Datasets:

vblagoje

/

lfqa

like 15

{ "a_id": [ "cgc0o14" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ " I'm going to give one, fairly well known to historians, example. A.J.P. Taylor famously did not read Mein Kampf, and discounted both its importance for understanding Hitler and any correlation between what Hitler wrote and his later actions. \n\n I should note that this is an example of misuse by non-use. Taylor, to make a very hefty book short, argued that Hitler was not really the central cause of the Second World War, and moreover, that his ideology was not \"that\" important. If I'm remembering correctly, he used an analogy about a car accident to describe the outbreak of war. \n\n Taylor not using Mein Kampf was such a big deal that Burk went out of his way to show conclusively that Taylor had not even read it. The book was and is indeed a gold mine of sorts, but only insofar as one is intent upon examining Hitler. This is why Taylor was pilloried to the extent he was: he essentially devoted a book to Hitler's innocence (in starting the war, Taylor in no way denies or diminishes the Holocaust or Hitler's role in it) but could only do so by ignoring key evidence (Mein Kampf) or alternating between claiming Hitler was lying, and not really serious at various points. If you ignore Mein Kampf, such an approach is indeed feasible, if still incredibly flawed. However, if you include Mein Kampf, the approach just sort of implodes immediately. Hitler was quite proud of being a warmonger...it was one of the only consistent and non-contradictory things in Mein Kampf. So for Taylor to argue that a warmonger who was actively seeking a war in order to overturn the established order and build a race based empire, was actually not really that keen on war, caused no small amount of scoffing in the halls of history faculties.\n\n As for how it will be different. I don't really see a \"My Struggle, and Zombies\" or any other light hearted stuff as being viable. A big part of that is of course, the book is awful. I don't just mean that in the message, plenty of books have hateful messages. Hitler was a good performer, and maybe a great deal is lost in translation, but that book reads like a rambling cavalcade of idiocies. \n\nThe first time I read it, I was so disappointed. I had steeled myself, reminding over and over that no matter how convincing or brilliantly the argument might be made, racism, anti-Semitism etc. are simply too easy and weakminded approaches to have in life. When I'd finished I was utterly confused. How could this book convince any even semi-educated person that Hitler was the star to hitch a wagon upon? I very suddenly understood how initially, educated Germans, much of the Jewish population, and those outside Germany honestly thought Hitler was some kind of comedian. Read seriously, the book is childish, riddled with contradictions and inconsistencies, and simply bad. Read as an intentionally paranoid cry for justice, blaming any party but oneself, the book is actually quite funny.\n\n One use I could see for the book, which I'm claiming right now and will demand royalties for if it should happen to appear on the market, is toilet paper. Nothing could be more suiting or proper than to read a bit of Mein Kampf, and then do with it exactly what ought to be done." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cx7tyoe", "cx7ubfa", "cx7zrk1" ], "score": [ 20, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "No. Energy and momentum are always conserved, but remember that momentum is a vector quantity with a direction, thus in your example the total momentum of both objects must remain zero (10-10=0) but that the individual momenta of each object need not be zero.\n\nIt is then important to determine whether your collision occurs *elastically* or *inelastically*. Elastic collisions preserve kinetic energy and momentum (thus the objects perfectly scatter). Inelastic collisions preserve momentum, but kinetic energy may be lost to heat, light, sound or deformation. The total energy is still conserved, but it is no longer all kinetic.\n\n* _URL_0_", "Actually, in an elastic collision (an ideal collision where no energy is lost to heat and the like), the two objects will bounce.\n\nObject 1 will move at -5 meters per second, and object 2 will move at 2 meters per second. The total kinetic energy and momentum are both preserved!\n\nHere is an elastic collision calculator to look at if you want to try out other numbers: _URL_0_\n", "I'm a Mechanical Engineer and there are different energy techniques and models we use when calculating how objects deform. But basically the initial energy goes into deforming the object permanently. That is where quite a bit of the energy goes in an inelastic condition. Some of it also gets converted to heat (bend a paperclip back and forth and feel it get warmer). " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/elacol.html" ], [ "http://www.abecedarical.com/javascript/script_collision1d.html" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c5om6hs" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "\n > Could life evolve in a gas giant and would it have to live on the core or could it live in the clouds? \n\nCould life evolve? This is an unknown. We only have one instance of life to compare it to. There is speculation that it could. \n > What kind of chemistry would it have to have and what kind of adaptations would we expect to see?\n\nThe chemistry would be dependent upon, first and foremost, whether life was possible. Then it would be dependent on what chemicals were available. The only chemicals we're familiar with as the basis of life are the ones we use - mostly carbon. \n\nThe adaptations would depend on the environment. Not all gas giants, like not all terrestrial planets, are alike. \n\n[This](_URL_0_) is from Stephen Hawking's Universe, and may be relevant to your interest. \n\nDavid Brinn, the SciFi author, postulated that the life forms in gas giants would grow very large to prevent being swept up or down in the storms of a gas giant, though I don't believe that's particularly scientific as his other ideas (in the uplift novels) pertaining to gas giant life forms seemed more a matter of convenience to the story. \n\nThere's also Ian Douglas's take on it in the Star Carrier series, where very (very) large buoyant life forms acted as hosts/platforms for tinier (roughly human sized) life forms. But again, purely speculation even if it is within the realm of possibility. \n\nI only bring those two up because their knack for writing well and, at least in William Keith/Ian Douglas's case, propensity toward \"hard\" SciFi. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://dsc.discovery.com/tv-shows/other-shows/videos/stephen-hawkings-universe-gas-giant-life.htm" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c984id3" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "This is probably not going to be put in terms simple enough for strictly adhering to this sub-reddit's mantra (explained as if you were five years old). Oh well, I tried. :|\n\nDark matter backstory, short version: By watching the motion of the cosmos, specifically, other galaxies, and even clusters of other galaxies, we have noticed that there are similarities in the movements of these galaxies, and even the stars within those galaxies. These movements are best explained by what we're calling \"dark matter\".\n\nDark matter backstory, long version: We see a lot of stars in each galaxy... billions and billions. These stars all kind of \"glue\" each other towards one another, and battle in a cosmic, billion player tug-of-war game. BUT, we notice that there seems to be a bunch of invisible stars also pulling in all these, adding more \"glue\" in to the galaxy, and more players into the tug-of-war game. This \"glue\", and the \"ropes\" of the tug-of-war game obviously symbolize \"gravity\". The extra gravity coming from invisible sources has so far best been explained by the term \"dark matter\". We still don't know if it forms in clumps, like \"regular\" matter does with stars and solar systems, but we know that a huge halo-shaped band of dark matter seems to surround each galaxy. Also, the way that galaxies collide and merge suggests that there's lots of invisible tugging going on, from stuff we can't see: \"dark matter\".\n\nMore background: In theory, there are little pieces of this invisible stuff, \"dark matter\", everywhere around (and possibly even inside) Earth, pieces about the size of atoms (SMALL). These dark matter pieces should be banging into each other, like really fast bumper cars... even atoms, which are regular matter, do this quite often. Some of the dark matter pieces should be going quite fast, and when they hit, something magic happens (the complexity of scientifically explaining this next sentence is too much, but it does have to do with E=mc^2). An electron (regular matter) and a positron (\"anti-matter\"... different than dark matter, mind you!) appear out of thin air!!\n\nTo answer the question: So there we are... up there on the International Space Station... with our super cool Alpha Magnetic Spectrometer (we'll call it AMS) instrument. AMS allows us to \"see\" electrons and positrons, and we point it straight out into space, away from earth, into the depths of the universe. Well, as it's turned out, we actually DO see some positrons. As of right now, the most likely explanation as to why these positrons are out there is because the little pieces of dark matter ARE actually colliding, like bumpercars, making positrons (and electrons too, of course) appear like magic.\n\nWe can't see these positrons on the surface of the earth, because they get obliterated by our atmosphere... if they touch our air, *BINK!*. A tiny explosion occurs. So, the best place to look for them is in space, and (for now) the best way to look for them is with AMS.\n\nIn the next few months, we'll gather more data which will allow us to say with greater certainty whether or not we really see the \"fingerprints\" of dark matter." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cesv5dd" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "'Flat' carbonated water is just water that is no longer supersaturated with carbon dioxide. It would still contain some residual CO2, depending on temperature, and would therefore still be very slightly acidic (ph 6 or so).\nI'm not sure what you mean by still water. If you are talking about distilled water, it would probably have less CO2 than flat carbonated water. This is because the CO2 is driven off when the water is heated to boiling, and it is likely that the water would then have been condensed and bottled without having time to reabsorb much CO2 from the atmosphere. Nonetheless conventional distilled water still has some dissolved gases and for lab work that requires water with *no* dissolved gases, further degassing is typically needed." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c2a0r98", "c2a0r98" ], "score": [ 5, 5 ], "text": [ "This is a good question, and this will be a long answer! I'll try to hit on all the major points, and if you have any more questions I can try to answer them later. Keep in mind, there are a lot of different Christians with a lot of different ideas, so other people might give different answers on some of these topics.\n\n(I'll try to keep the language as something that a 5-year-old could understand, but I might slip up if I get carried away)\n\nI'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"Christian philosophy,\" so I'm going to skip that one right now. Could you tell me a little bit more about what you're looking for in that question so that I can answer it for you?\n\nThere are a lot of different groups of Christians, but you've mentioned some big ones, so we'll start with those! \n\nCatholics are a really really big group of Christians. While they believe that Jesus came to die for our sins, they have some extra beliefs as well. Catholics teach that the Pope is the only human who can talk directly to God, and that everything that he teaches about the Bible is completely correct. A lot of their other beliefs come from the teachings of the Pope, and there's a ton of them - probably too many to explain here!\n\nProtestants are another really big group of Christians, but they don't agree with the Catholics about the Pope or about who can talk to God. As a result, Protestants have a lot of different kinds of Protestants, because without a big boss figure to tell everybody exactly what to believe, different churches can take different positions on different minor beliefs. Even though every Protestant church has some basic belief similarities (about God, Jesus, being \"saved\" and the like), things such as which version of the Bible to use, how to baptize, and stuff like that can change from church to church.\n\nMormons are interesting, because many Catholics and Protestants will not call them Christians, but they call themselves Christians. Mormons believe that their founder received *extra* revelation from God, and that's why they have The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. All of these were presented to the Mormon church by Joseph Smith as the word of God, and are treated as equal in truth to the Bible by Mormons.\n\nOther Christian offshoots (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) have similar extra teachings, and even some Protestant churches (some hardline Seventh Day Adventists, many Christian Scientists) have teachings that they regard as just as important as the Bible. This is another topic that could take lots and lots of time and research to explore.\n\nJesus, according to Christian teaching, was *the* son of God. He came to earth, lived a life without ever doing anything wrong, and then was sacrificed. This was the only way to make sure that people could be forgiven of their sins forever, since only a perfect sacrifice can perfectly cover over the bad things that people do that make it so that they can't be with God. It's also important that Jesus came back from the dead, because this shows that he is bigger than death!\n\nThe Bible is meant to be taken very seriously, since Christians believe that it is the word of God; however, there are metaphors in the Bible all over the place. Which parts *exactly* are metaphors is a pretty debated topic, and that's not something I can really say, but even metaphors can be taken seriously! For example, Jesus said that if your right eye causes you to sin you should cut it out. Most people take this as a metaphorical statement (Jesus, according to them, didn't want people to self-mutilate), but it is a metaphor telling us to be sure that we take whatever steps we need in order to avoid sinning.\n\nIt took me a while to type this, so I may have gotten a little off-track or confusing. If I can elaborate a little more or clarify something that's still obscure, please let me know!", "This is a good question, and this will be a long answer! I'll try to hit on all the major points, and if you have any more questions I can try to answer them later. Keep in mind, there are a lot of different Christians with a lot of different ideas, so other people might give different answers on some of these topics.\n\n(I'll try to keep the language as something that a 5-year-old could understand, but I might slip up if I get carried away)\n\nI'm not exactly sure what you mean by \"Christian philosophy,\" so I'm going to skip that one right now. Could you tell me a little bit more about what you're looking for in that question so that I can answer it for you?\n\nThere are a lot of different groups of Christians, but you've mentioned some big ones, so we'll start with those! \n\nCatholics are a really really big group of Christians. While they believe that Jesus came to die for our sins, they have some extra beliefs as well. Catholics teach that the Pope is the only human who can talk directly to God, and that everything that he teaches about the Bible is completely correct. A lot of their other beliefs come from the teachings of the Pope, and there's a ton of them - probably too many to explain here!