copyrights has been extended greatly, due to heavy lobbying by the Disney corporation and the Gershwin estate. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "da3ea4z" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Hi, this is not to discourage other answers but you might be interested in [this post](_URL_0_) by u/krishaperkins" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/3e74ai/so_where_did_the_mongols_get_their_arrows_from/ctcaauy/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "deos8qf" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "It depends :)\n\nIn a modern, civilised and industrialised region the water goes through pipes to a water treatment station. This water follows the same path as the water from the bathtub, kitchen sink or toilet. The treatment station tries to purify the water through several organic methods (plants, algae, etc..) and inorganic methods (filters, UV exposure, etc..), as well as specific chemicals to neutralize the waste or to facilitate extraction of residues. The \"purified\" waste water can be evaporated, sent to a lake, river, or the ocean. Sometimes this waste water can be used for farming, but not always. The remaining chemicals and solid matter extracted from the water are dried up and used as fertiliser, compost, incinerated or simply stored in specialised waste dumps.\n\nIn the rest of the world it goes directly, or with little filtering, to the nearest river, lake or the ocean. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cvh48x9" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Psychologists have linked it as a means of coping with depression/lonliness, satisfying a craving for competition, or simply greed. This is a case-by-case type of addiction." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dg042e6" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Complex numbers are operated on arithmetically exactly the same way as normal numbers. Your calculator just knows how to keep the two separate. There's really nothing special about the process, other than having the capability of storing different number types and understanding how to display them in an appropriate way. Unless you have a more specific question that I'm not seeing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d9pbp7f" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Because it's way, way more complicated than that.\n\nRocks move. Yes, the heavier elements might sink lower as the lava cools, but cooling lava isn't the only way rocks are made. Sedimentary rocks don't really care about density, but the order things fell on them as they were formed. Even the igneous rocks will get shifted around by tectonic forces, making once-flat layers crunch up or go completely vertical. You can see some of that in the Grand Canyon, if you know what you're looking at, actually." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cut0dqc" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Sorry, we don't allow [throughout history questions](_URL_0_). These tend to produce threads which are collections of trivia, not the in-depth discussions about a particular topic we're looking for. If you have a specific question about a historical event or period or person, please feel free to re-compose your question and submit it again. Alternatively, questions of this type can be directed to more appropriate subreddits, such as /r/history or /r/askhistory." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules#wiki_no_.22in_your_era.22_or_.22throughout_history.22_questions" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "df4y1ij" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "ask them r/music and related subs" ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ef6kzrt" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "I will point you to this [answer](_URL_3_) I wrote on the role of Gorbachev in the dissolution of the USSR. In essence, Gorbachev, after becoming General Secretary of the Communist Party in 1985, undertook a series of structural political and economic reforms that unleashed forces that were ultimately outside of his control. Thus while the formal dissolution of the USSR is taken to be the Supreme Soviet voting for its own abolition and the resignation of Gorbachev as Soviet president and the lowering of the Soviet flag over the Kremlin on December 25, 1991, this was largely the remnants of the Soviet government recognizing the already-existing state of the Union's dissolution (and it should be noted that some Soviet institutions, notably its [military](_URL_0_), actually persisted after this date).\n\nIn answer to your side-question - the Communist Party of the Soviet Union was stripped of its constitutional legal monopoly in March 1990, and was more or less [dissolved](_URL_1_) and outlawed following the failed August 1991 coup. Lower level elements of the party reconsituted themselves into various political parties across the former USSR, and the largest since 1993 has been the Communist Party of the Russian Federation. The CPRF has contested elections since 1993, winning a majority of deputies to the Russian legislature (Duma) in 1995, and its leader Gennady Zyuganov almost won the 1996 presidential [election](_URL_2_) against Boris Yeltsin. Despite all this, and despite being a pro-government party, it hasn't actually controlled any part of the Russian government above the regional level in the post Soviet period." ] }

[]

[ "https://youtu.be/w5H56mdsBLI" ]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9lna01/how_did_yeltsin_gain_control_of_the_armypolice/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9640ua/when_the_soviet_union_collapsed_what_happened_to/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/8gzslh/in_russias_1996_presidential_election_the_areas/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/9kgjz4/what_is_the_current_view_of_historians_on_whether/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c74ohek", "c74zohq" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Too much iron for people over 50 raises the occurrence of heart disease.", "First of all, the discussion about \"vitamins\" is really important. There's some evidence that vitamin supplementation could be beneficial in the elderly, but this notion comes from studies have surrogate endpoints ([example 1](_URL_0_), [example 2](_URL_3_) ).\n\nThere are specific indications for some vitamin supplementation, the most studied one being vitamin D and Calcium intake for osteoporosis. Evidence of benefit with other vitamins intake is scant.\n\n[Here's](_URL_2_) a recent discussion paper about vitamins and elderly; in summary, benefits have not been proven and there's chance of harm with poli-pharmacy and toxicity. \n\nSpecifically regarding iron, there are many harm from possible overload (mainly constipation and nausea, but even [MIs have been suggested](_URL_1_)).\n\nBottom line: elderly should receive iron or vitamin supplementation only if they have anemia, a specific vitamin deficiency, or a standard indication for vitamin intake. The over the counter vitamin compounds bring no benefit and may induce harm." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7603218", "http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/149/5/421.short", "http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23153737", "http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=484994" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d99kg01" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "For a very good recent book on the subject I highly recommend *The Gunpowder Age: China, Military Innovation, and the Rise of the West* by Tonio Andrade. He sums up a lot of the information and theories available as far as china goes and concludes that the main cause does seem to be a relative lack of major wars. \n\nEssentially, Chinese military technology underwent two different divergences compared to Europe. Prior to the mid 15th century Chinese gunpowder technology was on par with or better than that of the west. Chinese cannon was following European ones in the trend of longer barrels relative to bore size and the Ming army employed a larger proportion of handgunners than European armies would up until around 1500. By 1450 however the Ming had achieved a level of relative stability with no major opponents and military development stopped. Meanwhile in Europe over the next half century the \"classic\" cannon was developed and the matchlock arquebus started becoming widespread. As a result when the Portuguese first arrived in the 1520s both sides agreed that European guns and cannon were far superior.\n\nThis didn't last though, by the end of the 16th century and over the course of the 17th century warfare picked up again in china and European gun technologies were quickly adapted first by the Ming and later by the Qing as well. China developed complex drills and countermarch-style volley fire techniques even earlier than the Dutch did, and by the end of the 17th century they had defeated two Renaissance-style artillery forts. They even had plans to build their own but once the Qing had firmly established their dominance there was no longer any real need. Thus, Andrade argues, China had again reached a level of relative military parity with Europe. It was then over the course of the 18th century that again a lack of warfare combined with the relatively isolationist policies of the Qing dynasty led to a lack of military innovation and serious decline in the quality of the army leading up to a decisive defeat by the British during the Opium Wars." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "eipyomu", "eiq2vkc" ], "score": [ 5, 2 ], "text": [ "Hey that’s a neat feature!\n\nI’m not intimately familiar with the specifics of your phone, but I do have a fair knowledge of networks. What’s most likely going on is exactly the same process that 4G hotspot uses, but only involving wifi.\n\nBasically the laptop is connected to the phone via some means (hotspot wifi, Bluetooth or USB cable), on a private network just between those two devices.\n\nAny traffic from the laptop destined for the inter webs hits the phone and the phone performs some address translation (NAT) before forwarding it on via the hotel wifi. As far as the hotel can see you’ve only got one device (phone) using their connection.\n\nThe phone keeps track of the data it forwards on so that when the response comes back, it knows to send it on through to the laptop.