\n\nProtestants are another really big group of Christians, but they don't agree with the Catholics about the Pope or about who can talk to God. As a result, Protestants have a lot of different kinds of Protestants, because without a big boss figure to tell everybody exactly what to believe, different churches can take different positions on different minor beliefs. Even though every Protestant church has some basic belief similarities (about God, Jesus, being \"saved\" and the like), things such as which version of the Bible to use, how to baptize, and stuff like that can change from church to church.\n\nMormons are interesting, because many Catholics and Protestants will not call them Christians, but they call themselves Christians. Mormons believe that their founder received *extra* revelation from God, and that's why they have The Book of Mormon, The Pearl of Great Price, and Doctrines and Covenants. All of these were presented to the Mormon church by Joseph Smith as the word of God, and are treated as equal in truth to the Bible by Mormons.\n\nOther Christian offshoots (such as Jehovah's Witnesses) have similar extra teachings, and even some Protestant churches (some hardline Seventh Day Adventists, many Christian Scientists) have teachings that they regard as just as important as the Bible. This is another topic that could take lots and lots of time and research to explore.\n\nJesus, according to Christian teaching, was *the* son of God. He came to earth, lived a life without ever doing anything wrong, and then was sacrificed. This was the only way to make sure that people could be forgiven of their sins forever, since only a perfect sacrifice can perfectly cover over the bad things that people do that make it so that they can't be with God. It's also important that Jesus came back from the dead, because this shows that he is bigger than death!\n\nThe Bible is meant to be taken very seriously, since Christians believe that it is the word of God; however, there are metaphors in the Bible all over the place. Which parts *exactly* are metaphors is a pretty debated topic, and that's not something I can really say, but even metaphors can be taken seriously! For example, Jesus said that if your right eye causes you to sin you should cut it out. Most people take this as a metaphorical statement (Jesus, according to them, didn't want people to self-mutilate), but it is a metaphor telling us to be sure that we take whatever steps we need in order to avoid sinning.\n\nIt took me a while to type this, so I may have gotten a little off-track or confusing. If I can elaborate a little more or clarify something that's still obscure, please let me know!" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ce56nnr" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Quoting myself from a previous answer to a similar question:\n\nIt depends on what you mean by police.\n\nIn Ancient Greece, city-states had publicly owned slaves who acted as a police force. They kept order and controlled prisoners, but they didn't investigate crimes. Most crimes were considered a private matter so the citizens dealt with them themselves.\n\nThe city of Rome never had a real police force, though it had a force of men set up for the protection of each ward. These men were responsible more for public order and physical protection and had no role in criminal justice.\n\nMost societies since then have had people who's duty was to \"keep the peace\" so to speak. One thing to keep in mind about criminal justice as a whole is that, for most of history, crimes were considered private matters between individuals. Eventually a new idea took hold in England; violating the King's Peace (through murder, theft, etc.) was not just a crime against an individual, but a crime against the whole kingdom. This brought about the prosecution of criminals even when no private citizen brought a case against them.\n\nIf, by police, you mean people who investigate crimes and arrest criminals, London's Bow Street Runners, founded in 1749, are regarded as the foundation of modern police. They were a formalization of the existing practice of 'thief-takers' - people who solved crimes for a fee. Prior to this, 'police' were basically only for keeping the peace in towns and cities; for example, the duties of Lieutenant General of Police, the foundation of the Paris police, were described as \"ensuring the peace and quiet of the public and of private individuals, purging the city of what may cause disturbances, procuring abundance, and having each and everyone live according to their station and their duties\"." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "edfubxa" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "It's actually not known. Some think it's a placebo, some think there's something real about the acupressure.\n\n\nThey do work. _URL_0_" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11277163" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dit60ra" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Take a look at the sidebar over at /r/magictcg - it has lots of great resources for new players.\n\nI also think that the best way to learn the game currently is to download the Magic Duels app on your phone/steam and play that. It introduces the rules to you slowly." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dc5twfb" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "You can feel light waves. Go stand outside on a bright day. It's a lot hotter in the sun than the shade, no? You just feel light in a different way than sound (usually, you feel infrared light the most, which feels like heat)." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "defttzy" ], "score": [ 15 ], "text": [ "First, it would be important to look at the diet in Rome (understanding that Rome's history lasted a millennium and while many things changed, including medical practices, diet would have remained relatively unchanged). Grain and cereal was a large part of the diet and as a consequence so was fiber. Appendicitis is caused by the blockage of the appendix, often by stool (or in rare cases any inflammation such as cancer). Because of their high-fiber diet it would be very unlikely that many people developed appendicitis.\n\nThat being said, surgery was rarely practiced at all during the time. While medical practices did certainly advance throughout Rome's millennium. For most of the Republican period (~510 - 27 B.C.) the Hippocratic corpus is our most useful source (see the Hippocratic Oath in which it states \"I will not use the knife, not even on sufferers from stone, but will withdraw in favor of such men as are engaged in this work\"). During the Empire Galen tends to be our most useful source. While surgery and dissections became slightly more practiced (albeit more on animals than humans), the practice as a whole was comparatively non-existent.\n\nTL;DR as unlikely as it would have been to develop appendicitis, if the miracle occurred, surgery would not be an option and the disease would likely be a death sentence. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cakj1ls" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "When we look really far away we do see galaxies forming." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dl7qbpl" ], "score": [ 6 ], "text": [ "Many american bands can, and do make FAR more money playing overseas than the do in the US, in fact, thats where they really make their money, in Asia and Europe. They play a ton of shows, and the clubs and festivals are willing to pay them much more than american counterparts. You might be surprised how certain bands or types of music in the US which are niche or small popularity, have a huge following in Europe and Asia.\n\nAs an example, Punk music in the 90s was a major thing like this.\n\nWhile many punk bands had small followings in the US, and toured a lot, they were often not widely known to the US public, and shows were very cheap to go to in the US (which was a staple of the punk scene, shows were supposed to be cheap and dirty, and often small, there's very little money in that)\n\nHowever, these same bands in Europe often enjoyed far more mainstream success, would play to large crowds both in festivals and not, and just take in piles of cash since they were much more popular there. This is where many 90s era punk bands actually made their money, from touring Europe, not record sales, or US tours." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dwliwm2" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "The response to crossbows appears to have been to make better armour. When powerful crossbows were common, the best armour was crossbow-proofed (i.e., successfully tested against crossbows).\n\nThe response to firearms was first, do nothing, since crossbow-proof armour stopped (i.e., had a good chance of stopping) bullets from early/mid 16th century hand-held firearms, with muzzle energies typically below 1000J. See _URL_2_ for some past discussion by /u/WARitter of the penetration of armour by early firearms. For more, see Alan Williams, *The Knight and the Blast Furnace*, Brill, 2003.\n\nSecond, as guns improved, make the armour thicker (which also makes it heavier). Bullet-proof (i.e., successfully tested against bullets - typically pistol bullets) armour varied in thickness. Examples from about 3mm thick to about 9mm thick are found. See A. Williams, D. Edge, T. Atkins, \"Bullet dents - \"Proof marks\" or battle damage\", *Gladius* 26, 175-209 (2006) for examples.\n\nThird, as the increase in thickness made the armour too heavy, get rid of the armour. The infantry was the first to discard armour. Cavalry retained bullet-proof armour for longer, and even when no longer wearing full armour, might still wear a bullet-proof breastplate. Siege engineers and specialist siege assault troops also retained heavy bullet-proof armour, in some case armour that would stop musket balls. These heavy siege armours were too heavy for regular wear on the battlefield, but in very high risk environments, could be useful.\n\nWhere does the Kelly Gang's armour fit into this? The armour was 4.5mm to 6mm thick (sources vary - /u/CChippy gives 3/16\" in _URL_1_ and other sources often give 1/4\"). Note that this is in the thickness range of bullet-proof armours of the 16th and 17th centuries.\n\nBlack powder pistols (see preceding link to past discussion of Kelly armour) of the type used against the armour typically had muzzle energies of about 300J. The rifles in use might have muzzle energies of about 1,500J, which would challenge the armour. Supposedly, the first version of the armour was found to not be strong enough, and thicker armour was made. From Williams, *The Knight and the Blast Furnace*, about 4.5mm of low-carbon steel armour (moderate quality) is required to stop about 1,500J.\n\nThe Kelly Gang were not facing muskets designed to penetrate armour on the battlefield (which could deliver in excess of 3,000J). This helped a lot. Even with this moderation of the threat they faced, their armour (at about the minimum thickness needed to stop bullets from the rifles they faced) was very heavy. Ned Kelly's armour was 44kg (97lb) (the other armours worn by the gang were lighter but less protective - Ned's armour had shoulder protectors and a rear apron, which the others lacked). This would have been rejected in the 17th century as too heavy for other than specialist siege/assault tasks.\n\nIn WW1, armour intended to stop bullets was used. One example, the [German brow plate, or *Stirnpanzer*](_URL_0_) was used to reinforce the German steel helmet to protect against bullets (the helmet, by itself, was *not* bulletproof). The Stirnpanzer was 5mm thick, about the same as the Kelly armours.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.awm.gov.au/index.php/collection/C157311", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/62iag9/how_thick_was_ned_kellys_armour/", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/5udybq/how_effective_was_plate_armor_against_musketballs/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cuejyvt", "cuek7pk", "cuf0nuq" ], "score": [ 9, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Germany has a stronger export economy than most of the rest of Europe. This is perceived by some people as keeping the exchange rate of the Euro higher against international currencies than it should be; a lower cost Euro is seen as beneficial to countries like Spain and Greece which are heavily reliant on tourism to fuel their economy, they also happen to be in the most financial trouble. A slow deflation **edit: devaluation, not deflation** of the Euro would also ease the some of the financial pressure of Spain and Greece since it would effectively devalue the portion of their debt held by non Eu members, although this is a relatively small portion of their debts if I remember correctly.\n\nThere is a lot more to the issue but this is ELI5 so I won't dig any deeper, I also haven't proposed any counter arguments about why Germany's economy being strong is good for Greece and Spain, since that is more complex too.\n\ntl:dr Germany's Economy is bad for Europe because it is indeed strong.", "Germany has a very strong export market, meaning it exports a lot of goods, much more than it imports. The result is also that Germany receives more money from other countries than it pays them (not at least due to massive wage-dumping in Germany to keep their products' prices relatively low compared to other Euro-zone countries. A clear violation of the Maastricht treaty, but no one seems to care).\n\nWhen the recent crisis hit, Germany began with its \"austerity meassures\". It cut spending, it imported less, it paid less money to other countries. The other countries, however, were still buying German products, so there still was a steady stream of money into Germany, helping it to weather the crisis well. The (European) money basically massed in Germany, while less austere nations saw their financial resources dwindling.\n\nIf those austerity measures are emposed on a country with a low export rate, the economy in that country slows down due to the government no longer investing, and no profit from exporting goods to offset the lack of investments.\n\nThe problem is, many German politicians don't link the high export rates to the weathering of the crisis and believe it was austerity alone that did the magic.", "The best way to answer this question is by comparing the US to the European Union. \n\nThe US is both a political and an economic union. What does that mean? The US is an economic union because the entire US economy uses a single currency (the dollar), has a single monetary policy (managed by the Fed), a single set of export/import tariffs and regulations, etc. The problem with this arrangement is that some places might have a booming economy (San Francisco) while at the same time other places (Mississippi) might have a really slow economy. A one-size-fits-all national economic policy is not going to meet the needs of every place. That's why we have a political union too - so that rich places with a booming economy can pay taxes, which are transferred to places that need help. (That's effectively what social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, head start, etc do) \n\nIn Europe, they have an economic union but not a political union. So they have a one-size-fits-all economic policy that doesn't work well for some places (Greece). But every time the Greeks need help, the Germans balk at having to pay for it, and the whole Eurozone has a market spasm. \n\nSo TLDR: The European Union's economic policy is driven by Germany's economy (which is export driven and props up the Euro) but this in turn hurts some of the other countries in the Union. So Germany's economy isn't \"bad\" per se but their actions have hurt other countries in Europe. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "es1syie" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "The atomic numbers of the fission fragments don't necessarily have to add up to the Z of the original nucleus. When fission occurs, the uranium nucleus splits into two heavy fission fragments, and some number of light particles, which could be protons, neutrons, alpha particles, or whatever. \n\nSo the Z of the two fragments doesn't necessarily have to sum to 92.\n\nAlso, as you mentioned, some of the fission fragments may decay very quickly after the fission, so by the time you actually measure the yields, they've decayed into other things." ] }