\n\nAs for the battery life - wifi uses a lot less power than 4G does because the base stations are much much closer", "The very basics of transmitting and receiving a signal is that running current in a wire will produce a magnetic field and a changing magnetic field will induce a current in a wire. \n\nSo running current in a coil of wire or inductor will create a magnetic field. Changing the current will cause a change in the magnetic field and create a wave in the field that can be interpreted as a signal. If place any other coils of wires nearby the signal and changing magnetic field will induce a tiny current in the other coil. The direction of the current in the second coil will mirror the first coil so if you turn on and off the power 100 times per second in the first coil you can hook up a circuit to the second coil and you will see a much weaker signal being switched 100 times per second. \n\nIf you scale that up and add a relatively simple circuit that filters out all the frequencies you don't care about and only pick up and amplify a specific frequency band like around 2.4Ghz (the frequency Wi-fi use). If you slightly tweak the signal from just simply turning on and off 2.4 billion times per second you can encode information with those small variations. The receiving coil picks up those small variations and decodes it to data. \n\nEvery phone has a transmitter and a receiver. The cell towers need a huge transmitter to transfer a powerful enough signal for it to be received on your phone over a long distance but your phone also has to be able to transmit a signal so it can tell the cell tower what you want it to send. You can for example upload a 1GB movie to the cloud which your phone would then have to transmit back to the cell tower.\n\nWiFi hotspots are really nothing special it's just software that allows the phone to act like a cell tower. It constantly transmits a signal saying I'm a available network and is ready to receive any signal from connected devices. Usually it needs to dedicate one type of connection to talking with the real cell tower so it can dedicate the WiFi transmitter and receiver to acting as a hotspot while using the cellular transmitter and receiver to talking with the cell tower." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d046fui", "d047h3h", "d047ih7", "d047oxm" ], "score": [ 9, 2, 5, 3 ], "text": [ "Because some idiot would open it and play with it. Having to break the glass means that you're only going get the extinguisher if it's a real emergency", "Broken glass makes it obvious the the extinguisher might have been tampered with. Worst thing is to find one empty when it is needed.", "Tamper evident, easy inspection. \n\nAn extinguisher on a wall may easily be moved, modified, emptied. By casing it with an alarm or seal it is ready to verify the condition should not have changed. Breaking a glass pane is about as mindless as it can get, easily visible and easily determined action. Handles can cause confusion. ", "The handle is usually locked to prevent people other than maintenance from fucking with it. \n\nBreak glass is quicker than \"Find someone with a key\"" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "ddop3xx", "ddopmnr", "ddov8av", "ddoxy0d" ], "score": [ 27, 7, 3, 10 ], "text": [ "It is a generally accepted security precept that \"The enemy knows the system.\" That is, when you are designing an encryption algorithm (or any security measure) that you assume the enemy knows its design. You assume that, eventually, an adversary will get a hold of the algorithm and therefore A) you cannot rely on the secrecy of the algorithm for security; and B) your algorithm should be secure despite general awareness of it.\n\nThe strength of encryption methods lies in the keys (and, for asymmetric methods, the inherent mathematical difficulty of reversing the encryption process).\n\nFor example, the most secure encryption method, the One Time Pad (OTP) has an extremely simplistic algorithm. ALL of the security is invested in how the key is created, used, and kept secret.", "What needs to be secret is the key (or set of keys), not the way in which the lock is built. If knowing how a lock is made can be enough to access without having the keys, it's a poor lock, no matter if its inner workings were known by legitimate access to the source code, or by reverse engineering. (EDIT: typo)", "We all know how a mechanical door lock works, but that doesn't mean you can just break into any lock easily. It is still much easier if you have a key.\n\nFor encryption it's kind of the same. Knowing the algorithm might give a small edge for whoever is trying to break it. Or not. Modern algorithms (e.g. AES) are actually *designed* to be completely open source and yet you'd be helpless if you don't have the actual cryptographic key used on the data that you want to decipher. Even if you have access to samples of plain text and their ciphered counterparts, you wouldn't be able to do too much.\n\nThe RSA algorithm, for example, is a quite simple mathematical operation, well known to the public for ages. But it relies on the fact that, mathematically, the inverse operation would be borderline impossible if you don't have all the variables.\n", " > I was reading about the signal protocol and saw it has a github page. Doesn't this mean anyone can figure out how the encryption works and break it?\n\nAs a general rule, you should never ever give ANY credence to encryption methods that are not open source and fully examinable by you. NSA and other parties have tried to weaken encryption measures precisely by creating partially closed source encryption methods which then would have weaknesses only they would know about, and only they could exploit. Which, even if you're totally cool with NSA breaking your encryption, would still mean that there is an exploit that may eventually get out because NSA messes up for example, and some Snowden type leak reveals how to decrypt all your supposedly secure data.\n\nAny encryption method consists of essentially two parts: There is method you use. This HAS to be public, everyone HAS to know exactly how it works.\n\nThen there is the key. This key is random number sequence, typically it's about 256 bits long, sometimes even 2048 bits long. That's computer talk, but basically 256 bits long key means, you choose any number between hundred billion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion, and trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion.\n\nOr basically, number that's maybe 84 or 83 decimals long.\n\nThe security comes from the fact that you need to know the exact number, every decimal of it, to encrypt or decrypt data. Guessing such a number, if you guessed trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion numbers every single nanosecond, would take roughly... Well, 31 million years to guess it right? Trillion trillion trillion trillion guesses every nanosecond is far more than anything we can currently do, and 31 million years is far longer than we can wait to decrypt something.\n\nSecure algorithm is such that you don't have any good shortcuts that are easier for decryption than trying trillion trillion trillion trillion trillion guesses every nanosecond for 31 million years. You don't know your algorithm is secure if you can't see it.\n\nA random 84 digit number could be\n\n834,485,888,921,132,283,384,723,847,928,073,987,476,456,352,956,839,445,342,342,475,324,647,232,344,664,756,578,495,4,543,436,234. " ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "catq4t5" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It wasn't just about the fact that he had surrendered to the Germans that the French were pissed off about. Pétain and his government, shortly after the surrender, took a vote to reorganise the Third Republic into the French State, an authoritarian (and more importantly an extremely collaborationist) regime which is better known nowadays by the name of Vichy France.\n\nThis government aided in the rounding up of Jews and other \"Undesirables\", and within its colonies it actively resisted Allied forces. Fascist elements within that selfsame government then began attempting to turn France into a much more conservative country than the Third Republic had ever been. They wanted a much less secular and liberal society, preferring instead a more authoritarian catholic society. Pétain himself supported the movement, but said he didn't like the name it was using, which was \"National Revolution.\"\n\nCensorship was imposed within France, and freedom of speech and thought repressed with the reinstatement of \"Felony of Opinion\". Pétain himself said that: \"The new France will be a social hierarchy... rejecting the false idea of the natural equality of men\".\n\nPétain went on to allow the creation of a Vichy organised militia known as the \"Milice\" to suppress the Maquis, in particular its Communist factions.\n\nAfter the occupation of southern France, Pétain became a mere figurehead for what was no longer even a pretense of an independent government in Vichy. When the liberation of France came about in the September of 1944, the Vichy government was relocated to Germany, where it became a government in exile. By this point however, Pétain refused to take part in it any longer, and the running of it was taken over by Fernand de Brinon.\n\nOn the 26th of April 1945 Pétain returned to France via Switzerland to face his accusers. The trial ran from the 23rd of July to the 15th of August 1945, the main charge being treason.\n\n\n\nIn short, while he may not have merited a death sentence (Which was only not carried out due to his age), Pétain was far from an innocent man. He had run an authoritarian, collaborationist regime that had sought to overturn a lot of the values that the French have held dear since their revolution in 1789. He was not on trial for the surrender, but for everything that came after it." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "crs60a2", "crs7446", "crs7ha2", "crsfdbt", "crsm1kd" ], "score": [ 28, 7, 2, 6, 2 ], "text": [ "Someone asked a very similar question the other day and it got a lot of good answers, so I'd recommend you [read those answers](_URL_0_) (I linked directly to my favorite response). But here's my quick take on it. Numbers in math are ideal. If I ask you to solve the equation x^2 = 2, the answer is exactly sqrt(2), even though that has an infinite number of decimals - it's 1.41421356... where the ... means it keeps going on forever. If you round, it's usually because you don't have enough space for the full answer (in the case of sqrt(2), it's because you don't have an infinitely long sheet of paper).\n\nIn physics or other experimental sciences, you can only ever measure a quantity to some finite accuracy. So if a measurement you make is only accurate to the third decimal place, then if it comes out with the number 1.414, you can't just write 1.4140000, because the real answer might be 1.41414131, or 1.41402492, or anything else. When you manipulate that number - multiplying it by something else, for instance - then you can only keep up to 3 decimal places, because your measurement was only ever good for that many to begin with, and it wouldn't be honest to pretend that you can get a more accurate answer.", "Your reported answer in sciences should reflect the accuracy to which you know it. If your measurements allow you only 3 digits of accuracy, then so be it. For instance, a 12-inch ruler you may have lying around the house probably has one side for centimeters, perhaps with millimeter hashes as well. It would not make sense for you to be able to measure a length with that ruler and report any value with accuracy beyond millimeters.", "If I wanted to know the average acceleration of gravity, say, at the surface of the Earth, I know the radius is about 6,371 km, the mass is about 5.972e24 kg, and G is 6.67384e-11 m^3 / (kg s^2 ).