[]

[ "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fission_product_yield", "https://e-reports-ext.llnl.gov/pdf/890623.pdf" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ck23rwf" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "Honestly it is a case of dose:body mass ratio. The weight of flies varies a lot based on side, type etc, but 10-20mg is common. When you spray an area even if the entire spray is only 1mg of active ingredient (the example on the wiki you posted is dichlorvos - an acetylcholinesterase inhibitor) enough would reach the fly to cause contractions in all of its muscles, stopping it from breathing and suffocating it. \n\nA human has a much larger body, and once the drug is absorbed it enters our blood stream and is distributed around the body. Very little makes it to the places where it can have any serious effects. From normal use there simply isn't enough to make an impact on a human. \n\nIt is like comparing how a pipette might hold 1ml and look full (the fly is the pipette and the 1ml is the amount of drug to kill it), but put that 1ml into a pint glass and it is only 1/568th of the glass - A 2 litre bottle of soda and its only 1/2000th not anywhere close to being full. What is enough to fill one thing isn't necessarily enough to fill another… What is enough to kill one thing isn't necessarily enough to kill another. \n\nOr a better analogy. A drop of poison in someones drink might kill them… put that same drop into an ocean someone is going to swim in, and watch as nothing happens. " ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fly_spray" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fkqqlk3" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "I am not sure what you mean by \"Republican period\" but I can give an answer for 15th around the \"peak\" of Venetian naval strength.\n\nFirst to briefly describe the Venetian 'navy'. It consisted of state owned galleys (few if any sail ships were such state-owned) of usually two types: the merchant 'great' galleys and war 'light' galleys. The merchant galleys were used in Venetian convoy system for trading valuable goods to/from particular locations (Alexandria, Beirut, Flanders, Constantinople, etc) and in this system the galleys were \"auctioned\" for a particular voyage to a highest bidder. The person - or usually a partnership of several people - who won the auction could select whoever he wanted as a commander - called a *patron* - and he had to be a noble. War galleys - which served either as Guard - patrolling certain seas and locations - or stored on land and deployed when needed fir action, would have the commander - in this case called *sopracomito* - elected for one season directly by the State. To be eligible for election you had to be a noble, over thirty years old and usually of good standing and in particular good financial status as often they had to pay advances and other costs for crew and provisions from their own pocket (which could maybe be reimbursed later, but definitely financial liquidity was needed. These position was highly coveted and many noblemen did their best to secure a sopracomitoposition for themselves.\n\nNow, this command post (patron / sopracomito) was basically the only officer rank on board that was noble. All the rest of the officer ranks were non-noble, and basically the ship was ran by non-nobles with the patron/sopracomito serving as overseer for trade/war matters. Now, it is not unreasonable to assume that in order to become a commander you had to have relevant experience. But how to get relevant experience, if no other officer posts were available for nobles? Well, one part of the solution was that the commander could bring aboard his retinue, like pages, servants, or just fellow passengers, and this was regularly used for commanders to 'accustom to the sea' their children or relatives or closely connected people of trust. Strictly speaking these people brought as retinue were not \"in the Navy\". They had no authority on the ship nor were they paid by the State. They were solely on the upkeep of the commander who had to pay all their expenses (or whatever other arrangement was made, but definitely not on official rolls). \nThe other option to serve as a noble on board was to be elected to be a 'bowman of the quarterdeck'. As opposed for ordinary bowmen who were non-noble, who counted 20-30 on board and were positioned on the benches with the rowers, the bowmen of the quarterdeck were noble and were stationed with the commander. There were initially four of them, then six, then eight for each galley. Their salaries and supplies were provided by the State/galley as part of the crew (they were naturally paid more). The secondary literature I am drawing from openly describes these positions as intended by the State to give young, poor, experiencing-hardship nobles a chance to get experience on the seas and opportunity to earn some money trading. They didn't have any offical say in running of the ship and were more intended as soldiers. However if a commander would die on duty, the next commander would come from the nobles on board. Initially the age minimum for bowmen was twenty, but it was lowered to eighteen, and exceptions were frequently granted for younger.\n\nSo how young the Venetians were when they started 'going to the sea'? Hard to say. One commander recorded he started taking his son along with him when the child was only four. Another noble records he went on his first voyage at fourteen under his uncle. But it's unclear if he went as a page/retinue or a paid bowmen. In each case that same noble was recorded to be going as bowmen on voyages at around twenty to twenty-two years old. From this few cases we might paint the picture that Venetians nobles started 'serving' (or being employed) on vessels at ages 14-20, with some frequently experiencing ship life and participating on voyages even younger if their parents/relatives would take them. \n\nAs a final note, I would just reference the non-noble ranks on board. The highest non-noble rank on board was a *comito* - usually translated as master. For all intents and purposes he was the main person in charge of ship for all matters naval. Although sopracomito could always overrule him. Second in charge was a *paron* who was also in charge of the bow (front) of the ship. They were aided by several men called *nochiero* who were lesser officers, and first step above oarsmen (where there would be junior and senior ones). All these officers could (and would) come from the oarsmen ranks and rise through ability. However all the officer positions on a galley were given through elections in Venice (and you needed to be a Venetian citizen, which could be gotten around by marrying a Venetian woman). \n\nIt was deemed beneficial to know how to read and write for junior officers, and for higher ranks you needed knowledge of mathematics and navigation. How young would you start? Hard to say, but for example Venetian conscription laws for oarsmen in time of war recruited from men aged twenty to sixty. As oarsmen were voluntary and often in short supply, younger men were often excepted. So again we may consider age of start being 16-20 (maybe as low as 14) if you were built well enough for the hard job of rowing." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "d38c76c" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "I am going to throw one out there and say that it is hardwired into the brain like many other traits that make up out collection of self-preservation instincts.\n\nGenerally Dopamine is released as a reward for doing things beneficial to staying alive... Exercising, eating, childcare, pets and fire \n(which is why we need fire and explosions on tv and films to like them more)\nTo stay healthy in caveman times; infections must not be allowed to take hold and you would be rewarded for avoiding such dangers. A cyst can become infected as can been seen in some of the horrific popping videos. A cleared out cyst can heal. NO cave people would clear infections if they were all repelled by such disgusting bodily gunge. those who could tolerate it survive infections. even within a tribe as long as there is someone who gets joy out of the bad jobs such as chiropracting (some hate it. some find it fascinating - same situation) or popping cysts; the welfare of the group improves.\n\nSo don't worry if you are the person who loves the videos of people apparently emptying toothpaste tubes out of their bodies under pressure. :/\n\nSomeones got to do it...." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cgqx1vn" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "They're the same thing. Water is water. Some brands add (or, more often, don't bother to filter out) minerals that are good to you, but can often have a \"dirty\" taste. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cn1603a" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Several reasons: \n- Personal profit and short-term thinking; \n- Not believing that the problems are real; \n- Believing that market forces will solve the problems (generally accompanied by a belief that government intervention is a bad thing in just about everything); \n- An expectation that technology will solve the problems; \n- Underestimating the extent of the environmental issues. \n\nNormally, there's a combination of at least two of these reasons. " ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dy85osj" ], "score": [ 21 ], "text": [ "/u/robinthebum wrote about it at _URL_0_\n\nThis is not to discourage more discussion. I'd love to see more data, debate, and questions.\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/53mrnh/what_was_the_electric_eel_called_when_electricity/d7uh0ed/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cenkcx8" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Such a complicated problem! _URL_0_ A simple quick answer for you is that since your pan is made up of two different materials, the thermal conductivity and amount of energy held by those materials is different and will be radiated off/exchanged at different rates and total amounts.\n\nThe heat capacity of aluminum is **0.89690 J/(g K)**\nThe heat capacity of Teflon (PTFE) is **1.4 J/(g K)**\n\nThe thermal conductivity of aluminum is **235 W/(m K)**\nThe thermal conductivity of PTFE is **0.25 W/(m K)**\n\nThe bottom of the pan probably had already lost a lot of its heat before you noticed the heat radiating off the top." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heat_equation" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cpcsz06", "cpct2g0", "cpct5vx", "cpcv6k1" ], "score": [ 6, 2, 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Feminists focus on *female* rights. They rarely touch on male perceptions. ", "Those depictions of men are power fantasies. Few women want to have breasts so big that their spines crumple over into a crescent moon shape, but big muscles are something many men wish they could have. Both of your examples are male-oriented.", "If you want to play devil's advocate? I've never actually read a bodice ripper, but I've spoken to plenty of women who have. \n\nThat bare chested macho man in the romance novel actually has a character. He speaks, has motivations, and is actually relevant to the plot in some fashion. That's why it's called a \"romance\" novel as opposed to a \"sex\" novel. Sure there's lots of that, but there's also a bunch of emotional satisfaction and such.\n\nHaving played a lot of videogames, that scantily clad female is largely incidental to the whole thing. They could be removed from the game with no consequence whatsoever, they're just there for eye candy. \n\nIn short, a romance novel treats Fabio like a person, a video game treats the pinup as a body. ", "Romance novels are entirely about sex, so of course they're going to have characters focused on sex appeal. But video games aren't about sex, so why should female video game characters be designed based on sex appeal?" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "d1en80d" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "Good question. There are a couple of factors to take into account. The first thing is that much of the Russian Civil War was fought by fairly small forces. [According to PBS,](_URL_1_) Russia mobilized 12,000,000 soldiers during the First World War, lost 1,700,000 killed, 2,500,000 captured or MIA, and 4,950,000 wounded, a whopping casualty rate of 76.3%. Even acknowledging that some wounded would recover enough to fight again, that's a devastating count. \n\n\nHowever, Russia's population was 166,000,000, in 1914, [according to Spartacus Educational](_URL_0_), so even given these devastating losses, there were still men of fighting age, including men involved in industry who had not been conscripted into the army. In fact, feeding Russia's population during the Civil War was a major problem, and more died from famine and disease than combat or political violence. \n\n\nBut you still certainly have a good point, and indeed the initial phase of the Russian Civil War was fought by small bands of soldiers and irregulars. Bruce Lockhart, a British diplomat sent to Moscow, estimated that the Bolshevik Army had 213,000 soldiers in 1918, split between those fighting the Whites in Siberia, in the Caucasus and Central Asia, and screening the German Army in the west. \n\nMost of these were ill-disciplined worker's militias, deserters, Chinese laborers, and Austro-Hungarian (mostly Hungarian) POWs who joined out of conviction or to avoid starvation in abandoned prison camps. The backbone was formed from 23,000 committed Communist Lithuanian riflemen, who were rushed from front to front to deal with crises. So while there were still troops, the numbers were greatly reduced from the Russian Amy's wartime strength.\n\nThe Whites had even worse problems recruiting soldiers. General Denikin's Volunteer Army, the main White force in South Russia, set up recruiting offices in the Don, but only had around three thousand soldiers for most of the year, plus several thousands Don Cossacks. The vast majority of officers preferred not to get involved. The fact that the Volunteers often beat much larger Red forces is attributable to the fact that most of the them, even in the rank-and-file, were officers, and they were much better disciplined than their opponents. In North Russia, the British-backed government in Archangel never raised considerable numbers of troops (and those they did often deserted en masse), while the backbone of the Siberian Whites in 1918 was the 70,000-strong Czech Legion. So, we can see that only small numbers of men actually fought during the first phase of the war, on very vast fronts, and that the best fighters were not Russians, but foreign soldiers. \n \nThe war kicked up a notch in 1919, and both sides were forced to conscript soldiers. The Reds also conscripted former officers into the Red Army and coerced them to fight by holding their families as hostages. However the majority of the conscript soldiers on both sides were not very interesting in fighting, and tended to desert when it suited them. White armies converged Red Russia in 1919 from three sides, reaching their high-water mark in 1919, but the Reds possessed Russia's populous, industrial center, while the Whites were confined to the peripheries in the Baltic, Ukraine, and Siberia. Thus, the Reds could raise far more troops, and with the help of internal lines could focus on one threat at a time. While the Reds could replace losses, the Whites had a much harder time doing so. In Siberia, the Reds usually conscripted prisoners that they took, but the Whites shot theirs or stripped them and left them to freeze to death, rather than enlisting them. By the autumn of 1919 every major White threat had been defeated and the war was as good as over, but it continued for several more years. \n\nSo, I hope that answers your question. In short, the major points:\n\n1.) Russia took huge losses in WWI, but still had a massive population.\n\n2.) The war was fought by relatively small numbers of soldiers.\n\n3.) Both sides did have trouble finding soldiers (especially willing ones), and resorted to conscription or enlisting prisoners by force. \n\n\nSources: \n\nRichard Pipes, *Russia Under the Bolshevik Regime*\n\n\nMr. Lockhart to Mr. Balfour, \"Memorandum on the Internal Situation in Russia\", *British Documents on Foreign Affairs*, Doc. 5. \n\nJohn Bradley, *The Allied Intervention in Russia*\n\n\nJonathan Smele, *Civil War in Siberia: The Anti-Bolshevik Government of Admiral Kolchak*\n\n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://spartacus-educational.com/FWWinRussia.htm", "http://www.pbs.org/greatwar/resources/casdeath_pop.html" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "fdqozcc" ], "score": [ 7 ], "text": [ "\"Kinetic theory\" may be the term you're looking for, if that helps you in future googling.\n\nSo, \"pressure\" is just the molecules smacking against each other, and applying forces to each other when they collide. The other main force they're feeling is gravity.\n\nIf these forces don't cancel out, then there will be a net force, and the fluid will move. So if you have some bunch of particles, and gravity is pulling them down faster than the collisions are pushing them up, then they will move downwards. If there's already other molecules down there, the fluid will start to get denser and hotter.\n\nDensity is just the number of particles you have in a space, and temperature is just how fast they're going. So denser and hotter means more collisions, and stronger collisions. So denser and hotter things have higher pressure.\n\nNote that these are *local* things. Pressure comes from how hot and dense some part of a fluid is - the total amount of fluid or whatever doesn't directly matter. All that matters is how hot and dense it is.\n\nThe other part is that *uniform* pressure doesn't apply a force. You need a *pressure gradient*. That is, if you're getting pushed evenly on all sides, you don't get pushed anywhere. But if you get pushed more from the bottom than from the top, then you will get pushed up.\n\nSo what happens in a fluid is that, if it's not in equilibrium with gravity, it will start to collapse down and compress itself, and you end up with a gradient of density and/or temperature, which means there's a gradient of pressure, which means that it can support itself against gravity.\n\nAnd if it can support itself against gravity, it can support other things against gravity too: and that's buoyancy." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7cde6j", "c560yd5", "c5621hs", "c5621vn", "c5629qe", "c562nm6", "c56349z", "c5634ib", "c563d2b", "c563dp9", "c563jin", "c564115", "c564bku", "c564k60", "c564p3f", "c564p9o", "c564pvu", "c564x80", "c564xj3", "c56588e", "c565yyd", "c565zde", "c5666up", "c56677h", "c5668sz", "c566dox", "c566dw2", "c566rsb", "c566vxl", "c566wiw", "c56706s", "c56715k", "c5671h8", "c5672fh", "c5674he", "c5678lp", "c567dac", "c567drb", "c567duz", "c567h6l", "c567l3z", "c567lxg", "c567o1g", "c567oc0", "c567wrh", "c568251", "c5682cj", "c56873s", "c568gvb", "c568p20", "c569ph1", "c569tx1", "c56bnli", "c56cf19", "c56hysi", "c56i2ex", "c56sf5d", "c5az8cu", "c5f7k9z", "c5hhjlv" ], "score": [ 2, 8, 13, 12, 2, 2, 3, 14, 2, 4, 9, 7, 3, 4, 3, 2, 23, 6, 3, 5, 2, 6, 2, 4, 3, 6, 4, 2, 7, 2, 2, 4, 2, 7, 16, 2, 5, 2, 6, 2, 3, 3, 3, 5, 12, 2, 3, 2, 3, 3, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2, 3, 2, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The book that taught me most about the Weimar Republic and the two World Wars was *The Lost Revolution: Germany 1918 to 1923* by *Chris Harman*. From the publisher:\n\n*Without an understanding of this defeat, the great barbarisms that swept Europe*\n*in the 1930s cannot be understood. The swastika first entered modern history in*\n*the uniforms of the German counterrevolutionary troops of 1918 to 1923—and*\n*because of the defeat in Germany, Russia fell into the isolation that gave Stalin*\n*his road to power.*\n\nAvailable in [English](_URL_0_) and German (*Die verlorene Revolution*).", "Since you suggested the 'near east':\n\n_Ataturk_, Andrew Mango. One of the most important statesmen in the 20th century, and one of the most admirable ones too (I'm not a Turk, but reading about him it is easy to see why he is so inspirational). The story of Ataturk is the story of Turkey in the first half of the 20th century, so it's kind of a 2-in-1 in a sense. Though unfortunately Mango doesn't spend all that many pages about his legacy.\n\n_The Arabs, A History_ by Eugene Rogan. I was tempted to suggest Albert Hourani's _A History of the Arab People_ but Rogan's book is more recent and covers the 90s and 00s as well as everything before them (his book stretches from the 16th century to 2009; Hourani's book was published in the early 90s and so misses the recent events).", "*The First Total War* by David A. Bell is an excellent summation of the state of Europe previous to the Napoleonic Wars, The French Revolution, and Napoleonic Europe. The book's main point is to show the beginning of the concept of what we now call total war. It's an extremely informative and engaging book that covers a lot of ground in an extremely important time/place of history.\n\nUnfortunately, when it comes to Medieval history, you get a lot of books that make too many *certain* claims about what happened in one place or who did what, when in reality there is no way to know. For this reason, I would recommend reading some scholarly articles to actually learn how we (as historians) decide what happened during the Medieval era. Read some primary sources and ask yourself, \"What can I learn from this?