\n\nI would use all of those numbers as they are, then round the result to four significant digits because that's the least precise of my initial numbers. Instead of 9.819296623, which is what Google's calculator gives me, I use 9.819 m/s^2 .\n\nIf I just wanted a ballpark figure I'd use 6400, 6.0e24, and 6.7e-11, and I'd get 9.814, but since I only had two significant digits in my numbers, I could only claim to have gotten 9.8 m/s^2 .\n\nBut sometimes people have to be very precise in physics. Quantum Electrodynamics is famously [\"the most precisely tested theory in the history of science\"](_URL_0_):\n\n > Experimental tests of QED measure small shifts, but to an absurd number of decimal places. The most impressive of these is the “anomalous magnetic moment of the electron,” expressed is terms of a number g whose best measured value is:\n\n > g/2 = 1.001 159 652 180 73 (28)", "When measuring things in the real world, there is uncertainty related to the measurement. When using a ruler, I may often get an answer 0.1 mm wrong, sometimes 0.2 mm wrong and occasionally 0.3 mm wrong, for example. That's why physicists usually specify their results of the form foo ± bar. For example, if I measured a length at 425.1735 mm, and had studied how accurate my ruler is and found the error to be less than 0.257 mm 68% of the time (68% may seem a bit arbitrary, but it is based on properties of the [normal distribution](_URL_0_), the most common shape errors take), I would quote the result as ´425.1735 mm ± 0.257 mm´. The last number is the [standard deviation](_URL_2_), and indicates the typical size of errors.\n\nWhen specifying the uncertainty explicitly, the number of digits you quote is mostly a question of convenience. Since my measurement is typically off by about 0.26 mm, I can safely drop the last few digits of my result without losing much real accuracy. For example, if I drop the last two digits I would be moving 0.0035 mm away from the most likely answer, effectively introducing an extra error terms. Uncorrelated errors add in quadrature, so this would bring the total standard deviation up to sqrt((0.257 mm)²+(0.0035 mm)²) = 0.257024 mm, which is practically the same. So we can safely drop a few digits.\n\nWe can use our knowledge of the uncertainty to quantify how [statistically significant](_URL_1_) a change in any given digit would be. A change in the last digit, for example from 425.1735 mm to 425.1730 mm, is a change of -0.0005 mm, which is 514 times less than the standard deviation. We usually consider a change to be statistically significant if it is at least two times lager than the standard deviation, so the last digit is definitely not significant. The same holds for the next three digits (51, 5 and 0.5 times less than the uncertainty). So we are left with 4 significant digits: 425.1 mm.\n\nIf we know that we only quote the significant digits, then we can to some extent make do without specifying the uncertainty explicitly. So instead of writing 425.174 mm ± 0.257 mm, I could simply write 425.1 mm. This is much more compact and less tedious to deal with. But it is also less informative, as one now suddenly has only a vague idea of the standard deviation (to within a factor of 10).\n\nI work in physics (astronomy to be precise) and I rarely use the [significant figures](_URL_3_) framework for calculating. I and my colleagues use [full error propagation](_URL_4_) instead.\n\nTLDR: In physics there is uncertainty which needs to be indicated somehow. This can either be done by explicitly giving the standard deviation, or by only quoting the significant digits. If you don't specify the uncertainty explicitly, it will be assumed that all your digits are significant. That is why people bug you about using too many digits.", "It might be better to reword the question as, \"when doing physics problems it is possible to generate increasingly long series of decimal points through math operations. Which ones should be kept?\".\n\nAny measurement starts with an error. Even if I'm very accurate measuring length to A +/- A/10,000 if I'm taking that result to powers or adding it to something less accurate I have to carry the resulting error along in my calculations. \n\nLet's say I'm predicting the expected temperature of my pool based on solar heating. I can estimate the volume fairly accurately but not the loss due to radiant heating in the pumps or the direct amount of solar radiance absorbed. If I say \"temperature delta is heat input divided by volume factor minus losses\" terms with high errors could dominate. The error is included in the calculations. You have to carry them along as fractions of the original values and perform all the same operations on the error. The calculated total error provides guidance about how many decimal places to keep." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.reddit.com/r/askscience/comments/37x4fr/why_do_we_use_significant_figures/crqij0v" ], [], [ "http://scienceblogs.com/principles/2011/05/05/the-most-precisely-tested-theo/" ], [ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Normal_distribution", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Statistical_significance", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Standard_deviation", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Significant_figures", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propagation_of_uncertainty" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2wmiep", "c2wn5w0", "c2wpxhf", "c2wmiep", "c2wn5w0", "c2wpxhf" ], "score": [ 3, 23, 2, 3, 23, 2 ], "text": [ "Your second sentence isn't really wrong or right. Most people never thought black holes did anything but exert a gravitational attraction towards object. He conceded defeat on whether information could be destroyed, but it hasn't been proven conclusively that he was wrong. He's still relevant as long as he's able to do physics.\n\nHowever, I don't know how capable he is of doing physics with his illness. I would be interested if anyone knew more about that.", "His work on black hole thermodynamics and his effort to merge quantum mechanics and gravity, though maybe done more convincingly by Unruh, are still relevant and very important. \n\nHe's a very bright man and, in addition to doing some very good research, dedicated his life to becoming one of the greatest public educators in the history of science. You do him a great disservice by underestimating the importance of this contribution. \n", "Stephen Hawking without a doubt is one of the top 1000 physicists of our time; possibly even one of the top 100. He's also one of the top 10-20 within his specific field of black hole thermodynamics. He receives an extraordinary amount of attention because of his popular science books and having amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. That said many of his contributions to black hole thermodynamics were first done by others (Zeldovich, Starobinsky, Bekenstein, Unruh, etc). The [GR guru](_URL_0_) at my grad school alma mattar (who has several GR concepts named after him; including a curvature, time, and boundary term) frequently would rant about how Hawking stole many of his ideas from other physicists (including himself) and gets nearly all the credit.\n\nAlso, Hawking's views views on non-scientific matters (such as the existence of God; whether intelligent extra-terresterials will likely be hostile; etc) are almost 100% layman speculation and as such just as relevant as the speculation of any other reasonably intelligent observor (e.g., Gould who thought religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria; or Carl Sagan who advocated strongly for searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life).\n\nAs an aside; personally I think a brief history of time (first version) is the worst popular science book that I've ever read.", "Your second sentence isn't really wrong or right. Most people never thought black holes did anything but exert a gravitational attraction towards object. He conceded defeat on whether information could be destroyed, but it hasn't been proven conclusively that he was wrong. He's still relevant as long as he's able to do physics.\n\nHowever, I don't know how capable he is of doing physics with his illness. I would be interested if anyone knew more about that.", "His work on black hole thermodynamics and his effort to merge quantum mechanics and gravity, though maybe done more convincingly by Unruh, are still relevant and very important. \n\nHe's a very bright man and, in addition to doing some very good research, dedicated his life to becoming one of the greatest public educators in the history of science. You do him a great disservice by underestimating the importance of this contribution. \n", "Stephen Hawking without a doubt is one of the top 1000 physicists of our time; possibly even one of the top 100. He's also one of the top 10-20 within his specific field of black hole thermodynamics. He receives an extraordinary amount of attention because of his popular science books and having amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. That said many of his contributions to black hole thermodynamics were first done by others (Zeldovich, Starobinsky, Bekenstein, Unruh, etc). The [GR guru](_URL_0_) at my grad school alma mattar (who has several GR concepts named after him; including a curvature, time, and boundary term) frequently would rant about how Hawking stole many of his ideas from other physicists (including himself) and gets nearly all the credit.\n\nAlso, Hawking's views views on non-scientific matters (such as the existence of God; whether intelligent extra-terresterials will likely be hostile; etc) are almost 100% layman speculation and as such just as relevant as the speculation of any other reasonably intelligent observor (e.g., Gould who thought religion and science are non-overlapping magisteria; or Carl Sagan who advocated strongly for searches for intelligent extraterrestrial life).\n\nAs an aside; personally I think a brief history of time (first version) is the worst popular science book that I've ever read." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._York" ], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_W._York" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dyng57b" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "A lot of oil companies who were in the process of investing in Iran for production purposes won't be able to continue if the sanctions go back in. \n\nIran will be free to restart progress toward its goal of making a nuclear weapon.\n\nOur allies in the deal will not be able to trust us to keep up our end of any new deal that's made.\n\nBasically, the original deal may not have been the greatest, but it is a hell of a lot better than having no deal in place." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d3jwyjm", "d3jy1a7" ], "score": [ 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The Gamma ray was discovered by Rutherford in 1900 when studying radioactive elements. It was indeed neutral, but was reflected by crystalline matter, while a neutron would be absorbed by the barrier.", "Gamma radiation was discovered in 1900. Neutrons were discovered in 1932.