\" For instance, read *Beowulf* and a few scholarly articles that focus on what we can learn from it. By doing so, you'll already have a better idea about what Medieval history actually is, than a lot of people that have read a bunch of secondary source material.", "If I was to recommend one book over all the of the history of Russia and the Soviet Union. I would recommend A People's Tragedy by Orlando Figes. It gives a complete summary of the events leading to the 1917 Revolution and the brief aftermath. It is a great read and gives a detailed formation of the reasons on why the Bolsheviks won over the others and what it meant for Russia. It is an easy read, and reads almost like a novel. \n\n", "Conceived in Liberty, by Murray Rothbard. I am on Book 2 and have never read a more thorough, more American book on the Revolution. Told from a libertarian perspective, but not colored by excessive bias, it gives the reader more than just a chronology. It is a rich cross section of the individual motives that came together in synchronicity to cause the revolution. Additionally, Rothbard pays much needed attention to the oft neglected 17th century.", "Dreadnought by Robert K. Massie. It's a fascinating look into the years leading up to World War One, focusing mostly on Europe. Massie researches everything he writes to an incredible degree, yet still manages to keep it from being dry. He paints vivid pictures of the people involved and doesn't miss anything.", "I'd recommend a 'Big History' try Why The West Rules for Now by Ian Morris.", "For an understanding of how modern cities (especially New York City) got built, or unbuilt, I can't recommend enough \"The Power Broker\" by Robert Caro. Even if you have no knowledge of New York in particular, it's a seminal book about the twin rise of the modern city and the automobile, urban planning, and bureaucratic power in the 20th century. Ostensibly a biography of Robert Moses, it's probably more accurate to call it a biography of New York. \n\nAlso generally considered to be one of the great nonfiction works of our era.", "I'd recommend 'Birth of the Modern: 1815-1830' by Paul Johnson. I'm re-reading it now and it's both very broad, very detailed, and imminently readable. Basic thesis is how the matrix for the modern mind was formed during this time period. \n\n\n", "If you don't mind a long book that's a bit focused, you should look into [Postwar: A History of Europe since 1945](_URL_0_), which is pretty much what it says on the tin. It's a good read, if a bit dry at times, and covers pretty much everything in its subject area. ", "A very broad book that I'm reading right now (and it seems really good so far) is [Guns, Germs, and Steel](_URL_0_) by Jared Diamond.\n\nIt deals with patterns of human history, specifically why Eurasian societies conquered and survived others (and not the other way around). Also, it's a Pulitzer Prize winner.\n\nEdit: You should know I'm not a historian or anything. Just a regular guy", "Either Tacitus' *Annals* or Livy's *Ab Urbe Condita*. Both are great primary sources on Roman history, which is amazingly interesting. Or, for a modern text, *From the Gracchi to Nero* by Scullard.", "*The Oxford Illustrated History of the British Monarchy*. An amazing book, filled with over a thousand years of information about an important monarchy. \n\nEdit: a word", "I would recommend [1491](_URL_0_). It's a great look on what we now know about the Americas before Columbus, and it's an easy read (written by a journalist). ", "**The Development of America:** *Nature's Metropolis* by Cronin is, without a doubt, a classic that analyzes the development of the Chicago area. This is way more than a history of a city. Cronin focuses on how trade, immigration, and a huge number of other phenomena affected society, culture, economy, and environment. His arguments about the Chicago-dominated Midwest can be (loosely) applied to other regions in America to give you a MUCH better understanding of this young nation.\n\n**Pre-1492 World History:** I am by no means an expert, but I read *Old World Encounters* by Bentley in a World History Readings class and thought it was quite good. It doesn't focus on any culture in a vacuum. Instead, Bentley focuses on interactions and cross-cultural influences primarily between Asia and Europe before 1492. \n\nAny others can feel free to improve on my recommendation.", "Andrew Gordon- A Modern History Of Japan. It's incredibly broad, but is a good introduction to changes in Japanese society over the past two hundred years or so.", "Take Rothbard off the list. He was more of a propagandist than a historian.", "[A Short History of Nearly Everything](_URL_0_) by Bill Bryson\n\nThis book is phenomenal. It has science, history, humor. It shows a side of the history you've never seen before. It has been referred to as 'the science book everyone wishes hey had in school'.\n\nDo yourself a favor and pick it up. Promise you won't be disappointed.", "No one has mentioned 'Lies My Teacher Told Me'? A great history of the US.", "I don't know how nobody's posted this, but [Herodotus' *Histories*](_URL_0_) is about as essential as it gets for the classics. It was written in the mid-5th century BC and covers a huge range of topics from politics and geography to cultural clashes and ancient traditions. It's also widely regarded as the genesis of history as a subject of study.\n\nI can't say this next bit any better than Wikipedia can, so here:\n\n > Perhaps most importantly, it stands as one of the first [and only] surviving account of the rise of the Persian Empire, the events of, and causes for, the Greco-Persian Wars between the Achaemenid Empire and the Greek city-states in the 5th century BC. Herodotus portrays the conflict as one between the forces of slavery (the Persians) on the one hand, and freedom (the Athenians and the confederacy of Greek city-states which united against the invaders) on the other.", "I would strongly recommend the work of Robert Fisk. In *The Great War for Civilization: The Conquest of the Middle East,* he chronicles his travels over a thirty year career as a correspondent in the Middle East, and provides a borderline absurd amount of historical context to accompany his first hand accounts of the numerous conflicts that he reported on and important figures whom he interviewed. At over 1300 pages, it might displace a book or two off your list, but it is an incredible and enlightening read.", "I'm gonna get downvoted for this but \"A People's History of the United States\" by Howard Zinn. Just some great counter-history to the typical bullshit we learn about in school. But people also think he's a radical asshole, so it might depend more on your personal viewpoints than desires to learn history, but I still recommend it.\n\nBut I would also highly recommend something else. Do you like movies? If you like movies as well as history I strongly recommend reading the literature about historical film. My personal favorites are: \n\n\"History by Hollywood\" by Robert Brent Toplin\n\nOr \"Film Nation\" by Robert Burgoyne.\n\nThey'll definitely change your perspective about how you watch historical/political films, and even make you love some movies that you like even more because some are actually good historical representations\n\n\nAnd I'm gonna add one more here. You should also read some Social History. But I'm not gonna recommend any typical social history books. I'm gonna recommend George Orwell's \"Down and Out in Paris and London\" (NOTE: This is NOT a history book but more of a journalistic approach, but who's to say that just because it isn't a \"history\" book, that it's not good history???) I just think it's fantastic, it's about class in you guessed it... Paris and London, during the earlier parts of the 20th century and it gives you an entirely different perspective", "I'm no expert, but here's a couple that have helped me out as a student. (I'm South Asian, so these books come from a South Asian perspective.)\n\nVincent Smith's *The Oxford History of India*. Gives a completely different perspective on the area than most books by Indian authors, but doesn't really cover the Indian independence movement or the political climate after the first world war. If you're interested, I can recommend some other books that focus on Indian independence.\n\nP. K. Hitti's *History of the Arabs*. Eugene Rogan's book is pretty much a modern history of the area. This book is about the start of Islam and the rise of the great Islamic empires back when Europe was in the middle ages. ", "*Framing the Early Middle Ages* by Christopher Wickham.\n\n*Renaissance of the Twelfth Century* by Charles Homer Hasksins.\n\nThe second book is a tad outdated, yes, but those two books together? They'll blow your current assumptions about the \"Dark Ages\" to smithereens.", "You're missing a major aspect of early new world history. I would recommend you add *A General History of the Pyrates* by Daniel Defoe. You may know Defoe for his books *Robinson Crusoe* and *Moll Flanders* but this is not a fictional tale. It is considered one of THE primary sources of pirating history. It can get a bit heavy sometimes and it was written in the early 1700s so it reads a little rough but you will come away knowing far more about pirates than you could have known there was to know. ", "I can *really* recommend *China: A History* by John Keay.\n\nIt is among the most readable history books I know of and it's extremely up-to-date and China is definitely worth 'spending a book on'. \n\nIt goes right from the neolithic period up to the present.\n\n[Here](_URL_0_)!", "[Memory and the Mediterranean](_URL_4_) and [The Structures of Everyday Life](_URL_5_). Hell, anything by Braudel. One of the most important historians of the 20th century.\n\n[Alexander to Actium](_URL_6_) by Green. \n\n[Rubicon](_URL_8_) is passable considering the broad audience it was written for. A nice intro to the era for the uninitiated.\n\nI don't think you can look at modern works of history without giving credit to Focault, but good luck, his stuff isn't easy. If you're an academic masochist who likes to [punish](_URL_7_) yourself to the point of [madness](_URL_0_), then try his [Archeology of Knowledge](_URL_2_).\n\n[The Eastern Origin of Western Civilization](_URL_1_) by Hobson is great, highly readable, and pretty balanced for the \"East vs. West\" field.\n\n[Orientalism](_URL_3_) by Said is standard reading for World/Asia historians. Difficult at times, but essential.\n\nAnd despite what other have said, I would recommend Zinn's infamous American history simply for the fact that you shouldn't only read good books. Sometimes it's just as useful to read ones that are controversial, biased, or just plain bad. Or ones that you know you're gonna hate. I probably learned more about historical methods in grad school by reading many mediocre texts than a few fantastic ones. Stuff like Zinn is worth reading and studying no matter what anyone tells you, espeically if you approach it from a historiographic and technical point of view.", "An Intellectual History of Psychology--Daniel Robinson. It's actually more of a history of philosophy starting from the pre-Socratics, and he's good about covering the general zeitgeist of the periods as well. It's also all from a hermeneutic perspective, which is important to keep in mind.\n\nThe 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential Persons In History--Michael H. Hart. The guy is rather eurocentric and I don't care for a lot of his political views, but the book itself isn't. He goes through each person--first giving a very well laid-out biography, explains why he/she was important and then gives a brief argument on why the person is placed where he/she is. Very well written. He actually gives a very good argument for Muhammed being number 1.", "1. Age of Revolution 1789-1848\n2. Age of Capital 1848-1875\n3. Age of Empire 1875-1914\n\nThese three books by Eric Hobsbawm form a thematic trilogy about the rise of industrial capitalism in the 19th century and how it directly led to colonial imperialism. \n\nIf you want to understand just how deeply economic systems can change society, this is your book. Yes, it is dry, but damn it is important to understand this.", "Try \"[The Iron Wall](_URL_0_)\" by Avi Schlaim. It's the history of the modern Israeli/ Arab conflict that is impeccably written and sourced. ", "Jacques Gernet - A History of Chinese Civilization", "Russell's A History of Western Philosophy isn't a bad way of filling in some gaps.", "The Samurai - A Military History by Stephen Turnbull is a very interesting look at japans history, particularly in reference to the development of their culture. ", "*King Leopold's Ghost* by Adam Hochschild. I warn that it's extremely dry, and it took two readings required by two different classes to appreciate it, but this book opened my eyes to colonialism in Africa, specifically in the Belgian Congo. \n\nBasically, Belgium was able to convince the other European powers to give little ol' Beligium a massive portion of Africa filled with rubber and gems, all between the US Civil War and WW1.", "All of these works are very specific. Especially Kuhn's is simply specialist literature, even if it is an important work in the field. I would avoid the hell out of Rothbard because it's an ideological work. I don't think A People's Tragedy is free of bias either. But finding a neutral work about the Soviet Union is impossible anyhow.\n\nThe only book on your list with a big scope is Arabs A History.\n\nIf you want to know \"all the things\" you need at least some survey works. You still don't even have one for the modern age so I propose 'A History of the Modern world' by R.R. Palmer (10th edition).\n\n_URL_0_\n\nIt's not perfect. It's not an exciting read like Jared Diamond or Howard Zinn. It's not on the edge of modern research. But it's a comprehensive book and the best of its kind. \n\nFor European Medieval History I found \"Introduction to Medieval Europe 300-1550\" by Blockmans and Hoppenbrouwers (A Belgian and a Dutch Historian) very rewarding.\n\n_URL_2_\n\n\nFor the history of the near East during the last 40-ish years, I would strongly recommend Robert Fisk's The Great war for Civilization. Some of the more conservative stock might see this work as biased. But this book is incredible. It's an enthralling read and completely unique in its kind. It's also an obligatory work for anyone interested in recent Middle East history.\n\n_URL_3_\n\nAlso, check out this thread: _URL_1_", "William L Shirer - the Rise and Fall of the Third Reich - Many books to choose from for probably one of the most important events in modern history, exploring the causes of the 2nd world war and the consequences.", "Diarmaid MacCulloch's *History of Christianity: The First 3000 Years*. \n\nIf you have any interest in Religion or the discussion or Religion, or understanding a major part of the spiritual side of the last 2000 years of history, it's essential.", "I'm not a historian but I am a fan of literary fiction that leads into my personal investigation of what is factual history (my mother has a PhD in anthropology and I have read these books on her suggestion...)\n\n* [The Killer Angels](_URL_1_) - about a few days during the most bloody battle of the American Civil War. Much of the book is speculative (read: historical fiction and internal monologues we can never really know about) but really got me interested in the time period.\n\n* [All The Shah's Men](_URL_2_) - A history of the American government's involvement in the Iranian coup in the 50's. My father grew up in Iran and I think this is one of the only books he's read in his whole life. Quite the eye opener.\n\n* [Gates of Fire](_URL_0_) - The \"real\" story of the 300 soldiers of Sparta made famous by the comic book by Frank Miller/the movie directed by Zack Snyder.\n\nAgain, these books aren't factual but they got me to research and learn about their related subjects. They help me remember what was factual and what was fictional because they are all fantastic reads.\n\n", "I think some of the recommendations here are too specific for someone who wants to know \"all the things\". But if the OP is content with them, great! \n\nSome general world history recommendations, in no particular order:\n\n * A World History (by Ponting)\n * A History of the Modern World\n * Human Drama: World History from 500 to 1450\n * The Heritage of World Civilizations\n * Why the West rules for now\n * Guns, Germs and Steel \n * The World That Trade Created\n * Carnage and Culture\n * After Tamerlane\n * Europe: A History (Davies)\n * Sailing from Byzantium: How a Lost Empire Shaped the World \n * Ecological Imperialism\n\nI don't want to recommend only one book, as everyone has a different taste when it comes to history books. Look them up, read a few pages on amazon online and decide for yourself if you will like the style and themes. If you want to spend a year with these books, a few minutes of having a look at them are well spent. I also recommend another look at the \"Master Book List\" in the sidebar and going through it. Its exactly what you're looking for!\n\nOxford's \"Short introduction to ...\" series is quite good too:\n\n_URL_0_\n\nHere are some earlier posts on r/AskHistorians, with similiar questions asked:\n\n* [What is a good book for learning world history from... the beginning?](_URL_2_)\n\n* [Could you guys give me a recommendation on a set of books that I could use to give myself a sort of general understanding of Western History?](_URL_3_)\n\n* [What is a good collection of books for someone with little history knowledge to learn the gist of history?](_URL_4_)\n\n* [I want to learn about world history, what are some good books or other resources ?](_URL_1_)\n\n", "\"Maps of Time\" by David Christian. Another \"big history\" book... covers the beginning of the Universe to the present day.", "The Age of Revolution, Capital, Empire, And The Age of Extremes by Eric Hobsbawn?", "What about *A History of the Modern World* by Palmer? It's very much a general overview, and I'm not sure that's what the OP wants, but it's incredibly well written. ", "*Traditions and Encounters* by Jerry Bentley and Herbert Ziegler. It's a fully fledged college textbook on world history and a very good one. As unbiased as humanly possible.", "* \"The French Revolution: A History\" by Thomas Carlyle\n* \"Lost to the West: The Forgotten Byzantine Empire That Rescued Western Civilization\"\n* \"Decline of the West\" by Oswald Spengler (a good book to learn about all of history)", "In my opinion, the most important book in the last 15 years: *The Great Divergence: China, Europe, and the Making of the Modern World Economy*, by Ken Pomeranz, on amazon [here](_URL_0_). \n\nIt challenges and basically obliterates the traditional interpretations of Western ascendancy with a new, ecological interpretation of the industrial revolution.", "*A History of Money* by Glyn Davies... always relevant to everything else.\n\nFor the Persians and the Greeks (always very important), a good one for a popular audience is Tom Holland's *Persian Fire*. A similar one on Rome (up to the end of the Republic at least) is *Rubicon* by the same author.", "Theodor Mommsen, The History of Rome. It's a bit older than most of the books mentioned here, but hey, it won a Nobel Prize.\n", "If you want to read one general history book, The People's History of the World by Chris Harman.", "I realise this goes a bit further back than you might have wanted, but I seriously recommend *A history of the Ancient Near East* by Marc van de Mieroop. Whilst being relatively comprehensive, the book's focus is on producing an understandable summary of the ancient Near East and so in terms of gaining some kind of overarching perspective on the development of the ancient Near East it's pretty excellent.", "Put Said into the bottom category. It's not objective history; it's impassioned whining.", "[A Short History of Nearly Everything](_URL_0_) sounds like the right book for you.", "Thanks for making this thread. There are quite a few books on that list I'll be picking up very soon. ", "No love for french historians? I've been reading recently a lot about the Capetian kings, here's some books about that era:\n\n**Jacques Le Goff**, *Saint-Louis* (1996) (But seriously, any book he ever wrote. I never see him or any of his book mentionned here, but me and my collegues agreed that he might be the most famous french historian nowadays)\n\n**Georges Duby**, *Trois Ordres ou l'Imaginaire du féodalisme* (1978) (Major book that has been quoted in almost every medieval history book I've been reading since I started University)\n\n**Marc Bloch**, *Les rois thaumaturges* (1924) (Marc Bloch was the \"master\" if I can say of Le Goff, who was the thesis director of Duby)", "With the internet authority my flair bestows upon me, I am recommending you read *Why the West Rules* by Ian Morris first. It basically details the history of the entire world, and does a good job of presenting different historical and archaeological theories. By reading it you will be able to fit the more specific works you have into a nice chronology.", "*A Distant Mirror: The Calamitous 14th Century* by Barbara W. Tuchman would make a good bonus for you. Guess what its about?", "I just saw that you read German. If you're interested in the subject, some of the best scholarship throughout the past several centuries has on the subject of the Late Roman Republic/Age of Augustus was originally in German. There is an interesting history itself in the magnetic attraction Germans have felt towards Augustus that I don't think has been fully explored (at least in English texts that I've seen).", "A little late to the party here, and this isn't strictly a history book, but I really think a great primer would be *The Tragedy of Great Power Politics* by John Mearsheimer. He's one of the world's premise international relations scholars, and here he tests his theory of 'offensive realism' against the historical record, covering the period from the Frech Revolution to the end of the Cold War. Gives a great and convincing explanation of the strategic decisions and power calculations behind all the great-power wars (and avoided wars) throughout that period. Highly recommended.", " > Lies My Teacher Told Me -- Loewen\n\nFantastic book, but skip the sequels. \n\n > A People's History of the United States -- Howard Zinn\n\nGreat stuff written by a great guy! Loewen's book references his quiet a bit. I'd encourage you to read up on Zinn's own bio/background, as well.\n\n > A History of the Modern world -- Palmer\n\nThere are far better books than this antiquated piece of shit.\n\n", "Marking this thread", "Debt: The First 5000 Years by David Graeber\n\nA very insightful book on economic history of the world." ] }

[]

[ "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/r6sag/what_is_a_good_collection_of_books_for_someone/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qg3hq/could_you_guys_give_me_a_recommendation_on_a_set/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_askhistorians_master_book_list/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sq55s/i_want_to_learn_about_world_history_what_are_some/" ]

[ [ "http://www.haymarketbooks.org/pb/The-Lost-Revolution-Germany-1918-to-1923" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postwar:_A_History_of_Europe_Since_1945" ], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Guns-Germs-Steel-Fates-Societies/dp/0393317552" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/1491-Revelations-Americas-Before-Columbus/dp/140004006X" ], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Illustrated/dp/0385609612" ], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Histories-Revised-Penguin-Classics/dp/0140449086/ref=sr_1_4?ie=UTF8&qid=1340771871&sr=8-4&keywords=herodotus" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/China-History-John-Keay/dp/0465025188" ], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Madness-Civilization-History-Insanity-Reason/dp/067972110X", "http://www.amazon.com/The-Eastern-Origins-Western-Civilisation/dp/0521547245/", "http://www.amazon.com/The-Archaeology-Knowledge-Discourse-Language/dp/0394711068/", "http://www.amazon.com/Orientalism-Edward-W-Said/dp/039474067X/", "http://www.amazon.com/Memory-Mediterranean-Fernand-Braudel/dp/0375404260", "http://www.amazon.com/Civilization-Capitalism-15th-18th-Century-Vol/dp/0520081145", "http://www.amazon.com/Alexander-Actium-Historical-Evolution-Hellenistic/dp/0520083490", "http://www.amazon.com/Discipline-Punish-The-Birth-Prison/dp/0679752552", "http://www.amazon.com/Rubicon-Last-Years-Roman-Republic/dp/1400078970/" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Iron-Wall-Israel-World/dp/0393321126" ], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/History-Modern-World-PowerWeb/dp/0073255009/ref=sr_1_2?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340781574&sr=1-2&keywords=history+of+the+modern+world", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/timi4/the_askhistorians_master_book_list/", "http://www.amazon.co.uk/Introduction-Medieval-Europe-300-1550-Blockmans/dp/0415346983", "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Great_War_for_Civilisation:_The_Conquest_of_the_Middle_East" ], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Gates-Fire-Novel-Battle-Thermopylae/dp/055338368X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340785209&sr=8-1&keywords=gates+of+fire", "http://www.amazon.com/The-Killer-Angels-Modern-Library/dp/0679643249/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1340784212&sr=8-1&keywords=killer+angels", "http://www.amazon.com/All-Shahs-Men-American-Middle/dp/047018549X/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1340784304&sr=1-1&keywords=all+the+shahs+men" ], [ "http://ukcatalogue.oup.com/nav/p/category/academic/series/general/vsi/R/browse+within+this+series/history/n/4294921811.do?sortby=bookTitleAscend&nType=2", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/sq55s/i_want_to_learn_about_world_history_what_are_some/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qucta/what_is_a_good_book_for_learning_world_history/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/qg3hq/could_you_guys_give_me_a_recommendation_on_a_set/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/r6sag/what_is_a_good_collection_of_books_for_someone/" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Divergence-Europe-Economy/dp/0691090106" ], [], [], [], [], [], [ "http://www.amazon.com/Short-History-Nearly-Everything-Illustrated/dp/0385609612" ], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ctwzv88" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "One way of doing it is to shoot the scene twice without moving the camera. The first time, they shoot the scene when the actor plays the first role, the second time the second role. These two versions of the scene are then blended over each other.\n\nAnother version uses blue-screen in which one of the takes (or both) are shot in front of a blue canvas (or green), which is then replaced by a real background.\n\nIn these cases, the actor never touches the other character because it's, well, impossible. There is, however, techniques that allow this. One way is to compose the picture in a way that cuts the arm (usually around the elbow), and another actor is touching the character. The blend-over scene fades out the fact that there's just a \"magic hand\" there." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cosrpsq" ], "score": [ 11 ], "text": [ "Despite their seemingly mundane and formulaic inscriptions, the raising of runestones in Late Viking-Age Sweden, particularly around Uppland, was a fashionable and calculated effort by (mostly) affluent locals to display their wealth, status and allegiance. The primarily Christian iconography and inscriptions of the stones reveal a changing society, in which it may have been beneficial for an individual or clan to publicly advertise their new-found conversion and have others follow their example.\n\nA few good sources on all things to do with these inscriptions are Michael Barnes' *Runes: A Handbook*, and Judith Jesch' *Ships and Men in the Late Viking Age: The Vocabulary of Runic Inscriptions and Skaldic Verse* " ] }

[]