\n\nWhen gammas were first discovered, all that was known was that there was a new kind of radiation which could penetrate much farther through matter than alpha or beta particles." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2uuj6i", "c2uusjm", "c2uuubb", "c2uvgaa", "c2uuj6i", "c2uusjm", "c2uuubb", "c2uvgaa" ], "score": [ 18, 3, 76, 8, 18, 3, 76, 8 ], "text": [ "there was actually an article in this months popular science about man made earthquakes, i tried and failed to find a link, but here are some surprising facts, over 200 quakes of more than 4.5 magnitude have been caused by man in the past 160 years. the best known case is the earthquake caused by the zipingpu dan in china's sichuan province in 2008. Zipingpu held 42.3 billion cubic feet of water, the weight of which precipitated what a researcher at columbia university named Christian Klose says is the largest human-triggered earthquake to date: a 7.9 magnitude quake that killed nearly 80,000 people...information from page 90 in the november 2011 popular science magazine.", "I don't think so. There has been no evidence whatsoever (from all those years of cold war tests) of nukes causing any earthquakes. They do release some seismic energy, on the scale of small quakes in form of aftershocks (I'm struggling to get exact values, though). On the other hand, there are thousands of earthquakes recorded in the Yellowstone caldera annually, reaching upto 3.9 on the Richter scale, so the fact that it's stable in spite of (or more likely, thanks to) all those quakes means it'll live through anything that we can do to it with nukes.\n\nReally big man-made quakes on the other hand are caused by building large dams and reservoirs on top of faults, but since there's little scope of doing that at Yellowstone, we can count out that possibility.", "All these answers assume there is eruptable magma down there currently anyway. While there is certainly magma, we don't know what the connectivity of it is like, the viscosity, or the internal pressure. ", "There was an interesting article in nature a few years ago. A researcher named David J. Stevenson actually proposed using nuclear weapons to open a fissure in the earth's crust and using this fissure to send a probe down to the earths core. He estimated that we would need to use a few hundred megatons of nuclear weapons and about 10^8 to 10^10 kilograms of liquid iron to form a bubble that would contain the the probe and carry it down to the core. That would be about a years production of iron (of the whole planet). So opening up Yellowstone should be possible too. Although I would question if it would be a good idea to actually blow up a few hundred megatons of nuclear bombs in Yellowstone national park.\n\nTLDR: Opening the fissure should be possible but is probably not advisable... See _URL_0_ for a comparable applcation.", "there was actually an article in this months popular science about man made earthquakes, i tried and failed to find a link, but here are some surprising facts, over 200 quakes of more than 4.5 magnitude have been caused by man in the past 160 years. the best known case is the earthquake caused by the zipingpu dan in china's sichuan province in 2008. Zipingpu held 42.3 billion cubic feet of water, the weight of which precipitated what a researcher at columbia university named Christian Klose says is the largest human-triggered earthquake to date: a 7.9 magnitude quake that killed nearly 80,000 people...information from page 90 in the november 2011 popular science magazine.", "I don't think so. There has been no evidence whatsoever (from all those years of cold war tests) of nukes causing any earthquakes. They do release some seismic energy, on the scale of small quakes in form of aftershocks (I'm struggling to get exact values, though). On the other hand, there are thousands of earthquakes recorded in the Yellowstone caldera annually, reaching upto 3.9 on the Richter scale, so the fact that it's stable in spite of (or more likely, thanks to) all those quakes means it'll live through anything that we can do to it with nukes.\n\nReally big man-made quakes on the other hand are caused by building large dams and reservoirs on top of faults, but since there's little scope of doing that at Yellowstone, we can count out that possibility.", "All these answers assume there is eruptable magma down there currently anyway. While there is certainly magma, we don't know what the connectivity of it is like, the viscosity, or the internal pressure. ", "There was an interesting article in nature a few years ago. A researcher named David J. Stevenson actually proposed using nuclear weapons to open a fissure in the earth's crust and using this fissure to send a probe down to the earths core. He estimated that we would need to use a few hundred megatons of nuclear weapons and about 10^8 to 10^10 kilograms of liquid iron to form a bubble that would contain the the probe and carry it down to the core. That would be about a years production of iron (of the whole planet). So opening up Yellowstone should be possible too. Although I would question if it would be a good idea to actually blow up a few hundred megatons of nuclear bombs in Yellowstone national park.\n\nTLDR: Opening the fissure should be possible but is probably not advisable... See _URL_0_ for a comparable applcation." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [], [ "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6937/full/423239a.html" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v423/n6937/full/423239a.html" ] ]