[ "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillersj%C3%B6_stone" ]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e6btbfl", "e6btf98", "e6bthj0", "e6btops", "e6bts9e", "e6btuvl", "e6bu7od", "e6butez", "e6bv47o", "e6bv8qu", "e6bvhnh", "e6bvrem", "e6bvsr1", "e6bvx6z", "e6bw0jo" ], "score": [ 1147, 56, 2, 79, 17, 5, 4, 69, 2, 6, 19, 10, 6, 5, 4 ], "text": [ "In general, the issue here is that when people say they have \"white\" pride, they are saying \"I am proud that I am not black.\" as opposed to people having pride in their specific heritage. No one has a problem with people having pride in being Irish, German, Italian, Polish. Those get celebrated. \n\nBut \"white\" just means that you are of European descent. In practice, it gets used by white supremacists. \n\nNow, you're going, \"Yes, but black people have black pride!\" And that's because their heritage and history were destroyed by slavery. They can't trace their ancestry back to a specific culture or country. So all they have is the common background of being of African-descent. They use \"Black pride\" to show solidarity in the face of adversity. \n\nNo one uses \"white pride\" in a positive manner. It is used to show superiority over black people, not a celebration of a rich cultural history. ", "Mainly because it's socially acceptable to be proud of being from an ethnic group that has been oppressed or is a minority. As a Frenchman in Canada, I can be proudly French here. If I were too openly proud to be French at home, it would be seen as a far right political message. Basically, pride is considered oppression if it comes from the majority, but as liberation if it comes from the minority. It also works for other stuff than color, like sexual identity, tattoos, religion....", "Because white Europeans colonized much of the world, and white pride embraces the belief that it is right and good because in their minds white people are superior/better/etc. \n\nVery few other cultures are built on the destruction of others, and certainly no culture besides western european culture exists in the shadow of a fallen empire, leaving myriad indigenous cultures broken in its wake. \n\nSo when those other cultures (or groups of people with similar skin colors and thus similar racial experience) take pride in what remains of their damaged heritage, it is an act of perseverance against adversity, rather than an assertion of adversity.\n\nNow there are other places in the world where expressing some forms of pride would be considered racist -- and i'm thinking largely of animosity between the Japanese and the Chinese, who spent lots of time treating eachother very poorly. \n\n( All that said, \"white\" is not a culture, in the same sense. Europeans can be into like \"Norse pride\" or \"Dutch pride\" and we recognize they are honoring historical heritage of their people. No one thinks it's racist for Scottish tribes to run around in colorful kilts and Fuji whatever they do. But if they are celebrating \"white pride\" that means that they are celebrating something else entirely.)", "White pride is not inherently racist, but expressions of white pride almost always are. \"Pride\" movements are intended to push back against marginalization and stigmatization. White people, in almost every nation on earth, have no stigma or marginalization to push back against. So what is the purpose of \"white pride\"? Almost always, the purpose is to give a platform and lend legitimacy to the white supremacist movement.", "\"White Pride\" is used as a slogan by white supremacist groups in the US\n\n'\"White Power! White Pride!\" as \"a much-used chant of white separatist movement supporters\"'\n\nThe slogan \"White Pride Worldwide\" appears on the logo of Stormfront,", "It would be racist if there was privilege among people of color. I’ve never met someone with “white pride” that wasn’t also a racist. \n\nIf white privilege didn’t exist, if slavery never happened, if systemic racism still wasn’t a thing, and if people of color were not still marginalized; then maybe “white pride” wouldn’t be viewed as racist. \n\nMy fiancée is from the Caribbean. She takes pride in her heritage. Not because she’s black, but because she knows her history, where her roots come from, what her family has had to endure, and how she came up. For me to tell her I have “white pride” would mean what exactly? That I grew up being afforded opportunity? That I’m not looked down upon for my skin color? That I’ve been given jobs because I’m white (I have; was literally told so)? That I didn’t grow up in a shack and shit in a can? Should I be proud that the color of my skin has had no negative impact on my life? \n\nThere is no adversity in being white, what are you proud of? ", "In most parts of the world, Caucasians have not been subjected to systemic social and governmental prejudice due to the colour of their skin. Caucasians as an ethnic group have never really been made to feel unnecessarily ashamed of being white on a grand scale. \n \nIn addition, Caucasians have been historically guilty for the vast majority of racial prejudice throughout the years, mostly thanks to colonialism and the cancerous expansion of the British Empire between the 16th and 18th century. \n \n \n'White Pride' is seen as inappropriate because, really, we've got no reason to be particularly proud of being white. Especially with our particularly bloody past. ", "US centric answer here, but;\n\nVarious \"color\" pride doesn't happen; the only one that's socially acceptable is black pride, and the rest of it is *specific to a given ethnicity*. Swedish or Finnish or Italian or Irish or Russian pride is fine, because it's the celebration of a given ethnicity. White pride is inherently racial, so it's not.\n\nThe specific reason black pride is acceptable is entirely because of the fact that, up until relatively recently, black people in the US didn't really know their ancestry beyond \"somewhere in west Africa.\" As a result, they ended up banding together into one larger group based on a shared cultural history (e.g. slavery).", "Because \"white pride\" is everyday. At least in the U.S. being a part of the majority (in this case, white) means that you are the default that others have to adhere to. When there's a film full of white people, we call it a movie, but when the cast is all black it's a \"black\" movie. The standard of commercial beauty is European. It's not considered beautiful to the masses to have a big nose, etc. When we get taught history in school, we learn all about American and European history. When it comes to Latin American history, you would have to take it as an elective - it isn't required to be taught (and in my opinion if more people were taught Latin American history, they would understand how the US meddled in South/Central American countries and the events that followed was a catalyst for people leaving and immigrating here). There's no point in having a celebration to celebrating whiteness, since it's already being celebrated subtly everyday. Black, Latino, Asian, Native American pride, etc. Is a way to be proud of your heritage despite the discrimination you face by the majority.", "Its that in most (if not all) practical instances of white pride there is anti-blackness. \n\n1) The confederate flag: White people fight tooth and nail to be able to fly this racist memento under a guise of white pride or solidarity. Why if you see the problem with racism and better yet slavery, would you want to emblem and align yourselves with a flag that proudly endorsed slavery, inequality, and injustice. Is there no other way to show or prove solidarity. Its like saying I want to start a club for bald guys and we are the most unified sect of bald guys. How do we show that? Well theres only one group I know that we could align with that share a characteristic of what we signify. Lets be skinhead neo nazis. Your message is baldness so be nazis makes as much sense as you want to show white pride so you align with open racists. \n\n2) All lives matter: This was a slogan coined only in retort to the original sentiment, the “Black Lives Matter” (BLM) movement. Where to even start on this one. BLM was started to bring awareness to the fact that there is a landslide of injustice when it comes to how black people are and have been mistreated in situations with law enforcement. Black people are being killed at an alarming and disproportionate rate and regardless of why you think that is, its a problem. The message is literally a reminder to law enforcement who kill or show extra assertions of aggression toward black people that out lives matter so please stop killing us. Its a cry for justice and peace. Whit people took that message and in response said “no, black lives dont matter. All lives matter.” And yes all lives do matter but for one, all lives arent in danger in simple traffic stops. And for two how heartless do you have to be to tell people with a message of mourning that what theyre advocating for doesnt matter. Their relatives, family etc. That thats not what they should be saying they should instead advocate for everyone. Another analogy, say your dad dies and at the funeral people come in and tear all the decorations down and tell you its because this shouldnt be your fathers funeral. This this be a memorial service for everyone who has ever died. Its wildly and disgustingly insensitive. And All lives matter again is flown under the flag of ideology that white people matter too. Its white soldarity. But again contains a message of insensitive anti-blackness\n\nThe list goes on but you get the message.\n\nTL,DR - i understand that white people do genuinely think they’re showing solidarity in acceptable ways and would like to but it almost always has direct sub texts of anti-blackness. ", "When blacks were enslaved and brought to America, they became property of their owners. Being property, families were split up and it was hard to keep track of who your mom's mom and dad's dad were, what country they came from, and so on.\n\nWhen slavery ended, black people could only trace back their history to when they were slaves. Because of this, they formed a new cultural identity which was soecial to black people in America. Almost all were and are a part of this group, which is just called Black or African American, because that's as deep as their roots go. It is not based on their skin color, but rather based on something every one of those sharing their skin color experienced.\n\nWhites in America can find out who their great great grandparents were because if you came to America and you were white or not a slave, there was a record kept. Therefore, whites' cultural identity is traced back to their shared experiences.\n\nThere is nothing that most people consider racist about being proud to be Irish, for example. Even poorer whites (and many blacks) will have regional American pride such as \"southern pride\" which, despite the South's racially tense history, is also not considered by the mainstream to be racist.\n\nSo in conclusion, the words \"black and white\" are not black and white. To have \"black pride\" is to be an African American who shares the experience of other African Americans who descend from slaves. To have Irish or Southern pride is also a reference to descent and cultural identity, for example what your grandma always cooked for dinner or the way you spoke, the way you were raised and the values that were instilled in you by your family. \n\nWhite people are not a monolith and share very different heritage, even though we might look a whole lot alike. \n\nTherefore, to say you are proud to be white is to say you are simply proud that your skin color is white. You are not saying you are proud of your specific heritage. When American blacks say they have black pride, their heritage and experience IS all the same because their race and culture in the United States are not distinguishable because by having black skin, it means they were forced into slavery.\n\nTo say you are proud of your culture is not racist regardless of the color of your skin.", "Its not inherently racist, but I can see why people would consider it as such. As a comparison, I am an atheist, which automatically puts me in the 5% of the US population. When the church preaches about being persecuted it kinda pisses me off, as Christians are literally the biggest religion worldwide. So in the same manner minorities frown upon \"white pride\", I frown upon the church's persecution complex. It just seems kind of nonsensical to organize pride events for a majority. The need to express pride arises because you are an exception to the norm. ", "Pride movements tend to emerge from opposition - the pride movement happens because the overwhelming social message otherwise is shame. White pride doesn't happen because the same structural opposition doesn't exist against white folk.\n\nEdit: not \"doesn't happen\" so much as \"feels somewhat different\"", "Have you ever heard the phrase \"every month is white history month\"? Same logic. These movements are formed on the presupposition that white people have it better historically, socially, and economically. To a certain extent, this is true, but not *every* white person has it better, so it's hard to notice. Yes, on the surface it is hypocritical, but hypocrisy is the point of these things. To balance out previous slights is the reason.\n\nFair warning, you don't want to go down this road, questioning the way our society treats white people. Black becomes white, up becomes down. All things true become false, and the most vile, twisted things from the hearts of men become welcomed friends under the guise of jest. Complain as you like, but remember that there are literal Nazis dangling a false solution in front of your nose as they listen in. That path leads to ruin.\n", "Simple thing I'd like to answer to some of these answers. Usually it is safe to have pride in your ethnicity and not your race. The difference with black people is that Americans stole their heritage through slavery to the point where many black people can't trace their ancestry and specific ethnicities back like white people can. This is why black people celebrate a collective african and black american culture" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "djf44k3", "djf5n8p", "djf65wf", "djfyz1d" ], "score": [ 186, 2466, 519, 46 ], "text": [ "Hey y'all, \n\nIf you are a first time visitor, welcome! This thread is trending high right now and getting a lot of attention, but it is important to remember those upvotes represent interest in the question itself, and [it can often take time for a good answer to be written](_URL_4_). The mission of /r/AskHistorians is to provide users with **in-depth and comprehensive responses**, and our [rules](_URL_1_) are intended to facilitate that purpose. *We remove comments which don't follow them for reasons including unfounded speculation, shallowness, and of course, inaccuracy*. Making comments asking about the removed comments simply compounds this issue. \n\nSo please, before you try your hand at posting, check out the [rules](_URL_1_), as it would [break our hearts](_URL_6_) to have to ban you.\nIt is very rare that a decent answer doesn't result in due time, so please do come check back on this thread in a few hours. If you think you might forget, send a [Private Message](_URL_3_!) to the [Remind-Me bot](_URL_0_), and it will ensure you don't!\n\nFinally, while we always appreciate feedback, it is unfair to the OP to further derail this thread with META conversation, so if anyone has further questions or concerns, I would ask that they be directed to [modmail](_URL_2_), or a [META thread](_URL_5_[META]). \n\nThank you!", "The answer to that goes back to the early days of the recording industry. You're right, country, blues, gospel and southern gospel artists all borrow relentlessly from each other, and that tradition goes back to the 1800's before the genres got clearly separated out (I can't speak to mariachi or norteno as I haven't studied those). As I understand it, in the early 1900's as the recording industry was coming online, \"race\" records and \"hillbilly\" records were created as niche markets - race records selling to lower class African Americans, hillbilly records selling to lower class white Americans. The musics sounded very similar at that point, but it was the marketing of the artists that separated them out by race. Now whites were more than happy to listen to black music, and vice versa, but it was how they were marketed that created the initial distinction between the genres, which became country and blues, respectively, and once distinguished they became statements of identity. Their religious counterparts, gospel and southern gospel, have a slightly different history, as they both emerged from hymns but southern gospel also was influenced by rural singing conventions. Each of those genres borrowed from each other, but were more clearly separated even from the beginning because Sunday morning is the most segregated hour of the week in the U.S. - much less opportunity for artists to share music, although once the Pentecostal movement got going in the early 1900's, that allowed for a lot more crossover since it started out inter-racial.\n\nWhy it's remained that way is simply that music is a very powerful means of creating a sense of personal and group identity. Music, of all kinds, acts physically (resonance of sounds in the body), emotionally (connection of sounds to emotional states), and textually (in the lyrics) to reinforce particular social narratives and ways of being in the world. Once country music was successfully labeled white by the marketing arm of the recording industry, that took on a life of it's own thanks to the racial dynamics of American culture. It becomes a self perpetuating cycle where whiteness becomes a significant feature of country music, and vice versa, as a shortcut for distinguishing between and reinforcing the social and racial class structures. Food, clothing, and other cultural items work much the same way.\n\nSome Sources:\n\n* Don Cusic, The Sound of Light: A History of Gospel Music\n* Michael Harris, The rise of gospel blues: the music of Thomas Andrew Dorsey in the urban church\n* Cecelia Tiichi, High lonesome: the American culture of country music\n* Sarah Thornton, Club cultures: music, media, and subcultural capital\n* Benjamin Filene, Romancing the folk: public memory & American roots music\n* James Goff, Close harmony: a history of southern gospel\n* Robert Darden, People Get Ready!: a history of black gospel from Africa through present\n", "To give a short answer: while these early forms were similar, segregation of performers both by music producers and American society in general, contributed to a divergence in genres, though blues continues to be an incredibly important influence on country\n\nEarly on in the history of American music, you're correct that what evolved into country music borrowed heavily from especially blues and gospel, as well as other forms like tejano and cajun music. It is also important to note that these genres also borrowed from each other. Similar themes and songs (trains, the legend of John Hardy, etc.) appear all across what could be termed folk music in the 20's and 30's.\n\nPotentially the biggest industry-produced effect that pushed along these schisms was the distinction between white and \"colored\" artists early on in recording history. Music by black artists and marketed for a black audience was \"race music,\" while music by white artists and marketed for a white audience was \"hillbilly music.\" Other music forms you mentioned that were popular within Hispanic and Latino communities were recorded but, since the bigger artists in those genres sang in Spanish, those styles had little popular appeal until the Latino population grew later in the century. My knowledge of early Latino music is a incomplete so if I am wrong, please correct me.\n\nThe Blues-Country schism was also reinforced by segregation and the institutionalization of both genres. Early in music recording history, it would've been unusual to find an artist of either race who sang only country or only blues. But the broad local appeal of the sounds led to commercial success, and of course there were forces which wanted to capitalize on that success. The WSM Barn Dance started in 1925, but its name soon changed. In 1927, while introducing African American harmonica player DeFord Bailey, announcer George Hay called the program the \"Grand Ole Opry\" for the first time, and it would eventually become the dominant stage in country music and end goal for aspiring country artists. I have no knowledge of the Ryman Auditorium, the Opry's home, being segregated. However, it is likely, though hard to determine, that small-time black country artists had reduced appeal due to the Jim Crow laws of the states they performed in, which contributed to the appearance of country as being white.\n\nThe two genres also developed differently and diverged. Blues gave birth to jazz. A jazz-infused country styled called Western Swing was born in the 40's. The Grand Ole Opry became able to determine what styles would get national exposure. In a way, what the Opry said was country was what became country. By the mid 40's to mid 50's, this was Honky Tonk. This was a sound that was blues-influenced but not similar to blues the way old hillbilly music was. Still, in the Honky Tonk era, Blues had a tremendous impact on country music. Hank Williams, a white country music star (one of the legends of country music), learned guitar from a blues musician. But the blues forms that impacted country no longer had appeal to the urban African American in post-Great Migration Chicago and it would take the electrification of the blues to reintroduce it as a popular form. Later, the country music establishment purposefully changed styles to a mass-appeal Nashville Sound which kept little from the Honky Tonk style immediately preceding and had little visible blues influence, so even the older blues players had little interest in mainstream country anymore.\n\nThere have been black artists who have been influential in country music, but it wasn't until the 60's, with Ray Charles releasing an album of traditional country songs and Charley Pride becoming the first black performer on the Grand Ole Opry since DeFord Bailey's firing in 1941. However, the introduction of Outlaw Country, whose performers sometimes released songs glorifying the South, which was sometimes tied to the Civil War, understandably turned a lot of Black listeners away and towards other sounds like funk, disco, and what would eventually become hip-hop.\n\nBlack country artists exist today, but the location of country's center in the South, the harsh Jim Crow laws in much of country's market, the controversial inclusion of the Confederacy in some styles of country, the early industry-driven distinction between blues, country, and other folk music, and the shifting interest of black audiences away from both country and blues, led to country being a white-dominated genre.\n\nPBS I believe recently did a nice miniseries called [American Epic](_URL_0_) that explores a few different artists of the 20's and 30's across a broad range, including country, blues, tejano, and hawaiian.\n\nThis is also like my second answer on here so let me know if I can do better. It's nice to see American folk musicology get covered.\n\nEDIT: Thought I might add how fitting this question is for the theme, as I generally consider the 1940s to be the time where blues and country significantly diverge stylistically.", "Hi!\n\nI'm actually doing a lot of research about Nashville, Austin, country music, and authenticity right now so I'm in the thick of this question. I think other posters have covered an in-depth history of the genre and the development of the music itself, but you might find some of this interesting.\n\nCountry music, as a genre, was marketed heavily to white Southerners in the first half of the twentieth century as a way to connect to rural roots. It served as a form of cultural validation for self-conscious Southerners in a time where you see a lot of Southern pride movements occurring. The South was attempting to demonstrate to the rest of the country that the region was competitive in education, technology, and industry. There was a distinct urban/rural cultural divide; members of the \"cultural elite\" of large Southern cities wanted to distance themselves from the rural images traditionally associated with the South. In Nashville, the National Life Insurance Company started a high-powered radio station called WSM in 1925. The station played mostly opera and classical music, but began playing a \"barn dance\" style program where \"old-timey\" or \"hillbilly\" musicians would play traditional music and act as hillbilly characters on air. One day, a classical music program out of Chicago was playing on the air. The announcer quipped that there was \"no place in the classics for realism.\" WSM's barn dance program ran directly after, and announcer George Hay gave the Grand Ole Opry its name:\n\n > “…for the last hour, we have been listening to music taken largely from grand opera and the classics, and heard Dr. Damrosch tell us there in so no place for realism in that kind of music. In respectful contrast to Dr. Damrosch’s presentation, for the next three hours we are going to present nothing but realism.”\n\nand, later, satirizing the high-brow attitude of the opera program:\n\n > \"From now on we will present the Grand Ole Opry.\"\n\nThus begins the *official* association with country music and authenticity. While Hay would often have African American artists on his show (the previous comment was actually made directly after a performance by an African American harmonica player), it's important to understand that this program spoke to the identity of *white* southerners at a time when you see a lot of \"old south\" longing occurring (Gone With the Wind, confederate monuments, even the resurgence of the KKK). White southerners, particularly those in the working class, were tired of feeling like their culture was wrong or undignified. This isn't my area of expertise, but I'd argue that the use of African American sounds in country music was legitimized because white working-class southerners felt like this music was \"authentic\" because of the working-class roots of African Americans. \n\nThe history of the recording industry in Nashville is long and messy, but one of the most interesting things I read today applies here. Historian Jeremy Hill suggests that in the midst of the civil rights movement, the country music industry marketed music to \"ordinary white folks\" without directly claiming any racial preference. He quotes Tandy Rice, who was later president of the Country Music Association. Rice was asked in 1967 about the appeal of country music and how it contrasted with leftist policies:\n\n > \"Right now, country music is stable, like the great backbone of the country. The lyrics are simple, and sincere, not about civil rights and such. These folks don't go for the Bob Dylan, Joan Baez kind of thing. The lyrics are about what concerns everyday folks.\"\n\nNow, country music has changed drastically over the years- I'm particularly interested in the countercultural \"Cosmic Cowboy\" movement that occurred in Austin in the 1970s- but the core of the genre has always been a white search for identity. In short, country music wasn't just marketed as \"southern\" music. It was marketed as *white* southern music.\n\nSources:\n\n* Jeremy Hill, *Country Comes to Town: The Music Industry and the Transformation of Nashville*. This book in particular covers the relationship between race, country music, and Nashville. \n\n* Craig Havighurst, *Air Castle of the South: WSM and the Making of Music City, USA*\n\n* Joli Jensen, *The Nashville Sound: Authenticity, Commercialization, and Country Music*\n\nAnd if you're interested in the Cosmic Cowboy movement in Austin, I really like Jason Mellard's *Progressive Country*." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.reddit.com/r/RemindMeBot/comments/24duzp/remindmebot_info/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/wiki/rules", "http://www.reddit.com/message/compose?to=%2Fr%2FAskHistorians&subject=Question%20Regarding%20Rules", "https://www.reddit.com/message/compose/?to=RemindMeBot&subject=Reminder&message=%5BLINK%20INSIDE%20SQUARE%20BRACKETS%20else%20default%20to%20FAQs%5D%0A%0ANOTE:%20Don%27t%20forget%20to%20add%20the%20time%20options%20after%20the%20command.%0A%0ARemindMe", "https://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/6a5duv/a_statistical_analysis_of_10000_raskhistorians/", "http://www.reddit.com/r/AskHistorians/submit?selftext=true&title=", "https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=byQIPdHMpjc" ], [], [ "http://www.pbs.org/wnet/american-epic/" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cdlqzg6", "cdlu52s", "cdm82gy" ], "score": [ 21, 4, 2 ], "text": [ "The Red Army was very vast within the Second World War. Therefore there was a few different elite units. The major ones of these we're called Guard units. When an army proved itself as a well trained fighting force, they would get a Guard title attached to their title. One of the notable we're the 2nd Guard Army which participated in the Battle of Stalingrad as part of Operation Uranus which led to the circling of the German Sixth army. ", "Red Army engineer shock brigades received metal body armor to protect them. I cannot find details for the life of me, but here's a video about them (English transcript in subtitles): _URL_0_ ", "Look up:\n\n* Rotmistrov's 5th Guards Tank Army\n* Katukov's 1st Tank Army\n* Chuikov's 62nd Army\n \nThey are among the most famous ones." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GdJtVAmcCBs" ], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cwv5vbt", "cwv7jpj" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "To my knowledge, nothing stops them. In fact there have been numerous complaints of people never getting what they order off of Kickstarter. It's very much buyer beware. ", "Nothing. You have no claim to anything when you donate. You aren't pre-ordering, you aren't buying it, you are donating money and you may (or may not) receive anything in return." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dkbdwo0", "dkbdx3i" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Water boils at typical engine temperatures, isn't viscous enough to actually lubricate very well, and is highly corrosive to unprotected metal surfaces. It's about the worst common liquid you could use for this job.\n\nThe oil is there to coat and lubricate all the moving parts of the engine so they don't corrode or grind. Engines get very hot during operation and the metal is easily oxidized so you need a liquid that won't boil off, is very chemically inert, and is thick enough to stay on surfaces when they're moving very quickly.\n\nMotor oil checks all three of those boxes for a very low cost.", "oil has lubricant properties, it reduces friction, it clings to surfaces, it does not break down under heat, pressure, and sharp agitation.\n\nWater would fail simply by virtue of its boiling point, but there are other suitable lubricants, but the one we use is the best bang for the buck, though we now move more to synthetic oils which are quite different even though we dont really give them credit as being different." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7l613y", "c7l62cg" ], "score": [ 3, 15 ], "text": [ "Meat that you buy (most meat) is drained of blood.\n\nThe red juices aren't blood, they're water mixed with various components of meat. I know it's tempting to think that blood is just meat juice, but quite literally the redness of the meat itself is caused by a different chemical than the redness of blood.", "Because it isn't blood. It's myoglobin. Red meats, such as beef, are composed of quite a bit of water. This water, mixed with a protein called myoglobin, ends up comprising most of that red liquid." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccta79m", "cctab38", "cctas8s", "cctdbfq", "cctejog", "cctft0h", "ccthyra", "cctok1q" ], "score": [ 7, 441, 14, 3, 19, 6, 5, 2 ], "text": [ "The main way your body gets energy is by converting sugars to carbon dioxide and water. Fats and muscle tissue go through a somewhat similar process. ", " > how does it actually leave your body?\n\nPrimarily through your breath. You breath in (some) O2, and breathe out (some) CO2. The extra carbon in there comes from your body \"burning\" sugars, converting sugar + O2 into H2O and CO2, which you breathe/sweat/urinate out, as appropriate.\n\nFun fact, plants use a similar process in reverse. That is, the solid bulk of trees is made up (mostly) from carbon in the air. Thus trees grow from material in the air, not material in the ground as many people seem to think.", "It's already been said that it's due to co2. Just have to think of the human body as an engine. We burn fuels and have waste. Also when we sleep we may sweat depending on temperature and we also radiate heat. So all the weight loss is accounted for.", "In wrestling we call it floating weight, and if I am ever close on weight I will sleep with 2 sweatshirts and sweatpants on to sweat out weight.", "Weight increasing activities: \n* Drinking \n* Eating \n \nAlmost negligible weight increasing activities: \n* Breathing in (O2 and weight of air in your lungs) \n* Sticking things in/on your body (makeup, injections, piercings, etc...) \n\nMeasurable weight decreasing activities: \n* Exhaling over time (CO2, water vapor, weight of air in your lungs)\n* Perspiring\n* Urinating (big)\n* Bowel Movement (surprisingly not as big)\n\nAlmost negligible weight decreasing activities:\n* Exfoliating skin\n* Cutting/shaving/shedding hair (possibly measurable if long head hair)\n* Excreting other body fluids (bleeding, blowing nose, spitting) \n* Other (popping zits, clipping nails, drying off from a shower, etc...)\n\nI weigh over 200 lbs and have lost up to 8 pounds between the heaviest point in a day (right after dinner) and the lightest point (morning after a hot, long sleep & going to the toilet).", "We have to take into account the fact that, as mammals, we are endothermic, meaning we have to generate large amounts of energy to keep our body temperature a nice, toasty 98.6 degrees Fahrenheit (This is, in fact, where most of your daily Calories go). We are extremely inefficient creatures (energy wise).", "The Fat Fairy comes and takes it while you are asleep. She uses her magic wand to \"poof\" the fat into her magic sack and then takes it home to make soap which she sells by the sea shore. ", "Because the fat is fuel which is converted into energy. U should look at your body from an energy point of view and not weight. Fat can burn, creates heat!" ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cky42rn", "cky49w7", "cky4jnw", "cky4km6" ], "score": [ 2, 5, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "Money, good lawyers.", " > even if it was obvious that they did it?\n\nBeing \"obvious\" isn't enough. The prosecution has to **prove** that they did it, beyond a reasonable doubt. Something as wishy-washy as \"it's obvious\" would be a *terrible* basis for a legal system.", "A good defense lawyer's job is to plant a seed of doubt in the jury's mind. It could be obvious that he did it but if the lawyer can show how it was even remotely possible that someone else did it then the jury has to give him the benefit of the doubt. If he's good he'll take the remotest fact and stretch it into a reasonable doubt. They also work to get evidence thrown out. That was a lot of what happened with OJ, a lot of the best evidence that we saw on tv was never shown to the jury. I saw a special where they interviewed some members of the OJ jury a few years after the trial and they were pissed about the evidence they didn't get to see. They all said if they had seen some of those things the verdict might have been different. A good lawyer can find technicalities that can rule even some of the most damning evidence thrown out. The jury is only allowed to base their decision on what they see in the court room. \n\nThe prosecutor must convince the jury that the guy did it and it is impossible that any one else could have. Any little bit of doubt, no matter how small, and the jury is not supposed to convict someone.", "There must be *admissible evidence* which is sufficient to prove guilt *beyond a reasonable doubt*.\n\nThe courts don't allow just any sort of innuendo or speculation to be presented to jurors. It may be \"obvious\" to people watching television that someone is guilty, but juries don't get the same information. And there is good reason for that, because the information reported by the media doesn't get the same scrutiny as the information presented to the jury.\n\nWe want juries who decide people's fate to make their decisions for the right reasons and to base their reasoning on credible testimony and relevant evidence beyond a reasonable doubt.\n\nWhat is obvious to the public may seem \"likely\" to a person on the jury. But \"likely\" is not beyond a reasonable doubt. \"Probably guilty\" is not good enough for a conviction." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "fhbpsvy" ], "score": [ 10 ], "text": [ "It's a matter of much debate, and historians views have varied greatly over the years. Once, pretty much all historians thought that the migrations in fifth-century Europe were all great movements of people. Now, however, many believe that many of the barbarian groups were primarily military forces. Overall, it varied massively. For instance, the Belgic settlement in late Iron Age southern Britain seems to have only been the movement of the political and cultural elite, but the early migrations of Goths into the Roman Empire definitely included a high proportion of non-combatants (this is attested by written sources and art). Moreover, there also would have been migrations such as the Anglo-Saxon ones, that included a lot of non-combatants even though if was not a case of entire populations on the move. Quite simply, it varied a great deal and there was something of a spectrum; it wasn't just a case of army or nation, sometimes it was a bit of both. The Norman conquest of England might seem like a classic example of just the elite and army migrating, but it led to a lot of traders, craftsmen and even some peasants moving from the continent to Britain." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "dt9jr98" ], "score": [ 2 ], "text": [ "First, shadows. We *should* all know by now that this is caused by blocking light, places where no light reaches a surface are darker places where the light can reach are brighter.\n\nSo in the case of when your glasses cast a shadow it means less light is able to reach the surface. The reason why this happens even though your glasses are 'clear' is called refraction^1\n\nIn it's simplest form; If you think of light as a line when light passes through certain objects (which obviously have to be opaque otherwise it would create a shadow). The material it passes through can change the direction of our light. Due to this the light would hit another area then one would expect when it would go straight forward, as we are used to with the regular shadows from for example the sun.\n\nNow if you have the surface of your glasses; they are not completely flat the surface is bend and thicker in some areas than others. That in combination with the refraction makes the light leaving the other side of your glasses not travel in the same direction as it did before it hit the glasses. Therefor at the right distance no light will reach certain areas because the light has been redirected.\n\nOne of the most common examples of the same principle is a kindergarden science experiment where you use a magnifying glass to focus sunlight to burn a hole in a piece of paper. [See this illustration!](_URL_0_). Now moving away from the heat creation in this experiment the direction of light is the same principle. Also as illustrated at the focal point (where the paper burns) is where all the light is. \nBut around it there is a shadow because all the light has been redirected.\n\nNow if you move it up far enough, enough light from outside sources would reduce the strength of the shadow because of outside light sources crossing over.\n\n* ^1 [Wikipedia Refraction](_URL_1_)" ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "https://www.scienceabc.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/focused-rays-burn-a-hole.jpg", "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refraction" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "e2bul6s" ], "score": [ 5 ], "text": [ "Never.\n\nRadioactivity never disappears, it simply gets weaker with time. This is due to half life. A half life is a set amount of time during which half of the radioactive material decays. After decay, it is probably harmless. After 1 half life, half of the original material remains, after 2, a fourth, after 3, an eighth. It gets smaller but never quite hits zero." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ddlzask", "ddm6i3r", "ddm9stl", "ddmb8ez" ], "score": [ 13, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "The electromagnetic spectrum of light is very, very long. We call colours the wavelengths that we can see with our eye. But there is a lot more in the electromagnetic spectrum than the range between 390 and 700 nm. The wavelength is a particular feature of the wave, imagine a sinusoidal wave (a nice smooth curve that starts at 0, goes up to 1, down to 0, continues to -1, returns to 0). The distance between the first and last 0 is called the wavelength. It can be a nanometer (Xrays), several hundreds of nanometers (visible light), it can be several meters (radio). And I'm talking real distance. As in the wave starts at the wall and ends 1 meter later (and then it repeats itself). Probably you've heard of frequency, frequency is the inverse of the wavelength. Long wavelength, low frequency; short wavelength, high frequency.\n\nThe first colour we see is red (700 nm), before that we call light infra-red. Then we see all the colours of the rainbow ending with violet (390 nm), beyond that we call light ultra-violet. A few species can see a bit in the ultra-violet range. It is believed that insects choose certain flowers because of their pattern in the UV, and not by the bright visible colours that we see.\n\nIn total, you would have (in increasing wavelength):\n\ngamma rays - X rays - UV - visible light - infrared - television and radio waves.\n\nEdit: your wall totally emits infrared radiation, because it is at a certain temperature. It will emit less than you, unless your wall is crazy hot. This principle is why nocturnal vision cameras work. It is electromagnetic radiation, yes, but it's not a \"colour\".", "\nI am not color blind but I am not very color sensitive either. Women tend to see more colors or be able to recognize more subtle differences. So it is probable that your wall is painted from two different cans of paint that are \"different\" but not enough for you to notice. It would also be possible to intentionally mix the paint so that they are sufficiently different that my sister would notice but I would be oblivious and say they are the same.\n\nHere is a good article on the subject.\n_URL_0_\n", "So first of all, there's no such thing as color.\n\nThe phenomenon you call color is really the excitation of different parts of your eyeball, as interpreted by your brain. Different wavelengths of light excite your retina in different ways, and your brain interprets that as different colors. But in the absence of an eye, just a world out there with only blind creatures walking around in it, there is no color. There is no color *out there in the world* really, because color only happens inside a brain. \n\nOur eyes and brains understand a specific wavelength range, and our eyes don't respond to light outside that range. Other animals' eyes and brains understand different ranges, some higher, some lower. \n\nWe don't even really know if non-human animals consider colors colors. There's evidence that in different human cultures, the different language we use to describe colors actually alters how we perceive them. So a dog, without language at all, we have no idea how it conceptualizes color, or even IF it does.\n\nAnd different physical materials have different patterns of light wavelengths that they reflect (which our eyes pick up, and our brain interprets as the color that each different material \"is\", although it's really NOT that color, that's an interpretation happening in your brain). And certainly they reflect wavelengths outside our range of perception, so an animal that could see that wavelength would perceive a color (assuming animals perceive/conceptualize color at all, which we don't know that they do) that we can't perceive, when they see that wavelength. ", "Hi! Neuroscientist here. See my other comment response in this thread for a detailed explanation. Short version, yes, your wall is secretly many other colors. You can DETECT many wavelengths of light, but not *tell them apart*. If you could, you'd be able to tell the chemical composition of things by sight." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [ "http://discovermagazine.com/2012/jul-aug/06-humans-with-super-human-vision" ], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c7wce41" ], "score": [ 4 ], "text": [ "Assuming you do mean \"struggle\" and not \"stubble\" (which is actually pretty funny in itself), a simple google search within quotation marks brings up this:\n\n_URL_0_ \n\nIllinois House of Representatives, December 20th, 1839. The quotation is in the last paragraph. I don't know how reputable that is, but it gives you a place and date that you can verify or discount as well as a title (*The Writings of Abraham Lincoln* vol. 1). Happy hunting." ] }

[]

[]

[ [ "http://www.classicreader.com/book/3237/23/" ] ]

{ "a_id": [ "cjk80e7", "cjk80oo", "cjk96qd", "cjkkawu" ], "score": [ 6, 3, 2, 2 ], "text": [ "Sweet, salty. Why else?", "I think it's more the taste of my nuts, but I'm sure the butter helps too", "It is a good protein food source that has a pleasant (to most humans at least) taste.", "Largely, because they think it tastes good. Their brains are wired to reward them consuming the particular chemical compounds, much like humans like the taste of chocolate and sugary things.\n\nNow, if we had only been programed to like food that is actually healthy for us..." ] }

[]

[]

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

{ "a_id": [ "cetwoz3" ], "score": [ 3 ], "text": [ "A trademark is more than just the words, it is the entire presentation of the logo. While other restaurants can still use the description of \"Mild\", they cannot use the specific font and color scheme of the trademarked packets. Other companies can call their products \"cola\" but they can't use the red and white curly font without Coke going after them." ] }

[]

[]

[ [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "efgnytp", "efhhfjl" ], "score": [ 8, 4 ], "text": [ "Hypoxemia is having low oxygen content in your blood, while hypoxia is moreso the effects felt from not having enough oxygen. So in a sense hypoxemia can cause hypoxia", "There is actually a significant distinction though they often overlap.\n\n*Hypoxemia* is when you have a low concentration of oxygen in your blood. We typically define this around PaO2 < 60 (this counts only the dissolved oxygen in the blood, while most oxygen in blood is attached to hemoglobin).\n\n*Hypoxia* is when you have inadequate supply of oxygen to your *tissues*.\n\nIn a patient with anemia (low hemoglobin concentration), although the partial pressure of oxygen dissolved in the blood is NOT low, the total amount of oxygen IS. This can lead to inadequate supply of oxygen to the tissues.\n\nIn patients with heart failure or blood loss or shock, their organs are not getting enough blood, and thus, not enough oxygen even though though the oxygen content in the blood is NOT low.\n\nCertain toxins, like cyanide or certain metabolic conditions (like septic shock), can impair your cells' ability to USE oxygen. Thus, even though the blood has lots of oxygen and there is good blood flow to the tissues, the tissues can still be hypoxic.\n\nSomeone who has a blood clot in one of their arteries or severe swelling of an extremity can have blockage of blood flow. Oxygen content of blood is normal, but the tissue beyond the blockage can become hypoxic.\n\nCases where they overlap would be someone who has lung disease and thus can't get oxygen into the blood and thus oxygen is low in both the blood and the tissues.\n\nHypoxemia often causes hypoxia, but hypoxia can be caused by other things. You need to understand the difference to be able to treat them--Someone with pneumonia may need a more aggressive ventilation strategy to get oxygen in the blood. Someone with anemia may need a blood transfusion. Someone with dehydration or blood loss may need IV fluids to increase blood volume, etc." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "c8c954h", "c8c988t", "c8ca8mq" ], "score": [ 7, 3, 3 ], "text": [ "I have absolutely no clue what you are talking about. I started to have small inkling, but then, where do animals come into play?", "I think that it is to kind of hype the breed and make it sound more exotic. Also, to be nitpicky and descriptive of the colors. As someone who has a \"blue\" cat, it really is different looking than a normal grey one. If I weren't comparing her to other grey cats I'd just call her grey, but I think the \"blue\" label came about to distinguish a very peculiar effect of having greyish and silver fur in different layers. It is a cooler(as in not warm) shade of grey, so I guess that's why they chose blue.", "Because we don't have very good words to describe various shades of brown and grey, so when I say \"give me that brown dog\", there might be 10 dogs that match that. But if I say \"give me that orange dog\", that is more descriptive, and people will know exactly which on you mean, even if it is more brown than orange." ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [], [] ]

{ "a_id": [ "ccm0sa1", "ccm2lp3" ], "score": [ 3, 2 ], "text": [ "Some areas may become less extreme. But in any place the environment and our use of it is built around a certain climate. In places that are regularly flooded, agriculture on the floodplains relies on the regular flooding to provide water and silt for nutrients. Loss of regular flooding would have a very severe effect. In areas that do not regularly flood, people build houses on the river banks, and regularly flooding there would be devastating.\n\nClimate change is going to increase the amount of heat in the atmosphere, and this will increase the amount of water evaporated, and the amount of energy available to create storms. This is the reasoning behind the predictions of more extreme weather.", "When something heats up it gains more energy, or more importantly when something gains more energy it heats up.\n\nSo the atmosphere has more energy in it because the light is trapped by the extra \"greenhouse gases\" and therefore it heats up. Although the overall temperature increases sounds like only a tiny amount, because of the shear volume of the atmosphere it is actually a massive amount of energy.\n\nmost weather patterns are driven by the difference is air temperature, hot air expands causing a high pressure area and colder air creates a low pressure area. The difference in the overall energy of these area, as well as humidity, and how compact or spread out they are, greatly influences the phenomena that we see in the weather.\n\nCyclones (Typhoons, Hurricanes) Are driven my this heat and pressure change. Therefore we will see wilder weather as it heats up.\n\nTL;DR More heat = more energy = more extreme weather. \n" ] }

[]

[]

[ [], [] ]